/gear/ - Gear Thread

D3300 any good as a first cam? I got some experience with my father's D7000 and D7200 so I know at least how to use it

Closest to newbie here, I usually roam around taking architecture and urban shots, but recently had the urge to practice bokeh and low key photography.
I'm really poor, so I don't have much to spend on implements.
Any budget beauty dish or background alternatives? Thanks in advance

>>3035127
Why don't you just use his d7000 and buy some good glass?

>>3035153
Because I life in New Zealand atm and he lifes in Germany

>>3035153
>>3035164
Also he sold his D7000 that was some time ago

>>3035127
The D3300 is a great camera. You'll likely not find the limitations of it for years

thinking of buying a Fujica GW690
im aware of how it works, no meter is fine for me.
what do you think lads

Tamron 70-300 any good?

>>3035166
He will most probably find the limitations early on after using a D7x00

>>3035127
Get at least a used D7000 or D7100 instead, or a Pentax K70, It will be much better to start with than the D3300 and will last longer feature and ergonomics wise.

Posted in the other thread but I guess I'll share here.

I'm trying to get the battery cap off my FTn prism, but it just won't budge

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-oSIuv_v64

That guy^ screwed it off with his hand. I tried all I could think of and it's not coming off. Anyone had this same issue before?

>>3035319
There's probably corrosion below and in the threads. Try it harder.

>>3035166
>>3035278
Yeah my first camera was a d5x00 and I used it for a couple of months before I found it really irritating and sold it for a d7000 which I still use.

I got a d3300 about a year ago and I love it. I already have the glass, so I'm thinking I'm ready to upgrade however I don't know if I should get the d500 or the d750. After shooting dx for so long the crop doesn't bother me, and I have a couple dx lenses that I could keep. I shoot a healthy mix of street, sports, and low light. Nothing pro. I have the money and I'm ready to upgrade, but which one?

>Tl:dr d750 or d500 (how good is ff to crop)

>>3035349
http://snapsort.com/compare/Nikon-D500-vs-Nikon-D750/detailed

http://cameradecision.com/compare/Nikon-D750-vs-Nikon-D500

Just stick with the crop sensor since you've still got glass for DX

Help me /p/

I have to decide between a:
Nikon D7100 with 13000 shots
+ a Sigma prime 17-50mm / f2.8-5.6
For 650€

Or a
Sony Alpha 6000 body + whatever lense i might buy along with it
400€ for the body and maybe 150 for a lense

1.) is the Nikon D7100 with the lense for 650€ a good price?
2.) is the Sony Alpha 6000 actually a better camera for even less money?

Thank you guys in advance!

>>3035113
A friend wants to sell me his old Olympus OM-D E-M10 for 200 Euros, should i take it or not or is there any better alternative? My budget is under 500 Euros. What lens should i get first if i'm a beginner that wants to level up from mindless point and shoot thing?

>>3035113
Help! I've decided to get a budget telephoto and I'm between Tamron AF 70-300mm F/4-5.6 Di LD and Sigma AF 70-300mm F/4-5.6 DG.
for bird photography mainly.
What do?

>>3035375
Well I can't give you advice since I'm new to /p/ myself, but I can give you my experience I guess.
I'm using an A6000 with a 50mm f1.8 prime lens and a 55-210 f4.5-6.3 zoom lens and it's working really, really great.

>>3035394
It's a solid camera. The main weakness of the m4/3 cameras is the low light capability, they're not so great over iso 1600. But for 200€ its good enough.
>What lens
Cheap and basic kit zoom (Pana/Oly 14-42mm, Pana 12-32mm, Pana 14-45mm or Pana 12-60mm) is good enough for most situations. If you want prime lenses (i.e not zooms), get the Olympus 45mm f/1.8 and/or the Panasonic 25mm f/1.7. They're sharp, small and much brighter than the kit lens. Also, they're quite affordable.

>>3035375
The D7100 kit is good for the price If the lens included is the version with an image stabilizer.
A6k is physically smaller and just as capable camera when compared to the D7100, but the lens selection is somewhat worse. For example, there is no 24-70mm f/2.8 equivalent zoom available for the APS-C E-moun cameras.


>>3035349
I would get the D750. If you shoot a lot of action and need a robust AF-system, get the D500.

>>3035402
Neither, get one with a stabilizer instead. Buy used if you have to. Those supercheap telezooms aren't so great IQ-wise either.

>>3035402
What system/mount?

I just bought a used NEX-3 because I'm a turbo poorfag and just need a camera temporarily after I sold my old D3200 because it was too big and clunky, but the pictures are really mushy and lack detail. And yes, I know that it's an entry level camera that's 7 years old at this point, but is it worth it to get another lens for it and not just the kit lens or is it the old 14 MP sensor that's the biggest offender for the poor image quality? Will the 18-55 kit lens be better on a better body?

It's just barely worth using over my phone but I'm figuring that I might as well spend the money on the A6000 when my budget allows for it instead of buying glass for this camera if the sensor is ass.

>>3035403
>>3035421
Thank you

Some guy adviced me to get the canon eos 700d

"muh canon is better and cheaper"

Is that statement true?

>>3035431
Have you considered getting good? The D3200 has a perfectly fine imaging system; maybe try putting lenses worth using in front of it. Indeed, there's no camera out there that doesn't produce perfectly good images with an appropriate lens in front of it. Now you're stuck with yet another entry level body, with shitty kit lenses. Surprise, you'll get the exact same result.

>>3035402
The old 70-300 designs are turds. Get the Canon/Nikon/Tamron 70-300 IS/VR/VC designs.

>>3035375
For 650 you can have a good camera body, and the gud 17-50 2.8. Or for the sony, you can have a good camera body and no lens but hey at least it's small.

>>3035465
Learn how to read
>I sold my old D3200 because it was too big and clunky

I didn't sell my D3200 because of the image quality, I sold it because I wanted to go mirrorless before investing a shitton into DSLR gear.

I have been doing film photography for a while now and i have been thinking about getting a cheap DSLR. My budget is around 300usd... it is not much, i know, but i need something cheap. Is canon 500D a good choice for said price with 18-55mm and 75-300mm?

>>3035497
Yes, but if you can find one, a 550Dor 600D would be better. Also, the 75-300 is kind of a turd, the EF-S 55-250 kit zoom is better.
Try to get a 24mm pancake prime first though, it will blow your mind.

How's a clean Sigma EX DG 24-70/2.8 for $270 on Pentax? Using crop right now and will upgrade to full frame in the coming years.

Would it be wiser to save up for the "first-party" Tamron 24-70/2.8 for $1.3k?

>>3035507
If you have no other alternatives and you have to get a lens soon then the Sigma is good enough.
Otherwise I would just save up to the D-FA 24-70/2.8 which is the same as the Tamron but without VC.
I am on crop and I don't really feel the need to upgrade to FF so I am now saving up for a DA 16-85

is the canon 18-135 lens any good?

File: Capture.png (57KB, 674x388px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 674x388px

does getting a5000 kit (as new) make any sense these days? it is already 3 years old and it was entry-level to begin with. but it is also the cheapest interchangeable lens camera around. i suppose the biggest missing thing is phase-detect af, does it matter much?

>>3035518
>is *insert brand* superzoom lenses any good?
No.

>>3035519
Yes, it is a good camera. No, PDAF doesn't matter as long as you don't want to shoot high end sports with high end long lenses.

>>3035519
It's good enough for the price, but do you have to buy new? If you're new to photography then you're going to cripple yourself by not having a viewfinder when you upgrade in the future.

>>3035511
16-85 is pretty nice, but I want a larger aperture. I won't need to buy soon as I can just rent the D-FA to try first. Just thought the Sigma had a decent price.

Any of you guy carry gear in a regular backpack that doesn't have compartments?
Do they make anything that helps organize camera gear in regular backpacks?

>>3035527
For large aperture I have the 35/2.4 and the Tamron SP 90/2.8 Macro. On the 16-85 I need the corner to corner sharpness on the wide end and the weather sealing. My 16-45 performs well but the lack of WR is the biggest drawback.

>>3035540
It is called an "insert". You can find plenty of shapes and sizes on ebay and Amazon.
I started with one but later I got a Lowepro flipside instead.

>>3035544
I'll check those inserts out,Thanks anon

Man, they weren't kidding when they said the Sony SEL90M28G FE 90mm f/2.8-22 Macro G OSS had slow AF.

Lens is fuckhuge on that a6300 too.

Looking forward to get some use out of it.

>>3035552
Why did you have to write all that fuckhuge long name?
Fuck it, flagged for advertising. Fuck you shill!

>>3035445

Completely false.

You wont find anything that flat out beats the a6000 in every catagory for under $1000.

>>3035519

a6000 commonly sells for a similar price, a5000 is not really worth it when you take that into account.

>>3035583
>Why did you have to write all that fuckhuge long name?
I just copied it from the other thread.

>>3035595
Why can't you be less of a faggot?

File: 41SPy1fWU6L.jpg (21KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 500x500px

>>3035597
I know this is a gear thread, but you can stop projecting anon. Unless you have a particular model you'd like to talk about.

>>3035598
You are the one projecting your brandfaggotry on this board.

hey, can anyone recommend me the best cam and lens to shoot videos? i'm planning on starting to shoot simple films and have something like a thousand dollar maximum to spend (don't mind buying used stuff).
thanks!

File: nikon_20mm_f_1_8g_fx_lens_1082607.jpg (482KB, 2000x2000px) Image search: [Google]

482KB, 2000x2000px

I just started shooting full frame and all I have is my 50mm f/1.4

Been looking at this as my next prime for landscape shots and overall shots that include a lot of content in the frame. Anyone here have personal experience with it, that may be able to say if they are happy with their purchase or prefer a different wide angle over this?

File: wureeeeeeeeeeee.jpg (69KB, 1200x600px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 1200x600px

thinking about buying an olympus m10 mk2. im looking for a small, inexpensive camera for street and night photography. current camera is a nikon d3200. im planning on keeping both

>>3035630
If you can settle for a zoom then Tamron 15-30 or Samyang 14mm for prime

>>3035635
Small, yes. Inexpensive, yes. Street, yes. Night, kek. Be prepared to be satisfied with M43's output at ISO 1600, or bring a tripod.

>>3035630
It's a surprisingly small lens, very good. There's wider or faster lenses, but none that are good and small like that. You may or may not want wider or faster lenses at some point. Or get a 20/2.8D.

>>3035630

ultra wide angle lenses are overrated for landscape photography, my man. you see a magnificent mountain range with your eyes and end up with a tiny blue ribbon in your photo.

>>3035665
ok well 3/4 of my needs are met (heh, 4/3) so its definitely going to be considered. the d3200 was my first dslr ive bought and really my first real camera. would you think it would be wise to get the 4/3 and maybe a full frame for night photography?

Hey guys, whats a fast external desktop hard drive I can use for storage for my 2TB size Lightroom library?
My current setup consists of my library on a normal USB external HDD and a backup on Google Drive which costs about $10 a month.
I want to move my library to a faster desktop HDD, use my current external HDDs as an immediate backup and for other general storage, and also keep the Google Drive backup in case my house burns or I get robbed.

Hope someone can help me! Thanks :0

File: D3R_1297-1500.jpg (292KB, 1169x1500px) Image search: [Google]

292KB, 1169x1500px

>>3035638

I heard good things about the 15-30, I thought 15 might be too wide for my preference but I guess having the zoom option is useful.

>>3035665

Wider I don't feel like I need, and faster isn't really something I'm dying for. Of course faster is always better, but I wouldn't be shooting a lot of fast-moving subjects. Now that you mention the 20mm D lens, it reminds me of another wide angle zoom lens I had been considering, which is the 20-35mm f/2.8 D (pic related)

>>3035666

Alright, Satan, I'll take your word for it. I thought of going wide since it can always be cropped if I feel like I got too much in the frame. What would be better for landscape? I considered 24mm or 28mm but I wouldn't want to have something where if I step back too much I'm missing out on the shot I want. I also thought about the 20-35 as I mentioned above, seems like a good mix of range, but I'm open to more opinions. Definitely taking my time with this next purchase.

>>3035690
I don't know how I feel about the 20-35. Cheaper, certainly, because it's less desirable than a 17-35/2.8. I'd bet any of the primes would be more satisfying than the 20-35 for IQ, and with only 20 on the wide end, might as well grab the prime. And there's no such thing as too wide when it comes to wide angles, although a zoom is always useful. Have you considered the 18-35G (not D)?
>>3035667
No just stick to what you have. If it's proper dark, you're going to be using flash or a tripod. Just lke photographers did not all that long ago, funny that.

>>3035264
it has a meter, its just not automatic

Any good DSLR around $500-800?
I just want to do daily life photography.

>>3035763
Nothing, it's better you don't get anything at all than buying gears with such as shitty budget.

File: 27212628126_9eda8d8dd1_h.jpg (499KB, 1600x604px) Image search: [Google]

499KB, 1600x604px

>>3035630
I used to own the 28mm f/1.8 and it was an amazing lens. I also had a different 20mm lens but it was just too goddamn wide, it was a really special purpose sort of lens I never really got used to and I didn't use it enough to justify owning it. Are you sure you want such a wide lens? Even 28 is a pretty huge difference from 50, you might get a lot more use out of it.

Landscapes aren't necessarily all about using the widest damn lens you can get your hands on either, and even if you do occasionally want a really wide photo you can just make a stitched panorama with a longer lens. Take something like pic related. I could've used an ultrawide to get all of it at once, but I didn't feel like carrying a bunch of shit around so all I had was a 50mm lens. I still managed to stitch together the photo I wanted out of handheld shots without a tripod.

>>3035821
;_;

File: img_4556.jpg (146KB, 750x594px) Image search: [Google]

146KB, 750x594px

>>3035113

>2017
>not using a mirrorless to create a custom digital sensor back for your film camera

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Apple
Camera Model	iPhone 5c
Camera Software	Photos 1.5
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	33 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2016:10:21 17:09:59
Exposure Time	1/20 sec
F-Number	f/2.4
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/2.4
Brightness	2.3 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Spot
Flash	No Flash, Auto
Focal Length	4.12 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	2835
Image Height	2247
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>3035763

Go mirrorless, more likely to bring it when it is smaller.

a6000 is best value under $1000.

>>3035862
what the fuck?
what's the point of this shit?

>>3035763
Sony A6000

>>3035893

He could have just gotten a $10 adapter and used the fuck out of that poor NEX-3 body.

>https://digitalfilmcams.wordpress.com/

any /p/eople know where i can buy a Canon eos 1dx mark iv for cheap?

>>3035921
yeah but then you'd have to use a sony
and no one wants to do that

>>3035924
meant mark ii

File: sony-nex-3-red-with+flash.jpg (26KB, 513x419px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 513x419px

>>3035925

I had a red NEX-3, the OS on it was really, really terrible.

But damn did I love that little thing.

>>3035931
I literally just got this because I'm poor as shit and had to sell my old DSLR gear, and while it feels really dumb to use compared to a DSLR since it doesn't even have a shooting mode changing dial and you have to go through menus to change focus point mode, it's really making me want to go out and shoot more since I can just put it in my jacket pocket when I leave the house. I can't wait until I can get my hands on the A6000.

>>3035941

It has its flaws, but it is a solid little camera. I was ambivalent about photography before I got one, but I really learned to love going out and shooting with it.

Make sure your firmware is up to date. You can set custom keys to minimize your menu diving.

Even so, the a6000 is a huge upgrade when it comes to OS, and the a6500 is a step beyond that.

>>3035725

Honestly, the main reason I considered the 20-35 was because it would work with some of my film cameras.

I had looked at the 18-35 and it does seem like another good option, especially having that extra 2mm length.

>>3035831

An ultra wide like 20 is definitely not something I'm dying for, I guess I was looking at it for the sake of having variety. Giving it some thought on just how wide it may be, I started to realize it may not be something I'll find that useful. I guess only very specific situations would call for it. Do you still own any wide angles or did you drop them altogether?

>Landscapes aren't necessarily all about using the widest damn lens you can get your hands on either, and even if you do occasionally want a really wide photo you can just make a stitched panorama with a longer lens.

Yeah of course, although I didn't really aim for making panoramic photos, I get what you're saying. Like I said before, I wanted a wide prime, or maybe a wide with zoom just to have a bit of variety in my gear and be able to do more.

I may go for that 18-35, seems like a happy medium for what I'm looking for and definitely not a bad price on it.

File: Bristol_stool_chart.jpg (367KB, 800x1002px) Image search: [Google]

367KB, 800x1002px

Help me decide! X100F, xPro 2 with 35mm f2 or Leica m9 with 50mm zeiss planar?
I shoot mainly street, prefer 50mm and don't care that much about water resistance.

with how good smartphone cameras have gotten, is there any point to owning a compact/portable digital camera?

Is there any way I could attach a grad ND filter to my Ricoh GR?

>>3035893
>not making digital backs for his nikon vintage

>>3035985
If you're interested in taking photos that won't fall apart if you don't shoot in perfect conditions with perfect lightning every time, sure

>>3035943
I haven't really found anything that useful yet other than having ISO on one back button and the special mode on the other that changes context depending on what you're doing, but I can't really complain for the price I got it for.

What lens(es) <~80€ would you recommend for my A-1? I only just started with photography and only have the 35-70/3.5-4.5. This is slow as fuck, so I'm looking into getting some prime glass and maybe a tele zoom.

How difficult is shooting and developing film, and then even getting it scanned? I own a few cameras that can take film, but I'm sure if it's more or less fun that digital. If you it's worth trying whats a good film to use for my first time?

File: DSC_0127.jpg (237KB, 900x1200px) Image search: [Google]

237KB, 900x1200px

>>3036056
It's not that hard. Did you ever do chemistry lab in school? Can you follow simple written instructions and use a timer? Then you are more than qualified to mix up a couple of powders or syrups with water and pour them into your film tank for the appropriate amount of time. I find scanning to be a tedious time consuming pain in the ass, but it's also definitely not hard. Start with black and white, buy a bunch of rolls of Tri-X or whatever and look up what chemicals and supplies you'll need. After the initial purchases of all the equipment and a scanner, all you have to keep buying is film and chemicals (and paper if you get into wet printing later) which isn't really all that expensive unless you want to shoot a million rolls of film every week.

Film can be pretty satisfying, you feel like you really own the photos after taking them every step of the way from exposure to print with your own two hands. It's also a lot more time consuming and tedious than digital, though.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Sony
Camera Model	D6503
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2015.5 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	2448
Image Height	3264
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2016:07:31 22:28:52
Exposure Time	1/32 sec
F-Number	f/2.0
ISO Speed Rating	1000
Lens Aperture	f/2.0
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	4.90 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	900
Image Height	1200
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>3035763
Pentax K-70, K-3, K-3II, Nikon D7100, D7200, Canon 70D
Plenty of options, especially on the used market

>>3036056
I agree with >>3036061

Shooting film is easier in some ways than shooting digital because of the latitude (you can get away with bad exposures), and for developing...even if you didn't do chemistry if you can bake a cake you can develop a roll of film. Black and white is definitely the way to go, get whatever's cheap and common because that way you won't break the bank and there'll be lots of documentation online if you get stuck.

Can anyone endorse a decent backdrop stand? For my at home studio, i will obviously just mount brackets to the wall or ceiling or something that is cheap, sturdy and permanent.

I want to pick of one of the lighter portable ones for moving around, but i don't want to buy complete trash.

>>3036124
Bunch of PVC pipes and a roll of gaffer tape from home depot

File: e602Dp3.jpg (656KB, 2592x1936px) Image search: [Google]

656KB, 2592x1936px

Just went to order an X100F and it's £1250!! I bought my X100T for like £650 about a year ago (and then sold it for the same 9 months later).
That makes the X100F the same price as a mint condition, pre-owned XPro2 with a 35mm F2 WR lens.
So looks like I'll get the XPro2 instead. I hope it's not too big...

>>3036151
>I hope it's not too big...
hehe
haha
HAHAHA

>>3036151
X70, mate
look it up if it's not too late

>>3036159
I need a OVF, bruv.

>>3036155
What's funny? I'm used to X100 sized cameras.

>>3036160
Put on a flash mount OVF then.

>>3036161
I like the 35mm to 50mm focal length. X70 is shit to me.

File: X70_BodyAcc-r74-1024x558.jpg (58KB, 1024x558px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 1024x558px

>>3036161
>>3036160
pic related

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1280
Image Height	698

Hey so i've been interested in photography for a while, I want a camera that can fit in a fanny pack becouse i'm interested in street photography. I want a camera that can teach me things and let me transition into a more serious equipment. Sorry for the broken english though.

>>3036164
Ricoh GR or Fuji X100S or X70

Also >fanny pack
kys

Going to get either x-pro2 or k-1 tomorrow and i have no fucking idea why i'm thinking on x-pro2 since k-1 is so much better. I'll probably end up buying pro2...

>>3036168
I'm buying a XPro2 tomorrow too! You'll save a fortune in lenses.

>>3036168
pick the one that feels better in your hand

>>3036169
>buying fuji to save money on lenses
What bizarro world is this?

I'm looking for a good and inexpensive fisheye lens for a Canon APS-C camera. I don't want to spend more than $600.00 on it and I don't buy used products. It must also be lightweight because It's intended for my travelling camera.

Got my hands on a ef50mm f/1.8 II canon lense. I have around 800$ to buy a nice body.

>>3036175
i know one but it's $600.01...

>>3036175
Lensbaby

>>3036169

>fuji lenses
>cheap

lol wut

>>3036176
Get an elan7e and save 700$

Hi, Dont know if its the right thing to ask but seems you guys got it cover.

I'm following a guy on instagram: https://www.instagram.com/perrinjames1/

And been looking around and want to know what camera he is using and gear and so on, can you guys help me with that just by looking at his profile?
Thanks in advance!

>>3036196
You can shoot those pictures with an average dslr and a proper lens, it's the Photoshopping that makes those pictures look good.

>>3036202
I do not think this is true. And his diving case also seems to have decent optics.

>/p/ is still ruined by spillover sony shills
>realize that sony shills have also ruined projector forums

>>3036202
>>3036214
I don't know.. I saw a picture 35weeks ago showing he was having a Canon Eos 1D X Mark II.
And then this pic:
https://www.instagram.com/p/BJ5wI_WjqK_/

And Nauticam is making underwater housing right?

File: SonyA9.jpg (77KB, 700x440px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 700x440px

New e-mount design.

Are sony coming out with a new fullframe anytime soon?

Would they go the 4k 60fps route like panasonic did?
Or is that weird law about camcorders still a thing?

>>3036318
Is that a fucking old radio antenna and a thumbprint reader?

>>3035375
>17-50
>prime
>lense
just get the sony. you will fit right in.

>>3035519
a5100 because touch screen.

>>3035980
pentax kp

File: venus_optics_kx_800_flexible_macro_twin_1165604.jpg (76KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 1000x1000px

Is this thing worth it? General gist I looked up was that the adjustable flash is really useful while the build quality is shit.

File: IMG_9220.jpg (2MB, 4032x3024px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4032x3024px

$75

How'd I do /p/?

Ignore potato cell phone shot

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Apple
Camera Model	iPhone 6s
Camera Software	10.2.1
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	29 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2017:03:09 14:56:35
Exposure Time	1/15 sec
F-Number	f/2.2
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	1250
Lens Aperture	f/2.2
Brightness	-2.6 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Spot
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	4.15 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	4032
Image Height	3024
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>3036547
The Rabal isn't worth the shitty plastic it's molded from. I'd forgive you for a decent lens but you got the garbage kit zoom with it. The AE is already provided you got one with a functional shutter. Watch out for the squealing sound, fixing it will cost more than a new body so if it happens you might as well toss it away. The lens is 3rd party shit tier zoom you can maybe use to knock out a burglar. Wouldn't waste film on it.

You overpayed.

>>3036547
two generic consumer film bodies, one AF one MF
cheap junky consumer AF standard zoom
cheaper junky consumer MF telezoom

I'd question whether this stuff would be worth buying at any price desu

>>3036547

toss that rabal in the trash and get more accessories for your ae

>>3036565
The AE is alright*
Blame alcohol.

>>3036547
Cameras that will waste time in a unpleasant way.

As far as I'm concerned, always get a modern camera with a good lens.

So much Fuji butthurt here. Why are you all so jealous of Sony master race?

>>3036604
Nobody was currently discussing this. You must be bored and/or delusional.

the sony a6000 -- yea or nay?
I wish i had the money for the a6300, but i just dont have the dosh, and i really think that the 6000 should do what i need it to

>>3036625
If you didn't need the A6500, the A6000 probably will work okay.

>>3036494
I'd personally go for the K-70 instead. Half the dosh, same performance.
From the price difference, you can get a 40mm Limited and a 21mm Limited.

File: IMG_1214.JPG.jpg (1MB, 3000x2250px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3000x2250px

>>3036565
>>3036566
>>3036567
>>3036598
>All this shitting on old Rabals.

I love those old EF shit bodies, I can put all my nice L glass on 'em, i've got in body metering, AF, electric film advance, relatively light, and I get access to all my existing glass.

I've got a literal pile of Rebel K2s in my closet, at least half a dozen, I shoot them till the break then move on to the next one. Those are great cameras.

>Pic related
Here's the first two

>>3036192
Under rated post

>>3036653
it is rated low for a reason

File: IMG_9399.jpg (216KB, 1419x1000px) Image search: [Google]

216KB, 1419x1000px

>>3036565
>>3036566
>>3036567
>>3036598

>>3036652
>All this shitting on old Rabals.
>Those are great cameras.

Agreed. There are cucks that don't know what they're talking about.
>>3036666
Like you, for example.

Canon EOS is the dominant SLR system because it is simply the best. The cameras fucking work, the lenses are amazing.
They all do anything a photographer would ever want of them.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

I wanna try a mirrorless, what get? I don't particularly have a limit but I would rather spend less

>>3036685
Best value is a6000. Can be had as low as $450 new.

Wont beat its performance without breaking $1000.

>>3036610

Sony has been bashed over and over in this thread. It's always Fuji fags doing it. No delusion here, kiddo.

>>3036724

Classic bullied sonygger.

i need a camera body thats
>small
>excellent low light performance
>under 800usd
is the a6000 my only choice

>>3036751

If you wnt to afford a fast lens for it too, that is pretty much it.

>>3036755
say i did go with the a6000 and wanted a decent prime around 35mm what would you recommend

>>3036652
>>3036683
I agree it's nice that modern glass works fine on EOS film bodies. But that doesn't mean that that anon didn't overpay for the one he got. Especially considering the junky kit zoom he got with it, and the MF body and junky telezoom he also got. He'd have been better off buying a film EOS body on its own for $20, assuming he has some nice EF glass. If he doesn't have nice EF glass, well, then he blew his money just the same, on a body he doesn't have nice lenses for.

>>3036760
28mm Sony f/2 or 30mm sigma f/1.4

>>3036760

The native Sony 35mm f1.8 is nice, but expensive. It does come with OSS which helps in low light. ~$400

There is also a Sigma 30mm f 2.8. Wide open the Sigma is a tad sharper, but it also has some CA issues. The Sigma also lacks OSS. ~$250

Both lenses can be found on sale quite often.

>>3036751
I like the A6000 but it isn't a low light camera. Sorry, but you'll need an A7S or something if you want that. A7S II or A7R II might be preferable, too, which is unfortunately already halfway to as much as you realistically can pay for a FF body.

Or do as everyone with a smaller budget has to do and use a flash / tripod.

>>3036769
The Sigma f/2.8 is an odd choice if you were concerned about sharpness or low light. The f/1.4 is better at both... has other flaws though. Odd MF & purple CA.

>>3036770
i dont need to take pictures of stars and such but i want to be able to do street photography at night

also would i be better off trying to adapt an older lens to the a6000 compared to a native one?

>>3036652
My nigga

I've ruined two bodies in the past six months but they're 15 on eBay

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

180KB, 1400x933px

>>3036774

You are correct. I typed up another section on that lens, but it looks like it got eaten.

You are right though, has some major CA issues, and is also quite large. It has quite slow autofocus too, compared to the other two lenses. ~$350

>>3036781

Personally, I think adapted lenses are a lot of fun, but manual focus isn't for everyone. I have missed quite a few shots using them myself.

Check out this site for a ton of reviews and information on adapted lenses:
>https://phillipreeve.net/blog/

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	DSC-RX100M3
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.6 (Macintosh)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	70 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2016:07:10 15:36:00
Exposure Time	1/80 sec
F-Number	f/2.8
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	3200
Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Brightness	-1.4 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	Flash, Compulsory, Return Not Detected
Focal Length	25.70 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

File: 1484817770288.gif (148KB, 340x340px) Image search: [Google]

148KB, 340x340px

>>3035113
>waiting for my new lens in the mail

>>3036765

The Rabal was a bonus, $75 for the lot

>>3036784
>voigtlander
faukkt-lahnder

Anyone that has the Mitakon 20mm f/2 4.5x Super Macro?

I've been contemplating the laowa 60/2 macro for a while now.

I can't decide which one I want.

The laowa opens up for some cool stuff since it has focus to infinity, but the mitakon is just much more magnification.

File: canon f1.jpg (74KB, 750x1000px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 750x1000px

>see Canon F1 for sale
>looks like this

File: canon f1 2.jpg (83KB, 750x1000px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 750x1000px

>>3037038
Like, this thing is probably fucked, right?

>>3037038
>>3037039
Forget it. That shit's worth nothing.

File: IMG_0002.jpg (2MB, 2592x1936px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2592x1936px

Just ordered an xpro2 with 35mm f2. Look forward to having a Fuji again after a while of Olympus ownership but hope it's not prohibitively big.

>>3037039
>Like, this thing is probably fucked, right?
Probably not actually. New F-1 was Canon in full beast mode. That shit would work in Antarctica. If you can get it for 50 or under, you can clean it up and find out.
If it's actually busted, you can at least sell the finder for that much on eboi.

>>3037117
Live near Avon street dont you? I saw you the other day walking around, thought to myself "his father must have died and left him all these decaying old leather knick-knacks he must toy with"

Anyway, I'll be by over the weekend to knife you. Cheers sport.

>>3037126
Cheers m8

I'm looking to buy a camera to take high quality photos of miniatures. Stuff from /tg/ up to a large action figure size. Anything from say 1 inch tall to 10 inches with finedetails.

My budget is about £200 at a push but I'd feel more comfortable at £150. That's all included and I'm okay with second hand if that's the only option.

My current camera is a Nikon Coolpix S6300 and it's simply not up to the job. I don't understand cameras very well so I'm completely lost when looking at what I need and thought I should ask for some advice before I go looking into it.

Thank you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONe3dP9gKRM

soft every where.
low contrast.

>>3035739
It doesn't have a meter

Hey /p/, photo hobbyist here. I've been using a Canon PowerShot 130IS and smartphones for years, but I recently got some Canon lenses from a friend. They're nothing special, just an EF 50mm 1-1.8 and a 28-90mm 4-5.6 zoom.

I'm looking to step into DSLRs. A friend recommended I get a used 5D Mk2 to start with and grow into, but that seems like a lot of camera for a beginner like me. There are some used ones on CL and eBay for $700-900. Should I go with the 5D Mk2? Any other suggestions? I'm looking at something for portraits, product photos, and good video.

>>3037234
>buying $900 shit on ebay/CL
you're getting scammed.
get eos m instead.

File: 1000-sony_fe_85mm_f18_on_a7rII_with_hood_1488968904.jpg (99KB, 700x404px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 700x404px

>The Sony FE 85mm f/1.8 lens is superb to use, and also superb in many ways in terms of its performance. The lower cost compared to most 85mm lens does not seem to have reduced the performance at all. So full credit to Sony for achieving this. The one weakness is the tendency to flare against the light, which is a shame, but it need not be a deal breaker, depending on the sort of image making we do.
>To summarise, an excellent performance from a well-priced lens and one that can easily be Highly Recommended

So Sony has finally made an affordable portrait e-mount lens?

File: Cosina_CT1A.jpg (194KB, 613x425px) Image search: [Google]

194KB, 613x425px

I have a Cosina CT-1A in almost perfect condition that takes out of focus pics. I can focus on objects just fine but the outcome is always a bit blurry and I can't focus on infinity with any lens (image is always slightly split in the prism) so I assume that mirror or viewfinder is out of aligment. Any ideas on what's really wrong with it and how to fix it? Anyone had similar issues?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon PowerShot G7
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS5.1 Windows
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/3.5
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	613
Image Height	425
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2012:01:15 19:10:24
Exposure Time	1/6 sec
F-Number	f/8.0
Lens Aperture	f/8.0
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	18.89 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	613
Image Height	425
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>3037126
Haha what the fuck. How?

>>3037126
>>3037285
Ah of course. Fucking Apple...

>>3037174
Second hand nex 3 (16mp version) or nex 5 and a nifty fifty and dumb adapter (pentax 50 1.7 and nex to pk adapter would work just fine)

The sensor in those bodies is top notch and the bodies go for peanuts, the small form and flange distance means you can adapt old manual focus lenses onto it cheaply and easily, perfect for experimenting with still life. And the live view offers a familiar shooting experience that won't require you to learn the exposure triangle etc.

Buying new at the moment is a silly move, all the sensors for nikon/pentax/sony/fuji come from sony, and their sensor lab died in kumamoto earthquake so progress has been stalled since early last year until now when they're finally about back to where they were. The old 16mp sensor found in a shit ton of bodies (fuji xe1,xpro1,xt1,xe2, pentax k5, k50, nikon d3100, d5100, d7000, pretty much all the sony nex range) is a stellar performer still very comparable to the latest bodies.

£150 new gets you a tiny sensor toy camera, 2nd hand the nex c3 has the same raw image quality as the fuji xt1, which last year was selling for nearly £1500, I got my heavily battered but still functioning perfectly c3 for £20.

If I want to print out a bunch of 4x6 or 5x7 and I don't have a printer is Walmart my best option?

>>3037356
Well there's a bunch of places where you can order prints online. You might want to check that before going to a bricks-and-mortar place. My drugstore charges more than twice as much for 5x7s as I can get them from mpix or something, and the difference is even wider for larger prints.

So..
I have a Nikon p7000 10mp "professional" compact camera.
I take it to trips to the mountains, skiing or on other ocasions where i cant bring my DSLR for different reasons.
Theres a few Problems i have with it:
- Image quality: given the age of this camera i am still stunned how i some cases it produces really good images quality wise, but in most conditions i am not quite satisfied with sharpness and resolution.
- shutter delay: it has a shutter delay which sometimes even seems random, so it is hard to estimate when it will fire especially when shooting moving subjects (think skiing).
i am looking into some compacts right now to maybe replace it.
i was wondering maybe some people could give me some reccomendations because theres so much choice but only few seem to fit.
requirements are:
manual exposure (or at least ev compensation in a mode)
autofocus
wide-ish to normal lens ( zoom or prime i dont care actually i would like a prime)
"small" "pocketable": the nikon i about three iphones stacked, still fits in my jacket, a bit uncomfy in my pants pocktets but about this size.
shoots raw.
some sort of viewfinder: i know this is hard to find but even the small window on the p7000 has helped me frame a lot of times when shooting in bright conditions, where the screen is just useless.
also as this is just the second cam for some ocasions i would like to keep the price low. i would just buy the rx100 m3 otherwise but its just not affordable enough.
i also looked into mirrorless, some samsungs seem to go quite cheap these days but i cant find a fitting lens thats small and fits the budget. is there something on mft market that fits these criteria or am i stuck with compacts?
thanks in advance /p/

>>3037356
Snapfish

>>3037400
Try an E-M10 MkII or an E-M1

>>3037497
Maybe an E-PL something Pen

>>3037498
No viewfinder
>>3037400
GX85 with Panasonic 12-32 for zoom or Panasonic 14 or 20mm for prime.

File: ._..png (231KB, 291x345px) Image search: [Google]

231KB, 291x345px

My Canon EOS 6D is about to be kill, so what do I replace it with?
5D Mark III - $1,500
5D Mark IV - $3,000
1D X - $4,000
1D X Mark II - $6,000

I will be using it for "pro" work so I need a beast. Also, something that can handle being dropped and splash every once and a while.

File: spacebatrip.jpg (155KB, 800x800px) Image search: [Google]

155KB, 800x800px

Hey /gear/, any recommendations for a wide-angle lens around $600?

My dad offered to get me an IRIX 15mm - f/2.4 because he really likes it for astrophotography and landscape. Know anything about it?

>>3037317
So if I get a Nex C3 second hand what lens would I need?

kind /p/eople, what are the best brands for CPL and ND filters?

Looking for quality that isn't very expensive.

>>3037525
Used Hoya Pro1s go for chips and are decent in quality.

>>3037356
>is Walmart my best option

This is literally never true.

>>3037356
mpix

Which would be the better wide angle for sony E mount? Rokinon 12mm (18mm equiv) or Sigma DN 19mm (28.5mm equiv)? I might also like to take a few short videos with it but I'm really not sure how to assess lenses for video.

>>3037524
Personally I'd suggest any old 50mm f1.7/1.8 and suitable adapter ring. Canon fd, nikon, olympus, minolta all made decent 50's that you will be able to get super cheap.
The shallow dof from the large aperture and the slightly telephoto nature of 50mm on crop should work well for small scenes.

So basically, I bought a 60D a couple of years ago, used it for videography (retarded, I know). It came with a kit lens, and I very recently got into photography on it too.

The frame distortion, shit low-light ability and inability to produce anything 'nice'. Of course it takes a good photo, especially graded black and white photos - and a good workman never blames his tools, but I find I get very dull and soft images out of the lens.

I had a Sigma lens a while back for a night and it took some great looking photos, and I was quite happy with the results. But I still am learning how to shoot - at least with my AE-1, I have a light meter, everything is manual and film looks good no matter what, but the digi is different.

I'm shooting on my AE-1 more and more now, but I'm wondering whether I should get a new lens for the 60D or just upgrade the body and lens in the near distant future, and continue to improve with the 60D. Is it worth upgrading? Or should I git-gud + new lens

File: DSC01150-Edit-Edit-Edit_ceq642.jpg (376KB, 1675x1200px) Image search: [Google]

376KB, 1675x1200px

>>3037801
Just re-read this and I'm so tired that it doesn't exactly make much sense. Basically, should I buy a lens for the 60d and will that improve the quality of image, or should I upgrade?


I really like this meme looking shit

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-7S
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.1.1 (Macintosh)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2015:10:08 04:05:33
Exposure Time	1/200 sec
Exposure Program	Shutter Priority
ISO Speed Rating	160
Brightness	3.1 EV
Exposure Bias	1.3 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

>>3037804
Sell the 60d and get a full frame camera and fast 50mm and 85mm lens.

Value for money, the sony a7 is amazing if you want to adapt old lenses and if you want more creative control over your exposure (once you go evf it's hard to turn back). If you're super poor a canon 5dc and nifty fifty shouldn't be more than £350.

>>3037810
Thought that it'd be best to sell. I'll probably sit on it for a few more months and save for the a7 (broke student). A mate just purchased an A7s or an a7 ii or something and it looks stunning. So Sony is the way to go then?

>>3037812
Theres an anti sony crew on here, so expect people to try and sway you away, but for me, having shot pentax and nikon in the past, my 1st a7 was love at first use.

Yeh, the a7 has a couple of downsides, autofocus isn't the fastest and it can overheat doing video (can't confirm, I've never done video). Native lenses are still a little bit more $ than the canikon alternatives, but they're getting exceptional reviews.

But the combo of superb evf, giving a wysiwyg preview as you adjust settings, cheap lens adaptability and a top quality sensor is hard to look past. If you compare it to other full frame bodies with the same sensor it's insanely cheap.

>>3037521
1D X. Only 1/4th less for the 5D MkIV and that camera is a huge disappointment while the 5D MkIII is still a beast it is getting obsolete especially in the pro tier, slowly sinking fully into hobbyist tier.
The 1D X will still get you mad props from the customers and will serve you well for years. Only get the MkII if you can justify the extra costs and need somewhat decent video from time to time.

>>3037804
Always get better lens first. Only upgrade the body when it is actually limiting you.
So git gud and new lens, preferably L-lens or equivalent.

>>3037812

Sony is a pretty good choice. They have put a lot of effort into their camera line and are constantly improving it.

That said, they do have some shortcomings (biggest imo are inconsistent warranty service in the states, mediocre jpeg engine [you aren't scrubby enough to shoot jpeg, right anon?].and no updates for models over 3 or so years old).

If you can wait a few months, Sony will be announcing a new a7 body soon.

You can see if it is worth it, and even if it isn't, you should be able to find an a7ii a lot cheaper.

The other guy is right too, Sony gets a lot of FUD here. It is kinda funny actually, there is a Fuji and a Sony guy who are always shitting up threads with shitposting against each other.

>>3037827
>only upgrade when the body is limiting.
>thinking you can get that dof and oof rendering on crop

Oh anon.

And there's zero need for an L, take your own advice, the difference between a samyang 85mm 1.4 and otus 85mm 1.4 are much more subtle than the difference between crop and ff.

>>3037828
just for op's fyi, the a7ii offers better autofocus, especially with lenses on af adapters (like sigma mc11, metabones, techart) and ibis, meaning you can hand hold shots with less motion blur.

I wanted the af boost, and before my a7 i had a pentax with ibis which i missed. Traded in my a7 for 500, paid an extra 500 for the a7ii, not regretted it yet. That being said, if you mainly want to do still life, it's definitely not worth it.

>>3037827
>Always get better lens first. Only upgrade the body when it is actually limiting you.

Agreed.

But a 7 year old crop body is most likely limiting him, even if it is just ISO performance.

File: DSC_1781.jpg (1MB, 2048x1367px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2048x1367px

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Photographer	Patrick Ludolph
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB

>>3037838
You are the biggest limitation on yourself if you think sensor performance means that much in a photo.

>>3037858
I bet you will enjoy getting knifed

>>3037863
>You are the biggest limitation on yourself if you think sensor performance means that much in a photo.

I like low light shots.

Not being able to shoot above iso 400 is a limitation.

>>3037858
Forgot your dildo.

>>3037858
Nice X100

File: s-l1600.jpg (197KB, 1600x1067px) Image search: [Google]

197KB, 1600x1067px

i bought this nikon f3 on ebay, sold as fully functional. It looks quite beaten up, what issues do i have to expect. Also I don´t have any lenses for it yet, what lenses would you recommend for it

>>3037858

What is the brand/model of the bag? How do you keep all of that in there without your shit getting damaged?

>>3035113
olympus em5 body for $210 is a good buy?

>>3038036
50 f1.4 or 35 f2, both are cheap.

Buy a fast lens with you want to buy a digital nikon body.

>>3038190
Hell yes
Camera of the year every year

I'm going to Shenzhen in a month's time. Is there anything worth buying there?

What's your guys' opinion on the mirrorless lens systems?

I've been looking at M43, Fuji, and Sony.

So far it seems like Fuji's the best but priciest, Sony second, and M43 is dead last.

I like the price of M43, but a lot of people aren't impressed with its DoF

>>3037886
The 60D is perfectly capable of ISO 1600, coupled with a fast lens it is a perfectly usable lowlight camera.
Protip, on newer sensors you still get graining, softness and massive photonic noise in low light despite the high ISO capability.

>>3038259
If you want the best image quality the only option is sony, not only does full frame offer much better low light performance, the larger pixel pitch is a lot less demanding on lenses so you get much sharper images.

Not to mention having the best oem lenses and ibis.

>>3038264
Doesn't FF kind of defeat the whole purpose of owning a fullframe?

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

63KB, 700x229px

>>3038259

>looking for mirrorless
>Fuji the best

I am looking too, thinking of spending $2k or so.

How'd you come to that conclusion?

From what I searched, it seems that they cost as much as FF Sony, and perform like the much cheaper Sony crop. Aren't all that much smaller either.

The only thing significantly better they seem to do is jpeg, but I always shoot in raw so it is useless to me.

Leaning towards a7ii w/kit and a prime (thinking 35mm f2.8).

>>3038281
<ff defeats purpose of ff
Allofmywut.pingu

>>3038287
Skip the kit lens, much better off getting an mc-11 and decent canon mount 24-70 2.8.

And the 35 is pricey for what you get, the 28 may be a smarter choice.

>>3038290

Everything I read about the kit says it is quite good. Dirt cheap too.

And the 35mm is down to $550 here.

>>3038288
Sorry, I meant doesn't FF defeat the purpose of a compact mirrorless?

>>3038294

By looking at this post:
>>3038287

It doesn't seem to.

File: sony-a7-v-fujifilm-x-e2-size-comparison.jpg (228KB, 1500x1125px) Image search: [Google]

228KB, 1500x1125px

>>3038294

Nope.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	FUJIFILM
Camera Model	XQ1
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC (Macintosh)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.8
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	4000
Image Height	3000
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2014:01:10 18:59:35
Exposure Time	1/30 sec
F-Number	f/2.1
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	250
Lens Aperture	f/2.1
Brightness	0.8 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	6.70 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1500
Image Height	1125
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>3038295
>>3038298
There's 3 small lenses on fe mount, boring ass 28, slow overpriced 35 and shitty chattering 50. Others are much larger. If tou want really small go with m43. The technical quality of recent m43 stuff is way above what an amateur needs.

>>3038304

New 85mm too.

But yea, most of the FE line is Sony's balls to the walls IQ, fuck compactness G and GM lenses.

>>3038264
>the only option is sony
this is what sonyggers believe
please kys sonyfag

>>3038287
>>3038298
These comparisons never clicked with me. Seems better to compare the XT-1 or 2, since they're closer in nature to the a7, and the X-pro is considerably bigger.

>>3038304
There's the 55 and 85 1.8 too, and a 20mm and 135 on their way, how many more compact, affordable primes do you need?

And let's look at the maths behind your claim that m43 is fine. First things first, YOUR LENS LIMITS YOUR RESOLUTION, NOT THE MP COUNT, NO LENSES CURRENTLY OUTRESOLVE ANY MODERN HIGH MP SENSOR.

I wrote that in caps as people tend to ignore it.

Now let's take 2 sensors of equal mp, ones ff, the others m43. The ff pixel pitch is going to be a minimum 400% the size of m43, before you take into account for the lost space between pixels which again is a much bigger issue than on a larger sensor.

Let's go back, resolution is limited by the lens sharpness, no one company has a secret ultra clear glass formula, for m43 shots to have the same apparent sharpness when viewed at the same size they need a lens that resolves 400% as much detail.

Now here comes the bit where you're gonna start feeling really dumb, as time goes on sensors and electronics get cheaper and cheaper, whereas lenses bought 20 years ago still command a decent price today.

If you've bought into m43, you've bought into lenses that are dead in the water, give it a few years and a ff sensor will be a tiny fraction of what it costs today, I'll be able to use all my lenses as the bodies improve because 135 will remain the standard. You'll have a box of pricey paperweights as small sensors fall further into redundancy.

And all so you could 'save $500' by buying an inferior body with overpriced lenses.

>>3038316
You are arguing with a sonyfag, don't look for any sane reasons in his arguments.

>>3035540
>spends hundreds to thousands on camera and lenses
>too cheap to buy a 60 dollar carry pack

File: DSC03414.jpg (371KB, 1500x1000px) Image search: [Google]

371KB, 1500x1000px

>>3038316

I mean, it doesn't make much difference. a7 is still smaller in every dimension except for the evf and grip bumps.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-6000
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.0 (Macintosh)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/4.0
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	39 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2015:09:06 16:03:19
Exposure Time	1/10 sec
F-Number	f/8.0
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/8.0
Brightness	5.0 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	26.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

Anyone know jack shit about ccd cameras and stand alone autoguiders?

>>3038317
I dont use m43, though i do have lx100. Even that is enough for a noob. Complete m43 setup can be had for 500€ used, and is really compact, if that is of any importance. Throw any zoom on your a7 and you can throw any idea of compactness out of the window.

You spout that same shit in every thread multiple times, yet you cant seem to understand that different people have different preferences. Are you seriously saying that no good picture has ever been made with a camera bases on a smaller than ff sensor? You seem weirdly angry and defensive.

>>3038339
>comparing 1.4 lens to a 2.8
Aaaahhahhahahaahahahah

>>3038337
I actually only got a a6000 and the other lens it came with.
I recently bought a $140 backpack and thought it would be a waste to not use it

>>3038418

It really is a shame how the f 2.8 lens wide open outperforms the f 1.4 lens stepped down to f 2.8.

>>3038418
you mean f2.1 equivalent?

>>3038341
Don't go into CCDs for a main camera, unless you are willing to pay $5000+ for one. A Canon SL1 or a D7000 is cheaper and similar in performance.
Teleskop Austria (Lacerta) sells a cheap auto guider CCD, color and monochrome variant (get the monochrome) and you can pair it up with any 50mm finder scope. It is the aperture, not the focal length.

>>3038453
The Northrups are proud of you, gullible idiot

Best short-range walkaround for FF Nikon?

Looking for 24-70 or 24-85 something like that.

Stabilization is a plus

AI compatibility with 35mm (a la FE, FM3, F3, etc.) is a plus but not required

$1000-ish budget

Wide open IQ not a big deal this lens will spend most of its life at f/8 and will probably see some f/16, 2.8 is a plus though.

Not trolling.

>>3038564
Tamron 24-70/2.8
Obvious answer is obvious
Alternative is Tamron 15-30 if you don't mind the wider angle

>>3038036
It looks less beaten up than mine, and mine works flawlessly. I doubt you'll have any issues. The F3 is all but indestructible.

>>3038564
Buy a prime instead, you human missing link.

File: DSCN4457.jpg (2MB, 2000x1500px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2000x1500px

I have a Nikon d5100 and I want to get a new lens for astrophotography. I have the chance to buy the nikon 10.5mm f2.8 lens for 400$ CAD, should I buy it? Would the auto focus work on it? And if not I could i still adjust the aperture from the camera right?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON
Camera Model	COOLPIX P7700
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.8 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.0
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	744
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	50 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2017:03:13 17:32:46
Exposure Time	1/30 sec
F-Number	f/2.8
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	200
Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	Flash, Auto
Focal Length	11.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	Low Gain Up
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>3038634
You mean starscapes? Because astrophotography mostly means DSO and widefield on tracking mounts. The widest they go is around 400mm.
I would look at the Samyang fisheyes first before buying first party, but $400 doesn't sound too bad either.

>>3038639
Yes I meant that, I just love taking pictures of the milky way, any of you have experience with that lens and stars?

>>3038640
I don't really have any good wide angle lenses, my only wide option is the zoom lens going down to 16mm on APS-C. I mostly do widefield with an old Tamron 70-200/2.8

do you boys have any recommendations for a compact camera under $1000, preferably with an optical viewfinder?

>>3038675
Fuji X100T, Fuji X70 with flash mount OVF, Ricoh GRII with flash mount OVF

Looking to buy a camera around the $850 CAD range - I can get a used xt-1 with battery grip for this price, or should I get a Sony?

>>3038686

thank you

>>3038564
Get a 28-70 if you want to use it on film cameras so badly.

Daily reminder that Sony makes the best value, most sophisticated full frame platform - all with a selection of reasonably priced lenses that have parity with or outperform rivals at much higher price points. Sony is the only company leading innovation in the full frame market and lowering the barrier to entry for photographers and Canifujikonlympus shills will try to sell you antiquated micro four thirds and massive DLSRs.

>>3038741
>Daily reminder that Sony makes the best value, most sophisticated full frame platform - all with a selection of reasonably priced lenses that have parity with or outperform rivals at much higher price points.
But none of those are true; the K-1 provides the best value, with all of the sophistication, a full selection of excellent lenses at all price ranges and performance points.

File: 1488800755923.jpg (9KB, 500x281px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 500x281px

I'm thinking of buying an OM 100mm f2.8 because I feel it'd better suit my "" "artistic vision"""
It seems it's a very respectable lens from what I've read about it and pictures I've looked up. Anyone have any input/experiences to share? There's only so much Flickr can really say
Would be going on an OM1 if that makes any difference

Very close to pulling the trigger on an a6000 as my first non-smartphone camera. I wish it had better low-light performance because I'd really like to take photos of city lights at night (in addition to brighter things), but given how great every other aspect of it seems to be for the price I guess I'll live with it.

Is there any reason I shouldn't get it with the kit lens (16-55mm)? Again I have zero experience with any of this and am not sure what kind of shots I'll ultimately be taking, so getting a zoom lens that provides more options is better, right?

Looking forward to becoming a regular on this board after >5 years of using this site and never visiting it.

Anybody have any good Micro 3/4th lenses to recommend? I'm also in the market for C-mount lenses as well.

>>3038812

a6000 is a great choice. It isn't as capable as an a7sii in low light, but it will probably beat most cameras you have used before. City lights at night should be perfectly doable.

The zoom lens has rather mediocre performance though. If it wasn't compact as fuck it would be trash. It gets a FUCKTON of hate, because when it was released everyone went out and bought one for their older NEX cameras. And since those older cameras lacked lens profiles for it, pictures turned out super fucking bad. Check this review out and devide for yourself:
>http://kurtmunger.com/sony_nex_pz_16_50mmid344.html

As for coming here...go somewhere else. /p/ is a shithole.

finally going to pull the trigger and get a Pentax 67
what model should I get, anyhing to look out for?
ive exclusively used Pentax SLRs in the past so I know how they work, is it much different?

>>3038827
Thanks for the response.
Can you recommend a good zoom lens that performs better? I've read that quality Sony lenses tend to be pricier than other brands, but I'd be willing to pay more for something that can grow with me and not start collecting dust after I get others.
Or let me know if there's some prime lens that might be better for a beginner. I'm not actually anticipating using a ton of zoom for the shots I have in mind currently, so I guess I'm just assuming that having the option is better. Maybe I'm wrong.

>/p/ is a shithole
I'm pretty sure every half-intelligent person on 4chan says this about their home board with few exceptions. But that's part of the appeal I guess.

>>3038765
If you wanted this for an A7RII I might hesitate.
If you're shooting it on film as designed, just make sure you get a decent copy and it should be great. OM lenses are generally regarded as being very nice.

>>3038844

The older 18-55mm zoom is considered decent enough.

As for primes, the hard choice is between Sigma or Sony primes. The Sigmas are a ta sharper in the center, but the Sonys have sharper edges and OSS.

I personally like how 50mm comes out on a crop.

If I wanted to buy a 3/4 male screw to 3/4 male screw for the purpose of affixing two cameras to each other would there be a specific phrase or product name I would search for?

>>3038872
If you're using the threaded tripod link on most cameras the screw is called 1/4-20. Also you'd want something like a set screw.

>>3038872
Admit it Anon, you just want the D.

>>3038875
>set screw
This alone helps a lot, thanks anon.

>>3038876
LONDON
O
N
D
O
N

>>3038872


Why not attach one to hotshoe?

>>3038907
I don't have a hot shoe connector like that, figured the slightly stronger tripod screw would be an easier buy

I'm headed to Cuba in a few days. Going to bring my 70D, Rx100, and a film body but I can't choose between a Canon A1 (50mm 1.8, 28mm 2.8) or a Pentax Spotmatic F (50mm 1.4 Takumar). I have a handheld light meter for the Spotmatic. Any suggestions for film noob?

>>3038838
Just got mine a couple weeks ago, so far I honestly love it.

>what model should I get, anyhing to look out for?
I'd suggest getting either MLU version. If you don't have a handheld meter, make sure to find one with the TTL prism or just use a meter app on your phone. I'm guessing you already know, but it's pretty heavy, body with the non-metered prism + 105mm f2.4 weighs around 2.2kg.

The prism finders are 90% coverage, if you want 100% you can take the prism off and use a WLF. Be careful to never take off the prism while the lens is attached though as it can break the aperture chain thing, always detach the lens, take off prism then re attach the lens.

Also it's a bit awkward to hold which is why i DIY'd a right hand grip which attaches to the strap lugs

>ive exclusively used Pentax SLRs in the past so I know how they work, is it much different?
Not much different at all, very basic and simpla as fuck to use. You do need a battery to operate it though

>>3038930
thanks bud, why is mirror lock up important?

>>3038934
I guess it depends what you'll be shooting really. If you're going to be shooting landscapes the MLU stops any chance of mirror slap causing loss of sharpness, especially at slower shutter speeds. However if you're going to be shooting handheld at 1/60 and above you'll be fine without MLU.

File: like looking down a pringles can.jpg (380KB, 1280x1280px) Image search: [Google]

380KB, 1280x1280px

>>3038844
>I'm pretty sure every half-intelligent person on 4chan says this about their home board with few exceptions.

That exception is /co/, doubledubs. No matter how much newfags bitch about it being shit. It isn't now, and never has been.

Also, don't forget about converting old lenses. Manual focusing shouldn't be that bad with focus peaking, which I'm assuming the a6000 has.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 5D Mark II
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS4 Windows
Photographer	Photographer:Paul M. Provencher
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2010:01:01 00:30:29
Exposure Time	6 sec
F-Number	f/22.0
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	400
Lens Aperture	f/22.6
Exposure Bias	-0.7 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	105.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1280
Image Height	1280
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>3038410
You can get a full frame setup for €500 too?

And are you implying that new photographers don't lust over the 'full frame look'? Lol, you think it's better to buy m43, realise you have no bokeh, bad low light and shitty lenses, sell it all and buy ff?

M43 is stubborn, uninformed old man camera. And it's dying out fast.

>>3038418
>comparing crop to ff
Aaaaaahahahaha, enjoy your shots having half the apparent sharpness due to tiny pixel pitch, over a stop worse low light performance from tiny sensor and crunchy bokeh from your relatively short focal lengths.

>>3038451
It's not a shame, no fuji lenses perform well until heavily stopped down, their optical designs are massively outdated. Hence why they pay off dxo.

>>3038465
So what's not correct with his statement? bare in mind f != t. This should be fun.

>>3038692
That's enough to get an a7, the a7iii is about to be announced which may push the ii down into your price range too.
Image quality, lens selection, accesories, upgrade path, ergonomics all heavily favour Sony. If you don't want to edit anything and just have a hipster jpeg clicker, the fuji will do great.

>>3038750
>pentax
>lenses
AHAHAHAHAHA no.

>>3038812
It will take photos very cleanly in almost pitch black, you just need a tripod and long shutter. No crop camera has better low light performance.

>>3038844
Sigma mc11 and tamron 28-75 2.8 is a very affordable, high quality and compact solution that's also full frame for when you upgrade. Don't be tempted by the cheaper meike/neewer/etc af adapters, they suck.

>>3038956
>>pentax
>>lenses
>AHAHAHAHAHA no.

>http://k-1-lab.com/en/
>no lenses
kill yourself you fucking fanboy autist

>>3037505
>GX85
thanks i looked into those and they seem like a great option, just maybe a bit too much.
i also looked into the gx7 the both seem to fit the criteria and the 20mm is a great lens.
tho given how i can get a used fuji x100 for 250-300 i am currently thinking i will be getting one of those, maybe a x100s if i can afford it and its worth the cost.
good idea/ bad idea?

>>3038956
>pentax
>lenses
Here you go friend, feel free to browse:
https://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/
https://www.pentaxforums.com/userreviews/

Maybe now you can get a decent lens for your system to adapt, at a decent price

>>3038929
I would choose the Canon just because you have two lens options for it.
I would leave the 70D at home and use mostly the film body and the RX100 when you don't have the reach or need video. Cuba is a shitty place now, many locals steal anything from tourists without looking just to have an extra cup of soup for the day.
Be very careful on the streets, never leave any valuables at the hotel, travel light with minimal luggage.

>>3039020
>"hey sony your lenses suck"
>*links to objective testing showing them to be the best on the market
>"hey bentax, your lenses suck"
>"errr actually, according to 'happygrandad36' the asahi 135 f2.8 has a lovely oof rendering when shooting flowers"

I used to be bentaxian, left cos the lenses suck and the users are insufferable.

File: 1481970565100.png (532KB, 1597x1600px) Image search: [Google]

532KB, 1597x1600px

>>3039027

>>3039027
This much projecting, you should get a job in a movie theater.

>>3039027

A/E mount lenses also have a user review site.

>http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/index.asp

Usually has lots of example pics too. Bout the only place to find reviews of old Minolta stuff.

>wait 15 years for a refresh of the canon 400mm 5.6
>fuck paying 7000+ for any of there other offerings
>still no sign of anything
>2017 roadmap lists fuck all
Why dont they make like a 500 f5.6 or something. Looks like im off to sigma. Its like canon want to lose customers.

>>3039117
The 400/5.6 is pretty much awesome and quite cheap even on modern bodies, works well with 2X TCs as well.
But yeah, if you want to have more modern tele lenses it is either Sigma/Tamron or switching to Nikon.

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilm-gfx-50s
>bentax on suicide watch with their soft lenses.
>sony and canun is kill

i have sony a7r, how to cheap get wide?
1) buy converter from 28mm f2.0 to 21mm f2.8
2) buy legacy lens
if 2 - witch.

>>3039154

Batis

>>3039154
1) pretty good
2) 3rd party brand 24mm f2.8 is kinda cheap.
3) sony e 10-18mm f4.
use it 12mm and above.
http://briansmith.com/sony-a7r-10-18-e-mount-lens/
4)samyang 14mm and use hyperfocal

Are 4K monitors a meme? I'm looking into getting the Dell Ultrasharp U2515H because I want a 1440p monitor on a budget, but is it better to wait until I can pick up a decent 4K monitor instead for futureproofing?

>>3039173
"futureproofing"

4k monitors take 300% more system resources than a 1080p for no noticeable gain unless it's a massive monitor. It's a fucking marketing meme that only hurts consumers by requiring less efficient hardware with greater energy consumption

>>3039026
Thanks, I might do that. The RX100 is very capable in its own right, and the film bodies cost no more than $30 used. If they're gone I am not out much.

>>3039164
thx, i lookd on market, 1) is best option

>>3039173
I made the switch to 4K monitors some time ago. Honestly I almost regret it. Most programs don't support that kind of resolution anyway, and I don't really play video games.

But it does look pretty.

>>3038846
Cool, that's the impression I got

Hi, I found out recently that there is a sale going on and given the same price I could get one of the two:
Fujifilm X-T10 kit
Sony A6000 kit

Which one is better for travel photography and indoor usage? Kind of leaning toward the Fuji as many recommends it for OOC jpg.

>>3039204
ignored

>>3039206
Thanks for your reply

>>3039209
No value added to discussion, -3 from bump limit