/Gear/ - Gear thread

File: opoo.jpg (206KB, 666x666px) Image search: [Google]

206KB, 666x666px

how many megapixels

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

File: Leica_M6_Cutaway_F.jpg (73KB, 600x400px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 600x400px

Which one should i get?

M6 Classic or M6 TTL

also im usually on a 28 and 35 and sometimes 50.

which frameline is better? 0.58 or 0.72? its kinda hard to find a 0.58 m6 around.. most of them are on the TTL version though.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	428
Image Height	298
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	2014:01:26 16:46:58
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	600
Image Height	400

File: japan4.jpg (129KB, 906x646px) Image search: [Google]

129KB, 906x646px

>>2924503

How come no one makes interesting bodies anymore?

Everything is boring black or silver.

I really wish I could find this lens and body for sale, I would buy it in a heartbeat.

>>2924532
Ask Pentax why their ``interesting'' bodies don't sell.

>>2924546

Pentax doesn't sell anyway, so they aren't really the best company to ask.

Can somebody explain Hoya filters to me? On their website, they advertise HD, Fusion Antistatic, and Pro1D series of filters. Then when you look up the filters at B&Jew, you get alpha, HRT, HD3, HD, EVO antistatic, Pro1D, and more besides. What the fuck, Hoya? And how come nobody has the Fusion Antistatic series?

>>2924532
>tfw no 90's clear plastic dslr, showing of the flipping mirror and sensor
>tfw i didnt realize that would be immpossible until typing the word sensor

File: 1212877698074.jpg (14KB, 443x333px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 443x333px

>>2924596
>see thru camera

File: 5454399717_f9321a6489_b.jpg (194KB, 1024x681px) Image search: [Google]

194KB, 1024x681px

>>2924608
>>2924596

Minolta did that though.

File: tranny_lens.png (1MB, 1024x682px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1024x682px

>>2924611
>>2924608
>>2924596

Made a couple partially transparent lenses so you could see the autofocus mechanism too.

>>2924532
Nikon and Pentax still do '''''fun''''' colors for their entry models. Lenses never match so it looks shit.

>>2924611
>>2924614
This sort of thing gives off more a "cheap and nasty shit" vibe, rather than "wow cool hey that's pretty neat".

>>2924532
Too many people think they're srs artists and they won't use "toys" that don't have this oh so modest/srs black and interferes with their image.

Same as with why they don't like "cheap" plastic (it's actually largely just the superior material) and prefer various metals and shit. More "srs".

>>2924639

These are pictures of 30+ year old demo models. Probably looked a little better new.

But yea, the lens especially looks tacky.

File: 1448855952024.jpg (6KB, 129x109px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 129x109px

>>2924503
Is the 200mm f/2 or f/1.8 much, if any, better than the 70-200mm IS f/2.8?

>>2924758
Canon? You will need all the extra light for that blunt sensor. Get the f/1.8

>>2924758
In detail, and fucking awesomeness, the 200/2 is way better. It can also be a 300 2.8 or a 400 4 with the right TCs. I think most people use it for high end indoor sports and absolutely excessive portraits

File: 1459756296900.jpg (65KB, 550x550px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 550x550px

>>2924921
Excessive?


Also, why is the MP-E 65mm selling used for ~$850 when it retails for a little over $1000 and it's been produced since 1999?
For that matter, why does it seem like all of Canon's dedicated macro shit is over priced? ($80 extension tubes, $750 speedlites)

>>2924585
Maybe it's a regional product only certain counties have access to?
Try eBay

So I upgraded to a 60D from a 1000D a few months ago. Mainly use it for nightclub photography and festivals.

I now have a Tokina 11-16 with it and I like it. But I'm still way behind my competition who all use 5D's with L lenses. I can't really take great overview shots like they do. It's hard to take a good picture of the moving crowd at 1/25.

What would you recommend me? I was thinking about a 6D. It's about 1000-1100 euros second hand. I think it would be a good step to full frame, not too expensive. I still can use the Tokina if I'm right, so I can put it on 16mm. I also know the 6D is still a beast in low light, even compared to the 5D Mark III... I rarely use any other AF points than the center one.

And then later go for a Sigma 20mm 1.4 or 1.8?

>>2924611
absolute madmen
>>2924608
It's possible... as long as the sensor isn't sensitive to the light that's let in. You can build transparent view cameras for orthochromatic film using the right coloured plastics.

Also you could just seal the sensor/film plane away from extraneous light.

>>2924758
Holy jesus the 200/2 is in another league, even for primes. Also dat ability to shoot telephoto in near darkness. And what's another $500 once you've spent $5000? Get a 2x TC. It won't look as nice as a 400/4, but surprisingly, it won't be all that far behind either.

Also, bitches love chodes.

>>2924957
Yeah, but Hoya's #1 for fakes on eBay too. RIP my polarizing dreams.

But otherwise, as far as I can tell:
HD3 > HD > Fusion/Evo > Pro1D > Alpha > HRT

Right?

>>2924978
Did a little more digging. HD3, NXT, Alpha, and Evo are lines sold in the US by Kenko.

Polarizers for NXT and Alpha aren't coated. Alpha is a low cost design.
HD3 has 16 layer MC over HD 8 layer MC, and a harder glass. HD3 CPL has slightly better transmission.
Evo has 18 layer MC over Fusion 9 layer. Same transmission and build specs. I'm guessing both the Evo and HD3 are front and back coated.
Pro1D is the global "budget" line, probably a lower specced Fusion without the antistatic coating.
HRT is part of their basic line of filters.

>Bought Full Frame Camera
>Forgot to consider that FX lenses cost a fuckton.

At least it's making me think very, very carefully about what I buy. Currently just rocking a D750 and a 50mm 1.8.

>>2924977
Thanks for the information, Anon.

I just noticed they made a Mk II of the 200mm f/2.8.
Is it anything close to the f/2 at 2.8?

>>2924992
Yeah I used to shoot Nikon but modern nikkor glass is really pricey
You should look into adapting m42 lenses

>>2924998
I doubt it. The 200/2 is built to a different standard, and much newer. It's also much more expensive. If you were seriously shopping for a $6000 lens, you wouldn't need to cross shop a 70-200/2.8 or 200/2.8.
>>2924992
Buy a used 70-300VR if you shoot telephoto, or a used 24-70, 28-70, 24-85 VR, 17-35, 18-35, 20/24/50/85 AFD, or 24-120/4 if you dont.

And if you can't even afford one of the 70-300VR/50 AFD/24-85/18-35, then you fucked up already.

>>2925002
>If you were seriously shopping for a $6000 lens, you wouldn't need to cross shop a 70-200/2.8 or 200/2.8

I see.
I just wanted to know the differences before I dropped money on a lens like that.

>>2925000
Would that offer the same results though?

>>2925002
I'm not really in to telephoto stuff. More landscapes and architecture. Telephoto would be nice for the details of architecture, but I'm not spending £1000 to zoom in on gargoyles.

I'll probably be fine with three lenses. My 50, a 24-70 and maybe a 70-300. Somewhere down the line I might get a 35, but probably not.

Does someone have experience with the Sigma 17-50mm 2.8 for video work? Is the autofocus audible on an external mic mounted on the camera? Or should I go for the more silent Canon 17-55mm 2.8?

What are the thoughts on the A3000 for architectural/landscape photography? My budget is cheap ATM and i want to take nice photography when i go to Osaka.

What are some free alternatives to lightroom on windows?
I'm using Darktable on Linux but I am considering a jump back to windows, mainly because DaVinci Resolve.
I tried RawTherapee, but it's crap.

>>2925009
The 18-35 is gud, or maybe shell out for for your favourite prime.

File: 14315756_10154220526157415_1640508894_o.jpg (150KB, 2048x1152px) Image search: [Google]

150KB, 2048x1152px

This nasty thing came in the mail from Nipland yesterday. Absolute mint condition, better than described. And it's not THAT heavy.

>>2925027
>This nasty thing

What?

What's the star for?

>>2925033
nasty as in it's pretty great preforming

The stickers were from I went to an event in the city. I had a planet one covering the 'Canon' too but it snagged and ripped off.

>>2925037
I get the nasty part, but are you talking about the lens or the camera, or both?

>>2924950
Excessive as in it's probably the most powerful portrait lens ever made. Totally overkill for even professional use in portraits. (99% of pros will just use a 70-200 and lose the single stop)

Canon macro shit is good macro shit. I'm not a financial expert but I can tell you that stuff performs well.

>>2925042
I just ordered the lens.

Camera is a 6D, which despite the AF, is alright for this lens cause lack of IS means higher ISO, which the 6D excels at.

>>2925048
I can understand the lens somewhat if it was made in insignificant numbers, but why should the flash cost $700 when the 580EX II only costs about $200?

>>2925058
I you could buy the 6D, why didn't you get a used 70-200mm MkI?

Anyone have an opinion about rubber lens hoods over hard plastic ones?

I reckon it doesn't matter much but I always like to ask.

>>2925095
Generally speaking, hard plastic is better. Should absorb more of an impact if there is ever one, should be a bit less susceptible to environment making it brittle or otherwise age it (though I've seen old rubber that is fine... it's not like that dies instantly easily).

>>2925072
>>2925027
>>2925058
The Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 VC USD would have been a much more reasonable buy. I got mine for $635.

Best camera for outdoors around $500?

D3300 kit any good?

>>2925058
I wouldn't say the 6D excels at high ISO. It is kind of decent, but not particularly good or even excelling. That title is reserved for the modern sensor cameras like Nikon, Pentax and Sony. And Fuji. Crop and FF.
The 6D is really behind the tech, I would say it was behind the tech when it was released.

>>2925017
I guess that it could work...? But I'd not do it - I'd just get the A6000.

>>2925104
Outdoors? Pentax K-50 with WR kit lens is below $500. Rugged build, excellent weather sealing and other things that are considered as extras with Nikon like bright 100% accurate pentaprism viewfinder and two control wheels.

>>2925104
Can you go up to a A6000?

Also consider a Pentax - K-50 or something.

> D3300 kit any good?
It's usable for some stuff. If I went with that, I'd get a better lens for it than the kit lens, though.

>>2925104
The Pentax K-50 beats out the d3300 for your purposes at that price point. The 18-55 lens is better quality than the Nikon 18-55, and what >>2925109 pointed out. Outdoors is a bit general, but if you mean you'll be hiking and being in the woods and what not, you might want to consider pentax just for the peace of mind the weather sealing provides. Depending on what you are doing you might also consider picking up the 18-135mm WR lens, which a lot of people like for walking around because of its zoom range and weather sealing. It's a pretty good value for the $250 you can pick it up for, although iq isn't perfect full way through.

http://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/SMC-Pentax-DA-18-135mm-F3.5-5.6-ED-AL-IF-DC-WR.html

>>2925171
Cheers, yes I mean I will be taking this camera out with me while I hike in the mountains

>>2924527
M6 0.72.

Don't be a cuck.

What's the name in ND filters these days?

>>2925188
Cock In

>>2925176
It's only $400 for a US model from Amazon right now. The K-70, which is a straight upgrade in every way, just came out this month (though it's $650 for the body and $900 with the 18-135 lens). Also make sure to check out the pentax forums where you can learn more then you ever need to know about K mount lenses.

>>2925188

the nice ones are all pricey, the cheap ones color cast, vignette and soften the image.

>>2924514
This vaguely looks like the ceiling of a college I go to.

>>2925171
everybody's 18-55s are quite decent these days, though Pentax is the only company that weather-seals them.

The 18-135 ain't so great though, it's rather soft at the long end and suffers from CA. If he wants more than the 18-55 he should either supplement it with a 55-300, or get the 16-85, which can be had for not much more than the combined price of an 18-55 and a 55-300.

>>2925225
Your college has the ceiling of a gas station.

whats the most affordable telephoto lens for a EF mount with IS? Used/Refurb preferred.

>>2925320
Affordable good? 70-300 IS.
Outright cheap? The kit 75-300 IS. It's a bit of an ancient turd.

HELP. I need a small camera that is good in low light. Like 6400ISO that isn't pure trash.

>>2925328
Isnt that a EF-S mount tho?

>>2924611
I want this.
>>2924614
This is just a half assed attempt.
>>2924950
>lens produced since 1999
>not necessarily selling in high numbers since 1999
>implying macroshitters will ever sell anything for less than 95% of it's RRP
The extension tubes make sense though at least, since the canon ones will retain AF without breaking your camera.
>>2925027
Enjoy, I only ever seem to find spares/repairs ones for a decent price here.
>>2925330
X70/X100. Stop being a creeper and use your giant speedlite to take crisp ISO100 images at night.

Anyone know of any good resoures to look into for learning about/getting gear for astrophotography?

I'm talking entry level stuff.

>>2925369
search the archive, hopefully there'll be an existing astrophotography thread.
From there you should be able to use your black belt level google-fu

>>2925369
>>I'm talking entry level stuff.
do you want to do landscapes or deep-sky objects (nebulae and shit)?

if you want to do deep sky, how much money do you have? This is important

What's the largest I can print with 20mp and the photo being tack sharp? I'm wanting something the size of standard posters.

>>2925338
Nope. Only the 55-200/250 is EFS.

>>2925375
Depends entirely on the printer.

What type of shots are you trying to print?

>>2925375
300 dpi is the standard, but you could get away with 280 or so.

>>2925387
> depends entirely on the viewing distance
Tftfy

>>2925373
I don't have the talent or cash for deep sky.

Is it even worth looking at stuff in the <500$ range?

Something like- http://www.telescope.com/Telescopes/Astrophotography-Telescopes/Orion-StarBlast-114mm-AutoTracker-Reflector-Telescope/pc/-1/c/1/sc/19/p/102786.uts?

>>2925396
Ask in the astro thread, you'll get better replies there.

I also sometimes see good discussions on >>>/sci/ so a thread there wouldn't hurt.

>>2925396
if you want to do landscape you need:
>a dark sky (20 minutes outside a city will not do, think 100 miles)
>an interesting landscape
>a good tripod
>a fast wide angle

If you're on APS-C consider the Samyang 16/2. There's a 14/2.8 that's full-frame compatible too. The 24/1.4 is even better, but not very wide on crop. You don't need a telescope or tracking at all for landscape. Just a fast lens and good high-ISO performance. Any of the above lenses can be had in the $500 range.

If you wanna do deep sky, $500 won't even buy you a good mount, let alone a good telescope to put on it. Only way to do something resembling deep sky on something resembling that budget is Pentax's astrotracer gadget. It is nowhere near as good as a proper tracking mount, but ~60s exposures at ~300mm equivalent are good enough to image larger, brighter things like the Orion nebula and the Andromeda galaxy. But for most deep-sky stuff you're looking at two grand just to get started.

>>2925017
Have an a3000, horrible quality of life. Especially if you're doing ael and\or mf. If you don't want the kit lens or someshit, go for the a6000 or that 5400 or whatever the fuck it is.

>>2925404
>>2925400
thanks

>>2925017

a3000 is old bottom of the barrel e-mount budget. You'd be better off going to sofmap or something and buying a used e-mount camera cheap.

Best bet would be buying an a6000 instead. Whats your budget? You in Japan now?

File: Andromeda.jpg (661KB, 1200x800px) Image search: [Google]

661KB, 1200x800px

>>2925396
Look up pentax astrotracer. Either integrated into the new bodies or a small device attached to the camera.
Mine does this with a 70-200/2.8 on the Andromeda galaxy, 30s exposures (I think)

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.6 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2016:08:02 23:36:00

What is the best Hasselblad focusing screen?

>>2925551
"the one you have on you"
-Ken Rockwell

>>2925551
iPhone 7

>>2925555
>>2925558
fuck you guys are no help

>>2925578
if only there was a way to search a vast worldwide network for such information

>>2925555
Have you tried asking on a photography related forum?

>>2925375
> tack sharp
A lot of crazy people call lenses that deliver half the resolution or less (on MFT and APS-C mainly) "tack sharp".

I'd verify how actually tack sharp your lens is on DxO or something.

You then take that resolution and divide it by 150-300 DPI, depending on what print quality you're aiming for.

>>2924503
Can anyone recomend good quality lenses for mobile phones specificaly an iPhone6? I have been told Mpow are good but more looking for like a 1.5x tele than wide angle adaptor.

File: 1.png (5KB, 583x184px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 583x184px

I need some input on these three macro options.
From what I've researched 1 of these 3 is what I would like to go with. They are all stabilised. And their are all superb optics that outresolves any of the current FF sensors.

But which one to get?
Is 1700 gram too heavy for handheld? I've never owned a 1700 gram lens before, but it would suck if it had to be constantly glued to Tripod.
I'm kind of leaning to the 90mm for its weight, but I heard higher focal range is more useful.

>>2925366
>since the canon ones will retain AF without breaking your camera

Have there been problems with third party tubes?

>>2925591
>on DxO or something
How are you still alive? This amount of cancer is fatal.

File: Sony-Alpha-a7-vs.EOS-6D-1.jpg (36KB, 628x256px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 628x256px

help /p/, I want to buy a full frame digital camera but I don't know what to choose, should I go for the 6D with a 24-105 f4(1280€) or the Sony A7(750€) and use it with my Nikon 50mm F1.4 AI.

ye the sony would be cheaper but I kind of want that 24-105

>>2925684
If you have Nikon lenses why not buy a 610D or a 750D?

>>2925684
If you have nikon lenses buy nikon.

>>2925688
I only have the 50mm f1.4 AI and a Tokina 19-35mm, dunno if it's worth it.

>>2925684
And remind me why you don't simply pick up a D600/D610?

>>2925684

a7ii over a7.

>>2925742
I already had a D600, video mode was bad, ended up getting oil in the sensor and lens were expensive also the Tokina 19-35 is shite and a 24-105 on Nikon has to be a sigma?
Won't buy a D600 again, maybe a D610.

>>2925739
In that case I would be choosing between a D610 or the Pentax K-1 with the kit lens and get an FA 50/1.7

File: epson_surecolor_sc-p600.jpg (83KB, 600x491px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 600x491px

Anyone have any printer recommendations? Wanted to get the Epson P-600 but feel if i went back a few years product cycle i could get something of comparable quality for a fraction of the price

>>2925769

I have the Canon PIXMA iX6850 and I'm pretty satisfied, it's not aimed at photographers exclusively so you don't get the huge markup that Canon knows their photography customers can afford, but you get minimal difference in quality - the printer lacks stupid gimmicks but can still do corner to corner borderless A3+ prints perfectly. Sadly B&W performance is not as good as you'd expect from the pro line like the Pixma Pro-100 or whatever, but that's practically the only catch. Ink doesn't seem excessively expensive.

File: pentaxusers.jpg (52KB, 1024x513px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 1024x513px

lmao the one loner creep in Stranger Things just so happens to be a Pentacks user, this is no coincidence

>>2925776
>movies are reality

>>2925777
>implying movies never contain certain aspects of reality

>>2925684
Where can you buy a 6d and 24-70 f4 for that price?

>>2925776
>Pentax user literally cucks the dumb Canikon jock

>>2925782
on eBay and it is the 24-105 f4

>>2925769
Be careful going a few years back in printers, I've got a Canon Pro 9000 Mk2 and it prints beautiful 13"x19" pictures but it seems Canon is phasing out the ink. Ink is also semi expensive but that goes for pretty much every printer.

File: EOSM-HR-EOS-M5-Body-Front-hiRes.jpg (700KB, 1500x1200px) Image search: [Google]

700KB, 1500x1200px

Canon EOS M5 announced.

Built-in electronic viewfinder. Canon's first EVF on a photographic interchangeable-lens camera, and the first of the big two to have a interchangeable photographic camera with an EVF. I assume Nikon will follow suit very soon.

Things are about to get interesting again, boyos.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2015.5 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	5616
Image Height	3744
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Compression Scheme	Unknown
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format
Image Created	2016:09:13 14:06:50
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1500
Image Height	1200

>>2925835
How is that interesting? We already have mirrorless cameras. Several different systems. This is just one more.

>>2925835
see
>>2920652

>>2925835
>big two
>EOS M5
>interesting
It's fucking nothing. Get out of here shill.
Canon's mirrorless market share is pathetic, the camera is priced completely wrong and is competing against literally nothing.

>>2925847
Did Canon fuck your mum?

>>2925843
>>2925847
>interesting
you read it wrong, cunts.

this is gonna make the market interesting again, since nikon is gonna want to catch up and compete with it very soon, and canon's gonna want to improve it and get a bigger market share.
it's a shit camera, to be sure, but it's definitely an interesting development for canon to be attempting to break into the market.
dumbasses

>>2925852
Nah, but I fucked your dad while Ricoh jerked it in the corner.

>>2925853
They aren't attempting to break into the market, they're just plodding along as usual. This is just a refresher of the M3.

If they really wanted to break in they would have announced it with something other than slow EF-M zoom lenses. This is just business as usual for Canon. They're literally competing with no-one.

Nothing interesting is going to come from this, Nikon aren't trying to catch up with Canon here at all.

>>2925858
man, you're a bit of a party buster, aren't you

"noo nooo you're wrong nooooo"

okay :^)

I disagree.

>>2925859
Good for you.

>>2925771
Thanks ill look into that
>>2925827
Can you not just buy non-OEM, cheaper and should stay in production

>>2925835
"Hey guys I'm looking into getting an a6300 and adapter for my canon glass"

>wait for eos m5
>wait for eos m5
>wait for eos m5

lol

>>2925862
>wait for eos m5
said no one ever

File: l_21660641.jpg (153KB, 600x532px) Image search: [Google]

153KB, 600x532px

Can you please recommend to me a decent bridge camera for me to buy my wife for her birthday. She wants something better than a compact, but doesnt really know how, or would get the, use of a digital SLR. Her mum has a Panasonic lumix DMC FZ62 that she loves. I've got a budget of £100 to £300. It doesn't need to be new, i.e. It can be a gen or 2 old if still decent. What's the best make for a real beginner? What offers the best experience to see if upgrading to a DSLR would be worth it in a year or 2?

>>2925835
Nikon had evfs on the Nikon 1 series you shit. The only thing they're missing is the APS-C sensor.

>>2925881
>decent bridge camera
no such thing mate

>>2925881
>to see if upgrading to a DSLR would be worth it
if she doesn't know if she wants a dslr, she doesn't need a dslr

look into the compact fuji and ricoh cameras. some of the sony fixed-lens mirrorless cameras are pretty good, but I assume outside of your price.

the thing about compact cameras is that they are far more portable than bigger ones. this is much more important than image quality, as a compact camera that fits into your pocket is more discrete and easier to carry.
the latest iphone series' have very good cameras in a compact form. I prefer those to my dslr sometimes.
get her a good phone instead. far easier to get the shot, far more convenient, far lighter.

>>2925921
>>if she doesn't know if she wants a dslr, she doesn't need a dslr
this.

anyway bridge cameras combine all the disadvantages of an SLR (larger size, awkward shape, doesn't fit in your pocket) with the disadvantages of phones and compacts (tiny, noisy sensor, poor provision for manual control, and no interchangeable lenses, just one lens that prioritizes either cheapness or zoom range or both uber alles)

when you say she "wants something better than a compact", ask her what she means by that. If she wants to learn more about photography, take pictures that a compact can't take well or at all, and is willing to go to the trouble of carrying around more gear and spending more money in order to get there, then she wants a proper interchangeable-lens camera (either SLR or mirrorless, that choice is mostly down to personal preference and lens systems these days) If she can't tell you in what ways she wants something better than a compact, or if she just wants something that looks more upscale than a compact, or if her answer is just "moar zoom", then she should just use her phone or whatever she has now.

>>2925865
>>2917591

>>2925612
Anyone?

>>2925936
Usually around 100mm macros are the most useful. In a macro lens the focal length tells you how far is the subject distance. With 100mm it is a comfortable distance not to spook an insect and close enough not having to stand meters away.
I'd get the 90mm one.

>>2925948
The distance also helps to get some (flash) light between the lens and the subject.

>>2925684
>I kind of want that 24-105

Why?
It's the shittiest lens Canon ever made.

>>2925951
That too since your DoF will be essentially microscopic and you need to close the aperture down a lot to put things in focus.

>>2925948
Do you think there might be situations where the 150mm will be better than the 90mm?

>>2925959
The longer the focal length the thinner your DoF will get. For a 150mm you will definitely need a macro head with focusing rails and you have to do focus stacking to form a single decent image.

>>2925961
Sounds like the 180 is hyper overkill then.

It just looked like it was really good value for the money. But the 90mm already resolves 42MP out of 42MP, so it's more than enough for me in the foreseeable future.

>>2925964
Be careful not to spread that corrosion over to the lens, it is worth much more than the camera.

>>2925966
Did you quote the wrong person?

What's the cheapest website with the highest quality prints? I'm interested in some 24x36 sized.

>>2925968
http://mediamarkt.com/

>>2925961
>The longer the focal length the thinner your DoF will get.

That's not really true.

Because with a longer focal length you'll also increase the distance to the subject, which increases the depth of field.

All in all, the DoF stays roughly the same when you keep the composition the same.

File: 20160803_183612.jpg (151KB, 1000x562px) Image search: [Google]

151KB, 1000x562px

So I finally sold off my Nikon D600, it was fun while it lasted :(

>>2925684
>>2925688
>>2925764
Brah, stick with Nikon and get a Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 VC instead. The Canon EF 24-105mm f/L4 is okay, but it's ageing lens.

The D610/D600 is much better camera overall, except for video mode (not much a difference there though desu).

If I weren't committed to the EF system already, I would have kept the D600 and sold off my 6D :(

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	samsung
Camera Model	SM-N910G
Camera Software	N910GDTU1DPF4
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.2
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	31 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	5312
Image Height	2988
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2016:08:03 18:36:11
Exposure Time	1/10 sec
F-Number	f/2.2
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	800
Metering Mode	Average
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	4.80 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	5312
Image Height	2988
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Night Scene
Unique Image ID	H16USHH04SA

File: GzAX45umElo.jpg (39KB, 479x512px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 479x512px

Is Nikon ever going to release a D900 or did the fucker give up and threw the towel in the ring?

im planning on buying a lens for studio work but i dont know if i should get the canon 70-200 f/4 L or the 24-105 f/4 L. If i want to do full body shoots the 24-105 its better right? Help me guys. What do you think?

>>2925980
Sigma 24-105 f/4

>>2925980
>studio work
>zooms
Get a couple of nice primes instead.

>>2925979
They had to forfeit and redesign the new model because Pentax came out with a better pack.

should i buy the 70-200 f/4 or the 24-105 f/4 (for studio/portrait photography)

>>2925984
i have been in one of the very best studios in my country in a workshop and they used some zooms

>>2925983
the sigma is better than the canon? i dont think so

>>2925987
>studio work
>zooms
Get a couple of nice primes instead.

>>2925992
The Sigma is MUCH better.

>>2925990
>they used some zooms
That's usually the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM II and the EF 24-20mm f/2.8L USM II.

Not your low-end suggestions.

>>2926008
The 70-200 f/4 is a stop slower, but in the same league as the f/2.8.
Older 70-200's are fine too, you really don't need the latest model.

The 24-105 is a shitty kit lens.

How is the Nikkon 50mm/1.8G?
I tried it out a little and was kinda disappointed with its quality at the lowest f-stops.
Plus no vibration reduction means I can't shoot reliably at lower shutter speeds, so I feel like that with the meh quality cancels out the benefits of the wider apertures.
But I don't know. I haven't used it much. Does anyone else have more experience with it?

>>2926021
>Does anyone else have more experience with it?
It's okay, for the price. Weather sealing and a nice ultrasonic focus and sturdy build. It's probably the best nifty-fifty around.

If you want decent wide-open performance though, gotta step up to the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 ART or if you want to go full retard, the Ziess 55mm f/1.4 Otus.

>>2926027

> It's probably the best nifty-fifty around.

That's freaking fighting talk, bro.

>>2926029

It's a gear thread. Ignore the shilling.

File: niftyfifties.jpg (1MB, 1920x960px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1920x960px

>>2926030
>>2926030
What.

What's a better nifty-fifty?

And I've had experience with all three of Canon's offerings.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 6D
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
Photographer	Ray Neal Caird
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2016:02:11 17:51:27
Exposure Time	1/30 sec
F-Number	f/2.8
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	3200
Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	63.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1920
Image Height	960
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>2926027
How does it compare to the 18-140 VR kit? With the VR lens I can reliably take shots at much lower speeds that I feel like it cancels out the benefits of the 50's wider apertures, especially since I can't reliably take crisp shots at lower speeds with the 50.
With the 50mm I stick to 1/80, maybe 1/60, but with the VR I can go down to 1/15 or even longer if I have to.
Am I missing something?

>>2926034

There's no niftiest fifty.

Noctilux.
Sigma Art.
Loxia.
Summicron.
Contax G Planar 45/2.
Otus.
FE Sonnar 55/1.8.

They're all nifty, there are arguments for and against all, none of the differences make a real difference.

>>2926036
>especially since I can't reliably take crisp shots at lower speeds with the 50.
Improve your technique. Exhale then hold your breath, keep your arms tucked in and don't spaz out.

I can shoot 1/10 and still get decent results with my 70-200mm f/2.8 at 200mm.

>>2926041
Yeah I was shooting with it just now and noticed okay stills at 1/40. Moving subjects? Nope. But I guess that's to be expected?
I'll work on my technique more senpai.

>>2926037
The only modern 50mm you could do wrong with buying is probably Sony's new 50mm 1.8

>>2926048

> The only modern 50mm you could do wrong with buying is probably Sony's new 50mm 1.8

I never tried it, I know nothing about it, but it looks shit.

The 55/1.8 has a lot of good things said about it and it's got dat sexy concave front element, but I never tried it either.

I have a fifty that's nifty. Actually, I have six (if you count 80s on 645 and 150-180s on 4x5). They can all bring home the goods. IDGAF.

>>2926027
>>2926029
>>2926030
>>2926034
>>2926037
>>2926048
>>2926053
Okay maybe I should have used "thrifty fifty" instead.

File: Sony lenses.gif (661KB, 1264x1580px) Image search: [Google]

661KB, 1264x1580px

>>2926053
It's a real shame because Sony FE lenses are all in the higher end with barely any options under $500, and they they drop an "affordable" 50mm that costs more than Canon's 50mm 1.8 while also managing to focus slower, have a louder motor, and optically perform worse.

>>2926058
1st model 50mm f/1.8 EF, or the Yongnuo knockoff if you want to go turbo poorfag.

>>2926060
The original EF 50mm f/1.8 I bought was more expensive than the STM version. The MK II was only $50 brand new though. Yongnuo knock off is a special kind of shit.

>>2925979
Why do people spazz out that cameras aren't updated every year? Sure, the D500 was 6 years in the making, but all the pro models are refreshed in 4 year intervals anyways, with 2 years for intermediate updates, and give or take a few months for the usual delays. If you wanted speeds, you'd have picked up a D700/D4/D3 and if you wanted pickles you'd have your D810. Calm your fucking tits.

>>2924532
That is actually fucking stunning

>>2925967

I think he assumed you were talking about the Sony 90mm macro (the only one worth looking at really), and started spouting the corrosion meme.

>>2926048

It is one of the cheapest primes on e-mount ($150), and while it sucked on release, the latest lens firmware actually made it pretty good.

>>2926072

Cheapest I can find it is $1,800.

Can't justify that riight now.

File: iz.jpg (162KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

162KB, 500x500px

>>2926078
Pic is related

>>2926076
Fuck firmware, you got the optics or you don't.

>>2926083
>Fuck firmware, you got the optics or you don't.

Optically it is fine.

The issue was the loud as fuck autofocus motor (still an issue) and slow autofocus (now fine).

What do you guys think of the Panasonic leaks? I'm fuckin excited.

>>2926100
Panasonic is a great electronics firm, and their laptops are also first class. Of course, their cameras are shit, but what leaks have you seen about other products?

>>2926104
Their G7 replacement will be magnesium body, weather and dust sealed, comes with a 12-60 kit. 4K30 with 5-axis IBIS.

>>2926105
Wow, literally all the shit quality crap in a single camera. But one, learn to deal with shame.

>>2926100

I am more excited about the Sony rumors.

If they are true, Sony will FINALLY release a pro-level e-mount body.

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

52KB, 461x179px

>>2925973
>So I finally sold off my Nikon D600, it was fun while it lasted :(
What was fun exactly, Ray? Taking pictures of your gear, and never taking pictures with it? Or was it shitposting the same bullshit every gear thread for attention?

Do us all a favour and sell the rest of your gear, then end your fucking life.

File: Fuji-X-T1-Discontinued.jpg (91KB, 727x432px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 727x432px

>>2924503

Fuji X-T1, X-T10, and X-E2 have all ended production.

What x-mount bodies are currently still being produced?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Image Width	727
Image Height	432

>>2926114
A7RII?

>>2926123

>a7rii

Extremely limited raw burst.

a9 is supposed to be unlimited when used with XQD cards. And supposed to have a 72mp sensor too.

Who knows if it comes anywhere near that though. Hopefully it gets proper weatherproofing too.

>>2926127
72mp sensor? what the fuck is the point of that? No glass currently exists that can even come close to feeding that. You're gonna need to steal one from nasa or some shit.

>>2926128

Most of the FE line is supposed to be rated to 60+MP.

>>2926129
lots of things are supposed to be things. fuckin bullshit

>>2926134

Lenses like the FE 90mm f 2.8 certainly outresolve the a7rii sensor by quite a bit. Wouldn't be sueprised if it went up to 72mp.

>>2926129
>>2926138

>rating lens resolution by megapixels

lmao. it's like you get all your info off youtube and sony marketing materials

>>2926127
If I told you the a9 also did 20 fps with 400 frame buffer at 72MP would you believe me? You shouldn't believe everything you read, kid.

Nobody has the hardware to move 72MP of data at a reasonable speed that would feature in a pro camera. More likely than not, it's 18 MP with a multi-shot mode that gives 72MP.

File: manfrotto_tripod.jpg (23KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 500x500px

Thoughts on this as my first tripod? I found a like-new one on CL for $50. I've read in several places that's it's better to invest well into your tripod, but I figured getting a starter kit like this on the cheap would help me figure out what features I want when I do decide to pick up a higher quality one.

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1059031-REG/manfrotto_mkcompactadv_bk_compact_advanced_tripod_black.html

Whats better worth my money as far as baby's first film "walk-around" goes Olympus MJU-II or Olympus XA2? I really appreciate the advice.

File: nfl-pov-camera.jpg (60KB, 585x428px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 585x428px

>>2924503

Wha would be the best set up to make a pov porno?

I assume a mirrorless with a wide lens?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

>>2926118
I love you too salty Anon <3

>>2926197
At $50 your device it's not a bad deal.

But I dislike pan-tilt heads for photography.
You could get a ball head / higher load rating / ~10cm smaller folded size Dic&Mic for ~$80 shipped (Alu variant, Carbon is $110).

>>2926257
>But I dislike pan-tilt heads for photography
Everything goes as long it does the job for you. Also with pan tilts you can do panning videos on holiday.
It definitely works for stills.

>>2926206
just strap a dji zenmuse to your forehead.
get panasonic 14mm f2.5 or 20 1.7 if it's too distorted.
look into distortion post processing and motion compensated stabilization filters.
have an operator to control it on your ipad.

File: 3Q1A2562.jpg (1MB, 2000x1333px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2000x1333px

sd quattro h fucking when

File: fujifilm_x_t1_mirrorless_digital_camera_1025329.jpg (430KB, 2500x2500px) Image search: [Google]

430KB, 2500x2500px

Any thoughts on buying cameras off the grey market? Thinking of getting a fuji x-t1 with a 18-55mm lens as my first camera. Would save a lot of money, but is it worth it given that there is no warranty?

>>2926332

>X-T1

Doesn't it have autofocus issues? I thought the good one was the X-T2.

Also, if you are gonna order it, do so soon, X-T1 production has ended.

>>2926340
Xt1s will be available for years.

>>2926120
XT2, Xpro2, XE2s, probably whatever the successor to the XT10 is, and a bunch of other shit no one cares about

>>2926105
The 12-60 is the best thing to happen for micro four thirds in a long time. The 12-50 was there, but it was slow and shit. This 12-60 is prime sharp right through like all the modern mft lenses and has that fucking stupid fast DFD support. Their cameras are neat but I'm not buying a new body because mine is already excellent. But this lens is the first one that makes my mft a backup camera that actually performs as well as any first camera I've owned.

>>2926348
>f/3.5-6.3 is "slow as shit"
>f/3.5-5.6 is fine
What the fuck am I reading?

>This 12-60 is prime sharp right through
I just skimmed through a couple reviews and they mention that corners are soft-ish wide open. Also, autofocus on lolympus bodies without DFD is significantly less impressive.

Where is my micro equivalent to the old ZD 12-60, lolympus?

>>2926083
>Fuck firmware, you got the optics or you don't.

I've got an old lolympus 50/2.0 macro here that is optically the best thing since sliced bread, but I hate using it because it literally takes five seconds to focus and then still misses half of the time.

>>2926340
The x-t2 is a bit too expensive for me, even on the grey market. And since I'm a newcomer to photography the x-t1 seems like a good option. My budget is around €1000, any other suggestions on what I could get in the same price range?

>>2926340
X-T1 has alright autofocus if you aren't shooting fast sports or something like that.

It's X-E and X-Pro that had shit AF in the first generation.

>>2926356
>what the fuck am I reading
Slow in operation, not aperture you fucking shit for brains. The apertures are almost identical across the range.
>corners softish wide open
Comparably, aps-c DSLR zooms are usually softish all over until stopped down a few times. A slight imperfection in the corners at the extremes is a prime performance.

>>2926375

Only other company making decent mirrorless with a large sensor is Sony.

For that price you could get the a6300 or even an old a7 (which is fullframe).

File: received_1157674540958837.gif (898KB, 800x430px) Image search: [Google]

898KB, 800x430px

>>2925795

Fuji 23/1.4 or 23/2?

I really like my 35/2 but I want to shoot wider.

Any weird quirks between the two lenses to help me decide? I'm using an X-T10 so weather resistance isn't really that big of a deal for me.

>>2926382
>Slow in operation

How? The AF is very fast on lolympus cameras, and no one is forcing you to use the motorized zoom.

>aps-c DSLR zooms are usually softish all over until stopped down a few times

That's bullshit, there are plenty of sharp APS-C zooms. For example, Nikon 16-85 VR or Pentax 17-70 are just as good as that Panasonic.

>>2926388
Sony has a shit UI compared to Fuji though.

Also, dismissing m43 because the sensor is slightly smaller is for gearfags.

>>2926400
I have the 23/1.4 and I really love it. It's on my Xpro 90% of the time. The the new f/2 coming out will be smaller, probably just as sharp, and might focus a little quicker, though the 1.4 is no slouch to start. If you want clutch manual focus then the 1.4 is your only option. If size or price is a concern then get the 2.

>>2925015
I don't do video, but I currently have the lens mounted on a t2i.
It definitely has an audible focus, you can hear the grinding over ambient noise with your eye up to the viewfinder.

I shot a quick video using the sigma, and the internal mic of the camera. With that setup, you could definitely hear the machine-gun grinding (doesn't help that it was having a hard time catching). Speaking at normal volume, facing the mic from approx 1 meter, the autofocus was probably 1/2 or 1/3 as loud as that.
Sorry, I definitely don't have recording experience, but hope that helps!

>>2926257
Sorry I fell asleep before I saw your post. I know the tilt is less ideal than the ball head, but I'm going to buy it and see how I can work with it.

Trying to decide between a canon 80d and an oly em5 mk2. My current camera is a rebel t3i and after using it extensively for work, it's beginning to show its full range of use and it's short comings, such as dying too fast, not having an audio mic, and having an obnoxiously loud shutter. My current job and other obligations and work include:

>video work for interviews and events on and off college campuses
>doing photography during lectures
>portraits
>cosplay photo
>documentary filming
And I'm probably going to try my hand at weddings soon. I also want to do some street photography/video.

I'm definitely planning on getting both cameras, and I'm somewhat familiar with their features and lack there of. My question is what should I get first? I'm waiting on $1700 , and I could buy both cameras, but I wouldn't be able to buy any lenses for the Oly.

Alternatively, is there a better way to spend my money?

>>2926450
E-M5 is not particularly good for video - kinda fuzzy quality, subpar rolling shutter. 80D should fare better. On the other hand, E-M5 will give you stabilization for handheld video on any lens (not a replacement for a steadicam, but fairly decent) and a viewfinder that doesn't black out when shooting video.

Photo-wise, it mostly depends on the lenses you want.

>>2926450
GX8

File: zionzhjkueuzirjym2gs.jpg (29KB, 680x357px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 680x357px

Hey Guys im between a canon 700d vs pentax k-50 d as a first camera. which one should i consider?

>>2926470
I've been doing well with a 50mm 1.8 and a 24-70 on my Canon
I really just need those kind of lenses and maybe a fisheye for artfaggotry

File: image.jpg (76KB, 816x544px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 816x544px

>>2926482
Holy fucking shit the GX8 is gorgeous and way cheaper thank you anon, have a photo

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Apple
Camera Model	iPhone
Camera Software	VSCO
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2016:09:16 14:38:11
Comment	Processed with VSCO with p5 preset
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	816
Image Height	544
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>2926487
Pentax. Way way more camera for the money.

>>2926511
You are now aware that Panasonic cameras are cheaper and better than Olympus cameras. You have been cured, enjoy.

File: cams.jpg (112KB, 743x447px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 743x447px

Hopefully this is the right place for a question. My grandpa just died and I have the task of clearing out his garage with the understanding I can keep anything I find, and just throw away the rest. Are any of these cameras worth keeping?

Note: I already called the Sheriff and he will be coming by to pick up the assault rifle, the only thing I want to shoot is a photo.

>>2926532

It's you're trolling /p/ and /k/ in a single post!

>>2926534
I was afraid people would think its a troll. I'll say this, it is my belief they are cheap cameras and not very good, but I would hate to make that mistake and throw away something decent. My whole life has been digital.

So I looked into square 135
Turns out there is very few and they cost shitloads.
Not interested in fag conversions yet.
Also very little information about them.

Anyone got a good source of info?

File: 1465089724640.jpg (39KB, 663x579px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 663x579px

>>2926532
>Throwing away something that costs as much as a Leica
http://www.gunbroker.com/Machine-Guns/BI.aspx?Keywords=UZI

File: 1458965399147.jpg (3KB, 124x125px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 124x125px

>>2926532
>assault rifle

File: 008PP.jpg (837KB, 1228x1818px) Image search: [Google]

837KB, 1228x1818px

>>2926532
If either of those folding cams are in good condition and have a way to adjust the aperture, shutter speed, or both, it's definitely worth keeping for shooting a roll on it at the very least.

Took pic related on a Kodak No.2 Folding Brownie. Fun little camera desu

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS2 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2016:08:22 17:14:29
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	1228
Image Height	1818

>>2926543
The little one that is open is a brownie. where would I even find film? It looks like there are 3 settings for shutter and 3 or 4 notches for length.

>>2926532
Can you try for a clearer, larger picture of the cameras, maybe without the gun?

File: cams2.jpg (273KB, 853x956px) Image search: [Google]

273KB, 853x956px

>>2926549
Here you go. I put a fishing bait there for size comparison

>>2926206
Canon EOS M, M2 or M3 with Magic Lantern and the EF-M 11-22mm IS STM. Compact and wide enough with the added bonus of RAW video (pun intended) and IS.

File: 002PP.jpg (700KB, 1818x1228px) Image search: [Google]

700KB, 1818x1228px

>>2926547
If it takes 120 Film, that's available pretty much everywhere online and at some camera shops.

If it takes 116, 616, or 620, you can use a 120 roll in it with a little bit of MacGyvering:
http://www.brownie-camera.com/articles/petelutz/use-120-film-in-116-616-camera.shtml
http://www.brownie-camera.com/respool/respool.shtml

If it takes 127 film, that can be bought online, but your choices are really fucking limited.

Take a look at that other folding camera you have there, too. Brownie was Kodak's "budget" line of cameras at the time, and if it just says Kodak with no other branding on it, it might be a better camera than your Brownie. Or it might not be. I don't really know how much of a difference there was quality-wise between consumer-level folding cameras and consumer-with-a-little-more-money-level folding cameras back in the 1910s/20s, nor do I know the condition your grandfather kept one camera in versus the other. The only way to tell for sure is by taking some photos with them.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS2 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2016:08:22 17:00:06
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	1818
Image Height	1228

What would be a good step up from a d750 with a similar price?

File: 10.gif (2MB, 384x216px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 384x216px

>>2926555

>>2926598
not sure I get the meaning here, friend

File: eken-h9.jpg (107KB, 729x533px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 729x533px

Hey!
My mom and I will go in 3 week to snorkeling and she asked me to buy a cheap camera... Right now I'm between the Eken H9 and the Eken H3R so I want advices, which camera do you think is the best under the water?
Thanks a lot guys.

>>2926590
There is no step up. It's current gen. Calm your fucking tits. If you want more wizbang features, go buy a mirrorless camera.

What software are you using to edit videos? Looking for suggestions as to what you use and what works better than other programs

>>2926637
Nothing better than Adobe CC right now. The cloud features are pretty awesome too. If you're a working photog, there's no better alternative.

>>2926638
$0.50 (fifty cents) have been deposited into your bank account. Thank you for sticking behind out software.

Regards,

Adobe Marketing Department

>>2926627
Xiaomi Yicam 2
SJCAM SJ5000X

>>2926644
Thanks!

>>2926641
No need for your gelatinousness, I already have a 10 year subscription from their Adobe Pro Photographer Program ;^)

File: omf.gif (1MB, 500x363px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 500x363px

>>2926532
you're a damn fool

File: 1474054014478.jpg (113KB, 743x447px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 743x447px

>>2926539

It's semi auto. Note the cut in the bolt for the blocking bar.

Still an NFA item due to the 10 inch barrel though.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand

>>2926698

ATF contacted; your dog will be dead in minutes.

>>2926694
Wth I thought all the trolls hung out on /b/? Why am I a fool? I called the Sheriff and he removed it. All legal and not a problem.

>>2926698
Not sure what all that means.

>>2926707
ATF can get it from the Sheriff if they want it.

>>2926756
This is a camera board, please stop trying to rile people up with talk about the gun. It's completely off topic. If you want to shitpost and get A LOT of (you)'s, >>>/k/

As for the cameras, you should contact your family to see if anyone is interested in them before selling them off. Even if you don't use them, they could be a cool decoration feature to put on a shelf or in a hutch somewhere.

>>2926761
Look I agree completely. I have zero interest in the gun and it was only there as part of the 'latest pile' of stuff I was sorting. It is gone now hopefully to be melted down.

Now on to the cameras. I am not going to just throw them away. I wanted to first see if any were useful to actually use. Even if they aren't I will probably keep a couple of them for display and give the rest to my cousins.

>>2926765
Well depending on where you live, if there is a store specializing in vintage camera equipment they might be able to help you out. If your grandpa still had them when they died, they probably are close to functional. There are lots of collectors who still shoot on very old film cameras. The mechanisms aren't particularly complex. But generally with old cameras, depending on when they were last used, you get them CLA'd (Cleaned, Lubricated, and Adjusted) before you start using them again to insure they are in proper order.

>>2926765
>. It is gone now hopefully to be melted down.
The nu-male is strong here.

Btw, you're literally a retard for not selling it. There are ways to deal with inherited NFA items legally and safely where you decided it's somehow better to literally just throw away four digits (minimum) of value.

>>2926775
yeah I would be real proud of myself for putting an assault rifle back on the streets. sorry sometimes morals and ethics are more important than a quick buck.

>>2926779
It's literally a fat pistol, but sure, you keep thinking that you're keeping people safe.

>>2926781
Doing my part to keep the kiddos safe until madame president can ban the damn things.

>>2926784
Wow you're delusional.

>>2926786
>thinking I managed to kill 50k last year
Fuck me that'd be a lot of work with just a gun.
>being so stupid as to not realize you could have sold it to law enforcement instead of just giving it away
>generally being both sanctimonious and ignorant as fuck

>>2926789
>2926789
you trumpeters are all the same. just for you I am going to see if I can open gramps safe and make sure the Sheriff comes back for all of those too.

>>2926789
let me guess, white, cisgendered, drowning in privelage?

>>2926790
You're going to screw yourself and your family because you think it will upset me because you assume I have certain political views?

You're a special one.

Btw, if it's an electronic lock, easiest way in is with a strong rare earth magnet.

>>2926800
pi$$ off lumploaf I will do what i want

>>2926801
Yeah, I mean, obviously completely pissing on your grandfather's legacy in the most ignorant way possible while calling him a murderer is definitely the way to go.

>>2926803
He was not a murderer he served in Vietnam so my generation wouldnt need guns on the street. There is no legitimate reason for anyone to have a military grade assault weapon.

>>2926806
>>2926786
Come on now, keep on message.

File: 3f28ba2f-afe5-4bcf-8afd-80c76b697579.jpg (52KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 480x360px

Oh wew shit got real autistic real fast here

[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	480
Image Height	360
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>2926816
Where's the trump supporter?

does this board even have a janny?

>>2926818
the racist, redneck, cisgendered gun nut up there.

>>2926818
UMM LIKE, ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME????

>>2926821
Still not seeing what you're talking about.
>>2926823
For serious.

>>2926820
Yes, but event the "halo pls put benis in friend mouth thnx ok" posts stay up for a good day before they're taken down. /p/ is a fairly slow board so I guess it sits at a lower priority than faster boards with more rampant shitposting.

>>2926830
pi$$ off lumploaf

File: Capture.jpg (48KB, 489x366px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 489x366px

Any of this stuff good / cool? At a local auction tomorrow morning I'm thinking of checking out.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Photographer	Mike Firman
Image-Specific Properties:

>>2926836
From the looks of it, not really.

>>2926839

Most baby killers are liberals, Anon.

>>2926840
disagree with you there gobknuckle
fetus is not a baby or alive btw but nice try

>>2926633
Bruh, it's old

>>2926842
well it's clearly alive. it doesn't mean it is a baby mushrooms are alive. moss is alive

>>2926839
I'm still curious who the trump supporter is.

>>2926843
My dude it's only two years old. What comes to mind in the case what could be improved when you shoot with your D750?

>>2926847
you are lumploaf
anyone who wants assault weapons on the street doesnt vote for hillary that is for sure

>>2926849
>you are
Nope, just not a regard.
>assault weapon
Not going to bother with
>on the street
Selling to LEO's is on the street? News to me

>>2926852
Retard* damn autocorrect

File: IMG_4346.jpg (25KB, 236x236px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 236x236px

>>2926811
is posting obvious bullshit a bannable offense?

[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	236
Image Height	236
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>2926836
if you're into old film bodies you might find one with a good lens.

File: wallhaven-271161.jpg (174KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

174KB, 1920x1080px

>ITT: someone disrespects their grandfathers memory while trying to make a quick buck because of ::muh ideals::

>>2926873
That's the one you choose to call out for obvious bullshit?

Getting tired of waiting for the Sigma 85mm f/1.4 ART lens. Is the older 85mm f/1.4 any good or should I just go for the Canon 85mm f/1.2L USM MK I?

thinking about getting a dslr heard stuff about shutter count's what are they and is their any dslr that I can buy that I don't need to worry about shutter count's with I seen videos it has to do with something that opens and closes when a picture is taken.
To me a dslr sounds like a expensive disposable camera.
What if you're someone who likes to take a bunch of random pictures you could kill the camera in a year's worth of using it.

File: Schermafbeelding 2016-09-11 om 15.45.00.png (1MB, 1440x900px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1440x900px

currently got D3300 - want to upgrade
i can't decide if I should buy the D7100 or just new glass - tamron 50-150mm 2.8 -

they cost the same ..
i cant complain about the D3300 - i've only been doing this for half year maybe , but already sold 20+ pictures to magazines and random people ..

so what would you guys recommand ?

>>2926943
The old 85/1.4 is optically alright for the price, but is known for AF issues. Don't buy unless you can test it on your camera and confirm that it doesn't have terrible front/backfocusing.

>>2926973
I'd suspect better glass might do more if you don't know why you need the D7100 more than the glass.

That said, IDK the Tamron 50-150mm 2.8 specifically.

>>2926943
The Sigma 85mm F1.4 EX DG HSM is quite good, yep.

https://www.dxomark.com/lenses/focal-from-80-to-100/lens_zoom-prime#hideAdvancedOptions=false&viewMode=list&yDataType=rankDxo

File: IMG_20160917_125721983_HDR.jpg (3MB, 2340x4160px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2340x4160px

Found this at my parents'. What mount is this? It's a Zeiss 50mm 2.8 with nonclicking aperture ring so I want to use it as a video and Portrait lens for my G7. The thing in the back seems to be a macro ring.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Motorola
Camera Model	Moto G (4)
Camera Software	athene-user 6.0.1 MPJ24.139-63 64 release-keys
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2016:09:17 12:57:22
Exposure Time	1/33 sec
F-Number	f/2.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	400
Lens Aperture	f/2.0
Brightness	Unknown
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Average
Flash	No Flash, Auto
Focal Length	3.64 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	2340
Image Height	4160
Rendering	Custom
Exposure Mode	Auto Bracket
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Soft
Geodetic Survey Data	WGS-84

File: nikkor-af-24mm-f-28-d.jpg (48KB, 450x450px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 450x450px

I have a MFT camera and I'm tempted to use this lens (Nikon 24mm f2.8D) with it. If I use it the focal length will be roughly a standard lens. Since it is an f2.8 lens made for full frame camera, will it become an f1.4 lens since I will use it with a MFT body? The same reason why an f1.4 lens MFT lens becomes like an f2.8 when compared with full frame lenses?

>>2927039
>I have a MFT camera
I'm sorry to hear that anon, my thoughts and prayers go out to you

>>2927041
Thanks for that. Please include me in your prayers daily.

File: pls.jpg (31KB, 598x448px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 598x448px

>>2927039
>will it become an f1.4 lens since I will use it with a MFT body? The same reason why an f1.4 lens MFT lens becomes like an f2.8 when compared with full frame lenses?

>>2927022
okay, I just found out it's an Ikarex BM-mount, a mount only used on one Camera, the Icarex 35 BS (BM).
I don't think there's a way to adapt this to anything.
If I knew anything about machining I could technically butcher the macro-tube into one half of an adapter, but I dont dare.
Sad, this lens was promising.