/gear/ - Gear Thread

Does anyone have a good recommendation for a sub 250 "studio" kit? Found some good ones on jet and Amazon with 4 4 light soft boxes, stands, and a backdrop/stand. Not too sure of the quality but really missing the old spot my pals had for portraits and the good ol glam jam beauty shots ;-)

File: angry_pepe.jpg (65KB, 900x900px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 900x900px

Just found fungus on my favourite pentax 1.7 50mm and it looks like worms growing in there. I'm physically disgusted.

What to clean it with when I take it apart?

>>2918538
Alcohol

File: Canon-Telephoto-L-Zoom-Lenses.jpg (27KB, 505x252px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 505x252px

So I got the 750D as a birthday present this year. I've been trying to get more into wildlife photography and recently I've come across a good deal on a Canon EF 100-400mm F4.5-5.6 L IS. My question is: Is it worth it to put an L lens on a APS-C camera, or should I just wait till I upgrade to a full frame?

>>2918538
Fungus I can understand, but what do you do with the lens to have fucking worms in it?

>>2918544
The first version of 100-400L IS isn't the best telephoto lens ever, but it should work pretty well on APS-C. Some people intentionally use them on non-FF cameras to get extra telephoto reach.

>>2918545
Its fungus but they look like worms

>>2918517
Portable? Buy as many YN560 / 660 / TX and accessories as you can.

Stationary? Get like the Godox strobe / diffuser / remote trigger that buys you.

>>2918548
post pics of worms in ur lens

>>2918544
What is that piece on the far left called? I am just into photog and I'm trying to learn the terminology and shit. Thanks mate.

My D750 is here. What a lovely thing it is.

I am being way too careful with it though. I'm almost afraid to go outside with it.

I've never owned a camera with a top LCD though; is it supposed to be on all the time?

>>2918559
>top LCD though; is it supposed to be on all the time?

Yes, it draws hardly any power unless the light is on (which should go off after a while, or when you turn the camera off)

>>2918558
Lens hood.
>>2918544
Putting L glass on crops is fine, I use a 24-70 F4L and the 70-200 on a $200 apsc body and I'm happy.
With image quality anyway, not so much my autofocus.

>>2918558
Its the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS I believe.

>>2918570
Thanks, mate.

>>2918559
>is it supposed to be on all the time?
Yes. These old monochrome LCDs consume almost no power unless the backlight is on. (On some Nikons, the frame counter on the top screen remains visible even with the camera turned off)

>>2918559
It's only on displaying aperture and shutter speed when the meter is on. Set your meter timer shorter if you want to save battery life, since that'll include your metering system to the LCD.

The LCD itself has a number of things that remain on regardless, and when it turns off, yes, the frame counter remains on. Probably a hold over from the film days, my F100 does that.

>>2918603
>a hold over from the film days
It kinda rustles my jimmies that these screens are the same stuff as 20 years ago with tiny fixed icons and blocky seven-segment digits. Can't they put some kind of E-ink display there?

DO I GET THE LEICA MINILUX

I've wanted this thing for ages and I'm close to just saying fuck it

>>2918748
If you like it and have money to burn, why not? Just don't expect it to be a "real Leica" or give better pictures than a mju-II.

Also avoid the zoom version unless you love f/8 lenses.

>>2918538
UV from direct sunlight. Put it out in the window for a week and then clean it with isopropyl.

>>2918581
>>2918603
Thanks, I'm loving it so far, even though it's a huge step up from what I'm used to. The manual is insane. 500 pages.

Looking to buy a decent, not too expensive macro lens for my D5000. As an amateur photographer not lookin to drop serious money, what are some lenses you guys can recommend?

>>2918782
get extension tubes

>>2918782
Try a macro extender tube first.

>>2918782
Get a reverse mount for your kit lens then.
You'll have to spend at least ~$300 for a decent, used macro lens that has AF.
If you're fine with manual focus, there are a few more cheaper options available - but most of them are rather shitty in compariso due to lack of coating, quality of the glass used and inferior lens designs.

>>2918783
>>2918785
Thanks, didn't know these existed. Did a quick read up on them as well as close-up filters - any thoughts on those?

>>2918782
It's very hard to go wrong with a macro lens, there are very few lemons.
The only problem is that D5000 won't meter with manual lenses because Nikon hates their users, so your cheapest non-painful option would probably be AF-S 40mm macro. Do note that you'll have to be very close to your subject with this focal length, so it's not suitable for insects.

>>2918783
Extension tubes aren't a replacement for a true macro lens (that goes to 1:1 magnification) though. For 1:2-1:3 they usually work fine.

>>2918803
Thanks.

>The only problem is that D5000 won't meter with manual lenses
Sorry, bit of a noobie - what does meter mean?

>>2918801
Those screw on macro and TC "filters" are shit, forget about them.

>>2918803
>Extension tubes aren't a replacement for a true macro lens (that goes to 1:1 magnification) though. For 1:2-1:3 they usually work fine.
Depends on the focal length, but I won't disagree in general; however, most people, especially people who are just playing around with macro, who don't know what an unmitigated pain in the ass of a kind of photography it is, don't need to drop a few hundred on a true macro lens. Getting to 1:2, 1:3 is often enough because you have to deal with all of the headaches of shooting macro.

Drop like $20 on some extension tubes. Play with them, and if it is your thing, then yes, drop the additional cash and get a proper macro lens. If you decide it's not for you, well, you're now only out around $20.

>>2918801
Close-up filters are typically cheap shit that spoils the image. Unless the filter is of the rare kind that is bundled with the lens itself, I wouldn't recommend using it.

Extension tubes are a cheap and generally good solution for low-to-medium magnification, but they don't work with every lens (it's best to use a non-zoom lens that focuses by moving the entire lens block as one). They also require extra quality from the middle part of the image, if it's already showing signs of softness without the tube, you're better off just cropping.

>>2918805
It will require you to set aperture and shutter speed manually by trial and error (or reading from an external meter).

>>2918801
>>2918817
>>2918808
>Those screw on macro and TC "filters" are shit, forget about them.
Not really. They're quite fine actually, but you want an achromat.

Check out some sample shots for the popular Marumi DHG +3, for example.
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3196295

Typically you want to buy one for the biggest filter size on your zoom lenses and then just use filter ring size adapters.

>>2918817
>(it's best to use a non-zoom lens that focuses by moving the entire lens block as one).
I get the feeling that you haven't really shot macro and just have read about it. Zooming is the easiest way to focus. Yes it changes the magnification level, but if you're using extension rings you're probably not being overly anal about magnification level in the first place.

I am in my senior year of high school. In Black and white film class. What should I buy?

>>2918862
Not every zoom lens plays well with extension rings if it's got independently moving groups. I know jack shit about optics, but it seems like ones where the FoV widens when focusing closer are the problematic ones.

Plus, zooms generally have less IQ leeway for extension rings, but for maximum quality you want a dedicated lens anyway.

just won an auction for a bigma 50-500 for K mount. 475 USD.

>>2918907
School obviously should provide the required gear...?

>>2918572

There is only a handful of EF-S lenses anyway, right?

>>2918538

How did you let this happen?

How do you store it, anyway?

File: sony_soa6300bk_alpha_a6300_mirrorless_digital_1222773.jpg (516KB, 2500x2500px) Image search: [Google]

516KB, 2500x2500px

Bumping this question, need to know if anyone has experience with the a6300 + metabones mark iv and these lenses.

looking to upgrade my canon SL1 body, I like the a6300.

24-70mm F4L IS USM
70-200 F4L USM
35mm F2 IS USM

File: Lukas-Schweizer-gear.jpg (40KB, 750x474px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 750x474px

I've been using mirrorless pocket cameras for several years. I haven't used a modern DSLR. I want a DSLR that is as customizable as possible, so that all the dials and buttons work how I expect them to. I'm looking for a big jump in image quality, speed, and reliability.

What would you recommend?

>>2919163
Crap handling, slow focus, shitty battery life.

Get an 80D

>>2919163
I second the 80D. The lenses you have are great for a camera like that. Or get a 70D and use the saved money on a wide angle. Or fast portrait lens.
I get the appeal of using the FF lenses with the metabones but personally I don't think the slow focus is worth it.

>>2919163

Metabones IV with latest firmware will have fast as fuck autofocus with those lenses.

All I have personally tried was the 70-200mm, it was pretty much native autofocus speed.

>>2919165
>image quality
is not among the things DSLRs have over mirrorless

>>2919173
>>2919176

80D doesn't do 4k, ISO looks better on the sony, slightly less crop factor on my lenses and I like the form factor of the SL1.

and coming from an SL1, the battery life cant be that bad.

I get so many mixed answers like you guys and
>>2917587
>>2919178

I'm gonna call a few camera stores tomorrow to see if they'll let me test anything out.

>>2919180
>mixed answers

There are a lot of people who hate Sony here.

But >>2919173 is right about everything but the autofocus. You get 400-500 shots at most on a battery, and the handling can be poor for those with large hands.

>>2919183
If the focus is reliable with the three lenses I have and a metabones I'll be happy.

The SL1 is the worlds smallest dslr, ergonomics dont bother me as my hands arent huge and I've never had any other normal sized dslr, and my battery in that was rated for 380 shots.

>>2919188
Mirrorless is a tad slower at af than a proper dslr, but the a6300 is one of the fastest on the market.

Pretty sure you can go try one out at Best Buy or whatever.

>>2919190

I've considered doing that, getting the metabones from lensrentals and making sure the firmware is up to date and then going to best buy or a local camera store to see if I can use the body.
Gonna be around $50 to rent though.

Hoping some store has an up to date metabones 4

>>2919191

Camer body needs an update too, so that might not work.

If it isn't too expensive, it might be worth it to rent a body and adapter and spend a weekend shooting. Some real world experience will tell you if you love it or hate it.

If that is too expensive, the only other option I can think of is a friendly local camera store or browsing youtube videos of the adapter in action.

It is also worth looking at the MC-11 adapter by Sigma. It is considerably cheaper and works just as good as the metabones (though officially it has no support for non-sigma lenses).

File: rental.png (74KB, 593x685px)

74KB, 593x685px

>>2919200
It's more than I'd like, but for information and being able to post my results on youtube so even the few people in my boat can find answers and hands on experience it's probably my best option.

I've spent hours looking for the a6300 with the 24-70 or the 35 f2 is, with a metabones or a sigma mc-11
neither on youtube

>>2919201

Not too expensive, but the shipping is outrageous.

I have seen lists before of people who have tried different lenses with each adapter, but I can't seem to find it right now.

>>2919165
> I'm looking for a big jump in image quality,
As opposed to a good MILC? Not going to happen. Sony even has the best lenses for the normal range.

> speed, and reliability.
Also not going to happen unless you pick up a Nikon D5 or such a camera.

The "lesser" cameras are relatively well matched by MILC.

And knowing a typical /p/ budget and need, I'd start looking at the A6300 rather than the D5 for starters.

File: IMG_20160727_164522.jpg (919KB, 1536x1536px) Image search: [Google]

919KB, 1536x1536px

Hey /p/.

I know this isn't /vid/ but I'd like a camera that does photos as well as record. Ideally I'm looking for a camera with a swivel LCD and records 1080p.

Looking for a body+glass combo thats around 600$. Does anyone know of older models or recent that are affordable?

>>2919204
Panasonic G7?

Though I'd also look at the A6000 (tilt + smartphone display) and Xiaomi Yicam 2 (4k sports camera for ~$250, smartphone display option).

>>2919204
Ah, and for
> older models
Canon 700D with magic lantern firmware?

Not that I'd get that one myself. It's quite a bit weaker than the A6000, especially for photos.

>>2919206
>>2919207

Thanks. You were a great help.

How do I use the depth of field on a Canon AE-1?

>>2919165
If we're talking about any camera, Olympus OMD have a retarded amount of customization. Fuji is also decent in that respect.

I can't speak much for Canon, but Nikon's got pretty decent customization on their prosumer or better models.

>northrub recommending the 5dsr over 5d4
is that guy serious?

>>2918538
sperm

>>2919163
wait for eos m5

>>2919212
No problem. Have fun picking gear.

A place near me is selling a Canon T5i with glass (18-55mm) for 667+tax (Cad). Is this a good price/deal?

>>2919214
It's dependent on your lens
Are you asking how aperture changes DOF?
Google DOF preview, some lenses offer it but most don't

>>2919165

Every buttom and dial on a Sony e-mount camera is customizable.

>>2919242
no

>>2919253
no

>>2919253
No. Most are. But not all.

>>2919242
No. Both because the price isn't right and because the T5i generally isn't a good deal at the price it is sold at.

>>2919260

Everything but the menu button, view button, and shutter.

>>2919188

From what I gather, almost every recent 'normal' Canon lens works with the Metabones.

If it is okder than 10 years or so, or does something special like macro or tilt shift, it has issues.

And of course, they do tend to seek in low light situations (like as in you need iso 6400+ to get a decent shutter speed).

what do we think of the 5d mk iv

File: 1473062262924.jpg (75KB, 750x732px)

75KB, 750x732px

>bought the 24-70L f/2.8 a few months ago
>now a superior 24-104 f/4 ii with IS is coming out
>and the 24-70 got a huge price drop

>>2919274
Way too expensive for how it performs.

For most shots, I'd take the A7R II even if the prices were swapped.

>>2919277
We dont' know the performance until dxomark tells us the dynamic range.

>>2919278
Exact numbers would surely be nice.

But what are the odds that the DR is so much better that it will give a lot of people a objective reason to get the 5D IV over the A7R II...?

Canon should have spec'd the 5D IV closer to the 1DX II to compete on faster burst rates or something, but they seem to prefer milking the existing market.

I doubt you should get the 5D mk IV.

>>2919275
That's life, anon

>>2919282
>mfw eos m4 with 80d sensor + dual pixel af
will sell my suny.

>>2919282
>mirrorless memer
lol

>everything i shoot is static

>>2919260
>No. Both because the price isn't right and because the T5i generally isn't a good deal at the price it is sold at.

Could you expand please?

>>2919282
enjoy you're corrosion and shit lens ecosystem

>>2919293
there are a lot of spillover sony shills on /p/ (spilling over from /v/) -- he is quite possibly one of those

File: pxfdAwdrXBJx.jpg (526KB, 763x763px)

526KB, 763x763px

>>2919296
I mean, I'm not saying it to be contrarian. If the camera is 300$ off at this one store and still the 800-900$ average it is elsewhere I think its a good grab for a starter that has what I want? (body, glass, swivel lcd, 1080p 60fps) But I am asking because I'm still new. I only have a vague idea of what I'm doing.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	DSC-HX5V
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS5 Macintosh
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/3.5
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	2736
Image Height	3648
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	2013:11:30 19:48:18
Exposure Time	1/15 sec
F-Number	f/3.5
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	800
Lens Aperture	f/3.5
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	4.32 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	763
Image Height	763
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

>>2919286
Pretty appealing fantasy... if it was FF.

Seems exceedingly unlikely to happen at a sane price, though.

>>2919292
> everything i shoot is static
Nah, but I guess you can do slightly better with a D5 or 1D X II. Just costs a lot more.

>>2919295
Canon isn't *that* bad. Just a bit behind on decent prime lenses.

>>2919293
Canon's entry level cameras are too expensive for how bad they are.

http://www.imaging-resource.com/cameras/canon/t5i/vs/nikon/d5500/

http://www.imaging-resource.com/cameras/canon/t5i/vs/pentax/k-50/

http://www.imaging-resource.com/cameras/canon/t5i/vs/sony/a6000/

>>2919296
>spillover sony shills on /p/ (spilling over from /v/)

Why do people actually believe this? Sony is consistently shit on by most of /v/ anyway.

>>2919305
Thank you.

>>2919305
t5i was always a shit deal if only for the fact that it's identical to the older t4i, which is always going to be cheaper.

>>2919303
who has better prime lenses?

>>2918979
I don't know man, in my camera bag? I bought it for 20 bucks at a camera meet, so can't really complain

>it's a "/p/ pretends framerate, autofocus performance, resale value, a huge lens ecosystem, a large userbase, ergonomics, reliability and ruggedness, weather sealing, pro support and the guarantee that the company won't just instantly axe its camera division one day because it's not profitable" doesn't matter episode

>>2919316
All of that only applies to top pro series that nobody on /p/ can afford, so gtfo.

Also
>digital cameras
>resale value
kek

>>2919314
Sony, because you can put all other manufacturers' primes on it.

>>2919318
>projecting your poverty

>>2919314
Canon has the better telezoom primes.

Sony.has the better normal primes.

Wide angle is kind-of a wash.

>>2919346
>telezoom primes
>zoom primes
wat

>>2919347
Good catch. I meant telephoto.

>>2919307

Unlike consoles, and laptops, and phones, and music players, etc., cameras are one of the few things Sony does at least halfway right.

Am I seeing stuff or is the Speedbooster from Canon EF to MFT really 500-800€?
I could swear, the last time I checked it was around 120-150€
What makes this thing so damn expensive?

>>2919389
That's the original Metabones speedbooster with AF and IS support. Low-volume production with quality optics and custom electronics isn't cheap.

Chinese knockoffs are much cheaper, but manual only and the optical quality is shoddier.

File: rz67.jpg (204KB, 567x425px) Image search: [Google]

204KB, 567x425px

Found pic related on some classifieds website. No price listed but from the poorly written description I can read:

RZ67, like new, 50mm and 90mm lenses, Polaroid, 6x7 and 645 backs, cable release, pentaprism and lightmeter.

Thoughts on how much this would be worth so that I can make a reasonable but not too expensive offer to the guy? I really want one of these.

>>2919410
The body is Gen 1, worth about $350 over CL. The 50, if it is not the ULD, worth about 250. If it is the ULD, worth about 500. The 90 is worth like, 150. If either of the lenses are not the "W" version (meaning they don't have half settings for aperture) take 50 off the price. 645 back is worth about 50, the two normal backs probably about 80 each. Pola back is about 100, though I think they are worth less now that FP-100c is discontinued. The gen 1 prism is about 120. That's the official dual stage release, worth about 80 or so probably.

All in all it probably is worth about 1400 dollars with the case, but since it's a big package deal you can probably haggle your way down to 1200 or so.

All these prices are in USD, btw

Source: I own, or have owned, pretty much everything in that kit

>>2919419
Thank you so damn much for the in-depth answer, this is all the info I needed, and then some. I am a europoor so it's probably even more expensive but damn it's nice that I found one in my country instead of having to order it from Japan or Korea.

>>2919215
I already have an Olympus.
>>2919203
I'm not looking for another compact pocket cam. I'm not looking for a lesser DSLR. I'm looking for something full frsme with a large grip for telephoto lenses, fast AF and decent burst rate. And a lot of battery life. Basically everything my mirrorless fails at. I'm looking at cameras like the d750 and 5dIII and K1, but I don't know which of these will allow me to adjust their functionality on a deep level. I want control of everything from dial direction to fn button control. Which FF DSLRs can do that?

>>2919446
>. I want control of everything from dial direction to fn button control.
I know the Nikons can do that. I don't know if the Canons do, but they should. The only points of customization on the Nikons are the Fn/AEL/Pv buttons (press, and press+dial), and the dials (direction and function).

Look at a customization guide on the internet to see what points are often talked about.

>>2919393
Jesus fucking christ, it's as expensive as anything else in my collection.
People have been sucking the Sigma 18-35mm 1.8's dick for so long and it doesn't have manual aperture control. Damnit. Looks like I'll have to stick to my 12mm 25mm 45-200mm setup for video production for now

>>2919393
>the normal adapter form EF to MFT with electronic connection is ~150€
So just the glass septuplicates the price?

>>2919489
Good quality glass does that.

>>2919389
> I could swear, the last time I checked it was around 120-150€
You probably saw a 3rd party Chinese one? Or a model without electronics?

> What makes this thing so damn expensive?
Glass? That photographers want it? That 500-800 isn't really all that much to a good fraction of the hobbyist and professional photographers?

>>2919489
Yes. Did you notice that TCs tend to be more expensive than extension tubes?

>>2919454
>it doesn't have manual aperture control

Why would you expect it to have manual aperture control if none of the systems it's made for support it?

>>2919539
because lenses with manual control options become obsolete slower and retain resale value for longer

>>2919543
Nope.

>>2919545
Engineering 101:
the simplest system that works is the best
fewer parts means fewer failures
anything electronic is prone to faster degradation than something mechanic

File: SEhtKg0.gif (499KB, 500x400px) Image search: [Google]

499KB, 500x400px

>>2918512

>>2919560
>simplest system that works is the best
Electronics don't necessarily equate to higher complexity
>fewer parts mean fewer failures
No, fewer parts mean fewer potential points of failure
>anything electronic is prone to faster degradation than something mechanic
Nope.

And even if we pretend that your surface level understanding that you're pretending is actual understanding, all of the above doesn't have that much effect on the value.

Whats the best way to find out if a piece of dust in my lens is actually showing up in the image?

>>2919564
>Electronics don't necessarily equate to higher complexity
Someone doesn't understand electro-chemistry
>good engineering doesn't have that much effect on the value
Maybe if you're an applefag.

>>2919626
someone correct me if I'm wrong or has a better idea, but maybe try maxing out your minimum focus distance? The closer you are I imagine the more the closer the dust is in the elements would be detected, although blurry?

>>2919626
Shoot a white wall at f/16

>>2918512
What dslr should I get? I had a nikon d80 but the shutter went bad. I'd like to stick with nikon if possible. Also do you think it's possible to fix the thing?

>>2919658
D7200 is the closest modern equivalent.

>do you think it's possible to fix the thing?
Yes, but it'll likely cost as much as a working secondhand D80.

>>2919662
Damn. Thanks I've been trying to get my uncles d3, it would be a dream if I could.

File: DSC_0001.jpg (779KB, 953x1000px) Image search: [Google]

779KB, 953x1000px

So I'm in a bit of shitty situation /p/, I'm going camping this weekend and I find myself without a tripod other than this old grey thing I found in a closet a while ago and have never used before. Its not great but I'll take it over having nothing any day. I didn't have the quick release plate that attaches to the camera and is what is also attached to the tripod so I bought a used one at a photo shop. The problem I face is that the plate is slightly to small for the tripod so when I put it in normally it is very loose but is close enough that it still doesn't fall out. I can secure it by folding up two kleenex and putting it under the plate (pic related) but that is kind of hard to do and undermines the "quick" part of quick release. Does anybody have any suggestions on how to make the plate slightly larger that would be more permanent, stable, and quick? I'm happy to at least have something but I think there should be some way to make it a lot better and I just haven't figured it out yet. Thanks in advance for any ideas in case I forget to reply.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D3100
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Macintosh)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/4.1
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	790
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	39 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2016:09:07 18:41:27
Exposure Time	1/15 sec
F-Number	f/4.2
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	1600
Lens Aperture	f/4.2
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	26.00 mm
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	953
Image Height	1000
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	High Gain Up
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>2919796
Find a piece of plastic at the right thickness, cut a thin strip of it and glue it along one of the cutouts in the plate. I dunno if it'll actually work desu

>>2919796
>plastic head
>plastic neck
>plastic leg connections
It's shit, don't even bother mate. Just bring a couple bean bags, place them on rocks, tree stumps etc... to support the camera.
And buy a decent travel tripod like a Manfrotto Befree.

>>2918512
Do RADIOACTIVE lenses like takumars damage image sensors?
I read once that cosmic radiation can cause hot pixels, but can this?

>>2919810
cosmic radiation is mostly x-ray and gamma, plus a few particles here and there. Thoriated glass only emits alpha and a very tiny amount of gamma only to baffle plebs and artschoolers. Not really dangerous for a camera sensor because most of the time it is blocked by a mirror and the shutter.
STAY AWAY FROM RADIOACTIVE TAKUMARS WHEN YOU USE A MIRRORLESS! YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED!

>>2919813
I've been using a radioactive 50 1.4 takumar on an Olympus ep3 for years and years. Nothing has ever happened or changed.

>>2919816
You are lucky but beware, I heard they can corrode the insides of a mirrorless.
Or was it your eyes? I am confused, maybe your eyes can get damaged if you put the lens too close, or the camera gets corroded when you put your eyes close to it?
hmm...

>>2919817
I'm almost positive it's all bullshitting nonsense and the lens wouldn't damage anything on a human scale. If this lens could hurt something, you would have to put it right against it for decades.

>>2919818
Or smash it in his skull. I bet it would corrode less than a Sony.

File: Focal aperture.jpg (67KB, 900x900px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 900x900px

Are focal reducers/adapters with their own inbuilt apterture a viable alternative to ones with electronic control if I don't mind manually working the aperture?

>>2919822
It depends on the lens. AFAIK some lenses will work fine and for others the dial will just be a vignette control.

>>2918512
Hi OP,

My dick is long, but my lens is short. Is photography for me?

Thanks.

>>2919841
Yeah, just stick to street photography and claim all the horrible framing and cropping and colour-composition is "artistic". plus, if you go completely B&W you get extra artistic-points. Extra double super points for using film.
And don't forget to use only the biggest sensors and insist everyone else does too!

Will Nikon d9/21/51 track an object like a car headlight within the selected area, or will it simply track the car? Assume focus was initiated on the car's headlight.

>>2919796
> that would be more permanent, stable
Doesn't look like you can replace the head, so replace that shit tripod for a better one with modern Arca Swiss plates, get the plates or brackets you need.

Yep, it won't be in time for your trip, but just use Kleenex for now.

>>2919930
>Nikon d9/21/51

wat

>track an object like a car headlight
I'm assuming that you mean cheap Nikon DSLRs and no, they will not, unless the headlight is like 1/10 the frame width.

>>2918748
My sister has one
It's okay
Literally just an average film compact tho

>>2918907
Uhh I mean does your school not provide the film?
Get a m42 Pentax body

File: image.jpg (54KB, 500x399px)

54KB, 500x399px

I have an a6000 and want a swirly bokeh lens, ideally something on the wider end
From what I understand swirly bokeh isn't as noticeable on apsc
Are there any lenses with noticeable mid section swirl distortion?

[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	500
Image Height	399
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>2919952
Native? Lensbaby Twist perhaps?

Or just adapt any vintage lens that had swirly bokeh, they'll pretty much all be MF anyhow.

>>2919952
Helios 77 if I recall correctly, the 50/1.8 variant has stronger swirlies than the 58/2 Helios 44 on aps-c

Going to sell my D600 since I don't really use it :(

Looks like I'm going to have to stick with my 6D for now.

>>2920002
> I'm going to have to stick with my 6D
If that camera isn't good enough, you don't really have to use that one.

If it's good enough, what's the problem?

>>2920005
No lenses. Well actually, I've only got the one for it. The AF-S 50mm f/1.8G, while I have a whole kit for my Canon EOS 6D;

Nikon D600
AF-S 50mm f/1.8G

Canon EOS 6D
Speedlite 90EX
Speedlite 430EX II
EF 50mm f/1.8 STM
EF 17-40mm f/4L USM
Sigma 35mm f/1.4 ART
Sigma 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6 HSM II
Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 VC USD
Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 VC USD

I'll be better off with another/second Canon body. Might get a 5D Mark III for cheap now, or if I can be bothered, a Mark IV. Was waiting on a 6D Mark II announcement, but I don't think that's happening for a while.

>>2920002
>>2920011
Kill yourself Ray, you insufferable cunt.

>>2920024
Brah, this is a gear thread.

File: handheld_bee_snapshit.jpg (297KB, 1000x667px) Image search: [Google]

297KB, 1000x667px

>>2920011
I understand shooting a camera with no lenses while carrying an exhaustive lens lineup that works only on another system isn't very efficient.

But why do you need another body apart from the 6D?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-6000
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.7 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	135 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2016:09:08 14:10:33
Exposure Time	1/200 sec
F-Number	f/11.0
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	250
Lens Aperture	f/11.0
Brightness	9.7 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	90.00 mm
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

>>2920029
Yeah actually am a working photog. It would be nice to have the 24-70mm on one body and the 70-200mm (or another lens) on another body so I don't have to fiddle with swapping lenses around.

File: p_peep.jpg (314KB, 943x629px) Image search: [Google]

314KB, 943x629px

>>2920030
Makes sense.

I'd augment that with a Sony rather than another Canon in a heartbeat, but YMMV.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-6000
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.7 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	135 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	600 dpi
Vertical Resolution	600 dpi
Image Created	2016:09:08 14:28:02
Exposure Time	1/200 sec
F-Number	f/11.0
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	250
Lens Aperture	f/11.0
Brightness	9.7 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	90.00 mm
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

>>2919943
He means dynamic area AF, known as d9, d21, and d51 on CAM3500 (51 pt) cameras.

As for the questions, I don't know.

>>2920030
>working photog
>uses two entry FF bodies
>from two systems

>>2920036
I don't need the AF system of the high-end bodies when I just use the central AF point.

I only really went the D600 since I got it for $540 at the time. Was considering a full move to F-Mount but would have lost out by at least $2,000 or so just rebuying the same lenses/focal-lenghts.

>>2920033
I've had experience with the a7 series, and I did not enjoy myself.

The bodies are too small and cramp for the lenses I use and the battery life and AF accuracy is abysmal.

>>2920037
You don't need the higher end AF? Why not go for two Pentax, a K-1 and a crop body?

>>2920061
>K-1
I would have lost about $3,000 instead of $2,000 instead. Also, it's very uncomfortable compared to the 6D and even against the D600. I love the feature set of the body though.

File: some_fucking_flower_with_bonus_diffraction.jpg (288KB, 1000x667px) Image search: [Google]

288KB, 1000x667px

>>2920037
> The bodies are too small and cramp for the lenses I use
Most of your lenses aren't particularly huge. There are bigger native lenses.

Not really seeing the problem DESU.

I'd be much more bothered by a 1.5kg camera body + lens + flash in situations where you just need to handhold for a fairly prolonged amount of time.

> and the battery life and AF accuracy is abysmal
How many shots do you take? I think the worst I recently did is ~1200 and some 30minutes of video (recorded a serenade to the couple) at a wedding evening. ~160g worth of batteries with 3 swaps (didn't bother to use a battery grip). Do you shoot a lot more?

As for the AF, didn't you just say you "don't need the AF system of the high-end bodies"? That little should be easy even with a Metabones adapter.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-6000
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.7 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	135 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	600 dpi
Vertical Resolution	600 dpi
Image Created	2016:09:08 14:58:12
Exposure Time	1/250 sec
F-Number	f/11.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	250
Lens Aperture	f/11.0
Brightness	8.3 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	90.00 mm
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

>>2920070
>How many shots do you take?
Usually about 1,500 per event. And I do take spare batteries with me on a job. I recently covered 3-day even and must have shot about 6,000 shots and I don't use straps (have a couple of Peakdesign Cpature Pros though).

I found it much more comfortable and balanced having a full sized grip when using the 24-70mm and the 70-200mm f/2.8 lenses.

>>2920070
>That little should be easy even with a Metabones adapter.
Accuracy. When I trialed an a7 at wedding, I missed about 30% of my shots with some nasty "back-focusing" where it would focus on the background rather than the subject's faces even with face detect on. And that was with the native FE 28-70mm OSS lens.

>>2920062
>Pentax
>uncomfortable
Are you trolling mate?

>>2920076
Nope. It's cramped for my hands.

>>2920072
> 6000 shots over 3 days
So 2000 a day, 1000 per camera. [If you even shoot 50-50 between cameras, which seems atypical to me.]

Either way, you'd then maybe bring ~10 NP-FW50 (~420g - might be less than the weight difference between bodies still) if you actually can't recharge.

Of which you'd use around 7.5 in either 7 swaps or 3 swaps with a 2xbattery grip. You also could be cutting it closer and fall back to charging some or powering the camera with a $12 10Ah backup USB power bank if you mis-estimated.

The main additional "complication" is that I guess you want a power rail with a bunch of chargers lined up so you can expediently charge perhaps 3-5 batteries while you edit.

> I found it much more comfortable and balanced having a full sized grip when using the 24-70mm and the 70-200mm f/2.8 lenses.
I only found for myself, the extra weight tires me out quicker than a only slightly worse grip does, but I guess YMMV. Might be a great reason to get another Canon.

>>2920073
The A7 certainly sucks. I'd also not get that *far* less capable camera just to save some money.

The point of picking a Sony as secondary presumably would be to save money with a still very capable camera with some capabilities even your primary doesn't have (A6300, A7 II), or get a very low-light capable fallback (A7S II), or a get a high resolution high quality sensor for higher detail shots (A7R II).

File: close_up_diffraction_fail.jpg (298KB, 1000x667px) Image search: [Google]

298KB, 1000x667px

>>2920094
Forgot my indirectly gear worshiping picture.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-6000
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.7 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	135 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	600 dpi
Vertical Resolution	600 dpi
Image Created	2016:09:08 16:25:42
Exposure Time	1/250 sec
F-Number	f/11.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	250
Lens Aperture	f/11.0
Brightness	8.3 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	90.00 mm
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

File: nikon-d3300-image-00.jpg (65KB, 620x465px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 620x465px

getting into this world, and i chose the D3300,
should i buy the kit with that shitty lense, or just the body ? in this case, what is the best lense to buy (in the same quality/price ratio category)

>>2920070
>think the worst I recently did is ~1200
Why would you do this to yourself?

>>2920097
Get the kit lens. They're not as bad as faggots claim, and more to the point, your pictures will be shitty because of you, not the lens for quite a while.

Also, it's a zoom so you can play with different focal lengths to find what you prefer.

>>2920097
Also, learn to spell "lens".

>>2920101
sounds like a good advice
>>2920103
my third language, thank you

>>2920103
"lense" can be used for a single lens or in plural for many lenses. Lense is not a grammatic error.

>>2920116
It's not an error, but it immediately outs you as clueless because no manufacturer spells it like that.

>>2920073


a7 autofocus isn't all that great.

There is a HUGE difference between the original a7 and the second gen a7ii/a7rii/a7sii.

>>2920121
The second gen is not the same too.

It goes something like a7r < a7s << a7 << a7II << a7sII ~= a7rII

>>2920121
especially regarding corrosive features

>>2920124
sweaty fatass detected

File: personal_reminder_to_bring_actual_WA_lens_to_lakes.jpg (334KB, 1000x426px)

334KB, 1000x426px

>>2920100
At least I didn't deliver 1200 images.

One reason why that happened was that I had fairly poor equipment after I didn't bring some lens and broke some lighting. Clever me.

The other reason was that most locations were rather long and too crowded. Quite a few of these shots were bursts.

Well, it's all a step on the road to git gud gear, eh.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-6000
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.7 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	600 dpi
Vertical Resolution	600 dpi
Image Created	2016:09:08 17:38:14
Comment	-
Projection	Equirectangular (2)
FOV	52 x 103
Ev	12.29

H-hey newfag here, I'm starting a new job so I will get some moneys soon, I'm looking for something with a manual lens and manual zoom, as well as shutter speed options, but I don't want a big ol Canon DSLR. Can anyone help me find something? Right now I only have two hundred to spend btw

File: ep3_frnt.jpg (409KB, 700x549px)

409KB, 700x549px

>>2920147
used sony or lolympus mirrorless camera

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop 7.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2011:07:13 14:12:34
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	700
Image Height	549

>>2920156
Fuck senpai I forgot to say digital but thanks

>>2920147

You can get first gen NEX cameras for as low as $50.

I would recommend at least getting one of the later ones that support the EVF attachment though. An NEX-3 isn't a bad camera, but the newer ones are SO much better.

Older is cheaper, but keep in mind that the newer body you buy, the faster the autofocus and the better the sensor.

>>2920147
After you get a job? A6300 maybe.

What's a good macro lens for my d750

>>2918558
Since you specified far left, it's a petal-shaped hood.

Does anyone here have any thoughts on using a monorail 4x5 for landscape? I figure they might be cumbersome to carry, but the Cambo's don't look to heavy. I've had a 4x5 Tachihara before, but I find that camera to be flimsy. I also want yaw free axis tilt, so that I don't have to refocus after tilting

Thoughts? They're also much cheaper.

>>2920026
Ray deserves it though

>>2920181
Carl Zeiss Makro-Planar T 100mm f/2 ZF2 (best option)

Nikon 105mm f/2.8G ED-IF VR

I borrowed a 600d for a month and I enjoyed it, I like the menu and button layout etc

is a 700d a decent idea as a first camera or is there something better for similar price?

>>2920204
See >>2919305.

>>2920206
I'm interested in the a6000 but things like battery life, maybe awkward to look through the viewfinder and use of proprietary apps to do shit (play memories and shit) put me off. Or am I wrong about apps on an a6000?

are menus and such the same or is it more hassle to set things up on the sony?

I'm edging toward it though. the size is really enticing

>>2920211
> battery life
You presumably aren't going to even shoot enough that you can't carry enough spare batteries in your shirt pocket.

> use of proprietary apps to do shit
In the sense that you can optionally launch them and they take over the camera (single tasking OS, like almost all current cameras), rather than the default firmware, yes.

> Or am I wrong about apps on an a6000?
No, they *are* proprietary.

You're just wrong in the sense that the other cameras mostly don't even *have* on-camera apps.

They just have their proprietary firmware, and some have some non-proprietary open sauce hacks that you technically can't legally use in many countries (but I guess you will, since nobody checks these things).

> are menus and such the same
They're very similar to other Sony cameras - including P&S and higher end models.

But they're not the same as other brand's menus. Everyone has their own lineup of menus.

> is it more hassle to set things up on the sony?
Mixed. You might be able to configure more buttons and often have a lot more configuration options related to camera automatics. But some consider the menus less well-structured than on other cameras.

> the size is really enticing
So is the sensor and burst speed of the camera and not much gimped software capabilities and more. Typical first recommendation for this price range.

>>2920147
Olympus ep5 would be gorgeous. Affordable, especially on KEH. Lenses are cheap and teeny tiny. Optional evf, take it off and put a pancake on for a pocket cam with dual dials and a larger sensor than any typical zoom point and shoot

And if you ever upgrade to a full size DSLR, it'll make a great second cam for the times you don't want to lug around a huge camera

>>2920211
Forgot to address playmemories.

Yea, software-based remote control from PC or smartphone by WLAN is proprietary, too.

Now just guess what Canon Camera Connect / CameraWindow is: Open source or proprietary? Yep, exactly...

>>2920218
>>You're just wrong in the sense that the other cameras mostly don't even *have* on-camera apps.

This is my issue, I know that the other brands use proprietary but the fact that it's there and I'm expected to pay for some timelapse function or whatever, is what irks me.

I'd rather not even be able to do that, it sets a weird precedent and makes me worry what other shit I'd have to buy. I don't even want that shit clogging my menus even if I buy none of them.

That's just my first impression on stuff like payable in-camera apps

>But some consider the menus less well-structured than on other cameras.

As I suspected. I guess the configuration options help though

overall I'm edging toward the sony

>>2920236
Most of the apps you have to pay for on Sony add functions and features already present in most entry level cameras.
This is a Sony only shill and quite frankly it is disrespectful of them towards you as the customer.
Lesson learned, get a Fuji if you want a good mirrorless or a Pentax or Nikon if you prefer the classical DSLR.

>>2920236
>the fact that it's there and I'm expected to pay for some timelapse function or whatever, is what irks me.
Some apps are free, and it gives people at least a documented in-camera API to use when they need to do software. But yea, I also don't love it.

Now, the thing is, CaNikon do the same, but worse. They remove features even from the standard firmware (which Sony almost doesn't do), and expect you to upgrade to the next best camera instead to get the better firmware.


> it sets a weird precedent and makes me worry what other shit I'd have to buy
Most definitely no Nikon or Canon then - again, they're worse with trying to upmarket people than even Sony.

Pentax perhaps? Maybe Panasonic.

> I don't even want that shit clogging my menus even if I buy none of them
It doesn't. It's all under one single application launcher menu entry that you need to select to see first.

> As I suspected. I guess the configuration options help though
The configurable automatics help (because you usually don't need to go into a menu modify them again). The configurable fn menu and rebinding buttons helps.

Everything else is arguably as bad (or good - some cameras do more horrid shit in submenus) as browsing through a list of lists that is split into a handful of tabbed sections.

File: RedNikonD3200-420x280.jpg (28KB, 420x280px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 420x280px

Friend gave me his d3200 is it a good general DSLR?

>>2920248
It's a good deal on the low end of DSLR. More or less as good as it gets for cheap.

The upper midrange to high-end DSLR with matching glass tend to be the generally good DSLRs.

In between and up there are a lot of reasons to upgrade, as I'd assume your friend did. But hey, this already takes photos with a fairly okay sensor and can use a good lens.

>>2920248
The image quality is excellent. If you put a good lens on it, you might find incredible performance.

However it's a bit gimped, autofocus isn't excellent, the build quality is nothing like a ""real"" magnesium DSLR, and the menus and external controls kinda suck.

It's a great beginner cam, even though it's the cheapest crappiest Nikon DSLR you could get at the time, it's still a Nikon DSLR and as a result you'll have a long way to go before you outgrow it in ability and speed.

>>2920248
I'd say it's a sergeant major DSLR at best

I want a camera to make street photography, and my budget is 250€ (280$). Im looking for a second hand fuji x10/x20.

Is it a good option for a beginner that wants to learn and improve gradually?

>>2920307
> Is it a good option for a beginner that wants to learn and improve gradually?
You can learn some digital post.

I'm not expecting the camera to be particularly helpful in other ways going forward - it's a P&S snapshit camera in a case that makes it look more luxurious. Doesn't even take new lenses, and they saved even some typical P&S features. But your budget is too low.

Anybody got any opinion on the Tamron 16-300MM F/3.5-6.3 Di II VC PZD Macro? Pros? Cons? Actual use?

>>2920335
It's a superzoom. It has great zoom range and is being mostly crap throughout it as well.

>>2920335
> quickly go check measurements
As expected for a ~19x zoom range lens, that lens is terrible at everything.

>>2920337
>>2920343

Okay, so answer me this: I'm a noob to photography. I mostly shoot nature and wildlife as I hike and camp and generally spend a lot of time outdoors. I don't like switching between my wide angle and zoom lenses very much. Are there any other lenses you could recommend that have a good zoom range?

I use a Nikon D3300. I shoot for myself, I've no interest in making a living out of it.

>>2920344
The Sigma 50-500 has a good zoom range.

>>2920241

Most of the apps are useless stuff, that automates things you would normally do in lightroom. Only a few are worth messing with, and most of the good ones are free.

Not to mention the store was broken awhile ago and you can pirate and get homebrew stuff pretty easily now.

>they're worse with trying to upmarket people than even Sony.

The thing I don't like that Sony does, is that domestic Japanese camera models are language locked. Pretty sure it is to stop the domestic market from getting fucked by Chinese tourists, but it is still annoying.

>>2920344

Considered getting a second body?

>>2920362
> Most of the apps are useless stuff, that automates things you would normally do in lightroom.
Agreed. And doubly so because of the single tasking nature of those apps.

> Pretty sure it is to stop the domestic market from getting fucked by Chinese tourists
I honestly don't get this line of thought.

How could Chinese tourists "fuck" the local market? So they come, buy cameras for what I assume is perfectly good money, and Sony simply gives up on producing more (or shipping more to Japan)...?

>>2920160
Guess I'm not looking in the right place everything I can find is at least 400

>>2920373

Tourists come to Japan and buy up all the stock to sell in China.

Happens with pretty much everything sold in Japan. Fuku-bukuro, new tech launches, no matter what it gets swarmed by Chinese.

I don't know why they don't just buy it in China, I assume it is cheaper or something.

>>2920385
No taxes for international visitors and flights to Japan are cheap enough. Hell I found $433 return flights from Australia and the amount I'll save buying gear there will be worth it alone. Bringing about $15,000 cash to go shopping for some white telephoto L lenses.

File: Plastic-Caps.png (41KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 400x400px

Anyone know where I could get a 82mm plastic cap like pic related? This one is a LEE cap for their 100mm filter system which I think is an 86mm ring, but I need one for the NISI sytem which takes 82mm rings.

I tried ebay and all they seem to have are the standard lens caps which won't work, I need one that slips over not clips on.

File: canon_eosM5_002.jpg (45KB, 500x474px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 500x474px

>>2918512
>no 4k
what were they thinking?
how can they even compete with a6300?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated

>>2920520
M5 cannot have 4K because gotta sell muh 90D/5D4/XC15

5D4/XC15 cannot have 4K@60 because gotta sell muh C300/500/700

meanwhile panasonic gives no fucks

>>2920520
>>2920560
It's really just an 80D without the mirror box and the optical viewfinder, which necessarily isn't a bad thing, as long as the price is right.

Would be interested to get one as a second/crop body if less than $1,000 or so.

>>2920520
>how can they even compete with a6300?

How does the autofocus with EF lenses compare to the a6300?

>>2920626
If it has the AF system of the 80D then it should be pretty gud. The Dual Pixel AF system alone would be a decent upgrade from the previous M series bodies. But I'd prefer to use the native EF-M lenses myself. I loved that little 22mm f/2 STM when I had the M3.

>>2920385
> Tourists come to Japan and buy up all the stock to sell in China.
And Japan's logistics surely can handle as many cameras as tourists can take, even tourists that bring a whole bag full of cameras to China on small export. So where is the problem for Sony? Just bring more cameras to sell at a good profit...

Fucking companies should just get over their regional marketing plans. They also use the global market very extensively for their supply chain - can't blame customers if they do the same.

>>2920626
Camera is speculative at this point. Like with every EOS M so far, people speculate that it will be great.

Experience so far has been that Canon doesn't let the EOS M compete with its DSLR, though. Abysmal buffer size and shitty AF and all that. I personally don't expect anything much to change.

I am looking for a new, mechanical SLR. Here are my options:

nikon f2
canon f-1
zenit 12xp
pentax k1000
olympus om-1

I already use zenit 11, but the selenium is crappy. I also have a set of lenses for the M42 mount.

Are any of those just bad and should be taken out of my list? I am also open to other suggestions. I just want the camera to work without a battery if I wish to not use one.

File: 스텔라.jpg (41KB, 960x540px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 960x540px

What camera is this?
source: https://youtu.be/IIj7j7mtNS4?t=17s

File: IMG_20160909_112329.jpg (702KB, 2048x1536px) Image search: [Google]

702KB, 2048x1536px

Found this old lens hood from the 70s (maybe?) It fits on my lens perfect. I found it while me and my father were going through his old shit with his Pentax k1000.

Will I actually get any benefit from this on a 15-35 AF lens or will I just look like a twat?

>>2920560
>meanwhile panasonic gives no fucks
panasonic doesn't give any of the things you're whining about either.
GH4's 4k only gets 24 frames per second, not 60. Not even half of your pointless shit requirement.

>>2920766
Any hood gives you a chance to block some light not coming from the subject.

It's just probably not blocking near the maximum possible like lens-adapted hoods are.

>>2919216
he is correct

>>2920656
F3
3

But F2 a good. But if you have M42 mount, then you might as well get a M42 camera. They all work the same.

just got a new gx8 + 14-42 zoom objectiv for 700€ for primarily video usage, but now I kinda feel regret for not having bought a gh4.

Guys I need some backup here.
I'm okay with the design and the missing flash and the 20MP are a really nice extra, but thinking about shooting 4k is the better framrate aswell as the higher bitrate a big factor? Haven't done much filming on that level, but I am trying to get there.
Looking to use the high framerates for macro filming.

Are those really high end differences worth the 300-400€ extra? Or will the gx8 just do fine.

And do you think working with the gx8 will come off unprofessional since most people are used to the DSLR look ?

Thanks in advance guys !

>>2920823
The shutter of F3 only works at ~1/60s without a battery, that is a deal breaker for me.

Billingham Hadley series. Y/N? Anybody here got one?

>>2920856

why the fuck does it need to be mechanical? you're stupid. it's 2016.

>>2920890
It is my personal preference ... I prefer using manual mechanical cameras. You do net need a reason for it. I use a mechanical watch simple because I do not like wearing a digital display on my wrist, same thing.

>>2920373
>How could Chinese tourists "fuck" the local market? So they come, buy cameras for what I assume is perfectly good money, and Sony simply gives up on producing more (or shipping more to Japan)...?

Reminder the Japanese economy is stagnating for decades.
This probably has a good reason.

>>2920892

I don't think it's your preference since you don't even own one. You just like the idea because you're young and stupid.

The tiny little button batteries in an old manual focus camera last for years. It's a complete non-issue and has no compromise in return for the advantage of more accurate shutter timing.

>>2920900
I already own several fully mechanical SLRs as well as one digital SLR. Just deal with the fact I want a mechanical camera, geez.

>>2920900
This. I mean, you're going to need a battery for the meter anyways. And after photographers in the 80s got over their anxiety of having batteries in the camera, they too realized it really didn't matter because those batteries last so damn long.

A pack of LR44s is like $2 from the shops.

>>2920828
4K on the GH4 is 30 fps too. Bit rate and profiles might be better. If you were going all in for video, why didn't you just buy the GH4 anyways?

Nobody gives a shit what your video rig looks like. Especially if you've got it mounted on a gimbal with a mic and light sticking out of it. Just tell them it's current year.

>>2920903

Then fuck off and buy an fm2 and continue to coo over your pure mechanical imperfection.

>>2920656
I have an OM-1 and I love shooting on it. It has a great feel to it. It's fully manual, but if you want the light meter to work you are going to need to buy an MR9 battery adapter that takes 386 silver batteries because the original 1.35 volt PX13 mercury batteries are no longer in production and the PX625 alkaline replacements are at 1.5 volts and fuck with the reading.

File: plasticgarbage.jpg (149KB, 600x368px)

149KB, 600x368px

Wow, look at that magnesium chassis the 5D4 has! Nikon BTFO

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 7D Mark II
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/4.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2016:09:07 22:40:13
Exposure Time	1/80 sec
F-Number	f/4.0
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	800
Lens Aperture	f/4.0
Exposure Bias	1/3 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	70.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	600
Image Height	368
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>2920908
That is the plan.

>>2920914
Cheers mate, quite helpful

>>2920863
Nothing wrong with the bag, but it's expensive and you'll look like a tool

>>2920771
GH4 is just old (but it has a log profile at least), GH5 is going to be announced in a few days. Their low end models like GX80 have 4K@30.

Thoughts on this as my first DSLR setup?

http://www.cameta.com/Nikon-D3300-Digital-SLR-Camera-Body-Black-Factory-Refurbished-82766.cfm
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/606792-USA/Nikon_2183_AF_S_Nikkor_35mm_f_1_8G.html

I did my research, and it seems like the D3300 has the best value when it comes to getting a decent sensor (I am trying to be budget conscious). That lens also seems pretty well liked and I'd rather have it over the kit lens. Would it be a bad idea to buy the lens used from B&H instead of new? I could save ~$70, but the new one comes with the warranty (and its new).

>>2920993
Not bad, the only alternative is the Pentax K-50 with the 35/2.4 lens.

File: image.jpg (45KB, 550x485px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 550x485px

>Nikon DF for 800€
Is it worth it? I already have a Panasonic GX7 which I like, but it struggles when shooting at night. I could invest in Panasonic 42.5mm f1.2, but for about the same money I could get the DF + basic 50mm f1.8 AF-S/AF-P.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	550
Image Height	485
Scene Capture Type	Standard

File: big_2328_Bessaflex_TM_Black_1.jpg (951KB, 1204x1040px) Image search: [Google]

951KB, 1204x1040px

>>2920656
m42 lenses are great man get a fuji st801 or a bessaflex tm. they have insanely bright viewfinders

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 10D
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS3 Windows
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.4
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2010:04:09 15:01:05
Exposure Time	1/60 sec
F-Number	f/1.4
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/1.4
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	1204
Image Height	1040

>>2920999
Yeah, I did look at that. The Nikon's sensor, (supposedly) better low light performance, and the fact that it lacks the AA filter pushed me towards it as indicators of better image quality.

>>2921062
The sensors are basically the same with low light performance. The biggest difference is the bright pentaprism viewfinder and the fact the K-50 has no intentionally disabled features.
Also two control wheels.
I'd suggest trying both out at a camera store first to see the difference.

>>2921062
Also AA filter is nothing to worry about unless you want pixel-by-pixel resolution printed on glossy huge panels with minute detail.
I've used cameras with and without AA filters, no difference when you fill the frame and don't go pixel peeping every step.

What's a good Android app for resizing photos?

>>2921063
>>2921067
Thanks for the feedback. Especially with the sensor and AA stuff. I'm not articularly interested in the technical aspects of digital cameras, but I feel like I have to dig into it if I'm making a big purchase. I hadn't really done much serious consideration of the K-50. I appreciate your pointing out that there are two control wheels. I went and fingerfucked a D3300 (as well as a t6i and an A6000) at my local Best Buy yesterday, and I was a bit perplexed in manual mode because you have to press a button to switch between aperture and exposure on the front wheel. So with two wheels I wouldn't have to? That seems like a fairly significant feature that none of the websites point out. I do plan on doing a lot of shooting with manual. My other slight issue with the D3300 is how light it was. I've been shooting on an Olympus OM-1, which is a very meaty, metal camera. All the cameras I tried out felt like little bitches in comparison. There is a camera store near me that should have a K-50 in stock, so I guess I'll go try it over there. Also the fact that B&H has a used body for only $220 is pretty attractive.

Is buying refurbished bad? Tight on a budget.

>>2921048
That depends on what you're shooting. DF+50/1.8 has no IS, so for static subjects it will be same or maybe even worse than GX7 with a similar f/1.8 lens. For moving subjects, Df will give you a much cleaner picture or 2+ stops faster shutter speed (and a much thinner depth of field, which can be desirable or not depending on the situation)

But anyway, 800€ for a fully functional Df is a super low price and you should grab it if only to resell it on ebay for 1200.

>>2921127
No. I buy most of my gear used or refurbished.

>>2921127
Refurbished means it was serviced in the factory or by a factory approved service and checked just like any new device.
They are basically new and repackaged stuff.

>>2921131
>>2921132
Thanks!

>>2921048
I'd buy that just to have it, at that price. However, Nikkor lenses are fuck-expensive so unless you're just gonna shoot a 50/1.8 (the G version is superb, btw) prepare to splash out another 1.5-2k€ over the next year for a 28mm and a medium tele & 1:1 macro.

>>2921156
You could also shoot some Sigma, Tamron, Samyang, ... rather than all Nikkor?

wat do, /p/. I've got $600 burning a hole in my pocket. I could buy a SB600, 60/2.8D, and umbrellas and stands. Or I can buy a D7100.

I've already got a YN560III, 35DX, 50/1.8D, 70-300 VR, 18-55 VR, and D3100. Conventional wisdom says fuck bitches, acquire glass. Option one is nice, except I dont shoot much macro/product/portrait. The ability to opens up though. Option two is nice, because I do shoot motorsports and other things that move, and the AF system would be a great boon. Also having similar controls to my F100 is nice. An 80-200/2.8's a bit out of my price range, and lacks VR anyways.

>>2921271
Yeah m8, it's 2017, fuck conventional wisdom.
A better lense improves only the photos taken at wider apertures with that one focal length.
A better sensor improves all of your photos.

>>2921303
You're an idiot

>>2921271
Put the 70-300 on a 7100,
Put the 50 on your 3100,
Walk around and do portraits of participants, while you shoot the cars with your 70-300

Thinking of getting the sony 55-210 4.5-6.3 for my a6300 to experiment with tighter video, any opinions on the lens? The international version is like 200 bucks. If that lens is shit any vintage zoom i should look at instead? This is for incredibly amature stuff i dont mind adapting as long as i dont have to drop 500 on a metabones.

>>2920863
>spending that much money on a purse just so you can look like a raging faggot
lol go ahead anon

>>2921303
I guess it makes more sense when you're not only jumping sensor generations, but also body tiers. Not that that's ever stopped me from renting a 70-200/2.8 or AFS 80-400 for the D3100.

>dat right hand cramp from balancing the weight, despite the left hand helping

>>2921402
Exactly. Right now, I borrow my friend's XT10+18-55 to do wide/pit stuff. I hate swapping lenses on the fly.

Also
>manual focus on a D3100
Lelno. I tend to use the 18-55 anyways.

>>2921405
Typical kit lens (from the 2 lens kit, eh).

Feels very cheap when you zoom, gives you low to average IQ, has actually pretty good in-lens stabilization. Covers all the basics for cheap, I guess.

But I personally still enjoy shooting with sharper lenses a lot more - this lens only fairly rarely sees any use with me.

>>2921431
So would you say to pass it up? Anything you'd recommend that covers that range? I'd honestly rather a zoom lens so that i don't swap lenses all the time when doing video on the fly.

So for AF SLRs, is focus speed and depth tracking more of a function of the lens (motor speed and logic) or the body (AF module speed and analysis intervals)? It's a factor of both, but which is more readily apparent?

For example, a 70-200/2.8 on an entry level body with a single cross-type point, and a kit telezoom on a pro-level crop body (7D2/D500)

>>2921452
It's hard to say which is faster without testing every combination. It's both, a lot. You'll need a fast body and a fast lens to get great AF, unless you're using Nikon screw drive lenses on an F5

>>2921429
>Nikon can't focus D lenses
I vomited in my mouth. Thanks for reminding me how glad I am for moving out of DSLRs

>>2921405

It is pretty solid, but nothing special.

Outdoes the kit lens in image quality, but still nothing compared to some other e-mounts. If you can get it super cheap, go ahead. It can't really be beat for the price.

>>2921453
Fun fact: I think all of the following bodies have the top shelf in body motor: f5, f100, d1/2/3/4/5, d300/500, d7/1/200, d750, d600/d610, d700/800/810.

I could be wrong, and I literally just pulled this out of my ass and from what i've read on the internet. It's possible the big pro bodies might have yet another level of speed above the small pro/prosumer bodies.
>>2921455
S-sorry

>>2921459
Is it softer than say the kit lens? The 1080 on the a6300 is a tad soft as is and doesnt need any help being soft you know?

>>2921469

I haven't compared side by side, but sharper from what I hear.

>>2920993
Spend a little more and pick up a refurb d7100 (or a used d7000 if you don't want to spend more). There's a lot of things (internal focus motor, extra dial, less menu diving, weather sealing, AF points, lossless RAW files, etc) that you'll start to want pretty quickly

>>2921452
The answer is obviously both and it is a stupid question by default because there are a thousand different lenses and many different bodies. And very different price points.

If a lens chip and motor are shit, the body will say "hey lens, you're front-focused, pull back"
and it pulls back too far "hey lens, now you're back focused, go forward" then it goes too far forward, repeat a dozen times.
A $50,000 body won't do jack shit for AF if the $50 lens has a shitty software or hardware.

And if you have a $20,000 lens and attach it to a $200 craigslist used body that has an out-of-alignment focus mirror and dust-covered focus sensor. There's now a difference between what the focus-sensor and the image-sensor see, so your +5 front-focusing body spots that to it, the object away is out-of-focus, the lens perfectly swings the elements to get absolutely precise alignment of the image onto that misplaced focus-mirror, boom, "job complete" then when it gets to the actual image sensor which is aligned on a different plane, it's blurry every single time.

If you're worried about AF and don't want to actually do any research, just don't buy the budget bottom tier body, they'll purposefully leave off in-body focus-correction software.
And don't buy the bottom budget lens, it's far more likely to have reviews like "focus hunts a lot if lighting isn't perfect"

>>2921480

Lol wut

>>2921486

Just a bunch of random, far reaching thoughts and opinions based on general assumptions.

Basically.

Is the Canon T2i (550d) still viable? My friend is selling me his body+50mm 1.8 for $200

Is that a good deal?

>>2921584
Doesn't worth more than $100.

>>2921452
I would say speed is more dependent on the lens.
But reliability is definitely dependent on the body.

ie:
In an ideal situation an entry level DSLR will focus almost as fast as a top level DSLR.
But in many situations the entry level will hunt or fail to focus completely.

>>2921452

Both. Just look at Sony.

>A7 with kit lens
Slow, inaccurate autofocus

>A7II with kit lens
Fast, accurate autofocus

>A7 with FE 50mm f1.8 budget lens
Slow, terrible autofocus.

>A7II with FE 50mm f1.8 budget lens
Slow, terrible autofocus.

>>2921611
>corrosion
All of them

Hi /p/, first time on this board so I hope this is not a completely retarded question.

I'm looking to buy a camera mostly for holiday pictures, those shitty phone pictures aren't doing it anymore. As you can probably tell, I'm a conplete newfag when it comes to photography, maybe I'll get more into it if I get a proper camera. Looking online I found that a lot of people recommend the D3300, what do you guys think? Or is too "fancy" for what I'm looking for?

>>2921617
D3300 is alright, but look at mirrorless cameras if you want something more compact to take on holidays.

>>2921619
Will do, thanks anon.

>>2920941
Why will I look like a tool? I think it looks nice in green.

Money isn't an issue either.

>>2921617
> D3300
> Or is too "fancy" for what I'm looking for?
It's not too fancy. It's at the very low end of new DSLR.

Most people that care about photos end up with something more midrange at least.

You just need to figure out what glass and camera you can afford and what you will actually carry.

>>2921619
>more compact to take on holidays.

I never get that argument.

Your camera should be in your hands, not stowed away in your suitcase.

>>2921633
Agreed. I will never, ever put my camera in checked luggage. If I don't have my camera in my presence I will be uncomfortable the duration of my time at the airport and flight.

>>2921632
>Most people that care about photos end up with something more midrange at least.

No they don't.
Image quality is the same, you just have a little less controls.

Entry level is fine for....entry level.
You can always upgrade if you really start to enjoy photography.

>>2920863

Memebag.

>>2921635
Not sure if sarcasm, but who puts expensive electronics in checked luggage?
Luggage gets stolen all the time.

>>2921434
> So would you say to pass it up?
Not necessarily. This is a go-to lens if you want something cheap with at least good OSS.

Of course, if you had money to spend, there would be better models - but I figure you'll easily find them by just sorting zoom lenses on a major store by cost. Not much of a secret there.

>>2921635
>I will never, ever put my camera in checked luggage.

I put my Secret Handshake in checked luggage.

I figured since it was super well padded it would be fine.

Nope, somehow got scratches on the front element.