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: >>2709182
>>2711182
holy fuck thats my babe. i always hide these dumb theads, but this time im gonna let it stay.
>>2711187
These dumb threads are keeping the board cleaner. Do you want a new thread for every noob question or dumb debates?
Also I am trying to post a different picture for every OP and the internet is running out of nice Pentax shots. Soon I'll have to recycle older pics.
acquired a pentax K-x with 18-55 and 50-200 kit, it's my first DSLR. right now lacking something with good low light capabilities.
thinking about at least 1.8, 35 or 50mm. does that make any sense cosidering what i have already?
I mean, the 50mm 1.8 lens is only like 100 bucks
>>2711190
Get the 35mm f/2.4
It is much more usable with a standard 55mm equivalent focal length.
50/1.8 is more of a portrait lens with 75mm equivalent.
>>2711191
thing is around 35mm i already got a somewhat decent low-ish light alternative with the 18-55 3,5 lens. With higher focal length this gets worse, so I thought a 50mm made more sense. for sightseeing/snapshotting i'd probably use the 18-55 anyways wouldnt i?
>>2711200
It is f/4 at 35mm. I have the 16-45/4 "somewhat better than kitlens" lens and the f/2.4 is an enormous improvement.
Really depends what you want to shoot. The 50mm is more of a portrait lens, too narrow for landscape. The 35mm is so cheap anyways, it is not a big difference to get both, but I can tell you, you will use the 35mm much more often.
>>2711182
I'm looking to buy my fist dslr but I'm not really sure were to start. I could spend 1,000-1,200 but something around 800 is preferable.
I don't really do portraits and sometimes shoot at night or with shitty light.
Any advice or ideas?
Also pls no bully.
>>2711215
Literally any entry or medium level DSLR with a fast 35 or 50mm lens.
>>2711202
>Really depends what you want to shoot
yeah i guess that's the thing i have to think about. if i went for landscaped wouldn't i use wide angle (18mm+) anyways? I very rarely use zoom when shooting landscape or nature - basically only when it's far away and i use the 50-200 anyways.
i will probably get both at some point, but just have to decide which i'd get first. not sure why but something inside me wants the 50mm for some reason. how would the 35mm perform when doing impromptu people/portrait shots?
thanks a lot for the advice tho.
I'm wanting to shoot some close up shots of plants and wildlife and am wondering if the Canon EOS Rebel would be a good choice without going over $500. Seems like the free 75-300mm lens it comes with would really help but I'm out of my depth here.
>>2711215
>1,000-1,200 but something around 800
Shekels, Dollars, Rupees?
>shoot at night or with shitty light
Fast primes will help here, Maybe get the best body second hand you can and spend the rest on glass.
>>2711217
35mm is the standard focal length on APS-C, it is the most versatile. You can shoot street, people, pets, family/kids, landscape etc...
Just put on your 50-200 and keep it at 50. Try to move around the house and shoot things, you will notice how narrow it is. Now put on the kit lens and keep it at 35mm and do the same.
>>2711221
slowly starting to convince me. tomorrow when the sun is up i'll go and do exactly that. thanks mate.
>>2711225
Used Pentax K-5IIs with 50/1.8 and 35/2.4. You might want to consider the Rokinon/Samyang 14mm nightscapes, night cityscapes/architecture and starscapes.
>>2711225
If you're going new I'd look at a Nikon D3300 with the 18-55mm kit lens and a 35mm 1.8g prime.
Well within your budget.
Pentax K-3 II
>>2711189
>the internet is running out of nice Pentax shots
o really
then ill have to make some sweet new photos of the gorgeous P67
Looking to get a new lens for my Canon 5dMkii
Any recommendations? Looking for something between 18-300mm and under $400. Don't really know where to look for deals on this kind of thing.
Currently rocking a 28-135mm lens.
I'm looking at going into medium format, Should I go for a Mamiya 645, Fuji GX680, Kiev 60, or save up and get a Rollei SL66?
>>2711299
>Mamiya 645, Fuji GX680, Kiev 60, or save up and get a Rollei SL66?
all of those are lol except for the rollei. save up and get rollei. be sure to get a CLA'd one, or have a tech that can service it eventually. or get mamiya c220 which is cool as fuck.
>>2711182
So two questions for me:
What's a good first flash for my D7100? I heard Yungnuo were cheap but what model is nice?
And I just started shooting film (35mm), and I loooove it, I shooted HP5+; FP4 and got a portra to shoot, what are some nice and varied films I can try?
/p/ i need help.
ever since I got a D7000, my dad's literally pissing at me for not getting the D7100 becasue thats the one he wanted becasue the 18-105 is super soft and nothing is in focus and he's blaming the body. So told him to go to henry's tomorrow and try the 18-105 on a D7100 body and show him the difference. What should I expect, am I gonna get rekt by my dad
>inb4 2edgy5me
>>2711305
I'm also considering saving up and getting a Rolleiflex 6006/6008 or an SL2000f instead
I'm thinking about getting back into photography, so I want to buy a new camera.
I used to own a D80 back in the days, but I'm now looking for something more compact, that wouldn't require me to carry much stuff around.
I was thinking about getting the Ricoh gr but I don't like the lack of a viewfinder. The x100t is too expensive for me, I'm looking for something in the $600-800 range. What do you guys recommend?
>>2711323
x100s.
>>2711325
x100 with firmware updates. Much cheaper.
My only photo buddies are chicks, Their pupils dilated when they saw it. It's a cool camera
when you get the idiosyncrasies.
>>2711337
12 megapickles is plenty.
>>2711337
oh boy, you get ONLY 12 megapixels
that's unworkable
>>>>2711337
you can export full 4k (not just uhd) wallpapers in stunning quality without stressing the limits of the sensor at 12mp.
>>2711337
if you can't take a picture with 12MP, you can't take a picture at all. if 4000x3000 pixels isn't enough then maybe you should stop cropping so much.
pickles dont matter on the internet, only on billboards.
>>2711317
AF TUNE
FINE
I
N
ETUNE
I fucked up
>>2711288
do you even know what you want, or what you're lacking? save your money. a 50/1.4 is a solid all purpose lens.
>>2711307
YN 568EX for TTL, 560 III or IV for manual flashes.
literally any film. delta 3200 for fast b&w, delicious portra for flatter colours, ektar for deep tones™, velvia, provia, superia, blah blah blah. shoot whatever.
>>2711352
I got mine from Cashconverters (tree fiddy sterling) about a year ago.
If you pay with a credit card or paypal you should win if the deal sours.
>>2711322
why rollei for that? why not the usual brands? im interested
>>2711353
Pickles don't matter on billboards
Learn about viewing distance and stop blabbering
>>2711353
thanks , ill look into it
i just bought a l840 nikon 2 weeks ago and it wont
take a still photo for shit. im returning it since it wont let me do nothing manually. i'm looking to spend around $400 for my first camera. later i will buy more lenses. i was looking into nikon d3300 cause i also want to attach a boom mic to make movies with my friends. is that a good begginers dslr?
Pantecks jammed, what do?
The mirror is stuck up and won't come down even with the batteries out. Both curtains are also down and it won't let me advance the film to reset the shutter.
Should I even bother trying to open it up?
>>2711368
not that it wont make a still photo but damn i was trying to take a pitcture of cars passing by and since the shutter speed was set to 1 it would create a streak of lights no matter what i did.
>>2711358
The Rolleis are all quite cheap, save for the Kiev all of the cameras I've mentioned have a completely modular design, as well, the 6006/6008 can go up to ISO 6400, something most MF film cameras during their time can't do
>>2711182
I got a new toy~.
Desu, senpai.
>>2711382
that tripod is so sexual
>>2711389
It was a gift and is my very favoritest.
>>2711215
If its also your first time photographying, I highly suggest to stick with the an aspc. Nikon d3200 with kit lens is very entry level and relatively inexpensive - I mention it cause I saw deals for it. For 800, you could get a mid level camera like Nikon d7200. Most important thing to remember that the gear doesn't make then photos, you do. therefore, when the time is right, you'll know when to upgrade
Anyone own or have thoughts on the tamron 70-300mm? Full frame camera
>>2711369
Before you open it up, download and study the Program A service manual first.
http://www.hardgravity.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/manuals/film-slr.htm
I guess this is a Pentaks thread. These two wound up in my care, but I don't really have any decent lenses for them - just what you see in the picture, a 40mm pancake, 35-70mm f/4 zoom, and a really ghetto Vivitar 80-200mm. I've been using them for figurine photography (since I got an extension set with the ME) but not really for much else. Can you guys recommend some lenses? I don't really know much about the Pentax line-up, I've been shooting Minolta from day 1, but could use a little change from the usual.
What I've done is attach my new Mamiya's 90mm f/3.8 lens to my 12 megapixel micro-four-thirds camera. What I've found is a great surprise and here's why:
This is a 100% crop from the MFT sensor (18mm across), at 12mp. While it's rather blurry here, the result is impressive when you consider the size of the film, and that this is completely wide open.
6x7 is 67mm across, MFT is 18mm across.
67 / 18 = 3.72
12mp x 3.72 = 44.64
Assuming that the film would be able to keep up with the detail coming from this lens, I can expect this result at 100% of a 44.64 megapixel scan of an image taken with this lens wide open.
This is a very good result from a camera built in 1970. That I can see specks of dust is very promising at this magnification, especially if the 90mm is NOT one of the original Mamiya lenses regarded as being very sharp.
>>2711446
As a side note: At this scan resolution, I can stop down to f/16 before even the very first signs of diffraction begin to appear, and this figure gets even better if my image is being displayed as a print that will fit within the human field of vision. I'll be able to comfortably use my lens at it's minimum aperture of f/32 knowing that diffraction won't be visible to my viewers except under the scrutiny of a magnifying glass. In fact, in an 8x10, diffraction wouldn't even begin to show until f/68, and in a 36 inch print, I'd be safe at f/18.
This is, of course, assuming that I'm always at an appropriate aperture, on a tripod on firm ground, with a still subject, using a cable release and mirror lockup. At least it has a leaf shutter to help the user with this a little bit.
This is the majesty of 6x7, gearfriends. The resolution power of an A7RII for $200 in a junk shop, plus fees and skill handling film.
>>2711446
this looks like shit
>>2711450
At the edge of a 45 year old lens at 100% of what is effectively a 44mp image. yeah, it's not sparkling at the pixel level. I don't think the A7RII would be either with a nifty fifty on it either. Why do you think their 55 1.8 costs a thousand dollars?
I'm pretty sure that it can be sharp on the pixel level but stopping down, but I can't test that right now because, oh I forgot to mention, it's hand-held.
>>2711456
I'm pretty sure you're deluding yourself about an extremely soft macro shot
>>2711458
This is taken from a full frame shot of the entire guitar.
>>2711456
>100% of what is effectively a 44mp image
what are you talking about? 12mp =! 44mp.
>>2711460
12mp in an 18mm space = 44mp in the full 70mm space
>>2711459
and any lens could take it
>>2711461
thats not how optics works
>>2711462
I'd like you to show me a lens that you can buy for $99 that can resolve the windings of a guitar string from a full frame shot wide open.
>>2711463
It's clear you don't understand basic math. I can't help you with that. By using the same 12mp sensor to scan the film, or god forbid a newer sharper sensor, you can 'stamp' that 12 mp over and over again across the dimensions of the film.
is it the ideal place for film photography related questions?
I've an old zenit 11, a canon prima super 105 and a canon eos 3000. i got the zenit for like 3 euros. the others are old cameras my parents were using. so I got these cameras now.
I have no idea about film cameras. I mean, i can load the film and shoot etc, but here where I live, noone has a dark room to develop my films.
So I thought maybe it's a good idea to start getting things for a dark room.
Is there any list with every single thing I'll need to get this done?
Do you have idea about how much it's gonna cost?
Thanks in advance.
>>2711477
scan the archive for film develop threads
i recall there were extensive posts, very useful stuff. comparisons and budgets. lurk moar.
>>2711477
>Do you have idea about how much it's gonna cost?
Film photography is expensive over time. Just think $10 per 36-ish roll overall or so.
I'd advise that even if you do use these lenses, you do it with a digital camera, unless you're so very attracted to film that you really want that.
>>2711215
Any entry level to midrange DSLR or mirrorless will do.
I'd get the Sony A6000 or D3300 kit. Decide on some extra lenses after you have it.
>>2711382
You need to step up your RB porn.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make SONY Camera Model ILCE-6000 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.3 (Windows) Maximum Lens Aperture f/2.8 Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 45 mm Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Created 2015:11:21 19:20:42 Exposure Time 6 sec F-Number f/5.6 Exposure Program Aperture Priority ISO Speed Rating 100 Lens Aperture f/5.6 Brightness -2.2 EV Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 30.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal
>>2711554
http://i.4cdn.org/p/1448681416305.jpg
The waist level finder might be pretty but how practical can it beeee-
Has anyone ever bought a lens from Yongnuo? Their lenses are super cheap, so I'm adamant about buying from them at the risk of the lens being bad quality.
First time posting here so excuse me if I'm unfamiliar with any etiquette.
>>2711558
I often wonder what the shooting experience would be like with the prism finder, but I am loathe to buy one because it was such a cheap setup & I don't want to spend any more money on it considering how infrequently I use it ;_; Realistically I might try to find a higher magnification dioptre for the waist-level finder though.
>>2711566
I got one of those and I prefer it. It's a pentamirror and you can see the joint between the two sides.
>>2711565
Uncle Kai has:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSRtxcxJ8TI
They're better than their price suggests, but rather shit anyways.
Buy a Sigma Art 60mm f/2.8 or some 50mm f/1.8 or something and get an nicer lens - they're all still cheap.
>>2711573
Thanks man. Appreciate the help.
going to be moving up to FF in the not too distant future, thinking about going for the 5D mark iii. I was thinking about the mark ii however I think by the time I can afford it (mid 2016) the mark iv will potentially be out and the mark iii will drop.
If it doesn't, is it worth just getting the mark ii or saving that extra 1k for the iii?
>>2711581
>by the time I can afford it (mid 2016)
Why not wait until then & ask your question again?
>>2711581
> If it doesn't, is it worth just getting the mark ii or saving that extra 1k for the iii?
The mark II is shit in terms of AF and more, I simply wouldn't buy it. (Seriously, don't! Pic related.)
The mark III is okay, on that one I would say it's mainly a consideration if you don't want a Sony A7(R/S) II or Nikon (D750, D810, whatever) instead.
Anybody here got experience or can me tell something about quality of the Zomei Tripods.
I am interested in the Z818C.
>>2711592
forgot the image of it
what are the current cameras with arguably the best AF on the market (sans marketing jargon)?
the honeymoon period with my RX1 is finally over and I just can't use this thing; gotta find a buyer fast before this thing keeps depreciating. shots are phenomenal when the camera is motionless for 5 seconds to get correct focus, but AF is abysmal and sony didn't make it at all easy to MF with either.
very rxpensive learning exercise in just how important focusing is, ive taken it for granted with my canons.
>>2711594
Looks quite much like a Q666 ($75 tripod) rebrand? Can't be sure, though.
If in doubt, well, can it match the Dic&Mic Alu for $90 or Carbon for $120?
>>2711594
Pic of the Q666.
>>2711602
Can't give you a complete list, but:
Canon: 5D III, 1D X, 7D Mark II
Nikon: D4S, D750
Sony: A6000, A7R II
Specifically in low light also:
Sony A7S (II)
>>2711595
>already have a few canon lenses, can't be bothered changing brands to be honest.
In good light, in situations where the AF system will not be taxed, you will not notice much of a difference between the 2 and the 3. In low light, or when you need your AF to lock well, you want the 3. If you manipulate your photos a lot, you'll want the 3, as the 2 suffers from pretty dramatic banding on even a moderate push.
I own both the 3, and the 2 as a backup.
>>2711614
>Sony: A6000, A7R II
>In the same category as the 1Dx
>>2711595
> already have a few canon lenses, can't be bothered changing brands to be honest.
That gear works better on an A7R II than on a 5D II:
http://briansmith.com/sony-a7rii-canon-ef-smart-adapter-tests/
But if you just don't want to - yea, pay extra to get the 5D III or whatever else.
The 5D II sucks balls for a DSLR. I'd rather work on an A6000 in pretty much every regard other than dealing with speedlights.
>>2711625
>That gear works better on an A7R II than on a 5D II:
A couple of lenses work really well adapted, in great light. A lot more lenses work pretty terribly, no matter what. you have no idea what his gear is.
>>2711634
>Linkage says how it is.
No comparison between the Sony and actual Canon cameras, no information about shooting conditions, subject distances, lighting, etc. Specifically calls the concept "buggy".
Sounds like maybe you're reading what you want to read, rather than what's actually being written...
>>2711638
So many delusional Sony shills. It figures, it is Christmas season and they need to advertise because people don't buy enough due to Sonys connection to IS.
>>2711638
Well the A7r2 is cheaper than a 1Dx, and apparently doesn't require you to drop your Canon lenses, so let's start looking at football games and watch all the photographers switch over to the Sony. I'll wait. You should probably hold your breath.
>>2711639
Yup, but this wasn't in the article either:
> A couple of lenses work really well adapted, in great light. A lot more lenses work pretty terribly, no matter what. you have no idea what his gear is.
Now, I can take his testing conditions to be reasonable on good faith for now, it's a reasonably experienced photographer, right?
But I cannot believe at this point that you or whatever unnamed entity you'd be referring to even ran tests with even just the same gear (A7R II, metabones adapter, lenses and updated firmware).
what would be a better choice? canon 700d for 500$ or canon70d (700$)?
I have read a lot of their reviews already but maybe you could shed a bit of light
>>2711644
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jIakt30iBGY
I doubt all will simply switch because they already have their 1D X and D4S and stuff, but it werks.
I really don't know what to think about this. Lens is fine, except few dust-like dots.
>>2711650
>fedora faggot
NOPE
I currently use canon 400d and want to upgrade, what would be a better choice 60d or 700d? both cost the same
or maybe should I save up for a little bit longer and buy 70d?
I shoot trains and wildlife mainly (for amateur portraits of family 400d with a bright lens is just fine), so fast shutter speed and high iso without noise are a priority as I shoot in the evenings often with shitty results
I would appreciate any suggestions
SONY HAS NO LENS!
Is the Fujifilm X-E2 still a good purchase or should I just get the X-T10? Is the 18-55mm kit lens worth it?
I have the choice of getting either that or a D3300 with the kit lens + a prime lens. Prime lenses for fuji are expensive so I'm not sure, if I go for the X-t10 I will probably be surviving with just the kit lens for a year.
>>2711664
Pentax K-50 or K-S2 with the 18-55 WR and get the HD 55-300 WR for tele.
The 35/2.4 and 50/1.8 are cheap as salt and have excellent IQ.
Why do people like Pentax?
>>2711664
you'll be perfectly fine with just the kit lens with Fuji.
Fuji's kit lens is Canon L lens territory.
>>2711667
Because it's good. Great bodies offering mid to high level features as a minimum, excellent lenses, excellent compatibility with old and vintage film lenses.
Comfy as fuck to use, doesn't feel like handling a huge bulk.
>>2711182
>Rabal
I have a 550d/t2i I used for years mostly for videos, I'm buying a a7s soon. How much should I ask for my the body only if I find someone interested? It works perfectly and has probably less than 10k shots. Europe.
>>2711685
also I should probably read what I write before fucking posting.
>>2711689
Thanks, yeah that was the price range I was thinking about. There are a lot of people in our "craigslist" selling it for 300 bucks with the kit lens (18-55) but I don't see why the fuck someone should spend so much money for this used thing
>>2711695
It's not that it is used, it's that it is outdated.
>>2711443
>Can you guys recommend some lenses? I don't really know much about the Pentax line-up
First, the SMC-M 40/2.8 is breddy neat. Pocketable SLR. Anyway, you want manual-focus K-mount glass. That means SMC-K, -M, or -A lenses. -F and -FA are autofocus, and will work fine, but with the obnoxiously short focus throw common to most all autofocus lenses. DA lenses lack an aperture ring, and most only cover APS-C. You can also use old M42 screwmount glass (the Takumar lenses) with a cheap adapter ring. They work great, but you have to hit the auto/manual switch on them to stop them down yourself, since K-mount cameras can't do that automatically with M42 lenses. Of the K glass, -A lenses trade at a premium to -K and -M, despite having largely the same optics. The auto-aperture feature lets them work easily on modern Pentax DSLRs without stop-down metering, so if that's important to you, favor those lenses.
>I want a faster normal prime!
The 50/2 is cheap as dirt (like $25) and tiny, but the 50/1.7 and 50/1.4 versions are nicer. There's a 50/1.2, but it's expensive (especially the -A, which is the fastest K-mount glass to this day)
>I'm more of a wide-angle sort of guy..
28 and 35 2.8s are common and not expensive. Both are available in f/2 versions, those are a bit rarer. There's a 20 and 24/2.8 also, again less common.
>Maybe a portrait prime?
135/2.8s are common. 200 is a bit long, but 200/4s are dirt cheap. The A* 85/1.4 is rare and expensive, but M 85/2s are easily available. If you wanna stay with macro, 100/4s (that only do 1:2, btw) are common, cheap, and good.
>I want a zoom, anon, just a better one
Probably the best is the A 35-105/3.5 (not the 3.5-4.5 variable aperture one!)
Also note that any modern-day Samyang K-mount glass that covers the full frame will work fine on these cameras, if you want modern optics. Check the Pentaxforums.com database for lists of every lens Pentax ever made, along with user reviews.
>>2711446
>6x7 is 67mm across, MFT is 18mm across.
>67 / 18 = 3.72
>12mp x 3.72 = 44.64
This is wrong, you're comparing square units to linear units.
The correct math would be:
>6x7 is 67mm across, MFT is 18mm across.
>67 / 18 = 3.72
>(4000 x 3.72) x (3000 x 3.72) = 166,259,259 = 166 megapixels
so yeah, it's pretty good
>>2711661
Which mount are you talking about, boi? Or is your only experience with Sony from their low-price Cybershot point and shoots?
>>2711717
oh, you're right, I missed that! it would be 44 megapixels with one strip of 12mp scans in a panorama. this makes more sense now. on my standard dpi screen, that crop I posted would be roughly equivalent to the magnification of an 11 foot horizontal print, if my iffy algebra hasn't failed me.
Google tells me that provia 100f is even impressively able to keep up with these figures. cms20 maxed out the resolution chart on their mamiya 7.
>>2711707
Thanks, I'll keep those in mind. I've covered pretty much all the ranges I need with the Minolta, so I thought it would be about time to take a look at the other systems I have lying around. Thanks again.
>>2711528
>Just think $10 per 36-ish roll overall or so.
If you're winding your own film, shooting cheap b+w film, developing yourself and not printing you can get it down to about $2/roll.
>>2711477
All you really need is a tank and chemicals unless you plan to print. The tank will cost about $35 and a gallon each of powder dev and fix will cost about $15 in the US which will do 10+ rolls of film. Stop bath is just diluted vinegar, no reason to go fancy with it.
If you want to print you'll need an enlarger, a dark light, some trays and some paper. Prints end up about $0.50 marginal cost. You can build a hobo enlarger from a camera and a light if you want to cheap out.
If you want to scan you'll need a scanner with transparency attachment which will run you $100-$200.
>>2711729
>If you want to scan you'll need a scanner with transparency attachment which will run you $100-$200.
New. You can pickup a 2nd hand flatbed for pennies too or you can search for the DSLR scanning autists posts.
>>2711464
>It's clear you don't understand basic math.
It's clear that's the only math you understand.
>>2711656
> so maybe it is distributed under different names
Almost certainly. There are a bit many of these that are too comparable. I don't think they're all imitations of each other by different companies.
> which is smaller than the Z818 (Alu)/ Z818C (Carbon).
... and of course, pretty much every sub-brand also has size variants, yes.
> Can you tell something about the quality?
Not about the quality of yours.
Q666 was decent, but I prefer some manufacturing details and on the Dic&Mic, like the extra spirit levels and stuff.
The Dic&Mic E302C I have now is definitely really quite good and I haven't spotted any particular better deal for $120 so far. I'd expect the bigger variants (P303C, V105) as well as the Alu variants to be good, too.
>>2711648
>Now, I can take his testing conditions to be reasonable on good faith for now
Because it's what you want to hear, regardless of what multiple other sources have said.
>>2711650
No, but once those wear out, they'll spend $3k rather than $6k and get the A7r2, right? Why wouldn't they? The performance is as good or better!
guys, opinion on the sony a6000 with the kit lenses - how does it fare against similar priced cameras?
>>2711801
I'm at least 15% sure you could google that and get the exact information you just asked for.
>>2711803
I'm looking specifically for what non-shills at /p/ think
>>2711801
I like the A6000 but I don't like the kit lens. I don't know anyone who does, for that matter.
-slow in operation and in light gathering
-smudges very easily causing glare
-only one ring to control both zoom and focus.. good luck
-dinky cheap powerzoom which may stop working after a few years
Fuji's kit lens is much better. Faster and includes an aperture ring, but costs more.
Micro four thirds kit lenses range from iffy to decent, but you can buy the original 14-45 "mega ois" which is very very sharp and built better.
I could happily recommend that, for only a little bit more, you can buy the A6000 and the Sony E 35mm f/1.8 "SEL35F18"
It's sharp enough to really use the 24mp sensor (the kit lens isn't)
It gathers a lot of light in a pinch which allows you to shoot in the dark with more confident results and also has the added benefit of causing blur in the background and foreground of your image by choice if that's your thing -
It gives you OSS for even more stable pictures in low light
If I was going back and buying a first camera this year, I would either buy the Sony A6000 with the FE 35 1.8, or the Fuji XT10 with the XF35mm f/2 WR. Personally I would get the Fuji because they have more options for good lenses to upgrade into, but you won't go wrong with the Sony either, and Sony has much better support.
What backpack do you guys recommend. The amazonbasics looks alright, but looks short and I feel it looks goofy. I'll be carrying a d750 and a few lenses and very few accessories eg filters, batteries
>>2711807
Thanks for the extensive reply.
An A6000 with the FE 35 1.8 would cost me around $800, whereas the fuji + XF35mm f/2 WR would be around $1100. I like both cameras but based on just that I would go with sony.
Another question is, since I would be buying essentially a $400 sony lens, I would be stuck with buying sony cameras for the near future... What is the average lifespan of a lens?
>>2711817
I have never had a lens stop working on me. My first digital camera from 2006 and all it's lenses still work today.
ultra cheap point n shoot compact camera is? (used, around 30-40 dolars)
>>2711819
What you'd be buying would be dramatically worse than your cell phone. save the money and buy... a tank of gas?
>>2711823
i have lumia 735... it is not good point n shoot camera :(
>>2711829
It is dramatically better than what you would get from a $40 camera.
>>2711819
old pns olympus stylus and a box of fomapan
Looking for a tripod that's cheap/compact for around $100. Any suggestions?
>>2711839
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/234289-REG/Slik_613_330_Pro_330DX_Tripod_with_3_Way.html
RZ67 vs pentax 67?
Which and why?
Are there any other cameras with the style of the Nikon DF, but without the pricetag? Considering buying from Digital Rev as it's 1.8K, a whold grand cheaper.
Just looking for that feel of vintage film snapper without actually running with film (Already own an FG20 for that).
>>2711872
Look into fuji.
>>2711863
RZ67 can be more versatile if you don't mind the size and the setup. P67 is of course better for walking around style shooting and has faster lens options
>>2711872
>camera
>style
>vintage
>snapper
Just buy an x100 already
>>2711878
>I'm just going to make 900 friends and ask for 2 dollars for a soda from each one, and boom, 1800 bucks. Got my Nikon DF in only 6 months.
pls kill yourself and disregard my x100 suggestion.
>>2711883
Oh comon, it's a great idea.
>>2711884
Seriously , I would love a df but you sound like an asshole.
>>2711884
Why do you want a Df?
>>2711889
I've been shooting with a D5200 for awhile, been considering a FX camera, then I came across an FG20 and I can't get it out of my hands. The feeling of the body, the cool metal and warm leathery wrap around the camera just seals the deal and makes me cum a little. So, I figured, why not buy something that I visually enjoy as much as physically holding.
It's out in the air, I just enjoy aesthetics as well as comfortability.
>>2711886
Woah woah woah bubby. I'm only what you think I am, until you meet me.
>>2711892
OK. You just started to grind my gears.
I'd like a Df too, but not for man handbag reasons...
What are /p/'s thoughts on the Kowa Six cameras?
>>2711895
Of course it's for the aesthetics ; and ability to shoot Fool Freight shots at 16 Megapickles.
>>2711902
i think they are gorgeous. but i dont know how easy are they to repair. thats an important point.
>>2711895
>I'd like a Df too, but not for man handbag reasons...
Then why? It's a worse D610. The only thing it has over a standard DSLR is the aesthetics.
>>2711907
I like the aesthetics too.
Dials, buttons and a kick ass sensor...
Gear fags will jump in and say it's a meme camera. I still want one.
>>2711915
Yeah, I like to treat my cameras like I treat my cars, and women.
I'll only enjoy a car if it feels right. Just like a pussy.
>>2711910
I am an old and like it. I'm scared of modern voodoo.
>>2711909
I'm not sure, either, but apparently they are like the Miranda Sensorex's of the MF world, as they tend to be on the fragile side, and need to be cared for, as for repairs, considering they are completely mechanical the only repairs needed should be new light seals and some cleaning of the vf and focusing screen, as well they lack leaf shutters, so they're loud AF, and it's the only MF system with a circular fisheye lens
>>2711667
>Why do people like Pentax?
>Why doesn't everyone just like Canikon?
>Canikon have a fuckload of marketing, therefore they are clearly the only good cameras, all other brands are shit.
Please fuck off.
>>2711892
You know a Df doesn't handle anything at all like a manual camera right? The XT1 handles dials everything better. Df cannot into proper dial function.
>>2711938
Yes, I've heard this but I think it will if you make it.
My fuji will do dials but also needs to be coerced.
>>2711938
BUT VINTAGE LOOK MOM
>>2711839
Dic & Mic E302C from earlier in the thread.
$90 for the alu one, $120 for the carbon one, shipped.
why no one is making a pentax adapter?
think about it.
now a6000 will have lenses.
Is there a nice compact camera out there that I can use to take good action shots with? I shoot extreme sports photos for a local magazine, mostly Mountain Biking/BMX and Skiing. I would love something with a fast wide angle lens, and plenty of manual control. I just have no idea where to start looking.
>inb4 a6000
>I already have one
>>2712041
A6000 with a sharp lens is about the closest you can get.
Probably should carry something larger to get better shots, though.
>>2712034
There are such adapters? Also to most other common camera systems. They're MF only, but that's normal... right now, the A7R II + Canon (and soon Nikon) are the combination to get for lenses adapted with AF.
Well, if you shoot primes in and around the normal range, no other system has a much better lineup of quality glass anyways than the E-mount, just get some of that for the A6000.
>>2712044
I already carry my a6000 and a Nikon D810. I need a compact camera for several special scenarios, such as having to rappel down a tight couloir where there's a very high risk of bashing into a wall of ice. I don't want to bring either of my cameras/lenses into that situation.
>>2712047
Well, maybe you can make do with a GoPro or something, but as far as I know, most photographers who shot while rappelling have brought their cameras to it for the longest time - maybe separately secured and maybe in a box, but just their camera...?
Hey guys Ive been looking into buying a used camera for my first camera. Lot of people on ebay listings ask about the shutter count of the camera which I assume is sort of the mileage of the camera? What shutter count should I be looking at for a camera thats not too old
>>2712063
Are there strict cost reasons involved? Otherwise, you basically have as much reason as we do to buy a decent new camera.
> What shutter count should I be looking at for a camera thats not too old
Camera models have very different shutter life. Well, if I had to give a random guess, 20k is generally going to be okay, I guess?
>>2712041
Literally Ricoh GR or Coolpix A. All memes aside, it hits all three requirements you've outlined.
>>2712047
rx100iv
Is the SD card Sony 32gb UHS-1/U3 good?
I bought one from Focus Camera for 10 USD in the Black Friday.
>>2712104
I have been using one and I like it. It's fast and works well. Only bad thing is based on reviews it seems to have a higher fail rate then say a SanDisk.
What do you think about the Nikkor 50mm f/1.2 AI-S?
Does it worth being the sharpest Nikon 50mm lens in production when used at f/2?
When used at f/1.2 the pictures are too soft for my taste, and it could be hard/time consuming to manual focus at that tiny DoF.
Is the 50mm f/1.4 a better choice? it's a lot cheaper and I would have autofocus and be able to use all the exposure modes without hassle.
>>2712189
>Does it worth being the sharpest Nikon 50mm lens in production when used at f/2?
Maybe the sharpest Nikkor lens... but with the Sigma Art 50mm out, why bother?
The Nikkor kinda sucks at f/1.2 anyways.
>>2712192
yeah you are right, tnx!
How large of a gap can you accept between focal lengths in your lens lineup?
I currently own a mediocre 18-35 zoom, a shitty fixed 35, a shitty fixed 50, a decent 85, a 105 macro and a 80-200 zoom.
No I'm considering selling all that shit and buying three god tier lenses. Nikon 14-24, Sigma 35 Art and Nikon 70-200 VR2.
Do you really need anything between 35 mm and 70 mm? Never was a fan of 50 anyway
>b-but guis my megapickles
Any true reason I'd give a flying fuck about the MP of the cameras?
>>2712250
What camera, or more precisely what kind of sensor do you use?
>>2712257
Nikon FX
>>2712250
I'd say at most double the focal length.
You can always crop for the in-between, and a 2x crop isn't too dramatic but you probably won't want to crop much more than that.
>>2712260
Try a 28mm. Usually people who prefer wider than the standard 50mm on FF like the 28mm more than the 35mm.
The Ricoh GR people absolutely adore their 28mm equivalent lenses.
>>2712250
>How large of a gap can you accept between focal lengths in your lens lineup?
I figured I'm usually just fine with a ~30mm, ~60mm, ~90mm and 70-200mm.
YMMV greatly depending on what you shoot.
But I figure it wouldn't work with poor lenses or low resolution cameras, I crop really quite often.
>>2712255
what website is that?
>>2712296
A site for noobs buying their fist camera.
No idea why /p/ takes it so serious.
>>2712255
Because if you also have a decent lens, you can then crop and still have a very decent image.
Or you can make large prints.
Or you can have a decent resolution after common noise reduction algorithms you might use in post to get rid of low light sensor noise reduce you to 1/8 or less of your original resolution.
Have you guys ever had issues with below freezing temperatures and autofocus? I've been wondering this for a while...
My autofocus stops working after a while when it's too cold. Also tested it today by putting my camera into freezer for a moment, same story. Autofocus starts to work in minutes when bringing it to room temperature.
Is this a normal story or should I get it replaced? It's an art lens by sigma.
>>2712341
Knowing the exact temperature would help.
Nonetheless Sigma has a lot of issues with the HSM motor, replacing it will not fix the issue. Use manual focus.
BTW my Pentax doesn't have any problems with focusing or shooting at -10°C but I always try to keep it near my body for extra heating.
>>2712345
The focusing will start to lag even in -1°C if kept there for a long time. I have multiple Sigma Art-line lenses and this one fucker is the only one with this issue.
>>2712346
If it is still covered by warranty you might try replacing it. Best of luck, pal.
what camera brand would you say has the best price/quality ratio for lenses?
If I am buying a new camera, and I want to eventually invest in a lot of lenses, what would be a good brand to buy?
>>2712364
>a lot of lenses
You're doing it wrong.
Canon, and Sigma.
>>2712364
Pentax
>>2712366
well by a lot maybe I meant a few... Point is, I am probably going to buy a camera plus a lens now, and buy others in the near future. As such it would make sense to think what would be the overall cost (camera now + a couple of lens in the future) instead of just what I would be buying right now.
Are all cable releases essentially the same for film cameras? I want to pick one up for my Zorki but don't really want to spend $20 for one.
>>2712370
Pentax's main weak point is its lenses. They are cheap, but they are also strange, terrible, and outdated.
How much of a difference is there between a 35mm prime lens and a 30mm prime lens on aps-c in terms of what I can fit into the frame?
>>2712480
Not too much really. You'll notice a bigger shift between 27/28mm and 35mm on crop. Wide is wide and one of the only things that will really affect it is distortion. Until you get up into the 75mm+ (135 eqv) focal lengths there's not so much of a huge difference in crop.
>>2712457
>Terrible
>this guy has only seen their DA lenses
>He's never heard of their limited lenses
>He probably thinks canon is the only company whose lenses aren't all shitty kit zooms
Tired of lugging around my fuckhuge full frame at parties and I want a viewfinder. I also don't want to shell out a grand for a pocket camera. What are my options behind an older X100?
>>2712503
You can get a used Nikon v2, which would be very small and still let you swap out lenses
>>2712506
I'm not really concerned with lens interchangeability, I'm a canon shooter anyways.
My dad used to do freelance photography when he was a fireman and years back I was messing around with one of his old nikons and it was pretty cool. I was back home for thanksgiving and my mom asked me if there was anything I wanted for Christmas and I said not really but after thinking more I thought maybe a dslr. What's a good place to start? Will any of my dad's old lenses fit if he still has them? I've heard good things about nikons d3300 or 3200 idr exactly. Don't really have a lot of places near me that develope film (my dad had a darkroom in his house but it's become a reloading room now)
tl;dr: good dslr? Any cyber Monday deals? Will old film lenses from a Nikon fit on new Nikon dslr?
>>2712508
If you can deal with its full-auto video and close focusing distance, the Canon G1X mark II might work
I just bought a 7d mk ii with an 18-135 kit lens. Any recommended lenses? The other lenses I have are the 50 1.8 and 18-55 kit.
is there a used/new camera buying guide?
Sorry friends, new here.
Looking to buy a DSLR for my sister.
Nothing super fancy.
>>2712519
17-55 2.8
Tokina 11-16 2.8
Sigma 30mm 1.4
Canon or sigma 70-200 2.8
>>2712521
Thanks. I've been eying the 70-200, but would it be worth it on a crop body?
Thoughts on Mitakon lenses?
Thinging about picking up a few (85/1.2 for sure) for use with an a7ii.
How is a macro lens different than any other lens and why is it better suited for taking macro images?
I know it's made for macro so it's better, but for what reason?
>>2712540
Also, is a telephoto lens okay for shooting macro too? You'll just have to be farther away to focus, right?
>>2712540
>How is a macro lens different than any other lens and why is it better suited for taking macro images?
Macro lenses have very short minimum focus distances, and can reproduce objects onto the image sensor at life size. Also, macro lenses are designed to have the entire focal plane in focus.
So let's say you're focusing on a thing 1 foot away. A macro lens may have everything at that distance in focus, even to the corners of the image. A non-macro lens may not. Good macro lenses typically have exceptional corner sharpness.
>>2712545
>Also, is a telephoto lens okay for shooting macro too? You'll just have to be farther away to focus, right?
Yeah and for insect shooters like me they're preferable. I use the Tokina 100mm Macro (which is one of the best fucking lenses in the world). The Nikkor 60mm Macro didn't do it for me. If I could afford the Nikkor 200mm macro I'd use that for bugs, but I can use my Tokina for portrait work too and it's great.
In my experience macro lenses have the best optics.
>>2712549
What does it mean to produce the object at life size? And is the focal length the most important thing to macro? I would think that if a higher focal length allows a greater zoom, even if I'd have to be farther away from the object, that would make a cheaper Nikon 70-300mm a good choice. If not, what would I look for in a macro lens?
>>2712554
>What does it mean to produce the object at life size?
It means that a one inch bug will take up one inch of space on the sensor. The more space it takes up on the sensor (the more pixels you use), the more detail you get.
>And is the focal length the most important thing to macro?
The most important thing is minimum focusing distance, which determines how big that one inch bug is going to be on your sensor. Some lenses call themselves "macro" but really only focus close enough that a once inch bug is only of an inch on a sensor, or 1/4. Your 70-300mm may say it's macro, but its close focusing capabilities will fall far short of a dedicated macro lens.
Longer focal lengths are better for wildlife like bugs. Shorter focal lengths are useful for situations like food photography, copy work, etc, where you don't necessarily want to be working 3 or 4 feet from your subject due to the constraints of the working space. They're also a little more flexible, since the shorter the focal length, the greater the effect extension tubes will have on their magnication.
So, the most important thing you're looking for in a macro lens is something called the "reproduction ratio". A 1:1 lens will reproduce an object at life size and is a true macro (though some 100mm macro lenses are only 1:2, but they still count). There are niche lenses that can reproduce stuff at 2:1 (twice life size, really good!). Canon makes a lens that reproduces at 5:1. Most lenses are closer to a 1:7 ratio. Some lenses say they're macro, but are really just 1:4 or so.
>>2712554
>>2712540
Dedicated macro lenses will get you get you "closer" to the subject, it will appear larger and you can see more details (see example).
The focal length will primarily affect working distance for a macro lens. As in, a 150mm macro and a 50mm macro will show a quarter the same size, just with the 150mm you can physically be further away (useful for stuff like bugs).
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 1600 Image Height 722
My baby. U dshellie?
>>2712563
I have a budget of about $200 or less, so do you think there's a good macro lens for that price, or is anything good like $400+? My camera is a Nikon d3300 with a stock 18-55mm lens and I've never used any better lenses.
Do you also think this lens (unrelated to macro) would be a good, cheap option for general photography?
http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-1928-70-300-4-5-6G-Cameras/dp/B00005Y3OM/
Ayylmao
Helios 44-2 is on sale for 30$ on EGay.
Should I bother buying it? or save my dollhairs for a bit and get a better lens?
If not the Helios 44-2, what lens?
Was this a good buy for someone looking to get into photography. I bought this for my gf not knowing jack shit about cameras and she is taking a basic photography course next semester. I know cameras can be expensive just wanted to make sure I got a decent deal and the camera isn't a piece of junk. Thanks.
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/canon-eos-rebel-t5-dslr-camera-with-18-55mm-and-75-300mm-lenses-black/1004002.p?id=1219459331617&skuId=1004002
>>2712575
Macro can be done cheap through a lot of different ways. I'd Google guides on it.
You can use extension tubes with any lens to reduce the minimum focus difference. Basically extension tubes just move the lens away from the sensor.
They can be used with basically any lens and range from a few bucks to a few hundred for ones with AF/Metering/etc.
Second would be a lens revere which mounts the lens backwards to make it magnify. Don't know much about them but this definitely kills AF. I think this can do much more extreme macro.
There isn't a ton of cheap dedicated macro lenses out there.
And that lens is 70-300 which means it's more suited for telephoto.
>>2712585
Thank you very much
>>2712575
Nikon has a killer 2 lens kit right now, the 35mm 1.8 and 85mm 3.5 macro both for $500. The 85mm alone normally retails for $530, and if you don't care about the 35mm (it's an awesome lens for beginners), you can resell it mint in box for close to $200.
>this lens
Generally pretty bad, several generations old and lacks VR (especially useful for telephotos). You can get used more recent models for cheaper than that.
>>2712579
They're all more or less the same around that price point, you can't go wrong. Great one for someone to be starting with.
>>2712575
Hnngg
>>2712598
What would you recommend for a telephoto lens?
>>2712606
Used 55-200 VR. V1 runs ~$100 on BH, V2 (current one) runs ~$140.
That said, if you need the reach but don't necessarily need the zoom, some telephoto primes are worth looking at too.
>>2712611
These two?
http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-55-200mm-4-5-6G-Vibration-Reduction/dp/B000O161X0/
http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-55-200MM-Vibration-Reduction-Cameras/dp/B00RUBK53Y/
Sorry to have to link and confirm that I'm looking at the right thing, but I don't know enough about these to be sure
What makes these better than the 70-300mm? The overall lens quality and the VR? Will only being able to go to 200 instead of 300mm make much of a difference?
>>2712626
Yeah those two. The V2 (more expensive) is the one that's normally sold with the D3300 in a two-lens kit.
>Will only being able to go to 200 instead of 300mm make much of a difference?
Yes and no. If you go to a store and try out a 300mm lens, you can zoom back and forth from 200 to 300, it's really not that much of a difference.
The 55-200 has a better build, faster AF, is lighter, and has VR (which is huge for telephotos).
>>2712536
the new 20mm 1.4
>>2712545
Telephotos are generally *better* for shooting macro shots.
Because you are less likely to spook insects, and because you'll generally have an easier time with your artificial lighting since you are not *that* close to the subject.
Also, less perspective distortion.
>>2712593
To augment the other anon's list:
An achromat macro filter lens will often do well on a kit zoom (55-210 or whatever you got).
Marumi and Raynox are popular brands for these. Maybe get a +3 or +5 diopter one.
I'm looking to buy my first camera. I usually just take photos and edit them with vscocam, but obviously want to upgrade from that. I was looking at point and shoot cameras at Best Buy, and saw that a lot of them have 20 megapixels. Does anyone have any suggestions?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Apple Camera Model iPhone 5 Camera Software 8.2 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 33 mm Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2015:03:31 17:33:10 Exposure Time 1/1595 sec F-Number f/2.4 Exposure Program Normal Program ISO Speed Rating 50 Lens Aperture f/2.4 Brightness 10.2 EV Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 4.12 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 3264 Image Height 2448 Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard
>>2712523
Yes I had a 70-200 II on my 7D and it was GOAT
someone near me is selling a Minolta XG-9 with a zoom lens for $75, should I cop? I really don't know much about 35mm or photography in general but i was thinking I could start out with that.
Hi guys. I have set up a professional photography page. I like photographs of all types. If you use instagram and have anything you would like to share, add #universalviews and it will spear on my page. Thanks.
>>2712679
P&S generally aren't that good, usually you might as well just upgrade your smartphone and shoot with that.
How about an entry-level DSLR / MILC instead?
Nikon D3x00 / Sony A6000 / Pentax K-50 ... or whatever? They have much better sensors and glass.
>>2711182
13.4 vs 12.1 ev dynamic range. Is that a horribly significant difference? Just jumped from a K3 to a 6D for the full frame capabilities and I feel like it's missing something...
also, good lenses for 6D? The 50 1.8 STM is shit with horrible vignetting at anything wider than 2.8 (and even that is barely tolerable)
>>2712691
Probably no. Better get a decent digital camera first.
Sure, some people absolutely love film photography, but most people don't the extra time and operating cost film photography has.
Never mind making film digital (like a lot of people eventually need it to be) requires fairly expensive scanning equipment or a DSLR / MILC to do in good quality anyways.
>>2712705
An extra EV in DR like that is quite easily noticeable, sure. More so once you do corrections in post.
If you want DR, generally go with Sony or Nikon, not Canon.
> also, good lenses for 6D?
Have a look at Sigma Art / Sigma Sports lenses.
>>2712679
I have a Nikon d3300, I can't really complain about since I dont have much to go on as for camera experience. I like it. It's a learning curve, compared to a point and shoot. I got an entry level DSLR because I wanted to be more involved in my photography, as far as settings go.
Pic from some time ago
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make NIKON CORPORATION Camera Model NIKON D3300 Camera Software Ver.1.00 Maximum Lens Aperture f/3.5 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Color Filter Array Pattern 860 Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 27 mm Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Created 2015:11:05 20:43:02 Exposure Time 3 sec F-Number f/5.0 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 100 Exposure Bias -5 EV Metering Mode Center Weighted Average Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash Focal Length 18.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1620 Image Height 1080 Rendering Custom Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Gain Control None Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal Subject Distance Range Unknown
![177206[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/xqzNWjP.jpg "177206[1].jpg")
novice here
I found a Pentax P3n with 50mm prime lens for $20
should I get it?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Canon Camera Model Canon EOS 30D Camera Software Adobe Photoshop 7.0 Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2014:11:29 11:05:10 Exposure Time 1/160 sec F-Number f/16.0 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 200 Lens Aperture f/16.0 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 55.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1037 Image Height 800 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard
Some shops in the UK are selling the newer sigma 105mm macro lens for £339 and I'm struggling to find a reason to say no.
I srill have the old sigma 105mm which I can sell after to make money back. Old one doesnt have stabilisation so it would be a decent upgrade for my shaky as fuck hands I think.
I have a d7100.
>>2712730
I sort of disagree that it's better to start with digital. my impression is that digital leads you to become a lazy & trigger happy photographer.
>>2712731
I know the feel of shaky hands
the kids at school used to ask if I have parkinson's & even now people ask me if I'm nervous
>>2712734
>even now people ask me if I'm nervous
So fucking anoying when people ask that. I can hold my hands pretty still but as soon as I'm doing something that requires finnesse I start trembling a bit.
I have a Nikon 18-140 with OS and its darn good. I've taken pretty good pictures at 1/25 before which is incredible. On the old macro I struggle with anything below 1/200.
>>2712732
I started/starting out with digital. I agree that first I didn't know what to look for and how to shoot so I quickly burned through 6000 shots. But digital is fast and I am keen on learning and now I'm much more considerate on shooting only the moments and scenes I want to shoot.
Digital is not worse to start out with, reading books and looking for the better shots is what makes you learn, not the medium you are shooting with.
>>2712732
Thanks for repeating the "hone your skills on old gear" - myth.
It still isn't true, however, and not a way to save money either. Deal with it.
Just bought a vivitar 2x Macro teleconverter for the Minolta MD mount. Will I be able to do some macro photography with it?
>>2712727
Definitely worth picking up for that price, it's worth it for the lens alone. I bought that lens for $50 around 2 years ago when I first started, and I still use it to this day. If you choose to get a Pentax dslr when you eventually upgrade, you'll always be able to continue using that 50mm.
Are there any 35mm lens for Olympus om-1? I can't find any
>>2712751
so at no point you thought to google olympus zuiko 35mm?
Jesus you're a cunt
Is the Sony a390 a good beginner camera? Someone is selling it with a 18-55mm lens for $200
>>2712778
I'm sure it shoots photos, but I can't see anything that would make it particularly good for beginners.
Get something nicer? D3x00, K-50, A6000 perhaps?
Or if you want a Sony SLT, maybe an A58.
