/Gear/ - Gear thread

>>2908916
>No Call Spock button

Quick reminder, you're a cropbabby if you waste money on anything less than full frame.

Gonna pull the trigger. D7100 or D5500? I like the swivel screen and smaller size of the 5500 and I'm not convinced I need the extras of the 7100.
With the 18-140mm lens

>>2908932
What is your experience level?
What do you want the swivel screen for?
Why are you getting an expensive and soft 18-140?
What are you shooting pictures of?

>>2908929
>Quick reminder, you're a cropbabby if you waste money on anything less than 20x24.

>>2908933
Novice photo experience but I have composition, color, and lighting experience from years of painting and illustration if that will help me learn.
Swivel screen for easier angles, I won't have to tiptoe or crouch as much.
What lens would you recommend if not the 18-140? The 18-55?
I'm going on a trip soon, which is why the smaller size of the 5500 is appealing. Travel and street. I like to explore empty streets at late/early hours.

>>2908942
Sounds like the 5500 will do you great. Note that the swivel screen will only help you in live view, but I love it for crazy angles on my mirrorless. I do not miss laying in the grass and dirt.
If you want an 18-140 I recommend pairing it with a 35 1.8 in case you want more light coming into the camera, or less soft images for something. Otherwise, an 18-55 and 55-whatever will do better than one lens that covers it all.

>>2908916
oh this camera image is cringe worth

Pen F or olympus omd em5 mark ii?

>>2908948
hit post too early.

using for travel photos/vlogging. mainly portraits.

>>2908948
Mark ii. The 4 extra mp are hardly noticeable, and the iso performance is the same. AF is somehow worse on the F.
The gx8 beats both in my opinion, if you want to swap high res shot for 4K video - i think the Panasonic's are just better cameras all-round.

Only 5 days from the 5d-IV event, I can't wait.
Best case scenario, I get amazing new camera at reasonable price.
Worst case scenario, I get amazing deal on 5d-III because idiots will decide it's outdated even if the IV isn't good.
Win-win.

>>2908955
so you'd choose panasonic over the olympus IS system?

>>2908955
>>2908961
i should have added--the IS is what's making me lean toward olympus

>>2908916
Hahahaha it runs XP.

If it wasn't for all the different branding and the Nikkor lens on a Canon body, and the CD obviously wouldn't fit, this is good enough of a shop job to make me believe it exists.

>>2908916
Hey newfag OP, don't forget to link new thread in old thread when you make a new one.

Sony A7 w/ 28-70mm kit lens for $1100 AUD ($840 USD). Not sure of the shutter count, but it's in excellent condition. Is that a great price or fairly average?

>>2908961
If you use a dual IS compatible lens with the gx8, yes absolutely.

File: 71atqjlgmIL._SL1500_.jpg (128KB, 1500x1500px) Image search: [Google]

128KB, 1500x1500px

No-budget, amateur filmmaker here.

Recently came into this cheap lighting kit: https://amzn.com/B01DIKHT6G

Two big lamps, and a little kicker. 3 40W bulbs.

Can I use this to adequately light a video being shot in an apartment? (Don't have a proper camera either, using my old Sony camcorder).

How can I get the most out of these things?

It's probably far from ideal, but I'd like to make do with what I've got.

File: Beautiful Portrait Medium Format Photography by Saleem Ahmed (7).jpg (70KB, 640x534px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 640x534px

I'm thinking about buying a Pentax 645D to take my stuff to the next level. Is this a good deal? 3,000 USD doesn't seem too bad. I wana take photos like >picrelated in digital and then post process them to get that film look, i absolutely hate operating film cameras tho. i'm willing to spend up to 5 grand for a med format and a lens, do you think this is a good idea?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Google
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	640
Image Height	534

>>2908916
Is Nikon dead? I'm wanting to invest into a system starting from an old dinosaur.

Nikon D1x or D1 or D2 (maybe), or canon 1d early crops, or maaaaybe stretch my budget to a 1Ds.

Will I be able to crawl into an obsolete Nikon full frame in 5 years for pocket lint like you can almost do with 1Ds or 5D classic?

I have a k-5, but I miss the days of struggling with my K-10D.

Maybe I should buy Nikon so I can enjoy mf glass. But then again, Canon has more junky Chinese primes available.

File: 1468675127603.jpg (494KB, 1200x1200px) Image search: [Google]

494KB, 1200x1200px

Been shooting with the Canon T2i for a couple years now.

Want to jump into the world of mirrorless cameras. I'm looking at Fuji and can't decide between the XT-1 or XT-10

Are any of the Fuji Kit lens good or should I just get a nice fuji prime walkaround lens?

>>2908986
Those should work fine. If used to their max potential, you should get a decent to good looking video.

>>2908997
>If used to their max potential
Got any tips for a newfriend?

>>2908970
This is combination new is around $1150 here.

So I guess that price sounds somewhat okay. Not that I'd get the old A7 myself.

File: pst014.jpg (1MB, 1200x800px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1200x800px

>>2908995
Yeah, just wat you need!
2 less MP, contrast detect AF and a whole new lense ecosystem to buy into!

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 550D
Camera Software	Digital Photo Professional
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2013:11:04 17:06:11
Exposure Time	1/200 sec
F-Number	f/1.6
ISO Speed Rating	200
Lens Aperture	f/1.6
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	30.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1200
Image Height	800
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>2908943
Thanks. So I can get the 18-55 and 55-200. You think the 18-55 alone would be enough to bring on the trip? What if I want to take portraits of friends?

>>2908995
XT-1 so you at least have SOME buffer for bursts and some shit. If you get it with a kit lens, that will be better too on the X-T1.

But I personally am on Sony. 'cause I kinda like having a flash and fast burst rates and better AF and stuff like that.

It's just that the X-T1 seemed better to me, but ultimately I didn't pick it.

>>2908989
>take my stuff to the next level
Spoiler: It's not your gear holding you back.

>>2908990
Don't bother. Might as well pay for modern crop sensors than ancient ones.

>>2908995
Do you need weather sealing? No? Get the XT10. The XF 18-55 is worth the money. Unless you're a prime shooter, the XF 18-55 is ace.

>>2909004
Set the 18-55 at 55.

>>2909002

>2 less MP, SHITTY contrast detect AF and a whole new lens ecosystem to buy into!

FTFY

At least the lens ecosystem is small.

File: _MG_2702.jpg (228KB, 1000x667px) Image search: [Google]

228KB, 1000x667px

Yay! Finally got me an ART lens!

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 6D
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
Photographer	Ray Neal Caird
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2016:08:23 16:18:27
Exposure Time	1/250 sec
F-Number	f/2.8
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	200.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1000
Image Height	667
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

File: _MG_2671.jpg (370KB, 1000x667px) Image search: [Google]

370KB, 1000x667px

>>2909020

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 6D
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
Photographer	Ray Neal Caird
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.4
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2016:08:23 16:17:23
Exposure Time	1/640 sec
F-Number	f/2.8
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	35.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1000
Image Height	667
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>2908929
>falling for the full frame meme
>embracing left over relics from the analogue era

File: _MG_2679.jpg (578KB, 1000x667px) Image search: [Google]

578KB, 1000x667px

>>2909021
Notice the butt load of moire on the top left corner :(

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 6D
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
Photographer	Ray Neal Caird
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.4
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2016:08:23 16:17:39
Exposure Time	1/400 sec
F-Number	f/8.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/8.0
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	35.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1000
Image Height	667
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

File: _MG_2686.jpg (656KB, 1000x667px) Image search: [Google]

656KB, 1000x667px

>>2909023

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 6D
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
Photographer	Ray Neal Caird
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.4
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2016:08:23 16:17:53
Exposure Time	1/30 sec
F-Number	f/5.6
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	800
Lens Aperture	f/5.6
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	35.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1000
Image Height	667
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

File: _MG_2689.jpg (552KB, 1000x667px) Image search: [Google]

552KB, 1000x667px

>>2909024

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 6D
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
Photographer	Ray Neal Caird
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.4
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2016:08:23 16:18:06
Exposure Time	1/320 sec
F-Number	f/2.8
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	35.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1000
Image Height	667
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

File: _MG_2693.jpg (631KB, 1000x667px) Image search: [Google]

631KB, 1000x667px

>>2909026
Just a bunch of quick snap shits, no real post done apart from a little re-cropping but yeah, definitely happy with the lens so far.

I think it was a decent buy for the $500 I paid for it :)

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 6D
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
Photographer	Ray Neal Caird
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.4
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2016:08:23 16:18:16
Exposure Time	1/3200 sec
F-Number	f/1.4
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/1.4
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	35.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1000
Image Height	667
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>2909020
Neat lens and the photos look fine enough - though I'm not entirely sure why you are shooting with manual exposure.

I also see a few things changed in Adelaide since like two decades ago, eh.

>>2909032
Yeah I normally do controlled lighting work (indoors, studio etc.) so I always shoot manual.

Adelaide has slowly changed, but the couple of billion they've put along the River Torrens has had the biggest effect and change.

>>2909020
Enjoy your nice new heavy paperweight and >>>>>>fast lens.
>>2909021
Those lower corners are disgusting.
>>2909032
>he can't shoot a non-moving object in manual

>>2909020
but how will you be able to afford your super ultra wide angle in both canon and nikon mounts and your 5d3 and fuck off already

>>2909034
I was mostly testing out the sharpness of the lens, hence why they are all stopped down. And yeesh, this thing is a beast. I think my 6D's AA filtered sensor has finally met its match :(

>>2909035
Waiting for the 5D MKIV to drop so 5D MKIII's start flooding the market.

Also waiting for a cheap Tamron 15-30mm so I can snap that up too :)

>>2909037
Did you miss the part where he said to fuck off already?

No one gives two fucks, you insufferable cunt.

>>2909034
> he can't shoot a non-moving object in manual
Yea, his exposure is actually strange to off on multiple shots, and I assume (don't know the 6D that well) that the camera's metering would have done better.

>>2909033
>Yeah I normally do controlled lighting work (indoors, studio etc.) so I always shoot manual.
I also do that in studio situations. I have a profile for it that I situationally adjust

With a decent camera, I'd however advise just dialing to aperture priority with ISO limit set when walking around and shooting like that.

wtf is going on? Can't we just talk about water

File: EF80200mmf28L_Side.jpg (44KB, 688x297px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 688x297px

Should I cop one of these? it's about 1/3 of a 70-300 2.8 even used.

>>2909053
No. I need more on the market for me.
It's really a fine lens. If you don't need IS and you don't feel limited by losing a tiny bit on the wider end it really is a great lens.

>>2909053
Not a bad choice for a midrange-ish telezoom.

>>2908932
>>2908943
why do people generally recommend the d7100 over the d5500?

>>2909053
Go for the Tamron VC version brah. Hunt around and you can find it for a bargain. I got mine for $650 three weeks ago.

>>2909060
Screw drive motor, dials, dual card slots, ....?

Around here, it's probably primarily because of the screw drive motor and the associated ability to get cheap older lenses. With cheap being the point. Most of /p/ doesn't seem to have money for a bunch of modern lenses after they bought their body.

>>2908916
Why does it have a handicaped button on the top right of it ?

>>2909063
Probably reassigns the more easily reachable Inspiration button at the front to be the equivalent to pressing all the buttons at the back.

>>2909062
So basically to save money on cheaper lenses. What would be some lenses to look at after outgrowing the kits? For both 5x00 and 7x00's. How long before outgrowing the kits?

>>2909068
depends on what you want to shoot. fast primes are always good but you'll figure it out as you go, don't worry about it.

>>2909068
I don't know what you'll prefer or whether you will ever feel like the kit lenses are not good enough anymore.

I personally was over the kit zooms of my latest camera right away when I tried editing the first test shot series in a bunch of software packages to see what exactly I can do with the new gear. Sold the kit lens in the range I shoot most and went with primes instead.

But that's not entirely a typical thing, most people probably didn't have the same expectations, didn't have as many cameras prior, and couldn't be arsed to spend on, carry and work with primes.

If you are a fairly "typical" single-lens shooter, a Sigma Art 18-35mm f/1.8 is perhaps a better first guess for a lens that you might like.

>>2909062
Screw drive motor is overrated.

There are very few good cheap screw drive lenses.

>>2909089
There are lots of excellent or good not cheap screwdrive lenses, especially in the tele and super tele range. Still much much cheaper than the AF-S electronics only lenses.

>>2909091
True.

But then for the same money you can buy a modern Tamron.

>>2909093
I scored the 180 2.8, the 80-200 2.8 and the 300 4 for a grand total of $700, and that was years ago. What tampon could give me that?

Also a bunch of ai lenses and the ability to use the original 11-16 2.8, which is screw drive and so I'm more confident to bring it in bad weather condition (rain/snow - I'm basically after these conditions).

Granted, for the 90% of my pics I basically used only 3 lenses, but it's still nice to have all the others around.

>>2909093
Except the modern Tamron or Sigma 150-600 while has excellent IQ are quite dark, the equivalent of the kit telezoom lenses. I am talking about 300/2.8, 400/4, 600/4 etc lenses that are screwdrive, have sub-pixel sharpness and NatGeo tier IQ and still cost half or less of the modern equivalents.
Look up the Tokina 300/2.8, you can put a 2x extender on it and still have pin-sharp images and accurate AF without hunting but you need the screwdrive mount.

>>2908916
LEAVE THE FUCKING PENTAX FOR GEAR THREAD COVERS REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

File: nx100.png (312KB, 676x566px) Image search: [Google]

312KB, 676x566px

It seems, I suck at google. How can I check the shutter count of the Samsung NX100? I also read that there is some hidden developer menu - you can also check sh.count there too in there and also you could switch off video recording time limiter. I would appreciate all info.

File: Sony tears.jpg (218KB, 300x450px) Image search: [Google]

218KB, 300x450px

>>2909107
All these tears but the camera is still working

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS2 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2012:07:09 11:46:12
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	300
Image Height	450

>>2909105
>I am talking about 300/2.8, 400/4, 600/4 etc lenses that are screwdrive, have sub-pixel sharpness and NatGeo tier IQ and still cost half or less of the modern equivalents.
I'm curious about these. Of course I won't really know what I want beyond the kits until I have more experience, but it's better to have some awareness instead of buying a d7x00 for some older lenses I don't know I'll buy or use.

>>2909089
Not my personal choice either, just an explanation.

>>2909105
I meant the Tamron 70-200 f/2.8

>>2909112
But you will have the bright prism assembly instead of the dark and inaccurate mirror assembly that also acts as a dust magnet. Plus some sort of sealing from the environment, not as good as Pentax or the high end lines from Nikon but still better than the A7 line.
Though the D3100 has miles better sealing than the A7 line.

>>2909108
> Samsung NX100
My condolences.

> I also read that there is some hidden developer menu
I'm not sure why you needed us to query google for you with such a specific question, but eh, since I already did it:
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/39612424

>>2909105
>Look up the Tokina 300/2.8

It's over a thousand euro's.

For similar money you can buy a Sigma 120-300 f/2.8

>>2909114
It is an excellent lens but too short and generally mediocre/prosumer category compared to the aforementioned types from Nikon/Nikkor, Sigma, Tokina etc...

>>2909105
dog damit in 6 months I missed both the nikkor 300 2.8 for $790 and the tokina for a bit more than $500. Yes I'm mad, but more for the nikkor as it also has the ring focus limiter as its lil f/4 brother I have, which doesn't make you miss the afs for relatively distant subjects and which the tokina lacks (hence why I more or less voluntarily let it go)
Also saw the old 600 f/4 non-vr go for 2800.-, which I could have scored but I really have no purpose for that lens other than peeping on neighbours.

File: Leica_11663_35mm_f_1_4_Summilux_M_Aspherical_720355.jpg (168KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

168KB, 1000x1000px

Im looking at and thinking of getting the Leica 35mm f2.0 Summicron ASPH. Is it worth my dough? Or should i invest on a Leica 35mm f1.4 Summilux ASPH FLE?

Also is the M9 still worth buying? or should i just get an M7?

i know its kinda "muh leica" but im thinking of getting them as a life long investment because of their built and it doesnt depreciate.

>>2909117
Not a prime. Soft image, degrades considerably over an extender, even a 1.4x one.
The Tokina is a pro lens for wildlife and landscape and as a prime it retains most of it's IQ on an extender.

>>2909116
>My condolences.
why? (and thanks)

>>2909121
>Is it worth my dough?

a question for the ages, my friend.

>>2909118
>generally mediocre/prosumer category

That is such a meme.

The latest Tamrons are just as solid as the Nikon equivalents.
I own the Tamron 15-30, but I've also rented the Nikon 14-24 - can't even tell which is build better.
Tamron also has a much better repair service than Nikon.

>>2909125
He means becasue Samsung's camera division has unfortunately passed away, in the prime of its life.

>>2909121
What do you need from your current 35mm lens?

What does it do and not do for you? What mount is it/does it need to be? Do you need the extra bit of light the 1.4 offers? The 1.4 is a solid lens, probably the best 35.

>M9
It's worth buying if you want a full frame digital range finder, depending on the cost or your needs you might want to pick up an M-E instead.
>M7
It's a solid body, but I'd personally take the original M6 over it.
>i know its kinda "muh leica" but im thinking of getting them as a life long investment because of their built and it doesnt depreciate.
Get it if you want it, at the end of day it's just a lump of brass/zinc. It can be worth the world to you or it can be worth what you can flog it for.
>doesn't depreciate
It does, especially modern leica. C L A matters.

>>2909121
> life long investment
Found a company or buy stocks.

Focus on getting a good photographic device when you buy a camera. Leica is not actually good - side by side comparison with a much cheaper Sony will show you that quite easily.

> and it doesnt depreciate
Not at all a given.

If this won't resolve well with future 100MP or whatever sensors that are the main thing that gives you a reason to not use your future 50MP smartphone, it's going to be worth like $300 inflation dollars, primarily for sentimental value.

>>2909128
And how do you think the 15-30 relates to a 300/2.8? We were talking about pro tele lens, not your street meme lens.

File: 2016-08-23 12_34_44-Greenshot.png (270KB, 2560x1440px) Image search: [Google]

270KB, 2560x1440px

>>2909122
>Not a prime. Soft image, degrades considerably over an extender, even a 1.4x one.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

It is very sharp in the center, so takes extenders very well.

>>2909138
>DXO bullshit
Go away

>>2909133
>We were talking about pro tele lens

No, we were talking about screw drive lenses vs internal motor lenses.

But this has turned into a brand whoring fetishist so I'm out of here.

Enjoy your crappy D7xxx consumer crop baby garbage.
Sad you're too poor to own a proper camera, like my D800.

>>2909138
Not same anon BTW, and I'd get this lens if I needed it....

Buuuut the Sigma Sports is not just a bit over a thousand euros. It is somewhere closer to three thousand euros.

>>2909130

I currently own a Sony A7rii and also a Sony Zeiss 35 f2.8 and other lenses. Im still using them and most of the time My A7rii are mostly for my videography work. I bought the A7rii instead of A7sii because i wanna do photography as well and 12mega pixel is abit too small for me.

I thought of getting the cron or lux and use it on my a7rii but of course the vignetting is a minor issue. I was thinking of getting the Leica body and he lenses because i feel that there is no better combination than a proper leica rangefinder body and a proper 35mm summicron or summilux on it. I dont have a film camera so i was thinking hey i should get a M6 or M7 then so i can share the lense with my A7rii.. But then again the M9 CCD sensor has some very interesting characteristics to it which intrigue me a lot.

I have save a good amount of money now its just that if i purchase these stuff will it do good for me in 10 yrs time if i ever wanted to sell them away.

>>2909133
>>2909118
>It is an excellent lens but too short and generally mediocre/prosumer category compared to the aforementioned types from Nikon/Nikkor, Sigma, Tokina etc...
Wew. This pixel peeping nerd doesn't know that Tamron bought Bronica Co in the late 90's. They've been getting better and better over the last few years.

If you really care what the tele lens performs like and want to make sure it's up to your standards then test drive one, give one a rent or even buy one and return it after a fortnight.
There's literally no way to tell you if this lens will meet your expectations apart from maybe an MTF chart or a dxomark page.

>>2909147
I can't imagine the Leica not being a disappointment unless you can convince yourself it's special somehow, or you implicitly find out that you prefer a smaller and worse camera to a bigger and better device.

> if i purchase these stuff will it do good for me in 10 yrs time if i ever wanted to sell them away
Your guess. My guess is that it won't.

>>2909147
Honestly, I don't think you're going to get much out of the Leica 35's. Not in the way you're hoping.

Unless you REALLY love shooting with a rangefinder and really fucking love 35mm, it's not gonna be worth it. Digital rangefinders are especially trashy since they're fucking huge.
Since you're using an A7, you've already got a heap of options available to you. I'd honestly probably pick up 35mm Zeiss biogon instead if you're really, really looking for a bit more speed and a smaller RF lens. The Nikon version is nice. If you have an EF adapter I'd pick up the Canon EF 1.4L II or 35mm f2 IS.

All those lenses are going to somewhat hold mostly the same value over 10 years and are less likely to be a major pain in the rear to sell/lose etc. You're far more likely to find that these lenses don't meet your own standards over time, the gearfag dilemma. Leica film bodies have mostly retained their value but digital stuff deprecates a lot more, even Leica. If you truly believe that an M9/240 etc is the way to go, then go for it. Just make sure to CLA it regularly just like any other Leica body.

>>2909150
It is true though, I have the Tamron 70-200/2.8. It is an excellent lens but too short for tele work and doesn't work well with extenders. With wildlife you need to crop a lot especially on such a short lens. With an extender the AF is unreliable, hunts a lot even on 1.4x.
There is a good reason all the pro lenses are primes in this range.

>>2909151

> you prefer a smaller and worse camera to a bigger and better device.

This is the reason i wanted to purchase the Leica lens and or body, i forgot to mention that i do a lot of street photography and this is the only photography i do besides commercial photography and videography as a job.

Ived been doing my street photography with my GR. its the best camera i ever own and for street photography but i need something with a little punch.. I love how pictures taken with the leica lenses look. There is some sort of magic it gives out.

having a Leica m camera plus a cron or summilux would be a great for me.. i can go around with my Sony A7rii and the zeiss 35mm f2.8 but my guess is that it probably wont produce the same magic the leica lenses does..

or is it just me? i dont know.

>>2909155
Ye, I have no personal involvement with the 70-200 or why it does or does not work for you because I'm a separate anon, I have no need for a TC either or a "workhorse zoom" lens.. Fuck, post all your bird pics and I'll make sure to post a rare "nice bird pic m8" comment just for you.

I was just defending Tamron in a not white knight way, a lotta people give them a whole load of flac but still fall for super zooms and the like. They really have upped their prime game recently and finally started offering a unique concept that only Canon have done so far. They finally put those crazy Zenzanon bastards to work.

>>2909160
The Tammy 70-200 doesn't need to be defended, as I said it is an excellent lens but it is not an allrounder do everything lens. Most of those old screwdrive lens are tele primes that are serious wildlife lenses and some great standard and wide primes going for pennies due to this "modern is better in every way" philosophy.
The screwdrive AF is not the only one going for the D7x00 line, better body overall, better viewfinder, sealing, better interface, better UI etc...
The D5x00 line is for soccermoms who don't take off the kit lens ever but want to buy a "little better than entry level" camera. The D5x00 line is mundane if the anon took the time to lurk /p/, he is better of either with a D3300 or step it up for future seriousness on the D7x00 line. That is the spine of this debate, the cheap screwdrive teles are just icing on the cake.

>>2909157
>or is it just me? i dont know.
It is.

>street photography
In case you've somehow gotten to the conclusion that a leica or a rangefinder is better for street, it's not. Not if you think it is because it's "smaller".
As for the weight issue. A Leica M6 is 585g, M9 595~ A7RIIw/ battery 625g~
Size is not that big an issue there at all. Don't fall for the small and lightweight meme, these cameras are tanks.

>best camera owned for street
>need something with a little punch
Have you tried shooting with a 28mm instead? Upping your PEE PEE game. The Leica Glow on film may or may not be a thing, you may like taking wide open shots at night or you may not. What I can tell you is i've never seen a picture with that aesthetic at F8 or so, which is what you'd usually shoot street at. Make no mistakes, the 1.4 is a great lens if you can afford it, if it's THE lens for you.

>i can go around with my Sony A7rii and the zeiss 35mm f2.8 but my guess is that it probably wont produce the same magic the leica lenses does..
I'd honestly just recommend you trying out the lens first desu. The magic of an image doesn't come from the gear you use. It comes from composition, exposure and creativity. That sorta statement is very gearfaggy. Unless you're REALLY, REALLY into shooting a rangefinder you're probably not gonna get it.

Who knows, maybe you're a deluded faggot who wants to shoot 5-6 rolls a day once you get your perfect setup.

File: GorillaPod-SLR-Zoom-1.jpg (107KB, 700x467px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 700x467px

i am looking to get a tripod, i have use of my brothers extendable one which is a good job however i would like to get my own

something that i could take travelling with me would be ideal, as the one i currently use is too big

are the gorilla pod any good, or any other suggestions?

thanks

>>2909163
Like I said, I don't care. I'm a totally different person with no investment in this conversation now. I've said my piece about nu and improved Tamron lenses.

I'm done, out, zippo. Have a nice day :^)
>>2909167
Size? Weight? features? Maximum load? Maximum load you have for it?

>>2909169
as i said for travelling so something that will fit in my backpack

for use with a d3300 and kit lens

File: 666-Sony-Alpha-A6000-10_1398771993.jpg (57KB, 666x464px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 666x464px

Planning on getting a Sony A6000 with the kit lens
>520€

Any good alternatives?

>>2909173

You could look at Fuji mirrorless, but their performance still lags behind e-mount. Not that it is bad mind you.

>>2909174
Any specific models?
Advantages?

>>2909170
as i said, Size? Weight?
I could recommend you a large tripod that's heavy and will fit in a backpack I asked those questions for a reason. What that doesn't do for you is give you a recommendation that could be useful. I don't know how big your backpack is, how much space is in it or if you have a bad back m80. Since you don't need any features, it fits in my bag and I think it's reasonably heavy enough, buy a mefoto roadtrip/backpacker.

Most tripods will take your dslr/kit lens easily as long as it's not the cheapest in the world. What you want to do with it, that's specific to you.
>>2909173
Fuji X-T10/X-E2 for a similar price, fewer megapickles but still pretty good APS-C and nice if you're used to film cameras. Fantastic kit lens, not so hot at video
Canon EOS M3 is pretty cheap most of the time too in euroland, same megapickles but Canon sensor, has an EF-EF-M autofocus adapter if that's your thing and a removable EVF. Pretty similar to the A6k imo.
I'd probably advise staying away from micro four turds.

Don't be scared to shop used if the price is the thing putting you off. If it's your first mirrorless maybe look at a last gen model used.

>>2909173
Get the a6000, anon.

I've had the a6000 last year and compared to my current Fuji setup, it really does kick the Fujis ass. Yes, Fuji lenses are superb (even the kit lenses!) but lens quality is not everything. Fuji lags behind at dynamic range, for example. People tend to say that Fujis only have a DR of about 11EVs, which is quite below average these days. You can compensate that part by taking multiple exposures and stacking them in post, but do we always have the time for that? It can get very annoying.
Also, the X-Trans color filter makes it hard for RAW converters to demosaic the image in a right way.
Fuji X cameras that use the X-Trans sensor are nothing for absolute beginners. That's why they have introduced the X-A line, which uses a common CMOS sensor with a Bayer color filter on top of it.

>>2909179
>Also, the X-Trans color filter makes it hard for RAW converters to demosaic the image in a right way.
GOOD THING THEY BUNDLE ONE WITH THE CAMERA FOR FREE.
Eh, I agree with everything else but usability and the retarded as fuck 11ev DR bit. Before you reply with an 1500 word essay, I'm just gonna say that it's not like it's incredibly important to everyone.

[spoiler]The tip is to not go all out on your shilling. Otherwise naicu job. $0.01 has been deposited to your account.[/spoiler]

>>2909176

X-T10 and X-E2 seem to be the most popular.

No real advantages. Their sensors use a unique pixel layout that some say produce better colors and low light performance, but it seems to be a gimmick to me.

Their controls are better out of the box too, but since you can fully customize the controls on the a6000, it matters very little after a few days of use.

Most of the Fuji lenses are pretty solid (except for a few primes) but the same thing applies to e-mount too (avoid the 16mm and the FE 50mm f/1.8).

>>2909179
DR should be on par.
http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm
It's Nikon that have the 1 stop adv on apsc
Kind of agree on xtrans being harder to work with in post, but only if you use Lightroom

>>2909185
>shilling

Dude. I am a Fuji user myself (X-ProDinosaur)

>>2909157
> i can go around with my Sony A7rii and the zeiss 35mm f2.8 but my guess is that it probably wont produce the same magic the leica lenses does..
Uh, no. Leicas were "magic" 'cause these qualitatively high cameras and lenses let people shoot good pictures and without that one "yuck, oh the humanity, so much effort!" extra lever that you'd have to look up in a manual.

Arguably a A7R II will need a manual or on-screen help eventually, but image wise it's at least as "magical" and it's also at least equally easy to use in actual shooting situations.

If the 35mm isn't right for the situation, use something else. Also feel free to liberally apply vignetting and corner unsharpness like that "magical" summilux would, if you prefer that look.

> or is it just me? i dont know.
You. An A7R II is a top notch camera, with top notch lenses. It will have no trouble whatsoever shooing "street" freestyle-type photography - at least none that you can compensate for with a worse Leica.

If you want effects like extra vignetting, do more digital post.

File: DiC-MiC-E302-Golden-Coloe-Professional-Camera-Tripod-Monopod-With-Panoramic-Ball-Head-Aluminium-Alloy-Photo.jpg (139KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

139KB, 1000x1000px

>>2909167
I can't recommend gorilla pods in most situations, IMO they are only good in the city and there I still prefer a monopod.

The problem with them is that they're rarely better than just resting the camera on some objects or your backpack.

It may not be the comfy solution you are hoping for, but carry a Dic&Mic E302C or travel Sirui or some other "real" tripod like that.

>>2909173
A6000 is nice enough.

I don't like the shorter kit lens (the 55-210 in the two lens kit is usable enough).

Consider getting the 28mm f/2 or 30mm Sigma Art f/2.8 or somesuch if you don't already know you need a zoom lens.

>>2909177
>>2909214

cool thanks, ill look into something like that then

File: 28031739394_3680868097_b.jpg (174KB, 1024x1024px) Image search: [Google]

174KB, 1024x1024px

>>2909211
>A7R II is a top notch camera

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

78KB, 712x943px

>>2909220
This is the Monopod I'd pick for urban only use.

I basically use that monopod in cities & at events and the Dic&Mic E302C for every other travel situation.

If you just get one, the tripod is obviously the more versatile device of the two.

>>2909221
>All that Sony tears
literally
And in the mean time >>2909111

>>2909221
Looks like some fucking dumbass user did drench their camera in salt water and then let it react and evaporate in warmth, repeatedly.

You wanna blame the camera for that? Lel.


On the other hand, there was a comparable manufacturer fuck-up... with Leica:
https://en.leica-camera.com/World-of-Leica/Leica-News/About-Leica-News/Global/2015/Latest-information-CCD-sensors

Not to say Sony didn't fuck up at all - they especially have their 30min video recording restriction and 4k video overheating issue...

>>2909229
Your eyes contain salt water. Literally. And looks like they are overflowing

>>2909177
The price isn't exactly putting me off with the A6k and i was looking for a used Nex-6 but nobody has it for sale around here
And thanks for the recommendation on the M3, i'll look into it too!

>>2909179
Which fuji did you have?

>>2909187
Thanks for the tip, i'll look into those too

why are people obsessed with fuji xt1?

why are people obsessed with sony a7?

>>2909239
its a good camera, not too expensive so suits a lot of people getting into photography, plus it looks very nice if youre into that sort of thing

>>2909245
I was at first, until I actually got one in my hands. Some of the worst miss focusing I ever experienced. That 24-70mm f/4 lens ruined it for me.

Went back to my Canon almost immediately.

>>2908989
>I'm thinking about buying a Pentax 645D to take my stuff to the next level
>picrelated in digital and then post process them to get that film look
What do you mean by "the next level?" buying a big camera with a higher megapixel count isn't going to magically make you a better photographer, especially if you're idea of the next level is lifting the blacks.
If you're looking at medium format because you want to print large or have more malleable raw files there are better, cheaper options these days than a 645d.

I mostly shoot landscapes, so I was looking at a 645d awhile ago, but decided against it because of the lack of live view. I ended up with a k-1 instead and couldn't be happier with it.

>>2909274
>and couldn't be happier with it.
You mean you don't like it or forgot to type "more" in that sentence?

>>2909276
Meaning I'm happy with it.

I know that this type of question can be found all over this place and I apologize in advance, but:

Mamiya 645, RB67, RZ67 or Bronica SQ-A?

>Want to make a start in 120mm MF photography, WLF mandatory
>No particular type of subject or theme in mind (maybe portraits and nature/urban landscapes as a general guideline)
>Budget of up to ~650-700 euro

-Is ebay a good place to pick something of this price range up?
-How fucked will these models be because of previous use?

>>2909287
Pentax 645N

>>2909245
No clue. Basically every other E-mount camera out right now is better.

>>2908989
> I wana take photos like >picrelated in digital and then post process them to get that film look
Get a sharp lens for a FF DSLR or MILC?

They can give you raw material that actually looks better than your pic.

>>2909291
Not a bad suggestion as far as I can tell. However I don't think there's a WLF for it and I'd much rather go for something on the analog spectrum of cameras. Thank you for suggesting it though!

>>2909004
The 55-200 is a good portrait lens. The 18-55 is not.

>>2909314
The 18-55 is barely but capable of good portrait shots at 55mm which is equivalent to 82mm on FF. The 55-200 can produce thinner DoF and blur out the background at the long end but will need more distance from the subject.

>>2909322
More distance from the subject is a good thing - this will compress their features which is more flattering for most people.

>>2909287

>~650-700 euro

get a TLR

>>2909329
>have fun missing focus
nope

>>2909329
>>2909331
I'm sorry, I should have mentioned this. I have no interest in TLRs. I would much rather get an SLR as TLRs have hard to swap lenses and focusing them is a pain in the ass.

>>2909331
>>2909334

650-700 is too poor for a nice system camera and accessories. even rb67.

File: me super.jpg (41KB, 800x533px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 800x533px

>swear to never buy more vintage camera gear
>need a flash for my pentax
>ME super including 2 lenses and a flash for $50AU
>mint

Here we go again boys

>>2909337
Enlighten me then on the appropriate amount needed. I am not looking for a massive amount of accessories. Just the WLF and a couple of lenses. That's it.

>>2909339
Seems like a ripper deal. What lenses?

>>2909342
SUPER OZECK 80-205mm 4.5
28mmm 2.8

>p-please don't scalp me

http://www.gumtree.com.au/s-ad/east-cannington/non-digital-cameras/vintage-pentax-me-super-camera/1115899437

>>2909344
>SUPER OZECK 80-205mm 4.5
>no name 28mm
Okay, maybe not

how old is too old when buying a used DSLR?

>>2909349
I wouldn't avoid something a decade old. Cameras that old are starting to malfunction frequently enough to be a concern.
But if it works correctly and shoots raw and you can read those raw files, that's what matters.

>>2909276
Jesus wept. Please tell me you're just having a moment.

>>2909351
:^)

>>2909349

5 years is when I start thinking of replacing my bodies.

Considering saving to buy a d5500, anyone have any reason not to or anything similar (or better) in the price range?

>>2909428
K-50 or save up some more for a D7100

>>2909435
I was looking at a d7100 too so i might be leaning towards that, just curious about the reasoning since the specs look very similar

>>2909441
Better body, better AF, better UI, sealing, more robust, bright and accurate viewfinder. Basically it is better in every way.

>>2909441
The reason to step up to a D7x00 is that it gives you dual control dials, a brighter viewfinder, a better UI, weather sealing, and compatibility with older lenses.

A Pentax camera does all of that too, and at a lower price, but gets you into the K-mount lens system instead of F-mount. So really its the lens system and what you do and don't need out of the glass you have available in each that should make your decision.

>>2909446
D5500 has better ergonomics, lighter, and has a touch screen.

>>2909451
If you want light setup and touchscreen then just use your phone.
The D5500 will limit the anon in the near future so it is better to expand the budget now for a better body. But all this doesn't mean much to you, does it? You just slap your camera into Auto shoot your JPEGs with your kit lens.

>>2909451
>D5x00
>better ergonomics than D7x00
Are you from Bizarro Earth? In this world it is the opposite.

>>2909274
>I ended up with a k-1
Fellow pentaxian, mind sharing a bit more about it from your perspective? How you use it, what lenses for landscape, what you love, what you don't like and stuff like this. I would appreciate. (I know there is a dedicated section on pentaxforums but this place is different)

>>2909446
What about maybe buying another lens with the money youd save by going for a d5500?

>>2909463
Very limited options for that small price difference. D7x00 has more cheaper lens options too.

>>2909428
I personally went with the A6000.

Not software crippled. And it's overall nicer hardware, too.

YMMV on the lens choices, I personally want primes either way.

>>2909468
Because on the Sony there are literally no lens choices, unless you like to spend $2000 on some primes each.

Why is it so hard to get adapters for FD lenses to M4/3 cameras with a pedestal/foot with its own 1/4 threading?
Plenty for PK, CY and AIS, but none for FD?

>>2909501
Nah, you can have quite a lot of lenses, primes especially.

Partial listing here:
http://briansmith.com/aps-e-mount-lenses-for-sony-mirrorless-cameras/

I'd just start with some Sony and then Sigma's 18/30/60mm (the 60mm is an actually amazing lens, all are ~$150-200 depending on where you are). Or Samyang's superb MF wide angle lenses.

It's not a good lineup if you primarily wanted low-end glass (adapting MF lenses is probably your friedn there), but if you were only interested in midrange to higher end lenses anyhow, you'll be just fine.

>>2909517
Those third party lenses are available to most other mounts too, while native e-mount remains to be sparse at best.

File: D3S_7848-1200.jpg (171KB, 1200x1065px) Image search: [Google]

171KB, 1200x1065px

What the fuck is the deal with this thing? I was looking up in ebay for a medium format camera that could easily be adapted to digital and the Contax costs about 2000~3000 usd with film back while i can get a Mamiya for about 3000 usd with a digital back already.
What's the deal with the Contax, is the lens quality so big that the price gap can be that size?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

>>2909526
> while native e-mount remains to be sparse at best
These *are* native E-mount lenses. They really don't need to be exclusive or original Sony to work.

They don't even need to be APS-C - other listings exist for FF lenses, and like the CaNikon people you can use these, too.

Besides, even if you could get some of the MF lenses on a Nikon too, remember that Nikon does not add focus peaking to lower end cameras, so they'll not be anywhere as convenient to shoot with. [Same as they don't add the longer AE bracketing series settings with bigger EV steps, and a lot of other features, by the way. The D5500 is an intentionally downgraded camera, the A6000 isn't, and it shows.]

>>2909533
Be careful with those tears, it can corrode the electronics.

>>2909532
You're forgetting about all the features that almost no other medium format film camera ever had, plus the fact this camera was made in much lower quantities, and is a collectors item.

Mamiya cameras were manual focus, with some metering at best, and used outdated tech. The Contax 645 is light years ahead by comparison. It's all the tech of the most advanced 35mm bodies ever made put into a medium format package, so of course it's worth that much.

Oh, and the lenses are amazing too.

>>2909167
>>2909214
>>2909220
I have a Davis and Sanford similar to that
https://www.amazon.com/Davis-Sanford-TR553-P228-Traverse-Compact/dp/B00BTYOOXU

I quite like it thus far and it folds down within basically 12 inches. Pretty stable and "can" do inverted legs as well if you are feeling froggy.

I really like it.

File: q666.jpg (50KB, 600x500px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 600x500px

>>2909570
Looks like a rebrand of the Q666, a similar design.

Just that after the rebrand, it's $110 (~as much as the Carbon Dic&Mic shipped by DHL) rather than ~$60 (Alu Q666).

>>2909245
Muh old lenses. I have one for literally that reason. When you're a gearfag and a filmfag, you end up with a variety of lenses you can use with no crop factor.
It doesn't change the awful menus, controls or ergonomics.
>>2909287
If you're going for a Mamiya 645, get a Pro TL, every other model is kinda inferior and some have design flaws.
The RB/RZ67 are great if you can deal with the weight and size.
The SQ-A/Ai are probably the 2nd best 6x6 SLR's only to the Rollei 6008.

Ebay can be fine but prices are usually higher, try and banter.
As for how fucked up they will be, that'll depend. Most will be absolutely fine.
I'd recommend getting a CLA on any you're suspicious of or don't come from a camera store.

As for the WLF, have you used one? I wouldn't limit my choices just based on that alone. A lot of people shoot with a prism finder instead because it's better for some type of shots.

>>2909532
The lens quality is great and you can still shoot film.

I owned one for a while that I got pretty cheap, but in the end it died due to an electronics issue. Repair would have cost more than switching system.

I'd honestly just pick up a Mamiya etc if film isn't 100% essential to you.

>>2909533
Why do people think Nikon SLRs have focus peaking? No Nikon has focus peaking in LV. All Nikons have the focus confirmation dot, and the nicer ones will tell you if you're front or back focused.

>>2909594
Thanks for the correction.

I thought the higher end models now had full focus peaking because people were talking about it, but I guess it was just rumors...

Either way, the general idea of software feature downgrades is still true. They did mess with AE bracketing
> https://www.hdrsoft.com/resources/aeb.html
and other features.

>>2909546
huh, I didnt know it had so much high tech shit. The vacuum plate from the RTSIII, garbon fiburr, flash TTL, 1/4000 shutter, USM ring motors, the whole works. Shame no leaf shutter lenses were made for it.

http://photo.net/equipment/contax/645

>>2909027
For 500 that is excellent if it is in good shape. I think i paid 850CAD for mine on an impulse. It is probably my 2nd favorite carry around lens on my 6D

Canon's EF 400mm f/5.6L USM or EF 300mm f/4L USM.

Looking for a more portable (relatively speaking) and reasonably prime telephoto for a little bit of outdoor sports, birding and maybe astrophotography.

I find that my 70-200mm f/2.8 is "too short" and I don't want to rely on teleconverters, lose image quality and AF performance.

Which of these tele primes so I go for /p/?

>>2909214
Are these that reliable? The price for the feature set seems to be good to be true, but kinda looks like it's an OEM product (basic packaging branding etc.).

Looking to replace my plasticky Vanguard Espod.

File: 1471025044199.jpg (872KB, 2310x1781px) Image search: [Google]

872KB, 2310x1781px

I need some advice familia. I was using a d70 that went out recently. I've been thinking about buying a canon 70d but yesterday a friend of mine said I can use her d3100 indefinitely. Should I just get the canon or get some lenses for nikon instead and upgrade to a d7200 or d5500 in the future.
Right now I have the 18-70 f/3.5 af-s lens and am thinking about buying a sigma 10-20mm f/3.5. Any advice would be appreciated.

>>2909632
Go big or go home. 300 isn't terribly long, it's not much better than 200. The only people who buy those 300/2.8s know they need no more than 300mm, or want the smallest longest telephoto offered (300/4L or 300/4 PF VR)

>>2909633
Yep, no problem on the tripod so far. Seems like it's really just fine.

currently own a x100t, but recently got offered a 5DIII in very good condition w/ low shutter count for 1800 with a 17-40 f/4 and some extra batteries -- worth the cop esp with the 5DIV around the corner???

>>2909609
All Pentax has peaking in LV from entry to flagship models with the same sensor tech as Nikon.
It is definitely an intended dumbed down software issue.

>>2908942
I thought the same thing when i went from a 40d to a 60d some years ago. I used live view to take maybe two pictures... ever. I never used it. I did all kinds of photography but always found the eyepiece easier and quicker. I hate fiddling with menus.

File: 1468246713475.png (265KB, 561x286px) Image search: [Google]

265KB, 561x286px

>>2909221
What the absolute fuck.

Is the Sony Alpha 200k a decent, entry level dslr for someone very new to photgraphy? If not, can anyone recommend one in a similar price range?

>>2909729

>A200k

It is ancient.

Good enough for a beginner I guess, but you will quickly grow out of it. The only good thing I can think of is awesome minolta a-mount glass is dirt cheap.

It's price range should be $80 at most, so no, you wont find anything in a similar price range beyond other ancient dslr bodies.

How much are you looking to spend?

New to non-smartphone photography and I'm torn between the D3300 and D7100

How much do the extra AF points really matter in practice?

Are the older autofocus lenses I can use with the D7100 a better deal than cheap, refurbished current DX lenses?

Does having a second control dial really matter?

Is the D7100's weather-sealing at all comparable to pro cameras?

I can get the D3300 w/ kit lens for about 400. D7100 would be about 600 and I'd need to buy a lens (probably a 35mm 1.8).

>>2909735
You could quite literally smash a D3300 with a D7100. The extra af points are cool and all, but you would mainly get one for the ability to use screw driven legacy lenses, a brighter and larger viewfinder, and the more robust and rugged body.

>>2909735
>How much do the extra AF points really matter in practice?
Depends if you're a fan of focus-and-recompose with tracking, or shoot action. Everybody else uses the centre AF point. Having a lock for the AF selector is nice though.

>Are the older autofocus lenses I can use with the D7100 a better deal than cheap, refurbished current DX lenses?
The only screw drive lenses that are better than what's on offer are the primes. Specifically, the 20/24/50/85/105/135. And mostly because you're either paying for the current G versions, or not at all. Most non-rich people will shoot with the 35 DX, 70-300 VR, 18-55 DX VR.

>Does having a second control dial really matter?
Does your shooting demand that you have split second control over all shooting parameters? No? Then no, it doesn't matter. It's nice otherwise.

>Is the D7100's weather-sealing at all comparable to pro cameras?
Nikon press release says the D7100 is comparable to the D800.

The D7100 is at the level where you know what you want, and what you need a camera body to provide. You want or need the dials, the customization, the buttons, the pentaprism, the speed, the AF system. You can certainly grow into it, and it'll also hold its value better in the case that you don't. The D3300 will take the exact same photos, just slower and with a lesser user experience.

Also, fuck menu diving.

t. D3100 owner

>>2909740
>>2909739
Thanks anons

>>2909735
> How much do the extra AF points really matter in practice?
Depends on the AF system and how far the points are spread out. It just needs to allow you to do stuff.

I'd rather have one dual cross type PDAF point in the center than 15 line types spread out a little.

I'd also rather have 425 fast response but line-like PDAF points across the whole frame (A6300) than ten dual cross type AF points...

> I'm torn between the D3300 and D7100
D7100 hands down. Nikon made sure you have tons of reasons to upgrade. In hardware and software both.

>>2909741
Try a K-50 or K-S2 bro

>>2909733
Woah it was like 230 on Amazon. I guess around that price, like up to 300.

>>2909814
D3300. K-50. Or save up for a A6000.

>>2909814

That is leftover stock some compay is trying to offload.

Tha camera was released in 2008.

As for recomendations, it kinda depens on what yu areloking for.

I tend to recommend Sony's mirrorless because they are cheap, capable, and compact. The a6000 is tebest bang for your buck, but a little more than $300. You can probably find an a5000 or a5100 for around that price. They lack the electronic viewfinder, but are petty solid otherwise. I saw one used the other day for $200. I might go pick it up myself. The lens alone is $150, not to mention the body and battery.

You could also lok at the Nikon D3300. It lacks a screwdrive which sucks, but is otherwise good for a beginner.

File: 8554_b_NEX-3N_side.jpg (137KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

137KB, 800x600px

I've been using a NEX 3N for a year, mostly, only owned cheap, manual focus legacy lens. I generally found the camera adequate for my need in terms of picture quality (so anything will be a welcome improvement) but ergonomy is lacking for me, especially not having any kind of viewfinder is a bitch while using manual focus.
My question is - what should I consider for a replacement? As I said before - it doesn't have to be state of the art picture-quality wise, as long as it won't be worse I'm fine with it. The main thing is for me to be able to use my old-ass glass and have an viewfinder of any kind, maybe some better grip. Should I consider something out of the alpha series like a3000 or a6000? Or would it be a good idea to completely switch system for some other mirrorless?
Thanks in advance for all the help.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS3 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2013:02:21 11:19:56
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	800
Image Height	600

>>2909831

If you are using legacy lenses, Sony isthe way to go.

a6000 for viewfinder, a6300 for lens autofocus support (practically every mount, including some like m-mount that don't natively have autofocus).

a6000 would have way more usable OS, and an awesome evf.

>>2909832
>a6300 for lens autofocus support
You mean that it better transfers from AF lenses from other systemms than a6000?
I would probably go with a6000 since it's much cheaper.

>>2909835

I mean almost any modern lens from Canon, Nikon, and Sony with the proper adapter autofocuses like a native e-mount lens.

>>2909841
Thanks for your help. I'm gonna do some more research but that gives me something to start with.

>>2909843

Pretty much any mirrorless works if you are going manual only (take a look atFuji, their bodys have an awesome classic styling to them),but when it comes to autofocusing lenses from other mounts, e-mount is untouched.

Take a look at te techart pro adapter.

>>2909844
>>2909844
Yeah, I've seen that and it's cool as hell, gotta say. But I thought that it only work with full frame alphas for some reason.

>>2909846

Not fullframe alphas, but the latest generation of e-mount cameras.

So a6300, a7ii, a7rii.

Everything else it doesn't work, or does so really really poorly.

Thinking about selling my x100s

I love the design of the camera, it's size, the manual controls (especially aperture on the lens and shutter speed dial). I love the hybrid viewfinder as well.

I dislike the dodgy/slow autofocus and useless macro mode. It's just starting to feel a bit outdated and I've been shooting film a lot more. I'd like to sell this as well as my dslr and just have one digital camera.

Any recommendations for something similar to the x100s?

File: k1-crop.jpg (116KB, 897x538px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 897x538px

>>2909461
My favorite lens so far is probably the 31mm limited. it retails for $1100 but I picked it up used for about $700.
Stupidly sharp when stopped down, and really good for pixel shift. the only drawbacks are the built-in lens hood that you can't remove and lack of weather sealing, but otherwise the lens is built like a tank.

I like using the pixel shift mode, but I always take one with and one without because:
-I like editing in lightroom and it doesn't support motion correction
-the digital camera utility does support it, but it's horrible and motion correction doesn't always work well.

What I do is edit both the normal and pixel shift raws together in lightroom and then in photoshop, mask out the pixel shift shot with the normal shot wherever there are weird artifacts. Takes longer this way and eats up a fuckton of space (the pixel shift raws can be about 150mb each) but I have more control over the final image.

Otherwise, everything else about the camera is great. the tilting screen is especially useful. If you want a cheaper option though, the k-70 apparently has all these features for less than half the price of the k1, albeit with a crop sensor.

>>2909849
I've been also considering a3000 since it's still an improvement over my nex and it's bulkier (that's a plus for me). Any experience/opinion on that one? How does it stand with viefinder and sensor compared to a6000?

>>2909870
Worse and worse. It's a very light, cheap, low end camera.

>>2909860
The T has the XE2 PDAF doesn't it?

File: 1469635068625.jpg (49KB, 367x364px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 367x364px

>>2909649
Bump.

>>2909670
bump

>>2909863
>What I do is edit both the normal and pixel shift raws together in lightroom and then in photoshop, mask out the pixel shift shot with the normal shot wherever there are weird artifacts. Takes longer this way and eats up a fuckton of space (the pixel shift raws can be about 150mb each) but I have more control over the final image.

This sounds like a hell of a trouble. I could live with that for a few pics just like I do now (my camera doesn't have pixel shift but I often spend too much time hopping from Camera raw or Capture one to PS just for a single image) but for a series it would get tiresome quickly.
Have you tried Capture One? I rarely used LR but C1 seems to process pentax's DNGs better than camera raw.

31mm limited really seems a jewel, have you tried any Samyang lenses? Im curious to see how they perform on the K1, especially the 135mm f2.

Have you tried astrophotography with it?
Thanks for your input, very appreciated.

>>2910030
Capture one doesn't support pixel shift, but I think it does normal dngs.
Haven't tried samyangs on pentax, but i have on canon bodies before and they were pretty good for the price.
Also haven't tried astrophotography with the camera yet but I hope to do so soon.

>>2909874
I almost snapped and bought that a6000 today. Got to hyped I guess.

Are there any bag brands generally seen as good?

>TFW my X-T1 is on its way back from Fuji repair

>>2910149
Lowepro, Case Logic, Think Tank, Domke, Manfroto, and Peak Design come to mind as fairly reputable bag makers.

>>2910149
Lowepro my dude.

>>2910149
Fossil, Jansen

What's a good camera for traveling? I'm doing a lot of backpacking/hiking so size and weight matter a lot.

Any suggestions are appreciated.

I currently have a Nikon D3100 and find it too bulky/heavy.

>>2910200
Look at high end compacts.

>>2910200
>D3100
>heavy
I have bad news for you, son. You might need to start lifting.

Buy M43 if you want an interchangeable lens system, a RX100III/IV or LX100 (and whatever the new one will be) if you dont.

>>2910109
I think he was referring to the a3000 being bad
I played with my friends a3K and own an a6k myself and the difference is monumental
Don't buy an a6000 new tho
I got mine on eBay for 265 USD

>>2910200
>Being a backpacking gramsfag

>>2910200
>I currently have a Nikon D3100 and find it too bulky/heavy
Stop being a noodly-arm nancy and Nikon D810

>>2910154

How'd you break it in the first place?

>>2910109

Should have purchased it. Seems perfect for you.

Avoid the a3000 and a5000 though. Considerably older and lack a viewfinder.

>>2910204
>>2910221
It's not heavy if I'm just chilling, but I'm hiking across the world so every gram matters.

>>2910246

So just use your phone then. Not worth carrying two devices.

Or a Sony/Fuji/m43 if you absolutely need something.

>>2910227
Somehow the gasket on the battery door got torn. It also needed a check/clean overall as I've had it for almost 2 years.

>>2910272

Battery door isn't removable? That sucks you had to send it in for something small like that.

>>2910246
My phone has a raw mode, and manual settings. Works great for me. But the lens will eventually get that scratched up and smudged look as mine has being in my pocket for over a year. So an rx100 I or even cheaper smaller sensor compact can give you a good portion of the convenience with the added bonus of longevity and usually optical zoom.

>>2910273
Yeah, I was unhappy I couldn't even just buy a door part itself and swap it. I don't think the hinge is like the Nikons that pop off for grip application. The guy said the baseplate needed to be removed.

>>2910221
>TFW you're a manlet, but you still haul the D810

Did the D700 too, fucking pansies.

>>2910281
I'm an "according to 4chan" manlet, and I hauled a D2X and high-end glass all over Japan back in the day.

Fuck that, though. I'm bringing mirrorless next time, unless I'm actually being paid for a travel shoot. Hauling FF gear all over the place ruins a trip for everything but photography.

>>2910109
It's not really a hype camera anymore since the a6300 is out, but it's still a good deal.

I agree with the other anon, what stops you from buying the a6000? Sounds good for you if you don't need the fancier models.

File: Sony-A7-II-vs-others.jpg (214KB, 1000x442px) Image search: [Google]

214KB, 1000x442px

>>2910351
>hauling ff gear

Not that bad with a FF mirrorless.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D750
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.7.1 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	752
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	70 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2015:03:21 14:47:16
Exposure Time	1/125 sec
F-Number	f/2.8
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Exposure Bias	1 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	70.00 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

Currently in a toss up.
Purchased a Canon 550D (T2i) back in 2010 and have been using it since fairly casually. Bought a few lenses that I'm happy with, 35/2, 85/1.8. This past year I've gotten more active with photography, doing a few personal projects etc. and have been thinking that it's time for me to upgrade to FF.
Now I'm considering between the Sony A7Rii or recently announced Canon 5DmkIV (or mkIII). I've put off purchasing for much too long, and I can't be bothered to wait for a Canon 6DmkII either.

Are the issues(?) with the A7Rii/Sony service really that much of a drawback for purchasing the product? Currently learning towards this side because of the size of the mirrorless.

File: what.png (420KB, 856x562px) Image search: [Google]

420KB, 856x562px

>>2910365
>35mm prime
>f/2.8
For what fucking purpose.

Might as well go with a 24-70mm.

>>2910365
Sadly, the size of that 35/2.8 is an exception rather than norm on FE.

File: Bildschirmfoto-2015-04-02-um-12.04.24-700x393.png (274KB, 700x393px) Image search: [Google]

274KB, 700x393px

>>2910418
>>2910419

Here is a size comparison of more commonly used lenses.

The weird ass lens photoshop-job all this images have annoys the shit out of me though.

>>2910445
>The weird ass lens photoshop-job all this images have annoys the shit out of me though.
nigga did you just stroke out?

>>2910419
Any F2,8 prime on e-mount is relatively small.

Im looking for a decent camera to start learning photography. I would generally shoot landscapes when hiking and climbing. Any advice?
Thinking about a used Canon 600d/550d

>>2910453

Sorry, shoulda been:
>The weird ass lens photoshop-job all these images have annoys the shit out of me though.

There is no possible way to connect an e-mount lens with the white dot facing directly upwards.

>>2910463
>The uncanny perspective of the lenses infuriates me

>>2909287
In the same sitch myself, watch this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LK_Q3d55XlA

>>2910445
>f/4 lenses
All soft as diarrhea too.

>>2910479
>all soft

They are all actually quite sharp.

The kit lens is surprisingly good.

Shame they are all so massive.

File: 702002.8.jpg (90KB, 857x819px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 857x819px

It's awkward enough handling a 5D Mark III with a 70-200mm f/2.8 lens, I can only imagine how fucking uncomfortable it is with an a7.

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

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

Is Canon 1100D for 200€ with 10k shots done any good for a simple not wealthy guy that just wants to have really good photos of his friends and family and has no aspirations to become a pro or even an enthusiast?

File: maxresdefault.jpg (96KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 1920x1080px

>>2910482

It is considerably easier to handle than it looks in that image.

>>2910471
Wow, great video. I remember watching this video when I was starting out with MF, but it's not a good video.
It's down to preference, intended purpose, which accessories you need and budget.
>>2910484
sure, maybe, depends on how autistic you are. https://www.olegkikin.com/shutterlife/canon_eos1100d.htm

>>2910486
>f/4 lens

Even with the f/4 version, the whole thing would be so front heavy instead of a bit more balanced it is with a bigger body with a better grip.

>>2910484
Just get a used d3300 or 600d

>>2910481
>The kit lens is surprisingly good.
No it isn't. I've had experience with that FE 28-70mm lens. It's fucking horrible to use.

>>2910491

>It's fucking horrible to use.

In what way?

It's optics are great, comparable to the much more expensive Zeiss in the same range. It has OSS, it is quick to focus, it is light, and it isn't TOO huge.

>>2910493
Maybe you just have low standards m80

File: 152771_large.jpg (11KB, 185x240px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 185x240px

Getting my first camera d3300 and looking for SD cards to use.
Is this good? Pic related.

>>2910493
>It's optics are great
Wide open, it's soft. Plus the lens is slow to focus and was inaccurate. Though the original a7 I tested it was probably the main culprit of my bad experience.

Totally put me off the a7 series as a whole.

Ruined the first bit of a wedding shoot I did for a friend. Had to use my 6D for the rest of the day.

>>2910489
This is a retarded argument. A heavier body won't help you.

I'd rather have 500 gram in the front and 300 gram in the back than 500 gram in both fro and back.

>>2909546
Hmmm, i see; but, for studio portrait or mountains landscape per se a Mamiya 645 AFD II and a Phase One P30 should suffice right? After all is 30 mpx resolution, medium format sensor and autofocus in the lenses or am I missing something?

>>2910498
I see you've never shot with a 70-200mm f/2.8 then.

You should give it a go.

>>2910498
>500 gram
A 70-200mm f/2.8 is thrice that weight.

>>2910503
Not the GM, but I haveshot that kind of lens weight class before on small APS-C bodies without issue.

>>2910504
Step back from your autism, face the argument instead.

File: CANON_27.jpg (268KB, 700x565px) Image search: [Google]

268KB, 700x565px

Another manufacturer joins FF e-mount.
Now it's just Sigma and Tamron who are playing hard to get.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	1600
Image Height	1475
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2016:08:25 14:32:29
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	700
Image Height	565

>>2910507
>facts are autism
No Anon, you are the autist.

Also a Sonygger.

>>2910509
You're basically saying if a lens weight 2 Kg, the body needs to weigh 2KG as well.

But your autism won't let you think it through.

>>2910510
>You're basically saying
Nice implications autist Sonygger KEK

>>2910510
He's more or less saying that he prefers a heavier body so if you have a heavy lens so it's not completely front-heavy

Except since this is 4chan he's fixated on calling you an autist and a sonygger in place of using his words like a big boy shown here >>2910511

>>2910510
If you have weak wrists, you should stick with the mirrorless meme.

>>2910497

>original a7

Know for terrible autofocus. Was probably an early firmware version too.

Try it on a modern camera.

>>2910514
I generally don't buy the argument, becaise I like any part of my setup to be lighter.

Lens can get reduced in weight? Fine with that.
Body can get reduced in weight? Fine with that too.

If a Lens is ever too heavy for me, it's not because it's "front-heavy", it's because it's too heavy at all.

>>2910516
That's not what I'm saying. The "front-heavy" thing is a stupid argument, because even if a body was 0 gram in weight, I would still prefer that to a body that's 1 Kg.

The 0 gram body would according to you be infinitely front-heavy, but that doesn't bother me any bit.

File: 6-ways-to-hold-a-camera-for-slow-shutter-speeds-03.png (2MB, 1864x837px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1864x837px

>>2910518
I mean I get it but I also get where he's coming from. Having a really light body feels a little more difficult to stabilize when using a long heavy lens

That being said if you have said setup and dont mind looking a bit like a goon I'd rather shoot with a different grip like pic related than buy a heavier body

>>2910520
A U T I S T
U
T
I
S
T

>>2910517
>Known for terrible autofocus.
I knew that but I wanted to give the a7 series a try regardless. Seems like they still haven't fixed the back focusing issues and slow-low-light AF.

That and combined with the poor battery life and lack of weather sealing, I'd rather stick with Canon for now until Sony can sort their shit out.

>>2910528
>back focusing and low light issues

With the notable exception of one lens (50mm FE), there really aren't any more of those issues.

>>2910531
And I love my 50mm primes.

No dice.

>>2910531
>With the notable exception of one lens (50mm FE)
Really? I thought back focus issues were exclusive to slr people.

No mirrorless I tried has ever had such a problem.

>>2910533
Are you saying the 50mm FE is bad?

>>2910533

The FE 50mm f1.8 is the budget lens. Optically fine, but terrible autofocus.

If 50mm is what you want, you are set:
>Samyang 50mm f1.4
>Zeiss 50mm f1.4
>Zeiss 55mm f1.8
Not sure about the Samyang, but the others have been getting rave reviews.

There are also four or so manual 50mm.

>>2910534

The FE 50mm f 1.8 is a mess. It seeks alot, and tends to go past the focus and come back. It misses in low light quite often.

>>2910536
>>2910535
Can they beat the performance of the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 ART?

>>2910538
The 55mm 1.8 definitely can

I'm not sure about the loxia 50mm f2

>>2910538

Roughly the same in sharpness. The bokeh on the 55mm is supposed to be better.

>>2910539
Those two lenses are 900 dollars and up.

The Rokinon is a big deal because it's only 700 dollars, and it's their first AF lens.

File: 81htQgpVNML._SL1500_.jpg (121KB, 1500x902px) Image search: [Google]

121KB, 1500x902px

any recommendations regarding computer monitors for lightroom/ps?
My budget is around 300€, Ive heard good things about ezio, but want to hear some of /p/s favorite monitors

>>2910543
It's comparable in price to the sigma

>>2910539
>>2910541
>bokeh
Subjective

Doesn't sound like it's worth the change.

>>2910543

The Rokinon is supposed to be very nice from what I hear.

90% as good as the Zeiss 50mm f1.4