/gear/ - Gear thread

File: rJMtKyG-2.jpg (2MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3264x2448px

>>2988790
Is the D7200 any good for a beginner? What issues does it have? The D7100 doesn't do good enough low light I heard.

How important is full-frame for wedding photography? I know it's a notch better (especially in darker situations), but is it really a must-have thing?

>>2988832
Doesn't really matter what camera a beginner uses, the important thing is that they learn how to control exposure through whatever means they have available. The D7200 is an excellent camera that doesn't need to be upgraded for a while though.

The two cameras are effectively the same, minus minor changes to the sensor and AF, and a usably large buffer on the D7200. The D7200 has slightly better low light AF, the D7100 bands when pushing shadows past +4EV.

>>2988835
Wedding photography comprises shooting in multiple and varying locations and conditions. Your tool of choice needs to be versatile and capable. You need to move up the chain to get those kinds of cameras, and they invariably get expensive enough that you might as well get a full frame camera.

Can anyone who owns a Leica M8 tell me if they're still worth buying at around 1200-1500 dollars

I want to get into a digital rangefinder and it seems like the cheapest option. Film is too much of a hassle for me.

Recommendations for a tripod? $150 budget, using for amateur landscape shooting w a d5300. More portable preferred.

>>2988848
>Film is too much of a hassle for me.
>put film in
>shoot
>develop
what's the hassle, it's actually cool to develop and discuss film and discover new films

I'm getting a konica c35 AF as my first ever camera. Anything I should expect from the camera itself, and with me being a beginner?

File: 1383296185166.png (745KB, 855x1008px) Image search: [Google]

745KB, 855x1008px

>>2988848
>Film is too much of a hassle for me.
>I'll just shoot APS-H instead
>willing to spend around 1200-1500
Just buy an M9/M240 you fucking pleb.

>>2988790
>old thread still on PAGE FUCKING ONE
>new thread
Stop this shit you asshole

>>2988879
fuck off junk

What do you guys think of Sony's 18-55 on the A6000? I know a lot of people hate the 16-50, and I would rather not have a power zoom anyway so I've been considering the older (?) 18-55. Currently, I have a few vintage lenses but nothing wider than 35mm. I'm starting to shoot more video so I'm gonna need something as wide as 20 or 24mm, but I don't think I'll use it enough to justify getting a Rokinon 20mm prime or whatever. Really, I'm just looking for a cheap and versatile lens with OSS. Is the IQ bad enough for me to start looking for other options?

>>2988993
Better than the collapsible kit lens but still subpar compared to the other brands bottom of the barrel kit lenses.
I would suggest you to get a nice cheap 35mm prime but unfortunately Sony has none in the budget crop range.
Get a Nikon or a Pentax, their cheap primes are very nice and the new collapsible kit lenses are quite decent, especially the Nikon.

>>2988993
For video it's more than adequate, 1080p is only 2mp, the downsampling will counter any inherent softness.

For stills, yeah, fine for snaps, just don't go into 100% mag without an expectation of softness.

Having said all this, it will probably do a better job than most "affordable" legacy glass.

>>2988993

16-50 is actually pretty good for what it is. The center is surprisingly sharp.

It has some major distortion and fringing, however. But a lot of that can be fixed in post.

The 18-55 is pretty much better in every way except for size.

>>2989009
>16-50 is actually pretty good for what it is
nope

>The center is surprisingly sharp
nope

>It has some major distortion and fringing, however. But a lot of that can be fixed in post
fixing CA in post only solves the color fringing, the inherent weird in-texture colors and softness stays.

>The 18-55 is pretty much better in every way except for size
the only somewhat true statement but it is still subpar compared to other more modern kit lenses.

Manufacturers should offer different 'kit' lenses

The normie:
DSLR + wide to mild tele zoom

The photography autist:
DSLR + 35/50mm (or equivalent crop lens) f1.8 prime

My old kit primes (such as Canon FD 50mm f1.8 and Minolta 50mm f1.4) have better optical quality than the 18-70mm kit lens I got with my D70 11 years ago.

>>2988993
it's ok. soft at 55mm.
it's better than the 16-50 but lens variation might get you a crappy one. it's a sony.

just get the 20mm f2.8 pancake. you'll appreciate the compactness.

sony oss is not that good. my eos m 18-55 is way better.

>>2989012
my copy is surprisingly sharp in the center at 16-24mm.
i sold it.
bought another copy with the body, it's pretty garbage.

>>2989014
The 35-70 eqv. zoom is called a "normal zoom", because it covers the normal range. Wider is wide (even if e.g. 28mm is just barely wide), longer is tele (similar for 85mm).

>>2989030
>mincing words like this
You would be a prime candidate for the "photography autist" package I see.

Copied from Last thread

Okay, Just got some Cash in my Pocket, time to Set up a budget.
My Monitor is slowly dying (pixels going dark one by one) it might have half a year of usability left. Currently using an Nvidia 660GTX as a graphics Card.
Wanna Go for a 1920x1200 Screen and a Radeon RX 480. My altogether Budget is unser 450€. The RX480 I can get for between 180 and 380. What are good Brands and what are important Points to Look at for both?
P.S. yes I do Game with my rig and I mostly do Video rather than photos with my gear, so I need a Bit more Power.

Hi, i have a question
I've recently got 55mm f1.8 for my a7 and now i'm looking to getting an ultrawide lens, so i need a recommendation for one

>>2989032
>1920x1200
16:10 is true patrician's choice, but it's disproportionally expensive and limits your available options. You're much better off settling for a 1920x1080

>>2989057
Samyang's 14mm perhaps? Might be good to wait on the new "XP" one.

Or the Laowa / Venus Optics 12mm f/2.8.

maybe this is a good thread to ask, i recently got an old japanese Mamiya MSX 1000 camera, saved it from being thrown out because i thought it looked cool

got it home and remembered i don't know jack shit about cameras. anybody have any info about this brand or model?

>>2989077
Have you tried googling it?

Are after christmas sales a meme? Should I just use Amazon like normal? t. poor college boy

>>2989080
yeah but im not really finding a lot other than a short little wiki article and a review that mostly goes over specs. i was kind of hoping for something a little more in-depth maybe

>>2989088
try the /film/ thread

I've got a used 60D with a 50mm, grip and a LED for xmas.
I already installed Magic Lantern and goddamn it's really magic, wonder why Canon gimps video shooting so much on their DSLRs. ML really brings up the potential and shows that sensor is not the bottleneck, software is.
Are there any DSLRs or mirrorless that pack the same amount of features ML offers but out of the box?

>>2989100
Panasonic GH4/GX7/GX85, Sony A7s/A6300/A6500 so basically every camera intended for serious video work.

>>2989100
>wonder why Canon gimps video shooting so much on their DSLRs.
So that their DSLRs don't wind up sapping sales from their more expensive video gear.

>>2989104
So the GH4 is a good software update for the GH3?
Because the GH3 lets you shoot high bitrate video and choose res and shit but it doesn't pack 10% of what ML does.
>>2989105
Even their 5DmkIV and shit series is gimped down, fucking jews. Canon is delusional if they think they are still compelling to videomakers these days.

>>2989108
Canon is protecting their cine series cams with their shit gimped features thinking people will buy expensive cine gear to take their vlogs.
Bloody stupid if you ask me.

>>2989110
Yeah. What's really happening is everyone is going for GH4/Sony/Blackmagic/RED alternatives and no one is giving a fuck about Canon anymore.
They just start packing their software with more features.

>>2989111
>Be Video shooter that also uses his DSLM for Party Pictures and casual street photography
>Some Friend asks me about good Beginner camras
>Decide to Look into Canon and Nikon Starter Models for him
>They have barely any Feature beyond a shuttersbutton and one selectorwheel
>ANY Sony, Fuji, Pana, Oly, camera at the Same margin has the Maximum Features their flagships have, mostly Hardware limitations
>flipping Touchscreens, auto-bracketing, auto-timelapse, heckloads of different Styles, blinkies, Focus peaking, tracking Focus, in everything from the cheap GM5 to the GH4
>A6000 more or less a non-4k A6300
>Oly just upgrading the IBIS, Buttons and leather
How can these fuckheads Even get away with this? That's like two warring nations equipping their nations only with WW1 gear, while everyone else uses 21th century technomarvels

>>2989144
It's because dSLRs equal pro looking good cameras in the eyes of people starting into photography, they wanna something big and professional blablabla.
Doesn't matter if it has one wheel only, Canon and Nikon can profit on that. IMHO gimped hardware buttons are nowhere near as important as the gimped software they use, as i said, Magic Lantern does wonders to these cameras. And the 60D body is okay enough for me, since the only other thing i could get at the budget was a GH3 but that doesn't even have a hack and probably never will.

My Nikon 35mm f1.8 DX has a little piece of dirt on one of the internal elements which is large enough that it's visible as a soft spot on a photo taken with the aperture wide open and I don't want to pay to get it cleaned if I can avoid it. Anyone here ever take one of them apart or have disassembly instructions for it? I've successfully repaired a Nikon 18-70's stuck zoom ring and replaced the severed VR ribbon cable in an 18-200 before, so I know I'm capable, but I was able to find parts diagrams and service instructions for those lenses and can't find them for this one.

>>2989144
They have lenses

>>2989156
And how they (60d and gh3) handle high ISO in terms of losing dynamic range? That old 18mp Canon sensor against not so old mft liveMOS. Some deals are just tempting.

hey guys,
what's the verdict on d500 vs d750 these days? I'm mostly worried about image quality and it seems like it's pretty close and the 500's actually sharper. but there's a small(?) boost with the 750 for dynamic range?

>>2989165
Here's a tip for you: stop being a gearfaggot!

>>2989165
The D750 will have a little less noise at higher ISOs, the SNR is a little (5-10%) better, dynamic range is so close you won't be able to tell the difference. This is basically a "full frame vs crop sensor" decision for you. Do you have some DX lenses? Get the DX camera. Do you want full frame? Get full frame.

I'd have full frame.

Just got a DSLR camera for Christmas. It's pretty easy to use, but I'd really like to learn about how it works. Does anyone know of any websites that explain things like f-stop, ISO, etc.? I tried eating Wikipedia but it was pretty confusing.

>>2989173
>eating

READING, fuck this phone.

>>2989173
EAT UP MARTHA

>>2989001
So you're suggesting the Nikon/Pentax kit lenses + an adapter, right?
>>2989002
>>2989009
>>2989025
The reason I was considering Sony's 18-55 at all was because of some kind of IS, which I might love with an adapter and a different brand. Also, it seems like I can get the 18-55 for about $100, which is around my budget anyway. Should I just save up for a better lens?

>>2989168
is dynamic range really that close? I've read some specs that claim an extra stop from the 750, and that's what I'm most worried about because I push stuff with ETTR all the time. I'm just not sure how big the difference in IQ is (especially with the AA filter removed) and I'm wondering if the added reach is more significant
I have some FX glass too

>>2989180
Why on earth would you buy kit lenses? Get some decent lenses you fuck!

>>2989181
>is dynamic range really that close?
If you want to look at the numbers, don't ask 4chan, go to dxomark
https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Nikon-D500-versus-Nikon-D750___1061_975
So close you literally cannot tell the difference by eye.

>>2989191
>go to dxomark
kindly die in a fire

>>2989193

Hey, you asked for specs that show whether there's an extra stop of dynamic range there (there isn't)

>this faggot thinks that he can measure dynamic range with his eye better than you can with instrumentation

>>2989224
I asked for specs, not doctored bullshit "testing" statistics

>>2989230
Citation please

>>2989230
If it's not good enough for you google it yourself and tell us what you find you fuckign faggot

>>2989236
>>2989237
Undisclosed measuring methods means the results cannot be reproduced by an independent third party meaning the results are as good as the toilet paper you wipe your ass with.
In short, doctored.

>>2989165
Choose the body that suits the lenses you want to use. That's really the only reason to go with DX or FX these days, unless you're shooting pitch black refugee camps for Reuters or something.

>>2989224
I'm not the shitposter (>>2989193 >>2989230), I'm the guy who asked the original question. It still looks like there's maybe one extra usable stop with the d750 to me based on this https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-d7200/13
and these
https://www.camerastuffreview.com/nikon-camera-review/review-nikon-d500
https://www.camerastuffreview.com/nikon-camera-review/review-nikon-d750
but I was really wondering if someone had experience to the contrary, and you said the difference was negligible. For shadow recovery a full stop seems kind of like a big deal...

>>2989245
You wouldn't have this dilemma if you knew how to expose properly. Years ago people were shooting with a 5D or worse and they managed to do a fine job.
Get your shit together, today it is possible to nail exposure on a bottom of the barrel entry body just fine. Git gud fgt

File: erect.jpg (258KB, 2000x1286px) Image search: [Google]

258KB, 2000x1286px

I'm going traveling soon and casually mentioned I wanted a better zoom (than the default Nikon kit) for my familiy and they went ahead and got me a freaking Tamron 16-300mm lens for christmas. I feel like a spoiled shit. But anyhow I now need something new to put it on, so is it fine to put a lens like that on a cheaper body (I was thinking a d3300, but it feels kinda wrong when the lens is that much more expensive) or is something like the 5000-range better suited for it? Does it even matter?

My old cam is an ancient worn out d40, that has served me well, but the sensor is full of gunk and I kinda want something more modern with a tad more mpixels etc.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON 1 J4
Camera Software	Ver.1.00
Photographer	Picasa
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/5.7
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	4162
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	81 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2014:06:07 12:03:39
Exposure Time	1/320 sec
F-Number	f/5.6
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	400
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	30.00 mm
Image Width	4767
Image Height	3064
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	Low Gain Up
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown
Unique Image ID	76a715b85b73d9f915ceba5fc6ca4353

Thinking of selling my Nikon 50 1.8 to get the sigma 35 art. I have a d7100. What you guys think?

>>2989253
the thing that matters with camera upgrades for lenses like that is autofocus. so check if that lens needs an in-body motor, and understand that the camera body quality will affect focus speed. basic exposure is not usually a big deal.

>>2989254
Do it, but I would get the older screwdrive 35mm or the newer 35/1.8 in-lens focus motor one instead.
The Sigma Art line has focus motor issues that crap out the same after costly repairs.

>>2989259
Ahh. What's the possibility that the art lens crap out on users? The reason I want to get that is people praised for its sharpness. I did regret getting the 50 when my only kit lens was sent to repair.

>>2989268
Just get the Nikkor 35mm. The focus motor in the Art lenses burn out often. I've seen a few sad posts on forums about the Art lens motor crapping out, repairing it and crapping out again.
Maybe the other alternative would be the new Tamron SP 35mm.

My 700D got stolen, because I'm an ass and didn't hide the fact I had a camera in my backpack in a busy city. Live and learn.
Loved it and looking to get a similar replacement, maybe a little cheaper (budget depends on if my insurance will cover it). Should I use opportunity to get a non-canon alternative?

>>2989284
Sorry to hear that anon. Get another 700D, used. It is much cheaper now.
Who knows, maybe you can buy back the one that got stolen.
But then again this will not bring back George Micheal

>>2989253
You might wanna go read some online >opinions to see if that lens is actually any good. wide-to-superzooms tend to sacrifice IQ for versatility. Seeing as you have a kit zoom, you might wanna exchange it for one that begins at 55 or 70 instead

That probably makes you feel even more like a spoiled shit. But remember the most spoiled shit of all is the one that doen't make sure to put his presents to use in the best way possible. And that may or may not involve exchanging it for something else

>>2989253
>so is it fine to put a lens like that on a cheaper body
Your enthusiasm is okay, but this *is* a lens for a cheaper body.

> Does it even matter?
Yea, but only in the sense that you *usually* want your glass to be better than the body, at least for glass you often shoot with.

D3300 and that lens should probably work fine, if it features an internal autofocus motor.

>>2989239
> Undisclosed measuring methods
Good thing they're not undisclosed for DxO, so we can just use that.

>>2989168
>I'd have full frame.
Why? for the specific example of the d500 vs d750, what difference does it make?

Ohaio
Student here. I've been taking a film class where we use $3,000 camcorders to film. I want to buy one for myself, but that's a bit out of my price range.
Any recommendations for stuff under 500 bucks that can shoot video and stills? Preferably something on Amazon- I got some gift card money there today.

I fell for the Sony hype train.

I have my Sony A6000 for around 2 months and I just can't. The experience of shooting, the interface, it's much less pleasing than with the D5300 I was borrowing before.

Should I sell it? I'm in a small town, no one's gonna buy it. And what should I get instead? Fuck.

>>2989364
>he bought a camera based on meme magic and not how it actually felt and performed in hand
>>2989362
GH2/3/4, Canons with Magic Lantern, adapted manual lenses.

>>2989165
Depends if you want ultimate image quality (might as well be a D750), or image quality in demanding situations (sports, high speed, adverse weather, etc, D500).

Anybody this worried about image quality in a flagship current generation product should kill themselves though. Fucking gearfags.

Hey guys.
So it's been almost seven years since I got my canon t2i (550d). Since that time I got a 24-105 usm (not the L) and have been using that lens for most of my shots. I also have a zenitar fish eye which i hardly use, and a nifty fifty (with the atrocious old motor). I'm itching to upgrade, since now even my phone can take better pictures in plenty of situations, and it's been harder and harder to actually bother to bring the camera along for anything that doesn't require telephoto reach. I feel like I've pretty much pushed this thing to it's limit.
Want to get something new, but probably more of an upgrade than a direct successor in the series. I was thinking a used 6D but I haven't seen one that goes less than a grand (hopefully they do announce an mk2 to drop prices). Or should I just get new glass? If I do get a new body, realistically how much can I get from selling my gear? Would appreciate your input.
tl;dr
>Have a t2i, want to upgrade. Worth selling it?

How accurate is lenscore.org's bokeh scoring system? They ranked these lenses in this order

Canon EF 135mm f/2.0L USM > Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II > Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM > Canon EF 50mm f/1.2L > Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L > Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

All things considered, does that look about right?

>>2989393
>no 200/2
a shit

Why don't you look at photos on flickr and judge if the bokeh is pleasing to you?

>>2989393
boke quality is very much subjective

>>2989108
but the jews fears the samurai

>>2989378
>anyone this worried about image quality should sudoku
if it's not such a big deal, great. it's just the way the reviews of the d500 read only a complete vegetating retard would consider using it for landscapes

hey geargays, are those DxO megapixel equivalent numbers as ridiculous as they seem?

>>2989407
Just because it's a high end sports camera doesn't mean it can't take the exact same landscape pictures. The lens is what matters here.

I mean, you see some studio photographers using 1D and D3/4/5 type cameras in the studio for god knows what reason. The grip? Ok, I guess, but you could grip a D810. The build and controls? Unlikely, you could just use a gripped D810. The AF system? Hah.

>>2989163
LiveMOS is better for video-noise rather than stills.
I read the newest Panasonic are using NMOS. Never heard of it.

File: Screenshot_2016-11-29-19-23-16.jpg (53KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 500x500px

Where can I find a PK lens to Nikon F mount adapter that lets me change my aperture? I was gifted a fancy auto pentacks lens by someone (my mom) who knows nothing about gear.

I don't wanna sell it because that'd be ungrateful :((((

sup nerds

I'm transitioning away from my old 60d because I never use it anymore on account of being a big honker camera with shit dr and bad high-iso performance compared to modern offerings, and since canon has spent the last several years shittin the bed I decided Id move to a different brand

right now I'm torn on switching to the fuji x-t2 or the sony a7 ii, the a7 is full frame but from what I've heard the glass available without adapting to M mount is super trash, and while the x-t2 is crop with no onboard IS I'm given to understand that the fuji x lenses are an insanely good value, and the x-trans sensors punch way above their weight class as far as dr and high ISO noise

I'd only have an initial budget in the $2000-2500 range so Im wondering if the benefit in being able to buy two good primes instead of maybe one outweighs the x-t2's shortcomings

also: I do a mix of photography, but whats spurring this is that the 60d is kinda useless if I want to leave a controlled studio and shoot in the real world

>>2989453
>old 60d
>the 60d is kinda useless
sorry to break it up to you anon, but the only useless thing here is you.
I have a 40D that is perfectly capable of producing fine images. it doesn't have 3248923443829 ISO nor 2398 megapickels but I don't need those, and neither do you.

I'd rather have you ranting about its size and wanting something more portable, as it happened to me. bought a fuji x100 and can't be happier tbqh

>>2989453
> but from what I've heard the glass available without adapting to M mount is super trash
No. The E-mount normal primes include many of the very best out there right now. It's a wonderful system if you like primes.

There are also a few of the best zoom lenses on the E-mount. But for that, the lineup is certainly more sparse.

>>2989503
>The E-mount normal primes include many of the very best out there right now
Only if you want a 50mm. But at least you have many to choose from the 50-55mm range.

>>2989506
35, 85, 90, 12, 21, 25, 50 and so on are also covered with great lenses.

No problem from very wide to very long normal / short telephoto.

>>2989511
Good to know, too bad I don't have $2000 for each lens so I'll just use a nice budget friendly DSLR

File: tmp_6649-DSCF0012.JPG-1479649553.jpg (157KB, 1600x1066px) Image search: [Google]

157KB, 1600x1066px

Anybody here own one of the Rokinon, Samyang, Tamron, Sigma, etc 14mm lenses? I'm considering buying one for shooting car and building interiors and for filming skateboarding. Pic related, I have a D600

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Google
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	1600
Image Height	1066

>>2989299
Because I prefer full frame. My lens collection is better suited for it, I have a crop sensor DSLR and I use it pretty much exclusively with my telephotos for birding and aircraft. Full frame lets me get wider when I want to go wide and use my 50mm f1.2 as a 50mm f1.2

>>2989516
The 50/1.2 is still a 50/1.2 regardless of what sensor you are using it with.

>>2989517
It doesn't have the same FOV on the crop sensor you retard

How the fuck do you not know this?

>>2989518
He does. He's being a pedantic cunt. Ignore

File: 1347064329007.jpg (207KB, 1434x1464px) Image search: [Google]

207KB, 1434x1464px

>>2989516
>Full frame lets me get wider when I want to go wide and use my 50mm f1.2 as a 50mm f1.2
What does your 50mm f1.2 do when it's not in a full frame body? What does it change into, a fucking tractor or something?

File: 55073.jpg (103KB, 640x406px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 640x406px

Seriously, not trying to hate on brands, but why the fuck can't Canon, Nikon and Sony do what Pentax is doing with its handle? It's fucking comfy and stable. This shouldn't be that hard or anything, they all feel like I'm holding one of the film-era winders.

>>2989364
Put it on ebay. Shipping should be easy.

What is your budget after selling all of your gears? Take account of body, lens and maybe a bag.

>>2989364
this
>>2989531

Also you are already familiar with the Nikon D5300, maybe get that one, or a used D7100

>>2989533
Used D7100-7200.
35mm 1.8 DX (for low light and portrait)
17-50mm Sigma f2.8 (this one is very sharp and versatile for daily shooting)

You are pretty much all set unless do want to shoot sport or wild life.

>>2989535
>shoot sport or wild life
There is the Tamron 70-200/2.8 VC for starters, it tolerates TCs quite well for a zoom lens.
I would say even a D7000 is still a very usable cheap option.

>>2989525
see
>>2989518
And stop being a retard

>>2989545
autism

>>2989545
That doesn't answer my question. Does your lens transform into something defent when it's not on a full frame body? A buttplug maybe?
As far as I know, it's still going to be a 50mm lens. Unless someone invented a new fangled lens that isn't a lens when it's not on a camera.
>stop being a retard
The irony.

>>2989446
You can't, the Nikon F mount has a larger flange distance than the pentax k mount. Just sell the lens and buy an equivalent one.

Should I rather supplement the 16-50 mm kit zoom on the sony a6000 with the Sigma 19mm f2.8 or the Sigma 30mm f1.4 contemporary as my first extra lens?

The 19mm has similiar focal length to my old camera (...on my iphone), which I found suitable for most things I wanted to shoot (architecture and landscape), but the better lowlight capabilities on the 30mm might be interesting, and I guess its focal lengt must be popular for some reason...

>>2989594
You've got your flange distance mechanics mixed up. Longer flange distance lens fits on shorter flange distance body.

>>2989617
He wants to put a Pentax lens (shorter flange distance) on a Nikon body (longer flange distance) which won't work.

>>2989514
> too bad I don't have $2000 for each lens
Most are ~$500-1500. Not really a huge annual cost factor with how very infrequently you need to renew good lenses. But YMMV.

> I'll just use a nice budget friendly DSLR
There also is cheap glass on the E-mount. And there is APS-C or MFT rather than FF for even cheaper options. Maybe you should prefer that?

The other anon's budget was large enough to buy something better and he inquired about higher-end setups, I was kinda discussing that.

File: sony_grip.jpg (92KB, 1000x563px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 1000x563px

>>2989528
Sony grips are ~about the same now.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.6 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	80 dpi
Vertical Resolution	80 dpi
Image Created	2016:10:16 18:48:36
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	1000
Image Height	563

>>2989624
It will with an adapter with an optical element but IQ depends on the quality of the adapter and whether the lens works with it or not

File: 800px-EOS70D_18-135STM.jpg (54KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 800x600px

I want to buy a brand new Canon 70D, but I also want to wait until the very end before it's getting discontinued to pay as little as possible for it. So my question is - how do I know when it's getting down from the shelves?

>>2989641
When they announce something to replace it.

>>2989652
Like the 80D?

My birthday is on Saturday. Convince me to buy something. 400€ max. I mainly shoot street and landscapes with a D7100.

considering selling my t5 and buying a 70d
think i could get 200-250 for the t5?

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=9SIA1K514P0609&ignorebbr=1

>>2989641
> I also want to wait until the very end before it's getting discontinued to pay as little as possible for it
I think you'll pay even less after it's discontinued. Or four generations obsolete.

>>2989666
Dunno, but people are trying such prices on eGoy.

>>2989664
Maybe a Samyang wide angle lens?

File: 12729619_534171646743756_2086366650_n.jpg (63KB, 640x640px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 640x640px

Question 1: Is getting a 85mm lens for portraits retarded for a cropped sensor camera?

Question 2: Is image stabilisation even required when you're shooting out in the open?

Question 3: Is a 28mm better wide alternative than a 35mm (again on a crop sensor)?

>>2989677
> Question 1: Is getting a 85mm lens for portraits retarded for a cropped sensor camera?
Not retarded in terms of how it looks as such.

But the problem is most locations are too small to use that lens for more than a head & shoulders shot.

> Question 2: Is image stabilisation even required when you're shooting out in the open?
Depends on the light conditions. It's often practical to have, same as having the option to pick a wider aperture.

> Question 3: Is a 28mm better wide alternative than a 35mm (again on a crop sensor)?
Not really? You should go for like 12-14mm anyhow if you want actually "wide". Even that "only" gives you around 80-90 degrees of horizontal field of view with typical rectilinear lenses.

File: camcorder.jpg (85KB, 745x623px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 745x623px

I'm looking for a camcorder thats as safe as possible to not lose my videos to the world.
>no internet connection
>no fast&easy copy&paste to the computer
>no restoreable and easy to fully delete or destroy storage media
>affordable storage media
>connectable to the TV, if possible realtime
>would be nice if it has some post 80-90's video quality

anyone got an idea? Will DV do the trick or do i even have to use analog videocassettes?

>>2989700
Can't be done. Storage media are either easily copyable or not inexpensive.

Devices either can easily connect to a TV, have encryption, look good and feature generally good connectivity (usually including internet, though I guess that's the one thing you could avoid - you can't avoid many other interfaces though) or they aren't new enough and can't.

Why do they even sell the shitty kit zoom lenses on anything that's not entry-level?

>>2989702
As easy copyable i count SD cards, USB sticks, HDDs, SSDs, DVDs and such. If i have to get extra equipment to copy a cassette or it takes realtime to copy, thats not easy for me.
I'm ok to use a 20 year old device if I have to, if only that reaches my needs.
If you reqrite a MiniDV cassette, will everything be gone for ever, physically? Not like on a HDDs were data is only given free to overwrite but still there.

I-is this a good deal?

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Nikon-D7100-Digital-SLR-Camera-4-Lens-Kit-18-55mm-70-300mm-32GB-Bundle-/331566192438

>>2989709
> If i have to get extra equipment to copy a cassette or it takes realtime to copy, thats not easy for me.
What's not easy about realtime, or using a dirt cheap old device to get a copy?

> I'm ok to use a 20 year old device if I have to, if only that reaches my needs.
Your storage media will possibly be very restorable, not encrypted, not necessarily cheap to get in the quantity you might want, will not look good, and may not connect to a TV.

But I guess it would meet your odd "not easy' to copy criterion, not mine though.

> If you reqrite a MiniDV cassette, will everything be gone for ever, physically?
Nah, specialized recovery equipment can possibly recover a lot of the data.

It is hard to impossible to do on current HDD though.

>>2989717
Not really. Plus it's a 7 shot buffer D7100.

Get at least a D7200 if you need a Nikon.

>>2989718
ok, and what is your recommendation then?

I just want to film something, watch it, never have it to connect to any device capable of going onto the internet and be able to delete it afterwards or destroy it if necessary (like shredd it, melt it, burn it into dust).

Puff, gone for ever.

>>2989723
Any modern camera. Simply don't connect it to the internet if you don't want to. Use a computerized device like a smartphone if you want encryption (possibly two factor or whatever). Wipe or destroy the storage device or the key when you feel you need to for some reason.

I'm looking to buy a polarizer lens, any suggestions? I'm a newfag photographer so anything suggestions under 30$ would be appreciated.

>>2989578
the level of autism in this post is nearing immeasurable levels

>>2989732
Nah, nowhere near photo.net levels of autism.

>>2989731
> under $30
Buy some random CPL with the right size for your lens off aliexpress.

If you have many lenses, buy one for the biggest and step-up adapters for the smaller one(s).

>>2989735
Kinda was hoping for a recommendation for one of the random ones on Amazon, but your feedback is appreciated friend.

>>2989677
>Question 1: Is getting a 85mm lens for portraits retarded for a cropped sensor camera?
Kind of, because with the crop factor it doesn't look like an 85mm lens through the viewfinder anymore, it will have the FOV of a ~130mm lens, which is honestly too long for many portrait situations. Remember; getting closer is almost always possible in portrait situations, getting further away sometimes isn't practical. You're better off having to get close with a 50mm than having to back up into the bushes with an 85mm.

>Question 2: Is image stabilisation even required when you're shooting out in the open?
It's never really required (use a tripod or monopod)
It's nice to have.

>Question 3: Is a 28mm better wide alternative than a 35mm (again on a crop sensor)?
28mm and 35mm lenses on a crop sensor camera are a good "standard" and versatile focal length. Everyone should have a good, fast (f2 or better) standard prime in their arsenal. 35mm on crop is slightly tighter than 50mm with a full frame camera, 28mm is slightly wider. Neither of those lenses are particularly "wide" even on full frame. "Wide" depends on the person defining it, but a 70° horizontal field of view or greater is "wide" to me. You'd need a 17mm focal length for that on a 1.5x crop factor camera, 25mm on full frame.

>>2989731
>polarizer
>under $30
Don't bother. I've never found a polarizer worth keeping for under $50. Cheap ones either soften the image or work great as a 2 stop ND filter.

>>2989739
Hoya, B+W, Marumi and stuff like that should be too expensive and the "random ones" are probably the Aliexpress ones, but marked up by 30-50%.

what are the lenses that would motivate me to shoot nikon DX if I have a choice and budget is a concern? I have a long slow lens (80-400 4.5 VR) and I've just discovered how much softer it is on crop vs full-frame. As far as I can tell, even the cheap primes are better optimized for full-frame sharpness. Do I have the wrong idea that these kinds of considerations outweigh the supposed reach of the DX format? Wouldn't I get substantially better image quality shooting with a D810 than a D500, even with this relatively cheap glass? Or am I missing something?

>>2989740
Misinformation: the post

File: 20161210-DSC06122.jpg (309KB, 2048x1152px) Image search: [Google]

309KB, 2048x1152px

>>2989740
>~130mm lens, which is honestly too long for many portrait situations
Jesus Christ stop being honest then.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-7M2
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.6.1 (Windows)
Photographer	David Mornet
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2016:12:10 21:21:03
Exposure Time	1/60 sec
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	1250
Brightness	-3.4 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

File: download.jpg (5KB, 296x171px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 296x171px

>>2989629

What is with the nespresso symbol on the side? Sponsership?

>>2989746
Take 2 DSLRs, both 24MP. One is Nikon crop (23.6x15.8mm) and one is full frame (36x24mm). The crop sensor has the same number of sensor pixels but has 43% of the surface area of the full frame sensor. So yes, it will usually make the lens look worse because it has a decent amount more resolving power than the full frame camera over the same area. There's more to it than pixel density alone but it's a big factor. See also: diffraction limiting.

f4.5 isn't slow for a 400mm lens btw, it's pretty good. A faster 400mm would cost a shitload.

>>2989723


What kind of illefal shit are you doing?

>>2989751
>>2989752
Why bother replying and calling a post wrong if you aren't going to provide a counterpoint?

File: 93400fd03f1442834ac1c22ac11a951c.jpg (157KB, 1200x675px) Image search: [Google]

157KB, 1200x675px

Almost, but no. It's NFC.

>>2989761
meant for >>2989754

>>2989759
WHAT THE FUCK DID YOU JUST SAY TO ME.

DO YOU WANT A HYPER >>>/dpreview/ STYLE BATTLE OVER 135mm LENSES AND THEIR EQUIVALENTS RIGHT HERE RIGHT NOW IN THE GEAR THREAD BECAUSE IF YOU DO I WILL FUCKING BRING IT DOWN LIKE CHINATOWN ON YOUR ASS AT A MOMENTS NOTICE.

>>2989755
yeah I know it's not exactly a shit lens but it's not what the birders use is what I mean
but for this specific example, does the tradeoff make sense? Will I get essentially the same image quality with that lens cropping from a D810 (16MP) as using the D500 (20.9)?

Hey, do I need to be as careful with my new circular polarizer as I am with my lens? It didn't come with a protective case or anything so I don't know how to store it.

>>2989765
>Will I get essentially the same image quality with that lens cropping from a D810 (16MP) as using the D500 (20.9)?
Maybe, because if you shrink the D500's image file to the same size as a crop from the D810 it might even wind up looking sharper. It's not really something you can tell without actually doing it.

If that lens is the pièce de résistance of your collection and you're making your decision based on it, you're in a tough spot. DX vs FX is a decision best made based on what you shoot most often IMO. Are you really into birding? Because you might be better off getting rid of the 80-400 and buying a nice 400mm prime and a D500. Or maybe getting that 200-500mm f5.6.

File: not trolling.jpg (4KB, 100x91px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 100x91px

>>2989763
>MUH TELEPHOTO PORTRAITS
“If your photos aren’t good enough, then you’re not close enough” – Robert Capa

Considering buying the 6D while Canon are running their cashback promo (australia).

Local retailer has it for $1699 AUD and then $200 cashback and I can get a further $200 cashback if I buy $200+ of Canon accessories (the nifty fifty retails for $200 here, it's appalling)

I've been looking at going FF for quite a while but am not invested in any good glass and I'm worried that the 6D is looking a bit old now. Canon is looking a bit disappointing in the lack of features their newer cameras are releasing with.

What's the best value for money FF camera I can get in AUD? Should I pick up this 6D?

>>2989789
If you don't have a good collection of glass you should consider that currently (and going back several years) Nikon and Sony's full frame offerings are superior to Canon's.

>>2989780
>>2989763
>>2989740
ALRIGHT BUDDY IT'S ON. Everytime I say 135mm, assume it's dealing with equivalent focal length, thanks. If we can also avoid a hyper autistic equivalent DOF argument too, I'd appreciate it.

>it will have the FOV of a ~130mm lens, which is honestly too long for many portrait situations
135mm lenses were very popular for years and continue to be a staple of portrait work. There's a place and a use for certain AOV though. Not everyone will have a use for a focal length like this. A 135 is king for the tight headshot with a blown out background or putting a bit of distance between you and your subject.
>getting further away sometimes isn't practical.
>You're better off having to get close with a 50mm than having to back up into the bushes with an 85mm.
In relation to framing, this is true. If I was going to be in a situation where I had to get close, then I'd bring a shorter lens like a 35 or a 55/56 on APS-C.

Which brings us to my side point, why you would want to shoot an 85mm lens on an APS-C body. There are many reasons why you may want to use one but I want to keep this brief so I'll do it in a simpler way. I'll use Canon/Zeiss here as an example just to keep it quick.
>There are a lot of 85mm lenses on the market that can be used on both crop and 135.
>85mm sometimes focus closer than 135's while retaining a similar DOF. (85/1.2 has an MFD of 0.95m, 85/1.8 of 0.85 and the 135/2 sites at 0.9)
>Lenses as fast as 1.2/1.4/1.8 commonly available
>135 lenses only generally available in 1.8/2/2.5/2.8 etc
>wider DOF when shot at the same aperture

Since I think only Fuji makes an APS-C 85/90mm lens, buying a fast 85mm lens to use on crop is a decent thing to do with very few drawbacks. If you're aware it will frame like a 135. The only issue you'll ever really find yourself in is not having a 135 equivalent if you ever start using a full frame body.

Is a D3300 for $180 a good deal?

>>2989798
tldr: I like 135mm, it's a classic length with a specific use and a fast 85mm on APS-C is a good replacement.

>>2989800
body only?

>>2989817
Yes I believe so. It's that hideous cheap red color though

>>2989633
Unfortunately there's no PK to Nikon F auto adapter like that, so it seems >>2989594 is the best option.

>>2989800
>>2989822
no

>>2989790
Suggestions?

And as far as good glass goes I have a nifty fifty and a non-IS kit lens from over 10 years ago but that's EF-S anyway. I am fawning over the 16-35 f 2.8 though.

Are there any wide angle primes under $350 for Nikon DX? What would the best options be? Anything 10-20mm

>>2989829
Why not?

>>2989754
>>2989761
lol I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks of Nespresso every time I see the NFC logo.

>>2989834
> And as far as good glass goes I have a nifty fifty and a non-IS kit lens from over 10 years ago but that's EF-S anyway.
Not really particularly good glass at this point, I imagine. That's not to say that there's no use for nifty fifties at this point, but the high end of FF glass is quite noticeably better now.

> I am fawning over the 16-35 f 2.8 though.
Sony-Zeiss has a 16-35mm f/4 that is just as sharp and costs half as much as the f/2.8L III.

Tamron's 15-30 f/2.8 also is really quite fine.

File: nikon_1533_d3300_dslr_camera_with_1023354.jpg (531KB, 2500x2500px) Image search: [Google]

531KB, 2500x2500px

>>2989840
The D3300 is a meh-tier DSLR that is really lacking in features and it looks like a cheap piece of shit in gloss red. It's basically
>muh megapickles
>muh dslr
the camera

>>2989836
Maybe a Samyang 14mm or something?

File: look_like_wave.jpg (1024KB, 1532x1023px) Image search: [Google]

1024KB, 1532x1023px

Trying to stay under $1100 for a semi weatherproof interchangable camera with a good general zoom.

I just bought my first snowmobile, and will be heading up to the mountains here in the nw and want to take some landscape photos. I have a gr, and im selling my x100t which leaves me with some spending money, but I'm afraid my gr will die in the heavy snow. I'm looking at the k70 with a used da 16-85 wr from craigslist for $400, but I was curious if there are any other options. Total for the k70 and the zoom would be ~$1050, so I'm trying to stay within that range.

>>2989861
Are there any better lenses for this system which I've missed?

>>2989776
I'm not really into birding, I do a lot of landscapes. But usually on the long end. I spend enough time on that crop end that I think I'd miss it, but examining the performance of the lens has really made me question the quality difference between using a dedicated DX camera and cropping from the d810. I mean, I'm not gonna plunk down $11k on a 400mm f2.8 any time soon...
>>2989746
can anybody weigh in here? what good quality cheap lenses would give me a reason to stick with DX?

>>2989852
Yeah but it retails for 350+. I'm getting a D7200 but for now I want a dslr that I can learn on.

>>2989866
Save your money and get a better lens with your D7200. The featureset of the D3300 is so gimped that you aren't really going to "learn" anything from it other than what Nikon's basic menu interface looks like. Keep shooting with whatever you have until you can get that D7200.

>>2989866
A much, much better A6000 is ~$400.

Also, you could learn on a D7200 just fine. There isn't really a point to learn on a D3300.

>>2989836
Seconding this. I also want a wide lens that will work with my DX Nikon, and eventually an FX when I upgrade. I currently don't have anything wider than the 18-200mm lens that I bought with broken VR for $50 and fixed.

>>2989867
I have a 8mp phone

>>2989868
I just have no money for it yet. I'm probably going to resell it for 300. I've been itching for a DSLR and I feel like it'll hold me down for now.

>>2989880
Don't worry, buy it if you can get it cheap, it is an excellent camera for most basic stuff. You will learn the most important things like exposure triangle, composition, raw processing etc...
If you can get one of those ugly colored ones then go for it, have no care for how it looks like, what counts is the end result.
Your other cheap alternative (better IMO) is a nice used D7000. Has all the pro features and is still an excellent camera and can use the cheaper old screwdrive AF lenses.
Just get a 35mm and a 50mm lens for it and you can do portrait jobs to earn money for the better gear.

>>2989880
> I just have no money for it yet. I'm probably going to resell it for 300. I've been itching for a DSLR and I feel like it'll hold me down for now.
I see. I guess it might hold you down for now. Just wouldn't make any sense to buy it 'cause you want a test run before a D7200.

I'd still immediately go for the A6000 myself.

>>2989888
>a nice used D7000.
I wish man. People are selling it for 500+ in my city. I was looking for a nice cheap used 7000 or 7100 but they were pricing it at retail price. All the other 3300 I found were 300+ used.

>>2989890
I just got out of a job so it's really all I can afford. It'll make me appreciate the D7200(or D610) even more.

>>2989723
any normal camera, when you're done for the day, encrypt the photos or video files with 128bit encryption or something and bam you're good to go. Nobody but you can ever decrypt them, ever. After that, format the sd card and you're good to go

>>2989769
bump, concerned and google didn't help me out.

>>2989953
More so. Many if not most lenses are pretty robust. Most filters are not.

>>2989963
Hm. Would a small ziploc bag be an alright makeshift protection sleeve?

I just got this old Canon rebel xsi for $60 bucks as my first DSLR. It came with the kit lens too. Was it a good deal?

>>2989990
what?

File: IMG_20161226_230806.jpg (1MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3264x2448px

>>2989990
Forgot pic

>>2989992
I bought it from the Facebook market place

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Model	5054N
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	0 mm
Sensing Method	Unknown
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Created	2016:12:26 23:08:07
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Time (UTC)	05:08:06
Date (UTC)	2016:12:27
Color Space Information	sRGB
Focal Length	3.37 mm
Lens Aperture	f/2.6
Exposure Mode	Auto
Image Height	2448
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Exposure Index	400
Exposure Program	Not Defined
Image Width	3264
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Gain Control	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Brightness	-2.4 EV
ISO Speed Rating	1304
Exposure Time	1/15 sec

It finally happened, /p/, my a100 died. 10 years old almost exactly and when I pulled it out of the closet and powered it up it refused to take a picture.
F

>>2990008

Replace it with a99ii.

>>2989990
yes of course its a good deal

>>2990012
I was thinking it wasn't since it's so old

>>2989673
Already have the 12-24 Nikkor.

Looking to buy a full frame soon but can wait. Want good value for money and have been looking at the d6. Concerned it is a bit old. Should I wait for photokina/ces?
What about non canikon? I've been out of the game for about 5 years.

Is there anything as compact and good as an RX100 but is able to auto focus quicker and shoot faster? I shot about 25k photos on this and it's starting to feel slow for some reason. I usually just pull it out of my pocket, turn it on(which is annoying as the lens has to extend) and take a quick snapshot. Not always snapshots though. It can be fixed as long as it's a wide angle. Also needs to fit in my pocket.

>>2990091

Yea.

The RX100 Mark V.

RX1 has a wide fixed lens and amazing low light.

>>2989641
Just get one used like today.
Something something 15k clicks something something 45% cheaper than retail

I have a 60D with a 50mm 1.8 but because of the crop factor it doesn't fit most of my needs (I usually shoot 28mm on a Nikon F2).
Should i try and trade it on a canon 40mm 2.8 or a 35mm 1.8 (but Yongnuo)?

>>2989880
>I have a 8mp phone
Your first mistake was believing megapixels indicate quality

>>2990008
Good old digishit. Same goes for those late era film bodies filled with electronics encased in a kinder egg shell.

I-I heard that Sony were finally going to commit to A mount a little bit.

https://www.jbhifi.com.au/cameras/dslr/canon/canon-eos-1300d-digital-slr-camera-with-18-55mm-lens/946381/
do i cop or not?

File: Bildschirmfoto-2016-09-19-um-15.45.25-700x322.png (191KB, 700x322px) Image search: [Google]

191KB, 700x322px

>>2990160

a99ii or bust.

Rumor has it new a77 next year too.

If they even gave a-mount a third of the attention e-mount gets (something like 12 1st party e-mount lenses in 2016), it would be worth considering. Not so sure about it as it stands now.

Maybe if you are on a budget. Old Minolta glass is fantastic and dirt cheap.

>>2990166
>something like 12 1st party e-mount lenses in 2016
All of them are 50mm though

>>2990167
Nonsense.

>>2990166
>2016
>A-Mount
I'm selling my Minolta glass already before it drops to pennies desu
I finally upgraded from my A300 this year too and i'm glad i changed systems because whoever doesn't see that A-Mount is kill is delusional

>>2990204
true though

I am thinking about getting a speedbooster for old Manual lenses on my MFT Body.
Through that The lens would created an ASP-C Image.
What old mount has a good selection for Video-lenses?
I already got 3 FD lenses from my dad and one crappy AIS lens.

>>2989863
pentax forums has tons of reviews for every pentax lens there is.

i'd say go for it~

>>2990011
heh, like anyone ITT could afford to just drop $3,000 on a body with no second thoughts right after Christmas. I sure can't. I actually discovered it wasn't working because I've sold off all of my Sony gear except for it and one lens, and I took it out to list it on ebay. I sold my Sony stuff (A77 and 4 lenses) off because I wanted to go full frame but Sony doesn't offer any FF DSLRs below the A99ii price point.

I wound up buying a D600, D300 and 3 lenses (Nikon 50mm f1.4, Nikon 20mm f1.8, Nikon 300mm f4 ED) at an estate sale for $2,200 right before Christmas, all of my film gear is Nikon too so I have plenty of old metal and glass.

>>2990022
Go on ebay and look at how much they're going for with a lens dummy.

>>2990160
True.

>>2990224

I just blew $1,500 on a lens.

Don't regret it, so awesome.

>>2990225
Did you read my post?
>just spent $2,200 on Nikon gear at an estate sale

>>2990227

Yes.

Just saying.

Fun to blow money on stuff.

>>2989863
The DA 16-85 is currently the best general use lens for the crop Pentax bodies.
Has everything you would want from a pro level lens, corner to corner sharpness through all the zoom range, miniscule practically nonexistent CA, distortion easy to compensate, excellent color contrast, weathersealed but is also light built and priced much lower than comparable optics.
Currently you can't get anything better for any system in that price range. $400 is a steal for it.

>>2990228
post proof or it didn't happen

>>2990228
>Fun to blow money on stuff.
Yeah. I don't regret what I spent, it was a deal.
I looked at the stuff in shops and on ebay
>D600 sells for ~$8-900
>D300 sells for ~$300
>20mm f1.8 sells for ~$600
>50mm f1.4 sells for ~$300
>300mm f4 sells for ~$700
So roughly $2,700 worth of stuff for $2,200

>>2990230
what's so unbelievable about that?

>>2990220
Just some additional Infos:
I'd Take 28mm for Standard (because it Turns into a 20mm with speedbooster and that's Standard for MFT video), 50mm for Short Portrait and 70-90mm for long portrait and <15mm for wide-angle.
Any Infos in what manual mount has good cheap lenses in that range?

File: IMG_0617.jpg (2MB, 4032x3024px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4032x3024px

You could only pick one, all use f mount vintage glass. 1ds has split prism finder

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	4032
Image Height	3024
Scene Capture Type	Standard

What camera for $1000-1500? I like night time, low light portrait and some landscape tourist stuff.

I've had an older nex and like the small format but dislike the quality and artifacts.

>>2990313
D7000

Whats a good tripod under $180 USD that can support the weight of an eos 80D with an 18-135mm + extension tubes. Currently usong the following manfrotto tripod and it cant really hold the weight when taking macro photos. Also isnt that stable when extended.

Thanks!

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1059028-REG/manfrotto_mkcompactacn_bk_compact_action_aluminum_tripod.html

>>2990370
Used Manfrotto 190XB + used 498RC2 ball head
A Befree would be also good but it would be at the weight limit. I have used the above mentioned combo of 190XB+498 for 1:1 macro and astrophotography with success, never budged a bit, no shuttershock or any vibrations seen on the images. Bit heavy but sturdy as fuck. And cheap if you find one used.

About to play the used gear roulette.

I want to buy a refurbished lens straight from Canon, but they don't have it in stock right now. Would buying a lens from Keh with an Ex+ rating basically be equal to the quality/condition of a lens refurbished directly by Canon? Is Keh's descriptions reliable at all?

So I got some cash in pocket and I kinda want to upgrade from my D70s seeing as I own any lenses I'm interested in and I kinda want to use a body that uses normal SD cards instead of CF.
Is it worth to save for the D5300 over the D3300 or should I wait a little longer?

>>2990370
Q666C / Q999C
Dic&Mic E302C & P303C

Many Sirui or Benro (mostly aluminum models at that price).

Or a Manfrotto XPROB or something if you want a studio tripod rather than a lighter weight portable one.

File: nikon3300.jpg (28KB, 770x433px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 770x433px

>>2990381
>Is it worth to save for the D5300 over the D3300 or should I wait a little longer?

I recently went through the same choice, upgraded from a D200 to a D5300.

The main things the 5300 has going for it are more AF points, a flippy screen, and very easy to use wifi to transfer pics onto your phone.

It was a $100 jump from D3300 to D5300 when I bought, and personally felt like it was 100% worth it.

Do you like to get low perspective shots? The moving screen is great for using live view without getting dirt or sand on your nice clothes.

Watch the old DigitalRev video comparing the two, and then make a choice.

Here:https://youtu.be/LQlbH57Ebj0

Best of luck anon.

>>2990381
Ideally save up for a 7100 or 7200. It's a worthwhile upgrade. Esepcially for a guy with ten years of shooting

But the best camera is the one you can afford to buy. If you can't afford the 7000 series, get a 5300 over a 3300 for the better AF system

Also some of your lenses must be old. Make sure they are AF compatible with the camera you choose

>>2990393
You mean lenses that require a motor in the body? I only have one of those. I mostly use a 35mm prime with them motor built into the lens.

File: rain_girl.gif (51KB, 500x376px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 500x376px

What's a good 4k vlogging camera? Weatherproof would be nice and I suppose a flip-screen would make it easier. I plan to be outdoors a lot.

File: download.jpg (7KB, 305x165px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 305x165px

>>2990390
How does the D5500 fit into all of this? Isn't that the successor to the 5300, or is it a literally downgrade like the pityful 3400?

Anyone have any good battery grip recommendations for the a6000?

>>2990313

>mfw sill no motor driven f-mount adapter for e-mount

Sucks.

>>2990390
I can't go from my D200 to a low end SLR, it has spoiled me too much with its controls and solid construction. D750 when I can afford it (maybe when I get my tax refund).

>>2990398
How is 3400 a literally downgrade?

IIRC 5500 is a rerelease of the 5300 /w a touchscreen, the same way the 5600 and 3400s are rereleases of their predecessors but with snapbridge

>>2990376
>>2990389

Thanks fellas. I really like the manfrotto 190 mentioned. Maybe ill throw a little extra cash at it and get it new if i cant find used.

>>2990407
>How is 3400 a literally downgrade?
They removed the ultrasonic sensor cleaner

>>2990407
snapbridge makes the battery life worse than a MILC from 2 years ago

>>2990407
>5500 is a rerelease of the 5300 /w a touchscreen
Goddammit I hate that touchscreens have infiltrated the photography world too. The fucking suck.

>>2989515
I own the Rokinon one. It's pretty good for what it is. Sharp, fast, inexpensive. It's surprisingly flare resistant for something with a big bug-eyed front element, usually it only gives you one fairly small artifact, even with the sun in or on the edge of the frame. Manual focus isn't much of a drawback at such short focal lengths.

The reviews all mention it's monster barrel distortion though, and you'll definitely notice that if you like putting straight lines in your images. For building interiors its easy to hide, except if you try to take a shot where everything's squared off, at which point it becomes very obvious. Also it features some pretty monster vignetting at 2.8, which is pretty much par for the course.

I think in Nikon land you have to pay a little extra for a "chipped" lens, if you want it to work well with your camera's metering.

>>2990424
>being a fucking luddite

fuck off, i bet you think tilt-screens are un-pro too

>>2990425
Thanks for the reply. I'm not too worried about chipped lenses, I shoot with old manual lenses all of the time and I will never buy a DSLR without an aperture follower tab and the capability to work with non-CPU lenses. The distortion is a bit of a concern since it isn't easy to correct from what I've read - for filming not a problem but for stills I wouldn't be thrilled.

>>2990430
Nope, sorry fucktard. I love tilt screens, and I love technology (I own a state of the art FF DSLR and for fuck's sake!), touch screens objectively suck.

>>2990380
>Would buying a lens from Keh with an Ex+ rating basically be equal to the quality/condition of a lens refurbished directly by Canon?

Last lens I bought from Keh that was Ex+ had a massive thumb sized blob of fungus.

One before that had random numbers carved into the metal of the lens barrel.

I have had better luck with e-bay, personally. At least you get reviews of the seller and pictures of what you are gonna buy feom there.

>>2990316
>have an nex
>dislike quality and artifacts

But the NEX line has some great IQ.

Let me guess, you shoot .jpeg? Sony's .jpeg processing is notoriously bad. Switch to raw and you will get another year or two out of it.

At $1000-1500 you cqn get FF camera.

>>2990446
>Switch to raw and you will get another year or two out of it.
This. I shoot raw on my antiquated crop sensor DSLR and it helps a lot. Images that would be goners in jpeg are sometimes fixable because of my RAW habit. Plus, the raws from my old 10.2mp crop DSLR are smaller than the fine jpegs from my FF dslr.

>>2990446
>>2990452
That doesn't work when reuters won't accept my raw files.

>>2990492

Yea broski. You edit them in lightroom, then export as .jpeg at whatever size you need.

It will be better than any in camera .jpegs.

>>2990494
Reuters don't accept those files though senpai.

>>2990494
reuters only accepts jpg from camera.
>topkek

>>2990501
>>2990495

Wait, really?

What a joke.

>>2990495
>shooting for reuters on ancient garbage
kek a roo

>>2990502
>Journalistic integrity is a joke

>>2990506
"Journalistic integrity" doesn't depend on whether an editor changed white balance or whether a camera's programmer did it.

Just a cheap work-saving measure that they don't have to deal with RAW files or basic editing now.

>>2990506
>he thinks Reuters has a way of telling if a file has been manipulated
retard
You know nothing about image manipulation.

>>2990501
>he never learned how to create pleasing jpegs within a known set of image constrains
tep kok indeed. Anyone can learn to turd polish, it requires far less temporal, technological, or spatial awareness.

Turd polishing is a very valuable skill, but its a wasted one without the basic foundations.

>>2990517
>retard
>You know nothing about image manipulation.
Oh, so you're gonna fake metadata well enough to fool everyone while in the field?
Being a non-retard sounds awesome!

http://www.alteredimagesbdc.org/

>>2990530
>doesn't have the best photoshop of all time
smdh, McCurry would have gotten away with it too if it wasn't for those meddling kids!

>>2990530
> while in the field?
No, way to misunderstand it fuckface. The people who would send a fake image would do it from the comfort of their homes or labs, not some shithut in bumfuckistan with a satphone. It's a retarded policy that provides no appreciable appreciation from motivated fakery.

>>2990532
The thing about the jpeg restrictions is you're then dealing with a lossy format and are thus subject to MUCH stronger data analysis.

Theoretically, if every image you shoot is shot in, say, Fujifilms Classic Chrome or Velvia sim, then a pixel-level "profile" can be composited of how your camera, not just the brand and model, but your specific camera, renders information much more easily.

It's still fakeable to some degree, but to use a common analogy, it's like trying to find a needle in a haystack (raw file) vs a needle in a handful of straw.

You don't get the option of not giving them your metadata. And if you're going to fake it, you're going to have to fake it with 100% accuracy against every photo you've ever sent to them.

Is it possible to completely construct a fake photo in Microsoft Paint, one pixel at a time? Of course. Is it practical though?

>>2990535
th-thanks isi, you responded to the wrong post. I'll forgive you since you're my waifu.

>>2990534
>It's a retarded policy that provides no appreciable appreciation from motivated fakery.
It's more that you just don't understand how much more accurate lossy file analysis is than lossless.
Ever encountered a song or movie on youtube that had been removed or muted due to copyright? Do you know how that happens?

>>2990536
Sorry, I wasn't actually responding to you, just at you (continuing my rant/explanation/whatever the hell)

File: 1fa905c0929fdc1a62f26f9c7d51fda7.jpg (85KB, 600x586px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 600x586px

Since I'm on a budget, can I just buy some old used camera lens and slap it on one of those inexpensive adapter rings to use it on my DSLR?

I found a Canon 1000F with Sigma 28-70mm lens for 30 bucks while looking for used lenses for my Nikon D3200.

>>2990537

Not him, but I thought lossy was less accurate because jpeg compression can sometimes cover manipulation.

>>2990574
It's important to remember they want SOOC jpegs, not just jpegs in general. The manufacturers parameters for compression and pixel profile is quite more limited than the potential compression algorithms you're able to choose yourself, and if your data isn't consistent across multiple files from the same camera, they'll very likely notice

>>2990582
>Set camera to shoot in both JPEG+RAW
>Export EXIF data from JPEG
>Edit the RAW with Lightroom and export it
>Inject exported JPEG with before exported EXIF data

>>2990586
You must think they're manually checking this stuff, like when you shitpost someone after reading their exif post-up.
Good luck outsmarting data analysis. You're still thinking about this in terms of singular photos and not in terms of a "genetic database" of sorts to your output.

You can smudge your fingerprints but that won't always stop a dedicated analysis. They don't need a full match, 5-10 points of comparison is all it takes sometimes.

>>2990591

What about:
>edit raw in whatever way you want
>put back on memory card
>let camera convert raw to jpeg

Would work right?

File: 671.jpg (20KB, 200x372px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 200x372px

>>2990608
doesn't work like that senpai.

>>2990446
I shoot mostly raw. There's something fucky with the contrast in details and the colors just being flat.

Consider my first generation nex broken and consider me rich. No way to upgrade??.

>>2990615
>rich
>only wants to spend $1,500 on a body

lol

Well since you liked the Sony mirrorless, you could try an a6000. Dirt cheap body ($400) and could use your current lenses. It is a generation or two old though. Menus are a little out of date (though a major step up from your NEX-3/5).

Newest e-mount is a6500. Fast as fuck autofocus, and a fantastic sensor. It also has in body image stabilization. Pretty expensive though, about $1500.

You could also look at Sony's full frame mirrorless. a7ii can be had for around $1500. It also has IBIS, so combined with the FF sensor you can take some pretty damn good low light shots.

Fuji mirrorless is also worth a look. X-T10 is a solid budget choice ($800) but falls short of a6000 performance. The X-T2 is an absolutely fantastic body, but costs more than brand new the a6500 even.

Since you want night/low-light shots. I'd recommend the a7ii. Nothing would beat the large full frame sensor, and the ibis is a considerable advantage. It is a little larger, and so are the lenses, but it is still compact compared to a full sized DSLR. It has a lot of lenses, but most are pro-level, so they can be expensive. a6500 wouldn't be a bad choice if you wanted something a little smaller. a6000 would also be a good choice, and it would give you more to spend on lenses.

Fuji is also worth serious consideration. It has a pretty solid lineup of affordable, fast lenses that while maybe not as sharp wide open as a G Master, are still pretty damn good for most uses. It also has considerably better .jpeg output. This comes at the cost of poor raw support in many third party programs (lightroom still doesn't handle them as well as RAW Therapee), though this is less of an issue than it was a year ago.

>>2990220
Noone so far?

>>2990623
Try /vid/

About to blow 150usd on a haida 10stop nd filter.

Am I doing good?

>>2990639
But the only pics taken with 10 stop NDs are meme-faggottry?
So probably not.

>>2990642
Weeell, most of the photos are similar, but that's what they are for, to make water and skies smooth. In my eyes, it's basically like a thin dof but for certain landscape.

I also had the idea of using it for macro and product photography, enabling light painting of the whole scene.

Do Nikon F mount adapters to Canon EOS exist?
Wanna use the glass from my F2 on my 60D.

File: ZTECH_LENSMOUNT.jpg (54KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 500x500px

>>2990570
Nope. Nikon mounts will take any old Nikon AI lens, but if you want to use old lenses you bought the wrong DSLR. Your D3200 won't meter with old Nikon AI lenses, you're going to need something on the higher end in the DX00, D7X00 range. Basically, if it's a Nikon DSLR and it has the little ring and tab around the mount pictured here near the top right screw on the mount, it will work with old Nikon AI lenses.

You will not be able to adapt Canon lenses to Nikon's mount, because of the flange focal distance. Nikon's F mount is further from the focal plane than every other common system, so you're pretty much out of luck.

This stuff is available on wikipedia, just search flange focal distance:

Nikon F - 46.5mm
Pentax K - 45.46mm
M42 - 45.46mm
Minolta A - 44.5mm
Canon EF - 44mm
Fuji X - 43.5mm
Minolta SR - 43.5mm
Canon FD - 42mm

The only way to adapt a lens from a system with a smaller flange focal distance than the camera it is going on, and retain infinity focus, is to make an adapter with optics in it. If you simply machined a ring that would adapt mount-to-mount, the larger the discrepancy (lens FFD < body FFD) the more focusing ability you lose. So it would work fine for macro, but you would lose close focusing capability. That's basically how macro extension tubes work.

Are there cameras that Display focal length in the View Menu? Because Mine doesnt and I dont get why! I mean, it Displays Shutterspeed and Aperture!
Would be especially useful when setting up a videoshot or recreating another picture with a zoomlens. The markings on Most lenses are inaccurate (put the marking in the 35 and it says 34mm in the EXIF).
Or actually access the ENTIRE EXIF

File: 1466984511879.jpg (158KB, 1280x1280px) Image search: [Google]

158KB, 1280x1280px

Are Sony Alpha camera's (The A7II especially) fit for professional studio work? As in the flash synchronisation works well, etc. Or are Canon and Sony cams still leading in digital studio work?

>>2990711

a7rii and a99i maybe.

Fine for studio work, not so much for sports though.

>>2990702
Even my ancients (D70 and D200) display focal length.

>>2990702
Mine shows the lens info including the focal length on the zoom lenses in the info tab during image review.
I don't see why I would need that info in live view or in the viewfinder though.
Also you can have a close guess from reading the scale on the zoom ring.

>>2990702
Sony cameras will show aperture.

>>2990711
Sure. You could build a system with Godox strobes or whatever. Works fine.

Manual (Yongnuo) strobes also work at 1/250 for me.

File: DSC_0014.jpg (2MB, 2845x1600px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2845x1600px

Ok so i used to have a D5200, and it was a beautiful little thing until it got stolen out of my dorm along with the three lenses i had with it.


Since then, i've always wanted to buy a new dslr, and i had my eyes on the D610 as an introductory full frame for all kinds of random photography, especially since the pricetag for a used one is around £900.


Are there any other options i should be considering?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D5200
Camera Software	Photos 1.0.1
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/5.7
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	55 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Pixel Composition	Unknown
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72
Vertical Resolution	72
Image Created	2015:08:12 20:27:53
Exposure Time	1/500 sec
F-Number	f/5.6
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	1000
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	55.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	2845
Image Height	1600
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Landscape
Gain Control	High Gain Up
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>2990719
Godox cheap speedlights can do HSS with the Godox wireless controller. At least my TT600 says that in the manual.

>>2990721
D750, A7 II, D7200, A6x00

>>2990721
So you say you need FF for random photography not requiring FF?
You could save a lot of money for a better lens if you stay APS-C with a semi-pro body like the D7100 or D7200.

>>2990722
They can, yes.

>>2990723
>D750, A7 II, D7200, A6x00
>guy is in the market for a £900 full frame camera
>you suggest a full frame camera that costs 30% more, and 2 crop sensor cameras

>>2990724
>You could save a lot of money for a better lens if you stay APS-C with a semi-pro body like the D7100 or D7200.
wut
How do you save money on lenses with crop bodies? Unless you are a telephoto nut who shoots birds and stuff all day crop doesn't really give you any lens advantages. If you ever shoot wide angle it's a disadvantage because reasonably fast ultrawide lenses are more expensive than your run of the mill f2/2.8 20-28mm primes.

>>2990729
>How do you save money on lenses with crop bodies?
Crop bodies expecially the higher end ones offer better features for lower price than an entry level FF. Things like better AF, better metering, better tracking, higher frame rate, larger buffer etc...
So the money you save by buying the crop body can be put for a better glass, fix f/2.8 zoom or a nice fast prime depending on your needs.
Unless you buy your stuff based on how "pro" you might look to simple people when you could have the exact same results by spending less.
It is called conscious spending, something grown up people do.

>>2990729
> If you ever shoot wide angle it's a disadvantage because reasonably fast ultrawide lenses are more expensive than your run of the mill f2/2.8 20-28mm primes.
Just get a Samyang 12mm f/2.

"Reasonably" fast, fairly small size/weight, and pretty ultra-wide.

What compact point and shoot should I get for videos/ low light photos ?
Looking at
>Canon G7X, 400$ refurbished

Can anyone give me some suggestions under 600 that could be better than this ? I would really appreciate the help.

>>2990812
Lumix G80/G85

>>2990812
>What compact point and shoot should I get for videos/ low light photos ?
RX1R II.

> Can anyone give me some suggestions under 600 that could be better than this ?
Under $600 you want a compact with a flash hotshoe plus a big strobe. Or at least the builtin. Sorry. They won't do low light.

Even pretty good APS-C with a much bigger lens will struggle already with various indoor artificial lighting situations, and you should likely find situations darker than that.

>>2990815
As much as I like Pana for their video capablities.
THAT'S NEITHER A POINT&SHOOT NOR UNDER 600 YOU FUCKING DOLT!

>>2990812
While this guy >>2990815 is a fucking idiot, consider looking into a cheap bundled Lumix GM1 or GM5 with pancake lens. The 20mm 1.7 is a miracle wrapped in a gift from god if you dont need zoom. For Street photography it is perfect.
I don't know a lot about compacts with larger sensors and I know many people hate on MFT, but as far as features for money go, the GM5 is a pretty damn sweet deal. The GM1 doesnt have a hotshoe tho, but a popup flash

File: 1478465996153.jpg (166KB, 1024x1024px) Image search: [Google]

166KB, 1024x1024px

I've been shooting on a Nikon J3 for awhile and am debating on a nicer camera to get. Would another mirror less like the OM-D be good or should I just go for real film cameras? I like my camera compactish.

Bls help

>>2990887
>I like my camera compactish.
Get a GR, an X100 or use your phone you pleb

>>2990887
An OM-D EM5 II or newer or some good Sony / Panasonic / Fuji mirrorless should be better than film in almost all instances.

Plus they should be cheaper if you use them a bunch. Film will quite rapidly cost you more than a pretty high-end FF camera setup would have cost. It's expensive.

someone is selling a 5d mark iii with a brand new shutter assembly. what does this exactly mean?

>>2990913
Probably that they sent it in for service when their shutter broke, switched system or bought another Canon meanwhile, and now are selling the camera that was returned from service?

>>2990916
so would the camera be more prone to break and be worthless in the short run of is this a worthwhile purchase. price is 1500 burgers

>>2990920
no you stupid oaf

>>2990923
sorry senpai. thanks for the input

>>2990920
I'd think it makes the shutter less likely to break, and everything else is just as likely/unlikely as it would be on another used camera...?

> is this a worthwhile purchase
Pretty decent model for a Canon camera - dunno if you need something like it, though.

So about shutter life - what happens when your shutter mechanism dies after 50/100k actualisation? Can you replace it or you just need to accept your camera is dead and get a new one?

>>2990913

question about this. Does this mean the shutter count "reset" since its a new assembly.

>>2990934
The shutter assembly can be replaced by service on basically all IL camera systems.

Plus modern MILC increasingly can just use fully electronic "shutters" as an alternative to the physical shutter.

>>2990937
I haven't even looked at too many shutter assemblies and I still think it's very unlikely that the part storing the actuation count is actually part of it.

And either the service center reset the counter in the camera or not? Who knows what the company policy is with regards to that.

File: 15698168_1572703182745641_8955186153199356384_n.jpg (51KB, 960x956px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 960x956px

picked this up for $200 with the leather case and charger. did i do good?

>>2990967
Could've done much better with $200. I personally own the D-Lux 5 and it's not great.

>>2990967
No, you're a fucking moron

New thread
>>2991008

File: Screenshot_2016-12-28-20-30-43.png (267KB, 720x1280px) Image search: [Google]

267KB, 720x1280px

Worth 350-375?

>>2990744
I must have misread because I saw "Save money ON lenses" earlier not "save money FOR lenses"

>>2990967
>he bought it because muh leica

laughingwhores.png