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: >>2711182
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software paint.net 4.0.6 Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2009:12:02 07:37:23 Image Width 2560 Image Height 1600
![il_570xN.297136376[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/Ix5rlAE.jpg "il_570xN.297136376[1].jpg")
so I mentioned this camera in the last thread, a Pentax P3n with lens that I could get for $20
I went ahead with it & the thing's in nice condition, even came with the manual and has an Energizer battery in it
I'm gonna buy a lens cap, UV filter, & a strap, maybe some black & white film. is there anything else I should get? is it true you need a yellow filter for b&w?
Fotasy 35mm f1.7. Any experiences? $30 is laughably cheap and I'm not expecting much desu
>>2713078
Damn that looks nice. Remove the P3 and it would be minimalist as fuck
>>2713078
>is it true you need a yellow filter for b&w?
It is not true. You don't need any filters for B&W. But different colored filters will give different toning effects that you may be interested in. Red generally increases contrast in normal scenes. Green gives somewhat pleasing skin-tones in many cases, etc.
I recently got a new laptop and I don't think the colors are as accurate as they should be. I was thinking of buying a color corrector but I don't know much about them. Got any suggestions?
Picked this up for 30$
Gonna clean it. Although the film advance lever is not working. The light meter is; and there is film in the camera that I just put in.
Do I begin taking it apart and watching the YouTube tutorials on how to fix it?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Right-Hand, Top Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 3264 Image Height 2448
>>2713126
most likely that the film advance is actually just stuck behind a small lever that keeps you from advancing before firing the shutter. take the bottom plate off and take a loo, should be as simple as lifting a little lever and cranking the shutter.
>>2713132
This is what I'm looking at.
I honestly have no clue where to start. Watched a tutorial, and the dude never specified where any thing exactly was.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Right-Hand, Top Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 3264 Image Height 2448
>>2713142
The battery is sticking and the shutter wont actuate.
I can't seem to find the replacement part online either.
Can I get some recommendations for a bag? Looking for something to carry an f100 with 50mm prime, polaroid land camera, and buttloads of film packs/rolls. Preferably around $150 or less.
>>2713161
I've been looking for a week or so myself, it's pretty hard finding one that does not look like complete ass.
>>2713161
>>2713237
NatGeo Walkaround
To the 40mm XS vs 50mm f/1.8 guy in the prev. thread:
I'd say the 50/1.8 needs more thinking since it is more for portraits (75mm equivalent) where you control everything, light, scene and subject. The 40mm is much closer to 35 so it is better for general shooting. It is also a pancake lens so it's about small size, mostly intended for street shooting and portability. The pancakes optical formula is old but overall decent IQ. From all the other brands pancakes the Pentax XS has far the best IQ.
It really depends on what you want to shoot. For portraits I'd get the 50, portability and bragging rights goes for the 40 XS, simple general snapping is good with both the 40 XS and the 35.
You know what, to cut all the debating, get the 40 XS. It is a good lens.
Found soviet Zenitar-M 50/1.7 lens on flickr. Picture looks totally adorable - softest bokeh i've even seen and nice sharpness. Is there any somilar lens with same optic scheme ?
( some says it's "ultron", but images from ultrons looks quiet different )
been looking around for a while now and unsure whether I should cop a pentax k-s2 or a sony a6000
i've used old nikon film cameras before but looking for my first digital
>>2713395
They are very very different cameras. One is rugged, long lasting, and pretty good with modern lenses. The other is small, light, quick, and good with manual focus lenses, at the expense of battery life and durability.
Both are able to produce excellent images and allow you full control over your photography.
None of my local photo stores sell 18% grey cards or white balance cards...
First, how important are those cards? They seem pretty important.
Second, should I be worried and move to a new place with fewer retards?
>>2713347
i have the zenitar. its sharper than any helios ive tried, bokeh is uber soft, i like it a lot. also, it seems to have better correction than my super tak, as in, doesnt make people look fat when in close range. got a mint condition specimen from ukraine for about $80.
>>2713401
>First, how important are those cards? They seem pretty important.
Somewhat. You can always tweak white balance to taste easily, and between your meter and chimping, you should be able to figure out your exposure settings. A color checker is more useful.
>Second, should I be worried and move to a new place with fewer retards?
Remember, we're just pretending to be retarded. Some are better at it than others.
>>2713418
Some are very very very talented
>>2713401
>First, how important are those cards? They seem pretty important.
They are not very important, unless you're doing a very specific type of photography (High fashion where colors have to be perfect (in which case, you're not using just a gray card)) and maybe some landscape when metering is absolutely vital. For the most part, people get by without them (or without knowledge of their existence). Cameras today are getting crazy advanced, and metering is getting so accurate that it's pretty redundant and useless to bother with a gray card.
If color accuracy is vital, you need a color checker passport, and color management throughout your entire process, not just a gray piece of cardboard.
>>2713078
plastic shit
>>2713422
Is alright, friend
>>2713159
throw it into the trash. get proper camera that works. save yourself time and headaches.
>>2713085
expect disgusting CA
Hello, I feel like I'm ready to purchase a new lens, since I only have the kit lens in my arsenal. What lesn do you recommend me /p/ ? (I own a Nikon D3200)
>>2713462
What lens do you need? If you don't know what lens you need (at least focal length, and aperture) then you don't need a new lens.
>>2713462
35mm f/1.8 would be a good start.
Good for general shooting and good low light performance.
>>2713466
Just a lens in general, more for portrait photography and some night photography as well, mostly night skies. Is the 70-300 mm a good one?
>>2713467
Thanks, I'll check it out. Also, what about the 70-300mm ones? Are they good for portrait photography/night photography?
>>2713472
The 70-300 is a telezoom mostly for birds and sports. Absolutely no low light performance, can be used for portraits with limitations. If you want a lens for portraits, get a 50mm f/1.8 or f/1.4
>>2713404
Sounds nice! Tries to get used from hands, but both lenses I saw were in bad condition. Ordered "as new" from other shop, will be waiting for it.
>>2713474
I would sooner use my 70-300 for portraits than for sports.
In fact, I've got quite nice results with it.
No real bokeh whoring but backgrounds do get blurred nicely when you shoot headshots at f/5.6
How do I put a rule of thirds grid overlay in nikon cameras now that katzeye is gone?
>>2713550
focusingscreen.com?
upgrade your camera?
git gud?
>>2713550
lel
>>2713550
>unironically putting training wheels on your camera
loooooool
If I can afford a canon eos mark iii 5d should I?
I don't know anything about photography but I want to learn
If I get this camera what kind of lens should I get with it. How is the one that comes with it?
>>2713641
buy a nice camera then help a poor student out and throw 500 bucks my way so I can get a camera as well
>>2713550
You could put electrical tape on the live view...or you could just practice a lot and train your eyes.
My dic&mic E302c came in today, purchased under anon's advice - It looks and feels great, I've been messing around with it for the last hour and it seems to be pretty fucking good for the price.
Thanks m8
[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 1021 Image Height 746
Optically this thing appears as great as the previous Art releases, gonna see how well this focal range/aperture suits me during my trip for the next week. Looking forward to see what I can do with night sky shooting since I don't have any fancy star-tracking rig to do it properly.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties:
I got a Nikon D3200 with the 18-55 mm kit lens and the 55-200 VR lens and it comes in tomorrow. What should I do?
>>2713103
what laptop did you buy?
>>2713727
wait for it patiently until it arrives. Then put on the 18-55 lens, set it on Tv 1/60s and go out shooting.
Also put it on Raw only.
>>2713726
I'm still pissed that they couldn't figure out a way to allow standard filters
>>2713726
I'll take a wild guess and say a bunch of coma at f/1.4. Their 35/1.4 and 24/1.4 weren't well corrected for it, compared to the stuff Samyang came up with. Then again Samyang doesn't have a 20/1.4, do they, I suppose
>>2713757
Eh, I'm used to it. My UW lens from the start has been a Sigma 15-30mm(holds up surprisingly well even by today's standards) and I rarely do any kind of shooting that would require filters anyways.
What is a better investment Canon 500d or Sony a6000 and why? I'm looking for a new camera and I'm on a budget.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software paint.net 4.0.5 Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 96 dpi Vertical Resolution 96 dpi
I know nothing about photography really, but really enjoy it and want to get into it. Is spending $8000 on a body and some lenses a bad idea or not. I was thinking having fancy gear would motivate me to get out here and start snapping. I was looking at the 1dx, since I was also hoping to make some money on the side, and this one seems like it can take a lotta money shots very fast.
>>2714042
If you have that kind of money go for it.
All right fellow p/olaks, help me out.
My dad is looking for a camera, he enjoys taking photos at jazz concerts, but he has a totally outdated potato with a small sensor, obviously his pictures are crap.
He has the following requirements:
o Should be ok in low light
o Must have a viewfinder
o The shutter shouldn't be too loud
o Focal depth generally suitable for concerts
I'm looking for the most affordable solution for him, it's not easy, as he has pretty specific needs and DSLR's are too loud for him.
Does anyone have a cheaper recommendation than the a6000? The bod + a tele zoom is a lot of money, but I couldn't find anything cheaper that would cut it.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make NIKON CORPORATION Camera Model NIKON D40 Camera Software Ver.1.10 Maximum Lens Aperture f/4.6 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Color Filter Array Pattern 836 Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 69 mm Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Created 2008:09:20 09:04:54 Exposure Time 1/200 sec F-Number f/7.1 Exposure Program Not Defined ISO Speed Rating 200 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash Focal Length 46.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 3008 Image Height 2000 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Gain Control None Contrast Normal Sharpness Normal Subject Distance Range Unknown ISO Speed Used 200 Color Mode COLOR Image Quality FINE White Balance AUTO Image Sharpening AUTO Focus Mode AF-A Flash Setting NORMAL Flash Compensation 0.0 EV ISO Speed Requested 200 Tone Compensation AUTO Lens Type Nikon G Series Lens Range 18.0 - 200.0 mm; f/3.5 - f/5.6 Auto Focus Closest Subject, Center Selected, Top Focused Shooting/Bracketing Mode Single Frame/Off Color Mode Landscape sRGB Lighting Type NATURAL Noise Reduction OFF Camera Actuations 5830 Saturation 2 AUTO Digital Vari-Program AUTO
So, do I just need a standard round lens hood for a 50mm prime lens?
>>2713757
rear filters aren't that bad
I have this old Minolta film camera. The focus screen has the split image focusing thing. More often than not, the top half turns black and I have to move my face and the camera around a lot to focus, so focusing takes forever and it's annoying. I assume that it does this to make sure you're looking at it at the correct angle, but I can't get it to be fully clear for more than a few seconds at a time. I think maybe it's because I wear glasses and can't adjust the diopter thing, so I'm not able to put my eye right onto it...That's just a guess.
So, why is it doing this and how can I solve this problem? I like this camera, but I can't practically use it because of this.
>>2714051
Probably your glasses. I get that effect sometimes when aiming at a really bright subject. Also very often when trying to take a photo through the finder with a cellphone camera. I think they made some sort of adapters for togs using glasses that fit on the finder window, though I think contacts would be your best bet.
This is 175 at my local camera shop.
Do I get? Or is there another option for a high quality fisheye between 11-16mm for 175 or less?
[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 470 Image Height 470
>>2714053
I hate wearing contacts, but I guess I might look into it for the sake of photography. Thanks.
>>2714051
use faster glass. small aperture lenses will black out the split prism, starting at around f4 for manual focus cameras with screens optimized for f2.
I am a plebe.
I want a not too expensive, easy to pick up camera for some urban photography and general purpose.
Don't have to be a DSLR, I have an SLR camera but cba to buy and develop film every damn time.
I'm happy with the quality of the photos though if that says anything, it's a Praktica.
>>2714054
Zenitar 16mm
>>2714054
175 what, deerskin hides?
Look itnto the Zenitar 16, pretty much looks the same. decent lens and I bought mine - in Russia.. - for around 40 USD,
aus-cameras.com is forward selling other retailer's stock.
ie: You order something from them, they then pay for it at the retailer and have it forwarded to you from them, they don't carry their own stock.
so i can use basically any old pentax lens on a new ks-2 or k-3 body correct? as long as the lens is for a k mount?
i'm looking to pick up a new ks-2 (or k-3 if i can find one cheap enough) and then just cop some lenses from ebay. itll be a lot cheaper but i just want to make sure that its all kosher.
i want a new camera body just because i dont want to take chances with people mistreating shit and whatnot, but i dont want to be stuck with a shit kit lense and then have to buy expensive glass (i want a prime 35mm, 50mm, and a macro or two)
tl;dr: any k mount lens should work on a new ks-2 or k-3 correct?
>>2714117
I'm using an M42 lens on my K-3 that is older than me.
BTW if you use the M42 to K-mount adapter, remove the spring and put the ring on the lens.
Easier to attach-detach and the adapter won't get stuck on your camera. Most of the chinese adapters are a pain to remove when used with the spring.
Also the digital DA 35 and 50 primes are cheap as nails, you should get both.
>>2714117
any k mount lens will mount and automatically close down as the shutter fires but non KA lenses will not open-aperture meter because the mount is gimped to not read aperture ring position. M42 lenses are actually easier to use on modern pentax bodies because of this.
What is a good first dslr camera i can get for around the $400 price range?
>>2714130
Pentax K-30/K-50
Nikon D3200/D3300
Canon....
Sony NEX 5/6, but get the 16MP ones from the NEX 5 line
>>2714130
the pentax k-s2 is $440 brand new on their website (gray w/ orange stripe, the black is 530) and it's a great camera.
>>2714042
0/10
>>2713038
Good evening Ladies and Gents browsing /p/
I come from /o/ i know cars and can take pictures of cars. HOWEVER my girlfriend is hugely into makeup and loves taking pictures of said makeups. Whats the best camera..erm..'gear' one could purchase for close up shots. I did research and everyone just gets off on long range lenses.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make NIKON Camera Model COOLPIX P80 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS3 Windows Maximum Lens Aperture f/2.8 Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 27 mm Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Created 2013:12:15 11:06:06 Exposure Time 524109/25000000 sec F-Number f/2.8 Exposure Program Normal Program ISO Speed Rating 400 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash Flash, Compulsory, Red-Eye Reduce Focal Length 4.70 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 3648 Image Height 2736 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Gain Control High Gain Up Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal Subject Distance Range Unknown
>>2714151
WHAT IS THIS WIZARDRY?
As someone who wants to get into photography and wants to do long exposure and night shots, whats a better starting camera?
the pentax ks1 or the nikon d3300?
>>2714151
HON HON HON, fell/o/w anon
Get her a Nikon D3200 with a 50mm 1.8 lens. It's a nice DSLR for a very reasonable price.
>>2714158
Get the Nikon. I am a big fan of Pentax and their cameras (as they are really good) but in this case the Pentax ecosystem might be a tad too expensive for you at the moment. Modern lens selection is very limited at Pentax whereas Nikon offers a shitload of different lenses- a lot of them for a good price. If the amount of money does not matter to you, feel free to buy into Pentax.
>>2714169
But if you're not retarded a 50mm would be less than ideal for portraiture (which is what makeup photography would be) so get an 85mm or a 105mm instead.
>>2713550
>>2714177
But anon, the 50mm would become 75mm on a 1.5x crop cam. 85mm would be 122,5mm and 105mm would be 152,5mm. Is there so much of a difference between 75mm and 85mm in terms of focal length and possible distortion?
>>2713591
it's actually completely fucking different. There is a difference between lacking the ability to capture a photograph with a fundamental rule of thumb that has been proven to give a better a result, and improving an already good picture by enhancing it in post-production. You literately just need to put the subject in your frame on the left or right third - if you need training wheels for your training wheels, you have a long way to go. Knowing how to enhance an image without actually ruining expresses your desired vision. git fucking gud, nigga.
How is the Canon kit lens? I am shooting on a crop sensor camera and want to buy the canon 24mm f2.8 for 40mm equivalent. Would that be a decent upgrade? Also, I am on a budget.
>>2714181
50mm does not "become" 75mm on a crop. Only the field of view. Focal length is exactly the same. This means magnification, and more importantly in your case, distortion, is exactly the same.
Any extra "reach" only comes from extra pixel density the DX sensor may have. But this is not always the case (pic related).
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows) Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 1000 Image Height 2000 Number of Bits Per Component 8, 8, 8 Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Created 2015:12:02 23:17:48 Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 400 Image Height 800
>>2714189
>distortion
>50/1.8D or G
>or any double gauss/planar design
nigga pls
also
>not wanting the ideal portrait lens for aps-c for $100
>>2714181
not the other anon, but... that's not how it works. distortion comes from the lens, it doesn't matter the crop factor, you'll just get a cropped in version of a 50mm lens' distortion. see very crudely made MS paint image
ah beaten to it >>2714189
>>2714193
the circles representing the distortion produced by the lens, but exaggerated ofc
>>2714189
>Only the field of view.
No shit dickhead... that's what they mean.
Want to post a diagram showing where the 2 photographers are standing in that pic you uploaded?
Or how about showing the same thing but with the photographers standing side by side?
coolpix A, ricoh GR, fuji x100
i own the coolpix exclusively and it's hard not having zoom as a beginner. any thoughts?
>>2714199
Actually, portraiture has favored focal lengths because they flatten or elongate the face. It has very little to do with FOV. It depends on the person you are shooting and the desired results.
Also, I took those shots from a tripod, from the lens collar. Moved nothing... simply swapped bodies. Try it yourself, retard.
>>2714199
Here is an uncropped shot. Full DX frame overlaid on full FX frame.
Same focal length = identical magnification. Only difference is from slightly more pixel density in the DX, and of course greater field of view in the FX.
Face it, faggot: The only extra "reach" is from pixel density, be it on DX or FX. If I had used D810 and D300, you would have seen considerably more "reach" from the FX.
>>2714199
> No shit dickhead
> dickhead
wtf?
>>2714199
BTW, here is the lens used.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Image Created 2015:08:27 10:00:41 Light Source Unknown Image Orientation Right-Hand, Top Image Height 667 Metering Mode Unknown Image Width 1000
>>2714212
Right vs wrong, dear wet-behind-the-ears Anon. It means something.
>maybe when you're all grown up
>and don't forget, be polite!
kek
anyway happy painting and god bless you angry young men
>>2714214
100% of this argument has no effect on actual picture taking. Doesn't matter you call it, doesn't matter what is technically correct.
A 50mm on DX is going to frame differently than a 50mm on FX, from the same location. A 50mm on DX will frame like a 75mm on FX. That's all you need to know, everything else is literally just mental masturbation.
If you get that upset over people misusing terms or whatever (I mean really, even taking comparison pics for us?), you should seriously consider seeking professional help. Maybe, just maybe, in the future you can try understanding "what someone means" rather than nitpicking what they say, you know?
>>2714205
Not the guy to whom you're replying, and I'm your side, but I've got a D300 and a D800. I think I'll do a comparison tonight, just as a fun little exercise.
Is a used 5D Mk II and a sigma 50 1.4 for 1500 bucks good upgrade for babby's first full frame? upgrade from a t3
I wanna sell my d5100 with 18-55 and 55-200. How much will I get in USD (if you can, convert to NZD but no biggie)
I wanna keep the 50 1.8 and buy an older FX dslr
OR
sell all of it together and buy a cheap canon 35mm dslr with a 50 1.x
Can someone suggest a price for selling and for buying? I don't care about brands. Not too fussy. I have a film camera which I like because it's 35mm. I like the d5100 but I can spend too much on G lenses, and all other (D, E etc) don't have focus motors. This I'd love to have a full frame dslr.
ta mates
>>2714222
...instead of, you know, going outside and shooting photos? Literally everyone is shooting without worrying over the technicality of crop vs FF.
Autism speaks, but it's time to shut the fuck up and post actual photography instead of comparison charts and numbers!
>>2714310
Get a D750 mate, or save up a bit and see what the Pentax FF offers when it comes out.
>>2714036
Neither is an investment, but I clearly prefer the a6000 myself.
> I'm on a budget
This would however point more to like a Canon or Nikon or Pentax, because most AF capable lenses for the neat a6000 are high-end FF glass. Which works very fine on an a6000, but it won't be cheap.
May I just suggest getting a Nikon D3x00 or Pentax K-50, for example?
>>2713641
Probably not.
It is more likely useful to get a Sony A7 II or Nikon D750 or something "high midrange" like that, and then spend the rest on glass, software, and storage on your computer or a NAS.
>>2714313
well i need a cheap camera ._.
any idea on the price?
>>2714318
>well i need a cheap camera ._.
What is cheap? I'd think by typical /p/overty standards, it won't be cheap enough.
>>2714318
If you need a cheap camera, just keep the D5200 and get some decent lens. Maybe if you get a good deal you might want to get a D7100 just so you can use older screwdrive AF lenses.
Unless you actually NEED a FF in which case you get a loan, buy a D810, some lenses and use it to pay for itself.
You don't really need a FF for hobby/enthusiast photography.
>>2714318
Maybe a Sony A7 (II) for FF - but the cheap lenses will basically all be MF glass.
For cheap with AF, stick with your current camera (it is quite cheap even for APS-C "G" glass), or get a Pentax K-50 or something, or an A6000 with more or less just the kit lenses and the three Sigma Art primes and MF glass. glass...
>>2714321
Yea no I have a job, as a photographer and a programmer, I do gigs around, here and there. But I mean I just like ff cameras, if I sell the d5100 for a 7100, you sure I will be able to use older lenses with no AF motors? So I sell this and buy a 7100 or 7000(as well compatible I assume?)!and a 35 1.x?
>>2714319
Cheap is around 1500 bucks
>>2714327
> Cheap is around 1500 bucks
Too cheap for a FF with a set of decent glass.
You can get an A6000 or keep your current Nikon, stick decent glass on it, and you should have something better than an older FF with okay glass, or new FF with terrible glass.
>>2714331
No set of decent glasses. Just one prime, a 35 or 50 will do fine
>>2714332
Hm, I guess you could meaningfully do it if you really just need one lens.
Grab a Sigma Art or Zeiss or something and stick it on the body of your choice, then.
(I'd still quite possibly use an A6000 or D5x00 / D7x00 or something anyways - better a new APS-C sensor than an old FF one, usually).
>>2714327
The D7x00 have the screw AF drive, just check the specs on some site like dpreview or snapsort.
Of course it is your money, you do what you want with it. I'm just suggesting to use it wisely because a simple lens on FX is not better than a premium lens with equivalent focal length on DX.
The most important parts to take a good photo in order are: the photographer, good quality lens, body.
I have a 18-55 / 55-200 & 28-80mm EF-S lenses, I recently went up from a 1000D to a 70D + 50mm, Would it be better to get rid of the 18 / 55 / 28 and get a 24-105mm f/4 L?
>>2714372
Nah, but replace some EF-S for Sigma Art or Tamron Di Vc, maybe, if you think stuff isn't sharp enough.
>>2714372
For what. Why would that be better?
>>2714220
Shush, please.
>>2714312
I'm the guy who posted the fridge magnets... telling me to go outside is like telling your mom to choke on cocks;
>way ahead of you, son
>>2714447
>Still not realizing he is irrelevant
It's like you have autism
>>2714065
bumping for this
>>2714312
kek, i go outside and shoot photos all of the fucking time, bruh.
>>2714482
Forgot my proof. 1600 photos in November, which is a slow month for me.
I'm ready to go small.
Should I get anything else than a Ricoh GRV?
what would be the best and at the same time 18-300 or 18-270 etc lens for canon? I just like to shoot trains as a hobby, and I AM SICK for having to carry two or three lenses at once
will quality of those suck? I already use fairly dark lenses so it's not like it's much of a deal breaker but still
I'm thinking about getting a Q-666C tripod for my Canon 70D. This will be my first tripod purchase. I want a compact tripod for backpacking and travel, something that can hold my camera and get the job done, and something in the $100-$200 price range. Is this a good tripod to get? I'm looking to do stills, macro, landscape, and video (action shots of wildlife). Also, is a ball head or a pan head better for these purposes and travel?
that level of superzoomingness will generally be a bit shit, yes.
If you hate carrying extra lenses that much maybe you'll have to plan ahead and consider where you'll be standing in relation to the train tracks. Then take the lens that's most suitable.
>>2713237
A bag that looks like shit is less likely to be stolen though.
>>2714471
You were proven wrong.
Get over it, man. No need to keep changing defenses.
>>2714222
Do it, please. Post results.
>>2714527
Yes, these extreme zoom lenses suck.
Then again, most people who're lazy as fuck will just go with these anyways. Or even a super zoom. I don't approve, but it might be a very realistic and convenient plan for you regardless.
Also, it's not like most of them super zoomers had actually good gear before either, so they probably aren't missing much.
>>2714543
I'll suggest a Dic&Mic E302C ($120 for the carbon variant - E302 Alu variant is $90).
Or one of the smaller travel Siruis.
But the Q-666 is okay, too.
>>2714546
that's what I always do but usually end up taking 3 anyway, just in case. I wish for a world in which I could take just one lens with camera everywhere and that it would be enough
thanks both anons for now I stopped myself from throwing 1000$ away. I wonder if there's a place where one can lend a lens to check it out for a few days
Hola
Canon 60D or 700D? I have already got some lenses so I am asking just about the body, but I wonder which one would be a better choice (I can have either of them used for around 350$), both have like 4k shutter count as well
I don't care about making movies, I just want to take pictures (ideally faster than on my 400d)
>>2714577
60D
hey guys
Im getting a new camera for christmas
used mainly for travel photos, all kinds of travel like buildings, landscapes, people, night-time
id like it to be portable (fit in my manbag) smaller and lighter the more likely I'll bring it everywhere
it would be nice if it was waterproof and durable but not really necessary.
budget is about £250 or 400USBenjamins
did a bit of reading and I like this one the TZ70 but its not a bridge or anything..
how viable is 5d mk1 in 2015?
I
m looking for a camera to get into digital with, ive owned an olympus pen ep3 and an xe1 for a while so im used to shitty autofocus.
I shoot film and the idea of having a full frame sensor is really appealing to me.
my only concern is that apparently it has some shutter lag, anyone have experience with the mk1?
how bad is the shutter lag?
Fuji X-T10 + XF F2 WR
Sony A7 Body
Canon 750d + Sigma/ Tamron 17-50 f2.8
Nikon D5300 + Sigma/ Tamron 17-50 f2.8
which one /p/? for the Sony I'd be using my Zuiko 50mm F1.8 and 28mm F2.8 and buy some more nice legacy glass.
>>2714588
If you ask me, not viable unless this is some $35 deal and you don't really care much.
I'd personally take an APS-C A6000 or Nikon D7200 or something over even the 5D Mark II (not the Mark III, though). It's just basically entirely a better choice, despite being APS-C and not FF. ISO sensitivity will more than make up for the stop lost.
>>2714564
Thank you. I think I'll opt for the E302C. I did some research and compared them. The E302C is almost exactly the same as the Q-666C, but with a couple more features and cheaper. The ball seems a little better too, even though they are all not that good. The Siruis seems to fall a bit short in some areas compared to the other two just by looking at the specs.
>>2714584
Get the FZ200 instead. It has a really great zoom lens (f2.8 throughout the range), Raw capability, a really nifty 1080p video mode and much more.
>>2714588
It's a nice camera but that's it.
>XE1
I can assure you that your XE1 produces a hundred times better looking results than the 5D. Yes, the 5D is a full frame camera but it has so much worse dynamic range, an old processing unit, lots of shutter issues and/or mirrors falling out.
It is your decision, anon.. I for one wouldn't buy it.
>>2714501
Still haven't seen any photos, or even proof that you shoot photos. Way to shitpost. ;)
>>2714593
Can't really go wrong with the E302C for that price and size and weight.
Also, free DHL shipping on Aliexpress with the prices I mentioned (and I don't think anyone has them cheaper) - a nice touch, I'd say.
>>2714591
I'd get the A7 or D5300.
But I guess for either of those the goal would be to soon get more high-end glass, in my case.
>>2714597
I just now ordered one :D. You're right, it really is a good deal. The free shipping is a nice plus too. I can't wait to receive it. I'm gonna bring it with me on a trip to Ossabaw island in Georgia. The 70D is great for shooting wildlife so I'm hoping to take some good pictures and videos with it and use this tripod to my advantage. Down the line, can I switch out the ball head for another type of head if needed? Is the ball head good for taking videos of animals?
>>2714594
TZ70 vs FZ200
its almost twice the size and weight.. is it twice as good?
>>2714608
> Down the line, can I switch out the ball head for another type of head if needed?
Yes, no problem. Just screw on another head and go.
> Is the ball head good for taking videos of animals?
Not especially. You can loosen it or tighten it just fine, but it's not like it'll give you an extremely smooth motion like a fluid adjustable-drag video head with counterbalance springs and what not.
But you should try it if it will do it well enough - it's still going to be a lot better than just handheld. Not like it can move up and down or sideways freely, for instance.
>>2714334
>>2714335
Yea I got that old ff < new crop
And that old ff with meh lens < new crop prem lens, thanks for all that ))
But I really really like the larger viewfinder view on ff cameras and the 50 1.8 is a pretty good lens :((((
Anywho, if the d7x00 does in fact have a AF motor in the body, I'll stick to that at the moment.
Any idea on the price of
Sell:
> D5100
> twin kit 18-55 55-200
> charger/battery
> 2 SD cards 4gb
Buying:
> body D7x00 (cheap pref)
> charger/battery obviously
>>2714594
>>2714613
see sizes.. i think if its this big i wont bring it out very often, dat superzoom doe
anyone know of a source where i can get different kinds of focusing screens for a minolta x700?
>>2714615
That's very helpful, thank you. So what would you recommend as a good adjustable-drag video head? The ball head will probably be just fine for now though.
>>2714629
Haven't actually got a good grasp on the various models of video heads myself - I only know a bunch of photo heads... and some features that were on video heads that I tried once upon a time.
You'll probably have to wait for someone else to give suggestions.
>>2714638
Alright, thank you anyways. You have been a big help to me.
I have the opportunity to buy second hand Canon Rebel xsi for 250 euro. Yay or nae? It'll be my first SLR. Thanks.
>>2714671
Watching a video review, one of the first things I hear is it's 12.1 mega pixels. Was supposed to get a Nikon d3200 a week ago but it sold before I got it. They're 21 mp I think. My samsung s5 is 16mp. Does mp not matter that much when talking about slr cameras?
>>2714681
Megapixels don't mean much unless you are professionally printing large. Which you don't.
3 megapickles is enough for digital and web.
Still the 250€ feels a bit too high for a price.
I'd suggest looking into a used Pentax K-30 or K-50 or a Sony NEX 5n/5r, your money will be much better spent.
>>2714684
Thanks for the tip. Would you recommend buying from keh.com ?
>>2714684
Oh and the xsi for 250 came with charger and card. Would that explain the price?
>>2714694
lol no, anon. the xsi/450D is a fucking dinosaur. I wouldnt pay more than $75 for it.
>>2714696
haha, yeah I seen that it's fairly old. Ok, I'm just gonna wait it out for a better camera to come along. There's just one decent camera shop in town where I live so I have told him let me know when he gets trade ins. He's probably just chancing his arm charging me 250. Good thing we have internet these days.
>>2714690
KEH is an excellent place to buy your camera from. So is ebay.
whats a full frame step up from a t3i
>>2714829
For what. But seriously, literally every full frame camera.
>want to get an ice light, since I like doing light painting shots of cars
>think they're overpriced at $500
>realise they don't ship to my country (australia)
>find a local supplier
>http://www.kayellaustralia.com.au/light-p-4472.html
NINE HUNDRED DOLLARS
I
N
E
H
U
N
D
R
E
D
D
O
L
L
A
R
S
>>2714829
the 6d is canon's entry level full frame camera
it pretty much has the controls of a 60d, with a full frame sensor
>>2714834
Don't you just love all the great photography deals we get here?
D7x00 or D700 or D3
for a cheap camera that have AF motors so D/E/etc AF lenses work
also how much would my D5100 with 18-55 and 55-200 go for? including 2 SD cards, battery, charger and it's cables.
I just picked up a refurbished from the factory T5 with the standard 18-55mm for $230. I like pictures of city scapes and girls. Working on getting a tripod and can research what the fuck im doing by myself for the most part. Though for what I mentioned, what lenses should I be saving for and what am I going to learn to love and hate about this camera? Thanks!
>>2714865
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Tamron-17-50mm-f-2.8-XR-Di-II-Lens-Review.aspx
as an all-rounder, this lens is pretty sweet, especially considering the price
the canon 50mm 1.4/1.8 is pretty good also, but af is hit and miss, and the framing is a bit too tight on crop to be useful in a lot of situations
>>2714834
>http://www.kayellaustralia.com.au/light-p-4472.html
Jesus just build one yourself
what do you think about pana g3+20mm 1.7/14mm 2.5?
its good cheap set for snapshits?
>>2714865
> what lenses should I be saving for
What you might generally want is -in 35mm equivalent terms- from ~20mm for cities and perhaps groups of people to medium telephoto ~135mm for low distortion head & shoulder portraits of girls.
On cameras like that Rebel T5 of yours, most people work with low-end zoom lenses or the most inexpensive of primes. The goal usually is more to keep it cheap as fuck than anything else.
> and what am I going to learn to love and hate about this camera
Why don't you find out...?
>>2714878
It is a set for snapshits. Wouldn't really call it good.
Maybe get a Nikon D3200, D3300, Pentax K-50, K-S2, or Olympus OM-D E-M10 or something like that instead, even if you want *very* cheap.
>tfw got an A7 after years of shooting only film
>>2714886
Sure? Should be quite a bit cheaper than film if you shoot somewhat often.
Upgrading from D3200 to something more decent. Current limitations include bad low light photos and overall noisy photos. I do landscape and portraits for the most part. Got about $1000 to work with, maybe 1200 tops
>>2714892
You can't get a really good low light shooter (A7S [II], A7R II, D4S, 1D X, ...) for that little, not with matching lenses anyways.
And it's not like a better APS-C (A6000, D3300, D7200, whatever) will really do much more for ISO performance.
I guess the best option for this might be a better and faster lens? Or save up a bit more until you can get an A7S.
>>2714893
Also, for portraits, the obvious thing is just to use strobes.
Easy to get basically no noise at base ISO that way.
>>2714892
A D3200 has a quite nice sensor in it that does fin in low light. It just comes with a crappy consumer interface and a slow kit lens. Things you should try, in this order:
-make sure your ISO isn't set to something ridiculous, or that the auto-iso setting isn't allowed to go up too high. Keep it to 1600 and below.
-put it on a tripod and trade shutter speed for sensitivity
-buy faster glass. you don't say what you're using now, but I'm guessing that it's the kit 18-55 or one of its relatives. Maybe some Sigma or Tamron 17-50/2.8, or f/1.8 primes would be in order
Getting a D5x00 doesn't really change anything for your purposes. A D7x00, or any FF body, has a better interface and will make it easier to tell the camera things like "No, don't set exposure like that, I want to keep the sensitivity lower". Easier - it's not like it's impossible with what you have.
>>2714897
> Any other Sony A series worth getting or no?
Hrm. Not entirely. For low light, the A7S, A7S II and the A7R II are king in the A series (and also more or less the winners in general). But only the A7S will be near your price range... unfortunately that is without a lens.
Still, an A7S can give you like seven stops better performance than a D3200 with a matching lens - nothing even comes close.
The A7 II is great, but the only improvement on low-light ability over a D3200 or A6000 or so will be the extra stop you get from it being FF.
The A6000 also is great for settings (like the ISO limiter and what not) and IMO overall a far better camera for its features. But with regards to low light specifically, it is only very marginally better than the D3200 in ISO performance; ball park estimate a quarter stop.
>>2714897
>Any lenses you can recommend for the d3200 then?
Maybe a Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 or the Sigma Art f/1.4 primes (most of which are FF).
>>2714898
Much obliged, advice is very appreciated
>>2714897
If you can't make a nice landscape with that camera you'll not make it any better with pretty much any other camera.
Sensors are shared through higher end and lower end cameras (provided it's the same dimensions - apsc or 35mm).
It's the body that makes the difference for higher end bodies and lower end ones, but as for IQ it's just the sensor.
tl;dr ur doing it wrong
>>2714903
I have to disagree, didn't really say anywhere that I don't take good landscapes ( at least I personally don't think I do). But I'll definitely take what you say into consideration, I certainly don't know everything there is to know about sensors and the really technical stuff
Hello, friends.
What is a good and cheap entry level NIKON macro lens? I don't need anything fantastic, just something that will let me take macro pictures.
I've been using the kit lens (18-55mm) for that but I need something that will focus closer.
Other than the Kit lens, i've got a 55-200mm.
>>2714910
To get macro really cheap: You could use extension tubes or could stick a Marumi or Dörr or some other brand of +3 to +5 diopter achromat lens in front of your 55-200mm.
Here's how the achromat option looks with a bunch of cameras and achromats:
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3453401
There also are some older MF zoom lenses that can go pseudo "macro" at 1:2 - enough for like, photographing jewelry.
The actual 100mm-ish macro lenses that I like are $500-1000 or so - not cheap, not expensive. A decent option at the lower end of that is a Tamron SP 90mm f/2.8.
>>2714913
More samples for Marumi:
https://www.flickr.com/groups/marumi/pool/
You can see that this and the really extremely cheap extension tubes (China has sets of 3 for like $10 shipped) might be the thing to get first if you're on a budget.
>>2714917
or perhaps this one
http://www.amazon.com/PLR-Close-Up-Digital-18-55mm-75-300mm/dp/B007N83VQM/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&qid=1449230716&sr=8-5&keywords=diopter+macro
>>2714910
>>2714915
with the kit lens, get some extension tubes
be careful getting cheap ones though, you want them to be sturdily made, and if you're using a lens with an electronic diaphragm, make sure the tubes you get have pin contacts
I bought a set of kenko tubes, and they've served me well for the last 2 years
>>2714920
Ah yes, and the PLR set looks like single lenses, not achromats.
Those also can be fun (and cheap as fuck), but they will certainly effect the image.
Is the D700 still a good buy, or am I better off getting a D600?
The D700 seems to have a film like look to it that the D600 lacks. Has a better viewfinder to manually focus. It also is a bit cheaper.
But the D600 has among the best image quality.
So I love taking pictures but I was never into the whole "photography" thing, recently I found this camera in the closet of my grandparents house and they didnt even know they had it so I took it.
So basicaly I don't know how to work this thing. For some reason when I shoot without flash it looks as if there is no focus and it looks like i moved every time. Does anyone know if i can change a setting or something on this thing so i dont need to always shoot with flash to get clear pictures?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make samsung Camera Model SM-G355HN Camera Software G355HNXXU0AOF2 Maximum Lens Aperture f/2.6 Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 2560 Image Height 1920 Image Orientation Right-Hand, Top Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2015:12:04 18:30:46 Exposure Time 1/8 sec F-Number f/2.6 Exposure Program Aperture Priority ISO Speed Rating 144 Lens Aperture f/2.6 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Center Weighted Average Flash No Flash Focal Length 3.31 mm Comment User Comments Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 2560 Image Height 1920 Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Unique Image ID IMAGE 2015:12:04 18:30:46
>>2714976
>recently I found this camera in the closet
Congrats on coming out man, you're now a /p/haggot like the rest of us
Is it even possible to take really sharp pictures with a nifty fifty?
A few of my friends have really nice L series lenses so I'm really starting to see the difference in quality.
Is it even possible to match that quality with a nifty fifty? Or is it purely build quality that makes it better? Sorry if this is confusing
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CC (Macintosh) Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 750 Image Height 750 Number of Bits Per Component 8, 8, 8 Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2015:05:11 06:32:25 Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 640 Image Height 460
>>2714977
I didn't know finding a camera automaticaly makes you a /p/haggot lol
>>2714980
You missed the joke son
>>2714978
Sure there is a difference. The nifty fifties were pretty good and are still great for their price, but the difference pretty much starts to show fairly strongly with 16MP+ cameras.
Get a Sigma Art though, they're almost all matching or beating the Canon "L" glass when they exist, and they are cheaper.
If you want to spend even more money on sharpness, the E-mount with it's lineup of delicious Zeiss and bonus Sony glass or Nikon with its Zeiss and Nikkors are both kinda even better.
>>2714981
I didnt come out of the closet my camera did
>>2714985
THAT'S THE FUCKING JOKE
you people are dumb as fuck
maybe instead of sperging over unnecessary gear or spending your whole day in photoshop fixing your shit mistakes, you should pick up a fucking book or two and read or interact with people and gain a sense of general understanding
>>2714997
but the joke wasn't funny...
>>2714998
so? it's not my joke but if you cant even understand it..
>>2715006
not the same anon, i understand it don't think it's funny, it's like this
>retard tries to make a joke
>isn't funny
>"everyone's too dumb to get this hilarious joke"
>>2714978
Just don't shoot wide open
Here's it at f/1.8 vs at f/4
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties:
>>2714978
my pentaks 1.4 is pretty sharp at f2.
get a sigma. it will be sharp wide open.
>>2714982
sony 90mm fe.
sharpest lens ever.
>>2714189
>>2714193
>>2714205
To anybody that somehow doesn't know about how crop factor affects focal length, ignore this fucktard he is being a pendantic moron.
When you are talking a bout a 50mm lens designed for a APS-C sensor, then it is equivalent in magnification to a ~75mm lens on a full frame sensor. If this wasn't the case then compact cameras would have maginification of about 0.1x what your eye sees.
What said fucktard meant to say is that if you take a lens designed for a full frame and mount it on a camera with APS-C sensor then the magnification does not change, assuming same pixel resolution on both sensors.
tbqh familia desu.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make FUJIFILM Camera Model X-T10 Camera Software GIMP 2.8.10 Maximum Lens Aperture f/3.5 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 42 mm Maker Note Version 0130 Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Created 2015:12:04 20:05:10 Exposure Time 1/125 sec F-Number f/4.5 Exposure Program Aperture Priority ISO Speed Rating 1000 Lens Aperture f/4.4 Brightness 4.4 EV Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 28.20 mm Color Space Information Uncalibrated Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Sharpness Normal Subject Distance Range Unknown Sharpness Normal White Balance Auto Chroma Saturation Normal Flash Mode Off Focus Mode Auto Slow Synchro Mode Off Picture Mode Aperture Prior AE Continuous/Bracketing Mode Off Blur Status OK Focus Status OK Auto Exposure Status OK
I'm thinking about upgrading from a Nikon D5200.
Should I buy a D7100 or go all the way with a D610?
The lens I've got that are DX will still work on the D610, right? IRC the FX cameras have a DX mode built in.
anyone want to help a poor uni student out? I don't have a camera, other than the shitty one in my phone, and it's shit, missing pixels, etc. I'm paying for uni with scholarships/grants. I would buy a cheap film camera but I cant afford perpetuous film and development costs.
>>2715039
The lenses will work but only in DX(crop) mode. In Fx mode, you'll get a shitload of vignetting instead.
But still.. get the D610.
>>2715045
get a job and earn your own money, pal.
It's not like I get my gear by not doing anything at all
>>2715047
I work as a lab tech/research assistant but that goes for rent
>>2715030
Yep, sure. I got and like that lens a lot. It's a brilliant piece of glass - that or better is how glass always should be like. Actually, I guess it will actually have to be more like this as we move up in resolution on sensors...
It however also it helps you identify every last speck of dust anywhere. Pic related, didn't even see the dust on this ~2cm bunny until I shot it.
I'm surprised about the "sharpest ever" part though. Does it actually beat an Otus?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi
>>2715046
is full frame that much better?
>>2715058
Sure it does. Macro lenses have always focused on being sharp. You might be shocked to find that most everyday macro lenses have much better sharpness than any other lenses of the same class. The Otus, however, both have f/1.4 apertures which is not to be ignored when looking at comparative price vs sharpness.
>>2715045
Yeah, let me just give my money to some dickhead I don't know..
Hi, was asking for advice yesterday on purchasing a rebel xsi. Was told it's a dinosaur and was over priced at 250euro.
Have the chance to buy new Canon 1200d in a kit with a lense for 370euro. Advice please?
>>2715076
Advice? Don't buy Canon.
>>2715079
Awh why? Is it just your opinion? Surely they can't be that bad seeing as it's such a common brand. What do you advise buying? Nikon?
>>2715076
1200d, decent camera for a newbie. Go for it, I have one and its served me well. Regardless of the tech, if you're shit at taking pictures it doesn't matter how much money you piss down the drain.
>>2715062
I see. Well, I just remember being impressed as fuck by the Otus. Never had the money to buy that one, though.
Anyhow, the 90mm FE certainly gets my recommendation. But as a 50mm replacement the corresponding Sigma Art -or on the E-mount, the Zeiss Sonnar T* 55mm- should be a more direct upgrade.
They all quite clearly have better IQ / resolving power, not just better build quality. And arguably, better looking bokeh.
>>2715076
Not really worth 370 Euro.
If you must stay at around 350 Euro, try the D3200:
http://snapsort.com/compare/Canon-EOS-1200D-vs-Nikon-D3200/detailed
The D3300 should also be priced quite comparably.
>>2715083
I don't want to piss money down the drain though. Is it just a matter of opinion when it comes to Nikon and Canon? Like arguing about Playstation and Xbox?
>>2715090
The same shop had a d3200 for 300 Euro. But someone snapped it up, pun intended.
I think they might be trying to fuck me over with prices because they know I'm interested in getting a cheaper camera and it's the only decent camera shop in my city. I'll try buy from internet instead I think.
Going to go for D3200 as I've done a bit of research on that one!
>>2715091
It's not only an opinion. Canon kinda dropped the ball on most of their cameras, sensors and other features are pretty shit especially on the lower-end offerings.
Just play around on Snapsort / Camera Decision a bit and compare Canon to Nikon / Sony / Pentax (Sony and Pentax should also get a bonus for not really removing physical controls and software features on most lower-end models - arguably, there's the a5100 vs a6000 thing, but well, it's not nearly as pricey to you to get the a6000).
Here's the Camera Decision link pendant to the Snapsort one:
http://cameradecision.com/compare/Canon-EOS-1200D-vs-Nikon-D3200
>>2715091
>Like arguing about Playstation and Xbox
Perfect analogy. However, his point still stands. If you are shit a taking pictures, doesnt matter what you get, itd still be a waste of money
I'm not familiar with canon, so i don't know if that purchase is a good one. But buying a canon camera is more or less the equivalent of a nikon purchase, all things being more or less the same. Or better said, you wouldnt be able to tell any difference if youre new, and so they would be equivalent to the untrained eye
>>2715093
The D3200 kit is still around 340 Eur on the German Amazon for starters & the D3300 is about 380.
If the 370 for the Canon were acceptable, this should probably be okay, too.
>>2715091
Considering the Playstation has been superior in every generation compared to the Xbox (PS2 sales were the highest despite hardware power, PS3 had higher processing power and better exclusives that weren't just FPSes, PS4 is Wii levels of sales right now with promises of good games like FF15 and Kingdom Hearts), Sony vs Microsoft isn't a good analogy to describe Nikon vs Canon
>>2715102
> 430 euro on amazon uk. :/
That would easily make it cheaper to import from Germany then, no?
If Amazon won't do it for you, then another German store from some price comparison website or google or where ever might.
>>2715104
pls go back to >>>/v
To an individual who has never played gaymes before, deciding whether to buy an xbox or playstation is hardly a reason to go into so much detail. either way he'll enjoy it and wont be able to tell the difference.
>>2715102 EOS 100D kit is 350€+ in amazon.de and should be fine. (Better than 1200D.)
Amazon.uk prices do appear bit silly.
>>2715105
Yeah, it's actually free shipping to Ireland. Happy days!
>>2715109
Neat. Hope that works out for you! It's at least good value as such...
What's a cheap point-and-shoot camera that is significantly better than an iPhone camera?
I was checking out the Nikon COOLPIX L840 Digital Camera for $160 on amazon. Any suggestions?
>>2715061
Depends what you're shooting, and if you plan on getting FX lenses.
For low light, yes. For action, the D7100 has twice the shutter speed... but really, 1/4000 is more than fast enough.
I have both, and barely notice a difference until the sun starts getting low in the sky.
I would recommend D7200. You really never "have to" move to full frame.
>>2715028
>Not showing actual sample images
>>2715138
You don't take PHOTOS with your lenses, that lowers the resale value! You get dust and smudges, and what if you scratch the glass?? ?? No no, photograpy is about having the best kit that can take the best THEORETICAL images, not about actually trying to capture photos. God, you're so new. I'm glad I got to you before you ruined your life.
>>2715132
The Nikon you have posted is alright.. just don't expect any sort of miracles.
Want something really good for a low price?
Get a used Canon PowerShot S100 and put the CHDK Firmware mod on it.
>what does it do?
-Better video
-Timelapse
-enables RAW
-HDR mode
etc
Feel free to google the other specs.
>>2715132
>point and shoot
>better than an iphone
Don't even bother. Unless you want to go pro and get a dslr, just stick with a phone camera.
>>2715142
>The Nikon you have posted is alright
Bridge cameras are never the right answer.
>>2715145
I didn't say that it's a good camera, anon. It's alright; nothing more and nothing less than that.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Canon Camera Model Canon EOS 5D Mark III Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows) Photographer shats Maximum Lens Aperture f/2.8 Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 3840 Image Height 5760 Number of Bits Per Component 8, 8, 8 Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Created 2013:05:16 23:02:26 Exposure Time 1/250 sec F-Number f/2.8 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 100 Lens Aperture f/2.8 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 100.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1024 Image Height 683 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Manual Scene Capture Type Standard
>>2715146
Maybe look for a used S95 as well. It's almost the same as the S100, just without GPS.
>>2715148
>Canon PowerShot S100
Looked it up. Says it has 10 mega pixels. Is that better than the iPhone which has 8 mega pixels?
I've also been told that MP doesn't actually matter for image quality. Is that true?
>>2715150
>I've also been told that MP doesn't actually matter for image quality. Is that true?
Yes that's true. It's the quality of the pixels, more than the quantity, and the quality of these is much better.
>>2715132
Pretty much none of them can beat an iPhone 6s for cheap.
P&S style cameras might start to beat it when they also have good fixed glass... maybe at $400 or thereabouts - the price point when you also can get multiple recent-ish entry-level IL cameras.
>>2715150
MP only matter if you wanna do huge prints. For things like Instagram, you pretty much don't need more than 4mp or so.
Also, the S95/100 has a larger sensor than the iPhone, a way better lens and more options. The benefits are: More dynamic range, sharper images, the option of editing RAW images and much more.
>>2715156
I'm seeing the S95 for $95 on ebay. It's used. Is this a good deal?
>>2715174
Very good deal to be honest.
is the sony alpha any good. of course its not a fancy dslr. im on a budget here.
>>2715197
>alpha
Well, which one in particular?
>>2714047
Mirrorless, something like an A7s or a FujiX with a nice wide lense.
>>2715076
Canon are really mocking people know with their lineup. Canon get your fucking finger out, you have great IP use it!
