/gear/ - Gear Thread

>>3009349

>https://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Sony-FE-70-200mm-f-2.8-GM-OSS-lens-review

First for SEL70200GM being one of the greatest zoom lens made to date.

What do you think of the Canon EOS 1300D ?

>>3009414
Not good & not really good value. Same as anything Canon below a 80D.

Want to purchase a camera for street photography with a budget of around £1000 (plus/minus £50) sometime in the next few months. Any suggestions?

>>3009349

Asked in the last thread but it got lost.

I need a camera backpack. My goals are a general purpose bag that I can carry the following with:
Canon 6D with 24-70 2.8
70-200 2.8
150-500 5.6
iPad
Tripod
Chargers and wires.

Plenty of pockets, but I want to go as small and compact as possible for traveling. Ive been trying to find the "perfect" bag for a while now and haven't had much luck. I just want something that's comfortable and doesn't stick out like a hump.

If it's too much, I'd be okay with a bag that would fit just the 70-200 OR 150-500. I was looking at the peak design everyday backpack.

>>3009442
>3 zoom lenses
get 3 primes faggot

>>3009455
Tele primes are bigger, faggot

>>3009464
>implying the 150-500mm5.6 isn't huge af

First time poster here.. I've read the sticky but I'd like some help here.
I want to buy a camera for learning since i have absolutely no idea about photography.
I've been checking in my town and in the Internet and I found this deals

>CANON:
400d for €100
450d for €150-200 (dépends on the extra stuff it includes)
1100d for €180-220
>Nikon
D3000 for €180

I'd like to get something under €200, the cheaper the better (so if I get the camera stolen or something won't hurt); what do you think about this models?maybe you recommend something different or another Brand?

Thank you for your help

I am a nikonfag. Already have a 70-200 f4, 50, 18-35. Currently I am shooting a D7000. I want to move up to fx and I am looking at a D600 or D610. Budget is 1000 at the most. Poor college kid

>>3009513
I am so retarded I forgot my question. Is the D600 a good idea for a first fx or should I look at maybe a D750?

>>3009442
Try the Lowepro 500AW or the bigger bags. I know the 400AW is good for the 24-70, 70-200/2.8, body and flash and some other stuff.

>>3009516
D600 has literally no upgrades to the D7000 except the sensor. If you're happy with the AF and buffer as is, it's an alright upgrade.

If you want something snappier and surefooted, pick up a D700 or D750.

>>3009522
I mostly do landscape and portraits, so buffer really isn't an issue.

Other than the oil thing, Is there any real difference between the D600 and D610?

>>3009470
It is. I used to shoot a lot of water sports, often from the shore, and sometimes wildlife from a boat, So I've always found zoom to be helpful when the subject is continuously getting closer.
Maybe it's time to rethink my approach as I'm no longer shooting high school sports, but I'd still like a bag for travel that has decent room for glass, but doesn't scream tourist or camera bag.

Thanks faggot.

>>3009534
>shoot a lot of watersports
So you're Trumps secret photographer pal!~

>>3009545
Stop! Don't get him pissed!

>>3009433
A6500 perhaps? Though I do think the A6000 would do almost the same for street photography.

>>3009433
Fuji X100T or Ricoh GRII

>>3009564
A6500 is £1500. Though in a year or two it's probably closer to £300 when sony has released 17 successors with minor cosmetic changes and 3 new mounts.

>>3009566
Or a fuji x70 and a few batteries

>>3009612
Should be $1400 new; that's ~1100GBP even after the british pound crashed a while ago?

Anyhow, the ~$550 A6000 should do street almost as well. That and more/better glass might be a better choice.

>>3009612


I get the comment excessive succesors with minor cosmetic changes and only incremental hardware updates.

But where does the mount thing come from? Sony has actually been pretty good with mounts.

>>3009622
>>3009612

Definately.

a6000 with a few primes is your best bet. You can't really beat its performance when it comes to mirrorless without breaking $1k.

>>3009352
Lensrental is paid for by Canikon

>>3009623
> I get the comment excessive succesors with minor cosmetic changes and only incremental hardware updates.
"Only" incremental? What the fuck more would you expect, a sensor based on completely new technology and an entirely new and improved computer architecture every time?

Sony often threw in more upgrades and new stuff than Canon / Nikon did in their ~2-4 release cycle models.

Even between the A6000 and A6500, a lot was done. IBIS, different processor and buffer size quite many improvements to the exterior body, software changes, new sensor with more PDAF points... Can't really expect more?

>>3009625
>with a few primes
ones you would recommend? I can see sony lenses are quite expensive.

>>3009645
Not same anon but I myself very much like the sigma 30mm f/1.4 or sony 28mm f/2 plus 12mm Samyang f/2.

>>3009433
Get a micro four thirds camera. Lenses are smaller, you'll take it out more, plus they have more affordable lenses.

>>3009502
Why are you looking at such ancient cameras?

>>3009672
I'm a total noob when it comes to photography and I'd like to learn without paying much.
And that's what I've found in the range 100-200€
Maybe you can suggest me in what direction I should look

>>3009683
Once you learn a bit you'll want to start learning and doing more and an 8 year old camera might be okay to learn with, but it'll become outdated too quickly. Try to find a newer camera for 200

>>3009683
Just get a K-50 like everyone else

>>3009684
I see, I'll check what I can get for this price.
>>3009687
Is the k-50 for /p/ what the thinkpad is for /g/?

>>3009349
What's with the dinky shallow grip? Is this trying to be a Fuji XT-10 or whatever knockoff? Real cameras need a proper grip.

>>3009690
The K-50 is actually a good camera. And a beast as well for /out/ uses.

>>3009693
Grip available in 3 sizes.

>>3009690
>Is the k-50 for /p/ what the thinkpad is for /g/?
The analogy would probably more be like a A6500, D7200, K-3 II or something. A thinkpad isn't ultimately one of the very cheapest options; the K-50 is.

But it's a decent choice.

>>3009701
Bad analogy, those cameras are reliable workhorses, a thinkpad is not.

File: .png (302KB, 501x550px) Image search: [Google]

302KB, 501x550px

>>3009699
Still, why the fuck would you give a DSLR such a tiny grip in the first place? No benefit whatsoever, and likely also made the battery smaller.

>>3009711
>retro design
You can put on the bigger one if you want. It's basically a better Df

File: k01.png (171KB, 286x400px) Image search: [Google]

171KB, 286x400px

>>3009711
I guess the "pigfat SLR" meme is getting under Pentax's skin, especially since they failed not once but twice at making a mirrorless system.

>Used K70 for 500 eurobucks
>New is 650
tempting as fuck

>>3009751
>can only use old lenses with 1.5x crop
>"better Df"

I don't like Df, but that's bullshit.

File: 15972399_710179615809301_5725506494167486920_o.jpg (149KB, 1296x864px) Image search: [Google]

149KB, 1296x864px

What lens would u guys recommend me to get? I use a canon. Just any suggestions at all would be greatly appreciated. I just have the 18-55 mm lens and my 75-300 mm was stolen from me. Should I just repurchase the 300mm one or guat

[pic related]

>>3009755
Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 di vc. Good and not very expensive.

>>3009767
Yep, that's the best bang for the buck.
Even the non-vc version is very capable of capturing great images!

Is the 550d any good? Got one coming in the mail soon but have no clue what i am doing with canon. I currently shoot a d3300 but want to move to canon so i got a 550d to learn the ropes with

>>3009783
It's overall worse than even that weak D3300.

The only reason it could be considered better is because people made Magic Lantern. Not a small reason, but ultimately it doesn't fix that hardware.

Ehm, why didn't you check this before you ordered?

>>3009752
Mirrorless is not better design just a different one

>>3009783
You may have goofed unless you're video-centric. The D3300 is a better camera outright, you shouldn't have got a worse camera to learn Canon

>>3009795
> No longer needs a mechanically vulnerable mirror which is limited by its possible movement speed to get some PDAF measurements between photographs.
> Mechanically wearing part replaced with electronics.
> Size, weight and part number reduction.
I think it's a better design, but it's not significant enough to switch *everyone* over quickly.

>>3009797
I bought it used for £130. In good condition and can sell it on easily for that price again if i don't want to keep it. Was thinking get used to it then buy a 7D or a 60D with lenses.

File: .png (19KB, 576x282px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 576x282px

Pantax KP only does 390 shots on battery. What a joke. Shouldn't have downsized that grip.

>>3009559
You're a funny guy

>>3009823
>390 shots
>literally mirrorless tier battery life

>>3009800
One could counter that with the fact that the sensor is more exposed than with an SLR, and the slimmer body and EVF means you get measly batter life.

At the end of the day though they both have their pros and cons.

>>3009645

Any of the Sigmas. The wider Samyang/Rokinons.

The Sonys run around 300-400, but are worth it due to bove average IQ and OSS.

>>3009876

It's not like the sensor is likely to take damage unless you dosomething retarded, plus they are extremely easy to clean.

Being able to manually focus through OVF, then power on, shoot, and power off is a huge advantage when low on battery though.

>>3009876
> One could counter that with the fact that the sensor is more exposed than with an SLR
I don't think trying to make the mirror absorb an impact that would damage the sensor will end better?

> and the slimmer body and EVF means you get measly batter life
OVF could be done, though of course not easily those that see what the sensor sees. Not that there is much of a point to that.

And like those actually thin and light smartphones that can do 10h of video playback on one charge, cameras could have many hours of battery life.

They just opted for smaller batteries than most DSLR (and for some reason also usually worse hardware than smartphones).

Maybe so they could sell more batteries, maybe so they'd get bragging rights about being 40g lighter and save some bucks on the internals. I don't know.

>>3009884
>turn on camera
>turn off camera
>saving battery
Nigga, just leave it on. SLRs take only slightly more drain if at all with the meter in active vs. totally off. Turning it on and off forces the processor to go through the boot up process, as well as the ultrasonic cleaner (D3400 owners excluded) to do its thing.

>>3009889

Couldn't you just shut off al screens on a mirrorless and have effectively (without seeing what you are focusing) the same thing?

>>3009751
>retro design

"Retro design" digital SLR is dead. Look at how tall, and how far to the front the pentaprism housing sticks out. It looks absolutely retarded with those beautiful, small DA limited lenses. But I admit that it's impossible to have a DSLR that has the same proportions as an SLR, for this reason I believe that "retro design" DSLR is dead. Only mirrorless can pull it off.

>>3009895
Nope. Mirrorless cameras are 'live-MOS', which means that the sensor is producing an image at all times, no matter if your screen is on or not.

This is why DSLRs have such great battery life. The CMOS is only being used when pressing the shutter - unless you are using live view which would mean way more power consumption.

>>3009895
Yes. You can also obviously trivially have a non-SLR viewfinder.

Actually that setup could consume less power because of not flipping a mirror... not that it'd be much.

Then again, we don't even really need these power saving measures on most current systems. Market demand hasn't even brought most MILC's batteries up back to common DSLR weights/sizes yet. Most are half as big still.

>>3009349
I saved up a lot of neet bucks with a T5 with a 50mm and was thinking about getting a better body. I have at max 1K and I was wondering if the M5, a6000, or the AX3 is worth it. I would get also get a 50mm for said camera

>>3009753
>>3009711
>>3009823
>>3009897
>Nobody is mentioning that it can go up to ISO819200

>>3009966
>As well as 1/24000th of s second

I have the Canon MDmkIV and need an ultra-wide zoom. Can't decide between the Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II, Sigma 12-24mm f/4 Art or Tamron SP 15-30mm f/2.8. I was turned off from the Sigma initially following dpreview's review, but most customer reviews have still been very positive.

>>3009966
>>3009967

Neat, but at the same time:
>no dual slots
>no top LCD
>no magnesium body
>7 fps up to 8 RAW or JPG frames, or up to 7 RAW+ frames

Sensor is neat, but seems like the K-3 II is the better camera.

>>3009979

Oh and GPS was cut too.

>>3009979
>>3009980
Yeah, it looks more like a K-70 II than a K-3 line successor.
Also someone from RICOH hinted on PF that there will be a new APS-C flagship announcement soon.
If this is RICOHs idea of a premium entry level camera, what will we get for the top line?

>>3009795
Yes, but Pentax failed to understand the difference, twice.

>>3010042
The K-01 was a flop but the Q is an excellent little pocket camera.

>>3010045
the miserable sensor size kills it.

If only it was at least 1".

File: oy.jpg (26KB, 598x203px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 598x203px

>>3009711

>>3010045
Q was less of a flop than K-01, but still sold abysmally outside Japan and is pretty much dead by now.
It's cute as fuck for sure, but it's extremely hard to justify versus something like RX100. Hell, at the time Q was first released, XZ-1 beat the *entire* system at that point (minus the fisheye) at sensor size, lens speed and zoom range at once, and it wasn't even that amazing of a camera.

>>3010059
They did increase it slightly, but it was too little, too late.

>>3010065
Why are you comparing an APS-C SLR to a pocket camera? Are you buttblasted by the ISO 819200 sensor with 1/24000s electronic shutter?
It is the year 2017 and Sony still couldn't master the art of placing an O-ring properly for weather sealing.

File: pentaksgrips.jpg (56KB, 598x300px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 598x300px

>>3010062

>>3010069
>Why are you comparing an APS-C SLR to a pocket camera?

But...I'm not? What are you even on about?

I'm just wondering if anyone have ever used their camera with HDMI output via an usb c adapter?

I'm purchasing a new laptop and I would love to have the hdmi port for hooking up my a6300 to it..
But the issue is that some laptops doesn't have the hdmi port, but usb c.

So if I can't connect these two together because of some weird bullshit via usb c, it's a dealbreaker.

>>3010069

>sony
>o-ring

top kek

Has Sony even bothered releasing a camera with o-rings and weather sealing?

a7 was supposed to (and rumor has it the design even has locstions for gaskets and o-rings) but it was pulled at the last secobd.

>>3010079
That is stupid. You use the HDMI to connect to an A/V device not to your goddamn shittop.
Get an Atomos and a separate screen if you want a separate recorder and a bigger screen

>>3010059
>miserable sensor size

That sensor on the Q is absolutely amazing. The image quality coming out of that could very well fool me into thinking it was an APS-C camera. Especially when paired with the standard prime.

>>3010079

Just don't buy a shitty laptop with usb c only.

Can a laptops hdmi port be used for ideo input anyway?

Why would you want to? It would make way more sense to tansfer the file to the hdd to make it easier to work with.

>>3010082
Ok, just let me to onto my atomos and order another one for my camera.

Oh wait.

>>3010084
>Can a laptops hdmi port be used for ideo input anyway?
That is a solid no. We have questions like this every day on /g/

>>3010084
I wouldn't need the hdmi for anything else really. Maybe play a movie to a tv that's not mine, but no.

I do a lot of macro photography so having access to a larger screen is great. You know, outside.

This is a matter of me needing a laptop for multiple reasons, the hdmi output for the camera is just a big bonus.

>>3010087

i am so confused, your post makes no sense.

It sounds like you want to connect your camera to your laptop through the laptops HDMI port.

You know it does not work like this, right? Even if it did, it would be retarded to do.

>>3010088
Using the laptop as an external screen, yes.

I was able to do this on my old laptop which is now broken.
I can do it on all screens with hdmi.

What's the confusion?
Why would it be retarded?

>>3010091
>Using the laptop as an external screen
Doesn't work, son. Stop being retarded.

Are there any DSLR/MILC with live view over Wi-Fi? I never thought about it until seeing that other anon's comments, but I don't think I've ever seen it, despite the fact that my almost 4 year old Canon camcorder has it.

>>3010092
Oh I see, dad. It's ok, us kids know technology better.

But, it was foolish of me to ask for a specific question like if sony didn't like usbc>hdmi for some reason.

>>3010091

Most laptops HDMI ports are output only. You either had a very unique device or are misremembering.

It makes more sense to transfer the video file directly to the laptops HDD. Smoothe rplayback/seeking, plus it doesn't drain your cameras battery.

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

139KB, 1024x576px

>>3010093

Sony has it through their PlayMemories app.

Was shit on launch, but is now pretty awesome. Full manual controls, though not as easy to change settings as a real camera. It also transfers either compressed or full sized jpegs (all or specifically what you select) to your phone while storing the raws on its memory card.

Sony actually made a camera designed to JUST be used with the tethering app. Pic related. It has no screen or viewfinder built in.

It is just a sensor, battery, pop up flash, and memory card.

I think Fuji, Canon, and Nikon all have it too, but I have never tried theirs.

>>3010093
I have the Pentax flucard in my K-3. It works and is more of a wireless tethering option but I rarely use it.

>>3010094

Whether or not the laptoo can accept input from a usb c- hdmi adapter depends more on the laptop than the camera.

I can't think of any recent laptops off the top of my head that accept hdmi input.

>>3010084
>Can a laptops hdmi port be used for ideo input anyway?

I've seen a couple gaymen laptops that had HDMI inputs (probably so you could use them with your xbox). But these are rare as fuck.

>>3010083
>That sensor on the Q is absolutely amazing. The image quality coming out of that could very well fool me into thinking it was an APS-C camera.

At base ISO maybe. But then, at base ISO even many cellphones can produce amazing pictures.

>>3010093
I had a lolympus ep5 that could do that.

>>3009884
I've always wondered why mirrorless shutters don't automatically close when the lens is removed.

Maybe they think the shutter blades would be more likely to get damaged than the bare sensor or something.

>>3010117
Shutter blades are way more fragile than the glass filter on the sensor.
Also, if dirt gets stuck to the glass, you can just clean it off, but if it gets stuck to a shutter blade, the whole mechanism might get stuck or broken.

>>3010118
BS, try harder

>>3010117
That's because the camera must behave the same way when turned off, and when the battery has been removed. Having the shutter open by default is really the only sane thing to do.

Also it's kinda fragile and gets broken rather than smudged. Smudges are way easy to clean up since there's glass on top of the actual sensor semiconductor.

>>3010133
>being caught on miniscule differences
It is one of the symptoms of autism

>>3010135
Obsessively putting batteries in "the right way around" (lol) is also goddamn unbelievable. Just do it like regular people you fucking spacker. Your electronic device will break just like anyone else's, or non-function straight out of the factory.

>>3010130
no u

Finally pulled the trigger on a d5300 with a 35mm lens, for my very first dslr.
for around $600
should be shipped next week

>>3010294
Good combo. Not the best or most versatile. You might need more lenses in a year or so but for now you'll be loving it.

File: fuck off.png (83KB, 598x252px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 598x252px

>>3010062

>>3010304
I intend to get the Tamron SP AF 17-50mm F/2,8 aspherical later, if I do need it. Great zoom for the price, from what I've read.

>>3009966
Extended ISO means fuck all

>>3010307
Get the Sigma instead, much better AF and IQ.
There is also the cheaper Sigma 17-70/2.8-3.5

>>3010306
Cameras of this class get like 1200 shots on a single charge. Even if KP has half the battery capacity, that's still enough for a whole day in most cases.

>>3010312
>Get the Sigma instead
The 17-50 HSM? thanks for the tip.

>>3010306
This just in, the battery life stated in the specs was calculated with Wi-Fi on. Turning it off the battery life will double, around the same as a K-50 has.

>>3010307
I definitely recommend a 17-70 range zoom, since that's an even better complement to your fast prime.

>>3010312
isnt it 2.8-4 ?

>>3010348
sorry, my bad. It s a 2.8-4.5

File: panasonic_vyk6t25_eye_cup_for_dmc_gh4_1202410.jpg (155KB, 2000x2000px) Image search: [Google]

155KB, 2000x2000px

Do you use an eyecup? If so, why? If not, why?

>>3010294
Same here, but with the d3300 instead, I got a 500 bucks max budget. Good choice for a beginner?

>>3010357
>Good choice for a beginner
Yes

>>3009349
https://www.dpreview.com/news/5120223341/hands-on-with-ricohs-compact-pentax-kp

what happened to the k3 good looks?

>>3010371
It stays on the actual K-3 successor
This is just a premium entry body with retro design

File: Q1EIp08.jpg (128KB, 1000x664px) Image search: [Google]

128KB, 1000x664px

Should I get the A6000 with the 55-210 lens if I'm planning on shooting outdoors/nature a lot?
Or is only the 16-50 lens ok?

>>3010406
Toughie
Wideness of 16 might be necessary for those wide expanses sometimes
but the reach of the 55-210 allows you to make some compact and more interesting/unique compositions sometimes
I say 55-210.

>>3010418
You have no idea what you're talking about, do you?

Need a camera/lense combo for a decent price that's good for taking pictures of city-scapes.
Could use recommendations.

>>3010421
Literally anything. Budget?

>>3010422
Upto 3000 USD for the camera/lense, looking to spend around 2250-2500 though. DSLR as well.

>>3010422
Not him, but I'm betting <$1000 US

>>3010424
see
>>3010423

>>3010423
For cityscapes you will need a tilt-shift lens. To fully utilize that lens you will need FF sensor. Either a 5DIII or a D750 with their respective T/S lenses or if you want to save budget and don't mind manual focusing then a K-1 and a Samyang/Rokinon 24mm tilt-shift in K-mount.
Also get a tripod.
You chose one of the most expensive niches of photography, T/S lenses are not exactly in the budget range.

>>3010427
I can put up with manual focusing; thanks.

>>3010418
>>3010419
intredasting

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHLmrNOmVP0

I'm seriously concerned this time. Will sonyautist ever recover from this?

>>3010314
KP gets 390 shots on a single battery

>>3010318
>[CITATION NEEDED]

Looking to buy my first camera. Find one I like; it's a Pantex K-50. Is this a bad decision? I'm using my sisters Nikon D3200 right now and the Pantex seems like a nice upgrade.

>>3010502
See if you can get a used K-S2 instead, the new WR kit lense is much better plus flippy screen

>>3010502
it's a good camera bro, was my first dslr. consider the k70 as well though if you have a little more money to spend.

>>3010504
>>3010505
My budget as of typing this is $300; but I'm starting my second job next week so I'll try to up the budget to $700 by the end of February. Is buying used on ebay safe? Never bought anything before, especially not a $700 item

>>3010507
havent bought a used dslr, i prefer buying new.

however i've bought plenty of used lenses and film bodies on ebay.. always check photos and descriptions closely and try to stick with reputable sellers.

Sturdiest tripod under $300?

>>3010427
>For cityscapes you will need a tilt-shift lens.
Not necessarily. Most architecture photographers these days just use a good low distortion prime and do correction in post

>>3010510
The K50 new is around 400-500 I haven't checked k2s or k70 but if I save just a bit more I can get the K50 which makes me happy

>>3010510
Also should I avoid sellers that say returns not accepted. Seems like those are the people who want to scam people

so far i have an 85 1.2L ii which is what i use mainly for my portraits. Don't really like to use the 50 that much. I also have a 16-35 2.8L ii that i use for landscapes and such. Should I swap the 16-35 for a 28 or 24mm prime? or should i swap it out for a 135 f2 or would that be a bit redundant on top of the 85? mainly trying to get into primes only now

>>3010555
>mainly trying to get into primes only now
Stupid move. Primes and zooms both have their place and the 16-35 L is a good zoom. The 135 would indeed be redundant, no idea why you'd even consider that other than getting convinced MUH PRIMES ARE THE ONLY WAY by watching angry photographer or something.

A well rounded collection of primes and zooms > being a primes or zooms only ideologue.

>>3010479
Not even a Sony fan but that fat fuck is so biased and rides Nikon and Fuji. He originally said the a99ii was a HUGE big camera but I tested it and it's smaller then a d610, half the time he's speaking out his ass, and he steals photos from other people and passes them off as his own. Dude is a nut job who needs to get out and walk his fat ass a round

Is $2 a roll an ok price for expired film? Ektar25iso, Kodakpro400uc and FujiProPortrait160

>>3010555
You definitely want the zoom on the wide end. The coverage is significant, and you really don't want to carry a pile of primes on that end. If you want one wide angle, get a 20mm.

The 135 would definitely be redundant, and specialized for headshots or compression.

>>3010573
>a99
>smaller than a D610
I'm not saying you're wrong about the other things...

>>3010575
How is the 135 redundant when the next longest lens he has is the 85?

File: d610a99ii.png (483KB, 750x788px) Image search: [Google]

483KB, 750x788px

>>3010575
>I'm not saying you're wrong about the other things...

No idea about the others, but he is right about that.

What would /p/ choose between these two lenses?

http://www.digitalcamerawarehouse.com.au/prod8829.htm

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B014RD6RC0/?tag=thewire06-20&linkCode=xm2&ascsubtag=WC12640

>>3010427
lots of people just focus stack these days
also the nikon tilt shifts are overpriced trash

>>3010652

They are for two different bodies though?

I'd take the Sigma to be honest. Way sharper, and I don't think I'd ever actually want a m43 body. Sensor is too small.

>>3010681
They have MFT mounts, I use an Olympus OMD. I like the portability of it, honestly.

File: wut.png (376KB, 757x947px) Image search: [Google]

376KB, 757x947px

>>3010682

Yea, I considered m43 for awhile, but ended up going with an APS-C body instead. Much more portable.

All I wanted was a 35mm prime. So it stays smaller with my lens on it too.

>>3010685
I mostly looking for a good prime lens as something to step away from the kit lens, but I'm also hoping for something I'd use for portraits/bokeh. Would the Sigma be good for that?

>>3010687

I am unsure how it performs on an m43 body, but it get amazing reviews on e-mount. It is supposed to be quite sharp especially.

File: fe8a468f-5bdc-4b91-975f-7fa7a8347d9b.jpg (16KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 500x500px

>>3009959
anyone pls halp

>>3010690
30 2.8 is sharp but pdaf only middle point, slower to start than native, shooting video will get this jitter micro hunting.
30 1.4 is ok wide open, not as sharp like the art line, pdaf works all around, less clunky motor.

if on m43, don't get them because panasonic lens are better and smaller.

>>3010406
the 55-210 is pretty mediocre.
should have went with eos m5 + ef-s 55-250.
if you want to shoot animals, 16-50 is short.
if you want to shoot landscape, it's fine.

>>3010502
>1st camera
>already memeing pantex
yes, get the pantex.

>>3010685
>you see, comrade, the sony body does not need a lens, because the battery is drained anyway and people who buy a sony don't actually take pictures of anything so lens is unnecessary

File: Canon_L.jpg (139KB, 750x887px) Image search: [Google]

139KB, 750x887px

Hey guys,

I'm looking at Canon's 400mm f/2.8 Lenses.
Can anyone tell me how much better the MkII is than the first generation?
How much more useable is it with IS?

How well do they hold their value?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS5 Macintosh
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	3400
Image Height	2550
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	350 dpi
Vertical Resolution	350 dpi
Image Created	2011:05:04 13:35:38
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	750
Image Height	887

>>3010764
i suggest going with olympus

>>3010764
I doubt you'll find any people here who are intimately familiar with $5000 Canon pro telephotos.

But what I can tell you is that IS makes a HUGE difference at 300+ mm, even if you're shooting action. If you're serious, do not even consider buying a non-IS lens. And f/4 with IS trumps f/2.8 without IS any time.

>>3010730
I never see anyone talk about the Pentax so I was just checking; but I'm glad to see people are encouraging me to buy it


>unless they wanna see me waste $500 kek

>>3010873
This is all gear talk, any camera is good enough to start learning. When budget comes into play then Pentax offers the most value, especially if you do outdoors stuff a lot.
What you need to look into is learning exposure triangle, reading books like Understanding Exposure or the manual that comes with your camera. You need to go out and shoot a lot. You also need to fail a lot first, that is how you will learn. The brand that is written on your stuff doesn't matter.
If you can however, visit a few stores and try some of the cameras in your hand to get a feel for it.

File: Demonstrace (15 of 24).jpg (1MB, 5184x3456px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 5184x3456px

Is the Canon 50mm f1.8 lens good? I bought the 550D with the 18-55 kit lens a few years ago and never bought anything else since. I'm not very rich, so I can't afforf, or justify a $1k lens.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 550D
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.6 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/4.6
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2016:02:06 16:00:28
Exposure Time	1/160 sec
F-Number	f/5.6
Exposure Program	Shutter Priority
ISO Speed Rating	400
Lens Aperture	f/5.6
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	36.00 mm
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>3010941
There are three versions of that lens: EF 50/1.8, EF 50/1.8 II, and EF 50/1.8 STM.
They're all optically okay but not stellar. The II version is the cheapest, but also has the build quality and sound of a dollar store toy.
There's also Yongnuo 50/1.8, which is a clone of EF 50/1.8 II with minor improvements but reportedly less reliable AF.

But do remember that these 50s work as portrait lenses on APS-C format cameras; if you want an inexpensive walk-around prime, look at EF 35/2 (a Yongnuo copy also exists) or EF-S 24/2.8 instead.

>>3010944
Thank you very much, I will look into those.

>>3010941
Get the 35mm baby prime. Oh wait, Canon doesn't have one!
Get the Sigma 30/1.4

>>3010955
>Get the Sigma 30/1.4 Art

Fixed. The old 30/1.4 EX is notorious for AF inaccuracy on Canon cameras.

Also, he wanted a cheap lens, this one is $500.

Get the Yongnuo 35mm then.

>>3010723
A6000 is cheapest and best out of those 3.

>>3009959
A6000. Either sell the Canon 50mm and get the Sony 50mm oss or get an EF to E adapter which supports aperture and autofocus. Had all of the above (a6000, Canon adapter and Sony 50mm oss) and I loved it. I've since then never looked back to my old Canon system (400D, 20D, 6D) again. After the a6000 I got myself a used A7 and now I'm rocking the A7r.

>>3010638
It certainly is smaller but not by a significant amount. Barely noticeable actually.
>muh compact size
Is a HIGHLY overrated metric in DSLRs. Most decent lenses are big enough that the small body isn't going to help you at all because the lens is the bulk of it. Weight is more important than size.

>>3010834
>And f/4 with IS trumps f/2.8 without IS any time.
Bullshit. IS doesn't make as much of a difference shooting something that moves as it does shooting stuff that doesn't. Sports, birds, etc, you want that faster lens because muh shutter speeds. IS is great to have but fast glass is better. I shoot birds and I'd have a 500mm f2.8 over my 500mm f5.6 VR any day.

Hey anons, I'm a /p/ virgin with not much experience in photography but I'd like to know what kind of camera and lens I should get if I want to shoot studio macro stuff with lots of detail and in very high resolution. Something not too expensive either (budget is between 600 and 1000€ atm, but may be higher later on).

File: 15825900_10154441742318702_4460456371213470002_n.jpg (52KB, 960x720px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 960x720px

This Canon Rebel T3i is for sale for $400 it has an 18-55mm lens, battery, charger, and original box with manuals included. Is it worth it?

>>3011247

nah. $350.

>>3010631
Because both are portrait length lenses, and both are adequate for headshots. If anything, the 135 will be more specialized, while the 85 is still "general purpose", at least when it comes to short/med telephotos.

>>3010994
>>3010980
thankyou!

>have full frame camera
>50mm
>85mm

What would be the most useful for landscape and street photography? 24-105 for the large range, some kind of wide angle zoom, or should I just stick with the 50?

What's the best bang for your buck when upgrading from a nikon d3300. Preferably still a nikon to keep the lenses

>>3011282
50mm and 35mm are my personal favorites. but if you are a bit shy a 85 could do the job

>>3010455
Don't worry about the other guy.
He's only a tech guy and not a photographer.

>>3011302
Focal lengths I actually use for nature:
16-45mm zoom, I rarely use the wide end. Mostly for landscapes in one take.
35mm my most used lens. I use this for landscape panorama as well as generic standard prime
90mm Macro for bugs, flowers and other stuff
70-200mm zoom for landscape with compression and light wildlife, some pseudo macro
50-500mm for wildlife and some pseudo macro

So the real answer is depending on the subject you go for you will use a wide range of focal lengths. I use APS-C by the way.

>>3011287
Why do you want to upgrade? You should not upgrade unless you know exactly which problem you want to solve by doing so

Regardless, the answer is D7200/D7100

What you get:
>great auto-focus system
>better build quality
>better control/layout
>internal AF motor for AFing older nikon lenses

What you don't get
>better images

>>3011442
Af is the problem in general I've been experiencing between various sporting events

>>3011533
>sporting events
You will experience it on the D7100/7200 as well if you don't learn to set the AF properly. One thing to remember is never use AF-Auto, set a proper user mode for AF-C and set the zone to 5- or 9-point. Aim for the shirts so the color is recognized and won't simply jump over to a different player, only half less. Use the AF points around the center, maybe one point over. Set up the back button focus, half press shutter focusing off.
Learn panning properly and holding your gear steady.
You can use the same settings sans the zone focusing on your D3300 as well for improved accuracy and more steady shots.
Don't expect to have many keepers when the subject is moving directly towards the camera, not even on the D7200. It is not a D5/D500, the AF algorithms are slower.

So how do 360 cameras work? Can you record your environment without actually recording yourself?

>>3011557
Get a 180 camera if you don't want to film your ugly face

Sony a6000 or Olympus OM-D E-M5 Mark II 16.1 MP
https://www.massdrop.com/buy/olympus-om-d-e-m5-mark-ii-16-1-mp-silver

>>3011563
Olympus has good lenses that you can afford.
Sony burns down when you start taking a video.

>>3011563
Depends on what lenses you want to use.

Generally, lolympus has better native lenses, Sony is better for adapting old manual lenses.

>>3009652
>>3009882
I agree, the rokinon/samyang 12mm is a great wide angle prime

>>3011564
>>3011577
i want to use 50mm and 35mm but isnt the Olympus sensor smaller. (one of these will replace my t5)

>>3011606
Get the 20 or 24mm, one of them is a pancake.

>>3011577
Actually, generally Sony has better lenses, especially primes.

Olympus has some more compact lenses. [A good part of the Sony lenses are FF - often but not always comparatively big.]

>>3009464
>tele prime
kek

>>3010081
>implying cameras need weather sealing
ive shot with my d3200 in torrential rain same with my buddy's sony alpha nex3

>>3011627
a7 series is not rated for weather sealing, but check out any e-mount forums and they are full of people using them in wet conditions.

I suspect a little rain wont hurt most cameras, but being submerged will.

>>3009897
All they have to do is take out the built-in flash.

File: maxresdefault.jpg (87KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 1280x720px

>>3011629
Just don't hold the viewfinder to your eye.


>spending $1500+ on a camera with unproven durability
>year of the cock.

Any recommendations for a 20mm ish lens on a6000? I usually shoot indoor events for a club at school. I'm hoping to keep it under $100 but it seems like all the wide angles are over that budget. I'm willing to buy adapters for vintage lenses too.

>>3011655
Sigma 19mm f/2.8 is a cheap option, though not super cheap under $100.

Or if you mean 20mm ish FF equivalent, 12mm Samyang f/2.

>>3011656
Wanted a 35mm or 30mm equivalent, so the sigma may be my next lens if I get a chance. I'm worried about the lack of OSS though.
I considered getting 24mm lenses but all the vintage ones cost so damn much that I might as well get something more modern like the Sigma. Thanks for the suggestion. I guess I'll have to save up for it.

>>3011667
> I'm worried about the lack of OSS though.
Pick 1/125 or 1/200? Indoors usually requires bouncing a strobe or two anyhow.

> I considered getting 24mm lenses but all the vintage ones cost so damn much that I might as well get something more modern like the Sigma.
Plus the vast majority of cheap vintage wide and ultrawide lenses are really crappy. Like the kit zoom on a pretty bad setting. Ugh.

> Thanks for the suggestion. I guess I'll have to save up for it.
I think so, too.

By the way, I personally seem to much prefer the 12mm Samyang f/2 to the Sigma 19mm f/2.8, but I guess it's not a 30mm equivalent.

>>3011671
I was kinda hoping for something to work for all situations (dark and bright indoor locations), but I guess I'll just have to compromise w/ bouncing if I can.
I'm sure the 12mm is great too but it's personally too wide for me for people shots.

>>3011707
> I was kinda hoping for something to work for all situations (dark and bright indoor locations),
That'd be more realistic on a good low light FF setup.

On APS-C, indoor lighting is just too often insufficient for normally moving people, even on a relatively bright lens and a camera that is relatively good at pushing ISO. Using some extra artificial light is generally a lot more realistic.

But it's not so bad - at least you can get very nice-looking shots once you do bring light, and even the on-camera flash will get you partways there if you ever forget it.

> it's personally too wide for me for people shots
I usually use it for groups of people and unknown locations indoors. Yes, it's not as nice as the lenses I use for more prepared portraits (got a bunch between 30-90mm, 45-135mm FF equiv.). But it has this great tendency to almost always work because of how wide and relatively bright it is, besides being able to focus close.

Well, nothing is really wrong with getting the 19mm. It offers a good improvement over the kit lens, and the price is fair for what you get.

Would a d300 still perform at $250 in 2017?
Do any newer bodies perform better at the same price point (Not new, used)?

>>3011730
It performs at about "pay me $250/afternoon to work with such a fossil".

> Do any newer bodies perform better at the same price point (Not new, used)?
Depends on what you want to shoot, what you want to spend on lenses, and other factors.

Better save / earn some money so you can afford a decent recent camera?

>>3011748
Thoughts on the D5200 then? Found a local one for $300.
Mainly looking for a decent body to get into the hobby.

>>3011773
Much better in most situations.

>>3011244
No one?

>>3011713
We were at a bar last night and it was pretty tough with me using ISO 12800 at times. I don't think they would appreciate me bringing a flash that bounces on the ceiling though!
Do you feel that the distance you're standing from your subjects distorts them too much at 12mm? I'm mostly doing groups of 3 or 4 at about 5 (?) feet away and it worked fine on my 35mm last night

>>3011773
Any chance you can find a D7000? You can use AF on D lenses and save a bit of money, unless you need the swivel screen.

>>3011776
A6000 + 50mm macro maybe?

>>3011782
>We were at a bar last night and it was pretty tough with me using ISO 12800 at times. I don't think they would appreciate me bringing a flash
Tip generously or something?

A reasonable technology solution with a low light FF camera & fast lens is kinda possible now, but that'd cost you a few thousand dollars more.

Probably harder than just doing the "blast everyone with light" thing like many others have before.

> Do you feel that the distance you're standing from your subjects distorts them too much at 12mm?
Looks like https://www.flickr.com/photos/nickcoates/32535881526 or https://www.flickr.com/photos/rob-leslie/28225793104/ or such. For me it generally works.

I need a light tripod for my A7, budget of about 100€.
Does the carbon Chinese ones suck?

>>3011619
>A good part of the Sony lenses are FF
Well, that's the problem. Most of those are so big and expensive that using them on APS-C is a complete waste, and for an affordable APS-C system, the choice is surprisingly limited.

>>3011606
The sensor is smaller, so expect low light performance to be 1/2 to 1 stop worse.
However, lolympus has image stabilization in body, while A6000 doesn't.

Both systems have decent options for 50mm and near-35mm equivalents.

>>3011607
The 24mm "Zeiss" is ludicrously overpriced.

Im wanting to buy some things ebay and most of what I'm searching for is from Japan.

Almost all of the search results have
[MINT]
[NEAR MINT]
[EXC+++++]

In the item name.
Is this just a normal Japanese seller thing to do or is it some scammer shit.

>>3011816

A lot of stuff from Japan is in excellent condition.

I have purchased half a dozen or so lenses with similar conditions listed, and they were all practically brand new.

I had one that had some minor hazing, and when I pointed it out the seller apologized profusely, refunded the full price, and covered return shipping.

>>3011813
As happened on Canon and Nikon, people are actually using FF lenses on the APS-C Sonys with great regularity, so actually, this is more like your problem than "a" problem. Many aren't heavy or big.

And many are cheaper than Olympus' own lenses. (I guess Olympus produces an extreme waste of a system because there isn't even a way to move up to APS-C or FF where those lenses would be less "wasted", huh?)

Also, still 60 or so APS-C lenses. Not a huge problem.

>>3011819
Yeah I'm sure its good to buy from. I just thought it was weird that all the sellers have the same thing in their item names.

File: 0201j.jpg (88KB, 640x363px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 640x363px

>>3011820
>As happened on Canon and Nikon, people are actually using FF lenses on the APS-C Sonys with great regularity


So is a6000 with SEL70200GM user the next rebel with Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM user?

>>3011820
Moving between formats while keeping the lenses is a meme, focal lengths change so a lens you bought for a particular purpose will no longer serve it.

I have both crop and FF systems and by not trying to re-use lenses I can get both maximum compactness from one and maximum quality from the other.

File: a6300_feature-970-80.jpg (40KB, 970x545px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 970x545px

>>3011822
FF telephotos at least make some sense since they don't get much smaller if designed for a smaller image circle.

a6000 with a 35/1.4 or a 24-70 on the other hand...

File: 130131_009-625x415.jpg (62KB, 625x415px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 625x415px

>>3011824

A pretty good 35mm actually exists for ASP-C e-mount though.

>>3011816
It's normal.

>>3011827
:3

>>3011822
You don't have to use one of the MOST expensive primes. That one actually will cost more than the average Olympus.

On the other hand, it makes a fair bit of sense to put that lens on an A6500 and it's still not bad on the A6000, so kinda why not. Wouldn't buy it for just this, but it'll give you a good picture.

>>3011823
>Moving between formats while keeping the lenses is a meme, focal lengths change so a lens you bought for a particular purpose will no longer serve it.
First of all, that's not quite true in many cases.

Yea, a wide angle or macro will still do something like that. No problem whatsoever with a 90mm FE on an A6x00.

And for the rest you can kinda use your head and use it for what it's good for after you account for the FL change.

Yea, that 21mm Loxia is now more like a 35mm. Not particularly difficult to deal with.

>>3011825
There's also Zeiss 32mm, but it only makes sense on a6300/a6500.

>>3011832
>Yea, that 21mm Loxia is now more like a 35mm

Or I could pay a measly 13% more and add a 19mm Sigma to my kit, which will give me the same results plus autofocus, at one third of the weight. See how this works?

And buying a $1500 FF lens without a FF camera, just in hope of getting one in the future, is just going full retard.

>>3011824
> a6000 with a 35/1.4 or a 24-70 on the other hand.
Yea, there are cheaper and lighter options to these, sure?

But if it's just about how it feels to work with them, it's not actually too bad. Gave me a bit of a reminder about how it usually felt to carry and hold a FF DSLR, but I guess it wasn't actually equally heavy. I've probably just become accustomed to lighter setups.

>>3011838
I'm not saying you should prefer FF lenses systematically. That's something completely different.

But if you want the 90mm FE or a 85mm Samyang f/1.4 (just to have a more modest example for once), then why the hell not? Works fine.

>>3011837
fake cheese exist?
damn chinks try to fake everything.

>>3011866
Fake cheese is more of a 'murica problem

>>3011905
If you hate fake cheese you hate america and freedom and you are probably a traitor and a terrorist.

What is your walking around?

Lens and camera please

>>3011986
Crop DSLR, 35mm prime

Good m43 lens for taking night sky photos?

>>3012003
samyang 7.5mm fisheye

File: [HorribleSubs] Youjo Senki - 02 [720p].mkv_snapshot_23.18_[2017.01.14_06.36.15].jpg (291KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

291KB, 1280x720px

>>3012009
>fisheye

D5200 owner, I also have the 18-55 vr2 kit lens and the sigma 18-250 macro osm (was a gift).
I primarily shoot landscape and architecture, so 35 or 50mm prime?

>>3009349

no joke what lense setup would you usse for shooting an event and the people just wanted raws after, 70-200? 300? 85?

>>3012024
52.5mm equivalent is way too tight for that.
stick with the kit or get a 16mm.

>>3012054
an assault rifle.

>>3012054
>an event
You'll have to be way more specific.

>>3012024
>landscape and architecture
>35 or 50mm prime
Those are too narrow on full frame let alone APS-C.

>>3009349
>no joke what lense setup would you usse for shooting an event and the people just wanted raws after, 70-200? 300? 85?
>unironically delivering, by definition, unprocessed files
Rent a 600/4, bill the client.

>>3012097

That would be fucking retarded, Anon.

get a new lens or some flashes and modifiers?

>>3012103
Depends on what you have

>>3012103
You usually can't use one OR the other, you probably need both.

File: Sony_ILCE-7M2_Voigtländer_NOKTON_classic_35mmf1.4.jpg (444KB, 1616x1080px) Image search: [Google]

444KB, 1616x1080px

Hey, I'm a film shooter looking to buy a good digital camera, thinking the sony alpha 7 II.

I want to use manual focus film lenses on it, my question is what the best combo for price and quality, lenses + adapter? Can't justify spending $1000+ on a lens when film lenses are just as good.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	NEX-6
Camera Software	ILCE-7M2 v1.00
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.8
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	75 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	350 dpi
Vertical Resolution	350 dpi
Image Created	2014:12:21 14:26:33
White Point Chromaticity	0.3
Exposure Time	1/30 sec
F-Number	f/5.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	1600
Brightness	0.6 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	50.00 mm
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	1616
Image Height	1080
Rendering	Custom
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Hard

File: [HorribleSubs] New Game! - 09 [720p].mkv_snapshot_23.22_[2016.08.30_05.04.54].jpg (120KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

120KB, 1280x720px

>>3009349
>tfw bought a almost mint bentax-a 70-210mm f4 for $10.
>mfw shipping is $13 from nippon

>>3012203
Maybe start with the native E-mount Samyangs?

They generally have relatively good quality and operation.

>Can't justify spending $1000+ on a lens when film lenses are just as good.
The $1000+ lenses are actually quite a bit better. But yea, maybe you don't need them.

>>3012203
voigtlander native lens.
leica m mount lens.
first party slr prime lens. most zoom lens from the film era are trash.

for adapters, k&f is a good chink brand. this is the minimum to get. however, they are not always perfect, i got one with markings slightly off center. this will only cosmetic and only bother the autist.
if you want something perfect just get from amazon and return it.
fotga is dog shit.
you will focus pass infinity with the chink adapters.
check out metabones if you want it to hard stop at infinity.

>>3012203
sigma 30mm f2.8 apsc e-mount with rear baffle removed.

>>3012203
Techart pro AF adapter. Now you can AF with MF lenses.

>>3012138
5d iii and their 85l is what i mainly use got a wireless flash setup with 1 speedlite as well but no modifiers

>>3012207
Are they that great? Or is that just a great price?

>>3012203

>a7ii

Good choice. Might be worth waiting six months or so for the a7iii though. There have been very few rumors, so it is hard to know it is worth it.

>I want to use manual focus film lenses on it, my question is what the best combo for price and quality, lenses + adapter?

Well you are a film shooter, so what lenses do you currently use? Almost anything can be adapted to the a7ii, and most can even be given some form of autofocus, even those that don't do so natively.

>Can't justify spending $1000+ on a lens when film lenses are just as good.

They aren't though. Your better old film lenses are maybe 75% as good and lack proper autofocus.

Shit, even the $800 (often $500 on sale) SEL55F18Z beats every old school ~50mm out there.

>Might be worth waiting six months or so for the a7iii though

Or better yet, wait a year for the a7iv

>>3012245

a7siii is probably next after a7ii.

File: d51f1b_3255_Lightsphereclear170.jpg (106KB, 516x373px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 516x373px

If I have a full frame a7

Why can't I use the old crop sensor lenses?

I want to make some wide angle photos. But I can't really justify the cost of the lens for the a7. Especially not since I have an old nex and the pancake plus wide is cheap already, and extremely much cheaper second hand.

File: maxresdefault.jpg (114KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 1920x1080px

>>3012259

They work in crop mode where the camera automatically crops. Or you can set it to FF and get whatever the lens itself can cover. This is what you see in FF mode with the baffle still installed.

If you remove the baffle they cover most, but not all, of the sensor. You can crop manually later.

>>3012261
>>3012259

Here are some baffle-less shots.

>https://plus.google.com/photos/+PhinioxGlade/albums/6008791751874417777

Supposedly it is sharper without stepping down on the a7, but I call bullshit on that claim.

>>3009349
I'm lookin to take pic that rival film in color and detail. Also want tO get into making short films. I have a few canon lenses.

I'm looking at a 70d would I be happy with it? And would the 18-135mm kit lens be good enough?

>>3012266
> I'm lookin to take pic that rival film in color
You mean you want to make digital worse like film? Use some shitty filters. Google Nik has a bunch for free.

> and detail.
Use a recent enough APS-C or FF camera. With a good lens they'll almost certainly be more detailed than whatever 35mm / MF setup you likely had in the past.

> I'm looking at a 70d would I be happy with it?
Dunno. I wouldn't really, but I figure it's still overall better than your old film camera probably was.

> And would the 18-135mm kit lens be good enough?
Same thing again. What makes me happy are relatively to very good modern lenses, but you might be fine.

>>3012270
Well I do not see anything better then a 70d coming out in march 2017 so 70d it is then.

>>3012272
Nothing better? The 80D never mind 5D III and IV and 5DS R and so on already are out.

So are all the Sonys that can quite easily adapt Canon lenses.

>>3012210
>>3012212
>>3012224
>>3012226
>>3012243

thanks for the responses guys. How is the digital viewfinder compared to an optical one? I'm used to manual focus but is auto a necessity for the viewfinder?

>>3012284
> How is the digital viewfinder compared to an optical one?
Positive:
Brighter (can be very helpful) and shows a lot more information. Focus peaking and magnification can be very useful when working with MF lenses. Full sensor coverage (some OVF basically also do this, but not all)

Negative:
Consumes a little more power (duh) & has a small amount of lag on this model.

> I'm used to manual focus but is auto a necessity for the viewfinder?
No. The EVF will work regardless of the lens' AF capabilities.

You will get the same ability to see a bit better in the dark ('cause the sensor is ultimately more sensitive than your eyes if you turn off exposure preview and just let it show all). You will get focus peaking and magnification. And so on.

It has pretty good advantages over an OVF *particularly* with MF lenses, really.

>>3012285
>has a small amount of lag on this model.

My a7ii has none with typical use.

Framerate drops in extreme low light through.

>>3012287
Most people won't really notice it.

But you got something like a 30hz refresh rate with a slight delay. I personally can see it, but it's not usually a problem.

Was the X100 series always this expensive?? I bought my X100T about a year ago for £650 on Ebay but the X100F is £1250. I want to get it but that's a bit much.

>>3012294
Yep. Even the fixed lens Fujis were always pretty steeply priced.

That said, it sounds like this X100F is about 220GBP or so over the price I'd expect it to be.

>>3012295
Exactly. I presumed it would be around £800 as my X100T, whilst it has a nice build, it doesn't feel like a £1250 camera.
My cheaper PEN F feels substancially better.

>>3012203
You'd be better off getting a Leica M9. It's he only way to use digital cameras and retain proper manual focus.
I presume you use film for a reason and the Leica M9 is the best way to affordably emulate film photography.
Sony is far too electronic and computer-like for me.

>>3012302
I was just checking how much they cost in other places.

As far as I'm concerned, no Fuji (even that X100T you have) felt like it had the correct price tag since around 2010 or so.

>>3012304
I agree. I got my X100T for £600 in mint condition but second hand. That seems about right.

>>3010093
Canon 80D

>>3012203
you're gonna hate using that thing, it's too far removed from a film camera
closest thing i've found to film is an orginal canon 5d or any of the digital m mounts

>>3012345
> you're gonna hate using that thing, it's too far removed from a film camera
Virtually everything is better. It even likely shoots faster than your film camera did manage to transport film (or you).

If anything you'll start disliking film cameras more.

>>3012233
That's all you have? What the fuck?

>>3012378
You know some people don't need tons of gear to make good photos or even run a successful photography business

>>3012383
So you're trying to put yourself on a high horse by saying you're not a gearfag. Well that won't work because neither am I, but you have a shit setup that has little to no versatility. Is the only thing you shoot portraits? You need to diversify.

>>3012384
>being this full of yourself
Also not same person, faghorn

>>3012386
>defending someone who is retarded enough to have a one-trick-pony setup and nothing more

Go take street photos of your fat mother asshole

>>3012388
I'm not defending someone, I am pointing your faggotry out. But I see you already ran out of arguments.

>>3012398
k

Hi guys, i want to buy my first Reflex camara, i dont want a digital one...i want a analog one and i have u$180 more or less.

>>3012384
>>3012388
>caring this much
wew lad, time to kill yourself

>>3012404
Get the Olympus OM-20 with the 1:1.4 50mm.

New Thread
>>3012434
>>3012434
>>3012434

>>3009349
I have an a3000 atm. I was thinking of upgrading to an a6000 is this good or is there a better camera

I've just been accepted to a university to pursue a degree in journalism, probably gonna swap that for a broadcasting degree though
What's a camera that can shoot in 1080p/60fps&30fps, has an optical zoom, is small enough to conceal in a bag (Or pocket, even better), has a standard tripod mounting system, and has full manual controls? I'm planning on buying it with scholarship money, but that's not a free pass to spend over $1k on a camera- I'd like to keep it under $500.

>>3010941
great little lens, the stm is really nice
kind of a must have for any low end kit

>>3012348
i've owned an x100s, a7 and a GR, all cameras that people recommend as good alternatives to film cameras and i hated them all
the 5d and the leicas are the only cameras ive found to have similar shooting styles to film cameras

Hey I'm new. I'm going to be moving to Taiwan for a year or two and would like to get into vlogging as a hobby. Can you recommend a good camera/setup for that? Or if there's no clear choice maybe a couple different ones I can get started researching?
Absolute max I want to spend is 1500 cdn but that'd include a tripod etc.. is that reasonable?
Thanks for any advice /p/

A6300 or A7ii? Looking for a camera that will get me by on both stills and video.

I know the two have distinct differences in video outputs, but I'm not looking for 4k/1080p etc. I just need a reliable camera for run-and-gun photo/video that won't (usually) overheat on me.

I'm looking at e-mount systems because I already have a good amount of lenses.

My father has a mostly unused Pentax K-M. Is this camera any good? Been thinking of picking it up.

>>3013748
The bad news is that it's an old low-end DSLR
The good news is that low-end DSLRs haven't evolved much since then, so it will still do almost anything a modern equivalent does (except video and live view on the rear LCD)

>>3013770
Is it still good to learn, though? Seeing as I'm willing to buy a Canon 750D with a 50mm lens for what I want to shoot.

>>3013323
iphone + dji gimbal.

>>3013773
Just get a cheap ass DA 35/2.4 for it, slap it on and go out shooting.

>>3013823
Thanks a bunch. Forgot to mention the camera already has an 18-55mm lens, though ideally I'd like to have a camera with a higher image resolution than this one, hence why I'm thinking about the Canon 700D (not the 750D, my mistake) which isn't too expensive and has a high enough resolution for what I want (it's about 800 eurobucks including the 50mm lens).

Speaking of the lens, I'm also not quite 100% sure about it either and would like confirmation. I've only dabbled a few times in photography with crap cameras, never done anything too serious and I've never done close-up photography before, but the subject I want to shoot is all about it. It's a bit unusual, but, would a 50mm lens be enough for close-ups and extreme close-ups of [spoiler]female genitals[/spoiler]? What about aperture? I want to be able to shoot the whole thing and also the smallest details in very sharp quality without crazy depth of field (before you ask I am 100% serious, this isn't a joke).

>>3013745
Either should work. A6300 will do faster bursts on faster AF, A7 II will do lower light and have IBIS.

Take a guess which you will need more.

File: Screenshot_20170202-010512.png (219KB, 1080x1920px) Image search: [Google]

219KB, 1080x1920px

>>3013956
I feel like that IBIS would he more useful to me, but I still love the autofocus of the a6300. How's the video (long video) performance? I've read that the a6300 overheats somewhat easily.

Pic somewhat related

>>3013959

a6300 can overheat when recording long lengths of 4k video without a break. 30+ minutes or so.

I personally prefer fullframe, but you should really look at a6500. It has ibis, and no cooling problems.

>>3009349
pentax k30 reporting in. the ak74 of the dslr. it shoots in any condition.