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: >>2760748
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties:
Got me the Sigma 18-35mm. She beautiful, but has some trouble with back focusing, especially on 1pt focus.
Now I got the calibration cap, and you can hone focus, but because you can't see the effects until you re-attach the lens it's going to take a whole lot of fucking time, going through every focal length.
Does anyone have a map of what they've calibrated it at to save me some time?
Got a 750D
>inb4 rable
I just bought a FED 3 type b, it should be coming in the mail soon. Is there anything I should know from current owners?
Screen protector, yes or no?
>>2763989
For what camera?
>>2763991
X100
So should I be getting used to moving my autofocus sensor around or should I recompose and shoot?
I take it both are valid, and one might be more useful in time intensive situations, which would be best to get the hang of first?
Got an X-T10 and the XF35mm f1.4. It's a beautiful lens, but the autofocus is a bit too slow for my use. Also feel like I would like to go wider. So I've been thinking about selling it and getting the f2 later when they pop up on the used market.
I can only really afford to own one lens at the moment, so which makes the most sense, 14mm, 16mm or the 18mm? Or even the pancake? I've read that the 18mm is a bit of a letdown, and I might get a GR later on which would cover that focal length.
>>2763992
Into the trash it goes. That's like putting a case on a point and shoot. How rough do you handle your camera?
>>2763997
Fuji has always had shit focus regardless of lens.
>>2763994
Whichever you prefer. The earlier is good for multiple shots, the latter good for quickly getting one-two shots.
If you have enough resolution / a wide enough lens, you also can just crop in post.
>>2763989
normally i dont but my dad bought me one for my k-3 so i stuck it on. works fine
I'm using a T3i right now, with a Sigma 35mm 1.4 lens. (I also have the stock lens, and a 50mm 1.8)
As I've gotten much better at photography, I kind of want something else now, but I'm not sure what.
Either:
-Ricoh GR (Looks sick)
-A New Lens
-A Speedlite (Never tried flash photography before)
Mainly I use my camera for martial arts pictures.
>>2764003
Well, I plan to hang it sling style, so I imagine it'll be rubbing up against the side of my leg for quite some time.
>>2764020
I guess you should, if you can't see yourself buying a small satchet for it, takes up a bit more space but it protects it infinitely better
>>2764003
Wait whats wrong with putting a case on a point and shoot? I want my RX100 flawles....
>>2764018
A speedlight would be useful for stopping motion mid-air.
sigma 35mm 1.4 hasn't left my mark II in about two years
>>2764018
I'd go with the speedlight, too.
>>2764020
I'd get one of those tempered glass protectors if you really think you need one. The plastic film ones suck, as do the snap-on hard plastic ones, but I've had the glass ones on a few cameras and they do a great job of protecting from scratches without making it impossible to see your LCD.
>>2764018
>lens costs 3 times as much as the body.
>>2764034
Good glass + mediocre body is usually better than mediocre glass + good body.
He is doing just fine by using that lens, I think.
>>2764029
I only got the 35mm for my K-3 a few months ago, but it spent most of the time on the camera.
So much different than the standard zoom.
Broke the 18-55 kit lens on my Nikon D3300. Which lens should I get as a replacement? Nikon 18-55 VR II again, Nikon 18-105 or a used Sigma 17-50 / 17-70?
>>2764038
You might want to use a TTL+HSS able speedlight by Yongnuo or Cactus or something.
I'm not using a Canon, so I can't tell you exactly which.
>>2764041
The Sigma Art 18-35mm f/1.8 is a great option.
>>2764045
what makes it different/more expensive than the regular sigma 35mm 1.4
>>2764047
its wide,zooms and is f/1.8
>>2764045
>The Sigma Art 18-35mm f/1.8 is a great option.
Out of my budget. I wasn't planning buying a lens right now, but since the 18-55 kit lens broke I have to. I need something more universal than a prime lens. Is it correct, that lenses from other manufacturers than Nikon are not supported by the camera's compensation and therefore perform worse?
>>2764047
The Sigma Art 35mm f/1.4 is an excellent full frame *prime* lens.
The Sigma Art 18-35mm f/1.8 is an APS-C *zoom* lens (covers 18 to 35mm).
They both actually have a fairly comparable price here.
>>2764051
AF-S 35/1.8
Cheap, sharp... cheap
Also great for most situations.
>>2764050
Which two models? I could have a look if I can spot the difference.
>>2764057
YN-568EX II
and
YN600EX-RT
Those are the only two TTL ones I can find
whats the best variable 52mm nd filter?
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Vivitar-52mm-Neutral-Density-Variable-Fader-NDX-Filter-ND2-to-ND1000-VNDX-52-/130673106277
This any good?
>>2764059
I'm thinking I'll just grab the YN600EX-RT it's only like $10 more, lol.
>>2763971
The fine tune is different for every lens, but it's well worth it
>>2764037
I hate this logic. This is the same shitty reasoning shitposters pull against Sony bodies like the A6x00 or the other Sony bodies.
>>2764059
YN-568EX II: ~$90, no wireless flash support and older controls, slightly weaker, less narrow maximum zoom (less zoom levels)
YN600EX-RT: ~$120, differences are the obvious ones vs above. The zoom level difference is quite significant for longer distance shooting, and I suspect so is the wireless functionality if you use it. The rest, perhaps not so much.
>>2764066
Related for you gearfag
https://youtu.be/hk5IMmEDWH4
>>2764067
Thanks brah.
Also, I need a UV filter and a polarizing filter. Does it matter which brand? If so, which brand?
>>2764068
>calls me a gearfag
>spends thousands on glass
>much cheaper to buy good Sony body and affordable lense yet get better IQ.
Yeah okay, gearfag.
>>2764069
Shitty filters cause a lot of distortions, aberrations and ungly flares. Your best bet is to get a top shelf one, but I would advise against a UV filter. It is useless on digital and causes more problems then what it solves.
>>2764066
It makes sense if you look at the overall resolution you get in the end. Also often helps to simply get a decent people shot with some details.
Using this as an argument against Sony seems odd? Sony features some of the best high-end glass of all brands.
>>2764075
Yeah and people claim the Sony lense selection sucks.
>>2764069
Usually you don't need an UV filter on digital cameras.
And for many, no-name polarizing filters from China are fine, just try one of these first.
>>2764074
Good looks, brah.
Just ordered my speelight and I'm excited to figure out how flash photography works. Maybe I'll be the next Uncle Terry.
>>2764080
>Maybe I'll be the next Uncle Terry.
What, dying of aids?
>>2764082
AIDS contracted from hot models? I can only hope.
>>2764076
The typical complaint is about absence of cheap glass for APS-C.
I guess I also saw some nonsense about *Sony* lenses here, but no one can get more perfectly workable high-end glass for their body than A7 II / A7R II users, even if it's clearly not all made by Sony but also by Zeiss, Sigma, Tamron, Canon, Minolta and many more.
>>2764080
Hope you have some fun with it.
Is the Nikon D3300 a good camera for a beginner?
If not, what would you say is the best camera under $400 for complete newbs?
>>2764100
It's very good for a beginner.
>>2764100
The D3300 is a good option for a cheap DSLR.
Beginners could use high-end DSLR. Should even be easier. They just cost too much for most people.
>>2764100
Pentax K-50 with WR kit lens.
I have Nikon DSLR d3100
I LOVE macro photography but also photography with (I think aperture?) Like focus and blurry backgrounds..
What lenses should I buy, I really want one, but never knew where to start
Have I been memed by this board or is buying a TLR a genuinely good idea?
>>2764113
Not really, no. It uses film and it is expensive, finicky, has subpar results and is old deprecated technology.
D3100 Nikon
I love macro photography, obviously wanting cheap lens, (aperture?) One that gives greas focs and blurred backgrounds
Halp
>>2764118
Sounds like a 50mm prime. You can flip them for macro capabilities, and extension tubes are less than $20 online.
>>2764112
Sigma 105mm f/2.8 might be a good macro lens.
Sigma Art 50mm f/1.4 is a great bokeh whoring lens.
>>2764118
I see you added cheap?
Try extension tubes or achromat filter lenses with whatever lenses you already have.
I am a canon shooter. I-ll be selling my 70-200 f4 and was thinking of buying the 2.8 is mk 2. Should I do this or invest in the sony a7r2?
>>2764163
>invest
>Sony
Pick one.
>>2764163
I'd get the A7R2.
What's the point of using back button focus instead of just pushing the shutter button down halfway? From what I've been reading it's supposed to make the process a little faster, but I'm not really noticing a difference yet.
>>2764163
Better glass is always the preferable move. Only upgrade the body if it keeps you back.
>>2764167
It doesn't make the camera focus faster, it just means that you can hold the button down and fire off a bunch of shots in rapid succession without having to refocus every time.
>>2764169
Moving to an A7S or A7R II is a more efficient move to gain low light capability than upgrading one or all pieces of "L" glass you own from f/4 to f/2.8 (or f/1.8 to f/1.2).
>>2764172
gearfag
>>2764169
What if I don't have any bodies? Like I don't have a camera, what do I do?
>>2764176
I'm actually being serious guys, I don't have any cameras, there's like a hundred camera models.
>>2764178
maybe he means he was in the military
>>2764181
What, the navy seals?
>>2764167
Because you separate focus from shutter. With a camera with a correctly positioned AF-ON button, this is very natural. It lets you effectively choose between AF-S and AF-C (oneshot/servo) simply by pressing the button once or holding it. It also makes it easier to focus and recompose.
Have anyone there used Samyang 16mm f/2? I'd love to buy proper lens for lanscape shots/night sky, this one is kinda cheap and f/2 sounds really great - especially for the night sky. I never used full manual lens before, but i don't think it'll be too much of a problem since i'm thinking about landscape photos - it probably won't require fast reaction, so i guess i can be clumsy at beginning without losing anything important.
>>2764199
16mm f/2 is APS-C only, but the 14mm f/2.8 is reported having the least aberrations and coma in the corners.
>>2764203
I don't mind APS-C, i have crop sensor in my camera, and i think i'd really gain something at night from having f/2 instead of 2.8.
>>2764204
f/2 and f/2.8 are not that different and it is wide enough for a bit longer exposure without trailing. Plus for nightscapes you want sharp pinpoint highlights through the whole image.
The 16/2 might be an excellent lens for landscape but the 14/2.8 is generally used for starscapes and nightscapes by pros and for a good reason. The 14 has smaller aberrations than the much more expensive high brand equivalent lenses.
http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/532-samyang14f28eosff?start=1
Just look at the MTF chart, the resolution is crazy high.
Just to be sure, look for example shots on Flickr.
>>2764209
Alright, thanks for your advice. I guess i really have to reconsider it, especially since i can get used 14mm way cheaper than new 16mm, and i fail to find any used 16mm (which is a bad sign i guess, it's unpopular).
>>2764214
One guy in this video states specifically why to choose the Samyang/Rokinon 14/2.8 and how to use it to control noise, also how to do nightscape photography.
Might be worthy to check it out
https://youtu.be/PZoCJBLAYEs
For my starter camera, I'm buying a Panasonic G7 (since I also like video) and I was wondering what lens (or lenses) would you guys recommend?
I like portraits and street photography when it comes to stills. I'm willing to spend $200-$300 on a single lens.
has anyone ever shot a concert with an A7S or an A7II?
I want to talk to you
>>2764225
I'm pretty sure A7 users mostly shoot their own pets or the back of chairs and rarely go outside of their home.
Concert shooters mostly use Nikons and Canons, and some rare cases Pentax.
You want the OVF of a DSLR for the low light environment of a concert, EVF has too much lag to catch the right moments.
>>2764225
I'm a photographer for a DJ, I use the original A7S. First off buy a battery grip and a handful of extra batteries, you'll need them.
What do you need to know?
>>2764233
>needing to change the battery on a photoshoot
>changing battery in the dark
Holy shit you A7 users have it hard. I never had to change the battery on a photoshoot, in fact I usually do 2-3 shoots on a single battery. Over the course of a month.
Okay, I don't do more than a couple hundred shots per event, but still, that sucks man.
>>2764236
It's my second body, I don't use it for mission critical shit. It takes really great photos at high ISO but the battery life is really not there to use it full time for professional work, at least not in my line of work. I bought it before I was photographing for money and I never had a problem with the battery life, but now that I'm taking 400-600 shots a night it only gets used sparingly
>>2764227
Dude fuck off with that sony hate bs! You're just mad we have a better system than you.
>>2764249
chill nigga. just because it's not usable for pro work just yet doesn't mean it isn't a killer consumer car
Best Nikon Prime Wideangle and Macro lens?
>>2764172
This Sony sensors are a beast at low light, even with f/5.6 zooms it does better than cannikons with f/1.4 lenses.
>>2763997
18-55mm is a good 'only lens' its fast and not as loud at focusing compared to the 35 too. Used ones come up pretty cheap especially if you get it in combo with an x-e1 or w/e. Its pretty sharp and the OIS compensates for the not as big aperture in low light as well
>>2764252
> it's not usable for pro work
Sony are obviously usable for pro work. You must be blind to not see that.
>>2764264
Yeah in terms of features and usability/portability Sony is class leading. I don't know how nikon and canon are still in business.
>>2764264
The image quality is stellar but I don't want to be taking myself out of the action to change batteries on a reasonably regular basis. I use a 5Dm3 for the majority of my pro work and battery life doesn't even cross my mind once.
The Sony has good image quality but it can't be relied upon when I need it. At the end of the day my client doesn't notice the low-light image quality, they notice that I got the shot in the first place. If I can't trust a piece of gear it doesn't belong in my kit
>>2764265
battery life - fine for consumers, not fine for working professionals
>>2764267
>shilling for canon this hard.
>>2764265
It can't replace every Nikon and Canon yet. For instance, the speedlights aren't quite as good yet.
Also, switching over a pro speedlight setup or replacing a professional set of Nikon lenses or whatever even when it's possible is very expensive - most professional photographers are not really rich enough that that wouldn't hurt. And most customers don't care, pro Nikon or Canon is good enough.
>>2764254
You might like the Sigma 105mm f/2.8's overall deal.
The best for very serious shooters might be the the 200mm f/4D IF-ED. Longer lens lets you more easily use bigger lighting options and gains you some DoF.
>>2764269
okay buddy
>>2764267
> The image quality is stellar but I don't want to be taking myself out of the action to change batteries on a reasonably regular basis
That regular basis is every 400+ shots. And you know about when it will fail in advance, with the battery indicator.
Basically, you're just opting for laziness on this end which doesn't even save much work. A little convenience for you, but no problem for "professionals" in general by any means.
>>2764272
This and the batteries are small enough you can carry a few and charge as you go. I don't get why canon owners are such supporters of a duopoly.
>>2764254
Ah yes, and for wide angles, that's a matter of taste.
Distagon T 25mm f/2 or 24mm f/1.4G ED, perhaps?
>>2764110
>pentax shills
>>2764325
>pentax shills
Gear threads are sponsored by Pentax, hadn't you noticed
>>2764325
I think it's an equally valid suggestion.
[No, I'm not owning a Pentax]
>>2764118
the 40mm nikkor DX micro (or whatever its called). Shot working distance at minimum focus distance, but it is sharp and have nice bokeh. Doubles as a nearly fast normal prime lens.
I like mine.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make NIKON CORPORATION Camera Model NIKON D300S Camera Software GIMP 2.8.16 Maximum Lens Aperture f/3.9 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Color Filter Array Pattern 5104 Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 60 mm Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Created 2016:02:09 16:56:23 Exposure Time 1/250 sec F-Number f/4.0 Exposure Program Aperture Priority ISO Speed Rating 1600 Exposure Bias -1/3 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Cloudy Weather Flash No Flash Focal Length 40.00 mm Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 664 Image Height 1000 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Gain Control High Gain Up Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal Subject Distance Range Unknown ISO Speed Used 1600 Image Quality RAW White Balance CLOUDY Focus Mode AF-C Flash Compensation 0.0 EV ISO Speed Requested 1600 Flash Bracket Compensation 0.0 EV AE Bracket Compensation 0.0 EV Lens Type Nikon D Series Lens Range 40.0 mm; f/2.8 Shooting/Bracketing Mode Single Frame/Off Noise Reduction OFF Camera Actuations 74307
>>2763958
What are some reasonable ND Filters to buy? Gradual and Solid. Anywhere from 1 to 10 stops. Also is it better to buy a circular or the rectangular LEE filter with the holder?
>>2764418
A CPL does the trick for most people's needs (they're generally 2-3 stops of light reduction).
I don't mind the decent variables. The IQ reduction isn't great enough in most cases for it to be worth the bother of carrying multiple density NDs.
Square versus circular to me mainly depends on your shooting style. If you're going from tripod/not really moving around that much, square/rectangular is preferable to me.
All of that said, get the largest of the best quality that you can afford (think 77mm, which'll be around $100 at the top end), then use stepper rings to adapt to all of your smaller diameter lenses. You'll have some vignetting to deal with, but with the thin filters like the Hoya HD series, you'll minimize that.
Oh, a benefit to square filters is that you don't have to have a hard edged grad, you can slide the fitler up and down to put the grad where you want it. This is also a general benefit to them -- the transition isn't stuck in the middle of the lens.
>>2764233
how's autofocus? especially for moving subjects. I shoot bands, usually punk bands with lower lighting. I'm getting more into DJs
I want an A7S so I can shoot video mainly, but I would love to have it as a primary camera so I can hit video and photo at the same time the same way I do with my 5DM2
what lenses do you typically use? I want to get an adapter and do canon lenses but I'm not sure how well they work in the live setting. I want to make a total switch to mirrorless eventually but I'm having a lot of trouble making deciding factors. I need to rent one or something.
>>2764382
I wouldn't call this shot "sharp".
>>2764643
It is a bad example, literally a handhold snapshit. I just grabbed it a random image, cause I think you should post your photographs on the photography board.
Look up more picture if you want to know more about the lens, or just carry on if you're only here to "shitpost".
Are there any X-E2 owners in here? how are you finding the FW4.0 update
I wanna buy a camera to start learning photography.
I've seen many used Nikons that seem decenton craigslist, like a Nikon D3300 (375$ with 18-55 lens), a Nikon D40x (100$ body only), a Nikon D70 (100$ with 18-70 lens) and a Nikon D2X (300$ body only).
Which one of these would you say is the best deal? I'm asking you because I'm a complete newb, and the price ranges are pretty wide.
Thanks bros.
>>2764758
Forgot to mention, I've also just seen a Nikon D300 (300$ body only)
>>2764758
Save your money for now and learn with your phone. After you learn enough about it and photography to know what you in particular need in a camera, you'll know enough to make your own decision about what camera system to buy into (and you'll also learn how little camera matters in the photographic process). Add into that, if you slow your roll about buying one, you can find a lot better deals when someone who bought a camera because they wanted to learn and took like 500 shots then stuck it in the closet and now needs money goes to sell it.
>>2764758
How much money have you reserved for lenses after that?
What kind of photography do you want to do most?
I want to get into photography, my university give us a bursary of money that can be spent in a specific shop that sells laptops tablets cameras etc so i bought a Canon 750D EOS DSLR Camera, anyone any experience with this and any guides that personally helped you that you could recommend cheers boyo's
>>2764758
Those prices can be matched or beaten with keh if you're an American.
is the RX100 worth buying ?
I'm new to photography , so i first wanted to buy the Canon 1200 D , bcause thats what lot of youtube movies says , its a good entry level camera.
But I travel , a lot ! and i dont want such a big thing in my backbag ...bcause big and its weight ofcourse .
so i was looking a bit , and found this rx100 of sony .. some sited says its lot better then the 1200D and its even little cheaper if you buy it new
so , anyone experience with this ?
would you recomand another camera
->i will be shooting a lot of landscapes
thank you
>>2764758
>>2764760
The D300 is the best of that batch. If you can find a 35mm 1.8 I'd get that, otherwise a 50 1.8 would be a decent bet.
I'd see if you can find a D90 with its kit lens, though. It should cost about the same, has decent features and build quality unlike the D3300, and the sensor isn't prehistoric like the D2X and D70.
If you're brand new to photography, though, I might suggest getting an RX100 instead, I think the first versions are down below $400 online now, and it's a capable and versatile enough camera to let you figure out what you want to do with it.
>>2764782
>some sited says its lot better then the 1200D and its even little cheaper
camera itself? it probably is, 1200d have rather bad sensor (let's be frank there, most canons do, and i'm saying it as a canon user). But DSLR have enormous advantage over p&s, this is interchangable lenses. RX100 is definitely a good camera and it'll probably do its job as travel companion flawlessly, but if you want to really get into photography, you may want to buy this 1200d (or better, used higher-tier Canon or even one of those new nikons with GREAT sensors).
tl;dr - rx100 is good idea for travel, but "real dslr" is better for nerdic aspects of photography. Only question is, are you 'nerd'?
>>2764782
Panasonic LX100 is better.
>>2764809
no, no, scratch that. I just checked and i was wrong, RX100 does have rather small sensor. It actually may be worse than 1200d, at least in terms of noise. Still, if you just want to shoot photos and you really care about "portability", rx100 may be something to consider.
>>2764776
I was in exactly the same boat as you about 8 months ago.
I bought mine for personal video projects, but thought it silly not to get acquainted with it for its intended purpose.
Here's some advice i feel qualified to give:
1. It's a bit bulk to carry around everywhere, so devote a day at least once a week to go outside and take some pictures of things that interest you.
2. Acquaint yourself with the function and purpose of ISO, F-number, shutter speed and focal length.
2. Throw that 18-55mm kit lens in the trash and buy something else. The 40mm is great and quite cheap. ~£100
3. Get to grips with the menu screens, and all the buttons and dials. Know exactly what each one of these does and when you should use them.
4. Using Manual mode with improve your photography considerably faster than any other mode. Though, if you see a shot and you know you're M settings are all wrong, flip it to P.
5. Limit the amount of pictures you take. Think about how each shot is composed, what your subjects are, what it could represent and what it could be saying.
6. Have at least 2 batteries. Get a 32 or 64gb memory card that can transfer ~90mbps.
7. Stay away from using the highest ISO.
8. Don't use live-view if you're shooting street.
9. Be selective of what you show to the world. That picture of that dude where you missed focus, or that picture of that cool car...maybe just delete that.
10. Have fun. Keep shooting, and constantly strive to improve.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Canon Camera Model Canon EOS 750D Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CC 2014 (Macintosh) Maximum Lens Aperture f/1.8 Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Created 2016:02:05 18:17:13 Exposure Time 1/200 sec F-Number f/7.1 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 100 Lens Aperture f/7.1 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 32.00 mm Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 1132 Image Height 753 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard
>>2764822
Printscreened and will follow
Thank you man!
>>2764825
And you, sir.
>>2764822
You are still in that same boat, your photography is crap.
>>2764822
>Throw that 18-55mm kit lens in the trash and buy something else
not really. i had a 50 1.8 and a 55-300 and needed a wider zoom lens so i bought the 18-55 WR kit lens. cheap and filed a hole i had. better to play around with different focal lengths until you find one you prefer than to pigeonhole yourself early on
>>2764822
>7. Stay away from using the highest ISO.
Let me add something there - my biggest mistake was doing the opposite thing, saving on sensor sensitivity as much as possible, in result more than possible. My first photos were often blurry because i started from full manual (to fully understand how everything works) and i was setting slow shutter to compensate for insensitive sensor.
So, i guess it's worth to add that beginner should avoid shooting from hand with shutter speed slower than 1/(used focal length).
>>2764839
This is fact. 18-55 kit lens is alright for beginners, especially for landscapes where it's not even that oh-so-bad (still bad though).
I think one should buy a new lens only after realizing that there is a need to do it.
>>2764814
>Panasonic LX100
what does the sensor do then ?
is it better to just go for the 1200D
also would like to shoot stars and stuff , you knoooow
If I'm buying a new/unfamiliar camera from a guy on kijiji, what do I inspect or look for to see that its in fully working order?
What's the most advance camera on the market, /p/? Is it the Sony A6300 or the Sony A7rii?
>>2764888
maybe new 1dx ii
if only canon didnt have shit sensors
>>2764890
advance=/=bigger.
>>2764891
14 fps > 5 fps
>>2764892
oh, right. because 14 blurry out of focus images are better than 5 tack sharp images with good dynamic range.
>>2764894
>mirrorless autofocus systems
ayy lmao
>>2764894
What? Why would they be blurry and out of focus?
>>2764038
Not them, but i have a cheap neewer 560 flash, 30 usd on amazon, works ok and is cheap
>>2764890
advanced means state of the art, not your rehashed everything but software camera.
>>2764909
>state of the art
>5 fps burst
ayy lmao
i dont shoot canon or sony, just saying the a7r ii is def not the most advanced camera
>>2764879
I guess i knooooow, i also like it very much. Then you may want 1200d, shooting stars is kinda 'nerdy' thing since it requires a lot of technical work to look good. This picture is my old photo taken with 350d and crappiest kit lens available, and this camera is waaay older than 1200d. I doubt rx100 would be able to shoot stars as well as (even old and cheap) DSLR with a 'proper' sensor.
Sensor, um, catches light. Bigger sensor (or rather, pixel size on the sensor), more light every "pixel" can grasp, less noise in result. So, bigger sensor and less megapixels = better low-light performance.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Canon Camera Model Canon EOS 350D DIGITAL Camera Software Shotwell 0.20.2 Lens Size 18.00 - 55.00 mm Firmware Version Firmware 1.0.3 Owner Name unknown Serial Number 1230772069 Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Left-Hand, Bottom Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi White Point Chromaticity 0.3 Exposure Time 30 sec F-Number f/3.5 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 1600 Lens Aperture f/3.5 Exposure Bias 0 EV Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 18.00 mm Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 3450 Image Height 2102 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual Scene Capture Type Standard Exposure Mode Manual Focus Type Auto Metering Mode Evaluative Sharpness Normal Saturation Normal Contrast Normal Shooting Mode Manual Image Size Large Focus Mode Manual Drive Mode Single Flash Mode Off Compression Setting Fine Macro Mode Normal White Balance Auto Exposure Compensation 3 Sensor ISO Speed 288 Camera Actuations 957022252 Color Matrix 0
what's a good video lens for the a6000?
>>2764916
For what.
>>2764916
Rokinon 35mm T1.5
>>2764920
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1016629-REG/rokinon_super_fast_t1_5_cine.html
I've been told that DSLRs are really unnecessary if you don't care about moving picture and that you can get a Fuji / Sony mirrorless for a lot cheaper and it will have better picture quality. Basically just Nikon and Canon marketing the fuck out of DSLRs.
Agree or disagree, /p/? Can I get a quality mirrorless for $500 or less that will rival the $1k DSLRs in still image quality?
>>2764945
1) Mirrorless isn't really cheaper than a DSLR.
2) You can get a $500 dslr that will rival $1k DSLR's (or $1k mirrorless) in image quality.
3) You can also get a $500 mirrorless that will rival a $1k mirrorless in image quality.
Ultimately, image quality has nothing to do with a mirror or lack thereof.
>>2764950
Follow-up because cameras confuse the hell out of me and I don't want to insult this board by making a new thread.
$500 budget, Graphic Designer, mostly interested in close-up and street photography. Don't mind buying refurbs. Looking for a rec. Can always improve the lens later. Please help, I'm begging you.
>>2764945
Yes. Mirrorless cameras are basically DSLRs without, well, reflex thingie, this is mirror. Lack of entire mirror thingie and AF sensors makes them cheaper in production, and in the end light that falls on the sensor looks exactly the same as in DSLRs. As long as mirrorless have a good sensor, it can be just as good as proper DSLR.
When you use Live View in DSLR, you basically use mirrorless camera.
>>2764953
Are there any mirrorless cameras that you would recommend for a beginner? I'd like to get a decent body and upgrade the lens later, when I have enough experience to actually make it count.
>>2764954
Well, i'm not entirely sure if there is a DSLR that can beat price/IQ ratio of nikon d3200 (that is DSLR), not to mention additional gains from being into one of two biggest ecosystems - so, things like lenses or ability to switch to higer, more professional model when you feel like it. I may be wrong though, i haven't done proper research there - i'm sure other people in this thread will point it out if i'm wrong.
Sony A6000 is universally liked mirrorless.
>>2764955
I'll check out the A6000. I'm aware of the D3200 and it's my default choice if research doesn't lead me elsewhere. Really digging the $320 price point on the Fuji X-M1 though.
>>2764955
>i'm not entirely sure if there is a DSLR that can beat price/IQ ratio of nikon d3200
k-3 is under 700 bucks and is fully weather sealed and shoots 8.3 fps
>>2764960
>shoots 8.3 fps
Whether you want it to or not.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2nJXedKm2w
>>2764965
Alternatively -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CS_kYy3SVww
>>2764965
>what is a firmware update
>>2764966
>faggot that can neither operate a camera nor treat his mental illness
anecdotal evidence is not evidence
>>2764970
Is it anecdotal if it's all over the internet, with responses from Pentax to send the camera in for service to correct it?
Also, where did mental illness come from? Any time anyone posts something you don't like, are they mentally ill?
>>2764971
>where did mental illness come from?
the faggot in the video. homosexuality is a mental illness
>>2764972
Was that not a woman?
I'm looking for an upgrade from my gen 1 RX100 after getting into photography a bit more.
- I don't need anything to do with video
- I'll be shooting mostly landscapes, stills, some low light and night shots, etc
- I'm experimenting with long exposure
- I've got about $1000 to spend
What should I get? Is anything less than full frame not worth upgrading from the RX100 for?
>>2764989
Even lower-end APS-C camera will beat your RX100 to a pulp in terms of low-light performance. And yeah, full-frame is great idea, especially if are willing to buy used one.
>>2764997
A used one is totally okay with me. Unfortunately I don't know anything about lenses (per my experience with a fixed one) and so I'm a bit up in the air about it.
>>2765001
But you don't have to buy lenses now. For now, just get camera you'd like (d5200? d7000? maybe even full-frames like canon 5d mark <whatever just not 1>?) and have some fun with kit lens you'll probably get with it. Then, after having a lot of fun with kit lens (that is not bad at all for starters) decide what exactly do you need. Maybe it'll be nifty fifty, maybe it'll be fisheye, but at least you won't spend entire $1000 on gear just to sit around and realize how overwhelming it is.
>>2764825
You really shouldn't. That's just the blind leading the blind. There's half truths and idiosyncrasies stated as fact.
Hell, the best advice the guy has gotten was to save his money and learn with what he has. Gear and learning to use it is the easiest part of photography.
looking to drop ~300usd on a 35mm film body + f/1.2 lens to bring with me on late nights when i go out. dont really care if it's a rangefinder or slr, as long as the finder is useable in the dark.
which body + lens combo would you guys suggest out of the OMs, K-mounts, SR-mounts, FD-mounts, F's and etc?
>currently shooting with an rb67, ricohmatic 225, and a lynx 14 (dim finder, no use at night)
>>2764997
I'm pretty sure the very first Sony NEX3 that came out three years before the RX100 can't beat it
>>2765001
>>2764989
Alternatively I could recommend a Pentax, K-50 or K-S2 (maybe K-5II or K-3) for your night shots, dew buildup can easily brick a camera and weather sealing can make things much less stressful.
Also a D3300, D5200-D5500 or a D7100 will be good but you will need to find a way to protect against dew and moisture. Canons would be nice but not in low light. Too much noise you can't get rid of entirely in postprocessing.
>>2764219
Don't do that.
Panasonic doesn't have shit for lenses.
Get an a6000 or rebal or something.
Sony has a handful of lenses that'd be good for your purposes.
The only thing to be aware of with the a6000 is that there's no external mic port.
>>2765044
>panasonic does not have good lenses for portraits/street photography for $200-300
>but the sony does
nigga the panasonic 12-32, 20, and 14 are all compact, sharp, fast, and useful. what does your bitch boi sony have other than the shitastic 16-50PZ, mediocre 20 and 16mm.
>>2764989
You might want to have a look at the A6300 kit. Or A6000 with some nice extra glass.
Yes, it's a definite upgrade over a RX100 already.
>>2764945
> I've been told that DSLRs are really unnecessary if you don't care about moving picture
Uh, that makes no sense - mirrorless cameras are kinda better overall at video now.
> and that you can get a Fuji / Sony mirrorless for a lot cheaper and it will have better picture quality
Kinda. The $500 A6000 has overall specs (sensor, AF, burst frame rate, etc.) like most $1k DSLR and the new $1k A6300 is probably better than most $1.5k DSLR.
This does not apply to all mirrorless cameras, they're definitely not all Sonys.
(But they can be more compact or have a better lineup of lower end glass.)
whatever aps-c/d/ff camera you have the 50mm ~f2.8 or wider is always a fantastic choice!
>>2765071
Easily justifiable suggestions.
You'll see a lot more of these until the other companies maybe pick up their shit.
How reliable is the average camera's exposure metering system? Are there any common situations where it'll flip out on me and become unreliable?
>>2765076
Charts and numbers don't make a good camera. Ergonomics, ease of use, good functionality and consistent performance make a good camera, non of these are Sony specific. Sony makes consumerist shit, intended to be thrashed in a couple of years.
Having a mirror or not doesn't mean shit in this issue.
Just look at the X-Pro cameras, non Sony A7 or A6X00 will be as good.
>>2765081
Yes it is, especially if you want to take portraits.
A 35mm on APS-C gives a more natural angle though so it's better for generic shooting and panoramas.
Picked up my first film camera; a Minolta XD-5 with a Md Rokkor 50mm 1.7 lens for $50. Everything seems to work so far. Was this worth the $50? Especially since it's my first film camera?
>>2765078
Quite reliable for new cameras.
I recall some people still have problems with very high-contrast situations within the detection area (not sure who it was or what camera), but I've really not even had that problem on my A6000.
>>2765053
For portraits you can get the olympus 45mm which is amazingly sharp.
For street photography there are too many pancake lenses to list.
>>2764951
>graphic designer
study a real profession and don't waste your money. That's better advice than recommending you a camera.
>>2765079
> Charts and numbers don't make a good camera
The key features on the "charts and numbers" are measured for good reason.
No, you can't make everything else entirely crap either, but primary feature is primary feature.
Numbers and charts related to image quality and ISO noise behavior and burst rates / buffer sizes and so on get measured in such detail because they're the most important features of a camera... you know, the image shooting capability.
> Sony makes consumerist shit, intended to be thrashed in a couple of years.
They make the best they can make at this point, and they're good at it.
I have no idea what you think will be better in a couple of years, but it sounds like you're with the traditionalists who want more metal on their camera, despite that not helping anything for shit over modern plastics? I guess there were enough people like you that Sony caved in and added "moar metal" to the A6300 now, despite there not being any need to do so.
> Just look at the X-Pro cameras
Yes, they should pick up their shit and compete harder.
>>2764951
Macro and street?
Tough, especially on that budget, but a Fuji X-E1 and a kit lens or a DSLR like the Nikon D3300, Canon 700D/650D or a Pentax K-50 with kit lens would be good for you.
Sony mirrorless is not very good on macro so I left it out, but a NEX 5/6/7 with kit lens is good for generic shooting.
>>2765084
Got an XD7 in storage. It's quite nice to operate, if you ask me.
$50 is probably okay for the XD5 + lens, but I myself however don't consider the subsequent film shooting cost worth it. Just costs too much vs. shooting digital. Which is why the XD7 hasn't seen use for a long time now.
>>2765090
Instead of the kit lens you can buy body only and get the nifty primes, like the DA 35 for Pentax or the nifty 50 lenses on the Nikon and Canon. Fuji also has great standard primes but I don't know if those fit in your budget.
>>2765090
> Sony mirrorless is not very good on macro so I left it out
Eh, it's one of the best systems for macro.
- Has a dirt cheap 30mm macro for APS-C.
- Has the best ~100mm macro lens of all systems, the 90mm FE. That thing is even better than the 100mm Canon "L".
- Has focus peaking & short flange focal length. It can adapt about any MF-capable glass perfectly with cheap adapters. Since most macro is done in MF anyway, you have a perfect camera for a gazillion of great macro and "macro" lenses from just about all systems, present and past.
While the 90mm FE costs more than budgeted, adapting any MF glass and the 30mm macro should surely be options.
>>2765094
30mm on macro means you have to be in the ass of the subject for a 1:1 image. Absolutely useless for most macro shots.
60mm is the most versatile with 90mm and up is the most useful for handheld and moving subjects (insects, foliage with windy conditions)
Like I said, Sony is not very good on macro.
>>2765096
FUCK OFF
Seriously. You know nothing about photoghraphy. Stay pleb and buy your non Sony cameras.
>>2765096
> 30mm on macro means you have to be in the ass of the subject for a 1:1 image. Absolutely useless for most macro shots.
Same problem at 50 or 60mm. Works for a lot of plants and textures, spooks most living things.
> 90mm and up is the most useful for handheld and moving subjects (insects, foliage with windy conditions)
Yes, around 100mm is where insects and stuff start to care less. And you have the very best macro for that on the E-mount.
> Like I said, Sony is not very good on macro.
No. Again, you also have almost *every macro ever*.
Use that old 28-105mm Nikon "macro" lens the gentleman in this video suggests: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BocMTiW-je4 . Or use a new Rokion 100mm macro. Or an old Zeiss.
You'll be using MF for macro anyhow, and MF lenses almost all adapt *perfectly* on MF to Sony cameras, with very cheap adapters.
They will however not be as good on cameras without focus peaking, or longer flange focal distance, or worse sensors... which really is most other cameras. It's still workable on some, but on others you can't even get an adapter for a lot of old glass (or need an expensive one with glass to correct for the longer flange focal distance).
>>2765106
In case you pull your head out of your ass, most cameras have pixel peaking, including DSLRs.
You can adapt many lenses on DSLRs, excluding Nikons because of their flange distance.
So eat a dick, mirrorless is not a magical new thing, just another camera, performs almost as good as any other. Sony still has no lens.
>>2765108
>In case you pull your head out of your ass, most cameras have pixel peaking, including DSLRs.
This is a feature a lot of entry-level DSLR don't have, actually. Besides, you can't use it with the viewfinder on most, which tends to be preferable to using the back panel for handheld macro.
They also often don't have the short flange focal length needed to adapt a lot of glass.
If you can get an adapter at all, you often need an expensive one with glass that downgrades your IQ.
No, it's *not* just Nikon. See table here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flange_focal_distance
Sony has almost nothing it can't adopt easily, with its 18mm. Canon DSLR's 44.00mm and worse have a ton that will need glass to adopt.
And then well, usually you pay more for a Sensor of the corresponding quality as Sony's.
> So eat a dick, mirrorless is not a magical new thing
You eat a dick. I did not claim magic, I claimed it was one of the best systems to do macro with. Which it is.
> Sony still has no lens.
- It has a cheap APS-C 30mm that is good for its price.
- It has *the best* ~100mm of all systems, with the 90mm FE.
- It is a near perfect option for just about ALL MF lenses ever.
(- It also has native 15 / 50 / 100mm macros not mentioned yet)
You must be super dense indeed to call that "no lens".
>>2765117
>BAAAAWWW
Your tears are delicius, Sony faggot.
Stay delusional, the higher you are the harder you will fall.
>>2765125
> Your tears are delicius, Sony faggot.
I have nothing to cry about, I just correct your nonsense.
> Stay delusional, the higher you are the harder you will fall.
1. You have your A6000 or whatever E-mount Sony, plus an old Zeiss Jena Macro or Nikon Macro. Or the 90mm FE. Or the 30mm. Or whatever other macro.
2. ???
3. You "fall hard".
This does not work for shit. Fix your head, man.
The battery slot of my OM-1 broke and I need a meter.
There's someone selling me a Pentax MX with lens for $65
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Photographer RR Image-Specific Properties:
>>2765179
Forgot my question... Is it a good camera to buy? Though I prefer a Nikon due to my manual nikkor lenses, I prefer something small and if it gets loss, it's okay and I won't get hung up on missing the lens.
>>2765190
F M 2
F
M
2
>>2765194
>tfw the cheapest FM2 here (body only) is $100
>>2763958
Planning to get into flash and studio photography
How are all the impact products?
Planning to buy the air cushioned light stand, umbrella bracket and umbrella
Also I'm using a Yongnuo 560 III Speedlite, what's a good sync trigger kit to use?
>>2765232
> How are all the impact products?
Never had one, heard they were okay for light stands though.
> umbrella bracket and umbrella
Might want to look at whether you can make do with a Godox or something first, before you go with a broncolor para 222 (or a lesser but still expensive thing).
> Also I'm using a Yongnuo 560 III Speedlite, what's a good sync trigger kit to use?
YN560TX. Or maybe YN560 IV. Both have the RF functionality to trigger the YN560 III.
If you wanted to do HSS, you need a full TTL setup.
>>2765239
>look at whether you can make do with a Godox or something
I was asking about Impact Umbrella and Umbrella stand, but i'll look into godox.
And I'm not looking to getting into HSS right now. Mainly portraits with models and what not
>>2765283
Yup, I referred to the stand. Didn't know they also had an umbrella.
Not a big fan of shooting through umbrellas myself (I prefer shooting through flat softbox diffusers - one mounted in front of a reflective umbrella is fine), but I could surely imagine using that in the reflector configuration. Looks quite good, really.
>>2765283
>And I'm not looking to getting into HSS right now. Mainly portraits with models and what not
Yup, get the 560TX then. Faster to operate than a 560 IV on-camera, does about everything you want a manual flash control want to do.
Very useful device.
>>2765232
>>2765239
>>2765283
>>2765298
Eh, if you've already got a 560, I'd actually tell you to get monolights. Godox has a two light set for pretty damn cheap that puts out 300Ws each and you can get ridiculously cheap radio triggers, just work wired, or just roll with using your on camera flash as a trigger.
Speedlights are cool and all, but they're ridiculously weak compared to monolights (the plug-in strobes). Stronger lights=more flexibility in what kind of looks you can create. Speedlights=flexibility w/r being easier to travel with.
Now, if you do opt to go with the speedlights over monolights, I'd back the other anon's suggestion, but I'd strongly encourage you to consider using monos.
>>2763958
How do I make sure to get the longest battery life? I mean, how/when should I charge them, what should I avoid etc. I have an a7s if that matters, it uses npfw50 Lithium-Ion batteries like any alpha mirrorless
>>2765375
use an external USB power bank
>>2765375
(with battery life I mean until they're not usable anymore, not a single charge)
>>2765375
>A7
Get a battery grip and learn to cope with 300 shots per day. Mirrorless uses much more power than a DSLR because it uses EVF and the sensor is used all the time.
There is no magic option or technique to make battery life longer. You can only change batteries more often and use a battery grip if there is any because it makes the camera as big as a DSLR.
>>2765375
I suppose you mean maximizing the lifespan of the battery before you have to buy a new one?
Don't store it dead.
Don't store it fully charged (80ish% is pretty good)
Don't fully discharge it if you can help it (35-40% is around the best place to swap).
Further, don't be afraid of buying off brand batteries. There's basically no reason to pay those extortionist prices for first party batteries.
>>2765078
Most cameras fail to perfectly meter back lit scenes, such as shooting into the sun. You're better off manually metering and chimping.
>>2765385
Let me rewrite my question: are there some tips that I should follow to make sure my battery stays healthy as much as it can? With smartphone batteries people always says to not go below 15%, avoid low temperatures, avoid high amp charges etc.
I am perfectly ok with the amount of shots the battery can give me because I have 4 of them, 2x Sony and 2x cheap third party brand.
Who here thinks gear threads should be sponsored by Sony from this point forward? The Sony shilling is outweighing the Pentax shilling at this point, and it's only right that the camera of the month headlines the gear thread.
>>2765393
>I invested into shitty DSLR system and now I'm jealous of mirrorless master race
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS3 Windows Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 96 dpi Vertical Resolution 96 dpi Image Created 2009:04:24 14:27:13 Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 331 Image Height 319
>>2765088
Ah, bitching in every gear thread about people actually finishing their studies i see. That's pretty sad.
>>2765389
>>2765078
>>2765086
Oh dear god.
Go, buy "Understanding Exposure" and read it.
Camera meters are stupidly reliable. Given the same conditions, they'll give you the same results over and over and over again. That isn't necessarily the same exposure you want though.
It's your job as the photographer to know when and how to adjust from what the camera is telling you.
In order to do this properly, you have to understand how the meter behaves in each of the available metering modes. If you're too cheap to buy the book above (and you should feel ashamed for not being willing to spend $20 to VASTLY improve your ability to use that camera that cost hundreds to thousands of dollars), then go read through the tutorials at cambridgeincolour.com because detailing all of the stuff you need to know to understand the meter and how to actually use it is well beyond the scope of any post here.
>>2765386
Bingo, yeah thank you, lifespan was the right word. Should I avoid charging my batteries if they're not below that 35-40% and I don't absolutely need a fully charge one? Or is it better to always charge them to 80% no matter what?
Last question: there are 3 ways to charge my batteries, is there any difference? The manual says the first one is the fastest, I suppose it is also the most detrimental but I'm not really sure
1. the usual battery charger
2. usb cable connected to a laptop/computer, battery inside the camera
3. usb cable attached to an ac adaptor, battery inside the camera
I don't even know if it is worth the effort to give a fuck about all this, maybe the difference is only +1 month of lifespan lol
>>2765409
Fully charge them if you're going to use them, storage is more in terms of fully charging then sticking in a bag for a couple of weeks. Full side is no where near as important as not fully discharging them though...it's one of those it's better if you do, but not earth shattering results. Fully discharging them though will quickly and significantly affect the battery life though.
Of those three charging choices, I wouldn't worry. While offbrand batteries aren't a big deal, some offbrand chargers can be (some do a great job, others can fuck batteries though, no easy way to tell beyond doing a lot of research before you buy).
The biggest thing that I'd worry about is not fully discharging them more than I had to. You better believe I'm going to do it to get a shot or something along those lines, but if I can avoid it I will. So long as you do that, it seems like you're at least not doing anything stupid with them, so you'll be fine.
>>2765409
I always use the battery charger but I usually charge 10-12 times a year. That is 5-6 times per battery.
One tip, with multiple Li-Ion and LiPo batteries it is better to store them when they are depleted and only charge before using them. If you take several with you for a trip/vacation, of course you can charge them before you leave.
Li-Ion and LiPo storage charge is not much higher than the depleted/nominal voltage and is much safer to store it this way than fully charged. The usual chargers and USB charging doesn't have storage function, this method is the closest.
>>2765423
>with multiple Li-Ion and LiPo batteries it is better to store them when they are depleted and only charge before using them.
You are literally killing your batteries by doing this.
>>2765409
http://batteryuniversity.com/ is probably what you want.
That said, those lithium chemistries for portable use are not worth managing extremely well. Yes, you want a safe, decent charger, but that's about it.
They're meant to be used for energy density - weight ratio, not longevity. Fully use them as much as you can. Buy new Chinese ones if your old ones break / become too bad. Same as all smartphone users and everyone else using this lithium chemistry.
>>2765431
Anon is right.
Around 3.78V~3.92v is a good range for storage of typical lithium cells, and in a dry place not too far above 0 degrees degrees Celsius (but also usually not under).
Trying to do this for your camera's batteries? Waste of time, just gets in the way of using your camera. They're cheap (at least 3rd party ones are) - use them, replace them when they break.
>>2765447
Anon is dead wrong.
>Finding the exact 40 to 50 percent SoC level to store Li-ion is not all that important. At 40 percent charge, most Li-ion has an OCV of 3.82V/cell measured at room temperature. To get the correct reading after a charge or discharge, rest the battery for 90 minutes before taking the reading. If this is not practical, overshoot the discharge voltage by 50mV or go 50mV higher on charge. This means discharging to 3.77V/cell or charging to 3.87V/cell at a C-rate of 1C or less. The rubber band effect will settle the voltage at roughly 3.82V. Figure 7-2 shows the typical discharge voltage of a Li-ion battery.
Moderate charge is not fully discharged. Fully discharged destroys lithium batteries, period.
>>2765467
>>2765447
oh and
>While nickel-based batteries can be stored in a fully discharged state with no apparent side effect, Li-ion cannot dip below 2V/cell for any length of time. Copper shunts form inside the cells that can lead to elevated self-discharge or a partial electrical short. (See BU-802b: Elevated Self-discharge.) If recharged, the cells might become unstable, causing excessive heat or showing other anomalies. Li-ion batteries that have been under stress are more sensitive to mechanical abuse.
>>2765431
I use huge packs for RC models, from 3 cells series to 12 cells series so I know my stuff. The smallest difference can make these things explode so I use specialized equipment with monitoring and logging. Leaving the pack fully charged in storage is a sure way to kill it and these packs go for $100-$400 depending on the capacity and number of cells in a pack.
>>2765474
No one has ever said to leave them fully charged.
>>2765467
>Fully discharged destroys lithium batteries, period.
True, but your camera has protection against that. It will not allow it to go under the nominal voltage which is a good charge for storage. I didn't want to go into details but you can look up some Lithium battery related info on wikipedia and most RC model sites.
Please note, while Li-Ion and Li-Po are basically the same, LiFe/LiFePo4 batteries are much more different. Only the former relates to your battery life question.
>>2765482
>I don't know what self-discharge is and assume that many various technlogies take it into effect.
The reason you're supposed to ensure there's a charge on batteries you store over time is that they discharge over time. If you store a battery that your camera/phone/whatever hasn't allowed to go below say a 20% actual charge (as opposed to the charge it reports), over time, it will reduce to damaging levels of charge.
More fun reading:
Lithium-ion should not be discharged below 2.50V/cell. The protection circuit turns off and most chargers will not charge the battery in that state. A “boost” program applying a gentle charge current to wake up the protection circuit often restores the battery to full capacity. [ See BU-803a: How to Awaken Sleeping Li-ion ]
There are reasons why Li-ion is put to sleep when discharging below 2.50V/cell. Copper dendrites grow if the cell is allowed to dwell in a low-voltage state for longer than a week. This results in elevated self-discharge, which could compromise safety
Figure 5 compares the self-discharge of a new Li-ion cell with a cell that underwent forced deep discharges and one that was fully discharged, shorted for 14 days and then recharged. The cell that was exposed to deep discharges beyond 2.50V/cell shows a slightly higher self-discharge than a new cell. The largest self-discharge is visible with the cell that was stored at zero volts.
the tl;dr is
>don't fucking store and don't fully discharge lithium batteries.
What does /p/ think of the Nikon P900? I'm thinking of getting a superzoom/bridge camera this year, probably in summer.
Any alternatives? Canon SX50 HS or SX60 HS maybe?
>>2765531
Under any circumstances, do NOT buy a bridge or super/ultra-zoom camera!
Don't. Ever.
It is all of the bulk of a DSLR with the sensor of a smartphone and you are permanently stuck with a shitty superzoom lens.
You will have tons of noise, aberrations that will make you vomit is only good to show off to your layman friends.
For the same money you can get a decent DSLR with standard and telephoto kit lenses.
>>2765531
Like almost all of /p/, I see no reason to use anything with image quality this low (the price of having a zoom lens this long and a sensor this small).
Could be a fancy replacement for a monocular telescope or something, though.
>>2765560
In terms of mid-range products (which I assume you're looking for, I suggest the following:
1) If you want the best image quality for the cheapest price, and the most versatility, get a Nikon 3300 or 5500 DSLR with a good Nikon prime.
2) If you want excellent portability with good image quality, get a Ricoh GR
3) If you want a combination of both versatility, image quality and portability. Get a mirorless system. Preferably the sony a6000
3)
>>2765568
>not mentioning Pentax
>not mentioning Canon
Wow, you brandfags are the worst.
Pentax is one the greatest values going in photography.
Canon will always be a good recommendation because *everybody* shoots Canon, so it's really, really easy to find or sell used gear.
>recommending a body+prime with no caveats
Stop parroting this shit. It's bad advice and causes frustration in many users with an idiotic artificial limitation. Yeah, you can get a faster prime, but that doesn't do shit for informing a new shooter how various focal lengths behave, and god help all the poor fuckers running around with some flavor of crop sensor and *only* a 50mm. Yes, for some people it's the right choice, but that's a more rare thing than just sticking with the kit lens for a while is.
Choke on a dick before giving incomplete, bad advice again.
>>2765531
Get a Pentax K-50 with 18-55 WR kit lens and an HD DA 55-300 WR for telephoto.
Now you have a weather sealed system and you can literally go out shooting even if it is pissing down.
Later you can get a cheap DA 35 prime for a compact sharp go anywhere setup.
>>2765178
looks kind beaten, are you confident with using the om1 on sunny 16
>>2765595
I have a K50 and it's pretty bulletproof. I've taken mine across America a couple times, been caught in torrential down pours, dust and ice storms, I even dropped it in a silt pile and just blew it out when I got back to the car. I broke the kit lens when it fell while I was on a mountain and they made me send the whole body back for a replacement. If my new one lasts as long as my other one did I'll be super stoked.
Got a yashica 108 mp. What affordable prime lens would you recommend (portraits and shit)?
And what lens would you reccommend for street photography?
>>2765586
>thinking canikon is worth anything
>>2765679
>using canikon to refer only to canon
>being enough of a retard to think that they're not and that the strength of the aftermarket is not an important factor that anyone with sense should consider.
>>2765178
you can get a meter app for your smartphone.
Just keep using the OM-1
hey guys recently purchased an x-t10 with the kit lens. I had a question is it imperative that I get a filter on the lens? if so whats good for a protective filter?
>>2765760
No, it's a waste of money and degrades IQ. The only exception is a select few lenses which require a filter to be weather sealed, and that's something you don't have to worry about.
Just be reasonable in how you treat it and it'll be fine.
>>2765690
canon suck dick bro, sony is the future, deal with it old man
