cyber monday
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
who is excited and who has scooped the good dealz already?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Canon Camera Model Canon EOS REBEL T3i Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Camera Raw 7.1 (Macintosh) Maximum Lens Aperture f/2.8 Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2012:10:25 09:29:17 Exposure Time 1/200 sec F-Number f/2.8 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 800 Lens Aperture f/2.8 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 42.00 mm Image Width 1000 Image Height 667 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard
>>2712449
I bought a refurbished 7d mk ii off of canon's site with an 18-135 for $1250
>>2712449
I waited a week for amazon jews to lower the price of the a7s a bit and they raised it, like at least 100 dollars. Fucking assholes
>>2712476
keh had them at 40% off at around 1300 dollars las week
has anyone seen any deals on the d750?
Pro-tip, most prices on cameras / lenses are going to be set by the manufacturer, they'll only pay out on the instant rebates when rung at the right price. If you see something considerably lower, they're either super sketchy (and don't care about manufacturer penalties), or it's gray market. The things to look for on common "sale" days is going to be accessories, and used & refurbished.
Nikon prices are current through the 12th. Sony prices are current through the 5th. Can't recall when Canons will change again, but can check tomorrow.
The only thing I can recall dropping this month is like RX100-2 dropping an extra $50 come the 16th.
>>2712500
Pretty much, before any cashback deals. See if the offer is available from the retailer you purchased. That's the only way to really know.
It's almost always cheaper to just buy grey market.
Got a 1Dx with f/2.8 zoom for $1500. It says E-M1 on it.
>>2712542
Did your ban expire or did your meds run out of refills?
>>2712487
it was either B&H or Amazon, that had a "buy a D750 + lens and get a discount" where the discount depended on the lens. this deal was also going for other cameras in the Nikon and Canon lineups.
not a huge sale. like the D750 + 70-200 2.8 VRII was like $50 off or something lol. by the way the VRII sucks for $2300, just saying.
however as an owner of a D750 i'm just letting you know when you eventually buy it you're getting a fucking incredible camera
$5 cheaper than normal and why wouldn't you need more SD cards?
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00WWBCSG4
Only thing I've bought and plan on buying for all these black friday/cyber monday "deals".
I want to get my mom a compact point and shoot camera as a replacement for her old canon digital elph which bit the dust. Any suggestions under $300 would be appreciated.
>>2712610
Don't spend more than $200 on a P&S unless you're gonna spend +$350 on a higher end one (G7x, S120, RX100, etc).
The screens on Nikon's Coolpix line are all terrible (moms think bad screen = bad picture), so avoid them for sure.
I'd recommend something like an SX610 (been crazy popular this year with the older folk at my shop). ELPH small size but 18x zoom.
>>2712463
I shoot with a 60D. Would that be a huge upgrade to consider? I was hoping the Mark III would be again le, but it's sold out.
>>2712610
>>2712623
So I checked out SX610 and I really haven't been impressed with any sub $200 cameras. They all have great amounts of noise in the image. I came across Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX7 for $277.99 on B&H and it looks darn good. The only annoying thing is the snap on lens cap. I don't know if that would get knocked off in her purse. I also don't know if she would be unimpressed with it being only 10MP. Does anyone know if this comes with a soft case?
>>2712651
im not him but i dont think its worth it, just save up til you can afford fool frame, going from a 60d to a 7dii is a waste of money
>>2712674
You're buying a camera for your mom, not you.
You are retarded.
>>2712651
lolno, don't even consider upgrading unless its FF
Some shops in the UK are selling the newer sigma 105mm macro lens for £339 and I'm struggling to find a reason to say no.
I srill have the old sigma 105mm which I can sell after to make money back. Old one doesnt have stabilisation so it would be a decent upgrade for my shaky as fuck hands I think.
I have a d7100. Thoughts?
>>2712735
Will FF come down in overall prices in the future or will they always retain their FF premium? Surely the FF sensors are getting cheaper to make the better they get at it right?
Bought a TS-431 qnap for my backup solution. I found it for 200$ yesturday so i am happy. Now to buy a few nas HD's.
>>2712738
When the 5D was released, it was the first full frame digital. It was $3300 in 2005 money.
Now look up the pricing on a D610, or a 6D, or a7
I actually bought my first dslr for $200 but I dont think it was a black friday sale
canon rebel t5 refurbished with 18-55 mm lens and 75-300 lens
Looking for a good SD card on sale, and camera case.
Anything else you guys recommend? I am a noob.
Picked up an older used Tokina 12-24 f4 last week from b&h. Even with the shit Canadian dollar and duty inclusive shipping it was still a very good deal.
>>2712903
>mfw picked up two 128gb sd cards for 15 bucks a pop
>>2712931
u nig
I just bought a 64 gig class 10 for $15 and I thought I was getting a steal
Bought a camera case and decided to say "fuck it" and bought a 72 inch tripod half off cause I dont give a butt.
>>2712959
I did have to go stand in line with the subhumans at black friday though
It was great having everyone rush and shove eachother while I was casually strolling through the store towards the completely empty camera accessories aisle
>>2712546
I'm just going to buy it on ebay for ~1500 + 3year warranty and the 24-120mm + 1year warranty.
I have a d5100 and been doing crazy amounts of research on what to upgrade to. I've outgrown the d5100 and almost bought the d7200 a few weeks ago. I figured I would outgrow that too real quick. I actually went to b&h last week to see it in person since I know they maintain their equipment well and turned on. Fucking best buy either doesnt have them on, or all chipped and shit. Anyway, the guy at the counter said going from a d5100 to a d750 was like going from a honda to a ferrari. and I know he is right. I was playing with the camera at the store, and the autofoucs was absurd. my shit would still be trying to find a good spot to focus on. I could buy it now, but i'm going to buy it in like 1-2 weeks so I can get it just in time for xmas as a gift to myself lel.
Thanks for that last remark, I'm fucking pumped to get it
>>2712931
where?????
I found the D750 at a local store for 1400 dollars and couldn't resist. If you see a shitty photo taken with a D750 it's probably me baka desu
>>2713058
local electronics store in colorado
>>2712610
Used Ricoh GR. Just make sure you check for dust first, because that's not just a meme
>>2713060
lucky. the cheapest I find online is 40$
>>2713055
1500 for a grey market D750 and a grey market 24-120/4 VR is an unbeatable deal
THAT SAID, my personal opinion, is to flip the 24-120/4 and get the 24-85/3.5-4.5 (D610 kit lens) or 28-300/3.5-5.6 (newest VR). I live in the NYC area and went to B&H myself to try various wide-mid and superzooms on the D750 body that I knew I was going to buy. the 24-120/4 is a pretty good lens but it's not retardedly sharp like the 24-85/3.5-4.5, nor as sharp or versatile as the 28-300/3.5-5.6. AF seems faster than the 28-300 though (surprise? lol). all depends on needs and budget. but personally i thought the 24-120 was neither here nor there; it wasn't as good as the 24-85 through those focal lengths, and I use a tokina 100/2.8 macro prime for my portrait work so I don't care much about missing 85-120 at f/4. and then it doesn't cover the long telephoto range like the superzoom. they're all around the same speed anyway, and ergonomically i think the 24-120 and 28-300 are comprable.
sidenote, though i can't afford it and probably wouldn't buy it anyway, i have never seen a lens AF faster than the Nikkor 24-70/2.8 on a D750. i felt like it was focused as soon as i made the decision to push down the button. hilariously faster than the tokina of the same specs but seemingly identical optics; questionable that it's worth $800 more.
anyway since you already shot the D750 I'm sure you know that the high ISO performance has to be seen to be believed. sometimes I see it and I still don't believe it. combine that with the AF system and that awesome burst shooting and it's the most fun camera i've ever shot by miles.
>>2713059
lol well it's always up to the photographer to make the shot but the D750 isn't going to stop you from making one, that's what counts as far as bodies go.
>>2713140
is the 24-85 really that sharp? is it the only kit lens nikon makes that's legitimately good?
>tfw no competitor to fuji 18-55 in any other mount
>>2712546
>by the way the VRII sucks for $2300, just saying.
come on, the VR2 might not out shoot the IS2 on charts, but to say the VR2 sucks for $2300 is just damn wrong.
>>2713148
>is the 24-85 really that sharp? is it the only kit lens nikon makes that's legitimately good?
IMO it's great, kit or not. i am very biased towards primes (after all primes are better than zooms in every respect except versatility, though versatility is very important and i'm not discounting it). if you're not springing for the typical 24-70/2.8 from whatever manufacturer, the 24-85 is the next best thing in that range.
>come on, the VR2 might not out shoot the IS2 on charts, but to say the VR2 sucks for $2300 is just damn wrong.
i'm not talking charts though. when I bought my D750 I took the VRII home too, because it was autofocusing a good deal faster than the 80-200/2.8 D I was testing with, and my business partner did not have a 70-200/2.8 or similar for his Canon. so i figured for weddings we'd need an f/2.8 telephoto zoom and i thought, fuck it, i bet this lens is amazing.
but in practice i just felt like the images were flat. the lens is astoundingly heavy and there's a shitload, a fucking shitload, of glass. there is so much glass in that thing that i can't believe how much glass is in there. it was unbearable to shoot with and carry around, and i'm not exactly a puny guy, but steadying that motherfucker for 6 hours is unreasonable. and if you were using a tripod you wouldn't need 850189 stops of VR or whatever nikon is selling.
i returned it, got the tokina 100mm, partner bought a magic drainpipe (lucky faggot), everyone's happy
>>2713140
I thought about getting the 25-85mm, but I figured the 24-120 would get me more versatility as daily(street) use lens. I'll give it another look. I'm not a gear whore, so it'll have to be one of the other
I plan on getting:
tokina 16-28mm 2.8 - for landscape
rokinon 14mm 2.8 - for astrophotography/landscape
tamron 70-300mm 4-5.6 - for nature/street-zoom
and the nikon 50m 1.8
I actually bought the last tamron today from a seller on ebay who only had one left for 300$. Amazon got it for like 450$
My only other lens that I will be able to use on a fx coming from the dx is a macro tamron 90mm.
I'm not at the point where I can justify retarded prices for lenses. I'm sure I can manage for now. If I would ever get paid for my photography, only then would I buy some of those amazingly expensive lenses
Ive only used the d750 at the b&h, and it was a very small amount of time. i've yet to see how much of a beast it is. But I've read a lot on how ridiculous the iso performance is on it as well.
>>2713165
>I'm not a gear whore, so it'll have to be one of the other
there's no reason to get both :)
>tokina 16-28mm 2.8 - for landscape
it's a good deal. i tried it in the store and the vignetting was pretty bad wide open. but i still like the lens overall. the only other lens i'd consider is the sigma art 24-35/2. the equivalent nikkor ultrawide zooms are too fucking expensive.
>rokinon 14mm 2.8 - for astrophotography/landscape
never tried it. i hope you post some shots if you buy it.
>tamron 70-300mm 4-5.6 - for nature/street-zoom
i did try that at B&H, as I also tried the 70-200/2.8 tamron. both are awesome. tamron is making some really competitive lenses to the standard nikkors. thought i wasn't going to buy the tamron 70-300 because i would've bought the nikkor 28-300 instead
if you bought yours for $300 fuck you you lucky fuck lol
>and the nikon 50m 1.8
i bought the G version. in hindsight i'd have bought the D. you'll save some money. both are great lenses.
>I'm not at the point where I can justify retarded prices for lenses. I'm sure I can manage for now. If I would ever get paid for my photography, only then would I buy some of those amazingly expensive lenses
you're buying enough gear to start a business. trust yourself and your photography; these lenses are all plenty good.
you'll probably end up like i did. just HAVING the gear, posting stuff on facebook or w/e, and having people ask you to shoot stuff. you can kinda fall into the business.
>>2713157
>but in practice i just felt like the images were flat.
no comment. i've never had a problem with color rendition. i'm not quite so picky though.
>the lens is astoundingly heavy and there's a shitload, a fucking shitload, of glass. there is so much glass in that thing that i can't believe how much glass is in there.
well, that's what 2.8 in a telephoto gets you. i'm not sure why you're complaining though; the 80-200 is barely 200g lighter. all 70-200 2.8s (canon, nikon, tamron, versions 1 and 2) all weigh 1.5kg. it's not like there are light weight versions of these lenses.
>it was unbearable to shoot with and carry around, and i'm not exactly a puny guy, but steadying that motherfucker for 6 hours is unreasonable.
yeah, it's a heavy bastard. I shot some motorsports with that thing hanging off a d3100, so I didnt have the benefit of balance or a large grip for about 6 hours.
I was at a wedding that weekend too, and one of the photographer's assistants, a girl who couldnt have weighed more than 100 lb, was handling a 5D3 and 70-200/2.8 all day. she seemed ok.
I suggest you start doing some oats and squats.
>>2713181
>tokina 16-28mm 2.8 - for landscape
>it's a good deal. i tried it in the store and the vignetting was pretty bad wide open. but i still like the lens overall. the only other lens i'd consider is the sigma art 24-35/2. the equivalent nikkor ultrawide zooms are too fucking expensive.
how'd you get vignetting if its a fx lens?
>rokinon 14mm 2.8 - for astrophotography/landscape
>never tried it. i hope you post some shots if you buy it.
Not anytime soon. I'm live in jersey and work in NYC so I won't be getting any astro pics anytime soon without an assload of light pollution
>tamron 70-300mm 4-5.6 - for nature/street-zoom
>i did try that at B&H, as I also tried the 70-200/2.8 tamron. both are awesome. tamron is making some really competitive lenses to the standard nikkors. thought i wasn't going to buy the tamron 70-300 because i would've bought the nikkor 28-300 instead
if you bought yours for $300 fuck you you lucky fuck lol
lel I did. From a Canadian. I've read the tamron was sharper than the Nikkor. I guess it makes sense if there is less elements in the lens.
>and the nikon 50m 1.8
>i bought the G version. in hindsight i'd have bought the D. you'll save some money. both are great lenses.
That'll be my last lens to buy even though its cheap. I want it for its purported sharpness, and its cheap. I didn't even realize there was a D and a G. I'll have to look into that.
>you're buying enough gear to start a business. trust yourself and your photography; these lenses are all plenty good.
you'll probably end up like i did. just HAVING the gear, posting stuff on facebook or w/e, and having people ask you to shoot stuff. you can kinda fall into the business.
Ehh I Dont care for portraits and weddings, which seems to be what people get into when doing photography. What work do you do? It would be nice to get into photography as a job though I think. But im probably saying that since i feel IT is started to get annoying
>>2713190
>well, that's what 2.8 in a telephoto gets you. i'm not sure why you're complaining though; the 80-200 is barely 200g lighter. all 70-200 2.8s (canon, nikon, tamron, versions 1 and 2) all weigh 1.5kg. it's not like there are light weight versions of these lenses.
>I was at a wedding that weekend too, and one of the photographer's assistants, a girl who couldnt have weighed more than 100 lb, was handling a 5D3 and 70-200/2.8 all day. she seemed ok.
>I suggest you start doing some oats and squats.
haha not squats so much as forearm curls... which i actually integrate with my workouts just for that reason. you're right though. even the lightest of these lenses is a heavy bitch.
>>2713191
>how'd you get vignetting if its a fx lens?
lenses can have vignette even if they're FX.
of course, i said, wide open. stopping down eliminates the problem. but if i'm doing astro i don't want to stop down right?
>I've read the tamron was sharper than the Nikkor. I guess it makes sense if there is less elements in the lens.
yeah i love seeing lenses with less glass. glass is basically the enemy.
>I didn't even realize there was a D and a G. I'll have to look into that.
they're both perfectly compatible with the modern D750 (unlike some issues each may have with old and really old cameras). optically each is excellent.
>Ehh I Dont care for portraits and weddings, which seems to be what people get into when doing photography. What work do you do? It would be nice to get into photography as a job though I think. But im probably saying that since i feel IT is started to get annoying
portraits and weddings, so far the only stuff people will pay me for.
but i got into this for wildlife. i do enjoy the portraiture though.
i fucking hate dealing with some people though, getting them to pay, etc. it's fine when you're dealing with friends. then it's friends of friends and their friends and they are dicier people you don't really know as well.
>>2712476
>amazon
>expecting good deals during "specials"
You get better deals on things actually worth buying at random times, Amazon just throws up all the shitty crap no one buys to clear warehouses during these special events.
>>2713191
The 1.4D and 1.8D autofocus faster than the G versions because Nikon cheaped out on focus motors.
SCREW DRIVE
C
R
E
WHIRRR
D
R
I
V
E
>>2712610
So I ended up getting her a Fujifilm XQ1 for $224. I don't know how many reviews I've read saying the RX100 is better, but it's also almost twice as much. The Ricoh Gr is almost 3 times as expensive. She's coming from a shitty elph which had plastic bits brake off. I think this one will be ok for her.
any deals on film negative scanners?
>>2713317
Epson V600. Really cheap all the time. Like less than $200 on B&H.
>>2713191
I love my Tamron 70-300. Only lens I use on my D40. Gonna upgrade the body to a D5500 and maybe pick up a 35mm 1.8. I only shoot animals, mostly birds, and I've been craving the 150-600 by Tamron for that even greater reach
>>2713361
How's the bokeh on that 70-300? Bretty fucking gud I imagine
>>2713361
>D40. Gonna upgrade the body to a D5500
Terrible idea, terrible upgrade. D7000 / D300 or better.
>>2713411
Bokeh example
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Model NIKON D40 Camera Software VSCO Android Version Equipment Make NIKON CORPORATION Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 450 mm Maximum Lens Aperture f/5.7 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Image-Specific Properties: Image Created 2015:11:01 13:02:34 Pixel Composition Unknown Vertical Resolution 72 Horizontal Resolution 72 Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Color Space Information sRGB F-Number f/5.6 Subject Distance Range Unknown Focal Length 300.00 mm Light Source Unknown Exposure Mode Manual Image Height 2000 Rendering Normal Scene Capture Type Standard Saturation High Exposure Program Manual Sharpness Hard White Balance Auto Image Width 3008 Metering Mode Pattern Gain Control None Flash No Flash Contrast Normal Exposure Bias 0 EV ISO Speed Rating 200 Exposure Time 1/100 sec
>>2713447
>gonna stick to my choice
Please don't do it, anon.
The D5xxx series does not have the important AF screw drive. This means that you won't be able to use AF (on certain lenses which use said screw drive) on your D5500. All Nikons starting from the D7000 and up (D7100, D600/610 etc) do have the screw drive which is a big benefit.
>>2713455
If you use modern lenses, this is not an issue. My car doesn't have a place to hitch up horses, but that isn't really a drawback for me.
>>2713450
dayum nigga. Buttery smooth
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 201 Image Height 192
>>2713443
The D300 is a dinosaur. Fuck that. D7000 series or bust, bitch.
>>2713823
>The D300 is a dinosaur.
its a great camera with unmatched build quality. d7xxx feels like a toy in comparison
>>2714120
I use D300s and D7100 regularly, and agree with this statement.
