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
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: >>2692565
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties:
Hello, can somebody give me more rules like the one in pic related?
>>2695797
Related to what?
For astro, your shutter speed should be 500/focal length to keep stars from trailing
hand-held shutter speeds should be more than 1/focal length to avoid shaky hands
Rule of thirds is pretty good for basic composition, etc.
>>2695799
Thanks m8
>>2695797
This is something your auto or auto exposure mode should do better on any decent modern digital camera, unless there is a reason why you can't use them?
took some photos of a pumpkin drop from a roof and had really hard time autofocusing on a x-t1. Is this something contrast detect just sucks at in general or is there a trick/gear to autofocus a dark person against a lit-up background?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make FUJIFILM Camera Model X-T1 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.7.1 (Macintosh) Maximum Lens Aperture f/1.4 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 53 mm Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2015:11:01 14:57:47 Exposure Time 1/30 sec F-Number f/1.4 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 2500 Lens Aperture f/1.4 Brightness -3.4 EV Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash Flash, Compulsory, Red-Eye Reduce Focal Length 35.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Sharpness Normal Subject Distance Range Unknown
>>2695799
It's actually 600/focal length in 35mm equiv. with a completely open aperture (max possible for the lens).
is the eos m good for beginner cinematography? wanted to get a focal reducer that doubles as a nikon adapter for it too.
>>2695817 forgot to resize
my speedlights were at the point of impact so I tried to make do with internal flash
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make FUJIFILM Camera Model X100T Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.7.1 (Macintosh) Maximum Lens Aperture f/2.0 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2015:11:01 15:43:10 Exposure Time 1/1000 sec F-Number f/2.8 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 5000 Lens Aperture f/2.8 Brightness -2.4 EV Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 23.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Sharpness Normal Subject Distance Range Unknown
>Entry level FF
>d610 shits all over the 6d
>too poorfag for 5d3
So, when's the 6d mark 2 is coming?
>>2695817
mirrorless users getting keked yet again
also you should be using the centre af points. the pdaf wont save you, but it'll help.
try pre-focus/manual focus if the target isn't moving too much.
>mfw forgot a bid on an eBay auction
>mfw accidentally bought to Fuji XE1
>mfw don't even have the money to afford them
Got one for 200 and the other one for 220€. I hope that was a decent price and I can resell one at least, r-right?
>>2695857
*two
>>2695857
Xe1 price is 200-220 and they generally sell pretty fast. And you know you can actually contact the seller and ask to cancel the purchase.
>>2695868
On eBay? I though that's pretty much if you win the auction, you absolutely have to buy it?
>>2695870
say you're sorry, that you're broke and poor and don't pay him.
you'll get a bad rating or something.
>>2695817
Uh, CDAF is not the thing that focuses objects that are as fast as something falling against gravity.
Faster PDAF like newer Sony cameras can do it, not sure about your Fuji tho,
> is there a trick/gear to autofocus a dark person against a lit-up background?
Muh Sonys can do it. Though they usually won't meter brightness perfectly if you have extreme contrasts (like, shooting some equipment behind a turned on photo LED panel), even on spot metering.
If your camera can't... fall back to MF.
>>2695853
Center or not doesn't matter with contrast detection.
It only matters with phase detection.
>>2695933
so why are you using CDAF on a camera with PDAF against moving subjects?
>>2695933
If you have 75 phase detect points spread throughout the sensor, you have no reason to stay in the center of the frame.
>>2695951
Phase detection works best in the center.
>>2695910
>>2695952
here's a better example. City lights with a dark subject in the foreground to be lit with on camera flash. I put the focus point over the pumpkin area but it just hunts and eventually focuses on the background
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make FUJIFILM Camera Model X-T1 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.7.1 (Macintosh) Maximum Lens Aperture f/1.4 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 53 mm Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2015:11:01 18:01:18 Exposure Time 1/15 sec F-Number f/1.4 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 2000 Lens Aperture f/1.4 Brightness -3.1 EV Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash Flash, Compulsory, Red-Eye Reduce Focal Length 35.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Sharpness Normal Subject Distance Range Unknown
Anybody else have or have owned the Smegma 30mm f/1.4 EX DC?
What do you think of it for landscapes?
Got one used off of ebay for $250 and I'm not sure I'm happy with the sharpness. I think it might be backfocusing and my K5IIs AF adjustments are not having any effect.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make PENTAX Camera Model PENTAX K-5 II s Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.1.1 (Windows) Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Color Filter Array Pattern 658 Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 45 mm Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2015:11:01 14:59:15 Exposure Time 1/250 sec F-Number f/10.0 Exposure Program Aperture Priority ISO Speed Rating 80 Lens Aperture f/10.0 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Center Weighted Average Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 30.00 mm Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Hard Subject Distance Range Distant View
>>2695956
is that lit with flash only? flash does nothing for cdaf. use manual focus, or use a flashlight, to do prefocusing, then lock your focus. you're not going to get good tracking in low light with any mirrorless, pdaf or not. even SLRs struggle if the subject contrast is poor.
>>2695952
Why would that be?
>>2695956
1) The Fuji line has trouble with back-lit subjects
2) If the pumpkin is unlit, at night, then it's very difficult for a focus point to lock onto it.
My sister dropped my EM5 in the ocean and now I'm looking for a new camera.
Spending a retarded amount of time weighing up whether I should get a GX7, an X100S, or say fuck that and start shooting film.
Gear is the worst thing, I hate this shit I just want to shoot photos but I'm wrapped up in all these comparison articles and reviews and I just can't stop senpai
>>2695960
try manual focus.
>>2695971
go dive and get it back.
g7 if you don't mind the ugly design.
x100s if you don't mind shitty video. get wide and teleconverter.
>>2695971
were you happy enough with the em5?
why not the em5mkii? or if you don't need weather sealing, the em10mkii?
if you have residual m43 lenses that you actually want to use again, get another m43 cam.
x100's are a specific niche; you'll know if you want it
it's a gear limiter, because it is so limited itself
not for everyone
>>2695956
Afaik Fujis have problem with autofocus speed, which is fine for subjects and complex scenes like that - just use MF, prefocus long pressing AF check, and then fine tune manually
Hey /p/,
I come to you from /k/ seeking advice on a DSLR Camera purchase. My wife's birthday is coming up and the camera is for her. For as long as we have been together she has always loved photography and takes pictures whenever she can and to my untrained eye she is pretty decent at it. I want to get her something nice since she has sat by all these years using inferior equipment while I spend whatver on expensive firearms, optics, etc...that being said I dont want to spend thousands of dollars since we both have carrers (she is a nurse practitioner in the NICU) and I don't see her leaving that to start a photography studio or anything. Can you guys give me some ideas on what would be good for someone like her, just a hobbyist? ideally I would like to find something of a package deal...camera, lens, bag. I know Nikon D's are good and so are the Canon EOS models but there are so many options within those models that I don't even know what the hell I am looking at. If I could I would like to keep it in the $400-600 range.
Thanks guys!
>pic not related, the only things I have with lenses in my image folder are /k/ related.
>>2696064
watch for a D3x00 kit deal. Shoot for D3300
>>2696069
From what little i have read it seems that the D3300 and the SL1's are going to be my best bet. Any websites that I should keep an eye on?
Thank you for the feedback, it is much appreciated!
I have one of each and a t70 as well. I am thinking of adding a bellows FL and a 100mm macro to the AE-1. Any reason(s) I should use the T70 instead? Neither has MLU so I'm assuming that makes them more or less equal. Plus the bellows look good with the AE1.
Think I might want to turn the T70 into a kitted out strobe rig just using any old FD mount telephoto zoom.
Canonet I'm just going to keep on enjoying for architecture and landscapes and street. Unless I'm missing out on something. It's a decently fast 40mm
>>2695797
>infographic makes no reference to shutter speed or iso
>suggests changing aperture to change exposure value
fucking lel
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CC (Windows) Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2014:11:28 07:42:40 Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 306 Image Height 387
>>2696054
Oh it was just that where I am the GX7 is cheaper, the EM5ii is kind of getting to the price point where I'd go for a XT1 or something.
I'd sold my M43 lenses to buy the 12-40mm 2.8, which was on the camera when it went swimming.
>>2696078
The T70 has AIDS. It's the last camera I would use for macro. It's the last camera I would use for almost anything, infact.
If you have both of these cameras, surely you're aware of how much smoother the AE-1's shutter is?
**Huge wall of text incoming**
I have a Canon 60D, 18-135 EF-S kit and 50mm 1.4, a Yongnuo yn560III flash unit, a Yongnuo RF 603 wireless flash trigger, among other equipment, but the ones i mention are the ones that are only for my Canon.
Now, i really like my camera but its to big to carry it on my way to work or university, is not very discreet at all, i was considering in buy some mirrorless camera that matches my 60D image quality and user experience and also be capable to use my canon equipment on it.
I research a lot about it and find the Sony a6000, so i went to my local camera shop and try my stuff on the camera. The flash unit work pretty well mounted on the camera hot shoe but the trigger doesn't work at all, the guy in the store tell me to try the Yongnuo RF 603 II trigger to make the thing work. Obviously i couldn't try the lenses, but i research for a Metabones, EF to E mount adapter and other economic brands, so i think that wont be a problem.
Making my Canon stuff work on the a6000 it's important because im not selling the 60D and im buying the a6000 as a second body and as a everyday camera.
After all this long ass text (sorry) the cuestions are:
-What do you guys think about buying the a6000 to complement my 60D?
-Do you think it would matches the image quality or user experience of the 60D?
-Do you know if the Yongnuo RF 603 II will work on the a6000 hotshoe as the camera store guy tell me?
-Any of you have an a6000 and be kind enough to share some opinions about the camera, or maybe anyone has the same situation as me i would love to read some experience about it?
Again im sorry for all this text but i really apreciate the help and the advices, so i can make my final decision.
PD. i reviewed snapsort and similar sites, but i want to know some more personal and human to human opinions and experiences.
>>2696107
> Do you know if the Yongnuo RF 603 II will work on the a6000 hotshoe as the camera store guy tell me?
Yes, it works. But is a weird match. I'd suggest to get the YN560-TX, or just stick a 560 IV on it if you need on-camera flash.
> What do you guys think about buying the a6000 to complement my 60D
Dunno.
> Do you think it would matches the image quality or user experience of the 60D?
The A6000 is a much better camera in most regards, if you ask me.
I guess some adapted lenses might work poorly on the A6000 or something, but overall it's not immediately apparent what purpose you have in mind for the 60D. Maybe if you have CHDK or Magic Lantern features that you always use...?
> Any of you have an a6000 and be kind enough to share some opinions about the camera
It is a fine camera. Most good native lenses for it are pricey FF ones.
In-camera apps are kinda retarded, can't bind their functionality to keys and other stupidity.
Out of camera wireless control apps & application are a bit basic still, but useful. I still mostly use a hardware trigger connected to the USB port to remote trigger the camera.
>>2695797
Is it just me or is this completely retarded.
>>2696107
EOS-M(3)
>>2696143
Sunny 16? It's just you.
>>2696147
Homie, it's missing two-thirds of the necessary info. It's a shitty, misleading graphic.
>>2696088
Because the shutter speed and iso are baked into the sunny 16 rule
I shoot mainly black and white film. Never owned a DSLR.
I have a Nikon F2 Photomic (DP-11) with the following lenses.
Nikkor AIS lenses
35mm f/2 (my only non AI/AIS lens)
50mm f/1.4
55mm macro f/2.8 (sent to me by accident, yay)
105mm f/1.8
105mm f/4
135mm f/2.8
200mm f/4
Tamron AF
70-210mm f/4-5.6 (got for $20 at pawn shop in perfect cond)
I use a split image focusing screen that gets dark after f/4 on my Nikon F2. Any recommendation for any other AIS lens? I'm kinda stuck on what fisheye I should perhaps get. Other than that, I'll be done buying lenses for...THE REST OF MY LIFE.
>>2696153
edit: 105mm f/4 is a macro lens
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Picasa Photographer Picasa Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 3280 Image Height 2072 Compression Scheme Uncompressed Pixel Composition Unknown Horizontal Resolution 2400 dpi Vertical Resolution 2400 dpi Image Data Arrangement Chunky Format Image Created 2015:11:01 22:29:12 Image Width 999 Image Height 631 Unique Image ID 7182dff94300eafb287ad2f46cb1c0d6
>>2696153
>no 20/2.8
>no 28/2.8
I don't know famtbhkek, there's not many lenses you need. You could even stand to get rid of some.
>>2696153
Why don't you have any wides? Get the 28mm f/2.8 AI-s (and it has to be AI-s, not AI). It's an amazingly good lens.
>>2696151
You certainly wouldn't know that by looking at that graphic.
>>2696147
Who the fuck adjusts aperture for the available light? Aperture is for required depth of field, then adjust shutter speed accordingly. If shutter speed to low for required aperture, increase ISO.
F16 on aps-c or smaller is just asking for diffraction anyway.
>>2696170
>Shutter speed is reciprocal of ISO.
Uh.. okay? Cool? Does it say that somewhere in that graphic?
>Someone without a meter adjusting to changing conditions on the fly because how the rule works, it gets complicated to quickly figure iso or shutter speed.
ISO doesn't change, nigger. So all you're really doing is halving your shutter speed for every stop you go down from full sunlight. It's not at all complicated, which is why that picture is so stupid and wrong.
>implying DOF is always the most important aspect of a photograph
Yeah, exactly. That's precisely WHY you wouldn't want to use aperture to adjust exposure value.
Fucking retards.
>>2696183
>Uh.. okay? Cool? Does it say that somewhere in that graphic?
Who said that the point of that image was to teach you Sunny 16? It's showing you adjustments to Sunny 16. You should already know the shutter speed and ISO bit.
>>Someone without a meter adjusting to changing conditions on the fly because how the rule works, it gets complicated to quickly figure iso or shutter speed.
>ISO doesn't change, nigger. So all you're really doing is halving your shutter speed for every stop you go down from full sunlight. It's not at all complicated, which is why that picture is so stupid and wrong.
...how the fuck doesn't ISO change? Even when shooting at film, you're not forced to stick to box speed. I wish I had you in real life to shotgun you through some settings in the short amounts of time that using these Sunny 16 adjustments are meant for so that way you couldn't claim for it to be simple to figure those numbers in the sometimes less than 5 seconds you'd have to react to a situation.
>>implying DOF is always the most important aspect of a photograph
>Yeah, exactly. That's precisely WHY you wouldn't want to use aperture to adjust exposure value.
The fuck?
>>2696164
at smaller focal lengths, the DoF loss is negligible because there's very little oof areas anyway.
>>2696164
>Who the fuck adjusts aperture for the available light?
Anybody shooting in shutter priority?
>>2696212
Shutter priority means you choose your aperture, and shutter speed is adjusted automatically. You don't change your aperture depending on how sunny it is.
>>2696216
>shutter priority
>shutter chosen for you
What the fuck am I reading?
>>2696220
Yeah that's my bad, read it as aperture priority for some reason. Shutter priority is used when you must have a certain shutter speed, freezing motion in sports etc, where you don't care about the aperture. Nothing to do with how fucking sunny it is.
Sunny sixteen is a quick and dirty exposure meme. Moments are often fleeting, no time to do a proper adjustment.
I use a QL17 Canonet like this sometimes, not even bothering to use the rangefinder. The shots are efficient and stealth so it's not bad for busy festivals and places you can't stop to look down let alone compose a picture.
>>2695797
My only problem with this is the sunset value. I'm pretty sure it is a typo and it has to be f/1.4
>>2696238
Is this the rule where on ISO 100 the shutter speed is constant 1/125 and 1/500 on ISO 400?
>>2696241
Yes, and it works better as the Sunny 11 rule, as these numbers tend to underexpose.
>>2696243
On digital it is better to underexpose. Digital sensors tend to retain more information in the shadows then in the highlights.
>>2696242
So salty. It's a silly meme.
>>2696249
Dude, did you just use the word meme in proper context?
Neva bin dun befo
(no salt btw, I was using fuck off and die in a happy, sing-song sortof way)
Does anyone here have any experience with buying refurbished cameras straight from the manufacturer? Should I expect any cosmetic wear/dings/scratches on the body? Will it be packaged as new? If it was refurbished, that means some part of it was malfunctioning at some point right, what are the odds I'll have that same issue with the camera again in the future?
>>2696244
It depends on where the manufacturer set the gray point for the camera, in relation to it's dynamic range.
On my 5D2 there is a healthy 2-stop buffer around the histogram limits that let me correct shadows or highlights as needed.
On the 645Z, the right edge of the histo means clipped highlights coming in 1/10th a stop later, so you have to expose so that the highlights end right before clipping, unless you have specular highlights or sun in the frame.
Either way, the histogram on your camera is rarely representative of it's total dynamic range (as it's often based on the processed jpeg anyway), so you have to learn what the acceptable limits are from practice. Not all digital cameras act the same.
I'm selling some of my older gear, like a Nikon D60 + 50mm 1.4 G (autofocus motor doesn't work anymore, so you'd have to focus manually only)
How much could I realistically ask for it?
Pic related
>>2696265
$200 maybe.
Is my old Kodak disc camera worth anything?
>>2696278
Someone running a camera museum would be thankful for the donation.
Other than that, no. It doesn't hold any real value.
>>2696280
Thanks, I may have to find a camera museum to give it to them.
>>2696267
seems low
>>2696286
As a kit it seems a fair price. If you want better money you can sell them apart but this way you might get stuck with the body since you can get much better and newer tech bodies for around this budget.
>>2696286
Seems high for damaged AF motor on the lens.
Actually, you can get an used but not damaged D60+lens for less than that in Europe.
>>2696288
you're right, as kit it seems more attractive but wouldn't the lens alone be more like 150 worth?
>>2696292
not with a borked af motor. As soon as you mention 'broken' in an ebay ad, the item loses most of it's value
>>2696292
A 50mm with broken focus motor? No.
Get it repaired, then maybe it is worth $200 or so...
>>2696296
Yeah don't do that, unless you want to make a Ricoh GR simulator
>>2696297
You can take the mount off.
Dust can get into the lens anyways.
Plus a little dust in your lens doesn't make any real difference, it's not the same as having dust on the sensor.
>>2696190
>It's showing you adjustments to Sunny 16. You should already know the shutter speed and ISO bit.
Are you fucking retarded? If you already know "the shutter speed and iso bit", why would you possibly need a little picture to you remind you of the apertures? It's not like f-stops are the tricky part of that equation.
>how the fuck doesn't ISO change? Even when shooting at film, you're not forced to stick to box speed.
Surely you aren't changing your ISO frame-to-frame on roll film, right? That's how it doesn't change. Even if you shoot Tmax at ISO 80, you're still going to shoot the whole roll at 80.
>I wish I had you in real life to shotgun you through some settings in the short amounts of time that using these Sunny 16 adjustments are meant for so that way you couldn't claim for it to be simple to figure those numbers in the sometimes less than 5 seconds you'd have to react to a situation.
Condescension on behalf of my supposed inexperience. Cute. I'm probably older than you, have more cameras without meters than you (everything from 35mm up to my 4x5), and have shot more film in more conditions than you. Sunny 16 is dead simple once you get the hang of it and is an invaluable mental exercise for sharpening your "internal meter".
The only thing that makes it difficult is misleading "infographics" that leave out information, and the people who (for whatever reason) feel the need to defend them to the death.
>>2695906
thanks anon worked
Can't wait to try out my new baby, if my manual lens adapter came faster than in 3 weeks though..
>>2696477
I remember the anticipation when I bought my first DSLR. Already had a few manual lenses plus the adapter ring arrive two weeks before I could put my hands on the camera.
The stress was nearly killing me, I guess the same is waiting for you.
>>2696088
>>2696162
>>2696183
>>2696469
Anon, I didn't know what the Sunny 16 rule was before this thread. I googled it. You can google things too, especially in this age where information is easily and quickly accessible.
Infographics generally come with the assumption that the person reading it will either do research for more detailed information or they already know the general information. They're reference material, not full blown replacements for other documented information.
Don't try to get defensive and tough just because you look like a massive idiot. The ISO and shutter speed are inverse of each other for perfect exposure with the Sunny 16 rule.
Grow the fuck up and use Google next time. In a week when this thread dies you'll be forgotten and nobody will remember how dumb you look. Don't worry, your pride is still intact.
>>2696164
>Who the fuck adjusts aperture for the available light? Aperture is for required depth of field
It's more of manual focus era thing.
Back in the days people generally wanted to shoot at smaller apertures to make focusing easier. (f/8 is good, f/16 is great)
Also shutters weren't fast enough to shoot at wider apertures without using filters.
Bokeh whoring is recent development.
>>2696494
lol but that's wrong.
>>2696498
Not it isn't.
>>2696499
Yes, it fucking is. Even in the backwards incomprehensible caveman days of manual focus (OMG SO OLD AND ANCIENT AND HOW CLUELESS THEY WERE) they still used shutter speed to adjust exposure.
>>2696500
It's more of manual focus era thing.
Back in the days people generally wanted to shoot at smaller apertures to make focusing easier. (f/8 is good, f/16 is great)
Also shutters weren't fast enough to shoot at wider apertures without using filters.
Bokeh whoring is recent development.
>>2696487
>says that he didn't know what sunny 16 was until today
>expects anyone to take him seriously
kiddo, do yourself a favor and lurk more.
>>2696500
Here, let me explain >>2696502 in a different way.
If you want to be at f/16 for your focusing, but there isn't enough light for you to hand-hold at that aperture, you adjust to open up due to light.
If you want to be at f/5.6, but your camera only goes up to 1/500th shutter speed, you may stop down further to adjust the exposure to a reasonable level.
>>2696504
It's not even remotely relevant in the past 10 years. Enjoy being hated by everyone you try to interact with.
ITT: newfags argue about things they don't understand.
Have a tip kiddo: lurk more, learn the exposure triangle and read your camera manual.
>>2696507
try to shoot a full manual film camera and tell me it's not relevant
>>2696513
Are you trying to tell me that you believe a full manual film camera is relevant in 2015? because that's what it sounds like you're trying to say, and I want to give you a chance to clarify before I fucking laugh so hard that I shit my intestines out.
>>2696516
it is relevant if you shoot a full manual film camera in 2015 yes.
>>2696516
Look into the film threads, newfag.
Lurk more and shut up.
Or just give up photography and sell off your gear to someone who actually appreciates photography.
>>2696506
And those are totally reasonable circumstances and exceptions. But, and you'll notice this, changing aperture ONLY comes into effect when you've run out of options with shutter speed. Doing it any other time makes little to no sense and is generally considered bad form. That's the whole thrust of this argument, and why that graphic gives bad advice.
What's /p/ consensus on the Sony a7? Is it a good mirror less camera? What's the best lens for it?
>>2696526
The a7 mk2 is better, but you won't find a better full frame body used for cheaper than the a7.
>>2696517
Sending telegrams is relevant if you send telegrams, but telling other people that they should be ashamed for not knowing about it in 2015 makes you a fucking asshole, not better than anyone, or right, or admirable.
Cameras have meters. They have had them for a long time now. They are dramatically more reliable than the human eye. Knowing Sunny 16 is neat, maybe. It's also a bit of photographic history, sure, but relevant? no. Prerequisite for being a talented, or even middling, photographer? not even a little bit.
>>2696526
It is the cheapest new gen FF, but it needs in-lens stabilization. A7II has in-body stabilization and is quite easy to use old manual lenses with adapters which are in abundance.
>>2696525
Unless you're shooting something where shutter speed is important to keep set, like sports, long exposure, flash...
Stop being such a fucking retard and realize that there is no right way to do photography. You'll find yourself upset a lot less often.
>>2696526
Hey, what's the best bit for my drill?
What's the best program for my computer?
>>2696528
that's not a good analogy since there's no telegraph network but shooting film is still possible and being done. Of course light meters still work but those are pretty innacurate sometimes and it's also pretty useful to adjust your exposure before you want to take a shot so you don't have to fiddle around on your camera while looking through the viewfinder, unnecessarily attracting attention to you in situations where you want to avoid it
>>2696525
Do you have something that is equally as useful as the Sunny 16 rule that applies to shutter speed and not aperture?
>>2696533
>Of course light meters still work but those are pretty innacurate sometimes
No, they aren't. They are completely reliable, completely predictable, and completely consistent. If you're having trouble with your light meter, then the problem is right behind the viewfinder.
>>2696536
Okay, smartass, let's say you want to take a photo of a landscape with a mountain and the sun just setting over the ridge.
Are you going to walk over to the mountain to measure the light, then walk back and take the shot before you run out of time? Or just use the sunny 16 and get a usable shot you can process in the darkroom?
>>2696538
Can you name me a camera released in the last 10 years that doesn't allow for spot metering?
I'd much rather be a smartass than a dumb ass. I see you lean another way though.
>>2696504
Good job trying to turn the point of a point into something else. Let me reiterate for you you manchild.
>Doesn't know what something is about
>Does research instead of get pissy and upset over something
Instead what you do is
>Doesn't know what something is about
>Cries because not enough info
>Gets mad at everyone who suggests you find more info
>Throws around the word "kiddo" to try to mask own infantile behavior
Anon pls you're embarrassing yourself
>>2696538
Also, directly applying sunny 16 to a backlit mountain would lead to you either destroying your sky, or completely dropping your mountain. ISO 100, 1/100 shutter speed, f/5.6 (Shade) would lead to a big white sky friend.
>>2696487
you must be fun at parties
Does anyone experience with the 100mm Macro L? Most sellers have dropped the price down to $800 out the door and I'm in need of a 1:1 macro lens that can also double duty as a conventional short telephoto. Is the AF at not macro distances slow?
I own a Nikon D40, the 18-55mm kit lens it came with, and a newly bought Tamron 70-300 (A005 model) lens. I've been getting more info nature, animal, and bird photography recently. I've been thinking of upgrading the body. Should I? Was thinking the D5500 or should I shoot lower and get the D3300?
>>2696534
See, your very question is the perfect illustration of why that infographic was such garbage. It left out so much crucial information.
Sunny 16 DOES apply to shutter speed, just as much as it applies to aperture.
In broad daylight and at f/16, you use a shutter speed that is roughly equal to your ISO. So, let's say we're using an ISO 100 film. You'll want a shutter speed of 1/125 (really, you'll want 1/100, but 1/125 is much more common on older cameras, so we'll go with that). If it's a hazy day, you'll double your shutter speed to 1/60. As it gets cloudier, you'll use 1/30. When it's completely overcast outside, you'll have to use 1/15, but since that's too slow for handheld shooting, you'll open your aperture up to f/11 and set your shutter speed to 1/30.
If the lighting stays the same but you want a narrower depth of field, you double your shutter speed for every f-stop you change. So 1/125 @ f/16 becomes 1/250 @ f/11, 1/500 @ f/8, 1/1000 @ f/5.6.
>>2696545
>>Doesn't know what something is about
>>Cries because not enough info
What the fuck are you even talking about? I know what sunny 16 is and have known about it for a fucking decade and a half. That's how I know it's a shitty infographic, because I know what it's trying to explain and how it's failing.
>>2696538
You mean the exact reason we have exposure compensation?
If you understand how your meter works, you know when and how it'll fail. It's a machine. It can't think. That's what the photographer is for.
Is anyone else hype for this lens?
>>2696554
No.
If you're in range it's practically instant.
You can have issues where if your focus point is on an area with no contrast it will miss, and then hunt, and owing to the very long focus range it has it will take a moment to rack all the way through it. But that's why it has a focus limiter switch.
You will use it all the time and love it, it's a fantastic lense.
>>2696561
I only just got the 1.8 version, so not really hype.
I'm impressed with the old design, but if sigma's other recent designs are anything to go by I'm sure it will be a phenomenal and very unique lens.
On an A7s it could do some phenomenal night shots.
>>2696557
The Sunny 16 infographic that you were referring to is a reference. Yeah, I'd agree and say it should've been a little bit more specific (a one sentence mention of shutter and ISO would have been enough). Aside from that, however, it serves no more of a purpose than a flash card. Come on, Anon, you've probably seen other infographics that don't go into much detail that still serve as a quick and informative resource that leaves the user open to do more research.
>>2696557
Bull shit.
You still don't understand that those are adjustments off of sunny 16, and not the rule itself.
I'll call you out too: let's see your stacks of negs and all these cameras (time stamped of course).
You're an ignorant faggot who if is telling the truth has no understanding well after he should have by accident and the maturity of a 14 year old.
>>2696563
Your older f1.8 version does one thing that the new one can't, it can use regular filters
>>2696566
>maturity of a 14 years old
I wouldn't be so generous. He is well at or below 12 years old maturity. I suspect he is either a shut-in manchild or just a child.
>>2696554
AF is fast (especially for macro) and you have the range limiter switch too.
Just get it, this lens is almost as good as the very best ~100mm macro lenses across all systems.
>>2696547
>ISO 100, 1/100 shutter speed, f/5.6 (Shade) would lead to a big white sky friend.
Because it's SUNNY.
So the rule says you should shoot at f/16.
f/5.6 isn't "shade" it's "heavy overcast"
And that's the point of the "sunny 16" rule.
It gives consistent results in similar weather conditions.
If you use your meter you will get different results if your subject is in shade or not - that's not always what you want.
>>2696561
Certainly looks good.
If they decide to bring their FF lenses over to the E-mount eventually, this one would might be one I'm interested in buying.
>>2696586
E-mount is dead. Not even Sony is bothering to make new lenses for it.
>>2696590
Is this some edge remark about the probably most successful mirrorless system (last lens release I know of was ~1 month ago, Rokinon Xeen), or are you genuinely confusing it with the A-mount?
In between the next 6 months or so I intend to get a D800 or D810. Ultimately I want to end up with no more than two or three lenses (two primes lens + mid zoom or one prime and one mid zoom)
Initially I will just get the the one lens with it. I don't tend to do portraits however it is something which I wouldn't mind doing in the future, generally speaking I just take photos of whatever I come across (comparable to street photography I guess)
Which would be more suitable? I've not used a full frame as of yet so I am wondering whether the 50mm might mean I have to get too close to subject, apparently the 58mm is a nice balance between the 50mm and 85mm.
Just thinking out loud... would be nice if someone could input some ideas.
(Primes would get the most use, I was thinking of getting the Tamron 24 - 70 2.8 as my mum uses that on her Canon, doesn't seem too bad relatively speaking)
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Photographer Alex Muir Image-Specific Properties:
>>2696604
Definitely wouldn't buy the Nikons at that price... just a list to keep track for the sake of comparison.
>>2696262
I got a refurbished from canon once, it was pristine except for that it came in the box of a cheaper camera. They're usually just the ones that got damaged boxes in shipping. Canon at least has a warranty on refurbs too.
>>2696604
IMO, get the Sigma Art 50mm f/1.4 for starters.
You can always get a 85mm Otus f/1.4 or whatever later if you wanna do pro quality on portraits, but I actually highly suspect you'll be fine with the 50mm Sigma, both for general use and most portraits.
> Tamron 24 - 70 2.8
Di VC is fine, sure. Dunno if you need it, though.
>>2696554
I've also got one of these, its superb. Super fast af, and very sharp.
>>2696604
Check out the filmmaker kit.
You can resell the ninja and mic, and use that to get a used 70-300 from keh for about $300
>>2696614
Yeah, I have heard good things about the new 'Art' Series... although I think they still have the same issue as most Sigmas - dodgy focusing at times.
Are 50/58mm and 85mm lenses far enough apart to justify getting both later down the line or is there very little point? I get the impression that it is a matter of choosing between one or the other - I have never actually used a 85mm as of yet.
>>2696619
World's of difference for things like portraiture, and I honestly prefer 85mm over 50 for general purpose
>>2696604
>d800
>buy literally any era autofocus nikon nifty 50.
>be happy and enjoy shooting photos
>>2696619
> I think they still have the same issue as most Sigmas - dodgy focusing at times.
Nah. Don't worry about it. It works *very* fine. Go read / watch reviews.
> Are 50/58mm and 85mm lenses far enough apart to justify getting both later down the line or is there very little point?
Yes, certainly.
> I get the impression that it is a matter of choosing between one or the other
Probably for some people who then delegate everything 70-300mm to a zoom lens?
I personally want primes, and 85mm is different from 50mm.
>>2696621
So for a set of three, 50mm, 85mm and 24 - 70mm? I don't really do or have any interest in longer range shooting - no need for a large 70 - 300+ etc.
>>2696627
>I personally want primes, and 85mm is different from 50mm.
That's how I have been looking at things... I love primes, they make you put more effort in I feel. Wasn't sure whether it was just me being a gear kleptomaniac though.
>>2696630
I still think filmmaker kit is a good base for you. They're the 1.8 version of 35, 50, and 85,but remember, we're talking full frame.
You'll be covered for general use lenses. I'd also consider the 16-24 for a zoom but I like wide. If you want a standard zoom, 24-70 is king.
>>2696641
>filmmaker kit
Hmm, I'll take a look into that one too.
Any D800 owners? D810 is perhaps a little more expensive than I had hoped pre-owned and I can't see them dropping that much in between now and six months or so. Is it a notable downgrade?
>>2696646
Iq is mostly the same, biggest differences are more software related
>>2696650
Oh and the 810 has a faster processor. They're close enough that for most if you had the 800, you are a retard/don't care about money if you gOT the 810
>>2696621
> and I honestly prefer 85mm over 50 for general purpose
I personally think 50mm are far less troublesome indoors during meetings and other events, during a trip (might want to take a reasonable shot of the building across the street), and all sorts of other more improvised shooting.
Improvising with 85-100mm primes doesn't seem to be working so well for me, apart from head & shoulder type portraits. But I certainly love working with such primes when I can prepare the location or setup - studio (portrait and product), macro, stuff like that.
>>2696632
I'm admittedly "just" IQ whoring. Ending up with somewhere pretty close to all of the image resolution my sensor can give me is making my life a lot easier overall.
Yea, apparently I'm doing primes to have an easier life in post.
>>2696646
IIRC the biggest improvements are in video and frames per second.
As a D800 owner I don't have any urge to upgrade whatsoever.
It's definitely still a very up-to-date camera.
>>2696646
You can perhaps dodge the D800's price a bit by getting a D750, A7 II or A7S instead.
>>2696657
All three of those would be more expensive than the D800.
>>2696659
When I look at bodies on Amazon or Adorama, that doesn't seem to be the case - they're cheaper than the D810 and D800.
>>2696661
Though I guess the D750 used only is 30Eur cheaper than the D800.
Surely still costs quite a bit less than the D810, though.
>>2696661
Amazon and adorama are the wrong place to buy a discontinued model like the d800.
Keh, eBay and craigslist are the places to look. I picked up my d800 for $1100, though I admittedly got a great deal. They typically go for about $1200-1400.
>>2696665
$1100 or $1200 certainly sounds good, probably just get that one then.
>>2696657
Those are very different cameras.
I would go with whichever you prefer, rather than looking for the lowest price.
D750 is better for sports, for example.
But it's smaller, lighter, less sturdy and has a different button layout.
Personally I much prefer the D800 because I have big hands.
Sony is a completely different system altogether.
>>2696665
Can we talk about the advantages or disadvantages of a D800 vs a D750?
>>2696687
D800:
- more megapixels.
- full magnesium alloy body (quite heavy)
- big
- no mode dial (instead uses a button on the right + wheel turn) only M, A, S and P.
- dedicated buttons for white balance, quality and bracketing on the 'crown'
D750:
- higher fps
- magnesium alloy with carbon fiber (lighter)
- small
- mode dial on the left with wide range of modes.
- buttons for white balance, quality and bracketing on the back, shared with other function.
I think the best thing is to try them in a shop (try D810 if they don't have a D800 they should feel the same).
Just say you're "going to think about it" and then buy online.
Seeing as I'm down to 1 working YN-460 II out of 3 after many years of abuse and drops (technically 2, one more still works but snapped the hot shoe on both sides now after dropping too many times recently).
And this last one has to have the battery door gaffa taped down.
What's a suitable upgrade? Should still be relatively inexpensive, so it can be cheaply replaced if I break the shit out of it like these (though these lasted years).
I'm using them in a speed ring adapter in large softbox with grid now (I use studio strobes at home).
The 460 II's seem fine and have enough power in these boxes for my purpose, but I'd like it if the recycle time was faster at the higher power settings.
I'm using Eneloop XX's if that counts (though maybe I need to reco them in the charger or get new ones).
>>2696692
I'd say rent each for a few days.
Actually get a real feel for them. Like, the no mode knob is weird until you get used to it.
>>2696702
560 ex ii if canon
560 ex if not canon
>>2696705
RB67 with pc to hot shoe adapter and A7s, both wireless triggers.
>>2696708
Not sure how that plays with the yn560s, I'm tempted to say the 560 ex should work fine, but not sure enough to state it as fact.
>>2696702
YN 560 III or IV and TX perhaps.
So I want to go mirrorless and I was really into getting an X-E2. But then I saw that the X-E1 is $300-500 cheaper in my country.
/p/ given all the firmware updates in the last few years, how does the X-E1 perform? I was thinking of buying the 35mm 1.4 and a M42 adapter to accompany it.
Appreciate hearing from any XE1 users
evening /p/eople
is that the place where an outsider can ask for a camera recommendation ?
I need nothing fancy I just need to able to make high resolution pictures of stuff in my immediate surroundings
as you might see I have no idea what the heck I'm talking about since I don't know anything about cameras
resolution: well FullHD, 1080x suffices if that's something a camera even works with heh
budget: well you tell me how much I need to spend here, and if you'd say I also can get feature x for y € more I'll be sure to listen
Thanks
>>2697074
Canon EOS 1200D
Nikon D3300
Sony A5100, NEX 5/6/7
All these with kit lenses is a good start, even some people never go beyond kit lenses and Auto.
Buy used if you want to maximize your bang for buck (we all do, even with the high end cameras)
What do you guys think of the new Zeiss milvus series? I have a sigma 35 f/1.4 but love the zeiss look and build, so was thinking about trading in for the milvus 35 f/2. Also, I keep reading that the 21 f/2.8 is amazing but it's also around $1,900...35 is my widest so is it worth saving my pennies for something like that?
One more thing. Please, if you can, recommend me a medium sized tripod. I've owned three tripods now and all of them struggle at leveling out shots. If I'm shooting a landscape and I want to level out the background, I tighten the head but it moves just ever-so-slightly so the shot is crooked. It drives me nuts. Any tripods you guys know of that are won't do this, are sturdy as hell and not heavy as shit?
Cheers in advance.
>>2697084
niiice
that's everything I needed
thanks so much man
>>2697087
>love the zeiss look and feel
How disgusting, I bet you use Apple for the same "reasons"
It doesn't count how you look taking a photograph, everything is about the photo you take. Plus the Milvus series have awful CA problems, it is better to use that Sigma lens.
Actually I have an old vintage Helios lens that has close to zero CA and fringing and cost me $20.
Be smart, research more, don't buy into "looks" and brands.
>>2697091
I was mainly talking about the "look" of how zeiss lenses render colors, and the "build" quality of the lenses because they're really solid and made of metal. Thanks for the help though.
>>2697092
You don't have to worry about color rendition on digital. Closely same properties can be found in much cheaper lenses with same or better IQ.
Zeiss is mainly a premium brand instead of precision optics.
If you want a good Zeiss lens, look for CZJ Pancolar (50mm) and Flektogon (35mm and 28mm) on ebay.
>>2697097
Oh, and some of the Pentacon lenses were manufactured by CZJ but you have to research into that.
Would using a macro zoom lens for things other than macro photography produce acceptable results assuming I stand back far enough from the subject? I have this camera that I want to use, but I only have a macro zoom lens for it and I can't afford to buy another lens at the moment.
>>2697101
Macro lens are optimized for close focus subjects, but they generally give quite good results at more "normal" distances.
>>2697087
rewrapped lenses of existing designs. literally nothing of note. updates design language to match otus. would rather have a 100/2 ZF Makro-Planar.
>>2697101
what kind of macro lens? a real one designed for macro photography, or one of those zooms that happen to manage a 1:3 magnification ratio and are labelled macro but really aren't?
for the first, newer designs tend to perform better at infinity than older ones. older ones were optimized for macro range work, but newer ones can pass as ultra sharp normal/portrait lenses. even older lenses like the 55/3.5 micro-nikkor P.C. are acceptable at infinity, just merely not amazing like a double gauss 50mm. newer lenses like the 60 AFD, 60 AFS, and 105 VR perform well at infinity.
for the latter, it doesn't matter, just shoot.
>>2697104
I don't know...I assume that it's designed for macro photography...I don't know much about lenses outside of the basics. It's an older lens...Says "AUTO MACRO ZOOM" on it...1:4.5 75-200mm.
>>2697087
> What do you guys think of the new Zeiss milvus series?
Not as hot as a Batis or Otus. Probably would get Sigma Art instead, DESU.
> 35 is my widest so is it worth saving my pennies for something like that?
Yes, but again, just get a 20mm or 24mm Sigma Art.
> Please, if you can, recommend me a medium sized tripod.
Dic&Mic E302 or E302C. Also have a look at Benro and Sirui tripods, especially the ones around $120-300 will be good for most people.
>>2697101
> Would using a macro zoom lens for things other than macro photography produce acceptable results assuming I stand back far enough from the subject?
Yes. For example, check out what the awesome 90mm Sony FE can do.
https://www.flickr.com/groups/2867088@N23/pool/
Like the Canon "L" 100mm macro and other such lenses, it is pretty damn good even for normal photography.
YMMV if you have a cheaper macro lens that can't into fast AF with limiter switch and/or OS.
>>2697101
Not at all.
When a lens says "macro" it just means it can be used for macro.
But they are still general purpose lenses.
Many people use "macro" lenses for portraits, for example.
Their only downside is that they are generally not as fast.
Mitakon lenses worth a damn?
Like are they cheap because no electronics but still have modern coatings, or just kinda crap?
>>2697118
>not as fast
Bigger than that is usually AF is much slower on true macro lenses because the range in which they can focus is so much longer than a nonmacro
Does anyone know of any upcoming sales on the Sony A7R II? I'd like to get it when it's down to, like, $2500.
Black friday, cyber monday, any ol' fuckin sale?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Macintosh) Image-Specific Properties: Image Created 2015-08-22T16:28:46-04:00 Flash No Flash, Compulsory Image Width 1200 Image Height 800
Looking for a fine budget prime lens for nikon d5100, recommendations?
>>2697135
Not going to happen. You might get $40 an A5000 though, if you're lucky
>>2697136
sigma 18-35 1.8.
it\s as good as any prime.
>>2697136
You don't care what focal length, or aperture range... You don't care if it had AF, or if it's got its distortion under control? All you care is that it's a prime lens.
>>2697135
Give it eight or nine months until Sony releases the A7R III and pick up a used copy.
There are no good camera sales on Black Friday. I think we should probably make a sticky about this.
I've been toying with the idea of mirrorless - mostly X100S or XE2.
But the thing is I mostly want it for is nature photography/landscapes - out in the elements. Should I look past the fashion of mirrorless and go Pentax DSLR? I can get a K50 + 18-55mm WR for less than a used X100S
>>2697106
Sounds like some shit 3rd party lens from the 80s.
Besides, why not just shoot with it for a day and then determine for yourself if the results are acceptable? If you say you don't know much about lenses, you probably won't be producing anything of "acceptable quality" for the time being anyways.
>tfw somebody buys a 35/1.8DX for $125 from right under neath your nose
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop 7.0 Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2015:02:02 20:46:56 Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 300 Image Height 553
>>2697155
As someone who owns an X100s, I can say with some confidence that you're better off with the versatility of the XE2 if you do decide to go mirrorless. While I personally love the 35mm (equivalent) focal length for its intended use, mostly candids and street and documentary stuff, someone shooting a lot of landscapes and nature might find it restrictive, either not wide enough or not long enough for what you want to do.
The XE2 is a quality camera, though you can probably find an Xpro1 for almost what you'd pay for the XE2.
The Pentax is also an excellent choice, and is more rugged than anything Fujifilm puts out.
>>2697132
Most that I've heard of are okay, but they were the more expensive ones. Never heard anything about the cheaper ones.
>>2697155
I think that might be fine.
> Should I look past the fashion of mirrorless and go Pentax DSLR?
You could. Not like you absolutely need weather sealing though you can use an only marginally less convenient camera raincoat.
Could also go with a Nikon or Sony or whatever else.
So I inherited some things:
EOS 33 + EF 75-300 USM III
EOS 450D + EF 24-85 USM
Phenix 205
Added the 55-250 STM to the EOS 450D. Anything else for now? Would it even be worth it shooting film at this point? Love the feel of the EOS 33 but feels like shooting film will just be too damn expensive.
not sure if this is the right thread. but i'm having trouble with my pentax k-s1. the viewfinder is extremely dark only when theres a lens attached. and because of that the autofocus doesn't work, and all of the photos are way over exposed unless i use it in live view
>>2697189
Is your mirror clean?
>>2697191
it appears to be. when i switch from live view to the viewfinder theres always a split second where it's fully lit before going dark again
>>2697195
Might be out of alignment then.
>>2697196
you're totally right, it's not sitting all the way down.
>>2697183
>Would it even be worth it shooting film at this point?
Some people love it.
I'm personally doing digital only - yep, film is too expensive. Never mind I want the resulting shots digital for post-processing anyways.
I'm looking at buying a Zeiss Touit 32mm Lens for my A6000.
Is it worth the extra 50 bucks over the sony prime?
Is the lack of image stabilization going to harm shooting from the hip?
I plan on using it as an everyday lens.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CC 2014 (Windows) Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 500 Image Height 500 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 2015:11:03 21:53:51 Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 500 Image Height 500
>>2697146
>sigma 18-35 1.8.
>it\s as good as any prime.
Confirmed for never having a sigma 18-35mm f1.8.
Can you guys recommend some good tripods for $200 or less, which also includes the ball head. I would be using it for landscape photography, so a short column would be ideal but I don't know if this is all possible for under $200 while still maintaining quality.
>>2697183
Get a rebel body and you can now shoot digital or film whenever you feel the desire.
>>2697290
I love vanguard. On aliexpress there's a dicsomething I see recommended too.
>>2697267
> Is it worth the extra 50 bucks over the sony prime?
You mean as compared to the 28mm f/2? Not really sure.
> Is the lack of image stabilization going to harm shooting from the hip?
Probably, but with a fast lens and the A6000's reasonable ISO range you should be able to manage most shots anyways.
>>2697290
Sirui, Benro, Dic&Mic. For the earlier two brands the lineups are big, you'll have to make your own choices.
For the Dic&Mic there is is basically just one tripod in three sizes and alu or carbon variants.
>>2697279
name 1 thing that is wrong with it besides xbawks huge
>>2697267
>Zeiss Touit 32mm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgYsNfq2Zk8
>slow
>sounds like a truck
get the sony.
>>2697350
http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/Zeiss-Carl-Zeiss-Planar-Touit-18-32-Sony-E-on-Sony-A6000-versus-Sigma-30mm-F28-EX-DN-Sony-E-on-Sony-A6000-versus-Sony-E-35mm-F18-on-Sony-A6000__1159_942_828_942_1083_942
sony > sigma > zeiss
>>2697292
But I said that I have the EOS 450D (rabal XSi). Still prefer the feel and layout of the EOS 33 more though.
>>2697406
Rebels are not only digital. The first one was a film body but with the new lens mount. You can use your existing lenses with the film body.
>>2697323
> I coulnd't find much on Dic&Mic
Just a tripod on Aliexpress that is good for its price.
> however I found the Sirui T-1005X which is pretty much perfect for what I need, and it's $200 exactly. Cheers anon
No problem. Hope they bundled a KX or at least a GX ball head or something like that.
>>2697352
The score says Zeiss > Sigma ~= Sony, doesn't it?
so, no one bought this crap?
>>2697490
Why would they? It's a useless gimmick wrapped in a design abortion, sold for four times it's appropriate price.
>>2697407
I got an EOS 33 which is film and an EOS 450D which is digital. What are you even going on about?
>>2697589
Put some film in it and shoot. What are YOU going on about?
>>2697589
You want to know whether it's worth it to shoot film... we can't answer that for you. It's a personal value decision, and we aren't you.
I love my camera
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/2190360051/sony-a7-ii-gains-faster-focus-for-adapted-lenses-and-uncompressed-raw
Holy shit, Sony is going to release a firmware to my A7 ii, giving it phase detect AF for adapted lenses.
This is the best news ever. I only expected them to update raw, but now I got this too.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Paint.NET v3.5.8 Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 96 dpi Vertical Resolution 96 dpi Image Created 2010:03:03 16:54:15 Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 522 Image Height 399
Sony a6000 vs Fujifilm x-t1? and why
>>2697616
X-T1 because I like it better.
>>2697616
Isn't the A6000 1/3 of the price of an XT-1 now? And doesn't it still have faster AF?
>>2697616
Fun perspective, a new X-T1 from amazon is actually more expensive than what I paid for my A7 ii.
Mine only cost 1200 USD because Australian currency hit rock bottom, and I used a 300 AUD cashback promotion.
>>2697616
x-t1 because it's comfy
the only sonys worth looking at are a7ii and above
any other sony except for the rx100 compacts (iii + iv) you get only if you can't afford anything else out there
>>2697616
Also, have you considered the X-T10?
Being able to give you advice on it depends on your plans for usage, your lenses you'll be looking for, etc.
They really are quite different, and if you know what you want, the decision should be pretty easy for you.
>>2697624
Yeah, I saw a 5D2 + 24-105/4L for $1400 on Gumtree yesterday.
And I've seen stacks of body only A7mk1's going for $1000.
Really not many sane reasons to buy a pro crop body these days.
>except GR, ofc
>>2697645
Still can't into sports.
>>2697647
Meh?
Sports photography is some real lowest common denominator shit, man.
At least the kind you need 10fps and AF tracking for.
>literally just shoot 4K video and use frame grabs, that shit is *never* being seen by anyone at more than 800px
>>2697616
A6000. Better camera in most regards. Lens lineup is mostly expensive FF lenses, though.
Fuji if you need cheap lenses or weather sealing, or will take a minor gain in ergonomics over quite a bit of IQ and AF performance.
>>2697651
The fact is the cheapest Rabal and D3x00 entry level DSLR can do sports photo, at least for daddy to shoot the kids playing. Not to mention Pentax DSLRs.
A7 line can't do that, the sensor integrated AF is too slow and indecisive for movement.
Tone back on your arrogance Sony fanboy, you reek of noob and daddy buying an expensive camera for you doesn't mean you can lecture everyone on shit you clearly don't know about.
>>2697651
>>literally just shoot 4K video and use frame grabs, that shit is *never* being seen by anyone at more than 800px
What
You have no idea what photography is, right?
>>2697664
Yeah, it's all about art, and having a unique perspective on the game, right?
>stand next to feeld
>get big lense
>folow da ball
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Photographer Aaron Steele Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi
>>2697710
Seriously, look at the balding fucking hacks doing this job.
You want to be this?
And even with how retardedly mechanical it is, the only people actually getting the shot here are the fucking videographers, one of whom is literally sitting on his ass cross legged.
And do you really think a GH4 running 30p 4k at a non-/vid/ shutter speed with a 70-200L is going to miss anything? Manual focus isn't hard, kids. 20 years ao, even women coould do it.
>>2697717
Those balding hacks make more money in a day than what your whole gear costs.
Do I want to be someone who makes a lot of money? Yes, I do. You can stay home at your parents house and salivate on your gear and spend your daddys hard earned money, ending up nothing but a big fat failure.
What the hell, even Jared "Shoot RAW" Polin is making lots of money shooting and talking whatever.
Do you think you count kid? No. You and your fanboy opinions are literally nothing.
>>2697659
> The fact is the cheapest Rabal and D3x00 entry level DSLR can do sports photo, at least for daddy to shoot the kids playing. Not to mention Pentax DSLRs.
And the A6000 can.
> A7 line can't do that
Nope, not the whole line. Most of the newer A7 series are fine for fast PDAF and even pretty fast CDAF as long as you give them a sharp lens to work with.
I dunno if it's my sd card but my t3i/600d can do burst for only a very short time, seems very very bad for sports. It's impossibly hard to guarantee good shots of a big slow parrot flying straight past you let alone an athlete.
>>2697731
No, the buffer is just small and I don't think it can use more than like ~20MB/s or such to write to the card, either, even if the card is UHS-1, so even that won't make your burst much longer.
Particularly not if you're shooting RAW or even JPEG+RAW.
>>2697731
I use a Sandisk Extreme with my K-3 and it expanded my burst to over 4 seconds.
Try using one, also if the battery is old it can be an issue. I would look into these two first.
Im planning on buying a Fuji x-e1 used, but I can´t afford any modern lenses with it. Can anyone recommend any old cheap primes for it? Thanks in advance!
Pic related: i bought the industar 69 as a test lens already.
>>2697731
>It's impossibly hard to guarantee good shots of a big slow parrot flying straight past you let alone an athlete.
Well, the AF system generally sucks, too.
That not everything can shoot flying parrots and that you can do bursts is the biggest reason why people still buy D4S or 1D X, or whatever cheaper variant of a FF / APS-C camera works better for their budget.
>>2697736
Your K-3 has a much bigger buffer, and I think also a faster SD card bus.
The T3i can do like 5 RAW or 3 JPEG+RAW shots in a burst. *Maybe* you can get in an extra shot or two in RAW with a card as fast as the camera actually supports it, but I wouldn't be too sure.
And my guess is that your existing card probably won't have been so slow that it is more than one extra shot of difference.
>>2697742
>>2697731
One more thing, I found it to be a bother to shoot full bursts and only processing a few shots, so I started to take a couple or three shots at a time. It makes a good practice for looking for the decisive moments, when something interesting might happen and not waste shutter time.
>>2697745
It is a whole second, around 8 extra shots in full burst thanks to the new card, and it's not even the fastest supported.
>>2697746
> One more thing, I found it to be a bother to shoot full bursts and only processing a few shots
For the most part, I use burst mode to have a bunch of shots in situations where I anticipate it might matter. I mostly just quickly check and delete the redundant / worse shots.
But if I keep the entire series, well, I can generally do most corrections at the same time in LR on the whole burst.
>>2697747
Yea, it is also around an extra second on medium speed bursts (6 fps, ~same as your high speed) on my A6000.
But we both have bigger buffers, so the camera has more time to write some data before we fill it up.
And our cameras can write about twice as fast with a good card (~40MB/s effective, rather than his ~20-25MB/s). Arguably this is mostly offset for RAW by shooting 24MP rather than 12MP, but quite relevant for JPEG.
Does anyone know the difference betwee:
Sony 70-300mm F4.5-5.6 G SSM
vs.
Sony 70-300mm F4.5-5.6 G SSM II
?
The new A7 ii firmware update got me so hyped, I'm looking into a A-mount zoom lens now.
>>2697746
I only use the burst mode when shooting moving birds.
>>2697770
The point I'm trying to make is, no, a rebel is not good enough for professional sports photography and anyone who thinks it is hasn't actually used the burst mode. I know my rebels slow cause it's cheap, it's why I bought it.
>>2697350
>>2697352
>>2697479
It looks like the Ziess is sharper, the real question I had was whether it is worth discarding OSS. Especially since I plan on shooting with my shakey hands.
I don't really care about the absolute dxomark score, it looks like the Sony is better with chromatic aberration though which might help since I will be doing a bunch of outdoorsy stuff with it.
>>2697803
does the zeiss support pdaf?
the sigma only does pdaf in the middle.
the sony is definitely faster in AF.
if you're shaky get the oss, with the zeiss you'll be limited to 1/50s.
get the zeiss if must have sharper 1.8 but they're comparable stopped down to 2.8 anyway.
>>2697737
any 50 1.4 you can find.
pentax 50 1.7.
olympus 24 2.8.
