/gear/ - Gear Thread

>>2867656

Might as well continue seeking advice. Just looking for something good and cheap.

Emphasis on both good and cheap.

first

>>2867670
>good
>cheap
choose one

>>2867673

I did, read the post.

>I just want something that'll take a clear picture in not the most ideal lighting and doesn't eat batteries or shit itself.

Around $100

>>2867674
Here's your answer: there is no such thing.
Expand the budget up to $300 and then you have a very few options.

I have canon ff. Looking for a wide angle but don't have a lot of money. Canon 17-40mm vs Sigma 12-24mm? The sigma goes wide where as the Canon can just sit on the camera, I rarely go above 35mm unless I use my 85mm 1.8. Already have Tamron 35mm 1.8 and Canon 24-105mm.

File: 4L_9QdA266l.jpg (1MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3264x2448px

@goodwill, minolta vectis 40 for $2.92.
cop/not?

File: 1360707363370.jpg (375KB, 1024x685px) Image search: [Google]

375KB, 1024x685px

>>2867685
pffft..

>>2867521
$1200 is the grey market price. It wont drop lower.

You might consider waiting for the 4th either way. Maybe you'll see stores drop the price, maybe throw in a lens rebate or something. If they dont, you can still go grey market.

>tfw D500 wont be hitting sub $2000 let alone sub $1500 any time soon
Fugg

>>2867688
??
y/n?

>>2867688
Sold

I have a canon 750d and tomorrow im going to buy a Canon EF 70-200mm f4L USM.. i dont have afford with the one with IS... is that a good lens?

>>2867688
It's not like you will ever use it, it's a Leica.

>>2867695
It is certainly better than your english.
Just pay attention to your shutter speed and there will be no problem.
Why not buy the Sigma 70-200/2.8 OS or the Tamron 70-200/2.8 VC?

>>2867698
Everyone say sigma is bad , the cheap once and the canon have way better img quality than that tamron, bc its an L lens from canon

>>2867703
and i dont have afford with that tamron

Getting a Fuji xt10.

I'm stuck between a few lenses:

18mm f2, 35 f2, or 27mm f2.8,

I need something compact and easy to store

>>2867703
With the 70-200/2.8 lenses all of them are at the same level more or less.
With the canon you mostly buy the brand, with Sigma and Tamron you get much better value for your money.
Also the Sigma 70-200/2.8 with OS was designed in the new Sigma era, it is very much one of the best lenses out there.

>>2867706
35 f2.

The 18mm has probably the weakest iq in the fuji lineup and I won't be surprised if it's replaced in a year.

The 27mm f2.8 is ok for the sake you can pocket the camera (in a jacket), but otherwise it's a mediocre lens that makes compromises for price and size.

The 35mm f2 is an excellent lens, pretty much identical to the first 35mm aside from the max aperture difference (really doesn't matter with the amount of pushing you can do in post with these cameras), and the fact it has much better AF and is WR which helps even if your camera isn't for dust within the lens, and resale due to fuji rolling out wr across more cameras.

That being said you should decide if you want to wait and see what the 23mm f2 will look like once it's released this summer. It will probably be more expensive than the 35 but the focal length is another consideration and I don't think anyone knows how compact it will be.

>>2867670
I've recently bought an sx410 for £99, not sure what the price would be in the US but it's a pretty good bang for buck camera. I plan on using it for some student level photography till I can get a better camera. Check some second hand stores, CEX do some dslr cameras starting at £70 but will not include lenses.

>>2867715
Good recommendation.

I was thinking the same thing.

>>2867706
18 f2 is soft on the edges. the kit lens is actually better.

27 2.8 is loud focusing. kinda slow on xe1. but tack sharp wide open.

35 f2 the only choice.

This is my first time posting here, but I'm looking to get into short films and movie making.

I'm really considering buying a Canon EOS Rebel T2i, and I've compared all the other, newer Rebels to the T2i and it always scores better. So I'm wondering is there anything better that I could get or should I just stick with the T2i?

>>2867734
Yeah, I will really miss shooting wide. I have a 28mm 2.8f lens with my film set up and I love that shit to bits.

>>2867743
Get something that is supported by Magic Lantern. You will need it for video.

Budget: 2000$
I want to make short films and so far the Sony a7s is looking like my camera. But I don't really know if there's anything better for less.

>>2867764
GH4, Blackmagic

>>2867755
I did some searching and it says the T2i is supported by Magic Lantern, so I'm assuming I should get it

Canon 17-40 vs Sigma 12-24

Seriously what is the draw for Leica? Granted the range finder with manual focus and full control "like muh film daze" is great, but fuck the prices right in the face. Can't be that good or I'm just poorfag jealous...

>>2867797
Brandwhoring and elitism. Not much else.
If you want a good digital rangefinder like, get a Fuji.

>>2867688
I don't believe this for one second

>>2867797
Leica M6 is the only one worth talking about. I can respect the build quality and stuff, but it's just a "look how much money I have" statement. I really would love to rent the M6 and shoot a roll, but that's about it.

>>2867797
Can't see it either. It's massively more expensive than the Sony or Fuji or Olympus or whatever cameras, and largely worse as a system and/or body.

File: DSC04863.jpg (3MB, 3818x3456px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3818x3456px

I (a beginner) want to upgrade from my point-and-shoot Sony, from which I can get shots like this. However, I don't want a DSLR so I've been looking at mirrorless and other point-and-shoots because of the size and price difference.

tl;dr: college student on a budget wants a small camera with good quality. Can anyone recommend a good camera to me?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	DSC-HX9V
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/3.3
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2016:02:27 22:55:22
Exposure Time	1/60 sec
F-Number	f/5.9
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	400
Brightness	3.3 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Auto
Focal Length	68.48 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	4608
Image Height	3456
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

>>2867811
Size on a mirrorless is a meme. Once you put a lens on it becomes just as big as a DSLR.
Lens is the most important part, find one that you like and buy the body for it.

>>2867814
If he's willing to make do with a pancake prime he could get a mirrorless into a lot of venues that don't like people bringing DSLRs.

Other than little exceptions like that you're largely right though

>>2867814
>he didnt buy M43

>>2867670

Buy a used NEX or m43.

Can probably find a NEX-3 for like $50.

I want strobes. What does /p/ have?

>in b4 impact

>>2867811
Get a A6000 babe. Dropped in price cos of A6300, great entry level shit with functionality of a dSLR. World of lenses will extend out to the A7 range of cameras when you inevitably want something more powerful

>>2867836
YOU AIN'T GETTING MY STROBES YOU NIGGER!

>>2867836
elinchrom brx

>>2867814

a6300 with selp1650 is nowhere near the size of a DSLR and can get into concerts which quite often ban DSLRs.

But for any lens other than the kit or a simple pancake, it does get considerably bigger, but still far from a DSLR.

An a7 on the other hand is massive.

File: canon_eos1dsmkii_shutter_life.png (46KB, 1220x500px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 1220x500px

Is a Canon 1ds mark ii with 500,000 actuations worth 400USD? if the shutter breaks what's the estimated repair cost?

>>2867849
I'm going to go out on a limb and say absolutely not. 500k is well past what the shutter is rated for and a replacement will cost at the very least $200.

>>2867849
Will cost about $500 to fix. It's really old, and hard to get to.

At this point, a 1Ds is so specialized that there are... pretty much no people that it's the best option for. Sub par features, sub par technology, sub par image quality... it can be bested in pretty much every single way by most modern entry level cameras.

File: ceb427c61d74f2ce193295a3fa2b4033.jpg (18KB, 236x293px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 236x293px

What's a good quality digital camera for around $300?

So a used D7100 can go for about half the price of a new D7200. Given that you don't shoot 14-bit 6 fps bursts, push more than 4 EV, and don't use wifi/NFC, is there any reason not to get the D7100?

Why is fuji glass so expensive? I mean, a 16mm 1.4 on a mirrorless shouldn't be $800. That said, the trinity I seek is the 16, 35 and 90. With 90% being on the first two lenses.

>>2867797
Agreed. Check out the price on that retarded one they sell with no screen, it's $6k or so. Just like buying a film camera, but a million times the cost, hurrah!

>>2867871
Because it's great. I recently got the 16-50mm OIS II plastic fantastic for my XP1 and it's so goddamn sharp as hell.

Exposure of half a second - handheld? No problem. If you have steady hands, the OIS can help you get a nice sharp image even at an exposure time of one second.

>>2867861
I might as well get a newer fullframe like the 6d and d600. also around 900usd used.
>>2867857
yea it's a huge risk. Canon told me they don't service these any more.

>>2867871
What do you want a f1.4 wide angle lens to cost then? The full frame equivalent is a nearly $1500 lens. There's no doubt Fuji's lenses are premium build quality, and it shows in the price, but all in all, they're pretty well priced when you account for the quality.

Would you rather buy m43 lenses? Some are rather nice, but when you pick up a P42.5/1.7, you wonder how it can cost $400 when it's so tiny.

hey im that guy who took the shitty "under exposed" night shots in SF, my first camera is gonna be this
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/nikon-d3300-dslr-camera-with-18-55mm-and-55-200mm-vr-ii-lenses-black/4437132.p?skuId=4437132

what do you guys think? Am i good to go?

>>2867887
Nah man, don't fall for the BestBuy bullshit. The D3xxx series is pure crap.
Get an used D7000 instead. Way better body with more options. Get a used 18-105 VR, too.. - and you'll be good to go.

>>2867889
this good?
https://www.amazon.com/Nikon-Megapixel-Digital-Camera-18-105mm/dp/B0042X9LCO

>>2867892
Yes. I had one and it was amazing. It's a really nice body/lens combo with lots of potential.

http://photorumors.com/2016/06/21/the-new-hasselblad-x1d-medium-format-mirrorless-camera-leaked-online/

Still a better value than the Leica SL

I have a Canon EOS sx body and a Canon eos T5i, with about a half dozen lenses bought over the years when they were on sale. Canon has this 6 out now with 3 different variations (that I know of.) I haven't researched them too much. What should I do next? 3 or 4 hundred I could swing, anything more, I'm going to have to save for awhile,but I don't mind,(Canon also has a trade in program I haven't investigated yet.
I also have a Olympus xz-2, which I love,(bought on sale), and after a year of semi-serious studying, I still don't know how all to work it.
I'd love a recommendation on what camera to buy next. It would narrow me down and save so much time! And should I think about saving for a newer Olympus or similar? Thanks for any tidbit you can offer! :) yes!

I really need a decent camera strap, I want a decent detachable one that I could pin to the bottom of my camera, I want the strap to be as inconvenient as possible

>>2867926
I didn't mean to kill the thread. sorry.

>>2867916

Selling a7 and swithing to x1d.

File: cloop.jpg (46KB, 620x283px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 620x283px

>>2867942
>I could pin to the bottom of my camera

These look super convenient and all, but is it okay to use one?

I mean can a tripod mount hold the weight of a camera and heavy lens indefinitely without issue?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS-1D Mark II N
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS4 Macintosh
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2010:11:15 17:56:27
Exposure Time	1/250 sec
F-Number	f/8.0
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/8.0
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Partial
Flash	Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	51.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	620
Image Height	283
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>2867866
That small sum gets you older low-end gear, or really old formerly midrange gear.

I can't see these as "good quality" though. You will want to spend more for that, unless your standards are that low.

>>2867947
> I mean can a tripod mount hold the weight of a camera and heavy lens indefinitely without issue?
Depends on how heavy the camera and lens are.

Since this is /p/, I'm just going to assume you have a 2.5kg camera and 2kg lens at most, if even that. No, that is not heavy for a 3/8" screw mount.

> These look super convenient and all
Not to me. But get whatever gadgets you want.

File: 1200.jpg (201KB, 1210x1104px) Image search: [Google]

201KB, 1210x1104px

Im looking to buy a Canon 6D from ebay. I found a listing for one with a shutter count of 12,507 and it comes with a 50mm f/1.2L lens. The auction is only at $570 right now, but the seller has never sold anything before and is from Russia. Is this a scam? He said that it isnt a grey market camera. It seems like its too good to be true, but eBay also offers buyer protection.

File: img_main01.jpg (72KB, 596x320px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 596x320px

Where's the best place to sell used camera gear? I've got an X-T1 and 3 lenses I'd like to sell, and I think I'd have a hard time moving them in my location (semi-rural BC, Canada). I'd like to avoid eBay as they take like a 10% cut.

File: 1460995846951.gif (2MB, 672x375px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 672x375px

Opinions on a outlet model Nikon DF?

I'm looking for a professional starters camera and incidentally there's a Nikon DF + 50mm F/1.8 SE for sale for 2000 Euros near where I live.

They seem like very sturdy cameras, something I really like about using my analog Leica.

File: DSC_0834-1200.jpg (137KB, 1200x681px) Image search: [Google]

137KB, 1200x681px

Is the contax g1 that much worse than the g2? I love the glass selection of the g mount and I've been eyeballing using the biogon and the two planars with some sort of mirrorless but I'd also love to be able to use them on their native platform for film

You can get a g1 body for around 100 bucks which sounds super low for what it does

>>2867786
Been using a T2i with ML for 4 years. The RAW and Dual ISO features in ML are a game changer for this cheap camera. Buy it, anon. You won't regret it.

>>2868049
Well without a lense it won't do any fucking thing, so I'd say that's quite high.
But lets say the stars align and you get a lense for another $10 (you won't), that would still be $200 for a camera with essentially less functionality than any later model Nikon, Canon or Pentacks SLR with a standard normal lense on it. Except except if you'd got one of those, your lense would be half to 1.5 stops faster, you would actually see through it, and know what it focused on, and you would have the option to use superior modern glass on it.
And you would have spent a lot less money.

>>2868061
First off it's lens not lense. Second off I have no idea what you're talking about pertaining to this

>Except except if you'd got one of those, your lense would be half to 1.5 stops faster, you would actually see through it, and know what it focused on, and you would have the option to use superior modern glass on it

My point is that the contax g glass is relatively inexpensive and small compared to some modern glass of the same focal lengths while still being impressively sharp. At my local camera shop there's a 21mm 2.8 biogon for 250 bucks and searching through ebay the 45mm f2 planar isn't that crazy expensive either. I really have no concerns about the glass because it's fairly fantastic for the price

My question was about how much worse the g1 was compared to the g2 because the g2 is four times more expensive. It'd be great to be able to use the same set of lenses on my film camera as my mirrorless digital but I'd rather not spend so much on the g2 if I can avoid it

Semi-poor fag here. So I would like to pick up photography as a hobby but have no idea where to begin. I've been really intrigued by a lot of outdoor portrait photos on Instagram lately and it looks like a lot of fun. So what would be a good buy strategy for me where I really don't know what type of photographer I'll be. Is 400-500$ enough for an ok beginner camera or what would you guys recommend. If it's more than 500 I'll have to save up a bit but that's not an issue for me.

>>2868039
It doesn't seem reasonable to expect this auction to end at $570 or near it?

But who knows, maybe its stolen goods, maybe it's just surplus gear that needs to go.

> He said that it isnt a grey market camera.
That's like the *least concerning* of all possibilities what might be wrong here. Buying from the grey market aka not subjecting yourself to regional pricing shenanigans is perfectly fine.

>>2868078
True, im not expecting it to end anywhere near $570. There's only two days left in the auction so I guess im wondering that if it winds down to still being a good deal if its even worth taking the risk?

>>2868075
> Is 400-500$ enough for an ok beginner camera
There are no beginner cameras here. You could operate a typical pro photo camera just fine, and learning a bunch of settings that you might have extra on these doesn't really take that much time either.

But you can get a not entirely terrible camera setup for $400-500, yes. Something like a K-50 or A6000 or D3300.

> or what would you guys recommend
An A6300 or D7200 or K3-II or such are more solid midrange cameras, so they would be preferable if they were an option.

But I wonder if your budget permits those AND a few pieces of good glass at maybe $300-1000 any time soon...? If not, you probably want the cheaper cameras and then save up for some extra glass.

/p/, I love you.
I went from being disappointed with my purchase of a camera to loving it.
I put my disappointment down to either the kit lens being shit, or me being shit.
IMO, it was a combination of both as I still don't really care for the kit lens.

I was going to start off by buying a 100mm macro lens, but decided against it at the last minute in favor of a much cheaper second hand 40mm limited pancake lens, which I gave a small test run yesterday. I'm happy as fuck with it and the image quality is more than I could have hoped for.

So, blog post aside, I'm now eager to get another lens which I feel is absolutely essential after yesterdays photography session. A macro lens for shooting insects.

Anybody have any recommendations on which one to go for?
My camera is a K-50

I would like to have a camera for video like making YouTube videos and vlogging and also it can be used for taking photos when I go to vacations. Can I make use of my couple of old nikkor AI lenses (50mm 1.4 and 135mm f3.5 both AI)? I also have a Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 that can be useful. A Nikon D7100 is what I am looking for so it can meter my old Nikkor lenses and autofocus my Tokina. However, I feel the need to have a flippy screen. What are my options? I'm also thinking about getting a mirrorless since I prefer a smaller body. But I can't use my Nikon glass anymore.
For the record I also have Olympus OM glass (50mm f1.8 and 28mm f2.8). Are they still useful for digital video and photo?

File: 3487621955_1bd2c999b8.jpg (87KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 500x500px

>>2868117
If you don't mind manual focus pick up a macro-takumar and an adapter ring

I'd swear by the first version 50mm f4 macro-takumar and I picked it up for five bucks at goodwill in flawless condition

If it's just too old school for you the HD DA 35mm F2.8 Limited Macro and the 100mm D FA macro are fantastic

I hated the kit lens on my k-50 as well. Another tip I'd have is to grab the DA 35mm 2.4. It's probably the best all around prime but if you're planning to get the 35mm macro stick with that instead

>>2868144
>If you don't mind manual focus pick up a macro-takumar and an adapter ring

Why don't you recommend him a manual focus Pentax K mount instead so he doesn't need an adapter anymore?

File: SMC_Pentax_A_50mm_Macro.jpg (12KB, 300x287px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 300x287px

>>2868146
I've used the SMC Pentax-A 50mm 2.8 macro and while I think it's a nice lens I prefer the takumar as it's cheaper as well

The adapters are 5 dollars each. I've got one on each one of my m42 lenses that I use on my k-50 so it's not really a bother to me anymore

>>2868117

get that 100 mm macro it has been hovering around $399 and that's the cheapest i've ever seen it since I got a k30 in 2013.

>>2868148
The pentax-A stuff makes much more sense for 99% of people as it's still very cheap but offers electronic aperture control.

I've also found with a lot of my asahi m stuff it's started to de-lam, whereas my later pentax a's are still in great condition

>>2868153
Still nice to look out for if you can find one at a decent price though

>>2867764
if you must go sony don't go with their first generation a7s. go full stop, save a little more and get the a7sII used.

buy a sigma mc-11 for canon mount, buy a 35 1.4 and 85 1.4, good to go. but youll be spending at least $3000.

might be a better idea to just get an a6300 for such a small budget... you'll need to get good some good glass as well, and ideally at least a good external mic.

>>2867787
neither. sigma 18-35 1.8

>>2868193
>a7sii
No, get an a7ii or a7rii. Only those two have in body image stabilization.

Found this gem in the 43rumors comments.

>Yes, Olympus could launch a double frame system (full frame is actually 18x24 mm, the size of the original cinema 35mm film frame Leica doubled to create the current 24x36 mm standard).

First m43 is full frame, now full frame is double frame. Holy kek you can't make this shit up.

>>2868265
18x24mm isn't MFT, it's half frame like the original Pen film cameras, MFT in the 3:2 ratio would be 12x18mm, MFT is 17x13mm which is the same size as a 16mm/110 film negative

Thoughts on Canon 600D?

If I have an X100S, is getting a Ricoh GR just too much of the same for me? Sometimes I wish my camera was just a bit smaller and could fit in my pocket.

File: nikon3300.jpg (28KB, 770x433px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 770x433px

Hi, i'm looking to try out photography but do not have a DSLR. I have an iphone SE, but I figure that is not a very good camera to learn the craft and photograph the landscapes and adventure shots I want to. I looked into cheap DSLRs but it was very hard to find a decent body, lens, and gear for under $200, which I hoped I could get away with. I understand photography is an expensive hobby, but I figured testing the water with something cheap would not be so bad. However every review site I found says at the bare minimum I should start with a body at the same level of the Nikon 3300, else I would regret the purchase. I couldn't find that level equipment for as dirt cheap as I would've liked, so I saddled the purchase for a time. I wasn't comfortable dropping the $500 for a camera I'd barely know how to use. I told myself that the camera on my phone would be fine to take on hiking trips, but I am not so sure its worth it now to take photos that low quality. I could use some advice on how to dive into this thing, considering what you all do is really cool. The way I see it I have three options: stick with my phone camera, buy a shit body and lens for under $200, or wait a few months to grab a better quality dslr. Help me out here, I'd love to share this board with y'all in the future.

>>2868418
Same situation bro. I'm thinking of selling the X100S and getting the Ricoh and an A6000/A7***

>>2868428
Thing is, I love the X100S, I just want something to carry around everywhere instead of 50% of the time.

>>2867926
Why do you feel you need to upgrade from a T5i to any variation of the T6? What kind of photography do you do? Maybe you'd be better investing in a tripod or flash or lighting system with light modifiers?

>>2868422
2nd hand DSLR.

File: 1408052119000_1002771.jpg (38KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 500x500px

Does anyone have experience with Impact monolights?

I'm trying to put together a 2 or 3 light setup and there are two kit options:

Impact Astral Extreme AS-X-400
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1002771-REG/impact_as_x_400_astral_extreme_400_with.html/prm/alsVwDtl

or

Impact VC-500WL
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=&sku=1046816&gclid=CjwKEAjw7qi7BRCvsr3N58GvsTkSJAA3UzLvSrZqWhK4wW1GLOMDfbbxU3YHLT5eKOpfVEuYHg0MEhoC19Dw_wcB&is=REG&ap=y&m=Y&c3api=1876%2C91438732682%2C&Q=&A=details

The first offers 2 lights and stands for $750, the second offers three lights, stands, a receiver, and some modifiers for $1,100

The second option has a more powerful flash unit and modeling lamp, almost 4x slower recycle time at full power (.4 vs 1.5) and the fastest flash duration is 1/1200s vs the 1/5000s of the first option.

These would mainly be used for indoor studio work, so I'm not too concerned with the flash duration but I'm not sure how to compare the other specs.

otth, if anyone has a 2/3 light studio kit setup they could recommend I'd welcome suggestions, I'm also looking at a 5' octobox and 3x4' softbox for the lights which are both <$400 including speed rings, so my total budget for lights + stands + modifiers is around $1500

god damnit i want a canon full frame dslr but i don't want to buy a 5ds

24mm is so fucking shit on a crop knowing you can get 1.6x better performance out of it

>hey it's a THREE FUCKING YEAR OLD PITIFUL 22MP FF DSLR
\
>SHOULD BE LIKE. 1.5K MAX NEW

>2,600$ FUICKING DOLLARS
FUCK EVERYTHING

>>2868422
you could get an old film camera for 20 bucks and get cheap old lenses that are good enough on it and still reasonably useful if you move up to digital

>>2868506
>1.6x performance
>adding the weakest corners back in and not relying on the sharpest part of the lens

>>2868518
it's 100% objectively always better, you can just crop if you want shit fov

>>2868481
2nd hand under $200 with lenses?

M8 guy from the previous thread here, saving up for a M240 instead. 3600-3700 euros seem like a good price for a used one.

/p/ I have a dilema ...

Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 or 18-35 f/1.8

I have the 35mm 1.8G + 50mm 1.8G + 18-55 VR II

I want to shoot street and architecture.
Does anybody have any experience with these lens?

>>2868395
It's a reasonably priced consumer DSLR. What would you like to know exactly? If you have the cash, go to a xxD body, the ergonomics are much nicer.

>>2868507
that's not even bad compared to enterprise computers/equipment.

>>2868506
This doesn't even make sense. You get a sharper image on crop with the same lens, as other anon pointed out. Also you can get any of the other 5d options, or a 6d, you don't need to get a 5ds?

>>2868523
It's certainly possible, I got a 400d with a 17-85 for $50 a year or so back.

>>2868523
rebel xti, d100, d200, 30d, 20d, olympus e500,olympus e400. just get a used kit lens (18-55mm) and you should be fine. I got my d200 for 70usd and use an old film lens.

>>2868533
>shit IQ

>>2868539
Shit iq on what?

>>2868541
the non-5DS FF models

>>2868542
Lol. OK senpai.

>>2868542
The 6d would be just about as good as the 5dmk2

>>2868589
>shit af
no thanks

What's Best Camera to do portrait photography? My price range is 1300 but maybe a little more. Someone please help me.

>>2868590
So get the 5dmk2?

>>2868592
Highly overpriced. The only good buys are the 5DS or the 1dx ii

the 5d ii should be around 1500$ to be of value

I bought a d3300 for 320$ because I'm an idiot. I like shooting wildlife and there's an abundance of old non-af telephoto lenses that I can't use for my camera. Would it be wise to buy a d7100 for 450$ and use old lenses on it? Is there any issues I'd run into with using old lenses?

>>2868594
So get the 6d

oh wait

>shit af

there's just no satisfying you

>>2868596
No the point is there is no such thing as a good entry level FF body for canon. You either buy the top end or you are an idiot.

And without FF, you are cucked out of many types of photography like landscape

>>2868591
Like $200-1000 for the medium format SLR of your choice in whatever film size you like (probably 645 or 6x7 but you can do 6x6 or 6x9 if you're a special snowflake)

Enlarger and darkroom gear for like $100 at a thrift store or something.

Some sort of scanner or a macro lens if you want to scan with your DSLR

A big bedroom window or a used flash with a softbox

Metric fuckton of 120 film and chemicals

Spend the rest of the cash on hiring models or prostitutes or your sister or whatever to take pictures of

>>2868598
Why the fuck would you need a low end ff? Mummy doesn't need ff to take out of focus shots of her kids at soccer. Also, how the fuck are you not able to do landscapes with crop? Do you have a significant mental retardation?

>>2868612
>all focal lengths multiplied by 1.6x
>not fucking GARBAGE for landscape
>the cheap crop lenses that are wide angle are UNSHARP TRASH

really
fucking
epic
man

>b-but my meme cropped in """"""land"""""""scapes

neck yourself if you think this is acceptable

>>2868614
>not stitching together the landscape using a telephoto to produce an image 100000 px wide

lad...

>>2868614
That pentax 15mm f4 is pretty fantastic

I think you're not looking hard enough for good crop wide angle lenses

Now good UWA zooms are pretty hard to come by for crop though

>>2868626
>third party shit aka terriblefocus
>fixed focal length

the problem is this

you can't fucking use the GOOD zoom glass to get landscape photos on a crop

>>2868628
>you can't fucking use the GOOD zoom glass to get landscape photos on a crop

why not?

see >>2868620

>>2868633
>just stitch a bunch
>btw le tripod required
wew

reminder that tripods are NOT needed for digital landscape and you are a brain damaged retard if you stop down past ~f/8.0 or so and enjoy having diffraction rape you hard

>>2868440
just because it's new and the difference from when I moved from the sx to the T5i was night and day. I do nature. flowers. Is this sacrilegious say this here?-- I'll be pretty happy when the "Auto" feature is close to perfect. And I'm talking generally speaking, commons shots,

>>2868634
The fuck? Usually diffraction isn't a problem until around f20 or so for most lenses

What's up with going off on these tangents too

>entry level ff cameras are bad because bad af
>I want to use it for landscapes which requires good autofocus

I think you're just trying to find things to complain about

>>2868139
>any one?

>>2868645
yes

>>2868422
start with film, you can get great quality stuff for cheap and it'll teach you the basics in a more rudimentary way

>>2867674
>$100

LOL the basic 50 1.8 costs more than that

>>2868614
Wew lad
You are a complete faggot. Who thought someone could make the most autistic section of this board even more autistic.

>>2866695
With the d3200 I usually do portrait and also landscape

I don't find it limiting. I am a bad photographer. I would just like to have another camera as sometimes when I go on hikes I dont want to be changing lens (dust), and have a lowepro that can hold 2 dslr bodies as well as 2 lenses. Help appreciated. Thanks. Again budget is ~1000 USD

>>2868676
Get the 7x00 for telephoto (or maybe D300(s?), keep a wideangle on the 3200 and never have to fumble lenses. The 3200 barely weighs anything and if your bag has room for 2 bodies then why the hell not?

I rolled 2 bodies like this through an extended stay in Yellowstone a few years ago and it was the tightest shit ever.

Should I get this?
https://www.keh.com/shop/rokinon-800mm-f-8-0-mirror-dx-tan-lens-with-t-mount-for-nikon-105.html

Looking for a good lens for my D3200 for capturing wildlife. I have a 18-55, 50-200, and 70-300 lens but looking for something good that zooms in way more that is decently priced (bang for your buck kind of deal)

>>2868698
I played with one in a shop a couple weeks ago, interesting toy but don't expect to get anything useful out of it without a tripod, and prepare for anal sphincter bokeh

File: Z-sony-a6000-flash-up.jpg (104KB, 1024x804px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 1024x804px

Hey /p/,
I am trying to settle between the sony a6000 and a6300. Currently I don't have a camera, and I find the size and overall reviews of both very appealing.

It seems the a6300 improves mainly with a higher max ISO, 4k video, faster autofocus, and a microphone port.

Are there any significant differences besides this? So far it seems like a no brainer to go for the older model for $500 less - as I don't plan on shooting video - however I wanted to see if anyone who is more familiar with these has any opinion.

I've heard nikon vs canon compared to android vs apple.

How is the canon more easier/user friendly than nikon? I've only used the nikon and everything seems very straightforward to me.

>>2868708
I'm not sure either, I find Canon ergonomics to be a little wonky (not Sony twiggy alien-tier though) and the UI to be less intuitive, with more menus, rows of irritating touch-indistinct buttons near the top LCDs, spinny wheels around directional pads where it's too easy to bump one whole using the other, and stuff like their special snowflake names for aperture and shutter priority modes.

I'm sure in the end it comes down to personal taste but I've never handled a Canon that comes close to the D300 UI. Personally I feel the D500 is a step backwards.

File: ZCOMPBACK-LG.jpg (74KB, 1280x538px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 1280x538px

>>2868708
People like making stupid analogies that don't hold up. The biggest difference in ergonomics is whether you want the Canon vertical spinny front wheel located behind the shutter release and the large thumb wheel by the screen on the back, or the two horizontal Nikon wheels.

Also from what I've seen, I think Canon only uses square viewfinder ports rather than the based round viewfinders of higher-end Nikons.

>>2868707

The improved autofocus is actually a pretty big feature.

It allows almost flawless autofocus adaptation of a, ef, f and even m mount lenses.

Of course it is less useful on the a6300 with out in body image stabalization like the a7ii and a7rii, but it is still pretty huge.

>>2868715
Don't forget the tap and spin controls, all controlled by the right hand so it's slower to adjust most settings.

>dat AF-ON button on xxD models tho

>>2868708
Nikon's menu system, software features, UX and user friendliness, and other things besides lag far behind Canon.

>>2868715
Ick, having to use the same hand to zoom and scroll in playback. Who thought that was a good idea?

File: Tamron_AF09C700_28_75mm_f_2_8_XR_Di_284399.jpg (127KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 1000x1000px

>>2867665

So I'm looking for the absolute sharpest lens in the wide to mid range (anywhere from 18 to 80mm), could be either prime or zoom, for Canon. I don't have millions of dollars but I can drop under 1k, willing to get used (reeeaally want to spend under 500 though).

Any ideas? I was checking out the tamron 28-75, besides the possibility of getting a bad copy reviews say it's just as good as an L. I have the 2015 canon 50mm HSM that's pretty sharp, but I was hoping for... eeveen...sharrpperrr...

>>2868738
501.4 art or 35/2 is

>>2868664
>start with film

The film meme starts again

>>2868706
This, the bokeh is so bad it makes you want to scoop your eyes out with a rusty spoon.

File: Canon_EF_top.jpg (99KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 640x480px

>>2868748
>hating film

>>2868784
I prefer the a-1 to the ef but the ef is still nice

>>2868784
>ef
>no ef mount
Wtf canon

>>2868647
please respond to my question >>2868139

>>2868784
>end up spending more in gear, film, developing cost than digital

Film is dead deal with it

>>2868839
d7100 would be a decent choice

If you're thinking about going mirrorless you could go with a sony a6000 or a6300

It's a very small body that does particularly well for video and you'll be able to adapt pretty much all the lenses you have with some cheap adapters. The a6000 is pretty cheap but it's getting a bit dated so you'd have to make the choice between that and the a6300 if you decide to go mirrorless. The real choice between that nikon and mirrorless is that you'd be sacrificing a bit of lens selection, autofocus, and battery life for size, being able to adapt pretty much all lenses, and better video

If not the 7100 would work perfectly fine but it sounds to me like you'd be better off with an a6000 or a6300

>>2868045
Have you tried something like Craiglist or a local newspaper? Do it cash-in-hand so you don't lose a bunch on fees.

>>2868048
>professional starters camera
wtf does this mean? If you mean professional by it costs $2.5k (because ausfag), then yes. If you mean you don't have professional skill and expect a better camera to confer that to you, then no.

Cameras are pretty sturdy already, especially for something made of glass and electronics, but DSLRs will be more vulernable to shock than a mirrorless if you are looking for a travel buddy.

>>2868690
Not op, but I tried out a D7200 today and it was so much more complex than my current D3300. Is it easy enough to get used to it if you have previous knowledge of cameras (i.e. the technical side)?

>>2868884
Sure, you already know which end to hold and where to jam your booger hook to take a picture, so you can just gradually learn to use all the advanced features. The manual will explain everything, or try and find a download of the Thom Hogan guide to explain it like you're 5.

>>2868840
>spending more in gear
>what is ebay/craigslist/other used etc
>film, developing cost
film is pretty cheap and you can develop in your own bathroom for a small chunk

You guys have any recommendations for these gimbals everywhere?

Just looking for something to use when I shoot video while walking a few steps or paning around. So nothing extraordinary.

5d2+lens.

>>2868894
****Develop black and white easily.

Colour is a ball-ache and never mind printing.

B&W is at least easy to do either. Colour film photography is dying, all the worthwhile films are getting culled and it's rather counter-intuitive to have a good setup and then send off your film to a shit lab.

Colour film is dying, film itself is doing ok.

>>2868635
If you're not doing anything involving action - birds for example and simply doing flowers I don't see a need to upgrade your body. Maybe invest in a good tripod and macro lenses instead. You're not going to benefit much from the autofocus or ISO differences. The only real 'benefit' I can see is from the megapixel difference but unless you're printing large images 18 is fine.

>>2868595
A D7100 for $450 is a good deal anyways. Don't bother trying to do manual focus telephoto on a crop viewfinder on an AF camera though. Buy a used 55-200 or 300, 70-200/4D, 70-300 VR, 300/4D, 80-200/2.8D, 70-200/4G VR, 70-200/2.8G VR1, 200-500/5.6E, ranked in order of increasing used price.
>>2868702
200-500/5.6E. $1300 gets you focal length, AF speed, good VR, sharp images, and penis compensation like nothing else. Also the tripod foot doesn't suck complete dick unlike most Nikon feet.

>>2868884
You'll quickly learn to appreciate having all the necessary controls at your finger tips. Fuck menu diving, or even looking at the rear screen.

>>2868708
I've handled a 5dii and played with a Nikon a little, don't remember the model though I know it was a DX. I prefer Pentax controls over both of them.

I can buy a Canon 5d Mark 2 for $1k with batteries and memory cards, shutter count under 1000

Should I get that or just save a little and get the Sony A7 with kit lens?

Both are full frame, Sony A7 has slightly better low light performance I think but the kit brand new is about $1400 so it's an extra $400

I need to do photography and film B roll type stuff

What's a good price to hold out for for a used Ricoh GR?

I want something that I don't mind getting beat up that I can just have with me at all times.

Panasonic G7 anyone has any opinion on it?
Is it good,?
Is it worth 500 dollars new with the 14-42 lens?

How much should I spend on a camera if realistically I have no idea how deep into photography I'll go and that at some point I might give up due to sucking and not having enough time to improve?

I know I should avoid bridge cameras, but what else? I'm on a starting teacher salary, so I'm not desperate to be super frugal, but I don't have a ton of cash to throw around.

>>2869106
Used D7100 and the kit lens, Used 60D and kit lens, Used K3 and kit lens, Used X-E2 and kit lens, Used a6000 and kit lens, as cheap as you can get it.

>>2869067
Opinions? I need it for b roll, portraiture, and low light candids.

Right now, I have no body, 50 stm and some money.
I'm planning to buy 6d and start shooting portraits (tfp). Yes 5d2 is cheaper, but that focusing system is fucking awful. I know because I unfortunately used it and can compare it to 7d. At least 6d has a good center point which should be enough.
Then in a month or so, when I have money I'll purchase a Canon 85 1.8
I already have a ttl flash and a remote, will probably add a light stand and a softbox.

How does this sound?

>>2869162
Sounds good to me
I have the 6D and I love it. Upgraded from my 60D so even if the AF is less good, it's more than sufficient for me and I love that -3EV center point when indoor with poor lightning to snapshit my cats

>>2869106
the best thing to do instead of dropping $400-1200 bucks to see if you like doing it is to buy a used, older version of what you're looking for. Do you have any experience shooting pictures with anything? Like even those disposable cams? I'd go to ebay and just buy a used canon or nikon for around $200. Most of the older versions are just slightly bulkier and have difference things here or there but they are basically the same.

The lens is usually what makes the camera so that is the thing you need to really investigate.

Hell, you can drop $20-50 on a film based camera and see if the hobby even sparks your interests

check craigslist before ebay because you might find something within driving distance that is cheap

Ive owned an Olympus EM5 for about two years, im honestly unsure whether to stick with it and add some new lenses or to switch to a fuji or sony.

I have a feeling that M4/3 may die at some point and i dont wanna waste any money on new lenses, but on the other hand i dont feel like spending on another body.

Anyone use one of those Polaroid Zip mini-printers?

Is it actually neat for giving people instant prints, or is it basically a toy?

Anyone have any experience buying gear in Japan? Even with yen stronger lately a couple lenses I am eyeing seem around $50 cheaper on Rakuten and kakaku, namely Sigma 18-35 and Tamron 17-50. Also there's tax free and Visa discount at like Yodobashi and Bic. Anyone have an estimate how much I might save altogether?
And anyone bought second hand in Tokyo before? I've heard try Nakano and Shinjuku.

>>2869254
If Olympus goes out of business but you have your E-M5 with a nice kit of all the lenses you need, how does that affect you in the slightest? Your camera won't suddenly stop taking photos.

Change cameras if you have a problem with your camera, not because you're concerned about the camera industry. You're just buying their cameras, you're not a damn investor.

And for what it's worth, Sony has been closer to the brink as a company than Olympus has lately. And Fuji probably doesn't really care all that much about their X camera stuff very much, it's not a big business for them and probably isn't profitable. They probably won't kill it off or anything like that, but they also really have no obligation or huge need to keep it propped up.

Hi /p/

I'm looking to invest in my first "real" camera/lenses. I'm looking for one last sanity check before I pull the trigger on this stuff. Can I get a second or third opinion please?

If it means anything, I plan on mostly (but not exclusively) taking pictures of landscapes and wildlife.

Body - Nikon D3200
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00MH6S1EW/ref=ox_sc_act_title_3?ie=UTF8&psc=1&smid=A2KDA41TWOCZTZ

Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8-4.5 SLD Aspherical DC Optical Stabilized (OS) Lens
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B002332KC8/ref=ox_sc_act_title_2?ie=UTF8&psc=1&smid=A24ND5I6CJRI4T

Tamron Auto Focus 70-300mm f/4.0-5.6 Di LD Macro Zoom Lens
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0012UUP02/ref=ox_sc_act_title_1?ie=UTF8&psc=1&smid=ATVPDKIKX0DER

I'd like to think I did a good amount of research on this, but I'd like to make sure before I drop the ~$600 on this stuff. Any and all help/advice is appreciated!

>>2868595

Non-native lenses on a dslr doesn't really work. A lot easier to do on a mirrorless. Some will even add autofocus to manual lenses with the proper adapter.

>>2869067

An a7? Not really worth it.

An a7ii? Go for it.

File: x158DSCV3.jpg (33KB, 620x378px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 620x378px

Are Sony DSCV3s good?

Just found one in my attic, think it was my grandfathers before he died.

>>2869270
If you want older gear it's usually not too bad but honestly prices are on par with US rates. Recently I've gotten a D300 for 27,000, Nikkor 300 f4 for 40,000, Tokina 12-24 for 27,000, and the only really good "deal" was a Tokina 24-70 f2.8 for 13,000. That one came from a Hard-Off though which is probably your best bet for finding something at a good price. Chains like Bic and Yodobashi don't always have used gear and their prices are substantially inferior to Amazon. For example, the Nagoya Yodobashi doesn't have a single lick of used gear and the Bic only has it because there's a Sofmap inside. Places like Sofmap and Komehyo CAN be decent but equally likely to have shit selection and inflated prices.

If you're looking for old manual glass, you can probably find obscure junk for next to no money but expect to pay far more than going US rates for nice stuff like old Nikkors.

With everything here in Island China being more expensive and the Island Chinese Monopoly Money gaining parity with the dollar it's not as exciting a value as it used to be.

>>2869301
It probably killed your grandfather. Thou shalt not suffer a Sony point and shoot to live. It likely uses memory sticks, burn it or bury it.

>>2869307
But I can take cool e-retro low quality geocities shots with it right?

>>2869310
it'll work, it just won't be very good. I'd be shocked if it could beat a modern smartphone in any category except having a fairly junky zoom lens on the front.

>>2869296
>laughing pentax users.jpg
I think all the better Nikons (read: not the consumer junk in the D3x00 and D5x00 series) can meter fine with old lenses, and give you focus confirmation in the viewfinder and peaking in live view.

>>2869305
Also be sure to thoroughly inspect the gear because the shops often don't give it more than a cursory check. The 12-24 I mentioned is actually the second one I bought. The first one I returned in under an hour after it became clearly obvious it had a severe sticky aperture problem, the kind of thing that any competent shop should have noticed either while buying the gear in the first place or before placing it out for sale. The stereotypical Japanese attention to detail and quality is absolutely a myth. Since then I insist on spending several minutes checking absolutely everything myself before I buy anything. Keep them waiting, they'll probably be totally awkward about it but it's worth it to avoid the disappointment down the line.

>>2869254

M43 is fine. The lenses are extremely quality. "M43 RIP IN PEICE" is 4chan bullshit.

>>2869280
>If Olympus goes out of business but you have your E-M5 with a nice kit of all the lenses you need, how does that affect you in the slightest? Your camera won't suddenly stop taking photos


That's the thing I don't get:

1. It's not impossible, but Olympus has been in business 97 years. I think they have a track record of being able to keep the doors open.

2. If panasonic stopped making lenses TOMORROW, the existing stock is still fucking ridiculously high quality. You may have issues servicing it, but holy fuck it will still great shots. people are fucking nuts.

>>2869318
>>1. It's not impossible, but Olympus has been in business 97 years. I think they have a track record of being able to keep the doors open.
Of the companies in the 1966 Fortune 100, about two-thirds no longer exist.

>>2869295
if you are on a budget you might want to consider a d7000 instead

Its a bit more but works much better with older lenses

>>2869311
>peaking
>Nikon
no
>focus confirmation
any lens on a nikon will trigger focus confirmation, as long as you have the meter active to activate the focus points
>metering with AI or newer lenses on D7000 or better
yes

>>2869301
>>2869307
>>2869310
>>2869311
Just about done charging I'm gonna go take a picture of space and shit cause I'm a PROtographer

>>2869321
>Of the companies in the 1966 Fortune 100, about two-thirds no longer exist.

What a fun fact!! wtf is your point.

>>2869334
that you can't really count on any company to keep the doors open long-term anymore.

>>2869338
I agree. I said that it's not impossible, meaning it's not impossible that they'll go belly up tomorrow. However, if I had to rank the likelihood of a company making it to 2017, I'd bet on the one established in 1919 rather then then the one in 2016. That's all. You get to 97 years old without being nimble and adapting to the market.

>>2869305
>>2869312
Thanks. I'll just buy my stuff at home then and browse around second hand places there for fun.

>>2869364
I think that's a safe bet. I'm visiting the US next month and planning to buy some stuff over there to save quite a bit. Accessories are especially overpriced here.

I'd still keep a little extra moon money in reserve though in case you find something really good, especially if you do some hunting outside of Tokyo. From personal experience you're more likely to find a gem outside of the big cities, where demand drives prices up and retailers charge more than usual to keep a larger selection on hand.

>>2869370
Interesting. Yea I'm taking a trip to some more remote locations outside Tokyo, Osaka etc. If I get time I'll look for those smaller used shops.

File: DSC00020.jpg (645KB, 1000x750px) Image search: [Google]

645KB, 1000x750px

>>2869329
I did it r8

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	DSC-V3
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Macintosh)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2016:06:24 01:07:28
Exposure Time	30 sec
F-Number	f/3.5
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	800
Lens Aperture	f/3.5
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Spot
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	10.80 mm
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	1000
Image Height	750
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>2869379
jesus

>>2869384
it's really good right

>>2869299
Yeah, you're right. I know the a7ii is better than the a7 and essentially the a7 is just a more modern 5dmarkii in a sense, with better auto focusing points and lowlight capability. But the budget is tight for this. I suppose I answered my own question. 5d markii it is.

I also need a cheapo lens, again not ideal but I saw some canon ef 55-250 mm lenses that would basically cover my ass for anything I need.

Anyone have experience with this glass?

I know I'll just have to get gud, it'll be used for lowlight indoor candids and portaiture. As far as the portraiture, I know it'll be fine but I'm hoping the full frame sensor on the markii will be sufficient for indoor use as well. The iso performance should be enough? Along with the full frame sensor?

>>2869379
it looks like you snapped a pic just as a neutron bomb went off

>>2869395
that's actually the sun rising over that house

I call the picture "Sun of the Rising House"

>>2869396
Quality my man

File: Background.png (1MB, 1280x800px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1280x800px

>>2869379
>>2869384
>>2869385
>>2869395
>>2869396
>>2869403
Here's another

File: Background.png (1MB, 1280x800px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1280x800px

>>2869414
Better version.

>>2869311

>focus confirmation

a7ii/a7rii/a6300 can autofocus with pretty much every lens ever made thanks to the Techart Pro. Not all of them are fast/usable though.

Best are probably a-mount or EF-mount.

>>2869372
>>2869370

I just went to check out Naniwa Camera in Kyoto (Shijo Store) for some MD mount lenses.

Everything they had had mold or fungus. I was disgusted.

>>2869437
That's what they show to the tourists.

File: DSC00042.jpg (1MB, 1500x989px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1500x989px

>>2869419
am I good yet

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	DSC-V3
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Macintosh)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2016:06:24 05:31:17
Exposure Time	30 sec
F-Number	f/4.5
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/4.5
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Other
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	7.00 mm
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	1500
Image Height	989
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard

Hey guys I have the choice to choose either the nikon d70 or the olympus e420, which one should I get?

>>2869454
D70, better lens selection

I want to buy a camera just for photographing. For filming I have the GH4 which has a great video quality but the photos aren't that good. Can you recommend me a camera with great picture quality and good low light performance.
Budget about 500€-900€

>>2868845
> what does this mean?
Something to step up from my rabal. I've picked up lots of experience on both analog and digital photography and plan on doing more studio work.

I was looking for a camera which doesn't make me look like a student, basically something to get taken more seriously when having photoshoots, and something which is just a upgrade overall.

Let's get back to the main question though, i was looking at the Nikon DF since it has a sturdy body, the sensor of a ( dated but nonetheless ) a flagship camera. And something where i can be sure of that'll last me a bit.

>>2869464
Thanks

>>2869440

Possibly.

Except their descriptions are only in Japanese and they had a good selection of other mounts.

I can't imagine MD would be something they keep from tourists.

I've had a K10D with an APS-C zoom lens and some old manual Pentax full frame lenses.
I've been extremely satisfied with the K10D, except for 2 things:
-the bad ISO performance above 400
-due to the crop factor, my 50 and 35 become something like 80 and 50 mm lenses, and I'd much prefer a 50 and a 35

So right now my long term plan is to get the Pentax FF in a couple of years. Thoughts?

>>2868194
Not for ff

>>2869254
I just dumped my m43 gear and went canon ff. Not out of fear, I just like system hopping. Which I do every year or so and have had Sony, Nikon, Canon, Olympus, and Pentax. Will probably go Fuji next year or so. That being said in good light you won't find much difference in iq going with a bigger sensor. The dof and low light is where you see marginal differences. Also the lens characteristics of XXmm will differ in regards to distortion and compression at a given distance. I see merits in each brand and format but honestly could recommend any of them for different reasons.

>I'm a gear whore and would love to just have a full set of everything from each brand.

File: Sony-FE-90mm-f-2-8-Macro-G-OSS-40819-236.jpg (106KB, 450x450px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 450x450px

This lens seems to get fantastic reviews everywhere I look. It is no doubt the best FE option.

But what about other mounts adaptable to FE? Does Canon have an more affordable 〜90mm macro?

>>2869494
Yes, Canon does.
But the af with adapter will only be usable on A7m2 and beyond. Google commlite adapter and see for yourself.

>>2869518

Yea I have an a7ii and I researched the adapters a bit. Commlite seems to be the slowest of them all.

All I can find is the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM. The FE lens blows it out of the water in every way, and the Canon is only $150 cheaper.

>>2869480
The Pentax FF is quite a cost effective system. I like it. The Sony sensors have excellent performance. Nobody else has IBIS (DSLR) and the weather sealing is just icing on the cake.

I'm personally thinking about 5d mkiii or II when the 5d iv comes out.
Not sure. I've always liked the look of Canon colors but it's hard to beat Pentax when comparing everything against price (especially the used market).

>>2869538
The weather sealing has been (on the K10D) more than icing on the cake for me, and it's a fairly important buying consideration when thinking about the Pentax FF actually.

On the other hand I don't need a lot of features that seem to be marketed pretty heavily. I will never shoot a video and I will never use GPS tagging, Wi-fi, bluetooth, a goddamn fucking touchscreen or whatever else is being crammed in there. But it's not like There's a cheaper version without all that fluff.
And the actual features of the camera such as the double card slot and astrophotography stuff seems very promising and exactly what I'm looking for with the upgrade.

How are the Nikon cameras with weather sealing?

I know this might open a big can of worms:

But is the dust issue a problem on the RIcoh GR II or did they fix it?

http://www.dpreview.com/news/7456364718/sigma-announces-pricing-and-availability-for-sd-quattro-and-ef-630-flash

>only $799
>$999 with 30mm 1.4

buy buy buy

>>2869532
smegma mc11.
metabuns just released an update to enable all sony features.

>>2869552

Smegma already has those features.

And is $100 less.

And supports not just first party, but Smegma Art lenses too.

Metabuns is a ripoff.

>>2868841
Actually my two lenses the 50mm 1.4 and 135mm f3.5 are both manual focus ai so I'd be focusing them manually.
A fully articulating screen like that of a canon might be useful but I'm more concerned if the d7100 has good video quality.
If I go for the a6000 can my old lenses be easily adapted to it? Can it autofocus old manual ai lenses?
Olympus omd is tempting as well due to its 5 axis stabilization but m43 is a dying format isn't it?

>>2869567
You'll find a fully articulating screen isn't really THAT important

>I'm more concerned if the d7100 has good video quality

It's decent but I'd argue the a6300 has better

>If I go for the a6000 can my old lenses be easily adapted to it?

There's tons of incredibly cheap adapters that work for just about all vintage lenses. Just remember that on the a6000 you'll have to take into account the crop factor meaning your 50mm will be an 80mm

>Can it autofocus old manual ai lenses?

There's some adapters that can autofocus old manual lenses but they're usually slower and less reliable. I'd recommend just using them manual focus with focus peaking

>but m43 is a dying format isn't it?

It's a meme that it is dying but I cannot really suggest it over another format looking at the other choices available

That being said I find the a6000 a better value than the omd but you'd have to consider the lens selection and features for yourself

I'd definitely suggest you look into fuji mirrorless cameras as well but I don't think you're going to find them particularly useful as I don't think they have better or equal video capabilities as an a6000 or 6300

>>2869571
>your 50mm will be an 75mm

FTFY

>>2869574
Pff wooops

Forgot he was talking about nikon I was thinking canon for some reason which has dat 1.6x factor

File: fly-4000x3040-eye-macro-4496.jpg (1MB, 4000x3040px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 4000x3040px

what kind of gear/lens do you need to acquire these photographs? I want to really zoom in

>>2869593
Get a macro lens. It literally says macro in the filename.

>>2869596
I know, I guess I worded it wrong. What is the best bang for your buck/sharp macro lens?

this is a gear thread right?

>>2869598
what system do you shoot

>>2867836
Bump

I still dont believe one person on /p/ owns strobes

Am a poor fag with a K-50 and want a wide angle lens. Any recommendations?

I want to get a proper tripod and ball head, with around £300 budget

Whats the best combo?

>>2867803
you have a worthless opinion on something you haven't used fuck off dude

M4-P user

Saving up for a speedbooster
Including vintage and modern lenses, which lens mount would be the most economically sensible to dedicate a speedbooster to? I was told yashica/contax is my best bet

>>2869621
I got to try some Paul C Buff gear and have decided to get a set of Einsteins. I can't find anything negative about them online and they are packed with features for their price.

I've used AlienBees before and they were really great considering how cheap they are and what market they're meant for.

>>2869626
http://www.pentaxforums.com/reviews/ultra-wide-showdown/introduction.html
Also consider: Samyang 16/2.0 and 14/2.8.

>>2869598
Best bang for the buck is a sharp prime you already like and a set of extension tubes.

>>2869280

Good point, i like olympus alot and i should just take some damn photos..

Should i go for the oly 17mm or the panny 20mm, im looking to pair one of those with the 45mm for some candid photography.

>>2869538

Sny bodies have IBIS, but they aren't technically a DSLR (SLT instead).

>>2869575

Yes, Canon has to mess everything up.

>>2869280

I would suspect Sony would be more likely to halt international sales than kill off it's camera division.

It still does quite well in Japan.

Just bought a D750, what are some accessories that I should get? Any standard things? The only things I can think of would be some extra batteries, a charger, a bag, etc. I'm about to go on a vacation to the mountains.

File: ON-DK19-oeilleton-nikon-dk-19-rubber-eyecup_2-500x500.jpg (76KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 500x500px

>>2869753
Lenses? I guess a battery or two extra wouldn't hurt, I have two for my D700 but I have never ever managed to run down a DSLR battery completely, they don't eat up batteries like mirrorless cameras or point and shoots do with their EVFs and screens. Maybe filters if you want them, I guess for a digital camera the only filter you really need is maybe a polarizer. Also a rocket dust blower thing and some Pec-pads to clean your lenses and sensor and stuff with.

One thing that I personally really like are the rubber viewfinder eyecups. I use them on my F100 and D700, but I think Nikon only makes them for cameras with round viewfinder portholes and the D750 has a shitty rectangular viewfinder, so I'm not sure if there's anything similar you could get for that. I think they're a great tiny little convenience though, especially when I'm wearing my glasses.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D200
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	3070
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	105 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	398
Image Height	299
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2015:01:12 22:01:02
Exposure Time	1/60 sec
F-Number	f/4.0
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	400
Lens Aperture	f/4.0
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	Flash, Return Detected
Focal Length	70.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	500
Image Height	500
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	Low Gain Up
Contrast	Soft
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

File: image.jpg (2MB, 4032x3024px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4032x3024px

>>2867665
Just copped

>>2869693
And don't forget a reverse ring if you want to get really lose up spider shots like Thomas Shahan

I'm somewhat new at photography and am trying to find a camera to use for good quality photos. So, which would be a better idea? I'm thinking of choosing one of these:
-Nikon P900 Zoom X83
-Canon Rebel T6i 24.2 MP
-Nikon D-5300 6i

>>2869822
Good quality photos of what? Choose your subject and then name your budget - that's how it works. And it's better to start choosing a lens first and then go with the body.

>>2869823
Nature. Landscapes, mostly.
I'm looking for something less than $2,000.

>>2869824

Pentax k1 for Landscape and Nature. Class leading. Look at the photos coming out from this beast of a camera. Pixel Shift. Shit is jaw dropping. Well under 2k for the body.

>>2869827
Thank you!

File: image.jpg (72KB, 675x450px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 675x450px

>>2867665
Just copped this Canon EF 70-300, f/4-5.6 IS USM for $265. Did I do good /p/????

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS3 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2009:09:01 14:37:42
Color Space Information	Unknown
Image Width	675
Image Height	450
Scene Capture Type	Standard

Best and cheapest wide vintage Nikon f mount lens?
I have the hardest time finding wide vintage Nikon glass
Any third party suggestions?

>>2869845
How wide, exactly? What do you mean by vintage? FF or DX? How much are you willing to spend?

I'm looking for my first camera.
I can get a new Canon eos m3 for 409 euros (450 usd). that includes an 18-55 IS STM lens.
It seems like it is a very good deal, at least pricewise. I would use it for normal family photography stuff, but also on travels. Is there anything bad about this camera? I don't see why I'd need an optical viewfinder (I can carry an extra battery), and lens adapters to EF can be found for under 20 usd.
Are there other options that have more bang for the buck?

>>2869879
and with more bang for the buck I mean similar bang for less buck

Is it safe to buy a second hand a6000 without warranty ? I will be my first camera and i tell me if i'm wrong but it seems a bit fragile compared to other dslr as the 700d or the k-50.

>>2869905
>more fragile than a dslr

In what way?

If anything it is less fragile because it bas no mirror.

>>2869908
Yeah, but anything that gets in the body is going straight into the shutter, which is a lot more delicate than a mirror assembly

>>2869908
>If anything it is less fragile because it bas no mirror.

well it might be superficial to think that way but i've always pictured dslr more robust by their size and constrution so is it wellgrounded to think that ?

Anyway the seller told me there still have 2y of warranty, should i go for 400e ?

>>2869879
>>2869902
guys, that's a limited time offer. I'm a total noob and have to make do with what I find online, any input is greatly appreciated.

>>2869911
>i've always pictured dslr more robust by their size and constrution

Yes they are.
And the mirror hardly ever breaks, btw.

The only somewhat fragile elements are the popup flash and the LCD screen.

In theory a mirrorless could be just as tough, but Canon and Nikon have over 60 years experience of making SLR's and that shows.

Here is a durability test to give you an idea of how robust even consumer level DSLR's are: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCT-YMgjm9k

>>2869911
DSLR simply are more robust and rugged, ignore the retard who fell for the mirror-less meme.

There's no mirror to get scratched by sand, or to stop that sand from permanently destroying the shutter and permanently destroying the image sensor.

And far more DSLR are built with weather-sealed, rugged metal bodies.
A6000 has no weather-sealing and no magnesium-alloy body, it's a plastic toy.
It's hilarious because sony released a fake video that said it was magnesium, then after release, edited that part out because it wasn't true... after they'd already sold some of the toys.

>>2869915

a6000 does have some magnesium parts though.

>>2869917
prove it

>>2869921

Every in depth review on the web?

Not all of it though, it isn't full magnesium like the a6300.

>>2869913
I'm in the same boat, going to get my first soon. I've watched dozens of vids, read lots of reviews and just about everyone says that the cheaper "starter" ones like the nikon d3300 have slightly better image quality but the canon has better video/focus tracking for high movement pictures

if you buy used research the cameras shutter life which if needed to repair can cost as much as the actual used camera..

>great deal for camera
>contact the guy within a minute of the ad being put up
>tell him I am willing to buy after seeing photos of sensor and mirror etc
>he complies
>tell him i'll buy
>no reply
>4days later
"sorry, sold it"

Either I met a complete fucker or I dodged a scammer.

Ree.

How would I charge my DSLR battery out and about?

All the solar chargers on Amazon are for phones

5D2 vs 6D?

I've watched videos and I can't really decide.

I thought 6D was made to be a cheap option for canon full frame.

Yet it's very expensive, used.

What am I missing?

>>2869966
Without knowing what dslr you have:

There are ways to charge via usb battery.
Carry more batteries.

I'm guessing you're out in the wilderness. I'd look into a solar panel that matches the requirements for your dslrs battery charger, 12v or whatever it could be.

>>2869968
D5300

>ways to charge via usb battery
never heard/seen this

>carrying 5 batteries at a time
expensive and time wasting

I want to buy a camera just for photographing. For filming I have the GH4 which has a great video quality but the photos aren't that good. Can you recommend me a camera with great picture quality and good low light performance.
Budget about 500€-900€

>>2869966
>How would I charge my DSLR battery out and about?

You don't.

Buy a battery grip and plenty AA batteries.

>>2869971
Do you want another m43 camera so you can share lenses, or do you want a fixed lens camera, or do you want a second camera system that you need to buy a whole new set of lenses for?

>>2869976
A canon EF camera, because I want to buy a speedbooster for the GH4.

File: IMG_2821.jpg (184KB, 3267x1527px) Image search: [Google]

184KB, 3267x1527px

Any good point and shoot cameras you sluts recommend?

Preferably midrange ones

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS REBEL T5i
Camera Software	Windows Photo Editor 10.0.10011.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2015:08:26 16:34:15
Exposure Time	1/60 sec
F-Number	f/20.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	400
Lens Aperture	f/19.9
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	300.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	5184
Image Height	2912
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

if you're worried about if you should just get insurance on it

>>2869777

Cool, thanks for the input!

>>2869878
In the ball park of 24mm
Ideally a full frame lens, and by vintage I mean film slr lens
I don't like spending much money on old lenses, so I'd like to keep it under 50$

>>2870006
>Vintage F mount
>Wide
>Cheap
Pick two. Nikon lenses have held their value well because of the mount, dead systems like Minolta or Canon FD or Olympus OM are much cheaper.

Hey /p/.

I have a literal gear thread for you.

The AF stopped working for my cheap ass kit lens, completely stuck. So I decided to open it up since I'm handy and warranty is long gone.

What do I see?
Nothing, the fucking gear is completely fucking gone. Not even inside the lens itself.

So what I'm wondering if I can obtain one of these gears/cogs easily.

I figure canon repairshop will make me pay 100usd+ for a repair.

File: IMAG0449_BURST002.jpg (2MB, 1500x1195px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1500x1195px

>>2870014
Well fuck me in the ass.

Anyway, you can see the wear and tear from the missing gear.

>>2867665
Any good cameras for taking pictures of landscapes? Preferably something below $1,000.

>>2870006
>$50
>F-mount
>Good
Pick any two, as long as it's not the $50 one. Try $200 for any of the wide angles.

>>2869956
Someone else was more serious about it. You were probably being a fag about it and over demanding and pretentious.

So I got my xt10, and I see how fucking expensive a metal grip is...

Any non-retarded alternatives out there?

>>2869996
Leica

If I adapt a radioactive m42 lens to my mirrorless, will it destroy the sensor over time?

>>2870058
Only if it's a Sony.

>>2870058
It'll burn a hole through your sensor and give you eye cancer and make your children retarded and blanket your entire city in radioactive fallout and the Russians will detect the radiation coming from your camera and they will retaliate with a full nuclear strike and all of civilization will be destroyed by the nuclear winter.

i have a d90 and i want to change it.
i have 2000€ to spend.

what buy?
> new d750
>new xt1 + xf 16mm
>xt10 + xf 16mm + xf 35mm 2.

i shoot only with primes. i have couple of afd lens.
i thought about mirrrorless because of this. Less weight, more compact system.
What /p/ think?
are there other better options?

i tried the d610 and i don't like it.

>>2870072
Mirrorless weight and compact is a meme

File: googledthis.jpg (240KB, 1024x679px) Image search: [Google]

240KB, 1024x679px

I'd like to ask a question about 50mm and the crop factor on my a6000.

From what I understand, a 50mm lens on FF shows approximately the FOV your actual eyes see. Since my a6000 has a 1.5x crop, that means I should have a 35mm lens to get a 50mm equivalent.

However, when I set my focal length to 35mm on my kitlens, it doesn't have the same FOV as my eyes, and when I use 50mm, it almost matches my eyes' FOV.

Am I misunderstanding anything here concerning crop factor? Why is my a6000 showing me naked-eye-FOV on 50mm? Shouldn't it be tighter?

>>2870104
>FOV your actual eyes see
>FOV as my eyes
>it almost matches my eyes' FOV
>naked-eye-FOV

That means absolutely nothing. If you get so hung up on some terminology you read in a forum or blog you will just confuse yourself.

A 35mm lens on an aps-c camera has a similar field of view to a 50mm lens on a full-frame camera. That's it. Any comparison to the field of view of your eyes is completely unnecessary.

>>2870072
D750 is mint

>>2870058
Serious answer: No. You have nothing to worry about from radioactive lenses unless you're in the habit of taking them apart and eating glass elements from them.

>>2870104
Think about it. Your perceived field of view depends on your distance to your subject and what you're paying attention to in your scene. 50mm only approximates most of what people are paying attention to. 35 and 28 approximates the scene including near peripheral vision. 75-85 gives you the angle of view of what you are specifically looking at.

Something like that.

I want to get a sweet old analog camera.
thought about the Minolta SRT101. Could get one with lense for 20€.
Should I go for it?

>>2869923
>zero evidence
okay so you were just talking out of your ass, where you regularly take cocks from your boyfriend.

Child wants to pretend it's regular for reviewers to destroy a camera breaking it open to see what the skeleton is made out of. Post even one website of anyone ever doing this with the A6000, should be easy since EVERY in-depth review does it... oh wait, you're just a douchebag who spreads more lies than sony marketing to justify buying their plastic toys.

Whats better 80d or 6D right now? 80d has newest sensor, but 6d is 3 years old but full frame.

>>2870181
6D for studio/landscape or you need to shoot at high iso and can't afford a mk3 or 1dx. 80D if you want AF that isn't crippled