/gear/ Thread - Meme4/3 a shit edition

Got a deal on a Nikon D7100 for $400 body only. I have a Nikon D90 for three years now. Should I do it? Will I have usable shots at iso 3200 now?

just bought a fuji xt10
what am i getting into?

>>2896863
>Will I have usable shots at iso 3200 now?
Nope. Lowest Nikon for decent ISO 3200 performance is the D600. You gotta go fool frame brah

>>2896863
That is a really amazing deal.
7100 is a great camera.
And just ignore him>>2896894

>6 months into photography as a dedicated hobby
>be out for 4 days on a trip
>shooting lots of stuff, events, landscapes
>talking to other photographers/videographers
>gathered lots of experience
>can't wait to take my gear out for a spin again
>return
>go into recent threads to share pictures
>visit /gear/ thread
>shitload of shitposting
>gearfaggotry
>people arguing about pixels and sensors and f-stops and dynamic range and compactness and speed and stabilization and autofocus and and and
>suddenly become doubtful about my gear
>think about getting better lenses
>buy a lens out of impulse
>think about switching systems
>look online what I can get for my gear
>spend sunny days inside doing these things
>friend tells me he wants to do a bicycle tour
>come with him and take some small gear
>experience the same high as with the long weekend
>learned more stuff
>realize /gear/-threads are literally making me a worse photographer and an unhappier person

Jesus Christ, frequenters must be miserable people.

File: 8186179137_d4dcca43ac_o.jpg (766KB, 1500x998px) Image search: [Google]

766KB, 1500x998px

Was going through old Flickr.

It is disgusting that this is basically a SOOC image from a 50 year old lens and a noisy CCD sensor.

I want every photo to look like this.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Leica Camera AG
Camera Model	M9 Digital Camera
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 4.2 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.0
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	50 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	104 dpi
Vertical Resolution	104 dpi
Image Created	2012:11:14 20:45:32
Exposure Time	1/180 sec
F-Number	f/4.8
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	320
Lens Aperture	f/4.8
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	50.00 mm
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Unique Image ID	00000000000000000000000000000400

Shooting on a 5D

I'm finding 50mm and even 40mm really cramped and claustrophobic. What should I look at?

File: tumblr_o4fivigGRG1s9l9gio1_1280.jpg (78KB, 640x1136px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 640x1136px

Alright fuck-idiot experts I have a thread for you.

I shoot w/ a Nikon D3300

I do nightlife photography and attempt to do model photography.

I bought the cheap 35mm 1.8 Lens which is working great for daytime modeling shooting.

I mostly still use the stock lens of the Nikon to do my "nightlife" photography, which is a mindfuck considering I bought a new lens.

Can anyone direct my dumbass to a lens I can happily shoot "nightlife/nightclub" photography without being a douche w/ the stock lens??

I do use an external flash. Thx - Greg

[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	640
Image Height	1136
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>2896938
You only deleted the picture...

Anyway, what don't you like about your kit lens? I mean it sounds like you like what it's doing for you just fine, you just don't like the idea of using a kit lens, and if you're using a flash, the slowness of the lens isn't that big of a deal.

Anyway, the sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 is a great fast zoom, but you'll be restricted to 50ish mm FoV on the long end. In any event, for doing stuff like club photography, you'll tend to want to use zooms for the flexibility when it comes to framing. Sometimes you just can't move closer or farther away.

Basically, tell us what you're looking for a little more in depth and we can give better recs.

>>2896944

I want more than a stock lens while shooting at stupid "clubs" and idiot "Djs" some thing that maybe bends the back ground slightly. You surely have a better suggestion that the D3300 kit lens.

>>2896948
So you want a pancake lens?

>>2896944
Apart from the zooming problem what setting can I use on the 18-34mm to get the subject I want focused instead of the back ground ?

>>2896951
What setting do you suggest w/ a 18-35 at a club?

>>2896948
>I want more than a stock lens while shooting at stupid "clubs" and idiot "Djs" some thing that maybe bends the back ground slightly. You surely have a better suggestion that the D3300 kit lens.
I'm assuming by "bends the background" you mean shallow depth of field, so yeah, give the 18-35mm f/1.8 a shot.

That said, I think right now your biggest problem is you don't seem to have the first clue about what you're doing and need to correct that.

>>2896956
I accepted the fact I such ass a making music and photography. Im 25 fuck it! I'm going out and sucking ass tonight and then tomorrow go shoot some mediocre model. It's better than nothing.

>>2896956
Also, don't you think I tried 1.8 at a damn club fuckhead. I got some "ok" shots.

>>2896957
google "triangle setting explanation" and "photography depth of field" to begin with.

Learn how to use what you have before dropping dosh for more gear.

>>2896959
ok gracias señor ill probably fuck off out of here because i have enough information.

Thanks for Florida dickface

>>2896959
when using the 1.8 tonight what F stop is recommended considering club setting and external flash ? ? its just the depth of field i want to achieve correct?

>>2896968
When using a strobe, aperture determines both depth of field and the exposure of the subject.
Shutter speed determines the amount of motion blur and the exposure of the background.

File: R0220046.jpg (279KB, 530x800px) Image search: [Google]

279KB, 530x800px

>>2896929
>rockwell beckons you closer
But seriously, why do you think fujifags like their cameras so much? Getting nice SOOC colours is the most important thing.
The problem with canikon is that their sheer ubiquity has made their standard palettes boring to us, but their professional market means they're never going to deviate from them.
Canon colours or Nikon colours have become a baseline from which they do all of their processing and people expect consistency between models.
These days whenever I use my GR it's in slide film emulation mode with a blue base tint and slightly warmed up WB, and I find that I'm usually happy to either post them directly, or do any editing I want from those jpgs.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	RICOH IMAGING COMPANY, LTD.
Camera Model	GR
Camera Software	GIMP 2.8.14
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	28 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2016:05:20 00:00:47
Exposure Time	1/40 sec
F-Number	f/5.0
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	800
Lens Aperture	f/4.9
Brightness	2.4 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	18.30 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	530
Image Height	800
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Sharpness	Normal

>>2896954
fuckin crank that ISO up boi

There's a ton of low light guides out, concert/indoor event photography is super popular.

>>2896983
stop posting this.

File: R0210042.jpg (269KB, 533x800px) Image search: [Google]

269KB, 533x800px

>>2896991
Soz breh, I don't use the GR very much, so when I want to make this point I default to this image.
This is the other one I like to use :3

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	RICOH IMAGING COMPANY, LTD.
Camera Model	GR
Camera Software	GIMP 2.8.14
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	28 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	350 dpi
Vertical Resolution	350 dpi
Image Created	2015:09:19 18:42:14
Exposure Time	1/125 sec
F-Number	f/2.8
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Brightness	5.1 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	18.30 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	533
Image Height	800
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Sharpness	Normal

So doing a quick budget of swapping out my entire EF mount kit to go to F mount;

Selling off (EF gear);
Canon EOS 6D (+$750)
EF 17-40mm f/4L USM (+$400)
EF 50mm f/1.8 STM (+$60)
Speedlite 430EX II (+$130)

Buying (F-Mount);
Nikon D600 (-$530)
Speedlight SB-5000 (-$500)

Net loss (rebuying lenses);
Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 VC USD (-$300)
Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 VC USD (-$400)
Sigma 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6 HSM II (-$450)

This is starting to sound like a bad idea to me /p/, starting to regret this move...

I just wanted a dual-memory card slot and this seems like it's just going to hurt me bad :(

>>2897015
>This is starting to sound like a bad idea to me /p/, starting to regret this move...
>I just wanted a dual-memory card slot and this seems like it's just going to hurt me bad :(
It is a bad move, especially just for dual slots. I mean seriously, all of that pain in the ass for something that doesn't really matter all that much?

>>2897015
That's a net loss of $800+ just for that additional SD card slot. I can just buy a 5D MK III by selling off the 6D, D600 and the 17-40mm f/4L USM (which I don't use anyway)...

>>2897015
Just buy a second SD card and shove it up your ass. If you're going to switch to Nikon at least get something good like a D700 or D800. Not that going from one DSLR to another is going to make any difference at all, and not that I advise switching systems after having done it and regretted it and gone back. What are you even going to accomplish with this shit? Why do you need to cover every single focal length from 12mm to 200mm with overlap? Buy some good first-party prime lenses instead of all that big heavy zoom Tampon garbage and go back to taking pictures.

>>2897025
Work nigga. 12-24 for nightclubs, 24-70 and 70-200 for my events photography (aka bread and butter).

>>2897026
Honestly, if you are considering making a move, 80D would make more sense.

>>2897028
I hope you're just pretending to be retarded.

Get a smaller sensor? You're fucking dumb as shit.

>>2897015
Hmm just realized that I can just sell off the D600 and buy another 6D... not only will I have to SD card slots, but I'll have a dedicated tele/bokehprime body!

I'm a fucking genius!

>>2896983
The impressive thing about this to me is the color of that darker red car almost right in center of frame. I can't describe it clearly -b but that's really good color for a deep shadow area. This is where a Canon would fall apart. Sony too for that matter.

File: image.jpg (48KB, 720x322px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 720x322px

>mfturds
>It is compact they said, it will be smaller than an aps-c they said.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	720
Image Height	322
Scene Capture Type	Standard

File: FOTO6807_v1.jpg (414KB, 1000x667px) Image search: [Google]

414KB, 1000x667px

>>2896983
Precisely the reason I bought the xpro2 and have been shooting it the way I have.
I've found I'm able to get where I want wayyyy quicker with the flexibility of the film simulations. I mostly just do curves over those these days, if anything at all.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	FUJIFILM
Camera Model	X-Pro2
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	38 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	6000
Image Height	4000
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2016:08:05 03:59:11
Exposure Time	1/1100 sec
F-Number	f/0.0
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	800
Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Brightness	3.1 EV
Exposure Bias	1 EV
Metering Mode	Average
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	25.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1000
Image Height	667
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Sharpness	Hard
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

File: FOTO9007_v1.jpg (310KB, 1000x667px) Image search: [Google]

310KB, 1000x667px

While I've still got my raw files, particularly so I can push them whatever way I want in camera if I want after the shot, their presence on my PC/backup is largely a redundancy at this point for me.

...and that's made all the more hilarious I guess by the sheer filesize of xpro2 raws.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	FUJIFILM
Camera Model	X-Pro2
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/3.5
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	75 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	6000
Image Height	4000
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2016:08:05 04:00:01
Exposure Time	1/56 sec
F-Number	f/8.0
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	800
Lens Aperture	f/8.0
Brightness	4.5 EV
Exposure Bias	0.7 EV
Metering Mode	Average
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	50.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1000
Image Height	667
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto Bracket
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Sharpness	Hard
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

File: FOTO8770_v1.jpg (404KB, 1000x667px) Image search: [Google]

404KB, 1000x667px

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	FUJIFILM
Camera Model	X-Pro2
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/3.5
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	75 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	6000
Image Height	4000
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2016:08:05 03:59:54
Exposure Time	1/210 sec
F-Number	f/5.6
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	800
Lens Aperture	f/5.7
Brightness	6.8 EV
Exposure Bias	2 EV
Metering Mode	Average
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	50.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1000
Image Height	667
Rendering	Custom
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

What photo hosting service is free, allows uploads of possibly hundreds of photos categorized into 'folders', and doesn't steal your photos like Facebook and Google?

>>2897133
Those don't steal your photos, and frankly if you're anal about that shit, just make your own site. It's easy as fuck.

what's a good camera between the price of 400-1000?

>>2896806
>using an olympus pen digital ever

The Olympus Pen lineup is the worse of the Olympus lineup. You should get and OMD EM10 instead or an pen lite or a pen micro if you want something smaller.
The pen lite is good because it is small, same sensor as the pen and has features that casuals love like selfie screen. The original pen half frame cameras are indeed aimed at casuals.

>>2897133
Your own website and web server. I agree with the other guy. It's simple. Just use a template, and google what to type.

>>2896934
24, 28, maybe 21? It's difficult to find a cheap lens in that range because they dont make as many

>>2897137
For what purpose? Sports, landscape, travel, detail, film,digital?

>>2897107
Good point, but dumb photo. RX100 series have smaller sensors.

File: Canon-Printer-PIXMA-PRO-1-03.png (206KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

206KB, 640x480px

I bought a Canon Pro 1 pigment printer for $700 with about 10 spare inks and generally pretty full carts inside.
I'll be using it to print my colour film scans.
Anybody have some sweet recommendations for paper, or general use of this thing?
I'm moderately concerned that taking on my own printing is where my rejection of Adobe Bloatoshop in favour of GIMP will come to bite me in the ass.
As far as paper goes, my preference for real photo paper is cooltone doubleweight glossy fibre, which I do not tone or finish in a print burnisher/hot press/whatever they're called. This gives good contrast, but leaves the paper still with a bit of tooth. I'm thinking that for colour pigment printing, a nice matte paper with the chroma optimiser finish over the top will come close?
>also how fucked am I for ink costs???

>>2897107
That's a 1 inch sensor on the Rx 100.

>>2897013
Please explain your jpeg settings.

>>2897207
Travel, detail, and digital

>>2897241
Sony RX100 MK VI if you can find it on sale but the MK III is still breddy gudd.

If you can stand something a bit bigger but the ability to swap out lenses, the Sony a6000 series is awesome as well.

I personally have a Canon EOS M3 but it's far from the best camera you can get for the money.

Looking for a compact. Not interested in a hybrid, i just want a compact.

What's the best compact currently, canon powershot ?

>>2897015
Just get rid of your 6D for a 5D II you fucking cuck

>>2896806
>No pointless (brand) arguments and dickwaving allowed!
B-but I want to wave muh dick. Fuck you man!

>>2897288
There's no one here arguing against a brand. M4/3 is a system and it really has no purpose in the photographic world.

>>2897209
>>2897217
>That's a 1 inch sensor on the Rx 100.

Yet it shoots better photos and has better low light capabilities than the mft.

>>2897247
Any feelings about the m3 other than not the best for money? I have a few canon lenses; and, although I'd like to get an a6000, I don't want to have to sell all of my gear to switch. What do?

File: fiber.jpg (14KB, 448x363px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 448x363px

I'm looking for a portrait lens or standard lens for the olympus pen that I got from my sister. I only own the kit lens.
I found someone selling online locally a used Panasonic (Lumix) Leica DG Summilux 25mm f/1.4 ASPH Lens lens for $320.Brand new it costs $600. Is this a good deal?

The only problem is that it has a strand of fiber behind the rear element. Pic related. The seller says it doesn't affect picture quality but I have doubts. What do you think?

>>2897230
Hey, they are as follows.

Effect - Positive Film (Vividness 7 Contrast 3 Sharpness 5 Vignetting Off)
Aperture Priority starting at 2.8
Evaluative Metering
Auto ISO (I think it shifts at 1/80 between 100 and 400; 1/40 for higher ISO's)
Evaluative WB with a shift to warm
Spot AF

I set it up as a custom settings bank when a female friend asked me if she could borrow it to take pics at a wedding, she wanted it to 'just take nice photos'. I now use it all the time.
It turns my point and shoot into a point and shoot.
It's great.

Shooting film really makes you realise that digital "image quality" is a meme; they all have more than enough resolution for most uses and can take photos practically in the dark.
The differences between good and bad pics all come down to the lense and the nut behind the wheel taking the photo and processing it.

I am looking to put together a budget wildlife kit. Something like a sharp manual tele lens like the Tair 300/4.5 or the Canon FD 300 L on a mirrorless body.
Fuji seems like too much of a hassle to work with after and Sony has a huge bling tax over here.
The E-M5 II or the E-M1 both give stabilisation and works like a 2x extender. If I can afford a longer AF zoom lens later which one offers me the better AF? So far I'll be using manual and both are great for my uses so the deciding factor has to be the better AF capability for later.

File: fiber2.jpg (8KB, 443x417px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 443x417px

>>2897323
Here's another photo. I encircled the fiber inside the lens. It's right inside the rear element.

>>2897247

Is the sony a5000 any good compared to the a6000

File: my-growing-family.jpg (423KB, 950x950px) Image search: [Google]

423KB, 950x950px

take a look at my growing family.

>>2897385
There are people out there who make better photos with a single kit lense. Just saying.

>>2897385
>all that mudblood glass
kys my man

>>2897335
Literally noone cares about your micro-turdburglar problems.
The money you're considering spending on this one obsolete lense for a dead system could get you a fucking -patrician- Olympus with a real 50/1.4,and enough film to get you well on your way to hanging out with the grownups in the FGT.
http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/Olympus-OM-2N-SLR-camera-with-original-F1-1-4-lens-flash-zoom-lens-access-/112079832566?hash=item1a187a85f6:g:yPsAAOSwI3RW-Mjj

>>2897387
You sound like somebody who doesn't afford a growing family, very sad.

>implying you have any idea about my photography

>>2896881
High quality images and an excellent user experience

>>2896806
Gear threads really are cancer.

>>2897417
It's only a single autist making a big racket about nonsense. Just ignore it.

Canon 50 mm 1.4 USM or 50 mm 1.8 STM

Is the STM 1.8 better than older 1.4?

File: 1I1A0719.jpg (117KB, 590x393px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 590x393px

Why do people use ultra wide lenses like this when the results are so horrible and full of distortion in the corners?

What the heck is even the point anymore when it becomes this ugly?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 5DS
Image-Specific Properties:
Exposure Time	1/5 sec
F-Number	f/16.0
ISO Speed Rating	3200
Lens Aperture	f/16.0
Exposure Bias	1/3 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	11.00 mm
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto

>>2897460
>horrible
>ugly

Maybe one day you'll realize that your opinions are neither universal nor are facts, and you might, then have some understanding of why people do things differently from you.

File: 1455978337204.jpg (15KB, 229x200px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 229x200px

>>2896881
This >>2897408
but your getting in a world of hurt with raws.

>>2897481
>Fuji
>shooting RAW
>professional uses
Fuji was designed to shoot JPEGs, RAW is just a necessity forced on by Canikon "pros"

>>2897314
The Canon EF-EOS M adapter is decent with STM lenses, but anything else, the focusing slows a fair bit down. You'd be better off using the native EF-M lenses, though how little they number in (22mm f/2 STM is breddy gud tho).

>>2897374
a6000 was the toppest of all APS-C mirrorless for a few years, get that if you can afford it. Even secondhand, I'd rather prefer that over a brand new a5000.

>>2897455
f/1.4 USM is sfot as fuck. The f/1.8 STM has somewhat slightly improved optics over the original f/1.8s.

Get the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 ART if you can afford it.

Is it just me or are Canon primes mostly from the late 90s/early 2000s?

>>2897527
Most prime lens designs are, especially compact designs.

>>2897527
>>2897528
Sigma and Tamron are the only ones bring out plenty of new primes, though Canon is now only starting to replace the main favourites.

>>2897407
Can you support my growing family? Just a little donation would do.

>>2897539
I'm already a monthly supporter, Ken.

>>2897335
>>2897323
That mark isn't significant but I instead recommend the Olympus 45mm f/1.8, as this lens is about as nice, feels better (metal exterior) and blurs the backgrounds more due to the longer focal length, despite the slower aperture.

>>2897537
Fuji designed all its lens from scratch and continues to do it.

>>2897406
>implying I don't already have a superior OM-1 with lens which I got for $100

>>2897559
The Oly 45mm f1.8 is too tight. I much prefer a standard focal length lens. They are also almost the same price.

>>2897577
You said portrait or standard lens. The 45 1.8 can be had brand new for $100 less than the lens you're looking at damaged.

>>2897406
I forgot:
>implying I don't regularly post on FGT and even made the general thread multiple times

Literally kys

>>2897582
The 45 1.8 is $299 on b&h its probably cheaper somewhere else. Also sorry about saying portrait but coming from shooting film, I am used to shooting the 50mm for portraits and also as my daily beater lens.

Looking for UWA prime for EF-mount which will be easier to carry around for nightclub photography. My Sigma 12-24mm had a couple of finger prints on the front element so something that's a little bit less likely to be soiled pls.

Also would like to keep it wider than 15mm and max at $1,500.

>>2897587
Please don't ever buy a lens new from b&h. You're literally flushing hundreds of dollars down the toilet for nothing. I bet you don't even get next day shipping for free there.

File: image.jpg (33KB, 384x384px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 384x384px

Recently bought this combo.
Is it good /p/?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	384
Image Height	384
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>2897584
>implying every OP that I did make myself hasn't been complete garbage
>implying you can buy batteries for your OM-1
>implying that even if you could, the meter would be even nearly as good, or the shutter speeds nearly as accurate

>>2897641
http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/37597/what-are-battery-replacement-options-for-the-olympus-om-1
?????????????????

>>2896881

Slow autofocus, a barren lens selection, and poor raw support.

>>2897526
>sfot
you mean fat? i don't mind the weight. I have a $150 gift card I can use so it's either a cheaper 1.4 or basically a free 1.8

I'm shooting on a Canon 550D crop

>>2897618
I like my 12mm Rokinon FF fisheye.

Looking for a new monitor for the computer where I use LR. Budget is $200. Anything that cheap worth fooling with?

File: Z-sony-a6000-onHand.jpg (108KB, 1024x627px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 1024x627px

I'M GONNA BUY IT

AND YOU CAN'T STOP ME

>>2897745

Wouldn't want to. As far as mirrorless goes it is one of the best.

>>2897746
I need a good, but smallish camera, I want to take it with me over seas in the Navy

>inb4 whatever policy they have on cameras

I need to check that first

>>2897737
No.

>>2897725
He's saying it's soft.

>>2897745
Don't forget to buy le- oh wait

File: ss.jpg (109KB, 960x720px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 960x720px

Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS $800
+
1.4 extender (like 100-200 used I think)

or

Tamron/Sigma 150-600 $800

>>2897750
> Don't forget to buy le- oh wait
Yea, the meme doesn't work anymore when you have over 100 E-mount lenses to pick from.

Plus all the ones you can adapt.

>>2897773
this


there's such a wide variety of lenses now, and I can buy some adapters just in case

>>2897773
Buying FE mount lenses is like buying boat anchors. Third party manual focus lenses might as well be useless. Adapted lenses is for shitters with no lenses, and they don't autofocus as fast or confidently anyways.

>>2897772
100-400, gotta get dat red ring

>>2897773

>over 100

Last I checked it was 80 something.

But still, largest selection of any APS-C mirrorless by far. Fuji only has 20 lenses.

>>2897781
> Buying FE mount lenses is like buying boat anchors.
In that boats presumably have been using various types of anchors successfully for millennia?

Yea, this very successful practice didn't start with Sony's E-mount and it also ver likely won't stop with it.

> Third party manual focus lenses might as well be useless.
Shooting with the Samyangs I have is a pleasure. No problem at all.

I am almost certain that your idea that this doesn't work is not a conclusion from any hands-on experience.

> Adapted lenses [...] don't autofocus as fast or confidently anyways.
Can be close enough:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-dRWx6NJWA

>>2897629
50mm is going to be like 100mm, so mild telephoto. Quality will be soft wide open but sharpen considerably stopping down. Still probably won't get better than a new 14-42. Iso will be bad so consider a tripod. You can take nice pictures with this.

>>2897804
>Shooting with the Samyangs I have is a pleasure. No problem at all.
So you shoot still life? Get out and come back when you shoot something that is live.

>Can be close enough:
Close enough is not good enough. I didn't buy the camera to have half assed functionality.

>Yea, this very successful practice didn't start with Sony's E-mount and it also ver likely won't stop with it.
Then I hope you have the money to shell (shill?) out for the FE lenses.

>>2897641
>using a 40+ year old lightmeter on your film camera
>not having any grasp of sunny 16
>he cannot shoot without a lightmeter

Now I know why you depend solely on your Fool Frame gear to make decent shots. Literally kys.

>>2897829
> So you shoot still life? Get out and come back when you shoot something that is live.
I don't *only* shoot still life. No. I shoot people too, Yes, with MF.

If you think MF is something so special -never mind difficult-, you are the one that needs to go out and shoot.

Plus you obviously never tried it with a modern camera that has focus peaking.

> Close enough is not good enough. I didn't buy the camera to have half assed functionality.
Does your PDAF system even perform as well as the one in the video in any circumstance? Tracking that reliably across the image frame?

Besides, how many lenses can you adapt that will work better? Not having support for that is obviously more "half-assed" than good support with some lenses and adapters.

> Then I hope you have the money to shell out for the FE lenses.
It's almost obvious that I would have, unless you think I steal all my shit?

But I can eliminate the remaining doubt for you: Yes, I do.

What filters do yall recommend? Is there a brand I should look for? I'm seeing ND filters run up to like 300 some dollars, is that a rip off or should i expect to pay that much for quality? Are polarizers necessary or can I get the effect in post? Should I buy individual filters or just get a bundle and not worry about them ever again?

>>2897875
>Is there a brand I should look for?
LEE and Nisi are the two most known and respected ND filter makers. You also have cheaper brands like Formatt Hitech and Cokin.

>I'm seeing ND filters run up to like 300 some dollars, is that a rip off or should i expect to pay that much for quality?
Like any good photography related gear it's going to be expensive, that's just how it is. But yes, you pay for quality.

>Are polarizers necessary
For landscape/architecture I would say yes absolutely, some people will disagree though.

>can I get the effect in post?
No. Skip to 10:50 in this video, there's a good example there: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_806DA2O4i0&ab_channel=ThomasHeaton

>Should I buy individual filters or just get a bundle and not worry about them ever again?
That's really up to you, not us. If you're into landscapes, I'd probably recommend a 3 Stop Hard Grad, a 3 Stop Soft Grad and a normal 2, 3, or 6 Stop.

>>2897875
With a digital workflow, I wouldn't really recommend anything but ND and CPL filters.

And even with those, you should basically just watch a video or tutorial on what they do buy them if you determine you want that.

>>2897885
Actually, I guess I should include linear polarizers as well.

But graduated filters, colored filters and all that? You don't need them. You can do these effects better in post.

>>2897886
>But graduated filters, colored filters and all that? You don't need them.
If you're wanting to capture everything in one shot and keep editing to a minimum, then grads are a must. I agree you don't need colour filters though.

>>2897620
So should I try ebay instead? Or amazon?

Anyhow I might get the Pana-Leica 25mm 1.4 since the fiber won't affect the photos. Is it possible to have it opened by a repairman so and have the fiber removed? Or will it damage the lens?

>>2897887
If you want to keep editing to a minimum, sure.

But adding a regular gradient to an image or applying them from a filter imitation template in digital post is really quick, easy and versatile.

If you just want the same result as a graduated filter would have given you, it's not a given that doing it physically is faster.

Plus you can't make (admittedly semi-rare) mistakes with gradients messing up an image instead of improving it when some animal or person moves into it or you just made a little positioning mistake / missed some high-contrast detail.

>>2896806
Newfag here
What is meme4/3 /p/?

>>2897906
It's telling you to lurk moar

>>2897898
Personally I only only bother with grads with slide film - with digital I either do multiple exposures or expose for the highlights and then bring up the shadows in post, because easy digital magick.


That said, you can't really replicate ND grads in software authentically. Adding a gardient in the PS editing phase does nothing if the information isn't there in the first place because the image burned/blacked out in that area.

>>2897906
Some autistic user doesn't like a system because small sensor but will happily recommend you microsensor cameras. Just ignore it.

>>2897920
If you don't like something, that is complete shit.
>Seems legit

>Just ignore it
Okay

Why normies hate Fuji?
And
Why /p/ praise Fuji?

Should I buy Fujifilm XT-1 body + battery grip + 2 batteries + case for 650€?

Im upgrading from Canon 450D, I only have one canon lens (the kit)

>>2897925

Normies hate Fuji because slow autofocus, no lenses, and shit raw support.

/p/ loves it because underdog and they fell for the gimmick sensor marketing.

>>2897939
Autismo nonsense

CANON EF 400mm f/5.6L USM FOR $400. NO FUNGUS, NO DUST, PREFECT OPTICS, SLIGHT WEAR AND TEAR ON BODY AND FOCUSING GRIP, $600.

Y/N?

Been eyeing off a super-tele ever since I got a 70-200mm f/2.8 which is one of my work horse lenses, this however this will be a very occasional lens (birding,astrophotography etc.). So is it wort h it?

>>2897956
>$400
>$600
Which one is it? Either way obviously yes, that's very cheap.

File: image.jpg (148KB, 1075x723px) Image search: [Google]

148KB, 1075x723px

/p/ not thread related but FUUUUUCK I cried like a little bitch.

Pic related

[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	1075
Image Height	723
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>2897968
What board?

>>2897968
Fuck, too much feel. This belongs on /p/, for sure.

>>2897968
>>2897974
>crying for an old slavic rapist
These people don't matter. Glad every day I don't have a vagina to infect me with these pathetic "feelings"

>>2897968
Fuck you, anon.. this is not a feels thread ;_;

>>2897986
ow the edge

Fuji question. Out of the 18mm, the 18-55mm kit zoom and the 27mm pancake, which would you get/which do you prefer? It'd be for street photography.

I'll pair that with the 23mm f2 when that comes out. Though I guess I could just try to get the f1.4 version instead if it makes more sense.

File: 144765248394857.png (62KB, 300x200px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 300x200px

>>2897986

>>2897925
Why /p/ hate meme4/3?
And
Why normies praise micro four thirds?

>>2897997
What focal lengths do you like to shoot with? They're all decent lenses.
The 18/2 is known as Fuji's least sharp lens, but it's pretty small and fast. 27/2.8 is sharp and super tiny, but no aperture ring. I personally like the "perfect normal" focal length. The 18-55 is nice, OIS can come in handy, and it's more versatile if you like zooms, but a lot bigger than the other two.
Just for street I'd personally pick the 27, but if you're a 35mm (equiv) guy you might find it a bit too narrow.

>>2896983
I'd swear Nikon's colors have gotten worse, too. D2X and D3 images were really nice, but the D4 and D5 feel really flat. My disappointment with newer Nikon sensors was a major factor in my switch to Fuji.

I'm not shooting full-time anymore (if I were I'd still be stuck with Nikon), but I still do a few gigs and I'm consistently amazed with how fast my workflow is compared to Fuji.

>>2897385
What's the big prime on the right?

>>2898044
I'm a 35mm equivalent guy, but I like 28mm equivalent as well (I have a GR too). The size is my biggest turn off about the 18-55 - IQ wise I've read it's just as good as the 18mm at 18mm, although obviously a tiny bit slower. I like the idea and size of that 27mm but the lack of aperture ring is a little bit of a turn-off. Also no hood, though I'm not sure if the flare is bad on it.

How's the AF speed comparing these three?

File: image.jpg (79KB, 700x700px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 700x700px

>>2897968
Fuck you man

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	700
Image Height	700
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>2897107
I own an LX100 it's a fantastic camera. Not sure what point you're trying to make.

>>2897266
I gotta throw the Pany LX100 into that mix. Very superior camera. IIRC still hovering at top 5 most popular camera on DPR despite being out for almost 2 years. I love it.

>>2897408
Can confirm. Got mine a month ago. Highly impressed with it so far.

>>2897481
Yeah unfortunately right now I'm converting into DNG (not OP)

>>2897107
Slightly bigger sensor, slightly bigger camera. What's unusual about this?

>>2897481
>>2897520
The RAW thing is really overblown. Fuji RAWs processed with LR are more than good enough at any reasonable viewing size, you'd never notice the loss of detail unless comparing side by side at 100%

>>2898050
Sigma 180mm f/2.8 OS

Anyone got experience with those dirt cheap MIXZA "shark" SD cards? The 64GB looks very tempting and apparently the performance is very decent. Are they reliable in the long run though?

>>2898143
/p/ is weapons grade stupid about brands. ignore

>>2898174
They're microSD cards. And yea they're fine.

> Are they reliable in the long run though?
Endurance seems normal so far.

Probably just don't rely on them for longer term storage and it'll be fine.

>>2898174
/csg/ on /gear/?
I frequently visit /g/'s chink shit general so I also have a shark. I have a 32gb version and it works perfectly on my pen meme4/3.

File: image.jpg (344KB, 1200x1145px) Image search: [Google]

344KB, 1200x1145px

>>2896806
Good wide zooms for e mount? The 16-50 and 18-55 all have pretty bad reviews and I'm tired of carrying 3 primes
Alternatively what are some good light manual focus wide zooms you could recommend? I'm cool with adapting

[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	1200
Image Height	1145
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>2899046
Do you have $850? Yes? 10-18/4. No? Shouldnt have bought Sony then.

>>2899046
>16-50 and 18-55 all have pretty bad reviews and I'm tired of carrying 3 primes


Those two are kit lenses. They aren:t terrible, but they aren:t especially good either. The 18-55 is the better of the two.

Your only other options are the 10-18 ($700), or the 16-35 ($1200).

If you are on FF you actually have a few more options. The 28-70 kit lens is actually VERY nice.

>>2899183
>>2899046

Oh, and you can just adapt something. If it is Canon, Nikon, or M-mount you get pretty fast autofocus on the latest gen of bodies.

File: image.jpg (33KB, 414x356px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 414x356px

Is the Original Olympus M-1 rare? I found it for $75 with lens but I already have an Olympus OM-1 with the same 50mm f1.8 lens.

Should I sell the original M-1 to collectors and keep the OM-1 or should I keep the original M-1 and sell the OM-1 instead?

Thanks!

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	414
Image Height	356
Scene Capture Type	Standard

Recently purchased a Bronica SQ-a. It came with a prison finder but no WLV. Really excited to take it on a trip soon but I had a few questions. I'll be sure to add pictures once I get the 50mm lens cleaned.

Should I get a light meter? Is it worth it to get a WLV? Any favorites for 120mm film?

>>2899300
>prison finder

a what

>>2899310
Probably meant "prism" finder

Are Samyang lenses good for a beginner at their price-point

or are they absolute shit?

>>2899316
Most of them are good.

> for a beginner
What does that have to do with anything?

>>2899319
I'm poor, and want to save money

>>2899316
They are very good IF you get a good copy. Their quality control is fucking ass, and if you buy online you'll most likely go through a few copies before you get a good one.

If you're able to test them out in a store then do so, if not you'll potentially spend a shitload on return shipping (depending on where you live) before getting a usable copy.

Are there any normie-friendly quality comapcts that are worth buying at a price point below stuff like the RX100 and ZS100?

>>2896983
>The problem with canikon

LOL! Canon has great color. Sonikon has great DR.

Fuji has great color and pretty good DR.

The last two Canon releases have great color and good DR (1DX II and 80D). Canon finally put their ADCs on sensor.

What is the problem with MFT cameras? they are great performers I never had any problem with mine.

File: IMG_1453.jpg (2MB, 2304x3456px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2304x3456px

Some anons recommended me the pentax k5 and a super takumar lens.

Okay so I will be purchasing a new camera today, but still confused. Where can I actually find these products? Most are on ebay or warehouses and go for the following prices:

The Pentax k5 i, all good, probably around $600 usd for the body?

A super takumar 50'mm with F:1.4 m42 mount for $70-150

Can I find these in a camera store?

pic somewhat related, the type of photos I take.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS DIGITAL REBEL XT
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.5 (Windows)
Photographer	unknown
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/4.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2016:08:03 05:42:58
Exposure Time	30 sec
F-Number	f/3.5
Exposure Program	Shutter Priority
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/3.5
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Partial
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	18.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>2899450
Don't get the Super-Takumar 50mm f/1.4 unless you love lens flare. Super-Multi-Coated or SMC Takumars have excellent multicoating and are a lot better at pretty much the same price.

The Tak you can always find on eBay or probably cheaper on your local second hand site.

>>2899450
>A super takumar 50'mm with F:1.4 m42 mount for $70-150
Don't buy this lens. First reason being said here >>2899453, and the second reason being the M42 mount. You'll need to buy a genuine Pentax M42 adapter mount which can end up costing the same amount as the lens. Of course you could buy the real cheap adapters off ebay but you won't be able to focus to infinity, and they also get stuck to body and can be very hard to remove.

Buy the Pentax-M/Pentax-A 50mm f1.7, extremely good lens and very cheap. If you really need the f1.4 (doubt it) then they have that version as well, but costs a lot more and is generally worse than the f1.7 anyway.

File: IMG_1551.jpg (3MB, 3456x2304px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3456x2304px

somewhat pic related another of my shots (1 year experience). sorry for no resize but its very grainy resized.

>>2899453
>>2899457
okay thank you. my current lens is f/4 but some anon recced me the s.t. so I just figured it would be fine. Thanks for the information

I definitely am not a fan of lens flare. Where I am from the winters are very bright and cold and produces nothing but flare from snow and the road.

Do you think a local camera store would carry these? Best buy doesn't, and the prices are inflated double what they should be.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS DIGITAL REBEL XT
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.0 (Windows)
Photographer	unknown
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/4.5
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2016:08:08 06:43:55
Exposure Time	1/20 sec
F-Number	f/5.6
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	1600
Lens Aperture	f/5.6
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Partial
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	40.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>2899449
>What is the problem with MFT cameras? they are great performers I never had any problem with mine.

I'm guessing it is because specs wise mft cameras can't compete with aps-c or full frame cameras. It sucks at low light as well. But if you are not a pixel peeper mft is more than enough. Also, mft is pretty much targeted towards women especially the smaller rangefinder styled ones like the pen and the GF and GM series. For instance I was recently researching for reviews of the epl7 since a friend sold hers to me for $220. It comes with a kit lens and I can say that it fulfills my needs in regards to photography. I use it for product photography (I sell goods online and also through IG and Facebook) and for taking photos on a daily basis. I find it awesome as well since I can easily edit the raw file itself from the camera and it has filters as well. The on the fly editing and posting immediately on IG is critical for me since I also manage social media sites.

Bottom line is that mft cameras isn't marketed towards /p/'s demographic. I should have said that I hate mft as well 4 years ago when the EM5 came out. I used to shoot with a D90 camera on bars and clubs and an EM5's battery life won't cut it for me back then.

Anyhow what's your mft? I'm thinking of buying a standard (50mm equivalent) or a wide angle lens for it. If mft really dies soon it will pretty much be a good thing since lens prices will plummet.

>>2899528
EM10 MkII with kit lens and just acquired a Canon FD 300mm lens for £80, might get into some wildlife as well.

>>2896806

Found a Minolta a-7/Dynax 7 w/ 24-105 lens for $160. Usually that is the price for either of them alone.

Seller has good reviews and lists it as good condition, should I buy it?

>>2899550
a7 doesn't have IBIS and the lens AF compatibility is limited. it is much better to get an a7II

>>2899551
>a7 doesn't have IBIS

Considering the MINOLTA a-7 is a film camera, I kinda expected that.

>>2899552
Oh, I thought it was the Sony a7. But still the a7II is a much better choice for adapting nearly all of the best lenses.

>>2899553
I actually have an a7ii. I was looking for that 24-105 lens to use on my LA-EA4. I only have prime lenses and wanted a shot at a zoom. Rebiews for it say it is very good.

Seeing the combo with the body is pretty tempting though. Just have no idea what i should be looking for/testing when the film body arrives.

>>2899542
>Canon FD 300mm lens for £80, might get into some wildlife as well

That's cheap. I have a bunch of old Nikkor AI glass that I want to adapt as well. 300mm AI nikkor cost a fuckton though.
Do you own mft lenses?

>>2899581
I don't think it is the L version but I have to wait until it gets here to actually look.

>>2899581
>>2899674
Ah, apart from the kit lens, no.

>>2899449
/P/ is in an age of autism greater than ever in the past where a camera's merit is based on the scores in a lab, not based on it's usefulness or the pictures it's used to take. P lives in a time where the camera chooses the photographer, blind to the reality that photographers choose whichever camera works for them.

>>2899677
Why? Are the mft primes not a good investment and should I get old manual film primes instead and use an adapter for m4/3?

>>2899699
While there is an element of that, it seems like you weren't here when the board was plagued with m43 is god/crop factor is a myth/boulder in a purse shitposting (like three-four years ago irrc, maybe longer). That left a very bad taste for the format in a lot of people's mouths. It's mostly always been a hatred of the userbase and not so much the equipment.

>>2899702
No I was here for that. That was a very small group of people or a single extreme autist just as this"mfturds, Fuji is the one true system" is now.

>>2899700
In my opinion, the biggest reason to buy into a m43 system is to adapt lenses. If I gave enough of a damn about size to allow it to affect the body I'm using, I'd just use a good compact.

>>2899700
The kit lens was simply fine for my uses. I didn't have the need to get more until now.

>>2899704

Fuji-turds shit on everything.

>>2899710
I want to say it wasn't fujifags who were in that first group...oly I think.

As a beginner what's the next lens I should worry about getting. Nikon here.

Got an 18-55mm kit lens now.

>>2899715
You should worry about taking good photos.

>>2899715
This
>>2899732

And it sounds like a jerkoff response, but it isn't. If you focus on just learning to use what you have, you'll learn its limitations compared to what you want to do. This will in turn give you the information you need to decide on your own what lens is best for you. At that point, when you've narrowed down to what focal lengths you're interested in, come back here and we can talk about the differences between your choices in those focal lengths, but now? Who knows? Maybe you're interested in faster, maybe you're interested in wider, in longer...none of us can know. We can throw some general bullshit at you about get a nifty fifty or some other assorted crap like that, but that really benefits no one.

Learn what you have, look at pictures, and it'll be pretty clear to you what you want next.

File: lens[1].jpg (72KB, 600x398px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 600x398px

>>2899715
I'd say adding the 35mm 1.8 and the 55-200mm 4.5-5.6 is worthwhile. You can't appreciate what fast glass can do for you until you try it. Same goes for the telephoto

And that then is the point where you never again buy anything unless you know specifically what problem it will solve for you

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS4 Macintosh
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2009:03:12 22:57:19
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	600
Image Height	398

File: image.jpg (4MB, 4032x3024px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 4032x3024px

Lmao why do I even shoot dslr's anymore?

On the left, D800 with 35 f/1.8. On the left, X100s with a 35mm (equivalent) f/2. Even with a lens hood on it's barely bigger than the grip on the D800.

I bet the X100s is built better, too.

>>2899890
If you're happy with a X100S, you never needed a DSLR in the first place.

>>2899715
Pick a lens that fits your needs...?

As far as I'm concerned figure out what you want to shoot most and then just buy a relatively high-end lens for that next.

>>2899902

I had a DSLR in the first place and have for years. Hence, the "anymore". I bought an X100s as a fun little weekend camera and now it's all i use. Bought the 35 1.8 since I love the focal length. Carrying the two cameras is a very telling study in contrasts and usability. Namely, my D800 is like shooting with a brick and the X100s feels like a camera.

>>2899890
I have to agree with the other anon. If a X100S is enough or even preferable for you, you probably never needed a DSLR like a D800.

>>2899915
If you're a casual shooter then yeah the X100 is a good enough camera.

>>2899918
>>2899919

kek, love you guys making assumptions about my shooting needs.

>>2899921
You do realize that >>2899918
is saying literally exactly the same thing you said, right?

>>2899812
FWIW, a different opinion: I have a Sigma 17-70 Standard zoom, and a 35mm 2.0 prime for my crop pentax.

Even though I've often packed it with me, I find I almost never use the 35mm on my K5 (I do use it on my film body).

Very rarely do I need so shallow DoF that the difference between 3.5 and 2.0 would be warranted, and in low light I usually rather bump the iso than start switching lenses, because the former is just so much easier to do and the result on picture quality is negligible in most basic situations.

While the 35mm prime is somewhat better in terms of sharpness and color, the 35mm range also happens to be where the Sigma zoom is "at its best", and to be honest, good enough for most of my needs.

ymmv, of course.

>>2899921
No need to get KeK (May His Memes Be Dank) involved in this. We are merely making the most logical conclusion with the information you have provided.

No shame in being a casual shooter that prefers a point and shoot to a DSLR.

Fuuuuck saw a Nikkor AF-S 14-24mm f/2.8G on sale for $1,000 just a couple of hundred bucks cheaper than a Tamron SP 15-30mm f/2.8 VC USD... Is it worth it despite losing VC?

>>2899929
On a wide angle? I'd say so. If you were talking about a 70-200mm, I'd probably sing a different tune, but yeah. I'd pull that trigger if the deal's legit.

>>2899929

VC / VR means fuck all for that range. If it really comes down to it, you can always use a tripod.

>>2899922

One was a rhetorical aside about the hilarious difference in sizes between a DSLR and a fixed-lens compact, the other was an assumption about someone's "needs" (and by extension, a judgment of their capability).

>>2899960
Ya know, when you go out of your way to say you don't need x, it's not surprising when others agree that yes, you didn't need x.

Pen f vs x-pro 2
>casual street and family shooter
>primes only

>>2899964

x-pro 2 for sure every time

fuck olympus and their four thirds balls

why is the a6000 so expensive and when is its price likely to drop?

i really want one but it makes no sense because i can get a dslr with same spec for almost half the price

>>2899974
The fuck are you talking about, anon.
Used A6000s are like 300 bucks or even less these days.

>>2899975
Fresh meat who doesn't know how much cameras go for.

>>2899975
uk is expensive as fuck to buy electronics

File: 01BookTalkK2.jpg (613KB, 2048x1365px) Image search: [Google]

613KB, 2048x1365px

Im very new to photography and bought a d3300 to use for my upcoming trip to nepal because I dont want to use my phones potato camera. If I do enjoy photography whats my next step? Should I get a new camera or a lens? If I do enjoy it I plan to do a lot of landscape shots of mountians and valleys, and maybe invest another 500 dollars into photography and want suggestion for next future upgrade piece

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

File: original.jpg (357KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

357KB, 1280x720px

any views on the samsung nx30?

seems to be a pretty good deal to me

are the lenses optical in these things?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	OLYMPUS IMAGING CORP.
Camera Model	E-M1
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.3 (Macintosh)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Color Filter Array Pattern	802
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	62 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	150 dpi
Vertical Resolution	150 dpi
Image Created	2013:12:31 10:12:24
Exposure Time	1/125 sec
F-Number	f/2.8
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	800
Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	31.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	High Gain Up
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

>>2899970
What about fuji focus issues?

>>2899987

d3300 is a very good entry level camera, unless you are going full pro i dont see why you would need a new camera

spend your money on a nice sharp lens for it, i take it you have the standard kit lens? 18-55 3.5 or something?

>>2899990
couldnt say, what focus problems have you heard?

it has 200 odd focus points compared to a dslr which may only have around 15

>>2899991
Yeah thats what I currently have. I want to take decent photos for my patagonia trip in the next 2-3 years if I save up enough money. So this nepal trip would be my beginners attempt at trying to get decent shot practice in for mountians which I love. I heard something like 70mm-200mm are good as well as the 20mm and the 24-70mm lenses are good but they are way out my budget

>>2899997

i couldnt say much about what lenses to get except that if you are doing landscape then you probably want a wider angle than some zoom lens, id say 70-200mm wouldnt be much use up a mountain but then again i dont know much about mountains

id personally go for a wide angle with small f number, for example theres a 20mm f1.8 which sounds good or a 24mm f2.8 which gets good reviews

this will let you get nice wide angle but sharp shots of the awesome landscapes

>>2899974
I got mine for like 365 usd used on eBay
I thought there would be a significant price drop when the a6300 came out but there wasn't
Honestly the price won't drop significantly for like 2 years

>>2899964
E-M5II+28/35/50 equiv of your choice (P14, PL15, O17, P20, P or O25)+P42.5 or O45.

>>2899988
No, they're analog lenses. Try a NX500.

>>2899993
Doesn't matter how many you have if they are slow, inconsistent, and indecisive.

>>2900004
>Doesn't matter how many you have if they are slow, inconsistent, and indecisive

how slow are we talking here? like a second or is it noticeable? is it that bad?

>>2900003
the prices in america are so much cheaper than the uk

i was hoping for a price drop in the next few months haha, might have to give mirrorless a miss at the moment and just go for a dslr

>>2899974
> why is the a6000 so expensive
It isn't, not even new. This is an entry level to low midrange camera.

> because i can get a dslr with same spec for almost half the price
No, you can't.

>>2900009
>No, you can't

d3300 = £300
a6000 = £500

okay, not half but not far off

>>2899987
> Should I get a new camera or a lens?
That's more something you need to decide.

If you thought you wanted easier AE bracketing / faster shooting speeds / more low light capabilities or something else like that, then it's probably more the body that you might want to swap out first.

If you want a bit sharper images, wider or narrower field of view, macro capability or more zoom, it's more likely the lens.

>>2900010
> d3300
Not remotely the same thing.

A A6000 is more comparable to a D7200.

>>2900007

A second? Hah! You wish it was that fast!

Ok, I admit, i am kind of exagerating. A modern body, while slower than e-mount, is decently fast.

But early x-mount bodies lenses are unusable. It has been patched to a degree, but if you are shooting the
18mm for example (which is somehow even worse than Sony's 16mm) you are gonna have a bad time on even the most up to date body.

>>2900014
Why? Same sensor, same megapixels

>>2900014

lol nah. it's more like a d5500.

>>2900024
Burst rate and AF coverage for starters. Plus lots of software features like +-5 EV AE bracketing, focus peaking and more.

It just has most of the stuff you might pay for when moving up from a D5300 to a D7200.

That's not to say the A6000 is better than the D7200. Just closer to the D7200 than the D5300.

i have a d750. what is a good lens for underwater photography?

>>2900035
Dude...that's some high risk stuff you're talking about there. If I were you, I'd just get a good compact and use that for underwater stuff. I know too many people who've had housings fail on them to ever be comfortable using my body in one.

>>2900036

All my this.

>>2900035
No lens is for "underwater". You use a diving camera case for that - one designed to accommodate and allow for operation of your lens, or at least one that is big enough.

But they actually don't tend to be cheap, it's specialty equipment.

Well, except for Yicam / GoPro cameras. Which I actually suggest you use for this if you can - a Yicam 2 or GoPro in some "up to 30M" or whatever diving case.

>>2900036
>>2900040
>>2900043
i have insurance so if it floods it floods. and I've read a bit about housings and ports. have an opportunity to shoot video and pics for tourists. was thinking about nikkor 16-35 but have heard mixed reviews.

>>2900036
>>2900035
Rent, and rent from a place that specializes in cameras for diving like this one (never used this company before so it's just for reference):
http://www.bluewaterphotostore.com/rentals

You don't want to rent from someone like lensrental/borrowlenses for this because iirc their insurance doesn't cover diving with their gear (you might be able to talk to them and work something out though, both companies have great customer service and tend to try to find ways to work with you to meet your needs).

But for the love of god, unless you have a bunch of money to replace your body, a huge budget that someone else is putting up that has enough room to destroy cameras, or something similar, don't risk your gear diving. Assume any camera that goes in a waterproof housing will be broken.

>>2900056
Will your insurance actually pay on that though? Seriously, call them up and ask.

Your lens choice is partially dictated by your housing choice. You'll want wider because if you're diving any place but like the middle of the pacific, your visibility won't justify having a long lens. Aside from that you want as fast of a lens as possible because aside from possibly using a red filter (you can color correct in post so you don't need those any more) which cuts light, it's just surprisingly dark under water so you're going to need to use fairly open apertures.

>>2900059
thanks for the tips. how wide is wide enough do you think? the water is super clear and i really want to avoid a fisheye effect.

>>2900056
Okay? My guess is that a wider lens might be better. Possibly a prime.

I'd actually probably still bring a Yicam 2 or GoPro, they'll be good to increase your yield per dive and actually better for a bunch of situations.

>>2900059
> it's just surprisingly dark under water
You want your own lights (probably two or so of them), that's for sure.

>>2900065
16-35 is a good range. I'd actually probably just roll with something like the 20mm D if you can get your hands on one. I'd go prime because many cases don't let you zoom. You generally want to go a little wider than normal because at best you'll use live view, but if you want to conserve batteries (like having to spend a couple of hours in more shallow water), you'll basically be firing from the hip just kinda hoping you have the camera pointing in the right direction.

Don't worry too much about lens distortions because as long as you're not using a true fisheye, something like lightroom can easily correct them or you can pull manual correction settings from Uncle Ken's site to use in a free program.

>>2900065
> how wide is wide enough do you think
Around 18-24mm (~74-90 degrees FoV) is my own first guess.

>>2900073
> Don't worry too much about lens distortions because as long as you're not using a true fisheye
Even a true fisheye (as long as it's a good one) can usually be corrected to a good standard:

https://luminous-landscape.com/rokinon-samyang-12mm-f2-8-fisheye-defished/

>>2900078
>Even a true fisheye (as long as it's a good one) can usually be corrected to a good standard:
Yeah, but you end up having to trash a bunch of the frame.

File: image.png (49KB, 648x280px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 648x280px

>>2896806
ALRIGHT DUDES EMERGEMCY IN THE HOUSE
MY CAM JUST HAD A HOT PIXEL AND I FIXED IT BY DOING THAT FORWARD MONTH THING
BUT
Is this a sign that my camera is approaching the end of its life cycle?
Should I sell it before it's too late or is this a common thing?

>>2900080
Certainly. On the other hand, fisheyes have a wider field of view at the same focal length. They usually can focus closer. Plus they work better with small dome ports. And they are often more compact than a comparable rectilinear lens.

I'd really not dismiss them easily, but I guess YMMV.

File: 815KuDtbEHL._SL1500_.jpg (179KB, 1500x1068px) Image search: [Google]

179KB, 1500x1068px

is the nikon s7000 a good camera? I mainly just want to camera to take progression pictures of model kits I do in good quality.

>>2900106
It's a fair bit below even an entry level DSLR / MILC with a kit lens.

Doesn't mean you can't do model pictures I guess (put up some bright lights to make it work better...), but I'd certainly not call it "good".

>>2900107
what is considered good then? I know almost nothing about photography.

>>2900108
Nikon D810 or fuck off

>>2900111
a 3000$ camera looks a bit overkill anon

>>2900114
fine be poor your whole life

>>2900108
I'd place "good" for a camera somewhere near the mid-range of interchangeable lens (IL) camera+lens combinations.

A noticeable bit above the "average" entry level IL camera gear which is itself a fair bit above the cheap "low end" cameras a lot of people use. But also a noticeable bit below the "great" gear that professionals might use.

With all cameras involved judged by current technology.

At least that's how that would make some sense to me.

>>2900115
I'm sure buying a 3k camera as a firsty is a good way to not be poor

fucking kids and their retard logic, I swear

>>2899448
>80d
>good color and DR
I can vouch for this, I was snapshitting with relatives on shutter priority and the pictures were fucking amazing off the camera, I didn't even have to do anything in post. Had them printed, too.

I need a better lens, though. I'm thinking of picking up the 50mm 1.8 because the kit lens despite being pretty nice, it isn't sharp

>>2900119
I'm mostly just looking to get a modern digital camera that can shoot quality photos and have all the current standard features like 1080 video and wifi. Something that's not going to give me nasty grainy photos with artifacts all over. I would be almost exclusively taking photos indoors.
>>2900115
I'll get to being rich once I can walk a half mile kek

>>2900126
> I'm mostly just looking to get a modern digital camera that can shoot quality photos and have all the current standard features like 1080 video and wifi
D3200 or D3300 with that WLAN adapter thing, perhaps?

D5500 or A6000 should work too.

> Something that's not going to give me nasty grainy photos with artifacts all over.
If you have good lighting conditions (can be produced artificially for your models with some form of constant lighting or photographic strobes), just about any halfway modern digital camera won't be very "grainy".

What you can still get easily is "blurry/unsharp" - due to shitty lenses, compression issues and stuff like that.. And over/underexposed areas. Poor color accuracy. And slow inaccurate autofocus. No option to manual focus. And a lot of other flaws that aren't good at all even when you have good light.

>>2900131 (cont'd)
I also just remembered image compression artifacts also still are a very noticeable thing on a good number of cheaper compacts, which only offer JPEG compression. They usually (lossily) over-compress even that, and it results in artifacts.

And then actually editing already compressed JPEG and compressing them again can easily lead to further artifacts.

>>2900131
>>2900146
I think the type of camera(don't know the official term for it, professional style I guess) might be a bit too excessive for what I'm looking for, I'm mostly looking at the 200-300 range, you know a step up from the basic tier stuff but not in the professional level tier. I don't think I would really care about photo compression at all since file size should be no issue since I have a free terabyte which would take quite a while to fill before needing a dedicated hard drive. I'm mainly interested in the nikon s7000 right now since it's relatively recent at 2015 and has the features I was looking for and I was originally wondering if there was a clear better alternative in that range. I know very little about cameras in general, I really just want to take fairly basic photos of model kits in a bright room(using 6500k lights so it's bright as all fuck) and I prefer asking people on 4chan since I can usually expect a fully honest response while a review site is obviously tainted opinion wise. Last camera I remember having I think had around 6 or 8 megapixels with 3x zoom around mid 2000s.

>>2900151
> you know a step up from the basic tier stuff but not in the professional level tier
That's basically what I think I suggested.

(I didn't suggest the D810, that was probably a troll post by someone else)

> I'm mostly looking at the 200-300 range
But a D3200 kit is around $300 on Amazon, and the D3300 is close when it was used...?

You might find better deals.

> I don't think I would really care about photo compression at all since file size should be no issue
Sure. But almost all of these "low end" cameras have *no option* to get an uncompressed or losslessly compressed image. You are usually stuck with relatively severely lossy JPEG compression.

I do remember some of the Canon compacts have 3rd party hacked firmware called CHDK to get more options for compression and (almost?) uncompressed images or such, but that's probably not a first choice anyhow overall.

> Last camera I remember having I think had around 6 or 8 megapixels with 3x zoom around mid 2000s.
Okay the S7000 probably wouldn't be worse than that.. If that's all you want, go ahead.

That said, more zoom => usually a shittier performance by the lens. Applies even to IL cameras.

>>2900161
With cameras is wear really a issue when looking for used ones like you said? How do these things age? I guess I wouldn't mind trying to get a 500-600$ camera used for 300-400 if there really is that big of a difference.

So the D3300 is what is considered mid-range for cameras? What are the main benefits over "low end" cameras?

File: 1469209261050.jpg (53KB, 313x286px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 313x286px

What should i pick as my first camera? I want to start photography, snap clouds, atmospheric phenomena stars and animals. I'd like to have mirrorless camera, what should i pick with 1000 usd budget? I'm okay with used.

>>2900165
>With cameras is wear really a issue when looking for used ones like you said?
Not terribly. Yea, shutters and stuff can wear out (depends on the camera model for how many times they are rated to last on average), but that takes a fair amount of time.

Many hobbyist sellers didn't use their cameras all that much.

> How do these things age?
Batteries: Most are fairly bad or broken in a bit over a decade or so. But you usually can get replacements for major camera systems like that.

Sensors and lenses and stuff can "age" in that newer models obsolete them eventually, but it's not like they should break much over time. Ditto for Wlan module standards and cabled ports and the like.

> So the D3300 is what is considered mid-range for cameras?
Entry-level IL camera, but it is somewhat "average" in the context of all available consumer cameras, technology(feature and performance)-wise.

It's below mid-range in terms of price.

> What are the main benefits over "low end" cameras?
Much better sensor, interchangeable lenses (not only more options but they can be far better - the kit lens beats the fixed lens of a low end camera), can shoot RAW as well as JPEG, better autofocus, the option to manually focus your lens, more buttons and knobs than most low-end cameras (faster operation), can shoot at a higher frequency than many low-end cameras with the same resolution, and so on.

>>2900187
Probably the A6000, because I assume you want to fit your lens(es) in the budget too?

If it's just the body, the A6300 is nice too.

As for lenses, the 8 and 12mm APS-C Samyang lenses are popular wide angles to shoot sky, landscapes and stars.

>>2900197
no sony, weird hotpixel removal algorithm removes stars from photo in bulb mode

>>2900187
>>2900202
Pentax. Why? Good and cheap lenses and astrotracer.

File: 12063755_911036858979491_7508593917991449315_n.jpg (33KB, 455x482px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 455x482px

>>2900205
but it's not mirrorless :(

>>2900207
If you want mirrorless I have bad news for you.
Star eliminating algorythms, nolens and unreliable, hunting AF above 100mm amongst them
Plus if you put any lens on the body the size and weight difference disappears.

>>2900210
so pentax k-3 ii it is then, thanks

>>2900212
Or wait for the K-70 and use the separate GPS unit.

>>2900202

Why would youever shoot bulb mode anyway? Combining multiple 30 second exposures turns out a better shot.

>>2900216
When you start doing astro and nightscapes you will realize the fault of that thinking. Many shots need more than 30s, even more than 2 minutes even if you do daylight landscape.

>>2899980
uk is expensive in all areas

>>2900226
And it will get even worse thanks to Nigel and the band of idiots