/gear/ - Gear thread

Anyone tried the Samyang cine lenses? They look super attractive to me and I'm thinking of getting myself a nice set-up.

>>2992858
nice bentacks m8, finally got my hands on one in store

First for based northrup

File: Birdie.jpg (806KB, 1921x1081px) Image search: [Google]

806KB, 1921x1081px

Any 1 have experiance with a Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 55-300mm f/4.5-5.6G VR Lens, im a beginner and wanting to take pictures of birds would this lens be suitable for that? I have a Nikon D3300

>>2992869
Yes.

G80 with 12-60 for daylight yacht sailing shooting? All features look great, splashproof and oled VF, except i'd prefer tilt-screen instead of 360-rotating since i won't shoot lots of video.
I see E-M5, i or ii, as variant, probably cheaper tho if used.

>>2992908
You will need sealed lenses too to make it fully sealed but salt water can play havoc on the seals making them abraised, brittle and the smallest amount of salt getting into your system will start a corrosion chain going on.

>>2992910
Thx, salt is not a problem in our waters and i won't be into wet zodiac but actually with cup of hot tea on top of mast.

>>2992911
So you are going on a sweet water sailing?
If not keep in mind the very tiny water clusters in the vapor still contain salt that can do damage.
Use a UV filter with hardened coating so you only have to clean that off form time to time. Get at least a couple of them so you can change them while you are cleaning one.

I'm trying to find a cheaper flatbed scanner for 35mm, as the lab asks for ~5 bucks per roll to scan.
I'm poor but looking into the v550 or canoscan 9000f mk II as they both cost around 200 new.
however I also have the opportunity to get an old canoscan 5600f for 20 bucks (yet I do not know the state it is in).
should I bother with any of them?
ps I do not own a digital dslr to use that to scan.

I'm completely new to photography beyond my cell phone camera. I've browsed for a few days and clicked around youtube.

I just bought a 'Sony Alpha a6000 Mirrorless Digital Camera with 16-50mm Power Zoom Lens' -- How did I do?

>>2992869

>>2992998
See
>>2992870

>>2992724
IMO; if you're undecided in full frame vs crop sensor, go with full frame.

I shoot a Fuji XE2 with a set of primes (12mm f2, 23mm f1.4, 56mm f1.2) but I've been lusting after something with a LONG focal length but I don't fancy to the super expensive fuji long lenses,

can anyone recommend me a crop or 4/3 systems camera with a physically compact telephoto of comparable quality to the fuji system?

Looking for 200-400mm. Will be for birding mostly.

>>2992996
You'll fit right in.
>>2993027
If you're confident in using focus peaking, adapt any manual focus telephoto. For M43, adapt any of the pro 43 Olympus telephotos for fun and profit to an EM1. Otherwise check out the Oly 75-300 II or PL 100-400 for max telephoto. For cheap and good, try any of the 40-150s.
>>2992935
Flatbed is shat bed for 35mm. Use a dedicated scanner or a digital camera scanning setup for 35mm. A dedicated scanner doesn't cost much more than a flat bed. Flatbeds are good for MF and larger though.

>>2993027
>birding
>4/3
>compact

Unless all you want are boring grandma-tier snapshits of stationary birds, birding requires long lenses that are reasonably fast with good autofocus. Most bird photos are boring and crap because the bird is just standing there, to get something dynamic and interesting you have to be able to photograph them moving or in flight, which will be hard to pull off with a slow-ass 4/3 and a f5.6+ telephoto.

Birder starter setup: low/mid range crop DSLR and 300mm lens with a max aperture <f5.6. You can put a kit like that together for around $1,000 if you buy a used tele prime and a consumer crop body.

EX:
Nikon D7100/Canon EOS70D, Nikon 300mm f4/Sigma 100-300mm f4

New here and about photography. I'm going to buy my first camera, because sick about doing photos with a shitty smartphone. I'm looking for something like Sony a5000-5100-6000, because of compactness, lightness, good photos and video quality, relatively low price, but idk which one to buy. I'm now for the 5100 because of the lowest price compared to the 6000, but even an high quality photos/videos.
5000 doesn't convince me for the few focus point, 4mp less, even if it costs 100€ less than the 5100.
(6000 is at the moment out of budget)
Old help

>>2993041
Not looking for a dSLR setup. Do you also recommend oranges when people ask for apples?

I used to shoot a d7100 too big too heavy, not what I'm looking for.

I'm fine with taking a hit in low light shooting, smaller sensor size, higher f stops.

AF performance from mirrorless is adequate.

>>2993050
>Do you also recommend oranges when people ask for apples?
No but I tell people they're asking for the wrong thing when they ask for apples to make a burger out of

>>2993050
So far Nikon 1 system seems good - I like the reports on AF, and their 70-300 seems like a good compact setup with lots of reach.

>>2993052
Lots of ways to skin a cat, and resorting to a dSLR is not an answer IMO. I'm not a pixel peeping anal retentitve full frame fan boy, I'm a user who needs gear that isn't hugely heavy or expensive (as I'll be running a two system setup for hiking) that isn't going to hamper me. Excuse me if that wasn't clear.

>>2993053
It's also an actually dead system with no lenses and a sensor smaller than m43 (2.7x crop). the af is good but I wouldn't buy it except for open area sunny birding, and I had no plans to upgrade or qualms about sensor performance or upgrade paths.

>>2993057
>I'm not a pixel peeping anal retentitve full frame fan boy
Those are the people who buy FF mirrorless, not crop bodied SLRs

Sorry to tell you this, but you will have an extremely low success rate getting interesting pictures of birds with compact cameras and slow lenses. Seems what you're looking to do is take bird portraits, not dynamic and interesting pictures of birds moving and doing bird things. I've hiked the hills and valleys of many states and several countries with film SLRs and fast prime lenses, there's nothing stopping you from carrying a consumer DSLR and a mid sized telephoto but your own complaints about weight.

Good luck.

>>2993027
rx10iii or fz2500.
cheap alternative, old manual focus 300mm f5.6 canon fd.

>(as I'll be running a two system setup for hiking)
Are you a fucking idiot? A second body would be better than a second system. Bring a mf telephoto or pick up the fuji 55-200 or 50-230. Stop bitching about weight because clearly it's not a concern with the direction you're heading. If you can't nail a picture with the fuji xf/xc, then you're hopeless anyways.

Anyone got the 100-400 IS II L ?

I've invested in this glass recently, coupled with a 5d3... but really struggling to get any decent quality shots from it. The reviews are all fantastic, however I'm seeing slow and inconsistent AF, not sharp at all, poor colour replication, and regardless of reviews saying the aperture isn't inhibitive, it's appalling in anything other than broad daylight.

How can I understand whether there is an issue with this lens, or I am just turd?

>>2992858
Complete noob here. I have no hobbies so I thought I'd try out photography. I've been lurking for a while and I've been thinking about getting a Nikon D3300 with a AF-S DX NIKKOR 35mm F1.8G lens. Are the included lenses for this kinda shit? Any others one you think I'd want or need? Links below

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1023353-REG/nikon_1532_d3300_dslr_camera_with.html

http://www.nikonusa.com/en/nikon-products/product/camera-lenses/af-s-dx-nikkor-35mm-f1.8g.html#tab-ProductDetail-ProductTabs-RatingsReviews

>>2992858
what's a good camera for someone who wants to make small movies, likes fast shooting, and wants something easy to carry around? something that can take decent action photos maybe even street photography?

i don't want to buy a shoddy dslr and then have to upgrade in another year.

>>2993068
GX85
X
8
5
>>2993065
Nothing wrong with the II model. Watch yourself when light levels fall. Your best bet is to rent it. I rented a Nikon 80-400 AFS and found it breddy good.

>>2992869
I've heard mixed reviews on the 55-300, I think Tamron's 70-300 VC might be a better option

>>2993071
there is about £70 difference between the 2 is it worth step up to that price mark, the Nikon seems to get good reviews on amazon

How often do you guys use tripods? I'm into landscape photography but have never really used one but came in to a bit of money and am tempted to buy one. It will help for long exposures and stability obviously but what other benefits are there? I don't have the money to go for a carbon fibre Gitzo but I'm not a weakling so I don't mind an aluminium one.

>>2993064
55-200 I haven't tried, but the 50-230 I used to own and is pretty meh overall and not long enough either. If I were to get a second fuji body I'd be looking at the 100-400 but it's what, £1500 and weighs shy of a kilo and a half?

>>2993059
Don't care about dead system, I'm considering a second system PURELY for long focal lengths in a compact package, which my current Fuji system can't provide (as eluded to above). Complementary systems, if you will, with the second camera filling a niche. I expect I will continue almost all my shooting on fuji.

>>2993060
>your own complaints

exactly, MY parameters. Weight is already important to me. I got a 10kg base weight, approx 1kg for body+lenses (typically only take the 12 and 23) and 1kg for my tripod. Packing another XE2 with the 100-400 (or a dSLR with a tele) is going to near double my camera gear weight and that's just not on for me.

>>2993061
cheers I will investigate.

>>2993064
also, theres' no need to be condescending, call me an idiot or assume I can't ''nail'' a photograph. This is why /p/ has a reputation as a bunch of cunty gear whores.

>>2992858
>55-200 I haven't tried, but the 50-230 I used to own and is pretty meh overall and not long enough either.
300 equiv is long enough (barely), if you get good. And aren't on a trail.
>Complementary systems, if you will, with the second camera filling a niche.
Up to you man. You sound dead set on it, and you're not entirely wrong in your choice. I don't even know why you needed to know the opinion of a bunch of Sony shilling gear fags.
>theres' no need to be condescending, call me an idiot or assume I can't ''nail'' a photograph.
Welcome to 4chan, enjoy your stay.

>>2993074
just get a manfrotto pixy

>>2993074
You will need a sturdy tripod for longer exposures to do proper landscape photography.
At least a Befree for portability or a used 190 series or one of its successor series with a 498 ball head.

>>2993086
I think my D750 would crush it.

>>2993095
Would they be as good as a mefoto globetrotter? That's what I was looking at originally.

>>2993100
>I think my D750 would crush it.
>has a D750
>recently came into money
>doesn't have a tripod
How the living fuck did you not own a tripod before a D750? Was the D750 your first camera or something?

>>2993100
>mefoto
>would the manfrotto be as good as a cheap chink shit?
Yes, anon, it is as good, in fact it is much better. See if you can get one used.

>>2993100
Are you the guy from last year (2015?) who got a D750 from his aunt?
Regardless get a Manfrotto Befree, can hold the K-1 with 24-70/2.8, definitely should hold the D750.

>>2993106
Yes it is. I spent so much on it and a lens that I wanted to make sure I got to know the camera before I spent more on things. I just carry it around.

>>2993108
Will do.

>>2993109
Thanks. I'll see if my local shop has one and a globetrotter.

>>2993110
>Yes it is. I spent so much on it and a lens that I wanted to make sure I got to know the camera before I spent more on things. I just carry it around.
That's one of the most ridiculous things I've seen in the photography world, and I recently had a trust fund hipster with a Df buy a non-ai lens from me and ask how to set the aperture.

>>2993066
the 18-55 lens is fine for your purposes. it's plenty sharp, it's got decent optical qualities, the only major flaw is it's not very fast (high minimum f-stop). you'll have a great time, and you can pick up a 55-200mm dx or something if you want more reach. that's plenty capable for a beginner shooting dx. dunno about the 3x00 vs 5x00 in terms of capability though.

I want to be a bokeh whore on the cheap side of the consumer range.

I have an a6000. Any recommendation of set-up?

Is a lightbooster with an old manual 50 mm 1.2 kinda thing a good way to go??

>>2993071
what about the 18-300mm nikkor?

I found my father's Pentax P30, with SMC Pentax-A 35-105mm F3.5 lens attached to it. Best use case scenario for this?

I also bought an roll of Ilford XP2 Super (ISO 400), I am mostly planning to take portrait pictures, maybe some urban landscapes. Will these lenses work for me? I really want to refrain from buying lenses, too poor to afford anyway.

>>2993142
Superzoom piece of shit, never buy into any of those huge zoom range shitbags
Get the Tamron 70-300 VC instead

>>2993144
what's wrong with it? just not as sharp?

I have the 40mm f2.8 macro nikkor lens but I want to get a faster one. would a 50mm f1.8 be much better?

>>2993148
this is on a d3200 btw

>>2993146
It is as sharp as a blunt butterknife. And horrible chromatic aberrations on both ends.

>>2993148
>>2993150
If you extend into macro distances you will lose light, getting a speedlight would be a better option. If you don't care about macro and just want a fast lens the 35/1.8 would be better for a DX body. Get the 50/1.8 if you want a dedicated portrait lens though.

File: canon-lenses.jpg (1MB, 2835x1621px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2835x1621px

What would you buy next if you had...

17-40mm f/4 L
85mm f/1.2 II L
100mm macro f/2.8 IS L
100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 II IS L
And a few of the usual EF-S lenses.

Thinking of getting a Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 lens for my Nikon camera.
Pros?
Cons?
Any other suggestion of f/2.8 lenses in that range?

>>2993151
ok neat thanks for answering all these.

anyone used a nikon speedlight on an AE-1 Program? Mine doesn't seem to be firing with every shot.

>>2993156
You can't buy talent and inspiration

>>2993156
depends on what you shoot and what you find lacking
typical answer would be fast glass at the low or high end, maybe even a long prime if you've got the money
but you could go for a tilt shift or longer macro/bellows system if you felt like it, or some lights for studio work

>>2993162
Wow, that's such an inspirational view. You must be a great photographer, with words that cut so deep as that.

>>2993166
Wow, that's such an inspirational set of gear. You must be a great photographer, with as much gear as that.

>>2992869

Small, light, cheap, and pretty sharp. Got it for my GF years ago, and she got a lot of good shots with it. The Nikkor 70-300 has VR and better AF, though. I've also gotten it soaking wet a few times, and no issues.

Can anyone say what autofocusing speed on the Sigma 30mm like when paired with Sony's A6000 series cameras?

>>2993156
a GF

>>2993156
An EOS 5D MKIV because I don't have any Canon DSLRs only old FD stuff.

>>2992869
The 70-300 is better optically IIRC

I need a point and shoot with very high optical zoom, is Sony H400 good enough? Suggestions for alternatives welcome.

>>2993255
Canon SX60 HS is what you are looking for

>>2993263
this or the Pentax XG-1 if you want better image quality

>>2993263
>>2993264
Thanks

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Nikon-C-PL1S-39mm-Circular-Polarizer-Drop-In-Filter-132-/201762565020?hash=item2ef9fc6b9c:g:ALEAAOSwa~BYYYVY
>Scratches on main element. Heavy coating separation on the polarizer.

How are ebay people so fucking STUPID? You have to mentally retarded to ask $95 for this, not figuratively retarded, literally mentally retarded. It is a piece of trash, the glass is garbage and good luck putting a new filter in. Pretty much all you can do with this is send it to Nikon and hope they still have parts for it.

So I upgraded from my Nikon S8100 to a Nikon D3400, how long do you think the D3400 will last me before having to upgrade again?

>>2993282

Depends... are you using it for photography, or as a hammer?

>>2993142
Just know the larger the zoom ratio the shittier it's gonna be. They'll always have to optimize performance at 1 focal length and the rest are gonna be shit.

>>2993283
Photography obviously, what I mean was, I hear that Camera's don't need to be upgraded often, but the D3400 is an entry DSLR, so I assume it wouldn't be very good if I go professional.

>>2993285

So you're asking us how soon you'll outgrow the camera without telling us your current skill level, what you shoot, where you shoot, how often, and with no examples?

No problem! The answer is five. You automatically turn professional after five, and you'll have to upgrade.

Five what? Doesn't matter.

>>2993041
You don't need huge apertures to do birding. 800mm primes can't go below your guideline of 5.6. If you pick a nice day you can totally pull off 1/1000 shutter at f 8 with iso around 1000. I will appreciate faster apertures because then I can push the iso down, but for >>2993027 focal length is way more important. When you're shooting birds you'll always end up wishing you could have more focal length.
Try a 150-600 and a DSLR with good fps. Will cost you around 2-3k .

>>2993288
>>2993289
Is there an echo in here?

>>2993050
Get your shit together if you think a 7100 is heavy how can you carry your "long lenses that are reasonably fast" and when you go further maybe a sturdy tripod?

>>2993290
>focal length is way more important.
Nope. Because when you're out stomping around in the field without a tripod and a rare bird appears in a tree, it's more important to be able to take the shot than to be able to reach the bird when it's a kilometer away.

>>2993289
Sorry, I didn't know I had too, I am new here.
I don't really know my skill level, what I shoot changes depending on the environment, for example, if there is a beautiful sunset, I will take pictures of that, if there is a beautiful night sky, I will take pictures of that.

I shoot around town, sometimes in other towns if I am staying there for long, and not too often but I used to do it all the time.

I can give you an example but do you want an edited picture of non-edited one?

>>2993075
Im not the other anon you're replying to but I have to tell you that you're putting too many apples in one basket. How do you even get a 10kg base weight? It feels to me like youre trying to do many things at one shit. That's not gonna happen man. Birding requires patience and calm, and you can't do that when you're trying to get a shot of everything around you.

My whole setup is bulky as fuck but I use it only for birding and stay at one spot for extended periods so it's not that bad.

Birding is really fun and if you really worry about weight and cost then get a 10x50 or some shit and just sketch the birds down.

>>2993296
Crap, what I meant was "an edited picture or a non-edited one?"

>>2993296

Nobody here knows you, so nobody can effectively answer your questions. The answers are different for everybody.

Some people outgrow cameras quickly due to technical requirements (needing better autofocus, low light performance, whatever) and some never do. Some overcome them with technique, or don't need to upgrade at all. It all depends on your skill level, what you shoot, and how. A pro could get away with a D3400 for portraits more than sports, for example.

Sure, if you want to grow, put on a trip and start dumping photos for critique. Start a thread.

>>2993304
I might do that, Thanks.

>>2993301

Both. Post away.

D3400 is capable of excellent images, though. Don't worry about upgrading for some time. Just keep shooting and learning.

>>2993306
Had to upload them to imgur cause it was taking too long on 4chan, top is the original, bottom is the edited.
http:// i.imgur . com/HUTOD5v.jpg
http:// i.imgur . com/kYzaG4v.jpg
These were taken on my Nikon Coolpix S8100, It isn't heavily edited (in my opinion), I try to keep it close to my original vision, and cause I am still getting used to editing.

Also since my D3400 hasn't arrived, I've been using my brothers Pentax K-5 II and taking pictures and practicing editing RAW pictures.

I would upload them but I haven't edited them yet.

>>2993319
>my brothers Pentax K-5 II
Why didn't you just get a K-70? You were supposed to make him jelly! You had one job, man

>>2993325
He already is jelly cause the D3400 is better than his camera spec wise.

>>2993326
I highly doubt that. His camera has 3x the battery life of the D3400 for starters

>>2993328
What? Snapsort, the place where him and I both researched different cameras on, said that the D3400 has more battery life.

When does canon release a stabilized, fast, wide angle lens for APS-C?

Like the 35mm F2 IS for crop ? Guess that would be a 22mm F1.4 IS

>>2993319

Well, we know the answer to your question now:

Not for a long, long time.

>>2993332
One word, anon, snapbridge
You got fucked over by fucking Nikon, son

How easy is it to get "aspiring Instagram models" and the like to pay you to take photos for them if you have a fancy DSLR? Back in the MySpace days, I knew a lot of people with shitty cameras who got paid to take MySpace photos for people, but I don't know if that's still a thing. I do live in a big city though. I want to invest in one for myself, but I want to try to use it to make back my investment despite not being a "professional photographer."

>>2993341
Extraordinarily easy. I recently bought my first DSLR and after posting a few pictures that were well received on Instagram, I've already been asked to shoot personal pics, prom pics, and property pics (all for $$ of course). If my camera pays for itself someday I'll be happy. For now I just enjoy shooting

>>2993325
The K-5 II/IIs is still a better camera than the entry level K-70, would not be jealous one bit

>>2993339
Why? What is Snapbridge and how does it screw me over?

>>2993338
Is it bad?
Could I get some CC?

Other than extra memory and batteries. Is there anything else I should get with buying a first camera?

>>2993402
Buy a UV haze filter and leave it on your lens.

As a beginner, you're likely to worry too much about dust/marks on your front element--leading to over cleaning and scratches. If you put a clear filter on, you won't need to worry at all.

>>2993430
Very nice. Thanks for the heads up

I found my dad's old Nikon F-401s (called the N4004 in the US).

Looks like it was an entry level 35mm SLR (late 80s/early 90s)

Anyone have any experience with this camera? I've loaded it up with Kodak ultramax 400 (cheapest film I could find nearby in my country) but haven't gotten any reels developed.

>>2993464
If it's at all like the F-501, then it's a battery-eating center-weighted quasi-AF piece of gahbage. Get a F3, F5, or F100 instead.

Seriously, sub-80% finder coverage in a post-1975 SLR is kind of seriously not the way we like it today. Nikon went all-out on segmentation that time. The kit lens is shit as well.

In a nutshell, what you have is a SLR that one buys before buying a proper SLR. So in that sense you're saving money because you had it for free.

>>2993366
It is a wifi/bluetooth connection for transmitting over the photos to your phone. Snapbridge keeps the connection on even when the camera is turned off bleeding away the valuable juice from the battery.
Without Snapbridge the D3400 is just an overpriced D3300 though

You really should've went for a K-70, weather sealing, bright 100% accurate pentaprism viewfinder, pixel shift resolution etc...

>>2993492
I don't plan to use Snapbridge so I don't plan to connect my phone for it.

And I would have gotten something else if I had the money for it.
K-70 is 900 bucks
The D3400 was 475 bucks on Sale.

>>2993484
Thanks man

Do you reckon it would be a good thing to practice on/start out and learn the basics? This is a hobby I've been wanting to get into for a while but I've never been able to commit the $$ before trying some stuff out first

>>2993495
>$900
damn, I thought it was $600.
Well the D3400 is still a good camera, so if you turn off snapbridge you can save most of the battery life.
Get a 35/1.8 prime as soon as you can, it will bring out the sensors performance.

>>2993497
600 would still be too expensive, I am on a budget right now.

As for the 35/1.8 Prime, I was planning to get a Zoom Lens next.

>>2993500
Wait, didn't the camera come with a kit lens?
Anyway, trust me, getting that 35mm prime early on will do the best for you.

>>2993501
Yeah it came with a Kit Lens, 18-55mm, not much of a zoom though.

>>2993504
Get the prime first then save up the money for a Tamron 70-300 VC.

>>2993505
I'll look into it, thanks.

File: Sony_NEX-5.jpg (4MB, 3709x2782px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 3709x2782px

>>2993463

Check metadata. It is an NEX-5. First gen Sony mirrorless.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 550D
Camera Software	Digital Photo Professional
Photographer	decltype
Lens Size	24.00 - 105.00 mm
Firmware Version	Firmware Version 1.0.8
Serial Number	0832338682
Lens Name	EF24-105mm f/4L IS USM
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	350 dpi
Vertical Resolution	350 dpi
Image Created	2011:01:15 12:19:06
Exposure Time	1/30 sec
F-Number	f/10.0
ISO Speed Rating	200
Lens Aperture	f/9.9
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	50.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	3709
Image Height	2782
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Exposure Mode	Av-Priority
Focus Type	Auto
Metering Mode	Evaluative
Sharpness	Unknown
Saturation	High
Contrast	Normal
Digital Zoom	Unknown
Shooting Mode	Manual
Image Size	Large
Focus Mode	One-Shot
Drive Mode	Single
Flash Mode	Off
Compression Setting	Fine
Macro Mode	Normal
White Balance	Auto
Exposure Compensation	3
Sensor ISO Speed	65408
Color Matrix	34

i want to just film shit me and my friends do
what's a good camera for photography, video included?

>>2993524
Your phone

>>2993524
>i want to just film
Pentax ME Super, Canon AE-1 etc...

>>2993526
really old phone, not good LMAO

>>2993529
Get a new one.

File: Zeiss-OTUS-55mm-f-1.4-APO-Distagon-T-ZF.2-lens-Nikon-F-mount-5.jpg (83KB, 916x611px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 916x611px

Hey /p/,

Do you own one of the top ten lenses ever made?

>https://www.dxomark.com/lenses/launched-between-1987-and-2016/launch_price-from-0-to-13000-usd#hideAdvancedOptions=false&viewMode=list&yDataType=global

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D7100
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.3 (Macintosh)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/4.6
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	764
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	67 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2014:01:19 21:22:58
Exposure Time	1/40 sec
F-Number	f/4.5
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	1600
Lens Aperture	f/4.5
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	45.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	High Gain Up
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>2993540
>implying the gear matters more than the actual photo you make
>dxofag
figures

>>2993540

>nine of the top ten are Sony or Zeiss

Wait, I thought Sony/Zeiss lenses being good was a meme. They actually are?

>>2993542
It's just marketing, brah

>>2993337
that'll be never.

File: IMG_9119.jpg (240KB, 1178x800px) Image search: [Google]

240KB, 1178x800px

>>2993540
>/lenses/launched-between-1987-and-2016
>top ten lenses ever made
This is what digicucks actually believe...

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	GIMP 2.8.14
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	350 dpi
Vertical Resolution	350 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1178
Image Height	800

>>2993337
And predating their FF market? Never.
Switch to FF or Fuji.

>>2993570
>This is what digicucks actually believe...
Well only good photographers shoot digital, so I think they would know.

Show me one good photo taken on film. Pro tip you can't, they are all grainy and soft at 100% crop.

>>2993570
yet another gearfaggot

Am i the only one who owns a battery grip but hates holding the camera by it in portrait?
It also makes my 60D fuckhuge, i think i'm going out without it and just carry the other battery on my pocket.

>>2993575
Based Alex shoots film and his 100% crops are better than most what you see in recent photo threads.

File: bait warning.jpg (35KB, 399x358px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 399x358px

>>2993575
>Well only good photographers shoot digital, so I think they would know.
>only good photographers shoot digital

>>2993603
>>2993575
>>2993570
>>2993540
Stop instigating another pointless gearwhoring argument, moopco

>>2993540
>01. Carl Zeiss Distagon T* Otus 1.4/55 ZF.2 Nikon
>02. Carl Zeiss Apo Planar T* Otus 85mm F14 ZF.2 Nikon
>03. Sony FE 85mm F1.4 GM
>04. Sony FE Carl Zeiss Sonnar T* 55mm F1.8 ZA
>05. Carl Zeiss Apo Sonnar T* 2/135 ZE Canon
>06. Carl Zeiss Milvus 1.4/85 ZF.2 Nikon
>07. Carl Zeiss Apo Planar T* Otus 85mm F14 ZE Canon
>08. Sony FE 90mm F2.8 Macro G OSS
>09. Carl Zeiss Batis 25mm F2 Sony FE
>10. Sigma 50mm F1.4 DG HSM A Nikon

>>2993610
And the number of people who care:
..
..
..
no one

>>2993610
>01. You're full of shit
>02. You're full of shit
>03. You're full of shit
>04. You're full of shit
>05. You're full of shit
>06. You're full of shit
>08. You're full of shit
>09. You're full of shit
>10. You're full of shit

Stop pretending to own $50,000 worth of lenses to impress 4channers, it won't work and we don't care.

>>2993617

Oh, I was just listing them for anyone too lazy to open the link.

I don't own anything that pricey.

>>2993619
see
>>2993613

>>2993542
Yes, as you can see, they are.

And as you can also see, it bothers at least a bunch of people on /p/ to the point where they go into reality denial mode.

>>2993540
>>2993542
>>2993570
>>2993575
>>2993603
>>2993610
>>2993619
>>2993624
samefag

>>2993626
autist

>>2993624

You are not kidding. Only other time I have seen /p/ get this butthurt is when Sony releases a new lens.

>>2993540
Got the 90mm FE. It's a very nice lens.

>>2993542
well there are plenty of mediocre lenses with zeiss branding too, and the lenses on that list are stupid expensive and many lack autofocus, which is really an important factor in the sharpness of the photographs you actually get

File: 1470501851005.jpg (23KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 300x300px

>>2993635
>many lack autofocus, which is really an important factor in the sharpness of the photographs you actually get

>>2993639
try shooting anything in motion with one of those lenses, you'll have to ask your dad to borrow his camera though

>>2993641
>implying sharp photographs didn't exist before the invention of autofocus
Git gud you fucking pleb retard

>>2993642
disregard this I suck cocks

>>2993635
> and the lenses on that list are stupid expensive
You get what you paid for.

Ultimately, much of it isn't even *that* expensive in terms of gear.

Pretty much all of these are actually easily in reach of even the average hobbyist who renews his gear every 4-8 years or whatever. We're only talking about at least having $500-1.5k or so per year for your hobby, even if you add more expenses for camera bodies, computer software and stuff.

> many lack autofocus, which is really an important factor in the sharpness of the photographs you actually get
Most (all?) Sony / Sony Zeiss have AF.

And even the MF only Zeiss can be focused well by some kid on a Sony E-mount camera, because focus peaking works well and is easy to understand.

>>2993645
yeah the sony lenses are a different story, they are "prestige" marketing, i.e.: most people who buy a sony won't be using those lenses
manual focus is impractical and slow in many situations even with focus peaking, I'm really surprised I would even have to argue the point

File: 1468382852591.jpg (30KB, 555x644px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 555x644px

>>2993641
>>2993643
kek sorry that you just got BTFO

>>2993648
> most people who buy a sony won't be using those lenses
But many do. B&H lists these as their best sellers:
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?atclk=Lens+Mount_Sony+E-mount+%28Full+Frame%29&ci=17912&N=4196380428+3999800997

Also ~the same on many other stores. A bunch of the high-end lenses pretty much always are among the best sellers for FF E-mount lenses.

I'd go as far as say that to many people this glass will be part of the reason to get a FF Sony in the first place.

> manual focus is impractical and slow in many situations even with focus peaking
No problem in most types of photography.

But sure, in other situations AF is an advantage to necessary. So, again, most or maybe even all Sony / Sony Zeiss even *do* have AF.

It's mainly a few of the Zeiss that don't. And even that is often no big deal. Just use them in the many situations when appropriate. For example, there are even quite many Canon / Nikon shooters without any particularly good MF aid that shoot Otus' professionally for portraits.

Best standard zoom in terms of bang for $$ to use with Nikon D700?

Don't use zooms much, but would like one for the odd time I'm snapshitting. Don't want to spend too much, but should be sharp. Not too fussed if AF isn't super quick, or if it's a shitty aperture range etc, as long as it isn't tragic.

Is this a good bundle to buy ?

http://m.ebay.com/itm/PENTAX-K-3-II-With-100mm-F2-8-MACRO-21mm-F3-2-50mm-F1-7-LENSES-BUNDLE-/282309152665?hash=item41baefcf99%3Ag%3AmukAAOSwopRYZ1Jn&_trkparms=pageci%253A53eed990-d111-11e6-ae7c-005056b6898a%257Cparentrq%253A603ca1af1590a7854626ed12ffc4b628%257Ciid%253A3

>>2993708
Yeah it would be a great setup, that focal range should cover most stuff nicely. However if you're thinking you're getting a great deal or something, you're not, the price is pretty much exactly what all these individual items cost used.

>>2993708
Yes, seems like a good deal.

>>2993040
from what I gather the only dedicated scanner in the price range of canoscan 9000 or epson v550 is the plustek 8100 (+40-60 in price) but specs-wise seems worse
have you had a specific dedicated scanner in mind?

>>2993694
Probably Sigma 24-105 f/4

>>2993745
Thanks man, will have a look. I presume (at a glance) this is the 'art' lens?

File: 14207621_10205773542936857_1979294525671266927_o.jpg (283KB, 983x983px) Image search: [Google]

283KB, 983x983px

Anyone know what gear has been used for this shot?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Image Created	2017:01:02 21:33:21
Image Width	2048
Image Height	2048

>>2993774
Probably a camera and a lens

>>2993776
>>2993774
It's clearly a iPhone

>>2993774
Sony A7S and Nikkor 58mm f1.2.

>>2993774
Miata

How the fuck would we know that?

>>2993776
>>2993777
>>2993781
>>2993790

Thanks. It's a friend of a friend.
I'm still a beginner, using the Nikon D3200 with zoomlens. I was just wondering with what he was working with.

>>2993803
Probably a fast standard prime
That would be the 35/1.8G for you or the Sigma 30/1.4 Art

Does anybody know how to use the autofocus on the metz af 51 flash on a Panasonic G1 body?

>>2993803
>It's a friend of a friend
Well maybe ask him, you fucking moron, rather than asking a bunch of antagonistic strangers to speculate on your behalf...

>>2993806
Yes, you should put it on an AF hotshoe

>>2993809
are you okay?

>>2993811
What do you mean? The G1 only has one hotshoe. Is it suitable for AF?

>>2993815
No, you need a hotshoe with AF contacts.

>>2993817
So there's no way of getting the AF on my G1?

>>2993821
Just find an adapter, idiot!

>>2993822
Thanks. Like, what kind? "olympus hot shoe adapter autofocus" doesn't return anything that sounds like what you said

Are mirrorless cameras not considered DSLRs? I've been researching what camera to buy, and I'm leaning to toward a mirrorless, and people are comparing them to DSLRs as if the two are different things.

File: mirrorless-ucapkan-selamat-tinggal-pada-kamera-dslr-kQTXBbmWrw.jpg (56KB, 800x400px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 800x400px

>>2993829
They're identical, the sensors are the same and the technology is the same. The difference is the mirrorless don't have a mirror that lets you see what the lens sees and which lifts itself every time you make a photo. That means that instead of seeing thru the lens, you're looking at an electronic viewfinder. Also means the mirrorless cameras and lenses are smaller because they don't have all that empty space where the mirror mechanism is on the DSLRs.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	ACD Systems Digital Imaging
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Image Created	2015:09:12 10:59:32
Image Width	800
Image Height	400

>>2993830

Okay, so I can expect to get the same results out of a good mirrorless as I would out of a DSLR?

>>2993837
Yes and no. Strictly speaking they are capable of taking the exact same shots, but here are significant practical differences. You probably already encountered those while googling

>>2993114
pretty badass my friend. pretty badass

so im just gonna buy a d3300 and photograph everything
is that a good start

>>2993848
You will need a lens for that too.

>>2993850
it comes with the 18-55mm vr one

>>2993573
but Fuji has shit auto focus

>>2993546
>>2993573

Surely, Sigma, Tokina or Tamron are going to capitalize on Canon's gimping?

Why don´t they? It's only Sigma that does anything about fast wide angle APS-C lenses, but they're all lacking stabilization and their 30mm 1.4 has shit AF.

File: Arnold Skaaland - Thu, 26 Feb.gif (3MB, 200x150px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 200x150px

Should I try to get a full frame camera if all I plan on taking pictures of is nature and landscapes?

>>2993888
Not really, I manage just fine with APS-C

>>2993891
Is it true that all you have to do to get the same performance as a full frame is calculate the difference from the crop factor?

File: photography-shutter-speed-aperture-iso-cheat-sheet-chart-fotoblog-hamburg-daniel-peters-fb.jpg (353KB, 1200x630px) Image search: [Google]

353KB, 1200x630px

Does anyone have a method in learning the relation to shutter speed/aperture/f-stop or do you just brute force it into your memory.

pic related

>>2993902
Not even a little bit true. Never take advice from any fuckwit who said that.

>>2993902

APS-C crops the image. If you take a FF and crop it you will get the same image that an APS-C will give you.

This makes the APS-C image look 'zoomed' in. The same as if you had used a longer lens on FF. Ther is also some depth of field loss, but it is harder to calculate. An f 2.8 prime is nothing special when it comes to depth of field on a crop, but it is a pretty solid depth of field on a FF sensor.

>>2993914
It's not something you remember, it's a relationship you either understand or don't and the stops and shutter speeds are common across all of photography. Your aperture ring is never going to say f2.8, f3.2, f4.1, f5.8, f7.6, each figure will always be a stop apart aside from cases like an f4.5 lens which will have its next aperture marking at f5.6. Likewise you're not going to find many cameras which have a shutter speed dial that doesn't follow the 1/2, 1/4, 1/8, 1/15 etc pattern.

I need your advice for my upgrade path!

I'm a birding shooter and I'm using a D300 with a 70-300mm VR lens. I would like to end up shooting with a d500 and the 300mm PF. But I can afford both a the same time.

Which should I buy first? The lens of the camera?

>>2993929
>The lens of the camera?
the lens -or- the camera

>>2993925
but dont you "learn" or "memorize" them because they apply in a studio? When I help out in studios and set everthing up, I see strobe lights with their own generator/battery/whatever in thirds (1/3, 2/3/ 1) So how does the photographer know how much power to give to the strobe lights, what iso to set it up as(low), the shutter speed, and aperture?
I just want to understand senpai.

>>2993925
Tons of systems allow you adjust aperture in half or 1/3-stops.

>>2993934
Experience and a light meter with a flash mode.
>>2993929
What's not good enough right now? Sharpness and AF acquisition? Get the lens. Tracking reliability, frames, buffer, dynamic range? Get the camera.

>>2993953
The speed and AF of the d500 is really tempting, but my main problems with my setup now are sharpness at 300mm and dynamic range. The issue with DR is mostly here in wintertime when I have to bump the iso high.

Maybe I should get the lens now, and save for the d500 for next winter.

Is there a way to lower the ISO to 50 on a Sony A6300?

>>2993955
Sounds like your problem is both, but have you considered getting a D500 and the AFS 300 F4D? But if the camera works for the most part, as it should, then the lens would make the most difference. Do E lenses work on a D300? You'll be shooting wide open all the time if they don't.

The PF VR is a pretty sexy piece of kit when you've got it in your hand. The chode experience is only matched by your penis and the 200/2.

>>2993934
Trial and error. If you're shooting in a studio making adjustments you're using a light meter and taking test shots and looking at your histograms. Knowing how the stops work only applies to fully manual cameras in the field. When you're cocking about in the studio you take a test shot, look at the histogram, if it's right, you keep on plugging, if it's a little off, you change the settings.

>>2993939
Yes, you can go through 1/3rd stop steps on your canikon DSLR but you don't have to remember shit with that, you set it to aperture priority or shutter priority or manual and use the little bar-graph that pops up and says "you're underexposing" or "you're overexposing"

manfrotto 190go? manfrotto 190xpro? manfrotto befree? Anyone wanna throw a bone on what the benefits of each are? Trying to figure out which one to get.

>>2993967
>cocking

kek

>>2993965
>Do E lenses work on a D300?
Everything works on the DX00 series cameras, always has been that way. They aren't gimped low end models they're full featured consumer DSLRs.

Highlights is what is brightest in image but yet still has detail? How do you meter, personally?

>>2994006
Compensation. If you're shooting a scene that you know will have blown highlights because there are areas that are way brighter than most of the scene, white things or shiny shit chuck in some compensation, whether that be dedicated compensation in the metering or manual compensation setting the shutter speed higher than the meter suggests. Pretty simple.

>>2994012
Is it because working in post is much easier in digital age of photography, rather than the analog? We only have to be fairly correct bc so much can be done quickly and easily? Another question: Why do we 'expose for highlights or ettr' when digital behaves like slide (unless I am wrong about that)?

How does the K5ii compare to the D7000? Mostly for long exposure, low light, architecture and landscape. No action or sports photography.

>>2993995
So you say, but it also doesn't work on anything Pre D3/D300. That means D1, D2, D100, D200, D40-90, and D3000.

>>2994023
Digital retains detail in the shadows, but none in the blown highlights. Keep highlights from blowing, pull up shadow detail in post. Negative film is the reverse; you need to expose for shadows to keep detail there, and the film latitude will handle highlights for many, many stops. Slide film is lol5stopsDR.

>>2994031
The K-5 II/IIs shits on the d7000 in almost every aspect. The K-5 has sensor shift stabilization, far better dynamic range, better noise performance, better ergonomics, if you get the IIs it doesn't have an AA filter (sharper images).

>>2994041
Awesome thanks for the reply. I have a D7000 right now with buttons that dont work, a broken eye piece, and a shitty sigma zoom.
I'll probably jump ship to a K5ii or K3 if I can afford it soon.

>>2994046
K-3 has better firmware updates and an improved AF system (rumor says it will be improved further in a future firmware update)
K-5II has the better sensor, better dynamic range and a full stop more leverage in recovering shadows. Screwdrive motor is slower and weaker than the K-3.
Whichever you choose it is worthy to look at a couple of decent primes like the 35/2.8 Macro limited, 21/3.5 Limited, 15/4 Limited or DA* 55/1.4 for portraits (alternative is the 70/2.4 Limited).
If you have $200 extra you can get the cheap primes 35/2.4 and 50/1.8 in total.

>>2993888
No.

APS-C is amazing these days. You only really need fullframe if you print huge, do lots of low light photography or really need shallow depth of field.

In landscape you are gonna use a small aperture with a large depth of field. Stopping your lenses down also makes them sharp as hell, balancing out the "sharpness" issue ("printing huge")

Oh and if it's night, you bring a tripod. Nature and landscapes are still life, no need for high ISO values to keep your shutter speed up.

APS-C is therefore a much cheaper option.

>>2994133
FF can still retain sharpness at narrower aperture settings, diffraction only becomes apparent at and over f/22 while on APS-C it s more like f/16 and over, with some cheaper lenses it starts at f/11.
Still APS-C can do a lot that was FF territory only a few years ago. If you don't go into the extremes then APS-C is the better option (more money for better lenses)

File: 1474806210001.jpg (660KB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [Google]

660KB, 1600x1200px

500$, what to buy.

imb4 a6000 meme

>>2994141
What do you want?

>>2994142
Taking pictures

>>2994141
D3300 + 18-55 Kit.
Save up 100 more bucks and get a 35mm 1.8DX prime. Pretty much all that you need to start photography. Yes, you might get bored of it after a few months but it's a good place to start.

>>2994143
Use your phone

Is adapting old lenses for mirrorless a meme? I bought a 50mm f1.7 Pentax-M SMC and all the reviewers act like it's great, but they're all pentax fanboys. How does it compare to modern lenses?

And I don't care about OSS or AF.

>>2994146
There are two 18-55 lenses available. AF-S DX and the AF-P

>>2994147
I want my nude selfies to be good quality senpai

>>2994159
>I want my nude selfies to be good quality senpai
Use your $500 to hire me instead, I'll take incredible photos of you with my SONY, because SONY makes the BEST cameras. Go to www.sony.com to find out more!

>>2994127
This pretty much.

I owned a K-5 ii, then a K-3 ii

The K-5 ii was noticeably better once you step up the ISO. Enough so for me to feel somewhat disappointed that I had 'upgraded', although the K-3 does have some nice features.

>>2994137
Yes, diffraction becomes apparent earlier. Using your comparison of f/16 to f/22, that's one stop. APS-C generally has one "stop" DoF more than FF ( muh crop factor).

>>2994148
I have that lens, I shoot it for fun on my old as shit Canon 1000d with a split prism focusing screen.

Its terrible shooting at night with street lamps in the frame, or even out of the frame. Not much flaring, but contrast just goes way down, everything is washed out.

Wide open it's really dreamy but also kinda soft. Stop it down a bit and it retains the "dreaminess" of the bokeh while getting sharp mid frame (f2.8 or so). It has half stop clicks for aperture, starting from f1.7, f2, f2.8.

The biggest advantage of this lens is the size. It's so compact, almost like a pancake portrait lens for my 1000d. I can carry it everywhere. The canon 50 1.8 STM feels much bigger compared (and also much cheaper).

Also it has amazing built quality, all metal. I don't care what photography geeks say (hurr it's not the gear but the photographer), built quality of a lens is a huge deal

The focus ring is great.

If I'm not pixel peeping, it produces "better" photos than a "modern" "cheap" 50mm, as long as you keep it from bright lights at night.

>>2993140
Yes

File: smoke weed erryday.png (3MB, 1910x1076px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1910x1076px

Not really camera gear but what are these smokey things called and where do you buy one?

Do you need some permission or license to use them?

I have the Panasonic G1 + metz 50 af-1 flash.

How can I let the flash last longer?

>>2994185
by not using it

>>2994192
Come on, you're not even funny

>>2994023
You expose for highlights in digital because because highlights are easier to blow than shadows.

>>2994248
Your mom blows easier than shadows

>>2994180
Its easy to make colored smoke bombs yourself.

>>2994159
The F3.5-5.6 that comes with the D3300.

>>2994159
AF-P is newer and has silent focus (good for video). Just get that unless there is a big price difference.

>can't use tripod/light stands
>no friends to hold shit up for me
So are there any weird contraptions that lets me mount a flash or a reflector on my body somehow?

>>2994180
Smoke signal stick / "bomb" / signal / "grenade".

I think you are most likely to find some suitable ones in airsoft / paintball stores.

>>2994137
With the exact same depth of field you have the exact same diffraction.

It's just physics (Heisenberg's uncertainty principle) and has nothing to do with lens quality or sensor size.

>>2994387
You *can* do what he said, namely select a smaller aperture on FF than APS-C and not necessarily become diffraction limited.

Here's a good article:
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm

>>2994185
Up.

I'd also like to have faster refills

>>2994395
Note how I said depth of field.
Not aperture.

You can also stand on your head, paint your camera pink or put peanut butter all over your body.
But nothing you do will let you have less diffraction while maintaining depth of field.
The LAWS OF PHYSICS cannot be bent.

>>2994398
idiot

I have a sony a37, and the dt 35mm and 50mm f1.8 lenses. I feel like upgrading soon. Should I stick with the a-mount system, or move to e-mount?

>>2994397
If you drink quick enough you can refill faster.
Try KFC.

>>2994454
Both expensive as fuck, if you go e-mount be sure to grab the latest a-mount adapter.
If you stay A-mount then go for the A77II or wait for its successor. After the A99II there is hope, but the lenses are still too expensive compared to the other systems.
The alternative is switching systems, Nikon or Pentax has excellent budget friendly lens options.

Any alternatives to the canon 17-55 for a general zoom? Reviews say optically excellent but expensive.

>>2994454
I'd switch to the E-mount to use its high-end glass, but the A-mount also just got a good body. Whatever you prefer, really.

>>2994481
> Both expensive as fuck
Not really very much if you were going to work with good glass either way. The other systems also don't make comparable glass cheaper.

Plus the APS-C E-mount has a bunch of primes that are really good for their price.

>>2994495
>Plus the APS-C E-mount has a bunch of primes that are really good for their price.
Still way over their Canon/Nikon/Pentax equivalents

>>2994499
Pentax almost only has *more* expensive (medium format) lenses. The other glass isn't a good match.

And Canon / Nikon's lenses cost just as much overall for primes, plus Sony made quite a few that are *both* lighter and (a little or a lot) better.

>>2994539
There isn't cheap glass. Photoraphrery isn't cheap duh

Hey /p/, i found my dads old photography kit. The kit included: Nikon F4, AF Nikkor 24mm lens, AF Nikkor 35-105 mm lens, AF Nikkor 80-200mm lens and a Nikon Speedlight SB-24 flash. I'd like to know how much this was all worth back when it was released.

>>2994539
And you are going to ignore the Pentax SLR lenses since the Takumar days, the SMC M and A series, the FF AF SMC F and FA series, the SMC and HD DA as the biggest crop lens series and the newest D-FA series? Moving the goal posts this much?
The autism is strong in you, son.

>>2994176
Thank you, that was very helpful.

>>2994562
>Nikon F4
~$2,000
>AF Nikkor 24mm lens
Which one?
>AF Nikkor 35-105 mm lens
~$600
>AF Nikkor 80-200mm lens
Which one? f2.8 or f4.5-5.6? HUGE difference in price.
>Nikon Speedlight SB-24 flash
~$200

>>2994566
I haven't tried any D-FA prime hands-on yet, but from reviews I see no particular reason to suspect any is equally good.

And the rest isn't a match, no.

>>2994539
>>2994576
this is bait
low quality as well

>>2994578
Okay, here are the 90 (Sony FE) + 100mm (Pentax D-FA) macro lenses compared:

https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/smc-D-FA-MACRO-100mm-F2.8-WR-on-Pentax-K-3-versus-Sony-FE-90mm-F28-Macro-G-OSS-on-Sony-A5000__379_914_1517_929

I was even nice enough to pick an APS-C camera on Sony's side, but it's actually also going to perform almost perfectly on a 42MP FF body.

Now cue the numbers & DxO denial.

>>2994571
Currently not at home but if i remembered correctly the 80-200mm is f2.8 and the 24mm lens i could care less about. Anyways, thanks for the provided info. I appreciate it.

>>2994586
>SEL90M28
>tested on a5000

lol. Switch it to a modern body and it performs a hell of a lot better. Score shoots up to 47.

https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/smc-D-FA-MACRO-100mm-F2.8-WR-on-Pentax-K-5-IIs-versus-Sony-FE-90mm-F28-Macro-G-OSS-on-Sony-A7R-II__379_830_1517_1035

File: mistake.jpg (99KB, 357x437px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 357x437px

>>2994589
>and the 24mm lens i could care less about.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS4 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2011:04:14 17:36:09
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	357
Image Height	437

Just bough an A700 with 50 1.4 and 75-300, both sony, for 170$. I'm a beginner, is this camera still relevant? I've manly bought this for the prime, but i don't know much about Sony lenses either.

>>2994638

You got a decent deal.

The camera itself is ancient, the sensor totally outdated. But as long as you don't push it to high ISO or try low light situations you should be able to get some pretty solid shots.

The 50 f1.4 lens alone is worth $170. It is a modernized minolta design and is pretty awesome.

The 75-300 ( I assume it is not the G version) is pretty solid. It is pretty sharp wide open up to 100mm, but at the longer end you have to stop the aperture down to around f8 to get a sharp image.

Say I spot meter or center-weight meter the highlights of a scene and it says: iso100, 1/500, f4. That would make my highlights middle gray. How many stops do I increase exposure to make that highlights with detail?

is there anything wrong with using an international lens with a camera body i purchased in the US?

>>2994644
Compensate to overexpose. How much depends on how much dynamic range you have. If you're using a modern DSLR at a low ISO, you may have a few stops to mess with. If you're using an old DSLR at a high ISO it might be a stop.

>>2994654
Yes, it will void your warranty, please buy all American at your friendly American camera store, B&H.

Just remember to check here to see if our webpage will be closed for ordering.
https://www.hebcal.com/holidays/2017

>>2994656
Does 2.67 stops sound right for APS-C?

So Im after a macro lens for my Nikon camera and the Choices have boiled Down to the Nikkor AF-S VR 105mm and the Sigma 150mm! which one should I choose? My primary goal is to take Pictures of insects and flowers!

Hello /p/

I've never really been into photography, but my mom got a DSLR recently and I've had fun using it while visiting for Christmas.
So I want my own. I am also on a budget.

I visited B&H and narrowed it down to a D5100 for $260 or a D3300 for $300. Which should I get just for taking pictures of random things?

I'm thinking the D3300 because it's newer and my mom will give me two Nikon kit lenses shes not using (18-55mm and 70-300mm, AF-P, not compatible with D5100).

>>2994714
Probably make it so you can use your mom's lenses, or get a D7200 for a better body.

>>2994738
http://nikonrumors.com/2016/04/04/the-new-af-p-nikkor-18-55mm-f3-5-5-6g-dx-lenses-works-only-with-three-nikon-dslr-cameras.aspx/
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/18-55mm-af-p.htm#compat

The cheapest used D7200 from B&H is $800 which is way out of my budget.

>>2994488
Sigma 18-35 is slightly cheaper

But if you really want a nice general zoom for a crop, get the canon 17-55. The stabilization makes a world of difference

>>2994365
learn to one hand your camera, flash in off hand

That's how I do it in the club

guys is it still worth it to buy a refurb canon 5d classic?

File: IMG_20161231_073759179.jpg (4MB, 3006x5344px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 3006x5344px

Hi. I want to begin journey with photography, and i'm looking for my first camera.

Can you recommend any nice compact cameras for more ambitious photos?
I don't want DSLR because of cost and size/weight. So i'm looking for reasonably priced alternative in compact world.

Most compact cameras have 999Mpixels and shitty features for normies that i don't need.

I'm mainly going to take photos outdoors at night. Landscapes and city.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Model	XT1562
Equipment Make	Motorola
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Created	2016:12:31 07:37:59
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Orientation	Left-Hand, Bottom
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Geodetic Survey Data	WGS-84
Color Space Information	sRGB
F-Number	f/2.0
Focal Length	4.67 mm
Lens Aperture	f/2.0
Exposure Mode	Auto
Image Height	5344
Rendering	Normal
Digital Zoom Ratio	1.3
Saturation	Normal
Exposure Program	Normal Program
Sharpness	Soft
White Balance	Auto
Image Width	3006
Metering Mode	Average
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Contrast	Normal
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Brightness	Unknown
ISO Speed Rating	1600
Exposure Time	3333/50000 sec

>>2994911
Fuji X-70 or Panasonic LX-100 if you want zoom, Foji X100T or Ricoh GR if you are fine with fast sharp prime lens.

>>2994741
Get a used D7100 then, or a used D7000 if very tight budget.

>>2994981
damn thats expensive as fuck. Is there anything for 200usd and below?

>>2994911
> I'm mainly going to take photos outdoors at night
But then you basically *DO* want a bigger camera for its low light performance.

Though I guess the closest thing for compacts is a RX1R II or RX100 V.

>>2994988
> Isn't there a good low light camera for almost free because it's compact?
No. That's not how it works.

> expensive as fuck
Certainly not.

Today, even high-end FF cameras are pretty cheap as compared to how much it cost to shoot film.

>>2994989
sorry but are you nuts? i said i want to begin my journey with photography! How do you see me spending 4000 usd on a fucking camera?!

>>2994993
> How do you see me spending 4000 usd on a fucking camera?!
You want a low light compact, and that's a low light compact.

> i said i want to begin my journey with photography!
It's as if your camera and I don't care whether you're new or not in terms of how well it will record photos at night.

But sure, the probably more efficient suggestion is to trade size for price, and use a low light FF camera like an A7S (II).

Or you just settle for a $0.5-1.5k-ish older FF or newer APS-C camera + fast lens and simply make do with how that performs, it's borderline workable. [Not what you should do if you have a choice, though.]

At $200 or $nothing, stick with your smartphone.

>>2994993
Then try to get something like the Fuji X-30.
There is really no good compact options for $200

File: image.jpg (46KB, 787x238px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 787x238px

I have to take a photography class at college but I don't own a camera. The professor told me that I should have a DSLR with manual focus/zoom settings and a movie mode for video (I'll have to take a filmmaking class later on).

Are there recommendations for a good baby's first DSLR or would a set from B&H be acceptable to use? Are there any brands to avoid?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	787
Image Height	238

>>2994911
How about Fuji X10 or X20? Cheap, built like tanks, fast+sharp lenses, and OK to about 1600iso with a very practical zoom range. Also more importantly they're really fun to use. If you want to use the optical viewfinder I would stretch to get the X20.

I used one as my main camera for over 2 years after changing jobs and countries and letting my archaic DSLR stuff rest for a while. Almost never felt limited by it and was nearly always impressed.

>>2995000
Budget?

>>2995000
A6000 should be good.

It's not technically a DSLR but it does have all of this and it even includes focus peaking for manual focus.

Great value camera near the low midrange of APS-C cameras.

>>2994998
>Fuji X-30
thats still over $550 where i live.
Guess no photography for me.. I thought cars were expensive hobby

>>2995002
>Fuji X10 or X20
There aren't any for sale where i live unfortenately

>>2995006
But it's not expensive. You very likely spend $1k or less per year unless you love to shoot film all the time.

And you can make do with ~$200 per year.

>>2995006
Where do you live? inb4 S. America.
I live in post soviet bloc eastern EU and I could get a Pentax K-3 for €800 2 years ago, you should be able to get a 2 or 3 generations old entry DSLR if you expand your budget a bit and just man up and carry a DSLR.

>>2995009
Poland, and i'm a student.

>>2995003
$300-500
I'll probably hang onto the camera when the classes are over, since I don't own anything besides a smartphone.

>>2995004
Is that the Sony Alpha camera?

File: a6000.jpg (119KB, 1024x609px) Image search: [Google]

119KB, 1024x609px

>>2995011
> Is that the Sony Alpha camera?
It has an alpha in the label, yes.

"A6000" should still identify it in any web store or where ever you might want to look for its price or reviews, though.

>>2995010
>i'm a student
boohoo, cry me a river. I'm in Hungary and I am also a student yet I can pay for my hobby and education
Get a job, Łukasz

>>2995013
So what's your job and what are you studying then?

>>2995006

Check this out here's a good hack

If you can get a camera with full manual control capability (such as a used old entry-level DLSR + lens kit) and a a tripod that's not complete horseshit, you have infinite low-light capability for static scenes

It won't be a great user experience, and it probably won't fit in a 200$ budget either, but it's your best bet for extremely low budget nighttime photography

>>2995015
I'm studying material sciences and working in industrial quality control

>>2995017
And how did you get that job without education?
If i had opportunity i'd work too, but here jobs for unqualified ppl are so shitty it not worth my time

>>2995007
How about XA-1 or XM-1? The baby Fuji mirrorless? I think maybe it's popular in the third world? With just the kit lens it would be pretty nice.

>>2995021
By being smarter than the ones with education
Watching american cratoons non-stop when I was a kid and doodling with the computer paid off when I told a bunch of idiots how to solve a simple problem.
I have a job and mad respect since then.

New Thread

>>2995035
>>2995035

I'm gonna buy the Canon EF-S 24mm f2.8 (the pancake)

It has a 52mm filter thread, but the front element is tiny. I was thinking I could get a step up ring, and get tiny filters (to lower the cost).

How small can I go? Are 40mm filters gonna vignet?

Started photography last year with a Canon EOS Rebel Xsi that I received as a gift. I picked up a Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III Telephoto Zoom Lens after a couple days of research. Is this good gear for a beginner?

>>2995060
>get tiny filters (to lower the cost)
Is it worth it tho?

ive been thinking of getting started with photography, its always interested me but ive never had the chance to do anything with it. does anyone have advice or some starting gear thats good for cheap?

>>2995202
50mm f1.8, some people say its a meme but it will teach you to zoom with your feet and manual focus and depth of field and back ground control, and all the other fun early lessons much more effectively than your standard 18-55mm kit lens or whatever they ship with these days.

>>2995211
cool thanks

>>2995217
If you are on a crop body then a 35mm or 24mm will do better as a first prime

>>2994889
No. It's painfully obsolete. A new crop sensor camera which costs what a refurb 5D costs will have better dynamic range and noise performance.

>>2995029
No it didn't and no you don't. Keep fantasizing

>>2995262
Jelly? I already have full income before graduating and I am already regarded as someone worthy to listen to in my field.
Git gud, son!

>>2995265
uh huh
here you are on 4chan trying to prove to random anons how great you are
people who are successful don't trip over themselves trying to prove it on the asshole of the internet

>>2995266
Not trying to prove anything, you asked what I do for a living. This is as close I will explain my private life on a third rate anonymous forum.

>>2995268
Nah, someone else asked. Now on top of trying to prove your worth to anon you think all anons are the same

>>2995270
>you think all anons are the same
I know anons are not the same, I just don't care

>>2994706
Also consider Tamron 90mm SP Di f/2.8, it's very good.

File: kit.jpg (129KB, 720x597px) Image search: [Google]

129KB, 720x597px

>>2995354
>Tamron 90mm SP Di f/2.8

I seriously considered that for my a7ii but couldn't be fucked with adapters.

Went balls deep and bought the SEL90M28G

No regrets.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 5DS R
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/5.2
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	720
Image Height	597
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2016:04:04 07:17:15
Exposure Time	1/6 sec
F-Number	f/16.0
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	200
Lens Aperture	f/16.0
Exposure Bias	1 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	61.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	720
Image Height	597
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>2993337
>stabilized, wide angle lens
lmao