/gear/ - Gear Thread

>>2819396

Stop telling me what I can and can´t do dad.

I´m a Rebel now and my 44 pops far.

Just bought a Canon 100-400mm I.

Yes I know it's the old version.

Yes it isn't a prime, fuck off back to /r/photography with your street bullshit.

AMA I guess?

>>2819420
You already bought it, what do you want?
It's a very good lens, covers FF and has IS. Good for you I guess.

>>2819420
>telephoto primes
>street photography

>>2819429
You can get some very nice compression on cityscapes.

>>2819426
I don't know what I want...

I thought gear threads were for posting about gear you've bought in an obnoxious way for no reason

>>2819431
>cityscapes
>street photography

>>2819460
You are photographing a street. It is a streetphotography.

>>2819459
You thought wrong.

>>2819464
lol he really didn't, he's spot on in fact. 90% of these threads consist of faggots bickering over who's gear is better

has anyone ever used a kyocera samurai z? i really want to buy one.

>>2819464
No you

>>2819429
>>2819462
Not that guy but street photography isn't limited to specific focal lengths or have to be on a street or urban environment

>>2818949
I never owned the GR but i honestly cant see that being truly "pocketable" either, again, unless you wear really baggy clothes.

The X70 wasnt pocketable for me without a lot of discomfort. The GR is actually slightly longer, the same height, and 1.4" thick instead of 1.7" thanks to its retractable lens. I cant see that being enough of a difference.

Frankly i dont know why youd want to put a $700 camera in your pocket anyway. When you lean over or sit down it could easily fall out. If you dont want it on your neck or in your hands, just go full dadmode and get a belt pouch. At least youd be protecting your investment.

Is the EOS 1200d a good choice for starting photography?

I don't know anything about photography but my brother wants a DSLR/mirrorless camera and a 50mm lens to shoot lookbook style photos for a clothing label. I'm trying to buy one for his birthday and have no idea where to start so I figured maybe someone would be able to help here. Would these two things be possible for under $400-500? Used/refurbished is fine as he'll probably get over it in a year. And if he doesnt, then he ca buy his own damn camera later. Thanks guys.

>>2819494
Any sort of dslr is a good place to start and properly learn how to compose images (shutter speed, iso and aperture as well as framing and exposing, post processing too)

What you need to consider more is that if you buy canon and buy a few more lenses you're heading down the path of having to stick with Canon. Especially if you're a poorfag it'd mean selling all your gear at a loss and buying again if you wanted to change camera makes, so be sure canon is good enough (it will be in 99.5% of cases unless you're a some autist that wants a 25 year old camera) for what you're planning to shoot.

>>2819494
Yes, but that's only the body. What is the deal you are looking at precisely?

>>2819497
get a pentax k-50 with either the 35mm or 50mm da lens comes out to about 450

>>2819506
He will be much better off with the WR kit lens. The zoom range would be much better than a prime for a beginner.

Nikon coolpix A for 200dorridoos, yay or nay?

>>2819513
Except he said he wanted a 50mm

Besides, zoom can make some beginners lazy in terms of learning angles and composition. Everyone's different but I wish i had started with a prime.

>>2819513
He specified a 50mm (35mm equivalent I'm assuming)

The standard 18-55 doesn't really compete in any of the categories to either one of those primes and you can remedy the focal length by moving a couple paces

>>2819517
Ah, sorry, I skipped that part.
Those two primes are very sharp lenses, though I would choose the 50mm for clothing and product photography for it's portrait focal length.

>>2819500
>>2819502
Thanks for the answers, anons!

I'll use the camera mostly for taking pics of places where i go, and maybe some portraits of people with me while we're around. I've found a sale in a local store who sell 1200d with 18-55 dc at 260 euros

>>2819525
That is a good deal, try and expand the budget on either the EF 40mm pancake or the EF-S 24mm pancake. If you want more portraits then get the 40mm.
These pancake lenses are fast, small, lightweight and sharp beyond measure.

>>2819531
Thanks anon!

File: grdot.jpg (233KB, 602x1000px) Image search: [Google]

233KB, 602x1000px

got a used gr today from the amazon warehouse for £290
it seems like it's in pristine condition aside from this mark on the lens
is it worth sending back or not?
it shows up most on high contrast bw

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	RICOH IMAGING COMPANY, LTD.
Camera Model	GR
Camera Software	GR Firmware Ver 04.00
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	35 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2016:04:19 14:39:10
Exposure Time	1/350 sec
F-Number	f/4.0
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/4.0
Brightness	7.5 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	18.30 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	3936
Image Height	2608
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Sharpness	Normal

>>2819582
That's a speck of dust on the sensor. You can send it in for cleaning or do it yourself if you can handle a precision screwdriver. There are tutorials on the internet.
I would send it in for cleaning though, they might replace the dust seals.

Does anybody here actually use their Pentacks in extreme weather? If so, why don't you post pictures? I'm tired of seeing all the same OP pictures.

>>2819622
I stay inside my house in extreme weather.

>>2819622
My shit weather event shots are not up for artistic merit posting on /p/.
Imagine torrential rain, camera soaking wet, me running around shooting event, rest of the camera people hiding under a tent.

What is a good small point and shoot 35mm camera?

>>2819635
That kind of question is moot without referring to a price range...

>>2819635
Thats also reasonably priced.

>>2819639
XA
XA2

>>2819637
Haha I posted this >>2819639 without realising asked the question.

Specifically, $100 USD is the most I'd like to spend.

>>2819645
http://snapsort.com/recommend#!general=price&price=100&type=digicam

>>2819644
Thanks, but would the Stylus Epic be better?
>>2819649
Thanks senpai, but it doesn't look like that site has the option for 35mm cameras, only digital.

>>2819652
>Thanks, but would the Stylus Epic be better?
It depends entirely on your needs and shooting style, which you haven't shared with us. Have you tried googling it to see if anyone has compared the two cameras?

>>2819645
Get a used film SLR if youre that cheap. Anything digital under $100 will be a cheap piece of shit.

I bought the pic related body in fully functional condition at a thrift store for $10. Another $40 got me a clean 40mm lens and the resulting photos are great.

I realize film is an added cost but seriously if you are only spending $100 this is the way to go.

hello, total noob here looking to get into this stuff

i am looking at nikon d3300 and can also get canon eos 1300d or 700d for similar money

when i go and read plain specs on websites the nikon seems to be on top, might i be missing something?

So my gf gets a 15% discount at target and I saw that they sell some low end dslrs and I thought Id grab one. They have a d5500 with the 18-140mm 3.5 lens for $890 with her discount. It says on the website that it has a 1 year warranty but also lists it as imported. Does anyone kow if this would be considered grey market or is this legit? I like the price with her discount but I am not interested in getting a grey market camera.

http://m.target.com/p/nikon-d5500-dx-format-digital-slr-w-18-140mm-vr-kit/-/A-17144755

This is the link, can anyone tell if this is from nikon usa?

File: 3752051502_79c492e569.jpg (88KB, 500x333px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 500x333px

>>2819657
Forgot pic

What's a good Pentax 35mm lens?

Looking for a good prime.

>>2819658
They're more or less interchangeable at that level. Neither will be susceptible to breaking or wearing out more quickly, both will have more or less the same features. The Nikon has a more modern sensor but that will only really come into play if you do heavy editing. The Canon may have better ergonomics and lens availability, depending on your personal tastes.

The difference that might affect you is lens pricing. Look at the prices for some lenses that you might find useful in the future (24mm if you're looking to get into street, 50 to 85mm if you're looking for portraits, 150 to 400mm if you're looking at wildlife or sports, etc)

You'll upgrade your camera body in a couple of years if you really get into it, and when you start doing that, your lenses will be what holds you back if you buy shit lenses for no money.

>>2819660
"Imported" in this context probably just means it wasnt made in the USA. They are saying it has a 1 year manufacturer's warranty which, if true, means it is not a grey market camera.

You can always buy it and return it if it really doesnt have the warranty, but i think youre safe here. I'd be surprised if Target sold grey market anyways, at least without stating it to be so.

>>2819664
Unless it's a 1 year Target warranty, which very well may be the case.

>>2819666
Except it says "manufacturer's warranty" in the product description. Target is likely smart enough to know the difference, and if they arent, then the camera can be returned.

They are on Nikon's list of authorized USA dealers so I assumed it would be legitimate. The term imported is what really threw me off. This is a pretty decent deal so I really want it. Thanks to all of you for helping me out with this I think there is something like a 14 day return policy, so Ill buy it and see if the manufacturer warranty is included with it and if not I'll just return it. Thanks for helping me clear this up. I appreciate it.

>>2819663
thanks

File: canon-70d-w-body-slika-64972147.jpg (100KB, 919x690px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 919x690px

>>2819663
Tagging you because you seem full of knowledge.

Hi, I was here yesterday, deciding what camera to buy and now I've got quite the dilemma on my back. I was torn between 700d ($650, with starter lens included) and 70d which is way more expensive and thats without the lens too.

But now I found a guy near me selling 70d ($820, body only). He's saying he only took around 5000 photos and barely did any filming. Its used but saved well, no scratches and its bit over 1 year old. Is that gonna be a problem in any way?

If I do it I'm gonna need to buy lens too (please recommend me some) and I won't be able to afford gear like tripod etc...

What do you think is the smart choice here bros?

Pic related, will post some more.

File: canon-70d-w-body-slika-64972148.jpg (107KB, 919x690px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 919x690px

>>2819676
Another one.

>>2819675
No problem at all. Can't wait to see your photos.

>>2819676
There's usually nothing wrong with buying a used camera. Generally, either they work perfectly, or they don't work at all. 5000 photos is nothing. Until very recently, I've purchased all of my cameras used and have never had an issue. It's a good idea to test it while you're talking to him though, if he won't honor a return for it if it's broken when he gets it to you.

Personally, I'd got for the 70D over a rebel, merely for the ergonomics. My first transition was from an Xt to a 40D and the difference in the shooting experience was dramatic.

What lens you'll want depends on what you want to shoot with it, but the 18-55 kit lens is a great place to start. Inexpensive, good image quality, and a good range to let you get a feel for where you like to be. Some people find they like wide angle, and others find they like telephoto, and buying a bunch of expensive lenses before you know which you prefer is a waste.

Lads, i really want the focus blow-up in the viewfinder of the X100T but you can literally get an X100S for about half the price right now. What do?

>>2819679
What's more important to you? Half the price? or the "focus blow-up"?

>>2819680
I called it that because ive seen people sperg out when it's referred to as an electronic rangefinder and i was hoping to avoid that conversation.

I dont know whats more important to me at the moment so im throwing the question out there.

>>2819683
If you don't know your own priorities, how can we possibly know them?

The improvements are well documented, as is the price jump. The only variable is your personal sense of value, to which we have no access.

>>2819662
FF or APS-C?
If APS-C then cheaper is the DA 35/2.4 and there is the 35/2.8 Macro Limited. I would buy the DA 40/2.8 Limited though.
If FF then there is the FA 35mm, somewhat costing more the FA 43 Limited and the uber alles FA 31 Limited
Also check them and more out here:
http://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/

>>2819685
What im saying is that if the only improvement of value to me is the ERF, do others think that is worth an additional $500 to them?

Jesus christ you faggot if you dont have an answer to that simple question then just move on.

>>2819683
>I called it that because ive seen people sperg out when it's referred to as an electronic rangefinder and i was hoping to avoid that conversation.
That's fair, It's a "hybrid viewfinder" which should keep the trolling to a minimum.

>>2819679
> fixed lenses on both
Why? Get an IL camera. It's not like a lens mounting mechanic is a good choice to save money on.

>>2819690
I make $72,000 per year and live in a paid off house and have no debt, so sure, $500 is nothing to me at the moment, and yes, it would be worth it.

File: canon-70d-w-body-slika-64972152.jpg (115KB, 919x690px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 919x690px

>>2819678
Since I don't have any lenses on me, I'm going alone and its my first camera buy, is there anything else I should pay attention to when we do the exchange?

Also, I'm focused on the filming side of the camera and lenses.

Thanks for the help everyone, I guess I'll take the 70D and get some inexpensive lenses by paying it trough out the year. Hope I don't regret this ;_;

>>2819696
I had an ILC digital and recently sold it. Couldnt be bothered to change lenses and ended up using the smallest thing i had 90% of the time. If i want to lug a bunch of gear around ill use my film SLR.

>>2819698
>Hope I don't regret this ;_;
If you do, it won't be because of the camera.
Ask if the guy has a lens you can test with it. If he doesn't give you a way to test it, make him agree to give you your money back if it doesn't work when you do get a chance to use it.

Look inside the mount to be sure that there's not a bunch of dirt and rust in there. Lock up the mirror and look at the sensor itself to be sure it's not covered with filth or scratches. Check inside the battery compartment for corrosion or battery acid or anything, be sure that the LCDs both work.

Chances are very very good that you're fine though.

>>2819696
>Stop liking what I don't like. My priorities and values are right, and everything else is stupid.

>>2819690
>do others think that is worth an additional $500 to them?
Who fucking cares what we think? Some of us will say yes it's worth it, while others will say that it's not.

It all comes down to how important it is to you, and whether or not you can spare the extra cash. Quit being such a moronic manchild and think with your own brain.

>>2819690
Our sense of value is by definition, different than yours. It's like asking us what our favorite color is to try to pick a color to paint your living room.

>>2819703
> priorities and values
Saving $2 or so to add an extremely powerful basic feature for a $650+ camera is apparently some kind of philosophical lifestyle choice?

This is some great visionary shit, you can finally free yourself of your surplus money by buying a new camera even when you just needed a lens!

>>2819711
>Saving $2 or so to add an extremely powerful basic feature for a $650+ camera is apparently some kind of philosophical lifestyle choice?
What the fuck are you talking about?

He clearly wants an X100 camara, and is deciding between one that has a feature he would use, for an extra $500 (or whatever) or one that doesn't have it... Suggesting an interchangeable lens camera because you personally don't want an X100 is retarded.

>>2819706
>>2819707
Ok fine, thanks guys. Money is a bit tight at the moment so im leaning toward the S. That said.if i just waited a few months i could probably get the T. Decisions decisions.

File: 1458769324701.jpg (369KB, 1800x1197px) Image search: [Google]

369KB, 1800x1197px

I'm tossing up between the Pentax K-50 and the K-S1 and notice the relatively large discrepancy in megapixels. Now, I couldn't give a fuck about he MP number itself but if I turn down the K-S1 picture quality (from 20 megapixel to 16MP) will the pictures be lower quality than the K-50 (16MP) because of the smaller pixels?

File: 13954807524_998fe714fc_b.jpg (209KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

209KB, 1024x768px

>>2819716
I'd wait and get the T. The focussing is faster and the viewfinder is higher resolution.
Classic Chrome is also rather nice.

>>2819736
The viewfinders have the exact same resolution. Only difference is the ERF on the T.

>>2819735
K-50. The K-S1 has no weather sealing and looks like a retarded clownshoe not to mention it is missing features the K-50 has.
If you want a newer body you can take a look at the K-S2. That is a true successor to the K-50.

File: 1232567321147.jpg (162KB, 480x672px) Image search: [Google]

162KB, 480x672px

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4o46pqs4i3k
Is Sigma the most based lens manufacturer on the planet or what?

>>2819735
Downsampling from higher resolution down to lower resolution is always better. However, the difference between 16MP and 20MP is pretty much nothing, honestly. It's a 25% increase in the total pixel count, which means about 12% increase in the actual linear dimensions of the pictures. So 16MP would be an image around 4900x3300 pixels an 20MP would be something like 5500x3700 pixels.

Also consider the fact that if you're posting your photos online then they'll be far from full resolution anyway. If you're posting on /p/ then they'll probably be resized to 1000x667 or 1500x1000 or so. Even if you're posting them full-size on your personal website or whatever few people have monitors that are any wider than 2000 pixels. Even 4K monitors are only about 4000 pixels wide which gives them a total of like 8 megapixels.

Megapixels are bullshit, decide between the two cameras based on something else that actually matters.

>>2819770
Congratulations. You can now use an APS-C lens with slow and unreliable, overtraveling AF on a FF camera.
Why not just get first party lenses instead?
>Sony
oh... I'm sorry.

>>2819781
The review I saw of this never mentioned anything about bad AF,

>>2819781
How can AF over-travel on a mirrorless camera? Either it's in-focus or it isn't, and the sensor can always tell, so it will know if it's out...? Or are you referring to something else.

>>2819784
Because it was a review and not real life experiences. There are at least one complaint per week here about a Sigma lens AF being unreliable.

>>2819786
On mirrorless cameras?

>>2819785
Because while the camera can decide if it's in focus or not the lens have a mechanical part that rotates, has inertia and just overtravels bringing your image slightly out of focus.

>>2819789
And then the camera recognizes it, and pulls it back into focus?

>>2819790
while so it also sets the motor and mechanics in motion and the inertia again makes it overtravel. It's a weak design.
Seriously how can you Sony fanboys function as a human being if you don't understand how lens mechanics work? It's not rocket science.

>>2819793
It's not that we don't understand, it's that you don't understand how stupid you sound. If a lens was literally never in focus, it would be well noted by everyone, including reviewers, not just one angry guy on 4chan. So find reviews of that lens in particular, or better yet, samples and videos! Showing the effect.

I have owned three sigma lenses, and none of them had that issue (or AF issues at all), so my personal experience suggests that you're incorrect (or, best case scenario, blowing something you read on the internet out of proportion)

File: DCIM0496.jpg (63KB, 320x480px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 320x480px

>>2819766
I know this sounds dumb as fuck but I don't want a professional looking camera. People in public are much less intimidated if a camera is white or red and looks like a clown shoe.
Also the KS-1 is £100 cheaper and has a better sensor in my opinion (looking at images on Flickr).
I suppose the K-50 in red could be a good call...

>>2819786
What if it's a review based on real life experience?

>>2819786
You don't think they use the autofocus mechanism in a review?

>>2819796
>People in public are much less intimidated if a camera is white or red and looks like a clown shoe.

No they're not.

Professional camera -> people assume you're a professional.
Amateur camera -> people assume you're a creep.

File: 360 degree camera.jpg (78KB, 390x471px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 390x471px

>>2819796
>I know this sounds dumb as fuck but I don't want a professional looking camera. People in public are much less intimidated if a camera is white or red and looks like a clown shoe.

A person isn't stupid, they know see a camera when they see one, and it doesn't matter what color it is. What matters is what the person holding the camera looks like and acts like.
https://youtu.be/lhpjewyxfzo

>>2819796
It's not the camera that intimidates people, it's the person behind the camera, taking a photo of them, to do who-knows-what with later at home. Losing control over your image and persona to someone you have no reason to trust. The color of the camera doesn't matter.

It's like saying I don't mind having a gun pointed at me, so long as it's red, in stead of black.

>>2819796
K-50 in black will be the easiest to get, any other color only if you want the camera as a fashion accessory.

>>2819781
https://youtu.be/dZAGTxH92rU?t=212
The AF is pretty good, and it doesn't make any noise.

>>2819811
>It's like saying I don't mind having a gun pointed at me, so long as it's red, in stead of black.

Well this is pretty true. If it's red it's almost definitely not a real gun...

I had a lot more reactions with my Sony DSLR than I do with my X100T and film camera. I find I get photos with a lot more eye contact with the lens. This could also be a noise thing also.

>>2819820
That one lens has good AF. Also do you think they would review a faulty lens?
Fact is Sigma quality control is still lacking, there are many faulty lenses out there and many more breaks due to weak design, mostly the AF mechanism.
I know it is THE only affordable lens in this range for Sony but defending it is pointless. Being aware of the issues and not running into denial is the sensible option here.

What are your thoughts on shooting outside the 24-70mm range being inherently more interesting due to the relative rarity of those focal lengths?

>>2819825
But the AF motor is 100% electronics, if it's faulty and out of spec, they can easily capture it in production.

It's not a matter of optics being imprecise or polished too little.
Something tells me you're not quite right about this.

>>2819825
Every tear-down Lens Rentals does of a new Sigma Art lens, they constantly talk about how they're over-engineered, and just as (and in many cases more) sturdy than their first party pro-level counterparts.

>>2819827
Different perspectives can give a shallow boost in interest, but once someone is at the level where they're nolonger impressed by the gear you're using to take a shot, they pretty much ignore stuff like that, and in stead, look at your content.

If you use the gear to take photos in an interesting way, that's different. For instance, maybe going up really high in a building, and shooting down at people on the street with a 400mm lens could be interesting. But if you're just standing on the ground, taking a photo of a parked car, no, taking the photo at 8mm isn't going to make it more interesting than taking it at 40mm.

>>2819828
>motor is 100% electronics
You know that is 100% stupid. Go back to school, kid. Or just use google and learn how an electronic motor works.

>>2819829
>Every tear-down Lens Rentals does of a new Sigma Art lens
>new
That's the problem, the issues come out usually after a year.

>>2819831
New being a lens that was designed and released after they started releasing the new Art lenses. Not new as in never been used. Older sigma was a mine-field. New Sigma is very much not so.

Is Nikon going to catch up with Canon's 50MP record anytime soon?

I don't think Canon will ever sell them the sensor, so they really need to step up in gear on their own.

>>2819839
I think you may want to compare the actual physical sizes of the images between the D810 and the new Canon. You may be quite disappointed. Especially after you see what Canon had to sacrifice to get there.

Nikon will probably end up with a version of the sensor in the A7rII soon enough though.

>>2819735
Honestly anything over 10 MP and that is CMOS is good enough unless you're doing retarded stuff.

Go for work flow, builds quality and ergonomics in a body.

K-50 or k20

File: canon logic.png (196KB, 593x604px) Image search: [Google]

196KB, 593x604px

>>2819839

>>2819839
Pentax is at 51.4 MP. Canon is a shit.

>>2819860
>Pentax is at 51.4 MP

Where?

>>2819863
645z

>>2819858

>Canon logic

Fucking Nikon fags had been boasting on their 36MP sensor for years until the 5Ds was released.

>>2819864
That's a medium format sensor.
High resolution is to be expected.

Canon has plans for 120MP and further.

File: 1334326707717.jpg (111KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 500x500px

A friend is offering me a Batis 25mm in tip top shape for 1100 USD.

Should I go for it?

File: terry1.jpg (29KB, 630x355px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 630x355px

>>2819801

File: 3179524_01_chrome_red_cobra_fs32_32acp__640.jpg (44KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 640x480px

>>2819822

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SAMSUNG
Camera Model	GT-I9000
Camera Software	fw 49.11 prm 09.09
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	0 mm
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.6
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2014:05:16 00:15:34
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Exposure Time	0.1 sec
F-Number	f/2.6
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	160
Lens Aperture	f/2.6
Brightness	0.3 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	3.79 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	640
Image Height	480

so i was given this point and shoot wb1100f 16.4 megapixel camera . how crap is it? cause i try to get non blurry pics but the auto focus sucks half the time.

Newfag here
I put my Canon t1i on ebay for $175 with default lens, good price or am I retarded?

>>2819931
$50 would be a better price. Or $30. Or whatever the price you want to pay someone to take it away.

>>2819931
did you search for your camera model on ebay and seen what everyone else was selling theirs for?

File: Loxia-2.8-21-Application-sample-2015.11.18-01_Christian-Dandyk_lp.jpg (758KB, 1334x2000px) Image search: [Google]

758KB, 1334x2000px

1500 dollars worth of razor sharp Zeiss stars at F5,0.
I'm getting more and more jealous of this lens every day.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-7RM2
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
Photographer	Christian Dandyk
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	21 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	5304
Image Height	7952
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2015:11:18 13:28:11
Exposure Time	1/250 sec
F-Number	f/5.0
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/5.0
Brightness	7.7 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	21.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1334
Image Height	2000
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

File: Tokina-AT-X-11-20mm-f2.8-PRO-DX-lens.jpg (217KB, 600x476px) Image search: [Google]

217KB, 600x476px

Bought one of these yesterday and I have no idea what to do with it now. Might return it.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D600
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2014 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/3.1
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	993
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	85 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	800
Image Height	600
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Compression Scheme	Uncompressed
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	400 dpi
Vertical Resolution	400 dpi
Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format
Image Created	2014:12:24 15:15:11
Exposure Time	1/60 sec
F-Number	f/22.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/22.0
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	85.00 mm
Comment	Shiro Yoshizawa
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	600
Image Height	476
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

>>2819959
Why did you buy it in the first place then?

>>2819931
I sold mine the other week for about that price, could probably squeeze $200 out of it.

>>2819964
Cause the only lens I have is a 35mm. Wanted something new to play around with.

>>2819966
Use it then.

>>2819969
I've never used ultra wide angle lenses before. I'll have to dick around until I figure it out, I guess.

>>2819973
Exactly. Instead of return it instantly.

>>2819959
Put it on your camera and go take photos? I huge part of me wants to yell at you from across the internet but surely there is something else from keeping you from knowing what to do?

>>2819978
Lack of confidence and creativity, mostly.

>>2819956
Wow, that is a very nice sharp photo of absolutely fucking nothing. Not sure why you need that lens for it though, does anybody even sell lenses that aren't very sharp at f/5 anymore?

>>2819996
Most cheaper lenses just show you a white sphere instead of the star rays at that aperture.

>>2819998
It's also on a $3200 camera body. That lens probably doesn't produce the same results on a $600 camera.

>>2820005
It will, it's a property of specific lens design, not the camera sensor.

>>2819965
Really? Well then I'm glad. I'd rather stick with the price I started, dont want to jew and just want to sell it as quickly as I can

I really like Nikon's film lens offerings and their consistent film size, but I can't part with my Canon FD. Is there any equivalent Nikon manual film body? I really wanna know: I'd ditch Canon in an instant. The FD's mirror lockup, smooth shutter, self-stabilizing mirror (the biggest reason why I can't give it up) and design are all just so perfect. I have a fucking Hasselblad for studio work and it doesn't feel as good to me.

File: 8743762353_a26eab7193_o.jpg (287KB, 992x800px) Image search: [Google]

287KB, 992x800px

>>2820047
Nikon F3, F4, F100.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	800
Image Height	2944
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2013:05:15 11:40:29
Exposure Time	1/125 sec
F-Number	f/0.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Subject Distance	0.00 m
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	50.00 mm
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	3651
Image Height	2944
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto

>>2820051
FTb, I meant.
I'm really distrustful of electronic bodies, and the F4 and F100's viewfinders just don't do it for me.
Tried the FM2 but it's too noisy and feels like a clunkmonster compared to my FTb.

>>2819926
It's pretty shit, since it has a tiny little sensor with a big superzoom lens bolted on to it.

But you have it, so you might as well use it. The blurriness probably comes from the fact that the camera is trying to compensate for its sensor by using as long of a shutter speed as it can, and that speed happens to be too long for your hands. There might be an option somewhere in the menus to change its behavior, but I wouldn't bet on it. The autofocus system itself probably ain't great in low light, either.

you'll get the best out of it if you use it outdoors with plenty of light, and stay away from the really long zoom settings. Google tells me its lens is 24-875mm equivalent, treat it like its 24-300 equivalent instead. One, lenses with a giant zoom range are never all that good at full telephoto, they usually turn in their best performance in the middle of the range, and two, staying away from the supertelephoto range will give its IS system the best chance of success.

>>2820055
check out the fm10

>>2820063
Have done. It's another clunkmonster.

>>2820047
the biggest downfall of the nikon system is the focus rings on the ai lenses. they're so light and fidly when compared to the FD lenses.

also they're a fuck load more expensive and no better than the fd lenses

stick to FD

>>2820067
...I mean, I get not liking a camera, but clunkmonster? It's a pretty damn small body. The only thing that's electronic on it is the meter so there's no room devoted to electronics for an AF system, AF drive, or aperture drive...

>>2820076
I think he means the shutter when saying clunkmonster.
The F1b is a pretty high end camera.

>>2820082
>The F1b is a pretty high end camera.
FTb, and no, it's really not.
>>2820067
I generally don't care for this guy, but here's a decent list of some cameras you might like.
http://www.japancamerahunter.com/2013/06/dan-ks-top-10-manual-film-slrs/

File: 1255079178238.gif (2MB, 248x213px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 248x213px

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqSCG9WPnkE
Sigma adapter has been confirmed for working with Canon brand lenses.

I understand a little bit of Vietnamese, and he said when the Sigma lenses are attached and the green light shines, the EF lens works as fast as any Sony/Canon lens in their native system. (I can't tell if he mentioned anything about A7S or A6000)

And then he said normal Canon brand lenses will function still fast for A7RII and A7II and A6300. Basically the adapter goes into LAEA3 mode for normal Canon brand lenses.

Metabones has been confirmed for obsolete now, it's now a 400 dollar adapter with no advantages over the Sigma adapter.

File: 1452142399299.jpg (260KB, 2048x1536px) Image search: [Google]

260KB, 2048x1536px

>>2820097
holy fuck
I am so ready for this

>>2820082
>The F1b is a pretty high end camera.
HAHAHA, nope. It's like that period's 70D.

>>2820154
No, not really, because film is film no matter what. You can't declare equivalence between manual film cameras and digital cameras because anything fully manual that isn't Russian is going to be built better than the super-high-end stuff today and there's no sensor specs to piss over.

Is it worth selling my Canon rebel body with two cheap prime lenses to go with Pentax? Is Pentax that much better than Canon?

>>2820155
It literally is the 70D of it's day. It's a prosumer/enthusiast camera.

It's not a matter of which is "better" it's a matter of where it stood in Canon's lineup.

>>2820158
Shoot with that Canon until you know enough to answer your own question.

>>2820158
I have pentax and I wish I had canon's choice for UWA zooms

>>2820158
You could also sell it to go with Nikon or Sony or Panasonic or Olympus or whatever - but what is your current problem with the camera?

Are there any recommended lenses in the 24-70mm range for K mount that don't cost too much? I'm hoping for $300 or less. Maybe 28-75 or something?

I went with an entry level k30 a few years back. All my friends bought rabals. I lol when their plastic shit gets wet and stops working. I lol when they have to menu dive to change settings and miss photos. I lol when their shitty lenses take doo doo photos and they have to spend as much as a used car to buy quality glass. I don't even want to get into image stabilization. i'm glad i went pentax. you get about 3 times as much camera for the same price point.

>>2820179
save up 150 more and get the Pentax-DA 16-85mm

>>2820179

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/567353-USA/Pentax_21740_SMCP_DA_17_70mm_f_4_AL.html

>>2820076
It's plasticy as fuck and the shutter doesn't feel as nice

I just dont want to be another canon fag, plus I feel like pentax is selling way better stuff for better prices after seeing all the photos taken with them. I feel dumb investing into canon when there is a better brand to invest in.

>>2820184
Fair enough.

Oh, cheap graymarket D750
https://fstoppers.com/deals/get-it-while-it-lasts-nikon-d750-ebay-deal-back-125813

>>2820185
That's what you get for spending too much time reading about cameras and not enough time using cameras.

Like I said earlier, use the thing until you learn enough about how you shoot and what you need to do what you want to do -- then you can answer that question yourself.

You're not even getting close to the maximum potential of the camera you have. Changing bodies isn't going to change the fact that you have no clue what you're doing.

>>2820185
What you read is correct. Pentax is immense value.

Don't worry about gear too much if you're just brand new. Worry about composition and not blowing out the sky. Worry about what you do in post production that helps you kill it.

All else fails? Jump into the ecosystem you want, with the camera that gives you a warm fuzzy, and learn in there. Get a Pentax with a kit lens. Get an old film prime lens later to shake things up. I picked up a K10D for $100 and it's great fun one I replaced the abysmal kit lens (although running and gunning with manual everything is exhausting).

>>2820185
Well, Canon and Nikon are the main culprits as far as intentionally removing very cheap (software/buttons) features to create a reason to upmarket people in their system in a "lineup" of cameras goes.

Other manufacturers and of course Pentax don't do this much or at all.

> after seeing all the photos taken with them
IMO, the best looking photos are on Nikon and Sony (APS-C and FF both), plus high-end FF Canon.

Pentax offers fine camera deals, but I don't feel they really stand out in terms of image quality.

>>2820208
>Well, Canon and Nikon are the main culprits as far as intentionally removing very cheap (software/buttons) features to create a reason to upmarket people in their system in a "lineup" of cameras goes.
They can't keep getting away with it, especially Nikon is feeling a lot of heat from people migrating away from their system.

A very good recent example was the 3 minute 4K limit in the D5, they got wrecked in the ass by the uproar on the internet and quickly retracted that limit.

>>2820181
>>2820182
I'm guessing there's no chance I can get a f2.8 at $300, even if it means less sharpness, huh?
I'd love to get a zoom for my film camera too, but I'd need something with an aperture ring. Any suggestions?

>>2820217
>>I'm guessing there's no chance I can get a f2.8 at $300
Not unless you break into a camera store and steal it. The nicer a lens is, the better it holds its value, and f2.8 zooms tend to be top of the range. You can get junky kit zooms for the price of a Big Mac though.

Note that those crop-sensor lenses (16-85, 17-70...) won't work on a film camera. For that you'll want wither an F or FA zoom if its an autofocus body, or an A lens if it isn't. There are some constant f4 SMC-A zooms that'd fit into you budget, but probably not any FA ones.

>>2820220
I don't really need autofocus, so I guess I'd be fine with an A zoom. But are vintage zooms worth it? I thought it was all about the primes.

>>2820229
>But are vintage zooms worth it?
Not really, no.
>I thought it was all about the primes.
It is.

A prime is a much simpler optical engineering challenge than a zoom. You always have to trade something away to get zoom, or to get more zoom. We've been able to make excellent nifty fifties for many decades, but it's only comparatively recently that we've been able to make really good zooms that show no major weaknesses even on a modern high-resolution sensor.

But you asked about zooms, so there you go.

File: CA.jpg (436KB, 1080x720px) Image search: [Google]

436KB, 1080x720px

Holy shit, anons.

I found a shitty 0.43x wide angle lens attachment my brother got in one of these stupid photography kits.

So I decided I should see how shitty it is. Pic related, I haven't seen this much CA ever.

Any chance I can actually market this shit to lomo faggots?

>>2820233
Even if I'm not a pixel peeper? I'm interested in the A 70-210 f4 and realistically, the images I'd take with it are either going to be viewed on the computer or on a 8x10 print from my film camera. I guess what I'm really after is, is it good enough to use for someone who will never need professional level quality shots?

>>2820239
lomo already sells one

> Panasonic Leica Nocticron 42.5mm f1.2
Am I a complete ass for drooling after this?

>>2820282
Yes.
Panasonic Leica lenses are (to my knowledge) just like Sony Zeiss lenses. They're good lenses, but they're made by Panasonic/Sony and Leica/Zeiss helps with or oversees the design process/production.

Seems like a good lens, but don't fall for the branding. Also, Leica snobs will scoff at you if you try to pull the Leica card.

>>2820282
Well there's two reasons one would want an f/1.2 lens - low-light no-flash shooting, and bokeh-whoring. And M4/3 isn't exactly the greatest at either of those things. The reason you get M4/3 is because it's small, which this lens isn't.

So yeah, I'm not quite sure why you're enamored of it.

>>2820288
Three counting paper thin DOF

>>2820286
> Seems like a good lens, but don't fall for the branding
Yeah, I'm basing my feeling right now on the reviews in comparison to the Voigtlander f0.95.

>>2820288
> low-light no-flash shooting, and bokeh-whoring. And M4/3 isn't exactly the greatest at either of those things
Not the greatest, but maybe good enough? MFT seems to have a good array of primes with decent optics and pricing. Does the low-light situation suck that much? What's a better option?

>>2820293
Ok, let's assume something like a7ii as an alternative. All the interesting primes I'm seeing referenced seem to cost around 1k, whereas the Leica seems to occupy the rare position of being the one lens to go for 1k on MFT. Am I looking at this wrong?

>>2820307
BUT MUH AUTOFOCUS
MUH LEICA GLASS
MUH YELLOW FONT

>>2820349
Not sure I understand your criticism, but I'll try.

> BUT MUH AUTOFOCUS
You mean autofocus is important to me. That's true, yeah. More broadly, having things in focus is nice and autofocus has been the way I've achieved that best in the past.

You probably mean I could have some decent and fast glass with the a7 if I'd be willing to slap on an adapter and give up AF. Point taken, but I'm not keen on assigning 0 value to AF in my everyday shooting.

> MUH LEICA GLASS
> MUH YELLOW FONT
I shoot for fun, not profit. I have to admit the feel I get from handling my gear is part of the fun for me, and the Panasonic Leica lenses look like they would be a lot of fun. With the 15mm and 25mm options the price differential isn't at all insane considering the build quality and versatility in use, while the 42.5mm looks to be competing with Voigtlander and again has autofocus to top it. I'm not sure if this is a reasonable position, but to me it could be true.

Was thinking about getting the Sigma 18-35mm 1.8 but heard there's major issues with auto-focus, has this been fixed at all? Is it worth getting?

File: 1O0A3392-copie2-820x550.jpg (119KB, 820x550px) Image search: [Google]

119KB, 820x550px

Can someone help me identify this camera ?

>>2820452
I'm currently sitting next to one. Why does it matter? Finding out what it is, getting it, and using the same equipment he is using won't make your photos look like his.

>>2820454
>projecting this hard

>>2819582
>>2819584
>they might replace the dust seals.
lmao not bloody likely

GR sensor dust is a known and common fault of all digital GR's. The guy that made the first tutorial of dismantling one to clean the sensor yourself may have been the one to speculate that it's just badly designed.

So even if the seal is replaced, this shit's just gonna happen again and again.

>>2819582
Just learn to do it yourself; save time and money.
You might be doing it often, so best to get used to it and proficient at it.

>>2820457
How is that projection? Do you disagree with the assertion?

>>2820464
>Do you disagree with the assertion?

Of course I do. First off it wasn't even the camera used to take the picture and second off he didn't ask anything close to 'how was this picture taken'

Fuck off with your bullshit about trying to tell people off when they're just trying to identify a camera in a picture by posting about it in the thread for taking about cameras

>>2820468
*shrug* Go find out the answer for yourself then. Answering why you care is pretty easy, but this is a board filled with people who believe that gear makes the photos, so I won't give an easy answer to a question like that without making sure I'm not helping someone make an $800 (hint) investment only to find that their photos still suck because actually, photos are good or bad based on subject, mood, light, and content, rather than what the photographer is holding in his hand.

>>2820454
How about instead of being an obnoxious dickhead, you just answer his fucking question?

>>2820472
Why would I, if he (you) won't answer mine? I'm not paid to be here.

>>2820471
You're such a hero anon. You're helping enlighten us all with your wisdom and showing the entire board the error of their ways

Oh wait you're just a clown who comes to a gear thread for the purpose of discussing gear to tell people things they already know

You've made the assumption as to why he wants to know what camera it is. He didn't post 'What's this camera I'd like to buy it so I can be as good as this guy'

It's projection because you're projecting your insecurities on him without having any knowledge about why he even needs to know what camera it is

>>2820477
I didn't project, or assume. I straight up asked.
> Why does it matter?
And then asserted a fact that you haven't bothered to even suggest is untrue. If there were another reason for having asked, it would be very easy to state, no?

>>2820286
>and Leica/Zeiss helps with or oversees the design process/production.
From what I understand of the process, Leica and Zeiss don't design anything, they just the end designed product a once over and rubber stamp it to ensure that it doesn't give them a bad name.
And specifically in Zeiss/Sony's case, the only reason some of them have "Zeiss" at all on them is because they use a proprietary zeiss coating (T*). That's all.
Sticker peels off some of that shit easily anyway.

>>2820282
So yeah, don't fall for this kind of collab branding as it's mostly meaningless.

>>2820454
It's just out of curiosity mate, chill out.

>>2820479
>I straight up asked. Why does it matter?

Proceeded by

>Finding out what it is, getting it, and using the same equipment he is using won't make your photos look like his

He probably figured that nobody would ask him why because you shouldn't need a reason to justify asking what camera it is

But continue riding upon your high horse

Q
>- Why, for example, in a cell Alpha 6300 no image stabilizer? Many photographers expect that he will appear in the second generation of these cameras.
A
>For engineers the process of creating a compact and lightweight camera body always conjugate with certain difficulties. Each of our product combines excellent quality, small size and weight. As for the Alpha 6300 , it was decided to keep the existing body size. However, we listen to our customers, especially those, like you guys. So yes, we will think about what to do with the next generation in the future. I'm not saying that the built-in stabilizer is sure to be, but still we listen to opinion.
A6300 successor confirmed for having IBIS.

But then again, if there is no new sensor along with the IBIS, most people will probably prefer a cheap 500 dollar A6300 over a 1000dollar A6500 with same sensor and IBIS.
So it needs both IBIS as well as BSI sensor.

>>2820481
>And specifically in Zeiss/Sony's case, the only reason some of them have "Zeiss" at all on them is because they use a proprietary zeiss coating (T*). That's all.
Oh, and an anecdote:
Some anon here ran into a Zeiss engineer at a trade fair and asked them about this and the engineer laughed that people get all worked up over zeiss collab lenses. As he said, they not zeiss at all.
The only zeiss lenses are the ones branded "Zeiss". Same goes for Leica.

PanaSony license the name (and in sony's case, the special coating).
That's all.

>>2820484
>He probably figured that nobody would ask him why because you shouldn't need a reason to justify asking what camera it is
Great. Well, I'm one of the many places he can get the information he's looking for, and if he'd like me to answer his question, he'll answer mine. Seems fair. You're invited to suck it.

>>2820487
see
>>2820483

>>2820488
Lumix GX8

Don't buy one.

>>2820489
thanks, gonna buy one now ;)

>>2820479
>>2820487
>being this much of a self entitled cunt

>>2820493
>being this much of a whiny faggot
Someone asking for something in return to doing you a favor isn't entitled. Expecting someone to just give you an answer because you asked for it and therefore deserve it is entitled.

>>2820495
And wanting a pat on the back for every answer isn't?

>>2820498
A pat on the back? Who's projecting now?

>>2820461
I don't think the problem is really fixable by just putting in new seals. The extending lens on all point and shoot cameras is always a huge flaw because those suck in dust a bunch. Every point and shoot has always had the same dust problem. The GR is just worse because the bigger sensor shows dust more easily than a small sensor. Combine that with the fact that the camera is aimed at serious photographers unlike most point and shoots which are for casual users, that means most people using GRs carry them around everywhere every day instead of leaving them safely lying around at home 99% of the time. And most photographers are familiar with the problem of dusty sensors and recognize it and we've been spoiled by interchangeable lens cameras which can easily be opened up for regular cleaning and which have come with ultrasonic self-cleaning sensors for years, the GR has none of those features.

>>2820495
>Someone asking for something in return to doing you a favor isn't entitled
Oh I get it now, you're a literal autist. Well that explains a lot.

A favour is something you do for someone without expecting anything in return. You're not doing any one a favour, you're expecting someone to tell you about their personal business instead of just answering their fucking question like a normal human being. So yes, you are a self entitled cunt.

>>2820502
>Has never heard the term "I owe you one"
Favors are meant to be repaid.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reciprocity_(social_psychology)

>>2820481
> Leica and Zeiss don't design anything
>>2820486
> PanaSony license the name (and in sony's case, the special coating).
Point taken. Here's my stupid question, as someone who wouldn't know to appreciate what Leica and Zeiss really mean: what's the problem with this collaboration, if the lenses are highly rated and loved by their users? As far as I've been able to deduce from reviews, that has been the case. What is there to "fall for"?

I'm trying to decide between the
OMD E-M5 with 12-50mm f/3.5-6.3 M.Zuiko ED EZ MSC
and
Fuji X-e1 or e2 if I wait for a further price drop with XF 18-55mm f/2.8-4 R LM OIS

I like the weatherproofing and body IS on the OMD since that means less stuff in the lens and all lenses will have IS but the fuji has a bigger sensor. I'm going to guess but am not sure that both lenses are similar in performance at least enough to a point where there's not major drawbacks in one or the other.

Any opinions?

>>2820166
What is wrong with the DA 10-17mm and DA 12-24mm?

>>2820524
For a further price drop, consider the 16-50 xc lens for the Fuji. It sacrifices a tiny bit of build quaity, and some speed against the 18-55, but it's optically great, and nice and light. Very fast AF as well.

As someone who has an X-E2 and 18-55 though, I will suggest it to pretty much everyone. I love it. Especially after recent firmware updates.

>>2820485
>confirmed
>literally lip service "we hear what you're saying but we won't do it"

>>2820535
They usually accommodate for internet uproars when it comes to high selling products.
A7 x ii series gained uncompressed raw thanks to DSLR fanboys bitching on our behalf.

>>2820485
Is the mount sufficiently sized to allow for IBIS? I know Fuji's X mount, for instance, isn't. In going for minimum lens size, they've made most of their lenses with an image circle so small and so perfectly fit to the size of the sensor that there isn't room left to shift the sensor around for stabilization without dramatic falloff in the corners.

>>2820543
The E-mount is sufficiently sized for Full-Frame IBIS even.

I think the only problem the Full Frame E-mount have is the Pixel Shift feature for increased resolution.

I want the Rokinon 14mm for landscapes. Turns out, you cant put a polarizing filter on it. My question is, what will produce better images. The freakin awesome rokinon 14mm prime without polarizing filter, or a different UWA lens with a polarizing and nd filter?

>>2820554
It depends.

>>2820554
The Rokinon 14mm isn't awesome at all. At full frame it becomes distortion hell.

The Rokinon 12mm F2,0 is half the size and half the weight, is compatible with filters, and is much higher optical quality when comparing crop sensor to crop sensor.

The only problem is this doesn't exist for DSLR, because it's a mirrorless design, but at the same time, it's also the reason why it's able to be better than the 14mm.

When will Samsung rise from the dead?

>>2820511
>What is there to "fall for"?
They cost more than they would if they just were branded as "panasonic".

Bumps up the price, and you pay for the marketing yourself.

So, as per the reviews, not a bad lens, just more expensive than they perhaps should be.

So, falling for the relative rip off.

>>2820481
>and rubber stamp it to ensure that it doesn't give them a bad name
Explain the Sony 24-70 f/4 then.

>>2820652
It only refers to the coating.

File: 66V6dWb.png (378KB, 960x768px) Image search: [Google]

378KB, 960x768px

>see X100S brand new for $669 on amazon
>5 in stock
>didn't have time to check bank account and buy till after work
>few hours later, go to buy it
>$999.99
>contact seller
>"that was a sale, the sale is over"
>reviews going back to March of people buying at that price

Fuck me /p/...i realize it's my own fault but i am so pissed.

>>2820665
It was gods will. Accept it and buy a GR II.

>>2820671
I dont like noise so no thanks

I currently use old OM lenses with my A7 and I'm considering that new 50mm f/1.8.
Would the 50 be considered more of a downgrade or upgrade?

>>2820682
Then why would you buy a Fuji product?

>>2820683
That lens has immense purple fringing, i would not recommend it at that price.
Even Pentax manages to have a cleaner image with much less CA for less than $100.

File: X100S(left) vs GRII(right).png (939KB, 810x605px) Image search: [Google]

939KB, 810x605px

>>2820685
Because sometimes i shoot above 400ISO and i have eyes.

How does the XT-1 with a 56mm f1.2 compare vs an A7R with the 55mm f1.8 in terms of sharpness and low-light peformance?

>>2820710
Then buy an X70.

>>2820725
>Sony lens
>sharpness below f/8
HAHA

>>2820726
I didnt ask for alternatives. Viewfinder is critical (X70 doesnt have one) and frankly the X70 is just small enough to ruin the ergonomics but not small enough to fit in your pocket.

I'll keep waiting for the right deal on an X100S or T

>>2820737
x100s and 100t are terrible cameras, the lens is so soft on them

>>2820737
Get a DSLR or a Sony mirrorless then. Cryin won't solve anything.

>>2820737
>Viewfinder is critical
Then buy an optical viewfinder for the hotshoe.

>>2820742
There are tons of shitty aspects of the x100 series but the lens is not one of them.

>>2820754
yes it is

>>2820743
What part of
>i didnt ask for alternatives
dont you understand? I was just relaying an experience, nobody wants a Sony so just STFU.

>>2820750
No. Even if i wanted to the X70 has other shortcomings that i already mentioned.

>>2820742
Cool. I like the lens. To each his own.

>>2820782
Why? The A6000 with the kit lens is just as small and lightweight as the X100 and it has a good zoom range plus you can put more lenses on it. The EVF is also better.

>>2820524
How important is weather sealing to you?
Have you ever used or handled either camera for very long?

I have an olympus em10 and a fuji xt1.
The olympus pales in comparison compared to the fuji in regards to usability. That is, the fuji is easier, better and more fun to use. Menus and accessibility in general are superior. Olympus isn't the worst (sony takes that) but they're not optimal IMO.

Go and handle them for a bit, or rent one for a weekend if you can to get to grips with it.

I know that when transferring to mirrorless I couldn't end up abiding the olympus, and passed in onto a deserving relative.

Still, if it's weather sealed telephotos at a very good size (or just tiny primes with IBIS) then olympus is the choice.
(though I'd have a good look at Panasonic too desu - I see they've come out with a lot of new shit since I last looked at m4/3)

>>2820789
Why do Sonyfags constantly try to argue with people and convince them to buy a Sony camera? I don't want a Sony camera. I have relayed my problems with Sony cameras ad nauseum on this board (i used to own one) and there's no point, you will just argue with me and won't listen.

Suffice it to say, i dont want a Sony, and im not buying one. Ever. So stop.

>>2820782
>No. Even if i wanted to the X70 has other shortcomings that i already mentioned.

Like not fitting in your pocket?

Protip, bro....X100S/T doesn't fit in your pocket, either. They're bigger than the X70.

>>2820799
But the A6000 is the best you can buy for your money. I would've suggested the A6300 but you said $900 was out of your budget.
Maybe after your next welfare check.

>>2820800
No shit. And since neither of them fit in a pocket, and i prefer the X100's size and ergonomics, i want an X100. The X70 is more difficult to hold and control because of its smaller size, and offers no corresponding benefit.

>>2820801
Shut the fuck up. Nobody cares.

>>2820543
I think I remember reading that both fuji's and sony's mounts are too small (as in, not ideally sized) for IBIS but where as fuji decided to not bother "in the name of the highest IQ" they could squeeze out of their shit, sony said nah fuck it let's cram that shit in there, theoretical IQ constraints be damned.

>>2820811
>The X70 is more difficult to hold and control because of its smaller size, and offers no corresponding benefit.
Afraid this is the case.
When it was first released I went to a camera trade fair and compared it to my GR.
Just not comfy to hold like the x100's.
Nothing to grip onto one handed, not like the x100 and not like the GR, unless perhaps you have little girly hands.

No auto ND means you may have to carry filters if you're somewhere really sunny.
I mean I would've loved a fuji apsc sensored point and shoot compact for fucking around with and holidays and shit. Good jpeg out put so no fucking around with snapshits in post, but my hand was just not having it.

Shame. Easily paired with my instax printer too for on the fly fun.

>>2820819
>wanting in-camera jpegs
Get. Out.

>>2820821
>Taking five minutes per photo to correct white balance and contrast, thinking it makes you good, when your camera is perfectly capable of doing that for you instantly.

If you aren't doing heavy editing, just let the camera do it for you.

Hell, even moderate editing, Fujis JPEG engine will do for you, with tons of granularity, including separate toning for highlights and shadows, etc.

>>2820821
They're nice on fuji, and most of the time I'm lazy.
If I'm not being paid for this shit I have no problem taking the casual approach in 9/10 cases.
Make sure exposure's right, snap, done.
At least the fuji engine's merciful and less talented.

If you're not paid for it, and spend hours on post process, you're a chump.

>>2820831
>At least the fuji engine's merciful ON THE less talented.
ftfm

>>2820794
I'm pretty much only concerned about still image quality. I don't need video, or continous AF, or pretty much anything besides good image quality. Weather sealing would be nice but certainly isn't necessary, unless sand easily gets into that lens on the fuji since it extends a lot but I can prevent that.

So really the only thing I care about is the still image quality and nice manual focus would be nice but I've never used a mirrorless before and I assume it's no fun on an EVF. Whatever it is it'll never match the nice smooth focus on a bronica and the split image. I'm open to pentax too, and even dslr's if it turns out that's optimum.

>>2820839
Manual focusing is the BEST on an EVF, because you can have any type of assistance you want. Zoom to focus, glowing edges, virtual split image, etc. It makes DSLR manual focusing look like an abomination, and is as easy, if not more easy, than it was on old film SLRs.

>>2820839
>unless sand easily gets into that
If you're shooting regularly at say, a beach, then sand is the by far not the only worry.

For what purpose are you buying this camera?

>>2820815
If there was any truth to yor post, you would see outcries of A7ii having inferior IQ to the A7.

The entire A7xm2 series would be scandals.

File: _9160632.jpg (95KB, 650x490px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 650x490px

Any anons use or have used the 50mm Loxia with an A7 type?
Perhaps with the A7S/ii?

How do you/did you like it?

And if you've used the Sony 55mm, how did it compare?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

>>2820855
Only if people actually took photos on Sony cameras, which we all know is not the case.

>>2820857
I don't know about the 50mm, but I want the Loxia 21mm so bad. It even exceeds the Milvus 21mm in IQ.

Zeiss really went all out and pumped the thing full of anomalous dispersion elements.

>>2820842
I surf so sometimes I like to take a camera to the beach, I'll also sometimes take it up skiing in colorado. But not all the time, I've taken a bronica and an EOS1n and an x20 to all of those places and never really had an issue. I'm not going to be shooting in very bad weather all the time or under sand or salt conditions.

I sold all my film stuff for an x20 because that was way easier to carry around during college and stuff but now that I've graduated and am a PhD student, I want an interchangable lens camera that just does better overall than the x20.
I can go to B&H to play with stuff if I want.

Any reason to get an X-E2 over an X-E1? Other than the fact that I'm not going to be buying for a couple months at probably and with the new X-E2s coming out, XE-2 prices might drop a bit. Read some things about framerate in the EVF but has firmware fixed that? I'm not too caught up with all the new consumer photo tech.

>>2820841
I've heard of digital split image, does that actually work like an old split image?

Obviously intend to buy everything used too.

>give lecture last week on some conceptual set of photographs I took
>live in ass-nowhere so no serious cameras ever in sight
>shot all my photographs on my trusty D7100

>suddenly in the corner of my eye I spot a big camera with that white NIKON on top
>what is that
>oh god
>it's a D810
>literally yet to see one with my own eyes because there are no camera stores anywhere here
>oh fuck I'm being photographed by a legit D810
>huge fucking lens too
>actually lose my focus of the lecture for a good 5 seconds, awkward as fuck
and that's when I found out I caught the gearfag autism

at least he liked my photographs

>>2820918
>I've heard of digital split image, does that actually work like an old split image?
It works exactly like it, yeah. i'm not sure about the X-E series, but on my X-T1 and XPro2 it's actually three splits (so four bars in the center of the frame that slide in opposite directions) so you get an even better indication of focus than you would with only a single split circle.

>>2820918
>>2820926

Scratch that, I found a video:
https://youtu.be/ZLoDuvkfLKM

File: LensComparison.jpg (73KB, 1024x691px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 1024x691px

I'm thinking of buying some lenses for my DX DSLR. I've found good primes, but I'm not sure about the zoom lenses. This picture is quite relevant to my question: is it a valid comparison between the two Nikkor lenses (55-300mm vs 70-300) or should I consider other brands? Thanks for the answers anons

What do the medium format /p/ denizens use to carry their big kits into the field? I have an rz67 kit and my basic backpack can't handle the back/body/lens/viewfinder /tripod loadout.

>>2820944

The non-VR 70-300 is ass. It's really cheap but you get what you paid.

>>2819894
zeiss is kill

>>2820926
And the only other thing I'm concerned about is having the X-trans sensor raws. The supplied software is bad, it just doesn't resolve fine detail vvery well. Who's is the best? Anything other than the raw conversion I can handle in gimp.

>>2820980
Iridient, Capture One, Photo Ninja.

>>2820959
This. The old 70-300 VR isn't even a consideration. The current 70-300 VR is gud. Rumors are a new 70-300 VR will be coming out.

>>2820971
Zeiss has a big advantage now acctually, they are better than ever thanks to short flange distance.

Their Loxia 21 is kicking ass and running circles around its DSLR counterparts because of this.
The Milvus is chuck full of glass from top to bottom to compensate for mirror zone, and yet it can't even stand compared to the current modern Zeiss design.

File: 1.png (222KB, 901x680px) Image search: [Google]

222KB, 901x680px

>>2820994
>>2820971

>>2820959
>>2820959
thanks.

Any pointers for a noob what qualities I should look out for in a tripod? Will probably buy used.

I like the ballhead I am currently borrowing but whenever I tighten the head's arresting screw it shifts just slightly in both directions. Is that a common problem?
Also, i want to do quite a bit of filming with it, so smooth movement would be a priority.

>>2821022
Tripod for filming is a completely different beast than for stills. You need a handle with long radius to smoothly rotate the camera.

>>2821025
>>2821022
Eh, not a tripod, but a head is a different animal.

Tripods only get different when you're getting into the more specialized stuff that's got to support massive amounts of weight.

Anon's right, but it's the head that matters.

Here's a pretty decent rundown of what you need to consider, but recall since it's a b&h article they'll be trying to sell the stuff that gets them more money too.
http://www.adorama.com/alc/0008168/article/Buying-Guide-Tripod-Heads

In the future, you're probably better off asking video questions in the video thread. Some of those anons who really know their stuff don't bother coming to the gear thread.

>>2821027
>>2821025
Thanks.

What's the best Minolta Manual Focus 85mm lens?

Got a stable full of primes, and no 85. I'm ashamed.

They make a few:
f/1.7 Rokkor-X -- MC mount
f/1.7 Rokkor-PF -- MC Mount
f/2 Rokkor-X -- MD Mount
f/2 Non-Rokkor -- MD Mount

They're all about $400.

>>2821038
Just get the Samyang 85mm f/1.4?

>>2821072
The samyang isn't available in the MD mount, you're mixing it up with the maxxum/alpha mount

>>2821077
No, I just assumed you were looking for a lens to use on to the A-mount or adapt to the E-mount. I guess I was wrong.

File: 20160420_224834.jpg (1MB, 3264x1836px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3264x1836px

I work for a store that has these cameras in the back. They are deleted and super cheap. What is the better deal because I've only have digital point and shoot.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SAMSUNG
Camera Model	SAMSUNG-SM-N900A
Camera Software	N900AUCUBMI9
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.2
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	31 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	3264
Image Height	1836
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2016:04:20 22:48:34
Exposure Time	1/30 sec
F-Number	f/2.2
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	200
Lens Aperture	f/2.2
Brightness	1.3 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Average
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	4.13 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	3264
Image Height	1836
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Unique Image ID	D13QSGH04OA

File: 20160420_224652.jpg (1MB, 3264x1836px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3264x1836px

>>2821128
$99 for that bundle and $79 for this one.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SAMSUNG
Camera Model	SAMSUNG-SM-N900A
Camera Software	N900AUCUBMI9
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.2
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	31 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	3264
Image Height	1836
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2016:04:20 22:46:52
Exposure Time	1/30 sec
F-Number	f/2.2
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	125
Lens Aperture	f/2.2
Brightness	1.8 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Average
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	4.13 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	3264
Image Height	1836
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Unique Image ID	D13QSGH04OA

File: 20160420_224737.jpg (1MB, 3264x1836px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3264x1836px

>>2821130
And toys one is $159 I think I can't remember.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SAMSUNG
Camera Model	SAMSUNG-SM-N900A
Camera Software	N900AUCUBMI9
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.2
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	31 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	3264
Image Height	1836
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2016:04:20 22:47:37
Exposure Time	1/20 sec
F-Number	f/2.2
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	160
Lens Aperture	f/2.2
Brightness	0.8 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Average
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	4.13 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	3264
Image Height	1836
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Unique Image ID	D13QSGH04OA

>>2821130
>>2821128
That's pretty cheap. Is it on an online store?

I would love to get the double kit lens for 100 bucks.

>>2821134
No it's a walmart.

I might get double kit because the nikon doesn't have a good auto focus

>>2821136
I don't think the A3000 has good AF either.

Anything below A6000/A5100 has questionable AF.
The current A6300 has class leading AF though.

>>2821139
Well I just need a good one to start out with. I'm fine with not paying over $120 for a beginner's dslr

>>2821141
I'll take one for $100+ shipping

>>2821131
>>2821130
>>2821128
Get the Nikon, get a 55-300 telezoom and you're set for a while. it is a whole lot more of a camera than that a3000 shitbucket.

>>2819396
Silly question. How useful are extension tubes in dragonfly and butterfly photography? I share a macro lens with my dad. Now for the next trip, it would be useful if we both had some macro like lens. My stuff reaches from 16mm to 200mm, where the wider angle lenses have noticeably less minimum focus distance. Thanks!

>>2821184
Does minimum focus distance even matter? I found different formulas to calculate magnification and working distance, also I'm too stupid to understand these or find some fault. I would like to know whether any of my lenses is suitable, I'm currently at the point that I can't answer this question without trying.

>>2821184
The extension tubes will only extend the aberrations of that lens.
Dragonflies are easily spooked so you will need a longer focal length macro for longer subject-lens working distance. It would be better to get a cheap 100 or 135mm prime to use with the extension tubes or doing pseudo-macro with a long lens and short minimal focus distance, like Nikons or Pentax' 55-300 or the Tamron 70-200/2.8 "Macro". It will only give you 1:3 at best but with a sharp image and good resolution cropping shouldn't be a problem.
Most of us don't have a good long macro lens and use such alternative methods. I for one use a Helios 44M and a Pentacon 135/2.8 on an extension tube plus the 70-200 at 200mm and 1m minimum focus distance with not excellent but quite decent and usable results.

>>2821186
In macro you are looking for magnification ratio that gives you image size to subject size ratio. A 1:1 macro ratio means the lens gives you the same projection image size as your subject, 1:3 means your projected image will be 1/3rd of the subject size and so on.
In macro the lens focal length only relates to the subject-lens working distance and most high-end macro lens don't have a focusing mechanism (or rather it acts as the extension mechanism changing the macro ratio) and you focus by moving the whole camera. There are special precision tripod heads for this.
Also real macro lens are corrected for close focus instead of normal lens correction for infinity focus so they don't give good IQ used as a normal lens, and vice versa a normal lens marketed as macro won't give you the best IQ in macro mode.

>>2821184
Not very. With that option and also with achromat filter lenses, you get a very shallow DoF very slightly after you have surpassed your minimum focusing distance.

Get a real 100 or 200mm macro lens.

I've got a 40D and a 100D and 5 lenses, 3 of which are APS-C only (Tamron 17-50, nifty fifty, 70-200 F4, 24mm pancake, 10-18).

I bought the 100D and 24 + 10-18 just last year for an upcoming trip. I spent 700 € roughly. I wanted something small and I chose the body basically around the two lenses, which are pretty great to be honest.

The small kit served me well but I also learned that I don't necessarily need a minuscule body: to travel light it is sufficient to bring fewer lenses.

I shoot mainly "travel" and "reportage" (traslation: I'm both too busy and lazy to shoot anytime than when I'm teavelling, weekend trips, etc) and I'm seriously envying the dynamic range of FF Sony and Nikon sensors.

So I'm considering abandoning the APS-C Canon ship, but I'm afraid I'll shill a fuckton of money for a FF Nilkon (Sony glass seems to expensive) with better DR performance and not much else. And to afford it I'll have to sell anything.

The alternative would be saving, hoping for a decent 6D MKII later this year, pay 2000 € for it selling maybe the 40D and the 17-50 and keeping the 100D kit for backup\GF use.

>>2821214
>replacing 40D with 100D
Why would you downgrade on such low levels? The 40D is still a very good body. Or why not go for a 70D or 80D instead with the newer sensor? The dynamic range difference is not big enough for real world applications, it only shows up on charts.
No need to abandon your system, your lenses worth more than the small jump to FF.

>>2821233

I know that the 40D is still a decent body (that's why I kept it) and the 100D isn't perfect but I wanted something smalla and with video and it was the cheapest available. I paid less than 400 € for it, so it wasn't so bad.


Do you seriously believe that the dynamic range of Sony\Nikon FF over Canon APS-C "only shows up on charts"?

>>2821189
Thanks for the explanation. I guess for macro DoF still depends on the distance. Suppose I photograph the same field of view with a 100mm 1:1 macro and a 50mm 1:1 macro. Is it true, that for the 100mm I have more working distance and thus less DoF?

>>2821187
>>2821199
The situation is, we have one 100mm macro lens for two guys and it is definitely not worth to buy a second one.
After what you have told me, I'll buy some extension tubes and try it for these days on the 70-200. At least I'm not throwing out money, since the tubes also can be used with the macro and are probably better to use with it anyway, then after this trip.

Thank you guys!

>>2821239
>DoF
Yes, with extension tubes the relation between focus distance and DoF is the same.

>>2821244
Also usually macro shooting is done with closed aperture from f/8 to f/16.