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: >>2744530
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Canon Camera Model Canon EOS 20D Lens Size 17.00 - 85.00 mm Firmware Version Firmware 2.0.3 Owner Name unknown Serial Number 1621016270 Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2007:06:05 11:26:31 Exposure Time 1/125 sec F-Number f/10.0 Exposure Program Normal Program ISO Speed Rating 100 Lens Aperture f/10.0 Exposure Bias 0 EV Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 28.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 3504 Image Height 2336 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Exposure Mode Program Focus Type Auto Metering Mode Evaluative Sharpness High Saturation High Contrast High Shooting Mode Manual Image Size Large Focus Mode One-Shot Drive Mode Single Flash Mode Off Compression Setting Fine Macro Mode Normal White Balance Auto Exposure Compensation 3 Sensor ISO Speed 160 Image Number 132-3286 Color Matrix 0
Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 OS HSM - $900
Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 Di VC USD - $1,000
Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM - $1,100
Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM - $2,100
Which one senpaitachi? I need a fast tele for my fool frame 6D. Would like to take it when I travel so I can street-creep from a fair distance.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand
>>2746833
>JPEG And RAW on print?
No. That's not the point of RAW. The whole deal with RAW is that you can pull off so much more dynamic range from recovering blown-highlights and underexposed areas. Allows you to enhance shots to your liking and recover shots which would have been just a throw away if shot on JPEG.
Always shoot RAW (with JPEG if you're lazy), and when you can be bothered enough to post process.
So I've been thinking about getting into photography for a while now but even after hours of lurking on /p/ all these camera brands and model numbers still mean nothing to me. Whats a solid camera I can get to start out?
Im taking a photography class this coming year as well and I think I need one that uses film, but I'm curious if film or digital is considered better at all. Does /p/ have any suggestions for a beginner?
Right now I'm using a Ricoh GR, and I love it a lot. However I'm looking at expanding into a system: I don't really shoot low-light and the 18MP of the GR has been plenty... but I feel the autismic pull of muh fool frame meme; like I'd be missing out if I got anything other than an A7whatever.
Would someone be able to give me some advice on choosing between pentax and fuji? I really like the glass for the fuji x systems. And as much as I like the K3, it's weight, plus the not-as-great range of glass is making me think twice.
>>2746852
> Whats a solid camera I can get to start out?
Dunno, perhaps an A7 II or D750?
I guess you might also be able to make do with an A6000 or D7200.
>>2746852
Ignore the pentax memes. Get a film camera if you want to learn photography.
Get a cheap film slr. If you have relatives or a friend who has one ask to give them to you for free because chances are they are not using it anymore.
Hey friends, I'm going to buy a D7100.
I already have the following Nikon lenses: 50mm 1.8 and 55-200mm 3.5-5.6.
My question is should I buy a D7100 with the 18-105mm lens or a D7100 with a 18-55mm and 35mm 1.8g
I ask this because I think that, perhaps, with a 18-105 I would stop using my 55-200mm. If I buy a 18-55mm I would still have use for the 55-200mm.
But I think that, since I already own a 50mm 1.8, the 35mm 1.8 on a DX body wouldn't be of any use.
I know that this is a weird question and in the end it all boils up to my own personal preferences but I'm new to photography and I'm interested to know your opinions on the matter.
i got some neewer light guns and triggers, the triggers and remote are set to the same freq (switches in the same position), triggers connected to flashes through hot shoe and the remote connected to camera through hot shoe. they're not firing and i have no idea why. any ideas? cameras nikon d3300 btw
>>2746890
so like, is your 50 immune to crop factor? i know there are lenses like that and it would reduce the value of the second deal but i dont think that is whats going on
ive got a crop and 50 and my wishlist is a 24 or 35 and perrsonally would reccomend just getting the 35 and skipping the zoom and buying more lights
I will be scanning my developed films with a DSLR and I want to ask which is better?
macro reverse ring or extension tube
>>2746895
my 50 isn't immune to crop factor. Its a 70mm equivalent.
However, in my opinion, there isnt a great difference between a 70mm (50mm on DX) and a 50mm (35mm on DX), since they're all on the short tele side.
A 35mm (24mm on DX) on the other hand, is something that I really want.
Problem is that I'm faced with these options:
18-55mm + 35mm or 18-105mm.
I'm really thinking about buying the 18-55mm + 35mm and selling the 35mm to buy something else.
>>2746899
Correction
>Problem is that I'm faced with exclusively these options:
Also check em.
Anyone? >>2746833
I'm desperately lacking a tele. My Tamron 27-40mm f/2.8 VC USD is the longest lens I have ._.
>>2746903
>Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM - $1,100
>>2746896
>>2746908
And in case you didn't understand, the answer is none of them.
Get a macro lense.
Or if you absolutely can't afford it, get any 50/2.8 you can find, and mount it on extension tubes.
You need a 50/2.8, and not a faster lense, because only tessar design lenses have the flat plane of focus and low distortion you need for good scans.
>>2746890
friends pls
>>2746836
Ok, So if i plan on printing shoot in RAW? i just have no experience editing or anything, So for now editing will rarely be done.. and only with a Free editing suite.
Want to use a Helios 44-2 with Sony A-Mount but I'm assuming I'll need to adapt from the M-mount
Any info on if its possible? And where can I get the requisite adapter?
>>2746917
those are m42 at least mostly, not m mount
>>2746932
if anon's going to pirate it then might as well get cc 2015 for the new features
that dehaze is hot, both ways on the slider
you ever load up some film preset like, i don't know, portra 400, and then put the dehaze into the negatives a little bit? it looks nice
>>2746933
Shiiiite CC 2015 is piratable now?
>>2746938
it's been piratable since it came out, cc 2014 was piratable not long after release either
>>2746912
>Get a macro lense.
lolwut
I scan my film with an extension tube all the time. You don't need a $300+ macro lens just for film scans.
Can somebody explain the Pentacks meme to me ?
>>2747018
Pentax is great on paper. Specs and durability higher than Canon, Nikon, or Sony, for the same price or cheaper.
The reality is, the cameras are a little less polished, and frequently have little glitches and annoyances (like shutters firing for no reason, or refusing to fire for a few seconds). Also, the lens selection can be limiting, because while there are a lot of lenses available, really competitive lenses are expensive, rare, and many times, come with compromises.
Because it's great on paper, and less great in practice, /p/ loves to suggest it, because /p/ is all about how things work on paper. You don't have to actually go out and take photos when you're already "winning" by having a better camera than your "competition".
>>2747024
never had a problem with my k-3 and it feels better in my hands than any shit bulky canon ive tried. its even better in practise because you can take it out in any weather
>>2747044
post hurricane photos
>>2747045
i live near chicago
weather sucks
but not for my camera
>>2747047
Great. Post horrible rain storm photos.
>>2747024
>The reality is, the cameras are a little less polished, and frequently have little glitches and annoyances (like shutters firing for no reason, or refusing to fire for a few seconds).
thisthatdidnthappen.txt
>Also, the lens selection can be limiting
This is the real criticism of the brand... That's entirely true, but Sigma and Tamron fill some of the gaps, but not all.
>>2747072
>thisthatdidnthappen.txt
http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/172-pentax-k-3/254464-k3-crazy-mirror-sickness-mirror-flapping-lockup-report-yours-here.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2nJXedKm2w
http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/115-pentax-k-5/152333-how-common-k5-shutter-mirror-problem.html
http://photo.net/pentax-camera-forum/00bTDk
etc.
>>2747072
>thisthatdidnthappen.txt
I might have just gotten screwed by luck, but I had a few of their cameras that kept giving me shit like that. Part of the reason why I just went back to Nikon since I kept all my old lenses.
I currently have a D3300, but I'm starting to run into it's limits (need faster AF, more controls, etc.). Would the D7100 be a good upgrade here? I know the sensors are about the same, but the better AF, weather sealing, better body, etc. seem like it'd be worth it. Thoughts?
>>2747115
Learn to pre-focus and get better lenses. Invest in better glass.
>>2747115
Yes, very much so.
>>2747124
Nvm me the D7100 is perfectly fine
>>2747124
D7100 is very very slightly behind the D3300. But that doesn't matter if none of your photos are in focus because of the low end AF system.
>save up for FF
wat
Why? What?
>>2747134
These are my thoughts exactly. I've been doing more event and sports stuff recently, and I've missed so many moments because of the AF on the D3300. Plus, I may be able to get a D7100 for ~$425 off Craigslist
Would this be the best way to back up the photos I take while traveling? I'm thinking of either using it to copy everything from my main memory card to a back up memory card every night. Or possibly transfer the photos from my memory card to an iPad and post them online somewhere. I'm paranoid about by camera getting stolen or something in more questionable areas, at least I'd have most of my photos backed up than completely lose everything.
>>2747048
You're mistaken for London
Post wind and tornadoes
>>2747225
This thing appears ridiculously expensive for how shit it is.
Get a 10Ah Xiaomi power pack for $10 if you want a battery (protip, it being separate is a good idea, lithium packs typically fail after a bunch of years), and an USB card reader for $1-2.
Of course you can backup to SD cards, but actually, why not just backup to a HDD or SSD? Your laptop or (maybe rooted) Android smartphone with an USB hub on some OTG port or whatever can do it.
>>2746833
sigma 100-600 sport
>>2747226
Why wouldn't a rebel Xt be okay in the wind?
Currently have a d600 with 20mm 2.8D. The 20mm has been abused and I'm looking for a replacement.
Should I go with the 20mm 1.8 AF or the samyang 24mm 1.4? I mainly do landscape and astrophotography.
Alternatively thinking of saving up for a mount and telescope
>>2746946
Are you the same retard that started using an iPhone because "the quality was better"?
I said, very specifically, that the quality of the results you would get from an extension tube was highly dependent on the lens design, and that using a kit zoom, or even a planar-style 50mm wasn't the best idea.
Tell us what lens, post a high res scan.
>>2747309
Either could work, I imagine.
Got a Ricoh KR-10 and some 35mm Fujicolor 200 film arriving tomorrow.
£25 for the camera, case, 50mm f2.0 lens and remote shutter.
£22 for 10 rolls of film.
How bad did I fuck up /p/?
>>2747348
what film is it?
>>2747348
Provided the camera isn't broken, probably not at all, mang.
I don't know about the f2, but my rikenon 50/1.7 is really sharp once you stop it down.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software GIMP 2.8.6 Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 350 dpi Vertical Resolution 350 dpi Image Created 2014:09:27 11:24:56 Exposure Time 1/250 sec F-Number f/13.0 Lens Aperture f/13.5 Exposure Bias 0 EV Focal Length 100.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1200 Image Height 800 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual Scene Capture Type Standard
>>2747351
Fujicolor C200. 36 shots per roll. I got cheap shit cos I figure my exposure skills will be terrible at first.
I've been keeping my Sony a6000 on ISO 200 for the last few days to get used to it.
>>2747353
Thanks. Feels good.
I'd head good things about their lenses. It's a shame I've not got any other K-mount lenses to fuck around with.
>>2747089
I'm pretty sure you could find errors of that kind for most camera manufacturers. d600 anyone?
Looking for the best film scanner under AUD$250. Doesn't need to produce amazing results, just want something good enough for mid-sized prints and HQ web stuff. Thanks!
>>2747354
C200 is a pretty reasonable film for it's price. I expose it at 100 but your milage may vary,
Ricoh has always made some great cameras, enjoy it. If this is your first foray into film, here's my one tip: don't worry about the highlights, expose for the shadows. Highlights are really quite difficult to fuck up on negative film, however you can really ruin shadows if you don't expose them properly, hence why I always shoot consumer tier film 1 stop slower than the box speed as it just makes shooting much more carefree
>>2747423
I don't get it, if I'm exposing a stop down, won't my shadows just be blacked out?
>>2747458
The opposite. 1 stop slower means you're shooting ISO 200 as if it's ISO 100, so you're effectively exposing it longer.
If you were exposing it at one stop faster, you would be shooting ISO 200 as if it were ISO 400, exposing it to light for less time.
The terminology is the opposite way you'd think it would be. Slow film = less light sensitive, has to be exposed for longer. Fast film = more light sensitive, has to be exposed to light for less time but has a reduced quality (grain).
Exposing ISO 200 film as if it were ISO 100 gives the shadow greater detail and produces an overall nicer image, especially with low quality film like C200
>>2747467
Sorry, I misread you. It all makes sense now. This won't be my first time shooting film but it's my first time in 20 years and my first since taking photography seriously.
I've only been using histogram for a month and found I generally under-expose so thanks for the tip.
>>2747312
I use a 50mm f1.4 ai nikkor so its sharp.
Getting into medium format, need a scanner for 120 and 220 film. Any suggestions?
>>2747393
Stop making sense, this is a dump on pentacks thread.\
>>2746946
>People still say "lense" instead of lens
Why though? is that because they don't speak English or do they know that little about photography that they can't even spell the word right?
>>2747480
Your camera and a pringles can.
Is it possible to use your phone to live stream video from your camera? You can already stream video from your phones camera.
>>2747583
It's not impossible but I'm not aware of any apps that can do it. I'd like to use my camera as a webcam. Why can't I do this?
>>2747588
I used my Canon 550D as a webcam by booting up the tethered live view in the Canon software EOS Utility, and then using a video stream generating program called ManyCam to take a video grab of my monitor.
Quality was great. No mic though...
>>2747479
I didn't think you'd post examples.
Imacon-bro was the only one who ever has.
>and he got btfo
All these people who "keep the full res on another harddrive" or some other fuccboi shit.
Try arguing with evidence next time...
so I just bought my first dslr (Nikon d5200) and the salesman tried to sell me a filter to protect the lens
I didn't buy it, but is this legit or was he just trying to just shill a bunch of accessories onto me
>>2747611
Largely a matter of opinion. Some feel it protects from dust, fingerprints, dirt on the front element and like using them, others feel it degrades the image quality to a noticeable degree and don't use them. Some just don't give a shit.
I'm of the latter opinion, I trust myself to clean my gear regularly.
>>2746873
Really, you're gong to recommend a 1000$+ camera?
>>2746852
Depends on what you can afford.
Photography is a pretty expensive hobby.
But I would definitely recommend finding a camera with interchangeable lenses.
>>2746917
Is this because you saw LTT's video?
I know I did and I'm considering getting it too.
>>2747596
Then post pics of your shitty scans with a flat bed then if you think they are better.
DSLR scanning is where its at.
I will post but I'm posting this on my phone.
>>2746908
>>2746912
>And in case you didn't understand, the answer is none of them.
In you post in the previous gear thread, you recommended a macro lens over an extension tube or reverse ring or close up filter. Is that what you are saying?
>Or if you absolutely can't afford it, get any 50/2.8 you can find, and mount it on extension tubes.
I wish I have a macro lens. The Tokina 100mm f2.8 macro lens is on my wish list but for $380+ it is way over my budget. The cheapest macro lens here that is being sold locally is a 55mm f2.8 nikkor AIS for $200.
Bottom line, I can't afford a macro lens. What are my options then? Is an extension tube or reverse ring really not an option?
>>2746833
the tamron is awesome
in fact the tamron 24-70/2.8 and 70-200/2.8 are both better than the latest 24-70/2.8 VR and 70-200/2.8 VRII from nikon. can't speak to canon's lenses but i'm pretty disappointed in nikon's latest fast zooms.
>>2747666
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Vintage-Carl-Zeiss-Jena-Tessar-50mm-2-8-M42-Prime-SLR-DSLR-Camera-lens-German/161947044634
I said ANY 50/2.8 you can find.
As in cheap shit like this.
An m42-to-whatever camera you have adapter will be less than 10 bucks, as will a set of extension tubes. There you go, scanning lense for $30.
>>2747768
>http://www.ebay.com/itm/Vintage-Carl-Zeiss-Jena-Tessar-50mm-2-8-M42-Prime-SLR-DSLR-Camera-lens-German/161947044634
Since that is also a 50mm, why won't my 50mm nikkor, as you said, be insufficient for scanning since they are both 50mm?
Also, the lens is $16.41 and to be shipped here it costs $12.77 not to mention customs duties and taxes. That's already $30+ excluding the extension tube. I will also buy an M42 to Nikkor adapter but it's only $3 so it's quite negligible.
So that will cost me around $40.
Compare that to a setup of my 50mm f1.4 (I already have one) + $10 extension tube = $10
Correct me if I'm getting your point or not.
>>2747629
Solid beginner DSLRs are:
Best bang for buck: Pentax K-50, K-S2
Most known but offers less: Canon 700D, 760D, Nikon D3300, D5500
MILCs:
Budget: Sony NEX5n, NEX7
More recent: Sony a6000
I asked this on a thread about astrophotography but it does on its arse so I'm repeating it here:
How much difference can the astrotracer on the k3ii make for astrophotography? I'm probably going to go full meme but the k3 is a bit cheaper than the k3ii. I'm interested in astrophotography though, so if it can make a good amount of difference I'd be tempted
>>2747787
Died on its arse, even
>>2747787
I have the K-3 with the gps astrotracer thingy. Tried it but it was close to -10C and left a bit of trailing. I'm waiting for warmer weather to try it again. If it was the cold doing the trailing then it can be damn accurate in normal temp.
Can't post photo because I'm on my phone
Sent from my iPhone
I was looking at the Canon 1D
Since it uses an electronic shutter, would the things to end its life soonest be the mirror falling off and the LCD burning out?
>>2747842
Electronic shutter as in still having a metal shutter assembly that is controlled entirely electronically, not mechanically as in earlier film cameras. And it will be the first one failing on you costing more to replace it than the whole thing cost you. Same kind of shutter mechanism as in the run of the mill DSLRs.
It's not like the mirrorless Fuji "electronic shutter" where it resets the pixels electronically.
>>2747852
>Electronic shutter as in still having a metal shutter assembly that is controlled entirely electronically
Shit, I thought it was like the CMOS in said Fuji.
So why was it the only Canon with a 1/500th flash sync?
Why didn't Canon use the advanced shutter on subsequent models?
>>2746890
Who's the bitch sitting on the books?
>>2747631
>Photography is a pretty expensive hobby.
Compared to what, senpai?
Golfing or any sport for that matter isn't cheap, unless you play tennis on your community court. Bicycles can easily run more than most cameras.
>>2746899
How is a 50mm not a 75mm on a DX Nikon?
>>2747629
Yes, really. The solid FF midrange cameras at around $1500 are good cameras to get started with.
I will spend 2 weeks un japan on june. Is there something gear related that is significantly cheaper over there???
Second? hand stuff lenses?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make OnePlus Camera Model ONE A2003 Camera Software OnePlus2-user 5.1.1 LMY47V 25 dev-keys Sensing Method Unknown Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 0 mm Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2016:01:15 17:36:16 Exposure Time 1/50 sec F-Number f/2.4 Exposure Program Not Defined ISO Speed Rating 68 Lens Aperture f/2.3 Brightness 0 EV Metering Mode Unknown Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 2.69 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1944 Image Height 2592 Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard
>>2747917
And the lenses that making having full frame worth it over a smaller lighter APS-C camera? Are those also cheap? Or do you end up with larger, heavier glass that's lower quality (meaning a lot of the times, your images actually look worse than they would have), and still 40% more expensive?
>>2747928
> And the lenses that making having full frame worth it over a smaller lighter APS-C camera?
That depends on the lens, but often yes.
Certainly, the specific bodies mentioned -the A7 II and D750- are better than almost all APS-C on the market right now. Good to start with.
> Are those also cheap?
No, they're also *average*.
[As cheap as possible wasn't in the question, only something that is good for a beginner.]
> Or do you end up with larger, heavier glass
Yes. A little bit. But it's still no problem for a healthy adult or even teen to carry around and use.
If you want to optimize for particularly small / light glass, you probably should go with some 1" sensor in a smartphone, point & shoot or a slightly bigger M4/3.
> that's lower quality (meaning a lot of the times, your images actually look worse than they would have)
I have no idea who told you that one, but no.
FF glass typically is as good or better as glass made for smaller sensors - even with the kit lenses you might start with.
>>2747948
I can pick up the optically excellent, fantastically built, great AF Fuji 18-55 for less than $300 USD. Find me a full frame lens that is its equal in all respects for the same price.
>>2747958
>Fuji 18-55 for less than $300 USD
Amazon has one for $245
>>2747958
>Find me a full frame lens that is its equal in all respects for the same price.
Find me an APS-C camera that is equal in all respects to the A7 II for the same price.
Find me a Fuji lens that is equal in all respects to the fixed 18-2000mm on a P900 super zoom.
It's a stupid argument.
Yes, I picked something better than what you seem to prefer or currently use. Again, I'm explicitly not trying to minimize costs, just giving a good beginner's setup that is still easily suitable for a western middle-class income.
These cameras have good value with a great feature set, so they make for excellent beginner's cameras.
>>2747611
The point is that if something smacks the front glass of the lens, it breaks the filter and not the front element of your lens.
>>2748005
>implying broken pieces of glass from the shatnered filter can't scratch the front element
Using "filters" for protection is many levels of stupid
>>2748005
If a hit is strong enough to damage your front element, it's going to smash straight through your bitty filter, and damage your front element anyways.
>>2747922
There is a whole fucking thread on exactly this topic right now, dipshit.
>>2748012
Just get a god damn lens hood. A filter is effectively another lens element, and the cheaper ones lower image quality noticeably. Only the expensive stuff degrades the image minimally, and that's not what you buy for a kit lens nyway.
I'm eyeing up a Pentax 645nii. One bundle comes with a 75mm FA/2.8. Another bundle comes with the 45-85 FA/4.5 for about $200 more. Both cameras are in similar shape. The zoom bundle has an extra 220 insert.
I can afford either. Which lens do you find more useful - the zoom or the prime? I already have a fixed focal length YashicaMat 124G, so I am leaning towards the versatility of the zoom, unless the 45-85 is actually dogshit.
>>2747922
Yes 90% of the time. Most gear is cheaper over there, and there's also the tax discount you get as a foreigner (8%). I've seen additional discounts of 5-10% on top of that with certain particular credit cards in the major stores.
The only problem you might have is that some camera vendors lock the language of the domestic models tough. But I am not exactly sure which brands do that and which ones do not, you'll have to research.
Lens are always at least a little cheaper, and there are plenty of options for quality used glass in major cities.
Source: Been there a lot.
posted this as a thread but anon sent me to here, thoughts on this lens for night sky photos?
Olympus Pen F.
80mp with high res shot mode.
>>2748323
it's a bit longer than i would personally use
i'm not really a night sky person but my equipment includes a D750, a 50 1.8G, and a 28-300/3.5-5.6 VR. when i've tried to do some nightsky shots i've gotten better results from the superzoom despite the fact it is far slower and has way more glass; the fact is that at 28 i can do a much longer exposure without star trailing and the 50 doesn't really have the best perspective for nightsky.
you want to look for wider primes
>>2748325
50mp in jpeg mode
Its over.
Sony A7R / medium format is kill.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Color Space Information Uncalibrated
Is anyone really feeling the Bern and willing to drop some money in a poor uni student's paypal account so I can buy a Venus Optics Laowa 15mm macro lens?
>>2748326
aight thanks anon
>>2748330
get out socialist fag.
>>2748331
you're welcome and good luck
i would add, if you don't already have a 50/1.8, that the D is a highly cost effective and great little lens
>>2748328
but what's the quality of the contents of those megapixels?
the x-pro1 looks so good you could scale it up 200% with the right tools and it would look like an a7rii
but we don't scale it up because there's no actual need
>>2748334
You've got 80mp worth of moire and color lossless data. Due to photosite overlap, it scales down to 50mp while looking tack sharp. Even better if you have one of the many decent m4/3 lenses.
>>2748332
im not a socialist, but im not going to turn my back on my socialist allies who may be willing to help me buy a sweet ass lens
>>2748198
You know, I've seen some of those hole in the wall secondhand shops in and around NYC when I visited for the first time in 2014. Anyone know if prices aren't ridiculously high at most of these places? I'm aware of the fact that the whole camera subculture isn't as prevalent here in the states but come on, the tourist tax can't be that bad.
>>2746890
So much grain. So much grain.
>>2748334
>the x-pro1 looks so good you could scale it up 200% with the right tools and it would look like an a7rii
No, this doesn't work. The A7R II has a better sensor to begin with and you can have better glass, too.
Decent camera, but it's not even quite a match for an A7 II.
Sorry if wrong place.
I'm looking to cover some photos in polyurethane/lacquer for a project.
Has anyone ever done anything similar that can give me some advice.
I need to find boxes where i can fill with lacquer and then break open.
Not sure how much sense this makes but if anyone could help me find cheap glass boxes that wouldn't leak I would greatly appreciate it.
>>2746891
Flashes are in slave mode? If so put them in master happened to me the first time, also double check channels, have one in one configuration the other in other once one flashes it has te right.
>>2746852
Buy an old 40D-60D, and with the money saved, get a 2.8 17-50 zoom lens. It is a good way to get started.
(or if you want to go full frame, get an old 5D and the 35mm prime). Its
My Mamiya m645 came in today, I was a little worried because this was the first time ever that I saw an import duty.
Hey /p/, Im looking for a new laptop, since I also do a lot of /gd/ stuff what should I get?
I was thinking about a Retina Macbook 15, or a Lenovo Z70. Any other reccs?
>>2748407
Instead of a Lenovo z-series, you should try going for a Y-series, mainly because you can get stronger GPUs
I've got a few close-up filters but they have this odd milky haze to them. This one haze it the worst, all over the glass.
It feels like paper, it becomes translucent when wet, hydrogen peroxide dries quickly on it, hydrogen peroxide on a substantially cleaner filter of the same set slides around and doesn't stick but on this hazy one it does stick.
Windex sitting on it won't remove it, lens cleaning fluid whose contents I don't know won't remove it, hydrogen peroxide won't remove it.
Any ideas?
>>2748426
When I say it becomes translucent when wet, I mean it looks clean and clear when I just look at it on my table with a desk lamp.
>>2748426
Into the trash, all of them before it spreads over on your gear
>>2748428
I'm not sure that it's fungus, it doesn't have the branching patterns that you'd expect.
It looks like something that was wiped on.
>>2748430
If isopropyl can't get it off then it's useless. Just get rid of them.
>>2748435
Running low on isopropyl so I split it with vodka.
They're drowning in an air-tight container right now, figure I'll leave it for a good long while.
Good idea.
talked about this in the last thread but I'm still super unclear
I shoot concerts. 5DM2. about to get a bunch of money.
do I sell my 5DM2 and buy a 5DM3? or an a7s? a7ii? I dunno
I can't find like any photos of concerts with an a7s. I just know that low light is literally the most important variable for me and the a7s has that AND good focus
plus, trying to do more video work. behind the scenes. music videos. stuff like that. a7s sounds good but no internal stabilizer and I can't afford an a7sii.
>>2748445
if you want a7s for video, you need to adapt a wide angle manual focus lens and hyperfocal.
>>2748446
elaborate
I have a 17-40 f4 for my 5d and it's like the most useful lens for shooting video in small spaces. I'm sure I can sell it to buy a sony equivalent
>>2748445
Get the A7s. The 5D III is not that good at high ISO/low light so there won't be any benefits at all.
i want to get into photography more. I purchased a t5 over christmas after previously owning a t3i but the t3i was stolen back in october. the t5 was super chintzy. it was too light and no matter how i messed with the white balance the photos would always come out with a blueish tint.
I want to keep the with the canon bodies. what would be a good lenses to go with on a t3i body for doing automotive photography and some night photography plus some macro because i shoot inventory items at work. I will also be travelling internationally in the middle of the year, I understand this is very vague. My Ig is k5kickin and i understand the photos arent the best but these were taken with the cheap 24mm 2.4 off amazon and the t5.
I would like a few lenses suggestions ranging in the costing in total 600-1000 dollars for 2-4 lenses.
however ive been using my my coworkers d3100 while being old and beat up. i feel it takes better photos with cheaper lenses. im very torn
>>2748451
the one thing that fucks me up is
do I sell my 5DM2? or should I just keep it. idk I'm too scared to sell it. it's a good camera.
>>2747115
D7100 is a wild improvement in usability from the entry level Nikons. I'd recommend it without any hesitation, especially if you get it refurbished/used for cheap.
![Fujifilm_X100_001[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/XWo5adQ.jpg "Fujifilm_X100_001[1].jpg")
Hi /p/
I've been out of the loop with gear for many years now. I want a compact, non interchangeable lens camera.
When I used to be in the know pic related was one of the best options. What are the best options now in various price ranges?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Canon Camera Model Canon EOS 5D Mark II Camera Software Adobe Bridge CS6 (Macintosh) Photographer Simon Meyer Maximum Lens Aperture f/2.8 Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Image Created 2013:01:28 11:39:03 Exposure Time 1/5 sec F-Number f/16.0 Exposure Program Aperture Priority ISO Speed Rating 250 Lens Aperture f/16.0 Exposure Bias 0.7 EV Metering Mode Pattern Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 70.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1200 Image Height 800 Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard
>>2748455
If you don't need to sell it for the new body then keep it. It's always good to have a second body at hand.
>>2748452
Just ditch the Canon, get a Nikon D7100, Pentax K-50 or Sony a6000
>>2748469
i was just looking at the d5500
>>2748471
You can get much more lenses for a D7x00 and you get a lot more features, better metering and shutter etc...
The D5500 is too limited. If that is all you need then it worth more to get a D3300.
>>2748466
- Sony RX100 series (for 1" compact) $310 - $950
- Sony RX1 series (for FF compact) $1200 - $1700
- Ricoh GR II (most compact APS-C) $550 new
- Fuji X100T (X100 + better firmware) $950 - $1300
- Fuji X70 (X100 without viewfinder) $700 new
- Nikon Coolpix A (underrated imo) $350 used
I know you said non-interchangable, but an a7 + RF lens is also pretty tiny (pic related). There are other options I can recommend if you get more specific.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make SONY Camera Model ILCA-77M2 Maximum Lens Aperture f/2.8 Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 135 mm Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2014-09-16 21:13:16 Exposure Time 1/60 sec F-Number f/2.8 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 2500 Lens Aperture f/2.8 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash Focal Length 90.00 mm Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard
>>2748445
>but no internal stabilizer and I can't afford an a7sii
Jesus man just get a rig, it'll cost less than paying the difference between the a7s and a7smkII. It'll also make you look much more professional than shooting handheld.
>>2748450
a7s auto focus is not good.
>>2748452
my eos m gives warm colours.
same sensor.
try with a different lens.
otherwise, get an a6000 like you should have in the first place. it will give you a green tint.
>>2748390
nah thanks for the reply but they're just low quality and need to be detached and reattached frequently when you cchange settings
>>2748493
Holy shit, thanks friend
>>2748399
How much was the duty? Did you have to pay at the post office?
Anyone have experience with the " Nikon 70-300mm Af Zoom F/4-5.6g" the version with no VR?
i want to take a tripod on short motorcycle trips
need something cheap, compact, light and sturdy.
ok guys a7r owner here:
i have la-ea4 adapter and tamron 28-75 f2.8,
i want to sell it and buy old manual lens (35 or 50mm). i have two priority: size and quaitly - what can you recomen me?
>>2748589
I don't have that lens, but I had a similar one. The lack of VR made it a little difficult to use without a tripod or something unless it was kinda bright out.
>>2747922
The internet has more or less killed brick and mortar shopping these days, regardless of region.
You might find something in a regular thrift shop, but you'd better be able to speak pretty well (not just fluently, but actually be well spoken).
Opinions on C stands? Purchasing 2 or 3 in the next couple days and want to know what you /p/eople thought.
Video grip guys around here say not to get Mathews and go with American. Some online reviews say do not get impact.
Will be using some on locations for a sturdier stand and in studio to get lights overhead and holding backgrounds (and rando other shit)
Thoughts?
>>2748589
I heard it is shit. Get the VR version it is well worth it.
Anyone have the Sigma 70-200mm for nikon? Interested in getting it, as I need a 70-200 but I'm weary of sigma as I have a 10-20mm from them and the aberration is fucking dreadful.
>>2748721
It's pretty much the worst 70-200 you can get, but it works. If you're going off first-party, the newer Tamron is a very good option, but it's still quite a bit more than the Sigma, unless prices have changed. There are lots of comparisons online.
>>2748721
Get the 70-200 Tamron Di Vc or the Sigma Sports 120-300 instead.
>>2748612
Dic&Mic E302C from Aliexpress, or if you want to spend more than $120, a Sirui T or ET series.
I have a chance to buy an rx100 mk3 for $400. Do I go for it or buy a GR or save up for a fuji?
Current pocketable is the MK1
Going to get Fed 3 tomorrow, what kind of lightmeter you recommend?
>>2748776
Why not use what you have.
>>2748807
Your Smartphone and a lightmeter software
I'm interested in buying a good quality zoom in order to travel light in my trips.
I'm divided between the following:
Nikkor 24-120mm f4
Nikkor 28-300mm f3.5-5.6
Nikkor 18-300mm f3.5-5.6
What do you guys think? Do you have any other suggestions?
>>2748847
Don't buy soperzoom lenses, they are baaad. No exception. Stick to your standard-wide zoom and a telezoom.
>>2748847
I imagine there are comparisons and reviews of all three lenses already posted to the internet.
>>2748852
How bad is "baaad"?
>>2748861
Bad IQ and aberrations galore pn both ends, only usable in the middle where it still has aberrations. Imagine sticking a lens from a cheap bridge camera on.
Guys I have a Sony A58 with a 35mm lens and the kit lens and I wanto to upgrade and Im really lost.
I was thinking about Nikon D7100 but I dont know if its really worth to update from the A58, my budget is arround 400-700 € second hand market.
I also have a Pentax MX with the 50mm 1.7 lens to street photography so I want an ''all terrain'' camera ( video, photo, etc..)
>>2748861
Anything with high clashing contrast will have distracting purple fringing
the cheaper the lens, the worse
>>2748847
I have the 24-120 and I do like it as a single do-all lens. The VR is nice for non-moving low light subjects. However, I would not pay its "new" price. I got mine mint with box/papers/accessories for a hair over $500 shipped to me
>>2748847
>>2748852
is wrong
the 28-300 VR is a good lens
though he's right that most of them are bad but the 28-300 VR is an exception. i wouldn't bother with the sigma or tamron superzooms though. the nikkor is very sharp and all of its defects (like the hilarious amount of distortion) are very easily corrected in post by lightroom.
i'd avoid the 18-300 and I don't like the 24-120/4 nearly as much as the 24-85/3.5-4.5 AF-S though maybe that's too short for you
hi mates i need gear
looking to get a studio so need lighting and backdrop thats not going to break the bank but also not going to be awful.
I guess a couple of softboxes?
how do i backdrop? i like that woven look like in attached pic as well as just a plain old white.
i guess paper is cheapest??? help i know nothing when it comes to this. you can get cheap as hell crap on ebay but how crap is it?
also big fan of
https://41.media.tumblr.com/e4b73b40302ed46b6505e3bfc807e435/tumblr_o178rx3DcZ1sny77yo1_540.jpg
help
>>2748935
Paul C Buff Einsteins, and some paper roll backdrops. Probably 9' wide for versatility. A cheap stand will do okay so long as you don't knock it, but if you have a real studio space, you'll probably want to mount it to the wall. You'll want triggers, and the paul c buff ones are good with their equipment, but if you want the real stuff, it's pocket wizards. Get the diffusers you want.
When you get a studio, make sure it's not a 10x10 room. You'll want close to 30 feet of working space for a lot of "pro looking" results.
>>2748935
> need lighting
On the cheap? I'd consider getting a few YN560 III/IV plus a -TX controller.
Even if you then still might add 1-2 Alienbees, whatever you can cover with a YN560 is probably some money saved, and you have a more portable option when you need to shoot somewhere else without getting into expensive battery packs or generators.
> you can get cheap as hell crap on ebay but how crap is it?
Get it off aliexpress and it's usually cheaper.
The Chinese stands are okay. Not terribly sturdy, but you can do 2.5m high x 3m wide with those as long as you're not hanging a very heavy backdrop (some theater cloth backdrops could be too heavy) off of these.
Of course you can't attach lights to that same frame either.
>>2748864
Why exactly do you want to upgrade?
But no, a D7100 isn't a very big upgrade from an A58.
>>2748940
paul c buff seems to be usa only?
got some triggers already but should invest in something better i feel.
>>2748965
got one yongnuo flash already. would you say getting another yonguo plus controller is a nice idea? then a couple of diffusers and use that as a starting point for a basic ligthing setup?
are flashes preferable to softboxes? i've worked with photographers who are all about softboxes and rarely use any flash.
ali express. thanks for reminding me (y)
I'm searcing for a small digital camera wich has to have an optical viewfinder. I don't need a videofunction or any fancy stuff. Do you guys have any recommendations? I kinda only find digital viewfinder ones wich i really can't stand.
>>2748982
>would you say getting another yonguo plus controller is a nice idea?
Yes, but *specifically* the YN560 III/IV/TX (or whatever is compatible), because it's a remotely configurable manual flash system.
If you have to run between flashes to adjust settings, that gets tedious very quickly and slows you down a lot.
> then a couple of diffusers and use that as a starting point for a basic ligthing setup?
Apart from that, yep. It's a pretty good starting point.
Certainly, one LED panel YN300 (or some 5500k LED bulb in) as a work light plus 1-2 big studio strobes also will be interesting, if you can afford them too.
> are flashes preferable to softboxes?
Eh...? Did you mean reflector umbrellas, perhaps?
Flashes are what you use to get light. Standing lights are not a good choice for photography.
Softboxes / reflectors / honecomb grids / fresnel lenses and stuff are light modifiers, you can use them to direct, focus and scatter light a bit.
>>2748809
I have been for a couple years. I'd like to upgrade.
Also, I miss having a viewfinder...
>>2748994
>I have been for a couple years. I'd like to upgrade.
Fucking digital faggots.
>>2749002
Look at this grandpa, half leg in the grave shouting nonsense
>>2748992
whoops. I meant something like 'is flash preferable to a constant light source'.
but it's ok now. flash is the way forward isn't it.
I currently have a YN 568EX II. Whats cheap and compatible so that...
568 EXII
+
(cheap suggestion)
+
the TX controller and some receivers = successful system..?
I'm looking on Aliexpress now. cheapo stands for lights and a backdrop + mounts for flash + umbrella + umbrellas all seems very affordable. :3
Finding a paper backdrop seems more difficult. Where should I be looking for this?
Thanks for the help x
>Mamiya m645 came in today
>Body and lens both in great shape
>Missing take up spool
>>2749028
>whoops. I meant something like 'is flash preferable to a constant light source'.
Yes, absolutely so for photography. Strobes get light outputs that are really quite unrealistic with continuous lights.
http://photography.tutsplus.com/tutorials/strobes-or-continuous-lighting-whats-the-better-choice-for-you--photo-14549
Of course, you'll still need a continuous work light so you can see and focus more easily indoors. A 5000 to 5500k LED one is a good idea since most strobes will be around that color temperature, so you don't get an annoying mix of colored lights.
> YN568EX II
Hm, I think the matching RF system something like the YN-622 (+YN-622-TX), YN-E3-RT or YNE3-RX, but I never worked with these.
As far as I know, you can't really mix and match the TTL flashes and YN560 III/IV yet, not with one central controller anyways. (If you adjust them on two controllers I guess you can trigger them together, though).
You probably need more YN568EX II and those TTL RF devices I just mentioned.
Or you just switch to 560 III / IV / TX (+ the upcoming YN660) for the studio setup; it might be cheaper that way.
> I'm looking on Aliexpress now. cheapo stands for lights and a backdrop + mounts for flash + umbrella + umbrellas all seems very affordable. :3
Yep. I personally liked the Godox-branded diffusers best, but pretty much all the gear I got from there was quite okay.
>>2748776
I think it's a pretty good camera as far as pocketable cameras go. Go for it?
>>2749061
kek
Just tear open a bran-nu roll of dat velveeta for the spool m8!
>or, you know, as for one out of the bin at a camera shop
>>2749078
I'm going ot go to a shop over the weekend, so I might ask if they have one when I get my first roll for it. Then have to get a battery. Then finally get to test out that 70mm 2.8 Sekor on it
Can someone explain why my canon s110 can do f/8 at the highest, but only says it can do f/5.9 max on the lens? I'm in a class where the teacher requires a camera that has a range from f/2 to f/8 and it's making me unsure.
>>2749064
cool. looks like two 560 III's is only a little more than one 568 EX II so thats nice.
so...
2 x 560 III + TX + compatible trigger(?)
+ an aliexpress splurge and i'm good?
>>2749101
It can only open up to f/5.9 at the longest end of the zoom. It can stop down further than that.
>>2749109
> + compatible trigger(?)
The 560-TX (or an 560-IV) triggers the speedlights.
But if you want an external trigger for the camera, you can get such a thing, sure.
Other than that, this sounds fine for an initial setup.
>>2749117
lovely. thanks for your help
>>2749101
>Can someone explain why my canon s110 can do f/8 at the highest, but only says it can do f/5.9 max on the lens?
I think it's f/2 maximum, not f/8 if I got the right spec sheet.
But at the 120mm telephoto end you can only get f/5.9.
You're working with a variable maximum aperture zoom lens. It's not the same maximum aperture across the zoom range.
>>2749123
No problem. Have fun with your setup, maybe we'll hear from each other again in some gear thread.
By the way, you'll want to do this on the 560-III when you get them:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7RwwzFXDnOE
This is the only thing I actually needed to read the manual for, everything else I just understood from the labels, on both the flashes and the commander. Not that you *shouldn't* read manuals...
>>2749131
cheers. i've been watching a couple of setup videos. it all looks really straightforward, which surprises me
I have a BMPCC, want to do some freelance DP work, wondering what gear I need.
I have a Pentax K-5ii. Are m42 lenses worth the hassle of putting on and removing the adapter? I also have a 18-55mm and 35mm f2.4.
im going to throw down soon and get a couple tripods. I have a pretty big space set aside for a faux studio, but i also like hiking so.... it's prudent to get one travelling one and one indoor model yes?
The question is : which one is worth investing more monies into?
What are the cheapest cameras out there that will deliver professional results both for photography and recording? The GH4 is beyond my budget
>>2749212
Dic&Mic E302C.
Wait with getting a studio tripod until you know you need it. At which point maybe a Manfrotto 055XPROB.
>>2748693
Hey me again. Nobody here has a strong and/or judgmental opinion about c stands?
>>2749235
You could get arguably reasonably professional photos with an A6000 or D7200 or A7 if you know your stuff and have good glass & good light.
[Though not with the same reliability and flexibility and productivity as with the usual professional gear of choice.]
You can't really get professional video for even less than a GH4, which ultimately is still an *amateur* film camera. Even if you mount it on some nice stabilizers and gizmos that also cost a lot, it still is an amateur camera.
>>2749152
depends on the level of work you are doing. At least a tripod and fluid head, maybe a shoulder rig. Helps to have some of your own lighting, but probably going to have to rent some. Wide Lens (enjoy that crop factor dude), probably couldn't hurt to get a small HD so you see what you are focusing on, extra batteries, etc. How much money do you want to dump into this?
>>2749243
>D7200
I heard good things about this camera, I know it's dynamic range is killer. How does it compare to the D5500, though? Is it worth the extra cost? What about the video?
>>2748871
2nd on the 28-300.
All things considered, it really is a pretty good lens. My copy produces nice enough images that I leave it on unless I need something wider/faster/longer for specific purposes.
>>2749244
Well I already have 6 BMPCC batteries, but I'm thinking of buying a Tilta Cage + v-mount battery, and follow focus.
I have Minolta lenses: 28, 45, 50, and 70-200mm.
I want to get a speedbooster, but don't know which one to get.
Has anyone here tried pushing 100 film to 1600? if you have, post the results, I'm tired of seeing vids of people pushing 400 film by 2 stops at the most, I've only seen one sample image and it was postage-stamp resolution
>tfw never be able to afford a Graflex Norita
>>2748559
define not good
because the 5DM2 is definitely not good either
Pentax 67 or Hasselblad?
Hasselblad is the stronger meme but Pentax photos look phenominal. Am I missing something here?
>>2749342
That huge fucking shutter, and the huge mirror in front of it.
Great for trigerring avalanches, not so much for making an exposure without inducing vibration.
>>2749353
Isnt that fixed with mirror lock up and the lens' built in leaf shutter?
Just got a full frame camera recently. I felt like I had a pretty good grasp of balancing my settings to get the correct exposure on my old crop sensor camera. I've been messing around with the full frame camera, it feels like it takes me more test shots until I get the exposure I want. Is this normal when switching to a new camera or am I going crazy?
>>2749376
Sounds like you're shooting in memeual. Try using a priority mode for general shooting like most people have been doing since the 80s.
>>2749287
Certain films push better than others. BW films take to pushing better than colour film does.
>>2749265
None of the Nikons are worth shit for video. The lack of focus peaking means you're guessing where focus will be. Great stills cameras, sure, but they lack the video features to even be considered as amateur video cameras.
Why not get a GH3 or Canon with Magic Lantern? Any camera will deliver on stills, it's the video side you should be worried about.
>>2749265
> I heard good things about this camera, I know it's dynamic range is killer.
Yea, it has got a good sensor.
But that's not what it has over the A6000 which has better video features. It's mostly the larger lens lineup.
> How does it compare to the D5500, though? Is it worth the extra cost?
You get the AF motor for the older lenses and a bunch of software features as compared to the D5500, so yep, usually worth it.
>>2749376
No, this isn't normal. Did you get an older Canon or something?
Newer Sony / Canon / Nikon FF cameras have got really good automatic modes and metering area selection. Nothing should be very surprising with either.
Plus the EVF on a Sony gives you an exact preview by default, and it's pretty much the same for Canon/Nikon's respective live view modes if you enable it.
>>2749204
I use a few M42 lenses with my K-3. I removed the spring from the adapter so I can screw the adapter on the lens and use it as a K-mount lens. No stuck adapter, no hassle changing lenses.
I've been offered a 24mm Nikkor AF for my 35mm 1.8G. I'm a DX user (D7100) and I've already got a 50mm.
Should I go for it?
>>2749483
If you prefer a 24mm AF, why not. How would I know?
>>2749489
I do prefer the 24mm on the DX (35 equivalent) but I'm not sure about sharpness and overall quality
>>2749500
Maybe this will help:
http://slrgear.com/reviews/showcat.php/cat/12
>>2749503
It does. Thanks
>>2749463
>I removed the spring from the adapter so I can screw the adapter on the lens and use it as a K-mount lens
I tried doing that, removing the spring, attacking the adapter, and leaving it there, but then K rear caps won't stay on the lens. how do you fix that?
>>2749517
When I'm done using it I just unscrew the adapter and use the M42 rear cap. It takes less than 10 seconds.
>>2748990
polite bump for this because i found out there are a few ones:
Canon A1400 Powershot
Canon G16 Powershot
Canon G1X Powershot
Fujifilm X10
Fujifilm X20
Fujifilm X100
Fujifilm X100S
Fujifilm X100T
Are any of those cosidered at least ok? Most of them are already out of production it seems.
>>2749536
Ricoh GRII with an optical viewfinder attached to the hotshoe. Best combination you will find.
>>2749539
Thanks for the answer. While it's a very nice camera it is a bit too expensive for me. My cap is around 400€.
Also i really would like a inbuild VF.
I wanna use the camera while traveling and so it should be light/small and i fear extra attachements would go missing.
Whats the advantage of a Battery Grip instead of just changing batteries?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 640 Image Height 480
>>2749549
that other grip for holding the camera in portrait mode
and sometimes changing batteries would be inconvenient and you're willing to trade off some bulk to ensure you don't have to
>>2749549
Vertical position grip, better ergonomics, much more stable in portrait.
>>2749549
gives you a place to change aperature, shutter speed and take a shot in portrait without bending your wrist.
Plus with a grip you don't have to switch any battery out, it just lasts longer.
Question about street photography legality.
Can i take pictures of anything/anyone? or do i need people permission to photograph them?
>>2749577
Why is this in gear thread? Oh well..
It depends where you live. Read local laws.
Post into stupid questions thread next time.
>>2749577
That is national law of the place where you live.
I can tell you that in most cases, something is off limits, and be it just military or private premises.
I think in the USA you can take pictures of people in public without permission, that won't be the same in some European countries...
>>2749577
the rule of thumb is that if you're in a public place, you have the right to take photographs of anything you can see. you're on pretty solid ground if you're in a place of "public accommodation", too. That is, a place like a store that is privately owned but is open to the public.
I'm assuming you're not in China or something. Local laws may vary so double check that.
>>2749577
USA? Read this and the linkage it contains:
http://content.photojojo.com/photo-technique/tips/legal-rights-of-photographers/
How can I fix my Fed 3 shutter?
>>2749591
Throw it out and buy another one. Doesn't cost more than $20, it's just a mass produced russian piece of shit.
>>2749587
There are also regs that vary by state in the US. Just something to keep in mind.
>>2748346
In glorious nipponland used gear places are sometimes hole in the wall, but sometimes they are multi-story buildings with different floors for different camera systems / makers (narrow buildings, mind you). I typically saw a 20-40% reduction in price for used gear (on japanese prices, which are usually lower), and everything I saw was from very good to like-new condition. Minor scuffs sometimes but you have to look hard to find them.
Friend is offering his Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 VC USD for $450.
I've played around with it already and it seems to be in perfect condition but a bit weary after seeing this... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZcWXLeK5Z_c
What do /p/? Should I risk it?
>>2749741
You've played around with it. Is the quality good enough for what you want?
>>2749745
I'm afraid it'll go to shit as soon as I buy it. The only lens I have right now is a EF 28-80mm f/3.5-5.6 II I bought for $5. So yeah this lens WOULD be a lot better, but not sure if it'll be worth it...
>>2749751
>I'm afraid it'll go to shit as soon as I buy it.
That is not a thing that happens. It's not a loaf of bread, or a bushel of bananas.
>>2749754
I'm just a little paranoid I guess... Anyway, is it worth the price?
>>2749757
I have no idea. "worth" is entirely subjective. Do you only have $500 to your name? Do you plan to do any work with it? Could you use it to make at least $450? "worth" is entirely up to you.
>>2749757
If it goes sour you can beat up your "friend" for selling that crap. If not, then be a happy tog and use it.
