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: >>2704998
Ps.: Asked in prev-prev thread what lens is that, it is a DA* 200mm
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CC (Windows) Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 800 Image Height 533 Number of Bits Per Component 8, 8, 8 Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2014:03:20 11:13:31 Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 800 Image Height 533
Anyone here used the Canon 85mm f/1.8?
>>2706767
Jah. Is good lens. Makes very bokeh.
>>2706747
>Ps.: Asked in prev-prev thread what lens is that, it is a DA* 200mm
actually that's a DA* 300/4. You can tell because it has a tripod foot, which the 200/2.8 doesn't have
Im new to photography and today I invested in a canon 700D, any tips for a newbie?
>>2706780
Take photos, get off /p/
>>2706780
Absolutely!
Learn about the concepts of aperture, shutter speed and exposure compensation. Know how they relate and how changing one affects the others. Learn this stuff until you know it intuitively. Aperture priority mode probably gives you the best opportunity to learn about these, and it's the most practical for general shooting.
You have a zoom lens. There will be situations in which you will want something to be slightly smaller in the frame. You will tempted to just zoom out slightly. However, making these adjustments with the zoom affects the amount of foreshortening, and not just the apparent size. So think about whether you actually want a wider angle, or if you'd rather just step back a few feet.
Read the manual for your camera. Do it. There's a lot in there.
When doing photography, it's important that you leave the house. Snapshots of your keyboard are worthless once you've figured out which way to point the camera.
>>2706792
Manual has its uses (night photography and such), but it'll really just slow you down during the day. It's perfectly usable though, assuming you know how to read the meter.
>>2706792
stick to av.
if you know you need fast shutter go into tv.
spend time composing, not playing with settings.
>>2706793
Aye I use A for most things, S for wildlife and sports and M for long exposures and the like. There's no need to use M 90% of the time as you'll just end up spending ages trying to get the camera to do what it was going to do anyways.
Also OP once you've nailed what all the dials do focus on your composition. Think about your rule of thirds and stuff whenever you take a shot, and think about what angle would be best. For instance, my pet hate is adults taking pictures of children from their height rather than bending down and getting more than the top of their head in shot.
I'm considering going to back to full frame. Sold my 6D about a year ago, and is currently using an OM-D E-M10.
Are FF cameras like D610 or 6D in your mind still worth buying?
>>2706792
Dont forget about exposure compensation when using aperture priority. Often the needle right in the middle of light meter is not what you want. A liitle under exposed or over exposed can help avoid blown highlights or lack of detail in dark spots, depending on what you want in the photo. I also sometimes deliberately under expose to squeeze out a bit of extra shutter speed without having to increase iso for fast moving subjects. You get a feel for it after a while, learning to prioritize one thing or another, what is very simple to correct in post, what must be captured in original exposure etc.
>>2706747
why bentax have the coolest looking camera?
what is the difference between canon models, for example 400d 40d and 4d? I mean I know the general idea but does it really make such a difference, especially if one were to choose between 40d and 4d?
I am a gear newfag and I wonder if I should just stay with my good old 400d or save for 70d OR RATHER 7d or maybe 6d would be ok as well for a lower price
>>2706936
inb4 you should not even be considering them 7ds etc :(
I has this. The shutter works fine and everything else seems to be in order.
The lens is quite dusty however.
Would it be worth to buy some 120 film for it?
I really want to try it out
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Canon Camera Model Canon EOS 60D Photographer Sono Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2015:11:20 14:57:33 Exposure Time 1/4 sec F-Number f/2.8 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 400 Lens Aperture f/2.8 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 50.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 5184 Image Height 3456 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard
>>2706964
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Canon Camera Model Canon EOS 60D Photographer Sono Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2015:11:20 14:57:53 Exposure Time 1/4 sec F-Number f/2.8 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 400 Lens Aperture f/2.8 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 50.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 5184 Image Height 3456 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard
>>2706964
Before spending money on film, check that the bellows (the collapsing concertina part) is actually light tight. It is quite likely that tiny pinprick holes will have formed on the corners, or cracks along the folds.
Take the camera into a dark room/cupboard, open the back & shine a bright light (torch on your phone, maybe) down into the bellows. From the front look for any light escaping through the bellows, paying particular attention to the corners & folds.
If there are any holes, you can temporarily patch them with opaque tape (might prevent it from collapsing properly) or permanently patch them with Plasti Dip.
Picrelated, I had to patch it up but it was easy enough & works fine years later.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make PENTAX Camera Model PENTAX K20D Camera Software K20D Ver 1.04 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Color Filter Array Pattern 562 Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 42 mm Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Created 2011:08:27 22:45:53 Exposure Time 4 sec F-Number f/4.0 Exposure Program Aperture Priority ISO Speed Rating 100 Lens Aperture f/4.0 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 28.00 mm Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal Subject Distance Range Close View
>>2706969
Cool, thanks for the advice. I believe there are tiny holes in the bellows as you say.
I think I'll look into this Plasti Dip for a fix.
I imagine that any sort of tape that would fill the holes will indeed make it harder to close.
I'm just hoping that I will get some nice photos from it but i cant really find any shots from the camera online.
It's the Jiffy Kodak series II
>>2706780
Bryan Peterson: Understanding Exposure
Then all the other Bryan Peterson books
read them, experiment, thank me later
>>2706922
I have that camera, I can tell you it is pretty much cool looking.
When will Sony built in Variable Wavelength Filtering into their cameras?
They already have the technology with the toggleable low pas AA filter.
They should expand the technology further so we can toggle various wavelengths on and off. Then there would be no need for 2nd cameras for IR pictures anymore.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 1600 Image Height 1066
as a beginner would I get bullied here for buying a Nikon D5500? Also what lenses do I get?
>>2706940
> would the first be two too difficult for someone who only knows the basics?
No.
> would it just be a waste or an useless buy?
Only if you then don't use them or find out you have no more money for decent glass.
>>2706980
> as a beginner would I get bullied here for buying a Nikon D5500
No, it's not *that* shitty.
You're really mostly punishing yourself if the camera is insufficient for what you had in mind.
> Also what lenses do I get?
The best ones you can afford from those that you need.
>>2706980
Not more than buying a Rebel. Getting a Pentax (K-30/K-50/K-S2) will make you one of us, cool kids.
>>2706910
Im selling my EM5 and buying an A7ii today. I was also looking at the D750, you just have to prioritize whether or not you want to stay mirrorless. Both of those cameras are miles ahead of the 6D though unless you are already heavily invested in canon lenses.
>>2706980
Dude....So if I say that you will get bullied on /p/ for purchasing that camera, youre not going to purchase that camera?
You really need to get your priorities straight.
Why in the HELL would you care if /p/ likes your camera or not.
It's a good camera and if you wanna take phots , buy the fucking camera and dont worry about what /p/ would think
So apparently Keh has 20% off on the Pentax 17-50 and 50-135, about $400 and $500 respectively.
Cop or not?
>>2706987
I was half joking
I don't want to go overkill but I also don't want to have to upgrade after 6 months because of limited gear so I'm looking for a safe long-term model
>>2706988
17-50 is decent, but not as good as the 16-85
50-135 is pretty much a beast in IQ
If you have to get one of them, get the 50-135
>>2706990
Are you saying that you're worried about Nikon going full mirrorless and changing up all thier lenses? That's not gonna happen.
But even if it does, that wouldn't make your camera or lenses irrelevant.
I would go for it.
Find a cheap fast lens, a good set of legs and a solid flash. considering that you will likely get a kit lens with the camera, you should be good to go form there
Upgrading to my first FF camera, was thinking a 5D mark ii. Currently have s 550D with a 50mm 1.8 and am going to buy a 24mm 2.8. Any recommendations, namely for the body?
I shoot some street mainly architecture and travel shots
>>2707004
Have a look at the Sony A7 II, A7S (II), and Nikon D750.
I'd personally go with the Sony, but YMMV.
>>2707004
You don't need FF for those
Get a good APS-C like a 70D or even 7D and expand on fast wide lenses, like the Sigma 18-35 or the canon 24mm.
>>2707008
I hate the limitations of the 550D, I can't get anything in frame. I want to shoot super wide. I'm going to go for the semi new canon 24mm 2.8
>>2707007
Already have some canon lenses, would rather stay with canon to be honest
>>2707022
>38mm equiv
>wide
cumon step it up
You want wide, go 10-18, accept no substitutes
>>2707022
That 50mm meme is 75mm equivalent on your camera. No wonder it's not wide enough for you.
Just get the 24mm first and see the difference.
Thoughts on sigma ex dg hsm f1.4?
Just ordered it, will probably arrive next week.
>>2707023
Adapters are starting to work very nice with those on Sony's newer cameras - but sure, get a 5D Mark III then.
>>2707028
I'm aware of crop factor, I'm going to get a 24mm and see how I go but I'll probably upgrade to full frame in the future
>>2707031
Mark iii is about €2000 more than I can afford. Can get some decent mark ii's for €800~
>>2707029
The Sigma Art variant is quite a bit better if you ask me. I would have bought that one, even at up to about 2.5 times the cost (it's less than that here - dunno how your prices are, though).
>>2707035
The price is too much for me. I'm only doing this for hobby anyway.
>>2707033
Well, I'm sure you'll be fine with the Mark II, too.
The Mark III is ~2200€ when bought in the EU, not 2800€ - probably doesn't change anything for you anyways, though?
>>2707043
Mark ii is €800, is the iii €1400 better? I'm sure the ii would be fine for what I need
>>2707041
Ah, it'll surely be fine. I'd only recommend buying the Sigma Art if you can afford it, obviously. (But for Hobby use too.)
>>2707045
Can't directly answer this one, but well, my primary, huge problem with the 5D Mark II was its AF coverage.
It is just terrible. See pic related. No, the cross-type isn't a dual cross-type, and yes, the rest are line types and bunched up like this, not even spaced out. Painful to shoot with if you're accustomed to better setups.
Quite a few other features also got better on the 5D Mark III, but this deficit in AF functionality is the biggest reason why I'd actually even rather work with a more modern APS-C (A6000, D7200, whatever) than the 5D Mark II.
[Hell, the APS-C are not even *that* terribly much worse in terms of ISO noise, and quite a bit better at almost everything else...]
>>2707075 (cont'd)
Another pic showing the sensor AF points, with direction of sensitivity and with what lens speeds they can be used.
Also note only nine points can be used directly, the six red ones from the pic before are hidden ones.
>>2707075
I very rarely shoot with AF anyway, is that an issue?
How much better is the mark iii's AF then?
>>2707086
> I very rarely shoot with AF anyway, is that an issue?
If you don't use AF, then more than half of my reason to dislike the Mark II is gone.
However, most of the reasons not to pick an A7 II or even an A6000 or D7200 or something like that with a dumb adapter (maybe with focal reducer) are gone too.
> How much better is the mark iii's AF then?
A lot. See pic related
>>2707091
I don't usually shoot anything moving fast enough to warrant auto focus, more about manual to be honest. That is pretty impressive AF on the mark iii though. And I just think for the price gap and considering I don't use AF all that much means I'd be better off spending €800 on the mark ii and the rest of a 24mm lens and a holiday
>>2707095
Just remember a DSLR viewfinder isn't accurate when you shoot faster than f/2.8.
Personally wouldn't manually focus faster than f/4.
Electronic viewfinders are better for manual focusing.
>>2707095
> That is pretty impressive AF on the mark iii though.
Yes, it's much, much better. Definitely workable for me.
> And I just think for the price gap and considering I don't use AF all that much means I'd be better off spending €800 on the mark ii and the rest of a 24mm lens and a holiday
Probably so. I'd personally however jump to the A6000 (450€, pic related is AF coverage on the A6000) + dumb or smart adapter with FR (~80 or 400€).
Gets me much better AF with native lenses when I need it, and okay AF with the supported Canon lenses that is at least not center-only.
Plus focus peaking and MF assist magnifier functionality on the EVF, not just the back panel. (With Magic Lantern, you can still get these two functions at least on your 5D II's back panel, though.)
Also all of this, specs wise:
http://snapsort.com/compare/Canon_EOS_5D_Mark_II-vs-Sony-Alpha-A6000/detailed
But if you're not feeling like it, the 5D II will be fine - again, I'm most strongly bothered by it's AF.
>>2707108
Well when I shoot at larger apertures it tends to be in the day, so i shoot quite quickly and and manual focus is fine.
What's wrong with the 5d mark ii's viewfinder?
>>2707111
Looks nice but really id rather stick with my canon setup.
I'll mull over whether it's worth shelling out the extra euros for the mark iii, perhaps a better long term investment.
>>2707108
More half understanding and idiocy from the mirrorless camp.
Wondering if anyone with a/any knowledge of a Nikon D5300 would help me out on this issue. Somewhat new to photography still
My issue is, I want rear or front curtain flash syncing on manual mode using the built in flash (no I cannot afford even the cheapest external flash at the moment). When in manual the only flash setting I get is rear curtain sync which doesn't even work like rear curtain sync, the flash goes off right when the shutter opens, then flashes again right as it closes.
I've read that the "only" way to get these other options is to go into P or A mode, im still having a hard time fully believing that. So im just wondering if anyone who has/knows about the camera knows if there is any type of work around to this.
Buy the Sony A7-II or Samsung NX1
I'll be adapting lenses. They're in the same general price range. Using it for studio and street.
Thoughts?
>>2707122
Except I own a D800 and am very happy with it and would never consider downgrading to mirrorless.
>>2707156
NX1 is a dead system.
Sure you can adapt lenses, but without native lenses you're missing out.
>>2707158
Someone needs to stop the sonyfag shilling. I mean, they make nice consumer cameras, but it gets way out of hand here.
>>2707119
>What's wrong with the 5d mark ii's viewfinder?
Nothing.
But like all DSLR viewfinders it's optimized for brightness over accuracy.
The system is just made for auto focus.
>>2707162
The D800 is a Nikon camera retard.
So, uh, what's the consensus on the 7Ds?
D5300 owner here,
I have a 35 mm f1.8, 85 mm macro, 50-200 tele, and an 18-55 kit lens.
I'm trying to decide if my next lens is going to be a 16-80 f2.8, or a 10-24 f3.5.
My most used lens is by far my 35 mm because I find it suits most situations well and because it's my widest lens that isn't my shitty kit lens.
I would like to have the 16-80 lens for a versatile daily driver since I never use the kit lens, but I feel like the wide angle could be a useful addition to my gear, especially for taking landscape shots.
Most of my photography is landscape / nature with a smattering of city.
Anybody have any opinions?
>>2707164
you can always replace the focusing screen if it's a problem.
Hey, sorry if this question get repeatedly asked/answered; I'm not usually on /p/. I currently have an Olympus E-PL2, and I need a lens that can achieve hella bokeh/DoF.
I remember seeing some cheap 30-50$ toy lenses that have F1, or something like that. Can someone recommend me a cheap lens that can do just that?
>>2707221
Any $30 f1 lens is going to be shit.
>>2707222
Yeah, I'm aware. Alot of low fstop lenses are pricey. What about something around 75-150$
>>2707223
They're pricey because distortion, sharpness, and CA go to shit at wide apertures unless you have fancy aspheric elements and coatings.
My buddy just bought a prime f2 lens for a M4/3s system for a few hundred bucks that has plenty of bokeh, forget the name though sorry.
>>2707226
Olympus 45mm f1.8 can be had quite cheaply.
Are there any good upcoming black friday deals you guys know of?
I'm interested in an entry level DSLR, and I'm in Canada. With the exchange rate, it's pretty hard to find one without coughing up a considerable amount of money.
>>2707229
There are never any good black friday deals on cameras you'd actually want, since the margin is so thin to begin with.
I was asked to do a Santa portrait shoot outdoors, all the kids will be lined up to sit on Santa's lap, etc.
My question is, should I invest in a 3pc soft box lighting kit or just get two Altura flashes with soft boxes?
Gear:
Nikon D7200
Nikon DX 35mm
>>2707256
If you have good weather & daylight and maybe use a big reflector, you can get away quite fine with 1 fill flashlight.
But if you want to have some options in almost any light, get 3 or so Yongnuo 560 IV / III and TX or some other powerful off-camera flashes (or make one or all of them RC TTL flashes if you want TTL - it will just cost you a bit more, probably) & pretty big diffusers or umbrellas or the like.
I cannot recommend any "soft box lighting kits" for that if you mean the cheap constant light ones, their light output is too low for outdoors and groups.
[YMMV if you actually mean pro studio light kits, of course a proper set of Elinchrom, Phottix, Photoflex, Profoto are better than the YN560 or the like, but I assumed we're not talking about that much money - it's /p/, after all.]
>>2707263
I appreciate that info. I think I will go with your advice and get some off-camera flashes.
>>2707263
PS: The way I'd set this up then is to just illuminate the spot where Santa stands in a way that makes it not matter if you have just Santa and one kid or a small group (siblings and so on).
I'll caution that might mean higher light outputs, so you have maybe 300 shots to work with before swapping batteries, and 1.5-3 seconds cycle time between shots. This is theoretically where more powerful pro studio lights might be nice, but maybe you can just swap batteries at 250 or whatever shots before taking the next group.
PS: Dunno about your Alturas if you already have any - seems like they're also high output speedlights (with TTL in this case?) though, so you can surely integrate them in a RC setup with YN-622C/N.
Just picked up the Canon Rebel T5i with the 18-55mm lens for about $650 CAD. I've been scoping it out for about a month and that's the cheapest I've seen it.
Oh Canada...
>>2706780
The biggest tip I can give is to watch photography channels on youtube so you won't bore yourself with reading.
And look at some inspirations to keep you motivated.
Is DxOmark reliable source of comparing cameras in low-light performance?
I've bought my first DSLR few months ago to check whether i'll get into it or not. It was cheapest thing i could find (canon 350d) and i have a looot of fun with this thing - now i like shooting at night and i'd love to try video recording with proper optics, so i'm thinking about upgrade.
I'm thinking about 50d - it looks like a proper camera with its good viewfinder, 'weatherproofness' and other things that gives impression of heavy-duty piece of equipment that could serve me for years and years, but then i'm checking 'performance' numbers and i see this.
Is 50d really so insignificantly better in low-light than my $70 350d? Almost every APS-C canon i see (except single-number models like 7d, and 7d is beaten by some low-end nikon d3200) have similar iso performance numbers on this site. Or should i, like, divide iso noise by resolution to get true low-light performance?
>>2707347
> Is DxOmark reliable source of comparing cameras in low-light performance?
Yes,. they have a pretty good grasp on that metric in particular.
Note pretty much all DxO tests are sensor tests and combined sensor-lens tests.
> Or should i, like, divide iso noise by resolution to get true low-light performance?
No. Higher resolution helps you with applying typical noise reduction algorithms, but this isn't the way to go for high ISO.
Lenses that actually resolve well on 24MP+ sensors are very high-end already, at 36MP you are looking at the Otus and quite little else.
Basically, high iso noise performance should be on your camera body, and if you must switch to an A7S for the specs you need, that will be the best thing to do.
However, a FF camera gets twice as much light with a real 35mm lens as a 35mm *equivalent* lens on APS-C, you can take that into account. it won't make ISO noise better, but you'll generally have to yank your ISO up only half as much.
Of course this is assuming modern lenses on both that each loose an equal (and small) amount of t-stoppage to the glass.
>>2707350
> but this isn't the way to go for high ISO.
I meant to say that this isn't the way to go for good low-light performance. My bad.
Also yes, Nikon (with its Sony or Toshiba sensors) or Sony itself are doing far better, as is Samsung. It's also usually that way for other sensor specs, such as dynamic range.
was looking at getting a ricoh gr II
mainly looking at doing street photography
I am assuming though it will struggle in low light
Is this a good camera or does anyone have any better recommendations (preferably around the same price)
>>2707350
>Higher resolution helps you with applying typical noise reduction algorithms, but this isn't the way to go for high ISO.
Yeah, i know. I also know that it's actually other way around bigger pixel on sensor = better low-light performance, and lower resolution equals less pixels and bigger pixels in result. I just thought that if they're measuring noise at 100% crop, then noise gets less visible when we compare entire images on identically reduced resolution.
I just find it hard to believe that my 350d is so insignificantly worse than three years younger semi-pro 50d. Well, i guess megapixel race caused it.
>>2707360
> I just thought that if they're measuring noise at 100% crop, then noise gets less visible when we compare entire images on identically reduced resolution.
Sure, noise can get less visible if you use some downsizing algorithms.
> Well, i guess megapixel race caused it.
You can mega pixel race with these and it's much better:
http://snapsort.com/compare/Canon_EOS_50D-vs-Sony-Alpha-A6000/detailed
http://snapsort.com/compare/Canon_EOS_50D-vs-Nikon-D5500/detailed
http://snapsort.com/compare/Canon_EOS_50D-vs-Pentax-K-50/detailed
Can even be twice as many megapixels on FF cameras rather than APS-C, and even higher iso sensitivity - the ones linked are entry-level non-Canon APS-C.
Though since you said "shooting at night", you might really just want to get an A7S.
>>2707347
i have an eos m and sony nex f3.
eos m is usable at iso 6400 though you can get nasty chroma blotches in certain situation.
the sony only usable at iso 3200. not because the canon has less noise but the sony noise pattern is really awful. all shot with raw.
anyway, sony apsc is only 12bit.
>>2707363
It's entire different price range, at least in my country:
Cheapest used 50d i can find costs around 1000 money units; i can't even find used a7s and cheapest new one costs 8500 money units. I was thinking about 5dmk2 that costs ~2500 money units used, but for now i'm not buying yet - i was just browsing around and i wondered if this dxomark is legit (i mean come on, canon 30d with similar iso noise score to 60d, that does not sound legit at all).
>>2707369
Well, an used 50d (usually a kit) is about 310 here.
The cheaper options a6000/d5500/k-50 are around 600/650/480 for their 1x-5x zoom kits, new. I'd say that's a clearly better deal already.
A new a7s (body only) is around 2000, but of course that is a high-end option. It is like five-six stops better overall at night (ISO noise and FF included) than even the newer APS-C cameras from before.
Might also be a cheaper alternative to buying a set of fast lenses (f/0.95 - f/1.4 primes, f/2.8 zoomies - most of those can cost somewhere around 1000 and 3000 money units).
Kinda not gear thread related but w/e:
>using D3300 with lens kit
>tried taking pictures of moon with houses below
>subject is too dark
>tried lowering ISO up to 12800
>longer exposure time
>still cant take photo
>give up
How?
>>2707383
> tried lowering ISO up to 12800
No. Try long exposures at minimum ISO, with a tripod.
>>2707384 (You)
PS: Minimum native ISO - not in the extended range, if you happen to have that. So basically ISO 100.
Also, try a faster prime if necessary.
But I actually don't expect the moon and houses contrasted against the sky or some subject like that to be too dark on a longer exposure, even on a f/4-ish kit lens on a D3300.
>>2707383
Did you keep your camera in P/green/tv mode?
Because then the camera will just adjust aperture to compensate and you still get the overall same exposure.
Either use the +/- exposure compensation if you want your image lighter/darker, or shoot in M mode, where such automatics is off.
Very newfriend questions incoming:
Today I picked up four old lenses at a random sale for a nice rock and a couple of buttons.
None of them fit my Nikon F-mount, but I had heard that there are adapters for third-party lenses for pretty much all cameras and thought I'd give it a go.
Googlin' about I now find that Nikon's can be hard to adapt to, because of the length between the mirror and the mount.
This means that the focal length on third-party adapted lenses is either very short, or tarnished by low quality adapter glass which is supposed to give you the "infinite focus" you're lacking with just a hollow ring adapter.
Any tips on what kind of adapters I ought to get? One of the lenses was a macro lens, so I guess I won't be needing a glass for that at least?
One is a tele, so without a glass I guess it's fairly useless?
Anyway, these are the lens mounts (as far as I can tell):
O/OM
M42
Canon (modern types with AF, built-in motor and stuff)
>>2707429
Sell your nikon, get a sony mirrorless.
problem solved.
I just found my new favorite flash bouncer for indoor photography
a white porcelain dessert plate.
Who needs a $peedlight now?
>>2707444
better than having all the gear you want and nothing you want to take pictures of
>>2707227
I have that lens. It's alright. Not as sharp as I would like and misses focus like a motherfucker, but it takes some nice looking shots.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make OLYMPUS IMAGING CORP. Camera Model E-M5 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.6 (Windows) Maximum Lens Aperture f/1.8 Color Filter Array Pattern 800 Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 90 mm Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 240 dpcm Vertical Resolution 240 dpcm Image Created 2015:11:11 20:00:47 Exposure Time 1/320 sec F-Number f/2.0 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 200 Lens Aperture f/2.0 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Shade Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 45.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Manual Scene Capture Type Standard Gain Control None Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal
I am going to buy the last film camera I will ever purchase. I'm going digital, but want to keep a film camera around just in-case.
I have to choose between the Minolta XK or the MInolta XD-11
Thoughts?
>>2707496
olympus OM-1
>>2707156
Fuck. Yeah.
>>2707533
It's a good choice since you can adapt Canon mount Sigma Art lenses with PDAF.
But are those rocket blasters any good?
I can't decide if the ones with large nozzles are preferable. In theory the ones with thinner metallic nozzles exert more air pressure per square area. But I actually never bought ones to test.
>>2707545
it probably doesn't matter that much
>>2707533
Can't you wait for a black friday deal or something?
>>2707496
Well, you get to choose between your favourite medium format camera, or your favourite small format camera in your preferred mount.
Or hail to the king
F100
1
0
0
(or
F3
3
for manual focus)
>>2707557
>black friday
>A7ii
Black Friday is for retailers to dump old stock, but current new stock. A7 would probably go for rock bottom prices (as if they could get any cheaper), but reallly, $1700 for a what the A7ii offers is damn good. Same with the $600 or so the A6000. It's not because mirrorless is good, but just that Sony can offer everything with so many features for such a low price. It's the same as the Pentax mentality around here.
just now bought a cheap used pentax K-x with 18-55/50-200 kit. but both lenses are f3,5 and f4.5 or something and I'm sure I want something low light, possibly a prime lens. 1.8 or possibly 1.4. what are my options (only pentax? or sigma/tamron/whatever? i have no idea who else might produce k-mounted lenses)?
does it make sense to buy pentax FA lenses or is it a waste of money as i can only fully make use of DA cause of the sensor crop?
Looking for a cheap wide angle prime for my Nikon D700. Are there any good MF lenses that I should consider?
>>2707581
Get the DA 35 AL for a rough ~50mm FF equivalent.
It's "only" f 2.4, but it's dirt cheap, and offers excellent optical performance given the price point.
Alternatively you can get one of the older lenses, the FA 35 2.0 is also good, but no point in getting it just for 0.4 better apperature when the DA 2.4 can be had for so much cheaper.
There is a 50/1.4 FA and a DA 50 1.8, both are good, and like with the 35, the DA is newer and cheaper, so unless you really want that miniscule apperature increase (or need an apperature ring), get the DA version. Just keep in mind that the ~75mm equivalent FoV to a FF camera might not be the most useful focal length depending on your intended use.
Anyone know their way around Fuji primes? I've got the 35 f/1.4, I've been looking around everywhere at the 18mm f2, 23 f1.4 and 27 f2.8.
The 23mm seems like a dream but it'd be a big expense, the more compact options seem like capable lenses (the 18mm moreso) but I don't know if they're worth pulling the trigger on.
For an X-Pro 1
>>2707608
Thanks. Now got to make up my mind which lenth to start with.
Honest question: Why do so many people in here like Leica Camera?
I know absolutely about these cameras except for their use in street or wartime photography. I guess they are discrete.
...but is that all there is to justifying how popular they seem in here? Someone care to explain why they like Leica?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Elements 7.0 Windows Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Created 2012:07:24 16:23:16 Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1181 Image Height 1181
>>2707677
no one here likes leica, its irony.
>>2707677
Leica is too leica-like for me to like.
>>2707677
The mechanical ones (the only ones worth owning) do what they're supposed to do and do it very well. They're not a general use tool, but like any other high level tool, they don't need to be. They just need to do what they're supposed to. I don't know any other way to explain it. Yeah, there it's fanboyism, but that can't deny that they excel at what they're meant to excel at.
>>2707737
>The mechanical ones (the only ones worth owning)
what a cock.
>>2707738
They are. The digital ones are just trading on name. They're not bad per se, but they're not the pinnacle of their class like the film rangefinders are.
>>2707725
This
>>2707439
Sell my D800 for Sony mirrorless? I think not.
Does anyone have any actual experience/advice on adapting lenses for Nikon?
>>2707785
Not much since Nikon has the longest flange distance. Try older Nikon AF lenses, maybe adapting various 645 or 67 MF lenses
>>2707671
I have the 18mm f/2 and it is a great lens. It is probably the most underrated lens in the fuji lineup, but I can tell you that it works really well.
Related: http://dedpxl.com/fuji-x-buyers-guide-part-2-lenses/
>>2707533
>not buying one of keh
>>2707785
>Does anyone have any actual experience/advice on adapting lenses for Nikon?
"for Nikon" is really not worth it. It's only even really possible for +MF lenses. The cost of converting anything worthwhile would be not that far off from an a7 body desu. Even then, all those lenses listed are gonna look like shit on the D800.
I've been a longtime Nikon user (owned multiple D2's, D3's, D700's, D800s, etc). Sony is finally at a point where they are actually better for a lot of things, shouldn't write-off jumping ship so easily.
>>2707533
>>2707557
>>2707569
>Black Friday is for retailers to dump old stock
No it's not. I work at a photo store, our regional Sony rep was even in 2 days ago. Sony's Black Friday deals go live tomorrow (they'll be the same 22nd - 28th). I know the origional's dropping to $1k body only, don't recall a7II's, but should drop a bit too.
Also, "Body Only" comes with a battery and charger in case you didn't know (having spare battery's always good, but do you really need 2 chargers?).
>Same with the $600 or so the A6000
$600 for 2 lens kit. Body only will be $450. (I'm super tempted to pick one up, it'd be 40% off, ~$270).
>>2707834
>~$270
For an A6000?
Which store?
>>2707834
I'll take 2.
>>2707835
It should be $450 for 99% of stores this week. The 40% is the Sony retailer employee discount (so probably won't apply for you).
>>2707838
Would if I could senpai. Can only really get 2 Sony DSLR's a year at discount (still figuring out what I want), can't resell for 12mo anyways.
>>2707840
>can't resell
what? they check on your camera?
wait for a7000 then.
I'm in the market for a tripod, this seems a little sketch (Canadian loonies)
Whats the deal here
>>2707844
>profeshional
>>2707844
Tbh, most tripods around that price are pretty much the same (this particular one is resold under tons of different brands). Just avoid the cheap as fuck "dad cam" ones, and get whatever fits your height / weight requirements. If you don't want to pay +$200, and are just using this for a typical DSLR, this is perfectly fine for +99% of people.
>>2707844
DESU, get the Dic&Mic E302C, it's a bit better and lighter. Or the alu variant E302.
>>2707848
> this particular one is resold under tons of different brands
Anon is right, and it's an okay enough tripod. But that one should be US $50, check out Beike BK-555 (on aliexpress, too).
>>2707851
He doesn't need that carbon stuff. It's maybe 2-300 gram lighter, it's not really significant. 100 CAD is insanely cheap and can't really be beaten at that price.
>>2707860
Carbon is lighter and more expensive, so your 100 CAD tripod is already saving a ton of money and being heavier.
>>2707860
Higher end ones have better construction / durability are made with better metals (carbon fibre). Lower end ones are generally aluminum (heavier). Heavier's fine if you don't care, just make sure the height / head / and flexability are all in-line with what you need.
If you care about stability, I'd make sure it has something clippable on the bottom so you can hang a backpack from, like this one.
>>2707863
The one I posted was more about questioning the extreme price cut of %90 - while I trust what you've mentioned about the make, I'm looking for something a little taller.
So much to read online about tripods, It seems no topic is as hotly debated - even Canikon arguments seem a little more chill.
>>2707865
>The one I posted was more about questioning the extreme price cut of %90
It's really not that good of a deal. They're pretty much always ~$60 to $90 retail (wholesale is like $30). It'd be pretty hard to find that for anything less than the 90% off desu.
>>2707864
carbon fibre is not metal
>>2707868
Yeah I'd seen that kind of trick before on other things such as video games when they go on sale, raising the price then discounting back to normal.
Unfortunately, since I don't know brands I had no idea what this thing normally costed.
>>2707864
just got one of these last week. Its awesome, but super fucking expensive and probably not worth it.
>>2707860
> Can I save money by buying heavier gear? I must admit I'm a better lifter than I am photographer.
Yes, sure. It's dirt cheap anyways, tho, so I'd always get the Carbon one for a travel tripod.
But there's also the $90 Alu model of the Dic&Mic (E302 without the C), or that $50 variant of your tripod that I mentioned.
>>2707857
> 100 CAD is insanely cheap and can't really be beaten at that price.
The same tripod for US$50 is almost 50% cheaper, isn't it? Unless I'm missing something.
>>2707860
>The buying guides all warn me of potentially leaving my tripod at home if it's too heavy, but I like the idea of a hilariously stable rig.
About that - most of the stability is in the joints and locks. Those 6-14kg load rated tripods like the Dic&Mic or Sirui or Benro that I usually suggest are extremely stable in that regard.(Sirui also usually are very conservatively spec'd, but they all meet their load ratings very realistically).
The rest of your tripod's stability surely is on the weight and gravity, but if you have a hook underneath the center column, you can just hang your bag or backpack on that and it will have weight too.
Sure, if it always remains in the studio you might just as well have the weight in the metal (or wood) of the tripod, but for travel I'd suggest to not make it extra heavy and instead use the hook.
€100 for a new A2300, good deal?
>>2707889
No, too much for something that bad.
>>2707891
120 for a Canon IXUS 150?
>>2707883
Just went in on the E302C thanks to this thread, I appreciate the information you guys threw at me.
Shame I live on the exact opposite side of the world cause this thing is going to take a while to get here. (AliExpress, reputable buyer)
>>2707900
It is pretty much exactly 100€ on Amazon, as is the Ixus 170.
And the A2300 should be like 70€, the Coolpix L31 is 65€.
... let me also point out here that I'm generally suggesting to get a better camera unless your use is very casual or you have extremely little money to spend. Even with CHDK on the IXUS' they're just quite basic.
>>2707901
> Just went in on the E302C thanks to this thread, I appreciate the information you guys threw at me.
No problem, hope you'll like the tripod!
>Shame I live on the exact opposite side of the world cause this thing is going to take a while to get here.
Did you check the shipping method? Most sellers have DHL or another express shipping method included in the price.
It could very easily just take 3-7 days.
>>2707904
DHL for free but China > Nova Scotia, Canada is a hilarious distance
Same problem with my Gunpla purchases, It's just how it is.
>>2707905
> DHL for free but China > Nova Scotia, Canada is a hilarious distance
Not like it's that *terribly* different for China->Europe. Both will be air plane rides.
Express postal services are typically quite remarkable. Unless someone fucks up, you'll probably have your package in 6 days or less after it gets shipped.
If you've never done that before, you might want to track the package in like Trackchecker Mobile (if you have Android) or on some postal tracking website that has access to the detailed information, just for fun.
>>2707903
ill get the ixus
thanks man
Anyone here used the Sirui T-025X Carbon Fiber? If so what do you love/hate about it, and what style of photography do you use it for?
>>2707917
I don't have this exact model, but a fairly comparable one. (No ring but a hook under the column on mine, and latches rather than twist locks on the legs).
I quite like it, but I need 150cm-180cm extended height, which it only kinda reaches with the kinda annoying extension / short column piece. That and the larger folded height and weight (which wouldn't be a problem on your model) make me usually use another tripod.
I do very often use the KX ball head that came with it though, it's very good. Oh, and I do like the bags Sirui has.
>>2707921
Cheers for the reply man. This model comes with a C-10 ballhead, I know nothing about ballheads but I'm pretty sure the C-10 is smaller and cheaper than the one you own. I don't have big heavy gear though so it shouldn't be a problem, the reviews seem pretty good too.
>>2707929
> but I'm pretty sure the C-10 is smaller and cheaper than the one you own
Correct, but I'm pretty sure it'll be fine anyways.
> I don't have big heavy gear though so it shouldn't be a problem, the reviews seem pretty good too.
Yea. I noticed another difference from glancing at one of these - the QR plate for that one has only a hex key / straight twisting mechanism though, no small hand grip.
Well, if you don't mind the overall height, why not just get it? It's surely a nice little tripod. You can always get a bigger one if you ever expand to heavier gear...
>>2707934
>Well, if you don't mind the overall height, why not just get it?
I do plan on getting it, just tight on cash right now.
>>2707785
Yeah, I adapted an olympus 50 1.4.
I dismantled a cheapo lens for the nikon mount flange and took the flange off the om.
Swapped them over by redrilling some holes.
Realised I was fractions off infinity focus, so created a jig then sanded down the flange plate until it was perfect.
You do know the sony a7rii has better image quality than your d800 and ibis right?
>>2707944
shill
>>2707677
download some raw sample shots from the leica s 007 and you'll know ...
Question:
I decided (due to creative reasons) to shot my future motion picture on a single focal lenght lens. I chose 35mm (on 2x crop). Since all will be avaible light and - you know - small sensor, I will need a really fast lens. What I found so far:
SLR Magic Hyperprime 35/0.95
Mitakon Speedmaster 35/0.95
Voigtländer Nokton 35/0.95
Meyer-Görlitz Noctiturnus 35/0.95
Alternatively I could use my 50mm/1.2 Zuiko with a 0.72 Speedbooster.
My question is what costs are really necessarry, since we're talking about video. Costs would be:
Zuiko + MB - 400€
Mitakon - 800€
Voigtländer - 1000€
SLR Magic - 1200€
Meyer-Görlitz - 2000€
Which has the best price-value ratio?
>>2707864
Cf isn't necessarily better than other materials for a tripod. Laminate materials are weak in the same axis as the the seam between layers which means if you're rough on your stuff, you can shatter it. It's also got next to no flex to it so it'll break before it bends which means a situation where a metal tripod might be bent back into a usable position, a cf one is fucked.
I think it is time to watch the iconic DF review again.
This shit is classic, yo!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=en5z-Q4po4M
guys, I own a d5100(getting ready to upgrade to d7200, but that may be irrelevant). I also own a 18-55mm kit, 55-200mm kit, tamron 90mm macro, tokina 11-16mm uwide. Most of the time I use kit lenses. But I have grown utterly tired of constantly switching kit lenses. More importantly, the time consumption between switching sometimes make me miss the shot. I've thought about copping this lens since I would be able to replace both kits: Nikon 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G AF-S ED VR II Nikkor . My photography consist of landscape, nature, astro, architecture, and some street/people photograph. I love my zoom lens for street/people. I really do love my 55-200mm. Although the street stuff isn't what I prefer, I cant not get the shot if I see it, so I figure I better get good lens for it
My biggest concern is that there will be a reduction of image quality since a 18-200mm, in my head, has more glass, and therefore the image will degrade going through all that glass. Please give me any info that state otherwise.
Also, I would get a 35mm prime to get sharper pics where I can take my time with the shot. Do yall think it is worth it? I'm not keen on spending 600$ for that lenses, but it would be worth it once I get over spent money.
>>2708079
Do you like soft photos all around? Yes? Get it.
Why are you switching between lenses so often that you're missing shots? The 18-55 should capture everything just fine.
If you want more range, the 16-85 VR is a fine lens. Otherwise, git gud.
>>2708079
Superzooms like that 18-200 are going from wide through standard to telephoto range.
One thing you must know is wide zooms usually use a retrofocal design which is basically a telephoto optical formula reversed.
To have that superzoom range you need a reverse telephoto formula to go to normal telephoto design through the zoom. This a very vogue description, there is serious physics and material science magic involved but the further you deviate from standard in these designs you get more degradation in IQ.
These are good enough for soccer moms and lazy old people on vacation but not worth a damn if you want to make a decent photo.
I suggest you buy a good fast 35mm and try and plan ahead what you want to shoot. Then pack according to your plan and as addition, always pack your fast prime, just in case you need it.
I've been there and all I can say is those lenses are a waste of your precious time and money.
>>2708079
If you're going to be getting a d7200, just leave one lens on each camera, problem solved.
>>2708087
I do like soft when it is appropriate, but I prefer sharp when possible. I Dont switch that often, but I few times I wish I could of have had my zoom for a shot that I knew I couldn't get again, and swapping lens was just wasting my time where getting closer was not feasible. This applies mostly to street/people photography. Im trying to git gud.
>>2708093
Thanks for the info. Planning ahead is not possible in all types of photography. I can go and 'plan' to see the aurora Borealis in Iceland, and I know I can just have my tokina on my body and just wait. But when you're out in Beijing or NYC, swapping lens feels like a necessity. sometimes something catches your eye at a distance, and 55mm will not only get your subject but all the noise around it. Thanks again. I'll just deal with it and get that 35mm I've had my eye on. When I was in alamty, I would carry all my lenses, and I would use them all, some more than others. I Dont believe in 'planning' for photography. A lot of it is being at the right place at the right time. And I Dont want to be assblasted when I missed a shot because of limitations ie not bringing a specific lens. Granted the macro I do tend to leave home when I know I won't use it.
>>2708094
I was thinking about selling it or something. I really Dont want to carry two cameras around. I'll just deal with missing the occasional shot. Fortunately they are far and few in between. I like to think I have a good eye, so I usually keep an appropriate lens on depending my location and where I expect to go
>>2708106
Crop to zoom bruv. I do my walkabout with 35 and 70-200 (FF equiv). If it's too far, then I wasn't about to get a good shot anyways.
But maybe look at the 16-85 VR as a replacement for your 18-55 and 55-200, if you can stand to lose the telephoto end.
What do you anons use to carry your gear in? I currently have pic related. Carrying it around for long periods of time with a few lens actually wear down my shoulders - having to switch shoulders for rest. Im thinking about getting a back pack or something. I preferred the easy access of the messenger bag, but I want something more manageable. I was looking at bookbags like these http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B00W3F2KF8/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?qid=1448219585&sr=8-1&pi=SL75_QL70&keywords=camera+book+bag+dslr thoughts? The only thing that I Dont like is that it may look like a camera bag, being a potential for theft
>>2708113
Ortlieb Aqua-Cam L
It's 7 liters only, but my mirrorless setup doesn't need much more than that. The main advantage is it's waterproof and airtight. If you live in Germany it's decently priced.
>>2708113
I have a small DSLR bag with space for two lenses and a NatGeo backpack
I use the DSLR bag when I just chuck the camera in the car and use the backpack when I plan for a longer shoot/hike.
As someone who has used a D3200 and is considering getting a X-Pro1 (I can get a very good deal with a 35mm 1.4) what can i expect in terms of autofocus speed? The d3200 is an entry level camera and i never had any problems with the autofocus. However I keep reading about how the autofocus is slow on the X-pro1. How much different will it be compared to my d3200 that i used mainly with a 35mm 1.8?
>>2708113
>The only thing that I Dont like is that it may look like a camera bag, being a potential for theft
Why do people keep repeating this nonsense?
Anyway: https://smile.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B009YTRERU
Also have a Blackhawk tactical 3 day pack with inserts for innawoods shooting.
>>2708119
The AF system in the X-Pro1 is NOT speedy. It's accurate, and won't hold you back in perfect conditions, but in even middling light you'll be doing some hunting, and a lot of waiting. You would be better off saving a bit and getting an X-T10, or an X-E2, if AF is important to you.
It's definitely usable, but the lack of AF performance is a notable drawback to the camera.
Hey guys, sorry about the huge filesize, but I wanted to keep this one at the original resolution. Was compressed at 95%.
Hopefully the exif data stays through posting on 4chan (new to /p/), but, why does this image I took of my backyard seem so blurry? It was taken on a stand with the self timer at 2 seconds. It was a bit windy but still seems a little weird. It also has some color aberration, like the green tint above the snow where it meets the bottom of the fence, and the fence posts themselves have red and green highlights on their sides.
These objects are also relatively far away. Is this actually just normal? I don't know. If you have any questions or if you know what's wrong, or if I just have a dumb setting, please do tell!
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Canon Camera Model Canon EOS 70D Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 5472 Image Height 3648 Number of Bits Per Component 8, 8, 8 Compression Scheme JPEG Compression (Thumbnail) Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2015:11:21 21:12:11 Exposure Time 1/80 sec F-Number f/29.0 Exposure Program Aperture Priority ISO Speed Rating 100 Lens Aperture f/28.1 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Partial Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 35.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 5472 Image Height 3648 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Manual Scene Capture Type Standard
Sorry guys I'm on mobile and idk if I can search for specific words on my phone. Interested in a cheap camera for making short films/music videos that I could pick up fairly cheap on Black Friday. I saw the Canon Rebel T5 is 400 but I don't think I'll have that much. I heard that the T3i was good so I was wondering if there is a place I could find a deal on that?
>>2708240
T3i and Magiclantern is a good combination for your money. Get an adapter and use cheap old manual M42 lenses.
WHY IS CANON 5D MARK III MORE EXPENSIVE THAN 7D MARK II ???????????????????
>>2708238
If you really shot that picture at f/29, that is most likely the reason.
Extremely stopped down apertures cause diffraction. Generally the sweet spot is around f/11 - f/16. anything higher will cause a worse image quality.
>>2708243
Why would you think it wouldn't be?
>>2708246
>Generally the sweet spot is around f/11 - f/16
f/4-f/5.6
>>2708247
because of the higher number
I am very new to this whole world
>>2708256
What do you think is the major difference between the 5DMkIII and the 7DMkII?
>>2708246
Oh okay, thanks. I had no idea about this. I was just thinking I wanted as much to be in focus as possible. Will try with a lower stop next time.
>>2708256
Canon and Nikon cameras are like golf. The lower the number, the more professional the camera. 750, entry level. 1, pro level.
The 5Dmk3 is basically a 7Dmk2 with a larger (better (more expensive to create)) sensor inside.
>>2708256
Bigger number="lower" level
700D is lower than the 70D is lower than the 7D...etc. to the 1D.
Nikon numbers work the same.
But you also have the generation to consider (a 7DmII kicks the shit out of a original 5D with the exception of being able to bokehwhore), but the 5DmIII is basically current generation for Canon (the only "improvements" the 5ds/5Dsr kind of make are more mps and no aa filter).
>>2708259
crop factor
>>2708119
there's currently a promotion in the us for a 27/2.8 and 35/1.4 for $1000, and they throw in a free xpro1. check around and see which stores still have stock.
>>2708263
thank you for taking the time to answer
all I have figured for now is the 700 70 and 7d thing
I was just browsing some cameras auctions and got surprised that the 5d III is more than 1000 dollars more expensive than 7d II
>>2708259
I do not know but I will know
>>2708317
Stop what you're doing, then go read Cambridgeincolour's tutorials
>>2708260
>I wanted as much to be in focus
Wait, what exactly did you mean by that? What have you read that made you believe making the aperature as small as possible would give you a focused shot?
>>2708326
It doesn't make more of the image in focus when you increase fstop? I read from multiple sources that when you have subjects of varying distances from the camera that increasing fstop brings it into the same focus area, for lack of better words.
I am thinking about buying the speedlite 430ex ii. How is it? I want a good flash without spending too much.
Hey so I was wondering, is there any kind of film that gives some kind of effect to the picture ?
Like, softness, saturation/desaturation, high lights, etc
>>2708399
Buy yongnuo, cheaper, works great, and you can get more powerful for cheaper. Check the 580 series I believe.
Anyone know a lower quality point and shoot camera that produces as pic related? I'm looking for something can produce older looking photos. Was thinking of possibly using a disposable camera for this effect, but wanted to hear suggestions and advice.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 400 dpi Vertical Resolution 400 dpi Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 1216 Image Height 806
>>2708459
Forgot to mention, I am talking about film cameras.
>>2708467
It was just an example. and thanks will take a closer look into films.
>>2708470
buy expired film
>>2708465
Get an old film SLR, like a Spotmatic or ME Super.
so, /p/, I have a little question for you.
First things first, I'm a "more-into" wanna-be photographer and for past 2 years I was shooting with Sony DSLR a-450.
It wasn't that bad, got some primes to it but suddenly when I've experienced a cash flow I decided to get something better.
For now I am settled at the Nikon d3300 price range and I can't find anything better, any ideas?
> tl;dr anything better than d3300 in the similar price?
>>2708624
Pentax K-5II/IIs used are what comes to mind, maybe even a K-3 if it fits in your budget.
This way you have to sell your A-mount lenses though, but the Pentax lenses are somewhat below the usual price range and are excellent quality.
There is no budget option if you want to continue to use your A-mount lenses, either you need an expensive adapter and an E-mount body or get a more recent and expensive FF SLT, like the A99.
A-mount is pretty dead ATM.
If you do decide on Pentax line, here is a good list of lenses and reviews:
http://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/
http://www.pentaxforums.com/userreviews/
>>2708624
Pentax K-50 is fairly close.
But you're on the low entry-level of DSLR with the D3300, for the most part only used cameras will be cheaper or as cheap.
>>2708626
>Pentax K-5II/IIs used are what comes to mind, maybe even a K-3 if it fits in your budget.
I think they're in a different price range than the D3300.
>>2708630
It is better to plan ahead and save money for a better built body then go for the affordable option right now.
With this the K-5/II/IIs/3 line is pretty much the most bang for buck options in their class. Not to mention having the widest lens compatibility, but that applies to all Pentax DSLRs.
>>2708626
Thanks for the respond.
Infact I've found Minolta glasses very good in quality I had to sell them all, not quite convinced about getting another Sony DSLR.
My uncle is a typical Pentax dude, I don't remember with which Pentax model I was playing, but it was a nice toy to handle.
Research mode inbound that is.
>>2708630
I managed to pick up a K-5 iis with a shutter count of around 2000 for $550 aud on Ebay. That was a couple months ago. Also the Nikon D3300 is an entry-level camera, the Pentax K-5 iis/K-3 are mid-level cameras.
I managed to pick up my first fast standard prime for $80
It is a 35/2.4. IQ seems very good for now, not a Sigma Art class, but there is literally zero color fringing wide open. I am very well satisfied by the IQ, my only problem is I have no idea what or rather how to look for things to shoot. I have experience only shooting birds and planes with tele lenses.
Help? Maybe some tips and tricks?
Só I have a x-pro1 with the 35mm f1.4 and it's great.
However, i sold a Nikon d5200 my father gave me las christmas, to fund the fujifilm.
The problem is, he doesn't know i dont have the Nikon anymore but he made it clear, recently, that i should never sell it due to symbolic reasons.
Now, given that i can get about 800e budget from the xpro1 and some extra cash i have, how can i back into Nikon dslr territory without sacrificing much image quality?
I shoot landscape and architecture.
>>2708705
1) stop being a weird pussy and tell your dad the truth
2) Any Nikon APS-C will give you the same image quality, more or less. They all use Sony sensors, with more or less comparable image quality.
>>2708709
>>2708705
Also Fuji uses the same Sony designed sensor with the X-trans filter array instead the Bayer filter the Nikon uses
It is your camera, you work with it, even if for a hobby so you have the say in the matter. Tell your dad you like your camera, and you respect his generosity for giving you the Nikon but you put a lot of time into research to select the one you use now.
Don't be a pussy, he should be actually proud of you for standing up for your own.
>>2708711
Not to mention, it's sort of shitty to try to force emotional attachment way after the fact, onto an electronic device.
>>2708714
Emotional attachment to any device and inanimate objects are why we have gearfaggotry.
It is to be avoided by any means.
>>2708711
Ye but can i get a nikon body and lens for 800e that matches my fuji combo? I have difficulties finding it.
>>2708727
You can easily get a D5200 with kit lens for that budget.
>>2708727
Are these difficulties with:
A) Your eyes
B) Your effort
C) Your retardedness
D) All of the above
![01-Crumpler-Jackpack[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/Grb64wH.jpg "01-Crumpler-Jackpack[1].jpg")
experiences with Crumpler camera bags?
every Crumpler bag will be on sale for 9€ each this friday at a local store so I thought I'd get one
interested particularly in the Jackpack Half photo and Half photo system
>>2708732
What's the part of "simillar performance" you didn't understand fuckwit?
>>2708735
Get a Leica M9 instead senpai
>>2708735
The D5200 has very similar performance to the XPro1. What is the issue? You're pretty cocky and aggressive for an idiot. Don't want the Nikon kit lens? Buy the body 200e used, and spend the other 600e on whatever lens you want.
Does anyone use the wifi feature much on their (newer) cameras? I'm upgrading my X-E1 to X-E2 and wondering how it is
>>2708740
I use it on my X-T1 regularly. Works very well.
>>2708738
And an ungrateful shit. How much you want to bet that was more than a week's gross pay for his dad?
>>2708740
sucks the battery and really unnecessary 99% of the time.
You do know the xe1 and xe2 are nearly identical and had no major improvements right? You'd be much wiser spending that dosh on a 2nd hand xpro or lenses.
>>2708744
>You do know the xe1 and xe2 are nearly identical and had no major improvements right?
..........
You don know that this is incorrect, right?
http://www.fujivsfuji.com/x-e1-vs-x-e2/
>>2708738
The d5200's offers no advantages for me. Much worse build, bigger, aa filter, terrible jpgs, no decent legacy lens support, shitty optical vf, no 2nd control dial, just to name a few.
I don't care about AF at all but even then, it wasn't much different.
Only the d7100 and above will not offer significant disadvantages coming from fuji xf system.
Anyways thanks for the response, too bad it came from a newbie. ROFL
>>2708749
You know what? Get fucked, kid! I hope you get your ass beaten by your father, you deserve it!
Fuck off then and don't come back you little ungrateful piece of shit!
>>2708751
Hey come on dont be like that... Alright im sorry if i was arrogant. Just dont be upset.
Have a good day, friend.
>>2708747
>http://www.fujivsfuji.com/x-e1-vs-x-e2/
Where's a major improvement?
New jpeg profiles? who doesn't shoot raw?
Less lag on the EVF, because that will make for a different photo?
Extra exposure comp? what's wrong with just changing the shutter speed...
lens optimisation module & wifi? - gimmicks.
I would call it an XE1ii but that would be an insult to the massive leaps between the a7r and a7rii.
Having said all that I did almost buy an xe1 today, but then saw a sony c3 for $30 and got that instead.
>>2708749
If you're not a troll, you honestly are a worthless piece of shit. I mean hell, you're such a back biting pussy that you sell a gift someone made a major unearned for your in, then can't even man up enough to tell pops what you did. Hell, had you any maturity about you if you did chose to sell it, you would have said something beforehand (or just happily used the damn thing that so many would give their eye teeth to be given...fuck, I have a D810 and would be ecstatic to be given a 5200). What's really pathetic is you're doing this cuntastic horse trading over two bodies that have little significant difference in performance, yet you're being smug as fuck like you've found some secret value.
Get cancer you fuck.
>>2708740
Yes, I use it on my Sony if I want to quickly share images as-shot (by proxy of my smartphone) or instead of a dedicated remote trigger (which is usually when I didn't bring much equipment along - I do use a simple hardware RF trigger more often when I have it with me).
>>2708743
So instead of keeping the beautifully designed and built xpro, you recommend he gets a piece of outdated plastic.
Dude, jsut talk to your dad, tell him you sold it and bought the xpro, show him it, show him all the awesome stuff it does that YOU love. Let him know that you still consider it a present directly from him and you would be honoured to always keep it.
Am I the only person here that managed to keep me and my parents happy?
I'm thinking about buying the sonnar FE 35/2.8, would mostly use it for travel photography, still life shots ans the like. I can't try it out anywhere so does anyone have any experience with it? Worth the money? Could get it for about 700 dollars
>>2708774
It's great yea, but if it were me, I'd rather save for the 35/1.4 or get the 28/2 (which is awesome itself). It just seems pretty poor "bang for the buck".
There's a pre owned nikon D3200 for sale for 300e in a camera shop in town. Was thinking of getting as my first camera. Is this a good starter in your opinion?
>>2708778
Yes. Get a 35mm prime for it.
>>2708778
Yeah, it'll be fine. Brand-wise all starter cameras are more or less the same, and any differences their might be wouldn't likely be noticed until you were looking to upgrade anyways. You can take amazing photos with pretty much any camera, and the image quality on that is significantly better than top crop cameras of just 5 years ago.
>>2708779
It actually comes with a lens. Not just the body. If I want to take photos of dirtbikes racing what kind of lens would I need?
>>2708781
Yes, probably a kit zoom. It is alright in most cases when the lighting is good, but you will want a fast standard prime for low light and more depth control.
Hey guys. I am getting ready to buy my first external flash. I don't know much about flash photography. I want something that is not over priced that will allow me to shoot at 100 ISO indoors with correct exposure according to the histogram. Any recommendations from someone who has a lot of experience with flash photography will be greatly appreciated.
>>2708781
>dirtbikes
Ok, so you want to shoot action/sports, that is different.
You will want a good telephoto zoom or prime, like the 55-300 or 70-300. Maybe if your budget allows, go for the 70-200 F4.
You will still want that 35mm prime.
