/gear/ - Gear Thread

Can't decide on long lens. Canon 400mm f5.6l or 300mm F4l. Can't afford zoom and don't want one. Also, looking to buy second hand. Anyone who's used both or has any insight either way? Cheers

>>3105515
>get 300 f4 IS
>get 1.4 TC
>???

Now you get IS and a not ancient lens, for the same aperture and slightly more FL.

>>3105519
I've thought about that. What can I expect in terms of image quality loss? I'm looking at a 300mm made in 2006, any known issues with that era? I cant really even afford this lens so I really do the want to fuck up

I am absolutely fucking sick and tired of working with Fuji's X-trans RAWs.
I don't know why they had to be a special fucking snowflake with this shit.
Would it be incredibly foolish of me to sell my shit and spring for the GX85?

Is it worth it to sell my 8 months old Pentax k50 with kit lens and get used Pentax k5 which is probably 5-6 years old (but it has low shutter count)? I'm a eastern EU poorfag.

>>3105587

I'd be hesitant to go to a m43 camera, but that is just me. I'd be looking at Sony or a Nikon DSLR.

You didn't know how shitty the x-trans was gonna be? Everyone bitches about it.

File: 1dc99d63ee440e93d6fcfda54eae478b--between-reflex-camera[1].jpg (49KB, 593x800px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 593x800px

I don't know wether I should get a Hasselblad or a Rolleiflex.

I've been eyeing a 3.5 Tessar for 400 near me but I might as well save up for a SWC Hasselblad even though that goes up to 1200 around here... Ah, idk. 500 c/m are not really an option since they go for 800 and for a couple hundreds more I could get the SWC.

Any opinions on both? Pros / cons ?

(Ideally I'd get a Mamiya 6 or a 7 but I find it impossible to get one that doesn't go for 2000 - 3000 almost)

Okay, let's say I have FF and APS-C sensor and two identical FF lenses. Would FF give faster shutter speed if i shoot them with same ISO, focal length(i.e. 50 on FF and 75 on APS) and aperture?

>>3105600
fuck, the other way around, 50 on APS and 75 on FF

>>3105593
Flexes are lighter
Flexes' glass are slightly sharper (assuming you get a good one) but Hass' are on par I think.

>>3105523
The prime with a TC (even 2xTC) will be much sharper than a zoom at the long end.
I got the zoom however because the only 300/4 prime I could afford was sold by a UK resident who refused to sell it to someone who is not a royalist, white, south-eastern, christian english person.

Can fixed lenses AF faster or something?
I have a canon 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 and I already feel satisfied with it because I only shoot ordinary, random photos.
However, my gearfag friend keeps telling me to get a 45mm prime lenses because it's supposed to be overall better.
Well?

I aquired a vintage "made in USSR" tripod. For free, I think this is important to mention.
It is an FShU-7 light travel tripod and everything looks fine and well articulating.
I would like to use it as a travel tripod option besides my bigger and heavier Manfrotto 190 but the ball head looks dry and I'm afraid it will get worn out quickly.
My Manfrotto head looks like it has some kind of lubricant. What kind of lubricants are used for ball heads and where can I buy some?

Found a used 6D with an 8k shutter count for 800$. Good deal?

>>3105630
Yes.

File: image.jpg (52KB, 495x495px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 495x495px

Any tips or thoughts on the BlackMagic Production 4K Camera?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	495
Image Height	495
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>3105641
Get a Lumix instead, save money for lenses and other equipment.

>>3105627
No, there are plenty of fast AF zooms. AF motor speed depends on how generous the lens manufacturer was to bless you with a higher grade motor. In snapshitting kit lenses like the 18-135, not so much. Rent a 24-70 or 70-200 and see what that's like.

>>3105472
I have a Sony Nex 5 and using an 18-55mm. I'm thinking of buying a Sigma 60mm to make better portraits. What do you guys think? The 50mm of Sony seems to have issues.

>>3105648
Get it, you will like it better than the kit lens.

>>3105652
Thank you

File: SmallerSucculent.jpg (288KB, 1920x1279px) Image search: [Google]

288KB, 1920x1279px

So for the past 6 months or so my buddy let me borrow his DSLR camera. I know it was a Canon and had 200x zoom but other than that I don't know what it was. I started taking photos like pic related which aren't fantastic but I like them. I just shoot on Auto while I am learning. Thing is he wants the camera back and I want to keep shooting. I'm going to have to make a choice on what kind of camera I will buy now. My question is what is the real world differences between "DSLR" and this "Mirrorless" type camera? Portability is a big factor for me.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon PowerShot SX50 HS
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/3.5
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Lens Size	4.30 - 215.00 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	2017:07:01 11:25:24
Exposure Time	1/50 sec
F-Number	f/3.5
Lens Aperture	f/3.5
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	6.21 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1920
Image Height	1279
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Focus Type	Auto
Metering Mode	Evaluative
ISO Speed Rating	Auto
Sharpness	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Contrast	Normal
Shooting Mode	Full Auto
Image Size	Large
Focus Mode	Single
Drive Mode	Unknown
Flash Mode	Off
Compression Setting	Fine
Macro Mode	Normal
Subject Distance	0.120 m
Sequence Number	1
White Balance	Auto
Exposure Compensation	3
Sensor ISO Speed	192
Image Number	123-1866

>>3105658
It says it right there in the EXIF data.
Canon Powershot SX50 HS.
Not a DSLR, just a compact.

>>3105659
OK but the EXIF was posted after I posted the image. Yes I could've gone and looked it up before but like you said it shows right there.

As you can see I don't know shit about cameras.

>>3105628
No lie i use KY jelly

>>3105626
All sounding pretty good to me. Other than that POS who wouldn't sell one to ya. I hope you're enjoying the zoom anyway

>>3105692
I don't know about the Canons, but primes tend to take TCs better than zooms. Even so, the latest round of 70-200s do well with 1.4 or 2x TCs of the latest models.

I don't know if a 300/4+1.4 will be sharper than a 400/5.6, but you can search that up. If I had to hazard a guess, I'd say a 300/4 IS would be, but a 300/4 non-IS (does that exist?) wouldn't be.

>>3105592
What would be the pros and cons of switching from X-trans to M43?

>>3105793
Better workflow and better results in LR, maybe expensive to get the better lenses, but Fuji isn't cheap either.

>>3105799
Sounds about right. Are the low-light issues of M43 overblown? Even on my Fujishit lowlight can be a hassle sometimes.

>>3105802
Go to a camera store and take some pictures. If you were ok with the Fuji at 3200, you should be ok with the Panasonic at 1600.

Is f/4 good enough for portraits at 50-85 mm on a crop? I want to upgrade from the kit lens on my A6000 and the only good alternative I've found is the Sony 18-105 f/4, and I'll probably pair it with the Sigma 30mm f/1.4

>>3105802
APS-C is decent at ISO 6400 accepting some graininess, same goes for MFT at ISO 3200.
I wouldn't worry much about it.

File: DSC09968.jpg (532KB, 1920x1280px) Image search: [Google]

532KB, 1920x1280px

I just got this at a local pawn shop for $200. Looks like they took it out of the box and placed it in their glass case at the shop. I open it up and found a 32 GB class 10 UH1 card in it. Like it has never been used.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCA-68
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.10.1 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.7
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	75 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2017:07:01 16:19:22
Exposure Time	1/25 sec
F-Number	f/2.8
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	200
Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Brightness	-0.4 EV
Exposure Bias	-1.7 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	50.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

>>3105592
>>3105592
M43 is fucking fine.

>>3105822
>>3105802

Depending on your point of view. One of the advantages of M43 is that you can get like 2 stops of light while keeping the same DoF as a full frame. Like f/4 on an M43 is the same DoF as f/8 on a full frame.


Honestly if you scrub the exif data I bet you 99% of /p/ couldn't tell you if a pic was on full frame or M43

I got a Canon T2i that I'm tired of carrying around. Looking for something smaller. Maybe mirrorless or point and shoot. I have the kit lens, a 75-300, and a 50mm (which is what I use basically always).

Am I better off sticking with Canon and their mirroless offerings? Or should I just sell all the crap I don't use anyways and get an Olympus or Fujifilm or something? Any recommendations?

I mostly fuck around with shitty street photography.

>>3105600
No exposure only depends on these three numbers (of course given that the scene remains the same)

Guys guys guys help me I want into fool frame but should I get a D750 or D810, or wait till Nikon releases some shit this year? Those are pretty old models, I'm hoping they will refresh them? Currently using D7200. Pls no change system, mirrorless seems too flimsy and lacks battery life for what I do.

>>3105847
Another advantage of m4/3 is that, since the sensor is smaller, the platform will get access to better silicon fabrication processes sooner as Moore's Law keeps ticking (if slower than last century). For example the D610's sensor was six or seven generations behind the times compared to e.g. smartphone CPUs at introduction. Die area on a coarser process is cheaper, and m4/3 gains heavily as error rates increase (as they usually do with a tighter process).

Or would anyway, if the fucking companies cared to compete outside video. I mean, the Pen F has an idiot wheel. Panasonic's offering is basically a fake DSLR. What's up with this bo'shit.

>>3105907
Grey market D810 for around $2000.
>>3105912
>, the platform will get access to better silicon fabrication processes sooner as Moore's Law keeps ticking

If consumer demand means they keep making bodies. They will for now, but you question when...

Also as Sony fags will be quick to point out, M43 doesn't have BSI on their Sony sensors.

I recently got the canon 80d. It's a nice camera but i find myself wishing i had full frame and really 4k video. Is there a body that isnt too much more expensive that can do these and will work well with my canon 70-200 f2.8 lens?

>>3105875
A6300/6500, pancake lens. Done.

>>3105928
>i had full frame and really 4k video
It's amazing you recently got the 80D, but you already knew full frame was a requirement (how?) and so was 4K, a feature restricted to Canon's video cameras. In fact, I'm sure you know that a 5D4/1DX2 is the only camera that satisfies those requirements.

Is this just thinly veiled Sonyposting?

Is the Samyang 100mm f/2.8 macro lenses decent?
I want to get it for my 60D.

>>3105936
Are either of these a large upgrade from the 6000 or 5100?

>>3105953
When i got it a month or so ago it seemed like the best canon option but with the 6d mark ii announcement i started to wish i had a full frame so my lenses actually acted as advertised instead of being cropped in by 1.6x or whatever. Then i started wondering how sony or nikon FF performed with canon glass + adapter

Going traveling out of a small backpack for a couple months.

Thoughts on M43? Looking at Olympus OM1/5/10

Needs to be small and preferably waterproof

>>3105968
In that case just buy whatever if you have the money. It doesn't matter because you're just interested in gear, not photography/videography. New gear won't make your results any better. Canon lenses don't work on nikon, btw.

>>3105973
EM-5 + 2 of the better kit zooms weighs almost nothing and is surprisingly robust as far as IQ goes. Great of you want a lightwight package that still covers pretty much any forseeable scenario.ki

It supposedly is weather sealed, but honestöy, comparing the sealing work to my Pentax it appears rather flimsy. Would not want to use in an actual downpour, but light rain probably is OK.

>>3105977
Yeah EM5 is my first option I think, along with a 35mm equiv or a 24-70 equiv (whatever I can pickup first). The EM5 is going real cheap these days which is nice.

I'm an all film guy these days but can't really cart a couple hundred rolls of film with me in a tropical environment for two months. Accordingly, the lower IQ of M43 isn't a huge issue, though if I could find a Xpro or A6000 for $400 aud I'd be all over it

File: DSC06057.jpg (276KB, 1200x764px) Image search: [Google]

276KB, 1200x764px

>>3105593
I own and love both and they are very different cameras. The 500c/m will be very familiar in many ways to someone coming from a 35mm SLR, while a TLR is not a rangefinder in any way, it is similar in that you are not looking through the taking lens and never get a preview of DOF. the SWC is a completely different animal, I have never owned one but plenty of friends have. The SWC is going to be mostly zone focus but then I think its infinity after 5 or 7 feet so that's not such a big deal.
I'll focus on the pros and cons of the rollei and 500c/m but try to fill in what I know of the SWC too. (I have also owned the Rolleiflex 3.5 75mm Planar)

Rolleiflex 3.5 75mm Tessar
Pros
-compact and light
-very nice lens (3.5 planar was a spectacular lens)
-intuitive to use
-the Rolleikin is neat if you want to shoot 35mm
-super quiet
-really nice to use
-ultimate 1 lens 1 camera experience (and its a really nice lens)

cons
-1 and only 1 lens per camera (but its a really nice lens)
-dark focusing screen and not interchangeable (at least not easily)
-f3.5 lens
-prone to vertical motion blur due to it's shape and lightness
-every asshole on the street will stop you to say "hey that's a really old camera, can you still get film for that?"
-delicate
-few repair facilities left and fewer parts

500c/m
pros
-modular (I have 2 backs 1 for B/W and 1 for colour this also allows for brighter or different focus screens and prisms)
-durable beast of a workhorse
-pretty good to fucking great lenses (the 80mm varies in quality significantly from "absolutely magical, it cant take a bad shot" to "why didn't I just get a Bronica")
-interchangeable lenses ( and good deals can be had)
-lots around and lots of people will still work on them though it may be cheaper to just replace the worn / broken bit

cons
-it's modular and worn out bits can make this a nightmare.to make things worse everyone wants to pawn off their 2nd or 3rd body off on the newbie

to be continued

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-6000
Camera Software	ILCE-6000 v1.00
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	0 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	350 dpi
Vertical Resolution	350 dpi
Image Created	2017:07:01 22:26:45
Exposure Time	1/100 sec
F-Number	f/0.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	200
Brightness	-4.3 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	6000
Image Height	4000
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

>>3105912
You seem pretty knowledgeable.
What do you think about the Olympus Pen E-PL8?
I was thinking of buying it and slapping on a Olympus 17mm 1.7.
It was either that or a GX85 and the 17mm

cons cont.
-they were a workhorse and reflect that, every one has had thousands of rolls go through them and many need work
-they have quirks and can easily break if you try something like removing / mounting the lens when the body is not cocked
-they are heavy but not much more than a pro DSLR
-spring sets are no longer available for C and are limited for CF lenses (they can be fabricated if you can find someone who knows how)

As far as the SWC goes, the only thing it has in common with any other Blad is the film back. It is going to be zone focus unless you have a ground glass for it, I think there was a chimney eye piece for it bu not really sure. it's also pretty loosie goosie for composition because of the light falloff on the ground glass when shooting that wide. My friends like theirs but for all that hassle, I'd just rather shoot with my Crown Graphic and use a 120 back if I want to shoot roll film.

and some comparisons of the Rollei and the 500c/m
-The Rollei has a slightly larger film gate so if you are printing full frame it's almost like you have a 70mm. the image can occasionally go into the rebate (side note my friends Mamiya 6 goes well into the rebate)
-the TLR shape allows for a flatter film plane and better lens alignment so they are often sharper.
-the Rollei f stop and shutter adjustment can be finicky while the Blad can be counter intuitive if you have a combination of c and cf lenses

that's all I can think of now but if you want to know anything else let me know I might be able to find scanned images too

>>3106009
While MFT is an open standard mount, mixing Oly and Pana bodies and lenses are a hit or miss. You are better off going first party with selecting lenses or research heavily on issues using the other manufacturers lenses on your chosen body.
Basically if you like a lens get the matching body for it.
With that said the GX85 looks to be an excellent body surpassing recent Oly designs.

>>3106027
Sounds good. Thanks, anon.
Is there anything I need to know about Only/Panasonic RAW files? Do they have their own special snowflake bayer array that fucks everything like Fuji?

>>3106032
No
>>3106009
Oly 17 for dat 35mm perspective
Pana 20/1.7 for the final word in sharp and small
Pana 12-32 because it comes with the camera, packs small, and goes to 24mm equiv.
Pana 45-150 for compact and telephoto.

If you choose OIS lenses, pick Panasonic for a Panasonic body. Dual IS never works with mismatching lens/body brands.

>>3106007

>why didn't I judt get a bronica lens

How do you tell the difference?

I wasn't sure which thread to put this in, but this will do.

I'm going to Dubai in a couple of days and I'm taking my D750. I had a 50 and a 24-85. Would you take both, or just the zoom?

I was thinking the 50 is going to provide better quality images, but the versatility of the zoom is more preferable.

It will be a mixture of landscape (desert and city) and probably a few indoor shots in whatever buildings and markets I go to.

>>3106087
I would bring the two, the 50 (assuming it is the cheap small light f/1.8 nifty fifty) wouldn't take up much space, the 24-85 will give the versatility and the wide angle option for landscape/cityscape shots. Bring a light travel tripod as well.

>>3106092
Thanks. It is indeed the cheap 1.8.

I considered the tripod. It's not a photography trip, mind. It should fit in my case, but I'm not sure if it's practical to carry around. If I have room to spare I'll take it. It won't fit in my hand luggage though, and I don't want to check it.

So what's the advantage of M43 over mirrorless APS-C? It doesn't seem like the smaller size of the M43 is worth the smaller sensor compared to the mirrorless APS-C.

>>3106097
weak bait

>>3106103
No, it's a genuine question, it has its use for video with things like the Panasonic GH5 that can shoot in 4k/60 but I don't see the benefit for stills.

>>3106105
weak bait

File: IMGP1650.jpg (1MB, 3000x1987px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3000x1987px

I'm gonna be getting a decent amount of spare money in a week and I've currently got a K50.
Think it's worth the upgrade to a K3 ii? K1 is simply out of the question unfortunately, it's significantly more expensive than what I'm willing to spend, I think I'd be happy with getting a used K3 ii though (I see a few in the £450-500 price range, that sound good?).
I definitely want to stick with Pentax either way.

I only really own 1 lens thus far though, and that's a SMC DA 40mm f/2.8 Limited Pancake lens, which I'm very pleased with, but I'd definitely like to expand my lens collection (I originally wasn't even planning on upgrading my K50, I was just gonna blow my money on multiple lenses at first actually). In particular I'm looking for a macro lens. I've heard nothing but good things about the Pentax-D FA 100mm f/2.8 Macro lens, and I've had my eye on it for a long ass time now, so I might just bite the bullet and buy this lens next.

What do you think guys, worth going the upgrade route and grabbing myself a K3 ii and selling my K50 and probably having enough for one lens, or shall I keep the K50 and buy a few lenses instead?

Not gonna lie, I've been pretty lax on going out with my camera and taking pictures. I put that down to feeling limited by not having certain tools though, like a tripod and a couple of different lenses (again, a macro lens in particular). I'm hoping to change that though but the magic of having a new camera has died down so I need something to motivate me again, and what better way to do that than to buy new retardedly expensive shit for this beautiful hobby?

As a final side question.
Regardless of what route I go for on this current purchase, what are some essential focal length lenses that I'm missing out on that I really should have in my repertoire?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	PENTAX
Camera Model	PENTAX K-50
Camera Software	K-50 Ver. 1.02
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	60 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2016:06:21 11:58:02
Exposure Time	1/320 sec
F-Number	f/5.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Spot
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	40.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	4928
Image Height	3264
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Macro

Nikkor SW vs. Schneider Super Angulon on 4x5, who wins? Screw-on filters are a plus I have a bunch already

Rokinon/Samyang 85mm f/1.4 or Mitakon Zhongyi 85mm f/2?
Which way should I go, lads?

>>3106170

1.4 will be more of a pain in the ass to manual focus wide open unless you're using it on a split-image finder the F2 will be easier

and if this is on a Nikon F mount get the early 85 1.8 AF costs the same and has AF, and is optically perfect if you don't mind a little sphereochromaticism wide open

>>3106116
I have a K-3 and a Tamron SP 90/2.8 macro, absolutely satisfied by the results.
I would definitely get a WR zoom, DA 16-85 or even the premium kit DA 18-135 WR. The latter is smaller, has DC AF and is acceptably sharp from 20-100. 16-85 is sharp throughout the frame and zoom range but is significantly bigger and more expensive than the 18-135.
A smaller zoom range alternative is a great WR normal zoom is the 20-40 Limited.

For me I'm mostly using a 16-45/4 mostly the wide end, 35/2.4 for a fast normal focal length and 70-200/2.8 for portraits, though I would like to replace the 70-200 for a DA* 50-135/2.8.

>>3106105
The cameras with lens are generally smaller than APSC and the IBIS is unbeatable.

>>3106171
>and is optically perfect if you don't mind a little sphereochromaticism wide open
Literally not optically perfect. I wish tripfags would take off their trips before posting garbage like this.

>>3106048
you shoot a few rolls through it
a few years ago I sold a black C lens for the chrome one I have now because the black one had a large scratch in the back element. It didn't effect the image unless it was pointed at a light source but every other time the lens was stellar.
I thought I was fixing the problem by getting a lens in much better condition but something about the contrast of the lens is just not the same. Both of the lenses are T* butt he black is slightly newer and slightly different. the coatings did change from C to CF to CFE and sometimes within those designations as the generations progressed.

>>3105975
That's not true it's just that while ive had this the bummer of not having 4k video on the 80d is growing. It's annoying having a $1100 camera body that can't do what my $700 phone can but I worry that using an adapter for a Panasonic gh5 or a sony isnt going to be as good as just having a canon body

>>3106264

Have you made any video at all? You ever wonder why anyone other than youtube bloggers that sit in front of their camera and never move are the only people using sonys for video? Perhaps you should stop getting caught in gearfag shit and actually use your camera.

K70 or K3?
Which is superior?

File: they said i was crazy.jpg (397KB, 1247x799px) Image search: [Google]

397KB, 1247x799px

You know what pisses me off about mirrorless?
Changing lenses turns into this "quickly switch before something gets in" hassle.
I always hold my camera down, because Biologists and Photographers know: "the enemy comes from above", but still, it gives me a feeling of unease every time.
What I want is a function that locks the shutter down when the lens is disconnected. For adapting lenses or manuals, you could hit a switch or turn on a menu or even do the feature via a switch inside the mount that detects if something is physically locked into the flange

>>3106430

>I always hold the camera down

Makes very little difference, honestly. Most of the dust coming into your camera are due to air currents, not falling. Whatever helps you to change quickest is best.

And most mirrorless cameras have some sort of scratch resistant coating on the sensor plus a cleaning mode. Very self-cleaning friendly, no need to get serviced or anything.

>>3106045
Aw, man.
I'm pretty conflicted.
I like the Olympus E-M10 Mark II because of the ergonomics and dials, but the Panasonic lenses are very enticing

>>3106323
I'd probably say k-3 just for usability and handling, it's by far the nicest camera I've ever held and shot with. Feels so fucking solid in your hand and obviously can produce some decent images, I'm not a huge fan of the Pentax lens lineup though. Want to buy my k-3?

File: aoaqehsuycuqcvsncpkb.jpg (78KB, 1400x848px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 1400x848px

Hey /p/

I recently cought an 800D and i'm new to photography. I decided to get an 18-55mm lense vs 18-135mm due to lacking money.

I've spent a while looking around looking for resources and such, a quick look around here makes me think you're not the biggest fan of canon. That all aside what would be a good "cheap" lense to get when starting off and are there any good online resources for learning about photography?

>>3106455
They're both in the MFT mount anyway.
Pana and Oly both have very good ergonomics, I prefer Pana's menues more.
That being said, Pana's noise perfomance is worse and they really only shine with video and maybe dual-IS.

If you do mainly photography: Olympus
If you do mainly Videography or need the tiny formfactor of those tiny GM5 or GX850: Panasonic

>>3106116
>Pentax
If you want a cheaper macro option Pentax FA 100mm f2.8 macro supposedly has a bit better optics, focus limiter(makes non macro AF very fast) and aperture ring which makes it functional on macro tubes. Front element is deep enough so you don't need hood but the lens itself is a bit heavier than a modern counterpart. I have one with the haze problem which doesn't affect anything and the IQ that it produces is nearly perfect.

>>3106474
The 24mm f2.8 and 50mm f1.8 are amazing and can be found for $100 or less used. Also it couldn't hurt to keep an eye out for a 55-250 for a cheap telephoto zoom. That would set you up with a great set of poorfag lenses. The efs 10-18mm is also one of the best wide angles you can get if you find yourself wanting to go wider.

>>3106461
>Want to buy my k-3?
I may actually be interested in that.
Where are you from and what were you wanting for it?

File: 1430048531889.jpg (85KB, 604x539px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 604x539px

>>3105472
Anyone ever buy from Tri-State Camera? I know they're grey market, but they have the lens I want for $185 new compared to $300 used/refurb or $400 new from the jews. There has to be a point where buying grey market is worth it and I think half fucking price has to be it, right?

>>3105472
Need a recommendation on a camera specifically for video. Best for $1000-$2000 USD?

>>3106604
Typically the only downside with grey market is lack of warranty. I have a few grey market lenses and they're exactly the same as the legit version only half the price and no warranty. If it's $185 vs $400 I'd go for it.

>>3106223

It has next to no distortion and no CA I believe that's close enough.

When is the metabones smart adapter FIVE coming out? It was announced on their site in January but their product page still shows mk IV

>>3106323
That depends. The K-70 has the entry AF system for the OVF but the center is accurate for f/2.8 or faster. K-3 has the better OVF AF. The K-70 has dual pixel AF on the sensor, so liveview and video AF is much better, assuming you use a non-screwdrive lens. It is still better with screwdrive lenses but it shows the performance with DC, HSM and SDM drive lenses.
While the K-3 has an excellent sensor performance it starts to get grainy at ISO 6400 and is unusable above 12800. The K-70 is an absolute beast in sheer ISO performance, 12800 is more usable than 6400 on the K-3. Not to mention pixel shift, with that feature you can do landscape and studio shots embarrasing FF. Assuming you use the right lenses of course.
So if you use mostly liveview, studio stills or landscape then K-70 is best for you. If you use OVF dominantly and rely on tracking AF then K-3/II is the better option.

I assume the K-3 MkIII will have dual pixel and the same sensor slightly improved as in the K-70 with all the bells and whistles of the K-1.
If RICOH has some brains they will ditch the mirror and pentaprism, put in an EVF and offer a mirrorless body with the K-mount and DSLR form factor allowing new KAF4 mirrorless lenses to protrude into the mirrorbox if needed and seamless integration of older DSLR lenses. K-mount has the biggest opening allowing fast mirrorless lens designs.

>>3106808
Addendum: I wouldn't even mind if they stayed in APS-C realm for the mirrorless like Fuji, they already have a vast selection of APS-C options and is easier to design for the protruding barrel.

>>3105472
is a nikon d600 in good condition with 10.000 clicks worth buying? I know about the dust and oil issues but it's probably already been serviced. Basically it's the cheapest relatively new fullframe dslr that I can afford and I totally want a taste of the fullframe.

tl;dr: Right now I own a Pentax K5IIs and it will be years until the K1 will be affordable to me. Is getting a used D600 a good strategy if I want fullframe on a budget?

>>3106811
Do you really need FF? The sensor performance of the D600 will be worse than the K-5IIs, not to mention the AF being a tiny clustered shit with D3100 performance..

>>3106815
Where do you get this from?

According to dxo, the D600 sensor is slightly better in every aspect. I know the focus points are stacked in the middle but the AF in the D600 is supposedly from the D7xxx so the performance cannot be that shitty.

I shoot studio and outdoor portrait and products, so no sports.

>>3106825
The D600 is an entry category, even if FF while the K-5IIs is intermediate/pro category. As a businessman (professional engineering service, not in photography) I wouldn't invest into marginal differences, even so that it means switching the whole system and accessories. It seems just a huge waste of money and more importantly, time. If you want to upgrade it would be better to go with at least a D750 or D800/810 or the K-1. Until you can't afford it you are better off investing into a better lens, 70-200/2.8 or equivalent, like the DA* 50-135/2.8 or Sigma 50-150/2.8 or a good 55-70mm prime like the DA* 55/1.4, DA 70/2.4 and Sigma 70/2.8 or 85/1.4
Any extra you spend now on marginal (read: no real difference) increase or actual downgrade you take away from you in the future when you could do an actual upgrade into any system you like.

>>3106450
It does make a difference.

>>3106842
this
Dust particles are heavier than air so gravity affects them more.

>>3106831
Ok, here's some more info:
I got wide to normal covered with the Sigma 17-50/2.8.

There's no 85 equivalent pro Pentax prime for crop. The 55/1.4 is actually 47mm so it's actually wider than the 50/1.8 (which I also have), so it's useless. The Sigma 85mm/1.4 (the older one) is what I'd get either way but the crop factor on aps-c makes it useless in a lot of spaces, there's my first reason for considering going fullframe. My other reason is the bigger viewfinder which I would love.

The third reason is slightly higher res files (16 to 24 mpix) in case I have to crop. I might get the K3 though instead but then have to live with a smaller viewfinder and no true 85mm.

>>3106845
Where did you read that the 55/1.4 is 47mm? I never heard that before. Are you sure you are not mistaking it with the filter thread diameter? Source perhaps?

>>3106845
Also the higher res is not much higher. It says a lot more in MP but actually it is not that much in real world uses.
I would still wait until I could get a D750 instead of the gimped D600. Or get a loaner if it is that much important.

>>3106847
"... noticeably short for a 50mm lens (we'd place it closer to 47mm, giving a 70mm equivalent on APS-C)"

source: https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/pentax-55-1p4-p15/5

>>3106852
Learn to read, the 47mm issue is about the Sigma 50mm. It is a confusing wording, I agree but to me it is clearly talking about Sigma in comparison with the DA 55. Gives away that the same sentence mentions no weatherproofing which the DA 55 clearly has, not just simple WR but AW WR as in All Weather.
I say rent one out, adjust the AF adjustment and do some tests

>>3106854
It is talking about the sigma lol. My bad

>>3106852
>...but the Sigma is a different proposition entirely. It sports both excellent optics and ultrasonic-type focusing, placing it very much in the same league as the 55mm. However it's not weatherproofed, and noticeably short for a 50mm lens (we'd place it closer to 47mm, giving a 70mm equivalent on APS-C), making the 55mm a rather nicer length for portraits.

>>3106825
>supposedly from the D7xxx so the performance cannot be that shitty.
Except it's from the D7000 with the 39 pt system, which is inferior to the 51 pt system Nikon uses in everything from the D7100 all the way up to the D4s.

>>3106844

Gravity affects everything the same regardless of weight. Assuming you're outside dust/pollen will be blowing around in every direction. Just do whatever makes you feel better about your lens changes.

>>3106914
One word, buoyancy.
Look it up, fartbrain.

This is a question for Leica owners. Are Leica M's really that durable? I just bought one that has a host of problems and am hesitant to keep it around. How often do you really have to service these things, and are they as reliable as the hype says?

File: 61maLLbPitL._SL1000_.jpg (109KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 1000x1000px

https://www.aliexpress.com/item/7artisans-35MM-F2-LENS-FOR-NEX-FX-EOS-M/32793700248.html
Looks like a new 35mm F2 from China.

Makes me curious which lens their copied this design from.

>>3106932
>aliexpress
no
just no

>>3106932
For that price, I'd buy one just to try it.

File: HTB1Dxw7RVXXXXcYXFXXq6xXFXXXc.jpg?size=37059&height=679&width=743&hash=6b1eee82103183dcfaa2edfb92bf3637.jpg (36KB, 743x679px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 743x679px

>>3106937
If we're lucky, it's a copy of the Biogon.

But there is another picture here, which suggest it might be some voigtlander lens. But I'm not sure how trustworthy this diagram is.

>>3106916
Are you retarded or just not replying to the right post? I was just saying he was wrong to say gravity affected the dust more. Perhaps you should use your superior intellect to figure out how air currents would affect dust travel.

File: p1160168[1].jpg (95KB, 620x362px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 620x362px

My 2 best lenses both take 58 mm filters. What is the best make and type of filter to get? I only shoot stills.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Panasonic
Camera Model	DMC-GX7
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Macintosh)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	86 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	1024
Image Height	673
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	2014:12:12 11:01:32
Exposure Time	1.3 sec
F-Number	f/5.6
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	200
Lens Aperture	f/5.6
Exposure Bias	-1.3 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Tungsten
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	43.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1024
Image Height	598
Rendering	Custom
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	Low Gain Up
Contrast	Soft
Saturation	Low
Sharpness	Soft

>>3106937
If you want to impulse buy a cheap lens: Fujian lenses are like $15-30 and quite okay.

Why bother with this unknown one?

>>3106981
If you needed a polarizer or ND I guess you'd know already.

Really, generally you don't need filters if you have good lenses and a decent body.

>>3106986
My two best lenses are a voigtlander 17.5 mm and a olympus 75mm both are shot on a pen f body.

Do either of then need filters? Both have metal hoods.

>>3106988
I don't have or know these. But I assume that no, they don't.

>>3106986
This. I dont even bother with UV filters, and when i'm shooting, front lens caps are off and hoods attached when the lens is rattling in my bag. Everything's fine, and I dont have to worry about IQ loss. I typically carry a polarizer because I shoot cars a lot, and it helps in daylight to open up for that bokeh meme.

Stop worrying about your lenses and take pictures. And keep your bag free of sand.

thinking of buying a d7000 + 18-105 lense off amazon for under 500 punds....
-good idea?

>>3107043
I don't like this lens and the D7200 or better would be more appropriate for my use than the D7000.

Is that the same for you? IDK.

Im not sure about the lense i heard its ok.. i can just get the camera body

-i think d7200 is too expensive

>>3107043
Yes.
I would also look into getting a 35/1.8D (screwdrive) for a cheap fast normal focal length lens.

>>3106984
Do they cover full frame? I remember looking at Fujian stuff years ago, but it was all for cine mounts.

File: panasonic_h_h020ak_lumix_20mm_f1_7_ii_asph_986097.jpg (324KB, 2500x2500px) Image search: [Google]

324KB, 2500x2500px

How overblown were the banding issues at high ISO settings on Olympus cameras with this lens?

I currently own a E-M10 II

>>3107065
i wouldn't go higher than ISO 3200 with that camera anyway.

>>3107065
I know there are some issues with off-brand lenses on Olympus bodies and vice versa on Lumix bodies, but never heard it was about IQ.
Banding is mostly from pushing the RAW so much that the readout noise comes out. It is present at every camera. If you know your limits and how to set exposure right it shouldn't be a problem.

>>3107065
I try not to ever go above 3200 iso and if I need to shoot in the dark the 20 mm isn't my first choice. I'd use my voigtlander or 25 mm instead.

>>3107073
>>3107076
Is above 3200 ISO where this issue occurs? So if I cap myself at 3200, I'll be fine?

>>3107088
ISO 3200 is just like the highest ISO you can go without the image looking like total shit. ISO 3200 is the last full stop of ISO you can get before going into the extensions. Like the Pen F has third ISO stops, so normal stops would be 200, 400, 800, 1600, and 3200 but the Pen F has ISO in between those numbers that add partial stops of light. It is like how there isn't a full stop different between f1.7 and f1.8

>>3107088
Digital has ISO invariance (look it up) so if you have an ISO 800 underexposed image and you push it over 3-4 stops in post you might run into readout noise. But this is true for all other cameras as well.

Ive been looking at the Fujifilm X-A3 and the Sony ILCE6000L for my first camera after doing some reading. Is there anything I should know or that drasitcally sets them apart?

Fuji or M43 for someone who only plans on shooting RAW and enjoys PP, while doing mostly night/lowlight photography?

>>3107173
Fuji raws are a cunt to work with. M43 is kinda shitty in low light though. Like you can kinda get away with it in a city, but in bumb fuck nowhere that m43 is gunna be fucked

>>3107161
>drasitcally sets them apart?
X-A3 only has slow contrast AF. And it doesn't have viewfinder, which is good to have in sharp sunlight. And only 6 fps, vs 11.

It's sort of the weaker camera, despite being 2 years newer.

>>3107161
Fuji has more expensive APS-C lenses. Sony has more expensive FF lenses. Sony has better AF, EVF, burst, and ergonomics. Fuji has branding or something.

>>3107185
>Fuji has branding or something.
Well, it has the touchscreen which the A6000 doesn't.

>>3107186
>touchscreen camera
Yeah forgot about that along with the 180 degree selfie screen. I guess if you're a millennial and/or yuppie you might care for that.

>>3107188
Tilting screen is a massive plus even if you don't do selfies. Sony loses yet again.

File: .png (751KB, 942x536px) Image search: [Google]

751KB, 942x536px

>>3107191
So what do you use a 180 screen for anything other than selfies and vlogging? The A6000 still has a tilting screen either ways for waist level shooting and above crowds.

>>3107188
>not shooting waistlevel like a bentax 67
check this pleb out.
https://vimeo.com/104088954

File: are you okay there dude?.jpg (115KB, 1125x1125px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 1125x1125px

>>3107197

>>3107185
Is buying the sony new a bad choice ? How far in the past is it acceptable to buy a new camera?

>>3107204
buying the sony is always bad, new or used

>>3107204
No if you can get it cheap. Works fine for all native lenses. Only starts showing age if you're planning on using Canon lenses with AF.

>>3107204
Only if you hate your hands with a passion, like if you diddled kids, and want to punish them for their evil deeds. Then getting Sony is a good idea, because those ergonomics give youi all sorts of cramps and pains

>>3107176
I mean, how much better would the Fuji be in that bumfuck nowhere light?

At least the M43 has IBIS

>>3107213
The A6000 grip is better than the Fuji one though.

Just get a DSLR, you nerd

>>3107213
You should have stuck to the touch screen argument. You had a little bit more truth on that one.

When can we get <20MP FF cams again? Fuck even my 16MP cam is more than enough pixels. I don't shoot microscopic text all day like a fucking gearfag/reviewfag. And no I'm not getting some shitty A7SII because fuck CDAF.

File: .jpg (77KB, 900x600px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 900x600px

>>3107213
>X-A3
>good ergo
Can't even tell if you're serious or just stupid.

File: Z-SONY-A6300-FRONT-LENS.jpg (112KB, 1024x617px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 1024x617px

I just sold all my A-mount gear on ebay and bought this.

Now I need a good prime.

>>3107260
20 2.8, 30 1.4, 50 1.8.

>>3107245
more pixels is better, didnt u hear?

>>3107261
nice numbers.

File: IMG_20170703_214419.jpg (565KB, 2048x1152px) Image search: [Google]

565KB, 2048x1152px

Videofag here,
Should I get a Canon SL1 or a Nikon D5300?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	samsung
Camera Model	SM-G900V
Camera Software	G900VVRS2DQD1
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.2
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	31 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	2048
Image Height	1152
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2017:07:03 21:44:19
Exposure Time	1/30 sec
F-Number	f/2.2
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	64
Lens Aperture	f/2.2
Brightness	2.9 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	4.80 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	2048
Image Height	1152
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Unique Image ID	F16QLHF01SB

>>3107268
can you save a bit more for a Canon 80D? between these cameras you mentioned, the Nikon is better for video

>>3107260
>sold all my A-mount
If you had any good lenses you should have kept those and bought anLA-EA3/LA-EA4

>>3107280

Most people with good a-mount lenses I have met seem very hesitant to part with them. He probably had a kit and plastic 50.

If not, I am angry that he didn't sell them to me.

>>3107268
I would say go to a Canon 80D if you are stuck between Canon and Nikon. I think Canon is better video. However, I just picked up a Panasonic G7 new for $600 and think it is great for video

>>3107282
Yeah Minolta G/APO lenses had a cult following. For good reason too. Great lenses even now. That A99M2 vs D5 vid tested one of the teles I think.

File: Panasonic-G7.jpg (550KB, 1000x658px) Image search: [Google]

550KB, 1000x658px

>>3105642
this

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Photographer	David DeFino
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB

File: IMG_20170615_101929.jpg (256KB, 2048x1152px) Image search: [Google]

256KB, 2048x1152px

>>3107268
>>3107273
>>3107283
Thanks, senpai.

> Save for 80D
>$ 1000
Let me explain my situation a bit more clearly:
>want to get babbys first DSLR because the family point-n-shoot doesn't have manual settings for video
>set on used T3i
>try to use mummybux because I'm a jobless jew in highschool

Mummybux comes with its own set of restrictions:
>can't be used because muh warranty
>has to be available from a big box store because muh returns

> scour the internets for something under $600 with a Mic input because I have audiotism.
> come up with the SL1/D5300 because Best Buy has them on sale for $550

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	samsung
Camera Model	SM-G900V
Camera Software	G900VVRS2DQD1
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.2
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	31 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	2048
Image Height	1152
Image Orientation	Bottom, Right-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2017:06:15 10:19:29
Exposure Time	1/30 sec
F-Number	f/2.2
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/2.2
Brightness	2.1 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	4.80 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	2048
Image Height	1152
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Unique Image ID	F16QLHF01SB

>>3107245
i mean a7s2 is 12 megapickels

>>3107304
Did you finish reading the post?

How accurate is the Auto ISO on the Pen F? Can I just set it to auto and leave it or am I better off manually doing the ISO? It looks like the auto ISO maxes out at 1600. What do you think the maximum acceptable ISO is for the Pen F?

>>3106087
>>3106094

Anybody else got any thoughts on this?

>>3107381

I'd take them both unless I was strapped for space. My travel combo is always a zoom and an appropriate prime.

Honestly a 35mm might be better for your prime. It'd be roughly 50mm equiv, which is a perfect walkaround lens.

>>3105626
You sound peeved, friend, what happened?

File: Canon_400mm.jpg (57KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 1000x1000px

>>3105515
Speaking of this;

When are they going to replace this fucker?

>>3107391

No clue, but with Sony releasing one before the end of the year a refresh is probably coming soon.

>>3107392
I haven't heard about that.

I'm not into Sony, but it sounds interesting.


I just wish Canon would either start making a cheap non-DO f/4 or stick IS in this damn thing so I can get it for cheaper.

>>3105628
Dry silicone or if you don't care about a little mess: lithium grease.

>>3107385
Thanks. My camera is full frame though, so surely a 35 would be 35, right?

>>3105912
>Moore's Law keeps ticking

Haven't they said Intel will have to change their manufacturing process entirely if they want keep scaling beyond 2025?

>>3107396

Oh yea, sorry. Didn't look at the camera model, just assumed.

Then yea, definatelly take them both with you.

>>3106930
Who said the Leica M was durable?

>>3107284
Maybe they'll dump them after a while when Sony continues to neglect the A mount.

>>3107295
Can't you throw in a couple hundred of your own?

>>3107407
The 80D is $500 more expensive, and I don't want to invest a lot of money into a beginner's camera

I'm going to be traveling by train soon and want to take some pictures out of the window. Which filter should I use to reduce the glare/reflections in the window?

anyone have experience with cheap reflectors?

i bought a Etekcity 5in1 reflector for like 11$, and the white part of the reflector gives of this slight bluish tint that i feel can ruin a shot.. none of the reviews mention this at all.. are amazon buyers this dense, or am i too picky??

File: 1498572138392m.jpg (59KB, 772x1024px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 772x1024px

I'm going on a 2 month backpacking trip and I need some tips on a type of camera to buy.

What I need.
>Under $600
>Relatively small to fit nicely in a backpack
>Good enough to use it effectively post trip for my portaiture projects.
>Is a good beginners, newby friendly camera.

I plan to practice my photography while in Europe.

>>3107525
Micro four-thirds fits the bill. Something like an Olympus EM5 or EM10 can be had for pennies these days used, and they're still good cameras. The EM5 is even weatherproof, which might be a bonus depending on where you're traveling

File: 1384177183658.gif (2MB, 340x340px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 340x340px

Is it worth upgrading my Tamron 24-70mm and 70-200mm f/2.8 VC USD lenses to the latest G2 versions?

>>3107467
What do you think lenses are going to cost?

Get a compact to see if you even like the medium.

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/SALE-Sony-E-PZ-18-105mm-F4-G-OSS-Zoom-Lens-SELP18105G-for-Sony-E-Mount-/251735748064

Are stores like these legit? I usually see them go for at least 500 britbucks new. I know that Ebay protects you if you get scammed, but how are they so cheap? Grey market goods?

>>3107564
Tax evasion I guess.

Where can I buy Irix lenses in L.A.?
Is there a B&H equivalent store?

>>3105968
I mean since you want video the a6500 is sharper than the a7s2 so you could do that with a speedbooster
I still think this is a bad setup though and if I was actually serious about video I'd save up for a c300 or you could get a used c100. if you insist on a hybrid camera though, GH5 is the best value.

File: IMG_20170703_215307.jpg (397KB, 2048x1152px) Image search: [Google]

397KB, 2048x1152px

>>3107549
>get a compact
I have been using a compact Point-n-Shoot (Canon Powershot 120IS) for a while, and the only reason I'm looking at a DSLR is because I can't adjust shutter speed, manual focus, etc in video mode.
If I can get a steady source of income before I finish traversing the patental beurocracy, I'm just gonna say fuck it and buy a T3i

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	samsung
Camera Model	SM-G900V
Camera Software	G900VVRS2DQD1
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.2
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	31 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	2048
Image Height	1152
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2017:07:03 21:53:07
Exposure Time	1/30 sec
F-Number	f/2.2
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	500
Lens Aperture	f/2.2
Brightness	-9/100 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	4.80 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	2048
Image Height	1152
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Unique Image ID	F16QLHF01SB

>>3107564
I've heard too many negative reviews of the 18-105. It should be cheaper than it is, but that 'G' on the side makes it expensive. Distortion like crazy, bad AF, etc.

Would have been a consideration of mine if it were $300, but not double that.

>>3107639
I keep hearing reviews all over the place, people like Ken Rockwell says the AF is flawless. The problem is that there aren't many better standard zoom lenses for Sony APS-C, the only alternative is the Zeiss 16-70 but I've heard the 18-105 is sharper.

can you recommend a 35mm lens for not more than ~300€$£ for the nikon fe2?
fell in love with this camera but I currently only own a 50mm. need to up my game

I plan to buy a single Godox v860ii flash for Sony plus a trigger to learn more about flash but I want to extend my setup to 2 or 3 flash at some point.

Is there a clear benefit in using other v860iis as slaves or some cheap tt600s or even yonguo/meike flash work just fine with a master Godox v860ii?

Also, can one trigger used for multiple Godox flashes?

>>3107391
>>3107394
Hopefully soon. I'd love to pick up an old 400mm f5.6 for super cheap as people upgrade and sell the old one. Preferably in the next month before I go up north.

>>3107525
I travelled Europe a while ago with a sony a6000 and had a great time with it. Took some shots I'm really proud of and found EVF super handy as I was starting out. You'll certainly appreciate the size and weight of a mirrorless too. There's plenty of awesome options around, especially in the used market

>>3107645
>The problem is that there aren't many better standard zoom lenses for Sony APS-C

This is unfortunately the reason that lens keeps selling. I love the focal range (18-105) but I want a better piece of glass to do it with.

Or even a 24-70 that isn't $2000. Third parties need to start cashing in on this mount.

Will Canon ever wake up and turn the M-Series into a serious competitor to Sony's and Fuji's APS-C Mirrorless lines?
Being able to natively use EF-S lenses with an adapter seems like a huge advantage over the other two. (I was told earlier that adding an active EF-S adapter to the M-Mount makes it more or less native)

>>3107683
It may be another year (or more)

I remember they were hyping it up when Canon started to replace the 400mm f/2.8 IS, 400mm f/4 DO and the 100-400mm zoom beginning in 2014?
They never seemed to get to the f/5.6.

I had my hopes up when it was out of stock a few months ago, but it returned.

I don't know how people can justify spending $800+ on a 25 year old lens that only costs $1200 new.

>>3107761
> Will Canon ever wake up and turn the M-Series into a serious competitor to Sony's and Fuji's APS-C Mirrorless lines?
Honestly, can they? Oh sure, they probably could displace Fuji somehow. But Sony is in an immensely strong position both in the market and with know-how for compactly building Android devices. Plus a decent lot of patents.

> Being able to natively use EF-S lenses with an adapter seems like a huge advantage over the other two.
No. Because with Sony + Adapter you have essentially the same on most lenses but *ALSO* Sony's IBIS and the other things.

>>3107761
They need to stuff a FF sensor in one.

Although some claim it's not possible.

>>3107525
Seconding the A6000.

> Good enough to use it effectively post trip for my portaiture projects.
This is obviously relative to lowered standards.

Most professionals use $600+ for the lighting and modifiers in portraits alone, plus then a pretty fancy FF camera+lens which costs more again.

That said, the Sigma 60mm f/2.8 is about the sharpest cheap lens you can get on any APS-C system, you might want to buy that one with the A6000 and maybe a YN660 or Godox flash units. They can give you decent results, though it's of course more effort and less flexible and so on than with the professional gear.

>>3107806
>No. Because with Sony + Adapter you have essentially the same on most lenses but *ALSO* Sony's IBIS and the other things.
What I was told is that EF-S and M use the same communication protocol. Even with an active adapter you are still working on reverse-engineered stuff so no truly native communication. That's why I said "Native". because normally, adapters aren't native.

it's the fourth of july lads, you taking pictures of fireworks?

>>3107812
> Even with an active adapter you are still working on reverse-engineered stuff so no truly native communication
Sigma and Tamron and Tokina and the other interesting 3rd parties reverse engineer the Canon protocol on the lens side anyhow. You could even say the Sigma MC-11 understands the reverse-engineered EF Sigma lenses fully "natively" whereas the Canon cameras don't.

Doesn't really matter in the end since it still basically works fine anyhow.

Also, Sony's licenses its E-mount protocol, so if you want to avoid the reverse engineering issue going forward without being reduced to all first-party gear, well, that's the way to go. Or MFT.

>>3107805
Dear golly... I might just hold onto my cash then. I'm looking at Canadian prices where it's going to cost around $1600 new, as opposed to roughly $900 used. There's a few for sale that look to be in excellent condition but as much as I want it, I think the money would be better spent travelling and using what I have

What E-mount lens would you get with a max budget of $600? Just from a pure quality perspective.

File: 1442876812817.jpg (576KB, 3193x2097px) Image search: [Google]

576KB, 3193x2097px

>>3107810
>>3107685

just bought the a6000 and the sigma f/2.8 lens, cant wait to experiment, thanks guys.

>>3107861
Glad to have helped. As a remark, the 60mm f/2.8 is a good portrait lens (where your subject cooperates) but you will also want a wider lens or two for your trip.

Samyang's 12mm f/2 + Sigma 30mm f/1.4 are my current choice for travel lenses I always bring along, there are quite a few more possible options though.

Can M43 do moving subjects in low light?
Like people indoors or at clubs.
I'm looking for something that can keep up with my Canon EF 50mm 1.8 STM

>>3107579
That's good to know, i like having a camera that can do decent video and stills but i think I'm just going to stick with the 80d. I do stills more anyways and the video is good enough.

>>3106450
I can see you point, but the shutter mechanism is much more delicate and prone to failure than the sensor. So if anything fatal (like bird shit) finds its way in it, it'd need servicing either way. And the dust it would gather on the closed shutter mech would be blown inside of the camera as well.

>>3107916
Whoops meant to reply to
>>3106430

>>3107905
Are you using a flash? I can get somewhat decent low light performance out of an f0.95 and a m43 but it is pretty eh

>>3107483
bump

>>3107919
I mean, I can, but I just wanted to know if there any M43 lenses that can keep up with the EF 50 1.8

Is anyone by any chance familiar with the mechanism of this old video camera?

http://ussrphoto.com/Wiki/default.asp?WikiCatID=59&ParentID=58&ContentID=523

Canon 24-70 vs 24-105 which one should I get?

Shoot stills, mostly architecture and landscapes, though I'd also use it to shoot some cosplays

I have an old Oly P3 that died on me recently and I'm looking to replace it. I only have the Kit 14-42 and a Panasonic 20/1.7, which I used most of the time.
Bang for the buck would be the EM5 which I could get for around 300 bucks, or a GX85, but I haven't really been satisfied with IQ of my old camera anyway, and I'm wondering if I should stay on m43 or move to another system.

I'm in love with the dials on the Fuji XT20, but desu although the lenses seem great, they're pretty expensive and heavy.

>>3108009

24-105 if you don't need the f2.8

>>3108035
I don't, I also considered the 24-105 because of IS. The only thing I'm worried about is sharpness and CA

>>3108009
24-70mm

File: IMG_20170705_202551.jpg (2MB, 4160x3120px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4160x3120px

>>3105472
real happy with my 20mm after 3 days of holidays, this thing is damned sharp even wide open. if you're looking for an ultra-ish wide, this is it

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Model	Redmi Note 2
Camera Software	MediaTek Camera Application_
Equipment Make	Xiaomi
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Image Created	2017:07:05 20:25:54
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB
F-Number	f/2.2
Exposure Program	Not Defined
Focal Length	3.50 mm
White Balance	Auto
Image Width	4160
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Light Source	Other
Exposure Mode	Auto
Image Height	3120
Flash	No Flash
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Scene Capture Type	Standard
ISO Speed Rating	123
Exposure Time	9999/500000 sec

>>3108147
>not scribbling Canon on the tape

>>3108147
Why is there tape on your camera

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jD2Zd-Pi4lQ

check em.

>>3108162
because he didn't get a canon.
shamfur dispray.

>>3107861
I hope you get some shots, be great to see what you come up with. You'll have a blast using it

>>3106884
>D7000 with the 39 pt system, which is inferior to the 51 pt system Nikon uses

lol the k5 IIs has 11 AF points, 9 of them in the middle

Got a B&W CPL filter and when I turn it, I can hear a metal on metal grind and it's sort of tough to turn. I have another B&W CPL filter that's as smooth as can be when turning. Is this something that can be fixed if I send it in or should I just deal with it?

>>3108147
The G series of Nikon primes look so much like shit.

about to order a hoya ir720 filter for my x-pro1
can someone provide me photos with this setup ?
or has anyone ever tried this ?
give me some general info pls ?

>>3105836
How's that AR build going?

>>3108320
i also been looking for a fucking example image so i can mess around with on PS
but can't find that either
has anyone a RAW File of an image shot with ir720 filter pls ??

File: ar_g17_060317.jpg (3MB, 2560x1440px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2560x1440px

>>3108323
Which one? This is my main, had it for a while.

>>3108334
>guns
!! KEK ALERT !!

>>3108343
Shoot cameras, shoot guns... I like to shoot, what can I say.

>>3108203
Sounds like one of the rings is bent out of shape. Get an exchange.
>>3108192
And so does the D2. But the point wasn't about the number of points, but that the CAM3500 is a faster, more intelligent AF system.

Just got this open box for $377, supposedly 'like new'. We will see when it comes in. I think my A6300 will be here Monday.

File: dsc07260.jpg (1MB, 1966x1333px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1966x1333px

>>3108359
Crap, forgot pic.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	NEX-7
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 4.3 (Macintosh)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2013:01:06 01:15:00
Exposure Time	209 sec
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Brightness	-9.0 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Spot
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

File: 1.png (204KB, 958x600px) Image search: [Google]

204KB, 958x600px

>>3107855
I just ordered this one myself. Apparently it's on sale in America too at B&H.

This is one of the few cases where EU sale is almost equal to US sale.
252 € > 280 $
Normally it's much, much more expensive in EU.

File: 1.png (64KB, 1111x317px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 1111x317px

>DKK2,864 vs DKK1,874.04
It feels so bad when you support globalist tax evaders over your own local camera stores.

I feel like I have backstabbed my local shop. But the pricing is like 35% cheaper. This difference is just too huge and tempting.

Just picked up an A7 body for 600$, how'd I do and what are the essential lenses

>>3107855
Sigma 30mm f/1.4 or 60mm f/2.8, Sony 50mm macro, Sony 28mm f/2.

Or the Samyang 12mm for wide-angle.

I'm trying to decide on the Olympus Mark ii or the a6000. Hoping to decide by prime day. Any idea which is better?

>>3108569
Which Olympus Mark II?

Both the E-M5 and E-M1 are a little or a lot better than the A6000, but they obviously also cost so much more that they're more comparable to an A6300 or A7 II than an A6000.

/p/ i've been reformulating my photography setup so I sold my A7 and my OM-2 to buy a Canon 6D and a Leica M4.

I bought the 50mm F1.8 STM for the Canon as a cheap startup lens and I don't have a lens for the Leica but I intent to buy one asap.

I was thinking of getting the Sigma 24-35 F2 Art and ditch the 50mm F1.8 and grab the new 7Artisans 50mm F1.1 for the Leica.

I only shoot 28-35-50mm, what are good bargains for Canon & Leica lenses in these ranges.

>>3108579
>leica lenses
>budget

Doesn't exist, unless you want a hazy old Summar. Look at the Canon 50/1.8 LTM, Canon 35/1.8 LTM, Voigtlander Color-Skopar 35/2.5

>>3108571
Em5

>>3108590
The A6300 is pretty much the exact equivalent to that in terms of price then. I'd prefer the A6300 and its lenses, but I'd call the E-M5 II "rather close".

Maybe the lenses you want to use will decide this for you, though.

Okay I hate flash but I want to try it for aquarium photography. which 30-50 euro ebay flash is somewhat decent. Nikon compatible TTL would be nice and I need to be able to use it seperate from the cam so 2 meter of cable is fine but wireless is preferred

>>3108639
> Nikon compatible TTL would be nice
Try "i-ttl" on Aliexpress or eBay.

Sorry, no specific recommendations for that in your price range. The units I'd recommend are around $100 + some more for the wireless transmitter.

> which 30-50 euro ebay flash is somewhat decent
YN660. Maybe YN560 III/IV. All of these are manual with an internal wireless system that is pretty cheap & easy to expand and use.

>>3108639
You might harm the fish

>>3108660
I've seen people use enormous studio flashes above the aquarium without the fish even flinching

>>3108650
going to look for some reviews, thanks

What's your opinion of Godox flashes vs Yongnuo flashes?

File: nikon-j1-and-computar-50mm.jpg (60KB, 660x437px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 660x437px

My friend dropped my camera and broke the lens of my Nikon J1. Offered to buy me a new lens,but in the mean time I'm using an old yashica lens 50mm 1:1.9. Should I be using tripod to lessen the shaking or get one of those stabilizer that you mount on the bottom.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	FUJIFILM
Camera Model	X10
Camera Software	Digital Camera X10 Ver1.02
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.0
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2012:02:05 00:01:13
Exposure Time	1/10 sec
F-Number	f/2.0
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	800
Lens Aperture	f/2.0
Brightness	-3.0 EV
Exposure Bias	-0.3 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	7.10 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	660
Image Height	437
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>3108736
Tripod.

Inertia / gyroscopic stabilizers are mainly to smooth out video recordings.

Need a DSLR to start making high-quality videos on, but I'm on a bit of a budget. My only requirements are:

>1080p
>24, 30, and 60 fps
>able to obtain new or used with lens for under $500

Does anything good exist? I can raise my budget is necessary, but I'd really rather not.

This might be a dumb question, but could anyone recommend any really cheap lenses with really long reach for Nikon with a 300mm or 400mm focal length? Either Nikon or some third party and I don't necessarily care for a shallow depth of field/if it's third party, I just want something decent under $150 maybe, but I know that might be stretching it.
Or does anyone know if the nikon TC-200 teleconverter is any good? Thanks in advance.

>>3108751
> high-quality video
> $500
No. Definitely not.

But you can try a GoPro, Chinese GoPro clone or something like a DMC-GX85 or A6300 as not useless amateur gear.

>>3108761

Oh, okay. If I raise my budget to $1000, but want to try to stay as much under $1000 as possible, do my options improve?

Also, I forgot to add, where can I get a decent, inexpensive lighting kit?

>>3108758
> I just want something decent under $150 maybe
Try a Samyang MF Reflex lens, they can be had from about $100-300. Of course they're not optically perfect and start at like f/8, but it's about what you can get. That, or maybe ancient soviet glass on an adapter.

For comparison: A *good* 400mm f/2.8 prime is somewhere around $10k, a f/4 one is about $6k. There are a bunch of pretty decent zoom lenses for around $1-3.5k, too.

>>3108569
EM5II.
Sony APS-C lens line-up is extremely lacking compared to M43

>>3108763
> do my options improve?
Yea, in that you can get the A6300 as a body and are close to a Panasonic GH4. You still need a lens of course.

Next above that is something like an A7S II and then eventually a RED / Canon / Blackmagic etc. lower and higher end cinema cameras before we eventually get to fully professional gear like Arri cinema + Sony / Canon broadcast cameras and the like (and their also often fuckexpensive lenses).

Now, there definitely are some diminishing returns involved and you can do a bunch even on an A6300 or GX85, but the point of me mentioning all this is just to temper your evidently pretty big expectations about $1k being "much" money for video a little.

>>3108807
The sensor size doesn't matter ?

>>3108843
Are you just hallucinating what you want to see?

What 35 mm lens are you talking about?

>>3108809

Okay, thanks for all of the info. I'll probably go for the A6300 for now, but I guess it's time for me to research everything you've mentioned.

fuck bentax
fuck fungusfilms

Canon is the best

Going on a trip soon, will be hiking, doing landscape and street photog in city area.

I only have a wide prime and a 50 prime, would I be better off just renting a 24-70 2.8 so I dont have to worry about switching lenses?

shooting nikon so I have to choose between the VR or non VR version.

>>3108821
Only if your photography revolves around moving subjects in low-light.

Otherwise, the Olympus can handle anything else you throw at it. Stationary subjects in low light are a fucking breeze with IBIS

>>3108894

also keeping in mind the sigma 24-70 2.8

>>3108900
The Tamron one is far, far better.

Most of this Sigma perception is purely marketing based on the few handful good prmes they have.

>>3108910

the old one or the G2?

>>3108946
Both, actually. But I imagine the "older" one is more affrdable. (It's actually not even old)

>>3108948

I meant it like "previous model".

Thanks, will look into it

>>3108758
Get the screwdriver 300mm f4 Nikkor, they're only like $400, play nice with teleconverters, and give very nice results for the price.

>>3108758
>>3108976

Or if you want super poorfag tier and you don't mind manual focus there are some good options for under $150. I've been really satisfied with Tokina AT-X lenses. They're built really solidly and generally have pleasant image quality, nice rendering without the sterility of more modern lenses. I happily used their 100-300 f4 for many years until I got the Nikkor, and a few weeks ago I got a 400mm f5.6 for around $40 shipped. Whatever you do, stay away from that ebay special T-mount Chinese crap though.

>>3108566

24mm f/1.8 Zeiss
35mm f/2.8 Zeiss
55mm f/1.8 Zeiss
85mm f/1.8
90mm f/2.8 macro G
100mm f/2.8 STF GM

16-35mm f/2.8 GM
24-70mm f/2.8 GM
70-200mm f/2.8 GM

The GM stuff are professional and priced like it, the rest are high, but not outrageous.

Honestly though, other than the SEL50F18F every FF e-mount lens is fantastic.

>>3106930
Which leica M did you get? Digital?

is A7 II worth it for a few hundred bucks more over A7?

>>3109054

Yes.

Considerably faster AF (though still not what I would call fast. Latest gen Fuji speeds really), and IBIS are well worth.

An actually decently ergonomic layout too.

That said, the a7iii comes out in november so it may make sense to wait.

>>3109075
thanks for the heads up, didn't know about A7 III coming out relatively soon

>>3109080

Supposed to havr a bsi sensor(like a7rii and a9), so it will probably cost a bit more though.

>>3109034
>85mm f/1.8
This one is exceptional. I have noticed a few people "downgrade" from the GM to the F1,8, because of how light and small the lens is, but it's still sharp as fuck and optically really damn good.

>https://youtube.com/watch?v=bwLqxqWfWMQ
Are Clarkson and Captain Slow right? Is it a bad idea to invest in m43 if you're not doing video on a Panasonic?

>>3109209
The only two advantages is the high end video codec offered by Panasonic, and the relative compactness of their equivalent long lenses.

Those have been good enough to keep them afloat for now. But it might be hard for them if Sony one day decide to take APS-C seriously.

>>3109211
>if Sony one day decide to take APS-C seriously.

Well, no risk whatsoever of that happening

>look for telephoto E-mount lenses
>Sony 55-210mm is apparently ass
>Sony 18-105mm cropped is sharper
>anything else costs stupid amounts
Guess that's my only option then?

>>3109257
>Sony 55-210mm is apparently ass
>Sony 18-105mm cropped is sharper
I don't think any of these two are true.

>>3109260
I've read way too many reviews of the 55-210mm looking way below average in colour and sharpness. Something's telling me to avoid it.