/cgg/ Camera Gear General

File: gri.jpg (35KB, 700x700px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 700x700px

>>2978883

Can someone expand more on grips and their usefuIIness for photography? Not sure if it matters, but it is for a Canon T5i. There's a genuine Canon one that just showed up cheap and l wouId Iike to get it if it is worth it since it's onIy $ 130 new.

l have been researching if it wouId be usefuI or not to get one and it Iooks Iike many peopIe get them to hoId 2 batteries for video, since auto focus and 1080+ drains the battery fast.

Are the portrait features for hoIding the dsIr verticaIIy worth the purchase? l aIso have Iarge hands and hear good things for baIancing the weight of a heavy Iens and overaII grip combined.

ls it worth to buy? Did you Iike working with it? Are there any other photography benefits of using it?

Bought a nice tripod that came with a terribad head.

What should I replace it with?

>>2978896
> Can someone expand more on grips and their usefuIIness for photography?
Usually used for one of these reasons:
- Power. Additional battery life, pass-through charging or even as hookup for DC power.
- Remote shutter triggering (some have a built-in release).
- Stability/Ergonomics (better grip holding the camera, maybe holding it sideways, or because of built-in fixtures to have it mounted on some bracket or screw mount.

> Are the portrait features for hoIding the dsIr verticaIIy worth the purchase?
I wouldn't buy one for a T5i unless you know you need it (saving for a new body, lenses might be better).

And if you must have one, probably just buy a Chinese one.

>>2978903
Depends on what you need.

I kinda like the Sirui KX, but for travel a lighter CX should be better.

Though frankly, a typical Chinese ball head off Aliexpress should be good for most people.

>>2978883
>You're always welcome to open up your own gear-specific thread
Fuck off cunt. The last thing this board needs is more threads about gear, outside the fucking dedicated gear thread. Also lurk more newfag.

>>2978912

General threads ruin the board. If it's a quick question that can be answered in two or three posts and then the thread quickly sinks to page 10, what's the harm?

>>2978910
I'll be using it with a pentax 67, and a slightly smaller sony A7ii. Mostly hiking, but with a bit of studio thrown in every once in awhile.

>>2978896
I use them for the extended battery life they offer and also because they give the camera an agreeable amount of heft.

>>2978917
>I can get a K5 iis at a good price but is it a good camera?
Yes

Source: I own one

File: Screenshot_2016-11-29-16-17-31.png (445KB, 720x1280px) Image search: [Google]

445KB, 720x1280px

Thoughts on the D5500 as a first DSLR? I didn't want to get the most basic so I went a step up to a mid range. Is it worth buying with a kit lense around 500-550 USD

>>2978917
> K5 II
It's still an okay camera. If the price is right, certainly why not.

[I personally went with a Sony, but Pentax is a really fairly comfy system.]

>>2978918
I think a Sirui KX certainly wouldn't be bad.

But honestly, I think you have a not too bad chance that some simpler Chinese at least rated ~8kg head off Aliexpress would also would work...

>>2978930
> Is it worth buying with a kit lense around 500-550 USD
Quite okay as such.

Definitely prefer the A6000 myself.

>>2978937
I was actually thinking about it but I want a DSLR first. I'll eventually get a mirrorless for shits and giggles.

>>2978939
I'm not saying that's the wrong choice but that's what most newbies think

Like, DSLRs "look" the most like a "real" camera so that's what they go for. There's nothing wrong with them but you'll probably tire of the bulk and not take it out as much as you should

Just consider that!

>>2978939
I don't really feel that I need to get a DSLR for shits and giggles, myself.

I guess one could end up with either one, but I don't think you'll be running around with both

For me, the in many ways stronger A6000 is better, as are the primes it uses. And there are obviously better models if I care to upgrade.

>>2978940
I took that into account which is one of the reasons the D5500 stands out. It's smaller compared to other DSLR cameras.

>>2978942
Maybe "for shits and giggles" was the wrong term to use. I meant as like a secondary camera. One I could take when I want something slightly different.

>>2978945
>Maybe "for shits and giggles" was the wrong term to use. I meant as like a secondary camera. One I could take when I want something slightly different.
If you're quite rich and that's amusing to you...?

They fill almost the same roles (with some differences which make me prefer the A6000 and you maybe the D5500).

The problem would still be that the possibly really neat lenses you get for your A6000 won't work at all on the D5500. The other way around it might work, but not terribly well.

>>2978883
we just need efficient 10nm processors.

>>2978946
>If you're quite rich
Oh boy if only. I'm pretty damn poor, I actually had to save for a while to afford anything.

>>2978953
Then you probably will find maintaining 2 camera systems not too attractive.
And get more lenses or a better body model from the system instead if you want something different.

At least thats my guess.

>>2978961
I was thinking of getting a cheaper body(D5500 over, say, a D7200) and getting more lenses. I feel like having more decent lenses is better than having a better camera with just the kit lens, not to take away from Nikkor kit lenses.

>>2978935
The K5 cameras have the superior sensor, you can pull crazy detail from underexposed photos and shadows. The K3 has a few upgraded features, like improved AF, dual card slots and astrotracer, but it depends on whether those are important to you or not. Either way, both cameras are excellent.

>>2978939

Mirrorless cameras are to the point that they can replace DSLRs in many situations.

hey, I'm looking for a camera, my requirements are

1. small form factor
2. good dynamic range and general image quality

what do you guys recommend?

Okay, /p/, pull the trigger for me:

Adorama Refurbished D7000 $400
Amazon D7000 New $500
Adorama Refurbished D7200 $750
Amazon D7100 New $700
Adorama Refurbished D610 $1099

I shoot landscapes, mostly. I like Amazon for its lenient return policy in case something should happen. Plus, it pays return shipping. What do, /p/? Is there any real reason to go full-frame over crop-sensor unless I'm a pixel peeper? Is the extra field-of-view worth it?

>>2978989
that depends, how much are you willing to spend? are you invested into a camera system at the moment? I wouldn't want to recommend you buy into say Fuji when you have a shelf full of L lenses

>>2978996
I would like to spend around/less than $1,000. I have no lens commitments but I would like to be able to adapt older vintage ones if applicable. I am also open to fixed lens cameras. thank you

>>2978989

Budget: a6000, X-T1

Performance: a7ii/a7rii/a7sii, X-T2

File: 20161205_220332_Richtone(HDR).jpg (2MB, 3264x1836px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3264x1836px

Hey guys I got this Zenith at a thrift shop and it came with this weird lense - I can't find any information about it online.

Could you help me identify this lense? Maybe it's rare lol.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SAMSUNG
Camera Model	SM-P605
Camera Software	P605XXUCNF2
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.4
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	32 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	3264
Image Height	1836
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2016:12:05 22:03:32
F-Number	f/2.4
Exposure Program	Normal Program
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Focal Length	3.40 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	3264
Image Height	1836
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Unknown

>>2979013
it looks like a smena m8 lens

>>2978914
Bullshit. Photogtraphy is 10%gear 90% what you actually do. Yet this board turns that ratio completly around.
The same fate hit /out/ once.

>>2979015

>10%gear 90% what you actually do

More like:
>5% gear

>5% settings

>15% post processing

>75% location and timing

>>2979001
I hope you understand the fact you won't be able to adapt vintage lens in the case of buying the fixed lens camera. Ricoh GR, Nikon A, Fuji X70, Fuji X100T are decent camera with relatively big APS-C sized sensor and quite fast fixed lens. There are additional wide and tele converters for Fuji X100 series and wide converter for Fuji X70.
In the case of interchangeable lens camera you can go with Fuji X-T1, Fuji X-T10, Fuji X-E2/E2s - all of them will give you near identical image quality and Fuji has decent line of affordable and good lens. Also Sony A6x00 series can do the trick but the cheap sony lens have poor image quality and good lens are big and pricey.
There is also m4/3 system with some good cameras but it have some limitation due to the small sensor - its harder to get the narrow dof with it and wide lens are big and pricey.
All modern mirrorless cameras can adapt vintage lens due to the shorter flange focal distance.

Have you guys noticed that letting a browser resize the image makes it look better than if you had resized it yourself in your favorite photo editor?

I wonder if this is why instagram images are slightly bigger than they actually show up on the webpage.

What DSLR should I buy on or around boxing day?
Looking to spend around $400 Canadian.
Mainly go /out/, have a number of k-mount lenses and can buy adapters.

>>2979031
Replied in the wrong thread, reposting.

Something on the cheap end.
See if you can find a D3300 kit or a K-50 kit. Maybe a K-S2 kit.
Buy used if possible.

>outdoors, k-mount lenses
Definitely try to get a Pentax. The K-50 should be near that budget used, don't buy the K-S1 or K-500, those are not sealed. Also make sure the kit lens says "WR" so it makes a good sealed system.

>>2979031
>boxing day
>tfw l had to Iook up what this was

Outdoor photography has a big benefit in having the most available natural Iight in the day time, so you can get away with many entry-mid IeveI dsIr options + zoom Iens combos.

lf you aIready have Ienses, focusing on just a good body with the "WR" seaI shouId be enough if you're up against moisture or heavy wind areas. That might be more important than negligibIe MP differences or unnecessary features.

l wouId suggest more options, but l'm not sure what saIes are big for you guys during that time. Were there any saIes that you were Iooking at that might be options in your price range you are choosing between?

Posted in the other thread about Laowas macro lenses.

Anyone have the 15mm macro lens? I aim to use it for images where I can place my subject more towards the corners, rule of thirds. But after looking at some images, it seems quite soft outside the center.

Their 60mm 2:1 ratio lens is also very interesting. Anyone has feedback on that one too?

I've been dealing with macro bellows and similar and want to invest in a proper macro lens.

I got the distance I need from my current lenses, so the 50-60mm range is my goal.

>>2979185
l just bought my friend's 15mm after doing some research and l thought it was soft outside the center too.

This is because the peopIe in reviews were taking photos wide-open at the wrong distance for the aperture. At around 4-5.6 it goes away, and it's most sharp within or just above that range. Wide open is great for a fast photo if you reaIIy need as much Iight as possibIe or heavy focus, but it wiII most IikeIy be a softer photo if you don't adjust aperture.

Try to Iook at some exampIe photos on sites that show the aperture and Iook at it in those ranges. You might have a different opinion on how the Iens actuaIIy performs, and at the aperture ranges you'II most IikeIy be using it for.

>>2979011
Thanks!

>>2978986
>Mirrorless cameras are to the point that they can replace DSLRs in many situations.

What advantages do DSLRs currently have over mirorIess other than wider and cheaper Iens seIection?

l keep considering switching over but nothing has reaIIy stood out enough in the mirrorIess seIection to make the purchase. My 70 D has yet to faiI me in aImost every situation.

>>2978994
D7000 is okay but is old and has mediocre autofocus and an outdated sensor. I own one and I'd much rather overpay and get a D7100.
D7100 is the shit but has a small buffer which is a no-no for sports.
D7200 is everything D7100 is but better, although I've heard some bad things about its sensor compared to the predecessor (D7100's sensor is great).
D610 is a D7000 with a bigger sensor. The said sensor is pretty good but everything else is meh, especially the autofocus module, it's slow and all the points are grouped up in the center.

Gotta make a decision for yourself what you want more: an overall more solid and versatile camera with a few hundred bucks to spare on lenses (D7100/7200) or that ff magic, muh bokeh, fifty actually being nifty and better high iso performance in wrapped in a cheap package (D610). If you're shooting landscapes using a tripod at base iso, the high iso capability does not matter and neither does the af, the dynamic range should be more or less the same, so it comes down to personal preferences. Oh and good autofocus ultrawide lenses are cheaper for dx but there's plenty of manual ones available.

>>2979206
>What advantages do DSLRs currently have over mirorIess other than wider and cheaper Iens seIection?
Better AF performance on longer than 100mm focal lengths.

>>2979188
Yeah that makes sense.

It's difficult enough to find full info about popular lenses, will be a challenge to find it for this one.

Do you have any photos to show though?

>>2979206
> What advantages do DSLRs currently have over mirorIess other than wider and cheaper Iens seIection?
Battery life at the cost of no EVF, more weather sealed options. Maybe.

Nothing much, really.

> l keep considering switching over but nothing has reaIIy stood out enough in the mirrorIess seIection to make the purchase. My 70 D has yet to faiI me in aImost every situation.
Could be. Maybe it just costs too much to switch to be worth it, and/or you don't need more than a 70D.

There are quite a few reasons though. Burst rates and AF performance in the <$2k segment, video, various high end lenses (also mostly <$2k but not cheap), of course weight and maybe size advantages, feature advantages (sometimes in general, sometimes at a price point), ... yadda yadda. There are reasons for some people to switch.

>>2979216
Nah, the MC-11 and Metabones EF adapters basically got this covered now for adapting to the E-mount.

And the >100mm native lenses never were a special problem. Not just on the E-mount, they weren't a problem on any MILC.

>>2979223
The adapter can't do shit when the sensor integrated AF is fundamentally flawed. I'm not talking about measly 200mm lenses, I'm talking about 400mm and upwards. The Sony can't handle those reliably and the sensitivity of the separate AF is much much bigger so DSLRs are just as reliable in low light.

>>2979229
> the sensor integrated AF is fundamentally flawed
Nope. It's probably massively advantageous. No longer can some tiny, tiny misalignment of a moving part (mirror or lens or whatever) create a really quite bad mismatch between AF system and sensor plane. And way more focus points with much larger sensor coverage - supporting almost arbitrarily large or small sensors. And it works at near arbitrary frame rates. And more.

> the sensitivity of the separate AF is much much bigger so DSLRs are just as reliable in low light.
PDAF down to -3EV. One of the best low light AF systems around.

https://www.dpreview.com/articles/6884391759/sony-alpha-7r-ii-can-match-or-beat-dslr-low-light-af-performance

Maybe the new D5 has gotten something a little better since then...? Doesn't change shit overall, the AF technology is one of the strongest in low light, beating basically just about all DSLR.

It's also on the RX100 V and A6500 now as far as I can tell, but I guess we need more reviews of that.

>>2978896

Buy a chinese one with a remote. Basically the exact same. And yes they are useful.

>>2979207
I'm currently using M4/3 and have Nikon lenses. is full-frame worth it?

File: unknown.png (668KB, 960x640px) Image search: [Google]

668KB, 960x640px

>>2978883
Just ordered one of these. Thoughts?

>>2979260
It has the color scheme of those cheap Chinese action figure that you'd find in a dollar store.

>>2979260
I understand that flamboyant looks can be fun. But my taste doesn't agree with this.

>>2979260
ls this a case kit or an actuaI camera? lt Iooks Iike a cheap paint job honestIy, but l can imagine it Iooking pretty nice if it had more of a reaI goId tone to it.

>>2979206

>wider and cheaper lens selection

That is not an advantage of a DSLR when a mirrorless can autofocus almosy any modern lens at native speeds.

Tjw biffesr advantage a DSLR has is autofocus speed, and that is quickly disappearing.

>>2979341
Wasn't the probIem with mirrorIess auto focusing at nearIy native speeds, being they couIdn't get the sharpness down?

l'm not sure if this was fixed or there are better adapters now, but l remember when l was Iooking into getting a mirrorIess originaIIy, l avoided them knowing at further distances they couldn't match the sharpness in auto focus compared to the native dsIr they are made for (Canon to Canon, Pentax to Pentax, etc).

>>2979252
That's a very generalized question, I think. Everything depends on a lot of things, such as what lenses you have, whether you're planning to get more and on what you need them for. If most of your lenses are dx and you're planning on keeping them without getting some new ones you might want to stick with the crop, there's no point of having a full-frame you've no glass for.
Overall, for wedding, low-light and landscape full-frame is usually better provided you have the lenses for it.
High-end crop cameras do at the very least just as well in sports and wildlife.
A camera is not defined soloely by the sensor format though, besides, the dynamic range of the new crops is as wide as that of the old full-frames and entry-level fx cameras feel somewhat lackluster. Crops have their own uses these days, even to those who can afford a full-frame. They complement the latter.
I'm sure that after 4/3 both D610 and D7100 would feel amazing, but it's not like there's something special about full-frame. It just works better in some cases.
Last but not least, a jack-of-all-trades camera simply does not exist, even within one brand such as Nikon, there's always something that's better in some other regard. D500 has a crop sensor but is the best camera there is for wildlife these days, for example. That's what it was designed for. D800 is a swell camera, but was not designed for sports. D4 is a workhorse for reporters who then print these tiny pictures in papers but is otherwise an overpriced item. Etc.

>>2979390

There are some issues with tolerences on cheap manual adapters.

But a good, modern adapter should have zero issues unless something is seriously wrong.

>>2979395
I have strictly old screw-drive Nikon full-frame glass, which is why I'm considering an upgrade to the D610. I've been using manual on m4/3. The only things I feel that I would appreciate are the wider field of view and the autofocus, but I could get both of those things with a D7X00.

>>2979298
>>2979301
>>2979307
It's a 24kt gold camera...

>>2979430
That's stupid as fuck

>>2979260
>>2979430

Does this thing even perform weII? Or is it just some over priced toy so peopIe can say their camera is made out of goId?

Have any actuaI owners put out pictures they took with it?

File: pentacks1.jpg (385KB, 1080x816px) Image search: [Google]

385KB, 1080x816px

>>2979260
>not buying pic related
fucking plebian, kill yourself

>>2979399
According to a website gearfags beat their meat to, D7100 has roughly as wide dr as d610 at base iso, so that shouldn't be an issue. Either will be much better than a 4/3 so there's that and you sure will not be nearly as restricted by your gear in either case. Sensor-wise, the 610 has an edge although I cannot say how big is it when it comes to landscapes and not portraits and high iso. Everything else is slightly better in the 7100/7200 (when choosing between 610 and 7000 surely go with the first one though).
Frankly, I really want to suggest the 7200 because I'm biased towards it (I want one to replace my 7000) and against 610 (it just feels dinky and deliberately gimped to me, chose d700 over it in a heartbeat, but that's not an option when looking for a landscape camera), but when it comes to landscapes I can't see the advantages of a dx sensor in this case except for cheaper Nikkor ultrawide lenses.
Still, whatever you upgrade to, it's still a win.

>>2978906
>>2979239

lf you aIready have a wired shutter controI, is it stiII worth it to get the knock off?

lt's about $80 but the reaI Canon one is $130 new that was put up recentIy. lf it does the same thing l might just get the cheaper one, but if the reaI Canon one has a better grip feeI or the ergonomics are generaIIy better, l don't mind getting it for $130.

Does the knock off have that pIastic feeI? The reaI Canon grip has a reaIIy nice feeI and if the knock off aIso has that it sounds Iike it wouId stiII be a good purchase.

>>2979460
>cheaper Nikkor ultrawide lenses.
Not much cheaper, mind. It's not too much of a stretch to go from a 10-24 to a 16-35/4. Good job Nikon.

>tfw no copy of the EFS 10-18

>>2979506
If you don't want a shutter control it's like $20-40 or so.

Probably feels like textured hard plastics or such.

>>2979460
Thanks anon appreciate the advice

>>2979447
Yeah, It's the Nikon Df. Lots of professionals have produced images with it.

>>2978883
does /p/ have an essentials list or anything

i'm looking for basic lighting and backdrops for decent IG pics. i have an ok camera

like $250ish range

>>2979554
> decent IG pics
> be a fluffy animal or have tits
> take any picture showing this
... more seriously, you can maybe still get a Chinese portable flash or two with some cheap stand, diffuser and a RF trigger for those $250 - try that.

>>2979260
You're going to need a leopard print leisure suit to go with it.

File: 1.jpg (174KB, 796x615px) Image search: [Google]

174KB, 796x615px

>>2979458
lsn't that just one of their coIor designs they're aIways putting out?

They have Iimited editions aII the time, and even though l never saw that one l can imagine them putting that coIo out and it seIIing Iike crazy when peopIe try to pass it off as reaI goId in pictures on the net.

>Pic reIated, one of the best designs

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS Macintosh
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2009:10:16 04:57:27
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	796
Image Height	615

>>2979767
It's a Pentax LX 35mm from the 1980's, 18 carat gold plated and comes with the quite rare and expensive 50mm f1.2

I believe it's the OG of the pentacks limited editions

File: a.gif (307KB, 392x498px) Image search: [Google]

307KB, 392x498px

>>2979777
>LX 35 mm
>18 carat gold plated
>Comes with a 50 mm 1.2
>Trips get

>>2978883
Whats the story of this camera in the pic?

>>2979809
Looks like it had its battery pull a Note 7. Any li-ion battery reacts like that if punctured or overheated.

>>2979809
>Samys in CaIifornia

They have a coIIection of cameras from a bunch of different time periods, but they aIso have a dispIay of damaged cameras that peopIe give them from different situations.

The one in the OP was dropped in moIten Iava for a few seconds. What l want to know is how they retrieved it though. The peopIe that took it at Samys for some reason didn't ask the guy how he got it back and they haven't been abIe to contact him about it after.

You can take a Iook, the story is up in a few pIaces if you want to know more.

What's a good fast prime to go with the Sony A6000? The kit lens only goes down to f/3.5 which is ass for low light shooting

>>2979832
Bump, I also have a6000

>>2979832
>>2979836

Wasn't the whole thing about the A6000 how good it works in low light though?

They had some video where a guy was in the snow in the middle of the night bumped up to 25.6k right? Or was that another model? Not sure what lens though.

>>2979837
Sure, but there's no point using high ISO if you can avoid it with a wider aperture

>>2979832
The sonyfag dilemma. Spent all your money on a body, but now you don't want to shell out for a 35 1.8 OSS or Sigma 30 1.4. Good luck if you wanted options in other focal lengths.

File: The_Fox_and_the_Grapes.jpg (59KB, 400x624px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 400x624px

>>2979867

>>2979867
How is that a diIemma specific to any brand?

>Work more hours
>Buy more gear

That appIies to IiteraIIy everything ever.

Anyways, is the Sigma 30 worth buying for an A6000? It's even cheaper than my old Nikkor 35mm f/1.8 that I just sold

>>2979915
The 1.4?

It's wider and sharper than the other options available and one if the highest rated 3rd party e mounts. The two stops over the 2.8 is a huge advantage for low light and fast photos if that is what you're looking for.

You should get it especially if you don't haev a set of lenses yet. You might be able to narrow down your selection by a lot starting with the 1.4 and figuring out what other focal lengths you will be using after.

>>2979961
Yup, I've been using a D3200 with the 18-55 kit lens and a 35mm prime up until now, been figuring that I might as well make the switch to mirrorless before I invest an assload in lenses for Nikon. Might as well give the 1.4 a try since it's cheaper than Sonys 1.8 and is different from what I've used before.

>>2979980
This is the best time to do it if you only have those two lenses. The A6000 and the 1.4 will cover you for a while until you pick a zoom to cover you when the 30 isn't enough.

Once you have mirrorless lenses, you can use them when you switch to a new body, as well so it's better to switch over as early as possible if the mirrorless offers what you're looking for.

>>2979915
Yep. But it's AF / MF both feel odd. Try it hands-on, you'll see what I mean.

Some people prefer the almost equally priced 28mm f/2.

>>2980010
The A F is Iisted as having a Iess than 1 second zoom and sharper than the other 30 mm rivaIs. What about it is odd? l wiII have to try manuaI to get the feeI of what you mean but l wiII Iook for it when trying.

lsn't the 28 mm preference mostIy peopIe who Iike it comparitiveIy to fiIm cameras or does it offer another benefit?

>>2979815
That's at the one in Pasadena, right? I've been wondering what the deal with it was, but always forgot to ask.

>>2980084
IoI yeah that's the one. lt's funny to me because if someone toId me the story, l don't see how we'd have a conversation and the question "how exactIy did you get it out?" wouIdn't come up.

l guess they were just excited to have something Iike that, l mean how often do you come across something from a situation Iike his?

>>2980108
Well to be fair it IS Samy's, like 95% of the people who work there are morons.

I go to that location a lot and the only two employees I trust are Juan and that one dyke-y chick who's really into Hasselblads.

>>2980115
>like 95% of the people who work there

You mean "Photography Equipment SpeciaIists?"

>Ask for Nikon adapter
>Disappears for 10 minutes
>Comes back and says "The Sony comes with an e mount free though"

Never saw that guy again but l'm wondering who toId him that, if he didn't just come to that conclusion himseIf.

lt's been over haIf a year since getting anything in person (got the adapter onIine) so l'm not sure who's there now though.

>>2980125
Yeah that sounds like Samy's all right. Nobody there knows anything, I usually have to talk to like 5 different people when I need something, because the first 4 always say they've never heard of it and don't have it and then the 5th says "oh yeah, it's right here."

I still go there a lot, though. They've actually managed to make their prices pretty competitive over the last few years, and I often find myself needing some minor thing on short notice. It's also worth swinging by to check the used counters, and because their staff are morons it's actually pretty easy to lowball them on stuff. (I've actually MADE A PROFIT by talking them down to below KEH price on an X100 and then selling it back to them six months later for more than I paid for it.)

>>2980046
The odd thing for AF is how it's somewhat unreliable at "fast" and still a little less reliable on "normal". And how the camera apparently more often picks odd spots to focus on, or sometimes just almost incessantly refocuses on something that shouldn't need refocusing because it hasn't moved.

MF is also pretty damn weird. Slow turning of the focusing ring changes focus around 3-4% per second (so if you turn it at that rate for around 25-30 seconds, you should have completed one full focus pull), fast turns 100% per second.
You can learn to deal with it, but this is weird as fuck. Feels like your ring is slipping at the low speed and just jumping a minimum of 20% across the range at the fast speed.

Also, the motor is actually shaking and making more noise than an average lens, and -at the fast AF speeds- feels like it's slamming into something when focusing from close to infinity.

That said, yea, you can work with it and learn how to work with MF and it won't be slow in most instances. Just very odd as compared to your other glass.

>>2980341
When you were using this, what aperture setting did you have?

The reviews show that from 4 on, it's a sharp result in most instances when focused on the subject. For people who don't use manual, this should be enough especially in day time when you can use 5.6 to 8 and get plenty of light at a higher speed for hand held photos without blur issues.

This is just a personal preference, but being lucky enough to have a great tripod gets rid of any blur or aperture issues that don't require being wide open (outside of going for bokeh of course).

That manual focus ring speed sounds miserable though. Don't think it's ever been more than a 3-4 second issue (not speaking from experience with this lens) and it doesn't seem like something that a user gets used to, but like you said "deals with". That and motor shake might be a pain but coming from the 50 which shakes a lot, it might not be too bad if it's fast enough. Going to have to try this out. Seems interesting but also a setback by a ton of small issues that build up.

>>2980148
>usually have to talk to like 5 different people when I need something, because the first 4 always say they've never heard of it and don't have it and then the 5th says "oh yeah, it's right here."

This is exactly why just ordering on the net replaced them for the lat couple years, especially since prices couldn't compare at new.

>They've actually managed to make their prices pretty competitive over the last few years, and I often find myself needing some minor thing on short notice. It's also worth swinging by to check the used counters

This is news to me, though. Used to be an issue since they would barely move and immediately compare to net prices and give an extra 10 % off with their limited warranty which wasn't worth it. If it's good enough, might swing by to check out their used gear if the prices are really that good.

Think it'd be worth it to check out next week? Any good gear in stock from what you have seen recently outside of mirrorless?

>>2980706
It might be. I actually haven't been over there in a month or two, now that I think about it, so I dunno what they've got in stock right now. I've found some cool stuff but you have to get lucky with the right idiot sales guy to get good prices.

File: Screenshot_2016-12-10_14-07-18.png (171KB, 991x420px) Image search: [Google]

171KB, 991x420px

Which one would be your choice, and why?

>>2980817
Helios 44M-4 because it is known to be a good lens, much better corrected than the 44M-2
Although if Helios 44 I would get the 44M without any series numbering, that is the most recent and is known to be the best of the 44 line.

File: 1479171245600.png (203KB, 446x315px) Image search: [Google]

203KB, 446x315px

>>2980817
>tfw soId off fiIm gear to go digitaI

Worst decision ever. Got a good price on everything, but now looking for the same lenses that have become harder to find and having to trust where they come from is a task now.

Have you guys been using your older gear, or giving newer film products a try? Had a Canon and a Fuji but they were from 20 years ago.

Has anything drastically advantageous come about in original SLRs or is it better to just go with something more comfortable/familiar? Have not been following film at all in recent years.

>>2979915
the 1.4 will work with pdaf.
the 2.8 will work with pdaf in the center.
both are sharp lenses.

>>2979832
20mm f2.8 or sigma 19mm f2.8 if poorfag.
sigma 30mm f1.4 or sony 35 1.8 or sigma 30 2.8 if poorfag.
sony 50 1.8 the apsc version with oss.

>>2980943
>not keeping his film gear to be used on sony a7

File: 1.jpg (121KB, 553x692px) Image search: [Google]

121KB, 553x692px

>>2980959
lt was back in mid 2013, a few months before the a7 came out.

The generaI word on the a7 was that it was going to be a big gimmick Iike they had been with their other eIectronics product Iines that were sinking. Worst part is

>l onIy used the new gear once untiI December 2013 PLUS l got a promotion in August, so l wouId've been fine waiting AND had the funds to get it without seIIing anything

>>2980817
if you want to get helios buy a 44-3 or 44m-7

>>2980943
But new lenses and bodies are awesome. Even if you prefer MF the Samyangs and so on are neat.

I'm missing nothing at all from 35mm film.

>>2981040
l miss having it for daytime and Iandscape. FiIters fro the digitaI side of photography don't compare to what naturaI fiIm photography has to offer. For the quaIity that can be had, digitaI has a huge advantage but if you start with fiIm and have used it for a Iong time, you can see it's benefits outside of just the sharpness of the photo.

>>2981068
I've done film for decades and I can't see any advantage now that the dynamic range, resolution, color reproduction and possible shooting pace as well as everything else is just better than it ever was with film.

Okay, not yet better than large format film yet perhaps, but that I never found practical or affordable enough.

Is auto chinon 55mm f1.7 + adapter for a6000 worth buying for 25 yuros?

>>2981098
As a cheap fun lens to try for the heck of it, why not? It's very cheap.

Buy a native modern lens for everyday shooting.

>>2981101
Yeah, I have 30mm 1.4 sigma as everyday lens for it, so this would mostly be just for the fun of it. And the chinon seems ok sharp in the middle.

>>2980996
>The general word on the a7 was that it was going to be a big gimmick

That is what you get for listening to /p/
.

File: Street Film Photography by Idris Ismail (4).jpg (267KB, 1280x857px) Image search: [Google]

267KB, 1280x857px

anyone know a decent cheap film camera, was thinking canon sureshot owl but idk

pic related is how id like photos to come out

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Google
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Image Width	1280
Image Height	857

>>2981141
This Iooks reaIIy bIocky Iike something a Iow MP dsIr wouId give you. Based on the styIe and coIor, you can get that from some Kodak in a mid-range Canon sIr with better quaIity resuIts.

>>2981141
>decent cheap film camera

Exactly the words that came to mind looking at that photo.

Pick anything decent film camera and you'll be fine.

>>2981126
To be fair, many reviews were saying this.

/p/ are just the ton of sheep with no knowledge that jump to info with no backing that would believe every release.

Pretty much everyone is right about 4/3 being on it's way out though.

>>2981259

>m43 being on the way out

That fucking e-m1 mk2 price though.

Holy shit, what were they thinking?

>>2981259
>Pretty much everyone is right about 4/3 being on it's way out though.
That's what they say every year.

>>2981259
>everyone is right about 4/3 being on it's way out though.
Everyone who isn't shooting full frame digital is wasting their time and money, right?

File: 1464075371471.png (67KB, 640x640px)

67KB, 640x640px

>>2981279
Framing a photo in the moment it is taken is much different than the quaIity of the photo.

You can move around, change aperture, focus, etc on any dsIr, but the image quaIity is based on the Iens quaIity avaiIabIe and the body itseIf.

The positioning of the user and the framing of the subject can change any time, the optics and the sensor don't.

What is the purpose of getting a low-light lens like a 50 1.4 if the focus on the corners is bad and the person goes up to 2 - 2.8 and bumps up ISO anyway?

Wouldn't it be better to just get a 1.8 lens for cheaper then?

Looking at a bunch of these nice concert photos (indoor shows at venues) and the exif shows people with 1.2 - 1.4 lenses at 1.8 - 2.8 with ISO at 400-800 but the quality is really good. Asking this because it would be fun to get into venue photography for shows but don't want to get a lens that doesn't suit the purpose.

What lenses do you guys use for shows when you are at indoor venues that are dark?

>>2981478
>What is the purpose of getting a low-light lens like a 50 1.4 if the focus on the corners is bad and the person goes up to 2 - 2.8 and bumps up ISO anyway?
Most of the f/1.4 lenses are also sharper at f/2 or f/2.8 than some cheaper f/1.8 to 2.8 lens.

Not that the situation can't happen where you just might want to shoot at f/1.4.

> it would be fun to get into venue photography for shows but don't want to get a lens that doesn't suit the purpose
That will strongly depend on your body, too.

Have you already got an a A7S (II), A7R II, 1D X II, D4S or any of the other FF cameras that will do okay in low light?

A nice f/1.8 (often actually near T1.8) won't annoy you much on a good low light FF body, but even a typical f/1.4 (more often than not T1.7-1.9 or so) can be quite crappy on an average APS-C camera.

>>2981495
>Different guy running a crop body here

Is the sensor really that much worse on a crop body? Been taking most recent photos with a tripod, but going away next month for about 40 days and going to be taking photos at night hand-held in many instances with moving subjects.

Would it be that big of an advantage to go FF over crop for low light? Already have some lenses that work with both (the focal change shouldn't be that hard to adjust to).

>>2981513
> Is the sensor really that much worse on a crop body?
Versus the low light cameras named, yes.

The cameras in question should perform ~1.5-2 EV better as compared to most APS-C. More when compared to many MFT or older APS-C.


> going to be taking photos at night hand-held in many instances with moving subjects.
Even these cameras and quite nice lenses put you just at the limit of being able to take *most* typical photos hand-held "pretty well".

It's definitely still not daylight or studio shooting. You might still feel like using a portable flash and/or tripod.

Even if the difference certainly isn't small.

> Would it be that big of an advantage to go FF over crop for low light?
Many FF cameras will be closer to ~1EV vs their generational APS-C counterparts. Which isn't nothing, but more possible to mostly compensate with different lens choices, or perhaps a focal reducer.

But you *could* get some further benefits in the lenses' actual T-stoppage, or having more resolution (which could allow you to reduce ISO noise a little more in post by sacrificing more resolution).

File: Olympus-Stylus-tough-TG-4.jpg (118KB, 1200x800px) Image search: [Google]

118KB, 1200x800px

Is this camera good for a beginner?

>>2980817
I made an other decision at the end. Bought just two Helios 44M-2 for 55 Euros. Because a bit of background resaerch revealed: The 44M-4 (and the newer -5, -6 and -7) do not have the 'swirly bokeh' which the Helios 44 is famous for.

So, if one wants to buy a Helios, make sure it's the 44M-2. These lenses seem to be pretty nice for playing around. They are cheap as fuck and there are lots of them around, at least here in Europe. They can be even easily disassembled for doing some cleaning or modifications. Check this out:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H46HKg8C2OI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7El9GzKk24

I think i may try some of the color/flare modding he did with one the lenses.

>>2981533
No.

>>2981539
why not? I think it has aperture and shutter priority modes

What soft box / bounce / diffuser do you like using?

They look pretty useful to change direct light going towards the subject. Thinking of getting 2, one for portraits at home and one for out at night.

Which have you guys liked using?

Best inexpensive vintage lenses to grab for a new Pentax K3ii user? Looking around on ebay and thinking about trying a Takumar 135mm F2.5 and a Vivitar 28mm F2.8 for like 20-40 each.

I have the 18-135 kit and modern 50mm prime lenses. Just want to try some cheap fun stuff to get better with manual lenses as I'm a newbie

>>2981533
Probably a little worse than a smartphone overall.

Most people would consider that not good.

>>2981551
The only good Takumars are the screwmount ones, the "Takumar Bayonet" lenses were single-coated budget lenses.

I don't suppose you know what focal lengths you're after? It'd be better to get one decent lens instead of a bunch of $20 junk ones.

>>2981540
Its a waterproof rugged camera. If you need one, its a good choice. If not you can get an entry dslr/mirrorless w kit lens which gives bit better performance for about same price. Or good less rugged compact.

>>2981556
I really have no idea, just want some stuff to play around with to learn on. I'm kinda wary of the screwmounts because of all the horror stories with adapters.

>>2981560
well, it's not really a horror show. I own both the (very overpriced) genuine adapter and some chink-shit knockoffs. I learned the hard way that the knockoffs don't quiiiiiite get infinity focus. But I never noticed that in normal photography, only with astro. They also don't hold a K-mount rear cap, the genuine one does. Anyway all M42s will be fully manual, you have to stop them down yourself. SMC-K and SMC-M lenses you need to use the green button to stop them down to meter. (there's an article on Pentaxforums about how to do that). The easiest will be SMC-A lenses. They have an auto setting on the aperture ring, you set that and can then control the aperture from the body like you're used to. They're like a modern lens, only manual focus.

The 50s are the cheapest, but you already have a fast 50. You also can't really go wide on APS-C, the crop factor gets in the way. So maybe pick up a telephoto? An A 200/4 is both longer and faster than what you've got. If you liked the idea of that 135 then there's an A 135/2.8. It's a nicer lens than the Takumar Bayonet, the multicoating will give you better contrast and flare resistance. There's an A 100/4 macro (and a 100/2.8 macro, but that's expensive) if that sounds interesting.

All of these are more than $20, though, think more like $100-200. The only thing you can get for $20-40 are really junky early-AF-era zooms and 50/2.0s. Go look at the pentaxforums lens review section, there's a list of pretty much everything Pentax ever made there, and people post reviews and pictures.

>>2981548
> What soft box / bounce / diffuser do you like using?
I definitely liked the Bron Para; if I was going to shoot people or larger objects professionally frequently, I'd actually consider getting one, despite that fucking price tag.

I'd also get a Lastolite Hilite, which again I couldn't justify yet.

What I *do* currently use is mostly inexpensive Chinese Godox gear. Got of the bigger Octagons with Bowens mount, then a medium sized one plus some medium sized rectangular ones, and then a handful of small 15cm-ish rectangular diffusers for use on portable flashes.

I also use light box diffuser cubes from China. I

>Thinking of getting 2, one for portraits at home and one for out at night.
I'll caution that mine is not a good setup for people. There are too few big diffusers (many of which actually could be bought from Godox, but I don't have enough), I use too many portable strobes to get the light output and shooting pace I'd want for people, and I have no easy method to get a proper people-sized background.

What I'm doing is mostly for mid-sized and small objects.

>>2981564
Nice, thanks, I'll go check that out. Sounds like I should just save for a month and buy some nicer stuff.

>>2981558
ok, then between the a6000, g9x, DSC-RX100, and DSCRX100M2 which would you recommend?

Hey guys, I have a DSLR, mostly doing nature/landscape, wildlife, sometimes events.
Is there any benefit of a grip if I only have to change the battery after 3 or 4 shootings?
Do I have to worry about sealing if I go for the cheaper chinese grips?

>>2981567
Not same anon, but the a6000 is obviously the best of these.

>>2981569
> Is there any benefit of a grip if I only have to change the battery after 3 or 4 shootings?
Not really. Maybe it helps you hold the camera in another orientation, maybe it has a built-in remote trigger mechanism.

But if you don't need the extra battery, I'd say there's not enough of a point.

What I personally have on my camera almost permanently is a Arca compatible L-bracket. Helps with quickly mounting / dismounting the camera from a self-standing monopod or tripod.

>>2981571
Thanks for the reassurance, I guess this is one item I can cross of my list for not really needing it.
My tripod came with an RC2 ball head with replaceable plate mount, sturdy as fuck. Been thinking about an L bracket too but so far I can simply mount the camera on the RC2 ball head and flip it 90° without taking off the camera. The IBIS takes care of the fine horizon correction.
On to the better lenses then, maybe a YN 660 flash too.

>>2981564
Is SMC-A 200/4 one you would recommend? There seen to be some variants.

http://item.rakuten.co.jp/naniwa/2221070072645/

I can get things from Japan shipped for free, so this would only be about 50 bucks for me if its the correct lens.

>>2981573
Oh, I can also flip the ball head to 90 degrees in almost all situations, but the L-bracket is still often just handy and/or quicker.

Anyhow I guess it's not a "first priority" thing to get.

And while I definitely am off Manfrotto's RC2 and Q5, last time I checked there weren't too many L-brackets at a good price anyhow.

>>2981580
At least the RC2 doesn't interfere with the camera operation as on other DSLRs so I'm fine with it. And getting a plate mount replacement is still too pricey for a single piece of CNC metal.
Maybe a two axis macro rail would be better.
Anyways I was just juggling a few ideas to get for meself on the completion of this semesters final exams.

>>2981569
>Do I have to worry about sealing if I go for the cheaper grips?

Is there a such thing as a weather sealed dslr without a built in grip?

>>2981592
pentax and nikon make them

>>2981565
Bron would be a big jump in price range, but their products looks really well made. Gotox looks like they have some good products, but it looks like they add a stronger color accent from whatever materials Gotox is using.

Have you had success using anything that better directs the natural flash color as a light source with a lack of color (the yellow that it seems people with Gotox have found), or rather a strength of white/brightness that is closer to natural light?

Some cheaper cubes tend to a yellowish material to soften the flash rather than a thicker white, but not having experience with any of them it's mostly mixed reviews.

Any cheaper diffuser / cubes you can recommend for adding light without adding heavy reflections from walls at home? And one for outside without making the face too bright?

>>2981594
But the models they make don't accept OEM grips, do they? Most of the models ither have them built-in or they don't give them an OEM option, making the seal pointless when a knock off is added on. Not really sure on Pentax (never owned one).

I'm going to treat myself to a new camera this Christmas. I'm pretty set on a Fuji X-T10

Should I go with a
>X-T10 + 18-55 f2.8
>X-T10 + 23 f2
>X-T10 + 35 f2

I'm leaning towards the 23 f2 but having a zoom 18-55 could be convenient sometimes.

i'm strongly considering getting a rokinon 14mm
i was just curious if any of you have tried one and what your thoughts on it are?

>>2981592
D700, most Pentaxes I guess, Olympus E-M1, surely lots of other cameras.

>>2981626
The D700 and E-M1 definitely both take OEM grips, I assume pantax also makes them. But yeah I wouldn't trust a knockoff grip enough to try getting it wet.

>>2981632
Kit is mediocre. Not as bad as the Sony get though. Go primes.

Also consider the X-T2. Considerably better AF performance.

>>2981637
Get ready for tons of MF and test photos if you're not feeding to an externaI view finder (tabIet or device generaIIy)

lt's pretty good if you know how to use it, but if you don't know how to work with it's setbacks then it might not be worth the savings. Check the reviews to get an idea if you wiII be comfortabIe with it.

>>2981647
i already use mf a lot so i don't think that'll be an issue for me.
is mf the only setback you encountered with it?

>>2981650
Some models don't get EXlF, even if you do it wiII read as "aperture 00" and "shutter 00:00" so if those matter to you, you wiII need to write them down.

The onIy Iens issue was the softness with aperture at Iess than 4. When it's 8-11 it's very sharp, impressive compared to any competitor Iens and actuaIIy better in that range with distant objects.

Less than 4 is great in Iow-Iight and bokeh, best when corners do not matter or the subject in the distance is in the middIe of the shot with softness of corner subjects not taking away from the quaIity of the shot.

lf those sound Iike issues that you can work around it's a reaIIy good Iens.

>>2981654
thanks! that's really helpful to know

>>2979013

Slavaboo and Russian spy wannabee with Soviet camera collection here.

The cameras use M42 AKA Pentax mount lenses. They are 42x1mm. If the lens screws on directly, that is the thread it uses. It may use a rung adapter if not.

Soviet camera lens designations with a M in the name (such as Helios 44M) mean the lens is multicoated.

The lens on your camera is from a cine or movie camera. I think those are 8mm. That is a good fast lens but may not be the most practical for general photography.

Get yourself a Helios 44 and/or Jupiter 11a. Great lenses that are inexpensive for these cameras.

Oh, and rock on with the Zenit cameras. They are looked down upon by so many snobs. Legend has it that a Zenit was used as a hammer on MIR to fix the space station...and yes, reportedly it still worked.

>>2981632
>X-T10
That is exactly what i bought last week.
And i bought the 23mm/f2 (as the always on street photography lens), and the 35mm/f1.4 (because the glass is a bit sharper compared to the f2).

And for the phun the Helios lenses along with an M42 adapter as you can read in one of the postings above.

>>2981640
The X-T2 costs three times the price of a X-T10...

>>2981611
>Bron would be a big jump in price range, but their products looks really well made
Oh, their products are partly pretty silly in price, especially that para I like. But yep, well-made.

> but it looks like they add a stronger color accent from whatever materials Gotox is using
It's surely not perfectly neutral, but I don't get any big trouble on my setup from these diffusers.

I actually think more of the color corrections I sometimes have to do in post are on account of my lights.

> Some cheaper cubes tend to a yellowish material to soften the flash rather than a thicker white, but not having experience with any of them it's mostly mixed reviews.
The cubes (not by Godox) I use are often more colored than the Godox diffusers.

But it's usually more of a blue-ish hue in my case, actually. Still, I can also deal with that easily, but I figure it's surely possible to get a whiter cube than I have, somewhere.

> Any cheaper diffuser / cubes you can recommend for adding light without adding heavy reflections from walls at home?
I can recommend the Godox gear.

I'm not sure what you mean with heavy reflections from walls at home. You mean when using a diffuser proper vs bouncing light of the wall?

> And one for outside without making the face too bright?
Biggest octagon you can set up in rough terrain on a tripod, I guess?

And you just set whatever portable strobe you use in it to low enough output so that despite it being fairly close (if you need soft light), it doesn't overexpose

>>2981669
>The cubes (not by Godox) I use are often more colored than the Godox diffusers.
>The cubes (not by Godox) I use are often more colored than the Godox diffusers.

That's really good to hear. Going to have to put in an order for them soon. Didn't want to bother with something that would be regrettable that couldn't be fixed with a little correction in post (biggest issue). If it's a slight "tint" issue, then that's no problem at all that can't be handled with a bit of correction.

>I'm not sure what you mean with heavy reflections from walls at home. You mean when using a diffuser proper vs bouncing light of the wall?

Yes, proper diffuser use that minimizers bounce off of the walls and focuses light on the subject, rather than still scattering light out to the walls when close and making faces/subjects quite bright (basically the same effect as a built in flash, but at a lesser extent as seen in some cheaper products)

That being for the home portraits, of course. Outside would almost always have the background far in the distance for the entirety of the trip (being why 2 separate specific purchases would be made)

>Biggest octagon you can set up in rough terrain on a tripod, I guess?

Ok but also it would be on flat land mostly (we have only 4 days set for hiking in the trip, the rest mostly on flat land)
If the same still applies, will look into the octagon unit.

Thank you for your replies. Have not had much experience with this accessory before and your input is great!

>>2981665

If you want a terrible mirrorless camera, then go ahead.

Not my money.

>>2981577
Don't get a 645. That's a medium format, not 35mm, lens. You can get a 645-to-K adapter, but it'll only let you use 645 lenses as fully manual. And of course you'll be lugging around glass that's much bigger and heavier than it needs to be.

Best 24-70 f2.8 lens for Nikon?

Nikon? Sigma? Tamron? Tokina?

>>2981805
Nikon, it's shit tho, I'm waiting on sigma to do a new one.

>>2981805
Tokina.

>>2981807
Nah, it's the Tokina. See here:
https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/Tokina-AT-X-24-70-F28-PRO-FX-Nikon-on-Nikon-D800E-versus-Nikon-AF-S-NIKKOR-24-70mm-F28E-ED-VR-on-Nikon-D800E-versus-AF-S-Nikkor-24-70mm-f-2.8G-ED-on-Nikon-D800E__1453_814_1583_814_175_814

T-stoppage is worse, average sharpness is worse, and I'm not aware of any very terrible flaw outside of what DXO measures.

>>2981698
The X-T2 is mirrorless, too, you idiot.

>>2981854
He's saying the X T2 is much better, you idiot.

>>2981807
ls the Nikon version that bad? The Canon one is gIorified more than any other Iens l've seen peopIe go after for aImost every kind situation.

>>2981893
So, and why is he mentioning the 'mirrorless'? And since i think 'he' is 'you': The X-T10 is on the same level as a A6000. There is nothing wrong with this camera.

>>2981924
>why is he mentioning the 'mirrorless'?

ProbabIy because peopIe assume that "mirrorIess" automaticaIIy means it'II be better than every dsIr option simpIy because there's no Iens refIex. Who knows though, you're putting a ton of focus on one word and you didn't even make a point.

He's just mentioning what it is, why does that get you so mad?

I can get the Sony A7 for 520$, is it a good deal?
It's used.

>>2981945
Sounds fine, yep.

>>2981945
Depends on how used it is.

>Any damage?
>How many shutter actuations?
>Was it professionally cleaned or cleaned by the owner?
>Is it just the body?
>How old is it?
>How many owners?
>Has it been refurbished at any point?

And about 20 other questions. You would need to give us an idea of what you're getting to know if it is worth it or not.

>>2981958
http://www.tradera.com/item/340863/271301284/sony-a7-kamerahus-med-tillbehor
it's this one, bidding ends in 5 min

>>2981958
>Was it professionally cleaned or cleaned by the owner?
>Is it just the body?
>How old is it?
>How many owners?
>Has it been refurbished at any point?
All of this is almost irrelevant at a US$520 price tag (~half of new), just as long as it's in working order.

>>2981965
>(~half of new)

This is usuaIIy a red fIag that something is being overIooked in the saIe in person to person, but auction is generaIIy a better scenario with rep and the abiIity to make returns in some cases.

Doing research before investing any Iarger sums of money are aIways a good idea in the used seIections, when if you're Iooking to save money, you might just spend more than new buying it twice.

>>2981992
> Doing research before investing any Iarger sums of money are aIways a good idea in the used seIections
Hm, yea, but if people list an item without mentioning it's broken they might as well not know or just lie to your face.

And you're not going to fly over and check the item in question out in person for something cheaper than like $10k or so.


I'd just use the typical auction / sale platform standards of "everything not mentioned is okay" and dispute at the sale/auction platform / transaction level if something not perfectly trivial is actually wrong.

>>2981996
>I'd just use the typical auction / sale platform standards of "everything not mentioned is okay" and dispute

He didn't originally mention it was auction style so it seemed like an in-person sale near him.

>you're not going to fly over and check the item in question out in person for something cheaper than like $10k

Uh ok. Not sure where that was mentioned, plus he only had 5 minutes to get it so that wouldn't make any sense.

>>2981962
Did you end up getting it?

File: Screenshot_20161213-073314.png (212KB, 1080x1920px) Image search: [Google]

212KB, 1080x1920px

>>2981924
>i think that he is you

Wrong.

Oh, and even if we agree it is as good as the a6000 (it isn't), the a6000 is half the price of the X-T10.

There is nothing wrong with the X-T10, yes. But there are considerably better mirrorless cameras for much less, and the X-T10 isn't even a very good x-mount camera to begin with.

>>2982000
Fair point.

Anyhow, you can at least kinda trust typical online auction / trade platforms and payment providers to do their thing. They're getting paid quite nicely for doing the small service they'll have to provide if things go wrong.

>>2982071
>Anyhow, you can at least kinda trust typical online auction / trade platforms and payment providers to do their thing

l agree with this, but then again l don't often get a good dsIr deaI at nearIy haIf price too often. That's mainIy because in the description somewhere they try to hide that's it's a refurb or "has been dropped a coupIe of times but stiII works Iike new". lf it seems Iike a decent deaI Iike the guy above had, l might give it a chance but l've mostIy been getting Ienses recentIy.

>>2982068
>cross shopping a $800 camera with a $1800 camera

>implying the XT1 wasn't a good camera before the XPro2 and XT2 came out
>potentially implying the XT10 is any worse than a XT1

File: 1.jpg (17KB, 309x197px)

17KB, 309x197px

l have a trip coming up and it wiII be mostIy Iandscape in the day time. There are two things l am Iooking to get before then

>Tripod that is sturdy, durabIe, has good feet, and can aIso keep steady with a heavy Iens

>ND Ienses that wiII be good on mountains for taking photos above cIouds Iooking down

The earIy part of the trip wiII be a bit above ground IeveI on mostIy uneven ground. The tripod doesn't need a IeveI buiIt-in as l can get an externaI one (or a cube for the hot shoe sIot) but if it has IeveIs that wouId be great.

For ND fiIters, l am not sure what to even Iook for. l keep hearing to invest in a good 10 for above cIouds but can those with experience suggest more about it?

lt wiII mostIy be mid day to sunset so there wiII be tons of Iight avaiIabIe. My friend wiII aIso have his heIicopter pick us up at the peak for some steady shots where a tripod won't be needed. Which ND fiIters can be used to benefit?

AIso can you give some exampIes that point out what a cheap ND fiIter than is pointIess is versus a reaIIy good one worth the money?

l have about $200 to spend on a tripod and about $150 to spend on an ND fiIter (or fiIters if you can suggest more than one under budget). They wiII be both for crops and FF if that matters, we wiII be switching around to make the best of certain Ienses!

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Google
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Width	309
Image Height	197

>>2982138
> tripods
Dic&Mic E302/E302C or P303C. Could contemplate replacing the head for a lighter/better one though it should do its job.

Or any travel Sirui or Benro. (I'd focus on those with spiked feet, maybe twist locks - latch locks tend to be more temperature and even dirt sensitive).

> ND lenses
Uh, bring them if you want to do long exposures during the day?

A polarizer can also be useful, but at altitude it can be too extreme on the sky.

Neither is very necessary for most situations, but of course you can use them to get some effects.

>>2982163
The E 302 C Iooks sturdier / heavier, do you think it wiII hoId a heavier zoom or Iandscape Iens weII? l don't mind the tripod being heavy at aII if that is a factor being considered. The other two you mentioned after have a bunch of different types so l wiII continue Iooking at those too.

>Iong exposures during the day

This is what they wiII be for by some of the waterfaIIs we pass on the way. Some wiII have a ton of Iight, some wiII have very IittIe Iight. Third factor wiII be the heIicopter ride for Iong exposure above the cIouds above the peaks when the ride is stabIe and in pIace.

Which ND (thinking of getting two) do you think wiII be good to invest in? EspeciaIIy for Iate evening waterfaIIs?

>>2982191
> The E 302 C Iooks sturdier / heavier, do you think it wiII hoId a heavier zoom or Iandscape Iens weII
i don't usually load it with more than a bunch of kg, but the 12kg load rating is accurate for all I can tell. I've burdened it more for testing and it didn't budge.

> The other two you mentioned after have a bunch of different types so l wiII continue Iooking at those too.
Yea, multiple lines of tripods with multiple models each. Lots of choices.

> Which ND (thinking of getting two) do you think wiII be good to invest in? EspeciaIIy for Iate evening waterfaIIs?
B+W, Tiffen, Hoya.

I wouldn't disregard Chinese ND filters for the situation you described though.

You probably won't usually have direct sun (or sun from the side, which, if at all possible, you want to block with a hood anyhow), so most of the difference might be a bit of extra discoloration and the additional chance that they might scratch or otherwise get damaged easier.
But you probably are going to fix colors in post anyhow, and not damaging filters visibly isn't such a huge challenge either.

>>2981805
>Tokina

l can't even remember the Iast time l heard that name. l think l was Iooking up decent 9 bIade video Ienses when l was considering at the time before uItimateIy dropping the idea and putting funds towards a coupIe news Ienses and a 4/3 instead.

Do they have anything recentIy in photo that is taking on competitors at a massiveIy Iow price point Iike Rokinon and Sigma ART (when on saIe) have been doing?

>>2982191
>Which ND (thinking of getting two) do you think wiII be good to invest in? EspeciaIIy for Iate evening waterfaIIs?
1) Glass filters. Fuck resin.
2) Find em cheap on Craigslist. They're filters; as long as you can determine if they're genuine Hoya/Kenko, they're going to be cheap and do the job. Better than paying $100 for a new polarizer/ND, I say.

>>2982111
>spending $800 on a camera that gets btfo by a $400 model

>>2981569
How do you possibly make a battery last 3-4 events? Do you have a 10 photo per event limit or something?

2 batteries via grip usually carries through most events, but with no video and manual focus. No way it could last more than the night of the event personally.

>>2982421
Usually do 100-300 shots a time.
English is my second language, I didn't mean events literally. I meant every time I go out for a shoot.

>>2982450
Oh that makes sense then. A grip would still help you in a few ways.

The extra battery in the grip is great for taking videos or if you constantly re-focus when using AF (especially on a zoom and when you switch between metering modes).

It also adds balance when you're using a heavy lens, especially a larger zoom lens. It will make the overall unit heavier, but for those with larger hands it will actually help steady the unit which is great for low-light.

If it has portrait buttons (most do) then you get the benefit of holding the unit in portrait and having access to the buttons comfortably at that 90 degree angle change. The ergonomics are considerably better over long periods of time (can't go without it at this point).

Getting an official grip is always the better way to go from personal experience. You get that matching rugged grip (rubber texture from the original maker of the camera) so it doesn't slip around like the knock offs. You also get the proper draw from batteries which is sometimes off if you read the available descriptions, risking damage to the camera if it doesn't match. It's not something you'll have to buy often (had this one for 7 years now, no issues, OEM) so you should look at it as an investment.

What's a better kit to start with? A Nikon D3300 AF-P DX NIKKOR 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR for 420 euros, or a Sony A6000 + E PZ 16-50 mm F3.5-5.6 OSS for 680.

I'm mostly going to be using it to shoot indoor and outdoor pictures of my animals and scenery. Not really thinking about spending money on aftermarket lenses yet, but the Sony seems like it's a lot less bulky and would be easier to transfer pictures with.

>>2982068
The A6000 costs about 500EUR, the X-T10 about 600 at the moment. What THE FUCK are you talking about? And th X-T10 ist better compared to a A6000, at least if your main focus is photography (and not filming).

>>2982495
Where are you referencing your pricing from on new products? Are they major distributors? And where are you referencing your specs from?

>>2982488
The 6000 wouId be the better choice if you're not Iooking into any other Ienses, and it wouId be good to wait untiI the new Ienses come out next year too.

You won't have to worry about Iens seIection as you get used to the new camera, and when the time comes you might get Iucky with some new revisions., or Iower prices on current ones.

>>2982495
> And th X-T10 ist better compared to a A6000, at least if your main focus is photography
I clearly prefer the A6000 and I practically only do photography.

Much higher resolution photos, better burst rate, bigger buffer, better buffer, more lenses when you spend as much as on Fuji, more TTL strobes, better automatics, more battery life. And also lighter in weight or cheaper in many configurations, but I guess that can vary.

Found no reason why I'd have bought the X-T10.

>>2982859
Actual usable ergonomics with a well thought out user interface comes to mind

>>2982859
>Much higher resolution photos,

Except it's run through an AA bayer filter, and the XT10 isn't. I bet you'll find the Fuji files are sharper at 16 mp than the Sony at 24.

>better burst rate

granted, but i doubt you'll find much difference between 8fps (which is fucking amazing and was top of the line two generations ago) and 11.

>bigger buffer, better buffer

lmao, you can't say the same thing twice.

>more lenses when you spend as much as on Fuji

lol wut. have you actually looked at Sony's lineup for their crop line? Your options are either: 1) terrible or 2) insanely expensive. Fuji is much more developed, and while they are expensive, they also perform insanely well.


>more TTL strobes,

TTL is for soccer moms.

>better automatics

wut

>more battery life

doubtful, but they're both absolutely terrible. you're talking about a dead heat for last place, and no one's a winner there.

>>2982873
The Fuji wasn't more ergonomic in quite a bunch of ways, but it had the better grip.

Not bothered at all about the menus and operation in general, all the important settings are quick on the Sony and the Fuji had almost more quirks with its knobs and levers overall.

Why would a small difference like that make me pick the device that takes worse photos?

>>2982879
> I bet you'll find the Fuji files are sharper at 16 mp than the Sony at 24.
No chance.

> granted, but i doubt you'll find much difference between 8fps (which is fucking amazing and was top of the line two generations ago) and 11.
Yes, I do.

I'd actually mildly prefer even faster bursts for group photos and AE bracketing. Not willing to do a $1k+ upgrade over just that, though.

> lol wut. have you actually looked at Sony's lineup for their crop line?
Surely some of those $600-900 primes and $1k-2k zooms will look better than the cheapest APS-C Sony E-mount glass.

But I don't have to only use Sony manufactured or APS-C glass? I'll use what's good.

> TTL is for soccer moms.
It's clearly mostly for photographers.

Also, Fuji has long been one of the brands most marketed to soccer moms...? [Tied with Canon, I guess]. I find this concern quite ironic.

> wut
Yup, the Fuji was metering just about everything worse when I tested it. Not just AF was worse, but also AWB and what ISO/shutter settings it picked. Had more of a tendency to over- and underexpose. Not good.

> doubtful
It's worse by like 1/4 if not more, you can go see various tests plus the usual CIPA metrics.

> but they're both absolutely terrible
Is there any camera using EVF that will do much better after you compensate for the individual batteries weight?

>>2982894
>The Fuji wasn't more ergonomic in quite a bunch of ways,
>Fuji had almost more quirks with its knobs and levers overall.
>Why would a small difference
>a small difference that'd influence the way you could control your artistic tool of choice in the most efficient, comfortable, customizable way possible
>like that make me pick the device that takes worse photos?

>>2982495

wut.

a6000 is 400 here compared to 800 for the X-T10.

The a6000 is better in almost every way too, better buffer, considerably better sensor(inb4 x-trans meme), and more lenses.

The Fuji's advantages are better pricing for some focal lengths and slightly better interface before customization.

Unless you intend to heavily invest in multiple APS-C only lenses, the Sony is a better choice.

>>2978930
For that price do it.

In europe the body without lens is around 600 euro

>>2982894
I don't understand why photogs have to clash so much over the superiority of their cameras.

I have an X-t10, and have handled an A6000.

The A6000 is a superior piece of technology.
The X-t10 is an organic CAMERA.

The A6000 felt a lot like a piece of plastic to me, the X-t10 felt like a real camera from my film days, and coupled with one of the F2 lenses (like my 35mm F2) it absolutely sings.

Arguing about IQ is a bit inane because they both 'feel' very different. Sony colours are generally accurate but clinical, and Fuji's are often a bit warm and saturated but more filmic and smooth.

Also, I can actually use the JPEG from my Fuji if I want, in fact some of them, with processing, have beaten my raw processing efforts.

They're very different cameras, I wouldn't say either one is better than the other.

But I do know which one I prefer.

File: 14566245_10157548343650402_550656887188390574_o.jpg (414KB, 2048x1536px) Image search: [Google]

414KB, 2048x1536px

Only real bummer about the X-t10 is the AF isn't as great as it could be.

It's good enough. I shot a wedding exclusively with the X-t10, and it performed, but it did miss some shots.

>>2978883
Whats the best Canon full frame camera to get right now? 5DIV is a fail from what I've read so I'm not too sure whether to get 5DIII or if anyone has any suggestions

>>2983002
5Ds or 5Ds R

>>2983003
Howcome?

>>2983004
Megapixels, bitch

>>2983006
>muh megapixels
megapixels alone isnt a good enough reason

>>2982917
Why do Euros aIways bring up price differences?
Can't you guys just order it to your country?

>>2983081

Customs

>>2982769

You mean waiting altogether before new kits come out?

Also what about the Panasonic Lumix GF7?

It's quite a bit cheaper than either of them, but I can't find much information about it on dxomark or dpreview.

Should I get a backpack, or a shoulder bag for my gear?

>>2983087
For most of us it is customs and local tax plus VAT, at least here.
Turns out it cost more to order the same lens from B&H than from one of the overpriced shops in the EU.
With that said SRS Microsystems in the UK is one of the best online shops with a nice used gear stock, they are my number one place to look for gear, even from the eastern bloc.

>>2983093
I have both and I usually use the messenger bag. I only use the backpack when I'm going on a bigger hike in the nearby woods.

>>2983093
I think for most people that aren't working out of a car or with a team, the photo only backpacks are wrong. You probably want one designed for 60% everyday trip needs 40% camera or so. They do exist.

Small shoulder bags for MILC with smaller lenses can be nice. Would advise against big ones, they're such a pain.

>>2983092
>You mean waiting altogether before new kits come out?

No, meaning if you can get the 6000 at a good price now, you can wait out your Iens purchasing for a whiIe and by the time you've gotten used to the new unit, revisions of current Ienses may come out, or new zooms that are sharper in a Iarger range (a probIem with some of the current Iine).

File: Screenshot_2016-12-14-15-34-33-074_com.android.chrome.png (135KB, 720x1280px) Image search: [Google]

135KB, 720x1280px

Is this site legit? This price is kinda incredible with the lens

>>2983221
That's even lower than open box price over here. If you can get in touch with them before, try to check to see if it really is new.
If it is, that's a ridiculous price.

>>2983236
Did Some Research theyre a Scam Unfortunately

Thoughts on the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM Lens for doing wildlife photography / distant subject photography.

Body is a Canon T6s

>>2983245
l have yet to see a "famiIy owned" site that isn't. You'II see it a Iot where its a reaIIy Iow price, the Iast one in stock and even when you get it, it stiII shows in stock, etc. AIways some red fIag but the biggest one is the name/description.

beginner here, thinking about buying a ricoh gr digital ii or iii. thoughts?

>>2978989
GR

>>2983344
Don't. Get the GR or GRII but don't bother with the "GR digitals". Those are small sensor generic point and shoots not to be mistaken with the new APS-C GR and GR II.

>>2983275
>for doing wildlife photography / distant subject photography

lt is weII reviewed and the best at what it does, especiaIIy in that zoom range. lt has great sharp images throughout most of the range, and the lS makes aII the difference in the USM. ProbabIy best to onIy get a unit Iike that new, though. You don't want any issues with the zoom or USM motor that you have to find out about in a month or two.

>>2983275
>/ distant subject photography
PERVERT

>>2983607
>PEREVRT
>implying
Where do you think you are?

>>2983607
I'd still need to use a wide angle to get a picture of your mother at that distance.

File: I know just pretend it's a d7000 and a d300.jpg (43KB, 650x259px)

43KB, 650x259px

I have 6 years with a D3000. It's beaten to hell, and last winter it was refusing to shoot when around 0°C (which wasn't the case usually).
I only have the lame kit lens 18-55mm and a 50mm 1.8 D which is a pain in the ass with this camera due to the lack of af-motor, an SB-600 which sadly can't be triggered wireless because the D3000 doesn't have "commander mode", and an ND and a CP filter (not child pizza).
It has a few hot pixels already (nothing a touch up can't fix) and while back then the ISO performance was great, today it feels lacking (muddy).

So, I'm already feeling a bit of frustration when taking pictures under less than ideal situations.

I'm between getting a D300 (around 250€) or a D7000 (around 300€).
I kinda think the 50€ jump is negligible but maybe someone with experience can advise me on the real life stuff with either of them and either tell me the D7000 is only a spec sheet warrior or a true performer.
Or better advice and neither of them or whatever.

best mirrorles that isn' a I luv photugraphy rawr xd without viewfinder piece of crap camera that isn't also the sony a6000 because where I live is so fucking overpriced.

>>2978940
I agree with that. I think if I had gone with the a6000 or a fuji mirrorless I'd take it with me more often than my d3300 which i never bring along with me unless its for the sole purpose of shooting.. just too big.

>>2984697
Fuji xt10

>>2984077
Get the D7000. The D300 is still a fine camera, but the higher ISO's are garbage.

>>2984077
I'd say the D7000 is still the best value for money in cameras at the moment

If I get an A6000, I'll be able to use other lenses on the body correct? Will I need to as a beginner photographer? How much are lenses for the A6000?

>>2985462
You need an adapter. Autofocus performance will be severely reduced if even available

Don't go for adapted third-party lensesas a beginner. It should only be done if you are a converting Canon guy and want to use your old glass, or you seriously know exactly why you want to adapt a particular lens

>>2985462
Yes, the camera accepts Sony E mount lenses, they are sometimes 100-200 dollars more expensive to their Canon/Nikon counterparts but have great optics and build quality.

>>2985462
>If I get an A6000, I'll be able to use other lenses on the body correct?
Yup, but the AF adapters are mostly not fully supported until the A6300 or so. Still, the camera has most capabilities that you can get for MF lenses (minus IBIS).

> Will I need to as a beginner photographer?
I don't think so?

> How much are lenses for the A6000?
~$50-3500 or so, I think? Depends on what you buy.

whats a good first camera pls help

I am kind of an amateur in photography, should I get a Canon G12 ?

>>2978994
I'd have the D610 because muh full frame and muh noise.
I do a lot of low light shooting, gotta have that noise performance.

Thinking about getting the kit d5300 from jet. It's 40bux cheaper and ships faster than Walmart and Newegg. Plus 30 day return uhhh any experience with jet guys?

>>2985651
It's just a good camera.

Preferably a high-end MILC or DSLR with high-end lenses. If you don't want to pay that much, get the closest thing you can/want to pay for.

And probably prefer a better lens over a better camera body.

>>2985663
You don't need training wheels, just get a good recent DSLR or MILC and use that.

>>2985867
Actually I think I need training wheels and I don't want to spend a lot

>>2985869
No. Same kind of bullshit price as most vendor's accessories.

It cost like 4 times more than it should. Buy 3rd party from China or whatever.

File: Screenshot_2016-12-19-04-35-31.png (502KB, 720x1280px) Image search: [Google]

502KB, 720x1280px

Is this good deal?

>>2985875

It is if you get it for $20 or under

>>2985876
I couldn't find it online. Do you know what similar lenses usually go for?

>>2985871
> Actually I think I need training wheels
Auto modes and stuff also generally are better on the higher end models.

But no, you don't need training wheels. it takes like a day to maybe a week of actual shooting to get most of a camera's settings.

There is no point in starting with a worse model and then buying another one in a day / week for fear of breaking anything. it won't break unless you're really, really careless about banging it against objects.

> and I don't want to spend a lot
Then I guess you'll pick based on that.

How little are we talking about? $1000? $500? Less?

>>2985878

Depends on the quality. I recommend just searching ebay for that lens and checking the completed listings. Gives you a good average estimate

>>2985879
Hmm like 100
Like I said I don't need high end shit
I just want to take picture of my art project and my miniatures
Also my teacher recommendate us the G12 because it was enough for the use we are making of it
But, I don' t know shit like I said, I'm just an amateur

>>2985875
No, the f2 is a horrible lens. Spend 10-20 dollars more and buy the Pentax M 50mm f1.7

>>2985881
> Like I said I don't need high end shit
I was actually only thinking about the current entry-level to low midrange cameras, senpai.

> I just want to take picture of my art project and my miniatures
Yea, if you just want some photos, I figure it'll work out somehow with that G12.

Even if it definitely looks a lot like my former Chinese smartphone ($120 new) did a few years ago.

I wonder if you couldn't simply use your smartphone...?

File: IMG_20161211_000139.jpg (1MB, 1920x2560px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1920x2560px

>>2985896
My smartphone is very bad, like it smudge the detail on a photo and there is little to no control of the images
Pic related is full of fine detail who are wasted by phone quality
Thank you for your time Anon

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	WIKO
Camera Model	LENNY2
Camera Software	MediaTek Camera Application_
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2016:12:11 00:01:40
Exposure Time	99999/1000000 sec
F-Number	f/2.0
Exposure Program	Not Defined
ISO Speed Rating	400
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Light Source	Other
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	3.50 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1920
Image Height	2560
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

File: Screenshot_2016-12-19-05-23-54.png (355KB, 720x1280px) Image search: [Google]

355KB, 720x1280px

Any reason not to get the d600? I heard some things about some oil from the shutter but besides that i found it for 810-850 USD. I feel like it's a good deal for a FX camera, right?

>>2985899
Neat. Not the photo, your story.

>>2985901
Sure mobile poster, it'll hold up to your expectations normie.

>>2985905
My story ?

>>2985905
>mobile poster
OH NO IM USING A CONVENIANT FORMAT!!!
>2/10 got me to reply

>>2985905
You are literally autistic

>>2985909
Nice story anon.
>>2985907
>CONVENIANT
wew
>>2985906
Yeah, nice story. Your post was a story right?

>>2985914
I don't even know

File: number-of-internet-arguments-ive-won.png (15KB, 528x434px)

15KB, 528x434px

>>2985914
OH NO I TYPOED A WORD I GUESS YOU WIN THIS ONE.

>>2985914
>nice story
>cool story bro
'tis the season of the underage

File: _DSC3608.jpg (1MB, 2000x1333px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2000x1333px

>>2978883
can anyone identify what kind of issue is this? and if it can be fixed? This is taken from my old minolta 50mm lens at f1.7. I've cleaned the front and the back glass. I can't figure out what to do now

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D7100
Camera Software	Ver.1.03
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	3192
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	75 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	160
Image Height	120
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Compression Scheme	Uncompressed
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format
Image Created	2016:12:19 14:43:00
Exposure Time	1/50 sec
F-Number	f/0.0
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	400
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	50.00 mm
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	Low Gain Up
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>2986212
You should take close up photos of the lens with focus on the lens elements.
But it is probably hazing or fungus

File: lens1.jpg (1MB, 2000x1333px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2000x1333px

>>2986217
most likely hazing? since I don't see any spiderweb patterns in between the glass elements. Tried my best

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D7100
Camera Software	Ver.1.03
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	3192
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	75 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	160
Image Height	120
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Compression Scheme	Uncompressed
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format
Image Created	2016:12:19 15:37:23
Exposure Time	1/200 sec
F-Number	f/0.0
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	1000
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Spot
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	50.00 mm
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	High Gain Up
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

File: lens2.jpg (1MB, 2000x1333px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2000x1333px

>>2986217
the problem is, if I take a picture with the whole room filled with light, it doesn't happen. It might get a little bit soft on the not focused area.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D7100
Camera Software	Ver.1.03
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	3192
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	75 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	160
Image Height	120
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Compression Scheme	Uncompressed
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format
Image Created	2016:12:19 15:38:44
Exposure Time	1/640 sec
F-Number	f/0.0
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	1000
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Spot
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	50.00 mm
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	High Gain Up
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

Should I get a used Sigma 150-500 or a sony a6000 and a lens adapter to canon. I primary like shooting landscapes but wildlife photography seems interesting and so does airshow photography. I live in Florida and there is lots of water so I could get an underwater case for the a6000 cheaply compared to my t5i.

I just got my first DSLR and was wondering if I should get it a screen protector, do you guys use one on your camera?

>>2986240
when I bought mine, the sales person gave me one for free and helped me put it on. I'd say get one for the lcd screen since that will be getting abuse a lot.

File: IMG_20161031_182405.jpg (3MB, 5312x2988px)

3MB, 5312x2988px

I kinda want a good camera I can Cary around for taking night shots. But also have the ability to send the photos off it or other stuff.
I was thinking of one of those camera phone things, mainly the Panasonic Cm1 or the lumia 1020.

Wat do?

Have a shitty pic from my phone that's sort of related

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Model	SM-G900V
Camera Software	10e54d6f53
Equipment Make	samsung
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	31 mm
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.2
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Created	2016:10:31 18:24:06
Image Width	5312
Image Height	2988
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Date (UTC)	2016:11:01
Time (UTC)	01:24:05
Color Space Information	sRGB
F-Number	f/2.2
Focal Length	4.80 mm
Lens Aperture	f/2.2
Light Source	Unknown
Exposure Mode	Auto
Image Height	2988
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Exposure Program	Normal Program
White Balance	Auto
Image Width	5312
Unique Image ID	NULL NULL_
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Flash	No Flash
Exposure Bias	-2 EV
Brightness	-2.8 EV
ISO Speed Rating	800
Exposure Time	1/15 sec

File: ILCEQX1_wXperiaZ2_1-1200.jpg (89KB, 994x745px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 994x745px

>>2986261

Sony QX1.

Smallest APS-C sensor camera on the market.

Every shot is sent directly to phone.

>>2986374
And it shares Sony's trademark ergonomics, oh boy!

>>2986382

Actually it is worse. Everything is controlled through the touchscreen. It only has a power button, and a shutter button.

Two presses to change aperture, or iso, or anything else.

That said, it isn't meant to be a main camera but a backup. If you already have e-mount lenses, this is a great thing to throw in your bag and have with you at all times.

>>2986387
Oh perfect, I'll just throw all my FE lenses on it because there are no E-mount lenses.

File: Bildschirmfoto2014-09-03um203453_zps4e659cf1.png (187KB, 700x369px) Image search: [Google]

187KB, 700x369px

>>2986391

Sounds like a plan.

You can use a-mount too.

File: 500px-HA_HA_HA,_OH_WOW.jpg (36KB, 500x389px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 500x389px

>>2986394

>>2986394
oh my.

>tfw no Olympus Air so I can have my 300 equiv F2 lens with me at all times
>tfw no Pentax Q with K-mount adapter with P67 mount adapter to shoot fuckhuge telephoto lenses

>>2986394
Oh god fucking damnit.
Just imagine shooting sports with that, dare I say, combo?

File: fug.jpg (446KB, 1024x768px)

446KB, 1024x768px

>>2986410
>tfw couldn't find one with the 800 and a TC

File: images (1).jpg (17KB, 469x314px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 469x314px

>>2986410
>>2986408
>>2986396

The native 70-200mm combo is kinda kawaii.

File: blog150519_1---18.jpg (43KB, 407x508px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 407x508px

>>2986417

You can use the handycam wrist thing to control it too.

Probably fantastic for creep shots.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	407
Image Height	508