Gear Thread
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /p/ - Photography
You are currently reading a thread in /p/ - Photography
Gear thread, too tired to wait for bump limit edition.
If you have questions about a new camera, what lenses to buy and anything related to gear or wondering about getting into photography, post it in this thread.
Do not attempt to make a new thread for your new Rabal, broken glass and being new. You have been warned!
I repeat, ANYTHING GEAR RELATED goes in here!
And don't forget, be polite!
Previous thread: >>2681036
fuck, you're pathetic
Repostan from last thread: So I wanna get a new camera and I'm kind of set on a Fujii. I was thinking of getting either a X100 or X100S (if the +300€ price tag for a used one is worth it?) or an X-Pro 1 with some old manual lenses? Or can I even use some legacy lenses on the X-Pro 1? I'd also consider getting a Ricoh possibly but I don't really like it aesthetically and it's hardly ever sold used where I live
>>2683505
wtf is your question
>>2683503
ses u m8
>>2683506
there were 3 question marks in that text so pretty much where those are set
>>2683505
300€ for a digital camera is a good price. Compare that to the Sony a6000 plastic fantastic or any other entry level DSLR.
>>2683510
no that's not 300, that's +300 for a x100s compared to a x100 (x100 used goes for around 350€, x100s goes for 650€-700€). I wanted to know whether the improved features (e.g. better autofocus) are worth it
>>2683508
oh yeah
shit sorry have to nap
>>2683512
Ah.
Get a Pentax K-30/K-50 for half the money, get double the bang.
The x100 is said to be quite meh, even compared to similarly old cameras.
If you still need a mirrorless with not really smaller body then get a NEX 5/6/7
>>2683517
I was mostly considering those because I already have a DSLR and I was looking for something small so the Pentax isn't necessarily what I'm looking for.
The Sony looks nice but isn't there a lack of lenses for the e-mount? Also I'm kind of hesitant because the lens would kind of defeat the compactness of it..
>>2683497
This cam
>>2683522
>The Sony looks nice but isn't there a lack of lenses for the e-mount?
Depends on what lenses. High-end primes except very long ones are covered quite well.
>>2683522
Use manual lenses, CZJ, Helios, Pentacon etc...
>>2683535
Not at all. My Helios 44M and Pentacon 29 perform superbly on my DSLR, focus is sharp and IQ is just like any midrange lenses today.
I focus on wide, stop it down and shoot.
>>2683535
Oh, and check out oddphoto on ebay for the Helios, they sell properly checked, cleaned and tested lenses.
>>2683505
Lmao do you live in some shitty New Hampshire town like hanowhere?
>what is the internet
>>2683547
but I'm using the internet right now
>>2683510
>plastic fantastic
better than fuji mate
>>2683552
It doesn't change the fact, fam
>>2683553
true, but if I wanted something sturdy and heavy I'd buy a brick, I buy cameras for their ability to take photos
>>2683556
I buy cameras for their ability to take photos in any environment be it freezing cold, snow or bad weather. What good is your camera when at the slightest hint of weather you have o put it away safely? Even some phones are better this way than your plasticine sony.
>>2683557
>what is a case
just bought a used but good condition 500D (some kind of rabble in amerispeak) Coming from a 60D because it was my sister's camera.
Any tips/heads up?
>>2683559
What do you want to hear? Just go out and shoot.
>>2683559
>Any tips/heads up?
I don't get what you expect anyone to say. It's a camera. They all work the same, especially if you're changing within the same brand.
>>2683566
It's a camera. Has a lens in front, a mirror box in the middle, viewfinder on top and a sensor and shutter in the back. You can catch light and expose on the sensor, timed by the shutter.
You can also go out and shoot photos. Godspeed, son.
The Chineese website sell a lot of these 1 meter Tripods which only cost 10 dollars.
They kind of interest me, since I might need a 2nd Tripod that is still fort of small and lightweight for portability, but I've seen 3 type of these so far.
1st type weights 260 Gram.
2nd type weights 360 Gram.
3rd type weights 450 Gram.
Is there actually a difference between these three?
For example, will the 450 gram variant be able to carry slightly heavier load?
Or is it all the same shit?
Maybe some of them measured without the mounting head?
Maybe it's all made up weight numbers?
What is your experience with these cheap 10 dollar, 1 meter tall "Tripods".
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software paint.net 4.0.5 Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi
>>2683517
Is the NEX 5 any good? I'd like to replace my Ricoh GRD 3 with a new camera were I could use a mechanical tube adapter for a M42 screw mount, though the NEX 5 doesn't have a hot shoe unfortunately (but an external flash add-on). Any recommendations that are similar to the NEX 5 or 5N?
Sorry if my question is annoying, I usually shoot only film so I'm not really familiar with the digital format and would like to hear some opinions on, I guess, low-budget filming/photography gear.
>>2683607
Try the NEX 6 or the 7. Your other option is the a6000 or just bite the bullet and let Fuji in raw.
>>2683610
I'll look into it, the a6000 would be probably too expensive for me, though I consider to get one if I'll land some better gigs than now. As for Fuji, I mean I really like the look of the x100 but it's still so expensive here in Germany. The cheapest body I found was about 400€. I'll probably go for the NEX 5 anyway with a M42 adapter.
>tfw you're not a trust fund kid
alright guys I've narrowed it down
>fuji x100t
>fuji x-t1
>panasonic gx8
>Olympus OM-D E-M5 Mark II
which option would you choose for your first camera?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS5.1 Macintosh Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 5614 Image Height 3742 Number of Bits Per Component 8, 8, 8 Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Created 2012:06:07 12:17:03 Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 452 Image Height 259
>>2683589
>trusting your $1k body and $2k lens to be supported on top of a $10 tripod
>>2683607
a6000 or nex6.
>>2683646
If it's a light mirrorless body, it might be possible, don't you think?
I was actually tempted to go for the lightweight 260 gram version, but something in my reason is telling me the 450 gram version is probably better.
>>2683617
check out a5000.
if you're going nex 5, make sure it's the 16 megapickle not the old 14 megapickle.
if you're going to go manual lens check out fuji xe1.
eos m with magic lantern is good too but the focus peaking is not great.
>>2683646
I wonder if digitalrev ever did some crazy tests of various tripods, trying to break them in the process.
That would be something I could see them doing.
>>2683659
https://youtu.be/G9S9jZW3Jxc
>>2683645
What are you using it for~~~~~~~~~~~
the X100t is for high quality fixed lens snap shitting, the XT1 is for workhorse mirrorless beater, the GX8 has the best video options, and the Oly has the most features (or gimmicks) and babby sensor.
Is an old Promaster 6000 tripod acceptable to use?
>>2683686
Shit. I had no idea the wobbling was a thing.
I guess the 10 dollar ones are only for non-windy, small mirrorless usage.
>>2683686
>dank
>>2683589
>Is there actually a difference between these three?
Certainly some differences exist. Like in how bad the heads are, or how loose the legs when theoretically arrested.
> For example, will the 450 gram variant be able to carry slightly heavier load?
Not certain at all.
> What is your experience with these cheap 10 dollar, 1 meter tall "Tripods".
Unfortunately they were all shit. I take that from a sample of 3 (2 from relatives, 1 from myself). And one more tripod under $50, again myself.
Almost any time you use these, you're pretty much better off shooting handheld over a backpack, unless perhaps you're using it with a compact or something else that is very light and perhaps have WLAN or other remote triggering.
Even then, you can also ridiculously easily break some of them, and have massive pains with getting them set up on some terrain
Honestly, the cheapest complete set that I personally know works to a good standard of "works" is the $90 Dic&Mic E302 or the lighter $120 Dic&Mic E302C that I mentioned a few times before here.
>>2683692
I've never used one, but from the picture, it looks highly likely that it is just terrible like practically any new very cheap tripod.
Going to NZ in February. I'm shooting with an X-T1 with a 16mm, 35mm, and 56mm (24, 50, 85 equiv.). I plan to mainly shoot landscapes during my time in NZ.
Should I bother with any filters? From ND to UV, or is it a waste of money and time?
Thinking about getting an old linhof tripod. bad idea?
>>2683717
Depends on which and why and what price you can get it for.
Chances are very high that a new Benro, Sirui or Gitzo or such a tripod will be a better choice, though.
>>2683716
Just a CPL
Maybe an ND filter if you plan on doing long exposures early enough in the day that the CPL alone won't do the trick
>>2683716
UV filters are shit on new lenses.
ND, CPL and so on are just in case you want to use them, but clearly not necessary.
Graduated variants and so on are pretty much completely useless if you do digital post.
>>2683724
i thot u were anti-nd
>>2683742
I don't personally use one, but that doesn't make me anti-ND. I don't carry one simply because I rarely need more density than a CPL alone can provide, and when I do, stopping down with a CPL and stacking frames covers my gaps fine.
If you regularly do long exposures, though, it's worth it simply to save time. The averaging method of long exposures is just fine for one or two photos, but if you've got a whole set to do...the time cost goes up exponentially.
>>2683744
then y r u always postin that exposure stacker shit citin' its superiority over nd if you don't even personally beleive in it
>>2683751
You're a fucking idiot, fam. The answers in my post, hopefully you figure it out on the third of fourth read-through.
>>2683754
I read the post and understood it the first time. My question is why do you constantly shill that method if you think it's not all that great in the first place? I mean, you were really pushing it there for a while, and not once did you ever mention the obvious shortcoming of time cost.
>>2683757
>I read the post and understood it the first time.
Obviously not.
>My question is why do you constantly shill that method if you think it's not all that great in the first place?
Because I do think it's all that great in the first place, provided it's time-efficient for you to do so. Not everyone has the same time budgeting. In terms of technical image quality, yes, a stacked exposure long exposure beats out a ND long exposure because the sensor stays cooler. It's a cleaner end file.
>I mean, you were really pushing it there for a while
And I still do when people ask "Do I need an ND filter?"
You don't. They're just fast and convenient.
>and not once did you ever mention the obvious shortcoming of time cost.
Literally every time, actually. It's implied by a simple understanding of the concept, of course.
Is this really the best you can meme, though?
>>2683761
>Literally every time, actually. It's implied by a simple understanding of the concept, of course.
>implied
>implying
how the fuck did i know you were going to say this before you wrote it? it's like i can see into the shitposting future.
all you really have to say is "you know, i used to recommend this technique all the time. what happened was, i tried it for a few shots, and while it has its advantages, i've found that it is too time-consuming to be an end-all solution."
but you'll never do that, because that would mean admitting that you don't know everything about everything and that sometimes you're wrong, and who the fuck does that?
>>2683767
Your obsession with this concept that I'm never wrong is yours and yours alone.
Perhaps you'd find it easier to prove me wrong if you were ever actually right.
>>2683767
>but you'll never do that, because that would mean admitting that you don't know everything about everything and that sometimes you're wrong, and who the fuck does that?
Can you admit to being wrong, anonymous?
Can you?
>>2683691
Just a beginner looking to get into photography as a hobby. Probably do a lot of landscape/city shooting so I want something portable but I want it to beast so I dont feel the need to get another one as I get more into it
>>2683698
I you that Anon from yesterday?
I think I actually found the best bang for the buck deal ever.
>LVG C-115C Waterproof Photography Carbon Fiber Tripod
146 cm height. Carbon tube tripod, and it's only 56 dollars.
I'm not sure if the tripod head is included or not though. But if it is, it's has to be the best thing out there for the price.
>>2683798
> I you that Anon from yesterday?
Yep.
> 146 cm height. Carbon tube tripod, and it's only 56 dollars.
If it is good and solid on all the joints and locks and bits and pieces, that certainly sounds like a good price.
Now the one I see on Aliexpress has $323-672 shipping fees to here in Europe - that is just a *little* ridiculous.
> I'm not sure if the tripod head is included or not though.
Not included unless they say it is or consistently show it on all photos.
>>2683790
I'm assuming you're only interested in mirrorless cameras since you've not mentioned any dslr's. You're probably going to want to avoid the fixed lens x100's, and any other fixed lens cam for now then.
That's best for those that already know their pref's. Get something which you can experiment with different lenses. Of your three remaining choices, you should list what you want as each option has +'s -'s and trade offs need to be made. Eg. How important is video to you?
If it's a serious concern then the x-t1 is out.
I personally have an x-t1 and an omd-em10 (unwanted gift; foisted it onto another relative - wasn't all bad, but had QC issues and the handling pissed me off).
Unless you have very particular requirements that would allow you to easily cut out some of the options, the best thing to do would be to go into a store and try them all out.
I played around with a bunch of them when it came time to buy. The most costliest option at the time, the sony a7/r/s's etc., just didn't feel right to me.
Objectively, they provide the best image quality - this is undisputed, but I really didn't like using them. A camera that you don't like to use, because of whatever reason (controls, poorly designed menus - fucking sony and olympus right there) is one that you're not going to use.
The x-t1 for me was perfect because it reminded me of my older film camera. I like the controls, how it feels in the hand - it's not the smallest and portable option, but it's a compromise I was willing to make because it was comfortable to use and every other attribute was either perfect for me or adequate enough.
Olympus stuff was too small, the sony stuff was either too big or too annoying.
Go in store, try them out. You can read all the shit you want online but don't let other's colour it. There is no perfect camera for every occasion; every option has a tradeoff. Remember that.
Is the x-t10 worth it as a new camera?
>>2683872
nothing is worth it
ever
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Image Created 2015:10:12 17:37:02 Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand
>>2684005
>1.01 MB, 2811x2028
fucking dropped. Learn to resize, damn it!
I just bought a 20mm f/1.7 for my MFT system. I tried it out. Sure, it has more light, but... what's the fucking point when all I get is shallow depth of field. I like my pictures to be in focus, not a blurred mess behind and back. Is there any point with this lens because when I stop it down to f/3.5 it's just the same as your regular kit lens, except with worse focusing speed?
>>2684011
And now you know why professionals rather use a 70-200/4 or 24-105/4 than the f/2.8 part.
MFT lenses are made with faster aperture so the tiny sensors can be used in broad daylight below ISO 1600.
>>2684011
post an example shot of where the DoF is too thin
>>2684015
inb4 band-aid on post
>>2684013
I use ISO 1600 or more only in daylight when I need 1/1000 shutter speed or more. You get perfectly good pictures with just ISO 200.
>>2684019
>1/1000 needs ISO 1600
Damn son, step your game up
1/2000 needs ISO 400-800 in daylight, what kind of camera are you using?
>>2684020
E-PM2. You're right. Just pointing out that unless you're trying to freeze a bumblebee in flight, shooting with higher ISO in direct sunlight is not necessary.
>>2684013
>professionals rather use a 70-200/4 or 24-105/4 than the f/2.8 part.
Except.....they don't.
f/2.8 are the go-to zooms for professionals.
>>2684024
>for wannabe pro-togs
Fixed that for you
Just look at Case Jarvis, what he and his team goes on shooting, their main lens of choice is the 70-200/4.
Wider aperture needs more size and glass, makes the setup front balanced and more difficult to carry.
Just because you can't afford both doesn't mean everyone everywhere ever needs the heaviest lenses. Having a lighter lens means you can go to more interesting stuff to shoot. Gear doth not maketh the photo, fam.
>>2684030
you're retarded.
>>2684031
Nice comeback, fam
I especially liked your reasons backing it up.
>>2684030
>Just look at Case Jarvis,
you are not case jervis
>>2684030
>having a lighter lens means you can go to more interesting stuff
Because a pound or two extra is really what's keeping people from going out and shooting.
>>2684033
I'm not even going to get into it with you.
You're just a loud, obvious retard if you think that 2.8 zooms aren't the defacto standard for photojournalists and a good chunk of the commercial photography world.
I just want you to know that you're a retard, since we all know it, but I'm not sure you do.
>>2684036
>Spending twice the money when most of the time you use it stopped down more than f/4
Talk about retardation, when I need more than f/4, my primes are keeping me covered. There is literally no reason to carry that bloated piece of junk around.
>>2684038
>bitches about weight of f2.8
>I have to carry extra lenses for when my f/4 isn't good enough
>>2684035
For amateur like me, having a pocketable camera is pretty good. Trying to fit a D3200 instead of a E-PM2 with a pancake lens into my jacket pocket is a little bit too difficult to handle. I can carry it around pretty much anywhere I go with no real extra difficulty.
Any good brand that's not expensive of wide angle converter for 52mm filter thread DSLR lenses?
>>2684049
Why?
Just get a wider angle lens.
Those screw on converters are always absolutely shit.
>>2684050
Maybe because it is cheaper?
I wanna put this on the 50mm 1.8 lens;
>>2684051
Why?
>>2684049
Is there even an expensive wide angle converter? I practically don't recall any that is even over $300. Most are under $100.
Obviously, because largely they're a terrible solution, with the exception of some very few made for specific lenses.
Really, unless you want a gadget that you're gonna use a handful of times only, get a wide angle lens.
>>2684030
>hurr you must have f/2.8, f/4 and prime lenses, using one set of lenses is for poorfags, having moar gears makes you more pro.
>Gear doth not maketh the photo, fam.
>>2684052
Because it is cheaper?
>>2684055
Gearfags dont care about price, they're just going to recommend the most expensive shit to you anyways
>>2684053
Sony has.
>http://www.dpreview.com/articles/5390892520/sony-adds-wide-angle-and-fisheye-adapters-for-full-frame-and-aps-c-lenses
>>2684062
Those aren't really over $300, but just $300 for the more expensive one.
I guess they are the kind that is made for a specific lens; the kind that is not particularly terrible.
>>2684008
I just snapped it with my phone and posted it, calm your tits sperglord
>>2684064
What for? And why would you take photos OF your camera? And why even post it in the gear thread without anything to comment or ask?
can someone rec me a decent micro4/3rd's or full frame compact camera for street and other misc photography?
I currently have a nikon d600 but want something I can carry everywhere
>>2684094
>microturd
>decent
There is no such thing, fam
Any recommendations on a cheap rangefinder I could buy just to have a go with one?
>>2684064
calm your tits sperglord
Odds this is a scam?
http://www.ebay.com/itm/SIGMA-30mm-f1-4-EX-DC-HSM-Lens-for-Nikon-Lot-7414-/272013321039?hash=item3f5541e34f
>>2684210
Either scam or stolen. Seller has zero feedback, seems like a new account.
>>2684210
What if I buy? Can ebay refund me if this is a scam?
>>2684236
No. Paypal, maybe. But you still won't get that lens so why bother?
Go search for more reliable sellers, you will find a good deal eventually.
>>2684094
leica m9
>>2684210
>http://www.ebay.com/itm/SIGMA-30mm-f1-4-EX-DC-HSM-Lens-for-Nikon-Lot-7414-/272013321039?hash=item3f5541e34f
Almost certainly a scam.
Also, you don't want that lense, you want the Art version, as it also covers fool frame, and its coating won't wear off into a black sticky mess like the old EX Sigmas do.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Canon Camera Model Canon EOS 550D Camera Software Digital Photo Professional Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 350 dpi Vertical Resolution 350 dpi Image Created 2014:11:17 12:01:44 Exposure Time 1/20 sec F-Number f/0.0 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 800 Lens Aperture f/inf Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 0.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1200 Image Height 800 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard
>>2683607
It's me again. Getting a NEX 5N body for 100 bucks with accessories like a flash and some batteries. A good deal?
>>2684097
You're such a fucking queer it's unbelievable. m43 may not be 5Dmk3 incredible, but it's undeniably at least decent.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make OLYMPUS IMAGING CORP. Camera Model E-M5 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.6 (Windows) Maximum Lens Aperture f/3.5 Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 24 mm Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2015:09:30 16:48:09 Exposure Time 1/60 sec F-Number f/3.5 Exposure Program Normal Program ISO Speed Rating 640 Lens Aperture f/3.5 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash, Auto Focal Length 12.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Gain Control High Gain Up Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal
>>2683497
Best pump zoom (70-200ish) for Pentax K-mount?
I know old zooms aren't usually the best, but I'd be interested in if there's anything worthwhile/distinctive from the pack. Vivitar 1 series? How would you say those compare to "modern" basic kit zooms in the range?
The later lenses with separate focus/zoom rings are kind of a bummer to use on a no-AF body, so those are no-go.
Wanting to get into photography, currently not wanting to do it for more than a hobby and i just want something better than my ipod touch's 8mp camera
i found this Olympus pen ep2 for about $140
would this be a good starting camera?
Looking for a new DSLR. Needs to be a weather sealed Pentax. How dated is the K-5 at this point? Am I better buying a used one or a new K-S2?
>>2684299
As the price would indicate, this is not a good camera. It's a cheap older digital camera, kinda obsoleted by progress.
Whether you're starting or not has really nothing to do with a camera being good, either.
New high-end IL cameras aren't more difficult to operate, they're probably easier easier.
With the waterhouse system, if you're shooting wide open, why bother putting any aperture in at all?
>>2684302
> How dated is the K-5 at this point?
It is not terribly out of date as far as Pentax goes.
> Am I better buying a used one or a new K-S2?
Dunno. Not sure why you're not simply getting a K-3 II either.
If your financial limits are low - well, probably simply get the cheaper camera.
>>2684265
Don't bother shilling for m43 on /p/, you'll just get shit on because
>muh babby sensor
But to be fair, the detail in your picture is pretty muddy. Looks like hand shake.
>>2684346
Well, if the aperture you put in is exactly the same opening as the lens barrel has, then it's probably just to close off the opening in the barrel?
>>2684340
its not the best but i think its still usable
>>2684265
>calling that decent
This is why people shit on m43 users. Probably had IBIS turned on and didn't give a fuck.
>>2684299
>would this be a good starting camera?
yes it's fine
you're not a nat geo guy
or taking pics for AP or something
no viewfinder though, which is annoying
buy what you can afford, and what you're willing to afford, for a burgeoning hobby that not yet a permanent thing with you
dickscuss
what u think
>>2684374
Oh.
>>2684374
its a camera
Could anyone point me 8n a good direction for a camera that would be good for mostly toy photography, as well as some casual nature pictures or something? I'm fine with getting refurbished or something, maybe max of 300 or so dollarydoos.
>>2684374
ugly
>>2683694
Just save a couple bucks you can get a proper manfrotto for 100 bucks with a head. I have a 190xprob and i got it with a 322rc2 joystick head but i didnt like it so i traded it for a 486rc2 and 20 bucks so in the end i got a pro lightweight setup for 80 bucks and i feel confident this will last me years. Keep that in mind because one day you might have a proper dslr and lets say a 70-400 f2.8is on it and your little 10 dollar dingy tripod will fall over. I put a canon 6d on mine with a 150-500 sigma lens on it and was very confident with it
>>2684368
I personally feel quite underwhelmed at that Olympus's performance.
I don't even think I'd bring this one along when I have access to my smartphone (~$100 Xiaomi device), unless it had some fancy lens on it. Really, I can barely see an advantage there.
But I guess if the images look good enough to you, go ahead.
>>2684299
not with these lenses
>>2684374
Ugly, and probably not a good camera.
[Probably something like what happens if you half-ass a competitor to the RX100's but make it quite expensive anyways?]
>>2684374
It's like the Olympus Stylus 1 and the Nikon v1 raped each other, then vomited their abomination into a dumpster where it was found by canon
Friend offering Pentax K-30 with kit lens for $250 good deal or no?
I personally was looking to spend about that on a Canon 40D with a kit lens and battery and charger etc. Any suggestions which way to go?
>>2684243
>Sigma EX finish
>sticky
That sounds more like their zen finish than their EX finish.
>>2684398
Between these two, I think I'd get the Pentax even without the friend part.
>>2684398
K-30 is vastly superior to the 40D. Not that the 40D is a bad camera, my friend uses one and takes quite good photos but the K-30 makes even a 70D look outdated.
Plus weather sealing and pentaprism for that price, and the Pentax kit lenses have better IQ than the canon ones, mostly due to the SMC coating. Good color rendition and contrast.
I have stumbled across a yashica T4 being sold for £100, I'm currently using a yashica minitec as my every day camera. From looking at the T4/T5 flickr group the camera doesn't really look to perform much better than what I'm using presently.
Does the T4 have anything other than an impressive lens? It doesn't look to have any premium features that the contax T2 or GRV have
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi
When filming with this, ME-1, the audio get a background hiss-sound. Any ideas of what the problem could be?
>>2684442
Do you have the audio level maxed out in camera? The higher you push that the worse the preamps get
>>2684446
Nope. Nothing like that. Also, the audio recording works just "fine" when using the built in mic.
>>2684435
Not sure what you want to hear anon, but my espio mini takes the same quality pictures as my T4 and I got it for 10€. Just get a mju II if you want to step up from your yashica minitec.
>>2684451
It's a steady one.
>>2684454
That means it is the amp, so instead a part being faulty in your mic, there is another part being at fault in your mic. RMA it or just throw it out and get a Rode.
>>2684455
Ok, thanks anon!
>>2684243
>Art version, as it also covers fool frame
No it doesn't.
The 35mm art covert full frame.
The 30mm art doesn't.
>>2684452
No no that's exactly what I wanted, I'm happy with my current compact, wanted to make sure I wasn't missing out on a big leap in performance by looking into a premium compact
>>2684243
> Sigma Art on a modern film Canon body
>>2684478
30mm covers ff with surprisingly little vignetting
Hi, any experience with these wide angle primes? Sigma 24mm f/1.4, Nikon 20mm f/1.8.
At similar price is is any of them "better" than the other?
>>2684509
Corners are soft as hell.
http://www.nikonusa.com/en/nikon-products/dslr-cameras/dslr-filmmakers-kit.page
Is this a good deal if I don't need the recorder and mic?
What I shoot has changed enough that I need to now care about low light performance enough to move to full frame, and since I currently have Canon, I might as well slide over to Nikon b/c of the better sensor.
I'm not shooting film, but those three lenses are damn useful lenses to get from the jump, but I don't know dick about Nikon lenses and pricing for them.
While I tend to not worry about buying used with lenses, since I make my living with a camera, I always buy bodies new (warranty/company service -- but Canon might have spoiled me there with their CPS).
>>2684538
and lots of vignetting.
>>2684559
Oh, and I'm talking about the d810 version...
>>2684538
>>2684560
But hey, it still works.
Also, for the record, these are mostly at f/1.4, and it gives you way more contrast all over and sharpness in the centre than you'll get from most f1.4 lenses plens can afford.
Stop it down to f/4 and you can easily crop a sharp 3:4 or 4:5 out of it.
Also the simple combination of that wide and that fast will normally set you back at least a grand.
>and bitches love the ridiculous vignette
>ID this lens?
Just curious... saw it in the background of a photo.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make NIKON CORPORATION Camera Model NIKON D7100 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows) Maximum Lens Aperture f/4.0 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Color Filter Array Pattern 854 Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 600 mm Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Created 2015:10:13 22:38:50 Exposure Time 1/2000 sec F-Number f/7.1 Exposure Program Not Defined ISO Speed Rating 500 Lens Aperture f/7.1 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 600.00 mm Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 420 Image Height 193 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Gain Control Low Gain Up Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal Subject Distance Range Unknown
>>2684637
Looks like a Sigma 500mm prime telephoto lens
http://www.pentaxforums.com/userreviews/sigma-500mm-f4-5-ex-dg-apo.html
>>2684637
Sigma 300 - 800?
>>2684640
TY, all I could tell was it wasn't a Nikkor.
The extra grip ring was throwing me off. Believe it is Sigma 300-800.
>>2684644
I thought the 300-800 was bigger than that.
Hey guys looking to grab a new camera. Been reading up and the Pentax k50 seems pretty good. Anyone have some input?
Also, should I wait for black Friday or nearer to the holiday to grab one? Are they usually cheaper then?
>>2684647
You won't get cheaper than buying used. K-50 is around $300 used with kit lens. Not a big money for such a great camera. Look up O-GPS1 if you're interested in astro.
>>2684648
Where does one find used like that? I've only found the body for that much.
>>2684650
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Pentax-K-50-16MP-DSLR-Camera-Kit-with-DA-L-18-55mm-WR-f3-5-5-6-Lens-Black-/371449128918?hash=item567c17e7d6
literally 10 seconds on ebay
>>2684645
I think it's just compressed because this was shot with a 800mm.
I want a good hand grib for my A7ii when I'm on the bike.
This one for example, claims it's compatible with most Tripod heads.
It also seems to not block the Battery entrance, which also sounds nifty.
What is your take on this, good? Bad?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make NIKON CORPORATION Camera Model NIKON D80 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows) Maximum Lens Aperture f/5.7 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Color Filter Array Pattern 942 Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 157 mm Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 3872 Image Height 2592 Number of Bits Per Component 8, 8, 8 Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Created 2015:06:15 16:58:20 Exposure Time 1/125 sec F-Number f/16.0 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 200 Lens Aperture f/16.0 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Spot Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash Focal Length 105.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1000 Image Height 1000 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Gain Control None Contrast Hard Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal Subject Distance Range Unknown
Between the Pentax K-50 and the K S-1, which would you say is better? Is the 50 worth the ~70 dollars more?
>>2684691
> Lynca
>>2684737
So what hand grips are better according to you?
And why?
>>2684402
>>2684418
Thanks guys. Got the Pentax.
I was just wondering if you guys think there is a qualitative difference in the pictures produced by the Canon 40D and the Pentax K-30, both using kit lenses. I've been searching flickr for pictures using both setups and it seems to me like those pictures taken with the 40D seem to look a lot better quality and color-wise. Might this have something to do with the kit lens on the 40D being that much better? Or am I missing something?
Anyone, please feel free to take a look and tell me if you share my conclusion:
https://www.flickr.com/search/?q=canon%2040d%2018-55mm
https://www.flickr.com/search/?camera=pentax/k-30&text=18-55mm
su/p/
i'm looking to buy a new camera to replace my D3100
Are there any good new models? My budget is around 1000e
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make NIKON CORPORATION Camera Model NIKON D3100 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Camera Raw 7.0 (Windows) Maximum Lens Aperture f/1.4 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Color Filter Array Pattern 740 Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 75 mm Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2015:03:14 21:40:31 Exposure Time 1/200 sec F-Number f/7.1 Exposure Program Not Defined ISO Speed Rating 100 Lens Aperture f/7.1 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 50.00 mm Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Gain Control None Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal Subject Distance Range Unknown
>>2684760
If you got it, then don't worry about it. That's the path of the gearfag.
Just do what you can to get the most out of it.
>>2684762
> Are there any good new models?
The Nikon D750 is much better. If you can spend more, it's worth getting that one.
The D7200 also is an upgrade.
If you like primes, perhaps also just switch to an A6000.
>>2684760
The Pentax looks better on most images that do not look like they've been processed much (sort by date to see more of these rather than a "best-of").
>>2684766
i pretty much only shoot primes
Is the A6000 really that good?
I kind of feel mirorless cameras are still in their gimmicky phase, has that changed in recent years?
>>2684770
> Is the A6000 really that good?
It is one of the best APS-C camera bodies out now, and not very expensive.
Definitely worth having a look at.
> I kind of feel mirorless cameras are still in their gimmicky phase, has that changed in recent years?
Yes, sure.
If the general picture interest you, it is probably worth reading / watching some reviews of the A6000, A7R II, the upcoming A7S II, but also the Panasonic GH5 and other non-Sony cameras.
>>2684780
> And if you buy ff lenses - why would you even bother with apsc?
I'm sure you'll be the only kid in town that uses a FF lens on an APS-C, and shamed greatly once they actually notice the missing APS-C label.
Because otherwise, you can't tell much... only that you have a good lens, and that you can also use it on a FF camera.
>>2684784
How about you learn to read. At the price point where you invest in a sony primes, buying an apsc body becomes a bad option. Why? Cuz it already costs a lot of money. And the size advantage of apsc disappears. But the quality of your shots won't be as good as on a ff.
Or would you rather shoot with a Sigma 2.8? It's like, almost 2016 man ;)
>>2684790
> At the price point where you invest in a sony primes, buying an apsc body becomes a bad option.
No, it still is a very good body, and even on other systems lenses that look actually good on 24MP sensors cost quite a bit... and are mostly FF.
> But the quality of your shots won't be as good as on a ff.
Well, buy a FF then.
The A7R II is $3200-ish, but it does have twice as many megapixels and comparable burst rates on the higher resolution (with and without AF). Plus it can do lower light and it has a great stabilizer for otherwise unstabilized lenses.
I might suggest that the 24MP on the A6000, its about equal burst rate and AF might already be quite good though, and that the difference in price still allows for about 2-4 extra FF lenses.
> Or would you rather shoot with a Sigma 2.8
That's another option. The 60mm Sigma is quite good.
More options include Canon EF lenses, on a smart adapter, possibly with focal reduce, and about every manual lens made ever on an adapter... though for either of these, I'd recommend only the better lenses. 24MP still is quite a lot.
>>2684770
if sony, only bother with their full frame stuff which is where it's at for them
their apsc is boring
really good tech, but poorly designed interface and so so (and some toral shit) lenses
at least they don't try to ape the retro look fad for bodies tho, a6k looks like a cam for the 21st century
look at used a7ii and beyond
forget a7
if you're into primes and want most portable of all at expense of iq, look at panaolympus
range of models and prices to suit any budget and use
huge range of itty bitty primes (for mirrorless)
newer bodies getting big enough that size advantage (their only advantage) is under threat
fuji has a nice middle ground between ff and the m4/3 of panolym
eggsellent lens and overall build quality
great support well into product life
but you pay more than you may need to compared to everything else
best gotten on sale
>muh fuji colurs
>muh good jpeg
>muh no LR converter
samsung non-entity
interest for 4k portable amateur vid rig
who knows id f they'll still be in the game next year
not bad, but forgotten by all
just keep your nikon stuff
upgrade cam model and keep your lens unless you have pressing need to change systems
is there really any reason to buy a d5300 over a d3300
>>2684899
Not really. Get a D7100 instead.
I have the option to trade my 6d for an a7r. I have a guy willing to pay me average market price for my lenses. Should i go for it? Also with about a 700 budget after (looking to pay some debt of with most of what i get off my lenses) what lenses should i go for. If i get a prime i need atleast 2 and im open to vintage
>>2684937
A7R is highly specialised body. It's nothing like the do-everything A7Rii that everybody raves about.
The A7ii has more in common with A7Rii than A7R has with A7Rii.
Is it worth saving some cash by getting used? There's a decent priced used on ebay I'm checking out. Are there any cons that might outweigh the savings? I'm worried about it arriving and in a week it stops working. This would be my first camera.
>>2684937
The A7R has a lot of issues. I wouldn't do it.
So as i posted above i guess trading 6d for an a7r is out of the question but how about selling the 6d and buying an a7ii or a7s?
>>2684945
> Is it worth saving some cash by getting used?
Dunno, depends on the details. If the savings outweigh the risks involved and you actually want the respective camera, do it.
However, it is it worth it for you to not use newer gear with the fairly significant progress there has been? Most actually good deals are of course for older gear.
Assuming you're somewhere near middle class in the USA or EU as chances are that you are around here, the required $400-1.5k or so per year it takes to keep fairly good and new-ish gear are not be too crazy for a hobby expense.
>>2684965
> but how about selling the 6d and buying an a7ii or a7s?
I'd quite possibly do this. Just be aware that the lenses will also cost you.
As great and well worth your money as many of those lenses are, you're almost certain to run an expense there that selling the 6D and typical lenses probably won't cover.
Also, the A7S II will be out soon. Even if you want to buy the less shiny A7S anyways, it might be better to wait for that to actually happen. Prices for the A7S will likely go down.
>>2684966
Well the person says it's got less than 1100 shutter count, and that it's less than a month old. It's a k50 by pentax and comes with a Tamron 28-200 lens. This would be my first go into cameras.
>>2684971
Thats also true. But how about vintage lenses? I hear stories about how people buy a tack sharp prime for like 70 bucks
Hey all, is there an alternative to the GaffGun that isn't $200?
Or, aside from taping cords down by hand, what are your solutions?
>>2684975
The lens is really quite crappy if I remember correctly, but a K-50 isn't all that bad.
I guess it just depends how much it costs as compared to new.
A K-50 does not really cost all that much to begin with, and I'd see the value of that lens as like $70 tops, with a high probability that you'll want another lens.
>>2684977
Uh, I'd call most of those people are enthused about "reasonably" sharp at best.
Like, you could use a Minolta Tele Rokkor 200mm or something like that, and it'd kinda resolve to like 1/4-1/3 the resolution of an A7 II.
Which certainly can be useful enough if you framed the shot correctly... but it's not great.
But "tack sharp" on those modern Sonys is still almost only with those expensive modern F-mount lenses, or the vintage lenses that are still expensive (say, an adapted 200mm Minolta APO G).
Well, maybe it's a bit less acute on the 12MP A7S, but those 20-40MP devices kinda require better lenses...
>>2684984
So what if i get lets say a 500 dollar ziess 32mm or 50mm or something and then i get lets say a vintage 24 vintage 85 and maybe a 200. Is that fairly decent of a setup?
>>2684984
Would you happen to have another suggestion for a dslr to a newcomer? I want something entry level.
>>2684986
You won't get a modern Zeiss for Pentax, but any vintage CZJ will do you more than an expensive new mid-tier prime.
An M42 adapter costs $2, and you have the best lens options for a DSLR.
>>2684990
You don't get a better entry DSLR than the K-50 for that money. In fact you can only get more expensive and worse entry level cameras.
>>2684996
New on amazon is like 400 but this used one is 200. You think it's worth it?
>>2685003
Yep, definitely. It is the usual price for a used one. The shutters on these newer cameras are rated around 150 000-200 000 actuations.
>>2685008
Alright man, thanks. I'll give it my best shot to get it. Can you recommend me some okay lenses to grab? Maybe one goof for macro or something for some action figures, and one decent one for some wildlife pictures or nature in general?
>>2685014
Some cheap step up from the kit lens is the 16-45mm f/4. It is constant aperture, quite decent IQ especially in the wide range. Distortion galore at 45. Also has reverse barrel extension, meaning the barrel extends towards wide so it casts a shadow from the onboard flash. Separate flashguns are okay. I have it, use it often but there are some better alternatives, mostly more expensive ones. The 16-85 costs double than the 16-45 but most of the time outresolves the more expensive ones.
The 55-300 is a good first telephoto for portraits, sports and wildlife, try to get the HD version for weather sealing. The 50-200 WR is okay, but goes a little soft at the long end.
Get an M42 adapter and buy as many cheap lenses you can, like Helios 44, Pentacon 50, CZJ Flektogon, Pancolar etc...
Experiment, have enormous fun.
Also look around here for more suggestions:
http://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/
http://www.pentaxforums.com/userreviews/
>>2684986
I recall the great 35 and 55mm Zeiss are more like $1500 and $800, as are other great lenses (the two Batis', the 90mm Sony macro, the Mitakons...).
Well, overall the idea is good, anyhow.
>>2684990
The Nikon D3x00 and D7x00 might have slightly better sensors and more lenses, but you're paying definitely a lot more for corresponding features on the camera body than with Pentax. And most of the interesting lenses I'm thinking of are $400-1200 - ish.
The Sony A6000 (slightly better sensor, better AF and expensive but very great primes - the same $800-1500 ones from above, or tons of vintage or adapted lenses) and other options might be interesting too, though I do have the impression you might want to keep it cheaper / simpler.
Basically, the K-5 is quite well-rounded for an entry-level camera, and I see no real issue sticking with it. My complaint really was primarily about just the lens, which you can swap out.
>>2685003
Also a yes from me. $200 is a good deal.
How about just trading my 6d it for the first gen a7 with a 50mm 1.8 konica and 200 dollars cash?
Im the guy with all the d6 trading for a7 posts. I have an a6000 with a 24mm sonnar 1.8 and i got it for my uncle a while ago but he doesnt use it much. Is it a good lens to use on an a7?
>>2685049
Get the a7II instead.
>>2685052
> I have an a6000 with a 24mm sonnar 1.8 and i got it for my uncle a while ago but he doesnt use it much. Is it a good lens to use on an a7?
Yup, should be quite good.
>>2685049
I tried an original sony a7, but returned it and bought a 6D instead. The dynamic range was better and resolution slightly higher, but the high iso noise was worse, the battery life is horrible, and adapted lenses wouldn't autofocus at all.
Im a poor fag and being forced to buy an entry level camera I went for the Sony a58 (a mount). People told me it had an internal autofocus motor so I could but cheap lenses without autofocus motors in order to save money.
What are those lenses? Any idea? Can someone point me into motorless cheap lenses? Third party brands are ok with me since Im a poor fag.
building a dslr for videography.
already have camera, lens, matte box etc. though the camera is small and light everything is attached to it because i use the same set up to walk around. so lights, monitor, mics...
all I'm missing is a good tripod. i will use it for static portrait interviews with a small 25mm (50 equiv) 99% of the time. but having a minimally usable pan head for that one scene shoot would be great.
what do you suggest that won't break the bank. i think for the modest needs under $200 is doable (I'm OK buying used of its easy to come by)
>>2685071
A mount is dead, man. Try and get an M42 adapter and use old manual glass
>>2685079
Can you suggest me some decent and cheap old manual glass?
I found an old Voightlander in my loft, but the aperture blade seems to be broken, but I though I'd try some old film cameras out, what would be a good choice for a fixed focal length?
>>2685086
Nvm, it seems the minolta ones with af should work. I wonder how shitty they are for entry level stuff.
>>2685086
Helios, Pentacon, CZJ, Meyer, Tokina, Vivitar etc...
brokefag here.
bought Olympus Xz-1 off ebay, supposedly not working right. Got it, cleaned it up, did factory reset, works great, sold for $250.
Bought refurb Sony RX-100 mk1, shot a lot of photos, traded it for Panny GX1 with 14mm pancake and 14-42mm kit lens
Shot a lot more photos, micro four turd resolution better than RX100, but....
Traded RX100 for Sony a65v with 18-55mm kit lens, APS-C and muh 24 megapickles.
Shooting many more photos...
And then this week I bought THREE nice vintage Minolta MAXXUM lenses from Roberts Camera for under $100 shipped. Beautiful Minolta glass for under $30 each...
Now I has Sony a65 with 4 lenses and less than $200 in actual cash layout, due to smart trading and being poor.
But life's good. The Minolta 28-85mm is pretty decent, and the 100-200mm zoom is actually really sharp. and everyone should have the 50mm 1.8 Minolta prime.
It's too bad Sony is killing the A mount format - but for a poorfag like myself, it's one of the best options for a DSLR system. PLENTY of old Minolta Maxxum lenses out there to be had for cheap....
>>2685106
>PLENTY of old Minolta Maxxum lenses out there to be had for cheap....
If A-mount was still alive, you could bet your ass none of those lenses would still be cheap. A-mount is dead for your benefit.
Long live Minolta.
>>2685078
Wh>>2685078
Yes i know its slower. Ok so im not sure which to go for. In terms of image quality only (i shoot street landscapes and a basically everywhere i go) which one should i choose, i do shoot at night quite often and usually on a tripod. My options are a7 a7ii a7s and a7r which should i go for. I dont know much about these but im trying to learn. Im really going to enjoy working with mostly primes and probably lots of vintage crap so please help me make the right choice as i am an enthusiast who used to shoot weddings and portraits and do candid shoots but will probably stay away from weddings for now
>>2685314
>Yes i know its slower.
No, it's not slower (smaller aperture / lower t-stop)... it's smaller. The corners and border will be black.
If you just lend it from your uncle while he is not using it, this is probably still worth doing, but you'll not be using your full sensor with this one.
> My options are a7 a7ii a7s and a7r which should i go for
A7II or A7S (II?). The latter is oriented more towards low light shooting.
basic bitch tier but i got myself a nikon d5100 with 18-55mm and 55-200mm lenses a few years back, just dug it out of storage b/c i want to get back into photography
would either of these lenses be aight for taking generic street snaps or should i invest in another one??
or should i just sell the whole thing and buy something else?????
thx guys :)
>>2685317
They can take generic street snaps.
They're not particularly great lenses for it, but they can.
>>2685316
Whats so wrong with the a7r? And why is the a7s better in some terms over the a7ii even though it has so little megapixels? And i mean the body is burst is slower on the a7 from a6000
>>2685320
i figured, but would i be better off getting a whole new setup?? i reckon i can still get a decent bit of money for it all
>>2685324
> And why is the a7s better in some terms over the a7ii even though it has so little megapixels?
The A7S will do lower light, it's designed for it... whereas the other cameras will get noise earlier.
> Whats so wrong with the a7r?
Quite a lot, but don't ask me to reliably list them. from my mind:
- Pretty long shutter lag
- Focusing issues starting from half-bright lighting
- Low flash sync speed (not 1/250 like other Sony but 1/160 or something)
- Small buffer for bursts
- Shutter makes camera vibrate and can mess up images (at least I read that, like http://thecameraforum.com/a7r-shutter-vibration-problem-explained/ - did not have the camera long enough to try this one)
And of course it just doesn't have the A7 II's stabilizer, which will matter quite a lot for your plans with adapted lenses. This is also why I listed the A7S II.
>>2685325
Not sure about that one. I think for the most part you might want just a different lens if you're unhappy with your capabilities right now.
Not that a very nice camera body couldn't help with shooting moving people in more shaded areas of a street, but it probably will do a lot less for you than a better lens might.
Perhaps get a good prime or zoom or two in the range you aim to shoot street at?
>>2685331
My broke line cooking and school going ass cant afford that a7s ii. So then i guess im looking for an a7ii. With the lower megapixels in worried my prints wont be as nice and sometimes as much as i hate to do it i crop my photos quite a lot like today when i went to a soccer match with my 6d and 70-200 f4l usm non is. This shot is uncropped but the cropped looks much better (the quality is shit tier because too broke for 2.8 or is
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1920 Image Height 1280
>>2685339
>implying your broke line cooking and school going ass can afford large prints
>implying 12MP isn't enough to give you great 11x14 images, let alone the 20x16 you'd get from 24MP
>implying your snapshits are worth printing
Spoiler: Pickles haven't mattered in a long while, merely the quality of those pickles.
>>2685339
> With the lower megapixels in worried my prints wont be as nice
24MP are absolutely not little to work with, assuming you have a sharp lens that can capture most of that. If you actually get ~18MP or so with your lens (more or less like what the high-end Sony F-mount lenses can do), then cropping into 1/8 of the image should still work okay full screen on a normal 1920x1080 computer monitor, even after some processing has been done.
With some random cheap zoom or vintage lens, you won't get anywhere near 24MP useful data though. 6-8MP or something is more like it, and of course then you more or less just want a properly framed shot that was has no visible flaws from shaking hands or such.
>>2685348 (cont'd)
Now, if you had a higher resolution camera, the usable MP count would go up a little too, but not really entirely proportionally.
Storing, archiving, processing huge piles of mostly trash data -36MP images of which 9-10MP tops are usable- sucks balls without a faster computer, and it is still annoying with one. Especially if you do much of that processing in slow-ass LR.
So really, I'd take the lower but not really low megapixels to get a stabilizer and faster flash sync and stuff. If you shoot without tripod at times, that stops you from loosing like 3/4 or more of many an image's resolution to hand motion.
And then you just see what good F-mount lenses you can stick on that (if you can afford a few), or at least which adapted lenses can frame your subject pretty well.
PS: All those fractions and numbers are estimates from experience; I do not know what exactly you'll be using and it is not perfectly easy to determine these numbers anyways.
>>2685370
Fuck me sideways this is way too much shit its like when i used to drive old cars because theyre more fun to work on. Fuck that im sticking with my 6d my nifty 50 1.4 and my 70-200 FpoorL and just gonna buy me a 24mm or a 17-40 for muh zooms and i have the whole range covered. And when i graduate school and im not super broke ill buy the 85mm L prime and trade up on the 70-200 for an 70-200. Good plan? I think so. I like the a7 but fuck there is too much shit to think about and my 6d is already sexy as fuck
>>2685074
if anyone's curious, i got this one
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/328998-REG/Smith_Victor_700103_Propod_III_Aluminum_2_Stage.html
>>2685343
My school has a commercial printer. I heard i can do 8x11 for 2 dollars a piece and something like 16x 24 for 10 dollars but im not exactly sure and the quality is nice my friend did a couple
>>2685343
They are to me im not asking for your shackles for my prints every single photo i ever took was for my pure enjoyment and nothing more.
>>2685388
It is also a plan, sure. As you might see from the numbers I listed, getting a high-end lens onto an average body is probably better than getting an average lens on a high-end body.
Remark: At this point in time, the Canon "L" lenses are not usually as good as the new F-mount lenses are. But who knows what has happened by the time you graduated school.
>>2685343
>implying your snapshits are worth printing
this is the main thing picklefags just will never get
>>2685397
Really? So if you could buy an fmount prime for under 600 dollars what would it be? I may buy a adapter for my 6d and try it that way. Manual is not a problem i shoot my 50mm on manual most of the time anyways
>>2685401
Yall dont get it. I dont care if you wouldnt pay a broken penny for my 24x36print. Ill pay 200 dollars for a print of a blury selfie if i want to. I wasnt asking for advice on printing or not printing or for u to tell me my shots are shit. Im asking for an opinion on a set of cameras and lenses vs another set of cameras and lenses. If it isnt related go back to editing your stock snapshits so u can sell them for 5 cents a download while i enjoy my hobby as i get better at it. Cheers m8
>>2685402
>Really? So if you could buy an fmount prime for under 600 dollars what would it be?
Those are not the E-mount ('scuse the typo from before) lenses that I thought of.
They cost $800-1500, like Canon "L" glass (actually, "L"-glass can certainly cost more even without the super telephotos).
But well, the Batis 25+85mm, Sonnar 55mm, Distagon 35mm, FE macro 90mm, the two Mitakons... are all great.
Under $600 there are mostly the Sony 28mm and some manual Samyang/Rokinon lenses, but I'd not put them too firmly into the "better than L glass" - group.
Never mind you can of course use the manual Samyangs/Rokinons/Mitakons in their EF-mount variants pretty much the same way on a Canon in situations where you have a tripod.
>>2685404
>whycantiholdallthisautism.jpg
>>2685440
>irritating a guy who is still in school
>wants to decide which way to go with his limited budget
>lol megapickles you are idiot lol
>guy gets irritated
>lol autism lol
Guess who is being autistic about fucking nonsense
To the 6D vs a7 guy, you are young and you don't have the patience nor the experience to filter out idiots like this one. Don't worry, you will do fine. If somebody is not nice to you, just ignore them.
Also your debate is legit, still you have a very good body with some nice lenses. Getting nicer lenses is always better than migrating to a whole new system. Cheers and have fun.
Oh, and that blurriness with your 70-200/4 is more of a shake problem. Try upping the ISO, the 6D can take it much better than a 5DIII or 7D/7DII. It is the go to camera when it comes to astrophotography and for a reason. Google it.
>>2685492
holy shit the retard keeps on going
>>2685492
Thanks bro glad to see not everyone here is a fucking autistic hipster. And no worries i like to feed fire with more fire its just funny to see people try hard. Dude im 24 its not like i havent been dealing with autistic tards for my whole life i live in toronto there is too man of those around here. And dont judge me for getting my post secondary at 24 i had to work hard to pay for my school i dont have rich mommy and daddy to pay my way through "muh photography school is gonna make me a better pictureman". And no im not studying photography lol
>>2685553
tl;dr
/p/ isn't your personal blog
>>2685440
>>2685513
>>2685571
>And don't forget, be polite!
whoops
sorry about that
tbh i didn't actually read anything and was just shitposting for fun
sry anon
hope you find a nice camera
>>2685662
This is the end of Canikon.
>>2685662
gang shit man
>>2685662
>.78x finder
>full frame
kek
this just looks like a wishlist made by a pentax fanboy.
Are Sigma lenses good? I'm looking at one for one of my film cameras.
