/gear/ - Gear Thread

File: unnamed.png (109KB, 416x354px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 416x354px

>>2960089
When the fuck is this coming out? Do you think it'll be good?

>>2960094
> When the fuck is this coming out?
Isn't it out already?

> Do you think it'll be good?
No.

In case that's some new model: I don't expect anything that would even make me mildly interested. It will almost certianly neither be cheap nor good.

Can we talk about Olympus? I've completely overlooked them the last few years due to being APS-C 4lyf but now I want more versatility than my X100T and the XPro2 is just a bit big and intimidating. I've been checking out The Olympus OM-D EM5 II and the PEN F but wondering if there's anything I should know before pulling the trigger.
I'm veering towards the PEN F as it's less DSLR-like and I find that goes a long way when shooting in the streets. Weather sealing isn't important to me.

>>2960102
Is there a lens to fit the Olympus M4/3 mount which is between 35 and 50mm equivalent? I can't find any Olympus lenses in the 19-24mm range...

>>2960102
> but wondering if there's anything I should know before pulling the trigger
It's more compact and being on an open lens system is conceptually quite nice.

But you also get a downgrade in IQ vs APS-C.

You can pay a premium for high-end M.Zuiko MFT lenses and still won't get resolution like you'd get with a decent enough Sigma on a D3300 or A6000 or such (never mind their higher end variants, which you might as well buy at the price of the Olympus).

>>2960106
Size is a huge deal for me as I take my camera everywhere I can.

The PEN-F is a very expensive camera for what it is but it is still cheaper than the XPro2 and smaller.

>>2960096
No its been delayed indefinately. It looks pretty good on paper good cheaper alternative to rx100 except for no evf. Imo better aesthetically too. I'm just keen for a camera that fits in pocket has decent manual controls and can shoot raw and of course be 10x better than smart phone

File: Olympus-PEN-F-vs-Sony-Alpha-a6000-top-view-size-comparison.jpg (35KB, 720x286px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 720x286px

>>2960109

The a6000 is smaller than the PEN-F, and it has better image quality even with the mediocre kit lens.

>>2960109
> Size is a huge deal for me as I take my camera everywhere I can.
Either of these easily fits in just about any backpack or bag you could carry your EDC stuff with anyhow?

The A6000 series can also be put in jacket / cargo pants pockets and the like, as long as you're not using the bigger lenses (but I figure that's the same issue on the Oly).

> The PEN-F is a very expensive camera for what it is but it is still cheaper than the XPro2 and smaller.
If you think it works better for you because of size, that's okay.

I just wanted to point out that this fairly expensive camera can't even beat much cheaper cameras in many situations.

>>2960110
> good cheaper alternative to rx100
You might just want to check the Xiaomi M1 out. Seems like it might be a good alternative to the old RX100.

File: Olympus-PEN-F-vs-Sony-Alpha-a6000-size-comparison.jpg (51KB, 720x322px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 720x322px

>>2960114

And the front.

It is longer with the grip, but that is a good thing because it makes it easier to hold.

I'm looking for cheap medium format cameras. Any suggestions?

>>2960150
Aren't we all, friend.

Analog or digital?

File: 00Wwws-263833584.jpg (229KB, 489x629px) Image search: [Google]

229KB, 489x629px

>>2960172
Analog, I already have got a Voigländer similar to the one in the picture. I'm looking for a camera with a better lens...

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D200
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Elements 8.0 Windows
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	854
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	82 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	100 dpi
Vertical Resolution	100 dpi
Image Created	2010:07:27 19:48:36
Exposure Time	1/200 sec
F-Number	f/13.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Exposure Bias	1/3 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	55.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	489
Image Height	629
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	None
Contrast	Hard
Saturation	High
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>2960114
you realize that a large portion of the weight and size of a camera comes from lenses, right?! and E-Mount lenses are designed to also fit FF sensors, sou you're getting a tiny camera with XBOX HUEG lenses.

Who else /startergear/ here?

Still rocking that t3i

>>2960103
Panasonic makes a 20mm, Sigma makes a 19mm, Olympus makes a 17mm.
http://www.four-thirds.org/en/microft/lense.html

>>2960150

Not >>2960172

But you could look at the Yashica Mat with yashinon lens and 2.8 viewing lens. Stopped down it comes near the better Rolleiflexes.

Or are you looking for a interchangeable lens camera?

>>2960193

Not all lenses are for fullframe cameras.

If you look at the image the e-mount kit zoom is actually attached. Even though it is mediocre it should beat out most of the m43 glass.

Is it worth getting the "L" series to the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L IS USM Macro

or should I just get the regular 100mm F2.8 USM macro no "L" no "IS"

Key here is that I want a prime portrait lens that can also do macro

>>2960195
only get the sigma if you're on sony.

File: GX85.jpg (558KB, 2500x2500px) Image search: [Google]

558KB, 2500x2500px

>>2960102
GX85
8
5
>>2960227
[citation needed]
Daily reminder the 16-50 is a turd, and
>electronic zoom

Found an ad for a T3i 600d for $450 on craigslist. The guy can't seem to give me a shutter count. Y/N?

>>2960267
I saw good mft reviews, generally people said it was actually nicer than the Sony. However you can get a used Panasonic for the price of the sigma.

Polarizers: Linear or circular? I have a G7 (mainly for video), so mirrorless. i know that DSLRs need the polarized light for AF. But If I can take any, is there an advantage to taking Linear instead of circular?

>>2960289

Just ask him to send you a photo taken with the camera and get the shutter count yourself

>>2960103
Olympus and Panasonic make good primes for specifically that area.
The Pana 25mm 1.7 is known for being the cheapest, fastest AF prime for that area. The 20mm is closer to the actual standard focal length, especiall for video-crop, but ironically, the AF is slow and noisy, so unfit for video.

>>2960322
He says he's submitted an image to get the shutter count but the site ends up saying "Your camera doesn't add shutter count information to images"

>>2960094
>>2960096

>DL 18-50
>DL 24-85
>Ricoh GR II
>Fuji X70

Which do you pick, anon?

>>2960329
Depends if you're a disgusting pleb needing zoom lenses or master race operating with a single focal length.
GR II and X100T are master race. Anything else is KYS..

>>2960329
GR, 11 times out of 10. The GR II really adds absolutely nothing over the first one though so you may as well look for a used GR for cheap.

>>2960227
>m43 doesn't have good glass
lol

>>2960360
Yeah, m43 has plenty of excellent glass. What it doesn't have is good sensor or usable AF.

>>2960338
I can't find a fucking GR anyway.

>>2960362
Ever tried ebay?

>>2960367
Yep. It's all GR Digitals and GRIIs

How many shots is considered good for a used body? I'm having trouble deciding between a new D3300 with kit lens and a used D7000 body with about 30k shots for the same price.

>>2960373
30K on D7000 is nothing. It is half life on a D3300.
Just get a Pentax K-S2 like any normal person.

>>2960361
>What it doesn't have is good sensor
It has as good a sensor as that size of sensor can possibly have
>usable AF
But the AF is fast and accurate. S-AF is pretty much instant.

It just cant C-AF worth a damn. Not a problem for 80% of /p/'s worthless still life snapshits, and shots of people's backs.

>>2960379
Why not just get the newest iPhone, the one that competes with DSLRs?

File: question.jpg (19KB, 296x320px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 296x320px

>>2960317
Anyone?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Photographer	Miyomo
Image-Specific Properties:

>>2960382
I would buy a circular because it is easier to get nowdays. Linear is good if you can find one in good condition, like in a Cokin A set from the film days.

File: 5dmarkii_1_xl.jpg (25KB, 675x450px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 675x450px

I'm trying to sell my used Canon 5DmkII on craigslist and facebook. Problem is, while it works perfectly and is in really good condition aesthetically, it has 154,890 actuations on the shutter. Even lowering the price to $500 hasn't netted any interest.

So, do I buy a new shutter assembly from ebay for $75 and install it myself? While I've never done a shutter replacement, I am confident in my abilities - with some help from the internet, of course.

Or do I just list it on ebay as-is and not expect to get much from the sale?

>>2960317
circular looks better imo

File: catt.jpg (20KB, 422x347px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 422x347px

Getting out of my D3200 setup and switching to mirrorless with Fuji.

Should I go ahead and get a used X-T1 or save and spring for the X-T2?

>>2960395
>investing into a new APS-C system

What can't you do with the D3200 that you can't do? Isn't there a new lens you could buy instead of a new body (that requires totally different lenses)?

I get maybe if you're switching formats (jumping to full frame), but I don't know why you're switching systems otherwise.

GAS and a waste of money

>>2960317
Linear is cheaper.
>>2960386
They look exactly identical.

>>2960386
>>2960383
Thanks for the info.

Are variable ND filter worth it? do they have some sort of drawback?
Because why get a 2+4+8 set if can get a 2-400 for the same price?

Is polaroid the only company to ever produce a camera with sonar autofocus?

>>2960404
Variable ND's are intended for video.

A set of normal ones will be cheaper when they are similar quality, and cover a wider range.

Also I'm not 100% sure but I think like linear polarizers, variable ND filters (essentially two polarizing filters stacked on top of each other) don't allow for phase detection AF.

>>2960405
I believe some incredibly cheap Canon film p&s use it

>>2960398
Should've figured this would come up. My friend wants to get into photography and I'm selling my entire set-up to him.

The size reduction of the body and the weather sealing of the X-T1/2 is very important to me.

Sup /gear/

I want to get into macro photography and have been considering buying the canon 100 mm f/2.8L IS USM. I would mainly be taking pictures of fish (I have 3 fishtanks) and flowers/reptiles/amphibians

My body is an eos 750d. Anyone got any experience with the lens? Is it worth the premium over the non IS? Would you recommend it?

>>2960435
You don't need Af for macro, just move your body forward and backwards until the AF light illuminates.
Get the Tamron 90/2.8 Adaptall2 lens with the adapter ring to EF mount and spend the spare cash on a macro focus rail and some light panels.
This is the lens I'm talking about:
http://www.pentaxforums.com/userreviews/tamron-sp-mf-90mm-f2-8-macro-1-1-72b.html

>>2960436
Also instead of the light panels or along them get a good manual flash like from Yongnuo

>>2960386
stop spouting crap.
they look the same.

linear is usually cheaper, so just get that.

Hey /p/hags, I'd like to be able to take a picture with sth. Don't have a smartphone, rec me anything that does the job for not too much cash

>>2960467
Get a smartphone

>>2960384
500usd? that price is way toooo high you need to cut ittttt

>>2960467
xiaomi redmi 1s + cm13 if super poorfag.
xiaomi redmi note 3 pro + cm13 for 5.5"
xiaomi redmi 3s or 3 pro + cm13 for 5".

>>2960384
why replace it when it's not broken?

>>2960094
I dont know, but Nikon ILCs so far have been pretty awful. For one thing, they dont even use APS-C, which Micro 4/3s gets away with by being a collaboration between 2 different companies

If size is that big of a concern for you, then maybe itll be good. I see it at least has a couple dials, so that is an improvement on some of the crap they have out now

>>2960482
>>2960488
Please, re-read the post. Thanks.

File: Screenshot_2016-11-06-19-10-30.png (193KB, 720x1280px) Image search: [Google]

193KB, 720x1280px

Hey guys total fuckin noob here. I'm looking to get into photography and I'm wondering this is a good first camera? Is there anything cheaper with similar specs? I'm low on cash (broke af) and I want something that's halfway decent for me.

>>2960487
Maybe choice wrong wording.
I meant, I'd like anything but a smartphone, as long as it works

>>2960492
Yes it has a pretty small sensor but still 10 times bigger than phone sensor. This one isnt ilc btw

Went to finger fuck the cameras at a new Best Buy today:

D7200: 5 FPS RAW is a bit disappointing, 7 FPS in 1.3x mode with JPEGs is acceptable. Nikon is kill either way.
70D: Holy shit no wonder Canon's in the shitter. The shutter is downright agricultural sounding. It sounds like plant shears click clacking back and forth every time you fire the shutter. It makes my F100 sound quiet, no joke.
80D: Much better in the shutter department, and the new AF module is nice. Dual pixel AF is the tits.
A6300: Sony's got a real DSLR killer here. The viewfinder lag while panning and the mediocre looking live view updates make it a real contender. Those fade to black frames inserted between frames aren't helping anything. Viewfinder at 120 FPS, settings preview off, image review off, continuous mid and high drive mode, 1/500 auto ISO shutter priority. AF coverage is nice, but subject tracking is garbage compared to Nikon's. It gets hanged up on products as people walk between shelves. The grip is nice, compared to other mirrorless cameras that don't have one.

>only one control dial
top kek

Daily reminder that a stranger's opinion on the internet is nothing compared to going to handle the cameras in person. Put your aspergers aside for a moment and pop down to your local camera store even if only to just waste their time and play with the cameras.

Two questions:

Hand straps, good or not? How tight do they have to be to support the weight of your camera well? Do they do well with mirrorless cameras (XT1), or better for hanging DSLR systems off your hand? I like the idea of having the camera at hand while out and about, not needing a long camera strap, and not needing to grip my camera tightly for long periods of time.

Quick lens change systems. Quick google search says there's Peak Design's captureLENS belt clip system, and the Lensflipper system. Are there any others worth anything out there?

Need a cheap EF lens for casual birding. What should I get?

Are the Canon G10 or G11 still relevant? I'm kind of in the market for a small camera with more controls than a P&S, but I also don't want to spend a ton.

>>2960539
Buy a cheap chinkshit one and see if you like it. Personally I hated them.

File: IMG_1962-2.jpg (706KB, 1000x750px) Image search: [Google]

706KB, 1000x750px

>>2960571
I love my G10 but it's pretty noisy.
Dials and controls are great, it shoots raw, and the colours are great.
It's slow as fuck, shooting raw slows it down further.

But if you can get it for fairly cheap go for it.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.7 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2016:11:07 02:59:27
Color Space Information	sRGB

>>2960324
canons can only get shutter count by sending your camera to canon, where they interface a proprietary software to it.

Looking for a point and shoot so I'll actually have a camera with me while I wear something other than a michigan jacket. Probably sell my a6000 + pancake, since I can't fit it in my pocket. Hear the GR spouted a lot here, my dad's telling me to check out the canon gx whatever the hell and know one else I know takes pictures worth a damn. Thoughts? Concerned about the 28mm of the ricoh, since I generally prefer ~50mm.

>>2960589
Thanks. I suppose I should be a bit more specific if I'm asking for advice. I would like something around the same size as a G11 or G10 with a viewfinder and manual controls. The PEN-F looks sweet but it's way out of my budget, and I don't really care for or need removable lenses. I don't care about video either, and want it for street and landscape/nature photography.

Can you comment on the differences between the G10 and G11? They seem really similar, save for some aesthetics (and the G11 has less mega pickles? Seems odd but I don't really think that matters).

>>2960599

G11 is fine, but a bit bulky.

Ricoh GR is considerably more compact and a solid camera.

Also look at the Sony RX100. Up to revision four now I think, and they are all pretty solid.

As for the PEN F, with pancake lenses the a6000 is actually smaller.

>>2960602

Oh woops, meant to reply to
>>2960594

>>2960283
[citation needed]

iso 800 on the PEN-F looks like iso 6400 on the a6000.

Doesn't matter how good the lenses are when the shot is burried in grain.

>>2960599
I just found the Nikon P7000 which fits the bill nicely as well. So far I like the look of the G10, but I like the ability to hide the screen like you can with the G11 and G12, I don't like the scroll wheel on the G12 but I like the "G12" logo placement on the front of the G10 and G12 (inlaid into the grip instead of printed).

I think I would never use the built in flash, but I don't like the pop-up flash on the P7000 because it seems like that's one more step between taking out the camera and putting it away.

(mostly just making notes for myself for when I look more into this purchase)

i have a nex-5n and i want a good cheap portrait lens, should i go with sel50f18 or sigma art 60mm?

>>2960644
Sigma 30mm f/1.8 is probably more useful to a lot of people.

But if you really want to shoot at an equivalent of 85mm+, get the 60mm f/2.8. It'll be very sharp and nice enough. You can bokeh whore with another lens.

>>2960606
>Claim E-Mount Glass is better than M43 Glass
>Get pressed
>suddenly claim it's about the Sensor

Nice Goalpost moving.

>>2960593
I dunno if that is true but I wouldnt be surprise.
What if you put Magiclantern on there?

File: 525932240.jpg (555KB, 2000x1500px) Image search: [Google]

555KB, 2000x1500px

>>2960089
Anyone know if the black scuff marks on the side could be cleaned off with solvent? Or are they scratches through the plastic.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Photographer	teleri
Image-Specific Properties:

>>2960703
For car interior elements you should go to >>>/o/

>>2960700
What if you shoved the camera up your ass? Of course you don't need to send your stupid camera to Canon to get the shutter count. EOSInfo is what I use. Your mileage may vary depending on software and camera model, though.

File: 0188_Polaroid_SX-70_Model_2_White_(5141856950).jpg (1MB, 1500x1351px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1500x1351px

>>2960707
well memed brother

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS-1Ds Mark III
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/4.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2010:11:03 11:45:25
Exposure Time	1/125 sec
F-Number	f/7.1
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	1250
Lens Aperture	f/7.1
Exposure Bias	1/3 EV
Subject Distance	0.60 m
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	70.00 mm
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>2960697
> Claim E-Mount Glass is better than M43 Glass
Not correct for the shorter A6000 kit lens of the two kit lenses (original claim of the other anon), but correct for quite many primes.

Metrics for this are available here in the sharpness rating:
https://www.dxomark.com/lenses/mounted_on-Sony_A6000-942 (has about ten more pieces of high-end glass that wasn't tested or not tested on this camera)

vs

https://www.dxomark.com/lenses/mounted_on-Olympus_OM-D_E-M1-909 (best lenses should be present with very few absent)

Feel free to look at other MFT cameras too, it won't really change anything. [Arguably, it's again about the same situation with APS-C vs FF.]

>>2960710
>dxo
Stay clear! He's gonna do it! He's gonna do it!
OOOH HE DID IT AGAIN! The absolute madman!

>>2960731
> Shit, someone brought relevant, measured numbers. Let's just discredit the source!

>>2960738
>dxo
>relevant, measured numbers
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAH
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA

>>2960731
>>2960750
buttblasted explosive diarrhea

>>2960516
used canon eos m + 22mm + 18-55mm if you're super poorfag.
eos m3 is ok too.
sony nex 6, 5r, 5t, a6000, a5000, a5100. sigma 19mm f2.8 is nice. noobs always think the 30mm is too tight.
nikon coolpix a if you can find it for $300.
fujifilm x70.
olympus epl6 is cheap too.

>>2960710
>Doesn't actually post any real evidence
>just some made-up numbers by some shill website
>"N-but muh NUMBRZ"
Typical Sony shill
Go away

>>2960798
Be nice Anon! You know Sony users can't go out to take real life photos.

Any recommendation for a fisheye lens? I was thinking of getting an Opteka 6.5mm f/3.5 just because it's cheap as fuck. Then again it's probably questionable quality because it's a chinkshit company. Would a used Canon EF 15mm f/2.8 be worth the extra money? Or possibly a lens converter on a nifty fifty?

Just a quick question /p/, I don't really want to create a thread over this, but -
I'm buying a used camera and I'm wondering if it's necessary to have a lens with me to confirm if the camera is working or not. The person is only selling the body, so it won't have a lens attached when I go to inspect it.

>>2960832
Ask via social Media for someone with a lens to come with. Many cameras wont fire without a lens and you can't confirm working AF and similar

>>2960834
Thanks anon for the input. I'll make sure I have a lens ready to test before I buy now.
Cheers

>>2960801
Samyang has good and relatively inexpensive fisheyes, including the nice stereographic ones.

>>2960834
Who makes a camera that won't fire without a lens?
They'll just shoot a massive over or underexposed image without any form of detail, ie a block of light

>>2960089

newbie to photography, with an interest in natural scenery, and up close shots of bugs, critters, and plants

any gear recommendations or places to start?

>>2960936
Sigma SD quattro

but it is not really a camera for newbies

>>2960936
Get a beginner DSLR like a Nikon D3300 or a Pentax K-S2 and a macro lens like the Tamron 90/2.8.
This will allow you to get 1:1 ratio and also get you a more than decent portrait lens.
Also you can use the kit lens for landscapes and generic walkaround photos. Pentax makes the body and kit lens in weather sealed form too if you would need it.

Can someone recommend a small camera bag that fits into a normal sized backpack? It should fit a dslr and 2-3 lanses, around 30€ if possible.

>>2960936
> any gear recommendations
What's your budget like? You don't need training wheels, but I imagine you don't have over $8k for some high-end cameras and lenses?

> natural scenery
Typically a very wide angle to normal lens. Most kit zoom lenses of the 18-55 kind or such are a start.

> up close shots of bugs, critters, and plants
Macro lens, preferably 100-200mm. The best you can/want to afford.

If you don't want to spend much money yet, get a Marumi DHG +3 or +5 filter lens and stick it on the other glass you'll have.

>>2960611
Well the P7100 and P7000 don't let me hide the LCD screen, which is a deal breaker. The newer G series don't let you do that either, so it's either the G10, G11, or G12. I guess just go for the G12 since it's the newest of the bunch?

Anyone have any additional input here?

>>2961041
Buy just some normal camera bag with about the desired dimensions from Aliexpress?

The standard fare of a box-shaped one with a grip at the top shouldn't be a bad idea.

>>2961041
NatGeo Walkabout and Earth Exploder messenger bags have very neat inserts you can use in your backpack.

>>2960514
Have a look at the T6s a bit better than the T6s imo

>>2961079
em5ii, g85

Why does /p/ have so many sony spillover shills?

Guy from last thread who just bought the A6000.

Is it normal that the 16-50mm kit lens sucks? I'm finding it very soft compared to Nikon's most recent 18-55mm lens. Not only does it needs auto-focus micro-adjustments, it has bad micro contrast and everything looks hazy, kind of if it was a cheap plastic lens or something with lots of internal reflections.

Did I get a bad copy? And if yes, how common are bad copies -- should I return it?

>>2961186
No, it's shit, and if you actually did your research instead of getting memed on /p/, you'd know that too. Enjoy your piece of shit lens and your nolens system.

>talk to photographer at art festival
>ask him what he shoots with

>he shoots the same system
>say something along the lines of cool i've been getting into photography in the last year or so

>he recommends trying out some different cheap primes and seeing what i like
>i have 10k worth of gear (probably more than he does even) and already know what i like both in terms of subjects and glass/bodies
>politely say thanks and walk away because i dont know how to not sound like a dick in response to that

welp

>>2961202
Are you that meme that bought a 5d4 and some L zooms as your first camera the other day?

>>2961108
Do you have any opinion on the X-T1 vs the X-T1?

So I've had a "real" camera for about a year, and, while I love it, it's not practical to carry a DSLR around everywhere.

There's a lot of times when I don't have it and I feel like I've missed opportunities to take some nice shots.

So, naturally, I'm in the market for a nice compact(ish) camera, and I think I've got it down to a few different options: the RX100 original or Mark III, the Fuji X70 or the Fuji X100T. I'm also aware of /p/'s favorite, the Ricoh GR, but I'm concerned about that dust issue (is it that bad?).

Do you think a one-inch sensor is good enough for everyday photography? Those RX100s look pretty nice on paper, but I'm afraid of dropping hundreds and hundreds of dollars to get images that look traditionally small-sensored (shitty dynamic range, infinite depth of field, etc).

I'm intrigued by the Fujis but I'm also concerned about being limited to just 28mm or 35mm.

What should I do, /p/? Any options I haven't considered?

File: This is you.png (28KB, 949x516px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 949x516px

>>2961202

>>2961187
Sorry, should I return it and replace it with the oh-shit-it-almost-nailed-autofocus-this-time-but-at-least-it's-in-classic-chrome machines?

>>2960103
Panasonic 20mm, if this hasn't already been answered.

>>2961202
>i have 10k worth of gear (probably more than he does even) and already know what i like both in terms of subjects and glass/bodies
And I guarantee he has more knowledge and talent, so who really cares?

>>2961215
Shut the fuck up and get a GR, the dust meme is a meme. Being limited to 28mm is great, zooming sucks.

Consider just not buying anything if what you're doing is just idle gearfaggotry. Or consider going to a store and groping all of these cameras in person so you can choose based on how they make you feel instead of how people on the internet say they make you feel.

Also infinite depth of field is hardly a bad thing, it's just another tool to work with just like shallow depth of field is a tool or having a certain focal length is a tool. And by the way all of those large sensor compacts have lenses that are like 18mm to 24mm, you're hardly going to be bokeh whoring with those either.

Whats the absolute best Tripod for $130 or less? Was considering Dolicas and what not.

>>2961173
Checked both of those out, they are pretty sweet but not really what I was looking for. I went ahead and ordered a G12, since it seems to have everything I'm looking for.

>>2961228
It certainly isn't idle; I definitely want and plan to buy one of these cameras

And I appreciate your conviction, anon

>>2961234
Fotopro isn't half bad. There may be better ones for that price, but I quite like mine. Best get a L bracket for your camera body though, the ball head only has that slot that takes away a degree of freedom when the camera is in portrait orientation, otherwise.

>>2961242
Taking a look, thanks m8.

>>2960253
The non-L doesn't have IS. If you're looking for a portrait lens and macro combo, the L would probably be better suited. Honestly I would just get an 85 or the 135L for portraits

>>2961234
>$130
Is that in USD? If so there's a few sellers on ebay selling a couple different Sirui models for that price. It depends on what you need from the tripod though, such as max/min height, carbon fibre, weight, compactness etc. You'll have to do your own research, the Sirui website has a good list comparing all their models if you're interested.

>>2961249
Yea, USD.
Mainly looking for something that can get low and possibly rotate the shaft vertically.
Wish I could afford the Benro Angel II.

File: 1.0x0.jpg (53KB, 980x1362px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 980x1362px

>>2961250
>that can get low
I think most if not all Sirui models come with two centre columns, the normal length and a short one.

>and possibly rotate the shaft vertically
Do you mean like pic related? They can do that too.

>>2961254
Mainly meant rotating the actual shaft rather than simply inverting it, guess I should've said horizontally.

>>2961255
>Mainly meant rotating the actual shaft
That's the tripod heads job

File: alta_pro_263at_-_high_res_1.jpg (93KB, 1280x1280px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 1280x1280px

>>2961259
it's nice to be able to shoot straight down (think scanning film) without having the camera that close to the legs.

>>2961260
Oh you mean one of those lol, sorry you confused me. Well if you want this feature you'll have to buy that Vanguard, off the top of my head I can't think of any other top brand company that has this same feature.

>>2961266
Alright, thanks for the help anyways!
Keeping Sirui in mind though.

>>2961269
No worries mate.

>>2961186
It shouldn't need AF micro-adjustments. That one sounds like a defect or at least old firmware.

But it is a soft lens. You could compare your copy to DXO's measurements...

>>2961277
Nah, that is normal for Sony lenses.

>>2960953
>>2960961

thanks for the rec's

Gonna try to shop around, to see if any stores/folks will let me try them out for a bit.
That weatherized Pentax might be something up my alley, since I have some lonely wintry trips coming up part of job, with promises that it'll be snowy.

>>2961076

My budget is probably about $700-$1000 for now. Maybe some more or less.

Know it can get waaay up there, especially for macro photography, and I'm still more of a newbie to this hobby. Think I'd best go with something I could play with without too much fear of breaking it in.

That, and give me excuse for looking at bugs and not seeming quite as weird.

>>2961309
That budget would get you a K-70 or a used K-3/K-3II (I would get a used body, with kit lens of course)
Another tip on the macro lens, when you go into macro magnification ratio greater than 1:3 (towards 1:1 and 2:1,3:1 etc...) your focusing control becomes the ratio control. Many beginners make the mistake of going for the AF macro lenses because AF and get surprised they can't reach 1:1 ratio. A much cheaper option is a manual macro lens, the one mentioned above (Tamron 90/2.8) has an Adaptall mount version that can be used for most mounts with the appropriate adapter.
Get that one, then when you put it on your camera just set it to the necessary macro ratio and focus by moving the camera and your body with it forward and back.
Now you know how to properly macro and know more than most macro people on this board.
Also Pentax Forums has an extensive lens database, worthy to check out:
http://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/
http://www.pentaxforums.com/userreviews/

Also #2, research, research and research more. Try and watch videos/read articles more about photography techniques than gear reviews.

>>2961287
Never needed to adjust a single native lens.

Didn't even need to align any 3rd party lenses on an adapter.

This is more of a problem for DSLR with mirrors. Those have alignment problems. Though I guess you could break IBIS by slamming the sensor or something... heh.

>>2961309
> My budget is probably about $700-$1000 for now.
You could buy a A6000, kit zoom, 30mm macro (one of the cheapest modern macros on the market - but it needs to be brought up very close, which is making it less easy to use than a 100mm-200mm macro) and maybe a 12mm Samyang prime for that.

Pretty sure Panasonic / Pentax / Nikon might also have interesting setups.

> Think I'd best go with something I could play with without too much fear of breaking it in.
You don't break a camera by normal use (except for wear over time).

And with all relevant physics for actually breaking a camera -like dropping an object or slamming it against a wall- you already have experience.

Buy what you really want to use. It won't get "safer" for you to use the camera later.

Of course, if you want to drag the camera through sand, maybe pick a fully sealed Pentax.

>>2961208
>first camera
no i shot a crop for like 10 months first

>>2961226
hes old
i'm not
he fucking better have more knowledge

>>2961324
So you're saying you are an absolute noob? With 10k gear?
God damn you must be Kai/Northrup wet dream. I bet your momma and papa are proud.

>>2961327
>So you're saying you are an absolute noob?
no, where did i say that?

>>2961202
You should have taken this opportunity to be like a /p/oorfag and talk about how gear doesn't matter when you have composition, experience, and your ART.

Also, behold the jealous poorfags complaining about you having good gear, suggesting your skill must be lacking.


... I figure what you should have done is just say that you already got pretty nice equipment and that you like it? Obviously even photographers might be poor artfags and feel threatened (gear getting good IS making most of their jobs obsolete - go check how many people still pay a premium for portraits, family reunion shots... even product shots increasingly are done in-house by existing staff for smaller companies).
But you can't get along with everyone.

>>2961329
here >>2961324
and here >>2961202
Do you know what happens when I get asked about my gear? I say it is a camera. I like it because it is nice.
Oh and I do admit I am just a noob because I only do it for a hobby and I'm not afraid to face reality.

>>2961333
to be honest i could have spoke at much more length but i had to catch up with others at the fair anyway

i mostly posted it because i figured /p/ might laugh or get mad about it

>>2961335
same here, it's just a hobby i can do my whole life. I don't plan to quit my dayjob or whatever. and shooting peoples weddings sounds like a big pain

File: lens CA.png (196KB, 1804x960px) Image search: [Google]

196KB, 1804x960px

Why is there so much CA on the 24-70 f/2.8L?

>>2961336
> i mostly posted it because i figured /p/ might laugh or get mad about it
I think you can definitely get some people mad about your expensive gear in many places -including this one-, heh.

But at least in my opinion, the photographers assumption isn't outlandish enough to be funny, despite him obviously stereotyping you wrong. [At least I, too, am a jaded faggot adult that also starts from a lot of stereotypes upon meeting someone. Don't you? Since this constantly leads to mistakes, it kinda stops being funny. High levels of jaded-ness, eh.]

>>2961354
Well i didn't really want to make people that mad

if it makes you feel better the main reason i dropped so much is because i like shooting and it forces me to get out of the house and go places

i'm self aware enough to know i'm bad (most things are shit though, sturgeon's law) but over time i'll become less bad

and if nothing else i can take nice shots of things for my family and make gifts for them

>>2961353
I imagine because it's harder to get rid of prism effects on shorter lenses where the internal glass needs to use more strongly curved & fewer elements on average rather than having the option of less strongly curved and more elements on longer lenses?

Or it's just a difference in design and manufacturing. [It'll be hard to find someone who REALLY understands what's possible with glass and coatings and all that at this point. Modern glass is very complex even when you just superficially read about it.]

Why doesn't DXO mark include metrics like framerate?

>>2961358
Into what? The sum total camera score? Honestly, that specific scoring is too subjective as-is - a hodgepodge of semi-unrelated features with a really quite arbitrary weight between them. I don't use it.

What is useful on DxO are the individual measurements and maybe the more focused aggregate scores (lens sharpness isn't badly chosen at all).

>>2961353
Wow, Pentax managed much better, only 6 µm tops and only at 24mm f/4, above 24mm it is below 3 µm
Canon is a shit

>>2961364
Can't CA be fixed in post relatively easy?

Shit i think the body has correction built in

>>2961360
Into something, or even as a seperate parameter

it's the most objective measurement there is and it's suspiciously missing.

especially when it's just as important as ISO performance for sports!

>>2961369
Not to all degree and not every kind. It also leaves edge softness that destroys fine detail that is a no-no when you go high-res scenery/landscape, especially if you are using it on a crop body.

>>2961364
You say that, but Pentax isn't *exactly* king of low CA when you look at the lenses on DxO. It's actually pretty bad...

Also, f/4 is probably actually making it easier for a wide lens.

>>2961369
Yes. It's a lot more fixable (fixable with just a very low impact on IQ) than other lens defects.

File: 1421030859594.jpg (36KB, 300x360px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 300x360px

>>2961353
>tfw your favorite lens is actually shit

it's going to be in the back of my mind every single shutter actuation

>>2961375
DXO have not tested new lenses since 2008 and only extrapolates the old results for the new bodies. Not exactly precise "measurement" if you ask me. I have the Pentax 24-70/2.8 test results in the local magazine right in front of me. It is a whole league away from the old days. Oh, and it is measured on the K-1.

>>2961377
Just get the Tamron 24-70/2.8, same as the Pentax except the Tammy has the optical stabilization group.

>>2961373
> Into something, or even as a seperate parameter
>it's the most objective measurement there is and it's suspiciously missing.
No? It's listed:
https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Sony/A7R-II---Specifications


Though I don't really see a particularly pressing need to verify that vendor FPS specs are matching reality. It's never really THAT far off.

How camera sensors act in terms of noise and colour accuracy with changing ISO and all that, THAT is worth measuring, and DXO does many of these measurements.

> especially when it's just as important as ISO performance for sports!
The labelling of the score there as "sports" is certainly stupid as fuck. just read what they actually scored (or better refer to the individual measurements) and ignore how it's called.

>>2961380
fucking hell is there that much of a difference?

i could sell it and buy it and probably come out slightly ahead.

>>2961381
I mean that their hallow sacred score which is now the benchmark against which every single thing on /p/ is posted does not even include FPS

but it supposedly counts "sports" / "wildlife" usage simply by ISO?

It's very asinine for a site that attempts to be as objective as possible to weigh a camera that could do say, 3 fps equal to one that can do 10-15 fps.

>>2961382
Yes.

>>2961384
Fffff didn't finish yet

>>2961382
It is best if you look at example shots on Flickr and compare. But I am very confident from what I've seen.

>>2961386
I don't really use flickr, so i can filter on body/lens there and see what people take?

>>2961391
Just google lens + "flickr" and you have the results

>>2961383
> I mean that their hallow sacred score which is now the benchmark against which every single thing on /p/ is posted
I don't see many the aggregate camera score being used much, senpai.

I suggest you follow my advice and do that too, and only use the composite scores when you think they actually apply (lens sharpness for instance might, despite being a composite score it's fairly okay at describing how much accurate image information you can work with when you have a very typical digital post workflow).

> does not even include FPS
And it does not include whether anon above you can afford it (price), IBIS, weather sealing, whether the body feels pleasant, number of buttons, number of lenses, number of lenses under $400 or cool glass at least 8/10 competitive with a Zeiss Otus, and how many TTL flash guns and studio strobes you can get with RF and IR triggers...

Because it's a sensor score. They write that it is, and describe how they score it.

Ya, it's not anything else than what they describe it to be, and your idea to mix in FPS would just make it weirder and harder to use.

>>2961391
>>2961392
Alternatively:
http://pixelpeeper.com/adv/

Note that they don't record all cameras and all lenses. It's a third party thing that doesn't seem to have access to flickr's internal database, they scrape the information indirectly.

But it has decent number of cameras and lenses and is quite easy to use.

>>2961395
I would recommend the Pentax Forums review and user database for the Pentax variant, almost the same as the Tamron, it is much more information than plain numbers on DXO.

>>2961397
DXO has detailed measurements of various lenses including a bunch of graphs for pretty much all lenses:

https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Pentax/Pentax-smc-DA-15mm-F4-ED-AL-Limited-mounted-on-Pentax-K-5-IIs---Measurements__830

It's not really "plain" numbers, it's reasonably detailed numbers and graphs.

Figures one could measure more metrics yet, but I don't see the Pentax Forums doing any of that with system. For the most part it's "I like lens and never had any other, plus it takes photos -see busy compressed unsharp snapshot here to prove it-, 9.5/10".

It wouldn't even be objective if the users actually *had* experience with most lenses and bodies on the market. Which they don't. [Proven countless times by expectations and perceptions of a professional not matching measurements. Which is why we need to do measurements to actually know.]

That said, of course you can give recommendations based on personal experience. But it doesn't rate most (if even any) lens properties objectively.

>>2961399
Yes, it is very useful if you photograph numbers and graphs. but the rest of the world goes outside of their house and makes photos of people, the world etc... You know, interesting stuff.

>>2961399
Also what part of extrapolation you don't understand? Were you dropped out of high school? Did maths hurt your brains?
It is not a means for precise calculation, merely a rough estimate and not even the best kind.

File: 100k.png (6KB, 415x258px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 415x258px

yay, I hit 100k after four years.

>>2961403
The numbers and graphs exactly describe the important properties of doing that in the real world objectively.

You don't have a way to do that with photos if you're a human.

Shit, you have the tendency to want your own lens to be best 'cause you saw a photo from it and you like the cat in it.

You probably would like to have jumped higher than the guy next to you too, in a contest, and are very likely to claim you did if it's not utterly clear you didn't due to measurements or very direct comparisons.

That's why we measure things. It gives us the real and comparable understanding of how it *actually* is.

> inb4 more science and engineering denial because muh art is more important

>>2961404
> Also what part of extrapolation you don't understand?
The "you seem to invent things" - part?
>DxOMark has many unique features, two of which are that (1) we perform sensor measurements on RAW images and (2) we test each lens on every camera on which it can be mounted

Sauce:
>https://www.dxomark.com/About/In-depth-measurements/Measuring-sensors-using-RAW-and-testing-lenses-on-cameras

Also, more in detail:
https://www.dxomark.com/About/In-depth-measurements/DxOMark-testing-protocols

This should be you can't query certain lenses for certain older cameras - they don't extrapolate it all, they just test.

File: bod_img_01.jpg (248KB, 940x400px) Image search: [Google]

248KB, 940x400px

>>2960089
Guys advise me to buy the Pentax K-50 or Pentax K-S2? Do you know the alternatives of their same price range?

>>2961422
K-S2, it can use the new KAF4 mount lenses.

>>2961409
>you have the tendency to want your own lens to be best
>there are people who actually think there is such thing as a "best" lens

>>2961447
there are but nasa won't let us have them until they're like 20 years outdated and never in mass production

the government won't let us fill out our megapixels

>>2960514

Go for a second hand version of one of the older models of that camera - you'll save a ton of money and your images will be almost identical to what you would capture with that model.

I own olympus m43 camera and for it panasonic g 25mm 1.7f and olympus 40 - 150mm 4 -5.6f lenses.

I enjoy fotographing gigs/parties/events, would the olympus 45mm 1.8f be a good choise next? Are there any cheap legacy lenses (adapted) to look for?

>>2961528
>legacy lenses
old glass is notoriously unsharp, especially wide open, and MFT cameras exaggerate that further due to their large crop factor.
Get the 45mm or the 42.5mm the Olympus one has a more manual feel to it.

>>2961528
I have the Olympus OM-D EM-10 and I can only afford to use my film camera lenses on it with adapters. I've covered one event with it after the DSLR I was provided with broke down, and I don't recommend it with old manual lenses. For one, only the 28mm ones are wide enough due to the crop factor and most of them are pretty bad when adapted. The best one I've tried is Minolta MD 2.8/28 which is decent, but you'll struggle with focusing because finding the correct focus with EVF is a pain in the ass especially in low light, the lens markings will not point to correct focus and infinity point isn't actually at infinity but a little before it. Don't look around for focus peaking to help you, at least in my model it's a meme that won't do you any good in most practical situations, especially in finding infinity focus point.

bought a 100d as my first DSLR, did I do good okay?

>>2961542
Yes, buy a Sigma 30 EX next.

>>2961545
will look into it, what does the EX mean? beginner here

File: Canon 50mm.jpg (114KB, 1200x1200px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 1200x1200px

Can you use a 50mm lens for portraits?

Especially on a crop body because I guess it would be closer to an 80mm lens? I don't completely understand the crop factor stuff.

>>2961547
It means it is an older cheap lens. The nex is the EX DG Art.

>>2961550
Yes, 50mm is a nice portrait prime for crop bodies but you can do full body on FF.

File: IMG_20161105_203646.jpg (162KB, 2048x2048px) Image search: [Google]

162KB, 2048x2048px

>>2961551
oh right, i like to do photography pretty close up, pfa

>>2961541
I have an old Nikon 28mm/2.8 on an adaptor on my EM5ii (using the k&f concepts one). 0/10 would not recommend, you have to walk ridiculously far back to fit most things in frame. Thankfully got the pana 20mm/1.7 coming in the mail.m

>>2961550
Yeah, you could also use a 28mm or a 100mm. All the focal length and crop factor do is adjust how zoomed in the image is.

All the shit you see about which focal lengths to use and photos of how they look is misleading to new users. The only thing that changes how things look is physical distance. 80mm or so just fills the frame at a conventional distance for portraits.

On an APS-C (1.5x crop) sensor size a 50mm would be like 75mm.

>>2961547
>what does the EX mean?

Nobody knows.

I have an "APO DG HSM EX OS"
No clue what half of that means.

>>2960514
You can get a refurbished Canon SL1 with the kit lens from the Canon direct store for like $329 (here in the US anyway). It has the same sensor as most of the newer canon APS-C cameras and is a total bargain.

>>2961563
I have no idea what any of it means, more letters = better lens????

>>2961566
>>2961563
Ever heard of Google?

Fuck, I have such a dilemma of my next camera upgrade.

I really want fullframe, because I fell in love with it when I got to try one for a week.

But I also really want 4K and 1080p 120fps.

The two cameras are between a 5d3(also 6d) and the a6300.

My needs and style will get a lot of use from both of them, but it's one or the other because of budget..

I currently have a 500D so it would be a massive upgrade either way.

Surely many on /p/ are in, have been, in the same situation. Got any input?

>>2961575
Wait for a7 III at CES

>>2961577
I wont get anything in that tier until far later in the future. Which is why is also one of the reasons I'm leaning towards the a6300.
Kinda enjoying the big upgrade, but still have something to look forward to, like an a7rii.

I'm also at a position where I don't have any incredible lenses for canon, my current 500d.
So if I pic either, I'd focus on that brand of lenses. Getting the a6300 would "futureproof" the a7rii with lenses.

I need a camera before christmas at least, so I can't wait, I've been holding out for a very long time too.

>>2961580
I watched a comparison video for the iso performance between the two and holy fuck is canon gimped at that section. What the fuck?

>>2961580
No one can predict the future, but if you're a guy who does a lot of both stills and video, mirrorless is both the most logical choice today, and the safest bet for a future upgrade path

File: Barossa-Bolt.jpg (69KB, 900x375px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 900x375px

sup /p/
i want to get a IR filter for my x-pro1
maybe i can even handheld it with high iso
and focus through the optical viewer...

which one should i get...i want to save as much money as i can :)

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

>>2961585
>.i want to save as much money as i can
That's the biggest mistake you can actually make. There are no bang-for-the-buck cheapo filters out there that render like a $200 B&W for example.

>>2961584
The a7rii is basically the perfect camera I need right now and I don't see myself needing anything else from a camera. Maybe 4K 60fps but that doesn't sound like something sony/canon would do as it would render their low/mid video cameras "useless".

>>2961586
i wouldn't afford a b&w anyway
so should i go with the hoya ir72 i guess ?
i was actually thinking that i shouldn't "save" and get a cheap one for IR ...
is hoya my best option ??

File: IMG_4418-Edit.jpg (4MB, 2302x3453px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 2302x3453px

>>2961585
I'm using cheap china noname 760nm.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 350D DIGITAL
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.3 (Windows)
Photographer	unknown
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2016:06:01 20:23:12
Exposure Time	1/125 sec
F-Number	f/8.0
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	200
Lens Aperture	f/8.0
Exposure Bias	1.7 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	20.00 mm
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>2961590
can you actually upload me a raw image
so i can play with it and see how it feels pls ?

i would prefer a fuji x trans Raw file if anyone had
thx in advance

File: IMG_2999-2.jpg (1MB, 2000x1333px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2000x1333px

>>2961591
I don't keep raw files for a long. Anyway it's done not with FUJI, but with 350D/1000D with removed hot mirror filter.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 350D DIGITAL
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.6 (Windows)
Photographer	unknown
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2015:08:23 20:52:58
Exposure Time	1/250 sec
F-Number	f/8.0
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/8.0
Exposure Bias	1 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	40.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>2961593
will i be able to create "color" ir photography with
a ir filter on my x-pro1 or just monochrome images actually ?

I'm a bit out of the loop on digital cameras and need help....

I have lots of decent OM lenses and I'd like a cheap mirrorless body to use them with. I don't want to spend a lot as I'm testing the water, but it must be capable of half decent output. Obviously I'd like something that isn't too shitty to manual focus with.

What would you suggest? Not fussed about megapickles and all mod cons, just something cheap that I'll be able to see well enough when manual focusing.

Thanks

>>2961599
Nex series is pretty cheap today and it's great for manual lenses. Iirc it has focus peaking.

File: 1000D-2008-06-23-012.jpg (1MB, 1944x2916px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1944x2916px

>>2961593
Check flickr for "infrared ___nm"
720nm less saturated then 680/620/590nm
760nm is mostly monochrome
800+ is so black and white photos.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 1000D
Camera Software	Digital Photo Professional
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	350 dpi
Vertical Resolution	350 dpi
Image Created	2016-10-01T16:59:14+03:00
Exposure Time	1/160 sec
F-Number	f/8.0
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/8.0
Exposure Bias	0.7 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	40.00 mm
Image Width	1944
Image Height	2916
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>2961602
Cool, which models have peaking, any idea?

Thanks ;)

>>2961608
That's for you to find out..!

>>2961608
Not Nikon, that's for sure

>>2961608

Every Sony mirrorless has peaking. Even the launch NEX-3 and 5.

Is there a camera that isn't horrendously expensive that can take /p/ost-worthy shots?

I'm tight on cash cuz higher education, but I accidentally stumbled across a plethora of photogenic scenes near me.

>>2961722
the camera on your smartphone

I got a Rebel XT & 18-55mm kit lens for $125 on Keh.com.

Keep in mind composition, correct exposure and subject matter is more important than color accuracy or megapixels. Thats not to say there is no reason to buy a brand new camera but people have been making great photographs out of devices that most people would struggle to consider a camera for a long time. Don't over think it.

>>2961722
Get one of them disposable fuji superia cameras, you'll have fun.

>>2961550
i use a 50mm on a crop exclusively.

they work proper well and for all situations. its better IMHO to loose some versatility of say a 18-55 in reguards to taking photos insidee as with my 50mm 1.7 i can take a photo in any lighting with low iso no issue.

>>2961722
eos m.

>>2961722
Pentax K-50

>>2961722
a6000

>>2961789
>need budget camera
>here, have nolens lol
Sonyfags

Is the Rollei B35 worth it?

>>2961796
Depends if you want it to display or use it. In that order, yes and no.

>>2961722
define unexpensive, i bought a nex-5n for ~100 pounds, helios 44 for 40 and a 10 pound adapter, great results for ~200 usd

File: DSC00029.jpg (2MB, 4912x3264px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4912x3264px

>>2961821
forgot pic

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	NEX-5N
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.5 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2016:10:17 14:50:00
Exposure Time	1/400 sec
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Brightness	2.2 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

>>2961822
Is that SOOC jpeg? The sharpening is pig ugly, completely destroys the bokeh

>>2961822
read exif, it's edited in lr
i can upload a raw to some hosting if you want
i know it's not perfect but it's a 100£ with a 30 year old lens

>>2961826
to
>>2961824
i'm all over the place today, sorry

Is the Nikon 135mm F2 DC worth? Is this such a good lens as they say?

>>2961837
Try the Takumar 135/3.5 instead

>>2961841
remove
>>2961837
For a telephoto, it hasn't aged surprisingly well. It's fine and dandy for 24MP FF sensors, but if you're a pixel picking ninny, the 36 MP sensors out resolve the lens.

Doesn't stop it from being a real nice piece of kit, and it will always be sharp enough for 90% of uses (eg. everything but test charts). DC might be fun, but you might also just give up on gimmicks after a while. You'll never lose the hood. There's not much else to cross shop this lens with.

Crop users get a 200/2 in a small, cheap package. inb4 people mistake aperture for DOF equivalency

>>2961843
I am sorry, I was mistaking. It is the Takumar 135/2.5 I was talking about.
http://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/Super-Multi-Coated-TAKUMAR-Super-Takumar-135mm-F2.5.html

>tfw you dream about how bad fuji af is in bad light
Life as a XT10 owner is suffering

>>2961848
Get a good flash and use its IR AF assist light.

What's a good brand for cheap graduation filters?

File: PentaxK3_camera_BW-0081.jpg (331KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

331KB, 1000x1000px

Last stock of "open box" K-3 at SRS microsystems
Get it while it's hot
http://www.srsmicrosystems.co.uk/open-box-pentax-k-3-camera-body-11495.html

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	PENTAX
Camera Model	PENTAX K-01
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.0 (Windows)
Photographer	WALLACE_KOOPMANS
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	75 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2013:11:09 08:34:42
Exposure Time	1/40 sec
F-Number	f/5.6
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	3200
Lens Aperture	f/5.6
Exposure Bias	-0.7 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	50.00 mm
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Hard
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Hard
Subject Distance Range	Macro

God I hate all mail services. I've been waiting 4 days to get my new PEN-F and UPS keep trying my door and not leaving a slip because OBVIOUSLY I'm at work at 11 in the daytime. There's no option to go pick it up and I'm not allowed to get stuff delivered to work because I work in Defence.
Woe is me.
Woe.
Is.
Me.

>>2961880
Just ask a friend to take it instead of you and redirect it.
inb4 nofriends

>>2961837
It's quite OK, a touch soft at f2 but that just makes subjects skin look better. Other notes:
>Some purple CA when shooting wide open against the sun.
>Bokeh is very smooth and pleasing
>Size and weight is manageable
>Integrated hood is great
>Build quality is very solid, absolutely old-school pro-tier
>DC is a fun gimmick
>The focus ring is about the best you'll get on an AF lens
>AF speed is OK, though my copy needed +20 AF trim to get the correct focus.

>>2961892
I owned the 105mm DC for a while. It's the little brother of the 135 and I pretty much agree with most of what you said. I thought it was fucking enormous and heavy for being a 105mm f/2 lens though, but that goes along with what you said about build quality because it really is a total brick shithouse of a lens. It's nowhere near the compact size of my 105mm f/2.5 AIs, but that lens obviously is slower and has no autofocus or DC gimmick.

I was pretty impressed with its sharpness wide open too, not perfect and it did improve a bit with stopping down a bit, but definitely far from being soft. The 135 is a different lens though obviously with different optics.

Currently have a 7d mk1 and sigma150-600c for wildlife. Looking at the sony a6500 + sigma converter. Is this a meme or should i go for it? Will AF be shite for tracking birds?

>>2961917
I think the A6300 + Sigma converter was doing basically perfect on the new kind of Sigma lenses from the current "global vision" Sigma era.

And the A6300 was good at tracking birds already.

Haven't actually seen extensive reviews of the same on the A6500 yet, but I don't expect it to be worse. Still, maybe try it if you have a camera shop nearby?

>>2961917
The on-sensor AF and the Sigma telezoom will struggle. Sonys AF usually has hunting problems on longer than 100mm focal lengths and is less sensitive in lower light than DSLRs. The Sigma 150-600 has both, long zoom and slow. Would not recommend it. Maybe you can get a mount exchange and go for a D7200 or maybe a D500. Much better options for your uses.

>>2961939
I was worried about the af which you seem to have confirmed so I am back to maybe just getting the 7d mk2. Know nothing about nikon. How do the nikon aps c equivelents to the 7d mk2 compare for AF and noise?

>>2961939
> Sonys AF usually has hunting problems on longer than 100mm focal lengths
No. There *was* the thing with most Canon lenses on a Metabones adapter focusing poorly, but it never really was a thing for native lenses.

And I don't think the MC11 ever had a problem like this on the lenses it was designed for (I heard specific lenses had bugs though).

> and is less sensitive in lower light than DSLRs
No again. It's actually one of the best options:
https://www.dpreview.com/articles/6884391759/sony-alpha-7r-ii-can-match-or-beat-dslr-low-light-af-performance

When exactly the AF systems reaches its limits under what conditions varies a little (for instance, lens sharpness seems to matter more for Sony's AF than typical DSLR AF), but it's not doing bad in low light.

is the samyang 50mm 1.4 manual lens a good buy for a first lens after kit?

>>2961975
no.

Only buy manual lenses for video, you have been warned.

>>2961975
Depends on what you're going to shoot with it.

AFAIK it's not one of the most competitive Samyang lenses (Samyang has some lenses that are good as compared to the overall market, but this one isn't really one).

I have a D3300, but I don't like how bulky and odd to carry around it is. I only have the kit lens so I thought it might be a good idea to switch to a mirrorless kit rather than investing in glass. This is what I'm thinking since holiday sale season is coming up.
My first thought was the Olympus OM-D E-M10 Mark II since I'm not too worried about the 8 MP loss, 16 is plenty for me. Also size difference between M4/3 and APSC is pretty negligible I think, but the 5 stop image stabilization and cheap lenses and adapters for legacy glass that I'd like to try.
My other thought is Fuji XT1. This one is really pushing my budget, but I really like Fuji from my experience of shooting other people's cameras. I'm worried I'd get stuck on the kit lens for a while, although it wouldn't be anything I'm not used to already and Fuji glass seems to be great regardless.
Considering I really just enjoy "street" photography, the occasional portrait and an every day carry that doesn't draw too much attention do either of these sound like a good investment, or should I just man up and stick to the Nikon with some better glass?

>>2962012
You might consider not being a pussy, and pushing your abilities as far as they go on the D3300. There's nothing bulky about a D3300, merely a lack of appropriate controls.

You won't be adapting anything to M43 that isn't automatically portrait or longer length. Cool cameras though, positively tiny.

There's nothing to be "stuck" about with the XF 18-55, and the XC 16-50 has the benefit of being pretty wide. The 27 is generally unloved for some reason, but positively tiny. The 35 1.4 is a bit slow for AF, and tends to go for not too much money. XT10/XE2 tends to be a better buy than XT1 unless you plan on taking pictures from inside a rainstorm (with one of a handful of sealed lenses), the hardware/software is nowadays identical.

>>2961941
Don't believe the memerless IDF when it comes to BIF and sports. Mirrorless AF has still yet to best the algorithms in use by DSLRs, although they've seemed to have caught up in speed. Also, EVFs a shit, even the a6300 at 120 fps.

The 7D2's a mini 1DX, but don't expect too much improvement sensor wise from the 7D. 7D2 came out too early for the new crop of Canon sensors, which are much improved. If you're capable of getting good shots from the 7D, the 7D2 will continue doing so but with vastly more sophisticated metering and autofocus.

The D7200 compares more to the 70D and 80D in terms of tier. The sensor is (still) class leading (can't do a 4-5 stop push on your Canon), the autofocus is yet another evolution of the D3's highly capable CAM3500 (less cross types than Canon's 65 pt though, only center 15 are cross, rest are line), and Nikon's subject tracking is unmatched by anybody. Frame rates are positively slow by Canon standards (5 RAW, 6 JPEG/crop RAW, 7 crop JPEG).

The D500 is the same tier as the 7D2, but without the benefit of nearly $1000 of price drop (original price vs grey market today). The 7D2 is ridiculously cheap for its capability level, honestly. The D500 is vastly more capable however. The AF is more sophisticated, the frame rates are right up there, the sensor is highly capable.

If you've got the lenses already, might as well get a grey market 7D2 for what, $1200? Before Trump shuts that down.

>>2961722
Any camera can take better photos than the shit you see on /p/. There are two issues we must address first:

1. Your skill.

and

2. Your subject matter.

Some famous photographer could take photos with a disposable camera and have them come out amazing. You know why? Because a photography, especially very good ones, are able to see things in ways regular people can't. They find the angle that best captures a scene and snap a picture. There are also editing skills, but you need to take a good picture to be able to edit it into something even better.

Additionally, your subject matter is very important in the photography world. What are you photographing? I guarantee no one gives a shit about the fat people you shot at some bullshit wedding with your "amazing camera". Why? It's fucking boring. Muslims durka durkaing around in Syria are getting some amazing images of human suffering and the brutality of war, that we're all drawn to to some extent, because the subject is interesting and not something you can see anywhere.

So a shit camera in the hands of a good photography can capture great images, and a shit photographer can capture compelling images in extraordinary circumstances. Don't be so focused on your camera when you're just starting that you lose sight of what you want to capture and how you want to tell your story through your photos.

Selling my current camera because I really want a Ricoh GR (thinking of getting the V) for street photography. I just really need something that is small and has a quiet shutter.

What would you guys say is a reasonable price to sell the following at?
- Canon 6D (like-new)
- 50mm 1.4 full frame lens (like-new)
- Battery grip (good)
- Lens hood (good)
- Canon camera bag with a bunch of goodies (lens brush, three batteries, two chargers, cables, memory storage cases, a few other small things.)

>>2961722
your iphone

or a disposable camera/compact 35mm

File: IMGP0851.jpg (209KB, 960x638px) Image search: [Google]

209KB, 960x638px

how much (boi)pussy can I get with this?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	RICOH IMAGING COMPANY, LTD.
Camera Model	PENTAX K-3 II
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2015.5 (Windows)
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	51 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	6016
Image Height	4000
Number of Bits Per Component	16, 16, 16
Compression Scheme	Uncompressed
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	144 dpi
Vertical Resolution	144 dpi
Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format
Image Created	2016:11:09 22:04:36
Exposure Time	0.8 sec
F-Number	f/4.0
Exposure Program	Not Defined
ISO Speed Rating	3200
Lens Aperture	f/4.0
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	34.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	960
Image Height	638
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Macro

>>2962105 3 50

>>2962048
Canon 6D: $1050-$1100
50mm f/1.4: $200-220
Battery Grip (if it's the Canon BG-E13 and not a knockoff): $100-125
Lens Hood (for 50mm?): $10-15

Other things: I don't really know honestly.

Also I'm interested in the battery grip, the batteries, and a charger depending on whatever you choose to sell at.

>>2962105
All the ass you can eat

>>2961941
Nikon has the same tier AF, maybe a tad more precise with the 4D tracking mode. On sensor-wise it is leagues ahead of Canon, you can squeeze out details on higher ISO easily without destroying the image.
I would also recommend Pentax crop and FF but the tracking AF is well behind what Canon has although forum reports say they improved a lot on the new FF. No Sigma 150-600 for K-mount though.
I'd say you would benefit a lot from switching from Canon just for the better sensors.

>can't decide between fullframe or apsc
>after months of contemplating I realize there's medium format
>figure I'd get apsc now and in the future there is probably more affordable medium format digital cameras

Am I retarded for thinking like this?

>>2962174
No, hope you like Fuji and Pentax.

>>2962181
Yeah it's pentax I got my hopes in.

I'm not expecting to make another upgrade in like 5-7 years too.

File: Untitled.png (39KB, 901x545px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 901x545px

Should I go through the trouble of upgrading to the Mark III of the 16-35 f2.8?

Here's the MTF data, it looks like the iii is WAY better than the ii when you stop it down to f8 which is what you should be shooting landscapes with anyways. Thoughts?

>>2962189
Is the II doing anything you don't like? Are you making money from this? Do you have money to burn?

>>2962195
I make money from photography but not from that lens. The II produces soft corners. I make enough money that this could be something I save for in the coming months.

>>2962181

Why not Hasselbad?

>>2962203
Would you pay $20,000 extra for the brand only when you can buy the same thing well under 10k?

>>2962206
>$20k more than Pentax/Fuji

X1D body is only $9k. You wouldn't even spend $15k total.

>>2962208
What's the advantage in getting that camera? It seems to have smaller pixels than many FF cameras, and MF glass mostly also isn't that fantastic in comparison...

I currently own a Canon G16, and I'm looking to purchase a mirrorless camera system.
I mainly shoot landscape, mountains and climbers, however I'm looking to get more into astrophotography and 'urbex'/abandoned buildings type stuff.

I'm considering either the Sony A6000/A6300 and the Olympus E-M10 II/E-M5 II (budget depending).

Which is the best system to invest in?

Sony E
+ larger/better quality sensors
+ lighter bodies
+ A6000 is very cheap atm
+ Better in low light
- Sony seem to be giving up on the E APSC lenses
- Lenses are heavier
- Less lenses (I'm not really interested in FE lenses as I'm looking to keep the camera system light)

Olympus M4/3
+ Bodies have more features
+ Wide variety of lenses
+ Good support for the system with Oly & Pana
+ Lighter system overall
- Bodies are heavier
- Sensor is smaller than APSC

I can see my main kit starting with a wide angle zoom and a telephoto zoom lens and possibly adding a wide prime for astrophotography and another prime for portraits later.

As I'm into outdoor activities, I'd like to keep the system fairly light.
Any advice? My flickr is below to see the type of photos I generally take.
www.flickr.com/photos/141680726@N06/

>>2962289
If you go such places a rugged design and weather sealing is much much more important than small body.
I would rather direct you towards the DSLRs with upper level bodies such as the Nikon D7100, D750, Canon 7DII, 5DIII, Pentax K-3II, K-1 or in this latter case the lower level bodies like the K-S2 and K-70 have the rugged design and weather sealing although with a polycarbonate shell instead of magnesium alloy.
Also consider a nice tripod easy to carry like the manfrotto befree or a bigger one if you need a more stable platform.

>>2962293
The Oly M4/3s (EM5/EM5ii/EM1/EM1ii) have great weather sealing.

>>2962295
And no rugged build. I written those in the order of importance.

>>2962289
I think either will be fine.

Would go with the E-mount since ultimately it's entirely not too heavy to carry even with FF lenses, and third parties still make APS-C lenses.

But it's not like getting a Panasonic or Olympus or other MFT is insane either. You'd just be giving priority to something marginally easier to carry around.

>>2962308
PS: I'd start with the Samyang 12mm f/2 prime. It should do your landscapes, mountains, astro and urbex quite fine.

And in my experience, most climbers also will prefer a not particularly good portrait of them with more mountain or sky behind them over just a beautiful portrait shot focused on them, so it might work okay for that too.

File: Meike.jpg (134KB, 1000x882px) Image search: [Google]

134KB, 1000x882px

So I was lookign through what ebay recommended me and stumbled across the Meike 50mm and 35mm lenses for various mirrorless bodies.
Apparently they make supercheap manual lenses with few elements and designs that call back to the 50s.
Does anyone know if these lenses are woirth anything over an adapted vintage?
Distortion and aberrations I could handle, if need be in post, but what about sharpness wide open? Because that's my main gripe with vintage lenses.

>>2962346
Don't be a pixel peeping gearfaggot, that should solve your problem

>>2962347
Softness wide Open is Kind of annyoing when it prevents Focus peaking
Plus I wanna know whether I should Upgrade from an adapted 50mm 1.8 FD

>>2962366
Why are you such a faggot?

>>2962346
It's cheap and decent value, but you want to get a Sigma Art or something if you want sharp.

>>2962347
>>2962373
well if you have a soft lens wide open what's the point in upgrading to another lens that will be soft wide open? you have to pixelpeep to see if it's worth upgrading to

>tfw all decent canon long lenses go full retard in price and it will never change

Just scored a great deal on a a6300.

I'm gonna start with some samyang lenses because cheap and I don't mind.

But does /p/ have any go-to AF lenses for it?

>>2962347
Whats the point in photography if it isnt to zoom in 1:1 in lightroom and see how sharp it is?

>>2962391
To tell it online that you did?

What is a "gearfaggot"?

>>2962402
synonymous with "sony user"

>>2962403
SHOTS FIRED

File: lineup.jpg (333KB, 1606x1034px) Image search: [Google]

333KB, 1606x1034px

Sony A6300. Fuji X-Pro2. Fuji X-T2.

You have the money. They cost all rougly the same. You are interested in street/nature snapshots. You are interested in macro stuff. You are not bound to a mount system because of the lenses you already own. You have the choice. But what would be your choice?

>>2962390
Sigma 30mm f/1.8 & 60mm f/2.8. The latter does center AF only.

28mm f/2 is an alternative if you want to use its wide angle converters or a slightly smaller lens.

>>2962414
A6300.

That said, the X-Pro2/X-T2 is closer in cost to a A7 II (might be better for macro) or A6500 (just an even better camera)...

>>2960703
What happend to that camera? It looks like it's been sitting in the open for years.

The black marks can probably be removed pretty easily, but the leather parts on there are gone suggesting that mechanically the camera is highely unlikely to work. (These cameras are very prone to break. They're delicate.)

I suggest sending it to the Impossible Project for repair. It's really your best option here.

Just Google "Impossible Refurbishment of Polaroid cameras". You likely won't be able to get it working or looking nice without them. (Like I said, it's very delicate a novice will not be able to repair it.)

>>2962414
>a6300
a6500 you cuck.

>>2962432
The small advantage the 6500 has is not worth the additional money IMHO.

I cant grasp the price of the metabones adapters...

Its like 400usd for an canon EF to sony E adapter...

Do they have to pay the companies or something..?