/gear/ - Gear thread

I'll be a fag and repost my question from the last thread.

I got a samyang 12/2 that has a way too stiff focus ring.
Is it by design or is it badly greased?

Is it a doable project for myself, who is diy experienced, to re-grease it, or should I just send it in for an overpriced service?

File: minolta-program-4000-af.jpg (183KB, 800x800px) Image search: [Google]

183KB, 800x800px

Got pic related from my dad. (Minolta Programm 4000 AF)
I use ti on my Lumix G7 and it works, some threads on the internet say it doesnt fry newer cameras because it's properly wired etc.
It's bright as fuck but I cant go below 1/250s shutterspeed or else I'll get black curtain. Is that normal?
Also some tipes if I can slave this? can't find the manual online, well unless I pay for it.

>>2981452
If you have all the necessary tools and precision oriented then maybe it is doable. I had a focus ring stiffness before on a Sigma manual focus lens and it turned out a piece of felt got stuck under the ring, the end gluing separated and the felt doubled back a few millimeters. I cut off the loose end and it is fine now.
The problem is I don't have a JIS screwdriver set only philips and pozidriv and slightly scuffed the screws while putting it back together. Be careful on the torque, precision materials give in sooner than normal similar size parts.

>>2981456
Yeah I got the necessary tools for it.
I could really use a guide of some sort for hidden things I could fuck up without even knowing of it.

>>2981458
That is difficult for newer lenses. Typically from the mount you face the mechanics of the aperture lever, the aperture block maybe the aperture ring where you can lose tiny springs and even tinier ball bearings. Be very careful and do it on a large clean table over a large piece of clean lint free cloth, preferably white so you can see parts falling down. Did I mention being very careful?

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.

>>2981464
Import means it can be considered as "grey import" so your local Sony service network might refuse to offer you any warranty. It would be best to check it first, ask the service what they think.
It can also mean you will have to pay import charges and VAT according to your local laws so it can cost way more.

>>2981453
Yes, not being able to sync flash beyond 1/250 is exactly normal. You need HSS or some other method to go faster.

But hey you can also go the other way and use a ND filter or close down aperture.

Not sure what kind of slave setup you want, optical triggering?

>>2981453
>It's bright as fuck but I cant go below 1/250s shutterspeed or else I'll get black curtain. Is that normal?
Yes. Look up the flash sync speed of your camera.
>Also some tipes if I can slave this? can't find the manual online, well unless I pay for it.
It might have an optical trigger mode.

>>2981468
>>2981469
Thanks so far.
Ok, apparently the fastes flash sync of the G7 is 1/160, but I can go as far as 250 without getting curtain-shadows. would using second curtain change anything?
I heard taping over some of the contacts could help. Apparently the flash does something called TTL, i cant activate "manual" in the camera, so it measures the light through the lens, are flash and camera communicating with each other? Because I can still set the flashpower on the flash (From full to 1/16 and then also "Motor Drive" but I don't get what that exactly does)and most of the time, anything above 1/8 completely blows even a 1/250s exposure up.
I still like that I can flip and swivel the flash to bounce it off walls etc. A full flash to the ceiling can make almost any normal-sized room fully illuminated and blind everyone in a 200m radius.

I dunno much about slaving. the flash has some sort of lightmeter built in and a circular plug with 4 pins inside. I dont know if I can still get any accessoires for it.

>>2981479
>Ok, apparently the fastes flash sync of the G7 is 1/160
I figure that might refer to some built-in flash rather than your hotshoe flash, if you do have such a built-in flash?

As far as I know, hotshoe flashes are usually usable at 1/250 or 1/200 with typical camera shutters. Can't go faster except if the camera and strobe supports HSS or the camera has a leaf shutter (yours doesn't).

> would using second curtain change anything?
I think no. You get that maximum of 1/250 already.

> Apparently the flash does something called TTL, i cant activate "manual" in the camera
You won't get faster than 1/250 that way either.

And at 1/250 TTL should already have chosen the lowest possible output power setting on your flash, so picking the same manually won't help.

You'll need to darken the flash itself, use a ND filter on the lens, or maybe get another flash with HSS or a setting with less output power.

> I dunno much about slaving. the flash has some sort of lightmeter built in and a circular plug with 4 pins inside. I dont know if I can still get any accessoires for it.
If you can't just use optical triggering with your flash (which would be free), I strongly recommend to use a Yongnuo YN603 II or maybe Godox X1 (TTL enabled on most systems) transceiver.

Either is inexpensive and you can easily hook it up with their respective system of manual Yongnuo or TTL enabled Godox strobes if you want to use more going forward.

>>2981499
>I strongly recommend to use a Yongnuo YN603 II or maybe Godox X1 (TTL enabled on most systems) transceiver.
I'm using my dad's old flash from 1985 on my Panasonic G7. This is my video-camera, I dont normally do "proper" photography, but since I have a camera and understand the basics of composition, exposure and handling, all my friends are like "hey anon, bring your camera to my party and take cool pictures!" so I need a flash that doesnt give this typical ugly built-in-flash look. I'm not going to add any money to this. I don't know if optical slaving is possible. can't find anything in the manual I found online and I really only have the flash, no tiny plastic foot to rest it on (I do have coldshoes with 1/4" threadings I could put on a mini-tripod).

Still thanks tho. It'll help a lot.

>>2981503
> so I need a flash that doesnt give this typical ugly built-in-flash look
Hm. what stops you from using your video lighting if you're usually doing video anyhow?

> I'm not going to add any money to this.
I guess you get to stick some existing white cloth or fully white paper or milk bottles or whatever in front of the flash to make it darker, then. Or such.

> I don't know if optical slaving is possible.
With a flash from 1985? Probably not, or not reliably enough.

>tfw gearfag who uses automode and doesnt give a fuck

>>2981505
>video lighting
big, heavy, weak. People don't like looking into a massive ledpanel and you also can't "sneak up" on people to photograph them while acting naturally, snapping a moment to remember.
I know how to use surfaces to bounce etc, i film interviews and talking heads enough. This flash is literally just for shooting pics in underlit basements/party rooms with an MFT sensor, but being able to shoot at ISO 100 is good enough for me. I can even keep my polarizer on and take away some of that forehead sheen.

>>2981512
> People don't like looking into a massive ledpanel
They usually like that better than getting blasted with a flash, directly or because the guy behind them was shot by you.

Even bouncing off a ceiling is almost equally uncomfortable, but I guess you could do that.

It's your job to make 'em suffer. Heh.

> I can even keep my polarizer on and take away some of that forehead sheen.
Sounds like an idea. Should also further darken the image anyhow.

File: Screen Shot 2016-12-12 at 9.56.10 AM.png (949KB, 938x690px) Image search: [Google]

949KB, 938x690px

Anyone selling a Hexar RF, Bessa R3m, or something similar?

>>2981460
>wah why won't you use my thread
>fuck you OP why won't any one post in my thread
>this is more than just a gear thread on /p/, this is my life
>guys post in my thread
Just fucking kill yourself already you pathetic cunt. Get the fuck over yourself and lurk more, this is the way the gear threads have always been so fucking deal with it you whiny little faggot.

>>2981452
>Is it by design or is it badly greased?
Most likely the latter, Samyang has fucking awful quality control.

>or should I just send it in for an overpriced service?
Where'd you buy it from, are you not able to replace it?

>>2981581
Go for the hexar. They're actually going for a little less than the Bessas right now, and their's a few on ebay right now for under 600.

I got one at the beginning of this year and I love it.

>>2981452
wd40 with a straw.

Just starting out in photography. Should i get a 400 f4 DO or a 600 f4 ii?

>>2981723
wd40 is not a lubricant, it includes evaporating solvents. trying to use it to lubricate a lens can damage plastic gears and optical coatings

>>2981746
Get the 400 DO it is an excellent starting tele lens.
Don't forget to have at least a zoom lens in the wide-normal range too, like the Tamron 24-70/2.8 or 17-50/2.8 if on crop.

>>2981746
Maybe a Sigma 150-600 Contemporary is a better starting point?

Not that both of the lenses you mentioned aren't better, but shooting at one telephoto distance only is for people with a good spot, or for people with two cameras...

Bought a 1DS MKII with a split prism finder and a HFT Zeiss Planar 1.4 to convert to canon ef mount.
Am I doing it wrong?

I already have a Nikon D7000 with a 80-200 2.8 Nikkor , 28-70 Sigma 2.8, Planar 50mm 1.7 and a Tokina 19-35 but I want to get a nice set of zeiss lens like the 35mm Distagon, 85mm Sonnar, 135mm Tessar and soo on.

I then plan on replacing the 1DS MKII with a 5D MK2 and the D7000 with a D4 or D610

>>2981853
> but I want to get a nice set of zeiss lens like the 35mm Distagon, 85mm Sonnar, 135mm Tessar and soo on
Might have picked an E-mount camera.

The best Zeiss glass is there, and so is the ability to at least adapt your current Nikon glass.

>>2981853
And why is it you find yourself needing to invest in two different systems, both being fullframe?

Seriously what the fuck are you doing?

>>2981853
You should've stayed with Nikon and saved for a D750 or D800
The D7000 has a wider usage and overall better image than that POS old shit 1DsII

>>2981857
huh but I can also adapt it to canon and I wanted the split prism finder, i prefer it to a evf.

>>2981858
Nikon for autofocus and fast speed, Canon for zeiss and when I got the 5d video.

>>2981861
I could've bought a 7d but the 1dsII had better iq

>>2981865
I am pretty sure this is a troll now.
Nobody can be this stupid.

>>2981867
;;;;

>>2981865
> huh but I can also adapt it to canon
With AF?

I don't want to say that the possible Nikon adapters are great yet (Canon to E-mount are definitely better), but they also already do AF.

> I wanted the split prism finder, i prefer it to a evf.
It's a way worse focusing aid than focus peaking in most situations.

Plus the camera largely is just worse. But eh, do as you prefer.

>>2981865
You're an idiot m8, but it's your money so go wild

inb4 the fucktard mistook the 1Ds MkII with the 1DX MkII

bump

>>2981891
:^)

>>2981746
I hope you're planning on buying other lenses to cover various focal lengths as well, otherwise you're really limiting yourself as a beginner. Of the two though I'd go with the 400mm

>>2981901
I was just gonna do portraits and maybe some landscapes

>>2981978
this is bait

Are there any action camera mountable drones or at least ones with good cameras for <$150? Would like to learn how to fly them and figured a camera for taking photos/video would be a big plus.

>>2981983
Be prepared for a long and expensive journey before you get the shots you want

>>2981982
>what is extreme focal length portraits
>what is compressed landscapes

>>2981989
this is bait

>>2981983
People actually mount action cameras to drones this cheap, yes, because even on small drones the battery pack and motors can create enough lift.

Don't expect long flight times with a cheap setup like that, though. You'll fly like three-four minutes a battery.

Also, $150 may not be your final cost once you start crashing never mind changing drones.

File: resuper.jpg (256KB, 600x482px) Image search: [Google]

256KB, 600x482px

Anyone here familiar with Topcon? Never heard of them before the other day.

Was gifted an RE Super with a 58mm 1.4 and it seems good.

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

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

>>2981986
Yeah I know it can get to be an expensive hobby. I already have a <$50 drone I received as a gift from a family memeber and just want slowly work my way up. Can fly it really well for somebody with terrible eyesight though with the wind it's more of a challenge.

>>2982001
>Don't expect long flight times with a cheap setup like that, though. You'll fly like three-four minutes a battery.

Wasn't expecting a prolonged flight time either. That is just enough to get me up across and down as needed to get what I need as long as that is the usual minimum. Is there a particular model to watch out for that can carry the weight of an average action camera GoPro sized?

>>2982003
> Is there a particular model to watch out for that can carry the weight of an average action camera GoPro sized?
I'm not perfectly informed about what's available out there.

The Eachine Wizard X220 is ~$140 shipped and can really quite easily carry a Yicam or GoPro, but it's an intermediate/experienced flyer acrobatic FPV quadcopter rather than a beginner's camera quadcopter.

>>2981983
>>>/diy/

Is tony northrup a "gearfag"?

>>2981891
Bump

>>2982075
What did he mean by this?

Are the fronts of flashes normed? It's me, the guy with his dad's old Minolta Program 4000 Flash and I think I'll need some defusor attachement. So now I wonder whether I can just buy any and pop it on there.

>>2982078
Just be urself bro

>>2982078
>Are the fronts of flashes normed?
No, but many of the diffusers for portable flashes are just attached to a velcro strap that goes around the flash's exterior case (can be rubberized or such to prevent slipping)

These should work.

>>2982078

You this?
>tipes if I can slave this?
>not going to add any money to this

Just a thought: get a cheap chinese trigger receiver combo from ebay.
They're like 10 bucks.
I've used one with a 80s Toshiba flash for shits and giggles before getting a Yongnuo.
Build quality reflects the price, but mine still works and I've dropped it at least once.

Nikon and mid-telephoto primes: what focal lengths do you find useful? Am I wrong for thinking I might enjoy a 85 and 135 or 200 equivalent lens? Or would 85 be the longest a person would typically go, leaving 135/200 for dedicated portrait shooters, and anything in between for the zooms?

I don't shoot portraiture as a subject matter, but occasionally I like to go in for detail and portraiture when the opportunity arises. Think of pictures like the Osprey/XF 56mm guy. Is 135/200 going to be too long for that sort of thing in most situations?

I like that the 85s usually dont look much bigger than the 50s, but 105/135/180(200) definitely stand out as telephoto lenses.

>>2981622
>>2982029
>>2982074
>>2982075
>>2982077
>>2982078
>>2982081
>Samefagging this hard to bump the thread, then asking questions that you answer yourself
lmao

>>2982115
Not doing this on Nikon, but on Sony.

I am not sure you need both a 85 and a 135 at all. There isn't a huge difference.

Almost certainly, one good 85 (or maybe 135, but I'd tend to 85) will probably do better than both lenses in a mediocre variant.

> I don't shoot portraiture as a subject matter, but occasionally I like to go in for detail
You know, maybe you'd also be happy with using a good 100mm-ish macro lens?

They don't tend to be "maximum bokeh", but they'll be sharp for portraits, and they'll also do macro.

File: logo-large.png (3KB, 284x115px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 284x115px

>>2982117

>>2982117
bump

As someone who's just starting out I've narrowed the choices down to a nikon d3300 or the Panasonic gf7.

I think I'd take the Panasonic along more often because of its size.

>>2982010
As long as the learning curve isn't too drastic this will be on the top of my list. Thanks for the recommendation!

>>2982029
I could see how this could be a do it yourself project though I figured /g/ or /p/ may have the most knowledge behind these sort of gadgets.

>>2982142
The learning curve isn't drastic, no. Flying a model plane is far more difficult overall. But I kinda do expect extra crashes anyhow unless a very cautious approach is taken.

Might still be wise to start with a JJRC H31 or something else cheap and safe for getting the hang of manual flight first, even if it costs you another $25 plus maybe a few more for extra batteries and won't lift any good camera. Its probably not going to be wasted money.

I've got a D7000, Nikkor 35 1.8 and 55-200. I've been looking to get a new lens that gives me a little bit more 'normal' range. I'm debating between the Sigma 17-50 2.8 and the Tamron 24-70 2.8. I love the 35 a lot but would like to get something that can go longer for portraits. I mostly do corporate photoshoots (groups, individual headshots, office shots, action shots of employees etc) for work and for personal stuff I do portraits, event and general walking around type shots.

I'm leaning towards the 24-70 because I think the telephoto end of it will be more helpful with portraits but I can be talked into the 17-50. If anyone has any opinions I'd be happy to hear them.

>>2982194
I'd go with the 17-50mm, on crop it will give you a 25-75mm equivalent, so pretty much the same as a 24-70mm on fullframe. That's a great focal range to cover what you need.

Poor fag here. I want to buy a somewhat usable medium format film camera but I don't know what to get. Any recommendations?

>>2982235
Pentacks 645n

>>2982238
Thanks, I will put that into my consideration

>>2982235
Contax 645

>>2982235
Portable SLR: Bronica ETR
Non-portable SLR: Mamiya RB67
TLR: Yashica or Rolleicord
RF: Mamiya 6

>>2982117
Threadfaggotry is worse than brandfaggotry

>>2982291
You mean like this?

>>2979179
>>2979198
>>2979797
>>2981460
>>2981891
>>2982117

>>2982295
These all smell underage to me. Either /b/ or /pol/ faggot but can't be more than 14 years old.
Shows all the signs of entitlement and self importance of a child.

>>2982300
More likely a full grown manchild with mental retardation

>>2982307
You would believe such a person is capable of understanding the basics of photography and pictorial aesthetics?
The person you described is more like Chris chan of /v/ someone who will obsess over toys and other childlike stuff but not an expensive piece like a normal camera, something that needs hard decision-making abilities, something that doesn't give instant gratification.
This is a slow board with a thread going for days or weeks, it can be very frustrating for a manchild to sit through empty hours of no reply. ...frustration that can do such things as >>2982295
Okay, you convinced me, it is a full grown manchild being frustrated by the world doesn't only consists of him.

Do teleconverters actually useful on APS-C?
I wanted a nice cheap 300mm lens to do wildlife with and get more reach with a teleconverter but after watching Tony Northrups video about teleconverters I am not so sure anymore.
I'm on a tight budget and can't afford the lens and TC both right away but if the TC makes it rubbish I don't really want to buy the 300mm lens either.
Should I save up for a 500mm prime lens? The Sigma and Tamron zooms are out of the question because after trying the Sigma 150-500 I realized how shitty the IQ is on such long zooms.
Here is the video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Q0pH86s_6g

>>2982295
>>2982300
>>2982307
>>2982310
>>2982445

>OP Desperately Samefagging: The Thread

>>2982445
It depends on the lens. Some play nicer with TCs (70-200/2.8s, supertelephoto primes). Most zooms are shit with TCs. With a current gen camera, you could get away with a f4 lens and a 2x TC and still get AF. I wouldn't even attempt to use non-matching brands of TCs to lenses.

All TCs are going to degrade quality, the question is how much. Look at flickr to see sample photos for a particular combo.

Both Canikon have cheap options to 300 (70-300 IS or VR), and in the super telephoto range (400/5.6, 200-500/5.6).

>>2982457
I have the Nikon 55-300 and it is just not good enough. Aberrations show up all the time fucking up small details and is too light for panning. The Sigma 150-500 I tried out was much smoother in panning due to the bigger weight, nice follow through, easy gliding. The light 55-300 always jumps around in my hands during panning.
I'm thinking with the 300/4 and a TC I still have the option of wider shots and the older 300mm lenses are barely in my budget. The 400/5.6 seems too limiting, too slow for AF on a TC with my D5200 and not that wide if I need it to.
I guess it could be a better option on FF.
So you say the TCs generally work better on primes than on zooms, that is good to hear. I might give a shot, get the lens for Christmas and the TC a few months later. I'll try to stay in brand with Nikon, thanks a bunch.

Completely new to this. What is the best camera I can get for under $150? Wether it be digital or instant print or something I'm just looking for a camera that'll take good looking pictures

>>2982533
Your phone

File: IMG_6349.png (320KB, 632x464px) Image search: [Google]

320KB, 632x464px

Just picked this up for 80 bucks

>>2982002
I started with a Topcon RM 300 - long time ago.
The 58mm f1.4 seems to be a good lens,
My Topcor 55/1.7 is not my preferred 50mm-ish lens - weird OOF rendering.

Reposting from other thread. 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.

So, what does everyone think of the Huawei P9?

Obviously it's no replacement for your DSLR, that's not what I'm suggesting... The question is whether or not the camera qualities are worth looking into for a quick and easy portable camera device.

>>2982461
>is too light for panning
git gud
>The Sigma 150-500 I tried out was much smoother in panning due to the bigger weight, nice follow through, easy gliding.
I think they were saying the 150-600 is a vastly better lens in the previous thread. Also the Tamron 150-600 G2.
>300/4 and a TC I still have the option of wider shots
It would need to be a AF*S* 300/4D then, if you plan to have AF. With a TC, you're looking at about $1500.
> The 400/5.6 seems too limiting
Is a Canon lens. Nikon's cheap super telephoto is the new 200-500/5.6. Big lens, good optics, good VR, good AF, low price. Check to see if the lens is fully compatible with a D5200; I can't remember if the new E lenses work on a D5200.

Personally, I'd say git gud with the 55-300, or possibly step up to a used 70-300 AFS VR and git gudder. Primes are srs bsnss for srs people.

Don't forget to compare weights of lenses and ask yourself if it's really what you want.

>>2982598
The AF-D 80-200 2.8 is still sold new, but there's no point buying one new. Get it used. I wouldn't say it out performs the AFS 70-300 VR, but definitely the shitty old 70-300s. It's a good 2 stops faster than any of the 70-300s, and built like a tank too. Also consider a 70-200 2.8 VR (first gen one), since DX cuts out the awful corners on that lens.

>>2982451
bump :^)

>>2982461
>The light 55-300 always jumps around in my hands during panning.
Pan from the waist, not from the arms. Follow through with the motion of your subject. Use Normal VR mode, or Sport VR mode for newer Nikon lenses. Do not use Active mode.

How do the Fujifilm emulation modes hold up against VSCO?

Are CCDfags going to be as bad as filmfags in another decade?

>m-m-muh colours

File: Screenshot_2016-12-13-23-39-08.png (372KB, 720x1280px) Image search: [Google]

372KB, 720x1280px

Besides the focus points and muh brand superiority, is there any reason to get the d7200 over the the k70? Also how much do the focus points hold you back in the k70

>>2982898
The focus points don't hold you back, the AF acquisition and tracking algorithms do. Or might is a better way to put it.

Also, you'd typically cross shop the K3II to the D7200.

>>2982898
>is there any reason to get the d7200 over the the k70?
No

>>2982908
K3ii is meh
Which one would you buy on a budget? In the long run which is less wallet killing?

>>2982913
Elaborate?

>>2982914
On a budget? K-70 because ubercheap babby primes and excellent budget zooms like the DA 16-85 and DA 55-300 PLM
The premium primes Limited pancakes are also budget friendly and backwards compatibility is superb.
Also you would typically compare it with the D5500

What's the best point and shoot camera I can buy? Budget is ~700€

>>2982974
RX100 III? IV? Not sure which one is the newest that can be had for 700Eur.

If it's for you: Are you sure you don't want a MILC if not DSLR? It'd fit your budget.

>>2982974
Ricoh GRII, Fuji X-100T, Fuji X-70, Panasonic LX-100, Sony RX-100 IV

>>2982976
Agreed, any of these should be good, too.

>>2982975
No big cameras, I want to bè able to put in my my pocket.
>>2982976
What's about the lx15 from panasonic, it's another name I hear often

>>2982974
>>2982979
>Budget is ~700€
>I want to be able to put in my my pocket.
A smartphone...

>>2982982
I already have a smartphone and it does its job well, I want a camera

Guys, board tourist here.
(yes i did read the sticky)
I want to pick up photography as a hobby but i can not decide what to get, a dslr or a point and shoot.
My other hobbies are motorcycles and hiking.So im looking for a camera that i can carry when im out and still take good pics.

>>2982533
Olympus XA2

>>2983024
Start taking pictures with your cellphone. Get good at it. The limitations are mostly the same as for sub-$300 compact camera, and your pictures will be shit because you're a noob, so this'll save you money to spend on a) motorcycling, or b) hiking, in which to take photos w/ your cellphone.

>>2983024
If you have the money I say it is better to get a nice used beginner DSLR like a Nikon D3300, Canon 700D or Pentax K-S2.
The kit lens they come with is good for most things and you can get better lenses later when you fell the need for them.
With a point and shoot you will get a zoom lens, sure but the sensor and the camera functions will not be better than your phone, often giving bad results if the light is not perfect. Getting a point and shoot would be a waste of money in my opinion.

>>2982979
>no big cameras
GM1 or GM5 with a pancake lens

>>2983030
Ok, i already been doing that.My phone doesn't thake that good pics, when you zoom in its pixely as fuk.I want nice sharp photos.
Should i get a second hand point and shoot?

What's a good Speedlite for under 100 dollars. Also what's the site that does Speedlite reviews?

>>2983033
I would get a used Sony RX100 mark 1 or 2. It has a fairly decent zoom range, a large sensor for it's size and manual controls. Use it to learn apature and shutter speed. Most people don't use full manual unless it is a video or a staged photo. Most people use apature or shutter priority, it lets you choose your apature or shutter speed and then the camera figure out the rest.

>>2983039
Yongnuo and Meike from China, or Nissin from possibly Japan or Korea. You get about 80% of the features and quality of the official flashes, for 60% the price. Generally under $100 as well.

I wana so sme smooth tracking shots

Are gimbles a waste of money? Or Should i just get a knock off stedicam

I got a panasonic g7

>>2983070
Steadycam /diy/ from home depot PVC pipes and some foam padding

>>2983039
Yongnuo for pretty damn nice portable flashes (especially the manual ones - a YN660 can basically match the best conventional ones and even the 560 III and IV make a very nice system due to comparatively speaking pretty comfortable operation with or without the -TX). Or for cheap Canon / Nikon TTL flashes.

Godox for a TTL system that also has big studio strobes at a good price and support across camera brands.

Neewer / Meike for going very cheap.

I have:
D7100, 35 1.8 DX, 50 1.8D, 70-300 VR, 16-85 VR
I'm deciding between:
SB-600 (muh TTL and i-TTL compatibility), 60 or 105 2.8D Micro (film scanning and portrait length shooting), 24/2.8D (for based 35mm equiv), AF or AFS 300/4 (are telephoto primes as great as they sound?)
I shoot:
Motorsports, street (read: vacation snapshits), ball sports (outdoor daylight), landscape (actually just trees, thanks BC)

I don't strictly need anything on my want list for what I shoot, but everything there has its own niche that it would be useful in in my kit.

>>2983139
You have the 16-85 for that 35mm equivalent and stabilized too and the 24/2.8 is not a very nice lens. Old design on such UWA-s means lots of aberrations and distortion, Fine detail can be mushed up.

The macro lens I can only recommend, I think everyone must have one. You can save money on a manual lens like the Tamron Adaptall 90/2.8 and a cheap macro rail for focusing. You will not use the AF much at the 1:1 macro end. The 60mm is crop only and a wonky plastic, also longer focal length means you have longer working distance.

The 300/4 prime is awesome, nothing like your wonky-ass shitty 70-300, it can even tolerate a 2X TC but I would recommend trying out a 1.4X TC first, stay in-brand with the TC. I'm currently saving up for one too.

SB-600 and TTL, are you sure you will use TTL much? It only comes in handy when you do events professionally, most things have very small light variations and you can adjust a manual flash by a flick of a thumb. Why not get a cheap Yongnuo, learn the trade with manual mode and see if you need the investment into a TTL flash.

HELP HELP LIFE ALERT HELP HELP


I feel super retarded and I can't find my answer on google. I have a Nikon D800 and want to change the shutter speed increments because I need 1/50th to shoot 24p video correctly. I can only get 1/60th and 1/30th

Help pls.

>>2983201
Only in M mode, dingus

>>2983206
>>2983201
Lmao I got it. Though your response wasn't the answer. I had to go to the menu and change "EV steps" from whole steps to thirds.
Why the fuck did they call it EV?

>>2983208
Because it is Exposure Value? How new are you?

>>2983144
>tfw no 24mm DX prime
Bzz bzz

>macro
I was looking at the AFD micros, can't afford the AFS ones and I'd rather have a slightly nicer focus ring and the aperture ring. I'd save even more getting an AIS model, but I wanted the lens to double as a portrait length AF lens, so there's that.

>300/4+TC
I'll have to look into that, I wasn't aware the AFS F4D paired well with TCs. Can't afford/justify a PF VR. I'm also looking closely at 70-200/2.8 VRII prices too, since apparently that pairs well enough with a TC20EIII.

>TTL
Already have a pair of YN560IIIs. TTL has its uses, and yes, it's during run and gun situations. I just wish manual flashes came with a slide calculator for distance/power like my old Metz. I guess a TTL flash is the lowest of my priorities...

Thanks~

posted in the old thread by accident

>>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.

Good 28mm prime for pentacks around $50 AUD?

I can't find shit, everyone is selling them for bullshit prices

>>2983287
If you want to take landscapes plus in snow and generally not the overly calm and warm weather than you will need a sharp sealed lens.
The kit lens that you get with the K-70 will be good, average mostly but not very nice on the wide end.
I'd say buy the body only and get the DA 16-85 WR lens, best zoom lens currently in the APS-C lineup. Look up photos on flickr, you will definitely get your moneys worth with this setup. While you're at it, get the DA 35/2.4, cheap sharp, fast but not sealed. Good generic walkaround normal lens.
And get a tripod, manfrotto befree if you want light and portable or something like the 190 series and a 498RC2 head if you want sturdy.

>>2983361
$50 AUD? I dunno maybe an old M42 lens. Stay away from the Pentacon 29mm, I fell in the trap and it's a piece of shit.
If you get an M42 adapter ring then take off the tiny screw and spring so it won't get stuck on the mount, screw on the lens then mount like a normal K-mount lens.

>>2983374
I've been looking at some m42's, even those are overpriced, it seems 28mm is a real popular focal length. Yeah I've got an adapter which I did that too, still managed to get it stuck on the mount lol, it was a cunt to remove but it serves me right for buying the cheapest one I could find.

>>2983387
I think you have a problem understanding that stuff costs money. You won't get a good lens for a few bucks.
Maybe your solution is not finding a piece of shit lens for free but to get a job and get enough money to buy a decent one.

>>2983388
Nah I do understand that, but considering you can get a 50mm M f1.7 for under $50, which is one of the best 50's pentax has made, I think asking $90 for a mediocre 28mm is a rip off.

>>2983393
No, it isn't. Wide angle especially with the older designs was much more difficult than telephoto.

>>2981453
put it into manual and tell it to shoot at lower power. And just from looking at pictures of buttons it doesn't look like you can trigger it optically

>>2981479
Oh my god.

faster shutter speed doesn't make a flash less bright. The actual flash itself only lasts about 1/1000 of a second anyway. It's just that the camera isn't able to synchronize its shutter to the flash if the exposure is less than 1/250. When you're using a flash the determinants of how bright your exposure is are
a) the flash brightness/power
b) camera aperture
c) ISO speed
your shutter speed doesn't have any effect at all.

Your flash is not doing TTL metering. It isn't made by Panasonic or made to work with Panasonic cameras so it isn't able to communicate properly with the camera.

TTL flash operation requires that the camera and flash work together as programmed by the manufacturer. Your camera and flash are only communicating at the most basic level, i.e. camera says "I'm taking a picture now" and flash says "OK here's a flash"

That means you have to do it yourself. You have to put your camera in M, put shutter speed to about 1/100, and mess about with aperture and flash power until you get what you want. This will be different in different situations so every time you use the flash in a different place you'll have to take a few test shots to get it right, but you'll just have to put up with that or get a Panasonic flash, which will do it all for you.

Also don't ever point the flash directly at a person's face; it'll look horrendous. Bounce it off the ceiling.

>>2983583
when I said camera aperture I obviously should have said lens aperture

>>2983139
do you not have a flash? Get a flash you messer

So I just ordered a Godox TT600

What to expect, how to start and what can I do with a single on-camera speedlight?

>>2983583
yeah I guess you're right. all my pics are heavily underexposed it seems. too bad.

>>2983602
Check strobist for their lighting 101 it deals with a single flash style of lighting. Personally a single flash is fun, with a single reflector/diffuser disk you can get fairly decently portrait lighting down. Assuming your not using it on camera, if it's on camera basically you can snoot it or diffuse it without something but it's very very advantageous to get the flash off your camera via slave mode or radio triggers.

Tripod assistance:

Should i get MeFoto Air Roadtrip or Manfrotto Befree ?

Can you please help a daughter out and name a camera that is incredibly easy to use? Would really love to get one for my technophobic dad.

>>2983720
iphone

>>2983720
>>2983725
He can't handle smartphones. He can barely handle a flip phone.

>>2983728
Nikon D3300 is pretty simple for a DSLR. If that's too much then consider a simple point and shoot like a Canon Ixus 285HS. It will be very simple to use and offers smartphone-tier picture quality with a long zoom reach.
If better image quality is required, a Ricoh GR might fit the bill even though it's marketed to more advanced users.

>>2983719
I heard good things about the befree, the aluminium is cheap as fuck, even cheaper used.
The mefoto looks like a shiny gimmick, also "selfie stick mode"? WTF?

>>2983728
Get him a nice good condition film SLR and a bag of film. Look for Pentax ME Super, Canon AE 1 etc...

>>2983371
thanks for the reply. What about the 20-40 limited? I've seen mixed reviews online, but I really dont need the telephoto.

these lenses are expensive! 650 for the body and $600 for the 12-85. I was hoping to stay under a grand, but maybe I'll just take my GR and hope it doesnt get wet.

>>2983719
I have the befree, pretty rugged

>>2983792
It is a nice lens but the Limiteds are about primes and the Limited zoom is not that much about overall sharpness. It gives you that certain look or feel that you only need at a few certain images. I wouldn't recommend it as a main lens.
The 16-85 WR will give you corner to corner sharpness especially in the wide end and that is why it is an excellent main zoom lens.
Your alternative is the WR kit lens but it is an OK lens not a stellar one. You can start with it and get the 16-85 WR later on.

Do pentax fags genuinely think their lenses are any better than other brands? Or do they just exhibit a walled garden mentality?

>>2983831
Why are you projecting? When have you ever seen someone say that?

I found a yongnuo 50mm lens at a thrift store. Didnt buy it yet bc i dont have a camera to go with it. Is there anything cheap (under 300 maybe?) that I can put it on?

>>2983844
Also i realize my budget probably puts me in the used/refurb market which is fine

>>2983844
>>2983844
Probably a MILC. Look into the Sony a6000 or a5000. Mirrorless cameras can adapt any lenses with a physical Adapter you get for like 20 bucks.
There are other mirrorless cameras but don't get your hopes up to high with such a pricepoint. maybe Look into Olympus PEN-E Models. They have a smaller sensor though so the Image they produce is further "zoomed in", it changes the characteristic of the lens. Also harder to get a good shot in Low light conditions. On the Upside, they have really good Handling.
And if you hate Image quality, then Go for a Lumix. They have A LOT of cheap Models like the SUPERTINY GM1 and GM5, maybe an outdated G4 or G5, maybe one of the GF Models. Keep in mind that Panasonic is more video-oriented so they use a sensor more suited for that and the Images tend to be noisy. Same sensor size as Olympus.

>>2983831
? no?

>>2983728
get him an rx100, put it in auto mode and on jpeg fine mode.

teach him how to zoom, and how to take a photo, and bam there you go. None of this dslr shit, get him a pocket camera he can take with him because a dslr will just collect dust if he has to bring a separate bag.

That's what I did for my dad while we were traveling and he took hundreds of decent pictures

affordable leica alternative?

>>2983921

a7ii

Modern sensor, image stabalization, and can mount (and autofocus!) m-mount lenses.

>>2983931
>and can mount (and autofocus!) m-mount lenses.*

*$400 adapter required

>>2983933

>$400

It is only $250.

Plus you can get a dumb adapter for $20.

Either way, it is a drop in the bucket compared to leica lenses and bodies.

>>2981448
I have a question about FX vs DX. Is the investment for a more expensive FX body and glass really worth it? Honestly my main concern with FX vs DX is framing/comp. Ignoring pixel peeping, I could get the same framing on a DX format by just taking a few steps back, right?

>>2983921
see
>>2978812

If digital then Fuji X-Pro 2, X-100 series, used Leica etc...
Wouldn't recommend Sonys because the UI and workflow is as far away from a rangefinder as it can be. Sonys are mostly SLR UI based.

>>2984022
thanks - what about film

Hello /p/ . My brother has a Nikon D3200 and he wants a new lens. He is between a 35mm and a 50 mm lens. Which is the superior one for general use? Which one is better for portraits, better bokeh etc.

>>2984114
50mm has better bokeh and is better for portraits while 35mm is better for street photography but could also serve as an all-purpose. If this this is his first lens besides the kit one get the 35mm, 50mm can be very restricting while the 35 sits on a suit spot.

>>2984114
35mm will be 50mm equivalent for that crop sensor camera, which i think is better for what you described

File: xlarge_e4315eb25d608da3dcf848172e4f2928-616x346.jpg (52KB, 616x346px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 616x346px

>>2984114
35(equivalent to 50 on FF) is gonna be more useful on a crop body like the 3200. 50(equivalent to 70 on FF) will compress the background much more and give more bokeh, but you will have to stand further back.

>>2984119
>>2984120
>>2984121
Thank you very much guys!

>>2984112
>what about film
read the first part carefully >>2984022

File: Tokina_FiRIN-1.jpg (62KB, 640x361px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 640x361px

I can't wait for the new Tokina AF lenses.
They put them on this time line, with their first Firin lens launching in January, and the next is with AF, and really wide angle, it's placed somewhere in mid 2017 according to their picture, that means it will probably be announced in January or February.

The first one is going head to head with Loxia 21.
The second one is probably going head to head with Batis 18.
The third one is probably going head to head with Batis 25.
The fight is on.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2015.5 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2016:09:21 22:43:03
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	640
Image Height	361

>>2984145
Lol, what a nerd

>>2984148
Competition is good mate. The E-mount scene is currently raped by Zeiss pricing.

Tamron had planned to release some affordable and good E-mount primes, but Zeiss fucking bought all those lens designs and told Tamron to stay away. And now we have those Tamron lenses, but they've just been rebranded as Zeiss Batis, and with jacked up price tag.

Tokina is literally our saviour.
And Samyang has made 2 E-mount AF lens as well.

My camera has both Zebvras and Highlight-blinkies.
What's the difference between the two and which one should I use. Currently using Zebra 105/85

>>2984150
Are you saying that Sony has no lens?

>>2984152
Sony is almost Zeiss tier though. The quality is good, but price tag is extremely high.
That's why we needed Tamron, but they got fucking bought out of business by Zeiss.

So now we have Tokina and Samyang.
But also Sigma, but they are late to the party and won't have their first E-mount until ~2018.

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

19KB, 296x320px

>>2984151
Also, while I'm at it.
It's a lumix and I use it for video. what I want to do is to get a prompted autofocus in video mode, i.e. the camera does not constantly update focus, only when I press the button. I initially thought that that was the difference between AFF and AFS in video mode but they both act exactly the same. I tried doing it with the AE/AF Lock button but I need to keep it pressed down which isnt exactly healthy for my thumb.
I know canon has a such a way of operating but does Lumix have it too?

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

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

File: 1480901960732.jpg (42KB, 898x886px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 898x886px

Silver or black Fuji X-T1 /p/? Picking up one today for the same price

>>2984157
Silver so you can hipster while you hipster

>>2984156
both highlight blown bits. zebras don't blink but are striped pattern, blikies blink but on the full area.
So use blinkies on still scenes and zebras on movement.

Looking for a thin and light camera backpack/sling that will fit a Sony A7II with lens, 1-2 other lenses, and tripod (Currently have a small mefoto). Any suggestions?

>>2984741
Size of lenses? any bigger zooms or big primes like a 70-200/2.8, 15-35mm or 85mm Batis?
You do realize it will not be slim as soon as you attach a lens, right? Especially with a tripod.
Just get any camera messenger bag that is available, from Amazon, Lowepro or if you have money to spare a Billingham.
There are no special Sony A7 camera bags.

File: 1397069415000_1043847.jpg (38KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 500x500px

>>2984741
I have the "Ortlieb Aqua-Cam".
It's waterproof.
It's also air tight, so even air doesn't get in or out.
It can also fit my A7ii with the 55mm, and the 70-300mm A-mount with adapter.

No room for tripod though.

7dii is £1149 with free battery grip and a bunch of other free shit. Weekend deal. Will this be the lowest it will be for a while?

File: ng5070.jpg (79KB, 750x652px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 750x652px

>>2984851
How about the Chinese-made NG 5070?

They also got a bunch of cheap Lowepro (or Lowepro fakes, dunno) and such.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	www.meitu.com
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	544
Image Height	474
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2014:05:08 13:34:16
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	750
Image Height	652

>>2984923
>Chinese-made
Literally junk hinges and shit sewing.

They use metal parts that looks solid on the outside, but it's trash metal which bends and unhinges and with ease.
There is an old digitalrev episode somewhere on youtube where they tested that shit.

>>2984923
>How about the Chinese-made NG 5070?
I have one, it is nice though I mostly use the NG messenger bag and only use the backpack for hikes in the woods.

>>2984938
> There is an old digitalrev episode somewhere on youtube where they tested that shit.
Eh, where?

Has anyone tried the DJI Mavic Pro?
How is it? Is it hard for beginners?

>>2984982
>Is it hard for beginners?
You have to learn to fly a model craft, takes a lot of time, trial and error and expensive spare parts.

Is the 5DSR better than the 5DIII?

Will be focusing mostly on portraits, and event photography as well as landscapes cityscapes etc.

>>2984985
Sure it is better, but honestly, get a 5D III or even a A7 II or D750 and stick the rest of your budget in glass and a lighting setup for portraits or events (probably at least semi-mobile?).

>>2984993
Right now I got one speedlight, an 85 1.2, 16-35 2.8, 50 1.8, and a 100-300 so I'm not too sure about switching over to a different brand. I'm thinking of getting a battery powered strobe and a modifier you know

>>2984995
>50/1.8 and 100-300
Get better glass, at least a 70-200/2.8 IS and a 50/1.4

what exactly does "weather resistant" mean?

I am thinking about buying the Fuji X-T2 with the 35 mm f2 WR. Can I shoot it in a rainstorm? Can I bring it on a boat trip to Niagara Falls and have it be okay?

>>2982565
For when you want to disguise yourself as a traffic light when taking photos.

Does sound like a good deal, though. It looks like something that would be >$150

>>2982565
isn't this the tripod isi got on ebay for $3 once

>>2985001
canon 1.4 or sigma 1.4 art?

>>2985028
It means the camera's not going to leak water in as soon as it gets covered in water, but the manufacturer isn't going to offer a warranty or a IP rating for the camera.

Due diligence should always be observed when operating a camera in adverse conditions. Keep it covered when possible, wipe off excess water when possible, etc.

>>2985028
>Fuji
It's means the same as waterproof. You can fully submerge the camera underwater, hell, even take it deep diving with you. Try it out.

>>2985072
NO. Please DON'T fully submerge your camera unless it is specifically water PROOF. water resistant cameras can only take small amounts of water like rain. High pressure from submersion can easily kill water resistant cameras.

File: 15218670_685679724928084_1611486476_n.jpg (15KB, 600x329px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 600x329px

Anyone know of a cheap starter film scanner I can get for around 100 bucks? I mostly shoot shitty photos if that helps.

>>2985077
fuck off back to /r/eddirt you no fun faggot

>>2985064
Canon. Sigma Art is not professional quality, it is more likely to crap out on you and its AF is known to be inaccurate most of the times.

>>2985112
minolta scan dual iv

use vuescan

File: sony-nikon-fisheye.jpg (556KB, 1500x1125px) Image search: [Google]

556KB, 1500x1125px

I am trying to make a decision here.
Most of what i am shooting is landscape sometimes architecture and ocasionaly something more documentary while traveling/ on vacation with the senpai.
i also like to shoot (action) sports video so video quality is on the list of deciding factors, tho not as much as picture quality.
i currently have and use:
sony a58 body
tokina 11-16 2.8
sony 35 1.8
minolta 50 1.4
i rarely ever use my 75-300 and never use the 18-55 kit lens.
so right now i am planing on upgrading my body.
i would buy the sony a77 m2.
but i am also eyeballing selling my sony gear and getting all the lenses i use for the nikon system. (from what i research lenses are a bit more expensive used than what i could sell my sony lenses for, but that should be fine)
and getting the Nikon d7200 body.
the a77m2 and the d7200 can be had for roughly the same price.
will it be worth the hassle of seling and rebuying my lenses just for a little better image quality of the Nikon? or should i stay with my system and lenses

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SAMSUNG
Camera Model	GT-N7100
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 4.4 (Macintosh)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.6
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2015:09:02 02:19:35
Exposure Time	1/115 sec
F-Number	f/2.6
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	80
Lens Aperture	f/2.6
Brightness	5.0 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	3.70 mm
Comment	K
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1500
Image Height	1125
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>2985214
/p/ does autocorrect f a m to s e n p a i ?
i really meant to write family here

>>2985214
I don't know about the Sony SLT but the D7200 has good AF tracking, buffer and noise performance but you can say good bye to video with Nikon.
I guess it would be better to go for the Canon 80D or a Sony E-mount MILC and a good A-mount adapter.

>>2985214

LA-EA4 has same autofocus as the a77ii I think. It might be worth looking at an a7ii or a6300. They would be only a little more.

a77iii is rumored for next year, but Sony rumors have been less than solid lately.

>>2985125
Fuck off back to /b/, you shitter

>>2985214
>just for a little better image quality of the Nikon
Depends on how important the high iso performace is for you, I guess. For landscapes, it doesn't really matter unless you're into taking astrophotos as well. Video capabilities are also much better on the Sony, especially the autofocus. D7200 is definitely better at anything related to taking photos (excluding focusing manually, I guess), but if you also film videos, especially on the longer lenses, that changes a lot. Just go to any big electronics store with a dslr stand and decide for yourself whether its (or any other Nikon present at the test stand) video capabilities are okay for you or not.

File: Unbenannt.png (170KB, 1263x635px) Image search: [Google]

170KB, 1263x635px

>>2985306
yes i think i will go to the city in the next weeks and see if i can test them out.
i tried astro in the past but wasnt very lucky. i only just got the 11-16 and used the sigma with a max aperture of 4 before.
i made 2-3 astro pics worth showing but most of the time it was just garbage.
i would however like to be able to do more in the future.
i compared the dxo mark scores (couldnt find a direct comparison between the two in low light.)
but those numbers really dont mean anything to me.
just how much worse is the a77m2 when handling high iso?
and on the other hand focus peaking has been very helpfull on the a58 for filming. autofocus doesnt really matter to me since sony doesnt let you choose the settings when using af, so i dont do that.
its a shame the d7200 cant do that .
also it seems that it wont do 60p video, while the sony does.
>>2985223
i really dont like the canon dslr lineup desu.
i also looked into pentax, but they really dont have the lenses for me.
its either gonna be sony or nikon for me.
>>2985236
i had my eyes on the a7ii but its just too expensive and i would have to buy some full frame lenses then also.
my friend has the a6300 and thought it felt really flimsy when using it. i would rather choose the a 6000 for me but i dont think i would have an advantage over the 77m2 when using it with a slt adapter.
also i would like a shoulder display on my next camera, just something i really miss on my current body.

thanks for the help so far guys. cant say you made the descission much easier for me yet, tho. but maybe thats just my spread use case.

>>2985321
I say stay with the A-mount for now, the A77II received good reviews, on par with the D7100 and K-3 in most areas.
The Nikon would be too much a hassle for very small gains in some areas and total loss in video.
And you already have the lenses for it.

>>2985321
>i tried astro in the past but wasnt very lucky. i only just got the 11-16 and used the sigma with a max aperture of 4 before.
I did some with an 11-20 Tokina (which is the same thing really) and a D7000 a while back and it felt great. Too bad I live in a region with a lot of light pollution and rarely ever leave. Having an actual dslr (or at least a mirrorless) is much better than an SLT for this kind of stuff though, obviously.

>couldnt find a direct comparison between the two in low light.
Try this:
https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison?attr18=lowlight&attr13_0=nikon_d7200&attr13_1=sony_slta77ii&attr13_2=nikon_d7000&attr13_3=sony_slta58&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr15_2=raw&attr15_3=raw&attr16_0=6400&attr16_1=6400&attr16_2=6400&attr16_3=6400&normalization=full&widget=1

>but those numbers really dont mean anything to me.
DxO is kind of shady anyway, I don't think they ever released their exact ways of obtaining these metrics. It's helpful in some cases and you can view some neat graphs from the measurement tests, but one has to know what they're looking for exactly and still take everything with a grain of salt.
As for those exact numbers, the first is just an overall score which means jack anyway. The 2nd shows how wide is the tonal range and how good the camera sensor is at detecting and showing the barely noticeable changes in color.
The 3rd one shows how big is the gap between the under- and over-exposed objects can be at base iso before the sensor loses the details. This is especially important when shooting landscapes without graduated filters.
The last one shows the iso performance and the number relates to how high the iso can be before something they've arbitrarily selected occurs. Whatever, the higher the better.
Don't bother with DxO too much, I'd say. A camera is not only a sensor anyway.

>how much worse is the a77m2 when handling high iso?
Noticeably worse, see dpreview.
>it wont do 60p video
It will, but in 1.3 crop only.

>>2981448
Should i blow my load on a full frame body? Or crop?
d600 vs d7100
I'm more interested in shooting landscape/portraiture

File: Screenshot_20161214-185954.png (798KB, 1080x1920px) Image search: [Google]

798KB, 1080x1920px

I was wondering if anyone on here is also using massdrop.

I'd probably buy more if I had more money but some things are really cheap at times.

File: Screenshot_20161214-185915.png (249KB, 1080x1920px) Image search: [Google]

249KB, 1080x1920px

>>2985352
I also find it too Bad that you can't really predictable what gets on Sale when and you technically Just have to wait and get Lucky.

>>2985342
>https://www.dpreview.com/
thanks for that link i really didnt find that one before.
and thanks for explaining the dxo thing. i understood most of it before just how they come up with the iso rating or what it means was unclear to me.

and holy balls the sonys suck in high iso.

>>2985384
Their mirrorless are alright though and most Nikon cameras use Sony sensors, although there's still some low-level processing and noise reduction performed before the data read from the sensor is saved as a raw file.
The reason these particular cameras (SLTs like A-58, A-77 etc) perform noticeably worse is due to their design, the translucent mirror absorbs and reflects about a third of all the light that arrives. It's a very unique and hi-tech'y design which is cool but not too practical. They do perform okay when there's plenty of light though.

>>2985401
i think youre missinformed there friendo.
the mirror swallows a third of a stop, not a third of all the light.

>>2985405
2 to the power of 1/3 then, 20ish percent. Sounds pretty bad.

>>2985426
Nope. EV-0.33, set your exp comp to 0, make a shot then set it to -0.3 and do the shot again. Compare the two images, first is the reference second is the SLT equivalent. Of course the SLT compensates the exposure by +0.3 EV.

Does /p/ know of a good guide for IR filter comparisons?

I want to test it out but can't quite decide which nm to get. 720nm seems to be the most useful one.

>>2985439
Also, I wanted to test it out with my 10stop filter.. Since IR filters already require longer exposures, how does this work when paired together with a much longer exposure like with a 10stop?

I can't seem to find anything online about it.

>>2985439
You start by buying a couple filters in different wavelengths and start shooting with them.
Don't forget to cover the viewfinder

>>2985437
No, I got it. -.33 stops is .8 times original exposure, i.e. 1, that's where the missing 20% are from. Try calculating it as 1/(2^(1/3)). A +.33 stops would be 1*2^(1/3) which is 1.25. A -1 stop is 1/(2^1) and is 1/2, i.e. half the exposure. A plus stop is 1*2^1 and is twice the exposure. A 2 stops underexposure would yield 1/2^2, one fourth of the original exposure. A 2 stops overexposure is 1*2^2 and is 4 times the exposure. Exposure.

>>2985444
B-but they are like 90usd each. I can't do that, anon.

I aim to have it be black and white photos, so that's what the 720nm seems to be most balanced for.

And I did find a guy that had tried out nd filters + ir filters.
There were no particular issue apart from the increased softness from the quality of the filters.

Hey guys,

I'm a beginner and looking for DSLR camera and lens.

Background.
I've been shooting some stuff with iPhone SE for half a year. There are couple of issues which make me want to change a gear - quality of image and how light looks like in the dark environments.

What I'm planning to shoot.
I would describe it as a bunch of keywords - minimal, architecture, shadows, plain clean and simple objects.
Here is some images that I want be able to reproduce - https://imgur.com/a/GQd5o

Requirements.
- full frame (to make object looks really plain, hope it makes sense)
- be able to shoot at dark environment (is it a lens issue?)
- noise-free, quality is really important

That's probably it, the budget is $1500 on all the gear overall.

>>2985560
If you don't know the exact reasons you need full-frame... you don't need full-frame.

>>2985560
>- full frame (to make object looks really plain, hope it makes sense)
Wat?

> - be able to shoot at dark environment (is it a lens issue?)
A strobe is the first answer to this.

But if you're not using one, yea, the body and lens both matter and you might want to kit yourself out for low light. Note that it's pricier and often a bigger compromise than just bringing a light.

> - noise-free, quality is really important
Same thing. Use a strobe.

> the budget is $1500 on all the gear overall.
That gets you like 3/4 of a decent low light camera body, or a decent lens.

Simple portable strobes are cheaper, so I guess you want to go with that.

>>2981448
whats a good first camera for a poorfag like myself

>>2985652
A used entry level DSLR or MILC.
If you can't afford it then use your phone and get a job.
Being a poorfag is a choice.

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

355KB, 720x1280px

How much better is the D610 over the D600.

>>2985967
0.5fps better lol, the difference is negligible. Both cameras have the oil spots on sensor problem.

>>2985967
Literally the same except the D610 has less oil than the D600. Better is in "somewhat improved" but overall not a very good camera.
Entry level features with an entry level APS-C sized inaccurate slow as fuck AF system clustered in the middle of the viewfinder. The FF sensor does no justice when the AF system fails to deliver a sharp image.
It would be better to go for a D7100 or D7200 or in FF the D750 with the much more advanced features and much much better AF. Still no peaking in liveview though.

>>2985970
I heard it was over blown.

>>2985971
>overall not a very good camera.
Really? A lot of people were shilling for it pretty hard. Hmm

>>2985995
Because it is a cheap FF and for some retarded reason people believe the FF is always better meme.
A bad camera is a bad camera no matter what sensor it has.

>>2985995
>Really? A lot of people were shilling for it pretty hard. Hmm
Not that guy, but this camera is basically a D7000 with a larger, much better sensor. So the body and the controls are prosumer-tier which is not bad but far from what's expected from a full-frame camera. The autofocus isn't that great too (D7K was never praised for one and since D600/610 comes with this exact module, the focusing points are all grouped up tightly in the middle, it's embarrassing). Hence, whenever you don't need a quick and effective autofocus and a deep buffer, the camera does well. People normally recommend the D7100 and D7200 as more well-rounded cameras and a D750 as the more expensive alternative (which is also what D600/610 should've been all along really, same sensor but almost none of the disadvantages of these two).

>>2986001
>So the body and the controls are prosumer-tier
It is bloody atrocious entry-tier, stop shilling your bullshit!
It is an entry level FF and should be treated like that, limited UI and clunky bare-minimum body features. Not good value.
Had that POS for two weeks and made absolutely no keepers, can't focus on the street, can't focus in low light, tracking AF is non-existent, absolutely fucking wasted my valuable holiday time on it.
No matter how good the sensor is if the focus is always off. This was the big moment when I realized how much bullshit the crop vs FF is.
A crop body with good body features is always preferable to a FF body with shitty features, this is why I decided on a D7200.

>>2986008
>It is bloody atrocious entry-tier
What tier do controls of D3xxx and D5xxx belong to then?
>this is why I decided on a D7200
Name 5 controls that make D7200 so much better than D7k in terms of handling then.

>>2986008
>Had that POS for two weeks and made absolutely no keepers
>he thinks the camera will make him a better photographer
Your entire argument is invalid

>>2986012
>What tier do controls of D3xxx and D5xxx belong to then?
The same one, but it is to be expected from thr D3x00/5x00 line. The D600/610 are overglorified because of muh fool frame

>Name 5 controls that make D7200 so much better than D7k in terms of handling then.
Only one is enough for me, I point it at something, focus and snap, get the photo as I want it. Make it two, set continuous focus, track the players or a bird and snap-snap-snap, get the photo.
All of this without blurry messy smudges, softness and portraits where the ear or nose is in focus.
Like I said, I care about the end result, the photo, not the size of the sensor or any other gearfaggotry.
The D7200 won't fail to deliver where the D610 was a massive waste of time.

File: ZD700BEAUTY-LG.jpg (123KB, 1024x892px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 1024x892px

>always craved for a D700
>opportunity to buy a mint one from a friend with only 7000 clicks
>8 year old technology
>muh full frame

I don't care about 12 megapickles, plenty enough for my purposes.

I've never used one, but I reckon it must still be relevant, am I right? Or should I not bother?

Currently got a K-3 II, but it displeases me.

>>2986023
>The same one
Hm, let's see the difference in controls between D3xxx/5xxx (I'm looking at 5500) and D7k:
One wheel for selecting aperture and shutter speed, no top lcd screen, can't see the c/s/m focus selector, can't see focusing points selector, can't see the metering mode either. All of these are probably hidden in the menus, or I may be blind. But hey, it has an an articulating screen. There's also only one card slot and it's probably almost completely made out out plastic too. To name a few.
Now on to D7k vs D7200:
Liveview and video selectors have been moved, the mode dial has been nicely updated indeed. My favorite change is the repositioned info button which makes the zoom button second from the bottom, just like on my D700. It's confusing having these buttons disarranged.

>muh autofocus snapsnapsnap
Yeah, I think you're just bad or have expected something exceptional from an autofocus system I've personally called "not that great", despite also owning a D7000 and having made plenty of in-focus shots of moving objects with tele lenses. I think I'm at about 35-40k shutter actuations on that particular camera and I know what that af system is capable off, as well as have a camera with a better af for comparison. Here's the verdict: it's far from stellar but it gets the job done.
It also appears to me that you are still somewhat, let's call it "disappointed" about the camera which you must've bought without consulting anyone or googling user experiences which already gives me a hint of how much your opinion is worth. Take a guess, which camera would a portaitist, a landscape photographer or an astrophotographer would prefer between the D610 and the D7200. Personally, I've never even considered getting a D600 due to what cameras and lenses I already own and what I shoot, but I know people who did buy it and are okay with it, except that one time when one of them experienced the oil issue.

>>2986044
I think your K-3 is better.

But you can always buy one and then sell it again a few weeks later for the same amount.

>>2986048
Guess so, thanks.

I had the K-5 II previously and wish I'd never 'upgraded' to the K-3 II, as I don't feel the files are anywhere near as good, and it feels like high ISO has suffered at the cost of more pixels.

The K-3 II just doesn't seem to inspire me to take photos either.

>>2986044
It's really old. However, if you aren't into these high definition landscapes and don't crop much then it's okay, feels great to use and the colors are so natural. The once famous high-iso performance is obviously mediocre now. The shutter is quite loud. Some specimens experience an issue with their hotshoes if you had put on a large flash and luged it around for a while in the past. Check for the hot pixels and matrix defects before buying. The battery it came with is probably half-dead and can't deliver the required charge for long, so you will have to forget about using liveview and stop trusting the remaining charge meter, at least without the grip. Also, it doesn't have video recording capabilities. If it really has 7000 clicks you will probably have no trouble reselling it if doesn't hold up to your expectations.

>>2986055
Thanks for that.

Not fussed about video, HDR, live view, or anything of that, but will check for hot pixels etc. It has two genuine batteries, but not sure how recent they are. Camera was bought in late 2010 I think.

>>2986057
Oh and if you're into manual focus lenses, check for discrepancy between where the focus is according to the image in the viewfinder and the actual focus as confirmed by the green dot in the lower left corner. I've had this issue with this particular camera model. It's similar to backfocus except the problem is with the shims behind the focusing screen (they're either too thin or too thick) and if you only use autofocus lenses you will never have any issues with the images themselves but the image will be slightly out of focus in the viewfinder. However, focusing manually becomes a problem. You can still do it using the dot indicator, but that's not good at all. This can be fixed within 5 minutes by a technician with the proper spare parts which probably cost next to nothing but aren't available to anyone except those repair guys.

>>2986062
Ok, thanks. I do use a few older manual focus lenses, so I will check that.

Most likely going to be buying an A6000 soon as my first DSLR. Been shooting film on an AE-1 for awhile and I do like it, but the developing times and general hassle is making me want another option. I'll still use it, but I want a digital complement.

SO, if there were one great first lens you would recommend for the A6000, what would it be? My use cases are going to be portraits and other general snapshits, probably. I'm likely going to buy a cheap Canon EF converter so I can use my current lenses with it, which are a 29mm, 50mm, and some telephoto lens that I don't remember the focal lengths of off the top of my head because I rarely use it.

>>2986062
You can actually fix the mirror rest stop problem yourself. My F4's split prism didn't match up with the AF and it drove me crazy. A 1.5mm hex screw at the front of the mirror box controls the position of the mirror-down position. I'm guessing on newer cameras that there's something similar.
>>2986044
Nothing wrong with a D700. Built like a tank, AF module that's only received minor improvements over the years, well understood metering system. Weak points are the hot shoe, flash (keep covered in wet weather). ISO performance is about as good as current gen APS-C, good noise characteristics up to ISO 6400. Considering its age, it's great. Write speeds can be ancient. Low res sensor means it'll tolerate film era lenses like the AF-D wide angles better. Most people with the 36MP sensors aren't so pleased by the 20/24/28/35 AF-D.
>>2986008
Git fukken gud

Only in gear threads would people pretend the D7000/D600 are ancient, unusable hunks. The sensors are dependable, the controls are fine, the body is sealed to a D800's standard, the AF is a thousand times better than what you deserve. People made perfectly fine images in demanding situations with 11, or even just 1 AF point. People should learn to use their cameras, whatever it is they have, to the maximum capability of the camera. You wouldn't miss shots if you hadn't put it in AF-A (or probably full auto lel).

After some traveling I did in couple last months I decided it's finally time to upgrade from my smartphone to something that actually has zoom and can take pictures in not-perfect conditions. I also wanted to get into photography so now is the moment.

I want to spend around 650eur, do you guys think I have any better option than Olympus E-M10? Or should I go with DSLR instead? But which one, D5300? Is the price difference betwen it and, for example Canon 1300D justified? Especially for beginner.

I'm getting into photography and buying my first DSLR.

I've narrowed it down to two choices.

Option 1:
- Nikon D3400
- 18-55mm lens with stabilization
- 70-300mm lens with stabilization
- $730-750 depending on accessories and seller

Option 2:
- Nikon D5500
- 18-55mm lens with stabilization
- 70-300mm lens with stabilization
- $920-950 depending on accessories and seller

Which one should I get?

>>2986099
A 70-300mm 4.5-5.6G VR lens is a great choice, if that's the one you've decided on. You can also get it used in near-mint condition relatively cheap. The 18-55 produces good images but is something you will ditch eventually for sure, so I hope you're not going to have to pay much for it.
As for the cameras, after a quick lookup it doesn't seem like there's so much difference between the two, with the exception of D5500 having a flipscreen, a built-in intervalometer and more focus points. I guess it comes down to whether you feel like these three differences are worth $200 or not. The only one of the three that can bite you in the ass later is the autofocus system (you can buy the intervalometer separately and the screen isn't that important anyway), check out some video reviews or something, or visit a store that sells these and see for yourself if the focus is good enough for you.
Are you sure you can't get a D7100 ($700 for the body on Adorama)? That one's great and is probably only slightly over the budget if you buy everything slightly used/refurbished.

>>2986111

>A 70-300mm 4.5-5.6G VR lens is a great choice, if that's the one you've decided on.

It is, with one difference, it's 4.5-6.3: http://www.adorama.com/nk70300afpv.html

>The 18-55 produces good images but is something you will ditch eventually for sure, so I hope you're not going to have to pay much for it.

It's a standard kit lens, so yeah, expense isn't much of a worry. Why are you so sure I'll get rid of it?

Are you sure you can't get a D7100 ($700 for the body on Adorama)?

I'm a beginner, figured I'd stick to the models that Nikon has designated as "beginner DSLRs"

>>2986147
You can look at the Tamron 70-300 VC if you want to spare a few dollars, I heard good things bout it.
I would also throw in a cheap babby prime too, a 50/1.8 for portraits or a 35/1.8 for generic walkabout lens.
I use my 35mm prime the most.

File: top-1200[1].jpg (189KB, 1200x660px) Image search: [Google]

189KB, 1200x660px

>>2986147
I don't know much about the af-p version apart from that it uses this new motor. I do know, however, that the af-s version has proven itself time and time again, it's amazing for its price. Looking at the specs on Adorama, I see that this new lens has a different number of elements and groups so it will render the image in a different way. CBA to google reviews frankly, hopefully it's okay. Can't tell much about the alternatives from the other brands unfortunately.

>Why are you so sure I'll get rid of it?
Well, it is kind of dark for a kit lens. Doesn't go wider than 5.6 on the long end. If you had a fixed aperture kit lens like, I dunno, a tamron 17-50 2.8, then you'd be able to shoot wide open with four times quicker shutter speed or four times lower iso. Sometimes it matters, sometimes it does not, but eventually people grow out of these lenses and go for something more versatile.

>I'm a beginner, figured I'd stick to the models that Nikon has designated as "beginner DSLRs"
Naw, it doesn't mean that all the other cameras are like space shuttles to bicycles. See picrelated, the D7100 even has the "green mode" on its dial, select that and it becomes a point and shoot like an iphone. All that "beginner" stuff stands for cheap and underequipped. They can still produce same great images, it's just that you won't feel as comfy when you try to go beyond shooting family and landscapes in automatic modes.

Also, do trust the dude that suggests the 50mm for portraits and 35mm (one of the few dx lenses worth buying) for daily use. Great choices for the prices. Buy them used if you want those cheaper.

File: sigma_18_35mm_f1_8_dc_hsm_967344.jpg (261KB, 2500x2500px) Image search: [Google]

261KB, 2500x2500px

Whats the consensus on this particular piece?

>>2986190
Big, heavy and the Tamron 15-35 is better.

>>2986190
It's bretty good

>>2986173
>I don't know much about the af-p version
http://www.dslrbodies.com/lenses/nikon-lens-reviews/nikkor-zoom-lens-reviews/nikon-70-300mm-f45-63-af-p.html

It's a cheapshit lens, but it's faster and sharper than the 55-200/300 ever could be. The max aperture sucks, and for some insane reason there's a non-VR version that's forcibly included with the kits instead of the VR version, but otherwise the lens is great.

I'm mostly interested in portrait photography. Right now I have a 50mm 1.8. Ultimately I really want an 85mm 1.2 L ii, but that's not happening anytime soon because of that price tag. Also, I really like bokeh. So is it worth to to upgrade from the 50mm 1.8 to an 85mm 1.8 or should I just save that money for a better lens instead?

I'm getting a Canon G7X. OS THERE ANYTHING BETTER FOR 500$?

>>2986358
Yes, most things.

I have a budget of 500$ to spend on a DSLR but I'm absolutely clueless on what to get. Where can I start reading up on this before I make a decision?

>>2986441
Start with the sticky.
The generic beginner models are:
Nikon D3300/3400 or D5500 (used D7000/7100)
Pentax K-50/K-S2/K-70
Canon 1300D/700D/760D

Buy used if possible, try to get one of the beginner primes too, 35mm is the standard for APS-C, Pentax and Nikon has one.
Canon has the 50mm cheap prime, Pentax and Nikon has one too, on APS-C it is an excellent portrait lens but limiting as a generic walkabout lens. 35mm on APS-C is about 55mm equivalent, 50mm is about 75-80mm equivalent. Look up APS-C crop factor, avoid anything associated with the Northrup name attached.

After feeling like my 28mm was too wide and 50mm was too tight, I finally grabbed a 35mm for my A7. Think I've found my perfect 1 lens travel kit. What a lovely focal length.

>>2986503
I use a 35mm on my APS-C, it is my most used lens.
I know it is 55mm equivalent but it just feels right most of the times, although I find it a bit limiting some times.
Do you think a 21mm prime (30mm eq.) or a 15mm one (22mm eq.) should fit more if 50mm equivalent is my main?

>>2986441
Get a speedlight.

File: IMG_7764.jpg (83KB, 732x503px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 732x503px

Posted this is in the film thread but realized I should have posted it here:

I need suggestions for M42 lenses. I just started film photography with a Spotmatic F and it came with an SMC 55mm 1.8, which is a great lens, but I'm looking for some other things to play with. I know a little bit about the Takumar lenses just from browsing forums but no nothing about other brands.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	732
Image Height	503
Scene Capture Type	Standard

File: Screenshot_2016-12-20-11-54-34.png (314KB, 720x1280px) Image search: [Google]

314KB, 720x1280px

>>2986099
>>2986111
Checking your trips a and dubs.
The D7200 body only is 625 USD on mailbu camera. Ive never used the site tho.

>>2986591
Helios 44-2 f2 55mm, Helios 40-2 85mm, Carl Zeiss Jena 50mm f2.8, Pentacon Auto MC f1.8 50mm.

>>2986612
Brand new for $625? It must be gray market at the very least. I dunno, sounds too good to be true. The camera itself is great, although I've heard someone complain that the sensor is not as good at preserving shadow detail as the one on D7100.

>>2986621
Yeah I don't know how reliable they are and the 7100 had banding issues which is worse imo

>>2986591
Pentax-A 35mm f2, Carl Zeiss Ultron 50mm f1.8, Jupiter 11-A, Tair II, Yashica 24mm f2.8.

>>2986463
Thanks, I'll start looking into a used D7000/D7100

File: laowa.jpg (44KB, 589x442px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 589x442px

15MM F2,0!
5
M
M

F
2,
0

I for one can't wait for our Chinese overlords to take over Japan.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D810
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/4.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Exposure Time	1/125 sec
F-Number	f/8.0
ISO Speed Rating	1250
Lens Aperture	f/8.0
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	120.00 mm
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto

>>2986463
Whats wrong with northrup?

File: 1469727061649.jpg (29KB, 620x400px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 620x400px

>>2986919
>what's wrong with being a cuck

Good compact now that GR prices are through the roof?

About to pull the plug on either the Tamron 24-70 f2.8 VC or the Nikon 24-120 f2.8 ED. Thoughts?

>>2988260
both horrible, but at leas the Tamron knows what it wanna do, even if it fails

>>2988267
So what is a good mid range zoom then?

>>2988267
The Tamron is a good walkaround and event tog lens, not something you would want to base your main income on though. But for hobby it is an excellent lens. Better than the Nikon at least and cheaper.
What makes it bad? Two words, onion bokeh. Can make the background weird sometimes, its design is the last before the aspherical elements manufacturing tech was improved, basically it is turned on a lathe with diamond tools and you can see the grooves. Newer techniques minimized this effect since then.
If you want a good wide zoom lens though the Tamron 15-35 is something to look at.

>>2988293
never heard this term but know what it means.
It seems to be the trade-off for high-quality, AF modern lenses for cheap.
I bet if you were to compare similar lenses at different budget-points you'dfind it only in the cheap bracked.
Then again it really only is a problem if you bokeh-whore too much

>>2988296
The tradeoff is only with the Tammy 24-70/2.8. Their 70-200/2.8 VC is superb, even the older "Macro" version is well sought after and the aforementioned newer 15-35 is an excellent UWA zoom lens.
With the 24-70/2.8 bokeh-whoring is one thing but busier background can look very psychedelic and Dalí-like at certain distances and aperture settings. Can be destructive to images so you have to chose the background well, or rule out busy twigs and shrubbery. Most things even trees with leaves are fine though.
Not the money-maker like the 70-200/2.8 VC or the 15-35 but still good and usable.

https://www.jbhifi.com.au/cameras/dslr/canon/canon-eos-1300d-digital-slr-camera-with-18-55mm-lens/946381/
should i cop this? need a new one anyway

I can get a Ricoh GR for cheap as hell. Think it is the first digital one.

Apparently the pics get black stripes. He says it is probably the card reader or some software problem.

Should I go for it? Maybe try to update the firmware? Or can I get the card reader replaced easily? Maybe I can do it myself?

>>2993195
No, it is probably something wrong with the camera.
Tell the owner to sort it out, no business until it can deliver the photos.

>>2986198
how is it better?

pros:
image stabilization

cons:
1.3 stops slower
200g heavier (810g vs 1100g)
You can't put normal filters on the Tamron
$400 more expensive than the Sigma

File: front.jpg (126KB, 1280x959px) Image search: [Google]

126KB, 1280x959px

Noob question.
But is the Sony A6000 a good entry level camera?

>>2993370
Yes, it's perfect. Easy to use, and is really good once mastered

>>2993372
Thanks much

>>2993370
No, anything less than full-frame is absolute trash... hell even full frame is trash. Only shoot medium format pentax otherwise you should kill yourself.

>>2993857
I don't think I'll ever understand why people on 4chan gets so riled up over the smallest things

>>2993861
Because the small things are shit, only medium format is king. Faggot.

I really want to step my game up, /p/.

The most complex thing I've ever used is a basic P&S camera; I currently own & use a Sony Cyber-shot.

I want to go at least a step above a P&S, what camera would you recommend? Of course, I realize a question like that is awfully vague, so I've thought about it for a bit, and I think I've narrowed my needs down to the following:
>for travel use (size/weight isn't an issue, I'm just saying that it's for non-professional use)
>speed is very important to me (I'm very unimpressed with my current camera, with its laggy zoom & shutter; I missed many good shots because of the unresponsive controls)
>I like taking pictures of moving objects, such as birds, dolphins, aquarium fish, cars, motorcycles, etc.
>I really, really like birds

I realize I'm probably being a fag right now, so if you still need more information from me before you can suggest anything, please let me know.

File: geeps.png (10KB, 261x195px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 261x195px

Help me /p/, you're my only hope.

I shoot photography the way I shoot my load on yo mamma's face - RAW.

What white balance setting should I use to keep my previews looking consistent but not shit?

>>2993992
Auto.

>>2994018
Are you shoah? It seems as though Aperture and Lightroom use the Auto WB exif as a starting point and if I take, say, a series of photos I want to stitch as a panorama or Brenizer technique they all have a different WB

>>2993992
>What white balance setting should I use to keep my previews looking consistent but not shit?
I don't know, maybe one with a consistent, pre-set colour temperature value, and not one that algorithmically decides based on the scene?

>>2993991
a6000 now go away

>>2993963
You literally didn't address my post at all
You've got a lot of growing up to do

>>2994032
>6000
>birds and others moving things

That is literally the most wrong answer you could give.

>>2993991
Youll want a DSLR for autofocus that can actually track moving things. E.g. Nikon D5300 + a kit lens + the new AF-p telephoto zoom.

>>2993963
>>2994258
>>6000
>>birds and others moving things
>That is literally the most wrong answer you could give.

He coulda said Fuji mirrorless. Would have been better of manual focusing.

>>2993861
>>2994251
Not being able to detect sarcasm is a sign of autism

>>2994270
>have an asperger's episode
I WAS BEING SARCASTIC LOOOOL

File: 1457156963608.jpg (146KB, 500x370px) Image search: [Google]

146KB, 500x370px

>>2994282
Why are you so upset m8?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2016-03-24T18:23:42+10:00
Image Width	500
Image Height	370

>>2994288
I was just mocking you. But if you think I was upset then more power to you

>>2994289
>I was just mocking you
Yes I could see your intentions, you just came off a little mad is all

>>2985321
If video is important to you you'd go mirrorless, M4/3's or Canon DSLR (with magic lantern but still canon has became shit on video on the last couple of years, losing to Sony and Panasonic).
I'd say stay on A-Mount with an A77ii, Sony lenses for A-Mount are getting cheaper as people are shifting focus to E-Mount.

>>2986099
>70-300mm
what are you going to do with it?
it was the first lens i sold when i got my first DSLR, nice bokeh on tele etc but not an good overall purpose and getting a faster lens was a better investment.

>>2994032
>>2994258
>>2994269
Anon who asked the question here.

I almost seriously considered the A6000 or some other type of mirrorless camera. It seemed like a middle ground to practice/play around with before rolling with the big boys.

But I'm looking at some Boxing Week sales, and finding that DSLRs are cheaper than mirrorless right now. So now I'm actually considering a DSLR.

My next question is this: do DSLRs come with a steep learning curve?

>>2994531
>It seemed like a middle ground to practice/play around with before rolling with the big boys
>do DSLRs come with a steep learning curve?

This is a misunderstanding. Mirrorless just as advanced cameras as DSLRs. Although the user experience is slightly different. DSLRs tend to be a smoother experience because of the faster autofocus, optical viewfinder, and instant on. The main advantage of mirrorless is that the electronic viewfinder is slightly more true to exactly waht the sensor in the camera sees and you can preview your exposure histogram

Both of these advantages could be said to help a beginner have a less frustrating experience

Anyway, to answer the question, no. The basics of the technical aspects of photography can be learned in an afternoon

>>2994577
That's very good to know, thank you very much for your helpful response. I also want to thank you for not judging me; I rarely see that on 4chan, especially when it's a frustrating topic such as technology.

Now I'm thinking of buying a mirrorless AND a DSLR. I realize that's a lot of money to be casually throwing around, but to me, the difference is only one more paycheck. I'm also kind of excited about shopping around for lenses and other equipment.

>>2994597

If you are interested in both, look at adapted lenses on a mirrorless camera.

A newer Sony mirrorless can autofocus Sony DLSR, Canon DSLR, Nikon DSLR, and Leica M-mount lenses just as fast as their native mirrorless lenses.

Not necessary, but it might be nice to be able to use lenses on both of your bodies.

Honestly though, I'd just go with one. The slow autofocus speeds are not really much of a problem on a newer body unless you are doing professional sports photography. I honestly think an electric viewfinder is actually an improvement over an optical one.

Battery life is probably the biggest negative of a mirrorless, but since they have instant sleep and boot times, it isn't really an issue. You get on average 400-500 shots out of a battery, which is more than I shoot most days as a hobbyist.