/gear/ - Gear thread

File: file.png (850KB, 1000x800px) Image search: [Google]

850KB, 1000x800px

Just bought this, 15$ off an elderly lady. Wondernig what I'm in for. It's in good condition and just needs a new battery.

Stupid question: When I read lens reviews there's often someone talking about how some lens has excellent (or poor) color rendition. Why? I get that different lenses and coatings have different transmittance values at different frequencies, so one lens can make different-looking colors straight out of the camera. But isn't this pretty irrelevant in the digital age where you can just tweak the saturation and curves and a gorillion other color settings in post easily? If you're Ken Rockwell and don't shoot raw, can't you just pick one of the two dozen jpeg profiles every camera has to get something that's satisfying for you?

I get that this'd be important on film, but lots of people who aren't using film praise/complain about the colors produced by various lenses.

File: Asuka.jpg (59KB, 627x596px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 627x596px

Do IS modules typically burn out or get stuck?
Are they prone to failure?

And why aren't there any large high power diopters?

>>3077649
The less work you have to do the better?

Do you like playing with sliders?

>>3077656
You only have to do it once, though. Doesn't every raw developer have a feature where you can save particular settings and then either apply them with one click to other photos, or set them as a default?

idk, it just strikes me as being like complaining about a stereo because you don't like the radio-station presets it comes with.

>>3077649
Light propagates in glass, and different wavelengths getting absorbed differently in the various glass materials. Generally the more glass elements a lens has the more of the incoming light is absorbed giving uneven color information.
This is why you will read older lenses having better color rendition, the older lenses having less glass elements.

>>3077658
>You only have to do it once
For one kind of exposure though, so every different framing and different exposure needs its own settings. That is why good workflow is important, in LR I just correct exposure and white balance, then set whites and blacks with Alt pushed down, then set shadows and highlights and then I adjust all the little bits (little bits) like contrast, clarity, saturation/vibrance, color correction, gradual filters and adjustment brush, lens correction etc...
One image generally takes 10mins if I have to do it all, some are relatively fast at ~2mins if the color and white balance is spot on.

>>3077655
>Do IS modules typically burn out or get stuck?
>Are they prone to failure?
Like any mechanical device, the answer is yes, but they are generally very sturdy. I've only had one break on me after a lens rolled off the table (since-repaired), which caused the IS module to get knocked out of place. When the IS spun up it sprang back into the magnetic field, but otherwise rattled around inside the lens.

>And why aren't there any large high power diopters?
Live view has generally killed off the need for them, most people now get clip-on finders for the screen and adjust magnification digitally.

>>3077678
What lens was that?

>Live view has generally killed off the need for them

No, I meant lens magnification diopters.
In particular, why doesn't Canon make their 250D in sizes larger than 58mm?

>>3077649
Micro contrast. "zeiss pop".

>>3077681
wat
Diopter is a correctional measurement. There are diopter elements for viewfinders if the diopter adjustment is not enough.

>>3077687
https://www.schneideroptics.com/ecommerce/CatalogSubCategoryDisplay.aspx?CID=1081

Diopters

>>3077690
Oh. You mean "macro filters". Totally destroys IQ unless it is specifically designed for the specific lens like with higher end compacts, Ricoh GR, Fuji X70/100 etc...
Just get an old manual macro lens like the Tamron SP 90/2.8 if you want macro, you won't use AF after 1:2 ratio. Or get a lens that has a decent close focus distance like some standard/wide zooms like Sigma or Tamron kit alternatives/step ups.

>>3077692
I thought the dual element models were fairly good.

File: 859041156.jpg (129KB, 500x997px) Image search: [Google]

129KB, 500x997px

>>3077692
>>3077690
Also an extension tube between the lens and the body also decreases close focus distance, these are empty tubes without any correctional elements so the IQ is the same with closer focus. The only problem with "normal" lenses vs macro lenses is they are not corrected for field curvature. Macro lenses have flat DoF at maximum ratio while normal lenses DoF tends to curve a lot with close focus that is emphasised by the extension tube.
Pic related

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS3 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2009:06:28 19:32:39
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	500
Image Height	997

File: DSC3997-1-745x497.jpg (50KB, 745x497px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 745x497px

>>3077697
field curvature

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Google
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Image Width	1500
Image Height	1001

>>3077697
I've already stacked 4 EF25s; I was just wondering if a diopter would be a viable option for increasing my magnification further.

Are you saying that the DoF is no longer affected by only the plane of focus, but also by the position on the image circle?

File: InPlaceOnCamera_IMG_4977.jpg (94KB, 804x604px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 804x604px

>>3077703
Get a 1:1 dedicated macro lens. There are plenty of budget friendly option from old manual lenses to the recent Tamron SP AF 90/2.8, Sigma 105/2.8, Tamron 60 and EF 60mm macro lens. Using an extension tube reduces working distance and increases magnification ratio, or a good teleconverter increases magnification with the same focus distance.
In other words, if you want a good macro setup use a macro lens. There are some DIY methods with abismal to usable results like pic related, an infinity corrected microscope lens on a kit telezoom lens
For the best results, use a macro lens.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon PowerShot SD700 IS
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS Windows
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/5.5
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	180 dpi
Vertical Resolution	180 dpi
Image Created	2010:05:15 13:56:06
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	180 dpi
Vertical Resolution	180 dpi
Image Created	2010:05:15 15:08:58
Exposure Time	1/40 sec
F-Number	f/5.5
Lens Aperture	f/5.5
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	23.20 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	804
Image Height	604
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>3077703
The bigger the extension the more light you lose. Also what the fuck are you talking about? The sensor stays where it is.
Are you using google translate? It is really hard to puzzle together what you want to say.

>>3077708
>The sensor stays where it is.

Did I ever mention the sensor?
I was asking what he meant by field curvature.

>>3077681
>What lens was that?
Canon 70-200 f/4 IS

>>3077710
GOOGLE IT!

I was wondering... Should i get the 70-200mm f/4, or wait until i have enough money to get the IS version. I want to know because that's like a 6-800$ upgrade from the original.

Or should i go with the alternatives like Tamron or Sigma?

>>3077730
Aps-c or FF? If aps-c then get the Sigma 50-150/2.8

>>3077730
The IS version is better optically as well, although still a bit weaker at 200mm compared to the 2.8 lenses, especially at minimum focus.
I feel that IS practically required on a lens that goes out to 200mm at f/4.

Can't say much about Tampon and Smegma as I haven't used their lenses, but the AF and build quality may not be up to par on certain models. I remember one forum post where someone bought some 24-70 2.8 Tam and it's front optic fell off because it was simply glued in place.

>>3077739
If you buy a lens from CL that falls apart in your hand that is not the manufacturers fault.
My Tamrpn 70-200/2.8 is spotless and performs like new and I am not the first owner. Anyone can get a lemon from any manufacturer on the used market or from a dubious shop.

>>3077681
>>3077694
Achromats are quite fine.

Sure, they are not really a suitable replacement for a good dedicated macro lens. But it's not like you're completely wasting your time if you use an achromat close-up filter mounted lens:

Samples:
https://www.flickr.com/groups/marumi/pool/
https://www.flickr.com/groups/raynoxdcr250/pool/

>>3077692
> Totally destroys IQ unless it is specifically designed for the specific lens
Works quite okay for very varied lenses. See the galleries I just linked.

>>3077763
I have that Raynox.

Picture quality is quite good in general even for pixel-peeping - but - it does suffer from massive field curvature. For example, "scanning" negatives with one is completely out of question.

>>3077774
> it does suffer from massive field curvature. For example, "scanning" negatives with one is completely out of question.
Likewise for the Marumi DHG +5 - also has too much field curvature.

I'm not sure it's *completely* out of question on a +3, but ultimately I'm just using a 90mm FE Macro for my film scanning needs.

A very suitable lens, if you can afford one.

Should I buy the Joby tripod kit? All 3 components?
I have a Sony A7 and Sigma 35mm

https://www.amazon.com/GorillaPod-Ballhead-Bundle-Flexible-Camera/dp/B003II3FD0

>>3077785
>Should I buy the Joby tripod kit? All 3 components?
If you ask me: No.

That said, I don't even like the gorillapod things - I am virtually always going to prefer a travel tripod or self-standing monopod. And in the remaining rare cases a $5 chinese mini tripod grip thing will do the job. Or probably just my bag.

>>3077788
Why and what should I get then?

>>3077790
>Why
Because there isn't always a branch or railing in the right height, and even when - I'm pretty much always faster with at least the self-standing monopod.

> what should I get then
I don't know how you want to use this exactly.

Urban walkaround type of use? Sirui PS or something like it. Self-standing monopod. (I did not like Manfrottos variant back then though, its foot was too small and the whole thing too unstable).

More general use? Travel tripod - just a lightweight tripod in a bag with smaller folded dimensions.

>>3077791
Yea for urban travel, nature hikes. I guess general use then

>>3077797
Yea, if all are in the same trip, I'd carry a travel tripod. It's just more useful overall.

I'd suggest to look at the Chinese carbon tripods. Dic&Mic E302C, Q666C and so on - generally available somewhere around $100 including shipping.

If you don't mind carrying a few hundred grams more weight, decent Alu tripods with about the same construction can be had from ~$60 up.

Sirui / Benro / Gitzo / some of the Manfrottos etc. should also be great, but you can generally expect to pay a good bit more if you want a carbon travel tripod.

File: 200.jpg (78KB, 800x560px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 800x560px

Hey Guys,

Is the 70-200mm f/2.8 II really just as good as the 200mm f/2.8 II?

File: .png (630KB, 2414x1110px) Image search: [Google]

630KB, 2414x1110px

Half the weight of the Sigma equivalent for the same price. Mirrorless shorter flange distance finally show its power.

File: .jpg (419KB, 1000x856px) Image search: [Google]

419KB, 1000x856px

Sony's 2.8 Trinity is also complete

>>3077974
Well...one is a 70-200...and the other is a straight 200. What are you asking?

>>3078015
I'm asking if the zoom meets or exceeds the performance of the prime at 200mm, naturally.

Some have claimed it does due to the 70-200mm f/2.8 Mark II being released just several years ago while the 200mm II hasn't been updated in over 20.

I haven't had experience with either.

I bought a A6000 with the stock lens today, less than 2,000 shutter actuations. Paid $150, sold the stock lens for $75 to a friend and bought a Nikon adapter. I plan on using this exclusively for portraits and to use with prime lenses due to the focus peaking. How did I do /p/?

>>3078016
Well, generally primes are better than zooms, with that said the new 70-200 is pretty good. The prime might have better microcontrast and color rendition though just because the 70-200 has more corrective elements absorbing some parts of the spectrum more.

File: stock-photo-middle-aged-man-with-wide-format-camera-47219146[1].jpg (28KB, 450x321px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 450x321px

>tfw really want some f/1.2 glass
>can't afford it
:^(

>>3078177
The non L, fd 50 1.2 is cheap as shit.

Why you want to buy meme shit is another matter, just stand closer if you want more bokeh.

>>3078177
Suck dicks & buy shit.

>>3077997
>FF trinity finished after Pentax did

>>3078179
Or use longer lens. 85/1.4 or 135/2.8 will do much better and cheaper.

>>3078192
Only took pentax 40 years too!

>>3078179
samayng 50 1.2 is around the same price and has much better performance tbqh famalam

>>3078194
They had 3 years after getting sucked dry by Hoya. Ricoh is the best that could happen to the brand.
Still, 3 years to develop a FF camera that blows the competition away and start off with the holy trinity right away is such a feat Sony failed to show up yet.

>>3078195
Well, it's about 50% more than the canon fd and doesn't even cover full frame. Bit of a shit comparison friend.

>>3078199
No point in having a decent body if no one's buying into the system and the lenses are shit.

>>3078115

Decent set-up.

But why just Nikon?

There are lots of old manual lenses out there that work really well.

>>3078207
[citation needed]
Half the K-1 buyers moved over from Canon and Nikon. This is an actual fact.

>>3078207
>Well, it's about 50% more than the canon fd
cheapest fd on ebay i can find goes for 350 eur.
cheapest samyang is going for 320 gbp

>>3078215
Then you're not looking hard enough, I see plenty.

>>3078211
"Half the k1 buyers"
10 people isn't indicative of anything.

>>3078218
[citation needed]

>>3078199
And yet all it took was rebranding 3 Tamron lenses that don't even have very good AF performance, combined with Pentax's already mediocre showing in that area.

I mean, it's great if you're snapshitting still life, I guess.

>>3078227
2 Tamron lenses. The 70-200 is a Pentax design.
Plus the rebrands are not simple rebrands. the optical formula is the same but the coating, outer design and the weather sealing is Pentax's own. But yeah, I know, I shouldn't talk about weather sealing in front of sonyggers, it makes them salty and corrodes their cameras.

>>3078199
Will they ever reopen factories in Japan?

File: 80-210F3dot8-4dot0_103A.jpg (35KB, 575x250px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 575x250px

noob here, grabbing one of these (tamron 80-210mm) used for cheap. looking around, the going rate on these seems to be much less than other brands' zoom lenses. are they significantly shittier or is it just cheap because it's old?

>>3078257
>old zoom
It's shit

>>3078232
Oh, so Pentax is solely at fault for making a 70-200 and DSLR AF system that can't keep up with moving objects. They should have just licensed the Tamron design at this point.

>In circumstances where there is a clear subject, single point continuous autofocus seemed to be the most effective way to utilize the AF system found on the K-1, but even that failed about half of the time during our AF bike test (all images were shot at 200mm using the HD Pentax D FA* 70-200mm f/2.8 ED DC AW lens).

How do you fuck up this badly?

>>3078257
Probably decently sharp, but CAs like a bitch. Most 70-200/4 designs of the era did.

>>3078263
i have a $13 bentax a 70-210mm f4.
it's actually sharp at the tele end but chromabs everywhere.

is a nikon d7200 worth it over a d7100 if I can afford it?

>>3078316
Yes, if you want to use the bigger buffer (sports, air shows and wildlife). If not, then not much different.

>>3078316
7100 and 7200 are the same. For the d7200 you pay for features though. Biggest difference is buffer size, if you need 20ish shot bursts choose 7200. Otherwise d7100

C'mon fucking chinks deliver my new lens already fucking tracking # has been stuck for 48 hours already FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF

>>3078192
lol. Nikon still doesn't have a 16-35 f2.8

>>3078364
Tamron helps in that aspect.

>>3078365
>Tamron
You're still missing threaded filters, which Canon and Sony's 16-35 f/2.8 both have. Also a holy trinity with a 3rd party lens is lame

>>3078366
>threaded filter
Who cares about threaded filters? Just use a Lee UWA filter like anyone else

>>3078257
Old zooms are atrocious, especially 3rd party ones. Complete trash [spoiler]but we all made the same mistake[/spoiler]

>>3078364
Nikon has a 14-24, no?

File: .jpg (293KB, 1833x1375px) Image search: [Google]

293KB, 1833x1375px

>>3078368
>>3078372
>Tripling the size of your lens
Okay dudes

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

My brother wanted to buy a camera to take portraits. He saved up a couple hundred for a camera but I was thinkin of letting him use my old d200. If he really wanted to get a new camera what should he get that will have more features than mine for a decent used price? Preferably nikon since I still have some lenses he could use

>>3078391
D5

>>3078345
>>3078346
What about low light performance? Isn't D7200 supposed to be slightly better?

It's like 10% more expensive, and I like the idea of getting a newer model. It will probably come down to which one I'll be able to find a good deal for when I get the cash.

>>3078422
The sensor and image processor are the same. Only difference are the buffer and some arbitrary features, and the top LCD gives less information on the D7200.
Low light performance is the same.
Other comparable cameras in the same category are the Pentax K-3-K-3II or the Canon 80D, but the Canon is behind in low light performance by one stop. Ideal best DR/gain is ISO 800 on Canon APS-C and ISO 1600 on Nikon/Pentax APS-C. On the latter, ISO 3200 still gives the same DR (around 10EV) as the Canon on ISO 800.

>>3078380
It's an insane lens though, the 14-24mm is significantly sharper than any other fixed or zoom ultrawide from Canon or Nikon. It does things no lens before has done. It is sharper wide-open at 14mm in the far corners than a fixed 14mm f/2.8 is stopped down at f/5.6.
For sharpness, it is blazingly sharp and devoid of any coma or softness at every aperture, everywhere in the full film and FX field.

You couldn't handle the fucking sharpness.

>>3078452
>You couldn't handle the fucking sharpness
I better stay away from it then or I might cut myself.

Can I get some recommendations for my canon ae-1 lens wise? I wouldn't mind something that allows me to get closer up to people from farther away

>>3078422
if you care about apsc high iso, just get a bentax k70 or k3ii.

>>3078452
>the 14-24mm is significantly sharper than any other fixed or zoom ultrawide from Canon or Nikon

The 11-24mm looks sharper from what I've seen.

what's /p/'s opinion on the Nikkor 18-300 3.5/6.3?

>>3078510
Typical superzoom garbage, perfect for snapshitters, casuals, and dads.

>>3078428
Does it really matter what the DR is at high ISO? I figure typical high ISO situations are low DR anyways. 10-12 stops has always been enough for anything properly exposed.

>>3078508
It's pasta from our Lord and Saturator.

want to take my camera on my bike down trails, but im a shit rider so i'll probably fall off

can anyone recommend a camera bag that could withstand a bit of punishment? only need to carry 1 lens and 1 body

Anyone use the Kolari Vision 665 filter?

Trying to figure out between this or a Life Pixel filter

>>3078588
>One lens one body

Drawstring bag, wrap your camera up in a small towel or something and it'll be fine. Much cheaper than a camera bag too

>>3078510
It's really not too terrible, better quality than the stock lens. I wouldn't use it for any paid work though. But if you want just one lens to cover all your bases, that's your best bet!

>>3078510
>>3078681
modern superzoom lenses have improved to "below average"

File: 20170415_164841.jpg (3MB, 5312x2988px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 5312x2988px

Im new to this photography game. I camt decide between the D3300 or T6. I will be using the camera mostly for shooting indoor/outdoor events, but i also would like to film and have the "cinematic", slowmo look aswell.

What camera should i get?

Thanks!

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	samsung
Camera Model	SM-G920F
Camera Software	G920FXXU5DQAG
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.9
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	5312
Image Height	2988
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2017:04:15 16:48:41
Exposure Time	1/20 sec
F-Number	f/1.9
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	200
Lens Aperture	f/1.9
Brightness	-0.9 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	4.30 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	5312
Image Height	2988
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Unique Image ID	A16LLIC08SM A16LLIL02GM_

>>3078729
If need 'slowmo' you'll probably want the D3300 for 1080p60

>>3078733
Yeah thought so.

Are the nikkon lens kit so bad? Should i invest and get a f/1.8 instead?

>>3078507
I'd consider it, but apparently no one's using pentax here and I'd have to buy new, which I can't afford.

>>3078754
Use the kit lens for a while, it's not that bad and will lead you into which prime to get.

File: 28-megapixel-aps-c-cmos-image-sensor_2[1].jpg (101KB, 691x424px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 691x424px

ok lads redpill me on aps-c resolution. We had 24 megapickels since forever now - 6 years if not more. Whats beyond that? Are we getting an increase? Whats limiting sensor manufacturers from going 30+mpx on apsc?

pic slightly related

>>3078939
Diffraction limit.

>>3078940
how come the Nokia 808 had like a 50 pickel 1/1.2 sensor?

File: 25420_D40_left_d.png (159KB, 700x595px) Image search: [Google]

159KB, 700x595px

got a d40 nikon guys, super old camera, can i take good pictures with it? i only have kit lens

what can i get to upgrade, lens? or just buy another camera, when i save... im poor at the moment tho

>>3078971
lol msg me back bro

>>3078976
?

How bad is it to leave my camera in my hot car during the summer? It's just easier since I'm only ever using it when I'm out and about.

>>3078963
It was a 41mp sensor with 38mp usable area, and the lens was extremely tightly matched to the sensor to provide an airy disk size of exactly two pixels, which is the point at which diffraction starts visibly softening the image.

>>3078939
24 MP APS-C is like 50 MP FF, needs the same resolution from the glass. Even high end APS-C can't render this resolution apart from a few exceptions, so be fore going higher pickles the lenses need better resolving replacements.
Even then literally nobody would use the full resolution of the APS-C since every print is a downsampled JPEG export.
We didn't really needed more than 16 MP on APS-C but the tech race and clueless specs masturbating masses made it go over to 24 MP

>>3079022
How often do you want to replace the battery and the body? The lens can go wonky as well.

>>3079028
So you're telling me never. Got it.

Is there any reason to get a monopod with a pan/tilt head on it?

>>3079067
Tilt maybe, pan not really

>>3078624

bump

>>3078971

Yes. The kit lens is not too bad, see which focal length you shoot the most and then look for a 1.8 prime that matches that length.

File: 5169400ld.jpg;maxHeight=550;maxWidth=642.jpg (56KB, 642x545px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 642x545px

Why shouldn't I drop $160 on an open box SEL50F18F.

File: DSC_0018.jpg (474KB, 665x1000px) Image search: [Google]

474KB, 665x1000px

>>3078971
The D40 is a competent camera, all memes aside. A friend of mine got a one when he wanted to give photography a go, and while I wouldn't jump at the chance to shoot with once again, it was way better than I had imagined.
I would honestly get a D7000 though since that's the next logical progression for someone getting into Nikons. You get a more robust body, a brighter viewfinder with more coverage, better AF, and you get the ability to use old screw drive lenses which will help you in terms of budget.

There was a photo I saw about a year back in the RPT where a dude took a really good picture of some vaulted ceilings and that really made me admire how much he got out of a D40.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D40
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.6 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/5.7
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	748
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	82 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2016:02:27 21:38:33
Exposure Time	1/250 sec
F-Number	f/8.0
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	400
Lens Aperture	f/8.0
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Shade
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	55.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	Low Gain Up
Contrast	Hard
Saturation	High
Sharpness	Hard
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>3079085

because it's a sony.

So, being on a "budget" with a cheap Fuji body, do I really need anything else than this? I'm not really into telephoto stuff.
>16-50 kit lens for wide angle at 16mm end and casual portrait at the narrow end
>27mm pancake for street and portability
>8mm Samyang fisheye for screwing around

With being on a budget I mean I can absolutely spend much more money but my lacking skills say that for the moment I shouldn't. Any suggestions?

>>3079085
slow as mollusk

>>3079101
That will last you ages unless you decide to get into sports photography

>>3079085

I mean, with a firnware update and on a mk2 ff body, it isn't bad.

Be prepared for slow AF though.

$160 is about the max I would pay on it.

>>3078971
I used mine actively for almost 10 fucking years, it's a great camera. Biggest downside these days is the low res (the D40x improves it a bit over the standard one, but still low). Also, only 3 AF points seems almost comical today. I actually found the AF in general to be quite finicky on it, esp. with the kit, but you do get used to it eventually.

>>3077634
Should i get a gorilla pod focus, slr zoom, or something else.

What makes the Canon EF-S 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6 worth $300? Doesnt seem like it would be much better than the 18-55 kit lens except for the more quiet focus

>>3079172
...it's about 80% the quality of the 10-22mm which is an awesome UWA for a little more than twice the price of the 10-18.

Dude, if you're shooting Canon crop, the 10-18 is one of the best deals in photography.

mirrorless are a meme

>>3079176
Ill have to go to a camera store and check one out. Seems nice for videos too which ive been wanting to do more of. Also considering the Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 as with that and my 70-200 f2.8 seem like a good combo.

File: 1456681808000_375102.jpg (29KB, 750x750px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 750x750px

Are the Kenko extenders really worth an extra $50?

>>3079217
It's a fucking empty cylinder. You tell me.

>>3079226
I don't know, unreliable contacts, loose mounting, durability
Just because there's no glass doesn't necessarily mean get the cheapest shit

>>3079232
>Just because there's no glass doesn't necessarily mean get the cheapest shit
Yes, actually it does.

You're not doing serious macro if you're using extension tubes. If you are seriously interested in macro, save up for a true macro lens. Otherwise, buy the cheap shit and play with it.

File: 1495253887815-1484100912.jpg (2MB, 2336x4160px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2336x4160px

A (somewhat shady) friend of mine gifted me a camera (pic related). Is it a good one? The shady part is he gave me no charger and the whole thing not in its original box, maybe I'm too cynical and judgmental, but the possibility of him stealing this camera is not out of this world.
I saw something under stolencamerafinder.com, but who's to say that the previous owner(who he bought it from) didn't just upload his pics and this whole thing is not a big deal and I'm making mountains out of molehills.
I just don't want to use a camera which might be stolen.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	HUAWEI
Camera Model	HUAWEI GRA-L09
Camera Software	GRA-L09C02B397
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	28 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	2336
Image Height	4160
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2017:05:20 06:18:16
Exposure Time	59997/1000000 sec
F-Number	f/2.0
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	400
Lens Aperture	f/2.0
Brightness	0 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Average
Light Source	Daylight
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	3.83 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	2336
Image Height	4160
Rendering	Custom
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	None
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>3079252
Call up your local police department and ask if anyone has inquired or filed reports for stolen cameras recently.
Or you can just not look a gift horse in the mouth and enjoy your free $500 camera.

>>3079256
>Call up your local police department and ask if anyone has inquired or filed reports for stolen cameras recently.
I did that already, thing is that dude travels a lot(exif data I found of the previous owner on that site was not from here, called police around that part too and still no reports). Just my paranoia, I guess.

>>3079252
i just recently got a d5100 as my first dslr. it's a decent one, so i imagine the 5300 is too. i'd recommend looking at the nikonpatcher firmware and seeing if there's any features you can add to it

>>3079285
Cool, thanks for the advice. I'm a complete noob, so I have to fiddle with settings and such and look at how I use all the different things at my disposal.
I'll just stick to auto and the fixed settings of scenes without changing aperture, shutter speed, iso etc. for my insta pics.
Just kidding with the last part btw.

File: p1190870-version-2.jpg (430KB, 1024x769px) Image search: [Google]

430KB, 1024x769px

So with how popular and effective EF adapters are on Sony cameras, how long before Canon starts implemening DRM on their bodies so that only their lenses only work on 「Certified Canon Approved」bodies?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Panasonic
Camera Model	DMC-GX7
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Macintosh)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	0 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	1024
Image Height	769
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	2015:03:20 14:09:48
Exposure Time	1/160 sec
F-Number	f/0.0
Exposure Program	Shutter Priority
ISO Speed Rating	125
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Flash
Flash	Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	0.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1024
Image Height	769
Rendering	Custom
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	Low Gain Up
Contrast	Soft
Saturation	Low
Sharpness	Soft

>>3079387
So people would buy less lenses? Canon is the one invading Sony system so you can expect Sony putting DRM in their firmware so people will have to buy Sony lenses for their Sony bodies.

>>3079392

So that people would buy Canon's bodies. DSLR sales have been dropping, and Canon's mirroress is far from popular.

As for Sony blockig them, quite the opposite has happened actually. Sony opened up e-mounts af protocal to whoever wants it, something Canon hasn't really done (which is why the adapters aren't quite perfect. Canon's protocal was reverse engineered by Metabones).

>>3079396
Implementing new DRM would break backwards compatibility, they'd be shooting themselves in the foot.

>>3079399
>what are old sigma eos lenses

ironically, they work fine on an adapted sony body, but not a new canon body.

>>3079400
That was due to an already existing part of the protocol that they switched to in newer bodies that hadn't been reverse engineered because nobody saw it yet. Its possible they wrote in another killswitch somewhere that hasn't been discovered but it have to have been there from the start.

>>3079399

They could limit the af speed on non-approved bodies.

Wait 5 years or so to trigger/implement it, so every decent body has support.

Im looking at getting another lens for my canon ae1 to help with shooting landscapes and things at a further distance.

Is the canon 28-85 mm F/4.0 Any good? I also like that it can shoot close up well for people.

>>3077683
buzzwords

>>3079392
>you can expect Sony putting DRM in their firmware so people will have to buy Sony lenses for their Sony bodies.
This honestly sounds like the kind of dick move that only Sony would do. Kind of like how you have to pay like $10 for the ability to do time lapses in camera.

>>3079106
>>3079123
i figured as much. It'd probably be even worse on my regular A so I'll just stick to adapted lenses.

>>3077634
cheap camera + good lenses VS good camera + stock lenses ?

So the Vivitar Series 1 90/2.5, Tokina 90/2.5 and Tamron 72B 90/2.8 macro lenses seem to be considered the best options for legacy macro glass. However, I find them fucking hard to get a hold of, and it's even harder without shelling out like 400€ or more.
Even the less expensive similar 90/2.8 series like the Tamron 52BB, Elicar, other Vivitars etc are somewhat elusive, at least for non-ripoff prices.

Are there any more ubiquitous options? What's worth looking for, and at what price?

>>3079578
cheap camera and good lens wins unless it's high iso.

Currently have a D5300
Would I be stupid not to pick up a D7200 for $500?

>>3079593
Literally any 55/90/105mm name brand (Canon/Nikon/Pentax/Minolta/Olympus) film era manual focus macro lens.

Is Sony A7 worth it?

I've been looking at Nikon D7200 or D7100 but the prices of used A7 bodies are making me reconsider.

Is there a good cheap everyday lens for it?

Ive been thinking of upgrading to the 80d from my t3i as the auto focusing is shit and its really limiting my good lens. Is that a good upgrade or should i get something like a sony a7 that's full frame? I also want to get into shooting some video and the 80d isnt that great but im not sure how well adapters work or if they would degrade image quality of a lens like the canon 70-200 f2.8

>>3079622
canon fdn 50mm f1.4.
smegma 30mm 30 f2.8 with rear baffle removed and set an automated crop in light room.
1.1x crop factor.

>>3079641
80d if af.
a7 if image quality.
mc11 adapter.
it's just a tube, it won't degrade image quality.

>>3079531

plz help. All I have is my 50mm 1.8.It's good but I have no range.

I wouldn't mind spending $100-200

When the headliner tells the venue to turn off all the lights and you're left with just photos of the supporting bands because you don't own any speedlights

Flashes for this feel?

((((Canon))))

this guy >>3078257 here again, the guy hasn't gotten back to me on either of the day's he said he would and i've recently spotted an ad for a Nikon 70-300mm AF Nikkor 4-5.6G for a bit more money but still decently cheap as lenses go

thinking about taking this opportunity to back out on the tamron and keep saving for the nikon. would it be a significant step up in terms of quality that would be worth holding out for and hoping the guy doesn't sell it in the meantime?

>>3079622
Ive never actively used anything that wasnt in the d7000 line, but my limited time with a d5000 was frustrating due to the lake of a second control wheel and the menu system (I only go into my settings upon receiving a camera and then I never touch them again). But in terms of sensor, the upgrade is negligible. If you want more control and you've lost the opportunity to take a picture due to fucking with the menu, then it may be worth the upgrade.

If you're patient, go onto Facebook marketplace and seek out cheap cameras. Its full of people that dont know the value of what they have. I picked up an a6000 for $75 this week. I always see great deals for Nikon's too

>>3079649
How will the a7 compare to the 80d af wise?

>>3079613
Why do you need a d7200 if you have a d5300?

>>3079674
I only shoot available light :^)

>>3079675
You didn't even say what shitty system you have. It doesn't really make much of a difference though, since you're clearly a poorfag. If you're shooting Nikon with AF, you want the AF-S 70-300 VR used. The old 70-300 (and most telephotos greater than 3x zoom) were all turds on modern bodies.

>>3079685
>>3079674
Actually I like the look available light gives (especially for overhead lights, makes faces real dramatic) but this venue was real shit, I had to go all the way up to ISO 6400 wide open to get decent shutter speeds at -2 exposure compensation. I'd seriously get excited when the guitarist would kneel down to adjust his pedals because the LEDs would shine on his face. It was that bad.

File: unnamed.jpg (148KB, 1280x1920px) Image search: [Google]

148KB, 1280x1920px

>>3079687
Pic related, here's a shit preview jpg

>>3079686
i have a d5100

>>3079571

>paying for timelapses

But you don't have to?

>>3079622

a7 is a nice body, but the autofocus sucks. If yoy are gonna get a Sony FF get an a7rii.

>>3079680

The original a7? It will be slower.

Thinking about picking up photography this summer so i don't sit on my ass all day.
Would D600 be a decent pick? There are quite a few of them that fit into my budget. Or should i keep my eyes open for something else that's in the same price-bracket?

>>3079718
canon 600D not nikon d600. my bad.

Is this the place to ask about backups and storage?

>>3079716
>if you are gonna get a $1k camera, get a $3k camera
Sure, whatever you say.

>>3079849

Been as low as $2k before, but yea. I mean to say avoid the $1k than to buy the expensive one.

Which is the most fuckboi camera?
$
Which is the most hipster camera?
Digi only

>>3079865
>Which is the most fuckboi camera?
Any Sony A7 series camera

>Which is the most hipster camera?
x100f or leica q

I got two soligor lenses that I want to fit on my a6000. I dont really get adapters, how do I know which ones fit? Can I make it work any other way?

>>3079878
> how do I know which ones fit?
By picking adapters that adapt from the original mount to the E-mount.

> Can I make it work any other way?
You could get it done with duct tape and way too much time.

But is that a sane option vs just buying a nicely made adapter? No, it is not.

>>3079875
>Which is the most hipster camera?
>not penf

Which are the best Pentax camera?

>>3079952
67

>>3079955
Digi

>>3079959
K-1, K-70, K-3/3II

>>3079959
>>3079963
K5 ii/iis

>>3079972
Not bad but the AF is much more improved in the K-70, not to mention the K-3 and K-1 with more AF points.
Also the screwdrive is much slower in the K-5 series than in the K-3 and newer cameras.
The sensor in the K-5II/IIs is absolutely magical though.

Fuck I have no idea what to get anymore. Basically every time I find something I like I see another camera and go "hmm that's only 10% more expensive, maybe I should get this instead".

Let's say I want to get a camera, doesn't matter if it's DSLR or mirrorless. I don't care much about high speed photography like sports and shit, and I'd like good low light performance. I'm not a professional(obviously).

What's the cheapest camera I can get that won't feel like a compromise?

>>3079995
Pentax K-70 with a nice Limited prime along with the kit lens, or the 20-40 Limited zoom.

>>3079995
To some the sony a7rii is a compromise compared to the a9.

Be more definite in your budget, skill level, existing gear, intentions

>>3079995
> won't feel like a compromise?
A Sony A9 or Nikon 5D might do the trick.

Cheaper will mean more compromises.

File: Nikon-D7000-DSLR-Camera-Body-Only-634630809923410506.jpg (64KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 500x500px

I saw an ad for a D7000 (35K+ actuations) with 50mm f1.8D lens for $380. Is this a good deal?

I'm going back to digital photography after more than a year since I sold my D90 camera and followed the film photography meme. I want to become a pro photographer soon and I'm asking if this D7000 is an ok camera for events, band photography, corporate headshots, small weddings etc.

Here are my lenses:
Tokina 11-16mm
Nikon 50mm f1.4 AI
Nikon 100 f2.8E AI
Nikon 135mm f3.5 AI
Nikon 200mm f4.0 AI

>>3080022
Yes, I would go for it right away. The D7000 has the best APS-C sensor, you can pull mad details and DR without visible graining. Better in that aspect than the later models, D7100/7200 and D7500.

>>3080032
>The D7000 has the best APS-C sensor

>he doesn't know about the D7100, D7200 and the D500 sensor

File: 13123123.jpg (74KB, 1028x451px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 1028x451px

>>3080032
>The D7000 has the best APS-C sensor, you can pull mad details and DR without visible graining. Better in that aspect than the later models, D7100/7200 and D7500.

Please explain. Why would an earlier gen D7xxx series have better sensor than the newer gen? Also, the D7100 onwards have better low light capabilities.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Photographer	RR
Image-Specific Properties:

>>3080035
I absolutely know about them, Notice how I mentioned pulling DR as in dynamic range or more gamut in the details versus having more gain or higher ISO number that even skimming down the readout noise will still leave you with sporadic photonic noise and tiny-tiny dynamic range, as in you will not be able to differentiate in the details ending up with a soft grainy image.

Got a sweet looking a7r ii for <2000

Can't wait. Haull ass Florida.

>>3080038
You can pull 5 stops exposure at base ISO on the D7000 versus the 4 stops of exposure without visible noise. In my book that makes the D7000 better.
You wouldn't use any of those above ISO 6400 because of the graining and loss of dynamic range.

>>3079995
What size are you looking at? Do you want something you can pretty much throw in your everyday bag or you don't mind carrying an extra bag for a big camera + lenses?

What budget? Initial allocation and maximum you're willing to spend are really helpful. Do you want to make a one time purchase and be done with it or you don't mind buying extra lenses later down the road?

Do you want manual knobs and dials for all the exposure settings so you can finetune every pic without going into the menus or are you happy with setting the P (programmed) mode and go spray and pray?

With those questions answered, you (and us) will have a little bit more information to find a good camera that works for you. Also knowing what extra features you absolutely don't want to compromise (wifi, bluetooth, tilting screen for selfies or hip shooting...) will help narrowing the search down even better.

Without that info, the absolute cheapest you could go without scaling back to compacts with a sensor barely bigger than an average smartphone would be a Canon EOS M10 at like 350 bucks, but...
>No viewfinder; limited physical controls; sub-par continuous shooting; lacking video features

>>3080045
*4 stops of exposure on the D7100/7200

why does my keyboard skip out mid sentence?

>>3080045
>>3080047
Does that mean editing it in RAW?

Do you personally use the D7000?

>>3080048
Yes, it is in RAW. When I got my camera I contemplated on the older model vs the (then) newer and went with the latter.
I can't go up over 4 stops without shitting up the image while others with the earlier model can.
I use a K-3 which has the same sensor as the D7100/7200 and while others can pull out mad stuff like well defined ring of Lyra and the outer structure of Andromeda I am left battling noise and having to lose detail in the lower exposure parts.
My ideal camera would be a K-3 with the older 16MP sensor and the newest image processor and accelerator. Not going to happen because goons only see the higher MP number is better, which is actually not so much.
Just for comparison, 24MP APS-C has the same pixel pitch as 50MP FF while 16MP APS-C has the pixel size of 32MP FF.
Bigger pixel size means more photons hitting the photodiode giving a stronger signal for the same exposure.

>>3080052
>Just for comparison, 24MP APS-C has the same pixel pitch as 50MP FF while 16MP APS-C has the pixel size of 32MP FF.

With that doesn't that mean it is more worth it to go for the D7100 camera instead of the D7000?

Please post your D7000 photos if you can good sir.

>>3080059
Read it again, moron.

File: 6th place.png (129KB, 1285x869px) Image search: [Google]

129KB, 1285x869px

>>3080044
><2000
Don't know what lenses you plan on getting, but there's some crazy bang for the buck combo with that camera and the new 1,8/85mm.

It's the 6th sharpest lens/camera combination, and just 600 bux, edging past other 1000 dollar lenses.
Almost as good as the other sharpest lenses, but far cheaper.

>>3080071
That's right, buy lenses because of their sharpness-to-$ ratio, not because they do what you need them to do.

>>3080080
Just in case he was thinking about that crazy Zeiss Batis lens at twice the price.

Does anybody here have the Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 Canon mount? Is it a worthy upgrade from the kit lens? Speed wise it obviously is, but sharpness wise?

>>3080071
>DXO screen
The YLYL thread is here >>3078284

>>3080097
Not sharper than the kit lens. Get the 18-35mm Sigma Art instead if you want a worthy upgrade.

>>3080098
> I don't like objective measurements because they don't support "my" views or camera system

Hi!

Which one would you buy?

1. Fuji X-T20 + 23mm f/1.4

2. Canon 77D (aka 9000D) with Sigma 24mm f/1.4 Art

Weight is not a big issue for me, I don't give a heck about the video. I'd like to use it in low light pub shots (no flash), biking / hiking / traveling, city exploration stuff (it sounds horrible) and all in between and around. Sadly, I have no option to grab them and play around, but maybe you did.

I have a low-end Fuji ILC, but didn't invest in lenses at all. plus I will be able to sell it quickly.

>>3080106
>Not sharper than the kit lens. Get the 18-35mm Sigma Art instead if you want a worthy upgrade.

Are you stupid? Of course it is. Anyways, unless a constant 2,8 aperture is important, I highly recommend the
Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4 DC Macro OS HSM lens. I had the previous version of the lens with my Canon 30D back in the day, and even after upgrading to the 5DmkII, III and now IV with pro zooms and primes, I'm still surprised by what that combination was capable of.

>>3080110
Figures it'd prefer the Fuji if it's just for travel.

Then again, I actually went with a Sony. (Samyang 12mm f/2 + Sigma 30mm f/1.4 are pretty decent for travel).

>>3080115
> Are you stupid? Of course it is.
Check the shapness field map:
https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/17-50mm-f-2.8-EX-DC-OS-HSM-Canon-on-Canon-EOS-760D-versus-Canon-EF-S-18-55mm-F35-56-IS-STM-on-Canon-EOS-760D__319_1011_1138_1011

It's barely any difference at all. One is a little sharper & evenly so at 17/18mm, the other at 50mm.

>>3080131
Oh, and then compare to the Sigma Art I mentioned.

That, on the other hand, *IS* a huge difference:
https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/17-50mm-f-2.8-EX-DC-OS-HSM-Canon-on-Canon-EOS-760D-versus-Canon-EF-S-18-55mm-F35-56-IS-STM-on-Canon-EOS-760D-versus-Sigma-18-35mm-F18-DC-HSM-A-Canon-on-Canon-EOS-760D__319_1011_1138_1011_1141_1011

>>3080131
>>3080135
>>3080071
kys

File: sony_a7r_mark_ii_digital_1159878.jpg (304KB, 2000x2000px) Image search: [Google]

304KB, 2000x2000px

http://www.ebay.com/itm/DEAL-Limited-Time-Stock-Sony-Alpha-a7R-II-Mirrorless-Camera-Body-a7R-2-a7Rii-/272464729168?hash=item3f7029d450:g:Y~MAAOSw6DtYRS71

do I?

>>3080140
kys for being an anti-science / anti-engineering retard

>>3080141
That price seems quite okay.

If you're not that experienced yet: Will you have sufficient money left for additionally purchasing a set of good glass?

A higher-end camera without good glass is usually worse than a midrange camera with good glass.

The fuck is up on this board with all the Sony shilling? It's reaching insufferable levels.

>>3080046
I don't really give a shit about size. Everything with exchangeable lenses is going to be too big to be pocketable anyway so it doesn't really matter.

My budget is pretty fluid. When I started I was looking at a6000, then Nikon d7100 or maybe d7200, now the Sony a7. The most expensive thing I saw and thought I could swing it was a used a7r for like $1.1k(I'd rather get the a7 though). Thing is I have $250 a month of income I don't really have any plans for so I can just wait a couple months and buy something more expensive, I'm not really in a hurry. I absolutely plan to buy more lenses, plan a is get a good enough body and a budget lens, get more lenses as the time goes by, upgrade the body down the road(plan b is get bored and sell all my shit 2 months in).

The more control the better.

Extra features don't really matter for me, I guess decent video capability would be neato but I'd 100% trade being able to shoot video at all for significantly improved stills.

One thing is so far the most commonly recommended Pentax models(k70 and k3 ii) are more or less out of the picture for me, since no one seems to be selling them used here, so I'd feel like I'm overpaying if I had to buy new.

>>3080106
>>3080115
>>3080131
>>3080135
Forgot to mention I'm using an A6000 so I'll be using it with a MC11 adapter

>>3080148
What would you expect - that everyone is discussing all the Leicas nobody uses?

Or are you just very good at ignoring all the Nikon / Canon questions (the other two popular APS-C/FF options)?

>>3080148
Maybe Sony is popular for a reason??????

I need /p/'s opinion. Beginner who is starting to take photography as a hobby more seriously.

This summer I'll be going on vacation to Yucatan and Quintana Roo, and for the most part of it I'm planning on visiting archeological sites, cenotes and beaches. I have a Canon Rebel T5 with the 18-55 mm lens which it commonly includes, so I would like to get me a new lens before this trip.
The thing is, I'm mostly interested in landscapes, nature and night shots, what kind of lens should I get so it can be taken more advantage of during the trip and after it, a prime or a zoom lens?

>>3080151
Dunno, it feels like every time someone asks "what cam" there's always somebody answering MUH SONY in less than 5 minutes and starting a flame war with everybody else that recommended otherwise.

>>3080158
Because there's no reason to get a Canikon over a Sony if you're starting out today, outside of lens selection when comparing it to Canikon, something that's quickly changing with the rate Sony is putting out new glass at.

>>3080141
Considering what the thing normally costs. If you need a banging good sensor for portraits and landscape, that's a heck of a deal.

>>3080157

If you just want to take vacation photos, the kit lens is perfectly serviceable. Maybe look into a 24-70mm

>>3080157
> landscapes, nature
Wide angle lenses can be very nice. [Even though on APS-C they're far from perfect]

> night shots
Won't ever work quite right with that camera, but definitely still favors primes with wide aperture & good t-stoppage. Or a portable flash unit.

>>3080146
Right now, no. But with the release of the a9, and no indication of any a7_ III bodies coming out in the near future, I can get the glass later.

I already have the 16-50mm kit lens that came with my NEX-3N, so I'll still have something to work with

>>3080163
> no indication of any a7_ III bodies coming out in the near future
Sony doesn't generally give indication?

But they'll release more bodies as they upgrade their sensors, IBIS, software or hardware anyhow.

> I can get the glass later.
I'd actually say it's generally wiser to get the A7 II and good glass to work with now and then (maybe) get the A7R II or whatever later.

> I already have the 16-50mm kit lens that came with my NEX-3N, so I'll still have something to work with
With that very shitty (for FF standards) lens you might as well get the A6000.

>>3080157
Depends on what your budget is, if you're going to use it for night photography then you're best served with something that has a f1.8 or f2.8 aperture. Something like the Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 would be perfect but it's pretty pricey. You could also look into the Canon 50mm f/1.8 or the Sigma 30mm f/1.4. I'd personally get a 35 or 50mm prime and upgrade from the kit lens to a faster zoom like a 24-70 or the Sigma 17-50 or 17-70.

>>3080163
>I can get the glass later.
Which lenses did you plan to get?

>>3080080
>>3080083
>>3080071
I saved a big chunk on wining that auction over paying ~$2350 for a buy it now, but I'm only using adapted canon glass right now, 24-70 and 70-200 both f4, and the 35mm f2 is USM which is supposed to be one of the better 35mm's.

I was thinking about getting the canon 85 1.8 because its cheap and the IBIS of the a7r ii is huge to me because I just can't avoid camera shake sometimes. Thanks for the tip about the sony though, if I decide against the canon, I'll save for a little more and maybe pawn some stuff off to get native gear.

>>3080141
I was close to buying this but the international model thing bugged me a little. I say if you don't care then go for it, the other shop that undercut them by $50 just stopped that promotion. Go for it before this one ends too.

File: 1495394866170.jpg (387KB, 2500x2500px) Image search: [Google]

387KB, 2500x2500px

I'm new in all this photoworld, I just bought a Canon PowerShot SX530 HS, could you guys help me out?
I want to save stuff in raw, that's my fist problem

>>3080185
It doesn't, and the image quality is so bad it wouldn't make any sense anyways.
You should've read the sticky first. First rule of buying a camera is never to buy a bridge camera, which you did.
The reasons are obvious, all the bulk of a DSLR with all the shortcomings of a compact camera and a shitty superzoom lens welded in front. You get bad image quality from the bad lens and the tiny sensor gives more noise than actual image reading. So no matter if you would shoot RAW, the image quality would be in the shitter anyways.

>>3080185
Well, for starters you should've bought a camera that can shoot RAW.

>>3080189
>>3080196
Witch camera you guys recommend?

>>3080199
Any entry level DSLR or MILC, like Nikon D3300/3400, Pentax K-70, KP, Panasonic Lumix G80/85 or G7, Olympus OM-D EM10 MkII, Fuji X-E2/2s
Any of these with the kit lens will do you much better than that shitbucket bridge camera.

>>3080199
The Sony A6000 is the best value camera you can get for less than a thousand bucks

>>3080199
The best camera + lenses you're willing to buy.

Mostly you get what you paid for, with not particularly steep diminishing returns up to the high end of FF cameras.

>>3080208
too bad it has no battery life and the sensor frequently fries itself.

>>3080115
But anyways, I've been looking at the 17-70 f/2.8-4 too as well as the 17-70. The 17-70 would be nice since it's longer and better for portraits, but then I won't get as much depth of field for stuff like portraits when shooting at f/4. Is it better to just get the 17-70 and a dedicated lens for portraits?

>>3080210
...okay? You're aware that you can just carry a spare battery, right?

>>3080214
As well as the 17-50*, fug :--DDD

>>3080210
> it has no battery life
400 shots or so, 600 if you shoot rapidly.

The battery is ~ half the weight of a Nikon one - carrying more batteries in your bag and less in your hand.

> the sensor frequently fries itself.
Lel wat?

>>3080214
I have an f/4 constant zoom lens that I used for portraits. There is enough blur and if you choose the background wisely and place the subject well it is not a problem. In fact you can make absolutely garbage portraits on an f/1.4 lens and a gorgeous one on an f/4. The biggest difference is in the photographer, not in the lens or aperture.

>>3080218
https://community.sony.com/t5/Alpha-NEX-Cameras/a6000-overheats-after-a-few-minutes-of-video-10-15-minutes/td-p/471485

>solution: don't use it as much
lel

>>3080223
What the shit kind of movie do you shoot where a single scene is longer than 15 minutes?

>>3080226
Events and interviews

>>3080223
That has about jack shit to do with the sensor, and not everyone lives & films in hot areas.

>>3080231
Have you considered that the A6000 isn't made for you, maybe?

>>3080238
Not him, but it's probably related to the high-end XAVC-S codec that was given through firmware update.

If Sony would have simply not unlocked the codec, then there wouldn't even be an issue. It can handle the lower bitrate AVC-HD just fine.

>>3080239
It sure isn't made for fucking film making.

>>3080286
The bigger problem is it has no lenses.
Even Bentax has more lenses than Sony aps-c

>>3080286
Stop the fucking presses

>>3077634
Does anyone know any good gimbals in the 100-300 dollars range? I was looking at some, but they cost 500 dollars or so for something to hole a dslr stable.

>>3080299
What kind of gimbal do you mean?

Canon 5d (the first one) or nikon d7000. Both are same price but I don't know if full frame is worth all the nice d7000 features, then again canon lenses tend to bw cheaper. Buying used od course.

>>3080291
j-just use fe lens.
g-get mc11 adapter and ef-s lenses.
g-get speed booster and vintage lenses.

minolta md 50 1.4 + zhongyi speed booster is magick.

/p/ I'm trying to find a camera for video, but I want to have it be easy to take around.

Is there such a thing as a "compact" camera that has an APS-C sensor, a hotshoe, and a mic input?

>>3080331
This is the A6000 thread. Take your question to the video thread.

>>3080331

why does it need to be aps-c? the best consumer video cameras on the market are all m4/3

File: FS5 is pretty compact.jpg (62KB, 681x681px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 681x681px

>>3080331

>>3080071
>dxo
Tell us anon, what's it like being a gearfag with no photos?

>>3078939
APS-C lenses are sub-par. You could increase raw resolution, but the lenses typically don't have much more to give. Only things like macro lenses are as sharp as the sensor permits in most if not all APS-C systems. When you get to FF lenses a bigger number of good ones will outresolve 24 megapixels across an APS-C sensor, but then you're wasting the rest of the lens so why not have gotten FF in the first place?

>>3079387
I think the canon mount is a closed format. That is why third party lenses usually have worse autofocus. They have to reverse engineer everything. Also there is no guarantee third party lenses will work the same if Canon releases a new firmware.

>>3079387
Right about the time they came out with the EF mount.

File: Kuvshinov_Ilya_4.jpg (112KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 1920x1080px

>>3080445
>>3080472

>Sony, of all companies, is the most open of the industry

That is fucked up.

>>3080551
Olympus have patents for ff e mount lenses and bodies, get erect.

>>3080555

For like a year now, they ever gonna do anything with them?

>>3080556
Bring a product to market...
Its not a short process, it's normally at least 2 years between patent and product for canikon.

File: rok14.jpg (114KB, 700x274px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 700x274px

How are the Rokinon fullframe af lenses?

I want a wide angle, and the aps-c mf one gets rave reviews.

>>3080551
Their camera division is run by separate people than their other divisions.

They are honestly pretty cool, and researching a lot of new technologies that are breakthrough + relevant for cameras.

>>3080559

Doesn't Sony own a big chunk of olympus stock anyway?

>>3080566
They sold those 1 or 2 yeas ago.

From what I can tell, they are pushing sensor development from M4/3,APS-C,FF to APS-C,FF,MF.

>>3080331
Lumix G80/85 or GH5. Professional video camera for you.

>>3080568
You heard it wrong. Sony is making sensors from tiny ass phone camera sensors to MF and MFT just had an improved 20MP sensor.
The real threat for Sony (and Samsung and all the other S.Korean mega companies) is politics. The new elections are close and the leftist party wants to kill all the mega companies in the country. Watch the news sometimes, Sony is soon over, we will have to put up with Canon sensors in all the new cameras.

>>3080582
Sony is nip, not korean, you megagoon.

>>3080584
Most of its business shit is in S.Korea for tax evasion, you mong.

>>3080582
>and MFT just had an improved 20MP sensor
It didn't use new technology.
No BSI.
No processor on sensor.
No memory buffer on sensor.

Guess what Medium Format is gaining in 2018. New technology, unlike M4/3.

>>3080586
Samsung is the bread and butter of South Korea. Nothing is going to happen to them.

>>3080586
S korea corporate tax is 24.4%, Japan's is 23.9%. Japan also offers many more deductions.

What is this peculiar agenda you are trying to push, badly?

>>3077730
>Should i get the 70-200mm f/4
are you going to tell us what brand? How the fuck are we supposed to know what youre talking about when there are probably dozens of different 70-200 f4 lenses? seriously, tf

>>3080586
nice pulling that out of your ass.
sony assembly is in thailand.
sensors are still folded 1000 times in nippon.

>>3077996
And what model is that? What the fuck is with people leaving out required information in their posts?

>>3078215
I see FD 50 1.2s going for under 200USD

>>3080644
That's the 12-24 F4 lens they released a few days ago, along with 16-35 F2,8.

The 16-35 is sharp as fuck, but I prefer small prime lens at wide angle, like the Loxia 21mm.

File: firin_20mm_2.0_tokina_zeiss_loxia_21mm_2.8.jpg (245KB, 800x493px) Image search: [Google]

245KB, 800x493px

>>3077996
>Mirrorless shorter flange distance finally show its power.
Bro, this happened a long time ago.

The Loxia 21 and Tokina 20 F2 are peerless full frame lenses.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-7RM2
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.6.1 (Windows)
Photographer	Bastian Kratzke
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2016:09:25 12:05:46
Exposure Time	1/60 sec
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	640
Brightness	-1.5 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

>>3080643

>Sony assembly is in Thailand

Depenss on the product really


Their bodys and kit lenses are Thailand, but their higher tier lenses are all Japan.

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

30KB, 700x229px

>>3080646

The Sony lens and ibis capable body weight almost the same as the Sigma lens alone.

>>3080648

Most mirrorles primes are shorter and/or considerably better than their reflex equivalents.

This is the first time we are both size and quality in a zoom.

>>3080642
your ignorance is showing, how many oem mfg's make 2 versions of an f4 70-200, one with, one without is?

One. There is one company that does this.

>>3077730
Better option, don't spend $700 on the is veersion, spend $1000 on a 2nd hand a7ii and mc11 adapter and you get a better camera, with is for every lens attached, I use it with a non-is canon 70-200 and it works an absolute peach.

>>3080644
All the required info was in that post, you just dont have the knowledge to deduce the information you're after.

>>3080650
Still not ROK though is it

>>3080214
I'm this fag again, I've seen people recommend the Tamron 17-50 as well as the Sigma 17-50 or the Sigma 17-70. How does the Tamron stack up to the two Sigmas? Am I still better off with just grabbing the 17-70 and a 50mm f/1.8 for portraits and night photography and things like that?

Why the fuck a contact flex cable for a nikon 55-200 costs 80 dollars on ebay?

>>3077648
Film is shit and you should feel shit. Stop using outdated technology just because you are a hipster. You are the cancer that is killing progress.
If you really want to use film because 'it was better before', then get the fuck off the internet or any computer newer than 1990.

>most diopter adjustment can't adjust enough for my -5.0 astigmatic eyes
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

then again I always wear glasses anyways.

>>3080666
Use liveview and a screen viewfinder loupe.

>>3080665
but technically, film is better image quality, I'd happily use a PC from the 90's if it outperformed my new one...

>>3080664
Proprietary part, you can look into the cost of making your own ribbon flex cables if you want ;)

Man I love the investment aspect of this "hobby." I'm switching camera systems and I swear I'm getting more money out than I put into this old gear.

>>3080675
yeah, all that ugly ass noise surely has better quality than digital cameras. It's not like most analog pictures look equivalent to an ISO 12800 or even more on a digital. : ^)

>>3080674
nah, it's all good with glasses, which I wear all day erryday anyways. Why would I even take my glasses off if I can't see shit without them other than through the EVF?

>>3080690
contact lenses?

>>3080692
then I wouldn't need the diopter nor a screen loupe either. Breh, I've been wearing glasses since I was 8, it's totally normal for me and I can see through the EVF just fine. I was merely memeing.

>>3080693
>EVF
>through

>>3080694
yes, through. What you're saying is the same as
>recorded music
>listen

>printed pictures
>looking at

hey guys am i autistic for wanting a ricoh gr even though i have a dslr and a 28mm lens?

>>3080665
Not him but I started shooting with film before moving to digital because I felt I would learn faster about photography and cameras, as every shot has a cost

>>3080699
In an EVF you are looking at a screen generating photons. In an OVF you look at a piece of ground glass where the photons coming through the lens diffract and go THROUGH into your eyes. This also means the image you see in an OVF is quantum coupled where in the EVF it is uncoupled and often lagging behind in time.
Hence in an EVF you can only look AT it but in an OVF you can look THROUGH it.

>>3080702
With a recorded music file you are hearing a noise produced by a vibrating magnet stimulated by an AC current. With live music you listen to a vibrating thing with the sound passing directly through the ear and go IN your ears. This also means the things you hear with live music is quantum coupled where with recorded music it is uncoupled and often lagging behind in time.
Hence with recorded music you can only HEAR it but with live music you can LISTEN TO it.

>>3080701
Then you're just a retarded babby with no self-control. People don't start coding on 1970s computer with extremely limited amount of storage either.

>>3080700
More you're just being a gearfag.

the use case for a GR is that it fits in your pocket so wherever you go you can have a camera that's better than the garbage in your phone. And a lot of places that frown on a big DSLR will happily let you in with something that looks like a point-and-shoot.

If this stuff routinely gets in your way, and you often find yourself wanting pictures but not having your SLR, or needing the small camera for other reasons, then its justified. But it's more likely you just want a new toy.

>>3080709
why not get an rx100 then.

>>3080709
i think you're right, i'm pretty sure my iphone will suffice for everything i want the gr for

New Thread

>>3080724
>>3080724
>>3080724

>>3080653
XPro2 still more likely to get you laid tho