Gear Thread

File: OM-D E-M10.jpg (437KB, 1000x887px) Image search: [Google]

437KB, 1000x887px

>>2805200
How are the Pana Lumix prime lenses on Olympus MFT cameras? Which would be more versatile as first lens, the 20mm or 25mm?

>>2805205
>How are [open source standard] prime lenses on [open source standard] cameras?

One is a 40mm equivalent, the other is 50mm equivalent. Get the one you are comfortable with and/or like the image qualities better. Check Flickr for the lenses.

>>2805208
>>2805205

iirc, some of the panasonic lenses has a really slow autofocus. at least their pancake has in low light.
so watch out for that..

their leica 25mm collab is great iq wise, but i dont know about the autofocus on that one. but all this is basic research you would've found out by basic googling so gtfo.

>>2805205
>asking dead system lenses in a 6x7 medium format thread

im trying to get into shooting skateboarding

should i rock a Nikon D3200 or Pentax K-50
and should i consider getting a mirrorless

>>2805220
If you don't know what you need (and the fact you're considering those two bags of shit), then you don't need it.

File: dslr_vs_mirrorless.jpg (36KB, 425x208px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 425x208px

>>2805220
>should i consider getting a mirrorless
You say that as if DSLR is the defacto choice.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS5 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	520
Image Height	298
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2010:07:11 13:31:30
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	425
Image Height	208

>>2805220
Nikon and Pentax both has good and affordable lenses.
MFT is expensive if you want at least decent IQ. Sony E-mount has no lenses to speak of, the cheap ones are ass, kit lenses have power zoom and better quality is only on FE mount over $2000.

I'm looking for a point and shoot at about £500 that is decent in low light.

Thinking of the Ricoh GR II or the RX100 Mk3, any suggestions for gems I am totally ignorant of?

>>2805238
The GR is designed for photographers, RX100 line is designed for plebs with options of more control than the average point and shoot.
The Fuji X100 stands between somewhere.
If you know what you're doing with a camera I'd recommend the GR II, otherwise get either the X100 (maybe X30-X70) or the RX100.

>>2805241
Interesting, I can find the X100 cheaper than the GR II. I know my way around a camera but I'd probably just be shooting full auto. Is it that inaccessible?

>>2805246
If you shoot full auto then probably your phone is the best choice.

>>2805249
You're probably sarcastic but I've actually considered it. Even my 6S' dynamic range isn't great and I'd rather have something dedicated to taking photos.

Is it a good choice to upgrade from D90 to fuji x-e1/pro1?

>>2805251
I am not sarcastic. Using full auto you don't need a dedicated camera. If you want the features and functionality of a dedicated camera you have to learn and use them.
To me it looks like you browsed through the board to see what are the hot topics in the segment you understand and asked us to decide between the two names you found.
Do your own fucking research and learn to use the camera. If you have a problem with at least one of them, just use your phone.

>>2805251
Sort of off topic

Anyone used LG phones for snapshits? (Mainly when im dicking around and dont have my "real" camera)

I want muh sony but the LG uses the same sensor but with laserAF and OIS

And can shoot raw unlike the sony

Might as well be an infant a**** series.

(Looking at the old cheaper v10 not the new one)

>>2805260
Yeah but I probably will use the manual features too, I just prefer shooting in auto. Anyway, thanks for the suggestion, the X100s is looking like a strong contender. The GR II is pretty aesthetic looking though...

>>2805265
I have heard good shit about the G4. Probably a lot cheaper now the G5 is out too

>>2805258
For what? They're slow cameras with low quality EVFs, but great image quality.

>>2805200
where to cop wooden tripod?

>>2805284
I wooden know

File: Screenshot 2016-03-31 09.40.34.png (406KB, 1211x933px) Image search: [Google]

406KB, 1211x933px

>>2805284
really dude

>>2805284
www.berlebach.de

Worth the buck?

Why does my sensor get so fucking filthy? I barely change lenses, cleaning them once a week, storing them with body caps and shit all the time, point the camera down whenever possible and go at the sensor with a rocket blower fairly regularly, but it always seems to pick up shitloads of dust anyway. It's a 5D1 so no sensor vibrator.

>>2805290
This is what you get when you use non-sealed lenses on a non-sealed body.

>>2805290
It's an old body, so it could be that the crap is already in the body itself, and the act of taking photos kicks it up and gets it stuck to the sensor.

>>2805205
The 20mm creates some sort of banding at low ISO images using em10 em5 cameras (not sure if em1 too). Lens is slow to focus. Is small and sharp.

>>2805313
*High ISO, sorry.

>>2805313
The LENS makes banding? How does it do that?

Maybe a vignetting correction profile that boosts dark areas, doing a poor job at high ISO?

File: 1458053206108.jpg (172KB, 600x709px) Image search: [Google]

172KB, 600x709px

>>2805290

>cleaning them once a week

>>2805290
Have you considered the blower itself has dust inside and you're blowing all that gunk inside your dinosaur?
There is a rule, never blow on your sensor, not even with a blower. Bring your camera in for a through cleaning and use soft brush (rabbit fur) next time.

>>2805205
The 14mm and 20mm are small and gud. See above comments on the 20mm. The 25mm you might as well buy the Olympus. The 42.5 is gud, but the O45 is mostly as gud but with a lower price. The PL15 is pretty good though. It's not as small as the O17, but it's reportedly sharper.

File: 514GGCGEGOL.jpg (41KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 500x500px

Was looking for a smaller more mobile camera and found the Fujifilm X-T10 with Fujinon XC 16-50mm and XC50-230mm for 899€. Yay or nay?

>>2805338
>AESTHETICS

>>2805222
>(and the fact you're considering those two bags of shit)

what a retard

Never understood why people fall for this meme.

>>2805342

>implying it's not aesthetic

Why are there no nikon pancake lenses?
I would like the smallest lens possible, but all nikon glass is huge.

>>2805354
Because Nikon hates us.

>tfw no 24 2.8 DX pancake
Your only options are 50 1.8 Series E, 45 GN, and the Voigtlanders. All of the above are manual focus.

Also
>nikon
>making the lenses you want
u want dx lens? fuck you, here another 18-xxx superzoom

>>2805360
More like here's a random fucking 58mm. Who asked for 8mm? Wot.

Does anyone have experiences with something called an, "Auto Telo Converter"? One came with my old film camera when I bought it. It's like, a 2x magnification, or at least that's what it says. I have never found a practical use for it, other than coupling it onto my 135mm lens and making it even tighter crop.

I've never seen them for digital. It's just a weird little metal ring with some glass in the middle. Nothing else. You guys ever use anything like that? Is it useful? I just keep it in my bag in case I feel like taking my 50mm up to 100mm or whatever without lugging around my actual 135mm lens, because it's a hell of a lot bigger.

>>2805369
You mean a teleconverter? I used to use one when i started doing wildlife and only had an old Nikon 300mm. Used a 1.3x tc with that for a bit more range. They will soften your images somewhat, higher the magnification of your tc the softer it gets. I don't see any point to using a tc other than to squeeze some extra focal length from a telephoto lens when it means getting the shot or not getting it at all. For shorter lenses there is no need. Zoom with your feet.

>>2805381
Pardon, 1.4x tc.

Teleconverters also decrease the amount of light making it to your sensor/film.

>>2805360
Honestly that's why for DSLRs everyone suggests going full frame. It's not that Nikon crop cameras aren't capable of amazingly good results, its that the lens lineup available to DX is garbage.

>>2805381
>>2805389


Yeah, Tele, not Telo, sorry, I'm not sure how I botched that one, but, hey, you got the point, eh?

And yeah, I have found its just such a weird little lense addition, I didn't know if anyone had ever used one.

Thanks for the insight though, I really appreciate it!!

Are there any gear heads that don't cost like 500 bucks? I'm doing a job as a real estate photographer in Orange County, and it feels like my ball head is not really going to cut it.

>>2805406
Manfrotto has a kinda cheap-ish one but it's not exactly cheap. But it works and less than $500.

>>2805369
>You guys ever use anything like that? Is it useful?

It's only useful with very sharp lenses.
Specifically: if the center of your lens out-resolves your sensor you can capture extra detail in distant subjects.

But If the image is already soft you can get the same result by cropping in post.

I sometimes use a 1.4X TC with my 300mm f/2.8 - turning it into a 420mm f/4.
But I never use it with my 70-300 f/5.6 since it's already quite soft at 300mm.

Just try it, but also compare it to cropping in post.

>>2805394

This is the only reason I kept investing on Canon APS-C.
Up until last yet I had a 40D, nifty fifty, Tamron 17-50 and 70-200 f4.
I wanted a small lens and an ultra wide for my upcoming Norway trip. I knew that Canon sensor stopped being really competitive a 4 years ago but I still decided for a Canon 100D because of two great crop lenses: 24mm pancake and 10-18.
It's not ideal, but has been a nice kit so far.

I spent my photography budget (850 bucks) on:
-A D3300 with a 18-55 VR II
-An AFS 50mm 1.8G
-A55-200 VR II
-A Velbon ex630 (best bang for the buck tripod, seriously. Supports 5kg, sturdy as many >100€ manfrottos, bubble level included)
-A set of cheap ND, macro and CPL filters
-A medium sized, discrete, black messenger camerabag for everything

Everything brand new.

How much did I fuck up /p/?

>>2805422
>>2805394
Or with Pentax you can get nice Limited lenses for kind of cheap, most of them being pancakes. The DA 40 Limited has excellent image, very affordable and gets that special look when you get the lighting right.

>>2805425
Well there was no need to get it all brand new, but you'll be fine. Go take photos.

>>2805406
So the Manfrottos are about the bottom? That will probably work I suppose.

>>2805406
> real estate photographer
Seriously, why again do you think you need a geared head...?

Seems completely unnecessary to me.

>>2805200
Got a lens turbo 2 today for my MD lenses. When mounting lenses on it the pin would hit causing it to stay wide open and my wide angle lenses would have very dark corners (Not present on my film cameras). I'm sending it back but just wanted to know if anyone else here has had a similar issue with Lens Turbos?

>>2805455
Not him, but with ultra-wide lenses you do have to get perfectly level to avoid distortion.

I too think a gear head would be easier for that. - but I never tried one because too expensive.

>>2805425
You did fine. The d3300 has pretty good sensor for an entry level dslr. Enjoy.

>>2805466
You can easily do this with a tripod / ball head that has a spirit level for the few shots where you actually might prefer ultra wide.

>>2805471

It's a hell of a lot easier with a geared head, though. Much more precise.

Should I save up for a Mamiya 7II or an RB67? I already have a hasselblad. I just want something more portable.

>>2805527
If you want something more portable go with 35mm, not medium format.

>>2805527
>RB67
>portable
You mean more portable than a brick wall? Get a Pentax 645N.

File: old piece of shit fucking canon pentaX PENTAX PENTAAAAAAAAAAAXXXXXXXXXX.jpg (178KB, 784x998px) Image search: [Google]

178KB, 784x998px

I bought my 1D about a year ago now as a B camera and feel it's just a bit too heavy to lug around. I got it for around €200 from a store and thought it was a bargain.

I wanted to replace it with something that had similar AF and FPS so though a 7D would be a good improvement.. Not really feeling that now, would I have to fork out a serious amount of money to get something better than a 12 year old body?

>>2805553
The 7D is around $500-600 used. The 7DMkII is around $1000. That's not a serious amount when you consider it will ace over that 1Dinosaur lolAPS-H in any situation.

>>2805477
It will be faster to use with the required precision, yes, but IDK, it doesn't sound like rushing through shots 'cause of full books is the reason for this upgrade?

And you can be precise enough with a ball head for the few shots it takes. IMO, there are probably better ways to spend your money right now. But if you have full books and are pressed for time, by all means, get an Arca Swiss cube or something like it.

Otherwise, just pay attention to your levels and image - you'll also have to do this with a geared head.

I have a few questions. First, I'm trying to get a flash for my K-5. Not trying to spend too much, but I need one for a school club event I'll be shooting and for the future. Thinking about getting a YN560 IV. Would this work with the flash off camera? Would I have to use it as an optical slave to trigger it? Or is there some other solution that's just better than this?

Secondly, I'm trying to find a couple wide lens for my camera. Last time, someone recommended a Flektogon copy since I was looking for 24mm. I'm thinking about doing some wider shots, maybe even some astrophotography. Anything good for K mount or m42 in sub 18mm and for 24mm?

Thanks in advance.

File: IMG_20160401_000437.jpg (72KB, 1000x741px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 1000x741px

I got my Zenit EM today. I won it at an auction. This is what I see when it look through the viewfinder. It's not the lens, so I'm guessing it's the mirror. What else could it be? And how much would it cost me to get it fixed?
Because of this I can't properly focus because the image on the viewfinder isn't sharp.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Exposure Time	1/11 sec
F-Number	f/2.0
ISO Speed Rating	800
Lens Aperture	f/2.0
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	3.79 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	4208
Image Height	3120
Rendering	Normal
Time (UTC)	22:04:37
Date (UTC)	2016:03:31

>>2805607
It could be the mirror or the focusing screen or maybe the prism, Take a look at the mirror when you remove the lens and see if you see anything wrong with it. If not then I'm not sure how hard it is to access the focusing screen in that camera but I would check that next.

>>2805607
Hey, didn't I tell you they're fucking trash?
That's normal, mine is the same.
You can still focus, don't be a retard.
Don't you wish you'd bought a Japanese camera?

Street. 50mm/1.8 or 35mm/1.8?

>>2805658
Depends entirely on your shooting style (and equipment)

>>2805658
do you attach them on a full frame or apsc camera ?
if its apsc you dont want the 50mm lens because it will turn into a portrait lens like 75mm
on full frame i'd say 35mm ( which is 23mm on apsc for example )

Just a Question... is it possible to get face detection mode with updates on the fuji x-pro1 just like they did for the x-pro2 ?
iam just curious

>>2805714
Stop being a dickbag who thinks that a focal length equals a field of view. A 50mm lens is 50mm no matter how big the image circle or sensor is.

>>2805717
The XPro1 does not have face detection.

>>2805726
Great. However, completely useless to the conversation at hand.

anyone here shoot jpeg? if so any recommendations for such a camera? i shoot film casually from time to time and looking for digital counterpart. i'm not planning to edit just shoot for fun with full manual control.

>>2805758
Fuji jpegs stand alone. So much control over the final result, from simulation, to control over highlight and shadow, to color toning, there's nothing else like it.

Also, toy camera mode.......

>>2805764
thanks ill look into fuji, any other comparable suggestions?

File: image.jpg (83KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 1000x1000px

Is it worth shelling out for a Prismatic Halo ring light (18") or should I just go with the Neewer one+wax paper diffuser?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1000
Image Height	1000
Scene Capture Type	Standard

I just got a sony a6000. Ive been looking at the sigma 60mm and sony 50mm which one should I get?

>>2805818
If you have to ask, it doesn't.

>>2805851
For what purpose?

>>2805656
Actually, nah. The lenses are still in great shape. Got 2 lenses with it, so I'm not mad.
And I can't focus. Because of that scratch the viewfinder doesn't give a clear image. Everything looks out of focus. Even if it's in focus.

>>2805630
There are some scratches on the mirror. But they're quite small and the scratches are horizontal. I guess I would be better off getting another camera with an M42 mount. There should be plenty out there.

>>2805857
Get a Spotmatic then, there are a lot in good condition and the black ones look awesome.

>>2805857
Actually... I found out. Everything looks vague on closer distances. Like a meter away. This is within the focusing range of the lenses, so I'm not exactly sure why that happens. It should still be usable thought it seems.
>>2805858
What do those cost nowadays? And which one do you recommend?

I have a 40mm and 5dm2

I'm looking for a new lens. Mostly shoot landscape, may get into portraits.

I don't mind prime or zoom, just something as sharp as the 40 and versatile. Tbh I'm lacking widened and the telephoto but I can compensate one or the other with the 40 depending on the next lens.

> inb4 sell the 40
Not gonna happen. It's worth it's money it's hella sharp.

thanks

I'm renting a Tamron 150-600mm, using it at motorsport events. I've been using a Canon 300mm f4 the past few years.

Feel with the Tamron the autofucus is slightly too slow for what I'm doing. Is this the case with any telephoto with varying focal lengths (as my 300mm is a set length does it focus much faster)?

Bit disappointed as I was hoping this would be a more cost effective lens that a Canon 100-400mm...

>>2805868
Ebay, search spotmatic, buy one with good condition. It's not rocketscience.

>>2805894
The 100-400 is fast with tracking. Cost effective is the Canon 400 prime

>>2805934
I know that much, but is there any model you recommend. One I should look out for? I know it's as easy as looking for one in good condition.

>>2805942
The Spotmatic is the model you dumbass! Pentax Spotmatic! Did you do the research on it? I sure won't.

Whats with all this name shit recently?

>>2806043
Why am i fucking sonja?

>>2806043
It's 4chan's new format. m00t got fed up with all the tripfags going against the design of the board (anonymous image sharing) that they're forcing everyone to have random names.

>>2806046
So no more trips? Wow thats great.

>>2806043
This is the future of 4chan, Sonja. Moot^2 sold the website to Google.

>>2806059
Thanks for your answer Tabitha. Many well wishes too you.

Are there any reasonable 50mm lenses for M42 in the price of canon's 50/1.8 STM?
I don't actually need AF so I wonder if I can get better IQ in that price range

File: mc-30.jpg (63KB, 650x432px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 650x432px

Does anybody know of a smaller Nikon-compatible digital cable release than the MC-30? Do digital releases similar in size to traditional releases even exist? I'm talking with just a button, not a tv remote.

If im a casual do i need anything but a d5100 kit and the 35mm?

>>2806075
Probably not.

>>2806062
Helios 44M, 44M-4 and upwards
Helios 77
Pentacon 50
and these: http://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/Pentax-Takumar-M42-Screwmount-Normal-Primes-c23.html

>>2806096
I already own 44M-4 but the coating has wore off
77 is much more expensive but there is 77M-4 - is it much different?
I've stumbled upon super takumar before but I've read that there are several version of them, are there versions that are not worth considering or is the IQ in all versions alike?

>>2806153
>I'm so lazy please spoonfeed me!
No.
You got your link, do your own research.

>>2806157
>If you have questions about a new camera, what lenses to buy and anything related to gear or wondering about getting into photography, post it in this thread
Why are you in a gear questions thread if you're just going to be a dick to people that ask questions about gear?

I cannot find any info about this lens online, apart from a forum post from 1997 where the author got bitched out for asking if it was good or not.

Why is it so cheap? Is there a camera compatibility list anywhere? If it works on my 5D and the pictures aren't awful then it's a fucking steal.

File: cf3206e1fa334ede43fa8343355a45a2.png (83KB, 1408x412px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 1408x412px

Totally not sketchy. Nope.
Not at all.

File: blens.png (259KB, 1472x659px) Image search: [Google]

259KB, 1472x659px

>>2806167
Forgot pic. I would delete but april meme's day.

>>2806170
Still not worth it

>>2806172
>Sigma
>zoom
m8

>>2806177
>£65
If it works, it's basically a free lens while I save up for the 16-35 L

>>2806178
I mean go for it, but remember that it's an older Smegma lens before they actually somewhat tried.

>>2806178
Well in that price scale, sure, but why not get something like the Canon 50mm (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Canon-EF-1-8-STM-Lens/dp/B00XKSBMQA/), which you could actually get some good shots with?

>>2806181
I already have that. I want wide.

About to buy an OM-D E-M5, anyone want to try and convince me otherwise?

>>2806199
Version 1 or 2?

Also
>Micro 4/3

>>2806202
Version 1.

File: 4335102874_5e917e9b2a_b.jpg (402KB, 1024x640px) Image search: [Google]

402KB, 1024x640px

Anyone here ever used a Zuiko 35mm f/2.8 shift lens?
Kinda tempted to get one for my A7 since they're fairly cheap.

File: fggrgd.jpg (224KB, 1280x674px) Image search: [Google]

224KB, 1280x674px

dis my camera

I usually use a Rodenstock 150mm.

I use Fomapan for less important work but it's unreliable if tonally excellent (huge range of midtones) film. Currently shooting with Ilford Delta and finding it immense fun to use. I also shoot with paper negs a lot.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Panasonic
Camera Model	DMC-TZ5
Camera Software	Ver.1.0
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/3.3
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	57 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	180 dpi
Vertical Resolution	180 dpi
Image Created	2015:08:01 13:58:00
Exposure Time	1/40 sec
F-Number	f/3.6
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	160
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	5.60 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	2048
Image Height	1079
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	Low Gain Up
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

>>2806030
Well, there's the Spotmatic SP500, SP1000, SL, ES and a couple of other variants. So that's why I was wondering.

Thinking about buying a sonny a5000, as my first camera and just for fun and try the hobby.
Am I missing something better under 400eu (455usd)?

Also I was interested in making some macro adding a pentax smc 4/100 lens, from my father's old analog camera. Can I put them toghether with some cheap adapter and get away with it? Is it that easy?

>>2806249
Having something with a viewfinder isn't necessarily a must, but it's a nice luxury to have.

Look into the NIkon D3200, D5300, whatever they call Canun Rabals there, the Pantacks K-S2, and the Sony A6000.

>>2806249
A used NEX 5N with an add-on EVF would be a much better value.
If you're interested in a DSLR, a used Pentax K-50 or Nikon D3300 can still fit in your budget, with kit lens.

>>2806254
>>2806256
Thanks for the replies. I will take a look at those.

And about the adapters? Can you just put together wathever camera with wathever lens without major consequences?

>>2806261
Considering that the E mount has a very short flange distance, you can more or less put anything on one if there's an adapter for it.
Only thing you might lose is autofocus and electronic lens control if you're using Canon or Nikon lenses.

>>2806262
Thanks!
That's not a problem since the lens is already manual

>>2806263
No problem Yvonne.

What are the cheapest F-mount lenses I can get. Not worried about quality- I want to buy three of them.

Actually, what are the cheapest lenses I can buy -period- that aren't complete shit? Keep in mind I live in Canada which is a frozen shithole that may not have the same boutiques or outlet stores you do in the EWE ESS

>>2806221
How portable is the Chamonix? I have a Cambo monorail myself. Damn thing isn't very portable. All these field cameras look to be out of my price range, though. Can't get much in resale value for the cambo, either.

File: received_592351764267791.jpg (47KB, 960x562px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 960x562px

Just bought a Argus C-four today. It was an absolute steal at the antique store in my town, only $10.

Now, it's a lovely looking old coot, but, I've never used a rangefinder before, and I'm having trouble.

It seems there are two directions you can turn the lens (or wheel), and both will move the two images together. One does it perfectly after some time, and the other sorta clicks and almost gets there but not quite. Is that end the infinity side or..?

I can get it focused, but I have no idea what the readings of the dial at, or how to read them. The wheel just spins and it doesn't have a clear indicator that I can find to denote the actual point it's set to, so I'm not quite sure what I'm looking at, which doesn't help the calibration. Speaking of calibration. How?

Also, how does the shutter and film advance work? Isn't not like my SLRs, it doesn't have a shutter cocking mech, it just has two wheels that you can turn. And the wheel that indicates which shot you are on just spins around as you turn it. It never stops anywhere. You can spin you wheels all you want, it never stops.

Do I have to put film in for the shutter and the wheels to work? I don't want to throw in a roll and waste it, because I don't know the mech well enough.

I looked at the manual, and I didn't quite get what they meant. Maybe I'm just slow or something, but it seems much more complicated than an SLR's loading system, although it is similar. Same with the focus ring, I'm just so unfamiliar with this type of older camera.

Also, how do I clean the viewfinder and the metal of my camera? The viewfinder(s) are dirty and grimy, and the metal on the lens is a little corroded, from human hands, I'm guessing. I'm not sure how to properly get into the glass of the viewfinder, any tips?

Does anyone here have experience with this beauty? Any tips would be much appreciated. I apologize for writing so much, I just can't find a good resource to answer me.

Pic related, it's the actual camera.

>>2805735
that's what iam asking....is it possible fuji makes an update that allows the x-pro1 to have face detection ?

File: brush.jpg (66KB, 600x500px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 600x500px

I'm looking for a good lens brush anyone have any suggestions in the 0-25 dollar range?

>>2806333
Nope. It doesn't have the necessary hardware for it. Sensor wise, and power wise.

>>2805288
I have one.. Only for 4x5 and above.

>>2806321
it's incredibly light. Folds up okay. A tad awkward to set up. It has a lot of movements but you won't get the range of a monorail. a Chamonix is around £700 but you can get them from ebay on rare occasion

honestly, a Shen Hao will do wht you need it to. IIRC one of them has vertical back movements as well...

File: st50_1.4_2193807_60021h.jpg (45KB, 600x400px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 600x400px

Is there much difference between each versions of Super Takumar 50/1.4 or instead of looking for a particular version of the lens should I just get the one in best condition?

File: K5JH5917.jpg (132KB, 1207x800px) Image search: [Google]

132KB, 1207x800px

>>2806470
Early versions are a different optical design that has eight elements instead of seven.

You can tell them apart by some details (pic related. 8 is on the left, 7 on the right. Note the aperture ring, diaphragm clutch, and IR focus marker). The 8 is kind of a collector's item in the Pentax community. It's widely said to be better, but even the people who say that admit the difference is slight. For all practical purposes, they're the same lens. Both versions can suffer from the "yellowing" effect, and have to be left in UV light to clear them up. All SMC Takumar 50/1.4s are the seven-element design. Those have better coatings, and *are* optically better as a result (you'll see improved contrast and better flare resistance compared to the same lens in Super-Takumar version)

I'd just get the cleanest lens you can, myself. But if you wanna have some cred in the Pentax world you can hold out (and pay more) for an eight-element. Here's a pile of reviews and sample photos, if you like:
Eight: http://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/Super-Takumar-50mm-F1.4-Early.html
Seven: http://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/SMC-S-M-C-Super-Takumar-50mm-F1.4.html

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	PENTAX
Camera Model	PENTAX K-5
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 4.4 (Windows)
Photographer	John_D_Harris_Jr
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	31 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2014:10:31 22:17:38
Exposure Time	1/160 sec
F-Number	f/8.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	80
Lens Aperture	f/8.0
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Focal Length	21.20 mm
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Hard
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Hard
Subject Distance Range	Macro

I'm thinking about buying a 24-105 f/4 L brand new for around 650 euros
I already own a 16-35 mm f/2.8 L with my Canon 60D

Would it be a compromise for low light situations being a slow lens?
If you have any other good choice of glass for around that price tag ( 500-700 euros), pitch me please :)

>>2806338
Lenspen

I'm thinking of buying a Nikkor 85mm f/1.8 G AF-S for my DX camera. I already have a 35mm f/1.8 and I'm hooked on it's luminosity and bokeh, but would like a bit more reach and background blur. I also have a cheap tamron 18-200 but I never have enough light for it, and image quality is subpar (which I expected already).
Do you think the 85mm would be a good choice? I take mostly portraits in open spaces, and some landscapes.

>>2806338
Why would you brush your lenses?

I just use a rocket blower and a microfiber cloth.

>>2806595
>Why would you brush your lenses?
>herewego.jpg

>>2806591
Sure.
It's an excellent lens and good value for money.

It's also a good addition to a 35mm. - 50mm would be too similar IMO.

Hi there /p/
I'm going to be going to japan in the summer so I wanted to get a compact for the trip there, I don't have much money to splash on some of the higher end gear but I can get a used Fuji X100 or Sony A6000 for under 500 dollars.
Is this a good choice for the price point?

ok guys i want a camera and i don't want it to be good or something, i just want something to shoot and have fun, something small to carry with me in my backpack (i have a 60D for work), something i don't have to worry about.
the budget is sub 50€, i was looking at the nikon e5400 (found at 35€). i know it cause it's the first serious camera i used, my dad owned one until i gave it a bath in vodka (i was going to a party and it was in the same bag with a bottle).
Full manual control, RAW shooting, decent lens, horrible speed and sensor but that's the way i want it.
any better suggestion?

File: image.jpg (30KB, 450x305px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 450x305px

got to see this in person today and it's actually really fat and not very good looking in person.

[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	450
Image Height	305
Scene Capture Type	Standard

Someone is selling a D3200 near me. How much should I offer for it to be fair?

>>2806737
also shitty ergonomics?

File: image.jpg (90KB, 750x498px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 750x498px

hi /p/. what in your opinion is the cheapest way of getting into a full frame camera? should I even be considering a used 5d mark ii or is that outdated by today's standards?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D2X
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS4 Windows
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.7
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	970
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	127 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2009:03:06 15:31:47
White Point Chromaticity	0.3
Exposure Time	1/250 sec
F-Number	f/6.3
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	200
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	85.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	750
Image Height	498
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	None
Contrast	Soft
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Hard
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>2806744
Why do you need a fool-frame camera? What advantages are you seeking over APS-C?

You may get a comparable crop camera for much cheaper depending on your needs.

>>2806717
>sub 50€

2nd hand film camera.

>>2806744
Why? I'm being entirely serious. What advantages will using full frame give you over a more modern APS-C sized sensor?

I'm pretty new, looking for a better camera, and I currently use a Powershot SX120 from like 2009. I was looking at mirrorless options, and an Olympus EPL6 looks like a good choice for me. However I noticed there are some excellent deals on DSLRs available especially if you buy old or used. I could keep the Powershot as my carry-round camera and get a DSLR for more serious shoots, but is it worth buying a $200 DSLR from several years ago? I'd like to shoot portraits, animals, and macro. Ideally whatever I buy is under $400. This is probably a stupid question though.

>>2806744
suck a couple of dicks for $20 until you get to a suny a7

>>2806747
>>2806749
fuji cucks spotted.

>>2806755
I mainly shoot a D810 friend. Nice try. It's not that full frame is useless, it's just that there's no reason to gimp yourself with an old body if you don't have need for full frame and don't have the budget for it.

File: DSC_0038.jpg (302KB, 1000x750px) Image search: [Google]

302KB, 1000x750px

I got a new bigger heavier DSLR so I think I should probably get a new strap. The DSPTCH strap I have has been great and it's my favorite camera strap, but I think it's a bit too thin to be comfortable. DSPTCH makes a larger heavy duty strap, but I'm open to other options and I don't really feel like spending $50 on a strap right now anyway.

Any suggestions for other straps to look at? It has to be easily length adjustable, easy to detach, and long enough to comfortably wear with the camera slung diagonally across my body. I don't really like grippy materials or padding and I don't like the blackrapid style tripod attachment stuff, I would rather something that attaches to the lugs.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Sony
Camera Model	D6503
Camera Software	17.1.2.A.0.314_9_f300
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2016:04:02 14:26:33
Exposure Time	1/16 sec
F-Number	f/2.0
ISO Speed Rating	400
Exposure Bias	0.7 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	4.90 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1000
Image Height	750
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>2806744
>falling for outdated "standard" formats
kek

File: 54656.jpg (51KB, 720x540px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 720x540px

Help, gear!

D3200 new in box for $350. Good deal or should I pass?

I currently have a D5200 with the 18-55 kit lens and I'm thinking of buying a new lens.

I've been looking at the Nikon 55-200mm VR II - any thoughts for or against?

>>2806772
Good deal.
http://www.expertreviews.co.uk/digital-cameras/51975/nikon-d3200-review

>>2806774
It's alright. The vr is decent. You have to stop it down some to get sharp photos. Obviously there are better choices in the focal length for more monies.

Are the Leica bridge cameras any good or literally just rebranded Panasonic?

>>2806749
Advantages of full frame

>better low light performance at high iso
>somewhat better detail in resulting photos
>shallower depth of field (if you want this)
>brighter viewfinder

Advantages of apsc

>crop factor of 1.5 (1.6 for Canon) gives you longer effective focal length. This can be a slight disadvantage if you're looking to do very wide angle stuff
>hell of a lot cheaper for not that much lesser image quality
>compatible with both apsc and full frame lenses

>>2806788
>>better low light performance at high iso
Not necessarily. Sensor advancements in newer crop bodies can make them better in low light than older full frames.
>>somewhat better detail in resulting photos
Depends on pixel pitch.
>>shallower depth of field (if you want this)
This
>>brighter viewfinder
This

Not trying to be a contrarian dick, but we're talking about a 5DmII, not a mIII.

>>2805338
>XC

Just get the XF 18mm and be done with it. Or get the 35/27 if you're too much of a babby for wide angle.

>>2806808
the xc16-50 is a better lens than the xf18.
many bought it just for the 16mm.

>>2806788
I think for DSLRs it's really better to get full frame because canikon have lens lineups that are really more suited to full frame and their lineups for crop are much more inconvenient. Also with an optical viewfinder the size of the sensor affects the size and brightness of the finder.

With mirrorless it's not nearly as big a deal, the image quality difference is honestly pretty small and with a lens mount and lens lineup designed around a crop sized sensor or an m43 size or whatever size then the lenses available will obviously be well suited to the sensor size. Electronic finders can be made whatever size and brightness no matter what size the sensor is, too.

>>2806783

Literally rebranded panasonics with a better ui

>>2806841
>their lineups for crop are much more inconvenient
For anything other than extreeeeme wide angle that is very bullshit, APS-C has more choices than FF for canon.
You can use every FF lens but then you also get a selection of less expensive, lighter weight, great image quality EFS lenses as needed.

And sigma and tamron and others fulfilled the demand for razor sharp, fast, wide (but not crazy distort-everything-wide) lenses.
I already use the 35mm (56mm FF equiv) end of my sigma 18-35mm (28.8-56mm) F1.8 more than I use the 18.

I've also got a 24mm pancake that I find much more useable after crop factor brings to 38.4mm, by essentially treating as a wider lens than a 40mm or 50mm prime on FF.

If you really want some 12mm extreme fish eye shot, where the distortion and perspective are so terrible that everything looks like it was squeezed through someone's butthole then your only real choice is FF.
But those shots aren't even 1 in 500 for me, making the extra EF-S lenses quite satisfying. And also the extra bit of telephoto reach (thanks to higher pixel density, 20.2 mp on a crop versus 20.2 mp spread very widely on a FF, the crop can pull off a closer image of an animal and in higher detail with more affordable lenses.)

>>2805200
are there adapters that allows to use other lenses (nikon, canon, leica..) on c/y mount cameras?

>>2806563
The 24-105 has IS, which allows you to use about the same shutter speed as you would at 2.8 without IS.

So I like to photograph shows and concerts and I'm currently looking to purchase my first DSLR but I am on a budget
I have a friend that is offering to sell me his canon t2i and is going to include everything it came with:
the kit lens
a 64 gig card
and he's going to add his fisheye
He's asking for $250

Since I'll be saving a bit of money I'm also going to buy a 50mm 1.4 lens

Knowing what I like to shoot, is this a good purchase plan?
Ill obviously be getting a second lens somewhere down the road but for starting off would this be a good idea?

Is it worth buying a Nikon D200 nowadays?They're pretty cheap where I am.

>>2806867
No. Get a D7100 if you want a Nikon that's more "Pro" than something like the D3X00 and D5X00.

>>2806868
>>2806867
Or a D300s

you guys think a 21-28mm focal length is worth buying if i already own a 35? i've been shooting landscape occasionally with the 35mm prime, but at times found it inadequate. i just wanted your personal opinions and preferences. does it make a worthy difference?

>>2806875
on fool frame yes, 20 or 24 is quite noticeably wider than 35, and it makes perfect sense to have both.

on crop not all that much, look for something wider if you want a wide angle. 16mm is 24 equivalent, aim for that.

>>2806861

What's the fisheye? $250 seems OK - but not like jump for it.

Also, is that 2/3 extra stop worth the 1.4's downsides (shitty AF, less sharp, less contrast) vs the cheaper 1.8mm STM?

>>2806884
>What the fisheye?

I'm not entirely sure
I haven't gotten a look at the camera but he's still giving me more information

The lens was recommended to me by some other music photographers so I was just assuming its a good idea
Im open to suggestions from anyone though

>>2806886
>>2806884
My guess it's one of those shitty chinese wide angle "filters", just like one of those macro addon "filter" things that are atrociously shitty, soft and chromatic aberration vomit all over the image.

>>2806886
Also, used Pentax K-30 with WR kit lens. Take a look at it.

i'll travel do nyc next winter and planning to make a video there showing the city something like casey neistat style, open shots.

so my question is: what lenses to take (pref just 1)

i do have already:
- nikon D5000
- 18 - 55 mm
- bunch of old lenses for my analogics but I want a automatic focus so they are useless

>>2806889
Yeah it probably will be shitty but it seems like it really isn't effecting the price and he's just adding it because he's my friend and he wont be needing it without the camera
He skates so he probably used it for some videos

>>2806563

What are you going to shoot with it? It's a good general travel, walkaround lens for the price (I think mine was $500 refurbished from Canon), although 24mm isn't wide enough in some cases on crop.

If you plan to shoot low light it's still just F/4 so you're gonna struggle with things moving.

>>2806893
anyone please?

short cut: i need a nice wide and light lens REALLY affordable

>>2806944
>wide-angle on crop
>small and light
>REALLY cheap
>must have autofocus

yeah that ain't happening. Spend more money or compromise on your requirements.

also this is a slow board, so since you're bumping after only an hour and a half I'm more inclined to tell you to just fuck off

>>2806944
Why don't you just listen to Casey himself, "The gear doesn't matter," ya dumb fuck.

>>2806944
20mm f/2.8 D maybe?

But autofocus with a nikon on video?

m8...

File: Tamron_SP_24_70mm_f_2_8_DI_845350.jpg (138KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

138KB, 1000x1000px

Hello /p/, Does anyone have any opinions on the Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 VC lens for Nikons? I'm considering replacing my Nikon 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 with one, since it's a lot cheaper than Nikon's 24-70.

My main concern is I hear this lens has an issue with onion ring bokeh, but most of the examples I find of this are cropped/altered to focus on that instead of actual sample images where the bokeh is just visible. Is this something that would actually be a noticeable problem?

>>2806956
sorry about that

my priority is just cheap really (less than $500)

>>2806964
his kit lens goes wider than that anyway (18 vs 20)

>>2806972
Wider, but it's not as sharp, nor as fast.

>>2806969
It won't stand out in normal shots.

Not the most beautiful bokeh, but not a terrible mess either.

>>2806977
i've looked and get to this:
Tokina 11 16mm F2.8 DX
seens ok

I've got about $350 available, have an x-a1 with kit lense atm (been using K-mount lenses with an adaptor). I'd like to move to a DSLR system, preferably Pentax, but I have no idea where to find reasonably priced (for me) bodies in Canada, and with the exchange rate as it is, buying from the USA isn't an option. Please give me some suggestions.

What should I get, Sony a7 or a6000? What are the pros and cons between each I'm stuck deciding on which one to get because they both seem similar to me but can't decide because I've never owned a mirrorless only dlsr.
>canon 50D

>>2806999
$350 Maplebux, or USD? They cost 500+ on Amazon.ca, but I bet you could find them cheaper. If not then you're SOL because these are some of the cheaper and newer Pentaxes.
http://www.amazon.com/Pentax-K-50-Digital-Camera-3-Inch/dp/B00DBPKBQO/ref=sr_1_6?s=photo&ie=UTF8&qid=1459655865&sr=1-6&keywords=Pentax+K-50
http://www.amazon.com/Pentax-K-01-Mirrorless-Body-Black/dp/B0076396OA/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1459656576&sr=8-1&keywords=pentax+k01

I would just say save up.


>>2807019
>A7
>PROS: Small, light, muh full frame resolution, good colors, full frame so good sensitivity in low light, really nice EVF.
>CONS: Abysmal battery life (high 200s to mid 300s), poor first and third party lens support, only two of the lenses in the FE lineup are sub $500 so beware if you're looking for AF lenses on a budget, LA-EA4 adapter is sluggish and fucks with image quality, ergonomics might not be for everyone, no IBIS if you want to use legacy glass, not actually weather sealed (contrary to what Sony said when it launched. They backpedaled and now call them "Moisture resistant" which pretty much means condensation shouldn't form, but they don't guarantee anything anymore.) and neither are the FE lenses, cheap feeling body for the price.

>A6000
>PROS: Cheaper than the A7, still takes nice photos, 11 fps burst, better battery life than the A7 by about 100, more lenses available
>CONS: Like the A7 it has no IBIS, battery life is still poor compared to any DSLR, no mic or headphone jack and you have to buy the ECM-XYST1M mic to have a mic out jack, ergonomics are more or less the same as the A7 so that could be a pro or con, not weather sealed at all

t. A7 user

>>2807035
Thank you for the a7 pros and cons. Which would you recommend.

>>2807035
I keep hearing people mention "IBIS" when it comes to Sony cameras. May I ask what that is?

>>2807046

'In-Body Image Stabilization'.

>>2807046
In body image stabilization. Most DSLRs (except Pentax and I think a couple Sony Alpha cameras) have IS built into the lenses, and Sony did this with the first line of A7s too. It pretty much meant that you got no IS when using older lenses, and new lenses with IS cost more.
When the A7II rolled around, they changed to in body IS for whatever reason. I would like to think because they found that people were getting the A7 to use old lenses or to save money on lens production, but I could be wrong.

>>2807044
That's a tough one.
One one hand you get more detail and can crop more with the A7 but suffer in terms of things like lenses and the painfully slow startup time of around 2 second (When you first turn the camera on. It goes down to more manageable startup times if you turn it back on after recently turning it off); or you could get the A6000 and still get good large shots, but you won't be able to resolve as much detail as the A7 nor will you get the low light sensitivity. Either way you get shafted by poor battery life and lenses.

I paid high $800s (Like $870 or something) for my A7 used from KEH. I only found out that high $800s/low $900s is used D600/D610 territory and if I got one of those I wouldn't have to deal with the cons of the A7.

If you're looking for a small but powerful camera as a companion to your FF DSLR for everyday photos, or want a camera that can use tons of old lenses then get the A7; but it's not going to replace your DSLR for the more "pro" stuff by any means.

Can't really vouch for the A6000 since I don't have one nor have I ever shot with one outside of a Best Buy, but a friend of mine recently got one as a companion to his aging D3200 and he seems to like it.

>>2807046
the bird

>>2807122
>painfully slow startup time of around 2 second

kek

>>2806316
Is there ebay in canada?

>>2806324
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9d_wsj3i_dM

Do some research bro. Shouldn't be that hard to figure out. If you shoot film you should have one roll to waste. Find the cheapest roll you can find. Better waste one roll than screw up five.

first time buyer i hvae no experience with cams what would be the best cam to buy for thr lowest price

>>2806662
Yes

File: dd-09868.jpg (786KB, 1000x667px) Image search: [Google]

786KB, 1000x667px

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	762 dpi
Vertical Resolution	762 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB

>>2806739
250$

>>2806751
>is it worth buying a $200 DSLR from several years ago?
Yes.

>>2807139
You already have it. It's on your phone.

>>2806203
It's a good cheap camera. Buy a used one

>>2806751
Buy a used E-m5, best bang for buck right now, and stabiliser is great for macro

File: 760177_JAVELIN_LSH_SLING_036__10584.1364598168.1280.1280.jpg (135KB, 850x850px) Image search: [Google]

135KB, 850x850px

Slingpacks or backpacks?
I'm a backpack guy but I've been considering getting a single strap one. The thing is I'm worreid for my back I usually carry a lot of stuff with me and the "speed" those slingpacks offer is kinda attractive.

>>2807166
I want to break that guys both wrists

Using a Tokina 11-16mm 2.8 DX on a D5000 (crop body) will work as a 11-16mm or i need to x1.5?

>>2807166
I'm a backpack kind of person. Using a sling or shoulder bag fucks up your shoulder after long days.

>>2807398
It will behave as an 11-16mm but with the crop factor it will give you the view angles across your frame equivalent to a 17-20mm on 35mm FF.

>>2807401
so its not so different from a 18-55mm kit, right? there's any cheap wide angle like Tokina but that will work as a wide angle?

>>2807408
It is an 11-16mm, the kit lens is 18-55mm. The kit lens is also much slower, the Tokina with f/2.8 is considered as a fast lens, especially at that wide focal length.

>>2807411
>>2807408
I mean it is very different from a kit lens.
Also kit lens usually have bad IQ, while some is sharp but all have really bad tendencies with color fringing and aberrations, not very pleasant out of focus area rendering.

I have:
- Fuji x-t1
-18-55mm
-35mm
-56mm
-X100t

What do I get rid of? I'm considering trading the 35mm for a 55-200mm also. Thoughts? I do lots of environmental portraiture and travel.

>>2807413
got it. but right now i need a travel/architectural/landscape wide lens, then when it comes to focal length i kinda feel i lost w/ the Tokina so simalar to the kit (desconsidering quality)

If i find the kit lens good enough in most cases does that make me a casual?

>>2807419
Yeah

>>2807420
Beats being a gearfag

>>2807419
Kit lenses exist for a reason. They're "good enough" all purpose lenses for photos and they'll do for average stuff.
If you want things like a wider aperture, longer or shorter focal lengths, or better optical quality then you upgrade.

I'm looking for an entry level Zoom for my Pentax K50, any suggestions?
Are manual lens zooms a good idea? I own a Pentax A 50mm 1.7 and works great for stills, still practicing the manual focus thingy.
If not what's a good budget for a arround 300mm zoom lens?

File: $_3.jpg (21KB, 500x406px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 500x406px

What's the best version of the helios 58mm f2? I realize they vary wildly in build quality but is the 44-2 better than the 44m or vice versa?

does anybody have any past experience with the Voigtlander VSL 1 and Color Ultron f/1.8 50mm? Wondering if its worth it for $150

>>2807460
It's a soviet lens and the build quality varies from lemon to excellent optics. While they are a bit soft wide open, stopping down to f/2.8 greatly improves the sharpness. Lenses of this era also have a bit desaturated and lower contrast image which can be either corrected in post or used for special portraiture effects.
I have the 44M, which is I believe a 44M-4 or 44M-6 without series number, maybe for export. Generally the 44M, 44M-4 and upwards are of better quality with better coatings as well. If the lens is good, it is very good. Mine is sharp and only exceeded by the professional level lenses in sharpness.
If you get a good one it will be the best money spent on your gear.
See if oddphoto has any on ebay, they usually test the lenses.

>>2807482
Thanks for the info. I'll have to try to see if I can get a nice one. I'd love to use it for video on an a7s I've got some neat ideas and softness isn't really that huge of a problem but I'd probably not be shooting wide open all that much anyways

>>2807460
Try 44-3, it was made by Belarus, usually it has better quality. Mine is very sharp in center wide open.
44-M are often blurry, even 44M-7, tried 2 versions.
Or you can also try 77M-4:
-better optics, more swirly bokeh.

>>2807487
>77M-4

I might definitely have to shell out a bit more for that then. Thanks again

>>2807484
In addition, see if you can get a Jupiter 11 135mm, it is usually flaring heavily, but with the tendency to produce golden flares getting the lighting right can produce very interesting effects. Direct Zeiss copy and is a very-very nice lens to have. Alternative with less nice flares is the Pentacon 135mm but it is difficult to de-click the aperture.

>>2807482
>>2807460
Oh, I forgot, with soviet M42 lenses the KMZ manufactured ones with the KMZ prism logo are usually the better quality ones.

File: kmz_logos.png (4KB, 525x62px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 525x62px

>>2807492
I'd love one of those pentacon 135mm. Right now I'm using a 135mm super takumar that works well enough for now

I'd prefer it be somewhere closer to 50mm in length considering I'm usually pretty close to stuff

>>2807494
which one

>>2807496
All of them are KMZ logo from different years.

I have the Pentacon 135mm but the cheap 6-blade aperture version. Sharp as hell from f/4 and wide open has a dreamy glow, excellent portrait lens. The 15 blade version (bokehmonster) is a dream of many, including me.

>>2807419
Yes but don't buy another lens until you feel the kit lens is limiting you in some respect (need more focal length, wider angle, bigger aperture for low light etc.)

File: IMG_1083.jpg (1MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3264x2448px

Looking for help with a film camera issue!

I just shot my first roll of film (Kentmre 400 I'm a poorfag) on my new film Camera (Pentax MX b/c who needs fancy features). The problem I encountered was that my 36 exposure roll of film only lasted 24 exposures. I was pretty generous when loading and shot 4 black frames to make sure I wasn't shooting on pre-exposed film but I didn't shoot anywhere near 12 blanks. My cameras shot counter was at 24 when the lever refused to pull any more film from the canister. In the dark I went to investigate and discovered there was no more film in the canister. I haven't developed yet so I'm not sure what exactly happened to the film but I will reply when I do. In the meantime does anyone have any idea why 36exp film would only last 24 exp?

>>2807606
Did the canister actually say 36 shots, or did your dysplexia kick in like when I used to call Portra "Portrita"?
If you developed the film already, check and see if there is enough space for 36 frames on the developed roll. If not, call up wherever you bought the film from and see if you could get a refund.

>>2807606
You probably got scammed, but you'll know for sure once you develop it

File: IMG_1084.jpg (1MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3264x2448px

>>2807610
>Did the canister actually say 36 shots, or did your dysplexia kick in like when I used to call Portra "Portrita"?
Weird thing is I've used this kind of kentmere a lot and all the other rolls lasted 36exps (this was in my other camera however). I double checked and the canister says 36 on it. I'll go to develop this film tomorrow.

>>2807611
So you think I'll either see a short roll or some giant gaps? I have no idea what to expect xD

>>2807613
>>2807613
If you develop it and there's tons of gaps then it's you camera, a short roll would mean that a 24 exposure somehow got into a 36 exp canister during manufacturing.

>>2805200
I'm looking for a all in one lens for my Nikon D3200. Can anyone talk me out of a Sigma 18-250?

Seems like a good lens for a beginner with good reviews. Will be used for travel and taking pics of my dog. Dog slobber toasted the lens of the original lens that came with the Nikon.

cop? beginner tryna get into photography http://newyork.craigslist.org/brk/pho/5512428193.html

>>2807630
Seems pretty decent if it wasn't lifted off some tourist that wandered too far.

>>2807630
That's pretty good. It's near where I live. Just meet the guy at a police station if you are concerned.

>>2807414
Don't get rid of anything. You might regret it later on. Only get rid of stuff once you have a substitute for it and no longer use it. Why would you consider a 55-200mm?

>>2807458
>entry level Zoom
The kit lens.

is $100 a fair price for a pentax k1000? posted it in the film thread a while ago

>>2807721
NO.
I've found DOZENS of them for <$30. Most of them around $15. And I'm in Canada, so it should be a few bucks cheaper for you.

>>2807721
The pentax K1000 has become the de facto camera for people who take a film class. Their inexperience drives the price up. It is actually a 30$ camera. If you find one in perfect condition it might be worth 100$.

>>2807732
Actually, let me clarify a bit. $100 for just the body alone is a ripoff. $100 for the body, and a number of lenses is more reasonable. I picked one up a few years ago for $100 with a 70-210mm f/4, 50mm f/1.8, and 28mm f/2.8 lense, it also came with a nice little flash (fits in my jeans pocket) that I use often enough surprisingly.

>>2806316
The cheapest ones? Old zoom lenses (AIS, many AF-D), old kit lenses (28-80G), and Series E lenses (good ones include the 50/1.8, and the telephotos, the rest are kinda shit).

>>2807035
The only downside on the gen 2 is the battery life, and lens cost

>>2807737
I too live in canada. Toronto to be more specific. Looking at prices online i find them around 100 with a lens. Where can i go to find a better deal?

>>2807035
You forgot shitty EVF for the A6000.

>>2807798
Thrift shops, towns out of the city. Keep an eye on Kijiji. Hit Camera in Markham usually has some of the more common slrs on for pretty cheap as well.

>>2807831
Never got a chance to use it in a situation where that was an issue since I only used it in a well lit are.
I have heard that there's a perceived sense of lag when using the burst mode though, which is something that's apparently been fixed in the A6300.

>>2807798
>>2807798
http://www.hitcamera.ca/shop/pentax-sp500-body-with-super-takumar-55mm-f2-lens/
Here you go.

File: 700d kit lense.png (483KB, 882x520px) Image search: [Google]

483KB, 882x520px

Is the Canon 700D worth it for a first camera for about $600 AUD?

How is the stock lens?

Hey guys I'm relatively new to photography and have been using cs6 for about a year. I have been using a sony a250x 10.2 mp camera and i want to do more professional work and wanted some advice on gear to get, any help would be greatly appreciated.

>>2807946
What kind of professional work do you have in mind?

>>2807853
It's fine. Sensor isn't amazing but in good light you'll be satisfied with the results. If you want to do a lot of low-light photography, you'll probably be disappointed though.

The kit lens is fine.

>>2807946
>a250x
I assume you mean the a230? You probably want to invest in some good A-Mount glass and then upgrade to a newer A-Mount camera later on.
We don't know what kit you already have or what kind of photography you want to take seriously, so it's hard to recommend anything.

>>2807946
Depends entirely on your budget, your planned uses, your region, etc. Not sure why your use of CS6 is important...

File: 8rkAQuC.png (465KB, 602x602px) Image search: [Google]

465KB, 602x602px

As an entry level which one would be best suited for nature panoramas and close-up architecture?
I have my eye on Canon 600D with kit lenses 18-55mm and Nikon 18-55mm both have image stabilizer thingies as I am going handheld for now.
Cheers.

>>2807955
Why do you want to put a Nikon kit lens on a Canon entry level body?

>>2807955
Shit forgot to put Nikon model, it's D3200.
Also Nikon is like 50 usd cheaper so I could get some accessories right away.

>>2807955
Well you don't want to put the Nikon on your canon.

What is "close up architecture"?

>>2807955
thank god those are fake

as a gunfag this made me cringe hard, unloaded or not.

>>2807958
>>2807956
See >>2807957
What I meant is town sights, exterior etc.

>>2807961
Both will do you just fine. I'd personally go for the Nikon, because I personally prefer Nikon.

>>2807953
Idk i just wanted to include that. Im new to this forum
>>2807948
I am doing surrealistic art right now and i like rene magritte so it sort of resembles his work.

File: young-businessman-removing-glasses-cpfa1y.jpg (49KB, 346x540px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 346x540px

>>2807966
>forum
>surrealistic art

>>2807961
The generic list of entry level comeras are as follows (in order of bang for buck):
Pentax K-S2, K-50
Nikon D5500, D3300
Sony A6000
Canon 760D, 1300D
all of these with their respective kit lenses and the obligatory first fast primes, 35mm and 50mm.

Of course most of these models (Canon, Nikon and Sony) refresh their models fairly often with little to no actual improvements, so older models are also good.
You are looking for wide angle to standard focal lengths so kit lens will be the best starting point, then I suggest going for the 35mm for panorama stitching. 50mm if you are interested in portraits.
With this information you can get started, look at photos on Flickr to see lens qualities. Whatever you do, don't believe anything that involves numbers and charts, that is a quick way to sinking all your future income into gear you won't use.

>>2807966
Well thank you for taking the time to find the right thread at least. Many beginners don't.

What camera you get isn't really all that important. They all do more or less the same thing, with slight strengths here and there. For your stated uses, you'll be in control of much of the scene, without having to worry about fixing issues later (once you get the hang of what you're doing) so really any entry level or used mid-range DSLR should be plenty for you.

>>2807720
I'm looking for a larger one also I'm really hating the kit lens.

>>2807968
That's what I said! Never trust marketing numbers.
Going for Nikon D3200 then. Thanks for lens advice. There's plenty of hills around so I if I really get into nature panoramas I'll get 35mm. I thought of getting a hood right away, is there any specific one you'd suggest for 18-55mm lens?

>>2807973
You can go for the DA 17-70 with SDM. Not very good corners.
The DA 16-45 is the most budget one but has very good IQ. These two are not WR.
The HD DA 16-85 is the most expensive but surpasses pro DA* lenses in IQ, and is weather sealed.

>>2807974
If there is no hood included then do a search on forums for the exact size. You don't want to use a dinky one that doesn't do anything or a long one that heavily vignettes on the wide end. Go for a petal shaped one.

>>2806861
T2i uuuugh

Honestly get the 1.8 fifty instead

>>2807166
Depends on whether you're carrying short distances with the need to pull stuff out constantly (different lenses etc), or hauling long term.

what is the maximum i should spend on a 35mm film slr if i am a beginner?

>>2807987
What will you be using it for
How will you plan to use it in the future? Money? Just for fun? Do you also have a "workhorse" kit?
How often will you be shooting it? Do you have any digital equipment that you might want to use on a film body?
Where do you live? Do you have access to ebay, keh, etc.

>>2807989ill be using it for fun. ill probably buy a few lenses for it but don't want to spend that much. i have a 7D and fuji x100 that i mainly use now. i live in South Africa. have access to some second hand websites like eBay, but prices generally are about the same or a bit less than eBay.

>>2807977
Gotchu. Thanks for the tips.

>>2807994
Well a canon EOS body will let you use your canon lenses, if you have full frame lenses.

You won't be able to buy from this site probably, but you can see the cameras, and their pricing

https://www.keh.com/shop/catalogsearch/result/?cat=107&keh_mount=35241&q=canon

File: 59-1205.jpg (60KB, 640x640px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 640x640px

I have an old twin reflex camera and a canon 40D + the shitty 18-55mm lens it came with. I use the old camera now and then for special shoots, but recently got more interested in street and nature photography. The Canon is for snapshots, family visits, holidays, some shit I sell now and then.

I'm thinking about getting a full frame DSLR, with at least a normal and a portrait lens. But the prices are really offputting for getting a whole lot of shit I don't want or need. I just want to be able to adjust focus, exposure, speed manually and that's it.

Can anyone suggest more barebones digital choices or convince me to go full analog? (Medium format costs me 15€ per film without any prints)

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS3 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	640
Image Height	640

I just bought a used Tamron 70-200/2.8 Macro K because I ran out of options in my budget. Just a few hours needed for a Sigma 150-500 but some Italian bastard got there first.
I will mostly use it for nature/wildlife and sports, and was wondering what is the general concensus on it? What difference will it be after my 50-200 kit telezoom?
Yes, I want to calm my nerves after spending my money, on the sake of my nerves be gentle.

>>2805200

dat Berlebach

>>2808011
at that price for film I don't think it's possible to make an argument for analog. that's more than 3 times the US price.

>>2808011
>I just want to be able to adjust focus, exposure, speed manually and that's it.
Why not use your 40D... it has everything you just asked for.

>>2808016
That's like the fancy place that does it by hand and includes the film itself. The worse quality discounter would be about 8€ including prints. But risking disaster.

>>2808017
It's not full frame.
Also no dedicated buttons, which can be annoying.

>>2808026
>2016
>still being caught up on negligible differences between APS-C and FF
I seriously hope you don't do this

>>2808026
What benefit does full frame provide in street photography?

Also it has dedicated buttons/knobs for:
Autofocus
Aperture
Shutter speed

which was what was stated in the post. What additional buttons are needed?

>>2808032
Leave him be, he's just a gearfaggot with more money than brains.

>>2808030
It's just sucks if you can't frame the things you see the way you want because you'd have to take a step back but you can't because you're on the fucking metro.

>>2808038
Why on earth don't you use the sensor equivalent lenses then???
For normal focal length use a 35mm on APS-C, 50mm on the same sensor is a portrait short telephoto. It's fucking basic math, go use your brain, moron!

>>2808038
So you're using the wrong lens, and are blaming the sensor in your camera?

>>2808033
If I had money I wouldn't be using a 40D with a kit lens mate.

>>2808032
It has multi purpose buttons/wheels.

>>2808043
>>2808046
I get you, but I'm not sure I want to invest in more lenses for my camera which isn't all that great anyway. And it's not the identical image.

>>2808056
So you don't have money, and yet you want to upgrade to a full frame DSLR (With more expensive lenses) but want it to have dedicated controls that don't serve multiple purposes? (Those multiple purposes are navigating menus, I guess? Since the during shooting, the control dial on the front ONLY controls shutter speed, and the control dial on the back ONLY controls aperture when you're in manual mode...)

So a digital leica...? I guess? but that's not an SLR, so... I'm not sure what we're hoping to end up with here.

>>2807967
Im sorry im not sure what you are implying

>>2808014
That lens is pretty good. I'm sure you be happy with it.

>>2808059
You have a point. I guess it's just that the lens I'm using is already damaged and the camera is barely worth anything anymore I thought I might as well start new.

>>2808063
Thanks, that's what I needed. I'm still going to miss the weather sealing but for that I will keep the kit telezoom.

>>2808065
Well I'm still just not sure what you're even wanting. What do you mean dedicated controls, and that the 40D has multi purpose buttons for exposure? It's not a rebel, so you can just change aperture and shutter speed directly, without holding anything do to change functions... are you talking about the buttons on the top plate for things like drive mode and AF type? If so, you do realize that splitting all of those off into their own button is going to give you a body with about 40 buttons on it, right? That's not simplified at all.

If you need a wider angle lens, you don't spend $4000 on a new camera kit, you go get the EF-S 10-18mm

And by the way, field of view wise? An equivalent focal length will produce the exact same image. The only difference will be in depth of field if you don't adjust for an equivalent aperture.

>>2808066
Made a new thread by the way.

File: download.jpg (571KB, 1000x750px) Image search: [Google]

571KB, 1000x750px

>>2808068
I mean I'd prefer not to look down the viewfinder to see what I'm adjusting.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Panasonic
Camera Model	DMC-LX3
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.0 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.0
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	24 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2014:12:28 12:18:35
Exposure Time	1/15 sec
F-Number	f/2.0
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	400
Lens Aperture	f/2.0
Exposure Bias	0.3 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	5.10 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Custom
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	High Gain Up
Contrast	Hard
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Hard