Gear Thread

Howdy,
What's the best camera for hiking in the desert? I'm looking for something that has a decent battery life while still being extremely small. I can't decide on a Ricoh Gr or bringing a film SLR. What do you recommend?

>>2769088
Pentax DSLR with DA*16-50 AW lens or anything equivalent in weather sealing from Canon or Nikon.
I heard the GRII has improved dust seals, so that can also be a good option.

>>2769100
Which pentax do you recommend? I own a kx and since I'm going on a hiking trip, I think that that would interfere too much with weight restrictions.

File: 29b3f16754db516be6a911be48c26c57[1].jpg (593KB, 1500x1001px) Image search: [Google]

593KB, 1500x1001px

What is a good speedlight flash to put on a Nikon? Would like to spend $150 or less.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	1500
Image Height	1001

Can't decide if I want Sigma 105mm 2.8 Macro or the Tokina 100mm 2.8 Macro. Both are being recommended a lot. The Tokina is going for 500 CAD and Sigma at 800 CAD. I read that Sigma is a lot sharper and better AF than the Tokina. Has anyone palyed around with these two lens that could tell me which one to get? If it helps I am shooting Canon 70d and will mostly use it for random macros of bugs and stuff. Thanks

>>2769107
SB 800 is goat

>>2769106
Anything up from a K-50, if you prefer the rugged metal body then K-5(II/s) or K-3.
Dust is the main enemy here, a K-50 with the polycarbonate body should be light and sturdy enough.

>>2769111
How bad is the dust seals on the gr?

>>2769085
I'm looking to upgrade body/system this year. I shoot for a living so I really don't have time/interest in the newest shit to hit the market every 6 months, honestly I haven't paid much if any attention to new tech in 7 years as my gear has been serving me just fine and i've had no reason to question it. My 5Dmkii (I got given one of the first 100 to enter my country back in 2009) is starting to show it's age and I passed the 100k shutter count over a year ago. I have a few L primes and that's it for Canon specific gear, so do I
>a) just get a 5dmkiii/1dwhatever body and call it a day
>b) sell all my eos lenses (bar the 35L, never giving that away) and go sony/mirrorless
>c) alternative options?

I shoot almost entirely tripod work (architecture/design editorial is my bread and butter work) and would love to be able to adapt some of my 120 system lenses onto those tilt/shift adapters i've heard about. I do occasionally shoot fast paced shit like energetic location fashion shoots and weddings if it's a slow month for editorial work so a total lack of/useless AF might piss me off a few times a year. Also I have an unholy bank of old MF lenses that would be good to be able to use with focus peaking and shit. I also do some DP work and cinematography when the Americans are in town and would be good to have decent video ability (studios provide RED 90% of the time but it's good to keep indie/low budget options open).

So - recommend me some shit! I've been trying to figure it out this week but my god the market has changed in the last 10 years and i'm struggling to piece it all together. Give me some solid advice and I will pay it back with industry advice if anyone wants to know anything.

>>2769114
The first APS-C GR has dust problems, but not all of them. The GRII has improved in that department.

should I buy the olympus 17mm f1.8 or the panasonic 14 and 20mm lenses? is it worth having tiny lenses if I have to swap between normal and wide, or should I take the size and sharpness hit for AF performance, build quality, and the manual focus ring?

price is about the same between the olympus and the two panasonics.

>>2769118
Canon sensors are still 2 stops short in dynamic range. Everyone here seems to suck Sony dick, but to be fair their a7 series has gotten pretty damn good. Lenses are the big weakness there...you'll have to adapt to get a good selection, but af can be wonky with adapted and in general their af doesn't perform as well as canikon's. Not unusable, just noticeably slower. Nikon is still Nikon, but the d810 sees them finally taking dslr video seriously.

All of that said, I'd seriously consider keeping your mkii and getting a Pentax 645z. Stepping up to medium format digital would be great for studio and it's still useable in the field (af is super slow though), but you'd still have the Canon body for when it couldn't cut it for you.

File: Coincidence_rangefinder_(Warships_To-day,_1936).jpg (14KB, 350x339px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 350x339px

I have stupid question. Do modern rangefinder cameras actually have some way of measuring distance?

>>2769157

Sure, all lenses do. Most aren't very accurate after 50 feet or so, though.

File: rf.jpg (89KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 800x600px

>>2769157
What do you mean modern? Rangefinder mechanisms haven't really changed in decades. And yes, that's the same mechanism as a coincidence rangefinder used for weapons targeting. You could focus the camera using the rangefinder and then use the focusing scale on the lens to estimate the distance, but I'm not sure how well that would work since it was primarily designed for focusing a photo and not for accurately reading out distances.

The viewfinder and rangefinder windows are the ones actually used for focusing, the middle window is only for projecting the framelines onto the viewfinder. You'll notice that the most recent digital Leicas don't have the middle window and instead use an LED inside the camera as the light source for the framelines. The actual rangefinding part of the mechanism remains basically the same as an M3 from 1954, though.

>>2769157
Which cameras do you mean? If you mean modern rangefinder-look-a-likes, no. They have contrast detection auto-focus.

>>2769088
fujifilm x70

File: 20mmf28usm.png (50KB, 350x270px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 350x270px

Hey guys, is the Canon 20mm 2.8 any good? There aren't many reviews on it.

I will be using it for travel.

>>2769176
are you sure you want such a wide angle?
or are you on apsc?
then i would say get the 24mm 2.8 instead.

>>2769176
The EF-S 24/2.8 is much cheaper and sharper. I'd get that instead.

>>2769180
I will be using it on full frame. I have the Sigma 35 Art, but I am aching for something wider and affordable... I don't think 24mm will be as wide as I would like and I can get the 20 2.8 used for about $300 USD.

>>2769185
Oh, the 24mm is APS-C only.
Have you thought about using manual focus? Something from Samyang/Rokinon maybe? those are super sharp and at such a wide angle it should be easy to focus.

im after a decent landscape camera, i cant get enough of the canon 5d iii, but its pricey, let alone the lens.

whats something decent for landscapes as well as the right lens?

max spend 2500aud

>>2769190
Any DSLR or MILC from entry to pro levels. If you are concerned about weather sealing then get a Pentax and an HD 16-85. If not, Nikon D3300, D5500 or D7100/D7200 with the equivalent of the above mentioned lens.
Canon, well 760D and 70D are nice ones to go with.
Sony has no decent lens so only get into that if you know what you are doing.
Basically any interchangeable camera is good with a decent standard or wide lens.
Shoot RAW, correct in Lightroom, export to Photoshop to stitch into panoramas. Use a circular polarizer filter to improve cloud contrast/ deeper sky blues, ND filters to blur movement.

>>2769189
Couldn't find any used Samyang/Rokinon wide angles cheaper than the Canon I found...

I'm happy to take suggestions on a cheap compact camera that is <$300 USD, it is for travel.

>>2769196
Your phone maybe?
Double that and you can get a GRII.

>>2769197
Will have a look at the GR and RX100MK1. I would want a larger sensor compact if I went that way, otherwise I would just use my phone

>>2769197
I can get an RX100 MK1 for $230 USD.
Get that or the Canon 20mm 2.8 for $300?

id DSLR AF systems can provide AF confirmation with manual focus lenses, couldnt they also provide a form of focus peaking? the AF points like on the Nikon 51 pt system can light up over the areas that are currently in focus, shifting as you focus back and forth. that'd be one hell of a feature, and probably worth having the AF system draw power constantly. it'd be even more of a thing with the D5/500's separate AF processor, taking up less power.

>>2769210
Get the Canon. Don't compromise on IQ.

>>2769125
This.

Pentax's medium format is really good, especially for a tripod user.

>>2769217
All DSLRs have focus peaking in liveview.

File: 51uQWLONJ0L._SL1000_.jpg (48KB, 874x1000px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 874x1000px

are these softbox lights good?
if not can you show me better ones?
i'm using them for videos where i sit in a cair and talk.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00KRN06Z4/ref=cm_cd_asin_lnk

>>2769085
Should I get the silver or the black a6000?

>>2769239
Why does the colour matter so much for you? You're going to shoot with it, not pose with it. Are you? Please tell me you don't buy it as a fashion accessory.

>>2769222
What the fuck are you talking about. Pretty much half of them do not offer focus peaking at all.

>>2769195
is the 5d iii much better than these?
or are they the closest to what youll get in the cheaper variation?

if it were you, 2k - 2.5kaud spending money what would you purchase for shooting landscape and mountain ranges?

>>2769244
It doesn't matter very much to me at all, but it is a choice.

I've been doing my research for quite a while on which camera I'd like to buy and now I've just about settled on this one. But before I can buy it, I need to make this choice.

Why do you care so much about why I'm buying a camera?

>>2769246
You can do landscape with your phone. It's one of those uses that don't need a top shelf camera at all.

I'm looking for a budget camera, perferably a fixed lens point and shoot but a cheap body/prime combo would do fine.

I'm probably asking too much for a used camera under $100 that fits the bill, but is there anything anyone could recommend?

>>2769246
Since I have a Pentax K-3 that I bought for landscape and wildlife, I'd pretty much recommend a K-3 for that.
I bet a Nikon user would recommend something Nikon, Canon user would recommend a Canon etc...

>>2769239
Just get the black one, most lenses are black too.

>>2769190
A7 II or A6000/A6300. Or Nikon's D750.

I bought a lens at a thrift shop today for $10. It has a 2x Vivitar teleconverter on it, but it won't come off. Any tips?

>>2769264
Try pushing the release lever.

>>2769266

Which would that be? Pretty sure I've tried everything on it

>>2769270
There should be a release lever on the side of the TC. Push it down and twist the lens off.

>>2769279

Yeah, I guess it's missing something cause I can't see anything. Not on the ring, not on the side, just nothing. Feels firmly stuck, too.

File: Screenshot_2016-02-15-08-50-03.png (400KB, 1080x1920px) Image search: [Google]

400KB, 1080x1920px

Hey guys, total newb here.
I need a 50mm lens for my Nikon D300.
What's the difference between these two?
Why the price difference?

>>2769398
http://improvephotography.com/34639/nikon-50mm-1-8d-vs-1-8g/

>>2769250
You're kinda dumb. Seriously.

>>2769222
Its not about focus peaking in live view. also the shutter lag in live view makes it unusable.

also, most dslrs dont have focus peaking, just pentax.

>>2769222
That is not true at all.

>>2769518
>shutter lag in live view
>also, most dslrs dont have focus peaking, just pentax.
Nikon has it.
Canon has it.
You are literally retarded, fuck off, photography is not for you. Nor anything in complexity above a one-piece hammer.

>>2769529
>Canon has it.
No it doesn't. At least none of the ones I've used.

>>2769530
>>2769529
You two don't realize that you're talking about different things, do you?

>>2769535
I'm talking about focus peaking, which Canon doesn't have.

>>2769540
>HELP I'M TOO STUPID TO INSTALL MAGICLANTERN WAAAAH!
Translated by Bing.

File: olympus-om-zuiko-28mm-f28.jpg (82KB, 500x443px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 500x443px

>>2769546
The only reason i even use focus peaking is that i can use it in the digital viewfinder of my Sony and use it with legacy glass. Yeah canon has third party software, which is nice. Its just not made for it in my opinion.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	OLYMPUS OPTICAL CO.,LTD
Camera Model	C5050Z
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS2 Windows
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.6
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2007:09:12 14:00:26
Exposure Time	1/100 sec
F-Number	f/5.6
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	100
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	21.30 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	500
Image Height	443
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	Low Gain Up
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

>>2769697
>Its just not made for it in my opinion.
what do you mean by this?
Quite fankly you can nail focus on canon cams _without_ focus peaking. There is an option called "LV digic peaking", I'm shooting concerts with the setting "slightly sharper" which makes the image ... sharper and have an over 95% success rate.

File: 1421708498196.gif (177KB, 400x200px) Image search: [Google]

177KB, 400x200px

Does anyone know if the SonyA7II have the shutter issue of the former A7 models resolved?

I believe it was some kind of vibration problem with the older models.

>>2769796
Ive heard of it, and ive got the first model A7. I do astrophotography a bunch and ive never ran into vibrations messing up my long exposures.

My friend has the A7ii and the only thing i noticed was that it was a tiny bit quieter.

>>2769809
Sweet, what's his opinion on the A7II?

Been thinking about this camera.

>>2769832
Well he definitely loves it, but its kinda different since its a little more bulkier. He did say he likes the button placement on the A7 better, but that's normally just preference.

The A7 is a better bang for your buck, but the A7ii has some cool features and does feel better in the hand i would say.

>>2769832
>>2769839
you can pdaf with canun lens on a7ii now.

>>2769529
>Nikon
>focus peaking
nigga wat
>Canon
Yes, there's Magic Lantern.

Focus peaking != image magnification in live view

anyone have experience with off brand batteries? i used one in my K-3 the other day and only got like 200-300 shots off a full charge. My pentax battery has given me over 1000 shots, over 3 days on one charge before dying. Obviously the performance isnt going to be up to par but its a lot worse than i had anticipated. not using flash or anything

>>2769863
I use Wasabi power batteries and have never noticed a difference. Used them on 2 Canons and a Fuji. There are lots of shitty batteries out there though, so if you got a crappy brand, it's highly possible the capacity isn't as good.

>>2769863
I'm using off-brand Sony batteries. Slightly worse, but the difference is pretty irrelevant. It's still plenty of shots.

File: t_ts-e17.jpg (140KB, 600x439px) Image search: [Google]

140KB, 600x439px

>>2769796
>>2769809
It was the A7r that was having the shutter issue. The OG A7 does have a first electronic shutter curtain while the A7r does not - for whatever reason.

The A7II, A7rII and A7sII do offer a FESC so you're good to go. No issues anymore.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 5D Mark III
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Macintosh)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	4713
Image Height	3546
Number of Bits Per Component	16, 16, 16
Compression Scheme	Uncompressed
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format
Image Created	2014:01:27 17:35:17
Exposure Time	1/2 sec
F-Number	f/18.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/18.0
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	70.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	600
Image Height	439
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

Canon 6D User here.

Want to buy a flycam/stabilizer/steady.
Thinking about the flycam 3000 because + grip + lens the flycam nano wouldn't be enough.
Any recommendation?

>>2769250
This is what I was thinking. Why would anyone spend $ on a camera unless they are shooting fashion or commercial, like food shots (even those can use phone though too, look at all the instagram meal photos and how great quality they are).
Phones take so much better pictures on landscapes though.

Also, why don't weddings just shoot video and still frame the ones to print?

File: panasonic_lumix_dmc-lx100_digital_camera_-_silver_4.jpg (31KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 400x400px

Can anyone recommend a compact SLR for Low light use for an enthusiast?

I was looking at the Lumix Lx100 because it has a big sensor for a compact, its small for holiday use and has lots of physical controls for quick access.

My main reason to buy a camera is to take night time city shots without having to lug a heavy camera.

Thanks!

>>2769960
>LX100
>SLR
It's a mirrorless.

Also,
>DSLR
>compact
Nope.

Get a Sony a6000 if you want a compact camera with a large sensor, good low-light capabilities and the option to change lenses.
Not even shilling right now.

File: 1455058230086.jpg (31KB, 451x392px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 451x392px

>fall for mirrorless honeypot
>can't get good lenses

>MUH ADAPTORS XD
>have shit AF performance and ruin many of the purposes of good glass

Well, it's not like mirrorlessfags actually take any pictures that aren't test shots.

>>2769972
*snaps a test shot of this post* That edge to edge crispness, that dynamic range, that portability.

>>2769976
*can't effectively shoot anything moving*
*claims superiority*

File: 61v6u0UMUwL._SL1000_.jpg (98KB, 1000x747px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 1000x747px

How useful/necessary are these?

X-Rite ColorChecker Passport

>>2769980
>shoot in raw
>don't have this problem

>>2769984
>shoot raw
>have no neutral spot for adjusting wb
well fug.

>>2769980
A simple grey card works as well.

>>2769980
They are very important if you are working in a 10 person shoot with product or fashion, and you're being paid $10,000 for a lookbook or something. For day to day snapshittery or portraits in your garage, not necessary at all.

>>2769987
is correct. use a gray card, if you need anything at all.

>>2769980
They are useful in two scenarios:

- Product photography, when you need to deliver very accurate colors.
- Shoots with multiple bodies, especially from different brands, when you want consistency.

Normally you don't need much color accuracy, being creative usually looks better.

>>2769980

you really only need these for big video projects, otherwise >>2769987

>>2769999
I dunno, i'm doing some product photography of art pieces which will go up online. Would this be useful at all. It's not a major business.
I figured if i get the same lighting for each shot i can sync all my shots to a degree where it looks okay, not sure if it's better to go the extra mile and use the X-Rite Passport.

>>2770005
The whole point is to get your colors perfectly right, from camera, to editing, to reproduction.

If you're archiving famous art, it could be very good. If you're putting up your home-made pipes on Etsy, you don't need it.

I'd get a gray card and work from there. It'll get you 90% of the way there, for a LOT less hassle and money.

>all this sony camera shilling started exactly when the PS4 started being shilled hard on /v/

it's literally just sony shilling two birds for one shekel

Anyone else getting an X-Pro2 in a few days?

>>2769895
>it's still plenty of shots
this is what mirrorless users say to themselves as their batteries tumble from their pockets like spaghetti, while the model waits impatiently, the moment passes, or the scene has moved on.

>>2769895
>It's still plenty of shots.
i shoot wildlife a lot, so i take sometimes 10-20 shots per keeper. its a big difference

>>2770057
Doesn't matter. With Sony: one shot, perfect every time. Feels good to be SONY master race.

>>2770057
It is plenty of shots if you're patient

If I had an a7 of some sort I'd just approach my shots like if I was still using a film camera

>>2770054
Nobody is getting one in a few days, they pushed back the release date. There are a few of us that are getting them in March however.

Hey /p/,

When I'm out taking pics at night, sometimes I feel like a good flashlight would really help. Do you guys have any recommendations for a cheap one off ebay that you've used before?

Thanks!

>>2770081
Go to walmart, find the bushnell flashlights, buy the trkr 140L (I think that's its model number...it's got mid 100s in it).

Great little light that'll cost you around $20.

>>2770068
Really? I mean, you still get 10x as many shots at the very least before even switching to your second "roll of film", well, battery. And they're still basically free.

>>2769975
There are lots of good lenses for E-Mount.
They're just super expensive.

>>2770110
Well, the Sigma APS-C, Rokinon/Samyang, and a bunch of Sony lenses aren't very expensive, for starters.

Never mind the high-end glass doesn't really cost more overall than corresponding Canikon glass.

>>2770110
What good are they if you can't afford any of them?

>>2769960
A7S. It's not that heavy. And it works well for night time city shots without a tripod.

If it must be compact, I guess RX1R II is your best bet, though that one starts to get a bit expensive.

>>2770110
>400mm lens w/o lens IS
>good

Tfw mirror fags tryin' hard to find a flaw. Newsflash, mirrors have optical flaws, mirrorless removes those flaws. The flaws you point out on the Sony A6000/A6300 are flaws that run rampant on all mirror DSLRs. You have to be really ignorant to see the minor flaws of mirrorless cameras as a detriment to it's usability/capabilities. In my eyes Sony is leaving DSLRs in the dust so strap those heavy hunks of metal to your ankles and jump of a bridge, DSLRs are holding us back to that very extreme. Mirrorless is setting us free and yet you guys still hold on to this poison for dear life. Shame on you Pentax, canon, and Nikon.

>>2770118
>shit lenses
>shit adapters that ruin good lenses
>can't shoot sports
>can't shoot wildlife
>but muh marginally better specs

>>2770113
It's not exactly impossible to not be too poor for a handful of that glass, though?

And it's also not like you can't get quite about a dozen pieces of cheaper native glass if you somehow are.

Or yes, all the adapted glass, including hundreds of extremely cheap vintage lenses.

>>2770121
>crippling lenses with bad adapters

>>2770119
>shit lenses
>shit adapters that ruin good lenses
>can't shoot sports
>can't shoot wildlife
All wrong. I bet you're the same faggot that has been shown wrong a dozen times over now.
>but muh marginally better specs
Well, some DSLR can still do okay in comparison, they just mostly cost a lot more.

>>2770123
>i know better than the pros and vast majority who recognize the inability of mirrorless to shoot action shots

>i know better than pros

the dunning kruger effect is common among sonyfags

>>2770122
Eh, there isn't even glass in the adapters to cripple shit. It just works perfectly for MF.

Also next to perfect with an A7 II or A7R II that adapts Canon EF glass through a smart adapter - it's easily working better than using it on most Canon cameras with most glass.

Partly because most Canon cameras have worse AF systems.

>>2770125
"Pros" that can't shoot moving scenes with a Sony mirrorless cameras despite excellent AF are no pros at all when this guy can get a NFL game done well on his first attempt:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jIakt30iBGY

Not that he's the only guy, obviously the action and bird and other shots are piling up on the Sony camera side. A body of evidence to prove any and all ridiculous statements from your allegedly existing but so far unnamed pros wrong.

>>2769960
The LX100 is a great compact camera.

It handles really well. What it lacks in megapixels it makes up for in really being a photographer's camera. The glass is really nice, the manual controls are great, it offers a good zoom range.

All of Panasonic's LX compacts have been really nice to use. I think the LX100 hits a sweet spot for fixed lens camera's between sensor size, ergonomics, and handling that Fuji and Sony have yet to get. Get an external flash and this thing is great for taking pictures of people at events as well. I still use my LX3 sometimes and would definitely get the LX100 if I were in the market for this kind of camera.

>>2770115
>If it must be compact, I guess RX1R II is your best bet
>Sony fans

Hey if these are the kinds of comparisons we're doing, I'm just going to suggest a Phase One XF and if the weight is an issue, a servant to carry it for him.

For 95% of users the LX100 is going to offer almost everything the RX does at a fourth of the price, plus it's not fixed focal length. You get more megapixels and better high ISO, but these factors are really nothing you NEED to make good images.

File: 1455312145162.png (15KB, 480x480px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 480x480px

>>2770132
>website LITERALLY says "sony artisan"
>look at my one paid shill guise

this is the best mirrorless memers can manage

File: nys.jpg (72KB, 651x768px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 651x768px

>all this spillover sony shilling from /v/

>>2770136
It's been really, really bad recently. I mean look at this post:

>>2770062
>With Sony: one shot, perfect every time. Feels good to be SONY master race.

We have to be getting trolled here.

>>2770134
> I do not accept evidence about action shots with a Sony camera from someone who actually shoots with a Sony camera and published it online.
Lel, yea, good job.

Also, probably you're going to claim he bribed these NFL teams to just kinda pretend action is going on while he takes a shot, huh...?

>>2770139
>Also, probably you're going to claim he bribed these NFL teams to just kinda pretend action is going on while he takes a shot, huh...?
>implying that the NFL wouldn't gladly accept a payment from Sony to allow a Sony camera on the sideline

Look friend, I don't give a shit about whether or not Sony's are capable of shooting action...not my bag, doesn't affect me either way, but it's a really, really bad idea to rest your argument on the integrity of the NFL.

>>2770133
>Hey if these are the kinds of comparisons we're doing, I'm just going to suggest a Phase One XF and if the weight is an issue, a servant to carry it for him.
Comparisons? What? Also, how is that a better compact camera?

> For 95% of users the LX100 is going to offer almost everything the RX does at a fourth of the price
Except the main thing that was asked, shooting as well at lower light levels?

> Get an external flash and this thing is great for taking pictures of people at events as well.
You can do that, but people pretty much hate getting blinded by flashes. Always better to avoid that as much as possible.

>>2770147
Micro fool thirds can't compete with a 1 inch sensor. Why does Panasonic even try these days.

>>2770143
>Look friend, I don't give a shit about whether or not Sony's are capable of shooting action...not my bag, doesn't affect me either way
Maybe you're a different person, but I was just presenting evidence against the shit in >>2770125 which literally states it is unable to do action shots.

> but it's a really, really bad idea to rest your argument on the integrity of the NFL.
Seriously? You think they just posed for this guy, in a full stadium, so he can take these shots to make Sony's AF look better than it is?

'cause that's the "integrity" of the NFL (or the teams in question) we're discussing here.

>>2770139
I could take action shots with a Coolpix, but it doesnt make it an action camera. Viewfinder black out, subject tracking, battery life, weather resistance, and for some, FPS, are all insufficient.

>>2770149
Isn't 1 inch sensors smaller than m43? That's what the name implies, 4/3 inch meaning 1/3 inch larger than a 1 inch sensor area.

>>2770149
Nah, I like Panasonic and want them to continue to try, but it's just not the best compact for the job described, and it was asked which would be.

>>2770133
I wonder who is more delusional M43 users or Canon users. One has a shit format, the other is stuck in the past.

>>2770132
Those photos are mediocre at best. I think it's the lens and the photog more than the body, though. Sony really needs a 400 2.8 if they want to be taken seriously for sports, that 5.6 clearly can't quite keep up with the action and the backgrounds look awful. Pro football shooters use 2.8s for a reason, you really need that shallow DoF to deal with how busy the backgrounds are.

I don't really see mirrorless making that much sense for sports, though. You lose most of your size advantage when you strap a 70-200 to that body, much less a 400mm or more. A lot of the size of a pro DSLR is down to space for a huge battery, which would be even more critical on a mirrorless cam since it has to run its sensor nonstop, ports for external connections, multiple slots for large cards,and ergonomic stuff like the integrated vert grip and tons of physical buttons and status displays. A true pro mirrorless camera would be pretty much exactly the size and shape of a pro DSLR, just with a thinner mount area.

One thing, though...

>>2770118
>mirrors have optical flaws

What is this relevant to? Don't tell me you think the mirror has anything whatsoever to do with the image the sensor captures...

Unless, of course, this is bait, in which case carry on.

>>2770156
Yeah but Sony packs a better sensor.

>>2770152
> are all insufficient
Can you see the photos in the video? It was obviously not insufficient.

That's more or less as good as it gets.

>>2770163
Those photos look like shit

>>2770151
I am a different person.
>think they had a team pose
Guy, you're being ridiculous. Pull back from the internet hyperbole for a second. Getting on the sidelines basically equals having good shots. If we were really attempting to determine it's viability, having a few dozen shots doesn't mean anything. I could do that with the ponderous AF of a pentax 645z. What we'd need to see are *all* of the shots taken to see the ratio of keepers.

Give it a couple of years once we have more of these bodies in the wild, and we'll see what happens. If they are just as capable and Sony steps up its professional support, we'll start seeing more and more people shooting them. Until then, if you're a professional, that's a huge risk for you to take.

>>2770160
> Those photos are mediocre at best.
They are mediocre at least. Do an image search for "NFL" and watch a bunch of pages - basically all pro shots with a DSLR... it's not better in any way, and they're not just from a single game by a first-timer.

> Sony really needs a 400 2.8 if they want to be taken seriously for sports
Doesn't seem all that pressing a need to me. Most pros who switch will presumably continue to use their Canon EF 400mm anyhow, 'cause it works fine.

> You lose most of your size advantage
Yes, but you keep the full frame PDAF coverage and all the other things. It's not essentially about a difference in size or weight, it's just a generational change away from soon basically pointless mirrors.

>>2770161
>better sensor makes a better camera
This is so wrong on so many levels, no wonder gearfags argue so much about nonsense.
Sony and mirrorless in general are not pro cameras simply because they are not designed to be pro cameras. The only exception is Fuji with the Xpro line, having a less sensitive APS-C sensor doesn't stop them in making an excellent professional camera. Sony has a thing or two to learn from them. Maybe even more.

>>2770170
> I could do that with the ponderous AF of a pentax 645z.
What, including the burst sequences? Also, actually, I'm not really inclined to accept this argument until this is shown to an equal degree. Some hundreds of shots including many bursts that needed refocusing, one NFL or comparable game, where?

> What we'd need to see are *all* of the shots taken to see the ratio of keepers.
Yea, and then you'd need *all* the shots from the DSLR shooters to compare the ratio of keepers.

Until we have that though, just the fact that there were hundreds of keepers will have to do?

That will get you paid as a pro just fine.

Look, if you had one shot, one opportunity
To seize everything you ever wanted one moment
Would you capture it or just let it slip?

His palms are sweaty, knees weak, arms are heavy
There's vomit on his sweater already, mom's spaghetti
He's nervous, but on the surface he looks calm and ready
To drop shots, but he keeps on forgettin
That he has a Nikon, the whole board goes so loud
He opens his aperture, but the photos won't come out
He's chokin, now everybody's jokin now
The clock's run out, time's up over, blast!
Snap back to reality, oh there goes the AF
Oh, there goes Nikon, it choked
He's so mad, but he won't give up that easy,

>>2770178
I dont think youre being honest with yourself. Af with a metabones is still too shit for an adapted 400mm for sports, one of the most critical for af subjects

>>2770187
No, He won't have it , he knows his whole photography's ropes
It don't matter, he's dope
He knows that, but he's broke
He's so stacked that he knows
When he goes back to his mobile home, that's when it's
Back to the photo lab again yo
This whole photography shit
He better go capture this moment and hope it don't pass him

You better lose yourself in the Sony, the moment
You own it, you better never let it go
You only get one shot, do not miss your chance to blow
This opportunity comes once in a lifetime
You better lose yourself in the Sony, the moment
You own it, you better never let it go
You only get one shot, do not miss your chance to blow
This opportunity comes once in a lifetime

>>2770178
The shots in that video are all noticeably soft at 1080p, which means they wouldn't pass muster for print at any kind of decent sizes. That's all camera and lens performance. Like I say, though, they were shot at the long end of a superzoom, I'm not sure you'd see much better out of a DSLR with a similar lens on it. (Although Canon's 100-400 is spectacular, and makes me jealous as a Nikon guy.)

Have you ever shot pro sports? I have to assume not, if you don't think a 400 2.8 is absolutely critical. There's a reason pretty much every photog you see on the sidelines of an NFL game is using one, despite the fact that they cost as much as a brand new hatchback.

>>2770189
> Af with a metabones is still too shit for an adapted 400mm for sports, one of the most critical for af subjects

Why?
> Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II USM Lens
> Metabones: Fast and accurate PDAF AF-C and AF-S with Wide, Center and Flexible Spot
> Fotodiox: Fast and accurate PDAF AF-C and AF-S with Wide, Center and Flexible Spot
> Viltrox: Fast and accurate PDAF AF-C and AF-S with Wide, Center and Flexible Spot
http://briansmith.com/sony-a7rii-canon-ef-smart-adapter-tests/

Show how it doesn't work, then.

File: 1444223717304.jpg (379KB, 1111x597px) Image search: [Google]

379KB, 1111x597px

>>2770193
>adapter
>fast

Basically sonyfags are suffering from the dunning kruger effect

They know a little bit (muh iso, muh DR!) but fail to recognize that they know nothing about lenses, which are by far the most important part of gear, and which sony is very bad at.

>>2770193
>not knowing about marketing schemes
Why on earth would you expect someone getting payed to write something other than "excellent product, wonder of the century"?
You are really clueless, senpai.

>>2770147
>You can do that, but people pretty much hate getting blinded by flashes. Always better to avoid that as much as possible.

You'll never be able to substitute the look of off camera flash with high ISO though.

>>2770158
What does this have to do with delusions? M43 is fine, it's not the best format for everything but unless you live in a world of spec sheets there are plenty of people making great images with them.

>>2770194
Yup. Fast.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qp8k0Tpo0y4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NEk8X_MUQPI

Only on the A7 II and A7R II, though.

>>2770201
>shit tier focal lengths
try a 400mm on for size my shilling coposter

you do remember that focal length exists, right? I know you can't do much with it on a sony body but it's still a thing.

>>2770200
>but unless you live in a world of spec sheets

uh we have a name, it's called /p/

>>2770200
Name one thing M43 is better than APS-C other than being over priced.

>>2770203
S/p/ec sheets

>>2770178
Oh, a couple of things I forgot to mention -

5FPS doesn't cut it for pro sports work. When I was shooting (motor)sports for a living, I'd run my D3 at 9FPS all day, and very often only one photo out of a burst would work, with the ones either side of it subpar. Consider that, at 5fps, that one good shot could easily fall between two bad ones.

The results we see in that video are probably the best shots he got out of that game. Remember that shooting sports isn't about taking nice pictures - it's about getting solid photos of every single important moment that happens on that field, because one of those moments is going to be the one your editor wants for the front of the sports section tomorrow.

You can get a few dozen solid photos from ANY camera if you shoot nonstop for a whole sports event, but what really matters is getting those critical moments, and I haven't been convinced that mirrorless is there yet.

On that note:

>>2770185
>Until we have that though, just the fact that there were hundreds of keepers will have to do?

>That will get you paid as a pro just fine.

It'll only get you paid if you got a great shot of that one pass or touchdown that everybody's talking about around the water cooler on Monday morning. If you didn't, all of those "keepers" are trash, and you're out of a job.

As usual, /p/ shows how out of touch it is with the way things actually work in the professional world. A pro shoot isn't like a day of walking around taking snapshits and getting a few keepers, it's not getting a good seat at the game and getting some portfolio material, and it's not doing a TFP shoot with somebody from MM and getting a few random OK ones. Pro photography is about delivering the photo the client or the editor needs, and it has to be a great shot, every single time.

>>2770205
Copactness... pfft, sorry I just couldn't keep a straight face

>>2770210
Sony does it better.

File: 1451258527073.jpg (75KB, 719x662px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 719x662px

>sonyggers need a silent camera to snag their creeper shots of women and children

>>2770200
> You'll never be able to substitute the look of off camera flash with high ISO though.
Never? I think we're getting there, actually:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1W-bPyYR0k

But that's just on the A7S series - the RX1R II is still usually more problematic.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FaLkOdTD4fY

That said, if you must, you'll use flash on that. You just already have to do that a whole lot less often.

>>2770215
>Never? I think we're getting there, actually:
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1W-bPyYR0k [Remove]


None of this looks like flash though.

>>2770185
>Also, actually, I'm not really inclined to accept this argument until this is shown to an equal degree. Some hundreds of shots including many bursts that needed refocusing, one NFL or comparable game, where?
Here's the cool part:
It doesn't matter what you accept.

Pros, real pros, know that using a Canikon 5D/1D/D4/D700/D800 *know* that they can get the shots they need to get paid. They know this because there is a VAST history of these bodies performing. They also know that Canon has amazing professional services and Nikon has pretty good professional services for when shit goes south on them. Sony has to build at least some of that reputation before it'll be seriously viable in the professional segment. It's not all about numbers on a sheet anon. There's a fuckton more considerations.

I'm not in that world, so again, I don't care. Hell, my main body almost never leaves my studio. That said, I know a lot of people who do work in that world, and I can tell you that muh sensor performance and muh 32434232 stops of dynamic range (two of them shoot medium quality JPG, btw) don't matter all that much to them. They also don't give a shit about autofocus working 99% as well with adapted lenses because that missing 1% can be the difference between a payday and sitting at home with their thumb up their ass wondering what piece of gear they can sell to make rent.

Sony has to prove itself before it's accepted. That's my main point. There's a shitton of freelancers out there and the number of contracted photographers is shrinking by the day. It's too easy for an editor to appeal to the 80 or so photographers at any event who are hungry to sell some shot to take risks.

>>2770215
Did not prove the point of the relevancy of flash wih regards to directionality of light or quality. Literally kill yourself

>>2770205
Formats don't live in a vacuum. You don't shoot images with a format, you shoot it with a camera that uses a certain format. There are plenty of reasons to prefer the package which an EM5-MII or LX100 offer over certain APS-c cameras.

Reducing cameras to just the format, especially in a world where M43 and APS-c are so close in size already, is really only relevant in the minds of the most extreme gear fags.

If you were a large format shooter complaining about how small full frame is it makes sense, but all this squabbling over M43 and APS-c is pretty pathetic.

>>2770225
NEGLIGIBLIBLE

So my local D5 / D500 launch event is tomorrow, is there anything anyone wants to know that hasn't already been covered by any of the thousands of over previews?

>>2770219
Oh, and notice that I've mentioned professional services twice?

That's because with Canon or Nikon, if you're at an event like an NFL game, they have vans there chock full of gear. If your body takes a shit on you, and you've got the credentials, you can get a loaner body, loaner lens, or almost whatever you need to shoot that event. If your shit breaks before a not major event, you can get loaners in a day or two. They take care of their shooters in far more ways than just "dur, you can under expose an image by 3242 stops and recover it".

>>2770228
How much lube it takes to be inserted rectally.

Any advice for a newcomer to photography?
ex what gear should I start with?
I plan on taking photos of buildings, people, anything that peaks my interest.

>>2770228
What the glaring manufacturing defect that Nikon will refuse to acknowledge or fix is going to be.

>>2770208
> I'd run my D3 at 9FPS all day, and very often only one photo out of a burst would work, with the ones either side of it subpar.
I wonder if someone who gets an 11FPS A6300 couldn't use this same argument to suggest your D3 might not have cut it, either?

But I get the idea that more FPS might be better - necessity isn't proven, though.

> Remember that shooting sports isn't about taking nice pictures - it's about getting solid photos of every single important moment that happens on that field, because one of those moments is going to be the one your editor wants for the front of the sports section tomorrow.
Which is why I heard some people even just take videos and grab frames there...

Alas, we perhaps just hit another point: It's not even a matter of "knowing better than the pros" for amateurs like most of /p/. They could use this camera for sports *because* they don't have editors and it actually takes fine-looking shots.

Maybe not with enough FPS to take the best frames of the important moments in all instances, but a good-looking shot extremely close to that anyhow, and then tons of other good shots.

> and I haven't been convinced that mirrorless is there yet
I haven't been convinced that it's *not* there yet, but I'll concede that better framerates will be easier to work with.

>>2770233
Your best bet would be an entry/mid level DSLR like the Nikon D3300,D5500, Canon 760D or Pentax K-50, K-S2.
Most of these come with kit lens that are quite capable, but for your chosen subjects I'd suggest getting a 35mm prime lens. 35/1.8G for Nikon, 35/2 for Canon and DA 35/2.4 for Pentax. You can search these lens on Flickr to see results, then you can choose the body to use it with.
If weather sealing and bright and accurate viewfinder is what you want then the Pentax is your choice, these are the main things it excels over the others in it's price range.

>>2770242
Thank you very much

>>2770219
> Pros, real pros, know that using a Canikon 5D/1D/D4/D700/D800 *know* that they can get the shots they need to get paid.
Great? But this is why you'd also need the shots from other cameras present. Not just the A7R II. So that you can do this comparison.

Doing it without the reference of the other cameras (down to the least ones present that people can manage to regularly get paid with), it'll just result in random faggots claiming it's simply not good enough no matter what.

>>2770246
I don't get you...are you being purposefully obtuse or do you legitimately not understand how this stuff works?

Like can you even fathom how/why there are many large corporations who run entirely on Windows XP, or why many companies will drop $10,000 on an Allen-Bradley automation system when they could literally and easily make their own for $100?

>>2770205
Smaller glass. It actually makes a lot of sense in a camera like the LX100, they can squeeze in a decently fast zoom with a decent range into a very small package.

>>2770228
See how it compares to a F4E at bashing somebody's head in

>>2770238
Where's the 11FPS thing coming from? I'm only seeing 8FPS on the A6300 if you're bursting with AF and live view, and I have to wonder how deep the buffer is and how long it takes to write a full buffer.

Videos with frame grabbing actually have a lot of potential, though I don't know if the tech is quite there yet either. One major flaw is that you can't use flash when shooting video. (And yes, certain pro sports are shot with flash, Basketball is a prominent example.) Video also has a ways to go when it comes to AF performance, although I've been pretty blown away by how well my Canon XA20 tracks stuff.

But yeah, things are totally different for amateurs. They're not likely to be using 1DXs and D5s, nor are they likely to have supertele primes, so the comparison is much closer. However, the argument I was replying to was largely focused on mirrorless as a replacement for DSLR in the hands of pros shooting pro sports.

I'd honestly be really interested to try the Sony rig myself and see what I thought of it. I might have to see if somebody in my network has one that I can borrow for an amateur event.

>>2770256
Not the same anon, but it's 8fps for the standard hi-c mode, and then 11fps with evf/screen blackout (so not that great for sports). Buffer-wise all I can find is 44 for best quality jpeg, so it's so-so.

File: Capture.jpg (145KB, 1491x674px) Image search: [Google]

145KB, 1491x674px

Is this a decent flash for the price?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Photographer	chris
Image-Specific Properties:

>>2770267
>Buffer-wise all I can find is 44 for best quality jpeg, so it's so-so.

Ouch, that's a killer right there. It MIGHT be passable for some ball sports, but that's less than a 6 second burst, and for the motorsports I shoot that's nowhere near enough. (It's common to almost continuously fire for 30+ seconds, especially at the start of the race when everybody's bunched up and you're capturing all of the cars coming into the first corner.)

They really need to work on that if they want to be taken seriously. Pro bodies officially have a buffer of around 200 frames or something, but my D3S could basically shoot indefinitely with a good card because of how fast it copied images to the card.

>>2770268
Yup, Yongnuos are excellent for their price. For some people they outlived the first party brand ones being more reliable.

>>2770256
> Where's the 11FPS thing coming from?
The camera specs.

> 8fps [...] if you're bursting with AF and live view
AF works in both instances.

If you use the *low latency* live view at the same time, it's however 8 FPS, yes.

> and I have to wonder how deep the buffer is
44 frames (JPEG Extra fine L), 47 frames (JPEG Fine L), 55 frames (JPEG Standard L), 21 frames (RAW), 21 frames (RAW&JPEG)

> and how long it takes to write a full buffer
Dunno that one yet, Predecessor took ~14-18s with a good card. [The A6300 has higher resolution / more FPS on video, but IDK if they bumped up the storage bus for that or other reasons.]

>Video also has a ways to go when it comes to AF performance
That AF should be quite fine. At least certainly for the purpose of grabbing frames of the subject under your focus area.

You might not like how for video use, the camera does its refocusing in detail. It was too abrupt to many before, and subject tracking isn't as comfy as it can be.

>>2770270
>Pro bodies officially have a buffer of around 200 frames or something,
D3S: 36 shots RAW, 82 JPEG.

>>2770280
D3S is old, how about the D4? The 7DII can shoot indefinitely in JPEG.

>>2770113
>They don't have any good lenses

They do.

>Oh, well, they don't have any lenses that are both super good and super cheap.

Who the fuck does?

>>2770280
Huh, that's less than I thought it was. I sold my D3 a few years back, but when I was using it, I never once ran into the buffer during actual photography. The only time I ever hit it was when I sat there and held the shutter down for what felt like an eternity just to see how long it'd go.

>>2770278
Ah, all I was turning up was the LV rate when googling. (And video framerates.)

I think the tech is more than there to make a competitive mirrorless pro body, it just hasn't happened yet, and I don't think the ones we have now are quite ready for prime time, and the best mirrorless cameras don't have the lens selection to compete yet. If Sony/Zeiss brings out a full suite of pro sports lenses and makes a true pro body with an EVF and no mirror, I think we might have a very powerful contender. It kind of makes me wonder why they haven't tried yet.

>>2770281
> D3S is old, how about the D4?
75 RAW, 170 JPEG

And the new D750 (which already costs 50% more than the A6300): 15 RAW, 87 JPEG
D800: 17 RAW, 56 JPEG
D810: 28 RAW, 100 JPEG

>>2770283
Canikon both have 50mm and 70-300 IS/VR. Nikon also has the 35DX and Canon has the 24 EFS.

Fuji's cheap good lens is the 18-55, because when your kit lens is that good and other lenses are somewhat pricey, you might not buy anything else. There's the XC 50-230 on the long end, but it's a bit slow for my tastes.

M43 has the O25, P20, P14, and their kit telephotos in the 40/45-150. All sharp, fast focusers, and bredd cheap.

Sony FE has the 28/2 for cheap and good. Otherwise you're paying $700 for a 35/2.8, $1000 for a 55/1.8.

Sony E has the 16mm which is supposed to be pretty sharp, and the 50 1.8 OSS is ok priced.

>sony
>cheap good telephotos

>>2770287
You really don't understand the whole thing about cameras. Spec sheet is one thing, actually using them is another. Those cameras are well regarded because of their usability in many difficult situations. It's the whole thing, reliability, performance, usability, services and a lot other stuff. Specs sheet is a very very small part of it.
Sony is nowhere near that, they target the high end consumers, people who have disposable income and don't rely on their photo equipment to make money.
Sony cameras are consumerist hobby cameras, aka not professional tools. Disposable things, not covered by professional service. It's excellent camera for an enthusiast or a hobby photographer as long as they can afford the mighty expensive lenses. So maybe for 0.5-1% of photographers.
There is really no reason for shilling here, the target demographic is so small, only a handful on /p/ would listen, but then they are not the ones actually taking photos outside.

>>2770287
By the way, for anyone who doesn't know this:
The slower shooting rates on the latter three Nikon will massively boost their score - the buffers are rated *while they flush to a fast SD card* (125 MB/s, I think).

The A6300 likely actually has a somewhat bigger buffer than all of them.

>>2770291
>Sony E has the 16mm
haha.
no.
it's soft even at f5.6.
the kit lens 16-50mm is sharper if you get a good copy.
the 20mm pancake is better but sigma 19mm is the best.

File: Sigma-10-20mm-F4-5.6-EX-DC-HSM-0.jpg (19KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 300x300px

Sigma 10-20mm F4-5.6 EX DC HSM
or
Canon EF-S 10-18mm f4.5-5.6 IS STM

Anyone have any experience with these?

>>2770312
Crop sensor? Then get the Canon.
An alternative option could be a Samyang 14mm prime.

>>2770296
1. Nikon user mentions spec sheet values as killer reason to drop Sony.
2. Sony spec sheet numbers are shown not to be bad.
3. Spec sheet figures are now not so important again, its instead "reliability, performance, usability, services"
And if we show that Sony also has a few reliability and usability advantages and that performance is pretty much on the spec sheet already, I bet we continue to services being the only thing that really matters?

> not professional tools
They can get professional photographs done at the very high end of digital photography today and easily so, obviously they are just professional tools.

>>2770301
And the kit lens isnt great either. E mount truly cannot into good cheap lenses.

File: image.jpg (375KB, 2500x2500px) Image search: [Google]

375KB, 2500x2500px

for someone like me who's interested in stills and motion, is Lumix's GH3 still a good buy?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	2500
Image Height	2500
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>2770322
>I bet we continue to services being the only thing that really matters?
FWIW I've found Sony to actually be the most supportive on the business side of things. Like person to person, Canon reps are non-existent and Nikon's there every now-and-then, while my Sony rep's always around and doing lots of events.

I know it's not a substitute for CPS / NPS, but they've never really been in the pro arena to begin with. That said, in my mind they've gone from "don't even consider buying any Sony" to "if you have xyz needs, Sony's by far the best" in basically 5 years. So I'm sure within the next 5, I'll be comfortoble in saying Sony really can hold it's own against Canikon for any type of photography (I think they already hold their own, if not are leading, for certain types).

>>2770343
> stills and motion
Like four manufacturer's current cameras do both of these better now.

Maybe if it's cheap?

>>2770348
Goddamn fucking idiot. The store clerk or the guy you give your broken camera is not professional service.
Professional service is the one you give your broken gear and get a new one until yours gets repaired or the repair takes less than a couple of days.
Professional service makes sure you don't fall out of business for longer than a day or even less than that, with a big game going on and getting on site gear service and leasing.
You seriously don't know what you're talking about! Stop shilling and be so kind and die in a fire!

>>2770349
Half of them overheat in no time, and the others are Pentax with no real video option (unless going for the 645z) and Canon with MagicLantern.

>>2770343
Yes, it will be a very good option for both.

I want to get a flash diffuser but am confused by all the options. Do you think a plastic clip-on does a decent job, or should i get something else?

File: 05.jpg (385KB, 1449x730px) Image search: [Google]

385KB, 1449x730px

Alright, I've been out of the photography game for a while now and I'm hopping back in. Would like some recommendations for a nice lightweight camera as an alternative to lugging around a big dslr on more laid-back days.

Last time I checked, the X100 seemed nice (that's how far behind I am) but was a bit beyond my budget on initial release. Anything else from their lineup that's worth checking out within the $400-$600 range?

>>2770360
I mostly take portraits if that makes a difference

>>2770361
>>2770360
It will be nice, go for it.

>>2770352
> The store clerk or the guy you give your broken camera is not professional service.
I work in the business side of the industry. I regularly meet with the regional reps and a few higher ups, from all brands.
>I know it's not a substitute for CPS / NPS
I mean, I figured anyone with decent reading comprehension would see that and understand I'm not saying it's NOT sony professional services.

>get a new one until yours gets repaired or the repair takes less than a couple of days
FYI if you're on good terms with your local reps, it's pretty easy to get loaners / borrow new gear, even up to months at a time. In some cases it's actually faster than CPS / NPS (seriously), and you might be surprised how long you can borrow shit. One of my friends has literally borrowed a Df for 6 of the last 12 months, for free.

So once again, to clarify for anyone else that can't read, Sony does not currently have any sort of professional services program and their level of professional support is supbar compared to Canikon. That said, their non-professional support is easily the best.

>>2770361
>>2770366
fixed 35mm focal length for portraits is dumb.

Get an a6000. The kit lens goes up to 50mm. On a crop sensor, that's exactly what you want for portraits.

>>2770369
>50 5.6
haha

just get the teleconverter for x100s

>>2770369
e-mount lenses are fucking expensive. better off getting a canikon body to gain access to the cheapo, charming, plasticky af glass

File: tumblr_nujuwf7FKO1rruhjbo1_540.png (293KB, 540x405px) Image search: [Google]

293KB, 540x405px

For dslr filmmaking, if I con only get one:

Variable ND filter, or Polorizer Filter?

>>2770379
Circular polarizer.

>>2770373
just get an a6300, yongnuo ef to e adapter, canon ef-s 24mm 2.8 stm

>>2769107
A yn568ex ii

>>2770404
>I want to buy good lenses, and then cripple them

What's a good bag for a small camera system. Preferably under 100.

Looking at the mirror less mover 20 right now @54 USD.

What's an alternative?

Which fast normal prime should I get? The olympus 25mm f1.8($350aud), Panasonic 25mm f1.7 ($220au) or Panasonic 20mm f1.7 ($350ish)

Should I just spring for the cheaper Panasonic? The 20mm is nice and small but slow AF and desu a bit too wide for me. Is the olympus worth the extra $$$?

>>2770359
> Do you think a plastic clip-on does a decent job, or should i get something else?
The plastic clip-ons work, but never worked really well for me.

You can of course still do a lot with them and your bounce card, but I usually prefer to use a 20x15cm Godox (SB1520, I think) fabric diffuser.

>>2770454
The 20mm's slow AF is exaggerated. It will perform fine and it's one of the sharper lenses in the m43 line up. The olympus has a faster AF and it's worth the price. But almost all M43 lenses are worth the price. If you want that nifty fifty focal length get one of the 25mm. The cheaper panasonic is only cheaper in build quality but it has really good optics. I'd say the 20mm is more versatile though.

>>2770443
Have a look at the many $10-ish bags and slings on Aliexpress. They're probably fine.

Maybe also at the camera backpacks that have bigger sections that are not for camera/lens use, but just your other stuff - like some Lowepro & National Geographic and the like.

>>2770373
Uh, if you want a portrait lens, you can have something ridiculously sharp for only ~$150 (well, it's that much here, you may have some regional markup) with the Sigma Art 60mm f/2.8.

Hardly breaking the bank.

>>2769085
Going to give my girlfriends XTi to my younger brother since he wants to get into photography, and i got her an a6000 to replace it.

Found a 50mm f1.8 i can get on ebay for under $100, any other cheap basic lenses i could find him? might get him an old manual pentax 135mm since i love mine on my sony.

What's a good beginners book? Should i get a basic howtophotag or an How2xti book?

Should i worry about getting him a flash?
I can act like a jew with my sony and use it as a bounce flash by holding it up, since you cannot do that on a cannon i dunno if it's worth finding him a cheap flash, i don't know how often it's actually useful to have.

Figure i can bundle him up a nice little beginners package for his birthday, and if he doesnt like photography it was less than $200 wasted.

>>2770460
>for some reason thought sigma was ziess in my head
>wtf you on about
>20-50mm f2.8 all $200 a pop

hot damn that's pretty nice, wish they could be at least an f2, but thats pretty nice for that price.

i assume i can still autofocus with these?

Why doesn't anyone talk about the Fuji X system?

I know it isn't because it's bad.

Is it simply because everyone here bought into the a7 meme?

>>2770477
> wish they could be at least an f2, but thats pretty nice for that price
Well, there are still some drawbacks... one perhaps wouldn't expect one of the very sharpest modern APS-C lenses to be so cheap otherwise.

That said, its t-stoppage is really quite good anyhow.

> i assume i can still autofocus with these?
Yes, CDAF and center PDAF. But it has no on-lens stabilization, which means you have no IS at all on the A6000/A6300 with that lens.

>>2770481
Well the A6000 pretty much does everything the fuji does so there is no reason to buy the Fuji.
Fuji cameras are good but their processor and sensor are lagging behind. The A6300 is a better buy.

>>2770481
We talk about it a lot, but the sort of people who obsess over stats and obsessively post about their gear on websites are unwilling to consider APS-C. I love my X-T1, and can't wait for my XPro2 to arrive.

>>2770483
Yea did some googling, apparently its sharper at F2.8 than the sony is at F5, might totally be worth it.

I'm going to hunt one down on ebay.

Why does no one make a 135mm
i love my vintage pentax lens, i thought this was a popular focal length, why can i not find an affordable modern version.

>6300
oh fuck i missed some news
anything exciting or just a6000 v2.0 now with 4k.

>>2770488
XPro2 has the same sensor as the a6300, without an AA filter (So higher real resolution), plus an optical finder, better smaller lenses, has a joystick for changing AF points, has better JPEG output (if you're into that) arguably better styling, etc. Comparing a new Sony camera that hasn't been released yet to a Fuji camera that's years old doesn't really make a lot of sense.

>>2770482
>I thought 135mm was popular why can't i find a modern and affordable one.
Rokinon, perhaps?

That said, I suspect primes >=60mm are actually popular with professionals and serious hobbyists primarily.

And then whether $1k is affordable is of course quite relative. [Would have been $325 in 1980's money. That's more relevant if you did manage to keep your money -or your wage- up with inflation, but eh, it feels to me like photography is just flat-out a lot cheaper now even for lenses.]

>>2770490
>anything exciting or just a6000 v2.0 now with 4k.
Even PDAF points, viewfinder mode with almost no lag during 8FPS burst shooting (of 11FPS possible), mic in, and a bunch more.

>>2770495
>almost no lag with 8fps
if i'm shooting burst it's usually 11fps, i'd rather look at the shots afterwards, as long as the AF can keep up ill worry about it later, but it looks like AF is even fucking faster than ever god damn.

>mic in
so i think im going to sell my 6000 and try to get one of these, then i can become a novice photographer and videographer.

that was like the only thing a $2500 nikon had over the $600 sony

>>2770494
> XPro2 has the same sensor as the a6300
No. It does not. Should even be obvious from the fact that the *on-sensor* PDAF coverage is vastly different.

> plus an optical finder
Usually that is just worse - you can't do focus peaking / magnification for MF or have a configurable interface and exposure preview and stuff on that.

You sacrifice this shooting assistance for what, not having to carry a 40g battery extra? Not a good trade-off. Not even on just the EVF.

>has better JPEG output
How? It's not even good as compared to the predecessor. Maybe about the same if we're generous...?

> has a joystick for changing AF points
Okay, if you hate using d-pads, perhaps that's interesting somehow?

>>2770494
>XPro2
>$1,699.00 BODY ONLY

Oh right, fuji represents a great value to all photographers.
.
.
.
.
Why are fuji fags so stupid?

>>2770501
> if i'm shooting burst it's usually 11fps, i'd rather look at the shots afterwards, as long as the AF can keep up ill worry about it later
Sure. Still, it's one of the features some people might care about. I personally never really missed it either.

> so i think im going to sell my 6000 and try to get one of these, then i can become a novice photographer and videographer.
Sure. That said, you were able to stick a Sony mic on top of the A6000 already. It *also* gave you a mic in port on that hot shoe mic.

But yea, Sony should have added this cheap mic in port feature to the body from the start...

>>2770515
you could never get a truly off camera experience, people said you could hear the lens focus and shit even with the shoe mic. You had to mod the shoe to get a line in, it had a monitor out.

That being said, the multi interface shoe is the coolest thing since sliced bread.

>standard flash? no problem
>mic? no problem
>200ft range bluetooth mic? no problem
>want a fucking view finder on your 5100 cause you were too dumb to buy the 6000? No fucking problem we got you bro

>>2770526
> You had to mod the shoe to get a line in, it had a monitor out.
There were models with a mic in, I think this is one:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1029169-REG/sony_ecmw1m_wireless_mic.html

Either way, yes, it's shit that they didn't have the mic in port from the start.

> That being said, the multi interface shoe is the coolest thing since sliced bread.
It's quite okay. But I'd prefer it if the "main" interfaces were 2-3 USB Type-C ports on the side (plus standard mic in, HDMI out, WLAN) or something like that, and the MI shoe was just an alternative. Ah well, we might get there eventually...

>>2770489
Why didn't you consider the X-E2?

I've decided to move over to Fuji from my Canon T3 (first non point and shoot) for many reasons, one of which is because mirrorless is much more fun than SLR can ever be. It seems like the only drawback to mirrorless nowadays is low light autofocus, now that tracking autofocus and shit like that is getting ironed out. I'm also feeling a little bit risky. Anyone here good with managing their battery usage? How many hours you get with what camera?

I find that I no longer want to take even my comparatively smaller, light weight T3 with me everywhere I go, because it's just so big, so I've decided for the X-Pro2 because of weather sealing and the better resolution, over the X-E2(s)'s lighter weight. I honestly prefer to take out my shitty, half broken Canon Snappy S (in radioactive puke green) because I don't feel like flapping around a DSLR on my neck all day. It's the smallest camera I have.

I've decided not to use Sony cameras because, as far as I've seen, their cameras have cash shops, which is way too jewish for me. I very much don't like nor trust Sony. For some reason, I just feel uneasy about getting a Sony camera, while I don't get that feeling about Fuji. Plus it seems like hobbyists/gearfags love those cameras. Albeit, they also like Fuji. I honestly don't think it matters much which brand you happen to get a stiffy over. Just get the fucking picture.

Weight, distribution of that weight, and size, are a big deal to me. I'm, literally, out all day long with the camera. I very much prefer losing total image size and detail, as well as the very widest ultrawides, for the light weight of a "professional" crop camera. I come from a hiking, outdoorsman type background, where 10 grams could be the difference between getting the nice camp site or not sleeping at night. These days, 10 grams is the difference between getting the shot and not getting the shot. Are Fuji lenses heavy?

I would love a weather sealed X-E2.

>>2770546
>Why didn't you consider the X-E2
Over the X-T1? or the XPro2?

At the time that I got the X-T1, the X-E2 didn't have the performance that I needed. It felt too small, and didn't have a battery grip, the AF wasn't up to what I needed, and the viewfinder wasn't as nice. I was trading away from a 5Dmk2, so I wanted to make the switch without feeling like I was giving up too much.

Against the XPro2, I've just always really really wanted an XPro1 for the styling, the OVF, the rangefinder setup (I like the side viewfinder) the resolution will be nice (but certainly not needed) the improved speed an AF performance. I have considered a little X-E2 a few times here and there, but for my uses, it just wouldn't make sense for me.

It's a great little camera, especially after its most recent Kaizen updated to FW 4.0. Supposedly the AF system on it is dramatically improved which would be awesome.

>battery usage
I don't keep great track of mine, because I have three spare batteries and I just swap them when I need them, but I usually get about 3-400 photos from a battery.

>>2770551
>Against the XPro2, I've just always really really wanted an XPro1 for the styling, the OVF, the rangefinder setup, but the XPro1 doesn't have the performance that I need for the shooting that I do, and the XPro2 seems to have fixed all of that*

Edit for clarity

>>2770526
Except it'll all be proprietary and thus no one will bother making shit that takes advantage of it.

Connectivity is the one place where camera companies are fucking gay and stupid...Sony is generally one of the worst about this (it's only recently that they stopped being dicks about their memory cards). But literally all of them fucking suck dick in this manner.

>>2770546
>Are Fuji lenses heavy?
It very much depends on the lens, but in the case of the wide and normal primes, I will say they are very light. The f/2.8 zooms are a little beefy, but the primes and even the kit zoom are very light. I actually didn't like the 35 f/1.4 because to me it felt TOO light.

>>2770546
>It seems like the only drawback to mirrorless nowadays is low light autofocus
Nah, that's over, too.

Sony's FF MILC are actually even a little better than the corresponding (definitely more expensive) Canikon DSLR.

>>2770553
Camera API are also very dumb. If *all* camera features were exposed over WLAN or USB, then you could easily have smartphones using Android apps or specialized devices to work around all the stupid limitations, and enable a lot of nice features.

>>2770574
Magic Lantern is actually a great case in point of this.

What honestly surprises me is that with the proprietary/restrictive nature of camera companies is that Canon hasn't squashed the fuck out of ML (and Nikon nikonhacker or whatever theirs is called, but it's so immature it's not even really worth talking about) and even kinda almost supports its existence.

>>2770578
It adds amazing functionality to their cameras without them having to have paid to create it, and without having to provide support to people who use it. People who know what they're doing get great benefits from it, despite its complexity, and therefore look to buy Canon knowing that they can use it. People who DON'T know what they're doing fuck it up, and Canon doesn't have to help them. Pretty much win-win for them.

Is 50 mm on a full frame adequate for travel/landscape photography or should I invest in a cheap wide angle lens?

>>2770584
I like 35mm more on FF for those purposes, but that's a personal taste thing. 50mm is perfectly usable for that.

>>2770584
Depends on your style, obviously, but most people prefer to be between 24mm and 50mm (ff equivalent) for travel. Personally, I bring a 24mm equivalent fast prime, and an 18-55 kit zoom.

>>2770578
It kinda is, and kinda not. Some people can *painfully* reverse engineer extra features into camera firmware, and that's good.

But having an API proper to tap into all things the firmware can do / knows about would be very different still.

You could send out time codes and clock synchronization data to ten smartphones with mics (or three smartphone-like device with four mics), and automatically merge them all into additional tracks on a video.

You could send out a lower res image stream to detect 2+ seconds long, 100+ pixels distance movement that comes to rest in a triangular area of your image, and then set the camera to do HDR burst shots at two second intervals until the triangular area is clear again.

Or fancy stuff like that.

>>2769085
Looking to start filming, mainly outdoors and innawoods kind of deal, looking at the
Nikon D3300 w/ a 18-55mm VR II lens
Thoughts? recs?

>>2770595
Yeah, that's what I was trying to say but being really shitty at communication. ML to me is a glimpse at what could be possible with a proper development environment and API support from the manufacturors.

How awesome would it be to have a pro level dSLR that was powered by android?

>>2770596
I'd cheap canon or gh4 for filming...actually, I'd point you to a dedicated video camera if all you're going to do is film with it.

>>2770596
If by filming you meant video, it'd not be a very great choice.

If you just want to take a bunch of amateur photographs during the day, it probably will work okay. It's an entry-level DSLR with a relatively cheap lens, but certainly better than a smartphone.

>>2770600
Could you mention any dedicated cameras that you'd rec then? I appreciate the GH4 suggestion, I'll check it out.
>>2770601
by filming I meant video, yes.

>>2770602
> by filming I meant video, yes.
It will look and work about as good (/as bad) as a Yicam with that setup. Maybe worse, actually. Anyhow, not really a great choice for video.

>>2770443
I haven't tried the Mirrorless Mover series, but in general Think Tank makes great bags and they're pretty much the first brand I look at when shopping for one. I own four of their bags and a modular rig, and am happy with all of them.

I use a Retrospective 7 for my mirrorless rig, but it's out of your budget.

A few other options that you could try include Domke, I had an F-10 for my mirrorless setup before I got the Think Tank and it was alright, or you could get a camera insert for a normal messenger bag, I have a Mountainsmith insert in a Timbuk2 bag and it's OK as well.

>>2770513
That really doesn't seem that bad to me. You're paying mostly for manual controls and the trick viewfinder system. Sure, if you're just buying based on spec sheets and sensor performance, it's not the best, and if it's going to be your only camera and you want the biggest bang for your buck it's not a great buy either.

I think most X Pro2 buyers are anything but first-time buyers on a budget, though, everybody I know that owns a Fuji X-series camera has a pro DSLR rig and bought the Fuji as a fun camera for casual use, and $1700 really isn't so expensive that it's unreasonable if you have a decent job and enjoy the way it handles.

>>2770473
just get him to use his fucking phone m8, and keep the gear for yourself.

>>2770763
A6300 is cheaper and does everything the X-Pro2 does.

File: image.jpg (32KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 300x300px

Is the canon XSi a good dslr for under $200? I'm not completely a beginner, I'm just poor.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	300
Image Height	300
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>2770850
not that guy but some might be put off by the a6300 aesthetic. it looks nothing like a rangefinder camera

>>2770856
So is that why fujifags buy fuji? Aesthetics? Fuji is basically leica, only praised by it's lenses and "vintage" looks but under the hood the tech isn't there. All looks and no substance.

>>2770861

That was my initial assumption when I bought my X100s: that it would just be a fun effay camera for talkin2qts. Then I started poking around with the raw files (which are a fucking huge 32meg on average, btw) and found out that it's actually a super-capable serious camera. I've been shooting both my D810 and my X100s pretty evenly over the last six months, and looking back at my keepers about 75% have been shot on the Fuji. That's surprising to me, since I was about ready to sell it after a month of owning it.

>>2770864
x100s is more portable so you take it everywhere, it's not better image quality.

>>2770867

I just said that I shoot them pretty evenly. I also never said that it had better image quality.

I'm buying the a6000 body only with a Sigma 19mm f2.4 and a 60mm f2.4 lens. I plan on shooting landscapes and street photography. Is this good enough?

>>2770896
As such, sure? Can't promise you you'll never want any more lenses, it's fairly individual what people need / prefer.

>>2770861
The fact that they do super good primes on every major focal length and have dials that make the most sense is enough for me, the aesthetic is a great bonus. I don't like the flybywire autofocus and battery life though

>>2770864
You spent that much money on a 'fun effay camera'?

str8 up jealous m8. what you do for money?

>>2770896
Okay, I get the 19mm but why the 60mm?

On a crop sensor, that's gonna be kind of long for street.

Wouldn't 60mm be more of a portrait lens?

>>2770903
Yeah, I know I may pick up more lenses as I go along. I just want something to start me off.

>>2770928
Hmm, that is true. What lens would you recommend for a crop sensor then (for the purpose of street)?

>>2770850
>>2770861
The Fuji has an optical viewfinder and physical dials for shutter speed and aperture.

/p/ is missing the point of it. It's basically the modern equivalent of a classic Rangefinder, using modern tech to replace the mechanical RF mechanism but maintaining direct manual controls, a "premium" feel and aesthetic, and a separate optical viewfinder. Comparing an EVF mirrorless camera to a Fuji is like comparing a Nikon F to a Leica M3 in the early '60s, they're totally different styles of camera for different people.

If /p/ existed in 1964 or so, they'd be ridiculing anybody who bought a Leica because the F was a better camera in pretty much every way.

>>2770927

I bought it for ~$500 used.

>>2770942
> Yeah, I know I may pick up more lenses as I go along. I just want something to start me off.
Sounds good enough for that, sure.

I think I asked this in the wrong thread

I want to get into photography and possibly astrology so I want to take pictures of space

Would a ricoh gr be good for this? I'm asking because it looks very small

anyone used the 35mm 2.8 limited macro? will it work for wide angle macro shots. not expecting laowa tier but 35mm should give decent wide angle macro stuff right?

>>2770953
Speaking of that, I've been thinking of doing the same. I want a new fixed-lens fuckaround camera for times when I don't want to drag a real camera bag around. A used X100 might be a decent option.

>>2770850
It doesn't do any of the things I find important, like:
Use fuji lenses
Have an AF nub
Have an OVF
Have no AA filter
Not operate like a Sony (i.e. graphing calculator)

I have no use for pro sports level autofocus, or one trillion PDAF points. I shoot portraiture and travel.

>>2770861
Aesthetics are near the bottom of the list of importance, but it's on the list. I actually carry my cameras with me, so a camera not looking like a piece of shit while I'm wearing a nice outfit is a plus.

>>2770956
If you want to do astrophotography, you'd be much better off with a DSLR or a good mirrorless cam. You're going to have to put it on a tripod anyway, and a DSLR/ILC lets you adapt it to a telescope for really serious space shots.

>>2770961

That's why I bought mine. Not a single disappointment yet.

>>2770963

Should I just go all out and get like the alpha 6300?

It would last me a while no? How often do you have to upgrade cameras?

>>2770942
Maybe just get the kit lens with it?

Either that or a 35mm would be a pretty good choice since 35mm is considered 'standard' on a crop (the way 50mm looks on full frame).

>>2770977
eh. you'd probably be better off with a6000 + some good glass.

the a6300 looks great but I'm not sure it'd really be worth the extra $500 for your purposes. Unless you're planning on doing video stuff with it.

If you want to go 'all out', I would say get an A7ii or A7Sii as I imagine a full frame sensor might be nice to have for astronomy.

Looking to do more outdoor photography. Just got a D3200 and have nothing but the lens it came with. What other lenses, filters, etc would be a good investment?

ITT FUJI BTFO BY SONY.

>>2770977
For an easy start in astrophotography there is Pentax, K-50 and upwards up to K-3 with the GPS astrotracer gizmo or a K-3II with the gizmo built in, an older manual focus 300-400mm lens and a sturdy tripod like the E302C or P303C and the DA 35/2.4 would be good start.
You can do this with Canon, Nikon or Sony but you have to add a tracker mount like the Astrotrac or iOptron tracker, but setting these up is a bit more finicky then the Pentax tracker.
If you want to go full in, get a 200mm Newtonian, HEQ5 tracking mount and a Canon 6D or Nikon D750 and the BackyardEOS or BackyardNikon software.
Look up Forrest Tanaka tutorials on Youtube if you want to know more.

500 dollar budget.

Looking at dlsr.

What does /p/ recommend!?!?

>>2771060
Nikon D3300, Pentax K-50/K-S2, Canon 700D/760D
All with their kit lenses and if it fits in the budget then a fast 35mm prime lens.

>>2771061
Thank you very much anon! Looking into it already.

Hi /p/

I found a used 700D with a 18-55 and a 55-200 for 500€.

Is it worth it ?

>>2771072
Yes

Will the Pentacks K-1 come in silver? It'll be like a Df, but actually usable.

>>2771098
That's hideous.

>>2771098
yuck, pentacks in silver will look like an abortion. How dare you mention the god like Df in the same sentence as pentacks

File: ZURSILVERBODY-2.jpg (116KB, 1024x770px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 1024x770px

>>2771103
>>2771107
I don't know, I quite like it actually.

>>2771111
golly fuck, look what you've done now pentacks.

>>2771078
Ok thanks

>>2770360
buy an xt-10 with kit lens

Sony FE cannot into size.
Sony E cannot into native lenses.
Fuji cannot into video.
Olympus cannot into video as good as Panasonic.
Panasonic cannot into IS.
Canon cannot into sensor.
Nikon cannot into DX and customer service.

Pentax can into focus peaking, IBIS, Sony sensors, full line up of FF and APS-C lenses, weather sealing, and pancake lenses.
Clearly, Pentax is the best choice.

I've been doing some DSLR/mirrorless research for the last month and I can't make up my mind.

Basically, I'm searching for a DSLR with a good lens selection. I want to mostly take stills of landscape, architecture, people. Maybe some video, but not too important.

I'm interested in:
-a6000
-pentax k-3
-nikon 5500, 5300
-canon equivalents

the a6k has expensive lenses, so that's kind of out of the question.

What do you guys think?

Is 500 for a D5500 a good price?

Getting this from my brother, that's the cheapest the bastard will go.

What does /p/ think?

>>2771404
IM TALKING TO YOU /P/!!!

ANSWER MEEEEEEE!!!!

>>2771404
>>2771406
You can fuck right off with that attitude, mister.

>>2771407
Well. That didn't go as planned. :/

I need you /P/lease!!!

>>2771404
>>2771406
>>2771410
Google it. What are they going for on Amazon used, Ebay, KEH, etc.

>>2771404
It depends. Imbecile

Just got a seagull 4b-1 tlr. It can shoot 5x6 or 6x6 but I can't find any way to select it and no online manual seems to help.
wot do?

so uh, how do panning tripods work

does that let you shoot things that are moving and still get the stabilization bonus of a tripod or something?

>>2771535

Tilt-and-pan just refers to the style of adjustment (there's also ball head, geared heads, etc). They let you adjust one axis at a time, so you can pan horizontally without worrying about pitch or roll.

If you want super smooth panning, you'll want a fluid head (like for video), but for photography you don't need it.

>>2771543
yeah i figured it was basically useless but i couldn't understand because someone suggseted using a tripod when shooting birds

Best camera for $100-200? Preferably pretty slim and portable, but I'm willing to sacrifice that for quality. Pretty new to photography outside of smartphones, and I really wanna get into it, so a simple option would probably be the best. What do you recommend?

>>2771548

Keep using your smartphone, because you won't find shit for $100-$200 unless you shoot film.

>>2771544
Birds are maybe best shot with gimbal heads (easiest to use with big lenses 'n stuff).

Ball heads will do okay, too.

Pan-tilt heads are not comfy to work with until you get to high end heads where everything is adjustable.

Just my opinion, though.

While all you fags were arguing over whose gear is a professional tool, and whose wasn't, I used my $500 Nikon with a kit lens to go OUTSIDE and TAKE PHOTOS for which I got PAID FOR.

You guys should think about spending less time being fanboys and more time using whatever equipment you have for its intended purpose.

>>2771662
why the fuck would i spend hundreds of dollars on a lens before asking people that may use it if it can be used viably for certain tasks?
your grandstanding is pathetic
>i get paid for muh photography
lel must be hard being small time and having to prove yourself on an anonymous image board

>>2771667
Nobody else can tell you how a lens will work for you, and if a lens sucks at something enough to stop you from using it, it'll be in the first review you read about it.

reading reviews and buying the best gear doesn't improve your photos even a little bit. Going out and taking photos with thought, effort, and content improves your photos.

>>2771670
i want to do wide angle macro, so i asked if the pentax 35mm limited is capable of pulling off that aesthetic, where the 100mm macro isnt. hard to take macro shots without a macro, that's why im asking others who may have experience with the lens. not everything is as one dimensional as you make it out to be

>>2771544
Gimbal a best for actual movement.

>>2771672
My grandstanding is more about the losers arguing Sony vs DSLRs and which is a professional tool capable of taking professional shots, while none of them are worrying about going out and actually taking any.

>>2771548
maybe an xf1 but they're pretty prone to lens error, although not sure on the percentage of failures. You can find a canon s100 for about that price, or an lx5. if you decide to shoot film, get a pentax k1000 with a 50mm 1.8 for like 50 bucks and spend the rest on film and developing. Maybe increase your budget and buy a pentax k-x with kit lens. Old 12 megapixel sensor, but can give pretty good results.

>>2771673
If you want to use a tripod at all, anyway. The vast majority of supertele photos out there are shot from a monopod on the sidelines of a sports event.

I think birders are pretty much the only people who use gimbal heads, which isn't surprising because they're the biggest gearfags on earth. (I'm convinced 90% of birders don't actually care about birds, and only do it to justify buying lenses and stuff.)

File: EOS650GR20G.jpg (18KB, 392x232px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 392x232px

Hello guys.
I want to try Film I got a DSLR canon rebel 450d and a canon 430 ex ii flash. I am wondering about buying a Film one. I don't know which model

>Is it worth the trouble shooting film? About the better quality.

Now, which camera? I only have clear that I want to spend less than U$S100, I'm buying used, that EOS have AF and their lenses are compatible with new models and my 430 ex ii flash.

I read that Canon EOS 650 and 620 are good, the 620 better. They got autofocus. I found an used 650 really cheap.
>Should I go for the 650? It costs like U$D 30.
>What is the diference between 650 and 620? I mean in quality, toughness.

Also I noticed that 620&650 are the first EOS, from 1987. The reviewer said they were almost perfect. By some chance, are they a piece of shit? I mean because those cameras are really old, the first ones with AF and maybe in the next years they got better.

I could get a Canon EOS rebel G too, they are around the same price and it is newer. The reviewer says its not as durable but lightweight. And how about the EOS-1? I saw that it is considered "pro line". Anyway it costs too much. What does it have that the 650-620 doesnt?
The main question here is:
>Why the 650 and not any other EOS canon?
>What's the diference between pro and amateur film cameras?
>Which EOS should I buy?

I could buy a Nikon but I guess its out the question, because I couldn't use the flash. Other brands I wouldn't even look, because lenses are interchangeable and I'm getting less options.

Anything else I should know about old film cameras (and used ones) let me know! Any recomendation.

>>2771685
This is true. Who gives a shit about birds? Not the majority of birders, that's for sure. Theyre only good as a measure of AF performance and subject tracking algorithms.

>>2771717
You want an EOS 3.

>>2771717
What lenses do you currently have? If you're only using a 450D, there's a good chance that you have lenses that won't work on a film Canon.

>sonyggers assblasted because they can't shoot birds

File: 1450747529336.jpg (206KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

206KB, 1024x768px

>tfw you have gazed upon the Glorious edge to edge crispness and Image Quality of the ultimate imaging configuration, the Sony A7 with Zeiss glass

>tfw you realize all other pictures ever taken are a disgusting blurry low resolution mess

>tfw sony literally ruins 99.9% of photography with how good they are

>>2771754
I have just the lens that comes with the kit. That means, I have no compatible lens to attach to the film EOS. Just the flash.

>>2771734
Why? What does it have? The EOS 3 is more rare and I found only one for 260 U$S.
Maybe its better but why?

>>2771717
It really doesn't matter.
As long as whatever you buy isn't actually broken, all EOS cameras are very capable machines.
That said, you can get the latest and greatest ones for a song, so there's no reason not to.
I paid $50 for my first 30V, and I got my second one for free when I went to buy the 40/2.8 STM off some guy and I mentioned that I still shot film.
The most important recommendation, from a usability standpoint, is to get one that takes AA batteries natively (I'm not sure if any do) or get one with an optional battery grip, that you can load with AA's.
Because 2CR5's and CR123A's are fucking expensive, and they eat them like candy.

>>2771767
>Because 2CR5's and CR123A's are fucking expensive, and they eat them like candy.
I thought that those batteries lasted forever! I'll check that out.

>As long as whatever you buy isn't actually broken, all EOS cameras are very capable machines.
My confusion comes because this guy recommended the first EOS, that is, 650 - 620. So you are telling me that newer cameras are better but not necessarily at anything useful?
How about durability? I'm concerned because some are 25 years old.