Camera Gear Thread

new sony alpha mirrowless when????

>>2965724
Aren't they stiII running hot with Ienses that take soft shots? Do they reaIIy reIy on their lso bumping to make them reIevant?

lt seems Iike they are stiII in the beta reIease and the finaI reIeases of the cameras and Ienses are coming in 2018. l want to pick one up earIy next year but l feeI Iike l'm going to fuck it up and a month Iater a bunch of superior cameras and gear from them are going to come out.

>>2965729
i think they solved most problems on A7RII,so I suppose next one will be kinda perfect

>>2965724
2019 because they know A7RII will be superior to anything coming out in the next two years

Panasonic slow as fuck on that organic sensor with virtually unblowable highlights

File: image.jpg (4MB, 4130x2873px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 4130x2873px

Should I even bother continuing to buy Canon lenses?

It feels like mirrorless is the way to go at this point and crop is outdated. Even full frame regular just doesn't seem to be worth pursuing.

I was going to get a 24 - 70 mm f / 2.8L II USM at the end of the month but now I just want a mirrorless.

It feels like I'm investing in a high mileage 70s car rather than just getting a Porsche and saving up for new parts for that instead.

Are there any reasons not to go mirrorless at this point or at all?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Panasonic
Camera Model	DMC-GH3
Camera Software	Ver.0.5
Photographer	Picasa
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	90 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	180 dpi
Vertical Resolution	180 dpi
Image Created	2012:10:18 14:59:27
Exposure Time	1/160 sec
F-Number	f/14.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	200
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Flash
Flash	Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	45.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	4130
Image Height	2873
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	Low Gain Up
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Unique Image ID	2592a1e24115dab023c85dd64fd90d85
Image Quality	Unknown
White Balance	Auto
Focus Mode	Auto
Spot Mode	Unknown
Image Stabilizer	Mode 1
Macro Mode	Normal
Shooting Mode	Manual
Audio	No
Flash Bias	0.00 EV
Color Effect	Off
Contrast	Unknown
Noise Reduction	Standard

>>2965729
>>2965732
Don't forget writing to memory cards at a positively glacial 35 MB/s

>>2965736
http://news.panasonic.com/global/press/data/2016/02/en160203-5/en160203-5.html

Take a fucking sip bapes...

>>2965737
If you're even considering it, then ergonomics, AF speed, OVFs, battery life, professional services, or adverse condition dependability never factored into your buying decisions.

>>2965744
>overexposure can be prevented in bright situations without time distortion against moving objects

That's some pretty fucking specific technoIogy.

Have we reached an endgame for APS-C image quality?

Everything's 24 megapixels, great in low light, as much dynamic range as you could possibly need... I don't see why I'd ever need to upgrade, say, my D7100 unless it broke.

What do you think, /p/?

>>2965749
Come 2018 when it's put into a body film users'll say "digital doesn't have the film-like time distortion against moving objects."

>>2965753
Yes.

Unless someone either allows for a larger sensor size, or gives the same benefits of a full frame large sensor to an APS-C, it's not going to go anywhere. It's turning to gimmicks mostly, like minimal IBIS benefits and lens correction that is mostly updated software anyway.

Tech wise, body's have hit a wall and it's up to something big happening with sensors now.

>>2965745
One day mirrorless will take over... It just seems more sensible and logical.

>>2965767
You should stop taking photographs until then, then.

2050 we got lab-grown eyeballs mounted into the Canon 16D Mk 6 with limited edition blue iris.

>>2965724

a7iii is rumored for Spring 2017. a9 a little after that.

>>2965729

They have some of the sharpest lenses ever made and overheating hasn't been a real issue since the a6000 (which was much improved with a firmware update).

Still, the FE line could use a refresh for autofocus speed alone. As of now they lag a little behind the fastest APS-C mirror less bodies.

And while they have good lenses, they don't have small lenses. They should really make some more compact lenses. Their is no real reason their lenses have to be the greatest ever made. Some small sacrifice in image quality would be worth it for a more compact design.

Are the Hondo Garage stuff worth it?

I am really interested in the follow focus along with the "barely rig" setup.

>>2965912
Overheating has been a real issue for the highest video settings on multiple cameras after the A6000. Just not really for photos.

AF is one of the fastest and there is a good bunch of small / light primes. Not too many pancakes, but small.

File: Screenshot_2016-11-16-07-35-50.png (387KB, 720x1280px) Image search: [Google]

387KB, 720x1280px

How's the D3300 for a first dslr?
Most of the included shit is garbage I'd never use but most of them seem to be in the 400-450 USD price range. Any cheaper/better options? I'm interested in landscape photography.

>>2965913
Wanted to know this as well. The Mini rig looks like it might be useful, but it might also be some hipster kick starter junk or a quality product.

Might just go with a sturdy DIY rig instead. Have any of you been satisfied with a rig you built on your own? Seen a few guides and they seem really easy to make for a dslr.

>>2965944
Should take good single shots with a good lens.

Doesn't have a lot of features, 'cause Nikon like Canon loves to fuck cameras up severely over pure software / very cheap hardware features so they can sell more tiers of cameras.

For example, the absence of AE bracketing might REALLY get on your nerves if you wanted to do HDR.

> Any cheaper/better options?
I'd pay a few hundred more and get a D7000-D7200 or A6000-A6300 or something. Maybe still a K-50.

Not what you wanted to hear, I bet.

>>2965949
Yeah I see how the lack of AE bracketing would be annoying. I'll look into those other cameras. I don't want something I'll quickly grow out of.

>>2965951
I noticed that the d7000 has 18 mp vs the D3300's 24.2. Wouldn't the D3300 be the better bargin? I'm a total beginner so forgive me if it's a stupid question.

I have a Canon 1000D

Should I upgrade to 80D?

Currently I own sigma 17-70 2.8-4, Tokina 11-20.

I was thinking of picking up the 50 1.8 STM and 85 1.8

>>2965770
>blue iris
Licenced by Protogen

>>2965951
Yea, and there is more than just the AE bracketing.

Not to say there are no better models of the Sony A6000 or Pentax K-50, but they're not really messing with software or such as much compared to other models released at the time. [It doesn't feel like the respective manufacturers are simply fucking with you on all ends, leaving away $0.5 features to get you to buy a $400 more expensive camera]

>>2965953
> I noticed that the d7000 has 18 mp vs the D3300's 24.2. Wouldn't the D3300 be the better bargin?
It's a compromise between these two. The D3300 has a better sensor, the D7000 more features.

If you don't want a compromise, get the D7200, as Nikon kinda wants to motivate you to.

Or jump to a Sony, Pentax, Panasonic, ...

File: soaked.jpg (154KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

154KB, 1920x1080px

>>2965745
>Ergonomics
E-M1 and E-M1 II are great.

>AF Speed
>E-M1 is phenomenal, E-M1 II is even better.

>OVFs
Primitive, dim, and inactive. You can't easily tell what will be blown or crushed in an OVF, since they have the same dynamic range as your eyes vs your sensor. Why even bother?

>Battery Life
A valid complaint about mirrorless, but you can always carry spare batteries - They are small.

>Professional Services
Olympus has great pro services.

>Adverse condition dependability
E-M1 and E-M1 II are amazing here.

https://youtu.be/FRQpueEvb-U
sony and panasonic btfo

>>2965962
I have no idea what a 'jay peg' is.

>>2965962
JPEG doesn't mean shit unless you're a consumer-tier babby that accidentally bought an a7rii.

God can you imagine actually being, for real, the kind of person that looks at JPEG output when looking for a new digital camera? Spending all that money to not even use raw.

>>2965958
You couldn't be more clueless. Why not go out taking photos and get some decent experience before you spout this kind of nonsense? Or you are not an actual photographer just a self declared shill.

>>2965957
Arent dslr Cameras better than mirrorless?

>>2965965
>>2965966
>muh fooji jpg 4th place
btfo

>>2965968
why would they be, it's just a different body design.

all that truly matters is the sensor and mount, and by means of flange distance the mirrorless cameras will have dslrs beat on mounts. if you're trying to adapt a lens with a longer flange distance than your mount that's not an issue because you can always add distance between the body and lens, but if you're trying to use a lens with a shorter flange than your mount then you're basically fucked.

plus there's no mirror that can drift and throw off your viewfinder.

>>2965737
I have OM-D EM10. If you want a handy little system to take along for semi-casual stuff, it's pretty great. Also dicking around with adapted super teles and cats is fun. Aside from that, it isn't that great. The MFT sensor just feels too damn limited to take stuff like detailed landscapes. The EVF is a mixed bag, it's very handy to see highlight-shadow-cutoffs when composing, but it's pure garbage for manual focusing and the focus peaking is a bad joke because it will not work correctly on anything more than 5 meters away. With super teles and cats it's actually preferable to OVF though because the limited light those lenses put through make prisms useless.

Also, native M4/3 lenses are stupidly expensive. I've been waiting all this time for the system to die so the lenses would lose value, but they just won't let it sink already.

>>2965982
You been checking Craig's List? Seen whole sets go up real cheap just because they're old.

>>2965983
I don't touch Craig's List with a ten foot pole because of our legislation which puts you in a risk of having to take someone to court to get your money back if you get fucked over.

>>2965737
Also, I forgot to mention that high ISO performance with OM-D is VERY disappointing. ISO 800 and above is practically unusable unless you want puke-inducing noisy garbage. Don't know if it's gotten better in the newer models.

>>2965968
No. They're basically at parity with DSLR right now... if not slightly advantaged on Sony's side 'cause they're the cunts selling the best sensors to everyone. Guess who has some of the best deals as a result.

They also figured out how to make pretty damn good on-sensor PDAF, so the new models all autofocus fast... and with more AF points than DSLR.

The drawback is mainly about Sony almost only fielding high-end lenses.

>>2965753
No, the same thing happened at 6, 12, and 16/18 mp. Totally normal, we'll progress to higher mp counts slowly until we switch technologies. Although my pocket cam can print a 24x36 now, so hopefully they'll lessen their efforts in the mp divisions and work on other qualities of the sensor.

>>2965715
What do you guys think of the Fuji X-E2S?
I am seriously considering buying it along with 23 F1.4 (35mm equivalent) and a zoom lens.
Camera is quite cheap (~650 €) and I like how the noise is monochromatic even at high ISO (3200 and 6400).

>>2965971
>No mention of Fooji

What are you even saying?

>>2965967
>You couldn't be more clueless
He presented actual facts that you could research in just a couple of minutes.

What exactly about what he said got you so angry that you went off on your little rant, rather than present information that proves him wrong?

That being said, what is a good m 4/3 to hold out for? Is there anything that will be setting a new standard in the next few months? Looking for a good portable that does RAW. Don't mind getting a Sony but is there anything to look forward to in the 2017 line up?

File: lens.jpg (2MB, 4182x1590px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4182x1590px

>tfw never bought a tripod for more than $ 80

Please advise, there are a few thousand tripods in between $ 100 - $ 200. Is there are reason to spend in between this range? Or is the jump to the $ 400+ range the real difference maker?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	OLYMPUS IMAGING CORP.
Camera Model	E-M5
Camera Software	Version 1.1
Photographer	Joshua Waller
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2013:06:27 16:04:51
Exposure Time	1/160 sec
F-Number	f/16.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	200
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	60.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	4182
Image Height	1590
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	None
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Unique Image ID	5df6cbbd081aab6955481d155ae3011c

>>2966076
I got my Manfrotto 190XPROB for around 200usd.

The unlockable legs and the 90degree flip for the neck are great.

>>2966076

If you are poor, cheap ones do fine. I feel like nice user experiences happen around ~$200. There's no need to go higher unless your photos make you money.

>>2966075
E-M1 Mark II

File: tmp_22104--782163956-1507220885.jpg (81KB, 1280x850px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 1280x850px

>>2965967
I have presented facts that can easily be verified by reading any review summary of the cameras mentioned.

You have presented nothing but personal attacks on an anonymoose image board.

Anyone willing to give me their more informed 2¢? I'm getting my gf a camera for Christmas. She wants a professional camera (more professional than a phone) that has a flip out screen. That's really the only condition, there has to be a front facing screen. I was looking at a canon EOS Rebel T5i

There's a bundle on Amazon
Canon EOS Rebel T5i Digital SLR Camera with EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS Lens + 58mm 2x Lens +Wide Angle Lens + Flash + Strong lightweight Tripod + UV Filter Kit + 24GB Complete Deluxe Accessory Bundle https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00KXG0RCC/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_O7jlybDK7VTSN

Is there a better option or is this a shit camera for reasons beyond my knowledge? Thanks for any input

>>2966086
Well yeah saw that in the post, but is it better to get that now or wait for a new version coming out?

It seems like there is a bunch of stuff coming out, but Canon has been getting lower marks on their newer stuff and don't want to have that issue happen with other brands.

>>2966084
I like those features too. There are some cheaper ones that have them but either the head is cheap or the entire tripod isn't sturdy. 200 is pretty good though.

>>2966085
I'm not poor, but I don't want to make a bad decision paying 200-300 for a tripod worth maybe 80-100 in quality. I'm willing to invest in something good, but I don't know what is good and what is trash in the tripod world.

I only make out on photos once a month, not enough to justify a 500+ tripod really.

>>2966089
That's a great starter dslr and has good iso handling for the price range, but it would be better to wait until the end of the month for deals. A lot of that bundle is cheap and unnecessary. Try and go for an official bundle that will save you some money, or just the base dslr and lens kit somewhere else and get better accessories over time. You'll end up replacing that junk pretty fast and have nothing to do with it.

>>2966090
E-M1 II is "the" revolution in M4/3 for the next year or two. It has absurd burst rate, hugely improved AF, a brand new 20mp sensor, and a great high-res shot mode. The EVF is great too.

The E-M1 III won't be out for at least 2-3 years.

If history is anything to go by, the E-M1 II will get huge improvements through many firmware updates, as the E-M1 did.

>>2966105
Awesome, good to know. Odd to hear an official bundle will save money but at least I know I'm on the right track.

Where do sell your used gear with a good price but not to deal with ebay shit?

>>2966122
Ebay shit is the most reliable and offers the best protection. You can try your local shop to get pennies or try craigslist to sell for a blowjob.

>>2966004
nikon somehow manages to get more DR out of sony sensors than sony though

>>2966140

shh, you're going to lure out some retard who's going to brag about how we don't have the a7r2 sensor.

>>2966142
Inb4 Pentax K-1 pixel shift

Daily reminder that to get the best photos you can just buy the most expensive camera and put it on auto mode. It will btfo anything shot by the "dont be a gearfag" brigade here

>>2966169
Shut up, Rockwell.

True talent comes from being a visionary.

>>2966169

Unless it's Sony.

>>2965955
absolutely yeah if the price is reasonable enough, the 1000D is quite old by today standards, and I say this as an owner of a 450D, which is a very similar camera.

>>2966122
Amazon trade in.

>>2966107
The G85 is similar, with IBIS, dual IS, weather sealing,...
Panasonic actually needs to revive the GF-line or make another GM-model to fill their "medium cheap and powerful" line that the G-line will no longer fill.
MFT is currently making a bit of a second coming, with drones and Xiaomi. If Sony doesnt get their shit together with the a7III, the GH5 will blow them the fuck out in the video sector.

Looking to replace my old 550D with something newer.

Thinking either the 760D or the 70D (can't afford the 80D).

Pros of the 760D:
>higher resolution
>lighter

Pros of the 70D:
>weather resistant (but still plastic body)
>more Fn keys
>faster boot

I mostly use it while traveling, so I'm thinking the 760D will be better due to weight. Anyone know how good the weather sealing is on the 70D?

>>2966188
Don't buy Canon, especially not Canon APS-C.

>>2966108
Official bundles on their actual site can have pretty deep discounts at times.

I got mine 30 % off in June for just the body and got a 24-70 L for 20 % off separately. I couldn't be happier with the results for the price.

>>2966045
Bump

>>2966227
If you're going for that specific style, the E2S pulls it off nicely. The colors come together nicely under 800 iso compared to alternative cameras in the price range and the 1.4 is a fast prime that ties them together well. The only reason I didn't switch to it is because I put too much into Canon glass, but if I get the chance to give it up at a good price, I would like to try the E2S for outdoors since it has nice flexibility for different types of weather shots.

>>2966188
a6000

>>2966256
>No weather sealing
>Runs hot
>APS-C for that price

But why?

>>2966265
>APS-C for that price

Wait, are you implying it is expensive and you could get FF for that price?

Where in the fuck can you get a new FF body for $450.

>>2966265
> No weather sealing
Vast majority of shots isn't a problem if you just have an umbrella or something.

I guess you can't shoot all day long in a sandstorm or stormy rain 'cause the umbrella wouldn't hold and a simple plastic bag might not be safe enough either, but... eh.

> Runs hot
With what?

> APS-C for that price
Yep, it's damn cheap for something this good.

Canon / Nikon sell cameras only a tiny little bit better (with various drawbacks, too) for twice as much.

>>2966270
>With what?
Video. It runs way too hot and I wouldn't want to risk damage on daily use for something it should be able to handle out of the box. Getting warm during burst photo shots is fine but the video mode needs work on the Sony line.

>Canon / Nikon sell cameras only a tiny little bit better (with various drawbacks, too) for twice as much.

Their full frame variants sell for a good price on sale and have great access to cheaper native glass with many more option brand-wise. No worrying about slow (or less accurate when fast) AF or lens mount issues when trying to use lenses from other brands.

Investing in a kit isn't effective when going with a 6000. Especially when it gets so hot it can fry components.

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

78KB, 500x500px

"best" camera on the market

File: Bayonetta.jpg (31KB, 471x500px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 471x500px

Is there any big reason that crop is seen as so inferior to full frame?

If you're framing your shots well does it even matter? I'm coming from a T 2 i and I have no idea where to go next. I just want a Canon that takes nice night photos hand held (even though I have a tri pod),

>>2966291
noise levels at higher ISO

>>2966291
Not really. FF is only viable when you need the bigger photosites or the bigger image circle on the same focal length. But then again there is the cheap digital MF already here and accessible, 645D, 645z, Hassy X1D and Fooji GFX

>>2966282
> It runs way too hot and I wouldn't want to risk damage on daily use for something it should be able to handle out of the box.
I seem to recall people complaining about thermal shutdowns on 4k video recording on the A6300 (never had an issue on the A6000 myself?), but not about damage.

> Their full frame variants sell for a good price on sale and have great access to cheaper native glass
If you shoot primes on an APS-C E-mount, you probably have more than enough good cheap native glass to work with.

Plus a lot of better glass, which also is important to me.

> with many more option brand-wise
Not really much missing from currently active manufacturers.

We got Samyang, Sigma, Venus Optics, Meyer-Görlitz, Voightlander, Zeiss, Sony, Irix, Lensbaby, Zhongyi Mitakon, Neewer, Arax, HandeVision, Zunow, SLR Magic, Yasuhara and probably more making E-mount lenses.


Plus of course you can actually also use Canon, Nikon, ... lenses just fine on many of these cameras, with an adapter.

MF lenses in general also never really worked better, usually not even on their native systems.

I don't think we ever had people commonly using lenses from MORE manufacturers on one single system, actually.

File: canon_eos_1d_x_mark_ii_1220852.jpg (674KB, 2500x2500px) Image search: [Google]

674KB, 2500x2500px

>>2965715
Should I get the Canon 5D Mark III or 1D-X II?

I want to get something worth keeping for a decent amount of years.

>>2966294
Do you mean less noise levels or more?

>>2966296
>bigger image circle on the same focal length

Do you mean bigger image circle with an APS-C crop lens? Some of my lenses are wide-angle and primes and they say they are APS-C crop lenses and have compatibility issues with ff.

And are the sensors really that much better? WHat are the big advantages they have? I don't mind heavier cameras too so which would be good for me if weight is not an issue?

>>2966304
5dsr.
tony said it's better than 5div.

>>2966306
Wouldn't the 5DSR be more susceptible to Moire? Also is the 5DS(R) better than the 5D III and 1D-X II?

>>2966291
> Is there any big reason that crop is seen as so inferior to full frame?
FF cameras on Canon / Nikon usually having far more power, buffer size, stuff like that. Also not too long ago, they were the only ones that had reliable AF.

FF cameras having higher resolution, sharper images from sharper lenses with less diffraction issues because of bigger pixels on average.

FF cameras doing much better in low light.

> If you're framing your shots well does it even matter?
Sure does, should be pretty obvious how.

Besides, *not* having to frame every shot properly is also actually an important feature to get if you can. Cropping very sharp high-resolution shots is the best way to get good framing.

That said, APS-C and "only" 20-24MP certainly doesn't pose a huge practical obstacle to *everyone*. Which is why people do decide to shoot these. For smaller lenses and less cost, usually.

>>2966308
>Are you going to using video that close to subjects?

>Will your subjects have repetitive patterns that often?

>Are they natural patterns coming from nature (animals, foliage, etc) or clothing?

>Have you done research to see if your choice camera has a resolution to the common issues you believe you'll run into with your subject matter?

A few questions that will help prioritize the type of camera you should go for.

>>2966318
I won't be doing video at all probably.

I believe it'll be more from nature and architecture. Once I start doing more portraiture clothing may become an issue though.

I haven't done research as to how to fix that. I don't think you really can fix that

>>2966322
The 5DsR has the same pixel pitch as the 24MP APS-C cameras.
Not a single moire in stills but if there would be any it is just a single swipe with the correction brush.
Not an issue.

>>2966324
thats awesome then i guess its settled and a quick google search showed i can buy an AA filter for the lens

>>2966326
You won't need it.
I have AA filter simulation on my K-3 and have never used it. I shoot nature, some street, portraits and events, never had a single problem with moire.
Also the bigger the resolution the smaller the moire pattern gets. could be it is just at the level of the bayer interpolation artifacts or higher ISO softness drowns it out. Or even the lens resolution makes it too soft for the pixel level pattern to show through.
So it's a non-issue.

should I wait for new camera in a7 series?

>>2965944
i got the d5500. very happy with it.

Worth checking out?
Idk anything about film but I want to start

http://seattle.craigslist.org/see/pho/5851236598.html

Just purchased a Canon EOS Elan 7 with a Quantaray 28-200mm lens for 30 bucks. Did I do good? Also, in the near future I'd like to get a new dslr. What is a good choice for someone who is beginner to intermediate level and wants to take beautiful photos and bit of video?

>>2966388
You need something better than an A7R II for something?

>>2965966
>getting this mad on a japanese cartoon forum

>>2966290
What's the story behind this photo? It just looks like water damage to me, why does that make this camera shit? Is it supposed to be weather sealed or something?

>>2966483
Yea, massive salt water damage or something. This shit doesn't just happen.

> Is it supposed to be weather sealed or something?
No.

The only reason this is reposted all the time is because some anons like it for some reason.

>>2966491
>salt water damage
Exactly. It is actually tear vapor damage from the eyepiece, through exposed interior surface. Every time you use the EVF your eyes natural tear contents vapor goes inside the camera and corrodes it.
It is simply lousy design, it is the reason the weather sealing badge has been pulled from it and they made some pseudo sealing-but-not-really bullshit instead.
If you want a Sony FF I'd rather point you towards the A99II instead.

>>2966491
>>2966483

The source is some conspiracy theory nutter who claims Sony has links to ISIS.

She is sbsolutely nuts.

Not to mention the water damage all being on the left side with a solid line where it ends is pretty obvious partial submersion damage.

>>2966501
Not really funny or even mildly amusing, just stupid.

If you believe bullshit on that level yourself, I pity you.

>>2966508
> Sony has links to ISIS
Yea. I bet ISIS has used quite a lot of Sony camera sensors and probably also Sony lasers and stuff. Shocking.

Well, thanks for the background information.

>>2966247
The only thing holding me back from pulling the trigger is that the sensors/processor combo is 3 years old.
The lens is also pretty ancient.
I feel like I am buying old shit.

>>2966524
Just ask your chemistry teacher about transport processes.

>>2966529
>transport processes

If that was what happened, the corrosion would cover the heatsink instead of the electronics on the end.

>>2966528
Well, it is getting a little older.

And in my opinion Fuji only made their AF decent enough recently with like the X-T2 and X-Pro 2. I guess those *finally* work with some reliability.

But I guess you need an older weaker Fuji to avoid paying the high premium that is on a new Fuji camera (they're often even like 1/3 more expensive than the already pricey competition), so if you want to get Fuji at less cost, it might be what you're looking for.

File: NO Bribery.jpg (26KB, 400x299px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 400x299px

>>2966256
>Sony
>literally the worst form and shape a camera can ever take
>no second control wheel
>horrible screen
>not fully articulated

Just getting into photography nothing too serious just taking pictures of my pets that sort of thing. Looking at either a 5dsr or a 5d iv. Then something like a 24-70L and maybe a 16-35L. What do you think?

File: repost_bunny_crop.jpg (160KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

160KB, 1000x1000px

>>2966566
In a way, why not..? The 5D IV is a good camera.

But I figure you could do those things fine with a cheaper and/or lighter camera.

Pic related, pixel peeping crop from a A6000 + Sigma 60mm f/2.8 (a ~$160 lens, great deal for an E-mount APS-C lens, but also exists on other systems).

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

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

>>2965737>>2965745

Now that all the mirrorless systems are coming out with fast on-sensor phase detect AF, EVF resolution and quality keeps going up, Fuji with the hybrid EVF/OVF, weather sealing, there is less and less reason to have an SLR as a general purpose camera.

>>2966304
5D mark III with magic lantern is the way to go.

>>2966530
Water evaporates at the center of the heatsink more so it has less water for the corrosion to start. There are more water molecule clusters towards the edge of the heat sink and corrosion can start. The heat in the center evaporating the H2O clusters makes room for more clusters to move in with diffusion carrying sodium and chlorine ions, corrosion speeds up.
Easy as first year physical chemistry at uni.

>>2966587
call me when EVFs have improved to the point that I can't tell I'm looking at a screen.

>>2966595
Thats what I was thinking actually. But I'm not sure if the 1D-X is better in terms of image quality.

>>2966256
>>2966213


My girlfriend actually got an a6000, so I borrow it quite often, but i've got three Canon lenses and it'd be a shame for them to go to waste.

http://cameradecision.com/compare/Nikon-D5300-vs-Nikon-D3300
Why are camera companies such Jews? I'm trying to find a decently priced first camera with non gimmicky features so I compare the D3300 to the D5300 and they're the same camera except one had a screen that can move, time lapse recording, and af bracketing. Those three things bump up the price considerably. It's kinda disheartening to have to have to pay 200 bucks more for cheap features. I want something that's good for landscape/city photography and has high resolution. Is the D5300 any good?

>>2966479
Can not afford that.Waiting for a uodated a7II

>>2966680
Nikon knows that a lot of consumers 1.) don't know much about photography and are easily distracted by things like flippy screens and lots of scene modes, and 2.) have a "buy one step up from the very cheapest thing" heuristic.

Anyway you're right, for all intents and purposes the D3x00 and D5x00 are the same camera. The D7x00 is the first "proper" model.

The sigma/tamron 150-600 lenses..

Are they really worth it?

I've watched several reviews and they both seem very lacking.

But the focal length is so nice. Are there any other brands that do similar lengths?

>>2966681
Probably will appear eventually.

But I'd not be sure that it has a price like the current A7 II. And at least I personlly wouldn't want to "loose" like one year of shooting.

If the A7 II has no *particular* flaws that bother you a lot and that you expect to get fixed ... why not get it?

>>2966680
Because they can.

You'll pay another few hundred dollars until you get to the D7200, for the AF motor and more un-gimped software and a few extra (probably $0.5 on the factor side, with QA and development included) buttons and stuff.


If you want to not support this shit, go with like Panasonic, Pentax, Olympus, Xiaomi or to a lesser extent Sony (at least the last doesn't fuck you over software).

>>2966687
Do you recommend the d7100? I'm a beginner but I wanna dive head first into photography. It'd be cheaper to buy a camera that I'm gonna keep for years rather than a shitty entry level camera. I do want something with time lapse photography.

>>2966697
Yeah the average consumer doesn't seem to mind getting ripped off apparently. Being indecisive is sometimes an advantage.

>>2966698
The D7200 is nice.

I'd also suggest to have a look at the A6000-A6500, despite that timelapses will require an in-camera or Android smartphone app to be installed (either is free though IIRC).

And the Pentax K-5 / K-3 (II).

>>2966704
I'd love the d7200 but it's out of my price range for now. Is the d7100 somehow less decent?

>>2966702
Yea, I really don't like when they remove what should -on their end- be cheap & easy features to bait and then upmarket you through three-four layers of cameras.

> the average consumer doesn't seem to mind getting ripped off apparently
The average consumer also often pays extra to not have to bother with an informed decision, sure.

People fighting over which thread is real so i will post here aswell.

Need help spending money.

I currently own a canon 600d with Sigma 10-20mm f4-5.6 / Canon 50mm f1.8 + Kit Lenses

Trying to work out if i should get a (probably sigma) 17-50mm f2.8 or Tamron 24-70 f2.8 since i have a wide already. Thoughts?eed help spending money.

I currently own a canon 600d with Sigma 10-20mm f4-5.6 / Canon 50mm f1.8 + Kit Lenses

Trying to work out if i should get a (probably sigma) 17-50mm f2.8 or Tamron 24-70 f2.8 since i have a wide already. Thoughts?

File: 71vs72.jpg (80KB, 560x454px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 560x454px

>>2966706

>>2966706
D7200 has a much bigger buffer. The D7100 and D7000's buffer was just so fucking small.

D7200 has WLAN. I personally care about that (the add-on module was retarded) because I use it to share files and control the camera.

You could use another solution with a microSD->SD card adapter that opens an access point with a Windows or FTP share on its own, but that won't control the camera and show you the current picture.

Also apparently they made the AF / Auto ISO better, allow you to use more shots in AE bracketing (usually used for HDR), and they allow longer time lapses. Also has zebra lines for overexposure.

That would have made me pick the D7200, but then the cheaper A6000 had it all anyhow and faster bursts and mroe, so I went for that, heh.

>>2966691
rent one

>>2966712
How do mirrorless compare to the traditional dslr cameras? I saw the A 6000 and I was pretty curious about it. And thanks for the comparison

>>2966714
> How do mirrorless compare to the traditional dslr cameras?
Depends on the exact camera, they're obviously not all the same.

Sony's cameras are the first ones in a pretty long time that have kicked Nikon and Canon's ass on both APS-C and FF in various long-running "best of the year" camera awards & that actually seem to be costing them a lot of market share.

Panasonic, newer Fuji & Olympus and so on also all now have good AF and good sensors and a good overall device. Very comparable to DSLR for basically all newer models.

Well, basically they're doing great.

What happened to all the different lens companies? It seemed like in the early 2000s most photography companies went under.

>>2966723
Some surely went under, but plenty (>>2966302)
are still making lenses.

File: 4YmJmZ5.gif (2MB, 200x200px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 200x200px

I know you guys cream your pants over the Sony a6000 but how does the a5000 compare?

>>2966772
It depends on what you're looking for.

The view finder, bigger sensor, bigger buffer, 60 frames recording, higher iso,and better screen were big reasons in picking the 6000.

If you don't need those options then the 5000 is still a really good choice and outdoes most others in it's class.

>>2966784
>bigger sensor
You sure about that?

>>2966643
I honestly don't think that there is any big difference in iq, but the plus functions in magic lantern will certenly make your workflow insanely faster and for me that's a huge selling point.

>>2966772
Shit AF on that one, no flash hotshoe, slow burst rate, small buffer, worse ergonomy... wouldn't bother.

The A6300, A6500 and A7 II are successor models worth a look, though.

>>2966813
Fug. Only the a5000 has Black Friday deals. Not even worth it at $350 w/ kit lens?

>>2966877
> Not even worth it at $350 w/ kit lens?
Certainly not to me.

Shitty camera only has CDAF, no PDAF. But fast (PD)AF is one of the biggest reasons why MILC are getting popular with enthusiast and professional photographers now - as opposed to already many years ago.

Want more even more reasons than already given up until now? It has no EVF. Instead you get an annoyingly low resolution display. And more shutter lag.

The A5000 and NEX-3N are devices you probably want *even less* than a NEX-5T, NEX-7 or NEX-6.
And honestly, you really want to stick with getting the A6000 or later if you can help it at all.

> Black Friday deals
I imagine shops and private owners want to get rid of this camera, so this "deal" will probably be available for a lot longer.

Even generally speaking, Black Friday doesn't really have too many interesting deals for anything popular as compared to just the usual deals online that already existed before and will exist after that date.

>>2966772
a5100 = a6000 with no EVF
a5000 = shit

File: maxresdefault (1).jpg (27KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 1280x720px

>>2966772

a5000 is pretty old and definately not worth buying new

a5100 is considerably better, but with the a6000 commonly as low as $450, it isn't really worth it unless you are really strapped for cash.

Honestly, unless you are going FF or the a6000 is specifically lacking something you need, it is a waste of money to get ANY other mirrorless.

Fuji and m43 make some really nice bodiew, but anything comparable to a6000 is around $1,000.

>>2966930
Well fug.

>>2966877
>onIy the 5000 has deaIs

There's a reason for that.

>>2966912
> a5100 = a6000 with no EVF
And no flash hotshoe, weaker built in flash (only about half power), two command dials less (mode selector dial and control wheel absent, you actually get to crawl menus a lot more), 6fps bursts instead of 11fps, and a few more things.

Get the A6000.

>>2966326
I have a 5dsr. Very happy. That is all.

File: 139876105255b9689c5962c.jpg (295KB, 1200x800px) Image search: [Google]

295KB, 1200x800px

>>2967085
it has touch screen and selfie screen, way smaller and lighter. perfect with 20mm pancake.
a6000 and ricoh gr btfo.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-7M2
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	35 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	350 dpi
Vertical Resolution	350 dpi
Image Created	2015:07:30 07:51:18
Exposure Time	1/50 sec
F-Number	f/5.0
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	1600
Brightness	1.4 EV
Exposure Bias	0.3 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	35.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1200
Image Height	800
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

>>2967119
> it has touch screen
Virtually the only advantage, yes. Can't make up for all the flaws.

> and selfie screen
For the few portraits of myself that I shot, I simply used my smartphone as display - easier to see with a long lens.

Plus that's quite likely how you're likely going to publish these shots anyhow.

> way smaller and lighter
283g. 110 x 63 x 36 mm
344g. 120 x 67 x 45 mm

It's about as much of a difference as carrying one drink bottle vs another drink bottle of which I took one-two sips... don't really care about this even when hiking in the mountains, DESU.

> perfect with 20mm pancake.
You might like a 35mm Fujian C-mount lens. Either the older f/1.7 or the newer f/1.6. Swirly bokeh for your selfies at ~$20-$26 or so shipped with the adapter. No AF though.

>>2967119
except that lens is garbage. but garbage fits garbage well.

>>2967145

Only the 16mm pancake is garbage.

The 20mm is actually good. Nothing groundbreaking, but a good lens.

Still, there is no reason to get any body lower than the a6000. It is worth the extra hundred or two.

>>2967149
You think that because you never used a decent lens before. You will realize when you get your first good lens.

>>2967119
>buy a6300
>a bit bummed it doesn't have a touch screen
>see this 5100 having a touch screen

...

Oh well, this seems like a real nice camera, could be a new recommendation I give people.

my buddy is willing to sell me a nikon d d700 for $300 and throw in some freebies..

should i go for it?
i really want a camera since ill be going to japan soon...

>>2967152
with a nikon 18-55mm lens

>>2967152
>>2967153
For that price he's basically giving it away, yeah you should jump on it

>>2967119
>seIfie screen
>Using b t f o when not on /sp/

What a faggot.

>>2967152
Is there something wrong with it? For that price you shouldn't even have to ask as long as it's in good condition.

What else is he giving you other than the lens?

Just ordered Sigma 35mm 1.4 Art because I'm a poor fag and can't afford Nikkor 35mm 1.4G.

On the scale of 1 to 10 how fucked am I?

>>2967313
I'd prefer the Sigma Art even at the same price.

It's just sharper.

>>2967313
well you got a lens thats a lot better than the Nikon wide open, so not at all/10

>>2967313
Are peopIe reaIIy stiII faIIing for branding superiority?

Check out the reviews for your Iens. lt's actuaIIy reaIIy good and in a few aspects even better.

File: Fooji.jpg (4MB, 3077x2769px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 3077x2769px

What is the best dsIr regardless of:

>Weight
>Burst photo rate
>PortabiIity

For under $2 k?

lt doesn't need a touch screen, and is better without wireIess features (extra weight for no reason).

ls the 7 D Mark 2 stiII the best for this case?

AIso wondering the same for mirrorIess micro 4/3. ls lBlS worth it when lS is so good on the Iens itseIf?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	OLYMPUS IMAGING CORP.
Camera Model	E-M5
Camera Software	Version 2.0
Photographer	Picasa
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	350 dpi
Vertical Resolution	350 dpi
Image Created	2014:09:19 14:20:21
Exposure Time	1/200 sec
F-Number	f/5.0
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	200
Exposure Bias	0.7 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Auto
Focal Length	35.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	3077
Image Height	2769
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	Low Gain Up
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Unique Image ID	771258ad2dba6a7402fdd978f20daedb

>>2967417
D500

>>2967418
The Nikon? Aren't there better fuII frame options or are you going by the DX sensor?

How many of you are holding back on buying new glass next week because you're not sure if it's a waste to buy a lens for your non-mirrorless?

>>2967422
That is a pretty absurd fear as such. But even if you somehow had this fear, there isn't even much glass that you *couldn't* use quite productively on a mirrorless camera.

The feature set of modern MILC made even very old lenses quite viable and comfortable to shoot with.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P64uoq69-2M

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GCPqxHST0C8

Anything a bit newer probably has a easy adapter already. Often even one with AF support and electronic readouts.

>>2967422
Not me.
For starters I don't plan to replace my D800 for another 10 years or so.

This idea of buying a new $2k camera every 3 years just is absurd to me.

>>2967426
I can't believe that first lens is decently sharp.

It's for medium format, so if it resolves that much detail from corner to corner that's a lot.

>>2967426

Everything modern mount but Pentax has an autofocus adapter.

And even that can be semi-autofocused with the Techart Pro.

hmm, canon pricewatch has a $2100 5d mkiii body-only, or a 2500 body + EF 24-105mm F4/L with image stabilization.

400 bucks for 1000 normal full frame prime with IS is tempting.

The others I'm considering are canon's 24-70 2.8 (lacks stabilization, would be good handheld at 2.8 but couldn't handhold well at other apertures. I use a tripod for less than 1/4th so it seems like this is the best option for solo portraits but the worst for weddings/events/sports/wildlife etc. $1750 is a ripoff to leave IS out.)

Or canon's 24-70 F4/L with several stops of IS but less DoF. ($900 but should be sharper than the 24-105)

Tamron 24-70 2.8 with stabilization for $1300. Slower focusing than the non-stabilized canon apparently.

Sigma's only IS offering is just worse than the $400 24-105 F4/L IS.

My gut feeling is just to go with the cheap combo. Anyone with personal experience with the different 24-70/24-105 wanna chime in?

>>2967443
edit: I mean L-series glass, not prime. I have plenty of good primes already

>>2967443
The Canon 24-105 is shit.
It's a kit lens not worthy of a red ring.

>>2967450
2nding this. Got one for 400 new from a friend when he got his kit and stiII feIt ripped off. The onIy reason the thing even has a red ring is the weather seaIing. lf it wasn't for that, this thing wouId have no vaIue.

File: ig.jpg (644KB, 1338x1338px) Image search: [Google]

644KB, 1338x1338px

What kind of nikon lense would work best for close up product shots like this? I'm using the defaut 55mm atm but would love to splash out for something better.

[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	2016:09:13 16:17:53
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1338
Image Height	1338

>>2967490
Most lenses have their minimum focus listed. If you're buying new, it's really a matter of how much money you wanna spend.

Hard to tell at low res, but I wonder if you're shooting with your aperture wide open? Better lighting and closing down a couple stops from wide open will do wonders for making crisp product/tabletop shots.

Can anyone here recommend a good hand grip for a DSLR. I've seen some that lock into the tripod mount. Preferably under $50

>>2967450
thanks for the warning, I guess it won't hurt to just pick up the body when it's on sale and wait for a separate lens sale

>>2967420
>under 2k
You could buy a D750, but the D500 is a better DSLR at DSLR things. inb4 muh low light muh ISO.

Since weight, burst rate, and portability don't matter, might also consider a Pentax K1. IQ wise, it'll beat out the D750.

>>2967417
>ls the 7 D Mark 2 stiII the best for this case?
Yes, for delicious Canon noise and outdated sensors. Real cheap camera though, for the performance and build quality. They were selling them for $1200 after MIR with a printer a couple weeks ago. Not even grey market.
>is better without wireIess features (extra weight for no reason).
>implying that feature adds any appreciable weight
>M43
Olympus' IBIS is scary good, Panasonic Dual IS is excellent, don't buy M43 as your primary shooting system, be aware of technical limitations, don't fall for the dank memes on /p/ about lens resolution and noise.

>>2967490
A very sharp prime between 85-135mm, possibly a macro lens, should do great.

If you only have a 24-70 or 50mm Sigma Art or whatever, you probably won't really be hindered either.

Because if you have a sharp lens without too extreme perspective distortion, the next thing to address is probably your lighting.

>>2967417
I'd go with a Sony MILC.

The A7 II is a good FF all-rounder camera with IBIS. Targets the price range you want to buy into.

A6500 is APS-C with high-end AF and IBIS. If you're worried about the weight on the scale of a WLAN module, this will save far more weight vs some FF DSLR than not having WLAN.

A7S has the best low light performance for 2k, but no PDAF or IBIS, and lower resolution.

All of them have excellent native high-end glass, plus you can use almost every other camera brand's glass quite easily.

> ls lBlS worth it when lS is so good on the Iens itseIf?
Maybe it isn't so great on some of your lenses?

Maybe you also just don't want it on all your lenses for weight and size and cost reasons.

Maybe you are getting one of the few cameras (not sure if any of them is already out) that can run IBIS as well as in-lens stabilization, at the same time.

>>2967617
>implying the most important thing isn't the lighting
>implying you couldn't get away with a D40 and 18-55 for product shots uploaded to the web resized to a few hundred pixels square

fucking gearfags i tell ya

>>2967647
>implying the most important thing isn't the lighting
Once you have a sharp lens without too much perspective distortion, it is the next thing to address.

I said so explicitly.

> uploaded to the web resized to a few hundred pixels square
The problem is that you just added "a few hundred pixels only" on your own, but actually you might need 2000+ pixels in at least one dimension for the large previews.

>>2967655
That's great, but you don't need a sharp lens, you need a sharp enough lens and excellent lighting.

Who ever took product photos with a 105 macro and only """""available""""" lighting? Nobody. You have a mini-studio, or you don't have shit.

I just found out that you can unlock the recording limit for video on the a6300.

Is this anything like Magic Lantern where it might fuck your shit up?

And is there anything like ML for sony cameras?

>>2967677

There is no magic lantern equivalent, but you can a fuck ton with the open version of Play Memories.

The Sony devices basically run a slim down version of Android and some have even gotten Android apps runninpg (though not fully working as of yet).

File: Phantom-4-Action-5.jpg (166KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

166KB, 1920x1080px

Hey /p/,
So I mostly hail from /g/ but for my job I'm needing to take some videos of various different properties for an employer. Like real estate shots showcasing the landscape.

I know you guys are mostly about hipster shit but I was wondering if you had any gear/filming tips?

I think I'm going to get a DJI phantom 4 to get some nice aerial landscape shots, then just shoot in the golden hour and hope for the best.

I've got a D3300 so I might also get a timelapse slider and do some nice ground footage as well.
Is there a better drone for around the price range/any more ideas for getting good landscape shots?

Thanks

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 5D Mark III
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Macintosh)
Photographer	Miz Watanabe_aQua Studio
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	5632
Image Height	3755
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2016:03:01 17:31:17
Image Created	2016:01:27 18:19:50
Exposure Time	1/1600 sec
F-Number	f/2.8
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	320
Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Subject Distance	0.00 m
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	70.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1920
Image Height	1080
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Manual

>>2967684
Huh, cool.

I guess there will be some more neat stuff in the future then!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yELwkepRd68

>shooting at people at f4
>busy as shit background
is this guy for real?

File: eh.jpg (177KB, 1000x667px) Image search: [Google]

177KB, 1000x667px

>>2967659
> Who ever took product photos with a 105 macro and only """""available""""" lighting?
Not *exactly* what I suggested.

I did say to address lighting once you are covered with any reasonably sharp, reasonably low perspective distortion lens. Not to avoid dealing with lighting.

The implication is merely that it might be done cheaply after much of the money went into the lens. A set of Yongnuos strobes, bunch of Chinese LED or CFL bulbs, maybe your existing household lamps and torches...

But hey, I tried the extreme variant of "available lighting" on pic related.
APS-C camera, on-camera flash only, basically auto everything apart from aperture, taken on a random white-painted wooden board in the staircase (not exactly a studio), handheld, no focus stacking (should certainly be done here), no extra light modifiers, no post-processing apart from RAW->JPEG conversion.

Focus stacking and then more lighting would probably be the next things to do, but it's not nothing.

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

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

>>2967600
ls the 400 worth it being a crop though?

l hear a Iot about the k 1. Going to Iook into it to see if there wiII be nay deaIs on it soon. ls there a revision due out soon?

The micro wouIdn't be a primary, just a back up or something to bring on trips where the disr kit might be too much. lt's nice having something to get those shots you'd ordinary miss by not Iugging the fuII dsIr kit around.

>>2967643
WouId you say the A 7 ll is better or the 6500? WiIIing to go a bit over 2 k but not by much, but wiII be Iooking for deaIs anyway so that shouId bring the price down.

>>2967702
The picture is garbage, but as for the demonstartion, you nailed it. I used to do product photograpy myself with only natural light (I'm an in house photographer at a smithy) before I started building my studio.
Investing money in glass is a honorable thing to do, but if someone wants to specialise in product photography then building her studio and getting sharper lenses should happen hand in hand. Seriously there are pretty good vintage lenses for technicly no money that will do the job.

>>2967741
> WouId you say the A 7 ll is better or the 6500?
My guess is the A7 II.

Simply because without much information to go on, I do stereotype you to be "typical" person that more likely will try to shoot in lower light than require fast/long bursts or very fast AF.

> WiIIing to go a bit over 2 k but not by much, but wiII be Iooking for deaIs anyway so that shouId bring the price down.
I wouldn't expect too many big deals before the successor models come out.

>>2965715
>ls the 400 worth it being a crop though?
The D500? Yes, if you want the last word in autofocus performance for a DSLR. Do you need that? No? Get something else.

>l hear a Iot about the k 1. Going to Iook into it to see if there wiII be nay deaIs on it soon. ls there a revision due out soon?
Pentax never goes on sale, and new cameras don't get deals.
>The micro wouIdn't be a primary, just a back up or something to bring on trips where the disr kit might be too much. lt's nice having something to get those shots you'd ordinary miss by not Iugging the fuII dsIr kit around.
Exactly what its good for.

>WiIIing to go a bit over 2 k but not by much, but wiII be Iooking for deaIs anyway so that shouId bring the price down.
I hope you remember to budget for lenses. Panasonic has a good sale going on right now, if you wanted to pick up a B cam first. Nikon's sale is tepid, the usual stuff, 10% off a $2000 lens. Easy enough to pick up Canikon gear used though.

Pentax K-70 with DA18-135mmWR lens kit yes or no?

Mostly will taking photo in low-light environment like interior with dim light and architectural picture.

And also I'm a first time dlsr.

>>2967755
> The picture is garbage, but as for the demonstartion, you nailed it.
Thanks.

> but if someone wants to specialise in product photography then building her studio and getting sharper lenses should happen hand in hand
So... get professional lenses only once you've got professional studio strobes sporting professional light modifiers such as Bron para and diffusers? Or when?

I'll stick with my variant: I'll get a good prime right away and just do the lighting with E27 socket light bulbs, or some manual Yongnuo portable flashes, or something else relatively cheap (plus equally cheap or improvised stands and modifiers), and work with that.

> Seriously there are pretty good vintage lenses for technicly no money that will do the job.
Figures the other anon might be interested in them if you have some to name.

>>2967851
That's not really a low light camera, and not a especially "fast" lens either.

Do you have a set of strobes to make this work? Because otherwise it likely won't easily.

>>2967866
PS: You might also find the Sigma 8-16mm or such far more suitable in terms of field of view.

It's however not "faster" either. Indoors, you will often need extra light with that setup.

>>2967851
That's an odd lens of choice for available light interior and architechtural photography.

>>2967851
lt's not reaIIy a good choice. Are you just doing this because it comes as a kit?

>>2967863
>get professional Ienses

What actuaIIy defines a "professionaI" Iens?

Are you taIking about primes?

Red stripes?

Or something eIse?

PeopIe aIways mention a "professionaI" body or Iens but just give some random high-price piece that under performs for what it costs.

What do you guys consider "professionaI" Ienses or bodies?

Why is it so damn hard to find a benbo 2 tripod as a yuropoor?

I see the occasional one on ebay/amazon for around 150usd.
Then I came across this norwegian import selling them for near 2500usd.

What's the deal with these?
They seem pretty nice for heavy duty work.

>>2967923
>What actuaIIy defines a "professionaI" Iens?
Hm. Top-tier optical properties plus good handling. Relative to the respective type of lens.

Well, we got there from "sharp" lenses that were supposed to be somehow matched to studio lighting and accessories. The closest equivalent I could think of for this was "professional".

But it's not necessarily a good word choice, it depends on how anon actually intended these to be matched.

I'm looking for the best quality tripod around the $100-$150 range. Any ideas guys?

>>2967924
> I see the occasional one on ebay/amazon for around 150usd.
So you buy it there? There are no import restrictions on tripods, just VAT.

> What's the deal with these?
Probably some Benro/Induro rebrand / knockoff / inofficial "successor" to the flexpod series.

Hence marked up a lot like most such Chinese tripods are?

But I don't know for sure.

> They seem pretty nice for heavy duty work.
Not so sure. I seem to recall the flexpods had a good number of issues.

A lot of more conventional inexpensive Chinese tripods are just fine for heavy cameras though.

>>2967937


A little more info. I take interior photos almost daily. I've gone through two $100 tripods in 6 months.

>>2967937
Travel? Dic&Mic E302C / P303C, Q999, one of the too many to list Siruis or Benros. Grab one on Aliexpress.

Studio? Maybe a Manfrotto XPROB or such.

>>2967942
What happened to them? Was it normaI use? My cheap $30 tripod has gone on 4 years of weekIy outdoor use with no issues.

>>2967944
Yes, travel. Something sturdy that will last, maybe with a good swappable head for something to tilt 90 degrees (some that say they can swap have horrible fit).

>>2968003
While I don't have any longevity statistics, the Dic & Mic E302C has been just fine for me so far.

I still see no reason why it wouldn't last for a good while.

The included ball head can be replaced but already will tilt 90 degrees like basically all ball heads.

>>2967942
>Interior photography
>Going through 2 tripods in 6 months

How does this even happen?

>>2967866
Nope I don't.

>>2967876
I'm stupid in choice of lens though maybe.

>>2967893
Yes because I strapped of cash. Budget is below $1500

>>2968079
$1500 is a pretty decent budget for a cam and lens. Have you considered other brands? There should be a few good sales on some mid entry levels coming up next week that would fit your budget well.

You could get a full frame Nikon kit for that price. The sensors within that range are good for low light and even the kit lenses are sharp. You shouldn't have too much trouble coming across a combo in your price range.

>>2968087
I'm also consider other brand like Canon and Nikon too. Your recommendation?

>>2968088
Different anon, but Sony. Won't be enough for the low light A7S, but you could do A6000 + wide angle lens + normal lens + kit zoom lens + portable lighting - or something like that.

Arguably this should also work with a Pentax K-50, Nikon D7000, or some such.

>>2967942
>gone through two tripods
Tripods are not disposable, you don't "go through" tripods. What kind of absolute fucking retard are you?

>>2968106
α6500 would be released soon. What if I bump up my budget to $2000

>>2968117
With that budget you'll have a ton of options if you're patient enough to wait for a sale within the next month.

These will be some of the best prices you'll see for a while, given it will only few a few hundred off but it adds up for something so new. The kits are usually the first on sale too.

>>2968117
It looks to be a really cool camera for a lot of reasons and situations, but I don't remember any feature that would very much help you with architecture and interior shots.

Were you thinking of something specific?

>>2968126
May not limited to interior shot but with possibly to expend to city landscape shot.

>>2968128
Just for the extra, I have the possibly of doing shooting at construction site.

>>2968128
Even for those it's not immediately evident that you might want an A6500 rather than an A6000 or A6300.

Yea, IBIS might be nice for handheld shots, but when you're doing these shots "seriously" you might very likely be doing them from a tripod anyhow.

You're quite probably not going to use the fast AF or long quick bursts that often, though, and you probably will do fine without a touch screen to focus.

It just doesn't seem immediately obvious to me that the A6500 is worth it for you. But again, maybe I missed something that would make this camera much more attractive for you?

So far I think better glass and lighting accessories might do more for you...

>>2968117

The a6500 advantages are ibis and video.

Neither useful for what you are doing.

If you atr bumping to $2,000 you could also look at the a7ii. The fullframe would make it a lot easier to get wider shots. There is even a 10mm rectilinear lens for FE.

File: 51ZUwocrwBL._SL1000_.jpg (47KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 1000x1000px

>>2967979
The Dolica Proline that I got had the screws come loose that were holding the legs on. I tried to tighten them but it just stripped the aluminum. It lasted about 3 months maybe.

The last one I got was theone in the picture. One of the rubber feet that you twist to unlock the legs sheered off while twisting it and on the same day, the smallest section of one of the other legs just fell out. The head on it is decent though.

I ordered a Benro Mach 3 2 series today though. $160. The quality looks good.

>>2968112
Now this here, this is mad.

>>2966256
>Consumer electronics company
>Create new TV's, cellphones, laptops, gaming consoles with yearly upgrade cycles because people are stupid enough to buy them.
>Apply philosophy to cameras
>People fall for it
>???
>Profit

>>2968361
Apparently they make better sensors and cameras than the competition.

Mirrorless cameras now got tremendous PDAF and extremely good sensors because of them, and they're also slowly updating them to not be so shit in terms of "being computers" (you know, "buffer" is SSD or RAM, there are CPU and bandwidths and signal processors and operating systems and everything behind it all... and that stuff fell like a decade behind smartphones - time to catch up!).

They also upped the ante on lenses and lens adapters too, with a lot of partners. We finally have something akin to an universal lens mount, even if it does require adapters.

The period of near stagnancy under Canon / Nikon dominance is kinda over and even these companies are starting to do a better job again.

Horray etc.

> But I wanted upgrades happening decades apart only.
Your problem. The Sony camera version updates have been very meaningful recently, that's all I care about.

>>2968112
You do when you buy shitty Chinese junk. But I was told I was an idiot for suggesting Manfrotto or Gitzo in a different thread.

I bought a used Manfrotto tripod and head 16 years ago. They still work perfectly. I don't expect to ever need to replace them.

>>2968365
> Muh Chinese junk!
> Buy Chinese made tripod with Manfrotto rebranding, it's now no longer junk
Sure anon.

Also, I never had a problem with my Sirui or the other decent Chinese tripods either, so perhaps just don't buy junk.

About to pull the trigger on a A7, please send help.

>>2968370
>Muh Chinese junk!
Who are you even quoting?

>>2968381
Are you making posts about your grocery shopping list?
Nobody cares what you are buying, retard!

>>2968381
It's a good camera, what are you worrying about?

The 7 ll was my choice in the Iine and l couIdn't be happier. The Ienses were pretty costIy but l am so pIeased with the resuIts l don't think about it too much.

The videomakes the unit get hot quickIy but l have another camera for video anyway so as a photo onIy unit for me, l wouId say go for it.

M.2 slot for SSDs in cameras when? Buffer and storage all in one, you won't ever run out of space or frames.

>>2968453
But it's *far* from being as fast as RAM with actual storage NAND?

I think it won't replace buffers except on cameras too slow / too low resolution. Which, to remain "budget" options, should want to stick with SD and microSD for the foreseeable future.

>>2968457
Whoops, meant

>But it's *far* from being as fast as RAM with actual storage NAND
Wasn't asking a question.

Nikon d5300 worth buying? Thanks.

>>2968459
Yea, I was asking a rhetorical question.

But thanks for your help saving the dead horse that is English grammar.

>>2968461
Maybe at around $350, but it still depends on what you want to shoot.

>>2968365
>I don't expect to ever need to replace them
That's true of all DSLR tripods that aren't outright defective. Manfrotto are simply overpriced.

Tripods aren't like car engines or automatic rifles, they don't have constantly moving parts or face significant stresses of any sort. There's no extreme hot, extreme cold, extreme weight, extreme friction. They sit somewhere immobile, get gently rearranged, sit somewhere immobile.

It's fine you were dumb enough to pay several times normal price to get the exact same end result, but it definitely isn't an accomplishment for you or for the gear.

>>2968463
>It's fine you were dumb enough to pay several times normal price to get the exact same end result

Are you referring to the exact same tripod getting a different brand sticker? Or do you mean all tripods in general doing the same job?

>>2968463
Who even buys Manf though? l've never met anyone who has ever bothered to try them, and the onIy peopIe who Iook Iike they even get them are the reviewers for videos.

There are too many aIternatives at much Iower prices that work better for them to be reIevant.

File: 1479574701413.png (27KB, 248x236px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 248x236px

>>2968485
My university has a whole bunch of Manfrotto that nobody even uses. Because when you're a public funded institution you might as well get the coolest shit around and bullshit it through the budgeting board. Made me physically ill when I asked about a medium format scanner, turns out they had some super expensive commercial machine, then "Someone borrowed it I think and I haven't seen it since lol. Nobody really needs one these days anyway."

That thing was worth several grand and you let it go like a fucking library book RRRREEEEEEEEEE-

>>2968507
>tfw IocaI budget says the photography cIasses shouId be abIe to make it to next year
>Music cIasses get cut even though they were promised they wouId be around for 2 more years
>They say this is good news for cIasses that were worried about not making the budget
>Get news Iast month that the photography cIasses won't be offered past December
>We just got these cIasses Iast year and were waiting on our cameras and tripods
>Prof. teIIs us the truth they were never ordered to begin with
>We're supposed to cram a 2 semester course into the next month
>Prof. says "don't worry about it, l'II doubIe your best current grades and put you on a curve, do what you want and come back for a finaI in a month"
>Get e maiI today that finaI is open book on the first 60 pages of a 370 page book

l have a fuII schoIarship and stiII feeI ripped off.

where can I get cheap glass and bodies? I'm looking to upgrade to an a7II but is there anything better than craigslist?

>>2968539
IiteraIIy anything is better. lf you get ripped off or something goes wrong in the first few days that you didn't notice immediateIy when you got it, what wiII you do? lt's the worst way to go about getting anything.

>>2968539
Why would the A7 II be "cheap"? You'll be buying it more or less new either way.

Cheap glass is possible. You could buy it off aliexpress or ebay or keh or wherever you like.

But apart from the Chinese glass on Aliexpress they'll mostly be just individual listings so ultimately the guess as to whether it's cheap and useful enough is completely up to you.

A friend of mine got around 1000€,
he wants to film some stuff. Mostly events with a lot of people and some vlogs. I told him to buy an Nikon D5500 or Canon EOS 700D and a Zoom H2N + some gear. Your thougts on this? Other camera? Which lense? Kit?

Should I just purchase from a trusted retailer then? Amazon, Newegg, B&H?

>>2968548
DefiniteIy yes. You have return and exchange poIicies with them, and they usuaIIy have deaIs you can benefit from. lt's a few hundred bucks more for headache-proof buys. Going on my 4th camera kit and never had an issue with this and it is worth every doIIar.

>>2968548
>New egg

They have cameras?

>>2968547
Canon is better for video. A 700 is pretty good. lf he's doing video at home then a 1.8 would be good and you can get it as a kit. He wouldn't need zoom for most of what he'd be doing so a sharp prime might be your best choice.

>>2968565
Thank you :D

File: 712CvGaRWVL._SL1500_.jpg (100KB, 1275x1500px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 1275x1500px

This is the Benro Mach 3 S2 that I ordered. Anyone have experience with Benro tripods?

>>2966691
They're not like top tier sharp, but they're by far the cheapest decent way to get to that distance, good budget wildlife lens.

I have a bunch of old Nikkor AI and Olympus OM lenses.
Which of them are preferable to adapt to the M43 system with an adapter or focal reducer?

>>2966184
>MFT is currently making a bit of a second coming

MFT is pretty much maxed out.
It can't go further than 20mp and ISOs higher than 1600 just suck ass.
MFT for video is ok but not for photo.

>>2968636
They have hit an obvious waII where it's just fixed up features and lBlS changes, but the day time photos are pretty good with them.

The lSO probIems wiII aIways be apparent, but the sensor capabiIities for the size just aren't effective past a certain point. lt's better than nothing when on the fieId, but not nearIy as good as a fuII size dsIr.

>>2968581
l had one before, it was a good unit to work with. l Iiked the weight and how sturdy it was, l just didn't Iike how the feet weren't adaptabIe to outdoor terrain so it mostIy became an indoor unit. l stiII use it for that purpose and it IeveIs weII, but l have 2 others l use for outdoors and rugged terrain.

>>2968507
ls this a U S uni? l've never heard of anyone throwing around money Iike that on anything that isn't a fucking pro Iine AppIe product a department got kucked into buying.

>>2967647
The most important thing is the Iens. You can aIways fix the Iighting or even buIIshit the lSO, but if you have a bad Iens you're not going to get the sharp image or the DoF you're Iooking for.

>>2968636
>MFT is pretty much maxed out.
Thats what they said about the 12mp sensors that had bad noise at ISO 1600.

Then the 16mp senors that are good at 6400 came out.
Then they said the same thing about those.

Now we're at 20mp and 6400 ISO.

>>2968633
Any replies?

>>2968940
>The most important thing is the Iens.

Kek
Even an iPhone lens can take great photos if you have amazing lighting. An A7rII with Batis lens will take shit photos at shit lighting.

inb4 really shitty lenses like holga

>>2969079
>Now we're at 20mp and 6400 ISO.

20mp and 6400 is subpar

>>2966107
>E-M1 II is "the" revolution in M4/3 for the next year or two. It has absurd burst rate, hugely improved AF, a brand new 20mp sensor, and a great high-res shot mode. The EVF is great too.

Yet its image quality is low compared to a consumer oriented APS-C sensor camera. It means that a Nikon D3300 or a Fuji XT10 which is way cheaper takes better photos and much better for pro work than the "professional" OM-D EM1 II.

M43 is a meme format. Everyone knows that. It has overpriced lenses and its small factor isn't anything to brag about ever since the big Olympus Pen F came out. Also we already have the Sony A7rII and A7sII, no need for a small sensor video camera like the upcoming GH5.

>>2969256
4/10 could have used actually convincing arguments, saying a D3300 is better for pro work than an EM1 isn't convincing anybody. Also enjoy your A7 rolling shutter.

>>2969260
Bait aside, anon has a few good points.
An EM1 II costs more than an XT2. Who will buy a camera that has lower ISO performance, smaller sensor and lower image quality

Meme43 is pretty much dead.

>>2969267

It costs more than the a7ii. Which is fucking full frame.

EM1 II looks like a great camera, but the price is outrageous.

I just invested in my first mirrorless system, I gotta used g7 for 250$ and have around 100 to 120 bucks to fuck around with for a prime. What's the cheapest prime available that's under 100. preffered focal lenghts are anything from 10 to 40mm

>>2969356
>invested
>in a camera body
>thats already out of date
>and will be considered trash in 3 to 4 years

Nice investment.

You don't "invest" in camera bodies.

Maybe lenses, but even most lenses lose value rather quickly.

>>2969363
Lol, it's just for testing out, you don't have to be so hostile. If anything I'll use it for video, it still has 4k and a microphone port. I have a d810 and D4s and all the lenses I need for work. The only reason I bought it is to test out what's fuss is all about with mirrorless cameras and don't want to carry a brick with me all the time

>>2968935
This is a country where communism never died in academia.

>>2969461
US is still the country where communism is the bogeyman, not populism and far right movements.

>sigma 30mm 1.4 close to $200 more expensive than the 2.8

Is it really that big of an upgrade?

>>2969517
nah, Sigma FArt lenses are overrated. And the focus motor craps out regularly.

>>2969519

I don't think the DC DN is part of the art series

>>2969524
No it is just plain bad IQ but at least the focus motor won't crap out soon. It is reliably missing half the time though.

>>2969517

Not really. Depends if you want the lowlight or meme bokeh. Then again, if you're buying sigma you probably don't want to spend more on obviously better gear

>>2969517
On the E-mount? Yea.

The f/1.4 can resolve significantly better, has PDAF outside the 5 center points, and a bult-in lens correction profile so your camera and RAW editor will know how to correct it.

Not a perfect lens but certainly worth it until we get an even better lens eventually.

>>2969356
Panasonic 20/1.7. 30 seconds on google would have told you this is the quintessential M43 prime.
>>2969267
True, pricing the EM1 above APS-C flagships is not a good idea. At the same time, it targets a small niche of users with a camera that APS-C offerings have no answer for.

>>2965715
Sup, /p/. I was looking for a relatively cheap camera to start with and I was thinking about the Nikon D90. Would the D3x00 or D5x00 be a better option?

>>2969792
Get a D7000 instead or look at the Pentax line of used K-5/K-5II/K-50/K-S2 cameras.

>>2969796
What should I be looking for as a price range for a relatively cheap D7000

>>2969339
You guys are basing the desired price point for M4/3 solely off of the sensor size, not the other features that the camera has. What other cam can give you 20 second hand held shots that are usable? What other cam shoots at 60 FPS RAW with 15 FPS mechanical shutter? What other cam has a 1/8000 shutter? What other cam has 121 cross type AF points? What other camera shoots 50+MP high res mode with no moire or aliasing? What other camera has zero viewfinder blackout?


So you found a camera with similar features? How much? How big? How much do the lenses cost? Are the lenses even sharp? Do the lenses have IS? Does the body have IS?

>>2969792
Used E-M1, E-M5, or E-M5 II.

>>2969980
The features don't matter when the sensor can't deliver even in mundane situations where APS-C already feels at home.

>>2969980

It doesn't matter how fast or how many pictures it can take if the image quality is terrible compared to pretty much everything else on the market.

>>2969980
The EMII has loads of technological breakthroughs which aid in becoming a crutch for lopsided photographers.
If you want to spend more money on a crutch which will ultimately not make you a better photographer, then so be it.

Not even mentioning, again, the subpar sensor performance.
It's not about what the camera can do that others can't.
There comes a point of diminishing returns, when the features become simply numbers on a screen that don't really affect the end-result of you using the device.
Smartphones, for example - 9GB RAM!!!! more GHz processor!!! more megapickels!!!!

but at the end of the day, big difference in phone usage experience? No.

>>2970065
The same can be said about sensor image quality.

M4/3 today is miles ahead of what fool frame was a few years back, and back then everyone though fool frame IQ was the bee's knees.

>>2970065
>Hurrrr, my camera brand loaded their flagship with features, this is a good thing
>durrr, the camera company I hate loaded their flagship with features, those are just a crutch for shitty photographers! Skilled photographers don't need IS, burst rate, AF tracking, focus points, or weather sealing!

File: nikon d200.jpg (7KB, 242x208px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 242x208px

Hey /p/ I'm trying to figure out what present to grab for my gf on black friday(or any time before christmas really). She's into photography but we're not rich so she complains about her camera a lot. She has an old Nikon D200 and two beginner lenses (18-55 and 55-200). I have about $350 put aside to upgrade her gear, but having trouble deciding what to focus on. She likes landscape photography the best by far, so I was thinking a nicer wide angle lens would be nice, but consdering the body is 12 years old that also seemed like a good idea to replace. I also thought about a new tripod but she has one of those that seems nicer than the actual tech. What do you guys think I should focus on, and what kind of options do I really have with a budget of $350?

>>2970434
Maybe a used D7000

>>2970438
After a bit of looking at the same price range, I'm having a hard time figuring out the major differences between this and the D3300 or D5200(besides weight). How come you'd go for the D7000 first?

>>2970462
not him but DEFINITELY a used D7000. Five years later it's still probably the best value camera in existence. A D5XXX or D3XXX doesn't have the front dial or top LCD, which is actually a big deal in real life. Also, apart from the $2000 D500, the D7000 sensor hasn't been significantly improved upon in any way that really matters in a crop sensor camera. The D7100, D7200 and newer D5XXX cameras have more megapickles (24 vs 16) but they don't have better dynamic range or reduced noise. Your computer screen only displays 2-4 megapixels anyway so 16 is fine.

>>2970481
Huh, that sounds really convincing. It's just the portability aspect of the other two are really tempting because most of the landscape work is during our hikes and daytrips.

>>2970484
If you do a lot of hiking with camera gear, M4/3 (Micro four-thirds) might be worth a look. Something like a used OM-D E-M5. The E-M5 has weather sealing and good durability.

The biggest downside of course is that you won't be able to use the lenses she already has, and that alone would probably put you out of the price range.

Also, M4/3 has a slightly smaller sensor than the APS-C found in a D7000, which means just a hair less image quality, if you or she are pixel peepers.

>>2970484
If you're already lugging a DSLR the minor difference of a few hundered grams between the two are not going to kill you, especially once you factor in lenses.

Besides, the D7000 allows you to use vintage AF lenses, something you can't do on bodies below it because they lack an in-body focusing motor to drive them.

>>2970496
Yeah, the new lens aspect would be difficult to get around. As nice as those sound I don't think I can switch her over.

>>2970498
I know both of her kit lenses are recent models, so I don't know if vintage matters much.
But I do think you're right, committing to a DSLR should mean to better quality over portability. Can't half ass it and settle for a middle ground if it sacrifices features.

>>2969256
Gearfagging non-photo taker spotted.

Enjoy your test images, retard.

>>2969980
Don't waste your breath, mate.

/p/ is mostly gearfags. It's like nobody ever took a professional photographer with anything less than a full frame body and pro glass.

They don't get that some people just like Olympus gear, and may be happily invested in the M4/3 mount. Olympus makes nice gear, they always have done.

99% of people on this board only ever view their photos on a computer monitor. You could create near identical screen output regardless of whether you use a compact, a mirrorless, or a full frame DSLR. Not to mention that monitor quality varies hugely.

Unless you print large then it's all bullshit. Very few of these fags do, and even fewer can actually take a photo worth a shit.

>>2970484
M43 is pretty crap for landscapes. The sensor just doesn't put out enough detail to even match negative film especially if you use a wide lens. This would be a fair trade-off if it wasn't for the fact that M43 isn't any cheaper than many better options, especially for the lenses.

>>2970528
Right, I don't think switching over will be an option for me as of now

New Thread
>>2970386
>>2970386
>>2970386

File: SLE_296.jpg (2MB, 3456x5184px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3456x5184px

>>2965715
in accordance with the "Slightly Used Edition":

Would someone be able to tell me if this is worth getting?

https://www.mpb.com/en-uk/used-equipment/used-photo-and-video/used-digital-slr-cameras/used-canon-digital-slr-cameras/canon-eos-5d-iii/sku-635237/?gclid=Cj0KEQiAvNrBBRDe3IOwzLn6_O4BEiQAmbK-Du2KrPN3PJN6RIAC2jfVeBr74w_t1LuTDwYkUc63vkEaAloK8P8HAQ

I have never bought a used camera before, but I'm dying to get the 5D MKIII.
I can't afford a new one, but I came across this used 5D for sale.

I don't care about cosmetic damage, but the shutter count is 13,000. Is that high mileage for on of these?

Thanks in advance.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 550D
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Macintosh)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.4
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	3456
Image Height	5184
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2016:11:17 14:19:20
Exposure Time	1/2000 sec
F-Number	f/1.4
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	400
Lens Aperture	f/1.4
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	24.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	3456
Image Height	5184
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard