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: >>2695794
No isi related shitposting please
I've been looking into vintage lenses recently for my Canon 5D.
What do you guys think of the Zeiss Flektogon 35 f/2.4? Any other older 35mm lenses that deliver a "vintage" look?
I'm also on the lookout for 28mm and 85mm but there's so much info out there it's hard to determine what's good and what isn't. Any recommendations you guys have?
>>2698303
Obligatory Helios 58mm post.
>>2698303
This >>2698352 , look for Helios 44M without the version number. Those are the export quality pieces.
The Pentacon 50mm is good for portraits, Pancolar 50 is even better, Helios 40 (85mm/1.5), Pentacon 135mm 15 blade aperture (marketed as Bokeh monster) are excellent portrait lenses.
The Flektogon is a good wide lens, the 20mm variant is also a good one.
There is a newer rectangular fisheye, the Zenitar 16mm.
These are what come to my mind at the moment.
>>2698303
> Any other older 35mm lenses that deliver a "vintage" look?
Depends on how vintage.
I personally prefer not too much CA flare and so on. I found that Minolta aren't bad for reasonable IQ on a budget, at least the various Rokkors and Lentars.
Looking at sample images for the Zeiss you mentioned, it seems like bokeh whoring might also be one of your goals?
You can also do that nicely with newer (usually expensive) lenses that will actually usually be even nicer, but searching on the internet for vintage lenses with nice bokeh will turn up dozens of cheaper lenses -many exist, just don't have the list handy right now.
>>2698366
The new Zeiss lenses especially the Milvus series have literally no advancement regarding the optical formula, and they managed to introduce some more CA on the new lenses. Buying CZJ is the best thing to do right now.
I got my d3000 a few months ago, and this quarter I've only taken it out a few times. I thought to spice things up I should get a tripod for some nice stable shots, since I don't have the steadiest hands.
I've seen some threads where people pay 100+ for a god damn tripod, I mean I just want something to stablize my shot, jesus can't I just get a basic one on amazon and be done with it?
Or is there some sort of gearfag-esque reason that shelling 100+ is going to make my photos on another tier than ones not on that kind of tripod
TLDR
cheap tripod that just gets the job done, can I get a recommendation on one?
[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
>>2698352
Helios is shit.
Get a Yashica 50mm 1.9 or 2 instead.
Related to the Helios, couple of decades newer in design, much better coatings, also has swirly bokeh wide open.
Pic related is 50 1.9.
Also? They average like $10-30, cheaper than Helios, because most people have never heard of the cheaper side of the C/Y mount.
>>2698379
Brothers from Zeiss-derivative mothers.
>>2698399
grow the fuck up
>>2698400
Literally anyone can finish college. Why can't you?
>>2698386
>>2698379
>>2698386
Oh god, we have a new Isi-isa-retard meme.
Go look up the design of every classic 50mm, you damned clown.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-Gauss_lens#/media/File:DoubleGauss2text.svg
Tab right to see stacks more.
Your Yashica lens is NOT the same.
It's just as similar as any other fast 50 out there.
>>2698369
I had no interest in the Milvus series either.
But the Otus, Sonnar, Distagon and others are neat.
Also, Sigma Art. (Yea, not Zeiss, just more new high resolution FF glass with really neat bokeh - just to get some more suggestions for a different "optical formula" from old CZJ glass).
>>2698378
A tripod is not just a tripod
You'll want one that's tall enough
You'll want one that doesn't fall over if someone farts in its general direction
You'll want one that's stable enough to not give shaky shots if a car drives by or the wind is blowing hard
Now you're probably thinking: Fuck that. I can live without all of that if I can get away with paying 50 bucks. If you are, you don't need a tripod
One of the most often repeated pieces of advice is to not fucking skimp on your tripod. If you're unlucky it can tip over and break all your shit. Best case you'll just end up buying an expensive one anyway down the line
>>2698404
You should probably research the history of the Yashica lenses in question.
Hint: they were made in the same Kyocera factory as the Contax-Zeiss lenses they shared the mount with.
They're both Planar derivatives. Yashica build quality is far more consistent than Helios. :)
So I shoot with the olympus EM5, but I want to eventually into full frame. Just don't have the money to full switch systems right now.
Would it be weird to buy like the Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 with a metabones and then buy like a D750 body in a couple months? Is that a stupid way to transition?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Canon Camera Model Canon PowerShot A710 IS Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.6 (Windows) Photographer ' Maximum Lens Aperture f/3.2 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 240 dpcm Vertical Resolution 240 dpcm Image Created 2015:11:03 20:55:52 Exposure Time 1/1250 sec F-Number f/3.2 Lens Aperture f/3.2 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Flash No Flash, Auto Focal Length 8.34 mm Color Space Information sRGB Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard
>>2698378
> jesus can't I just get a basic one on amazon and be done with it?
From experience... yes, from $80-90 onwards they start to be "reasonable enough" even when including a ball head.
> Or is there some sort of gearfag-esque reason that shelling 100+ is going to make my photos on another tier than ones not on that kind of tripod
Mostly that not even the Chinese sell any decent tripod with decent head much below $100?
You can of course make a tripod on your own and see how exploitative $100 actually still is.
> cheap tripod that just gets the job done, can I get a recommendation on one?
The Dic&Mic E302 alu variant from aliexpress, ~$90 with ball head and is a reasonable design overall. ~$62 without the head.
If you are desperate, you could also try a $35+ Weifeng, but I know for certain that the $10-15 ones are just shit.
Other brands to look into ('cause they were suggested before): Vanguard, Manfrotto, Horusbennu, Sirui, Benro - I know Sirui, Benro and Manfrotto are good, but wouldn't suggest the last at least for heads 'cause of their largely non arca-swiss heads.
>>2698408
>Double Gauss/Planar tweaks were the standard wide aperture, normal and near-normal prime lens for sixty years.
Emphasis on the second word after the slash.
Planar derivatives. Zeiss derivatives.
The Helios is a direct Zeiss derivative. The Yashica was made alongside Zeiss-Contax, alongside lenses actually labeled Planar, and shares its build quality with them. It just has a more typical doublecoating as opposed to T* faggotry.
>Your Yashica lens is NOT the same
You're right. It's much better than a Helios, being a more mature version of the Planar/Double Gauss family, with a better build quality, from a more reputable manufacturer, for a cheaper price, typically in a better condition.
Imbecile.
>>2698414
dis is me
>>2698416 (cont'd)
PS: My experience with 4+ cheap $10-40 tripods (not all of which my own, but I arguably was an idiot twice):
It is literally better to shoot across your backpack or any stone or wall or whatever you can find.
Useless cheap tripod is useless.
>>2698416
>arca-swiss
Why is this such a big deal?
>>2698408
the distinguishing feature of the lenses shes talking about is that they have swirly bokeh, which not all double-gauss do.
Did you even read her post before you went full autistic again? Are you that guy that got banned for making a thread about her the other day? Get over it, dude.
>>2698417
Nobody is arguing it's not better, we're saying it's not the same.
We may as well compare me and you.
>ape derivatives
The Helios is not even a "derivative" of a Zeiss lens, it's a straight copy. It's a Zeiss Biotar, not a Planar.
The quality of a lens which determines the "swirliness" of the bokeh is the degree and distribution of astigmatism; that is what the two have in common.
what do you think of the fuji x-e2?
thinking of getting one. either with the 35 1.4 or an adapter and use my nikkor 35 1.8
http://petapixel.com/2015/11/05/sony-a68-a-mount-translucent-mirror-and-4d-focus/
Where were you when a-mount was not kill?
>>2698428
>Nobody is arguing it's not better, we're saying it's not the same.
I didn't say they're the same either? Fucking child.
>The Helios is not even a "derivative" of a Zeiss lens, it's a straight copy. It's a Zeiss Biotar, not a Planar.
Being a straight copy, by a different manufacturer, is being derivative.
Further, Planar and Biotar are both derivative of the same core double-gauss design.
Most importantly, I mentioned it because:
-THEY BOTH HAVE SWIRLY BOKEH, THE ONLY REAL REASON PEOPLE BUY THE FUCKING HELIOS IN THE FIRST PLACE
-They are both one degree of seperation from the name Zeiss.
Is it so hard to get over your hateboner for me for 5 minutes to realize that I'm just as aware of shit as you are, if not moreso? Or nah?
Fucking manchildren on this website.
Anonymous didn't ask for someone to suggest him specifically a biotar clone of Russian descent, now did he? He asked about vintage lenses. The Helios got mentioned. I mentioned a superior lens with similar optical qualities and a related design.
p.s. the person that suggested the Helios in the first place? He concedes my point. :)
>>2698437
>They're both Planar derivatives. Yashica build quality is far more consistent than Helios. :)
Oh, I see I did word it incorrectly in my anon post, so I'll concede that error. That incredibly minor and unimportant error.
p.s. Biometar = Planar ;)
So, who else in aus got an eos m slk for $230?
Looking for vintage (preferably Zeiss) lenses I should adapt for my A7ii. Any things other than Helios 58mm? I already ordered /p/ meme lens.
>>2698436
I'm getting mixed feelings about it
>top LCD
>XAVC-S
>A77II focus system
Though on the other hand
>2.7" display
>Tiny, low-res viewfinder
>plastic lens mount on the body
It feels more like an improved a58 than it does an a65 successor, and, really? a plastic mount?
>>2698415
Hey you faggots stop arguing about Isi and help me.
>>2698415
Not at all, if you can, go for it.
>>2698436
>plastic mount
Hindsight 3 months ago. I was THIS ->||<- close to buying a Sony A7 instead of the A7ii which I chose in the end.
Because the A7 was so ridiculously cheap to import from a country with falling currency., I could have bought a brand new A7 for 800 USD.
Thank fuck I chose the (still extremely cheap) A7ii instead, because
http://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2015/11/04/sony-a7-ii-gains-phase-detect-af-for-third-party-lenses-uncompressed-raw
HOT DAUYUUMMMM BABY
A SEVEN TWO IS ROCKING THE BOAT
If I buy a flash, say the Youngnuo 568 EX II (http://www.amazon.com/YONGNUO-YN568-Flash-Speedlite-Speed/dp/B00DB21TCM/ref=sr_1_11?s=photo&ie=UTF8&qid=1446769897&sr=1-11&keywords=yongnuo)
Would I be able to use it with both a Canon t3i and a Samsung NX30? One flash for both bodies sounds interesting.
>>2698468
>uncompressed RAW
congrats, welcome to a decade ago.
>>2698477
I was pointing at the phase detect autofocus support for adapted Canon, Nikon, and A-Mount SSM lenses.
The A7ii is only the 2nd camera in the world to have this capability.
Looking to get a lens for low light and street situations. Is the Canon EF 50mm f/1,8 a good choice? I'm piss poor.
>>2698480
what camera are you using? the 50 on a crop sensor ends up being quite long. I'd rather go with the 24 2.8. not too expensive, and the quality is nice
Should I get a Mamiya 6 or a Hasselblad? I live between two fairly cold areas (Upstate NY and Haute-Normandy) and want a decent walk-around medium format camera.
>>2698480
You can probably get a 2nd hand one cheaply, otherwise there is also the YongNuo 50mm f/1.8 which is cheaper than the Canon (when bought new)
http://petapixel.com/2014/12/27/comparing-optics-40-yongnuo-50mm-f1-8-125-canon-50mm-f1-8-ii/
>>2698282
SO! I am a begginer and want to know wich camera I should get
I want to make prodcution photos, specially food and portraits. also full body pics, basic landscapes and all that shabbadabba.
Wich camera should I get? I don´t want something with fancy things I will never use just something versatile that can make professional photos for advertisement and print
wich camera should I get oh you wise people of /p/?
>>2698481
Using an EOS 600D, so I should go with the 24 2.8, right?
>>2698484
The latest Canon Powershot.
>>2698485
check the pictures you've taken and see what's your most used focal lenght. buy based on that. i find the 50 pretty damn long for certain things, but I've also taken street shots with it with decent results.
again, your best bet is checking what's your preferred focal lenght, based on the shots you've taken.
also, what's your budget?
>>2698486
kek
>>2698488
Just checked the catalogue, been mostly in the 20mm range, so I'll go for the 24 2.8.
Budget is seriously low, max 200€.
>>2698492
Go for it m8.
>>2698486
yeah no, I was thinking something along the lines of a T5 or a D3200
but since you guys seem to know nothing,,,
I wonder why I even came here to 4chan to ask, it´s like it´s full of teenagers
>>2698497
Can't handle the pants, huh?
>>2698499
it depends, I come from friendly boards like an and adv are you going to answer my questions now that I don´t have my pants?
>>2698502
Thing is, mate, you come here asking for the jack of all trades itself, while not naming a budget or even reading the sticky. That could've been a start.
I meant bants as in banter by the way, not pants.
>>2698282
Thinking of grabbing the 5dsr tomorrow. Anyone against it and why? I mostly shoot in studio btw.
>>2698497
>D3200
Grab that + the 50mm f/1.8
whats a good point and shoot camera? looking for something thats compact, somewhat durable, easy to use and provide great picture quality. something that'll be a good stepping stone in learning to using an enthusiast grade camera. I keep coming across sony's interchangable lens cameras particularly the a5000 an a6000, but i feel as though they're alittle overwhelming to start with and not as durable nor convenient for casual use. any suggestions for something between 500-600?
![hqdefault[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/Lm7V6n3.jpg "hqdefault[1].jpg")
>>2698532
Sony RX100 III
There is absolutely nothing overwhelming about starting out iwth a mirrorless or DLSR though. They still have green mode
>>2698532
You should really go for a Sony a5X00, it's got the same modes as a point and shoot (and a meme electronic zoom) and is a far better learner camera.
>>2698425
The only widely shared "industry standard" quick release system. You can get clamps / heads and plates from a lot of vendors.
Also it's really quite nice in terms of how tight it sits and how resistant to wear it is, by and large (not that this one is a huge deal with Manfrottos recent systems, but there are some that sucked).
>>2698538
Cool i'll look into that
the other factors of those were that they're bulky and seem fairly fragile. i'm planning to take the camera on trips where i'll be traveling light, its likely to fall out a few times in its lifetime. otherwise i'd be pretty set on a a5000, really like the idea of interchangable lens yet being somewhat small.
>>2698473
Any ISO hotshoe can trigger flashes in manual mode. Basically, they can do the "fire now" signal.
For the camera to somehow submit settings to the flash, usually the respective TTL system needs to be supported (if the camera communicates intelligently with the flash at all rather than just "fire now", it almost always can do TTL metering and will allow completely automatic control of the flash).
A few flashes are multi TTL system capable, but most just cover one, including that 568 EX II. Bascially you'll get TTL on Canon, and manual settings on any other camera with ISO hotshoe.
PS: Manual flashes aren't bad, I personally mostly work with remote triggered YN 560 III and IV, often off camera. But TTL is convenient for on-camera use.
>>2698484
That will be a question of the lens as much as of the camera.
Typically pro quality macro capable prime lenses around 90-100mm are a nice option for combined product / product detail / portrait shots (that is, mostly head and shoulder portraits) are a good match for FF cameras. (On APS-C, try a 1.5 times shorter focal length.)
You ideally also would get a 35 to 55mm high-end prime for full "people portraits" with someone's whole body or groups.
But you might need more lenses in the end.
It will also be highly important for food and portraits that you have decent lighting. I'd suggest one standing light (LED panel?) and three remote triggerable and preferably remote configurabl speedlights at the very least. You can probably make do with YN560 III/IV/EX and YN300 or YN6000 for starters, no need to go for Elinchroms or Alienbees right away.
As for the camera, you can see that I'd suggest some FF or APS-C. If you can afford a neat FF camera, go for it, it will be easiest. But you can probably make do with a midrange APS-C.
Anyhow, just some pointers. Not absolute rules.
>>2698532
No, the A6000 is very easy to use, and I like mine a lot. But if you're actually interested I can go into a bunch of caveats that you might want to know about.
For now: It isn't a classic compact, with almost all all lenses it's not really conveniently going into your pants' pockets. I second anon from >>2698538 if you need a camera to put into your hand bag, pocket, glove box in car, whatever.
so by chance i got a Mark II from my marketing department
any lens recs for mostly portrait photography as im going to be helping with headshots for the company?
Man the K-1 has really got me hyped. Viewfinder looks a bit small for that huge pentaprism though. After going mirrorless I realized that I really wanted a large and weighty camera instead (muh EOS 33 w/ battery grip). Now if only Sigma and Tamron made some more Pentax lenses.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 720 Image Height 477
>>2698532
a6000.
use intelligent auto mode.
>>2698478
All dslrs offer pdaf with third party lenses and have for a long time.
>>2698603
Are you enjoying that Macro tube when you adapt Canon lenses into your pentax?
>>2698580
5D II? A7 II? Which Mark II?
> any lens recs for mostly portrait photography as im going to be helping with headshots for the company?
Zeiss Otus 85mm?
>>2698591
Is that a 1,5 Kg body?
>>2698603
Adapted? Not third party designed for use with the camera system?
No.
>>2698591
I think Tamron has abandoned the system
But what I want to know is why they didn't simply go with a normal side mounted hinge, some people might say it would be less durable, but those people hold their cameras by their displays and we call them weirdos
>>2698580
Depends on which Mark II you mean. Any relatively fast first-party 85mm should do the trick.
>>2698609
Eh. Bragging about adapter innovation as a bullet point for mirrorless is kind of like bragging about how awesome the hubs are on your wheelchair.
>>2698613
No, it's a real benefit. There are a ton of really great Contax glass out there, and incredible Canon glass that are extremely affordable.
Hey /p/haggots, I know there's some very knowledgeable users here, so can you guys help me with pic related. My school generously donated these two film cameras to me last year before I finished my final year, and by donate I mean I stole them (they had been sitting in an art room closet covered in dust, this shit hadn't been used in fucking years don't get mad). I know nothing about film cameras, and I tried to look these up online with little success. Basically I want to know what each lens/body is worth (if anything) and how rare they are. Both lenses are working completely fine, and as far as I know both bodies are fine too.
Looking back I remember there were a few Nikon body's in that closet, I don't know why the fuck I didn't take them instead because I know they can be worth a fair bit.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make PENTAX Camera Model PENTAX K-5 II s Camera Software K-5 II s Ver 1.06 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2015-11-06T14:46:34+10:00 Exposure Time 15 sec Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 250 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Center Weighted Average Flash No Flash, Compulsory Image Width 1000 Image Height 662 Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Contrast Hard Saturation Normal Sharpness Hard Subject Distance Range Distant View
>>2698625
They're worth very little. Like, less than fifty.
>>2698627
Fifty each body, or fifty all up for everything?
Is a Canon M3 enough of an upgrade from a T3i to make it worth purchasing?
>>2698652
Yes, you get continuous AF in video, focus peaking, and it seems to not suffer from Canon's typical video issues like softness, aliasing, and moire
>>2698652
There are a bunch of specs where it is better, but it also kinda is one of the ugly ducklings of recent MILC. Low battery life, not so great AF, small buffer (4-5 raw shots), and so on. Plus the EF-M mount which will probably have you buy an adapter right away.
I think the 750D might be more immediately applicable as a replacement.
>>2698674
There shouldn't be any need to worry about a small buffer when both cameras can only crank out about 4fps in burst mode, and most video is manual focus anyway. As well, the 750d only lets you shoot video in full auto, the 760d can do full manual in video mode, but it's llikely going to have the same video quality of the t3i, and the m3 has better video quality
Can you make the A6000 or any of the A7 cameras close the shutter to protect the Sensor when you chance lenses?
>>2698630
All up. You stole trash, you dumb nigger.
If you're traveling to a rougher area of an unfamiliar country, is it worth it to buy a cheap throwaway DSLR in case you get mugged or something? Something heavily used with lots of cosmetic blemishes for under $100 that might look less appealing to potential thieves? Is it even worth it to shelf your better camera/lenses and shoot with something of a much lower quality because you're worried about possibly having your camera stolen?
>>2698681
Protect the sensor from what? Won't be enough to stop some impact, shutters are lightweight.
And it is not like the shutter seals the bayonet mount from having dust enter, either way.
Basically, don't worry about it?
>>2698693
If a dust spec falls on the shutter, you ca use your finger to remove it without worry.
If a dust falls on the sensor, it's a whole other ballpark.
>>2698697
>touching the shutter
>not touching the sensor glass cover
nigga
Does anyone know what is the difference between First-curtain and this "Silent shutter" feature?
looking to buy a new lens,
but should i buy the canon 24-70 F/4 is
og tamron 24-70 F/2.8 is
TNx
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties:
>>2698697
>If a dust spec falls on the shutter, you ca use your finger to remove it without worry.
Hell no, don't do that.
Shutters are very fragile.
Bend them and you're fucked.
>>2698702
First curtain meas only the first curtain is electronic.
Silent shutter means both curtains are electronic, so it's completely silent.
>>2698686
best to take a discrete yet powerful compact
despite the
D U S T
U
S
T
the GR really is prime for such things, if you can stomach 28mm fov.
no one pays attention to something that looks like an outdated p&s digital cam, especially thieves
they'd likely be more interested in your phone than that
however, if you're really going into shitsville, nothing's going to be safe
smaller compacts can however be secreted away into a pocket or anus in a hurry
that's a plus
D U S T
U
S
T
>>2698717
smegma 24-35 f2.
the tampon is ok too i guess.
>>2698749
>1.5x zoom
Just buy a prime.
And yes, we just went from a 24-70 f/4 to a 24 f/1.4
Is 500 dollars for a 70-300mm F4.5-5.6 with silent AF and optic stabilisation a decent enough price?
EX+ rating by Keh standards.
>>2698805
70-300 VRs go for under $400. Not sure about Canons but probably the same.
>>2698819
Do you know which camera systems have the most affordable xxx-600mm zoom lenses?
>>2698822
If you're on a budget, going with a Bigma (150-500mm) has been popular. Tamron also has cheap offerings.
I'd realistically probably get a Sigma Sports if I wanted 600mm, but that's only a budget option as compared to 600mm primes and other comparable options - not in the sense of the usual low end glass' pricing
Pretty much all the Sigma / Tamron telephoto zoom lenses are available for Canon and Nikon.
Oh yes, if you are just looking for 600mm "equivalent", that's found on bridge cameras.
>>2698822
M43. :^)
>>2698841
>Sigma Sport
Why not the contemporary or the Tamron equivalent? The sport is nice for weather sealing and tank build quality, but it's also much heavier.
>>2698841
I don't like prime lens at that range, I much prefer something like 150-600, or 200-600, or even 300-600. It's just the type of lens where Zoom is much more useful.
500mm max, focal range is too close to the 300mm zoom lens I have my eyes on. So I'm aiming for something else.
>>2698845
Because it is quite a bit better toward the 600mm end, primarily.
>>2698850
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=978&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=7&API=2&LensComp=990&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=7&APIComp=2
Barely. Won't be noticeable in day to day shoots, while weight will certainly be noticeable.
Wow, Tamron really fucked up their150-600mm lens for A-Mount.
The thing lacks optic image stabilisation, while its cousins for the other mounts have that included for the same price.
>>2698851
That difference is really pretty bad as far as I'm concerned. Correcting this kind of flaw costs way too much resolution and is extra work.
But hey, your general point is valid, anon might be okay with the Contemporary if he is okay with this.
I run a 5D3 and I am needing a backup camera. I was wondering what to get.
I can only budget for something like a second hand 1D3 or perhaps a 5D2
I want something to keep a 35 1.4 on and then 70-200 2.8 on the other body.
I mainly shoot studio, events and weddings.
>>2698871
LOL, Tamron engineers must have been reading /p/, with all the Sony fanboys bragging about their IBIS.
>>2698888
IBIS is great in conjunction with optical image stabilisation, and great for the hundreds of lenses that don't have it to begin with.
It's still bad to exclude it from a lens of this zoom range on purpose though, since its purely lower value, and lowers the resale value.
>>2698846
>I don't like prime lens at that range
With a long prime you crop to zoom.
They are so incredibly sharp that you'll hardly notice any image quality loss.
Think of a 300 f/2.8 as a 300-600 f/2.8-f/5.6
And you'll probably get better image quality cropping a 300mm prime to 600mm than you get with a zoom lens at 600mm.
>>2698889
>IBIS is great in conjunction with optical image stabilisation
I know.
And I'm sure the Tamron engineers know as well.
But it seems like the Tamron engineers think most Sony users don't know.
Either that, or they hate Sony users.
I bought a canon 60d and I'm trying to get some good lenses for nature photography, portraits, and for concerts. I randomly got a connection to go to shows and take photos of bands but they're not to best they could be and I need some help!
Thanks in advance :)
>>2698896
The lens was released before the IBIS thing happened.
It's purely a dick move in my opinion, since the price remained the same.
>>2698884
A6000 or A7 II?
You can use a Metabones Speedbooster IV or some other smart adapter for EF lenses, or just have a native zoom on that.
>>2698897
Have a look a the Sigma lineup, especially the Sigma Art primes and the better zoom lenses.
Tamron's Di VC zooms might also be interesting.
Concerts on that Canon APS-C are probably going to be tricky, unless you shoot a fairly well-lit stage or are allowed to use your bigger speedlights. It is not really a low light shooter.
>>2698903
Hmm I would rather stay with a canon system just because I know how to work them. And I'd rather not use any adapters etc.
I mean I'd like the 1D3 because of the higher FPS but the 5d3 has video and is near identical to the 5d3
>>2698897
70-200, Sigma 50mm art, and EF 100-400
>>2698905
For events and weddings, the 5D2 will leave you nervous with its spotty AF. The 1D3 would be a good call, especially since it's APS-H and you can get more variety out of your current lenses that way without sacrificing much in terms of "getting the shot"
>>2698905
You'll also know how to work the Sonys no problem. I'd suggest to try these out in a store.
> I mean I'd like the 1D3 because of the higher FPS but the 5d3 has video and is near identical to the 5d3
The A6000 shoots even a little faster than the 1D3, has better AF, and has video that is arguably better than on the 5D2.
But I am not sure you really want to do serious video with either of the 5D2 or A6000 anyways, so if you want to stick with Canon, I'd probably get the 1D3 as fallback?
>>2698911
>has better AF
No, it doesn't. Despite what Sony would like you to believe. There's lots of viewfinder blackout, and tracking is still noticeably worse than even a mid-range DSLR. let alone Canon's flagship sports shooter.
>>2698904
It usually is a lot of low light situations but I met a guy touring with one of the bands I saw and his photos are great. I just don't really have the funds for an expensive lens right now. Hopefully at some point I can get a good lens that will work for my concert photography and for portraits/city photos/nature.
>>2698916
stick to primes. I shot shows on a budget for a long time, and the Canon 85 f/1.8 was great for it. Super fast AF and fast enough aperture to do great stuff. For the lighting, you will always be a little fucked until you end up in a venue with front lighting or spots, but you can make it work. You just have to be creative with your angles.
>>2698918
Yeah, I've managed to get lucky and get some good shots. I need to find something (howni would describe as) that acts as a muffled flash? That way some light get put on the target but not all the background light gets taken away. Do they have a name for something like that?
>>2698919
So... a flash? Haha
If you shoot on manual, you dial in your exposure for the lights in the background, and then you adjust your flash power separately to fill the performers a bit, without blowing things out. You don't let the camera do it itself because it tends to overpower the lights in the back with the flash, and the results look pretty dumb and amateur.
You have to be sure that the venue will allow flash, and that the performers don't mind, before doing it though. A lot of bands won't let you use flash because it annoys and distracts them.
>>2698920
Yeah, basically. Lol. I didn't know that I could adjust how powerful the flash would be. I just have a stock flash on my camera right now. Whenever I would use flash I always asked the bands if they minded. At the house of blues I can't use flash but they have better lighting in the front than most venues. It sucks because I really love doing this but I don't have the lenses I need to get the most perfect shots! I think the lens you told me about, the 85mm will be my next thing to save up for.
>>2698913
> There's lots of viewfinder blackout
If you use the review function you'll not see it, and events, studio and weddings do not pose a problem for those short blackouts.
It is only maybe if you are tracking someone in a sports setting with bursts where it can get annoying, but in a studio, event, wedding you really pretty much know where to shoot, even with bursts.
> and tracking is still noticeably worse than even a mid-range DSLR.
Subject tracking yes, plain old PDAF / CDAF under the selected area no.
(Well, it is worse than the 1D X or D4S, but not the midrange cameras).
>>2698916
When you get to really low light, currently buying something like an A7S is ultimately is more effective and cheaper than buying two high speed high quality lenses.
Of course high speed high quality lenses on a FF camera also work quite well anyways.
Anyhow, we're getting there, but it's not cheap to shoot low light just yet.
Still, if you have a nice f/1.8 rather than a f/2.8, that will surely make some shots better, even at concerts, so maybe get a Sigma Art prime.
They also are sharp and usually have nice bokeh, so they'll do fairly well for portraits and nature, too.
>>2698379
I quite like the 50 1.9. Out of curiosity do you have the multicoated or single coated version?
I've got a Nikon F2 with a 50mm 1.4, looking for some more reasonably priced primes (don't have to be nikkor lenses)
Specifically looking for something under 35mm and something above 80
>>2698966
There are not so many unreasonably priced primes, as far as I'm concerned.
It's pretty clear which new lenses are cheap, just sort B&H, Adorama, Amazon, eBay by price for the F-mount.
If you want bargain deal used lenses, I think you'd better find some specific lenses in your price range on eBay, Keh, Craigslist or where ever you might want to buy, and then just confirm here that the price is reasonable?
I have a D7000 with the nifty fifty, 28mm f2.8, and 35mm DX. What should my next lens purchase be?
>>2698951
>Subject tracking yes, plain old PDAF / CDAF under the selected area no.
Yes. Especially in dim lighting conditions.
>>2698997
smegma 18-35
>>2698997
...What lens do you need to take the photos that you can't take with your current lenses?
>>2698998
When it is very dim (borderline unusable for still taking a shot), *both* the A6000 and those midrange APS-C will start to hunt a little to badly unless you use the AF assist light, some small led panel, or just do MF.
But if you want to do low light, you should use an A7S, A7S II, or perhaps an A7R II on that low light mode instead (those are still fine with AF when the D4S is fine, can't really get any better).
Else you'll constantly have to inconvenience people with your LED panel -or even worse, speedlight- anyways to get sufficient IQ on the subsequent shot. Not a very popular move at events and weddings.
>>2699009
At f/4, 1/200, ISO 800, a mid-level DSLR will do just fine, and the a6000 will be noticeably slower and be hunting. Especially on real world subjects without harsh "test chart" level contrast. Trust me. I almost got an a6000 for what I shoot, and tested it out against two of my DSLRs for a weekend. I'm not just spouting bullshit I read on a review site.
>>2699011
> At f/4, 1/200, ISO 800
My 30 and 60mm Sigma focus near-far-near in ~0.6-1.2s per step (varies, indeed sometimes it hunts a little) under these conditions, medium AF speed, PDAF (AF-C) only, no pre-AF, no AF light or anything, and no high contrast subject (brown carpet, white wall).
But the result is useless, this starts to look fixable at a 1s exposure, not 1/200s.
Obviously, if I allow CDAF (AF-S/AF-A) and the built-in AF illuminator I can get focus lock in ~0.5s... so there's that option.
>>2699064
Oh, and 35/2 AIS.
second hand 5D MKIII or wait for brand new XPRO2?
>>2699068
Leica M Monochrome
>>2699050
>But the result is useless, this starts to look fixable at a 1s exposure, not 1/200s.
...what?
>>2699064
> Daily reminder that Sony refuses to focus wide open, potentially hurting AF performance, especially in low light.
Maybe, but ultimately:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQbMVAY5JBs
https://youtu.be/_NS2YWSKi6U?t=2m19s
Hey /p/
I've been using a Nikon D40 with its kit lens for years. I recently added a Tamron 70-300mm (A005) for closer nature photos. I'm getting tired of the low resolution of the D40. I was looking at the D5500 but was thinking I could save a couple hundred bucks and just go for the D5300 instead. I know the differences between the two are pretty minimal. I could get the D5500, body only for about $530 new, or the D5300, body only, for about $300+ used. What do you guys think?
>>2699077
With those settings and the room lighting here, the exposure should be 1s+ for an okay shot, not 1/200. The room is not brightly lit.
Pic related, enjoy this tit ball on ground test shot at:
> f/4, 1/200, ISO 800
Not that I'd have to pick those settings, but it was what was suggested earlier.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make SONY Camera Model ILCE-6000 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.7 (Windows) Maximum Lens Aperture f/2.8 Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 90 mm Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2015:11:07 00:40:06 Exposure Time 1/200 sec F-Number f/4.0 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 800 Lens Aperture f/4.0 Brightness -3.2 EV Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 60.00 mm Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Manual Scene Capture Type Standard Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal
>>2699102
> Small difference in body performance, about 40% difference in price.
The cheaper one. Save money to buy better lenses and bodies next year, as is useful / necessary.
>>2699107
Yeah that makes sense. Thanks.
>>2699103
It's not the settings he's talking about you idiot, he's expressing the light value through camera settings. he's implying that a scene that is correctly exposed at those settings will cause the AF system to struggle.
>>2699114
That makes no sense either, because the camera does clearly not struggle then.
I'm not sure if I'm wording my question correctly.
But does anyone know how much "further"a 600mm lens can see compared to a 500mm lens?
Is this a good deal? Seems cheap but I feel like maybe that lens sucks dick.
http://www.nikonusa.com/en/nikon-products/product/dslr-cameras/1556/d810.html?CID
>>2699146
Easy. 6/5.
If something filled your frame at ~25m, it now fills the frame at ~30m
>>2699167
Wow, that's a really cool rule of thumb.
Thanks Anon.
>>2698672
>moire
That's definatly a Nikon issue when it comes to video
>>2699164
> Seems cheap
Not particularly. It's a D810, not a D4S.
New body only costs around $2350 here on parallel import. (Inb4 I need to pay whatever Nikon intended me to pay.)
> but I feel like maybe that lens sucks dick
By standards relative to high end cameras like this, yes, quite so?
Of course, a lot of people can deal with such lenses anyways.
>>2699171
I think it is not even a rule of thumb, but an actual description of how this works.
Anyhow, no problem.
I have a work light that I want to use for lighting when shooting indoors...Is one enough? I figure I'll mostly just be bouncing the light off of a wall and I can just bounce it off of a white poster board if need be. What kind of bulb should I get for it?
Looking for a compact point and shoot. Is the GR as good as everyone says it is?
>>2699189
dust
>>2699189
Yes it's a great camera. As long as you want 28mm and you don't mind not having a viewfinder then the camera is pretty much literally perfect.
Get ready to get memed to death about dust every time you mention the camera on the internet, though.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make RICOH IMAGING COMPANY, LTD. Camera Model GR Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Windows) Maximum Lens Aperture f/2.8 Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 28 mm Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 4928 Image Height 2772 Number of Bits Per Component 8, 8, 8 Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2015:11:06 20:20:48 Exposure Time 1/2 sec F-Number f/4.0 Exposure Program Aperture Priority ISO Speed Rating 400 Lens Aperture f/4.0 Brightness -2.6 EV Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 18.30 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1500 Image Height 844 Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Sharpness Normal
>>2699181
> Is one enough?
That very much depends on what you want to shoot, and how it needs to look.
About three lights are "standard" / enough for many, but people can use less or more for their shots.
> I figure I'll mostly just be bouncing the light off of a wall and I can just bounce it off of a white poster board if need be
As compared to doing this with a speedlight (which has ~200 times the light output, though only briefly), you'll quite possibly have some trouble with how much light lands on the subject if you distribute / "expend" your continuous light on multiple large bounce areas...
> What kind of bulb should I get for it?
E27 bulbs? Strong, preferably dimmable 5500k LED or photographic CFL (130-150W, also typically around 5500k) would be typical choices.
Usually either are from China, so you might as well order them on Aliexpress. They only cost a few bucks.
PS: I'm not actually usually using that anymore, save for occasionally using the LED bulb for continuous work lighting in the room.
I have remote configurable YN560 IV / TX and a YN300 LED panel. Entry level gear still, but more versatile and quicker to work with. Still costs an order of magnitude more than a bulb, so just start with the bulb unless you know you want to do a lot of artificial light shooting.
I'm about to replace all my old, cheap filters with a bunch of Hoya HD models since I've upgraded to fool frame and fool frame lenses and the old ones are too small or too thick.
I'm looking at getting the Hoya HD CPL in 82mm (2x), 77mm and 52mm which should come around $400 or so. I've done a little of research and while Tiffen and B&W seem to be slightly higher rated, they come at an extra premium which would put them out of budget.
Should I go ahead with these purchases or do you have anything info or guides that may help me?
Just picked up a very lightly used T3i w/64GB class 3 memory card for $300.
Did I do good?
>>2699202
Why not a single 82mm filter and stepup rings for the smaller lenses?
Also consider the Lee filter system.
>>2699203
depends. did it come with a lens?
>>2699205
Yeah, 18-55mm.
>>2699206
then you did well.
>>2699208
Cool! I was pretty sure.
>>2699204
I can't be stuffed unscrewing and reattaching filters. Would rather have each lens have one.
>>2699192
Awesome thanks! Definitely picking one up.
Oh never mind, it's probably reflection from glass that is Vertical to the Shelves. All the stuff is probably locked behind the glass.
Hello. Bought a Nikon D3200 like 2 weeks ago but i haven't gotten around of making any good pics. I have seen a lot of tutorials, but I just can't get pictures like the one that i wanna shoot. I don't want to return the camera but i feel like I've rushed into the DSLR camera. Any tips to improve? (I only have the 18-55 lens, are they decent?)
>>2699316
The camera and the lens are decent enough for most things, yes. The bottleneck is almost certainly you (barring a few exceptions). But that's good news, because it means you can practice and learn.
Two weeks is not nearly enough time to give up on yourself. I've been shooting for years and learn new techniques and processes all the time. Don't put so much pressure on yourself.
That being said, what's the photo you want to shoot? Maybe we could help.
It's over. Samsung is finished ;_;
The best camera I've ever had is in my phone, but now I want to get myself a proper one. I plan on using it for a museum visit initially, and then air shows and the like afterwords. I want maximum photo quality because I'm a giant autist for crisp images. Would I be better off going for a higher-tier point and shoot, or a DSLR? Zoom functionality is important.
>>2699316
Keep reading, and more importantly keep shooting. Study the snaps that work and find out why they did. As the other guy said, keep improving
I also suggest buying the Nikon DX 35mm f/1.8 asap. It's cheap and great value. Shooting a fast prime is incredibly fun and it will make you improve better
>>2699371
If you need something pocket sized, the RX100 has a pretty good zoom lens that's 24–70 mm equivalent.
They go for as low as 300 dollars new, if you don't mind the mark1 model. The mark 3 and mark 4 has some new features that are nifty, but they're also more expensive.
Inter changeable lens cameras with APS-C sized sensors and Full Frame Sensors will obviously output better stills, but be prepared to pay a good amount of money for good zoom lenses. Your budget will be crucial here.
>>2699371
> I want maximum photo quality because I'm a giant autist
Anon, this never is a point & shoot. It is either Mirrorless or DSLR, with an expensive lens.
*Maximum* or near it is actually making both body and lens expensive. But most people don't go ahead when they see that the stuff near midrange to enthusiast grade is ~$1.5k (say, Nikon D750 or A7 II - the earlier is apparently also the most sold body on B&H) + ~$0.6-1.8k (whatever very decent lens you want - there are of course pricier and cheaper models too).
The actual high end of general purpose camera bodies is $3k (like the A7S II, A7R II, top of the mirrorless bestsellers on B&H) and up.
> Zoom functionality is important
IF you actually pay, you'll see that you can crop really well on primes, and they're usually better at the same price point for higher IQ.
But well, high end zooms will work for good image quality, as long as you're not using too much zoom. For example ~24-70mm, ~70-200mm tends to be not have too extreme an impact on image quality, but of course you still need a good lens...
>>2699369
good news.
wait for fire sale and get nx1 for cheap.
just adapt old lenses.
Need a little bit of help /p/, looking to get the Olympus 25mm f1.8 as a present for someone, in most UK shops its £260+ (with wildly varying prices)
anyway heres the cheapest that i can find it just wanted to check that its all okay, I understand that it will be coming from hong kong and probably wont have any form of warranty with it, but will I have any other issues?
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Brand-New-Olympus-M-Zuiko-Digital-Silver-25mm-f-1-8-Lens-Micro-Four-Thirds-Mount-/131640003822?hash=item1ea65b0cee:g:IvIAAOSwI-BWMY8q
>>2699354
Thank you so much for the help, I know 2 weeks It's not a long time but I thought I'd catch on really quick, I guess I'll have to be really patient and study my work.
>>2699373
Also thanks man, I have bookmarked the nikon DX 35mm f/1.8 and I will propably buy it around Christmas. I'm going to practice with the 18-55mm as much as I can before buying it.
>>2699354
Oh, almost forgot. I want to shoot different kind of pictures and I have so many examples in mind, i ordered a tripod for night/ astro photography but i don't know how well the results will be with a kit lens. For the time being, the basic tips for portrait photography with a kit lens. I read somewhere that they don't blurr the background as well as a 70-200mm lens or something.
>>2699408
> For the time being, the basic tips for portrait photography with a kit lens. I read somewhere that they don't blurr the background as well as a 70-200mm lens or something.
Well, you presumably neither have the aperture to produce a very shallow DoF (and thus blur out anything that is immediately behind your subject), nor did the lens maker likely whore out the bokeh to be round and shiny or whatever.
Specific primes are best at either of these, but of course there are also 70-200mm zoom lenses that also do this better than your kit lens.
>>2699389
yes. it's not a panasonic 20mm f1.7
>>2699408
>>2699406
The 50mm 1.8 is somewhat useful as a poor man's portrait lens on a DX sensor, but it's a very awkward focal length for any other purpose than highly controlled shots of specific "items" like that. I won't advise you to get the 50mm over the 35mm, nor will I advise you to get both (they are too similar to be worth it)
Try walking around with your kit lens at 35 and then at 50, not changing it, and see how you like it and what kind of shots you produce
To elaborate on what >>2699415 said. A shallow DoF to isolate your subject is caused by having a large aperture, which si why the 1.8 primes are useful. Longer focal lengths and closer subjects also give more shallow DoF.
>>2699425
>muh slow AF
Just joking, it's an alright lens if you're not needing blazing fast AF. The size advantage is more than worth it.
>>2699381
>yfw Samsung never kills camera business
>yfw they release a full frame NX2
>yfw everybody gets pissed because nobody is selling it except for Samsung
Did I get a good deal /p/?
>>2699618
pretty good since it's a tampon 2.8
>>2699618
Not really if you just leave it on your shelf and not use it.
>>2699622
Phew, good thing I plan on using it then.
>>2699626
Just keep that in mind.
You might need this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihedh1iVSBw
and also you might want to google how to set up continuous AF "stickyness"
>>2699643
Awesome, thanks anon.
I'm considering the Sony A7R II, Samsung NX1 (with low-pass filter removed), and waiting for official specs/reviews of the Fuji XPro-2 in January. At this time, I don't have a camera because reasons.
I'll be adapting older manual focus lenses for the vast majority of my shooting, and probably purchasing one af lens just in case I expect to be running and gunning. Starting out with general photography but I may get back into documentary/journalism in the near future.
I mean...is it really worth waiting for the specs and reviews for the Fuji? Do you think it even come close to being an objectively better camera than the A7R II?
>>2699662
>I mean...is it really worth waiting for the specs and reviews for the Fuji? Do you think it even come close to being an objectively better camera than the A7R II?
Photography isn't for you.
Go buy a mechanical keyboard instead.
>>2699662
Get a cheap 550D with a kit lens. It is a good start. Don't buy into gear unless you really-really need it. Emphasis on "need".
>>2699662
> A7R II
I'd suggest the A7S II instead. Rather than getting over 40MP, you'll be getting shots in practically any situation.
That suits an one-lens run and gun style better, I'd say.
>>2699662
>>2699721
You don't need a high-end gear-geek camera to start out. Get a cheap used older camera, even mirrorless has some, look at the older NEX line, like NEX 5, 6 or 7. Even an old DSLR like a Rebel or a D60/90/300s is a good start.
Inthis hobby you can be a.) reasonable or b.) a massive stinky gearfag.
Leave the A7 to the gearfags and be reasonable.
>>2699662
If you're using older glass I think any of the A7 range make the most sense, the extra versatility and low light performance of the full frame sensor put them in a different league to fuji/samsung.
Not to mention the established range of adapters and constant improvements in this area, apparently there's a Nikon AF adapter on it's way too.
In no possible way will the new fuji come close to being an objectively better camera.
Bought my first "real" camera today and am super happy with it so far (it's the T)
Can someone recommend me a tripod or point me in the direction of a good resource? I'm looking for $100-$150.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make FUJIFILM Camera Model X100T Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.0 (Windows) Maximum Lens Aperture f/2.0 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 238 dpi Vertical Resolution 238 dpi Image Created 2015:11:07 19:29:00 Exposure Time 1/20 sec F-Number f/2.8 Exposure Program Aperture Priority ISO Speed Rating 3200 Lens Aperture f/2.8 Brightness -2.1 EV Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 23.00 mm Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Sharpness Normal Subject Distance Range Unknown
so fellow gearwhores of /p, what would be the best tripod i can get for around 200 Euro? Should be available in Germany.
-height should be around 175cm/ 68,9"
-it should handle around 3kg of weight easily
-should have a centerpost
-don't really care about what kind of head, a decent pan-tilt head should do the job
-i prefer the ARCA Swiss release system
-since i heard twist-locks are better than flip-lock in terms of stability and lifespan, i think i would prefer those
-stability comes first, then it's size, and then it's weight
Thanks in advance.
>>2699751
>fuji x100t
>tripod
What?
>>2699740
I'm only one of those people
deal with it
:^)
>>2699752
I'd import a DiC&MiC P303C or some Sirui / Benro, rather than buying locally.
(Wasn't exactly in the same situation, but I considered importing from Germany when I got mine - the deals weren't as good as importing directly from China is, though)
I recall you have some local resellers that have the two latter brands, but I'd not bother.
>>2699740
Nah, the other two posts are not the same person as me.
Also, just let us know all about your retarded vendetta against Sony.
Is the kit lens on the Sony A7ii bad?
I've been reading reviews and it looks alright on DxOmark. It doesn't seem like that bad of a lens, but I know pretty much nothing about camera lens ratings.
>>2699809
It's not as terrible as it's made out to be, and it's not as good as you're hoping.
Want a good sensor? Get a Sony. Want good lenses? Get a Nikon/Canon/Fuji
are my cheep wide angle and fisheye conversions acceptible or should i just kms :[
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 999 Image Height 1333
A7ii kit lens guy here
I've been shooting film for quite awhile now and I want to make an entrance into the digital world, as the last good film place in my town closed its doors just today. What camera should I go for, /p/? I really hate the size of DSLRs, they're awful and impractical. I like the size and form factor of the Sony A7 line, but apparently the lenses are bad.
I don't want to have to send my film across the state, help /p/
I got a sony nex6 for $150 what a good fish eye lens. Should I buy the sony one?
>>2699815
What are you shooting? What's your budget? What are your feature priorities?
>>2699729
>You don't need a high-end gear-geek camera to start out.
You don't need to start out with an entry level or midrange camera either.
You can operate a high end camera immediately, and it will deliver better results than a beginner camera.
> In this hobby you can be a.) reasonable or b.) a massive stinky gearfag.
So basically it's unreasonable for other people to buy good gear because you don't like people with good gear?
> Leave the A7 to the gearfags and be reasonable.
The newer A7 series are nice imaging devices and absolutely reasonable.
>>2699822
Got any photos to post?
>>2699817
>What are you shooting
Most of everything. I just go out and shoot whatever.
>What's your budget
Around $2K
>Feature priorities
Uhh, what? I shoot a Minolta SR-T 101. Light meter maybe?
>>2699815
> I like the size and form factor of the Sony A7 line, but apparently the lenses are bad.
Seriously? Where did you hear *that*?
It has a decent lineup of extremely good glass especially for primes, and the DxO ranking (http://www.dxomark.com/lenses) is almost an E-mount parade at the high end.
Not to say this ranking is complete (it is not, not for the E-mount either) or entirely objective (it is also not that, the factors that contribute to score are already very debatable and some debate could be had about what exactly is measured, too).
But there clearly is a lot of good glass, anyways.
And if you did not like any of that glass you could still adapt a lot of glass.
PS: If you want to DIY film, there is of course a lot of information about that around here on /p/ too, but I'd kinda separate that from asking about A7 lenses.
>>2699826
Thanks, I'm thinking the A7ii so I can adapt all my Minolta lenses. Any recommendations for an adapter of some sort?
>>2699828
Manural lenses, no problem.
If you are thinking about the new PDAF trick with LAEA3, keep in mind it will only work for lenses that has SSM or SAM motor in the lens.
The AF lenses that don't have SSM/SAM will need LAEA4.
>>2699828
I'm doing that, purely to use some old manual Minolta lenses that were already around, for some fun and nostalgia.
Got a cheap "MD-NEX" adapter from Aliexpress for it, works fine.
>>2699815
I really want to know what these fuckers are doing wrong?
Everybody who develops film themselves knows that there's a pretty reasonable profit margin on lab prices.
Are these people just shit at business?
Do they pay extortionate rents, do they get locked into retarded servicing contracts for their machines? Have they just got no concept of scaling back the size of their business to suit the demand?
I mean I loved my old lab that recently shut down, but for fuck's sake, everytime I went in there they had about 6 staff working. That's retarded.
No used gear. No rentals. No service. Also retarded.
No cheap print option, real photo paper only; but insisted on processing all prints through hatefully klunky kiosks with PlaySkool menus. Also retarded.
No social media presence. No clubs, no competitions, no gallery. No reason at all for a digipleb to ever come back once they've bought their rabal+kit zoom and realised the local Officeworks does 9 cent prints.
I'm at the point where I'm seriously considering opening a damned lab myself just to prove a point.
best camera for street photography? aside from film, preferably compact but powerful. not a beginner either
>>2699853
GR, X100t, X-T10
Anything, really. If you know street photography, you know that the camera doesn't matter much, and "discreet" is bullshit. If you have a camera and the correct lens for it, then you already have the best camera.
>>2699854
i have canon 70d., but idk about it.
what would be a good lens for street anyways? everywhere is a different opinion -_-
>>2699855
Depends on your style, but something wide that lets you get in there is the standard suggestion. 20-30mm ish (since you're on crop)
>>2699860
how do you even "get up in there"?
people get so pissy and freaked out when they see a camera
>not using the 10mm voightlander for street photography
>>2699855
Because as you'd intuitively expect, you can shoot what is happening on a street in all sorts of ways.
And unlike with, say, product shots, there aren't even basic quality expectations here. People do pretty much do whatever they like with street photography. Want to do somewhat out of focus B&W shots taken from 80m away? Sure. Prefer perfectly accurate color shots from 20cm away but with an exposure time that blurs moving people? Sure.
35mm equivalent is common, cheap and close enough to "my current view as I see it", so I guess that's why that is popular.
>>2699861
Mostly by not caring what people think?
Works better in legislatures where you have no legal restrictions when shooting people in public, though.
>>2699861
They do when you look like a creeper asshole. When you look non-threatening, and approach with humility and kindness, they're very understanding.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi
>>2699871
>billcosbyandhisspecialassistant.jpeg
rate my Leica /p/
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make FUJIFILM Camera Model X-E1 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.2 (Windows) Maximum Lens Aperture f/1.2 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 84 mm Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2015:11:08 04:40:48 Exposure Time 1/160 sec F-Number f/1.2 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 200 Lens Aperture f/1.2 Brightness -7.9 EV Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 56.00 mm Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Sharpness Normal Subject Distance Range Unknown
>>2699876
can't. it's blurry and under exposed.
>>2699862
Why not just adapt the Canon 11-24 f/4 L for E-mount? You'll get decent AF with the A7RII, auto IBIS from the lens data at all focal lengths (not that you really need it with how wide it is, but it's always nice to have), and it's fast. Sure it's expensive and larger, but it's also the holy grail of ultra-wide angles, primes included. Even though Canon has gone to shit with their bodies, their glass is still fucking amazing.
>>2699879
b-but muh compactness
muh retro renaissance
>>2699878
H-have a stopped down shot. I even used my lightmeter just 4 u ;_;
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make FUJIFILM Camera Model X-E1 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.2 (Windows) Maximum Lens Aperture f/1.2 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 84 mm Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2015:11:08 05:05:45 Exposure Time 1/15 sec F-Number f/5.6 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 200 Lens Aperture f/5.6 Brightness -6.6 EV Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 56.00 mm Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Sharpness Normal Subject Distance Range Unknown
>>2699888
I know you're a leica user, so you don't know much about actually taking photos, but when you're metering off a black surface, the meter gets confused. You might want to add a stop and a half to the shot.
>>2699889
oof.
C-can you blame it on alcohol, morphine and trying to use a manual flash ;_;?
>>2699879
To be exact, the canon lens is 5,6 as times as much volume as the voigtlander. And 3,2 times as time the weight.
>>2699892
zoom, autofocus, weather sealing...
It's for taking photos, not getting on an airline without an over weight fee.
>>2699894
It's just to give you the image of how bigger it is.
One lens will let you get away as a snapshot tourist, the other will make the locals pissed at you.
>>2699894
>zoom
It's like you don't have legs or think theres a huge difference in compression
>Autofocus
Are you too fucking lazy to manual focus a wide lens?
>Weather sealing
This is the only semi legit point and even then it's just fucking downright bizarre. How often do you shoot in the rain?
Wait, actually. How often do you shoot in the rain and not dry your lenses afterward with silica gel.
Enjoy fucking your landwhale of a wife. I'll be over here fucking my flatchested hipster waifu. Protip, she takes less dick than the landwhale too.
>>2699897
The way you dress, act, and approach, will make you out to be something. The lens you use will not.
>>2699905
That's wrong. They are all factors to how your subjects will react to you.
>>2699903
>My personal priorities are not opinions. I am objectively correct in all things, and everyone else is a hack, a retard, or a piece of shit. Non-exclusively. People who want less features than me are hipster faggots. People who want more features than me are lazy idiots who have never taken a good photo.
-Translated by Bing!
>>2699909
I sort of agree with him though. This little amount of Zoom isn't exactly critical for ultra wide angle. I prefer Zooms in the long focal ranges.
>>2699894
None of these matter much to me, the F4 aperture is quite delicious though. That's the most attractive part of the Canon lens, but also has extreme consequences on the size of it.
>>2699909
>>2699909
I'm happy that you use bing too.
>people who want more features than me are lazy idiots who have never taken a good photo
Babelfish is a bit better. Let me run it through there for a moment.
people who want more features than I are people who use gear that suits their needs and take photos that are just as shit as everyone elses.
You don't need those features to take a good photo. I stand by my point. Weather sealing is the only CRITICAL feature here. It's a wide angle slow lens.
>>2699915
Voigtlander lenses aren't weather sealed?
>>2699755
well it wont levitate
>>2699918
Do you not have arms?
