/gear/ - Gear thread

35mm or 50mm prime for DX? Mostly for lowlight events/portraits.

>>3065902
>DX
events: Tamron 17-50/2.8
portraits: prime, from 50mm up to 90mm. A macro lens will do fine as well.

File: Screenshot_2017-04-28-12-58-11.jpg (2MB, 1365x2293px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1365x2293px

Wanted to get another opinion on this,
I'm about to buy this used Ricoh gr for 300 bucks. Is this a good price considering the body damage in pic related? I already have an a6000 so I'm worried that this will be a useless buy in a sense. I can't get wide enough shots with my sony because of the focal length with my lenses. Any help is appreciated, thanks.

>>3065924
I wouldn't give $300 for a camera that looks like this. Why not just wait a bit more? Expand your budget and get one in better shape, or even a new one.

>>3065927
Think I could find a better condition one around 450 or even 400? Would it be worth it if the buyer lowered the price to 250?

>>3065929
Let me rephrase. I just wouldn't buy any camera that looks like that.

just got SEL50F18F which has no OSS
did i fuck up by getting the no OSS version? I don't shoot video and feel like relying on it too much is a meme

Does this look like it would be decent to use as a backlight?
https://www.amazon.com/LimoStudio-Photography-Studio-Lighting-AGG1077/dp/B00DP65ARO/

>>3065937

Yed you did. That version is the only FF e-mount lens you should avoid, the AF sucks.

Best bang for your buck is 55mm Zeiss.

>>3065942
i updated the firmware and its pretty fast
not dropping money for zeiss yet

Should I get a hero session 4 or 5?

Should I buy a Sony or kill myself?

>>3065957
Both

File: 76cefca1a2f6a3fa7f055713773876aa.png (390KB, 1054x723px) Image search: [Google]

390KB, 1054x723px

Posted this in the other thread but still not convinced. Currently shooting a d3300 with a 17-50 sigma, so how good is this deal in comparison? I have wanted to get a full frame for a while now wondering if I should buy it (or if it's possibly 'too good to be true')

File: cheap.jpg (26KB, 560x283px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 560x283px

>>3065888
computers are gear, right? please help me choose between these nearly identical mid-range laptops; will be used for some light photo editing on them

both have 1080p IPS panel displays, but the ASUS is matte and slightly more color accurate while the HP is glossy but $80 cheaper. is editing on matte with ~5% more sRGB accuracy worth that $80 to a poorfag?

fwiw, i couldn't find any info on the HP's NTSC and AdobeRGB accuracy, but the ASUS is rated in the low to mid 70s% for both.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Photographer	Tim Robin
Image-Specific Properties:

File: 1361308860000_926379.jpg (30KB, 750x750px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 750x750px

I'm overdue for a new tripod. Ended up finding this and it seems pretty solid. Worth the $189 or no?

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/926379-REG/benro_a1350q1k_travel_tripod_kit.html

Would be used for landscape, long exposure and IR

>>3065996
Not the best AF, Pentax is much more reliable, but if all you shoot is static then it's a good deal.

>>3066023
Do you really need the monopod function? If not get a cheaper solid tripod.

>>3066161

Nah don't really need the monopod function. Is that brand any good or no? If so I could look at their less expensive models.

I truly don't know much about tripod brands.

>>3066200
If you want a travel tripod look for a used Manfrotto Befree.

File: fireworks7.jpg (3MB, 3456x3456px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3456x3456px

>>3066023
I have this tripod, very good and very solid. Used it for long exposures, landscapes, timelapses the lot. I sum it up as a good trade off between flexibilty and sturdynes. also, looks gorgeous in silver.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 1200D
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/3.5
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2015:10:31 22:39:51
Exposure Time	2 sec
F-Number	f/14.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/14.0
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	18.00 mm
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	3456
Image Height	3456
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>3066002
depends on how poor you are. editing on matte is always preferable; glossy screens tend to exaggerate color saturation and contrast (i.e., more fun to look at, but not to work on)

>>3066201

>used

I'd rather not. It doesn't even cost that much brand new.

>>3066205

Have you used it with telephoto lenses? I like that it can withstand a pretty good load weight

>>3066223
I got my 190XB with 410jr geared head and 498 ball head for $250, used. But it's your money.

>>3066023

Looks like one of those generic Chinese designs that people slap their logo on... nearly identical to my XC528, which is rated for 12 kg. I've had 6 kg on it, and it's been very solid, even fully extended.

8 kg capacity... you can't really go wrong with that, assuming you're using a DSLR. You could definitely find a lighter carbon fiber one with the same load rating, but IMO weight helps a tripod, and CF is overrated and overpriced. That only leaves cheap Chinese CF, which should never be trusted.

TL;DR: If you don't mind it weighing 1.6 kg, it's perfect.

>>3066234
This.
>>3066023
If you're going to get something like that, you might as well head to banggood/aliexpress/wish and get it dirt cheap.
>>3066200
>Is that brand any good or no?
Brand name isn't necessarily a thing in tripods. Like the cheap Manfrottos are cheap garbage. The mid-upper end ones are pretty good.

>>3066234

>carbon fibre overrated

You are an idiot who has obviously never owned anything made of carbon fibre.

>>3065924
These retail for 800 new a few scratches is worth buying it 500 dollars cheaper.

File: 20170424_142241.jpg (996KB, 1500x1125px) Image search: [Google]

996KB, 1500x1125px

any advice on keeping the noise of the recording down?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	samsung
Camera Model	SM-G930F
Camera Software	paint.net 4.0.13
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.7
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	26 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2017:04:24 14:22:41
Exposure Time	1/10 sec
F-Number	f/1.7
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	250
Lens Aperture	f/1.7
Brightness	-1.4 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	4.20 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	4032
Image Height	3024
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Unique Image ID	C12LLJB18VM C12LLJK01GM_

File: Chinon Auto 3001 Multifocus.jpg (207KB, 1040x772px) Image search: [Google]

207KB, 1040x772px

I have these three cameras sitting in my closet right now. They belonged to my grandfather, and now I've got them.

Any advice on if they still hold up after 30-40 years?

>>3066247
>>3066249
>>3066250
Only camera worth keeping is the Yashica. And if it hasn't suffered from pad of death, it'll likely work fine once you get a battery for it.

File: 3132309KJ6L[1].jpg (16KB, 320x500px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 320x500px

>>3066226

You definitely got a good deal, I just prefer to buy my stuff new, especially when it's something like a tripod/filter/etc.

>>3066234

>Looks like one of those generic Chinese designs that people slap their logo on

That was my initial though. I was gonna get a tripod from AliExpress but thought maybe the deal I'd get there wouldn't be worth the shit quality I might get. I want to get a tripod that's solid and will last me a few years. But I guess that brand will be the same chinese shit no matter where I get it from.

>You could definitely find a lighter carbon fiber one with the same load rating, but IMO weight helps a tripod

Yeah, I don't want something extremely light that will fall over with strong winds.

>>3066235

I looked up the exact same tripod on AliExpress and it's only $10 cheaper. Not really a big difference when I could go to B&H and pick it up myself.

>>3066235

>Brand name isn't necessarily a thing in tripods. Like the cheap Manfrottos are cheap garbage. The mid-upper end ones are pretty good.

Gotcha. See, I have very little knowledge about tripods. Last tripod I bought years ago was a $40 Velbon from B&H, but I definitely need something a bit more sturdy.

>>3065888
I have an old Nikon D200 but i'm getting tired of lugging this beast around. What should I replace it with? Wanting at least a aps-c sensor but ff would be nice. used A7ii? used RX1? Some fuji?

>>3066002
>winblows
>even once
just get a used macbook pro.

>>3066255
>glossy screen
>sub-fhd display
>macuck

nice b8

File: 65456.jpg (592KB, 1000x586px) Image search: [Google]

592KB, 1000x586px

>>3066236

I used to be the head of quality control and repairs for a CFRP & FRP manufacturing plant.

>>3066253

I will recommend this (mine) because it's overbuilt, includes a very solid head, and is inexpensive:

https://www.ebay.com/p/Promaster-XC528-Tripod/153189769

Pic is actually the friction lock holding the ball head at 45 degrees, not sitting at rest on its limits.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

Best uwa for the money for nikon f mount? I've been trying to get into landscape but need to be wider than 25mm

>>3066262
Nikon 16-35

uwa on dslr's sucks dicks if you don't want to spend a fair chunk.

>>3066267
If he's okay with a manual-focus prime (he might well be, if he's interested in landscape) then he can get one of the Samyangs. The 14/2.8 is like $300.

>>3065888
any recs for a shoulder/messenger-style camera bag to fit a mirrorless ILC, one or two lenses, and a 13" ultrabook? small as possible please and not looking to spend more than $100 USD if I don't have to. doesn't need to be too rugged as i only need it for walking around cities/parks

thanks

>>3066268
This, the 14/2.8 is an excellent landscape prime

>>3066272
Plastic bag from Ikea

>>3066251
What's the pad of death?

>>3066239
That's what I was thinking too. Though I have seen them go for less than 400 in much better quality so maybe I'll ask this seller to lower the price.

can i get a decent enough tripod for ~$50 or in this price range everything is just wasting money?

>>3066326
You already answered your question

>>3066272
lowepro event messenger

it's a little boxy tho

should i get a dji osmo mobile? i have a spare iphone 6 lying around with filmic
i walk around snapshitting shit with an a6000 and a 50mm 1.8 but i hate doing video on it and sometimes it need to quickly start recording something interesting thats happening while i shoot photos
it would also be cool to roll video while im shooting photo kai wong style

I've been using a basic Nikon D70 for the longest time and it finally started malfunctioning, prompting me to look for a new body. I want to jump up to a full frame camera. I'm looking to blow under $1500 on it, so from a quick google search I'm looking at the Nikon D750 and Nikon D610. Are these good? Are there any better options I should consider? I should say I just want a general purpose camera not for anything too specific.

>>3066326
sony a6500
>>3066587
sony a7ii
>>3066272
sony LCSSL10
>>3066262
sony 16-35/4
>>3066254
sony a6000
>>3066244
sony a7s

>>3066589
I bought a Nikon 35mm lens for my D70, so it won't work with a Sony body. I am interested in mirrorless cameras though, is there any downsides to them over traditional DSLRs? It seems they're just more compact than their regular counterparts.

>>3066592
More compact and the evf gives a wysiwyg preview as you change your exposure settings making getting the shot you want faster and more fluid, it's nice never having to chimp.

Lenses don't really drop in value, sell the nikon, invest in sony. The great thing about sony is that due to them releasing new bodies more frequently, the older bodies plummet in value so you can get a heck of a lot of camera for your money.

>>3066592
No battery life, AF sucks and mighty expensive fuckhuge lenses

>>3066592
>is there any downsides to them over traditional DSLRs?


Shitty battery life (for everything but Sony's latest).

Shit autofocus (for everyone but Sony).

And limited lens selections, though capable of adapting almost anything (like your Nikon lens, it will even autofocus it as long as it isn't one of the screw driven lenses).

>>3066587
D750 is an amazing camera

It is overdue for a replacement, so you may or may not want to wait for that. Given that you don't seem like a gearfag, I'd say get it now and go enjoy shooting

>>3066589
holy fucking shill

>>3066592
- Just as bulky once you put a lens on it.
- Shit ergonomics.
- No battery life.
- Once you bought one you are forced to come on /p/ daily and shill for it.
- Shit auto focus.

>>3066262
>Best uwa for the money for nikon f mount?

Specify crop or full frame.

For full frame either Tamron 15-30 f/2.8 (it's $1000, but it's as good as $2000+ lenses) or Samyang 14 f/2.8 if you're on a budget and don't mind manually focusing.

Don't know about crop ultrawides.

How do cropped lenses work? Is a 35mm DX lens like the equivalent to a 50mm FX lens on a full frame camera?

>>3066749
You pull your penis out, spit on your hand, and gently massage the tip. When you feel a pulsing sensation, just relax, and you will spray sticky white stuff from the tip.

>>3066749

Crop lenses work like any other lens. A 35mm lens is a 35mm lens is a 35mm lens. What you should be asking is "how do crop sensors work?", at which point I would say that a crop sensor, being physically smaller, also uses a smaller portion of a len's image circle which has the secondary effect of making ANY lens you put on there have a longer focal length. It's the same as "cropping" from a bigger photo.

Crop lenses are built so that they have a smaller image circle (since they don't have to cover a full frame sensor). They are also physically smaller. That means that mounting them on a larger sensor will have the effect of looking through a peephole on your door. You'll have lots of black vignetting in most cases on a full frame camera. Other than that they are functionally identical to a full frame lens.

>>3066754
Right, I always thought that crop factor was more tied to the sensor rather than lens. So then what's the difference between a FX and DX lens of the same focal length?

>>3066754

>which has the secondary effect of making ANY lens you put on there have a longer focal length

I meant to say "effective focal length". Nothing can change the focal length of a lens except changing the physical characteristics of a lens itself.

>>3066756

Size of the projected image circle, and physical size.

>>3066757
So if I use both a crop sensor and a DX lens, would these two factors both increase effective focal length? I thought a 35mm on a cropped frame was roughly equivalent to a 50mm on a full frame, would a 35mm DX on a cropped frame have even greater focal length?

>>3066762
Let's back up.
Full frame sensor is covered entirely by the image circle projected by a full frame lens.

It's not covered entirely by the image circle projected by crop lens.

It's the same way that a lens for 135 (what you're calling full frame) doesn't cast a large enough image circle to cover a 4x5 sheet of film.

The diameter of the lens itself is one of the bigger factors in determining the size of the cast image circle. Larger diameter=larger image circle=heavier, larger lens=more expensive to produce. None of this affects the focal length per se.

What people are talking about when they talk about "effective focal length" is that you have to stand farther away with a smaller sensor to get the same framing as with a larger sensor given the same focal length. This leads to perspective distortion that's similar to the "equivalent" (telescopic compression has nothing to do with using a long focal length and everything to do with standing farther away from the subject).

File: crop.jpg (83KB, 882x854px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 882x854px

>>3066766
What I'm confused about is the interaction between how the lens and sensor are cropped. How right/wrong is this chart I made?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2017:04:30 09:23:11
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	882
Image Height	854

File: thumb-1375060982583-4_fx_camera_dx_zoom_at_50.jpg (54KB, 600x401px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 600x401px

>>3066773
Do you know what cropping is? The whole just actually chopping the outer edges of the image off?

That's all that is happening. With a crop sensor and a full frame lens, the lens is casting a larger image circle than the sensor's physical size, so the sensor isn't even there along the edges to record it, so you're cropping those edges of the image circle.

In the case of a dx lens on a full frame sensor, the image circle itself is smaller than the sensor, so you're cropping in that you have parts of the sensor that are getting no information to record. (see pic).


...god I hate the whole equivalent/effective focal length crap. It leads to such fucked up ideas regarding focal length.

File: maybethisisclearenough.jpg (86KB, 736x588px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 736x588px

>>3066773
Here's an infographic that might be more clear

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Created	2012:11:20 11:45:18

>>3066781
Yeah, this makes sense now. Thanks

>>3066587
I own a d600 which is virtually the same camera as the d610 and I've been extremely happy with it. That said, the d750 is even better and if you don't care about spending the extra cash I'd definitely go for the 750 over the 610.

>>3066739
>>3066268
>>3066273
I've seen some reviews on the samyang, but I've never really manual focused for a serious shot. If it's better for landscape and the samyang is the best deal I'm sure I can learn

>>3066790
For landscape manually focusing is usually preferred.
You'll likely want to be at the hyperfocal distance all the time, so the background is sharp as well as as much of the foreground as possible.

In any case it's easy when you have enough time, you can always use live view to check your focus.

So what's your favorite focal length, /p/?

>>3066889
1200mm

Is the nikon 35mm 1.8 ED any good? Or should I just save up for the sigma art?

File: IMG_20170429_222254.jpg (3MB, 4096x3072px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 4096x3072px

Just inherited a 5dmk3, 70-200 f2.8, 24-105 f4, 50 f1.8 usm and other bits (reflector, monopod, camera grip). Gonna sell my T1i to a friend and buy some GEAR.

What should I be looking for in half decent tripods and flashes? Is saving for a teleconverter a good move from here for birbs?

(Forgive the size and grain, I'm phone posting)

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Model	Z00A
Camera Software	Android
Equipment Make	ASUS
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Right-Hand, Top
Image Created	2017:04:29 22:22:54
Image Width	4096
Image Height	3072
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Date (UTC)	2017:04:30
Time (UTC)	05:22:54
Color Space Information	sRGB
F-Number	f/2.0
Focal Length	3.78 mm
Lens Aperture	f/2.0
Light Source	Unknown
Exposure Mode	Auto
Image Height	3072
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Saturation	Normal
Exposure Program	Normal Program
Sharpness	Normal
White Balance	Auto
Image Width	4096
Metering Mode	Spot
Gain Control	None
Subject Distance	0.00 m
Flash	No Flash
Contrast	Normal
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Brightness	0 EV
ISO Speed Rating	1390
Exposure Time	26/625 sec

>>3066889
24mm to 35nn mostly

>>3066889
80-120 range; i like a flatter image

>>3066919
Just sell the T1i, you don't really need more gear for that kit.

>>3066926

100-150mm

>>3066889
Depends.
24-35mm for generic walkaround
70-90mm for portraits
400-500mm for birding/wildlife
on APS-C

>>3066919
Inherited? God damn

>>3066223
Used it with the 100-400 by canon, held it, would say upgrade the head, If you wanted serious telephoto primes iw ould choose something studier.

File: B&H Rewards Card.png (183KB, 540x346px) Image search: [Google]

183KB, 540x346px

Howdy /pee/! So I have $35 to blow at B&H. What get? I have some closeup lenses I like to take faux-macro shots with, so was thinking of getting a ring light, but what other fun gadgets or accessories should I consider?

>>3067009
Get a ring light or tshirt 2 sizes to big

>>3066978

Probably won't be using something very heavy. I may get a 70-300 VR (nikon) or 80-200 2.8 but that's about it. I'm not a huge telephoto fan and wouldn't be using it that much. I'd probably use my 24mm on there more than anything.

>>3067049
200mm is not a big telephoto. Sort of middle ground, not enough for birds and most sports, too long for portraits. Only useful in some events.

Is the Sigma 60mm 2.8 EX DN Art still a good lens? I've got the 30mm 1.4 and love it, but would like to find something as good for portraits

>>3067330
Yep, super sharp, nice to use.

>>3067331

Thanks. I was a little hesitant because of the low price

I had to sell my Nikon D3200 a while back because I'm broke as shit and wanted to make the switch to mirrorless before I invest a ton into a DSLR system, so I got the Sony NEX-3 with the 18-55 kit lens just as a temporary camera and so I can keep the lens and just buy the body when I upgrade to a better camera, like the A6000.

And yes, I know that the NEX-3 is a 7 year old entry level camera but the pictures are absolutely piss poor and it's barely worth using over my smartphone, so I'm wondering if it's the body that's the biggest offender or the lens?

I know that the sensor in the NEX-3 is junk but is the kit lens good enough that I'll be able to get decent results with it when I buy an A6000 or should I look at replacing the lens too as soon as possible?

>>3067334

If you really wanted an entry level mirrorless you should've just bought the a6000 or a5100 right out of the gate, because chances are you'll outgrow it and want a FF relatively soon

>>3067336
>I'm broke so I bought a $200 camera
>You should've bought a $600 camera instead, idiot
Gee, thanks for the insight, I'll just not buy food or pay rent the next time I'm going to buy a camera and buy a full frame instead of the A6000

>>3067334

NEX-3 should shit all over a phonr camera.

May I suggest the issue is with you?

I am going to go to Tokyo this month and was looking to buy a 6D over there as it's much cheaper than I could get it here. The thing I'm wondering is, will I be able to change the language settings to it's not all ching chong ping pong?

>>3067355
Why do you want to buy an outdated FF DSLR when you can get a better APS-C in the same system?

>>3067358
which one would that be?

>>3067359
80D or 7DMk2
Though the 80D sensor is a new design and the AF is similar to the 7D classic AF. From the two I would choose the 80D.

>>3067360
what advantages does the 80D have over the 6D? Doesn't the FF sensor have a better low light/ISO performance?

Even then, the same question: If I buy a Japanese Canon, will I be able to change the language settings?

>>3067361
Sensor readout noise is much-much lower on the 80D. On-sensor ADC and amplifier vs separate on the 6D. The photonic sporadic noise is more prominent on the 80D because smaller photosites. In the end the resulting noise is dependent on the scenario, but I would say the 80D mostly performs like the 6D and has better ISO gain.
The biggest difference is the AF, more like day and night compared to the 6D, better low light AF, quicker and more precise compared to the 6D. Where the 6D starts to hunt the 80D is quick and snappy. Not to mention the live view and video focusing. Continuous focusing is non-existent, a 2012 Pentax has better tracking AF than the 6D.
Only get the 6D if you want to use it as a dedicated astro camera for a fully decked out newtonian HEQ5 rig.

>>3067361
The 6D is better in low light and produces sharper photos as a full frame sensor is less demanding on lenses.

Don't let other people who have made bad decisions drag you down to their level.

Look at that other dude trying to justify his purchase by talking about autofocus for video performance, who uses af for video? who uses a canon for video?

>>3067349
It's not 2012 anymore, new smartphones are very capable but of course an actual camera will beat a smartphone in less than ideal conditions and you can make use of the manual controls, which is why I bought an actual camera instead of relying on my phone. But the NEX-3 has piss poor sharpness, noise levels and dynamic range even when shooting in ideal conditions, which is what I do most of the time. But sure, I guess it's my fault that a 14 MP sensor can barely retain any detail compared to the D3200 I had that had almost twice as many MP.

>>3066589
3/10

>>3067390
AF isn't really an issue since I shoot mostly landscapes and architecture and don't plan on shooting video.
>>3067392
thanks

do you happen to have an answer to my initial question perhaps?

>>3066737
>- Just as bulky once you put a lens on it.
Why do people keep spouting this meme? Do you only have telephotos on your bodies at all time? A mirrorless body is half the size of even the smallest DSLRs, you can choose to carry a smaller lens but you can't choose to make your body smaller.

>>3067417
Funny thing about that. All that room saved on a mirrorless body? You know they just stick that on the lens itself, don't you?

>>3067418
Okay, and? Read my post again

>you can choose to carry a smaller lens but you can't choose to make your body smaller.

>>3067420
You mean exclusively shoot pancakes, right? I mean, such a wide choice between the 20mm and the 40mm...

https://petapixel.com/2016/04/04/sonys-full-frame-pro-mirrorless-fatal-mistake/

I'm not a hater of mirrorless, but fuck off with any claims that they're "smaller".

>>3066023
best tripod i've ever owned

>>3067422
>>3067418
>>3067417
The tl;dr if you can't be assed to read that article or well, any on the subject if you rightly believe petapixel to be a garbage heap, is that the distance that's occupied by the mirror box is necessary in the vast majority of lens designs. The only exceptions are the tiny handful of focal lengths that lend themselves to pancake designs. Because of this, you either have the additional space on the body or on the lens itself. By getting rid of it on the body it *must* be on the lens, which translates to larger, heavier, and more expensive lenses from the jump. Sorry bro, but physics be physics.

And yes, pancakes are much smaller, but the way most people shoot, they're a tiny edge case with regards to convenience factor. If it is your primary way of shooting, then sure, you'll see marked improvement, but otherwise saying "dey smaller" is like telling people a Ford F-550 has the best fuel economy in general while it's only if if it's towing 15000lbs.

>>3067423
Why aren't you own it now?

File: Sony-Alpha-a6000-vs-Nikon-D5600-top-view-size-comparison.jpg (44KB, 720x304px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 720x304px

>>3067422
No, I mean people who don't shoot pro level G Master glass. If you're actually a pro and need pro level glass then size and weight of your system is the least of your concerns. For everything else like casual snapshitters, street photography, weddings, travel and everything where you're on the move then there's little reason to get a DSLR over a mirrorless when you can have a camera that fits in your pocket.

>>3067455
At that point then it's pointless to get an ILC at all and you should just get a compact. Hell, with a compact you can even have optical zoom and be able to go from wide angle to super zoom for a fraction of the cost.

File: promo289257259.jpg (164KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

164KB, 1920x1080px

>>3067460
>People who don't need pro glass and bodies should just buy compact cameras
Have you ever heard the word "enthusiast" before?

>>3067463
>being this pointlessly elitist about form factor
Please tell me how an a6000 with literally one of the shittiest kit lenses ever is preferable to an RX100 V while remaining pocketable. Additionally, you're the one that reduced it down to "only enthusiasts care about compactness".

>>3067465
I'm not elitist, I'm saying that there's no reason to own a larger system over a smaller system if a smaller system does everything you need it to do and is easier to carry.

>Please tell me how an a6000 with literally one of the shittiest kit lenses ever is preferable to an RX100 V while remaining pocketable.
It costs half as much, for one, and actually lets you replace the lens. Withe the $400 I save I can pick up a Sigma 30mm f/1.4 or a Sony 55-210mm f/4.5-6.3 OSS and will immediately have a more versatile setup than the RX100.

If you want to spend a grand on a camera that'll be a one trick pony, then sure, it's better to go with it because it's smaller than the A6000. And I can pocket my A6000 with the kit lens just fine, which is one of the main reasons for why I sold my old D3200.

>>3067455
>sonu 16-50
You do realize that lens is a piece of shit even by kit lens standards, right? Literally all other sony lenses are as big with the body as a comparable DSLR or even bigger. Not to mention DSLRs have budget friendly enthusiast glass where sony only gives either pro lenses or a pile of shit.

>>3067484
Don't bother. He thinks getting a shit camera that's especially shit in the one configuration he thinks makes it justifiable is better than getting a kickass camera for 80% of shooting conditions people will encounter.

>>3067455
>If you're actually a pro and need pro level glass then size and weight of your system is the least of your concerns.

tell that to a travel photographer who has to lug around gear all around the world. Not to mention having to carry your camera around for hours while working. The lighter, the better

>>3067484
>You do realize that lens is a piece of shit even by kit lens standards, right?
Yup, and even with the non-shitty kit lens it's smaller than a DSLR with one of the smaller primes out there. You can even put a 24-70 on it and have basically the same footprint as a DSLR.

http://camerasize.com/compact/#535.88,693.333,535.393,ha,t

>Not to mention DSLRs have budget friendly enthusiast glass where sony only gives either pro lenses or a pile of shit.
Wow, imagine if there was some kind of way you could adapt different glass onto different bodies, you could call it an adapter or something...

>>3067522
A few hundred grams when comparing a DSLR to a mirrorless isn't going to make any difference, and what travel photographer needs to carry anything more than a 24-70 and 70-200?

Are vintage primes a meme? If not what are some good lenses/adapters i can get for under 300? Im using a nikon d750 and already have a newer 35mm 1.8 and the 24-120 these are just fine but i would like more toys.

>>3067523
>You can even put a 24-70 on it and have basically the same footprint as a DSLR.
>keeps saying shit like this thinking it adds to his point

>Wow, imagine if there was some kind of way you could adapt different glass onto different bodies, you could call it an adapter or something...
You mean that thing that spaces the lens out by the amount of the mirror box and entirely does away with any size advantage while giving you an entirely unbalanced mess because the body doesn't have a suitable grip/isn't balanced for longer, heavier lenses?

Face it guy, size just isn't that much of an advantage with mirrorless systems outside of a handful of very specific cases.

Also, it's pretty cute that you started talking solely about crop sensor cameras so you can avoid how fuckhuge sony full frame lenses are.

>>3067528
>Are vintage primes a meme?
Some are, some aren't.
>If not what are some good lenses/adapters i can get for under 300? Im using a nikon d750 and already have a newer 35mm 1.8 and the 24-120 these are just fine but i would like more toys.
I'm a huge fan of the 35-70mm 2.8 -- you already have that range covered, but it's a killer sharp lens for a steal (if you have a body with a screw drive, which the D750 does have)
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/3570.htm

But to the meme thing, Often older lenses are softer and exhibit more distortions. IMO unless you have a specific effect you want (like the swirly bokeh from a Helios), just think of vintage lenses as a way to into "pro" lenses for cheaper.

>>3067528
Depends on the specific lens and what you want from it.

Vintage 50s are common in every system. That also happens to be where lens design got pretty good the soonest. A lot of fast 50s today are still the same double-gauss designs that were being made 60 years ago. They're not great wide open but good enough in the center, but some people like that dreamy look. They all get razor sharp by 5.6 or so.

The farther you get from 50mm, on either side, the worse vintage lenses tend to be. Portrait primes (85-135) are still fine, as are 35s and most 28s. But ultrawides and long telephotos tend to suffer more. Vintage ultrawides tend to be slow, suffer from chromatic aberration, and never really get sharp in the borders or corners at any aperture. Vintage telephotos suffer from CA and lots of it. I have an old Pentax Takumar 300/4 where you can see the CA in the viewfinder. Again, stopping down lessens it, but it never goes away.

>>3067529
>You can even put a 24-70 on it and have basically the same footprint as a DSLR.
>keeps saying shit like this thinking it adds to his point
Are you illiterate? You can have a DSLR with a 35mm prime or a mirrorless with a 24-70 that has the same footprint, how does that not add to my point? If you want to compare apples to apples then you get almost half the size if you put a 35mm on the A6000.

http://camerasize.com/compact/#693.333,535.410,ha,t

>You mean that thing that spaces the lens out by the amount of the mirror box and entirely does away with any size advantage while giving you an entirely unbalanced mess because the body doesn't have a suitable grip/isn't balanced for longer, heavier lenses?
Yup, that, which goes back to my original point that you have a choice of using whatever glass you want, big or small, but you can't make the body smaller.

>Face it guy, size just isn't that much of an advantage with mirrorless systems outside of a handful of very specific cases.
>Also, it's pretty cute that you started talking solely about crop sensor cameras so you can avoid how fuckhuge sony full frame lenses are.
Do you know how to read? I'm not talking about full frame lenses because 99% of hobbyists and enthusiasts won't ever need to upgrade to a full frame camera and will benefit more from a smaller, more portable system. If you're actually a pro then you choose what glass you need and then choose the body to go with the glass and the only thing that matters is your results, size is a complete non-factor to most pros.

reading /gear/ and internet in general just confuses me

wanted to get a6000 with kit lens, adapter for older minolta manual focus lenses because i have some already, have decent all around camera with kit lens and just throw older primes/teles on it when i need them for w/e reason

the more i read the more confused i am, half of the people glorify a6000, other half say it's garbage
half of the people say kit lens is decent enough, half of them say it's utter garbage

now i don't know what i want anymore

>>3067539
>same footprint
Goddamn you're a retard.
http://camerasize.com/compact/#535.515,693.353,ha,t

>whatever glass you want
Shit small glass, or go giant with adapters plus lenses to get decent IQ, gotcha. Really good choice there.

>I'll here make another argument for people getting compacts instead of any ILC.
Fuck you're a retard. The people you describe have no need of any interchangeable lens camera. The "cheapness" of something like an a6k flies right out the window when you start talking about buying additional lenses and adapters. If "smaller, more portable system" truly is a concern for these people a top of the line compact is the answer. More capable, better IQ, more compact, and just all around better. And again I feel the need to point out that I have nothing against mirrorless, just that "size" is a stupid justification for them. The advantages aren't enough to choose over a dslr solely on that factor and there's not an improvement over compacts with the exception of a few specific edge cases (birding, sports)to justify going that route, and even then you have something like the P900 which when you start thinking about the focal length range, absolutely blows anything else capable of that range out of the water.

>>3067545
Nothing really wrong with the a6k -- a lot of the hate you see is people annoyed by sony fanboys proclaiming stupid shit about Sony cameras like they're the second coming of Jesus. I'd tell you to try to save up for one of the higher grade bodies (at the very least something like a 6300), but that's because I think some of the useability upgrades made were huge and worth the additional price.

And remember, this is the internet and 4chan in particular. People will be far more militant over relatively small distinctions than actually exist. I mean hell, if you listened to /p/, you'd think that it was actually impossible to take a decent picture with a Canon.

>>3067552
>I'd tell you to try to save up for one of the higher grade bodies (at the very least something like a 6300), but that's because I think some of the useability upgrades made were huge and worth the additional price.
i'd like to, but with it being twice as expensive as a6000 it's kinda out of my budget.
that's also why adapting my minolta glass is a big + for me.
sure, i got the money, but don't want to invest too much into it. and i guess if i decide to spend more getting lenses instead of better body would give me better results in the end.

>>3067547
>Goddamn you're a retard.
Yup, I'm the retard when I've spent multiple paragraphs trying to explain to someone with the reading comprehension skills of a third grader that I'm not talking about pro glass, and your rebuttal is to show the footprint of pro glass when I've already shown you what the footprint of non-pro glass is. Makes sense. Do you think hobbyists is going to put a $2200 lens on a $500 body?

>>I'll here make another argument for people getting compacts instead of any ILC.
Your argument is retarded because I'm not claiming that the smaller form factor is the only reason for why you should get a mirrorless. People who only care about form factor should get a point and shoot, yes, but a vast majority of hobbyists and enthusiasts don't and want the ability to change lenses, and when you have the choice between a larger system or a smaller system that will accomplish the same thing since you're not a pro and won't use your gear to its full potential then it's stupid to get a heavier, clunkier system over a smaller system.

An RX100 is only more capable if you only do stuff like landscape and street, the second you need to go past 70mm you're fucked.

>>3067560
>24-70
>not pro glass
Keep moving them goalposts

>and now you circle back to what I said ages ago
>it's stupid to get a heavier, clunkier system over a smaller system
You mean like any ILC over a P900?

>An RX100 is only more capable if you only do stuff like landscape and street, the second you need to go past 70mm you're fucked.
...it's like you don't realize that 24-70mm is the most versatile zoom range and entirely missed how I addressed that.

I'm pretty comfortable with my lens selection for still pictures but I got bored and took a video the other day and I think I caught a bug, however the only lens that works alright-ish for video is my 50mm 1.8g, but at 72mm equiv it's pretty tight - any older lenses I could stick on my D7200 that I wouldn't feel bad picking up used and maybe tossing in my bag as an after thought?

I'm more than happy to use adapters I should mention, and anything from ultra-wide to 50mm (Equiv) would work for me.

>>3067565
>http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/3570.htm

>>3067568
Damn, quick as a rocket my dude thanks!

>>3067572
Well, I did just recommend it to someone else.

Pretty sure on your body it'll be manual focus only (I'd have to look up the compatibility charts to be sure), but for video, you want to use manual focus anyway. It's also a little weird getting used to push-pull focus, but that's no biggie.

Panasonic 35-100, 45-150 or 45-200? Please advise.

>>3067575
Thankfully I have only myself to please and not a client so any new techniques I have to learn will be a fairly joyful experience.

>>3067575
push pull zoom, not focus, sorry, went a bit stupid there.

>>3067562
>Keep moving them goalposts
Are you seriously implying that focal length is the only thing that makes a lens pro or not? Honest question, do you have Downs syndrome? Because I don't want to sit here and talk down to someone who's literally mentally disabled.

>You mean like any ILC over a P900?
You're aware that the P900 is bigger than the D3400 and D5600, right?

>...it's like you don't realize that 24-70mm is the most versatile zoom range and entirely missed how I addressed that.
No shit it's the most versatile range, how does that help people who want to shoot sports or wildlife or anything that requires more than 70mm?

>>3067581
>implying there's a bevy of 24-70mm lenses that aren't "pro" grade

>bigger than D3400/D5600
With a 2000mm lens on? Or even a 300mm lens for that matter? Nope, not by a long shot.

>No shit it's the most versatile range, how does that help people who want to shoot sports or wildlife or anything that requires more than 70mm?
If that's part of your goals then you get a compact with a longer focal range...you know, literally exactly why I brought up the P900 in the first place? There is no more compact way to have access to that range of focal lengths at that performance level, period. Yes, it's bigger than an a6k with a pancake on it, but if you want to include versatility, you can't get more compact than the P900.

File: 2000mm-lens-rear-view.jpg (25KB, 400x467px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 400x467px

>>3067583
This, btw, is what a 2000mm lens looks like.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

File: Nikkor-1200-1700mm.jpg (68KB, 620x430px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 620x430px

>>3067585
If you're not a fan of mirror lenses...

I'm looking for a IR-converted camera, most likely APS-C sensor and preferably Nikon so that I can use the lenses I have now. Which bodies are exceptionally good for IR?

I'm most likely going to get an IR filter to mess around with it before committing to an IR-only body, but I wanted to get some opinions for future reference.

>>3067589
First thing's first:
Do your lenses have hotspot problems?
https://kolarivision.com/articles/lens-hotspot-list/

Next, unless you plan on going pretty deep into doing IR, it might well be best just for you to rent. I do tend to see more Canon bodies modified, but I'm not sure if there's a reason for that other than market share though.

>>3067558
good camera but it feels weird in my hands. don't know what exactly is, probably the 16:9 screen. the viewfinder is also a bit underwhelming nowadays and i don't like the wheel layout. It's also lacking a touchscreen which is very handy for checking your photos.

>>3067590

I'm very interested in it and with summer coming up, I want to have a good idea of what i'm doing by the time trees are in full bloom. Been watching guides and studying it as much as possible, but I feel like I'll learn more once I actually shoot and do trial and error.

I looked for my lens but didn't see it, i'd be shooting with a 24mm 1.8 G

>>3067595
It's a ding to the budget, but a week of dicking around with one, especially if you plan it out with some shots that you want to attempt will give you a good idea of if it's something you want to send more money after:
https://www.lensrentals.com/rent/photo/nikon/cameras/infrared
https://www.borrowlenses.com/AdvancedSearch.do?searchString=nikon+ir

>>3067600
>>3067595
Oh, and obviously, see if you have a local rental house that's cheaper, but I've done a good bit of business with both of those two companies and can recommend them without reservation.

>>3067545
The A6000 is the best value camera you can get for less than $1000, the biggest drawback is the smaller lens selection compared to DSLRs but more and more glass is being released now when the popularity of mirrorless is skyrocketing.

>>3067636
lens selection isn't really a problem to me as i doubt i'll get much more than some universal zoom to replace kit if i decide it's not enough for me.
and i'm fine with manual focusing (if i can do it on film i'm pretty sure on digital with all that assisting magic it'll be even easier) so i can just use older lenses for stuff like portraits/macro.

File: aligned (1).jpg (30KB, 700x229px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 700x229px

>>3067422
>>3067428

That is like, the most ridiculous example of cherry picking i have ever seen.

He should be embaressed for writing that.

His LOL PHYSICS argument holds no weight, especially since there is much evidence to the contrary.

>>3067422
It's funny because Petapixel commenters usually bash Sony at every chance they get, but the comments here are actually defending Sony.

>>3067577
What about the 45-175? Now leaning towards this one.

Is there a 'press' shirt or jacket or hat that doesn't look really dorky?

I don't want the vest, please god don't make me wear the vest

>>3067814
Get your own vest (tactical or safari style), fill pockets with pepsi and snickers so you can be safe in riots and around assholes.

File: hqdefault.jpg (27KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 480x360px

>>3067818
I AM THE ARBITER OF PEACE

>>3065888
I need a new laptop for post processing.
What should I be looking for specs wise?
I'm using Lightroom on my current laptop and can hardly fiddle a slider without it shitting the bed.

>>3067883
Best graphics card you can afford that works well with whatever software suite you're using
at least a 50-100gb SSD for system files and paging file to live on (you can get larger and keep everything on it, but to my mind it's still more cost effective to just use a smaller one as a system drive for speed and a large, fast HDD for storage, I'm sure someone will be around in a few minutes to disagree with me though)...
As fast of a processor as you can afford.

Also, fuck laptops. Small and portable=expensive.

File: DSC_0248.jpg (3MB, 3840x2160px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3840x2160px

I found the Sony vertical gtip for $150 so I said fuck it and bought it.

Of course it works great with my log lenses, but the 35mm and vert grip are extremely comfy to use.

Plus it just slips in a bag.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Sony
Camera Model	402SO
Camera Software	32.1.D.0.419_0_f900
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2017:05:02 13:56:46
Exposure Time	1/20 sec
F-Number	f/2.0
ISO Speed Rating	800
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	4.60 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	3840
Image Height	2160
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>3067918
How are you liking the a7ii?

>>3067918
>Plus it just slips in a bag.

that's what bags are for my man.

File: DSC_0113.jpg (3MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3264x2448px

>>3067938

Loving it.

I mainly used adapted lenses for awhile (pic related), but I picked up some Zeiss lenses and they are amazing.

Mainly just use it for travel and snapshits, but it great.

>>3067940

Some lens combos are a pain to carry around in my small shoulder bag.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Sony
Camera Model	402SO
Camera Software	32.1.D.0.284_0_f900
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2016:08:04 12:28:10
Exposure Time	1/40 sec
F-Number	f/2.0
ISO Speed Rating	1000
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	4.60 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	3264
Image Height	2448
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>3067955

that's the bag's fault not the camera's my man

>>3067955
dank camera strap breh

>>3067955
>man purse
I thought this trend died with the 90s along with the fanny pack

File: 1469257644329.png (925KB, 625x471px) Image search: [Google]

925KB, 625x471px

Slightly used Nikon vrii or the new Tamron g2?

Both cost about the same now and I've never owned a 70-200 FX lens before.

File: 2017-04-30_12-40-22.jpg (3MB, 2448x3264px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2448x3264px

love that k5ii shot op. had my old k20d out in the rain last night and it still rocks the weather.

>>3067984
Same boat as you. I'm thinking about the tamron though, I'm trusting of 3rd party

>>3067984
>>3068020

I had a VR1 that had to be replaced. Bought a Tamron G2 and it's an amazing piece of gear. Especially for the price you will not be dissapointed. AF is FAST and accurate, though shooting at F2.8, 200mm on FF will always be a challenge I guess.

Only gripe I have is that the focus and zoom grips are switched compared to the Nikon. I've also accidentally hit the AF on/off switch a few times which can be frustrating.

My max shutter speed is 4000 but I want to shoot my f0.95 wide open during the day, what power of ND filter would be best to buy?

>>3068026
But It's just because you're not used to it? Or is it because of poor placement

>>3068041
Pentax uses the same ring layout and direction. Not an issue if you just use it and don't think about it. It's like using one software layout then another.

Should i get sony a3000 for 165€ t finfag

>>3068057
Get a NEX 5n instead with the EVF addon

>>3068040
Are you sure your lens is bokehlicious enough for that?

>>3068072
Its not the sharpest but my god it just makes things look magical wide open.
I live in Scotland so bright sun usually isnt an issue but ive been traveling a lot more and its just annoying not being able to open it up.

>>3067975
>>3067966

I always have to carry materials with me. A backpack is too much of a pain, so I wear a business bag with a shoulder strap.

Too big of a bag is a huge pain on the subway, so I have to find a balance between awesome setup or not quite so awesome but I can carry it every day setup.

>>3067973

Everything else on the camera is Minolta so it was rather fitting.

What is a good price for new unused 35mm af-s 1.8G DX? Was offered to me and I consider pulling the triger.

>>3068040
why the fuck do you want to shoot wide open during broad daylight?

Anyways, the widest I was able to go was f/2.8 (with a crop Canon), so a 4 stop filter should be fine

>>3068092

DoF, there is pretty much no point in buying a 0.95 if you're not going to shoot wide open. If i was going to stop down I would just be better using my 50 1.4 which is far sharper.

>>3068128
And hilariously, most 0.95s have essentially the same t-stop as 1.4s.

I wonder how many people have bought them thinking that they give you more light.

I bought a D750 recently, but it's my first "big" camera, and as such, the current tripod is not up to the task.

Do you think the Mefoto Globetrotter would be a good choice? My budget is £200. Not bothered about it being carbon fibre. I can handle the weight.

>>3068144
Get a used Manfrotto 190 or 055 aluminium with a 498 ball head.

>>3068149
The 498 is discontinued, and nowhere near me has one used. What makes that specific one so good?

>>3068156
Ebay, also the 496 is just as strong. The successor models are good too

>>3067600
>>3067601

Thanks for the links. I've used LensRentals before so I know they're pretty nice to deal with.

My only thing is I don't know when I'd have the time to rent an IR camera and be able to get my money's worth out of the rental; this is the only reason i was considering buying a filter and using it whenever I have the chance and if I like what I see, I'd consider buying a converted DX body.

I'll be patient though and if I get some time off work, go for the rental and see how I feel from there.

>>3068173
Thanks. I'll see what I can find.

>>3068156
Also recommended the 498 because it is strong, has big ball, friction lock and friction adjustment, pano friction lock and fucking cheap used. It can hold my K-3 with grip and Bigma 50-500 with no problem so it can hold your FF with a bigger lens no problem.

>>3068179
Oh, and you can replace the RC2 quick release to an Arca Swiss compatible with a single screw.

File: 106733716.jpg (212KB, 1355x1282px) Image search: [Google]

212KB, 1355x1282px

Upgraded to the K1 from my (10yr old) K10D.
Loving it. Full frame sensor gets all my lenses back to their proper focal length too, which is nice.
I haven't had much success with the pixel-shift feature, even with completely stationary scenes I can't detect any significant gains in the image, except that the files are 4 times the size.

Any Pentax anons with tips?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

>>3068228
>I haven't had much success with the pixel-shift feature, even with completely stationary scenes I can't detect any significant gains in the image, except that the files are 4 times the size.
Does your raw-development software support them? For quite some time only the bundled SilkyPix did. I think Lightroom does now, but I'm not sure. RawTherapee was/is getting support for them, but you might have to run one of the pre-release dev versions.

File: d1a4ac960b00d09af0d9e2fe1b5ef1f2.jpg (199KB, 2051x1024px) Image search: [Google]

199KB, 2051x1024px

Where is a good place to buy used cameras?

I want to buy a Canon A-1, but I don't know where to look to get one. Amazon US has some for sale, but I live in the UK and they won't ship for me.

>>3068228
Pixelshift only gives significantly better results with good sharp lenses. Any CA will degrade the sharpness to nothing. Try the FA-31 or the D-FA 50 Macro

>>3068249
Ebay?

I like taking pictures of cosplayers at conventions. I've been using a 35mm lens on a crop sensor, which has forced me to put a lot of distance between me and my subject if I want to get their entire body. Would a 28mm lens be what I need? My main concern is with distortion. Would there be a lot if I'm standing 2-3 feet away from my subject?

>>3068351
28mm on a Nikon-esque crop body would look more natural, the same is 24mm on Canon crop

what are some decent and not expensive small bags to keep things like cords, batteries, chargers, filters, etc organized within the main bag?

File: 321309.png (409KB, 940x587px) Image search: [Google]

409KB, 940x587px

>>3068451
tackle boxes

>>3068452
That's not a bad idea, kinda want something less ridged so it's easier to stuff in a bag but i might get one of these.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3t1PQJmM8P4

returned my a6000
whats the next logical step up? i didnt like how it didnt have slog or any sensible video capability
i like mirrorless and the sony menus
i have one emount f.18 50mm lens i can return and get something else
should i try canon? or get the better a6000 ie a6300?

>>3068508

If video is your objective the a7s/a7sii is your best bet.

Outside of the FS5/7 I mean.

>>3068508

Canon video SUCKS.

You have to hack to firmware to make it usable, and even then it is less than ideal.

So guys,

I have a broken filter on my most valuable Sigma lens, its literally been crushed and am unable to remove it.

Any tips that dont include some sort of solvant? or should I just thread a new filter over it.

>>3068546
If it's just stuck in the threads and it's broken, get a set of needle nose pliers, grab onto the part that holds the filter material and just spin it out.

>>3068546
Solvents to do what...?

No, you actually want to use mechanical force along an appropriate vector. Maybe clamping it in a workbench vice and two hands for twisting the other part with two hands would work?

>>3068508
> whats the next logical step up?
Probably the a6500 or a7s.

Or the A9 or a RED Digital Cinema - but I guess that's more like two-three steps up. (Still, you'd kinda get a decent deal with respect to the overall market.)

Of course some Panasonic, Olympus and Canon cameras are also worth a look if you want a different set of compromises, but to me they're not more appealing than aforementioned cameras.

>>3068508
>should i try canon
Panasonic if you don't mind the MFT system; it's either them or Sony if good video is a priority

>>3068595
what don't you like about Panasonic, other than MFT? not saying they are the end all be all (unless you are trying to stay in the $1-2K range), but the GH4/G7/G85/GH5 are all very popular among videographers and frequently rec'd

>>3068599
g80

speaking of m43, any thoughts w/r/t the Sigma 19mm f2.8 EX DN Art lens?

from what I've read, seems it's virtually the same as the one for the Sony E-Mount if any Sony shooters have anything they can add about it

>>3068612
great lens on sony.
but there are other lenses on m43.

I shoot canon and portrait
Currently use 6D
Should I upgrade to 5d mk 3,4 or 5ds(r)?
Looking for some pros and cons besides price
Budget is obviously flexible if there's a performance benefit

Why are prime 50mm lenses so cheap relative to other primes?

>>3068613
> great lens on sony.
Very average on a Sony in terms of image quality & possible aperture at that FL. It's merely cheap.


It is an actually decent lens only by MFT standards, but an imperfect size for such a lens.

>>3068629
Economy of scale + they are actually easier to make than very wide angle or telephoto lenses which require more complex glass.

Plus you find more shitty 50mm glass lenses on the market than shitty 600mm glass lenses. (Glass as opposed to refractor etc. designs - just the same type of lens).

>>3068629
In a nutshell because that's the point where it's simplest to get an optical design with a reasonably large aperture that's decently corrected. The double-gauss design is most common, though there were others. 50mm is also normal on 35mm and the related camera designs. Which means you don't have to deal with the problems of wide angle (you have to bend light quite a lot to go wide, which leads to CA and poor border performance, and also makes it difficult to get a large aperture) or telephoto (magnify the image, magnify the aberrations - CA especially)

And finally since the designs have been around for decades and are so well known, the R&D costs are low and you can easily mass-produce the things.

>>3068643
Kind of related, what are you paying for when you buy more expensive lenses of the the same focal length? Is it just general quality and lifetime upgrades? The price ranges for one type of lens seems be pretty big despite the lenses being functionally the same (at least I think).

>>3068629
The simplest lens design is the one that matches the flange distance to the rear element as they can be simple symmetrical designs.

>>3068649
Rendering, speed and size.

Whilst most dslr 50's look very similar, compare photos from them to say the sony 55mm sonnar and you will see the out of focus areas render very different.

>>3068623

Are you gonna print it your photos? If its for instagram or Flickr dont bother.

Are you taking action portraits? If not then dont bother

Do you have a computer to run data that big from 5Ds/r? if not dont bother.

your 6D can last for while more unless you wanna go pro and start charging your service and need better cameras for investment then yes.

>>3068649
> Kind of related, what are you paying for when you buy more expensive lenses of the the same focal length? Is it just general quality and lifetime upgrades?
Usually primarily the resolving performance at x aperture. "Sharpness" metric on DxO.

Usually enthusiasts and professionals pay more if lenses are very sharp at the aperture settings they want to use.

There certainly are other reasons and features people want (weight, size, perfectly matching accessories like tripod collars or filters, weather sealing, additional buttons, specifics about how bokeh looks or how the lens doesn't vignette as much, ...), but "lifetime upgrades" are not being offered in almost all instances.

> The price ranges for one type of lens seems be pretty big despite the lenses being functionally the same (at least I think).
There also are lens brand / lens mount / service etc. reasons, but the biggest reason for a lens to be more expensive is its resolving power at x aperture.

>>3068454

>shoots only for youtube
>uses RED weapon

thats fucking retarded.

>>3068657
> If its for instagram or Flickr dont bother.
Disagreed. Flickr (or 500px or some other digital site that will allow larger resolution photos) can do more details and be more demanding than the average standard paper size print.

> Are you taking action portraits? If not then dont bother
Again disagreed, having a fast burst rate is nice even with regular portraits and even more so group shots.

The more amateur the people you are working with are (& the quicker you need to get a shot done), the more useful it is.

> Do you have a computer to run data that big from 5Ds/r? if not dont bother.
Same could be said about any camera. Not like the requirement for a 5Ds/r is terribly high.

~60MB files, right? Something smartphones could handle most operations on if software written for it wasn't shit.

>>3068659
>content creator for the worlds largest media platform

>hurrrr it's dumb to use good equipment

Daily reminder, don't listen to poor people and their endless negativity.

>>3068659
If you're doing Youtube videos for money or are well off enough to work with a nice device for a hobby - why not?

Youtube can publish 4k and even 8k videos and it's overall just as important now as TV stations that used far more expensive cameras before.

is there any point buying a 300mm lens without vr or will everything look like a blurry shitfest

>>3068671
There's the option to use a tripod or monopod that you may even want to take as often as possible if you DO have VR.

You might also be using the lens on a camera with IBIS.

But for handheld shots on a Nikon, you really want the lastest VR.

>>3068669

I would have bought a fucking Red Raven or a Scarelt-w and get really good Zeiss CP2 glass than buying a Red Weapon and put on Canon Lenses. Its the same quality image but without the unnecessary resolution.

>>3068671
if you take photos outside during daylight, no need for VR. Or if you use it strictly for landscapes on a tripod

However, every other situation, it's gonna be blurry as shit.

>>3068682
>>3068674
i assumed this would be the case since VR adds so much onto the price of a lens, thanks

>>3068634
still better than the sony 20mm and kit lens.
the problem is, the a lack of good af lens at that focal length.

>>3068689
Sony will be releasing a ~20mm lens later this year.

>>3068689
> the problem is, the a lack of good af lens at that focal length
The 24mm Sony ZA and the 18mm FF Batis should be pretty close if you somehow need AF.

But certainly, I recommend getting MF glass for wide lenses. With regards to value or choice or just maximizing optical performance without regard to price, it is simply better.

>>3068707
I just got the new canon 16-35 f4 L is for 400 britbongbucks for my sony, stopped down to f5.6 it's perfect across the frame at all focal lengths.

Any wider and af is meme af, voigtlander do a good trio of affordable, sharp, uwa primes for fe.

Anyone own or owned both the Fuji XF 27mm and 23mm f2? I've been using an X-T10 with the 27mm for a while, but I think it's time to upgrade to the X-pro2 now. Just thinking if I should also sell the lens and get the 23mm f2 too.

I like the 27mm, but the focal lengths are so close I'm not sure it makes sense to own both.

>>3068710
If we include adapted zoom lenses, another variant is the Tamron 15-30mm. An overall slightly less sharp lens that however has a f/2.8 aperture setting and a ~1.5 T-stop advantage.

>>3068718
It has a 1 stop transmission advantage, don't measure t in absolute values, they are arbitrary. Otherwise you would be saying the difference between f8 and f11 is 3, 3 what? Transmissions? Apertures? No, it's one stop, just the same as the difference from f1.4 to f2.

And the tammy has big issues with being soft at the edges and suffering badly from flare, 2 things you want to avoid at all costs in a lens designed for landscapes. Not to mention needing a proprietary filter mount.

>>3068726
> It has a 1 stop transmission advantage, don't measure t in absolute values, they are arbitrary.
No, it's a ~1.5 T-stop difference (without qualification this is always measured at the widest aperture on each lens).

It's not an arbitrary value, it's just f-stops adjusted for the actual lens transmissivity.

> Otherwise you would be saying the difference between f8 and f11 is 3, 3 what?
3 f-numbers, actually.

But yes, the common thing is to use stops. Or if you want something else that is more modern and logical, use AV.

D5500 and two lenses or d5600 and one lens?

>>3068671
If you shoot above 1/300s or 1/500s on APS-C, then your photos will be sharp assuming you are not Michael J. Fox.
If you're shooting sports then you would have to go over 1/800s or even in wildlife use 1/1600s as lowest shutter speed and go even higher.
VR in 300mm is not a necessity, even at 500mm it mostly helps with aiming. Most of my shots on 500mm (handheld) got ruined by VR anyways, I just put it in panning mode or turn it off completely.

>>3068707
some of us are apsc pleb and don't want xbawks hueg full frame lens.

>>3068733
D5500 and one actually very good lens is what I'd do.

Then again, my needs made me pick a different camera, so perhaps they're not the same as yours.

>>3068732
>use av

It's ev, and it's not modern, and it is stops, you fucking dumb nigger.

>>3068733
What features attract you to the d5500? There are better deals for the price out there depending on what you need

>>3068747
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/nikon-d5500-dslr-camera-with-af-p-dx-18-55mm-and-af-p-dx-70-300mm-lenses-black/5824102.p?skuId=5824102
Vs
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/nikon-d5600-dslr-camera-with-af-p-dx-nikkor-18-55mm-f-3-5-5-6g-vr-lens/5715101.p?skuId=5715101
Is Nikkor better in quality?

>>3068748
Er looks like the lens on the 5600 has vr which is like anti vibration? I'm a sonyfag so all I know is OSS and Zeiss
I also almost never use zoom and 18-55 apsc will be my daily driver

>https://youtu.be/fBo3pn_IsS8

Fuck.

a7 refresh when?

>>3068746
> It's ev,
No, the pendant to f-stops is aperture values, not exposure values.

> and it's not modern
It's even contemporary.

> and it is stops, you fucking dumb nigger
I see you clearly know what you're talking about and I don't want to keep you from shooting photos.

>>3068754
We were talking about transmission, not aperture, you inbred kike.

>>3068748
Af-p 70-300mm is pretty good, I would go for the d5500.

>>3068761
Are lenses marked as DX designed for apsc and are the focal length that's written on them? I've only used full frame Sony lenses on apsc. Does a DX 50mm actually equal to 50mm or 75?

>>3068773
50 mm is 50mm no matter if dx or fx. Dx has smaller image circle

>>3068775
I thought FX was lenses made specifically for full frame nikons
Why doesn't an fx 50mm equal to 75mm on apsc?

>>3068777
because focal length isn't a factor of fov.
You just know it as the 135 standards, because they've been the standard for so long.

>>3068777
look at this >>3066781

5500/5600 or 7200 for weather sealing?

>>3068795
Pentax. Seriously, you will need weather sealed lens as well for a complete sealing and Nikon only gives it in some of the high end lenses. Pentax offers WR in most of the newer lenses including kit lenses.

>>3068796
5500/5600 Pentax equivalent with a decent kit lens?

>>3068797
K-S2 or K-70
both the new collapsible 18-50 WR and the 18-135 WR kit lenses are decent IQ.
And stinking good AF, as in quick and silent
Look for the 55-300 WR PLM for good budget tele lens. Stay away from the 50-200 WR bundle.

>>3068798
Also consider a used K-3 too, they have good prices lately.

So do I get a canon 100-400 v2 or the new sigma 100-400 for half the price?

>>3068811
What for?

>>3068813
General walk around wildlife

>>3068815
Get the 150-600 instead. 400 is still not enough in half the cases, also look up which one works with a 1.4xTC as well. You might want to extend on the 600mm still.
Just from my own 50-500 and 1.4x TC experience.

>>3068817
There is a significant weight increase with the 150-600 which is why the sigma 100400 is looking appealing

>>3068818
Not an issue, I can walk around all day with the Bigma and do mostly handheld shots. What you want is balance and good enough reach. 400mm is most of the times not enough, especially if the subject is a bird. Things get interesting at 600mm and further on.

>>3068819
Is 400 "not enough" even on crop?

>>3068815

Check out this pleb

>>3068825
Enjoy your "street" photography m8

File: Nadir Hashmi.jpg (69KB, 600x400px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 600x400px

I sold my Canon 40D because it was too big and heavy and I never took it with me. I haven't been following camera gear at all recently but I've heard there are some new cameras that perform well and are very compact and light. Should I look into getting one of these? Any recommendations?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D3100
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 3.4.1
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	750
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	75 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2011:09:14 23:50:01
Exposure Time	1/50 sec
F-Number	f/2.8
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	800
Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Subject Distance	0.67 m
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	50.00 mm
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	Low Gain Up
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Hard
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>3068659
Linus doesn't only shoot for YT. He runs a digital media company.

>>3068820
No. You have to crop in significantly at 400 on aps-c, on 500 I only didn't need to crop in for birds around 10m away.

Sony A5000 vs RX100 (mk1) both are around the same price used. What should I get?

Just returned my a6000 and got a t6i
What should I expect / watch out for / do etc

>>3068860
Jason Lanier and moopco will rape you in your sleep. You should watch out for that.

>>3068862
Kek
What is it about using Sony that turns you into an overprocessing fedora maniac?

>>3068883
oversensitive anal cavity?

>DSLR
>2017
lol

MILC or bust

>>3068860
>t6i
return it and get t7i

>>3068944
It's the same camera

>>3068860
>going from one cropcuck camera to another

>>3068953
>le fool frame

>>3068942
You get a lot out of dslrs in 2017 because the concept is so fleshed out
a6000 felt like a stolen unfinished beta prototype

>>3068954
>>3068954
>a6000 felt like a stolen unfinished beta prototype
And it's in the 3rd generation at least? Amazing how many features they can pack into a camera without ever bothing to just make it a good camera...

File: DSCF8415.jpg (4MB, 4896x3264px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 4896x3264px

The seller I bought my camera from threw in a few extras. I'm not sure exactly what they do, so what's worth keeping?

>Vivitar Wide-angle Lens Adapter
>Fujifilm 14/18-55 Lens Hood
>Altura 58mm Lens Hood
>Vivitar UV Lens Filter
>Vivitar CPL Lens Filter
>Vivitar FLD Lens Filter

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2017:05:03 16:30:02
Exposure Time	1/15 sec
F-Number	f/5.0
Lens Aperture	f/4.9
Brightness	0.6 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Focal Length	23.30 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	4896
Image Height	3264
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>3068995
>Vivitar Wide-angle Lens Adapter
Shit, but could be fun for playing around.
>>Fujifilm 14/18-55 Lens Hood
>>Altura 58mm Lens Hood
These help prevent ghosting and flaring as well as provide actual protection from impacts.
>>Vivitar UV Lens Filter
People think these provide protection from impact. The cheaper the filter, the more it'll degrade IQ. Had a point in film days when some films were very sensitive to UV, but that's a nonissue on digital bodies
>>Vivitar CPL Lens Filter
polarizes the light coming into your lens...since you're new enough to this to not know what it does, look up "effect of CPL filter" -- it's easier to see than explain
>>Vivitar FLD Lens Filter
also known as a minus green filter -- different light sources emit different color light (see: whitebalance) Fluorescent lights are green. To get normal colors, you stick an FLD on (see additive light mixing). If you're shooting digital, it's pointless.

So, basically, I only need the lens hoods and maybe CPL filter. Seems simple enough.

Will there ever be a time where I'd use one lens hood over the other? I've noticed the Altura one is slightly larger.

File: 1416356294039.png (232KB, 714x753px) Image search: [Google]

232KB, 714x753px

>>3068454
>~$54,000 for a camera
>~$138,000 for two cameras and other accessories
I really want to know what the actual price of everything is. Actual price as in - not for the brand name but what it would actually cost straight from the manufacturer

>>3069013
Lens hoods are designed to be used with specific lens.

>>3069019
In my case, they both fit my XF 18-55 perfectly. Would the larger one (Altura) be better than the OEM Fuji one because there's more space cushioning?

>>3069023
Try both of them out. One might show up in frame at the 18mm side.

Nikon SB800 vs SB700 for a bounce flash?

SB700 is more modern, but less powerful.
Sb800 is older, but more powerful.

>>3069071
Yongnuo

does brand matter for shutter releases or wireless remote?

I could get a dirt cheap third party wireless remote but wanted to know if I should even bother with it or go for something of "quality"

File: Canon_4427B002_EF_8_15mm_f_4L_Fisheye_732107.jpg (106KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 1000x1000px

Looking for an UWA to replace my Sigma 12-24mm... Should I go even W I D E R with this EF 8-15mm f/4L USM /gear/?

Am I supposed to believe an a5100 is really pocketable?

>>3069104
if you can afford it, sure.
have fun with filters tho

>>3069141
Yeah probably sell the Sigma for about $400, so will need to cough up about $600+ for the Canon.

File: Yuiyui M10.jpg (40KB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 640x360px

Thoughts on the M10? How do you like it compared to say a a5100?