/gear/ - Gear thread

Best $100 pocket camera with 10-25 zoom?

File: 21722-fujifilm-instax-share-sp-1-printer.1452951096.png (320KB, 650x650px) Image search: [Google]

320KB, 650x650px

>>2897547
I got to play with one of the Instax cameras tonight and I really want one. I already have an X-T1, so is it worth having the camera itself or just get a printer?

>>2897834
To me it is. Those are really fun to use, a bit expensive the cartridges are but at least is not imposible film.

>>2897834
Depends what printer you want. If you want to print on site there is an instax printer but it's always nicer not to fiddle with connection and two separate items and print from the camera itself. Plus it is a great party feature, everyone will love to hold an "instagram" physically instead of the usual phone stuff.

>>2897834

I haven't used the Instax cameras but my understanding is that you don't really have much in the way of controling exposure, etc

Having the standalone printer makes much more sense, the X-T1 can print direct to it, but ultimately you can print any image anyway by using the smartphone app.

Get the SP-2 printer, its only recently been released, improves on the original by adding a removable battery, micro USB port for both power and charging the battery, and higher resolution prints.

Can anyone please recommend a good wide angle (24-35mm) slr lens that can be found for around £100-140? Aperture at least f/2.8. I don't care about the brand whatsoever, as long as it can be adapted to canon. I'm besotted with the C/Y zeiss lenses and the 28/2.8 is exactly what I want, but sadly it's a little more expensive than I want right now.

Either that or convince me that the '90 Canon 35mm f/2.0 is worth getting.

>>2898009
There is the Pentax M 28 or the older SMC K that is relatively cheap. Maybe some eastern or russian M42 lenses but stay away from the Pentacon 29/2.8. It's a piece of shit. You might be able to get a Felktogon copy MIR 35mm or 24mm M42 lens.

I was searching amazon for 600mm lenses just for fun and what I found was a wide range of pricing, from $900 to like $11,000. Whats the difference between them?

which of the fuji 35mm is better?

>>2898029

Quality, speed, and autofocus.

Buying a $900 600mm would be retarded. You'll either have shit quality optics, or an ancient battered lens where you'll be forced to use a tripod and manual focus all the time.

Body
- Canon EOS 6D
- Nikon D600

Lenses
- Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM
- Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 STM
- Sigma 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6 HSM II
- Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 VC USD
- Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 VC USD
- Nikon AF-S 50mm f/1.8G

Flash
- Canon Speedlite 90EX
- Canon Speedlite 430EX II
- Nikon Speedlight SB-5000

Accessories
- Vanguard Espod CX 204
- Peak Design Capture Pro

Bag
- Pacsafe Camsafe Z16

What's missing from my kit /p/?

>>2898048
Going out and using it? This is not a showoff thread, people here do awesome photography with a kit lens or a single prime on an old used entry body.

>>2898055
>This is not a showoff thread
/ G E A R /
G
E
A
R
/

Nigga, I just came back a from a shoot today. Editing them as we shitpost.

>>2898048
Did you call up a camera store and be like, "yo, how can I give you as much money as humanly possible and still remain fairly sub optimal considering how much money I'm dropping"?

File: original.jpg (763KB, 1600x900px) Image search: [Google]

763KB, 1600x900px

IM GONNA BUY IT

AND YOU CAN'T STOP ME

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi

>>2898057
Nah senpai, all of these barring the SB-5000 and EF 50mm f/1.8 STM are pre loved. Most expensive piece of kit there is the Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 VC USD, which I personally bought in Tokyo last year brand new.

File: 89807_C100D_z1.jpg (166KB, 550x469px) Image search: [Google]

166KB, 550x469px

whats /p/s opinion on the eos 100d?
I thought about buying one with a 24mm 2.8 as a replacement for my x100. Is this a good camera compared to the mirrorless stuff in the same Pricerange? is it comparable to other dslrs ?

>>2898060
>all of these barring the SB-5000 and EF 50mm f/1.8 STM and Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 VC USD are pre loved
Fix'd.

I generally a Jew cunt when I buy stuff.

>>2898058
Have fun shooting it fampai

>>2898060
>buying a first party flash new
Yeah, fuck that shit guy.

It doesn't matter how "pre loved" they are, "your" collection of gear is an idiotic waste of money.

>>2898048
Why do you have the same tier and generation of camera from two competing companies? You're wasting a ton of money on duplication.

>>2898061
It's a small DSLR for small girly hands. Try it out first, if you don't like it then get an 1300D instead

>>2898061
>is it comparable to other dslrs
It literally is the most basic modern DSLR on the market. Though, it still can take great pics, you might be better off buying an actually decently specced system

>>2898067
>>2898066
What do you mean with basic? Is there anything I could do with a 70d that I can't do with the 100d?

I need a camera recommendation for an upcoming trip.
-Going to travel to South America and Europe
-Camera will be used a few days in a harsh environment (Torres del Paine, camping for 3 days) / glaciers and a lot of walking during the whole trip.
-Landscape and street photography/portraits/travel pics will be taken mostly
-It needs to be compact since I will be traveling with only one 44L backpack.

I have a d700 with a 50mm 1.8 lens, I love this combination but, even with primes (I was thinking about buying a wide angle prime) I think it's too big to carry.


Help me out, guys, the depart date is approaching and I am still undecided.

>>2898073
Yes, the 70D has better AF, more AF points, better tracking and burst rate. Much better for sports, the weather sealing and sturdy design is better for hiking and landscape.

>>2898073
>basic
The least amount of camera that they can get away with giving you in every sense but still call it a dslr.

One of the huge improvements of the x0D series by Canon over the x00D cameras is the additional physical controls you have, which doesn't sound like much, but after you've been shooting for a bit, it's a world of difference.

Also, fucking google up any guide to new cameras.

>>2898064
The SB-5000 is a fucking boss flash, just came out a few weeks ago so no opportunity to get it pre-loved. 14-200mm zoom range, monster power and all the wireless controls you can dream of.

This thing is fucking awesome in every way possible.

>>2898079
You're an idiot.

>>2898061
The viewfinder will simply be too tiny. Very small DSLRs are pretty pointless because of the corners that have to be cut, if you want that small get a mirorless camera. X-e2 or A6000 will give you a camera that is better in most every way - including image quality - apart from battery life.

>>2898080
You're jelly as fuck.

>>2898074
U W A
W
A

I find 50mm far too wide for general/street photography even on full frame. 35mm is the sweet spot, but having an UWA, especially a zoom like the Tamron 15-30mm f/2.8 VC USD, is just the bees.

Yeah, it's a fucking monster of a lens, but if I had an single lens with me to bring we me traveling, the 15-30mm is my first choice everytime.

>>2898086
Am I?

Or might it be that you're a literal retard with your money, which by all means is your right, but that doesn't stop "your" collection from being one of the worst wastes of money possible in photography.

File: Untitled.png (252KB, 1932x1080px) Image search: [Google]

252KB, 1932x1080px

>>2898092
whoops, wrong untitled

>>2898065
Thinking about a full switch to Nikon. I want a dual-SD card slot DSLR, that isn't a bring like the D750 or 5D MK III and Nikon is the only one proving that at the moment.

Just getting the hang of the F-Mount so far and I'm liking it, though obviously the 6D is still my main workhorse.

>>2898094
Yes you are. If you've handled an SB-5000, you wouldn't be talking shit.

>>2898095
Oh, you're that same retard who posted yesterday.

You know what, go ahead and take an $800 loss just to get a dual slot camera. That's such a smart move!

>>2898096
Nope. There's literally no set of features that will make a speed light ever worth more than $200. As long as chinkshit like Yong exists with cheap radio triggers, there's literally no reason to get a first party light.

>>2898095
Go Pentax, famie. It's still huge loss but at least you get more for your money.

>>2898091

Its out of my budget and I need something light.

>>2898102
Nope. K-1 is uncomfy as fuck. As bad as the D600 is, it at least is still designed for human hands. Neither is as comfy as the 6D or any other Canon tough.

>>2898098
Still thinking about the swap, but going to ease into it unlike buying new shit. Waiting for deals and cheap lenses to come up, if I do,. I should I actually make a profit this time.

>>2898101
I've tried the Yongnuo's, decent for the price but the SB-5000 is the perfect flash for me. Covers 80% of my working focal range, and is decent enough when wider than it's technically capable of. iTTL/ETTL is a must for my line of work too, as an events and nightclub photographer.

>>2898103
What's your budget? If you can handle it, I'd tell you to keep your body and get a sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 shorter, but wider angle and much better for travel because of that.

>>2898091

>50mm is too wide
>35mm is better
>15-30 is best

What are you even trying to say?

>>2898103
A 35mm prime then. Any should be good, but obviously get as good as you can afford.

50mm is a mistake as an only lens, I learned that when I traveled to Japan. Had to buy a 24-70mm f/2.8 the very next opportunity I had at Fujiya Camera.

>>2898110
>too long
Obvious fuck up there.

35 vs 30mm isn't too much of a different, but having the ability to go UWA with the Tamron is king. 35mm is still the best for an-in-one focal length, but having the 15-30mm is much proffered, if you can afford it.

>>2898112

Kk, just making sure.

>>2898107
>iTTL/ETTL is a must for my line of work too, as an events and nightclub photographer.
This really isn't true, but feel free to keep being an idiot about literally everything.

>>2898109


I think the main problem is not my budget (it is arround 700usd) but the fact i dont have much space to carry my camera on my bag, I was thinking about getting a LX100 or a small m4/3 with one or 2 lenses.

>>2898115
Keep getting butthurt brah. I grow stronger with ever drop of your tears ;^)

>>2898117
Well I was just talking about a carrying the 18-35 as your only lens with that body. A 24-70 would be ideal, but those are decently large.

Honestly though, yes m43 is smaller, they aren't that much smaller so if you're really pressed for space, your thought about a compact like the LX100 is probably the best route for you to go.

>>2898118
Just buy it and spend your money as you see fit and stop trying to justify your decisions on third rate anonymous internet forums. I get it, you want to show off but nobody here is interested in any way.

>>2898118
I'm not butthurt. I'm almost attempting to teach you the error of your ways, but you're a retard so I'm more just responding so others don't buy into your idiocy.

Yes, stuff like ettl is useful. What's more useful is not needing it, but depending on the market you're in, flash photography might be the big thing. As far as events go, it's actually a terrible idea to rely on flashes unless you absolutely have to, especially smaller ones, which if we're being honest, is all you're shooting and getting paid for (if you're even getting paid). Fast lenses and good high ISO are what you should be after.

As far as ETTL, it's only really a half truth that it's easier if you are shooting in clubs that have the random light show shit going on (and if there isn't random light changes, you just have to set it once and bam, you're good). You'd get just as many keepers just setting a strobe to your typical throw and power then just going gunning...but you're right, I haven't the foggiest what I'm talking about and we should all listen to the guy who cops all kinds of mad deals buying the same focal range over and over again, replicates it with another system, and then wants to spend an additional $800 just to get a second memory card slot.

File: dayum.png (2MB, 2560x1440px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2560x1440px

>>2898094
Oh wow, I never would realized I've gone through that much gear in the past three years...

>>2898128
>>2898127
B U T T H U R T
U
T
T
H
U
R
T

Yes, feed me!

>>2898141
>can't actually provide any reasons why anon is wrong, so anon must be butthurt

I mean hell, you could post some of these large events your shooting. You could post any kind of proof of your "line of work", you could come back with some kind of actual technical knowledge to argue against, except you don't have any of that. You're just casting about buying (or claiming to) a bunch of pointless gear (protip: buying something you don't need at half off is still losing 50% of the price, you're not saving anything) and refusing to think for one brief moment that you might be the idiot that people are telling you you are.

>>2898117
Get a bigger bag.

>>2898148
I already gave a reason why I bought it, yet you you are so butthurt beyond comprehension. So, once again;

B U T T H U R T
U
T
T
H
U
R
T

>>2898152
Heh, you don't even own any of that do you?

File: huurrrr.png (1018KB, 1000x562px) Image search: [Google]

1018KB, 1000x562px

>>2898153

File: 20160803_183612.jpg (151KB, 1000x562px) Image search: [Google]

151KB, 1000x562px

>>2898153
>>2898156
What's the point of lying on a Tibetan finger painting internet billboard?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	samsung
Camera Model	SM-N910G
Camera Software	N910GDTU1DPF4
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.2
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	31 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	5312
Image Height	2988
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2016:08:03 18:36:11
Exposure Time	1/10 sec
F-Number	f/2.2
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	800
Metering Mode	Average
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	4.80 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	5312
Image Height	2988
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Night Scene
Unique Image ID	H16USHH04SA

>>2898156
>>2898157
Heh, so you are a retard then, better than a liar, I'll give you that.

>>2898158
And by that admission, you have confessed to your supreme anal ravaging, ergo;

B U T T H U R T
U
T
T
H
U
R
T

>>2898160
Nope, not by a long shot. Do you actually imagine me frothing at the mouth or something?

>>2898163
Yes. Also crying a river of deliciously salty tears.

>>2898158

why is he a retard? Both nice cameras

>>2898180
See >>2898160 That's why.

>>2898183

got it... thought it was one camera for each purpose... Now seen like he's just a rich dumb

>>2898184
>thought it was one camera for each purpose
>different mounts
Nigga u da dumb.

File: illogical.jpg (23KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 480x360px

>>2898048

I have a lot of gear, but stuck with one mount.

But hey... whatever, man. Do your thing, ignore the haters.

>>2898183
It's pointless replication of bodies and focal lengths with no gain. Think of it this way: it's like he needed a new laptop, then went out and bought a six year old PC laptop and a six year old Macbook and convinced himself that he got a good deal because those are cheaper than a brand new netbook.

The best part is, he thinks absolutely anyone would be jealous of how he has two prosumer bodies when he could have easily gotten something like a 5dIII or D750+at least two of the holy trinity for what he's dropped on mediocre gear.

Going to buy a 7d2.

The nearest store that could possibly have a x-pro2 is 70 miles away, but I want to try out the only other brand I would buy from before I slot myself with canon until I git rich

File: highres-Fujifilm-Instax-9_1397142864.jpg (157KB, 1000x742px) Image search: [Google]

157KB, 1000x742px

>>2897929
>>2897922
>>2897841
Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't the cameras more of a true "Polaroid" style exposure and the printer is a more inkjet style? I really like the fucked up, overexposed flash and ruined colors look 2bh.

>>2898194
>dropped on mediocre gear.
Nigga, you are implying I've spent that much on this gear. See >>2898062
>I'm generally a Jew cunt when I buy stuff.

>>2898192
See >>2898095 I want pro features without getting a massive and bulky pro body.

File: retard.png (488KB, 1404x770px) Image search: [Google]

488KB, 1404x770px

>>2898197
Nigger you already told us how much you spent and you're not as jewish as you think you are.

>massive and bulk pro body
The more you talk, the more you reveal just how little you know. The 6D and 5DmIII are basically the same size.

File: retard.png (524KB, 1239x756px) Image search: [Google]

524KB, 1239x756px

>>2898197
And the D600 and D750 basically are exactly the same size.

You haven't the first clue about anything you're talking about.

>>2898187

read his gears first, it's up there.

>>2898202
>>2898201
I have considered the D750 and 5D MK II, but the cheapest I've found is $1,750 and $2,000 respectively.

I got my 6D for $750 years ago and the D600 last week for $535. If I sell both, I'd guess I'd be close to getting either pro bodies.

>>2898201
5D Mark III feels much bigger and heavier than the 6D. I can easily operate the 6D with one hand, but I need to crimp my hands a lot more with the 5D.

The differences between the D600 and D750 are much less, but it is there.

>>2898216
>The differences between the D600 and D750 are much less, but it is there.
Yeah, as in the D600 is LARGER than the D750...

Poorfag here. Don't have much money, like, $150 budget, tops.

Is it possible to buy a camera for that, that won't be absolute shit? Just looking to take some pictures of smaller things, 1/12 toys and small models mostly.

And to make matters worse, pretty poor lighting where I live as well. I figure I'm completely screwed (could buy a lightbox maybe, if anyone has a good recommendation for one off Amazon or something), but is there anything that'll take nice, clear pictures of small stuff for around that cost?

>>2898218
D750 is heavier and has a THICCCer grip iirc.

>>2898197
>I want pro features without getting a massive and bulky pro body.
Have you tried killing yourself? Because that's not how camera companies operate.

Also you need to stop attention whoring. You're not getting any wider than your Sigma without a 11-24/4L, and Nikon's worse in that regard. Nobody gives a shit if you bought a SB5000, just go enjoy it. If you were such a jew, you'd have found a used SB910 for $200, but here we are. There's nothing missing from your kit that we can tell you about because we A) don't know what you shoot B) don't care what you shoot. If you felt like something was missing from your kit, you'd have bought it already. Put on a trip or go fuck off.

>>2898195
It's an alright camera, but it'll operate nothing like the 7D2. If you're an action shooter, you're not going to be pleased with the XP2.

>>2898206
>>2898225
Wait no way the D600 is heavier. It might have been the lens on it at the time...

>>2898219
Just use your phone until you can save up.

Otherwise, you have film which has a much lower entry cost (like you can buy a great film body+lens for as cheap as $20 if you look hard enough), but you have higher continuing costs (having to buy film, the stuff to develop with, getting more chemistry as you run out) -- and that's honestly the big difference money wise between film and digital: digital=costs are almost all up front, film=costs are spread out over time.

With the smaller stuff, you'll eventually want a decent macro lens which even on the cheaper side will cost you at least twice your current budget, but seriously, just use your phone for now.

>>2898219
>pretty poor lighting where I live as well
Get a lamp.
>$150
If it's got a lens on it and takes pictures, get it. Anything with a reproduction ratio of at least 1:4 should be good.

>>2898226
See >>2898160

Why are you getting so worked up? I just asked a simple gear question to start off with, and you had to drag it down to this rabbit hole.

>>2898229

I got regular old 50/100/150 lamps, but my current camera takes the graniest, shittiest photos I've ever seen in anything less than full, blazing sunlight like the fist of God coming down from the sky in a burning halo of light. It's a polaroid i1035. Maybe I'm using it wrong, for all I know, but I've never got a clear picture out of this thing except in direct, bright sunlight, or when using the flash, which absolutely murders any picture I'd try to take of toys or models.

>>2898228
I don't have a phone with a camera.

>>2898233
>I don't have a phone with a camera.
A cheap compact then...

Compacts are generally shit on for a lot of reasons, but beggars can't be choosers.

I'd point you to something like the Elph 300 series, and the main reason for the Elphs is that is where you can get some of the better features:price ratio at dirt cheap once you include the fact that you can install a firmware hack called CHDK on it which gives you a lot of really useful features. Also, with what it sounds like, you'll be using artificial lighting so you don't really have to worry as much about the crappier low light performance of the tiny sensor+canon sensor.

>>2898219
Get a Nikon l840, might be a bridge camera, but it gets the job done

I'm going to buy a camera for £600, but it's from SLR Hut, are they legit?, I've never bought from them before and the deal kinda sounds too good to be true, is it?

>>2898236
>Also, with what it sounds like, you'll be using artificial lighting so you don't really have to worry as much about the crappier low light performance of the tiny sensor+canon sensor.

I assume a lot of my shitty graininess comes from me using artificial light and the low light conditions. Like I said, with my current camera, I just can't get a clear shot of anything even with my lamp turned up to 150watts and a second 60 watt bulb pointed at the object.

>>2898239
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3054181

Just this alone seems sketchy as fuck to me. I wouldn't do it.

I only take chances on sketchy stuff at ebay, and that's just because I have three layers of protection: my credit card, paypal, and ebay.

>>2898241
Truth be told, those lights are fairly weak (look up why strobes are measured in watt seconds)

But post one of your pictures. We might be able to get you better results without getting more gear.

>>2898242
hmm, It was 2011, and I think they have some sort of protection/review thing, think they've improved?

>>2898244
https://www.trustpilot.com/review/slrhut.co.uk

Apparently gray market and prices don't include VAT
https://www.ephotozine.com/forums/topic/anyone-used-slr-hut--95305

File: MyShittyPhotoWithoutFlashWithFlash.jpg (448KB, 1144x1708px) Image search: [Google]

448KB, 1144x1708px

>>2898243

Truth be told, I don't understand much, if anything, about photo taking, or the terms involved. I'm just a guy trying to get a clearer shot. Top is without flash, bottom is murdering the poor thing with flash.

>>2898244
Here's an interesting bit:
http://tomboz.tumblr.com/post/64969195263/slrhut

File: 20160807_143309.jpg (3MB, 3984x2988px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3984x2988px

I dropped my a6300 the other day and now the battery door is ever so slightly bent, it still closes but is noticeably more difficult to do so. Should I be worried about fixing it right now or is it no big deal?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	samsung
Camera Model	SM-N910V
Camera Software	N910VVRU2CPF3
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.2
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	31 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	3984
Image Height	2988
Image Orientation	Right-Hand, Top
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2016:08:07 14:33:09
Exposure Time	1/30 sec
F-Number	f/2.2
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	80
Lens Aperture	f/2.2
Brightness	2.5 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	4.80 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	3984
Image Height	2988
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Unique Image ID	H16USHH04SA

>>2898247
Yeah, that's from having shit light. The IQ of the second one isn't bad, it just looks like ass because of the quality of the light.

Here's a site for you to read:
http://www.lightstalking.com/continuous-lighting-light-sources/

You'll up your game a lot just buy buying a cheap dish+fixture (like maybe $10 at a hardware store, there's a picture of one in the article above) some stronger bulbs, and clamps. We're talking significantly better than you could get with a new camera for less than $50.

Additionally, just google up things like "budget light box photography" "cheap continuous lighting set up photography".

>>2898253
The scary thing with that is it's a way for water to get it because the seal is now compromised, but so long as you're mindful of that, you should be pretty good to go.

>>2898256
I don't normally shoot in the rain or anything, anything I can do to fix it without getting it repaired? Like tape over it if I have to shoot in the rain? Or would that repair be cheap enough to justify?

>>2898247

So basically, "get a cheap lightbox off Amazon" should help? I don't really have the room for big-ass lighting setups (again, poorfag, I live in a tiny, shitty apartment), so that should hopefully help, right?

>>2898258
Eh, you still need the light to go through it. Your best bet is to make something and get like an LED panel or some brighter lights that you can control positioning of (the closer the light source, the stronger its effects).

You can make a "lightbox" just by having some kind of diffusion material (even a white t-shirt/pillowcase will do, or like those cheap really thin disposable cutting boards work well too) with a light behind it. Basically, the lightbox is easy to make, cheap to make, and easy to break down and store even in cramped space. The "expensive" part that'll make the most difference is getting stronger lights and modifying that light in some manner (focusing via a reflector dish, diffusing through some media).

>>2898257
Tape over it can't hurt and I can't speak to the costs of the repair. Is it the body or the lid that's warped? If it's the lid, most of the time, those just pop off and you can buy replacements pretty cheaply, but I don't have any experience with sony, so it might not be the case with them.

>>2898265
Looks like it's on the lid where it hinges in. The hinge is like part of the lid and it's a tiny bit pushed in. It's likely just the lid but tI be frank I'm not a mechanical man.

>>2898264

Well, they sell lightbox sets with lights, think something like this would suffice? I'm shit at making things myself, and the only stores around here are Walmart's so I doubt they'd have the kind of lights I'd need.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00DOGIKXG/ref=wl_it_dp_o_pC_nS_ttl?_encoding=UTF8&colid=1JQ9UPGJ2QFL5&coliid=I1SHLUJLPGVW3V

>>2898117
Cannot go wrong with an LX100

>>2898272
Lights seem pretty shit, and that first review doesn't give me any confidence.

And seriously, it's not that hard to make one of them:
http://digital-photography-school.com/how-to-make-a-inexpensive-light-tent/

>>2898233
For 150 you could probably get an LX3, a Canon G11 or a S95. The Canons have the advantage of running CHDK which is awesome.

>>2898233
>>2898219
m43 body with kitlens is the best you can do under $150.

>>2898276

My problem wouldn't be the box itself so much as the lights. Again, all I've got around here is a Walmart. And they just don't have that kind of stuff, so I thought I'd save myself the trouble and just nab a kit.

I dunno, any lightbox with lights you'd recommend?

>>2898280
>>2898283

I'll look into these, thanks for more suggestions Anon's. I might just try nabbing a lightbox first and seeing if that fixes most of my issues though.

>>2898288
Just google cardboard lightboxes and make your own. Should also read your camera's manual, set the ISO to the lowest setting, set the timer and put the camera down on something to take the pictures.

How poorfag can I poorfag a tripod?

>>2898295
Fill a sock up with sand and find shit to put that on top of.

Beyond that, dic&mic and vanguard are decent cheap brands.

>>2898295
Use [object] and some tape

>>2898292

Again, the problem isn't the box, it's not having the lights. And I figure if I'm going to buy the lights, getting a box with them isn't that much more expensive.

>>2898292

Oh, and I don't have the manual. This thing was a hand-me-down. Whats an ISO?

>>2898301
Take the box outside

File: exposure.jpg (208KB, 550x1413px) Image search: [Google]

208KB, 550x1413px

>>2898303

>>2898091
>I find 50mm far too wide for general/street photography even on full frame. 35mm is the sweet spot
>50mm too wide
>too wide
>35mm sweet spot
wat

>>2898311
See >>2898112

>>2898313
I caught that after posting. understood

File: http%3A%2F%2F36.media.tumblr.com%2Ffb965878ed377050bb446649d2f50b85%2Ftumblr_nh4sapdKLL1sdsfeqo1_1280.jpg (167KB, 1280x543px) Image search: [Google]

167KB, 1280x543px

Hey guys, new here (come from /o/). My mom bought me a camera for my birthday and I was wondering what you guys thought of it. It's a Canon Rebel EOS T6 with the 18-55mm and 75-300mm lenses.

I know very little about cameras or photography but I've always been relatively interested in it. I would be using this camera mostly for pictures of cars at shows, meets, etc. I'm wondering if any of you guys could give me tips and advice on how to shoot cool pics and use features on the camera. I'm also slightly experienced in Photoshop if that helps. Thanks guys!

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 60D
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.6 (Windows)
Photographer	Trevor Yale Ryan
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/3.8
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2014:12:25 00:49:33
Exposure Time	1/40 sec
F-Number	f/6.3
Exposure Program	Shutter Priority
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/6.3
Exposure Bias	1 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	24.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>2898322
there's roughly 900 billion tutorials for every style and level of photography out there for free

body is fine, nothing wrong with those lenses either especially to start. If you stick with it you'll upgrade the body, lenses are the big investment because you swap them between bodies and they hold their value much better.

UV filters are a scam and you don't need them

Read the manual that came with the camera and familiarize yourself with manual mode.

Shoot A LOT, you're on digital so you don't need to worry about using up your shots really. Take lots of shots even of the same subject so you can cherry pick later.

>>2898322
that's a kit lens and a budget telephoto, both are slow lenses (they don't allow very much light inside so you have to take a longer second exposure)

Top two recommendations
- a basic tripod. Slow lenses really benefit from no hand-holding so that everything isn't blurred by handshake.
- nifty-fifty (Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 STM Lens is latest version), 125 bucks on amazon and you'll be blown away by how it can hand-hold thanks to the huge amount of light with f/1.8 aperture. One of the few super-affordable lenses that every new person should have. Easy to find second-hand as well, since everyone gets one while they're new and many will sell it when they want to upgrade to luxury glass.

>>2898322
>>2898325
if you don't have any money for other basics, then you can get some good pics by sticking to bright lighting (which is beneficial to a lens with a small aperture for light to enter) and when possible stabilize your camera by propping it on a fence or chair-back or anything.

Shoot in RAW mode, not jpeg, and you can salvage a lot more from extra information in the photos using your computer.
Download rawtherapee (windows) or darktable (linux) for free raw-editors that spruce up images.
In these you can fix a lot of things added by a cheap lens (remove chromatic-aberration colors on edges of objects / remove distortion when zoomed in-or-out / sharpen and de-noise details)

The camera's manual and 10 seconds on google should give you plenty of other trips for that camera.

>>2898325
>- nifty-fifty (Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 STM Lens is latest version), 125 bucks on amazon and you'll be blown away by how it can hand-hold thanks to the huge amount of light with f/1.8 aperture. One of the few super-affordable lenses that every new person should have. Easy to find second-hand as well, since everyone gets one while they're new and many will sell it when they want to upgrade to luxury glass.
NO.

Seriously, don't rec the ef 50mm 1.8 to anyone. There's only two reasons to buy that
>you desperately need a 50mm and cannot in the foreseeable future afford anything else
>you know there's a good chance what you're going to do is destroy your lens

Get the 50mm 1.4. The build quality is infinitely better and it has a usable focus ring for those times when you can't use autofocus or if you don't want to use autofocus (the focus ring on the 1.8 is that spikey piece of shit that they use on the plastic pancakes).

File: image.jpg (150KB, 640x1136px) Image search: [Google]

150KB, 640x1136px

I've just inherited a Pentex SF7 and a few lenses, can anyone tell me if it is worth buying film for or is it totally worthless?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	640
Image Height	1136

>>2898356
Pentax made awesome film cameras, but really any film slr is worthwhile if it's in working condition. There was little reason for that flavor of gear faggotry in the film era.

File: image.jpg (136KB, 640x1136px) Image search: [Google]

136KB, 640x1136px

>>2898359
Alright thanks anon. There is also this Praktica Nova II if that means anything to you and a bunch of old compacts

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	640
Image Height	1136

>>2898364
Just run the cheapest film you can through them first not trying to take pictures of anything you care about. There are some problems like a sticking shutter that you won't necessarily be able to identify until you get the film developed. Best practice is always to get a CLA (clean, lubricate, adjust -- think a tune up, but for a camera) and a shutter replacement done on old bodies you get, but that could be a couple of hundred bucks per body.

>>2898366
Okay thanks for the advice. I'll take it into account.

File: 1452666219264.gif (23KB, 160x160px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 160x160px

Hey guys,

Should I get the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 MkII IS for ~$1000 or the 100-400mm for $750?
Will Canon release a second version of the 100-400mm soon?

>>2898376
Do you need those extra 300mm?

>>2898376
If you can't imagine needing more than 400 then I'd just get the 70-200 and get an extender later if you need it

Looking for a decent point & shoot camera. Hows a Canon Powershot ELPH 160? Mostly want to take some pics of toys and stuff.

>>2898376
70-200mm 2.8 is the main lens for portraits, sports, indoors telephoto (F2.8 can somewhat handle imperfect lighting, whereas F4.5-5.6 can get fucked)

400mm is for birds far away, or very far creeper shots. Or sports if everyone hates you and you have to sit in the worst seats of the stadium.

>>2898402
it's likely your phone takes photos just as well, you just need to know how to light properly

>>2898402
300 series at minimum for the elph line. Also s95 is another dirt cheap choice. I strongly recommend Canon for cheap compacts because of CHDK.

>>2898411

CHDK?

>>2898420
It's a custom firmware that will give you a lot more functions/control over the camera.

That mainly holds true if your budget is like a couple of hundred bucks. Once you start creeping above that, there's arguably better choices, but below that? Canon all the way.

>>2898420
http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CHDK_in_Brief

>>2898423

Can those S95's take good pics up close of tiny things? Whats the word...Macro setting? Micro setting? Sorry if I sound retarded, don't know much about cameras.

>>2898426
Macro

Basically means they're made to have a good minimum focusing distance.

>>2898426
macro -- pretty much as good as it gets at cheap prices, but with all of these cameras it's mostly a matter of lighting.

>>2898430
>>2898431

Ok, so S95's can do that then? A quick search online shows these are pretty cheap, perfectly cheap, actually.

>>2898435
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7FrkKT8Weoo

What do you think?

File: 1455825779268.jpg (745KB, 2142x3000px) Image search: [Google]

745KB, 2142x3000px

>>2898377
I don't need them, but I'd like to have the 400mm focal length without paying $8,000 for a prime.

>>2898379
Why would I buy L glass just to put a teleconverter on it? If anything, I'd put the 70-200mm on my rebel.

>>2898407
I had those purposes in mind.

I was wondering if the 100-400mm was due for a revision in the coming years so I could pick one up at a reduced price later on after I buy the 70-200mm

>>2898444
>Why would I buy L glass just to put a teleconverter on it? If anything, I'd put the 70-200mm on my rebel.
A 1.4x on a 70-200mm is a very, very common thing.

Using the 2x is more of a "this is literally my only option for getting this shot", but the 1.4 sees a ton of use, L glass or no.

File: image.jpg (3MB, 4032x3022px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 4032x3022px

Need a 50mm lense to go with my Pentax k5. Want to use it for anything. Will any non-kit do?

Pic unrelated

was thinking about 50mm lense to force me to compose pictures nicely but should I get something like 35-50 for street photography?

I heard 50mm is a gold standard for portraits so surely it must be enough?

What are the benefits of fixed (prime?) mm lenses? Better optical quality right?

>>2898454
super takumar

>>2898457
if you're looking to force yourself why would you get a zoom?

>>2898457
>I heard 50mm is a gold standard for portraits so surely it must be enough?
Huh?

That's the 85mm, 135mm, or even the long end of a 70-200mm (on a full frame that is).

The biggest benefits of primes in the modern era are that they tend to be lighter, faster (wider maximum aperture), and smaller (although, the faster a lens gets, the larger it must necessarily be...look up an 85mm 1.8 versus an 85mm 1.2). IQ depends highly on the specific models in question.

Your best bet is to go onto flickr, search for 35mm and search for 50mm, and see which you prefer. Pay attention to the camera used (crop gives a different field of view from full frame, and if you're framing the same way, you'll get larger depth of field on crop than full frame).

>>2898444
L-glass + F2.8 is what allows the extender to get good images.

I tested a 1.4 III on my 70-200 F4, but a stop of light disappears, and F5.6, I believe that's what it changed to, was inadequate for my needs.
If I owned the 2.8 instead of the 4.0L, I'd have kept the 1.4x, it's a lot more compact to carry a 70-200 2.8 + little extender than to carry around a 100-400 and a second lens for when F5.6 won't get the job done or 100 is too long.

File: portrait_lengths.jpg (266KB, 600x453px) Image search: [Google]

266KB, 600x453px

>>2898457
35 is pretty subpar for portraits, 50 is okay, 85mm+ is the norm for great portraits where the nose and chin and forehead don't look oversized.

50mm are a common convenience lens, cheap, fast, wide enough to not fail terribly for news/landscape/events/sports and yet not so wide that human faces are ruined.
It's nowhere near a portrait specialty lens though.

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

2MB, 4032x3024px

>>2898458
Was wondering if 50mm would be versatile enough but from what my friend tells me who shoots with a prime at 50mm it suits him for the same type of city skyline photography we do.

>>2898459
Thanks for the advice I will do that.

Pic unrelated just a snapshot

>>2898462
Look at that awful lighting last 50 though

There's gotta be something fucked with her nose but nice graphic

>>2898463
i find 50 a bit cramped but that's personal preference

50mm are so cheap and desired that you might as well try it out though. At worst you can probably resell it for like 80-90% of what you paid unless you got taken for a ride

I have a k3. Should I go for a Bigma or a Pentax 60-250mm f/4 ED DA*? What's the autofocus speed like on a bigma?

File: 1468429769467.jpg (50KB, 599x563px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 599x563px

Should I buy a Canon magic Drain pipe (old 80 - 200 2.8) in very good condition from Japan on eBay or the newer 70-200 2.8, probably non-IS cause thats expensive as tits.
The drainpipe is 1/3 the price

Was looking to get a Nikkor AF-S 35mm f/1.8G then realized, for an extra couple of hundo dollarydoos, I can get that Sigma 24-35mm f/2 ART.

Should I /p/? Want a decent street lens and the Sigma seems to be just a logical purchase...

>>2898295
Find long cardboard boxes and cut them up to make a stand. use paper fasteners to keep them together and make them foldable/retractable. Use a long velcro strap to keep them bundled together. It's not pretty but it works for lighter setups under 8lbs.

>>2898469
Yes

How do you manual focus in lowlight?

Right now I use a laser pointer and focus on it then turn it off before the shot.

>>2898468
If the weight and slow AF don't bother you, I'd go for the drainpipe. Save moneys for the 70-200 2.8 IS II...I wouldn't spend that much for a lens that long without IS. Might as well get a lens that's just as sharp, covers mostly the same focal range, and half the price.

>>2898450
>>2898460

No, I was stating my reason for L glass was for its superior contrast, why would I ruin that with a teleconverter when I can get a 1.6 crop factor by putting it on my Rebel with no loss of contrast?

>100 is too long

I don't have to worry about that because I already carry a 28, 50 and 100mm primes. I would like to get both of these lenses anyway and when I do, I would have both of them close by. I'm not going to be walking around after dark with only a f/4 lens.

Do either of you think the 100-400mm is due to be upgraded?

>>2898468
What prices are we talking about senpai?

>>2898454
Unless you want the 75mm equivalent (75-90mm is the classic headshot lens) get the plastic 35mm I can't remember it's name. DA? 150 USD.

50mm equivalent is good.

>>2898074
Check out Pentax, weather sealing on the cameras and some WR lenses, the bodies are on the smaller side also. A lot of camera for the price, get a pancake limited lens and you're all set.

>>2898472
that's a pretty good idea

Anyone have the new Nikon 35 1.8 FX? Thinkin' bout copping one tomorrow.

>>2898467
The new Bigma has awesome focusing speed, almost twice as fast as the SDM on the DA* 300 and 60-250. It is slow though and you need to go to f/8 for sharpness and reasonable speed, the DA* 60-250 is sharp wide open. The Bigma also is only usable from 100mm to 300mm, 400mm is the top of the decent sharpness, above that the image deteriorates noticeably. It is the equivalent of the old pump action Canon 100-400. The OS helps a lot but I have to switch IBIS on and off constantly when I change lenses.
I say get the 60-250 if you can and the HD DA 1.4x TC, otherwise crop in post if you want to go for wildlife.
I hope this was helpful.

>>2898482
The 100-400 was upgraded last year but is still just a consumer zoom like the Bigma in >>2898636

File: IMGP3812.jpg (617KB, 1200x798px) Image search: [Google]

617KB, 1200x798px

>>2898636
BTW it is an awesome pseudo macro lens at 200mm

[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)	300 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2016:08:02 21:51:45
Exposure Time	1/200 sec
F-Number	f/8.0
Exposure Program	Not Defined
ISO Speed Rating	200
Lens Aperture	f/8.0
Exposure Bias	-0.7 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	200.00 mm
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Close View

>>2898482
The 100-400 already got an upgrade.

>>2898502
The Limiteds are not weather sealed apart from one zoom lens. A proper WR normal zoom is big though (not taking the kit lens into account), like the HD DA 16-85. But goddamn it is sharp.

>>2898472
Focus peaking still works until light is really quite low. I could eyeball an image when it ceases working, but usually it's pointless to take a normal exposure time image without flash by then.

If it's going to be an exposure with flash or a long exposure, I will usually use a LED panel or LED headlamp to illuminate the scene first.

Selling my M4-P tomorrow. Buying an X-Pro2 on Friday. Excited to make the switch, been a long time coming.

>>2898661
okay

Can someone advise me a good flash for nikon under 100 bucks?

>>2898664
Yongnuo

>>2898665
Any specific model?

>>2898666
I don't know, 560 III or IV

File: image.jpg (111KB, 639x916px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 639x916px

I'm a poor fag.
Is this lens okay for my snapshits?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Comment	Screenshot
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	639
Image Height	916

>>2898676
The 35mm would be better for crop

File: image.jpg (111KB, 640x1025px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 640x1025px

>>2898678
This?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Comment	Screenshot
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	640
Image Height	1025

>>2898680
Yes

File: image.jpg (313KB, 1111x813px) Image search: [Google]

313KB, 1111x813px

So I've just been offered three professional flashes for an absolute bargain. Can someone please point me in the direction of tutorials where I can learn to use them? Googling only brings up for normal on camera flash. It's the type of flash that stands on tripods wih an umbrella attached to them.
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	1111
Image Height	813
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>2898676
That's a fun lens for bokek but not necessarily sharp. Don't have much experience with the 35mm so I wouldn't know.

Also w2c every camera from LiS because that game is Telltale level good so far.

>>2898685
>have no idea about strobes
>better buy three
You sure you need them?

http://strobist.blogspot.de/

>>2898685
dude...this isn't the 90's you can literally youtube 'how to professional flash' and get hundreds of viable results

> gfs birthday is in 2 weeks
> mentions she wants a camera for her birthday
> she isn't a photographer
> will be used on babies, random wedding and holiday events

i have a 200 dollar limit maybe 250

what are my options (i know jack shit about cameras)
pls help

>>2898730
Buy her a Canon point and shit

When I look into lens specifications, I often see this data:
>Number of groups
Which refers to groups of elements.

But why do they even list this data at all?
This isn't indication of performance.
It's not even indication of amount of elements in total in the lens.
It might be interesting to know that a particular lens consists of x amount of elements. But the amount of groups is kind of eh...

>>2898744

any model...?

>>2898746
When you finish school you will realize how much a multiple element group gives to the overall sharpness.

>>2898748
It doesn't matter, they are all the same.

>>2898749
But a group can consist of 2 or 3 or 4 or more elements. It's not indication of anything.

>>2898751
A multi element group focuses the wider spectrum into a single point eliminating chromatic aberrations and color fringing. The more it has, the more precise the optical formula is.

I'm new to photography and looking to buy a DSLR.

After doing some research, I think I'm going to go with a Nikon D3300. Any opinions on this camera or other alternatives in a similar price range?

>>2898754
It's a godd beginner camera, solid performer altough as every other entry bodies it lacks some features and controls. You can't use older screwdrive AF lenses and older manual lenses with metering, but there are a few good lenses for it.

>>2898754
Also alternatives are the Canon 1300D which is worse than the Nikon and the Pentax K-50 while it is still available or the K-S2 and the new K-70, but the Pentax is more of an alternative to the D5x00 series.

File: tokina_at_x_24_70mm_f_2_8_pro_1084636.jpg (114KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 1000x1000px

I'm kind of tempted to get this lens. The Canon zooms are way too pricey, but this one looks like it's really kicking ass at its price point.

I'm thinking I should get either this one, or the Tamron zoom. But I'm not sure which one.

>>2898759
T A M R O N V C U S D
A
M
R
O
N

V
C

U
S
D
It's my money maker lens, using it for 90% of the shots I take. VC is awesome, allows me to get decently sharp shots up to 1/5th of a second. Just a tad softer at 70mm, but close it down to f/4 or f/5.6 and it's just pin sharp.

Paid for itself after just one weekend.

>>2898765
The Tamron does weigh 20% less than the Tokina.

I think I will need to get them both on hand and see how the ergonomics are.

>>2898767
Tamron is a little more plasticky, but it's solid plastics. But for the money, there really isn't any other 24-70mm f/2.8 that can better it.

>>2898765
>>2898767
Tamron is onion bokeh. Get the Tokina.

>>2898779
>shooting wide enough to get bokeh.
I guess you're not a pro then.

Which Nikon bounce flash?

I literally know jack shit about Nikon's flash systems. Must take AA's. Can they TTL with film-era flashes?

>>2898792
SB-5000 is my favorite at the moment. Smokes the SB-910 out of the water in every possible manner.

>>2898792
The pop-up flash of your D7000 is enough for your need. Also YongNuo 568EX TTL.

>>2898803
I thought Yongs only could do ttl with Canon?

>>2898792

Just buy a used flagship model from any era. SB-24, 28. SB-800, etc.

Don't buy a $600 flash lmao

I have a Canon 650D and a big, heavy, 18-135mm 5.6 fucker lens that is nice and versatile but makes carrying it a pain. I want a light lens for general use and less than 200 usd. That means the nifty fifty, the 40mm 2.8 or the 24mm 2.8. Does the 24mm completely obsolete the 40mm? What is the benefit of the 40 when the 24 is wider, same speed, same build quality, same price?

>>2898804
They can do Nikon if you switch the switch

>>2898806
How can two wildly different focal lengths "obsolete" one or the other?

Fucking look up the focal lengths on flickr and see which you prefer and get it.

Also,
>big, heavy, 18-135mm
Son, you have no clue what a heavy lens is if you think a kit lens is heavy.

>>2898792
Shoogs, how is the Df going? Thinking about getting one as a back-up body for my D600. Would stick a nice 35mm f/1.4 on there and the f/2.8 zooms on the D600.

>>2898814

You know he doesn't shoot, right? He would have no idea.

Also, the D600 would be the back-up body to the more capable and more expensive DF.

>>2898814

Don't have it yet but I've played with one.

You will love it, and it will actually work with non-AI lenses too unlike most Nikon DSLRs. There are split-image focus screens available.

>>2898814
Hey, didn't he got a free D7000 because his gear was nicked? And he has a DF? Why did he accept the D7000 if he can afford a DF?

File: the_game.jpg (578KB, 1440x930px) Image search: [Google]

578KB, 1440x930px

>>2898816
>>2898816

this.

I never take pictures that guy with the photo thread running for the last 4 months which is also the longest running thread on /p/ probably in a long time is an imposter.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi

>>2898819

It was kinda-sorta-free, read the sugar thread dumb ass I explained it in there.

>>2898816
>>2898814
I'm actually a fan of having a crop as a backup to a full frame. D500 would be what I'd tell someone to get.

I still hate how expensive the Df is. I just can't justify in my mind paying more for it than a D750...but my tastes and needs aren't everyone's.

>>2898821

It's only "longest running" because some drama queen retard keeps bumping it every time it slides down to page 10, WHICH IS OFTEN.

>>2898821
>I never take pictures that guy with the photo thread running for the last 4 months which is also the longest running thread on /p/ probably in a long time is an imposter.
>260 replies and 63 images omitted.
>photo thread
>260 replies and 63 images omitted.
Nigger, that's not a photothread.

>>2898829
You are right, that is a Sugar thread, discussion about lord dickhead with a few photos here and there.

>>2898792
>forward/backward compatibility
There is no such compatibility in the Nikon system, only flashes with multiple compatibility (SB600 and 800 only). Educate yourself.

http://www.scantips.com/lights/ttl.html

>>2898806
>Does the 24mm completely obsolete the 40mm? What is the benefit of the 40 when the 24 is wider (no other advantage)
Wide angle lenses distort everything, don't look like the human eye, mess up geometry and are fucking ugly. Particularly for pictures of humans where they make the chin, forehead and nose overlarge and hideous.
The only upside to the 24mm is, if you can't competently do a panorama stitch with software, then the 24 is better for a large landscape or large group image.

So yeah, if the only difference between the two is focal length, it's absolutely retarded to call one "obsolete"

Hey guy, I am looking for a tripod. Thought about cullmann nanomax 450 or the Rollei traveller; should be <90€ at least 1,4m and ideally easy to carry around. Does anynone have experience with those two or even recommend something else ?

>>2898839
r u a retrd

The 24 is a EF-S lens, it's designed for that 38mm equivalent view. That's not going to distort anything.

>>2898806
Get the EFS24, then go away.

>>2898748
A710

>>2898843
Oh joy, now we get to see the whole crop factor debate.

>>2898845
>>2898843
>>2898839
I might as well knock this out.

The only distortions that are inherent to a lens are because of flaws (not really flaws so much as tradeoffs since optically perfect systems only exist in physicist's notebooks and simulations) in the optical formula (the design of the lens).

What's considered to be distortions caused by a lens's focal length are perspective distortions. They're entirely dependent on the distance and relative position of the lens to the subject. A 20mm lens will have the same distortions as a 100mm lens if they are both the same distance and orientation from the subject, and vice-versa.

The complication to this is few people are talking about putting the lenses in the same location. They're talking about equivalent framing (filling the frame with the subject to the same degree). Since there's very different fields of view for these various focal lengths, to get an equivalent framing, you have to move the 20mm much closer than the 100mm. This is also where crop factor comes into play. With a larger sensor, you're using more of the image circle which means that you effectively have a larger useful field of view. That same lens on a smaller sensor (like a 1.5/1.6x crop of the APS-C sensor size), only uses the middle out of the image circle, effectively shrinking the field of view. So, this requires moving the smaller sensor camera further back to get the same framing as the larger sensor camera can get more closely with the same focal length on both.

Again, it is nothing inherent to the focal length that causes these distortions, and everything to do with the distance the camera is from the subject.

>>2898841
I'm also currently researching tripods, youtube is a great resource for this

Where's the best place to get a coloured filter kit??

>>2898854
ebay

>>2898853
I ot a used Manfrotto 190XB with a 410 Jr geared head for $200 and a 498RC2 ball head for another $50

>>2898841

Bogen 3221

>>2898824

That was what I planned on doing with the D7000, keeping it for a crop sensor sidearm when I need some reach.

>>2898830
>>2898829

1/10

>>2898836

mah nigga

>>2898859
you think that would be enough for a heavy (ish) lens like a Sigma 150-600

>>2898876
I actually got it for my 50-500 and Tammy 70-200/2.8
The thing is rock solid even at the extreme angles.

File: Panasonic_Lumix_GM1.jpg (4MB, 3340x2223px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 3340x2223px

looking to buy a camera for travelling, mainly backpacking so i will want to travel light, not carry a huge dslr and multiple lenses etc around

i have used a few dslr's before and own a go pro however the quality is pretty wank

is mirrorless the way to go? with a kit lens? giving me full manual control of shutter speed/aperature etc? so i can get good quality and a range of different pictures in different situations

or is there anything else i should consider?

pic for attention, i have no idea if its good or not before anyone says it is shite

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	OLYMPUS IMAGING CORP.
Camera Model	E-P5
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
Photographer	Petar Milošević
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	4608
Image Height	3456
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	350 dpi
Vertical Resolution	350 dpi
Image Created	2015:07:11 08:31:21
Exposure Time	1/80 sec
F-Number	f/3.2
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	1000
Lens Aperture	f/3.2
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory, Red-Eye Reduce
Focal Length	60.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	3340
Image Height	2223
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	High Gain Up
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

>>2898880
adorama is selling them for $120 with a 496 ball head, I think I'll pick that up

>>2898890
b-but if you use micro four turds your image will be noisy at iso 100 and you'll have dust at iso 800 and people will think you're a woman because you can't handle 3+ lbs of DSLR

>>2898890
If your budget allows I'd get a used fujifilm x100s

you can also get a wide-angle and/or tele conversion lens for it

>>2898061
i have it and personally love it. but its really just a backup/casual walkaround and i didnt pay any money for it (won it in a photo contest). but id say worth the $300 or w/e small price the refurbs are going for. whats really nice about it:

-pairs awesomely with the 24mm and 40mm pancake. i own the 40mm and have it permanently attached, in the winter its my perfect carry-around as it fits in my winter jackets large pocket.
-using it one-handed is intuitive and fun, with one of the two pancake tits it weighs next to nothing. i usually just use it with a wrist-strap and forget as it dangles on my wrist.
-battery lasts me all day, which is more to say than all my other compacts.
-focuses near instantly with my 40mm.
-in general its just the perfect snapshit camera.

cons:
-noisey as shit anywhere past 800 ISO.
-wont focus well at night. basically just dont expect to use this camera without sufficient light, the same as any other compact shitcam.

...thats all i can realy think of. pictures are very sharp with either pancake, battery lasts all day, its fun and easy to use, and the focusing is fast, what more could you honestly want from a $300 snapshit camera.

>>2898894
why will the image be noisy at 100? are the image sensors generally a lot smaller in mirrorless?

>>2898897
looks very nice, i like the retro look but what is the advantage of that camera?

had a quick look there and the sony a5000 seems to be the shit? and i can pick it up new for 300 quid? with a 16-50mm f3.5 lens

also what is it like to get lenses for these cameras, i take it its scary prices?

>>2898905
>what is the advantage of that camera?

Great sesnor, great AF, ability to get wide and tele converter lenses with no hit to IQ, amazing f/2 lens, tons of settings, etc

basically a Leica at a fraction of the price and without looking like a cunt

>>2898912
okay thanks, will look into it

are the mirrorless lenses shit compared to a dslr? are they digital zoom rather than optical?

File: Sigma_571101_24_70mm_f_2_8_IF_EX_1235142962000_596257.jpg (29KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 500x500px

Why does no one ever talk about the Sigma 24-70?
Its price is like rock bottom, and if it's anywhere as good as the Art lenses it should be amazing for the money.

>>2898915

Sigma was widely considered to be shit until the ART series, and even then I'd still be hesitant to buy anything that isn't part of that run.

>>2898919
the 150-600 is quite good so maybe I'd expand that to anything compatible with the sigma USB dock

What macro lens has the best price/quality ratio

>>2898915
Because the Tamron is better.

>>2898919
>>2898925
Sigma made more good lenses, for example:
- 50 f/1.4 DG WTF HSM LFMAO EX (or whatever they fuck it's called)
- 120-300 f/2.8 OS

The "art" label just separates the jewels from the turds.

>>2898913
>are the mirrorless lenses shit compared to a dslr?

No and yes.

Better lenses are bigger.
There are very good and thus very big lenses for mirrorless cameras, but using them is retarded so yeah, DSLR's have better lenses in practice.

>>2898972
Kit lens with some extension tubes and maybe a reversal ring.

Got my hands on Bronica EC, stuck a new battery in it but the shutter isnt working. Its stuck in bulb mode it seems. The battery check light/button doesnt work either.
Any ideas on what the issue could be, or shall I assume that the wiring is fucked?

>>2898989
yea so putting a big lens on a mirrorless ruins the point in having a mirrorless in the first place so may as well get a dslr

Hey, I have a Nikon 3200 and I shoot casual photos. 95% of them are of my family, especially my little girl. I originally had the Kit 18-55 and a 55-200. I broke my 18-55. Now I have the 55-200 and a couple of others. A 35-80 Nikkor and a 70-210 Nikkor 62 mm(both older lenses). I need to replace the 18-55 so I can closer to my subject to take the pictures (I'm usually just picking it up whenever we want to shoot , which is often.), I tend to lose my shot when I get up and walk to a distance good enough for the 55-200. And my wife hates the 35-80 because it doesnt AF on the 3200. My question : What lens do you suggest for me for these closer shots? Should I just grab another 18-55(which I was happy with) or perhaps a 35mm? What do you think /p/? My budget is 200-250. I prefer AF compatible with the 3200, but I wouldn't turn down a suggestion.

I'm looking to build my own Glidecam and the only component I can't replicate/buy somewhere else seems to be the x-y-balance-slider they all have and need.
Can someone give me some advice where to get them? I tried special Photography-stores but they only have macro-sliders which cost a shitbunch of money.

>>2898972
New? The 30mm macro for the E-mount, maybe.

But while it does technically pretty good, for many subjects it's a pain in the ass to work with a 30mm lens.

If you need really cheap, how about you get a Marumi achromat close-up filter lens for your kit telezoom?

>>2899027
I don't have a kit lens

>>2898972
Since you didnt specify a mount, you're probably a Sonygger. Use any dead system's macro lens and adapt it. OM, FD, MD, etc.

>>2899011
>little girl
Post tits
Also, another 18-55. Nothing else is as cheap or versatile.

>>2899061
>Since you didnt specify a mount, you're probably a Sonygger.

This is some ridiculous logic

>>2899029
Do you have any normal primes? An extension ring in front of those can give you some (fidgety, but often fairly okay) macro capabilities.

Some people also do inverted lens mounting for >1:1 macro.

Admittedly, I'm not doing any of that anymore. Not even the achromat filter lens which worked okay enough for a while.

I probably suck or am not lenient enough, but a great ~100mm-200mm macro lens is the only thing that gives me results as fast and as reliably as I like.

>>2899065
>>Do you have any normal primes?

I'd been using a 40mm Voigtlander but stopped shooting due to lack of money and time and now I'm back in and buying lenses.

I got some mudblood 18-35 and a sigma 150-600 and I'm just researching and planning what I'd get after that.


I might just wait and get the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L if I see a good deal and I still REALLY want a macro in a few months.

>>2899076
In the interim, just get some extension tubes and use with that sigma (they work far better with telephotos than normal/wide where they can make it impossible to focus). You can get a set of electronically linked extension tubes for pretty damn cheap, they'll give you the ability to dick with macro while giving you time to shop around for a deal.

Is a BlackRapid Metro strap any good for $40? Should I get a Sport for $30 more? Not sure if the sport is worth the difference in price.

I'm using a Pentax K-5 with small lenses, and I'm probably going to be bringing my camera on hikes or vacations.

people rave about these cameras....why?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6kra9J05E4

>>2899129
It's a piece of nylon...no reason to pay that much: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B013LRH11E

> >>2899076
> I got some mudblood 18-35 and a sigma 150-600 and I'm just researching and planning what I'd get after that.
Ah, an achromat close-up filter lens might work quite well on that 150-600.

I'm sorry for the confusion there, it's not something you can *only* do on a kit lens.

> I might just wait and get the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L if I see a good deal and I still REALLY want a macro in a few months.
For what it is worth, I certainly like the 100mm f/2.8L. It's a great lens.

>>2899132
Because they are good photographic cameras, if you want something to shoot video with then get something that was designed to shoot video as a priority, not a gimmick.

>>2899132
A7R II: Superb general purpose photo camera.
A7S (II): Superb low light camera. A bit better and certainly much cheaper than the other very low light capable competition.
GH4: Good value camera for amateur video shooting.

>>2899142
If GH4 is good value for amateur, then what is the G/, which delivers even better image quality?

>>2899132
>people rave about these cameras....why?
Even the movie industry is raving about them. Why? Because they are good tools.

http://podbay.fm/show/966297954/e/1461092405?autostart=1
Scroll to 62nd minute.

And https://www.yahoo.com/tv/shark-week-inside-air-jaws-night-stalker-181651392.html

>>2899154
More expensive and better -> higher quality, less value, I guess? You could also get an A6300, for example.

Either way, you can repeat this quite a bunch more times before you arrive at professional movie studio or TV crew gear - but it is certainly quite nice what you can get on a middle class budget already.

>>2898826
>drama queen retard keeps bumping it
hmm i wonder why he's so confident in saying it's the longest running thread on /p/

>>2899167
But once someone posts with a trip, it's impossible to ever post without it...and it's not like being on the road as much as a trucker is would mean that he likely posts from a fairly constantly changing dynamic IP through his mobile device to inflate the "number of posters" thread stat...

File: xl_10476-X-A2_Front_Top_Silver16-50mm.jpg (78KB, 800x800px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 800x800px

Should i get Fujifilm X-A2, Canon EOS M10 or Sony a5000

all the same price roughly, not sure about the digital zoom on the sony although the rest of its specs seem better

leaning towards fujifilm, what would you pic /p/?

>>2899171
Why not get the Samsung NX500?

>>2899165
>G7
>more expensive than GH4

wut?
The G7 is like 600 bucks body only brand new.
The GH5 will probably have in-body stabilization like the GX8 though, so wait for that.

>>2898748
A430

>>2899172
not available to buy anywhere? samsung have pulled out of the uk market.

The nx300 is twice the price of the ones i mentioned, is this a lower model?

What is so wrong with m43? I keep looking at the Olympus PEN F and a line of prime lenses. In body stabilization, small size, good enough iq. I'm not shooting for money, only pleasure. My other option is fuji which may have better iq, but the focus apparently it's garbage.

>>2899171
>Fujifilm X-A2
No Lenses. Shit autofocus even for a mirrorless.

>Canon EOS M10

Even less lenses. Mediocre in pretty much every way.

>Sony a5000

Great on release, but going on 3 years old now.

Plu, while Sony actually has lenses unlike most mirrorless, they can cost a fortune.

>>2899171
I had the fujifilm X-e2, the problem is the lenses. You're aiming for the cheapest camera in the system, and therefore you're going to find that every lens you want is out of your reach financially, and you'll soon be unsatisfied with the camera. The quality of the lenses that are 35mm and longer are good, I'll give them that, but all the wides are either bank shatteringly expensive (until the 23 f/2.0 comes around, seriously that lens has been the huge gap in the lineup for years and they've only just got around to it) or absolutely shit (18mm is a big turd that only Ken Rockwell could praise), the kit zoom never really sharpens up, and the pro zoom is unsurprisingly expensive. The EVFs are the best part of the X series post first generation X-Pro1/X-E1, it makes no sense to miss out on that by getting the X-A2.

The canon m series seem surprisingly good, and will get even better. The 22mm f/2 is apparently amazing, I'd buy one just for that lens alone really, but I'm not sure I can recommend a camera without an EVF and with an immature set of lenses.

With the sony... well once again no EVF, you really should be picking cameras with an EVF, makes for a much better experience. Anyway, you'll be relying on Sigma's E-Mount primes and the one or two sony lenses that are simultaneously good and affordable. Good news is that you'll be getting the best video in the price range, and a good sensor, especially compared to the canon.

Also, digital zoom isn't a feature, it's just another word for cropping.

I can't make a decision for you, but there's some more facts mixed in with a lot of opinion. And I should say it again, *get a camera with an EVF!*

>>2899187
as far as i can tell the image sensor is a good bit smaller giving you lower quality pictures?

also the pen-f is super expensive compared to very similar cameras at half the price

>>2899187
It's a meme that sensor size is the only important factor in a camera.
If you don't care about low-light perfomance, get it.
MFT cameras do a great job for people that either
A. want to travel light and shoot fast
B. need a lot of additional gear and save on weight and size
C. want to go Panasonic for the video

If you DON'T care about these but still want something small and compact, go for a Sony A6000. they go used for very low and deliver good photo perfomance.

>>2899194

beat me to it.

>>2899188
so basically dont get a mirrorless and get a dslr?

>>2899191
i wouldnt say ecf is a massive problem however it is a very nice feature to have the use of

can you recommend a similar camera with an evf in that price range? they seem to be a lot more expensive

seems to me id be better getting a dslr?

>>2899198
*evf

>>2899194
>A. want to travel light and shoot fast
The first part is only true in a surprisingly small number of cases (specifically native lenses normal and wider, true teles are smaller than larger format teles, but the size benefit becomes vanishingly smaller)
The second part strongly depends on how you define "shoot fast" The "fastest" shooting cameras in terms of things like wake up time, burst rates, and well, every way that I can think of to define "shooting fast" are the big boys...

I'm not hating on the smaller formats. They are right for some people, but ignorance needs to be addressed on both sides of the carpet.

>>2899173
Yea, I got them the wrong way around.

>>2899171
Get an A6000 or better. You at least want an EVF, flash hotshoe and decent AF coverage.

> digital zoom on the sony
Same as the resolution you shoot at.

And basically never use digital zoom. Crop to whatever you wanted to "zoom" into in post.

>>2899202
thats what i thought about the digital zoom

so unless i am willing to drop about 500 pounds on a decent mirrorless just stick to a dslr for about 300?

>>2899202

surely 49 focus points is sufficient? an average dslr in that price range has less than 20?

>>2899200
>shoot fast
Have your camera hanging from a strap and being able to bring it up to eye and shoot without having to first stabilize a massive fucking lens. Not having to get the camera out of a backpack, being able to carry it in a small bag or your purse or satchel or messenger bag.
Less in "f-stops" or "burst-rate" terms and more in "see draw shoot"

>>2899217
That's as much of a function of how you choose to carry the camera as anything. I'm as fast with my 1D as I am with an EOS M.

>>2899204
> so unless i am willing to drop about 500 pounds on a decent mirrorless just stick to a dslr for about 300?
Wow, the GBP is low now!

Anyhow, this is not easy for me to answer. Because I don't think I like any DSLR around or under 300. (Maybe you can find an used K-50? Though I guess you might be almost equally likely to find an used A6000 then...)

My preferences aside, perhaps a D3200 or D3300 works for you?

>>2899208
It is not like they individually perform like dual-cross type focus points on a high-end Canon or such.

They're more somewhere between a line and cross type. It is certainly better / faster when you have multiple points covering your subject.

This may or may not be the only reason why the AF on the A6000 felt a lot better to me, but it did.

Any recommendations for a 10-Stop ND filter under $50? I've been using shitty plastic eBay ones that do the job ok but the cast is horrible and they completely ruin my sharpness.

>>2899273
Use exposure stacking. For the most part you'll even get better results than using a super dark ND
http://digital-photography-school.com/how-to-improve-your-long-exposure-with-photo-stacking/

>>2899276
...not the person you replied to and I'm looking into LE too. but the links you posted suggest a 10 stop filter, something you said you don't need...which is it?

>>2899288
You can mix the techniques.

Basically using the exposure stacking method, you take a bunch of shorter exposures, then average them, and that gives you an exposure equal to the total time of exposure of all the individual shots (so 10 shots at 1/10s would be the same as a 1 second exposure).

So to do something like a 1 minute exposure, let's assume that at base iso and the aperture of your choice for the depth of field you want, proper exposure is 1/100 of a second. You'd have to do 6000 exposures to get to 1 minute. You need an ND to bring that number of exposures down to a more reasonable number. Even just a 1 stop ND (which would have a much more neutral color and amplify vignetting a lot less than a darker one) could get you to use 1/50 (3000 exposures), 2 stop 1/25 (1500) and so on.

>>2899295
understood. I was going to get a 10 stop, maybe I should go 8 stop or 5-6?

>>2898295
If you live near any woodland, just find large sticks and connect them by drilling holes in the top or using screws. I don't know about the rest, but it you just look around, you'll probably have something to complete it with. Maybe make a half wall/cage type thing to hold the camera in place.

>>2898821
I think I've been there before, where that photo was taken

>>2899301
I think a better way would just buy one of those cheap folding chairs with some of that para cord rope to tie it down sturdy

>>2899273
Welding glass.

>>2899299
I'd honestly just stick with a CPL (most give a 2-3 stop light reduction)...maybe an okish 2 stop too if I wanted to go really long, but in my experience that's rarely necessary.