File: laughing photographer.png (260 KB, 499x331) Image search: [Google]

260 KB, 499x331

>>2774227
>And don't forget, be polite!

I'm new here, but why do all gear threads have Pentax cameras as the main image? Wouldn't Sony be the most appropriate since the rep of all being gearfags?

To contribute: Have a K-3 and picked up a 50mm1.7 and holy shit I forgot how hard it was to focus similar lenses. One of the reasons I stayed away from my 50mm1.4 Cannon FD mount when I was in a basic film class for so long.

>>2774245
Why would you buy a manual focus lens when you can get an autofocus ona with the same f-stop for the same money? The DA 50/1.8 is cheap as nails.

File: 1418790909669.jpg (20 KB, 250x250) Image search: [Google]

20 KB, 250x250

>>2774245
>Gearfagging over a system with 19 lenses and limited third party support

>>2774250
>19 lenses
http://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/
http://www.pentaxforums.com/userreviews/

Pentax has more crop lenses than the whole E/FE-mount lineup

>>2774246#

I wanted an old school lens, not much reason otheriwse. I enjoy the novelty of it all. However you're definitely right on the newer 50mm 1.8, but I ended paying about half as much on eBay for the 1.7. Also I wasn't sure how big the the focus throw was in the 1.8, and I was having alot of annoyances with the kit lens and its focus throw and the K3s autofocus in a few situations. Lastly I wasn't sure if there was a hard stop on the 1.8 for infity. Which pissed me off to no end that the kit lens would let me go past

>>2774250
>19 lenses
AHAHAHA

File: 1455978301680.gif (3 MB, 500x375) Image search: [Google]

3 MB, 500x375

>>2774253
http://www.canon.com/c-museum/en/lens-ef-efs.html?1933?2015?Americas?.html
Ironic shitposting is still shitposting.

>>2774257
I use my Helios 44M mostly in liveview, the pixel peaking helps a lot in focusing.
The lack of hard stop infinity is better because it lets you focus to infinity in a much broader temperature range. By my experience the closer you get to -10°C the closer infinity is to the actual end of the focus throw. Just select a distant light, star or the moon and focus it in manual in liveview and leave it there.
I have the DA 35, it is very similar to the DA 50 and the focus throw is short enough for precise, quick and snappy AF. Very usable for street.

>>2774262
>>2774260
>>2774250
>I'm going to purposely ignore 90% of the lenses so I can ridicule people on the internet
It's like you have Aspergers.

>>2774253
I was actually picking fun at the Sonyggers in these threads.

File: 1448917740129.jpg (16 KB, 540x384) Image search: [Google]

16 KB, 540x384

>>2774250
>19 lenses

Dude....

>>2774268
>Muh adapters

>>2774263

That's quite interesting about the lack of hard stops. More you know.

>>2774270
There's 37 different kinds of da lenses anon

>>2774264

>2774260 (You)
I was laughing at how fucking retarded anon was...

>>2774271
Pentax still uses aluminium and bronze helicoids even in the lowest level of lenses. Temperature has a big effect on focusing.

>>2774278
Correction, it has effect on the focus scale, not the actual focusing.

File: GORUCK-SD20-Black-1024x682.jpg (219 KB, 1024x682) Image search: [Google]

219 KB, 1024x682

So let's talk bags for a second before it goes back to the threadly A7 shitfest.

I bought a Goruck SD20 like a year and a half back or so before they stopped carrying them with the intent of using it as a camera bag for when I want to pack lightly but I could never find a 20 liter insert that wasn't vertical. Any suggestions that I may have glanced over?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 7D
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.0 (Macintosh)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2013:10:08 20:02:48
Exposure Time	1/320 sec
F-Number	f/4.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	400
Lens Aperture	f/4.0
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	60.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>2774296
Get a sheet of polyfoam you use for camping and some soft fabric. Cut the foam into compartments you want to use, cover and sew them with the fabric. Shouldn't take more than an hour.
Voilá, you have your custom made camera insert. If you can't buy it DIY it.

>>2774298
That was one of the options I had. I'll look into it, thanks.

are case logic bags good?

>>2774312
Any padded bag is good. If you want something for travel, the absolute minimum is the NatGeo Walkabout series.

File: domke.jpg (27 KB, 500x500) Image search: [Google]

27 KB, 500x500

I just bought a Domke bag since I find it easy to handle and gear accesible. Even if I'm scared about thieves I'm thinking ways to cover the gear (I never carry more than 3 lenses).

>>2774313
Why are the NatGeo considered the absolute minimum?

>>2774315
It is the toughest of the cheap bunch. It's not waterproof but has raincover. Spacious enough for two bodies and some lenses and other stuff, including a laptop.
There are better ones for travel but for $60 it offers everything you would want for travel and hikes in the hills and in the forest.

>>2774318
Alright cheers, I was looking at getting one and just wanted some more opinions.

Accidentally posted in the old thread:

5D2 with 230k shutter count, a 3rd party battery grip, and 2 extra batteries-- for roughly 600$.

Yay or nay?

I'm asking in consideration of the condition and prices of Canon cameras in general, I don't give a shit about Sony or Pentax because they have fuck-all customer support in my area.

/trv/ here, looking for some input.

I'm getting tired of traveling around the world and capturing magical places on my phone. Can someone recommend a decent first camera for travel photography? One that is quite durable and inexpensive but can produce good quality photos. Thanks in advance

>>2774384
Nay.

>>2774385
Rx100 III or IV.

Not inexpensive enough? Xiaomi Yicam, Ricoh Gr, an upgrade to your next smartphone (or an inexpensive Chinese one with a decent camera...).

>>2774384
That $600 is actually $600+new shutter+service fee. More like $900, maybe go up to $1000 just to be sure.

>>2774385
Pentax K-50 with kit lens and a cheap sturdy tripod like the Dic&Mic E302C from aliexpress.
Weather sealing, rugged build, ability to change lenses later on, bright and accurate viewfinder, in-body stabilization, much capability.

>>2774391
If it fits in your budget then get the DA 35mm lens, it has minimal distortions and is the best lens for panoramas.

>>2774384
> I don't give a shit about Sony or Pentax because they have fuck-all customer support in my area.
Yea, you sure want Canon's customer support. It's like $200-600 every god damn time, and you'll need it rapidly with that camera.

Clearly better than just buying an unsupported Sony / Pentax that in all likelihood will work for a long while and is still probably going to be cheaper to replace than Canon's service might be.

I'm buying myself a new camera used particularly for travel photography. Most important is how good the pictures it will take are, but compactness and ease of packing is also a prominent factor. Im currently tossing up between a canon 760d (or equivalent) a canon 100d (because of its size) or a similarly priced mirrorless (probably a sony a6000). What should i go for? Is the compactness of the smaller cameras worth it?

I guess this is the right place to ask...
Shooting with a d3200, its time to move on. Should I just grab a d7100 or jump to pentax and get a k-3 and a 35mm

>>2774385
Sony A6000 all the way, you won't regret it. It competes with the Nikon D4S in terms of image quality and auto focus. Great little action shooter.

>>2774423
>action shooter
>for travel
The first drop of rain or a bit of dusty wind will brick that shit. Not to mention it has no options for lenses later on.

>>2774420
The D7100 is pretty much similar to the K-3 except for the buffer size. If you don't shoot bursts all the time then get the D7100 and some older AF lens with the screw focus for that special 3D "pop".
If you like the Pentax better then you can do the same with the K-3 and the DA 35 or the DA 40 limited if you have the budget.

Question.

I have 70D but I want to sell it as I don't care about the video making advantages and features anymore and want to focus on stills only.

What should I get instead, for similar pricetag as 70D?

Preferably from Canon as I have 5 Canon lenses.

>>2774431
Just keep it and get better lenses? It is an excellent choice for stills and even studio tethering.

>>2774395
>Buy Sony/Pentax
>No 2nd hand market in area for any of the lenses I would have to buy after getting rid of my Canon shit
>No first party/grey market providers for any pro-level lenses/accessories either
>Better

I know what I need.

>inb4 "muh adapters"

I dreamt that I was in a department store in China. After looking at food prices, I managed to find one of those Canikon camera displays. I went over to fuck with the cameras, and saw that there was D500 on the table. I frantically searched through my bag for an SD card, and somehow managed to find one. The person supposed to keep an eye on the camera wasnt there, so I popped it in, and took some pictures at Hi5 and Hi1. At that point, the guardian of the camera came back from his lunch break, and saw me with the camera. He took it from me and found the SD card. I played dumb, and he just discarded the card. I got my brother to distract him while I nicked my card back, and I got away and uploaded the pictures to the Nikonrumors admin.

Alas, I woke up.

>>2774435
If you can't find any other FF with lower shutter count for that money then it would be better to consider going with a crop sensor one, like the 60D/70D or 7D. You can still use them with excellent results and you can stop worrying about unnecessary expenses like replacing the shutter right after buying the camera.

>>2774425
>3D pop
>AF-D lenses
Are you delusional, or do you really think a double gauss 50mm with modern coatings has 3D pop simply because it's old? The DC lenses have "3D pop" but that's kinda their deal. That's it for "3D pop" lenses.

>>2774441
Actually I am using crop cameras. A pair of Canon Rebels but I have some money sitting around for a better camera, and I wasn't entirely sure if it was a good deal when that 5D2 popped up.

Oh well, I guess it's back to waiting for a reasonably priced second-hand 6D.

>>2774442
No, it has 3D pop because it has less glass. It's a physical fact that the more the light is refracted and the more glass it has to go through the more it degrades and loses information. You might get pristine flat images from those super expensive Zeiss lenses but it will lack character and you will end up with boring sterile images.

>>2774227

First time DSLR buy. In the past just used family equipment. Debating between a Canon T5i and T6i. Question is if the T6i justifies the extra cost. There's some packages on eBay where I could get a T5i with a 18-55mm and a 70-300mm (or something, some kind of telephoto) for about the same price of a T6i with only a 18-55mm.

Primary use is stills but some videography as well, although I have a camcorder for that.

>>2774456
T6S is better but if you can find a good deal on a used 60D it would be even better. Use MagicLantern if you want to get into video.
The kit lens is good for what it is but you will consider upgrading that to a 24-70 or 24-105 with IS. The telezoom you mentioned is decent at best but a Tamron 70-200/2.8 is relatively cheap.

>>2774460

Oh sure, I'm aware the T6S is an objectively better camera than either, just didn't necessarily want to spend too much on a first time purchase, unless you guys think it's worth it

>>2774462
Yes, it's worth it. Get a 6D or an A6000 or a Pentax K-5 or something.

>>2774465
He obviously has access to lenses or some stuff from family and you can't beat Canons cheap video features with MagicLantern.
Recommending anything else at this point is meaningless and proof of fanboyism.
Canon is still relevant, with the right glass they are pretty much capable.

>>2774467
> He obviously has access to lenses or some stuff from family
Like what, he could lend some glass, but not the camera bodies? I don't see the point.

> and you can't beat Canons cheap video features with MagicLantern.
Sure you can. A6000 and the video editor of your choice.

> Recommending anything else at this point is meaningless and proof of fanboyism.
No, it's a proof of common sense, since anon was looking for a deal with good value.

Settling on Canon without considering better value options (while simply assuming that there are some wild additional circumstances making it a better choice) is proof of fanboyism, though.

File: SIGMvs.jpg (142 KB, 505x889) Image search: [Google]

142 KB, 505x889

Which one to get? Im a semi pro photographer so IQ is pretty important, I had the 17-50 before and the IQ was ok, nothing spectacular at 2.8 though b ut very decent and IS. Now I rock a 30mm 1.4 sigma and shoot a lot at 1.8 but the lens is fucked now so I need a new sharp one. The catch is that the sigma 18-35 is over twice the price as the 17-50.... wtf. But yeah mostly is it worth it with this of a big gap?

will someone please help me pick out a mirrorless?

>>2774058

post from previous thread

Any info on a potential Fuji X-T2?
Going to upgrade from my 550D and thinking about the X-T1 but if the 2 will be out this year then I might wait.

>>2774478
If you only have an APS-C, the 18-35mm is a great lens.

Really not sure what you're complaining about. If you want IQ, this is not even one of the expensive deals...? Sigma's bringing down of prices is most welcome, as far as I'm concerned...

>>2774480
Samsung should be fine. Or Sony or Panasonic.

Canon's mirrorless system isn't really offering anything useful over the competition at this point.

>>2774478
The 17-50 has very nice IQ and the 18-35 is not that much faster than the 17-50. I'd get the cheaper one and keep the rest of the budget for something else. It will also be good if you go FF later on.

>>2774489
>The 17-50 has very nice IQ
No, it's clearly a mediocre lens at best. Quite like an average kit lens.

It is far worse than the 18-35mm.

Guys, Im starting to enter to this amazing world of /p/, i have 150 bucks to spend and im thinking about buying a Sony DSC-H300, is that ok for a starter/begginer? Or should i buy something else?

>>2774493 (cont'd)
Reference:
http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/Sigma-18-35mm-F18-DC-HSM-A-Nikon-on-Nikon-D3300-versus-17-70mm-F2.8-4-DC-Macro-OS-HSM-Nikon-on-Nikon-D5300__1140_928_304_919

Look at the individual measurements, especially the sharpness field map. Huge difference.

The cheaper lens is *never* sharp wide-open (even if that means f/4 on the long end), the more expensive one is better at its widest f/1.8 than the other lens is at its best at f/5.6-f/8. And the more expensive lens is even better at f/5.6-f/8 than it is wide open.

>>2774493
>>2774489
guys please this just furthers my indecision, i just come to /p/ for the dankest meme kit

>>2774484

cool thank you

>>2774499
Get a Pentax K-3 with HD DA 16-85 then I hope I could answer all your questions.

>>2774496
/p/ hates p&s and super zooms, and extremely cheap cameras like that leave you little choice for anything else but p&s or super zooms when you buy new.

Perhaps try to get an used Nikon D3100 or Pentax K-5 or something like that instead?

>>2774501
Nah I have a canon aps c (600d i think) Not gonna switch or spend over 700€

>>2774499
I'm telling you the 18-35mm is a much better lens.

If it stretches your budget too much, buy the cheaper one, but it's clearly not anywhere near the 18-35mm in terms of IQ. It's just the cheaper choice.

>>2774446
By that logic, everybody should shoot portraits with macro lenses and Tessars. The word you're looking for isn't "3D pop" it's "soft corners and spherochromatism".

I recently purchased some nice gear after being out of the game for quite some time (I have Nikon D750, grip, and flash... previously had a stone-age Rebel XT).

I took it to a bar to shoot a friend's band, and some fat girl hitting on me kept asking if I was a professional photographer. How do I field such a question?

>>2774460

I'm the guy from >>2774456 again

I'm seeing some very good deals on 70D's on eBay right now, better prices even than a T6I or T6S. Unless someone says otherwise, thinking about going for it. Of course these are some legit eBay sellers with good ratings and not some dude in Nigeria

>>2774514
People also ask me.

How about "no, it's just a hobby", or whatever?

File: Screen Shot 2016-02-21 at 19.20.48.png (189 KB, 552x543) Image search: [Google]

189 KB, 552x543

Hello again /p/

I have found a Canon 5D Mark 3 at a price I can do (about £1200) but it has 62,000 shutter actuations....

Is this camera a bit of a roastie at this point? Or is SA a meme at this point?

Thanks

>>2774546
It's a good camera and, I think it was rated at like 250k shutter actuations or something?

Doesn't sound too unreasonable.

>>2774503
Wait a minute you guys were the ones who told me I should get the rx100

What the hell

>>2774561
Enthusiast compacts with good glass are okay with some.

>>2774546
Need more opinions on this before I pull the trigger.

>>2774546
I'd go for it.
The 5DkIII is a great camera. If you can afford, you should.

>>2774586
what about the shutter count? I dont want to replace the fucker

File: ICU_Shallow_Medium_WithGear_4.png (539 KB, 1600x538) Image search: [Google]

539 KB, 1600x538

>>2774296
Check out F-Stop gear's ICUs.

They're often backordered, though.

Does anyone know anything about the company I3Epro? Their filters came packed with my Nikon 35mm 1.8g, and I was wondering if they're junk. Can't find anything about them on the Internet... not even a company website.

>>2774591
why dont you do your own research you mong?

So many Spillover Sony Shills on this board.

>>2774626
I was actually trying to remember who made those. I was looking at those when I first bought the SD20.
They're a tad up there price but I'll consider it.

>>2774584
If you don't already have Canon glass, you could look into the D700.

>>2774515
Go for it, the 70D is a great camera.

>>2774515
I remember when I was first looking for an A7, there was one for sale for like $600 on Amazon.

The seller was apparently located in a tiny pacific territory East of New Zealand or some shit, and shipping couldn't even be estimated. Sketchiest thing I've ever seen.

>>2774682
Was it on Pitcairn Island?

>>2774272
>>2774270
> Pentax never existed before DA lenses
>The existence of their manual leneses and the Asahi cameras is a result of a time paradox

>>2774250
>Implying that most gearfags own hundreds of lenses
>Implying they don't just take out 3 at a time and stick with them

>>2774481
X-T2 will likely be out later this year (summer-fall), although all we have right now are rumors. Expect the same specs as the X-Pro2.

Speaking of which, I'll be getting a tax refund of a little over $1,700. Currently, I have an X-T1 and X100S, and various lenses for the X-T1. Got a really good backpack/case, several batteries, straps, Instax printer, flashes + transmitters for off-camera use, and a kinda-shitty $30 tripod.

The X-Pro2 seems like a very good upgrade, and I like the rangefinder style and corner placement of the VF. However, I know I would be paying a premium for the hybrid viewfinder, which I would very likely never use (I only use the EVF on my X100S - if there was an X-E3 with X-Pro2 specs I'd buy that instead). I tried shooting indoor events with the X-T1 and was disappointed by the slower focus (even with the 16-55 2.8 lens) and high noise at ISO 6400, both of which are supposedly better with the X-Pro2.

In regards to my X100S, I really don't use it anymore. I was thinking of selling it to maybe fund an X70 since the main reason I bought the X100S was for portability (which isn't really that much bigger than my X-T1 anyways), plus the slow AF, lack of WiFi connectivity, and soft lens when wide open were also ultimately disappointing, plus I prefer wider lenses for compact/travel cameras. The lack of EVF would be a bummer but with such a small camera I don't think I'd mind.

So what I'm thinking is:
- Use tax refund to buy X-Pro2
- Sell X-T1 and X100S to buy X70 and a better tripod

y/n? Also, anyone have good tripods recommendations? I would take it with me when I'm out and about, so something smaller/more compact would be nice.

>>2774703
Sony A6300 all the way.

>>2774704
Go away $ony

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

135 KB, 1000x1000

>>2774703
>Also, anyone have good tripods recommendations? I would take it with me when I'm out and about, so something smaller/more compact would be nice.
Dic&Mic E302C.

If not that, perhaps a Sirui travel tripod.

my a7 setup has become too fuckhueg to take with me for casual stuff, should I get a GR or X100s? I like the viewfinder on x100 but GR sensor has me intrigued

>>2774721
How about simply getting an adequate backpack or bag & just taking the 1-3 lenses you need?

File: DSC94641.jpg (219 KB, 1100x593) Image search: [Google]

219 KB, 1100x593

>>2774721
>too fuckhueg to take with me for casual stuff
What did you, put on a battery grip and a 70-400 or some shit?

Also Fuji X70 is the answer.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	NEX-6
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.5 (Macintosh)
Photographer	Jason Hermann
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/4.0
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	157 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2014:06:25 06:22:07
Exposure Time	1/200 sec
F-Number	f/8.0
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	800
Lens Aperture	f/8.0
Brightness	6.2 EV
Exposure Bias	1 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	105.00 mm
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

>>2774722
>>2774724
I do have the 70-200 and battery grip, but recently I sold my FE shit for an LA-EA4 and a sigma 35 1.4 art, some other sigma thing.
in regards to x70 >I like the viewfinder on x100
seems neat otherwise

>>2774703
>Also, anyone have good tripods recommendations? I would take it with me when I'm out and about, so something smaller/more compact would be nice.

How much are you looking to spend? I have Benro legs and a Photo Clam head and love that setup, but it wasn't particularly cheap. (My setup is built for a pro body + 70-200 so the exact model will be very different, though.)

You could also check out Three Legged Thing, I've heard a lot of good things about their tripods.

>>2774728
I would say drop the grip, but as an A7 owner I understand that's not really an option.
Battery life and ergonomics are lacking without that grip.

>>2774688
I never implied any of that. I was mainly saying that because there's twice as many lenses he said there was even just in the DA line

File: 10135161636_5aff16bdf6_b[1].jpg (422 KB, 1024x1024) Image search: [Google]

422 KB, 1024x1024

So I'm getting an M-mount rangefinder and I got a Voight 35mm f/2.5 Color skopar to go along with it as a starter lens. I'm gonna be shooting black and white(Neopan Acros 100) mostly, so what contrast filters do you guys suggest? I've had good resuts with just yellow in the past, should I spring for a red(25A) too?

Hey guys what is a good 35mm scanner for ~$400 AUD?

Please don't suggest using my DSLR :)

>>2774802
depends on what you find yourself shooting.

>>2774822
Well I think this is gonna be a walk-around /everyday camera, it goes where my medium format won't go. So I'll shoot anything from architecture, to environmental portraits, to landscapes. I'm fine with carrying two filters. Just not sure if I should try orange or just go straight to red.

>>2774819
Reflecta RPS10M, no clue how much that costs in AUD.

If you go below that, your're better off MILC/DSLR scanning in pretty much every instance, including even the one where you do it with a 10MP camera or something older like that. It will be faster and better.

>>2774830
The RPS 10M is far too expensive for me sorry.

I've used my DSLR to scan plenty of times and I think its too fiddly so I would rather just get a dedicated scanner.

>>2774832

Aren't there a few Canon scanners with film attachments? I know mine came with one. Though I only shoot digital so the film feeder thing is still in the box.

Do I get the a5100 or a6000?

I've been taking film photos for years and am ready to make the film>digital jump. Do I wait for the 5D Mk IV? Or do I shill out for the Mk III?

File: 23837547849_d89efc024f[1].jpg (60 KB, 375x500) Image search: [Google]

60 KB, 375x500

id on this camera?

>>2774852
What do you shoot film with? Sony's MILCs are great for adapting old manual focus lenses. Makes the switch easier imo.

>>2774863
Fujifilm Klasse W Black

>>2774851
a6000 is better all around.

>source: i had the 51000 and a6000 but kept the a6000

>>2774827
Red a best, but I general purpose shoot with orange when it's bright enough outside for it. Yellow is meh.

>>2774870

But touchscreen for autofocus, and small size and superior video

sorry xpost

Hey guys, I'm going travelling and my gf is looking for a waterproof/dustproof/whatever camera that she can beat around on the beaches and jungles. Any good reccomendations?

>>2774889

I hear Pentax is weather sealed. But I don't actually take photos.

>>2774889

Olympus has some that might work. Though I know a few manufacturers make "tough" point and shoots.

>>2774892
perfect, ill look into it. yeah all she needs is a P&S. cheers

>>2774889
Pentax K-50 with kit lens

>>2774896
>P&S
Ah. Anything that say "waterproof" on it and preferably no outside moving parts to catch sand. Ricoh, Nikon Sony and a bunch more has these little things but don't expect quality images.

File: NikonF580mmf18side.jpg (31 KB, 418x410) Image search: [Google]

31 KB, 418x410

I'm interested in getting into 35mm and was told f5 is the way to go. I'm sold and sorta desperate to get my hands on one. Anyone have any 3bay gear tips? I found a NR for like 2.75 wonder how high this one might go in working condition with 50mm nikkor 1.8? search 3bay for 281941926145

>>2774922
Sure, it's the way to go if you want to carry a 1.2 kg brick that eats AAs like nobody's business. If you already use pro-body DSLRs, then maybe that's what you're looking for. Every other sane person gets a F100 or F90X for autofocus bodies, and F3 or FM2/FE2 for manual focus bodies. There's only a few features the F5 has that make it worth it (mirror lockup and such) for certain people.

If you're getting into 35mm and have Nikon lenses already, then yes, Nikon is the way to go. If you have Canon lenses, Canon EOS bodies are the way to go. If you have no glass and want autofocus, then you get to pick between Canon, Minolta, and Nikon. If you have no glass and want to shoot manual focus, you can choose any system.

I have a Canon T6s and I'm looking for a fast lens for indoor photography. I"m looking at shooting cosplayer's and conventions in general. Any recommendations?

>>2774932
EF-S 24mm/2.8 or the EF 40mm/2.8 pancakes.

File: F5_F100compare.jpg (31 KB, 634x193) Image search: [Google]

31 KB, 634x193

>>2774922
The F5 eats through batteries and film like nothing else. Get an F3, F4, or F100 if you want a professional film Nikon.
The F100 especially if you want a newer AF Nikon since it's essentially an F5 but lighter, doesn't eat AA batteries like a madman, and is cheaper. Only get the F5 if you want to look pro to the average pedestrian.

If you don't have any FX lenses like the other Anon said, then look at some other brands while you'e at it. I personally recommend the Olympus OM series (OM4 and earlier), Canon A-1 (don't bother with the AE-1), and some of the Minolta cameras like the SR-T 101 and X700.

File: P1950018.jpg (284 KB, 1080x1081) Image search: [Google]

284 KB, 1080x1081

>tfw no titanium Fujifilms

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Google
Photographer	Picasa
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Image Width	1080
Image Height	1081

>>2774939
All that effort and still no one cares about m43 Oly

File: CbmJL1OUcAENfuj.jpg (356 KB, 2048x1365) Image search: [Google]

356 KB, 2048x1365

Upgraded from my D3100 at last.

>>2774983
You should really have gotten a sony and sold all your nekon glass.

>>2774983
And you posted a photo OF your camera instead a photo made WITH your new camera.

>>2774941
Yep M43 is so garbage, anyone who defends it is delusional.

>>2774987
And anyone attacking it is an aspergian. Fuck off. Nobody loves you, not even your mom.

>>2774990
Why are you so defensive? it's inferior to all APS-C offerings and it costs more.

>>2774986
I'm showing you a picture of my gear, friend
want you to share in what I experience when I look at it

please forgive me senpai

>>2774983
Not bad.

File: tumblr_o2uoszshGh1rgyxkqo5_1280.jpg (502 KB, 1280x753) Image search: [Google]

502 KB, 1280x753

>>2774986
Here's a photo taken with the camera for you.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D7200
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.1 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/4.1
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	814
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	45 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2016:02:20 14:30:16
Exposure Time	1/13 sec
F-Number	f/5.0
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/5.0
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Cloudy Weather
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	30.00 mm
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	None
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>2774983
Neat. What lenses so you have for it?

>>2775034
18-105mm and 15-85mm for the time being.
I'm thinking of getting a 12-24 for landscape but it'll require a bit of saving for first.

>>2775021
>stages a shot of an inanimate object
>eqv focal length 45mm
>shoots at ISO 100
>Aperture priority
>1/13
>Somehow still manages to crop the bottom of the bikeweheel out of frame.
Maybe you didn't really need that upgrade senpai.

File: 8796180971550.jpg (31 KB, 353x300) Image search: [Google]

31 KB, 353x300

Question,
Full frame nikon cameras have a automatic crop mode when you attach a crop lens.

If i were to use a crop camera lens on a fx body, would i still benefit from better image quality and iso performance?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D700
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS5 Windows
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/3.5
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	1182
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	157 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	353
Image Height	300
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2012:09:20 14:25:26
White Point Chromaticity	0.3
Exposure Time	1/250 sec
F-Number	f/32.0
Exposure Program	Manual
Lens Aperture	f/32.0
Exposure Bias	-0.7 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	105.00 mm
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	353
Image Height	300
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Digital Zoom Ratio	1.5
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	None
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>2775042
You'll be using the center of the lens and the center of the sensor only, exactly as if you had cropped a FF image to APS-C.

You will get physically as much light as an APS-C camera would have on the same framing.

So in general, no.

File: 1450025842742.jpg (80 KB, 900x900) Image search: [Google]

80 KB, 900x900

I am actually considering purchasing a 2000$ lens while having a base valued at 300$
It sounds so insane to me but /p/ has said this is a good idea.

Is this a serious recommendation or am I being trolled?

It is a huge upgrade and very nice as it would give me access to subjects I don't have otheriwse.
I suppose it is also rather low risk as the resale value stays high, and apparently even if i wanted to change ecosystems, you can use the lens on Sony with an adapter.

I might have to repost this a few times to be absolutely sure.

>>2775021
this >>2775037
with the addition of "Much better than the other one"
Have fun senpai.

>>2775091
It's not a troll. It sounds strange because it rarely happens. People that can spend thousands on superteles (surprise surprise) can also spend thousands on 7D IIs and D500s.

So, if I want to film skateboarders and I need a good wide angle less and a fisheye what lense should I get? Nothing to expensive but not cheep trash, I understand that you get what you pay for

>>2775102
Check out the Rokinon manual focus lenses. They have great optics and you don't need AF for video. You can get versions that have follow focus gears and a stepless aperture ring if you want that sort of thing, too.

>>2775042
>>2775082

Not sure if that reply was correct mate. You would be getting a reduced pixel count but your ISO performance should still be the same?

File: 15224306553_cfabda2c77_b.jpg (191 KB, 902x600) Image search: [Google]

191 KB, 902x600

Rocking a D3200 with stock lens (18-55mm). I feel like the lens is pretty shit so I wanna make an appropriate switch. I mainly shoot architecture, and I like doing wides/close ups (pic related).

Appreciate recommendations. Also is there a rule on buying used besides making sure they aren't damaged before purchase?

>>2775113
Why do you feel the lens is pretty shit?

How about telling us the focal lengths you most commonly use and your current issues with your existing setup.

>>2775113
get a 35mm prime

>>2775091
Are you the one who wants to put a 100-400 on a Rebel? It's an excellent lens that you'll probably keep for years, and while the body you're planning on putting it on is pretty mediocre, you'll probably upgrade that eventually anyway, while a good lens will never go out of date as long as the EF mount and 35mm-size sensors stay current.

What are you planning on shooting with it, anyway?

>>2775113
My travel kit back when I was shooting DX was a 12-24, 35 1.8, and a 55-200. I brought that trio to Japan last time I went ('09), along with a D2X body, and it did great.

>>2775114
>Why do you feel the lens is pretty shit?
I feel like a newer lens will give me sharper images, and have a wider aperture.

It's entirely possible that the kit lens is good enough and that I just think it isn't, so lemee know either way.

>the focal lengths you most commonly use
I wouldn't say I have a common one. Anything from 18 to 55 is possible. Wouldn't mind being able to go a little higher as well.

>>2775116
>>2775127
Thanks, will look into.

>>2775141
While I'm here, I'll just mention the 55-200 again. Every Nikon DX shooter should own one, it's dirt cheap (especially if you get a refurb one from Nikon) and it's an excellent little lens. I owned a 70-200 2.8 when I was shooting DX, and yet I still grabbed the 55-200 when doing casual stuff because it was such a small and light way to have a telephoto with me.

>>2774423
>A6000
>competes with D4S in terms of autofocus
lmfao

>>2774546
>ff
>THE base for (serious) video shooting
>good quality
>lots of glass avaiable
I'd say go for it mate it's a great camera, and i'm a nikon guy but hell i've been tempted too many times by the 5d

>>2775169
kek, I missed that.

The A6K is a great little camera. It's actually at the top of my list when friends ask me for advice on their first "real" camera.

Comparing it in any way to something like a D4S is absolutely ridiculous though. I've messed around with A6Ks quite a bit, and I have trouble even comparing its AF to a "prosumer" DSLR like the D7100 or my D610, much less a pro body.

how to zoom in live view to nail focus with K-3

>>2774384
Eh. I have a 5DmkII and it's a nice camera but it's definitely dated at this point. High ISO (3200) looks like shit compared to most of the cameras coming out lately (even ones that are much cheaper) and it's lowlight performance is abhorrent.

600 is a good price and all, but I think the money would be better spent on a newer camera.
Maybe a used 6D or a new A6000

>>2775194
1. Go into liveview
2. Press OK button
3. Use directional buttons to move the zoom area and the dials to zoom in/out
4. Press OK button again to go back to full view.

>>2775233
thanks m8

>>2775109
>but your ISO performance should still be the same?
The sensor ISO performance remains the same as such.

But the sensor is going to be working with half as much light as a FF shot framed the same (when shot with a corresponding FF lens that has the same t-stoppage).

>>2775109
>>2775254

For what it's worth, though, the FF camera in crop mode would only be the same as the crop camera if the FF sensor has twice the pixels of the Crop one.

In real life, you might be comparing something like a 24MP D610 to a 24MP D7200, so the D610 in DX mode will have bigger pixels and give you lower noise but only half the resolution of the D7200.

>>2775264
I suggest you take a basic math course.

>>2775186
I have no problems comparing it to a D7100, though AF speed is more sensitive to lens sharpness than on the D7100.

But it is not quite a D4S. Maybe the A6300 is. We will see...

>>2775273
Feel free to educate us.

I'm new. My lens says thread size 52 and my 52mm filter doesn't fit or even screw in. Am I doing something wrong or did I get a mislabeled filter size? I use the D3300.

>>2775284
Post photos of what you have. You're mistaken somewhere.

File: 00T1hs-123709584.jpg (67 KB, 675x498) Image search: [Google]

67 KB, 675x498

Just ordered the Yashica electro 35 gt and some ilford hp5+ 400, how bad i done goofed? considering its my firs film camera

>>2775286
I had the lens backwards. The shame. I learned something great today but the shame looms overhead.

>>2774852
No one?

>>2775295
Try a Sony A7 II.

It'll be easier to use your old MF lenses with that - has IBIS and an EVF with useful MF helper functions.

>>2775295
You'll buy a digital camera and be dissapointed, unless you need the digitial camera for professional work

>>2775300
Why? New digital cameras are amazing.

Cheaper, faster (you're post-processing seconds after a shot if you want to), and for many situations also just better.

>>2774852
For what?

>>2775306
He never learned to post process, and is mad that digital doesn't come with automatic low-guilt instagram filters or VSCO like film does. Ignore him.

>>2775294
>I had the lens backwards
wat
Well, glad to be of help? I guess?

File: Arapiles.jpg (875 KB, 1000x1504) Image search: [Google]

875 KB, 1000x1504

Hey gear,

>shootin with d3200
>keep getting gigs
>skillz held back by camera
>have monies for camera
>what buy?
>Subjects are Yoga and circus, macro insects, portraits, rock climbers, mostly stills but getting into video
>budget 6,000
I want to move into the professional world, I'm looking at the canon 5ds with a wide angle, a nice 100mm macro with ringlight, and kit lens.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D3200
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.1 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/4.0
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	814
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	105 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2015:10:27 22:46:47
Exposure Time	1/3200 sec
F-Number	f/4.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	400
Lens Aperture	f/4.0
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	70.00 mm
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	Low Gain Up
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>2775309
>>2775306
I shoot both film and digital. For professional work (portraits, wildlife, sports etc.) then digital is light years ahead. Its also far more convinient. So if you want convinience and ease of use, thats great

But for pure enjoyment and aesthetic, nothing compares to film photography.

I've never seen a convincing replica of a film image using digital editing software, close, but never the same. Furthermore you're getting a lot for the money if you use film - You're essentially getting a full-frame digital sensor resolution for literally 1/100th of the cost, and thats only the cheaper 35mm. Imagine the resolution you can get from medium format.
You're also getting a far better dynamic range than digital.

I'm not biased to either, since I use both. I'm just being honest about the benefits of both digital and film

>>2775319
I get the high-end glass - but I wonder why you need a 5DS?

>>2775327
He thinks a new studio/landscape camera will make him a better gig shooter.

>>2775320
> Imagine the resolution you can get from medium format.
Realistically? About as much as from a modern FF digital camera (judged primarly by which kind of lenses the respective shooters use).

You get more from a modern digital FF camera if you ultimately want to have a digital image, scanning MF film to even that resolution properly is a pain.

>You're also getting a far better dynamic range than digital.
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/dynamicrange2/

And it is an old comparison, digital got even better:

>>2775319
>skillz held back by camera
How so? This answer will dictate the gear you should upgrade to.

5Ds
>Highest megapixel sensor available on the market, behind in literally every other aspect, literally only buy it for the resolution
>Wants to use it with the kit lens.

File: EPyoga-19.jpg (299 KB, 1000x1504) Image search: [Google]

299 KB, 1000x1504

>>2775328
I don't think any gear will give me magical abilities, but I'm reading to move forward to nicer glass. I know my shots are being held back by crap lenses. At my last gig a student had a better camera than me and I tried it out, such amazing quality and I loved the wide angle lens for circus stuff. I get lots of chromatic aberration with wildlife shots too. I want the only thing holding me back to be my experience and skills.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D3200
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.1 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/3.5
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	814
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	27 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2016:01:24 14:19:27
Exposure Time	1/40 sec
F-Number	f/22.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	400
Lens Aperture	f/22.0
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	18.00 mm
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	Low Gain Up
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>2775320
>I've never seen a convincing replica of a film image using digital editing software, close, but never the same. Furthermore you're getting a lot for the money if you use film - You're essentially getting a full-frame digital sensor resolution for literally 1/100th of the cost, and thats only the cheaper 35mm. Imagine the resolution you can get from medium format.
>You're also getting a far better dynamic range than digital.

Oh it's this guy who doesn't know what he's talking about again. Let's address:
>Never seen a convincing replica
Because digital looks better. It's got more accurate colors, MUCH better detail, and a ton more flexibility
>Getting a lot for the money if you use film, you're essentially getting a full frame digital sensor resolution for literally 1/100th of the cost
What's the pricing on an a7, or a 5D?
Now what's the pricing on Provia, Portra, TriX (plus development, scanning, etc)
Shooting film is not cheap at all. It's also nowhere near the resolution. If you want somewhere close to the resolution you get with a 5Dmk2 with a mediocre lens, you need to be shooting slow film on a 6x7 film format. One of the main reasons people think digital looks "bad" is because it's so much more detailed and full of information than film.

>also getting far better dynamic range
No, not really. 14 stops on digital is pretty excellent. The real thing that people notice is the "highlight roll-off" which can be very nearly replicated on digital if you only know what you're doing when you shoot, and edit.
>INB4 nuh uh.

>>2775329
Whilst what you posted has merit, it still doesn't disprove the fact you get better dynamic range for far less money when using film.
The only time modern digital cameras surpass film cameras if when you're getting towards professional standard, and expensive gear. Which I actually said before "For professional work (portraits, wildlife, sports etc.) then digital is light years ahead".

So I stand by my point - in general, when we're not considering photography for professional needs, film is superior. It's simply better value and more enjoyable.
If you prefer taking 1000 snapshots of the same duck to observe its variety of facial expressions, then I recommend shooting digital.

>>2775332
Unless you shoot action or low light, those $6k are better spent on a D750 or A7 II + glass + lighting + maybe NAS storage and software for quicker/safer post work. Or a 5D III, if it must be.

Yes, that's >$4k on glass + lighting + stuff.

>>2775335
>denial

>>2774992
Maybe it's because you should care less about what gear you use and more about what images you take with it, it's like you're driving a mediocre car and everyone else around you is driving ferraris and all they do is make those stupid donuts with tier tires, while you actually use your car to go places and don't just use it to show off to your buds

>>2775340
If you have M4/3 already, yeah, use it rather than lusting for something else. But if you're buying into a system fresh, why pick a worse system just so you can be proud of ignoring its limitations?

>>2775336
>Whilst what you posted has merit, it still doesn't disprove the fact you get better dynamic range for far less money when using film.
No, it only requires a *lower initial investment*.

And even that only if you never need it to be digital - once you require it for archival, post work, publishing, printing, a scanner that retains your quality will cost as much as a good DSLR or worse.

> The only time modern digital cameras surpass film cameras if when you're getting towards professional standard, and expensive gear
The dynamic range of a 5D II back then is now basically surpassed by an A6000 or Nikon D3200/D3300. Which aren't too professional, all in all.

> It's simply better value and more enjoyable.
Usually, it isn't once you get to TCO rather than the initial investment only. At least for any kind of hobbyist.

Do like 5000-10000 shots and you are already cheaper off with digital... and again, if you need a suitable scanner, it's immediately the same anyhow.

I can see how someone can enjoy film, I also did that for quite a while, but it's not a cheap / better option, usually.

File: playing a show.jpg (324 KB, 1000x1504) Image search: [Google]

324 KB, 1000x1504

>>2775338
Thanks, I'll look into that. I've got lots of researching and educating to do.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D3200
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.1 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.7
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	814
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	75 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2016:01:25 21:53:41
Exposure Time	1/400 sec
F-Number	f/2.8
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Exposure Bias	0.7 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	50.00 mm
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	None
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>2775336
>X-T10 with kit lens - $750 brand new
Take 150,000 photos with it.
Better flexibility
Faster
Better resolution and detail

$.005 per photo

>Random $200 SLR with prime lens
Take 150,000 photos with it
Less flexibility
Slower
Less demanding in how you select exposure
No time in processing photos, but lots of time in development of film

Provia - $50 for 5 rolls of 35mm
$.30 per photo before development costs
150,000 photos = $45,000

>Cheaper

File: Greenmoss.jpg (753 KB, 1000x1504) Image search: [Google]

753 KB, 1000x1504

>>2775338
between the d750 and A7 II which is more durable?
I'll be going through some intense jungle and rivers, possibly jumping off 20m waterfalls

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D3200
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.1 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.7
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	814
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	75 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2015:12:29 17:00:24
Exposure Time	1/500 sec
F-Number	f/1.8
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/1.8
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	50.00 mm
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	None
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>2775350
Hard to tell for shocks, impacts and so on.

But for water and dust: The D750 has weather sealing, the A7 II does not.

>>2775348
After 50 rolls of film (Less than 1 per week for a single year), or less than 2000 photos taken total, it will have been less expensive to shoot the X-T10.

(This is assuming home development and scanning)

>>2775343
>It only requires a lower initial investment

I think this depends on the user. Atleast with film, I can buy a cheap film SLR for less than £50 and then determine how much I choose to spend in the long run on how many photos I choose to take.

Whereas with digital, you may spend a lot of money in the first place. Then you end up upgrading your digital body and buying new lenses, which proves to be far more expensive than buying rolls of film.
Also, if I'm more conservative about how many shots I take, they tend to be more thought out, and better quality. that 100 digital shots just because I can.

>Do like 5000-10000 shots and you are already cheaper off with digital... and again, if you need a suitable scanner, it's immediately the same anyhow.

Getting your photos scanned by a professional scanner is usually very cheap, or atleast where I'm from. So that effectively negates the cost of buying a low quality scanner.

I still don't believe film is always more expensive than digital. Buy the time the cost of film rolls/developing etc. surpasses the cost of a digital camera, the cameras body needs upgrading, or you buy a new lens. Again, these factors depend on the person. So technically, either can be cheaper.
I also think film is also more enjoyable, but thats personal preference.

I'm actually considering selling my a6000 because I enjoy film that much more.

>>2775353
You are incorrect or doing mental gymnastics in literally every point you make.

also, see
>>2775348
>>2775352

>>2775353
So what you're saying is that film is cheaper if you buy your equipment for the sake of having it, but never actually shooting it, but digital is cheaper if you're actually a photographer who plans to take photos...

>>2775127
Yes I am, and I plan to shoot wildlife, perhaps some day rare sports.

I'd rather get that first and decide on a body upgrade later - partially because I am unsure Sony vs Canon, but also partially because at the moment, it seems like there is not a really good `value point` for a canon body upgrade below several thousand dollars

>>2775354
>>2775356
As a hypothetical scenario:

I buy an SLR for £50. I buy film in bulk which works out at £3 a roll, then a further £3 to get it developed and scanned. That's £6. I go out a couple of times a week on the weekend and shoot a roll (36 exposures).

Thats £324 per year. In 5 years thats £1670 including the cost of the camera.

Currently in the UK, an XT1 costs roughly £850 with the 18-55mm. Chances are, if you're buying that camera, you will be buying atleast 2 primes. Perhaps even 3. For now, lets say you only buy 2.

So for the XT1, the most popular primes are the Fujifilm Fujinon XF 56mm and the Fujifilm FUJINON XF 23mm. The prices of these in the UK are £556 and £496. I've actually done you a favour here and not incuded the more expensive zoom and wide angles lenses.

So overall, that equates to £1902. Which is £232 more than the film option over a 5 year period.

Also, lets not forget, the XT1 will likely need upgrading in the next 5 years, so you'll probably lose another £200-300 minimum, if you choose to do that.

>b-but muh digital bargain

>>2775359
rekt

>>2775359
Just how does the Fuji need 3 lenses (kit + two extra) and the film camera does not?!

Also kinda: Why are you forced to go above a D3x00 to A6000 in terms of cost? (Most cameras are the equal to a D3x00, a few might be more comparable to the A6000, nothing really easily beats both).

And then you somehow seem compelled to upgrade an already better digital camera setup, but not the SLR? (Like, aren't you going to calculate your "upgrade needs" for that with a more pricey SLR with more pricey film to have parity in the scenario...?)

>>2775363
Popular film SLR's are discontinued, there would be no option to upgrade. And lets say If I did buy 2-3 film primes, they are still far cheaper than the digital alternatives for the XT1.

>>2775364
pentax can use any old film lens for k mount. dont need a fuji

>>2775366
But then you're not utilising your digital camera for its features. You may aswell be shooting film if you're using manual focus

>>2775367
Don't be stupid, anon.

>>2775368
he's right you know

>>2775367
you dont need the same features in everything you do. for sports/wildlife you need high burst rate, large buffer, and fast AF. for portraits, still life, products, AF isnt a priority.

>>2775359
So you picked a worse film camera to start out with (which will need to be replaced or repaired WELL before 150,000 photos) much worse film, a strangely low price for film development, no scanning or printing, and picked a relatively low usage for it.

Just for shits and giggles, let's look up pricing for development and scanning. One of the best most reliable places in the USA is Dwaynes, which is $5 USD without scanning or printing, not including shipping costs. If you want your images scanned in presentation resolution (that is to say, low "non edting" resolution) it's $9 USD (again, before shipping) so before you even buy the film, you're at $5.

Buying good film in bulk isn't easy these days, and it's usually expired as well, but let's say you do find Provia, Portra, PROH, Ektar, Velvia, TriX, or TMax in expiration, in bulk, you're still going to be paying more than $3 per roll for them, and you then need to take the time, energy, equipment, space, and knowledge to use it.

You're the comparing it against a more expensive camera than the one suggested (The X-T10 which is more capable than any $100 film camera in existence) , demanding that it has two extra lenses (that doesn't seem to apply to the cheap film camera for some reason) and picking two of the most expensive lenses available for it. (rather than the inexpensive 18mm, 27mm, and 35mm, which are also extremely popular)

Why will the X-T1 "NEED" upgrading? Will it go stale? Will it rot?

Where is any of this made up shit coming from?

Do you not think before you post? Or do you just hope that people reading what you're writing don't have brains?

>>2775364
> Popular film SLR's are discontinued, there would be no option to upgrade.
Huh? Of course you could.

You bought a 35mm. But now you somehow need a MF camera. Has to be a recent Sinar. With film costing $5 per shot.

If you don't, congratulations, you exercised the same self-restraint in the face of an insufficient budget that you could have exercised on a digital camera. (It was already better than the film setup, after all.)

> And lets say If I did buy 2-3 film primes, they are still far cheaper than the digital alternatives for the XT1.
What, for equal lenses? Not usually cheaper, no.

Besides, you could probably stick the same film primes that you have in mind for your film camera on your XT1.

>>2775367
This is why I pre ordered the Sony A63000

>>2775372
I used the XT1 because that was what the other anon referred to as his example. And in this case, film was the cheaper option. Don't get mad because you're digitally butthurt

>>2775357
>>2775091
Yea, why not? Just consider if there aren't any much cheaper options that are very close to just as good ($2k might have some).

>>2775377
>>X-T10 with kit lens - $750 brand new
X-T10, not X-T1.

>In this case film was cheaper, don't get mad
Well your case was mostly made up in your head, so let me counter:

Well if you find a D4s with 24-70 and 70-200 laying on the street with a note that says "free to a good home" like everyone does, then you can shoot 400,000 photos for free, so digital is cheaper. With film, you have to buy 9 bodies since they all have light leaks and were made 40 years ago. You also end up getting three medium format cameras, and a 4x5 camera, because you realize that 35mm is shit resolution. You also need to pay a lot for actual good lenses, since most cheap film lenses suck, and turns out even old manual focus lenses hold their value pretty well, especially portrait lenses. You have to pay about $70 per photo for drum scanning to try to eke out as much detail as you can from your terrible antique format, so you end up selling your house and putting your organs up for sale on the black market because without doing any math at all, you've spent $800,000 on your hobby.

Isn't make believe fun?


Please post a link to where you can get non-expired Provia, Portrai, Ektar, or TriX for $3 per roll, and a link to a service that will develop and scan them for another $3 per roll.

>>2775378
Yeah, the sigma and tamron in that class are nice for that price point, but lack sharpness and have worse CA, which i find really annoying (even if you can correct it in post, although i'm dubious as to how great the effect is / if the side effects are really negligible)

http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/Sigma-150-500mm-F5-63-APO-DG-OS-HSM-Canon-on-Canon-EOS-5DS-R-versus-Canon-EF-100-400mm-F45-56L-IS-II-USM-on-Canon-EOS-5DS-R-versus-Tamron-SP-150-600mm-F-5-63-Di-VC-USD-Model-A011-Canon-on-Canon-EOS-5DS-R__547_1009_1469_1009_1263_1009

The only other one i'd consider is the prior canon version I suppose, but also here I'd rather pay the extra for the improvement

http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/Canon-EF-100-400mm-F45-56L-IS-II-USM-on-Canon-EOS-5DS-R-versus-Canon-EF-100-400mm-F45-56L-IS-USM-on-Canon-EOS-5DS-R__1469_1009_598_1009

Considering that one was released in 1998, the other in 2014, I think I have a good buffer time until the III [or another competitive lens here] comes out.

>>2775385
Ok this is the only thing that worries me

>The telescoping design means that the lens sucks in air when zoomed from shorter focal lengths to longer focal lengths. Unfortunately, with the lack of anything to prevent it, it also sucks in any airborne dust.[4] Although this was not considered a problem when used with cameras that used photographic film, the dust can settle on the sensor of digital cameras leaving a permanent mark on every subsequent photograph until it is cleaned off.

Does that apply to the II, or just the original?

>>2775387
It is true for every zoom lens ever.

>>2775394
So i assume it isn't a crippling fault then

>>2775385
Super telephoto? I think the Canon lens will be fine there.

>>2775402
No, and it fails to mention that a sensor is very easy to clean. A few puffs with a rocket and you're good as new.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E2QSjUpYJYA

>He felt for the mirrorless meme

>>2775525
>paying over 2k for a camera in 2016

>>2774889
Pentax has a bunch of point and shoots that are actually waterproof not just water resistant. They just released one today with 4k video,

>>2775525
Sony does it again. Fuji and pentacks BTFO. Beat that faggots. Sony cand do leica better than leica does leica.

>>2775525
Thank you based Sony. Keep the hype train going!

>>2775300
I do, actually. There aren't enough photographers where I live, and there are a lot of bullshit freelance jobs that pay surprisingly well.

>>2775299
I'm not falling for the mirrorless meme. I want something that has a wide variety of lenses that aren't insanely overpriced.

>>2775381
I said £3 a roll, can't you read? Typical meritard

>>2775525
Sony, you've out done the competition again.

>>2775606
Nice argument fagtron

DAE le sony?

>>2775606
sorry. Okay. So development and scanning for FOUR dollars then. Have at it.

No seriously, who else is a sony shill here, i need help. I got disconnected from the corporate VPN and it's saying I don't have authorization

I don't know which threads on /v/ to post in.

File: 1canon5dmkii_alt.jpg (57 KB, 500x536) Image search: [Google]

57 KB, 500x536

57 KB

I've been offered a used Canon 5D Mark II with a grip, a 24-70mm f/2.8 lens and a 600EX flash for $2000. Is that a good deal? I've been shooting a D20 for a decade and it's on it's last legs.

How sturdy is the 5D? Is it good at low light shooting?

>>2775641

Depends on the condition and generation of the lens.

Generally, the best way to figure out whether you're getting a deal or not is to find all of the equivalent stuff on KEH and compare prices.

>>2775641
Sturdy? Yeah, very. Low light? not great but not terrible. AF is pretty rudimentary, and you won't be able to push more than about a stop and a half before banding shows up.

They are great cameras, but they were really sort of made for studio/good light work.

>>2775643
>generation of the lens.

How do I determine it?

>>2775645
>They are great cameras, but they were really sort of made for studio/good light work.

This is a consideration, the seller is a fashion photographer while I'm a street/convention/mosh pit photographer.

How does it do out in the wild?

Hey guys for my first camera should I get the a6000 or the a6300?

>>2775650
For what?

>>2775648
I frequently tried to use it in a concert pit. In brighter venues with wider angle lenses, it did okay. Probably 4/5 photos in focus using center point and back button focus. In bad light, that would probably drop to 2/5.

With an ultrawide at f/5.6 and a strobe, you'll do very well.

>>2775663

To take photos?

>>2775357
You can get a refurbished 7D Mk ii for around $1200. Best crop camera they make.

>>2775650
Get the a6000
spend the other $600 on lenses.

>>2775709

Oh okay, also this might be a dumb question but are all lenses the same?

Like I want to take pictures of buildings so I think I need a wide angle lens around 15mm, and there are a lot of options, should I normally go with the camera manufacturer? Like just get Sony lenses? The other options are like Samyang and Rokinon, does it matter what I get?

>>2775729

Oh whoops and Zeiss. Should I just go with the cheapest lens?

The kit lens is also 16mm capable

>>2775729
There are pretty substantial differences between various lenses. Some things are as obvious as max aperture, some are less obvious, like how much distortion the lens has or how sharp it is.

Samyang and Rokinon are the same lens in slightly different bodies (as are Bower and Vivitar). They generally have really good optics but are kind of cheaply built and don't have autofocus. Zeiss are spectacular but most don't have AF either, although some of the Sony ones do. (It should say on the store page.)

If you're shooting architecture, try out the kit lens for a while and see if it's adequate. Shoot it at f/8 or something on a tripod, and it probably will do pretty decently for what you're shooting.

>>2775742

Well not architecture, more like storefronts sort of. My city started renovating everything and now things are disappearing, I want to capture what's left before they change it. Are tripods that beneficial?

>>2775744
A tripod lets you use a smaller aperture and a lower ISO because it takes shutter speeds mostly out of the equation, and that makes for sharper, cleaner pictures, especially with a kit lens.

The really nice thing about a tripod for your application, though, is that they let you align your shot perfectly. Not only does that give you a framing advantage, it also lets you bracket and shoot various exposures of the same shot, either to get the perfect one or to do HDR.

As for lenses, by the way, I might even consider something wider than 15mm. Sony anons can probably help more than me, but I see that there's an E-mount 10-18 f/4, which might be a pretty cool option if it fits your budget. I had a 12-24 back when I was shooting APS-C and it was great for the kind of photography you're looking at doing. (I don't know what to call this, by the way... it's not street photography because you're more focused on environment than the people in it, but it's also not architecture. "Urban Documentary" photography, maybe?)

>>2775745

Thanks a lot anon, very informative. I don't know what to call it either, I see you guys calling photos without artistic merit as snapshits, technically it's that since all I'm doing is trying to archive what's left of my childhood for myself.

To anyone else it would just look like boring photos of a mall, street, bust stop etc.

>>2775320
>But for pure enjoyment and aesthetic, nothing compares to film photography.

Then tape over the rear screen and don't look at the images until a couple days after you take them

>>2775320
>>2775758
Personally, I just enjoy the darkroom process. I don't use film at all for "serious" photography, but there's something really enjoyable and chill about investing the time and physical work into a print, and then watching it "magically" come alive in the chemicals. I also enjoy the fact that there will only ever be one of that exact print, unlike digital where you can churn out an infinite number of identical inkjet prints.

I currently have a Canon T6s with an kit 18-135 lens. I'm looking for a faster lens for indoor shooting (conventions).

What are your thoughts on Sigma 17-50mm F2.8
I was looking at Canon's version of that but almost a grand at this point is a bit too much for me to chew on.

>>2775782
What kind of conventions? Anime/Comic kind of stuff, shooting cosplayers etc?

I'd strongly consider a prime or two instead. On FF, 35 and 85 are all I really feel like I need for cons, convert to the closest APS-C equivalents and you're probably in pretty good shape.

I also wouldn't buy an APS-C "pro" 2.8 zoom, it's a lot of money for a lens that won't carry over if you upgrade to FF, and resale value on them is terrible.

>>2775783
I"ll keep that in mind but I don't plan on making a change over to FF for quite a while.

For conventions, doing portraits as well as candid shots in crowded rooms, hence why I didn't go for a prime, wanted to travel camera only, no bag; but maintain flexibility.

Thinking about getting the da 12-24 4.0 for my k-50 for all sorts of super wide angle fun

Aside from getting something one of the primes like the 14mm 2.8 or another prime like that is there any faster wide angle zoom? f4.0 could be quite troublesome for any indoors stuff. I really like the look of the 12-24 though. I've looked through quite a few photos from it and it looks like an excellent tool since all I have now is the 35 and 50mm primes I'm just a bit worried about indoor situations due to the smaller aperture