/gear/ - Gear Thread

First for Sony flop
https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2017/01/an-update-and-comparison-of-the-sony-fe-70-200mm-f2-8-gm-oss/

>>3002631
delet

>>3002631

>so obviously misaligned it is painful to look at

People take that site seriously?

Hey guys, I'm looking for a full frame DSLR from $1500 to $2300, preferably Canon or Nikon, which I can buy before august... (I already have an older camera)

I've done my research and found that the Nikon D750 and Canon 6D have these requirements, with the D750 being the better camera (for my needs).

However, should I wait for a potential Canon 6D Mark II release, or just get the D750?

>>3002649
Just get an a7ii bro, flappy mirrors and big plasticky bodies are for friendless autists that hold a finger in the air when they speak.

>>3002649
a7i

>>3002649
I'd the D750 is better then buy it lol

>>3002652
lel
>>3002654
lel some more

>>3002652
>flappy mirrors and big plasticky bodies are for friendless autists that hold a finger in the air when they speak.
But this describes you poopcom and you shoot sony. hmmmm

>>3002649
Pentacks K-1 or D750

>>3002665
*poopco,

>>3002666
It was fairly obvious t.bh

>>3002667
Just doing you and your autism a favour m8

>>3002676
But it is you who has autism, I'm not the one shilling for Sony to no end for the last year or so

>>3002652
>>3002654
While I love the design, I am skeptical about an EVF and the fact that the lenses are way bigger (I don't want to carry too much) (https://petapixel.com/2016/04/04/sonys-full-frame-pro-mirrorless-fatal-mistake/).

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

63KB, 700x229px

>>3002681

That article is full of cherry picking. Pic related.

And an EVF is an advantage.

>>3002684
Hmmm I guess you're kinda right! Do you recommend going for a A7II, A7R or A7S?

>>3002684
>And an EVF is an advantage
Only in the first few weeks, then it becomes a nuisance. TTL OVF is way better to actually work with.

>>3002687
This. Once you figure out how exposure compensation looks in your head you realise you don't need EVF. I guess some people don't get to that stage though.

>>3002686

Don't listen to sonyautist. Sony is a viable choice, provided the advantages outweigh the trade-offs for you. But it is not some strictly better wunder-system

https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/comments/3x6pei/nikon_d750_vs_sony_a7ii/cy24mxi/

>>3002681
The logic in that article is so fucked up.
>it has lenses just as big as the others, so it's bad
>you need to pack so many batteries omg and a 5g pack weight a ton more than a full fucking DSLR
>they actually managed to make IBIS work with that mount, but no that's not a technological feat, it's just bad because.
>you're not even locked to a lens ecosystem, so you can go to Hawaii and enjoy the snow at the same time, and having choice just sucks.

>>3002691
I got there fairly early on, only took me a month of trial and error, and as soon as I got out of Av only and went to Tv when needed and even into M mode I started getting better and better results.
I finally got around to think about my subject and the surroundings and use Exp comp accordingly. Something EVF won't teach anyone.
EVF is a necessity due to the mirrorless design, not an advantage nor a disadvantage.

>>3002686
Personally I think the standard a7ii represents the best value, 12MP for me is too limiting, 42 is a bit unnecessary and heavy on the cpu & ram when it comes to editing.

If you're focusing on video, look at the s, if you're focusing on studio look at the r.

>>3002681
Don't overthink that article, pic is a comparison of a sony and 28mm f2 and a nikon with 28mm f1.8 (closest I could find). Clearly there's a massive difference in size and weight.

The short flange distance not only allows these awesome, compact, high quality lenses, but also means you can adapt any old manual focus glass to it if you so desire.

As far as EVF's go, I'd never go back to an OVF, and I spent my first 4 years just shooting film! The advantages it offers in focusing, exposure, composition and low light are too big to pass up. Also, if you haven't tried one, get to a shop and give it a go, the quality is great. Do remember it will probably have a slow kit lens on it and you'll be inside, make sure to point it outside so you can see what it looks like when the sensor gets more than enough light and you get the full framerate.

>>3002691
Once you figure out that there's no such thing as an "ideal" exposure, and you're relying on technology to tell you best, as opposed to having complete control from the start, you'll see OVF's are dead.

To give you a "real life" example, when on a DSLR I will set it to either aperture or shutter priority, then wiggle the exposure comp dial to where I think it may need to be if the light isn't even, then shoot, then pull my eye away to chimp to see if I made the right adjustment.

With mirrorless it's always in manual, because it's faster than AV, I set my aperture based on my artistic preference, then adjust shutter speed and iso until the exposure looks like I want, then click; it's exactly as I previewed it so no need to chimp. Oh and DSLR's can't focus accurately with lenses faster than f2.8, lol.

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

3KB, 284x115px

>>3002700

File: Untitled-1.jpg (67KB, 904x659px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 904x659px

>>3002700
forgot pic

[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
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2017:01:15 13:41:25
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	904
Image Height	659

>>3002698
>arguing for exposure comp on a wysiwyg viewfinder.

You don't understand what exp comp does do you sweetie. I mean, the camera has a dial for it, but when you have 3 dials for ss, aperture and iso also, only a dumbdumb would use the exp comp dial.

>>3002698
>wysiwyg isn't an advantage.
Yeah man, I don't look at the image when editing photos, I adjust all my sliders, apply them, then look at the photo. There's no advantage to seeing your image as you edit it.

I was gifted a Konica autoreflex tc with 3 lenses a couple of years ago and i know nothing about cameras. Is it any good?

>>3002713
try the /film/ thread

>>3002705
Why are you editing your photos in the viewfinder?

>>3002715
It's an analogy homie.

File: 01f.jpg (99KB, 676x485px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 676x485px

>>3002715

Any recommendations for a travel tripod (should fit into hand luggage) that's relatively sturdy (gonna use it with my Ricoh GR) for 100-150$?

I eventually went yolo and got an em10 (thanks to all the nice anons that provided lots of advice about this tedious process)

but anyway, what should I read to get decent pictures? I kept hearing about some book that had smth to do with 35mm or so, but don't remember which
any free/piratable ones that are good? is tonry northrop's book worth it?

>getting excited desu

mainly because I saw some great pictures of an anon in a diff thread that he took with an e-pl5 or smth

>>3002748
Sirui T-004x or T-005x, they both have carbon fibre variants but will cost more obviously

>>3002748
Check out 3 Legged Thing, they have an aluminum model that's under 150.

I've messed around with 3LT's stuff before and they're really well designed and built, and they come from a cool UK company instead of a faceless Chinese conglomerate.

>>3002748
Manfrotto Befree or an Ultra Pod
Or both

I want to buy the panasonic 25mm f1.7 lens in the uk, but I cant find it anywhere. Must be stock issues at panasonic.

>>3002769
Have you tried SRS Microsystems? Or ebay?

>>3002697
the logic is good you just don't understand it. sony lenses are often bigger than real-camera-equivalent lenses because they just add the missing mount-to-sensor distance. carry two of them around, and your gear is heavier.

File: FullSizeRender.jpg (851KB, 1920x1440px) Image search: [Google]

851KB, 1920x1440px

:^)

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Apple
Camera Model	iPhone 6s Plus
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2017 (Macintosh)
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	29 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	4032
Image Height	3024
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2017:01:15 12:59:29
Exposure Time	1/8 sec
F-Number	f/2.2
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/2.2
Brightness	0.5 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Auto
Focal Length	4.15 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1920
Image Height	1440
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>3002749
>tony northrup
don't read any meme books. have you ever seen a photo by tony northrup that you actually liked? then why the fuck do you want his advice? find some photographers you like, find some other visual artists you like, study their work. study art history. find a photography textbook at a library somewhere if you want to learn about studio lighting and classic setups like 3 point.

>>3002819

Exactly, which is why we have images like these:

>>3002702
>>3002684


Lets also not forget that every larger Sony lens is considerably better in almost every way optically compared to their DSLR counterparts.

Nothing even comes close to the SEL90M28G for example.

>>3002828
so basically you don't like tony and you can't give any specific advice, roger

also:
some guitarists have very good books and instructional videos, but their actual compositions aren't all that interesting
they do know how to explain the concepts and give good advice on how to learn various things

not saying that's the case with Tony, I really have no idea
>hence my question

but I just found the downloads section of the sticky so it's k

File: 01_large[1].jpg (171KB, 1024x769px) Image search: [Google]

171KB, 1024x769px

Sup /n/ignogs, I wanna print some 4x6" snapshits. Mostly just holiday stuff but also to have physical copies of some things (having physical copies is nice).

What's my best bet? Buy a little photo printer or just suck it up and farm them out to some big printing corp like Photobox et al.

I got a nikon c3400 as a gift, what am I in for?

>>3002848
You mean a D3400? If yes, switch off snapbridge and never turn it on again. 3x instant battery life.
Also use A, S and M modes, avoid Auto and scene modes like the plaque, learn about exposure triangle and read Understanding Exposure by Bryan Peterson
Shoot in RAW and do the processing yourself with Lightroom. Adobe CC photography suite is like $10 a month.

>>3002845
>not getting prints done at staples

>>3002845
I got myself a selphy cp 1000, it's not cheap at 20c a print, but it makes up for it by being completely hassle free as it's dye sub and the ribbon and paper are sold as packs, it takes memory cards too, so I just export all my 6x4 jpegs to one, pop it in and click print all, and it just works. Image quality imo is better than I've seen from a consumer inkjet thanks to not suffering from the same ink transparency issues.

Would recommend in a heartbeat, and i hate printers.

File: Chris-Gampat-The-Phoblographer-Panasonic-100-400mm-4-6.3-ASPH-4-of-15ISO-4001-60-sec.jpg (1MB, 2000x1500px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2000x1500px

>2017
>mft
>still no autofocus 0.95 lenses

ded system

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	OLYMPUS IMAGING CORP.
Camera Model	E-M5
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.3 (Macintosh)
Photographer	Chris Gampat
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Color Filter Array Pattern	682
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpcm
Vertical Resolution	72 dpcm
Image Created	2016:01:04 18:05:51
Exposure Time	1/60 sec
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	400
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Auto
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	Low Gain Up
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	High
Sharpness	Hard

>>3002877
Still better than being stuck on Sony having to pay for all the upgrades every time a new model comes out to stay relevant in the numbers game and justify all the spending. That means every six or so months.
At least MFT users take actual photographs.

>>3002836
most people who take lessons from a boring technical guitarist are gonna churn out boring technical music
but northrup isn't like that, photography isn't like that. simply not looking like a complete asshole on guitar requires thousands of hours of practice. any moron with a couple extra weekends can learn the basic technique of camera exposure. lighting design is more in depth but I specifically know that northrup is a shit-tier amateur in this arena.
like I said, most photo books are for chumps. but hey, it sounds like that's right up your alley

>>3002899
Tony likes to cling to stupid shit like you don't need an ND and polarizer filters or you must multiply aperture with crop factor. Otherwise he is a huge nerd but okay-ish. And a cuck.

Looking for a fully mechanical slr under $65, what should I get.

>>3002921
Pentax ME Super, Spotmatic, Canon AE-1 etc...

>>3002928
ME super isn't full mechanical. Unless you're happy to shoot at 1/125 exclusively. MX and K1000 are full mechanical, but might be a bit more money. Same with the screwmount ones.

>>3002624
Native E-mount 16-35 f/4 and 70-200 f/4 or A-Mount 70-200 f/2.8 and 16-35 f/2.8? I'm unable to decide, pricing will be roughly the same for both mount types. Will focus be fast on the a-mount lenses with the a-mount adapter and will the quality be good?

> Going on an A7II

>>3002921
Konica Autoreflex.

>>3002921
I have a Minolta SRT-101

The only electronical part is the lightmeter, otherwise its fully mechanical

File: Yi 4K+.jpg (132KB, 1360x434px) Image search: [Google]

132KB, 1360x434px

When is Yi 4K+ going to be actually available to buy?

What's the cheapest FF that works fine with TTL and has an affordable 35mm af lens?

>>3002968
Canon 5D classic -$400
Nikon D700 - $600
Nikon D600 - $800
Canon 5D Mk II - $800
Canon 6D - $1000

>>3002971
What 35mm lens would you recommend?

>>3002968
> buy cheapest FF
> stick cheapest glass on it
Probably just going to get you worse handling and additional weight with the same IQ over buying an APS-C with a (not quite so bad) 20mm-ish lens.

>>3002952
It's a Xiaomi product.

It's typically just out some day and 1-2 weeks later a hundred Chinese resellers offer it.

Sometimes early reviews come out much earlier than the actual products. I think they even delayed product releases over addressing some negative points raised in such reviews.

>>3002975
Sigma 35 f/1.4 Art is the best, but it might be out of your budget.

Don't know of any cheap but good options.
Probably some older and slower glass.
Frankly, you're better off buying APS-C if you're on a budget.

>>3002941
Konica Autoreflex TC seems like a nice camera, will this lens work on it?

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Konica-50mm-1-7-lens-/302190398366?hash=item465bf38b9e:g:9r8AAOSw9GhYcavE

>>3002883
> At least MFT users take actual photographs.
https://www.flickr.com/cameras/sony/
https://www.flickr.com/cameras/panasonic/
https://www.flickr.com/cameras/olympus/

> inb4 A6000 photos aren't actual photos or best photos are unpublished or some further reality denial

>>3002971
Where are you pulling those prices from? Your ass or the trash dump?

I know this place is pretty hostile but I need to ask
Sony a5100
vs
Nikon D3300
From what I've seen the A5100 is definitely a bit sharper but is it enough to spend more and more in the future with Sony lenses being so much more expensive. The D3300 doesn't have as many focus points but I'm not sure if that matters considering I won't really be taking action shots and the touchscreen seems like a huge plus when analyzing your photos
I want a camera that will last me a while

>>3003039
> From what I've seen the A5100 is definitely a bit sharper
Basically a lens property, the imaging sensors are rather close.

> but is it enough to spend more and more in the future with Sony lenses being so much more expensive
They're not actually "so much more expensive".

If they cost much more, they're usually also just much better. Of course you can find exceptions on either mount.

More importantly you can find a good number of pretty to very good lenses for fairly cheap on either mount. Shouldn't be a big problem.

> The D3300 doesn't have as many focus points but I'm not sure if that matters considering I won't really be taking action shots
The D3300 is a fairly big pain in the arse even with static subjects if you ask me.

> and the touchscreen seems like a huge plus when analyzing your photos
Doesn't really make any difference vs. using the wheel & buttons.

> I want a camera that will last me a while
I'd suggest the A6000 or D7200.

Nikon's D3300 has fucked up software that doesn't even support AE bracketing and a lot of other features removed, plus not having the AF motor of a D7200 reduces lens options with AF quite a bit (and increases cost some $150 or more on a lot of lenses). And it's a pretty shit camera for any manual focusing.

The A5100 is quite good, but ultimately it not having an EVF, flash hotshoe and extra control wheels of the A6000 are really not worth saving a few dollar (at least it wouldn't be to me).

>>3003057
>>3003039
d5500 is superior for the price and the a6000 isn't worth the price

>>3003066
A D5500 is worse than a A6000.

Particularly the huge difference in buffer size and also burst rate, but also AF system. And having focus peaking for doing MF, regardless if it's a landscape or macro or portrait or whatever - it enables a lot of good cheap lenses to be easy to use.

And then it's also just ~2/3 the weight even before you count the often lighter lenses.

And some smaller things like the companion smartphone app, ability to run some in-camera apps, viewfinder magnification and stuff are also better.

The A6000 is easily worth its price, both generally speaking and compared to the D5500.

>>3003073
A6000's controls are absolute ass along with terrible button placement

>>3003084
Only a single button that annoys me. It's the arguably stupidly placed movie record button. Everything else is fine.

And the D5500 isn't doing shit better. [Yea, I totally needed dedicated zoom buttons rather than using the wheel... or my menu button unreachable except with the other hand.]

>>3003094

The a6000 having three wheels, but one permantly stuck as mode select is quite annoying too. Wish that third one was programmable like the others.

for someone on a tight budget, is the a6000 worth the extra ~$300 over a used nex-7? price including kit lens. all the reviews and comparisons i'm seeing make it look like there's not too much different on the technical side, any owners that can testify otherwise? fwiw, i plan on mainly landscapes with a few portraits, mostly of pets and a few of people. if i got any other lenses (now and/or later) it would be a pancake-like prime for easy pocketability but i feel thats a whole other question.

>>3003100
I never heard that you can (or for some reason should) reprogram the mode select wheel on a D5x00?

It's the mode select wheel, you need it to be that IMO.

>>3003102
I'd miss PDAF (big difference in AF capability), WLAN remote control and image transfer and modern hotshoe.

Other than that, I think the NEX-7 was pretty close, but I never seriously considered it even for the difference in PDAF alone.

>>3003106
Ah yes, I just remembered that the Nex-7 also still had a different menu.

Something mostly comparable to it was available on the A6000 but I picked the alternative newer menu after a short while, 'cause it's faster.

>>3003106
>>3003107
WLAN capabilities aren't a huge draw for me though i could see how they could be a big plus. menus i could deal with but the af is more what i'm concerned about. will it be noticeable enough to leave me wishing i had spent the extra?

>>3003130
> WLAN capabilities aren't a huge draw for me though i could see how they could be a big plus
I've ended up using that often.

You can quickly locally hand people a shot you took (relatives at a meeting or strangers on the street), and your smartphone is also obviously better set up to quickly send the shot (in my case usually by e-mail but you might do social networks or whatever). Kinda good.

I've also used the remote display / triggering a bunch of times.

> menus i could deal with
Likely so.

> the af is more what i'm concerned about. will it be noticeable enough to leave me wishing i had spent the extra?
Using PDAF is kinda desirable enough that on DSLR -where PDAF has been available for longer than on MILC-, few care particularly much about how their CDAF performs.

Even if CDAF is done in a pretty fast way (as it is on the NEX-7 and A6000 both) it's still the more annoying hunting AF mode that can't hit or track particularly reliably, whereas PDAF feels extremely solid in comparison.

On the other hand, virtually everyone with a typical P&S or not high-end modern smartphone lives with an usually actually slower CDAF. So I can't really tell if you'd miss it. I would.

Im looking for a cheap pos small sensor camera with fixed focus lens (so I can cut it out and mount any other lens).

Here's the catch, I need either long exposure times available or bulb mode.

Basically a SJ4000 fake would do if it had long exposure.

>>3003159
i appreciate all the advice. sounds like the af performance is definitely worth the money. i'll just have to see how fat my tax return is lol. thanks a bunch!

>>3003160
> Basically a SJ4000 fake would do if it had long exposure.
Yi Cam with https://github.com/alex-agency/XYC ?

>>3003163
Possibly, at that price bracket I might stretch to a Pentax Q series if I can find one.

Might see if theres any canon cameras in the baskets of junk cameras at the recycle shops next time I go down that can run chdk

>>3003162
No problem. Of course, ideally you'd try them hands-on.

Also look into if you can't get the a6000 cheaper somewhere. I think it's not usually $300 more than a NEX-7. [Especially not after it has been on sale as $550 kit / $400 body twice already.]

>>3003169
That Yicam is usually sold for $65-70 including shipping. I thought the Pentax Q were ~3x as much.

A Canon with CHDK might be a good idea though, figures some of the P&S should be like $20-50 now.

>>3003176
Ive seen them for like $3 to $10 in the recycle shops here (Japan), if I can find one that doesnt use proprietary batteries I can test it easily in store.

I bought a bunch of MJUs for like $3 each I plan on flogging off on ebay lol.

Q series Ive seen consistetly around $230 with two lenses though, wonder how much I could sell the lenses off for.

Anyway the plan was to use a tiny sensor camera to get more reach out of my lenses on my star tracker.

Don't buy Sony, their lenses are way too expensive
Canon>Nikon>>>>>>>>>>Sony as far as price for quality goes

>>3002971
Isn't there anythingg between $400 and $600?

>>3003210
Except the cameras for quality vs size and weight ratio is fantastic.

I've adapted manual primes from my A7s and have been fine so far.

That and PDAF with third party lenses and adapters works well now anyway. There's more third party coming out.

>>3003227
The adapters were pretty crap, I don't know if it's improved that drastically since I last had a look but Canon lenses on it didn't function all that well

>>3003210
>Canon>Nikon>>>>>>>>>>Sony as far as price for quality goes
Most lenses are almost exactly priced like you'd expect it from Canon itself, so no.

>>3003231

On a modern body adaptors work as well as native lenses.

Unfortunately, the dirt cheap a6000 is not one of them.

>>3003235

Sony only sells one super budget, no OSS, mediocre IQ lens. Every other mount has quite a few of these around $150-200.

APS-C Canikons with good TTL between $0 and $600?

>>3003263
Pentax K-50, K-S2, K-70
used Pentax K-5II/K-5IIs, K-3
Get a Metz with PTTL compatibility.
Nikon D7000, D7100, D7200, get a Metz with Nikon TTL compatibility
Canon 60D, 70D, 80D, get a Metz with Canon TTL compatibility

>>3003248
> super budget, on-lens stabilization
That's quite different from price for quality.

> mediocre IQ
> quite a few lenses
Wait, up to what price again?

And what lenses can you get that are at least like a mediocre IQ nifty fifty at that point? (Or at least pretty good for being a wide angle lens or such - I guess we gotta cut those some slack.)

>>3003231
They're really good now on the PDAF bodies. Also the Sigma MC11 works with much more lenses than advertised and appears to work reasonably well on non PDAF bodies. Sole reason I want to upgrade from my A7s, but the third generation can't be too far away now so I don't want to jump the gun.

>>3003266
Why don't you mention the adapters drive the adapted lenses very differently, essentially wearing the AF motors out prematurely?
So as soon as you put the lens on the adapter you lose every first party support and service advantage.

>>3003269
>Why don't you mention the adapters drive the adapted lenses very differently, essentially wearing the AF motors out prematurely?

Because they don't?

>So as soon as you put the lens on the adapter you lose every first party support and service advantage.

And you don't?

I'm sure this will provoke some anger, but what is the cheapest camera I could cop off Ebay used that would still look decent / quasi-professional?

I started posting generic VSCO shit on Instagram out of complete boredom and somehow managed to amass 15.000 followers through hashtags, but I'm still using my iPhone 5s camera which honestly looks absolutely horrible and grainy unless I process the fuck out of it. I just want a step up from that which wont look grainy as unclear as fuck.

>>3003270
Yes, they do. Even the silent drive lenses give out louder humming noises while focusing. It didn't sound very healthy to me.
When we put the lens back on the Canon 40D it was driving it normally, no sound, no humming.
Oh, the body and adapter we tried was an MC11 on an A6300. Lens was Canon 70-200/2.8 IS

>>3003272
You will lose followers because you still need time to learn to use a DSLR and to post process decently. But if you still want to go for it, get a body that has a top LCD, like a Canon 60D, Nikon D7000 or Pentax K-5II

>>3003272
If you just want a camera (+ lens) that easily takes fairly professionally-looking images, get a fairly decent APS-C and just see to it that the light is all right when you shoot. So yea, the usual suspects - A6000, K-50, D7x00 - that stuff.

Or I guess you work until your entry-level APS-C (D3x00 or something) gives you a good image. Still less work than with an iPhone.
[But also quite much further from more professional setups - which as you might guess are chosen for much the same reason. More reliably getting shots that look good and require less processing.]

>>3003273

>yes they do!
>here is my anecdotal experience
>that consists of just a difference in sound
>with no empirical data to back it up

wut

>>3003272
It's instagram, the photo quality is shit no matter what you use. If you're gaining mass followers with what you've got then there's no point spending more money, just keep doing what you're doing.

>>3003282
Not on Instagram but I recall it's about at the level suggested for /p/, around 1000x1000 or something?

Do they apply massive extra JPEG compression to your images or something?

>>3003285
Not him but I've read that if you upload a specific resolution then it can improve the quality quite a lot

>>3003287
I went to look it up; from their webpage:
> When you share a photo that has a width between 320 and 1080 pixels, we keep that photo at its original resolution as long as the photo's aspect ratio is between 1.91:1 and 4:5 (a height between 566 and 1350 pixels with a width of 1080 pixels).
Should be any of these then, I guess.

>>3003275
>>3003276
I appreciate the suggestions, but as I expected, they're way out of my budget.

It's not an excuse for not wanting to invest in a hobby, it's basically that I'm poor and can't afford it.

>>3003280
Look up piezo drive or silent wave drive and take a guess why it is a problem when it gives out a sound. Also look up the Pentax SDM plaque on the DA* 16-50. SDM drives start to give sounds, then it starts to whine and slow down and then it dies. This is the problem.

>>3003290
What's your budget then?

>>3003290
If you're mostly taking shots nearby, extra light (LED, CFL or whatever - preferably with good CRI) also should probably reduce the grainy noise a lot.

>>3003290
Then just get a used entry level DSLR and don't try to "look pro". It is viewed down upon in the hobby. Also related https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hk5IMmEDWH4

Get something like a Nikon D3300, Pentax K-50 or Canon 700D with the kit lenses, then later on buy a babby prime around 30-35mm

>>3003290
Just buy a Nikon 3100 + kit lens used, they are cheap as fuck and you're not going to need more than that for your use

>>3003291
Also I'm just saying that my friend wants to upgrade from his Canon 40D but we know how Canons upgrades played out, so he is looking at Sony with the ability to adapt his lenses.
We tried one out and the sound made him nervous and when he asked the seller he didn't get any answer regarding services, just the regular seller talk. It wasn't reassuring.
I'm just saying it can be a deal breaker and people need to know this before they are committed on buying.

>>3003130
I ended up trading in my a7 + £500 for an ex demo a7ii because i wanted pdaf and ibis. I haven't regretted it once. Pdaf is kinda necessary if you want to use an mc11 or metabones.

Wlan has been off nearly the whole time, except if i was hours away from a pc, i can transfer shots to my phone.

I do use the phone as a remote feature a lot though, it's great for doing modeling shoots with inexperienced models as you can show them the shapes they're pulling whilst they're doing it.

>>3003039
fellow price-range anon!
if you want a DSLR, it's completely worth going I think 100 euros extra for a D5300 kit, you get lots of nice quality of life improvements over the 3300 for that money, I think it's very much worth it

I found that it's not worth bothering with mirrorless ones in that price range, you'll have to compromise a lot of things
the industry just isn't there yet, unfortunately

but yea, so if you want a DSLR, I'd suggest a 5300 kit (or even a cheapo 5100 if you just want to try things out), otherwise I don't really know
good luck! and don't get dragged into bullshit geartalk, at the end of the day most people can take the same nice picture regardless of gear in this range

>>3003210
But sony has created more high quality lenses in the 5 years nex has been around than canon has in 25 or nikon in 50. Just look at the top of dxo, it's a sea of sony and zeiss, despite canon having the higher mp sensor which favours dxo scores.

Not to mention canikon are gimped on lens design thanks to the mirror box, you'll never get lenses like the 28 f2 or 55 f1.8.

>>3003231
Sigma mc11 works nearly as good as native, occasionally hunts a little in low light, still focuses better in the dark than my pentax k5 (both cameras with tamron 28-75 2.8). As far as native lenses, the a6500 beats the 1dxii for af-c, a camera 4 times the price. And has ibis. Faster burst and a higher quality sensor.

>>3003269
Because that's horseshit

Love all the desperate "sony is bad" shills tho.

>>3003273
Horseshit, i just tried 3 lenses on my mc11 and canon, apart from the sony being faster they sounded the same. And there's zero reports of the mc11 killing anything on google.

And the 70-200 is is supposed to have a light hum in use, it's the IS gyro whirring away, if it's silent on your canon you may want to get your canon repaired.

>>3003290
Personally I'd recommend a 2nd hand sony nex, the shooting experience is a lot more similar to a phone, they're dirt cheap with great sensors and any lens in the world can be used with a £10 adapter, they're small and cute, they start at the nex 3 which I've bought in the past for £20, if you can get a nex 6, 7, a6000, a6100 they may serve you better thanks to the evf and much better controls.

>>3003307
>But sony has created more high quality lenses in the 5 years nex has been around than canon has in 25 or nikon in 50. Just look at the top of dxo, it's a sea of sony and zeiss, despite canon having the higher mp sensor which favours dxo scores.

Holy shit, get off of Sony's dick you sniveling faggot.

>>3003316
Lolllll check out the triggered canikon fag. "but they told me sony had no lenses, but now they have the best lenses, but i bought into canikon so I'm angry"

>>3003316
Didn't the 70-200/2.8 GM flopped just recently?

>>3003318
Get off the hyperbole, moopco

>>3002845
it's great for printing snapshits on the spot. i use it on special occasions, and got a case for it so I can take it with me.

instant film fulfills the same purpose but that's really fucking expensive compared to selphy 4x6 prints

>>3003322
>instant film fulfills the same purpose but that's really fucking expensive compared to selphy 4x6 prints
The quality is also different. A Selphy has actually good prints. Instant film doesn't look quite so hot.

>>3003319
Many places have tested it and said how great it is, lens rentals got a copy, had difficulties mounting it that they admitted to (they have a special rig to test every lens equally), the results showed a massive decentreing and the article was published saying that these are not the results they're going to give out officially because they're faulty. Just look at the charts they did, left is kinda sharp, rights Completely out of focus.

Other tests of the lens have shown it to have some advantages over canikon in bokeh and sharpness.

Basically, any small problem shown on the internet about sony, from them not warrantying bodies dropped in the sea to a lens that couldn't be tested properly, a small subset of people get very excited and act like an isolated event is endemic and the end of sony.

Why they are so bitter about the company that provides them with all the internals to their camera, are pushing the boundaries, encouraging better competition and bringing out products that not only rival canikon for their usability and iq, but also leica for its compactness and high quality options.is beyond me. Except of course they're pissed at the highly likely scenario of wanting to change ecosystems.

>>3003328
lensrentals got a copy, it flopped, they were not sure about the results so they tested more copies and the results were consistent. They tested the same environment on Canon and Nikon lenses, same arrangement and they performed much better.
It is time to face the cold hard facts that Sony made a huge mistake in designing the 70-200/2.8 GM. Either the optics or the construction precision or both are not on par with it's price. A 10 years old 70-200/2.8 design runs circles around it for gods sake!

>>3002986
It's a budget version of the main Autoreflex T series, so it's fine for a beginner's camera. Personally I'd get a T because nowadays the price difference is marginal and you get a much more solid body with additional slow speeds compared to the TC. Hexanon lenses are great, any fast 50mm will do. The f/1.4 57mm is amazing if you can afford one. The 2.8 35mm is also highly recommended.

>>3003319

But it didn't? It has rave reviews except for lensrentals which fucked up and admitted to fucking up the testing.

Just wait for DxO to test it properly.

>>3003348
>DXO
You mean the blatant pseudo science/paid review site? No thanks, I have a brain.

>>3003355

Lens rentals is okay since it says Sony is bad (even though they admit the results are flawed) but DxO is not because they say its good?

top kek

Why are people this desperate for Sony to fail?

>>3003357
desu I'm pissed off because EVF's have made photography too easy, there should be an element of skill, which a real camera has. All Sony shooters are just fake wannabe's that don't know what they're doing.

>>3003358

It's just an easier way to understand. You make it sound that EVF takes all the skill out of photography. It's just another tool to help you get the results you want

>>3003358

This is a false flag, right? No one could be this salty...

Is a mirrorless like the a 6000 worth buying for travel etc if I already have a mid-level DSLR?

>>3003362
Buy a compact instead like the LX-100, X100T, X-70 or RX100

>>3003363
lx100 is shit. huge and cropped.
get the lx10.

>>3003362
just sell your canikun.

>>3003370
>just sell your canikun.
What if he has a Pentax?

>>3002821
well kek'd, m8

>>3003373
Good idea though. It's a bit of a hassel rotating it into the right orientation for the right composition.

>>3003362

Depends on the person really.

You will either fall in love with the a6000 and never use your dslr again (which is quite common since many people seem to outdated entry level Canikon).

Or you will find it too big for every day carry, and figure if you need a strap you might as well carry the dslr, leaving the mirrorless camera to gather dust.

I personally have my mirrorless in my bag pretty much everyday. I,need to carry a backpack or at least a mesaner bag everyday so it takes zero effort to just throw it in. I find no reason to carry my (somewhat outdated) DSLR when the mirrorless is considerably smaller and has equal (and better in some areas) performance.

>>3003362
a mid DSLR like the D5500 or the D750 can be more reliable, in my opinion.
Also it depends on your lenses.

>>3003375
>fall in love with the a6000
It's a goddamn camera, a consumer product, a tool, not a goddamn person! How deranged are you really?

>>3003377

It is a figure of speech, broski.

You don't have a favored tool?

>>3003378
I think you are taking it too seriously, bro. These are cameras not love items. For that there is the Bad Dragon company.

So guys, I took a trip to the thrift store and found a lens:
a Yashica 70-210mm 1:4, for 25€
I did some research and there is almost nothing on this lens.
One guy doing a video of him holding it
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Ve4Mf42PHo
And two ebay-articles, none of which give further info
http://www.ebay.com/itm/VINTAGE-JAPAN-YASHICA-DSB-ZOOM-70-210mm-1-4-CAMERA-LENS-OBJECTIVE-/262773376972?hash=item3d2e8387cc:g:c88AAOSw44BYCzDT
Can't even find out the mount, it looks like MD, but then again I dont really know much about it.
I don't have an adapter for it yet this much I know, so I could get the lens for around 45€ with adapter factored in. The lens in the store showed no signs of use, it was perfectly sqeuaky clean, like fresh out of the box, not even the "passed" sticker had any wear on it from gripping or such.

Should i go for it? I'd do a review on it.
I already have a Canon FD 200mm 1:3.5 , so I'd have something to compare it to, but I don't really NEED it.
What intruiges me is that itMIGHT be constant aperture (which I dont really believe it does) and that is pretty cool for videos, which I mostly do. 70-210mm is a good range for birding etc (on an MFT body)

Any suggestions, insights or infos?

>>3003438
I have a similar one, Pentor 70-210/4, internal zoom outer focus. Similar build and similarly elusive. And a huge piece of turd of a lens, CA out the ass, soft even for the shittiest kind of film, wouldn't use it for snapshits let alone for portraits.
It is just sitting in my cupboard of purgatory, never to be taken out for a shoot but not throwing it out yet because it is in nice condition, still has decorative value.
Try it out, report back, if it is shit you can still use it as decoration.

>>3003438
>>3003442
BTW if you are interested in an unknown but definitely turd of a lens I can send the Pentor for postage fee only.

>>3003444
>>3003442
No thanks, already have a Hanimex/Soligor 35-70mm 2.5 MACRO, boy that's a turd, It made me uninterested in MacroPhotography. That's what I get for chasing the lowest f-number.
I still dream of the day that I find a dumb old lady throwing out her kid's old Photostuff for 20 bucks a piece and I can snatch myself a nice gem.
But until then....eh.

>>3003448
Look for a Tamron Adaptall macro lens, that will satisfy your macro needs

>>3002756
Daily reminder that all affordable tripods are made in China

>>3003450
Dayily reminder that 90% of everything that's not food is made in china.

>>3003362
It or some other E-mount camera probably just replace your DSLR if you wanted lighter weight all along. But I guess you could do that.

File: 16129230_1256055374471525_1260139579_o.jpg (95KB, 2048x1537px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 2048x1537px

Hey, I'm looking at buying this used 55-210 that has some fungus on the front and rear elements (pic related).

What I'm asking is:
1. Is it safe to keep with my other lens that are clean? Or, if not:

2. Is it safe to keep with my other lens that are clean inside a dry cabinet?

3. Or perhaps it's a risk and I should just skip it?

>>3002748
Q666C/Q999C or Dic&Mic E302C.

Yea, these will actually be carbon tripods.

>>3003472
> 1. Is it safe to keep with my other lens that are clean?
Identify the fungus and reason why it spread in the lens... or just assume that no.

> 2. Is it safe to keep with my other lens that are clean inside a dry cabinet?
Actually dry usually doesn't allow for any large fungus to grow.

>3. Or perhaps it's a risk and I should just skip it?
Either way, it's a cheap 55-210 that you'd have to disassemble and clean successfully. You're not gonna want to shoot so much fungus.

Buy a new, clean one instead if you're not confident about the disassembly and cleaning.

>>3003450
>used Manfrotto
>quality, affordable and made in Italy
Okay the last part is not very reassuring but at least it's not chinkshit.

>>3003449
There are A LOT for lenses that fit that name.
Which one do you mean?

>>3003489
Try the SP MF 90mm F2.8 MACRO (72B) or the SP 90mm f/2.5 (52B/52BB)
user review pages:
http://www.pentaxforums.com/userreviews/tamron-sp-mf-90mm-f2-8-macro-1-1-72b.html
http://www.pentaxforums.com/userreviews/tamron-adaptall-2-sp-90mm-f-2-5-52b.html

>>3003490
The 72B is the same optics as the newer AF pre-VC version macro lens without the AF drive
The other one is slightly older design but still sharp as fuck in macro mode but you might going to need an extension tube to reach 1:1 ratio.

>>3003490
>>3003491
Okay, thanks for the info.

>>3003494
Happy to help, bro

>>3003479
>Actually dry usually doesn't allow for any large fungus to grow.

Would you consider the growth in the photo to be "large"? I have old Canon FD lenses that are worse, actually.

>Buy a new, clean one instead if you're not confident about the disassembly and cleaning.

Yeah, I suppose I should just buy a new one. My manual skills are horrible.

>>3003510
I would throw the fuckers away and wash hands 3 times afterwards

>>3003510
>Would you consider the growth in the photo to be "large"?
Yea, I would. This is going to be very visible on a photo.

> Yeah, I suppose I should just buy a new one. My manual skills are horrible.
Probably. Or at least one without fungus or dirt inside.

It's a kit lens for the two lens A6000 kit, so surely someone will sell theirs undamaged.

>>3003380
You don't shove your Canon 70-200mm up your butt?

>>3003450
Yeah and the 3LTs are among them, but at least the design is done by actual photographers who engage with the English-speaking community and take lots of feedback from them. I've met the 3LT crew at tradeshows several times (which is how I've played around with the gear) and I was impressed with the people and the product.

Notably I thought their ballhead was a much better product than anything I've seen included with a Benro or similar.

File: Sigma_50-500mm_f4-6.3.jpg (72KB, 1024x733px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 1024x733px

Is the Sigma 50-500 f4.5-6.3 DG OS HSM actually any good at wildlife photography when shooting on the longer end? Or is the length just kind of a gimmick, with Tamron/Canon/Nikon/Pentax/etc being what's actually good?

>>3003556

It's shit, but surely you are too, so go for it.

File: _IMG5192.jpg (704KB, 1200x798px) Image search: [Google]

704KB, 1200x798px

>>3003556
If you know what you are doing then it won't bother you. You have to accept that it is a consumer long tele zoom and you won't get the same results as from a long tele prime like a 600/4. There are backgrounds that are no matter what you use will look bad, and most importantly the long focal length is no substitute to getting close. You still have to get close for a good shot.
When you accept these then the 50-500 is an actually good and very versatile lens. The OS is superb, focusing is quick, accurate and silent and compared to similar focal length primes it is much more portable. With a bit of practice you can successfully handhold it.
Pic related, shot this with my 50-500 OS HSM, 500mm, subject is around 300m from me. Middle of the field, no hiding place.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB

File: IMGP2639-2.jpg (563KB, 1200x798px) Image search: [Google]

563KB, 1200x798px

>>3003567
Subject much closer before doing microadjustment on the AF, shitty onboard flash.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.6 (Windows)
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2016:06:21 18:37:46
Exposure Time	1/180 sec
F-Number	f/8.0
Lens Aperture	f/8.0
Exposure Bias	-0.7 EV
Focal Length	500.00 mm
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Subject Distance Range	Distant View

File: IMGP3191-2.jpg (847KB, 1200x798px) Image search: [Google]

847KB, 1200x798px

>>3003568
IQ is excellent around 300mm

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.6 (Windows)
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2016:07:06 21:20:07
Exposure Time	1/500 sec
F-Number	f/5.6
Lens Aperture	f/5.6
Exposure Bias	-0.7 EV
Focal Length	280.00 mm
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Subject Distance Range	Distant View

>>3003567
>>3003568
>>3003570
I know most wildlife photography you need to get close to do. But there's a league of difference between 90mm close, 200mm close, and 500mm close. I also know that most images will need to be cropped; I didn't realize the background could be so poor with that lens (your fox image).

>>3003567
>>3003556
Also note that it can become heavy after a while so investing in a good strap is mandatory, I use the Peak Design wide strap with it. Comfy, versatile and slides quickly out of your way.
It's little brother the 150-500 actually has worse IQ.

>>3003576
I wouldn't really try to do handholding with that lens. It's pretty much necessary to use a tripod/monopod with those things, isn't it?

I've got a blackrapid strap I really like, but again, handholding with that lens seems unwise at the longer focal lengths.

>>3003575
It's the shrubbery mostly. Ask Ambush how his 600/4 performs in similar conditions.
It can do the same thing, this is why I told you have to get closer. I couldn't because moving an inch would've spooked the fox so I did what I could.
Some backgrounds just inherently bad, you can't do a damn thing about it.
This shot made me reconsider getting a 300mm prime but fuck it, the Sigma performs as good at 300mm and if I can get closer the shot will be better. I just need to practice more, and when I deserve a new lens I will get one.

File: _IMG4901-2.jpg (713KB, 1200x798px) Image search: [Google]

713KB, 1200x798px

>>3003578
You can handhold it. A tripod helps tremendously, in this shot the bird is close to 70m away, cropped heavily, OS turned off, 500mm focal length, on a tripod.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.7 (Windows)
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2016:11:27 23:47:58
Exposure Time	1/400 sec
F-Number	f/8.0
Lens Aperture	f/8.0
Exposure Bias	-0.7 EV
Focal Length	500.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Subject Distance Range	Distant View

>>3003556
It's "any" good, I guess. But not actually good.

The question is whether you're willing to pay for actually good.

>>3003578
also these were handheld
>>3003567
>>3003568
>>3003570

If you know what you are doing and know the lens limits then you can produce good results. Not bad from a lens that costs less than a third of similar focal length professional primes

File: IMGP3812-2.jpg (617KB, 1200x798px) Image search: [Google]

617KB, 1200x798px

Oh, and it is a good pseudo macro for bugs while you're out in the field

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.6 (Windows)
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2016:08:02 21:51:45
Exposure Time	1/200 sec
F-Number	f/8.0
Lens Aperture	f/8.0
Exposure Bias	-0.7 EV
Focal Length	200.00 mm
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Subject Distance Range	Close View

File: IMG19253.jpg (4MB, 3161x2095px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 3161x2095px

>>3003582
Yeah. I'm just mostly considering handholding at the heavy weight. It's good to know it's still fairly sharp.

>>3003584
I'm generally not able to drop $2000 on a lens. I'm looking at used copies of this lens, to keep costs down.

>>3003585
I'm ok. I wouldn't say I'm a spectacular shot, I just enjoy getting outside and shooting, when I can. I took this the other day with a 90mm.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	PENTAX
Camera Model	PENTAX K-5
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 4.3 (Windows)
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	135 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	1080 dpi
Vertical Resolution	1080 dpi
Image Created	2017:01:15 16:37:13
Exposure Time	1/350 sec
F-Number	f/11.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	400
Lens Aperture	f/11.0
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	90.00 mm
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Distant View

>>3003589
>I just enjoy getting outside and shooting
Me too, that is why I got this lens. It is not for critical uses like my 70-200/2.8 so it's shortcomings don't bother me. It's a neat fun-lens.
I just got a lens coat for it from a UK camo company, I can't wait for the exams period to finish so I can give it a go.
And for Pentax your other options are the DA* 300 which will need a TC for this focal length and the 55-300 which can't use a TC because it gets too dark.

>>3003592
Yeah, exactly. I'm not against shifting lens systems entirely, or picking up a second body in a different system just for wildlife stuff, but it's much more cost effective to stick with Pentax. I only really have a good Tamron 28-75 and this Tamron 90mm. They've been serving me pretty well for a good long while, since I upgraded out of using the old manual lenses I had lying around. I just know this is probably the best option I have for a 500mm wildlife lens.

>>3003589
> I'm generally not able to drop $2000 on a lens
I guess that or the 150-600 Contemporary or such are more or less about as good as it's going to get for a ~$1k or less budget now and in the near future.

>>3003594
There is the A* 600/4 but it is manual focus and weighs a metric ton so tripod only in a well built blind. Not really portable. And costs it's weight in gold.

>>3003597
>150-600
Not available for Pentax sadly. I would've got that instead if it came in K-mount.

>>3003597
>>3003600
Tamron makes that 150-600 right? It does suck they didn't do it in a K-mount, but at least it leaves the field a little simpler.

Getting a 600/4 would be neat, but it would be such a bitch to get an old photographer to separate from it.

>>3003600
>Not available for Pentax sadly. I would've got that instead if it came in K-mount.
Missed the K-mount bit. I guess that just leaves you with the other one, yea.

>>3003602
> Tamron makes that 150-600 right?
No, Sigma. The "Contemporary" monicker isn't used by anyone else.

>>3003605
Ah, I see. I'm not the most familiar with Sigma lenses. I know Tamron makes a lens that's somewhat long with a similar range, but it's also not available in a K-mount.

>>3003602
Yeah, with business bullshit only the end user suffers.
That 600/4 will be heavy as fuck, you will need at least a monopod, a set of bean bags and carrying all that shit around to simply do some hobby wildlife snapshits... This is why these zooms exist. Maybe a D-FA 150-450 but that costs more than the double of the 50-500.

>>3003612
Yeah. It sounds like going for the Sigma really is my best option.

I've got a cheap tripod that was a gift with a Benro ball head I picked up to help with it, at least. It'll be a while before I can sit down and buy it, but at least I know for sure what I'm looking for.

>>3003609
Yea, they even "just" (end of 2016) made an updated model.

I would still be most interested in the Sigma myself, seems to be the best of the bunch overall, but ... well, not an issue if you're on the K-mount, I guess.

>>3003620
Well, a new updated model is great for me. It means people will be offloading their prior years model because they have latest and greatest syndrome.

Another plus for the Sigma (for me) is it can double as a nice versatile refractor scope on a tracking mount (soon...mnnh), easy to focus manually.
You just need to find a way to stop the zoom creep, silicon band or an insert on the outside of the extending barrel... this video is what got my attention
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-_vAnJb_ck

>>3003627
I wonder... that specific new model doesn't really seem to have any primary reasons to convince people to upgrade:
> https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/Tamron-SP-150-600mm-F5-63-Di-VC-USD-G2-Model-A022-Canon-on-Canon-EOS-5DS-R-versus-Tamron-SP-150-600mm-F-5-63-Di-VC-USD-Model-A011-Canon-on-Canon-EOS-5DS-R__1751_1009_1263_1009

Usually new lenses are sharper and sometimes brighter, but apparently not this one.

>>3003635
Probably other kinds of improvements like better OS, better AF or just simply designed for cheaper manufacturing. You never know with Sigma, they can do retarded decisions like some of the Art line is botched due to poor quality electronics, Excellent optics coupled with bad plastic parts so it breaks as soon as you mishandle it just a little.

>>3003641
Sigma had a few bad electronics / firmwares (figures that's why they make their devices pretty systematically updateable in terms of firmware).

And maybe some bad AF motors. Did that happen on Art lenses, though? I thought it was before.

But I don't recall any breaking plastic parts.

>>3003645
Not all of them. Some of the Art series, some of the regular ones. It all comes down to a few bad designs, but in those lines it is pretty much a plaque. Like the 30/1.4 lenses, the old ones are reliable although not as good optically while the 30/1.4 Art line has excellent optics and electronics failures.
On the plastic parts just ask Eggy about his Sigma zoom. If I recall he fixed it with epoxy before the service center bothered to answer.

>>3003645
I have a Sigma lens that is known to have its OS break.
And behold, the OS broke about two years after the warranty ran out.

The manual explicitly states I had to turn the OS off before switching the camera off.
But I could never remember to do that.
So I guess that's what broke it.

>>3003659
I always keep the OS off because Pentax SR but it's a good advice. I'll remember it.

>>3003171
from what i've seen, the sales tended to be long term temporary- the kits were 550 for the longest time but now that i'm looking again they've jumped back up to 700. the used nex-7 i found on bh for 400, hence my number there. i may try to go ebay or similar for a used a6000. many used websites i checked don't have them. i see many a6300 and a6500's, even some a7ii's but the a6000 seems to only be common on ebay. i would love to try both hands on, and intend to if i can find a nex-7, since my local best buy keeps an a6000 on display. thanks again for the advice!

Anyone have experience with the Yongnuo 50mm/f1.8? My kit lens doesn't produce particularly crisp images. I want a cheap portrait lens for my d5200, but also want autofocus. I can get the Yongnuo for ~100 cad and the nikkor for ~250 cad

Not sure if the IQ is that different but at the same time I don't want to buy a lens that will give me images of similar quality to my kit lens

>>3003703
Should've went with Pentax, or with a D7000. The screwdrive 50/1.8 are much cheaper.

>>3003472

That is a six year old lens, how the fuck did it get fungused so fast?

>>3003479
the fungus won't show up in your picture at all.

>>3003720
he jizzed on it.

>>3003741
> the fungus won't show up in your picture at all.
This isn't a small area, and not a super low resolution camera.

Of course you're not going to get a crystal clear image of fungal spores because it's not going to be nearly in focus, but it should show up.

As a blurry darker blotch or odd overexposure (depends on what's happening and where the sun is at). And you almost certainly don't like that on most of your images.

I'm in a bit of a pickle.

I own an Olympus OM-D EM5 i and a Pentax K20-D and a few lenses for each. They're both good cameras but I feel like I'm missing out, is it worth it to try to sell everything I have and upgrade?

Anyone have any experience with F-Stop bags? Looking into getting one over the Flipside 400 I currently have and am wondering if the cost is worth it.

>>3003840
>I feel like I'm missing out
On what?

>>3003706
Admittedly I didn't look at the Pentax but the d7000 was way over my budget. That's why I'm also hoping I can get a cheap lens without sacrificing too much.

>>3003868
I feel like if I sold both I could get a single camera that's better than either.

>>3003903
Maybe that is the case, but I figure you could also sell one and just get a better lens or something.

Well, YMMV depending on what things you actually want to be better.

File: Screenshot_20170117-072530~01.png (947KB, 1080x1057px) Image search: [Google]

947KB, 1080x1057px

I was told the bottom thing was an AA battery pack but I can't find it on Google.
Can anybody help me?

>>3003959
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=canon+flash+aa+battery+pack
Fuck's sake

Is there any way I could use a Graduated ND filter with a Ricoh GR?

does anyone have the pentax k3 ii?

tell me about how you like it

>>3004012
Same as the K-3 but without the onboard flash, has built-in GPS and Astrotracer and pickleshift.
Other than these it is pretty much the same.
Comfy, well thought out ergonomics, UI and workflow, has loads of leverage on exposure, nice and even noise texture, good noise performance on higher ISOs.
Cheap lenses for starters and good compatibility with older ones if you are on a budget. $500 for a 70-200/2.8 and you can pretty much make money for the rest. Good fun camera as well, just put on a $100 35/2.4 lens if you go on a holiday. This lens is highly recommended to get early on.
So far I don't see any shortcomings, been using my K-3 for two years. Portraits, nature, wildlife it can pretty much do all of it. Screwdrive AF is noisy but I don't really care as long as it is working accurately, which it does. Newer lenses have silent AF drives.
What else can I say? It's a nice camera, nice to use, I don't feel that it is holding me back in any way.

Hello, i just bought a Pentax 645 today for cheap and i need to get a lens now. Which one should i take ? I am in Tokyo and will go in some shop around shinjuku tomorrow to find one. Thanks

File: 7005205629_c0e4347b2c_z.jpg (113KB, 640x441px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 640x441px

This 50 1.2 is real cool, you guys like it or is it shit these days?

>>3004050
It's unusably soft until about 1.8, the rendering is a bit of a mess. Not that there's any decent canon 50mm lenses.

>>3004052
yeah its very shallow. ive never got a decent portrait with auto focus. should it be only used in a with a tripod/studio? im just screwing around. but some are aight.

>>3004053
oh, and all the vignette correction.
:(

sigma art 50?

File: 50.png (106KB, 961x447px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 961x447px

>>3004050

Canon EF 50mm f/1.2L USM? It is passable, but even the shitty SEL50F18F is better.

>>3004027
ok thanks!

im pretty close to selling my fuji x-e1 for one. i can get one with the 18-55 mm kit lens for $670 second hand, though im not sure if its a good deal

>>3004056
>SEL50F18
considing jump from 2 cheap canon lenses and 600d to sony a7 with 50mm
or rx100 mark somthing because fuck lens mounts

>>3004058

The Sony 50mm is optically better, but the autofocus sucks.

Have to spend like $800 to get the good FF Sony 50mm.

>>3004059
The af on the cheap sony is a FUCK ton better than the af on the canon 1.2

File: Capture.jpg (24KB, 331x424px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 331x424px

>>3004063
yeah, this is my max $

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Photographer	Trent
Image-Specific Properties:

>>3004063

The Canon is that bad? Fuck.

The Sony got considerably better with a firmware update. It is worth considering now.

>>3004065

I have seen the a7ii body as low as $1,200 refurb, usually around $1,500. The SEL50F18F should be around $250.

I think the a7ii is worth the difference unless you find the a7 dirt cheap.

>>3004066
yeah, just remembered the stabilization.
i was checking the prices of the a7 a bit a year ago and not much has changed. pls a9

File: 2.jpg (427KB, 1009x1009px) Image search: [Google]

427KB, 1009x1009px

>>3004067
thanks>>3004066
>>3004063
>>3004059
peeps

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2017:01:05 00:42:56
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	1009
Image Height	1009

>>3004067

a9 will be $3.5k at least. You could wait til spring for the rumored a7iii, probably wont be much more than current a7ii.

a7 prices haven't changed much due to the earthquake damage to Sony's sensor fabs I'd guess.

Refurb is the only way to go if you want to save money.

File: Capture.jpg (190KB, 1845x890px) Image search: [Google]

190KB, 1845x890px

>>3004071
all my $ and no lens
might go 100rx to pocket. iv been an asshole and used my phone the whole time because i began to hate carring a camera everywhere

oh shit we getting deep

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Photographer	Trent
Image-Specific Properties:

File: 17080753629_1532ddebe2_b.jpg (139KB, 1024x576px) Image search: [Google]

139KB, 1024x576px

>>3004072

>AU monies

I was talking bout burgerlands bucks.

Unlikely you will get a deal unless you go to Japan and buy one while on Vacation.

RX100 is supposed to be fantastic, a little more thab I would want to spend on a compact though. Also look at the QX1, getting a little old, but my wife has one she keeps in her bag and loves the shit out of.

Fuji also has some prime lens compacts that are supposed to be nice.

I've been thinking of getting into photography after taking a class while I was in Japan. Are those online DSLR bundles for about $450 worth it, or are they just a meme? At max, I want to spend $500

>>3004074
It's a meme.
Get the D3300 naked and the ~$150 35mm f/1.8 prime on side, you won't get any better with 500 bucks.

>>3004074

a6000

>>3004065
Honestly bro, ditch the kit lens, jsut go for a 2nd hand a7ii with an old adapted lens, the ibis adds huge amounts of value to old manual focus glass and the pdaf is pretty essential for good af performance when you can afford a new lens (and means the mc-11 and canon lenses give you a great price/performance). I'd only recommend the A7 if you were purely doing tripod based work. There may be an A7iii/A9 announced in february at cp, hopefully a7ii prices will drop due to it.

>>3004072
>looks at ebay australia for a cheap 50mm
$70 for a knackered pentax 50mm f2? WTF. I've got like 5 of those sitting here gathering dust, lel.

>>3004066
The canon isn't only really slow to af, but normally misses on canon bodies, it had it's time in the film era where small focusing errors, chromabs and other optical flaws were less of an issue and super soft smooth bokeh was very important. Check out some samples of the sony 55mm if you are after superior bokeh with a fast falloff and super sharp in focus areas.

File: Screenshot_2017-01-17-16-42-26-1.png (101KB, 480x460px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 480x460px

>Current camera is a D3300
>Seriously thinking of selling it and buying a D90 instead

I'd do the change without losing any money, and besides a better handling it would open me a world of old, cheap AF lenses that otherwise I wouldn't afford.

My main concerns are the low maximum iso od the D90 compared to the D3300 (3200 vs 12800, expandable to 6400 vs 25600) and the loss of external mic. input and video quality.

Thoughts /p/?

>>3002684
But the XPro2 has an EVF as well?

>>3004111

Follow the comment thread, newbro.

>>3004106
>Video
D3300 wins hands down, D90 is pretty horrible on todays standards. I'd much rather use a 2016 phone cam than a D90 for video.
>Iso
The noise levels are pretty much on par when you pixel peep at 100%. D3300 has twice the resolution though so you'll get the advantage if you downsample the images to 12mp.
Lower max iso is a non-issue. You shouldn't be using iso 12800 with either of these cameras.
>Alternatives
Save up for the D7000, you'll get much better video than the D90 and fairly comparable image quality to the D3300 (D7000 has actually better dynamic range at base iso than the D3300)

>>3004106
Yea, the D90 will have even worse ISO noise than the D3300.

Plus the ISO 100 setting is oddly basically ISO 200 sensitivity-wise, whether you want it or not.

Also, lower DR and so on. It's just an old as fuck sensor. Sell some shit, buy a D7200?

>>3004057
The body, yes. The lens, nah. If you get it then get at least the 35/2.4 babby prime and aim that kit lens towards the trash, or ebay. Get a DA 16-85 if you can ti replace it or a Sigma/Tamron 17-50/2.8
I heard the new collapsible kit lens is better but I wouldn't replace a kit lens with another kit lens.

Is there any way to flash infrared autofocus on mft? Else I'm buying into Nikon

>>3004213
what

want to buy a little pocket cam for nephew for his vacation

there's this Canon Powershot g5
>ccd sensor, 5mp, vf, display

Olympus pen epl1
>cmos, 12,2mp

which one should i get ? both at the same price, 2nd hand.
regards

>>3003374
It makes framing quite the breeze aswell. Seeing that the prism has no other marks or indications other than the center circle that displays correct focus

>>3004222
Print the four orientations in different color so you don't have to rotate the mask.

>>3004221
Probably the Olympus, but I'd actually just pick a sports camera - Yi 4k, ELE Explorer, GitUp Git 2 or something if I wanted to present a budget camera for travel.

Can you get the flash's infrared autofocus on mft?

>>3004213
What good would it do you? Most m43 cameras are CDAF anyways. Also no. Carry a flashlight.

>>3004237
Get a flash with a normal LED AF assist light.

>>3004237
Get a A7S II if you want low light AF and silent shutter to shoot more unintrusively in the dark.

If you're gonna fire a flash anyhow, it almost never will matter much that you got a red light illuminator or some constant light shining first in order to to lock conventional AF.

>>3004237
Most flashes have IR/red assist lights, it can still help CDAF

File: 50AF-1_FlashUnit.jpg (73KB, 750x1000px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 750x1000px

>>3004238
It would help me to focus in the dark
>>3004241
I've already got one with ir
>>3004245
I don't care about the silent shutter.
I don't understand the second sentence. The point of IR is obviously to help you lock the focus.
>>3004250
Mine has an IR light like pic related but it doesn't work

>>3004285
>I don't understand the second sentence. The point of IR is obviously to help you lock the focus.
The point is you can -and on many other camera systems, will- do it with red or white visible light.

>>3004339
You mean the red light on the camera? Is it equivalent to the flash's?

>>3004339
PS: The modeling light on the 50AF-1 is visible light and the AF assist red visible light.

AFAIK it has no IR focus assist.

File: Untitled.png (3MB, 2000x2000px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2000x2000px

I was gifted a Pentax DA 50-200mm lens but I can't use it for my film camera. How much could I trade it in for? I have the box and everything for it still.

>>3003579

Yeah, some backgrounds just look like shit. I'd have gotten away with it a bit more at f/4, but it would still be there, and the fox would still be taking up a small part of the frame. If I stopped down a bit, it would look pretty much the same at that distance.

If you want subject isolation with nice backgrounds at any aperture, you have to make sure you're as close to your subject as possible, with the background as far away as possible. It goes for any lens.

600 f/4 makes for some good shots when you get very close, which is how I use it. You just have to prepare for being very limited in terms of composition, and the challenge of tracking a fast moving subject with a heavy lens and narrow FOV. From a distance, it's just going to get you mediocre shots like anything else... it isn't magic.

Up close though, 300 - 400 f/2.8 are basically sorcery.

>>3003579

BTW, >>3004359 wasn't for you. I know you know all this... just for any noobs reading.

>>3004352

Dunno... you didn't tell us what the body is. ;)

>>3004362
Ricoh XR7 owo

Hey guys, just got a nikon d3300 as a starter body. What do you recommend for one all around lens with a budget of $800?

>>3004352
http://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/showcat.php?mcats=all&what=titledesc&si=Pentax+DA+50-200mm&showposts=0&firstpost=1

Anywhere you guys like to shop for used gear online, thinking of picking up a couple of primes (canon 50 1.4, canon 85 f1.8) I know Keh, but I wanna shop around a bit.

>>3004458
The lens it came with

>>3004460
Would a low key camera gear exchange store offer me that much, though?

>>3004458
Sigma Art 18-35mm f/1.8?

It will do what it does quite well; but like all other lenses it won't do everything

>>3004458
The 35mm 1.8 is the must have for any Nikon, and it's cheap as fuck

>>3004582
It's €180, not cheap

I need some help guys.
>Bought canon 300v + 28-80mm
>Bought CR2 batteries
>Camera arrives, batteries don't fit the compartment.

Am I doing something wrong? Is there a specific type of CR2 battery for this camera?

>>3004594
That's very cheap for a new lens that doesn't suck dick

>>3004594
>It's €180, not cheap
What? It's dirt cheap for a lens this good, man. You will not find anything comparable for this price. But try if you want.

>>3004603
Pentax DA 35/2.4, $100

>>3004604
>Pentax Lens
>for a nikon D3300
ok

>>3004606
Sorry, my mistake. Still you can buy the 35/1.8 used to bring the costs down

>>3004610
Yeah, I guess you could.

File: is-someone-out-there-stan-moniz.jpg (145KB, 1000x668px) Image search: [Google]

145KB, 1000x668px

Full Frame Mirrorless 20mm F2.
Tack sharp corners.
0 Coma artifact s wide open.

ZEISS BTFO
SIGMA BTFO
TAMRON BTFO
SAMYANG BTFO

T O K I N A
O
K
I
N
A

F I R I N
I
R
I
N

>>3004617

It's also $800. If you're shooting this stuff I don't get why you wouldn't just get the 12mm/2 Rokinon

Even on full frame that looks great

>>3004617
>>3004623

Or Voigtlander 10mm for $200 more.

File: 1456373752676.png (6KB, 390x470px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 390x470px

>>3004617
>and his photos are still trash

>>3004625

Definitely. If I was going to spend that much I'd rather have a voigtlander

File: 1479771797089.jpg (131KB, 1000x613px) Image search: [Google]

131KB, 1000x613px

>>3004623
>>3004625
Mate. Rokinon is already part of the BTFO brigade along with Samyang.

Declickable aperture ring, and it's not the badly implemented Zeiss method where you have to remove the lens, it's right there as a switch.

And even though 800 bucks sounds like a lot to you, it's still only half the price Zeiss is charging.

File: 1414119283162.jpg (227KB, 1536x1921px) Image search: [Google]

227KB, 1536x1921px

>>3004628
>Rokinon is already part of the BTFO brigade along with Samyang

>>3004630
Rokinon/Samyang is b0ss, dude
Still waiting on the Venus Optics Laowa results to decide on them too

File: 1.jpg (78KB, 622x350px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 622x350px

>>3004630
Rokinon is Korean Plebe
>>3004630
Laowa is Chinese Plebe

You guys will never know the feeling of superior of Japanese technology.

Just look at DAT physical declick aperture switch.
Dat electronic trontacts for EXIF, without paying a fortune to Zeiss.
Can you plebs even appreciate such beautiful things in life?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	paint.net 4.0.5
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	96 dpi
Vertical Resolution	96 dpi

>>3004628
isn't rokinon and samyang the same company?

why do they keep using so many names everywhere, they're never going to build up their brand like this.

File: 1408392674322.png (76KB, 625x626px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 625x626px

>>3004057
>Rokinon is already part of the BTFO brigade along with Samyang.

>>3004635

Rokinon's the newest name, but they used to be region based

File: 1.jpg (99KB, 622x350px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 622x350px

>>3004635
It's just a little Korean copy cat. They will never amount to anything. They will soon be out-copy-cat'd by Chinese copy cats.

They will never have the same technology Japanese lens makers have.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	paint.net 4.0.5
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	96 dpi
Vertical Resolution	96 dpi

>>3004626
Post some of your shit, then

>>3004633
Why would you put that fine lens on such a subpar body though?

File: IMG_20160305_132616.jpg (211KB, 768x960px) Image search: [Google]

211KB, 768x960px

>>3004639

>>3004640

f*ck u bro

>>3004633

What is that?

>>3004640
>>3004643
Fun fact, Tokina's CEO loves the A7Rii, it's his personal camera now.

And it the only reason the company's roadmap over the next 4 years is a bunch of Prime and Zoom lenses for FF E-mount.

>>3004643
A bar of soap by the looks of it

File: snapshit.jpg (125KB, 1400x1150px) Image search: [Google]

125KB, 1400x1150px

>>3004639
sure thing

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.0 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2016:08:22 14:16:18

>>3004641
That's hot.

>>3004628
>Mate. Rokinon is already part of the BTFO brigade along with Samyang.
Yeah because nothing says quality like having to send back 3 different copies of a lens before you get one aligned properly.

>>3004640
Because wide lenses on mirrored bodies have to be gimped to fuck.

Enjoy every lens wider than 40mm having a light and iq sapping retrofocal design. Or get a sony.

I mean, if any other company had a full frame body with ibis and a choice of the best 3 sensors on the market and a no compromises approach to both body and lens design they might be worth considering. Even if someone did release a contender, sony have released more lenses than any other company ever in the last year, a trend they've been set on for the last 5 years.

It's over canikujitax are dead.