first for subject, light, and opportunity make for pictures, not fancy gear. it's more important to know how to make the most of what you have, than to buy a shiny toy.

also pentax a shit :^)

>>2721365

Anybody?

It's figuratively driving me insane. It's a huge annoyance having to save one place and then move them to the place you really wanted them to be.

>>2723440
This, but haven't we all fallen to this trap?

People feel the need to possess new equipment because they're not actually getting anywhere with their current equipment. They presume that upgrading equipment will improve their photography, but as we all know this isn't the case.

How do I clean my lenses? I've been shooting a while and ive been getting some dust and other everyday use stuff building up.

>>2723490
Buff them with a really fine polishing paste and a microfibre cloth (toothpaste works too), then do a final wipe with isopropyl alcohol and a one use len cleaning paper tissue.

>>2723440
>also pentax a shit :^)
y-you are

Canon 5Dmk3 or Nikon D750

Want to get into astrophotography and portraits.

File: Zenfolio-ByDawnLight-Camera-Noise-2.jpg (153 KB, 1120x748) Image search: [Google]

153 KB, 1120x748

>>2723519
Dunno about Nikons, but consider this for the Canons.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Skitch
Image-Specific Properties:
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1120
Image Height	748

>>2723519
disclaimer, I own the D750, but not an astro guy. i am a portrait guy.

the D750 is the high ISO king right now. lens selection doesn't matter too much here, the prime, wide, super telephotos (I mean the 600/4s) are outrageously expensive either way, and the Tamron 15-30/2.8 is a great lens for either mount (or there's the rokinon 24/1.4 for either mount which is again great). I think the Nikon lenses in the very wide lengths, zoom and prime, are overpriced, but I haven't tried Canon's.

for portraiture I personally enjoy the Canon colors but bought the Nikon D750 for other reasons. Canon has a great, amazing, spectacular 100/2 for an affordable price. for either mount you can buy a more expensive 85/1.8 which is something of a standard. I use a 100/2.8 macro for my portrait work (Tokina, $379). I also think between the Nikkor and the Canon telephoto 2.8 zooms that the Canons are all better. especially the affordable and timeless 80-200/2.8 magic drainpipe. the Nikkor VRII is overpriced and I don't use it, I use a Tamron 70-200/2.8.

both are great cameras, the D750 has a much better price and some great tricks.

good luck.

I'm looking for recommendations for a tripod which isn't manfrotto expensive but neither cheap shit that bends (which I already have).

I see a lot of reviews and many brands in stores but I don't feel convinced and the shilling doesn't help me making a choice.

>>2723519
a7sII

>>2723444
screencap your export window

>>2723576
What's your budget? "Manfrotto Expensive" doesn't help at all, because they have tripods starting at $80.

>>2723584
Now that you mention that...
Well I guess nothing over 150.
Ideally under 100 because I'm cheap.
I just have no idea about tripods, I've always used hand me downs (which I don't have right now) or cheapo ones (like those aluminium ones that are light but terrible).
Yeah I guess 100 is the max, and I could push it a bit if the quality jump is worth it. But if it ain't, then just under 100 as it's what I have budgeted for.

>>2723587
It depends what country you're in, but this guy always recommends these dic&mics from aliexpress >>2719838. I saw another anon a while ago mention that he bought the carbon fibre variant, and that it was pretty good.

I was in your exact position a couple weeks ago, I initially set a budget of $100, however I just dropped $300 on a tripod 2 days ago. Do a lot of research, buying the absolute best tripod you can comfortably afford is going to save you the most money in the long run.

So I'm sort of new to Pentax mounts, what kind of things can I mount on a K-50? I'm already looking at the 35mm macro. Can you only mount DA lenses on K-50's?

I had a Canon a long while back but had to sell it, just now starting to get back in and I ended up going Pentax because of their WR DSLR, which would help considering the weather is odd here.

>>2723629
Literally anything with a K mount

>>2723629
All lenses made for Pentax K mount ever and all M42 lenses using an adapter ring, but I recommend buying one directly from Pentax. Th chinese ones can get stuck on your camera mount.
If it doesn't have contacts and aperture lever you still have active metering and Av mode. Best system to hoard magnificent old lenses.
For manual focus you have focus assist in the viewfinder and beeps when your AF point gets in focus, also you have Catch in Focus feature where the camera fires automatically when you pull on the focus on your subject. There is also pixel peaking in liveview.
Basically you can put on an M42 lens from the 50s and have metering and stabilization.

So I posted in the last thread that I have a Canon 6D, M3, Tamron 24-70mm and 70-200mm f/2.8 as well as an EF 50mm f/1.8 and 40mm f/2.8 STM lenses.

I'm looking for a dedicated macro lens since I want to get into macro. What does /p/ recommend? Don't really have a budget but I can spend up to $1,500 I guess.

Bonus if it includes a macro ring light too?

>>2723692
tokina 100mm macro for $380

>>2723532
So the 6D still has Canon's best low-light sensor?

>>2723698
As good as my K-3 as far as effective dynamic range goes.

>>2723696
I was leaning towards the Canon MP-E 65mm 1-5x Macro instead. How well does that Tokina compete against the Canon?

>>2723700
65mm isn't telephoto enough(especially on FF), you'll probably end up too close to the light source, creating a shadow

and macro rings are shite

>>2723699
Try shooting at 3200 ISO with your babby crop-sensor.

>>2723700
Shoo, gearfag

>>2723704
Hmm yeah I guess lighting is very important in photography and I know you need longer shutter speeds for macro.

Thanks I'll think about 100mm then, there's that Canon EF L 100mm too which looks good.

Thanks for the patience, just getting into photography in these past couple of months.

>>2723708
This is the Gear thread though... Do you want me to make a dedicated thread?

>>2723705
I regularly shoot ISO 3200 and 6400 for astro. I even shot a few events at ISO 6400 and still got away with details and usable photos. Even ISO 12800 gives me usable shots.

Speaking of Astrophotography, I would like to add a longer lens to my arsenal here >>2723692. What lenses do you recommend? Maybe a super telephoto (500mm or more)?

>>2723715
>arsenal
Fuck. Off.

If you're really interested in astro though, look for a Celestron set with HEQ5 mount with autoguider and a Newtonian tube 200 or bigger modified for DSLRs.

>>2723717
>Fuck. OFF.
Why are you so hostile?

Thanks for the suggestion but there's no need to be upset.

>>2723719
Nigga's just jelly. Poorfags tend to get very gelatinous.

>>2723715
I like wide lenses for dramatic vistas as well as taking noice shots of the Milky Way. But if you want to get into planetary astrophotography then you'll need a serious telephoto or a straight up telescope with a T-Mount adapter.

Also use a laptop with EOS Utility for remote shooting so it's easier to get a dope zoom for maximum clarity and sharpness.

>>2723715
Your attempt at trolling is pathetic, fuck off please

>>2723733
How am I trolling? If you think that's trolling, then you haven't been on the internet for too long.

I just want to spend my money and buy gear...

Imagine if you will, since Voigtlander now has a superfast ultra wide for mft, imagine them doing a nokton 75mm f/0.95

>>2723744
So? Nobody cares about microturds.

>>2723743
>I just want to spend my money and buy gear...
That's the thing, the fact that you're asking for advice means you're either 100% retarded, or troll.

>>2723640
>also you have Catch in Focus feature where the camera fires automatically when you pull on the focus on your subject
>tfw Nikons no longer have trap focus
>tfw Nikon is too jew to put focus peaking in LV

>>2723749
Maybe I'm just ignorant, not as knowledgeable. Maybe I'm just excited about this new hobby.

You're such a salty nigger.

>>2723752
>just excited about this new hobby
You only need ya kit lens on your Rebel body for this. Anything more you can buy when you actually have the need for it.
1/10 made me reply.

>>2723752
And that's the thing, you still have no reason at all to ask for help. Assuming you are just ignorant, you don't have a problem spending frivously, so why not just keep buying whatever shit crosses your mind?

You don't need our permission to buy shit, just go ahead, like you already have. If you want that macro lens, buy that fucking macro lens. If you want that astro lens, but that fucking astro lens. You don't need strangers on the internet advising what you can/cant't/should purchase, just buy what the fuck you want.

http://www.shopgoodwill.com/auctions/Leica-DBP-M3-35mm-Film-Camera-Hector-135cm-Lens-26276145.html
What's up with the big scratch on the top plate? I was going to say that someone stole the thing and ground down the serial, but the serial was still there.
Did someone perhaps engrave their name onto it and then someone attempted to sand it off?

>>2723775
>Personal info has been removed/dremeled off
Learn to read. Also it's an old shit Leica, if it's more than $150 than it doesn't worth it

>>2723776
Shit I'm retarded.

Is the sigma 20mm or 24mm better for landscapes?

>>2723801
The one you can get in a better position for a landscape shot.
In other words your question is stupid.

>>2723801
It's all a matter of preference, there is no "this one's better than this one". If you like wider angles, then get the 20mm.

Good cheap manual wide angle prime?
I need below 16mm, full frame and manual focus.
New or used, I don't care.
Needs to be EF mount and FF because I plan on getting a 6D soon.
I've seen the Rokinon 14mm f2.8 and it looks ideal, anyone tried it?
Thanks.

>>2723810
The Samyang 14mm f2.8 is the exact same as the Rokinon isn't it? If not then look at the Samyang.

>>2723813
Yeah I'm pretty sure Samyang and Rokinon are the same people.

>>2723440
>make most of what you have
>Pentax a shit :^)

Wat?

>>2723814
Well as far as I know the only complaints I've seen for the Rokinon/Samyang is that focusing to infinity is all fucked up and not accurate at all.

>>2723705
My 550D shoots fine at ISO3200.
Most shots are usable at ISO6400

>>2723825
Can vouch. My infinity is at like 0.7 metres. You can fix it by disassembling some stuff but I really cbf. It's really a none issue once you know where it is on the scale.

Lens is great though. Probably my most used.

File: screen 1.png (179 KB, 1000x572) Image search: [Google]

179 KB, 1000x572

>>2723581

This is all that shows up for export, just the files tree under my user account. None of my other drives or 'my computer' show up anymore.

If you have any ideas beyond re-install I'd be happy to hear them, thanks.

What kind of dslr would you recommend for under $300 used, if I don't care about features, only image quality for landscapes/street photography, and also good low light performance. Video is not necessary, but nice to have.

is ricoh gr shit?

>>2723853
nope

>>2723856
why not

>>2723853
It's okay, but not at the high end of cameras.

Just a decent small compact that performs okay for its price.

>>2723861
wot bout the a6000 with a 24mm 1.8 ZA

>>2723430
Why is Canon hated so much in the photography industry?

>>2723868
cos they shit lol

>>2723868
Because lately they haven't been as innovative unlike Nikon/Sony.

I like the G5X though, a bit overpriced considering it doesn't have all the "necessary" features like 4K but that's probably the only major advance they have made in quite a while. Plus I'm probably the only one in existence that actually likes the whole fixed EVF thing.

>>2723708
>telling gearfags to fuck off in a gear thread
0/10

File: canon-g9x-g5x-020.jpg (167 KB, 1600x1067) Image search: [Google]

167 KB, 1600x1067

>>2723877
>liking the abortion that is g5x

>>2723868
They aren't.

Tons of pro photographers still use Canon. Look at any sporting event. Tons of Canon gear. Look at local photographers, pro and dedicated hobbyists. Still TONS of Canon users. They're mostly hated on /p/, because I'll tell you this much: the "dynamic range" argument doesn't hold up outside of this board AKA the real world.

File: image.jpg (304 KB, 2000x1333) Image search: [Google]

304 KB, 2000x1333

>>2723880
Hey, at least they didn't take that route for FF.

[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	2000
Image Height	1333

Anyone here shot the Mamiya 65mm/4 KL for RB67? Is it worth a shit?

>>2723862
IMO quite a lot better.

But I'd at least consider getting the 28mm f/2 instead, if money is an issue. Even with the 21mm conversion lens, it's still cheaper.

(If money was not a big issue, you'd get a 25mm Batis and/or A7 II for your wider angle shots anyways, right...?)

I dented the front metal piece around one of my vintage lenses. Could I use a pair of pliers to put it back into place or is that not recommended?

>>2723868
They're just not a particularly good deal right now.

If you just want a new lower end camera, Canon's APS-C DSLR + mirrorless cameras are practically pointless to buy; the competition has deals that are usually both better *and* cheaper.

>>2723885
> the "dynamic range" argument doesn't hold up outside of this board AKA the real world.
It very easily holds up in the real world. Digital post is much easier & the result looks much nicer with cameras that have better DR.

Other arguments also apply, such as that most "L" lenses usually are noticeably worse than Sigma Art, Zeiss or Sony. Most of which are cheaper.

But it is of course not enough to switch most people over immediately. Habits and brand loyalty and more are going to keep the majority of Canon users on Canon for quite a while, even on /p/. Sure, switching can actually suck quite a bit, denial is much easier.

>>2723885
As someone who shoots canon full frame, and Fuji mirrorless, I will tell you, the image quality and editability of the Fuji files is noticeably better. Being able to raise shadows without banding or making skittles is a HUGE benefit to the photos that I take.

Canon sits on the sidelines because they have the best long lenses, and those photos don't get edited. Canon sits everywhere else because people buy what they've heard is good as a beginner, and by the time they're into it enough to make an informed decision, they already know the ergonomics and have the lenses. Every canon shooter I've met either doesn't know what they're missing as far as editing potential because they've never used a Sony sensor, or wishes they'd started with Nikon for file flexibility reasons.

I have a Fuji XE-1 and I want to try some astro with it soon. Problem is I don't have a remote. I figured I could just start in bulb mode with a timer but then I realizes I need to push the button once more to stop the exposure. Since I won't be able to get my hands on a remote before I go shooting, would taking a piece of black card board with me and holding it in front of the lens before I hit the shutter button again work? I can't really see a flaw with that idea, but maybe I'm forgetting something...

File: k3bb.jpg (310 KB, 1625x1129) Image search: [Google]

310 KB, 1625x1129

Christmas came early fellas

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Apple
Camera Model	iPhone 5s
Camera Software	GIMP 2.8.10
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	29 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2015:12:17 12:22:55
Exposure Time	1/17 sec
F-Number	f/2.2
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	250
Lens Aperture	f/2.2
Brightness	0.5 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	4.15 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1625
Image Height	1129
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

File: IMG_1667.jpg (1 MB, 2200x1263) Image search: [Google]

1 MB, 2200x1263

I'm ready to become god of streen photography! 360 non scope 11/10 shot!

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 50D
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.3 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.4
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2015:12:17 18:56:41
Exposure Time	1/60 sec
F-Number	f/1.6
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	400
Lens Aperture	f/1.6
Exposure Bias	-1.3 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
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

>>2723952
Put it together and shoot the boxes with the camera, not your iPhoney.

>>2723955
Get the rifle stock, put it together and see how much time it takes for the police to put their knees into your spine.

Just got me an OM-2 and a 50mm f/1.8. Hot damn is this thing sweet and tiny, and the shutter and mirror mechanism sounds like one keystroke in a child's mechanical typewriter. Bit of dust etc. in the glass, non-MC Zuiko (considering a hood for it) with a lot of focus breathing, the focusing screen only has a big microprism spot and no split-prism, the focusing and shutterspeed rings have old grease in them so require a bit of force to use, ...

But hot damn that prism. Hot damn. It's like a F3 (non-HP) in there, but the bump is almost like a styling choice more than an optical necessity.

File: IMG_1705.jpg (2 MB, 2200x1241) Image search: [Google]

2 MB, 2200x1241

>>2723958
I live in the land of freedom!

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 50D
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.3 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.4
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2015:12:17 19:18:32
Exposure Time	1/60 sec
F-Number	f/1.4
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	800
Lens Aperture	f/1.4
Exposure Bias	-2 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
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

>>2723962
All that unnecessary bokeh make my eyes bleed
Do a proper large DoF shot, damnit!

>>2723965
These was only one light bulb! Look at ISO!!!! I don't want to take tripod every time i want to make a forum post

>>2723966
At 30mm you can do 1/15s or even 1/10s handheld. Unless you have parkinsons.

>>2723966
ISO 3200 gives usable results. Or just underexpose 2 stops and pull the shadows.

I want to replace my 18-55 kit lens and an equally terrible 75-300 with better ones, all I know that 16-300 etc and similar are a bad and an expensive idea most likely
is 55-250 stm any good?
what about sigma 18-50 f2.8?

>>2724029
what do you want to shoot?

File: 20151217_007.jpg (454 KB, 577x1024) Image search: [Google]

454 KB, 577x1024

Finally, no more dealing with extension tubes. Merry Christmas, pees.

>>2724032
I was usually shooting architecture and generic tourist shots when I was sightseeing with my 18-55 and it was enough in a good weather, full sun and all, BUT I could not take any pictures in the shadows and slightly darker places without them having worse quality than if I took them with my phone
with 75-300 I shoot trains and animals, so fast AF and stabilization are my priority (I guess), and if the lens would work slightly better at higher mms, and during darker days would it be great

>>2724037
hmm what's your budget and what body do you own? I think it's gonna be hard to fit your requirements into a single lens

>>2724037
also changing 75-300 to something like 50-300 would be ideal, but I do not know at all which one lens with similar range should I choose
(I have Canon 700D)

>>2724038
that's what I thought :-( but what I'll look for will be just a slight improvement if possible, I can spend up to 1000$ for two, but the cheaper the better (or I could save some money and buy them later maybe too if it's worth it)

>>2724029
Sigma 50-200 is pretty nice from cheap variant.
And Tamron 70-300 VC as more priced.

>>2724042
Might look into the 18-35mm Sigma Art or the 24-70mm Canon L Lens. Cheaper alternatives are Sigma or Tamron with their 17-50mm 2.8 versions. Not really familiar with telephoto lenses so can't recommend any there

>>2723952
i've got the nifty fifty and a 35-105 mm f3.5 zoom that i copped from ebay for 35 bucks

gonna go outside and take a few picks to test this bad boy out

>>2724043
>>2724044
thank yoiu anons, notes taken
I wish I would know someone from whom I could lend a lens to try it before I spend money

>>2724053
borrow*

FTFY

>>2724029
I'd get a Tamron Di VC 70-200 f/2.8.

And a Sigma Art 18-35mm f/1.8, however this one is APS-C only (I assume we're talking about APS-C?)

> what about sigma 18-50 f2.8?
Might be okay, too, but not what I'd buy myself. Arguably, I mostly buy expensive primes 'cause I want dat IQ for my easy mode crops.

>>2724042
Maybe you could do one great zoom lens, and one 28, 35mm or 50mm (or something equally common and cheap-ish) decent enough prime?

>>2723440
Sure but subject/light/opportunity + good gear and the ability to use it= even better photo.

>>2724122
usually, no. In pretty nice light, at 2000 pixels, you're not going to be able to tell the difference between a D3300 and a D4s at equivalent settings.

>>2724139
Getting good light is the rarest of situations. The D4s is much more capable in medium to bad/low lighting and the AF is much more precise. In real life applications there is a lot of difference between taking a photo with a D3300 and a D4s. Not to mention Canon anything makes the difference more apparent.

I actually saw someone in the wild (shopping mall) with a Pentacks today. Weird as fuck. It was almost surreal.

File: Sigma-Ultra-Telephoto-Zoom-Lens-1.jpg (198 KB, 960x640) Image search: [Google]

198 KB, 960x640

>>2724139
If you have perfectly sharp glass on either for the range you shoot at, and very great light and a static subject, yea.

Once it's not a static subject and you need excellent & speedy AF, or you don't have great enough light that you can freely choose any aperture / exposure at base ISO on either camera, or actually when you use "typical" (expensive) glass on the D4S and "typical" (cheap kit) glass on the D3300, you'll see a huge difference.

All of these are purchasing decisions anyways.

Better gear gives you more opportunity, and far more chances to get a decent picture (perfect pictures kinda need ideal conditions, but far more conditions are "great" for a D4S than for a D3300).

That said, admittedly a nicely kitted out D4S is too expensive for me, too... but I don't feel a need to pretend my current, somewhat inferior gear is entirely equal for photography.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	1200
Image Height	800
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2014:06:25 08:50:03
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	960
Image Height	640

File: fdfdf44.png (156 KB, 1519x806) Image search: [Google]

156 KB, 1519x806

Good set up for astro,low light and portrait work?

Cop or naw?

>>2723931
And people started to switch just a few years ago.

Unfair to comparing how many years they had cameras like 1D,D3, 5D,D800 on the market.

If the A7rII where that present on the field by now that would mean that Canikon had completely lost the game.

>>2724173
For astrophotography the 50mm is good for wide-field. I also recommend getting a short/small refractor scope around 70-80 size with focal length around 400-500mm and an EQ3 servo tracking mount with polar scope.
Easy to set up and easy results.

>>2724173
Non-telescope lenses will capture dots and blobs of light only, save for the moon. Anything sharp-ish then goes for night sky photography. And a camera that doesn't have horrible noise at base ISO, which is about every modern camera. You basically just need a tripod.

If you want more detailed shots, unfortunately you probably want a telescope that can correct for the earth's rotation, and preferably unpolluted sky (= the right location to shoot from, usually at some altitude).

As far as portraits go, I'd take Sigma Art lenses for that myself - especially the 50mm and 85mm. YMMV.

How does the use of iso differ on digital?

I'm a film fag (and a poor fag) and I've never really used a dslr. I'm going to get one but I'm used to not really changing iso much, except for when I change rolls. Do you find yourself varying iso more or do you only really use it as a last resort, when just using a combination of shutter speed and aperture won't get you the image you want.

>>2724195
Skyglow can be treated by ETTR method, it is absolutely doable to do astrophotography in light polluted areas.

>>2724203
On film, higher ISO means larger grain. On digital, there is noise that doesn't get larger, it just gets more pronounced. I vary ISO all the time, as I leave my camera on auto ISO. Anything 3200 or below doesn't bother me in the least, and that's on APS-C.

>>2724203
>Do you find yourself varying iso more

Hell yes.

Even so much that I find it annoying I can't reach my ISO button without moving my hand.
I re-programmed my movie record button as a second ISO button to fix this design flaw.

You really want to keep ISO as low as possible all the time.
Not so much because of noise (digital noise is overrated IMO) but because colors and dynamic range really suffer at higher ISO's.

I also use auto ISO a lot.

>>2724173
>>2724195
>As far as portraits go, I'd take Sigma Art lenses for that myself - especially the 50mm and 85mm. YMMV.

Not me.

The Nikon 85 f/1.8 is great value for money and a great portrait lens.
Maybe not the biggest bokeh slut but optically pretty much perfect.

The older Sigma 50 1.4 EX has the nicest bokeh of any 50mm.
And it's reasonably sharp and doesn't cost that much.

File: Sigma-50mm-Art-vs-Sigma-50mm-vs-Nikon-50mm-vs-Nikon-58mm-Bokeh-Highlights.jpg (192 KB, 1600x1070) Image search: [Google]

192 KB, 1600x1070

>>2724230
>Maybe not the biggest bokeh slut but optically pretty much perfect.
It's good, but "perfect" is more like a 55/85mm Otus. I figured that was too much in terms of cost, though. But if you can afford it, and want the best MF lens for portraits, those are basically the lenses to get.

That said, you're right about it being very good. I did suggest the 85mm Sigma to get f/1.4 (far cheaper than f/1.4 on the Nikon, and useful for portraits) and nice bokeh primarily. A lot of people *love* nice bokeh.

> The older Sigma 50 1.4 EX has the nicest bokeh of any 50mm.
I'd say the new Sigma Art is actually better. Pic related.

Of course, it's also a lot sharper, easily visible especially when you get closer to 1:1 crops. Look at the eye shot here:
http://www.slrlounge.com/head2head-sigma-50mm-f1-4-dg-hsm-art-vs-sigma-50mm-f1-4-dg-hsm/

I easily pay the difference in price for these two features.

Of course, you may have different priorities. The other anon isn't simply wrong, it's probably just a difference in how we value money and good shots. If a few hundred are a huge deal to you, it might be wiser to go with his suggestions.

https://youtu.be/GzdqLOvcFy8

>>2724270
that first bokeh is >perfect but that second bokeh is >aesthetic

>>2724279
I don't like the second variant as much also because apart from some ugly contrasts (yellow-green and so on) the bokeh balls deform very strongly across a frame:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/ileohidalgo/23171957260/in/pool-664291@N24/

Kinda feels like the bokeh balls accelerate away from the dog or something. You also can't really easily assign lights to buildings, in a way they usually seem disconnected somehow, especially the deformed bokeh balls near the lens' side.

Almost ridiculously circular bokeh across almost the entire frame makes shots a bit easier:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/99807534@N08/20868308520/in/pool-sigma-50mm-art/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/131348235@N04/22577706084/in/pool-sigma-50mm-art/

All shapes kinda remain represented, and it's easy to guess where buildings and lights are with these round bokeh balls.

Nitpicks to many people, I know...

is this lens at least decent, as in not shit? im a cheap bastard and dont have the money to put into nice lenses atm

http://www.ebay.com/itm/111848770809

File: canon_efs_15-85.jpg (404 KB, 2007x1567) Image search: [Google]

404 KB, 2007x1567

I just bought a used Canon EF-S 15-85 IS for $330.

Would you guys say I got a good deal, or good enough to break even when it comes time to sell it?

>>2724322
The Sigma 17-70 2.8-4.0 Macro C lens new for 399 would have bee better, but its good though.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/909806-REG/Sigma_884101_17_70mm_f_2_8_4_DC_Macro.html

>>2724332
Would've considered a third party lens, but having a T2i it doesn't have a microadjustment feature if the lens was to back/front focus and didn't want to deal with sending it in and paying to get it adjusted knowing I'd buy a used copy w/o a warranty.

Thinking of selling my D90 kit and getting a Ricoh GR since I just got a Bronica SQ-A and that can be my bigboy camera. What is /p/'s thoughts on that? I feel like I would shoot a lot more if a super nice camera was on my 24/7 unlike my D90 which is huge. I wanna do more street/architecture too if that makes any difference. Also which Ricoh GR version is best money/value ratio? I can get a GR2 for 200, GR3 for 300 and a GR for 550 on kijiji rn. TLDR someone shill the Ricoh to me so I get one.

>>2724342
The only Ricoh GR popular on /p/ seems to just be the Ricoh GR. It seems quite reasonable.

Also, consider the RX100 (III or IV maybe) too.

> if a super nice camera was on my 24/7
Yea, about that... neither can really compete with a good FF camera. They're quite decent and even more easily portable, but not really "super nice".

>>2724344
Damn, RX100 looks super nice, thanks. Cheaper, too. Do you have any experience with it?

>>2724348
I know the RX100 quite well in version 1 and very cursorily in the other versions.

It's overall really quite nice. Its automatic mode is excellent, the fixed glass it has is quite good, and the camera has about all the features you'd want in a P&S for enthusiasts. It's a bit like a good APS-C was around 5 years ago, given a decent lens..

Flickr has tons of shots taken with the various RX100's:
https://www.flickr.com/groups/rx100/pool/

>>2723581
requested a screenshot
if you're still in the thread and missed it I posted it here:
>>2723848

Any help is appreciated

File: s-l1600 (1).jpg (116 KB, 1200x1600) Image search: [Google]

116 KB, 1200x1600

This good for filming a short film?

>>2723848
Like, scroll down in that folder picker?

File: image.jpg (1 MB, 3264x2448) Image search: [Google]

1 MB, 3264x2448

First time refacing a camera. Had to take it apart due to stuck blades. Fixed and needed something to cover the screws. How'd I do?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Apple
Camera Model	iPhone 5s
Camera Software	9.2
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	29 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Right-Hand, Top
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2015:12:18 00:48:12
Exposure Time	1/17 sec
F-Number	f/2.2
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	250
Lens Aperture	f/2.2
Brightness	-0.2 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Auto
Focal Length	4.15 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	3264
Image Height	2448
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

File: image.jpg (1 MB, 3264x2448) Image search: [Google]

1 MB, 3264x2448

>>2724426
2/2

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Apple
Camera Model	iPhone 5s
Camera Software	9.2
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	29 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Right-Hand, Top
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2015:12:18 03:33:27
Exposure Time	1/24 sec
F-Number	f/2.2
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	320
Lens Aperture	f/2.2
Brightness	0.3 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Auto
Focal Length	4.15 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	3264
Image Height	2448
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

What kind of adapter I should use on a Sony A6000, to equip it with a helios 44m lens?
ring or lens adapter?

My friend is trying to enlist me to be a backup wedding photographer. She shoots a lot of weddings and says we can split the pay according to the proportion of our shots the clients select. She said I'll need a new lens since all I have is a 50mm plastic fantastic and a 70-300 tamron without autofocus.
She recommends a sigma 18-35 and says I'd never need anything else for weddings. The thing is, she doesn't even have one, and online reviewers are all really positive on it, so it really seems like a whole lot of try hard shilling is going on.
So, do you have an opinion on the lens? What would you recommend as a universal wedding lens?

>>2724452
>The thing is, she doesn't even have one
Because she probably has some real high end, expensive glass instead.

>and online reviewers are all really positive on it
That's because it's a good lens. I think it's the fastest zoom lens for aps-c at the moment, and it's damn cheap considering what it is.

>>2724457
Well, she also has an aps-c camera and uses (in her words) "a bunch of fast primes" for all the different kinds of shots she'll usually want to take to fill out a standard wedding set.
I asked her why she doesn't have one yet and she basically dodged the question.

Anyway, I'm sure she wouldn't recommend something that she knows is shit, I'm probably just paranoid about spending money

So, /p/ what would be your dream setup?
To keep it simple let's stick with cameras and lenses. assume you already have all the accessories you'd want
(please don't just list the most expensive gear you can think of)

And don't forget to say what you'd use it for!

>>2724486
The setup I own at the moment:
Pentax K-3 with DA 35/2.4
16-45 and 50-200 for general dicking around when I need wider/longer than the 35 standard

What I want:
DA* 300/4 or DA* 60-250/4
Tair photosniper 300/4.5 for fun

This is what would make me really happy for a long time.

>>2724499
>And don't forget to say what you'd use it for!
Sorry

DA* lenses for planespotting, nature and birding
Tair for planespotting, nature and birding
Everything for various fields of astrophoto.

>>2724486
Contax G2
21/45/90mm
Ektar/400H/Cine Still 800

Sony A7rII
28/50/85mm

General purpose/travel/events/video

Is it worth it to switch my canon 28mm 1.8 and 35mm 2.0 for a Sigma 24 1.4?

>>2724527
no

>>2724528
Why? My 35 is the old model, without IS, and 1.4 is just a dream, man.
Can you be more specific? I might use in 1.4 all the time.

any opinions on the Bessa R? Could get one for cheap..

>>2724486
A7R II + secondary A7S II
Sony FE Macro 90mm
Sony FE 70-200
Sony Zeiss Sonnar 55mm
Sony Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* 24-70mm
Zeiss Batis 25 & 85mm
Zeiss Otus 85mm (adapted from Canon)

What for:
- Product shots (90mm FE macro)
- Portrait shots (Batis or Otus 85mm picked for the shooting situation, 55mm, plus 24-70mm on my second camera),
- Family events and general travel (zoom lenses, 25mm, 55mm)

Anyone have experience with the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8

Looking to get it for photo/video

>>2723430
lens calibration cards. Which would you recommend? I saw some for around 80 bucks, and that seemed steep...so i was wondering if you'd have recs for someone on a budget

>>2724557
Get a $2 (or whatever) one from Aliexpress.

>>2724559
Here's one direct suggestion. ~$6 for 6 cards:
http://www.aliexpress.com/item/6pcs-Lot-Folding-Card-Lens-Focus-Tool-Calibration-Alignment-AF-Micro-Adjustment-Ruler-Chart/32278471984.html?ws_ab_test=searchweb201556_7,searchweb201644_4_79_78_77_82_80_62,searchweb201560_4

Give the surplus away or something.

File: 1.jpg (375 KB, 1486x1135) Image search: [Google]

375 KB, 1486x1135

It's been such a long time since Sony last released a camera. Several weeks at Least!

We all know they have these beasts tamed in their basement.
But when will they finally combine all this shit into 1 entity and unleash the Kraken upon the world?

All this shit needs gattai.

[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

dont know if this belongs in the gear thread but is it still possible to get the mju 1 (olympus stylus) repaired? i was told it wasnt

the film rewind motor wasnt working, the knob would just not move if met with any resistance, any known fixes?

>>2724555
I have one on Nikon. It's REEEEALLY sharp and contrasty even wide open, focuses very close, built very well and feels nice in the hand. Manual focus would be fine for video but I wouldn't try to use AF, kinda noisy and unreliable.

>>2724428
You couldn't get hold of any leatherette?

>>2724561
Thanks! This is awesome, much more reasonable.

THAT FEELING WHEN YOU UPGRADED YOUR CAMERA FOR VERY VERY CHEAP as you had an OCCASION (SMALL UPGRADE FROM 400D TO 700D BUT STILL) and now you don't go as often to take pictures because you don't want to ruin your perfectly fresh and new camera, while you used to throw 400d in your everyday bag and just run/walk and not care about it's state
fuck what do inb4 stop being a poorfag

>>2724591
No problem. Check the site whenever you buy photo accessories - almost everything is cheaper on direct import from China.

>>2724593
Put it into a slim-ish camera bag to put into your everyday bag.

If that doesn't fit, your everyday bag / backpack sucks, and you should get a bigger one.

>>2724582
I think electronic variable ND will only be possible when they get rid of the mechanical shutter, the stacked sensor might help in this case.

With built-in ND they should make a camera with higher base-ISO improving low light IQ.

>>2724590
Nope sadly I could not.

>>2724590
But it looks par atleast?

>>2724593
sounds autism bro

>>2724671
sounds autism bro

D3300
18-55 mm f/3.5-5.6
35 mm f/1.8g
Yongnuo flash

>>2724593
Why would you ruin it? Do you live in a drug cartel?

>>2724747
Are you posting your gear, or is this in some way a question?

File: bsi to stacking.jpg (50 KB, 682x378) Image search: [Google]

50 KB, 682x378

>>2724609
>the stacked sensor might help in this case.
Sooooon...

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Google
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	682
Image Height	378

Canonfags quick answer pls
I am either getting a 50 1.8 ii, 50 1.8 stm or 40 2.8 stm as my one and only lens for travel. I need something with really good image quality, I don't care about the noise the AF motor makes as long as it justwerks.

I have a 5D Mark II.

What's stopping me from deciding on either of the lenses?
50 STM:
> 49mm thread
> can't play with focus when camera is off
> $30 costlier than 50 ii

50 ii:
> plastic mount and body, apparently doesn't last long at all
> corner of image is apparently blurred and shite
> AF is shite

40 2.8:
> $50 more than 50 ii
> pancake
> haven't seen a proper review
> presumably image quality will be worse

I'm new to canon so I need some experienced suggestions.
ta mates

>>2724426
>>2724428

not ready for these feels

Does the Canon 70D offer a significant improvement over my 600D or am I better cutting my losses and going full frame (half my lenses are EF-S)?

>>2724813
check this website out
http://snapsort.com/compare/Canon-600d-vs-Canon-EOS-70D

there seem to be huge differences

>>2724813
Sell your efs lenses
Buy a full fram with one or two good lenses. Once you go 35mm you'll never come back

>>2724806
50 1.8 mark ii
Why?
Sounds like you're on a tight budget. The mark ii is great, it's plastic yes but if you don't throw it around you'll be fine.

Why not 40?
I find it useless as I have that and the 50 (I don't know why I still have the 40, I should sell that thing)

>>2724806
I have the 28mm STM and, while I was initially skeptical, it sold me on the STM system, it emulates mechanical focus pretty damn well and is close enough to USM to justify the cost savings. On the pancake lens front, unless you're shooting wide open, you barely suffer the limitations of pancake lenses and even then it's nothing RAW + lens profiles can't reasonably fix unless you're straying deep into the territory of rescuing an otherwise unsalvageable image. Personally, if it were my only lens on FF, I'd go with 40mm, 50 is a little tight outside of the studio.

>>2724806
> I need something with really good image quality
Sigma Art 50mm f/1.4 is your answer.

>>2724814
Thanks.

>>2724815
Buy a full fram with one or two good lenses. Once you go 35mm you'll never come back

I haven't worked with full frame since using actual film (almost a decade ago). On the one hand, I couldn't afford a FF body until later next year but, on the other hand, I'm not doing anything special before then. I'll sit on it over the Christmas period.

>>2724815
Okay thanks

>>2724819
Not THAT good. I only have like $200 to spend (NZD).

>>2724817
I do however have a tight budget, is it worth $50 more? Or will I be better off with a 50 1.8 II and spend that $50 on travel shite like petrol or elsewhere?

>>2724830
>I do however have a tight budget, is it worth $50 more? Or will I be better off with a 50 1.8 II and spend that $50 on travel shite like petrol or elsewhere?

It really depends on how you use a lens. Personally, I absolutely consider it worth the extra cost because it's nice to be able to grab the focus ring and fine tune your focus while still in AF but some people prefer a mechanical linkage or, at the very least, don't mind flicking a switch on the lens. The best advice I can give is to find an accommodating shop that will let you have a decent play or to rent both (though I appreciate that if $50 is a significant consideration the cost of renting is less than ideal)

>>2724833
Yknow what, thanks heaps for this. I may just buy the 40. Can't rent, I'd like a lens I can keep and use for long.

Last question, image quality. Will it be kit-lens quality or decent like the 50 primes?

>>2724806
Otus 55mm

>>2724830
> Not THAT good. I only have like $200 to spend (NZD).
Ah, that sucks. This lens is such a good deal if you have ~700 USD (approximate parallel import cost to most of the world).

I guess at 200 NZD you can't even get the older non-"Art" model... if I were you, I'd just save up for that, though. Can't be that long until you can afford another ~$150 or so, can it?

http://www.dxomark.com/lenses/sensor_brand-Canon

>>2724836
Arguably, no AF motor that justwerks, because no AF motor.

Also, /p/overty doesn't have Otus... but it's a good lens in theory.

>>2724839
great image quality on a full frame camera doesn't work with poverty.

You're asking
I NEED TO GO AMAZINGLY FAST, which Honda Civic should I buy used.

Great lenses cost more than $1000. Lenses that aren't quite bad enough to ruin EVERY shot you take, are less than $300.

>>2724835
It will be way beyond kit lens and almost as good as a 50 prime. There's always a compromise with pancakes but it's not that huge and is almost non existent one you get into higher stops.

>>2724837
I mean another $150 will give around USD280/300 equivalent, I only had a few gigs to do which I saved money for a camera and a lens. Not really too keen for a pro lens at the moment, I need something small and lighter than what the art lenses offer.

Plus I'm going on a trip in a few days. So no way I can earn enough for that sort of lens.

>>2724841
> Great lenses cost more than $1000
Quite a few do, yes.

Arguably, I'll hold most of the Sigma Art lineup against this exact statement.
Plus a substantial part of the prime lineup of the E-mount.

There are quite a few very great lenses under $1k now (new retail price on the worldwide market).

>>2724842
alright thanks. How is it with landscapes? Think hills and sheep

I think I'll just roll a fucking dice.

>>2724850
>How is it with landscapes? Think hills and sheep

I can't speak for that lens specifically but landscapes tend to be very forgiving because you have so much time to compose and use a tripod. Personally, I'd find 40mm a little constraining but I love shooting luxuriously wide panoramas.

>>2724854
Ehhhhh 50 can do panoramas too thought
Alright thanks, dice roll and price tag tells me to buy 50. I'll decide in the store.

Thanks for everything man! Have a good one

>>2724846
> I mean another $150 will give around USD280/300 equivalent
I was thinking ~$150 in USD anyways.

> Not really too keen for a pro lens at the moment, I need something small and lighter than what the art lenses offer.
> Plus I'm going on a trip in a few days. So no way I can earn enough for that sort of lens.
The 50mm EX or even Art isn't *that* heavy that any healthy person should have problems with it.

And I don't think I usually would suggest to literally earn money in exactly those days? It's more like, something to take from a bank account or wallet and amortize over the next month(s) or so.

But I get the idea, I guess. Just get the 50mm Canon STM then. It is probably the next best option here.

>>2724870
>Thanks for everything man! Have a good one
No problem, you too.

>>2724812
What feels are you having anon? let's chat over tea

Hey guys. I'm thinking of getting a Nikon 50mm f1.8 series e for my Nikon d3100. Do you have any recommendations or experience with this lens?

>>2724910
There are two "current" Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 and you can't use the cheaper "d" one with AF on your D3100 because it doesn't have the AF motor on the body - you need the "g" variant with the focus motor in the lens if you want AF.

That said, it's quite good. Certainly not the best ~50mm out now, but quite good anyways.

>>2724913
Manual focus will be alright, since I have the kit lens if I need auto for something. Thanks!

>>2724919
>Manual focus will be alright
Helios 44M, Pentacon 50, CZJ Pancolar 50mm etc...
>Nikon
oh, never mind.

>>2724590
Do you not see it? He grafted the last of it onto his hand due to the immense pleasure of beating it to his findings.

Good thing it was flesh colored, phew.

>>2724913
One more question. Would I need any sort of adapter for this lens?

>>2724926
Yes you will need a Nikon F mount to F mount adapter, sometimes they are called "extension tubes" because chinese can't into english and photography.

File: image.jpg (992 KB, 2446x2605) Image search: [Google]

992 KB, 2446x2605

>>2724876
Hey mate, back from the store.
> pic related

Again, thanks for the help

>>2724926
Nah, apart from that you'll have to MF there's nothing particularly noticeable about that lens.

>>2724910
I have the 50 1.8D which used with my old d5100. Got really pissed because of the lack of AF. I thought it wouldn't matter but it really does. And buy a 35 instead of that 50 as a 50 will give you 73ish equivalence and 35 will give you 52. Don't buy a manual focus for a DSLR unless you're only doing Astro or landscape where you don't need AF as much

>>2724931
so smol

>>2724939
see >>2723049

>>2724931
It's so compact. I was thinking of going for the 24mm f2.8 since I'm short on funds during the holidays and I don't shoot full frame. I have a lot of cheap, fast lenses that give me good results so I would probably be happy with something like this (all the kids called me the "brokeh" master back in HS).

>>2724949
So cute :3

>>2724939
it sure is

>>2724950
i shot a couple test shots with it just now. As you may read above of my indecisive situation, I was really worried about what one lens to get. After the tests, I'm really glad I got this.sure it's not 1.8 and sure my camera now looks like a fat guy with a small 2 inch penis.
But man I am so ahppy with this as my main lens, I do feel that the 50 would be slightly too tight.

What's a good one camera-one lens setup for lowlight photography that can also do some passable video?

I know the requirements aren't incredibly specific, but generally I'm thinking of getting a setup for all-around photography/videography and picking up more specialized equipment over time.

So far I'm thinking 6D + 24-105L, but I'm having second thoughts what with the new stuff Nikon and Sony are putting out.

>>2724970
50/1.4 is what you're looking for.

>>2724970
Forgot to add-- budget is roughly $1500-1800, which is why I'm going with only one lens for now. Obviously I'm picking everything up second hand.

>>2724970
Fast prime + A7rII

Not cheap, but it's a one camera one lens setup and you didn't state a price range

>>2724971
I was thinking that, but the last time I used a 50 on an FF camera, I had trouble fitting things into the frame. So if I was going prime, I'd probably get a 35.

Right now I'm looking for suggestions for different brand's offerings with a respective zoom lens that can match or surpass Canon's performance in stills and video (low light, DR, general video quality such as moire, etc)

>>2724973
Sorry about price range, here it is>>2724972

>>2724964
From what I hear it's a really good lens. I would even consider if my shitty crop sensor camera was not a factor (in which it is both goddamn ways) since it would be a good lens for just general portraits/landscapes but superb for street shooting.

If only Canon made a good wide angle pancake that was EF mount so I could at least take it off slap it on my 650.

>>2724978
Why not get an EF-S 24mm for your 650?

>>2724972
>>2724972
In the price range, it's not the newest stuff. But an A7 with a great lens or the A6000 with some great lenses should be pretty nice options.

Actually even the A6000's biggest downside is only that it can't into as low light as a 6D can, but it's not like that 24-105L is an optimal low light shooter - you can hence compensate for that one difference with faster primes. And in most other regards, the A6000 is actually better.

>>2724987
650, not 650D.

>>2724990
>still using film
Do you know how to read a calendar?

>>2724992
Here we go with the stale memes again

>>2724992
JUST

>>2724992
I still use film. N70 with a 50 1.8. It's lovely.great colours and aesthetics.

What price point should I be looking at spending (buying used) to get into it as a basic getting my feet wet/see if I actually enjoy photography and want to save up money for something, but also not be frustrated with equipment?

>>2725033
Get an older used DSLR for around $300.
Pentax K-30, K-50, Nikon D3100, D3200, Canon 1100D, 1200D, 550D, 600D

>>2725033
> a basic getting my feet wet/see if I actually enjoy photography
You could lend or rent a camera for that. Or use your smartphone.

> not be frustrated with equipment?
Is an A6000 right for you? A K-50? A D3300? A D7200? A RX100 (I-IV) or Ricoh GR?

Maybe you actually want an A7 II or D750 so you can have an idea how a nice FF setup feels?

I really couldn't tell. Not even any idea what kind of money would impair you from "saving up money for something". The most expensive options I presented just now probably set some people here back half a week in terms of spare money, and others maybe months.

>>2725033
if you're in NZ
D7000's are going for like 700 bucks on trademe
and I just sold a D5100 with 2 lenses for $750

to add to that, I bought a 5DM2 (~20k shutter count) with stuff for $1100. So hopefully your country's trading site sells stuff cheap.

>>2725041

Ahh, thanks! Will look into all those as yeah ~$250-300 is what I was kinda hoping for.

>>2725043

I've dicked around with my phone of course, it's a Nexus 5 so the camera on it is kinda shit and one of the things I'll be using the camera for is photographing clothes I sell (I'm from /fa/) and even though I'm shooting RAW I still lose basically all detail even with processing in Lightroom/Photoshop. Same thing with architecture, the texture which is the reason I wanted to take it in the first place is totally lost.

I usually have around ~$500 for misc. spending a month so saving mostly comes down to what I want to prioritize my spending on

I was actually looking at the RX100 MKII but I wasn't sure about it actually learning wise due to not being able to try different lenses and such and I imagine there's other things too.

>>2725047

Nah, I'm in the US. I do have access to Japanese shops too though since I have a few friends who lives over there who forward stuff to me.

What kind of film camera do you recommend? It needs to have AF and auto EV. I don't know what else to look for when comparing. I also don't know what are the better films. Is there some guide maybe, that I could look at?
Also, is a 14MP point and shoot (Canon PowerShot SX150 IS) in macro mode better than an entry level film scanner for scanning?

>>2725116
Pentax MZ

>>2725062
> one of the things I'll be using the camera for is photographing clothes I sell
I'd suggest making a 2-3 speedlights (YN560 III/IV and a TX perhaps? Inexpensive & useful.) a priority for that. Clothes look a lot better with decent lighting.

> Same thing with architecture, the texture which is the reason I wanted to take it in the first place is totally lost.
And yea, for texture detail, especially a better *lens* will help. Color reproduction and DR on the sensor is also important.

> I was actually looking at the RX100 MKII but I wasn't sure about it actually learning wise due to not being able to try different lenses and such
In a way, there is not *that* much to learn about screwing on another lens. It's mostly... an utilitarian thing.

That said, I think a A6000 would perhaps be good for you. They have good color reproduction, decent resolution, and help with manual focus which is often useful for product shots. (Perhaps include a 28mm f/2 and the 60mm f/2.8, or maybe the kit lenses and some vintage glass.)

Or a D3300-D7200.

I have a a6000, 35/1.8 and sigma 60/2.8, which I use for general snapshitting and informal portraits.
I'm interested in getting into macro and landscapes, was considering the samyang/rokinon 12/2 and the micro nikkor 55/2.8
Are there better options for under ~500 US each? Also, should I be considering a tele?

File: 20151219194610.jpg (1 MB, 3193x1733) Image search: [Google]

1 MB, 3193x1733

OBEY! Made made shutter switch right from the stock body.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Lenovo
Camera Model	K900
Camera Software	Windows Photo Editor 10.0.10011.16384
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.9
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	4096
Image Height	2304
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2015:12:19 19:43:48
Exposure Time	0.1 sec
F-Number	f/1.8
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	207
Lens Aperture	f/1.7
Brightness	-1.1 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Subject Distance	0.00 m
Metering Mode	Spot
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	4.02 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	4096
Image Height	2304
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	None
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Time (UTC)	15:46:10
Date (UTC)	2015:12:19

>>2725131

The A6000 looks like it would work really well for me so I think I'll get it + the stuff you suggested.

Thanks a lot for the help!

>>2725349
Just one thing, the A6000 is a great camera, but it is getting old, and CES 2016 is just around the corner, a new model might push down the prices even more, I would wait at least until mid Jan.

>>2725290
I have the 90mm FE macro, it's totally worth the dollars you pay for it. It's a very sharp and versatile lens.

That said, you could probably do with a Kiron 105mm F/2.8 or a lot of other macro lenses.

Or a 55mm Nikkor macro, sure.

> Also, should I be considering a tele?
I prefer macro shots at ~100mm focal lenght (obviously now the 90mm FE macro) myself, yes.

>>2725294
'how to get shot at a presidential rally'

>>2725349
It is a great camera.

>>2725355
> but it is getting old
But it is not like there are alternatives to it yet in the same price bracket?

> and CES 2016 is just around the corner, a new model might push down the prices even more
I kinda doubt it will drop a lot, unless Sony announces a much better successor in about the same price bracket.

But if they have a much better successor, they probably will hike the price up. They've done that for all the successors to already winning cameras... and the A6000 clearly is a winner still.

Is it possible to just buy a camera insert to put into my bag? I have a Timbuk2 Alchemist medium, which acts and looks exactly like a lot of higher end camera bags. It's got quick access, small pockets suitable for SD cards and shit, and it's already waterproof. Any suggestions?

File: 164-4-2226_front.jpg (183 KB, 1500x1249) Image search: [Google]

183 KB, 1500x1249

>>2725450
Forgot pic

Benro A2970F

^Yes or no and is there anything better in the price range?

>>2723519
a7sii

File: 2015-Hot-Sale-SLR-camera-bag-liner-color-camera-Insert-Padded-Bag-DSLR-Inner-Folding-Divider.jpg (77 KB, 1000x1000) Image search: [Google]

77 KB, 1000x1000

>>2725450
> Is it possible to just buy a camera insert to put into my bag?
Sure. You could use any of the smaller bags or sectioned / enclosed inserts.

> Any suggestions?
Not like I tried more than one of those. But the general suggestion of mine would be to look on aliexpress, direct import from China is a lot cheaper in most cases.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS5 Windows
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	100 dpi
Vertical Resolution	100 dpi
Image Created	2015:09:09 11:54:18
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	1000
Image Height	1000

File: DiC-MiC-E302C.jpg (135 KB, 1000x1000) Image search: [Google]

135 KB, 1000x1000

>>2725453
I usually suggest the ~$120 Dic&Mic E302C by default when I can't find any particular reason to suggest anything else.

But Benro & Sirui are both great brands if you want to spend a little more.

I don't actually know what price range you're looking at, either. (Like, a lot of people look at Amazon or some local store price, which tend to be significantly higher than prices on Aliexpress / Taobao / ...)

>>2725458
By the way, I think Benro changed (improved? haven't tried it) the 90 degree mount to that "System Go" tripod accessory system they're doing now.

Perhaps you might want to look into the successor models if you want that feature.

>>2725453
I like vanguard tripods

>>2725450
>2016 - 12 days
>using a bag
>not having several fanny packs each with proper gear for different shooting scenarios
sheeiit nigga you need a portrait fanny pack, a landscape fanny pack, a wildlife fanny pack, a sports/action fanny pack, etc. fucks wrong with you bruh

>>2725467
>personenjoyingamcrib.jpg

>>2725474
What?

>>2724989
I'm trying to keep it simple as possible though, so what zoom lens would you suggest I get for the A6000?

>>2724383
There's nothing else there. I wouldn't be asking if the option was available,

>>2725450
Timbuk2 makes, or at least used to make, a camera insert specifically for their bags.

>>2725468
This is actually kind of a thing, sports photogs and a lot of others use modular belt systems. I own one from when I used to be a sports shooter and it's great, but you wouldn't want to be seen wearing it around in public.

I got a nikon dslr recently and I'm playing with the 18-55mm and 55-200 kit lenses it came with. How's the 35mm or 50mm prime lenses compared to the kit lenses in terms of quality?

Is this video from the 90s deliberately overexposed? I'd make my own thread or find the right one but I'm too lazy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5w2YLdjxS_M

>>2725627
Faster, more control over DOF, more control over light, more opportunities in situations.
I'd suggest you get the 35mm first then the 50 if you want to do portraits.

File: scrona-tiniest-inkjet-picture-ever.jpg (204 KB, 1400x700) Image search: [Google]

204 KB, 1400x700

>Scrona and ETH Zurich have used nano-sized quantum dots to print a clown fish picture measuring just 0.000014 square inches across, setting a Guinness World Record for the smallest color inkjet image to date.

http://www.engadget.com/2015/12/20/scrona-microscope-shows-tiny-pictures/

>>2725628
Doesn't that have more to do with tech limitation?

>>2725647
>purple fringing
DO NOT WANT!

>>2725652
I just would like to see a film strip with the same magnification.

>>2725653
I'd rather see a photo with good composition and interesting subject than a technological demonstration.
Also this thing is not about printing or photography, it is about lythography. You know, the procedure where circuit boards in chips are printed on the silicon wafer.

Yesterday I bought a second hand 7d, and I found it only accepts CF cards. I know they're better (and more expensive) but I have a lot of SD cards. Any of you have experience using SD to CF adapters?

>>2725658
You can find some here http://bfy .tw/3NCY

>>2725499
The two kit lenses? A 28-70mm? A 18-55mm? There are many more options, dunno what you want though.

I personally feel that prime lenses (say, a 28mm f/2 or whatever) are plenty simple.

Walk to where you want to be, shoot, crop if necessary.

>>2725660
You want me to search if you have any experience with it?