/gear/ - Gear Thread

anime

File: 18557446_1274533779328765_1579687434154214286_n.jpg (164KB, 960x960px) Image search: [Google]

164KB, 960x960px

>>3080724
completely newbie here. what cameras or lenses do most japanese av guys use for that huge round butt style?

pic related but mostly because she has a huge butt..

What's a good general photography camera which doesn't need much maintaining or extra gear and with a decent price? Complete newbie here.

>>3080751
the a6xx series are all great for everything. may get shit around here because people hate sony.

>>3080751
Sony A77 would be excellent for you. No maintenance, cheap and a Sony. What more would you need?

>>3080752
>>3080755
Is the A68 an option, too? I'd rather drop the low-maintenance part for a bit of a lower price but still keep in mind that I'd like something that I don't need to buy something that wouldn't need a shitton of extra gear to get started with.

>>3080756
What the fuck did I write. What I meant is something that doesn't need a lot of extra gear to get started with.

>>3080757
You just need the kit lens it comes with. Maybe a shoulder bag and a cheap manual flash like the Godox TT600.

>>3080757
dont need any extra gear to play with the a6xx stuff either. the difference between the models are price and size. the a6xx are newer with more functions and really great lowlight/video performance but cost a lot more.

you can find these cameras second hand quite cheap. at least where I live

File: focallengtharticle.jpg (266KB, 600x453px) Image search: [Google]

266KB, 600x453px

>>3080747
Wide angle lenses

>>3080751
Used Sony RX100 Mark I to Mark III if you don't want to mess around with changing the lens, Sony A6000 if you do

>>3080760
this one seems first make it rounder?

>>3080765
Yes, that's what wide angle lenses are. Wide angle lens = wider field of view.

>>3080766
oh got it . Im an idiot.
her huge nose in that first shot is what I want lol

thanks

>>3080760
>went to make a passport
>they use a bloody webcam
>face looks like a sperg.

File: 20131028105946!Car_Fisheye.jpg (3MB, 4368x2912px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 4368x2912px

>>3080767
If you really want the fattest of asses then get a fisheye lens

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 5D
Lens Size	8.00 - 15.00 mm
Firmware Version	Firmware Version 1.1.1
Serial Number	1320800262
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2012:07:06 19:17:07
Exposure Time	1/60 sec
F-Number	f/5.6
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/5.7
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	8.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	4368
Image Height	2912
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Exposure Mode	Program
Focus Type	Auto
Metering Mode	Evaluative
Sharpness	Unknown
Saturation	Normal
Contrast	Normal
Shooting Mode	Manual
Image Size	Large
Focus Mode	AI Servo
Drive Mode	Continuous
Flash Mode	Off
Compression Setting	Fine
Macro Mode	Normal
White Balance	Daylight
Exposure Compensation	3
Sensor ISO Speed	160
Camera Actuations	16
Color Matrix	129

>>3080772
I can get an ultra wide, so next time I have dat ass over Ill give it a try. Thanks /p/

Would buying A7S for stills 95% of the time be very dumb?

>>3080776
also curious, saw the low light iso performance in a video test which was amazing, would that transfer to photos too?

>>3080776
>buying anything sony
yes, very dumb

>>3080776
It's a camera designed with video mostly in mind. Get an A7II or a proper DSLR.

>>3080781
Exactly. 12MB resolution seems to be kind of low, but I get the idea behind it. If it's enough for digital, then I'm ok with it.

File: DSCF4934.jpg (4MB, 4944x3280px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 4944x3280px

>>3080784
What would you suggest for good low light performance and with wide dynamic range?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	FUJIFILM
Camera Model	X-A1
Camera Software	RawTherapee 4.2.1148
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	83 mm
Maker Note Version	0130
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	4944
Image Height	3280
Compression Scheme	Uncompressed
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format
Image Created	2017:05:05 12:42:02
Exposure Time	1/850 sec
F-Number	f/0.0
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	200
Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Brightness	2.8 EV
Exposure Bias	-1 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	55.00 mm
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown
Sharpness	Normal
White Balance	Auto
Chroma Saturation	Normal
Flash Mode	Off
Macro Mode	Off
Focus Mode	Manual
Slow Synchro Mode	Off
Picture Mode	Aperture Prior AE
Continuous/Bracketing Mode	Off
Blur Status	OK
Focus Status	OK
Auto Exposure Status	OK

>>3080774
Remember to post results.

>>3080789
pentacks k-1

>>3080790
I think this is a sfw board..

>>3080792
It is.
But link to it on mega or whatever.

File: .jpg (58KB, 1000x666px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 1000x666px

So apparently Canon made both a 200mm f/1.8 and a 300mm f/1.8. And people still say Nikon makes better lenses.

File: .jpg (61KB, 800x420px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 800x420px

>>3080811

>>3080789
a9

>>3080811
>>3080812

yeah, they are everywhere, can't you see? every MLB match, swimming comp.

>not knowing about the legendary Nikon 6mm 2.8 fisheye

How much of a bad idea would it be to take a crop dslr with only 35mm on a hiking trip to the mountains? I want to shoot landscapes as well as my friends. Alternative would be the kit and bringing both is probably not an option

File: Sigma-FE-14-700x382.jpg (40KB, 700x382px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 700x382px

>Sigma is preparing the launch of two new lenses
>The first lens is rumored to be a 35mm f/1.4 (or f/1.2) FE autofocus lens.
Ohhh boy, Sigma is going to steal all the lens sales with this.

I feel sorry for the Samyang FE 35 F2,8 already. It probably won't even sell that much.

>>3080823
If Sigma continues to design it's lenses with hideous bokeh then the Samyang will sell pretty good.

>>3080820
>Nikon 6mm 2.8 fisheye
Everyone knows about the definition of a one-trick pony. And no, those f/1.8 lenses aren't everywhere, considering only 8000 of the 200mm and 4 of the 300mm were ever produced.

File: download.jpg (8KB, 226x223px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 226x223px

I fell for the buy used meme and now I have a 35mm 1.8 with seemingly dead AF, even though the seller claimed it was fine. Is this a common problem with these lenses, or was I just unlucky?

>>3080834
Once in a while you are bound to get a lemon, even with new lenses. But yeah, it is more prone to happen in the used market which is why you should've run a background check on the seller.
You can try wiping the contacts with soft eraser rubber to make sure it doesn't have any contact issues.

>>3080828
Sigma has more meme power, and poorfags always talk about them like the holy grail, whereas Samyang still hasn't proven themselves just yet.

>>3080838
>Samyang still hasn't proven themselves just yet.
only with respect to autofocus. Which they only recently bothered trying at all. The optics are already respected. The astro people have been raving about the 14/2.8 and 24/1.4 for quite a while. The latter is straight up better than Canikon's first-party lenses of the same specifications, especially with regard to coma, while being a third of the cost.

>>3080828
>>3080840
Has samyang fixed their quality control issues yet? The amount of lenses they sold in a completely unsuable state is unacceptable.

>>3080840

>astro
>14mm
>24mm

Kek... sky snapshitting is not "astro". Astro is a whole other beast, with actual challenges to overcome.

>>3080850
>bridge camera
It's shit

>>3080840
I agree the optics are sound. I use the 35mm 1.4 and it's fantastic except one stupid hangup... The lens can focus past infinity!

>>3080861
>The lens can focus past infinity!
Well, yeah, because it's better to be able to focus past infinity, and to be annoyed that you can't just turn the focus ring until it stops to set infinity focus, than it is to have the hard stop just short of infinity.

>>3080844
Anecdotally I hear its much better. It was for me, my 14/2.8 focuses past infinity like the other anon complained about, but it seems well centered, and the infinity mark seems to correspond to actual infinity focus. You can just turn the ring beyond that mark.

>>3080846
yeah yeah, we know all the deep-sky people love to look down on "landscape" astro. who cares.

Is there a camera that meets the following criteria:
-"Compact"
-APS-C sensor
-Hotshoe
-Mic input

I know I can go with a bigger bodied m4/3 camera that can do 4k, or a used DSLR. I was just thinking it would be neat to have the above features in a smaller body, and I know companies have been cramming APS-C sensors into smaller bodies. So I just wanted to know if any of them have put all of that together yet.

>>3080866
>>being able to focus past infinity is good
Never looked at it that way; most of the lenses I've ever used had a hard stop. Thanks for the new perspective!

>>3080867
EOS M5 my dude

>>3080870
I came around to that by running into that problem. I had an old manual-focus lens that I thought was just soft, so I didn't use it much, until one day I looked at magnified live view with it and found that it wasn't making it quite all the way to infinity. fifteen minutes on google and another fifteen minutes with a screwdriver later and I had a lens that went past infinity but was nice and sharp if focused precisely. I wound up actually getting some use from it instead of throwing it out as a result.

I think modern lenses all go past infinity just to give them a bit of slop space, since the point of perfect infinity focus changes slightly depending on temperature, zoom setting, etc.

>>3080871
M3 would do as well if the viewfinder is unnecessary.

>>3080880
>>3080871
Thanks for those suggestions anon. The M3 is pretty much what I am looking for. Will probably go for it if there's no other suggestions.

I suppose I should have clarified in my post that a viewfinder is not needed. Interchanging lenses isn't needed either.

So if anyone can think of any other cameras that fit >>3080867 while also being around the EOS M3 size, pls respond.

>>3080885
There's the X70 and X100, but I wouldn't consider either for video work. There's not many cameras with mic input that match the other requirements.

Sigma/Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 or Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4 as an upgrade to the Sony A6000 18-55 kit lens with a MC11 adapter? The 17-50 is nice because it's a constant f/2.8 but I'm thinking that having the extra reach will be more useful for an all around lens than a few extra stops of speed, because I'm more concerned about the extra depth of field than having the extra light on the sensor.

Am I better off just getting something like a 50mm f/1.8 for night photography and portraits and things like that and grab the 17-70 since it's more versatile than 17-50?

>>3080896
>mc11 adapter
Get a Canon 24-70 you faggot and an A7RII
What are you, some poor bitch faggot?

>>3080897
Thank you for the valuable input

>>3080899
kys

>>3080899
Not him but the a6k will focus poorly with the mc-11 even when using sigma glass in eff mount. You may be better off just using the 16-70 f4 even though it's got issues. It's cheaper than upgrading to the a6.3k and getting glass and the adapter.

>>3080904
Native Sony 16-70 f4 I should say.

>>3080904
I know that the focusing is bad but I rarely need to rely on the autofocus and there aren't any better fast standard zooms for APS-C E mount available, the native 16-70 is too slow

>>3080867
A6300 & A6500

File: Super_A_071111_11k_wex.jpg (14KB, 300x235px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 300x235px

Oh shit i just inherited a new camera! Im pretty green and dont know if its a good one. I've been using a Nikon N75, but today i found my grandfathers old pentax. I've been searching for a while after he passed away about a year ago. It's a Super A with two lenses a Tokina SD 70-210 1:3 and a Travenar MC 1:3 70mm. What am i in for? Looking forward to trying it. I think the viewfinder lcd's are screwed though. The little plastic tab on the top is loose (for lighting the lcd's) and i don't know if i should try to open it?

>Tfw I can fit my A6000 with the 18-55 kit lens in the front pocket on my hiking pants
Not pocketable my ass, mirrorless cameras are so comfy

>>3080918
Get an SMC A 50/1.7 and throw the two junk in the trash.

Hey guys, after getting some advice here. I was told my better option would be to go for a DSLR instead of mirrorless as a beginner especially for a low price and wanting both film and image. The initial choice was a a7000 but I want something inexpensive but with amazing photo quality (if possible , im happy to learn)

I was told the D3300 was good but also a canon would be good too. As a beginner with no experience, what would you recommend?

Thanks guys!

Talk me out of getting an baseline A7.

>>3080941
AF is nonexistent but it is better sealed than the A7rII

>>3080946
It does have PDAF which is reasonable for a mirrorless.

It just isn't super fast.

>>3080941
It's worse bang for the buck than the A7Rii in my opinion.

What focal lengths/shutter speeds should I expect to be using if I want to shoot a motorsport event (Indy 500, no credentials just a spectator)? I have 90, 135 and 180 primes (all f/2.8) as well as a 2x extender, but my setup is such that I cannot use a lens both with and without the extender in the same day.

>>3080928
The Nikdon D33200 is good but the only reason for why you're being told to not get a Sony A6000 is because people are butthurt because it always gets recommended, but it gets recommended a lot for a good reason, you can't really get a better value camera that it for less than $1000.

If you're a beginner then it's actually better to get a mirrorless camera because the electronic viewfinder means that when you look through the viewfinder you actually see what the picture is going to look like, compared to an optical viewfinder on a regular DSLR where you're just looking at the mirror in the camera that reflects what you see with your naked eye. It makes it much easier to learn how the settings on the camera interact with each other and affects your photos.

Is there any reason to use Adobe Standard over Camera Standard in Lightroom? I just realized I've been using Adobe Standard ever since I started photography, and while the difference isn't huge it's better to just go with what the camera is reporting, right?

>>3080941
Go for it dude. It's not as good as the upgrades but it's a small investment for toying around. Don't get it for anything serious or if you'll miss the money.

>>3080955
Thanks anon ! I'll go for the a7000? Or are you recommending a6000 over it ?

I need to find a kit lens and such right ? Problem is I'm unsure where to find am, I don't mind getting used ones though but I'm new to this lense stuff

>>3081006
>a7000
Does that even exist?

>>3081007
Oh sorry my mistake. I was going off memory so I assumed that was the one I was recommended before. A6000 is correct I was mistaken.

But anyway with the a6000 is it purely for pictures ?

>>3081010
It is extremely good at stills, but is also usable for video as long as you stick to AVC-HD codec it was initially built for.

>>3081014
Thanks I'll keep this in mind. Now to find out where to get one cheap

>>3081021
This a good deal or should I be looking for another type of lens?

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Sony-Alpha-A6000-24-3MP-Digital-Camera-Black-Kit-w-16-50mm-Lens-/332225847214?hash=item4d5a341fae:g:SfAAAOSwsXFZHXPO

>>3081030
even cheaper desu

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Sony-Alpha-A6000-24-3MP-Digital-Camera-Black-Kit-w-16-50mm-Model-ILCE-6000L-/282488210154?hash=item41c59c02ea:g:yfYAAOSw8lpZIemi

There's a photo store near me that is having sales on Canon lenses right now, and i'm tempted to buy one of the cheaper lens.

There's the 50mm f/1.8 for 159$ and both the 24 and the 40mm f/2.8 for 189 each.

So which one should i get? The prices are in CAD btw.

>>3081049
>price is in CAD

holy fuck it better be. In USD thats a god damn rip off.

If you're shooting aps-c, get the 24. If you're fool frame get the 50.

Is Photoshop's "auto contrast" okay to use for professional photos? I feel having Photoshop do it rather than me, a shoot will look more coherent.

File: EOS-20D_seethrough.jpg (30KB, 324x329px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 324x329px

Brand new to photography here and would like to take it up as a hobby.

I received a 20d with a 18-55mm lens for free and am wondering if it's worth trying to teach myself or if I should go with a newer platform.

Also any recommendations on what gear I should focus on next? Interested in shooting landscapes and indoor shooting for now but might brand out into something else.

>>3080724

Canon 5D mark IV, anyone? Experiences?

>>3081142
Should be good enough to get you started
Use it a bunch, find out what limitations you run into then move on from there.

>>3081142
Learn exposure triangle, read Understanding Exposure by Bryan Peterson, learn about diffraction and the issues it presents because it is not in the book. Shoot in RAW, learn to postprocess yourself in Lightroom, look up tutorials. Don't worry if your shots end up shit, getting experience is hard work in photography. Your camera is capable to start and even get excellent shots as well. It is not very good on higher ISOs so try to look for subjects that can be shot at ISO 100-400. Landscape for example is ISO 100 territory but you will need a tripod. Also for portraits get a cheap manual flash like a Godox TT600 and a pack of Eneloop batteries, or a second one as well to better control light on your subjects.
Have fun and shoot a lot.

ps.: Try to ask yourself after viewing your shots on the computer, what do you like or dislike, what would anyone find interesting in the shot. Giving yourself hones and hard critique is important, it will get you a better understanding of perception.

ps. II: Drop in to the Sarnehed and Jason Lanier threads to see how not to do things

>>3080952
1/60, 400 mm.

Seriously, you're not getting shit of the cars as a spectator at Indy. Lime Rock would let you get away with the 90, but the fencing and people will get in your way at indy. You're better off shooting environmental than focusing on the cars. Panning will only do so much for removing fencing and spectators, so you better be good at it.

So wait, the only reason for why people go "hurr durr the Sony A6000 has a nuclear meltdown if you try to record video on it" is only if you use the XAVC-S codec that has almost twice the bitrate that the camera was originally designed for? Maybe you're not supposed to shoot scenes longer than 10-15 minutes with that codec?

As a beginner should I get an a6000 with the 16-50 lens or with both the 16-50 and 55-210?

>>3081209
Get the 18-55, the 16-50 is a worse lens, and just stick to that to learn the basics and grab the 55-210 later when/if you know that you're going to need it. A long telephoto lens isn't going to serve much of a purpose if you only want to shoot things like landscapes and indoor stuff.

>>3081208

Well now, yes.

But launch firmware was fucked and it would shut down if it got moderately warm.

>>3081208
It works just fine for most people too, and when was the last time you saw a 5 minute shot in a film or tv show, let alone 10, 20, 30 minute shots that everyone here craves.

>oh but reportage

Get a video camera suitable for reportage then, sony is not the one for you, it's for artists.

>>3081208
It overheats just from leaving it on because the sensor has to work non-stop for the EVF.

>>3081217
Incorrect

>>3081209
As a beginner I would suggest getting a DSLR with kit lens first. Only get into mirrorless if you know what you are doing. Lumix and Sony are mostly for videos, Fuji is about in-camera JPEGs. The only exception is Olympus, but the MFT format has less leverage in low light. The PEN F looks lovely though.

>>3081209
Unless the pack with both lenses is ridiculously cheap, stick with the 16-50 pack to start learning, you can buy more lenses when you absolutely know you're going to use them.

Also, research some reviews for the 55-210 as most of the times kit pack-ins are lower tier lenses with 'meh' max aperture and build quality at best, and a complete dud at worst. Except for some rare cases, you'll want to replace them with proper stuff later down the road anyway so you can probably save some money in the long run if you stick with the 16-50 for now.

>>3081218
Are you saying you get EVF image when the sensor is off? Do you get this before or after the magical unicorns and winged marshmallows fly out of your ass?

>>3081220
The 16-50 is a horrible lens, fuck off!

>>3081217
No it doesn't, and even if it did you can just disable the EVF in the menu if you're going to leave it on without using the camera for whatever reason

>>3081220

Sony's 55-210 is kinda decent.

Nothing fantastic, but it isn't shit either.

Even so, it isn't worth more than $150.

>>3081223
Did I say otherwise? I was just warning anon about kit lenses and not buying more than strictly necessary (especially a fucking zoom telephoto) at the beginning.

>>3081217
That's just wrong anon, I can leave my a6k on for hours and it works fine, I've had it nearly a year and it's not had a single problem.

Why do the anti sony crew invent problems? It's weird, if you don't like sony, don't buy their stuff.

>>3081219
Nah, as a beginner, go mirrorless, evf makes learning the exposure triangle easier, cheap lenses and adapters make experimenting cheaper and easier, the smaller size makes it more tempting to take everywhere with you, the larger viewfinder makes framing and focusing easier.

The only reason to start with a dslr is some obscure "this is the way it was done for decades, so it must be better" mentality, which is straight up retarded as any film shooter will tell you, rangefinders are the much better choice.

>>3081221
The evf doesn't use a whole sensor readout, iirc it skips 3 out of 4 lines and has them on rotation, hence no heat build up let alone overheating.

File: 20057_24-1-8G_front.png (180KB, 700x595px) Image search: [Google]

180KB, 700x595px

Is there any particular reason why Nikon doesn't have a cheap 24mm 1.8 for DX, like the awesome 35 and 50 versions? It just seems like a weird oversight, as even 35 can be really tight on crop.

>>3080817
Good thing I'm shitting money.

But seriously, I will have some money to upgrade during the summer, but I started to look around too soon. There are few nice-on-the-paper options around $1k and I don't know what I want anymore. Well I kind of know, but the more I read, the blurrier it gets.

Be Me; Have to chance to buy a used Phase One IQ180 Set with two SK Lenses for Around 9000.-
Age; 07/2012 - Actuations; 200'000
Would you do it?

>>3081258
Just because I could? No.
Because I need it? Hell yes.

>>3081241
Going wider than 35 on a dslr requires fancy, expensive, heavy retrofocal lens design which makes no sense on crop as most people on crop stick with the kit lens.

As always, crop is a meme, just go full frame.

>>3081249
Low light is all about sensor size (larger sensor = better snr = cleaner shots), the sony a7ii can be had for 1k and not only has one of the best ff sensors on the market but also ibis which works with every lens you attach.

>>3081214

Thanks, I'll look around and see if any come with 18-55.

>>3081219
I think I'll stick with mirrorless for while. People have been recommending back and forth but seems like mirrorless is the most compact and I reckon it'll be easier for me.
>>3081220
Thanks I'll see if I can throw in some other lenses if possible.

>>3081258
I'd stick with a modern FF camera unless I needed to.

The FF cameras are better in terms of burst rate, AF and a lot more that makes the cameras more versatile.

>>3081209
I like the 55-210 better than the 16-50. The latter I sold almost immediately because in that focal length there are far better primes native to the system.

>>3081268
Oh btw. Anyone have any photos they've taken with an a6000 using the 16-50 just wanted to see some examples of how pics I take could turn out

>>3081271
google "Sony 16-50 flickr" and have all the photos to look at.
Prepare yourself to mushy CA ridden soft shots.

>>3081270
Like which ones ? >>3081270
Also if I'm buying a used a6000 what shutter count should I be looking at? Or better?

Don't wanna get scammed

>>3081271
No since I sold the lens almost immediately, but this should help (it's a more advanced filter over flickr, working from cache):
https://pixelpeeper.com/adv/?lens=13507&camera=1875

>>3081271

Here is an in depth review:
>http://www.kurtmunger.com/sony_nex_pz_16_50mmid344.html

>>3081264
What would be your field of usage?

Actually, i'm the opposite. The 'GAS' strikes again..
>>3081269
I could use my A7Rii besides for this points but mostly, i'm doing landscapes / cityscapes

>>3081273
>Like which ones ?
30mm Sigma f/1.4, 28mm Sony f/2.

Also recommending the 12mm f/2

> Also if I'm buying a used a6000 what shutter count should I be looking at
IIRC it's rated for about 150-200k actuations.

I figure most normal people don't do over 25k shots / year, so I'd think most listings will be okay.

> Don't wanna get scammed
Uh, arguably they don't know any more than you do when the shutter will actually fail.

>>3081277
I'll try see if I can get em cheap. As a poorfag student I've gotta budget it plus I plan to travel as to why I any a camera.

I saw an auction for one with 4k shutter count which threw me off.

So, So far what I'm looking at is:
A6000 w/ 16-50 kit lens, possibly throw in a, 18-55, 55-210, 30mm, 12 mm, 28mm.

These are all my options, I'm not looking to spend more than 400/500 hopefully what's the verdict?

>>3081276
What would someone use MF digital for? Studio perhaps, product photography and portraits as well.
You will need lighting accessories as well around half of that price as well.

>>3081276
> I could use my A7Rii besides for this points but mostly, i'm doing landscapes / cityscapes
That 80MP IQ180 surely has an advantage.

But I think you'll not be terribly limited with a ~35MP shot from a 18mm Batis or Loxia or whatever, or a blended panorama

>>3081279
>I'm not looking to spend more than 400/500 hopefully
It is quite the opposite if you are going with Sony, it is the most expensive consumer brand.
If you want the same costs, why not get an Olympus EM10 MkII with the kit lens and adapt a manual tele lens like a Canon FD 300 L? That would give you a good enough value for a low budget.

>>3081276
...typical sonygger

>>3081279
> I saw an auction for one with 4k shutter count which threw me off.
As you might guess, that should be no problem. Almost new.

> These are all my options, I'm not looking to spend more than 400/500 hopefully what's the verdict?
$500 is not going to make it easy to get much glass -even APS-C isn't THAT cheap for modern lenses.

And I personally would and did simply take the 28mm f/2 or the 30mm f/1.4 over the 16-50mm. Having a wider aperture & sharper lens to work with is making things a lot easier if you ask me, more so than having zoom. But YMMV.

>>3080821 what are your other options?

>>3080821
I frequently do that. If I need wider angle I just take a metering at the main scene, lock it and take panorama shots.
Try it and see if it fits you. If not, then next time take your zoom lens, even if it is a kit lens.

>>3081283
> it is the most expensive consumer brand.
Not really, neither for FF nor for APS-C.

Bodies and lenses with corresponding performance are usually more expensive on other brands, especially primes. Or even absent.

I guess there are a few zoom lenses that cost more than they do on some other brands, but then again basically every system has that.

> weak lenses can be had cheaper
Yea, you can also do this on Sony. Also one of the best systems to adapt old cheap MF lenses to.

>>3081283
Because m43 has sensors a quarter the size of full frame and no upgrade path. You're buying into perpetual under performance. Makes sense to get the system that can grow with you.

>>3080924
Or get a minolta 50 1.4 and scrap all the other shit

>>3080821
Not that great, it usually records more landscape details than "landscapes" as such.

But I guess you could also do worse than a 35mm.

I'd personally very much prefer to bring a ~ 12 to 20mm if I only brought a single lens.

> bringing both is probably not an option
They should easily both fit in a backpack or camera bag DESU.

Should I get a 50mm or a wide-angle after kit lens?

>>3081273
Shutter count doesn't make any difference unless it's really high, which it's not going to be on a camera released in 2014.

>>3081295
For what kind of subjects? And is that on APS-C or FF?

>>3081295
The one you use the most.

>>3081298
APS-C
So far I've done what every other beginner photographer probably does and photographed pets and nature. I'm going on a trip during the summer so that's why I'm leaning for a wide-angle. For all the landscape and building shots.

>>3080961
Pls respond

File: wide.jpg (518KB, 1000x693px) Image search: [Google]

518KB, 1000x693px

>>3081302
Wide (preferably ultrawide) for nature 'cause it's nice to be able to do snapshits like pic related.

Very sharp ~30mm-60mm for pets.

Not just because of perspective, but also because even the best wide angle primes you can get for APS-C are about as good as an average 35mm or 50mm prime in terms of resolving power and distortion.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	250 dpi
Vertical Resolution	250 dpi

>>3081308
Why is this shot so soft?

>>3081283
>>3081285
£500 I mean sorry.


Seems like there's alot against Olympus?

I'll try go for the 30mm and the 50-210? I reckon that's reasonable so I have something for fairly close and far. Are accessories necessary?

File: pentacks.jpg (18KB, 236x333px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 236x333px

Newfag desu.
I shoot Pentacks K-5 ... vintage lenses...
Someone explain dis Pentacks meme to me. Whut dis yo!?

>>3081310
Partly because it's a wide angle shot on APS-C (gets you already about halfway to that soft), partly 'cause I fucked up and didn't try to do digital post to reduce the visibility of the fuck up.

It only needed to be good enough to show on this =<1000px/1MB preference board why wide angle might be nice anyhow.

>>3081311
500 britbucks gets you a 2nd hand a7, which is pretty much an a6000 with a proper sensor and better evf.

>>3081314
Not much to explain, it's just a meme.
K-5 has shit AF on f/2.8 lenses. K-5II/IIs fixed this with a high flux center sensor. Since you shoot with old lenses it doesn't matter anyways.

>>3081323
Thx. Plan to upgrade to FF soon.
I knew something was off on my SMC Pentax-FA 50mm F2.8 Macro and the Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 DC EX HSM OS !
grrr... will try manual, see if the focus will be better.

>>3081321
Sounds good but most of the listings are over my budget sadly. Best bet is to stick with the a6000

>>3081241
Because nikon hates its customers.

>>3081332
K-1 has a vastly improved AF, both by hardware and by software, so you won't have any issues there. Even K-5II AF is considered to be miles ahead of the K-5.

>>3081350
I think they assume 90% of the cropcuck market is happy with the consumer zooms, and than the superzooms, they do shoot perfectly fine.

>>3081419
Face it, 90% of the crop market is soccermoms and goons using kit lenses and superzooms, they are not far off. If you want quality crop lenses at affordable prices then you should've went with Pentax.

>>3081295
check the exif of your photos and what focal length you usually use with your kit lens.

>>3081268
I would recommend getting the 12mm F2 lens as your starting lens from Rokinon or Samyang (same company).

It's more important for beginners to learn how focus works, and how the depth of field scale works.
Composition is something you learn to do as you crop your wide angle images in post.

>>3081492
kek

Tokina 100mm 2.8 macro?
Anyone here use it before and particularly like/hate it?

New to Photography,
Looking to do Photography of Architecture, buildings and landscapes.

What do you guys think of the Nikon D7200
with a Sigma 12-24mm lens?

>>3081553
Look at tilt-shift lenses. You'll appreciate their ability to correct perspective.

>>3081553
this >>3081555
But until you an afford a T/S lens the Sigma 12-24 will do nicely, the D7200 is a good camera. Alternatively you can get a D7100 which is cheaper but essentially the same.
You might want to get a 50-200 range zoom as well for landscape if the angle is smaller or you want compression in your composition.

How viable is it to get a vintage Canon portrait lens to adapt to an A6000? Is the image quality going to be doodoo compared to just getting the E mount 50mm f/1.8?

>>3081201
Thanks for the heads up - I'm not really into 'motion blur' style shots so it sounds like it's not worth carting big glass around - are the yellow shirts really strict about who gets near the photo holes? And would there be any chance of getting fence-free shots from the infield? My seats are at the pit exit

I want to move beyond using my phone for photography, but I also want something easy to carry around that I'll always have.

I'm looking at the Fuji X100 series and the Ricoh GR II. Are these too limiting for a newbie who doesn't know his style compared to a DSLR? Are there certain types of photos I'm not going to be able to take considering these are both fairly wide angle lenses?

>>3081631
The lens shouldn't look worse than it did on any Canon.

Whether it looks shit as compared to the native 50mm f/1.8 obviously depends on what Canon lens exactly you're going to use.

I'll also suggest to have a look at the Sigma 60mm f/2.8. Good cheap lens for many portraits due to how sharp it is, even if you can't go for a super shallow DoF.

>>3081640
I've heard that you can pick up good vintage lenses for pennies but I don't really know what to look for and I'll have to buy the adapter as well and the good adapters aren't that cheap.

That Sigma lens looks interesting but I'm leaning more towards the Sony because of the extra speed for stuff like night photography because I plan on getting the Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4 as an upgrade from the 18-55 kit lens, so I'll probably use that for portraits first hand unless I won't get enough background blur at the long end on the 17-70.

>>3081634
No idea m8. I've never shot from Indy, but you either get close with focal length, or close with positioning to get the best shots of cars. Otherwise, go wider and get the feeling of being at the Indy 500 captured. Panning is the staple of motorsports photography because nobody gives a shit about an isolated picture of a car going around a track for the umpteenth time at 1/1000. Look at other spectator photography to see what kind of pictures you can expect to get.

Why not just buy lenses with adjustable focal length?

>>3081670
Looks like the Motor Madness threads need to be revived.

>>3081672
Its a trade of quality vs versatility.

>>3081652
> I've heard that you can pick up good vintage lenses for pennies
Typically it's still a bunch of dollars unless you find one on a scrap yard or flea market or something.

> but I don't really know what to look for
Yea, maybe find that out first, unless you have some loose money you can spend on experimenting with random lenses.

> and the good adapters aren't that cheap
For most vintage lenses it's often not really that important to get a particularly good adapter.

You'll generally be just fine if you get a chinese-made whatever mount to E-mount adapter for like $5-15.

> the extra speed for stuff like night photography
Could help sometimes. But I'll caution night time shooting is generally more of a flash photography or FF camera thing. f/1.8 won't make it easy on an APS-C.

What is so special in APS-H? I know APS-C makeslenses lighter and smaller and FF makes wide angle easier and thinner DOF meme. What specialty does APS-H has? Why did older pro cameras come with APS-H sensors?
Genuinely asking.

>>3081690
> Why did older pro cameras come with APS-H sensors?
Because that's what they could make work, I guess? [IDK if the problem was sensor bandwidth or something else before that.]

At some point they managed to make FF work and basically nobody cares about APS-H now.

>>3081692
Yeah it was pretty much "we can't make a full-frame sensor reliably yet, or at least not for less than $20k a pop, here's the biggest we can manage to do"

>>3080844
I own two Samyangs, a Nikon-mount 85/1.4 and a Fuji-mount 12/2, and they're both great. I may have just gotten lucky though.

I actually just (finally, exactly a year after switching systems) got an adapter so I could use the 85 on my X-Pro2 and it seems to work great on it. Peaking makes it more usable than it ever was on my FF Nikons.

>>3081725
I also own multiple E-mount Samyangs and am happy with them.

One of them also focuses a good bit past infinity, but I think it's acceptable for how cheap they are.

I have D90 with a stupid ass kit lens from years back and want to get into photography. Is this a good camera at all?

>>3081766
I think it is not like it's so old that typical editors will refuse the file format it produces. You could just use it if you already have it.

But it's not a good camera at all in terms of technology. There are far, far better cameras (and better lenses) out now.

>>3081675
Soon. Although it's going to just be 306lightpainter if none of you guys went to daytona/sebring/spa/burgerring

>>3081766
Nothing wrong with a D90. About the same as a D3100 tech wise put with D7000 tier features. Maybe pick up a 18-55 VRII for a modest upgrade on the cheap.

Is an X100S a decent starting camera, or am I going to be too limited starting out by the single focal length? I want something that I'll always have with me.

>>3080724
Im pretty much sold on the sigma 70-200mm for my nikon d7200. is there anything I should know about it?

>>3081652
If you're gonna go sigma, get the 17-50 f2.8. The reviews are better, and the performance is better.

>>3081799
Why not the new tamron instead? Also do you need the 70-200? I bought one and returned because I thought I needed it, turned out I didn't

>>3081798
>Is an X100S a decent starting camera, or am I going to be too limited starting out by the single focal length? I want something that I'll always have with me.

Starting with a single focal length and sticking to it will do more for your photography than anything else. You might find it limiting, but try to work around it. Even being aware of the limitations is something that may not come to you if you have a wider array of lenses.

>>3081814
Seconding this, but also mentioning that if you ever get into another system, you will absolutely hate it if there does not exist a 35mm equivalent lens for you to use. Probably not as big a deal when you learn on a rangefinder than learning on a SLR though.

>>3081814
> Starting with a single focal length and sticking to it will do more for your photography than anything else.
Using only hot glue will be the best introduction to craft. Learning how to use cyanoacrylate at the same time is just too much for the ordinary craftsman.

> Even being aware of the limitations is something that may not come to you if you have a wider array of lenses.
Eh, you obviously learn the limitations of your lenses even when you have multiple.

Is the EOS100QD a better model than the EOS10QD despite the 10 having a higher model number?

100QD looks like a more pro level body and AF seems faster.

>>3081798

You will quickly outgrow it and want a real camera.

It has a very soft lens, the af is slow, and it has a terrible x-trans sensor.

You'd be better off with pretty much anything else as a first camera.

I'd recommend d3400 as a first camera. Nikon lenses have been around forever and you can find lots of things for dirt cheap. You could also look at a d7000, it is also around $500, but even supports old nikon screw autofocus lenses which are fantastic but dirt cheap.

Sony a6000 is worth a look when it is on sale, but right now it isn't and just costs too much.

>>3080941
I've had one for half a year now and i love it. I got it for relatively cheap ($700) and have learned a ton about photography by using old manual lenses.

>>3081856

kill yourself my dude.

>>3081805
Matt Granger(?) did test with Nikon, Tamron, and Sigma. Sigma autofocuses faster than Tamron. Also, there have been several instances where I went to take pictures at events(concerts, Wildlife, walking down the street, teaching children, etc.) where I just didn't have enough reach for the shot i wanted.

>>3081856
t. poor dslr dad

>selling gear online
>someone messaged on whatsapp
>+234
>check country code
>nigeria
>call them what they are
>reported spam and blocked
wew

hi i want to be a hipster

>>3081804
I've been looking at that too but I can't decide if I want the extra reach or the extra speed. I've also heard that the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 is better than the Sigma, the Tamron is sharper according to Dxomark, but from reading reviews it almost feels like it comes down to the particular lens the reviewer has. I might just get one of those instead and get the Sony 55-210 if really need the extra reach.

>>3081916
Fuji

>>3081799
The new Tamron with VC, G1 and G2 are sharper than the Sigma. With that said the Sigma is pretty damn sharp as it is, maybe has a bit of that hard bokeh that most of the Siga lenses have (induces some edging in the bokeh making a small distance range busy, if you know that range you can avoid it)
I have the older Tamron, non-VC, the one before the G1. It is pretty damn sharp as it is. You can't go wrong with either of them.
Don't get the non-VC though, the older design has a bit of softening wide open.

File: d800-inside-0600[1].jpg (77KB, 600x536px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 600x536px

I don't want to fuck with anything that isn't full frame. Is a used D800/E worth it?

So in terms of starting with a single focal length only, is the 35mm on the X100 (or even the 28mm of the Ricoh GR) a versatile enough focal length?

>>3082078
They're both wide angles. 28mm is wide enough to be pretty specialized. It's aimed at street photographers. But plenty of general-purpose point-and-shoots have been released over the years with 35mm lenses. You're just not going to be taking any head-and-shoulders portraits with one.

File: GzAX45umElo.jpg (39KB, 479x512px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 479x512px

What went wrong?

D800 was 5 years ago. Why doesn't this exist yet?

>>3082078

50mm was considered 'normal' back in the day.

But honestly if the x100 is gonna be your only camera you will be extremely disappointed.

Before long it will be gathering dust on your shelf and you will be back to using your cellphone.

>>3082126
They're going to announce a ff camera this year, I thought it was going to be d850

>>3080724
35mm is the GOAT FOV, and don't let anybody else tell you otherwise. Also don't take close up, frame filling portraits.
>>3082054
Depends if your priority is IQ or speed/AF. I'd stick with a D700 for the latter.

>>3082120
So you'd say the Ricoh is too specialized?

I really liked the size and figured I would carry it everywhere and thus take more pictures.

>>3082168
It's great as a camera for taking everywhere, and fine for taking pictures of groups, or portraits that also get a lot of the environment around somebody. Just not great for typical close portraits.

any recommendations for a cheap point and shoot to get me started? There are a lot of options and I'm kind of overwhelmed

>>3082170
Portraiture is probably what I'm least interested in, so maybe it will work for me.

File: camera-sensor-size-12.jpg (62KB, 903x670px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 903x670px

>>3082171
Not knowing your budget (cheap means $100 or $300?) my advice would be:
- Ignore "superzoom" bridge cameras that resemble small DSLRs in shape
- Look at sensor size instead of megapixels (pic related). Bigger sensor = better picture quality, easier to take clear pictures in low light conditions.
- Compacts AFAIK go as high as APS-C. Try to get at least a 2/3" sensor (don't mistake with 1/2.3"!). Smaller than that is dangerously approaching smartphone cam sensors and a high-end smartphone you might already have in your pocket will most likely take better photos.

Try to narrow your search down with this info + your budget and come back with more details so we can help you better.

>>3082171
An older Sony RX100 or a used Fuji X10 or X100.

What's a good hot-shoe microphone for a mirrorless camera?

If it matters, the camera is a Panasonic Lumix G7.

>>3082183
this

Looks like canon got btfo by sigma yet again with the 100-400.

Same sharpness as the canon 100-400v2 but less than half the price. Red ring cucks on suicide watch

>>3082212
Is it weather sealed? The 100-400II is WR.

File: 367x550.jpg (30KB, 367x550px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 367x550px

How do I select all photos with the same shutter speed / iso / f-number in Lightroom?

Picture unrelated

>>3082126

because they released the D810 in 2014. We're getting a new one this year though

>>3082321
inb4 same sensor with pushed gain and fucking Snapbridge slapped all over the thing.
I predict it will be the D7500 of the D8xx series. As in lackluster.

>>3082322

checked

time will tell. angry man predicts/speculates it will be like a d500 in FF, which is an interesting concept.

So will the a6000 never be $450 with the kit lens again?
Used to be easy to find but I haven't seen a decent deal since the beginning of the year.
Is the camera too popular now?

>>3082329
It might have hit hipster cred, meaning it will only increase. Look for used or refurbished deals.

>>3081838

that's a retarded analogy my man.

If I buy an A7 would I be pretty much forced to use an adapter to get affordable decent quality lenses? Everything native seems either mediocre or expensive as fuck.

>>3082396
Yes, expensive ones as well.
Just get a DSLR like the D810 or K-1 and you will be good to go.

>>3082396
Lots of decent quality lenses out there that aren't expensive, and you'll need an adapter for them.

Check out Minolta, Nikon AIS, Canon FD, Pentax SMC, Zeiss Contax C/Y, Konica.

Or check out the Samyang/Rokinon manual focus lenses, which are relatively affordable for native lenses.

If you want AF, you should probably buy first-party.

>>3082396
> either mediocre or expensive as fuck
This is also the case for vintage lenses. People just generally content themselves with mediocre or below mediocre if they go for cheaper vintage glass.

None of the vintage lenses (never mind the cheap vintage lenses) are anywhere near the current high end like the 90mm FE or 50mm f/1.4 ZA or such. They're usually not even a good match for the "mediocre" lenses.

Hi please give a suggestion:
Canon 6d or Nikon 750?
And why
P.S I want to shoot little video stuff.

>>3082439
Canon 80D

>>3082439
A7 II or Canon 80D or GH4/5 perhaps.

Pretty much all of these should be better with video.

>>3082444
Don't forget the G80/85

>>3082437

There's a huge range between, like, Vivitar and Leica. There's decades of affordable SLR lenses that were the flagship optics of an entire industry, and they aren't suddenly bad now. Maybe some of them won't resolve well enough to match a 48mp sensor, but I'd call that a specialized application, and there's more to a lens than resolution, especially with how few people print nowadays.

>>3082458
I print some of my shots. The better ones. One per A4 usually, I only did several once, with 4 image sequence on one A4. The images alone were not special but next to each other came to life.
I mostly do wildlife though.

>>3082439
I love the Canon 6D. The Nikon 750 is a modern camera though so it will perform better in almost every metric. Neither is ideal for video. I don't know how the video on either are but I think Canon is better known for video than Nikon. Definitely look elsewhere for video. With video usually the newer the better. With stills older is usually good enough.

>>3082396

Sony has quite a few awesome lenses under $1k. Only three e-mount lenses are 'bad' (16-50mm, 16mm, SEL50F18F[mainly af speed]).

>>3080751
Fuji XT10. No doubt.

File: kit.jpg (123KB, 720x583px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 720x583px

>>3082589

SEL50F18F just got a new firmware update a few hours ago that is supposed to improve autofocus.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	FUJIFILM
Camera Model	X-T1
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/3.5
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	105 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	720
Image Height	583
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2016:06:30 21:41:23
Exposure Time	1/18 sec
F-Number	f/11.0
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	200
Lens Aperture	f/11.0
Brightness	5.9 EV
Exposure Bias	0.3 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	70.20 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	720
Image Height	583
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>3082458
> they aren't suddenly bad now
Has generally nothing to do with any suddenness, no.

The high end lenses of some decades past are simply mostly barely matching the midrange now due to fairly steady progress over the last decade or so. That's all there is to it.

> there's more to a lens than resolution
It's the primary determining factor for whether a lens is "mediocre" or "good" for most lenses, but sure, there are other factors.

Of course almost all of the other relevant parameters will be better on a modern midrange lens than on some higher end vintage lens regardless.

> especially with how few people print nowadays
That made higher effective resolutions and sharper lenses overall more attractive on average, not less.

>>3082644
The key word is "supposed"
It doesn't actually. You can improve it for one situation in lab clean environment but in the real world it is just as bad as was before.

>>3082737
Bullshit,

Post a timestamped image with exif.

I bet you can't.

I installed this update this morning and the af is smoother, it's never going to be lightning fast, it's a cheap lens with decent glass and plenty of high quality alternatives; if you need instant and silent af, get the 55 1.8 or 50 1.4 or the samyang 50 1.4, or any sigma/canon mount 50mm.

>>3082741
I don't need to own it to know it's shit pal

>>3082743
Not me

>>3082741
Tried it out in the store. TheAF hunts, hesitates and misses focus half the time unless you stop it down to f/5.6 where everything will be in focus anyway. Went back to my crop 35mm screwdrive.
Reminds me of the early K-5 AF issues on f/2.8 and faster lenses, the focus missing was very similar. In that case it was the AF sensor, with the SEL50F18F it might be ghosting or internal reflection issue in IR.
I read something about IR recently that screws up focusing, You might be better off with an IR filter on the lens to improve it's AF.

>>3082744
>>3082741
Ah, found it. It's a good read, gives a better understanding on the nature of light and focusing issues.

http://bobatkins.com/photography/technical/focus_vs_light_source.html

>>3082744

The biggest negative if the SEL50F18F,is Sony put a crappy AF motor in it.

It actually got LOUDER after the first update, because they were just revving tge motor higher. Though it was vastly improved, I wonder if its life was affected?

Hoping this one eliminates the hunting completely, will install it when I get home and find out.

I have yet to see it with updated firmware in a store btw.

>>3082744
>comments on fw update that came out today being shit
>justifies it by saying he tried it once in a store, probably still on launch fw on a body still on it's launch fw.

Fuck, you're a bigger moron than I had originally anticipated.

>>3082757
You do realize here in Europe the shops open earlier than in the US?
And what do you have against me dropping in to have a chat with my friend? They had an A7rII on display with the 50/1.8, the firmware was updated as soon as the new one came out so I tried it out.
I am sorry it didn't comply with your idealized view on the world.

File: 002A_canon_powershot_a520.jpg (32KB, 400x300px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 400x300px

I need a camera that produces good quality pictures with realistic colors, fits easily in my pocket and costs $30 (used).

In my youth I had a Canon Powershot A520 and it was phenomenal for its time. The colors were lush and pictures were sharp, clear and realistic. I remember paying like $400 for it. A few years ago I got a newer Powershot, a Powershot A1200.
It's still the crappiest camera I've EVER used. Every picture it takes is grey and blurry, despite the lighting. It makes me want to delete everything I've shot with it. What happened, Powershot? How do I know which Powershots are shit?

So, I need you to tell me which of the old pocket cameras were so good back in the day that you can still take good looking pictures with them.

>>3082815
NOPE

>>3082815
Tldr senpai.
>Use your phone phone

>>3082819

>phone

No. Just no. People who think modern smartphones can replace an older pocket camera are just wrong.

>>3082821
You are wrong. Old pocket cameras are trash compared to newer phone cameras.
Anyways look for a used Fuji X20 maybe.

>>3082815
I had a Powershot S400. It was pretty good when I didn't know anything about photography. Worth a shot?

I need a pocket camera that can top a Nikon D3200 in image quality, and I want it to be as cheap as possible.

>>3082815
Anything under $300 new will have essentially a smartphone-tier sensor inside. Your current smartphone will most likely take better pics if it's at least a premium mid-ranger.

>>3082828

Any APS-C compact should match it.

Only think that will surpass it is RX1, and the pricing on that is a fucking joke.

>>3082830

I don't even own a smartphone because I'm not a sheep who need inturnets and facebooks everywhere he goes.

And I'm definitely not gonna spend 700 bucks on a telephone just to take pictures that a $30 Canon can take.

>>3082834
lol

>>3082815
>with realistic colors

Learn to post process.

All digital color is computer generated anyways.

>>3082841

You can't create something out of nothing.
That's why better cameras allow for more post-processing.
The Powershot A1200 literally takes irreparable pictures. You can't make them look decent.

What do you think of these?

>Sony Cybershot DSC-WX1

>Canon PowerShot SX200

>>3082876
Both are tiny sensor junk

>>3082815
You can *wish* for good things to be arbitrarily cheap, but it's not going to happen.

The hobbist to professional photography gear generally costs $400-6000, and even smartphone users easily seem to drop an extra $300+ just so their smartphone camera is better.

File: IMG_5728.jpg (177KB, 1200x900px) Image search: [Google]

177KB, 1200x900px

found a 5d mark iii with a canon 70-200 2.8 for $2100 should I snag it?

was contemplating a a7ii with a 55mm lens so I'll be spending close to the same either way I go

pic related

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1200
Image Height	900
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>3082876
Not interesting gear, too weak.

Personally the minimum I'm interested in even just using is the upper midrange of APS-C or somewhere near the upper end of compacts (RX100 V was pretty good).

>>3082889

I used to own a Samsung NX2000.
Staggering image quality for 200 bucks. And this was 5 years ago.
By this logic I should get the same quality today for $50.

>>3082895

My budget is under $100. Should've mentioned that.

>>3082893
I think they're both good cameras.

If you wanted to use a 70-200 f/2.8 a lot, maybe the Canon is the better deal.

I'd personally go with the A7 II because I care not much about the 200mm end and more about the extremely nice normal to short telephoto primes the E-mount has, and the easier ability to adapt older lenses + stock focus peaking.

>The new Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 III is the best compact camera that we've ever reviewed, period.

>>3082900
Closest thing to interesting might be a Chinese action camera? At least they have somewhat interesting video capabilities and compactness.


That said, I'll actually do something else entirely if a <$100 camera is the only thing available. Not worth my time any more than fixing up my house with only bent nails. (Maybe something could be done with that, but it's not worth the hassle and not fun).

File: pixlr_20170525172702162.jpg (2MB, 2048x2048px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2048x2048px

The other day I found a Minolta enlarger lens for £8 at a charity shop in pretty much perfect condition. While playing around with ways to mount it I found a old Industar 69 in a drawer which has an almost perfect length. So I did some work on it, glued the enlarger lens on top of the focus mechanism and created this... Thing..

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Pixlr
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Image Height	2048
Image Width	2048

>>3082938
take pictures of some stuff with it and post the results

>>3082893
Honestly I wouldn't buy a lens without IS if going on a canon system

but thats just me, I like to dip really low whenever I can at longer focal lengths. I'd suggets the a7ii.

>>3082949
I use 500mm without IS. It's not that hard.

>>3082893
Pretty much along the lines of what >>3082904 said. Neither is a bad choice in general, but it really depends on what your interests and goals are.

>>3082951
unsteady hands run in both sides of my family and after a small cup of coffee or tea i find it hard to be as shake free as i can get

Nikon D3200 vs. Samsung NX2000

Which one should I pick as my first camera? Picture quality is all I care about.

>>3082962
d3200

>>3082956
200mm without IS is not an issue, I find it hard to believe someone would want IS on a standard or wide or even UWA lens to be able to shoot steady shots.
Quit being a pussy and man up, or go to the doctor to sort out your parkinsons.

>>3082962
D3200

File: KOMPARISON.jpg (1MB, 2240x2880px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2240x2880px

>>3082965
>>3082970

As far as I know, NX2000 takes better pics.

Here's a comparison, both are shot by me with their kit lenses and no post-processing.

And this is not cherrypicking. No matter what I shoot, Nikon's pics look like shit compared to the crisp epicdom NX2000 creates.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

>>3082978
Samsung is dead in the camera business.
You get loads of good lenses for the Nikon, the used market is huge whereas nobody cares about Samsung cameras.
Marry the lens, not the body.
Also you can go for a D3300 too.

>>3082980

This is true.
I broke the lense of my NX2000 trying to shove the whole camera in my pocket. (It is 3 times smaller than Nikon D3200).
But much to my dismay I soon realized that lenses for the Samsung simply didn't exist.
It's sad really. The way the Samsung NX2000 processes pictures is very interesting, and I can immediately tell which ones I shot with Samsung and which ones with Nikon as I browse my photos.

>>3082978
>epicdom
eugh, you just gave me late 00s flashbacks in the worst way

>>3082978

>direct sunlight is "dim lighting"
>overcast shade is "bright lighting"

wut

>>3082985
Also missing focus and probably due to Auto mode, tiny aperture and diffraction.
Those comparisons are pure bullshit.

>>3082830
You can always get a new canikon babby dslr kit for abt 300€... And despite not being what gearfags cream their pants for, they actually are quite decent these days. Great sensors, good enough lenses and lots of features, although buried in menus.

>>3083020
Yeah, that's exactly what I meant. 300 is usually the price point that separates garbage sold by the megapickle with smartphone sensors for normies that don't know any better from actually half decent and usable entry-level stuff.

>>3083020
At 300€ CaNikon do their *very* best to give you many reasons to upgrade.

On a glance, it's like they're selling you a pretty decent car on a first glance with an okay engine. But then you realize there is no trunk and you can't adjust the seats or mount anything on the roof which really fucks up comfort and cargo carrying ability. And a lot of other details.

It's just bait offers, after you're on their system, they REALLY intend for you to upgrade to a D7x00 or 80D or so where eventually you see cameras that are no longer fucked up for virtually everyone.

Save yourself the pain and just get the 80D or D7x00 or better from the start.

>>3083028
...or just get a Pentax

>>3083029
That might also work.

Unlike CaNikon, Pentax is not really going nuts on gimping the cheaper cameras.

>>3082815
>
So, I need you to tell me which of the old pocket cameras were so good back in the day that you can still take good looking pictures with them.

Fujifilm F10/F30/F31fd

>>3083035

>not mentioning Sony cybershots which featured the exmoR processor that revolutionized life

I kind of want a camera as a whim. Am I going to regret buying a used Canon EOS 20D?

>>3083141
Buy a 40D instead if you want a cheaper older mid-range camera. Make sure it has at least the kit lens.

File: dsr_1500_hire.jpg (464KB, 1821x1427px) Image search: [Google]

464KB, 1821x1427px

My dad's got hundreds of MiniDV tapes filled with family videos, is there any benefit in using a deck like pic related over just transferring the videos to his PC with the camcorder over?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	ACD Systems Digital Imaging
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	500
Vertical Resolution	500
Image Created	2009:02:11 13:38:29
Image Width	1821
Image Height	1427

I hear there's a firmware update out for the SEL50F18F. Does it resolve the issues people had with the AF on that lens?

Is there any compact mirrorless with at least a Micro Four Thirds, a zoom lens, decent resolution and under $1000?

Closest I could find were the Panasonic LX100 (only 12MP) and the Panasonic TZ/ZS100 (1" sensor, that zoom tho). There's also the expensive as fuck Leica Q that can't record video for shit and the Ricoh QR that's just crap.

Goddamn.

>>3083195

It is betger, but still not up to the rest of the e-mount line, at least not on my a7ii.

A bunch of lenses got updates yesterday, most likely to add a9 support.

>>3083200
Is it slow/inaccurate/does it hunt?

How would it compare to, like, a Canon 50/1.8 on a Canon body?

>>3083202

When focusing, it always goes past the focus point and then comes back. This adds a good bit to focus time.

Besides that it is accurate and fast (the movement, it always goes past which adds time). It never hunts, an it does seem to hit it quickly after that initial backtrack.

I haven't used the Canon 50mm f/1.8 on a recent canon body to compare.

I'd say worth it if you can find it for $150 and are on a budget. If you can afford the 55mm get that instead.

I'm relatively new at photography and want to get my first telephoto lens. What do you suggest in the $400-600 range?

>Canon 50mm 1.8
>Tokina 11-16mm 2.8
>Sigma 18-35mm 1.8
>Sigma 30mm 1.4

I own these lenses and I shoot Canon APS-C.

>>3083211

I forgot to add but internal mechanism for zoom/focus is a plus, as well as nonrotating focus. I take it internal is a longshot for telephoto but worth a chance.

>>3081295
If you need to ask then stick with your kit. You will know what you need in due time. You are trying to get ahead of yourself. Your gear doesn't move your photography forward. Your photography leads you to different gear.

What are some of the best modern point and shoot cameras? I love my DSLR but have been looking for a compact option for when I want to travel light

Want it for photos, but good video is a plus although I'd rarely use it.

>>3080789
D 7 1 0 0

File: 1488505224700.gif (976KB, 500x281px) Image search: [Google]

976KB, 500x281px

>>3080823
Sigma coming in again for the poorfags.

>>3083280
Ricoh GR II

>>3080870

>being able to focus past infinity is good

Definitely is if you want to use extension tubes.

File: DSC00298.jpg (340KB, 667x1000px) Image search: [Google]

340KB, 667x1000px

>>3080941
Lenses that aren't Zeiss or part of the G series are shit, and ones that are part of the Zeiss/G series range from decent (24-70 f/4) to great (Batis line) but cost substantially more, AF is meh, battery life is ABYSMAL at around 250-300 shots depending on who you ask (But it's honestly workable if you come from the perspective of a person who shot exclusively film), the EVF was mind blowing a couple of years ago but it's been surpassed twice over by the A6500 and A9, and it lacks weather sealing while its direct competitors do.

That being said, I still like my A7 for what it is and for the $700-800 price that they sit at now it's a decent option for entry level meme frame; especially so if you're like me and have a bunch of older lenses kicking around.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi

File: tokina-firin-roadmap2_1474623083[1].jpg (161KB, 1000x863px) Image search: [Google]

161KB, 1000x863px

>>3083282
Sigma has so much meme power, they always make the poorfags salivate.

The same poorfags aren't even aware that Tonika is scheduled to release a ton more AF lenses probably for cheap too.

File: I woke.png (290KB, 316x292px) Image search: [Google]

290KB, 316x292px

>>3083295
I knew about Samyang last year, but damn I didn't hear anything about Tokina. I guess that's because I never visit Sony forums or places like Sonyrumors.
It's about time that the 3rd party poorfag companies are making FE lenses.

>>3082779
Bullshit

Also, I'm from eu.

>>3082893
Depends on how full sperglord you want to look.

>>3082969
However steady you are, you will still get 2+ stops out of ibis/is. Anyone can shoot a 200mm lens without ibis and get sharp shots, the difference is I can do it at 1/50.

>>3083296
Tokina want $800 for their manual focus 20mm, it's also fucking lush.

>>3083296
Even people who visit those rumour sites aren't aware that Tokina is about to unleash a bunch of FE lenses.

That's how important meme power is. It makes a huge difference.

>>3083317
>$800
Ouch. That also makes me wonder if Mitakon will release lenses since their 0.95 memes are around that price range.

>>3083211
Get a Tamron 70-200/2.8 VC USD, G1 or G2, both are great, then later on a 1.4x TC to extend it to 280mm plus the crop factor. 2x TC if you want longer reach, the lens sharpness can take it.

New Thread

>>3083360
>>3083360
>>3083360

>>3083295
wouldn't be caught dead mirin that firin' bro...

>>3082589
You forgot about the 55-210

I found this old telescope in my parents' attic.
Are telescope to DSLR adapter universal or are there different types of telescope fittings?
I really want to use it with my Nikon.

hi there fellow gear-fags!

i'm thinking about getting myself a (used) nikon d750 in the near future. do you think the prices will drop significantly when nikon releases the d750's successor? rumor has it that this is going to happen at the end of the year, and that nikon is going to release something big as part of their 100 year anniversary...

shooting with a d300s as of now, but i guess an upgrade wouldn't be the worst idea, especially considering iso performance.

any thoughts?

Is Nikon d3400 good or is there anything better for this price range?

So if I take a picture with a DSR at 1/250 F2 .8 1600 iso and then switch to medium format film and shoot it at 1/250 f2.8 400iso I just have to get the film developed pushed two stops right?

>>3088505
correct assuming the DSLR was correctly exposed