/gear/ - Gear thread

There's already a gear thread faggot
>>2896806

>>2899412
Old one and massive brand biased. This is the new one.

>>2899415
>Old one
>162 replies
Fuck off

>massive brand biased
It's a gear thread, it happens, get used to it.

Hi, I am new to cameras and I tried out my friends camera and decided I want one. Mostly photographing friends doing stuff but also I live near the mountains so I want to do some nature pics of the hills and trees.
What is a good camera to start with? Also what does a mirror do and why are some marketed as without mirrors? Which are better?
As you see I'm fucking clueless but I am eager to learn.

File: m_FLANGE_2[1].jpg (58KB, 960x550px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 960x550px

>>2899424
> what does a mirror do and why are some marketed as without mirrors?
a mirror is what is reflected through the viewfinder of dslr - so you see things through the lens of a camera (ie real time), a mirrorless camera will either have a digital screen and/or a viewfinder projecting a digital screen (eg watching a tv screen).

imo a consumer should buy the cheapest sony camera (a6000) as theyre most going to post on social media - where you can buy adapters for canon/nikon lenses in case you divulge into dslrs

>>2899415
>massive brand biased.

Bias for what? They are just saying the truth. If X brand is shit why aren't we allowed to talk about it.

>>2899430
So basically with one I see the light itself going through the camera and the other I watch a small screen. I found my uncles old camera and it has that flappy mirror and the top mirrors too.
I also see the ones without mirrors are smaller which is not good for my delicate bear hands.
I need a bigger chunk of camera in my hand so I guess it's dsrl. What is a good beginner one?
What is a good book and/or Youtube channel to learn the basics while I get the camera?

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

>>2899430
reflects the image so you can see it.

>>2899430

sony a6000 is £500, you can save yourself £200 and just get a d3300 or similar

has sony changed to optical zoom after the a5000 or still shitty digital?

i am failing to see the reason to buy mirrorless over dslr, apart from size

they leave out the mirror and create a smaller system then charge double the price for the same shit?

>>2899560
I am >>2899439 and >>2899424
I was looking at the Nikon D3300 and the D5300, also the Canon D700
I was looking through the previous threads and apart from you nerds being retarded I saw a lot of posts mentioning a Pentax. Is it a good camera for beginners? A multimedia/computer store nearby has one on sale, probably the last box with a lens. Dunno what the numbers mean on it but looks like a good bundle.

>>2899440
>buying micro four turds

Stop giving lolympus money.

>>2899570
for that sort of money d3300 is the best camera to buy new i think, but there is a similar canon option

i dont know anything about pentax dslr, although they used to make good film cameras

what model is it?

>>2899579
It is a K50 18-135
I had to look it up. It is around $270 if I convert to us dollars.

>>2899579
Just for comparison the Nikon and Canon cost around $500, this one is 40% off stock clearance. If it is as good as the Nikon than I'll get the Pentax and spend the rest of the money on a bag and a few trips until college kicks in again.

File: imagewtf.png (956KB, 937x528px) Image search: [Google]

956KB, 937x528px

Sony a6000
Samyang korean lenses

best combo ever

>>2899616
Is there anything in focus in that shot?

>>2899616
My phone makes sharper images

>>2899618
>>2899619

It's not related, just some thing I found on Googel

>>2899616
>best combo ever
Thanks, will keep this in mind when I want literally nothing in focus

>>2899626
Why the fuck would you post a random as fuck image that you didn't take (which is actually against the rules if you'll be bothered to fucking read them), that's a shit image, on a post about a lens/camera combination?

I mean seriously, how fucking stupid are you? Do you not have the first fucking clue about how an image board works?

>>2899573
>implying Olympus would make any money off of a used camera sale
>implying Olympus even makes film cameras any more

>>2899613
Same image sensor but D3300 has larger mega pixels but it doesn't matter that much

If they are the same price Id go for nikon. I have no idea about the canon

Use a website camera decision to compare cameras. At the end of the daythe bodies will be very similar. Same sensor etc. You want to get a good lens more importantly

Question.

Why would I spend 500 pounds on a Sony a6000 when I can get a nikon d3300 for almost half the price?

>>2899681
I tried the comparison websites but I don't know most of what is written there. I also watched a few reviews and they seem to be giving good reviews for Pentax so I'll probably go take a look at it tomorrow morning.
It should be near the track I go for my morning runs.
I forgot to mention my country has retarded high costs for camera stuff so every penny saved means a lot.

>>2899686

Where can you find a d3300 for $250? Fantastic price.

And the a6000 has a slightly better sensor and is a fraction of the size. It can also adapt more lenses from other systems. That is about it.

>>2899716
Pounds sterling. Can pick them up for about £280 in the UK now with a standard kit lens

So mirrorless is a waste of money really?

>>2899735

Not really a waste.

But if you don't need something small, prefer ovf over evf, and have no intention of adapting lenses, a dslr might make more sense.

Any zoom lenses you'd recommend for video on an a6300? Doesn't have to be AF because I nearly always prefer to MF. I've been using the kit lens just to get acquainted with the camera but in a month or so I'll be wanting a different zoom lens for it.

Thanks!

>>2899982
I should note that I can't imagine I'd need anything over 400mm. So something that covers a decent amout of length without costing an arm and a leg. Or am I asking for the moon?

I want to build my own glidecam, where can I get a balance-plate like the ones on glidecams?

>>2899430
>divulge

>>2900042

Yeah, I hate that. I was watching the news a few years ago, and an anchor said it like 5 times instead of "deluge".

Cringe muscles got a good workout.

>>2899573
>Not knowing Olympus made 35mm film cameras
>Not knowing about the original OM system

Just bought two new Nikon lenses. Neither came with a lens hood or storage pouch as did lenses purchased a few years ago. Rear lens cap was not a solid, molded bayonet mount, just a force-fit polyethylene p/o/s.

Where else that I can't see are they cutting costs?

>>2900255
Which lenses? If it's an D instead of a G, then you get what you pay for.

>>2900255
>>2900270
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6my3DO00X28

File: 1334329164853.jpg (18KB, 366x380px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 366x380px

>>2899407
>Puts the round viewfinder on the D500
>Puts the rectangular viewfinder on the D750
>The city of Nikon


DROPPED
R
O
P
P
E
D

>>2900276
The D750 is far from a "pro" body. While the D500 is.

>>2900280
...

>>2900343
>D750
>fragile pop-up flash
>plastic body
>rectangular eyepeice
Consumer body

>D500
>full magnesium alloy body
>sturdy build, no physical weaknesses
>round eyepiece
Pro body.

>>2900378
>>D750
>>fragile pop-up flash
>doesn't know the D810 has a pop up flash
>>plastic body
http://d750.org/2014/09/12/nikon-d750-magnesium-and-carbon-composite-construction-body-internals-material-selection/
More metal than plastic
>>rectangular eyepeice
and?
>Consumer body
You're a retard.

>>2900378
>K-3II
>full magnesium alloy body
>sturdy build, no physical weaknesses
>fits 645 body round eyepiece
That sounds like a pro body to me

File: highres-Nikon-D500-Body_1452132928.jpg (5MB, 4045x3395px) Image search: [Google]

5MB, 4045x3395px

>>2900378
Strange definition of "full magnesium alloy body" you have.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	OLYMPUS IMAGING CORP.
Camera Model	E-M5
Camera Software	Version 2.1
Photographer	Joshua Waller
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	350 dpi
Vertical Resolution	350 dpi
Image Created	2016:01:07 02:04:08
Exposure Time	1/100 sec
F-Number	f/3.2
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	200
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Auto
Focal Length	33.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	4045
Image Height	3395
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	Low Gain Up
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Unique Image ID	db52d9e7b463aaad29de748783259067

File: k3ii_chassis.jpg (104KB, 450x310px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 450x310px

>>2900383
I though full magnesium alloy body meant something like this. WTF Nikon?

>>2900276
Nikon has a clear distinction between their 'pro' bodies and their consumer bodies. The eyepiece is one of them.

>>2900387
Yeah, it doesn't matter that the mount is cast into plastic. You surely don't need a stable structure around the lens mount on a pro body

IS MIRRORLESS A MEME?

WILL I BE A FGT IF I GET ONE?

WILL YOU ALL LAUGH AT ME?

>>2900395
If you get any camera because of what others say as opposed to how well it fits your individual wants, needs, and budget, then yes, you're a faggot and you deserve every bit of being made fun of imaginable.

File: Untitled.png (9KB, 753x141px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 753x141px

>>2900387
https://support.nikonusa.com/ci/documents/detail/5/142/12/2c7b02d711e73385d8aba637b64fa92098e5aee6

It's awesome how sure you're right when you're verifiably wrong.

Oh and here's an older PDF list
http://nikonpro.com/Renewal-NPS-Equipment-List.pdf

The shape of the viewfinder has exactly nothing to do with what Nikon considers a "professional" body.

>>2900410
But the viewfinder and ergonomics do determine what Nikon users distinguish between the pro bodies and the consumer bodies. That means pro ergonomics (mode button instead of dial, dedicated ISO/WB/QUAL/Meter buttons, custom setting banks, round viewfinder that takes DK-17 eyepieces (all the way back to F5/F100), and I'm sure I'm missing something else.

>>2900415
>Nikon users
Who gives the first shit about what users think?

File: D500.jpg (43KB, 560x396px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 560x396px

>>2900386
I bet if you drop the D500 and smoke the front casing, that mirror box will stay in alignment. Sure, the cover might crack, but Nikon doesn't care. They'll make money off of you sending it back to replace an easily replaceable part.

Of course, no camera will survive 18 meters onto concrete... http://photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00XYyW

File: 7D2.jpg (66KB, 600x450px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 600x450px

>>2900419
A 7D2 for comparison.

>>2900417
The users? And if Nikon made no distinction, then why is there two sets of controls?

>>2900420
>And if Nikon made no distinction,
Negroid, above is the list of what bodies Nikon considers "pro", just like you can find out for a fact what Canon considers "pro" by looking at their requirements for CPS.

>>2900276
All that pro/non-pro discussion aside.

The D500 is overall a higher end body than the D750 so it's only natural it also has the better viewfinder.

>>2900410
>D600 on that list
>D7200 not on that list
wew lad

Where were you when the D600 was """""""""""professional"""""""""""?

>>2900433
No it's not. It's a different body for a different purpose.

D750 is the high end full frame for people who don't need/want the ridiculously high megapixels of the D800e/D810.

D500 is the top dx body. They're the same "tier" with the only one "above" them being the single digit series, but even those are really the same "tier".

It's kind of like Nikon realizes that different professionals have very different needs and they made cameras that suit those different purposes.

>>2900434
D7200 is a "backup only" body.

>>2900435

Point is that sensor size aside, the D500 is better in every possible way:
- better AF
- faster max shutter speed.
- higher max ISO
- better button layout
- fucking illuminated buttons :D
- better off-camera flash support
etc. etc.

The D500 was explicitly made to look and feel like the D5. - just like the D300 and D3.
It would have been utterly retarded if the D500 had a square viewfinder.

Face it: you're just mad becasue you bought an inferior camera.

File: inferior camera.jpg (364KB, 800x1000px) Image search: [Google]

364KB, 800x1000px

>>2900444
Point is that you have a hardon for labelling something "pro" or not.

>Face it: you're just mad becasue you bought an inferior camera.
I've never even held a D750, and I'm not the one getting butthurt over the fact that I'm objectively wrong about what is and isn't "pro".

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D810
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.6 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/4.6
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	826
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	78 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2016:02:22 13:36:42
Exposure Time	1/4000 sec
F-Number	f/5.6
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	200
Lens Aperture	f/5.6
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Spot
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	78.00 mm
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	None
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>2900447
>"pro"

I never used that word

a true pro photographer can get good pics with an average camera

just because you buy a "pro" camera doesnt mean the pictures of your dog or some viewpoint near your house are good

no point spending all that money on a pro camera

>>2900447
That photo gave me patriotism.

>>2900454
t. Fuji user

Some of us actually use our cameras in inclement weather, for days on end, requiring snappy performance, long battery life, and reliable build. A small percentage of the average poster on /p/, but definitely there.

>>2900490
>Some of us actually use our cameras in inclement weather, for days on end, requiring snappy performance, long battery life, and reliable build.

You don't.

>>2900454
>>2900490
Some of us also enjoy the ease of use and ergonomics of a higher end camera.

Just because flying economy can get you there doesn't mean a 1st class ticket is pointless for those who can afford it.

>>2900490
Some of us actually use our cameras in inclement weather, for days on end, requiring snappy performance, long battery life, and reliable build. A small percentage of the average poster on /p/, but definitely there.

what you wish you were doing and what you actually do sitting at home are two different things

post a pic from one of your week long trips into the wilderness pls

File: snapshit.jpg (387KB, 1000x800px) Image search: [Google]

387KB, 1000x800px

>>2900500
Hrm...just now realized that the last time I was caught out in bad weather with my camera was a surprisingly long time ago.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D810
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.6 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.7
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	826
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	35 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2016:02:21 18:54:13
Exposure Time	1/40 sec
F-Number	f/2.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	6400
Lens Aperture	f/2.0
Exposure Bias	1/3 EV
Metering Mode	Spot
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	35.00 mm
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	High Gain Up
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>2900504
did the weather made it so difficult to properly focus?

>>2900498

>i want to make myself feel good about spending too much money

lmao

>>2900510
The fact that it was raining cats and dogs, the filter was covered with water droplets, and that it was about thirty minutes after sunset all did combine to make achieving a high level of sharpness a little more than slightly difficult.

>>2900513
I did achieve spot on focus in similar conditions on a crop body with kit lens. On a Pantex. Your excuses are invalid.

File: snapshit2.jpg (363KB, 1200x960px) Image search: [Google]

363KB, 1200x960px

>>2900515
Congratulations.

Here, have another.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D810
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.6 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/4.8
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	826
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	145 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2016:01:28 20:38:57
Exposure Time	1/25 sec
F-Number	f/14.0
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	64
Lens Aperture	f/14.0
Exposure Bias	1/3 EV
Metering Mode	Spot
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	145.00 mm
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	None
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

File: artiste.jpg (344KB, 1932x1080px) Image search: [Google]

344KB, 1932x1080px

>>2900513
Here's a time I made art.

File: artiste.jpg (229KB, 800x1000px) Image search: [Google]

229KB, 800x1000px

>>2900519
Heh, whoops, wrong image, but I'd love if I could take credit for that beautiful disaster.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi

>>2900517
>>2900520
All of them missing focus, I bet that D810 worth it for you.

>>2900512
>I'm poor

hahahaha

File: Goddes Manifested In Anger.jpg (44KB, 640x960px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 640x960px

>>2900521
QUESTION NOT MY ARTISTIC CHOICES YOU MERE PLEB

Please stop ruining the gear thread.
Take your photos to Instagram or something.

Thanks.

>>2900530
This is the most /p/ post ever.

>>2900504
>>2900517
>>2900519
>>2900520
>>2900525
GEAR THREAD
E
A
R

T
H
R
E
A
D

What's a decent Nikon Speedlight for the money? Would prefer i-TTL and to spend less than $500 if possible.

>>2900534
>What's a decent Nikon Speedlight for the money? Would prefer i-TTL and to spend less than $500 if possible.
Yongnuo. Unless it's someone else's money, the answer is always yongnuo.

I have a chance to purchase a Nikon 28mm 2.8 for $30, but I am not sure if it is AIs or AI, how can I tell the difference?

>>2900504
>>2900517
>>2900520
>>2900525

money well spent on that pro camera then

i can achieve better results using my asshole as a pinhole camera

>>2900532
Nah, this is: >>2900555

File: art.jpg (3MB, 2560x1920px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2560x1920px

>>2900555
I don't expect small brains like yours to understand art of this calibre.

>>2900552
ask?

>>2900552
https://support.nikonusa.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/5366/~/what-is-the-difference-between-an-ai-lens,-an-ai-s-lens,-and-non-ai-lens%3F

Come on guy, a simple google search is all you needed to do.

>>2900567
seller doesn't know what it is, that is why he is selling it for $20 and not $200

File: 0YmPsRZ[1].png (134KB, 950x766px) Image search: [Google]

134KB, 950x766px

do people hate canon?

>>2900571
Nah, but they do chase trends.

>>2900568
thanks, when i saw that article i thought it was wrong at first as the lens looks like a pre-ai lens

>>2900571
its generally more expensive?

>>2900571
Huh? Can you link to that because it just doesn't seem to make sense.

I mean Phase One and Leica being more popular on flickr? I just can't imagine that.

>>2900577
it's a little puzzling...

https://www.flickr.com/cameras

File: Untitled.png (86KB, 1802x763px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 1802x763px

>>2900578
They're third when I go to that link.

>>2900571
>>2900578
>Bentax in the top 5

>>2900579
wtf you're right....i just refreshed and it jumped to 3rd.....

File: IMG_8016.jpg (2MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3264x2448px

I would love some help on how to shoot film. I have a Canon AE-1 Program (dads old camera) that I just loaded with film and a fresh battery. Ive got the film setting set as well, and all I need to know now is how to shoot with it. Will taking a photo with my D3200 Nikon on the same setting produce the same result as the film will? Would also like help with the Program feature, open to any help.

>>2900571
Look closely at the graph. Every camera listed above Canon except for some digital backs* are cheap snapshits, which makes sense being that Flikr is a very mainstream website.
In fact, Canon carries the ONLY full-frame 35mm presence of any of the nominations. So what this graph really says is that if a person is considering stepping up from using a soap dish, they are more likely to choose Canon over other brands.

*this is likely an inflated value relating to a large sum of studio photographs having been uploaded compared to the fairly small range of cameras used.

>>2900585
Setting being same aperture, shutter speed. Also, film speed is the same is ISO on a digital camera, right?

>>2900571
That doesn't at all look like:
https://www.flickr.com/cameras

Canon is number 3 there and shit like the PS Vita isn't in the list.

>>2900586
see >>2900579
or go there yourself, either weird troll attempt or something just probably screwed up with their servers for anon.

Also, Leica and Phase One above Canon?

I could almost buy an argument for Leica, but Phase One users generally have better things to do with their time than cultivate a flickr following.

>>2900585
that looks nice

just stick it in program and shoot away, it chooses the settings for you

or shutter priority, aperature priority so you only have to choose one setting

d3200 settings will be similar but not exactly the same, if you know how to use manual mode on your dslr then its just the same thing

go and learn what aperature and shutter speed is first

google and youtube will help

>>2900579
He trolled you dude, he trolled you good.

>>2900592
Saw the replies after I posted, but it's still largely true, Canon is the top choice for SLRs it would seem.

>>2900593
oh i know what they are lol, I'm just very (very) new to film. I just don't want to blow away film.

>>2900587
Nope.

Because camera manufacturers lie about the ISO values on digital cameras.

Also if you use a different lens there might also be some difference between f-stop vs t-stop.

DXOmark can tell you how much the camera manufacturer lied on your particular model.

>>2900605
Just enough information to be dangerous:
>Those treasured mechanical cameras, when it came to exposure accuracy, were generally worse. While the actual shutter speeds of a camera fresh out of the factory may have been fairly accurate (within 1/3-1/2 a stop), with time and use the coils and springs that run the shutter would loosen and shutter speeds would slow down. That’s why semi-annual cleaning, lubrication and general tune-ups at the shop were recommended.
http://www.adorama.com/alc/0011227/article/ISO-Lies-When-ISO-100-is-really-72

Exposure has a lot of leinency in both digital and film, especially negative film.

I bet you also think that there are cameras whose 1/1000s is exactly 1/1000s.

>>2900602
if you know how a camera works, then whats the problem?

>>2900610
just wanted to be sure

>>2900619
It's just film friend. Yeah, it costs some money, but being scared of screwing something up is precisely the wrong way to learn how to use it.

>>2900619
buy some cheap film and blast through a roll, get it developed and see how it turns out

after that then just take your time, only shoot shots you know will be good

i tend to think will i actually give a fuck about this shot before i take it

then after a while you will build up a nice collection

either do a full roll every so often, or use a roll gradually over a period of time

>>2900609
>I bet you also think that there are cameras whose 1/1000s is exactly 1/1000s.

Fairly sure mine isn't 1/700s or 1/1400s.

>>2900454
>a true pro photographer can get good pics with an average camera
"Good pics" are one thing.

"Good pics of what you were supposed to shoot" never mind "excellent pics of what you were supposed to shoot" are a different thing. Never mind the usual requirement to get those shots quickly and efficiently.

>>2900631

Except that an entry level camera today totally blows a pro-tier SLR or rangefinder from the bulk of photography's history out of the fucking water in every aspect except for viewfinder size, battery life and MAYBE robustness (that's a tough sell, however).

>>2900634
Eh, not really. I mean definitely in some ways, but that isn't really a general statement you can make.

>>2900637

I just did, bitch.

>>2900639
Ah, that brand of autism.
>That isn't really a general statement you can make and be remotely correct.

That better?

>>2900640

I'm just trolling ya, kiddo.

But seriously, compare a D3300 to an F3. Let me know what things the F3 does better, especially the stuff that contributes to "getting the good pic of what you were supposed to shoot".

>>2900645
An honest response? Not as much as you think, which is as much a testiment to two facts
>the goals of photography are very varied
>we "figured out" cameras quite a while back

For instance, digital post processing is a draw between the two once you realize you can scan negatives and get much of the same level of latitude.

Burst rates don't matter in studio, nor do the comparative capacities of a roll of film vs an sd card.

So on and so forth. Yes, digital is great in a lot of ways and in some fields (like photojournalism) it absolutely does shit on anything film, but in all ways and all areas? Nope.

>>2900649
>Burst rates don't matter in studio, nor do the comparative capacities of a roll of film vs an sd card.

Instant review does make a huge difference, however.

But, really, I'm not arguing that digital is way, way better. Quite the opposite: We're way past the point of diminishing returns in a lot of areas of camera innovation. So, yeah, an entry level camera is more than sufficient, considering that photographers have been doing just fine with much worse cameras for the majority of photography's history.

Convince me to buy a Pentax 67

I dont like my Hasselblad 500cm, trying to sell it now.

Does mirror lock up make a real difference? A lot of people say their images are fine, despite the huge mirror slamming around.

Also curious what a good large format camera is, is Graflex Crown a good one? is 8x10 worth dealing with? I feel like you may as well go 8x10 if you're buying a fuckoff huge camera anyway.

>>2900653
>So, yeah, an entry level camera is more than sufficient, considering that photographers have been doing just fine with much worse cameras for the majority of photography's history.
I'll agree with that, but it's just the characterization that "modern digital blows everything film out of the water" just isn't true in all cases.

For the majority of users though? Definitely. Hell, a phone camera is precisely what most people should own and nothing more.

>>2900645
Now compare a D3300 to a F100, F5, D1, or D2.

>>2900634
> the bulk of photography's history
... is well below the minimum standard for today.

Yes, today's "good" is different, even for photographs. Shouldn't really have to tell you this, because it's the same for really just about everything.

>>2900653
> We're way past the point of diminishing returns in a lot of areas of camera innovation
We did actually got a nice bit closer to the ability to reliably capture anything as well as our eyes could see it in the best circumstances.

Which is probably not the highest goal we ultimately will want to reach.

But anyhow, much more progress is *very* desirable.

>>2900703

I would probably take a D3300 over my old F100. The F5 is a tough call. I had one, sold it because there was literally no point in carrying a giant, heavy brick if I was just going to shoot baby format anyway.

D1 or D2, no competition. D3300 wins in every aspect except ergonomics.

File: 1435430643230.png (71KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 300x300px

>MFW I just sent my camera off to Fuji for repair and the process is sketch as fuck

>>2900645

F3 works without batteries

I'd also bet the farm the F3 would survive a drop better than the D3300

D3300 only takes cheap shitty plastic Chinese G lenses, F3 can shoot everything non-G under the sun from 1959 to today.

Why isn't the XF 23mm 1.4 a WR lens? What the FUCK.

>>2900738
You know they announced a 23mm f/2 WR right?

>>2900752
Literally saw it 5 minutes after that shitpost.

>>2900721
I just had my Fuji's sensor remapped due to a couple of hot pixels. It took a bit long since it had to be shipped to Sweden (I'm in Finland) but everything went fine.

>>2900765
The gasket on my battery door got fucked up somehow. I also asked for a full clean/check, which their rep says likely covers fixing. Luckily it only has to go to New Jersey and I'm in Denver. It's just weird you don't even submit any info to them and just mail off your camera with a printout.

Question.

I have a budget of ~$1000 for an entry/mid-level DSLR. I've narrowed down my choices between the Nikon D5500 and D7200.

Would it be better to put the extra $250-300 towards lenses or just invest in the better body and get a cheap 35mm prime lens until I can afford better?

>>2900802

Disregard bodies, acquire lenses. It's also worth noting that new bodies are a terrible investment, especially for your first camera. Get a used body for half of what you'd pay for a new one, and get a wide angle, fast normal and telephoto.

>>2900803
That's what I assumed from the wiki. Just wanted some outside opinions, thanks! I'll go with a used/refurbished D5500

Did I fuck up by getting into nikon? I heard fuji body+lenses is a lot cheaper and weights a lot less than nikon body+lenses. How are fuji lenses and resale value compared to nikon?

>>2900810
If you want resell value, you should get into Leica.

>>2900810
You can do more lightweight Fuji, Olympus, Panasonic or Sony in many instances, but it can also cost you more.

Depends on what kind of camera and lens you bought, really.

>>2900804
Get a D7100 dummy

Going to France in December.

Bring my 5d mk3 or buy a nice point-and-shoot?

>>2900851
Why is that even a question?

>>2900851

Nice point and shoot. I just went on vacation, brought my heavy prosumer dslr and about six pounds of lenses and my Fujifilm x-series that I can wear on a string around my neck. Guess which one spent the week in my bag and which one went with me everywhere?

if canon's dual pixel af is so good, why it's not on the eos m?

>>2900854

Canon is afraid to commit to a serious mirrorless body.

>>2900852
>>2900853

ok, ok.

Fuji? Ricoh? Sony?

>>2900857
I assume you are asking about the X100T vs GRII vs RX100IV
The GR2 is a serious street camera, not a vacation camera. You might want a bit of zoom so the X100T is also out of the question, also it is the biggest one.
I say get the list down to the Fuji X70 and the RX100IV. See which one you can get for cheaper.
X70 has APS-C sensor, RX100IV has 1'' sensor and better stabilization, the rest are somewhat equal.

Best Fuji X series camera under 350$?

>>2900881
Fuji X30

Has anyone here tried the contax g to sony e mount Techart autofocus adapter on an A7?

Getting a 5D MK III for $1,400. Is that juice worth the squeeze /p/? Have been waiting for a 5D MK VI or 6D MK II announcement, but I don't think it's coming any time soon...

>>2900898
Wait till photokina. If you can't just buy a cheaper crop body 70D that you can sell when the MkIV comes out. If you buy the MkIII now you can expect it to drop around or below $1000 when the new one is announced. The MkIII has a seriously outdated tech that while still works fine the job requirements will jump a lot with the new dog out on the field.

>>2900900
I already have a 6D, but I'm wanting a more pro-body for the AF performance and ergonomics...

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

151KB, 1000x562px

>>2900900
>>2900906
Oh, also have a Nikon D600, but not sure if I should bother with the F-Mount now.

[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

>>2900907
>this cunt
I swear every thread you post this shit along with your 3 UWA lenses that all cover the same focal length, asking some retarded question with a bullshit reason for "needing" another camera/lens. You don't need more gear, what you need is to actually take some fucking photos.

>>2900913
Don't be mean brah. I'm asking for serious gear advice ._.

>>2900916
What part of "You don't need more gear, what you need is to actually take some fucking photos", did your thick head not understand?

If I remember correctly you were into nightclub photography, the gear you have now is FAR more than capable of taking excellent photographs.

More gear will not make you a better photographer, actually taking photos and practising with what you have will.

>>2900922
I just want don't want to lose all my photos to a faulty SD card and AF can be better. I'm scared Anon ;_;

>>2900907
>this shitcunt
Fuck off, maybe kill yourself if you can.

>>2900271
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6my3DO00X28
Thank you very much.

File: Samyang-20mm-f1.8-ED-AS-UMC-lens.jpg (113KB, 1200x900px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 1200x900px

>that 20mm f1.8
Samyang's bringing out 5 new lenses, let's hope they fixed their fucking trash quality control issues as well.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

>>2900931
>covers FF
>also available in K-mount
There is a god!

>>2900936
Why don't you just stick with the K-Mount limited lenses? Don't you also get AF as well as FF coverage?

Correct me if I'm wrong because I only know the basics of Pentacks

>>2900939
The Pentax one is only f/2.8, this is f/1.8 and at that focal length it is enough to roughly put something in focus because the DoF is enormous, not to mention more modern optical design.
Plus I can use it on my film body as well without the focus being loose as on an AF lens.

>>2900752
>>2900738
I was considering the 27mm pancake lens but considering it's price and the fact that the 23 WR is coming out, seem like a waste.

>>2900931
Are those the same optically?

I can't imagine T1.9 being just f/1.8 - don't lenses normally lose a lot more light?

>>2901084
They are the same optically. If this lense was made by Canon or Nikon it would be marketed as f/1.4, f/1.2 if it was made by Sony.

>>2901084

Primes don't as much as zooms do.

>>2901091
...you're an idiot.

>>2901096
Yeah I know, Sony would market it even lower as a Gay Master series lens and add focus by wire just to spite cine users.

>>2901112
No, you're an idiot for thinking that the f-stop is lied about just because it's not the same as the t-stop.

Everyone knows that the EF 85mm f/1.2 (for example) has at best a t/1.8, but that's not the important part to photography. The depth of field is still f/1.2 and the aperture diaphragm to focal length ratio is f/1.2 at maximum. There's no lie to it. You're just an idiot who doesn't understand why there are two different measurements.

>>2901118
Calm your tits dude, I was just messing with you

File: 1458510576949.jpg (45KB, 640x640px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 640x640px

Just bought my first prime for some snapshitting and recording video at a wide angle

Canon EF-S 24mm f/2.8

Recommendations for camera slings, or better alternatives than conventional neck straps for heavier equipment?

my regular straps work fine for my 100d and pancake, but for my 7Dii and sig 18-35 its too heavy for comfort. Slings look like the best alternative for a heavier setup but im worried about all the reviews out there of people saying their cameras disconnected.

is there a camera sling out there that's:

-comfortable
-VERY sturdy
-can be worn comfortably while riding on a bike

price isn't really an issue (though i guess spending more than $100 for a good strap or sling sounds crazy to me).

>>2901140
If you're afraid of them disconnecting:
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00HVT2D4Y

>>2901140
Peak Design

>>2901146
Oh, and if you're not terrible with knots, you can easily make one yourself for a couple of bucks, but if you just want to buy something, this is a solid design.

>>2901146
didnt know about this, definitely worth the peace of mind. thanks.
>>2901160
how about the blackrapid or joby varieties?
>>2901161
ill probably end up fucking it up, ill just waste the extra $5 for security

but are camera slings good for bike riding or wold it be awkward as fuck and slide around? need a sling anyway but would be a nice benefit.

>>2901163
>but are camera slings good for bike riding or wold it be awkward as fuck and slide around? need a sling anyway but would be a nice benefit.
Seems like they'd be awkward to me and I love them (I have a $20 from digital goja). They're awesome for hiking/walking around because the camera sits on your hip, but on a bike, seems like it would hang lower/bounce around near the crosspost. Around the neck/in some kind of bag seems the best for while riding. Maybe get another one of the clasps and attach the camera to a belt loop while riding?

>>2901163
I don't like the single lug made from chinese cast metal/polished turd. The Peak design double lugs are better.
I use it with my Bigma and the wide strap is really comfy.

>>2900857
If you only want cameras that can perform near a 5D III, you're kinda stuck with the better Fujis and Sonys. The Sonys get closer IMO.

If you are also fine with something as relatively basic as a Ricoh, you can use every MILC brand and just about any recent compact that will give you RAW.

>>2901163
>how about the blackrapid or joby varieties?

I have one but didn't really like it.

It's quite a hassle to put it on.
The strap under the armpit made me sweat a lot there.
Not using the armpit strap causes it to move around.
The thick padding makes it hard to combine with a backpack.
The thick padding is also quite warm, so more sweating.
Finally it's quite a hassle to attach or remove it.

I switched to a peak design and like it a lot more.
Despite not having any padding it never gets uncomfortable to carry a 2kg camera+lens combo for entire days.

is it worth to sell many of mine Nikon gears and have it only for landscapes, and them buy a Fuji to portraits and wildlife?

>>2901249
why not just use your nikon for portraits and wildlife too?

>>2901251
this

>>2901254
>>2901251
oh wait
>nikon
>wildlife
>LOUD CLACK CLACK CLACK
Just sell your gear and get a Pentax for wildlife

>>2901255
....or get a longer lens

>>2901249
No. Even if Fuji also can do good portraits and wildlife, the Nikon system is basically definitely still better for this. Both value-wise and how well it works at best.

If you wanted a system that can significantly beat Nikon for portraits, you'd probably want a Sony anyhow, not a Fuji.

>>2901266
>If you wanted a system that can significantly beat Nikon for portraits, you'd probably want a Sony anyhow

lmao

>>2901259
That mirrorslap can be heard in a loud crowd on a street festival from across a street. A longer lens won't help to drown that thunderclack.

Question: I own a D90 + Tamron 17-50 f2.8.

I keep up with DSLR tech but I still can't find a reason to upgrade. I don't shoot video so I don't care about those features.

Am I missing something?

>>2901280
more megapixels, better ISO range, more features, size?

if you are happy with the quality of your photographs then dont upgrade

>>2901287

I don't feel like the sensor is really failing me yet. I can still fix everything in Lightroom/Photoshop/NoiseNinja. Has Nikon released in-body shake reduction that isn't a gimmick yet?

File: 1452172385669.jpg (44KB, 586x586px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 586x586px

Hey guys, I just bought a Canon 100mm f/2 and I want to buy an AF extension tube for it so I can use it for macro.

I've never used an extension tube before so what size should get? 13mm or 25mm or even longer? I want to get pretty close for jewelry and bugs and shit.

>>2901295
>I don't feel like the sensor is really failing me yet
Then why are you...
>gimmick
Oh, you're just shitposting.

>>2901269
Nope. Sony currently does portraits best. Best lenses for portraits happened, excellent bodies happened and remote TTL (finally) happened with a bunch of vendors. It's the best portrait system out there.

However, I did definitely suggest to stick with Nikon. Get a Sigma Art 50mm or something - it'll do great portraits.

>>2901280
Cameras got better in a lot of regards. And of course there are also better lenses than the one you have.

But if you're actually fine with your current setup, why not stick with it a little longer...? Sure, you could try a D750 or something, but maybe you just don't need it?

I myself knew I wanted something better when I upgraded, because I just hit limits when shooting. [I didn't try to find and pick the most minimal / cheapest upgrade when I upgraded, but I knew why I upgraded when I did.]

>>2901300
Just get a typical 3-5 set of extension tubes (a much purchased / highly rated set on Aliexpress, for example - they are cheap).

There is no "exactly right" set for all lenses and subject sizes and the choices for typical sets are okay.

Extension tubes are not devices that are practical to switch out until you have the exact half-millimeter for your framing compromised for DoF constraints anyhow - you just roughly get the right combination and shoot.

If at some point your needs turn out to be higher than that, turn to the rather obvious 100mm f/2.8L macro lens first. Or use macro bellows. Or try an achromatic close-up filter lens.

>>2901186
was going to buy but then i saw:

$170~~

dafuq? i could buy half a used lens or a fast as shit C-card for that

just got the jobi... ill try my hand at knotting and get the anal lube to go with it i guess

>>2901304

All Sony fucking does is release portrait lenses. They released like what? Five this year?

Gimme a lens longer than 300mm already. Modernise that dank 500mm Minolta reflex lens or something.

>>2901338
> All Sony fucking does is release portrait lenses. They released like what? Five this year?
I personally am happy about getting more of the type of gear that initially brought me to the system.

If I was Sony, I'd also continue with more ultra wide angle to (short) tele lenses. It will attract far more new users.

They just aren't going to successfully get many people to do a ($6-25k or whatever) switch to new G master telephoto glass, are they...

>>2901304
>Nope. Sony currently does portraits best. Best lenses for portraits happened, excellent bodies happened and remote TTL (finally) happened with a bunch of vendors. It's the best portrait system out there.

lmao.

>>2901370
I'm curious:
does sony have a 70-200mm 2.8 yet and is it actually 200mm on the long end?

>not trolling, just don't keep up with gear and not curious enough to bother googling it up

File: Clc01_rUkAACkV0.jpg (79KB, 960x960px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 960x960px

>>2901372

Yes, just released it. Supposed to be a pretty awesome lens. It just released and release got messed up by earthquake. Still hard to find.

There is also a f/4 version at a more reasonable $1,000.

>>2901376

Woops, checkong now it seems it got pushed back to next month.

>>2901372
> does sony have a 70-200mm 2.8 yet
Yup. Most reviewers consider it better than the Canon or Nikon pendant, but it also costs more right now.

> and is it actually 200mm on the long end?
...?

>>2901380
>...?
Focus breathing. Most 70-200s on the market today are noticeably not 200mm when focused closely at 200mm (Nikon's is like 170ishmm iirc).

>>2901383
Ah, focus breathing. I don't recall coming across any measurements yet.

>>2901380

>costs more

$2,600.

$1,000 for the f/4 version.

Though to be fair FE lenses usually drop a couple hundred pretty quick. I expect it to settle at $2,000.

I don't know if there is any optical difference between the two.

>>2900490
You replied to that post awfully fast for someone in the wilderness for days on end.
>>2900504
kek, nice snapshit bro.

>>2901395

Probably based ofg the a-mount one. If that has it, this e-mount one is likely to also.

tfw shooting with a tiny 500mm mirror lens

nobody knows im shooting creepshots

>>2901435

I'm sure the giant reflective mirror will clue them in.

>>2901440
I doubt most people are able to make a distinction besides "short or long" for a lens.

Looking for a weatherproof bag that can fit a Sigma 150-600mm

>>2901323
Thing is the sets of 5 have no electric contacts meaning they wouldn't be able to control the aperture

>>2901450
did i say you could reply to my comment?

>>2899407
Anyone got the link to the spreadsheet that gets posted on here, about focal lengths and maximum times to avoid star trails?

>>2901495
Google "startrails 500 rule"
Use the equivalent focal length.
You're welcome

Also a link should be in the astro thread

>>2901487
If you can only find 3-sets, just use that. But yea, you want the electrical contacts for that lens (and maybe others that you're going to use).

>>2901490
You don't have a reasonable expectation of not being replied on 4chan!

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
Hmmm, so thinking of adding a Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM for portable telephoto funz. Would take it with me when the Tamron f/2.8 VC USD is just too much to carry along with me.

Saw one for $525 pre-loved with shipping. Should I cop it /p/?

>>2899407
>get a speed booster
>get a teleconverter
>use both at once
i would like to try this.

Your opinions on the XF 27mm f2.8? I'm going to buy it grey market, to last me until the 23mm f2 hits the stores. My body is the X-T10.

>>2901599
It's a great lens. Buy it.

File: 645z.jpg (85KB, 923x936px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 923x936px

FUCK I want to go MF so badly... Dis or the X1D? Which one /p/?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Photographer	Ray Neal Caird
Image-Specific Properties:

>>2901547
FUCK OFF
U
C
K

O
F
F

File: pentax645size.jpg (338KB, 976x1200px) Image search: [Google]

338KB, 976x1200px

>>2901629
I own the Z and it's a kick-ass camera. My feelings on the X1D are a bit mixed because it's not like a medium format A7R; it has no FP shutter, so you can only use it with its own lenses or adapted H. Even if an adapter gets made for other brands, it will still only work with those lenses that have central shutters, unless Hasselblad figures out a way to implement an electronic shutter. (the Z shares the same sensor and has no electronic shutter)

Other negatives include: no swivel screen (in 2016? really?), half the frame rate of the Z (1.5fps), electronic viewfinder (not a high-end panel like in the Leica SL), Phocus software is worse than Capture One and Lightroom (but you can still use LR), few physical controls, and so on. Basically, you'll be giving up a lot of utility to get a camera that is 1/3rd the size of the 645Z.

In the X1D's defense, it will very likely be an easier camera to carry and shoot hand-held, no shutter or mirror vibrations to worry about, and Hasselblad glass is historically very good, although there are only two lenses out, and they carry a hefty price. With Pentax you have a whole range of legacy lenses that you can score for $200-$800 a piece depending on whether it has AF or not, and if you fancy the high-end, the 28-45mm and 90mm Macro are peerless among MF glass, at least for the price...

TL;DR: You should weigh the trade-offs and decide for yourself. A large chunky camera like the Z doesn't pose a problem for me, but it might for you, the X1D would be an amazing camera to use in quiet venues because it doesn't sound like you're charging a rifle every time you take a shot.

How much difference does a lens with VR make for shooting hand held video?

>>2901547
this noob. Cop a dick in ur face faketog

>>2901629
a7 with kipon mf speed booster.

>>2901689
http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/kipon-announces-worlds-first-medium-format-hasselblad-v-sony-e-mount-focal-length-reducer-adapter/

>>2901690
>>2901689
So you lose the biggest advantages of shooting MF just so you can stick MF lenses on a ff body?

I mean, there's almost good reason to speedboost up m43 lenses...but full frame to MF? No.

File: Epson-Perfection-V370[1].jpg (15KB, 481x265px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 481x265px

>>2899407
how good is the epson perfection v370?

I want to scan 35mm color and B/W film and possibly in the future medium format
I don't have a DSLR, I tried doing that shoebox lightbox that's everywhere on google but I get shitty images with my point and shoot the best I got out of it doesn't look like the prints I had from the lab.
I want to share the photos on memebook and instagram and possibly print on 4 x 6
is the v370 enough?, I'm a poorfag but I could save money for a while for a better scanner (I want to keep shooting film as long as film is alive), or am I better with the scans from a lab?

>>2901702
If you can get a plustek in the same price range, by it and downscale.
Flatbeds are more useful for MF/LF than they are for 135.

>>2901702
> is the v370 enough
Yes, it's good enough for that. It's not really good enough for archival.

You should consider that inserting and removing film strips with the wait for the scan in between is very time-consuming, though.

Being able to scan entire film strips in one go is usually worth having a device that can only do 35mm...

>>2901704
ok, I know I'm fucking retarded, can you explain if this is better than a flatbed and why?
also what model of plustek should I look for?

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Plustek-OpticFilm-7300-35mm-High-Resolution-Film-Scanner-48-bit-7200x7200-dpi-/222203568350?hash=item33bc5d60de:g:RbUAAOSwARZXm4yc

thanks bruh

>>2901642
it's 2016, I just googled your query...
>https://www.google.com/search?q=How+much+difference+does+a+lens+with+VR+make+for+shooting+hand+held+video%3F&oq=How+much+difference+does+a+lens+with+VR+make+for+shooting+hand+held+video%3F&aqs=chrome..69i57&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

read

>>2901694
Shut the fuck up.

>>2901690
Fuck that's a nice option too. a7R II with a nice and fast 45mm MF lens... Hopefully the booster optics are nice and sharp.

>>2901639
I've physically handled and finger fucked a 645Z and I love the ergonomics, however, the portability of the X1D does seem worth the reduced feature set. Mainly a run and gun type photog but I usually only use single shot, centre AF point anyway so the reduction in AF performance is acceptable.

Also, losing the focal plane shutter allows me incredible high-speed flash sync right? That would be a decent trade off.

Hopefully X1D adapters answer the lack of lenses until they get a decent native mount line up.

>>2901856
>>>2901694
>Shut the fuck up.
Why? He has a point.

>>2901858
What fucking point? Having an extra stops of exposure, getting MF FOV on a budget, smaller and more compact takedown package... If you think m4/3 or APS-C boosters are valid, what doesn't make an FF one?

The logical conclusion is that you're a faggot.

/p/ r8 my setup (will be complete Monday, I have a lens and the new bag coming but this is what it will be):

>Canon Rebel T6i

>Canon EF-S 18-55 kit lens
>Canon EF-S 50mm f1.8 STM
>Sigma APO DG 70-300mm f4-5.6
>Sigma 10-20mm f4-5.6 EX DC HSM

>Davis & Sanford TR553-P228 Traverse
>Lowepro ProTactic 250
>"Filters"
>SanDisk 128GB card

The new tripod should be here today soon, I have an old (like from the 60's) D&S Redi-Tilt that I use but it's too bulky to put on a backpack for what I want to do (ride bike around city and take pics)

Sigma 10-20 and Lowepro should be here Monday, pics will come of new shit.


What do people use to process raws then edit? I've been taking pictures and have a ton of raw data but no idea how to go about processing it. Has anyone in the year 2016 pirated any CS6 programs or is it too risky anymore? If so I'll just stick to Raw Therapee/Lightzone and GIMP/Paint.NET. Really would like to try some exposure blending if I find some clear pics to do it with.

Sorry for long post, help me with software

>>2901907
I don't know what the fuck you do so how can I tell you if it's good?

Are you shooting bears during mating season? Documenting the flight patterns of red tailed hawks? If so then no, you did horribly

>>2901907
If you like UWA zooms, should consider a kit like >>2901547. All I need is a Tamron 15-30mm f/2.8 VC USD and that Canon EF 8-15mm f/4L USM and I'll be set for UWA funz for life.

>>2901915
General usage:
>Automotive
Use 18-55 or 50mm
>Cityscapes
Plan on using 10-20, have been using 18-55 just not wide enough
Have used 70-300 for some special zoom shots
>Macro/Bugs/Plants
18-55 has done well but I haven't tried any with my 70-300 which does have a macro setting, will probably use that from most points forward as it has really fucking nice clarity for a $150 lens new.
>Nature stills
Any and all
>Urban/Industrial
All

Reasons for buying stuff:
>Body (kit)
I wanted a DSLR.
>18-55
Came with it and is OK at most things
>50mm
18-55 wasn't letting in enough light at night and want something compact for car shows. "Maybe I can get better clearer city pics"
>70-300
I want a zoom lens for stills.
>10-20
No, the 50mm is not wide enough for cityscapes, since the last Sigma I bought has exceptional clarity for what it is and the Tamron is reviewed badly, and the cheaper Canons I am not impressed with in low light, and the Canon I want is out of my price range, I will buy another Sigma.
>Tripod
The one I got from my dad as a hand me down for free is too large to put onto a backpack.
>Bag
I want to carry my shit with me while riding a bike, but a normal tactical backpack is not padded enough. Other camera bags look dumb and aren't as modular.
>128gb card
I hate running out of memory, plus I shoot JPG+raw and often do multi-exposure. I bought the biggest one I could find so I do not ever have this problem.

I have a reason for each purchase, I think this will remove any restraints caused by hardware capabilities. I hope now my limit will be my abilities.

>>2901916
Man I wish I could drop that much on fisheye but it's just not in my budget for this hobby, yet. My entire kit is only a bit more than that lens.

The UWAZ I really wanted (and could have justified buying) was the Canon10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM
Again, once my skills develop to the point hardware is my limiting factor, I'll spend more for better lenses, but I want a good base of everything now.

>>2901938
seems like you bought too much at once and will likely drop shooting in a month

>>2901938
>>2901907
If I was starting fresh and wasn't looking at getting into pro work, I would have gotten into a MILCS like a Sony a6000 or even an a7 series. You'll get similar or even better image performance in a smaller package but that's countered by slow and unreliable AF speed and battery performance.

>>2901916
Don't recommend that guy's setup. It's pants-on-head retarded.

>>2901867
Speedboosters make sense on m43 because they have such a small sensor it's kinda shit for lower light levels. A speedbooster helps increase the usability of m43 in a needed way.

A full frame doesn't really need "extra stops of exposure" when they come from having such a thin depth of field that focusing becomes impossible.

>MF FOV
You can just use a wider lens.

>more compact
Pretty sure that's not really true. Yeah a 645z is pretty sizeable, but you're still going to end up having the speedbooster take up enough room to cover the flange distance plus the increased size of the MF lens.

Why are you so emotionally attached to this?

Oh, and all of this and you lose out on THE reason to shoot digital MF: the level of detail you can get out of them.

>>2901941
Nah, I tend to buy something nice then use the crap out of it before desiring to upgrade.

Will I probably take LESS pictures? Well yeah it's gonna get cold out eventually and I lose all motivation in the winter but I'll still take some. I don't drop things that fast, I've been shooting on my phone for a long time but I wanted something better so I splurged. I have the exact amount of disposable income that can afford me what I bought.

>>2901949
The AF doesn't bother me too much as I typically use MF (I take pictures of things that generally are very still) but the battery life is something critical. I've already considered a 2nd battery for my T6i but I don't need one bad enough to drop $50 on an OEM one (which is the only kind I'd buy)

Reason I went with Canon is the huge lens selection, tons of people have them so there's a lot of tips/advice/discussions about Canons and lenses, and I think they are generally better than Nikons.

Also there is a slight bit of brandfagging in there. I have always thought of Canon as the gold standard, a bit like Ford is with cars. They're everywhere, they're decent, and you can find parts and support for them, even though there are probably better performance things in some way, or cheaper, or whatever. The Canon hit that right spot for me.

Also also my first camera was a film and it was a Canon SureShot Owl. Loved the shit out of that thing. Still have it but with digital I have no desire to shoot in film anymore really. I don't see a point. Neither does my dad who started photography in the 70's on an old Canon AE-1. Bought him a T5i for father's day and he's so happy with it. Doesn't understand why anyone would bother shooting film anymore, it's just not worth the upkeep.

>>2901954
Just stop posting. You're sounding pretty desperate.

You must be one of those MFTurds I see shitposting everywhere.

>>2901960
wew lad

>>2901907
>rabal
m3, 80d is the only correct choice.

>>2901974
I couldn't afford to pay $1200 for the ADD

>>2901702
I have this scanner it only scans 35mm strips there is no 120mm film holder for it. You can easily get an epson v500 (does 35 and 120) around 50USD at garage sales. If you aren't willing to wait you could buy refurb from epson for cheap.

>>2901907
Hm, I don't think I like these lenses or the camera.

> Sorry for long post, help me with software
Darktable and Krita might also be interesting to look at if you are on the open sauce side of things.

Or just buy Corel AfterShot Pro if you can't afford the other software packages.

File: DSC_1080.jpg (410KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

410KB, 1280x720px

How's the X-E2?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D5300
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.3 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/5.7
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	802
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	210 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2014:03:17 16:24:38
Exposure Time	1/100 sec
F-Number	f/11.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	200
Lens Aperture	f/11.0
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Light Source	Flash
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	140.00 mm
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	None
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>2901990
Doesn't really stand a chance against the cheaper A6000.

Noticeably worse in basically every way except for having some extra / better placed physical buttons.

>>2901994
I'm not fucking with Sony. Besides, I have an X-T1 and a bunch of XF lenses. I want it as an EDC, really.

>>2901999
The X-E2 will be fine for what you want. Performance-wise it's good enough - just don't expect to use it professionally. I still enjoy using my X-Pro1 but god is it slow and shitty with AF

>>2901999
> I'm not fucking with Sony.
I'd be fucking with Fuji pretty rapidly if Sony released only worse and more expensive bodies than the current entry-level of Fuji.

Not that this happened with regards to the A6000 - you can get better Fuji bodies.

> Besides, I have an X-T1 and a bunch of XF lenses. I want it as an EDC, really.
Seriously, why not stick with the X-T1 until you can get an actually better Fuji?

The difference in size and weight is like nothing anyhow. You should be able to EDC the X-T1. Easily.

>>2902021

>Fuji releasing worse and worse bodies.

Get the fuck out of here.

We all know Fuji can do no wrong.

You didn't need all those features anyway.

How is Sony losing 70+ million dollars on Ghostbusters going to affect their cameras?

>>2902024

It's not. Seperate divisions.

Not the first time a Sony movie has bombed either.

>>2902024
Different product in a huge ass company with ~83bn USD revenue? My guess is not at all.

>>2902027
playstation will carry their loss

I have a bunch of second hand (at least) lenses. They seem fine, but is it worth a clean/check on them? Especially if I'm not sure if it's ever been done?

>>2902090
No? Just use them. Only get service for them when it's necessary and worth it vs a replacement.

>>2902024
Hopefully they will stop making shit movies.

>>2902028
As Anon said, Sony has departmentalized and separated it's different business. Sony as a whole went through a lot of troubles due to the GFC, Playstation 3 and Bravia losses. But they seem to be on track to recover those losses within the next few years.

Though their Sony Imagine factories (sensors, cameras and lenses) were dealt with a blow with a series of major earthquakes in the past two years resulting in delayed production.

>>2902090
>>2902096
If you live, store them or got them from a humid place I'd give them a health check especially from fungus and what not. That shit can spread to your other gear and lenses so if they do, start disposing of them.

Or you can start selling them if you don't use them. The pre-loved camera lens market, especially for vintage, decent performing lenses is lucrative so it may literally pay to sell them off.

>Own an M mount camera and an A7
>Also own a C/Y camera
>Currently have the Voigtlander 50/1.5 M mount
>Kind of want to sell it and buy a Zeiss Planar
>Stuck between getting a C/Y 50 /.4 and a ZM 50/2
Christ, it's like trying to pick my own death. I don't want to be a gearfag no mo

I have a slight dent in the battery door on my A6300 and closing it is a bit harder now, is that something I should get fixed right away or is it the biggest of deals?

>>2902112
we all know that feel

wish I could just stick to one body and build around it. it'd feel really cozy

>>2902112
>>2902167
I know tf too >>2901547 not sure if should stick with the EF mount or F mount...

File: 3K6A0589.jpg (241KB, 427x640px) Image search: [Google]

241KB, 427x640px

Story: I've been in photography for few years and my little brother who is turning 17 soon is developing a passion for movies and photography. I wanted to buy him a starting camera for his B-day so he can see whether he really wants to learn about photography or not.

I've started with 70d and now use 5dmIII but I'm thinking about some really basic Canon shit for him. I have no idea about the whole Rabal series and whatnot.

Question: What would you guys recommend from Canon on a Rabal price level for someone who will be testing out if he really wants to get mainly into movies but also photography.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 5D Mark III
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Macintosh)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.4
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	3587
Image Height	5381
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2016:01:05 15:25:26
Exposure Time	1/100 sec
F-Number	f/1.4
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	640
Lens Aperture	f/1.4
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	50.00 mm
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	427
Image Height	640
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>2902210
70D if it's mainly movies

>>2902213
thanks, 70d is a great camera (used it myself) for that purpose but "It's too advanced" hence too expensive for a first camera IMO. There is a chance that little fucker will drop it into closet after doing 10 photos and I don't want to spend over 1k $ for this experiment :)

>>2902210
christ
how can you be a woman and NOT be sexually attracted to yourself?

>>2902219
In this case it's probably because you have face like an ogre and normal proportions.

The same reason why any hipster whore sells herself for dirt cheap.

File: images.jpg (4KB, 133x130px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 133x130px

>>2902221

>>2902225
She has nice hips, not really unique, or to die for.

But perhaps you've never seen a feminine body before, so you rate it much higher than average.

File: 3K6A2827-Edit.jpg (206KB, 427x640px) Image search: [Google]

206KB, 427x640px

>>2902227
Go to gear thread they said, you will discuss your gear needs, they said.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 5D Mark III
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Macintosh)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	3840
Image Height	5760
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	2016:05:12 17:45:58
Exposure Time	1/125 sec
F-Number	f/4.5
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	200
Lens Aperture	f/4.5
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	50.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	427
Image Height	640
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>2902230
>gear threads are there to glorify all non-gear pics

The virgins who inhabit these threads are not sources of valuable opinions. Women are not gear, gear does not make good photography.

Go masturbate to more cartoons if proportions are all you care about.

I'm planning on getting either an X-T1 or an X-T10 second hand as soon as the X-T2 releases. The price difference between the two probably won't be that big (in absolute terms) at that point.
I mainly use manual focus lenses, and I'm not sure which one to get. The huge EVF and dual mode of the X-T1 seem convenient for manual focus, but I'm not sure they really are in practice. Also, the X-T10 has a clicky dial for focus assist, like the X-E1 I have right now, while the X-T1 has a dedicated button (and I'm not sure that's an improvement).
WR and the more durable construction of the X-T1, and the option for a battery grip seem nice to have, but realistically I don't know if it matters that much for my use (my X-E1 is starting to look a bit rough, but works just fine). The compact size of the X-T10 is a plus, as is the fact that it looks even less "intimidating" than the X-T1.

Basically I'm wondering whether anyone here in a similar situation has made a choice between the two and why.

bought a d3300 yesterday

gonna get better pics than all you guys with £1000+ cameras

>>2899573
fucking kek

>>2902305
I did and went with the X-T10, simply because I found one used for a good deal first.

Sure, the XT-1 is a little sexier and I've found myself in situations in which I would've appreciated having WR, but otherwise the X-T10 has been great.

Nothing to do with bodies, but personally after I used Fuji lenses a bit I pretty much lost interest in fucking with old manual lenses.

So I'm waiting for the 5D MKIV to release before I buy a MKIII. My question is how much of a price drop will there be for retail/after market and how long will it take to reach that price?

File: ic.tweakimg.net.png (37KB, 750x250px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 750x250px

>>2902336
Here is the 5D mk2 price retail price development for comparison.