/Gear/ Gear Thread

>>2944501

>tfw the OP image of this thread is the most marketing Pentax gets all year

>>2944501
Too late senpai >>2944488

File: 26687943012_ec95798c52_k.jpg (487KB, 1362x2048px) Image search: [Google]

487KB, 1362x2048px

>>2944518
why don't people like cute cameras

>>2944557
>cute
nigga that's a real mans camera

File: IMGP1648.jpg (613KB, 1421x1200px) Image search: [Google]

613KB, 1421x1200px

>>2944559
ok (´・ω・｀)

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	RICOH IMAGING COMPANY, LTD.
Camera Model	PENTAX K-3
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 4.4 (Windows)
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	255 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2014:01:01 10:46:03
Exposure Time	1/500 sec
F-Number	f/6.3
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	400
Lens Aperture	f/6.3
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	170.00 mm
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Close View

What do you think about Sony Rx100 (i have m3)

>>2944562
Hehe what a cutie

As an avid Pentax user I do not approve of this Sony level brandfagging.
Please delete this thread, we already have an ongoing gear thread and numerous Sony vs something brandfagging gear threads.

>>2944647
The gear threads are the only thing Pentacks has left, and that was always respected up until this newcunt came along to shit up the board with his sony bullshit.

File: Screenshot_20161011-171928~01.png (322KB, 718x527px) Image search: [Google]

322KB, 718x527px

I wanna start film photography, but I dont know anything about it. What is a good starter camera ( i kinda like pic related but idk if its good), how much do they cost , what type of film should i buy etc. Any type of advice is greatly appreciated.

>>2944672
I'd advise you NOT to do it.

Digital is both a lot cheaper to shoot and better for almost every kind of photography.
Also gives you less trouble with archiving or publishing images.

I'll be buying a Canon 700d soon.

Is it good? Advice?

>>2944685
No. I think it's bad.

Would get the K-50 or A6000 or even D3300 over it any day.

>>2944687
My price range is 300 - 500 pounds.

Why is it bad?

>>2944688
Not familiar with how much things cost in GBP, but I think an A6000 or K-50 should fit the budget.

> Why is it bad?
Because everything is bad. Gimped software, comparatively poor sensor, tiny buffer, small feature set in general, poor AF coverage, slow burst rate.

Sure, some of this is also the case for the D3300, but at least that one has a much better sensor. And I'd tend mainly to get a A6000 or K-50 anyhow.

>>2944691
Thanks for the advice.

D3300 or A6000 looks good.

File: canon700d_2_011818151482_640x360.jpg (118KB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

118KB, 640x360px

Newbie here, doing a college course on filming n shit and while you can borrow from the institution I would like to own my own camera down the line.

They use canon exclusively, the course leader recommended on a budget to get the Canon 700D, any thoughts?

>>2945173
Do what your teacher says. Try to get one with an IS kit lens, and look into Magic Lantern.

I'm a newbie and some guy is selling me his old Canon EOS 500D (including 18-55mm lens) for $200. Should I take it or just buy a Nikon D3300? Price isn't that much of an issue but cheap is good too.

>>2945186
D3300 or K-S2.

I recently got an old 35mm camera. I don't know much, but I want to learn.are there any good guides and what should i know about buying film rolls?

>>2945236
Try the /film/ thread
Other than that learning about exposure triangle is a good start.

What is the most budget friendly digital crop kit to get for standard focal length? I want it for generic walkaround and maybe street.
Something that has the same FOV as my ME Super and 50/1.4

>>2946995
pantecks + 35/2.4

>>2946996
How are the new Pentaxs (?) on manual focusing? Will I be able to use my existing lense without too much effort?

Seriously, what is the plural of Pentax?

>>2946997
>How are the new Pentaxs (?) on manual focusing?

They don't show proper DoF in the finder for lenses faster than f/2.8 like all modern DSLRs, so for those lenses you'll have to rely on the focus confirmation light. You'll also have to push the green button for metering on manual lenses.
The viewfinders in general are better than on similarly priced Canikons.

>>2946998
Okay, last question:
K-50, K-S2 or K-70? Key differences?

>>2947001
Try dpreview or literally any other camera site

They're all ok though

>>2947004
thx

K-70, hands down.

>>2947018
I'll see. I have the money for a digital 645 but I'd rather set a tight budget for the camera and the rest for home/family stuff and travel.
Right now I'm reading into the aperture issue article/survey on Pentax Forums so I might go for the K-70 just to be on the safe side. Not that I'd use most of the features, I could settle with the K-50 but there is this thing about the aperture block aging issue.

Want to get into photography a bit, mostly for taking pictures of cars and scenery. Looking into some DSLRs, been looking at the T5, T5i and T6. The T5 i can get right now off of Amazon for 400 CAD, that is about 300 USD and it comes with the basic 18-55 lens. What do you guys think? The t5i and t6 are all going to be like 600+ dollars with a lens.

>>2947080
canon's entry level cameras are awful

get a d3300 if you want a dslr
or an a6000 if you want mirrorless

>>2947082

Those will all be like 700 plus dollars after tax in the peoples republic of Canada. I messaged a guy about a used T5i for 400 CAD and i can pick it up tomorrow. Opinions on buying used cameras?

File: 71o6uzEvJ8L.jpg (124KB, 1500x1500px) Image search: [Google]

124KB, 1500x1500px

Hello, this is a nice "ok" lens for a Fuji camera?

>>2947268
It isn't bad, but are you really so poor you can't afford fuji 35 f2? Lack of AF and camera-operated aperture sucks.

I got to try out the new Tamron 150-600mm G2 lens briefly. It's either still soft at 600mm or needs focus adjustment. It does however look tack sharp at f/8 from initial impressions and on camera peeping. I did use my own sd card. I'll check them at home.

Does the Ricoh DB-60 battery type fit a Ricoh GR II? If not, what other batteries do fit?

File: 100-300mm_USM.jpg (41KB, 800x520px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 800x520px

Is the Canon 100-300mm USM better than the L lens?

>>2947328
no

>>2947333
Is it much worse?

>>2947278
to your question: yes, i'm so fucked up
But thanks

>>2947386

If you are that poor look at adapting old manual glass. You can get a 35mm MD lens for under $100.

>>2947090
> Those will all be like 700 plus dollars after tax in the peoples republic of Canada
Even Amazon.ca has an used A6000 listed for 500 canada dollars, so no.

> Opinions on buying used cameras?
Not a bad idea if you want things cheaper and you can deal with cosmetic blemishes.

So I'm testing out an a6300 with an MC-11 and a few of my lenses.

Just thought I'd say some things I never found an answer to anywhere;

Macro mode with AF works on the 24-70 F4L IS USM.

35mm f2 IS USM has astounding AF performance

70-200 F4L is so-so, hunts alot at the telephoto end. Acceptable at the wider end.

So, with the new things coming out, this question is hard to avoid; what's the best camera phone?

Like, I don't want to shoot more prop pics, I have my Canon for that, but I can't deny, sometimes you forget your camera, or jjust don't bring it, and a smartphone can be nice to shoot some memories, and some half-decent pictures.

I mean smartphones at this point are better than those shitty digital cameras (that Sony and Samsung produce a shitload of), and they're really not that bad

I'm thinking about getting either iPhone 7, Galaxy S7, or the Huawei P9. I have the Huawei P9 now for testing purposes, and it shoots pretty good pictures for a phone.

In certain situations I actually prefer my smartphone camera, the lack of really sharp detail (the kind you get on DSLRs and everything else lacks) looks good on some shots.

>>2947566
Galaxy S7.

But no, it's usually not better than a decent Sony compact.

File: 5920201444_1928d1a4e9.jpg (100KB, 500x333px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 500x333px

>>2944557
Wah! What are we going to do on the DOF?

>>2944647
it's an unwritten /p/ rule. only pentax is allowed to brag, because no matter how many praises are sung about it, they will never ever sell or review as good as canon, nikon, or sony. i would liken the difference to being proud of a really good high school athlete versus paying millions for an actual good top-tier professional athlete. that is to say, canikony fanfriends don't feel threatened by pentax, that's why traditionally /gear/ threads have a pentax in the OP image, it's neutral and unprovoking.

>>2947590
Stand closer. Free lens a 300/2.

>>2947594
That's the same Olympus says for MFT: http://www.four-thirds.org/en/special/microftmerit/merit2.html

Point 7: Use telephoto to obtain effective defocusing

Meh, why is it that my external flash's light isn't reaching the center af point? Is it because I am using an 11mm lens? I have so many back focused pics, shit's not fun. I just had a picture that was super sharp, I never thought it could be that sharp. Fuark

File: DSCF6865.jpg (336KB, 1000x667px) Image search: [Google]

336KB, 1000x667px

I got an X-Pro2 and I'm really liking it. I have an X-T1 for my daily carry, but I'm considering capitalizing on its current value and selling it (+grip) to buy an X-E2/s for my daily cary. I do like the idea of physically downsizing. Will I miss much?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	FUJIFILM
Camera Model	X-T1
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.7.1 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	21 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2015:07:12 00:53:54
Exposure Time	1/25 sec
F-Number	f/2.8
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	200
Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Brightness	1.5 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Spot
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	14.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>2947566
p9 is a meme.
get the samsplode s7 and shoot raw.

>>2947662
get eos m5 instead.

File: instagram.jpg (104KB, 1080x1348px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 1080x1348px

Hi,

Wondering what lens I need to achieve this effect? I am a sony a6000 fag and have the following lenses:

16-50mm kit lens
Makinon 28mm f2.8 - manual lens
Japanese 50mm f2.0 - manual lens
Kiron 80-200mm f4 - manual lens

Kinda new to photography, This was achieved because he shot at a low f-stop?

Thanks

File: pen.jpg (36KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 500x500px

Does anybody has any opinion on Pen-f?

>>2947683
VSCO

>>2947683
unless you're talking about depth of field, it's not a lens thing

>>2947696
Yes. I have some opinions.

It's shit. Dropped the ball of dials and ergonomics. Price is too high for what it is.
>>2947683
You need to stop aping on other peoples style and shoot your own shit.
>>2947268
>picking this over the 35/1.4
>picking this over the 35/2 for """""""""extra""""""""" dof/T stop
Literally why? They're both dirt cheap, cheaper than this. Be a savvy jew.

>>2947696
handled one the other day along with OM-Ds. I quite liked it, the EVF was nicer since it was smaller it had a higher pixel density.

Copying this from the dead thread.

Is there a better CSC than the E-PL7, given a similar size and price point ($450 CAD for body)? It's a tad thicker and heavier than I was looking for, but otherwise it appears to have no particular drawbacks (given the size/price limitation). The GF7 and A5000 both seem inferior.

Going up to the A5100, as an example, is getting a bit pricier than I was looking for. The X-A2 also is a bit too costly due to the more expensive pancake lens.

>>2944501
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxdOSSXJjP0
it's ok with sony guys.
not ok with fuji.

>vw
cuck

>>2947755
> E-PL7
Judging by flickr, that camera is shit. Would suggest to carry a D3300 or save up for an A6000.

>>2947755
i think the a5100 went up in price.
i got mine $350 new with during a sale.

a5000 is still better than epl7, just the ergonomics is awful.

>>2947781
That RX100 V seems surprisingly useful.

>>2947683
Since no other faggots are being helpful, I'll chime in.

If you're talking about the shallow depth of field, you should use your 50m f2 and shoot at f2. If you want to mimic this of the water drop, use a fast shutter speed of at least 1/750th.

If you're talking about the washed out colors, that's 100% editing which basically entailed raising the black point and dropping the white point.

>>2947781
i forgot which review it was but the reviewer said that when he used it at conference with lit subjects it worked amazing but real world test it sucked as far as af goes

>>2947807
Sounds unlikely. Because why would Sony use worse AF than it had on the A6000 or A6300?

Well, I guess we'll know shortly after the camera ships in like 12 days...

>>2947783
>D3300
Definitely too large.

>or save up for an A6000
It's not a matter of having money, it's about what I'm willing to spend.

>>2947788
>i got mine $350 new with during a sale.
Nice. Only price I can find is $730 CAD for the kit, and looking through sale histories I don't see it getting discounted anytime soon.

>a5000 is still better than epl7
Is the IQ difference significant, in your opinion? I was hoping to get a camera before I leave on a trip in a month's time, but I could always wait for a sale on the Sony.

>>2947827
> It's not a matter of having money, it's about what I'm willing to spend.
To me, the *E-PL7* is a device not worth spending any money never mind my free time on. It just seems too shitty.

To illustrate this a bit, I'll compare an overcast urban shot of that to one taken with a ~350 CA$ Chinese smartphone:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/134108556@N06/30005741316/in/pool-e-pl7/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/mobile-reviews-de/25701071603/

>>2947845
So what similarly-sized, under-900-dollar (~700 USD) device would you bother spending your time on?

>>2947855
Sorry, under $900 including pancake lens.

>>2947855
A6000 is what I'd get. I guess I also could be convinced to use a Yi 2.

> similarly-sized
Fits in all the same backpacks / bags / luggage that I usually use, plus my jacket pocket with most lenses.

Not sure if that's similar enough for you.

>>2947856
Apparently the native pancakes are ~160 and 300 US$ here. So I guess that'd work with an used A6000.

I'm sure you can also adapt a bunch of pancakes like in this thread >>2944488 but I personally never cared much. The usual primes are easily small enough.

File: Z18-55II.jpg (141KB, 791x1024px) Image search: [Google]

141KB, 791x1024px

>>2944501
Alright /p/, been taking a bunch of snapshits with my canon 750d and I feel that it's time that I upgraded from my 18-55mm kit lens. I like the range of focal lengths it gives me, but since I'm shooting with a crop body I wouldnt mind something a little more wide angle. I'd also like to not break the bank so anything 300usd or less would be nice. Any suggestions guys?

>>2947891
> wide angle
Samyang 14mm?

>>2947856
Pentax K-70 or K-S2 with DA 40 Limited or DA 21 Limited depending if you want wider or closer to standard

>>2947817

Protip: They wouldn't.

Every hands on so far except the one anon can't find or even name orgasms about the autofocus.

Now all we need is a new a7 body with that autofocus speed.

>>2947855

a6000 with kit pancake zoom and 20mm pancake.

Nothing else comes close for the price.

File: 1397527140_645Z_wo_Food__large.jpg (1MB, 2048x1809px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2048x1809px

Can we take a moment to appreciate the fact that you can get the 645z used and a 75mm for $2000 cheaper than the Fuji GFX-50S?

>>2947911
>Fuji GFX-50S

they already released the price? link?

>>2947915
$8,500 with the lens. Mark my words.

>>2947916
Ordered a used 645Z ($5,700), 75mm F/2.8 ($630), and the 150mm F/2.8 ($1,270). Still came in $900 cheaper than the Fujifilm, and to get the equivalent package will run at least $2,000 extra.

>>2947827
a5000 is significantly better than epl7.
i suggest finding a used nex6 or nex 5t or canon eos m with 22mm f2.

>>2947917
still a huge ass camera.

>>2947922
Didn't stop Ansel Adams.. Smaller cameras are for untalented hacks...

>>2947928
Wasn't that guy's Zeiss Ikon Super Ikonta pretty small?

Anyhow, have fun with the camera. Personally I can't see why I'd want a MF with more plebestrian FF and APS-C cameras and glass doing so good right now.

>>2947804
Thank you! that's exactly what I needed to know.

I'm playing around with the Samsung Gear 360 right now. Since I don't own a Samsung phone I can't access the manual settings and I have to use it like an action cam.

I'm considering the Nikon Keymission 360 coming out in a few weeks which has a platform neutral app and it is also waterproof/shockproof. It's $500, about $150 more than the Gear 360 (More like $200 more if I were to sell the Gear 360 for $300 to move it fast.)

I'll probably decide in a week or two, I might just buy a GoPro instead to use with the AER Foam Football type housing kickstarter to do aerial shots.

>>2947911
Sure. Only if we take a moment to shit on baby tier format.
We can do that right? Aight, we going there.

>>>>>>>>>>>digital medium format

>>2947931
I'm just joking, the camera doesn't matter most of the time. I'm just photographing paintings for reproduction, and for the price, it can't really be beat. Canon's 50mp flagship files look trash in comparison. The colors are far more accurate and much cleaner, and that matters a lot when someone is paying you to get as close to the original as possible. Also, the high resolution makes it easy to get an 80mp two shot composite with some cropping and overlap.

If I really like the Fuji, I'll upgrade, but it seems as though the quality increase will be marginal.

File: Screenshot from 2016-10-17 14-41-13.png (2MB, 1680x1050px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1680x1050px

So, after I got some serious dust on my sensor, I got a cleaning kit and cleaned it.
Now I checked back on one spot where there was a weird spot before (not a shadow like with dust, always visible, not just at tight aperture) and it's still there.
I dont think this purple spot is dust, am I right?

BTW: that image looks so hazy because it's a vintage lens wide open

>>2947883
>>2947904
>A6000
I found a sale for the A6000 body at $630 CAD, but the lens is still $430; this means the total is a couple hundred more than I was willing to spend. That said, I will explore this option.

I'm also not sure about the size of the device, but I can go to my local Best Buy later and check it out in person.

>>2947883
>used A6000
I'll have to look into where people get used cameras in Canada. Nothing local on Kijiji, at any rate.

>>2947904
Where did you see a kit with the pancake?

>>2947901
Those cameras are definitely too big.

>>2947920
>a5000 is significantly better than epl7.
Duly noted.

>i suggest finding a used nex6 or nex 5t or canon eos m with 22mm f2.
See above regarding used cameras.

Thanks for the info, everyone.

File: Canon 50mm fd.jpg (206KB, 591x640px) Image search: [Google]

206KB, 591x640px

Got my dad's old FD lenses, one of them, a 50mm 1.8 canon, is one especially like.
However, it's full of dust. In video, probably not noticeable, but still...
So I need to know if I can de-dust this myself or if I need a specialist and how much it will cost me. I would declick the aperture ring while at it, because I want to do video with it.
Also, How would I go about creating a lens-correction profile for it on Darktable?

>>2948075
> So I need to know if I can de-dust this myself
Probably. I have never done it, but mechanical lenses tend to be possible to disassemble and clean.

Having someone do it for you is possibly more expensive than buying another one of these.

> Also, How would I go about creating a lens-correction profile for it on Darktable?
I think something like this?

http://wilson.bronger.org/calibration
https://github.com/lensfun/lensfun/blob/master/tools/calibration_webserver/workflow.rst

Was referenced in 2013 (https://www.darktable.org/2013/07/have-your-lens-calibrated/).

>23 pages of image settings
Why do people think this shit is still acceptable?

>>2948193
Yeah. Why not just pirate LR and PS like every other grown man?

>>2947696
ergonomics are somewhat questionable (needs grip, on/off switch is in a bad spot, "art" dial is fucking useless)

a couple hundred more expensive than what it should've been

get gx85 instead and spend the rest on lenses

>>2948025
The 16-50mm kit lens is collapsible.

When not in use it is pancake sized. When powered on it doubles size.

>>2948075
Unless it is a ridiculous amount of dust it is probably perfectly usable as long as you are not pixel peeping.

Check this out:
>http://kurtmunger.com/dirty_lens_articleid35.html

>>2948025
Okay, at Best Buy and I'm a little more interested in the A6000. While the grip is larger and this increases the depth measurement, the distance from the back to the lens mount is no different than the A5000 (and the lens would poke past the grip regardless). Also, I didn't know diopter dials existed, so that's pretty great for my glasses-wearing self.

Anyone have experience with the kit lens (Sony 16-50mm)? Reviews seem better than some kit lenses, at any rate.

>>2948223
Yes, I see what you mean. It's just not quite as flat as some other pancakes, so I didn't think it qualified for the moniker.

>>2948234

It is when collapsed.

Also, you should be able to find the 20mm pancake on ebay for $200 or so.

>>2948233

The kit lens is okay. It tends to get shit on a lot though, mainly by gearfags.

It isn't terrible in any way, but at the same time it does not excell in any way.

Decently sharp, but has some major distortion at wide angles. Most of it is actually fixed with in camera lens profiles.

I wouldn't shoot a profesional event with it, but it should be more than good enough for someone just learning.

Here is an in-depth review if you wanna read more about it:
>http://www.kurtmunger.com/sony_nex_pz_16_50mmid344.html

>>2947891
canon efs 10-18mm

>>2947658
Unless you're using a speedlight explicitly stated to have an AF assist light (usually infrared), your flash isn't actually helping you autofocus in low light.

>>2947662
You probably won't miss much, seeing as the XE2s is 90% of a XT1 anyways.

>>2947958
>buying a Nikon camera for video
>buying a dead on arrival abortion of a product from the unliving corpse of a poorly managed company
where did everything in life go so wrong for you? You're better off just buying a GoPro.

>>2948025
The only camera similar in size and function to the EPL7 I'd consider is the Panasonic GM5. Bonus points, it has a EVF and a control dial. Absolutely every single person on this board shits on M43 sensors though. You can choose between the Panasonic 12-32, 20, and 14mm pancakes, all pretty good lenses.

The A5100 has the same autofocus system as the A6000. It just manages to one up the ergonomics on the A6000 by actually being worse. You've got two decent, if not stellar, pancakes for the E-mount system.

File: 81Pg6hnsOrL._SL1500_.jpg (220KB, 1500x1080px) Image search: [Google]

220KB, 1500x1080px

I'm looking to buy a APC-S camera similar to a GR but with a detachable lens.

I was looking at the Fujifilm X-Pro 1 but didn't know if that's the best camera for the price.

I'm looking to stay around the ~$500 range give or take $100.

Have an A6000, which lens should I get for everyday + mainly landscapes

Rokinon 12mm f/2.0

OR

Sigma 30mm f/1.4


I want some bokeh out of the lens so the sigma seems like an obvious choice, but I've heard it has troubles with CA. DXO says its CA score is like 12, whereas (for example) the sony 1.8 OSS lens has a score of 0.


Also, are there black friday deals for lenses or do you just buy used/refurb if you want a deal?

I have a bunch of AF-D Nikon and manual focus lenses. I want a full frame. Is the sony a7 the way to go or is it a meme?

>>2948347
Enjoy your manual focus with the Sony then. What's wrong with using a D610/750/700/800E?

>>2948235
>Also, you should be able to find the 20mm pancake on ebay for $200 or so.
Shipping/customs will be a bitch, but I'll keep an eye out.

>>2948249
Thanks for the link. Sounds reasonable.

>>2948317
>Absolutely every single person on this board shits on M43 sensors though.
Interesting, I haven't seen any of that yet (explicitly, anyway).

>>2948347
If you have Nikon lenses, why not a Nikon camera?

>>2948361
Not every single person. There are a few of us who like m43 just fine. But there is a vocal majority who apparently feel threatened by small, convenient cameras.

>>2948344
If you were going to go Fuji, at least go for the X-E2 or X-T10. The X-Pro1/E-1 have the slowest processors inside, you'd get frustrated at it after a while.

However you'll probably be happy with the 18mm f2.

>>2948373

The 18mm focuses terribly slow, even on.the X-T2.

>>2948382
not true as of the last firmware update, but you dont have an xt2 lol

>>2948361
>>2948372
MFT sensors aren't as good as equal aps-c sensors, but they overperform their class. A 16mp Olympus can acheive 90% of the detail an equal 16mp Fuji would produce. The ISO isn't as bad as people make it out to be, and the Dynamic Range is lacking. (Although this isn't visible in well exposed images. Just don't try an ISO-less 5 stop push.)

It's up to you whether you're willing to lose a few fractions of a stop over APS-C for the size and the lenses.

What does /p/ recommend for a lightweight DSLR tripod?

Do i really need a nifty-fifty? Considering i have a 18-55mm...

>>2948392
Dic&Mic E302C from Aliexpress.

>>2947902
When I first got my hands on the camera, a group of us were in a studio space with performers lit up against backdrops. With the RX100 V using a Wide AF area, the camera had no problems with focus tracking the moving subjects from one side of the frame to the other, using its Hybrid AF of 315 phase-detection autofocus points and 25 contrast-detection points. I could be nailing focus of moving subjects all day long here. Taking the RX100 V outside, however, is obviously where the real-world testing is (if you want to use the RX100 V as a studio camera, that’s all you).

Outside during golden hour on a beautiful October day in New York, I photographed people and things on the High Line and on a bike path near the Hudson River. Immediately I noticed the camera was handling this much different, with no fun little green box on the LCD display tracking the focus anymore. Still in Wide AF area mode, the camera and I weren’t really on the same page as for what the subject of the frame was. I was a little let down while photographing bicyclists on a bike path that I wasn’t getting near the same awesome focusing experience I got indoors. Being golden hour, there were high contrast areas of the scene that the RX100 V was infatuated with; Except they were non-moving patches of grass off the bike path, not the riders cruising by. Eventually I went with a narrow focus point which stiffened the composition, but at least I was getting a few in-focus frames. I think this area needs more testing and more time to determine what was going on, because again I didn’t have very long to use the camera and go through trying all the menu modes. If I could go back, I’d want to try Lock-on AF mode a few more times.
-fstoppers
Kys. everyone is creaming over that studio shit at the conference. Go outside with it phony faggot

>>2948398
nobody needs a nifty fifty
if you want to go for a quality normal prime, first establish what's "normal" for you? what's your most used FL on that zoom, for example? it might not be a 50mm equiv.

>>2948427
>RX100V

No one cares about a point and shoot.

What about the a6500?

Now that you can pick up an xt-1 for about 700 should I pick that up or keep saving for an xt-2?

This will be my first foray into mirrorless and I'm currently using an ancient dslr that I don't want to stick with

>>2948483

Even with the X-T1 at $700 you'd be better off with the much cheaper and better performing a6000.

Now, if you could find an X-T2 for $700...

>>2948486
The a6000 is about 150ish dollars cheaper. How is it better performing?

Are people still using D90s and 7Ds? I always thought that they'd become cult cameras once the prices dropped on the used market

>>2948361
There are like 10 extremely loud gearfags on /p/ that go into shitposting Overdrive whenever MFT is mentioned.
The /vid/ thread does fine with MFT cameras because Panasonic makes Great video-DSLMs and the BMPCC exists. They are also recommended for budget-whores who want a new product or a small side camera for any System because of adaptability and compactness. Some Birders like them too because it's easy to get long focal lengths with them.
But you wont make good shots in dim conditions and Panasonic has more noise than a elementary school assembly

>>2948014
>>2948014
Anyone?

>>2948500
I don't see any purple spot or any spot really. Are you sure it is not on your screen?

>>2948507

The image looks terrible too.

I wonder what lens it was?

>>2948497
I still do use my D90. Because my D700 is half dead and I can't afford a replacement right now. It's still a good workhorse

>>2948511
I didn't want to state the obvious, but yeah, I agree.

>>2948497
>>2948512
My friend still uses his 40D, wouldn't trade it off for anything. He was eyeing the 7DMkII but didn't make the move yet. I wonder why.

>>2948494

BIggest would be considerably better autofocus.

>>2948516
With what lens?

>>2948518

Pretty much every lens.

Better sensor and more lenses available too.

>>2948525
Compared to what? In what budget range?
I don't think you should recommend a system for someone new who later has to spend at least $2000 per lens to match the IQ of much cheaper sets on other systems.

Hello /p/. I was wondering if you could help me pick out a decent first camera. I'm traveling in japan and plan to take a good amount pictures in both urban and natural settings as well low light settings. My budget is only about 400 but Im ok with getting a camera used.
Any decent recommendations? I'm particularly concerned about getting good low light / night time photos.

These are the camera's I'm considering right now
Panasonic LUMIX DMC-FZ70
Canon Powershot SX530 or SX720 HS
Sony RX100 (III maybe probably used)

My search has been a bit disorganized. I remember looking at a decent Fujifilm and one or two other cameras but I can't find them right now. If you have any suggestions or insight to which of these is better, other more suitable cameras, cameras that are worse than others used etc. I loved to hear it. Thanks.

>>2948538
>good lowlight performance on a budget
Pentax K-S2 or K-70 with DA 35/2.4
or Nikon D3300 with AF-S 35/1.8G

File: Purple Dot.jpg (398KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

398KB, 500x500px

>>2948507
>>2948511
There it is. On the example screenshot it's visible on the stone"curb" of the pond.
It sometimes gets turned into a bigger white spot with a dark halo, seems to be mostly done by the "demosaic" function

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Panasonic
Camera Model	DMC-G70
Camera Software	GIMP 2.8.16
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.7
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	50 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Image Created	2016:10:18 14:54:14
Exposure Time	1/13 sec
F-Number	f/1.8
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	800
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	25.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	500
Image Height	500
Exposure Mode	Auto
Image Quality	Unknown
White Balance	Auto
Focus Mode	Manual
Spot Mode	Unknown
Image Stabilizer	Off
Macro Mode	Normal
Shooting Mode	Aperture Priority
Audio	No
Flash Bias	-0.67 EV

>>2948550
Hmm... either dead pixel or a small scratch on the sensor. Get the sensor re-mapped.

>>2948530
In my research of the A6000, I've noticed that good lenses seem to be more expensive with Sony than with MFT. Can any of the A6000 proponents say if the camera will still exceed, given that I would use the cheaper end of Sony lenses?

File: Purple Dot 2.jpg (86KB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 250x250px

>>2948550
Here's one of them blown up by postprocessing.
It's not very much right now, but I am afraid it might get worse over time.
They seem to blow up especially on even, relatively monochrome backgrounds.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Panasonic
Camera Model	DMC-G70
Camera Software	GIMP 2.8.16
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.7
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	50 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Image Created	2016:10:18 15:00:40
Exposure Time	1/13 sec
F-Number	f/1.8
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	800
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	25.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	250
Image Height	250
Exposure Mode	Auto
Image Quality	Unknown
White Balance	Auto
Focus Mode	Manual
Spot Mode	Unknown
Image Stabilizer	Off
Macro Mode	Normal
Shooting Mode	Aperture Priority
Audio	No
Flash Bias	-0.67 EV

>>2948555
>Sensor Remapping
What's that and how do I do it?
It's a Lumix G7

>>2948557
If you have a subpar lens, no matter how good the sensor is your image will be subpar.
In photography lens comes first and second is body. Subject and lighting are the zero step.
Some people refuse to switch from their old camera bodies because they still perform well with their good set of lenses.
You can either spend loads of money on a good camera with good lens and very slim pocketable design or can spend less on a bigger set with still excellent performance on a good lens.

>>2948560
Ask around in a camera shop doing service. Also most modern cameras can do it automatically, consult your manual.

>>2948530

>Compared to what?

Compared to the X-T1. Just try to follow the conversation.

>In what budget range?

You can get relatively cheap lenses for e-mount that are great. The Sigma primes can be had for $100-200 and are absolutely fantastic.

>>2948567
>Sigma
>known for bad optical properties and abysmal quality control
Why do you want bad things for new Anon, Anon?

>>2948568

The new Sigma's, especially the Art line, have been getting fantastic reviews.

>>2948569
And bad rep in the forums complaining about quality issues. I had a few Sigmas old and new and I'd definitely stay away from the new ones.
The older ones at least have their properties well documented and there are a few gems, but Sigma as a whole is something to be avoided.
The only exceptions are the 70-200/2.8 (although there are reports of HSM failure from time to time) and the fast teles, 300/2.8, 500/4 etc... those are excellent.
Every other is junk.

File: 38.jpg (1MB, 1920x1291px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1920x1291px

Where start ...

I find a lot of opportunities to take pictures in my life, lots of street photography. Lots of dim lit scenes. I find that phone cameras don't capture the mood I am looking for, I don't have enough control over my image. I don't think I need something like a DSLR, but shooting on a phone has limitations. Are there options for an everyday carry camera that I can whip out just to capture things which may inspire me throughout the day? I don't know what the fuck I am talking about but I wan't to know if there is some sort of camera that is good for what I am describing. Literally never shot in my life. Pic related of what I like.

>>2948563
Okay, but say I have $150 US saved by buying the E-PL7 over the A6000. Would adding just that amount onto my lens budget really negate the advantage in IQ the Sony provides?

>>2948571
17-50mm/2.8 is good

>>2948602
>Sigma 17-50/2.8
>good
Haloing, massive coma, ghosting and weird double bokeh literally causing nausea. I had it, wouldn't call it good. I traded it off with a massive loss and got a Tamron instead.

>>2948596

The massively improved low light performance is well worth the $150 I would say.

File: SUPERDUCK.jpg (371KB, 622x451px) Image search: [Google]

371KB, 622x451px

I present to you: SUPERDUCK!

In all seriousness, my dad's old 200mm Tokina does some serious Glowy stuff. this is cut from a 4608x3464 image so it's a pretty strong crop.
Nonetheless.
Can I do anything to prevent this from happening? some sort of filter, UV or CPL maybe?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Panasonic
Camera Model	DMC-G70
Camera Software	GIMP 2.8.16
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	0 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Image Created	2016:10:18 17:21:08
Exposure Time	1/640 sec
F-Number	f/0.0
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	200
Exposure Bias	-1.3 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Cloudy Weather
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	0.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	622
Image Height	451
Exposure Mode	Auto
Image Quality	Unknown
White Balance	Cloudy
Focus Mode	Manual
Spot Mode	Unknown
Image Stabilizer	Off
Macro Mode	Normal
Shooting Mode	Aperture Priority
Audio	No
Flash Bias	-0.67 EV

>>2948610
That is fringing, can be easily corrected by getting a better lens.

>>2948610
Stop down the aperture. Crop as little as possible.

>>2948610
you can also minimize it in light room.

scroll near the bottom and select remove chromatic aberration and move the purple and green sliders til satisfied

>>2948448
Sony cucks wew

File: WP_20161018_001.jpg (861KB, 1840x3264px) Image search: [Google]

861KB, 1840x3264px

I'll keep it short and sweet, need a camera with a programmable mode, to change shutter speeds and focus, needs to be digital, and somewhere under $300 (sorry if anyone spit there drink over the last part) brand doesn't matter, and would like to be able to hold it as if I had an actual lens because yeah, basically something like pic related

>>2944684
digital babby

>>2948644
Me too

>>2948497
D90? No. D300s? Yes.

>>2948546
So your saying the only way to get acceptable low light performance is with a DSLR? I believe I handled and Nikon D3300 in an electronics store a few days back. It seemed a bit bulky for hiking and what not. I honestly just want to avoid noise in low light photos. I'm not looking for master quality or anything.

>>2948680
A camera is not just a body. While the Sonys are very good with the body, the lens selection is very sparse and expensive with no middle ground. You can buy cheap shitty lenses or excellent high end ones but no budget option with good optics.
DSLRs have all the good glass, older ones too with blooming used gear market.
Best bang for buck is without question the Pentax, they offer the most camera for your money and some good value excellent lenses, Nikons entry level is also good in low light and has some options for quality budget glass.
If you want low light and pocketable size then there is the Ricoh GR II with its dusting sensor issues or the mighty expensive Sony RX1 line, but these are point and shoot cameras with fixed lenses.
You can't have everything for a dime, you gotta make compromise either in costs or in size.

>>2948680
Bulky but light, and DSLR's don't require shitloads of batteries.

>>2948680
I bring my K-3 for hike with me, the entry level Pentaxes like the K-S2 and K-70 are also built robust and sealed for outdoors.

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

881KB, 3113x2077px

>>2944672
I have only ever used the old zenits, but they are great. True camera of the proletariat. I would suggest getting ZENIT 12xp, as it has a simple battery lightmeter, but is very well built and otherwise fully mechanical. The lens it comes with is amazing as well. M42 mount gives you a lot of options in terms of lenses. I could talk about them all day.

>>2948695
>>2948546
>>2948702
>>2948700

Alright thanks for the input. I'll see if I can find a nicely priced Pentax.

File: IMGP4065.jpg (3MB, 4928x3264px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 4928x3264px

My friend has a problem with her camera ... I am unable to get my hands on it at the moment, but you might have come across this in the past.

Her camera is taking black pictures. Auto shoots pure black and when you crank all settings up, it just takes these very dark photos. She tried resetting the factory settings, but to no avail. Is the sensor dying or...?

The model is Pentax K-30

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	PENTAX
Camera Model	PENTAX K-30
Camera Software	K-30 Ver 1.06
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	42 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2016:10:18 19:18:09
Exposure Time	1/25 sec
F-Number	f/4.0
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	200
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	28.13 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	4928
Image Height	3264
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Hard
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Hard
Subject Distance Range	Close View

>>2948644
>>2948655
Go to KEH.com

Nikon D80, D90, or D200
Nikkor 18-70 f/3.5-4.5 G

So I love my 70-300m being a birder on a tight budget. But I would really like something a tad sharper at 300mm and a bigger aperture. Even F/5 would be awesome. Why is there no intermediate lens between the 70-300mm and the 300mm pf? Its either a cheap old consumer lens or and very expensive exotic lens if you want 300mm on nikon.

>>2948732
>KEH.com
Thanks this is pretty cool. Have you used it before?

>>2948739
There's nothing I don't get from them. Unless I'm buying a really nice prime lens and I want it brand new with a warranty, that is. I've been buying from them for years. Film bodies & lenses, DSLR bodies & lenses, and now mirrorless bodies & lenses. They don't disappoint, and they've never refused me a return, even after the specified period (although that might be because I'm a regular).

>>2948721
Probably bad aperture block. Look at the article at pentaxforums. A simple replacement at service will fix it.

>>2948721
Look down the barrel of the lens while shooting to ensure that the aperture (iris) is functioning correctly. It might be stopping down incorrectly, or could be stuck shut. If it's a stuck aperture on a cheap lens, I would just replace the entire lens.

File: pDGD5l3.jpg (84KB, 1080x1080px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 1080x1080px

I spent £1500 on a Leica and lens and it only made me realise how much I love my X100t. Please berate me.
I just needed to know how it feels to own a leica and now I know I'm not missing anything. The picture quality is so similar to my X100t especially in black and white. The ISO limitations of the leica is debilitating to me especially in winter.

>>2948777
Serves you right. Now pray you will be able to sell that trash with little or no loss so you can be a pure photographer with your Leica.

>>2948781
Of course I can. It's a Leica so it won't depreciate in a few months at all.
I think I might a DSLR with the money though. Thinking a Pentax K-50 or equivalent for more technical stuff. Or how's the Pentax k-s2?

>>2948781
Wait, you mean sell the fuji?

What do you guys think of Xiaomi's new mirrorless camera?

http://xiaomi-mi.com/news-and-actions/m1-mirrorless-digital-camera-from-xiaomi-yi/

http://www.yitechnology.com/yimirrorless/index.html

>>2948806
Of course, now he has a Leica, no need for a digital rangefinder wannabe.

>>2948805
I'd get the K-70 but the K-S2 is also good. The K-50 is very budget friendly and sports the same magical Toshiba/Sony sensor the D7100 and the K-5 series had.
The kit lens that comes with the K-S2 and K-70 is redesigned, more modern, quiet focusing, collapsible while still sealed. So I would get one of the newer ones.

best compact camera mainly used for travelling?

>>2948850
RX100 series is the standard.

>>2948557
>Can any of the A6000 proponents say if the camera will still exceed, given that I would use the cheaper end of Sony lenses?
If by that you mean the cheaper end of the E-mount lenses, sure.

The Sigma 60mm f/2.8 and 30mm f/1.4 are amazing and cheap. The Sony 28mm f/2 and 55-210 (second kit lens) also is good. And you could use the 19 + 30mm Sigma f/2.8 too - it's not like those are worse than a upper midrange MFT lens.

And the Samyang MF wide angle lenses are also more or less best on a A6000 if you're looking in this price range... you still get the sensor, focus peaking and all that.

>>2948818
Probably going to be good for a cheap camera.

Initial export prices will be stupidly inflated though, and most Xiaomi devices so far needed a moment until the software was patched up (happened on anything from their fitness tracker over intelligent lamps to quadcopters and sports camaeras). So even if it's released next month, it might be only a good choice in two months or so, depending on how fast export prices approach the chinese price levels.


Of course, it's still a MFT. Probably not gonna switch to it.

>>2948695
> but no budget option with good optics.
Nah.

Samyang's 12/16mm are more or less as good as it gets on APS-C, but all of the 8/10/12/14/16/21/50 are okay

Sigma 19/30/60mm f/2.8 and 30mm f/1.4

Sony 28 f/2 and 55-210mm and 30mm Macro

Adapted lenses of all sorts. (Here is a shot from a new Chinese ~$22 including adapter lens: https://www.flickr.com/photos/arnoldus1942/29823755986/in/pool-2062341@N22/)

There are quite a lot more lenses that you could adapt from other systems or the full-frame E-mount.

>>2948864
HAHA
Keep defending your shit system, dumbass!

>>2948870
Way to make him look more credible.

>>2948818
It will probably introduce a lot of automatic-babies to the field of system cameras.
Might be a good thing.
Considering you can adapt any lens to MFT, I am thinking about getting one of those for my dad, he still has some old manual lenses in the attic.
I mean, go to any flea market, grab a few MD or M42 lenses (because I never find any other) and that camera will probably be a charm to play with for anyone interested in the hobby. Grab one of the fast automatic primes by Oly or Pana and you have a damn decent set.
Then again, it does nothing the GM1 or GM5 can't do.

>>2948739

I bought two lenses from KEH at EXC quality and they were both trash.

>>2948818
I dunno about the camera, but the 42.5 f1.8 might be a good alternative to the olympus 45mm if it's significantly cheaper.

>>2948736
This is absolutely untrue, get the older AF-D 300mm f4 Nikkor. You can get it for around $400 which is an absolute steal. It's all metal, virtually indestructible, focuses quickly on pro bodies, has an immensely useful customizable focus limiter instead of a shitty near/far switch, and the IQ is superb. Sharp wide open, better tripod mount than its successors, and renders lovely bokeh.

How do you feel about the Canon 6D & 50 1.8

>>2948973
> Canon 6D
Useful, but too expensive vs what Sony / Nikon / Pentax ... have.

> 50 1.8
Okay for its price, but if you actually spend ~1.5k you probably want a better lens.

>>2948976
Useful for what?

>>2948995
Useful as a camera.

So /p/

I'm coming from a canon sl1 and moved to an a6300. I adapted my canon glass to the a6300, but the images just look flatter/dull in color bycomparison. Does anyone have a picture profile or some other setting I can tweak to get canon colors in the body? Or WIll I have to just throw them into lightroom?

>>2949003
oh

>>2949004
Canon yanks up the reds and stuff like that, it's not neutral like the Sony shots.

You can see the approximate difference here:
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/54537084

Some of that can be adjusted in the camera (like the WB / color adjustment) but the rest probably needs to be done in DXO or Lightroom or Darktable or such.

>>2949008
Ah, so be it. Thanks anon.

>>2949004
DXO Optics is a raw converter that will let you do this.

Just bought a Sony a6000 for my first camera. Gonna be using it for video, short film.

Now I need a lens, but I'm a poorfag so I can only afford one. What's a good general versatile all purpose lens? I don't know shit about cameras.

The crop factor is 1.6, I think that's important.
I'm thinking of a 50mm f/1.8 but I dunno if a 35mm would be better.

Thanks

>>2949014
Sigma 30mm f/1.4 DC DN is a good lens.

Arguably you could also buy the 30mm and 60/19mm f/2.8 for ~the same price, but the 30mm f/1.4 is better glass and should PDAF across the frame, the others PDAF only in the center points (which tend to be the most important ones, but still...).

When buying a camera, what do you need to buy? People keep referencing lenses but I am unsure of what those truly are / what they do. I know it is a terribly newfag question but I cannot find a pastebin

>>2949018
Alternatively, the 28mm f/2 is pretty good too, but I'd mainly get that one if you later want the WA converter for it, or the option to get a FF camera.

Apart from these suggestions, you could adapt any MF lens - you'll mostly MF film anyhow, filming with AF results in an image that is too "nervous" for most people..
Samyang has got a bunch of good modern ones, but nothing stops you from using an old Zeiss, Nikon, Canon, Zenit, Minolta, ... or something like this $22 C-mount lens I linked earlier: https://www.flickr.com/groups/2062341@N22/pool/with/29823755986/ that I linked earlier.
Or the Neewer 35mm f/1.7 for like $70 (sold on Aliexpress etc.)

>>2949020
Lenses are the optics that try to gather and arrange the light to your camera body's sensor.

Despite "only" bending light falling at an angle onto point A on the front surface of the lens to point B (and hopefully not too many other points) on a sensor, they're a nontrivial part of your interchangeable lens camera, and perhaps the part most worth spending money on for many types of photography.

>>2948736
because nikon hates its consumers. >>2948969 is right; a AFD 300/4 is your cheapest telephoto prime option. A D7100 or better will give the best AF results, although newer versions will still be faster. that will matter for BIF and ball sports, but less so for slower things. personally, i'm happy with my 70-300 VR. consider your filter size system though. the AFD 300 is 39mm drop in, the AFS 300 77mm (shared with the 24-70G, 70-200 2.8 and 80-400), and the 70-300 67mm (70-200/4, 16-85 DX VR).


>>2949014
>no based IBIS
>video
yet another person fell for the a6000 meme. atleast there's a 35m OSS for e-mount. better get a gimbal, or plan to do all static shots. also dont forget your microphone.
>still cant figure out if 35 or 50 for apsc
try doing some reading

>>2949024
I appreciate a response that explains it in terms I understand. I almost always see people out in public with (what I think are) DSLR cameras. The classic tourist canon. However, on this board, ya'll reference models that when I google them appear to be "mirrorless" cameras. Is there a simple THIS is better than THAT between the two ?

>>2949024 (cont'd)
As for "what you need to buy"... well, the minimum usually is a memory card, camera body (usually comes with one battery and a charger plus some USB cable or such), and a lens.

But how a more complete kit might look like depends a lot on what you shoot and where.

If you shoot products in a studio, you probably want a good set of lights with light modifiers like diffusers. And it's quite likely that you'll use one-two prime lenses vastly more than any other glass.

If you shoot more at events and need to get *all* key moments, you might instead want two cameras - at least one of which with a zoom lens. And both probably models with good AF and low light behavior.

If you shoot macro, it's a bit like studio shooting but the lights and lenses involved are different.

If you want to record how you bike downhill, you might possibly be happiest with a pre-made lightweight rugged sports camera on a helmet mount and nothing else.

Not that this is an exhaustive list or the same for everyone, point is just that the detailed equipment varies.

>>2949025
I'm fine with no IBIS because i come from a background of being an editor so i can stabilize things that way fine.

and yeah i'm still new as fuck to this. trying to read but, fuck.

>>2949018
Yeah those look pretty good. Pretty out of my ~200$ budget but who knows.
fuck man, i'll consider it tho.

>>2949026
> I almost always see people out in public with (what I think are) DSLR cameras.
The bigger ones usually are DSLR, yup.

> Is there a simple THIS is better than THAT between the two?
Battery life usually is better on DSLR, but that's not why you see more tourists with them.

It's just a quite new thing that MILC can match or beat proper DSLR, so most people won't have switched yet.

That said, over here (it's a richer part of Europe), I'm seeing quite a few MILC on the streets.

>>2949038
MC-11 on A7s, anyone tried it? All I can see on YT is one video on the A7s Mk II

>>2949081

a7s lacks pdaf so it ia going to be subpar.

But so does the a7sii for that matter, so they may be similar in performance actually.

>>2949038

Here in Japan, the Chinese tourists and native Japanese almost all have mirrorless. Cute girls with cute m43 cameras everywhere.

The American tourists all have DSLR (probably because in america good picture == dslr).

>>2949085
I was thinking that, but I looked at the video and looked good to me, much better than other adapters. Ive tried some native lenses in a camera shop, which would all work via CDAF they seemed pretty good.

I do plan to go to a PDAF body in the future, but I want a new lens first.

Namely, I tried the Tamron 150-600mm new G2 version and a 24-70 most likely. There was a video showing a huge number of non-Sigma lenses working very well. Id have the opportunity to try out one if I had the adapter first too.

Id rather go MC-11 as the Alpha mount they still disabled VC in.. I also did try the lens and was impressed with it over the old version.

>>2949088
Im living in Tokyo now, and I've seen a few people with mirrorless Canons

>>2949093

Kyoto here.

Can't remember seeing more than one or two Canons, but Fuji seems to be booming in popularity.

The Sonys are fucking everywhere though. A few weeks ago I saw a whole group of old men running around with a7s.

>>2949097
I'm moving to Gunma to a rural town to work for a while.

Yeah I've had my A7s when I came to Japan last year too, couldn't live without it, unless I upgraded to a newer model.

I guess I might qualify as an old man now.

>>2949100

When I finished my masters I got an a7ii. The Techart Pro adapter sold it for me. It works even better than I expected, especially with the 4.0 firmware.

>>2949104
You got pdaf, I got cdaf.. I do honestly want to upgrade though, but I still love my camera and the results I can get with it.

>>2949105

Not worth it right now.

Wait a gen or two for updated autofocus speed.

I bet the next a7 will be faster than the x-t2 and a6500 even.

>>2949100
are you gonna sell tofu or something?

File: near-mint-ricoh-gr-10-point-shoot-film-camera-w-leather-case-from-japan-606-03961b105eb91d2f77e29c12b0009462.jpg (14KB, 400x266px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 400x266px

Any opinions on a good POCKETABLE camera? Been looking at the Ricoh GR10 but was wondering if there's something smaller. I'd prefer 35mm or APC-S minimum.

>>2949170
Your phone

>>2949038
Ok thanks. I guess I am not understanding the benefit of a MILC as you call it other than the fact they look way cooler.

>>2949246
One more thing, you don't buy a camera to look at it, you buy it to look through it.
Later on when you built a bit of experience with your camera you will start to perceive the world differently, like you start to perceive it through a camera without having it on you.

>>2949252
Haha thank you for the sage advice. I wouldn't buy a camera based on looks, I am not that much of a poser. Thank you though.

i'm about to lithium grease my minolta md helicoid.
that's all i can find at the hardware store.
am i doing it right?

>>2949292
I'd use something teflon based like braycote or high tension silicon vacuum grease from dow corning
Isoflex is good too.

File: Untitled.png (399KB, 594x392px) Image search: [Google]

399KB, 594x392px

Hey all. Canon user here. I've got my hands on a rabal SL1. Nothing fancy, but I'm surprised of the image quality it's gotten me. So far I've built up an array of lenses ranging from my first L being the 16-35 2.8 ii. I didn't get the f4 because even though it is more sharp the IS does nothing for me in low light such as concert venues and astrophotography. I've also got my hands on a 50mm 1.8, nothing fancy. Lastly, I have a 4.5-5.6 100-300 USM.

My question here is:

I have about $1500 USD saved up that I was planning to go towards a 1-DX. I know most of you will say it's not necessary, however, I'll argue with you that the type of photography I plan on getting in to requires the weatherproofing the 1DX offers for me such as storm timelapse photography.

That being said, with the current prices of camera bodies, my question to you guys is presented here:

Do I purchase an 85mm 1.2 lens and start saving again (by that time the 1DX price will be a little lower, and I'll have a good 135mm equivalent portrait lens in the meantime)

Thank you. I'm a faggot. Canon sucks. Sony is better. All that stuff out of the way feel free to comment down below.

In the meantime enjoy one of my most recent shots taken with my 16-35 at the widest setting (~26mm equivalent)

>>2949317
You will need additional weatherproofing for stormchasing. Or you can just switch systems and do the same with an entry level Pentax... Jokes aside weathersealing does not mean waterproof. You will need the additional covers, sturdy tripod, weights, straps etc... You can do the same with a 5DIII instead of the 1DX.

File: sigma.jpg (25KB, 650x365px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 650x365px

Is the Sigma the best bang for the buck macro lens? Sigma 105mm f/2.8 EX DG OS HSM Macro.

It's going to take me a while to save up that $620.

Does anyone shoot the k1 with the 43mm limited? thoughts?

>>2949344
The Tamron 90/2.8 is similar price and better built and has better optics. I just got through the same phase of researching macro lenses and got the Tamron. Couldn't be any happier.

>>2949347
Look in the Pentax Forums.
So far people reported less contrast compared to the cheaper DA 40/2.8. Soft corners. The forums also report good FF compatibility for the DA 40 when stopped down to f/4.

>>2949326
Thanks man do you think you can give me some suggestions for a good setup?

>>2949349
that's surprising. A lot of people raved about the Sigma. Thanks a million.

It has a micromotor. It's cheaper than the Sigma.Any you're happy with it? Thank you annonny. That's what its all about!

>>2949372
There was a very good article recently about stormchasing but in a hungarian magazine. Basically, tripod fixed with sandbags against the strong wind gusts, camera and lens covered with raincoat and strapped tight to the setup, exposure set aand the photographer operating from the nearby car via remote. Not tethered, cheap chinese IR remote to start the exposure and wait for enough lightnings to strike. Sometimes he used ND filters.
That is it really, simple camera operation with you safely away in the car and the setup wrapped in waterproof cover and weighted down.

>>2949375
Mine is older with the same optics as the new but screwdrive AF.
You will move the camera or the subject manually to focus at the macro settings anyway so it's not an issue.

>>2949375
Also an idea, get about 10x10cm box as long as the lens extended, cut a hole for the pop-up flash, put diffusor at the end, now you have cheap diffuse lighting for macro.

>>2949382
I AM going to need as much light as possible I guess.

>>2949383
Yeah, at f/2.8 with the lights on I needed 3s exposure at 1:2 macro on the tammy.

How's the price/performance ratio (new, not used) compared between the Nikon D5200, D5300, D5500 and D7100? Some things that are bothering are that the viewfinder covers only 95% and the cameras are not water/dust resistant, but I'd like to hear some opinions from people with experience.

>>2949410
Big difference. For the marginal increase in price, you're getting the EN-EL15 battery, pentaprism viewfinder, control dials, custom menus, screw drive motor, and CAM3500 AF module. Now, these are important things for people who find it important. Casuals need not apply. Beware of banding; it shows up after, and only after, 4 stops push (say, +2 EV push with +100 shadows, and you'll see a little banding in the darkest shadows). Just keep that in mind, and don't expose like a retard.

Casuals may find the D5300 and D7000 sufficient. D5300 being the first (or second?) D5xxx with CAM4800 (works nicely, just not as nicely as as 3500), pretty decent camera but only if you can get it cheap. A $500 D7000 for pretty much the same as D7100 except lower spec AF module and 16 MP sensor (no banding, but can't push as far as the D7100 in the first place).

File: frontpage2[1].jpg (238KB, 1280x960px) Image search: [Google]

238KB, 1280x960px

Should I get a Olympus 17mm f/1.8 for my EM1?

Or an old fuji x100 on Craigslist?

They're surprisingly similar in price...

>>2949420
If you already have an EM1 I recommend the 17mm. It will focus faster and you'll acheive higher resolution than the first gen x100. It also has a nice manual focusing system for street shooters, and you won't have a new interface to learn. If we were talking about an x100S, it would be a different story.
Just my 2¢.

>>2949246
MILC aren't immediately superior, though they do have advantages in size, lessened mechanical wear, and higher theoretical burst rates.

DSLR have a mirror to temporarily split off light to PDAF sensors (which get the required measurements for calibrating autofocus and sometimes more) when you're not exposing the main image-taking sensor during a shot.

Sony and others were now able to integrate the same PDAF sensors on the main image sensor, making the mirror superfluous.

It gives you the same kind of fast PDAF in a smaller box, without the mechanically (slowly) wearing and slightly vulnerable extra mirror part. This also enables faster burst rates and videos with PDAF active - which wasn't possible 'cause mirrors can't flap at 60fps or 240fps with stopping at each frame to take a measurement.

MILC probably are the future even just for economical reasons, complex "extra" mechanical parts almost never lasted long against equivalent electronics in a compact package.


Apart from this, the reason to adapt a mirrorless camera also can be just differences based on vendors. Pricing / sensor / lens choice and other reasons, eh. Nikon and Canon heavily gimped most cameras under ~$1k in software and hardware both, so that alone might give incentives to look at MILC.

>>2949410
They're not water proof, like most electronics they are at least "resistant" to a good extent.

Can't wreck your Nikon or Sony just by getting a little rain on them or someone spilling their glass of water over your camera. Just dry it out and it's going to be fine. Biggest risk is that you get some in your zoom lenses, if you use these.

Not that you should drag these cameras through a desert or the sand at a beach, but you don't "simply" destroy them with a bit of water.

> D7100
The only camera Nikon didn't gimp. Take that if you are a hobbist.

> Some things that are bothering are that the viewfinder covers only 95%
Get the A6000-A6500 if you can't deal with that. Not that I'd get them for THIS reason. The remaining 5% that don't show up in the viewfinder aren't actually a big deal.

>>2949420
the old x100 is slow, has no IS, and doesn't even have fuji x-trans sensor.

get the 17mm.

File: sony-fe-90mm-f-2.8-macro-oss-lens.jpg (150KB, 976x608px) Image search: [Google]

150KB, 976x608px

>>2949344
Best bang for the buck in general for APS-C and MFT is likely some $10-30 vintage macro by Osawa or Kiron or such, but maybe you don't want to be THAT economical.

The 90mm FE is the best bang for the buck on a higher-end macro lens. So sharp, best macro and one of the best lenses ever made in general, yet only moderate in price.

If you're not adapting but on a CaNikon, I guess the Tamron or Sigma should be fine though. There also are a bunch of cheap older Nikon options if you only need 1:2 (for like, jewelry and model shots) rather than 1:1.

Lenses > Bodies, but D3100 -> D7100 > 16-85 DX VR?

On one hand, the 16-85 DX VR gets me 24 on the wide end, and is pretty good all around. I'm betting it's going to out resolve the 14MP sensor; the 18-55 and 35 DX look the same to me on the D3100.

On the other hand, I'm not wholly satisfied with the D3100 for a variety of reasons including performance and features. The 18-55 will suck on the D7100 compared to the D3100, but at least I have the 35 DX and 70-300.

wat do

>>2949444
>The 90mm FE
nice trips. they have a canon lens mount for that?

any other help on a macro? I'm leaning towars the Tamron 90/2.8 because it's cheaper than the sigma.

>>2949456
If you want to chip off a bit more from the costs the Tamron SP 90/2.8 has an Adaptall mount version you can easily adapt to EF.

http://www.pentaxforums.com/userreviews/tamron-sp-mf-90mm-f2-8-macro-1-1-72b.html

>>2949456
> nice trips. they have a canon lens mount for that?
Unfortunately no. It's an E-mount lens.

You can easily adapt Canon lenses to Sony's E-mount cameras, but I think the other way around isn't implemented yet.

> I'm leaning towars the Tamron 90/2.8 because it's cheaper than the sigma.
I think that's a good choice.

A used D7000 for $400, or should i save a bit more and get a used D7100 for $550?

>>2949466
The D7100 is a pretty important upgrade over the D7000 and will help with almost any kind of photography - get that one.

Or get an A6000.

>>2949471
I see, thank you!

>>2949465
I like an auto focus feature though, even though macro people say they don't use it much
I take 40 pics a day

I want a manual focus Nikon camera. Should I get a FE2 or FA?

>>2949477
>I like an auto focus feature though, even though macro people say they don't use it much
I do too [another reason for the 90mm FE].

Now, the Canon 100mm f/2.8L is quite more expensive for not being much better optically, so I didn't suggest it earlier.

But if you're willing to pay the price difference... well, that one would give you a macro lens with useful AF, and slightly better IQ too.

>>2949502 (cont'd)
There is also the non-L variant 100mm. Unlike the "L" it sucks wide open. Sure, f/4-f/16 or so should be okay for most macro, but not having f/2.8 is a bummer for portraits and such.
And no IS either. And IIRC it was a fairly noisy lens and felt worse to operate.

Either way, back then I determined on the spot that it wasn't an option for me vs the "L" (as Canon intended to happen, eh). But maybe you decide differently.

>>2949477
On my tammy when the focus is off by 2mm and you AF out from 1:1 ratio you are already at 1:2 ratio. Everything is half the size in your image, this is why we don't use AF on macro.
On those high magnifications the focus controls the extension of the front assembly and only controls macro ratio.
There are special tripod heads for macro where you can focus by turning a knob on the tripod head that moves the camera and lens altogether. Same on high quality bellows extenders.
AF is pretty pointless on macro settings, only useful if you use the lens on normal distances as a regular lens. Only a macro lens is primarily corrected for close focus where the regular lens are corrected for medium-infinity distances. I highly recommend you research more into this field.

>>2949502
Nobody cares about your shitty sony. It costs more than double than the EF mount lenses.

>>2949525
For lenses with good AF and good optics:
> 100mm Canon L -> $800
> 90mm FE -> $1100
It's also quite a bit more than the same fraction better in terms of resolving power.

Easily worth its price & one of the best deals for an actually good lens.

>>2949531
>Tamron SP 90/2.8 $350-$500
>Sigma OS HSM 105/2.8 $250-$600
Although the cheaper end of the Sigma is the EX version, no-DG so it has slightly worse IQ and the usual horrible finish trademark of Sigma
And not to mention all the older manual focus adaptall and various mount lenses going for pennies or the professional bellows sets with 100/4 lenses.
Do your homework first before you start shilling your shitty brand.

>>2949525
> this is why we don't use AF on macro
Continuous AF or DMF (AF followed by the option to readjust MF on lock) is still faster than MF, even for macro.

This is true even if you need to readjust distances to get the right framing.

That said, of course MF usually just fine, especially with a slider (where you're not required to compensate focus for your breathing and all that). But that could be said about many situations.
Yet most people use AF even then 'cause it's easy, fast, and justwerks.

>>2949547
Jesus Christ you are a stupid one! Once you move 2 mm out from 1:1 you are already at 1:2 you goddamn dense inbred fuckwad! You are at 1:1, you don't want to move out with the AF!
I honestly believe you never ever used a macro lens before!

>>2949543
> Although the cheaper end of the Sigma is the EX version, no-DG so it has slightly worse IQ
Guess how I feel about them having just ~half the resolving power of the 90mm FE, then?

> And not to mention all the older manual focus adaptall and various mount lenses going for pennies or the professional bellows sets with 100/4 lenses.
I actually mentioned some extremely cheap options.

> Do your homework first
Right back at you.

>>2949552
In the real world, people are often using focusing rings, and because this indeed changes the magnification ratio that actually means not every damn shot with a macro lens is 1:1.

Also, healthy people can actually handhold lenses precisely to about 1mm or so, but it's actually still nice if your AF & OS can actually largely compensate for breathing or such.

Either way, AF works just fine for "real life" macro lens usage. You're the one that has more to learn.

>>2949561
God almighty in the heavens, why are sony faggots so dumb and ignorant?
BTW, guy, it still shows how clueless you are in macro photography. Watching videos and reading reviews and tutorials means very little, you have to sit down and make the damn macro shot you want and stumble into the problems I already mentioned above.
But you don't care, you just spout your useless brand propaganda like the good little lamb you are. You will never learn, you will never make good photography and you will never actually use a camera.

>>2949561
>but it's actually still nice if your AF & OS can actually largely compensate for breathing or such
BUT IT CAN'T BECAUSE BREATHING ONLY WILL INDUCE MORE THAN 10mm DRIFT IN FOCUSMAKING YOU EXPOSE A TINY LITTLE FLOWER AND A GIANT GODDAMN PETAL IN ONE SINGLE EXPOSURE!
Thank god it would be all blurry as fuck.

>>2947696
too expensive for peanut sensor.
at least get em1ii, you can shoot raw video with that.

>>2948373
18mm f2 is slow, soft and shit.
better use the kit lens.

>>2949570
> God almighty in the heavens, why are sony faggots so dumb and ignorant?
I don't blame all Canon users for your behaviour and argument-dodging.

> Watching videos and reading reviews and tutorials means very little
That's actually your problem. You are the one crafting theories where the implication is that somehow focusing with the ring somehow present on all macro lenses is unnecessary because the world requires 1:1 anyhow.

On the other hand, I'm actually using AF on the macro lens, and it works just fine for most shots. And it + OS enables a lot of shots to be more quickly made handheld.

>>2949572
> BREATHING ONLY WILL INDUCE MORE THAN 10mm DRIFT IN FOCUSMAKING
1 fucking cm? Are we only doing macro while running and breathing heavily now?

Either way, it works in reality - sorry that that doesn't match your expectations.

> YOU EXPOSE A TINY LITTLE FLOWER AND A GIANT GODDAMN PETAL IN ONE SINGLE EXPOSURE!
Do I get this right: You expose for like 1.5s while you inhale/exhale a breath?

Shit. Normal people would just not breathe much and shoot at like 1/200 / f/11 during daylight or whatever the fuck they want (up to 1/4000-1/20000 depending on camera) with strobes... but they still probably want focus on the right place right before they shoot.
And it's at least quite helpful if the camera fixes its focus exactly on what you want a few ms before at most.

>>2949624

This.

It is even worse than Sony's infamous 16mm. At least that can actually autofocus at a decent speed.

>>2949483
FE2 is classic, FA has better gizmos though. Get the FA if you plan on shooting P/A/S/M and enjoy matrix metering, FE2/FM2 for OG center weighted metering.

Currently own a t2i, kit lens, and nifty fifty and feel the need to upgrade. Selling it all.

I was thinking about getting a Sony but I can't deal with glass prices or adapters; no budget for that. I'm gonna stick with Canon till I can afford to go Sony.

I do mostly video.

70D+refubrished 24-70mm? Or should I keep the t2i and invest in glass?

>>2949683
Just buy glass. canon's body's have basically the same video quality. Unless your someone who wants to do that vlog stuff.

>>2949683
Keep the t2i, get glass.

> I was thinking about getting a Sony but I can't deal with glass prices or adapters
What if you shot with the kit lenses or some $150 to maybe 350 primes first and got some vintage and second-rate glass at <$100 for the less important focal lengths.

Still too expensive?

>>2949699
I'm worried about my t2i (6yrs+ around 25k actuations) craps on me.

I do some professional work (kids birthdays, social media video for bars/restaurants/bakeries and car shoots) so the kit glass on Sony wouldn't be up to it. As of now, I can get canon glass easily (rent or borrow)

What should I get for my t2i? I was thinking about some legacy stuff or refubrished from canon.

>>2949716
As in a 24-70mm, but it IS expensive.

File: p questrion.jpg (2MB, 4000x2160px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4000x2160px

Hey would pic related work for a cheap ass budget auto focus birding set up?

could i replace the 1.4x teleconference with the 2x? The a6300 should be able to focus at f/8 right?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2016:10:19 20:02:51
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	4000
Image Height	2160

>>2949724

I have personally used that combo minus the teleconverter. I was very impressed.

>>2949752
I'm doing everything minus the teleconverter

the 200mm on the 1.5x crop is much too short for birding though, isnt it?

>>2949754
>the 200mm on the 1.5x crop is much too short for birding though, isnt it?
git gud

also
>his system doesn't have native telephotos and teleconverters, but readily touts its autofocus ability
top
o
p

kek
e
k

>>2949766

It does have native telephotos and teleconverters though. Slightly smaller and better performing than the Canon too.

The SEL70200GM was just released however, and is sold out everywhere.

>>2949716
> the kit glass on Sony wouldn't be up to it.
No, but a Sigma 30mm f/1.4 or 28mm f/2 should be good.

A 19/30mm f/2.8 should also easily get a pass for those events if your current lens did.

Next week I'm eligible for dealer pricing because I work at a camera store and I get a solid deal on buying gear direct from Fuji, I'm picking up an X100T, I'm really excited.

File: nikond700_front.jpg (151KB, 1280x1000px) Image search: [Google]

151KB, 1280x1000px

How does the Nikon D700 hold up nowadays? I can get one used with a 50mm f1.8 for $600 AUD ($460 USD). Shutter count is at 44k, is this a good deal?

>>2949867
It's a 12MP camera. There are now lower-end APS-C and MILC with 24MP.

Closest match I can think of is the K-5 except even that has a bunch of advantages... faster burst rates, cheaper lenses, ...

For that price. Nope, nope, nope.

>>2949867

Dont listen to this faggot >>2949876

D700 is a legendary camera and an absolute beast, still one of Nikons best cameras

I have 2 and still shoot them alongside my D4 for pro work (photojournalist) I still prefer the image over the D4 (I think it has something to d with the colors) one is beat to absolute fucking shit and still works perfectly.

Dont just take my word for it though, ask anyone else that has one or look at any reviews.

>>2949867
I would jump on it. That's less than you would pay for the body alone in most places. 12mp isn't really that bad and while it's obviously not D5-level it should hold up fairly well for low-light.

Also if it's the 50 1.8D it's a pretty good lens. Light, built better than the shitty Canon one, sharp, and focuses quickly.

>>2949882
>>2949884
Alright cheers guys, I think I'll seal the deal

>>2949882
And with fairly expensive and heavy pieces of FF glass you can have performance that actually sometimes surpasses a K-50.

Like, in low light. Or when the glass is a lot better and quite a bit more expensive. Totally worth it, eh.

http://www.digidirect.com.au/csc/fujifilm/fujifilm_x-pro2_mirrorless_digital_camera_body__74171

Is this a decent deal?

>>2949867
I'm primarily a pocket cam shooter and even I would buy it at that price.

File: 1464062377849.jpg (113KB, 800x450px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 800x450px

>>2949886
>K-50
>APS-C consumershit body
>Compared to the god emperor of that generation of cameras
>And in the deep, dark night, a lonely, deluded Pentaxfag cried out, "I"M RELEVANT!"

>>2949891
It really shows how old the D700 is when small time consumershit beats it in most regards, doesn't it...?

But hey, if you wanna lug around an usually about twice as heavy 8 year old dinosaur setup that usually will record worse pictures with more expensive lenses, be my guest.

At least you can do it in some extra less well-lit locations.

File: Canon_EOS_1300D_cover_ndtv.jpg (81KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 800x600px

Is the Canon 1300D a good camera to film with?

I'm going to Japan soon, and planning on shooting my first independent film. During school I was supplied with professional cameras which are way beyond my price range and obviously they're too large for me to carry around all day. So I need a small camera that's affordable since I'm poor, and one that can manage low-light environments well.

Also, if the camera gets a little rain on it, will it damage easily?

Note: I live in Australia, where technology is expensive. The Canon 1300D is $500, and that is what I consider affordable for me. Anything above ~$650 is out of my price range.

>>2949906
What's the reason to get that one over, say, a Yicam / Yicam 4k for your usage?

The 1300D doesn't handle low light well.

>>2949626
This guy still not realizes that you lose quite a lot of light at macro range. You actually need more than a second exposure, that is why most macro rigs are peppered with stationary lights and several strobes. If you want to make a fast enough shutter speed at 1:1 you have to bring down the sun. Because an f/2.8 lens becomes dim as fuck at 1:1 ratio and we didn't talk about getting decent DOF!

>>2949724
just get an ef-s 55-250mm.
just a little shorter than the 200 with a tele.

>>2949724
>f/4 on an extender
Why not get the Tamron 70-200/2.8 VC USD instead? Cheaper, brighter and it should work on the adapter, right?

>>2949914
I have no idea what a Yicam is, but after looking it up it seems to be something like a GoPro?

I was hoping to get a DSLR camera that can take high-quality video and photos. I also want something I can have for everyday use when I'm not filming something planned.

>>2949906
>1300D
>not even 4k
get a panasonic g7 + lens turbo + bentax 50mm f1.4.

>>2949921
> Because an f/2.8 lens becomes dim as fuck at 1:1 ratio
T-stoppage for that lens is 2.9 wide open so no, it doesn't become "dim as fuck" at 1:1

> and we didn't talk about getting decent DOF!
I did. 1/200 works fine at f/11 with daylight and base ISO or near it.

You can go a lot faster with strobes or higher ISO, obviously.