/gear/ thread WOODEN GRIP-Edition

File: IMG_20161006_220044.jpg (307KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

307KB, 1000x1000px

Well fuck.

Don't put filters in your back pockets guys.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Model	F-04G
Camera Software	VSCO Android Version
Equipment Make	FUJITSU
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	28 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Created	2016:10:06 22:00:45
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB
F-Number	f/2.0
Subject Distance Range	Unknown
Focal Length	4.80 mm
Lens Aperture	f/2.0
Exposure Mode	Auto
Image Height	1536
Rendering	Normal
Scene Capture Type	Standard
White Balance	Auto
Image Width	2048
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Flash	No Flash
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Brightness	0.1 EV
ISO Speed Rating	339
Exposure Time	33333/1000000 sec

File: 600EX.jpg (92KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 1000x1000px

Is the Canon 600EX screen better than the 580EX

http://photo-tips-online.com/review/canon-600ex-vs-canon-580ex-ii/
Thinks so, but Ken Rockwell says differently.

>>2941246
Thank you OP

File: D3S_9016-flash-1200.jpg (175KB, 1200x924px) Image search: [Google]

175KB, 1200x924px

I'm getting this and a few Sigma 60mm f2.8 art lens

did I fuck

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

>>2941253
I hope you like cameras that are underequipped for ANY job you can think of.

Olympus OM-D E-M10 or Sony a6000? I need to upgrade from my NEX-5n to something that somewhat looks professional and has a bigger resolution. Already got some stuff for the E-Mount like a kit lens and the sigma 30mm f2.8 dn ex, but none of the lower budget bodies have in-camera stabilizer from sony and olympus bodies only get focus peaking in video mode with the em 5- mk2.

Any alternatives? I have around 300€.

I just bought a used entry level crop camera. How did I do?

>>2941279
Repost because I didn't see the new one. Need cheap camera that can produce usable images.

Found my dad's old FD lenses.
>Tokina 200mm f3.5 Auto-tele
>Tokina 28mm f2.8
>Canon 50mm f1.8
>2x tele-converter
They are all pretty dusty inside but I want to use them for video on my G7 anyway.
Still waiting for the adapter, wondering if any of you have experience with these?
Also, how hard is it to open lenses and clean them yourself and how expensive is it to have it done?

File: photo_2016-10-06_17-33-51.jpg (180KB, 1280x854px) Image search: [Google]

180KB, 1280x854px

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 (ET, 11 and 12), it looks more like 58mm. Is the model B (V) that different?

someone is selling their elmarit 28mm F2.8 but its leitz on Cl for $550. should i cop?

thinking of getting the nikkor 55 1.2 for my f90x, and maybe adapt it to the fuji, read a bunch of reviews from like the 2000s and some of them claim it's inferior to the 50 1.2, should I get the 55 or spend 100$ more for the 50, guys? any of you had experience with either? thanks in advance

Apparently the RX100 V can shoot 24 fps at 20 Megapixel.

With a 150 image buffer, not sure if RAW or JPEG.

File: trio.jpg (63KB, 800x496px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 800x496px

Is this some kind of joke?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2015.5 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	634
Image Height	511
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2016:10:05 14:45:50
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	800
Image Height	496

I lost my tiny Manfrotto tripod. Considering replacing it with one of those Gorilla-Pods. I mostly mount non-camera stuff on there like a Smartphone for Remote Control, my Audio Recorder or a Mikrophone. Anyone have any experiences with different Brands and types and can give some recommendations?

>>2941415
Ultrapod II
The velcro strap is a lot more reliable and less wobbly than those stupid Gorillamemes.

>>2941418
Looks promising, but it's not as versatile as a Gorilla pod as I see it. Just a tacticool tripod with a strap

>>2941421
Gorillapod "in theory" can attach to more surfaces.
In reality, it'll just fall off of more things. If you can't find a tree or a railing on which an Ultrapod is suitable, you won't find a good surface for a Gorillapod either. At that point you should simply be using a real tripod.

Buy whatever you want, but Gorillapod's are a known meme, and broken Gorillapod legs are a planned obsolescence. On the other hand, I've seen a 20 year old Ultrapod in use.

File: 1475553600561.jpg (183KB, 666x486px) Image search: [Google]

183KB, 666x486px

Can one /diy/ a wooden grip for a Canon 70D?

It just looks cool :^)

>>2941426
>Can one /diy/ a wooden grip for a Canon 70D?
Of course you can

>>2941250
Now you have two ND filters.

>>2941280
Get a used Pentax K-S1 with kit lens.

Going to try some nightclub video work tonight again /gear/.

What do you of think of a Canon EOS 6D, Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8, GSS LCD Loupe and this https://www.teds.com.au/glanz-led-98a-video-light for lighting?

I tried it last week with just the lens and camera and the gain noise and shakyness of the it was horrible, but they still posted it.

Posted this in the /vid/ general but no reply :(

Any lense recommended for AE-1?

>>2941484
Canon FD lenses.

>>2941497
Yeah, but which ones are good and which ones aren't?

>>2941514
The ones that are hazy, dusty or have fungus inside them, focus ring is stuck, aperture is oily or stuck are definitely bad.

>>2941254
sports photographer located

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.

>>2941525
Nah, early NEX cameras were simply bad. Their menu system wasn't just bad, it looked like it was designed by someone whol only designed video games and playstations before. Most of the camera related stuff was renamed to idiotic stuff that was lame and stupid for anyone remotely familiar with cameras.
Anon done goofed with that one.

>>2941531

>shoots weddings at 16mm

crikey

>>2941531
either get the EF-S 55-250 or a Sigma/Tamron 150-600

I need a long standard for EF but I'm not sure what to do.

I've got a 40mm Voigtlander, and the 70-200 2.8. Are there any worthwhile lenses in the 55-70 range?

>>2941303
Anyone?

>>2941456
>this https://www.teds.com.au/glanz-led-98a-video-light for lighting
That price seems quite ridiculous vs a Yongnuo or something LED panel.

Also that panel might be too small for people.

Anything like the a6300? Apsc, small and lets you use normal sized lenses.

File: IMG_5692.jpg (169KB, 640x1136px) Image search: [Google]

169KB, 640x1136px

First time trying to reface a camera.
The faux leather coating came off. I don't think it looks that bad.


Thoughts?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	640
Image Height	1136
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>2941586
A6500?
A6000?
Depends on whether you want to go up and down in price.

XT-2 is also bretty good if you don't mind getting anal raped by price tag.

>>2941586
Well, there is the A6000, though of course the A6300 is better.

And normal sized lenses can be used on most APS-C and - this one just has a nice sensor and focus peaking and on the body, plus the option for electronics with AF capable adapters.

>>2941599
>>2941601
So it's basically only the Sony cameras..?

The issue I have with a6300 is that it's only 30fps at 4k.
It really hurts your eyes watching it.
Any idea if the a6500 does 4k 60fps?

>>2941626
People normally go down in resolution if they want higher framerate.

You probably need to get your hands on the expensive camcorders.

>>2941525
>>2941253
We're talking about a camera that will lag and shit itself from anything as simple as turning it on. The buffer is about 2 shots - good luck with that even in single shot mode, and the autofocus will be as bad as old generation DSLRs in live view.

Have fun.

>>2941630
Yeah I guess the A6000 is the only option then.

>>2941626
> So it's basically only the Sony cameras..?
With AF, yes. Without AF (and maybe without electronics) it's kinda everything.

> only 30fps at 4k
Unlike which other camera?

I mean, you could get a *video* oriented camera (some of which pretty big), but otherwise there isn't much, is there?

Most people still watch 30fps movies and broadcasts, too...

>>2941634
That's an aged sensor which isn't as good at video.

>>2941649
Then why do the Xpro2 and XT2 take wonderful video with the same sensor?

It's not the sensor, its the shit camera its attached to. Bozo.

>>2941652
>with the same sensor
I thought Fuji cams used better sensor than the old A6000.

In your attempt to shit on the A6000, you accidentally spray your shit on the Fuji cams.

>>2941649
>A6000
>aged sensor
This is what Sony users believe

>>2941655
Nah. Just reveal your lack of understanding of the backend of how cameras work.

The Xpro2 and XT2 have a very robust solid copper wired infrastructure behind them, a professional build quality, and this coupled with a processor built by a company that is visually literate gets much more out of the sensor.

The A6000 is capable of perfectly fine video, though. Just not as good as the Fujis, which are better than the newest Sonys. The technology across the board exceeds your skills, so its all a moot point really.

>>2941661
Newer sensors can record 6000x3375 resolution video.

>>2941662
That's a long winded way of admitting the Fuji cams use newer and different sensor than A6000.

>>2941267
You haven't said what you are actually using it for but from your mentions of stabilization and focus peaking I infer you want video. In that case, you don't want the Sony or Olympus. You want the Panasonic GH4 which will be dropping in price now that the GH5 is coming.

>>2941663
Here's some news for you, most people don't care about video. Also you don't need 6000x3375 resolution for vlogs

https://www.dpreview.com/news/2220614606/hands-on-and-in-depth-with-the-sony-a6500

>a6300 user on rage management
also
>$1400

>>2941661
the new a6500 is not even bsi.
just copper wiring and new processor.
a6000 is still good until bsi and stacked dram.

>>2941686
The original poster wanted 60 fps 4K resolution.
So it was fair to assume these newer sensors might have relevant changes to them.

I don't understand why it's hard for some of you to admit older sensors differ a bit from newer sensors. You guys really need some chill pills.

File: DSC_0551.jpg (3MB, 4288x2848px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 4288x2848px

Hi,
My Nikon D5000 isn't turning on. No lights at all. It was brought around in a tank bag on my motorbike so my guess is something disconnected internally.

My question, is this something that someone tech savy can fix themselves becasue the guy in the camera shop said it'd cost around the price I gave for it to fix it if they sent it to Nikon!

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D5000
Camera Software	Ver.1.00
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/5.7
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	848
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	82 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2016:08:12 14:52:47
Exposure Time	1/200 sec
F-Number	f/13.0
Exposure Program	Not Defined
ISO Speed Rating	200
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	Flash, Auto, Return Detected
Focal Length	55.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	4288
Image Height	2848
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	None
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown
ISO Speed Used	200
Image Quality	FINE
White Balance	AUTO
Focus Mode	AF-A
Flash Setting	NORMAL
Auto Flash Mode	Built-in,TTL
Flash Compensation	0.0 EV
ISO Speed Requested	200
Flash Bracket Compensation	0.0 EV
AE Bracket Compensation	0.0 EV
Lens Type	Nikon G Series
Lens Range	18.0 - 55.0 mm; f/3.5 - f/5.6
Shooting/Bracketing Mode	Single Frame/Off
Noise Reduction	OFF
Camera Actuations	15327
Digital Vari-Program	AUTO

>>2941696
>differ a bit
>aged sensor
newer sensors having a bit of difference from the older one does not mean the older one is aged you dumb little shit

>>2941698
6000x3375 vs. 1920x1080 is a big difference.

>>2941700
Is your TV 6000x3375? Is anyone watching 6000x3375 resolution on Youtube?
Is your computer beefed enough to edit 6000x3375 videos?

I'm starting to believe most Sony users are under 18.

>>2941697
just get a bentax next time.

>>2941707
You can have both aged TC as well as aged computer and aged camera sensor.

I'm sorry but the world will move on and occasionally call you aged, but it isn't meant as insult.

>>2941689
>the new a6500 is not even bsi.
It's using a middle of the road design which is not as good as BSI, but at the same time it will also cost less than BSI.

File: 2.jpg (72KB, 764x350px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 764x350px

>>2941714
>>2941689

Sort of almost there, but not quite. But should be excellent for most people.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	paint.net 4.0.5
Image-Specific Properties:
Pixel Composition	RGB
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1024
Image Height	588

>>2941713
>two years old
>aged
Sony users, everyone

>>2941717
Sensor technology moves fast within 2 years.

>>2941719
My dick moves fast in your mom

i have a canon rebel t5
Is the pentax k70 a step up?
the specs seem to good to be true for the price

gh4 cheap lens, rec?

>>2941763
Yes
But it is only such a big step up from a Canon rebel. Or two digit intermediate bodies.

>>2941763
Buy glass

>>2941448
How much is that? My budget is more in the 50-100 dollar range until my loans are paid off.

>>2941633

Even the first generation NEX cameras aren't as bad as you are describing.

>>2941662
>newest fujis better

Only one Fuji beats the a6300, the xt-2. And it only does so barely.

Nothing by Fuji beats the price/performance of the a6000 eithe.r

Whats a flash focal length?
If I use a 24mm flash with a 17mm lens what will happen? Could I die?

File: Bildschirmfoto 2016-10-06 um 16.29.52_zpsjnnsopi7.png (101KB, 700x353px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 700x353px

>>2941687

I wish Sony would straighten ojt.model numbers. One year they use a3000, a5000, and a6000 to differentiate between intro-pro. Now they are using a6000, a6300, and a6500. It is a mess.

>>2941800
You will need a diffusor to widen your flash angle. It will take 1/3 stop of light.

>>2941801
>Now they are using a6000, a6300, and a6500.
But this actually makes sense. The A6300 is evolution/improvement of A6000, not A3000 or A5000.

If they called it the A5300, you would just get a true clusterfuck where people get confused as to why the 6000 is worse than the 5300.

>>2941801
>create new system
>obsolete bodies immensely fast
>drive sales
No shit.
Canon and Nikon and even MFT are settling in, finding the few golden lenses and discarding the crap being shat out every year. Sonytards just keep on buying.

Bought a used lens off keh, works great - they didn't give me lens Caps for either end though, want to shoot this weekend but amazon cant get me replacememt Caps fast enough, will a plastic bag be enough to keep it safe in my bag for one or two outings? Should be sunny all weekend

>>2941821
Should be okay enough if you also have adequate cushioning around that.

You always bring cleaning tools (for most people, that might be something like a microfibre towel and air blower or cosmetic brush) anyhow, right ?

>>2941830
It'll be in my camera bag proper with fitted foam pads but I always get paranoid about the little things.

Little air blower comes with me, I leave everything else at home

>>2941832
Should be fine then.

IMO, always pack small microfiber towels. Can be less than 2g of extra weight and you can now clean fat or whatever without leaving as much residue or dust like your clothes or whatever probably will.

I have a friend with a Nikon and 18-105 lens. He only uses it occasionally, but in the last year the image quality has gotten worse. It still gives the focus beep quickly in both OVF and live view but when you look at the photos the outside edges are all blurry and the center is better but still very soft. I had the lens and sensor cleaned but it's still the same. Sometimes the camera gets an E error on the top LCD that has to be cleared by turning it off and on. Is the camera fucked, the lens, or both? Would the lens be more expensive to repair than buying a new one?

>>2941816
This desu.

Who needs to release crop standard lenses for your shit tier crop bodies when you can just release a new body whenever you feel like it.
That Zeiss partnership don't work for crop, Contax could have made it work, Sony can't handle it.

Is a Fuji X70 for $600 AUD a good deal?

File: 1006162330-1600x900.jpg (291KB, 1600x900px) Image search: [Google]

291KB, 1600x900px

I got this for 20 bucks, but i just got into photography (using just a nikon d3300 and kit lens). Whats good here? Also sorry for super flash

File: 1475135544519.png (977KB, 595x845px) Image search: [Google]

977KB, 595x845px

>>2941246
I'm looking into getting my first DSLR camera within a 500-750 price range.

At the moment I think the Nikon D5300 is appealing, but if anyone has any advice or suggestions it would be greatly appreciated.

>>2941938
All modern digital cameras are more than adequate. Go to a store and play with them, then buy the one that's the most comfortable for you to use.

>>2941942
The thing is I need something with good quality for photographing events and conferences, etc..

>>2941895

I wonder how their FF sales compare to their crop?

Since they focus so much of FF lenses, I assume their FF owners buy more lenses.

>>2941953
good rule is to spend less on body, more on the lens

>>2941953
A6000 + Sigma 30mm f/1.4 or some such.

>>2941921
someone please answer this, thanks :)

>>2941921
>>2941993
If it's in great condition and hardly used, yeah

>>2941246
Tfw I've been beat for the last two gear threads.
And this mysterious Pentax man is going to show me up.

>>2941997
Thanks, I'll try and bargain it down to $550

>>2942000
Pentacks has always been for Gear threads, lurk more you fucking newcunt

File: image.jpg (140KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

140KB, 1000x1000px

>>2941246
Tiny flash units? I want something as small as the NEX flash units but for my a6000

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1000
Image Height	1000
Scene Capture Type	Standard

t5i refurb for $629 or panasonic g7 for $700? i want to take high quality (sometimes candid) photos of people at events/gatherings. i will do video but it will only be a side thing so i dont care much for the 4k of the g7

>>2942026
includes 18-135mm IS STM lens

File: le hasselblad face.png (22KB, 418x559px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 418x559px

>>2941426
this picture has never been more appropriate

File: s-l300.jpg (18KB, 300x226px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 300x226px

>>2941246

>WOODEN GROUP-Edition

Speaking of, should I get this?

Worried it wont fit with my Techart Pro though.

File: 1475640036000_IMG_683583.jpg (44KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 500x500px

>>2941408

Unfortunately no.

I doubt it will be any good unless you are into instagram filters.

>>2942039
What's the point of this shit besides making the camera heavier and bulkier?

>>2941426

>no (you)

Sorry you missed out, anon.

You will get a GF some day.

>>2942042

Minor protection of camera body when you set it down.

Plus some of the autofocus adapters stick out the buttom, messing up balance.

And if you have large hands, it can make it easier to hold.

>>2942040
>>2941408
This could actually be cool if they rotated the whole lens, and not just the front filter.
Kind of like the science microscopes we had in biology lab.

(I'm assuming it's just the front filters that's rotated, since I don't know anything about this lens.)

>>2942047

I assume it just replaces the front element.

Is oil on an old manual lens a problem? It works well now, but is the oil going to get so sticky that i will not be able to change the aperture overtime?

>>2942053
Not likely.

But it can cause issues if the camera opens aperture wide open to focus.

The oil can slow it down/cause it to get stuck.

>>2941933
neither of those lenses is gonna be great, really. and the ZX-60 isn't renowned as one of Pentax's better models.

That said, it's 20 bucks, so who gives a crap. Go have some fun with it.

more info:
http://www.pentaxforums.com/camerareviews/pentax-mz-60-zx-60.html
http://www.pentaxforums.com/userreviews/sigma-70-300mm-f4-5-6-dl-macro-super.html
http://www.pentaxforums.com/userreviews/quantaray-28-90mm-1-3-5-5-6-mc-aspherical.html

>>2941639
>Unlike which other camera?
The Panasonic G85 and GH5 can do 4k 60/50fps
They will also not have massive Jello problems because IBIS

>>2942049
>I assume it just replaces the front element.
I assume it has no other elements because it's fucking lensbaby.

File: table-and-font-b-chairs-b-font-furniture-foot-pads-font-b-Ottomans-b-font-Thick.jpg (125KB, 800x800px) Image search: [Google]

125KB, 800x800px

>>2942046
Can't I just stick a couple of these to the bottom and accomplish the same without an extra half a pound?

>>2942081
Well, one isn't out yet and the other doesn't have 60FPS.

But you're right, these should be interesting.

>>2942080
Is it worth getting a lens adapter to use the lenses? I dont really have enough money to buy other lenses right now than the kit lens i have.

File: 1458530539812.jpg (181KB, 750x750px) Image search: [Google]

181KB, 750x750px

I want to do nature photography. What Camera should I get.
Should I get a used one? I'm having my doubts about getting a used one as I know that most photographers are greasy lonely nerds walking around alone on the campus.
>inb4 sony a6000
No shilling please.

>>2942231
>nature

is that bird watching or landscapes

>>2942231
For birding in bright scenes, consider getting an Olympus. They are small, lightweight and can get a very long focal lens way easier than Crop-sensor or FF cameras.
Birding with fullframe requires a pickup truck worth of gear.

>>2942231
>most photographers are greasy lonely nerds

Are you afraid that they cum on the camera or something?

If you buy a used camera, you *want* one from a lonely nerd rather than one from a real working professional, it'll be in better condition.

>>2941700
i guess you have never actually worked with video before or made a film if you cant understand how shooting in a resolution higher than the end result would be benificial

>>2942258
>if you cant understand how shooting in a resolution higher than the end result would be benificial
But that's exactly what I'm arguing for is a good and significant thing.

The other anon just got a little sore because I called his dslr sensor for aged.

>>2942231
>most photographers are greasy lonely nerds walking around alone on the campus.
Nice projection faggot. Get a Sony, it suits your personality.

>>2941707
>>2942260
oops. i meant to reply to him

>>2941538

Anyone?

>>2942251
>Are you afraid that they cum on the camera or something?
Exactly. You never know

File: 1.png (7KB, 420x185px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 420x185px

>+1000 comments
It's chaos and battlefield in there.

Sony must have become the most controversial camera maker this year.

>>2941895

At least the Zeiss partnership has given birth to some amazing glass.

Does anyone here have a medium format digital camera? I want to take my dick pics to the next level and I think this may be the way to go.

>>2942305
>have you guys seen the NEW 55mm? It's AMAZEBALLS!
lol aight

File: christina-picture-7.16.jpg (160KB, 1200x685px) Image search: [Google]

160KB, 1200x685px

want to shoot a music video for as cheap as possible with that cinematic professional effect. I'm thinking of getting a canon T2I/550d + 50mm 1.8 I could get this bundle for 400$. What are your recommendations?

>>2942312
Check out this
http://www.zeiss.com/content/dam/Photography/new/pdf/en/downloadcenter/datasheets_loxia/loxia_2821.pdf

Compare to this
http://www.zeiss.com/content/dam/Photography/new/pdf/en/downloadcenter/datasheets_milvus/milvus2821.pdf
The slr lens is not only larger and heavier, it's also more expensive.

>>2942305
Isn't that just a Zeiss logo on Sony-designed & engineered (top range, but still sony) glass?

>>2942320
>The slr lens is not only larger and heavier, it's also more expensive.
Holy shit, you have stumbled on something major here. Have you contacted petapixel?

Q: what is overengineering a lens to make up for inherent flaws and under-precision in light angle & flange distance?
A: "godly" Zony lenses

>>2941246
What are some good but cheap/entry lvl monolights?

>>2942323
But the paradox here: the smaller, ligther, cheaper lens has better MTF, less distortion, less vignetting.

If that isn't amazing, then what is?

>>2942318
Oh or I could get the canon 70D body for 335$

>>2941797
I used to own one- I promise it is.

>>2942328
how the hell do you get a 70D that cheap

its gotta be stolen or broken

>>2942325
Better, a relative comparison, should rarely amaze you. Consumerism is to blame for that. It is also notoriously subjective when it comes to real world imaging and not "it performs better on the Y axis of this graph."

In reality there are much smaller, nicer 21mm lenses available. Sony being typically the mirrorless brand of choice for former rebel owners though, there's still a certain mentality towards "I NEED UPGRADE" and "MORE ELEMENTS IS BETTER" with a side of "the size of this lens will make people take me seriously."

Ultimately it's not that surprising that the Zony lenses are mostly massive and more impressive to gear-autists than photo-makers. It is their market share.

>>2942331
Because I'm gay
I just sent the guy selling it an email, let's hope he responds.

>>2942335
I'll take Zeiss word over your word.

If anything Zeiss makes more money on the Milvus lens, they should have fixed the numbers in the Milvus's favour if they wanted to deceive.

>>2942340
>they should have fixed
Lol, what? Who said anything about "fixing" anything? I'm pointing out that it's within a limited scope of comparative context and tells us very little about the lens in the real world, and factors in even less the most important part; usability.

I am not expecting you to write a snappy comeback or anything to me, I do realize you are either far too gone or too soon arrived in your adventures in gearfaggotry to actually understand the greater marketing dynamics I'm talking about.

I'm not accusing Zeiss of lying or anything for you to need to take "their word" over mine. I'm just telling you that you're a clueless young gearfriend that cares far too much about entirely meaningless benchmark comparisons, and that there is a direct correlation between your ignorance (to which those forms of comparison are most marketable) and their intentions as a corporate, money-making entity.

Sony-Zeiss are not designing lenses with the final output in mind, or with usability in mind. They are currently designing with specs and datasheets in mind because they intimately understand they've mostly adopted former entry level DSLR users to whom these things were already the native language.

No one's lying to anyone, you don't have to anthropomorphize corporate actions so vividly, Sony is just marketing to gearfriends primarily, and it shows in who now carries their banner.

Remember lad: no matter how many 55mm lenses you own, you still haven't taken a picture with them today.

>>2942346
Check out Ming Thein's comparison of Loxia 21 to Sigma 20.
Realise you're mistaken to assume the e-mount lens by default gives worse results in real world.

>>2942353
ctrl+f your post for "comparison"
ctrl+f my previous post for "relative comparison"
realize you're mistaken for making comparisons instead of photographs, and that Meme Thein is hardly a notable art or opinion-maker outside the realms of gearhusbandry.

>trying to wake a sony user up inside
I dunno what my goals are today desu senpai.

>>2942356
His review had the real world comparisons you like so much though, please don't move the goal post.

>>2942335
> gear-autists than photo-makers
Photographers (care about gear, processing, taking a shot properly) vs. snapshit "artists" that will take what's easy and cheap, if they even photograph this week.

Of course not everyone falls exactly into either stereotype, but yes, people that do work or have photography as a hobby will appreciate noticeable and "relative" improvements.

>>2942217
Why would you need an adapter? The 28-90 says "for pentax" on the box, I'd assume the sigma is K-mount to. Stick em on the camera.

If you mean want to put those lenses on your D3300, you're shit outta luck. K-mount has a shorter flange distance than F-mount, which means that they won't focus to infinity. Unless you get an adapter with compensating optics. Those are more expensive and degrade the image. No way should you get one for sold $20 consumer zooms.

>>2942363
>Of course not everyone falls exactly into either stereotype, but yes, people that do work or have photography as a hobby will appreciate noticeable and "relative" improvements.
Yeah, Canon sure has a lot of noticeable improvements going on, man.
Sorry, I didn't mean to offend a clear working Professional.

>>2942363
>Photographers (care about gear, processing, taking a shot properly) vs. snapshit "artists"
I'd also just like to point out that comments like this reveal your own incredibly newfaggotry.
a) your definition of photographers
b) your apparent belief that I can't process because I've since purchased a camera where I'm able to get the results I want from its own in-camera processing engine

I'm always happy to compare my work against professionals, should you wish to talk about processing. :3

File: 1366633548294.jpg (327KB, 1095x1195px) Image search: [Google]

327KB, 1095x1195px

Hi friends, first time posting on /p/

I would like to buy a reasonably priced dslr for taking general pics. What do I need to think about? I'd like to be able to easily change the lens, are there any standards here i should consider?
Also, I'd like to use it for some basic astrophotography at some point - a bonus would be a good sensor with a broad spectrum sensitivity. I've heard you can remove some filters and suddenly you can capture wavelengths towards near-IR/IR. Thoughts regarding this?

I'd like to not spend more than 4/500€

>pic unrelated

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1095
Image Height	1195

>>2942390
> I would like to buy a reasonably priced dslr for taking general pics. What do I need to think about?
The critical things (also price-wise) usually are what lens you use, how fast and convenient (how widely distributed across your viewfinder) the autofocus system is, how good the camera is with low light situations...

> I'd like to be able to easily change the lens, are there any standards here i should consider?
Most AF lenses are pretty vendor specific.

The exceptions are Sony mirrorless cameras which nowadays can adapt almost everything interesting almost as though it was a native lens, and MFT (which are compatible within the MFT ecosystem).


> I'd like to not spend more than 4/500€
You can get a K-50 or A6000 or something for about that much.

I'd reserve a few hundred more for one or more decent lenses (8 or 12mm Samyang or 35mm Sigma Art perhaps?), tripod and whatever else is needed though.

>>2941587
It took me a good long while to realise this was an attempt to actually replace the faux leather with white leather. It looks like you shoddily pasted some cotton swabs on it. You need to really pay more attention to the edges (both trimming and making sure they're glued on flat and straight) because I'm afraid I must say it looks like dogshit right now. Also, maybe reconsider white as a colour.

Where do I even begin if I want to use mechanical focus and not fbw? Could I do it with m43? Or x mount?

Thoughts on the Canon 1200d? I'm looking to buy my first camera

>>2942500
Buy a used K-50 instead.

I need a macro lens. Which one is better and which is the better value? Tamron AF 90/2.8 Macro or Sigma EX 105/2.8.
Old designs but look like excellent optics.

>>2942489
Do it on a focus peaking camera.

Sony's E-mount is a good choice because you can get nice sensors and up to FF in size (ergo you might not even need a focal reducer to use the full image circle of your lens).

But there are other options. Panasonic, Fuji, Pentax, ...

>>2942500
I have it, my first DSLR. It's noisy at high ISO speeds, but everything else is okay. Mine also came with a 75-300mm lens. Amazon has similar bundles for cheap.

I would suggest spending a little more on something better for low light. Or finding something much better used if you don't care if it's used or new.
I'm assuming the low price is much of the reason you picked this. The combined prices of my lenses makes the body like free. So it's probably as cheap as you can go for new DSLRs.

I like it so far, it's been good for general nature shots. But I wouldn't recommend it since the other models aren't too much more in price, especially with bundle deals.

But I'm not sure what you plan to shoot, maybe the camera is or isn't for you.
What's your price range?

>>2941268
Nothing wrong

>>2942330

I still own and use one daily.

It isn't.

Just got me a x-pro2 w/ the 35mm f/2 lens. And I'm rather infatuated with it.

But, how come the reviews I read never mentioned things such as how brutal (in both brightness and effectiveness, it's like a particularly strong LED on a cellphone camera module) the AF assist light can be? Or how the body is basically geared towards being a credible substitute for actual film, i.e. the colour modes being named and modelled after actual films, therefore recognizing that the "film looks" are basically the gold standard in terms of SOOC JPEGs?

Or how using the OVF in "viewfinder + sensor" mode (and not chimping) basically makes the shooting experience like using a film camera that's got whiz-bang techno shit from 2016?

What I'm asking is, are digital camera bodies reviewed by fucking rubes who've never done film in their lives?

>>2942597
Yes, yes they are. Fuji's XPRO2 is the first camera on which shooting only jpegs as a faster proxy to shooting film is entirely sufficient.

Most photographers are such lost gearheads that they will never wake up to the potential of the system, constantly choosing the illusion of choice. Fuji is a step away from the modern digital photographer's paralysis by analysis- if only he broadly knew of his own roadblock.

File: 13871972_10210055628205844_546629929_n.jpg (12KB, 275x183px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 275x183px

What is the most you would pay for a used d700 body in the USA? What would you consider to be a deal?

Looking to upgrade from a d3100 to a body with an internal focus motor. The d700 made sense as I enjoy night photography, and the older lenses that I own will cover a full frame.

>>2942624
I wouldn't

>paul blart
only someone that was a child in the past 10 years would post this.

File: 1356054105531.jpg (12KB, 251x207px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 251x207px

>>2942627
Why not? Is there a better alternative? Obviously I am trying to keep my budget as low as possible.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

>>2942312

There are a lot of valid complaints for e-mount. Lack of lenses, shit menus, massive lenses, not a single FE pancake, shoddy firmware updates, etc. etc.

But that their (albiet massive) lenses are 'bad' is not a valid one. You just have to look at some real world shots to see that they are in fact great.

>>2942679
she was mocking the number of 55mm sony has, not how good they are
calm your defenses

>>2942680

That just makes him look more retarded, since Sony only made one 55mm for FE.

>>2942681
Between swapping back and forth between mounts and Zeiss and Sony releases, they have quite a few 50-60mm.

>>2941531
You're great! Wildlife at 168mm.

Have you thought about a 70-200 f4 or a 150-600? All similarly priced to your 105... Which I don't think will ever work for wildlife unless you're in a zoo or taking pics of pigeons.

https://www.amazon.com/Photoolex-M500-Speedlite-Panasonic-single-contact/dp/B01I3BU8AO
Is this a fishy item? It's only 35$ and all of the store's answers are in broken English, also for some reason the store answered that this works on an A6300 but not an A6000
Is this just translation issues or is this a cheap China speedlite?

>>2942723
Also I can't find any reviews outside of Amazon or macrumors for this

>>2942723
> It's only 35$
A lot of flashes are about $30 on Aliexpress, so that's not a big surprise.

Many of them have a better UI, so you might want to grab one of these instead.

> A6000
Hm, that's already a pretty nice camera. You sure you don't want a better flash for it, maybe one with TTL or more light output?

>>2942634
Reasons to get a D700
>muh full frame
>dat brick shithouse build
>older nikon pro ergo, more physical switches
>legendarily good
Should be able to get under $1000, but watch the shutter count.

The only thing to consider is that while the pictures will be fine, the camera's software may feel dated, and ISO performance is going to be about the same as a D7200. Or looking another way, it took 8 years for APS-C noise performance to catch up to the D700.

>>2942515
Anyone? These two I'm looking at on ebay are not the new designs. No IS or HSM focus.

File: sony-rx100-a6500-2979.0.0.jpg (2MB, 2200x1467px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2200x1467px

Man, as a camera company, Sony has certainly made quite a lot of fuck ups.

But the whole a6k series is absolutely fantastic.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D500
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.5.1 (Macintosh)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/3.4
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	806
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	52 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2016:10:06 13:29:55
Exposure Time	1/30 sec
F-Number	f/4.5
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	2500
Lens Aperture	f/4.5
Exposure Bias	-0.7 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	35.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
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

>>2942816
Nobody cares

>>2942816
>But the whole a6k series is absolutely fantastic.
A7 series is constantly improving as well.

>>2942846
>>2942816
Thank you for your contribution, 30 pesos sent to your account.

File: 1446959372405.png (231KB, 436x512px) Image search: [Google]

231KB, 436x512px

>>2942857
Oh you're right, we should be praising the other manufacturers for the innovative contributions they have made instead.

Such as the highly innovative 5dm4, or the innovative D810.

File: firmwarebann-740x400.jpg (73KB, 740x400px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 740x400px

>>2942862

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Elements 7.0 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2016:06:09 15:24:25
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	741
Image Height	401

File: 1348863380262.jpg (106KB, 700x500px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 700x500px

>>2942865
2 yen has been sent to your account.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS5 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2011:11:25 13:30:08
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	700
Image Height	500

>>2942871
>no industries are making innovative cameras
>posts innovative cameras
>you're just a shill

like pottery

>>2942879
What's was so innovative about those?

>>2942816
The industry has also taken notice.
https://vimeo.com/185217201
Scroll to 0:45

It's no coincidence there's been a huge influx of cine lens to that mount lately.

>>2942881
Xpro series has a hybrid ovf/evf. Xt series has a huge evf with a lot of neat functions. The rest are combinations of features to fit specialized functions. There's few other cameras that fit that criteria aside from sony

>>2942884
Samsung was the master innovator in the APS-C space in my opinion.

>>2942545

Honestly I don't know, I just want a cheap and half-decent camera I can bing on holidays and trips etc

>>2942887
What exact features did Samsung make first?

Sure, NX1 was an amazing camera specs-wise (and still holds up quite well even now), but it didn't feature anything that wasn't a numerical increase.

>>2942899
The whole reason why your A6300 and your XT2 has 6K video down-sampled to 4K is because Samsung did it first.

>>2942900
wow its fucking nothing

>>2942901
It's no nothing, it's innovation which increases image quality a lot.

>>2942900
How is that different from downsampling that earlier cameras did for 1080p/720p?

>anything that wasn't a numerical increase.

>>2942904
Nobody gives a fuck about 720P for one.

>>2942900
>capture image at native sensor resolution
>downscale it to desired video resolution

Isn't this how every video camera works, except a few shitty ones that introduce a ridiculous crop factor to avoid doing scaling?

>>2942906
4K is just a numerical increase over 720p. All algorithms remain the same.

>>2942908
>>Isn't this how every video camera works
No. Most of them did that crop shit, because it was easier and less complex that way.

Downsampling requires more advanced on-sensor processing.

>>2942902
Are you seriously saying that using an arbitrary pair of numbers with a generic downsampling algorithm (that hundreds of cameras used before) is somehow "innovation"?

That's like saying a camera with 15 fps is innovation because the previous one did only 13 fps.

>>2942913
There aren't many sensor makers who can do advanced processing of 6K content on the sensor immediately after the image is captured. Samsung and Sony wee the few who can.

>That's like saying a camera with 15 fps is innovation because the previous one did only 13 fps.
In this case your 13FPS camera was hindered by some obstacle which required new thinking to circumvent. That would be innovation.

>>2942914
> advanced processing of 6K content
> your 13FPS camera was hindered by some obstacle which required new thinking to circumvent.
Or maybe they just jacked up the CPU frequency. From the consumer standpoint, that's all irrelevant, since all I get is a bigger number, be it fps, lp/ph or whatever.

As I've said, give me an example of anything Samsung did that ISN'T a numerical increase, but an actual new feature, like, say, Fuji's hybrid finder mentioned above.

>>2942921
Of course you think like a consumer. But for the manufacturer, they were forced to innovate to have such solutions.

And you don't just jack up CPU frequency, because that will lead to other issues.
You develop efficient, fixed hardware which is part of the sensor itself.

This innovation also lead to other innovations such as on-sensor digital based image stabilisation. Very useful if you sell sensors to phone makers who can't afford to equip their cheapass whones with real optic stabilisation.

>>2942924
>But for the manufacturer, they were forced to innovate to have such solutions.
This applies to literally every manufacturer and literally every camera.

Samsung being able to put 20% more transistors on the sensor doesn't make it a "master innovator" when literally nothing changes for the consumer except a bit of extra sharpness. You might as well call Pentax a master innovator for making their AA sensor 20% thinner or something.

>>2942926
>This applies to literally every manufacturer and literally every camera.
Some are better than others at this.

The real reason why Samsung and Sony has a long tradition for on-sensor processing is because they have more advanced sensor manufacturing than the others. That's also innovation in its own right.
You bet your resources on the right things, and it allows you to make better features in certain areas which other makers can't do, unless they buy your sensors.

>>2942928
>Samsung has a long tradition for on-sensor processing

...that's why NX sensors were dogshit for years? They only got good with NX1, and then everything was canceled.

>>2942929
It takes time when you're an upstart bro.

>>2942931
>upstart

you do realize that Samsung is much bigger than every other company that makes cameras, right?

>>2942933
Upstarts in new niches still need babysteps. What's so weird about that?

>>2942928
>>2942929
>>2942931
Rumor has it that the abrupt, unexplained cancellation of NX right when they finally got good is due to a lawsuit over patent violations/stolen technology.

>>2942938
That would explain why the NX1 sensor suddenly got so good.

>>2942940
and perhaps why nobody's licensed it.

how good are old manual zuiko/olympus lenses ? I've managed to acquire a few from a relative, but i can't find anything substantial about them. Are they good? should i adapt them to my modern body? example of one of the lenses is the Zuiko auto-w 18mm 1:3.5.

>>2943037
They're cracking excellent if you want to shoot film with an OM body. Good enough to get into the system in fact. Olympus got into the FF lens game relatively late, so the technology is that much more advanced than Nikons and Canons of that era which are like a decade older for similar specs.

Otherwise, you'll either be adapting them to a Sony full-frame MILC or suffering the penalties of full-frame 18mm while using only the innermost APS-C / four-turds area.

>>2942515
Last try. Anyone has experience with one of these lenses or both? Are they worth it?

>>2943126
I heard the latest Sigma 150mm macro and 180mm macro are super high quality.

>>2943131
Yeah, I know the newest ones are awsome but sadly I have to stay within my limited budget. Under €200.
Sorry, I should have stated this earlier.

>>2943133
If I'm not mistaken, Tamron has always been known for their 90mm macros. You couldn't go wrong with any of them, I believe.

>>2943144
thx m80

File: Canon-EOS-400D-Digital-Rebel-XTi.jpg (20KB, 275x262px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 275x262px

Im looking to purchase a new camera. I was looking at a rebel XTi 400D, there is one in my area for a $150 /w bag and filters. Mint condition. Would this be a smart buy? Im currently tight for cash because of college. I have have photography knowledge but little gear knowledge(if that makes sense). Any advice would be great.

File: TS560x560-3109774.jpg (81KB, 560x474px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 560x474px

I shoot with a sony a6000 and have a few of the native 49mm sony e-mount lenses. but soon I'm going to (hopefully) getting the Samyang/rokinon 12mm f2 and with that, I would like to get some filters (screw on).

I'm looking at Breakthrough filters, some NDs a new CP but my question is, if I buy these filters before the new lens should I just buy a 49mm to 77mm step-up ring and the chosen filter. Or wait till I get this new lens.

(basically wondering if its stupid to have a 77mm lens stepped up from a 49mm thread sony 16mm f2.8)

ALSO because wider angles are weird with filters would having a larger filter kinda fix that on a 16mm (=24mm and not sure if its wide enough to warrant a problem).

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON 1 V1
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/3.7
Image-Specific Properties:
Exposure Time	1/15 sec
F-Number	f/5.6
ISO Speed Rating	900
Lens Aperture	f/5.6
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	12.20 mm
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto

>>2943163
You don't need CP for mirrorless. Just get any cheap used Cokin A bundle with a linear polarizer, if the bundle doesn't have it then a couple of NDs and grads and a few filter mount rings. Most Cokin A bundles are remnants of film kits and are cheap and most of it except the color and creative filters can be used today. Hell the creatives can be also used if you like cheesy 80s-90s style dreamy and funky looks.
Just hit up ebay and you will find loads.

File: image.jpg (24KB, 314x160px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 314x160px

>>2941246
Old digital camera recommendations?
My old cyber shot broke, I'm really into early 2000 digicams with CCD sensors, I'd like to get one that shoots raw.
A friend recommended an old canon powershots but I don't like canon sensors, any non canon recommendations?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	314
Image Height	160
Scene Capture Type	Standard

File: its some bullllshittt.gif (954KB, 300x169px) Image search: [Google]

954KB, 300x169px

>buy a6300 + kit lens on ebay on the 28th of september
>msg from seller
>"hi sorry, im out of town and wont be able to ship till saturday!"
>saturday comes around, hear nothing
>tuesday
>"hey sorry, huricane prep is so crazy i went to the post and they were so busy I couldnt get it out"
>a6500 announced
>people are listing a6300's on ebay already $100 less than I paid

hold me

>>2943198
>new camera announced every 6 months
Such is the life of a Sony user.

You know you should just not give a fuck and go out shooting with your antiquated aged piece of shit 6 months old camera and just enjoy yourself.

>>2943198
im not upset a new camera is out

im upset that the seller still hasnt shipped the one I ordered.

>>2943198
Can you cancel it at all?

>>2943202
I guess I could, but I'm afraid the seller may have sent it and just not told me, or that he'd just take forever to get back to me. I should cancel it and save me $100.

>>2943203
Try to cancel it, don't worry about the seller, if they care about their eBay rep they'll appease you

>>2943196
Bentax k10d

>>2943198
Who gives a fuck? The camera is just as good today as it was when you bought it. All cameras lose value immediately. Instead of fixating on pointless shit like this, just go take pictures.

>>2943217
>>2943201

Does there exist a decent middle ground between point-an-shoots and DSLRs?

I've seen oversized PaS's with separate lenses but how big is the leap between one of those in the higher tier and just okay tier DSLR's regarding photo quality? I'm sadly not okay with spending several thousands of dollars on BOTH camera and lenses. My typical usage is social gatherings, macro and landscape shots. The quality doesn't have to be super professional but I'd like it to be GOOD.

Also, is it always possible to use "normal" DSLR lenses, say canon only, on any other DSLR canon camera if you just add enough adapters so it fits?

>>2943313

That would be mirrorless.

Three types.

>micro four thirds
Small sensor than a dslr (though considerably larger than point and shoot), interchangable lenses and extremely compact

>aps-c mirrorless
Same size sensor as entry level dslrs, also has interchangable lenses. Grear image quality and small bodies, but their lenses are slightly larger than m43. Only brands worth looking at are Sony and Fuji. Best bodies are a6300(a6500 soon) and X-T2. Best price/performance value is a6000.

>fullframe mirrorless
Pro level dslr sensors, only Sony makes one now. Their bodies, while smaller than a dslr, are kinda large. Lenses are also only slightly smaller than a dslr.

>Adapted lenses
Any mirrorless can adapt lenses, but for most they are manual focus/function only.

Newer Sony bodies can focus lenses from almost any mount (EF, F, A, M, MD, etc.) ever made at native e-mount speeds. Only issue is newer, quite expensive bodies can do it at a fast speed.

>>2943319
Really great relevant post, thanks anon. I'll try and do some research from here.

>>2943313
>>2943319

There are also prosumer cameras like the Canon Powershot G line. They use 1" sensors like cropped DSLRs, shoot raw and have manual controls. They don't have interchangeable lenses or mirrors so you use the offset optical viewfinder or live-view.

>>2943319
>Newer Sony bodies can focus lenses from a couple DSLR mounts (EF, A) at native e-mount speeds.

Fixed.

The M-mount autofocus adapter isn't all that great, and works only with A7II/A7RII.

>>2943328
>The M-mount autofocus adapter isn't all that great

It is with the Version 4.0 update.

And there is also a Metabones adapter for Nikon that works very well.

>>2943326
There's a shit ton of Powershot Gs, not all of them come with 1" sensors.

>>2943329
The problem isn't AF speed (you aren't really going to shoot sports with a M lens), but the limited movement range, you have to pre-focus longer lenses manually. And using stacked adapters for SLR lenses can mess with the focal plane alignment.

I wish Techart made a similar adapter for SLR mounts with half an inch or more of travel (and how about a set of interchangeable flanges for F/OM/whatever?)

>>2943332
>you aren't really going to shoot sports with a M lens

You aren't going to shoot sports with a mirrorless at all for that matter.

>the limited movement range

It works up to around 100mm depending on the lens. That is rather short, but it still covers quite a bit.

>using stacked adapters for SLR lenses can mess with the focal plane alignment.

It CAN. It shouldn't unless you are using cheapo adapters. And even then, as long as it isn't really bad it shouldn't be an issue.

>>2943342
>You aren't going to shoot sports with a mirrorless at all for that matter.
While I'd obviously prefer a pro DSLR, stuff like E-M1 or X-T2 with an appropriate lens should be able to do that reasonably well.

>It shouldn't unless you are using cheapo adapters
I remember reading an article on adapters on some pro gearfagging site like lensrentals that showed even expensive adapters affecting critical sharpness - 42 MP is no joke.

>>2943330

Okay then, "Powershot G series have relatively large sensors and the ones produced in the last two years have 1" sensors."

>>2943346

>E-M1 or X-T2

a6500 is supposed to be even faster. I can't wait to see some hands on reviews.

File: panasonic_dmc_zs100_digital_camera_1211983[1].jpg (117KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 1000x1000px

Getting my mother a ZS100 for her bday. Ordered it this weekend. How badly did I fuck up?

>>2943350
No matter how fast it is, Sony has no "pro" lenses for APS-C, you'll have to use big and expensive FE ones. And if the UI is anything like a6000, it has no business in time critical sports shooting.

>>2943352

You'd probably be better off using an adapted EF lens.

And I think I heard it was supposed to have the new a99ii firmware/menu.

File: whyicantsleepatnight.jpg (225KB, 1592x534px) Image search: [Google]

225KB, 1592x534px

>when will mr bones' wild ride end?

do i have to use a pocketwizard or something?

>>2943354
Using adapted DSLR lenses kinda defeats the point of mirrorless, might just buy a 7DII for the same price and get weather sealing as a bonus.

>it was supposed to have the new a99ii firmware/menu
Yeah, but looking at the photos, it still lacks a7/a99's second wheel. At least they added a couple custom buttons.

>>2943126
they are fine optically.
af is another story but macro is all about manual focus anyway.

Why are wide lenses so ridiculously expensive? Like a 50mm 1.4g lens is less than one third of the price of a 24mm 1.4g one.

>>2943364
They're harder to design, especially for SLRs where the mirror box is fatter than the focal length of wide angle lenses.

>>2943357
>defeats the point of mirrorless
I thought the point of mirrorless was being able to adapt any lens

File: mb_spef-e-bt2_04s.jpg (125KB, 800x800px) Image search: [Google]

125KB, 800x800px

>>2943357
If you can handle the size of full frame lenses, you can actually do very interesting things with adapted lens.

Metabones is said to have the highest quality speedbooster around, then you gain even faster aperture. Then they've taken that optics and combined it with the hardware of the PDAF adapter which the FF guys use.
The result is pretty awesome for people who use the A6300.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-6000
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS5 Macintosh
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2015:07:02 17:21:17
Exposure Time	1/60 sec
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	200
Brightness	-3.0 EV
Exposure Bias	0.3 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	Flash, Compulsory, Return Not Detected
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	800
Image Height	800
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

>>2943370
No, that's a bonus.

The point of mirrorless is not having a mirror box and all associated weight, size, cost and precision issues.

>>2943373
It costs $650.
Might as well get an A7II and a regular adapter.

>>2943378
True enough. But it's reusable across many generations of camera bodies.
And it's viable if you want lens of really, really fast aperture.
Like a F1,4 lens + 1 additional stop faster, becomes insanely fast.

>>2943382
>Like a F1,4 lens + 1 additional stop faster, becomes insanely fast.

You do realize that compared to the same lens used on a FF sensor, that doesn't give you better low light performance or thinner DoF, right?

>>2943384
It still makes the lens faster, more light on the same size of sensor area.

>>2943386
Yes, but so what? Sure, a f/1 lens sounds cool on paper, but I'd still prefer a FF camera and no booster if the cost is similar - as good as Metabones is, extra glass doesn't improve quality.

>>2943390
Your FF body will naturally weigh more and cost much more over the course of multiple generations. If you want AF of comparable quality, you would need to cough up with 3000 dollars for the 42MP camera.

There are ups and downs to both decisions.

>>2943326
Under-rated post for an underrated camera series. War photographers frequently use them as backup cameras. Thst says something about their durability and speed of use.

>>2943391
>Your FF body will naturally weigh more

Are you sure? Too lazy to look it up, but A6500 is not exactly light, and the booster is quite hefty.

>and cost much more over the course of multiple generations

Assuming that Sony won't drop crop E mount entirely - they already dropped the 3-series and the 5-series hasn't been updated forever in Sony terms.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/131957577786
Good deal? Y/n?

>>2943399
Not bad, but do you really need a mediocre fifty with a bit of fungus in Kiev-Contax mount?

>>2943357

>defeats the point of mirrorless

But we are talking about shooting sports with a mirrorless, which already is kind of outside of typical usage.

The a6500 does have two wheels though?

>>2943395

>drop crop

Would that be possible? Could an a6000 sized body fit a ff sensor inside?

>>2943402
Would an elephant fit into a mini?

>>2943402
>The a6500 does have two wheels though?
Technically yes, but the second wheel isn't under your fingers like on A7/A99, it's extremely awkward to reach without loosening the grip.

>Would that be possible?
a6500 is just 20% cheaper than A7II. I can easily see them introducing an "A5" or "A6" at this price point in the future as they iron out FF sensor production.

>Could an a6000 sized body fit a ff sensor inside?
a6500 is pretty much the same size/weight as the original A7.

>>2943402
>already is kind of outside of typical usage

That's just because mirrorless AF has been terrible until fairly recently. I doubt sports photographers wouldn't want to shave off a couple pounds off their photo kit if the performance was similar.

>>2943410
Nah, Sony is still not as accurate on longer than 100mm focal lengths, let alone 400 or 600mm.
You will need the SLT A99II and the A-mount lenses for that. Guess what it has? A mirrorbox and a separate AF module with the appropriate AF optics needed to do the task.

>>2943414
That's what I said
>IF the performance was similar

We'll see how A6500 and E-M1II fare.

>>2943405
>Technically yes, but the second wheel isn't under your fingers like on A7/A99, it's extremely awkward to reach without loosening the grip

So much this. This was the reason I got rid of my a6000 in the first place - even though it performed like a champ under any circumstances.

>>2943423
And this is why Pentax is such a delight to use even on the lowest level bodies.

>>2943423
>>2943428

>everyone has thumb + finger wheels in $1k price range except sony

I don't understand why they do this, it's not like it would hurt A7 sales.

>>2943438
>>everyone has thumb + finger wheels in $1k price range except sony

Sony does though.

The a7/a7ii.

>>2943441
Well, A7 is out of production and A7II is closer to $2k.
I just find it weird that a6300 (and now a6500) have high-end specs, but an UI that you'd expect from a camera half of the price.

>>2943438
>Pentax has thumb + index finger wheels in the $300 range
It's not that Pentax is brilliant or something like that, but that extra wheel costs what, like $3 plus in production, I am really baffled why all the other manufacturers omitting this simple cheap but making-such-a-difference little item. It's not like it would suddenly make the price double. Just look at Pentax.
Same with sealing.

>>2943448
The 2nd wheel has been reserved for "advanced" cameras for ages, thank Canon and Nikon for that. Gotta "protect" your high-end models. Same reason why, for example, log profiles for video don't exist in low-end cameras, even though it's a matter of changing one formula in the firmware.

>Same with sealing.
Sealing actually does cost a fair bit extra, not just because of seals themselves but also due to tighter tolerances. Pentax putting higher-end features in cheap cameras is great and all, but it's also the reason why they're perpetually out of money.

>>2943447

a7 is still in production and still for sale.

a7ii is $1500

Seen is as low as $1200.

But yes, the a6k series does need a front wheel.

>>2943452
Not really, sealing is about putting an o-ring or two where it is needed. Not really needs much higher tolerances. It is as simple as putting a seat and an o-ring in the design. The kit lenses are not something you would call "tight tolerance" design yet they put the necessary o-rings into the design and there you are, proper sealed lens.
This also doesn't cost over $5 per lens and maybe $10 per body. Not an issue. Pentax has no money for advertising because Ricoh and before them Hoya decided they don't get the advertising. Everything else is covered financially.
You are no expert in economics and/or design so leave your pseudo expertism projections. If you want to do this then finish a damn school first.

File: K50+DAL18-55 sealing.jpg (444KB, 1287x1052px) Image search: [Google]

444KB, 1287x1052px

>>2943459
>sealing is about putting an o-ring or forty where it is needed
Fixed.

And you have to make sure all those rings are kept squeezed between plastic/metal parts, otherwise they won't work.

>You are no expert in economics

No, but I just see that Pentax was sold two times in the last 10 years, had to shut down its Japan production plant, and half of its new lenses are re-housed Tokina/Tamron designs.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Google
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	1287
Image Height	1052

Thoughts on the Contax TVS series of cameras? I really wan a good point and shoot but the T series is a bit out of budget.

>>2943478
Would you please stop pretending you know what engineering and economics is about? You just make yourself look like an idiot.

File: le hasseled.png (23KB, 272x272px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 272x272px

>>2943489

>>2943513 just proved my point

File: IMG_2679.jpg (73KB, 500x333px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 500x333px

I just bought a Bronica SQ-B kit. What am I in for?

Fwiw it was only 250 and it's basically unused and even comes with the original boxes.

[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	500
Image Height	333
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>2941374
You're done for

Tokina 11-16 2.8 for 300 dollarydoos how bad did I fuck up

>>2941374

All Zenits are like that, at least that particular blend of them are.