What is that thing you want just because you want it? This is mine.
canon 11-24mm f/4L
mamiya 7II
I see the use of 50mm f1.4 lenses but to make them sharp and improve performance on modern sensors they have to be huge.
I want compact 50mm f2 lenses that are sharp wide open. I know you can do it japan. Get to it.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Leica Camera AG Camera Model R8 - Digital Back DMR Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS5 Macintosh Maximum Lens Aperture f/2.8 Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 1627 Image Height 1815 Pixel Composition Unknown Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Created 2012:05:10 11:09:36 Exposure Time 1/180 sec F-Number f/22.0 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 100 Lens Aperture f/22.0 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Spot Light Source Other Flash No Flash Function Focal Length 180.00 mm Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 2062 Image Height 1547 White Balance Manual Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Hard Unique Image ID 0000000000000000005C316F00008189
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 700 Image Height 394
>>2780451
loxia.
>>2780460
Second
>>2780458
I want this with a 6x7 film back then I remember I can just use a 6x7 medium format camera. I still want one though.
>>2780460
Loxia are just rebranded zm lenses. They're good but only the 21mm is a new design.
>>2780476
Even so arent they everything you asked for?
>>2780500
I wish they would make a 50mm Batis.
>>2780500
Yes. Now I wonder if someone other than leica can make a better 50mm f2 than the 10 year old zm/loxia.
I know
it's silly
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS4 Windows Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2009:01:14 17:09:31 Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 804 Image Height 354
>>2780510
The 55mm f1.8 is really good.
>>2780519
How is that silly? XPan/TX-1 seem like awesome cameras and produce interesting images.
there is no good reason to have it, but I need it so badly
>>2780530
>>2780519
It's not silly to lust for the Xpan.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make SEIKO EPSON CORP. Camera Model EPSON scanner Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.4 (Windows) Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2016:02:29 05:09:22
>>2780509
That would be a party trick for sure :D. If you have well lit parties.
>>2780410
>>2780542
You only need a lot of light if your guests are alive.
Wouldn't mind a really nice canon lens but will probabably get the $750 tamron instead
>>2780597
also, really want a better body like the 70d but my t3i really is plenty good.
>>2780597
You can get that l lens for that price. Look around. Might have been dropped a few times but so what....
>>2780600
>Might have been dropped a few times but so what
i bought a used lens and the focus is pretty damaged to the point that i don't use the lens so i'm hesitant about getting another used lens. Also seems like the Tamron AF 70-200mm 2.8f isn't much worse than the more expensive canon, although some of those were referring to the SP so i could be wrong. Seems like if I'm spending around $1000 for a lens i don't want to buy one that's beat up.
>>2780604
Well you can get the non is brand new for 600 on amazon. Is is not a hugh deal unless your shooting in low light. That lens does not do well in low light even with the IS.
From what I read all the l lenses that are zooms suck ass in low light.
>>2780609
>suck ass in low light
That's too bad i thought they did alright since they have 2.8f. What has good lower light performance? The only lenses i currently have a 50mm 1.8, the kit 18-55, and a kit 55-250mm but it's it's got damaged focusing so it's not really worth using, so i'm looking for something longer.
>>2780619
O sorry that's the 4.0
Yeah 2.8 cost alot more then that lol
Just checked up on them yet.
Just the back, I have the rest. Developing and scanning are a pain in the ass.
>>2780535
Oh, wait.
That Land Rover on the right.
That's the thing I want.
>>2780620
Alright good you had me worried for a minute. I'll probably pull the trigger on the Tamron this week.
An opportunity to shoot something like the Monterey or Le Mans historic races and some endurance races on a regular basis, some good weather, and a sufficiently capable gear setup.
>>2780627
Dude, if you can get the gear, have an OK portfolio, and get yourself to the event, you can find some shit-tier blog or something that's willing to get you in. That's how I did it my first few times.
Pic is from the '12 Monterey Historics, most recent one I can post because after that I was with publications that have exclusive rights. Oddly enough, I happen to be wearing the shirt I bought at that event right now.
>>2780624
Any hasselblad backs cover the 6x6? All the ones I have seen are crops.
>>2780627
I never realized that I needed to do this until now.
>>2780634
As far as I know they're all crop, sadly.
Still, we managed to put up with crop on DSLRs for years. A crop MF back that I could actually shoot without it costing a buck a frame plus a whole bunch of wasted time would be worth putting up with it, were it not so obscenely expensive.
I've been wondering if maybe somebody could make a back that had optics in it to make something like an FF 35mm sensor cover 6x6 or at least 645. Sure, you'd lose a bit of quality, but if it were well-made it could still be plenty usable for serious work, and could cost more like what a pro DSLR costs instead of 2-3 times that.
>>2780632
>Dude, if you can get the gear
Sort of? I'm trying to get my hands on a D300, and not really sure what to shoot telephoto with. Most tracks I can get away with either a 70-200 or my 85/1.8, not sure if I would or should rock a big telephoto. 300 PF looks nice, but short. Oh, and a microphone.
>have an OK portfolio
Opportunities are few and small time up North.
>and get yourself to the event
Preferably not on my dime. Shit's expensive.
>you can find some shit-tier blog or something that's willing to get you in.
I really feel like /o/ and /p/ should start a fake (real) blog just for accreditation purposes.
Yeah, everything's within the realm of possibility, but the OP's asking, what do I want?
>>2780644
>I really feel like /o/ and /p/ should start a fake (real) blog just for accreditation purposes.
Hah, that's actually not the worst idea in the world, except there are probably only like 4 of us on the entire site that could produce acceptable content.
I believe I shot that pic I posted with a D300S and rented 500/4. It gets pricey though. I don't shoot motorsports as my main thing anymore (and really miss it), and I don't have a crop body now, so been thinking of maybe picking up the 200-500 f/5.6 for trackdays and stuff.
70-200 can do good work too though. I think this was D300 + 70-200, maybe with a TC14. (Maybe the EXIF will show up on this one, I had to save the pics off my Flickr because the originals are on a Mac external drive and I'm on PC now, and it's been random whether EXIF works.)
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make NIKON CORPORATION Camera Model NIKON D300S Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 4.1 (Macintosh) Maximum Lens Aperture f/4.0 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 420 mm Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2012:08:31 21:14:12 Exposure Time 1/1000 sec F-Number f/6.3 Exposure Program Shutter Priority ISO Speed Rating 640 Lens Aperture f/6.3 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash Focal Length 280.00 mm Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Gain Control Low Gain Up Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal Subject Distance Range Unknown
>>2780639
Seems kind of pointless.
At that point could get a FF DSLR and get better IQ, or get a MF camera like a 645Z/D and get the larger sensor (Or a leica S2 but you might as well get a used Phase-One back or a used Habbelsad).
Neato concept though.
>>2780644
>>2780648
What about inb4chan's WAT Racing blog?
Or is he considered an even bigger faggot now.
>>2780650
Maybe so, but it'd still be nice for those of us who already have Hasselblad bodies and glass.
Plus, Hassies are just plain fun to use, and at least you'd still get the DoF and leaf shutter advantages of MF.
As for the WAT blog, the problem is that it's basically just a personal blog for a guy or a few guys, not an actual news/race coverage outlet.
>>2780648
>>2780658
>As for the WAT blog, the problem is that it's basically just a personal blog for a guy or a few guys, not an actual news/race coverage outlet.
What would the WAT blog cover though? Dank racing memes? What kind of staff are we looking at here? Journalist staff would be paid in pringles, and work on an ad hoc basis, depending on who's near what. People like
EXOS
X
O
S
and Aussie GT guy would be regular contributors, but you'd need a good spread of people from around the world to get those niche articles. Somebody would need to rock a microphone and a decent video setup to capture Porsche stability on corner exit. Maybe the WAT blog would be more of a lifestyle blog, like Speedhunters, covering shows, features, and other tidbits in between motorsport events?
>>2780661
Yeah, I think a Speedhunters-ish thing would be cool. I just don't know if we'd ever have the manpower, budget, or time to do enough to actually make ourselves eligible for big events.
>>2780535
nice dutch angle, faggot
>>2780664
>budget
You'd provide your own transportation, rental, and accommodations. Basically, whoever happens to want to show up but needs press credentials. Simple as that. For that reason, it'd be a small pile of Anonymii who happen to live next to sporting events.
>rip me
How we'd pay for accreditation and tickets is beyond me.
>manpower
As with anything requiring the collaboration of anonymous internet strangers, it sounds great on paper and is likely to fall apart like wet paper soon afterwards.
>time
Well, nothing's free, Anon.
>>2780684
Th-thanks. This is why I never use the WLF.
>>2780708
>wlf
>Xpan
What?
![FujiGX680III_3[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/cImHbQx.jpg "FujiGX680III_3[1].jpg")
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Pictomio 1.2.27.0 Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 350 dpi Vertical Resolution 350 dpi Exposure Time 1/125 sec F-Number f/13.0 ISO Speed Rating 200 Lens Aperture f/13.5 Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 75.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 800 Image Height 600 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Manual Scene Capture Type Standard
>>2780639
You should calculate how much film you can shoot for the price of the digital back.
The biggest problem I have with crops is how much they change the angle of view of lenses. Your wonderful 80mm is now a 100mm or worse. Not to mention some are not even the same ratio.
I think that it's great to even have the ability to use digital backs but even if you can afford them they are not an optimal solution.
>>2780810
For what that camera sells for it's a fucking steal. If it's something that fits your needs I don't see why you wouldn't buy one.
>>2780780
It's not really an Xpan :^).
I've wanted an Xpan for a long time now. It's the one piece of gear that I've always wanted just for the sake of wanting it.
>>2780810
>6x8cm architecture shots
Betterlight Scanning back for 4x5.
>>2780810
This is my favorite camera, it's new enough in design but still has some of the large format stuff. all with the flexibility to shoot instant, digital and MF. it's kinda like a speed graphics younger brother
>>2780922
I have my m645 and i bought it instead of the pro tl just because for the same amount for the body i could more lenses
there's still a part of me that wants the upgrade but i dont use the 645 as much as the others
Yes, I'm already aware that I'm retarded. I just want a simple panoramic camera. I already have a 90mm Schneider Super Angulon MC lens. I know I could just crop my 4x5's, but it would be nice to have something much more portable.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows) Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Created 2013:06:19 11:34:53 Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1400 Image Height 1200
>A 8x10 and drum scanner
>Canon EF 200-400 f/4 with internal 1.4x Extender
>>2781303
how much do drum scanners actually cost?
>>2781308
Something like $20k + yearly maintenance which is somthing like $1-2k
>>2780556
LMAO
>>2781293
Is that the same as the Technorama. Almost everything posted in this thread I have looked into. I need to start a youtube channel and beg for free shit from companies.
>>2780519
Nah man they're cool as shit.
Especially when they're in that silvery "champagne" color. So deliciously late 90s.
>>2780519
>>2781293
Kids these days...
>>2781341
Nah, it's a photoman. When you're dealing with niche MF or LF, you can get surprisingly okay Chinese shit (Chamonix, Fotoman). It's not Swiss-tier, and usually is still expensive, relatively speaking. Nonetheless, the price difference can bring it within reach. Not to mention that a few firms have European or American involvement, either in design or management. Fotomans, as I understand it, are American engineered but Chinese manufactured. The Fotoman camera in the picture is about 750$ US, last I checked. If I didn't live in shitnadia, I'd've picked it up months ago.
.>>2781332
This board has a tendency to be judgmental, and I've been told before that panoramic film cameras are a hipster bullshit gimmick. Can't blame me for trying to sound embarrassed so as to dodge the shit flinging.
>>2781351
larger format digital is depressing, what with the scanning backs and all. I assume that there are structural issues that prevent them from making larger sensors, but it really bothers me that you can only really take pictures of completely stationary things with the mechanically moving backs like that.
>>2781841
Not structural issues, it's really just the cost of the sensor and the yield.
Each square millimeter of silicon is expensive. So, a sensor that's 6x6cm is 3600mm^2 where a 36x24mm sensor is 864mm^2. A medium format sensor takes 4 times the silicon.
Also the way that sensors are made a larger sensor will have a worse yield (percent that don't pass quality control) than a smaller sensor. The illustration shows how the same 20 flaws would change the yield given different chip size.
>>2781864
>Also the way that sensors are made a larger sensor will have a worse yield (percent that don't pass quality control) than a smaller sensor.
Would that not be a structural issue?
>>2782169
Structural tends to imply that people are thinking about things breaking because they're too big or too weak.
>>2782279
There would be gaps? The pixels on a sensor don't go all the way to the edge of the sensor. There are folks building multiple sensor cameras, but they're mostly for astronomy.
You might be able to build a fancy lensing array to get rid of the gaps, but that would probably be more expensive than a big sensor.
http://www.techhive.com/article/235274/gigapixel_space_telescope.html
>>2782279
>>2782316
>>2782327
What if you made a long skinny scanning sensor, that would cover the width of the frame, and move across as fast as a shutter does?
>>2782327
>what if you use optics to split the light to different sensors?
Someone tried this once. Once.
>>2782327
This is really hard to do. Maybe harder and more expensive than building a big sensor.
>>2782339
http://petapixel.com/2014/12/29/medium-format-camera-made-using-parts-epson-scanner/
>>2780519
I almost bought an Xpan at one point. What I really like about it is that it basically turns small format film into medium format. And you can switch between formats on the fly which is great. This way you also get theoretically a 45mm and a 24mm lens in one. I also like rangefinders and the way it looks.
However my reason prevented me. But that's just me. I asked myself if I would really use the panoramic feature. And I realized that I don't live in a place with great scenery and I don't travel often. I wouldn't really make use of the cinematic look of panoramic images. Also the non-standard format would be inconvenient to scan and to get printed.
>>2782345
I know about scanning backs, that's not what I'm talking about though. What I'm thinking of would just drop straight across the frame in one motion, fast enough that you could shoot stuff handheld as long as it wasn't moving quickly.
>>2782354
Mamiya 645 fag here.
>you can switch between formats on the fly which is great.
It is pretty great to change backs but backs add weight.
>Also the non-standard format would be inconvenient to scan and to get printed.
This is why I replied desu.
If you develop B&W at home, it's not a problem. If you develop C41 as Process only, it's not really a problem.
I scan at home, colour correct then take my digital files to be printed. It's a pretty easy process, just like shooting any other film.
There are only digital printers where I live anyway, so it makes no real difference to me.
>>2782339
The problem here is getting the image data out of the skinny sensor. Scanners take like 5 minutes to scan because they're moving a lot of data. For a medium format super speed scanner you'd have to have a custom sensor built which would cost A LOT.
>>2780598
tried a 60d, compared to my d3200 shit was cash, mine kinda compares to your t3i and i can tell you the change is worth it only in the terms of usability, but that is really worth it for me
If I didn't need the AF performance and long lenses of my FF Nikons, I'd be listing them on ebay right now and building an X-Pro setup.
Really wish I could afford a longer tele, like pentax's 150-450. i also wish sigma and tamron made their 150-600mm lenses in K mount. it's hard to get close enough for good shots, and i'm just a hobbyist in uni so the money aint there yet.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make RICOH IMAGING COMPANY, LTD. Camera Model PENTAX K-3 Camera Software GIMP 2.8.10 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 450 mm Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 600 dpi Vertical Resolution 600 dpi Image Created 2016:03:05 10:51:14 Exposure Time 1/2000 sec F-Number f/8.0 Exposure Program Not Defined ISO Speed Rating 500 Lens Aperture f/8.0 Exposure Bias 0.3 EV Metering Mode Spot Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 300.00 mm Color Space Information Uncalibrated Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Manual Scene Capture Type Standard Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal Subject Distance Range Distant View
>>2785771
legit question.
With a 1/2000 shutter speed and f8 aperture Why don't you use a teleconverter instead?
Just asking since you own a K mount camera which would also presumably accept M42 lenses.
For taking shots of birds, even a MF lens would do the job desu
>>2785789
>Why don't you use a teleconverter instead?
IQ isnt as good. pic related was with a TC. and AF isnt as quick so lots of images that would be in focus may end up just slightly off because focus isnt as quick or accurate, and doesnt track as well. IQ and tracking performance is much better without the TC.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make RICOH IMAGING COMPANY, LTD. Camera Model PENTAX K-3 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.3 (Windows) Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 450 mm Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 600 dpi Vertical Resolution 600 dpi Image Created 2016:02:27 16:19:55 Exposure Time 1/2000 sec F-Number f/8.0 Exposure Program Not Defined ISO Speed Rating 500 Lens Aperture f/8.0 Exposure Bias 0.3 EV Metering Mode Spot Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 300.00 mm Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Manual Scene Capture Type Standard Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal Subject Distance Range Distant View
>>2780441
I check this camera out every weekend its
Such an awesome camera worth the price
>>2782339
>rolling sensor camera
Mechanically and structurally impossible to achieve desirably short scan times, I guess. you can't physically buffer all the data in the time it takes for the full sweep - I mean, with research and very specialised dedicated hardware it sure is feasable, but noone will spend millions in R&D to make a product so niche and, because of R&D and manufacturing costs, ridiculously expensive.
Welcome to the real world where technically possible things don't exist because money.
>>2780441
I own a mamiya 7. Convince me to sell it a buy a 7ii.
>>2785932
No real reason to. All it adds is multi-exposure capabilities, replaces the simple lens-changing curtain control on the original Mamiya 7 with a more complex fold-out lever and added the option of Champagne paint. The rangefinder is slightly improved/altered but if you've never encountered problems I wouldn't worry
>>2785935
Yea, pretty much what I was thinking, it's all just creature comfort upgrades that probably should have been in the first model. But, I had heard that the viewfinder was upgraded in the 7ii.
>>2785927
Structurally should be fine, if a focal plane MF camera can move a big cloth curtain across the frame at 1/500+, a slim sensor should be able to do the same.
The processing and buffering hardware is probably a lot harder, though.
>>2785795
I guess that's what you get for taking snapshits of birds and relying on crutches like autofocus.
>>2782367
To cover a medium format area at 1/60th. This is actually surprisingly possible. I thought it would be insane but really it would only be moving at 6m/s you'd have to have a run up and run down region outside the image frame to accelerate and decelerate the sensor but it's possible.
Of course anything over 1/4000th and the sensor would be breaking the speed of sound which would make it a little loud for street work.
>>2781350
is this basicly the xpan just in silver ?
>>2786157
Well, Champagne.
Don't go thinking that makes it cheaper though. From what I've seen they often go for a lot more than an Xpan will. Most Xpan users have more than one lens too, so it's cheaper to buy them together.
>>2786149
>Of course anything over 1/4000th and the sensor would be breaking the speed of sound which would make it a little loud for street work.
>Not wanting people to hear your glorious thunderclap
>Not wanting people to know they are in the presence of a photography god
>>2786013
>crutches like autofocus
wew lad, that's good b8
>>2781303
Would it be cheaper to scan 8x10 and 4x5 Polaroids with a flatbed?
>>2785795
>>2785771
>I just think ducks are neat
>>2786444
lel i shoot other stuff those just happened to be two duck shots
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make RICOH IMAGING COMPANY, LTD. Camera Model PENTAX K-3 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.3 (Windows) Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 450 mm Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 600 dpi Vertical Resolution 600 dpi Image Created 2016:03:06 16:24:39 Exposure Time 1/320 sec F-Number f/8.0 Exposure Program Not Defined ISO Speed Rating 100 Lens Aperture f/8.0 Exposure Bias 0.7 EV Metering Mode Spot Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 300.00 mm Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Manual Scene Capture Type Standard Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal Subject Distance Range Distant View
>>2786464
>I shoot other stuff
>It's another picture of a bird
It's almost like this shit writes itself.
>>2786502
Fine, here's a non wildlife shot, same lens
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make RICOH IMAGING COMPANY, LTD. Camera Model PENTAX K-3 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.3 (Windows) Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 82 mm Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2016:01:30 18:04:13 Exposure Time 1/320 sec F-Number f/16.0 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 100 Lens Aperture f/16.0 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 55.00 mm Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Manual Scene Capture Type Standard Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal Subject Distance Range Distant View
>>2786157
Pretty much.
>>2786381
Own this lens and camera
GOAT. Crazy sharp, great color reproduction. Excellent bokeh
A little noisy and clunky doe
>>2786381
worst tele
This thing because fuck being practical
>>2786785
THIS. Just used one as my 70-200 at a wedding gig. Fuck this trash tele.
>>2787409
>>2787402
keep in mind this is my personal feeling on it:
Sony, yet again, released an inferior product that cost far more than its counterparts at canon, nikon, sigma, ect.
70-200 is supposed to be the coveted range for 'weddingtogs' Every other brand in this range i've used doesn't really come close to the sharpness that the Sony has. BUT the autofocus, distortion, and image stabilizer are terrible.
Even with perfect lighting, white balance, and surgeon steady hands. Results with the image stabilizer are ok decent with autofocus, But don't expect anything spectacular approaching 200m.
When I use manual focus and confirm focus with the focus magnifier, I can also get pretty good results from a tripod, But who the fuck has time to do that at a wedding.
I couldn't get consistently sharp shots, non distorted, non shaky cam shots below 1/160th with the A7r fucking ii. HOW? Whilst my partner shooting with the canon and nikon counterparts was getting fairly good shots from as low as 1/10.
In the end sony basically made a really sharp but jewed out on everything else. If you ever read a review on anyone who says this lens is 'GODLIKE' they always post landscape composite shots. Because this lens isn't worth using if your not on a tripod or in a studio.
Fuck this lens.
>>2782327
no, 3CCD technology was never invented. nevr!
>>2787556
Doesn't the a7 have IBIS as well? lmao
>>2787556
Who the fuck shoots ANYTHING at a wedding down to 1/10? Or even 1/60 for that matter? Fucking amateurs.
>>2787556
probably because you have parkinsons
>>2787556
good goy. now buy the 70-200 f/2.8 G Master for $3500.
>>2787586
The mark ii models do like he said he was using.
>>2787556
>>2787409
>>2786381
This is my everyday combo it's a nice setup. I dont know why you are having trouble with it. It's perfectly capable in low light and the IS is good.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make SONY Camera Model ILCE-7M2 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Windows) Maximum Lens Aperture f/4.0 Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 200 mm Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Created 2015:12:26 16:08:31 Exposure Time 1/250 sec F-Number f/4.0 Exposure Program Aperture Priority ISO Speed Rating 640 Lens Aperture f/4.0 Brightness 5.1 EV Exposure Bias 0.7 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 200.00 mm Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 3768 Image Height 2513 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal
>>2787807
Handheld video at 200mm
>>2787807
looks soft as hell familama
Nikkor 6mm f/2.8
Contax G2 or even a G1.
>>2787943
>From $60k-$160k
God fucking damn
>>2788755
I mean that is some thick ass curved glass.
>>2788757
>ass curved glass
that's the best kind of glass there is
God damn this thing is beautiful.
>>2788790
>>2788790
How about the untreated titanium maxxum 9
>>2788869
why every new magnesium camera are painted nowadays?
>>2788876
I'd guess that it is because magnesium alloys don't have great weathering abilities.
Laowa 15mm F4
basically macro and wideangle. not even expensive.
or some superzoom i won't use :^)
>>2788869
>Look for one on ebay
>$700
>>2780648
>except there are probably only like 4 of us on the entire site that could produce acceptable content.
>can't even take a level photo
>>2789141
Muh dutch angle
>>2789141
>Has never been to a race track or seen a graded turn
MUH BOKEH
>>2781841
There's a company working on a large format digital sensor.
http://www.largesense.com/products/8x10-large-format-digital-back-ls911/
the downside is the current prototype is only 12mp, and only shoots in black and white. They're working on a 200mp model though "several years from now"
they're at least promising 4k video though, which would be insane on an 8x10 camera.
>>2780383
>>2789141
It's all about muh tilted cars bruv
>>2780535
Is that Edinburgh?
>>2793471
>8x10 field camera with 4k
For what fucking purpose? Either way, 4k is going to be old shit by the time they come out with a 200 megapickle version.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Apple Camera Model iPhone 4 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS5 Macintosh Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 2592 Image Height 1936 Number of Bits Per Component 8, 8, 8 Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2011:07:10 20:28:38 Exposure Time 1/15 sec F-Number f/2.8 Exposure Program Normal Program ISO Speed Rating 100 Lens Aperture f/2.8 Metering Mode Pattern Flash No Flash Focal Length 3.85 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1055 Image Height 845 Rendering Unknown Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard
>>2793471
That sensor's gonna cost 50k or more. Just imagine how many wafers they need to produce to get one single fully working sensor.
>>2794199
>>2794195
>>2793471
>mfw they finally release this and it has a rolling shutter
>>2788869
Muh dik.
>>2785755
Right? I'm jumping ship when they get a D4 level power battery I'm those things
>>2786166
Surely regular shutters then also break the speed of sound?
>>2794200
they have a rolling shutter test on their site
http://www.largesense.com/video/ls911-video/rolling-shutter-fan-test/
Looks like it does have it, but it doesn't look as bad as most rolling shutters. That could be the shutter speed they used though as it doesn't look like they went any faster than 1/70
Sure it's big and heavy, but not as much as the RZ67 i'm used to carrying around.
>>2785771
You can get really old nikon telephotos and adapt them for a reasonable price. I bought a nikon 600mm and adapted it to canon and it works pretty nice
>>2786166
Yeah silver/champagne really only devalues cheap compacts.
28-300mm compact telephoto zooms from Tamron
Pretty cray cray that they can make a 28-300mm in such a small package
Am I a dumbass for wanting to buy this?
>>2795079
sure,
if you don't mind the soft images.
>>2795083
but muh mirrorless.
What other option do I have for a decent focal
I own an EOS M with the double lens kit and EF adapter. The 50-250 EF-M seems meh and it's not even that compact so I was looking at getting a compact superzoom EF or EF-S lens.
Do you have any suggestions? I want to get at least 200mm of focal length (300mm equiv) for rad bokeh and some macro work. Perhaps even some wildlife but that's probably just a pipe dream with the shit AF on the EOS M. MF or AF doesn't matter much.
I don't want to look like a massive wanker with a huge telephoto on a tiny mirrorless.
I'm still a bit of a noob at this, so I appreciate your help.
Maybe a 100mm or 85mm with a teleconverter?
What do you suggest?
>>2795085
efs 55-250 stm.
if you really want the super zoom check out efs 18-135 or 18-200mm since you're on aps-c.
i hope you have the 22mm f2.
that's the only reason i'm keeping the m.
it's subjectively better than my sony a5100.
>>2795085
>I don't want to look like a massive wanker with a huge telephoto on a tiny mirrorless.
Any EF adapted lens is going to look huge on an eos-m. that 28-300 might look small for what it is on a dslr, but it's still going to be huge, especially when extended to 300.
>>2795151
>>2795162
>>2792438
One can only dream.
>>2795085
http://www.amazon.com/Tamron-AFB011EM700-18-200mm-Canon-EOS-M/dp/B00L9IUVP6
>>2792438
I know that guy irl, he's a huge imax proponent.
>>2786922
>>2793493
I knew those looked familiar!
>>2780383
I don't know what I would do with this aside from spying on the Russians, but it has a handle on top, and that's all I need to know.
Whatever camera makes the best possible jpegs
fuck raw, fuck post
>>2781209
I thought I was the only one.
Well, I've already got compatible lenses and even a compatible 4x5 body. This alone tempts me to buy a really cheap Nex body.
>>2789097
That's a great price
>>2796920
That's a multi-purpose adapter with shift that allows you to take full frame MF and 4x5 pictures by moving the aps-c sensor around and stitching later.
>>2796930
What is it called? WHere can I buy this?
>>2796935
Vizelex Rhinocam. It's expensive and has problems, but there isn't anything else like it that you can just buy ready to use. (Although people have been using "back" movements on 4x5 cameras to scan the full frame for a long time.
>>2796944
What problems?
I thought it was pretty straight forward.
>>2796946
The lens mounts have to be purchased separately, and are very expensive.
The shape of the thing doesn't work well with large lenses, which are very common in medium format.
It only covers 645 format images, which means that 6x7 gets cut short and you must still use movements to get the whole 4x5. Combining the Vizelex with movements means that the easy alignment indicators are now useless, so why use it in the first place?
It only fulfills it's promises if you have at least one very sharp 645 format lens, and both your subject and lighting are constant, unmoving.
But in that situation, a Nex 7 will casually generate 200mp raw files. Not bad
>>2796920
Look up Vizelex RhinoCam
It is made/sold by FotodioX the adapter company
With a small modification you can mount a full frame Sony to this also
With an adapter you can mount MFT and Q cameras
>>2796948
https://www.fotodioxpro.com/index.php/quickshop/index/view/path/vizelex-rhinocam-for-sony-nex-e-mount-cameras.html
Used to be about $500, now it is $150 with the lens mount
I bought 2 one for my Hasselblad lenses and one for my Pentax 6x7, yeah it's a 645 but I have an adapter
>>2782279
doesn't a phase one back do this?
>>2780410
underrated
>>2780999
Is... Is that... Nigel Mansell?
>>2797391
Yes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nSQGIFqt7oE
>>2797394
Jesus christ.
>>2796195
It's the handle that does it right!
>thing you want just because you want it
>>2797602
What is up with that aperture!
>>2796913
Could you be so kind and explain to me what is this instrument?
Thanks
>>2797720
>picture literally tells you exactly what it is
>>2797614
It's a russian aperture.
>>2796956
Does this only work for mamiya and hasselblad lenses?
Thanks
>>2798707
I can't really justify dropping money on it but its too cute
>>2798909
It's a really good lens you can put on and never take off.
>>2799186 <---------------
this right here
>>2797720
That is a camera and a big black box right there.
>>2799220
that right there sir is a supreme instrument suited for all situations.
>>2794515
why is it shapped like this
it really fucks me up for some reason
>>2797602
>that adorable aperture
lovin it
this, it's not even slightly expensive but i just really want it, can't justify the need yet tho
>>2799593
oops forgot p1c
>>2799537
Long flange distance, large prism
>>2799596
ah also didnt realize it was a medium format dslr
>>2788742
>2 90's
>No awesome 35mm f/2 Planar
>No exotic Hologon
>No finder for the 21mm Biogon
What's the point in living?
Olympus Pen W (or Pen F with wide lens)
Yashica Samurai
Olympus OM-3Ti
Nikon F3
Ricoh GR21
Not stuff I'd actually buy but have always considered cool.
I saw an original Nikon F in a glass case up north where my father lives. Maybe if I can get the seller to come down $75 on its $200 price tag I'll get it if it wasn't swiped already.
Then again, I could potentially buy a F3 for cheaper.
Then again, I could buy a couple mid tier SLRs for that money.
Then again, I could buy a low end MF camera.
Then again, I could get some needed M42 glass.
Then again, I could just get a pancake lens for the babbycam.
>>2800012
You have fine taste, anon.
>>2797602
I have one, really fun bokeh. Terrible haloing on bright objects.
>>2794515
That thing is so weird that i want it now.
>>2796913
what is that thing to the left of the camera?
>>2800365
A slightly out of focus curtain.
I just.... NEED THIS
>>2800454
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Canon Camera Model Canon EOS 5D Mark II Maximum Lens Aperture f/2.8 Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2011:09:11 10:12:46 Exposure Time 1/125 sec F-Number f/14.0 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 100 Lens Aperture f/14.0 Exposure Bias 0 EV Subject Distance 1.03 m Metering Mode Pattern Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 100.00 mm Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard
>>2780383
Zm sonnar 1.5
>>2800474
Ok, I need that one too... :D
>>2800454
Nikon /fa/ af
![tumblr_o4d3dnCElD1qzpwppo1_1280[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/aIqEtIw.jpg "tumblr_o4d3dnCElD1qzpwppo1_1280[1].jpg")
Fuji GW690III. I've got no need for it, and it doesn't even have a meter, but this cam is cool as fuck, and the lens is fucking sweet.
>>2800474
I'd snort coke off that body
>>2800669
>ikon
jelly
>GW690III
yiss
>>2782339
Well, it kinda is done already with anamorphic lenses. They squeeze a wider image into a square sensor.
Klasse W.
This beautiful thing may be the only classic camera that looks better without a silver trim
>>2785939
The viewfinder is slightly upgraded but if that is something you wanted you can get the one on the 7 changed out for the newer version for like 200 bucks.
>>2780597
Get the old non-IS version for under $900. Great lens all around.
Two things:
A Noctilux 0.95
and a beautiful gf to photograph with it and some Portra 160.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make NIKON CORPORATION Camera Model NIKON D600 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS5 Macintosh Maximum Lens Aperture f/2.8 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Color Filter Array Pattern 906 Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 70 mm Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 1000 Image Height 1000 Number of Bits Per Component 8, 8, 8 Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2013:01:07 09:17:13 Exposure Time 1/800 sec F-Number f/5.6 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 100 Lens Aperture f/5.6 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 70.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 340 Image Height 340 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
800mm please, a bargain at £10,000
>>2795079
Not crazy. It's a decent lens actually. Slow AF though.
>>2801720
Das three things, brother.
My guilty pleasure would be a leica MP and a 50mm f2
I want to be a special snowflake.
>>2787943
Is there a matching lens hood
>>2802055
Well the field of view is well over 180 degrees so the lens hood would have to protrude backwards behind the lens instead of forward
>>2802056
that's some fucking weird lens
now I want it too
>>2780597
My dad has that
>>2796920
>using old and soft as fuck canon f/0.95 on m9 while leica has its own razor-sharp Noctilux 50mm f/0.95
is this picture bait
>>2802205
>razor sharp
Lol no
>>2802207
it's pretty fucking sharp m8
>>2802208
Your image says otherwise m9
>>2802208
>buy an ultra-fast f/0.95
>take pictures of your cat at home
/p/ in a nutshell
>>2801746
>I want to be a faggot
>>2802208
>1024x681
so's my dumbphone camera
>>2801746
Would you even go out to take pictures with that?
If I could afford an APO-summicron-M in red, I would just buy a regular summicron-M instead of the APO lens hood (tm) and use that instead. Or even an entire D810 kit.
>>2802207
Actually it is more sharp than the Summicron M 50 f/2. It's nearly as sharp as the APO Summicron M 50 f/2. At f/11. Above f/5.6 it's garbage.
>>2802323
>downsized
i don't agree with the other anon but u dum
>>2801723
I've held one of these before. It's heavy as fuck.
