/Gear/ - Gear thread

>>2910677
>olympus
fucking newfags destroying this board one step at a time

>>2910686
Literally nothing wrong with that camera

>>2910689
>>2910686

I kinda wish oly would make a top tier dslr. That would be cool.

>>2910734
They tried a decade ago. Then they decided not to compete with Canikon directly like Pentax and go their own way instead, which IMO served them much better.

Also, E-M1II should be essentially a dwarf version of a top tier DSLR if the rumored specs are true.

Which flash would /p/ recommend for a D7100? I've been looking at the YN 560 IV. Go or no go?

Why does Canon keep winning despite shit sensors?

>>2910839
They have improved their sensors big time in the last couple years.

>>2910839
solid priced lens lineup
god-tier ergonomics
Canon known as the best to entry-level so people investing in the system from that level keep buying Canon

>implying that Canon Cameras simply aren't capable of taking good images

>>2910835
>YN 560 IV
Works great and it's surprisingly well constructed. As long as you don't mind that it's fully manual go ahead. My only problem with it is how fat the yongnuo controller is when using it off camera.

Anyone use a tiffen variable nd filter before? In the last thread a guy said their cheap UV filters are terrible.

>>2910839
You are now aware that most people who consider themselves photographers don't even shoot raw. Let alone care about things like dynamic range, color range, or baked in noise reduction.

>>2910839
Because it's what the pro's use at sporting events so it must be gut.

Has anyone ever been shooting with a gopro? Its the only thing i can take with me on my work trip for 6 weeks. I know it wont match a high dslr but does it give any decent images for landscape kind of photos since it has a fixed focus/high aperture?

>>2910849
It's probably better than a cellphone, but it's got an extremely wide angle lens, which really limits your opportunities, and its handling of high contrast scenes is nothing to write home about.

>>2910677
Good compact flash units for my alpha cam?
I was looking at Nissin I 40 but wanted something more affordable
I'm cool with manual flash too

>>2910677
Anyone have any experience with the Nikon 35-70 f2.8d? Is it worth getting or just saving up and getting a more recent version?

>>2910677
found a used sony alpha 100 body for 80€ online, should I go for it? Is it usable for amateurs?

>>2910883
It was sharp enough, for its time. I wouldn't get one unless you found it for an absolute steal. I'd rather a 28-70 (1st gen AF-S squeaking motors aside), 24-85 VR, or something else modern.

If you plan to use it on a manual focus body, it wouldn't be bad. Don't think 35 is wide or anything though.

>>2910884
>Alpha 100

As far as bodies go, this is ancient.

You'd be better off picking up an old NEX camera for that price.

File: GET0018_websource.jpg (1MB, 1545x2304px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1545x2304px

I'm looking to buy my first DSLR to get into the hobby. I have a number of film cameras and am interested in film photography, development and print making, but I'm at a budget-conscious point right now. I figure it will be cheaper to make mistakes and learn on a digital. My budget is $400.

With some quick internet searching I found two cameras that seem to fit my desires and budget (if buying used): Nikon D300 and Pentax K20D. Thoughts on these? Any other suggestions?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Aperture 3.1
Image-Specific Properties:
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2011:09:13 15:24:26
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1545
Image Height	2304

>>2910971
If you already own film cameras your most budget friendly option is to just shoot on those. Learning on film is a good experience and the best way to develop shutter discipline.

Shooting on a DSLR will not help you learn better or faster unless you are experimenting with strobe work.

>>2910977
I guess my thought was that when it comes to understanding aperture size, ISO, exposure settings, and all the other technical details about shooting pictures, using a digital would be more cost effective and eventually pay for itself in film costs. Film shooting is what really appeals to me, though. Thanks for the advice.

>>2910971
Dumping $400 on a new DSLR in order to learn how to shoot on the film cameras you already own because you are "budget conscious" is about the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

I dont know shit about flash. I have a 6D, I want to try flash photography without breaking the bank. What do I need to know?

Will this work? https://www.amazon.com/Altura-Photo-Professional-AP-C1001-Accessories/dp/B00HK0A6LQ/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1472177781&sr=8-1&keywords=dslr+flash+canon+e-ttl

>>2910734
Wouldn't be bad, but then they'd also presumably need a new lineup of top tier lenses.

>>2910835
>I've been looking at the YN 560 IV. Go or no go?
The successor YN660 or the older YN560 IV should both be quite good on just about any camera for any type of photography where you think you probably have a chance to adjust and retake a shot.

If you might not have time to adjust anything and still need to get your shot somewhat well-illuminated (shooting at events etc.), maybe get a Nikon TTL flash - Yongnuo also has some of those, but they're a different model.

>>2910839
They did loose some market share to Sony, didn't they.

Of course they still have good glass and good bodies at the high-end, so most of the people that already were on the system won't switch so easily.

>>2911042
>They did loose some market share to Sony, didn't they.
Churn is a thing homie. They didn't lose enough to be effected significantly.

>>2910971
> Nikon D300 and Pentax K20D
I don't know what you were looking for, but don't buy almost a decade old digital cameras for more than negligible sums of money.

Sensors made a lot of progress and really weren't that good back then, generally speaking.


>>2911016
> Will this work?
Depends on what you wanted to do.

Some types of shots are hard to get right without multiple fairly big diffusers and possibly other light modifiers, which usually are still better powered by studio strobes for both battery reasons and not requiring multiple to power them.

But portable strobes usually can give you a bunch of light when you have none otherwise. Which is cool. Don't know that specific model though.

File: 158293a.jpg (356KB, 750x761px) Image search: [Google]

356KB, 750x761px

Found this thing in the closet been sitting there forever, is this camera any good? Batteries are dead so i cant use it but just wondering about it i dont know much about cameras

>>2911045
> They didn't lose enough to be effected significantly.
10.5% loss in sales on the imaging division. Which is 60% cameras.

http://www.canon.com/ir/results/2015/rslt2015e.pdf

That isn't small.

>>2911065
Someone in the (still shrinking) film photography niche might still use a camera like that, sure.

AFAIK that lens was quite shitty, though.

File: 1457190874375.jpg (30KB, 851x233px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 851x233px

>>2910677
>no pentax again

File: Olympus_V204045SU000_OM_D_E_M5_Micro_Four_842936.jpg (520KB, 2500x2500px) Image search: [Google]

520KB, 2500x2500px

>>2911065
You found an em5!
It's shit

>>2911073
Worth finding the batteries for? im a beginner never really used a camera

>>2911094
Probably not. For most people, the best film cameras imaginable aren't worth it.

Shooting, developing, storing and printing film is more work and a higher expense as compared to digital - and the capabilities for editing and publishing film also are more limited.


Just shoot digital with a good digital camera if you want to take photos.

File: p196.6.jpg (864KB, 2000x2000px) Image search: [Google]

864KB, 2000x2000px

What does /p/ think about the Leica Q?

Im just casually looking at leica lens and bodies.. thought of hopefully purchasing both lens and body one day.

Was looking at the price of the Leica Q and thought with that price i can only purchase an M240 at the same price, but of course i cant change lenses which i think its ever impossible for me to even buy more lenses after i break the bank on an M9 or M240. Plus i prefer to shoot more on the 28mm because im also use to it.

Im not looking to buy now yet but im just having thoughts if i should buy if i have the money.

>>2911098
> Leica Q
Richfag fashion hipster shit.

> i break the bank on an M9 or M240
Then get just a "normal" DSLR or MILC. One that has more settings and takes better photos, and where you can actually afford multiple good lenses for the same price.

Or if you absolutely must have a compact, get the half as expensive but still better Sony RX1R II.

>>2911105

i have an A7. Just need something outlandish.

>>2911042
Not really, a lot of them went back.
Most of the people who switched were Nikon users.

>>2911108
If you want outlandish get one of those hasselblad cameras with the wood grip

>>2911108
> i have an A7
And all the lenses you want, and you also didn't feel like getting an A7 II or A7R II?

> Just need something outlandish.
The Leica Q indeed has an outlandish price to image-taking capabilities ratio... but what kind of a "requirement" is that?

It's just not a particularly good camera.

>>2911115
No. See >>2911067.

Nikon also was down (15% or so according to a quick Google search, CBA to read their data) in 2015

Meanwhile, Sony's operating income on imaging products was up 20% in 2015, despite selling less lower end models.

You can pretty much see what happened.

People "returning" to Canon and this only happening between Canon / Nikon with no Sony involvement is not what has been going on in 2015 (and almost certainly still this half-year).

>>2911124
>>2911067
>buying a new canon when they released fuck all
thanks m8, I needed that laugh.

>>2911121
>It's just not a particularly good camera.

Says the guy who never, ever touched one and couldn't afford Leica if he tried with all of his meager might.

>>2911127
In the digital age, to be fair, most leicas are kinda shit. The film bodies are amazing, and the newest of their new stuff are pretty awesome, but between those? Not impressive at all.

>>2910971
$400 will get you a used K-50 or K-30 with WR kit lens both.

I'm contemplating buying the metabones speedbooster to adapt my 16-35 on my panasonic g7, what's the difference between the XL and the Ultra?

>>2910839
Best quality lenses with good prices, also their cameras are capable of doing anything

>tfw you realize that you don't actually need those super mega Sony Jason Lanier cameras and canons can do the same exact thing without breaking down every 4 months

Cheap digital video camera suggestions? I'm a beginner shooting video, but I've done photography for a while now.

What does /p/ think of this as a lens for use for stills.

http://www.jessops.com/online.store/products/99627/Show.html

>>2911065
>TFW that was the last film body I used

Advance motor crapped out on me.

Any recommendations for dual camera straps which AREN'T Blackrapid?

>>2911366
Define "cheap".
For example, 300 bucks will get you a Panasonic GH2, which can do pretty much anything except 4K and log profile.

So, I bought a Canon T5i, what are some the best (but still cheap... used) 28mm lenses I can get for it.

why the heck is the fuji x100t so expensive? i can just get a fuji house and a lens for that money

>>2911423

Fuji in general is an expensive brand. The X100T seems expensive, until you compare it to an Xpro or XT series with an equivalent lens, and then you realize it's a bargain.

File: IMG_20160826_220719317.jpg (121KB, 1001x563px) Image search: [Google]

121KB, 1001x563px

ok /p/, after asking here and receiving negative opinions about this stupid idea i bought this baby, canon g9, i wanted to take it always with me.
and i did. for 2 days. then i discovered that this particular model has a problem, apparently 2 screws fall off inside it and burn the power board.
i payed 120+10€ for it and then i bought a replacement for 20€. I managed to turn it on one last time with the new piece but then a connector broke (i swear, i was gentle) and now i decided i'll sell this piece of shit as broken.
/blog

now, i really enjoyed it for those 2 days and i'd like a new compact camera, new ones like the g9x, rx100, GR, are great but they cost too much, is there something around 200€ with good portability, fast lens and usable @ISO1600?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Motorola
Camera Model	Phone
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2016:08:26 22:07:19
Exposure Time	3071/100000 sec
F-Number	f/2.0
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	125
Lens Aperture	f/2.0
Brightness	Unknown
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	3.64 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1001
Image Height	563
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Soft
Geodetic Survey Data	WGS-84

>>2911446
of course, i mean used price

>>2911446

First RX100 is fine, but controls are not best.

Certainly usable at ISO1600 (usable for what?).

>>2911453
>usable for what
i mean, not a complete shit, let's say grainy as a black and white iso1600 film
first rx100 is like 300€ used in yurop, a bit too much...
or i'll just wait til i get rich

>>2911231
why don't you use google?

>>2911231
The ultra has a cup holder, the xl is for fatasses

File: 1472101320000_IMG_674952.jpg (90KB, 750x750px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 750x750px

How's the X-PRO2

>>2911446
Ricoh GRD IV or even the Ricoh Caplio GX100 which is basically a GR with a nice zoom lens (and image stabilzation- just like the GRD IV does).

Why the GRD IV? I have one and I love it to death. The sensor might be kinda small but the RAWs give you so much power in post, it's amazing. In terms of dynamic range, the GRD IVs CCD (in RAW mode) will destroy the entire competition.

>>2911476
I love mine. There's very little to complain about, all I can really think of is the annoying ISO dial and that the user experience kind of falls apart if you use a lens without an aperture ring or need to select a really precise SS that's not on the dial. Oh, and it eats batteries like crazy.

Overall it's really good, though. The VF is totally usable for me, in both modes, even with glasses and in bright sunlight. The sensor is awesome. AF is much better than I expected it to be. It handles well and feels incredibly well-built compared to other modern cameras.

File: foto 1028.jpg (154KB, 1000x750px) Image search: [Google]

154KB, 1000x750px

I want to graduate from shooting my vacation pictures with my iphone. While it's practical because it's small and always there, the lack of zoom and not being able to take macro shots is frustrating.

So I'm looking into getting a cheap (like max. 400€, preferably much less) camera with decent zoom and macro capabilities. I'd like to be able to take pictures in a raw format, and it should be reasonably comfortable to carry around and use...

So far the Panasonic Lumix FZ72 (especially at only about 200€) or Canon PowerShot SX60 HS look decent - that 60x+ zoom might be overcompensating a bit, though. Anyone got a recommendation?

tl;dr
What macro and zoom-capable somewhat travel-friendly camera with raw support could I buy for under 400€?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Apple
Camera Model	iPhone 5s
Camera Software	8.3
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	29 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2015:06:14 12:20:59
Exposure Time	1/1414 sec
F-Number	f/2.2
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	32
Lens Aperture	f/2.2
Brightness	9.1 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Auto
Focal Length	4.15 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1000
Image Height	750
Rendering	Unknown
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>2911507
I'd try to go for something with a 1" sensor. You won't get as much zoom range, but you'll get image quality that's actually worth having in the first place.

I'm not really an expert on the compact niche, but from what I've heard the Sony RX100 series is really good, most of the previous generations can still be bought new at heavily discounted prices and I'd probably get whichever is the newest you can afford.

>>2911507
trust me, having more than 6x of zoom is nice the first time you try the camera but the quality is usually shit and you won't use it (unless you're a pervert or a gossip journalist).
join me >>2911446 in asking a nice compact camera

>>2911496
looks nice but on ebay there are like 2 of them in the whole europe and a lot for cheap in japan. since i just broke a camera and spent a lot of money in it i'd like something near, just in case. Ricoh barely exists here, they just make printers

>>2911522
Just add another 150 fugeepoints to your budget and get an rx100 mk1

>>2911525
let's see

>>2911446
How about a used Fuji X10/X20? X10 is passable if you aren't going to use the OVF, but if that's your bag get the X20. Great little cameras, not too big, lots of features, bigger sensors and finders than those Canons, and IQ so good that you don't have to think twice about leaving a DSLR at home when going on vacation.

File: maxresdefault (1).jpg (75KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 1280x720px

Is X-T10 considered good? I'm looking for a compact camera I can carry with me everywhere and just take nice pictures. Lowlight capability is important to me and video recording not so much. I was also eyeing a dslr from Nikon but I feel like it will be too big and heavy

File: foto 1162.jpg (74KB, 1000x750px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 1000x750px

>>2911515
>>2911522
I'd really like to get a bit more zoom. I often see interesting stuff stuck to roofs, building facades, etc that I'd like to shoot.

Compactness is not a prime concern - it's just that I'd rather not lug a few kg worth of camera or swap objectives for every shot.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Apple
Camera Model	iPhone 5s
Camera Software	8.3
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	29 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2015:06:17 16:25:33
Exposure Time	1/1325 sec
F-Number	f/2.2
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	32
Lens Aperture	f/2.2
Brightness	9.2 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Spot
Flash	No Flash, Auto
Focal Length	4.15 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1000
Image Height	750
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>2911553
> Is X-T10 considered good?
Not a bad camera.

> Lowlight capability is important to me
A6300 or A7S (II)

>>2910835
A used Nikon SB 800 if you can get a good deal on it.

>>2910839
Because in 2016 it's a fucking wash unless you're a neckbearded faggot who gets off to which sensor is negligibly better in unrealistic situations. Top-tier DSLRs these days come down to how you like the camera in your hand, and how well you can shoot with it. Otherwise, in my opinion, it's all bullshit.

I shoot with a 5D MKIII because I like the ergonomics, and it produces images that satisfy myself and clients. Could whatever other brand do the same thing? Fuck yeah. Could this or that be better with another brand? Probably, but who fucking cares.

Shit just doesn't matter as much as you think it does in the real world.

Can't decide between Fuji XF23F2 WR or the XF35F2 WR. I've owned the 351.4 in the past. and have basically only ever had 50mm eq.primes. But i'm curious about 35. For everyday snapshits.

>>2911596
Get the 23 1.4 if you must buy a 35mm eqv. Otherwise the 35 f2 is fine.

>>2911098
Get two Ricoh GRs and call it a day.

Like most Leicas, they're amazing imaging platforms priced beyond the means of mortals. If money is absolutely no object, then have fun, get all the cameras.

>>2911580
SB-800s are great, SB-600s are almost as great and way cheaper.

File: 24mm.jpg (65KB, 1500x1200px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 1500x1200px

Anyone have one of these? Solid pickup for $150?

>>2910839

magic lantern

>>2911620

I got the GR.. I loved it but now dreading it after I had to send for sensor cleaning within not long as 5 months. It's tiring to drive a few miles to send the camera and drive back the week after.. it's dust magnet and contemplating of selling it.

I work in the industry as a cinematographer/videographer and I guess owning a leica is like an up and coming bussinessman who can finally for the first time can buy his very own an Audi R8 or a Ferrari with his own money.

>>2911098
I hear the Q is pretty decent, but I wouldn't go for one, simply because then you're missing out on the quintessential Leica rangefinder experience.

If I were you, I think I'd buy a film Leica body and a couple of lenses and use that to satisfy your Leica lust, while continuing to shoot with other systems for digital. You can get an adapter and use those Leica lenses on your A7, too, which is something you'd miss out on with the Q.

>>2911596

One of the x-mount 35mms is supposed to have astupid slow autofocus. Don't remember which though.

>>2911623

I have the fullframe 40mm one I picked up for $100 (in the ugy ass white unfortunately).

It is pretty decent, good iq, fast autofocus (even though I am using it with an adapter). Kinda shoddy build quality compared to the rest of my lenses though.

Yo I have a 5dmarkiii with a 75mm jupiter lens. Got it for like 120. Really cool. I'm looking for more small high quality "vintage" lenses like that. Its tough to get super sharp with it tho , would be nice to have a sharper one.

Russian preferred but ill do japanese or anything that had a good quality control

>>2911098
You're not supposed to buy the Q no matter how good. You need the lens separate bc it will last generations of bodies

>>2911098

What does the Leica do that the a7 doesn't do better in every way?

>>2911634

Minolta is the way to go.

Their MD-mount lense are almost all pretty solid, and dirt cheap too.

There are even a few m-mount minolta lenses.

>>2911637
To start the EVF is way better

>>2911637
It's much better at having a big red dot on the front, for one.

>>2911638
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Excellent-Minolta-AF-ZOOM-75-300-mm-F4-5-5-6-for-Maxxum-Dynax-Sony-A-Mount-/182257272484?hash=item2a6f6146a4%3Ag%3A87AAAOSw0UdXwEKQ&_trkparms=pageci%3D52cad337-f944-4fb8-9bf1-e23181e43c08%2Cparentrq%3Dca007fff1560aa1381b05362fffda468%2Ciid%3D1%2Cobjectid%3D3323

this is nuts

>>2911643

I was mainly talking about their old MD-mount manual lenses, but a-mount is pretty solid too (except for Xi and a few others). Cheap a-mount lenses are one of the very FEW pluses to buying a Sony a-mount camera.

The main issue with Minolta stuff is they were all made during the 80's, and lack the awesome anti-glare coatings modern lenses have. In some shots it can actually look very good, but it can easily ruin others.

Do they still make film cameras? If so, what are some good modern options?

>>2911647
F6
6


Or, more practically, get an F100.

>>2911649
Pretty much same thing I was gonna say.

It's kind of amazing that the F6 is still in production and that it's "only" $2500, actually. Looks like nice used ones are under a grand, too.

>>2911632
definitely the 1.4. the two new 23 and 35 (the weather sealed F2s) have fast AF, but not LM fast.

Has anyone every tried a Mitakon lens? The f/0.95 sounds pretty incredible.

I don't know why you fags hate on the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 ART so much. It's a brutally sharp lens, especially at such an affordable price.

>>2911673
It's not sharp wide open as the Sigma ART and has some serious aberrations and flaring.

Also pretty difficult to get critical focus wide open even with peaking.

Otherwise, dat Bokeh tho

what's the best mirrorless camera for lowlight that's less than $1000 for body only? I know the a7s is a beast and the x-t10 looks nice but the video is trash. does anything in the price range of the x-t10 shoot as well as that? i was previously looking at the a6000 which has great video but the low light doesnt match up

>>2911681
>a7S
>$1,000
Good fucking luck.

If you find one that cheap, let me know I cause I fucking want one.

For that money, you can get a Canon EOS 6D or a Nikon D600 either with a lens. And best of all, they aren't sucky battery lifed mirrorless cameras.

>>2911647
I think Fuji still makes a film camera brand new

File: image.png (801KB, 750x1334px) Image search: [Google]

801KB, 750x1334px

Intermediate skilled photographer but only have 10 year old gear.

How good of a deal is this? A deal whatsoever? Is the lens compatible with newer cameras?

>>2911073
>>2911097
And here we go on this wacky ride again

>>2911689
Yeah bro, the Yashica SLR's are perfectly good cameras, as are their lenses. $20 is a good price.
With an appropriate adapter, which will probably cost you another $20, you can fit the lenses on everything except a Nikon.

>>2911681
>a6000 lowlight doesnt match up

But the a6000 has fantastic lowlight? As good at the x-t10 if not better.

You might be able to find an a7 ot a7ii body for under $1,000 if you lookhard enough.

>>2911738
> But the a6000 has fantastic lowlight?
Nah, it's just "okay" at most. Hits its limit in too many typical situations though.

You probably really want something like a A6300 or A7S (II) if you shoot low light.

That said, yea, it's not like you can fix this with a X-T10.

>>2911457
>first rx100 is like 300€ used in yurop, a bit too much..

Cannot believe it.

>>2911457

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Sony-Cyber-shot-DSC-RX100-II-20-2-MP-Digital-Camera-Black-/162181966809?hash=item25c2cc6bd9:g:yekAAOSwHoFXwOPl

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Sony-Cyber-shot-DSC-RX100-20-2-MP-Digital-Camera-Black-/122095382084?hash=item1c6d73ae44:g:YzwAAOSwHoFXuiHN

>>2911682
I know the a7s is $2000+ which is why I don't include it within my budget.

>>2911738
>As good at the x-t10 if not better.
Uh, have you looked at the artifacts at ISO 3200 and above? The a6000 is trash. The x-t10 gives usable pictures up to 12800.

Also, while I would like an a7, I'm a Canadian so it's pretty hard to find a body until $1000. Full frame would be nice.

>>2911739
Again, in Canada the a6300 is over $1000 ($1300, body only not offered) and the A7sII is like $4000.

I also need to account for lenses and both Sony and Fujifilm are pricey.

>>2911843
yeah, don't know why, usually eu prices are not too much higher than us but not for used cameras...
>>2911873
>bid
those prices are going higher, i'm talking about buy now prices
also shipping in eu from us costs a lot and it takes like a month, and if there's a problem you're fucked cause no buyers protection laws.

>>2911945
best i found is this
http://www.ebay.it/itm/Sony-Cyber-shot-RX100-20-2MP-Digital-Camera-Black-3-months-old-with-box-/142099404132?hash=item2115c8d564:g:8~YAAOSw65FXwZq0

Which external hard drive is reliable and good price/performance?

Since I starded shooting raw, my ssd in laptop is seriously lacking space.

Is taking pictures of scale models something I can decently do with a phone camera or a cheap compact? I mean it's just casual stuff but I want to be able to make out the small details.

Current phone is a Xperia M2 and it's going to be kill soon, so I don't know if I should look into the better camera phones for the next one or if I would be better off with a budget compact camera. It's worth mentioning that I know very little about camera stuff.

good deal? http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/NIKON-D90-avec-OBJECTIF-18-55mm-VR-OFFERT-FREE-LENS-/162182276344?hash=item25c2d124f8:g:41kAAOSwdzVXwVob

>>2911980

Get a fix lens camera that can zoom and has macro mode.

>>2911968
I would recommend something from G-Technology

>>2911660
they're all slow.
get a sony instead.

>>2911985
It's okay. But then, I have seen D90s going over the table for prices as low as 140€.

>>2911945
>those prices are going higher, i'm talking about buy now prices

Sorry, forgot that.

K fine.

>>2911906
> The x-t10 gives usable pictures up to 12800.

Not with portraits though. Fuji's processing makes skin look pretty terrible past 3200 (on the 16MP sensor at least), I'd prefer Bayer noise.

>>2912068
Stop typing things you read on the internet as though they have experience or authority behind them.
ty.

>>2912068
>16 pickles is bad
>Sony still makes 12 pickle camera
Fuji wins again

Need a SD card for first DSLR. How's this? http://i.maxcom.lv/image/cache/data/96778814/100005001001/179472-700x700.png 14 jewros

>>2911583
Actually you're very wrong. People complain about Canon's sensors because for years they were severely lacking in Dynamic Range. Only the newest models have started to overcome the problem, but aren't truly ISO-invariant.

Why does this matter? I shoot landscapes and portraits, and with Canon you simply don't get the shadow recovery you get on the Sony sensors. The shadows are therefore way noisier, muddier, etc. With a Sony sensor you can shoot high-contrast scenes without using a gradient filter.

A friend of mine uses both Nikon and Canon for wildlife and he concludes that for bird shots he has to shoot above ISO 1000 to match the DR of his Nikon at similar ISO levels. Further he has to compensate exposure a lot with his Canon to try and get the best balance of shadow detail and contrast.

With the Sony sensors it's a lot simpler. I can just set exposure to -1 and click away, and later pull up the shadow details to get brilliant images.

This is why many in the Canon community want the company to invest more into their sensor technology.

>>2912109
Probably fine.

The only thing that makes a difference is write speed.
....but that's also the one spec that's really hard to find.

File: maxresdefault.jpg (76KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 1280x720px

Just bought a 70d with the 18-135 is stm kit lens. Now I'm thinking about getting a Sigma 18-35mm F/1.8 to go along with it. Good call?

>>2912070
I've test shot Fuji for a while (not x-t10 though) and everything in dim artificial light turned out pretty awful. Maybe I was spoiled by the internet telling me it's gonna be nearly as clean as FF, but I was extremely disappointed.
Also, going back to a non-stabilized camera/lens after half a decade of Pentax was like driving a Lada. Not that I'd ever driven a Lada.

>>2912196
Sell the 18-135 stm for some good dough and get the 18-35mm Sigma. It's a beast of a lens.
If you can cough up some more money, get a nice used 70-200 f4 L for around ~$350-400. For the middle part, get the cheap new (but extremely good) Canon EF 50mm f1.8 stm.

>>2912200
That's what I'm planning on doing. I've been reading into the canon 50mm 1.8 and I've noticed a lot of people say that feels too plastic and too cheaply made. I might spend the extra $150 and get a used sigma 50mm 1.4 instead.

Thanks for the advice!

>>2911968
> Which external hard drive is reliable
None. Redundancy is how you get reliability.

It's what the whole industry does - RAID6, cloud replication, those two backup drives in the sysadmin's cupboard, whatever... it's all about redundancy.

The easy home solution that is owned by you would be a NAS with RAID1/5/6/10.

>>2912213
> feels too plastic and too cheaply made
Sounds like you'd prefer metal for meme reasons.

I'd recommend a Sigma Art 50mm f/1.4 for IQ reasons, but if you don't actually care that much about that, just go with the EF 50mm f/1.8.

File: 1461809839840.jpg (21KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 480x360px

>>2912238
>Sigma Art 50mm f/1.4
>Wanting quality for money.
>A meme.

>>2912213
>>2912238
It's literally a known thing that canon 50 1.8s front elements FALL OFF due to the low quality plastics and horrible build quality.

>>2911506
Nice. I'm debating on it or the X-T2 for an upgrade-addition. I already have the X-T1.

>>2912243
That applies to EF 50/1.8 mkII though.

EF 50/1.8 mkI and EF 50/1.8 STM are both fine (but the former is long out of production, and the latter is 2x the price)

>>2912259
Anon only said 50 1.8, and said that he read bad stuff about build quality online - so it's reasonable to deduce that he's talking about the mkII, or doesn't know the different versions which could result in buying an mkII unknowingly.

File: IMGP9995-2.jpg (789KB, 1000x665px) Image search: [Google]

789KB, 1000x665px

Best Pentax lenses for wildlife shooting? All I've really got is the HD 55-300mm, which was all I could afford while in uni. Now I've got a job and want a nicer, more capable wildlife lens. The DA* 300mm f4 looks nice, but I'd like something with more reach than a 300, but I don't quite have the stomach to drop 5k for something like the sigma 500mm f4.5. Looking at the 150-450mm, and some other stuff, but not too familiar with how they perform in terms of IQ, AF, etc. Recs?

[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	2016:05:25 15:37:46
Exposure Time	1/2000 sec
F-Number	f/8.0
Exposure Program	Not Defined
ISO Speed Rating	500
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

File: IMGP3430.jpg (119KB, 1000x665px) Image search: [Google]

119KB, 1000x665px

>>2912264
I only really shoot when I'm out hiking, so I can only ever manage to get maybe 30-10 meters away, maybe 5 for certain things, so I find myself needing to crop a lot. Also, how do you feel about TCs? I got a used tamron 1.4x but it cut my AF speed a bit, and wasn't too useful. Not to say the newer HD pentax TCs wouldn’t be better, especially paired with a nicer lens, I'm just kinda sceptical about them.

[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	99999999 dpi
Vertical Resolution	99999999 dpi
Image Created	2016:02:02 18:46:47
Exposure Time	1/500 sec
F-Number	f/5.8
Exposure Program	Shutter Priority
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/5.8
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
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

>>2912286
So do you think the DA* 300 f4 + HD 1.4x would be better than the DFA 150-450 f4.5-5.6
AF speed, portability, and IQ are the most important to me.

Not entirely gear related, but probably not also worth a new thread...
>Matte vs glossy finish
What would /p/ recommend for a bunch of 4x6 prints?

>>2912290
matte looks better under more kinds of light
glossy has more contrast but needs specific lighting to avoid reflections
lustre is a good equilibrium

Who has the best point-and-shoot in the game at the moment? I'll be going on a trip where a DSLR probably won't be a reasonable thing to take.

>>2912327
Sony rx(pick a number) or for waterproof go olympus tg-4

>>2911684
no they don't.
instax is not film.

>>2911980
oneplus 3.
it can shoot raw and 4k.

>>2912392
im talking about the film p&s natura or w/e it's called

>>2911681
The a6300 has amazing low light, was playing with my friends the other day

File: body only.jpg (308KB, 1487x817px) Image search: [Google]

308KB, 1487x817px

So I want to buy a d500, the are down to under $1600 on ebay.
What lens should I buy?
I want to spend less than $2000 on a lens, i'd prefer to spend under 1k. Should I get a 50-100 sigma 1.8? I want to shoot landscapes(I want to go hiking, get to the top and take a picture) on a tripod and have no interest in recapturing the cost of the camera/lens.

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

23KB, 300x300px

>>2912442
>spending $1.6k on a crop sensor body to shoot landscapes
>wanting only one lens for landscapes with a 80-160mm equivalent on crop

>>2912442
I'm with >>2912453

Why on earth are you buying a crop sensor body for landscape shooting? Seriously.

I love my d500 my I mainly shoot sport so the AF points and the 10fps are a dream for me. You don't need that.

>>2912442

>50-100 sigma art 1.8
>shooting landscape

this nigga.

>>2912458
> Why on earth are you buying a crop sensor body for landscape shooting? Seriously.
I'm fine with my A6000. A Samyang 12mm is wide enough, but I could get a 8mm too.

The other lenses obviously aren't really any problem either.

>>2912459
>>2912453
>>2912458
Because I don't know any better.

>>2912442
>>2912487
Buy yourself a Pentax K-1 with a couple Limited lenses and don't ever look back

>>2912488
na, I'm buying a d500, I'm just not sure on lens choice yet.

>>2912489
Fair enough, it's your money. Just don't expect us to help you after we've warned you on your dumb decisions.

>>2912491
I'm actually going out of my way to spend money, What should I buy instead of a d500?
I want to do some sport photography in the future.
The landscape stuff is the "today" stuff.
snap bridge is an actual selling point for me.

>>2912493
network transfer, not instagram or facebook etc.

>>2912489
Sigma 18-35mm f1.8
Sigma 50-100 f1.8
Tamron 70-200 f2.8 VC

Can't do anything wrong with that setup.

File: DSC_0862.jpg (444KB, 1000x664px) Image search: [Google]

444KB, 1000x664px

>>2912489
Tokina 12-24 or 12-28 f4


It's awesome. Cheap, incredibly solid, and sharp even wide open at 12mm. Get the older screwdriver version if you want faster AF at ultrawide who cares?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D300
Camera Software	Capture NX-D 1.4.1 W
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/4.0
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	1000
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	18 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2016:07:24 08:40:59
Exposure Time	1/40 sec
F-Number	f/5.6
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	800
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	12.00 mm
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	1000
Image Height	664
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

>>2912498
hey tony, do i actually want to buy that tarmon?` `P I'm trying to figure out the net cost

>>2912501
I'm looking at f1.8 options and blending to get an f4 shot.

>buyer contacts me about a camera I'm selling
>says she's a female student
>agree with worry about time and place
>at the spot worrying I'm gonna get shanked and raped by Dindus
>it's actually a cute harmless girl
>deal goes through with no issues

everythingwentbetterthanexpected.jpg

Maybe the world is still a nice place.

>>2912498
Not even trying to "LEL TONEY" this, That's really the best option for this camera right?

File: 1469764935831.jpg (144KB, 572x303px) Image search: [Google]

144KB, 572x303px

>>2912504
That's wack. Have fun with big fragile f1.8s and too-long focal lengths on your hikes, 50mm is fucking dicks on DX, especially if you want to shoot landscape.

You say you don't know any better but you're not listening to any of the advice anyone is giving you. If you don't know what it's good for you don't need something as niche as 50-100 1.8. It's primarily a portrait lens and one with a lot of limitations at that.

>>2912503
>>2912509
>Tony

Wait. Did Northrup actually recommend that very setup? I wasn't aware of that, kek.

>>2912509
>That's really the best option for this camera right?

It's just my humble suggestion, anon. The lenses mentioned seem to work really well on Nikon DSLRs.

>>2912262
you have a nice review on 150-450 pentax forums website
looks excellent

>>2912467
>not going a7rii w/ voigtlander 10mm

It seems like you don't want to throw away your money or something.

>>2912511
>50mm is fucking dicks on DX, especially if you want to shoot landscape.
This. Noobs hear "nifty fifty" then buy a crop camera for one and fail.

File: dsc00773.jpg (235KB, 800x659px) Image search: [Google]

235KB, 800x659px

Opinion on one of these?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	DSLR-A700
Camera Software	ACD Systems Digital Imaging
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.4
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	52 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2011:01:08 16:09:18
Exposure Time	1/60 sec
F-Number	f/16.0
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	800
Brightness	1/4 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	35.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	800
Image Height	659
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

>>2912550
Would buy if I could.

Also doubles as a weapon.

>>2911968
Except for the autistic comment you received here >>2912233 you must decide what you want. An ultraportable HDD or a bigger and better one.
Those you usually buy as "portable" are 2.5" ones, they just need an USB to be powered up. They're fine but I don't suggest saving picture in there cause you'll move them a lot and first fall they do you're fucked (personal experience).
Then there are 3.5" ones those you find in desktop PCs. There are also external ones but they require a power plug with the USB and they're too big and heavy to be considered portable.
But you'll probably end up keeping em on your table so they're safer.
Personally I use a NAS, with 60€ dlink offer a small and easy to use solution, combine it with an HDD and leave it in a closet with Ethernet connection and you're done, it's safe as fuck (even though if something happens you've no redundancy).
The safest HDDs on the market are probably 3.5" 5400rpm 2TB western digital, also quite cheap, don't buy more than that, 3tb especially cause they just die.

>>2912442
>Should I get a 50-100 sigma 1.8?

You should get the 18-35 f/1.8 first.
That is the one must-have for APS-C.

>>2912301
Any experience with the sigma 150-500 f5-6.3? I found one used in "excellent" condition, with the glass condition rated as "exceptional" for 560 USD. Really contemplating pulling the trigger.

File: s-l1600.jpg (57KB, 1600x1066px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 1600x1066px

Is the Tamron 28-105 F2.8 a terrible lens compared to Tamron 24-70 F2.8?

Both seem to be comparable in weight.

Don't know if this is the right thread to ask but anyways:

Any recommendations on a good printer to make some prints at home? Looking to print some B&W and color photos, in size of maybe up to A3 (don't mind if it's bigger than that as long as the printer isn't needlessly massive). Budget should be around 300-400$ if possible.

Thanks lads

File: IMGP5981.jpg (370KB, 1000x665px) Image search: [Google]

370KB, 1000x665px

>>2912589
bump
Anyone have experience with the 150-500 or the 50-500? Should I just get the DA* 300 F4 with HD 1.4 TC, or maybe the DA 150-450 f4.5-5.6?
I'd appreciate all the input I can get, considering I've never spent more than 250 USD on a lens before.

[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	99999999 dpi
Vertical Resolution	99999999 dpi
Image Created	2016:02:06 17:31:42
Exposure Time	1/500 sec
F-Number	f/8.0
Exposure Program	Not Defined
ISO Speed Rating	500
Lens Aperture	f/8.0
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

>>2912611
Check out the Tamron 150-600 as well. I heard someone say it has more reliable AF.

>>2912613
No Pentax K mount :(

>>2912614
>Pentax
Heh.

>>2912609
Use an online printing service.
Home printing just isn't worth it.

>>2912627
I'm not looking into making fine art prints for sale or anything, I just want to print my snapshits for myself

File: $_86.jpg (57KB, 1024x683px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 1024x683px

Does a 5D mark III (£1200) and 50mm 1.2 (£700) sound like a good find?

>>2912630
I assumed you want to at least hang your pictures on your wall.
What other point is there to printing?

>>2912631
Don't fall for the f/1.2 meme.
It's a terrible lens.

>>2912633
yeah I'd like to hang them on my wall, but they don't have to be that high quality

>>2912631

>>2912634
This.
Sigma 50/1.4 Art costs the same and is way better for everything except borkeh whoring. And for borkeh whoring, there's the 85/1.2.

>>2912631
That lens is incredible at f2
Very soft at f1.2
I would do it, then get a 24-105 f4 sigma and 70-200 f4 to complement it

Is the Smena 8m camera worth picking up? I'd like to do double exposures and not break the bank.

>>2912631
>>2912634
>>2912635
>>2912660

So I've found a 5D mark III for £1200, as you know... but I also have found a D810 for £1350 (could possibly try £1300 though)

Which would you be more tempted with?
With the D810, would a Sigma Art 50mm/24mm - 105mm pair nicely?

>>2912719
A D810 with a Sigma Art 50mm and 24-105 would be a gearfag's wet dream kit. Absolutely intense resolution across the board there.

>>2912727
T E M P T I N G
E
M
P
T
I
N
G

File: Astro Mountain.jpg (445KB, 850x850px) Image search: [Google]

445KB, 850x850px

>>2912730
Do you want to stop down to F8 and max out the possible resolving power of the whole 36mp full frame sensor and the fourty seven stops of dynamic range that comes with it? Do you want landscape photographers to get hard throbbing erections at the mere sight of your ART logo? Just by attaching the lens you'll immediately start taking beautiful photographs like this one without even leaving your yard.

>>2912745
pink stars a shit

Used D7000 for 300 or less euros, good deal?

>>2912719
I don't know why you're so eager to get a 50mm.
Its a boring focal length desu.

Photographers with style get the Tamron 15-30 f/2.8

looking to get heavily into photography since I live in a state with top tier nature to the point it pretty much funds the entire state and I love the trees and mountains around here.
I don't really want a specialized one but more of a general use camera with lots of utility, thinking around the 1000-1300$ price range for a dslr, probably a canon.
What I would like to know is if there are any real go to cameras in that range and anything general I should be aware off?

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

617KB, 1200x798px

>>2912611
I have the 50-500. It is big, heavy and not that versatile as your 55-300. Actually I am in the market for an HD 55-300 as a lightweight most time carry telezoom. That or waiting a few months and give up on some of the lightweight attributes and get a DA* 60-250.
Back to the Bigma, it has excellent IQ, great pseudo macro at 200mm (pic related) and effective OS though not as good as the in-body SR even at 400mm. Oh and it is useless to go beyond 400mm because the image gets soft(ish) after 300mm with 400mm retaining most of the sharpness but quickly degrades at 500mm.
Don't expect it to bring far away stuff closer, you need the subject as big as 3x3 AF points to track with confidence though when the tracking locks it tracks well. Did I mention it being big and heavy?
Also there is not much difference between 300mm and 400mm, the difference between 200mm and 300mm is much much greater. So only consider the Bigma if you want the big zoom versatility, otherwise you are better off with a 300mm prime, maybe with a 1.4x extender.
Also no weather sealing on the Bigma which should be considered if you are living in a temperate region near hills and forests

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	RICOH IMAGING COMPANY, LTD.
Camera Model	PENTAX K-3
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.6 (Windows)
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	300 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2016:08:02 21:51:45
Exposure Time	1/200 sec
F-Number	f/8.0
Exposure Program	Not Defined
ISO Speed Rating	200
Lens Aperture	f/8.0
Exposure Bias	-0.7 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	200.00 mm
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Close View

>>2912783
Olympus omdem1

WeatherPROOF, complete lens ecosystem, capable, affordable, sexy, and most importantly for weight conscious hikers such as yourself light as a feather. Look no further than Olympus, my friend.

File: IMGP4391.jpg (569KB, 665x1000px) Image search: [Google]

569KB, 665x1000px

>>2912796
>Also no weather sealing on the Bigma which should be considered if you are living in a temperate region near hills and forests
I just moved to Georgia for a job, and it rains like every fucking day. I love the portability of the 55-300, and it has pretty good IQ for such a cheap lens, but I want something with a little more reach, and faster, silent focusing.

[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	2016:08:06 16:09:46
Exposure Time	1/500 sec
F-Number	f/8.0
Exposure Program	Not Defined
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/8.0
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

File: zoom range.jpg (289KB, 1600x1328px) Image search: [Google]

289KB, 1600x1328px

>>2912809
Bigger reach is a myth, over 300mm you will need a lot more focal length and glass. Think 600mm is a good start.
The 150-450 suffers from the same problems as the Bigma, it being big and heavy although it has sealing.
I am still saying if you want a better dedicated wildlife lens, get the DA* 300 and put on a 1.4x TC though it won't be much bigger reach. Your 24 pickles and the sharpness of the lens will provide plenty of crop power.
See pic related to compare how much difference your money is spent on. (hint: not much)

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Google
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	1600
Image Height	1328

>>2912818
>>2912809
Ambush, are you ban evading?

>>2912819
Ambush has a Nikon system, Anons and mine are Pentax.

>>2912818
TCs can help autofocus by basically giving it something larger to focus on...it can also hurt it depending on lighting conditions by darkening the image.

It's a tradeoff. I do generally prefer being able to use one, but if I didn't generally actually need a TC, I don't know if I would recommend someone buy one.

>>2912826
A 1.4x TC on an f/4 lens makes it an f/5.6 which is still plenty fast at that focal length and on the DA* 300 the sharpness is so good the IQ degradation is minimal (assuming you use the HD DA 1.4x extender)
Focusing speed gets a bit slower but not as slow as the 55-300, but if you want BIF then you are best leave the TC in your bag.
Still not as cumbersome as the 50-500/150-500 or 150-450.

>>2912826
In my experience a TC always makes auto focus slower and less reliable.

mutual friend killed themselves and parents gave me a camera...I know nothing about anything other than it is a Canon Rebel T4i with two kit lenses, one of the lenses is pretty broken and it's autofocus doesn't work...the other lens is much larger. Anyways, is this an alright or shit camera? How much is it worth? Thanks in advance.

>>2912582
> it's safe as fuck (even though if something happens you've no redundancy).
Not safe as fuck. HDD fail. All the time. Yours will more likely than not fail in this decade... any time this decade.

> Don't buy X+1 terrabytes of data storage, only the good old drives up to X terrabytes were fine
Typical myth. Not backed in facts.

https://www.backblaze.com/blog/hard-drive-reliability-q3-2015/

> OMG 1.5TB drives have the highest aggregate rate of failure, time to panic!

>>2912609
Get a Canon model for which you can buy individual 3rd party ink tanks.

Quality wise, the print result on these is close to perfect.

>>2912826
I haven never in my life experienced faster AF with a TC attached.

File: IMGP8842.jpg (247KB, 1000x665px) Image search: [Google]

247KB, 1000x665px

>>2912829
How would the IQ degredation be if I paired the DA* 300 with a tamron 1.4x? I bought one used off ebay and didnt have great success paired with the 55-300, but I surprisingly got it to focus on this guy without even looking through the viewfinder. My keeper rate was way lower with it though.

[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	2016:02:27 16:24:29
Exposure Time	1/2000 sec
F-Number	f/8.0
Exposure Program	Not Defined
ISO Speed Rating	640
Lens Aperture	f/8.0
Exposure Bias	0.3 EV
Metering Mode	Spot
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	300.00 mm
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Distant View

>>2911906
>The x-t10 gives usable pictures up to 12800.
Post some 'usable' 12800 ISO X-T10 photos.

How much of a caution is it to get buy a camera with 20-30k shutter count? I'm looking to buy either 5D Mark II/70D/6D.

>>2912745
>disgusting, trash vignetting
Almost a good photo

>>2912992
not really, most projected shutter lives are in the range of a quarter million, with real life seeing them get to half million more often than not...even then replacing shutters is usually a pretty cheap job (like $200)

>>2912769
>>2913017
Oh no vignetting and CAs, terrible photo wrong gear qq at least my keyboard photos are sharp

>>2913020
The vignetting has clearly been added in post, you fucking cock goblin. And even if it was caused by the lens, there's no reason why their lazy ass couldn't take 2 seconds to fix it

>>2912951
>12800
I wouldn't even go thag high on my fullframe camera unless I had to.

I have it set to 3200 max.

>>2913034
Stop using a D700 m8

>>2912609
home printing is simply a scam.
They price the printer cheap but the ink is literally more expensive than solid gold.
One gallon of ink costs as much as 2,652 gallons of gasoline or 2,791 gallons of milk.
And the ink cartridges don't get used up all the way before they quit.
They waste ink every time you power on the printer ("for maintenance")
They waste ink regularly to "maintain the print head", some evaporates and some just disappears into a reservoir/diaper/spitoon.

Consumer report tested the espon xp800 (180 price, $110 annual ink cost which was $21 used for "maintenance")
Versus the Canon Pixma MX922 (160 printer price, $230 annual ink cost which was $150 intentionally wasted by canon for "maintenance")

As you see, canon can charge $20 less on the body then scam you out of $130 more every year to extra waste ink.

For just about everyone on the planet, print shops are the better value.
Due to ink-waste, the cost-per-page is mind-boggling if you only want to print a few things. Print shop rate is better.
And if you want to print a whole lot, bulk print shops will do it more cheaply.

>>2912488
my panties would drop so fast if I saw someone with a K-1. of course, I'm more likely to be struck by lightning than meet a pentax user

I got a job for a vacation rental company. They sent me a t5i with Magic Lantern on it. It actually is not a bad camera. Before, I was a huge camera snob. If it wasn't a 70D or better, meh. But this thing doesnt do too bad.

File: Cars - 1430868316110 Modified.jpg (829KB, 1100x732px) Image search: [Google]

829KB, 1100x732px

I have a question about what camera I should be looking at.

>background
I am traveling to another country soon. Filming a documentary. In the middle of it, I would like to film a film (indie style/budget) that loosely follows the path of our documentary. Whatever I don't get during the documentary I have a couple weeks to get afterwards. I want to be able to take great photography for the documentary including landscapes, low light/night shots, raining shots (just need a cover for equipment but figured I would point that out anyway), time lapses, and lots of automotive shots.

My ideal camera includes:
2K minimum capability at 60fps
1080 @ 120fps (or faster)
Great low light high ISO
On-board audio isn't necessary, but it would save me an adaptor purchase and extra weight/settings.
As light weight as possible due to hiking for documentary.

I've considered just going with a RED. I was checking out the Raven 4.5k and thought it did everything I needed it to do. I've never shot during the night with any RED, yet, and reviews suggest it is decent. + all the accessories is going to make it a bit pricey, but I'm going for quality and versatility here. + part of the production costs will cover my equipment purchase so it is like getting a 60% discount on the whole set up.

A cheaper option I've looked at was the D810. I've chosen this over the RED simply because the red doesn't do photos. It can still shoot 1080 at 60 fps and does great low light, landscapes, and time lapses. Not quite everything I wanted in a system but the camera is still a good one.

Suggestions? Opinions?

If you recommend me to get two different cameras, please recommend something.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	1100
Image Height	732
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	2015:05:05 20:17:47
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	1100
Image Height	732

>>2913099
For me, prosumer or better is all about the formfactor and basically not about the performance because until you get into at least the lower levels of the "pro" bodies, you don't really see much real performance increases over the entry level stuff...maybe some marginal increases in stuff like burst speed, but the rare times that's important to me, I have the right body for it.

What's really, really, really important to me is having two dials. Fuck in their gay asses the single dial consumer cameras. They just don't feel right and I've used them rarely enough that I almost always have to stop and think about what I'm doing which I hate.

>>2913106
>2 dials
Three dials or bust.

Current camera has 4. Personally I think an exposure dial isn't needed. But three for ISO, Shutter, and Aperture (for those lenses without it) are absolutely needed.

>>2913106
Agreed. The two dials I have on my 70D make for seamless shooting in manual mode. I dont have to take my eye away from the viewfinder. The t5i I have to pull away, hit buttons. Not ideal.

>>2913109
I'm good with aperture and shutter. I rarely shoot in light that changes enough to have to worry about ISO having its own.

>>2912925
I think the Tamron is one of the better TCs with Sigma is only compatible with Sigma lenses. Could work, if not then you can resort to crop until you get the Pentax TC.

>>2913124
Why do people even use teleconverters?

Don't you get the same effect by using simple macro extension rings?

>>2913105
A7S II.

>>2913134
Nope? TC essentially do the opposite of what extension rings do.

>>2913137
False. Extension rings are empty hollow tubes used to increase flange distance and reduce close focus distance, used exclusively for macro.
TC extenders have optics to magnify the center portion of the image circle while keeping the focus distances in tact. (meaning infinity focus can be achieved)

>>2910991
You might burn like 20$ on film before you figure those out. It's pretty simple.

File: 1.png (10KB, 367x711px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 367x711px

>>2913137
This is how I understood it.

People say TC are the opposite of Speedboosters.

>>2913140
I'm not sure if I even understand this explanation.

But a Macro Ring is the opposite of Speedbooster as well, right?
It's like, if I take a flashlight and move further away from the target, the flashlight's circumference spreads out even wider (which is what I tried to illustrate here with the yellow lines.)

Used D7000 for 300 or less euros, good deal?

>>2913143
Stupid questions thread >>2909817
also google

>>2913145
if it's in good condition, sure.

>>2913145
For that money you can buy a Pentax K-5II or even a K-3 used.
Unless you are invested into the Nikon lens system, then go for the D7000

>>2913150
Where can I get Pentax K-5II for that price?

>>2913155
ebay, pentaxforums etc...
here is one http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/24-photographic-equipment-sale/328624-sale-da-18-135-k5-ii-k-01-infrared-ir-converted-720nm-da-21-hd-da-1-4x-tc-fa-31-a.html

>>2913158
>http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/24-photographic-equipment-sale/328624-sale-da-18-135-k5-ii-k-01-infrared-ir-converted-720nm-da-21-hd-da-1-4x-tc-fa-31-a.html
That's like 70 EUR in import charges.

>>2913160
>euros
my condolences

>>2912846
By leaving an HDD inside a box, not moving it, powered on 24/7 with controlled temperature and attached to a UPS for all its lifetime you're reducing to next to zero the possibilities that an external event may damage it. Which is most of the cases of hard drives failure. By safe I meant that the statistic is with you, of course everything may happen, but then we should discuss philosophy.
Also I adviced 2TBs drives cause myths aside tests like those you posted (not opened it BTW) say that together with smaller ones like 1tb and 500gb are the safest, those 1.5tb ones are different and I remember reading it.
Going up is not a good idea anyway cause to increase the data density they just add more plates and this make mechanics more complicated which is never a good idea.
Of course redundancy is the only way to be sure but I answered a guy who til now is still keeping his cat's pictures on an SSD and you started talking about raid6, why not just suggest LTO tapes inside a panic room?
For now I have the solution I said (single drive in nas) cause I work a lot but I don't get back enough money to justify this kind of buy, I'm planning on doing a full backup of all my works on a series of bluray

>>2913164
If you power it 24/7 the bearing sleeves will wear out quickly and fuck up the HDD surface. Not a good idea.

>>2913165
Watch the tests. Most of hard drive failures isn't due to wear out but for motor failure, that usually happens at the start. The best lifespan is with the hard drive always on and temperature between 45/55°c.

For landscape photography, D810 or K1?
But assuming one doesn't want to be bound to landscape only all the time but wants to be able to shoot occasional events and portraits, which one?
I currently own a few Pentax lenses, mostly old manual ones, so I'm not that much invested into one system.

File: 1219819258813.jpg (45KB, 300x225px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 300x225px

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eo61t5fH6Qw

>>2913169
Depends if you want to spend a fortune on Nikon glass or half the fortune and more time hunting on the delicious Pentax FA Limited lenses.
Get the K-1.

>>2913172
Is Nikon glass really that much more expensive? A 31 limited isn't cheap either. I'm actually ok with Pentax, especially when it comes with a few features I look forward to (Pixel shift, astrotracer), but speaking of AF and lenses I'm not so sure. Since it's a lot of money here regardless, I'm trying to figure out the best choice without bias for Pentax.

>>2913173
Sports action AF isn't a concern of landscape photography, which is why K-1 isn't handicapped in this segment of photography.

>>2913173
For landscape you want the wide lenses, those are expensive from Nikon.
Regarding the AF on Pentax I can tell what is tack on and what gets frustrating some times on mine (K-3). Single focusing or AF-S is tack on and snappy on any focus point. No hunting even on cheap glass like the DA 35/2.4 plastic fantastic. On tele lenses AF-S is the same, tack on and snappy no matter if the lens is HSM/SDM or the old screwdrive AF mechanism.
AF-C or continuous focus gets frustrating when the subject is small and only covers a few points like 4 or less, generally the subject covering a 3x3 or 3x2 grid supplies enough data to get the tracking reliable. Also if the background is close it can get confused and snap over to the background, you have to set how much you want to hold the focus distance with distracting elements popping up in front. You have to choose the proper AF-C grid and method for a given scene type and that can get you frustrated. For example trying to shoot small birds in flight or very far away erratic moving stuff. For motorsports and other more predictable moving patterns the AF-C tracks well. But you have to keep in mind this is not a 1DX or D4, just a feature packed hobby camera.
When I finally realized to plan ahead and stop spray and pray shoot stuff my results jumped a lot in quality including proper focusing. With still subjects I never had a single shot get OOF.

With that said here are a few examples I found on PF:
http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/190-pentax-k-1/328219-pentax-k-1-continuous-sequences-subjects-moving-towards-photographer-af-c.html
http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/190-pentax-k-1/328166-pentax-k-1-does-motocross-mx-racing.html

>>2913164
> Which is most of the cases of hard drives failure
Nope. You think rackspace or google move their drives?

They fail.

> say that together with smaller ones like 1tb and 500gb are the safest
They don't, and especially not on a per-TB base.

> I work a lot but I don't get back enough money to justify this kind of buy
Sorry to hear that. For most people, it's not much money - certainly not if it keeps hundreds of hours worth of photos safe.

> I'm planning on doing a full backup of all my works on a series of bluray
That's also relatively safe if you store them in some way that avoids sunlight and physical damage.

The problem is more about using and updating the data, then. It's easier with online drives.

>>2913169
A7 II should do great.

File: 28031739394_3680868097.jpg (78KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 500x500px

>>2913183
Yeah, taking that piece to a humid rainy weathered location is a good idea
Pic related

>>2913186
No problem in general, though it's not a fully sealed camera.

Try not to drop acid and salt water into it or whatever bullshit happened in that picture.

>>2913187
It is a big problem since no other non-sealed camera gets corroded from simply putting your eye on the viewfinder. This is a properly fucked design failure.

>>2913187
>>2913189
Also guess what does your eyes contain? Yep, it's salty water, with some people it is also slightly acidic. Meme not intended.

>>2913189
> corroded from simply putting your eye on the viewfinder
What, you say it's exclusive to the A7 II (despite picture even being an A7R II)?

How did this pass your bullshit check? It is obviously absolute nonsense.

>>2913193
All the A7 line has the same design of the copper plate outside of the housing at the eyepiece.

File: x100s-front.jpg (215KB, 600x462px) Image search: [Google]

215KB, 600x462px

Hey guys, I have the opportunity to buy a used X100s for $600 AUD (about $450 USD). Should I get it?

I use a Canon 6D for my workhorse but absolutely tired of lugging it around when I travel so I want to buy a smaller camera for travel and social events.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	96 dpi
Vertical Resolution	96 dpi
Image Width	600
Image Height	462

File: image.jpg (90KB, 880x661px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 880x661px

So do I buy a Pentax k5-i for $600 and 50mm' lens for $~100 or do I buy a different meme camera??

I turned 18 today and got $351 combined. (Somebody gave me a dollar) but I have more money in my savings account I was gonna use.

I also decided to skip the GoPro because urban exploring was probably going to give me lung cancer from asbestos or ass cancer from the fuccbois.

Pls respond

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	880
Image Height	661
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>2913215
>K-5 and 50mm for $600
Nope. You should spens $300 max on a K-5/K-5II and $80 more on a 35/2.4
Search on PF for good deals.

File: image.jpg (291KB, 2304x1533px) Image search: [Google]

291KB, 2304x1533px

>>2913216
What is pf?

Google says pf change.

Where do I get these exorbitant deals?

All my peers are selling their shitty canons for retail price after they trash them.

>>2913220
pentaxforums.com

>>2913182
i'm 21 and started working with video mostly now. most of the time if i go out with my camera bag i come home with 30+ GBs, not 3gb of pictures.
also yes, there are hard drive failures but if we're talking about home/small pro usage then it's a totally different story.
i won't use online drives for a simple reason: sometimes it takes like 2/3 hours to move a session of datas in my lan and my internet upspeed is like 1.5mbps.

>>2913222
Thx

>>2913223
> if i go out with my camera bag i come home with 30+ GBs, not 3gb of pictures.
Yea, so get an 8TB drive.

> but if we're talking about home/small pro usage then it's a totally different story
Sure, then you just have a NAS with RAID1/5/6 rather than two mirorred one plus an off-site backup.

> i won't use online drives
Ah, I meant powered / reachable storage, which is also called online. As opposed to cold storage (unpowered HDD, blu-ray in a box...)

I guess "online" is kinda ambiguous with off-site storage-as-a-service though...

>>2913231
>I guess "online" is kinda ambiguous with off-site storage-as-a-service though...
That would be "cloud storage"

>all this talk of data backup
>no one mentions the golden rule

If your data does not exist in two geographically seperate locations, it might as well not exist.

it doesn't matter how may backup HDDs you have, if they are not in seperate locations all it takes is one flood, one earthquake, one power surge, or even one spilled chocolate milk and all your data is gone.

This is course, doesn't realy apply to most of /p/. Amateur photography really isn't important data that needs extensive backups.

>>2913234
>Amateur photography really isn't important data that needs extensive backups.
Yep, I just keep the RAWs on an external HDD and the processed images with /p/ posting format on my Lappy.

could someone recommend me a nice 35mm point and shoot camera i can have in my pocket all the time that doesn't have a retardedly inflated price like the mju2, gr1, canon af35ml or yashica t3/4/5?
greatly appreciated

>>2910677
Nikon D3300 or Nikon D5300?

is the better AF on D5300 really that much worth it?

>Fuck WiFi and GPS

>>2913245
If you want a better AF then go for a D7100 instead. The D5x00 is a useless intermediate model. If you want to stay on the budget then go with the D3300 or get a Pentax.

Hello /p/

My old Canon powershot g12 just died and I'm looking for a new camera. I'm going to miss having 5 dials on my camera (which really kills the need for a touchscreen) and I'm going to miss having a small/light camera with a long zoom range. I kinda want something with usable pictures at iso 6400 and something I can use for printing on posters. I'm also thinking about starting filmmaking. Right now, my budget allows for an eos m3 or a rebel t5i both with kit lenses. I'm not sure which one to get. Help me decide or give suggestions. Thanks /p/

>>2912718
The viewfinder is woefully inaccurate, so you won't be able to overlay exposures too precisely, but the lens is very decent. Don't pay more than $20 for one though.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXSqKX3OexQ

>worse than a6300
btfo

>>2913345

People expecting global shutter in a 4K dslr need to keep dreaming.

>>2913348
we just expect a brand new $3500 ff camera to be better than a two year old meme43 one that goes for a third of the price