/gear/ - Gear Thread

Nikon D600 + 24mm2.8D for a Fujifilm X-t1 + 18-55? Is it worth??

>>2970388
Do you own the Nikon or the Fuji currently?

>>2970388
It might be worth it if you actually wanted the other camera...?

I myself don't want either of these.

>>2970389

actually I own a D700 and the D600, but only with the 24mm lens...

>>2970393
It would be better to spend your money on a good lens instead switching bodies with a kit lens.
I say get a 50 or 85mm lens, keep the 24mm on the D600 for landscape and street, use the 85 on the D700 for portraits. You know what, get a 50/1.8 regardless as a generic walkaround/portrait lens.

>>2970400

As soon as I sell my D600 I will be buying an 85mm1.8G and a 50mm1.8G. Maybe in the future I`m going to be able to get a 24mm1.8G N

So it`s better me to keep Nikon?

thanks anon

Any recommendations for camera-related gear to take while hiking/camping?

Looking to be getting back into camping again, and would like finally get some good wilderness shots after some not-too-bad backpacking. Know I'm in the market for a decent tripod, but I'll look into anything ya'll of any experience found useful out there while sales are going on.

>>2970406
You could keep your Nikon or go to Olympus/Panasonic/Sony/Fuji or something else - and their respective glass.

It just depends on what your preferences are. And how would we know that?

Despite sizes and weight,is m43 any good compared to ASP-C or FF?

Want a camera + lens for landscape, portrait and video.
My budget is 500$-650$.
Need suggestions please.

>>2970409
>Any recommendations for camera-related gear to take while hiking/camping?
MILC, batteries, wide angle prime, normal prime or zoom lens, plastic bag if it's not waterproof, tripod.

Not usually bringing anything else.

>>2970409
Check out the Sirui T-025x tripod, folds up small as fuck. If you don't need one that small, but still want small there's the T-024x, slightly bigger but also more sturdy.

>>2970411
Depends on which one vs which. At a premium, M43 will perform about like upper midrange APS-C cameras.

They don't have much of a weight advantage over APS-C MILC though.

They can't really compete with FF cameras+lenses in those cases where you actually needed a FF camera+lens.

>>2970412
A6000.

>>2970406
Yes, switching systems for an upgrade is just misplacing the problem, you will still in need of a good lens, experience, time, location etc...
So you just spent your money for no real gain. A 7 years old body with a good lens is much better than a new body with a kit lens.
Also don't be afraid of the old screwdrive AF lenses, well built beasts that do their job well with excellent IQ. Only the AF will be somewhat noisy and a bit slower.

>>2970412
Pentax K-70 with kit lens. And a tripod.

>>2970423
>pentax K-70
For video?

>>2970412
Sony a6000. currently on cybermonday, very cheap.

>>2970436
It has dual pixel in video.

Omd em1ii got a dpreview gold. Nice.

>>2970472
>dpreview

Fuji x-pro1 shooter here...
just found a x100 for real cheap

my question :
what makes the x100 different from the xtrans sensor ?
are there similarities ? i mean sensor wise
ik that its 12mp but
what do i need to know about the differences between
xtrans vs the bayer sensor built in x100 ?
thx

File: 1479640818342.jpg (84KB, 500x333px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 500x333px

Someone is selling a Pentax 645N for a good price, but the exposure compensation knob has broken off. I haven't had much luck finding information about how to repair this but I did find a replacement part. Does anyone have 645N and/or know how to replair it? Pic related

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-6000
Camera Software	ILCE-6000 v3.10
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/5.0
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	46 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	350 dpi
Vertical Resolution	350 dpi
Image Created	2016:11:07 11:03:27
Exposure Time	1/200 sec
F-Number	f/8.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	3200
Brightness	4.6 EV
Exposure Bias	2 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	31.00 mm
Image Width	6000
Image Height	4000
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

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

7KB, 242x208px

Got about $350 to spend on a camera body. Upgrading from a Nikon D200. Mainly Landscape work. Considering a D3300, a D5200, and a D7000. Is the image quality and "weatherproofing" on the D7000 worth the extra weight? What are the cases for each?

So if I can get https://www.amazon.com/Nikon-NIKKOR-24-70mm-Focus-Cameras/dp/B000VDCT3C used for $1300 or this https://www.amazon.com/Nikon-24-70mm-Vibration-Reduction-Cameras/dp/B013D1BMFE for around $2000, I imagine I should go with the non-VR one, right? I doubt VR is really worth an $800 difference.

>>2970495
I used to own a D7200 which is very similar to the D7000. Weatherproofing is always a plus for shooting in rain, and the D7000-series cameras have internal focus motors as well.

>>2970500
Would you happen to know how the overall image quality of a D7000 is relative to the other two? If it's noticeably better, that would be the kicker to put it ahead for me.

>>2970499
Have you used a longer lens with VR? If not try it out somewhere. If you see yourself using the >50mm end of that lens a lot then I would highly recommend the extra for VR. Sharp images at 70mm any slower than 1/60s are near impossible without VR

>>2970506
D7000 actually has fewer megapixels than the others

http://www.imaging-resource.com/cameras/nikon/d7000/vs/nikon/d5200/

>>2970415
>>2970439
For me its a tie between Canon 70D and Sony a6000.
The problem with Sony is all those expensive lenses. The advantage is cheap af body.
And it is opposite with Canon.

Don't know what to do.

>>2970423
>Pentax K-70
Nice meme

>>2970510
But as far as I'm aware MP aren't as significant anymore? As in we have more than we need?

I really just don't know what to go with. All of the options look fine to me, I just need some concrete reason to pick one of the three.

>>2970517
The better handling, viewfinder, AF, weatherproofing, and in-body focusing motor on the D7000 are worth more than the 6 megapickle of more resolution in the D3/5k series, IMO.

Noise & DR-wise there really is not a huge difference between them.

>>2970514
> The problem with Sony is all those expensive lenses.
Good and relatively cheap:
12mm Samyang f/2
19/30/60mm Sigma f/2.8 + 30mm Sigma f/1.8
30mm Sony macro

If you want something just pretty cheap, a ~$25 Fujian 30mm f/1.7 or a $60 Neewer 35mm f/1.7 or whatever adapted MF lens.

And then we have a good bunch more that aren't *terribly*expensive:
28mm Sony f/2 with its two teleconverters, 35mm Sony f/1.8, 50mm Sony f/2.8 Macro, 85mm Samyang f / 1.4 and so on.

>>2970507
Not sure if I'd go above 50mm all that often. I mostly shoot at 35mm and 50mm. The non-VR version has great reviews as well so I guess the no-VR option hasn't deterred a lot of people.

>>2970525
E-Mount is lacking a lot of lens niches for some reason.
I didn't take a Sony because it lacked the 25-70mm (equivalent), 2.8 constant aperture, parfocal, stabilized lens that is so important in non-cinematic Video making.
Both MFT and EF have it. EF has like 3 or 4 of it.
Also, Handling!

>>2970522
Alright, I'm going to head somewhere I can handle them in person to decide if the weight difference is going to be as big of a factor as I'm thinking. That portability aspect is the only thing hold me back as of now.

>>2970485
you seem like you rolled real low on INT when you created your character

>>2970537
what

>>2970530
> E-Mount is lacking a lot of lens niches for some reason.
I figure there are a bunch of niches where it's pretty weak. Of course, you can adapt lenses to fill any of these.

That other cameras suck at having high-end glass is much worse to me.

> I didn't take a Sony because it lacked the 25-70mm (equivalent), 2.8 constant aperture, parfocal, stabilized lens that is so important in non-cinematic Video making.
I'd go with the rolling shutter as the bigger issue.

The lens has long been able to be adapted even if you insist on f/2.8 and don't want a GM or such.

> Also, Handling!
Is certainly honestly very nice for photography.
Powerful and fairly configurable automatics, all the buttons and knobs required for easy operation of the main controls plus for a handful of extra things (fairly configurable, too), good connectivity, can be quite lightweight even for high-end bodies and lenses...

Surely, the video record button is placed pretty stupidly on most of these cameras, but one can even use this...

X-E2S body or X100T
FUCK
same price used

>>2970572
Do you want interchangeable lenses? that should answer your problem

>>2970580
GOOD CALL I'M A DUMBASS

>>2970530

>35-70 f2.8 equivalent
>12-35 f1.4

On m43? It any good?

>>2970589
"24-70mm equivalent 2.8"
Not "24-70mm 2.8 equivalent"
Also AFAIK you dont apply cropfactor to the aperture number. You half the light, which is one stop Down.

>>2970543
I also thought about adapting, but it's always an additional 300-900 bucks and Even then the AF and IS aren't guaranteed to work as intended since it's Reverse engineered

>>2970594

Applying crop factor to aperture isn't exactly right, but it is a quick shorthand often used to figure equivalent dof.

>>2970601
>equivalent dof
How stupid are you?

>>2970594
> I also thought about adapting, but it's always an additional 300-900 bucks and Even then the AF and IS aren't guaranteed to work as intended since it's Reverse engineered
You can read reviews and know if your AF/IS will work on the lens(es) you intend to buy.

It's increasingly "justwerks". Reverse engineering a thing as relatively simple as a control for 2-4 or so motors that did their thing on dozens of different cameras from one brand according to some internal standard ultimately isn't mankind's greatest achievement, even if it's definitely cool for photography.

They're definitely getting it right for most lenses now.

>>2970604

>http://petapixel.com/2014/03/28/concise-explanation-crop-factor-affects-focal-length-aperture/

>>2970517
Talked to my local camera seller and he recommended the D5200 over the D7000. I think that's the camera for me, he had some good points.

Hi guys,

What leica camera would you recommend for travel and general use?

>>2970626

a7ii w/ techart pro adapter.

Best digital m-mount camera on the market.

What's with the memes that insult Sony cameras even though cameras like the a7r II are amazing?

>>2970388
X-T1 is my planned replacement for my current body when I can afford it in like a year.

>>2970651
>>2970388

Go X-T2, autofocus is terrible on the X-T1.

Anyone have any good experience with super telephoto? I have the nikon 200-500 but have been staring at the 500mm f4

>>2970660
What will you be shooting?

>>2970660
Do you have $10000? If yes, ok. If no, keep dreaming. The 200-500 is a great lens. I'm a fan of the AF-S 80-400 for when I don't need to make my penis as small.

>>2970664
Wildlife in Asia

>>2970666
Looking for feed back on the lens. Also 5k not 10

>>2970630
Thank you. Will look into that

>>2970680
Olympus 300mm f/4 IS with E-M1 II

>>2970680
By the power of namefaggery, I summon /\MBUSH.

It's a Canikon super-telephoto prime. It's going to be big, heavy, built like a tank, performs at the highest specification, and has sublime optical properties. I don't know what else you'd want to know. You can get a 200/2 with a 2X, a 400/2.8 with a 1.4X or 2X, or you can get a 500/4 or 600/4. Or you can play with zooms.

Go rent one and see if you like it?

test

Nice Pentax

>>2970701

It was a kind of smartass answer, but it isn't really wrong.

The a7ii is not a Leica camera. But it has a much better sensor than any Leica on the market, and can autofocus m-mount lenses with that adapter, something the Leica can not do.

It is a pretty neat set up actually.

>>2970727

>thinking people actually want "autofocus" leica lenses
>not mentioning that it "can autofocus" without heavy asterisks and annotation saying that it can't natively do so, and in fact requires a $400 adapter that absolutely destroys the a7's already abysmal battery life

>>2970724
Cheers. Yes the plan is to rent first. Wanted to see who has used them. Expensive glass is always a weird subject with people for some odd reason

A friend asked me which ~50mm lens to buy for her A6000. Now I don't know whether Sony-Zeiss lenses are worth their price, also there are 4 lenses to choose from.
She has no intention to go full frame and shoots mostly portraits. I guess colors and bokeh > sharpness, which is why I tend to SEL55F18Z or SEL50F18B.

What is your overall opinion about these, including SEL-50F18F and SEL-50F14Z.

File: 1466186033672.jpg (143KB, 605x807px) Image search: [Google]

143KB, 605x807px

>just spent $6000 on glass

>>2970764

>calling it glass

>>2970766
>it's glass

I'm thinking about getting into drone photography and I'm leaning toward a Phantom 3 Pro bundle, which costs $999. It has a hard case, extra battery, extra props and guards, lens filters, a 64gb micro SD and a cleaning kit. With Thanksgiving here should I go ahead and make a decision? Or should I wait until black Friday or even cyber Monday to pull the trigger?

>>2970753

The native APS-C 50mm is pretty solid. Tell her to get that.

If she intends to go FF, the Zeiss 55mm is the way to go.

Except the macro, everything else is for professional use.

>>2970767

>and metal and plastic

>>2970781
Whats the difference between SEL50F18 and SEL50F18B? Is SEL-50F18F the macro lens that you mentioned?

Thanks!

>all these unsuspecting idiots getting lured in by sonyshills to buy a body with no lens
Meanwhile Pentax people get their system expanded to KAF4 mount by a simple firmware update, down to K-3 and K-50.
http://www.pentaxforums.com/articles/firmware-updates/pentax-k-50-firmware-v110-released.html
http://www.pentaxforums.com/articles/firmware-updates/pentax-k-3-firmware-v130-released.html

>>2970753
Maybe the 60mm f/2.8 Sigma Art.

Center PDAF only, but sharp and cheap.

>>2970753
Why is nobody asking what she means by 50mm? Does she want a portrait lens or does she want a 50mm equivalent lens?
Goddamn you sonyfags are the worst!

>>2970753
>>2970753
PS: Did your friend perhaps want a 50mm FF equivalent?

It just sounds slightly suspicious that someone who isn't looking for their own lens might want a 75mm equivalent.

>>2970770
Dunno if the Phantom has interchangeable lenses. There are a few drones that have these Days, consider them instead so you're not Stück with a medium-quality lens forever.

>>2970828

SEL50F18F is the full frame varient.

It was really shitty for awhile with terrible autofocus speeds, but it recently got a firmware update to increase the focus speed. Still loud as hell though, and while usable now it is certainly not a fast focusing lens. While quite a deal at $150 after the update, if you are on FF the Zeiss 55mm is a better choice if you can afford it.

If you are using an APS-C camera though, it is better to go with the APS-C version.

>>2970830
I've got the k-5 iis, is there an update coming for that?

>>2970855
Dunno. There was a petition going on PF for the KAF4 update to be extended for the K-50, K-3 and K-5 series, maybe it is still in the works.

>>2970830

Why so salty for Sony?

>>2970860
because many get trapped by the system and we are forced to help them out finding simple lenses in mundane focal lengths that are not covered by Sony. like a decent and affordable 50mm or 35mm that has both good AF and IQ.
Then these idiots get asspained when someone asks the same for their Canon/Nikon/Pentax/MFT and get a simple answer about a babby prime first party.
Sonyfags are an annoyance, that is all.

>>2970860
Cause every Sony Venture displays universal disdain for customers. From Consoles to Software to cameras and TVs

>>2970860
>>2970865
Oh, and Canon/Nikon/Pentax guys can make simple discussions about gear and photography in general without claiming their chosen system is better than anything else. MFT can be included except for that EM1 fag.
You can't have a sonyfag without mentioning how his system is superior than anybody elses while not being able to post one single decent photo to uphold that stupid claim.
Like I said above, sonyfags are an annoyance.

>>2970865

But e-mount has good and affordable APS-C 35 and 50mm in APS-C. There is a lack of good wide and good telephoto first party lenses though.

FF is another issue, certainly not affordable there for the average user. But then again, the average user does not buy FF.

>>2970830
> Pentax expands the Pentax system with some Pentax KAF4 mount that removes an aperture control pin with electronic contacts and actually supports it on their Pentax bodies!
Uh, very amazing.

Well, I technologically welcome you to this century / millenium, after only 16 years.

Now you just need some modern lenses on your under 1/3 of "no lens" system.

>>2970868
You have some fundamental problem with the definition of good and affordable.
You are the one getting fucked by a company with subpar lenses way overpriced and you are still licking their ass. You are either too stupid to realize this or you don't even have a camera and just here to troll. I highly doubt Sony would pay viral ads on 4chan.

>>2970867
Sony markets by promising a shitton on paper. Big numbers, neat gimmicks, etc. But in the real World their stuff is seriously lacking like ergonomics, good touchscreens, third Party Support, customer service, actually effective weather sealing, etc.
Then they get salty.
It's the exact same thing with Gaming too. The Service formerly know as Sony online Entertainment was also very similar.

>>2970868
> FF is another issue, certainly not affordable there for the average user.
Of course they are affordable for average hobbyists. It's cheaper than shooting film as a hobby was back in the day.

Those ~$300-400 for the Minolta lens in 1985 are equivalent in buying power to today's ~$700-950, and you had to pay for film and prints on top of that.


It's just probably not a good expense for non-hobbyists, but that one should be obvious from the FF bodies alone already.

>>2970871
Also remember after the PSO hack an internal Mail was leaked saying they wont invest $10M in customer Data safety to avoid $1M in damage.

>>2970871
>But in the real World their stuff is seriously lacking
Nah. They work brilliantly in the real world, they just fail your desperate checking of a spec sheet for minor features some of them don't have.

Meanwhile all the main features -high-end lenses & very nice sensors hooked up to big buffers and IBIS and all that stuff that gives a very powerful imaging device- make shooting with them great in the real world.

They pushed specs on the high end of APS-C / FF cameras up and prices for most features that Canon/Nikon would otherwise have made more expensive down. It's very nice.

> third Party Support
Probably the best of all camera systems. We can even use third party lenses with AF / IS adapters, and people adapt lenses from even a century ago into a setup that is practical to shoot with.

Can't easily get better than that with regards to third parties until mount and optics can change shape.

>>2970872
Hobbyists won't buy lenses for $3000 a piece, that is for sure. At least except those who have too much money to burn but that is so thin a niche it is not a good idea to build a company upon.
Hobbyists go for budget and entry level lenses but still have a taste for good IQ, something Sony is lacking. Third party comes in here where you can get good IQ for 1/3rd price of first party. Again something Sony is lacking in.
It is just not a good idea to get into this system for a hobbyist but for this you have to know the facts other than the paper claims and charts. The bodies alone have nice features and performance but what good is it without a lens to give the IQ and performance. Too slow AF kills the numbers.

>>2970883
Hobbyists will pay $7,000 for a camera body before they spend $3,000 for a lens.

>>2970882
I tried to read your stuff but all I can Make out is "SLURPSLURPSLURPTASTYSEMENSLURPSLURP"
>adapting lenses is the same as third Party Support
First: No
Second: if you think that E-Mount has the best adaptability, MFT would like to have a word. In b4 "BUT MUH SENSOR SIZE!"

>>2970884
What makes you say such a stupid thing?
Are you suggesting the majority of hobbyist gear bought are high-end bodies with kit lenses? Are you sure it isn't the other way around with entry bodies, kit lenses and maybe a few better zoom or prime lenses with the ocerall costs around $1000?

>>2970870
> subpar lenses
Some zooms are pretty shit and yet expensive for no reason.

But the primes for the E-mount are very often simply the industry's best. And they came out quite rapidly, too.

You know what I'd like to see: a normal sized sensor with only 4k pixels. It would be an amazing Video camera and an acceptable snapshit camera.
I'd Even take an MFT mount for that.
Is downsampling from 6k to 4k really sharper than having less pixels in the first place? Plus having less pixels comes with better low-light perfomance

>>2970888
>But the primes for the E-mount are very often simply the industry's best.
Yes, if you mean massive purple fringing by "industry's best". Best fringing effect for sure.
And yet the screwdrive 35mm from Nikon, the cheapest plastickyest 35mm from Pentax and the hunter master 50/1.8 non-STM from Canon still give better IQ for less than half the cost.

>>2970885
> adapting lenses is the same as third Party Support
The camera system supports third parties?

If you mean support BY third parties, I think around 25 companies make native lenses for the system now. - including pretty much all of the usual suspects for third party lenses. Like 10 make flash units. Certainly 100+ make random accessories.

What else do you want?

>>2970871
>ergo
Their ergonomics are class leading, show a mirrorless that does it better, big hand grip, triple dials, 9 custom buttons, battery grip available, tilting screen in both directions.

>good touchscreens
The touchscreen on the a6500 is great and it's the first sony have done.

>3rd party support
Sigma, voigtlander, tokina, zeiss, metz, godox, samyang, slr magic, more video shit than any other brand, venus optics, etc. It has more 3rd party support than anyone else and more flexibility with full af adapters now available for canon, nikon and leica mount lenses.

>customer service
It's perfect in europe and asia.

>effective weather sealing
Look at lens rentals breakdowns, new sony lenses have exceptional sealing, they haven't brought out a rugged body yet (they haven't even brought out their high end body yet, the a7rii is prosumer based) expect better sealing than anything else on the market on the a9.

>>2970883
>slow af
A6500 has the fastest, accurate af of all ilc cameras.

>I'm poor
Give a fuck? Hobbyist photography with ilc cameras is dead.
If you must be poor, the a7ii and sigma mc11 is still cheaper than any ff canon body, and because af speed is linked to cpu performance on sony bodies, if you upgrade the body all your lenses will focus faster. The a6500 and mc11 is faster than any rebel and misses focus exponentially less, because ospdaf is goat for accuracy.

>>2970895
Allmost all E-Mount lenses are also available for MFT plus there are more companies producing MFT than E-Mount Cameras.
Having to use an Adapter nornally means that The Support does NOT exist inherently to the system. That's why the Adapter exists.
It's like saying that PS2 Port Supports USB-keyboards because an Adapter exists.

>>2970885
>Second: if you think that E-Mount has the best adaptability, MFT would like to have a word.

MFT has autofocus adapters for Canon, Nikon, Minolta/Sony, and M-mount?

>>2970894
> And yet the screwdrive 35mm from Nikon, the cheapest plastickyest 35mm from Pentax and the hunter master 50/1.8 non-STM from Canon still give better IQ for less than half the cost.
Eh, they're not even close to the 55mm F1.8 or 35mm F1.4.

>>2970903
But those don't cost $100 either.

>>2970904

Sony has a 50mm for $150 that has better image quality. But it needs a firmware update and only works well on pdaf bodies.

>>2970904
If you want to go out and buy a big tv for the lounge, are you bothered that there's smaller, shit tvs for a quarter of the price?

I mean, if you want a big tv, but all you can afford is the shitty little one, do you whinge and complain that the big one is too expensive?

I didn't think people expressed jealousy so readily.

>>2970899
> Allmost all E-Mount lenses are also available for MFT
Many, but a lot are also not at this point.

> plus there are more companies producing MFT than E-Mount Cameras
Maybe? Not so sure.

In camera stores -even online- you'll usually find less recent MFT lenses than E-mount ones already.

> Having to use an Adapter nornally means that The Support does NOT exist inherently to the system.
"Third party support" can mean both support for and by third parties.

It arguably has both, but it's obviously noteworthy that support FOR third parties is great.

File: 1476614835297.jpg (177KB, 1302x891px) Image search: [Google]

177KB, 1302x891px

>>2970882
>>2970897

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1302
Image Height	891
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>2970907
You are good in moving the goal posts, friend. That 50mm you are talking about has the most massive fringing not even cheap shitty Porst lenses did in the 80s. And a massively slow and inaccurate AF. Goal posts back in their original place, your move fagster.

>>2970908
Not even close for a metaphor. And I don't watch TV.

>>2970904
Uh, no, they obviously don't cost $100.

The claim was "simply the industry's best" on that end, you'd not expect that to be $100.

And while *those* have a price that might be steep for some unemployed people on /p/, they're actually fortunately still within reach of hobbyists and "normal" non-star photographers that are just doing a job.

Besides you don't get "suddenly surprised" that good FF lenses cost $700-1500 - or even $2k+ for some individual models. You already knew that if you weren't retarded.

>>2970908
It would be more accurate going out buying a medium size TV and finding someone offering a bigger one for the price I wanted to spend. Then some whiny little creep comes to me whining the TV I got is shit and I could get a much better one although it costs more than twice and is smaller than I wanted in the first place. Not to mention doing a little research would reveal the electronics and the panel was made by the same company on the same fab line.
Now this is more accurate.

>>2970911
>That 50mm you are talking about has the most massive fringing

You are thinking of something else. the SEL50F18F does not have fringing. Some minor CA and distortion wide open, however.

>And a massively slow and inaccurate AF.

Which was fixed in a lens firmware update.

>>2970914
There are better prces, especially used, but still make a point:
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/743117-USA/Pentax_21987_35mm_DA_L_F2_4.html
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/864663-REG/Pentax_smc_DA_50mm_f_1_8.html
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1143786-REG/canon_0570c002_ef_50mm_f_1_8_stm.html

Search more on ebay and see for yourself.

>>2970916
That fringing is muted on siple screens like laptop and cheap TN panel. It comes out massive in better screens even better quality TN panels and IPS panels, it is so massive in print the printing companies price extra for the magenta usage.

>>2970915
>made by the same company
Iphones are made by foxconn, who also make the cheapest phones in the asia market, are they comparable products?

But again, this comes down to you whining about price, sonys lenses have proven solidly for the last couple of years they outperform every other oem option. And their bodies offer performance and features no other brand can match.

If you want the best products, you pay the biggest prices. You're not arguing that sony products should be cheaper to be competitive, you're arguing they should be cheaper AND worse to be competitive.

unfortunately sonys sales figures don't agree.

Is it stressful being as poor as you?

>>2970921
>wanting to get the most for the buck makes me a poor
I bet spending all your money on overpriced shiny consumer shit makes you think you are rich. Meanwhile I also have my own car, house with garden, holiday resort and spare cash to go out every weekend. Yes, I am poor. :^)

>>2970921
>>2970922
Ooh, I forgot, I also fund my own university education, no loan or anything like. Stay delusional, fag.

>>2970926
>10 shekels has been added to your account

>>2970926

>actually ever having to pay tuition

Scholarships are everywhere. There is no reason he should be paying anything.

I am literally getting paid to get my PhD.

>>2970928
Try to find free education over material sciences and nanotechnology.
>implying you can find free experience time on various science and laboratory tech not to mention work experience without an institute backing you
>implying anyone would choose you with a free education confirmation email over a someone with a diploma from a renowned education institute.
>implying anything except STEM education matters in the near and far future

>>2970917
Completely different lenses? Those have no claim to being the "industry's best" in any way.

Those are more like the Sigma 19 and 30mm or Sony 35mm f/1.8 for APS-C E-mount... or the Neewer (https://www.aliexpress.com/item/very_cheap_option/32703875251.html) but more expensive and with AF.

That said, obviously you can get most of these cheap lenses for the APS-C E-mount, too.

>>2970944
>unironically bringing up Sigma
Known for the worst quality control in the main third party brands with bad AF crapping out repeatedly after a few months or just plain missing AF and hunting to no end half the time.
Even the Art series IQ is crap with sharp focus plane and vomit inducing falloff and sharp bokeh.
Still no good.

>>2970948
>Known for the worst quality control in the main third party brands with bad AF crapping out repeatedly after a few months or just plain missing AF and hunting to no end half the time.
Maybe I am just damn lucky with the Sigmas?

Sure, some other lenses are better with their AF. But it's still faster and more reliable to use these on an A6000 than simply working with a K-50 or Rebel T5i with the lenses you listed.

> Even the Art series IQ is crap
Again still better than on the Pentax lenses and about equal to the 50mm Canon STM.

The IQ on the not yet mentioned 60mm Sigma Art f/2.8 is noticeably better than on the 50mm Canon - in case you want to beat that one.

> with sharp focus plane and vomit inducing falloff and sharp bokeh.
Now you're complaining about a lens being good. A sharp focus plane / bokeh and normal fall-off is desirable and a lens feature.

If you want chromabs blur bokeh that often melts into your subjecs and odd curved focal planes with weird fall-off, you can get that for $20: https://www.aliexpress.com/item/muh_bokeh/32675271032.html

Also exists on many a older lens with just a few simple glass elements - because that was common when did not design and manufacture them with computers.

Those then also are best adopted to a MILC -probably a Sony. Heh.

>>2970952
No matter how sharp a lens is when the falloff just plain irritating. Completely destroys an image. You would know if you had taken any in your life.

What do you guys do for filters?

My biggest filter thread is 82mm on a Tokina 11-20.

Do I get 82mm filters and step down rings, or do I get square filters?

>>2970961
Square filters are the way to go on such a wide angle. Lee and Cokin should have an extra wide holder for the necessary filter size.

>>2970964
What filters would you recommend?

I was thinking a 2 stop graduated, 2 stop ND and a polarizer

>>2970961
Square filters will be easier if you have a good holder or need more than 2-3 filters

Step-down rings will be cheaper for just 2-3 filters.

I mostly don't need filters, so I went with the cheap option. Round, one CPL and one ND, step-up rings and done.

>>2970972
I would go for a 3 stop ND with the 2 stop grad, possibly adding the 2 stop ND as extra for when more stops are needed.
Also consider getting a reverse grad filter too.

Regarding filters:

Lets say I'm getting Lee filters, do I need the SW150 holder for the Tokina 11-20? Or is the 100mm sufficient

>>2970972
I'd suggest a 2 stop hard and 2 stop soft grad, then a normal 2, 3 or 6 ND. If you only want to buy one grad I'd go for the 2 stop soft, you'll find yourself needing it more than the hard in most cases. And then the CPL.

>>2970988
I believe the 100mm is fine for your lens as long as you get the wide angle 82mm adapter ring. Don't quote me on that though, you'll have to do your own research.

Quality filters like LEE or Nisi are damn expensive, so try and buy used if you can't afford new.

Am I wrong for buying a jupiter 8 because I find it very sexy?
Gonna put it on my a6300 and jerk off.

>>2971003
One of the better reasons to buy a lens.

Just take some photos with it.

>>2971007
Oh I'll do that for sure, seems like a very nice lens. But I might end up taking photos of it on the camera more.

>>2971010
That would be gay. Why would you invest in a camera system when you only take photos OF it with your phone?

So I'm thinking of getting the a6000 with the black friday deal but do you guys think I should get the bundled lens or look for something else? I don't really want to spend more than $600 for the body and lens in total

>>2970890
I found this post buried among a stupid brand argument. May I recommend a revival?
Such a camera would be seriously low-budget, i guess

>>2971031
Just buy an A7s and be done with it.

>>2970845
>>2970846
85mm equivalent. In a further discussion, we ended up choosing the SEL50F18B

Thanks, also >>2970843 >>2970781

>>2971094
>someone proposes a minimalist, budget, super sharp 4k, videofocussed camera
>this guy recommends the A7
Sony shills, everyone!

>>2971090
I need an answer

>>2971098
It barely worth $50 with the lens.

>>2971098
maybe you can flip the lens for around 50 bucks.

File: tree texture.jpg (889KB, 1089x1300px) Image search: [Google]

889KB, 1089x1300px

>>2970386
I need some help finding a camera for street interviews and hobby journalistic work. My budget is 600 dollars what kind of stuff do I need? The audio quality is important

>>2971244
That's a small budget.

Maybe a Panasonic G7?

Try a Takstar microphone from Aliexpress or elsewhere in China in the flash hotshoe.

>>2971244
theres already a thread for that, you fucking taintwhistle

>>2971241

File: A9900015-ISO102400.jpg (271KB, 1000x667px) Image search: [Google]

271KB, 1000x667px

You seen that Sony a99ii iso shit?

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0ByPtaPMDQgc1ZFZFTmt5R0pvUmc

Looks just like film!

>>2971256
>Looks just like film!
Is this an argument now?
Is this where we ended up?
Film is outdated technology. Get over it!
Total fucking mania.

>>2971256
Just like it!

>>2971256
>We have perfected the formula so that our shit now tastes like slightly older shit that snooty twats call "aged"!

>>2970941

>implying i was talking about shit free schools and not well known institutions

Keep reaching.

Sony A6300 vs Fuji X-T1 anyone?

I can get them for the same price in Britbongland

>>2971278
Fuji
It's actually be controllable

>>2971278

Considerably faster autofocus and a better sensor on the a6300 are the biggest. Some other minor things like longer battery life and higher burst are better on the a6300 too.

The Fuji kit lens is a better lens, though not by much. Menus on the Fuji are a little easier to a beginner too.

>>2971283
>>2971284

Thank you guys! I read a lot about the control issue so will keep that in mind, a touch screen would have made a winner here ...

I'm leaning towards the A6300, AF and sensor seem to be a big game changer

>>2971284
Since when did people stop shilling for the XF 18-55, and start for the turdtastic SEL1650? Is it some sort of stockholm syndrome Sony users are experiencing because they can't afford any lenses now that they've spent all their money buying or upgrading their bodies to the latest and greatest?

>>2971290

Did you read the same post as me?

He didn't shill the 1650, he said they both aren't good.

Do I get a 5d mk iv or a a7s ii?

>>2971300
>no dynamic range
vs
>dynamic range
this is what sony fags will say

>>2971300

They are completely different cameras.

What do you intend to use them for?

>>2971300
They're very different cameras.

The 5D IV is just a higher end general purpose do-it all type of camera - it's more like an A7R II, maybe a little like a (not FF) A6500.

The A7S II is basically entirely a low light expert camera. Doesn't have a high resolution sensor or even PDAF, but it's basically the best camera out there right now for low light situations.

>>2971302
I sold all my lenses to go full frame, and my default has been the mk iv. I shoot both stills and video, and while I care about 1080p@60fps more than 4k having cropped/mjpeg 4k kind of bothers me, so that on the a7r ii (I did not mean a7s my bad) is nice. I also travel a lot so I'm drawn to mirrorless.

I'm mostly torn because I know a lot more about the 5d mk iv because I've been planning on buying it for months, but have to wait until I am back in the US to purchase it. As a result I know a lot more about the 5d mk iv than the a7r ii so I don't know its downsides in comparison

>>2971303
I did mean the a7r ii, my bad. r and s are next to each other on my keyboard

>>2971307
> I did mean the a7r ii
I'd prefer the A7R II myself, but IDK about you.

What's your camera usage going to be like?

>>2971342
Amateur who travels a *lot*, I take both video and stills but care slightly more about stills.

Since I'm an amateur whichever I get will almost certainly be my only body until it breaks or it is just stupidly obsoleted.

What's the nicest and most versatile lens I can buy for a canon 60d?

I'm hoping to see some deals tomorrow but either way I want an upgrade from the kit lens and nifty fifty.

Ideally something that'll be great for portraits and weddings. Video would be a plus too.

I'm not familiar with the options and quality of L lenses, help me out pee

>>2971348
> Amateur who travels a *lot*
And the A6500 or A7 II or D750 wouldn't do the job for half the price and hence perhaps allow for one-two better lenses...?

> I take both video and stills but care slightly more about stills.
Probably A7R II then.

Lighter weight, but also silent shutter more focusing aids, easier to work with video profiles, IBIS (makes not too few smaller lenses without stabilizer more viable) and stuff like that.

>>2971360
>And the A6500 or A7 II or D750 wouldn't do the job for half the price and hence perhaps allow for one-two better lenses...?
I understand what you're getting at but it's not a concern for me. I can always get more lenses but I'd have trouble justifying a second body.

>Probably A7R II then.
Thanks for your input

File: Enjoying my anger.jpg (17KB, 245x204px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 245x204px

>thread bursts into brandfaggotry over Sony
>thread dies down
>someone tries to revitalize some discussion outside of brandfaggotry
>thread stays dead
>"Sony"
>thread burns up again

It's the eternal cycle

>>2971400
It's just like film!

File: japan4.jpg (129KB, 906x646px) Image search: [Google]

129KB, 906x646px

>>2971412

If we are talking film, Minolta is the way to go.

Only Minolta bodies will work with superior Sony lenses.

>>2971244
Any system you get at that level is probably going to involve sticking a cheap rode mic to the top of your camera and plugging it into a mini jack input.

The downside is that this is not quality audio. Tbh no singler operator system is going to compare to having a sound recordist, even if all you have is a zoom recorder.

The upside is that all your options are equally shit, so whatever you choose will be about as good as anything else.

I've considered slapping a zoom H2n recorder on top of my GH4 but it's inelegant to say the least.

When the camera operator is also trying to fiddle with sound settings while shooting fluid, spontaneous situations, everything suffers. What you'll wind up with is sound slightly better than most youtube videos, until you get into a bit of wind or an environment with a lot of background noise (say, an urban street). Then your audio will fall to shit.

Is there any appeal to the Canon Mirrorless system?

>>2971244
What kind of interviews? If it's the kind that you're on screen at all times, get an interview mic and an adapter for your phone. It'll look more professional than any of the options here and probably even sound better in most cases.

You'll also need a monopod. Get one from China.

Spend the rest in the camera.

>>2971437
I think it had one or two inexpensive decent performance lenses?

But overall, not really.

>>2971437

The 20mm pancake is nice.

The other two (lol) lenses are mediocre.

Doesn't really compare to Sony or even Fuji to be honest.

>>2971462
>>2971476
does magiclantern work on the mirrorless cameras?

>>2971493

I saw some in development shots of it on the m3, so I assume it is out now.

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?

>>2971531
Brand is mostly moot, but for MFT it's smart to get an adapter with a detachable foot. Oubo has a bunch of them for every mount (except for FD for some retarded and infuriating reason). the standfoot helps with frontheavy setups, because your MFT body is light and old lenses are heavy.
Focal reducer: your choice. what lense do you want to use for what? I use a standard 50mm 1.8 as a long portrait/telephoto. with a focalreducer MFT can use 35mm-28mm as standard lenses, but there are few of those that are really fast, so I dont even try.
Example
I got a few lenses from my dad, one of them a tokina 28mm 2.8. It's built like a tank and has a really nice feel to it. as a 28mm 2.8 it's useless. with a focal reducer it would be a 20mm 2.0. not astonishing, compared to my faster, sharper, autofocussing 25mm 1,7

So ask yourself: what would use would you have for which lenses either with our without focal reducer?
For MFT, vintage lenses are mostly a source of cheap, fast, long glass. For ASPC or FF mirrorless system they can be an actual full-range replacement.
Also, there are 50mm and 35mm 1,7 fully manual lenses for native MFT for like 80 bucks. They use very old and simple designs and sometimes have better IQ than some vintage lenses. This market of "modern full-manual" looks interesting to me. Sadly, there is nothing for the €100-300 gap until you hit Voigtlander territory.

this is 99$

http://www.monoprice.com/product?c_id=117&cp_id=11701&cs_id=1170101&p_id=12154&seq=1&format=2

carbon fiber tripod.

Would this be a better purchase than a dic mic carbon fiber tripod?

>>2971675
Not sure. Never had that one. But I notice on the spec sheet that it:
- Doesn't have a ball head included whereas the Dic&Mic has a pretty good one (doesn't feel luxurious - but it's honestly working quite well so far).
- Doesn't seem to have spilked feet included.
- Is heavy. Heavier headless than the Dic&Mic *with its head*, which is ~1/3 of the total weight of a Dic&Mic.

I'd stick with a Dic&Mic E302C for portability reasons if you can, or the P303C or something like it if the E302C is too small for you when extended.

>>2971675
>Would this be a better purchase than a dic mic carbon fiber tripod?
Well they are both cheap chinkshit, so take your pic.

dic n mic is a meme brand shilled by one faggot in every gear thread. Here's some sound advice, don't cheap out on tripods, and stick to well known and trusted brands.

>>2971675
>>2971679
Oh look, the dic n mic shill showed up right on queue

>>2971680
> Here's some ignorant brand whoring based mixed with racism, I never had a hands-on with ANY of the tripods discussed.
FTFY

> don't cheap out on tripods, and stick to well known and trusted brands.
Riiight, only use Linhoff and Gitzo.

Because you can read on the internet that two shitty cheap Chinese tripods (not this one, but who cares) and three shitty cheap Manfrottos failed, right?

>>2971675
>>2971679

I got the dic mic, it was fucking awful, i very quickly reverted to my manfrotto compact tripod that cost half as much until i got a carbon fibre giottos which hardly cost more when on sale.

>>2971665
>Brand is mostly moot, but for MFT it's smart to get an adapter with a detachable foot.

What is a detachable foot? Is it the same as a tripod mount?

>what lense do you want to use for what?

I plan to use it on a standard 50mm f1.4 AI Nikkor or a 50mm f1.4 OM Olympus lens.

>Also, there are 50mm and 35mm 1,7 fully manual lenses for native MFT for like 80 bucks.

Are these the CCTV lenses made in China?

>>2971531
What I've learned with MFT is that the results can be completely unpredictable. Edge performance and CAs are often the issue when adapted and they vary wildly from lens to lens. The only way to know for sure is to try them. Also never shoot wide open.

>>2971681
i didnt know it was a shill. i remember being recommended dic and mic ages ago but since today is black friday i saw this one which looks great. Wanted to know how it compared to other similarly priced carbon fiber tripods.

>>2971684
> I got the dic mic, it was fucking awful
I don't believe you for shit. It's a very decent tripod.

> got a carbon fibre giottos which hardly cost more when on sale
"Wait until equal Giottos are on sale and cost not much more" isn't exactly a plan, and the (arguably few) models I saw in person never impressed me.

But hey, feel free to amuse me with which one you would go for right now.

I can see a $300 device with ~4kg load rating and no spiked feet that is also heavier, or a $500 ~6kg load rating one, both 5 section (less sections are usually just better). Are these the supposed alternative?

>>2971689
Figures he just included you with me?

/p/ has a bunch of autists who convinced themselves that things they didn't and wouldn't buy for emotional reasons ( I dislike China / Sony / Canon / Fuji / ...) must be a shill.

> i saw this one which looks great
I've certainly seen worse. But do you really want to get a carbon tripod to have 2kg weight on just the legs already...?

You can get 6-12kg loads on tripod legs closer to 1kg already.

>>2971683
>>2971683
>Here's some ignorant brand whoring based mixed with racism
Do you realise where you are? Fuck off back to your reddirt safespace.

>Riiight, only use Linhoff and Gitzo.
How fucking autistic are you? Did I suggest the most expensive brands out there? No, I suggested WELL KNOWN and TRUSTED brands.

There's good reason to not cheap out on chinkshit, because when it breaks in a years time (and it will break), you've not only wasted $100+ on a shit tripod, but you've also potentially broken any camera gear being used in the process.

>>2971689
The general guide on buying a tripod is to spend the most you can comfortably afford. People spend thousand of dollars on a camera and lenses, yet cheap out the one thing holding that gear high above solid ground...

So give us a budget and I'm sure we can find you something good

>>2971696
under 120$

Hoping to find a black friday deal. Is there a real advantage to carbon fiber over aluminum?

>>2971698
>120$
USD?

>Is there a real advantage to carbon fiber over aluminum?
Carbon is lighter, erosion resistant and handles hot/cold situations far better

>>2971696
>mixed with racism
this isn't tumblr, fuck off

recently came across a used Nikon D90 with lens for 650 is it worth getting? I'm tied between that or buying a brand new Fujifilm XE2s for 800 with lens as well

>>2971680
It is "shilled" because it has a good price/performance ratio, and most people on /p/ are poorfags looking for the alternative. Pretty logical.

Tripods aren't exactly rocket science either, and even in the event that you'd end up with a lemon copy, you could buy 3 of those for the price of one similar tier benro. I'd say the odds are on your side.

>>2971733
That's D7100 money. A D90 is like $300.

>>2970412
If you're interested in video I'd recomend a Lumix G7 + used 14-42 kit lens.
If you buy them separately you can find deals within your budget.
Great for low-light and for video even if it's m43, and you can adapt cheap c-mount lenses to it which can be great.

>>2970386
Am I stupid for wanting to shoot landscapes with a 50mm lens? It's for a Pentax K-S2.

>>2971797
Nah not really. Whenever people think landscapes, they think ultra wide angles are a must so they can fit everything in frame. What they don't realise is that not everything needs to be shown to the viewer for them to get a feel for the scene.

50mm on crop will give around an 80mm equivalent on FF, which is great for intimate landscapes and shit off in the distance like mountains. I'd suggest getting a 35mm as well though, as it will give you a 50mm equivalent. If you only want to buy one lens at the moment, go with the 35mm for a little more versatility.

>>2971797
Not really, depends on the angle you want. I would throw in a 35mm to because wider option, light and cheap.
But 50mm is still good for panoramas.

File: 9126B026AA_1_xl.jpg (52KB, 675x450px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 675x450px

Hi /p/,

Total newb who impulse bought a DSLR last night. Wanted to get into amateur photography/videography, my friends are into it, I've made shitty short films before, etc.

I bought pic related: Canon EOS Rebel T5. Comes with two lenses, the stock EF-S 18-55mm IS II, as well as EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III. All refurbished.

Canon had a black Friday sale, got all the above for ~$280. Claims a $340 savings.

Two questions: did I get a good deal on a decent entry level camera? Second, what resources do you recommend for beginners? I've been looking through some YouTube videos. What's the /p/ megasource for resources?

Thanks everyone. Here's the deal if still in stock (only red in Stock when I ordered). https://shop.usa.canon.com/shop/en/catalog/eos-rebel-t5-red-ef-s-18-55mm-is-ii-lens-kit-ef-75-300mm-f-4-56-iii-refurbished

Canon has a lot of other black Friday deals on more expensive gear.

any good suggestion for a good astro photog telescope that won't cost more than $1000 CAD?
I want to get photos of deep sky objects like orion/seven sisters, possibly andromeda if I can, and better shots of the moon etc.
I'm hoping there's a good black friday deal on some stuff that I can get and hopefully get started on this. I shoot with a 70d

Have a Pentax k100d It was with me for a looong time, but lately with longer exposures I can see lots of bad pixels flaring up, what would be a proper upgrade for casual photography, just dont jump straight to K1 (I would still like to have pentax)

>>2971853
Aye the K100d was my first dslr, some of my best photography memories were with that thing, but from there I upgraded to the K-5 iis which I use currently. If you don't want to spend heaps and don't mind buying used, you can pick up a k-5 ii/ K-5 iis/ K-3 real cheap nowadays.

>>2971800
>>2971802
Thank you guys. I'm trying to start doing nigth photography and I'm struggling with the 18-50mm lens.
How big of a difference is there between the 35mm 2.4 and the 50mm 1.4? For low light photography I mean.

>>2971764
Gotcha I think it's because the D90 I saw has different lens than the stock lens it came with originally

File: 20161125_192141.jpg (3MB, 4160x2340px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 4160x2340px

so i found this old tripod, anyone know anything about it? (more pics incoming)

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Model	LG-D855
Equipment Make	LG Electronics
Image-Specific Properties:
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Altitude	0.00 m
Color Space Information	sRGB
F-Number	f/2.4
Focal Length	3.97 mm
White Balance	Auto
Image Width	4160
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Image Height	2340
Flash	No Flash
Exposure Bias	0 EV
ISO Speed Rating	250
Exposure Time	1/17 sec

File: 20161125_192205.jpg (3MB, 4160x2340px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 4160x2340px

>>2971882
2/3

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Model	LG-D855
Equipment Make	LG Electronics
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	4160
White Balance	Auto
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	3.97 mm
Light Source	Unknown
Image Orientation	Right-Hand, Top
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Image Height	2340
Image Created	2016:11:25 19:22:05
Altitude	0.00 m

File: 20161125_192156.jpg (3MB, 4160x2340px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 4160x2340px

>>2971883
3/3

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Model	LG-D855
Equipment Make	LG Electronics
Image-Specific Properties:
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Orientation	Left-Hand, Bottom
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Altitude	0.00 m
Color Space Information	sRGB
F-Number	f/2.4
Focal Length	3.97 mm
White Balance	Auto
Image Width	4160
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Image Height	2340
Flash	No Flash
Exposure Bias	0 EV
ISO Speed Rating	400
Exposure Time	1/16 sec

I fly often in tiny planes, I'm looking for camera that will be beneficial at handling the movement and distance aspects anyone have ideas?

It happened. I bought it.

http://www.nikonusa.com/en/nikon-products/product/camera-lenses/af-s-nikkor-24-70mm-f%252f2.8e-ed-vr.html

>>2971811
> Two questions: did I get a good deal on a decent entry level camera?
Not my kind of camera, but maybe it's an okay deal?

> Second, what resources do you recommend for beginners?
Maybe a tutorial on using DXO / Lightroom or whatever you're going to use to deal with RAW files?

Maybe one related to lighting?

But it might be simplest to just look up stuff when you have problems.

>>2971864
About 1.5 stops of light? If you mean the manual 50/1.4 it is also considerably less sharp wide open than the 50/1.8 or the 35/2.4 wide open.
I would say it is less sharp even at around f/2
Go for the DA 50/1.8, you can easily fit the 35/2.4 in the budget as well and use tripod and long exposure.

>>2971922
a guy on here that was in the military used a fuji x series. he flew alot.

>>2971940
He also got a few great shots, I member.
I doubt it was due to the camera alone though.

>2971940

Ill keep that in mind thank you!

>>2971940
>>2971943
Also he mostly used a 50mm lens, 75mm equivalent IIRC

>>2971943
of course. the camera seemed to work for him none the less.

File: 1468613873077.jpg (2MB, 2048x1365px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2048x1365px

>>2971940
>>2971943
>>2971953
Fuji 56mm f1.2, 85mm FF eq.
Great thread, I should have saved more from him.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	FUJIFILM
Camera Model	X-E1
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.5 (Windows)
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	18 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2016:07:05 08:03:28
Exposure Time	1/220 sec
F-Number	f/1.0
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	200
Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Brightness	1.6 EV
Exposure Bias	-0.7 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	12.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

I'm going to a Fujifilm presentation/traveling showroom thing where they'll have their latest shit for everybody to try
does anybody want me to try anything in particular so I can briefly and poorly review it you gearfags?

Hi /p/ i'm thinking of buying my first camera. Currently using phone (s7 edge) and mainly take holiday snaps and if I see something cool when I am out and about already. I'm not the kind of person who will go somewhere with the main intention of taking photographs but enjoy spending 5-10 mins trying to get decent pictures.

I was thinking of the Sony Alpha 6000 which comes with a SELP1650 lense. I can get it for £380 and was wondering if this is a good choice or if there are better options in that price range for a small csc. I want something that has a decent amount of options so I can learn but my experience in photography is limited to playing around with the settings on my phones "pro" mode.

Thanks.

>>2972054

a6000 is the best camera you will get for that price.

Comparable mirrorless cameras are all near or over $1000.

That said, the kit sucks for anything more than snapshots. It will blow your cellphone out of the water, but the camera can do way better. Pick up a prime or the older 18-55 kit.

>>2971853
I got a K5 when the K5 ii was released. Would consider it money well spent, and they can be had for just a few hundred on the used market these days.

The control schema and iso performance is a notable step-up from the K100. It lacks astrotracer and focus peaking though, for those you will have to get a more recent body.

>>2972054
Sounds like a good idea.

The a6000 has a lot of options for its price, but the kit lens will be kinda "meh". Still, it's something to get started with.

>>2972054
As someone who started with that kit,
if you choose the Sony route, know that it'll get frustrating later down the line in terms of upgrading and the like. The Sony bodies are more expensive, yet they are flawed in so many ways, and the lenses are under-performing for their high price point.
If you choose to abandon the system entirely later, then fine.
But if I were to do it over again, I'd spend a bit more and get the Fuji X-E2S with a nice lens.
Sure, the Fuji has lower resolution and slower autofocus, but you'll have nice lens that will still perform stellar if you choose to upgrade to a higher-end body later. Plus artsy-fartsy film color simulation if you're into that.

So if you don't intend to upgrade anytime soon/one-off purchase, then A6000.
If you have possible intentions of remaining in a specific company's family of lenses and cameras in the future, then Fuji.

File: IMG_1917.png (255KB, 750x1334px) Image search: [Google]

255KB, 750x1334px

good cop? i convinced him to go down to 300 dollars but im not sure guys. Any help would be GREATLY appreciated. Many thanks

>>2972070

>10円 has been depositedinto your 富士フィルム shill account

>>2972070
> The Sony bodies are more expensive
For equal performance, they're usually some of the cheapest options.

> and the lenses are under-performing for their high price point
Funny, that's exactly my impression of the Fuji X-mount glass as compared to the E-mount (and many other mounts).

>>2972083
Which why I bought my A6000 in the first place.
It's also why, at this juncture, it's becoming something of an issue about leaving the system for something else or staying on longer.
Granted, it's not that the X lineup is stellar across the range, or that there are more options. It's just that, at the same price-points, you have Fuji lenses that are optically superior. The 30-50mm range, for example. The Sony lenses have features like OSS that might point towards a different philosophy - it's the new avenues of taking photography, and not the image sharpness alone, that are more important.

I suppose I just got the impression from that guy that he wasn't about body features alone, but also the 'fun' of taking photos. Fuji bodies, with their tactile controls and artsy-fartsy film sims, might offer that to him.

I am wrong about the body thing though, my mistake. That is the whole reason why I started with, and have stayed with the A6000! No reasons from other brands to switch.

>>2972089

Fuji aims at gwc and other casual photographers. Cute bodies, absolutely stellar jpeg engine and so on.

This is something Sony has neglected.

It is probably a big mistake for Sony not to do so. Casuals make or break camera brands.

>>2972104
I got caught in their marketing tactics too. Got Fuji GAS but probably won't buy any.

Anecdotally, whenever people pick up my A6000/ friend's A7 they feel it's 2advanced4u. I thought the sleek black bodies would cater to younger generations but I guess not. With changing trends leaning towards retro, I suppose Fuji and Olympus' stylistic choices were bound to succeed.

>>2972089
> It's just that, at the same price-points, you have Fuji lenses that are optically superior. The 30-50mm range, for example
You could grab a Sigma 30mm f/1.4 (~$300) and Sigma 60mm F2.8 (~$180). Both are sharper and cheaper than the X-mount glass.

I guess you got a wider maximum aperture on the 56mm f/1.2, but it still costs 4x more.

Instead of increasing iso amount, why cant we have less than 50 or 100?

Isnt it very beneficial to have the extra abillity to stop down further?

>>2972110
>>2972104
lol, sony users desperate to think they chose the superior option in some way
>gwc and casual photographers
you mean people interested in photography as opposed to people interested in stellar gadgets from their favorite video game manufacturer

>>2971709
>erosion resistant
I think you mean corrosion

>>2972111
Funny thing, I got both!
I suppose I am actually falling into the trap of anti-Sony sentiment everywhere. Perhaps trying to steer people away from the same situation I'm in, but once I reconsider all things, the situation is not actually bad at all. It's just that other systems seem exciting to try out for fun.

>>2972104
> It is probably a big mistake for Sony not to do so. Casuals make or break camera brands.
They're using smartphones (even amateur P&S are selling a lot less), not IL cameras.

Sony's strategy of going upper midrange and high end on MILC and lenses seems to be working a lot better than Canon / Nikon and other competitor's strategies.

>>2971284
>The Fuji kit lens is a better lens, though not by much

Are you even serious?

>>2971686
>detachable foot
Just search for "oubo Adapter" on Amazon, youll see what I mean.

>50mm 1.4
With a focal reducer, that would be a beast

> CCTV from China
No, CCTV lenses are C-mount.
I mean actually native MFT lenses. Look for Neweer or Meike.
But they wouldnt Beet a 1.4 anyway, especially not with focal reducer.

>>2971959
I'm fairly certain this photo is from the trip "Hanoian" or whatever. He is not the military guy who took photos of helicopters and pilots

shameless bump :~|
>>2972075

>>2972165
it's a cheap consumer DSLR with a cheap consumer lens on it. That's about the least money you'll be able to spend for something vaguely recent.

The accessories are worthless, btw. You don't need a UV filter with digital. The CPL probably works but I'd be shocked if it was anything other than uncoated chink shit that'll give you color casts and flares. (and probably hard to use since I think the Nikon 18-55's front filter threads rotate with focusing) The telephoto and wide angle adapters are worthless junk.

If I were you I'd save up more money for something better that'll be a better base for you to use later on, as you get more lenses and do more things. Most people who ask questions like yours seem to think that they can get something for $300 that will be all they ever need. If a D3100 and an 18-55 is all you ever need, you might as well have stuck with your smartphone camera and saved the money.

If you do get it at least start saving up another few hundred for a 35/1.8 or 50/1.8 or something.

>>2972170
>You don't need a UV filter with digital.
It's useful for protecting expensive lenses.

>>2972218
Yes, and there are some lenses (I know some Canons are like this, idk about Nikon) where they're only fully weather-sealed if a filter is installed.

The lens that anon is buying is a non-sealed 18-55 with a resale value approaching $60, though.

>>2972218
>not getting a lens protector marketed filter

>>2972218
It is also good in destroying the IQ on the expensive lenses making the photo look like it was made with a cheap shitty kit lens.

>>2972218
Too many of these fuck with your IQ, making the expensive lens perform poorly.

And if you want one that's known to not be too bad you'll pay like $100, and this device gets scratched / broken far easier than your front element, actually.

Unless the lens manufacturer intended one to be used, I'd go with just a lens hood.

>>2972064
>>2972067
>>2972070
>>2972089
>>2972104

Thanks for the feedback guys. This will be a one time purchase so I think i'm going to get the a6000.

>>2972089 is right and looking at the Tx10 the aesthetics of the body and tactile controls does seem more appealing to me than the a6000 but it is too much of a price difference between the two to justify it I think.

>>2972301

XT10*

>>2972302
>>2972301
Go for it, it is a nice camera. Try and get at least one decent prime, 50mm or 35mm, depending on what you like to shoot more, portraits (50mm) or generic scenes/street etc... (35mm)

File: adox-1.jpg (391KB, 1000x666px) Image search: [Google]

391KB, 1000x666px

>bored af waiting for processing tank to dry out
>see a gear review/comparison in my recommended videos
>absolute disgust.webm
>click it because I'm ready to down a bottle of multigrade just to spice up the night
>comparison of two recent APS-C cameras
>shill appears on screen listing specs
>claims he's unbiased and informative
>lists megapickels and AF points
>comparing an apple to an orange
>doesn't list shutter speed or sync speed
Ayyyy, so how do you guys dry your tanks? Had a bit of an issue earlier when I had to reuse a tank for agitation processing and the film got wet/stuck while loading because the tank wasn't 100% dry.

Is it safe to place a paterson tank in the oven at 80-100c or am I going to regret it?

>>2972577
Yeah m8, it's fine to put plastic in the oven, go for it.
>stainless reel shills will deny this

Just bought a Panasonic GX1 with 14-42 lens, 2 batteries, EVF and external flash for 300 CAD.

powered count:336
shuttercount:1758
flashcount: 104

How bad did I do familia?

>>2970657
Go an xt1 autofocus is terrible on xt2

>>2970495
I learned and still have my D7000. It held up through snow, sleet, and all other abuse students could put rental gear through. The body is now pretty cheap, and even using the 7200 and 750, the 7000 still has a decent autofocus

>>2970532
I'm biased for the 7000 but you have a good point:
Go and get a hands on feel with the different bodies. Weight and feel are important if you're doing hiking and landscapes

decided to buy an omd em10 ii for christmas. did i fuck up?

>>2972775
Ya dun goofed. Should have bought a sony a7ii

t. Sony fuccboii

>>2972778
rip me then, eh lads

>>2972778
All I want for Christmas is for you to kill yourself

>>2972778
no matter how horrible a sony is, the fool frame is definitely better than the peanut sensor of olympus.
if you want m43 go with panasonic, at least they have 4k and shit.

>>2972775

If you don't mind subpar sensor performance it is fine I guess.

Best manual <28mm lens under 50$/£40? Anything like a Zeiss tessar 50mm for shorter focal distance?

About a month ago I came on here looking for advice for a $600ish camera and lens for the GF. She's not picky, I am. I want something that will last. A few anons suggested I step up the price a little to a KS-2 or K-70 with a lens kit because they are weatherproofed. One anon suggested I buy a cheap used SL1, and buy a good lens.
Yesterday I looked on a gear thread on /p/ and anons were making fun of Pentax. I've held off on buying anything and passed up a couple good K-70 deals. Does anyone have any new suggestions?

>>2972986
>Yesterday I looked on a gear thread on /p/ and anons were making fun of Pentax
lmao pentacks is made fun of because no one uses them, due to the company not marketing their cameras well.

That doesn't make their cameras bad though lol, they make great bodies at equally great prices, with some of the best ergonomics in the game.

>passed up a couple good K-70 deals.
Don't be silly mate, go with the K-70

>>2972938
soligor

File: sliderpluspro_moreinfo08.jpg (76KB, 600x340px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 600x340px

>>2970386
Want to get myself an awesome SliderPlus (Pic Related) because it's running a tiny discount right now. The thing is that i don't have much money and i don't know if these discount are frequent, because i recently found out about the existence of it.

The question is: Do these Sliders go on discount often? What is the chance that they'll drop in price soon? I don't think i can spend that much right now, but if this is a rare discount, then i might as well go for it.

>have two friends with 5D
>constantly talk about noise-lessness and low light-perfomance
>Refer to DOF as "separation
>both take horribly glaring, overblown images in broad daylight at ISO 12800

>>2973002
I can't predict future prices, but I figure they'll still want to sell them in a while, and I wasn't under the impression that demand was outstripping production capacity on these.

So there should be sales again.

>>2973118
Can't blame Canon for this one... for once.

>>2972657
Notice me senpai

>>2973163
You managed to buy a camera. Hooray!

What's a top quality 82mm uv filter?

>>2973189
No such thing, even the "best" will make your lens IQ trash. Flares and ghosting everywhere

I need an ultrawide for my d7100. Was looking at the Tokina 11-16 2.8 and the 12-28 f4. Which one should I pull the plug on? I like that the 12-28 goes further but I am worried f4 will be a hindrance.

>>2973232
Get the 11-16 2.8.

>>2970386
So I went to B and H and my god, I see why the Fuji people have been ranting. The Fuji XT-2 with the 56 1.2 is an amazing piece of gear. My biggest thing I love about it is well, it makes sense. I mean, having ISO and shutter speed on top is extremely logical and hell it forces you to learn, and apature on the lens just makes so much sense I am shocked I went this far without it.

I am thinking of going for my new kit going from a 7DII with a 50-100 (the focus sucks on that shit I bought the dock, I adjusted it but even then it isn't reliable enough OR I have to use a monopod because its too damn big and.. ugh. IF canon had sensor stablization possibly but now, no.


So I'm thinking of selling my 50-100, and going for this kit. A7II and 16-35 (I have a base A7 and I love it for wide so I feel the IS will make it even better)), and for my second camera (I shoot events), I will go for a Fuji 56 1.2.

Is this a solid setup for a mobile light shooting kit?

>>2973232
Sigma 10-20mm?

File: Nikon_D1.jpg (71KB, 700x492px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 700x492px

What is a working Nikon D1 worth?

Also, how well does it perform?
Ken's ISO comparison page makes it look like shit, even compared the the 5D.
Is he playing with the settings or is it truly trash? I've been using a Canon 1D for a while now and I'm very happy with the results from the CCD.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS D30
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/5.6
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Lens Size	28.00 - 80.00 mm
Firmware Version	Firmware Version 1.01
Serial Number	0355861336
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2012:09:13 16:08:56
Exposure Time	1/125 sec
F-Number	f/7.1
ISO Speed Rating	200
Lens Aperture	f/7.1
Exposure Bias	-0.7 EV
Subject Distance	0.00 m
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	80.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	700
Image Height	492
Exposure Mode	Program
Focus Type	Auto
Metering Mode	Evaluative
Sharpness	High
Saturation	High
Contrast	Normal
Shooting Mode	Manual
Image Size	Large
Focus Mode	One-Shot
Drive Mode	Continuous
Flash Mode	Off
Compression Setting	Fine
Macro Mode	Normal
Sequence Number	3
White Balance	Cloudy
Exposure Compensation	2
Sensor ISO Speed	192
Image Number	100-0018

>>2973238
Personally I wouldn't even need the Fuji here - a 85mm f/1.4 GM is basically more capable than the Fuji 56 f/1.2.

But I also kinda get why this might be a fun setup - the lens is half the weight of the GM. So, why not...?

Hello.
I recently bought a6000 and I'm generally pleased with the camera. I don't have the kit lens or any other modern lenses (can't afford those) do I'm using legacy lens (rokkor and standart Canon FD 50mm/1.4).
Any idea what lens could I get that would be slightly better than what I already have? Takumar or something like that? Or should I just wait till I have enough money to buy some Sony prime lens for E mount?

File: PW-PLUS_X_aa640.jpg (91KB, 640x580px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 640x580px

Redpill me on Pocketwizards.

>>2973251
I'd just wait until you got money for one of the Sigma f/2.8s or the 30mm f/1.4 or such lenses.

Shouldn't be too long a wait with them costing $150-300 or so, with used ones sometimes popping up cheaper.

>>2973251
>has no money for lenses
>buys the system with the most expensive mediocre lenses.
You dun goofed, bud.

>>2973256
They work, but they're probably pointlessly expensive for you.

You should be able to do fine with a Yongnuo or Godox trigger system. Which are highly reliable, effective and inexpensive, plus in their current incarnations generally operate easily and well.

>>2973212
>implying flare is bad

>>2973259
> expensive mediocre lenses
How many sharper cheaper APS-C alternatives to the 12mm Samyang f/2, 30mm Sigma f/1.4 and 60mm f/2.8 do you see?

Sony's 28mm f/2 and 55-210 and a bunch of others are also quite okay for overall price-performance.

>>2973259
I bought mainly to scan negatives at higher resolutions than my NEX, and I already have the enlarger lenses to do so, all other stuff is just an addition.

>>2973257
I'm more leaning towards 50 mm (less distortion). Are the autofocus performance on Sigma lenses as good as on the sony ones?

>>2973002
>>2973122
I remember keeping an eye out for one of these some 7 months ago. I checked them out today and i believe they're still at the same price they've been since i first saw them if you don't include the discount.

Does anyone here have a SliderPlus from over a year ago? What was the price back then? Is it cheaper now?

Would a dry bag serve well for bringing a camera in from a cold to a warm environment?

>>2973264
>tries to defend his mediocre system
>can only come up with third party lenses
You sonyfags are not even trying anymore.

>>2973266
Sigma's 60mm f/2.8 is a superb lens in terms of sharpness, and should be under $200. $150 if you're lucky with the regional pricing lottery (it's that cheap in some places).

> Are the autofocus performance on Sigma lenses as good as on the sony ones?
Not quite.

The f/2.8s will do center PDAF only (on the middle 5 points) - though they feel just normal.
The 30mm f/1.4 will work in a larger area, but feel a bit less reliable with PDAF (AF-C).

CDAF (AF-S) is not really much affected in either case.

>>2973270
> can only come up with third party lenses
I can come up with quite good & fairly inexpensive native third party lenses.

That's just a *good* thing to me as a user.

I bought a Sony camera, not Sony stocks.

>>2973273
>I bought a Sony camera, not Sony stocks.
Yet you behave so. It is time to stop.

>>2973266
By the way, there are also low budget lenses by Neewer for around $60 on Aliexpress, including a 50mm f/2.

Should be marginally better than many a vintage lens, but they're not really good... they're cheap.

>>2973276
Yeah, I've seen those. No autofocus thou, right?

>>2973279
No, no AF. They are just an alternative to vintage lenses.

>>2973282
Got it. Maybe I'll just try to save up for a Sony 50mm, take advantage of this autofocus. Or maybe just a kit lense for this camera.

>>2973283
I hope you like purple

>>2973285
What do you mean?

What's the best weather covering cloth to keep my camera dry while shooting in pouring rain or in snow?

>>2973288
I mean the massive purple fringing of the Sony 50mm lens

>>2973292
Why, you need extra covering in rain? Isn't your camera and lens weather sealed?

>>2973283
Worth considering, sure.

That said, I wasn't even even paying much attention to cost and I ended up with the Sigmas. On the 60mm f/2.8 in particular I'm pretty damn sure that's one of the best lens deals I ever got.

The 5 center PDAF points and regular CDAF really don't cause much of a problem to work with, and the lens is just so damn sharp for such a cheapie.

>>2973297
Camera is, lens is ""water resistant""" but wouldn't trust it in pouring rain

>>2973299
I might consider it, just need to do some reading about those autofocus modes you mentioned. I've only shoot manual up to now and I'm a complete noob when it comes to autofocus.

>>2973301
Used a Pentax with kit lens in downpour covering a local event, not a damn problem happened. The thing just went on delivering the shots. No fogging, no leaks, no shortcircuit. Wiped it off after and put it in the drybox when I got home just to be safe.
If it is rated for weather sealing then you shouldn't worry. Unless it is a sony of course.

Could someone fill me in on the basics of using old lenses on modern Pentax DSLRs?

I am about to inherit a used K-3 body from a cousin, but no lenses, and want to just start out cheap with some ebay stuff. What do I need to look for to get stuff that will autofocus? What are some good specific lenses to pick up?

Thanks bros!

>>2973319
>What do I need to look for to get stuff that will autofocus
no autofocus for ya, baby

>>2973320
I kinda thought I might be screwed there. What lenses should look out for that will be decent for manual focus? I have almost no spare cash at the moment so I'd like to just pick up some old cheap stuff to get me going.

>>2973323
You buy an M42 adapter and take off the little spring and screw. Then you buy a Helios 44M, screw on the adapter ring and use it as a normal K-mount lens. It will be an excellent portrait lens.
You should also get the DA 35/2.4 for generic walkaround snapshitting lens, it costs like $80.

>>2973323
Minolta prime lenses are pretty good, Supe Takumars have great reputation when it comes to prime 50mm lenses, great prive-quality ratio.

>>2973325
Then again you can get the DA 50/1.8 which is also $80 and no need for manual focusing.