Gear Thread

Any tips on buying old manual glasses?

is the pentacon 29 2.8 anygood?

File: 3dfddf41dc05887090a8554ca802e911.jpg (44KB, 800x556px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 800x556px

I got a pre-order on this 3axis handheld gimbal.. the few sample I've seen look awesome but I have doubts.

Should I /p/?

>>2808066
I've only shot digital ever. Upgraded from a nikon d5000 (had for two years) to a canon 6D and I love it, but lately I've been feeling inspired to shoot analog.

Does anyone know where I can educate myself about what gear I should invest in to begin shooting film?

>>2808107

1) Don't call it analog.
2) Go pick up any old $100 manual focus camera, go buy a brick of tri-x, a two-reel developing tank and some chemicals.

>>2808107
Google, mostly.

>You'll need:
Camera
Lens(es)
Film

>You may want:
Home development kit
-tank
-Reel(s)
-developer
-fixer
-changing bag
film scanner
Enlarger
Photo paper
Developing trays and chemicals

Daily reminder that M43 is the only mirrorless system that actually succeeds at being a good mirrorless system.

>small size
>low weight
>excellent and comprehensive photo and video features
>large lens ecosystem

Fuji cannot into AF or video. Sony FE cannot into lenses or size. Sony E cannot into lenses or IBIS. Nikon, Pentax, and Leica cannot into market share. M43 only loses 2 stops DR and noise performance to gain those advantages. If you needed 14 EV DR at base ISO, you could pick up a D800E cheaper than a A7RII. If you needed to shoot at ISO12800+ regularly, then obviously you'd choose the largest sensor you can get your hands on. Otherwise, M43 covers every lens type you'd ever need. The S-AF performance of M43 CDAF is fast enough for even action, and the extra DOF helps too. The C-AF is fast with Panasonic DFD or the E-M1. The E-M5II and E-M1 EVFs are as good as the X-T1s. The Olympus IBIS is magic tier.

Face it, M43 isn't """"""""""dead""""""""", you just want a bigger sensor and camera to show off.

>>2808092
No. It shit in the sense of an ass shitting the shit that another ass eats up then shits out. Now that second hand shit would be comparable to the Pentacon 2.8/29.
It's a shame because some Pentacon lenses are absolute beasts even today, like the 50mm or the 135mm. The 135 15 aperture blade version is highly sought after by actual working photographers for it's outstanding portraiture qualities.

>>2808066
Guys I think you should be doing some guides to avoid same questions on every thread
Just make some pastebins and go.

Can someone advise me a fast prime wide angel lens for canon or an antique one which I can use with an adapter?
I have about 50-60$

>>2808130
To get a lens that is both fast, and wide, for canon, you need to add a zero to the end of your budget.
If you're willing to adapt (which you are) look into rokinon and samyang.

>>2808127
People don't read the stuff anyways. Most of these answers are easily googleable, and the rest are generally answered in the links in the sticky. Everyone thinks their beginner questions are unique, so they assume nobody has asked the questions before.

>>2808093
The H1 was already badass.
This one looks more badass.

DO IT

Takumar 28mm F2.8 Bayonet or
SMC Pentax-M 28mm F2.8
pentax is 50% more expensive and has marginally better reviews on pentaxforums
i will use it with a film slr

>>2808165
Get the Pentax-M, the Takumars have yellowing issues due to radioactive elements causing ionization coloring in the glue between the grouped elements. A few days in UV light can improve it but not by much, the sensor will still pick up the tint making the photos slightly (or more) muddy.

>>2808171
will it have an effect on quality or just give an image a warm tint?
i would actually like that, i use f.lux and generally love warmer colors

>>2808177
It's not a warm tint, nothing like those beauty or sunsoft filters. It is an ugly browny yellow tint that gives shitty muddy tinting. You can't get rid of it entirely.
It is a very characteristic color though, in my work I see it often. Optical elements exposed to strong UV light produce the same color. It's not the glass itself but stuff sticking on the surface and caking on under the strong ionizing light.
Similar with the lens, it is the glue between the elements that gets colorized and is impossible to remove.

>>2808186
that doesn't sound good, do you have an example of how this might look?

>>2808209
Just google "Takumar yellowing", there should be some examples.

>>2808066
bro yr cams wet

>>2808264
So?

>>2808133
Just suggesting stuff to make these threads more interesting... They get boring easily. Adding something like a thread topic would be cool too.

I'm also interested in your EDC kits and bags, I would love to see more of those pics.

Regarding video: Should I get the Kamerar LCD Viewfinder VF-4 or the QV-1? The former looks like it's higher quality and has a better/bigger visual zoom, but it's also a little bit more expensive, and I'm wondering if the QV-1 might be good enough.

>>2808093
How much does it cost ?

(I'm a poorfag so i won't buy it but anyway i'm curious)

>>2808278
1. go to Hobbyking.com
2. buy big camera gimbal with electronics and motors
3. put it on a stick
4. ???
5. Profit!

>>2808165
the bigger reason to choose the SMC-M over the Takumar isn't yellowing at all - whether you like that or not (it acts like a yellow filter, which B&W shooters often use anyway)

the reason is that the Takumar Bayonets are single-coated. I haven't used the 28/2.8, but I have a 135/2.5 and it's very easy to make it flare. An SMC lens will give you better contrast and flare resistance.

last thread and this new one have the photo of a Pentax in extreme conditions. What's the deal with pentax in extreme conditions?

>>2808314
Pentax offers weather sealing in their entry level bodies (with very few exceptions) and in most of their lenses including the kit lenses.
You can run around in heavy rain taking photos with a Pentax while the others are crammed together under a tent or something. I did this a few times, got many shots the other couldn't.

File: ZWOMonochrome.jpg (189KB, 1104x1287px) Image search: [Google]

189KB, 1104x1287px

Is anyone familiar with CCD imaging?

I'm looking to get two Astrophotography setups, one for Deep-sky and another for Planetary. I'm quite settled on the DSO, Planetary and Automation-guide optics. Respectively they will be;
>Skywatcher 80ED f/7.5 600/80mm (with f/6.3 focal reducer noice)
>Skywatcher 250pds f/4.7 1200/250mm (with f/24 barlow)
>Orion ST80 guidescope

Now problem is I've little clue on what cameras would suit either setup. For the Deep-sky photography I'll likely be using a DSLR, currently I've got a Nikon D3200 which doesn't immediately require an upgrade but is something to consider down the line - any thoughts on a ~£500 DSLR body? Finally I will need a CCD camera for planetary imaging, and frankly, it's all a bit daunting having computers, cooling systems, motorized filter wheels and 30 different cables for something that gets stopped by a cloud.

The forefront CCD camera I'm looking at is a ZWO ASI120mm as it seems very popular on forums. Another is the DFK 21AU618.AS (catchy names aren't they?). What I'm asking is does anyone have any experience with CCDs, and is there anything they'd recommend looking into?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D300
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS5.1 Macintosh
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/5.7
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	890
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	127 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	2712
Image Height	2931
Compression Scheme	Uncompressed
Pixel Composition	Unknown
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format
Image Created	2013:10:02 11:28:45
Exposure Time	1/160 sec
F-Number	f/10.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	200
Lens Aperture	f/10.0
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Subject Distance	0.63 m
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	85.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1104
Image Height	1287
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	None
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

I'm curious about something that was posted in the last thread.

>>2808402
You obviously shoot with the camera at your eye, but how many people honestly have their eye in the viewfinder at all times even when adjusting settings? I don't know about you, but I set my camera when it's hanging at waist level and I only bring it up to my face when I already have it set how I want it and know exactly what photo I want to take and it only takes at most a couple of seconds to check that the framing is how I wanted it and everything looks right before I take the photo put the camera back down. I don't need to look in the viewfinder for an extended period of time to see what it's going to look like, I already know what it's supposed to look like because I have functioning eyes.

I really can't imagine a scenario where people fiddle with settings with the camera still glued to their face. Even if you're pointing the camera at a scene waiting for something to happen, I would think you would still have the settings locked in beforehand and wouldn't need to be fiddling with them.

I'm not really arguing for any specific camera or control scheme here, I do the same thing whether it's with an old school manual camera with knobs on the top plate and the aperture ring on the lens or if it's a DSLR with buttons+control wheels and a top LCD. Even with my point and shoot with the settings on the back screen, I still adjust the settings by pointing the camera down so I can see the screen before lifting the camera up to eye level to actually take the photo.

Any good 24ish mm for K mount or m42? Needing it to cover full frame and don't care about autofocus.

I have a been a beginner photographer for the past year and a bit, using it sporadically- mostly for Media classes, my new film course and whenever I go on holidays or for a day trip.
I have a standard DSLR- a Canon EOS600D- with the stock 18-55mm lens, as well as a 10-18mm wide-angle and a telephoto lens that goes to 300mm.
I'm currently looking for filters and extras that I can attach to my 600D, and I was hoping for some recommendations to my fairly basic kit.

File: ScreenHunter_01 Apr. 05 01.57.jpg (22KB, 1065x711px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 1065x711px

i might have just fucked up in a stupid way.

playing with my d80, set it to 5 second shutter and hit the shutter release in a fully lit room. now every picture has little red/white dots all over it.

screencap because lightroom takes care of most of it when i export. i guess it's not that big of a deal if lightroom gets rid of most of it, but is there any way i can fix it, or did i just an hero my sensor?

>>2808518
Those are hot pixels, modern DSLRs have a way to exclude them from the RAW and interpolate their missing place.
Also it is a bloody stupid thing to expose for 5 minutes in a fully lit room. You deserved this, I hope you know it.

>>2808493
M42: Flektogon or the russian Mir copy
K mount: DA 21mm Limited, FA 20mm or FA 24mm

>>2808532
some of the brighter ones appear on the viewfinder in almost all pictures. didn't have so many be so prominent in previous pics.
also i'm not sure how you possibly misread seconds as minutes.

>>2808884
They appear in the VIEWFINDER? That doesn't make sense. What's happening on your sensor, and what you're seeing in your viewfinder, have nothing to do with each other in terms of flaws like this. Dust you see in the VF won't show up in your photos. Hot/stuck/dead pixels you see in your photos won't be visible in your viewfinder.

>>2808887
sorry, not viewfinder, meant to say the lcd screen.

>>2808891
5 seconds shouldn't be enough to burn anything out, I wouldn't think, unless you're pointing it directly at the sun. After a few years of use, hot/stuck pixels are a normal thing, and an image processor like lightroom will automatically see them and remove them. If not, you can always run a dust and scratches filter over important images, or clone them out.

>>2808897
gotcha, thanks bruh. it is a 10 year old camera. maybe it's just my autismo firing and i didn't notice them before.

>>2808359
You can get DSLRs modified to remove the IR-cut filter on the sensor. Improves anything where you want to see hydrogen alpha. I think Canon is more common in astro-land, though.

for CCDs... idk. Try the astro thread, but there might not be enough people on the board doing that to get you an answer.

>>2808534
DA 21/3.2 Ltd doesn't cover the full frame.

if you want modern optics, Samyang 24/1.4. Faster, not expensive, surprisingly good wide open, sharp to the corners when stopped down, unlike some vintage wide-angles.

>>2808927
The guy never stated that he needs FF or not, so I listed all the options.
Also FA primes are not vintage and Samyang optics are not modern.

>>2808935
yeah he did.
>Needing it to cover full frame

>>2808937
Oh, okay, my bad. Looks like I missed it.

I'm interested in getting a 35mm lens. My budget is sub-$500. For Sony M-mount.

Right now all my glass is older Nikon primes, mechanical aperture, no AF. That's been fine for me so far. Not crazy about AF. Recommendations?

Hi, im about to get into photography more seriously and i feel like i need to upgrade my camera, because i feel like im limited by it, i have a 1100d with a 50mm 1.8 and a tammy 18-270. should i switch to nikon-sony (i was considering d7200 or a6000) or should i save my money, stretch this litte camera a bit more and wait for a good canon release? like i hope de 6d mkii will be? Thanks a lot

>>2808956
>because i feel like im limited by it
In what way? We can't tell what would be better for you without knowing what you need.

>>2808965
this camera gets very noisy when i go higher than 400 iso, i mean i need something more complete.i like street and portrait photography

>>2808972
Here's the update for you, stop being a pixel peeper. people did excellent photography with that sort of gear and still do today. Get good, son!

>>2808972
You shouldn't be shooting street or portraits in the dark, but gearfags gotta gearfag.

You don't need to jump to a not-even-released-yet camera body to get better noise performance. Get a new rebel, and with the money I just saved you, get something worth half a shit and throw that Tamron superzoom in the garbage. Get the 17-50, and an 85mm f/1.8.

File: 510806193_183f9aaf99.jpg (119KB, 500x400px) Image search: [Google]

119KB, 500x400px

https://www.gumtree.com/p/digital-cameras/sony-dsc-rx1-with-tripod-and-accessories-on-sale-/1162596727


could probably get this guy down to £850-£900


thoughts? it's £2800 new.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

>>2808993
shit, i meant £2100, rx1r is £2800.

>>2808993
>thoughts?
It's a point and shoot
Why on earth would you buy an old limiting junk for that much money? There are far better options for less money, the RX1 line is simply designed for showoff nouvo rich plebs.

>>2808993
I think the GR is a cheaper and superior camera unless you really specifically want 35mm over 28mm. There are plenty of other high quality large sensor compacts as well, and I really don't see what advantage an RX1 has besides the marginal upgrade to full frame instead of APS-C or m43. Honestly what do you like about the RX1 so much that you're willing to shell out a thousand britbucks for it, is it the lens or is it muh full frame? Is that worth having a larger camera with non-retractable lens? Have you handled the RX1 and its competitors to see which has the best ergonomics for you?

>>2808122
I'm shooting m43 and it's pretty cash.

>>2808993
Get an Olympus om-d em5 and a small lens.

Either the 15mm f8 body cap or the Panasonic 14-50 pancake zoom

>>2808414
Have you never used a slr style camera with information displayed in the viewfinder? I keep mine to my eye while shooting and can see: shutter speed, iso, aperture and exposure compensation to begin with. I have two dials so I know what I have each set to depending on what mode I'm shooting, generally my front is compensation. I have a dedicated ISO button that I know where it is by feel/experience/memory. If you know your camera and have a semi-modern slr style camera you shouldn't have to take your eye away to adjust settings.

The only reason my eye is away when I'm shooting something is so I can get a wider view of the scene, but my camera is always up near my face ready to shoot if I'm in a rapidly changing environment.

I'm also odd in that I can use both eyes when looking through the viewfinder without becoming disoriented.

>>2808171
It's not all takumars

http://camerapedia.wikia.com/wiki/Radioactive_lenses

The 28mm 2.8 takumar is not radioactive

what are your thoughts on screen protectors? is one necessary to prevent the rear lcd from being marked up

>>2809065
If you are capable to take care of your own shit then no, it's not necessary.

>>2809069
sounds about right. it's like what am I going to have in my bag that scratches glass anyway? appreciate the input anon

>>2809174
Little bits of sand. Anodized aluminum, aka, every metal filter ring ever. The diamonds you stole last Wednesday.

Go buy some ebay cut to size screen protectors if you're worried.

File: 1370749181820.jpg (46KB, 550x370px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 550x370px

any good wide angle primes I can mount to my canon?

>>2809200
what mount also yes

ah shit /p/. my Tamron 70-200 vc's auto focus motor just spontaneously died. One year, Tamron? Pls. Let's see how their warranty process goes...

>>2809200
How about the Canon EF 14mm f/2.8L II USM?

>>2809201
>>2809209
oh sorry Full Frame EF, looking for something 1-700 dollars, there is the 1,000 dollar tamron 15-30 that I could buy but I really really want a lens that I can put filter on so I can take it out in the rain

I'm looking to buy my first DSLR and I think I've settled on a Canon 100D. My retailer sells it in a kit with either a 18-55 mm lens, or a 18-135 mm lens. The difference in price is about €200, which seems a bit steep to me for any kit lens.

For all-round fuckery (street photography mainly), will I miss the extra range of the 18-135 mm if I go with the former option? And is it worth the extra dosh?

Pardon my ignorance on the subject and thanks in advance.

>>2809244

No need for 135mm for general street photo. The 18-55 will suit you fine. Also, in future if you decide you do want longer focal length options there are much better lenses than the kit 18-135 thingy for not a massive amount of additional cash.

>>2808534
>>2808927
Turns out my 35mm works quite well on FF. I guess I'll just see when I develop the film, but that should be fine anyway.
Thanks for the Flektogon suggestion, but are there any cheaper lenses? I'm hoping for under $100 since I'm just a poorfag college student. I think I'm open to APS-C since the 35mm should be good enough for FF anyway.

So... I had a Canon rebel T3 that I was using very infrequently just for miscellaneous events here and there and recently got a pretty nice gig interning with some photographers who issued me a Nikon D710. Ever since then I basically have determined that the Canon is a paperweight and I'd like to get a new body.

I'm moving to Germany in about six months and want to spend some free time while I'm there taking some pictures of the landscape and maybe a little bit of my job.

Never dealt with high end cameras very much and I was basically wondering if 'future proofing' them is a thing; like if I buy a computer I expect that computer to suck in two years. Do DSLR's have a similar property, or will a Nikon D810 last me for my life?

Poorfag but I'd rather have one nice thing than 3 iterations of total shit.

Can you guys recommend a good camera strap for a 1.2kg camera? I have a 1.5" Domke strap on my other camera and I like it, but I want to try a different one. I would also like to avoid the puffy padded/neoprene straps; I just want a straight cotton/nylon/whatever band.

looking for a camera bag that doesn't look like one, preferably messenger style with no logos.
am i better off getting a paratrooper bag and adding my own inserts?

File: dsptch_srp_ss_blk_standard_camera_sling_strap_1058032.jpg (64KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 1000x1000px

>>2809269
DSPTCH is excellent in my opinion, I have the thinner model but they have a larger heavy duty strap as well. It feels very sturdy and nice, adjusts easily, it's pretty long, and it detaches easily. It's just nylon (I think) with no padding.

All right you faggots. What is better. Canon 55-250 f/4.5-5.6 is stm or the tamron 70-300 f/4.0-5.6 Di VC USD XLD?

>>2809322

Disgusting. They're both variable aperture garbage.

>>2809325
>implying
>>2809322
70-300 IS or used 70-200/4

File: dupsko.jpg (220KB, 677x3225px) Image search: [Google]

220KB, 677x3225px

Do you know anything about this lens? It's Helios MC 28mm 1:2.8 and i can't find anything about this model.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Created	2016:04:06 08:21:11

->> >>2809369
>>>2808904
its not a lens, its Glass, you know nothing

>>2809380
>>2808902
corrected :D

>>2809248
Thanks, I was hoping that would be the case.

File: 8144quvImQL._SL1500_.jpg (196KB, 1500x1311px) Image search: [Google]

196KB, 1500x1311px

So apparently Sony is finally fucking releasing a 50mm f/1.8, but how bad is it going to be for ~$250?
I've been doing a basic search on the thing since it just apparently cropped up a couple of days ago and I'm hearing things like how the aperture doesn't open up when focusing to speed up the AF process, but AF speeds would suffer if you were focusing at say f/8 instead of f/1.8 or f/2.

Thoughts?

File: 9060036346.jpg (147KB, 1200x800px) Image search: [Google]

147KB, 1200x800px

>>2809410
>That fringing
Yeah no I think I'll pass on this lens and stick with my OM lenses while I save up for the 24-70 f/4.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-7RM2
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.8
Image-Specific Properties:
Exposure Time	1/2000 sec
F-Number	f/1.8
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/1.8
Exposure Bias	-1 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	50.00 mm
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto

>>2809369
Must be a new batch, similar to Zenitar 16mm.
If it's from the KMZ factory then it is a good lens.

File: Unknown.jpg (8KB, 230x219px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 230x219px

>>2808066
I found a Hasselblad 500c/m with the Planar 2.8/80 at a local shop for 700EUR. It's in a great condition and I would love to get into medium format again .. I don't know the prices for Hasselblads and the internet is giving me very mixed results, is it a good deal?

What are your thoughts on purchasing 2nd hand cameras? is there anything that needs to be looked at closely (eg. visual damage, battery or something else)?

considering buying the sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 lens for my d5100. I already own the 35mm f/1.8 prime and would be using this lens to give me some versatility to go wider for landscape (going to norway for six months soon) and street/archtiecture shots, as well as maybe trying my hand at portrait stuff. Would I do well to pick this lens up for about 150 euro's secondhand or is there a better option within my price range (under 200 euro) that will give me more versatilty, especially on the wider side of things?

>>2809465
I bought my camera and with 1 exception all my lenses second hand. When I received them I tried them out. Most photographers who sell their gear (as in 99.99%) take good care of their stuff so only minor discrepancies occur if any. You can decide if a seller is trustworthy by checking feedback and photos of gear.

>>2809465
I bought my A7 used from KEH. Only cosmetic damage was some wear by the strap lugs and they rated it at like a EX or VG+ because of it. I need to find the bag.

Just make sure you're buying from a reputable place that tests the cameras and guarantees that it will work, like KEH or Adorama.

>>2809369
I've not heard of a Helios 28mm. Googling comes up with a couple pictures of it, obviously. But I can't find any listings for one. This is only kind of related, but I've been liking my mir-1 (37mm).

>>2809465

i've never bought a used camera body but have a lot of good success with used lenses. In addition to the shops already mentioned, B & H is also quite good about assessing condition and giving you a good indication about existing wear on the equipment before you buy.

File: DSCF4919.jpg (490KB, 1333x2000px) Image search: [Google]

490KB, 1333x2000px

Need a PROPER watertight (+rigid) case for my system for canoeing and general travel.

Fuji X body + lens, plus space for 2 (or 3) large primes.

Something with a removeable lid would be prefered so I can use it within another bag without too much reduced functionality.

Are pelican cases meme or legit?

Some OC for payment <--

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	360 dpi
Vertical Resolution	360 dpi

>>2809795
Pelican cases are legit, but there are similar form cases from other brands with better rigidity.

File: Saul-Leiter-11[1].jpg (56KB, 494x660px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 494x660px

how do you get the saul leiter look with pictures?

what modern camera would suit it?

>>2809904
No modern camera will suit out of the box. You'll have to drop your resolution dramatically, as anything from a modern camera will be much to sharp and detailed. Then you'll have to work with your contrast and luminosity tones, compressing shadows and widening highlights and midtones, then shift your colors to uniform tones of warm and cool. Take otherwise pink skin tones and shift them to brown oranges, etc.

File: 01_-Press-Image-l-Saul-Leiter-Snow-1960-copy[1].jpg (680KB, 2396x1412px) Image search: [Google]

680KB, 2396x1412px

>>2809906

noted, thanks m8.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon PowerShot G6
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Macintosh)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.5
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Image-Specific Properties:
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2015:11:10 14:44:40
Exposure Time	1/100 sec
F-Number	f/3.2
Lens Aperture	f/3.2
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	14.41 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	2396
Image Height	1412
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard

File: Untitled.jpg (243KB, 890x851px) Image search: [Google]

243KB, 890x851px

How long do you think we'll have to wait for an 8D (or 7D MK III)?

>>2809929
4 years. Why? Even if it were released tomorrow, 7Dmk2 and 7D will continue to function at the exact same level.

>>2809929
Dice says 2 units. Could be months, quartals, semesters, years or decades.

If you're missing something now, get a current Canon or switch to Sony. It's not like Canon will release anything dramatically better soon.

if you bought a sony a7 ii body only, what could you do?

would you have to at least buy a standard lens?

>>2809940
I would buy multiple high-end prime lenses first myself, because that's what I usually use.

But nothing stops you from just using an ultrawide 12mm Rokinon MF lens if that's the only thing *you* need. Or from adapting a 400mm Minolta APO G or some Sigma zoom lens or whatever.

It entirely depends on your needs.

>>2809940
...What? Is this how Sony users are doing things at this point?

>>2809940
I would shitpost on 4chan about how great Sony bodies are and skirt around the issue of lenses.

>>2809952
> skirt around the issue of lenses
Nobody has more great lenses to choose from than A7R II and A7 II users.

>>2809958
No no, it's spelled "Everybody"

>>2809958
As much as I love sony for the a7s and a7r the native lens selection is kinda meh. They're all really expensive and there's not a lot of cheaper alternatives. There's also a bit of a lack of some wider angle fast primes but the 28/2 is such an amazing cheap lens. Probably my favorite to use too

>>2809961
I do mean nobody.

You get the very substantial number of great lenses from the A- and E-mount, basically the entire Canon EF-mount, all new Sigma glass.

Plus they are basically the best bodies for using any MF lens (except very a select few exotic ones, everything works, and you have IBIS, focus peaking, a great sensor and so on).

Again, *nobody* has more good lens options.

And not too far in the future, it seems Nikon's F mount and Leicas M mount will also probably be covered by a decent to good adapter.

Has anyone else seen the huawei P9 that was built in conjunction with Leica? Is it just going to be another shit phone camera or at least something interesting?

>>2809995
Garbage. Get a Nokia 1020 if you really want to max out the phone camera.

>>2809972
>his system depends on using other people's lenses because they cant make their own
>his system has zero professional support
>laughingworkingphotographers.webm

Remember that M43 is literally a better system than E/FE. Inb4 babby sensor arguments; you're not shooting at ISO25600, you didnt need the extra DR, the lenses are sharp, the system is compact, and the bodies are feature packed.

For a travel compact, I'm looking at an x100t for $750. Are there any alternatives with a viewfinder that are the same size?

>>2810041
R X 1 0 0 I I I

>>2810044
I already own it. Looking to sell it as the viewfinder is tiny and underwhelming

>>2810023
> other people's lenses
None of them are my people. Ideally I'd not have to care.
At least the situation with being able to adapt a good part of the market's high-end glass is getting somewhat close to that ideal.

That said, the E-mount itself has nice glass I care about.

> his system has zero professional support
What is Sony Imaging Pro Support?

Not that I currently qualify - at this point I am really not interested in getting one more FF body that I don't need. [The requirements are ~the same as for Canon's CPS. Multiple FF bodies and multiple pieces of high-end glass required for membership.]

> Remember that M43 is literally a better system than E/FE
Nothing that I care about much is better on M43.

To me M43 just means worse glass, worse bodies, worse lighting options.

> you didnt need the extra DR
I clearly do use that extra DR, and would like to have 3-4 more stops.

"Need" is not the word though. Sure, I shot photos before I had the better DR and could do it again - but I really don't feel like I want to do that.

>>2810103
>He actually replied

So I'm planning on taking a trip to Denali national park next month.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denali_National_Park_and_Preserve

I've heard from friends that the wildlife out there is pretty amazing, but all I have is a D3200 with the stock 18-55mm lens.

I can afford one more lens before I go. What should I get?

>>2810187
Tamron 70-300, it's good for the price and will be 450mm on the D3200 which is good for wildlife, although from the pictures on the wiki the place looks quite sparse, I don't know if you could realistically get close enough to animals for even 450mm to get good pictures. The Nikon version is sharper but costs more.

Could also get something really wide angle for landscapes

File: 1024px-Denali-alpine-lakes-forest-Highsmith.jpg (202KB, 1024x748px) Image search: [Google]

202KB, 1024x748px

>>2810191
This looks sparse?

A friend of mine went hiking there last year and was less than a hundred yards from a bear. He got some great pictures.

>>2810195
Didn't see that one, all the ones before it made it look like there was no forests, just open grassland and a bit of dirt, the kind of place where you'd want like 1200mm because the only animals that are around are half a mile up a hill.

But ye, that looks a lot better, would definitely make a 70-300 a good choice. Or a 150-600 if that was in your price range.

>>2810196
Just ordered a Nikon 55-300mm 5.6G. Thanks for the advice!

For travel, has anyone ever considered carrying a superzoom point and shoot instead of lugging around a tele with their dslr?

I'm going to Japan in a month for quite a while, and I'm not sure what to do since I don't own any zooms.

All I have is:
Canon 6D
24-105 f4L
50 1.4
Samyang fisheye (will de-fish and crop since I can't afford an UWA)


The 70-300 is probably the best choice for me, but I usually shoot wide so I'm not sure if I can justify it. There's someone near me selling an sx160 for $50 so maybe I can pick that up to play with..

any tripod recommendations? should i bother paying a lot for one?

all i want really is something light that has the thing where you can slide your camera off while its still screwed in.

>>2810271
Dolica, or that Dic And Mic one people always talk about.

>>2810272
sweet i'll check it out.

the chinese make some good cheap carbon stuff; heaps of people get bicycle frames from over there

Hey guys,

I have a 600D and I've outgrown my 55-250mm, it just doesn't go far enough. Looking for a zoom for wildlife photography (particularly birds). I'm on a bit of a budget so I was looking at the Tamron 150-600mm. Any thoughts on this lens? I heard for the price range it's the best you're going to get. Are there any others I should consider? It's a fair amount of money so I want to get this right.

>>2810286
Tamron or Sigma 150-600 amd similar superzoom teles are huge dustpumps. They work, but tend to have much more problems in the long run. It would be better to get a used Canon 400 prime or similar lenses.

Sony A7ii or Canon 5Diii?

Leaning towards the Canon.

>>2810344
One of those has lenses. The other is a Sony.

>>2810350

Not a fan of Zeiss lenses?

>>2810352
It doesn't count if you can't afford one.
Besides I have my CZJ collection I got for pennies.

>>2810352
Not a fan of paying $1,500 for a lens when other brands have more or less the same lens for $400.
Sharpness doesn't matter when you're actually taking photos with the stuff.

>>2810316
Sounds like a solid idea. Thanks mate, I'll keep an eye out for a decent used one.

>>2810352
Don't confuse actual German Zeiss lenses and Sony licensed Zeiss lenses made in Japan. They will have similar design but different tooling, tolerances, etc.

How sketchy are the grey market sites? Like will I probably get a lens that doesn't work on my camera? Am I totally fucked if it shows up damaged?

This is like $300 savings which is huge, but I'm kinda scared I'll get swindled.
http://www.e-infin.com/ww/item/1971/sony_sonnar_t*_fe_55mm_f1.8_za_full-frame_e-mount_lens_sel55f18z?gclid=CPLlyd7V_MsCFQqKaQodg0sCtQ

>>2810400
Gray market just doesn't give you a warranty and support from the manufacturer, and maybe some extras from inside the box, like manuals, caps, hood, battery, etc. Should work just fine.

>>2810360
This took way too long for me to realise. Takes way too long for most people!

>>2810408
Yeah but no caps on my lens would actually be like a pretty big deal man. Plus NO warranty? I don't know how likely a dud lens is from Zeiss but that seems risky to me.

>>2810344
5diii is 4 years old, anon. Why invest $4k into a system that's literally already outdated? Technology moves at a quick pace and while cameras have better staying power than say cell phones, buying a 4 year old camera is just stupid.

>>2810411
Don't feel bad. Many many people never realize.

>>2810416
You can buy caps from china for $3 plus shipping, don't let that stop you. Many gray market sites will offer you a 1 year warranty with THEM, rather than the manufacturer, so check where you're buying from.

If it's DOA, they may replace it or refund. If it's off calibration (nothing that will be the fault of the seller, just luck of the draw) then you can still send it to the manufacturer for calibration, but you'll pay for it. Likely $100 or so. Still less than full market price even in the worst case scenario.

>>2810418
Well except it has better native lensees, better AF, better battery life, better support, OVF, better ergonomics, etc. It wins in every single way other than adapting rangefinder lenses, and dynamic range.

>>2810421

And resolution, and ISO performance, and color depth.

Ya know, the stuff that pictures are made out of.

>>2810419


Forgive my ignorance, but what do you mean out of calibration? I feel like my 70-200mm might have that, because it's never been as sharp as I hoped, even out of the box brand new.

>>2810429
2 megapixels? Do you want to go do that math real quick for the resolution difference, or do I have to do it for you?

ISO performance is more or less the same

Color depth? Quick googling isn't telling me what the A7ii is, but 24 bits is quite a lot of bits for the 5Dmk3, and I'd challenge you to show me a real world example of the difference between the two.

>>2810430
Do an AF adjustment, all modern DSLRs have that feature.

>>2810430
There are a lot of elements in modern lenses that all have to be seated nearly perfectly to get the light passing through to line up correctly. If an important element is mis-aligned by even a fraction of a mm, the whole lens may behave strangely, with one side of the image looking blurry or soft, or de-centered, etc. Also, focus systems work within tolerances. No lens is absolutely perfect, but so long as the focus system functions within a set tolerance of variation, it's passed through for shipping. So if your lens is +4, and your body is +4, then they cancel out and you end up with a nice match. But if the lens is +4 and the body is -3, then your 7 off where you should be, and that's when you get issues. So you can send your body and lens to the manufacturer, and they'll dial the lens in to where it needs to be for your body specifically.

>>2810433
AF adjust can help to some extent, but if there's a non-af element out of alignment, af adjust won't help.

It's more likely just motion blur or diffraction, or low contrast light though.

>>2810436
>complaining the photos are not sharp at ISO 3200
Dude

>>2810441
What? I'm not the guy with the problem, I'm the guy explaining calibration.

>>2810400
Not sure about lenses since they're more complex, but I bought some headphones from one grey market site and everything's fine. Plus, shipping from HK to the US was 3 days.

>>2810445
The complexity won't matter. It's not like a Chinese knockoff where they're making them as a copy of the real thing. They're real first party lenses, just sold by less reputable retailers that the manufacturers aren't directly partnered with. Think of it like a guy who goes to a shoe store and buys 400 pairs of nikes, and because he buys so many, the store gives him a bulk discount, and then he goes to some junk market and sets up a tent and starts selling them himself. They're still real shoes, but he's not affiliated with Nike in any way, and he'll try to maximize his profits however he can, so he'll sell you the shoes for $30 less than the real shoe store, but laces are sold separately for $5, and if you want the box, it's another $7, etc.

>>2809268
You future proof lenses not bodies.

Canon is pretty good with OK work flow and sensors.

I don't know Nikon at all.

Pentax is my current little obsession, fantastic weather sealed bodies, very good work flow, and IBIS. Good lens ecosystem too.

I'm currently using Panasonic GH3 and it's great! The m4/3 is more of a meme than reality. It's really cool that two companies share a mount. I will be going Olympus later because I need IBIS.

Sony is meme tier with two separate lens types within one mount. They really messed up their E mount, nobody makes lenses for it for a reason. Very good sensors though, and the Zeiss 55mm is fantastic.

>>2810451
What do you mean by workflow?

>>2810451
You would be better off with a used K-3 or K-S2 and a few Limited primes than the Oly and it's fuckexpensive lenses.

>>2809268
>will a Nikon D810 last me for my life?

It will always be a good camera, but in 5-10 years time entry level cameras will probably be even better.

One of the longest lasting digital cameras is the D300.
Which came out in 2007 and people still use it today.
But it really feels dated now, compared to new entry level cameras.

The Canon 5D from 2005 was also a fantastic camera - but I don't think many people would use one today.

>>2809268
A DSLR will last you until your needs change to exceed its capabilities, or until you wear out the mechanics of it. The D8x0 series is rated for around 200,000 photos before the shutter mechanism wears out.

DSLRs don't become sluggish and terrible over time the way that computers and phones do. There are no major updates to operating system or software that slowly grow to be too much for the hardware to work with, or anything like that. The camera will perform the exact same on its last day as it does on its first day, unless you physically break it. Minor updates to firmware MAY add a few minor features here and there (unlikely for a Nikon) but it won't get any changes that add to its startup time, or cause it to focus more slowly, or have more lag in processing, etc.

Why does the Sigma 35/1.4 have such heavy vignetting wide open?

File: 1391669_10103551265402585_340967433_n.jpg (73KB, 640x960px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 640x960px

>>2810500
Because they spent more attention and glass correcting for aberrations and fine detail than for correcting vignetting. Mine wasn't bad enough to mess up any of my photos. Sample image?

>>2810487
Only reason people still use the D300 is because they're cucks who want to have a big camera but can't afford FF. Top lel. D500 should be interest though, just people who refuse to upgrade from the d300 are fags

>>2810505
People don't generally *refuse* to upgrade. There is no reason to, for many people. If the D300 does what you need a camera to do, why pay money for a newer "better" camera?

>>2810507

>buy a D300 brand new on release week
>use it for seven years cuz poorfag
>buy a d800 last year
>every single good photo you took last year was with the D300

>>2810505
The D300 was an excellent camera and it is just as good now and it will continue to be just as good for as long as you can still buy batteries and CF cards. Cameras don't have an expiration date and they don't somehow get worse over time. DSLRs are a mature technology now and have been for several years, so each generation of new cameras is just a marginal improvement over the last and there's very little need to throw away your camera to get a new one every 6 months. In fact I would say that the D3/D300/D700 release was the last time that Nikon really shook things up and everything since then has been pretty much splitting hairs. Very few people do any kind of photography where using a D810 would produce vastly improved results compared to a D700 and very few people are feeling limited by their D810 and wishing for a D820.

>>2810517
The people who DO lust for the newer cameras are the ones who don't understand that image quality comes from technique, subject, light, and planning, and that no new camera will be able to take a bland boring scene and make it beautiful or interesting.

>>2810517

My D300 has gotten considerably worse with time.

>>2810518
> no new camera will be able to take a bland boring scene and make it beautiful or interesting
It won't help much with expressing some kind of artistic statement, and it won't replace for location / timing in more journalistic or event/documentary shots.

OTOH, having a lot of money in gear will massively help with portraits, product shots, architecture shots, photographic archival, weddings. Most important (paid) kinds of photography are almost all gear.

>>2810447
I think it's more about them skirting import taxes, not charging for accessories. I got everything with my headphones, and the box was still covered in plastic wrap.

>>2810523
>Most important (paid) kinds of photography are almost all gear.
This is untrue. It's almost all LIGHT. Product photography, studio portraiture, etc. have all been done with phones without normal people noticing, so long as the light is there. Weddings can (and usually are) done with low end entry level equipment. Not sure what you mean by photographic archival, but if you mean taking photos of paintings and books, you're going to find a LOT of T1i cameras on tripods next to good lights.

If a high ISO photo looks good, it's because the scene looked good in real life. If a high ISO photo looks low contrast and poor color on a D3000, it's going to look just as bad, but slightly less noisy, on a D4s. Every time.

>>2810524
That's very possible. I'm sure there are different ways that it's done. I've seen multiple gray market lenses that come without anything in the box, and extras like caps and hoods are added cost. Same thing with batteries, straps, and eye-cups with camera bodies.

That's the thing with gray market, there's no regulation from the manufacturer, so they can take whatever steps they want to get extra money from you.

>>2810525
>Product photography

https://youtu.be/E4eP7VwbnSg

https://fstoppers.com/bts/stunning-product-photography-iphone-and-desk-lamp-46893

>>2810463
I already have sick ecosystem.

I'm really looking at Pentax and Oly right now.

>>2810455
Button placement, ISO ranges, movie modes, how easy to switch from focus modes. Viewfinder quality, level lines, histogram and mic levels. Being able to soft focus patch size on the run

>>2810537
The word you're looking for is ergonomics.

>>2810525
You can theoretically get a good shot of basically any static subject with a pinhole camera and good lights, but that's not really sane if your time (even free time) is worth something to you.

> so long as the light is there.
The lights, modifiers, triggers, ... and your computer for post are also part of the gear that should be good. You simply want a decent pace at which you can work.

> Weddings can (and usually are) done with low end entry level equipment
Not here. Pretty much no one that I saw at work here had $5k or over worth of gear present.

It wasn't always the latest / best FF camera body, sure, but there always was overall considerable money in high-end lens(es), camera(s), tripod(s), lights and so on, and then often there also was a preceding shooting in a studio setting, with again more gear.

> but if you mean taking photos of paintings and books, you're going to find a LOT of T1i cameras on tripods next to good lights.
In my experience, it is more likely a shit expensive Leaf / Phase One setup on a $5-20k reproduction stative on top of a $1k light table next to a bunch of Hasselblad Flextight X5, or close to that.

But I am sure it depends who is doing it. If it's Joe the intern at a company who doesn't actually give a fuck about archival as such but just wants to clear out the room back there and reduce its risks doing so, I guess it'll maybe be done on a T1i...?

Hi there guys, minor request here. There was a chart that detailed all kinds of lighting positions for portraits. It was a huge picture and it was quite handy but I seem to have lost it. If anyone has it, I'd greatly appreciate it.

>>2810570
Ignore me, I found it.

>>2810573
You are welcome.

File: 1.jpg (101KB, 720x1280px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 720x1280px

>>2810400
Why not just buy it from Amazon?

Looking to buy a 35mm SLR Camera for about $250ish, is there anything half-decent out there or am I shafted in terms of option?

>>2810595
*35mm Film SLR Camera

File: IMG_6493.jpg (226KB, 1000x429px) Image search: [Google]

226KB, 1000x429px

So I have the following already and want to upgrade my telephoto to something sharper for wild life. Are the sigma or tamron options any good, or should I just stick with canon? Money is no object and IS doesn't matter to me.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS REBEL T4i
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.3 (Windows)
Photographer	troller
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2016:04:07 16:04:21
Exposure Time	1/100 sec
F-Number	f/7.1
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/7.1
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	33.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>2810595
For what.

>>2810614
For wildlife?
Canon 200-400 f/4 and a 1.6x teleconverter.

>>2810616

I walk a lot - so mainly landscapes, buildings, hills, trees, etc.

A bit vague I know, but I'm only looking to dip my toes into photography rather than throwing myself in completely

>>2810640
So you don't have any digital stuff that you'd want to use with it, like lenses and flashes and such.

Minolta X370 would do you nicely. X700 if you'd like to spend the extra money, but it would be better spent on a couple of nice lenses.

>>2810614
see >>2810316
Also applies to Canon super telezooms. With that long focal lengths it is better to stay with primes.

>>2810645
I have no problems with old manual focus 400mm or longer primes without IS. But I use a Pentax body with IBIS.

>>2810642

Alright, thanks very much for the advice my man

I want to start shooting video. A friend of mine that is into photography recommended a Pentax K-50 and a 50mm f1.8 lens for low light shooting.

Anyone have any opinions on this? Thank you.

>>2810671
All right, I'll rent a 200L for a week and see how that works for me with a tele converter. thx anon

>>2810682
>200L
>wildlife
Mate, rent the 400L instead, if you stay with 200mm just use the usual 70-200/2.8 cannon.
If you like the 400mm, then try the longer 500 something mm lens too, it's the most used lens for wildlife.

>>2810683
I guess I should specify by wildlife I just mean ducks and birds and shit not safari in Africa.
my b

>>2810688
I assumed the same. Get the 400L rented, see if it is limiting you in any way, too narrow angle, too cumbersome etc...
The middle ground between the 70-200/2.8 and the 400L is the 100-400L, either the older pump-action zoom or the newer twist zoom. My friend has the pump-zoom, the IS is not very effective but it has very nice image and is well balanced for tracking in-flight planes and birds.

File: aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.png (69KB, 366x401px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 366x401px

>tfw you fell for the m43 meme
Why didn't I get a camera with a good sensor

>>2810696
go away, nobody likes you. Use your own brandfag thread for this pointless shit.
>>2805712

>>2810696
No point in complaining here, just sell it and get something else.

>>2810696
Literally everyone here except one autistic guy warned you dude.

>>2808066
I've been wanting to get into medium format film photography for quite some time now but because I'm a poorfag, I'm finding it quite difficult. I have a budget of around $100 bucks. I want something with interchangeable lenses and full manual controls. Also, is medium format more difficult and is it worth it? I'm coming from shooting 35mm for the past 2 years. Thanks.

>>2810696

nigger, there's literally nothing you can't do with a m43 that could do with other cameras.

don't be a fucking bitch and get out there and shoot.

>>2810706
You can probably KEH a beat up Bronica SQ kit for that.

It's not any more difficult, other than the hassle of lugging it and getting the camera stable for a shot. It can be worth it if you find that the resolution is lacking in your 35mm shots due to failures in the format (rather than technical failures on your part)

>>2810709
Except, you know, fast wide angle lenses for relatively cheap, and thin DOF, and high ISO image quality...

>>2810712
>>2810709
Both of you, stop that! Last warning!

>>2810720
Hey, if someone had called out M4/3 fag on his lies more consistently, anon who is unhappy that he bought one wouldn't be stuck with a kit he doesn't like. "Let the trolls troll" is fine when everyone knows better but tons of people here are sponging up whatever information they see, and letting people say untrue shit is damaging.

>>2810712
>fast wide angle lenses for relatively cheap,

olympus makes a fantastic 17mm f/1.8 lens that you can scoop up for $450.

>thin DOF

Easily accomplished with a fast lens or a speedbooster if you'd like, but why would you want to? Bokeh is a crutch.

>high ISO image quality...

On par with a lot of aps-c cameras, and even if it isn't a7s-tier, it's more than adequate.

>>2810723
Is 35mm wide now? Huh.
>$450 is cheap you guys!

>Fast lens
f/1.2 is pretty much f/2 on M4/3, which is zoom territory for APS-C, let alone primes. And if you get a big lens with a speed booster, why are you bothering to have a tiny M4/3 camera in stead of just getting a system that it works on natively.
>Bokeh is a crutch
How would you know?

>ISO on par with aps-c
Comparison between M4/3 and an E-M2 at ISO 3200 please.

>>2810721
Fuck the micro 4/3 bashing.

This dude has more experience than you'll ever achieve:

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2016/03/when-will-micro-43-equal-medium-format-film-we-have-the-definitive-answer.html

>>2810724
>aperture equivalency counts towards light gathering ability guiz
This needs to stop. You're just making an idiot of your self.

>>2810712
>thin dof
>good
If I wanted thin DOF, I'd just step closer. Otherwise, enjoy your out of focus subject
>high iso
Hands up if you regularly, and I mean every time you go out to shoot, shoot at ISO 6400 or higher.
>wide angles and cheap lenses
Yeah, olympus charges way too much for the 25, 17, and 75. The only cheap good wide angle is the panasonic 14. Bonus for being pancake though.

Face it, m43 does everything any of the APSC MILC systems can, in an actually small size, without any compromise in features. If you can't stop blowing your highlights out, or you get a mushy mess in pitch black, the fault's not going to be the camera's sensor, it's you and your situation.

File: band pic.jpg (206KB, 1296x728px) Image search: [Google]

206KB, 1296x728px

Newfag as fuck post pls no bully ;_;

Getting into film photo for a university class. I'm used to digital, but I'm pretty excited to jump into film. Whats a basic entry level camera (like rabal basic) or things I should look for when researching for one?

Also, any additional advice or things to keep in mind would be appreciated.

Dumping a bit of my work

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS REBEL T3i
Camera Software	VSCO
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2014:03:27 05:53:17
Exposure Time	1/30 sec
F-Number	f/1.8
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	2500
Lens Aperture	f/1.8
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	50.00 mm
Comment	Processed with VSCOcam with acg preset
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	5184
Image Height	2912
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard

File: image.jpg (371KB, 1863x1242px) Image search: [Google]

371KB, 1863x1242px

>>2810733

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1863
Image Height	1242

>>2810724
>>$450 is cheap you guys!

It's 2016, retard. Nobody makes cheap wide angles anymore.

File: DSC_0025.jpg (3MB, 3840x2160px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3840x2160px

I just got this in the mail, I can't wait to actually test it out

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Sony
Camera Model	D6708
Camera Software	23.4.B.0.319_6_f100000f
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2016:04:07 20:14:37
Exposure Time	1/32 sec
F-Number	f/2.0
ISO Speed Rating	125
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	Flash, Auto
Focal Length	4.90 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	3840
Image Height	2160
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>2810595
Canon A1 or F1, Olympus OM-1n or OM-2, Nikon F4 or F100, Minolta Maxxum 7 or 9.

what strap do you guys use? tired of me canon logo one.

>>2810733
Pick up a Canon AE-1 with a 50mm 1.8. Should be anywhere from 20 buck to 100 bucks depending on condition and where you buy. Make sure that the listing doesn't say anything about light leaks, haze, fungus, oil, or anything that would indicate shit gear.

>>2810748
I just use the one that came with my camera (a6000) but lately I've been going strapless and am enjoying it a lot more.

>>2810748
Equally boring stock Sony strap.

I really don't care to use something else - I don't seem to be spending any significant amount of time with anything that might be a strap-related problem.

If you need something else for fashion reasons, just order a random strap from China?

>>2810744
Yea, I like this lens okay. Have fun shooting!

>>2810754
>MFW when I resize the image, and accidentally upload the full resolution anyway.

And thank you! I've had my eye on a 70-200 2.8 for a while. Found an offer for 25% off the price for a brand new, white-market lens, so I couldn't pass that up.

>>2810595
$250 is plenty for film stuff if you don't want anything too special or obscure. I'm biased toward Nikon so I'll suggest those since that's what I know:

If you want manual focus manual exposure and objectively the best camera ever made: F3

If you want a smaller lighter manual focus camera with a mechanical shutter but still with a light meter: FM or FM2 or FM2n

If you want like an FM2 but with electronic shutter and semi-auto exposure and matrix metering: FA

Autofocus with all the modern features, basically a DSLR but with film: F100

If you want an all mechanical all manual brick shithouse of a camera: F2

If you want an autofocus automated brick shithouse of a camera that eats batteries: F5

You'll also presumably need a lens. If you have no special requirements then just a regular 50mm f/1.8 will do great. Get an AI or AI-s if you're getting a manual focus camera or get an AF or AF-D if you're getting an autofocus camera. Also there's the AF-S model which is really excellent if you have an autofocus camera, but it may be hard to fit one into your budget unless you find a good deal on a used one.

File: Canon Black Strap.jpg (17KB, 500x332px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 500x332px

>>2810733
Minolta SRT series, Canon A-1, Olympus OM-1, Pentax K1000.

>>2810748
I just use one of those basic nylon Canon straps that came with both my AE-1 and A-1 on my A7 since I had a couple lying around. Might get a Gordy meme strap or some other leather strap later on though.

>>2810748
black rapid rs-7
screws into the tripod mount on your camera and its securely across your body like a sling. Pretty useful while you're walking around the city and definitely more comfortable than having it around your neck or trying to use a hand strap

Is the Olympus E-PL7 a decent first time m43? I was going to go with the E-PL6 but the 7 has extra IBIS stabilization. Not sure if that and better AF would be worth the extra price.

File: 59546-01.jpg (422KB, 760x1278px) Image search: [Google]

422KB, 760x1278px

>Not brandwhoring as much as possible

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	760
Image Height	1584
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	2013:07:18 15:33:29
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	760
Image Height	1278

>>2810764
I would personally say get a Panasonic G7 or an OM-d EM10 if you want to get into meme 4/3

>>2810773
I'm trying to stay below or just at $500, but the G7 does look nice. Any reasons why you recommend it?

>>2809382
>Zoom with legs to take shot of bear at 50mm
>come back with good shot but no legs to zoom with or hands to hold camera with

>>2810731
Get a workstation that works good and shoot that.

Limit GH3 is just that for me

I'll post some photographs later. Pixel peep if you want, but my composure isn't anything to write home about.

>>2810800
>find a nice looking building
>zoom out with your legs so you can fit the whole building into the frame with your 50mm
>walk into the street and get hit by a truck

>>2810776
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/842933-REG/Olympus_V204041BU000_OM_D_E_M5_Micro_Four.html

Really good deal. Em5 has 5 axis stab.

>>2810744
Fffffffff
Mine is still en route. Damn post being so slow, I just want to take photos with my awesome fast telephoto!

File: 586d9fda-a46f-4f14-9d0e-61976cf81fa7.jpg (213KB, 1048x1512px) Image search: [Google]

213KB, 1048x1512px

I currently own a X100T and I'm wondering how an SLR would change my experience.
How would the general daily use and photo quality compare between my X100T and, for instance, a Pentax K50 with the Pentax 35mm prime lens.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1048
Image Height	1512

>>2811008
The 35mm is a 55mm equivalent lens on aps-c so it will be narrower than the 35mm equivalent of th x100.
It has an OVF so you will be looking through the lens all the time without consuming battery. You can expect 500 something shots per battery or more.
I have the DA 35/2.4 and it's a very good lens.

>>2808281
6. Calibrating
7. Calibrating
8. Calibrating
9. Calibrating
10. Calibrating
11. Calibrating
12. Calibrating
13. Calibrating
.....................

>>2809805
any names?

>>2810742
Lots of people make cheap 35mm lenses, however.

>>2811008
It would take away your EVF, it would add some bulk, it would add a grip, it would have a different arrangement of buttons, it would be louder, it would have longer battery life. It would have a longer focal length (which you can get on you X100T with the telephoto adpater) it would probably have weather sealing.

Your image quality would be pretty much the same.

File: Untitled.jpg (234KB, 1225x524px) Image search: [Google]

234KB, 1225x524px

Anyone here with a weather-sealed body?

How much faith do you really put into the brands weather-sealing? Do you trust it enough to walk a mile or two in a downpour provided your lens had a moisture seal at the back and front protective filter?

>>2811092
I've done that with a 40D and a Tamron 17-50 probably a dozen times. Never had any issues.

>>2811092
I got my A7 under the impression that it was weather sealed, but now Sony says it's only "moisture resistant".

>>2811092
K-3 with WR kit telezoom. I shot a whole day in downpour, not a bit of moisture got in the system. I was the only one who shot the event through.

thoughts on sigma 20mm 1.4?

looks sexy as fuck and sharp as hell. almost filled out my roster and id have:

20mm 1.4
40mm 2.8 pancake
85mm 1.8
70-200mm 2.8

only thing missing would be a good tele prime if i ever wanted to do wildlife photography.

>>2811105
It's a nice lens, though it's pretty big. What would you be using it for? It's Sigma Art, so more than likely, it'll focus a little slow, but accurately. It'll have nice rendering, nice contrast, and good sharpness. *shrug* It's a known quantity. Get it if you need it.

>>2811106
>itll focus slow

eeeeuuahhh... dont need that shit in my life. thats primarily one of the reasons i prefer primes, all the ones ive ever used focus imeasurably faster than zooms. reviews seem to say the opposite from your statement regarding AF but its a common problem among the sigma arts? this would be my first go at them.

just seems like a fun angle to work with such a large aperture. i would use it mostly for landscapes and maybe even street photos, product photography. possibly astro too. read that it has bad coma but from practical results ive seen i dont mind the edge stars having twinkle.

just seems like a great all-purpose lens if you want a super wide that is just beyond giving crazy distortion or fisheye. was hoping somebody can give personal accounts of it here though before i make a purchase. major negative is its fucking expensive for what it is.

>>2811116
They don't focus molasses slow, but they're big giant elements in there to get all the light in, so something like the Canon 85 f/1.8 is going to make it feel sluggish, certainly. Not to mention, wide angles aren't really known for their speedy focus in the first place.

It won't piss you off, I imagine.

I noticed a "Vilia" camera listed with a flash for single digit €€. I was looking for a small manual camera and this looks OK - it's only going to be used for casual hipster shit with friends. How badly would I fuck up if I bought it?

>>2809202
good thing it has a 7yr warranty

>>2810614
Casual wildlife, I assume? Not staking locations out for hours in a blind w/ some ridiculous tripod and supertele prime setup? Canon 200-400 F/4, definitely. The Sigma and Tamron lenses are decent for the price but can't touch native Canon supertele lenses for optics and build quality.

>>2810744
Such a great lens.

File: Pentax_K_50_front.jpg (226KB, 774x800px) Image search: [Google]

226KB, 774x800px

>>2808066
I am new to photography and wondering if anyone is willing to help me pick a first camera. I am having trouble choosing between the Pentax k-50 and the Nikon d5300. I want to do photography in all weather so the k-50's weatherproofing is a plus there, but it has no wind filter on the microphone and I am also interested in taking video. Anyone have any experience with either camera? Thanks for any help

>>2811138
dont buy a dslr for its internal mic. theyre all shit, even the high grade dslrs with video. if the only neg of the pentax is the internal mic just get it.

id also throw in the sl1 if you want something thats a good beginner camera w/ better than average video for the price.

>>2811138
Get the K50 and a Rode mic

If I went and bought a film camera from a thrift store, is there any risk of fungus transferring to my other lenses, assuming I don't use the lens the camera will come with?

>>2811148
If there's fungus it in, yes. It's "contagious"

>>2811138
Like the others said, buy the K-50 and an external mic. The "Takstar SGC-598" is a good and cheap alternative to Rode mics if you're not wanting to spend more than $50.

>>2811158
>>2811147
The problem with this is that the k-50 does not have an external microphone port

>>2811160
Get a K-5 then.

>>2810891
Amazon has the em10 for a bit more. Think that's worth considering? It looks like the only benefit is the newer software on it.

>>2811195
The EM10 is oddly enough the more "Budget" OM-D with a slightly cheaper build and no weather sealing.

>>2811195
E-M5 is a better camera, it's just cheaper because it's older and discontinued. Don't pick the E-M10 over it.

>>2811123
It's a cheap Soviet era camera that Lomo hipsters cream themselves over. It's worth getting if it's sub $10 Euros if you just to try it out.

Personally I'd suggest something like a Canon Canonet QL17, Olympus RC, or a Minolta 7sii if you want a good film camera on the smaller side. There's the XA also, but that's going from "small camera" to "compact niche camera".

>>2811199
Huh, thanks for the clarification. Olympus does things a bit weird it seems.

>>2811200
Will do. My question now is between the E-PL7 and E-M5. They seem pretty close aside from the 5's weather sealing, and folks say it has 'more control.' What does this mean exactly? I'm new and kind of a moron but it seems the 7 has as much control as the 5. I'm probably missing something here. I would like the smaller size of the 7 but not at a huge cut to IQ.

>>2811219
The em5 is TINY. Like, as small as I would want my "main" rig to be. If you want dedicated pocket slut you could use a ricoh or something.

Looking for a bit of advice on gear to acquire.

I've been looking to pick up a flash to use with my D7200.
I've looked at the Nikon branded speedlight stuff. There's a fair difference in price between it and third party gear.
Are you guys familiar with any of the off-brand stuff which stands up in quality to what you could expect from the likes of the SB-700 etc?

There's a few for a quarter of the price but most of the positive reviews I'm seeing are from fellow amateur plebs and I know not to trust my own inexperienced opinion on this so I don't entirely trust them.

>>2811225
The dimensions are small, and looking at videos it's tiny in people's hands. I may just go ahead and order one. Does it have focus peaking? Is the software dated compared to the newer Olys? Everything looks pretty much the same to me.

>>2810396
Which Zeiss consumer lenses aren't made in Japan today?

>>2811237
>peaking
There's a bit of a workaround to get peaking working. It's not called peaking though until you get to the current models.
>software
Yes it's dated. It doesn't have the electronic first curtain, I believe. There's no firmware update.

Between the EM5 and EM10, I'd take the EM10. The EM5's dirt cheap anyways.

If you had to choose between EM5 and EM10 II though, it'd be the EM10 II hands down.

>>2811227
Probably should just get a Yongnuo with Nikon TTL support from Aliexpress.

Or even a manual one if you'll generally shoot in the same light.

>>2811227

Yongnuo makes pretty decent flashes. Price will depend on whether you want through the lens metering (TTL) or not.

>>2811092

Have Nikon D7100. I trust it for really light rain and dust but beyond that I'll just put a rain cover over it. A lot of my lenses are not weather sealed at all so i need some protection for those anyway.

>>2810614

The Tamron 150-600 is good value if you don't mind that it essentially a broad daylight only lens because of the aperture. My only hesitation with Tamron is i have had two Tamron auto focus motors burn out on me. But there is the 6 year warranty to consider with that.

Also look in to older second hand lenses. You can get a good 300mm f4 for well under $700 easily.

>>2811250
I would take Gen 1 em5 over Gen 1 em10 just for the weather sealing and 5 axis IBIS alone. I like to run and gun though.

>>2811202
Yeah, it's so cheap I won't die if it's shit. Thanks for the recommendations, will see if anything's available.

>>2811250
What did >>2811200 mean that the 5 is a better camera then? It sounds like the biggest differences are new features vs. weather sealing. Also did you mean you'd take the EM10? The sentence after implies the EM5 is a better deal, or cheaply made (which doesn't sound like the case).

File: file.png (177KB, 776x620px) Image search: [Google]

177KB, 776x620px

post me some memes boyos

>>2808514
Personally in a similar situation as you just with a 400d and no tele or super wide angle lenses. I think most interesting for me would be to get a decent prime lense (I'm leaning towards Canon 35mm f/1.8 or sth) to use instead of the kit zoom lens. I love shooting street stuff as well as low lighting, so the wide aperture and focal length would be ideal.

>>2811313
Sigma Art 18-35mm f/1.8 is a pretty good kit lens replacement for most people.

>>2811267
>>2811274
Oops I fucked up. I meant I'd take a EM5 over EM10, but EM10II over EM5.

I already own a Canon 430ex iii-rt.
Is it also compatible for radio master/slave with the 600ex-rt?

Trying to decide on picking up a 2nd 430 III for an umbrella flash ($299) or a 600 ($469.)

>>2811313
>>2808514
I second the recommendation for Sigma's art 18-35 f/1.8.
It has the image quality of a whole variety of prime lenses combined across the zoom range, which will help a new photographer.

I'd recommend it over 10-18 because super wide like 10mm looks like dogshit most of the time, enormous distortion of straight lines and perspective. Makes humans ugly as fuck and not useful for wide pleasing shots of groups of people, etc.

The only drawback of the 18-35mm f1.8 is that it's a manly piece of glass with size and weight. Pretty similar weight between my 18-35 F1.8 and my 70-200 F4 IS, and not that vast a difference in size either.
Only if you're shooting video will you notice the lack of image stabilization on the 18-35. For single shots, it captures so much light (fast shutter times) and isn't telephoto, so you get very little motion blur from your hand.

If I could only add 2 lenses, it's the 18-35 for close and the 70-200 for reach. Kit rarely being used.

If I was only allowed 3 lenses total, then in addition to the 18-35 and 70-200, I'd abandon the stock 18-55mm kit lens (mine is non-IS old version, but new one still has shitty light-gathering speed) and I'd bring a nifty 50mm prime instead of kit lens.
The 50 is super lightweight, inexpensive, fast and is a nice compromise between the 18-35 and the 70-200. Very convenient for the moments you don't need heavy glass or zoom capability.

Hello,

I have a quick question. I am looking to get a camera that is small enough to take around with me so I can take pics of my 3 small kids but also with a large enough sensor to make sure the images are as good as ones from a dslr. I thought that the fuji X100t (or even the Fuji x-2Es w/ a prime lens) would be a good fit here.

I am also going to be doing some portrait type photos with this camera. I like to take my best pics and put them on a canvas (usually 20 by 16 inches or 20 by 24) so I was wondering if the 16 Mp of the Fuji x100T would be large enough to keep the images on the canvas sharp, or should I look at a 24Mp camera instead? Also, is the 35mm equivalent on the x100t good enough for portraits or should I focus on a 50mm lens?

>>2811152
Even if it's just the lens that's infected?

>>2811469
Fujii is good, or Olympus omd em5 with a 20mm pancake prime.

>>2811521
Fungus spreads by spores, not by overgrowing

>>2811469
> as good as ones from a dslr
Depending on whose DSLR setup it is, that's almost automatically a given for new camera - even if they are P&S or smartphone cameras.

Or it can be just impossible (can't really fully match the higher-end DSLR+glass with small devices).

> fuji X100t
Are you sure you want fixed glass?

> I was wondering if the 16 Mp of the Fuji x100T would be large enough to keep the images on the canvas sharp
I figure many might consider it sharp enough?

It's not the MP alone that make sharpness, it is also your lens. The X100T has an okay lens, but it's not really a match for various sharper lenses people pay for on IL cameras (and do so explicitly to get more sharpness, often for portraits).

> Also, is the 35mm equivalent on the x100t good enough for portraits or should I focus on a 50mm lens
I don't think you want only one ~50mm lens on a m43 camera to shoot your kids. A ~100mm equivalent is going to be too narrow in a lot of situations.

Of course, if you buy an IL camera, buy as many good primes or zoom lenses as seems useful for your hobby. But you still might start with a 35mm and see how that goes first before getting a 50mm...?

>>2808269
>E D C T H R E A D

File: DSC_5530-2.jpg (1MB, 1333x2000px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1333x2000px

Going to buy a Nikon D700 this afternoon, any suggestions for a good lens? already have a 50mm 1.4 and a 28-85mm 3.5-4.5, i was thinking of a 20mm prime maybe

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D7100
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.3 (Macintosh)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.4
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	764
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	75 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2016:04:04 02:12:34
Exposure Time	1/60 sec
F-Number	f/5.6
Exposure Program	Not Defined
ISO Speed Rating	18102
Lens Aperture	f/5.6
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Fine Weather
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	50.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Custom
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	High Gain Up
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>2811300
Who did that?

Selling all of my dslr gear (D3300)and buying a Fuji X30.

Do or dont?

>>2811612
There obviously are many good Zeiss / Sigma / Nikkor / Tamron / Rokinon etc. lenses, but a good lens for what?

File: 1459467613044.jpg (192KB, 609x800px) Image search: [Google]

192KB, 609x800px

>>2808066
Picked up a Canon 80D along with a 50mm 1.8. Mainly going to use the camera for video use with occasional picture use. My question is would a Canon 24-105mm f4 lens be a good next purchase as far as capturing motorsports photography? I know since its a crop sensor its more like ~38-170mm?(excuse the math or incorrectness, just started) I'm not lazy whatsoever but for a beginner i'll most likely be capturing from the bleachers or form a distance and im sure the 50mm is capable but as far as distance I probably wont be able to jump around the bleachers...lol. Money isn't an issue as far as the lens price...

Also any tips on how to create a photo like the one in my post?
<<<

>>2811640
I myself certainly wouldn't do that (I'd get better glass and a higher-end body instead).

But you might not be or shoot the same as I do, eh.

>>2811640
Only if you want to take photography less serious as a hobby.

>>2811642
I'd think a Tamron 70-200 or Sigma 120-300 or something is a much better idea.

File: DSC_5575.jpg (2MB, 2000x1333px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2000x1333px

>>2811641
I would like a wideangle to have fun with in the streets and for landscapes, something not really expensive because I first want to see if is a type of lens that I can like and learn to use decently

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D7100
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.3 (Macintosh)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	732
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2016:04:04 17:55:30
Exposure Time	1/400 sec
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	1000
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	High Gain Up
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>2811642
> Also any tips on how to create a photo like the one in my post?
Use a poor lens, underexpose & oversaturate, and then just perform a little extra wrecking on the color curves (a little extra yellow tint, perhaps?)

IMO, you shouldn't really *want* to do this, though.

>>2811647
> wideangle to have fun
Buy it separately. It is a different lens than for
> capturing [motor sports] from the bleachers or form a distance

Again, you'll want a 70-200 or 120-300 or something more like that for that.

File: DSC_4582.jpg (145KB, 2000x1333px) Image search: [Google]

145KB, 2000x1333px

>>2811650
I didn't understand a thing man, separately from what?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D7100
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.3 (Macintosh)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.4
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	804
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	75 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2016:03:06 14:46:10
Exposure Time	1/125 sec
F-Number	f/1.4
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	800
Lens Aperture	f/1.4
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	50.00 mm
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	Low Gain Up
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

/p/, give me some help, even though I might be asking for the impossible.

Are there are miracle lenses I can use on my Pentax K-50 that are affordable (£200 max, but preferably cheaper) but very good?

I have an unhealthy obsession to do with needing to get the very best shit, which is stupid considering I don't have the money to buy such things usually, which is why I come to you to see if there's any cheap yet very good lenses around that I've missed.

I'm currently only using the kit lens and I don't like it.

I'd really appreciate it if some of you guys could list some, I dunno, must have lenses that I can work on getting.

I know the next question is "What will you be wanting to take pictures of", but that's not so simple to answer, since I'd like to be prepared to do a bit of everything. Landscape, macro, portrait and street are the 4 main ones I can think of though.

My camera has been gathering dust for a while, and it's purely because I don't have the motivation to pick it up and use it due to not having a lens that makes me think "wow" when I take a picture (which admittedly is no doubt more to do with my lack of skill with the camera rather than the lens, but still).

Any help would be appreciated.