/gear/ - Gear Thread

File: DSC01938-02.jpg (364KB, 1616x1080px) Image search: [Google]

364KB, 1616x1080px

First for What you shoot with is irrelevant


And there is literally no point to this thread

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	NEX-5R
Camera Software	Snapseed 2.0
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	0 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	350 dpi
Vertical Resolution	350 dpi
Image Created	2017:05:31 00:06:24
Exposure Time	1/400 sec
F-Number	f/0.0
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	100
Brightness	3.5 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	0.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1616
Image Height	1080
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

File: Screenshot_20170531-053240.png (265KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

265KB, 1280x720px

Which one /p/? Pretty much all the same price. Use case would be holidays, hiking and trading photos of Paris (where I live).

>>3086638
How much should I pay for a 645 film camera?

Is the mamiya a good option for 450 bucks with lenses and acessories?

File: 1493053570387.gif (2MB, 384x216px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 384x216px

>>3086643
>He doesn't own a lens the size of the observable Universe

>>3086647
Buy the x-t10, Abdel. Use it to shoot Africans selling grilled corn at gare du Nord.

>>3086647
Ricoh GR

>>3086666
Dust.

>>3086647

that 27mm is doo doo

>>3086667
Still better than X-Tranny

EOFY SOON LADS

File: ca3528is_1-770x770.jpg (69KB, 770x770px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 770x770px

Why are macro lenses always F2,8 or smaller? For some reason I always see all the lens makers copy each other in this aperture size. I have never seen a F1,8 or F1,4 Macro.

I got a zeiss plantar 50mm 1.4. How did I do ?

>>3086687
No need for shallower depth of field with macro shots. With macro, you're usually wanting more depth of field, not less, because DOF gets shallower as the focal point gets closer to the lens.

>>3086694
true, even 2.8 is uselessly shallow at macro distances. But if the lens was 1.4 you could use it as a general-purpose 50 at longer ranges, while still having the ability to stop it down and use it as a macro lens.

>>3086647

If I were you I wouldn't buy a Fuji to begin with.

But from those choices, X-T10 is the way to go.

>>3086649
>mamiya 635
Big, bulky, messy film holder, can rotate back (depending on model), workflow is the same as in the 67 models
>pentax 645n
bulky, fixed back, film can be loaded into cartridge, workflow is like on a program 135 SLR
I know the latter was very popular in its days so you might find one in good condition for a good price.

>>3086696
>implying you can't use an f/2.8 as general purpose
Gearfags are the worst.

>>3086696
>True, even 2.8 is uselessly shallow at macro distances. But since the lens is 2.8 you can use it as a general-purpose 50 at longer ranges, while still having the ability to stop it down and use it as a macro lens.

Fixed.

Also, 50mm macros are usually not 1:1, better to go for a ~100mm macro.

>>3086696
I use my 3.5 55mm as a general purpose on my crop camera.

>>3086699
what would you buy? apart from sony. i had a a6000 before and i didnt like the lenses

>>3086737

If you don't like Sony lenses you are gonna hate Fuji ones. A quarter of the lenses available, and most absolutely useless wide open.

Since size and weight is important for you with hiking and the like, I'd take a look at m43. bodies are roughly the same size as a Fuji or Sony mirrorless, but the lenses are absolutely tiny in comparison. Plus there is a massive selection available.

>>3086739
Alright thanks.I'll look into it.

File: just-wondering-clipart-1[1].jpg (45KB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 320x240px

what if jason lanier is actually moopco???

File: Size_VG.jpg (131KB, 700x345px) Image search: [Google]

131KB, 700x345px

Awww man, I wish Sony had consistent lens design like this. The new Voightlander lenses are so beautiful and uniform in their design theme. But they're so expensive.

That F1,2 in the middle is as expensive as that larger 65mm APO lens though, making me think the APO lens is the better value, since its glass elements are clearly more expensive to manufacture.

>>3086742


I like the rainbow prototype better.

And I wish Sony would just freaking decide on a control wheel. Some lenses are push pull manual focus, some are a switch, some have separate wheels for aperture and focus, others don't. Some focus wheels have acceleration, others don't. Annoying as hell.

File: 01.jpg (73KB, 700x473px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 700x473px

>>3086743

Woops, image.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	800
Image Height	600
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2016:09:23 18:16:32
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	700
Image Height	473

>>3086744
I think the redesign looks better. the texture on the grip barrel was reduced to small size, but it looks far more uniform with the other lenses when you line them up together.

>>3086638
What is the best possible material to shoot the highest quality of image?

>>3086766

Depends on what you are shooting.

Large format might work for landscapes, but not the best choice for sports.

>>3086767
Landscapes.

Btw I'm poor but one can dream eh.

File: new 100mm STF.png (65KB, 1195x483px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 1195x483px

Damn. Sony is getting really good at making portrait lenses now.

They have 3 portrait lenses that resolves above 40 MP now.

>>3086771
You know their lenses are good when the Zeiss is the lowest for sharpness. Now if they can just fix their QC.

>>3086771
>portrait
yay product photography, nay portraiture

File: 1454479_bd7e42e59fe7eb0978a104f4fe16ed26[1].jpg (155KB, 1000x838px) Image search: [Google]

155KB, 1000x838px

>Nikon Introduces Three Wide-Angle Lenses and Coolpix W300
>Among the wide-angle lenses:

>The 10-20mm/f4.5-5.6 DX AF-P is a consumer-grade, economy DX wide zoom using the AF-P pulse AF motor. The aperture is a fairly slow f4.5-5.6 with a 3.5-stop VR system. It uses 72mm filters. Price in the US is $309.95.
>The 28mm/f1.4 E AF-S is a high-end, fast wide-angle lens that completes a new set of f1.4 AF-S lenses, but it is the first wide-angle f1.4 that is also a E lens with electromagnetic aperture control. It uses 77mm filters is retails for $1999.95.
>The 8-15mm/f3.5-4.5 E AF-S is a fisheye lens. On FX, the 8mm end provides a circular fisheye image while the 15mm end produces a full-frame fisheye image. As far as I can tell, it is quite similar to Canon's 8-15mm/f4 fisheye lens. It has a bulging front element such that it cannot accept a conventional filter. The new fisheye is also priced similarly as its Canon counterpart: $1249.95

https://www.photo.net/discuss/threads/nikon-introduces-three-wide-angle-lenses-and-coolpix-w300.5499610/

File: P3100094.jpg (317KB, 1000x750px) Image search: [Google]

317KB, 1000x750px

Is there a good and free alternative for lightroom? My camera came with the olympus viewer which is okay but not really nice to use and lacks high dpi support, which is a must.
Affinity foto looks nice and is cheap but lacks image management. Basically something like apple fotos or aperture but on windows.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	OLYMPUS CORPORATION
Camera Model	E-M10MarkII
Camera Software	OLYMPUS Viewer 3 2.2W
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/3.5
Color Filter Array Pattern	14230
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	350 dpi
Vertical Resolution	350 dpi
Image Created	2017:05:31 16:00:26
Exposure Time	8 sec
F-Number	f/18.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	400
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	14.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1000
Image Height	750
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	High Gain Up
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

>>3086783
nope, just shell out the 10 bucks a month for Ps & Lr CC or pirate

>>3086783
>Is there a good and free alternative for lightroom?
Yes, pirated lightroom

>>3086779
>super expensive 28mm
>non-constant aperture fisheye
>rugged still probably worse than Oly Tough
Well at least the wide DX is cheap. And they finally have something like Canon's 10-18 for APS-C.

I'm looking for a cheap Canon DSLR that I can get for under 300. I just want something I can throw a cheap 50mm 1.8 on and snap portraits with. Preferably something still somehwhat relevant with decent quality.

File: SuperDISH121[2].jpg (11KB, 208x243px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 208x243px

Would it be fair to say that a digital camera is rather like a satellite dish? And the light which is being reflected by whatever it is you wish to take a photo of is the "signal" which you are trying pick up against the background noise created by the rest of the universe. And if you increase ISO setting it is equivalent to increasing the amplitude of your receiver. You have a stronger chance of receiving the signal, but you will also end up receiving more noise. Which can be filtered out, but with caveats.

??

>>3086821
> Decent
> Under $300
That depends on your standard for "decent" being very low.

But you can surely just look on Craigslist and eBay and keh and such and see what you can dig up?

>>3086842
It's not just a digital camera that acts like that overall with regards to ISO sensitivity. But yes, it's a reasonable analogy.

You also have another variable with shorter / longer shutter speed, though, since what you're trying to receive is ~constant you can accumulate significant enough a signal that way, or just average over it to get rid of a bit of noise.

File: pidgeon reacts to whistle.jpg (1MB, 3456x4608px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3456x4608px

>>3086787
>>3086788
you made me do it. here is my first edited photo using the auto tune for brightness.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	OLYMPUS CORPORATION
Camera Model	E-M10MarkII
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.9 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/4.0
Color Filter Array Pattern	804
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	300 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2017:05:31 18:19:05
Exposure Time	1/400 sec
F-Number	f/5.6
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	200
Lens Aperture	f/5.6
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Auto
Focal Length	150.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	Low Gain Up
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

File: ricoh_175843_gr_ii_digital_camera_1159252.jpg (386KB, 2000x2000px) Image search: [Google]

386KB, 2000x2000px

Looking for a compact everyday street shooter- thoughts on this or wait for the next version?

>>3086855
get the first version for cheaper. GRII added nothing useful

>>3086864

Is it bad that I want the Wifi....

>>3086868
Ask yourself why would you even bother using wifi? If you a phonefag that wants to immediately upload from the GR to your phone to some instragram crap them just use your damn phone instead.

A friend of mine got a killer deal on a Pentacks K1.
He comes from a basic Nikon 3300 with a 35mm and the kit lens.
It's a good idea to switch to pentax for newbie or it's too hard no matter the deal?

>>3086869

Semi-true.

I travel a lot for work so the uploading to Flickr is nice. And yes, instagram too. Plus being able to toss it into Lightroom on my phone is handy sometimes.

I have been looking for an original version and cant really find one, plus its such a cheap camera buying it new seems worth it for the extra $200 or w/e it is

>>3086871
Nothing wrong with changing system, but he is going from a lively ecosystem to a half dead system.

>>3086872
Have a look at the newer RX100, or the APS-C / FF MILC with compact lenses. Better WLAN and much powerful as devices overall.

That said, you can "retrofit" any older camera that takes SD card with a chinese microSD -> SD+WLAN adapter. They cost like $15, the actual storage is on microSD, and it'll provide an Wlan AP with SMB + FTP or such for you to use.

>>3086903
All cameras have terrible Wifi + apps. The problem with cameras is that they have to turn off the Wifi/BT to save battery, which makes it a tedious process to pair the phone and transfer. Only thing worthwhile is that Eye-Fi crap but that also drains battery. The fastest way would be microsd -> SD adapter in cam and swap it into a phone with easily accessible microsd slot.

>>3086916
> The problem with cameras is that they have to turn off the Wifi/BT to save battery
It's still only three relatively fast steps on the Sony ("play" ->fn-> transfer all / today's / selected images or menu->apps tab->open remote control app or menu->wireless tab->send to computer / send to smartphone are some ways that come to mind).
The phone side will then connect and do its thing (transfer data or offer you the file selection view to pull images or go into camera remote control mode) right after launching the smartphone app.

There also is NFC on some of the newer Sonys - if you also have NFC on your phone you can then just open the app on your smartphone approach the camera and it'll do trigger the configured thing on the camera-side (open app on camera, connect, transfer files, close app) automatically.

They're both rather good solutions - not terrible at all. Even if a few more functions and simplifications could of course be added.

> eye-fi
Sure, but I'd just get the $10-15 chinese variant.

You're right, it will probably drain your power at a 10% or whatever faster rate, but it is a cheap convenient way to get this done.

>>3086916
Panasonic is the only exception. Their app is great.

>>3086928 (cont'd)
Random guy's video for the NFC method:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JIi8kD7V8Qw

Almost no effort for the actual transfer.

>>3086930
Nah, the Sony app really is also okay.

They're even rated about the same on Google's store.

>>3086882
I know that, I was asking about how much "dead" the K ecosystem is

>>3086855
I was put off by the dust issues that plague so many people. It's fucking annoying reading people say things like "Oh I had to send my camera off to get cleaned every three months but it's still a great buy!"

Fuck that shit. Manufacturers should properly seal their goddamn lenses.

I am wanting a wide angle lens was looking at the Sigma 10-20mm f3.5 EX DC HSM but now Nikon is introducing a new lens 10-20mm should i wait to see how that one turns out or go with sigma?

>>3086968
For the $310 they're asking for, I'd rather get the Nikkor than the Sigma. Also, it'll be a newer design. Just make sure your camera is compatible with AF-P lenses.

>>3086797
>all of the 1.4 primes are pricey, but excellent. Or would you rather shoot Canon?
>Who cares? You get a neato circular fisheye on one end, and an updated fisheye zoom everywhere else
>The Nikon AW cameras are pretty good too.

File: ricoh-gr-ii-01.jpg (40KB, 830x467px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 830x467px

Hello, ricoh gr or rx100m4 for a travel camera?

Most online reviews point to gr, and I really like the photos shot with it I've seen.

But the case for rx100: I can get it significantly cheaper ($200 used from a friend), and apparently gr's jpegs are more washed out? (I hardly do any post-processing).

>>3086972
unsure how to check compatibly i have D3300 but i assume Nikon lens are compatible with the camera i have

File: 18697538_816161338540026_1152213840_o.jpg (123KB, 1920x1078px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 1920x1078px

Recently got this from a friend. Is this good for absolute beginner?

>>3086871
>got a killer deal on a Pentacks K1
where?

File: IMG_5965.jpg (3MB, 4320x3240px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 4320x3240px

Here is the collection of gear I am looking to trade for a nice DSLR + kit and lens. I would be willing to trade everything at once. Some of it is tested and working, some of it has issues, and some of it is completely untested.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon PowerShot SX210 IS
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/3.1
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Lens Size	5.00 - 70.00 mm
Firmware Version	Firmware Version 1.00
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	180 dpi
Vertical Resolution	180 dpi
Image Created	2017:05:31 14:43:15
Exposure Time	1/50 sec
F-Number	f/3.1
Lens Aperture	f/3.1
Exposure Bias	-1 EV
Flash	Flash, Compulsory, Red-Eye Reduce
Focal Length	5.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	4320
Image Height	3240
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Exposure Mode	Tv-Priority
Focus Type	Auto
Metering Mode	Evaluative
ISO Speed Rating	Auto
Sharpness	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Contrast	Normal
Shooting Mode	Manual
Image Size	Large
Focus Mode	Single
Drive Mode	Single
Flash Mode	Red-Eye Reduction (On)
Compression Setting	Fine
Macro Mode	Normal
Subject Distance	0.670 m
White Balance	Tungsten
Exposure Compensation	2
Sensor ISO Speed	160
Image Number	143-5965

File: IMG_5973.jpg (3MB, 4320x3240px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 4320x3240px

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon PowerShot SX210 IS
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/3.1
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Lens Size	5.00 - 70.00 mm
Firmware Version	Firmware Version 1.00
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	180 dpi
Vertical Resolution	180 dpi
Image Created	2017:05:31 14:45:09
Exposure Time	1/50 sec
F-Number	f/3.1
Lens Aperture	f/3.1
Exposure Bias	-1 EV
Flash	Flash, Compulsory, Red-Eye Reduce
Focal Length	5.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	4320
Image Height	3240
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Exposure Mode	Tv-Priority
Focus Type	Auto
Metering Mode	Evaluative
ISO Speed Rating	Auto
Sharpness	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Contrast	Normal
Shooting Mode	Manual
Image Size	Large
Focus Mode	Single
Drive Mode	Single
Flash Mode	Red-Eye Reduction (On)
Compression Setting	Fine
Macro Mode	Normal
Subject Distance	0.190 m
White Balance	Tungsten
Exposure Compensation	2
Sensor ISO Speed	160
Image Number	143-5973

File: IMG_5970.jpg (3MB, 4320x3240px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 4320x3240px

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon PowerShot SX210 IS
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/3.1
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Lens Size	5.00 - 70.00 mm
Firmware Version	Firmware Version 1.00
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	180 dpi
Vertical Resolution	180 dpi
Image Created	2017:05:31 14:44:23
Exposure Time	1/50 sec
F-Number	f/3.1
Lens Aperture	f/3.1
Exposure Bias	-1 EV
Flash	Flash, Compulsory, Red-Eye Reduce
Focal Length	5.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	4320
Image Height	3240
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Exposure Mode	Tv-Priority
Focus Type	Auto
Metering Mode	Evaluative
ISO Speed Rating	Auto
Sharpness	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Contrast	Normal
Shooting Mode	Manual
Image Size	Large
Focus Mode	Single
Drive Mode	Single
Flash Mode	Red-Eye Reduction (On)
Compression Setting	Fine
Macro Mode	Normal
Subject Distance	0.170 m
White Balance	Tungsten
Exposure Compensation	2
Sensor ISO Speed	160
Image Number	143-5970

>>3086984
italian camera shop

>>3086990
>>3086989
>>3086987
Your giant pile of shit isn't worth jack, much less a """"nice"""" digital camera
>>3086977
The D3300 is indeed compatible, but there are (not much) older cameras that aren't.

>>3086994
That's just a lie. I don't know why you'd try that when I have ebay sold prices to look at. The Olympus lens by itself is worth $25-45. Other items in there are around $20-40. I know it's not worth a fortune but it's not worthless either.

>>3086974
I'd prefer the RX100 IV even at a higher price.

>>3086980
1. Beginners are also almost best off with the best cameras and
2. It's a film camera. People may like their film cameras, but if you are learning or just generally shooting frequently it costs a lot more than digital, and thus I say a digital camera would be better.

Actually even a high-end digital camera is pretty rapidly cheaper in terms of TCO.

File: IMG_20170531_162159.jpg (3MB, 3036x4048px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3036x4048px

Going to Europe and want to do street photography. Got a X-Pro 1 I may use but I'd like to hear from you guys. Only digital.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Model	Pixel
Camera Software	HDR+ 1.0.147548766z
Equipment Make	Google
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.0
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Created	2017:05:31 16:21:59
Image Width	3036
Image Height	4048
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB
F-Number	f/2.0
Subject Distance Range	Macro
Focal Length	4.67 mm
Lens Aperture	f/2.0
Exposure Mode	Auto
Image Height	4048
Rendering	Custom
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Saturation	Normal
Exposure Program	Normal Program
Sharpness	Normal
White Balance	Auto
Image Width	3036
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Subject Distance	0.10 m
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Contrast	Normal
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Brightness	3.5 EV
ISO Speed Rating	135
Exposure Time	8339/1000000 sec

>>3087018
There are better cameras, but they would cost you a good bunch more.

And street isn't generally very "demanding" anyhow. [Though of course you could do technically nice photos most people really don't expect much other than situations from places they've not seen yet.]

I'm just going to guess you're still fine with the X-Pro1. It's not a bad camera.

>>3087019
Thanks

What would you pick? Ricoh GR 2 or Fuji X100F?

>>3087026
GR2 because you marry the lens not the brand. The GR2 lens is phenomenal. Fuji X70 would be my close second choice, fuck the overpriced X100 series.

>>3087029

Yeah. I've got an x100s and really liked the x100f when I played with it at the store. It's the camera the x100 series always should have been. I've always wanted a gr, but it's rumored to be at the end of its lifespan while the x100f is brand new.

>>3087018
Where in Europe? The 35mm f/2 has resolution in excess of the x-pro2's 24MP, it's a wonderful standard lens even if it's rather large. The 50-ish mm eqv. focal length is very classic for street photography of all kinds, but cannot capture narrow things or things where you'd have to squeeze yourself in for. (and the kit hood is bad. proper hood costs 60€ because japan man gone jew.)

>>3087033
>end of its lifespan
Oh, wow, so they stop working altogether at once?
How retarded are you?

>>3087039

I'd rather not pay full price when I can wait four months and get the newer model. Seems reasonable to me.

>>3087042
Be a good goy and buy Sony

>>3087044

Nah, I want something compact.

>>3087050
Your dick.

>>3087052

A little more compact. I need something that fits in my pocket, or at least isn't a burden to carry around all day.

>>3087036
Germany and Poland, thanks

>>3087067
So, the east bloc? Have fun w/ commie concrete block houses and such, definitely something I'd like to shoot one day as well.

>>3087111
Don't know if you're being sarcastic or not... Regardless, cheers! Kraków wasn't tainted by the war so alot of the architecture is not fucked up.

>>3086783
Gimp, XnView, UFRaw, Picasa, dozens of other free image manipulation programs. Between all of them you should be able to do whatever you want, but there may not be an "easy button" for the operation.

>>3086783
>>3087130
Mention Darktable, damn you.

>>3087117
Well, I suppose there's commie blocks in Britain as well. Ha ha, only serious.

File: img-smcpentax-fa31_02[1].jpg (170KB, 540x540px) Image search: [Google]

170KB, 540x540px

novice here, thinking of taking out a loan to buy one of pic related for my Pentax film SLR. thoughts?

>>3087166
>taking out a loan
Retarded.

Go get a job that doesn't depend on you taking loans.

File: 1460569416652.gif (364KB, 540x300px) Image search: [Google]

364KB, 540x300px

>>3087166
> Becoming indebted to fuel a hobby
Save the money and purchase outright. Have you actually looked at how much you end up paying for that lens?

>>3086742
>>3086744
reminds me way too much of smc takumars

>>3087175
That 40mm F1,2 will look insanely compact for what it is, once you put it in an A7 body.

The only thing that holds me back is whether the image quality will be worth the price.

>>3087166
I'm thinking you're an idiot.

>>3087166
It's a nice lens, but it's nowhere near a thousand dollars nice. I'd eagerly recommend it if it cost half what it does. Get an FA 35/2.0 or something.

Also the other anons are right and going into debt for a hobby is a very stupid thing to do.

>>3087166

>'should I take out a loan'
>expect at least $10k lens
>only $1k

You need to be 18 or older to browse 4chan.

>>3086739
>>most absolutely useless wide open.

This is incorrect

>>3086739
Funny, I've actually seen people complain about Fuji lenses being too sharp, but those were coming from photographers, not gear fags. Aside from 2-3 dud lenses the only time I see a Fuji looking bad wide open is when it's being compared to a faster lens that was stopped down to match, which no duh that will create a sharpness difference.

You're right about M43 though. Crazy small lenses, especially those Panasonic primes.

>>3087166
if you take a loan for a lens you have lost control of your life.

>>3087265
>>>3086739
>Funny, I've actually seen people complain about Fuji lenses being too sharp, but those were coming from photographers, not gear fags.

What were rhey shootong with before? A holga?

If not, I want whatever they are smoking.

>>3087281
Canon usually, L glass gets pretty soft wide open. Fuji's 56mm F 1.2 is sharper than the 85 1.2 L for example.

File: IMG_7300.jpg (2MB, 2000x2000px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2000x2000px

Have any of you, presumably working, made the switch from 5D 3 to 5D 4?

I shoot film and TV and wouldn't mind some better low light functionality..

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 5D Mark III
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.3 (Macintosh)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.8
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2017:05:19 14:29:10
Exposure Time	1/400 sec
F-Number	f/3.5
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	1000
Lens Aperture	f/3.5
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Partial
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	85.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>3087312
5D4 is an overpriced piece of trash.
They intentionally gave it awful video and the stills performance isn't any noticeably better in normal situations.

The pretty-confirmed rumors for 6D-II already look like it will be better than 5D4 while also costing significantly less than 5D4.
I guess they hope that by 5D4 being such expensive trash that now the 5D4 owners will replace it with the 6D2?

If you're not concerned with the price, then you shouldn't be using a 5D4 for video to begin with, get a real 4K camera elsewhere (not hack third party software that looks like complete trash and crops the image massively. There's not even One single video that looks good in 4k on youtube that was shot on a 5D-anything)

>>3087326
>thinly veiled sony shill

>>3087328
If you don't recall when the 5d4 came out the reviews were pretty "meh." I'm also holding out for the 6d mkII

>>3087312
Film and tv industry use sony a7s for low light work, everyone from the bbc to paramount use them.

>>3087283
On a lines/mm basis, yes, on a lines/sensor height basis, no. The canon still gives more apparent sharpness in a finished shot.

>>3087331
the only people that were truly disappointed were sony users that are too poor to own a 5d 4 anyway
the 5d4 is the industry standard in stills

The viewfinder on my mamiya rb67 is kinda loose/wobbly. Is this the same for anyone else

>>3087354
Eye level or waist level?

>>3087358
Eye level, I have a waste level but it's not with me now so I can't check if it will do it too.
Like it's moving sideways and forwards but it's tight up and down. Where it connects to the camera

what system has a good, sharp, not very expensive uwa to normal crop lens?
i want something like 12-35 1.4 or 2.0

>>3087369
10 - 1000mm f1.2 USM IS L

>>3087369
Mirrorless APS-C has 12mm F2,0 prime lens from Rokinon which is very affordable, and excellent optics.

>>3087372
i know about this lens, i wanted to buy it but... fuck... look at these results, 1:1 is much less sharp than my pentax-m 28mm 2.8 and it's like a 30 year old lens...
https://pixelpeeper.com/lenses/?lens=13719

>>3087369
12mm Samyang f/2 is reasonably on Sony and Fuji mirrorless cameras. That's by APS-C standards, of course.

You can get sharper FF wide angles - the problem is then however generally that they and the whole setup are not cheap.

The other Samyangs can also be recommended okay, be it the 12mm f/2.8 stereoscopic fisheye or 14mm rectilinear lens for DSLR or the other lenses.

>>3087374
It's not "much" less sharp, but yea, if you compare it to a 30mm Sigma Contemporary f/1.4, it is certainly a lot less sharp.

The problem is still that one is wide angle and the other is not.
Want something sharper? You're only going to get it at a higher price and only for FF or MF.

I will of course recommend that you use FF if you CAN afford it, but that seemed to be precluded by what you were asking for.

File: 23207621825_462bf61771_o.jpg (307KB, 1146x815px) Image search: [Google]

307KB, 1146x815px

>>3087379
sorry, english is not my first language, look at picrel, it's not sharp by any standards, what's the point of spending ~$400 on a lens that get's outperformed by 30 year old glass?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-6000
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.7 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2015:11:07 16:00:26
Exposure Time	1/200 sec
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	200
Brightness	0.2 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Hard
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Hard

>>3087380
What's the point of asking for UWA recommendation, and then turn 180 degrees and circlejerk about 28mm lenses?

Proof that pentackfags need a bullet to their head.

File: 12mmf2.jpg (384KB, 736x707px) Image search: [Google]

384KB, 736x707px

>>3087380
The point is ultra wide on APS-C. If you don't need wide or ultrawide, go for >25mm lenses, they're sharper.

Also equivalent FF / MF lenses are sharper. So if you want the sharpest possible wide angle shots, pay up for the higher end of FF / MF lenses.

Either way, a Pentax-M 28mm isn't outresolving a 12mm Samyang f/2 *regardless* of it being not a match for modern normal to tele lenses.

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

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

File: z.jpg (67KB, 964x696px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 964x696px

>>3087384
>>3087385
i'm comparing it to what i have, picrel is 1:1 from pentax 28, it was like $40 and tell me that is not sharper than >>3087380

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	NEX-5N
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.5 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2017:05:01 11:25:29
Exposure Time	2 sec
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Brightness	-8.0 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

File: bn.jpg (181KB, 1016x744px) Image search: [Google]

181KB, 1016x744px

>>3087389
another one, i think i missed focus a bit here

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	NEX-5N
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.5 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2017:04:12 12:25:57
Exposure Time	1/250 sec
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Brightness	3.5 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Light Source	Cloudy Weather
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

File: 12mmf2_uncropped.jpg (684KB, 1000x667px) Image search: [Google]

684KB, 1000x667px

>>3087389
It is not sharper than >>3087385, which is also 1:1.

And there is no point when you make a tiny 67KB image anyhow, or shoot something on a easy mode <24MP sensor. Problems of basically any kind will obviously get more visible at higher resolution's 1:1.

There is also no point since I can point you at a good modern 28 or 30mm or whatever no problem, even for APS-C. But there is not really any better wide angle for APS-C.

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

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

File: wtrh.jpg (87KB, 752x631px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 752x631px

>>3087393
shit... so even if i switched to canon or nikon i still won't be getting any sharper than samyang?
can you post more 1:1 from it? i don't actually belive that all the guys from pixelpeeper focused this mf lens correctly becouse sharpness is very inconsistent
picrel my pentax 1:1 closest focus wide open

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	NEX-5N
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.5 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2017:05:30 09:45:03
Exposure Time	1/640 sec
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Brightness	3.3 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

File: 12mm.jpg (713KB, 939x881px) Image search: [Google]

713KB, 939x881px

>>3087397
> shit... so even if i switched to canon or nikon i still won't be getting any sharper than samyang?
No, except of course with FF or MF cameras. On FF you can do this at 15mm:
https://www.flickr.com/groups/distagon15mm/pool/

Or this even better one at 20mm:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/61797979@N06/24707418316/sizes/o/

This sure starts to go into 1:1 pixel peeping territory, but the respective lenses are $2k and $1k,

Cheapest option will still be Samyang 14mm f/2.8 but it is not profoundly better than the 12mm on APS-C (=>it also won't really resolve anywhere *nearly* like your modern FF sensors. Forget 1:1 - reduce to 50% or less in all cases):
https://pixelpeeper.com/adv/?lens=13227

> can you post more 1:1 from it?
Closest focusing distance at f/2.

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

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

File: 12mm_2.jpg (630KB, 823x922px) Image search: [Google]

630KB, 823x922px

>>3087407
Closest focusing distance at f/4, again 1:1.

Both are uncorrected (don't even have the lens profile in my older version of LR) and handheld. Had to pick slightly higher ISO 640 vs 200 for the latter shot.

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

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

My uncle just gave me some of his old canon fd lenses. They are in good working order but there seems to be little patches of mold on some of the internal lenses. Is this something i can fix myself?

File: 12mm_3.jpg (518KB, 765x875px) Image search: [Google]

518KB, 765x875px

>>3087408
12mm f/4 at the very right side, center. It's not perfectly in focus, but it'd be soft and fairly distorted anyhow (though again, not really badly for an APS-C wide angle, I've seen worse).

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

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

>>3087409
well you have to be willing to take the things apart. How difficult it'll be depends on the specific lens and where inside of it the fungus is. But yeah, plenty of people disassemble and clean old lenses. Search for some guides and see if someone has taken apart whichever specific lenses you have.

File: 91EMu1ioUWL._SL1500_.jpg (277KB, 1500x1199px) Image search: [Google]

277KB, 1500x1199px

a buddy of mine wants to sell me a Nikon d610 body with screen protector. Nikon 50 mm f 1.8 , camera bag , 55-200 mm, and a 18-55mm for 1000 bucks. Is this a good deal?

>>3087456

same person, I just dont know if I could buy something better for 1000 dollars, it is used by the way

>>3087456
Seems quite okay overall.

>>3087460
Well, that also depends on what you want to do, but probably not easily.

>>3087456
why would you buy an FX camera with DX lenses

>>3087474

so DX lenses are made for cropped sensors? I'll admit I am abit ignorant to some of this stuff, but I had nikon d40 for years, I just want to shoot good full body portrait shots. I might just save my money for a better d40 lense

>>3087502
Yes. The 50mm f/1.8 is probably a FF lens, but the others should be crop sensor extras that aren't going to use the full sensor on a FF camera.

>>3087474
The 18-55 works from 24-55, albeit with soft corners.

>>3086868
Just buy an eyefi card

>>3086642
Hey I was going to post something but then I saw this comment and realized I didn't need to post anything. Thank you.

File: 1dX-1-700x289.jpg (40KB, 700x289px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 700x289px

>buy new $4,500 camera
>it is faulty
>have to deal with Sony U.S. customer support who has yet to even admit some are faulty
>http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/good-signs-a9-overheating-issue-seems-affect-small-bunch-cameras-probably-faulty-units/

Top Kek

>>3086987
Is that Minolta medium format? Its so big.

>>3087567
>poor little Sony guy

>>3087567
They are not even discussing cameras there.

It's a politics battle field. Lol it's fucking /pol/ in that article, not /p/.

Any advice for a future student of broadcasting? I took classes in high school, but I'm about to go to a state school to really study.
>Budget of ~$1k, can go a little higher or a little lower
>DSLR/Mirrorless form factor preferred. I've worked with full-sized camcorders before, too big for my purposes in school I think
>Camera more suited for video than stills preferred
Most of my experience filming has been on this: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1072752-REG/sony_pxw_x70_professional_xdcam_compact.html
I was thinking about an RX100, but I worry that I'll be limiting myself too much.
Also, I know jack shit about lenses. Spent most of my time in film classes editing. Would prefer recommendations with kit lenses (Or body + lens recommendations that stay around budget)
Thanks!

I wanna get into film, what cameras would you guys recommend for a beginner?

I'm setting myself a budget of around $100 for a camera body and a lens or two. $150 max

>>3087629
I think a Sony a6300 would suit you well. As for lenses you'd have to get a suggestion from somebody else, as I am not completely clear what your profession requires. The a6300 also has an audio jack for a microphone which I'm assuming would be good for broadcasting as well. Not to mention the AF for Sony is insanely quick and the video shits on its competitors.

>>3087631
I definitely want to stick with Sony if possible. I already posted it, but like 90% of my camera experience was on a Sony my high school teacher had.
I'll keep the a6300 in mind. Question: On Amazon, the A7s I is $150 more but has a bigger sensor, any thoughts about that?

>>3087026

I ended up going with the irix 15mm instead. Later fags.

What would you guys choose in the 500ish and under category. Mostly shooting motorsports, urban, and landscapes. Low light shooting a plus

Slightly newer crop frame a la d7100/60d/k-3/etc or
Slightly older full frame a la 5d mk1/d700/etc

>>3087630

minolta maxxum 7000i

File: LRM_EXPORT_20170602_115802.jpg (3MB, 4608x2592px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 4608x2592px

Total noob here.

I recently bought a used first generation E-M5 plus the 12-50mm kit lens. This also my first camera. Together with them I also bought two extra Olympus Zuiko lenses: 14-42mm and 40-150mm.

Yes, you read that right. Zuiko. Not M.Zuiko. I made a huge blunder making an impulse purchase.

Now the question is, should I trade those two extra lenses and add some cash for a Sigma 19mm f2.8 EX DN or should I get a Four Thirds to M43 converter?

What should I do, /p/? What's the best course that I should take in order to minimise my losses?

Thanks a lot in advance. I'm looking forward to your responses.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	OLYMPUS IMAGING CORP.
Camera Model	E-M5
Camera Software	Thio 9.10.1 (Android)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Created	2017:06:02 11:58:02
Exposure Time	0.4 sec
F-Number	f/4.0
ISO Speed Rating	800
Lens Aperture	f/4.0
Focal Length	15.00 mm
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/859167-REG/Samyang_SY14M_C_14mm_f_2_8_Super_Wide.html

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1051476-USA/canon_9519b002_ef_s_10_18mm_f_4_5_5_6_is.html

These were both recommended to me in the last thread as a first wide angle lens. I only have a EOS 60D and Tamron B008E. I'm looking for a good lens to compliment my Tamron one, and would be using it to take photos of landscapes, buildings, and city scenes where there's alot going on (e.g a crowd). I notice the Samyang doesn't have auto focus which I'm nervous about as photos I've taken using my Tamron lens with manual focus tend to not turn out very well, and a friend who's more well versed in photography than me recommended the Canon one. Is there another option I should be looking at, or what's the best choice here?

>>3087265
I agree that they're too sharp. I usually have to pull the clarity down, although thats true with most lenses nowadays because everyone is obsessed with sharpness and disregarding character.

File: Fujifilm-Optik-036-liten.png (560KB, 900x561px) Image search: [Google]

560KB, 900x561px

>>3087762
>>3087265
>>3087283
>>3087281

>year 29 of the heisei era
>wanting a painfully sharp lens
>instead of the superior 'fuji glow' rendering of x-mount

Sharpness fags, please leave.

>>3087772
I was opposing today's sharpness in lenses.

>>3087670
I do my motorsports on a D7100. The crop is useful, and there's little need for a larger buffer doing motorsports. It's got all the features you'd need. I'd skip the D7000 because I just dont like the 39 pt system very much.

Don't say no to a D700 for under $1000 with grip and CF cards either though.

No comment on crop Canon bodies, other than the 7D and 7DII. The 5D and 5DII have garbage autofocus, so that's a consideration.


>>3087720
EM1 and adapter

I scratched my sensor while I was cleaning it.

F

I know my entry level apsc camera is still fine, but I still want to upgrade to ff. I often find myself shooting in low light as well, so should I makr the investment?

>>3087871
Yes, buy a flash.

File: 2399469486_258344003c_z.jpg (104KB, 640x431px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 640x431px

Thoughts on the Rollei XF 35?

I got one and it looks like a nice little rangefinder. Only downside seems to be that its lightmeter depends on a PX625 mercury battery for reference voltage. Guess I could try to find and install a 1.35v voltage regulator. Would you say that's worth the effort?

>>3087876
I have an sb-500, I meant more about dynamic range and noise

can anyone in here recommend an (ebay) extension tube with AF for nikon F-mount cameras. I want to do some macro shots without spending a load of money

[NIKON] I have been using a 50mm prime lens for 2 years now and I'm considering buying the 70-300mm f/4.5-6.3 G ED VR. It's only 400€ and it doesn't seem to be too bad.

Should I get it or should I get something else?

>>3087931
What are you going to shoot with it?

>>3087932
I first got the idea to buy a tele because my brother plays football (soccer for you amerifags out there), but I think it would also be a good lens to have because a lot of the times I can't get close enough with a 50mm prime and I end up cropping.

>>3087879
Film photography isn't worth the effort and cost in almost all instances.

>>3087931
> it doesn't seem to be too bad
Could or could not be bad for what you do.

It's certainly not like your 50mm, but for the range between 70-300mm.

>>3087945
Okay digicuck, post 1 good digital photo with good color

>>3087737
The Samyang is fine. Even if you don't have a focus peaking camera (/ 3rd party firmware with that enabled in the case of Canon), you are generally going to shoot with the lens at infinity. It's the setting from like 1 meter away or something like it (go check how far it is exactly, but it's not far at all).

File: IMG_0915.jpg (2MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3264x2448px

MY NEW LENS MADE ME CUM

>>3087946
Post one good film photo.

And then I'm just going to piss all over it regardless if it's one of the few actually good film photos that has been recorded on a larger camera through a good lens to high quality film and scanned with expensive scanning gear over many minutes and then undergone proper digital post-production.

File: 616C8liRytL._SL1200_.jpg (83KB, 1200x901px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 1200x901px

Are there any caveats with the 55mm 1.8? Other than the silly price for a normal lens.

>>3087631
Other question: What are the tangible benefits to the a6300 when the a6000 is almost half the price? Seems like I should stay with the a6000 and buy a good lens instead.

>>3087963
Nah, it's just fine.

> silly price for a normal lens
The usual price for a high-end lens at that focal length.

>>3087871

What APS-C camera do you have now and what FF camera are you looking at?

>>3087983
A bunch. Better grip, better AF, better EVF, better video support, silent fully electronic shutter shooting, somewhat better sensor...

And the A6500 then again has a bunch of improvements over the A6300.

> Seems like I should stay with the a6000 and buy a good lens instead.
If the A6300 gets in the way of buying good glass you almost certainly should stick with the A6000.

>>3087948
You're right about the lens at infinity when I've been taking landscape photos with my Tamron lens. Is that linked to the camera body, rather than the lens? I also should probably mention I'd be more likely to be moving around while using the camera, rather than using a tripod and setting up each shot carefully. Would the Samyang still be a better option?

>>3087988
Alright, I'll keep that on the top of my list.

>>3088000
> Is that linked to the camera body, rather than the lens?
No, it's the basically the same for all typical short focal length designs, they tend to have their hyperfocal distance very close to the camera.

> Would the Samyang still be a better option?
Probably. It does have the possibility to choose a fairly big faster aperture / T-stoppage.

But of course at the very least the usual prime vs zoom preferences still apply. Some people just prefer zoom.

>>3086638
got a cheap panasonic GH2 coming in the mail, what's the best firmware for it? flowmotion?

>>3087963
The AF falls apart. Literally. It's glued together.
>>3087931
That's a DX lens. It's alright, small, a little strange in some of the design choices (http://www.dslrbodies.com/lenses/nikon-lens-reviews/nikkor-zoom-lens-reviews/nikon-70-300mm-f45-63-af-p.html).

Buy the AF-S 70-300 VR if you want full frame coverage, but at the cost of not so sharp at 300mm, and more weight. They go fairly cheap used.

>>3087927
Pick the cheapest one you can find with AF then, you god damn poorfag. Might as well buy a macro lens if you're going to end up paying out the nose for AF extension tubes.

>>3087837
[F]

>>3087922
What're you taking pictures of that you can't A) use a longer exposure for and B) can't just light with a flash? Are these pictures within 1-2 stops beyond your current camera's capabilities, or 3+ stops beyond? If the latter, even full frame's not going to help you.

>>3087963

For the price it is a steal.

One of the better ~50mm lenses ever made. Tough build, fast AF, and awesome sharpness.

>>3088092

>for the price
>$1000 fucking dollary doos

Lmao you cucks are too much.

>>3088113

lol
What scam shop are you buying from? It is ~$760 here.

You wont find an equivalent that will beat it without spending double.

>>3088114

Oh, you know, the usual scam spots like Adorama, B&H, Amazon, Best Buy, etc.

>>3088115

Must suck living in a third world country.

>http://amzn.asia/5doz4su

Roughly $760 U.S.

>>3088121

Oh no an overpriced lens that i'll never buy for a half-dead system is more expensive here noooooooooooooo

File: 1496316998001.jpg (38KB, 807x689px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 807x689px

What do you guys think the price for the new 6d Mark 2 will be?

[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	807
Image Height	689
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>3088126

Probably 1600-1700.

>>3088125
I checked and it seems like the Sigma Art 50mm as about the most direct competition lens isn't really any cheaper in the USA.

Neither are the Canon L or Milvus or Orus any other of the typical higher-end alternatives with a different sort of compromise, these seem to actually cost more.

So your point is probably that you're using some Chinese $50 lens or a crappy nifty fifty or something? If so, you are a fucking thrifty genius for using a much worse lens that actually is cheaper.

Hey guys. I'm really new to this sort of stuff and don't want to get shell out a lot of cash. I've decided to see if I can take decent shots with my iPhone but I've been trying to take portraits recently and they've really come out... awful. They always look like some sort of distorted thing. Anyway, upon doing some research, the camera lens seems to be the trouble (and my lighting choices actually).

Does anyone have any reccommendations for iPhone clip on lenses?

>>3088169
I don't think there are any lenses worth paying much for.

Just get whatever cheap novelty lenses you want off Aliexpress or eBay. They might add a bit of flavour / novelty to your photos and perhaps raise your interest to the level required to actually buy a suitable dedicated camera and lighting.

>>3088180
Hmm, sensible. Thank you.

File: DSC03731_1024.jpg (491KB, 1024x685px) Image search: [Google]

491KB, 1024x685px

Dat F1,4 25mm SLR-Magic lens.

It literally has twice as big aperture as the Canon lens, but they are same size overall.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-7M2
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2014 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	5748
Image Height	3844
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	2017:05:15 13:30:59
Exposure Time	1/20 sec
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	400
Brightness	-2.9 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	1024
Image Height	685
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Soft
Saturation	Low
Sharpness	Hard

>>3086689
You can exchange currency for goods. I'd say bravo, you did great!

File: s-l1600.jpg (130KB, 1600x1066px) Image search: [Google]

130KB, 1600x1066px

>>3087879
Do it. I just picked up an Olympus 35RC, and it's really fun to shoot with. I haven't gotten the film developed yet, so I'm hoping the light meter is accurate.

how does getting a Pentax SMC 50mm f1.2 for $10 sound?

>>3087986
D3300 and something like d750/d610/d800

>>3088491

And how long have you been shooting with the D3300?

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?

Does anybody else here like putting on their W I D E S T lens and walking around using the viewfinder, stubbing their toes as they misjudge distances between yourself and objects?

>>3088540
Not easily because focus peaking gives a good bit of a sense of distance.

But I guess I did misjudge a distance maybe three times or so.

I'd like to get back into photography but not sure which platform to use. I had a Flickr account and liked that I could see hits on my photos. I hate what happened to Flickr after it go "updated" which quashed my love for photography. (My computer at the time couldn't handle the new Flickr layout.) I moved to 500px but don't like that other than right when I upload, my photos get 0 hits. Is Instagram worth it? I just want a place where I can get comments and see how many views and where those views are coming from.

>>3088571
>My computer at the time couldn't handle the new Flickr layout
So it can handle it now? Just use Flickr.
Instagram is Facebook 2, now photos are mandatory. Plus a little bit of Snapchat. Plus livestreaming. Don't use it unless you treat it like a lite blog where you're documenting your life rather than taking interesting photos to share with people.

>>3088580
I didn't like how it laid out the photos. I liked the grid view, am I able to get that back?

I've been using an RX100m3 for a few years and love it, but almost always on auto settings. I mostly do landscapes while hiking, plus some street / travel. I want to upgrade to a bigger sensor and start taking photography seriously.

I'd say the a6500 is my perfect choice of relatively compact form and a 'real' camera for me to learn on, but it's fucking expensive, especially with a wide prime lens.

Should I shut up and pay the money or get an a6000 / a6300 and not worry about in body stabilization, I would be doing mostly handheld, so I feel like I'd be missing out.

>>3088604
Get an e-mount with in-lens stabilization, goofball

>>3086987
>>3086989
>>3086990
Everything but the SRT is garbage, and even then the SRT is worth $50 at most. I doubt anyone would even trade you a D40 for all that stuff.

>>3088506
2.5 yrs

>>3088571
>>3088580
Is Imgur meme?

>>3088657
Imgur is not a website for sharing photos- not really. Imgur was founded so that Reddit users could link to an easy-to-use image database because Reddit didn't allow direct uploading of photos at the time. As time has gone on, Imgur has become bloated to the point where it has become a social media platform in of itself where the goal is to post images that people will award you internet points for. Nobody will give a shit about your photo of a water fountain, or your landscape, or your street photography, or your flowers. People just want to see funny or weird shit. And if anyone does like your stuff, they'll be inclined to download it and post it for themselves so that they can steal your internet points.
Avoid.

>>3088604
> but it's fucking expensive, especially with a wide prime lens
Fucking expensive is relative. Can still be under $2k for x years.

Well, the A6500 or A7 II are surely preferable in terms of features, but could probably make do with an A6300 or A6000 if you need to.

Pick a faster shutter speed than you were able to on a RX100m3 and it will also compensate a lot of body movement. And/or start using a tripod / monopod eventually.

>>3088611
Or that. I don't recall any APS-C wide angle primes with OSS, but there is the 10-18mm f/4 for around $700, I think.

>>3087634
The a7s is a video camera more than a stills camera.

The a7ii on the other hand is a great option, full frame, ibis, great build quality.

>>3087963
I'm super stoked on mine, beautiful lens.

>>3087983
A6k has shit af and a shit evf, if you plan on adapting af lenses the a6k is garbage. If af isn't important, get a 2nd hand a7 for about the same price.

>>3088113
Mine was under £500, sorry you live in africa.

>>3088180
Lol, check the poorfag. I got my 55mm a couple of months after launch, it now sells for more 2nd hand, this is common among any top quality, desirable glass. Whereas 2nd hand junk lenses sell for pennies.

Buying the best lenses is much cheaper in the long run.

>>3088792
> Lol, check the poorfag.
Lol, check the idiot who doesn't look what the question to the answer was, or even read a whole two lines in total on the response and get suspicious about why "actually buying a dedicated camera and lighting" is mentioned.

The E-mount 55mm is fine, but you're not going to use it as clip-on lens on an iPhone.

> Whereas 2nd hand junk lenses sell for pennies.
Arguably, that is another purchasing tactic anyhow. Yea, you can buy cheap lenses "for pennies" if you're okay with them.

> Buying the best lenses is much cheaper in the long run.
It may be a great choice for quality and really, high-end lenses aren't THAT expensive so you might as well get some for your hobby. But it's not cheaper to use them than, you know, cheap lenses.

>>3088614

I don't think you'd be ready to jump over to FF just yet after only shooting APS-C for 2.5 years

However, it is your money and you can technically do whatever the fuck you want with it, so if you feel so inclined to jump to FF then do it. Just make sure you're picking the right FF camera for you.

>>3088711
Thanks. I don't mind people taking my photos and using them as wallpapers or for their blog. (Blog: if it has one of my photos shown in the blog post and they make a couple of bucks from advertising on said page, I'm not going to lose sleep over it.) I'll look at Flickr again and see if 500px has finally got the view stats that I suggested years ago.

>>3089041
>>3088506
>And how long have you been shooting with the D3300?
>I don't think you'd be ready to jump over to FF just yet after only shooting APS-C for 2.5 years
lmao what? Time has literally nothing to do with wanting to upgrade a format, it has everything to do with the requirements needed from that format. Don't give people advice if you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

File: ctgn.png (310KB, 455x450px) Image search: [Google]

310KB, 455x450px

I know the picture quality is shit and the actual branding in blacked out but does anyone how what camera this is?

>>3089079
that's a panasonic gh 2 or 3

>>3089057
>lmao what? Time has literally nothing to do with wanting to upgrade a format, it has everything to do with the requirements needed from that format. Don't give people advice if you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

I literally said that if he feels that inclined, to make the jump. Personally, I think that shooting APS-C for barely two years isn't enough time to really master it enough to where he'd have squeezed every last drop out of it, therefore "needing" FF. It seems like the guy who asked the initial question is just upgrading for personal preference, not out of necessity, in which case it doesn't matter what he needs because it's what he wants.

I can understand where he's coming from because I know that feeling of wanting to upgrade something because it seems like it will do so much more, that's all, so I was trying to advice him to consider it a lot more before making that switch over to FF.

But apparently I'm an idiot that doesn't know anything, never change /p/

I'm looking for a smaller telephoto zoom. Any suggestions? As far as I know, my options are looking for the "smallest" 70-200mm+ 2.8 or settling for a f4 lens.

>>3089105
>I'm looking for a smaller telephoto zoom
It'd help to know what system you're using.

>>3089106

Nikon full frame.

I have a super zoom for now to cover that focal length. The sharpness is fine, but the slowness really hurts indoors.

File: DSCF5686-2.jpg (301KB, 1000x663px) Image search: [Google]

301KB, 1000x663px

If you had $2k, which camera and 35mm lens (or equivalent) would you buy?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	FUJIFILM
Camera Model	X-A1
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	83 mm
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	2017:06:03 17:46:51
Exposure Time	1/58 sec
F-Number	f/0.0
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	200
Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Brightness	1.2 EV
Exposure Bias	0.3 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	55.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1000
Image Height	663
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>3089108

70-200E 2.8 is the best one, but the priciest

>>3089108
This if you want to stay first party.
>>3089113
Tamron 70-200/2.8 VC USD G2 or G1 if you can settle for third party. G1 has more focus breathing that has been fixed in G2, both are weather sealed.
There is the old Macro version without IS, no weather sealing, and simple micro motor AF, it is soft wide open but a poremaster from f/4, it is the cheapest option with some compromise.

If you can settle with DX crop, the lightest option is the Sigma 50-150/2.8. It is discontinued though, but the image is superb.

>>3089112
A7 II + 28mm FE f/2 (yes, not 35mm exactly but the difference is pretty much a technicality).

Alternatively whatever Canon / Nikon FF camera brings the total to $2k with a Sigma Art / Tamron Di Vc. They're both good lenses.

>>3089105
No 70-200 f/2.8 is particularly smaller than the rest, not even old manual focus ones.

If you want something smaller you either have to settle for f/4 or a shorter maximum focal length.

I think the Sigma 24-105 f/4 is the best small-ish telephoto-ish zoom, especially since it collapses.

>>3089203
Thanks!

I saw few reviews of 28mm lens, it looks like a solid option too.

>>3089112
Second hand Nikon D750 with dito Sigma 35 f/1.4 art.

>>3089112
Pentax K-1 and FA 31 Limited
or Pentax K-3II with DA 21 Limited

File: 5091315_sd.jpg (13KB, 285x200px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 285x200px

First time posting so idk if it'll seem like bait but
I'm trying to get into photography
Mostly taking pictures of automobiles
And I found this camera at best buy, I have a gift card for best buy so I figured why not give it a try
Here's a link
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/canon-eos-rebel-t6-dslr-camera-with-ef-s-18-55mm-is-ii-and-ef-75-300mm-iii-lens/5091315.p?skuId=5091315

Also willing to take recommendations

>>3089244
Good one to start with, tracking AF sucks, so stick with slow or still subjects first. There are some workarounds in some situations to get nice results from faster subjects.
Learn exposure triangle, read Understanding Exposure from Bryan Peterson, look up tutorials on YT, shoot in RAW and learn to process in Lightroom.
Later on save up for a nicer tele lens for the track days, like the 100-400 L.

>>3089203

Why not the 35mm f/2.8 Zeiss? It is a pretty awesome lens and compact to noot.

>>3089256
Thanks anon I'll make sure to read that

>>3089257
Mostly because it's ~$800 rather than ~$400 and a little bit worse overall.

Plus the 28mm f/2 also has a reasonably interesting WA conversion lens.

The Zeiss is a bit more compact and some will like its bokeh better, but I don't feel that evens the score and justifies the price.

>>3089280

Ah yea. The Zeiss is down to like $550 here. I love the damn thing, but am not sure I would wanna pay $800 for it.

File: IMG_20170604_123750542.jpg (3MB, 4160x2340px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 4160x2340px

Picked Up a Jupiter 21m at a flea market.
Seems to be in near-mint condition. No scratches, extremely little dust, no worn down points, probably sat on a shelf in a collection for decades.
I heard there's a glare spot inside that can easily be fixed. Other than that, what should I expect?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Motorola
Camera Model	Moto G (4)
Camera Software	athene-user 7.0 NPJ25.93-14 16 release-keys
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2017:06:04 12:37:50
Exposure Time	1/33 sec
F-Number	f/2.0
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	64
Lens Aperture	f/2.0
Brightness	Unknown
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Average
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	3.64 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	4160
Image Height	2340
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Digital Zoom Ratio	1.0
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Soft
Geodetic Survey Data	WGS-84

I started getting into photography a little over a year ago and I was gifted an Olympus E-PL6 with two lenses: a 14-42mm and a 40-150mm. I'm starting to get the hang of it and I'd like to upgrade to something nicer but I'm a Poorfag and I my budget is $800 - $1k max. Also, is getting APS-C sensor that much better than M43 because I'd hate to have the lenses I already have go to waste.

File: 20170121_094515.jpg (538KB, 1000x1333px) Image search: [Google]

538KB, 1000x1333px

Check out this rig.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	samsung
Camera Model	SM-G930T
Camera Software	G930TUVU4APK1
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.7
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	26 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	4032
Image Height	3024
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2017:01:21 09:45:15
Exposure Time	1/30 sec
F-Number	f/1.7
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	160
Lens Aperture	f/1.7
Brightness	1 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	4.20 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	4032
Image Height	3024
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Unique Image ID	C12QSJB01SB

http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/interesting-a9-heating-test-slower-sd-cards-cause-overheating/

>a9 overheating caused by slow memory cards

T O P K E K
O
P

K
E
K

>>3089347
> Also, is getting APS-C sensor that much better than M43 because I'd hate to have the lenses I already have go to waste
It's not nothing, but not a huge difference in all cases either.

File: justify my purchases.png (100KB, 639x543px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 639x543px

Did I do good, /p/?

I don't know much about photography but I'm looking to buy a decent camera for about $100. By decent, I guess I mean the best bang for the buck at that price.

I'm an amateur florist on the side and I'm mainly going to be using the camera to take pictures of my flowers. I can't afford macro lenses yet, but I'm looking to do the best I can with a DYI light box and everything. :) I'm getting tired of taking smart phone pictures!

Nikon Coolpix L810 & L820 fancy me a bit. I like the look of these bulky cameras (although they're of secondary importance) and they seem to have decent specs?? I'm seeing them for about my price range on ebay.

Are these cameras good? If anyone could recommend an alternative I'd highly appreciate it.

>>3089488
>$100
For that price, you're better off just getting better with your phone.

>>3089490
That's what I have been hearing too on /reddit/ but I did want to exhaust knowledges.

How much should I be willing to spend on a decent budget camera for this purpose?

>>3089488
you're not really gonna do much better than a smartphone for $100. point-n-shoot cameras all have smartphone sensors in them, since smarphone sensors are cheap and tiny.

I'd save up more money. Proper interchangeable-lens APS-C cameras start at like $300 for recent-model used stuff. (Canon Rebel, Nikon D3x00/5x00, Pentax K-30/50/S2/70, Sony A6x00 ) With some nice lighting (which you certainly can DIY for not much money) you should be fine with the kit lens. And if not you'll be able to replace it - 50 and 100mm macro primes are available for all of these systems - some of them pretty cheap if you're willing to settle for manual focus.

But really, save up some money and at least consider saving up more after that.