/Gear/ - Gear thread

what's everyone think about the leaked 5ds mk iv specs

>>2907236
>30mp
good enough

>improved dynamic range
finally!

>4K
sweet

>GPS and WiFi integrated
good addition.. the pros will love it

>>2907239
What's the DR? I couldn't find it.

Also don't pros use ethernet rather than wifi?

>>2907236
>5ds mk iv
There will not be a 5ds mk iv.

>>2907242
Why not?

>>2907244
Out of curiosity, how many models has Canon named 5Ds and 5Dsr?

I'm pretty sure that the answer isn't three.

File: IMGP7615-2.jpg (210KB, 1000x665px) Image search: [Google]

210KB, 1000x665px

Which would be a better replacement for my 55-300mm for wildlife:

DA* 300mm f4
D FA 150-450mm f4.5-5.6
Bigma 50mm-500mm f4-6.3
some other lens

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	RICOH IMAGING COMPANY, LTD.
Camera Model	PENTAX K-3
Camera Software	GIMP 2.8.10
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	450 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	600 dpi
Vertical Resolution	600 dpi
Image Created	2016:07:04 15:32:42
Exposure Time	1/2000 sec
F-Number	f/8.0
Exposure Program	Not Defined
ISO Speed Rating	160
Lens Aperture	f/8.0
Exposure Bias	0.3 EV
Metering Mode	Spot
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	300.00 mm
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Distant View

>>2907253
DA*300 and DA 1.4x TC
Or DA*60-250 with the same TC

do most wildlife/birding pros use TCs?

>>2907256
Depends
If they need the reach then they will use whatever they can to get the shot. Either get through a marsh and get frozen in a lake or use a TC. A good shot doesn't always mean pixel level sharpness, but they usually already use sharp expensive fast teles so a TC IQ degradation isn't that much of an issue.

>>2907258
Is the sharpness loss more important than the fstop loss? (and potential loss of light if you have to use a faster shutter in the cases where camera movement is the limiting factor rather than the subject matter)

>>2907259
Sharpness loss is only apparent on mediocre hobby level lenses. Light loss is more of an issue, but on a 600mm f/4 you get a 900mm f/5.6 with a 1.4x TC or 1200mm f/8 on a 2x TC.
If you do daylight shots light loss is not really an issue.
Also just using more pickles like a D810/K1 or 5Ds R you can do crop-in without a TC and keep the light for darker scenes or faster shutterspeed.

>>2907262
Does something like the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II count as a mediocere hobby level lens which suffers sharpness loss?

>>2907262
How does cropping on a 36/50MP FF compare to shooting on say, a crop ~20MP?

I've heard this can be basically the one thing that crop cameras excel at compared to others - at least for the price point.

>>2907263
It is considerably less sharp than a tele prime like the old Canon 400/5.6 but still sharper than a Sigma or Tamron equivalent telezoom

>>2907265
Using a crop sensor is exactly the same as cropping in, but a 36MP still has better pixel pitch than a 20pickle crop sensor so noise performance is better on the FF. Though 1 stop only.

>>2907266
>It is considerably less sharp than a tele prime like the old Canon 400/5.6
Really? did not know that.

I can't find the 400/5.6 on DXOmark unfortunately. What's up with that?

>>2907267
Meaning here that you can shoot one stop in ISO higher and get the same noise? Does the DR suffer?

>>2907268
Don't use DXOmark. It is misleading, use example shots at the proper distances.
Flickr is your friend.

>>2907270
>Don't use objective scientific measurements

>Use post-processed to hell random handpicked examples

What?

Can you explain how it is 'misleading'?

>>2907269
Are you trying to make another crop vs FF or crop factor debate? It is useless, just read up on them and then come back.

>>2907272
No, I just want to know if the improvement is only in noise performance or also in DR.

It was also worded in such a way that it sounds like a fundamental attribute of sensor size, rather than a difference between specific camera models.

I know DOF is different intrinsically between FF and crop, but is noise also due to the pixel size on the sensor?

>>2907271
DXO makes their evaluation on printed charts at set distances. They quantify a planar subject when your real subject is 3D and moves around. How comparable are the results?
Even more o you can develop a lens for the DXO tests or develop for real subjects, the end results will be very different. Think about that.

>>2907275
Do you also have a problem with MTF charts?

how weatherproof are the pentax cameras? can i use one in pouring rain or is it more "okay in a drizzle"?

File: bald ass eagle.jpg (238KB, 1000x665px) Image search: [Google]

238KB, 1000x665px

>>2907279
I saw a video on YT of a soldier or marine throw a bunch of sand all over one and bury it, then take it into the showers and clean it off. I've only had mine out in heavy snow, but it worked well there, pic related

[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 6.3 (Windows)
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	450 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	600 dpi
Vertical Resolution	600 dpi
Image Created	2016:02:14 15:43:59
Exposure Time	1/1000 sec
F-Number	f/6.3
Exposure Program	Not Defined
ISO Speed Rating	320
Lens Aperture	f/6.3
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Spot
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	300.00 mm
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Distant View

>>2907279
They are "oh god I'm going to die in this fucking downpour" weatherproof, assuming the lens is proofed as well.

>>2907284
>>2907287
cool, looks like it'll be pentax for me then since i always seem to get all my stuff soaking wet at some point.

>>2907279

Drizzle is the worst weather for a camera, or any weatherproofing, really.

Is weather sealing on non-pentax brands acceptable, or is it better to not risk it?

>>2907296
>Drizzle is the worst weather for a camera, or any weatherproofing, really.
That's counter-intuitive.

Why?

>>2907302

Large water drops have surface tension, and will sit on seams / permeable surfaces. Tiny droplets like mist / drizzle get in everywhere.

>>2907306
You're claiming that water, in any amount that can be described as having a surface, doesn't have surface tension?

I don't think you know how physics works.

>>2907253
I should also mention I usually take my photos when I'm just hiking and stuff. I have a tripod but it's just a smaller Induro that mostly stays strapped to my bag. So a handholdable lens is more important than a 600mm f4 (not that pentax has much to offer in that segment)

>>2907310

Jesus, saw that coming a mile away... the predictability of you autists is shocking. I was going to delete it and be more specific, but had the faintest of hopes that someone would have enough sense to understand what I was saying.

Of course the small droplets have surface tension... but that's irrelevant. I'm saying the large drops don't really break down into droplets small enough to become a real nuisance due to surface tension.

>what is common sense

>>2907317

there are lots of industrial processes that rely on this. pretty cool really

>>2907317
>autists
When you're talking about something technical, there's absolutely nothing "autistic" about being technical.

Aside from that, your post was literally wrong in every imaginable way, even including twisting around the words you used to mean something entirely different.

Here, have a read:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/surten.html

The tl;dr is two things affect surface tension: temperature and solutes. Higher the temp, lower the surface tension. As for solutes, depends on the precise chemical in question and the amounts as some increase it, some decrease it.

>what is common sense
Apparently some mystical ability of yours to assert confidently incorrect information then get butthurt when you're called out for being wrong.

File: semipermeable.jpg (10KB, 275x183px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 275x183px

>>2907324

Uhh... nothing you said had any bearing on what I said, autist.

Small droplets permeate farther than large ones on semi-permable surfaces. For instance, I have a jacket that keeps me dry in the rain, but soaks through in mist. It is the surface tension that keeps the large drops from becoming small drops, and helps them bead off rather than penetrate.

Nowhere did I say small water drops don't have surface tension... I said the surface tension of the large drops keeps them from penetrating. Nowhere did I say temperature didn't affect surface tension. Nowhere did I mention molecular solutes or solvents. That was all your autistic ass.

We're talking about water on seams and gaskets. Focus, autist.

>>2907334

This makes sense. Thanks for the info

>>2907334
I'm just going to leave this here and let you figure out how you have no clue what you're talking about.

http://www.autexrj.com/cms/zalaczone_pliki/4-07-2.pdf

>>2907339

>not knowing the difference between hydrophilic and hydrophobic

Embarrassing, Anon... all you keep doing is copy / pasting non-arguments.

>>2907342
>not getting that it's the angle that's important irrespective of if the fabric is hydrophobic or hydrophilic
>not getting that capillary action, the term that he keeps kinda referring to but is too stupid to actually know the term for, is entirely dependant upon surface tension of which droplet size is not a factor
>doesn't understand the role of wetting and its relation to these processes
>still tries to claim authority while not understanding basic level texts

But sure, get triggered by a single word and think you can build an argument around that again. Gotta love that "common sense" at work.

Out of curiosity, have you ever even taken a physics or chemistry course?

>>2907343
Oh
>inb4 you pretend insults and dismissal of fact proves you correct, again.

>>2907343

Spectacular display of autism. But sure, I'll follow you down your rabbit hole yet again.

>not getting that it's the angle that's important irrespective of if the fabric is hydrophobic or hydrophilic

You're the one posting links to irrelevant .PDFs about textiles, autistically assuming I don't know what is happening regarding that particular jacket.

My jacket is a hydrophobic outer layer that employs mechanical means (weave size and pattern) to shed water. It has a hydrophilic inner liner to allow vapor to escape outward (making it breathable).

Problem is, in mist, it can work in reverse. Its functionality is dependent on large water drops being on the outside, not mist... the mist is small enough to pass through the outer weave.

It's mechanical issue... like drizzle getting into places on a camera body where large water drops can't as easily.

>>2907343

>not getting that capillary action, the term that he keeps kinda referring to but is too stupid to actually know the term for, is entirely dependant upon surface tension of which droplet size is not a factor

Once again, this is irrelevant when referring to hydrophilic materials and weave patterns. Yet again, dismissing the mechanical aspect that was my whole point to begin with: Smaller water drops fit into smaller spaces.

Do you have ADD as well? You're all over the place.

>>2907354

You're being trolled m8

I've been using a nikon d3000 body for over 4 years now. I've got a couple of okay nikkor lenses, but I'm really starting to reach the limits of my body. Well actually I've been dealing with it for a long time. I can't take it anymore and i need to upgrade. I have about a $1000 budget and I would like to stick with nikon. I'm leaning pretty heavily towards the d7200. Does anyone have any input or experience with the d7200 body?

I do mostly nature shots with some sports and urban shots.

>>2907296

How a healthy person reads it:

>the surface tension of large water drops can prevent them from entering the smaller spaces

How an autist reads it:

>the tiny drops have no surface tension

>>2907359

There's nothing better than the D7200 in terms of resolution or dynamic range for that money.

Controls are great, too... you can't go wrong.

>>2907349
>>2907354

>is dependent on large water drops being on the outside
Nope. Please, find ONE, just one source that links droplet size with anything that affects permeability.

You'll notice it doesn't exist because it's all about surface wetting. If the surface isn't wetted, nothing in liquid phase will pass through. Hydrophobic/hydrophilic affects the shape of droplets and the ability for the water to actually wet the surface. Velocity in which the drop impacts the surface is also important in this, but you're already in so deep you can't begin to understand so I'm not going to bring up that or how the thermal mass is important as well.

>It's mechanical issue
That you don't understand the mechanics of.

>this is irrelevant when referring to hydrophilic materials and weave patterns.

It's actually literally the main mechanism by which this takes place. I'm so glad you're here to educate us on this.

>Do you have ADD as well? You're all over the place.
It's not ADD, it's you have so little understanding of the topic that you think all of this is related.

By the way, good job on pretending insults and dismissing relevant information proves you correct.

>>2907334
And where can I find these semi-permeable surfaces on a camera? It's not like cameras are made of goretex.

>>2907375
Nigger doesn't have the first clue what he's talking about. Like in that picture, the blue is liquid phase water and the red is gas phase water.

Right now he's constructing yet another wall of text that boils down to
>nuh-uh, it's the droplet size because I say so and because you have more education than me you're an autist and wrong.

>>2907375

Lens mounts, gaskets, dial seals are all entry points for water, in any form. The smaller the form, the more likely it will get in.

Humidity is a great example... saturated air can easily ruin a lens, getting in where rain won't. It doesn't care much about umbrellas, or gravity either.

>>2907375
>>2907377

>samefagging this hard

Also:

>muh gas phase

Semantics, as always... it's water. It could easily be mist flowing through a screen door.

You keep trying to jam that square peg into the round hole, though.

>>2907383
State phases are not semantics. You're amazing. Anything you don't understand must be "semantics", "irrelevant", or just "autistic".

There are basically two ways that liquid water gets in: through the air gap which is governed by the same stuff as regular flow and capillary action, which is an intersection of internal cohesive forces and cohesive forces between water and the media. I'm sorry you're too dense to understand this.

>You keep trying to jam that square peg into the round hole, though.
Keep dismissing the facts. It's definitely making you right.

Let's see, in addition to the very creative and varied insults you've flung, you're now accusing me of samefagging, what's next? Calling me sugar without my trip?

>>2907259
as a rube who bought a 1.4x extender iii for my 70-200 F4, I can tell you the loss of light is a deal-breaker for the high price.
It becomes F5.6 max which really gimps any possibility of hand-holding and means vastly longer shutters = bye action shots.

I happily use the lens with just the F4 without the extender, so I'm thinking I'd be happy with extender on the 70-200 F2.8 that brings it back to F4 again. You'd lose the advantage of the 2.8 for low light action (like indoors sports) but if it's day-time birding or other animals then the reach is useful. (200 x 1.4 extender x 1.6 crop = 448mm on my APS-C body, I just wish mine was faster)

>>2907377

>b-but gas phase

It's super cute how you forgot that it can change from a gas back to liquid... especially since the liquid phase is such an important stipulation for you.

It's called condensation, retard, and it's a nightmare for lenses. Here's 422,000 Google results on the topic for your ignorant ass:

https://www.google.ca/search?q=camera+lens+condensation&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&gws_rd=cr&ei=8PC4V8bcJoPFmQGF8LCgBw#q=condensation+inside+lens

What's a decent, inexpensive option for "studio lighting" if I want to try modeling photography?

File: 1466883547223.jpg (257KB, 1500x1500px) Image search: [Google]

257KB, 1500x1500px

should i be shitting bricks when my lens fogs up

even if it's just temporarily

>>2907389
Wow, really grasping at straws now, aren't we?

You might want to read some of those links because you might find out that gas permeability is a different matter from liquid permeability and it's affected by different physical mechanisms.

Damn, you moved goalposts (unless you're seriously about to claim that misting is gas phase water), I missed a possible incompetent's tactic.

Btw, feel free to attempt to educate me on some other third grade science class info. I'm curious what those "conglomerate rocks" are.

Do you even have a GED?

>>2907387
it could be worse

i bought a TC for a lens it wasn't compatible with

luckily i ended up buying a few lenses it was afterwards

>>2907391

Not if it's external.

>>2907392

These arbitrary rules you keep laying down are semantic in nature. You're saying size doesn't matter when it comes to water getting into a camera, unless it crosses a phase change boundary, despite the fact that it's still water.

Not only that, it's directly in line with what I originally said: The smaller the water drop dimensions, the easier it can get into your camera.

Steam / mist will get inside your camera easier than rain will. Everyone knows it. Except you, apparently... I'm positive you're the same autist from the wildlife thread who had no experience shooting wildlife. I'm assuming you've never gotten your camera wet, either.

Stop being so jealous.

>>2907296

Can confirm it is horrible. Especially ocean mist.

>the horror

>>2907401
>These arbitrary rules you keep laying down are semantic in nature
So you also don't know what "arbitrary" means.
>You're saying size doesn't matter when it comes to water getting into a camera, unless it crosses a phase change boundary, despite the fact that it's still water.
There is no such thing as a "droplet of steam" Gaseous water and liquid water are two very different things that require very different kinds of intervention for keeping them out. That you're now trying to point to water vapor getting into a camera in an attempt to somehow prove your continual idiocy in this matter is downright pathetic.

>Not only that, it's directly in line with what I originally said: The smaller the water drop dimensions, the easier it can get into your camera.
Once you're dealing with something that's not a drop, you're dealing with an entirely different set of mechanisms that require not liquid tight sealing, but air tight sealing. I can't wait to see you attempt to claim that these are the same thing.
>Steam / mist will get inside your camera easier than rain will. Everyone knows it. Except you, apparently...
If you read back, you'll notice I never argued that point. So you suck at teh Engrish too. I'm just telling you that you have no clue what mechanisms are at play.
>I'm positive you're the same autist form the wildlife thread who had no experience shooting wildlife. I'm assuming you've never gotten your camera wet, either.
>Stop being so jealous.

Ah, so you can't call me Sugar without a trip so you try to call me someone else. I would bother denying this, but there's no point. I will say I'm not surprised to hear that you've responded like a spoiled baby before.

>>2907404
you mean on the external element basically

fucking florida is a pain in the ass

>>2907417

>doesn't know about wet steam
>still enforcing arbitrary ruleset

But enough of your bullshit, and back to the argument:

>>2907296
>>2907306

The finer the water, the smaller the places it can easily reach in your camera... autistic arguments and diversions aside.

With the simple act of water drops landing under weight of gravity, the smaller they are, the easier they penetrate things like lens mounts and switches. They also move laterally, and even vertically. You can't shield a camera from fine mist by leaning over it like with rain. On top of that, it still ends up collecting into large drops anyway.

It seems you have zero practical experience, and live life through copy / paste.

>>2907389

>having to explain condensation to someone
>literally worst thing ever for a photographer

those cross board banners sure are adding to the diversity here

>>2907449
>thinks wet steam in any way invalidates anything I've said
Seriously, you don't have the first clue. Here's two little facts that if you were able to actually think, might lead you to why it is entirely irrelevant to anything being discussed here (actual irrelevance, not your "I don't understand" irrelevance)
>temperature is the AVERAGE kinetic energy of a system
>pressure changes result in changes in boiling point

>With the simple act of water drops landing under weight of gravity, the smaller they are, the easier they penetrate things like lens mounts and switches.
Most of the time with proper misting, gravity isn't involved, and permeate is the correct verb to use.
>They also move laterally, and even vertically.
Because all of that gravity.

You're cute when you try to explain things you don't understand. Here's a tip for you: don't try to sound smart. You don't have the necessary qualities to pull it off.

>It seems you have zero practical experience, and live life through copy / paste.
Nice, get proven wrong, insist you're right because of some kind of experience and I have zero experience? Not to mention how questionable it is to try to make someone sound bad for sourcing the facts that they're using. I mean, I know a physics website isn't your "common sense" but it's something that everyone can read.

>tfw APS-C canon-cuck
>start shooting film
>buy myself an EF body
>acquire 35mm f2 IS lens
>ignore the hate
>it's a fucking monster
>move away from canon
>sell cameras to friends
>finally get rid of the 35mm f2 is
>a year passes
>buy more and more gear
>55mm and 50mm lens left and right
>more film bodies
THE HUNGER BUILDS

>still not satisfied
>let buddy know about the hunger
>You can have your EF film body back if you get the 35/f2/IS
REND
SLAUGHTER
DEVOUR YOUR ENEMIES
THERE IS NO OTHER WAY TO SURVIVE
YOU CANNOT ESCAPE YOUR HUNGER
>quicky search web
>repurchase 35/f2/is At the same price I sold it

HELP ME YOU FUCKING GEARFAGS, YOU DID THIS TO ME.
IT'S BEYOND AN OBSESSION AT THIS POINT. IT'S THE PERFECT AUTOFOCUS 35MM LENS

>>2907488
Put camera down for two months.

Shoot with nothing but cell phone in this time.

>>2907488
>filmcuck

>>2907488
>IT'S BEYOND AN OBSESSION AT THIS POINT. IT'S THE PERFECT AUTOFOCUS 35MM LENS
It really is. Enjoy.

File: Slobruthers046.jpg (150KB, 1203x800px) Image search: [Google]

150KB, 1203x800px

>>2907488
YOU'RE A CUNT
I WANT TO BUY THIS LENSE BUT THE DUDE SELLING ONE WON'T ACCEPT MY LOWBALL $450AUD OFFER
I'M TRYING TO SAVE MY SHEKELS FOR AN A7R ANYWAY
I HAVE A 30/1.4 THAT WORKS JUST FINE
BUT STILL
I CRAVE

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 550D
Camera Software	GIMP 2.8.14
Firmware Version	Firmware Version 1.0.8
Serial Number	1132529712
Lens Name	EF100mm f/2.8 Macro USM
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	350 dpi
Vertical Resolution	350 dpi
Image Created	2016:08:21 11:47:33
Exposure Time	1/125 sec
F-Number	f/8.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/8.0
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	100.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1203
Image Height	800
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Exposure Mode	Manual
Focus Type	Auto
Metering Mode	Partial
Sharpness	Unknown
Saturation	Normal
Contrast	Normal
Shooting Mode	Manual
Image Size	Unknown
Focus Mode	One-Shot
Drive Mode	Timed
Flash Mode	Off
Compression Setting	Fine
Self-Timer Length	10 sec
Macro Mode	Normal
White Balance	Daylight
Exposure Compensation	3
Sensor ISO Speed	160
Color Matrix	129

File: 1471380356430.jpg (72KB, 651x768px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 651x768px

>>2907515
>LENSE

>>2907471

I've never seen someone wielding grade 9 science so viciously.

Omission does not mean lack of knowledge, Anon. Some of us have things like discretion, and reason, and priorities. Me pointing out the surface tension of an average sized raindrop prevents it from entering every crevice of a camera body like a fine mist doesn't mean I thin the drops of mist don't have any surface tension. Nor does it mean I don't understand the other factors at play that make the larger drops issues as well. It means it goes unsaid, because it's obvious.

I'm saying mist is worse than rain, and I know this because I've camped in it, and hiked in it with equipment for years. That's it. Simple.

Capillary / wicking action? Really? Who the fuck doesn't have a grasp on that? Who hasn't observed a drop of water running erratically along a surface, or soaking into fabric? Who doesn't know how a candle works? Who doesn't understand solubility, and molecular packing at at least some basic level? YT videos from Vsauce and Veritasium are have millions of views. People enjoy knowledge. Come on, man. You're not some intellectual snowflake. Sure there are stupid people out there, but there are also those of us who omit because they don't enjoy needlessly nitpicking every single possible facet of every argument, covering every base just in case of semantics, and preemptively mentioning irrelevant things just in case some Anon is going to go there... because you fucking know they will. Better type a goddamned novel while making a simple, common sense comment just in case, right?

I made a simple statement that mist is a bigger problem than rain. You took it to so many other places that I just don't want to go, because there is no need, and it never fucking ends with you.

>>2907520
>viciously
Yet another word you don't know how to use.

>Omission does not mean lack of knowledge.
Never said it did, and you didn't omit anything. You were and plainly are wrong.

>I'm saying mist is worse than rain, and I know this because I've camped in it, and hiked in it with equipment for years. That's it. Simple.
No, you said some crap about smaller droplets not having surface tension, then amended that to mean that surface tension was different for smaller droplets, both of which statements are wrong.

>Capillary / wicking action? Really? Who the fuck doesn't have a grasp on that?
You.

>I made a simple statement that mist is a bigger problem than rain.
Except you didn't. You speculated based off of some ignorant ideas of the mechanisms involved.

>You took it to so many other places that I just don't want to go
Because they prove you don't know what you're claiming to know.
>because there is no need,
So little need that you felt the need to start saying stupid shit about the size of droplets.
>and it never fucking ends with you.
Still pretending I'm you some boogie man? If that lets you sleep better at night...

>>2907515
g-go for it senpai, you wont regret it. I've been re-lustining after it for so long for a reason.
>>2907491
Tried that, didn't work.
>>2907497
*kicks your crutches away from you*
OH WHAT'S THAT YOU LITTLE SHIT? CAN'T SHOOT IN LOW LIGHT? CAN'T SEE YOUR IMAGES IMMEDIATELY?

>>2907530

>No, you said some crap about smaller droplets not having surface tension

That's not what I said, autist. That's what you saw, because that's what you wanted to see, because you're autistic. You're basing this entire argument on something I never said.

I said large drops have surface tension... therefore, they can sit on top of gaps (such as tight seams on a camera) without entering. It's much easier to deal with.

Smaller drops such as mist (didn't feel the need to mention that they also have surface tension because it goes without saying to non-autists) can fit easier. They are getting places the large drops aren't right off the bat, and will help to pull drops in behind them.

You know, if you started reading what people type instead of what you want to see, you'll do a whole lot less arguing about nonexistent things.

Honest question: Have you ever been diagnosed with a personality disorder? I won't judge.

>>2907306

>Large water drops have surface tension, and will sit on seams / permeable surfaces. Tiny droplets like mist / drizzle get in everywhere.

Translation for disjointed autists:

Tiny droplets like mist get into seams easier because they are smaller, not because they don't have surface tension.

>>2907543

>arguing with obvious troll

You new or what? Nobody is that stupid, you're being trolled.

File: 9876.jpg (295KB, 900x675px) Image search: [Google]

295KB, 900x675px

>>2907549

Maybe.

Here's the day one of our backup cameras (D5100) died because I forgot to close a flap on a pack and pic related was happening for a good 7 hours.

Tried drying it for a few days, but nothing... put it in a closet and forgot about it. Remembered it a few months later, tried it out. Worked!

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

>>2907516
:^)
>>2907539
>g-go for it senpai, you wont regret it. I've been re-lustining after it for so long for a reason.
But I want dem 36MP film scans more...
>also, you know IS is a crutch, right???

>>2907530

>>2907530

after going back and reading some of this shitfest it's safe to say you are legit autistic m80. stop being such a tard

>>2907552

is is not a crutch but isi is a crotch

>>2907543
>>2907547
My first post was phrased as a question for a reason. The rest of all of this comes from your answer to that question and how it is in fact wrong.

Like take these two bits:
>I said large drops have surface tension... therefore, they can sit on top of gaps (such as tight seams on a camera) without entering. It's much easier to deal with.

>Smaller drops such as mist (didn't feel the need to mention that they also have surface tension because it goes without saying to non-autists) can fit easier. They are getting places the large drops aren't right off the bat, and will help to pull drops in behind them.

Still entirely wrong.

>You know, if you started reading what people type instead of what you want to see, you'll do a whole lot less arguing about nonexistent things.
I did read. I then asked a question to which I got a nonsensical answer. You seem to forget the novel's worth of idiocy that you spewed after that initial post.
>They get into seams easier because they are smaller, not because they don't have surface tension.

That you keep repeating this shows you still haven't managed to even somewhat understand what's going on here. What's especially idiotic is how you keep involving surface tension in any way when the reasons surface tension exists is exactly why capillary action works.

>Honest question: Have you ever been diagnosed with a personality disorder? I won't judge.
Says the guy twisting and turning to win an internet argument.

It's simple guy, don't spew shit you don't know if you don't want to be corrected. This is the internet. It'll happen time and time again. If not me, then your buddy from before, or someone else. There's always someone out there who knows more about any given subject than you do. The best thing to do in those cases is just accept that you're wrong.

>>2907558

You are beyond hope, and I doubt you've ever had to fight to keep a camera dry before.

Mist is worse than rain for getting deep into cameras and fucking them, end of story.

Should have been my first and last response to your autistic ass...

File: autist1.jpg (270KB, 969x723px) Image search: [Google]

270KB, 969x723px

>>2907558

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

File: autist2.jpg (251KB, 1079x481px) Image search: [Google]

251KB, 1079x481px

>>2907558

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

>>2907566
>>2907567

It's much worse with actual mist... that shit gets in everywhere no problem. All cameras enjoy some natural weather sealing just from water viscosity, but mist doesn't care about that. I've taken non-weather sealed cameras in the rain plenty of times without issue, but mist / fog is for sealed cameras only.

I guess inner-city plebs who baby their cameras in satchels on their way to Starbuck's wouldn't know about it.

>>2907560
>You are beyond hope, and I doubt you've ever had to fight to keep a camera dry before.
Says the guy getting his nose rubbed in the correct information but ignoring it.

>Mist is worse than rain for getting deep into cameras and fucking them, end of story.
Never once debated this or claimed it wasn't the case. Double points for continuing to miss this point after telling me that *I* should read posts and only respond to what's actually said.
>Should have been my first and last response to your autistic ass...
No, wrong lesson here. The lesson here is don't speculate on shit you don't know about. You tried to sound like you knew what you were talking about by throwing "surface tension" in and just showed you had no clue.

>>2907567
>>2907566
Wew, you're a pathetic one.

>>2907575

Not reading your irrelevant shit anymore, cuck.

For your enjoyment:

>>2907566
>>2907567

>>2907577
>>2907573
+3 internet points
(bonus point for claiming irrelevancy)

>>2907576

10/10 rebuttal

you sure destroyed those images

File: 1471544900170.gif (1MB, 480x358px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 480x358px

never knew /p/ got this triggered by water

>>2907576
>>2907579

Haha, he's getting mad now!

Well, more than he already was... such angst in this one. Bitter anger, always.

Small-dicked virgin?

>>2907580
I love that you seriously, honestly believe that they prove anything.

Thought you weren't "reading my irrelevant shit" anymore?

File: 546765.jpg (60KB, 424x377px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 424x377px

>>2907566
>>2907567

but what if they were made of hydrophilic fabric?

HOW U GON STOP DAT WICKING BRUH? HUH? DAT SWELLING?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D90
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/5.7
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	958
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	450 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	1724
Image Height	1788
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2016:03:26 02:09:14
Exposure Time	1/1250 sec
F-Number	f/5.6
Exposure Program	Not Defined
ISO Speed Rating	400
Lens Aperture	f/5.6
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Auto
Focal Length	300.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	424
Image Height	377
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	Low Gain Up
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>2907583
Am I? Is that what you need to believe? I'm sure your inability to actually move on and ignore me while drawing red lines to "prove" something definitely is me getting mad.

>>2907584

I said it so you'd say that. You're predictable as fuck.

>>2907543
Is it kinda like if you put a big droplet of water on a rose petal it will roll off but if you spray a fine mist of water on it it will sit there, less likely to roll off?

>>2907587
Oh, I'm sure.

I am developing a DIY sensor system that needs to have a shutter that closes momentarily over the sensor to collect dark current. I've read that shutters for mirrorless cameras are in their open state when power is not being applied, so it seems like that is the kind I would want.

Is there anywhere one could acquire one of these shutters on the cheap?

>>2907586

>move on
>ignore me

Nice exit strategy... calling me small for not ignoring you. YouTube comment section tier stuff.

Copy / paste all the bullshit you want, but it doesn't change the facts that smaller rain drops penetrate a camera easier than large ones.

You've never gotten a single drop of rain on your babby's first snapshitter, and it shows.

>>2907585

I must be tired, because I lol'd

when is weather sealing not going to help? What's a good mirrorless with weather sealing?

>>2907593
Getting a cheap body off of ebay/craigslist/some other outlet would probably be your best bet. Might be best to go with an EOS M because of the work done hacking the firmware for the likes of Magic Lantern...

Nothing is worse than heavy mist.

Hiding this shit thread now.

So long, autismo.

File: herp.jpg (67KB, 528x960px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 528x960px

>>2907594
>Nice exit strategy... calling me small for not ignoring you. YouTube comment section tier stuff.
I'm having fun. I only bring it up because you stated that you were ignoring me. Great cover with the "I GOT YOU!" response by the way.

>Copy / paste all the bullshit you want, but it doesn't change the facts that smaller rain drops penetrate a camera easier than large ones.

And I'm the one who argues against something that's entirely made up.

>You've never gotten a single drop of rain on your babby's first snapshitter, and it shows.
If you keep throwing random shit out there, I'm sure some of it will stick eventually.

File: 27693_Nikon_1_V3_left.png (295KB, 700x595px) Image search: [Google]

295KB, 700x595px

(I asked in the last gear thread but the thread died.)

I am moving back to Japan in a few months and was trying to avoid having to buy a DSLR. Planning on doing lots of video interviews, still portraits, and landscapes of Tokyo. Strictly a hobby--I just don't want to lug around heavy gear and a ton of lenses (space is very much at a premium).

Is there a premium compact that provides the following?

- Interchangeable lenses (i'd prefer to buy a single, high quality 35mm or 50mm and just use that)
- Flip-around screen so I can frame video shots from in front of the camera
- External mic input so I can connect a better quality mic for interviews

I've looked at:

- Sony a6000/a6300 (no flipping screen)
- Fuji X70 (no mic input)
- Fuji X100T (no flipping screen [the remote app is nice, but requires wifi to let your phone frame the shot which I may not always have])
- Nikon V3 (picture left--has a ton of shit reviews about the image quality)
- Canon G7 (no interchangeable lenses)

Is there anything else I should look at or is a DSLR (e.g. GH4, Canon 80D, Nikon D5500) going to be the only way to get these features?

thanks in advance

File: Sony_200mm_14183524464_e5b875c4d4_b.jpg (367KB, 1024x683px) Image search: [Google]

367KB, 1024x683px

Has anyone removed the rear baffles (3 small screws) from Sony NEX e-mount lens to use on full frame? Specifically experience with the 55-210mm

>>2907626
LX100?

>>2907598
Thanks, I will look into that. Hopefully the shutter assembly won't weigh a lot.

File: 81wPivrnsiL._SL1500_.jpg (155KB, 1500x1125px) Image search: [Google]

155KB, 1500x1125px

>>2907626
>>2907632
you know what's crazy? the moment i posted this, i stumbled upon the panasonic gx8...which might do the trick

https://www.amazon.com/Panasonic-DMC-GX8KBODY-Mirrorless-Camera-Stabilization/dp/B011B8QW38/ref=dp_ob_title_ce

+ interchangeable lenses
+ flipping screen
+ mic jack

I will check out the lx100 though.

File: size comparison.jpg (710KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

710KB, 1920x1080px

>>2907626
Eh, there really isn't a "compact" that has interchangeable lenses, so if you're looking with that as a search term, you'll probably run into some issues.

Sounds like you're mainly looking for a mirrorless and likely a micro 4/3 one. The GH4 that you mentioned is really small. Not full on compact small, but it's definitely very much on the small side.

Those are gh4s on the left and 5DmkIIIs on the right.

I'm not sure of how they compare to the Panny, but the Sony crop sensor cameras are pretty damn small too.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Created	2015:01:29 10:22:13

>>2907637
I should really go see them in person I think to get a sense.

I know people rave about the GH4 for video, but how do they do for stills? Trying to minimize gear, so I definitely don't mind having to drop a little $ on one good lens to save space.

>>2907639
>I should really go see them in person I think to get a sense.
This is really the best bet. Also, I remember hearing somewhere that it's best to buy stuff like cameras in Japan if you're over there. Dunno how much truth there is to that, but it's definitely an option for you.

This site can help you a little, but in person is best.
http://camerasize.com/compare/#347,162

>I know people rave about the GH4 for video, but how do they do for stills? Trying to minimize gear, so I definitely don't mind having to drop a little $ on one good lens to save space.
They're good, not exceptional in any way, but not terrible either. On the weaker side when it comes to low light performance, but that's true of basically all smaller sensored cameras.

I got into photography through film, but I'm considering investing in a DSLR to try to get into professional photography.

So, I really like the Fujifilm X-E1, but is it a good camera for professional work? Will I be able to use it for at least a decade without it becoming obsolete?

>>2907639
EM5II
M
5
I
I

The IBIS will be nice for video. Video quality won't be outright as good as the GH4 though.

>>2907644
There are people out there making a living with rabbles, D5xxx's, and the like. "pro" bodies tend to just make tasks easier and workflows more efficient, not so much making them possible.

As far as a decade goes, don't worry about obsolescence. There are still plenty of bodies like the original 5D that are still in the wild and being used. Whether or not the body will be able to be productive for that amount of time depends more on what your needs are, if they change, and how well the lens ecosystem suits your needs.

File: 1470501851005.jpg (23KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 300x300px

100 replies in and people are still arguing over water.. the fuck is wrong with you??

>>2907646
thx for the suggestion! actually the video looks pretty great to me.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VDHw6OOzW0M

>>2907630

I tried it on a 16mm I had lying around.

It covers 90% of the frame.

Haven't seen antone do it with the 55-210mm.

>>2907626

I answered in the last thread.

The best bet would be mirrorless for the small size. Sony, Fuji, and m4/3 are the only ones worth looking at.

Sony e-mount (a6300, a7 series) can take great photos and video, but none of them have an LCD that flips around though so they would be out (though you can control it wirelessly with a smartphone).

Fuji would work(x-t10 and so on), but limited video options. They have some nice affordable lenses even though the selection is rather limited.

Best bet would be micro four thirds, specifically the panasonic gh4 which is great for video. While it does not look nearly as cool as the Sony or Fuji bodies, it is quite a nice camera. The m43 sensor is smaller than the Fuji and Sony sensors which means worse low light performance, but it is considerably larger than a cellphone or point-and-shoot meaning you would get some pretty great images.

I don't know if you planned to or not, but be careful buying a camera in Japan. With the exchange rate it is more expensive, warranties are not honored outside of Japan, and some companies release Japanese only firmware models.

And are you gonna be one of those annoying gaijin that runs around taking videos of everything from buying train tickets to ordering mcdonalds?

>>2907661
thx for the reply--definitely not an annoying gaijin :) i lived there a long time in my early 20s and got it all out of my system.

you're right that micro 4/3 seems to be right in the sweet spot for my needs.

what would you say to the suggestion of olympus? how's their reputation? the panasonic stuff looks great, but this olympus also looks awesome, and seems to have the edge on high quality stills because of their IS system.

http://www.getolympus.com/us/en/digitalcameras/omd/e-m5-mark-ii.html

i will definitely be buying a camera here in the states.

>>2907662

Olympus makes some of the better m43 cameras. Their e-m5 and e-m10 are pretty awesome bodies.

The only real issue with them is that they are quite expensive. The em-5 is what? Close to a grand? For that price you could get a full frame a7.

>>2907664
It's funny, you're right about the full frame, but the features start to drop as you get into the more prosumer/pro stuff like the a7--no fully reversible tilting screen, for example, which makes a huge difference when i'm in the field and just want to frame a shot really quickly. I'd rather have a smaller sensor and be 100% sure the shot is framed right, despite how gorgeous the video output of the Sonys are. Also, that sony rolling shutter is hideous...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXeB5uyuboc

are Summilux Aspherical lenses good invesments? Can it be a family heirloom for my future grandkids?

>>2907667

Not a single Sony model has a flip around or even touch screen. Well except the e-mount camcorders. And the rolling shutter is pretty terrible unless you shift it to aps-c mode which defeats the purpose.

Hopefully the upcoming a7iii and a9 fix some of those little issues. They are so close to being perfect camera bodies.

File: Pentax-SMC-DA-70mm-f2.4-Limited.jpg (160KB, 1600x1055px) Image search: [Google]

160KB, 1600x1055px

>>2907229
Bought this off a jap ebay store today!

Hi /p/ would sincerely appreciate a recommendation here.

I'm going to University soon and I'll have the opportunity to take pictures of the landscape, its essentially a mini-city built in the middle of a rural area, which has a suburban outer border.

A friend of mine had this big bulky camera and a black room where he developed photographs, some of the scrap books he made were wonderful. He got to take a lot of nude photos of girls he knew but claimed to be abstinent.

I mention all of this because I'd like to do what he does, just capture moments, capture bits and pieces of life and put them in scrap books. He had this funky looking analog SLR with lenses from 15mm-150mm, he loved to capture photos of military things like WWII Submarines.

So what kind of analog SLR would you recommend to a beginner, if at all? I do have access to a dark room.

File: maxresdefault.jpg (188KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

188KB, 1920x1080px

>>2907229
I want to buy a d500 so I can take pictures of moving things, but I also want to take some landscapes. Is the dx sensor going to fuck for that?
This is my first camera, but I want to buy one so I have something to do when I go to shitty events.

>>2907278
MTF charts show things that have very little in common with real life uses.
This is through experience, not just some picked up /p/ bullshittery. Look at third party lens scores with different mounts, like a Sigma art lens on Nikon, Sony and Pentax bodies. These all have the same sensors so scores should be near each other. Except Nikon is on top, fololowed by Sony not-so-closely, a Canon body score between these and Pentax. Massive bias from an undisclosed scoring and quantifying algorithm. DXO scores are marketing, nothing else. If you are curious about actual performance just look at photos made with the lens and make your own evaluation based on if you like what you see or not.
Don't let some marketing people tell you what you have to like and what not.

>>2907675
I assume you want to take portraits.
>Taking pin-sharp portraits with a kit 5x more compact than an equivalent mirrorless kit.
I am jelly.

Some guy is selling a Nikon AIs 20mm 2.8 in mint condition for $100, should I cop?

>>2907700
Yes

>>2907679
If ultimately the only reason is that you want prints, then you should just do digital.

It will be cheaper per shot and yield more good shots (assuming you don't pussy out on the initial costs).

>>2907697
Oh, I forgot to add that all the low scoring shitted-on lenses on DXO produced pin-sharp more than decent and excellent results.
The 70-200/2.8 that was praised on Nikon and booed on Pentax has excellent sub-pixel sharpness, entirely the opposite of what DXO claims.
Their scoring has nothing in common with reality.

>>2907691
>I want to buy a d500 so I can take pictures of moving things, but I also want to take some landscapes
Get a A6300 and put the price difference into your lens(es).

> Is the dx sensor going to fuck for that?
Nah, why? Of course it depends on how much you want to crop, but >20MP only reduced by some (because you are using a good lens that won't blur your image to shit) leave you a lot to work with, either way.

>>2907709
>>2907697
The measurements show you how a lens performs, no way around it.

Lenses that were measured to have low sharpness just don't produce "pin-sharp" results.

On the other hand, derived aggregate scores are obviously a guesstimate what might matter to people and no longer so objective. They may be completely meaningless if you don't understand what they represent.

Simply put, read and understand the detailed measurements if you want to know how lenses perform in detail.

> The 70-200/2.8 that was praised on Nikon and booed on Pentax has excellent sub-pixel sharpness, entirely the opposite of what DXO claims.
Let's start with the basics.
1. Where is such a DXO "claim"?
2. Where is the proof that they are wrong?

>>2907714
Nope. The measurement shows how a lens performs with that exact measurement. If a lens is designed for different parameters than the measurement is designed for it will give a false reading.
Like I said, not all lenses are designed with a complete planar DoF, so when the measurement with planar reading gives a bad result it doesn't mean the lens is bad, it means the DoF doesn't overlap the planar chart. It can and will give sharp and excellent image while the false scoring will show bad results.
Also massive brand bias.

>>2907715
> Like I said, not all lenses are designed with a complete planar DoF, so when the measurement with planar reading gives a bad result it doesn't mean the lens is bad
It does, since the *best possible case* of a photo in that image plane already was shit?

Do you think a fair test condition would be to try a pattern on adequately curved balls framed in the center of their shot? Because that's what we will shoot ... at some point... maybe?

> Also massive brand bias.
You could provide solid evidence or even a proof for this, perhaps? Last claims didn't get anything at all.

I'm getting a "science sucks since it doesn't back the result / brand I want" vibe here.

>>2907723
You still refuse to see the results for yourself.
Go on DXO, see third party lens with multiple mounts and compare the scores of THE EXACT SAME OPTICS over different brands. Even better if you compare over Nikon, Sony and Pentax since they have the same sensors.
Do your own research! This is a third rate anonymous internet forum, nobody gives a shit about "solid evidence" when you can easily dig it up for yourself. Unless you are a blatant shill and/or troll. In this case fuck you.
DXO is poison in the photography world.

>>2907733
> compare the scores of THE EXACT SAME OPTICS over different brands
THE EXACT SAME OPTICS were even tested with multiple bodies of the same brand and the aggregate scores weren't the same either.

The only thing this shows is that you haven't even read the basic DxO explanation about what the scores mean.

> nobody gives a shit about "solid evidence" when you can easily dig it up for yourself
Seems like this isn't easy to dig up, because these things you presented as "facts" were apparently randomly made up by you.

> Do your own research!
No, YOU back up your claims.

You said shit about "sub-pixel sharpness" on a 70-200/2.8 that DxO apparently "claimed" wasn't good, and I can find neither part of that.

You said there is brand bias. You said there is logic to measuring non-planar parameters and that tests would show something significantly different than DxO would to the point where DxO's tests are "false readings".

I mean, this shit should have some concrete sources with good, objective measurements. But apparently it does not.

>>2907698
yeah. been using the samyang 85mm 1.4 so far which is fantastic already at f2.4 but it's really hard to focus manually on a low DOF and my eyes are shit.

>>2907747

Yea, I had the same issue with the Voigtlander 40mm f 1.4.

If it weren't for manual focus assist zooming, I might as well be shooting with my eyes closed.

>DXOmark doesn't have good scores for the camera ecosystem i bought into, therefore it is not valid

Yeah, ok.

File: TB2qS21iXXXXXc.XXXXXXXXXXXX_!!92506575.jpg (122KB, 900x974px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 900x974px

Anyone have experience with this kind of monopod feet?

I'm sort of curious about which kind of surfaces it would have problems with.
Let's say a slippery grassy hill tilting 30 degrees, would I be able to plant my monopos on such a hill and have the monopod stand completely vertical withour the feet slipping down the hill?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2015:12:09 22:51:12
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	900
Image Height	974

File: sirui_ps_series_monopod.jpg (78KB, 712x943px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 712x943px

>>2907765
I have this "kind" in the form of a Sirui PS monopod and its wide foot, yes.

>Let's say a slippery grassy hill tilting 30 degrees, would I be able to plant my monopos on such a hill and have the monopod stand completely vertical withour the feet slipping down the hill?
Probably not, at least not with the one I have.

I mean, it could work just barely somehow, but it's definitely not a good idea. Use a tripod for that.

File: 1467690763521.gif (551KB, 245x163px) Image search: [Google]

551KB, 245x163px

>>2907229
>Leica marketing not only to the rich in general but filthy NEW MONEY CASUALS with absolutely PLEBIAN tastes
Tape magnets to Barnack's corpse and wrap some copper wire around his coffin, and Germany would have free electricity forever.

The market of mirrorless is changing every year. This makes old comparisons or "guides" nearly useless.

Basically, for normal street photography/travel wat mirrorless is gud?

EM-5 MKII is expensive but it seems like the best choice.

I'm debating between an EF-X20 and a Nissin i40 for a Fuji compatible flash. What do?

>>2907907
> Basically, for normal street photography/travel wat mirrorless is gud?
Was that a question? Yes, it is.

> EM-5 MKII is expensive but it seems like the best choice.
For that? Well, it's a pretty good option.

>>2907924
I'm looking all around. The EM-5 MKII is said to have a good, but not perfect autofocus system. The in-body stabilization is a big plus, too.

>>2907691
>I also want to take some landscapes. Is the dx sensor going to fuck for that?

It will be fine.

Some cameras like the D810 are even better for landscapes, but that's like comparing a 280km/h Porsche to a 300km/h Ferrari: both are more than adequate for the job and the real world differences are hard to even notice.

My only concern would be finding good wide-angle lenses for the DX sensor. - this is a little easier for full frame at the moment.

For your action shots the high FPS and awesome auto focus system will make a real difference. (don't listen to trolls like >>2907710 - mirrorless cameras have shit auto focus not suitable for moving subjects)

>>2907875
I always smile when I see airport electronics shops sell Leica's next to Rebels.

Leica is officially for snobs now, deal with it.

>>2907965

Is the Nikkor 10.5mm any gud?

>>2907968
>nouveau riche mainland chinese and beverly hills soccer moms
>snobs
They'd eat goose turds if you told them it was escargot

>>2907971
A snob is anyone who isn't nobility.

File: Bxb2fTTCAAA_GAX.jpg (72KB, 600x450px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 600x450px

>>2907970
It's a fisheye lens.
Meaning it severely distorts the image.

For landscapes you generally want a rectilinear lens.

>>2907965
>For your action shots the high FPS and awesome auto focus system will make a real difference. (don't listen to trolls like >>2907710 - mirrorless cameras have shit auto focus not suitable for moving subjects)
The A6300 has *exactly* high FPS and awesome AF.

Not suitable my ass, it works easily for just about anything and should actually perform better than the D500 in normal light (2EV or so?).

>>2907992
Troll softer

>>2907968
Leica has been for snobs for way longer than most of /p/ has been alive. Conspicuous consumption has kept the company afloat since SLRs supplanted rangefinders as the most common type of camera in the late 60s. That doesn't change the fact that they produce excellent cameras and superlative lenses, so Leica is also a good choice for serious photographers who can afford them.

>>2907992
Modern mirrorless AF systems are extremely fast and accurate. That hasn't been an issue since the first or second generation.

>>2908004
>Modern mirrorless AF systems are extremely fast and accurate.
>extremely
No, they are on the faster side, but they are by no means "extreme"

>>2907995
To keep it short:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-j4SwEuBGLI

If you want many extensive reviews, you'll find them on the internets, but in general, if you have a non-shit lens ($1k+ cameras, don't put utter shit on them...) and have somewhat reasonable light, it'll be a fucking good AF system.

>>2908004
>>2908006
They are alright at static subjects, but moving subjects is a whole different matter.

The guy was specifically looking at the D500 to "take pictures of moving things"

>>2908018
That video only shows it can pick the right AF points.

It doesn't mean the shots will actually be in focus.

>>2908006
Ok, how about "more than adequate for 99.99% of actual uses".

https://youtu.be/up8K_xd_iwU
Keep in mind that's 2 years old now. Unless you're seriously debating whether to buy a top of the line DSLR vs a mirrorless that costs 1/6 as much, there's nothing left to discuss.


What's with the mirrorless hate around here? Is it insecurity about your decision to purchase an SLR, or is it just retards echoing other retards on the internet? Just deal with the fact that pretty much any camera on the market today is more capable than you are, and it's your fault if your shots aren't good.

>>2908025
Mirrorless hate? Every other thread becomes either a Sony or Fuji appreciation thread

>>2908025
Make that around 70% and you might have a point.

>mirrorless hate
Correcting your hyperbole isn't hate. It's being honest about the capabilities, unlike your mindless fanboy "MIRRORLESS IS THE GREATEST THING EVER IN EVERY WAY".

Honestly, if you read most of the replies talking about mirrorless, they're even keeled about the subject these days. They talk about the weaknesses and strengths. People like you take any mention of how a mirrorless body might not be perfect for absolutely everyone as "hating" or some other idiotic bullshit.

>>2908025
>Unless you're seriously debating whether to buy a top of the line DSLR vs a mirrorless

That's exactly what's going on.

Guy was asking about the Nikon D500.
It has the same AF system as the top of the line D5.

Then (you?) claimed a mid-range mirrorless will have not just similar but BETTER AF than the D500.
...and then you cry "mirrless hate" when the bullshit gets called out.

Mirrorless is fine for casual snapshitting.
But it is not a replacement for $2000+ professional level DSLR's.
Sorry if this causes you to experience pain inside your rectum.

>>2908024
No, it does not miscalculate the distance or anything like that. Works exactly like you'd expect from seeing that.

But I CBA to go down the review trail. There are surely burst shot samples and video samples in lots of reviews, on YT and across the various review sites doing illustrated reviews on the internets.

Anyhow, works excellently.

Not that there are zero downsides vs a D500. Which I think it can for example take faster storage chips and clear the buffer faster. And which has bigger batteries.

But with "moving things" and landscape shots being the goal stated, I think the like $800 or 40% increase in price over a A6300 which has advantages on its own is very possibly not worth it.

File: img_01.png (134KB, 338x272px) Image search: [Google]

134KB, 338x272px

>>2908040
>No, it does not miscalculate the distance or anything like that. Works exactly like you'd expect from seeing that.

Focusing on objects that move towards or away from the camera is very difficult.

Modern DSLR's don't just look at the distance when you press the shutter.
They also look at the speed to predict where the subject will be during the exposure, moments after the shutter was pressed.

To achieve this, DSLR's have a dedicated sensor that's nothing like a normal image sensor.
Cameras with just an image sensor can never compete, a couple of phase detection pixels isn't going to overcome this.

>>2908053
Yep, separate phase detection AF sensors have special AF sensor lenses to project a very different image on the AF sensor. The image is more of a cropped part of the circle of confusion distorted into a thin donut shape by the special lens. Then this CoC is picked up by a linear sensor and depending on where the lightband is it can determine which way to focus. It is a very clean and efficient way of focusing and can use less light to accurately determine focus.
You can't do this on a mircoprism sensor integrated AF, especially on longer focal lengths since the CoC gets way bigger than the on-sensor AF sites so AF only works on a narrow focal band. Outside of that band it is the same old hunting try-and-fail contrast detection AF.

>>2908053
> Cameras with just an image sensor can never compete, a couple of phase detection pixels isn't going to overcome this.
Never? It already works right now.

Yes, these cameras shoot objects moving toward or away from the camera while focusing on them accurately and rapidly.

I don't care how hard it was for Sony to introduce this feature on the same chip module rather than having it off the module somewhere else... it already works.

>>2907875
It is a little amausing to me that my black AE-1P with the FD 35/2.8 on it cost about $50, but would mark me out as a man of discerning tastes and refined style, but that any modern leica barring the MA is the instant identifier of the t. pleb

Not sure if this is the right thread but does anyone know what settings/apps I can use to maximize the efficiency of my S7 camera?

>>2908071
>It already works

Nowhere as well as on a DSLR.

I am in a dilemma, just tried comparison shots with OS enabled vs in-body SR on the Bigma.
The OS gives a steady viewfinder image but gets more blur in 90% of the shots while in-body SR gives shaky viewfinder image and steady sharp shots 90% of the time.
It doesn't help that with the OS off the floating element has a bit of shake induced vibration visible in viewfinder.
After this short time I am really tempted to part from the Bigma and get a non-OS shorter lens somewhere around 300mm.
Should I sell it or just swallow my pride and keep carrying all this burden?

File: ZF-ZF2.png (402KB, 720x500px) Image search: [Google]

402KB, 720x500px

I'm currently shooting film on a Nikon F3HP body w/ a 50mm f1.4 Nikkor AI-s Lens and I was wondering if the Zeiss Distagon T 35mm F/1.4 ZF.2 Lens for Nikon F Mount would be compatible with it.
I know that its predecessor at F/2.0 w/ the ZF is compatible because it has the same coupling as the AI-S lenses but I'm not sure if the ZF.2 would be.
I read that the ZF.2 is similar to the AI-P lenses, which are compatible with the F3, but I'm not entirely sure. Any help?

Nevermind, a quick search on wikipedia says " ZF series lenses fit the Nikon F-mount. Four design variations are designated ZF, ZF.2, ZF-I, and ZF-IR. All are manual-focus designs with Nikon AI-S type aperture indexing.

ZF lenses have AI-S aperture indexing, half-stop aperture ring detents, and no electronic features.
ZF.2 lenses are like ZF lenses, with the addition CPU functionality, similar to Nikon AI-P lenses. They allow electronic focus confirmation, full metering compatibility, and electronic aperture control with Nikon SLR cameras which require CPU lenses."

I guess my answer is yes, it will work fine.

>>2908085
>ZF is the original product line. ZF.2 lenses are CPU-enabled (similar to Nikon AI-P lenses) offering full metering compatibility with the full range of AF Nikon SLR cameras.
To me it sounds like it should work without problems. The only difference is the electric contacts that don't connect with anything so it is effectively works as a regular ZF mount.

>>2908085
Don't purchase something that spendy without finding out for sure:
https://www.borrowlenses.com/product/Zeiss_35mm_1_4_for_Nikon

>>2908090

Haha yeah I agree with you. I thought the coupler ring was important for the aperture pin on my camera body but it doesn't actually use it or have it haha

Thanks for the reply :)

>>2908080
Easily better than most DSLR, until you hit low light situations at which point the DSLR AFAICT slow down less rapidly?

And I guess DSLR usually also still have more clever subject tracking - except when face tracking works, then Sony is kinda better.

File: 1137-4321.jpg (777KB, 1440x954px) Image search: [Google]

777KB, 1440x954px

Rate my Holy Trinity.

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

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

>>2908117

poverty first-gen AF/10

>>2908117
>no red rings
Nothing holy about that shit.

>>2908117
Seriously though, get the 20mm D...I think it's an f/2.8, but 35mm is way too close to 50mm for my taste.

>>2908117

1.8/10

>>2908123

kek

>>2908119

I went through my red ring phase already there's nothing special about those unless its a 200/1.8 or 50/1. I liked them but I could get the same performance for less money elsewhere.

>>2908120

How is the distortion on that 20? I'm looking to pick up an UWA Nikkor something and I was looking at 20mm. I know Nikon makes a shit ton of them.

I have a 35 for my D7000 because the 1.8DX a shit.

>>2908118

>He shoots neutered Chinese G lenses. Look at him and laugh.

>>2908127
>How is the distortion on that 20? I'm looking to pick up an UWA Nikkor something and I was looking at 20mm. I know Nikon makes a shit ton of them.
>I have a 35 for my D7000 because the 1.8DX a shit.
Let me pull out my hdd and I'll export some in a minute. Not that bad as I recall. As for shooting dx, that means you really, really need wider.

>>2908129

I'm stepping up to the Df here soon the D7000 will be my carry piece or when I need some reach

>>2907927
>good, but not perfect autofocus system

That describes every mirrorless except Fuji, which 'passable, but not good'.

Personally, I'd lean more towards something with a larger sensor like the said Fuji or a Sony.

>>2908133
I apparently have murdered my dropbox account so here are some snapshit (including a spectacular failure at trying to shoot an aurora for bonus) raws. I figure raws would be best so you can throw them in lightroom and hit the lens profile correction so you can see how it is. Ignore most of the vignetting because these were shot on fx.

I don't remember what lens that shot in Moab was shot with, but I can't be assed to delete it.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B3Sn6QNDm1INV0F6dzlxNWhCblE

>>2907751
wait did you use that lens on pentax?

>>2908145

No, not Pentax.

I was just agreeing with the annoyances of razor thin dof.

It is a great lens though.

I own an a57 and I'm thinking of getting a new camera. What do people think of Sony's mirrorless cameras? How does the a6000/a6300/a7 compare to the a57 in terms of image quality and low light performance?

Also, does anyone know how old A mount minolta lenses work with the mirorless cameras (w/ adapter of course). I'm guessing I'll lose AF.

>>2908149

A modern e-mount is a step upin image quality. New sensors are generally always better.

I am unsure of the autofocus, I never tried an SLT. Probably rather similar, but with a sharper drop off in speed in low light. Go look at some youtube reviews of modern bodies to get a feel.

A-mount lenses are FULLY adaptable to e-mount. The LA-EA4 has an autofocus motor and translucent mirror built in, and gives normal autofocus speeds with every a-mount lens ever made. The LA-EA3 is a little more compact, and is for modern lenses with a motor in lens only. It uses the camera's own autofocus. Can be quite fast depending on the lens.

Best bet would be to go try one out in a store.

>>2908151
>A-mount lenses are FULLY adaptable to e-mount.
That's great. Am I stuck with the Sony adaptors or are there decent third party adaptors that are a little cheaper?

I don't mind the slower AF in low light. I'm used to manual focus in low light anyways. A sharp drop in ISO performance at/above 3200 would be a deal breaker though.

>>2908151
Oh wait, if it has a translucent mirror built in, wouldn't that introduce some of the flaws of the SLTs (namely, the 30% loss of light)?

>>2908156

Nope, only sony makes proper a-mount adapters unless you want a dumb one without electronic contacts.

They go on sale all the time though. I got my LA-EA4 for $250

>>2908159

1/3rd of a stop not 30%, and yes. It really isn't an issue in most situations.

The LA-EA3 does not have a mirror, but only works with more modern lenses.

>>2908143
>>2908133
I dropped a few more snapshits in there.

Oh, and why the Df? I honestly can't comprehend spending that much for a gimped body. I'd sooner just get the D750, but I guess you do you.

>>2908127
>He shoots neutered Chinese G lenses. Look at him and laugh.

Are you like, pretending that all of those lenses aren't cheap plastic?

- Compact Point N Shoot
- 35mm film
- meters 1600/3200 ISO
- Exposure compensation so I can push
- 35mm or wider lens
- Wide aperture
- Decently pocketable (not a pants pocket, but close)
- Autofocus
- Flash switch

Name that camera

>>2908215
Nikon af600
Pentax Espio mini
Olympus stylus epic

Just use the dx coding to adjust iso

>>2908215
How about the Rico GR21?

https://www.lomography.com/magazine/255976-lomopedia-ricoh-gr21

>>2908243
>linking lomo for a discription of a ricoh camera

File: FILE0513.jpg (2MB, 2592x1944px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2592x1944px

So baby here wants his first camera to take with him to field to take pictures of /k/ related shit.
Got myself a Roam3 Contour and absolutely loved taking it with me and recording/taking pictures.

What should I get and what should I look for?
Also are there any infographs that can get me up to speed with camera/photography terminology?

Pic semi-related, camera shot from one of the shoot houses.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Contour
Camera Model	ContourRoam3
Camera Software	3.01
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.6
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	18 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2016:08:08 18:32:38
Exposure Time	10/299 sec
F-Number	f/2.8
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	137
Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Subject Distance	Unknown
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash Function
Focal Length	2.50 mm
Comment	FW version:1900 V3.01
FW name	ContourROAM3
UPDATE:N
UPDATE_FW:N
SWITCH_1
1RES:D
1BR:M
1EV:0
1SHRP:3
1AE:C
1CTST:62
1MIC:30
1SILENT:0
1LSR:0
1LED:0
1AWB:0
SWITCH_2
2RES:P/3
2BR:H
2EV:0
2SHRP:3
2AE:C
2CTST:62
2MIC:30
2SILENT:0
2LSR:0
2LED:0
2AWB:0
GLOBAL
FPS:60
CAMERA NAME:[email protected]
DT:2016/08/08 18:14:09
DCF_PREFIX:FILE
CAMERA INFO
CUID:141450010150017
USER DATA
DATA:Contour ROAM3 CAMERA
DATA STRUCTURE
UPDATE
Y:YES
N:NO
UPDATE_FW
Y:YES
N:NO
Format Settings
Resolution(RES)
(A)1920x1080 30fps (NTSC)/25fps (PAL)
(B)1280x960 30fps (NTSC)/25fps (PAL)
(C)1280x720 30fps (NTSC)/25fps (PAL)
(D)1280x720 60fps (NTSC)/50fps (PAL)
(E)848x480 30fps (NTSC)/25fps (PAL)
(F)848x480 60fps (NTSC)/50fps (PAL)
(G)848x480 120fps (NTSC)/100fps (PAL)
(P/#)Still picture 5Mp captured at intervals of 1 picture every 1, 3, 5, 10, 15, 20, 30, 45, 60 seconds
(where the time is measured from start of picture to start of picture)
Bitrate(BR)
(H)High
(M)Medium
(L)Low
Exposure(EV)
-4 ~ 4
Sharpness(SHRP)
1 ~ 5
Auto Exposure(AE)
(C)Center
(A)Average
(S)Spot
Contrast(CTST)
1 ~ 255
Microphone Gain(MIC)
0 ~ 59dB
Silent Mode(SILENT)
(0)Enable Beeps
(1)Disable beeps
Lasers(LSR)
(0)On
(1)Off
LED Indicator(LED)
(0)On
(1)Off
AWB mode(AWB)
(0)AUTO (1)2800K_Incandescent (2)4000K_Fluorescent (3)5000K_DaylightD50
(4)6500K_DaylightD65 (5)7500k_Cloudy (6)9000k_Shade (7)10000k_XenonHID
Global Settings
Frame Rate(FPS)
(50)25/50/100fps
(60)30/60/120fps
Camera name(CAMERA NAME)[up to 20 characters]
Name entered by user e.g. 'Jason's Contour'
Date and Time(DT)
YYYY/MM/DD hh:mm:ss
YYYY	2014 ~ 2045
MM	01 ~ 12
DD	01 ~ 31
DCF File Prefix (DCF_PREFIX:FILE)
FILE = 4 character DCF file prefix.
User Data(DATA)[up to 100 characters]
'User' value in the universal settings section
where the line contents are simply preserved by the camera.
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	2592
Image Height	1944
Exposure Index	0
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Digital Zoom Ratio	1.2
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	None
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

I can't think of the name of this camera. I was talking about it with a friend. The camera would capture the image 3 times and you were able to compile it as a gif. I'm pretty sure it would capture the image at the same time and give a fake "3d" feel to the image. Anyone know the name?

>>2907907
Nikon D810

>>2907965
>mirrorless cameras have shit auto focus not suitable for moving subjects
Except not really tho

>>2908276
>tho
You're definitely an expert. Thank you for chiming in with your highly useful and intelligent response.

>>2908274
>le ebin troll XD
Fuck off cunt

>>2908136
> That describes every mirrorless
Nope, Sony is noticeably ahead of the other brands in terms of AF.

> except Fuji
Fuji actually also got at least "good" on recent models like the X-Pro2.

What are good vintage lenses I can get for cheap? (Brand/Mount doesn't matter because I will be using adapters for my a6000)

Im looking into photography and thinking about getting the nikon d3300 is it worth it and what are your thoughts on nikon 55-300mm?

>>2908359
"acceptable" on both counts.

A Pentax K-5/K-30/K-50 will cost you less and give you some nice things that a D3300 won't though. The Pentax 55-300 is both pretty good and pretty cheap.

>>2908328
you're spoiled for choice. Any Canon FD, any Nikon F or Pentax K manual stuff (these are more expensive since they work on current DSLRs), any other old mounts like Contax or Minolta, or M42 screwmount (Pentax Takumar, many others)

most primes will be pretty good (getting less good the farther you get from 50mm), many zooms will be questionable.

>>2907910
Nissin, although I did catch ear that something about the TTL system might fuck with both those listed flashes. But for now it's a good idea. Or just go manual.

Whats the downside to using a lens adapter on a mirrorless and using dlsr lenses? Can someone clarify would appreciate it a lot.

File: EjJopdb.jpg (16KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 600x600px

>2000$
>professional

>>2908407

In some situations (particularly low light) the autofocus isn't as fast as using said lens on a native body. Not all lenses work either. And while they may be similar to autofocus on an entry level dslr body in good lighting, anything decent will beat them even in perfect lighting conditions.

Oh, and only newer bodies have a decent autofocus with non-native lenses (a6300, a7ii, a7rii) and these cost quite a bit.

File: Nikon1.png (219KB, 700x348px) Image search: [Google]

219KB, 700x348px

>Dpreview just told us that Nikon killed the “Nikon 1” system!
>No new Canon EOS-M camera or lens at Photokina
The 1 inch interchangeable lens mirrorless market is officially dead.
Sony never participated, and Canon/Nikon are closing shop, possibly to bet on APS-C mirrorless.

Rest in peace.

Shit, I didn't realise EOS-M was APS-C.

I guess is Nikon drops 1 inch and Canon drops APS-C, there is a chance they will both migrate to full frame mirrorless.

>>2908429
Why not just buy an Olympus or Panasonic MFT camera and lens if you want a small compact ~1" mirrorless system?
They work just as well and the sensors are actually bigger.
APS-C mirrorless is drowning in the masses of the APS-C DSLR, barely noticeable participant and the FF mirrorless is just getting an-heroed by Sonys retarded non-weather resistant weather resistant design. Actually that design is even less weather resistant than the lowest level plastic entry DSLR since it sucks in moisture from your eyes and from the environment when the camera is turned on.

So all in all have no worries, you still have plenty good options in your desired area.

>>2908432
I think the death of the 1 inch Nikons will give a good breathing room to the m43 systems.

So I guess there is always that.

>>2908432
Sony's lenses are mostly poorly weatherproofed if at all, but they certainly don't have any special moisture sucking capabilities.

>>2908434
The Nikon 1 market was so thin it will be barely noticeable. I think people still prefer the Oly and Pana MFT to the Nikon 1, that is why it was phased out.
It is not very apparent on this board but MFT is still more popular than Fuji, Sony APS-C/A7 and Canon EOS-M line together where I live. I would say MFT is very far from being dead, but people start to complain about the lack of upgrades and new product line entries.
Pentax is the strange one, being able to keep the Q line alive somehow. Must be due to the the Pentaxian zeal. Even the K-01 freak mirrorless is alive on the used market.
Since larger sensor mirrorless is mostly Sony, the retarded design decisions can kill most of the MILC market.

>>2908446

Sony's a6000 and a6300 are some of the best selling mirrorless cameras ever.

And while the a7 series does have its faults, Sony is constasntly improving the bodies. It really is a shame they pulled weather resistance fom the a7 series, they would have been a lot more attractive with it. The upcoming a9 is rumored to be an absolute beast.

>>2908445
I was referring to the body wicking moisture on the surface of the heatsink. Surface diffusion if you like, the transport process fueled by the heat gradient.
You don't need salty air or humid conditions since you place the thing on your eye and the sweat and moisture from your own body is caught and driven inside of the camera where the magnesium/copper and steel/copper contacts start a corrosion process killing the electronics of your camera.
Of course it looks like a liquid damage but it is a serious design flaw. It is not the question IF you get caught by it but WHEN you get caught and then it is Sony who will fuck you in your ass.

>>2908446
I know the M43 is more popular.

I just feel sorry for the folks who invested into the Nikon system.

>>2908448
This bullshit trolling is going too far.

>>2908448
So you're ultimately telling me that the camera is warm, somehow evaporates that water in your eye and transports that moisture to its inside where it then condenses on contacts that are made of "magnesium/copper" "steel/copper" and then they get ... rusted?

I think your fantasy is running a bit too wild.

Besides even with all the people using especially the APS-C Sonys now, apparently very few have broken theirs even in rain...

>>2908450
It doesn't mean their cameras won't function anymore. It just didn't get updated.

>>2908451
>>2908454

Not trolling. You spend your first year on an engineering course in college you learn all the physical and chemical processes that do this thing. The same processes used in fusions of metals and creating numerous alloy properties just by allowing time for a diffusion process to complete or not.
It doesn't matter if the process happens at 700-900°C or at 25-60°C, it still happens.
Go ask your chemistry teacher about it. The related course is Physical-chemistry BTW.

>>2908456
Just shut up already. You're a waste of space.

>>2908456
Anon, better try this with Tumblr.

>>2908457
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transport_phenomena
http://old.vscht.cz/fch/en/tools/breviary-online.pdf
and the likes. Ask your chemistry teacher.
Also 100 years ago people refused to believe that sound can be transferred in the air and captured by a "radio device" and you could hear the news or the president speak in your living room. It still happens even if you close your eyes and ears and pout in the corner.

>>2908460
https://youtu.be/HYhQhWozheU?t=524

Sony glass repel moisture.
Canon glass sucks up moisture.

>>2908462


Sony glass suckw up moisture too, but like that other qnon said, The Sony bodies suck it all up from the glass and your eyeballs.

>>2908468
That's a nope. I have the video evidence, you have shitpost.

>>2908462
Forget about the lens already! There is a gaping hole on the A7 series bodies that allows moisture to build up and corrode the insides of your investment.
It is your problem though, my camera is properly sealed from the environment even in torrential downpour.

>>2908471
>muh moisture
>muh investments

>>2908472
No, no. Your moisture, your investment.

What the fuck man, I hate my camera gear now, I better sell it all.

>>2908476
Or just be on edge to back your claims to Sony when shit hits the fan. Be dicks to them because they are dicks to you.

>>2908474
I wonder if you actually think anyone will believe your shitposts.

>>2908478
https://www.flickr.com/photos/125233350@N03/28031739394

Thing is anon, he's not shitposting. And this woman isn't the only one that's gotten fucked by Sony.

>>2908482
Sounds like a hoax to me.

>>2908484
Sonyniggers everyone.

>>2908501
You need to stop being an angry photographer, just go to bed.

>>2908507
What flavor koolaid is the sony stuff? Red? Orange?

>>2908482

So your best source is a flicker post by someone with broken english and no proof what-so-ever?

Sounds legit.

>>2908482
Every shot on her Flickr is around salt water or directly above it.
Never peed water my ass

The angry photographer strikes again.

How can Sony ever recover from this deadly blow?

>>2908482
>https://www.flickr.com/photos/125233350@N03/28031739394

the woman is a total nutjob
https://www.flickr.com/photos/125233350@N03/28851464460/in/datetaken/

>>2908550
>>2908549
>>2908546
>>2908507
>>2908484
$0.20/per post?

File: bce.jpg (25KB, 608x402px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 608x402px

MFW i took my a7r ii out in heavy rain 3-4 times before i sold it for more than i bought it new

>>2908589
I'm sure it survived just fine and still take great pictures today.

>>2908595
The problem is not about the camera taking good photos or not, the problem is it being a ticking timebomb.
>Herro, you buy $3000 camera.
>It broke? Too bad, buy another one!

>>2908602
I don't think that's an actual problem.

File: 10423-s.jpg (964KB, 1600x1040px) Image search: [Google]

964KB, 1600x1040px

>>2908595
nope. the a7r ii's color rendition is awful. also has problems with moire and it is unreliable with rendering certain skin tones. it literally rendered parts of the skin as a bright orange and needed a lot of work doing to fix it. the lenses are also poor for the price you pay. other than that is was awesome to use and totally retard friendly, very easy to expose and focus and awb was always pretty incredible.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-7RM2
Camera Software	ILCE-7RM2 v3.20
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.8
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	55 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2016-08-22T17:09:54+01:00
Exposure Time	1/80 sec
F-Number	f/6.3
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/6.3
Brightness	6.6 EV
Exposure Bias	-0.3 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	55.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1600
Image Height	1040
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal