/gear/ thread

Why is there no fucking pentax in the op post you lazy fuck?

Fuji XT1, OM-D EM1 or wait the MKII?

>>2937573
E-M1II is going to cost significantly more than the current price of E-M1 and X-T1, and we only know the basic specs.

Anyway, get a G85 instead.

File: meanwhile-at-pentax.jpg (43KB, 390x499px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 390x499px

>>2937571
Because today's Pentax is boring.

>>2937573

a6000.

Better that all three of those, and half the price of the cheapest.

>>2937584
a6000 is not better than either of those.

a6300 is (though it still has a worse control layout and no pro-grade lenses aside from hueg FF ones)

Just starting out photography, got about £400 or so that I am willing to spend. I know MP isn't all there is to getting a good shot but I'm really liking the look of the Nikon d5300. Does buying lenses with motor drives in them (need to with nikon) cost significantly more than lenses without them? What cameras can you recommend around this price? I plan on shooting wildlife.

>>2937580
THE EM1MK2 price is supposed to be around the same as the original EM1 launch.
Also the basic specs blow some shit that are expensive out of the water

>>2937582
>boring
t. retarded consumer who jumps at whatever new toy comes out with the most features instead of buying dependable and practical hardware

>>2937587
>a6000 is not better than either of those.

It is comparable at worst.

>a6300 is (though it still has a worse control layout and no pro-grade lenses aside from hueg FF ones)

At least e-mount has pro-grade lenses.

File: Olympus_and_Lumix_7-14mm_745.jpg (61KB, 745x511px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 745x511px

Pic related.

Looking to get a wide angle lens for micro 4/3s. I'm between Panasonic 7-14mm Lumix G Vario and the Olympus 7-14mm Pro M.Zuiko. Any suggestions?

I'm a little concerned about the distortion on both lenses. For the olympus, will it be corrected in body? What about for the Panasonic?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

>>2937598
>At least e-mount has pro-grade lenses.
What? The 24-70 GM and 70-200 GM? The latter of which you can't even get your hands on? And what primes do you have? I have to give it to Sony, E-mount has the best selection of 50mm lenses out of any system. Everything else is shit.

Meanwhile Fuji has everything from 16-400 covered with pro zooms, and a full coverage of excellent primes.

Meanwhile, M43 has pro zooms from 7-150, the PL100-400, and the O300. The prime line up is a little spotty though.

*pro lenses defined as top quality optically and mechanically constructed lenses, often of flagship tier, with weather sealing and top-tier focusing motors

>>2937611
In body correction only works on same lens-body brands. Otherwise, you'll rely on your editing software's profile. What body do you have now? Do you care about manual focusing or size?

>>2937584
Why would I want the A6000?

>>2937622

Are you trying to say the Fuji lenses are as good as G Master lenses? Some of them are great lenses, I will give you that, but the 56mm for example, comes nowhere close to the image quality of the Batis or G Master 85mm.

>What? The 24-70 GM and 70-200 GM?

And the other GM lens, and the rest of the G line. And the Zeiss lenses, and the Zeiss/Sony dual branded lenses, and even some of the straight Sony branded lenses (the 90mm macro is probably the greatest lens of its type made to date).

Meanwhile, Fuji has yet to make even a single half decent macro lens.

Does anyone own a Fuji 27mm pancake?

Worth it?

>>2937611
Unless you really need f/2.8 or weather sealing, I see no reason not to get the Panasonic. Huge, heavy lenses defeat the point of the system.
Or you might even get the 9-18mm, it's minuscule and surprisingly decent optically.

>>2937611
>>2937622
Distortion is always corrected in-body, it's part of m43 spec. Support for CA correction is spottier.

>>2937598
*FE* mount has pro-grade lenses. On a crop camera, they are kinda silly.
The only real "pro" lens for crop is the 18-110, but it's ludicrously expensive and designed for video.

>>2937642
>$400
>less than a stop faster than kit zoom but lacks IS

As cute as it is, couldn't convince myself to get one.

>>2937596
>dependable and practical
>no new features

That's the definition of boring though.

>>2937648
Amazingly there are new features, so what's your point?

I'm looking for a lens for the A6000 that emulates the feel of an iPhone 5s camera in terms of focal length - which should be equivalent to 20 mm on the Sony. Any recommendations?

>>2937650
Every new feature Pentax implemented in the digital era (besides astrotracing) was already in competitors' cameras.

>>2937651
Sigma 19/2.8, cheap and optically great. If you specifically want a compact one, Sony 20/2.8.

>>2937643
>>2937643
I have an Olympus OMD em10 mark ii. Will the panasonic still have its distortion corrected in the body? I don't really need the weather sealing or the f/2.8.

What's the schedule like for when Fuji updates the prices of their camera bodies? That's to say: how long should I wait to not get retroactively nip'd?

Specifically looking at the X-Pro2 w/ a 35mm.

>>2937659
Looks like >>2937643 is right, vignette and distortion is always controlled, but CA isn't. https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3353919

File: 1471809879285.jpg (28KB, 600x804px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 600x804px

Buying basic bitch GF first DSLR

Roughly same price, Pentax K-50 or D3200 for her?

>>2937671
>basic bitch
Anything that says Canon on it. Get her one of the nice Canon straps, the fat ones that come with the 1DX and the red ribbing.

>>2937671
Nikon for image quality, Pentax for other features and/or more rugged body.

>>2937573
Or maybe another Fuji model. Anyone?

File: image.png (51KB, 498x499px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 498x499px

What's a good vintage fisheye/ ultra wide angle? Something 16mm or wider
Any mount is fine

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

78KB, 500x500px

>>2937652
Like Pixel shift resolution and weather sealing in Sony cameras?

>>2937726
Praising Pentax for not corroding is like praising Blackberry phones for not exploding.

Pixel shift? Hasslebad and lolympus did it earlier. Weather sealing? Canon, Nikon and again lolympus.

>>2937712
Try Fuji F100fs.

Protip: without extra info like your goals/lens preferences/budget, you're not going to get any useful answers.

>>2937730
>Pixel shift? Hasslebad and lolympus did it earlier
They did it differently and with worse results.

>>2937736
Lowlight performance is pretty important .
Night shots, day landscapes, street shooting The only way I can go over $1k is if the em1mk2 is 1.3~1.5 (pushing it so hard but w/e).
If the price for the mk2 is too much I'm currently leaning to the em1.
Planned on a single prime and a zoom lens (short Convo in last thread).

>>2937738
>They did it differently
Yeah, by shifting by half a pixel instead of a full pixel, whoop de doo. Both the principle (multiple exposures + sensor shift) and result (increased resolution) are the same.

>with worse results
Citation needed (not to mention that you'd damn well expect a newer implementation to be better than the older one)

>>2937741
>Lowlight performance is pretty important .
Then why are you looking at an ILC system with one of the smallest sensors (m43), and a crop ILC system without image stabilization on primes (Fuji)? Get a full frame camera.

>>2937747
I've seen good results off the m43s and don't want something as big as an FF

>currently have a Canon 5d mark iii
>primarily use 50 1.2 and 16-35 2.8
>love photography, but moving more into videography
>thinking about selling and buying a sony a7sii

any tips on my set up? sell lenses and cop new ones? adapters, etc. never shot mirrorless before. or anything other than canon and nikon dslrs.

>>2937752
m43 is only good in low light if your subject is completely still so you can keep ISO low with a long shutter speed.

Also, if fast AF and weather sealing aren't particularly important, get a cheaper body (e.g. E-M5, E-M10, E-P5, GX85 in case of m43; X-E2, X-T10 in case of Fuji - they all have pretty much the same sensors anyway) but better lenses (e.g. Pana 25/1.4, 12-35/2.8, Fuji 35/1.4, 56/1.2)

>>2937756
Weather sealing and fast AF are why I was looking at the ones I mentioned as well

>>2937755
Metabones makes adapters that will make your Canon lenses function on A7 bodies.
AF speed might not be as good as on 5DIII, but you don't need that for video anyway.

Alternatively, if you can live with -1 stop of aperture, sell your Canon stuff and buy FE 16-35/4 and 55/1.8.

>>2937758
Then your only options are E-M1, E-P5 and X-T1, plus the upcoming G85.

But do consider the lenses; if you want weather sealing, the choice becomes very limited. Fuji has significantly more weather-sealed primes than m43, but you can't combine that with IS.

>>2937760
*meant E-M5, not E-P5.

>>2937760
Alright, thank you anon.
Iirc the em5 might be sealed,but the em1 is far nicer. Itd be nice to get a price on the mk2 already.

>>2937763
> Itd be nice to get a price on the mk2 already

- it's not going to be cheaper than e-m1 release price, which was 1600 iirc
- it's not coming out until 2017 because lol kumamoto

>>2937764
Everything I heard was 2016, also wasn't the em1 $1.3?

>>2937766
It was originally slated for 2016, but then the earthquake happened. 43rumors says early 2017 most likely.

>>2937766
Everything you heard was wrong, despite being pointed out you were wrong last thread. Neither the GH5 nor the EM1II is coming out 2016. If it was, you'd have seen pre-order pages and full detail and final specifications come out.

I dunno anything about photography but I was just given an olympus e-p1 with a zoom lens, and a lens that says 17mm on it. No charger tho, it's in the post.

Is this a decent camera? My plan is to take pictures with it.

Any recomendations for a cheap flash and a cheap fisheye lens?

>>2937769
You provided a single link that only showed a preorder setup on a site with 0 info about the date. The same preorder was also said to most likely be a mock up page rather than a definite sales page.

>>2937772
>Is this a decent camera?
Well, it's one of the very first mirrorless cameras made, and they certainly didn't get everything right on the first try. It's got lethargic autofocus and a grainy screen that you can't see in direct sunlight, and you don't want to use sensitivities above ISO 1600. If you can deal with that, it's fairly nice.

>Any recomendations for a cheap flash
Look at Yongnuo flashes. But you can use pretty much any cheap flash you can find, even really old ones - Olympus cameras do not get fried by high trigger voltage of those.

>cheap fisheye lens?
Samyang/Rokinon/Bower 7.5mm fisheye is excellent.
Olympus 9mm "body cap" fisheye is the cheapest you can get for any modern system and gives fairly ok quality, but it's only really usable in daylight.

>>2937782
Thanks, is there any way to quickly determine compatibility? I have no clue about what kind of lens or adapters I'll need.

>>2937741
If you're not doing sports you don't need the faster focus and 18fps of the EM1mk2. If you're dead set on a crop form factor you can spend the money you save not buying the mk2 instead on a fast lens like these
https://www.amazon.com/Panasonic-NOCTICRON-42-5mm-O-I-S-H-NS043/dp/B00HQD9OAG/ref=sr_1_17?s=photo&ie=UTF8&qid=1475361136&sr=1-17&keywords=micro+four+thirds+lens+25mm
https://www.amazon.com/Voigtlander-Nokton-Manual-Focus-Micro/dp/B00IGQV17Q/ref=sr_1_6?s=photo&ie=UTF8&qid=1475361136&sr=1-6&keywords=micro+four+thirds+lens+25mm
http://www.getolympus.com/ca/en/lenses/pen-omd/m-zuiko-ed-25mm-f1-2-pro.html

>>2937784
> is there any way to quickly determine compatibility?

Your camera fits Micro Four Thirds (Micro 4/3, M43) lenses. The flash hot shoe is standard ISO, so it will fit pretty much any flash except Minolta-specific ones (you can tape the contacts except the big center one just to be safe), albeit you'll get automatic metering and zoom control only on flashes specifically designed for Olympus/Panasonic.

>>2937759
>our Canon lenses function on A7 bodies.
>AF speed might not be as good as on 5DIII, but you don't need that for video anyway.

thanks a lot for the advice

>>2937785
Way out of my current range. But I'll keep them in mind for the future. Thanks a ton for the consideration !

>>2937592
Any answers to this would be much appreciated, don't mind going second hand for a cheaper deal. Thank you.

>>2937785
>Nokton 25mm

This is a terrible choice unless you're doing video. It's expensive, all-manual, very heavy, and the image quality is pretty meh until stopped down a lot.
The Olympus 25/1.2 is also huge and overpriced, but at least it has the distinction of being the only weathersealed one.

>>2937784
All of this will fit on your camera natively
http://four-thirds.org/en/microft/lense.html

All of this will fit with one of the MMF mount adapters (and excruciatingly slow autofocus)
http://four-thirds.org/en/fourthirds/lense.html

>>2937786
Okay cool, thanks for your help bud

>>2937790
How much does the lens being sealed matter in all honesty? I mean I know it does, but to what extent? Does it render the body's seal pointless if it isn't?

>>2937794
At the lens mount, yes.

File: 18-35.jpg (1MB, 1156x1476px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1156x1476px

Found this for 150 at a small camera store.
It was "used" but shows no signs of use at all.

How'd I do?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2015.5 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	144 dpi
Vertical Resolution	144 dpi
Image Created	2016:10:01 18:56:13
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	1156
Image Height	1476

>>2937794
Well, you can't go out shooting in the rain if a major component of your gear is not sealed, can you?

Also, non-sealed lenses don't have rubber rings in the mount, so you can potentially get dust/water into the body even if the body is completely sealed.

>>2937800
Figured. Well fuck are there any cheaper sealed zooms than the "pro"

>>2937802
Only for Pentax. They seal their kit lenses pretty well. Better than Canon does it's L lenses.

>>2937802
This >>2937803 (though "better than L" is a pentaxfag meme)
Or old Four Thirds lenses (they're "pro" but cheap now since no one wants them)
Or Nikon AW1 if you're on acid

>>2937806
Are they still good lens?

>>2937806
L lens need an ugly and sealed UV filter on the front to complete the sealing. Pentax needs no filter to complete the sealing and has proper fluorite coating against scratches. Including the kit lenses.

>>2937798
About half the going rate for one of those. If it's sharp, then it's good.

>>2937807
Pentax? They're alright; your typical kit zooms but with weather sealing.
Four thirds? Amazing lenses but no good camera to put them on.

>>2937809
This only applies to *four* lenses (16-35 mk1/2, 17-40, 50/1.2).
Lenses that have no Pentax equivalents anyway.

>>2937815
Meant the old m43 lenses ( sealed). Might save money going with older

>>2937816
4/3 lenses, not m4/3 lenses.

Technically, they're adaptable to E-M1 while retaining the weather sealing (just get the proper sealed adapter), but reportedly the AF performance isn't "pro" anymore.

>>2937817
Well, fuck. So I'm stuck with paying more then for a sealed one?

>>2937820
Should've bought a Pentax.

>>2937822
Ain't bought shit yet.

>>2937788

The autofocus is much faster on later gen a7 bodies (a7ii and a7rii). Pretty much native e-mount speed for most lenses.

Anyone got any recommendations on a cheap Android tablet for on the go photo viewing and rough video editing? Specs don't need to be fantastic i just want something semi-decent that I can use to look at my pictures while out and about.

Connectivity is a plus but not really needed.

>>2937571
Because newcunts don't know how to lurk, but still want to fit in

>Tfw only own one non L lens

It's been really bugging me recently; the fact that I have one non red ringed lens irks my OCD.

Should I sell the 50mm 1.4 for the 1.2L?

>>2937969
The 1.4 is a bit sharper but if it bothers you, buy it. On the other hand you could invest in Zeiss lenses.

Yo niggas may I get link to torrent PS CC

>>2937991
I had one, but ever since their latest update it seems they finally stopped their shit from being torrented so easily

>>2937969
there's almost no DoF/bokeh difference and it's at least 3x as heavy and the AF is slower

there are much better L choices.

>>2937969
Buy 50mm Sigma Art instead
Then buy some other Sigma Art so the first one doesn't feel like an odd one out

>>2937953
You probably should buy a Windows tablet for that, Android's software isn't *that* great for typical /p/ workflows and file formats yet.

Maybe some Xiaomi Mi Pad 2 or something?

(Compromise between price and performance, you can get tablets with more RAM and/or a faster CPU if you want to pay more).

>>2938037
For the most part it'd just be knocking together rough videos and browsing images on something that isn't my camera's LCD. Thanks for the recommendation.

Stepping up from my cheapo 100-300 for birding and wildlife. Sigma 120-400 or 150-500? I can get them for the same price. Thinking of just going for the 150-500 because it's longer, but the 120-400 is much smaller, and a bit lighter. Is the extra 100mm a big deal? As far as I can see there isn't that much difference in IQ.

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

391KB, 2500x2500px

>>2937559
Asking again:

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

Is it the same or better at f/4?

>>2937969
>Should I sell the 50mm 1.4 for the 1.2L?

How much do you think you're going to get?
Are you that hard up for $150?

>>2938094
I'd go for the zoom even if it is at f/4. Much more versatile even if you have to stop it down to f/5.6
The 20mm is not very wide compared to the zoom, what good is better IQ when you can't put the whole scene in the frame? If you want an UWA prime go for the Rokinon 14mm or 12mm depending on the sensor size.

>>2937647
But it's no where near that price second hand senpai.

>>2938094
I doubt many people here own the 11-24 yet.

Ask again in 2 years time.....or check any review site.

>>2937573
xt2

>>2937671
eos m5

>>2937798
doesn't fit with the looks of your df

>>2937969
sell both and get a smegma

>>2938094
>11-24mm f/4
if you're gonna spend that much money just get a smegma 20 1.4. sharp wide open.

I'm a beginner that want to get started with photography. I project to take pictures of
>nature / mountains / overview of the city from a tall building
>average tourist pictures (monuments, sightseeing points)
>gf in front of these monuments
>cute cats I see in the street
>empty streets from countryside to t that I fill frame with thick white padding and pretend it has a deep meaning.

I have about $250 to spend. I don't mind buying used stuff, even outdated as long as I get to play with manual focus and other settings. I am in Tokyo area if that matters.

File: 16919080074_483a57e271_b.jpg (114KB, 1024x683px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 1024x683px

Going on a vacation to australia. Thoughts? also was planning to buy 35mm prime

>>2938184
Used K-50 with WR kit lens. Sealed including the lens, sports the magical Sony/Toshiba 16MP sensor, rugged build, designed primarily with nature and landscape in mind.
Kit lens will serve for landscape on wide and medium end, portraits on long end and generic shooting between 24-35mm. Goes for pennies used. Has in-body image stabilisation so if you put on a cheap manual lens you will have a stabilised image.

>>2938186
Thank, from your description, it seems like a K-50 would fit my needs.
Is it recommended to buy a used camera in a specialized shop or should I just lurk eBay?

>>2938185
23 or 35 f2

>>2938185
On the vacation? On the body? On the lens?

>>2938196
You can lurk ebay or pentaxforums but Tokyo sports heaps of camera shops selling used gear.

>>2938205
the body. i was thinking that this would be abit too pricy for me

>>2938206
Thank, I'll visit some shops next time I go downtown

>>2938210
Most of them market their stuff on ebay so you can check them out and choose the better offers.

>>2938185
Australia is a beautiful country, but wear plenty of sun screen and watch out for snakes and abos.

>>2938211
I didn't know. I was thinking to go either at shinjuku or akiba. Do you have any recommendations?

>>2938212
>>2938212
thanks m8. what places do you recommend visiting?

>>2938214
type "used pentax K-50 with kit lens" into ebay?

>>2938136
Canon you link me?

Most don't directly compare it with non L primes.

>>2938106
>I'd go for the zoom even if it is at f/4

I plan on eventually getting it.

I just wanted to know what kind of performance I'm going to being getting out of the 20mm f/2.8 an whether it was worth spending $200 on.
I know Canon hasn't invested much in their UWA primes and the original 14mm wasn't very good and neither was the 16-35mm at 16mm.

>>2938169
>if you're gonna spend that much money just get a smegma 20 1.4.

Are you saying the 11-24mm isn't sharp?
For that price, I can get a Canon 24mm f/1.4 MkI
I'm also not too keen on getting fucked because Sigma breaks the EF specifications.

>>2938275
*Can

I don't know why I typed that.

>>2938169
Meh. I'm not really worried about what the lens looks like on my system. As long as it functions well.

>>2938275
Really depends on what you want to shoot. For landscape you will stopping down past f/8 all the time, shooting wide open is only for low light but why would you do that on a Canon? Street you will be between f/5.6 and f/11.
Wide open is mostly astro and nightscape territory but then again you will likely do composites. So you still shouldn't care about corner sub-pixel sharpness at wide open. Don't listen to the gearfags.

Trying to adapt my dad's old FD lenses and noticed all Adapters with a standfoot are fucking expensive. Why is that?
I only ever adapted Nikkor AI lenses and FD lenses seem to have some weird mechanical switches.

File: 1447078036179.jpg (64KB, 780x465px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 780x465px

>>2938284
The other Anon was the one that brought up the fast Sigma.

Why wouldn't I shoot low light on my Canon?

My 28mm f/2.8 is fast enough for me for when I go wide.

My question was if the 20mm was worth even buying (as in quality). I plan on getting the 11-24mm after awhile, but a $150-$200 purchase is more doable right now than a $2000+ purchase.

>>2938299
>a $150-$200 purchase is more doable right now than a $2000+ purchase
Maybe a Samyang 14mm or so?

>>2937651
Lol, why not just use an iPhone camera,
walks like a duck
talks like a duck

>>2938300
I like AF and I'd like the option of selling it later on.

>>2938299
white guilt on the right

>>2938322
You are using this one at infinity from like 2.5m onwards. And they are doing pretty fine so far in terms of resale value, though who knows what happens going forward.

File: Evolution-of-the-Photographer.png (49KB, 960x515px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 960x515px

Any recommendations of a ~40mm prime for Nikon FX

>>2938291
>>2938291
Anyone?

best mirrorless for video? hear it's a7s ii. can anyone confirm? mostly want to use it for run and gun travelogues. might do some actual projects with it.

>>2938375
A7S II is a candidate forthe best because it can handle lower light situations and has IBIS, yes.

You might already be fine with a A6300 or GH4 or something though.

>>2938375
In Terms of PRICE it's Lumix G7/G85.
Sony A7 costs a shitton but has high lowlight Performance. But it has serious Jello/rollingshutter problems.
Best ask in /vid/-general

>>2938375
I forgot, you could quite possibly also make do with a Yicam, SJCam or something else + maybe a microphone.

Most definitely not on the high end, but for a bunch of "run and gun travelogue", it should be quite effective.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15Ps8xnLELw

Someone recommended that I should get a Nissin DI600 for my Nikon D3300.

Anyone had any experience with the DI600? Would you recommend it?

File: DSC_4167.jpg (330KB, 1071x1600px) Image search: [Google]

330KB, 1071x1600px

GX80(85), X-A3, or DL24-85?
For now i'm shooting with primes on dead system and never wanted 4k, iso6400, film simulation or anything beyond 85mm. But touch tilty screen will be my future. And probably some small external flash.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON 1 J1
Camera Software	Ver.1.20
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.7
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2014:03:26 17:49:20
White Point Chromaticity	0
Exposure Time	1/125 sec
F-Number	f/1.8
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	8192125
Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Subject Distance	0.00 m
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	18.50 mm
Color Space Information	Unknown
Image Width	1071
Image Height	1600
Exposure Index	0

>>2938301
Because the quality is shit.
I just think having the same focal length would be convenient because that's what I'm used to.

>>2938424
Of those three, GX85.
X-A3 is too gimped (no X-Trans sensor, no viewfinder, no phase autofocus, etc.) and DL24-85 does not exist.

>>2938397
wait for yi m43.

>>2938436
wait for that dl.

>>2938443
Figures it's more interesting to hold off buying to see what the Yi M1 will bring to the table if you decided against the sports camera already, and are considering Sony/Panasonic APS-C now.

You probably already made a decision between IQ and compactness / price / weight / ruggedness at the point where you decided for or against a sports camera...?

I've concluded that the Fuji 23mm f1.4 is just that damn good.

I have no idea what the f2 will be like, but the 23mm is such a versatile focal length, it shits on the cheaper lenses.

I've tried the pancake, and it's just not cutting it for my purposes.

>>2938482
18 is dogshit.
27 is tack sharp but slow and motor sounds like a sick dog.
23 f2 if anything like the 35 2, will be fast, compact, cheaper and sharp.

>>2938491
>18 is dogshit.
>27 is tack sharp but slow and motor sounds like a sick dog.

Is this the justification for the X series?

File: 0002.jpg (76KB, 604x453px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 604x453px

What's the difference between the ES-71 and the ES-71II?

>>2938499
The ES-71II is newer.

File: 0001.jpg (80KB, 604x453px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 604x453px

>>2938501
I get that, but is there any functional difference?

Is the mounting mechanism the same?

Also for some reason, the ES-71II looks like it has felt on the inside.

>>2938375

a7sii is best choice, but a little overkill for a run and.gun travelogue.

Look at m43 mirrorless, slightly lighter and more compact.

>>2938436

No x-trans is a plus, not a negative.

You losenotging, but gain the ability to actually open the raws properly in lightroom.

>>2938497

Thay is what you get with the "professional" lens line-up of x-mount.

>>2938491
18 indeed is nothing special

35 2 is very nice, but at the time I had no interest in it.

27, as I'm looking at the photos now, is OK, I like the focal length and the compact nature.

23, 1.4 - it's not actually that big - but it packs such a wallop. That extra 1.4 f stop makes a world of difference and the zone focusing marks are also something worth noting.

>>2938339
Voigtlander 40mm

>>2938530
>18 indeed is nothing special
Translation: I'm a gearfag

>>2938770

I have the Voigtlander 40mm f 1.8 for my a7ii.

I love the lens. Not perfect, but very fun to use. With the right adapter the autofocus flies on it too.

File: D3S_6083-capped.jpg (76KB, 600x712px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 600x712px

>>2938804

Errr... f1.4 I meant.

I really should have gone for the collapsable one I think.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

>>2938804
Pretty sure he mean's Voigtlander's SLR 40mm lens (comes in Nikon, Canon, and if you can find one, in Pentax mounts), which is an Ultron, not a Nokton like the rangefinder one

File: 24573332806_29a699d0f8_z.jpg (108KB, 640x426px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 640x426px

>>2938807

I figured, but I just wanted to talk about how much I loved my little voity.

>>2938790
I wish, I'm more of a poorfag.

My mate owns a lot of Fuji lenses, so I can easily try them out before committing. I've got the 27mm right now, and it's meh.

I got the 23 f1.4, for £350 used. The dude selling it was a bit of a moron and put down 'brand new' and 'mint condition' in the description but when I got it the box was scuffed and there was a nice paint scratch on the rim of the lens. It was clear it was not new. I mentioned it and he basically was dismissive and said I'm lying. A few pictures later, and a mention that I will need to declare it through eBay buyer protection, he was grovelling and begging that I ask for a partial refund, so he knocked 120£ off.

My guess he was too stupid to notice the defects when he bought it """""new""""" from Amazon when someone else screwed him. After a while he even left me a positive eBay review kek.

I got really lucky on that one.

I really don't think I'll get anything else for a long time.

I'm not going to kid myself, I've taken photos with a terrible digital camera and then with my smartphone and had people complimenting me for my shots
I don't need a DSLR. I didn't even know what that stands for until a while ago.
I'm a poorfag who's volunteering at the moment and just want to feel a significant upgrade from my smartphone camera, I don't really want to spend more than 300€ (that's $340)
until I can actually tell the difference from a shot taken from either camera this will have to do, after that I might upgrade
No shutter lag that shit's aids; I mostly do street photography or things that look like it; the video can be as bad as it wants I want to take pictures nothing else
This one guy is telling me I just HAVE to get a Ricoh GR II but god damn its expensive and seems just bad.
this is probably one of the most commonly asked questions and trust me I'm sorry, but what fucking camera should I get?

>>2938892
What're you gonna use it for?

The Ricoh GR is actually a great camera, if you can get a GR (not GR II) used that'd probably be ideal. It's great for street shooting since it has a pretty wide angle lens

File: DSC05696-editsmall.jpg (1MB, 1119x1500px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1119x1500px

>>2938894
I'm by no means a professional, I'm in fact an amateur
I want to take pictures of people, architecture and sometimes of either at night, just generally urban stuff
I've been reading that you aren't supposed to upgrade from a GR to a GRII but if you get either you should get the GRII
do I really only gain the wifi functionality?, I wouldn't care about that at all
besides that: why get the GR at all can I not get that kinda wide angle lens on a cheaper camera?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

File: block240_web.jpg (1MB, 1000x1500px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1000x1500px

>>2938909
The GR II adds wifi and a slightly raised ISO ceiling.

The GR is great for a couple of reasons (I recommend you read reviews)

- APSC sized image sensor (same size used in most DSLRs, except in a much smaller package)

- Excellent ergonomics (you don't think it'll matter until you hold one)

- Really good optics, sharp edge to edge even wide open

- Excellent software, uses Adobe camera raw so easy editing

- No image lag, as well as zone focus mode

Honestly just read a couple of reviews and do the research for yourself. It's the best of the best in it's category, hands down

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

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

>>2938911
I read some reviews already, fuck it I'm getting one
my electronics usually last beyond warranty, do I need to get a new one because I'll hate myself when a used one breaks?
remember the GR might be cheap considering its competition but is still an "investment" for me, I'm a real poorfag.

>>2938913
idk man, stop eating fast food and drinking coffee out and put the money you would have used towards those things every week into a seperate account. You'll have enough saved in no time, especially if you buy used.

If you want to go cheaper, why not buy a professional tier DSLR from 5+ years ago? It'll be awesome for your uses if size isn't an issue, and the images will blow you away

>>2938892
I'm not a professional either and it is still immediately obvious to me why I'd want a camera *better* than a Ricoh Gr.

But. If you don't care, then don't upgrade.

Everyone gets compliments for their smartphone snapshits, by the way.

Can anybody tell me if I'm getting scammed here? The price seems awfully low for a GR II

http://www.ebay.at/itm/neu-und-OVP-Ricoh-GR-II-/282205266304?hash=item41b4bea180:g:uCUAAOSw4shX8kUv

On the other hand the seller does have a 100% positive rating and it seems pretty legit..

File: 35mm-hero2.jpg (83KB, 972x414px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 972x414px

>>2938892

I think you should look at mirrorless.

They are larger than a compact, yes, but they are also much smaller than a DSLR. Plus they have DRASTICALLY better image quality.

You can use them in full auto mode and still get great pictures, but they also have room to grow with proper manual controls.

A Sony a6000 is only slightly over your budget, and is one of the best mirrorless cameras made to date. You could also look at older used bodies and save even more.

>>2938927
>On the other hand the seller does have a 100% positive rating and it seems pretty legit..
He has no feedback as a seller though, meaning this is his first time selling something.

That being said it looks fine, and even if it was a scam it's so easy to get your money refunded from Ebay

>>2938940
nex 5t, a5000 or a5100.
20mm pancake or sigma 19mm f2.8.

>>2938940
>single control dial
>proper manual controls

>>2939023
>not taking a look at Lumix Or Olympus cameras

>>2939036
>>2939036
>well my stool is fluffy and yellow but hey at least I dont have diarrhea
Sony users everyone

>>2939023

Two actually, three if you count mode select (no one does).

It is as good if not better than most DSLRs in the same price range.

>>2939036
>EM10/5/1, GX7/85/8, G7, G85, FZ1000
>bodies ranging from bridge to flagship all have dual control dials
>a6000/6300
>top end APSC """"""""sports capable""""""" body
>single control dial

Dear /p/

I have been digging photography for a while now.
I am looking to buy something to shoot videos like this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQLJAVw3Uo8 [Embed] since i am a loner and i like walking around town when i am bored.

I want the camera to shoot 4k.
Would it be better to have a full frame camera?

How worse is micro four thirds?

Lets say i have a budget of €3000 for lens and body.

I am totally inexperienced but I've been studying technical stuff for a year now over the internets.

>>2938915
I never eat fastfood or drink coffee out, I gave up smoking because of how broke I am. And a 600€ camera would be 3 times the amount I spend on food for a month. But I really want to take pictures that's all I want to do right now

>>2939043

That is flat out wrong though, they have two dials. One is a dpad/dial on the face.

I rummaged through my dad's old camera case and I found a tokina 200mm 3.5, a tokina 28mm 2.8, a 50mm 1.8 and a 2x terleconverter.
Eagerly awaiting the arrival of the adapter.
How much fun will I have with those on a G7 for video?
With the converter I could turn this into a 800mm equivalent. How far is that zoomed in? can someone post some comparison shots?

>>2939043
> I never used a glorious A6000/A6300
The second wheel is at the back and works perfectly fine.

>>2939048
And I forgot: The 50mm has a weird sounding Aperture ring. In videos I've seen they all sound solid and deep, but this one sounds high-pitched and plastic-y
Should I try taking them apart and declicking them all together?

>>2939043
Wait, A6300 also doesn't have two dials?

For fuck's sake, Sony, you put THREE of them on NEX-7, what's the problem here?

>>2939047
>>2939049
>i have never used my camera for anything more than full auto snapshits of my cat

See
>proper manual controls
>two dials worked by the same finger and requiring a slightly different grip
>yet there is plenty of space for a forward dial, like any other serious camera

>>2939055
> You'll have to decide whether you adjust shutter or aperture in this 0.1s, because it will take about that long to switch to the other wheel.
> You could take your hand off a position on your lens which makes your shot more stable and instead fumble with TWO wheels rather than one.
I can't but express my deep regret about the realization that we are currently depriving the world of some seriously artistic artwork as a result of you currently not doing some glorious two-wheeled shooting with your toy camera.

>>2939078
>sony shooters dont need ergonomics that facilitate the ease of use of a tool, they just need bigger numbers on the spec sheet than sony's competitors

At least the a7ii fixed that.

What's a good versatile lens for a Nikon D3200 for street/portrait/landscape photography?

I currently have a 18-55 kit, 55-200 kit, and a 50mm prime 1.8 mf. They kits are both crap and no VR. I need a quality lens with quick af and decent night shots?

I'm a /p/oorfag

File: 80.jpg (138KB, 1136x852px) Image search: [Google]

138KB, 1136x852px

just got this 80-200mm f2.8 today

So now I have a 19-35 on pic, 50mm f1.4 AI and this 80-200mm, what should I grab? D3, DF, D700 or D600?

>>2939140
> good
> versatile
> cheap
Pick one (there may be a hint of some second attribute, but you can't fully have it).

Personally, I'd suggest you just get a nice prime more towards the wide end of lenses.

>>2939156
D700
7
0
0

D600 a shit, Df a shit, D3 a big

>>2938226
If you don't care about interchangeable lenses, there's the Canon Canonet QL17, Olympus 35 series, Olympus XA, Minolta 7SII, and the Konica auto S3.

Also look into the Leica CL/Minolta CLE or the Voigtlander Bessa series if you want an M mount rangefinder that won't break the bank too badly.

>>2939156
whatever is cheap.

>>2939171
I'm looking at the 35mm Prime f/2 D on CL right now for $150, that a good deal?

I know it won't auto focus on the D3200 but I've been using mf on my 50mm prime and F3 so I'm not too worried about it. Planning on a body upgrade in the next year anyways so I think this lens should last.

>>2939365
Good price, decent lens on modern FX bodies, gud lens on D700.

You're wrong if you think it's going to be easy to manually focus on a DX body, pentaprism or not. If your future plans include DX, save yourself the trouble and pick up the 35 DX. If you want a 35 for the F3, and don't need AF, the 35/2 AIS is superior to the AFD (as is the 28/2.8).

File: IMG_0284.jpg (3MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3264x2448px

Hi all,
I'm looking at a Panasonic Lumix GH4 camera (shoots in 4k blah blah)
I just wanted to ask, what lens would be good for just all around shooting? So I wouldn't have to carry around a fuckton of lenses.

>i'm new to the photo community
>i don't have an actual camera yet, photo was taken on an iphone 4s

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Apple
Camera Model	iPhone 4S
Camera Software	7.1.1
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	35 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2014:06:30 11:07:53
Exposure Time	1/920 sec
F-Number	f/2.4
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	50
Lens Aperture	f/2.4
Brightness	9.4 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	4.28 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	3264
Image Height	2448
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>2939554
Personally I'd rather suggest an A6000 or X-T10 if you want a light mirrorless camera since the Micro 4/3 sensor of the GH4 has some drawbacks in lower light scenarios.

>>2939560

His first question is what superzoom to buy.

I don't think it matters in his case.

I have a 6D, whats better to get 85mm ? Or 100mm? The reason Im leaning towards the 100mm is for the macro functions. Will 100mm be too tight for portraits?

>>2939554
The new 12-100/4 looks interesting. I wouldn't expect it to be amazingly sharp, but knowing Olympus, it should be acceptably sharp and sharper than anything in its class.

There's the P12-60 and O14-150 if you're a pleb. A P12-32 is small and has IS. If you want to git gud for cheap, the P20 is sharp, light, absolutely tiny. You just have to learn to shoot with a prime, that's all. The P14 will have the same angle of view as your iPhone.

>>2939586
Do you really, really think an extra 17% increase in focal length would make it absolutely impossible to take a portrait of somebody? Have you ever even shot a lens in the 85-135 range?

>>2939595
Not saying its impossible, just know the 85mm is super popular and recommended. Didnt know if the 85mm is drastically sharper than the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM

>>2939595
When does the 12-100/4 come out?
And what's IS?

>i feel like i've heard it before but i can't put my finger on it

Thinking of getting a wide angle for my D7100.
Rokinon 14mm f/2.8
Tokina 12-28mm f/4
Sigma 10-20mm f/3.5
or something else?

>>2939612
- november
- image stabilization

Is the Canon G7X much worse than the Sony RX100m3? I can get the Canon for half the price of the Sony (buying secondhand), but I'm not sure if I should fork out the extra money instead.

>>2939794
m3 has evf, sharper lens, faster auto focus.
g7x is not bad at all. if you don't want to fork out money, it's a fine buy.

>>2939554
get the g80 instead and just stick with kit lens in the beginning.

>>2939586
northrub shoots portraits with a 70-200mm at 200

Hi, newbie here looking for a good camera good for capturing Hong Kong saibapanku. It will be my first camera and I plan on using it for experimental stuff too. Cheap is nice (preferably around $500) but I'll try to get the extra money if I need to.

File: P1040041.jpg (1MB, 3424x3424px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3424x3424px

Got this guy for almost nothing, cause broken.
Repaired, I adapted on my camera, for a 100mm equivalent (yes, I know, I'm a faggot 'cause I'm on a shitty sensor and bla bla bla).
Thoughts? I'm thinking of using it for portraits, due to the focal distance and the beautifull bokeh it get.
What is the best aperture for sharp photos on this one?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Model	Mirrorless bitches
Camera Software	Ver.2.0
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/3.5
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	33 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	180 dpi
Vertical Resolution	180 dpi
Image Created	2016:10:04 10:21:15
Exposure Time	1/80 sec
F-Number	f/4.0
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	200
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Unknown
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	14.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	3424
Image Height	3424
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	Low Gain Up
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

>>2939036
Underrated post.
Lumix Masterrace passing by.

>>2939820
just get a cheap apsc nex.

>>2939820
I'd say try some test shots. It should have a sharp image from f/2.8

>>2939824
I personally don't shoot on night time.
I feel more the need of portability.
Then I need 4k since I also shoot video.
The only solution I have beyond m4/3 is the Sony and... No way.

>>2939827
Your camera does the job well, dont worry about Sony shitposters. Better yet, don't even reply to them.

>>2939829
I have a friend shooting with a Sony.
His images seems to be coming out from the matrix for how greeny they are, then the autofocus is painfully slow...
The optics are huge as fuck and the final result does't differ so mutch. What differs is that, for video-recording, to have a steady shot keeps mutch longer, since it's very unbalanced and difficoult to handle.
Moreover:it hasno mechanical shutter. I know that for mirrorless is almost useless, but I want to have the choice of what I'm doing.
Talking about choise... To do something on that camera you have always to recurr to the menu.
Mine has a shitload of buttons, so many buttons that you don't have to use all of them, but when required they're here.
About design, well, they're fine I guess.
I don't want to hate... But what the fuck, they're always have this need to show to the world that they have a shitty full frame in no space.

File: DSC_0862.jpg (444KB, 1000x664px) Image search: [Google]

444KB, 1000x664px

>>2939627
You can get the older Tokina 12-24 for a lot less, I saved almost $200 over getting the 12-28 and I'm incredibly pleased with it. Solid build and razor sharp.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D300
Camera Software	Capture NX-D 1.4.1 W
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/4.0
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	1000
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	18 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2016:07:24 08:40:59
Exposure Time	1/40 sec
F-Number	f/5.6
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	800
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	12.00 mm
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	1000
Image Height	664
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	Low Gain Up
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>2939859
The older one was designed for film, might not resolve well on 24 pickles. Then again my old ass east german lens is pin-sharp on mine. Could be useful to try it out first.

>>2939627
Why not Tokina 11-16 or 20 f/2.8?

>>2939832
> His images seems to be coming out from the matrix for how greeny they are
He probably changed WB settings or you are accustomed to red tint / oversaturated pictures 'cause otherwise they're neutral.

> Moreover:it hasno mechanical shutter. I know that for mirrorless is almost useless, but I want to have the choice of what I'm doing.
...which one of the current E-mount cameras doesn't?

Is there anything better than fujifilm x70? Traveling/selfie/nighttime

>>2939909

Didn't every e-mount camera have a mechanical shutter?

I had an original NEX-3, and it had some terrible auto white balance at times. It was easy as he'll to set it manually or fix in post though.

>>2939920
There are a lot of better cameras for that.

I'd just get some IL camera like a X-T2 or A6000/A6300.

>>2939920
no.
there's not a lot of camera with selfie mode.

>>2939926
>there's not a lot of camera with selfie mode.

And thank god for that.

>>2939832
Jesus, dude, get a spellchecker.

>Moreover:it hasno mechanical shutter.
Which Sony is that?
The only MILC without a mechanical shutter I know of is Panasonic GM1.

>I know that for mirrorless is almost useless
It's exactly as useful for mirrorless as it is for a DSLR. They use the same sensors and processors.

>>2939926
>>2939947
My old-ass lolympus DSLR has an articulated screen that I can flip to face forward, does this count as a selfie mode?

>>2939627
Tamron 15-30 2.8 if you got the cash and can deal with the heavy as fuck lens. It's going to stick with you forever into full frame and imho 15mm (like 22mm equiv) is more than wide enough. But that's up to personal preference.

>>2939507
I use a 50mm f1.8 fx lens on my d3200 and it's manual focus, it's not easy but I have experience because I use that lens 90% of the time. I will be upgrading to an FX body in the future, most likely a D750. I think this 35mm would be best to transfer to the D750 and would still be usable on the F3 in the mean time. I have heard good things about the 28/2.8 but I think I'll go for an 85mm after this 35mm. Thanks.

>>2940089
Where will you put the 50mm?

>>2940106
It lives on my F3 most of the time so it will probably stay there. Why?

>>2940127
Where did the 35mm come from? I'm confused, like watching Dallas for the first time from the middle where Bobby comes back from the dead.

>>2940129
I was aking /p/ what's a good versatile and cheap lens for my D3200 that would be transferable to an FX later. Some /p/haggot said that a prime would be better so I did some research and found a good 35mm lens on CL and was asking if it was a good price. Said /p/haggot then thought I wasn't capable of manual focus but I use a 50mm MF almost every day so he's just a faggot trying to help a /p/haggot. Fucking /p/haggots....

>>2940136
well since you apparently don't even know what focal length you want, or even what you want to use it for, I'd say he was right to make fun of you.

>>2940144
Well if you actually read the fucking posts instead of being a faggot, you wouldn't be out of the loop would ya faggot?

Wtf

Theres a big lens test of many non sigma lenses on the mc11 adapter and most work really well on original firmware, thats like a miracle.

Why can Sigma do this but every other lens adapter maker fucking sucks dick no matter how many iterations and firmware updates they make.

>>2940167
ching chong can't do shit.

>>2940167
The performance of mc-11 seems to vary a lot depending on the particular camera/lens combo. A6300 and A7RII seem to be the least problematic.

>>2940215
Seems like the best choice for A7s user like myself (unless I get the LA-EA4, but many lenses dont have VC/OS)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PT-wf1SE32A

Even the Kipon seems to give IS on the A7s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uCvfKavHyLI

>>2940215
>>2940221
A7s II is also cdaf same as A7s right?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9B3de6my8Ww

>>2939365
>I've been using mf on my 50mm prime and F3 so I'm not too worried about it.

Problem with DSLR's is their focus screens are optimized for brightness rather than for focusing manually.

On a DSLR you generally can't focus reliably at f/2.8 or wider, unless you use the focus confirmation dot or you replace the focus screen (which is only possible on a couple of models)

I get what your saying but I have been using the 50mm on my D3200 for about a year so I've gotten pretty good with MF. I'm happy with the pictures I've gotten and actually some of my favorite shots have been with this combo so I'm not afraid to get another MF lens.
I do wish that I could put that F3 screen in my D3200, it's so easy to get perfect focus on the F3.

File: nearly new piece of shit for sale.png (5KB, 472x44px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 472x44px

>gearfags will never learn

File: 1475102616416.gif (876KB, 416x410px) Image search: [Google]

876KB, 416x410px

>>2939156
>push-pull zoom

>>2939820
How much?

File: EF25.jpg (56KB, 800x534px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 800x534px

Reposting my question:

Should I get another 25mm extension tube or a 250D close-up lens for my 100mm f/2?

who has the pentax k70?
i was looking at getting a canon 70d but this is cheaper and seems better.

>>2940495
Pentax is generally a better value (and so are their lenses), and the K-70's main focal point is its image quality, which is unbeatable at its price point. But you haven't said what cameras you own, what lenses you own, and what you want to shoot, so it could all be up in the air.

>>2940499
i have a canon rebel t5 right now. I want to be able to take better videos. I am looking at several cameras because id like to pick on up for hopefully a deal around black Friday. I really only shot with primes 50mm and 24mm. I liked how to 70d could use both ef and efs lenses. but the pentax seems to have really good specs

File: IMG_9405.jpg (78KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 800x600px

Looking for a fairly wide prime which I can use on both my digital and film SLRs. Thinking about the 24 2.8 D. Is there anything else I should consider?

I've heard it's a great little lens.

[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	800
Image Height	600
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>2940506
Pentax doesn't really focus on video capabilities. People buy pentax cameras because they are rugged, well-priced, and produce good image quality for stills while having access to the same lens mount they've been using since the seventies. I can't tell you what cameras do video well because that's not my focus, but I own a pentax and have read a lot about their systems, and video just isn't a priority for the company. I've heard a lot of people talk about mirrorless cameras and their video capabilities, so maybe some other anon can give you better insight.

>Points lens down
>lens zooms in from gravity

>>2940344
He's moving up to medium format, only way up from a7r

Reposting from last thread:

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

>tl;dr: Canon 550D+ 3 lenses and accessories (350$, Fuji XE1 + manual lenses and accessories for 300$) good price to sell?

>>2940506
If you want great video and good stills, take a look at the Pana GX 80/85.

>>2940492
No

>>2940527

I have one like that.

Except it zooms out.

The zoom is backwards.

>>2940492
extension tube

close-up lenses are dumb.

File: _20161005_153140.jpg (514KB, 2017x2125px) Image search: [Google]

514KB, 2017x2125px

is having this oil on the blades very bad?

>>2940492
Close up lens. But only a good achromatic one (Marumi or maybe Raynox).

>>2940578
I disagree.

>>2940510
What is fairly wide to you? If you like small lenses, I'd rather have a 20/2.8D. Now you're getting wide, and 30mm is still wide on crop bodies. The 24 is also good if you'd rather not be too wide, and also gives you based 36mm equiv on crop bodies.

>>2940492
What are you using it for?
the 100 f2 is a portrait lens, which kinda has the complete opposite desired characteristics of a macro lens.

desu, you'd be far better off with an old dedicated macro instead of trying to bodge one. If it's for something that's always a set distance, and absolute accuracy and sharpness are important, nothing comes close to a good enlarger lens on bellows.

Polarizing filters are cool, but are they useful for 85mm prime? I am mostly going to use it for portraits anyways, so there will not be much glare. Should I get it?

>>2940598
not for portraits.
Polarizers are used for reflective/transparent surfaces, like rivers, windows and reflective car bodies.
Priceless for those situations, worthless for portrait.

>>2940594
Why would you recommend bad things to others?

>>2940625
Removing ugly glare from the eyes. Very useful.

Opinions on the Canon Rebel series?

>>2940598
Maybe if the person wore glasses, that's about it tho

>>2940538
okay update: somebody asked for just the 550D body. I think I will still wait until the end of the week and see if somebody takes the whole set, but assuming not, what would be a good price to sell just the body? I was thinking 220-250$?

>>2940590
the main reason oily aperture blades can be a problem is because it can make them not move as smoothly as they should. This can lead to exposure problems when you press the button, your camera smacks the stop-down lever, and the blades don't move to where they should, or don't do so in time for the opening of the shutter.

Poke the lever yourself with the lens off the camera and see if the blades move smoothly. Put your lens on your camera and use it at a variety of apertures. See if any of them are improperly exposed. If you don't notice any problems, then don't worry about it, go and enjoy your lens.

>>2940635
losing two stops of light to have a completely unnoticeable effect on the eyes, terrible idea in majority of situations

though it would be worth doing if they're wearing eyeglasses as the other anon pointed out.

>>2940625
>>2940703
I used a polarizer for a portrait once because it'd cost me almost two stops of light

it was a bright day with harsh light, and so I wanted to use fill flash. but everything was so bright that I had to be at f/8 to avoid overexposing. Didn't have an ND filter on me so I used a polarizer.

>>2940641
It's shit. Pentax or Nikon instead if you must have a DSLR

>>2940710
You have a camera without control of the shutter?

You're not going to get a clean portrait with a long-exposure and that is the only time a filter is needed to darken the image.

Everything else can be darkened by shutter speed, which also makes getting a sharp picture easier than with slow shutter.

Gearfags trying justifying their excess gear for the most inane reasons.

I have a Canon T5i and the following lenses:

>Canon 50mm f/1.8 STM
>Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8
>Sigma 30mm f/1.4 ART (the new version, DC whatever)
>Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4 Image Stabilized
>favorite all-purpose is the 30mm but my favorite wedding lens is the Tokina

I don't have anything majorly telephoto. I was eying the Canon 24-105mm f/4 L lens around $1000 since on my APS-C sensor the effective focal range is 38-168mm, but is there something a little cheaper? I've looked at Sigma and Tamron lenses and not too impressed in the effective 150mm+ range. Most seem to be f/6 or f/8 and this isn't even the best during peak daytime.

Primary use is wildlife.

>>2940717
he was using flash, so he couldn't just shoot at 1/4000, he's limited by the sync speed.

>have a 72mm lens, a 62mm lens, a 49mm lens, and a 77mm lens
>all these fucking filters

I need a CPL for each and an NDX for two or three of them. Without using stepping rings, what's a good brand? Gobe looks good and affordable, I see nothing but good reviews.

File: 308F3703.jpg (2MB, 2464x1648px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2464x1648px

>>2940574
?
>>2940578
Why's that?
>>2940594
I was planning on buying a Canon.
>>2940597
>What are you using it for?

Bugs and shit.
Plus some jewelry and other manufactured goods.
I thought the ideal characteristics of lenses ere about the same: sharpness, contrast and decent bokeh.
Tell me about enlarger lenses.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS-1D
Firmware Version	Firmware Version 1.4.0
Serial Number	0000021256
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2001:01:06 08:33:44
Exposure Time	1/160 sec
F-Number	f/4.5
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	200
Lens Aperture	f/4.6
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	100.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	2464
Image Height	1648
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Exposure Mode	Manual
Focus Type	Auto
Metering Mode	Evaluative
Sharpness	Unknown
Saturation	Unknown
Contrast	Unknown
Shooting Mode	Manual
Image Size	Large
Focus Mode	One-Shot
Drive Mode	Unknown
Flash Mode	Off
Compression Setting	Fine
Macro Mode	Normal
White Balance	Daylight
Exposure Compensation	3
Sensor ISO Speed	192
Camera Actuations	4054
Color Matrix	3

>>2940641
The 350D was good.

>>2940727
Was. It is pretty shit by now especially if you compare it in it's price range to a used Pentax body.

Alright faggots

I want to film videos with the 'cinematic effect'. Is a canon 550D (rebel t2i) + standard 18-135mm + canon ef 50mm 1.8 for 403USD a good deal?

>>2940783
Panasonic GX7 would be better for "that film look"

>>2940676
Jupiter-9 has a manual stop-down. Thanks for the advice.

>>2940596
Having it as a 35mm equivalent on crop is a pretty good point actually. 20 is probably the widest I need but it's a lot more expensive.

>>2940703
Speaking of stops ... am I going to lose stops with a hama skylight 1A (LA+10)? I know close to nothing regarding filters and their use.

>>2940804
Why would you use an ugly clear filter that only degrades IQ, let alone a cheap piece of chinese shit at that?
Why?
If you want a filter get a CPL filter for your lens and experiment.

>>2940804

Maybe a tenth of a stop. Skylights are essentially transparent glass.

>>2940634
Well, they are not bad. They're actually pretty good:
https://www.flickr.com/groups/marumi/pool/

That said, if you need more, sure, get a proper macro lens like the Sony 90mm FE.

>>2940725
>I was planning on buying a Canon.
Nothing stops you from using Marumi achromats on Canon lenses.

But if you mean that you are going buying a proper macro lens - well, the newer 100mm f/2.8 Canon "L" Macro is something I can recommend. Almost as good as the 90mm FE.

>>2940807
I just want it to cover the lens so I won't scratch or get shit on the glass. I can also fight lens-flares I suppose.

>>2940811
You will get shitloads of flares and ghosting with that shit. Forget it! Modern lens designs also have hardened coating on the front element so it is hard to scratch and easy to clean dust off. It is better to use a lens hood if you want extra protection against bumping it into things.

>>2940813
My lens was made in the ~70's in USSR

>>2940723
Just buy a pile of Hoya Pro1s and cry your self to sleep. Life's too short to waste time on shitty polarizers. At least the Pro1 isn't terribly expensive.

>tfw shoot based film/early AF era Nikon
>tfw only need a 52 for 80% of my lenses

>>2940817
So? You can put a metal screw on lens hood on it and call it a day.

>>2940809
>Nothing stops you from using Marumi achromats on Canon lenses.

I know that, but why wouldn't I just get a Canon 250D?

Why would I get the 100mm over the 180mm?
I don't want to have to carry another lens anyway.

I just wanted to know which option was better until I buy the 65mm MP-E

>>2940089
Get the d610 and not the d750

>>2940887
Pentax K-50 with Pentax auto bellows "A" extender and SMC Pentax 100mm f/4 bellows lens

http://www.pentaxforums.com/content/uploads/files/1/p1884/The_Pentax_Bellows.pdf

File: Hp5Ae1028.jpg (294KB, 1657x700px) Image search: [Google]

294KB, 1657x700px

>>2940723
>only one of these is a real filter size
Sucks to be a digital babby, doesn't it?
>>2940818
This.
Based 52 and 67mm for almost everything I actually use. Pic related.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 550D
Camera Software	GIMP 2.8.6
Firmware Version	Firmware Version 1.0.8
Serial Number	1132529712
Lens Name	EF100mm f/2.8 Macro USM
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	350 dpi
Vertical Resolution	350 dpi
Image Created	2015:06:14 17:14:07
Exposure Time	1/125 sec
F-Number	f/11.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/11.3
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	100.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1657
Image Height	700
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Exposure Mode	Manual
Focus Type	Auto
Metering Mode	Center-Weighted
Sharpness	Unknown
Saturation	Normal
Contrast	Normal
Shooting Mode	Manual
Image Size	Unknown
Focus Mode	One-Shot
Drive Mode	Timed
Flash Mode	Off
Compression Setting	Fine
Self-Timer Length	10 sec
Macro Mode	Normal
White Balance	Daylight
Exposure Compensation	3
Sensor ISO Speed	160
Color Matrix	129

>>2940887
> I know that, but why wouldn't I just get a Canon 250D?
You might want a +3 or +5 diopter rather than a +2 or +4 and more size choices?

Also, the question is why wouldn't you just get a Marumi DHG - the Canon is the more expensive lens.

> Why would I get the 100mm over the 180mm?
Maybe 'cause you want a sharper, brighter lens with fast enough AF to make it useful for other purposes?

YMMV if lots of your subjects are easily spooked or the 180mm otherwise has important advantages to you.

> I just wanted to know which option was better until I buy the 65mm MP-E
If you need the 65mm MP-E for bigger than 1:1 macro, you probably are more in prime+bellows territory. Or reversed prime.

But if it's only between an extension tube and an achromatic lens, it's probably just the achromatic lens

>>2940895
I don't want to buy another camera.

>>2940911
>the Canon is the more expensive lens

I buy used so the Canon comes out to be a fair bit cheaper.

At least with the 180mm, I get a longer focal length.

I don't need the MP-E right now, but I'd like to get it eventually.

I wanted to know which ~$35 option would produce better results because I want to get a little closer.

The difference is between a 25mm extension tube plus another or a 250D lens.

Why would the lens be better?

>>2940929
Then just get the bellows, maybe the M42 mount and the bellows lens. Adapter for the Canon body then you have an extender with a focusing knob.

>>2940902
>tfw sold my fdn 50 1.4
at least i made $75 profit and bought minolta md 50 1.7 and bentax-m 50 1.7. funny thing is, i like the 1.7 better because it's light weight.

>>2940950
>i like the 1.7 better because it's light weight
Not to mention sharper.
BTW what are you doing with so many 50mm lenses? Do you have a Sony?

>>2940902
>No 1.4 SSC

>>2940723
What turd of a lens are you using that takes 49mm?

should I get an original RX100 for 250-300 used or an RX100 mk 3 for 550-600 used?

The pop-up EVF looks really fucking cool but I don't think it's worth it if the image quality bump is only negligible

>>2940970
The lens and quite a bit more changed between these. Not easy to tell if it's worth it for you.

You might also just want a A6000 if you require a good degree of image quality.

>>2940783
Not a bad deal, but T2i can only produce subpar quality 1080p at 20 (not 24!) fps. So unless you're going for early 20th century cinematic effect, it's terrible.

Also, if you only do video, there's no reason to get a DSLR since the optical viewfinder is unusable in video mode. Look at some Panasonics and Sonys.

Switching to Canon when the 6d II comes out.

35/2 IS vs 35/1.4 L II ???

would want a 24-70/4 for vidya and wide end. Teles will be primes. 35/IS gives more options for vidya, is a pretty sharp dude, but not god tier like the 1.4.

Keep your sigmaron lenses to yourselves.

>>2941104
>cheaper
>IS for video
>sharp
>smaller and lighter

Do you want to pay $1000 for a stop of light? Do you use 35mm as your mainstay lens to make money?

http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/sony-will-announce-a6500-rx100m5/

a6300 buyers on post purchase rationalization.

>>2940970
tilty screen is nice.

I need somebody who knows their way around zenits. The viewfinder displays roughly 80% of what will be on the final picture. Is that true with zenit B, ET, 11 and 12? It seems like zenit B has much less in terms of how much it shows. It feels like i am using a 85mm when using the original helios. When i use the lens on a different zenit (em, 11 and 12), it looks more like 58mm. Is tbe model B (V) that different?

File: _20161006_105926.jpg (881KB, 3113x2077px) Image search: [Google]

881KB, 3113x2077px

>>2941161

File: structure.jpg (68KB, 960x616px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 960x616px

>>2941158
>IBIS

Fucker is gonna be heavy.

Still I'd buy it over a6300.

But then again, I'd buy an A7II over both since Sony isn't releasing any new APS-C lenses anytime soon.

What lens is that in the photo?