/gear/ - Gear thread

>>3016145
>fuji is winding down the x mount, their lens roadmap is empty

Not true!

There is a single lens coming out in 2017.

It is a 50mm f/2 for $400.

>>3016155
What is the point in continuously making lenses when each one they've made caters to literally everything?

>>3016156
Improving on the older designs? Or just switching to a better coating technology like Pentax did with the SMC DA and HD DA lenses.

>>3016156

So you are saying the x-mount line is complete and needs nothing else?

>>3016159
But what if the design is basically near-perfect? I mean if you make incremental improvements instead of quantum leap inprovements, it's kind of pointless given how much money it takes for R&D.

>>3016160
For the 98% of photographers, yes. The niche stuff should be left up to other camera brands.

Currently own a d3300 and looking for a prime lens thats wider than a 35. I don't care if I have to manual focus, just looking for something decent + cheap

>>3016164
No such thing as perfect or near-perfect, there is always a direction to improve.
The first leica was already near perfect, if development stopped there we wouldn't have digital photography or even internet and computers for that matter.

>>3016166
Zenitar 16mm rectangular fisheye

so yeah. 1080p screen suggestions? want to get a few ideas and do some comparisons.

>>3016164
no design in the entirety of human history has ever been near-perfect. It's a pure fantasy.

>>3016175
Dell Ultrasharp. IPS panel made in Japan. Has pre-calibrated sRGB color.

I'm looking to buy a G7 in the future; possibly the G7 w/14-42mm lens kit.

What other lenses should I look into purchasing afterwards?

>>3016181
>>3016173

OK, not near-perfect, but they make some pretty decent lenses and what my point is, that if you're not going to quantum leap into the next level, then there is no point. I really hate it when companies shit out a boatload of lenses, in a sort of low-mid-high category, where the high are so damn expensive, and the lows are just landfill fodder.

Fuji make mid to high lenses, for very affordable prices. And if you know exactly what you need, you can get away with 1-3 lenses only.

I'm not trying to say Fuji is THE BEST EVER. It just ticks so many boxes for me and it's given me pleasure from day 1.

>>3016188
Oh, forgot to note: While I'd probably use it to take pictures as well, my primary use for the G7 would be to capture video.

What's the better prime for an A6000

Sony 35mm F1.8?
Sigma 30mm F1.4?

I know the Sigma lacks OSS, but wouldn't the bigger aperture allow you to shoot with faster shutter speeds?

Also, what would be better for low-light handheld shooting?

>>3016190
>pretty decent lenses
well, if you think stopping down to f5.6 on an f1.4 lens just to get sharp across the frame is "decent" then sure.
>affordable
Well, no, let's not get silly, all 3 of the $100 sigma dn lenses outresolve EVERY fuji lens, despite them starting at $350+. They also don't compare to any full frame lens + sensor combo, the Sony 28mm f2 is markedly better even on crop than fuji's offerings at a similar price point.

So yeah, you could get 3 fuji lenses for $1200 - $2500, or you could get 3 sigma dn lenses for $300.

>>3016173
>first leica was near perfect
Spot the kiddo who's never used an early leica, they were fucking dogs. Shoddy little RF patch, the most ridiculous way to load film and really keen on breaking/falling out of calibration. It wasn't until the M3 that they started to become slightly more usable.

>>3016199
M3 then, whatever.

>>3016197
6 of one, half a dozen of the other.

The actual difference in light transmission is gonna be less than half a stop - not much to concern yourself over. You should be able to gain 1 to 2 stops through oss, so is probably the better choice for low light.

image quality, personally I prefer the Sony, I find the rendering of the sigma to feel a little flat. Both are good lenses though.

>>3016210

Alright, thanks for explaining. I've seen a couple of youtube videos, and found the sigma to be sharper and colors to be more contrast rich and warmer, whereas the sony seemed a bit colder.

Also, at F1.8 the Sony seems to be quite a bit less sharp.

i own a canon 80d and im kinda tempted to invest in Sigma art glass.
Should i do it or rather buy glass that i can keep when i evtually upgrade to fullframe.
also: does fullframe really that much of a difference or shall i stick with apsc forever?

>>3016213
No. Sigma Art is just a marketing term. The IQ might be better than most in some conditions but the bokeh makes the whole image a pain to look at, nauseatingly busy and generally just bad.
The build and reliability are lower than kit lens tier. If by some miracle the AF doesn't have massive back focusing issues than the hunting will bother you more than half the times and will just break in a few months, no matter how well it gets repaired it will break again.
See if you can get a Tamron equivalent or just go with first party lenses.

>>3016213
>does full frame really that much of a difference
Nope. Go for FF if you actually need it, like going massively wide angle or need the bigger pixels (meaning 40MP and over on FF will be the same as 16-24MP on APS-C)
If neither criteria are met then you don't need FF.
Some say APS-C is today what 35mm film was before, so you don't really miss out on anything staying on APS-C.

>>3016222
>it will break
Gonna need some sauce on that

>>3016255
Here's two:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UMZUhKL4XY8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBL9anpsrRg

>>3016261
>citing that fat autist

1/10 please see me.

>>3016261
>canon and nikon lenses never break

>>3016212
It's better to trust you eyes on this. If you look at all the straight OOC pics coming from sonys they're all cold. It can be fixed in post but honestly even though all the sonys are awesome cameras on paper and for the most part IRL the ergo, the menus, and having to fix colors on every picture that wasn't shot in an overcast city kept me out of the system.

Thoughts on the Leica d-lux typ 109?

>>3016174
What about non-fisheye? Or would that be too much.

>>3016213
Sigma art glass is the best glass being manufactured right now bar none. At half the price of some of the canon L equivalents, yet superior quality, its a no brainer.

Sure some units may be slightly out with AF but that can be corrected with the dock. And corrected properly at all focal lengths / focus distances, unlike canon where you can only set a single value (lol). The dock has other benefits too, custom modes etc. Constrast detection AF and manual focus is obviously completely fine so even if phase detect AF doesnt work for whatever reason (unlikely and you can just get a replacement anyway) its still worth every penny.

With the recent 85mm art canon really need to up their game. No one is falling for the first party lense meme anymore.

>>3016149
so i'm (probably) going to cop the Panasonic DMC-G85 as i plan on doing as much video as stills

should i go ahead and get it with the 12-60mm f/3.5-5.6 kit lens for $1000 USD or get the body for $850 USD and buy a lens separate (in which case, please recommend one)

>>3016369
It depends on how experienced you are. If not then the kit lens will give you a decent image while you can work on learning to use the camera, exposure triangle and such plus the video controls.
Later on you can still get a better lens.

>>3016343

>lindsay meme

>>3016290
Not same anon, but Samyang/Rokinon. Maybe a 14mm. Probably cheapest on eBay imported from S.Korea or HK or such.

Cheap is relative to it being a modern wide-angle lens, though.

Nikon D700.

Is this still a good camera?

How come a 2008 camera still costs 700~800 usd?

It should be costing no more than 400 dollars.

>>3016290
fisheye has better proportions than rectilinear. No skewed corners, no alien heads.

>>3016420
> Is this still a good camera?
Depends on your needs and personal standards.

> How come a 2008 camera still costs 700~800 usd?
Can also be had for like $650 or so, but I guess it's keeping some value because a lot of people want a FF camera but can't or prefer to afford not to buy a new one at >2 times the price?

What e-mount wide-angle lens should I buy?

>>3016439
12mm f/2 Samyang on APS-C

12mm f/2.8 Venus Optics on FF. Or the Zeiss Loxia 21mm. Or perhaps the Samyang 14mm.

>>3016290
Venus Optics Laowa 15mm Macro shift lens

Everyone is shooting loads over the Fuji X100F - it looks like a total knockout.

>>3016451
>Everyone is shooting loads over the Fuji X100F - it looks like a total knockout.

lemme see some links. actually considering dropping the coin on one as an upgrade to my x100s.

>>3016451
>didn't improve the lens design
You had one job, Fuji!

>>3016453
Just go on Youtube and type in x100f, it's just a plethora of nerds going on and on about it.

>>3016454
Doesn't need improvement.

>>3016462
>Doesn't need improvement
It's blurry as fuck, it needs improvement

>>3016466

it's sharp as fuck, even wide open. you just have shit technique.

>>3016466
Learn how to use a camera my man.

Can anyone recommend a decent printer for printing photos? Doesn't need a scanner or anything extra. Just want to print 4x6/5x7

>>3016481
www.hp.com

Looking for info on military/reconnaissance lenses.
I remember seeing a photo of a chinese carrier in a dydock, taken by a spy on the ground, and the lens had an outline of a tank and a plane for scale reference. I want more info on lenses/cameras like that please

>>3016547
It's hard to give general information since they're almost all custom made. If you're designing a spy plane or a satellite on a secret big-money government contract, you can specify pretty much anything you need to in terms of lenses, film/sensors, etc to meet whatever the spooks demand and what you can fit in your vehicle.

In 2012 the NRO gave NASA a pair of telescope mirrors similar to, but decidedly superior to, the one used in the Hubble space telescope. The stipulation was that NASA could use them for anything that didn't involve them being pointed back at Earth. They've been speculated to be spares for the KH-11 spy satellites that have been in use since 1976. They're thought to be able to look down from low-earth orbit, see a quarter on the ground, and tell if it's showing heads or tails.

>>3016553
I mean yes, but that is for satellites and stuff, I am talking about a person on the ground with a camera lens that had outlines of a tank and plane on the actual lens

So I have a Pentax Z-1p, wanted to test it out so I bought a new battery for it. Put it in, turned on fine then after a few minutes the camera and battery got extremely hot and smelt metallicy, then the camera flashed that the battery was half dead. The battery is a Panasonic 2CR5, which I know is the right type, so I'm guessing it's a problem with the body itself. Any ideas?

>>3016420
Because it's a brick shithouse of a camera, and possibly the GOAT Nikon FF DSLR.

>>3016577
Sounds like a short circuit somewhere. Send it to someone for repair if you want, but it'll probably cost more than a Pentax AF film body is worth. I'd just look for a cheap replacement body myself.

>>3016481
Canon PIXMA something where you can use 3rd party ink or CISS. Even a Selphy, but it has higher operation costs.

File: Cars - 1444879058113.jpg (165KB, 2048x1152px) Image search: [Google]

165KB, 2048x1152px

I have a couple of questions.

>pic related

I'd like to get really good at night time automotive photography. This image isn't mine, but I really like the style and feel of it. Although I think the focus is off, I'd like to know what best camera/lenses I should be looking at to achieve these results. Depth, light range, etc.

I've used a GH2 for the last X years but no matter what I do, images just feel flat. Even at 1.4 with my 25mm prime. The depth is good, but it just doesn't "look" as good as pic related.

So I want to upgrade to something professional and learn how to use it. I've been looking at the SONY a7sII but I was told all mirror-less lenses are going to have that flat feel to them and although it is a better camera, I won’t be achieving my goals with it. Is that true? What should I get to develop that rich depth and emotion in photography like this image here?

I also plan on shooting night time architecture and city streets, both quick shutter, and shutter left open.

Could you recommend a camera for this + a 3-lens set up for someone looking to do low-light city photography?

So I'm wondering.. I currently have a GX8 . It doesn't have IBIS for video, would it be beneficial for me to get G80/G85 (probably to replace GX8) ? It seems it also has newer shutter, so maybe less shutter shock with some lenses.

The idea of being able to use a wide aperture prime for video appeals me, as I don't have the 12-35 f2.8 .

If there was only one DSLR to own, what would it be?

>>3016634
you're trying to avoid having to be specific about your needs and use cases to simplify the decision-making process. You want us to just tell you what to go buy so you don't have to think. You can't do that. You shouldn't do that. Different cameras are for different things.

Anyway, get a Nikon D5 with a 600/4. That should cover just about everything.

>>3016634
Sony A7R II (okay, that's a MILC) or Nikon D5, depending on your preferences.

The earlier shoots high quality photos with virtually the whole history of photographic lenses and has extremely good primes on its own.

The latter just has amazing AF and tracking with fast burst rates and great low light capabilities.

File: 2b192e723ec8e9fe9c25a4991df533e3_XL.jpg (248KB, 1500x1517px) Image search: [Google]

248KB, 1500x1517px

>>3016628
>Could you recommend a camera for this + a 3-lens set up?
Pentax K-1 + Sigma 35 f1.4 + Pentax FA77 f1.8 + Pentax 70-200 f2.8

>>3016628
>Although I think the focus is off, I'd like to know what best camera/lenses I should be looking at to achieve these results.

Generally speaking, very high end primes on a decent to high end FF camera will make it easiest to shoot products.

> SONY a7sII
Since you apparently want to shoot low light, that's one of the best options.

> but I was told all mirror-less lenses are going to have that flat feel to them
Absolute nonsense. Unless you want "not flat" by having a bunch of aberrations and shit. Which you could have by sticking cheap lenses on the same camera anyhow.

> I won’t be achieving my goals with it. Is that true?
No. This camera is as such one of the most ideal ones for low light. And a good lens will help the image to look good, too.

> What should I get to develop that rich depth and emotion in photography like this image here?
Evokes fuck all for emotions in me but it does have a bit of a haze effect on top, and think a small blue light was used inside the car. You do get the bokeh balls with most high-end lenses.

> Could you recommend a camera for this + a 3-lens set up for someone looking to do low-light city photography?
A7S II is right.

But IDK what lenses you want exactly. You could use the 85mm f/1.4 GM, Zeiss 50mm f/1.4, Batis 25mm f/2 (all amazing glass, all expensive). Or slightly cheaper but still sharp variants. Or adopt some Canon glass. Or get a zoom 70-200 f/2.8 GM instead of one of the lenses.

>>3016645
>have K-1
>have FA 31/1.8
>wish I'd been smart enough to buy the Sigma 35/1.4 Art instead
being a gearfag is suffering

>>3016646 (cont'd)
Samples for the lens you might use the most ;the 85mm GM:
https://www.flickr.com/groups/sel85f14gm/pool/

>>3016645
Certainly another great option.

>>3016649
Why not just put up for sale and get the 30mm f/1.4, then? Should be not too different.

File: DSC00290-700px.jpg (344KB, 700x1049px) Image search: [Google]

344KB, 700x1049px

>>3016628
>mirrorless
>flat images

You've been memed friend. Mirrorless actually allows for much more variety in lens design due to not being restricted by the mirror box, this means that you can use things like leica and zeiss rangefinder lenses, known for their "3d pop".

As a rule of thumb, the less lens elements, the less flat the image will feel, this can be seen, imo, most clearly with the latest sigma lenses, sharp as fuck but super flat.

What I'd recommend you do is look up some examples of the sony 55mm f1.8, and its awesome rendering, it's also insanely sharp in the centre from wide open and the edges sharpen up great stopping down. It also has a transmission value of 1.8, most 50mm f1.4 dslr lenses transmission value drops to f1.7, so in real use this lens is no slower than any other premium normal lens, despite its slower design. Pic related, dat pop.

Look how fuji measure up against sony/zeiss, kinda hilarious, fuji are supposed to be all about "the feel" of photos and they get rekt. http://admiringlight.com/blog/sony-zeiss-fe-35mm-f1-4-vs-fuji-xf-23mm-f1-4/

You could also use adapted lenses from any mount to give you the feel you want, if you don't think sony/zeiss have nailed it.

I'd only recommend the a7sii if you're shooting 70%+ video, otherwise you can save money and get sharper images from the a7ii or even sharper images from the a7rii, for stills the a7ii and a7rii outperform the a7sii in every way, including low light.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-7RM2
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.4
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	50 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	5304
Image Height	7952
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2016:07:11 04:56:00
Image Created	2016:06:29 09:57:20
Exposure Time	1/250 sec
F-Number	f/1.4
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	250
Lens Aperture	f/1.4
Brightness	3.2 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	50.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	700
Image Height	1049
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

>>3016187
These are seemingly hard to find in stock in Australia rn. Good alternatives?

>>3016674
Just a heads up, if it says "pre calibrated", it'll still be miles off where it should be.

I looked on apparently aus' largest pc parts store and they didn't have a suitable 1080p ips panel for a price less than the qnix 2710 from korea on ebay.

>>3016682
what store? also aren't you the sony fanboi? forgive me if I take your words with a grain of salt

>>3016691
Do whatever you what man, enjoy.

And yeah, i am a sony user, i also cut my chops at the BBC in their av department.

>>3016670
>Look how fuji measure up against sony/zeiss, kinda hilarious, fuji are supposed to be all about "the feel" of photos and they get rekt

The entire sony setup costs twice as much of course they get wrecked

Reminder that a FF bag with variety of lenses weights quite a bit more than a m43 bag with same equivalent focal length of lenses.

>but you don't need to bring every lens to every shoot

well where's the fun in that?

>>3016703
Where is the fun in shooting at 1/3 the resolution when you still can bring 3-6 very high end lenses no problem?

>>3016696

They really should have compared the Zeis 35mm f 3.8 instead. Similarly priced lens and the bodies are about the same so it would have been a more interesting comparison I think.

>>3016710
also the dude clearly missed focus with the fuji

>>3016712

Nah, it is just that soft when viewed side by side with $3k glass.

>>3016717
yeah 3k sony glass that has disgusting green CA everywhere

>>3016649
That FA 31 will be a working lens 20 years from now on. Half of the Sigma Art lenses barely work after 2 years, even less after 4.
You made the smart choice, Anon.

>>3016712
No he didn't bruh, that's just the inherent softness you should expect from a crop sensor camera compared to full frame. Also, fuji's lenses are really rather soft.

>>3016703
LOL, no.

Panasonic GH5 - 725g
olympus omd em1 ii - 574g
Sony A7ii - 556g

panny 12mm f2.8 equivalent - 335g
olympus 12mm f4 equivalent - 130g
sony 28mm f2 - 200g

panny 25mm f2.8 equivalent - 200g
oly 25mm f2 equivalent - 410g
Sony 55m f1.8 - 281g

Panny total - 1260g
Oly total - 1114g
Sony total - 1037g

Kinda cringe that Sony manages a sensor 4 times the size and lenses with an image circle at least 1500mm2, whilst m43 gets away with under 400mm2, yet the sony system is lighter. We can knock off over 300g if we look at sonys crop stuff.

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

3KB, 284x115px

>>3016723

File: 23_35_center.jpg (2MB, 1400x2654px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1400x2654px

>>3016723
In this image the wood texture in front of the blocks gets sharper at f2 with the fuji before the blocks do

It's front focused

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2014 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Created	2015-05-08T12:02-04:00
Flash	No Flash Function
Image Width	1400
Image Height	2654

>>3016723
Nice cherrypicking sonygger.
Also m43 is literally half of ff so where does that 4 times come from? Your ass?
What a fucking childish moron.

>>3016730
lol, sonyautist can't into basic grade school math

>>3016730
>cherrypicking
How so? I could have gone for sony's lighter 50mm f1.8, or the crop stuff, this was the closest equivalents I could find.

>where does 4 times come from

ff - 36mm x 24mm
m43 - 17.5mm x 13mm
If you can't work out that it takes 4 m43 sensors to fill the space of a ff sensor I'm deeply concerned about you, are you from India or somewhere?

>>3016736
You feeling pretty dumb yet? saying someone else can't do grade school maths when you're in the wrong, pretty worrying bruh.

>>3016670
>http://admiringlight.com/blog/sony-zeiss-fe-35mm-f1-4-vs-fuji-xf-23mm-f1-4/
>I said up front that this wasn’t really a fair test, and it really isn’t. The Zeiss was tested with a higher resolution body, and the lens itself is nearly double the cost. However, despite the resolution difference, it’s easy to see that the FE 35mm f/1.4 is exceptional. It takes an extremely good Fuji 23mm f/1.4 and makes it look mediocre in comparison. Zeiss has done something rather incredible with the lens.


Sonnygers are illiterate, who fukn knew

>>3016739
>this isn't a fair test because the fuji is junk in comparison

I mean, I never denied that bit. But it shows that exceptional results can be had on mirrorless that couldn't be achieved on a dslr, which addresses op's concerns.

>>3016741
Oh, you actually believe the bullshit you're spouting...That's pretty sad.

>>3016285
>Leica d-lux typ 109
just buy the lumix lx100, its the same camera, literally, but with no red dot and half the price, i have it and i love it

>>3016709
>3-6 lenses
maybe primes, but no WA zoom and/or tele zoom.

>>3016743
This doesn't seem to be in response to what I said, calm down, count to 30, and try again.

ok nikon fanbois. i need a new camera. i have a old as shit canon 30D with kit lens. i have been masterbating over the D500 because of perceived better ISO abilities and frame rate. Its 2k though. i want to do wildlife/sports/astro stuff. no portrait / landscape stuff as of right now. now find myself looking at the d7200 / d750 / d500. dx or fx for my purposes ? dx or fx for astro ? thinking tilting or full articulating screen would be nice for astro on tripod.
what say you ?

>>3016757
FF is way too expensive, D500 is only only option on Nikon. Though I don't think if it's much better than 7D2, since you have the amazing 100-400m2 for canon, and the cheapo old but goodie 400 f5.6

With canon you get glass that's simply better, whilst on nikon you have to haul either a 150-600 Sigma C, Tamron or Nikon 200-500 , all 2kg, whilst canon are 1.25-1.5kg or something.

>>3016757
ff is necessary for good astro results.

sports/wildlife and astro kinda have opposite needs, the d750 would probably be the best compromise.

The d500 is a specialist tool, I'd only suggest one if you're a full time sports/nature tog or as a second body.

>>3016758
Lol, no.

The new nikon 70-200 2.9 is far better than canons latest. Nikon glass has been consistently excellent, and the prices reflect that, canon has had LOADS of pretty shit lenses at good prices.

>>3016758
i was going to get a tamron 70-200 and a nikon 200-500 if i buy the nikon. i have the money, just want to make sure i make the right decision. have been researching for weeks..

>>3016762
>new nikon 70-200 f2.8
>after years of people moaning, it shows up
oh really? But canon also has a 11-24 now that's better than nikon 14-24, not to mention their 16-35 are much better than nikon 16-35 or other nikon WA zoom

Need I remind the new nikon 24-70 VR did get very good reception

>>3016759
im not even a photographer let alone a pro. im just a picture taker. thats why im here looking for solid advise. im a photog idiot.

>>3016763
I'm not familiar with astro, but I know that for wildlife photography D500 is pretty much the camera to have, since both D750 and D8xx series are either too slow framerate, or the AF accuracy isn't quite on same level with D500.

>>3016759
the reason i was looking at the APSc is because of the extra reach for astro. am i wrong on that thought process ?

>>3016765
full frame cameras have a few advantages
>better low light performance
larger sensor, more light can hit it at once
>sharper images
larger sensor, larger pixels, which is less demanding on your lens
>more bokeh
larger sensor, wider fov at each focal length, more background blur.

>>3016755
Could also be 3 zooms or such if you prefer. Or 2 zooms, 2 primes. Not that amazingly hard to be happy, really.

Arguably muh Sony makes it easier in terms of weight and in some instances size.

>>3016769
ah, when you said astro i presumed you meant like pic related.

If you meant proper deep field stuff then the d500 might do you well.

I'd highly recommend going to a shop and playing with a d750 and d500, for me the tiny viewfinder of the d500 is a deal breaker on it's own.

>>3016770
can't have proper sharpness and low light performance in same camera. You can
>d8xx sharpness
>d5 lowlight
but even then you need to be filling the frame, which is why many prefer crop body for wildlife.

>>3016770
>larger sensor, more light can hit it at once
Bullshit. The sensor is not a window, it is light value per photosite area, not per total area. Finish a damn school first before you start spewing bullshit around.
>larger sensor, larger pixels, which is less demanding on your lens
Wrong conclusion there. Read the above, this is also pixel pitch or area dependent, not sensor total area.
>larger sensor, wider fov at each focal length, more background blur
Doesn't make sense, wider fov and dof are not related.

Yet again sonyautist is assblasted by his own stupidity,

>>3016693
Theres a difference between a sony user and The Sony User

>>3016773
yes i meant pics of stars and the moon and such.

>>3016773
heres what i take pics of
astro as already stated
drag race cars as they are leaving the line
wildlife as in my animals and the local wildlife here in Fl. - birds in flight and at rest. and the normal family bullshit pics indoors

>>3016791
D500 should be pretty good, because the AF system is better than those of D750 and D8xx

>>3016791
sorry, forgot to add pic, is this what you want to do? http://www.photopills.com/sites/default/files/tutorials/2014/morrow2.jpg or http://www.skyandtelescope.com/wp-content/uploads/Deep-Sky-4-e1438016067382.jpg

if it's the first, full frame is what you want and is fairly easy in the right location, if it's the latter, probably the d500, but that shits complicated and long so I've not done it myself.

Drag racing, probably full frame, the ability to bump the iso a bit more to get faster shutter speeds and the larger sensor will help make sharper images that freeze the movement better.

your animals and family - full frame all day everyday

birds in flight - d500

Personally, I think you will be a lot happier with the images from the full frame camera, especially when it comes to taking shots of your family and animals, and astro. The advantage of crop for wildlife is minimal at best and it's gonna have a large effect on your other shots.

The differences in AF speed are there, but the d750 is still massively capable with the right lens.

>>3016795
any truth that the new d7200 has better ISO performance than the d500 ?
unfortunatley i have no camera stoer remotley close to do the touchy feely thing.

>>3016799
Yes but i doubt that those pics could be done with just the cam on a tripod. Those are fantastic pics. wife is crazy about pics of the moon and sun. Id like to do those types of pics sometime in the future.

>>3016803
the moon and sun pics are the reason that i was looking at DX because of the 1.5 crop factor equaling extra reach for moon details without spending $$$$$$$$ on high MM lenses.

>>3016804
that extra reach is a bit of a red herring, even the best lenses don't outresolve digital sensors, so you're effectively just zooming in on the lenses flaws/softness.

>>3016791
If you do hobby only then get a D7200 instead. AF is still capable but you can get the better lens frm the price difference. Nikkor 200-500 (or 300/4 plus 1.4x TC), a good standard zoom like the 16-85, 35/1.8 prime and maybe a used Tamron 70-200/2.8 VC if you want portraits or some of your lanscapes need more narrow angles. It is also a good idea to use the 70-200/2.8 VC with a 2x TC instead of the Nikkor 200-500, gives you more versatility.

>>3016808
Opinion on 1.4 and 2x teleconvertors ?

>>3016818
Expect to always lose IQ but the reach, framing and the subject itself always counts more in a photo, more so than the technical aspects.
If you need the reach use a TC.

>>3016820
any truth to the expected release of a camera in nikon line this year that uses an RGBW sensor ?

>>3016823
Do you want to wait half the year or do you want to go out shooting?
A D7000 would do the job as well so it doesn't matter if you have the newest camera or not. The D500 is a year old, the D7200 two years old, the new one will be one year old next year and so on.
Get the camera today and shoot your photos, it is what really counts in the end.
And when the new camera comes out yours will do the job just as well when you bought it so don't worry about such nonsense.

Old nex, been with me for years. Dropped a couple times. Is there anything I can do about the display being torn?

Seems theres some uv mask that has melted and gotten torn and now the view can't be seen properly.

>>3016827
Thanks anon. I can tell you for sure that my canon 30D is damn sure not up to the task of what i want to do right now. Is the tilting screen a big + for astro ? Thats why i have been only heavily considering the ones with a screen that tilts or completly articulates.

>>3016833
i always use the tilting screen on my camera, helps loads for composition

>>3016831

Where the plastic over the screen itself almost gets weird? Like purple discoloring? Happened to my wifes C3. I was able to remove it with an razor blade and patience. Put a screen protector over it and it is fine now.

You could also probably find an old beat up/broken one and use it for parts.

File: phaggets.jpg (292KB, 1500x998px) Image search: [Google]

292KB, 1500x998px

Since sony circlejerk is going on...
Should I take sony rx100 V as a trade in... Needing small camera for traveling, and it they seem to be the only one who dosen't use touchscreens on the camera.... wich is a bonus for me, since my useless fingers arent recognizable on most of the touchscreens anyway

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	NEX-5
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.0 (Macintosh)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/4.0
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	40 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2013:11:02 17:13:40
Exposure Time	1/125 sec
F-Number	f/6.3
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	200
Lens Aperture	f/6.3
Brightness	6.6 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	27.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

>>3016838
to add the only reason I am more interested in the V model over the III and IV is that there is still load s of warranty left on it and not really trusting sonys that much lately since a7 crapped on me

>>3016838
The RX100 V is about the best travel compact, so why not.

Not that I think a normal IL camera with well chosen lenses is a problem.

File: Andromeda.jpg (661KB, 1200x800px) Image search: [Google]

661KB, 1200x800px

>>3016833
For astro you will want to use tethering, especially for wide field and DSO, just google BackyardNikon, also try and get a good tracking mount like the Star Adventurer or a used HEQ5.
Tilting screen is good for awkward situations in landscape but for astro (other than starscapes) it is more of a burden, it is easy to knock the rig out of polar alignment while fiddling with it.
Pic related, my half-assed try at the Andromeda galaxy.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.6 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2016:08:02 23:36:00

>>3016842
Shame that my Contax G2 is lost in delivery atm, loving lenses on those but seemingly cant get it in time...

>>3016843
if i was able to get shots like that, id be more than happy !

>>3016837
It kind of looks like an uv film, it had some color like you say. But there also scratches and shit in it.

I asked in some stores but living in Asia so they aren't really helpful.

I'm afraid I will wreck it completely if I try and meddle with it

>>3016847
I made this with a Pentax K-3, astrotracer thingy, Tamron 70-200/2.8. Manfrotto 190 tripod. I'm planning on switching to proper tracking mount because the astrotracer is PITA to set up. (do the 3-axis dance 3 times and if the stars align and the gods are willing it then it will lock)
Oh, yeah, the K-3 is also a good alternative but the lens selection is more narrow. If you can get a DA* 300 and a 1.4xTC then you are good for motorsports and birding.

File: 2d3evdxhlb1y.jpg (149KB, 1369x900px) Image search: [Google]

149KB, 1369x900px

The new X100F has a "Digital Teleconverter" to emulate a 50mm and 70mm lens. IS this basically applying digital zoom? Seems like a gimmick; how much of the sensor will be used is set to 50mm? How many megapixles?

>>3016904
it's the same as featured on the X70. http://www.mirrorlessons.com/2016/03/07/fuji-x70-teleconverter/

It works quite well, but limits you to shooting jpgs while using the "digital converter".

>>3016904
If you shoot raw+jpeg, I imagine the digital cropping thing would be useful as a framing aid, then you can crop the raw file to your liking later. That is, if it lets you do that without touching the raw file, I wouldn't know, just guessing.

>>3016951
It's stupid.

>>3016934
Ah okay. That's not as gimmicky as I thought as it actually upscales the image to retain the full sensor resolution...

I got a Spyder5 color calibration utility today. I ran the calibration and the difference was pretty huge.

How can I ever trust my eyes ever again? Also, how can I trust this calibration?

>>3016963
>How can I ever trust my eyes ever again?
For accuracy / consistency? You don't really. Not what eyes do for most people.

> Also, how can I trust this calibration?
To be accurate? Verify it against what should have a known color value or even a known spectrum of light emissions.

Any recommendations for a reliable manual-only flash?

>>3016975
Godox TT600, Yongnuo YN660

>>3016975
why does it need to be manual only? what's the harm in having the option to go auto?

>>3016991
TTL is only good for pros at events. Anything else is better on manual controls.

>>3016222
>t. tamron salesperson
I've got a few sigma art lenses, never had one break in any way whatsoever.

I used the usb dock ($40-60ish) to fine-tune perfect focusing, and the lenses were thousands of dollars less than the canon alternative I would've purchased so there's nothing to complain about.

Your trolling is absolutely pathetic.
You could not tell an image from a $800 sigma apart from a $2000+ canon unless you looked at the exif data.

>>3016963
Welcome to the importance of calibration, everyone likes to think they have a "good" colour representation, they don't.

As long as your screen isn't tn, the colours you now see are correct.

What makes you doubt it apart from how much it changed?

>>3016770
>larger sensor, more light can hit it at once
you are a retard for several reasons.
1. A 2x scaled square or rectangle has 4x the surface area, which means it has to also receive 400% the light to get the same exposure. There's no decreased likelihood for a full frame sensor's pixel to receive inadequate photons and give a false reading.
Photon size isn't larger for full frame either. A 35mm sensor can have smaller pixels than a crop sensor.
The expensive 35mm 5dsr has small 4.14 micron pixels, whereas a canon Rebel XT has large 6.4 micron pixels on a crop sensor.

>large pixels = sharper images
1. You're a fucking retard. Large pixels = less pixels = less resolution. Have you looked at a 100x100 pixel JPEG image?
Smaller pixels results in sharper images, not larger pixels. Having large pixels might act as a sort of quasi noise reduction in that since it is LOWER RESOLUTION you see less of her ugly ass-hairs when she's bending over, but the one thing it never does is increase sharpness.
Also, again, there are crop cameras that have larger pixels than 35mm sensors do. So by your retard logic, that shitty Rebel XT crop has sharper images than a $5000 full frame.

>bokeh stupidity
Really important purchase, love to laugh at out-of-focus faces where only the nose is in focus because a kid is using a 35mm sensor with less forgiving and shallower DoF than a crop.

>>3016188
>>3016191
Anybody have any lens recommendations or tips?
Or tips about the G7 in general?

>>3017028
Panasonic-Leica 12-60mm

>>3017021
>sensor area
Learn how transmission works, but to make it really simple, hold up a small piece of paper and a large piece of, which one has more light hitting it.

>pixel size
Learn more about optics, the limiting factor to resolution (as in sharpness, not pixel count) in modern digital cameras is the lens, not the sensor. A larger sensor and lens taking the same photo as a crop with the same mp count and equivalent focal length is more forgiving on the full frame sensor. Having larger pixels can increase sharpness as there's less wasted space between pixels on the sensor.

>bokeh
It's a look that a huge amount of potential clients are looking for, i can always stop down for deeper dof.

No need for going ad hom man, it only makes you seem unreasonable.

>>3017040
>still can't understand elementary level physics
I weep for the world

>>3016991
Isn't TTL capability really expensive on a decent flash?

>>3016756
Oh dear he ACTUALLY thinks people give a shit, so sad :^)

I just did it lads. Nikon FE for £90 in basically near-mint condition. I could hardly pass up the opportunity seeing as I've seen them go for double, and it was buy now.

I need to get rid of my Canon AE-1, and all my mediocre lenses.

>>3017060
Don't worry now Anon, you can get all the mediocre Nikkor lenses now.

>>3017062
YES. Can't wait to collect dust with them and have sit on my shelf being useless.

But let's be serious for a sec, thinking of just getting the 50mm 1.4. And not really anything else.

Any other recommendations?

>>3017073
A 35mm instead

>>3017074
My Fooj XT-10 has a 23(35) mm 1.4.

>>3017077
That is not film

>>3017082
Tru dat, very well spotted - but from what I see, other than the 35mm f2, there ain't much out there.

>>3017091

f2 at 35mm on ff is different from f2(and f1.4) at 23 on a crop.

Give it a shot, probably dirt cheap anyway.

>>3017049
on a speedlight? Not really, if you spring for third party alternatives. The first party ones are stupid expensive.

>>3017073
AIS 28/2.8
AIS 20/2.8
105/2.5
AIS 55 or 105 micro
80-200/4

Or basically any of the core focal lengths. Nikon's famous in that era for a reason.

File: canon-powershot-g5x-01.jpg (35KB, 770x433px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 770x433px

What are the chances of Canon releasing a new G5X in the next few months? Not sure if I should buy right now.

>>3017044
You're right, you still can't understand elementary physics.

>>3017060
A lot of fd glass was better than nikon, the 28, 35, 50 1.4 and 135 are all exceptional from canon.

And the fe is a hunk of shit, should have got an f90/f90x/f100, unless your main intention is to be a hipster douche.

>>3017044
>this level of denial
You got rekt in the most polite manner possible son, thank the dude and fuck off.

>couple of gear fags arguing about pixels on a sensor

why are so many stating that canon lenses are better than nikon lenses. newb asking

>>3017450
Because they have poor self image and they have to prop themselfs up arguying about stupid pointless shit. Don't waste too much time thinking about gear. Just learn to use yours and go out shooting, be happy.

>>3017450
Because Canon makes good lenses. Generally every first party makes good lenses from mid tier and up, be it Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Fuji and so on.
But for most people a camera means Canon so the general consensus is Canon makes good lenses.

>>3017459
>>3017461
>>3017463
TY anons
So im assuming that canon / nikon/ect all have good lenses once you get into the price range of mid range to upper range.

>>3017467
Yep

>>3017473
since im a newb searching for the truth and wisdom, im watching the fat guy / the couple with the hot as fuck chealsea and many others trying to gleen the truth from all the bullshit before i invest 5k in a hobby

>>3017486
Whatever you do don't believe anything connected with the name "Northrup"

>>3016149
https://livebunker.rocks/chat/int

>>3017497
is there a reason for that ?
im asking genuine questions here

>>3017499
Chelsea is about "I'm pretty I'm only good for modeling" and Tony is about spewing pseudo science bullshit that is only backed up in his own fucked up nerdy mind. People who have actually learned high-school level physics and maths can easily take apart all his bullshit.
His "FF gathers more light because bigger sensor" (sensor is not a window) and "you don't need ND and polarizer filter, it is better to murder your shutter instead" are his most remarkable bullshit.
Actually the neurotic fat guy is right in this one, only he tells it at least three times per video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDZ2ApqU-uA

>>3017060
Nikon FE's always go for around £100. F3s go for £200.

I thought The FE was basically a competitor to the AE-1..?

>>3017510
yes, i have watched that video more than once.
i know the fat guy is not in love with the northrups. i guess the RI to CT sunshine comment was directed at them.

>>3017512
I have nikon fe, it's great. Feels and works like a real tool, not some plastic 80s fantastic shit.

>>3017534
This is why I got a magnesium alloy body DSLR. It is the same except without the pretentiousness.

>>3017540
The only thing pretentious is you thinking slinging around a metal DSLR is better than a metal MF SLR. Spoiler: they both take pictures.

>>3017512
EM is more on the AE-1's level. The FE/FM are like today's D7200 in tier.

>>3017362
Have you shot with it? Why so salty? Did a nikon dude steal your gf?

I wouldn't even touch a Nikon if it wasn't for the year long research I've done onto which model and the constant drooling of nerds over the Nikon F line. It's better designed, sturdier, and more reliable from what I've read.

AE-1 is also great but I'm curious to see what Nikon has to offer, and I'm already agreeing with a lot of the stuff I've read, and I can tell you I've done my homework.

You seem to be talking shit because:

1) if you have shot with one, and still liked the AE-1, you wouldn't describe it so disparagingly
2) It's clear you haven't shot with one because every photographer worth his salt has said only good things, every single link I've found mention the FE has said good things. The only downsides of it are a lack of superfluous features found in later models.
3) If the glass is "worse" why do so many people rave about it, and why are they annoyingly expensive on Ebay?

Don't hate on some Nikon because some hipster made fun of you.

>>3017512
If you average out the median price its about 100-120. But in each offer the camera differs widely in condition and extras. For 90 quid, I got a near-mint condition FE, plus the original case that was in excellent condition. Also buy-now, so I didn't have to bid like a scrub.

>>3017540
>pretentiousness

To whom? I want to take fucking pictures you mong not wear it like an accessory. Maybe if you stopped obsessing about what people you could start creating something worth talking about. You sound like the first cunt I was quoting.

File: Bildschirmfoto-2017-02-07-um-16.17.07.png (327KB, 700x386px) Image search: [Google]

327KB, 700x386px

100mm f2.8 STF with OSS and SSM (PDAF support?) HNNNGGGG

>>3017558

Fuck, and I just bought the SEL90M28G.

File: ap_3.jpg (61KB, 1199x800px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 1199x800px

>>3017560
Eh the STF is only T5.6 though. Weird bokeh anyhow.

>>3017563

>weird bokeh

Yeah, because it is an STF lens. That is the whole point.

The 85mm looks damn nice. Price will probably drop soon like the 50mm. As long as they don't fuck upth AF it will be a must have lens.

File: ap_1.jpg (82KB, 1200x800px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 1200x800px

Still not used to how smooth the bokeh is. The previous 135mm Minolta STF was T4.5 so I guess the new STF should have even smoother bokeh?

>>3017568
Dual linear motors on the 85mm so AF should be fine.

File: IMG_0756.jpg (2MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3264x2448px

Have this camera from high school, only thing I got. I think the camera on my phone might be better. Can I /p/hotograph /p/?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Apple
Camera Model	iPhone 6
Camera Software	10.2
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	29 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2017:02:07 10:25:33
Exposure Time	1/17 sec
F-Number	f/2.2
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	250
Lens Aperture	f/2.2
Brightness	0.1 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	4.15 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	3264
Image Height	2448
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>3017571

Damn, thats gonna be nice.

Will pick it upin 4 months when it is down to $300.

>>3017573
I had the same one, it's vastly superior to any phone camera out there. That said, it isn't very ergonomical to use.

File: Screen Shot 2017-02-07 at 10.34.11 AM.png (67KB, 197x151px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 197x151px

>>3017576
>>3017573
smaller pic

Thanks, I don't know how to use it yet. Any advice on where to get started?

I'm buying a camera off Craigslist, should I get the Olympus SP-57OUZ or Nikon Coolpix 5700? I already talked numbers with the person and set up the meeting, and I did say Nikon but I thought I'd ask you guys. They've had the posting up for a while, so I'm sure they won't get mad if I ask for the other. What do you guys think? Selling for 80 and 70, respectively.

>>3017585

Neither.

Both shit, and both outrageous prices. Call the seller and politely decline.

Don't be a rube.

>>3017588
Oh..okay. But if you had to choose?

>>3017591
Neither. There is always a third option.

Is someone holding a gun to your head?

>>3017598
Its craigslist. Could actually be someone holding gun to anons head

>>3017591
I'd choose to not regret spending 1/3rd of the money I'd need for even a 2 generation old APS-C entry level interchangeable lens camera (D3100) on a literally 15 year old bridge camera with a sensor the size of a fingernail.

File: cdb.jpg (24KB, 499x499px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 499x499px

>>3017609
Then pull the fucking trigger.

This board makes me giggle sometimes, you get ultra hardcore gearfags talking about pixelcount, and then you get these clueless rubes that could of spent 15 picoseconds on google to find that the """camera""" they're after should have been minced in a recycling plant about 12 years ago.

Bridge cameras are a photographic shitstain.

Fucking kekking that some huxter wants 80$ for one.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

File: 1389696216274.gif (3MB, 554x418px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 554x418px

>>3017558
STF with Autofocus support, fuck yeeeeaaahhh

OSS too? Hook me up.

That GM design is looking rather sweet to me as well. A ring for focus, a Ring for aperture (based), and a third ring for the extra de-focusing.
I almost want an entirely new jit around just that design Goddamn.

>>3017560
That's the Macro lens Anon, it's a completely different speed.

The STM lens's gimmick is the crazy defocusing. The Macro lens' thing is it surpasses the 42MP sensor and is ready when you get some +100 MP sensor in the distant future.

Does /p knows of any artist who doesn't care about his gear or used an entry level gear?

>>3017693
Miroslav Tichý

>>3017693
jason Lanier
hes a sony faggot

File: 1.jpg (191KB, 853x480px) Image search: [Google]

191KB, 853x480px

>>3017711
Jason is pretty based, he covered the inauguration day.

A bunch of anarchists blocked his way into the Washington memorial because no fun is allowed, so he just filmed them instead.
https://youtu.be/0LQ9GuLnt24?t=652

He got some nice shots of anarchists camping their butt to the ground, but trampled when people got sick of them and just walked over them while the Police gave 0 fucks.
Even the police was tired of that shit.

[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

>>3017711
Also a registered fedora rapist

>>3017450
>better
Economically, there's no debate at all. Canon wins on price+performance for 1st party.
Nikon lenses are overpriced compared to Canon.
You have to pay hundreds/thousands more to get the same quality lens collection.

Common example, 70-200mm F2.8 stabilized, $1949 on amazon for canon, $2797 lowest for nikon. And reviewers have compared them and found the canon telephotos are better lenses, the nikon 70-200 suffers from excessive focus-breathing so ended up behaving more like a 70-150mm even at $800-900 higher price.

Resale is also easier on canon and finding good deals on used canon lenses for even Bigger discounts is also easier, due to Canon having #1 market share of all digital photographers. Market of scale at work.

The counter-point is that while canon has better lenses, most tests have current generation nikon bodies as better performance for the money.

At the immediate present, both systems are essentially equal.
Though if the landscape shakes up, I see it only going downhill for Nikon. (To benefit of either Sony or Canon)
Nikon doesn't make its own sensors, it just sucks at Sony's tit.
Sony could cock-block them next gen when Nikon needs new hardware and nikon would lose its entire strength as it already loses to canon on lenses.
Or Sony could decide to sell the exact same sensor to Canon and suddenly the traditional dslr fight is again losing for nikon.

Just interesting to think about, either one will still be good enough for 99% of photogs.

>>3017711
>That fuck fedora

>>3017719
Goddamn that cuck in the beanie and face-cloth thing, what a fucking weak faggot hiding his face.

>IS HE HURTING YOU
>IS HE HURTING YOU>IS HE HURTING YOU
>IS HE HURTING YOU
>IS HE HURTING YOUV
>IS HE HURTING YOU>IS HE HURTING YOU
>IS HE HURTING YOU
>IS HE HURTING YOU>IS HE HURTING YOU
>IS HE HURTING YOU

Fuck me, I hate trump but these faggots are worse.

I hope america tanks in 2017

>>3017726
Sony isn't going to block them as long as they are willing to pay enough.

The development of the 42MP sensor was probably insanely expensive, so if Nikon wants it, they naturally need to cough up, because there sure as hell isn't many other places stepping up to the challenge.

>>3017726
>comparing the new E VR to the older Canon IS II on price
>then turning around and comparing optical qualities of the old VR II to the IS II

Are you retarded?

File: 1.jpg (142KB, 853x480px) Image search: [Google]

142KB, 853x480px

>>3017729
Even the police got so sick of their shit, they actually assisted the inauguration visitors, lifting them over the camped butts.

Eventually the protesters realise they didn't accomplish shit, and went and started fires and breaking building windows.

[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

>>3016738
Nice

I need a budget wide angle prime for landscapes and stars. Does anyone have any experience with samyang's 14mm f2.8? I don't care that it's fully manual.

Also on a similar yet related note, the angry photographer always harps on there being more to a lens than sharpness, and it's all about low element count and quality of the light transmission. Any suggestions for a wide angle prime?

>>3017776
The samyang you just mentioned

>>3017776
I'm looking into the Tokina 20mm F2 myself.

It's only for E-mount though.

>>3016738
Nah dude Indians can do middle school math

I have a question for any hasselblad users here. So it turns out that a hesselblad 500c that i was given isnt operational at shutter speeds faster then 1/15th of a second. Anything faster then that and the aperture blades are closed before the back even opens. Has anyone here encountered this problem before? And if so was it a problem with the body it's self or the lens? I'm trying to figure out what needs to be repaired because i'd rather not spend the money to have them both fixed

I bought this camera a while back on ebay.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/401261699423?_trksid=p2057872.m2748.l2649&ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT

It had power issues and I sent it in for repairs. They told me it couldn't be fixed and gave me a full refund.

But now they have listed the same exact camera (look at the photos and you can see the same scuff marks) again on ebay as "This item is sold AS-IS and has NOT BEEN TESTED".

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Canon-EOS-1D-Mark-II-N-8-2MP-Digital-SLR-Camera-no-charger-364-/142271662276?hash=item21200d48c4:g:~lYAAOSwNnRYmkki#viTabs_0

This is some shady business, bruh. It has been tested by them and they know it doesn't work.

Just purchased a T5 and 2 lenses. Looking for a cheap camera bag. Preferably one I can sling over my shoulder. Any recommendations?

File: 1.jpg (97KB, 853x480px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 853x480px

>>3017563
>>3017569
Jesus. This softness is making me rock hard.

[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

File: 1289300239766.jpg (41KB, 449x319px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 449x319px

>>3017558
Is also has a switch to change the aperture ring between stepless and click steps.

Is ken wheeler a good guy to listen to for lense advice?

>>3017703
>doesn't care about gear
>recommends tog that builds his own cameras

Never change /p.

>>3017817
>$1800 f1.2 lens
>t1.7

Not even once.

Looking to buy my first camera. Stuck between the Nikon D5500 and Sony a6000. Dont have a preference between mirrorless or dslr just looking for opinions or other camera within the same price range.

File: 1486481459000_IMG_747608.jpg (39KB, 750x750px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 750x750px

>>3017878
>f1.2 lens
No it's a F2,8 lens.

But the smoooooooooooothest fucking F2,8 lens you will ever see.

Smoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooth

>>3017883

If you don't know why you need a dslr, then get a mirrorless. The only stipulation being that mirrorless cameras have straight up worse battery life. So if you need to take the camera camping, you need to take more batteries. However the mirrorless camera will still be good if you are OK with that because it will be smaller and lighter than the dslr ie easier to carry hiking etc.

Unironically don't buy a sony if the shits on here had anything to do with making you want one. Look into fujis options because they are actually really good, theres just 2 really dedicated autists on here cherry picking stuff and getting really rabid to the point no one engages them. Go handle them in person at a camera store, hold them in your hands, take a few photos, get a feel for the ergonomics.Look into independent reviews of both and make your own decision. Then and only then buy the sony.

File: 1486481459000_IMG_747598.jpg (43KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 500x500px

>>3017896
>Unironically don't buy a sony if the shits on here had anything to do with making you want one.
Nonsense. Sony is releasing some pretty unique stuff lately.

Not even Canon has a STF lens with any kind of autofocus.

>>3017897
someone brand new to photography isnt gunna drop $1500 on a lens.

>>3017918
wanna bet anon ?
Im gonna spend $2500 to 3k on lenses.
70-200 2.8, 200-500 5.6 and something wide angle.
wtf you talking about. Just because im new does not mean im uninformed about lenses.

>>3017776
>Does anyone have any experience with samyang's 14mm f2.8?
I have it. I use it on a K-1.

It's what the reviews say it is. It's very cheap for something as wide, fast, and sharp as it is. Manual focus isn't that annoying since it's so wide. It has some monster vignetting and distortion wide open on FF. If you have level horizons, put them in the middle of the frame, if they're slightly off the middle of the frame you'll see them curve. It has low coma and is bretty good for starscapes.

So it's not perfect, but it's pretty damn good for $300.

>>3017897

I am curious

the Fuji 56mm APD (which has the same apodization filter as the new Sony lens) has an AF trade off fr the APD filter.

How about the new Sony lens? Does it have the same trade off? I believe the 56mm APD sacrifices phase detect AF and is contrast AF only due to the APD filter.

>>3017948
Considering the Minolta STF was manual focus, and the Fuji is CDAF, I'm guessing this one is too.

I fucking hope so anyways. The Sonyfag won't let anybody else hear the end of it otherwise.

>>3017948
Not sure about the AF, but
>which has the same apodization filter as the new Sony lens
They're not quite the same thing.

The Fuji one is more like a filter, it's very thin, and it only a 1 stop filtering. The reason why it's a filter is because it's not part of the optical design, it's just kind of made as thin as possible and inserted there. You can remove it without repercussion on the optics, and the lens just becomes the standard F1,2 lens.

The APD which are used by Sony and Laowa are really thick optical elements, they are an integrated part of the optical design and they bend and shape the path just like all the other elements.

File: 092a15a1a0146bd91125ceb329d4efd6f397fd1f43f46ff0398ed48e53ccef68.png (112KB, 510x778px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 510x778px

>>3017568
>>3017574
Good news for you. The new 85 F1,8 is apparently bending the laws of physics, for those who claims laws of physics can't be bent.

It's the same focal length and max aperture as the Canon lens, but a bit smaller.

>>3017962
Its got the SSM. Most likely PDAF.

>>3017964

They are all like that.

I have no idea why Sony insists on pro-level image quality, when all they have to do is make a couple average pancakes and people would cream themselves over them (just look at Fuji).

I wonder what the Japanese equivalent of /p/ says about them?

>>3017656

I bought the macro as mainly a portrait lens. The fact it is a macro was just a bonus.

>>3017971
>I wonder what the Japanese equivalent of /p/ says about them?

baka desu senpai

>>3017944
You are spending a ridiculous amount of money on a hobby you might not like in 6 months. If you have that kind of money then buy whatever because the top tier gear from literally any brand is excellent.

>>3017894
>>3017817
>>3017563
Looks fake as fuck and actually disgusting to look at.
I know STF should make a great portrait lens but this kind of use is just degrading to the whole of photography

>>3017894
I was referring to the fuji

>>3017948
>>3017962
Nope, it's got ungimped autofocus.

>>3017964
Buhbuhbuh all sony lenses are ridiculously big because lens size is limited by physics senpai, and having a mirrorbox is never a downside.

On a related note, olympus om 85mm f2 is much smaller still.

>>3018065
>creative options
>degrading the whole of photography

Nah anon, that's you and your shit opinions.

>>3017944
AAAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAA

http://www.sonyrumors.co/high-iso-comparison-sony-a6500-vs-a6300-vs-nikon-d500-vs-fujifilm-x-pro2/

Kek. Sonyfags told by sonyfags.

>>3018094

>jpeg

And we learned nothing from this.

>>3018096
Sonyfags don't shoot in RAW, mang

>>3018094
Kek, fuji is a stop out for its iso.
Kek, nikon and fuji have nr applied to their raws

Not even once

>>3018094
Notice how fuji is only one that can resolve the vertical lines

Hey pee, I have around 2200€ worth of photogear that I'm willing to sacrifice for a sony a7ii and some lenses. I want to get back into the fool frame game, and mostly want to adapt old primes. I already have 28, 50, 57, 58, 135, 200 and 300 covered. So I would need an actual wide angle prime in 18-24 range, 35-40 prime, short tele prime and perhaps a general purpose normal af zoom. Primes should preferably be old film era lenses, pixel peeping is for fags. Any suggestions? I do prefer nikon gear because I shoot film on nikon, but I'm open minded. Not trying to start a flame war.

I mostly do nature, landscape, urban and an occasional event and portrait shoots.

>>3018070
But you have evidence right there the mirrorbox Eats up the space for lens optics. So the lens is pushed further from the sensor than it needs to be.

>>3016149
https://www.dpreview.com/news/5917677326/sony-announces-100mm-f2-8-g-master-and-fe-85mm-f1-8

>T5.6
hahahahahahaha
>muh creamy bokeh
hahahahahaha

>>3018126
That's how an STF lens works. The higher the T-Stop, the stronger the defocusing becomes.

>>3018126

>he doesn't know what STF lenses are

top kek

>>3018117
Old slr body uwa lenses suck donkey nuts (low resolution, low contrast, chromabs out the wazoo) we didn't have the math for good results.

The canon 16-35/17-40 and an mc11 is a smart choice, there's also the sony 28mm f2 and 21mm adapter, tokina firin 20mm and a plethora of rangefinder 19/20/21mm. If you're dead set on staying compact and manual focus the voigtlander 21 1.8 is good (the f4 doesn't work o sony sensors).

Personally, i think it's an area where sony are still waiting on lenses, we'll get the 16-35 gm and a 20mm from sony later this year.

>>3018119
But that's not what fat theo told me :'(

>>3018126
Fuji f1.2, t1.7, can't turn off apd, extra kek.

Maybe my question would've been better to ask here. >>3018156

Very new to cameras that aren't fisher-price shit, don't know if I should be kicking myself for buying this or if it's an alright starter for a poorfag

>>3018158
>powershot
It's a fisher price shit.
Save up for a used entry DSLR like a D3300, D3200 or Canon 1200D
Until then learn exposure triangle and composition with this one and stick using it in good lighting conditions.
Ask first next time.

>>3018158
>don't know if I should be kicking myself for buying this
well the exif says its a Canon Powershot Elph 360HS.
you should be kicking yourself, because its the same cheap fisher-price shit as every other point-and-shoot camera: a tiny, noisy smartphone sensor with a junky slow superzoom lens on the front of it.

It's currently listed on Amazon for $200. If you'd saved an extra $100-$200 you could have had a recent-model (used or old-stock) DSLR or mirrorless with a much larger APS-C sensor and a much nicer (both faster and sharper) lens.

>>3018158
Sub $600 point & shoot cameras are trash, should have got a second hand sony nex 6 or a6000.

Just return it mang.

>>3018161
>hey, your camera is trash, you should've bought this trash instead!
Just fuck off poopco

>>3018162
Why are you so angry? Clearly, if he bought a p&s he doesn't want a giant, black, autistic dslr.

That leaves fuji and sony, and the fuji mount is all but dead and terrible for a beginner.

If you take issue, please present a coherent counter argument and offer advice to op with your reasons for doing so. Otherwise you just look like a jealous child.

I'm thinking about getting into photography, what would be a good camera

>>3018163
buying a shitty point and shoot would have more to do with price and not knowing about gear rather than just not wanting a dslr

>>3018164
>Canon Powershot Elph 360HS
Nikon D3300 or 5500D, Canon 1300D or 760D, Pentax K-S2 or K-70

>>3016420
Yes it's great, that's why it holds money pretty well.

Lower resolution than modern stuff, but one of the best bodies that Nikon have ever produced, and the IQ still stands up well, depending on your needs.

>>3018101

Sonyfags shoot exclusively raw because their jpeg enginr is a fucking joke.

>>3018183
Sony Jpgs are just standard middle of the pack. They don't try artificially increase the reds like Canon does.

>>3018094
Fuji cheats ISO by 1 stop newfag.

>>3018151
Okeydok. Thanks brah. Been reading dpreview for a bit. They say sony doesn't offer lossless raw compression with the a7ii, is this still true? Or have they updated the fw to correct this massive flaw?

I mean, lossy raw? LOSSY RAW? WTF mang forget it.

>>3018209
They calculate the iso equivalency differently to preserve hilights NEWFAG

>>3018183
Nothing about the Sony JPEG is special.

>>3018212
From version 2 onwards, yes. Not that anyone has demonstrated a great difference even by pixel peeping standards. But its nice to have.

>>3018213
In other words, Fuji cheats ISO by 1 stop faggot.

>>3018218
Astrophotographers did. And they say it sucks, gives lower resolution than a first gen digital rabal on point and streak highlights.
Also massive JPEG-like compression artifacts in the RAW. It's mental!

>>3018225
So you'd rather lose information than bumb exposure in post? To get some artificial made up number on the exif to match your artificial made up standards? fucking retard faget

>>3018151
Right, thanks brah. That's pretty much what I've gathered. What about the samyang 20/1.8? It's not compact or cheap, but I think it could work for me.

I've been reading up on the a7ii on dpreview and other sites, it doesn't look as rosy as I first thought. Ergonomy issues, crappy high ISO noise performance, weird af issues, raw compression artifacts...

>>3018212
Nah, you can do uncompressed raws in Sony cameras now, everything apart from the a7 and earlier iirc.

Fuji and Nikon still apply NR in camera to their high iso raws though.

>>3018213
Fuji use a different standard to everyone else, the only possible reason they would do this is to pull ahead in iso tests. They realised they had a dumpster truck of a product so presented everyone with lies and ran with it.

>>3018231
you don't quite get it do you sweetie. Don't worry, you'll get there.

>>3018236
>ergo
Is much better on my a7ii than it is on my nikon D70, pentax K5 and fuji xe1, the amount of customisation and how well the buttons and dials fall under fingers make it unbeatable for me. Pick one up in a store.

>crap high iso performance
I'm taking clean photos at iso 6400.

>af issues
I've never had any, eye af works expecially well.

>raw compression artifacts
No longer exist, firmware update over a year ago sorted it.

>>3016166
the 24/2.8 is decent

>>3018239
> they had a dumpster truck of a product
Yeah it's a sony sensor so that's a given

But no, it's you who don't get it. When you go higher isos the noise floor amplified in the hw crushes highlights more. Keeping the amplification lower in hardware retains more information, which can be brought up in post. Look it up. Your precious a7 starts losing information over 800 iso, which means if you shoot raw you can get more information shooting max 800 iso and correcting expo in post.

>>3018256
Fuji use sony sensors

Have you ever wondered why Fuji base iso was 200 but every other camera with that sensor had base 100 (hint, it's because Fuji call there sony equivalent 100 iso, 200 iso.)

>>3018239
I just love it when the clueless sonyfag roasts his own religiously worshiped brand.
Give it up moop, you don't even have any of those cameras mentioned.

>>3018260
If you think it's that simple you're wayyyy off mark. Tho I guess that's why I'm the engineer.

>>3018273
Wow, delusional as well. Looks like our little sony autist is also suffering from Münchausen syndrome.

File: Mary.jpg (1MB, 2418x2907px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2418x2907px

What is the smallest digital camera with a viewfinder with a sensor size of M4/3s+?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop 7.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	299 dpi
Vertical Resolution	299 dpi
Image Created	2007:01:29 06:32:23
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	2418
Image Height	2907

File: Untitaaled.png (990KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

990KB, 1280x720px

>>3018094
daily reminder

>>3018228
>massive
They needed pixel peeping detectives to even find out the issue.

The funny irony is it was the brand fanboys who whined and complained, and Sony responded by improving the camera from firmware. So all they achieved by trolling the camera was making it better.

>(SR5) Both 100mm STF and 85mm f/1.8 rumors were correct: Same sources confirm the new High End E-mount camera is coming!
Looks like it's the one with new high resolution image sensor is being released.

My guess is this correlates with the D850 rumours being 42MP. Sony is releasing a new high-end sensor, and Nikon can finally get the 42MP.

>>3018335
One frame from a more densely populated area of the sky gets utterly destroyed at the raw level from all the blocky artifacts. The whole frame!
I'm not talking about your gay ass starscapes, I'm talking about proper astro stuff. Deep sky and wide field, A7s best astro camera my ass!

Ricoh GRD III for €280? Wat do

>>3018455
Get a proper GR. With a box of b&w film

there is a D7100 on CL with the nikon brand battery grip with 2600 clicks on it for sub $600. would this be an acceptable instead of the D500 for sports/wildlife/astro ? i could save a shit ton and use that money on lenses

>>3018474
Yes, the only downside is the small buffer. If you don't go full fps retard holding down the shutter and time your small bursts you will manage just fine in sports.
The D7200 would be better but only until you learn to time your shots right.
The D7100 will be an excellent wildlife and astro camera though.

>>3018476
ty anon

>>3018476
what the shit im reading about oil on the sensor of the 7100 ? remember im a newb so be kind with my ignorance

>>3018473
I will... but for now I want a nice small digital camera. I don't like taking my DSLR with me meh

>>3018482
Hmm... Nikon is known for having bad shutter splattering oil on the sensor but I thought it was mainly with the D610.
Is that D7100 has the issue? Is it listed in the advert?

>>3018487
*D600, sorry, the D610 was the improved version that also splattered oil in a few occasions.

Im looking to upgrade my canon kit lens. Im torn between the EFS 17-55 2.8, Sigma 17-50 2.8 and the Sigma 18-35 1.8.

I like the idea of the wider aperture of the 18-35 because I do find myself in low light quite a bit but Im not sure whether I'd miss the extra length at the tele end.

I do have a 50mm 1.8 so I have got that focal length covered, its just nice to have the range in one lens.

Has anyone had any experience with any of these lenses?

>>3018506
Tamron 17-50/2.8

>>3018509
Why the tamron over the sigma? reviews tend to lean towards the sigma from what i've seen.

>>3018511
Sigma is prone to break, Tamron is much more reliable. Plus the bokeh is nicer.

>>3018487
No i was just reading amazon verified reviews and noticed a couple of times people complaining about oil on the sensor.

>>3018518
Oh, okay then, don't worry about it.

>>3018474
I'm sorry if this blows your mind, but with that price, you can easily squeeze in a complete astro kit of the star adventurer. You get a nice 200mm manual focus prime and you can get much nicer pics than in this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4n1pTve-CI

>>3018531
yes but i still need a camera

>>3018590
Why? Did you pass on the D7100?

>>3018602
no, i have not decided and he still has it.
I want to do more than astro but im really interested in it. my 30D just isnt up to the task and is pretty old tech.

>>3018602
i really like the canon 80D's articulating touch screen but something in my gut says to get away from canon and move to nikon. all i have is the 30d and a shitty 28-135 kit lens so changing platforms is not an issue. if the D500 had the touch screen of the 80D , i would have already bought it.

>>3018625
Don't fucking waste time you idiot, that's an amazing deal. The grip's worth $150-200 by itself as a genuine Nikon grip. The body is literally worth $600 already.

What's better for a beginner, DSLR or a Point and Shoot?
(and recommendations?)

>>3018691
A6000. Cheap, fast/good, small.

>>3018691
Canon rabals are also good if you want ergonomics.

>>3018515
>says one retard online who only ever owned 0-1 sigma lenses.

anyone have any idea what this statement means ?

I sold my d7100 and bought a d810...I cannot say anything bad about the d7100 my only problem was the lens selection.I want to use primary the 24-70 and the 70-200 and on my d7100 was too difficult.I suggest the same thing to everyone that want to buy a camera.

>>3018848
as a newb i dont want to make stupid mistakes with lens compatibility

>>3018848
anyone know if theres a lens compatibility issue with the d7100 ?

>>3018635
I passed on the D7100 becasue of a couple of reasons.
1- its been on CL local here for over a month and has been relisted quite a few tiems. this makes me wonder if theres an issue with it that other people ( that know what they are looking at , unlike myself ) have found or seen.

2- Cant figure out wtf this means - I sold my d7100 and bought a d810...I cannot say anything bad about the d7100 my only problem was the lens selection.I want to use primary the 24-70 and the 70-200 and on my d7100 was too difficult.I suggest the same thing to everyone that want to buy a camera.

3- dont have any use for a battery grip for what i do and would have to pedal it on ebay while paying ebay and paypal fees.

4 - no wifi or nfc - i really want that

5- they can be bought for $600 new . so its not a smoking hot deal for someone that does not need a battery grip.

guess i'll stay on track of finding a used or refurb D500.

>>3018899
New thread

>>3018896
>lens selection
It means he faced his inability to get third party crop lenses for his crop camera so instead, he went FF.
There are tons of excellent lens options for Nikon APS-C, don't worry about it.

>battery grip
You will want the extra battery life in astro. I know I need one but it is bloody expensive for Pentax.

>Wifi or nfc
Overrated, I have a wifi card that also works as tethering and I never use it. You want proper processing to be done and for that, you won't need wifi or nfc

>New is $600
New camera is always a good camera. New broom sweeps better, but the camera performs the same new or used. You will want those few extras but it will cost a lot more new.

I say try and stay lower budget on the body, you can't make the most out of the bestest most newest body if you can't put the right lens on it. With a low-quality lens the D500 will perform the same as a D7100, and to top it off only at 30% of what the D7100 can do.
Also, no money on extra equipment for your nature/birding/sport/astro uses. You will want a good sturdy tripod with a good sturdy head, $200 used, probably a good sturdy monopod too, tracking equipment for astro, $300 for the cheapest tracker, more so if you go with Star Adventurer or Astrotrac, or maybe an HEQ5 mount.
So yeah, you don't want to spend all your money on the body alone. Common newbie mistake.

>>3018903
i can afford the D500 and a 70-200 2.8 or a 200-500 5.6 as it stands right now. im just gathering info before i throw that kind of money out there. dont want to make stupid decisions

>>3018903
>It means he faced his inability to get third party crop lenses for his crop camera so instead, he went FF.
>There are tons of excellent lens options for Nikon APS-C, don't worry about it.

from what i understand you can absolutly use ff lenses on a crop body without any issues. but not dx lens on a ff. when you put a dx lens on a d810, it goes into crop mode from what i understand.