Guys, i have a Sony Nex 5 with the basic 18/55 lens. I did a

>>3079382
btw i love wide angle lenses too.

>>3079382
"not over the top"
to some people this means $250 lenses, to others it's $750 lenses. Money is subjective.

decide what direction you want to go with your lenses, stick to primes or a set of pro zooms, latest autofocus or will old manual focus stuff actually keep you happy.

Personally, I'd ditch the nex 5 and get either an a7 (if autofocus isn't important at all) or the a7ii if you want more of an all-rounder. The larger sensor will give you more options for wide angle lenses, have better low light performance, build quality is massively improved, the evf is magical and you will have sharper images with smoother bokeh.

Lenses, that's up to personal preference.
Pay a lot and get the Sony GM stuff
Pay less and get the Sony mid range primes (28 f2, 85 1.8 and either the 50 or 55 1.8)
Pay very little and get old manual focus shit (you get what you pay for with older lenses, there's no such thing as a "bargain" vintage lens)
Hit some sort of midground with a sigma mc11 (only if you have a7ii/a6300 or better) and older canon L glass, the 70-200 f4 non is and 17-40 L are incredibly cheap if you ppick up a good deal.

That's the joy of Sony, there's something with good performance for every budget.

>>3079397
Yeah sorry, i probably should have been more specific about the price. Over the top for me would be $1000.
Thanks for the advices, i will look into those.
So you don't think i really need to go against Sony, and choose a Canon or Nikon?

>>3079401
I dropped Pentax and Nikon the moment I got my a7, an EVF offers so many real-world benefits over an OVF and that's before we get into the much better short flange distance, the 3rd party support, value for money, features, weight & size, versatility, etc.

I still use some of my favourite lenses, and with the evf I never miss focus, I always get the exposure I want and never have to chimp.

>>3079408
That is great to hear.

>>3079382
Your body has a good APS-C sensor. Unless you're willing to upgrade to full frame DSLR (which brings minimal gains unless you're doing really especific jobs in low-light conditions) or you want a higher degree of manual control knobs and dials in the body itself I'd say the best course of action would be getting better glass for your camera. For example a wide angle and a portrait primes to substitute the kit lens with something with much better aperture would be a good start.

If you want something with more manual controls while still being relatively portable, take a look at Fuji X lineup.

>>3079382

I went from the Nex 5 to an a6500 and love it.

You probably like the compact nature of the nex if you're used to it.

>>3079410
This is moopco shilling, you know, right?
BTW if you do switch to an aps-c Sony, keep the kit lens. The old 18-55 is infinitely better than the new collapsible kit lens.

I just made the switch from the Sony Nex 3 to the Sony A6000 and the difference is huge, not just the image quality but the ergonomics, the user interface which lets you have much more control over the camera and you can reassign custom buttons to pretty much anything you want and the fact that you also actually have a viewfinder, plus some general quality of life stuff like the fact that you can charge the camera via the USB port and send pictures to your phone via WiFi.

You can't go wrong with the A6000, especially used, but if your budget allows for it then I'd probably go for something like the A6300, it'll give you better results if you're going to adapt lenses.

anything a6000 to a6500 to A7RII depending on your non-existent budget guidelines

>>3079420
Thank you!

>>3079458
>moopco shilling
what?

>>3079476
moopco is the resident sony fanboy.
why would you accept help from someone who doesn't take photos?

>>3079478
No idea what you're talking about.

>>3079480
Hey moop!

>>3079453
Yea I'm gunna agree with this, the A6000, A6300, or the A6500 are your best bets for direct upgrades that are similar to what you already have. A step up is probably the A7 series, but the newer A7ii series seems a little over budget for you.

>>3079481
But I'm actually Jason Lanier.

>>3079383
A 12mm Samyang f/2 is a good choice if you want a cheap APS-C wide angle lens.

>>3079511
Manual focus though

>>3079382
a6000, a6300, a6500, nex6.
keep your 18-55,
sell the 16-50,
buy 55mm oss.

a7, a7ii and cheap vintage lenses.

xt20 + 18-55.

gfx50

>>3079514
>12mm
Just set it at f/4, everything from 1m to infinity will be in focus.

>>3079514
Sure. But you typically don't really need AF with such a lens. And it is in a fairly sweet spot with regards to value.

If your budget was higher and you could pick up a nice FF body and lens, I would recommend something else (like the Loxia 21mm, Batis 18mm or newer Samyang 14mm on this system). But that's a much bigger upgrade.

>>3079401
you can't get anything substantially better for under 1000. 1500 yes.

>>3079521
Is that really how it works?

>>3079584
Look up hyperfocal distance and the fundamentals of depth of field

>>3079582
Yeah i realised that.

File: DSC09080.jpg (1MB, 1042x1500px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1042x1500px

>>3079382

I went from one of these and some vintage lenses (mostly pentax-m) to an A7 for £700. It was the best purchase I have made and helped improve my photography greatly. I still don't have any native lenses for this camera. But It doesn't hinder me at all, well perhaps with portraits but being diligent will make up for this.

You probably don't need the advantages of newer lenses and neither do most of the people on this board.

Here's a recent photograph using I think a Nikkor 35mm f/2 which was £35

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-7
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	4000
Image Height	5757
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2017:05:21 17:42:16
Exposure Time	1/125 sec
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Brightness	2.9 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1042
Image Height	1500
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

>>3080037
Ok...don't see why you had to do an exposure of 1/125 on that picture though.

>>3080076

If you genuinely don't understand why:

It's mid day - quite bright outside. ISO set to 100 and lens at f/8 or 16 to remove light, reduce noise and increase focal depth. 1/125s is the appropriate shutter speed for the correct exposure. It's good practice to keep it at least above 1/100s for handheld work. even with wider lenses. I was on-top of a fence taking this and a tripod would be impossible to use. I was also on a snapshit wander before getting on the train - I would not bring a tripod along.

If you're criticizing - try pick out something less baseless.

If you're shitposting - get better at it.

>>3080087
Ok makes sense

>>3080087
>>3080037
>brightness 2.9EV
>blown out everything
Nice shitpost

>>3080780
>blown out
>no highlights were clipped
canunfags jelly as fug.

>>3080780
White is white, not middle gray. Nothing is over exposed. You should calibrate your eyes.

>>3080786
White is clipped like crazy you hack. All the raw adjustments in the world won't cover that up.

>>3080798
get a real monitor.

File: Untitled.jpg (63KB, 430x486px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 430x486px

>>3080798
retard

>>3080806
Now show us the RAW you poser

Does anyone have any experience with the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 DC DN (E-Mount)? I saw one up for sale for about 180,- EUR and was wondering if Sigma can measure up against the Sony lenses.

File: Captureff.jpg (519KB, 2235x1275px) Image search: [Google]

519KB, 2235x1275px

>>3080830
>>3080806
>>3080804
>>3080798
>>3080786
>>3080782
>>3080780

I use the histogram to expose photographs properly so as little as possible is clipped. See I didn't touch the exposure one bit. In fact I really didn't touch the photograph that much at all.

There's some real gutter level idiots on this board.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Photographer	Ragnar Lochhead
Image-Specific Properties:

File: sigma_30mm_f_2_8_dn_for_918899.jpg (65KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 1000x1000px

>>3079382
Does anybody care about the Sigma 30mm 2.8 anymore? Amazing lens. Great general-purpose replacement for the kit lens.

>>3081481
it's basically the only option if you don't want to spend £250 to get any fucking lens

I'm sticking with my adapted 50 1.7 for now, cost £45 with adapter

the sigma is looking like the next choice, but then you lose OSS and shit. I'm still annoyed that lenses cost so much

>>3081481
No because they released the 30mm f/1.4, and they still leave out OIS on the lenses.

>>3081418
Proper exposure is not about clipping. It is about your subject being properly exposed.

>>3081624
the 1.4 is way more expensive

>>3081633
$200 vs $330. Hardly way more considering improved optics and aperture size.

>>3081638
The two extra stops are an undeniable advantage, but on pure performance I'm not sure if the 1.4 is demonstrably better

http://mirrorlesscomparison.com/e-mount-lenses/sony-35mm-f1-8-vs-sigma-30mm-f1-4-vs-sigma-30mm-f2-8/

File: .jpg (182KB, 1000x495px) Image search: [Google]

182KB, 1000x495px

>>3081639
Those comparison pics are inconsistent as fuck. For everything at f/2.8 one image the Sigma 30mm f/2.8 is better and the next the f/1.4 is better. Guy can't focus for shit.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2015.5 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2017:02:09 18:54:22
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	1000
Image Height	495

File: .jpg (155KB, 998x493px) Image search: [Google]

155KB, 998x493px

>>3081639
Like why even bother "comparing" when you're focusing on completely different things for each lens.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2015.5 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2017:02:09 17:32:19
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	998
Image Height	493

>>3081639
stupid question but I thought 1.4 was half of 2.8 so its one stop?

File: .png (61KB, 1186x438px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 1186x438px

>>3081639
Considering that the two versions of the f/2.8 should be the same optically, Sigma probably has a large lens variance. The f/1.4 is still far better optically. Only reason to get the f/2.8 is for compactness.

File: Screen Shot 2017-05-23 at 4.59.57 PM.png (299KB, 2464x900px) Image search: [Google]

299KB, 2464x900px

DXO rates the 1.4 higher than the old 2.8, and the old 2.8 higher than the new 2.8. The old 2.8 looks weirdly sharper across the frame than the new one.

https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/Sigma-30mm-F14-DC-DN-C-Sony-E-on-Sony-A6000-versus-Sigma-30mm-F28-EX-DN-Sony-E-on-Sony-A6000-versus-Sigma-30mm-F28-DN-A-Sony-E-on-Sony-A6000__1692_942_828_942_1102_942

>>3081649
stops are not a doubling/halving of the aperture number, it's 1 and 1.4 doubling alternately in a sequence;
1, 1.4, 2, 2.8, 4, 5.6, 8, 11, etc

>>3081658
>>3081651
Now how the heck did that happen?

>>3081661
Lens variance. Sigma and Sony are both bad at that.

>>3081651
The 1.4 also has pretty significant barrel distortion, which the 2.8 doesn't have.

>>3082292
Distortion is easily corrected in software. Apply lens profile -> Done. Even with distortion correction added in, the f/1.4 is sharper in the corners. Who pixel peeps corners anyways?

>>3079397
That's the joy of moopco, a shill in every thread.

>>3082306
It could still make a difference for video since the distortion pattern changes with the focus distance from the subject making it more difficult to correct.

>>3082545
Don't know about Sigma lenses but Sony ones are usually corrected in body. Some of the newer ones needed an update to work properly with 4K. Also
>using lens without OIS for video
>using f/1.4 for video

>>3079382
Fuji XT10. You should not look into any other camera.

File: 1493703740902.jpg (411KB, 1500x998px) Image search: [Google]

411KB, 1500x998px

>>3081418

>In fact I really didn't touch the photograph that much at all.
>Clarity +57

That's called a jason lanier.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D3
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 4.3 (Macintosh)
Photographer	JASONLANIER
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/4.0
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	878
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	16 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	100 dpi
Vertical Resolution	100 dpi
Image Created	2013:04:21 02:23:02
Exposure Time	1/125 sec
F-Number	f/4.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/4.0
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Subject Distance	Infinity
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	Flash, Compulsory, Return Detected
Focal Length	16.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1500
Image Height	998
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	None
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>3081651
>>3081658
can you fuckshits go a thread without referring to such shitty lab tests and actually just show some real field tests? have you ever made a purchase without ultra specific charts like these which don't even matter? fucking rent a lens and find out what works.

>>3082643
whatever the lab test says, my sigma 30/2.8 is great

>>3082642
eww. >This was not touched up
This picture is so photoshopped that the couple could have been shot in a studio and the rest of the picture would be stolen from some generic site.

>>3082620
I looked at it, looks like junk bruh. Photos off it are fucking bad.

>>3082643
>wahwahwah my camera changes its performance depending on if I shoot test charts or trees.
Said no one without an inferiority complex.

wtf upgrade to at least an a6000 to justify spending that much on a lens.

>>3081632

It literally is the same thing and always has been the goal for taking photographs back to the darkroom. To get the most out of your image you should prevent clipping and adjust in post to what is required.