/Gear/ - Gear thread

Are there typically good deals on camera bodies around black friday?
I want to upgrade to a canon 70d or sony 6300-a7ii but can wait if there will be a good deal

>>2934897
Whats a good camera for a college student who wants to get into photography or filming but has no experience

so in other words
>not too nice
>can also film solid video

>>2934902
Black Friday camera deals are usually good but only applicable to the entry-level dslr's and accessories.
Its a great time to save on bags I can tell you that much.

if i want to test out a camera for a day or two is there somewhere i can rent it? i can watch reviews all day but its not the same as actually testing it

>>2934897
Looks like Sony is still plagued by overheating issues.

Reposting from >>2934903 for any other thoughts.

I do portraits as a low-key hobby and I want to upgrade from my T1i to a camera that has native wireless control for remote flash.

I can't decide between the T3i, T5, T5i, T6, and T6i. I have a chunk of change set aside and could afford the more recent models, but don't want to buy a more recent model unless it's meaningfully better. Is the depth-of-field preview on the T3i/T5i/T6/T6i useful? Are the upped max ISO and focal points on the T6i a significant improvement over its predecessors? Thoughts overall?

>>2934928
Used 60D.

>>2934928
DoF preview is useful if you move around a lot, use motorized lenses, and use a wide range of aperture settings as you're shooting. Otherwise you can gauge it yourself pretty well once you get to know the lens.
If you shoot with non-motorized apertures then of course this feature does absolutely nothing.

T5i is pretty good, T6i is if you for some reason want something that feels more pro, or you really like having wifi support.

>>2934928
i have the t5 and it takes really good shots. upgrade to the t6 if you do more video and want a flip out screen

>plastic rabal
>pentamirror viewfinder
>limited controls
>gimped features
>upgrade
To tell the truth in spite of the improved sensor and maybe improved AF it's not really an upgrade from the T1i.

why do i read better reviews about the a6300 vs the a7ii

>>2934938
Because reviews are actually paid adverts designed to show the product in an appealing manner.
Just rent one out for a day and decide yourself.

>>2934939
>good goy, ignore the advertising, instead go out and pay to be cucked by a prostitute lens
>by the time you've found your favorite lens, you won't have the shekels to buy it anymore

Just got a like new a6300 + kit lens, an extra battery and a sigma MC-11 for $1250

How bad did I fuck up guys?

>>2934912
Look up lens rentals in your city, dummy. Body rentals dont tend to be economical though.

Americans can also use lensrentals.com, Canadians (toronto and vancouver, really) can use Henry's and Beau Photo, respectively.

>>2934897
Actually looks a lot nicer burned, since that hideous orange trim is gone and so is most of that ass-tumor shaped grip. Fix the interface so you're not constantly nagging the camera to get it to do what you want it to, and it's ready for market.

>>2934968
Not bad actually

>>2934907
Panasonic Lumix G7.
Not for night photos, btw, needed a good aperture due to small sensor

>>2934982
>>2934968
my justification behind it was originally i was gonna wait for black friday deals. Then i did some maths and even if the body + lens is $1000, I still have to pay like $82 in tax

I paid $980 for my body + lens and the battery. Which seemed like the best deal I could get.

If I really don't like this combo I can sell it at small loss probably.

Are m43s really that bad for poorly/shitty light places?

>>2935016
My friend bought a G7 and it's shit in low light, yeah.

File: IMAG0956.jpg (92KB, 604x422px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 604x422px

>>2935016
Short answer: Yes.

I found good performance from my EP3 at ISO 1000 for print size, and 4000 for web size. This is much worse than what I could milk out of any Sony or Fuji mirror-less.
There aren't many AF lenses faster than f/1.8 for MFT, and they're all rather expensive for what they are.
I can shoot my 45mm (90eq) at 1/15th no problem with the very rudimentary 2- or 3- axis IBIS of the EP3, but you should be able to shoot even slower on newer bodies.
*IBIS is basically free extra stops in low light, but isn't as good as having the same amount of stops of ISO performance, since your subjects may blur themselves by moving once you get into 1/15th and lower territory.
**Panasonic bodies are worse in low light than Olympus bodies, because their IS system isn't as good.

You could buy an Olympus 25mm 1.2 and put it on an EM5II and shoot 3 second hand held shots in moonlight, but if you're going to spend that much money and you aren't already deeply invested in the system, just get a different system that's naturally good at low light, like Fuji.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Model	HTC6535LVW
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Windows)
Sensing Method	Not Defined
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	5 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2016:09:27 19:28:56
Exposure Time	1/24 sec
F-Number	f/2.2
Exposure Program	Not Defined
ISO Speed Rating	320
Lens Aperture	f/2.2
Brightness	1.1 EV
Exposure Bias	1/2 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	4.73 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	604
Image Height	422
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Digital Zoom Ratio	2
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	None
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

File: 25858_1_l.jpg (12KB, 440x293px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 440x293px

>but 5D IV last week
>realize there is a rebate going on for canon printers
>get large format Pixma PRO-100 for $9

Super excited. I don't do prints very often, and largely work with digital, but it'll be nice to actually produce some stuff to hang.

>>2935042
Thanks, something to think about. Wanted the EM1MK2 or the M5MK2, might lean towards fuji now.
Is fujis stuff weathersealed as well?

>>2934968

Good price.

The MC-11 is supposed to work with everything.

I tried it with the 70-200mm f2.8 and was blown away by how fast it worked.

File: Sloss05.jpg (612KB, 1000x750px) Image search: [Google]

612KB, 1000x750px

>>2935046
The performance difference between Fuji and Olympus is about 2/3rds of a stop, and the E-M1 II will close this gap entirely, if what Olympus is saying about the E-M1 II sensor is even half true.

The 5 stops of IBIS when using non IS lenses and the 6.5 stops of IS when using Lens IS + IBIS can more than make up for the ISO performance difference.

Unless you are shooting fast moving objects in low light, Olympus E-M1 II or E-M5 II will do you just fine. Also the existing E-M1 will suit you fine as well. But you wouldn't use a Fuji in that situation either, so there you go.

Pic related, hand held.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	OLYMPUS IMAGING CORP.
Camera Model	E-M1
Camera Software	Digital Photo Professional
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Color Filter Array Pattern	948
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	64 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	350 dpi
Vertical Resolution	350 dpi
Image Created	2014:04:06 19:40:03
Exposure Time	1/2 sec
F-Number	f/2.8
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	200
Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Auto
Focal Length	32.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1000
Image Height	750
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	Low Gain Up
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

>>2935046

Take a look at a6000 too.

Probably best bang for your buck when it comes to APS-C mirrorless right now.

>>2935054
fuck dude, think I might wait for the MK2 then, thanks, anon.
If I did fast objects at night, i'd probably be using long exposure times as well.

My girlfriend bought me a cute Fuji FinePix HS35EXR a year ago or so and I just started using it. It was advertised a's a point and shoot with dslr functionality.

Does anyone here have anything to say about them? I'm pleased.

>>2935066
Bridge camera with a 1/2 inch sensor.

Pretty bad compared to an entry level DSLR or mirrorless.

The only advantage is the focal lengths you can achieve at that size. Unfortunately, the sensor is too slow to capture anything worthwhile.

>>2935073
Would i notice that much of a difference with an level entry dslr. Like in the 600 range?

Thanks for the reply.

File: Devin Townsend01.jpg (796KB, 750x1000px) Image search: [Google]

796KB, 750x1000px

>>2935064
Just keep the limitations of the sensor in mind. No ISO 25,600. Not that you would do that with a Fuji either.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	OLYMPUS IMAGING CORP.
Camera Model	E-M1
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.8
Color Filter Array Pattern	890
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	90 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	3456
Image Height	4608
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 Created	2014:12:09 19:25:38
Exposure Time	1/160 sec
F-Number	f/1.8
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	3200
Lens Aperture	f/1.8
Exposure Bias	0.7 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Auto
Focal Length	45.00 mm
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	750
Image Height	1000
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	High Gain Up
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

>>2935077
Going from a 1/2 inch sensor up to an APS-C or M4/3 sensor will be like stepping into a new world.

You will be able to achieve shallower depth of field (Out of focus backgrounds and foregrounds), be able to shoot at ISO 6400 and 12,800 and get usable results, eventually you can rent or buy other lenses as well.

Just keep in mind that the kit lens won't have the same reach as that ultrazoom body. You won't be able to 'zoom in' as much.

>>2935081
That'd be sick. Unless I'm doing up close with macro or shooting on auto (on things that are still or near still) it looks like hog wash. The 30x zoom is so funny to snap people eating at McDonald's a block away from my work though.

What sort of camera would you recommend I research at the 600 price point?

>>2935080
I don't think I'd even bump it that high anyways.
Also now looking at the XT1, which seems nice as well.
Like exploring dark places in neighborhoods and old buildings and shit.
Either way, better than my D70, which eats shit in anything other than a brightly lit place it seems

>>2935085
Olympus E-M5 (used)
Olympus E-M5 II (Used)
Canon Rebel (One with the newer sensors, forget when they switched over)
Canon 70D (Used)
Nikon APS-C body (Not familiar with their numbering, I'm sure someone on here can fill you in)
Sony A6000 (Used if new is too expensive)

Anyone chime in with a good Fuji body that can be had for around 600 used?

File: Plant52.jpg (719KB, 1000x750px) Image search: [Google]

719KB, 1000x750px

>>2935086
I do urbex with my E-M1.

Works great for it. I can take it off the tripod a lot more often than I could with Canon.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	OLYMPUS IMAGING CORP.
Camera Model	E-M1
Camera Software	Digital Photo Professional
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Color Filter Array Pattern	948
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	80 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	350 dpi
Vertical Resolution	350 dpi
Image Created	2014:05:18 14:28:25
Exposure Time	0.6 sec
F-Number	f/4.0
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	200
Lens Aperture	f/4.0
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Auto
Focal Length	40.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1000
Image Height	750
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	Low Gain Up
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

>>2935090
You're the duke. Thanks a lot.

>>2935090
XE2 and XT10. Identical hardware, and functionally identical to XT1 as well. Make sure to update the firmware for best performance.

>>2934968
were did you buy it from im in the market for one

>>2935092
Shit, habibi, you won my heart and restored my faith in it (I did the what you have vs what you want thread, was dumb and didn't resize).
By the time I can afford an EM1 I might as well wait for the MKII.

Was mainly looking at getting the Panasonic 25mm 1.7 Prime for a basic lens, any recommendation for a similarly priced Zoom?

>>2935090
Nikon D3xxx
Nikon D5xxx (But it's better to get a 3xxx and buy a starter prime like a 35 1.8 for it)

I second the EM-5 and EM-5 II. I would preferably buy the EM-5 and buy a nice prime as well, they're pretty cheap for mft so you can afford a prime and a zoom pretty easily, on the used market.

>>2935098
I'd read a bunch of reviews on the Panny 1.7.

I was going to get the Panasonic 25 1.4, but when I tested it, I discovered that the aperture went crazy on my E-M1, constantly opening and closing while I was walking around. Not sure if the 1.7 behaves the same way.

For a cheap zoom, you have a few choices : http://www.four-thirds.org/en/microft/lense.html

There is the 14-42 from both Panny and Olympus, the 12-50 from Olympus, the 12-60 from Panasonic, and the 14-150 from Olympus. None of these are particularly impressive optically, and not all are in your price range. For a really good zoom, the 12-40 f/2.8 Olympus and the 12-100 f/4 Olympus are really good, but out of your budget.

Also see : http://thewirecutter.com/reviews/first-micro-four-thirds-lenses-you-should-buy/

>>2935096
Used on ebay
>>2935052
>>2934982

thanks guys, hoping AFC burst works better than my SL1. Gonna be using AFC and burst exclusively pretty much at a dog park watching the pups play.

Don't have high hopes for afc during video using canon glass so I wanted a kit lens just incase so I could try native features.

>>2935090
$600 Nikon without a lens? D7000. With a lens? Used D5300 with 18-55.

>>2935106
>http://thewirecutter.com/reviews/first-micro-four-thirds-lenses-you-should-buy/
Where I saw the 1.7
I really appreciate all that you've given me.
Thanks a ton, anon.

>>2935111
>>2935090
D7000s are even cheaper than that.
https://www.amazon.com/Nikon-D7000-DSLR-Body-Only/dp/B0042X9LC4/ref=sr_1_3?s=photo&ie=UTF8&qid=1475025279&sr=1-3&keywords=Nikon+D7000

i'm tired of film and i'd like a DSLR. help please

-budget must not exceed $1300 USD including kit lens
-would prefer a professional camera. extra buttons and options don't scare me.
- low light reliable. i get very upset when there is noise in photos.
-video is a plus. i would choose video over no/shitty video
- i enjoy nature/wildlife photography, but will be doing work for makeup/ fashion.

thanks in advance.

>>2935147
Panasonic G85

>>2934907
As a college student who's interested in photography I picked up a sony a6000. So far it has served me well. I use it to take pics for my schools marking team.

>>2934907
Panasonic G85

Hey p,
Are there any decent cameras to carry around with you all the time that are cheap as well? Are pre APSC GRs any good? Something pocketable would be nice

>>2935152
Panasonic G85

>>2935148
>>2935150
>>2935155
ty for the low effort

Alright /p/


Let's talk about third party batteries. Opinions on the matter are pretty fucking polarising. They're either gods gift to the masses or fucking spooky trash that will set your house on fire.

But I mean come on. For third parties you dont even need to buy the chink shit that does only work 98% of the time instead of 99.9% like wasabi. You can buy duracell, a name trusted brand for 50-70% of the cost.

Admit it guys, anyone who goes name brand only on a consumer grade camera is a retard who likes to waste money.

>>2935172

What did you think OP Image was?

That is from a third party battery.

File: P8270043.jpg (3MB, 2816x2112px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2816x2112px

So, I want to get into photography. I picked up an a6000 today. I got a hoya 55mm skylight 1b 100-300mm for $10 off of craigslist. My adapter is in the mail. What are some good cheap lenses that I could get and adapt to the camera? Note: I know the lens I bought may be garbage. I just want to be able to take some pictures of birds with it. I figure it was worth $10. My shots are not limited to just birds and nature, so please let me know any kind of lenses to look into. Preferably under $100 or so.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	OLYMPUS IMAGING CORP.
Camera Model	FE190/X750
Camera Software	Version 1.0
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/3.1
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2007:08:27 15:42:25
Exposure Time	1/100 sec
F-Number	f/3.1
Exposure Program	Creative
ISO Speed Rating	400
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	6.30 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	2816
Image Height	2112
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	High Gain Up
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Compression Setting	HQ
Macro Mode	Normal

>>2935172
I use third party because they're way cheaper, I just buy on Amazon and make sure there's good reviews.
Never had any problems but the battery life is slightly lower than name brand

>>2935152
Sony rx100

File: FB_IMG_1475036094814.jpg (27KB, 700x400px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 700x400px

Damn oly...you gotta buy your friends now?

>>2935178

Look at Minolta MD lenses.

Dirt cheap, high quality.

Check this site:
>http://phillipreeve.net/blog/lenses/minolta-mcmd/

I personally just ordered a Minolta MD 35-70mm f 3.5 Macro that comes with original packaging and everything else.

>>2935045
Wow that's pretty a pretty good deal.Gj m8

>>2935188
Thank you. I will look into these for sure.

Keep em coming if anyone has any other lenses.

Ill Check on this thread tomorrow morning.

>>2935197

Canon FD is worth looking at too.

M-mount if you want something smaller. Kinda expensive though. Voigtlander has some cheaper models though. You can get them new with modern coatings too.

>>2934897
Infrared compact cameras? I need one and don't want to go through the trouble of converting one

>>2935178
Pentax K mount, canon fd, m42 mount, Minolta md mount

File: 14206019_298093030571304_4065073749788636299_o.jpg (149KB, 1920x1281px) Image search: [Google]

149KB, 1920x1281px

Well.
Does anyone have ANY information on when the irix 11mm will be released? I don't know if I can bother spending the money on the Laowa. Not to mention I'm looking for a lens with really low edge distortion/blur.

Any suggestions that aren't Samyang/Rokinon/Bower?

>>2935188
>>2935197
I have two Minoltas, but realize that there is a reason why that guy downscales his shots to like 1/15th of dat sensor resolution even on Flickr.

The lenses -while pleasant to operate and diverse- are ultimately mostly pretty shit in terms of resolving power and sharpness (even if you surely could get 1/8 or something out of a bunch of them).

I'd suggest modern primes or zooms for your primary focal lengths. If you're lucky, perhaps the inexpensive (but still $150 or so) Sigma Art f/2.8 or something fits your needs...?

>>2935208
>The lenses -while pleasant to operate and diverse- are ultimately mostly pretty shit in terms of resolving power and sharpness

It is really kind of hit or miss with the Minolta's. Some are absolutely terrible, and some are actually pretty solid.

>>2934897
looks like someone tried to record 4k for more than 45 seconds

>>2935202
Specifically full spectrum

File: 1455572464616.jpg (18KB, 621x502px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 621x502px

Why the fuck do none of the stores near me have a 24mm? I want my pancake now.

>>2935042

Is that why all the GH4 videographers use the sigma 18-35? Because the low light of m43 is so shit that they have to get to f1.3 to get decent exposure?

I guess there are also $1000+ 1.2 primes out there now. Seems to me you're fucked for low light otherwise.

File: good.png (343KB, 548x501px) Image search: [Google]

343KB, 548x501px

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Good-Canon-FD-55mm-F-1-2-S-S-C-Lens-Made-In-Japan-/152239900975?hash=item237234892f:g:ZnsAAOSwmLlX1469

>condition
>good++

>>2935250
Most photographic 1.2s only have a t stop of 1.4

>>2935260
perfect for apsc

>>2935260

Probably has minimal impact on image quality.

Still labeled wrong though.

I bought an EX+ the other day which came with even worse fungus. Luckily got it refunded.

>>2935163
fuck you dude
I'm here for peoples input

>>2935150
>>2934984
>>2935149
thanks

>>2935042
E-P3 had a pretty terrible sensor though, I changed it to GX80 and the improvement was pretty visible (probably almost a stop).

Tried Fuji, but Fuji has no IS on primes. I rarely shoot fast moving stuff, so losing 3+ stops on static subjects was a deal-breaker.

>>2935250
Since everyone and their dog uses the same Sony sensors, low light performance is basically inversely proportional to sensor area. m43 is just under a stop worse than APS-C, so putting a speedbooster on that Sigma essentially gives you roughly the same performance as an APS-C camera with a non boosted Sigma.

>>2935147
Pentax K-3 or used K-3II, WR kit lens, DA 35/2.4 maybe a 55-300 WR for portraits and pseudo macro.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o43OfZ5rIbI

tl;dw: 5DMkIV outdated by 2014 standards.
Canon is finished.

>>2935306

I am not sold on the idea that a focal reducer can completely compensate for a smaller sensor.

Is there any side by side comparison of similar sensors with the same lens?

I know very little about cameras, are there any checks I should do on a recently bought second hand camera?

>>2935204
Thank you

>>2935204
>>2935188
>>2935178
I have an android phone, any good programs to download? I know the camera has NFC capability but I have not connected it yet.

>>2935375
Snapseed

>>2935375
PlayMemories Mobile
TimeLapse

>>2935333

It produces stunning video at the very least.

File: 18461670945_5ef65c9063_b.jpg (149KB, 1000x667px) Image search: [Google]

149KB, 1000x667px

>>2935172
I bought Chinese knock offs for my A7 and they last longer than the OEM batteru by a small margin...even 18 months later.

>>2935375
Canon FD lenses are rad and damn cheap. Look into Playmemories mobile for transferring photos.

>>2935405
I am still using the original batteries from my NEX-3.

Six years old.

>>2935405

Can playmemories transfer raw files yet?

Are refurbished cameras from the manufacturer good to go?

>>2935432
Yes, except Sony. Canon, Nikon, Fuji, Pentax, Pana, Oly all good to go.

>>2935368
Look up shutter count into Google, check your camera, and compare the results to the manufacturer suggested shutter life.
It would also help to know what camera it is.

>>2935436
inb4 dinky p&s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o43OfZ5rIbI

>>2935449
see
>>2935327

File: sigma_30mm_f_2_8_dn_for_918899.jpg (65KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 1000x1000px

just got pic related for my NEX
only test shots so far, it's pretty neat.

>>2935333
>a focal reducer can completely compensate for a smaller sensor

There is a small loss of light due to the extra glass elements of the reducer, but it's almost unnoticeable. There's also typically an increase of vignetting and some loss of corner quality, but it mostly matters for photography, not video with its much lower resolution.

Do note that sensor size doesn't relate to video mode the same as to photo mode - different cameras can produce vastly different video quality depending on how processing is implemented. For example, if the camera is lazy and just skips every second row of pixels to speed up sensor read-out and rescaling, you'll get loads of moire and halved high ISO performance. So using a focal reducer on a camera with a smaller sensor but better processing might be well worth it.

>>2935494
Nice, I got a 35 F2.4 for my crop camera. Only paid $80 and it is sharp as fuck, no wonder it is all over /p/
Best investment in my life

>>2935191
After recalculating, I also get $8 in reward zone certificates, so it actually only cost $1.

Both of the kit lenses are fucking garbage for the A6300. What lens should I get instead?

>>2935515
Let's clear things up first. How much is your budget? If less than $2500 then it is cheaper to move to another system.

>>2935516

lmao, really? what happened to sony being muh master race?

why is it that everyone else offers decent entry level options?

>>2935518
buy an older sony, same price as some entry level shit but still better.

>>2935519

but i'm still stuck with some shit-tier kit lenses even if i decide to go with an a6000.

>>2935515
if you want a good body and a good lens to go with it i think you'll have to split your budget at least ~70/30
for instance if you spend $600 on an a6000 body (not sure how much they actually are though), you can use roughly a third of that money to get a sigma prime like >>2935494 (yeah that's me)

>>2935521
then just buy the body and a different lens, noones forcing you to use the kit

>>2935494
I have one too, got the silver lens barrel tho and regret it. Scratches show up really easily on the body of the lens

I'm pretty new to photography, got a D5300 recently.
So I just ordered a AF-s 35mm f/1.8G and AF-S 55-200mm VR II lens for my camera.

>>2935515
oh and honestly my NEX 6 came with the same kit lens as the a6300 and it's pretty neat, as long as you don't need large apertures it's actually a nice zoom lens imo and the image stabilization is a neat plus

>>2935533
okay

>>2935534

literally every lens review site says they're unbelievably awful.

i don't think you know how bad you have it.

>>2935518
> decent entry level
Apply standards like is the case on MFT, and the same kind of "fucking garbage" kit zooms are now "decent". That's how that happens.

Of course for the same reason many people are actually happily shooting with the "fucking garbage" kit lenses. Doesn't even look particularly bad as compared to the majority of shots taken on other system's APS-C and MFT cameras.

More serious Sony users are however mostly comparing to high end lenses stuck on high resolution sensors, so the bar is somewhat higher, and the kit lenses then are that "fucking garbage"...

>>2935544

But this is patently false.

If you compare the Nikon 18-55 kit to the Sony kit,the nikon wins on every count.

I can't see why someone wanting to get into photography on a less-than-$1000 budget would ever want to go with Sony.

>>2935547
Sony is not a user friendly brand. You should've known that by now.

>>2935538
well, you got my opinion. i think it's a pretty great lens to have for a little over the cost of the body, having this new prime i'll probably still use it for wide outdoor shots and handheld video.

>>2935547
The a6000 was comfortable to hold. The other decent MILCs weren't.

>>2935327
>>2935449
God this guy is incredibly attractive.

>tfw no photog bf

>>2935560
london?

>>2935538
>literally every lens review site says they're unbelievably awful.
Only one of the kit is awful, the other one is good:
> How can Sony sell a lens as good as the 55-210 for under $400?
>https://www.flickr.com/groups/2562254@N25/discuss/72157647601745392/

Retail ratings from people who didn't buy the two lens kit:
> https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/818648-REG/Sony_SEL55210_SEL55210_55_210mm_F4_5_6_3mm_Lens.html

>>2935547
> If you compare the Nikon 18-55 kit to the Sony kit,the nikon wins on every count.
The difference isn't large on the lenses I've seen so far.

Look at these measurements, it's shit vs shit anyhow:
https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/AF-S-DX-Nikkor-18-55mm-f-3.5-5.6G-VR-on-Nikon-D5300-versus-Sony-E16-50mm-F35-56-on-Sony-A6000__159_919_1082_942

> I can't see why someone wanting to get into photography on a less-than-$1000 budget would ever want to go with Sony.
Maybe because they don't only buy the worse kit lens?

The A6300 doesn't even fit into the budget with a lens, so you get the A6000 which leaves you like $600 for lenses.

Try a Samyang 12mm f/2, Sony 28mm f/2, or a Sigma Art 30 f/1.8 or 60mm f/2.8. Or something else.

Maybe also the two lens kit and then one of them. Or you could adapt a range of also actually usually shit, but plentiful and cheap vintage MF lenses at $20-100 a pop.

>>2935565
>dxo
No matter what the charts say, the real world photos are god awful and that is what matters. No company will tell me what to think about a lens.

>>2935152
Like my GR, but the one thing that really sucks is how crap it is with its sealing. Dust gets into it real fast, and it's hard or impossible to get out.

>>2935568
> No matter what the charts say, the real world photos are god awful and that is what matters.
Your opinions don't beat measurements, sorry.

[If we went by that standard, I'd obviously win every time since I have the most relevant opinion, eh... but that seems unworkable.]

This lens is ball park just the usual-ish kit zoom shit.

Also, "real world confirmation":
https://www.flickr.com/groups/2122756@N21/pool/

'cmon, that looks like you'd expect from a modern kit zoom.

>>2935544
>Apply standards like is the case on MFT, and the same kind of "fucking garbage" kit zooms are now "decent".

Except both of MFT pancake zooms are actually decent even by "non kit" lens standards.

I'm a K-50 user looking to upgrade and/or supplement my 18-55 kit lens. My largest priority is shooting landscapes on a tripod, and I do prefer the wide end of my current lens (18-24). I was thinking about picking up the Tamron 17-50 2.8. I know it is known for having remarkably good IQ compared to its sigma and pentax competitors as well as very good flare resistance. And it can be had used for less than $250. I would be interested in the 16-85 WR, but I can't really justify the extra $300-400 I would need to spend on it. Any other thoughts or suggestions for me?

>>2935624
The DA 16-85 WR is something you should consider investing in. It is currently the sharpest zoom lens in the standard range, almost no aberrations and distorion is very much under control. The sharpness is actual corner to corner sharpness. Focus is quick and silent and has superb sealing.
What I'm trying to say it is a better designed lens than the pro line, if not as fast.
The budget alternative would be the DA 16-45/4 but it has weird construction, barrel extends towards the wide end and casts an ugly shadow from the on-board flash. Also no weather sealing but optically well above the DA* 16-50/2.8. The Tamron is good but not so good optically as the 16-45, especially at the wide end.
You should also consider the plastic fantastic babby prime 35/2.4. Always a good thing to have.

>>2935547
He could just adapt a Nikon kit onto an a6300 if the Nikon kit is so good.
But if he wants a good lens he shouldn't be using a kit lens

>>2935632
Thanks for the advice. I might just end up using the kit lens for a while longer and saving for the 16-85. I will be camping/travelling on the Olympic Peninsula a good deal in December/January, so the weather sealing will probably come in handy more than I think now from my home. I also want to eventually pick up a plastic fantastic 35 just because of how cheap it is and how much people rave about it (and I do love 50mm "normal" length lenses on my film bodies--there's something very fun about walking around with that single focal length and making it work).

Interesting thought on the 16-45, as people from pentaxforums generally seem to prefer to Tamron to it for IQ. Although there do seem to be some QC issues resulting in some people getting less than stellar lenses

>>2935580

But the objective measurements also come out in favor of basically every other kit lens. This isn't just a matter of opinion.

The sony lens is only usable because there's so much correction and post-processing done by the camera.

>>2935434
Why except Sony? I bought a refurbished a7 and it works great.

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

78KB, 500x500px

>>2935671
Because Sony quality control

>>2934928
>>2934930
>>2934937
Thanks for kicking my ass to look at the 60D. I'd been under the impression that the 60D/70D would be harder to use than the entry-level Rebel, but the 60D/70D's on-body tools are easier to use than the Rebels' on-screen tools.

>>2935682

That is pretty much always the case. There's a bizarre misconception that pro and prosumer bodies are somehow harder to use, since no scene modes etc etc etc. The truth is, they are WAY easier to use than entry level cameras. More controls, more responsive camera, faster focus, pretty much everything.

>>2935673
This is from salt exposure right? I love my Sony cam but I don't understand why they don't come weather sealed

>>2935703

They're consumer grade toys, not professional tools. As the other guy put it, Sony is not a user friendly company.

File: IMG_9269.jpg (517KB, 1000x667px) Image search: [Google]

517KB, 1000x667px

>tfw gearfagging the fuck out right now

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 6D
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.7 (Macintosh)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2016:09:28 18:45:55
Exposure Time	1/100 sec
F-Number	f/9.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	1600
Lens Aperture	f/9.0
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	100.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>2935706
Why would you buy that meme? It has awful pixelbanding in the shadows, and the highlight recovery is a MEME

>>2935712
muh canon colors

>>2935715
Can be reproduced in lightroom and making an action. KEK

>>2935716
what would you have bought?

>>2935706
my condolences

>>2935704
I do product/fashion photog so my Sony alpha never has any issues, but I certainly wouldn't bring it to any hazardous area.

>>2935717
A Sony or Nikon

>>2935669
> But the objective measurements also come out in favor of basically every other kit lens. This isn't just a matter of opinion.
Haven't checked whether this is true in a strict sense, but the ones I saw were just ball park the same.

> The sony lens is only usable because there's so much correction and post-processing done by the camera.
Even if this was a special case among digital camera-lens combinations (which I do not think it is), how does it matter when you get typical kit lens pictures like I linked in >>2935580 ?

It's not like this has a work flow issue either. You say you just get the pictures. So whatever?

>>2935703
Other IL cameras other than perhaps a Pentax wouldn't survive whatever salt / acid combination caused that bullshit anyhow.

SONY FANBOYS COME HERE FOR A SEC

Is the Sony A6000 still a good option? I was going to buy the A6300, but some unexpected expenses cut my budget short.

What are my best options right now in the same price range as the A6000, with similar image quality and form factor?

File: sony_a6000_af.jpg (82KB, 300x272px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 300x272px

>>2935747
Yea, it's still good.

>What are my best options right now in the same price range as the A6000
The D3300 and D5500 have similar image quality, but not a comparable feature set, and not quite the same form factor.

A Pentax K-50 has a lower resolution sensor, but it has decent features. And if you count that you can get a few pancake lenses, it might have at least some form factor appeal.

And a Yi M1 might give you a lens extra for the same price, but it's only looking good from *initial* reviews which are still selected sources only. It's not really available on the market yet.

I'd still go with the A6000.

>>2935703

If I remembwr correctly, this image is from som3 absolutely NUTS lady who dropped it in the water and lied about it. She started making.claims the viewfinder magicly sucked 2ater from your eyes and caused all that damage.

Hwr flicker is pretty hilarious. She has a bunch of stuff claiming Sony is al-queda.

>>2935704

I love e-mount, and would recommend it to 99.5% of people.

But as of today, there is no professional grade e-mount body.

The only professional bodies Sony makes are the a99/a99ii.

Plus the Sony professional support is hard to get into. You need a couple grand of equipment.

>>2935763
source pls

>>2935763

Jesus Christ, that post looks like I am drunk. I hate this keyboard.

>>2935767

Someone else will have to link it, I didn't bother saving it.

>>2935765
>But as of today, there is no professional grade e-mount body.
A7R II. A7S II. Even the A6300.

> Inb4 needs dual SD or weather sealing or >1000 shots in one battery before it's professional.
Nope. It just needs to take good photos reliably. Which these do.

> Plus the Sony professional support is hard to get into. You need a couple grand of equipment.
Same shit as with CaNikon, basically. Nothing special.

>>2935765
Sony alphas are used in basically every line of work except for sports photography.
Almost all of my classmates from photo school use MILCs for their work and most are Sony

>>2935747
A6000 is the best bang for your buck atm in terms of mirrorless

File: SD-CF.jpg (19KB, 350x235px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 350x235px

Hey guys,

I just learned of something that I never heard of before for some reason: SD to CF adapters.

I'd naturally prefer to use SD cards in my camera instead of CF cards because of their greater usefulness.

Can I do this?
What are the speed limitations?
Why haven't I heard of this earlier?

Also, what speed of card should I get for a Canon 1D MkIII?

Is now the time to go to mirrorless? I'm currently shooting with the d800 but the xt2 looks good. Doing weddings, some events, etc. is it worth it?

>>2935803
No.

>>2935803

Wait another year or two.

Mirrorless is gonna explode.

Sony alone just had 20+ lenses announced for e-mount at photokina and Sigma stated they will start producing fullframe lenses. Two new bodies rumored to come soon too.

I didn't follow the Fuji announcements, but they are probably similar.

The thing I love about the alpha series is I can use pretty much any lens I want. I'm not pigeonholed into a particular mount I bought into with my camera body. If I'm looking for a particular focal length I can shop any brand, which is so liberating and can lead to some massive savings.

The lack of weather sealing is a bummer, but I'll take the trade-off of mount freedom for now. Hope future iterations eventually get weathersealing.

>>2935803
>Is it worth it?
Like monetarily worth it?
Sony alpha and Fuji bodies are pretty cheap now but will obviously be cheaper in the future, if for some reason you like canon sensors more, their MILCs will be cheaper in the future too.
Lenses don't depreciate in value very quickly, but bodies will over time.
Now is the time to sell your DSLR bodies tho, they're going to lose their value quickly as mirrorless becomes more viable and more affordable.

>>2935807
>Now is the time to sell your DSLR bodies tho

Capable DSLRs are going to depreciate at the same rate they always have, unless for some reason, Canon and Nikon both stop production altogether at the same time.

Just got one of these in the mail, im having one of two problems:

>Little adapter I bought for 6V battery is somehow defective

>Camera wont take battery charge

Im thinking the latter is more likely. Can I fix this myself without spending a stupid amount of money on repair?

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

1MB, 3264x2448px

>>2935814
forgot image

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Apple
Camera Model	iPhone 6
Camera Software	9.2.1
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	29 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2016:09:28 19:28:39
Exposure Time	1/15 sec
F-Number	f/2.2
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	250
Lens Aperture	f/2.2
Brightness	495/8089 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Auto
Focal Length	4.15 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	3264
Image Height	2448
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>2935805

Sony is also announcing a FE STF 100mm F2.8 T4.5 in October.

>>2935807
>Lenses don't depreciate in value very quickly

A lot of the early mirrorless lenses are trash though. Sony 16mm and 16-50mm for example. Same with Fuji 18mm and earlier 35mm.

>>2935783

Unless you want lenses for it...

>>2935829

>88 lenses
>20+ announced at photokina
>can adapt and autofocus pretty much any lens ever made, even manual focus mounts like m-mount can autofocus

E-mount is dead.

>>2935814
Had the same problem with one. Probably fried/oxidized electronics. See if there's residue of a blown battery on the electrodes, and try changing them. Or better, toss that thing in the garbage heap and get a Hi-Matic or something.

>>2935054
It's been a while since you posted that. I almost feel nostalgia.

>>2935836
>88+20 lenses
>shit camera system
Call me back when they produce a camera I can enjoy using.

>>2935836

>88 lenses, but the affordable ones all suck donkey dick
>best bang for the buck

pick 1

>>2935842
>>2935847
>Hurr durr what are adapters

>>2935852

Expensive as fuck for good ones, and you have to buy one for every mount.

Again, this isn't about Sony's capability, it's about the bang-for-the-buck.

>>2935860
Isn't having a camera that can shoot on every lens mount a good deal?

>>2935801
> Can I do this?
Usually, yes?

> What are the speed limitations?
Pretty sure they need electronics to translate between SD and CF, so it'll entirely depend on the adapter's internals.

> Why haven't I heard of this earlier?
Most people just shoot to SD directly now and tossed their ancient CF gear.

>>2935803
I think your D800 is fine.

But if anything, you probably should go for a Sony lower light secondary, possibly with a high-end lens.

>>2935805
> Mirrorless is gonna explode.
It already has exploded. Sony obviously took good market share from the APS-C and FF camera market quite suddenly, and it wasn't mainly people migrating from the A-mount.

Panasonic but also Olympus and Fuji probably also had some successes.

>>2935847
> the affordable ones all suck donkey dick
Nah, there are many good ones:
http://lenshero.com/lenses/Sony-A6000-lens-less-than-400

>>2935860
I spent $50 on an adapter and didn't have to buy one lens in my move to Sony A-mount.

Buying an adapter is a drop in the bucket in the grand scheme of things...even the "expensive" ones are <$200 which in photo-dollars is nothing.

>>2935865

No, because again, you have to buy adapters for every single mount. It's not like it can just natively mount lenses.

>>2935878

Again, already owning lenses doesn't make a camera inherently the "best bang for the buck." You could have stayed with the first brand (probably Canon, because it's always retarded canonfags who jump ship to sony) and spent even less than 50 bucks.

The point is, if you're starting from scratch and want to spend less than a thousand, Sony is probably the single worst option.

>>2935881
Adapters cost next to nothing compared to lens prices.
What's the better option? A canikon with one zoom lens? lmao

>>2935883
>What's the better option?

Literally anything.

>>2935881
> if you're starting from scratch and want to spend less than a thousand, Sony is probably the single worst option
Only if you want zoom lenses and they somehow can't be the two kit zooms.

Look, you're still getting a nice sensor on a 11FPS body with a lot of features in general and focus peaking, adapters as a very easy option (going down to $10 adapters from China that maybe won't even have electrical contacts - but you'll STILL have focus peaking).

And the system does have a lot of very good primes (see >>2935875), too, which are the best way to get some IQ on a budget anyhow.

It's one of the very best options.

>>2935866
Do you have any recommendations?

I can't seem to find the Panasonic model in my post image for sale.

I didn't know most "good" cameras had switched to SD.

>>2935881
I didn't own a digital camera before my Sony, so there was no sticking to my previous brand.

You reiterated my earlier point. Sony let's you expand beyond a particular brand's lens mount (whether it's the brand you previously bought into, or just a particular lens that you want to use).

Even if I had started from scratch, I could have bought my A7, adapter, the two primes I use with it, and still be left with $100 to buy another prime before I broke $1000. If budget is of concern going Sony is one of the cheapest options imo, since after buying the body you can spend a couple hundred in an adapter and legacy glass and have a killer setup. Good luck buying into an F-mount or Eos camera and doing the same.

>>2935892
> Do you have any recommendations?
Unfortunately no. I also switched.

> I didn't know most "good" cameras had switched to SD.
Not all. The $6k Nikon has either CF or XQD, and the $6k Canon has CF (with the $3k Canon offering CF as well as SD).

But yea, most essentially switched.

>>2935905

Aren't a lot of higher end cameras going dual XQD now?

>>2935901
To add one more thing, if you look long term the cost benefit becomes more apparent. Adding lenses to your arsenal is much, much cheaper once you buy an adapter or two for legacy glass. I don't even need to think about lens purchases because I'm not roped into paying a premium for a particular mount. What's the cheapest 28mm prime for Eos? What's the cheapest 85mm for F-mount?

>>2935905
Oh, what do you use?

Also, if you know, how is XQD better than SxS?

>>2935780
Everyone I know who has a Sony Alpha hates it and is trying to get rid of it

>>2935908
1DX2 is CF/CFast
1DX is 2 CF
5D3 and 4 is CF/CFast
7D2 is CF/SD
D5 is 2 XQD or 2 CF
D4 is XQD/CF
D810 is CF/SD
D500 is XQD/SD

>>2935911
85/1.8Ds go for $300 or so. Cheaper for AIS models, naturally.

nex-5 vs a3000?

>>2935973

a3000. Newer, better sensor.

NEX-5 is six years old now.

>>2935974
isn't the menu utter shit? and that build quality tho

>>2935978

On the a3000? Yea it isn't as nice as a modern one, but it is 100 times better than the NEX-5 menu.

I have a budget of ~$7000 for a body and a lens, to shoot birds in flight.

what body and lens would you rec?

>>2936010
Nikon d500
sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 dg os hsm a1
1.4x teleconverter

>>2936019
thx rec senpai
1k under budget too

Selling a camera for the first time - any tips before I do? Gave my first DSLR to a buddy so I've never done this before.

>>2936010
d500+used 500mm f4+1.4x TC
>>2936026
not the same guy, but a used 7d and used 400mm f/5.6, and it might put you a smidge over budget unless you get grey market stuff

File: 5890_big_NEX-5_side.jpg (267KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

267KB, 1024x768px

tl;dr:
i'm a poorfag and want mirrorless aps-c cammera with best image quality for ~$150 used

my long and convoluted question in which i don't really know what i'm asking:
i'm learning about photography for a couple of months now, i know basics of exposure, i know what shutter speed, aperture and is means and what rising/lowering each do to the image, i know that mpx isn't everything when it comes to image quality, that it's more about physical size of the sensor and individual pixels is very important, i know that camera megapixel isn't the most thing either and every lens can produce set amount of perceivable resolution but i don't really know what makes a camera have a good image quality, i'm talking about the body, how from a spec sheet can i know which camera have a better image quality?
i'm really poor and want to spend ~$150 on a digital camera, mirrorless becouse i can get cheap manual lenses and use with it, currently i struggle to find differences in sony mirrorles lineup, i'm talking about diferent versions of nex-3, nex-5 and a3000, most of them are in my price point used but i don't really know what difference in image quality i can expect between them, the sensor spec differs from 14 to 20mpx and i don't really need mind to go for the lower resolution if it's just the image size becouse my manual lenses probably produce like 5-8 percivable megapixels at most and that's on a film body
is there a big diference in image quality betwen those models?

what i mean is when you crop 1:1 sometimes every pixel has detail and sometimes it seems like it's a lower res image stretched, does the sensor have anything to do with this or is that only lens's perceivable resolution?

I JUST WANT A CHEAP CAMERA I CAN LEARN ABOUT PHOTOGRAPHY ON THAT DOESN'T MAKE BLURRY PICTURES
[spoiler]I'M A FUCKING MORON BTW OK THANKS[/spoiler]

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Phase One
Camera Model	P 45+
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS2 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	4354
Image Height	3632
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Compression Scheme	Uncompressed
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format
Image Created	2010:05:13 13:03:28
Exposure Time	78912/9865475 sec
ISO Speed Rating	50
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1024
Image Height	768

>>2936063
Take good pictures of it, be honest, and think about what sort of information you'd like to know if you were looking for that particular camera. Are there any known issues with thst model in general, (if digital) how many actuations does it have, etc. If you're selling lenses too take pictures of the front and rear element.

File: tomoyo393.png (116KB, 900x950px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 900x950px

>>2936068
>guy hasn't even started and has already filled his mind with gearfagging garbage

Perceivable megapixels? Who the fuck even cares? Your budget is garbage, what you need to be concerned with is that the camera you get at that money isn't all fucked up. You literally can't afford to be concerned with detailed specs at this point, and since you're a beginner, they won't make any difference anyway. Just grab a camera that's the least likely to die on you two weeks in.

>>2936068

Save up money ($500 or so).

Buy an a6000.

Play with kit for awhile.

Can't afford that, just get a used mirrorless. NEX-3 or an old m43.

File: xpan-mitsucher-diagonal-vorne.jpg (235KB, 600x399px) Image search: [Google]

235KB, 600x399px

Just bought this beautiful piece of gem the Xpan off ebay. was wondering if i should invest on the 30mm?.. cost as much as a used summicron asph but from what i had heard.. its an essential piece of lens for the Xpan

thoughts?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Leica Camera AG
Camera Model	M9 Digital Camera
Camera Software	1.002
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.0
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	75 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	80 dpi
Vertical Resolution	80 dpi
Image Created	2010:02:07 15:11:32
Exposure Time	0.7 sec
F-Number	f/16.0
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	160
Lens Aperture	f/16.0
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	75.00 mm
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Unique Image ID	00000000000000000000000000000841

>>2936068

Save up money ($300 or so).

Buy a used K-50.

Play with it for awhile.

>>2936068
> how from a spec sheet can i know which camera have a better image quality
You know from measurements by DxO and so on that actually list you the colour / dynamic range and ISO performance and all that.

But at $150, you can't choose for shit. Sorry to hear you're that low in terms of a budget.

> I JUST WANT A CHEAP CAMERA I CAN LEARN ABOUT PHOTOGRAPHY ON THAT DOESN'T MAKE BLURRY PICTURES
Sorry, but no. You want a good body and lens at the price of a single entry-level lens. Not gonna work well.

Oh sure, the E-mount has very cheap & very sharp lenses with, like, the 60mm Sigma Art f/2.8 and 30mm Sigma Contemporary f/1.4 but they still cost as much / twice as much as your budget on their own. But that IS cheap.

Sell some shit, free more money.

>>2936010
Depends. If you want a more walkaround beach and cliffside bird shooting setup, that might be a A6300 and the FE 70-200mm f/4 or f/2.8 or something like that.

If you want some srs gear to mount on a gimbal and camp out, well, get a tripod with a gimbal, a 400mm Canon L with two teleconverters or maybe a Sigma 150-600mm F5-6.3 Sports or such, and a 7D Mark II as body (Canon might have better primes and bodies, but they will not easily fit the budget).

>>2936116
i don't want a lens, i have a Helios 44k-4 and Pentax 28mm 2.8 i want to use those with an adapter and get more manual focus vintage lenses, that's why i want sony with focus peaking

>>2936116
>>2936090
>>2936083
saving money is kinda pointless imo, i could save for a a6000 in couple of months, maybe a year but if i buy a cheap camera now i will be taking photos all this time and upgrade later, not just looking at gear online, i want to get out there and shoot with an entry level body and old lenses, i just want to spend my very few resources as best as i can

>>2936121
>>2936066
thx for replies
good to hear different suggestions

File: tripcoverback.png (112KB, 500x325px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 500x325px

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

GEARFAGS BTFO

>>2936126
(You)

>>2936123
>i don't want a lens, i have a Helios 44k-4 and Pentax 28mm 2.8 i want to use those with an adapter and get more manual focus vintage lenses, that's why i want sony with focus peaking
I get the usability argument, but drop sharpness. These lenses may have some bokeh and a wider aperture as option, but they aren't really beating a kit lens in terms of sharpness.

> i just want to spend my very few resources as best as i can
Well, the A3000 is the best of these.

Of course I'd just buy a Yicam to shoot now and save up (or make investments to reduce everyday expenses) to get something actually useful (apparently months?) earlier, but this point is always a hard sell with poorfags.

>>2936126
>canon 18-55 non is

nothing of value was lost

why camera company doesn't opensource their firmwares?
think of all the free labor they can get.

>>2936088
Fuuuck congrats dude. Beautiful piece of kit.

I'd shoot with the 45, for a month or two and then decide if you want the 30. Bet that thing is gunna feel pretty wide if it's your first foray into panos, even with the 45 attached.

>>2936123

Here anon, buy this.
>http://www.ebay.com/itm/Sony-NEX-3-14-2-MP-Silver-ILCE-E-mount-Camera-Body-New-Accessories-/201675147041?hash=item2ef4c68721:g:XSAAAOSw8gVX5ZER

Menu isn't the best, but you are shooting manual lenses so it isn't an issue.

If you wanna splurge a little get this
>http://www.ebay.com/itm/Sony-Alpha-A3000-20-1MP-Digital-Camera-Body-A-3000-595-/401197182219?hash=item5d69372d0b:g:u8kAAOSw8gVX7Dgx

You could also look at used m43 bodies, but the crop factor may be annoying.

Don't forget your adapters.

>>2936166
Most of the faggots want to keep shit proprietary and have tiers between camera models.

Many probably stole source code or hired random people who might have stolen source code, too. Or licensed fully proprietary software themselves without the right to sublicense in any way.

But hey, we will probably get open android cameras eventually. Sony's and other people's models internally already run that, and people started hacking around.

https://github.com/ma1co/OpenMemories-Framework/blob/master/docs/Cameras.md

It's not much yet, but eventually maybe something seriously much better will get done, if not by the company then with completely 3rd party firmware.

>>2936183
PS: CHDK and MagicLantern are obviously more noteworthy projects at this point, but they don't quite have the same potential as a fully hackable Android should have - in my opinion at least.

>>2936167

thanks.. well my only concern now is how do i scan the negatives. Flatbed scanner is the only option as of now still trying to find a better solution.. especially with a dedicated scanner

>>2936186
> still trying to find a better solution
DSLR/MILC "scan".

>especially with a dedicated scanner
Heh. If you must, a Reflecta RPS-10M has okay quality when you have a workflow with vuescan & colorperfect or (fairly unfriendly license and cost) SilverFast.

Epson / Canon also have halfway usable flatbeds.

It's just all slow.

>>2936026
The other anon has a pretty solid rec too, but I want to talk about why I said what I did:

Body: d500 has a killer ISO performance profile which means you won't have to be afraid of raising ISO to get a decent shutter speed. It's got great autofocus and a solid burst rate too. The 7D mkii is solid in this area but not so much on the ISO.

The lens is versatile as fuck, especially with a maximum aperture of 2.8, with the tele, it becomes a 168-420mm f/4, which still helps in lower light significantly and is a solid as hell range for birding. You can even consider throwing on a 2x tele which would give you a 240-600 f/5.6...600mm 5.6! Zoom helps you get framing that you want a little easier with less movement and lets you far more easily deal with opportunities that present closer and farther away...the downsides though: focus will be slower than with a first party prime, not unuseably slower, but definitely noticeably, especially at wider apertures. It's a fat hog of a lens. It weighs something like 9 pounds. You're going to want a monopod at least. Supposedly the image stabilization is good for four stops, but I'd say it's generally more like two.

Whatever you do get, long and fast should be priorities in my mind. How long depends on what and where you'll be shooting, but 300mm is your floor.

Who /entrylevel/ here

Rocking a stock t3i still. What lense should I pick up?

I shoot a lot of action and motion, but also still shots.

Was thinking this cheeky lad

https://smile.amazon.com/gp/product/B000AM7CJ0/ref=ox_sc_mini_detail?ie=UTF8&psc=1&smid=ATVPDKIKX0DER

Need to upgrade from a D3200...

I'm thinking D7200 or D750 or Fuji X-T2?

I'm just a casual photographer, nothing too serious... Street photos/landscapes/portraits.

you /p/hags got any recommendations?

>>2936329
K-3II or K-1

>>2936329
A6000 should be great.

Though since you're willing to spend $1k, you might get a A6300 or A7 II. Not that it will be a huge difference for the purpose indicated; you might prefer to spend that difference on lenses.

Looking to sell some of my older gear that I rarely use and wondering whether the prices I'm asking for are too high/low:

Canon 550D/Rebel T2i + 18-55, 50 1.8 and 55-200 (all first versions). Comes with a set of ND filters, Intervalometer, remote trigger and all in original packaging. Was thinking about 350-400€ for that.

Fuji XE1 + M39/MD/M42 adapters, with Jupiter 8 and 11 lenses as well as an Industar 69. Comes with an extra hand grip and 4 extra spare batteries. Looking for around 300-350€ for the whole set here

Thoughts?

>>2936329
>Need to upgrade from a D3200
Why? Do you know what you want improvements on? You won't magically take better photos with a new camera. D3200 still has a pretty modern sensor and you might be better off spending the upgrade money on a new lens or a new trip.

>>2936068
>>2936123
If you want to shoot cheap vintage glass and already have a pentax lens, why not just go buy a pentax body? Pentax has tons of vintage glass lying around, but vintage glass isn't always bargain bin. You might just save more money in the long run with a basic 18-55 kit lens that will give you different focal lengths to learn on. I'm not so sure why you're so dead-set on getting a mirrorless.

>>2936363
Because I've had the D3200 for a couple years and am bored with it. I'm a gear /p/hag and need to make myself feel better by buying new gear when I get bored. The Xt1/2 or x100t is sexy af and much easier to carry with me so I'm leaning towards those.

>>2936375

buy a used x100t at this point. it's late in its lifecycle and is due for a replacement.

>>2936375
>I'm a gear /p/hag and need to make myself feel better by buying new gear when I get bored
self-awareness is important

>>2936363
becouse sony has focus peaking, i tried manual focus on k-5 and it's not as good as on sony and with a mirrorless camera i can get lenses for variety of mounts without any issues + prices of pentax cameras are dogshit where i live, for the price of nex-3n, nex-5a or a3000 i can barely get a k10d or k20d if i'm lucky

File: gearfags.png (11KB, 922x175px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 922x175px

>>2936375
>I'm a gear /p/hag and need to make myself feel better by buying new gear when I get bored.

You need more training.

>>2936395
why would you want manual glass when you can get a normal and a portrait AF prime for $80 each? Are you a masochist?

>>2936311
that Sigma is dogshit.

get the APO version instead, it's actually usable if you shoot it at f/8.

>>2936342
How is the industar? I just bought a 69 and waiting for it to arrive

>>2936408
I have one and it's quite soft wide open, corners don't get good unless you stop it down to like f/11. Maybe it's alright if you're going for some hipster retro look, but as far as objective IQ goes, even the infamous 16mm Sony pancake destroys it.

Also remember that it's designed for a shorter flange focal distance than regular M39 lenses; it has to be modified (helicoid stops removed, front barrel edges filed down) to allow infinity focus with a standard M39 adapter.

>>2936382
>>2936402
Lets be real here fellas, we're all gear /p/hags here, whether we can afford it or not is the only difference. That's why we visit /gear/.

In slightly less than a week a bgn item I ordered off of keh should be in, wondering if anyone wanted to know what exactly that entails, i could take a few pictures of/with the lens.

I know a few folks are worried about used Gear, hoping to either calm or vindicate some worries.

>>2936423
BGN rating covers a fairly wide variety of conditions on keh, so I doubt a single sample will be very useful.

>>2936422
gay

>>2936450
I am a total /p/haggot

Anyone know some good priced speed lights?

File: Canon_11-24mm.jpg (391KB, 2500x2500px) Image search: [Google]

391KB, 2500x2500px

How does the Canon 20mm f/2.8 compare to the 11-24mm f/4?

Is it the same or better at f/4?

>>2936461
The Yongnuo YN560 / 660 system.

Get a -TX and YN660 or 560 III or IV.

Tfw no speculated date or price for the om-d em1mk2

>>2936499
Isn't price 2000 yuros? Date will be 2017, muh earthquake and all.

>tfw mirrorless brands with """"""""""pro"""""""""" sports bodies don't release according to the olympic schedule
Do they even want to be taken seriously?

>>2936507
It was slated for 2016 and why would it be 2k?

Anyone used the new Pentax DFA 24-70/2.8? Or the Tamron lens it's derived from (SP 24-70/2.8 Di VC USD)? I'm thinking of getting one for my K-1 and I'd like to hear /p/'s thoughts on it, since I don't really trust the Pentaxforums user reviews to not love absolutely everything Ken Rockwell style.

>>2936244
thanks, appreciate the info

you think a prime like af-s nikkor 300mm f/2.8 vr II would be a mistake? and is it worth the $$ over the sigma 120-300?

See people always say to use a macro lens for scanning film, if I just add an extension tube to my lens would that be okay?

>>2936531
Honestly? That depends on you. What I suggest is getting the body and renting the lenses, especially if you have a local rental house that lets you rent for a few hours/single day.

The nikkor is an excellent lens. You're losing out on the flexibility of a zoom and possibly being able to afford teleconverters, so that's possibly a concern too, but how much of a concern is too case specific for anyone to be able to tell you...

File: 1Y6A0055.jpg (621KB, 1000x667px) Image search: [Google]

621KB, 1000x667px

>tfw get a package in the mail

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 5D Mark IV
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.7 (Macintosh)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2016:09:29 19:22:12
Exposure Time	1/100 sec
F-Number	f/8.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	400
Lens Aperture	f/8.0
Exposure Bias	-1/3 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	100.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

Is this lens https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00WENHU6S/ref=ox_sc_sfl_title_1?ie=UTF8&psc=1&smid=ATVPDKIKX0DER a total rip off? I'm looking to get as wide angle as I can on a micro 4/3s camera. Also I'm a little worried about the distortion mentioned here: http://www.lenstip.com/465.6-Lens_review-Olympus_M.Zuiko_Digital_7-14_mm_f_2.8_ED_PRO_Distortion.html . Is the distortion so bad that it cant be corrected in lightroom?

>>2936509
Are you incapable of reading? It's pushed to 2017 due to the earthquake. Sony's sensor fab got busted, so third rate partners aren't getting their chips on time.

http://www.43rumors.com/first-e-m1ii-price-info-in-europe-body-for-e1-99900/

>>2936517
The Tamron's breddy gud

>>2936531
Rent as >>2936537 says. For regular turbojews, a D7200 and 200-500 would be fine. a D500 with 200-500 would be fine. A D500 with a old 300/400/500/600 would be fine.

>>2936536
The idea is that you want a flat field lens. Stopped down tessars with extension tubes or macro lenses.

>>2936552
The distortion is corrected in body.

>>2936543
>he actually bought a clear filter
A XS-Pro KSM CPL would be nice.

>>2936557
It's strictly for protection. Don't want to scratch the front element of an $1800 lens, plus the BW filters retain the front caps much better, the damn thing is always falling off in my bag.

>>2936536
That or an achromat close-up filter lens can work, yea.

But it may be annoying to use depending on the lens and exact setup.

>>2936558
>scratching your front element
You should probably shake the sand out of your bag
>front caps
No comment on the holding power, but when I'm actively shooting, the only caps I use are rear caps when the lens is rattling around in the bag.

>>2936563
Gross

>>2936553
literally the first and only thing I've seen in regards to a price.
Everyone and everything else tends to point towards a price similar to the launch of the OM-D EM1, aka something like 1.3~1.5k USD.
Also theres no mention of the 2017 date.

>>2936566
also even olympus refuses to give an answer to either.

File: marumi_dhg_plus3.jpg (13KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 640x480px

>>2936565
> Gross
In general better than extension tubes, worse than dedicated macro lenses.

>>2935801
It's pretty convenient, I have one for my 5DMII so I can check images on my laptop straight away if I want. Completely suitable for photography but not for Raw video, my adapter tested at 20mb/s with a 90mb/s max card in a CF slot which should be capable of 75mb/s when maxing out its speed.

>>2936577
What brand do you use?

>>2936428

I ordered a BGN and an EX from Keh. THe BGN was in considerably better condition.

They are all over the place.

File: IMG_4073.jpg (78KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 640x480px

For a fun lomo camera how are the Holga Digitals?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	5443
Image Height	3061
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 Created	2015:08:31 08:06:03
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	640
Image Height	480
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>2936638
SHIT. It's about the same "great" experience as having instagram or such with just one of the worst filters permanently enabled.

If using a MILC with a good lens isn't fun enough, buy a Yicam. Buy a camera that can go on a quadcopter and fly that. Buy vintage lenses.

But fuck Holga retro hipster trash.

>>2936641

They actually make holga "lenses" for mirrorless cameras.

i saw once cheao and picked it up.

Holy shit was it bad. Like, I am sure just poking a hole in my body cap and using that as a lens would give me a better image.

>>2936517
Apart from the onion-bokeh it is pretty good. It's zoom range is awkward for crop so I use the 16-85 instead. You can still do that as a fall-back alternative, going crop mode and use the best IQ in that range.

>>2936557
>>2936558
He needs a filter for complete sealing for his Canun lens, plus Canun saves production bux by not doing fluorite coating on the front elements.

>>2934897
Is this a camera gore thread?

>>2936754
No, this is a Sony product support thread.

>>2936754

Nope.

This is a third party battery thread.

Pentax DA* 300mm f4 or F* 300mm f4.5

File: DUST.png (915KB, 692x654px) Image search: [Google]

915KB, 692x654px

So, it happened, I got my first grains of dust.
What do I do?

>>2936846
used the "sensor cleaning mode" option and the spec got smaller. from that bright white spot with a purple halo to just a purple spot. Used it a a few more times and it's gone now.
Phew.
Panasonics internal sensor cleaning seems to be really good. I heard Sony's ain't worth shit

>>2936846
Try automatic sensor cleaning
Try using a dustblower (quick fix, dust may fall onto the sensor again.
Buy dust cleaning kit, careful to buy one suitable for your camera.
Send your camera in for cleaning (expensive time consuming)

>>2936846
Clean. Your camera may use its internal routine at every startup, but if it doesn't, trigger that.

If that doesn't work, try blowing air (but not canned air, canned air can smear shit on your sensor and be too cold and stuff) with a hand blower.

if that doesn't work, use a nice microfiber towel or cleaning swab.

>>2936829
DA* has sealing, FA* has FF cover. Both has excellent IQ.

>>2936871
DA* 16-50 or w/e has worse iq than a Sony pancake kit zoom

can someone point me toward a good octapus style tripod that actually supports the weight of a DSLR? There's so many of them and I don't want to buy some POS designed to hold a Nikon Coolpix or a cell phone or some shit.

I'm trying to find a durable and long leather shoulder strap. All of the ones I've seen so far are chinkshit or like 40inches max. I don't mind spending a far bit ($100 or so).

>>2936871
DA* 300/4 covers FF too.

>>2935570
Which exact model do you have?

>>2936893
I find it quite amusing how Pentax was putting "DA" on almost all new lenses for a decade so people didn't them about FF too much, but now when K-1 is out, they have a table on their site that shows which DA lenses are actually not crop specific.

>>2936891
Gordy's are custom length, and their website shows a 50" one.

>>2936879
The budget DA 16-45 shits all over the DA* 16-50 and the DA 16-85 blows all pro lenses out of the water in its zoom range.
It's widely known how shit the DA* 16-50 is, not just optically but in construction. The SDM drive is known to shit out on you. At least it is possible to revert to screwdrive on it.

File: image.jpg (64KB, 700x525px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 700x525px

That Magmod thing looks pretty cool but holy shit is it expensive! Does anyone have it? Comments on it?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	700
Image Height	525
Scene Capture Type	Standard