/gear/ - Gear Thread

(For an extremely broad definition of 'Gear', and in the absence of a Software Thread)

Has anyone used Corel Aftershot Pro? It seems to have been billed as comparable in functionality and features to Lightroom but much faster, which is of interest to me. Curious to hear peoples opinions if anyone has any.

>>2883036
I used it for some time on both Linux and Windows. It is very capable especially with its plugin support but the clunky UI made me settle with Lightroom. Adjustment brush capability is limited though, you will need Paint Shop Pro or Photoshop for that.
Noise filtering is better than Lightrooms but in some cases gives dubious results in which cases the wavelet noise filter plugin gives good results.
The trial period is 1 month and gives unlimited access so it's easy to decide if you like it or not.

why are there 3 fucking posts about gear

>>2883087
I can think of two reasons: children and summer.
Just ignore them.

Have you simplified your gear, /p/?

Who single camera here?

>>2883129
Me. DSLR with 4 lenses. One for wildlife, one for portraits/events, one 50mm equivalent walkaround and one basic zoom lens.

>>2883129
Yes, I moved onto the superior portable system, I'll let you take a guess of what it is.

Looking for some Wacom advice.

I used to own one a few years ago but sold it when I had some hand problems. I can hold a pen again so was thinking of picking one up for cleaning scans and a bit of light retouching.
I was thinking of getting the Intuos Pro Medium but the Intuos Art medium is a bit cheaper.

Anyone have any advice on the different features? The reduced pressure levels/resolution? The touch ring? I already know I have to buy a separate wireless adapter with the art.

>>2883137
All work basically the same, you might want to look at what size/ergonomics you need.
I was actually thinking the same but nobody is selling Wacom around here, only Genius drawing tablets.

>>2883129
I simplified a bit. I sold my Leica film gear and my m43 digital gear.

Now I have a single Nikon system I can use for 35mm or digital, plus a Bronica SQ for 6x6, and a Ricoh GR as my sidearm. I'm too much of a gearfag to narrow it down more than that, but I would say the cameras I do have are at least all pretty different from each other.

>>2883129
No, but I'm at the point where I don't need "more gear".
I have the focal lengths I want to shoot and in different formats. My only similar pieces of kit are 35mm SLR's, a mirrorless APS-C & FF.

>>2883143
Should have gotten fuji

>>2883129
made an attempt at it but with the wrong system.

bought an RX1 while drunk like a year ago, ended up sticking with it b/c pic quality really is quite amazing, only problem is 1. its not really any more portable than a regular camera with a small lens and 2. its a clusterfuck of ergonomics menus and generally just a pain in the ass to use.

for the past six months its been sitting on my desk. and of course the second rxi came out right around then. really need to sell this thing while it still has a modicum of value left.

in the meantime ive been using an SL1 with the 40mm pancake as my walkaround. actually smaller, lighter, and lightyears more ergonomic and a joy to use. nowhere near as sharp but more than sharp enough and lets me get more shots that are actually in focus on the fly. just wish i got the 24mm but didnt want an ef-s lens.

ironically just bought the sigma 18-35 and it works miracles.

>>2883153
Why didn't you get an X-T1?

>>2883156
Because you touch yourself at night

>>2883156
didnt want to invest in another camera ecosystem, hence the rx1. plus the full frame compact meme really worked on me, stupidly.

still with canon and don't regret it. take plenty of good pics with just the sl1 and 7dii.

>>2883153
But why wouldnt you get the 24? It's sharp, it's small, it doesnt have any competitors and will hold resale value and resaleability. It's like the 35 DX. When it's your only option, the value stays steady, and someone will always want to buy it.

>>2883137
Monoprice tablets mate. Way better value.

File: helios44m.png (195KB, 556x443px)

195KB, 556x443px

Any anon who has a Helios 44m mind doing me a solid and measure the dimensions in the pic?

File: cumrah.jpg (2MB, 4128x2322px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4128x2322px

Heya, new guy here. Not to sure how the whole camera properties thing work or if it even applies to me. I snagged this camera off of eBay the other day for $40 (including shipping) and looks to be in good condition. It came really dirty and no lens cover, but the insides looked brand fucking new, so I'm really happy about that. Also came with a roll of film that had 8 shots left, but I simply just retracted the whole thing and popped it out, didn't wanna mess with it in case there was nice photos. I am not knowledgeable with these things, but I know some lingo from various photography students. I was mainly gonna use it to take photos of me and gf and family, maybe some nature shots, hehe. What do you guys think? Good buy? Should I dish out the extra few bucks for another proper lens or keep this one and buy a cover. Also the viewfinder looks really dirty and has the those clear spots on it, so I dunno bout that either. Tips on cleaning would be amazing too.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SAMSUNG
Camera Model	SM-N900T
Camera Software	N900TUVUFOL1
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.2
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	31 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	4128
Image Height	2322
Image Orientation	Right-Hand, Top
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2016:07:14 13:50:01
Exposure Time	1/15 sec
F-Number	f/2.2
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	1000
Lens Aperture	f/2.2
Brightness	-2.4 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	4.13 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	4128
Image Height	2322
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Unique Image ID	C13QSGJ02SB

>>2883214
a: varies from focus, 5mm-12.5mm
b: 59mm
c: 62mm

>>2883219
Thank you very much bro

>>2883223
You're welcome. What are you doing with those numbers anyway?

>>2883224
I'm planning to make an aluminium slip-on hood for it. I ordered the lens and they won't be here for a while, but i've got some spare time tomorrow and figured i could try making one.

It's not particularly difficult to find a hood for this lens, but i enjoy making stuff myself so it'll be sort of a hobby activity. Plus i wanted it to be metal, like the lens body. Pointless, i know, but eh.

On the subject of LF, what's the equivalent of a Zeiss Otus? That one lens that was designed to give impossibly high resolution, and when combined with real fine resolving films (some of that 25 speed stuff or something) can let you print at ridiculous sizes. Is there such a thing, or are all LF lenses ancient modified Tessars?

>>2883286
The Otus is designed to combine that resolution with a very fast speed.
Your
>ancient modified Tessars
have the resolution, but the speed has never been a consideration in the lense designs.
An ancient modified tessar at f8 will be just as sharp as the otus, as well was distorting less and having no CA, over a much bigger image circle, for a fraction of the size, weight and cost.

>>2883129

Of course. Mirrorless all the way.

I can mount and not just that, I can autofocus more lenses than any other system system ever made.

File: haEqy9k.jpg (484KB, 1019x1528px) Image search: [Google]

484KB, 1019x1528px

What lens do you think was used to take a full body picture like this?

>>2883330
50mm

>>2883335
Really? I have to get way back to take a full body picture with a 35mm, is it just because I'm using a crop sensor?

>>2883336
multiply 35 by 1.5 and marvel at your newfound knowledge

>>2883337
So do you think the photographer used a 50mm with a full frame and just got way back like I would have to with a 35mm and cropped frame? I feel like the depth of field is too low for that right?

What's a really good satchel-type walking around bag? I have a K3ii and a handful of lenses I'd like to cart around without looking like a complete tool.

>>2883176
They seem nice, I looked at cheaper tablets but a big thing for me is wireless capability and multitouch/touch sensitive.

Like I said, I can now hold and use a pen, but I still got hand issues and will for all my life. I won't have to worry so much about triggering it accidentally either since I use gloves anyway.

I'll pull the trigger on one I guess and hope for the best.

>>2883340
>I feel like the depth of field is too low for that right?
As someone who constantly shoots MF 80mm f2.8, that DOF is possible with a 50 eqv. Considering they're not complete bokeh blobs, I'd say it's not likely to be over 70/85mm either.

I can also confirm that you can also get that type of falloff from shooting a 24mm or 28mm lens too.
It's about the distance behind the point of focus itself.
If in doubt, check the exif or ask the photographer themselves.

I have a 6D and a 50mm. Looking for another lens. Should I go with 24-105L used ~500$ OR both a Samyang 14mm and a Samyang 85mm for ~500$ together ?

File: XUUedWD.jpg (3MB, 3056x2160px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3056x2160px

>all that money

Fuck, I wish I had that much to blow.

>>2883419
I don't. I'd rather have fun using my camera.

>>2883352
>own a satchel bag
>don't look like a complete tool
Pick one

>>2883423
>implying you can't have fun with any of that gear
lmao you're in denial buddy

>>2883426
>standard lens I'd barely use
>macro lens I'd use as a normal portrait lens
>2 zoom lenses I'd literally never use
>85mm I'd use once in a while
>WA I'd use once in a while
Hmmm. Nope. probably wouldn't have that much fun with it.

I'd probably have more fun with a Contax/Yashica than dealing with A7 menus, carrying 3 batteries minimum and trash lenses with no aperture ring.

I just got legitimately depressed that I have to take my D800 out tonight instead of my x100s.

What a weird turn of events.

>>2883290
Good point. I looked up some of those Rodenstock lenses, and knowing nothing about LF lenses, was surprised to find they're almost just a straight shot through the lens barrel with a nearly symmetrical lens design.

Guess I learned something today.

File: W I D E R.jpg (1MB, 1920x1280px)

1MB, 1920x1280px

Thinking about getting another UWA /p/, but not sure which one I should go for.

I'm leaning towards a Tamron 15-30mm f/2.8 VC USD, but that Canon EF 11-24mm f/4L USM is looking mighty delicious. Tamron seems like a more reasonable choice considering the differences in cost, bu that 11mm wide end on the Canon is tempting...

Pic related is what I already have but I need something that's wider, with a faster fixed maximum aperture.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 6D
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
Photographer	Ray Neal Caird
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.8
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2016:07:14 11:41:00
Exposure Time	1/100 sec
F-Number	f/1.8
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	3200
Lens Aperture	f/1.8
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	50.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1920
Image Height	1280
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>2883521
To me it looks like you are going into a lot of redundancy. If you want corner sharpness you still have to stop the f/2.8 lens down to at least f/4, if you do landscape you will mostly use f/8 and above.
Do you really think the new lens will make your photography better? Will it give you more opportunities to make photos? Wouldn't it be better to spend that money on a weekend trip and use the lens you already have?

How many shots do you guys take when you normally go out?

I normally average around 100-200 a day.

>>2883521
Well now the Canon exists, it really is the only "ultra"wide, unless you want to jump to mirrorless/M-mount film.
>ante up niqqa

>>2883567
On a job, could be up to 3,000 in a single day, but I usually only average around 500 or so. Just for street photography, usually only 100.

File: Screen Shot 2016-07-15 at 11.56.50.png (259KB, 541x356px)

259KB, 541x356px

My Jupiter 11 just came in the post, bought it from a guy in Ukraine.
Bought the wrong bloody adapter for my Canon 550d, though.

Is this the correct adapter to use?

http://www.digitalmediastore.co.uk/lens-mount-converter-leica-m39-lens-on-canon-eos-m-body.html?source=googleps&utm_source=google&utm_medium=googleshopping&utm_campaign=googlebase&gclid=CjwKEAjwk6K8BRDM3aCSkdCtzSQSJAA3Vf38fvHYGYUyyLdnbriJB7d5AiN7GlgJi91rWAXCvle6WxoCUJ7w_wcB

Just want to rave, I bought a used Canon 135mm 2.0 today and it's the best decision I ever made, this shit is so sharp it could cut diamonds, best tele lens I've ever used. Can't wait to try doing portraits with it

>>2883574
If you bought the M39 version of the lens then you will never adapt it on a DSLR because of the short flange distance.
For a 550D you need the M42 lens and an M42 to EF adapter. Looks like you bought the wrong adapter along with the wrong lens.

>>2883580
Ah shit really?
I'm fairly sure it's the M39 version because i've already got a M42 adapter for my Helios-44 and it doesn't fit.

What about getting a M39 to M42 adapter, could that work?

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Fotodiox-Lens-Mount-Adapter-39mm/dp/B001G4QXQY

>>2883586
>How do I adapt a 20mm flange adapter to a 40mm flange adapter?
Not going to happen Bob. The M39 would have to sit where the mirror is.

>>2883589
That's disappointing, thanks for the help anyway anon.
I'm gonna try and find the M42 version.

>>2883597

Shoulda gone mirrorless.

Could have even had autofocus depending on the body you chose.

File: Turtle image2.jpg (110KB, 689x459px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 689x459px

Probably seen this a thousand times, but I finally decided to buy a decent camera and got an a6000, although pictures are great, I'm a bit more interested in shooting video and it only does 1080 which is slightly worrying from what I've seen.

The a6300 is 500 bucks more, which is money I just don't have right now.
Did I fuck up? I want to learn how to use a camera before spending a thousand bucks on something, am I a retard?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Google
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Image Width	689
Image Height	459

File: Screen Shot 2016-07-15 at 13.23.14.png (203KB, 487x364px)

203KB, 487x364px

>>2883600
How is this guy in the pic doing it?


desu this is my first real venture in retrolenses. I was given a Helios-44 a few months back but even that came with the adapter so all this lens thread business is new to me. Should have researched it more before buying it.

I just wanted to find some interesting old lenses to fit my 550d.

>>2883600

Ah ignore that >>2883607

I just found the M42 version.
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/JUPITER-11A-135mm-f4-Tele-Lens-M42-mount-/182206599908

I guess he must've used this in that photo.

Sorry for being a pain anon, thanks again for the push in the right direction.

>>2883607
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flange_focal_distance

This table should be helpful, basically any lens mount that is lower than your cameras mount should be able to work with an adapter

>>2883615
I'm not >>2883600
Also ignore this idiot shill. He's not even any brand shill but an autist trying to stir up shit on the board with different brands and types of camera, some other idiots get baited easily.
The M42 will be good. Also if you're still interested in that focal length, the Pentacon 135mm is f/2.8 and is incredibly sharp from f/4. It is produced by Meyer so it is quality glass, it even has a 15 blade aperture version called the Bokehmonster.

>>2883616
Right okay, I've got the Canon EF-mount/Canon EF-S-mount. So anything below 44.00 mm should have an adapter for it?
Apologies again, I'm still learning.

>>2883620
>Pentacon 135mm
Thanks I'll give that a look, I'd love to build up a decent retrolens collection so the more the merrier.

>>2883623
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flange_focal_distance
It might be good to check if your lens is the russian SLR M39 or the western/rest of the world rangefinder M39 mount. Seeing the table in >>2883616 made me remember there is that strange mount. Try and get an adapter if there is any.
Damn commies causing confusion decades after they collapsed.

File: image.jpg (2MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3264x2448px

>>2883625
Ah okay. That would explain it, I was a little confused when buying it, people were saying it would fit/wouldn't fit.


Okay, What should I be looking for?

'Jupiter (in Russian) -11, 4/135, no. 6712430' is all that's written on here.

>>2883623
anything larger than 44mm will work

>>2883521
you're collecting a ton of zoom lenses. Why not get a decent prime? Or like someone else said, used that money and take a trip to a new location?

>>2883643
Gotcha, thanks man.

>>2883629
Get the adapter and see if it fits.

>>2883647
A prime UWA would be too limiting to me imho. I like going wide, but sometimes you need to go a little tighter every now and then.

>>2883668
true, but a prime will always take a better shot at a specified mm...ie a 50mm prime photo will look better than being zoomed in at 50mm. Light gathering/sharpness etc

you need at least 1 prime, a 35 or 50 ....or 70

>>2883690
>mandatory prime
Neh. I used to be like this.
Not so much now. Just pick good zooms.

>>2883691
Except on long focal lengths, a prime will always be better than a zoom. Though I agree on wide zooms.

Lifetime point n shooter here.


Is it even possible to find a used dslr under $200 on ebay that would take good indoor portraits. I'm looking to try dslr but not sure I would really get into it. But its so hard to navigate the sea of used gear. Is there a guide somewhere. I dont care if its older and it doesn't need to do everything. I'm just looking to get a feel for it without going crazy. Or maybe a camera that would grow with me if I like it

How's the Pentax K-50? I've been eyeing it, should I get it as my first cam?

>>2883747
It's good. It's just now going out of production, but that means you might find closeout deals. Don't be afraid of getting a used copy. It's probably the best you can do in terms of amount of camera per dollar spent. It's probably also a good option for you to look at too, >>2883731

>>2883731
Any DSLR made in the last 6 years is fine.

Higher end DSLR's have better features, but not better sensors (unless you go full frame).

>>2883750
>>2883752
Thanks, I looked at the K-50 but they aren't exactly giving them away.

The last 6 years thing helps narrow it down a lot. Honestly I'm not looking for crazy features and I don't mind the waiting game or a weird brand but there is so much out there on ebay.

>>2883731
> I dont care if its older and it doesn't need to do everything. I'm just looking to get a feel for it without going crazy.
You're done with "getting a feel for it" in a few hours. Buy a camera that you actually want to use.

> Or maybe a camera that would grow with me if I like it
If you want that, the better thing to do would be to get a new $500-1k midrange MILC or DSLR kit, and then get extra glass as needed.

Pentax has the first babby primes 35/2.4 and 50/1.8 for $200. Total. Both sharp and no CA, best value for generic walkaround and portrait lenses.

>>2883731
Early mirrorless can be had like $50 a pop.

The Sony ones have great sensors, but the early NEX interface is terrible.

Would right now be a good time to get a second hand Ricoh GR, price-wise? I think I remember reading a post on here saying GR II's are pretty expensive on fleabay right now. Same for the GR? (haven't followed the prices over the last few months)

File: P1020256.jpg (511KB, 1000x750px) Image search: [Google]

511KB, 1000x750px

I was borrowing a friends camera to see if I would be interested in photography and when I was taking pictures I came across a problem with sharpness. I believe I was using a GX85 with 12-32mm kit lens.

Is this because of the lens or because my skill at photography is shit? Or a mixture of both?

pic related was a test photo for sharpness

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Panasonic
Camera Model	DMC-GX85
Camera Software	Ver.1.0
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/3.5
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	24 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	180 dpi
Vertical Resolution	180 dpi
Image Created	2016:07:15 00:27:15
Exposure Time	1/2000 sec
F-Number	f/5.6
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	400
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	12.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	4592
Image Height	3448
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	High Gain Up
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

Want to get into photography, is something like Nikon 1 J1 a good start? I wouldn't need to start with a DSLR would I? Also not sure if you can find one for ~$100

>>2883920
what models?

>>2883954
Nikon Coolpix A for only $300 refurbished
https://www.nikonusa.com/en/nikon-products/product/refurbished-compact-digital-cameras/a-refurbished.html

>>2883695
I have sharper results at 50mm with my 24-70mm f/2.8 versus my 50mm f/1.8 at similar settings... With UWAs a prime is pretty much just an occasional use but with my UWA zooms, these are my money makers.

Teles though, yes anything apart from a 70-200mm f/2.8, I would go for a prime.

>>2883960
i can't tell from the ant resolution.

>>2883984
remember when it was $300 new?

>>2883962
NEX-3 is the cheapest I'd go and you definitely get them for less than $200. NEX-5 a better option and you can find kits with a detachable EVF (NEX-5R etc.) or go with and NEX-6 or NEX-7 but these were top of the one models so prices may still be too high for your poorfaggot ass.

>>2883020
Ive never been interested in photography untill recently for my birthday I received a Nikon D5200
Is this a good camera? what kind of stuff can I shoot with this.

>>2884003
>what kind of stuff can I shoot with this.
Just about whatever you want.

Don't let your dreams be dreams.

>>2883960
It's you. Or specifically, it's because you're shooting through loads of atmosphere.

inb4 anti-m43 shills

File: canon-zoom-lens-ef-35-80mm-1-4-5-6-auto-focus-177cdfb7aa284c6d034d054a72af7035[1].jpg (30KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 640x480px

How do I manual focus with this lens?

I have flipped the switch on the lens to L but there is only one ring I can turn. The one that adjusts the focal length from 35-80mm.

There is another strip that looks like it ought to be able to turn, but it won't move.

>>2884046
>switch on the lens to L
I meant to type M there.

>>2884046
This is the lens

http://www.terapeak.com/worth/canon-zoom-lens-ef-35-80mm-1-4-5-6-auto-focus/201488636891/

>>2884046
You turn the front of it, senpai.

>>2883132
What camera and lenses?

>>2883337
>52.5mm

How could it be a 50mm he's using when Anon says he can't get it with just 2.5mm more?

>>2884052
Ah yes. I didn't realize it wasn't turning as it zoomed in and out, it turns there when it focuses.

>>2884065
Where did you get the lens?

>>2884055
by having autism.

>>2884067
It was on the camera when I found it. I got it at a peddler's mall with a Canon Rebel S II.

>>2884071
How much did you pay for it?

>>2884072
$18

>>2884073
How well do they work?

>>2884074
Everything on the camera seems to work perfectly (especially now that I know how to manual focus, before I only used automatic).

I have not developed any film I shot so far, so I guess I'll find out in a month or two when I send it off.

File: image.jpg (513KB, 1556x2048px) Image search: [Google]

513KB, 1556x2048px

Currently have a D5100 (first DSLR for the last 3 years) with the kit lenses 18-55mm and 55-300mm plus a 35mm 1.8. I've done some amateur paid photo shoots but would like to step my gear up. Is it time to dive in and go full-frame with new lenses or maybe get like a 105mm micro lens. Any books or channels you guys suggest for developing gear related knowledge? The D5100 just doesn't produce the "crisp" photos I want.
>pic related, first portrait shoot I did with the D5100

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1556
Image Height	2048
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>2884076
>film

Oh shit, I read xsi for some reason.
You still did okay then, even with t5he shit lens.

>>2884077

The camera is fine, kit lenses just aren't that great.

File: 1468648843450.jpg (274KB, 760x1000px) Image search: [Google]

274KB, 760x1000px

>>2884077
You're a moron, that cam is more than capable of crisp files.
However, out of the box Nikon colours look like dog vomit, look into improving those first.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	760
Image Height	1000
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>2884086
I like the camera version better.

File: 20160709-DSC09678.jpg (283KB, 2048x1365px) Image search: [Google]

283KB, 2048x1365px

>>2884077
>>2884086
Wow, Nikon users should be annoyed by the output of their expensive camera, or are they used to those colors?

Don't go full-frame, your camera is very capable. What you want is a prime lens, a 50/85mm (or the 105mm, which is sharp and give interesting macro ability for really close ups) plus maybe a flash. Then shoot portraits in the shade at f9-11 at ISO 400.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-7M2
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.0 (Windows)
Photographer	david mornet
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2016:07:10 13:50:09
Exposure Time	1/8000 sec
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	500
Brightness	5.6 EV
Exposure Bias	-0.3 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

>>2884198
It's not about the gear, more about the processing. The information is there. Processing for skin tones and specific color tones is not easy, my K-3 gives wonderful colors in RAW but bringing out the proper skin tones is not easy, at least for a hobbist like me.

>>2883920
thanks that exactly what I was looking for. but unless they are broken it looks like they are more than $50

>>2883574
>>2883580
>>2883586
I actually think he can adapt it, that look like the one designed for earlier Zenit SLRs which used a proprietary m39 mount with m42's flange distance

>>2884086
fucking idiot you made it even worse

>>2884281
Looks like vsco to me

I'm looking for a tripod for my Pentax K-50 but they all seem expensive af. Is there any tall tripod that I won't need to mortgage my house for?

>>2884306
What kind of tripods are you looking at? What's your definition of expensive?

>>2884306
Used Manfrotto 190 or 055 with RC2 ball head

File: image.jpg (393KB, 1600x1200px)

393KB, 1600x1200px

Hey /p/ I'm going on a hiking trip to Colorado in a month. I'm new to photography, and only recently bought my first dslr and lenses. I grabbed a d200 body, an 18-55 lens, and a 55-200 lens. My issue is that is basically all I have. I don't have a strap, or a tripod, or filters- no gear besides the bare essentials. I didn't set aside much of a budget for accessories either. I want to be prepared to take the best shots of my life while on this trip so I'd really appreciate any recommendations for accessories I should grab. Budget is $80. I just need things to get the job done until I have more saved up. Thanks guys

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	96 dpi
Vertical Resolution	96 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1600
Image Height	1200
Scene Capture Type	Standard

I have an A6000 and am trying to decide between the Sony FE 28mm f2 or the Sigma 30mm f1.4, which is better?! Thanks!

>>2884386
Well the rule of thumb with tripods is cheap, stable, lightweight - pick two. $80 isn't a lot of money for a good one. You'll definitely be able to buy a not-good one for that money though, which is better than nothing.

As for filters the only one I'd say you really ought to get is a circular polarizer. Try to get something coated and that'll fit both of your lenses if you can. Also be aware that some cheap kit lenses have filter threads that rotate when focusing, which makes using them a pain, I don't know if your particular 18-55 is like that.

>>2884393
Yeah, I've heard you should invest in an expensive tripod to last, but my only choice here is to settle. I'd go for a cheap, sturdy. but somewhat heavy tripod if you have recommendations. I was close to grabbing a UV filter to protect my lenses. I haven't heard much about polarizers thought, could you give me a brief explanation on why I should get one?

>>2884404
There isn't a whole lot of choice when you have to fit it into that little money. Well, there is, but most of the products that cheap are largely the same, with hollow aluminum legs and integrated pan-tilt heads. I bought a Slik legset and a Giottos ball head, and paid about $160 all up. It's pretty solid, but it's also the type of bulky, heavy thing that most hikers would probably be very annoyed at carrying.

As for filters, you don't need a UV filter. You have a hood and a lens cap. There are some circumstances where you have to take the precaution of a clear filter, but they all involve "I'm going to get sprayed with a lot of water, or something sticky, while shooting". Even cameras and lenses not sold as weather resistant will stand up to mist and light drizzle, just dry them out when you get back.

Polarizers are the secret weapon for landscape photos. It's a two-part filter, you put it on your lens, and then spin it to adjust the effect. When adjusted, it cuts light that's been reflected off something. It often improves contrast, deepens the color of a blue sky, and cuts through water. Sample photos and further explanation on the wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polarizing_filter_%28photography%29

>>2884386
you need a strap or light bag, maybe extra battery. Get a box of q-tips (handful in ziplock bag with a small vial of ...)rubbing alcohol with just distilled water for quick cleaning of the body. But yeah if you're hiking you need a strap
have fun and post pics of bears chasing you

>>2884456
Really helpful response, thanks anon.
>>2884482
Right, should I grab any old strap at a best buy or should I get it straight from Nikon? Also, would the q tips be viable for the lens too, or do I need something special for that? Thanks

>>2884492
you need one of these to gently blow away particulates and dust from the lens and eyepiece. There are several methods to cleans the lens if you youtube it. Main thing is try not to use those eyeglass cloths because they can transfer hand dirt/grease and rub the stuff against the lens. Myself, I use a q-tip with 70% isopropyl alcohol then use the dry end to pick up anything left

some will say the cloth is fine, just use the air blower before you touch the lens with anything

a strap is a strap, the more expensive ones with have more comfortable neckpads. Just make sure you attach it correct so it won't fall off if tugged too hard

File: airblower.jpg (10KB, 500x334px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 500x334px

>>2884514
forgot pic. you squeeze it and a stream of air squirts out. Don't use those computer cleaning air things that get cold, they can fuck cameras up if you make a mistake

I'm looking for a cheap but good ball head for attaching my 1.5m aluminum konova slider +2axis head to my tripod legs. Any tips? I want to spend as little as possible without having my expensive slider falling on the floor from shit tripod heads

>>2884392

The FE 28mm is an absolutely fantastic lens. It is made for full frame though and a little more pricey.

I'd go for the Sigma 30mm. While they do not cover a FF sensor, they are pretty good too, and dirt cheap at that.

Hello /p/,

I've been using my uncle's Canon 6D for months now. He's a nice old coot with too much money to spare and he's been letting me borrow his camera "indefinitely". Sadly, he's moving away and and that leaves me camera-less.

I am by no means a professional, I don't have a photography blog, and I don't think of myself as anything more than what I am. I'm hoping to get a camera that fulfills a general use (I'll worry about lenses when the time comes).

After reading the sticky, I have garnered a little more knowledge when it comes to camera specifications. To come to where I am, I first searched for used camera deals locally and chose from there.

Fujifilm X-S1 or a Canon T3i? Both are nearby, somewhat similar prices and both where released around 2012. I have more experience with Canons but maybe someone can chime in.

>>2884763
Go Nikon, a used D7100 will be perfect for you. A T3i might be cheap but you can get a lot better camera for the same money.

>>2884773
Thanks for the recommendation but that's twice the price of the cameras I was looking at.

I'm looking at cameras with their kit lenses. The fuji and T3i are both around $300. I was hoping to stay around there budget-wise.

>>2883137
I picked up the basic non-pro Intuos recently, to replace my old and very trashed Intuos3. I like it a lot as a photo editing tablet. I think my only complaint is the loss of the "eraser" on the stylus. Mine doesn't have multitouch, though, so I can't speak for that side of things.

I think the basic Intuos is more than enough for photography at this point. The Wacom lineup has really evolved to a point where the Pro is for actual artists who are drawing things by hand.

>>2883330
>>2883335
I doubt this is 50mm, the perspective effect and DoF look wrong for it. I know that location well and know exactly where that photo was taken, and you shouldn't be getting that much of the background with that framing on a 50mm.

I'd say it's likely to be a 35mm or equivalent, or possibly even a fast 24mm/equiv. (The colors look kinda Fuji-ish, it could be the 23 1.4 or 16 1.4.)

I have a Fuji X-Pro 2, the 18-55mm and 27mm lens and now I need money.

If I were to sell this with a bag, the box + manuals for the camera, extra battery, and a couple cards for the camera, what would be a good price to sell it for?

Any good lens recomendations for puntax full frame?
Mostly looking for some cheap fast prime around 50mm to 90mm. Also Does the pentax da 50mm 1.8 work as full frame lens wide open? (I know it does work stopped down but some say it works wide open some say it wont)
Are there any good cheapish zoom lenses like tamron 70-200 2.8 macro? (prob buy one if I can find any). Also is the tamron 70-300 4-5.6 any good? Since it would be dirt cheap.

File: asd.jpg (228KB, 800x535px) Image search: [Google]

228KB, 800x535px

so I ordered this on ebay

thanks brexit it cost me an extra £20 because of you cunts

seriously though, I'm looking forward to using it. 9 shots per roll, comes to about £1.10 per shot on colour film, should be around 40p ps on mono

I've heard the lens isn't that great from some people - does anyone with experience of the GW series know anything about this? Allegedly it's lpm is shite

Where can I get knurled head screws in 1/4 in Germany?
Not even the most well equipped online stores seem to carry them and in photography-stores I pay 4€ for a single of them. Meanwhile normal, metric knurled head screws cost barely more than a buck a piece.
I have a lot of stuff to fix to my new rig.

I also checked ebay, but even they have nothing of the sorts

Hello /p/eeps. Need a big one here. I´m using a 37mm lens kit with a 46mm front thread and I was asking whether or not I should get a UV ring for it or a CPL? Next up would be nice if there´s a way to get some nicer DOF out of this with any lens attachments or if I should go with my old get further away and zoom cheat which seems to give me decent DOF but I´d rather not lose quality if I can.
Thank you all in advance.

In your opinion, what is a good DSLR for a novice around $350? I want it to practice and build up my photography skills again since I've unfortunately not touched a DSLR in 3 years. It's been a few years since I was a sports photographer for my highschool's yearbook (two years of previous digital photography classes before that).

I've been lurking for a few days and I've read the sticky but no one tends to bring up 4 year old cameras like the T3i and D5200. From what I've gathered, I think those types of cameras are what I'm limited to (considering my price point).

Video quality need not apply since my focus will be on still photography.

>>2884925
do still have any glass? I found it odd that "newer" dslr like the d3300 do not have AF switch in the body like some older models so you have to buy newer nad more expensive lenses with AF motors to ....AF

>>2884774
There's the Pentax K-50 with WR kit lens for that price

Have attention-seeking fitness/glamour model wannabe with 300GBP/500USD to spend on compact camera for vlogging.

I've pointed her toward Lumix so far - anyone else worth a look? Thanks in advance.

>>2884937
No glass unfortunately. For the time being, I'll most likely need to stick to kit lenses or whatever the seller decides to include. At the very least, a decent kit lens should do me just fine since I'm trying to rebuild my photography after a long absence.

I'm in a pretty bad spot right now.

Thought on the Cannon AE-1? I kinda like it as a beginner, but I can't help but think it looks a little memey

File: 1468373737231.jpg (91KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 1280x720px

>>2883129
I'm down to my Pentax Q-S1 for snapshitting, TL70 II for instax fun, and Bessa R3M for being a poser on the street. I regret going for the pentacks instead of a Fuji mirrorless.

Hopefully Ricoh hasn't given up on the system and comes out with something real nice

https://www.amazon.ca/AmazonBasics-60-Inch-Lightweight-Tripod-Bag/dp/B005KP473Q/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1468783387&sr=8-1&keywords=tripod

S-should I? I'm a complete beginner and want to take night shots of things(not astrophotography, just buildings and crap.)

Everyone on Leddit says not to cheap out on a tripod and everything below 250$ dollerz is carp, but I never even touched a tripod and I don't understand why 3 aluminium sticks cost that much.

So I'm thinking just to buy this to use for some time and them buy a normal one when I see what makes a good tripod. What do you guys think?

>>2884968
It's great. Nice cheap lens selection, easy to maintain and buy

I'd recommend springing a bit more for the a-1 as I prefer having more program functions and a better light meter

>>2884979
either that's a hueg bentax or she's a super midget.

>>2885005
it's a little japanese schoolgirl

>>2884925
>>2884940
Even though the recommendation wasn't meant for me, I checked out the K-50 and it looks very solid for my price point.

Will I be disappointed with a K-50 or will it suit my needs?

>>2885013
Correction, it's a sexy little Japanese schoolgirl that I would do lewd things to if given the chance.

>>2884990
http://www.aliexpress.com/item/JY0506-Aluminum-Alloy-Professional-Monopod-For-Video-Camera-Especially-For-Bird-Watching-Half-Price-of-Manfrotto/979754284.html?spm=2114.13010608.0.55.nxIq2n

This is a legit carbon fiber tripod, it's solid, no wobbling. Normally you'd pay $300+ on something like this, but since you're buying straight from the no-name chinese manufacturer, you dont have to pay brand tax.

The head isn't top of the line, wobbles a bit with a really heavy setup, but you can always buy a better tripod head later.

yw

>>2884979
>Ricoh hasn't given up on the system and comes out with something real nice
HAHAHAHA

>>2885032
They were busy with the K1! They said the Q macro lens is coming!

>>2884979
Cameras like the Pentac q are actually really useful for shooting animals because the crazy crop factor means you can get up close with a bear but only need a 135 or 200mm lens to get a good shot and still keep a safe distance

>>2885050
Yeah, but it's a big investment, since it needs to be a high quality lens that can handle the scrutiny of high resolution in a tiny portion of the lens image.

>>2885057
You could put a 123/2.5 or 100/2.8 macro on it via the adapter and get nice reach, and resolution won't be a problem since it's cropping out the corners and you're only getting the very center of the lens

>>2885059
I'd been thinking about Pentax's 100/2.8 macro actually, mostly due to thinking about going for a Pentax dslr in the future. But I'm on edge on whether I want to double-down on the Q system or not (I would need the special Pentax adapter for that macro lens)

>>2885064
Adapters are pretty cheap if you just want to get something to convert the mount. If you want more reach and something faster Pentax makes a 200/2.5, but it's rather rare

>>2885026
It is just as good as any entry/intemediate level DSLR is plus the added weather sealing and the in-body stabilisation.
The sensor is much better performing than any recent entry level Canon and the lens selection is very nice plus there are quite a few affordable quality lenses. Just look at the babby primes 35/2.4 and 50/1.8 and the Limited primes, not to mention the budget wildlife lens 55-300 WR.
I don't think you will be regretting it, it's pretty much the most camera you can get for your money.
Have a look at the lens database:
http://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/

>>2885070
Well the special adapter so I could have access to the aperture, unless there's another way

>>2885077
If you want to control the aperture just type "pentax da q adapter" and you'll find the ones with the aperture control rings on them. The 200/2.5 is a manual focus lens and has an aperture ring, same with the older versions of the 100/2.8 macro

File: Balaclava.jpg (64KB, 692x922px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 692x922px

Hey guys,

What's a good condition Canon 28mm f/2.8 non-IS lens worth?

File: Baklava.jpg (636KB, 1542x1024px) Image search: [Google]

636KB, 1542x1024px

>>2885095
About 3.50

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON
Camera Model	COOLPIX S4
Camera Software	COOLPIX S4V1.0
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/3.5
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	48 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Created	2006:06:18 17:55:43
Exposure Time	1/190 sec
F-Number	f/4.0
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	50
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Flash
Flash	No Flash, Auto
Focal Length	8.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	2816
Image Height	2112
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	None
Contrast	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown
Color Mode	COLOR
Image Quality	FINE
White Balance	FLASH
Image Sharpening	AUTO
Focus Mode	AF-S
Flash Setting	NORMAL
ISO Selection	AUTO
Image Adjustment	NORMAL
Lens Adapter	OFF
Auto Focus	Center
Saturation	Normal
Noise Reduction	OFF

>>2884889
>Any good lens recomendations for puntax full frame?

If I remember right, it's listed as "stopped-down only" because the borders/corners are just plain soft on FF at wide apertures, though the image circle covers them. (this is why the DA 35 is an f/2.4 lens. It's a full-frame FA 35/2.0 with an aperture limiter, because what was considered acceptable on film looks poor on modern sensors)

Anyway define cheap. If you can afford an $1800 body you ought to have a loose definition of it. FA 50/1.4s are available new, but are over $300 for some reason, used ones are around $200. Sigma doesn't make the 50/1.4 Art in K mount, so that's out. If manual focus is okay (you get center-point focus confirmation with manual lenses) there's the Samyang 50/1.4 (~$400), or you could get an SMC-A 50/1.4 for a little over a hundred bucks - the optics are the same as the FA, a straight vanilla double gauss nifty fifty. It just lacks AF.

For the long end of that range there's the FA 77/1.8 limited (which is quite nice but isn't cheap), the old Sigma EX 85mm (which is cheaper, not as nice, but certainly decent from what I've heard), and of course a Samyang, which is cheap, nice, and again lacks AF. The FA* 85/1.4 is a collectors item and isn't nearly cheap. At the long end Tamron makes a 90/2.8 macro, if that sounds fast enough. There's also a DFA 100/2.8 macro.

The Tamron 70-200/2.8 is your cheapest option for a lens with those specifications. There's a native Pentax one, it's brand new and expensive. The Tamrom 70-300, well, seems like you get what you pay for. The Pentaxforums reviews mention a bunch of CA problem and call it just plain soft beyond 200mm.

but really what your problem is that you're looking for cheap lenses for a FF body that, though cheaper than other FF cameras, is still not at all cheap. That's pretty stupid. Open your wallet wider or stay on APS-C.

File: colorsky.jpg (550KB, 1000x667px)

550KB, 1000x667px

I've got a nikon d3100 with just the kit lenses that come with it. If I were to eventually upgrade my gear, I think I should probably get new lenses but I'm not sure what to get. I'd like something for macro and something with good zoom for wildlife, what did you guys buy for your first upgrades and why? Also very important is how much did you pay for it? Lots of questions here but what about filters? Worth it for me or not? If so then which filters?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D3100
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Macintosh)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/4.1
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	790
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	93 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2016:07:17 00:25:57
Exposure Time	1/250 sec
F-Number	f/4.2
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	400
Lens Aperture	f/4.2
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	62.00 mm
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	1000
Image Height	667
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	Low Gain Up
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

File: 1457811746001.png (80KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 300x300px

Hardest decision of my life.

Sigma 400mm AF 400 mm F 5.6

or

VIVITAR 400MM F/5.6

Tamron 24-70mm f 2.8 or canon 24-70mm f2.8L (first version)?

>>2885117
Vivitar is shit, get the Sigma, at least it has AF.
See if you can get a Tokina 400/5.6 AF, it is the same optically as the Sigma but better built and has no hazing/dust issue on the focusing elements.
Also for what system? There is no big difference between 400mm and 300mm, at least on APS-C so it might be good to look for a better 300mm AF lens around f/4 or faster.

>>2885121
I have a K3ii. I mostly shoot manual, though, so I'm afraid an AF would fuck over what I've learned so far.

I'll mostly be using it for wildlife.

>>2884198
>>2884243
Thanks man! Only constructive feedback I've been given

File: IMGP0040.jpg (1MB, 1200x798px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1200x798px

>>2885117
>>2885121
Also this was made with the manual focus version of the Sigma 400/5.6, it is capable but don't expect any digital miracles. It is a film era design.

>>2885123
Don't worry, AF will not fuck you over. I recently got a Bigma and have used it's AF a lot but with my manual focusing experience I can always step in to correct focus or put it where I expect the subject to be without any problem.
The old AF 400 won't have the clutch mechanism so you have to switch into MF proper before touching the focusing ring.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	RICOH IMAGING COMPANY, LTD.
Camera Model	PENTAX K-3
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.6 (Windows)
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	600 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2016:02:24 13:26:45
Exposure Time	1/60 sec
F-Number	f/8.0
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	400
Lens Aperture	f/8.0
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	400.00 mm
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Distant View

>>2885127
I was seriously leaning toward the Sigma, but it's not an APO. That bums me out so much.

>>2885129
APO or not you can only use it at f/8 or slower, there is not much difference (if any) between the APO and non-APO version.
Why not get the HD 55-300 or wait for the new 55-300 PLM? It will have fast silent AF and quickshift, also weather sealing.

>>2885130
I'm poor as fuck. I've been using my M 200mm for birding, but I have to get so close I can't get the shots I want.

Plus, I prefer primes. I have a 35-105 for walking around.

>>2885132
Yet again, don't expect miracles from the Sigma 400/5.6. Even with the added AF the optics are very dated especially for the K-3 sensor pixel pitch. If you are "poor" then it is better to spend your money wisely. Optically the 55-300 is much superior even when you crop in massively.
There is not much difference in framing between 400mm and 300mm, the difference between 300mm and 200mm is much much bigger.
I'd really like to talk you down from the old Sigma, it will soon feel like wasted money. I know, I've been there.
If you want a good quality manual focus tele then there's the Tair 3s 300/4.5 photosniper for half the price of the Sigma.

>>2885137
The TAIR-3S 300mm looks really, really interesting. How hard is it to modify one to not use the gun?

I've also never used mount adapters before. Do you lose any lens quality with them?

>>2885145
You just don't put on the stock. You can still handhold it and use the focusing knob.
I think there is some old french guy who sells K-mount mods for the lens, straight screw off-screw on stuff so you don't have to use the adapter ring.
Plus if (by some sort of miracle) you get an AF 1.7X TC later you will have AF on the Tair.

File: aperture_fstop-diagram6.jpg (49KB, 395x699px)

49KB, 395x699px

>>2885106
some filters are attachable photoshop edits, ie you can edit them in using it with most cases. The cheapers ones can have screwy results too. I assume you got the 18-55mm kit lens with the camera? Macro lenses are pretty expensive, the good ones even used. I got a 18-105mm kit lens and it's great.

Most will suggest a quality 35mm or 50mm prime lens. digitalrev tv on youtube has lots of pros and cons for both. I would spend a few days shooting with you get set at 35mm and 50mm and just see which photographs you like

>>2885147
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Telelens-Tair-3s-f-4-5-300-from-Photosniper-set-M42-screw-mount-s-n-5851-/152168296558?hash=item236deff06e:g:KCwAAOSwZVlXiMT3

What do you think, senpai?

>>2885153
I don't really trust anybody on ebay from russia or ukraine so it's up to you.
Before I got the Bigma I was eyeing this one
http://www.ebay.com/itm/381469868414?_trksid=p2055119.m1438.l2649&ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT

>>2885157
I wouldn't trust him if he didn't have excellent feedback.

What should I look for when I get mount adapters?

>>2885106
Micro 60mm G
70-300G VR
and a polarizer

>>2885164
The M42-K adapter is a simple ring with a small spring. If you get one, your first move should be taking off that spring with the small screw, It tends to get stuck and is difficult to get dislodged. Not really a problem on first party adapter but it's difficult getting an original one on ebay.


This is the lens mount mod for k-mount I was talking about, much better than the adapter ring:
http://www.adrianololli.com/articolo.asp?ID=4709

>>2885076
Thank you very much. I'll definitely be taking a look at that. I was able to buy one just now for $290 with a Tamron 28-200 XR (IF) Macro and a few extra batteries.

Can't wait to go out into the field again.

>>2885178
Those superzoom lenses don't have very good image quality, expect CA and softness on both ends. Later on try to get at least a normal 18-55 WR kit lens or a better zoom lens. Also look into the 35/2.4 and 50/1.8 primes.

>>2885157
>I don't really trust anybody on ebay from russia or ukraine
What about Hartblei?

>>2885182
Just bought a nice pentax-m 50mm 1.7

Would you recommend anything good and cheap for macro? Nice zoom would be a plus but isn't necessary.

>>2885218
Grab either one of the pentax-a 50mm 2.8 macro or one of the 1st generation macro-takumars with a 5 dollar m42 adapter

>>2885220
Will look into those. Thanks again.

>>2885222
If you have more budget in the future definitely check out the HD DA 35mm F2.8 Limited

Killer lens and it feels a bit nicer on crop cameras due to the focal length

>>2885224
I'll be making a note of it. Definitely checking out when more money comes my way.

For now, I'll try to squeeze out as much as I can from cheaper film lenses while I build up my photography again.

>>2883129
Me, but not by choice.
I'm broke and only have a 1200d.

>>2885226
Then definitely go for one of those 50mm macros

The pentax-a is easier to live with since it's k-mount and has auto metering but the macro-takumar is 1:1 and in my opinion is a bit sharper albeit a bit slower

If you're shopping around make sure it says macro-takumar and not super-macro-takukar as personally I think the original macro takumar is the best

Here's a page listing all the specs for all three and their differences

http://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/S-M-C-Super-Macro-Takumar-50mm-F4.html

I'd definitely keep a look out for one regardless if you pick the pentax-a because they can be had incredibly cheap. I got my macro-takumar at goodwill for 5 dollars in the little leather case in excellent condition

>>2885229
I frequent second hand shops with friends for fun so I'm sure I'll eventually come across some nice and cheap lenses.

Thanks for the heads up. I have a lot to look forward to on my new K-50.

>>2885236
You really do. I use a k-50 as well and it's bonkers as to how well old lenses work. The peaking on the k-50 is a bit meh

I'll get a split prism screen for it eventually since pretty much all I use nowadays is the pentax-a 28mm f2

File: smile.jpg (112KB, 1916x1076px)

112KB, 1916x1076px

is the olymus om-d pretty decent? I'm discovered cameras are like tattoos, I just keep looking at them..like potato chips

File: sigma-20105.jpg (338KB, 696x618px)

338KB, 696x618px

Stupid question here. What happens if this tag is completely fucking torn in half? Does it only stop the autofocus from working, or does it affect the aperture/exif data and all that other shit?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	96 dpi
Vertical Resolution	96 dpi
Image Created	2016-07-18T13:51:44+10:00
Image Width	696
Image Height	618

>>2885259
The OM-D E-M 5 Mark II or 10 Mark II, are really quite good. Presumably also the E-M1. but I never tried that one.

I bought a Sony for myself anyhow.

>>2885278
>does it broken when circuit that connects all of the contacts with all of the electronics is severed?
herpa derp

>>2885278
Shit stops working. Exactly what shit depends on the lens and the mount. You might lose AF but otherwise be fine, or everything might stop working.

why were you screwing around in there anyway?

>>2885298
What about the aperture, though? I'd assume that it'll be fucked as well.

>>2885326
I wouldn't expect any answers with that trip.

I have a chance to buy pic related for $300. Equipment seems all in good shape. Would this set up do decent for me until I get my promotion in four months and can splurge on a $3000+ setup? Completely, 100% new to photography.

File: possiber.jpg (25KB, 450x450px)

25KB, 450x450px

>>2885385
fugg forgot picture

>>2885385

would you purchase expired milk from a grocery store? why buy an 8 year old camera?

the camera is gimped. features are purposely left out or disabled so you will buy a rabal with a higher number next to the T with more features enabled next year.

>>2885385
See
>>2884940

>>2885386
i would be embarrassed using a camera with a huge rabal on it.

>>2884940
>Pentax K-50 with WR kit lens
by around that price you mean at least $120 more than that at a minimum. but probably more on every site I can find. I looked up that camera but I'm really starting to believe someone gets paid to shill hard on these threads.

>>2885456
It gets recommended a lot because it is the best value, even more so that it is going out of production and lots of stores are doing stock clearing rebates driving used prices even lower. But with that attitude that shitty rabal will be good for you.

Is the Nikon AIS 28mm 2.8 really that much better than the Ai version?

>>2885103
Thanks for the reply!
I think that I will pass the da 50 1.8 and tamron 70-300.
Mostly will shoot night sky landscapes, and for that I already have samyang 14mm 2.8 and will get 24mm 1.4.
Just been thinking of something for portraits (samyang 85mm T1.5?) and something with AF for pets because those shits are fast and cant keep up with manual focus (sigma 24-70 2.8 or something similar or D FA 28-105) .

>>2885554
For portraits either the DA 70/2.4 Limited or the Tamron 70-200/2.8. I used the latter and it is amazing for portraits though what I saw of the Limited on Flickr makes me moist.

>>2885558
>Ful frame
Never mind, I'm an idiot. The 70/2.4 Limited is excellent for crop but for full frame the Tamron 70-200 is the best choice.

>>2885543
Yes, the AI-S a totally different design that shares nothing with any other 28mm. The AI has a 7-element unit-focusing design which is pretty decent, the Series E and AF versions are 5-element and sort of shitty, the AI-S is the only one that used 8 elements and CRC focusing which makes it noticeably sharper when focused closer than infinity. This is one of the few lenses where they actually made a big change between the AI and AI-S versions.

I would say for use on film there's probably not a whole lot of difference, but if you put it on a digital camera with lots of pickles then you'll notice that the AI-S manages to stand up to modern lenses pretty well while the others are a little fuzzy like most vintage wide lenses tend to be.

File: [FTW]_Tamayura_More_Aggressive_-_08_[720p][39FCF005].mkv_snapshot_12.48_[2013.08.23_05.17.14].jpg (108KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 1280x720px

>>2885028
>tfw you'll never be her photo club prez

>>2885572
It's a cartoon. Not real. Your post is irrelevant.

My mom wants a waterproof / water-risistant point and shoot. What models to look at? She doesn't want to spend more than $200.

>>2885576
Nikon Coolpix AW100 or whatever iteration of the AW series is the most recent.

>>2885560
Thanks! I think I might as well spring for the AIS version then since it is only a bit more expensive but will be more useful if I ever decide to use it on digital

File: IMG_20160718_133212823.jpg (38KB, 720x405px)

38KB, 720x405px

Hey guys, I'm not largely knowledgeable of photography, but I work at a homeless shelter thrift store and need help pricing some recent donations.
Any chance yall have an idea of each items value or as a set?

>>2884456
Speaking of filters:
I just got one of the super cheap filtersets for 25 bucks used.
>+1
>+2
>+4
>UV
>CPL
>FLD

First: What do I use the FLD for?

Second: I noticed some serious improvement when taking pics of sunlit scenes with the CPL. The trees are greener, the roofs are actually red, the roads look actually somewhat black.

What is the difference between this cheapo thing and one of those that the Foto-shops try to sell me for 90€? Is an expensive one worth it?

File: IMG_20160718_133318749.jpg (29KB, 720x405px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 720x405px

>>2885623
And second camera

>>2885623
Well the first camera is a Nikon F whit photomic prism. The body alone should fetch 100$

new xt1 or used a7r?

main use: travel camera, landscape, portrait.

i use only primes.

I want to get into rangefinders, are the screw mount Canon RFs a good choice?

>>2885632

XT1

>But muh megapixels
>But muh fullframe

I switched from a D4 and D810 setup and shoot paid work full time. The XT1 has incredible image quality, lower resolution than a D810 (and a7R) But no less than a D4 which is more than enough for anything.

XT1 has infinitely better controls, better build quality (full mag alloy), better weather sealing, better viewfinder, better menu system and better lenses, better color science.

And even if you take my post as a shill post (I have also owned the sony cameras btw before I tried Fuji gear) the Fuji lenses are some of the absolute best lenses I have EVER used, including the top Nikon and Canon lenses, Dont even take my word for it just go into any Fuji thread and ask, aside from all the other benefits of the system, the lens optical quality is by FAR the best thing when shooting with the Fuji system.

>Shill

You asked FGT, I have only told you the truth.

>>2885624
the really cheap ones sometimes need to be rotated on the lens because of poorly contructed balancing of color/filter whatever it is

>>2885626

Picture quality it too low to tell the body. I assume a 3xi, so around $10-20. It is an autofocus body too though, so it should be easy as hell to use. The lens is probably a 24-50, but again hard to tell. if so it should be around $100.

But the big lens is worth another $100.

Both lenses work on modern a-mount (and e-mount with an adapter) bodies and look fantastic doing so, so they are pretty popular.

I wish I got lucky like this. I have been looking for a 70-210 actually.

File: sony-fe-90mm-macro-lens.jpg (156KB, 1000x736px) Image search: [Google]

156KB, 1000x736px

>>2885632

>new xt1 or used a7r?

a7r has better low light performance.

It also has better dynamic range, but it really isn't noticable unless you pixel peep.

Both sensors are actually made by Sony.

>i use only primes.

Both mounts have fantastic primes.

Most Fuji x-mount lenses great, and while ther total number may be limited, they cover pretty much every focal range.

The FE lenses on the A7 are on the whole actually better performing lenses than the x-mount. Unfortunately they are expensive as FUCK (looking at $600 for the cheapest good prime) and x-box huge.

Check out pic related.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	DSC-RX1
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.6 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.0
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	35 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2015:02:12 15:17:45
Exposure Time	1/80 sec
F-Number	f/4.0
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	160
Lens Aperture	f/4.0
Brightness	5.5 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	35.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

>>2885761
a7r has no electronic first curtain shutter.
it will slap loud and gives a shutter shock.
i suggest the a7 vanilla.

there are a few small great primes for the fe.
28 2, 55 1.8.
you can also mod a sigma 30mm 2.8 by removing the rear baffle, it will cover almost the full frame.
sony pancake 16mm 2.8 will also cover more than apsc by removing the baffle but not the whole full frame.

check out all the apsc lens that will cover full frame for cheap lenses.

>>2885761

>Sony lenses better than Fujinon lenses

topkek, the 16mm Fuji is better than anything made by or for Sony E mount, all the Zeiss f/4 zooms are shithouse and the hurrdurrGMASTA are fuckhuge and expensive and still no better, fucked to the rim with elements >butmuhsharpness kek

>90mm macro

Well they had to have at least 1 comparable lens!

thx for the laugh

File: 00000001709914_A02.jpg (44KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 600x600px

>>2885765

FE 35mm f2.8 is good quality and small too.

But really that 55 f1.8 you mentioned is an absolutely fantastic lens. Shame it is $800.

>>2885769
How would the Sony 85/1.4G compare to the old screw drive Minolta 85/1.4?

>>2885775
>asking the anti-sony guy how a sony lens is

TOP KEK

The Sony has better anti-flare coatings and slightly better sharpness at wide apertures.

>>2885259
Yeah I really like my OM-D E-M10 mark II especially the ability to shoot center cropped 1080p. It's really nice for bird videos. First the camera stabilization is really good for 150mm focal range and then later use Virtualdub/Deshaker to make the video completely stabilized. I love that combo. The center crop makes it at least 3x zoom from, making if 900mm FF eqv. And that is completely stabilized, like shooting from a tripod, while weighing very little. With a 99 euro lens that's really sharp for the price and light.

The dynamic range and the megapixels aren't the best in the industry because of the aging sensor, but they're still really good.

There are a lot of good lenses and it's easy to adapt manual ones because of the short flange distance. Samyang 7.5mm f/3.5 is one of my favorites. Some systems like Nikon 1 don't even seem to have a proper fisheye.

>>2885765
>a7r has no electronic first curtain shutter.
>it will slap loud and gives a shutter shock.
>i suggest the a7 vanilla.

I'd say go for the gen 2 versions.

In body image stabalization kinda rocks. Especially with old manual lenses.

>>2885780

>Muh IBIS

You do realize that there are reasons why, Canon, Nikon, Fujifilm and Hasselblad (X1D) do not use it right??

>LEL THEY DUN HAVE DA TEK

Lol yeah.. Ok then.

>>2885783
Why is IBIS bad?

>>2885785
It's not. Fans of camera systems that don't have IBIS just need to disqualify it to feel better about themselves and their choices.

>>2885785

It is less effective on longer lenses.

That's about it.

>>2885787
Why though? If you got a sony camera because it has IBIS because you wanted it how does that mean that you just automatically hate other brands?

File: 20160203-dsc00162.jpg (143KB, 1000x667px) Image search: [Google]

143KB, 1000x667px

>>2885785

primarily, it can degrade image quality (this is why Fuji does not use it) but there are a whole host of other reasons why Canikon does not use it, from bokeh and MUCH better telephoto stabilization effectiveness to better exposure and metering etc (you can google this shit, Canon, Nikon and Fujifilm have all made statements as to why they CHOSE not to incorporate IBIS)

YES, there are some benefits of IBIS (cool, you can now stabilize the old vintage lens your grandpa left you) but if you are splitting hairs (which camera manufacturers need to do when deciding whether or not to implement a certain feature or function) the benefits of OIS exceed the benefits of IBIS and have less negative affects

>b but lenses cost more

This isnt a fucking negative effect, get a better job fgts

The best meme is this one
>Muh smaller lenses

hahahahahaha

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-7RM2
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.1.1 (Macintosh)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	70 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2016:02:03 14:36:22
Exposure Time	1/80 sec
F-Number	f/8.0
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	2000
Lens Aperture	f/8.0
Brightness	3.2 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	70.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

>>2885785

>https://photographylife.com/lens-stabilization-vs-in-camera-stabilization

tl;dr - it isn't. But in lens is still better (which is why you see optically stabalized lenses for cameras with ibis).

File: gaddd.jpg (5KB, 259x194px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 259x194px

>>2883020
Question:
What Camera should I get?

Experience: New to photography

Purpose:
Take Macro photos of Aquatic Insects, and their flying adult forms.

Budget: $600.00 USD

Preferably something that can also take ok shots of what I'm looking at under a microscope as well.

Something waterproof would probably also be handy.

Any suggestions?

>>2885823
pentax k-50 and an hd da 35mm limited macro

>>2885796
How big would it be compared to Sigma's 85/1.4?

>>2885823

Sony F55

>>2885824
And if that is too expensive get a pentax-a 50mm macro off ebay

File: Olympus_Stylus_TG-4_rock_front_close-thumb-470x282-26378.jpg (154KB, 470x282px) Image search: [Google]

154KB, 470x282px

>>2885823
Olympus TG-4
Water, Shock, and Dust Proof
You can get a ring-light accessory for your macro shots, its really compact. Great speed on it.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	OLYMPUS IMAGING CORP.
Camera Model	E-M5MarkII
Camera Software	iPhoto 9.6.1
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	350 dpi
Vertical Resolution	350 dpi
Image Created	2015:04:12 07:59:18
Exposure Time	1/80 sec
F-Number	f/2.8
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	200
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	40.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	550
Image Height	330
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	Low Gain Up
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

What is the difference between CCD and CMOS?

File: stashe.jpg (23KB, 281x351px)

23KB, 281x351px

Where's the best place (cheapest) to get a D800 used in the UK? Ebay is full of early bidding spastics, classifieds and shops are asking a lot.

>>2885739
>better controls than D4/810

0/10

>hurr you don't believe me go ask the Fuji circlejerk

shill elsewhere

>>2885856
http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/cameras-photography/digital/question362.htm

This. Except the information is several years out of date, now CMOS has surpassed CCD in pretty much every aspect including noise performance. CCD was originally a superior technolgy, but because of cost manufacturers threw all their R&D into CMOS anyway until the technolgy surpassed CCD. Pretty much every camera made in the last several years is CMOS and CCD has been left behind and is no longer relevant.

File: s-l1600.jpg (116KB, 750x1000px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 750x1000px

I just bought this thing on a whim. It's a Tamron 300mm AF for Pentax, but I can't find an exact match anywhere.

The fuck is it?

Hi, I'm new to the Photography Field and I recently Purchased a Canon AE-1 Program and 3 lenses For $12.50 but there seems to be an issue with one of the lenses and the advancing arm. does anyone think they would be able to help me?

>>2885894
What's the issue with the lens

As far as the advance lever is there a fresh battery in it? There needs to be a battery in so the shutter can fire so you can advance it

>>2885864

Than the Sonys you autistic fuckhead

>>2885895
Ah I see, no there Isn't one at all luckily I didn't Try to force it.

The lens is a Sigma Zoom Sigma II 35-105MM and it has a push/pull Zoom Focus and it will only slide from the 55mm to the 105mm mark and the slides past the 105 when you change some stting from normal 10 1:10-1:5

>>2885890
>AF
I have bad news for you, son.

>>2885900
Any Help would be appreciated

>>2885914
dont even bother with it

those old superzooms suck dick the 28,35,50,135 FD primes are super cheap and very good especially the S.S.C versions

>>2885917
well I'd rather not buy anything new at the moment i mean do you have any idea what could be wrong with it?

>>2885923
Yeah

It's an old piece of shit sigma

What are the other two lenses you have. Probably the 50mm/f1.8 right?

>>2885898
Sorry, the implication was you were comparing it to your D4/810 setup and barely brought up the Sony at all.

I have to say it's not hard to have better controls and ergos than Sony, what a trainwreck

>>2885924
well that doenst tell me much on how to get it to go all the way down but ok
there are 2 Bell and howell Lenses a
one says F=28mm the other says 80-200MM and it also says macro

>>2885928
Alright so here's some real advice

Go to ebay and pick up this in the next two minutes for 5 dollars

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Canon-50mm-F-1-8-SC-BL-FD-Mount-Lens-/122043207212?hash=item1c6a578e2c:g:ddoAAOSwYSlXhIKm

QUICK

>>2885929
ok

>>2885929
Now what

>>2885929
>winning bid was $5.50
somebody is happy lol

>>2885934
im kinda meh i mean i dunno if i even want to Invest much in this i mean i now have nearly $30 invested in it

>>2885934
what if the camera doesn't work?

File: 4646604811_60728e463d_o.jpg (66KB, 800x725px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 800x725px

>>2885930
>>2885932
If you won, congrats you now have an actual usable lens to go with your camera

Use the nifty fifty until you actually have a need for more lenses and by then you can hawk down one of these sweet sweet babies in pic related for wide angle or one of those 135mm 2.8's for longer stuff

>>2885935
thats nothing and it's fine for what you got

>>2885936
Then you get another ae-1 body for like 15 dollars because they're cheap as fuck

>>2885937
I also have a Canon Speedlite 188A Flash >>2885938
what do you mean by get another one

Also what was wrong with the bell and howell lenses?

>>2885940
Well slap a battery in the camera and fire the shutter a few times to see if it works. If it sounds a little squeaky it may have what they call 'canon cough' which can be fixed with a screwdriver, a needle with some sewing machine oil, and about 15 minutes

>>2885941
Well the 28mm might be ok but just about all superzooms are shitty lenses

I mean look at that one you cant even get it to work correctly

File: D3S_6303-oblique.jpg (62KB, 600x459px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 600x459px

>>2885942
Oh I forgot to mention the only half-decent zoom I've ever used for FD is the canon 35-70mm

That thing is ok and you can get one for real fucking cheap