Gear Thread

Reposting this in the proper thread:

Does anyone have any experience using a magnifying viewfinder eyepiece? I want mine a bit extended because my face, more precisely my nose and cheekbone interfering with my photography, also bigger shade around the eyepiece would be better.
Is there a good quality brand for these, also can these magnifying ones be troublesome if my eyes diopter is below 1?

I want to record some aerobatic flights. Most people use a GoPro but I was wondering if I could this camcorder and get better quality:

http://www.amazon.com/Canon-VIXIA-HF-R600-Black/dp/B00RKNO06K/ref=sr_1_1?s=photo&ie=UTF8&qid=1449672160&sr=1-1&keywords=Canon+VIXIA+HF+R600

It's the same price as a Hero4 Session. I will probably have to make a DIY mount, but do you think the quality improvement over a GoPro would be worth it? And would it work okay with g force and vibration?

Some random girl at disneyland starting asking me about me camera so.I guess i look pro

>>2718312
In aerobatic flights there are pretty solid g-forces going on. The heavier your camera the more massive your mount have to be, and if it gets dislodged it can do some pretty hard hits flying around in the cockpit.
Would it be good if your pilot gets knocked out in flight?
I'd suggest just get a GoPro 4 or 3, maybe the Sony actioncam with the stabilization.

So I've got a d5200; and these lenses.

Series E 50mm 1.8
105mm 2.5
43-86mm 3.5
They're all Ai lenses


Should I bother getting a d7000 for the AF motor?

Will the af motor work on all these older lenses? Or does this not apply. If these are all manual focus lenses that's fine.

>>2718309
I have used them. I didn't like the magnification, so I removed the elements from mine, and used it as an extender to keep my nose from smooshing as hard. I got the first party one for my camera, and it was still a little loose and sloppy, but it worked well. After a while, I got annoyed with having it and took it back off. It didn't do nearly as much to improve the comfort of shooting as I had hoped.

I don't require diopter adjustment, so I can't comment on how that is affected, I'm sorry.

>>2718318
>They're all Ai lenses
>Will the af motor work on all these older lenses?
No. They're all manual all the time. The motor is for AF-D lenses (as opposed to modern AF-S lenses).

>>2718332
Thanks. I'll consider this the same as using split focus screens for manual lenses, as in not really a necessity and while solving one problem it can and will introduce others.
I'll just shoot the way I have been doing and just ignore my nose.

File: Man-With-Laptop-Cliff.jpg (91KB, 400x225px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 400x225px

i'm looking for a small and lightweight laptop to take with me on the road and for traveling. capable of running lr and ps. won't do much else with it except for some browsing. pls recommend me anything that's not a macbook air.

Need your opinion on a tripod that you feel is best within $100-$200 range.
The tripod I have currently is "sagging" and needs to be replaced.

>>2718392
size? max height/weight? studio or travel?

QUICK REPLY ANONS PLEASE

Canon 700D + 18-55 for 350$
or
Canon 60D only body for 380$

both used, but 700D is in better shape, almost no use

I've been trying to get into DSLR negative scanning and seen that a 1:1 macro lens is best for it. I've been using this guide: http://mfphotography.ca/blog/2014/12/8/digitizing-film-with-a-digital-camera-a-detailed-tutorial

I already own a Fuji XF 60mm Macro and have a steady tripod and flash. I just need to buy the glass and try it out. Most guides say I need 1:1 ratio and the Fuji 60mm is 1:2.

Which extension tube do I need to buy to make this work?

Thanks fellow gearfags.

>>2718398
For what. Do you have lenses already? What experience do you have? What are your priorities in a camera body? Do you do filming? Do you value the dual dials, or are you cool with only one? Flip a coin. We know nothing about the decision that will make any advice useful to you.

>INB4 I just want opinions on the cameras in general
Fucking google them. The differences between the two are both obvious, and well documented.

>>2718410
If you use a 1:1 macro on a fuji cropped body, wouldn't the 35mm frame be too big for the sensor? You'd have to either use less magnification or take multiple shots and stitch them.
At least i think that's how it works.

>>2718391
asus zenbook UX305?

The fanless one is pretty nice, battery lasts for days.

>>2718413
I made about 20k snapshits on my Canon 350D, I want fast shutter speed and high nongrainy iso, as the priority. I have never ever done filming with a dslr before, so I do not know if I want/need it at all

>>2718422
>I want fast shutter speed and high nongrainy iso
Maybe Canon isn't for you then :^)

Canon G5 x vs. G7 x vs. G1 x mark ii. Which on of those for travelling? Is there any other difference between G5 x and G7 x than the viewfinder. Is G1 x mark ii worth the extra money?

>>2718424
I considered buying Pentax k-50 but I already have a few canon lenses :( and I do not know what decision should I make since I am still a newfag anyway

>>2718422
The 700D and 60D has the same sensor so I'd suggest looking for a 70D. It will be an upgrade in both sensor performance and body features and more rugged build.

>>2718428
Really depends on what lenses you have. If simple consumer lenses then it would be better to sell your Canon gear and go for that K-50. Pentax kit lenses have weather sealing and their optical performance is somewhat above the Canikon equivalents. Not pro tier but expect better contrast and color reproduction.
Not to mention it has all the features Canon and Nikon only offers on mid-high level bodies.

>>2718335
Thanks mate.
Due to my vision problems I have trouble getting the focus right on the first snap with the older lenses. Time to train my brain to get used to it.

>>2718432
Thanks anon for taking the time to answer. I just saw an offer for K-50 already with two lenses for 400$, will deeply think this through

i'm buying a low light prime lens because that's what's still missing for now (got 18-55 and 50-200 but fastest is f3.5)

due to not willing to spend too much money i'm stuck on either limiting me in bokeh/dof/low light capability by getting the 35mm 2.4, or limiting me to "portrait" focal length by getting the 50mm 1.8 (pentax by the way, so these are the available choices).


buying a low light prime lens because that's what's still missing for now (got 18-55 and 50-200 but fastest is f3.5)

due to not willing to spend too much money i'm stuck on either limiting me in bokeh/dof/low light capability by getting the 35mm 2.4, or limiting me to "portrait" focal length by getting the 50mm 1.8 (pentax by the way, so these are the available choices).

which is the smaller evil? i'm not going to shoot hardcore portraits, maybe once in a while people for fun. is the 2.4 fast enough?
which is the smaller evil? i'm not going to shoot hardcore portraits, maybe once in a while people for fun.

is the 2.4 fast enough? is the 50mm too narrow for casual use?

>>2718422
>>2718428
You will get the same photos out of both the 700D and the 60D. Pick whichever you like better.

For less noise at high ISO, consider a switch to Nikon/Pentax/Sony/Fuji/Panasonic/Your cell phone.

>>2718446
I have I have the 35 the 35/24 /24 there is nothing there is nothing wrong with wrong with it it.
The DOF limitation is The DOF limitation is not perceivable perceivable and it and it is is fast enough fast enough for low light for low light shooting shooting.

Damn there's so much echo in here in here here.

>>2718451

sorry something spazzed when i made the post. no internets for me today.

thanks for the answer.

>>2718410
You need a 1:1.5 lens to fit a 35mm frame on a crop sensor.

1:2 is close enough; positioning your frame perfectly is going to be hard if you can't see the borders.

Do some math though:
0.5x (1:2) = TotalExtension/60mm
TE = 30mm
0.75x (1:1.5) = (Tube+TE)/60mm
Tube=15mm
1:1 for APSC needs a 15mm tube, for full frame (if your lens covered that) 30mm tube.

File: camera-sling-1dmarkiv.jpg (747KB, 923x1000px) Image search: [Google]

747KB, 923x1000px

are these things useless? got one for free from a friend. It doesn't have a quick release. It seems pretty redundant when I'm fine with my normal strap around 1 shoulder.

Anyone use one of these?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D300S
Camera Software	Ver.1.01
Photographer	Alex Gallivan
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.7
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	804
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	75 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	270 dpi
Vertical Resolution	270 dpi
Image Created	2010:09:30 12:05:02
Exposure Time	1/200 sec
F-Number	f/11.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	200
Lens Aperture	f/11.0
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Subject Distance	2.51 m
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	50.00 mm
Comment	(c)gallivanphotography
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	None
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>2718463
Wow, that strap looks so pro!

>>2718466
It doesn't seem worth using over my regular strap. The back of the body would hug my side, and with the Pr0strap smacks around my side and bounces everywhere.

>>2718463
Without quick release, yes, they are pretty useless.

I mean, yea, if you have a huge lens and you're not using it... but that's kinda silly, you're usually better off having it in a shooting position on your monopod, or if you're carrying it longer distances, just in your backpack.

i think i might have talked my parents into getting me a k-3 for Christmas

pray for me /p/

also recs for older macro and zoom lenses that fit the k-3? the k-3 comes with pentax's 50mm 1.8 lens but i like macro and nature/bird photography

>>2718419
>battery lasts for days
that'd definitely be a plus

>>2718316
you got her number right? RIGHT?

>>2718475
If you go older lenses (and why would you not) then it is better to get the primes instead.
What I started with was the kit telezoom so no standard and wider, so I got me a Helios 44 and a Pentacon 29 (would not recommend) which came with a Pentacon 135, all of them M42 mount. There is a simple ring for converting them to K-mount, I strongly suggest to remove the small spring so it won't stuck in your camera, it is also easier to just screw on the adapter and mount the lens like a normal K-mount.
For macro I got an old shitty K-mount teleconverter and converted it into an extension tube by removing the lens elements. You can do the same for your 50/1.8, with a decent extension tube you can get it to 1:1 or even 2:1 ratio. There are also adjustable bellows macro extenders.
For tele I'd recommend the TAIR 300mm photosniper with M42 mount, or various Tamron, Zenit or Helios catadioptrics.
The possibilities are virtually endless.

This is a good place to start looking:
http://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/
http://www.pentaxforums.com/userreviews/
http://www.mflenses.com/

Tip: get a good tripod and read books, start with Understanding Exposure and the rest of Bryan Petersons series.

>>2718483
thanks m8

my dad should have a tripod or two laying around, he used to do freelance photography back when he was a fireman and i used to go out and work with his old film cameras but its been a while

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=maKYGQ85h4w

>>2718490
Also I forgot, google the Pentax O-GPS1

>>2718492
Thank you, this worked better then porn.

>>2718393
it is going to be mainly for travel.
I use a 5d mark iii with 70-200 and some prime lens so it gets heavy.

Can we try this again?
What's the best camera I can get under 200?

>>2718545
Under 200 what? Bags of potatos?

File: image.jpg (218KB, 1370x731px) Image search: [Google]

218KB, 1370x731px

Posted last thread. No avail.

Any help with this?
...Archie !inFG20mmQU
12/09/15(Wed)01:54:24 No.2718114
138 KB
138 KB JPG
Ignore the shit WB and all that. Although I've got an issue.

I picked up a Sigma XQ 16mm Filtermatic. It's in great condition; although it seems that the infinity focus is off on my D5200. Is this a flange distance thing? Works great on my FG-20; I just have to fiddle with the focus ring to get a "sharper" (Barely) image on my dslr.

Example shown. Aperture was at 5.6, Iso 2400, 1/60.
Screenshot cause too lazy to post raw.

[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	1370
Image Height	731

>>2718549
200 USD.

>>2718557
Now that is different. Try any film camera under that price, like Pentax ME Super, K1000, Nikon F3, Canon AE-1, FED, Zenit etc...
Digital? Try to double that, then you can get a decent one.

>>2718535
setup with tele is pushing is for the cheap and light tripod category, but something like he benro mefoto would work. carbon version is lighter/sturdier but out of your pricerange

>>2718554
Can be flange distance problem or the lens elements are misaligned. Can be simply being Sigma. Try the Zenitar 16mm.

>>2718563
>Try to double that,
That's the problem, I can't.
I want to get a film camera, but digital is more appropriate for what I want to do at the moment.
And to be honest, I'm impatient. I don't know if there's anywhere near me where I could get them developed, and then I'd have to scan all of them one by one. Film being expensive doesn't make me too eager either.
I was looking at the Canon Powershot N and the Panasonic Lumix ZS45, they both don't seem too great though.

>>2718581
>they both don't seem too great though.
They aren't. Your budget is not high enough to get a camera that doesn't fall into that "doesn't seem too great" category. Your best bet is to hit up KEH.com and look for the best used camera kit you can find. I'd probably start with Pentax, since they've had good sensors for a long time, and their resale value is trash. Be ready to compromise on pretty much everything.

>>2718587
What exactly do sensors do? I'm new to this, if you couldn't tell.
I'm going to check out that website, but I might end up settling for the Lumix ZS45.
It doesn't seem THAT bad, just not very good at taking pictures in the dark.
I'm mostly looking take portraits.

File: 1.png (33KB, 736x877px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 736x877px

Is this MTF graph good?

How would you rate a lens with this characteristics in terms of xx/100 ?

>>2718598
Without a sensor, you don't take any picture. At all. Think about it.
I'm seriously intrigued about you, the low budget (allowance?), being uninformed in such a high degree. What part of the globe are you from and how old are you? Serious question, be honest, don't be afraid.

>>2718602
I'm an 18 year old American without a job.

I've always been interested in photography, but I never learned any of the technical stuff.
I had a Polaroid when I was a kid, or at least something similar to a Polaroid and really loved it, but I don't know what happened to it.
And then I took a Black and White Photography Class at a local college where we developed the photos ourselves in a darkroom.

My birthday is coming up so I'm trying to find a camera I can ask for, but I know anything more than 200 dollars would be too much.

File: TS560x560.png (63KB, 560x247px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 560x247px

>>2718600
Doesn't seem too good (I like my MTF charts to look a bit like pic related, which is like 92/100).

But I can't even really read yours as-is, the legend is missing.

https://photographylife.com/how-to-read-mtf-charts

>>2718607
Get a Pentax ME Super or a Spotmatic (preferably black, looks cool as fuck) with 50mm lens, get a bunch of b&w film, can be expired, and developing things. I dunno, I'm not into film that much.

>>2718616
I went on the Keh website you linked me to.
The Canon PowerShot G10, FUJI XF1, and Canon PowerShot SX30 IS look good.
Also, how important are the number of megapixels? And what does ISO actually do?

Just got three rolls back from the lab, and out of the 79 photos, 4 from the first roll have light leaks in them (the type that comes through the ratchet holes in the film). It's only in that location and then never occurs again. What could be causing this?

>>2718655
back plate flex? film pressure plate not working as intended?

>>2718600
sharp center, soft in the corners wide open, excellent corner to corner by f5.6.

75-80/100 for a modern lens, or 90 for a manual focus film era lens. +points if it's a 24mm or wider.

>>2718664
Yeah I think the back plate is flexing. The shots I took handheld in that situation came out fine, the ones I took resting on top of a fence post came out with leaks. I assume the pressure on the bottom of the camera made the back bulge slightly

>>2718568
Hm. Any way to fix a flange issue? I'm guessing a fotodiox adapter. As for getting the zenitar id rather not because this sigma was only like 130$ and it's the old version.

>Nikon rumored to reduce their warranty in Europe from 3 to 1 year
This desperation.

Is it soon over? Will Nikon be finished?

Reposting to this thread >>2718134

For a full sensor readout for 8k video, Panasonic would need a sensor with a resolution of 7680x5760, which is 44.2mp

>>2718697
What's the problem goy? It's not like you keep your camera for more than a year before you buy a new one

>>2718695
There is nothing worse than being stuck with a bad lens. I also have a bad Sigma which is just soft at all apertures. It is a tele, but some of the wides use retrofocal design which is basically a telephoto design reversed.
Sigmas usually have their distinctive softness and coma, only recently did they improve with their Art line.
Try and get the most out of it then get a Samyang/Rokinon 14mm.

File: Blank+_c60b3eb844d894b1d8cabc55489b5374[1].jpg (34KB, 650x450px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 650x450px

i just got a nikkor 28-300 vr II and i really like it

hope everyone is doing well

>>2718744

>buying a superzoom

'no'

Want to learn photography and have a few questions.

I currently have a nikon d60. Is the camera on my Samsung Note 4 better since the nikon is older?

I can't afford a new dslr right now but when I do upgrade, I want something suitable for shoot decent YouTube videos with.

The 55-200mm lens that came with my nikon is broken. I dropped it from a foot off the ground. At first it would manual focus and made a grinding noise when trying to autofocus. Doesn't focus at all now. Considering getting a 50mm and calling it a day. Is it worth fixing?

>>2718748

55-200 is a cheap lens, it's not worth fixing unless the repairs are really cheap.

Might as well buy yourself the 55-300 if you really want a working tele.

And no, your older SLR will be better than your note 4 because it has a larger sensor and you can attach lenses to it.

>>2718747
yeah

>>2718750

Why would you pay $1000 for an extremely soft lens that has aberrations out the ass?

You could have bought an excellent 18-55 and a 50-300 for less money than that thing.

>>2718749
Thanks for the advice. When on sale! I can afford the nikon d5200 or canon equivalent. What do you suggest. I also have $200 credit at a store that only has a nikon 3200 and a Canon rebel t5. I would only have to spend $200 for the Canon and $250 for the nikon. I don't think the video recording are good on those, so I might save for the nikon 5200 instead.

>>2718753
Sorry stupid tablet is doing auto correct and adding random characters.

>>2718753

I've never done video recording on my D5300 despite having the capability because it's not really the right tool for the job. It might be okay shooting youtube videos on a tripod indoors since that isn't a really demanding scenario, but I'd still feel better just buying a dedicated video camera for that.

Might as well give it a try though to see how it works.

And if you want to go up another price point, the I love the 5300.

>>2718754
>>2718753

Also you options when video recording are pretty limited, even with the 5300. Stuff like no live aperture changing while video taking (if I remember correctly) and loud auto focus seem to be big negatives for video on this.

>>2718752
>Why would you pay $1000
paid $750
> for an extremely soft lens
of all the potential criticisms of the 28-300 this is not one, it is very sharp for a zoom
>that has aberrations out the ass?
pretty easily correctable, haven't seen any yet anyway
>You could have bought an excellent 18-55 and a 50-300 for less money than that thing.
i shoot FX but point taken, already own a 24-70/2.8 and a 70-200/2.8

this is a hiking lens to be paired with a 100/2.8 macro because i'm not lugging my moneymakers into the forest to shoot bears n bugs

however for the sake of conversation, were i not to get this superzoom, i'd get the 24-85/3.5-4.5 and the 70-300/4-5.6 to cover the range, the d610's kit lens is awesome and the latter lens is cheap as dirt and pretty good

Canon PowerShot G10, FUJI XF1, or Canon PowerShot SX30 IS?

How important are the number of megapixels? And what exactly is ISO?

File: completeguidetophotography.jpg (671KB, 640x6031px) Image search: [Google]

671KB, 640x6031px

>>2718788
Sensor size is more important than amount of megapixels but I'd imagine they all have the same size. Megapixels correlates to size of the image and thus the overall image quality.

ISO is a light sensitivity setting. At daytime you use a lower ISO because there's a lot of light. A low ISO means high image quality. At night you would use a high ISO because there's not much light to work with. A high ISO means you'll be able to take pictures in low light but it will introduce grain.

Anyway it sounds like you don't really know your ass from your head so read pic related

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2015:09:22 07:13:14
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	640
Image Height	6031

>>2718307
I wonder where that photo is taken. Houses and channel markers suggest Norway.

File: shasinyasan_7290105218247_2[1].jpg (106KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 600x600px

so I'm looking for a relatively cheap, sub 150€ camera backpack that can fit a DSLR with a lens attached and two additional lenses
I quite like the look of the National Geographic bags, especially the A5290
any other suggestions? doesn't have to be stylish, I'm going for function over looks

>>2718607
I mean for about 400 there's like a Nikon d3200/d33000 sale with two lenses bundle going on for the past two weeks

File: smhhhh6d.jpg (59KB, 667x1000px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 667x1000px

this is a 30 second exposure raw with my 6D with the cap on, at 3200 iso. I did edit it to show them more but this does not look good. they were showing up on 10 sec exposures. wat do?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 6D
Camera Software	Digital Photo Professional
Lens Size	24.00 - 105.00 mm
Firmware Version	Firmware Version 1.1.4
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	2015:12:10 01:30:10
Exposure Time	30 sec
F-Number	f/8.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	3200
Lens Aperture	f/8.0
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	24.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	667
Image Height	1000
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Exposure Mode	Manual
Focus Type	Auto
Metering Mode	Center-Weighted
Sharpness	Unknown
Saturation	Normal
Contrast	Normal
Shooting Mode	Manual
Image Size	Unknown
Focus Mode	Manual
Drive Mode	Single
Flash Mode	Off
Compression Setting	Fine
Macro Mode	Normal
White Balance	Fluorescent
Exposure Compensation	3
Sensor ISO Speed	320
Color Matrix	129

>>2718849
They're hot pixels you retard. You're giving the camera absolutely no light, and at ISO 3200 it starts to guess and fill in the gaps. This is the result. There's nothing wrong with your camera, dust doesn't glow. Might have some fungus or something bottom left though, not sure what that is

clean the sensor and it'll be fine

File: National_Geographic_NG_W5070_NG_W5070_Walkabout_Rucksack_611032.jpg (38KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 500x500px

>>2718846
I have the Nat Geo Walkaround bag, pic related.
It's super comfy, fits loads of gear, padding is allaround and not too squishy, feels quite solid.
It also doesn't stick out in a crowd and has a raincover.
Perfect for hikes and general tourist things. I also used it a few times at uni when I had free time to walk around the campus.

>>2718849
this is why you let your camera automatically substract a dark frame from long exposures

>>2718859
>Might have some fungus or something bottom left though
Looks like some light leak around the bodycap

>>2718849
Nothing wrong with the camera, in astrophotography you are supposed to take a number of frames like this. The ones taken with the same exposure as your light frames are called dark frames and the ones taken with short exposure are called bias frames.
Does the camera have autocleaning option? If yes it would be wise to set it so it cleans the sensor every time you switch it on.

>>2718877
How much did this cost you, and where did you buy it from? I'm in Aus and the only place I could find one was from China on Ebay, for like $70 which seems like a really good price.

>>2718889
I'm in EU but it was around that price. It was on ebay in the UK but it took the china express time to deliver.

File: 00002.mkv_snapshot_03.41_[2015.12.10_18.45.40].jpg (226KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

226KB, 1920x1080px

check out that wawiya.

>>2718859
>>2718880
>>2718881
thanks for the help guys. now I get whats goin on. I never noticed this on my older camera.

>>2718891
Alright cheers

>>2718889
Yea, well, it's ~$50 on Aliexpress. As almost always, eBay is too expensive for Chinese goods - again.

>>2718903
>$20
>expensive
$20 is nothing, bro

>>2718904
Arguably, "too expensive for Chinese goods" != unaffordable

~30% price difference for nothing other than eBay + Paypal very expensive intermediaries.

>>2718410
Theres only one native X-mount 1:1 macro which is the Zeiss Touit 50mm F2.8. If you don't want to fork out the price a good idea is a novoflex adaptor. Very solid choice.

Should I buy my friend's unused Nikon D3000 off him for 200-300 GBP or should I buy something else for the same price?

>>2718913
For that money you can buy a new D3300 with kit lens.

>>2718914
Thanks, any other recommended cameras around that price?

>>2718915
Pentax K-30 or K-50

Best DSLR for around $300-400 CDN? I have a large number of pentax k-mount lenses already if that influences it at all.

>>2718480
Nah she was just curioius and im only there for vacation

>>2718921
see
>>2718916
also The Camera Store

>>2718915
used sony a7 + sigma 30mm f2.8 with rear baffle removed.

>>2718928
>GBP
I read it as canadian dollars for some reason

whats a cheap "standard wide" angle lens for NIkon DX? I mean anything wider than a 35mm 1.8G DX (which would work like a 50mm field of view wise).

>>2718989
35mm/1.5=23mm

so look for a 24mm, dummy

>>2719059
whats a cheap option for a 24mm, friend?

File: 1449610068340.jpg (195KB, 2048x1536px) Image search: [Google]

195KB, 2048x1536px

RawTherapee crashes instantly on startup. By the looks of it, right before it crashes, it's trying to pull all the photos from "My Pictures" folder, which is a huge mess of unsorted shit. I can't change the location before it freezes and crashes from trying to load all these pictures into the program to edit. It's version 4.2
It's a fresh install, and I've uninstalled and tried a slightly older version 3 times.

>>2719140
sort out the "My Pictures" folder and then install rawtherapee?
rawtherapee seems to hate me using curves, it always spazzes out as soon as I try to edit them
I should get lightroom

>>2719142
Give a try to AfterShot Pro 2, the demo version is full and lasts for a month, also has great plugin support.

Should I buy a 1d mark 4?

>>2719153
No.

>>2719153
Nah. Buy something new and decent.

>>2719153
New crop sensor is always better than an old fullframe.
Get a Nikon D7200 or a Pentax K-3 instead.
Even the 7DMkII is a better choice.

>>2719194
it isn't even full frame, it's APS-H, between APS-C and FF. so yeah, it's not a great option

PLEASE HELP:

£300: Nikon D3300 Digital SLR Camera with 18-55mm VR II Lens Kit

OR

£340: Nikon D3300 DSLR Camera with 18-55 mm ED f/3.5-5.6G Zoom Lens & 55-200 mm f/4.5-5.6G Telephoto Zoom Lens

OR

£280: Nikon D3300 DSLR Camera with 18-55 mm ED f/3.5-5.6G Zoom Lens

>>2719269
Pentax K-50 with 18-55 WR and 50-200 WR lens

>>2719283
Interesting, with both of those lenses though, the price rises to £430.

Should I just go with the D3300 and the VR II lens?

>>2719269
Personally, if I had somehow determined to need a D3300, I'd probably get the body only (or whatever is the cheapest deal) and then stick a Sigma Art 18-35 or a bunch of comparable primes on it.

Your tastes aren't mine and I don't know what you shoot, though.

>>2719299
Sorry, I'm not incredibly knowledge about cameras and 300 was my price range so I thought hey I'll go for that.

I want something that'll have everything I need and most of what I will need in the future, and what attracted me to the d3300 with the VR II was the sharp lens and the 60fps video as I am interested in experimenting with movie making.

If you could offer something else I'd really appreciate it.

>>2719301
> I want something that'll have everything I need and most of what I will need in the future
Uh, that's maybe a bit much to ask for in the entry-level price range for both the lens and camera.

Oh, you picked something pretty good in terms of value, but I think you understand many people also have reasons why they pay 10+ times more for their camera + lens (without going to multiple lenses)?

It also typically and easily gets even more costly with somewhat serious "movie making".

Now, that doesn't mean you shouldn't get this camera, but maybe pick an option that at least lets you pick a sharper / faster lens or two once / if you determine you need it...

>>2719307
From what I've read and watched the VR II will definitely be sufficient enough in terms of sharpness especially considering i'm a beginner.

Once I've got the funds in the future I may upgrade but I don't see it being that big of an issue currently, especially since in the future the prices will drop.

Hello, new here, reposting in the right thread now. I would like a small camera mainly to take buildings pictures, i expect some nice quality but nothing too amazing. Heard of a Rico GR, also that it have problems with dust. Can somebody enlighten me?

>>2719309
It sounds to me like you already made up your mind before coming here

>>2719312
No lol, I saw people talking about it on here, I just don't have the money to go past 350

>>2719309
> especially since in the future the prices will drop.
For lenses, prices usually drop at a glacial pace.

You'll need some reserves for them if you determine you need 1-2 more, I'd say. And perhaps that is easiest started with the cheapest kit?

>>2719311
Hm, what stops you from using your smartphone?

> nice quality but nothing amazing
Is basically how most people would see daylight shots taken with a somewhat decent smartphone.

File: hqdefault.jpg (9KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 480x360px

>>2719315
>350

Would buying a Canon 40D or Sony NEX 5n be a good choice? Is there anything similar but cheaper?

Currently own a 5dc and i am deciding between buying a 35mm sigma art 1.4 or a 6d.

I have mostly manual focus lenses and a 40mm f2.8

there's a large supply of olympus e-420/400/510 on ebay with kit lens for ~$180, I know nothing and i am not in the best state of mind, does olympus suck? somebody stop me

>>2718457
Thanks a lot for the info, I think I kinda got it although 4chan ate my first reply.
From your reply and from reading a bit more online a 60mm and 15mm tube should work, I ordered the 16mm tube and hopefully it'll work out. It'll certainly be interesting to try this out.

I upgraded from 400D to 70D.
I have some money left, like 500 euro. I would like if any of you can advice on what gear should I get next.
I use my camera for general purpose - portraits, landscape, sometimes macro... I still have not found or decided what type of photography I love more.
I think it's time for me to invest in some "quality" (for the money I have) glass. What I have now is 4 lenses:
1. Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS (maybe is the II, I am not really sure)
2. Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II Lens
3. Canon EF 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5
4. Sigma 70-300mm F4-5.6 APO DG Macro

Any suggestion on what should I spend the remaining funds? I was thinking for some Yongnuo flash + a tripod, or go with a 70-200 L glass?

Thanks

>>2718619
If you want to take portraits, get something with interchangeable lenses. You are shooting yourself in the foot by doing otherwise. Honestly, I was in your situation too, either find a job or you can ask your parents to help you out?

File: 51jGuISLz8L._SY300_.jpg (21KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 300x300px

Some guy just offered me a brand new Canon t3i for half the price on the market.
Should I consider the purchase, as someone who doesn't have any experience with cameras?

File: bbfed077aabc4865a78e888c8a616b78.jpg (211KB, 1024x682px) Image search: [Google]

211KB, 1024x682px

I really like Infrared Photography and have an old dslr sitting around which I want to permanently convert (I'm not too interested in the lens filters). So I tried googling some tutorials, but I haven't found anything real in-depth, with easy to follow instructions.

From what I have seen though, the process looks a whole lot more difficult than I ignorantly assumed. So my question is do any of you know a great tutorial to follow, or should I just remove all hope seeing as I've never fucked with the electronics of a camera before and have a a high chance of ruining it completely?

Also I live in a small town with no dedicated photography store, the chances of anyone in this town being able to convert it for me is next to none.

>>2719572
You already asked this, and it was already answered.
It's not a very good camera, compared against its rivals. It is, however, plenty, for most things you could want. If you want a mostly okay camera that provides you with artistic control of your photos, then it will do you just fine.

If you aren't actually looking to be a "photographer" type, then it will just annoy you, as it's big, and bulky, and annoying to just bring everywhere if you aren't using it a lot.

Compare the "half off" new price against used prices on amazon and ebay, because it might not be the great deal you think it is. Buying one used is nearly the same as buying it new, as cameras don't really wear down. If it works at all, it works like new.

>>2719573
It's a difficult process that involves scraping things off your sensor stack without scratching or damaging anything. It's certainly not for the faint of heart, and if it's a camera you can't afford to ruin, the risk is high.

http://www.lifepixel.com/tutorials/infrared-diy-tutorials

It's also not a standard service, so even if you did live in a large city, camera stores aren't doing this service. Anybody that would do it for you is going to be a mail-away service, and most of those are very good.

Any experiences with lomography? Should I get into?

>>2719577
>Should I get into?
Do you want to seem to be an artist, without any actual talent, creativity, or motivation? Do you take boring photos of uninteresting objects around your house and job, and wish they had some "thing" that made them get likes on Tumblr anyway? Do you think that light leaks and strange colors make a photo better, even if there's no subject, story, or emotion to convey? Do you like unpredictably bad results, and believe that this adds "soul" to your photos? Do you have too much money, and not enough respect in yourself to save or invest it?

Then yes, you should get into lomography.

>>2719579
Thanks, doubts solved.
Now my question is, Digital or Analog?
I've seen many analogs and I like them, but i want to know if there are pros or issues

>>2719586
Film, for sure. Digital requires artistic and talented processing, and film just gives you something that looks finished already. You don't have nearly the flexibility, but if you're not looking to have control over your images, film will make your boring shit look better for you automatically.

Pros of film:
Will make your shit look as though you sort of know what you're doing
It's romantic

Cons of film:
It's slow
It's expensive
It's inconvenient

>>2719576
>if it's a camera you can't afford to ruin, the risk is high.
It's a Pentax K100D, I upgraded a while back and was initially planning on selling it but I'd be lucky to get $100 for it.

>Anybody that would do it for you is going to be a mail-away service
Ah, okay. I quickly searched for any services in Australia but couldn't seem to find anything (don't quote me on that).

Cheers for the link, these tutorials look real good, only issue being they have none on a Pentax body. Do you know which available models in their list would be closest to a Pentax K100D? Sorry if this is a retarded question, like I said I have no knowledge of camera internals.

>>2719594
>Sorry if this is a retarded question
It's not a retarded question, but unfortunately, I don't really know the answer anyway.

I do know that Pentax uses Sony sensors, and that Nikon does as well. I'd look for a Nikon that has the same level of megapixels as your camera, and read through the instructions for that camera and see if the steps look as they they would make sense on your body as well.
You could also reach out to the people who run that site and ask if they have any clue.

>>2719545
Speedlight(s) & tripod are probably useful, yes?

>>2719605
Alright cheers for your help man, much appreciated.

Somebody has Olympus om d-10? How bad it in low-light?

>>2719647

Exactly as bad in low light as big the DoF is. Any extra sensitivity to the light comes from small DoF.

So, if you want to sacrifice DoF for light sensitivity, E-M10 with F1,4 lenses is as bad as fullframe with F2,8 lenses.

>>2719656
Well, there are still some cameras with better or worse sensors. An A7S easily beats most FF cameras in low light.

The E-M10 isn't doing too great even for an APS-C, it has a sensor that is doing almost 1 f-stop worse with ISO noise than that of the A6000...

>>2719661

Why do you answer me with such statements? Do you think that you say something related to what I said?

>Well, there are still some cameras with better or worse sensors.
>it has a sensor that is doing almost 1 f-stop worse with ISO noise than that of the A6000...

You do not say.

>>2719668
>Why do you answer me with such statements? Do you think that you say something related to what I said?
Because low light performance it does not only come from a DoF trade-off. That's why.

So I just bought a Canon 70D, and as I was perusing photography sites, I stumbled across many comments about mirrorless cameras. After much research, I found reviews and comparisons showing that the Sony a6000 is better in specs than the 70D. How accurate is this? I got a deal on the 70D for $650 refurbished from Canon, so they are about the same price. Weight and size isn't too big of an issue. If I'm hiking with friends, I might just slap a pancake lens on it. I really want performance for wildlife photography and nature photography in general.

>>2719676
As far as I'm concerned, it's accurate. It's pretty easy to see even from the specs:

http://snapsort.com/compare/Canon-EOS-70D-vs-Sony-Alpha-A6000/detailed

But the 70D probably has the better shooting comfort.

>>2719676
70d excellent camera and you can get great shots with it. Just forget about a6000 and take pictures

>>2719679 # >>2719681 #
Thank you for the advice and input. I am happy with the Canon 70D and probably will be for a while.

>>2719647
About two stops worse than current FF. Tops out at about ISO 3200. Chroma well controlled, luminance noise can't be helped.

File: sigma-18-35-f18-lens-copy.jpg (454KB, 1024x703px) Image search: [Google]

454KB, 1024x703px

I'll preface this by saying I have little experience with cameras themselves but I feel I have a good grasp on the science and practices of photography. I picked up a D3300 as its a good beginner camera and the limitations of the kit lens quickly became apparent for anything other than general personal use. I was looking into some prime lenses and came across the Sigma 18-35mm 1.8 which isn't a prime but got a lot of praise as it could replace a selection of prime lenses. Would it be a good idea for a beginner like myself to get such a lens?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D600
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	942
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	65 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	4698
Image Height	3227
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2013:10:11 19:11:12
Exposure Time	1/60 sec
F-Number	f/8.0
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	640
Lens Aperture	f/8.0
Exposure Bias	0.7 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	Flash, Compulsory, Return Detected
Focal Length	65.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1024
Image Height	703
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	Low Gain Up
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Soft
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>2719723
It seems as though you may need to shift your perspective on buying equipment. What you have now (The D3300, and kit lens) is capable of doing almost anything you could want to do, at a phenomenal level of quality. When you're beginning, the bottleneck is always in your technique, and in your understanding of how to create quality photos.

You should stop thinking of buying equipment as getting "better quality" because while it's true, the 18-35 is a fantastic lens, if you are having issues now, you will continue to have issues with your new equipment.

You buy a new lens when you are unable to take the photos you are interested in, with your current equipment, and only after you are SURE that the EQUIPMENT is the reason.

Look at your photos objectively, and rank the issues with them, from 1 to 10 (or however many). Until the number one issue is "softness" or "chromatic aberrations that can't be corrected in post", then you don't need to replace your current lens with one of higher quality.

When you're starting out, I can already tell you, your top issues are 1) Subject selection 2) Purposeful framing to reduce clutter and support your subject 3) Quality of light 4) Camera settings to optimize the scene in front of you.

The 18-35 is touted as a bundle of 3 primes, rolled into a zoom. It's a spectacular lens, but the reasons to get it are not just that it is of higher quality than the kit zoom. You would not be making a mistake in buying it, however, you may not be making a good decision by buying it, either, when the money could be used better elsewhere.

>>2719723
The kit lens that comes with the D3300 is actually pretty great. Save your money for now, buy a good tripod and go take a lot of terrible photos.

Don't fall into the "replacing primes" trap, either. Listen to >>2719724
he's giving solid advice.

>>2719724
>>2719725
Thanks for the advice. My main concern at the moment is actually taking better photos in low light with more depth of field. My understanding is a prime lens will provide both of these things. Chromatic aberrations are not a terrible problem on my kit but I could do with a little less of that as well

>>2719728
Stop worrying about shooting in lower light, and focus on finding better light.

Also, you'll be getting LESS depth of field with a lens with a wider aperture, not more. "Depth of field" is how much is in focus, from close to far, in a scene. The wider your aperture, the more light you bring in, the less depth of field you have.

You're on the same useless track that most new photographers fall into. You spend most of your free time indoors, in low poor light, and while you're there, you're playing with your camera. You take photos of your friends in shit light, you take photos of your beer cans in shit light, you take photos of your pets in shit light, so you think "Man, my photos look like shit, I need a prime with a wider aperture!"

You don't. You need to put in the effort to find (or create) good light. Anything wider than f/2.8 on a normal focal length lens should be used artistically, to blur a distracting background that can't be changed.

Look for better light. Skip the prime phase. There is no gold in those mountains.

>>2719728
What you say is true, but ask yourself this: how many *bad* photos have you taken in low light with shallow dof?

If the answer is less than about 4000, you need to take more. Keep shooting and learn the limitations of your gear until you can push it as far as it'll go, THEN upgrade.

>>2719730
ah, sorry. I guess I meant less depth of field. Either way, I would like the option to take good photos in shit light, you can't always have great lighting

>>2719572
People rip on the rebels, but I had that one for a year, and It's pretty damn solid for what it is. And half the price is wicked.

>>2719737
You're free to ignore both of our advice and buy whatever you want, you asked if it would be a good idea for a beginner to get the lens and we told you what we thought. If you just came here to have someone say "go buy it" then just go buy it.

>>2719739
sorry I didn't mean to come off as ignoring your advice, its much appreciated. It was just a counter thought

>>2719741
Not one of those guys, but buy the 35mm 1.8

It's cheap. It's fantastic optical quality. It's a great learning tool (put it in your camera and go out like that). Most importantly: It's fun as fuck to shoot with

>>2719737
You will not take good photos in shit light. Even if your photo is exposed correctly, the light will still be shit.

There is a difference between enough light, and good light. Good light comes from a pleasant angle, wraps around a subject well, and has enough color in it to allow for editing and correcting. There is such a thing as good light, in low light, but you have to go find it.

Most low light is bad light, that will look bad, no matter how much of it you have. This is usually really orange light, coming from very small bulbs, relatively far away from your subject, and generally from above. This gives unpleasant bland shadows, a strange unpleasant color cast, and necessitates a wide aperture meaning that most of your photo is out of focus.

If you're looking to ignore me (which you are, and it's fine, you have to figure it out on your own, I've been there) then start looking at actual inexpensive primes, rather than bleeding edge of technology amazing zooms that act like primes. Start with a 30mm f/1.4, and a 50mm f/1.4. Those will give you the solutions you'll be looking for in low light, and in bokeh. Then, you'll start to wish your lenses were wider angle (Because you're still sitting in your friend's living room, and you can't get more than about 10 feet away from anything to use your 50mm lens) and you'll be shocked at how expensive wide-angle lenses are when they're faster than f/4, and you'll start looking into other solutions (like getting a flash)

What you need to do to create good looking photos is find good light first, and then either put something interesting into the light (a model, a still life of some sort, etc) or wait for something interesting to happen in that good light.

If you aren't going to look for good light, you photo is going to look bad, and to make up for it, you need to fill the photo with a really interesting or really emotive subject that doesn't require nice light to look good.

Is your body ready? [spoiler]Ready for the wave of shitposting?[/spoiler]

http://www.pentax.com/en/pentaxff/

>>2719673
>Because low light performance it does not only come from a DoF trade-off. That's why.

Yeah, I know that. For example, I can have very good low light performance just by switching from 70D to D7200 - both are crop cameras and D7200 even has bigger output resolution. So what?

If you cannot find the sense of my post why do you reply with some generic statements instead of asking questions?

P.S. I pointed out that small sensors are not inherently bad if non-shallow DoF is preferred. Whether light sensitivity comes from small DoF or not was not discussed. You may cross out the word "exactly" which is misleading.

P.S. Sony A7S has bad colour separation (as bad as in modern Canons) what, among other things, makes it shine in unprofiled SNR tests.

I'm looking for a compact film camera, any suggestions ?

I really wanna go to full frame, but I'm not sure if it's worth it though, is the 5dmk3 worth upgrading to from a 70d?

>>2719767
For what, idiot
>>2719769
For what, idiot

>>2719771
Taking mother fucking pictures, idiot

Any LUMIX DMC-FZ1000 comments

>>2719773

Take any, my lord.

>>2719774

This camera will fullfill great amount of needs while excluding swapping the lenses from daily practice.

>>2719769

If you need to ask us then it is not worth it.

>>2719764
What sense was there to be found? I'm was pointing out that *your* generic statements about DoF on lenses that you could put on a specific model of Olympus camera body missed the actual way in which said Olympus camera body can be described as "worse" than comparable choices, first and foremost sensor noise performance at lower light levels.

> Whether light sensitivity comes from small DoF or not was not discussed.
Of course it was discussed - it explicitly named as a trade-off by you in >>2719656.

And then I pointed out that's not the only thing that will be at work.


> P.S. Sony A7S has bad colour separation (as bad as in modern Canons) what, among other things, makes it shine in unprofiled SNR tests.
Its DR is just fine. Or what kind of color separation are you talking about?

Regardless, the low light performance of this camera is stellar, not just in "unprofiled SNR tests", but just in general.

>>2719769
It is quite easily argued to be a better camera, but is it the right camera for you and/or worth it? No clue. I went with Sony myself.

>>2719773
Use your cell phone.

>>2719748

If Pentax does not reintroduce mechanical aperture ring coupling I will hate it.

Not that I have too many manual lenses which I wish to use but hate this cost cutting of premium technology.

>>2719784
>first and foremost sensor noise performance at lower light levels.

As soon as you compare photos with same FoV and DoF you won't find any significant difference between modern sensors besides base dynamic range. (I am leaving sensors bigger than 36x24mm out of discussion now). This is what I mean when I discuss the DoF as main cause of light sensitivity.

Whether you like the way of how I say that or not does not make my statement wrong.


>Of course it was discussed - it explicitly named as a trade-off by you in

>>You may cross out the word "exactly" which is misleading.
>>You may cross out the word "exactly" which is misleading.
>>You may cross out the word "exactly" which is misleading.


>And then I pointed out that's not the only thing that will be at work.

Yeah, I pointed it out too by mentioning D7200 and 70D. So what?


>Or what kind of color separation are you talking about?

That colour separation which introduces noise upon normalisation of saturation. DR is not directly related to it.

File: IMG_9090_a1200.jpg (253KB, 1200x800px) Image search: [Google]

253KB, 1200x800px

I just found out that I'll be getting an extra $350 (Paypal) for a bonus. I just bought a Sony A7 II and I'm using adapted lenses, so I thought about getting some manual flashes, a flash trigger set, and a few umbrellas to start out with studio stuff again.

Strobist recommends LumoPro LP180 Quad-Sync's, but does anyone have any other recommendations?

I've seen Yongnuo flashes and triggers listed here before.

Also looking for some sort of sync cord option, but the A7ii doesn't have a standard sync plugin, but actually has a multi-interface plugin. Should I just go with wireless and call it a day?

>>2719796
> As soon as you compare photos with same FoV and DoF you won't find any significant difference between modern sensors besides base dynamic range.
Even just DxOmark shows this isn't the case.

http://www.dxomark.com/best-cameras-for-sports

The somewhat idiotically labelled "sports" is low light performance, described as SNR measurement:
http://www.dxomark.com/About/Sensor-scores/Use-Case-Scores

> That colour separation which introduces noise upon normalisation of saturation. DR is not directly related to it.
Interesting, someone measured this scientifically? Where is this data?

>>2719797
I'm using manual YN560III/IV flashes with a -TX controller. Works fine for me.

I recall Nissin has a wireless TTL capable model, that might also be worth looking at.

> Also looking for some sort of sync cord option, but the A7ii doesn't have a standard sync plugin, but actually has a multi-interface plugin.
Do you want to trigger the camera or the camera to trigger the flashes?

>>2718706
Sounds good. I've kinda fixed the focus on it. Just takes a nudge towards 2m range and it's more in focus. Still a good lens for cheap

>>2719802
Thank you for the flash recommendations. I'll look into them.

I will be mostly hand-holding the camera at the beginning, so I want the camera to trigger the flashes. I don't need TTL.

>>2719812
No one needs ttl, but it can be damn convenient to have.

>>2719812
> I will be mostly hand-holding the camera at the beginning, so I want the camera to trigger the flashes.
I'd suggest a 560 TX for that, but Yongnuo also has RF603 II or such.

Also, the optical triggering on then as well as other flashes is excellent, so theoretically you probably could trigger them optically. Just, having the ability to also wirelessly adjust them with a 560 IV flash or 560 TX is sooo convenient.

>>2719550
What do lenses do? And how would getting something without lenses fuck me over?
Right now I'm looking at the Canon 40D and Sony NEX 5n.

>>2719815
That's a damn valid point, mate. Just don't think that I want to afford it at this point, though - Can learn a lot by manually doing things.

Still no sync cord, though

Is there a benefit to using a heavy professional tripod over a cheap light tripod?

>>2719825
$1000+ camera/lens falls over
$1000+ camera/lens doesn't fall over

>>2719825
In studio use, it's more convenient to have a heavy one. Can't easily move it much or tip it over or whatever.

Also, the really cheap ones are usually just unstable crap that is annoying to set up. Pay your ~$80 or more, even if you get a Chinese one. (But lightweight can obviously be helpful for travel on foot, and I'd suggest getting one of these first.)

>>2719829

Well, I have an old Promaster 6000 tripod that my parents gave me...It seems stable enough, but I've been considering upgrading to something better.

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

135KB, 1000x1000px

>>2719832
Never used a Promaster. My usual suggestion on what to get is this one from Aliexpress ($120 for the carbon model, $90 for alu - shipped). If you have a bit more money, also have a look at the Sirui and Benro tripods...

And if you're only going to use the tripod in one location (studio-type use), the heavy alu tripods of the Manfrotto 055 series are something else I can recommend.

>>2719832
the only reason to upgrade a tripod is if your current one is too flimsy, or too heavy, for what you want to do. If it's stable, and light enough for your usage, keep it.

>>2719832
Check out vanguard. Best of the value priced tripods.

File: 14546387.jpg (377KB, 960x540px) Image search: [Google]

377KB, 960x540px

>>2719832

Cheap and strong

Very impressed with it.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	1080
Image Height	1920
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2015:12:11 20:21:42
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	960
Image Height	540

>>2719845
I think you referenced the wrong post, but glad you like it.

>>2719838
I got the larger (303c) model of this (~170$).

It weighs only slightly more than my old alu travel tripod (/w head) but is soo much more stable, and rises higher.

Unless something it suddenly combusts into the air or something, I'd consider it quite good value for the money - Similar sturdy/weight level Sirui cost over twice as much.

File: dic&mic_e302c_plate.jpg (192KB, 900x1473px) Image search: [Google]

192KB, 900x1473px

>>2719885
Ah, maybe we talked before then.

Good to hear the P303C also is fine. Sure hope yours won't spontaneously combust. I myself am also still perfectly fine with my E302C.

ive been looking at a pentax k-3 for a while now, but holy shit. ive never used a dslr before today (had to use a buddys 7D to take some pics) and theyre heavy as fuck. ive used my dads old film SLRs before but fuck DSLRs are fucking bricks. still gonna cop that k3 tho, theyre sick as fuck

>>2719902
The 7D is slightly heavier than th K-3, however the weight can be due to the cameras ergonomics and holding it wrong. Properly holding it is one hand holds the body grip, the other is UNDER the lens supporting the body and lens, elbows tucked in. I've met enough people holding a DSLR wrong complaining about the weight.

>>2719869

Nope, just saying Promaster (despite the cringy name) is known for low cost but high build quality.

>>2719906
i had to be sitting down so maybe that was part of it, plus it had a zoom lense and the k3 im getting is coming with a much smaller 50 mm prime. but like i said ive used my dads dslrs so i know how to hold them, it was just unexpected. not necessarily heavy, but heavy for a camera

Please, someone answer my questions.

>>2719817
>>2719416

>>2719929
"What do lenses do"
You need some Google, friend.

>>2719932
It's poor quality bait, mate. Nobody is that stupid.

>>2719937
>>2719932
Yes, people are that stupid, I'm that stupid.
I meant my question regarding the quality of the cameras and whether or not they'd be a good purchase.

Alright, time to look like a faggot for being a crossposter and asking obvious questions

I need an inexpensive, all-purpose waterproof camera for scuba diving. What's good for the value? The sticky doesn't seem to say anything regarding waterproof shit.

>>2718307
I love this picture.

>>2719989
A DSLR in a scuba diving case. The case will probably cost more than the camera though.

>>2719989
Xiaomi Yicam with waterproof case.

Or just a MILC or DSLR, as >>2720099 said.

>>2719801
>Even just DxOmark shows this isn't the case.
>The somewhat idiotically labelled "sports" is low light performance, described as SNR measurement:

Read more about DXOMark measurements before discussing them. The ISO score of DXOMark is assumed to be useful only when DoF can be sacrificed. As soon as you want bigger DoF and smaller noise simultaneously you should look deeper into the graphs, not only at the scores.


>Interesting, someone measured this scientifically? Where is this data?

Look at "Colour response" tab. The bigger the negative coefficients in matrix are the worse the colour sensitivity is.

Now open "Full CS" tab on these pages:
http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Nikon/D4s---Measurements
http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Sony/A7S-II---Measurements

You will see that for any luminance-ISO pairs the ellipses (which denote the colours which camera may produce instead of clean colour) surrounding colour samples of A7S-II are bigger.

>>2720132
>The ISO score of DXOMark is assumed to be useful only when DoF can be sacrificed.
Doesn't say that anwhere, and it makes no sense to assume this anyways - it's a plain *sensor* score?

Actually, you'll have to get a lens with wider maximum aperture (and thus smaller DoF) to compensate if this score is *not* particularly high, but that's not the same statement at all.

> Look at "Colour response" tab. The bigger the negative coefficients in matrix are the worse the colour sensitivity is.
Interesting, Now just where is this is "as bad as Canon's" or even particularly worth mentioning? This difference is very small? Far smaller than the SNR one at thigh ISO (note the default logarithmic scale on these tabs, and the measurement in dB).

Also, let's not pretend that the D4S can be used as a stand-in for "modern cameras" in general, or the EM-D10. It's one of the few cameras that can somewhat compete with the A7S in low light.

Charts and numbers mean literally nothing.
The sooner this gearfaggotry ends the better.

>>2720150
Charts and numbers mean everything. They're basically the reason why your camera's plastic body doesn't crumble or fracture so easily, and why its digital sensor and computer works. And why it can AF and WB and so on near perfectly (if its engineers did it right)

Engineering and Science. Numbers, formula, charts.

You're still operating the device, but you're deluding yourself if you think that your contribution is greatest.

>>2720154
Charts and numbers only mean shit if you are using your gear for charts and numbers. In any real world application said charts and numbers mean fuckall. Get out of your basement cave and go out shooting!

>>2720155
> Charts and numbers only mean shit if you are using your gear for charts and numbers.
There is a big difference between numbers being useless and you not having sufficient money or will to use them to your advantage.

> In any real world application said charts and numbers mean fuckall.
They apply to the "real world" -the same one they were measured in- just fine.

> Get out of your basement cave and go out shooting!
... you do that. Go get a clean, nice shot with the right settings and gear.

>>2720147
>Doesn't say that anwhere, and it makes no sense to assume this anyways - it's a plain *sensor* score?
>Actually, you'll have to get a lens with wider maximum aperture (and thus smaller DoF) to compensate if this score is *not* particularly high, but that's not the same statement at all.

I cannot parse your statement.


>Now just where is this is "as bad as Canon's"

"Where"? I cannot understand your question. Do you want to hear "On the Earth" as an answer?


>worth mentioning?

It is an open discussion board. Whether something is worth or not is determined by it's users. You are the one who tried to counter my posts - I still do not see a reason for it. In original question E-M10 is compared to an FF - not 6D, not A7s, just FF. I made an answer appropriate to that question.


>>2719710
>Chroma well controlled,

Hay Ken.

Would I ever need anything wider than 24mm for landscapes? What lens should I be looking to get if I need to go wider?

>>2720212

For 1,5x crop: Sigma 8-16mm, Sigma/Tokina 12-24 mm, Tamron 15-30 VC.

For 1x crop: Sigma/Tokina 12-24 mm, Tamron 15-30 VC, 20mm/1.8.


>Would I ever need anything wider than 24mm for landscapes?

It depends on the landscape largely. I do not feel much problems with 25mm equiv. length. personally. However, I recall that I really wanted to have something wider in certain cases.

So, the answer is: yes, you will certainly need something wider, even more so if you photograph the landscape with some foreground.

>>2720099
Is a DSLR not unnecessarily clunky? Even something with a relatively small form factor like a Rebel would probably get in the way on a dive - it's not like I'm going there specifically to take pictures.

>>2720113
This seems like a pretty good idea actually.

>>2720212
Not really. It's not very hard to take multiple shots and use Hugin to panorama them, so if you come across a situation that a 24mm doesn't cover, just take multiple shots?

File: image.jpg (36KB, 600x512px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 600x512px

>>2720099
>>2720113
>Inexpensive
>Suggesting a sub (no pun intended) $75 GoPro knockoff
>Then suggesting a setup that could potentially cost Anon over $1000

[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	600
Image Height	512

>>2720238
>This seems like a pretty good idea actually.
Sure. It's the cheap & easy option at least. Give it a try, if you ultimately need something higher-end, it still makes for a decent backup camera (I actually quite often record with that at the same time as with the MILC).

>>2720254
Yeah I might just do that
From the little bit of research I've done so far there seems to be a lot of comparison to a cheaper GoPro, how do you think it stacks up against that?

>>2720249
>Suggesting a sub (no pun intended) $75 GoPro knockoff
It is around $60 on export, yes - and decent. I guess ~$75 with the waterproof case and microSD might be about right, though.

>Then suggesting a setup that could potentially cost Anon over $1000
Sure, if you are stupid and pay over $1k despite not wanting to...?

What are the Pentax K-50's video capabilities like?

Is it smooth etc? I'm not very tech savvy

>>2720264
Pentax is more about stills, but the video can be used if you know what you're doing.
There is not AF during record which is normal for anything above soccermom tier camcorders. There is pixel peaking to help focus, but not while recording. There is software stabilization which is retarded considering it has sensor shift stabilization, instead they opted for distortion galore software thing. If you switch that off and learn how to focus then you can do video. Frame wider than you need to and you can filter out any shaking in post.

>>2720258
Haven't had a look at most GoPro models recently, but a Hero 3+ was pretty comparable.

The GoPro Hero4 is better than the Yicam,

I think I tried the Black edition in either case, but might be remembering that one wrong.

File: Edouard_Manet_-_Le_Suicidé.jpg (316KB, 2024x1751px) Image search: [Google]

316KB, 2024x1751px

>>2720266
Does the D3300 have AF during recording?


All these models, d3300, d5300, d5500, d7200.

I'm just getting into phtoography and my god, all these models with only slight changes? I know they do it for money but WHY? WHY WHY WHY? It's so hard to pick,

I'm more swayed to the Pentax k-50 because of it's 100% coverage, higher iso, faster shutter speed and it's environmentally sealed but with the d3300, i get 60fps video, higher megapixels, sharp vr ii lens.

Which would you pick? If either even.

http://www.dpreview.com/products/compare/side-by-side?products=nikon_d3300&products=pentax_k50

>>2720270
> Does the D3300 have AF during recording?
No.

> I'm just getting into phtoography and my god, all these models with only slight changes? I know they do it for money but WHY? WHY WHY WHY? It's so hard to pick,
No shit. You want it easy, you'll pick the D7200. Also, if you want the AF motor required for cheaper older lenses. Or just AE bracketing.

As far as I'm concerned: Get a Sony (A6000 maybe) or Pentax (K-30/50 maybe) who don't do this half as much.

The A6000 can AF during video, too. Not a great video camera yet (you'd have to pay a lot more for that, and the accessories), but okay.

>>2720270
I got into photography due to seeing a YT video on cheap backyard astrophotography, which is why I chose Pentax (O-GPS1). Using the camera for everyday "normal" photography didn't really cross my mind until I got the camera in my hands. Never used the video features and simple doing video of friends being friends or family stuff I found that my phone is much better.
Doing videos on a DSLR is not the common job, you can't just whip it out and start taking video, not even on a mirrorless or the 70D with it's hybrid sensor, you have to prepare the whole thing. You have to know what you're doing and following focus by hand, setting audio manually etc...
For stills, the K-50 is an excellent tool.

>>2720274
>>2720275
I mainly want to focus on photography right now but I'm really interested in video so that's why I wanted to have that feature in the background.

Why the fuck does the d3300 and a6000 offer 60fps video but no microphone port? Is it just me or is this pure stupidity? Are they this desperate to make money?

I'm worried about this enviromentally seal issue too, I want to take pics in rain etc but that means increasing budget for good video and good weather protection taking me to the 5-7 hundred pounds and I don't want to invest too much as a beginner.

Is it a problem that the a6000 doesn't encode in h.264? Can it be easily converted?

It seems from simple observation that if I want photography beginner dslr I should pick the k-50 but if I want both photography and video I should go with the d5300 or d7200?

Sorry for my entry level speak

>>2720277
Because entry level body, same for the K-50. If you're looking to expand in that direction, you'll want to take a look at the K-5/II/IIs or K-3 for Pentax or Nikon D7200/Canon 60D/70D cameras.
See reviews and video tutorials. You'll find most of these will tell you to just focus manually so the AF during recording on the 70D is mostly beginner gimmick.
Video is an entire world in itself, but if you learn it properly then the actual bodies won't matter that much as in stills.

Kipon announced the first ever medium format speedbooster adapter

>>2720277
>Why the fuck does the d3300 and a6000 offer 60fps video but no microphone port? Is it just me or is this pure stupidity?
I'll assume on the D3300 it is a decision to make money (creating 3 different budget cameras). And on the A6000 probably stupidity because they really like their fancy multi interface USB port and fancy hot shoe - oh, they didn't remove software features and stuff present on the A7 series, but it's Sony, they must have some special thing beyond what's good.

> Is it a problem that the a6000 doesn't encode in h.264?
No, it does.

>I'm worried about this enviromentally seal issue too, I want to take pics in rain etc but that means increasing budget for good video and good weather protection taking me to the 5-7 hundred pounds and I don't want to invest too much as a beginner.
Camera plastic bags or "rain coats" are 5-7 pounds, not 5-7 hundred pounds...

Arguably if you're constantly filming in a desert or rain forest or some such, a Pentax might be good anyways.

>It seems from simple observation that if I want photography beginner dslr I should pick the k-50 but if I want both photography and video I should go with the d5300 or d7200?
I think the A6000 would be the best choice then. YMMV.

>>2720280
>>2720285
Okay, this is it.


You're looking for something versatile, with great lens opportunities, decent video and will last you a long time alongside being affordable.

WHICH DO YOU PICK?

http://www.dpreview.com/products/compare/side-by-side?products=nikon_d3300&products=pentax_k50&products=sony_a6000
[spoiler]apologies for being annoying[/spoiler]

>>2720291
>>2720280
>>2720285


SHIT SHIT SHIT, WRONG LINK

http://www.dpreview.com/products/compare/side-by-side?products=pentax_k3&products=pentax_k50&products=sony_a6000&products=canon_eos70d&products=nikon_d7200&sortDir=ascending

I'm in a need of a wide lens. 28mm or wider. I can choose between the EF-S, m42, or m39 mounts. I don't really care about the quality that much, I just want to go as cheap as possible. Also I would prefer it to be fixed focal lenght, because I'd like it to be pretty compact.
Thanks

>>2720292
I have a K-3, have shot an event in torrential rain and walked away with results AND a working camera with clean lens. I can only recommend it.
K-50 has less rugged but still strong polycarbonate body with the same level of weather sealing.
Can't really say anything about the others since I hadn't used them. Also no comment on video since I don't use that.

File: d3300_01_01.png (411KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

411KB, 800x600px

so, i'm new to photography and looking to get a good camera. so far i'm looking at the nikon D3300. is this a good choice?

>>2720303
forgot to mention, the specific one i'm looking at has the 18-55mm VR II lens kit. is that decent?

>>2720303
>>2720304
Yes. Buy it, have fun.

>>2720303
That's the one I bought last week, nice camera for us newbies

>>2720303
>mfw decided to get back into photography from back when i was a kid and used my dads old film slrs
>was about to pull the trigger on a d3300 until i started researching more
>had wanted to limit my spending but somehow went from a d3300 to a pentax k-s2 to a k-3
>now cant make up my mind optimizing performance, camera lifetime and relevance, and price point
being impulsive and indecisive sucks

>>2720320
Dude, I am exactly where you are, i've been the previous few posts in this thread

>>2720303
Rebels: Canon lens selection and more common, shitty sensor
D3300: Menu diving and basic features
D5500: Menu diving, but 39 pt AF and faster FPS, and some extra gadgetry. Pretty good camera if you don't mind the menu diving.
D7200: Now we're talking
K50: /p/'s favourite bang for buck camera
K3: D7200 with more weather sealing.

>>2720320
If you want to spend less, get the K-S2, if you want rugged build and camera lifetime then get the K-3
D3300 is too much of an entry level body compared to the K-S2 it's not even funny considering it's price.

Canon 40D or Sony NEX 5n?

>>2720330
If you ever plan on using telephoto then 40D. If not the the Sony.

>>2720327
so would the d3300 be alright for its price range then? i have a somewhat limited selection where i'm at

Canon 7d mII

24-105 L
28mm Zeiss f/2
50mm Zeiss f/1.4
85mm Zeiss f/1.2 50th Anniversary(sharp as fuck)

200mm f/1.8 Canon USM

1000mm f/5.6 Mirotar

>>2720334
Forgot Magic Lantern for Video featires

>>2720331
I don't know what telefoto is.

>>2720291
Easy, the A6000 is pretty comfortably the first option, as far as I'm concerned.

If that isn't good for some reason, I'll take the K-50 second and the (more expensive) D7200 third.


Arguably, I personally want to shoot mainly primes - if you prefer zoom lenses, you might want to revert that order for those.

File: paterson-system-4-1.jpg (90KB, 670x900px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 670x900px

How the fuck did Paterson become the industry standard of film tanks? They leak, the lid always cross threads and the reels are like 1/8" bigger than any actual film size so the film always comes out of the tracks when you try to put it on. I used to have a cheap off brand tank and it worked so much better.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D700
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.3 (Windows)
Photographer	Michael Sweet
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	808
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	55 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2014:01:19 09:48:32
Exposure Time	1/250 sec
F-Number	f/11.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	640
Lens Aperture	f/11.0
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Fine Weather
Flash	Flash, Compulsory, Return Detected
Focal Length	55.00 mm
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	Low Gain Up
Contrast	Soft
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Soft
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>2720332
The price segment in question is the "Can't really get much cheaper for a new IL camera" $300-ish one. But yes, it's okay for that.

>>2720336
Long and heavy lens for longer reach. Basically more magnification for shooting birds for example.

>>2720344
Not looking to shoot birds, but I might go for the canon anyway, it's much cheaper.

But is 10.1 MP with a 22.2 x 14.8mm sensor as good as 16.1 MP with a 23.7mm x 15.6mm sensor?

>>2720345
> But is 10.1 MP with a 22.2 x 14.8mm sensor as good as 16.1 MP with a 23.7mm x 15.6mm sensor?
Explains nothing. What will matter more is just how the sensor is made.

Go to snapsort or DxO or whatever, and check what they say about DR and ISO noise performance and stuff like that.

>>2720345
My friend is using a 40D and makes great photos. Get a fast 35mm lens for it.

>>2720350
>>2720351
Will do, cheers.

>>2720283

There is not too much sense in it because only specific medium format camera objectives (if any) have bigger entrance pupil than F1.4 lenses for 35mm format.

Thanks for sharing though.

>>2720351
40D is an oldie but a goodie. I'd spring for a 7D if I could, personally.

>>2720350
>"Low noise and a complete lack of unnatural artifacts."
>Poor maximum light sensitivity
>1,600 ISO
>No focus motor
>No image stabilization

Is that all really bad?

>>2720365
Well, the "no focus motor" is bad only with older lenses that don't have a motor of their own. Ditto for Image Stabilization, it can be in the lens.

So no, not all of this is particularly bad.

But maybe this comparison is more helpful:
http://snapsort.com/compare/Canon_EOS_40D-vs-Sony-NEX-5N/detailed

Then again, there are people who were / are happy with a 40D, so, eh... get the one you prefer.

>>2720365
>Poor maximum light sensitivity

Does not matter unless you want SOOC JPEGs. Underexpose and correct in post.

>No focus motor
>No image stabilization

No Canon has builtin image stabilisation and ficus motor.

>>2720369
I'll get the 40D and the lens this guy: >>2720351 recommended then.
Thanks again for all he help.

>>2720370
>No Canon has builtin image stabilisation and ficus motor.
They almost tricked me.

>>2720365
Neither system feature lenses that need focus motors (the Sony is not A-mount, the Canons are all electronic drive), and neither system features IBIS.

Yeah, the 40D is a bit old. ISO 1600 is noisy as shit, I've only had good shots up to 800. Don't worry about that, worry about getting good light.

Decide between compact body, modern sensor, and sparse lens selection, versus well regarded camera, large body, ancient sensor, and a massive lens selection.

>>2720371
> I'll get the 40D and the lens this guy: >>2720351 recommended then.
Sure, as you prefer. It should be fine.

> Thanks again for all he help.
No problem. Hope you'll like your Canon! (I'm actually on a Sony myself, just on a newer one...)

>>2719989
Pentax has some in the Optio line, P&S though.

My GX7 broke late August, it had shutter shock from only about a few thousand images taken and less than 10 months of owning it. I sent it back to digitalrev since I still had a years warranty and the manufacturer's warranty didn't apply to the united states since digitalrev is Hong Kong based. I waited 3 months for it to be fixed and she I got it back yesterday I received it back with the same fucking issue. I spent 70 on shipping just so they could send it to me back months later with the same issue. When I press the shutter it stutters and over exposes the image, it then shuts itself off.

I need some insight, what are the downsides of using electronic shutter? Should I fight digitalrev to send me a replacement? I'm honestly thinking of getting a GX8.

>>2720388
>Should I fight digitalrev to send me a replacement
This

Tell them Alamby is a whore, and GX7 a shit

>>2720388
> what are the downsides of using electronic shutter
Electronic shutter either virtually (in software) or actually electronically cuts off the sensor for a moment.

Whether this has any drawbacks - and which - depends on the exact implementation in the camera, and whether you just have an electronic front curtain shutter or both.

>>2720360
True, though some people have found that fast aperture lenses can cover MF, Contax's 85mm f/1.2 planar can cover it

>yfw nobody will ever innovate in MF
>Nobody will make fast wide angles or tele-macro lenses for MF
>tfw MF has the least variety in terms of lens design

>>2720423
>fast wide angle
>medium format
Nigga, shit's heavy enough, I don't want the world's first wide angle that has it's own tripod mount.

File: big_3_planar1285_selection002d_1.jpg (159KB, 514x809px) Image search: [Google]

159KB, 514x809px

>>2720423
>be me
> look up that Contax 85mm lens on google.
>see image related.
>kek gently because of how awkward it is.
>KEK hard when i look at related images and find a closeup crop of the same image.

File: big_3_p1285crop2_1.jpg (249KB, 610x689px) Image search: [Google]

249KB, 610x689px

>>2720438
from the photog

>>2720426
heavy would depend on the metals being used and how many elements are in the optical formula. a 40mm f/1.9 would work, as would a 55mm f/2, equivalents would be 24mm and 35mm respectively.

Also, Mamiya's 200mm and 300mm f/2.8 lenses aren't that much larger than FF 300 and 200 2.8s, their 500mm 5.6 isn't that big, either.

>>2719816
It only comes in Nikon/Canon versions. I assume that either will work, with the standard hot shoe and all

>>2720509
Yes, either should work, regardless of which device mentioned.

You'll only be using standard ISO hotshoe functionality to trigger the 560 IV or TX.

The 560 IV or TX will communicate the rest wirelessly, and you'll do your settings manually (obviously).

Thinking about switching from nikon to canon for god-tier glass. Have nikon 24/35/50/85 setup with two bodies.

The main struggle right now is finding a 5d3 for under 2500CA.

Should I just wait for the 5d4 to come out so prices drop?

INB4 Dynamic Range

>>2720515
> god-tier glass
Why switch to Canon then?

http://www.dxomark.com/lenses#hideAdvancedOptions=false&viewMode=list&yDataType=global

Poke around this and it's mostly Zeiss / Sony / Nikkor / Sigma at the top ...

>>2720537
This would be my most used lens by far:

http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-35mm-f-1.4L-II-USM-review-New-benchmark-for-open-aperture-performance

>>2720551
Just use a Sigma Art 35mm f/1.4?

File: Tamron600.jpg (130KB, 691x348px) Image search: [Google]

130KB, 691x348px

Hello guys.
Newfag here, i'm looking for the 150-600 Tarmon.
Someone have it? or recommended it? I need a good zoom under 1500$/€ Thanks! Have a nice day!

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC (Windows)
Photographer	Arthur Michaux
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2013:11:06 21:19:58
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	691
Image Height	348

>>2720567
The Sigma 150-600 C or S are your best choice, mate. Or the older 150-500 which is well under $1000 and still has good IQ.

what are some good photography books??

>>2719573
Funny, I was just watching this episode of drtv a couple of minutes before I opened this thread.

https://youtu.be/hZycK6o1VoI?t=6m40s

File: portland-maine.jpg (50KB, 452x259px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 452x259px

I havent started or bought by gear yet. All ive been doing is reading blogs, books....etc. I was wondering if my 2009 macbook pro would be sufficient or if I should upgrade my laptop first

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS5.1 Macintosh
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	5614
Image Height	3742
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2012:06:07 12:17:03
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	452
Image Height	259

>>2720677
Use what you have at first and see if it's fine for you. If not:
Buy a pc desktop and use it for editing. Far more hp/$ and avoid *nix systems because you're out to learn photography, not computer science. If you already know *nix and don't want to use adobe products, go with that, but otherwise, windows desktop.

>>2720537
DxOFag detected

Canon has god-tier lenses and the best catalog

>>2719953
>>2719953

Get the 5n.

Lenses set your optical parameters. Do your research.

>>2720647
Bryan Peterson

>>2720677
you'll be fine

>>2720677
You only need to expand your RAM to the max available but other than that you're fine

File: K3.jpg (146KB, 612x450px) Image search: [Google]

146KB, 612x450px

>tfw wake up to see a text from your dad that he just picked up two K-3s for Christmas
pretty sweet deal too

>>2720745
Except when you measure the lenses, right? :^)

>>2720797
Decent deal, but why two? He also wants one?

>>2720800
yeah hes getting one two. seemed like the best performance to price option. also considered a ks2

also this lense will fit correct? just want to be sure

http://www.ebay.com/itm/301800952119

>>2720797
I didn't realize they were so cheap. The pair is like the same price as a 7d, and then a nifty fifty on top of that.
>>2720809
yes, but that looks pretty shit
>vivitar
>zoom