/gear/ - Gear thread

File: venus_optics_laowa_15mm_f_4_macro_1165599.jpg (121KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

121KB, 1000x1000px

I was just made aware of the Venus/LAOWA 15mm macro lens.

I mainly do macro photography and this seems very useful.

What's the catch though? Soft and chromabs?

>>2979128
From what I've seen it is a nice lens with a very small working distance for macro, but the shifting mechanism makes up for it.
There's nothing like an up close nature shot from a bugs eye view, all straight.
Venus is doing a funky long thin stick-like macro lens for shy wildlife, you should check that out too, it can do some interesting angles like in those food porn flicks.

>>2979128
I don't think there is a catch. Thing is very sharp, not sure about chromabs though. Either way, chromabs take about 10 seconds to remove.

>>2979132
Can't seem to find it. Their site only shows 3 different lenses..?

I think I know what you're talking about though, always wondered what lens it was.
Know the exact model name?

>>2979134
Alright. Just seems very unique and that usually means a lot of defects.

>>2979138
It was demonstrated at photokina or at one of the recent photo expos. No official news about it apart from a few demo shots of the lens.

>>2979128
As far as I can tell, it's somewhat soft, more so outside the center, with a good bit of distortion and CA. Could be annoying to use the borders of the resulting image or shoot very fine details.

Figures all that is not really uncommon for a 15mm... but almost certainly you won't replace your 90mm FE or 100mm Canon L macro or such with it. It'll likely be just a secondary lens for use in some situations.

>>2979148
Oh right..

Must be a similar lens though, the thing I was was about 3cm diameter and 15cm or so long.

>>2979152
Yeah I'm worried about the soft corners as this enables you to do more composition work rather than dead center shots.

Their 2:1 macro lens also caught my eye now.

Asked this at the end of the last thread.
£500ish to spend.
Looking for a compact that can do low light (decent 12800ISO minimum), I'm flexible on everything else.
So far I'm looking at :

Ricoh GR II
Fuji X70
Sony DSC RX100M3

Anyone got any other ideas?

>>2979153
>Yeah I'm worried about the soft corners as this enables you to do more composition work rather than dead center shots.
I was thinking that at least for my preferences, it simply won't work. A huge part of the border regions are unsharp. At least judged by the sample images - but I guess I don't have too many hopes that it'll be better stopped down or something in the production model, if it arrives at some point.

> Their 2:1 macro lens also caught my eye now.
More interesting, yes. But I figure I don't need it.

Maybe it's because I don't magnify that much that often, but I've been fine with digitally cropping into the image or using an extension tube / achromat close-up filter lens on my other glass.

>>2979166
Wait the x70 can fuck off.

>>2979166
GR II hands down. Bigger sensor, bigger pixels, better SNR

>>2979171
forgot the fast lens

>>2979166
The RX1R II -as a FF compact- could do this relatively well, but it costs a lot more.

Use a tripod and/or lights.

>>2979166
> decent 12800ISO minimum
By the way, that's basically a fucking A7S / A7S II, FF low light specialist camera (they intentionally make the pixels bigger on these).

And even there you're definitely starting to push it with regards to quality and colour reproduction... it's just okay, not perfect.


*Forget it* on anything cheaper - and for the most part, on almost anything else that you'd buy.

This is a dupIicate thread.
For anyone who missed it, here's the new one:

>>2978883

>>2978883

>>2978883

>>2978883

>>2979166
GR has much sharper lens than x70

>>2979179
That's not a /gear/ format thread and it states anyone can make their own gear threads

File: 1.jpg (23KB, 246x299px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 246x299px

>>2979189
>17 posts
>5 posters (not lncIuding myseIf and faggot OP)
>Obvious samefagging for a desperate thread

>>2979116
>Anything about...GOES lN HERE!
>No pointless (brand) arguments and dickwaving allowed!
>You have been warned!
>l repeat

>>2979198
I see you have a fundamental problem understanding how conversations work

>>2979175
That's like a lottery win camera for me. Lights and tripods aren't an option I'm afraid. It's for when I'm working on the railway. I see great potential shots all the time but I can't take a DSLR out there.

Thanks for your help tho.

>>2979171
Yeah it's starting to look a lot like GR is for me.
Is the dust as bad as I've heard?

>>2979159
Yea, I understand that it's not be an easily justifiable purchase, and not justifiable at all if you don't have a bunch of money to spare.

But low light is a bitch. A recent APS-C camera with f/1.4 or f/1.2 -usually ultimately ~T1.4 to ~T1.8 or so- lens will still usually require long exposures with typical lighting from street lamps and the like). You'll need a tripod or light to get anything done with some consistency, or seek out stronger light sources so that it's no longer actually low light.

Iit's usually just worse if your older APS-C compact has a ~T3.0 lens with a slightly below average sensor... or even just a 1" sensor.

>>2979202
Not really if you use a clean sleeve or bag and not put it directly into your filthy pocket.

Is full-frame a meme?

>>2979255
No, but too expensive for many here.

>>2979257
Is the D610 worth it for the full-frame, or is it a poor camera that happens to have a full-frame?

>>2979262
it has Expeed 3 which is old. d500 has expeed5 and is about $more

>>2979263
So you feel that it's better to have a modern crop sensor than an outdated, clunky full-frame? I ask because I've never owned a full-frame before and I'm not sure how big of a margin the benefits are as a landscape photographer.

>>2979262
Hm, in between. Could be worth it in some instances.

>>2979268
Depends.

For instance, I'd probably prefer to shoot a Tamron 15-30 (FF) to a Samyang 12mm f/2 (Sony APS-C), but then also that to a Samyang 14mm f/2.8 (DSLR APS-C) or various worse FF or APS-C lenses.

And it might help with diffraction or low light in a bunch of shots.

So, I guess it's partly about lenses (even if you could use adapters with focal reducers and stuff), partly about sensor and pixel size & performance. Not easy to tell.

But on a lower budget, you should clearly prefer APS-C with good APS-C lenses to FF with poor FF lenses.

Many people also just don't wanna drag FF up a mountain and go APS-C or even MFT just for that reason, even if if looses them IQ. [Others I guess will drag a large format film camera through the wilderness and up on just about any peak... matter of will, eh]

>>2979281
I see. Thank you!

Are those china speed boosters/reducers/lens turbo adapters worth attention? I consider buying fd to fx but are they worth about $60?

Recently got an A6000. Still have my old Pentax, the 35mm f2.4, and a few other fully manual, but the 35mm was the widest lens I have. Any recommendations for an old 24 and 35mm under $75 each? Or should I just get an old 24mm and save up for a sigma 30mm or maybe even the Sony 35mm 1.8 with OSS?

>>2979292
Where are you finding some for so cheap? I've seen people online who are happy with their $150 speed boosters, but they're usually on m43 with a GH4 or something using it for video.

>>2979380
I could recommend a lot of fine APS-C wide angles but unfortunately none of them are available for Sony.

>>2979179
>>2979198
Do you feel in charge yet?

>>2979380
>old 35mm
You *could* use a Fujian 35mm f/1.6, new on C-mount -> E-mount adapter. It's a fairly weak lens, but it still takes above P&S tier photos, is ~$25 shipped with the adapter and it has an interesting swirly bokeh effect which some people will fucking love for some reason.

Then save up for the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 or f/2,8 or whatever you want. Quite many cheap (for modern ones) lenses around $150-300, just not vintage bin cheap.

>>2979383
China. So chances are pretty good it's on aliexpress, taobao or in a Hong Kong photography store.

>>2979407
I saw a few people use the Fujian and love it, so I might give it a try next time since it's so cheap and fast.
Is 30mm different enough from 35mm? I also thought about getting a 28mm since that's like the 24mm's cheaper brother.

>>2979414
There are two Fujian 35mm. I have the f/1.6 which looks pancake-y, with a partly conical type of exterior profile. There is also the f/1.7 which has a pretty even can shape.

I don't *love* it, but I can actually use it despite having a bunch of nice lenses. Which to me means it was certainly worth $25.

I couldn't tell you if I don't like it *as much* as other people do simply because the new f/1.6 is less quirky in terms of optics than the older f/1.7. But it still has swirly bokeh.

> Is 30mm different enough from 35mm?
No. I was just answering the request for a "35mm" on that end. It's not wider by any significant margin.

And I'd actually get a 12mm Samyang f/2 for wide shots:
https://www.flickr.com/groups/samyang_12mm_f2/

> I also thought about getting a 28mm since that's like the 24mm's cheaper brother.
Definitely worth considering, but more as yet another 30mm-ish lens than something actually "wide". It's also quite sharp, small and useful.

I myself still went with the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 for that wider aperture and higher sharpness, even if AF and MF on the 30mm f/1.4 *both* are more odd than on the 28mm/2. [It's powerful, but actually the only lens native to the E-mount I felt like I had to learn a bit how to deal with first. The 19/30/60mm f/2.8 are immediately clear, even if you just have 5 center AF points you know how that works, but the 30mm f/1.4 is just a bit odd.]

>>2979425
I didn't even know the f1.6 existed. I was considering the 25mm f1.4, but then I saw some of the results and I wouldn't be happy with the vignetting or the tilt shift like effect for my uses.
Seems like my next step is to get the 35mm f1.6 cause it looks pretty nice on the A6000 and it's a good stepping stone for a Sigma 30mm f2.8. I would get the 1.4, but that's way more than I can justify spending. Thanks for your help!

File: fujian_35mmf1_6_dragonstatue.jpg (186KB, 1000x872px) Image search: [Google]

186KB, 1000x872px

>>2979437
Sounds like a plan.

> was considering the 25mm f1.4, but then I saw some of the results and I wouldn't be happy with the vignetting or the tilt shift like effect for my uses.
I also determined that one is useless for me.

But the 35mm you can easily use from f/1.6 to ~f/2 for some swirly bokeh whoring or low light compromise measure, or stopped down to like f/5.6 to f/8 for useful enough sharpness even really quite close to the image's borders.

> I would get the 1.4, but that's way more than I can justify spending.
I've been using the f/2.8 successfully for many thousands of shots before I upgraded. You should be able to do quite well off with it even if this is going to be your everyday lens for the foreseeable future.

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

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

File: fujian_35mmf1_6_dragon_uh_ball_pixelpeep.jpg (182KB, 985x967px) Image search: [Google]

182KB, 985x967px

>>2979462 (cont'd)
And the 1:1 type crop (area is just under 1000x1000).

This was shot at f/8, I think.

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

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

>>2979465
Not bad for a $30ish lens. I'll be using it for indoor videos and definitely for bokeh whoring, so the people who will see my work won't be the types to pixel peep.

I bought a sony a6000 about a month ago. I probably already took more than 3000 photos with it. I'm considering switching to a fuji xa-3 or xt-10 if I really push my budget. I see a lot of people selling fast fuji lenses for cheap. I don't see a lot of fast sony lenses. I like fuji jpeg colors better than sony and I like fuji's film camera aesthetic. Tell me why I shouldn't switch :-(

>>2979380

You could probably get some decent stuff for $75. I got a Pentax Super Takumar 28/3.5 for $60 at a thrift store. It's a very nice lens, but these legacy focal lengths are really better suited to full frame cameras. You get good IQ on an a6000, and the focus peaking is amazing, but it's still too close a shot on APS-C.

I'd say save up a bit for a Sigma 30mm 1.4, or if you want a true wide angle lens, I also recommend the Rokinon 12mm/2.0. Manual focus, but it's an excellent lens for that camera.

>>2979602

Make the switch if you don't like it. What lenses are you using on the a6000 that you don't like the results on that?

>>2979602
> I see a lot of people selling fast fuji lenses for cheap.
Might have something to do with expensive mostly underwhelming bodies, or the rather small selection of actually *good* glass? IDK.

> I don't see a lot of fast sony lenses.
I don't see any Fuji faster than the Mitakon f/0.95 glass, either.

Probably because there is no demand. Mostly people seem to overwhelmingly prefer sharper glass at f/1.4-2.8 or just easy zoom lenses.

> I like fuji jpeg colors better than sony
And just slapping the same colour profile on RAW (if you must, automatically on import) has some important disadvantage somehow?

> and I like fuji's film camera aesthetic
Ah, well then, just switch.

>>2979602
GAS has just kicked in.
I feel sorry for you, anon.

>>2979602

All the recent fast Sony glass is FF. DoF is different on fullframe, so f 1.4 is not needed on a FF camera to achieve the same DoF effect.

>>2979608
So far, I only shot with the kit lens and a Minolta 50mm f1.4. My friend let me borrow his Fujian 35mm but I haven't shot with it yet. I feel okay with the results.

>>2979610
It's the film feel and the fuji UX that really gets me :(

>>2979615
You do realize Fujian lenses are not from Fuji? They are CCTV lenses, bad with horrid aberrations

>>2979611
How do I cure GAS :--(

>>2979612
I've looked at the G lenses. They're all really nice except they're priced way up. FF is kinda pricey but they'd probably be handy if I upgrade

>>2979616
Yeah I know. Its imperfections remind me of a toy film cam my sister gave me for my birthday, kinda nostalgic. It's pretty shit in terms of IQ, I wouldn't use it for serious stuff.

>>2979616
> bad with horrid aberrations
Just showed one a few posts up at >>2979462

Not really *that* bad in either regard.

[Sure, it's clearly not a high-end lens but you also aren't paying for one.]

>>2979615
>Minolta 50mm f1.4

I have that lens for my a6000, and it's good if you use it properly. It's not a true 50 on that body, but I'm sure you know that.

If you're judging the camera based on its kit lens, then you should really get a better lens. I know people have made it work, but of the cameras I've used, I really hated the a6000 kit lens. Try a Sony zeiss or just cheap out with a Sigma. The IQ is night and day.

>>2979624 (cont'd)
And more for the earlier model here:
https://www.flickr.com/groups/2062341@N22/pool/

File: vlcsnap-error638.png (1MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1920x1080px

>>2979616
>>2979624

It's pretty surprising for a $30 lens. Pic cropped from a 1080 video

>>2979653
Is that the old f/1.7 on MFT?

File: 71b6C+n-m-L._SL1327_.jpg (203KB, 1327x1304px) Image search: [Google]

203KB, 1327x1304px

>>2979688
It's this one on apsc. Not sure if it's the old one.

File: newf.jpg (157KB, 667x1000px) Image search: [Google]

157KB, 667x1000px

>>2979698
Yep, that's the old one (~$18 shipped).

This is the newer model (~$25 shipped).

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

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

>>2979653
>>2979698
>>2979706
I just vomited in my mouth
Why can't you buy an old russian lens like normal people do?

>>2979710
Because most russian lenses are worse than this >>2979462 >>2979465 at $25 or less.

Most of the ones that are ~equally good are huge as fuck.

>>2979715
My Helios 44M has better image wide open than that shit stopped way down.
It cost me $15.

>>2979720
Do you have any pics to share?

>>2979728
Not on my phone

>>2979720
Show a 1:1 crop about 15% from the lower right corner on APS-C then? But I'm pretty sure you'll have to stop down.

You have to upgrade your so lovely D3 after all those years, which one you would choose, D500 or D810? video settings included in the comparison.

D4s and D5 is out of budget...

>>2979741
D810 with a battery grip

>>2979741
A6500, D750 or D810

>>2979746
>A6500
HAHAHAH

>>2979746
this guy is right. >>2979750
you should go a7r2.

>>2979792
>sony
HAHAHAH

File: baby2.gif (20KB, 281x300px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 281x300px

If a Canon Rebel is the beginner's DSLR, what's the beginner's full-frame DSLR?

>>2979198
>>2979391

>This thread
>73 posts
>17 posters (not incIuding me and samefagging OP)
>Made after the reaI thread
>Nothing but samefagging and troII posts/repIies made by OP


>>2978883
>77 posts
>34 posters
>Thread made first

?

>>2979796
Sony

>>2979797
I'll ask again. Do you feel in charge yet, newfriend?

>>2979798
Sony what?

>>2979741
Sounds like you're a sports shooter. If you're not wanting every last stop of light at the crack of dawn, get a D500.

>>2979796
> If a Canon Rebel is the beginner's DSLR
There's nothing particularly good for beginners about it. It's just a line of mostly pretty bad DSLR.

> what's the beginner's full-frame DSLR?
Nothing in particular.

>>2979796
There are no "beginner" DSLR's, just different models to fit different needs and price points.
You're quite an idiot if you buy a $2000+ camera only to upgrade it within a few years time. (even though among Sony shooters this seems to be the norm now).

>>2979187
I'm not a sharp nazi, the x70 tops out at 6400ISO tho.
It's only a stop but it's going to be really dark where I am.

>>2979893
Are you going to Detroit?

File: antarctica.jpg (154KB, 1024x682px) Image search: [Google]

154KB, 1024x682px

>>2979116

Looking to purchase my first camera and I would appreciate some help.

Info about me:
>I'm a Journalist
>My work will have me taking photos of nearly anything from riots, to animals, to people's faces, to street signs
>I also make mini-documentaries
>I want to be able to shoot whatever my employer asks me to shoot proficiently

I'm having difficulty choosing among the:
>Sony a6300
>Canon d80
>Nikon equivalent (I'm not too familiar with Nikon, so I'm not sure what the equivalent camera would be with this company)

My budget is enough to afford one of the cameras I listed above. Any thoughts or recommendations are useful.

I'm sure the decision isn't cut and dry, so if you could list the pros and cons of your final decision that would be extremely helpful. I appreciate this.

>>2979910
Canon and Nikon equipment is in the most abundance amongst photojournalists. You will also need a durable body, most journalists use the 1Dx or one of the 5D series.
The Canon 80D looks like a good budget choice but keep in mind you can't get those wide shots with a crop camera. Your two essential lenses should be the 24-70/2.8 L and 70-200/2.8 L
The Nikon equivalent should be the D7200 in crop or the D750 in FF. Same lens but in the Nikon family. To save costs you can use the Tamron 24-70/2.8 VC and 70-200/2.8 VC, available to both systems.

>>2979910
I think you actually might want a FF camera with a really good 70-200 f/2.8 lens (and maybe 2-3 such zoom lenses) just like your the competition almost certainly has.

If you don't have FF or not a good zoom lens, you'll have trouble shooting in a lot of situations where the light isn't perfect and you can't use strobes, your subjects move around etc. you'll loose a lot of key shots.

Alas if that isn't an option, I guess I'd tend to the A6300 with mostly prime lenses. Yea, that's basically like shooting with your *secondary* camera first. But at least you might get very striking shots in some situations.

>>2979922
>I guess I'd tend to the A6300 with mostly prime lenses
Isn't that contradicts your statements above that? Like difficult situation, no perfect lighting etc... and the prime lenses...
Anon is going to be a photojournalist not a goddamn portrait photographer, the subjects won't wait for him to move backwards enough or getting closer will yield him a smack from the security guys.
That tip is totally bogus, sounds like you just wanted to put your brand there to get paid or something

>>2979928
You'll use the (fast, sharp) prime lenses and A6300 to do your utmost to not be quite as capable of compensating for lighting levels as much as you would be able to on FF.

You often if not usually have a very good chance to plan for the desired distance to shoot and to just crop the rest.

> Anon is going to be a photojournalist not a goddamn portrait photographer, the subjects won't wait for him to move backwards enough or getting closer will yield him a smack from the security guys.
And you will have to get too close just because,,, what?

THAT is a completely bogus comment.

I want to invest in a 10stop nd filter.

Since they are pricy, is there any brand I should be aware of?
Looking at cokin right now.
From what I understand, good quality is needed for these, but it also means companies can jew up the prices.

guys i need a backpack for my analog SLR.
i have a regular shoulder strap bag but camera + objectives are too heavy and my shoulder hurts after a few hours carrying it.
any recommendations?
extra points for /fa/ backpacks

>>2979917
>>2979922
>>2979928

Thanks guys. I was leaning towards the a6300 because of the phase autofocus and the sheer amount of autofocus points.

However, the 80D interested me because I have always heard that DSLRs have faster autofocus and I know that there is more accessories for Canon than Sony at the moment.

What about image quality, are things the same for these cameras? Or will one take a better looking photo?

>>2979974
> I have always heard that DSLRs have faster autofocus
The recent Sonys are easily comparable in terms of AF to DSLR up to the very high end, where I guess the Nikon D5 and maybe 1D X II ultimately wins.

Other MILC brands are still behind with many of their models (partly also because they didn't release as many / as recently as Sony, perhaps).

But we're rapidly getting to the point where the high-end MILC all have AF *at least* like a upper midrange DSLR.

> What about image quality, are things the same for these cameras?
The A6300 has marginally better low light, but you might usually be using a TTL flash or such anyhow if you don't have good light?

Any difference in image quality will mostly depend on lenses. Sony's E-mount has the best primes for purposes other than Paparazzo-style telezoom shooting.

For zoom lenses, it is probably Canon's win.

>>2979957
Before you invest in one, are you sure you need it? Do you already have a set of other filters?

>>2979957
Get glass, not resin for filters.
>>2979963
htfu or stop carrying so many lenses. A manual focus 35mm SLR with 2 primes and a telephoto zoom weighs fucking nothing.
>>2979910
Sounds like your budget should/would cover:
Canikon prosumer crop camera (80D, D7200)
Standard zoom (17-55 2.8 for Canon, 16-85 VR or 17-55 2.8 for Nikon)
Speedlight (Canon 430 EX, Nikon SB-700, Yongnuo YN685)

Now you're pretty much set for 90% of whatever coverage you might ever need to do. From there you'd look at wide angles (EFS 10-18, Tokina 11-16), primes (probably portrait length ones), telephoto zooms (70-200s, 80-400s), more lights, or throwing everything away and downsizing to something like a X100 or an iPhone because it turns out you weren't cut out to carry all that shit.

80D's probably the best choice for ease of video and stills and lenses and pro support services.

Also
>not having the employer pay or provide vital equipments

File: 1423642630696.jpg (10KB, 247x247px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 247x247px

>>2979995
>The recent Sonys are easily comparable in terms of AF to DSLR up to the very high end, where I guess the Nikon D5 and maybe 1D X II ultimately wins.

I almost feel bad for you guys.

Haven't used a real camera (SLR) since film. Have always wanted a digital camera and might actually have a chance to pick one up this Christmas. Probably not going to happen like every other thing this year, but I want to pretend that maybe this will be different.

X-10T vs X-1T

I can't see a reason to go with the X-1T, and it's more expensive to boot. Can anybody clarify?

Obviously would love the X-2T but I can't drop that kind of cash, especially on something I might not even really end up using.

Everyone keeps recommending one of the Rebel series, but a full size DSLR is more likely to not get used then something I will actually carry around with me.

Sony stopped making the 16mp sensor that the X70 and other fujis use.

>>2980066
>I can't see a reason to go with the X-1T, and it's more expensive to boot. Can anybody clarify?
You like weather sealing, or a fiddly ISO dial that's not all that useful in the digital age. fite me irl, dissenters.

Might as well get a XT10 on sale.

>>2980069
Ricoh GR III with 24mp APS-C / 24mp FF when?

should I get the A7RII with the metabones canon adapter or just get the 5diii

i already have canon glass

>>2980110

Do you have any interest in native E-mount lenses at all?

If not, I'd say just stick with a Canon body. The Metabones works great 99% of the time, bit a native body still works better.

>>2980110
Well, Sony glass is expensive, but some of the best. Canon glass is also great and you have it. Although I prefer the A7rii, if you have a bunch of canon glass and aren't willing to purchase new sony glass, is it worth it for you?

>>2980069
I doubt that. They only now recently stopped taking new CCD sensor orders, they are still producing those old sensors because other businesses demand them.

>>2980066
>>2980071
IMO the real reason to go with the XT-1 is the viewfinder. The XT-10 is like a tiny peephole, while the XT-1's is huge and clear. It seems like a small thing but it makes a huge difference in actual use, especially if you wear glasses or like to shoot with sunglasses on.

That said, the XT10 is a fine camera, and in your position I'd probably save the few hundred bucks on it and then upgrade to the X-T3 when it comes out in a few years.

If you get the kit version of either, by the way, make sure you get the one with the 18-55 and not the 16-50. The 18-55 is a really good lens, the kind of thing you'd actually want to buy on its own, while the 16-50 is typical mediocre throwaway kit lens crap.

File: 1544_D5500_left.png (164KB, 700x595px) Image search: [Google]

164KB, 700x595px

Does anyone here have the D5500 and can give me some pros/cons. Alternatively does anyone know if getting this for ~550 USD is worth it or should I go with something else?

Memes aside, whats wrong with the a6500?

>>2980212

Nothing.

It is a little pricey, but not outrageous.

>>2980215
How is the sensor compared to the 7d ii at say 1600 iso?

I do a lot of street photography, especially at night. Thinking of getting the Nikon 35mm 1.4 and 50mm 1.4. Should I do it? I looked at the Sigma 35 1.4 but probably won't get it because it doesn't have weather proofing like the Nikon.

>>2980219
I would say the SNR is similar at ISO 6400 on the Nikon. So two stops leverage in pushing shadows and shooting low light.

>>2980248
Oops, I thought you asked for the Nikon one post earlier. But I would say the same for the Sony, though the A6500 has no real advantage over the A6300 or A6000 regarding shooting stills. Other than the non-working weather sealing that was revoked by Sony itself to pseudo-not-really-sealing sealing.

Do you think prices of 7d mark ii will come down in the new year?

>>2980265
Not unless Canon goes all Sony and comes out with a new model in January.
They won't.

>>2980269
Fug

>>2980252
>A6500 has no real advantage over the A6300 or A6000 regarding shooting stills

Image stabilization isn't an advantage?

>>2980200
>>2980200
>>2980200
Pls respond

>>2980252
A6500 has a gigantic buffer for action stills.

>>2980270
7DII is shit anyways, barely any improvement over the 7D
If you want to stay with Canon you can have a look at the 80D with all the necessary sensor improvements.
Unless you want the all out AF performance and not so much the sensor performance, but then you wouldn't be waiting for a rebate.

>>2980281
80d loses its edge at the higher isos which is where i would be shooting and yes i want the af system

Wanna get a cheap film camera to fuck around with. I already have a Nikon DX DSLR so a nikon body would make life easier.

I've found a nikon f801 for 10 bucks, a nikon f55 for 15 bucks, or an f301 for 30.

Which should I cop?

>>2980054
>>2980030
Ah yes, good point, my current filters(nd4/8 etc) are in the plastic realm.

And yes, I cant get enough stops from my current filters even if I stack them.

It's kinda gimmicky but I believe I'll get my moneys worth over time.

>>2980291
Oh or a f65 for 70

>>2980288
Get the 1Dx MkII then. Or switch systems and get the Nikon D500.

>>2980296
And spend 3k more? Sure paypal me the difference

File: camera.jpg (62KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 1920x1080px

R8 my newest purchase

>why is this mamiya sekor es 28mm f2.8 is so cheap?
>no adapter exist
hurr durr.

>>2980252
> the A6500 has no real advantage over the A6300 or A6000 regarding shooting stills
It does have a bunch of things:
IBIS is a big advantage for handheld shots. Touch screen focus maybe a small one.

The better compatibility with smart lens adapters, pass-through charging (powers camera and charges battery WHILE shooting - enabling an external power pack or wired power), slightly more solid lens mount, and more comfortable grip it and the A6300 have are advantages over the A6000, too.

> the non-working weather sealing that was revoked by Sony itself to pseudo-not-really-sealing sealing
That never happened. It kinda happened on the A7, but not here.

>>2980299
Your needs exceed your budget then. Time to see where you can come to a favourable compromise.

>>2980312
>IBIS is a big advantage for handheld shots
Big whoop, Pentax and Olympus has been doing it for years. and Canon and Nikon has been doing well with in-lens IS.
It's not something new.

>>2980314
> Pentax and Olympus has been doing it for years
Yea, and people have been using it there.

But many of the bodies that existed "for years" didn't have MILC-sized short flange focal length. Adapting a lot of the world's available lenses would have required adapters with custom optics. Adapters that mostly don't exist.

They also didn't have the market share or right specs -or at least not published- to get working smart adapters for glass that supports AF and IS.

And most bodies weren't really using particularly competitively high quality sensors.

> Canon and Nikon has been doing well with in-lens IS.
Said lack of IBIS stabilization plus focusing aids in the viewfinder and so on made manual focusing lenses a most often disliked option on these.
A lot of -even modern- glass that is now popular on MILC that do have IBIS and focusing aids on both the EVF and back LCD panel still isn't popular on CaNikon because it just isn't so nice to use there.

Not that *these* DSLR have short flange focal length or the option to use smart adapters on other brand's glass, either.

>>2980314
>Big whoop, Pentax and Olympus has been doing it for years. and Canon and Nikon has been doing well with in-lens IS.
>It's not something new.

If you had actually followed the thread instead of getting butthurt when someone mentions Sony in a positive light, you would have noticed they were comparing the a6500 and the 7dii.

Is an a6500 + mc11 + canon 400mm the ultimate lightweight walkaround birding rig?

>>2980321
No because AF sucks on >200mm adapted lenses, and the lens is so big that you're not really saving enough weight to matter, especially with the adapter in play. Might as well just use a 7DII.

>>2980318
IBIS is irrelevant for this, but peaking or other focusing aids (like Fuji's split image) are definitely useful with MF lenses.

That's not to say that MF isn't practical on DSLRs, though. Not only do you have the dot and arrows, at least on Nikon, but it's really not hard to judge focus by eye through a good FF viewfinder. I did serious shoots with a Zeiss 2/100 and Samyang 85/1.4 on my D3S back when I was a Nikon shooter, and had a "hit rate" at least on par with fast AF primes. It's especially easy with a magnified eyepiece. (I think it's the DK-17 for Nikon.)

>>2980320
Why would you compare the 7DII with a modern camera, DSLR or MILC?

>>2980324
> it's really not hard to judge focus by eye through a good FF viewfinder
We got an entire era of people using rangefinders etc. who thought otherwise.

It's the same again today with most people think of focus peaking & maybe magnification as being much easier, more reliable to work with than no assistance or some (usually even considered unreliable at wider apertures - IDK if they fixed that in the last 2-3 years) green notification dot/arrows thing.
Which still usually doesn't let you get off center focus on, say, eyes or a hair pin or such exactly.

The little plate on my mode dial fucking fell off while I was shooting a show. Are those replaceable? It's a 7d

>>2980332
I dunno about other DSLRs but my Nikons showed focus confirmation on whichever AF point was chosen, so if I was using a manual lens and wanted to focus on an eye I'd just move the rectangle to the eye and focus until I got the green dot at the bottom.

Peaking and other EVF assists are definitely much better, though. When I was on DSLR a manual lens was a special purpose thing I only brought out when I absolutely needed it, now that I'm on mirrorless I use my manual lens all the time because it's so damn easy, barely slower or harder than AF.

>>2980340
Yea, you had to adjust the "AF" point, but then still do MF.

And the confirmation "green dot" you got was really not actually reliable. IDK if it's fixed now, but you can confirm that it's not just me claiming this.
Just look for "green dot manual focus" and most of the stuff you get is people observing -even testing- that relying on the green dot is very unreliable as compared to AF.

> When I was on DSLR a manual lens was a special purpose thing I only brought out when I absolutely needed it, now that I'm on mirrorless I use my manual lens all the time because it's so damn easy, barely slower or harder than AF.
Exactly.

It's not more work than turning the focusing ring, and you have almost zero chance of getting a wrong reading or unexpectedly missing focus even if you don't change anything at all about your work flow and don't adjust any settings after switching the lens or even for every shot you want to take.

>>2980351
I just pressed down the shutter button, adjusted the focus and it fired when focus confirmation beeped. But I have a Pentax, not Nikon.

Given the Sigma F2.8 30mm and the A6000, I'd have no IS. How fucked would I be if I tried to shoot in low light?

File: camera-tripod-1354292086[1].jpg (73KB, 973x1500px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 973x1500px

>>2980363

>>2980363
this
>>2980365

>>2980365
>>2980366
So pretty fucked, then. Got it.

>>2980368
Not really. Take your tripod with you and give zero fucks. It is actually easier to make room for you and clear line of sight.

>>2980368
Just stop putting your trust into all the sissy new gismos and start using proven, effective and universal solutions instead.

File: GODOX_TT685S_1a640.jpg (148KB, 640x640px) Image search: [Google]

148KB, 640x640px

>>2980368
You'd still be pretty fucked with the f/1.4. Here's my suggestion. (Or a YN660 for static situations).

>>2980365
> Pan-tilt head
> Manfrotto imitation QR plate rather than industry standard arca swiss
Why are they still making that kind of shit?

My buddy wants to lightly get into photography with only a budget of 250-400 and i know he is tight for money. I don't know much about older slr's and what to buy used. I have an old tripod ill give to him as well.

>Tldr best slr and lens for around 300-350

>>2980389
A K-50 kit should be just around $400. The D3300 too.

>>2980370
You can take your piece of string and fuck off m8. Everyone knows a piece of string isn't real gear, gimme ibis and ois in every lens, I don't want to be carrying around a bag of yarn to stabilise every shot.
>>2980337
Yes, but you'll never need to come out of Manual so just use a sharpie.
>>2980303
Which mount exactly?

>>2980391
>I don't want to be carrying around a bag of yarn to stabilise every shot.
Better get a job to be able to afford something better than a crop and a prime that doesn't suck then.

File: Screen Shot 2016-12-09 at 19.49.31.png (340KB, 404x466px) Image search: [Google]

340KB, 404x466px

I'm looking for a minimal budget TLR camera as a christmas gift. This Lubitel 2 goes for 30 euros at a local camera store is it worth it?

is there a noticeable difference in image quality going from crop sensor to full frame? Say, D7200 or D610?

>>2980454
Most of your image quality (with relation to your sensor's nominal resolution) comes from using neat lenses.

Whether or not you get 80%+ of your nominal sensor resolution as useful information or as various kinds of distortions depends on if you're using nice glass or not.

Granted, you can usually get a ~40-50MP FF camera whereas you can only ~24MP APS-C, so if you have the greatest glass available on both, you should see some obvious difference to FF.

FF also usually can perform better in low light and/or when you hit diffraction limits on closing down your aperture.

>>2980454
From 7200 to 610? Not really. A full-frame sensor does not make your images magical somehow. The one in D610 is a good one but so is the one in the 7200. The image quality should be more or less comparable at this point (newer crops are getting closer to older ff in terms of iso performance), although in a general case a fullframe will have better high iso performance and dynamic range and a few other smaller differences due to how the universe works.

As for the crop factor, to better understand it imagine that you take a picture with a crop, then put the same lens on a full-frame and take the same picture with the same settings (aperture, ss, iso) and then crop the area in its center. Exact sensor pecularities and resolution (megapixels) aside, the images and the bokeh will be exactly the same. Nothing to it.

>>2980456
>>2980457

I feel that I would appreciate the wider field of view. I already have some Nikon full frame glass:
20mm 2.8D, AF
50mm 1.8 AF-D
60mm 2.8 Macro AF

Is it worth it? The lenses are old, but I think they're good quality.

>>2980454
No. Not to mention the D610 is more of a FF entry level body while the D7200 has all the intermediate/pro features. Better AF, better ergonomics, better UI, better workflow etc...

>>2980440
i wouldnt bother desu.

tlr are a bit of a meme and 30 quids for a lump of plastic with slow shutters and very little options isnt the best.

and unless you have a cold shoe lightmeter get used to holding an iphone

>>2980458
You will get a wider field of view with the already FF glass, sure. If the lens wasn't quite as sharp at the borders than in the center (often the case) you'll also notice that more. IDK these lenses though.

And I don't think I'd personally be too enthused about that camera. I think the D750 is the lowest Nikon that I liked recently...

>>2980458
Well, the 20mm should be quite wide for a lot of applications, but alright. Don't know much about that lens though.
50mm is cheap but works well, especially for its price. If you put it onto a full-frame, you'll get a lens you can do street photography and stuff with, as opposed to a budget portrait lens it would be on a crop.
The 60mm is an awesome lens, although the macro part will not be as effective on a full-frame as you often end up cropping the crap out of macro shots anyway. Does not diminish the greatness of the lens itself though.

>>2980265
7D2 prices are already rock bottom, and canon shows no indication of introducing new af tech like the D5/500. You can get one grey market for 1200, or hope a deal similar to black friday shows up where a bundled printer and a pile of mail in rebates pushed us models down to about 1200. Great deal for a mini 1DX and "D400" competitor. Forget the memesters, if you need the af performance on canon, its the way to go. You just have to know how to work with sensor limitations.

The D500 blows it out of the water to be fair (sensor, af, tracking, non video features) but it doesn't sound like you're cross shopping.
>>2980302
5/5. D4 would have been 4/5.
>>2980458
The 20 in particular is more useful on ff than crop. It's only a small jump in price from new d7200 to used d610. If autofocus doesn't matter to you, you should do it.
>>2980352
>tfw no more trap focus on nikons
>>2980351
Focus points are accurate at effectively f5.6. This is a limitation of pdaf modules and their light splitters. Maybe canons dual cross is better since they advertise accurate af with f1.4 lenses or something. Nikon doesn't make any promises about fast lens accuracy in their literature.

>>2980460
>No. Not to mention the D610 is more of a FF entry level body while the D7200 has all the intermediate/pro features. Better AF, better ergonomics, better UI, better workflow etc...
But the D610 has the same ergo, ui and workflow of a D7000, which itself isn't far removed from the D7200. The AF module is inferior, yes, but with a lens set like that he doesn't likely use the full AF capabilities. Nothing the center cross points couldn't handle, certainly.

>>2980464
>>2980463
>>2980473
>>2980471
It sounds like I'll probably pull the trigger on the D610 for the wider field of view and better utility of my full-frame glass. Anything I should look out for or consider before I make my purchase? I'm looking at a refurbished model.

>>2980473
It's not about the number of AF points, it is the speed of the whole AF module. The D7200 has very fast AF with little or no hunting in challenging light while the D610 has slow AF in good light and prone to hunting in challenging light.
It makes a whole lot of difference and places the D610 lower than the D7200 even if it is FF vs crop. The D610 preformance is more like a D5x00 cameras performance regarding the end results.
With that said you can do stunning photos with both but you will still have more annoying limitations on the D610.

>>2979268
i knew processing was very important after seeing the Canon PowerShot G7 X Mark II and its DIGIC 7 engine. what are you taking pictures of would really be the reason for APSC or FF

>>2980479
Refurb should be fine. Warrantied D600s are identical to a D610, after they replaced the shutter assembly.

>>2980481
Well, I never had an issue using the D7000, but I never used it in truly poor light.

Also note I never brought up the number of AF points.

>>2980492
Should I just purchase a D600 then? I was concerned about the oil on the sensors.

Is it safe to purchase a used D600, fulfilled by Amazon, over a refurbished D610? ($850 - 900 vs 1100). It's significantly cheaper. Is the oil a problem?

>>2980493
>>2980495
I'm saying a D610 is equivalent to a warrantied D600, that is, oil-free. Nothing ever changed between the two. As such, it can be possible to find D600s for cheap occasionally, but you'd have to verify the warranty work.

also
>buying used things on amazon
KEH
E
H

You'll have to ask their customer service if the shutters are replaced. I don't know if Nikon makes any identifying marks on the cameras to indicate a completed service.

>>2980495
>Is the oil a problem?
Yes, it is a huge fucking problem. no matter how much you clean it you can't totally clean it at home and it will only get new spots right away.

>>2980501
>>2980502
I read that Nikon does free cleaning/replacement of the shutter assembly for all D600s even if the warranty has expired. If I can find a D600 cheaper than a D610, would it be smart to go for the D600?

>>2980506
I wouldn't do it.

>>2980506
Eh, don't eat out for a month or two. Or go into poverty, and buy a D750. Those are $1800 these days?

>>2980391
But it just looks bad. I only shoot in M but still

Looking for a 21-25mm prime for an apsc e-mount (35mm equiv) sub 600$/€

Any recommendations will be apreciated. So far value/price samyang/rokinon 21mm seems the winner.

>>2980555
I wonder how well it performs.

It doesn't seem to be as popular as their 12mm F2.

>>2980560
Probably because the people looking for 35mm equivalents usually also are looking for AF. I think that would make most people choose the 19mm Sigma f/2.8 or the 21/24/25mm Zeiss glass or such

Also the 12mm is f/2 and more remarkable across systms overall since it's a very good combination of sharp, wide, bright and cheap for APS-C.

That said, the Samyang 21mm is fine. Nothing special, but fine.

>>2980564
Woop, the 21mm didn't have AF. Ah well, you get the idea. The AF lenses, anyhow.

>>2980564
I wonder if it can be used for full frame, since that's what I have.

>>2980566
I don't think it covers the image circle even as well as the Sigma 19mm with the rear baffle removed, no.
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3586118

But I'm pretty sure the Samyang 20mm f/1.8 also existed for the E-mount.

>>2980568
>But I'm pretty sure the Samyang 20mm f/1.8 also existed for the E-mount.
That's just an SLR lens with adapter glued to it though. I think they are usually not worth it, because they are larger than they have to be compared to if it was properly designed for mirrorless like that 12mm F2 and that 21mm F1.4.

The only time I would consider an SLR lens is when there is a Tilt-Shift adapter made for it, like the Laowa 12mm.

>>2980097
judging from the Ricoh GRD/ GR timeline cameras are announced every two years. If the company had any announcements it would have been news by now.

>>2980501
>KEH
>E
>H
on Black Friday weekend they emailed a coupon, something insane like 50% off for the first five people at checkout, 25% for the next 25, 20% for the next 100 and 15% for the next 500

>>2980570
I really don't feel that the 21mm is particularly compact either, especially given that it's only a APS-C lens.

Neither is the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 and it only is for MFT and APS-C E-mount, for that matter.

And various of the most beloved FF E-mount exclusives aren't small either.

But certainly, you could wait for the Tokina Firin 20mm or switch to the Batis or Loxia or 16-35mm or such if that's better.

>>2980580
There's usually an explanation for most of this. Any mount can have huge lenses if the makers wills it.
>Neither is the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 and it only is for MFT and APS-C E-mount, for that matter.
It's small compared to its SLR equivalent of the same maker.

The Rokinon 21mm isn't compact because it's still F1.4, all things considered. The MTF version probably use the same optics to streamline the production.

Some of the giant FF E-mounts were designed to be larger because the lens maker thought it could increase the image quality a bit.

File: 1.png (29KB, 819x293px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 819x293px

I think I would be mildly annoyed if I was a MFT user and the lens makers didn't bother to cut down the optics to optimise the size and weight or my sensor size.

Laowa actually addressed this when they announced their two new mirrorless lens:
The 15mm F2 for FF, and the 7,5mm F2 for MFT.

The specs are supposedly the same, they just went the extra mile for the MFT users and cut off the unnecessary potions of the optics. And the result is the MFT version is super tiny as hell, compared to the FF version.

>>2980583
>The Rokinon 21mm isn't compact because it's still F1.4
And the Rokinon 20mm isn't compact despite it covering a FF and still being f/1.8, making it a fairly comparably up-scaled version of the 21mm?

> Some of the giant FF E-mounts were designed to be larger because the lens maker thought it could increase the image quality a bit.
It's usually increased *a lot* as compared to smaller lenses as far as I'm concerned.

Either way, you usually get big lenses once you want some sharpness.

The small and very sharp FF ones are few, and I wouldn't expect inexpensive Samyang to be the company to offer many of them soon.

Does anyone here have the D5500 and can give me some pros/cons. Alternatively does anyone know if getting this for ~550 USD is worth it or should I go with something else?

>>2980595
>And the Rokinon 20mm isn't compact despite it covering a FF and still being f/1.8?
Not compared to what it could have been.

It's very normal to see ~40% weight reduction when you design a wide angle for mirrorless compared to traditional SLR lens.
The Sigma 30mm F1.4 shows this.

The two Zeiss 21mm lenses showed a 54% weight reduction even.

Same maker, same aperture, the mirrorless design shows better optical quality in both instance, and both instance has significant weight reductiono.

>>2980599
> cons
No AF motor for old lenses like the D7200.

Small 5 frame RAW buffer, even on the fastest memory cards and shooting at its maximum rate of 5FPS. After those 5 frames you get a slowdown to like 1.75fps... assuming you have a really fast memory card. Could also be 0.67fps with a boring cheap one.

Software downgrades like to AE bracketing range and more.

> should I go with something else?
A6000 or D7200, yes.

>>2980599
this >>2980608
With the addition of the Pentax bodies K-S2 or K-70 giving you more camera for that money.

>>2980602
I can't see this "normal" ~40% weight / size reduction in the 21mm Samyang or the Sigma Contemporary 30mm.

As APS-C lenses, they are basically just as heavy as I'd expect when I look at their FF pendants sitting on DSLR.

So far, it's mostly just Zeiss and Sony Zeiss that made much more lightweight glass at the upper end of the performance scale for glass. I guess you could just buy that...?

>>2980614
Agreed... Pentax should be considered as well.

>>2980608
So basically it's shit? Honestly the articulating touch screen seemed like a huge advantage for those odd angles. Also aren't Sony lenses more pricey and isn't the battery life shit?

>>2980614
I was looking for something with higher resolution. But I'll look into them

>>2980618
Ignore the second reply. The k-70 seems pretty solid. How are the lenses for pentacks?
The k-70 or the 7200 seem like good choices

>>2980618
If you're looking to stay Nikon, get a D7000. If you're looking to go Canon, don't or pony up for a 80D. If you're interested in Pentax's features, get a K50 now that the K70 is out.

>Also aren't Sony lenses more pricey and isn't the battery life shit?
Yes and yes. The first might matter (inb4 adapted lenses), the second might not if you're a casual snapshitter and not somebody trying to sling a camera for 8 hours straight. Beware of ergonomic limitations, card write speeds, and Sony's penchant for doing something stupid every now and then.

>>2980621
>If you're looking to stay Nikon, get a D7000. If you're looking to go Canon, don't or pony up for a 80D. If you're interested in Pentax's features, get a K50 now that the K70 is out.
If you're planning to buy at $550 body only, I should add. D7200 could be cross shopped against a K3II.

If you can score it cheap, a D7100 is a bit more expensive than a D7000.

>>2980618
> Also aren't Sony lenses more pricey
Quite a few great primes aren't.

> and isn't the battery life shit?
It's ~300-400 shots on a battery like 50% the capacity of a Nikon battery. Your battery life per battery weight will be roughly 1/3 lower during actual shooting.

It does however power an EVF which can give you better vision at night, better focusing aids for manual focusing, yadda yadda. And your camera is another bunch of grams lighter in your hand.

You need to worry about it only if you are *extremely* concerned about battery efficiency for some reason or need uninterrupted shooting of like 1000 frames (how likely is *that* when you're NOT concerned about a tiny buffer). Otherwise you generally just buy an extra battery or two in China (maybe with an external charger) and pack that and you'll easily be fine as "average" user.

>>2980620
Lenses are pretty solid now that Ricoh fired upthe engines.
The collapsible kit lens is decent and the DA 16-85 has one of the best resolution of it's price point. Also the new 55-300 PLM is a pretty solid budget tele lens.
With primes there are the two babby primes, DA 50/1.8 and 35/2.4 very cheap but well built and very sharp. The Limited primes are unbeatable, pancake design, very sharp in focus and the focus falloff is creamy, dreamy with nice even bokeh. Again with a very good price point.
Worthy to check these out too:
http://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/
http://www.pentaxforums.com/userreviews/

>>2980621
> somebody trying to sling a camera for 8 hours straight
... is perhaps someone that will probably appreciate a weight difference in their hands occasionally?

You'd probably pack 10 batteries (2-3 extra to be safe). At ~42g each, that's 420g.

If on a Nikon, you might pack 4 * 88g (1-2 extra), so about 352g.

Don't think that difference will kill you, even if switching them out is surely more "tedious" on a Sony.

>>2980621
>>2980623
Why the 7000 over the 7200? I'd rather spend a few more bucks for some that'll last me longer and stay more relevant.

>>2980624
I'll be honest that EVF is so tempting but the reviews I've seen make the A 6000 look super basic.

>>2980626
You're getting me all hot and bothered with those descriptions. I feel like of I'm getting a camera i might as well save the extra couple hundred and get the latest model.
The 7200 or the k70

>>2980629
> I'll be honest that EVF is so tempting
I do really like it a lot myself.

> but the reviews I've seen make the A6000 look super basic
It's more basic than an A6300 and A6500 or A7R II or such. But in that price range the feature set is really hard to match, even now.

Comparable buffer size and burst rate is found quite a bit in a higher price bracket on Nikon's end, and so is the wider AF coverage and stuff (to a practical extent - DSLR can't really match MILC's AF *coverage* even if some feature noticeably better individual AF points than the A6000).

No, it's not basic at that price. It's feature-rich.

>>2980629
K-70 and K-S2 has flippy out screen (and the K-1 flippy screen porn), last I heard the Nikons only have the flippy out screen in the D5x00 series.

>>2980595

>compact and sharp ff mirrorless

The Zeiss 35mm f2.8 is all I can think of. It is quite pricey at $550 too.

>>2980624

>measuring mirrorless battery life in shots

Every test i have seen shows that shots do not matter just body on time.

You get roughly 5.5 hours of battery on a Sony mirrorless.

>>2980634
>Every test i have seen shows that shots do not matter just body on time.
I wonder which tests you have seen.

> You get roughly 5.5 hours of battery on a Sony mirrorless.
Way too long. I think you can't even leave the camera on that long (with disabled auto-standby) without shooting anything at all.

Intensive but not crazy event-type shooting makes a battery last somewhere around 1-1.5h in my experience.

Not to say the casual hiker/tourist that turns his camera off between interesting sites and situations won't have a 5.5h trip adequately covered with those 350 shots or so, but it certainly won't last 5.5h in general.

>>2980637

I was mainly looking at time lapse tests.

The tests ran shots until they died. They were getting similar battery life with 500 shots and 900 shots. Start up and shut down probably has an impact on life to though.

If you are getting an hour of battery, your batteries are fucked. What kind of set up are you running. I end an entire day of light shooting (300-400 shots) with around 40% battery on average.

So I've been meaning to get into photography, but well I need a camera and digital cameras that are not shit are, well kind of expensive (specially lenses). So I've wondered, would I be falling for a meme if I went for a film camera? They are cheaper (on the short run)

>>2980642
They're cheaper in the *VERY* short run only, and of course they don't do most of the digital processing and sharing and stuff that you usually want to do on their own.

Photography has never been really cheaper than in this digital age, use a smartphone and then just spend what's required.

Or maybe spend what's required to get 4-5 year old lower-end gear that is almost free now, if you're that destitute.

>>2980642

Just pick up a cheap mirrorless.

a6000 is as low as $400. You can use the kit for awhile and upgrade to a cheap Sigma prime when you feel ready.

>>2980641
>I was mainly looking at time lapse tests.
I still wonder which ones. Did they turn off the screens and more? I don't think we should take this as a yard stick for how long one might usually actively shoot with the camera...

> If you are getting an hour of battery, your batteries are fucked.
Probably not.

I just shoot many bursts. Either to deal with groups of people & get a good chance for an interesting shot on moving subjects.

Or to be able to do HDR or exposure bracketing or at least some image rescue by composing shots.

> I end an entire day of light shooting (300-400 shots) with around 40% battery on average.
That's actually higher than I'd expect. But I understand it's certainly possible to get above the CIPA rating.

Certainly, it's also possible to consider a day "covered" in under 350 shots. Would have still been ten 36 exposure rolls of 35mm film - most people other than very srs hobbyists didn't do as much on an average day, despite all the additional losses.

5.5h of regular shooting -even slow paced- will simply not work, though.

Any reason to get the d7200 over the d7100?

>>2980652
Large difference in buffer size, AF generally better and also capable of operating -1EV lower, no more really shitty WLAN stick if you want WLAN.

And some noticeable but not huge improvements in sensor+processor performance.

>>2980655
Do you think it's worth the price difference?

>>2980656
Not if you can get a D7100 for nearly half the price of a new D7200. GLHF finding a D7200 used.

It's not like the D7100 sucked in any way, except for extended continuous shooting (you can get 5 fps 12-bit compressed 1.3x cropped RAWs indefinitely with a fast card if you really wanted, and you're probably shooting sports with telephoto anyways so now you're more telephoto), and anything more than a 4EV push (think about how far 4 EV is, and how many sliders you have to move) results in banding.

I'm waiting for a D7100 to pop up used myself.

>still waiting

>>2980656
Well, I personally dodged to Sony.

But a 6 shot RAW buffer would simply not have been working for me. It alone would already have driven me to a D7200.

And I also do fairly strongly want WLAN (even if I don't completely require it). The D7100 add-on WLAN stick is however impractical. Never mind that it cost like half the price difference.
That and the AF difference would also be sufficient reasons for me.

So yea, it'd have been the D7200 or the D750, never the D7100 for me. But again, I dodged.

decent portrait lens I can get for my Nikon 3200? thinking about something around 50-80mm and around 100-200 bucks????

>>2980664
How about a typical nifty fifty (50mm f/1.8g)? Relatively decent.

>>2980665
well that's what I was considering but since I know basically jack shit about lenses (just started to get somewhat serious with photography) i wanted to make sure I wasn't making a mistake

>>2980663 (cont'd)
I guess in the case of the WLAN stick it *was* like half the price difference.

Makes sense that it's price dropped as well as the D7100's price. Still no more practical than before, though. Dinky thing that sticks out of the side of your camera.

>>2980666
You don't even have *that* much choice for lenses with AF on that budget.

Either way, this one will be fine for starters.

File: 1.png (31KB, 568x372px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 568x372px

>>2980615
>I can't see this "normal" ~40% weight / size reduction in the 21mm Samyang or the Sigma Contemporary 30mm.
.Here you go
Same lens maker.
Same aperture, same focal length.
The mirrorless is cheaper, lighter, smaller. It's also better in terms of image quality.

Also, before reply back about the length of the lens, keep in mind the SLR lens will still end up longer if it has adapter built in.

>>2980703
Not same lens. The DSLR one is heavier because it has more glass, more corrections, the image is more precise and is part of the Art series.
The mirrorless one is not, it is a cheap remake of the old pre-Art EX DC and EX DC HSM with a longer buff at it's end to fit the flange distance.
Apples and oranges, man.

>>2980811
>the image is more precise and is part of the Art series.
Did you know the three F2,8 mirrorlesl primes Sigma release first were "Art" lens?
It doesn't mean shit, it's just a marketing badge.

Both of these Sigma lenses score the same point on DXO.

>The DSLR one is heavier because it has more glass
They both have exactly 9 elements each.

>Not same lens.
It's as close as you're going to get if you want to compare SLR to Mirrorless.
You need to compare two lenses made by the same maker. Same focal length, same aperture.
They are going to perform slightly differently but that's the whole point, one of them is better than the other.

>>2980819
"Contemporary" has so far meant "lightweight design".

The 150-600 "Contemporary" also is just about the same fraction lighter than the bigger Sports lens - all on DSLR, no MILC involved.


Whether "Art" and "Sports" mean anything in particular is questionable, but the "Contemporary" lenses were all pretty lightweight.

File: sigma_30mm_f_2_8_dn_for_918899.jpg (65KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 1000x1000px

>>2980824
It's just marketing dude. Why are you taking Sigma marketing so seriously when I just gave you a reason why you shouldn't?

Here you go. The "Art" lens that was smaller than the Contemporary lens.
It's just a bullshit tag, it doesn't mean anything.

>>2980826
>Here you go. The "Art" lens that was smaller than the Contemporary lens.
There is no 30mm f/2.8 Contemporary?

Maybe there will be one if they find a way to trade a bunch of glass corrections for weight and size...?

>>2980830
The Contemporary is the larger and heavier F1,4 lens.

>>2980826
>f/2.8 lens is smaller than f/1.4
>it's just bullshit branding
I don't think you are familiar with basic physics principles.

>>2980834
No.
I said the Art shit is smaller than the Contemporary shit, thus it's just bullshit branding.

>>2980835
The Art one is f/2.8, of course it is smaller you dumbfuck!

>>2980837
They shouldn't have called it Art to begin with. Do you even understand why?

>>2980832
It's Sigma's "Contemporary" optimization of a 30mm f/1.4.

Lightweight for a f/1.4, but high barrel distortion, CA, vignetting and so on.

If there's an "Art" version for the E-mount, I sure hope they fix the average sharpness of the 30mm f/1.4 (which was kinda meh, unlike the 35mm f/1.4).

But I'd still expect it to be quite a bit heavier with more glass and have less distortion / CA / vignetting & stuff in return.

>>2980839
>It's Sigma's "Contemporary" optimization
I think you're falling for another one of their marketing bullshit.

That lens is their F1,4 mirrorless lens, period.
It's been measured by DXO to have higher sharpness, so even after you correct for distortion, CA and so on, the result would very much be the same as the SLR lens, because it was ahead in resolution to begin with, and the correcting doesn't lower the resolution enough for it to be inferior to the SLR lens.

>>2980842
>DXO
Please hang yourself.

>>2980847
It's honestly more objective than eating up marketing buzzwords and being pretentius about branding tags.

>>2980842
Regardless, the "Contemporary" monicker indicates a focus on weight optimization for Sigma.

The 150-600 "Contemporary" also isn't less sharp according to most tests, it just weighs a lot less.

Maybe loosing some weight is sometimes as simple as dropping some "evenness" in the overall sharpness, or not correcting for barrel distortion & vignetting as much, or not using a nicer focusing motor, or something else that really has nothing to do with MILC vs DSLR.

File: 1461199345735.png (224KB, 901x680px) Image search: [Google]

224KB, 901x680px

>>2980849
>Maybe loosing some weight is sometimes as simple as dropping some "evenness" in the overall sharpness, or not correcting for barrel distortion & vignetting as much, or not using a nicer focusing motor, or something else that really has nothing to do with MILC vs DSLR.
It's actually because the SLR lens require larger front element. That alone is a significant contributor to the weight difference.

You will see the same pattern in the Zeiss example. The SLR design needs larger front elements. (in the Zeiss example though, the mirrorless has less vignetting, less CA, and higher sharpness depsite being less complex)

I want a compact digital camera /system camera that i can carry around a lot without weighing too much. If possible i would prefer a optical viewfinder. RAW would be nice, too if that is possible. I mostly shoot street scenes. No fancy stuff required. Any suggestions?

>>2980860
RX100 V or if rich RX1R II.

OVF is mostly a downside, but I guess if it must be, some Fuji X100T might get you that.

>>2980861
>OVF is mostly a downside

Can you explain why you would say that? I always loved the optical VF and the digital ones are somehow always lagging and too bright.

>>2980864
EVF give you focusing aids for MF, display all sorts of information up to a full exposure preview. Or maybe whatever you have a multi-exposure camera app do.

And they can give you better visibility when it's darker pre-flash.

> the digital ones are somehow always lagging
Technically they are, but you almost can't see the difference at this point. Like most people can't tell the difference between shutter lag on one or another camera that are both fast. It's a bunch of ms.

> and too bright
Nah. realistic exposure preview. Or the average brightness level you set them to, if you prefer.

Is the Pentax k70 good or is it just a meme? How is it comparable to a D7200?

>>2980873
Nikon typically has better AF.
Canon typically have larger OVF.

Pentax is behind in the DSLR aspects that makes DSLRs stand out.

>>2980874
I keep seeing everyone shill for pentacks and I thought they might actually be cheap AND good. I'd mainly use it for landscapes and maybe street

>>2980848
It is only objective if you only shoot MTF charts.
Real life photography is not about evaluation numbers and graphs.

>>2980876
We're in a dilemma in our discussion, because you brought up vignetting, CA and distortion.
These things can be corrected in post, at the cost of resolution.
But the Mirrorless sigma has higher sharpness and resolution, and thus the headroom to fix those issues.
So when you compare the two lens, it will come down to measurements, and the measurements say the two lenses are equal after post processing.

That is very impressive in light of one of the lenses being 40% lighter, and smaller.

>>2980877
My name might be "Anonymous" but I'm not the same as the other "Anonymous" here. Just so you know

>>2980875
They have some good image quality but the autofocus is behind everyone else

>>2980884
AF is spot on in single focus. Tracking is where the problem is and I have a mild suspicion it is mostly software related.
It's just so inconsistent, sometimes the tracking is spot on then it goes haywire then goes okay again depending if it picked up the subject again.
I had absolutely spot on tracking on model planes and on track days while on open field sports have failed half the time. Yet single focus on wildlife is always good, even when the lens is subpar (I'm looking at you, Sigma)

File: DSC00536-1.jpg (329KB, 805x1000px) Image search: [Google]

329KB, 805x1000px

>buy helios 44 58/2 in m39
>get an m39>-sony e adapter
>mount it all together
>out of focus completely

What's wrong here? Wrong mount? It's a cleaned up lens, did the guy fuck up the assembly or am I stupid and missing something?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-6300
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2017 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2016:12:10 17:11:50
Exposure Time	1/125 sec
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	1600
Brightness	-1.9 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	805
Image Height	1000
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

>>2980888
Soviet era M39 is not the Leica M39 mount. It is still at an SLR flange distance, you need to find an obscure adapter for it. I'm not sure the flange is the same as the M42 but it is near that.

>>2980893
fuck you deleting your post when I'm responding
post is here >>2980894

>>2980894
Well shit.
I guess now I got a reason to get an actual m39 thread lens.

>>2980895
I'M SORRY ANON I FORGOT THE PICTURE

It seems people use an m39>m42>whatever brand adapter.

God damn russians.

File: 1289300239766.jpg (41KB, 449x319px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 449x319px

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3binM22uUpg
>Brings new life to my old manual film lenses
>magic AF capability to MF lens
>Smartphone can configure adapter so it sends Focal length and Aperture EXIT into camera
Mother of god...

>>2980896
Try to get an M42 to NEX adapter and an M39 to M42 stepDOWN ring adapter. Might not go to infinity though.

>>2980899
It's not magic, it moves the whole lens, can be problematic on some due to different focus mechanism or heavy lens. Same as the AF LSM adapter.

File: 1.jpg (110KB, 844x480px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 844x480px

>>2980901
Dat AF tracking at 1:50 in the video though. It seems pretty capable.

And that EXIF data configuration is still highly innovative.
Those Chinese wizards will soon become our overlords after they conquer Japan.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	paint.net 4.0.5
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	96 dpi
Vertical Resolution	96 dpi

>>2980900
Wouldn't it be a step UP ring since it increases the diameter?
I'll try that combo though, it's what I've read that seems to work, though it seems kinda 50/50 if you get focus to infinity or not.

So much for having a small lens..

>>2980870
I'll check out the RX100 V and the X100T, thanks!

>>2980914
No, you need a stepdown ring. The outer screw thread should be larger diameter than the inner screw thread.
I mentioned it that way because I saw a lot of step up rings on ebay where the outer thread is M39 and the inner thread is M42

File: 0d4f8a6a5da780fb471455966964a0a6.png (204KB, 480x524px) Image search: [Google]

204KB, 480x524px

>>2980916
Like this, isnt it?

It simply screws onto the m39 thread, making the whole thing a larger diameter thread.

>>2980923
Yep

Hello guys, I'm looking to buy a cheap system camera, and thought the CANON EOS M10 with 15-45m lens would work fine for me, since it is such a small camera and still has fine specs. I wanted to know if I'm maybe missing a major defect in the design of the camera, what do you think?

>>2980942
Get the M3 or the M5. These have actual decent focusing.

>>2980874
Canon has faster AF.
Nikon has more sophisticated AF.

I don't know who has better OVFs between the two.

Pentax has IBIS, but no in lens stabilization. Also it's weird knowing a lens is stabilized but the image is shaking like mad when handholding.

>>2980200
unless you really need the tilt screen go for a cheaper d3400 and a prime lens or the better d7100/d7200, they outperform it on functions/ergonomics/ease to use
t. d3200 owner

>>2980999
>recommending a worse D3300
Get a D3300 not a 3400 if you must

I got a barely used Canon 5D Mk II and the 85mm f/1.8 and 35mm f/2 a couple of months ago
Should I sell them and get a used Nikon D800 instead? All I really care about is the low light performance and I've gotten the impression that the D800 is better?

If I want to shoot long exposures on the D600/D610, do I need a remote shutter release? Will any kind do? There's not "LIVE Comp/Time/Bulb" setting in Live View, is there?

>>2981080
Is there not a mirror up mode? On my D300/700 there's a MUP mode that has a couple different settings. You can set it so when you press the shutter, the mirror flips up and then shutter fires a few seconds later. Having a release is nice too but you can still around it

>>2981090
I think only the top tier cameras have MUp. Thanks Nikon.
>>2981080
The work around apparently is to set an exposure delay in addition to self timer delay. http://www.weetiong.com/2014/10/how-to-use-both-self-timer-and-mup-on.html

>Will any kind do?
You tell me.
>There's not "LIVE Comp/Time/Bulb" setting in Live View, is there?
>Nikon
>useful features
Go buy an Olympus.

>>2981074
Loads better. Only half a step down from a D810.

>>2981080

610 has mUP, time release, and intervalometer. it also has a port for external and will work with the cheap nikon remote.

read the manual

>>2980899

I have one. I absolutely love it. Autofocus is fast and accurate as hell. It can have trouble in low light at smaller apertures, but everything does on mirrorless.

I have used it with some M and MD mount lenses. I have had zero IQ or sharpness issues. I am very impressed to be honest.

The exif config is a pain in the ass though. I end up not bothering most of the time. It does so by aperture settings. You go theough settings and set 2.8 as 35mm for example. Set aperture to 2.8, take a picture(this sets the focal length), move aperture back to 2.0. Go on shooting.

You have to do it everytime you change, and it makes it pretty much unusable on a zoom. Oh, and if you don't go back to 2.0, the camera fucks exposure too.

So I've got a bunch of lenses with different threading diameters. I don't want to buy neutral density filters that fit everything. Can I just buy one big neutral density plate to hold in front of the lens or something?

>>2981159
Step up rings, google it.
Or better yet, search on ebay.

>>2981159
You can use step up rings or a filter holder or even often just not use any filters but bracket & do stuff in post.

>>2981159

get rings that step up to 77mm, buy all 77mm filters. don't forget to buy a cap as well. i wouldn't go for filter holders unless money isn't an issue. rectangular filters are a lot nicer, but way more money.

File: Sigma 50mm ART - 005 - on 5DmIII.jpg (103KB, 1023x682px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 1023x682px

Recently upgraded to a 5D Mk4. I currently have the original 24-105 f4 and am considering getting pic related for portraiture. It fits my budget and based off photos other people have taken with it, it seems really nice. But before I drop £600 does anyone have practical experience with it? How's the build quality, is it durable, any problems focusing etc–I've tested it out in-store but obviously this doesn't compare to years of use. Cheers

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Google
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	1023
Image Height	682

File: 1343672047183.jpg (181KB, 750x750px) Image search: [Google]

181KB, 750x750px

Nikon 24-70 f2.8 or 24-85 f3.5-5.6?

The 24-70 is too heavy and expensive, I need to save up at least 3 months for it but I doubt I can carry it everywhere.

The 24-85 is much cheaper and lighter, ideal for casual shooting and maybe some wide angle as well. I have the 50mm prime for low light and portrait. But I'm not sure about the image quality?

Thoughts?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Created	2012:07:08 13:19:32

>>2981201
24-70 f2.8
get that thicc bokeh m8

>>2981201
Are you a casual? 24-85 is breddy gud. Sharp with VR from 24 all the way to 85 for maybe $300 on the used market is great. Do you actually need a GOAT lens? 24-70. The E VR is nice and everything, but I'd be happy saving money and using a G.

I never thought the 24-70 was all that big, but then again, I use it at the same time as some of the telephotos so it's positively tiny in comparison.

>>2981201
24-70 f/2.8. But maybe Tokina. Or Sigma.

>>2981185
I'm curious as well, especially compared to the Canon 50 1.4 since that is what I currently have. Unless the Sigma is really that much better than the Canon, especially in regards to focus speed and accuracy since I use it for indoor sports, it seems like I'd be better off putting that $900 toward a different lens.

>>2981202
>>2981203
>>2981213
I'm not a pro but I want the best lens that I can get. I think I might have to save up for the 24-70 f2.8

File: 3839016_sd[1].jpg (309KB, 1000x617px) Image search: [Google]

309KB, 1000x617px

What is the best pocketable point and shoot camera for all purpose video? Internal audio quality is important as well. Preferably under $400.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/MINOLTA-M-ROKKOR-QF-40mm-1-2-F2-For-Leica-M-Mount-Lens-EXCELLENT-/142202889142

well that ballooned up fast.

Is anyone selling a Konica Hexar RF, Bessa R2 or something similar?

>>2981244

I was eyeing one of those a year or two ago. Usually sell for $300-400.

>>2981219
Yea, but again, suggesting the Tokina. It is maybe the best, depending on what you're looking for.

>>2981229
RX100 V or even RX1R II, but that's not under $400.

I'd suggest to not go "point and shoot" but just use one of the popular Panasonic MFT 4k video cameras. Some are not far from $400.

If not that either, you might as well use a Xiaomi 4k or other sports camera - they'll actually do better with video than most P&S.

>>2981229
>good internal audio
>pocketable point and shoot
pick 1

dirt cheap e mount 35mm 1.7, meike or fujian?

>>2981366
Fujian has more swirly bokeh and weird image effects and is smaller, thus maybe more useful if you get a better lens.

Meike is a bit more usable at wider apertures & has less vignetting - its quite like a Minolta Rokkor or something. But honestly for practical use, you might want to get a Sigma 30mm f/2.8, still cheap.

I've only just started to get into photography by using my phone camera but I'm looking to step up a bit but I don't really have the funds to get a fully fledged DSLR at the moment. Is there any point in looking at bridge camera like the Sony DSCH400, Canon Power shot SX410 or Nikon Coolpix L340?

>>2981380
> Is there any point in looking at bridge camera like the Sony DSCH400, Canon Power shot SX410 or Nikon Coolpix L340?
Not really for most people. Basically the same poor quality (or worse), but now with zoom.

If you want decent image quality, but a recent MILC or DSLR *with one or more good lenses*.

>>2981214
it seems the Sigma is sharper than the 50 1.2 L, but has slightly harsher bokeh. since that's the case I'd argue it's probably a decent upgrade over the standard Canon 50 1.4. seems well accurate based on reviews and speed in-store was lightning quick

>>2981380
>>2981383
For me personally, Bridge cameras as a compact way to get good range to something far away.
The downside is the small sensors, but they do get the job done if you want to reach something far away and don't want to run around with a bazooka.

>>2981380
>>2981383 (You)
By the way, until you can do that, there may however be a point in buying some okay LED panel. It'll help you with using the smartphone in more situations.

A portable flash can work too, but you'll need an extra method to trigger it.

>>2981385
>>2981380
>2016
>falling for the bridge camera meme

why not an entry-level DSLR with a 17-70 or so kit lens? better value for money and you can actually learn how to shoot. could be secondhand if you want even cheaper

>>2981391
You just don't understand that not everybody want gigantic bazookas just to reach 600mm focal length.

Sometimes these smaller bridge cameras do the job better.

>>2981394
nigga where in my reply did i write 600mm
OP didn't mention anything about super long focal lengths either

>>2981395
You replied to my post, which highlighted one of the advantages as I see it.

Why bother with replying at all if you won't address the point?

File: sony.png (142KB, 1274x474px) Image search: [Google]

142KB, 1274x474px

>>2981397
i addressed the irrelevancy of your point

also, i'd argue pic related is goofier than carrying a 600mm telescope around anyway :^)

>>2981399
>Dishonesty, manipulation, trolling
You're doing a shit job at being convincing.

>>2981402
>being this triggered over some cunt on a burmese light painting board

okay, fine, here's your list of reasons to get a cheap DSLR over a bridge camera

>comparable price if you go low-end or second hand
>manual controls on the DSLR help learn how to shoot
>better viewfinder
>better AF
>doesn't look retarded
>unless you're /creep/ or /astro/ you'll never need 100x superzoom, and even those guys don't use bridge cameras
>more clear-cut upgrade path
>bridge camera will be trashed as soon as you upgrade
>option to get different lenses for different situations
>larger sensors
>better low-light performance
>not buying into a meme

there is literally no reason to buy a bridge camera.

>>2981406
I'm not even the guy who was curious. I just listed 1 single advantage it has, and it made you this assblasted.

When did /p/ turn into such a rotten place with foul attitude against everything they dislike?

I bought my first fully manual lens.

The focus ring is quite stick and I struggle to focus.
Can I do something to make it much lighter?

>>2981409
You might have to have it serviced (read: re-oiled) if it's an older lens. Be advised not all service points do legacy lenses so check around before heading out

>>2981411
It's a new one, samyang 12/2.

I simply expected it to be much looser, I'm slipping with my fingers as I'm focusing.

>>2981409
You could try to use lubricant (can't promise it won't get into your optics).

You probably are talking about a cheap lens though - the safest and most realistic way is presumably to just buy a better one first.

If it happens to be an unexpectedly valuable and good lens for some reasons, have a professional lubricate it.

Preparing to buy an A7RII. I can buy it off eBay for around $500 less, but it's an import (not really sure what this means, please explain). Tell me what's good about it and what's terrible about it.

>>2981438
haven't used it myself but a common complaint among the Sony A7 series is battery life and overheating. something to keep in mind I guess

>>2981448
New thread

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

78KB, 500x500px

>>2981440
And don't forget complete weather sealing

>>2979201
But if you win the lotto then you presumably not be working on the rail therefore not needing the aforementioned camera

>>2979116
I want the d500. I think its better than the d800. Convince me I'm wrong.

d7000 owner here. Have 18-105 kit lens and a 50 1.4

If I want to shoot sport then a 80-200mm 2.8 would be a pretty good option, no? They normally retail here for $2k Australian but I have found one second hand for $800, and while thats a fair bit of money for me I would rather be able to do what I want correctly and not have to get a whole new set of lenses if I ever go full frame down the road. It sure as hell looks to outperform the 70-300 and the 18-200.

>>2980873
I'm also interested in this

I have an x100t, which strangely has gone up in price since i bought it used, but I use a gr now and I'm going to sell the x100t for ~$800

I'm considering buying a k70 with a general zoom lens, but I'm curious if it would really be worth the extra dosh. I want to take landscape photos of the mountains here in the pnw, just got my first snowmobile. Pentax is attractive to me because of the weatherproofing, im worried my bag will get wet being in the snow all day.

>>2981407
you just got older, /p/ has always been a place where 15 year olds tell 15 year olds what to like

I've been gone for a while but it's good to see that /p/ is still rock hard balls to the wall obsessed with the mirrorless meme. I regret falling for that one.

How many of you got rid of a complete system to buy your mirrorless Sonys?

How do you deal with losing half a stop through your adapters?

>>2980999
>>2980200
seconding the d7000 series vote, they are substantially better machines and wont be outgrown in 12 months if you get serious.