/gear/ - Gear Thread

If you had to take one lens in the ass, which would it be?

>>2997787
any old pump zoom

>>2997787
Something from sony, most their lenses are shit so I wouldn't even tell the difference once it's in there.

File: Image-1.jpg (61KB, 660x493px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 660x493px

>>2997787

102 Year-Old Lens on Canon 5D MkII

File: olympus-endoscope-lawsuit-superbug.jpg (91KB, 1167x789px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 1167x789px

>>2997787
The one on an endoscope.

Not that I want anything in my ass, but at least this one is supposed to go up there without hurting.

Any suggestions on older weatherproof DSLR's? I'm considering investing in one but I could use some places to start.

>>2997807
Do you have weatherproof lenses to go with it?

Why not just get a p&s (assuming you're getting into quite shitty conditions)? The olympus tough series are pretty good.

>>2997807
Try Pentax K-30 or K-50 with WR kit lens

>>2997812
>>2997813
I'll have a look, thanks. I'm mostly looking for something that could get through rainy weather and ocean spray.

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

180KB, 1400x933px

>>2997787

[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

File: download.png (1KB, 76x91px) Image search: [Google]

1KB, 76x91px

>just bought my first piece of gear in 3 years

>>2997795
>Don't expect it to go from infinity focus to a moving bird at 20' in less than a second
Actually a second, or just feels like a second and is probably closer to 4-500 ms?

>The biggest problem IMO is that you can't get it close on a moving subject with MF and let AF take over to track because of the way it switches from MF to AF.
I was thinking about that too. Is it true the AF 300 needs both the switch on the lens and the body to go to MF? Or just the switch on the lens?

>If the AF-S lenses are truly only $300 more than these today, just get the AF-S.
Yeah, about $6-700 for the AF 300, and $900-1000 for the AFS 300. I'm personally worried about AFS motor death, and I fucking love the crinkle coats from that era of lenses. Thanks for the input.

How much can I get for a t2i? Feel like I've exhausted it's potential. Even my smartphone has better low light capabilities these days.

From what I've gathered, only the t6i/s has a truly significant upgrade. Will the difference be noticeable, or should i save up and get an old 5d ii or a 6d? Thoughts on upgrade paths?

Just got an a6000 and the 18-105 F/4 lens for Christmas. Looking at buying 70-200 for sports, should I get the FE 70-200 f4, or a used A-Mount 70-200 2.8 G 1 with the LA-EA4 adapter? Mainly going to be shooting equine, so that means bright outdoor shoots, and somewhat dim indoor shoots.

>>2997889
I'd suggest just getting a good telephoto prime instead of yet more and more zooms, especially considering the crop factor makes the 200 end of those zooms more like a 300, and I can't imagine horses are such scary beasts you can't get closer to them.

>>2997892
This is going to be at shows mainly, so the extra range will definitely be useful, and the horse is moving around the arena so I do want a zoom.

>>2997889

You lose a third of a stop of light with the LA-EA4, it isn't much but every little bit helps especially if you are going low light.

>>2997905
Is the autofocus with the LA-EA4 and 70-200 2.8 as good as the 70-200 f4?

>>2997908

On the a6000 they should be about the same.

>>2997787
iPhone lens

just how gimped is the d750 as an all-around camera? sketchy remote modes, second-rate shutter, lousy flash sync speed have me a little worried...but am I right in assuming nikon will basically never release another pro FX camera at that price point?

>>2997966
>lousy flash sync speed

It's 1/200s, right?
I think that's still what the top of the line Canons can manage.

Better cameras are more expensive, yes.
But I wouldn't call it "gimping", a shutter for example is a very expensive piece to make.

>>2997889
For sports I would really go with f/2.8 on an APS-C sensor.
You'll likely be shooting at around 1/1000s to freeze the motion, and if you need to crop (which you do) you'll really want to keep the ISO as low as possible.

>>2997970
The APS-C will capture the same amount of light on f/2.8 as an FF sensor would. Idiot.

>>2997972
If you read his post the whole way through maybe you'd get that he's talking about the noise issue with shooting at high iso and APS-C, you mongoloid. An A6000 is certainly on the noisy end when you crank the ISO, as far as modern stuff goes.

>>2997970

The Sony 70-200mm f 2.8 lenses are both G Master and cost a fuckton.

Probably best to go with an a-mount tamron or something like that. Dirt cheap, and I hear good things.

I'm buying my first camera, and after asking a bunch of questions here most people were suggesting the Sony A6000 as a fantastic camera and starting point for the price. I missed the winter deals so now I'm a little wary on the price.

Is the £550 ($675) price tag worth it for the A6000 body with a 16-50mm f3.5-5.6 lens, bearing in mind I don't own a lens, or should I be looking at something cheaper for a beginners camera instead?

>>2997991
You can buy it new from Amazon for $548 or $450 used from various vendors on Amazon, as well as from keh.com, which is were I've bought a lot of used gear. While the lens isn't all that great, for a beginner it should be fine. I say go for it.

>>2997991
Buy something 2nd hand.

>>2997990
I have the Tammy 70-200/2.8 Macro version, altough on K-mount not A-mount. It is lovely, definitely good for portraits becomes a poremaster at f/4 and at f/2.8 with higher ISO it is a solid performer.

I just came in here to brag, i just got an xpro 2 with leather case and two extra batteries for $1000 here in Japan

>>2998000
mhmm

Canon T5i with a 18-55 mm f/3.5-5.6 lens, or the Sony A6000 with a 16-50 mm f/3.5-5.6 for my first camera? I'm looking to take high quality stills and also be able to shoot high quality video. Thoughts?

>>2998057

The a6000 is better in almost every single way.

>>2998000
Sue you didn't get sucked into a language locked camera?

>>2998064

Pretty sure Fuji doedn't language lock.

And even if they do, I'd be surprised if there is no hack.

>>2998057
If that was T6i I would advise you to go for it, but yeah the a6k is better than the 700D.

>>2998000
Did it come with quick and reliable AF?

File: aligned.jpg (63KB, 700x229px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 700x229px

>>2998075

>fuji
>quick and reliable af

Well aren't you a little smartass.

>>2997966
Nikon has never released a pro FX camera at that price point ($2300). Yes, the shutter's second rate, and so is the QC. You're getting the last and best iteration of CAM3500 and the 91k pixel meter (with highlight weighted metering and group and face detect AF). Everything else measures up. If you put a 1/8000 1/320x shutter in there, nobody would even bother with the D810.

I can't seem to choose between the T6i or D5500 for my first DLSR. They seem identical in every way, Nikon is slightly cheaper though, like 10 bucks less. They come with the same kit lens, which I intend to upgrade from. I'm mainly shooting protraits and outdoor stuff, does it make a big difference?
On the other hand the a6000 seems good as well for the price, but I don't feel sony is as good as Canikon Lenses wise.

>>2998095
Get the K-S2 or K-70 in the picture too, that will show what the others are lacking.

>>2998095
Consider the D5300 instead of the D5500. Same everything, except no touchscreen

If you are going to upgrade from the kit lens there isn't really any reason to get it in the first place is there?

For portraits, Nikon's 85mm 1.8 is a bit better and more expensive than Canon's. Not something you should base your camera choice on just saying

>>2998099
K-70 is more expensive and doesnt seem to offer much more.
>>2998107
Well, kit lens will be my first working lens, I'll buy more glass as I go, have to start with something I guess.

>>2998109
>doesnt seem to offer much more.
You mean other than bright and accurate pentaprism OVF, weather sealing, not gimped controls and no artificially dumbed down firmware, pixel shift resolution, sensor shift stabilization, weather sealed kit lens and rugged design?
Yeah you are right, apart from the above it is basically the same...

>>2998057
A6000 for sure.

>>2997988
> An A6000 is certainly on the noisy end when you crank the ISO, as far as modern stuff goes.
As compared to FF cameras perhaps?

As compared to APS-C it's pretty much the usual thing. Could get something a bit better with the A6500, but it'll be only like 1/5 of a stop or so better. And that's basically as far as you'll go.

>>2998095
> but I don't feel sony is as good as Canikon Lenses wise.
For zoom lenses, you've got a point. Though I guess you could make do with the handful of lenses anyhow.

For prime lenses I find the Sony system more attractive.

>>2998128
>As compared to FF cameras perhaps?

Now you seem to understand what he was getting at. It should really be quite obvious to you now if you go back and re-read in the context you just typed yourself.

>>2997970
>For sports I would really go with f/2.8 on an APS-C sensor.
Translation for the monkey brain: get the faster lens since you're shooting APS-C, which is inherently worse for low light so it needs all the help it can get from fast glass.

>You'll likely be shooting at around 1/1000s to freeze the motion, and if you need to crop (which you do) you'll really want to keep the ISO as low as possible.
Translation for the monkey brain: you're going to be shooting sports at high shutter speeds to freeze the motion, high shutter speeds mean you need either higher iso or faster glass, since your high ISO performance will be worse with the APS-C camera, get faster glass to help out.

postan again

Walkaround lens for Canon 80D

Sigma 30mm f1.4 Art, or Canon 35mm F2 IS?

To the anon I spoke to yesterday about wanting the A6000 but missing the winter sales and then considering the GX80, check out Wilkinson Cameras, they're still selling it for £429.99, not sure for how much longer though. I just ordered mine now!

>>2998142
Canon
Sigma 30mm has some problems with the AF (slow, inaccurate and prone to hunting for no reason)

>>2998144
Why would you want an overheating garbage camera? Let him go with the GX80, it is the better camera.

got a zenit 12xp from my dad, is it any good? I know only the basics of photography

File: IMG_2364.jpg (70KB, 620x460px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 620x460px

>>2997787
Only the best.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	620
Image Height	460
Scene Capture Type	Standard

File: Z-panasonic-gx85-beauty.jpg (184KB, 1024x628px) Image search: [Google]

184KB, 1024x628px

So I was thinking of getting a Sony A6000 for a first camera, but then heard of the Panasonix GX85
I like that it can take 4k video and has a touch screen.
Just wondering what's /p/'s opinion on the two

>>2998174
lol, are those crosshairs on the top?

I want a film compact camera like this

35-40mm
able to manual focus
M mode/at least A mode
kinda quite
easy maintenance
less than 300 bucks

what else can I pick besides rollei 35?

>>2998204
A6000 is the better photo camera and has better lenses. You do also have various upgrade paths to FF.

GX85 is the better video camera and has overall cheaper lenses.

>>2998207
I see.
I think I put the priority on the photo quality rather than video.
The 4k seems nice but I don't think that's really what I'd want the camera for.
Also the A6000 is a bit cheaper so there's that.

>>2998207
correction, the a6000 has no fucking lens unless you want to spend $2000 on one
GX85 is the way to go

>>2997790
fuckin kek

>>2998210
>I think I put the priority on the photo quality rather than video.
It's not just lens / sensor quality for photos. You also get much better AF, and I find the lineup of TTL+HSS flash / strobe units and RF triggers to be better, and so on.

It's a fairly clear advantage.

>>2998212
> spend $1400 on one of the very best MFT 42.5mm primes for MFT
> it overall almost matches a $350 Sigma on APS-C except for resolution
That's how MFT really is, unfortunately

https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/Sigma-30mm-F14-DC-DN-C-Sony-E-on-Sony-A6000-versus-Panasonic-Leica-DG-Nocticron-42-5mm-F12-ASPH-on-Panasonic-Lumix-DMC-GH2__1692_942_1297_677

>>2998215
>dxo
kys

>>2998219
> Measurements and numbers don't reinforce my wrong opinion, please make the people who take them go away and/or discredit them
kys is the solution for you

Is a DSLR that important for beginners? I want a first camera, but I'm a poorfag[spoiler](Brazilian)[/spoiler]. Will I be loosing much?

>>2998230
A MILC also will do, but it won't really be cheaper.

Yea, you get a much better tool if you can swap good lenses on a reasonably capable reasonably recent body.

And beginner doesn't help anything, you'll understand how to operate the camera (in the sense what options you have available and a basic understanding when you might use them) almost entirely in a bunch of days at most, even with a high-end FF camera.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00AFU9IVQf0

looks sharp.
sony a7s2 is kill.

>>2998230
a6000

>>2998222
You mean doctored statistics

File: 08201721227.jpg (242KB, 960x1280px) Image search: [Google]

242KB, 960x1280px

>>2998001
;)
>>2998064
Lol, the thing was brand new, the only thing language locked was the manual for it.
>>2998075
It still running the older firmware, so it's not as fast as the x-t2, but it's better than my xpro 1.

>>2998235
This will be the most unironic Youtube video to come out in 2017, won't it?

>>2998235
>go generate clickbait content, sloot
>sure boss, the only thoughts in my white bitch with a rich dad brain are pithy affirmations of my self centred worldview, should be easy
>oh and this will be sponsored content for panasonic, make sure you use this camera

>>2998237
>tfw the cost here is 1000+ dollars

>>2998267
B...but it's a $400-500 camera? Import it.

Unless your government is at fault...? That'd be a completely insane level of fees / taxes though.

So someone on the last gear thread told me that minolta is good shit since i was going 35mm as a complete beginner knowing nothing past the rear facing camera on my s5. I got an x700, and am delighted with build quality and everything, i bought a minolta md 1:2 50mm lens, and everything is great. so shoutout to that person. anyhoot, i was wondering what other type of lenses i should pick up? i like to photograph nature, specifically birds, deer and other wildlife found in the 610, along with landscapes since the pocono mountains aren't too far away, nor is bushkill falls.

>>2998277
You should look into getting a telephoto lens for wildlife. If you wanted to shoot film you should have gone with a cheap x series fuji as a beginner.

>>2998277
>i was wondering what other type of lenses i should pick up?
You'll have to decide if it's going to be more a wide angle (land- and cityscapes do well with that) or maybe more a telephoto lens (wildlife - probably you want a zoom if you're not DEAD serious about getting good shots).

Can't very much help you out with such vintage glass though. Didn't have that much back when and now I'm using good modern glass.

>>2998283
Alrighty, md telephotos flood ebay like no other so it should be easy to pick one up. as for the camera body, i just chose the minolta cause they're a dime a dozen on ebay and i'm pretty adept when it comes to learning new things (aperture, exposure rate etc.) Plus my sister already had a minolta flash for the x700 laying around from when she took photography in high school.

>>2998284
I'll look into some wide angle lenses for sure, the valleys in the poconos are vast and you can easily see about 7 miles of valley uninterupted from the right perch.

>>2998206
Olympus 35 series
Olympus xa
Not sure if Minolta himatic 7
Canon GL ( or QL?) 17 and 19
Ya has a 35 2.8 and is really compact, all the others are 40 or slightly longer with fast apertures of 1.9 and 1.7
All are manual focus rangefinders with manual focus.
Easiest service should be on the canons.
Can be had for 200 bucks and slot less.

>>2998251

>from a shop called lemon

fitting

>>2998204

a6000 is better in almost every way minus the lack of 4k.

Touchscreens are terrible interfaces on a camera.


If you intend to take a lot of 4k videod and actually do something with them besides upload to youtube or facebook, go with gx85.

If you want a good camera, get the a6000.

>>2998144
Same anon here, I went with the gx80 in the end. Only going to cost £320 with cashback. Thing that swung it for me was there seems to be more affordable prime lenses for the panasonic, and they are much smaller (portability is the reason I'm switching to m43). I can deal with the lower IQ if it means I take it out more. Both great cameras though, I'm sure either would make a nice first choice.

>>2998314
But e-mount sucks dude.

>>2998326
No need to be so harsh. The e-mount does not really suck, it just has no lenses

>>2998332
> I am so srs, I need to wear over 120 different lenses on me all the time and I'm not going to use cinema lenses!

File: maxresdefault (1).jpg (27KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 1280x720px

>>2998326

Yea it really does.

The sad part is, even as terrible as e-mount is, it is still the best mirrorless mount by a wide margin.

File: sony_sel90m28g_fe_90mm_f_2_8_macro_1126140.jpg (106KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 1000x1000px

>>2998338
I mostly find it quite sad that Sony / Zeiss can and do almost serially release primes that surpass Nikon / Canon glass without Nikon or Canon responding and picking up their pace.

>>2998344

They honestly have no reason tobother investing money in better glass. In the states at least they are winning the marketing war by a large margin.

I just bought an a6000 as my first camera, and I'm really excited to get started with photography. Anything specific I should know about the camera, and photography in general that you guys wish you knew when you first started? Thanks.

>>2998350
Take a couple hundred pics with the kit lens, then analyze the metadata to.find out what focal oength you use most. Buy a prime of that focal length.

>>2998347
They are?
Canon profits are down, market is shrinking
https://www.dpreview.com/news/1794776925/interchangeable-lens-camera-sales-steady-as-canon-profits-plunge

Sony meanwhile makes better profits:
https://www.dpreview.com/news/9101531532/sony-posts-significant-imaging-division-income-gains-in-2015-financial-year-end-report

There are surely many factors at work, but I'd say most gains that Sony makes at this point are lost profits for Canon / Nikon.

>>2998344
sony is splurging to make an impact on the market, nikon and canon don't have to.sharpness past 10 PMP isn't really important anyway

>>2998350
LR is a slow piece of software, even more so when you're dealing with bigger files.

Samyang's 12mm is pretty neat to have and probably $100 marked up if you don't order it from an Asian seller on eBay or such.

... random snippets of information, eh. Well, just use the camera.

>>2998356
That's a great idea, I never thought of using the EXIF like that, thanks.

>>2998363
Yeah, I've been told about the Samyang 12mm a bunch, what is the lens best at?

I do indeed intend on using the camera at some point.

>>2998379
>what is the lens best at?
Landscapes, cityscapes. Plus casual architecture & event shooting.

>>2998350
>>2998379


First of all go to settings and enable Zebra and set it to 100+

it will show stripped lines when a part of your image is to bright that you can't recover information from it (make the bright part darker later in your computer)
when you're going to take picture you will spend time post-processing, shoot with EV +1 to +2 (make the picture ligther)

Because when editing, the darker parts of the image contain less info and are more prone to noise when you make them ligther

Instead the ligther parts (as long as they are not blown out, which is why you use the zebra 100+) won't have noise when you make them darker

>>2998382
Thanks, I'll definitely pick it up when I get the chance, then.

>>2998386
Wow, thanks a lot, I had a vague understanding of how brightness affects the noise level, I thought it was something easily fixed in post, though. I'll definitely set Zebra to 100 right now.

>>2998344
Of course Sony's lenses are better, they're newer and more expensive and Sony is sinking a ton of money into development. I'd almost bet money that they've poached a lot of good engineers from Canon and Nikon to make it happen, too.

Canikon aren't rushing because they're not worried about this segment of the market. Sony's taking a lot of new buyer sales from them, and that IS a concern, but once you get into the range of $2000 lenses you're dealing with customers who are heavily invested in their systems and aren't likely to dump everything and switch for a tiny sharpness gain or whatever.

Sony really needs to hurry up and introduce a real pro body if they want to start seriously attacking the Canon/Nikon high end.

>>2998311
Because you're so sour anon?

File: its a conspiracy.jpg (30KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 480x360px

>>2998241
>dxomark fakes everything to promote X because reasons
Citation please

>>2998358
>Canon profits are down, market is shrinking
That's because Canon is resting on their laurels and pissing loyal customers off. They're forcing them away by consistently gimping their cameras and failing to introduce DSLRs that match Sonikon's image quality (they are behind in noise and DR performance).

>>2998386
wut
it is WAY easier to blow highlights in high-contrast scenes than it is to make your shadows mud

>>2998411
> but once you get into the range of $2000 lenses you're dealing with customers who are heavily invested in their systems
I feel more like we're dealing with customers who want such lenses and are going to be most of the remaining customers for IL cameras going forward.

The segment between smartphones and these is going to be destroyed if even some more improvements to smartphone's hard- and software happen.

People like you see here on 4chan that complain about $500+ lenses will presumably just stop buying these and matching cameras altogether if their smartphones get them 60-70% there already with no further purchases.

> Sony really needs to hurry up and introduce a real pro body if they want to start seriously attacking the Canon/Nikon high end.
The A7R II and A7S II aren't just good pro bodies, the even already had long-standing pro oriented industry awards rain down on them.

Clearly professional bodies. Even if they probably don't replace all the Canons / Nikons / Phase Ones / Leafs and so on that are out there yet.

>>2998429

Because you bought a lemon.

>>2998475
>FF EOS M comes out
>it's a real, functioning camera, and not just a 42mp bsi sensor wrapped in a sony menu gimpsuit and beaten until it pisses blood
>its batteries last more than 20min each
>it runs cooler than the surface of the sun
>its shutter doesn't sound like a sneezing aids victim
>it has lenses
This kills the Sone

File: download.png (901KB, 1280x853px) Image search: [Google]

901KB, 1280x853px

This is just as good right?

>>2998492

So all Canon has to do is release a rebranded a7r2?

>>2998501
Yeah, they could probably even get away with doing that.

File: 9001 hours in mspaint.jpg (613KB, 665x598px) Image search: [Google]

613KB, 665x598px

>>2998494

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	665
Image Height	598
Pixel Composition	Unknown
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	96 dpi
Vertical Resolution	96 dpi
Image Created	2017:01:08 23:26:11
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	665
Image Height	598

>>2998475
They're clearly NOT professional bodies, though.

For the last 30 or so years, "professional" has almost always referred to a company's sports/photojournalism bodies, things like the D5 and 1DX. Sometimes the next level down, like the D800 and 5D get included as well. The A7 is missing many of the critical features of a pro body - it's not fully weather sealed, it's not ruggedized, it doesn't have dual card slots, and there's no provision for a large battery.

The A7 simply can't handle the punishment that pro photojournalists subject their gear to, and the card slot and battery issues are major problems for professional use. If Sony wants to compete in Canikon's arena, they need to make a body that's up to the task. In my mind that would be something like a beefed up A7II (not an R because the files are too big and not an S because the AF is too slow) with an integrated vertical grip, which would hold a new bigger battery, and without fragile features like the flip screen. It would absolutely have to have dual card slots and improved cooling, but both should be no problem with a slightly bigger body.

>>2998528

a7 series does have options for longer battery life through vertical grip add-on.

Cooling isn't an issue on the mk2 bodies either.

Dual card slots are rumored on a9, but we haven't seen anything concrete about that.

>>2998533
It has the grip but that just takes extra normal batteries. Sony needs to actually make a dedicated pro battery like Canon and Nikon do. I could get 3000+ shots out of a single charge when I had my D3S. The canikon batteries are much easier to change, too, it's just a quick twist and slide while with the Sony you have to pull out a tray, remove two batteries, pop new ones in, etc, which is like a 30+ second process, while changing batts on the canikon is like reloading a gun.

The A9 rumors look like they're getting a lot closer to a proper pro body, the addition of an AF joystick is one really good feature of that as well. The fact that it sounds like it's gonna be 72 megapixel isn't such a great thing, though. 24 is about ideal for a PJ body these days. An A9S or something like that could be a step in the right direction for Sony.

>>2998475
it would take pretty remarkable innovation in camera design for the phone camera to even begin to compete with a nifty 50 on full frame. I think technical innovation in the smartphone idiom will aspire only to the equivalence of the point and shoot in the near future, the only unusual thing about the dslr boom was people were buying fancy cameras to use for p&s. dslrs (or mirrorless if it really replaces them) are simply returning to their traditional enthusiast/pro niche.

>>2998492
I thought Panasanic already killed Sonu

>>2998528
Wait, does this mean the Pentax K-1 is halfway in the pro arena if not in there already? Ruggedized, weather sealed, dual card slots, not a junk etc...

>>2998537
>72 pickles on FF
>becomes soft at f/8
SUCH PRO FEATURES, BUY OUR UNUSABLE JUNK!

>>2998568
yes

>>2998170
Yes, and whoever tells you that Russian cameras are a meme tell them to jump off the snowiest mountain top in all of the motherland.

Learn the basics on the general functions of the camera, shouldn't be too hard since it works like pretty much every other mechanical film SLR. If it came standard wth the Helios 44-2 than you're in luck.

>>2998569
But f/8 is what I scan film at? Sounds perf.

File: resize.gif (79KB, 480x723px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 480x723px

>>2998586
Kek, I don't even need to post anymore. Even kurwa spoke truth to some newfag contemplating a Zenith the other day.

>>2998609
You do realize more people use f/22 and f/32 than those who scan their film with a DSLR?
And I doubt someone would pay $5000 or more to scan their film inefficiently. You are just trying too hard, moopco.

>>2998613
>And I doubt someone would pay $5000 or more to scan their film inefficiently
hahahahaaah

>>2998568
Yeah, actually. A few of the Fujis are in that category too.

I wouldn't really call either pro bodies but they have pro features that the Sonys don't.

>>2998528

Sad thing is a7r2 is being usef professionally, even though it lacks those important features.

Really highlights how much a good professional mirrorless is wanted. It has really been too long for no one to have jumped on that.

File: kép 20184.jpg (754KB, 2048x1536px) Image search: [Google]

754KB, 2048x1536px

Hey guys,
canh you help me figuring out what sort of strobe is it?
I can't find any markings on it.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON
Camera Model	COOLPIX L23
Camera Software	COOLPIX L23 V1.1
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.7
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	28 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	0000:00:00 00:00:00
Exposure Time	1/25 sec
F-Number	f/2.7
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	200
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	Flash, Auto
Focal Length	4.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	2048
Image Height	1536
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	Low Gain Up
Contrast	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown
Color Mode	COLOR
Image Quality	NORMAL
White Balance	AUTO
Image Sharpening	AUTO
Focus Mode	AF-S
Flash Setting	NORMAL
ISO Selection	AUTO
Image Adjustment	NORMAL
Focus Distance	x0.5 m
Auto Focus	Center
Saturation	Normal
Noise Reduction	OFF

File: kép 20190.jpg (778KB, 2048x1536px) Image search: [Google]

778KB, 2048x1536px

>>2998652

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON
Camera Model	COOLPIX L23
Camera Software	COOLPIX L23 V1.1
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.7
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	28 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	0000:00:00 00:00:00
Exposure Time	1/25 sec
F-Number	f/2.7
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	200
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	Flash, Auto
Focal Length	4.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	2048
Image Height	1536
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	Low Gain Up
Contrast	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown
Color Mode	COLOR
Image Quality	NORMAL
White Balance	AUTO
Image Sharpening	AUTO
Focus Mode	AF-S
Flash Setting	NORMAL
ISO Selection	AUTO
Image Adjustment	NORMAL
Focus Distance	x0.5 m
Auto Focus	Center
Saturation	Normal
Noise Reduction	OFF

Has anyone used the Sony Nex F3? is it any good?

>>2998658
Also anyone used Olympus PEN E-PL7? Looking to get a smaller camera

File: 1.jpg (200KB, 1920x1200px) Image search: [Google]

200KB, 1920x1200px

What kind of camera is this?

>>2998528
> For the last 30 or so years, "professional" has almost always referred to a company's sports/photojournalism bodies
Quick-shooting cameras are on that side of "professional", but it's not the only side. And reality is that on that side of photography, poor smartphone shots and crops from video and so on regularly make it to big publications.

At least equally important always were the quality rather than speed-oriented product & portrait etc. cameras. Much of the time, they were more high-end, same as the studio accessories they are often paired up with.

> and there's no provision for a large battery
Professionals typically didn't remotely require 400+ shot rolls of photo film either. But I get that people don't like drawbacks even if they just barely matter.

Won't be enough to stop the system gaining more professional users even if this one remains, though.

>>2998658
No, it's one of the worst cameras of the already old Nex lineup.

Don't waste your time with that, get an A6000 instead.

>>2998665
> E-PL7
I remember it was pretty bad.

IIRC the E-M5 II was the oldest possible option (at least that I've tried) to even just get AF that works okay.

>>2998658

It is depending om how cheap you can find it. It is rather old and a new a6000 is only $400.

It can also use the evf accesory which is super useful.

>>2998673

You are probaly thinking of C3 with the absolutely broken jpeg engine.

>>2998675
>You are probaly thinking of C3 with the absolutely broken jpeg engine.
No, I was thinking of the F3, which was a weak camera even back then, and I certainly judge it by today's standards.

But I guess the C3 was an *even worse* model.

>>2998646
some problems of mirrorless are inherent: battery time and lag are ALWAYS going to be worse than on dslr.

>>2998679
> battery time
Gives you an EVF to better work your tool. A far greater advantage than having to do a battery swap every x hours.

> lag
Almost imperceivable. It's surely there, but you're only human. You basically won't be able to make out the difference anymore if the just make it a tad faster yet.

>>2998318
Fair enough. The more affordable lenses is a major reason to not go Sony right now. Hope the GX80 works out for you!

Anyone know if it's worth getting one of the proprietary Sony mics for the A6000 or should I just get an external?

>>2998680

I get around five hours screen on time with my a7ii shooting uncompressed raws. Shutter actuations seem to have little effect on battery life, but I average around 500.

The Sony batteries are massive for only being 1000 mah. They have also undergone some dedign revisions, the old one that came with my NEX-3 is considerably heavier than the one that came with my a7ii. I'd be shocked if they were unable to stuff more mah into the same size battery. I really wish Sony would hurry up and release a high capacity version.

>>2998683
On a few year old models like the A6000, you need a MI hotshoe thing to get a mic in.

At least while ago that meant buying a Sony mic anyhow, even if you then just wanted to use headphone out / mic in ports on that. I figure you might as well start with one of these if you're on the A6000 (rather than a newer model that has a mic in).

>>2998690
> I get around five hours screen on time with my a7ii shooting uncompressed raws.
I didn't think you can even let it run five hours with the screen on without shooting. Are you sure about this?

That said, I too think it's an easily useful span of time each battery.

> I'd be shocked if they were unable to stuff more mah into the same size battery.
I'd not be - this is basically about what you should get with a current lithium 7.4V of this size.

File: 3988088638_307911f077_o.jpg (206KB, 571x800px) Image search: [Google]

206KB, 571x800px

>>2997783

I have been thinking about getting a battery grip for my camera for increased battery life and better handling.

But I already feel like a tool walking around with a big camera and lens.

How does /p/ feel about gear overkill?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	PENTAX Corporation
Camera Model	PENTAX K10D
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS2 Windows
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	638
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	33 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2009:10:06 15:03:41
Exposure Time	1/40 sec
F-Number	f/3.5
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	1600
Lens Aperture	f/3.5
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	21.88 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	571
Image Height	800
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Close View

Thinking of getting the K70, how's its battery doing? No AA compatibility seems like a major drawback to me but fuck, this camera's fine for its price

>>2998507
is that a canon?

>>2998672
Yeah but those rugged high speed cameras are what Nikon and Canon made their names with, and bodies of that type are still their flagships.

Studio/portrait cameras are a different story but traditionally that's MFs realm. Sony has started to find a niche there but they still need to produce a viable photojournalist camera if they really want to be taken seriously as a "pro" brand. Nobody's going to hang up their D5 or 1DX in exchange for an A7 unless they didn't need their DSLR in the first place.

As it stands, the A7 is more like a D600 or 6D in terms of build quality and durability anyway, it can't even compare to the second-tier DSLRs for viability in the field. Even the D600 has dual slots, as well, and that's absolutely vital for professional use in this day and age.

As for those 400 shot rolls, pros weren't using them, but they sure went through a ton of rolls in a day of shooting. Besides, standards have changed, compare award-winning sports photos of the '80s with those of today and it's night and day, and a lot of that is camera capabilities.

It's also notable that batteries themselves were an issue in the old days too, and many pros stuck with F2s for decades because they could be used without batteries. Battery life on digital isn't just about ripping through hundreds of shots in a sitting, it's about being able to go out into the wild for days or weeks at a time and keep working while far away from reliable electricity.

>>2998727
aa batteries are cancer, lithium rechargables are massively better

just get a3rd party spare battery if you're worried about battery life, tho honestly you should have no trouble lasring a day or two with obe even when doing heavt shooting.
Also can get chargers on aliexpress that allow you to charge the camera battery straight from a 5v USB outlet/battery pack (if you're out hiking or somesuch).

>>2998742
AA batteries make you immune to the planned obsolescence inherent in custom-sized li-ion batteries. NiMH rechargeable AAs are cheap. They also don't degrade with the passage of time like Li-ion does - only with charge/discharge cycles. non-rechargeable AAs are also available literally everywhere, if you find yourself with dead batteries. These are important advantages and I hate that the tech industry wants to lithiumize everything. I have a phone that I need to replace. It's perfectly good except for a dead non-replaceable lithium battery, in a form factor that apparently isn't made anymore.

The K-50 and K-30 (almost the same camera with different styling. both have the same sensor) can both use the AA battery adapter, btw.

>>2998748
Take off your tinfoil hat, I just got a couple of spare batteries for my cousins ages old Kodak digital p&s.
3rd party will exist decades from now but Pentax is not the kind of company to let go of standards a couple years in. Also 1st party spares will always last longer.

>>2998742
Yeah well I think I'll stick with a 3rd party battery, they're cheap enough. Thanks.

>>2998537
>The fact that it sounds like it's gonna be 72 megapixel isn't such a great thing, though.
But
MUH MEGAPICKLES
MUH RESOLUTION
MUH DETAIL

Nevermind all of the facts that show smaller pixels and higher density are a liability such as the inherently worse SNR and dynamic range small sensor cameras have. Nevermind the fact that beyond a certain pixel density and count you literally cannot resolve any more detail even with the best glass on the market because of physics. Nevermind the fact that any photographer or engineer who knows his shit will tell you that megapixels are, beyond a certain point, only really good for advertising punch.

File: IMG_20161231_114914.jpg (3MB, 4160x3120px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 4160x3120px

Is...is this right??

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	HUAWEI
Camera Model	HUAWEI VNS-L23
Camera Software	VNS-L23C605B120
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	27 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	4160
Image Height	3120
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2016:12:31 11:49:14
Exposure Time	33333/1000000 sec
F-Number	f/2.0
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	125
Lens Aperture	f/2.0
Brightness	0 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Daylight
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	3.79 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	4160
Image Height	3120
Rendering	Custom
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	None
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

File: NEX-3.jpg (383KB, 1520x2032px) Image search: [Google]

383KB, 1520x2032px

>>2998767

Adapted lens, best lens.

>>2998769
I have a few minolta and zenit lenses i like and 1 born pointy clicky shooty sony. Old ones are fun

>>2998769
what the hell is up with that image quality? it's like you took it with whatever >>2998507 is referring to

>>2998773

A blackberry curve camera phone if I remember correctly.

It was terrible. Part of the reason I bought that thing.

File: like a baus.jpg (124KB, 1240x689px) Image search: [Google]

124KB, 1240x689px

>>2998767
>Is...is this right??
that's wrong actually
this is how you adapt lenses

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 5D Mark III
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 4.1 (Macintosh)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.4
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2012:09:27 13:42:56
Exposure Time	1/320 sec
F-Number	f/5.0
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	640
Lens Aperture	f/5.0
Exposure Bias	0.7 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	50.00 mm
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

Fuck kit lenses, what's a nice glass to acquire to go with my D5500 for everyday shooting and portraits? Do I really need a prime lens?

>>2998783
35/1.8 and 50/1.8

>>2998720
Do what helps you, really. But maybe it is overkill regardless of looks, IDK.

>>2998797

I am more self conscious of what others think. When I first started photography I got a lot of shit for using a little NEX and felt super self conscious about what I used and where. I tried to be as low key as possible with my gear. But now I feel limited and want to try different things, but I feel uncomfortable with a tripod even.

Is it a bad thing to go balls deep into ridiculous amounts of gear and enjoy taking photos even if they suck dick?

>>2998805
Then get a camera good enough that you don't need a tripod if you must?

> Is it a bad thing to go balls deep into ridiculous amounts of gear and enjoy taking photos even if they suck dick?
No. /p/'s poorfags may be jealous as fuck and say you don't deserve it or something, but it's your hobby & your money.

I would advise not getting more gear than you *reasonably* like carrying for this instance, though.

Also, it's really hard to suck dick constantly with good gear. You should get good shots if you crop.

File: sa.jpg (616KB, 935x1400px) Image search: [Google]

616KB, 935x1400px

Looking for fairly cheap lens that has leica/voigtlander look for my fuji x, just for random snaps and to learn manual focus, something on wide side def <50mm. Picrel

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Panasonic
Camera Model	DMC-G2
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 3.4.1
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2011:06:21 22:56:10
Exposure Time	1/4 sec
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	100
Exposure Bias	0.3 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	None
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

File: new-style-fujian-35mm-f1.6-C.jpg (60KB, 640x640px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 640x640px

>>2998828
Fujian 30mm f/1.6. $25 Chinese lens but like half the people who buy vintage Leica lenses also don't get anything really better.

> for random snaps and to learn manual focus
Maybe you should also consider Samyang lenses, even if they don't have the same look.

>>2998830
i will in future buy 12 f/2 and 135 f/2 but they're really expensive and im looking for something for now. I was considering fujian, seems pretty cool, but i'd really like something made of metal and better build quality. What do you mean by people getting vintage lenses dont get anything better?

>>2998831
> made of metal
It's made of metal. Metal is the cheap low tech shit, DESU.

Plastic actually usually would be better and sometimes even more expensive.

> better build quality
Okay, not that. It's just adequate on the Fujian.

The Samyangs are really quite good though.

> What do you mean by people getting vintage lenses dont get anything better?
That a lot of vintage lenses are optically about equally good or weak as the Fujian, including some Voightlanders and Leicas.

>>2998831
fujian is made of metal and has a fine build quality
the corners are soft on it, but the center is sharper than vintage leica lenses

>>2998835
i know samyangs are really good, that's why i want to buy 12mm and 135mm from samyang. Okay ill check this fujian, any other lenses that i could look into?

>>2998805
Use what you are comfortable with and don't give a fuck about what any pleb thinks.
The important thing is the image, the moment and subject, not what gear you used or how sexy you looked doing it.

>>2998838
> any other lenses that i could look into?
Just the usual $600-1000ish X-mount primes you get a Fuji for, I guess.

>>2998611
He's right about Zenits being bottom of the barrel when it comes to Soviet SLRs, however if I were in a situation where I'd be receiving one of these as a total noober-goober to photography aside from knowing the basics (assuming exposure triangle and basic comp.) initially gear wouldn't matter much.

>>2998828
Any fuji lens that also has a square hood. Bam, muh leica.

File: 3641742012_122670f501.jpg (91KB, 500x414px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 500x414px

is the Asahi Pentax K1000 a good film camera? How about in comparison to the Canon AE-1?

how much does nikon sale price typically drop when a new release is announced? I'm thinking about waiting a few months to buy a new FX body

File: MJU_HP5_1600_ID11_4__0012_SM.jpg (115KB, 600x908px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 600x908px

Has anyone used the Yongnuo knock off 50mm or 35mm on a film EOS body? I'm interested in a very light plastic lens for a very light plastic body, but I've heard the Yongnuos don't play nice with film bodies (aperture and focus problems). The 35mm lens especially is the one I'm interested in but any input is welcomed.

Pic semi-related, HP5 pushed to 1600 in the Oly Mju 1, ID-11.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi

>>2998986
pentax mx is better.

>>2998830
>>2998828
>>2998831
don't do it.
fujian is junk.
try finding a 28mm f2.8. get name brands like minolta, olympus.
the canon fd is pretty junky though. 5 bladed iris and only single coated.

>>2999040
It doesn't. End of generation prices are as low as they go, you'd be lucky to see a $100 drop beyond that. If you missed the D500/D750 with free battery grip for $1800 sale in December, then I feel bad for you son.

Pony up for a new body, or buy a D700/D610 for muh full frame on the cheap. Otherwise, go cry yourself to sleep.

File: 21. Campo Tornado_Willoughby Owen.jpg (1MB, 2400x2400px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2400x2400px

Hello, all.

So I'm a bit of a photo-equipment moron. Like I don't know my brands or terminology at all. But I'd like that to change, because this year I'm going to be a stormspotter for my region by the TX-OK border. Main objective is calling in storms, but I'd like to take at least semi-professional shots of the weather in high detail.

Where do I begin? What camera would be best for something like this? I'd like to not spend more than $2000, but I can be flexible on that. I'm operating solo, so I don't have a lot of money to spend on this right now.

Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Elements 9.0 Macintosh
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	4500
Image Height	4500
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Compression Scheme	Uncompressed
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format
Image Created	2014:10:30 10:31:31
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	2400
Image Height	2400

>>2999098
I've never done this but I figure any recent DSLR / MILC from MFT to FF could do this fine (personally I'd go for APS-C by default unless you find good reasons for the other, even if FF will do better quality)

You also might want a wide angle prime and something like a 70-200 or 150-300 or such a zoom lens.

going overseas and getting a smaller camera to take, is a lens over 50mm necessary? cause it adds a whole lot more money.

>>2999126
Depends on who and what you're going to shoot from where.

There are reasons why for instance journalists and event shooters tend to have a 70-200 f/2.8 or so with them. You're not always that close.

>>2998763
All of those are true but they're not even the reason I said it was a bad thing.

My concern is simply with file sizes. In any kind of fast-paced environment, i.e. most photojournalism, a photographer needs to pull selects and send them off to the editor very quickly, and that's hard when you've got 72mp files that your laptop is choking on and a shitty wifi or cellular data connection to squeeze them through. It also means you need 3x as much hard drive and memory card space to store those photos.

>>2999148
Yeah I know that is true, I've used a zoom lens since I got a camera. I guess I've just got to train myself to take wider photos.

>>2999158
Wider? No, these will give you narrower pictures than a 50mm equivalent.

Plus it's not really a matter of training in this case but instead what lenses you got with you.

Of course you could make do in a lot of situations if you have a ~16mm-24mm equivalent and a ~50mm equivalent lens or something like it, but not all situations. And some in between will of course be imperfect... however it might be a compromise to make for lighter travel.

>>2999157
>shoot small jpegs
>send 24 mp pics
>???

File: death.jpg (411KB, 1229x737px) Image search: [Google]

411KB, 1229x737px

father died and left me this
is it a decent lens?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS3 Macintosh
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2013:08:12 21:14:02
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1229
Image Height	737

>>2999184
Condolences. Yea, its quite decent.

>>2999184
Well probably not worth killing a man for, but I mean it will be fine to take photos with I guess?
To quote the based God:
>This is a swell lens. It works great and it's easy to use.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/50mm-f14.htm

File: HEHEHEH.gif (5MB, 380x190px) Image search: [Google]

5MB, 380x190px

>>2999189
>Well probably not worth killing a man for

File: zeiss.jpg (33KB, 500x305px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 500x305px

>>2997787

>>2999098
>storm spotter
So you're basically going to be doing lots of low light landscape shooting from a tripod. You'll want a full frame DSLR or mirrorless because full frame sensors generally = better low-light performance (noise and dynamic range). Speed won't be a super-important asset so you may want to go with a full frame mirrorless like the Sony A7 series instead of a DSLR. The good thing about the sony mirrorless vs say a Nikon D610 is that you can buy adapters and use lenses from different systems, including old stuff which is available cheap like Canon FD. This will be beneficial because for storm shooting you're going to want a variety of focal lengths, from wide to long telephoto. You'll want a decent quality wide zoom lens as any landscape shooter would, and a nice long telephoto for that once-in-a-lifetime bigass tornado at long distance. If that tornado is far enough away that you need a telephoto, you won't be concerned about ultra-speed and getting the hell out, so you could use an old manual focus lens on an adapter easily. For a long telephoto on a budget, you could go with something old but still good like a Nikon 300mm f4 or Canon FD 400mm f4.5. A decent 500mm reflex mirror lens would work well for long distance weather shooting too, since the circular bokeh will be of zero concern with it always focused at infinity.

>>2999226
>So you're basically going to be doing lots of low light landscape shooting from a tripod
do you have any fucking clue what you're talking about?

like holy shit those fuckers like universally use gopros. you sure as shit won't be using a dslr on a tripod if you actually see a tornado.

fucking dumbass

So I was on the fence on buying a a6000(would be my first camera), and it's now $700 from $550 with a $50 gift card.
Will we ever see this again or did I cuck myself?

>>2999231
He's talking about stills you shithead

>>2999233
>thinking about buying a sony
You've already cucked yourself anon

>>2999242
Gee wilikers anon!

>>2999241
look at the photo he posted.

does that look like a dslr to you?

and who the fuck cares about stills in a situation like that when you can make a hundred thousand dollars getting 500,000 replays on CNN with a shitty cell phone video shot in the wrong orientation.

>>2999164
Loss of quality from downscaling and extra load on the camera's processor, which can slow it down. You're still dealing with all of the issues the other anon mentioned, too.

There's a good reason Canon and Nikon don't put their highest resolution sensors in their PJ/sports bodies.

Looking for a new bag /gear/, any recommendations? I'd like something with space to carry clothes in as well as gear, I'd be using it for two/three day trips to places.

>>2999324
Combo bags are always a tough situation. Either they don't hold enough or they're gigantic. My best recommendation is to get a good normal backpack and then put a smaller camera bag inside it for your gear.

You could try some of Vanquest's photo bags if you want a dedicated solution, they're the best I've found for doing double duty as a camera bag and normal bag. The "tactical" look can be off-putting though.

>>2999059
>d750
you happy with it? I'm still on the fence about the resolution vs the 810

>>2999098
You will want a rugged weather sealed kit out on the field. I used my Pentax K-3 with the WR kit lens in heavy rain without a problem.
Something like that would be the best for you, an entry level Pentax body has the same level of sealing so a K-S2, K-70 or the higher end K-3 or K-3II with the 18-50 WR kit lens and the 55-300 WR PLM lens would be the best combo.
Learn to use the Av, Tv, TAv and M modes, learn exposure triangle, read Understanding Exposure and get a tripod like the Manfrotto Befree.

>>2999233
It's still around that much if you import it. At least the offering with one kit lens.

File: allroundview.jpg (122KB, 1280x557px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 1280x557px

Is the Panasonic 14mm f2.5g a good lens?

I will substitute it for my kit lens the Olympus 14-42mm EZ since it is already broken.

I mostly use the 14mm focal length anyway.

Someone is selling one for me for $120.

My camera is Olympus EPL7

>>2999448
Yes

>>2999456
>suggesting an f2.5 prime lens
>implying it has better quality than the kit lens
>mfturds

>>2999448
no. it's bad.
sell it to me instead.

>>2999460

It is a pancake.

It is not going to be f 1.4.

>>2999460
Hey look, the resident board autist is here again!

>>2999231
Retard >>2999098 is OBVIOUSLY talking about taking photos not video. Also good luck taking a video worth keeping of weather that isn't right on fucking top of you with a gopro. If you're about to get fucked up the ass by a tornado a gopro will do you just fine but chances are that IF you see one it's going to be far away.

>>2999231
I'd suggest using a Yi 4k or GoPro or something too, 'cause video is fun and these devices are cheap and you can just start them and leave them running strapped to your head or windshield or shoulder or whatever.

But a good photos are also worth doing.
You're already putting in the time and effort, might as well shoot some get some good shots with a MILC or DSLR.

If I wanna get a a print made what should I output the jpeg as?

Highest dpi possible? 300 ppi?

>>2999491
depends on the print

>>2999491
300ppi is a good default, rarely too low.

But it depends on who is printing it how for you. Maybe they'll also just take the image processed into a lossless tiff and print that for you best they can for any given format.

>>2999499
>>2999515

I was looking at getting a metal print from bay photo. Image is a little grainy, so I figured it'd look okay on the matte version.

They say:
>Accepted file formats are JPG, TIFF, and PNG, but JPG is preferred.

So jpeg would be best? They say they do color corrections too, shouldn't be an issue of I send a jpeg over a tiff?

>>2999527
Just export to JPEG in Lightroom with 97% quality and sharpen for matte print.

>>2999527
TIFF is theoretically best.

But sure, printing companies usually prefer JPEG because of workflow issues involving too much stupid software (compression mode m supported by TIFF not supported by idiotic printing preparation software s, enjoy time spent converting the files at the company's terribly slow computer upstairs) and underpowered hardware (TIFF makes everything run out of RAM and slow or even abort, heh). Particularly when working with irregular customers who don't fix their files to the company's capabilities.

> They say they do color corrections too, shouldn't be an issue of I send a jpeg over a tiff?
Well, I guess they'll prefer it, so... I guess you do it?

JPEG is usually fine if the image isn't too heavy on gradients and/or you're not doing a very high quality print.

So I have a Nikon d750 with 24-70 lens. It's pretty comfy to use and I get nice images. When I see people talk about the ff x-t2 I can't help but wonder whether or not I should switch to mirrorless. What do you people think of the Fujifilm X-T2? Is there any reason for me to get one?

Looking for a 300mm lens for my D3200. Right now, I've got a Tamron AF 70-300 mm f/4-5.6 Di LD Macro - it has its problems, quite a lot of actually. Looking at Tamron SP 70-300 mm f/4-5.6 Di VC USD to replace it. Good idea?

>>2999532
I think the X-T2 and X-Pro2 finally have a pretty adequate autofocus.

It's ultimately still an APS-C body though, doesn't really get very close to a good FF setup when you have good glass on both.
[But you'll be paying almost as much as for a FF setup anyway, 'cause Fuji's X-mount is rather pricey.]

Personally, if I were you, I'd stick with Nikon. Or get a Sony or Panasonic for a MILC. One has real FF and higher-end glass overall, and the other is much cheaper.

>>2999535
I tried out a Sony and did not like using it. Sure the AF is fast and it's full frame and the pictures turn out great, but it's just not comfy. I'll probably hold onto the Nikon for a little while more.

>>2999536
> Sure the AF is fast and it's full frame and the pictures turn out great, but it's just not comfy.
I find the newer models very comfy. Light weight on lenses and bodies, high quality images, almost predictably good performance. And on all new models the grip is now large enough, so they're now ergonomically fine overall (still hate the placement of the video record button, but there is no camera where all the buttons and knobs are perfectly sensible).

> I'll probably hold onto the Nikon for a little while more.
Yea, I'd recommend that if you have no stronger reason to switch.

>>2999538
I'd like a light camera but I hate having a short battery life. When I go on a hike just one charge on the d750 is enough for me, I don't think it would be so with a mirrorless camera.

>>2999539
I don't think so either. But with Sony's batteries being ~half the weight and size you can take a second one with you. It's a some weight that won't be in your hands when holding the cameras at all time, but I guess you'll have to decide when to swap the battery.

Or you can use an USB power bank (that you might need for your smartphone or stuff) and recharge it in the backpack through the USB port.

Ultimately the penalty in terms of battery weight -even with constantly using the EVF with its extra features rather than an OVF- is maybe around 1/3 (you could obviously manipulate this figure by standing around for 1 minute looking through the viewfinder before every shot rather than 5-10 seconds - it's just an approximate value).

Either way, it'd have to be a long trip with quite many thousands of photos to even make up for the difference in body weight.

>>2999532
It will be inferior in pretty much every way to your D750, which is by all accounts a very good body.

>>2999448
Eh. it's a 14mm 2.5 That should tell you everything. it's still a step up from a kitlens tho.
The lower end is really starved for MFT cameras.
For everyday shooting i'd rather recommend the 20mm 1.7

>>2999528
>JPEG in Lightroom with 97% quality

Anything over 77% is placebo

>>2999549
>not 100%
pleb

sorry if this is a silly question, but I'm a total noob when it comes to cameras

the breakdown:
- gonna go for a 2 week vacation and want to take nice pictures for a change, not just with my nexus 5 phone
- vibrant colors would be nice to have, my phone's pictures always look a bit...dry? saturated, I dunno
- point&shoot and decently compact, doesn't have to fit in my pocket (I almost always carry around a backpack) but not one of those 3kg cameras
- last thing: I've always envied those pictures that look really sharp and crisp, I don't know how to properly word it; those more-or-less candid ones that look frozen in time, no even a hint of blur; hope that makes a bit of sense

is there anything out there that would somewhat fit those criteria?
>inb4 $2k camera ;__;

apologies if this is the wrong place to post such a thing

>>2999602
You forgot to provide a budget other than "not 2k"

>>2999604
I guess 200-300 euros? or is that silly?

>>2999602
Panasonic LX100, Fuji X70, Fuji X100T, Ricoh GRII, Sony RX-100IV
Prepare to spend as much as "one of those 3kg cameras", you pussy

>>2999606
b-but I don't wanna spend that much desu senpai

I guess I'll have to again put weeks into understanding how the whole thing works and how to compare all of the specs so that I can find a good compromise
with some understanding of what leads to the results I want I might figure out some cheaper options or w/e

*sigh* I just wanted the easy way /out/

>>2999612
Then use your phone

>>2999614
>>2999612
Or do compromise and get a used Pentax K-50 with WR kit lens.

>>2999602
>- vibrant colors would be nice to have, my phone's pictures always look a bit...dry? saturated, I dunno
Shoot RAW with your phone, process with an editor. You can even process JPEG to look more "vibrant".

> point&shoot and decently compact, doesn't have to fit in my pocket (I almost always carry around a backpack) but not one of those 3kg cameras
RX1R II if you've got some money, or RX100 V.

Any APS-C or MFT DSLR / MILC also can be kept under 3kg.

> I've always envied those pictures that look really sharp and crisp
Result of using a FF body with a good lens, or an APS-C body with one of the few REALLY sharp lenses.

The RX1R II can basically do it for some focal lengths.

> inb4 $2k camera
Yea, the about best match -RX1R II- is actually closer to $4k?

I guess most people will get something a bit cheaper and just carry their APS-C or MFT with lenses. $2k isn't really much though... even if you can go cheaper.

>>2999612
You can get a Sony a5000 and 16-50 zoom for that money, and a spare battery and a big sd card. Shoot raw & jpeg and learn to post process when you get back.

There are other cams in that price range but all have smaller sensors (though they might come with things like touch screens e.g Panasonic gf7).

All you're really missing out on is a viewfinder.

Disclaimer: I don't use a Sony but they're a bargain, small and you won't get buyers remorse at that price. They will be a lot better than your phone, especially in low light, even with the kit lens.

>>2999621
anon thank you for the in-depth suggestions but I think you might've taken my $2k as serious
I was being sarcastic

>>2999623
I was looking at that right now, actually
I assumed I'd get shat on if I'd mention it here...

seems like the "competition" would be
Canon EOS M10
Nikon 1 J5
and the Sony A5000 you mentioned

the sample pics from the Canon look the best, I guess, but dunno how much I should trust them really
(the Canon having the price advantage)

>shoot raw & jpeg and learn to post process
yup, that's what I was about to say regarding the colors part, I got pretty decent looking (initially bland) pics with very basic changes afterwards

>>2999629
> I was being sarcastic
But $2k is a pretty realistic figure for a low midrange camera with 1-2 lenses and a few accessories...?

So you were being sarcastic because you thought this amount is a lot of money?

No. It's just setting you up with some setup near the current midrange with some accessories. I guess you can buy something entry-level or rent a camera, though.

[On the high end you'd quite possibly pay more for individual lenses and camera bodies, and so do many film shooters. It's not really a lot of money.]

>>2999629
I'd forgotten about the Canon, don't know much about it...

It's ok to mention Sony, its the ott shilling that fucks people off :(

gear, d810 vs d750? how much are those megapickles really worth?

>>2999639
K-1

Recommendations for tripod with this background info:
- Shoot handheld always, never owned a tripod before
- Want to try some landscape shots for fun and try DSLR scanning
- I have and use a Pentax 6x7

So a cheap one since I very rarely use one, but has to be sturdy enough to support the Pentax.

>>2999642
Manfrotto 190 at the minimum, 055 would be better. 498 ball head or 410jr.

>>2999639
Both are okay. If in doubt, get better glass.

>>2999642
Dic&Mic E302C/P302C, Q666C/999C or their aluminum variants.

A suitable Benro or Sirui, I'd make sure the load rating is 6kg+ even if your camera just weighs ~2.5kg+some for the lens (if I see that correctly).

>>2999640
Sweet camera, but I already have nikkor FX glass
that's kind of what I'm worried about, I'm thinking Nikon might upgrade resolution enough this generation to make me regret buying the 750 now, I like the ability to crop heavily

>>2999648
Then get the D810.

>>2999642
Is weight an issue? The cheapest thing I'd recommend for your camera is an old-school Tiltall if you can find one, they're more than sturdy enough for MF and pretty cheap used.

If you can afford a good tripod I'd suggest getting one, though. I was the same way as you, hated tripods and never used them until I dropped $800 on a badass setup and now I use it 10x more because it's so much easier to work with than the cheapos I'd had before. You could have something almost as good for like $300 by going with an off-brand ballhead and aluminum legs instead of CF.

>>2999648
> I'm thinking Nikon might upgrade resolution enough this generation to make me regret buying the 750 now
You know that Sony is going to upgrade resolution. And they also take Nikon FX lenses, increasingly well.

And yet you're not switching.

Really, worry about this when you get to that situation. Also the D750 leaves you more money for when they actually do upgrade, so why not get that?

>>2999655
> You could have something almost as good for like $300 by going with an off-brand ballhead and aluminum legs instead of CF.
The Dic&Mic and Q666/Q999 I mentioned are all CF tripods for closer to $100-150. 10kg+ load capacities, no problem.

Even if you want brand gear by Sirui / Benro it's almost always going to be carbon fiber at around $300.

>>2998828

Jupiter 8

>>2998767

Get a battery grip

>>2999184
you can sell it for about 200-250 bucks

rollei 35s or 35se?

File: s-l1600[1].jpg (185KB, 1600x1066px) Image search: [Google]

185KB, 1600x1066px

Hey /p/, I would like to buy a macro lens and hood for the specific purpose of directly photographing some 35mm and Kodachrome slides I have in my basement. Would something like this be an okay deal?

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Canon-28-135mm-F-3-5-5-6-IS-Macro-USM-EF-Mount-Lens-/291995841693?hash=item43fc4ef49d:g:i38AAOSwEzxYc7hc

>>2998669
pls respond

>>2999711
No. It's not a macro lens ( 1:5.3 ) and not really that sharp either.

With the effort this takes, you want to use a better lens. Get a Samyang 100mm macro prime or the Sigma 105mm or Tamron 90mm or something.

File: fujifilm_finepix_s8500_review-450x400.jpg (35KB, 450x400px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 450x400px

So I recently got a fujifilm s8500 for free. I was wondering if you guys could recommend a high quality tripod I can use for this camera and other cameras in the future.

File: D3S_2078-768.jpg (79KB, 768x634px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 768x634px

Is selling my old d40 (with a dirty sensor, but otherwise fine) even worth the effort these days? Got a new cam now so its just collecting dust and I'm not sure what to do with it...

>>2999725
Look at eBay prices, deduct their fees and decide if it's worth it for you even if it maybe doesn't move for months and you need to interact with buyers or eBay 3 or so times.

>>2999723
See >>2999657 for my suggestions.

Yea, it's relatively cheap tripods (well, except if you happen to pick up the actual high end of Sirui/Benro tripods), but I do not think you need anything more unless you need extra salt water resistance or something.

>>2997783
Sony 24-70 f/4 and Sony 70-200 f/4 vs Sony 24-70 f/2.8 and Sony 70-200 f/2.8. I'm looking at picking up both of these focal lengths but am a bit torn as to if I need the f/2.8. I want better low light performance but am not a pro and don't really have the funds to spend on the higher lenses. With Depth of field on the f/4 70-200 will I notice a big difference between the f/2.8 for portraiture? What about with the 24 - 70?

>>2999732
Yea, it will matter quite often overall.

But you know, if you want it cheaper, just use a prime like the 55mm or 85mm Samyang or something for portraits.

>>2999656
the disadvantages of mirrorless are still too great for me
and I don't need retard-levels of resolution, 36 would be enough for me to stop upgrading on FF. I'm starting to wonder what the odds are that the next d600/700 will get to that level, or that they'll just keep it to the D8xx

>>2999711
No. You want something sharp with very low distortion. Fast doesn't matter. You'd be better off with a high quality old prime than that generally mediocre lens.

>>2999751
I have a D610 and a D800 and see no reason to go beyond 24mp.

File: ae_1p.jpg (86KB, 1030x776px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 1030x776px

I have the oportunity to get a black AE-1 program, what do you guys think about the camera? i never use film before. The one im getting is pristine and it even comes with its power winder, all in pretty good conditions.

I'm picking up photography as a hobby, and I have an upcoming beginners digital photography class, I'm thinking of getting a Canon Rebel EOS T5, is this the best budget starter? I've been eating nothing, but ramen and eggs to save for it so my budget isn't very high.

>>2999751
> the disadvantages of mirrorless are still too great for me
As far as I'm concerned, most advantages would be there even more (even less noise, even higher resolution. even more extra features,...)

If you don't feel terribly interested in that either, I think you can almost safely pick the D750.

Plus even luddite uncle Ken approves more of the D750:
http://kenrockwell.com/nikon/comparisons/d810-vs-d750.htm

> I'm starting to wonder what the odds are that the next d600/700 will get to that level
Sony hasn't introduced 36MP on their lower tier FF cameras yet. So it's probably not happening in this quarter, maybe not even in the semester.

Maybe if Samsung or Toshiba drop such a sensor in the market at the right price, but I'm just going to guess they won't do this this quarter.

Plus even if it happened, glass will be an issue for a lot of people. It is not so much fun in using that trusty old zoom lens for a 12MP image plus 24MP pixel soup slowing down your editor and bloating file sizes.

>>2999775
AE-1P is ok, I prefer my older FD SLRs.

The good:
>compact
>split prism focus screen
>interchangeable focus screen
>uses a battery still widely available

The bad:
>inferior flashing number style metering, needle and ring is a much better method
>no mirror lockup
>prone to squealing and other failures such as shutter jams when compared to cameras like the FTb

>>2999777
Canon severely fucked that camera to sell multiple tiers of cameras above it.

A6000, K-50, GH85 etc. are better options.

[You kinda need to get to a Canon 80D or something before they stop having tiny buffers and most features removed.]

>>2999778
even with mediocre glass you get a few MP more worth of sharpness, according to DxO anyway. and the lousy zooms already look godawful on crop cameras, but people are still using them. and rockwell is a fucking cheeseball about this stuff, he says 6 MP is all you need one minute and the next he'll be telling you large format is the king of landscapes and if you want to be taken seriously you'd better hire a pack mule to lug your bellows and tripod around. and he uses the d810!
>>2999772
that's good to hear. I feel autistic even talking about it but I take really detailed landscapes and do stuff where I need to crop once in awhile, and I've been worried

I just bought my first camera today (A6000, how did I do?), and I'm kind of overwhelmed, there is so much to learn. Besides going out and shooting anything and everything, where do I start?

>>2999787
>even with mediocre glass you get a few MP more worth of sharpness, according to DxO anyway.
I admit, I was a bit low.. You are right; it should be more like 16MP-20MP instead of 12MP.

https://www.dxomark.com/lenses/mounted_on-Nikon_D810-963/launched-between-1987-and-2017/focal-from-1-to-1500/aperture_max-from-0.95-to-45/launch_price-from-0-to-13000-usd/lens_zoom-zoom#hideAdvancedOptions=false&viewMode=list&yDataType=rankDxo

Might still not be a smooth upgrade a D6xx/D7xx audience as-is.

> the lousy zooms already look godawful on crop cameras, but people are still using them
Maybe in that case they just kinda bought (too?) cheap and probably didn't expect much.

They'll just eventually dislike it and get a D750+ and experience a happy 2/3 extra resolution, right?

> and rockwell is a fucking cheeseball about this stuff, he says 6 MP is all you need one minute and the next he'll be telling you large format is the king of landscapes and if you want to be taken seriously you'd better hire a pack mule to lug your bellows and tripod around. and he uses the d810!
He deserves his meme status, sure.

>>2999798
> A6000, how did I do?
Depends on the glass you got.

It's a really quite okay APS-C body.

> and I'm kind of overwhelmed, there is so much to learn
The camera is rather very reliable on auto / P / S / A overall, so just take your time and use these modes in case getting the shot already counts.

> Besides going out and shooting anything and everything, where do I start?
That's not a bad approach to learn your camera in a few days. Or I guess you could try to more nicely shoot & process what you'll mainly want to shoot.

File: drainpipe.jpg (170KB, 1024x681px) Image search: [Google]

170KB, 1024x681px

I have a Canon 70D and am looking for a longer range tele than my Sigma 17-50. Was looking at a 70-200 f4L non-IS, but discovered the older 80-200 f2.8L for around the same price. Was the 80-200 a decent piece of glass, just old and forgotten today? Or should I avoid like the plague?

File: Voigtlander-HELIAR-Vintage-Line-50mm-f3.5-VM-lens.jpg (46KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 500x500px

>>2997787

>>2997799
still uncomfortable, i say this from experience

File: SnowPup_L-5.jpg (3MB, 2000x3000px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2000x3000px

>>2999809
It's a really really good lens. Was top of the line in its era. Sickeningly sharp (usable 100% crops sharp), the bokeh is very very smooth and the build quality and function is smooth and like a Cadillac. Also, some people say the rendering is different because it was before Canon changed their coatings and glass type.

Only downside is no IS and the weight. It's really heavy, but not as much as I was reading, before I got it. It's a stable-heavy. But it might be too top-heavy for a 70D.

I'll post some samples, higher than 1MB for pixel-peeping

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 6D
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.1 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2016:12:31 14:20:52
Exposure Time	1/250 sec
F-Number	f/2.8
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	500
Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Spot
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	200.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

File: sosociki.jpg (404KB, 2138x1261px) Image search: [Google]

404KB, 2138x1261px

This was a sample of a 100% crop

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Photographer	Mason Aldridge
Image-Specific Properties:

File: 29689209275_e26beced17_o.jpg (3MB, 3000x2000px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3000x2000px

>>2999903
nevermind, that was at 200% lol.

here's a bokeh stress-test

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 6D
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.1 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2016:09:14 20:05:24
Exposure Time	1/750 sec
F-Number	f/5.6
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	200
Lens Aperture	f/5.6
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Spot
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	200.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

File: 29816112922_0ec51575b0_k.jpg (625KB, 2048x1366px) Image search: [Google]

625KB, 2048x1366px

last one. that beetle one was wide open, as most of these are.