Gear thread Be polite and punctual (Unoriginal pic)

Looking at used Pentax cameras and the k5-ii's seem to be going for about $300-400

How many shutters should I be looking at? I need to buy used because it's like 50% retail from what I've seen.

How much should I spend on a 50mm prime?

Eyeing a pentax 645.
Already own a rb67 but rarely use because no meter and literally a brick.

Pankeks y/n?

>>2915513
It'd be a good idea

>>2915507
the DA 50mm 1.8 is fantastic.

What MILC + lens would fit in a 700€ budget?

I really want to stop taking pictures with a fucking iPhone.

>>2915507
Do you want a 50mm (short telephoto) prime, or a 50mm-equivalent (normal) prime?

Either way, DA 50/1.8 and DA 35/2.4.
Avoid the 50/1.4, it's pretty soft. Probably avoid 55/1.4 too if you don't really need weather sealing or that extra half stop.

>>2915555
Check Amazon, B&H or Adorama? There's at least a dozen of them. More if you buy used.

Used 1200d with 18-55mm kit lense, 8gb sd card and random camera bag for 250€, worth it?

>>2915558
Now the question is, which of them is actually good value and not just an overpriced piece of junk?

>>2915561
It's mediocre in every respect. If that's your first camera, you'll probably want something different (with better controls? higher quality? more compact? more versatile?) very quickly, so maybe get an older cheaper model?

>>2915562
I don't think there are any lemons at all, just avoid dead systems (Samsung NX, Nikon 1). Read a couple reviews to be sure.

File: IMG_20160901_224204.jpg (2MB, 3500x2625px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3500x2625px

>>2915563
Would a used dslr for like 200 bucks even provide better Image quality than my phone? Or should I save for a 750d?
Pic related is a unedited shot from my Nexus 5x

>>2915569
It *can* provide better IQ. But you have to remember that a DSLR, especially an older one, won't have the automatic image optimization your phone has - you need to use it properly. I've seen people buy $1500 DSLRs, put them in auto mode and then be disappointed with the images.

>>2915563
t. geary mcgearfag

>>2915574
Of course, I only use Automatic White Balance, I set up everything else manually with an app. Thanks for the help, I think I'll save for the 750d.

>>2915507
Find the budget for the $80-100 DA 35/2.4
It is equally wonderful as the 50/1.8 but in APS-C normal focal length.

>>2915576
I shoot a cheap lolympus so I don't think I qualify as a gearfag.
But of a dozen or so people I know who bought cheapest Canikons, not a single one kept them. Some bought higher-end DSLRs, some went mirrorless, some went back to phones.

>>2915549
Fun fact: if you put a UV filter on the DA 50/1.8 it becomes an internal focus lens.

>>2915504
Are you saying I have to show up to this thread on time?

File: 35_nokton_vc.jpg (57KB, 589x392px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 589x392px

Tell me about the Voightlander nokton 35 f1.2 Aspherical II

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS5 Macintosh
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	6866
Image Height	6866
Compression Scheme	Uncompressed
Pixel Composition	Unknown
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2011:05:15 13:53:48
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	589
Image Height	392

File: billy_madison.jpg (202KB, 1401x788px) Image search: [Google]

202KB, 1401x788px

>>2915504
I don't feel tardy...

>>2915566
Samsung NX system + the best lenses they made would be cheeeeeeap

>>2915671
Why does it wear the hood?

Hey guys. I know fuck all about photography but wanted to get into it as my friends both just got Nikon D3300s and I feel like the odd one out. I see the D3300 recommended a lot and was wondering if it would be a good buy for a complete novice. I will mainly be shooting portraits and nature shots so any lens recommendations would be appreciated as well.

>>2915700

If i take it off will it flare?

>>2915555

You only really have three options.

Micro Four Thirds - Most lenses and bodies, but small sensors with poor low light performance (though they would blow your cellphone out if the water). Lots of choices at all kinds of price ranges, especially if you look at used/refurb. Not sure about what is current best, but to me Olympus seems the best bet (even though I have been fucked HARD by Olympus support numerous times).

Fuji X-mount - Limited lens choices (though their lineup is solid), and slowest autofocus of the three. Their bodies look AWESOME AS FUCK though. And almost every lens they have is awesome. They have APS-C sensors with great low-light performance. A little on the pricey side, but still affordable. X-T10 is probably most popular buy now.

Sony E-Mount - Fastest autofocus of APS-C Mirrorless (and the only company to make fullframe mirrorless), but their OS/Menus are terrible. They have improved quite a bit, but still not ideal. Lens lineup is around 100 lenses with prices from $150 to $3,000. Pretty solid too, though there seems to be a shortage of long lenses (300mm is the longest I have seen). Support for damaged devices is also questionable. Sony pumps out like two bodies a year, so older models can be had dirt cheap. Current best value is apparently a6000.

>>2915723

Get an older higher end model with two dials. If you shoot a lot, the limited controls of the D3300 will annoy you eventually.

A second hand D7100 is a good buy. Stick to a kit lens for at least a year, then consider buying a prime that fits whatever you shoot most.

>>2915723
> I see the D3300 recommended a lot and was wondering if it would be a good buy for a complete novice.
The D3300 is a cheap option at the entry-level of DSLR.

Since there is almost no learning curve, you *could* be getting a higher-end body if you cared about photography as well as just participating. You'd get the same benefits from a mid-range body as everyone else does.

> I will mainly be shooting portraits and nature shots
A fairly wide lens and something in the normal range might be interesting.

Maybe just get the 18-35mm Sigma Art and a nifty fifty if you choose Nikon. (That's not the cheapest option here, but a decent upper midrange one).

>>2915758
That's awful advice. I'd kill myself if I had to use a slow ass kit lenses for a year. It's so limiting.

>>2915765
If you think a perfectly sharp 18-55 with VR is limiting, maybe it's you who is limiting, not the camera.

>>2915758
> Stick to a kit lens for at least a year
That's almost the opposite from what I'd do.

I would suggest to get better lenses from the start, or at least immediately replace the kit lens when it feels like there is some issue with using that lens.

>>2915749
It will be a very low contrast photo

>>2915770
> perfectly sharp 18-55 with VR
Which one? They're all very far from perfectly sharp.

Never mind it's not at all strange to want the option to get a wider aperture and more, too.

Sticking around on the kit lens is maybe financially conservative, but not really a good option with regards to photography.

I'm choosing between an a6000 and a t5i. How does the video on the a6000 compare against a t5i with magic lantern? Which is better for stills?

>>2915777
A6000 is clearly the more powerful camera for stills. Its sensor is generally a lot better (DR, low light performance, ...), and has a significantly higher resolution. It can also shoot at a faster pace and should have more features.

I never tried the T5I with magic lantern, so I can't answer that part.

>>2915758
>Stick to a kit lens for at least a year
This is a fucktard to ignore.

Immediately get at least one fast lens (basic 50 F1.8 is adequate) so you can develop skills with
- small Depth-of-Field wide apertures
- with quick shutter photography thanks to fast lens
- night/indoors photography thanks to fast lens

A telephoto lens (like a 70-200 F4) is also something useful to have experience with, but that area can cost $500-2000 depending on lens choice, whereas the basic fast lens is sub-$100 making it the easy choice to start with.

Anyone saying use the kit lens alone for a year is a talentless retard trying to infect others with his/her sucky lack of talent.

>>2915779
another benefit of getting a nifty-fifty right away on day 1.

- teaches to give yourself extra room and crop a better composition in post, rather than standing wherever you happen to be and zooming in for composition where it's impossible to fix at all if you're zoomed in too far (as that hand/leg/hair that moved off-screen is irrecoverable)

Example from some other helpful anon
>>2915196
someone mocked-up with some brushes what the picture would have been with a better composition.
If too little of the scene is available in-camera because you framed with zoom, then there's no way to undo and choose a wider framing later.

>>2915776
>sharp
VR II is pretty sharp.
>muh wide aperture
Use a tripod for more light, or stand closer for more bokeh.

>>2915778
You can shoot raw video on the t5i with magic lantern. It's an advantage over the a6000 because you can get more details. I'm not so sure how it fairs in low light

>>2915793
> VR II is pretty sharp.
I am pretty sure it couldn't even give half the sensor's resolution.

> Use a tripod for more light
Long exposures for portraits? That works like every tenth shot or so with normal people, and even with a professional model that can stand still in an array of poses and not look derpy you're still wasting a ton of time.

Why would you do that to yourself except in an emergency...?

> stand closer for more bokeh
Not that bokeh is a must-have, but if you want nice bokeh, you'll obviously want another lens anyhow.

>>2915795
> I'm not so sure how it fairs in low light

> DxO Maximum Effective ISO Score (iso): 681 1,347
> DxO Sensor Score: 61 82
> DxO Color Depth Score (bits): 21.7 24.1
> DxO Dynamic Range Score (evs): 11.2 13.1

Better value is always the A6000.

>>2915797
Thanks, anon

>>2915795
Raw on T5i is limited to 720p24, so unless you need extreme color grading, it's not going to give better results than 1080p60 from Sony (and if compression is a problem, a6000 can work with an external recorder)

>>2915507
Get the 355 2.4. Better than the 50 for anything besides portraits and the 50 is too wide for portraits anyway. 10K shutter count isn't that bad.

Just bought a 6D, EF 50mm 1.4 USM, and a $150 carbon fiber tripod from aliexpress (yes I fell for the meme).

Did i do good?

>>2915852
>10K shutter count isn't that bad
Considering the shutter assy is is rated for 200,000 actuations, no it is not an issue. I don't think it will be an issue as long as you use the fuck out of it 10 years from now.

>>2915860
I don't have the bigger variant of the meme tripod.

But yea, you should be fine with that gear.

>>2915866
Since the price bump I assume that $150 is the smaller E302C.

>>2915867
Nah, that one is still ~$110, for example here:

http://www.aliexpress.com/item/muh_meme/32289219623.html

But search your own before you order.

>>2915773

its a small lens

>>2915868
I got a used manfrotto for $200 with two heads, ball and geared.

>>2915871
If it's one of somewhat recent Manfrotto geared heads, that sure sounds like a good deal.


Doesn't really make a carbon tripod with a nice combination of folded / expanded size, high load capacity at fairly low weight and good features overall a bad deal, though.

Plus I personally at least am getting off Manfrotto QR. [Had RC2 and Q5 before, but I'm done with that... Arca swiss compatible is better and cheaper].

>>2915879
>Arca swiss compatible is better and cheaper
Cheaper? Sure. Better? I wouldn't say so, at least YMMV. If you want an Arca swiss plate and head as reliable as the RC2 considering snug fit, no slip and ease of use (mount and unmount with a single swift motion) then you have to pay at least what Manfrotto costs. The cheap ones either have slow slip on heavier lenses and you have to turn a screw over and over to mount/unmount the plate, not to mention putting down the lens with the QR plate attached it doesn't have a flat surface due to those screw bumpers, if it has them. Also no D-ring on most arca-swiss plates.
I'd rather pay the small amount for the RC2 and RC4 plates then have to deal with the uneasiness of arca-swiss.

>>2915884
> I'd rather pay the small amount for the RC2 and RC4 plates then have to deal with the uneasiness of arca-swiss.
RC2 and RC4 are much less comfortable on setups of basically all sizes.

> If you want an Arca swiss plate and head as reliable as the RC2 considering snug fit, no slip and ease of use (mount and unmount with a single swift motion) then you have to pay at least what Manfrotto costs
The *only* requirement here that makes even just the Arca mounts as expensive as Manfrotto ones is when you want a latch-type rather than a screw-type mount.

Which is kinda stupid since unscrewing the plate typically takes only half a second anyhow, it's often actually slightly faster than on a Q5. Oh, and the fit is definitely more snug than on the typical latched RC2.

Even then the actual mounting plates and brackets for cameras, lenses, lights and so on are better and cheaper on arca.

> not to mention putting down the lens with the QR plate attached it doesn't have a flat surface due to those screw bumpers
Screw bumpers? Wat?

> Also no D-ring on most arca-swiss plates.
You can even get $3.5 ish plates with d-rings and the majority of them has 'em.

If you buy plates without D-rings, then you probably wanted them.

>>2915898
>RC4
Screw on, put on roughly on head, snaps into place. How is this not comfortable?
>RC2
Same as above. You either have weak girly hands or you're a retard. Probably both.
>screw bumpers
Two screws on the bottom of the arca-swiss QR plate that doesn't let the plate slide completely off without properly screwing out the fitting screw/latch. I'm really surprised you don't know about these and it only means you never actually bought a proper quality plate. You are not after easy/comfortable mount, you are after dirt cheap shit.

File: mp-20_1.png (663KB, 1181x582px) Image search: [Google]

663KB, 1181x582px

>>2915903
>Screw on, put on roughly on head, snaps into place. How is this not comfortable?
The plates and brackets are shit for starters.

Want to use a L-bracket? Too bad, the bottom and one side of your camera is probably no longer accessible. Enjoy screwing / unscrewing that bracket despite having a QR system.

Need a very big and a relatively small plate? Manfrotto puts you on multiple incompatible mounting brackets. And so on.

>Two screws on the bottom of the arca-swiss QR plate that doesn't let the plate slide completely off without properly screwing out the fitting screw/latch. I'm really surprised you don't know about these and it only means you never actually bought a proper quality plate.
I didn't get your description. Might partly have been because I assumed you'd be intelligent enough to remove those two optional screws if they bothered you on the plate you had.

If you still want a slide lock despite not having those screws, having a push-button pin in the clamp rather than the plate and so many other methods work fine.

You're the retard for not knowing the system but talking big, by the way.

>>2915911
I think we are arguing about gear for two separate specific uses.
I rarely mount the body on the tripod, mostly I mount the lens where the collar can be rotated. When I mount the body and need vertical then I just put the head into 90°. Verticals are not really important for me.
Mounting a 2-3kg lens plus the body swiftly and without the least amount of effort and noise are more of importance.

>>2915671
Great if you really need a soft low light lens.

Literally worthless if you can just use a 1.4 and get away with it/.

>>2915796
>I am pretty sure it couldn't even give half the sensor's resolution.
A 35 1.8 DX isn't going to give more than 2/3rds of a 24 MP sensor anyways. Nor did you need all that resolution.
>implying you print 20" prints

Also
>pixel peeping

>Long exposures for portraits?
If you're taking natural light portraits in low-light conditions, you're doing it wrong anyways. Go kill yourself or buy a lighting setup.

>Not that bokeh is a must-have, but if you want nice bokeh, you'll obviously want another lens anyhow.
Sure.

>>2915927
Aren't Nokton Lenses also Cine lenses/declicked?

>>2915974
>35mm f/2.4 lens
>paid $80
>mfw it has sub-pixel resolution on 24 pickles APS-C
>mfw I have no face

>>2915989
>buy pentax
>become delusional
>??????

>>2915997
inb4 dxo screenshot

CUNTS.

Payment declined on my D750. Now I have to wait until Tuesday. TUESDAY.

>>2916025
Serves you right for voting for Nigel.

>>2916032
Pardon me, friend?

I did nothing of the sort.

Did Sigma stop making their 50mm 1.4 ex lens for canon? I can only find used lenses on amazon and ebay.

>>2916034
Yes, because it was pretty embarrassingly bad in terms of AF and build quality and damaged sigmas image a lot.

>>2915997
>>2915989
Any standard length prime lens that isn't canon or Nikon can max out 24mp easily when stopped down. It must suck to be stuck in the 90's with your d3200 desu

>>2916034
You can buy a 50mm f/4.5 for $1100. Too bad it weighs 3kg.

>>2916037
I did read reviews where people were complaining about the AF. I guess I'll just go with the Canon 1.8 until I save up enough for the Sigma 1.4 art lens. Thanks f a m.

>>2916039
I guess Canikon just doesn't have lenses then. I wonder why people have been buying those cameras and lenses for the better part of three decades though.

>>2916043
get a used 1.4...the 1.8 is garbage homie.

>>2916045
I don't want to buy it used if it has prominent AF problems. Some unscrupulous fuck on ebay can just sell a shit lens. Feel me?

>>2916047
No, not the sigma, the canon ef 50mm 1.4...hell even new it's just 1/3 the price of the sigma art version, and you might find it's sharp enough for your needs and not end up having to spend all that much on a sigma.

>>2916048
Good call. I don't know why but I've done zero research into the canon 1.4.

>>2916049
Everyone knee-jerks the 1.8 because of the $110 price level. Problem is, you just get $110 worth of lens. I mean, don't get me wrong, it's an amazing performer at that price point, but it's also got garbage build quality and perhaps the worst focus ring of any modern lens ever (it's the same kind that they use on shit like their pancakes). You only really get one if you have no intention of shooting 50mm frequently and can't possibly think that spending $300 for a much better lens isn't an option for some reason, or you need a 50mm that you couldn't possibly care less about if you destroy it, or you've broken your lenses and need something cheap to shoot with right now.

>>2916050
>you just get $110 worth of lens

why pay $110 when you can get the exact same garbage for $50?

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1111454-REG/yongnuo_yn50mm_50mm_ef_for_1_8.html

>>2915974
>A 35 1.8 DX isn't going to give more than 2/3rds of a 24 MP sensor anyways
If you go from under half to 2/3rds, you doubled your usable picture and halved garbage data.

> Nor did you need all that resolution.
Yes yes, nobody ever needs anything better. Same as four or twelve years ago.

> If you're taking natural light portraits in low-light conditions, you're doing it wrong anyways.
Ironically, you are the one that suggested a tripod to compensate for a shitty lens.

>>2916054
Good point. I wasn't even aware those existed.

So yeah anon, don't get the Canon 50mm 1.8

If you want cheap and plastic, actually get cheap.

>>2916054
>>2916060
Oh wait, turns out Yongnuo is a BETTER lens
>Rubberized focus ring (although still non-dampened and awful)
>Smooth 7-blade aperture like in 50/1.8 STM

>>2916062
I can't disagree
http://petapixel.com/2014/12/27/comparing-optics-40-yongnuo-50mm-f1-8-125-canon-50mm-f1-8-ii/

>>2916065
>>2916062
hrm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_kVliB8TW4

>>2916044
Because marketing and business are unrelated to photographic performance. Canikon high end stuff is pretty good, the low end stuff (what someone discussing 35mm Dx lenses can afford) is usually way way worse than any of it's competition. Unless it's Sony zooms. Seriously what the fuck were you thinking Sony
>>2916055
Get the 35 1.8 if you want it. It doesn't sound like the other guy has ever had a fast prime - you should expect a huge jump in resolution (lmao nikon), but also an decrease in noise due to a lower available iso. I still recommend a tripod for MAXIMUM IMAGE QUALITY but in the real world you can't bring a tripod into every situation so a fast prime is incredibly useful. It sucks balls that your Nikon won't offer any kind of stabilization because your usefulness in low light and iso setting would both be better for it, but a 35mm will be a step better from what you already have in those situations.
>>2915980
No. The new nokton lenses for micro four thirds have a selectable clicker-bit, but the older full frame ones most likely don't.

>>2915504
Adapters to Sony E for m39 and m42 rangefinder lenses?

What's a good free photo editing app for android?
I'm talking about basic tools, fast editing and simple stuff like rotation.
None of that Instagram filter bullshit.
Think more like Paint or Gimp rather than Lightroom or Photoshop.

>>2916062
Why do people like rubber focus rings so much? I never developed a preference

>>2916066
They mention poor focus accuracy, but isn't that correctable on newer canon bodies with AF adjustment?

>>2916077
For me it doesn't really matter if it's rubberized or not, it's the shape and the positioning. On the canon 50mm 1.8, it's a thin, knurled crown that just pokes out of the front of the lens. It's really terrible to use. On their 50mm 1.4, you actually have a ring that's around the barrel that you have enough room to grab hold of and turn.

>>2916078
Yeah, it should be adjustable with microadjustments if the camera supports it.

>>2916077
I have no preference for that either, it's just that the all-plastic focus ring on EF 50/1.8 II is particularly terrible.

D5200 with a kit lens + Sigma 70-300 DG. Is it a good choice for an amateur?

>>2915752
Thanks, that narrows it down a lot!

Guess I'll drag my carcass to a camera store and see which feels the best.

Also, an acquaintance recommended the Canon Eos M3. By my experience with his advice and taste that means it's most likely a terrible choice... or am I wrong?

>>2916127
I would get the D7000, D7100 or D7200 instead.

They have front dial.
Top LCD.
Body focus motor.
Can use the apperture ring of older lenses.
More buttons than you ever needed.
Can use grip without crap cable passing outside the camera.
More advanced controls.

They feel on your hands like a real camera and not like some toy.

>>2916131
The original EOS M is actually an awesome budget choice, and all of the EF-M lenses are exceptional...but it's just a budget choice.

Basically, in that space, I second the other anon's recs.

>>2916131
The EOS M is a half-decent one-off mirrorless camera with a rebel sensor, if that's your thing. It's not a system to buy into and build off of because of extremely limited lens selection, and the fact that it's been in a constant state of dead or dying since its' introduction.

>>2915752
Sony E-Mount - Fastest Autofocus
Word of warning to anyone interested in Sony - Only their newest A6300 can claim this. Every other mirrorless Sony body is outshone in AF by Olympus' standard CAF in every body since the EM5, and completely trashed by Panasonic's DFD focusing system in a handful of their newer bodies like the G7.

>>2916140

That is all m43 stuff though.

What about other APS-C mirrorless? Anything come close?

How are the mount adapters with autofocus for Sony A7? Did they improve or is the AF still slow and crap?

Looking at Pentax KS2 because I can afford it and I want to break into Pentax hardware. Suggestions?

>>2916134
>>2916139
Speaking of lenses, am I better off buying a more advanced camera with a cheap kit lens (or lenses) included, or would a cheaper/older camera with a better (non-kit) lens be a better choice?

>>2916147
If youre talking Canon/Nikon, cheaper camera with better lenses. If youre talking pentax/sony Better body and lower quality lenses.

>>2916143

A7 is pretty slow outside of bright light.

A7II. A7RII, and a6300 are pretty close to a native e-mount lens now with the proper adapter.

>>2916062
Too bad it doesn't work with pretty much any EOS film camera.

>>2916142
>>2916140
>Olympus
>C-AF
Maybe on the EM1, but the CDAF system is ass for tracking on all the other bodies. It's fast, lightning fast, but it's not going to give you a good hit rate under release priority. Focus priority C-AF can do the job, but it's still not going to be as intuitive as a PDAF system.

>DFD
Better than plain CDAF, but still not perfect for the discerning sports shooter.

>XE2/T10/T1
PDAF limited to a pretty central region. Capable enough at tracking, although remember to switch the S-AF for stationary targets because C-AF continuously wobbles the focus. CDAF pretty good, but not quite as lightning fast as m43. Falls apart in low light with slow lenses (16-50, 50-230), but is still manageable with the faster lenses (f2.8 or faster)

>Xpro2/XT2
I've not had a chance to use these yet.

>a6000
If we're just going to talk about AF, it's hard to beat it for the price.

>a6300
Viewfinder much improved, AF system seems to be more intelligent as well.

>a7ii
AF system feels roughly on par with the a6000 in use in terms of speed and intelligence. Sony's subject tracking isn't all that great, i've noticed. Their eye AF is the best on the market though.

How come Pentax users get bootyblasted as soon as anybody even dares suggest their system isn't the be all and end all?

>>2916167
>DFD Better than plain CDAF, but still not perfect for the discerning sports shooter.
>A6000 If we're just going to talk about AF, it's hard to beat it for the price.

It's been documented in depth and there are many videos on youtube that demonstrate that the DFD focusing system absolutely destroys the A6000 in subject tracking for sports.

>This anon has never used any of these cameras

Has anybody tried putting a Fuji EF-X20 flash on one of the Bessa rangefinders? I'm trying to figure out if it can clear the frameline selector on the top plate.

>>2915504
I got a Vello OCS-C3 TTL cord to use with my X-T1 and Nissin i40. I get the little flash lightning bold icon in the upper left of the display, but it won't fire in manual nor TTL. It fires with my Nikon cord in manual, however. Any ideas?

Anyone have a suggestion for a cell phone tripod mount for a Lumia 950XL? Anything but those god damned springy ones on every cheap selfie-stick. Complicating factors: 950XL is very wide, and has buttons on the side so the mount has to be pretty narrow or have a space between the contact points for the buttons to sit in.

>>2916177
Panasonic also has an actual visual tracking mode similar to After Effects motion tracking. I've found it to work pretty well for sports.

>>2915504
Should I buy a 40d now and shoot with a kit lens and buy $500 of glass in the future (17-50 f2.8 sigma + maybe a prime)

Or should I use $600 to buy a 7d classic and maybe use a cheap prime? Or a 5d classic. Will the 5DII drop below 750 soon?

Thinking about putting a Canon powershot sx530 hs on layaway as a starter camera. Can anyone give me some non biased opinions on it?

>>2916140
> Every other mirrorless Sony body is outshone in AF by Olympus' standard CAF in every body since the EM5
No. Just no.

The EM5 is just slower than the A6000 and just about all the other bodies.

> completely trashed by Panasonic's DFD focusing system in a handful of their newer bodies like the G7
I think that you're doing something "clever" and ignore that the Sony cameras (except the low light specialists A7S / A7S II) have PDAF for their fast AF system, not just CDAF.

If you compared Panasonic's DFD to Sony's CDAF only, then yes, the Panasonics would be a decent bit faster.

>>2916233
Basically like an average smartphone camera, but with zoom. It is pretty shit.

Start with a mid-range IL camera if you can.

I decided on getting a Fuji X-T10

Now which color is superior? Black or Silver

>>2916265
Silver. Black is not so obviously Fuji. It is a fashion lifestyle camera, so you should show everyone.

>>2916259
What is an IL camera?

>>2916285
Interchangeable lens. MILC or DSLR.

>>2916246
C-AF in the newest Pen F was absolutely trashed in every review I've read.

I don't understand why lolympus can't put PDAF in all of their cameras, they've had the tech in E-M1 for years.

>>2916288
> C-AF in the newest Pen F was absolutely trashed in every review I've read.
Quite possible. I certainly don't have a good overview over CDAF systems on all cameras.

Sony's CDAF speed isn't actually bad. I merely know that some cameras have faster CDAF.

The main point should still be that only comparing CDAF is stupid. The Sony E-mounts have PDAF for fast autofocus.

Even the A6000 has faster AF than both cameras mentioned by the other anon (G7 and EM5) when using PDAF,

> I don't understand why lolympus can't put PDAF in all of their cameras, they've had the tech in E-M1 for years.
Probably to up-market people into higher tiers of their camera system, same as (almost) everyone else?

At least they're not as aggressive about it as Canon/Nikon are.

>http://www.mirrorlessrumors.com/new-fuji-medium-format-system-camera-will-announced-september-19-comes-three-lenses/

>x-mount has no lenses
>HEY GUYS LETS START A NEW MOUNT!

>>2916131
>Also, an acquaintance recommended the Canon Eos M3. By my experience with his advice and taste that means it's most likely a terrible choice... or am I wrong?

It is an....okay choice.

They are dirt cheap, but the mount is dead. Rumor has it Canon is announcing a new body this month, but they really haven't been outting out lens for it or anything.

People here "Canon" and think it has to be good. It isn't bad, it just has no support.

You'd be better off with a Sony or Fuji.

>>2916293
Do not mix up C-AF and CDAF.

Single AF on Sony, Olympus and Panasonic, has been lightning fast for a while, comparing it is basically splitting hairs. (I'm not even sure Sony uses phase detection in S-AF mode unless fitted with LA-EA1).
It's C-AF and everything related that's usually the problem, any camera lacking PDAF will occasionally hunt and lose the subject. From what I've seen, Panasonic's DFD is not entirely a replacement, it works very well for slow subject tracking in video mode, but not entirely sufficient for, say, sports.

>>2916296
>x-mount has no lenses
Uh, what? There are like thirty of them.

>The new Fuji camera specs:
>– 50 Megapixel Sony sensor
>– Shipment in 2017
>– DSLR form factor
>– Will be launched with two prime lenses and one zoom

>DSLR form factor
fucking dropped

>>2916302
Well, you can put any Canon DSLR lens on EOS M with an adapter, and it will work with autofocus, IS and everything else.

Problem is, now you can do that on Sony as well, so the only good thing about EOS M is that really good and cheap wide angle zoom.

>>2916305
> Do not mix up C-AF and CDAF.
I just simplify it to CDAF and PDAF, because we were discussing AF systems.

Comparing AF systems based on what is on the settings labels is just more confusing.

> I'm not even sure Sony uses phase detection in S-AF mode
It doesn't. It is how you force CDAF only.

>>2916296
>DSLR form factor

What does this mean? ```DSLR''' styling like the XT or it'll actually have a fucking mirror. Not sure why they'd wanna go mirror route.

>>2916316
>Comparing AF systems based on what is on the settings labels is just more confusing.

There's no other way since the performance can be so drastically different. An entry level Canikon DSLR will occasionally huff and puff in single AF mode, but will track a rally car with a reasonable hit rate. A Pen F will focus anywhere in the frame with blazing speed and pinpoint precision in single mode, but set it to C-AF and it'll hunt incessantly even if you're trying to shoot a geriatric man walking.

>>2916326
I compare by CDAF and PDAF, assuming the best suitable settings for the situation. Very simple.

>>2915504
Good, cheap c mount lenses??

>>2916330
And what does that tell you? I'd take a modern Panasonic with DFD over EOS M2 in any situation, even though the latter has PDAF and the former does not.

>>2916322

Ugly black textured plastic with rounded edges.

>>2916338

>wants black textured plastic with sharp edges

File: Z-sony-a3000-back.jpg (130KB, 1024x763px) Image search: [Google]

130KB, 1024x763px

>>2916322
>dslr styling
>mfw it will look like the ugliest camera made in recent years, the a3000

Why not stick with the awesome rangefinder stylingthe x-mount cameras have. They may not be the best mirrorless on the market, but they look damn cool.

>all these acronyms
>no idea wtf is going on

>>2916358
How are you on /p/ if you don't know what single AF and continuous AF are?

As for the other bullshit, just google it.

>>2916358

>not knowing PDAF L DC USM G VR VC HSM DG BG MB GB ASPH SMC KEK

>>2916336
You'd obviously compare how they perform, not whether they exist.

> I'd take a modern Panasonic with DFD over EOS M2 in any situation, even though the latter has PDAF and the former does not.
... exactly like that.

And I'd take a Sony's (A6000 or better) PDAF over the Panasonic DFD in pretty much all situations.

>>2916358
Here's a small sampling of common acronyms, abbreviations and initialisms:
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=261117

Did anyone here get the 105mm 1.4g?

>>2916358
I have a Sigma 120-300 APO DG HSM EX OS

I have no idea what's going on either.

>>2916414
I have no idea what I could do with one besides gratuitous borkeh whoring.

>>2916424
APO = Apospherical glass elements
DG = Diamond glass elements
HSM = High strength mount
EX = Exposure calibrated
OS = Original Sigma design

>>2916414
Is it even available yet?

Have the possibility of buying Canon 5D Mark 3 for a fair price (around 1500) + including lense. I don't consider my self professional at all though (prosumer I guess) and don't know if anything I do is good, but photography has been my favourite hobby for years now, and since my old camera doesn't work properly anymore I'm ready to go for something new and thought of investing. Should I?

5DM3 vs. 7DM2 vs. 5DS vs. 5DS R vs. 80D?

>>2916453
apples vs oranges vs gmo apples vs peeled gmo apples vs tangerines

Whats a good breakout camera that isnt too expensive if I wanted to break into Pentax. I'm thinking about getting a KS2.

How will cameras released in 2014-2016 manage 10 years from now? It's all so advanced and the megapixel amount is starting to out-perform the lenses attached to the camera. Cameras from 2005 are obviously outdated in a lot of ways but I can't see how current cameras can become obsolete.

is a Nikon D3 still worth buying over a newer entry fx body like the d610? I love the looks, weight, general pro build quality, but does 8 year old IQ stand up to what's out there today?

>>2916483
If 12 MP is enough for you and you don't shoot in-camera JPEG, then the IQ holds up pretty well. It won't let you pull highlights from raw as much as the newer sensors, but that's about it.

>I love the looks, weight, general pro build quality
Unless you're an actual professional doing time-critical assignments, you don't really need that weight, and the novelty of having a pro camera will wear thin very quickly. Why not get a D700 instead?

>>2916358
And the best part is the different manufacturers use different abbreviations from each other for the same damn thing!

>>2916478
> How will cameras released in 2014-2016 manage 10 years from now?
I am pretty sure they're thoroughly obsolete by then. From data connection over storage to sensor and image quality.

> It's all so advanced and the megapixel amount is starting to out-perform the lenses attached to the camera.
Aren't we seeing a dash from lens manufacturers to keep up with that right now?

Zeiss, Sony, Sigma have delivered suitable lenses, with more coming.

Canon and Nikon are getting some lenses out too.

And so on...

>>2916428
Sounds fine to me. Go for it?

>>2916490
never shot in camera jpeg before, don't intend to start now.
>Unless you're an actual professional
kinda. photography earns me money, it's not my sole income (though im hoping to move more towards that), but i have clients who pay me to deliver images on a regular basis. it would see some use commercially, i just cant quite justify a D3x and up right now

>>2916494
How does it feel to not know the first thing about what you're talking about?

>>2916478
I see several ways in which modern cameras can still be improved:
- electronic global shutter - silent, no more jellocam, no more shutter shock, flash sync at any speed.
- better high ISO - while we've come a long way since the first rabals, even FF is not always sufficient to shoot in artificial light with a zoom lens.
- better electronic viewfinders and screens - we have had QHD screens on phones for years now, but EVFs and camera screens are stuck at less than half of that resolution.
- "primes don't need IS" is a meme that needs to die

There are also several potentially disruptive technologies like curved sensors and thin metamaterial lenses, but I doubt anything will come out of that in 10 years time.

>>2916483
>>2916507
in addition to that other sensor stuff, the disadvantage of a 12MP (max) body comes when you crop.
It's not uncommon for many people to take a picture and find it works better by cropping away half the excess corners, or cutting two sides off and making it a vertical or horizontal framing, etc.
If you're looking at the middle half of a 12MP image, suddenly it's 6MP at very best and you're wondering why you're carrying such heavy gear around for such a mediocre end result.

If you are the god-of-perfect-compositions then you'll move your feet more and do less post-production compositions, then the 12MP would probably be adequate.
If you're an ordinary photographer, having 20-24 MP will give a ton of breathing room to crop in PP with plenty of res.

>>2916513
iso improvement is just the standard trend and common sense, people just like less noise.

as for #1 and #3
>just shoot off sensor live-view and using an electronic viewfinder rather than a prism

Every second you look at either of those is draining the battery. That is the main reason that's not an "improvement" but only a side-grade.
Casual photographers don't want to be carrying several bulky batteries when a pro camera is fat enough already.

Professional photographers want a low drain body so they can produce a lot of work and over a long period of time. And pros have enough accessories that amateurs don't bring with them (like strobe equipment, gels, etc.) that they also don't want a battery-inefficient body filling their bag with a dozen batteries.

>>2916517
A good 6 MP image is enough for anything smaller than a magazine spread, though, so it's not like it becomes unusable.

>>2916526
#1 has nothing to do with live view. It's a replacement for the mechanical focal plane shutter that eliminates most of the problems caused by it.

As for live view, there is obviously progress to be made in terms of energy consumption. Who wouldn't want a camera with a full-day battery life, but also without the weight and drawbacks of the prism viewfinder?

>>2916535
Trading prism weight for a heavier battery, you wouldn't make the body lighter in the slightest.

And any possible advancement in battery performance will also apply to the battery used in the optical viewfinder DSLR.

>>2916535
I don't think you understand what you're talking about.

>>2916538
>Trading prism weight for a heavier battery, you wouldn't make the body lighter in the slightest.
No, but you'll get the advantage of seeing exactly what you get in the finder, and useful overlays like highlight clipping warning. And there are tricks like negative shutter delay that can only be done with a live view camera.

>any possible advancement in battery performance will also apply to the battery used in the optical viewfinder DSLR.
I was talking about decreasing energy consumption, not increasing battery capacity. Make your sensor, processor and EVF eat half as much power, and you've doubled your battery life on the exact same battery.

As for DSLR battery life, it's already so good that people barely care - a midrange DSLR will do 1000+ shots and a pro one will do 3000+ on a single battery, enough for a full day of shooting in most cases.

>>2916553
>I know guys, let's just make the things that use up electricity use less electricity! Why doesn't anyone listen to me? I'm so clever

Please get a trip, you are an absolute fucking retard "idea guy"

>>2916513
>>2916526
Anon clearly is saying that the technologies can be improved from their current state. Currently silent electronic shutter is incredible at rendering the maximum amount of detail from an image. Even Hassleblad is using it now. But a side-effect of this mode is that if you shake the camera during the exposure, you'll get a jelly distortion. This is fixable in the near future - and you can bet your shit that professionals will use this when suddenly every camera except Canon and Nikon have flash sync up to 1/4000th with all their existing lenses with a free boost in the smallest details and no downside except for battery drain. But as it happens, batteries are improving all the time. And with cameras with triple battery grips and fast accessible charging methods, it will become more popular very quickly. Current technology sees mirrors and full-size phase AF sensors becoming obsolete for all but pro sports in the next decade, easily.

>>2916538
>And any possible advancement in battery performance will also apply to the battery used in the optical viewfinder DSLR.
This isn't how power management works. Please learn the basics of electronics before trying to discuss them like you have the first clue what you're talking about. Battery life is 80% the camera, and 20% the battery. Notice how through the life of mirrorless cameras, mAh count has gone down if anything on average, while shots per battery has gone up dramatically. This is a trend which will continue unimpeded as we move to lower and lower power draw components. They already exist, just aren't ready for the consumer mass production market.

>>2916556
> let's just make the things that use up electricity use less electricity!

That's how electronic development worked for the last 60 or so years.
It's not an "idea", it's just an answer to >>2916478's question about how current cameras can become obsolete.

>>2916559
The progress is actually even more evident with DSLRs, as they started at a much less mature tech level. Early Kodak DCS cameras could take just a few dozen shots with a massive battery.
However, both DSLRs and mirrorless cameras have hard limits on how low power consumption can drop even with impossibly efficient electronics - the former due to the mirror mechanics, the latter due to EVF/screen luminance. We seem to be far from this limit in case of mirrorless cameras though.

What kind of photography is the d750 good for?

>>2916558
>no downside except for battery drain

Who said that an electronic shutter must consume more power than a motor/magnet driving a mechanical one? Well, unless you cock the latter manually a la R-D1.

>>2916567
It's one of the most versatile cameras on the market. It's not very good for candid street shots or making wall-sized prints, but pretty much anything else it'll do.

>>2916571
What makes it more poor at candid street photos?

>>2916572
It's pretty big and pretty loud. You're better off getting something like a Ricoh GRD or a small mirrorless camera for that purpose.

>>2916573
Thanks /p/al

>>2916567
Versatile, same as the pendants of other brands (Sony, Canon, ... have something similar).

Has good AF and good sensor, no particular gimping in software, good performance overall.

Capabilities largely just depend on the lens you stick on it.

>>2916508
Great argument.

But the cameras will really probably just be obsolete as fuck.

And we do currently have lenses that can reasonably keep up with current sensors.

>>2916576
Well I have the AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm 1:2.8G ED. Is that good?

>>2916580
Don't have the lens, but from reviews, I think it's a decent walkaround zoom lens.

Probably just get some good primes if you need more, eh.

>>2916581
like the 50mm?

>>2916578
I'm curious, do you actually even know what "obsolete" means?

It doesn't matter if something comes out with massively more performance, because even midlevel cameras outperform the vast majority (like, upper 90% of users) needs.

Assuming that one were still functional in 50 years, something like a D750 will still be a perfectly viable body. If you try to make some argument re:mps, then well, you really need to learn about perceptive limitations and ask yourself if you really believe the majority of image use cases will call for greater than even 6mp images (they won't).

>>2916582
I'd suggest a Sigma Art 50mm, but sure.

>>2916582
Just shoot with the lens you have so far, and you'll get a feeling of what's limiting you. Maybe you'll want something longer, or maybe something to shoot in the dark, or maybe a macro, etc. Do not buy lenses that you have no clear purpose of (unless it's some rarity that just serves as a money investment)

>>2916580
It's shit, I can't believe professional photographers have been using it for over a decade as their workhorse do it all lens.

>>2916595
>professional photographers have been using it for over a decade

It's only 9 years old m8

t.gearfag

>>2916583
Do you know what obsolete means?

It doesn't mean retro hipsters can't use it anymore. It means that devices of with those parameters fell out of common use.

In 10 years, people will want a camera that communicates with their new WLAN access point and mobile networks, supports their 80 TB SSD storage, and probably run the photo apps that they want, or at least have a workflow integrated with their new computers and smartphones or whatever.

And of course better sensors and everything that is already currently an advantage vs 10 year old devices.

> even midlevel cameras outperform the vast majority (like, upper 90% of users) needs
It most definitely won't be a current midlevel camera in 10 years.

Plebs who don't care won't be using a 10 year old DSLR. They'll be using their smartphone or clothes-embedded computer or whatever the fuck they use then.

And hobbyists and professionals will want current technology.

> Assuming that one were still functional in 50 years, something like a D750 will still be a perfectly viable body
Not a chance.

> and ask yourself if you really believe the majority of image use cases will call for greater than even 6mp images (they won't).
Even further down the line, in 50 years? Yep, they won't accept that. Maybe they'll even demand 3D scene recordings taken by drone swarms. Who knows.

>>2916596
Oh. Feels like it's been longer. Alas.

>>2916597
I feel like the progress in digital cameras is slowing down somewhat. 6-year-old cameras are still alright in 2016, so maybe 10-year-old ones in 2016 will still remain on the lower boundary of acceptable.

>80 TB SSD storage
For stills cameras, IMO we're already past the point where storage matters. While I can fit literally over 9000 raws on the biggest card my camera supports, how the hell am I supposed to sort and process this many?

>>2915870
For you

>>2915555
here

Went to a store today and checked various cameras. Turns out my big hams for hands are incompatible to most models, so now I own a Sony Alpha 6000.

Thanks for the advice, /gear/. Made the choice much easier.
>>2915752
>>2916302
>>2916148
>>2916134
>>2916139
>>2916140

>>2916647
Good choice.
Just keep in mind that a few of Sony's lenses for E-mount are subpar, like the extremely cute looking 16mm.

>looking for a 1/4" mount for my bike
>literally 2 pages of GoPro hero shit on amazon
>nowhere ynwhere is 1/4" even mentioned in the product
WTF?

>>2916666
check ebay/dealextreme/other chink shit sites

Just picked up this bad boy at Goowill for a dollar. Time to buy some film.

File: 20160903_184114.jpg (413KB, 1000x563px) Image search: [Google]

413KB, 1000x563px

>>2916716

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	samsung
Camera Model	SM-N910T3
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2015.5 (Macintosh)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.2
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	31 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	5312
Image Height	2988
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	2016:09:03 19:10:53
F-Number	f/2.2
Exposure Program	Normal Program
Lens Aperture	f/2.2
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Focal Length	4.60 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1000
Image Height	563
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Night Scene
Unique Image ID	H16ULHK02SA

>>2915507
If you're looking for an AF fifty, get the FA 50nm 1.7. It's the best one for the price.

>>2916647

Yea, what this guy said:
>>2916657


The only two I really know of are the 16mm pancake (get the 20mm if you need one, but the pancake zoom is good enough ot be honest) and the Fullframe budget 50mm lens (optics are great, but autofocus is so fucking slow).

Avoid those two and you will be set.

>>2915507
You spend $50 on a 50mm Pentax-M f1.7 and you get the best 50mm prime on any body.

>>2916076
Snapseed - got mine free, don't know if it is or not though.

I found one of these pretty cheap (for k mount). What should I shoot with it? My only long lens I had prior was an old 400mm Vivatar-M which I used for fuck all.

File: Sigma-120-400mm-f-4.5-5.6-DG-OS-HSM-Lens.jpg (27KB, 600x231px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 600x231px

>>2916790
I'm a moran.

>>2916790
>>2916794
If you have no clue what you'll use a piece of gear for, don't buy that piece of gear.

>>2916787
This man speaks the truth

>>2916797
Well, to be fair I did some sports shooting earlier this year and I was very annoyed at the reach of my good 200mm. That's why I was even looking.

Plus, it was at a really good price point.

>>2916163
Why is this? Does it have to do with the electrical signals to/from the contacts?

>>2916810
Apparently at some point Canon updated the EF protocols and 3rd parties haven't figured out a way to get them to work with both versions...shit happened to me with a chipped adapter and my Elan 7ne.

>>2916790
>>2916794
>>2916801
You can shoot sports and wildlife. Though for sports you can forget the indoor shoots or anything short of full on daylight. It is a slow lens but when the lighting is good it will perform. Don't try to pixel peep too much though, try to go for full framing compositions.

>>2916813
To be fair, the number of people shooting film EOS cameras is extremely small (as most filmfags go for muh mechanical feel), so there's very little reason even for Sigma, much less Yongnuo, to care.

5d III just dropped from 2600 to 2500 for brand new.

It's gonna be lower on black friday, right?

>>2917060
>meanwhile K-1 prices
>outperforms in MP and DR
>innovative features vs same old in Canun
>seriously considering buying anything Canun
HA!

>>2917061
>no lense selection
>inferior autofocusing
>mediocre video
>no secondary trade market as no one actually uses pentax
>no support locations nearby as no one actually uses pentax
>no aftermarket accessory support as no one actually uses pentax
>no community of fellow users to talk about gear with, talk about settings for body, etc. as nobody actually uses pentax (look k-1 up on amazon, 23 total reviews even at far lower price point than 5dIII which has 656 reviews)

Oh boy you sure showed those canon users by shitposting and typing "CANUN" instead.
How will they live with themselves when the friendless pentax poorfag scorns them?

>>2917060
> black friday
Just about never important, except for the bait offers that you usually won't get if they're really good.

Buy off the internet, eh.

> 5D III
You sure that a decent APS-C or something like a D750 or A7 II wouldn't do the job for $1k+ less?

File: IMG_0702.jpg (1MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3264x2448px

what do u think about these 2

>>2917095
I think you should read the sticky

Canon 1000d with 18-55 mm kit lense for 120€, should I get it?

>>2917126
>1000D
...why?

>>2917135
I really don't know shit about about cameras, I just want to get one that I can learn Photography with before spending 300€+.
Is that an okay Deal?

>>2917139
If that is your option then it is better to just use your phone. ou will be seriously underwhelmed by its performance, or the lack of it and get frustrated with photography. You have to know a thing or two to produce some decent results with it.
Just use your phone, learn composition and spend €300 on a decent modern entry level DSLR like the Nikon D3300 or a Pentax K-50.

>>2917142
cause his phone is going to help him learn how to expose an image? lol retard

>>2917149
>implying exposure is the most important thing to learn

Hey guys, I found one of the idiots keeping /p/ shit!

>>2917149
Actually, even if it was that, why not...?

Not that learning "exposure" matters much. Cameras can actually generally handle that just fine on their own.

File: SLE_237.jpg (4MB, 3456x5184px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 3456x5184px

Alright lads, now that the seasons are changing I need a waterproof jacket that has decent pockets.
What do you wear out on location?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 550D
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.6 (Macintosh)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.4
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2016:08:29 19:38:49
Exposure Time	1/125 sec
F-Number	f/1.4
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	800
Lens Aperture	f/1.4
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	24.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard

Asking here too since my question in the film thread got no replies.

Think I'm gonna trim my collection of film stuff down to the ones I shoot most and get something nice with the money. My budget is going to be around €300. What would be your recommendation in that price range, if we're talking rangefinders and compacts? I've seen Contax T2's, Bessa R's and an occasional G1 with lens. I shoot street and 95% black and white, use a flash sometimes. 35mm is my favorite focal length, with 28mm close behind.

Or do I just suck it up and save until I can afford a Leica?

>>2917187
You didn't get much of an answer because there's not much difference. It's mainly up to what you prefer/want. Outside of the lens mount/what can be adapted to the body you choose, it's a matter of what feels right to you, because at the end of the day, they're all just light tight boxes.

>>2917187
Get an OM-4 with 28/2.8 and 35/2.8, and then half a brick of tri-x with the leftovers.

How slow is this board

>>2917195
Very. Like, expect a random thread to live for a week with little to no bumping.

>>2917195
So slow dude. I wish it was like mu

>>2917203
fuck off

What should I pick for astrophotography with really wide field of view. Was thinking about 20mm 1.4 from sigma and tamron 15-30. Or maybe there is something cheaper and better? Advice me /p/

>>2917220
12mm Samyang f/2

>>2917206
off fuck

>>2917190
Nah I don't really need another SLR, already got an OM-1 and a couple of lenses which is enough for me.

>>2917189
I get that they're in a way less diverse than what we have with digital these days, but still. I can't exactly just walk into a store and test these cameras, because they aren't available anymore. There's bound to be stuff that makes people prefer certain cameras and I'd like to know them.

>>2917180
>>>/out/

Because nobody here actually goes outside. Pentax users are NEETs who never use their camera's weather sealing, Canikon users are afraid to get anything wet because Canikon won't cover any thing even remotely similar to water damage, and Sony users are perpetually afraid of corrosion.

Failing that, gore+backpack+rain cover. It's not hard. Any alpinist-type jacket usually has big pockets, since they have to fit gloves and snacks and such.

Anyone ever bought Nikon refurbished?

>>2917334
No kys

>>2916424
>>2916426 is wrong on most accounts here

APO is apochromatic

DG indicates it's a full frame Digital lens

HSM is High Speed Motor

EX is the high end of older Sigma lenses

OS is Optical Stabilization

>>2917501
HSM is Hyper Sonic Motor

is GR sharper at f4 or f2.8? I've seen different from sources

File: maxresdefault.jpg (135KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

135KB, 1920x1080px

Hey guys, tl;dr
looking to upgrade my canon SL1 body, I like the a6300.

was wondering if the a6300 + the speed booster would be a good combo, essentially giving me a really good full frame mirrorless camera and able to use my canon glass:
24-70mm F4L IS USM
70-200 F4L USM
35mm F2 IS USM
but does the auto focus for stills work as well as the mark IV adapter? And do either the mark IV adapter or the speedbooster allow for any auto focus during video with the latest firmwares?

I've looked all over DPview, youtube, and even vimeo and cant find anyone talking about the performance of the metabones on the a6300. Anyone have any experience or links to help me out?

>>2917578

I haven't tried the Metabones or a speedbooster, but I did use the MC-11 on an a6300 with the 70-200mm L.

It was fast as fuck autofocus, pretty much native E-mount speeds, and this was in a dark room.

Well worth it if you have lots of Canon lenses.

I am unsure about speedboosters, I have heard bad things about what they do to image quality. If you really want a full frame I'd say grab the a7ii, it isn't all that more expensive than the a6300.

>>2917578
wait for eos m5.
for the price of metabuns, just get a foolframe and you will be disappointed in the af performance of those adapted lens.
eos m5 will work flawlessly.

>>2917505
Lenses generally get sharper towards f/8 and after that they tend to have increasing diffraction softness. Between f/8 and f/16 it can be corrected with added contrast.

>>2917578
>70-200 f/4 L
>f/4
HA! Pleb! you should've got a used 70D to be able to afford the f/2.8. Even most Pentax users sport the 70-200 f/2.8 and they are the poorfags of photography

>>2917578
> do either the mark IV adapter or the speedbooster allow for any auto focus during video with the latest firmwares?
They always have, haven't they?

AFAIK the only thing Metabones didn't do for a while was DMF and EyeAF, but they do now.
https://www.dpreview.com/news/8141635416/metabones-unlock-native-sony-focus-modes-for-canon-mount-adapters

>>2917599 (cont'd)
Ah, interestingly there was an update. The implementation of these new features on the metabones adapter is apparently leading to unreliable behaviour on off-center AF points on dpreview's tests...

Well, figures using these isn't the best idea right now then, but they'll probably fix it.

>>2917095

>not having an a6300 mounted on the side using an L bracket

scrub

>>2917095
>a99
The only Sony camera that has worse AF performance on still subjects than Pentax on moving subjects.

>>2917597
It will be 2.8 after the speed booster conversion. If he bought a 2.8 it would be an f2 after.

>>2917682
Nope. It will be an f/4 just like before. The f/2.8 isn't better just because of more light but because it has better optics, better quality finishing and better IQ altogether.
An f/2.8 stopped down to f/4 will be always better than an f/4 wide open because of corner sharpness.

>>2917682
>>2917688
In other words it will be the same old film era shit with a speed booster.

>>2917688
>It will be an F4 like before
It doesn't seem that you fully understand speed boosters. Unlike crop factor, which doesn't affect actual f/no, speed boosters DO. By adding glass behind the lens, you're changing the optical formula. And trading a smaller image area for a larger f/no. You could argue that f/2.8 on full frame is better than f/2.8 on aps-c, but I've never met someone who couldn't afford a full frame canon complain that f/2.8 on aps-c wasn't good enough.

>>2917690
This I can agree with. Native X mount for life

>>2917691
>It doesn't seem that you fully understand speed boosters
It seems it is you who doesn't understand speedboosters, or any kind of extenders with extra optical elements. The lens will be the same no matter what you put it on. The extra optical elements are not made specifically for that lens, it is made to accomodate a wide variety of lenses with some image degradation. And this is why you won't end up with a 70-200/2.8 in a smaller form, it will be something even less than the f/4 although with more light value.
Your image will suffer no matter what. Extra flaring, internal reflections, freaky refractions in some cases etc... You can also expect a lot more fringing with contrasty parts of the image.
Don't spend your money on the speedbooster, buy a simple adapter or a third party lens like the Tamron 70-200/2.8 VC with the native mount.

>>2917695
>>2917691
A speedbooster is an inverse of an 1.4x teleconverter for speed and focal length purposes.

However, while a teleconverter always spoils the image, a speedbooster can potentially increase the quality compared to the same lens used without it, as it compresses the image into a smaller image circle. Whether this compensates for the loss of quality due to additional optics is dependent on the particular lens and booster combo.

>>2917695
>Less than f4
>Image degradation
Nothing you thought you knew about teleconverters applies, you fucking idiot.

>Light
It gathers the same light as a full frame 2.8 lens on a full frame body.
>Depth of field
It has the same depth of field as a 2.8 lens on a full frame body. That is, even more shallow than before
>Image quality
Sharpness is increased and CAs are reduced when a good quality speed booster like a metabones is used.

Go back to school

File: s-l1600.jpg (88KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 1024x768px

Why don't they make fast lenses anymore? This was made decades ago

>>2917722
A lot of companies still make fast lenses. Probably more now than in the past, actually.

But obviously the people paying for decent fast lenses have moved primarily to today's higher-end FF systems, and with much higher requirements to sharpness and so on.

Not everyone can make fast lenses without hurting their brand, eh.

>>2917722
Well, Asahi is no longer in business.

>>2917722
Even cheapo Chinese manufacturers are making 0.95 lenses now. The hell you mean we don't make fast glass anymore?

>>2917701
>believing the marketing
I've seen all the samples and a speedbooster produces uglier pictures than Full frame sensor + full frame lens.
They're also uglier than an EFS lens on an APS-C body.

The extra light may be an improvement over using an EF lens on an APS-C body though in certain situations though, but they are way overhyped by retards who believe the company's marketing rather than actual images.

>>2917722
Tbh I don't really care how fast the lens is as long as it focuses fast, is quiet and is at least ok sharp wide open. We can bump our ISO to 3200 or 6400 easily now without the IQ suffering much, it wasn't possible earlier so f1.4 lenses made sense. They also made the viewfinder brighter on SLR's.

Most film era f1.4 lenses I've used are really soft wide open and have all kinds of problems with CA etc.

>>2917722
What are you even talking about? There's an assload of f/1.4 lenses. There are more f/1.2 and even f/0.95 lenses in production than ever before. There's even a mass-produced f/0.85 lens, although for a smaller format.

>>2917744
>>2917845
Where can I buy one for my plebtax then

>>2918275
Sigma 30 1.4 is your go-to and it's a very good performer among all cheap standard 1.4 lenses.

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/113487-USA/Nikon_1935_Telephoto_AF_DC_Nikkor.html

Best portrait lens available?

File: cameracrappack.jpg (218KB, 1024x1024px) Image search: [Google]

218KB, 1024x1024px

Would you trust the SD card and no-name spare battery that comes in the 'DSLR camera bundles' in your camera? Looking to get a D5300 and honestly the only things in the bundle packs that interest me is the extra battery, SD card, and remote shutter. I could get just the body and lens with name-brand SD card and battery but I would be actually paying more than the bundle pack.

Pic and link related:

https://www.amazon.com/18-55mm-Telephoto-Original-Accessories-Included/dp/B01H2MGZL6/ref=pd_sim_sbs_421_1?ie=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=6TC6FD0YFKA3VT68CPQY

(yea its out of stock now but it was going for ~$560 ish)

>>2918281
>Cheap
>$400

>>2918296
Cheap, of course relative to expensive standard 1.4s, like Sigma Art, Sony 50 1.4 FE, Zeiss Otus, etc.

>>2915504

Is the canon 85mm F 1.8 USM any good?

I was considering a 90mm macro, but this is way cheaper. I'd miss the macro of course, but the 8tmm would be better for portraits, right?

Would a 24mm prime lense give me decent wide angle shots?
Not sure if I want to get the 10-18mm or the 24 prime first

Camera I have is a canon rebel t5

>>2918296
that's on the cheaper side for a 1.4 af.

>>2918330
38.4mm equi

>>2918330
on an APS-C body that's not a wide angle lens, just a standard one (38.4mm)

There are a handful of difference lenses that are super-wide (8mm/10/12mm at widest, which becomes 12.8mm/16mm/19.2mm)
Less useful for pictures of humans, can be nifty for big scenery.
A lot of these are quite slow (F4-5.6), a fast wide angle is a bit pricy.

Then you have a good number of lenses that have 17mm-18mm (27.2-28.8mm)
Kit lens and the sigma 18-35 F1.8 fall into this group, good walkabout lenses wider than that prime.

>>2918287
Get the real stuff. It's not worth losing photos to a chinky SD card (it definitely does happen) and doesn't the 5300 block non-OEM batteries anyway?

>>2918381
>block non-OEM batteries

I doubt it. Not even Sony does that.

File: Size.jpg (59KB, 700x313px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 700x313px

>>2918275
In any store that deals in Pentax gear?

Unless you want f/0.95, then no, you need a less obscure system for that.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	CASIO COMPUTER CO.,LTD.
Camera Model	EX-Z120
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS4 Windows
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	38 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2009:02:25 09:40:06
Exposure Time	1/60 sec
F-Number	f/2.8
Exposure Program	Normal Program
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	7.90 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	700
Image Height	313
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	None
Contrast	Soft
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Soft

>>2918381
>>2918386
I bought cheap Chinese batteries for all my cameras for the last 10 years, and 90% of them died within 2-3 years of use.
However, I'm not really complaining given that you can buy like 4 of them for the price of one original, and capacity generally isn't too bad (unlike, say, 18650 cells, which have no relation between marked and actual capacity at all)

>>2918287
>Would you trust the SD card and no-name spare battery
I buy them separately. But sure. After basic testing, I trust them

>>2918386
> Not even Sony
> Not even
Outside of the Android ecosystem, who has created and published more hardware / software interfaces and documentation for 3rd parties?

>>2918401
Sony actually did block third-party batteries in some of their laptops back when they still were in that business. I don't know of any cameras that do this shit, though.

>>2918392
Why would you want a soft POS that you have to stop down to f/2.8 or f/4 to get decent results on digital?

>>2918404
They also had various terrible DRM schemes (still have - latest is AACS 2.0 Enhanced) and what not.

But yea, it's pretty much all not related to cameras so far.

>>2918419
He asked for a fast lens, not for a good one.

Also, that Voigtlander is good wide open (but good luck getting one in Pentax mount, and focusing it manually)

Is there a kinda shell that you can put into a normal backpack to store camera and a lense?

>>2918433
Sure. Various padded boxes and of coruse just the usual shoulder bags (again a padded box with straps) could be put in there.

There also are various slimmer neoprene camera / lens bags and what not.

>>2918443
Or get some polyurethane sheets and glue

>>2918445
Or you could use any hard shell box with memory foam inside.

Well, if you DIY, there are endless options - containers and good padding materials are everywhere.

File: 35o05-DSCF6961.jpg (136KB, 1024x683px) Image search: [Google]

136KB, 1024x683px

I've been tempted to buy a pelican case for my a7, I just want something big enough for the body and one lens.

Any idea what size would work? I don't think anywhere nearby sells them for me to try.

>>2918427
Focusing is not a problem on Pentax, you have focus confirmation in viewfinder or peaking in liveview.

>>2918453

You can mount m-mount lenses to Pentax?

The Voigtlander is m-mount, right?

File: voigt_SL20_40_58_KA_LX.jpg (55KB, 654x414px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 654x414px

>>2918457
Not everything Voigtlander makes is rangefinder stuff. The SL series is made in Canon, nikon and Pentax mounts, although the latter is the rarest.

>>2918452
> pelican case
Too much of a brand markup for a fucking box as far as I'm concerned. But I'm sure they'll be fine?

> Any idea what size would work?
Measure it.

However much space your gear occupies and 1.5cm or whatever padding you might want?

> the body and one lens
And where will your other lenses go? Why don't they need to be in the box?

>>2918287
>Would you trust the SD card and no-name spare battery
I'd trust the battery, but not the SD card. Cards from trusted brands aren't even expensive m8, it's not worth risking your thousands of snapshits on some chinkshit card.

>>2918486
This, especially when you realize it's kinda pointless to buy anything larger than a 32 gig card...even 16s are usually far more than enough.

What do you guys think, Canon 1d classic versus 30D/40D?

Size is not a problem, but I'm concerned about 1D classic's battery life.

>>2918490
Wouldn't recommend 1D except for shits and giggles. APS-H is a pretty shit format (can't use EF-S lenses, but FF wides are still fucked), and the UI is prehistoric.

>battery life
IIRC 1D had NiMH batteries. They are heavy as shit, but usually you can repack them with new cells yourself if they die.

>>2918487
>it's kinda pointless to buy anything larger than a 32 gig card...even 16s are usually far more than enough.
Yes and no, it obviously all depends on what form of photography you do.

>>2918507
There are very, very few flavors of photography where you might take 1k images without being able to offload them.

There are even fewer where such is a good idea.

Videography is an entirely different matter, but photography? If you're filling a 16 gig card frequently on a single shoot, I can promise that you need to learn better shutter discipline.

>>2918507
Well, we're talking about the kind of cameras sold in bundles. People who need to shoot thousands of raws or several hours of video in a single session typically don't use those.

New Thread >>2918512

>>2915671
I have one, it's really nice because it has an extra long focus throw.

1.2 maks a difference in the DOF department especially for portraits.

Also it makes poorfags mad.

>>2916134
>it's just a budget choice
I use mine with L39 / M mount lenses and it's great.

It's literally the best digital rangefinder ever made.

File: Bildschirmfoto-2016-02-09-um-16.47.29-700x455.png (340KB, 700x455px) Image search: [Google]

340KB, 700x455px

>>2921557

I do that with my a7ii except it also autofocses those m-mount lenses.

>>2923197
Why did you bump this thread
How rude

>>2923243

Isn't it past the bump limit?