/gear/- Gear thread

should I get the A6000 or should I save up a few more bucks for the Pentax k70 or should I save up even more for the d7200? All I have now is an old Canon xsi

>>2991012
once you go pentax..

>>2991053
I'm not a brandfag I just want a nice camera that helps me take nice pics.

>>2991058

Then get the a6000.

No need to spend more than you must.

File: 1000px-sensor_sizes_overlaid_inside_-_updated.svg__largest-no-more-than-580x630.png (109KB, 580x473px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 580x473px

>>2991008

What would be the best lens for a FF body to make porn videos with my gf?

Good old 35mm?

Hey, does anyone know of a good camera bag that can hold a DSLR plus at least 2 lenses? I'm thinking of getting one for a trip to Iceland this coming January.

>>2991094
8x10 film

>>2991102
i got a lowepro event messenger 250 pro

can hold my k50, k1000, extra lenses, film, and my extension tube set

>>2991094
Ask your cameraman. There's no way in heckity crap-fuck that you're going to get anything much in focus offa tripod, so might as well go with a turd-ass compact camera.

No, your bedroom just isn't that well lit. Ffs

>>2991112

>tripod

I figured some good old fashioned PoV porn.

File: 11429705_865046886882409_404642673_n.jpg (24KB, 480x480px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 480x480px

>>2991109
Thanks m8.

Recommendations for a pocket/tabletop tripod? Just need something small and simple to setup so I can catch lower-light candids on film when I don't have a flash

>>2991121
gorilla pod probably

I wanna buy my first DSLR for making good looking videos and getting into photography. should I buy,

Sony a6000
Canon t6
Nikon 3400
Other?

>>2991124
Also $500-600 price range

>>2991126
t5i is neat for the flip screen. You'll appreciate it when you want to do micro shoots on the ground but dont want your nice shirt to get dirty. Good for beginners but useless when you want to advance.

>>2991130
the a6000's screen flips up too tho

>>2991121

Manfrotto Mini Pocket

>>2991012
If you want good quality lenses on a budget then Pentax or Nikon.
Look at a couple DA limited primes or the slower but crazy sharp 16-85mm zoom for generic, landscape and portrait work and see if there is anything similar for Nikon and you will be able to decide.
From the price difference between the K-70 and D7200 I say you can fit one Limited prime in the Pentax setup.
Once you decided buy it, go out and definitely have some serious fun out of it.

Whats the best tripod that can fit comfortably in a backpack?

>>2991140
Manfrotto Befree
I have a bigger sturdier 190XB and I usually just tie it on the side or under the backback or use it as a hiking stick.
The ball head is nice and heavy so I can also use it as a mace to beat overly agressive wild tourists

>>2991140
Sirui T-025x/T-024x

>>2991140
>>2991145
BTW those are the carbon fibre variants, the T-005x/T-004x are the same tripods but aluminium if you want something cheaper.

so dxo bases their perceptual megapixels statistic on MTF50. but people can see well past that, and computer sharpening can dramatically improve it. doesn't that make the statistic somewhat misleading, especially with regards to the full frame vs APS-C debate?

Good compact now that GR prices are through the roof? Needs to replace my DSLR which I found I don't use that much compared to film

>>2991146
>>2991152
>and computer sharpening can dramatically improve it
Somewhat. You can't bring out information or in this case micro details if it was not recorded in the first place.
I agree, the PMP concept is bullshit because image is not rendered in such orderly fashion as a pixel array on a sensor, entirely dependent on the scene, light, lens aperture, focus distance etc... Basically the optical properties related to the projected image can be varied on the same lens.
Its subjective nature makes the whole numbers and charts thing stupid and misleading, but makes an excellent base for advertisement and business influence.
This is why quoting dxo numbers and charts are viewed down upon here and mostly everywhere on the internet and why most suggestions go towards searching for photos made with the lens in question on Flickr or some other forums.

>>2991160
>I agree, the PMP concept is bullshit
well wait. the CONCEPT is bullshit? surely it is possible to quantify the information represented in a given image? I mean, MTF charts do tell you something useful about imaging performance. I'm just saying DxO seems to use a hard cutoff (MTF50) that is not really accurate.

Is it worth it to get a 35mm L lens for travel and street photography as opposed to maybe getting a zoom or a non-L 35mm? I alrady have an 85 for portraits. The only thing I'm interested in photography-wise besides portraits are travel, landscape, street photography type things.

>>2991164
Did you read it carefully?
I said it cannot be quantified because the results are subjective and heavily dependent on the circumstances, scene, lighting and many other variables.
You can't say this lens is shit and the other is good because it will only mean the lenses are bad or good in the circumstances the tests were carried out on similar subjects in the tests.
I have seen loads of lenses being badmouthed followed by dxo scorings but when I looked at actual photos made with them by a minimum half-competent photographer the results were more than good. I have one actually, two if I count my old macro lens when used for portraits. Both heavily dependent on subject distance and lighting, once the light drops below a certain level or the subject gets over a certain distance the image falls apart, but knowing it's useful range the images are very nice.
So the whole single quantified number concept is bullshit, if you want to quantify a lens image quality you will have to specify a number of qualities in a number of situations. One single number is not enough and misleading but makes good opportunities for advertisements and business control.
When someone is arguing with dxo statistics it is the same as arguing about what was said in what commercials about certain products.

>>2991194
>Canon
I know your system doesn't have a cheap standard lens for crop bodies. The EF-S 24mm is very nice if you like it a bit wider than normal. If not, just get a third party 30-35mm like from Sigma or Tamron.
I would try the EF-S 24mm first though.

>>2991227
yeah I have to disagree with you there, it is possible to quantify the level of detail available from a certain setup and there is a use for it.
http://cjeastwd.blogspot.com/2014/01/a-perceptual-mega-pixel-explained.html
where subjectivity comes in is:
1) normal people really don't mind if an image is soft standing an inch away, as long as it looks good.
2) often the circumstances of the photo (haze, camera shake, diffraction) reduce the sharpness anyway (and sometimes it's intentional!)
but the thing is, an extremely sharp setup will (almost) always do the job at least as well

>>2991152
> but people can see well past that
People can also see past 1920x1080 pixels depending on screen size.

That doesn't make specifying the amount of pixels (or in this case, an estimate for it) on a screen useless.

> and computer sharpening can dramatically improve it
Computer sharpening can't do that, no.

In fact, it looses further information when applied. You'll have less pixels.

> doesn't that make the statistic somewhat misleading, especially with regards to the full frame vs APS-C debate?
No. It's just fine, even between FF and APS-C.

>>2991246
You are still thinking in a.) sterile conditions and lens defects and b.) high end lenses
A has nothing to do with real world uses and defects can be rarely mended and are entirely different.
B is just like arguing about your car being the best when the company is doing good in races but you only have a 15 years old Colt.
High end lens qualities don't really count here because very few people buy them. Saying a single number defining quality is good because high end lenses are qualified as good and they are good in real world uses has nothing to say about all the other mid range and budget lenses.
Unless you only buy the highest quality lenses (in which case good for you and wtf are you doing here?) but I believe most people are going for the budget and mid range options, mostly used to keep prices low.
In this case comparing a single value is pointless, you will have to know in which settings and in what circumstances will the lens perform the best to find the best compromise for your uses and a single number is simply not enough.
This is where subjectivity comes into play and you start looking at photos made with the lenses in question.
You can argue about dxo numbers all you want but at this point it is the same as comparing bubble gum card collections (we had cars and bikes bubble gum here when I was a wee lad) and when you do get one of the high end pieces dxo numbers will lose any meaning because you will use the thing instead of arguing about them on the internet.
At least that is what normal people do.

Ive had a d3200 for 3-4 years it got me through my previous course but im now looking to upgrade, im currently attending university and ill be needing to do product photography as its a part of my ceramics course and alongside that ill be using it as my hobby.
I'd like to go full frame but I dont want to destroy my savings, you people know far more than me and ill continue my research and advice is helpful thanks.

File: good_lens_poor_aperture_setting.jpg (174KB, 1000x934px) Image search: [Google]

174KB, 1000x934px

>>2991256
I don't think you necessarily need FF for products.

Yea, it helps a bit with diffraction and stuff, but a nice sharp (preferably macro for me) lens on an APS-C will already do very okay.

Get that and 2-3 strobes with some diffusers, and it'll probably be fine.

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

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

>>2991254
the single number tells you the effective resolution of your system.
can you honestly tell me you've never taken a photo you wished was sharper?
>>2991253
>Computer sharpening can't do that, no.
computer sharpening can raise the contrast at the MTF50 point, effectively moving the MTF50. and higher pixel density lets you do a better job

>>2991262
>computer sharpening can raise the contrast at the MTF50 point
It could in theory, but it actually *can't* with an ISO 12233 MTF-50 measurement unless you're directly cheating.

>>2991142
This is an exclent little tripod. Used it many times, never disappoints

Do you have to multiple the aperture when comparing lens on different crops?

>>2991337
With regards to resulting DoF and some other properties, yes.

With regards to light intensity per pixel, no.

>>2991268
do you have an explanation for that? I have no idea why you would come to that conclusion, unless you mean that software sharpening isn't ALLOWED by the standard?

>>2991350
>With regards to light intensity per pixel, no.

Unless both sensors have the same number of pixels.

>>2991359

>lens transmission is based on resolution now

lol

>>2991253
>In fact, it looses further information when applied. You'll have less pixels.

Huh?

All sharpening does is increase the local contrast.
You have the same number of pixels, but for example a light gray pixel next to a dark gray pixel might become a white pixel next to a black pixel.

>>2991361
Where did I say anything about light transmission.

He said light PER PIXEL.
Small pixels with the same light intensity means less light PER PIXEL.

>>2991357
I believe it's allowed as long as you don't create a "sharpening" algorithm specifically to fix the test charts up specifically, but I haven't read the specs in that detail.

Still the problem will be that you can't just use sharpening to fix up your results into the expected test chart if you recorded an image that's too blurry to begin with.

>>2991359
Hm, maybe I should have said "per pixel area".

>>2991363
There's various things a "sharpening" algorithm might do.

Bottom line is that you generally "fix" / doctor one or more pixels with the informationfrom surrounding pixels, usually loosing some or all information from the fixed pixel in the process.

Less pixels worth of information, anyhow. Maybe not less pixels in the image.

>>2991370
AFAIK all sharpening algorithms work pretty much the same.
And very similar to unsharp masking in analogue photography.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsharp_masking

>>2991366
yeah, what I'm saying is not that you can change the MTF50 spec with computer sharpening, but that computer sharpening effectively improves on MTF below 50, and so MTF50 and the associated "perceptual megapixels" can be an underestimate of the perceived resolution of the system. But please tell me if I misunderstand!

I have a Sinclair GX700 with Caduceus Rubinstein v30 lens and a Hornets Fathom 400R opticule

Recently got into photography, and my dad who's been doing it for a while gave me his old Nikon d200 with a sigma 2.8 fixed lens. Is this a good starter DSLR? Wasn't expecting to get one so soon so I'm happy either way.

>>2991262
Let me guess, you have never used a camera before, right?

>>2991388
it's pretty lousy relative to modern image quality, it performs significantly worse than current-generation starter DSLRs (e.g. D5300), but the IQ should be acceptable and it's got much better autofocus and usability than those starter cameras. for instance the exposure controls are much more practical, so it'll be great to learn on.

>>2991388

It's a great starter DSLR. It was a $2000 camera when it first came out, but it's probably worth around $200 these days, so if you break it, no big deal.

It's capable enough to get out of your way, but not so advanced that you don't have to learn the good fundamental techniques of exposure, focus, etc.

>>2991388
If only you could go out and try it, huh?

>>2991388
It will make photos but keep in mind the D200 was considered a shit camera way back. It has an old CCD sensor that eats batteries and shits out noise like crazy at ISO 400.
You can still have a good start with it especially if you get a cheap manual flash like the Yongnuo 660 or Godox TT600 but try to save up money for a better body later on like a D7200 or D750.
What focal length is the Sigma lens?

how much better is nikon D750 over D500? I have FX glass and some iffy zooms like the 70-300

>>2991407
The D500 sensor is a more modern construction, noise performance is better than on the D750, also the D500 has the D5 AF system, the D750 AF is not bad but dated compared to the D500.
Which one to choose? Depends if you need the FF sensor or not.
The 70-300 is trash even on a D5500, throw that shit out and get a 300/4 and a 70 or 85mm prime

>>2991404
>D200 was considered a shit camera way back.

lmfao no it wasn't

>>2991415
As soon as the first cmos crop camera came out it was vastly outdated. It wasn't shit right away, it was actually one of the top cameras of it's era but technology moved over it very fast.
The D300 is still considered as a good camera today, the D200 didn't age that well.
As I said above it will take photos but it is best to keep around ISO 100-200 and use a flash in lower than ideal light.

>>2991412
>The 70-300 is trash even on a D5500
the thing is according to DxO it performs much better on full frame, like the sharpness is completely acceptable under 200mm
and a lot of cheap lenses like 50 f/1.8s perform better according to them
I just don't know how seriously to take their stats, if you believe them the D750 seems to have twice the resolution of the D500 using FX glass

>>2991418

You didn't know? CCD nostalgia is super fashionable right now.

>CES is a week away

What will Nikon do with their FF line-up, boyos?

610 and 750 always seemed too similar to coexist imo. Any chances they are shelving/repurposing on if the lines? (true D700 successor the way certain people keep whining?)

>>2991428

They won't be announcing anything. If they did, it would be the d820 with the a7r2 sensor, but that's a long shot.

>>2991229
I've heard terrible things about the sigma 30mm f1.4 "art"

Such as: Front focusing that can't be fixed, even with the dock and extreme purple fringing, making f1.4 unusable.

>>2991430
also forgot, people are reporting the lens is incapable of focusing in low light

>>2991420
>according to DxO
Just stop

>>2991430
>>2991432
Get the EF-S 24mm then, you won't regret it.

>>2991433
I'm just trying to get good image quality out of the lenses I have. Are the DxO stats good or not?

>>2991454
>defending a plastic shit lens with dxo charts and numbers
So this is the new demographic...

https://youtu.be/MjX6ljOEqbw?t=64

lol.
it does that on my sigma 30mm f2.8 too.

>>2991454
>Are the DxO stats good or not?

They are, but they trigger the Canon users here so best not mention them.

>>2991459
Nobody worth their salt gives a crap about dxo numbers. Only teenagers and basement dwelling manchildren think it is relevant.

>>2991461
See: Canon shooters always get mad.

>>2991462
>>2991459
Hi moopco

>>2991456
I have some sharp lenses that do well on FF, like the 50 1.8 and the 105 micro. and it seems like I'll get significantly better performance with full frame. AND I've actually had issues with image softness and chromabs. What's wrong with that?

File: 135mm2.8.jpg (76KB, 1000x667px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 1000x667px

Picked up an Accura 135mm f2.8 in F mount today, from a local antique market. Couldn't find much on google, so took a chance with $15, as this is a focal length and speed I was looking for anyways.

Does anyone have any experience with Accura?

pic related

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-7
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.7.1 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2016:12:29 18:01:55
Exposure Time	1 sec
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Brightness	-6.0 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Hard

Anyone know of a good (affordable) DSLR mostly for shooting video (but also takes high quality photos)? I've been looking at the Canon 1300D (Rebel T6) and it seems pretty good, is there anything around that price range which is better?

Thanks.

>>2991518
Panasonic gx85/gx80, but youll need a fast lens like the 17.5 1.8
Otherwise a sony a6000
Don't fall for the canon meme son
Or a nikon d3300

>>2991527
Thanks for the suggestions, the GX85 looks great. why is Canon a meme?

>>2991544
canon dslrs has pretty gimped video, as to not hurt the sales of their video cameras

>>2991434
The only reason I was looking into the sigma, was because of BOKEH and shallow DoF

f2.8 seems pretty low desu

>>2991553
Okay, that does make sense. What would you say is the best DSLR for both video and photo between the GX85/A6000/T6/T6i?

>>2991582
it really depends on what you're gonna use the video for.

For stills, T6i is king. It also does video, but not as well as GX85.

Skip A6000

>>2991582
I'd go with the GX85. Entire camera is very video centric. Panasonic submitted it to the taxman as a camcorder, which means it doesn't have a 30m video duration cap. All other stills cameras have that

What's your uses?

>>2991593
>>2991594
Thanks for the replies, I appreciate it. I'm looking to shoot all different types of videos to learn, essentially. Stills, moving shots of landscapes, etc.

File: photo[1].jpg (3KB, 88x88px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 88x88px

Is /gear/ ready for 2017??

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

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Google
Image-Specific Properties:

I own a Go Pro hero 4 black and while it's nice for some things I want to break into DSLR cameras to film more live bands. I already use Adobe Premiere for editing but low light situations still look too noisy. Does anyone use DSLR's for this type of situation? I have a $600 price range give or take a little. Where should I start?

>>2991115
then use a really wide angle lens

>>2991428
See thom hogans site for down to earth predictions.

DL is still born, Nikon's wireless workflow is trash, and the company can't make any sensible decisions. Also, when was the last time Nikon (or any major camera manufacturer) announce anything good at CES?

The D610 is sorely in need of an upgrade, but likely will simply become a FF D7200 (2000 px meter, bigger buffer, CAM3500).
D750 currently has no upgrade path; the D5 tech isn't going to trickle down to prosumer level so soon. It'll likely not receive an update or have its flash power cut and Snapbridge hastily shoved in alongside Nikon's latest QC blunder.
The logical update for the D7200 is mini D750. 92k px meter, Expeed 5, Group AF, tilty screen, touch too if we're lucky. More likely to get the D3400 treatment though.
The D810 update will be interesting. The D800/810 made a legacy out of having state of the art resolution and DR at the time. Will we see a return to x/s nomenclature? Nikon can't afford to lose out on the D810 userbase, but people have been pining for a D700 successor for a while now. It's clear it'll use the D500 style body, the question is what sensor.
DX primes is kill. KM360 is kill. DL is kill. Nikon 1 is kill.

Nikon is... ?

>>2991412
The AFS VR is sharp to 200, and sharp enough out to 300. The corners suck past 200 on FF, but are ok on crop. Anybody who says otherwise is a 400% pixel peeping faggot. No, it's not going to compete with a 300/4, nobody said it would.

All the 70-300s before that one were turds though.
>>2991507
Like most telephotos of that vintage, it'll probably be sharp in the center, soft in the corners, and have chromabs everywhere until f8 or thereabouts.

>>2991421

Where? Is there a Tumblr or something of noisy low light pics taken recently with 10 year old dslrs?

>>2991629

Do you ever pretend to slit your wrists with your toothbrush in the morning?

>>2991629
>Anybody who says otherwise is a 400% pixel peeping faggot.
the tradeoff for vignetting is it's got REALLY bad chromab on crop and it's half as sharp. I think it looks OK on full frame though

>>2991651
>I think it looks OK on full frame though
Really only depends on the pixel size. You wouldn'T want to put this on a D800/810, but I guess on a D700 it would be good enough.

>>2991633

Everywhere. There have been like three CCD threads on /p/ in the last month.

I need a way to suspend my camcorder (Canon XA20) vertically above a table for product review videos.

I have a beefy lightstand with a boom and two heavy-duty tripods, a CF one with a ballhead for still and a traditional-style video one with a fluid head. As I see it, the obvious options would either be to get a horizontal arm for one of my tripods or come up with a way to mount the camera on my lightstand's boom.

Which option would /p/ go with, and what parts would you use?

So what matters in a camera for post processing (LR,PS).
For example: a photographer shoots a model for a magazine cover. He takes the shot and goes ahead to edit the thing. For some reason I am able to take some shots of the same model in the same closed environment with my cropped sensor camera. Will any sort of editing on my end match the end result of the photographers photo or do the limitations of my camera prevent that

File: maxresdefault[1].jpg (64KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 1280x720px

>>2991737

>>2991737
Crop vs. FF or whatever is pretty much irrelevant in a controlled environment with studio lighting.

The biggest difference is that the pro has a pro retoucher working on his photos and you're doing them yourself. I actually used to date a retoucher and she made my shit photos look fucking amazing. It's been really frustrating trying to match my old published work with my shitty post skills.

File: 1474100254883.jpg (56KB, 286x400px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 286x400px

>>2991741
yes

My 200/4 lens has 58mm filter thread, theres a filter I want to use but the largest I can get is 48mm.. but I am using the lens on full frame.. so that'd be an issue right?

My 135mm lens has 49mm thread so an adapter should be fine with that.

Any sharp m42 teleconverters at all? Dont midn the slower aperture.

>>2991388
It's a great camera for learning with as it has a good amount of manual control, being a semi-pro model.

It won't be so hot at higher ISO, but it'll still take great photos with the right lenses attached. Still perfectly usable, and always will be, as it has enough resolution for medium prints if you expose them correctly.

>>2991404
>the D200 was considered a shit camera way back
Absolute horse shit

>>2991606
This guy is such a raging homo

>>2991767
Nah, he's just a giant autist.

I've been in his livestreams before and watched him talk about women. He loves them as much as he loves burgers and pizzas, just has totally ridiculous ideas about them and how to get them.

How the fuck did anyone focus quickly before/with manual focus lenses only?

I try to guess whether the subject will be closer to the far end or the close end of the lens before shooting and then go from there but usually I over do it and have to reel back a bit to get focus

>>2991786

Quite a few people on here almost solely use manual focus.

>>2991786
AF exists for a reason, but cameras were different in the MF era. Using a classic camera with a split-prism finder is totally different from trying a manual lens on most digital cameras.

>>2991789
Because they can't afford AF lenses for their systems. (Fuji and sony)

>>2991786
Many cameras had split prism focus screens which can be easier to see and focus quickly on a subject.

>>2991786
They had focusing help? Various rangefinders and gizmos.

Now it's focus peaking.

>>2991802
I have quite many of them and I still not rarely MF on my Sony because it's one of the fastest ways to focus on something specifically (faster than focus & recompose, faster than adjusting AF point or trying to hit the potentially small thing you want to focus on on a touch screen...).

Focus peaking is pretty good.

>>2991805
>he still thinks mirrorless UI is the norm
how cute

>>2991807
If you chose a decent Sony/Fuji you should have it, right?

Also, I think you want focus peaking or something *to* manually focus. Not that it's the norm. But it's not hard to pick a camera that can do it, either.

>>2991802
>Because they can't afford AF lenses for their systems. (Fuji and sony)


But for like $350 you can autofocus any manual focus lens?

That is dirt cheap.

Adapters for specific autofocus lenses are even less.

>>2991817
For $200 I can have a normal and a portrait lenses total, both sharp and low CA and has AF.
I am already $150 in and you still need to buy lenses.

>>2991817
>motor so powerful can dtive 700g lenses no issues

So mount Canon FD 800mm 5.6L to tripod and let it drive the camera back and forth instead for AF. Or hold by lens..

Now I want one... not sure if that or 150-600mm Tamron G2

>>2991827
...on a mount that needs a third party replacement to be strong enough for lenses above 500g
This doesn't look like good value to me, also
>So mount [lens] to tripod and let it drive the camera back and forth
Do you not see the problem here? I bet you don't go out very often.

File: pentax-smc-pentax-f-1.7x-af-adapter.jpg (19KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 500x375px

>>2991831
>>2991827
At least Pentax came out with an adapter that has internal focusing elements instead of just driving the whole lens in and out.
Now this you can use with a Tair 3s and have 500/5.6 with AF

>>2991831
>...on a mount that needs a third party replacement to be strong enough for lenses above 500g

That was fixed after the first version.

File: D3S_0408-1200.jpg (253KB, 1200x1403px) Image search: [Google]

253KB, 1200x1403px

>>2991834

First party a-mount adapter goes as far as a translucent mirror and focus motor.

Some pretty cool stuff goes into adapting lenses.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

>>2991831
says 730g and shows video of it on current version. Adapter is 130g and body is like ~500g.

File: DSC02098-Resize.jpg (825KB, 2304x1190px) Image search: [Google]

825KB, 2304x1190px

>>2991012

Rock an a7.

Best investment I've ever made.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-7
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.7 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.8
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	75 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	1080 dpi
Vertical Resolution	1080 dpi
Image Created	2016:12:13 15:08:16
Exposure Time	1/640 sec
F-Number	f/2.8
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	125
Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Brightness	8.2 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	50.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

>>2991843
yet again
>So mount [lens] to tripod and let it drive the camera back and forth
Do you not see the problem here?

>>2991858
>Rock an a7.
>Best investment I've ever made.
Because you managed to take a photo everyone else does with whatever camera they have including shitty bridge cameras and phones?

>>2991858
>Focal Length 50.00 mm
>Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 75 mm
>Camera Model ILCE-7

>>2991880
Probably a crop lens and anon put the camera into crop mode. Seems logical to me.

What compact camera should I choose? Im really split on the Nikon DL24-85 or the Canon G7X II. The Nikon appears to have higher specs and all but the Canon just seems more appealing, and also the fact that there are tons of vloggers who swear by it. And the fact that there's not even a simple video test of the Nikon leaves me suspicious. I also like the warmth the Canon has in its videos, which is primarily what I will be using it for. With my Nikon D3200 leaving a bad taste in my mouth from all the boring, desaturated photos I've had to bring back from the dead in Lightroom, I really don't want to have to deal with that to the same degree. Same thing with the AF, which let me down time after time in low light situations, particularly in Paris, which I was pissed about.

So primarily what I want to know is which one has better AF, bokeh, and best warmth. Any help would be very much appreciated.

TLDR;
>Nikon DL24-85 or Canon G7X II?

>>2991911
RX100 V or RX1R II.

Better AF, better low light, better video capabilities.

>>2991911
Panasonic LX100, Fuji X70 or Sony RX100 III or IV
If you are fine with prime lens then Fuji X100T or Ricoh GR

Does UV-filters actually have any effect what so ever, or are they just really overpriced screen protectors?

>>2991911
>With my Nikon D3200 leaving a bad taste in my mouth from all the boring, desaturated photos I've had to bring back from the dead in Lightroom
Seems to me you have a user error. The D3200 is more than capable of stunning photos, learn to expose properly and to post process properly. nikon has a flat profile in their RAWs for a reason, you can extract the most detail from them, don't be afraid of the saturation and vibrance sliders and do the white balance manually.

what is the absolute cheapest digital compact with manual controls and a 35-standardish lens?

>>2991923
With the right film and situation they do quite a bit.

They are almost irrelevant to digital sensors or on setups with lenses that themselves had working UV coating.

>>2991919
>>2991922
I did fail to mention I only have 700$ to put into a compact, that being said >>2991922 The Fuji X70 looks very very promising, thank you both.

>>2991925
Yeah, I've just been figuring this all out recently. Prior I've just been using Auto w/ no flash (which produces boring photos) or full manual for night stuff (which produces good photos). After owning the D3200 for a year and a half I'm finally learning how capable it really is, especially since buying an F1.8 35mm lens after toying in film for a little while. Thanks.

>>2991911
Still no clean cut answer, Canon G7X II or Nikon DL24-85. Im dead set on one of these, no other suggestions please, just a conclusion.

>>2991933
Nikon. Now go and stay go.

Got a Nikon 3xxx DX camera and still have no idea whether the prime 35mm or the 50mm is better? Both 1.8
Thought the 50mm would be better but if I wanted to take pics of loved ones I'd have to back up a lot with the 50mm?

>>2991940
If it's the typical Nikor APS-C glass the 50mm should be marginally sharper.

But both lenses are not that great - just okay. You might as well pick the 35mm when you're otherwise loosing shots due to framing and field of view.

>>2991942
It is, price will be close to $200
Not sure if there are better 35mm for the price as I'm afraid of buying a used lens

>>2991945
> It is, price will be close to $200
I guess there is not much choice then.

> Not sure if there are better 35mm for the price
Nothing particularly better for a Nikon, no.

>>2991946
Okay, thank you

>>2991940
50mm for portraiture, 35mm for generic walkaround photography with normal field of view.
Easy. I got the 35mm first than the 50mm when I went for portrait photos.

>>2991949
Good plan, thank you
I just vacation and family photos and I assume it's better quality than smartphone pics

>>2991951
Yep. But it won't do low light particularly well regardless.

>>2991911
>trying to pick between a camera that doesn't exist, and one that does
The answer was RX100 IV on firesale though.

I need a DSLR for video for under $300. It needs to do 1080p (at 24, 30, and hopefully 60 FPS). What's my best, cheapest option?

>>2991952
Idiot.
>>2991949
f/1.8 will do low light pretty well, even f/2.8 will do. Have fun.

>>2991957
Triple that budget and we can talk

File: IMGP0259_c.jpg (814KB, 1200x800px) Image search: [Google]

814KB, 1200x800px

>>2991008
copped this badboi yesterday. what a beast.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	RICOH IMAGING COMPANY, LTD.
Camera Model	PENTAX K-70
Camera Software	paint.net 4.0.12
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	42 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	118 dpcm
Vertical Resolution	118 dpcm
Image Created	2016:12:30 15:14:50
Exposure Time	1/125 sec
F-Number	f/4.5
Exposure Program	Portrait Mode
ISO Speed Rating	400
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	28.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	6000
Image Height	4000
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Portrait
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Close View

>>2991958
meant to quote >>2991951

>>2991958
>Triple that budget and we can talk

I don't mind buying used.

>>2991961
You will need that much for low end used.

>>2991963

Okay. What if I have $1500 in savings that I can dip into but highly prefer to spend as little as possible?

>>2991958
> Idiot.
Idiot yourself.

Such a ~T/2.4 sucks a lot in low light when coupled a weak D3x00. Unless you have an abnormal tolerance for ISO noise and motion blur.

For the most part, he'll have to use a speedligh to get a decent enough shot. Or make do with the looks produced by a builtin flash. Not using extra light won't work well.

>>2991965
You can get a Panasonic GX7 or G80/85 with the kit lens.

>>2991968
Why are you afraid to use a speedlight? Everyone should have at least a cheap manual one.

>>2991957
The closest would be a Yi 4k or GoPro or such a sports camera. They will often even do 4k at 60fps at that price, though with not usually extremely high bit rates.

Even inexpensive MILC are out of reach though. G85, A6000, and all those devices cost more.

>>2991972
It's about 3/4 of an extra camera in terms of weight and size if you want one with decent enough power.

And even then you'll have problems achieving somewhat even lighting fairly nearby or even any lighting with a wider lens from a bunch of meters away.

Not like he has any choice at this price level.
But it *is* a fairly shit setup to shoot at night with a half-sharp T2.4 lens on an APS-C without any particularly good ISO performance (especially if it's a D3300 or older).

Even more so if you don't want to bring a more powerful flash along or your subjects hate the bursts of light.

>>2991952
>>2991968
>>2991972
>>2991983
What kind of speedlight do you recommend with my budget? Seeing that all I have is a d3300 and the 35mm 1.8 Nikon lens

I just bought a cheapo A200 so I could finally stop taking shitty cellphone pics. It came loose so I'm scraping together accessories now, do most people use a card reader or just plug the camera in via usb?

>>2991989
Yongnuo 540 or 660, Godox TT600 etc...

>>2991992
>>2991989
Also get a clip-on diffuser box for it, makes the flash much softer

>>2991998
Thank you

>>2991989
If you can handle manually controlling your light, the Yongnuo YN660 is the cheapest actually quite powerful flash. [That one is more or less as much what you still can run on AA batteries.]

I'm sure the Godox TTL suggestions also work - that said, I personally often struggle with my TT685. It's just... borderline even indoors.

Anyone have any good battery grip recommendations for an a6000?

File: 1482394605182.jpg (182KB, 1024x1024px) Image search: [Google]

182KB, 1024x1024px

>>2992017

>muh ergonomics and portability!

>>2992018

For extended shooting.

>>2992017
Buy some $30 Chinese one off Aliexpress.

>>2992017
No such thing senpai

>>2992023

>like one whole day of shooting!

Okay, outside of preference and brand loyalty, what would be the best 'beginner' DSLR/Mirrorless that shoots both high quality stills and video, for around the price of the T6?

>>2991959
>Exposure Program: Portrait Mode
Dude, don't use Auto or Scene programs, use Av, Tv, TAv or M and shoot in DNG RAW, edit in Lightroom so you can learn to photography properly
Also read Understanding Exposure by Bryan Peterson.

>>2992036
One candidate is the A6000. Repeatedly noted as such a camera by the press and /p/.

But it's not the best at everything ever. For instance more focus on video might make you prefer a Panasonic...

>>2992017
Why would you need a grip and extra battery for shooting a whole day? Mine keeps going through the day with a bit left over but I just charge it overnight.

>>2992039
Most people have been recommending the A6000, would I be able to take at least high quality stills alongside a higher than average focus on video?

I'm in the market for a D7200 or D500...thoughts on which one I should choose? I suppose I'm asking if the D500 is worth the extra cash?

>>2992045
Use one of the good lenses (most of the cheaper ones will be primes) and stills quality is as good as it gets in that price range.

It will also do okay 1920x1080 video. Should suffice for home video needs.

>>2992046
If you actually needed a D500, then you'd know it.

>>2992047
What type of lens would you recommend? What is a prime lens?

>>2992052
> What type of lens would you recommend?
That depends on what / who you are going to photograph.

I usually travel with a 12mm Samyang f/2 and 30mm Sigma f/1.4.

I caution the latter will *suck* for focusing video manually as you so often might want to do. You'll be better off with the Sony 28mm f/2 or the Sigma 30mm f/2.8 or some other glass if you do a lot of video.

> What is a prime lens?
A lens that doesn't zoom. It's field of view remains fixed.

These tend to be lighter, smaller and sharper than zoom lenses and allow you to use a wider aperture.

>>2992055 (cont'd)
Sample images from these two lenses (not all taken by the A6000/ILCE-6000):
https://www.flickr.com/groups/samyang_12mm_f2/pool/

https://www.flickr.com/groups/2955549@N21/

>>2992055
What type of shooting do you do that requires those lenses? Assuming I want to do some street photography aside from shooting video, would you recommend an alternate DSLR, something like the T6 with an appropriate, or should I stick to the A6000 and get an appropriate lens?

>>2992058
See the sample photos, most people use them more or less like I do.

They will do land- & cityscapes, street, people, and a lot of general purpose shooting. Just a travel setup.

> Assuming I want to do some street photography aside from shooting video
The 28 or 30mm can do that fine.

Most street photography is shot between 28-50mm on FF cameras, which is around 18-33mm on APS-C.

I personally like 12mm much more than 18mm when I want an actually wide shot. Ultimately it's still "only" around a 90 degrees horizontal field of view.

[Some people are 28 or 35mm FF equivalent "purists" for their street photography. You'd also have a bunch of 18-25mm lenses to pick from if you preferred that, or even some zooms good in that range. It's just not my personal choice.]

>>2992050
Based on everything I've read, the low light capabilities are better on the D500 as well as the nature/sports action shots; that's a nice check in the D500's favour. Also, the build quality seems a bit better. But, it's about 1K more...is everything I've mentioned above worth it? Or, will the D7200 do the same job in most situations? I keep going back and forth on it; very frustrating.

Thanks for the reply.

>>2992066
Not the same anon, but the D500 is definitely better.

You also got a compromise choice with the D750 that might save you a bunch of hundred bucks on the D500, depending on where you live. The D750 is a fairly much beloved hobbyist FF camera, not really lacking all that much in any particular way.

[Me, I'd go with the A7 II or A6500, heh].

>>2992063
Thanks very much for the help, so I should look at buying the 30mm Sigma f/1.4 and a a body like the A6000 for a pretty good 'all purpose' set up, assuming I want decent stills and video then?

Apologies if I'm misunderstanding anything, most all of this is new to me.

>>2992070
Yes, I saw the D750 as well. It's about the same price where I live, no real savings. The reason I dropped the D750 is the fact I'd immediately have to get the FF lens; I'd like to upgrade to FF, but the camera and good glass at the same time is a bit much right now. I plan on buying the body now, and upgrading the glass to FF as I go, then eventually upgrading to a serious FF body as I develop.

I'm going to stick to Nikon for now because of the equipment I already have, but I appreciate your alternative suggestions! In the back of my mind, I think the D500 will give me more room to grow into it....perhaps I've just answered my own question.....

>>2992066
The D7200 and D500 are approximately equal as all-round hobby cameras. The reason to pay 1k extra for the D500 is if you need a professional cutting-edge AF system for sports or birding
Keep in mind the D7200 also has an amazing AF system

As the other guy said, you should really only buy D500 if you know that you need it Save the 1k for glass. Or get a D750 if you absolutely want to spend the money on a camera

Should I switch from sony a-mount? I don't have that many lenses just a few primes, but I don't want to invest in more if its going to die and decent cameras wont be available in the future.

>>2992078
In general, you shouldn't make system decisions based on predictions of the future

But an even more important rule is to not invest money if you are unsure about something. I'd ditch it asap

>>2992075
Almost.

The 30mm f/1.4 is good for its price, but again, it's annoying when you focus it manually. It's so quirky that you almost won't be able to nicely focus video with it.

I guess you could see it as a compromise done towards getting a very sharp lens for cheap and use it anyway, falling back to the kit 16-55mm when you need to.

Or you could do what I'd probably recommend and avoid its odd focusing, and get a Sony 28mm f/2 or 30mm f/1.8, Sigma 30mm f/2.8, Samyang 35mm f/1.2 (this one is very new) or one of the other alternatives instead.

I've just got my gx85, with the 12-32 and 35-100 for $500. Should i get any other lenses?
>I'm willing to adapt, i have a oreston 50 1.8 (m42) and a samyang 14mm 2.8.
>i'd like a stupidly fast lens (i.e faster than f1.4) and i think the 25mm 0.95 would be good. should i go for it?

>>2992082
Okay, that makes sense. It's sharp focus isn't worth the trade off of poor handling? I think I'll go with either the 28mm f/2 or the 30mm f/1.8 and the A6000. Which lens would you prefer to use over the other? Thank you for your help!

>>2992076
I'd stick with a D7200 then.

There is a real chance that you just get worse camera performance from using your APS-C glass with the new D500 than you'd have with the D7200, and if you can't buy the glass in the next few months perhaps a better or more economical FF camera will again be out before you get any big advantage from the current D500.

Besides, I've seen a few not so enthusiastic hobbyists hate FF cameras for the weight. It'll be 1/3 to 1/2 extra weight. Are you the kind of person that WILL drag a heavy backpack full of stuff with you if it helps? Maybe this isn't the everyday situation, but it might happen way more easily on FF...

> I think the D500 will give me more room to grow into it
Yea. But I'd honestly save up instead to make the switch WITH maybe 2 good pieces of FF glass at the same time.

>>2992085
> It's sharp focus isn't worth the trade off of poor handling?
In this specific case no - the handling is just too bad for video.

I don't know what Sigma thought on that lens. It's the only lens like it on the E-mount. And it actually has a pretty nice focusing ring on the outside, it's just the control inside that SUCKS.

> I think I'll go with either the 28mm f/2 or the 30mm f/1.8 and the A6000. Which lens would you prefer to use over the other?
I'd prefer the 28mm f/2 because it's a tad sharper and it has a pretty interesting wide angle conversion lens. Also I tend to prefer wider lenses. Plus this is more likely to retain value since unlike the 35mm f/1.8 it's a FF lens and actually quite good on a FF camera.

The 35mm f/1.8 is only a very tiny bit brighter / shallower, 1/3 shorter and 50g lighter. I wouldn't prefer it for merely that.

>>2992057
How much would a similar lens cost for a Nikon DX camera?

>>2992091
Samyang/Rokinon makes these lenses for Nikon, Canon, Pentax etc... mounts too. So it would cost the same

>>2992092
I was under the impression Nikon lenses were more expensive, that's what I've been told at least. Something to do with canon being so popular etc

>>2992091
As an alternative to the 12mm, I think many use either the ~equally priced but a bit worse 14mm f/2.8 Samyang (the 12mm f/2 doesn't exist for Nikon).
Or an about 50% more expensive zoom - 11-16 / 14-20 Tokina, 17-50 Tamron or Sigma.

[Some also used a WAY more expensive Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G, but that's almost $2k. Happens if you want to stay with 1st party gear, I guess - not that it's a fair comparison, but it's an option.]

The 28/30/35mm primes cost about equally much. [At least if you just take the usually fairly slight difference in sharpness where the Nikkons usually are worse - insisting on getting that too might cost you twice as much. I'll note that they also are usually noticeably heavier lenses.

OTOH, some Nikon 30mm f/1.8 could occasionally be sold cheap. It's not a perfectly simple comparison.]

But overall, no particularly noteworthy cost savings.

>>2992092
They don't make the 12mm f/2, actually. And a few others. Samyang has lenses that they only make for mirrorless cameras.

>>2992089
Then I'll look into buying a A6000 and I'll pick up the 28mm f/2 when I have the money for it. Thanks a lot for helping!

>>2992104
Sounds like a good plan.

And if it somehow ends up looking like you won't have the money for a 28mm f/2, there's still the 30mm f/2.8.

Or even a *really* dirt cheap Meike 35mm f/1.7 or adapted Fujian 30mm f/1.6 or 1.7 (or some old Osawa, Minolta or whatever). Not the same kind of glass, but it's a fallback plan.

>>2992114
I've found a pretty good deal on the 100D/SL1, how do you think that compares to the A6000 (or even the T6) for my needs?

>>2992117
Both are far worse cameras than the A6000 overall.

Much smaller buffer, lower sensor resolution and worse performance in not well-lit situations plus worse dynamic range, worse AF, and so on. Also heavier and bigger.
Vice versa, they have very few advantages.

I do think you'd notice the difference quite a lot, though maybe more so after you HAD an A6000.

>>2992122
Right, then I'll stick to the A6000 with the 16-50mm kit, and then I'll pick up the 28mm f/2 when I get the chance.

>>2992125
>>2992122
For curiosities sake, how does the A5000 compare to the A6000, since it's a fairly significant price difference?

>>2992140
It is a plebshit version of a plebshit camera.

>>2992140
Also quite a lot worse.

It has an older AF system with less points and worse performance overall, it has a worse sensor in general, it has slower burst rates and smaller buffer and no EVF and no flash hotshoe, and so on.

The NEX-7 is the actual predecessor model. [But I'd personally draw the line for what I'd actually still bother using at the A6000.]

>>2992140
Get the a5100 instead. That one has the same hardware as the a6000.

>>2992171
No. Also has a different AF, no EVF, no flash hotshoe, slower bursts, older sensor and so on.

Even the controls at the top are arranged a bit different, it lacks two wheels and a button.

Even if it's closer to the A6000 than the A5100 is, it's not a good idea to downgrade to that one.

>>2992156
You have entirely convinced me on the A6000, I really appreciate the guidance. Hopefully you're around when I have more stupid questions. Thanks, anon!

>>2992176
The a5100 has the a6000 179 pt system, 6 fps burst, the 24 MP sensor, and so on.

>NEX-7 actually has two top dials
>a6000 has literally one
top fucking kek sony how did you fuck that up
>non-ISO hot shoe
>an actual selling point
Sony a shit

>>2992179
>top fucking kek sony how did you fuck that up

they needed an excuse to sell two upgrades to the same model within one fucking calendar year.

>>2992179
This, if you want half decent stills, Sony is not for you.
Even with video Panasonic has better features and more and better lenses.

>>2992179
>The a5100 has the a6000 179 pt system, 6 fps burst, the 24 MP sensor, and so on.
The AF isn't as quick, 6 FPS burst isn't 11 FPS burst, and so on.

> top fucking kek sony how did you fuck that up
I did not fuck up anything. There are wheels at the top of the A6000, get your eyes checked.

Never mind the NEX-7 ISN'T the A5100 we were talking about.

> non-ISO hot shoe
It's a fucking ISO hot shoe on the A6000.

Has extra non-ISO contacts at the front for TTL and mic input and all that stuff, but that doesn't stop you from using it as ISO hot shoe.

[There is no ISO standard for TTL, mic inputs and so on in a hotshoe.]

> Sony a shit
You a stupid.

Since you guys are arguing about the Sony a series right now, answer another question for me. How varied is the lens market? I've been reading that DSLR cameras have more available lenses than CSCs, and Sony as a brand has even less lenses than other CSC brands. Is this a drawback or is there an adaptor I can buy to use Canon lenses for example?

>>2992188
There are some very nice lenses with extraordinary prices, highest in their range. The budget lenses are crap and still more expensive than other brand equivalents. There is no middle ground. This is why you can see most Sony users going for adapters, old manual lenses or adapted modern Canon lenses.

For example Canons prices are below Sonys equivalents and the lens quality is better (Canon makes some of the best lenses) and the used market is flowing. Has no cheap option for 35mm.
Nikon is similar with better backwards compatibility, excellent budget, mid-range and top-line lenses, used market is flowing as well. Has the babby prime duo 35/1.8 and 50/1.8.

Even Pentax beats Sony for value and options, best compatibility in its mount, you can put an old Takumar on an entry level body and snap without care, can meter automatically in some settings. The budget lenses are the best value, widest crop sensor lens options, some very nice mid range including the Limited series primes and a few top line lenses, all priced somewhat lower than the Canon/Nikon counterparts. Has the cheapest babby prime duo 35/2.4 and 50/1.8.

But if you do get into Sony at least you can choose from many options of 50mm lenses.

>>2992192
That's a shame, so essentially, in order to have access to higher quality lenses which are also cheaper than Sony, I'll have to buy an adaptor?

>>2992204
Yes, which usually costs more than a good lens on other systems. And won't work as well as the first party lens because the adapters are reverse engineered.

>>2992209
So, when using an adaptor to use say a Canon lens on the a6000, the lens will actually have a reduced quality or functionality because of the adaptor? If that's the case, I'd question using other lenses at all, and just stick with Sony lenses, which I guess is what they want.

>>2992086
Thank you very much for the feedback. Perhaps pocketing the money and using it on glass/a future FF is a better idea.

Weight is a factor, I'm an avid traveler. But, I'm willing to carry the weight for the pictures.

Any suggestions on the 2 good pieces of FF glass?

>>2992220
> Any suggestions on the 2 good pieces of FF glass?
Sports / action shots:
- 70-200 f/2.8. The newer Tamron Di VC or maybe the Nikkor VR II
- 120-300 f/2.8 Sigma Contemporary or Sports

Nature:
15-30 f/2.8 Tamron
16-28 f/2.8 Tokina
14-24 f/2.8 Nikkor

or less wide:
24-70 Tokina, Tamron or Nikkor f/2.8

Obviously not the only options, but these should be pretty good. Also, sorry for not writing the "mm" part every time.

Recommendations for a <$30 bag for a dslr? Function over form on this, some sort of weatherproofing and amazon prime availability is idea.

>>2992230
NG2345, Caden K1, and various of the popular no name bags for side bags.

There are also a bunch of decent backpacks.

These are <$30 on Aliexpress with shipping. Maybe you're lucky and the Amazon marketplace sellers didn't mark them up to twice the price if you want to buy from there anyway.

File: 1026s.jpg (32KB, 640x426px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 640x426px

>>2992188

Inthe past that was true. For a long time Sony had no lenses. As it stands now, they have the second highest first party lens count for mirrorless, only m43 is ahead.

Recently though, they have been putting a ton of work into it, especially the FF. They released 9 lenses this year alone. And some of them are absolutely extraordinary. The SEL70200GM is an absolute monster. There were even more third party lenses released.

Still, there is a lack of budget options, especially for crop e-mount. There isn't very much good long lenses either. There is only one G lens(Canon L equivalent) that goes up to 300mm. Nothing longer.

The main advantage for Sony is that they release their autofocus specs to pretty much everyone. Autofocus adapters exist for pretty much every major mount, and they actually work. Full native autofocus speeds(on modern bodies that is), not reverse engineered janky messes. And the techart pro adapter will adapt anything else, even stuff that doesn't natively autofocus.

>>2992226
Do you think I'll need (or use) the 24-70mm offering from Nikon if I get a 70-200 and a 14-24? Perhaps add on a 50mm prime?

Of course, I'm not going to buy them all in one shot, and in that case: Perhaps the 24-70 bridges that gap (in a way), until I can slowly add to the collection?

How did you build your repertoire? Any tips?
And by the way: thanks for the feedback!

>>2992240
>The SEL70200GM is an absolute monster.
What, the one nobody can actually get their hands on?

I'm sure if you stack all the 50mm the FE mount has, you can get something close to 200 mm though.

File: voigtlander-40mm-heliar-lens-review-1-1400x933.jpg (180KB, 1400x933px) Image search: [Google]

180KB, 1400x933px

>>2992271

>no one can get thier hands on

Been quite a few reviews.

Far from the only absolutely fantastic FE lens either.

>stack the FE 50mm

150mm only(unless we count the 55mm Zeiss). SEL50F18F, SEL50F14Z and SEL50M28, all very different lenses.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	DSC-RX100M3
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.6 (Macintosh)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	70 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2016:07:10 15:36:00
Exposure Time	1/80 sec
F-Number	f/2.8
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	3200
Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Brightness	-1.4 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	Flash, Compulsory, Return Not Detected
Focal Length	25.70 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

>>2992264
>Do you think I'll need (or use) the 24-70mm offering from Nikon if I get a 70-200 and a 14-24?
Hard to tell for what exactly and how you will shoot.

But generally speaking someone taking photos in the normal range is extremely... normal.

> Perhaps add on a 50mm prime?
That's a possibility, sure.

You could also use a 14mm Samyang. f/2.8 or something instead of the 14-24. It'll obviously give you a wide field of view on landscapes & you can often get away with just cropping to a narrower view.

> Perhaps the 24-70 bridges that gap (in a way), until I can slowly add to the collection?
It'll cover the normal range quite well. I figure you can do a lot with that already, sure.

> How did you build your repertoire?
I shot photos & compared some gear.

> Any tips?
Not really. At least not this general.

> And by the way: thanks for the feedback!
No problem!

Beginner question about flashes: how universal are hot shoe mounts? I need a cheap flash to toss on top of my Pentacks and my local Craigslist has a few offerings (a couple of old Minoltas, a Vivitar, and a Sunpak), but I'm worried about compatibility.

>>2992285
The mounting and pin outs for basic functionality are an ISO standard.

Shoe voltage on the other hand isn't. Beware of film-era flashes frying digital cameras not rated for use with.

>>2992282
>Been quite a few reviews.
Mostly from people with store loaners to drive sal- pre-orders.

File: 220px-IISO_flash_shoe_Minolta%2BSONY.jpg (15KB, 220x186px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 220x186px

>>2992285
>old Minoltas

>be normal camera fag
>at goodwill
>oo a minolta speedlight
>$1.00
>in the basket it goes
>get home
>wat the fuck is this
>thx sony

>>2992290

Old Minolta flashes will mount to the shoe pictured.

Mine does at least, I needed to pick up an adapter to get it to work.

>>2992291
>Old Minolta flashes will mount to the shoe pictured.
yeah i ain't got that shoe. i have a normal fucking camera and a flash i cant mount to anything.

Is it always the best option to get a decent lighting kit over a cam+lens upgrade? Even if you don't have a dedicated spot to do regular recordings and have to move stuff often?

File: sony_adpmaa_multi_interface_shoe_adapter_913654.jpg (54KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 500x500px

>>2992292

Buy an adapter.

>>2992295
i ordered a $3 chinese adapter on ebay, but its taking forfuckingever to be delivered.

>>2992226
>Nature: everything is UWA
You never went out much, do you?
For nature you basically have to use the most everyday lenses from UWA through normal to the trusty 70-200. Long teles included if you want wildlife too.
You can't only suggest UWA when you have no idea what kind of scenery anon is going for at what possible angles.
I would say a good 21mm prime, a 24-70 and a 70-200 zooms would cover most angles.

How does the Fujifilm X-T10 stack up to the Sony a6000, since they're the exact same price?

>>2992293
Hard to tell, depends on what you get exactly.

But certainly, some Godox / Yongnuo portable strobe(s) with maybe an extra RF trigger are *far* cheaper than getting a low light FF camera setup. By like a factor of 10 or so.

>>2992335
I didn't say it's all UWA. That 24-70 also may be for nature.

UWA & normal is however far more important than telephoto, because simply you don't always have a clear line of sight or clear atmosphere to get a good telephoto shot.

>>2992376

Where did you find an X-T10 for $400?

Anyway, the a6000 has a better sensor, autofocus speed, and burst speed. Pretty much better in every way. The X-T10 on the other hand has a slightly better viefinder some really neat jpeg options, which isn't all that useful since you will be shooting raw most of the time anyway.

>>2992376
Has an external microphone jack and faster shutter setting. Some people also think the Fuji is more fashionable or more ergonomic or a better experience to operate (I generally don't agree, even if some points are better).

Plus there are a handful of rather good lenses Fuji released. Most are $600-1000 for primes and $1000-2500 for zooms though, so it's almost to be expected that they should be good.

Virtually all internals other than that shutter and mic port are worse though. Sensor resolution, buffer size, AF, and so on. [AF and buffer size bothered me personally the most, plus how the auto settings work in detail. It's not *too* good at finding a good exposure setting in a wide area, or the white balance, or stuff.]

And the overall lens selection also is worse - Fuji's system has a lot less lenses in total.

>>2992380
There are a bunch of stores in my area (central London) selling body only for around £350, which is around the same price at the A6000 body only.

>>2992380
>>2992381
Thanks for the info, I'll stick with the A6000 for my first Mirrorless then.

>>2992381

What would be a good starter aftermarket lens for the A6000? I was thinking about this one Sigma for €350 f1.8 35MM no zoom.

Would it be a good camera to shoot low light? Good friend is a pretty known DJ and it would be cool to shoot him in clubs.

Hey guys I recently bought a new Canon EOS with a standard AF/AF-S lens. My dad has some old Minolta and Fujifilm lenses of his film cameras. One is even 70-300mm which would be pricey to buy new. So I was thinking, is it worth to buy an 'adapter' to be able to fit those old lenses on my Canon? It would be much cheaper, and we'll be able to reuse that old lens. AFAIK film lenses work normally on a DSLR right?

>>2992386
> this one Sigma for €350 f1.8 35MM no zoom
Eh? Was that one for the E-mount?

I think you have two 30mm Sigmas at f/1.4 (Contemporary) and f/2.8 (Art).

> Would it be a good camera to shoot low light?
Not really, buy an A7S (II) for that.

Or use a strobe like most people do on APS-C (there is a builtin flash but it's not THAT powerful). At which point yea, it works well.

>>2992393
> AFAIK film lenses work normally on a DSLR right?
Yea, but most DSLR have no focusing assistance even if your old SLR or rangefinder where the lens was originally on might have had some (maybe yours can install CHDK or Magic Lantern and get their focus peaking hack?).

Even more importantly, many have too long a flange focal distance to adapt other (D)SLR lenses easily.

Which is one reason why most people use MILC -not DSLR- to adapt lenses. You can fit a simple "tube" adapter (or something slightly fancier) where the difference to the older camera's flange focal length was and it all works fine even with the same 35mm sensor area.

I ended up purchasing an 055xpro3 tripod with the xpro 3way head as a combo the other day for astrophotography and basic video. Even though the 3way head tilts backwards 30 degrees, is it a big deal since the tripod center column can adjust to 90 degrees? I figured i can just lock the column at 90 degrees, pan and then tilt the head forward for star shots...

>>2992404
Get a 410 head for astro

Do mirrorless cameras have shutter life?

>>2992453
Yes. Most of them still have a shutter.

You can do fully electronic "silent" shutter on a bunch of them -recent Sonys, I think also some Oly or Panasonic, but even these typically still also have a shutter in case you want to use it.


What they don't have is a mirror that rotates.

File: Sigma 30 on d810.jpg (64KB, 972x414px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 972x414px

2016 was the year of telephotos for me, and I'm looking to add 2 wide/standard lenses to my stable for the coming year. I'm pretty sure I want to buy a Sigma 30mm f1.4 Art, but I want another, wider (but still rectilinear) lens too and don't really know what's good on a reasonably tight budget. Big aperture is more important to me than zoom, I'm a fan of primes. AF isn't necessary, it's wide angle after all and I don't shoot video. Any recommendations?

Nikon gear btw and even though my only DSLR is a crop body I still shoot film so I want to avoid DX only lenses.

>>2992457
Samyang 14mm perhaps?

Samyang is a good choice for not particularly expensive wide angle lenses on basically any system.

>>2992458
Have you used it? I've seen reports and samples of fairly severe distortion that's hard to correct.

>>2992459
> Have you used it?
Only once. The lenses I'm usually using are the two 12mm (f/2 and f/2.8 fisheye).

> I've seen reports and samples of fairly severe distortion
https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Samyang/14mm-F2.8-IF-ED-MC-Aspherical-Nikon-mounted-on-Nikon-D800E__814

Check the distortion->grid measurement for a graphical rendering of how it distorts - it's got just fairly typical barrel distortion.

But it's also a cheap lens for how well it does. I wouldn't actually expect anything better in this price range.

> that's hard to correct
I think you should have correction profiles for the lenses in ACR & LR, DXO, Rawtherapee, Darktable and possibly other tools.

Easy to correct, even if you still need to tell the program that you used this lens.

I guess on film, you're not gonna correct anything much - it's film.

>>2992459
>of fairly severe distortion that's hard to correct
literally a push of a button in LR, it has the lens profile.

>>2992471
>>2992459
Also you scan the negative, apply the lens profile and presto, you have the corrected photo

>>2992472
...and I thought we finally got rid of (You)s

File: nikon_FA_chrome.jpg (178KB, 671x425px) Image search: [Google]

178KB, 671x425px

I'd like to get a lens with autofocus for my Nikon FA but I'm confused.

How does autofocus work, especially with a camera this old, and where is it drawing its power from? Its getting power from the FA's batteries I imagine, but the batteries are tiny little button-sized batteries so it'll eat those right up, correct?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 30D
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS5.1 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	3248
Image Height	2272
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2012:01:14 19:06:29
Exposure Time	1/8 sec
F-Number	f/10.0
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/10.0
Exposure Bias	1 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	87.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	671
Image Height	425
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>2992489
Isn't that a camera that came out right before AF happened?

>>2991804
this
it's stupidly easy to manual focus on a split prism compared to today's cameras

>>2992489
nikon fa is manual focus bro.

File: 1412449040882.jpg (51KB, 700x441px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 700x441px

>>2991008
>TFW the TSA guy wants to gearfag about what's in your bag and you don't want to, but have to be polite because he can have Ramirez search your rectum

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Google
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	700
Image Height	441

>>2992497
It's easier on focus peaking cameras of today, DESU.

They work in more situations and tell you better what you're focused on.

File: sony_ilce7_b_a7_mirrorless_digital_camera_1008114.jpg (125KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

125KB, 1000x1000px

The A7 is ridiculously cheap right now, but I've got to save for several months to buy it and hope that it doesn't disappear from the stores.

>>2992502
maybe if you're doing macro but you're crazy if you think you can shoot in live view as fast and accurate as people did with split prism viewfinders

>>2992505
Buy used. Got an A7 for $800 about a year ago. And just yesterday, I copped an A7R for the same amount.

File: Untitled.jpg (280KB, 1248x746px) Image search: [Google]

280KB, 1248x746px

>>2992498
i dont think thats true though

File: nikon.png (37KB, 1690x491px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 1690x491px

>>2992510
except it is. you can use autofocus lenses on it, but you still have to manually focus them.

>>2992506
No, for anything. Even the trees far away.

> you're crazy if you think you can shoot in live view as fast and accurate as people did with split prism viewfinders
"The people"? I did that back then on a Minolta. It was indeed a good system - pretty quick and reliable enough when you were working in a situation where you could still see the prism.

But focus peaking has overall less limitations and is faster to work with - also because you don't need to focus in the center but can literally see the focus "creeping" through the image as you refocus. It's better.

>>2992510
Yea, I also thought it was not doing AF yet.

Again, I dimly remember that camera being one right before AF was the cool new thing.

Uh, how about you just switch to a current DSLR / MILC? It will AF. And be cheaper to operate.

>>2992507
>Buy used.
Honestly I'm afraid I'm gonna get fucked.

>>2992469
>Check the distortion->grid measurement for a graphical rendering of how it distorts - it's got just fairly typical barrel distortion.
I'm not seeing "typical barrel distortion" there, it's more complex. My version of lightroom doesn't list Samyang in the lens profiles, though it is old (5.2)

I'll look into that lens more, though I'm still seeking other recommendations.

>>2992471
>>2992472
I don't have any way of producing high quality scans of my negatives unfortunately.

>>2991778
Figures, probably a red piller

File: pic_03.jpg (37KB, 432x282px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 432x282px

How do I use this dial?

Can't I just change the raw file's exposure in post? Or do I lose IQ that way?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

>>2992573

You use it if your camera is consistently over or underexposing a scene. Snow, for instance, will always underexpose, so you'll set that dial to +2 compensation for better, more consistent exposure.

I like to use negative exposure compensation in contrasty scenes or at night to keep from blowing highlights. Shadows recover far more easily than highlights with digital.

You CAN just adjust exposure in the RAW processing stage, but it's functionally the same as raising ISO. Exposure compensation will lower shutter speed before raising ISO, so you will get better image quality than if you were to mess with it in the RAW stage. Once you're already at the point where exposure compensation is raising ISO, it's more or less the same as doing it in post, though.

I dodged the sony meme and got a nikon 5300 instead. Am I some kind of /p/-hipster now?

>>2992591
No, you chose a semi- decent camera. Should've went for a D7000 but the D5300 will deliver but you have to miss out on cheaper older screwdrive AF glass.
Go out and have fun.

>>2992459
apparently it's a good lens if you get a good copy, I wasn't so lucky. Mine was extremely soft and muddy at every aperture, chromabs out the fucking ass, completely unusable. It would have cost too much to keep sending it back and paying for shipping until I finally got a usable copy. It's a shame samyangs quality control is so fucking awful, I really hope they've improved on that by now.

I'm going from film to digital. I've never owned a DSLR. I'm mostly going to be using it for my own personal video projects, but I'm also hoping to do some professional work with it. So, I really like the Fujifilm X-T2, but it's not a full frame camera. My question is: how important is full frame? Do I need full frame for professional work?

>>2992604
>how important is full frame?
Not really, just keep in mind to get the lenses according to the crop factor.
If you go primarily for video then an MFT like the Panasonic G85/G80 would be a better choice.

>>2992607

Okay, thanks. I'll look more into the Panasonics.

Should i buy this ? is this a decent price.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/PENTAX-K-3-II-With-100mm-F2-8-MACRO-21mm-F3-2-50mm-F1-7-LENSES-BUNDLE-/282309152665?hash=item41baefcf99:g:mukAAOSwopRYZ1Jn

>>2992616
>K-3II with 100mm WR macro, 21mm Limited and the best cheap 50mm ever produced
Yes it is an excellent bundle, actually that is a fucking awesome bundle
That 21mm Limited is on my radar for some time now

>>2992622
thanks for the input wasn't sure.

>>2992604

Keep in mind autofocus speed on a mirrorless will absolutely suck unless you get one of the newer models.

Even then it will be subpar.

>>2992573
>buying a camera with a comp dial when you don't know what it does
you dick
here I am knowing what to do with it and I can't afford any SLRs that have one.

>>2992591
I prefer the Sony meme, but nah, it's still a camera.

Put a good lens on it and shoot.

>>2992628
Buy a Pentax entry body, set one of the control wheels to exp.comp.

>>2992628
fag oh flamer ass fag

>>2992633
I have one of the 3 wheels on my Nikon to compensation, I just want one like the one in the picture

>>2992634
This website is for people who are 18+ kid

>>2992625
The AF on a three year old A6000 is still quite good.

And the AF on newer Sonys is really good.

It's mainly that other vendors were a bit behind.

>>2992625
>absolutely suck unless you get one of the newer models.
>Even then it will be subpar.

You're exaggerating a bit there. On the old ones it's pretty slow but still adequate for the type of shooting it is intended for (i.e. everything not sports or birds). Your average snapshitter around here who is doing muh street photography or muh minimalist architecture will have no issues with the AF on any FF mirrorless.

T. guy who sold his A7ii for a FF DSLR which is a bit older but still significantly faster.

So I'm probably going to buy an old ass slr body, minolta good shit or naw?

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

129KB, 906x646px

>>2992696

Minolta is good shit.

It is a shame they got fucked by patent trolls.

>>2992573
there's three parts of exposure.
Aperture, Shutter, ISO.

In lightroom or any editing, you can't affect aperture or shutter at all. Essentially you'd just be using an even-more-shitty ISO change to brighten/darken.

If your body is ISO-6400 when it could've been a lot lower, then you darken the scene on your computer to Resemble ISO-1200 or whatever, it will retain all the ugly noise from 6400, it will be darker but the image will have an ugly digital grain dispersed randomly.

It's like turning a photo into a JPEG, it's a process that cannot be reversed at a computer. The information is gone before you even start to process it.

Doing compensation in body when appropriate will mix several of the three parts of the exposure triangle (aperture size, shutter speed, image sensor sensitivity) so that one part doesn't dominate.

If the camera over-manipulated your aperture, you'd miss focus (wide open) or get bad diffraction (closed tight)

If it over-manipulates just the shutter, then you'll either get completely blurred moving objects or you might have wanted a very gentle blur and instead you'll have absolutely zero motion.
Also, half of the flash lighting systems don't work at extreme speeds like beyond 1/250 sec, which is why darkening with only shutter can be problematic.

And if it over-manipulates ISO alone, all that noise is either hideous or all detail is lost after using heavy noise-reduction (textures, colors and lines end up mooshed together and out of focus)

It's far better to adjust 2 or 3 simultaneously, like at aperture 16 you've darkened things without the diffraction of 22. While at shutter 1/250 you can still use a basic flash. And a moderate iso like 600-800 should have effect without being noticeable in most print sizes or web sizes of image without extreme zooming.

My body re-uses a different wheel for comp, but it's smart enough to blend multiple settings in stages.
Like iso-change, iso-change, shutter-change, aperture-change, iso...

File: p hates every picture.jpg (280KB, 1000x790px) Image search: [Google]

280KB, 1000x790px

I'm conflicted /gear/. I can't afford anything new, but I'd like to upgrade my body from the nearly 10 year old D200 I've been shooting with for the past 4 years. I'm torn between getting a D600 and a D7100/7200.

I have a few lenses, 2 of them are DX (the 35mm f1.8 which I use often and 18-200 VR which I rarely use). I mostly take photos of birds, insects and other wildlife, airplanes, cars, motorcycles and skateboarders. I do have a particular fondness for birds and macro. I very rarely do landscapes or architecture, being a student I don't travel very often, and I don't live in a place I find pretty.

I've really wanted to go full frame for the dynamic range and low noise, but I realize that the difference between the D7X00 and my D200 is FAR greater than the difference between the D7X00 and D600. I'm not sure whether I'll be losing potential cropping down D600 images when I'm shooting birds through my modest telephoto lens or dealing with a little more noise and less DR with the crop body. Am I off base? I've really been hurting for better low light performance lately, when I'm forced up to ISO 800+ to get a shot, even with RAW I find myself unhappy with the noise and dynamic range. Is it better to have to crop down but get a little less noise and better DR, or to not crop down and put up with slightly worse low light performance? Spending $6-800 on a body with better high ISO performance feels like a good way for me to supplement my current inability to afford fast glass. A used 300mm f2.8 would cost 4x+ what I paid for my 300mm f4, and any reasonably fast zoom lens costs more than I'm looking to spend on a body. The DRTV video on just this didn't help me make up my mind much and I'm trying to avoid worshipping the numbers on DXOmark.

Oh, and video is of very little importance to me.

What do you recommend /gear/?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop 7.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2010:03:17 18:15:43
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1000
Image Height	790

>>2992724
I can only speak for canon, so you'll have to figure out if this also applies for nikon.

More people own crop bodies than FF by far, so they make crop lenses that normally give the same aspect ratio as on a full frame.

The most popular average FF zoom, 24-70mm on full frame, doesn't do that fish eye super-wide bullshit.
Sigma's 17-50mm F2.8 crop-lens for canon is 27.2mm-80mm, someone really wouldn't be able to tell which is the full frame camera if you handed those two combinations to them without any labels to read.
With nikon's 1.5x crop that's even less of a difference, it's 25.5mm instead of 24mm.

And for $400 brand new instead of $1700 of the full frame lens.

So they make cheap wider lenses for the crop bodies so that they get acceptable wide performance to compare with full frame at a tiny fraction of the price. Smaller sensor = smaller and cheaper lens, and more common body type = even cheaper scaled market production.

My 7d-II crop in general feels more flexible than my 5d-III FF. Slapping a cheap wide angle and I don't need anything wider. But if I need telephoto, the 70-200mm becomes 300mm (nikon) or 320mm (canon) That extra 120mm is far more noticeable than the 2mm difference on the wide standard lens.

The 5d-III is in general a little better with noise, but some of the modern crops are beyond complaint.
I tried out a 6D FF after the crop and noticed noise didn't seem to be worth the downsides in flexibility and features that the crop body has (7d-II has a similar professional feature list like a $3000 full frame camera, even though it was 1.5-1.8k)

Looked into it, sometimes older FF isn't amazing, 6d has significantly more noise from dark channel current during long exposures than my crop body!
http://www.clarkvision.com/reviews/evaluation-canon-7dii/dark-current-compared_2-6c-v1.gif
http://www.clarkvision.com/reviews/evaluation-canon-7dii/

I don't own nikon, but shitters say they win on sensors. You don't need FF, likely waste of money

>>2992724
oh, and definitely make a list of features of the mid-tier crop body compared to the cheapest FF.

Crop 7dII has two card slots (shoot a wedding without being a fuckup), whereas the "full frame" 6D they restricted it to one slot to keep lowly peasants from having a reliable camera.

Often, the list of 10-20 more features you get on a 1.8k crop body could easily put it on par with a 1.8k entry-shit full frame body, even Before looking at how much cheaper several lenses are on crop.

>>2992706

I understand the three parts of exposure, I just wasn't sure what that dial did.

So it just biases the exposure one way or the other? Why should I use that dial instead of manually changing the settinga?

>>2992724
what do you use for macro?
the dirty little secret about full frame is good lenses are actually cheaper, that "sharpest part of the frame stuff is bullshit, fx glass likely performs WORSE on d7x00. nifty fifties e.g. have much better performance on FF because their flaws aren't magnified. but giving up your dx lenses might be more than you're prepared to do, and the range is certainly a plus.
look at some sample comparisons at hig ISO, I think dpreview has that stuff. personally I'm not impressed by high ISO crop performance lately, they seem to mostly be using very aggressive noise reduction that wipes out detail -- high quality is still basically sub-800.

File: ffe6131ab14c281cade8b815dd498528.jpg (233KB, 700x700px) Image search: [Google]

233KB, 700x700px

Why can't most of the brands do good-looking lenses?

>>2992852
this may be a dumb question but what's the point of having a two way aperture ring?

>>2992858
Happy New Year!

>>2992855

So you can never know which way to turn it without looking at the lens.

>>2992772
>oh, and definitely make a list of features of the mid-tier crop body compared to the cheapest FF.
I've already done that and I wouldn't lose any features besides more AF points; which doesn't really matter to me at all. As long as it's better than my D200 (which is good) it will be an improvement. I don't really care about dual memory cards, I'd rather shoot outhouses than weddings, if I had a camera with two I'd still be using them sequentially not in parallel. Despite being "older" the D600 definitely shows a noticeable improvement in high ISO performance over the D7X00.

If I was losing a laundry list of features by going with one or the other I wouldn't be so conflicted.

>>2992795
I thought it pretty common knowledge that the higher density (muh megapickles) on a crop sensor make your glass look worse. Good lenses aren't really cheaper though, because it depends on the type. For fast telephotos price goes up as focal length does so good telephoto is cheaper for crop bodies. Part of my conflict is "is it worth it to go full frame and crop my telephoto shots more aggressively?" because I use telephoto lenses so often.

>personally I'm not impressed by high ISO crop performance lately, they seem to mostly be using very aggressive noise reduction that wipes out detail -- high quality is still basically sub-800.
You're not impressed but I am, because I've been shooting 1st gen DSLRs for over a decade now and I'm used to what I see. I have had a hard time finding comparisons between the D600 and 7X00, a noise comparison should be done with NR turned off but that doesn't seem to be universal for some reason.

>what do you use for macro?
A Nikon 105mm prime and an old Vivitar 70-210 zoom which is a better lens than you'd expect.

>>2992855
All those lenses have normal aperture rings at the front of the lens. The rear indicator is a DoF indicator. What are you smoking, anon?

>>2992868
lmao oops, I am not a smart man

>>2992038
ty will do!

>$999 for Sony Sonnar T* FE 55mm f/1.8 ZA
>$1.5k for the f 1.4
Why these sony zeiss lens so fucking overpriced? Those G lens are very expensive too

What about the standard 50mm f 1.8 sony lens?