GEAR THREAD

First for anybody who can't make sharp, pleasing images on M43 couldn't make them on your memeformat of choice anywyas.

>>2922028
But what if M43 is my memeformat of choice

TIME PARADOX

File: 2226568424_8f988eb611.jpg (77KB, 500x401px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 500x401px

fancy gear thread?

>>2922026
Bruce Lee tho?

Closest thing I've found is the Canon EF 14mm f/2.8L USM II, but at that price point, I could just get the Tamron 15-30mm f/2.8 VC USD instead. Save a bit of money and get a useful zoom range, though definitely not as wide I want it to be :(

>>2921957
>Sigma 12-24
Already have that. I want f/2.8 or faster :(

>EF 11-24L
Gawd, I want that fat bastard, but it's too monstrously huge for nightclub photography.


>>2921979
AF is required unfortunately, since I'll be shooting wide open every now and then.

>>2922044
> AF is required unfortunately, since I'll be shooting wide open every now and then.
And that changes infinity significantly away from ~1.2m (on my lens) or whatever it is on your expected lens... how?

Of course I'm simply asserting you're probably not going to shoot much at from the minimum distance to that...

ok /p/, I need your help
>thanks for the feedback so far

I will buy my first good camera soon, but I am having trouble choosing between the brands.

First off, Im a film student of 2 years, I already have a fairly good idea of how exposure, composition, lighting and story of an image work.
Until now I have been focusing on directing, screenplay and animation, so now i want to expand into cinematography and photography.

I dont want an "entry"-leve camera, as I dont really need to figure out the basics anymore. I've been shooting most of my uni material on different Eos C models(mostly c500) and a little bit on a RED.

When it comes to photography though, I'm still a little clueless what to choose. I dont have the money for 2k+ full frame shenanigans, so I'd go with a prosumer camera. Body for ~1k and another 500 for some decent glass.

Best candidates for me are Canon 80d, Nikon D7200 and Sony A6300.
I've read all tests and reviews there are to read, so I am not really looking for spec tips here. I just want to figure out in what company I want to invest, based on how their images "feel".

I am aware that this is a weird request, but I want to hear your opinions on how the different cameras affect the look and feel of an image.

Bc I have the impression that most of the images produced by Canon models evoke a "cinematic" feel (pic related). Ive seen pictures from amateurs that really told a story just by how the color chemistry works.
From Nikon I've seen incredible results when it comes to wildlife and documentation. They tend to be more precise than Canon images.
Sony on the other hand leaves an almost machine like taste for me. Especially on their mirrorless models, everything seems to be so outstandingly sharp and well lit, that it almost feels superficial to me. Idk.

I am completely open for buying any of them. Just leave your opinon and maybe a picture to go with it and prove your point.

>TL;DR Canon VS Nikon VS Sony based on how their images feel.

>>2922093

a6300

Extremely ca0able body. Capable of mounting and aurofocusing all those Nikon/Canon lenses that give those color profiles/image feels you love so much

>>2922093
You already got all the answer you needed: It doesn't matter, you're an idiot, buy any camera and post process to taste. Pick something that matches your purse.

>>2922044
>10-12mm
>nightclub photography

You do realize how distorting a rectilinear 10mm lens is, right? Any club-goer unfortunate enough to be caught at the edge of the frame will be stretched and squashed like a John K character.

>>2922113
Yea.
But I'd say the 12mm Samyang is reasonably useful:
http://www.fotodesign-rs.de/samyang-12mm-f2-review/

On FF you could rectilinearize the fisheye f'/2.8.

>>2922093
>Canon 80d, Nikon D7200 and Sony A6300.

i left the digital cuckoldry arena long time ago, but since all so called people here are faggots i will give you no nonsense advice:

nikon is like you said, clinical boring images, colder. canon renders better the red tones, hence, skin looks more pleasant, this is important if you do movies.

sony is a piece of trash that will fail if you sneeze over it, because it has laughably shit weather sealing, a very minute amount of particulated water corrodes it. look it up. totally inviable if you want to film, which requires exterior shootings and variable climate conditions.

go with the canon and, since you will be filming and manual focusing, get some super takumar m42 primes (search for the 50mm 1.4 one, the 35mm, 28mm too), they are old lenses that have amazing out of focus rendering qualities and sweet colors. you can get like 3 of those for $200, so you will have extra budget to buy a rode type mic for you camera too.

good luck.

This is it, I finally made the step to set my camera color space to AdobeRGB. Is there anything I have to look out for in LR, PS and in the rare cases of printing?

>>2922126
> canon renders better the red tones
It processes JPEG like red-tinted shit by default. At least it did on entry level cameras - not actually sure if the higher end ones still strongly do that nowadays.

> this is important if you do movies
Having s-log or a variant is what's probably important.

http://www.provideocoalition.com/the_not_so_technical_guide_to_s_log_and_log_gamma_curves/

> a very minute amount of particulated water corrodes it
Simply not the case.

I have a 1.6 crop sensor, 35mm, 50mm and 135mm fast primes, would I be better off buying a new FF body instead of a fast 24mm and 85mm?

Thinking of buying these two lenses but I could buy a ff body for the same price and use my current lenses

>>2922140
> would I be better off buying a new FF body instead of a fast 24mm and 85mm?
I don't think so at this point, no.

You may have to pick a slightly wider / narrower one to get a good 24 / 85mm equivalent on your system, but there probably should be something decent on your system...?

> but I could buy a ff body for the same price and use my current lenses
Eh? Aren't your current lenses APS-C ones or something?

>>2922144
>Eh? Aren't your current lenses APS-C ones or something?
Hmm. I really don't know. I was looking at lenses compatible with 70D when I bought then a looked through reviews but I just assumed they would all work on a FF body as well just with a wider view.
I'll have to look into that.

It's not so much that I want a 24 or 85 exactly. Just something narrower than 35mm on a crop sensor and something between my 50 and 135mm.

I'm still pretty new to all this as you might have guessed and figuring out what lengths are going to be most useful to me

>>2922154
> but I just assumed they would all work on a FF body as well just with a wider view.
APS-C lenses generally won't do that.

In general, their sharp image circle will fill about the same area as an APS-C sensor would have occupied, then some more fuzzy border region, and then it's black.

>>2922154
That's the opposite of how it works.
EF lenses work on both.
EF-S lenses are only crop and nothing else.

>have zoom lens
>only use shortest and longest focal length, rarely anything in betwee


zoom lenses are a scam to be honest famima

>>2922172
Put the telephoto down, friend.

>>2922179

His argument is a bit retarded and relies on assumption, but yours makes no sense at all.

>>2922196
Well, with a standard zoom, you're more likely to use the wide, tele, but also middle ranges for the majority of your shooting.

With a telephoto zoom, you're definitely likely to use or the other extreme.

>>2922026
>Jackie Chan Edition
>is Bruce Lee
kill yourself faggot

>>2922126
thanks for the detailed answer. as much as i appreciate the responds, when most of them say "get whatever you like and fix in post" - its not the most satisfying feedback one can get.

I've been more or less favoring the Canon already, just because im used to shooting on high level canon film gear, but wanted to get some more opinions in.
In the end film and photo are two different things.

I also like the lense suggestions, though i will mostly take pictures with this cam. for shooting video I will usually borrow the university gear. Though I like the thought of having a b-roll camera around.
And maybe for some short holiday projects. Anyway, the 80d should fit those needs with its good autofocus and the nice touchscreen.

Any lens suggestions for specific photo needs?

can anyone recomend a good intervalometer for a canon rebel t5 wanna do some time lapses

>>2922026
Does anyone have a recommendation for a starter camera for under 500 CAD, I have some experience tho. I took at photography class in high school but never owned my own camera and now wanna get one

>>2922270
>"get whatever you like and fix in post" - its not the most satisfying feedback one can get.
Because the detailed colors and shit are something you should just fix up in post.

Your disbelief when you get the right answer is odd as fuck, what do they even teach at your trade school?

At least two people said A6300 though.

> I've been more or less favoring the Canon already, just because im used to shooting on high level canon film gear
Do that then if you prefer.

> Any lens suggestions for specific photo needs?
I don't know the fuck what you're going to shoot, but if you want a simplification: Usually the very best (prime) lenses on Canon are Canon L, Zeiss, or Sigma.

Also feel free to use video lenses like the Canon Cine or Samyang Xeen if you are accustomed to using them anyway.

>>2922279
K-50 or Nikon D3200 / D3300.

Operating a camera is simple as fuck and simpler if you have a better one.

If you can, buy a better lens and maybe a better camera body - you can already use these.

>>2922442
>what do they even teach at your trade school?

as I said, until now Ive been majoring in directing, screenplay and animation. you learn a lot of basics when it comes to specific technical knowledge, but mostly you have people doing that for you. Most of the time I'd work with someone who is studying camera or editing. In the end, this is not my job as a director.
But thats why I decided to branch out into cinematography aswell.

And while I am aware, that most of a pictures flavour happens in post, I always felt that there ARE some very very minor differences with how certain sensors capture light and color.
It's the old discussion, if you believe in something being more than the sum of its parts. Two different cameras, using mostly different materials or even different technical approaches (eg mirrorless vs dslr) will, in my opinion, deliver a slightly different result. Even if you cant really pin it down, because there is soo much similarity in their specs, but the two pictures will have a different feel

>Also feel free to use video lenses like the Canon Cine
if i just could :D I shot my last project on the 50mm 1.3 Cinema, which was nice, but also this lens costs a good 5k and this is not in my price range ^^

>>2922510
>some very very minor differences
yes, they will be very, very minor. Like 0.000001%, whereas how you choose to process instantly makes the photo feel VERY, VERY largely different exactly how the processor wanted it to. (Color temperature, contrast, grain, vignetting, curve shapes, sharpening, etc.)
Given even 10,000 tries, no one could tell if an image was shot on a canon, nikon or sony by looking at the final processed image with a higher-than-luck odds.

In short you're a fucking moron.

>>2922510
>Two different cameras, using mostly different materials or even different technical approaches (eg mirrorless vs dslr) will, in my opinion, deliver a slightly different result.

Maybe they would, but you won't be able to tell which is which in 99.99% of cases. In fact, the manufacturers of those cameras spend countless man-hours making sure you can't.

>>2922076
>minimum distance
I'll be working up close and dirty in nightclubs. I even HAVE to do "selfies" with them.

>>2922113
You've never shot nightclubs then. You want to go as wide as possible as the bitches want to get their dresses in frame. But also affords me a great deal of room to crop in.

>>2922523
More like you have no idea how to take a halfway decent photo. Please learn the basics kid.

>>2922523
> I'll be working up close and dirty in nightclubs. I even HAVE to do "selfies" with them.
Unless you have something like an A7S II (or the more expensive 1D X II or D5 which I don't think you have due to even contemplating that lens price) or shine some fucking focus assist light in people's faces all day long, you probably can't even AF very reliably with your camera.

Doing some simple MF -focus peaking should still work, otherwise you experience & eyeball it- will be quicker and still very confident.


Also it will not require buying what are indeed very expensive lenses (the Canon EF 14mm f/2.8L II for example, which is JUST under $2k if you buy it right).

>>2922529
Nice fresh dank meme! I'll give it one like and a subcription! :)

>>2922529
You are 100% correct. This is Ray Neal Caird you're talking too, /p/'s biggest gearcunt. Owns multiple FF bodies and lenses covering the same focal lengths and has never taken a good shot in his life lmao

>>2922531
>focus assist light
I use my Speedlite's AF assist and it works plenty fine.

I was shooting f/8 manually focused for the first two weeks but even then I only had a strike rate of 75%.

With AF assist, I'm getting 100% of f/5.6 shots as keepers, 99% at f/2.8 and even 90% at f/1.4.

>>2922279
what do you want to use it for? what do you imagine yourself being motivated to take photos of?

>>2922534
I know you love me deepdown ;)

File: 18wxez.png (733KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

733KB, 500x500px

>>2922534
ROFL yes i remember now

>>2922534
>owns multiple FF bodies and lenses
Sounds you're jelly of the gear.

>>2922545
>jelly
Sounds like you should fuck off back to reddirt

>>2922547
After you ;^)

>>2922538
> I only had a strike rate of 75%.
What, even with focus peaking or whatever assist you have?

Alas, if shining AF assist lights in people's faces is your choice, I guess you should just get the Nikon AF Nikkor 14mm f/2.8D ED or Canon EF 14mm f/2.8L II or if you must a Sigma 14mm F/2.8.

AFAIK only lenses around $2k will look as good as the $500 ish MF Samyangs, though.

> f/8
I see that you're probably systematically blinding people with a follow-up strobe, too. Well, whatever pays your bills...

File: thecancerofp.png (52KB, 461x179px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 461x179px

>>2922548
Good one, Ray!

>>2922550
https://www.dxomark.com/lenses/launched-between-1987-and-2016/focal-from-1-to-16 <- easy DxO linkage for you.

Not a complete listing, but you might be able to use it.

>>2922550
It does pay the bills right now but I just wanted some bokeh :(

>>2922553
Yeah thanks brah. Already had a look on B&H photo and the only one that really popped out for me is the EF 14mm f/2.8L USM III. There's that only Tamron 14mm f/2.8 but not sure if I can reliably source a unit.

File: memea0be3b3498baacf8.jpg (62KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 500x500px

UHHH PLS HELP ME /P/

>>2922555
if you want bokeh you need to go narrower, not wider, you fucking moron. Bokeh on a 14mm isn't gonna happen unless you shove the camera in peoples faces and make them into jew nosed, sphere faces.

>>2922555
WA bokeh is almost always not terribly great - but if you want it and avoid/defer a ~$1.5k extra expense, don't give up on at least trying the Samyangs?

If you have no good MF assists on your camera (which I suppose you don't, given your non-answer), rent / lend one with a focus peaking capable camera one of these days.

>>2922560
>There's that only Tamron 14mm f/2.8 but not sure if I can reliably source a unit.
I dimly recall that one was shit anyhow.

File: 29167304932_b857aa6f30_o.jpg (5MB, 3200x3200px) Image search: [Google]

5MB, 3200x3200px

kek

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PlLM_AFx_2U

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2014 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	5000
Image Height	5000
Number of Bits Per Component	16, 16, 16
Compression Scheme	Uncompressed
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format
Image Created	2016:08:28 01:23:19
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	3200
Image Height	3200

>>2922566
Yeah I know. It's a 6D so the only thing I can really do is swap out the focusing screen but I'd rather AF over MF since it's working for new right now.

That Tamron is a screw drive I think so yeah definitely not a modern lens.

>>2922569
You might have an easier time if you do that on non-carpeted floor.

File: image.jpg (328KB, 2000x2000px) Image search: [Google]

328KB, 2000x2000px

I just picked up a fuji x-e1 for a steal from Craigslist but it the guy didn't sell it with a lens. I was able to test it with his 18-55mm kit lens but don't have the dosh to drop on a lens that expensive.
this is my first camera and want to get into street photography and some portraits so I'm thinking either a 35mm or 55mm fast prime.
My budget is around $300 for the lens and it'll be my only one so something good all around would be great.
I'm not opposed to something that would require an adapter

Any suggestions?

[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	2000
Image Height	2000
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>2922569
What lens is used for the picture you posted? Is it a fisheye? Could this be done on a crop sensor or is it exclusive to ff?

>>2922593
I would suggest you get the 35, but the best way to know is to take a couple of test shots using the 18-55 set at 35mm and then at 50mm. Whatever you like the most, that's the focal range you should get.
You might be able to go into a store and ask them to test out a 18-55, or maybe even the 35 and 50 primes.

>>2922593
You probably want a 50mm FF equivalent for a street/portrait prime. A fast 35mm or around that focal lenght would be ideal.

55mm on crop is too into tele field of view to be useful for street.

Do airlines hassle you got necking a DSLR rather than putting in a bag? Planning to carry-on my entire camera kit (about 20lbs in lenses alone) as well as my laptop and accessories (another 4lbs on top). The camera is a Canon EOS 6D with a 24-70mm f/2.8 (another 4lbs extra?)

Ay, I'm starting film school next year, but want to shoot both stills and (preferably 4k) video already. I have about a 3000 euro budget. I was thinking of buying the GH4 which seems to be the most bang for my buck. The A7s seems very good too, with the full-frame sensor vastly improving light sensitivity, but I've heard the lens support is quite bad.

So, for an all-rounder camera on a budget, which would you guys choose, considering the A7s is almost 80% more expensive? Any alternatives? Any lens suggestions for either camera? Would greatly appreciate it.

>>2922597
>>2922599
Thanks for the suggestions. 55mm was actually a typo in that post. I meant 50mm.
Sounds like a 35mm lens would probably be better as a beginner? Fuji has a 35mm f1.4 or a slightly cheaper 35mm f2.0. Is the smaller f-stop worth the money?

>>2922601
Depends on the airline, and how ugly you are

>>2922601
Airlines such as United or Lufthansa do not give a damn. They sometimes tell you to take care of your stuff on board of the plane so it won't get stolen, but that's it. Never had any issues before.

>>2922608
What do you mean by "slightly" cheaper? 1.4 will be better on low light, I'm not sure about the technical specs of these lenses though.

>>2922608
Not necessarily but in this particular case, absolutely.

f/1.4 is around 1 and a half stops of exposure greater than f/2 and allows for much easier Bokehwhoring. Also, typically stopping down an f/1.4 to f/2 will be sharper than the f/2 wide open.

>>2922607
If the a7S is an apple, the GH4 is a rotting apple core.

Go for the a7S.

>>2922593
>kit lens
>expensive
This hobby is not for you, anon.
Or you can do what everyone else does, get a job.

>>2922609
>>2922613
Low-cost airline than charged me for a bottle of water last time I flew with them :(

Though I did get a away with having three bags last time (instead of the limit of two) because I flirted with the check-in girl.

>>2922620
its gate staff and cabin crew you need to worry about with LCC, less so the check in counter. Gate staff once made me weigh my jacket before they let me board

>>2922624
What the fuck. I'm planning to wear my massive wool pea coat to carry more shit in the pockets too... I better no push my luck.

Though friend did suggest waiting until the absolute final boarding call so they won't bother hassling me.

browsing for TFP models on craigslist, spotted the nikon user

>I am looking for someone to help me learn the manual operations of my NIKON D60...........and anything else I should know about the operations of my camera. Location should be in FtWorth. Caucasian, middle aged male. I am gay and would be nice if you are too.

>>2922689
... is that a thinly veiled gay prostitution ad?
I never went on craigslist but I'll never will, that is for sure.

>>2922615
>f/1.4 is around 1 and a half stops of exposure greater than f/2

It's exactly 1 stop. lrn2aperture

>>2922689
ask him about his 80-400 Nikkor

This may sound stupid, but do people make fakes of cameras like they do with clothes?
Asking because a price on Craigslist is a lot lower than what it should be.

>>2922837
Convincingly faking a digital camera is pretty much impossible, they're very complex inside but easy to test. You can try to pass a lower-end or older model as a new one but that will only work if the buyer is a complete noob.

As far as film cameras go, a few collectible cameras are commonly faked using Soviet copies, but that's about it.

>a price on Craigslist is a lot lower than what it should be
It's probably just stolen. Or some kind of scam where they try to convince you to wire the money without seeing the camera.

>>2922572
>Yeah I know. It's a 6D so the only thing I can really do is swap out the focusing screen
The only thing...?

Don't you get focus peaking with this?

http://magiclantern.fm/

>>2922863
Oh, thank you

>>2922865
If you want to technically void your warranty. As far as I am aware, Canon aren't all that fond of ML so there's a bit of a risk if you want to flash it.

>>2922907
You couldn't be more wrong.

Need some advice for helmets. I'm doing some riots here in Brazil and thing are getting violent.

what kind of helmet should I buy?

>>2922958

doing some riots photography** I'm not rioting. Just taking snapshits with media and news

>>2922915
How so? Have a 6D and only thing holding me back was breach of warranty. Do Canon now allow ML?

>>2922960
Did wonder haha.

You can buy actual riot helmets (used) from eBay at reasonable prices. Not sure on shipping to Brazil though?

Whats the state of the art AF to Sony FE adapters? Still worthless unless LA-EA3 on A7rII/A7sII?

A7s mk 1 user here.

>>2922965
>the use of custom firmware or any other third party acessory with our equpment will void the warranty of the product IF PROVEN that the malfunction of the device was caused by the use of those.
>Canon respects the rights that their customers have to decide what accessories or firmware to use, although we do not recommended their use, and we are not responsible for any damage to the equipment.

and magic lantern guys says use-at-your-own-risk several times.
> No. Magic Lantern was created by reverse engineering an undocumented system that controls hardware. Therefore, we can't be certain that it's 100% safe.

>Magic Lantern does not replace Canon code (which is stored in ROM), but it does change the settings (which are saved to a non-volatile memory). If Magic Lantern would set incorrect values for certain settings, this may cause the camera not to boot (even without ML).
>use it at your own risk

If I get a new body in the future I might consider magic lanterning my oldest one, but it's too risky until I consider a body somewhat obsolete.

>>2922967

It's a nice idea, going for it, but I don't know if they ship it to Brazil because of Brazil's importation rules...

>>2922140
>would I be better off buying a new FF body

Yes

>>2922732
>80-400
fucking
dropped

200-500 or bust

Alright /p/ here's the deal. I need a cheap DIGITAL compact. I don't care about megapickles and dynamic range and optics and build quality.
I need something I can photograph people who will likely steal my camera with. I need something I know I can replace. No more than $100 and I don't mind buying used.

Pentax K-70 panorama with pixel-shift
In other words, a $600 entry level camera some landscape shooters would have killed for a few years ago. Can't post the pic here because 35Mb
http://m1.i.pbase.com/o9/81/825381/1/164053741.5PXXwEsP.hazyautumnafternoon.jpg
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4052391#forum-post-58322003

inb4 >dpreview

>>2922970
>Whats the state of the art AF to Sony FE adapters? Still worthless unless LA-EA3 on A7rII/A7sII?

If you have a new body, pretty much everything has native focus speeds. Canon, Nikon, even m-mount

>A7s mk 1 user here.

Is a last generation body, so autofocus speeds will be meh.

>>2923031
Isn't the adapter with the translucent mirror has a separate PDAF module? That should have better AF speeds.
Seriously I am surprised everyone is shitting on Pentax for it's bad tracking AF but Sony had serious problems with single AF.
Even Pentax CDAF in liveview was faster than a last gen A7.

>>2923028
How much of an improvement in IQ does the K-70 provide over the K-50/K-30 sensor?

>>2923037

The original A7 has some TERRIBLE autofocus.

THe later models have all that fixed though.

If you have an older body, the LA-EA4 will give you the best autofocus speeds.

>>2923031
>>2923037
Considered selling A7s and buying A7sII or A7rII + LA-EA3 + Tamron 24-70/2.8 etc

Might be cheaper or same price in total than Sony 24-70/2.8 outright

plus then other nifty stuff like 150-600mm.

>>2923042
16 pickles with AA filter in 50/30 vs 24 pickles without AA filter in 70, plus pixel shift.
That panorama shows the guys zoom lens was at the limit of it's optical resolution though, with a prime it can do even better.

>>2923045
I am unsure if the a7sii has pdaf open to third parties like the a7ii and a7rii.

a7rii would be a better choice.

>>2923045
Thanks but I'll stay with my Pentacks :^)
I was just helping out anon looking for a usable AF adapter
>>2923047
KHMcorrosion
Sorry, the air is dry over here, let me drink some water off my weather sealed camera

>>2923044
>>2923047

Thanks, apart from the 1/3rd stop loss of the LA-EA4. is it gonna be kinda shitty AF on the a7s?

I already have really nice manual primes up to 200mm.

>>2923046
So how much of a performance increase is that? I'm not particularly familiar with the details of DSLR sensor performance and it feels increasingly difficult to parse out the actual gains vs the marketing of these companies shilling out new bodies every two years.

>>2923050
>is it gonna be kinda shitty AF on the a7s?

Should be fine. Not gonna win any awards for speed, but pretty fast depending on the lens.

It even works great on the NEX-3.

>>2923053
There's cheap minolta alpha mount Sigma 400/5.6 i might experiment with first, also I saw a cheap la-ea1 in the 2nd hand cabinet at bic camera, wondering if worth playing with.

>>2923056

la-ea1 is aps-c only.

I honestly haven't tried an la-ea1/3 on a body without open pdaf. I assume since it is Sony it should work, but I do not know.

>>2923052
24 pickles is 24 pickles. If it is the same as in the K-3 you can get more than decent results at ISO 6400 and get usable results up to 12800 depending on the subject, framing and lighting.
The pixel shift gives you 4 stops advantage in terms of noise plus the Bayer interpolation is phased out giving you even more detail.
Compared to its predecessors, the K-30/50 and K-S2, it is leaps ahead plus it is still sold at an entry level price point.
Add the usual Pentacks benefits of weather sealing and bright and 100% accurate pentaprism viewfinder and you have a more than competitive deal.
Try and compare it to the D3400/D5500 and the Rebel 1300D and 760D or whatever entry body Canon comes out next time.

>>2923057
apparently you can remove the baffle though

Nikon D5200 with 18-55mm and 18-300mm with case tripod and other accessory shit for USD900 for a first DSLR, should I cop for that price?

>>2923061

It is still a little small, has some major vignetting.

>>2923058
Thank you for the detailed analysis. From my perspective, I'm new to photography and have been shooting film for a little while. I've been looking at entry-level DSLR's and am very close to pulling the trigger on the K-50. The main reason being that I could build a fairly inexpensive system of glass that I share between the K-50 and a pentax 35mm film camera (I'm trying to watch my budget so that is an important factor). Plus the K-50 seems like a very good camera all around and is very well liked. The K-70 does look like a big improvement as far as the sensor goes, but it puts me in a pickle. Either

A. Buy a used K-50 for ~$300 USD which gives me a decent amount of money left-over for lenses and film. In this scenario I know I'll eventually feel compelled to upgrade to a better body
or
B. Buy a new K-70 body for $650 which will be more "future-proofed" and is a camera I could grow into (as well as the peace of mind of a new camera and manufacturer's warranty), but have very little money left over for glass

I guess the third option at this point is to consider a K3 body, but I don't know how that matches up to the K-70 as I haven't researched it very much

>>2923071
If you are familiar with 50mm lens on your film camera than you will do just as well with the 35/2.4 lens. It is cheap as salt, goes around $80-$100. Second sharpest of my lenses after the Tamron 70-200/2.8 and it is very, very close.
Also the $650 price is for the kit lens bundle if I recall correctly.
The K-3 is a more rugged build, bigger battery and the AF is better with more AF points. It has no pixel shift, that is available with the K-3II. Also no KAF4 mount support which is supported by the K-70 and K-3II.
I say at this point there is no reason to go for a K-3 or even K-3II over the K-70.
Especially considering landscape photography.

Looking to snag an X100t, either go the used route on eBay or new at a local camera store, used on eBay going for around $12-1300CAD, new being $1800.

What do you guys think? I'll be purchasing the camera in or around December.

>>2923078

Outrageously priced. You would be better off with almost anything else.

>>2923075
I've read nothing but good things about the 35/2.4. In fact, among enthusiasts many pentax lenses, especially vintage ones, seem to get a ton of love for their price points. If I go for the K-70, though, I don't think I'll have anything left over for lenses. The 18-135mm kit (the only kit they offer) is $900 from reputable retailers (B&H, Adorama) while the body is $650. Since that lens is worth quite a bit of money on the resale market, it would make sense for me to put up the extra $250 for it (which would give me a wider range of focal points for the money). If I buy that kit I'll have to shoot it for a while before thinking about investing in various levels of prime glass (or even putting more money into film). I'm more of a noob though, so I don't think this will be too much of a problem. Thanks for your help. I'll post in the gear thread if I do end up buying this camera.

>>2923089
I too am a noob with only a year of experience to show, but so far I didn't use the kit lens very much apart from the mid range and the odd attempts at portrait at the long end. I ended up getting the Tammy 70-200 for portraits and the 35/2.4 for generic walkaround/tourist/landscape lens and I couldn't be happier. This is why I recommended the 35mm prime as your first lens. The most useful for the widest of spectrum and one of the sharpest offerings from Pentax.
From my experience kit lenses are really a waste of money. Unless you have no other options.

I'm looking for a new camera and was wondering if anyone here could help me decide between the two options I've narrowed it down to.

I'm looking for a camera I can travel with, focusing on mainly street and low light photography of people between 3 to 30 metres from me. Being good at macro photography would be a nice bonus, but not essential. I'm not planning on taking photos of anything that is moving.

So far with my budget of around 900 aud I've narrowed my options to the Pentax K-S2 with the Pentax 35mm f2.4 or the Sony a6000 with the Sigma 30mm f1.4. I plan on buying a macro lens eventually.

I'm leaning towards the K-S2 because being able to throw it in my bag and bring it out in all weather conditions, without worrying about the camera seem like great benefits to me. But I'm still undecided as the a6000 seems like a great option being more compact and higher resolution.

I'd appreciate any recommendations between the two.

>>2923118
forgot to mention in the post, but being able to print up to a maximum of A4 size is desirable

>>2923119
10-12 pickles is enough to print A4.
If you want macro then look at the 35/2.8 Limited instead for the Pentax.

>>2923118

30mm is a little short for portraits, isn't it?

>>2923127
I picked the 35mm f2.4 because my first priorities are street and low light photography. I plan to buy a macro lens for the camera I get later on.

>>2923132
the equivalent focal length for both lenses is around 50mm which I though would work for portraits. My lens purchasing plan was but an all round lens with the camera to start off (that is why I've chosen a 35 and 30mm) then get a macro lens and a portrait lens.

What I'm having trouble deciding on is which camera is a better choice

>>2923133
For Pentax, DA 70/2.4 Limited pancake portrait lens and D-FA 100 WR or FA 100 for macro, also good for portraits. You can check example shots on PF lens database.

>>2923127
Sharp 6 pickles is enough to print A4 with glossy magazine quality. 12 is enough for a spread.

>>2923094
That's interesting, as the reigning autists over at pentaxforum seem to be fairly fond of this lens compared to your run of the mill 18-55 mm kit lens (http://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/SMC-Pentax-DA-18-135mm-F3.5-5.6-ED-AL-IF-DC-WR.html). The WR properties and resale value make it an attractive buy, too. But I'll consider buying only the body and picking up older glass for it as I'm mainly going to be shooting manual mode.

File: IMG_1665.jpg (1MB, 3636x3115px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3636x3115px

Just got this sucker in the mail.
Also this is my first try at this sort of shot. First time using fully manual settings to be honest.
I know it't average editing. Banding is woeful, lighting was a phone flashlight in an envelope to dull it a little. Just wanted to see how this sort of shot is done.

Can't wait to get out and test this with some sports shooting tomorrow.

Huge zoom on my 70D though. More than I thought but so sharp :)

Thanks for the advice in the previous gear thread.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	EOS 70D
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	5472
Image Height	3648
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format
Image Created	2016:09:12 16:59:38
Exposure Time	1.6 sec
F-Number	f/8.0
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/8.0
Focal Length	28.00 mm
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	3636
Image Height	3115

>>2923139
Thanks for the help. I've been using Photozone for test shots and analysis of lenses so far, I'll check out the sample shots there also before I buy.

I recently obtained a Nikon D5200 (crop sensor) and a Nikon 50 mm f/1.8 g. I do most street photography and portraits for friends. R8 my setup?

>>2923173
It is not halfway to an optimal portrait setup, especially not without extra lights.

Street is whatever the fuck you want to be. Can't really rate that.

>>2923174
Yeah I don't have a flash or anything but I'm also only doing it for fun. The portraits we typically take are near reflective surfaces at golden hours.

>>2923118
If you shot in the rain, sure, you'd want to cover the A6000 with a plastic bag thing ($5 from China). Or carry an umbrella. But it's certainly less convenient.

I wonder how often you are going to shoot in the rain, though. If you think that really will happen often, go for the K-S2. I think the A6000 is better if you are not going to do that often.

File: TechArt-Pro-L-Bracket.png (225KB, 676x326px) Image search: [Google]

225KB, 676x326px

How are the compresed raws on the a7ii?

Is there a considerale advatage to using uncompresed?

>>2923178

Even with weatherproofing I would use an umbrella. Heard too may horror stories of failures.

While it is certainly nice, it wouldn't be a deciding factor for me unless I was heavily into hurricane photography or something.

>>2923193
I don't think there is an advantage for any post-processing technique I can think of, and you don't visually see the difference either.

>>2923194
> Heard too may horror stories of failures.
There are millions of a6000 out there and apparently almost no one had his fail.

It's a planet of humidity and rain, and the best some /p/ shit poster can come up with is nonsense with a camera board that some idiot / troll dropped in salt wate and then heated or something. [Which, yea, you shouldn't do...]

what should I take

Nikon AF-S 50mm f1.8G or a FE/FM + 50mm 1.8 AI?

same price. never had a film camera before like this before

>>2923200

It is not like space is an issue with cheap memory now-a-days, just wondered if I was losing dynamic range or getting a nosier image or something.

>>2923194
I went out and shot an event with my Pentacks+WR kit lense in heavy rain without any cover. Rain and fog, fog and rain in the middle of the forest, not a single issue whatsoever. Even Canon dont weatherproof some of their higher end lenses as well as Pentax does with their kit lenses.

>>2923206
Nah. Nothing that big. It's a bit of a technicality that is only slightly visible in borderline cases.

AFAIK the main effect is tiny artifacts around high-contrast edges that you might see when you see individual pixels. Something akin to a super thin layer of CA (much narrower than actual CA tends to be).

If you paid for an A7R II and G Master prime this might irk you even just on principle, but even when you love regularly doing crops close to 1:1, it'll still be quite rare to get an actual case where it matters.

File: Godox-V860II-S-GN60-TTL-HSS-1-8000s-Speedlite-Camera-Flash-Light-w-Li-ion-Battery.jpg_640x640.jpg (74KB, 640x640px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 640x640px

School me /p as to why I shouldn't get the Godox v860ii-s twin flash and commander kit for 300 britbucks

>>2923217
One reason would be that you could get YN560 III/IV or 660 and a 560-TX for about half as much.

>>2923218
no ttl, no sony support and yong's feel like plasticy trash, I have 2.

300 for me is not expensive, I was more looking to see why I shouldn't get these instead of dropping a grand on sony own brand. I already have a metz aswell, which I despise the touchscreen of.

Bought used flash. Didn`t really care what it looks like. Its metz 45 CT-1. I wanna know how do i hook it up to my 400D, cuz there is no input for cable that there was. I can only use it now with my zenit camera.
>Anyone here shoots with forgotten flashes ?
>flash cost me 5 euros

File: YongNuo_YN660_b.jpg (153KB, 640x520px) Image search: [Google]

153KB, 640x520px

>>2923219
> no sony support
The Yongnuo support Sony as well as they do anything else.

But of course it's the "no TTL" studio / portrait option, which you appear to require.

> yong's feel like plasticy trash
They feel just fine to me. They basically factually *are* fine.

I don't get the metal and magnesium (muh wealth...?) fetish that some people have. Plastic is the perfect material for most such portable gear.

> 300 for me is not expensive, I was more looking to see why I shouldn't get these instead of dropping a grand on sony own brand
Just get them then.

I personally think Sony's own brand is very expensive for how basic and plain the equipment's feature list is at every (high) price point.

>>2923223
Check the trigger voltage of your flash (either by googling or by directly measuring it with a voltmeter).
Old flashes with 100+ volt trigger voltage will fry your Canon.

>there is no input for cable
You can get a hot shoe to PC sync cable adapter.

>>2923247
ive read some shit on the internets for that flash. Many people say that it is about 600V idk whats that and what to do with that info. Internet said as well, that 6D can take up to 400V, but really you can just buy that hot shoe and you`ll be fine. So nothing new, might as well buy it then.

>>2923249
>Many people say that it is about 600V idk whats that

That means your canon is kill unless you get a voltage converting adapter, e.g.
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/245292-REG/Wein_W990560_Safe_Sync_Hot_Shoe_to.html

File: 184D71009-001.jpg (149KB, 1000x667px) Image search: [Google]

149KB, 1000x667px

remove the anti alias filter they said... better image quality they said...

d7100

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Picasa
Photographer	Picasa
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Created	2016:09:12 08:01:56
Image Width	1000
Image Height	667
Unique Image ID	e9292d16cf4b8c59706814bb20e39b3c

I remembered gorillapods exist, which would help me immensely with what I need for flash.

Does the smaller point and shoot pod have enough strength to hold a speedlight or do I need to get a full sized dslr one

>>2923286
Brush over it with anti moire in Lightroom and cry yourself to sleep.

Pretty annoyed my canon doesn't have features like dual exposure and time lapse built right in. Are there other brands with these features built in?

>>2923319
Get photoshop/gimp/whatever and overlay as many exposures as you want.

For time lapse, you can get a Chinese wired remote with an interval timer for your Canon. But do remember that the mechanical shutter in your camera has a finite life, so leaving it for an entire day taking a photo each second is not a particularly good idea.

>>2923319
>digital
take your shots and combine them into double-exposures or time lapses with the image editing software of your choice after the fact.
>film
yes, there are many cameras, Canon and otherwise, that have a double-exposure feature. For time lapses, hook up an intervalometer

>>2923286
>shoot something any camera without an AA filter would fail at
>surprised to see moire
wew
lad

>>2923157
Rotate the lens more next time. Great, it's a Canon. I can barely tell which one without squinting.
>>2923202
fuck off ray

>>2923337
>fuck off ray
Nigga that even ain't me. Stop thinking of me too much. It's getting unhealthy now.

>>2922865
Not sure if I can be bothered with ML at the moment. I'm only doing stills right now, but if ever work asks for videos, I might investigate it.

>>2923157

Plz shut up and fuck off.

>>2923157
Aye, she's a fine lens. But for sports (depending on the size of the pitch), I'd prefer a 70-200mm f/2.8. That one-stop less aperture is a worth while sacrifice for a bit more versatility in the focal length.

>>2923341
> Not sure if I can be bothered with ML at the moment. I'm only doing stills right now, but if ever work asks for videos, I might investigate it.
How lazy are you?

It's not like you have to reverse engineer firmware and program your own routines. This shit is fucking trivial:
http://wiki.magiclantern.fm/install

Just install and try it, you might learn something.

>>2923370
Extremely.

Literally can't be bothered right now.

>>2923370
>And, remember that this software can damage or destroy your camera.
No thanks.

>>2923286
>>2923335
A sufficiently high-resolution camera wouldn't have shown moire on this subject, as in 50mp or more... shoot with a big-ass medium format system and you'll barely see moire anywhere because it'll out-resolve most patterns. Removing AA on consumer DSLRs is just stupid though.

>>2923383
> Taking your equipment outside and *gasp* using it much increases the risk of loss, damage, theft, robbery, and explosions.
And in this case, no (pretty low level of) risk with firmware, no useful Canon camera...

>>2923383
It's a disclaimer. Tons of people are using ML without any problems, although I don't find it useful in stills mode so I generally keep my Canon on stock FW.

I've seen reports of cameras dying while using ML, but then, cameras sometimes die on stock FW too.

>>2922965
Canon has literally never not honored a warranty because of magic lantern.
>>2922972
Ever read the disclaimers on any publicly provided product or service? All of that shit is to protect from being sued.

>>2922026
What is the best REFLEX to start?

>>2923402
The best you can afford okay (including lenses).

Also, MILC are now full competition to DSLR.

>>2923402
The best: 5D or 1Dx mk2

The best you can actually afford: D300s

>>2923409
what do you think about Nikon D5300?

>>2923402
Something that says 'flex' in the name. How else will bitches know you're rocking that mirror?

>>2923434
Good sensor, good autofocus module, consumer ergos and gimmicks. I'd rather have a D7000. Sensor's good enough, same autofocus module, controls are massively better as are customization features, plentiful on used market, low demand.

Or if you really don't care about your sensor's age and performance, D300s for sure.

>>2923434
Lower-end DSLR. Nothing particularly interesting about it.

>>2923434
So okay it's boring

>>2923438
I wish I could do even movies in Full HD and I would like to have at least 25600 ISO.
And what do you think about Nikon D5500?
Been reflex of other brands equally valid if not higher?
What do you think of the mirrorless Sony a6300?

>>2923446
> I would like to have at least 25600 ISO
You mean, with not much noise? Uh, you NEED something like an A7S II for that one to work.

If you just want the setting despite it being really pretty damn useless with how shit the image looks - well, most APS-C cameras have it.

> what do you think about Nikon D5500?
Quite okay. Lacks some features I want, but YMMV.

> What do you think of the mirrorless Sony a6300?
Actually a very good camera & fun to shoot.

At least it is that with good lenses. A handful of which are $150-350 or so - but many cost quite a lot more.

If you don't want to be "that" guy who spends more money on a body than on the very important lenses, make sure you can afford the lenses first... or change to the A6000 to be able to.

>>2922026
So what the fucks up with pentax.
What's the best walk around zoom and 50mm equiv lenses they have. I have the 16-45mm f/4 not bad but really only use it at the wide end, I'm thinking a 15mm f/4 would lighten things, and for 50mm equiv I have nothing, I'm using the fa50 f1.4 and I don't mind it but what else is there for a short tele lens. assuming price is no problem.

File: Nikon_D5500_Diorama_25600.jpg (123KB, 600x384px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 600x384px

>>2923450
By the way, pic related is how the D5500 looks at 25600 ISO. The A6300 is also almost as bad.

DXO's chosen "looks really good, don't worry about it" - style threshold (at least SNR of 30dB / dynamic range of 9 EVs / color depth of 18bits) is ~1440 ISO for both.

And my personal "okay enough with maybe some NR, I'll allow that" might be 6400 ISO. But definitely not 25600 ISO.

>>2923457
Woops, forgot sauce: http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/reviews/dslrs/nikon-d5500-review/8

>>2923454
http://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/

Browse through the DA, pentax-a, FA series

for 50mm equiv I'd recommend either the 35mm macro limited or if you are cool with going a bit wider the 31mm FA limited

As for a zoom the da 16-85mm 3.5-5.6 is pretty snazzy

File: 1453592520416.png (411KB, 639x425px) Image search: [Google]

411KB, 639x425px

>>2923194
Does anyone make a small umbrella I can stick on the hot shoe?

File: CF-20.jpg (559KB, 2000x1899px) Image search: [Google]

559KB, 2000x1899px

>>2923225
>I don't get the metal and magnesium (muh wealth...?) fetish that some people have

Because it's better.

File: 1470966406233.jpg (64KB, 800x450px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 800x450px

Is Canon going to be making a successor to the 50mm f/1.4 anytime soon?

>>2923499
Who knows? But assuming they did, would you expect anything other than a Canon "L" with pricing and performance like a Sony G Master?

And then you'd probably buy a Sigma Art 50mm anyhow.

>have Lumix G7
>use it for Video work
>"anon, can u pleez take pics of the party pleez? u got so great camera" constantly from friends
>don't wanna say no
>only got video lights
>heavy, weak for fotos and impractical for coldshoe-use
>thinking about getting a flash
>or maybe just a flash diffusor
Is a flash diffusor enough
Or should I invest like 50 bucks into a flash?
What should I look out for in a standard flash for discos and tight rooms? What are some features that I can also use maybe for video in some way?

>>2923518
How dim is the lighting? Maybe get a really fast lens and shoot without flash?

File: ISO-25600.jpg (317KB, 600x500px) Image search: [Google]

317KB, 600x500px

>>2923518
> Is a flash diffusor enough
With your on-camera flash? Nah. Not really.

The thing you might want to do most often is blast a wall or ceiling to get diffuse light, and your dinky flash won't do that well.

With a small light source and small diffuser for it, you'd otherwise almost have to hug people for the light still to be diffuse.

> Or should I invest like 50 bucks into a flash?
If you don't care much, get a ~$35 flash off the "popular" choices on Aliexpress. It will still do a bunch of shots okay.

If you want to get some more use from it and some shooting comfort, I'd advise to fork out $75-ish for a *great* YN660. With fast recycle times and high brightness and easy operation and the option to complete into a (cheap but reliable and easy to operate) RF controllable manual flash arrangement.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-7SM2
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Macintosh)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/4.0
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	46 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2015:11:18 10:30:03
Exposure Time	1/3 sec
F-Number	f/13.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	50
Lens Aperture	f/13.0
Brightness	6.0 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Other
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	46.00 mm
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	600
Image Height	500
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

File: DIM TWO.jpg (1MB, 1618x1000px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1618x1000px

>>2923529
I have the Panasonic 25mm 1.7 which I use for standard shooting.
The lighting is the Neweer 160LED panel, the supercheap POS that everyone and their dog is using for cheap video setups.
I try to stay below 1250 ISO, but on a Lumix, it shows.
>>2923533
>The thing you might want to do most often is blast a wall or ceiling to get diffuse light, and your dinky flash won't do that well.
Yeah, did that alow, esepcially the low ceiling in this case. Outside, I blasted the floor or turned the camera upside down, then blasted the floor, but it goves a weird lighting. The light sadly can't be turned left or right in its coldshoe though.

On many product descriptions I see stuff like "for Canon/Nikon" etc. Are flashes brand/standard exclusive?
Can the good ones "slave" as in can be triggered by a weaker flash like from the camera itself so I can set it up somewhere else and shoot away?

Thanks for the infos both, btw.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Panasonic
Camera Model	DMC-G70
Camera Software	GIMP 2.8.16
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.7
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	50 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Image Created	2016:09:13 00:26:10
Exposure Time	1/20 sec
F-Number	f/1.7
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	800
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	25.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1618
Image Height	1000
Exposure Mode	Auto
Image Quality	Unknown
White Balance	Manual
Focus Mode	Unknown
Spot Mode	Unknown
Image Stabilizer	Off
Macro Mode	Normal
Shooting Mode	Aperture Priority
Audio	No
Flash Bias	-0.67 EV

>>2923554
>Are flashes brand/standard exclusive?
If they have data interface to the camera (for aperture setting and TTL metering) then yes.

In manual/non-TTL auto/optical slave mode, you can use pretty much any flash on any camera.

>>2923554
Ugh, that is some really unpleasant lighting and skin tones. Definitely needs a diffused/reflected flash.

But it's gonna be quite difficult to produce good flash lighting when you're this close.

>>2923571
Unpleasant in what way? I couldn't properly white-balance because there were coloured, changing and flashing lights everywhere, sometimes I tried manually whitebalancing in post, especially with the "spot" tool, but I haven't gotten the hang of it yet.

>>2923506
How much could they charge for a non-L lens?

>>2923574
Of course you cannot white-balance that. The background looks normal, but the girls have this purplish-blue light on them out of nowhere that makes them look like zombies. You can try hue-shifting the colors selectively, but that's a huge hassle.

Also, use spot healing tool to clean up acne.

>>2923576
Dunno. They not rarely try to ride on their brand name and overcharge.

But again, I don't expect them to bother myself - the market for *cheap* 50mm lenses is full anyhow.

They should mainly want more Canon L - tier lenses for their 50MP+ cameras, current and future.

>>2923554
>The lighting is the Neweer 160LED panel, the supercheap POS that everyone and their dog is using for cheap video setups.
I'm also using the a Yongnuo led panel there, but I get you. It's not comfy to use these for sure.

> On many product descriptions I see stuff like "for Canon/Nikon" etc. Are flashes brand/standard exclusive?
TTL flashes are, but for manual flashes you really just need a ISO standard hotshoe with the center pin to trigger the thing.

RF standards however tend to still be fully proprietary. Often, you can't use the same transmitter for multiple systems.

> Can the good ones "slave" as in can be triggered by a weaker flash like from the camera itself so I can set it up somewhere else and shoot away?
Yes, the YN have excellent optical triggering capabilities.

Plus you can of course also RF trigger. And RF adjust, in case of the models with a built-in RF receiver.
Actually, being able to get a good multi-channel remote controller / trigger for around $30 (560-TX) is one of the things that is fucking cool about the 660 and Yongnuo 560 III/IV - running to off-camera flashes and carefully pressing buttons gets old quickly, and RF reliability also hasn't been too good on a lot of systems (though it's not a huge problem this year anymore). That the IV and 660 themselves can act as transmitter (they're transceivers) is the icing on the cake.

>>2922965
Speaking of the 6D, what do you think of it? I'm thinking of either the 6D or just completely breaking my bank and getting the 5D Mark III.

File: datlens.jpg (179KB, 1415x1146px) Image search: [Google]

179KB, 1415x1146px

Hey /p/, I'm thinking about buying this lens as a birthday present to myself this year. Is it good or nah? Any other suggestions for similar lenses?

https://www.amazon.com/Nikon-18-300mm-3-5-6-3G-Vibration-Reduction/dp/B00JKUPRF4/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1473726433&sr=8-1&keywords=Nikon+18-300

>>2923619
It's shit
All similar lenses are shit
Buy a 70-300VR and 35 1.8 DX to supplement an 18-55.

>>2923619
> 18-300mm
Only the range from 18-35mm somewhat okay - if you don't mind stopping it down to like f/8 or f/5.6.

Not my thing.

> Any other suggestions for similar lenses?
I honestly just CBA to use these kinds of lenses.

>>2923619
>Any other suggestions for similar lenses?
yeah, don't buy them
no superzoom is going to be very good. there are just too many compromises that have to be made to get an enormous zoom range. They're slow, the corners tend to suffer, they usually feature a bunch of CA, and they're commonly just plain soft at full telephoto. There's a reason that most pro zooms limit themselves to a zoom ratio of about 3x or less.

>>2923624
>>2923626
>>2923631
Obviously it's not ideal, but I'm looking for something that can shoot in a fast paced environment where I don't have time to switch lenses.

Knowing that, would you anons have any other suggestions? I do already have an 18-50 and 70-300, which are great (and why I started looking at those super zooms, because that kind of flexibility is alluring...) But I could totally live with like 35ish to 100ish if the tradeoffs are less severe than the 18-300.

>>2923637
16-85 VR, or use a FX zoom like the 24-120/4 or 24-85 VR if you dont mind shooting 35 equiv at the widest.

Or since it sounds like you're shooting events of some sort, get a second body.

>>2923637
usually the best way to make a superzoom decent is to lop off most of the long telephoto end. It's a lot simpler to make a decent 16-85 than it is to make a decent 18-300. It's still gonna be slow and have a bunch of distortion at the wide end though.

But really you should reflect on the fact that they go to the trouble and expense of making interchangeable-lens cameras and huge numbers of lenses for them for a reason. That reason isn't (just) to gouge you with a razor-and-blades business model. It's because there are a gorillion tradeoffs in optical engineering and you get better results when you use a tool specialized for its job, rather than a jack-of-all-trades. And getting better results is why you bought the fancy DSLR, right?

What situations are these where you haven't the time to change lenses? Have you thought ahead about what kinds of shots you're looking for, what light you're expecting, and what focal length range you want?

>>2923637
> I do already have an 18-50 and 70-300
> fast paced environment where I don't have time to switch lenses.
Secondary body.

> 35ish to 100ish
Okay, that might work much more sanely. A Sigma 24-105mm F4 perhaps?

>>2923647
>>2923649
>>2923653
Didn't even occur to me to get a secondary body. Probably end up being cheaper as well... I will take a look at the lenses you anons mentioned.

>>2923649
Oh yeah, I understand there's no perfect solution. And as the other anons said, this would be for shooting events. I shot at a gaming convention and my company picnic over the summer, and found myself frustrated having to choose between either wide angle or telephoto and only being prepared to take half the shots that I could have if I had a lens that could have, theoretically, done anything.

I should probably also mention I'm a total amateur and not doing this for money or anything (if that wasn't already obvious...)

File: 2147_AF-S-DX-Zoom-NIKKOR-17-55mm-f-2.8G-IF-ED_front.png (141KB, 700x595px) Image search: [Google]

141KB, 700x595px

Anybody have any experience with the 17-55? I only bought the 35mm 1.8 with my new D7100 and I'm thinking about a used one as my second lens purchase.

Is it worth the money (~$650 used)? I was also looking at the Sigma, but apparently there's major compatibility issues with the D7100.

Or I could just get a kit zoom like the 18-140.

Absolutely loving the 35mm 1.8 though; glad I skipped the 18-55 to start with.

>>2923658
if you intend to start doing this for money it's standard advice to get a second body anyway. Not just so you don't have to stop and change lenses, but so that if you have a body start acting up on you (or just plain die) in the middle of a job, you have a backup and can continue to work.

>>2923668
Oh yeah, I'm sure. Hope to get there one day, but I still have a ways to go.

Anyway, thank you, and thanks to the other anons as well. I feel like I learned something tonight!

>>2923667
> Is it worth the money (~$650 used)?
Probably no. Given it's original price you'd think this is a good lens, but it isn't.

https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Nikon/AF-S-DX-Zoom-Nikkor-17-55mm-f-2.8G-IF-ED-mounted-on-Nikon-D7100---Measurements__865

Hey guys - What's a damn nice zoom "General Purpose" lens for Canon APS-C. Doesn't have to be Canon brand but I'm looking for a replacement (eventually) for the 18-55. I'm finding myself using it quite a bit especially in lower light but I'm not sure how well it performs because I've never had an L series.

>>2923681
18-35mm Sigma Art f/1.8

File: maxresdefault.jpg (286KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

286KB, 1920x1080px

Anyone have the time to do an autistic breakdown on why I should just spend the money on the 5D Mark III rather than the 6D even though I'm super new to photography and barely have time to shoot?

Any other options I should be aware of?

>>2923783
Here's some options for you:
1) Kill yourself
2) do your own research
3) come to a conclusion based on your shooting needs

>>2923787
So thats a no from you.

>>2923678
That's not bad at all.

Size and lack of IS are still issues, though.

>>2923454
>50mm equiv.
DA 35/2.4 plastic fantastic. Unbelievably sharp for less than $100. For UWA you can get the limited 15 prime or one of the UWA zooms. For short tele look at the 70/2.4 limited.

Recomendations on an ef mount 35mm prime that isnt too expensive? Gunna use it on my 600d but at sone point I'm gunna go ff prolly so id like it to be compatible

>>2923800
I will disagree there. The lens is never really sharp even in the center -never mind the other half of the frame at the side, which it blurs- no matter what settings you pick.

It's also terrible in general when you want to use it wide open at 55mm and doesn't really get good no matter how far you stop down.

Compare to a good lens:
https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Sigma/Sigma-18-35mm-F18-DC-HSM-A-Nikon-mounted-on-Nikon-D7100---Measurements__865

This one covers a shorter range, but it is so much better at f/1.8 than the other lens is at f/8, and at f/5.6 or f/8 it's just in a different league. That's a decent lens.

>>2923810
No such thing. Nikon and Pentax has it though.

>>2923810
There's pretty much only the cheap (non-L, non-IS) 35/2 to consider?

Though once you have a FF camera, I'd think you will want the model with IS, Sigma or Canon L II anyhow.

'cause usually there is not *that* much of a point in upgrading to FF if your lens still sucks.

>>2923815
What about non canon options

>>2923818
It is as >>2923812 said.

Sony's E-mount also has almost that, if you don't mind the difference that it is a 28mm/f2 and thus 20% wider - but that's an actually good lens even on FF for only roughly $380.

If you do the rear baffle removal on the ~$150 30mm f/2.8, that's even cheaper (https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3593693).

I don't know about the remaining mounts.

>>2923822

The Sony/Zeiss FF 35mm f 2.8 is actually pretty nice.

File: kit.jpg (118KB, 600x547px) Image search: [Google]

118KB, 600x547px

Are there any affordable alternatives to the Nikon 105/135mm DC? I'd like to have a reasonably fast medium tele prime, but those two cost way too much for my student tier budget.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	DSLR-A100
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS2 Windows
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/5.6
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	67 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2007:02:17 12:25:42
Exposure Time	1/10 sec
F-Number	f/16.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/16.0
Brightness	5.5 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	45.00 mm
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	600
Image Height	547
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	None
Contrast	Soft
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Soft

>>2923822
Maybe its easier if I say what i want it for? Like a walk around lens I can chuck on my camera when i go hiking and take quick photos of people and landscapes with. Want a prime for dat cheap wide aperture sexiness

>>2923589
>the market for *cheap* 50mm lenses is full anyhow

I don't necessarily consider them low-end like the plastic chink piece of shit.

I certainly think there's a market for a 50mm with an USM between $100 and $1300.


>for their 50MP+ cameras

Aren't those more of a niche product?

With the falling prices of MF digital, will people still be using high resolution 35mm in 10 years from now?
Don't they have enough L lenses in their lineup for that anyway.

>>2923783
Get an 80D, fag.

>>2923810
>Recomendations on an ef mount 35mm prime that isnt too expensive?

Just get the 28mm f/1.8
For what ever reason, the 35mm is one of the few lenses Canon left back in the early 90's.
If you really want 35mm and can deal with a noisy, less-precise motor, tiny focus ring and an even smaller AF/MF switch, then go for it.

I don't recommend it, though.

>>2923835
Only if you go manual focus with Samyang lenses. They're not too bad.

>>2923836
>>2923844

In that case, the 28mm f/1.8 will be even better, especially on a crop as it provides a true natural perspective.

>>2923836
EF-S 24/2.8 pancake. Cheap, 40mm equivalent and very compact. Not to mention sharp and overall nice.

File: 30mmSigmaCat.jpg (150KB, 1000x995px) Image search: [Google]

150KB, 1000x995px

>>2923832
Worth considering on a FF E-mount camera.

But at ~$700 it's perhaps not a particularly noteworthy "not too expensive" lens to look at across systems.

>>2923836
If you somehow get on the E-mount, the 30mm f/2.8 is very reasonable for that.

You can even make the transition to FF okay with it and go full bokeh whore FF lens later, if it is even needed.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi

Is it recommended to buy a used camera?
I'm looking for something I'll take with me at least once a week so not too big. And with interchangeable lenses (I feel like using only one lens would be limiting in the long run).

>>2923855
I already have the rebel tho:(

File: nikon_d7200_18-140_top.jpg (54KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 500x500px

I decided to go with the D7200. The 35mm 1.8 is a sure choice, but as for the all purpose carryaround I'm a bit unsure which one to choose, the 18-105 or the 18-140 kit lens. Is there a difference in IQ? Rarely I go to my company's races, so a bit of added range would be nice, so my heart says I should go with the 18-140...

>>2923855

Closer to $600, but yea it is great of FF e-mount.

I keep coming back to it. Compact, quick, and sharp images.

File: 30mmSigma_high_powerlevel_portrait.jpg (336KB, 1000x667px) Image search: [Google]

336KB, 1000x667px

>>2923857
For some camera series and in some situations, getting the newest model with the newest sensor has good advantages - for others, not so much, and you might much more need to use a good lens or good artificial lights.

And an used professional / enthusiast camera may have been used heavily indeed - you might have to get service soon.

It really all depends on what you get. Figures that's not easy to determine if you never had an IL camera before...

>>2923858
Then try >>2923850 first.

It also can do the baffle removal trick:
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1410220

[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)	45 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2016:09:13 11:23:58
Exposure Time	1/200 sec
F-Number	f/4.0
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	125
Lens Aperture	f/4.0
Brightness	6.1 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	30.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

>>2923667
The Sigma 17-55 is half the price, adds stabilisation and is about as good optically.

>>2923864
What the fuck are you on about baffles and FF Sony? Anon clearly stated he has a 600D. Canon crop camera. He needs a normal equivalent or close to it on his crop Canon. No Sony or FF has been mentioned.
Fuck off!

File: download.jpg (5KB, 282x179px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 282x179px

have any experience with budget super teles?

I'm thinking the Sigma 150-600 C will be best for me, but can't find one second hand anywhere.

There's plenty of Sigma 150/500 C second hand for cheap and plenty of Tamron 150-600s as well.

>>2923876
Bigma 50-500 user here. Fast focus, almost no hunting, image is sharp and contrasty. OS is effective 3 stops at least. Sigma only improved on the formula in the 150-600. The 150-500 is mostly the same as the 50-500 with narrower zoom range.

>>2923873
> What the fuck are you on about baffles and FF Sony?
You are the retard. My post is purely about the Canon lens.

> No Sony or FF has been mentioned.
Non-Canon options were asked in >>2923818


Basically, get stuffed!

>>2923888
When i said non canon i more meant tamron or w/e

>>2923888
#REKT
>>2923890

Are digital point and shoot cameras a decent way to get started in photography?
I'm not decided whether I like street photography, taking pictures of nature or buildings, or editing the most and I'm afraid of spending. 1000$ buying a (cheapish) DSLR I don't "need"

>>2923835
Nikon 105mm f2.5

>>2923892
No, for the price you'd pay for a good P&S, you can get a used entry level body and a prime lens.

>>2923890
Ah, you thought I only contemplated Canon-branded lenses? Nah.

I still can only think of the more expensive but perhaps more worthwhile Sigma Art 35mm f/1.4.

But nothing cheaper than the Canon EF 35mm f/2.

>>2923892
> Are digital point and shoot cameras a decent way to get started in photography?
No. A midrange to good MILC or DSLR is.

Though a recent entry-level one will still be better than a P&S.

> 1000$ buying a (cheapish) DSLR I don't "need"
Even that's still just a hobby expense, nothing dramatic...?

But the A6000 or D5500 or K-S2 are a bit more than half of that with their kit lens. Might want to get started with one of these.

If you want something more in the regular P&S price range, you could go for a D3300 or K-50 at like $320 or so.

>>2923900 (cont'd)
By the way, if you decide that your camera isn't interesting to you in only a few months, you'd probably be able to resell it at maybe a 20% loss. Or less if you already bought it used.

So you could go by gut feeling what might be acceptable for a hobby expense if you quite *liked* taking photos (maybe as your second or third hobby?).

>>2923900
Starting with a digital p&s would be totally fine if it has manual controls. The Canon Powershot S series and Powershot G series are good contenders for those not wanting to jump into an expensive and bulky MILC/DSLR. They are also nice enough to keep around if you eventually decided to move onto a fancier camera.

>>2923913
Waste of money even if he decides to sell it out of losing interest. Nobody buys a used p&s.

>>2923880
Thanks for the insight mate,

What do you mean they improved on the formula?

Do you know specifically what they improved with the 150-600?

>>2923913
> Starting with a digital p&s would be totally fine if it has manual controls.
Yea, of course in many ways smartphone cameras (Camera 2 API ones - they shoot RAW and stuff) and P&S cameras with some controls (maybe Canon with CHDK for lots of settings and features?) can do many things.

A Yicam or Yicam 2 (sports camera) also can actually be interesting and these too are cameras you might keep around even with a DSLR/MILC present.

That said, these are actually probably not worth reselling - at least here, you have to be quite lucky to sell them at even half the price after they've been used.


Also, I'm just kinda assuming it's not really his/her first contact with photography and more about getting to the kind of pictures that can be seen on flickr and the like...?
At that point, IMO just jump right in and get a mid-range DSLR/MILC with a suitable lens.

First-world solution, I know. But you'll be able to operate these cameras well very rapidly, and it's not like you need training wheels first either since it's not the kind of device that you are at a special risk of breaking when still inexperienced.

>>2923894
What entry level body would you recommend?

>>2923900
Is the K50 compatible with lenses from other manufacturers?

>>2923903
It would be like a "side hobby", something to do when I travel, climb a mountain, go in a foreign city... (Taking nice pictures when i travel as opposite with traveling for taking photographies. )

>>2923892
No,
you're new, you want bokeh shots of flowers, the bigger the sensor and faster the lens, the more bokeh you get. P&S have tiny sensors and slow lenses.

You can get a second hand sony nex 6/7, pentax k50, nikon d3100, whatever for a couple hundred bucks.

35mm canon dude again

any reason I shouldnt get the canon 40 pancake?

>>2923951

>canon 40mm pancake

I have it for my a7ii, it is a decent enough lens.

Build quality is kinda meh though.

You can get it for $100 grey market on ebay.

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

57KB, 666x464px

About to get this bad boy

Are there other/better alternatives for the same price point?

>>2923952
Fuck off

>>2923951
40mm is 65mm equivalent on crop. The 24mm is crop only and 40mm equivalent. Much better choice for daily walkaround lens.

>>2923965
fuji

>>2923967
fuji a what

>>2923941
>What entry level body would you recommend?

I'm not up to date on entry bodies.
I recommend Canon.

>>2923880

Are you the Anon who is permanently at ISO 3200?

>>2923970
xpro1

>>2923916
>Nobody buys a used p&s.

Exactly, you can buy one for cheap as dirt.

>>2923973
Nope. ISO varies from 100 to 6400 depending on subject and lighting
But these consumer teles are slow so unless the subject is static the ISO rises pretty quick.

>>2923972
Thanks. I'm not looking for a new one anyway. Just something cheap (second hand) but trusty enough to accompany me the first 3 years or so.

>>2923999
Pentax K-50 with WR kit lens or body only and DA 35/2.4 lens
Can't really go any cheaper than that.

>>2924006
thank you. I'll look for one of these in second hand shops.

File: IMG_20160515_154233.jpg (371KB, 1280x960px) Image search: [Google]

371KB, 1280x960px

>>2923875
1 stop slower. VR is amazingly effective, lens is a little heavy, value is amazing. AF speed is fast enough, but not pro lens fast. I'd rather have one of these over the Sigma and Tamron though.

Not a small lens at all. Not a big one either.

The other anon saying "muh primes" and "muh exotic telephotos" is an idiot. Other than the one working wildlife photographer here, nobody else needs to be spending 5-15k on an exotic telephoto as a hobbyist. And a 300/4 or 300/4+TC isn't going to be long enough for anybody without some fieldcraft.

File: _NIK5705.jpg (376KB, 1429x1030px) Image search: [Google]

376KB, 1429x1030px

>>2924008
100% crop of some birds really far away, on a D810.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D810
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.7.1 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/5.7
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	804
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	500 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2016:09:13 08:25:54
Exposure Time	1/2500 sec
F-Number	f/9.0
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	1000
Lens Aperture	f/9.0
Exposure Bias	0.7 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	500.00 mm
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	High Gain Up
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>2924008
is it a Nikon 200-500mm?

>>2923965

Fuji

But there are less lenses and they focus slower.

Nothing really beats the price/performance ratio of the a6000 right now.

>>2924008

I am tempted to pick up that Minolta autofocus mirror lens. I'd prefer the Sony rebrand (better coatings) but I can't seem to find it for sale anywhere.

Some people hate the donut bokeh, but I love it.

>>2924023
>less lenses
>all of them cover important prime and zoom focal lengths with high quality optics

Vs

>more lenses
>most of them are 50mm FF lenses, one kit telephoto, pricey telephotos and zeiss lenses, really shitty kit zooms, and mostly third party crap

>>2924029

The only thing reallymissing from e-mount is a long telephoto. Longest is 300mm and it is on a zoom.

A lot of the 'thid party crap' is pretty solid too. The Sigma art line is fantastic.

>>2924014
Yes, hood attached, at 200mm. Add several more inches for 500mm. It's a good 4 or 5 inches thick, definitely a chunkier lens than most people are used to handling. Forget filters with that front thread size. If you dont even lift, i'd recommend a monopod, or some way to hang it on a load bearing vest. VR is eerily stable. I didnt test how low I could hand hold it, since I was only borrowing it for the afternoon, but the viewfinder image is very steady at 500mm. It's rated for 4.5 stops, but I'd also wager it's VRIII and not VRII judging by the viewfinder image. Cheapest Nikkor that will more than sufficiently compensate for your micro-penis, I'd say.

>>2923999
If you want a cheap beater camera, get the 350D, it's what I started with.

I'm not sure how recent you wanted.

>>2924049
>>2924006
Also:

I can't comment on Pentax since I haven't used any of their cameras, but you should realize is that there's no path to upgrade with their cameras.

All they have for full frame is their K-1 which is marketed more towards hobbyists than performance.

That said, they look like they have a lot of nice features. You just have to remember to think about whether you want to stay with Pentax before you invest too heavily.

>>2923965
A 2nd hand a7 is an option, ones not necessarily better than the other, depends what you want to use it for.

If you want affordable autofocus lenses the a6000 has the 3 sigma dn primes which are exceptionally for their price, sony's zoom lenses and 16mm lens are kinda bad though. Definitely don't look at fuji, their lens lineup is appalling unless you want to spend big money.

The A7 is the better choice if you plan on using old manual focus lenses with adapters, the full frame sensor sets it apart from the a6000.

Fuji is a good choice if you want a more point and shoot like experience due to it's 'friendly' controls and better jpeg engine, the evf sucks donkey nuts compared to the Sonys though and they feel like ticky-tacky toys.

>>2924009
That looks like shit.

>>2924054
>All they have for full frame is their K-1 which is marketed more towards hobbyists than performance

That depends entirely on what performance your after, if it's product photography, landscapes, weather sealing and astrophotography it's glorious due to it's super resolution mode, fancy star tracking thing and pentax's awesome weather sealing.

And their limited lenses are cool as tits.

File: 2160_AF-S-VR-Micro-NIKKOR-105mm-f-2.8G-IF-ED_front.png (125KB, 700x595px) Image search: [Google]

125KB, 700x595px

Is the 105mm Micro good for portraits or should I just continue saving my shekels for the 70-200mm 2.8?

>>2924058
Also there is plenty of upgrade path in aps-c and ff including different tier of lenses especially on aps-c.

>>2924058
I'm sure it's a lot of fun.

He just needs to understand that that's the kind of shooting he's going to be limited to.
If that's all he likes, then that's just fine.

>>2924055
>they feel like ticky-tacky toys.
Like the Sony's plastic construction and singular control dial, vs solid, metal bodies and a full array of customizable controls?
> the evf sucks donkey nuts compared to the Sonys
Oh that's right, the internet was going crazy over the a6000's viewfinder which easily outclassed the XT1's in size, resolution and refresh rate. Oh, wait.

>Definitely don't look at fuji, their lens lineup is appalling unless you want to spend big money.
I guess this meme will never die

>>2924065
>>2924061

I didn't mean the lenses.

I meant that he was going to be limited by his selection of bodies.

>>2924060
Focal length? Sure. Some people say there's such a thing as too sharp for portraits, but then you've got those same people complaining the 105/135 DC aren't sharp enough for modern sensors.

Spoiler: Buy anything in that focal length range.

>>2924067
what an odd outlook.

how many different tier ff bodies do you really need?

>>2924069
5DsR for resolution.

1D X MkII for speed and accuracy.

The Pentax lenses aren't as fast either.

>>2924077
Lol faggot

>>2924054
>K-1 which is marketed more towards hobbyists than performance.

Aren't you responding to a hobbyist?

And I don't think he's trying to marry a camera manufacturer.
You can always sell your lenses and switch brands, it's no big deal.

>>2924077
What a pretentious little faggot.
The K-1 has the same resolution as Nikons picklemaster the D810 and slightly better gain curve. For this kind of resolution you will shoot studio or landscape, both need no sophisticated AF, most people use manual focusing.
For the 1DxII you will be a photojournalist or a photographer employed by big firms like NatGeo. In this case you will use 1DxII or D5 with lenses, everything from the employers stock. You don't bring your own gear to such jobs.
We are talking about hobby uses and for that Pentax has become more relevant than Canon, somewhere below Nikon in total. Surpassing either in some cases.
You don't need to be a Pentax fanboy to see how technology evolved and what the brands offer for what money.
I am sorry to say this but for amateur and serious hobby uses Pentax is much more recommended than Canon. If I wasn't so invested with my 4 lenses into Canon I would be choosing from Nikon and Pentax and it would be a very very difficult decision. Maybe it will become a reality on Christmas.

>>2924077
>The Pentax lenses aren't as fast either.
That is because you NEED fast lenses on Canon where the sensor starts to wobble at ISO 1600 and tanks after ISO 3200.
Pentax Aps-c has still good quality at ISO 6400 and only starts to tank around ISO 12800. One stop further with the K-1.
The embarrasing truth is that Pentax doesn't need fast lenses to keep ISO down and shutter speed up. Unlike Canon who gives you banding noise on high-end bodies.

>>2923941
> Is the K50 compatible with lenses from other manufacturers?
You can adapt manual lenses, but AFAIK there are no smart adapters like for the Sony E-mount that adapts lenses with AF.

> It would be like a "side hobby", something to do when I travel, climb a mountain, go in a foreign city.
I myself would currently take a MILC. Don't see the problem. It's a nice enough hobby.

>>2924130
>Sony
>I would take a MILC
the best weather sealed body Sony makes corrode from putting your eye on the viewfinder.
I wouldn't buy anything Sony because literally no resale value, but I agree on the MILC.
Buying a Fuji or a MFT like Olympus or Panasonic are very good deals and they all keep their value. Not to mention you don't have to adapt lenses unlike with Sony. There is a reason why there are so many adapters for E-mount, Sony literally has no lens worthy to mention.

>>2924145
I don't even have any sonys but I wish this meme would stop. A few isolated cases of PCB corrosion do not mean that everything is suddenly unusable.

>>2924148
Also I wish Sony had no resale value so I could get an A7R for the price of peanuts for my macro rig.

>>2924106
>Canon where the sensor starts to wobble at ISO 1600
>Pentax Aps-c has still good quality at ISO 6400

Canon sensors are pretty shit but there's a point where you have to tone down pentaxfag delusions.

>>2924145
> the best weather sealed body Sony makes corrode from putting your eye on the viewfinder.
Not sure what kick you get from being a retard.

> literally no resale value
Used and 2 years old brings the value about ~35% down on Sony (going by the A6000, the most sold camera).

> Fuji or a MFT like Olympus or Panasonic [...] all keep their value
The X-T1 alone dropped more about 1/3 from the initial price in one year, and Panasonics and Olympus are not really much different overall.

> Not to mention you don't have to adapt lenses unlike with Sony.
Sony has more current lenses. And important to me, more high-end primes.

Never mind the other systems actually just can't adapt lenses to almost native standard - that makes it simply less attractive to go down this route.