Gear Thread
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /p/ - Photography
You are currently reading a thread in /p/ - Photography
Gear Thread
If you have questions about a new camera, what lenses to buy and anything related to gear or wondering about getting into photography, post it in this thread.
Do not attempt to make a new thread for your new Rabal, broken glass and being new. You have been warned!
I repeat, ANYTHING GEAR RELATED goes in here!
And don't forget, be polite!
Previous thread: >>2782057 →
Early thread because going to campus soon.
Promise to behave, /p/!
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 669 Image Height 681
i want to do more landscape photography and researched on buying polarizers, i found out that to reduce vignette you should buy a step up ring
currently im switching between two lenses with threads 49mm and 58mm respectively however i read that most people buy 77mm filters. i feel like difference in thread is too much where (i think) it will cause problems in my pictures; im i wrong? is it safe to buy all my filters at 77mm and just buy a step up ring?
DR-100mkii vs DR-40 for audio with my GH2?
>>2784272
Use a cheap Cokin P set with adapter rings and get a decent circular polarizer for it.
>>2784263
>mfw that old k-1 looks better than the new one.
>>2784272
>is it safe to buy all my filters at 77mm and just buy a step up ring?
Yes, it works perfectly fine and saves you a lot of money
>>2784278
That's just the nostalgia speaking, but I have to agree 50%. The new one also looks good with the 6x7 style prism dome. Also it looks 100x better than the Canons or the Sony bricks.
But the camera is there to take photos with, not to look at all day.
Yo /p/
I just threw $1600 on a lightly used ( 500 shota) Nikon Df. Roast me
>>2784345
u ugly
>>2784345
>buying an intentionally crippled camera
>>2784362
At least it's not a fuji.
>>2784363
Meaning that it's ugly, it's much larger and clunkier than the cameras it's trying to emulate, it's not modern or unique in any way, and offers absolutely no benefits over a more traditional DSLR other than it's "styling" if you could call it that?
>>2784364
You described fuji cameras perfectly.
>>2784368
>Ugly
Nope
>Larger than the cameras it's emulating
Nope
>Clunky
Nope
>Not modern or unique
Best EVFs in the business, XTrans sensor, best JPEG engine in the business.
>No benefits over a traditional DSLR
Size, weight, EVF, compact lens selection, massive upgrades via firmware, optical/evf hybrid finders options for rangefinder styled design.
Be honest, are you secretly a Fuji fan, and the way you're trying to spread the word about the cameras is that you're going to be so obviously wrong about your criticism that even people who DO hate Fuji have to comment on how wrong you are?
>>2784363
Hahahahahaha
>>2784368
HAHAHAHAHA
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Macintosh) Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 1172 Image Height 590 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 2013:11:08 08:39:32 Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 800 Image Height 372
15 replies in and this thread's already ruined by Fujifags. Well done boys, you've made your point of being the most obnoxious and annoying cunts on /p/
I just got an OM-D E-M5 Mk. II. Any advice for equipment or micro four thirds lenses to get?
I'm almost pulling the trigger on the M E M E C A M E R A, a used Ricoh GR. Anything I should know? Only thing I'm a bit worried about is that it's an old camera and sensor, although the recent GR II is almost completely the same. The one I'd be buying is in mint condition and has no dust issues AFAIK.
I shoot an X-T10 with the 35mm f1.4 otherwise, the GR will be my wide and a replacement for my aging iPhone 4S's camera.
>>2784378
My advice is to return it and get a fuji or a sony. With that money you could have done a lot better. MFT is dying/dead.
>>2784377
At least it's not Sony.
>>2784380
Be sure it is the new APS-C GR not the older small sensor GRD
>>2784369
>best evf in the business
no...
>Bragging about jpegs
no....
Stop making fuji look stupid.
>>2784378
Return that thing please, you are making SUCH a HUGE mistake.
Like that other anon said: it's down right over priced and under performing.
>>2784383
It is the APS-C model for sure.
>>2784378
Once M43 dies all those lenses will cost a penny! It's too bad those cameras are shitty. I would return it and get something that will be supported in the next few years.
What were you going to use that camera for?
>>2784378
If you're having camera problems i feel bad for you son, i got 99 problems but m43 ain't one.
>>2784386
Oh yeah good point.
Who has a bigger better viewfinder than the X-T1? How about better than the resolution and refresh rate of the XPro2?
>>2784377
>Purposefully say something incorrect about a camera that's better than mine
>Wait for someone to tell me I'm wrong and explain why
>Yell to everyone that they ruined the thread
>Hope nobody notices what I'm doing.
Sorry bud. We noticed.
>>2784382
But it is Sony. Who else would have so much motivation to troll Fuji users so obnoxiously?
"I can't show that my camera brand isn't shit, so I might as well start attacking the brand they lose to, even though I don't know anything about them, I googled 'problems with fuji cameras' and made a 2 bullet point list that I will now bring up at every opportunity whether anyone is talking about Fuji or not, and then pretend to be victimized and attacked when I'm told why I'm wrong"
The autofocus selection on my rebel xti is a pain in the butt, gotta press a button and turn a dial arbitrarily until it gets to the right point.
Are those new touchscreen point selection AF cameras as convenient as they look?
>>2784378
Should have gotten a FUJI.
>>2784413
They can be, except that you have to completely change your hand position in order to use it. It's easy, but not quick. A good compromise that most people like is the AF point nipple on higher end bodies.
(Even the ?0D line has it)
I want to buy a cheap DSLR. I'm on the fence if I should buy the pentax k50 or the nikon 3300. I tried them both at a store and preferred the k50, but I'm worried about the sensor. (16 MP vs 24 MP) Is that a big difference? Which one would you cop?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make NIKON CORPORATION Camera Model NIKON D800 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows) Maximum Lens Aperture f/1.4 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Color Filter Array Pattern 854 Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 50 mm Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2013:07:28 21:02:04 Exposure Time 1.3 sec F-Number f/13.0 Exposure Program Aperture Priority ISO Speed Rating 100 Lens Aperture f/13.0 Exposure Bias 1.3 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash Flash, Compulsory, Return Detected Focal Length 50.00 mm Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 650 Image Height 699 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Gain Control None Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal Subject Distance Range Unknown
>>2784378
Heh, what a joke.
>>2784400
>Everything is a conspiracy
>Being this wrong
Sorry bud. You're just a delusional faggot
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows) Image-Specific Properties: Image Created 2016-03-05T02:06:29-14:00 Flash No Flash Image Width 894 Image Height 646
>>2784418
The K50 is going to be the better camera to use, the D3300 is going to be slightly better image quality. Megapixels only really matter for large prints and high res presentation. For web, social media, and small-ish prints, you'll just be wasting storage space without much benefit to you in the end, unless you need to do a lot of cropping. But even then, 24mp isn't really that much more than 16mp.
The deciding factor for me would be lens selection. Be sure the Pentax has the lenses you want to use in the price range you need them in, as Nikon's lens selection is a lot more modern and comprehensive.
>>2784418
There is much more difference between 12 Mpickles and 16 Mpickles than between 16 and 24 Mpickles.
It's 6016 × 4000 vs 4656 × 3488 pickles. An A4 size print is not a problem for the K-50, you can even crop in iy you only view your photos on the web/display.
If you frame right you will have no problem. The D3300 will have more problems useful features wise and ergonomics.
I know a few guys who shoot 12 pickles, and there is one shooting 10 (or 8?) pickles on a 20D because he needs the extra dynamic range.
Unless you are printing billboards, 16 pickles and above doesn't matter.
>>2784378
Ignore them, it's a really capable camera. I can recommend the 17mm f1.8 and 45mm f1.8 from Olympus, and the 25mm f0.95 from Mitakon is amazing if you dont mind manual focus. If you want a bit more reach the panasonic telephoto lenses are way better than Olympus' (apart from the PRO range)
>>2784421
>I trust photographers to not understand photoshop
>I trust 4chan nerds, 4chan TROLLS and advertisers to not understand how to get around same fagging proof.
Sure thing bud.
>>2784423
or, i dunno, doing supertele work where cropping in post is extremely common?
>>2784425
Don't listen to the olympus shill.
Anyways have you guys seen the new A6300 image samples?
http://www.dpreview.com/samples/3278770867/sony-a6300-real-world-samples
Absolutely crisp.
I'm in desperate need for a camera and a friend of mine is selling his Canon 7D for $600.
It includes a vertical grip, two batteries, a 24-135mm lens, charger and a 64gb memory card.
Is it worth it? Should I pull the trigger?
>>2784418
Look up photos with the DA 35/2.4, DA 50/1.8 and HD DA 55-300. These are the cheapest lenses in the most used range, see if you like them.
>>2784430
Yes.
I'm thinking about buying a medium format camera, I don't have much experience with film or mf, so I don't want to spend much more than about £300 to try it out.
I have been looking at the Mamiya 645 super and I like its modularity and the waist level viewfinder.
Can you recommend any similar cameras to have a look at and compare to, or suggest reasons as why or not to bu this camera?
Thanks!
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Canon Camera Model Canon EOS 60D Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CC (Windows) Photographer Jannis Remm Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 3961 Image Height 2641 Number of Bits Per Component 8, 8, 8 Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2014:03:27 02:37:26 Exposure Time 1/80 sec Exposure Program Shutter Priority ISO Speed Rating 320 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 50.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1500 Image Height 1000 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard
>>2784430
Yeah that should be a pretty good deal.
I don't know that that lens exists though. Might want to check.
>>2784437
I suspect it's this one: http://www.amazon.com/Tamron-Autofocus-24-135mm-3-5-5-6-Aspherical/dp/B00006I5WR
>>2784436
Bronica ETRS is another option.
Pentax 645 as well.
No real reason not to get them. They're nice.
>>2784426
>Get proven wrong
>Still can't get off your conspiracy horse and admit it
Hahaha I fucking knew it would be you. I've seen you on so many threads now, almost the same exact response and everything. Get over yourself, you pathetic cunt
>>2784418
You won't really get too much out of those 8 extra megapixels if you don't buy the best glass (which is going to cost you many times what you pay for those cameras). The most important thing to you should be usability, IQ is for bad pictures. If you are not planning to go FF in the next 2 years or don't plan on using multiple ttl flashes all the time the K50 will be better for you. I honestly would never recommend lower level Nikons, they are really gimped. You should rather buy a used d7000 or even a d90 if you want to go really old school.
>>2784441
Pentax has a FF route, just saying. Plans on going FF is a bullshit reason against Pentax from now.
>>2784440
>I've seen you replying to my aspergers level trolling about fuji on so many threads now
FTFY
>>2784443
He can't afford the lenses he's going to want to use on the K-1. The lenses he'll want to use on the K-50 won't work on it either.
>>2784445
You don't know that. Photography helps in networking and can help in finding a good job. Not just in photography.
>>2784447
what
>>2784429
Those A6300 samples are amazing. can't wait to get my hands on one.
I'm using a Sony a7ii with a Hexanon 40mm and a Zuiko 24mm
>>2784455
Looking good.
>>2784429
>>2784450
"amazing"
>ISO 1600
>>2784455
For what? Taking photos OF your camera?
>>2784455
>Using
Okay? Where are the photos you're taking?
>>2784458
>>2784459
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi
>>2784457
On the other hand, ISO 4000 from a PREPRODUCTION XPro2...
>>2784464
All that moire, banding, and color fringing from that sensor and lens. totally lacks defenition and colors look muddy. It's a wonder why anyone would pay so much for that system.
>>2784464
>muh superior jayyypegs
Shoot raw.
>>2784474
>shooting raw
>spending hours post processing
I've got better things to do with my time.
>>2784477
How can fuji cucks be such...cucks. All of /p/ uses lightroom. It takes seconds to fix WB and tweak little things.
>>2784477
>I've got better things to do with my time.
Producing good photos obviously isn't one of those things
>>2784472
>moire, banding, and color fringing
Feel free to circle all three in the image and re-post if you aren't 2/10 trolling.
>>2784474
Why? I shoot raw on Sony and Nikon in order to have the ability to take them into lightroom to push the files to exactly where the Fuji let's me put them in-camera.
(nah, I shoot Raw + jpeg, but usually for travel and "street" stuff, I don't need the raw)
>>2784425
How do you rate the O17 vs the P14? I like the build and focus ring and focus speed of the Olympus lenses, but the P14 and P20 together are about the same price as the O17 while being more compact individually and sharper.
>>2784480
When you only take four photos a day of your living room, a few seconds per photo is fine. When you shoot 200 photos and the client is paying you an extra $200 rush charge to have the photos tonight, why waste that time to end up at the same result?
>>2784380
Slight bump, I was wondering about the high iso since the lens is slower than my Fujinon. I rarely venture to iso's close to 6400 on the Fuji, they especially seem to make human skin look bad (is this the waxy skin people complain about?). How high can you go on the Ricoh before it starts to fall apart?
>>2784480
Why the fuck do you think people praise Fuji for their jpgs?
Are you literally retarded?
>>2784493
>is this the waxy skin people complain about?
Yep.
>How high can you go on the Ricoh before it starts to fall apart?
Not that high. It's not meant to be a low light camera. Though it will probably still look quite a bit better than your iPhone, especially if you're taking the photos into post and adding noise reduction.
>>2784484
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CC 2014 (Windows) Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 96 dpi Vertical Resolution 96 dpi Image Created 2016:03:04 12:29:36 Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 1877 Image Height 689
>>2784496
>"Crushed midtones"
>Color fringing
>Through the lens of the guy's glasses
hahaha genuinely 9/10 very nice.
I'm going to use "crushed midtones" from now on that's great.
>>2784345
I've used one once and found it to be a delight to use.
>>2784362
I don't find it crippled in any way. It isn't a top-grade SLR but it is still is more dependable than any mirrorless cameras out there!
>>2784373
I love the X-T1 but you are an idiot. The DF with its FF sensor, tight AF and great low light performance is clearly a better camera. Even though it is nominally larger it is a much more reliable camera.
>>2784487
I'm a fan of getting it right first, especially when shooting strobes. But I've found the expanded dynamic range of RAW to be a lifesaver. I can expose for the sky and just bring up the levels in the ground quickly and efficiently. With the right gear single shot HDR-like images are possible.
Similarly, I run and gun and don't always have time to get fill flash spot on. Or it might not be bright enough to balance against the sun. Shooting in RAW gives me that little bit extra insurance to make sure my shots are worth it.
>>2784495
That's what I was mostly thinking, the iPhone completely falls apart when it's dark, but I've survived. Also the pop-up flash on the Ricoh should help a bunch when I'm not trying to be discreet, and it seems like it's actually pretty usable.
>>2784500
>FF sensor
Negligible
>tight AF
You shooting a lot of sports with your meme camera?
>great low light performance
Fuji 16mp sensor shoots nearly noise free at ISO 3200, how "low light" are you pretending to shoot photos in?
If you need the maaaaybe extra stop of low light ability, there are still much better options than the DF to get it.
>>2784492
>use wb card
>synchronize settings
>process 600 images in 30 seconds
>export jaypegs in 4 minutes
>results look better than fuji
>be glad that i went full frame instead of aps-cuck
>>2784461
>generic noob flower bokeh and selective color
Where are your real photos?
>>2784502
why are fuji users such blatant liars?
>>2784504
If your lighting didn't change a single time in 600 photos, then what processing do you need to do in the computer? Why not:
>Use WB card
>set white balance in camera
>shoot 600 photos in JPEG
You're done.
>>2784506
Trash. You could get a A6000 with a lens brand new off massdrop for less than 600.
>>2784377
nice desu ne
Can't wait for the A7 is a Medium Format digital camera meme next desu
>>2784508
Where is the blatant lie?
>>2784457
download the raw faget.
sony jpg are awful.
it's no fuji.
>>2784477
you don't have to pp.
converting the raws with software gets better result than sooc.
>>2784496
that looks like rishi.
he's aryan yo.
Anyone know if the Fuji branded Leica M mount adapter is secure? I bought a cheap one when I got my X-E1 but the build quality and lens moving left/right when focusing is a pain in the ass.
>>2784508
I'm not a blatant liar. I'm also not the same user.
ISO 3200 is certainly not "near noiseless" hell ISO 400 and 800 are certainly nowhere near that either.
Maybe the Fuji vs Sony (vs Ricoh) posts could make their way to a containment thread.
>>2784519
This. There's no reason to cuck yourself with the Fuji in camera JPG.
>>2784517
They do this because they know real professionals shot in raw. They don't may so much attention to jpegs because jpegs are for tourist and parents who just want jpegs to post on facebook.
That being said i am regretting purchasing my XT1, not because it isn't a capable camera but because fuji fanboys are just as annoying as sonyfags and i want to set myself apart from these idiots.
>>2784519
No, it doesn't.
>>2784522
>ISO 3200 is certainly not "near noiseless" hell ISO 400 and 800 are certainly nowhere near that either.
Here's a shot at ISO 3200, with no noise reduction at all. Maybe there was a bit of hyperbole with "near noiseless" but the noise level is super low, and with even a tiny bit of noise reduction (or even just viewing the whole image rather than being in at 100%) it's gone completely.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Greenshot Image-Specific Properties:
>>2784523
>i want to set myself apart from these idiots.
Then take photos.
>>2784519
lol no
>>2784519
If you don't process your raws and just convert straight to JPEG, you get low contrast, low color, all the noise, and an overall flat image, which is the starting point for raw to give you the most opportunity to push the image to where it needs to be for the finished product. If you're shooting JPEG in camera, you have adjusted noise reduction, toning of highlights and shadows, colors, white balance, etc. A SOOC jpeg will look better than a SOOC raw converted without processing.
>>2784263
>That purple/green longitudinal fringing
>>2784527
Nope. The ISO performance isn't that great. There is a lot of noise in that shot and a lot of noise even on the X-Pro 2.
Feel free to download the full version too. http://pastebin.com/rDbdC4DN
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Photographer Paul Martin Image-Specific Properties:
>>2784345
At least you didn't get a mirrorless. Silver or black?
>>2784541
What ISO is this taken at?
>>2784545
3200. Same as the previous poster.
>>2784541
>There is a lot of noise in that shot
There really isn't.
>>2784549
>this much denial
>>2784546
Hmm. Yeah I will agree that looks pretty noisy.
Do we have a sample of the DF with a similar scene at the same ISO? I'm sure there's one out there.
>>2784527
>cooked raws
>iso 3200 but lower exposure compared to other camera manufacturers.
fuji is a lie.
>>2784555
I'd take one to compare if I owned a DF.
My post wasn't meant to be a comparison between the Fuji X series and other cameras. It was intended to show that ISO 3200 on X-trans is noisy. Even on the X-Pro 2.
A lot of Fuji, Sony, Ricoh, Pentax, Canon, Nikon and Sigma fans will all be too happy to praise their camera performance and shill or defend it. A lot of those people only have one camera, limited experience or a "large monetary investment" too. Take everything on the internet with a grain of salt.
>>2784541
I'm sorry, but you have no what you're talking about if you're calling that noisy. Do a google image search on dslr noise.
>>2784555
Please don't seriously consider the Df. Seriously. It's a garbage camera design that we really, really do not need to encourage further.
Yes, it takes great images, but we already see enough of manufacturers purposefully deactivating features.
Look at the 700 or 800 series. If there are features you don't care for on them, simply don't use them. Don't spend the money for a fully featured camera to purchase a gimped fashion accessory.
>>2784601
No no, I'm not Df guy, I'm "The X-T1 has low noise at ISO 3200" guy.
>>2784345
V I D E O
>>2784573
>I'm sorry, but you have no what you're talking about if you're calling that noisy.
I'm sorry, but you have no right to tell me what I consider to be noisy or not.
>Do a google image search on dslr noise.
Why on earth would I need to do that?
>>2784616
>I'm sorry, but you have no right to tell me what I consider to be noisy or not.
Is that not exactly what you are doing?
>>2784616
Friend, measurement of noise is science, not opinion. How much you consider acceptable is opinion, but how much there is is not a subjective matter.
>>2784628
Well, since it's not noisy, no, it's not good.
See how that works?
The statement:
> There is a lot of noise in that shot and a lot of noise even on the X-Pro 2.
Doesn't work if you say that you can't tell someone whether there is a lot of noise or not.
>>2784640
That's nice fella.
You do realise that you've taken the comment too literally here, right? That's I meant in my opinion it's too noisy, because it is a noisy image.
>Doesn't work if you say that you can't tell someone whether there is a lot of noise or not.
You may want to re-read:
>I'm sorry, but you have no right to tell me what I consider to be noisy or not.
>what I consider
This is pretty much done here. I'm sorry that you had trouble understanding these posts and I hope this additional post has clarified this for you. Thanks for the replies though.
>>2784644
>because it is a noisy image
See there you go again. "My opinion is that it is noisy, because it is" is not an opinion anymore. So if you can tell us that it's noisy, we can tell you that it isn't... see how that works?
>>2784645
Thank-you for your reply.
>>2784646
So you have realized that you're falling back on double standards and feel that your opinion is fact, but other peoples' opinions are dismissable, but don't want to actually just give up or stop talking or give someone else the last word, so you're just going to say nothing shit posts to keep from fading away into the "losers" column? Is that pretty much it?
Let's also point out that that's a processed JPEG, and we have no idea how it was processed. IF there's added sharpness, contrast, pushed exposure, a bad choice of software to do the processing, etc.
>>2784648
Thanks for your further reply. As you are still not satisfied I will continue to chat with you for your pleasure.
Let's also point out that that's a processed JPEG, and we have no idea how it was processed. IF there's added sharpness, contrast, pushed exposure, a bad choice of software to do the processing, etc.
>ID
>No Sharpness
>No Contrast
>No exposure change
>No NR
>So you have realized that you're falling back on double standards and feel that your opinion is fact, but other peoples' opinions are dismissable, but don't want to actually just give up or stop talking or give someone else the last word, so you're just going to say nothing shit posts to keep from fading away into the "losers" column? Is that pretty much it?
No. I believe the image is noisy and as such stated that it is noisy.
I replied to:
>I'm sorry, but you have no what you're talking about if you're calling that noisy. Do a google image search on dslr noise.
I stated:
>I'm sorry, but you have no right to tell me what I consider to be noisy or not.
>what I consider to be noisy or not
This is where someone misinterpreted my post due to me not specifically stating "in my opinion". This post is also intended to state that no-one else can change my definition of noisy.
I clarified this with >>2784644 after having been told:
>Doesn't work if you say that you can't tell someone whether there is a lot of noise or not.
This is a different statement from my own. I am afraid that the anon who replied may have mistaken my post possible due to taking statements too literally.
I'm sorry if this has bothered you in some way and hope that you can find it in your heart to not only forgive me but to get on with your day. I should be aware that there are people who take things very literally on the internet.
If you wish to state that the image is not noisy then you are welcome to as that could be your opinion.
I hope that you have a nice rest of your day/night.
Thanks once again for your reply.
so is it generally accepted that the sigma 18-35 1.8 is a great lens? im limited on funds and would definitely like to upgrade from my D3200, but my library of lenses is pretty lackluster atm (kit 18-55mm, 35mm f/1.8, 55-300mm f/4.5-5.6). looking for a nice general purpose/walkaround
>>2784461
>can't even create a mask to selective color properly
mysides.jpeg
>>2784657
Hey moop, how's india?
>>2784699
If you have the money and plan on staying crop for awhile, with the caveat that you don't need tele (~80mm and up) yes.
it's fantastic.
If you find that you do, I suppose you could couple it with the 50-100 1.8 sigma's got coming and you'd have a pretty nice kit on your hands.
>>2784489
I've not used every lens unfortunately. The Panasonic 20 allegedly has some focusing issues on Olympus bodies, while the 14 was a little too wide for my tastes. The Panaleica 15 I also ruled out because of barrel distortion which isn't corrected on Olympus bodies. I'm really happy with my 17 more for its focal length and feel (the focusing ring is brilliant) - and a lot of tests are unaccurate thanks to variations between black and silver versions (the black ones are a lot sharper). Random but I'm also really looking forward to trying out the Sigma 30mm f1.4, that focal length is near perfect for me since I learnt photography on a helios 44. Ultimately it's all subjective isn't it? I didn't want a 25mm because I wanted something wider, and didn't want a 14 because I wanted something more standard. I'm sure either lens, or the 20 f1.7 would have suited me down to the ground, but I'm not the sort of person to switch lenses every 5 minutes.
Also you're totally going to love Olympus colours (I say posting a black and white image) - they really pop straight out of camera, on a bright sunny day I barely ever need to spend any time at all in lightroom
>>2784506
Very jel. I just bought the Mk1 for about £200, an absolute steal.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make OLYMPUS IMAGING CORP. Camera Model E-M5 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.7.1 (Windows) Maximum Lens Aperture f/1.8 Color Filter Array Pattern 802 Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 34 mm Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2016:03:04 14:00:56 Exposure Time 1/80 sec F-Number f/4.0 Exposure Program Aperture Priority ISO Speed Rating 100 Lens Aperture f/4.0 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Other Flash No Flash, Auto Focal Length 17.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Manual Scene Capture Type Standard Gain Control None Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal
I'm finally getting some protectors for my LF lenses. I'm looking at these:
http://photoservice.ca/fr/spec-sheet.html?catalog[name]=Hoya-82mm-Protector-Pro-1D-HMC-%28Objectifs-et-flash%29-Filtres&catalog[product_guids[0]=1032192
http://photoservice.ca/fr/spec-sheet.html?catalog[name]=Hoya-77mm-Protector-Pro-1D-HMC-%28Objectifs-et-flash%29-Filtres&catalog[product_guids][0]=1032193
http://photoservice.ca/fr/spec-sheet.html?catalog[name]=Hoya-52mm-Pro-1-Protector-%23XD-52PROTEC-%28Objectifs-et-flash%29-Filtres&catalog[product_guids][0]=1022877
Is there any reason these are a bad purchase for lens protection?
Nikon D700? Is it a good investment?
>>2784852
Investment? No, it's a terrible investment, like any other non-boutique brand.
It is a great camera though. I'd question if full frame where better than getting crop+better lens, but it's a great camera.
>>2784855
would it be well suited to a 50mm or 35mm set up?
>>2784865
Either.
For more travelly/general use+some landscape people often go with a 35mm (wider is often advantageous for landscapes), but really, you can't go wrong with either. I'd make my choice based off of what my second lens might be...like if I were going to get a 20mm next, I'd go with the 50mm (so there's a more significant distance between the lenses I had) and if I got like a 70-300mm for my second lens, I'd go with the 35mm.
But again, that depends a lot on what you're trying to shoot.
>>2784852
I'd much rather shoot with a D750 or something else. The D700 kinda is showing its age by now.
Arguably, that's one of the reasons why the D700 came down in price, if you're looking at it as a bargain...
>>2784852
Lenses are investments not bodies.
With that said the D7200 is an excellent camera.
Saw the x100t go on sale recently. Is there reason to believe fuji will drop the price further when they release the x-pro2?
>>2784908
Probably not worth it dawg.
>>2784263
Anyone have the Sony e-mount 18-105mm F/4 lens? How is it for everyday shooting?
>>2784908
Doubtful. It's not direct competition.
Also, XPro2 is released.
>>2784908
Not until an X200 or similar shows up. Lord knows when that will happen.
>Is there reason to believe fuji will drop the price further when they release the x-pro2?
No. X-Pro 2 is out, price is the same. Look for 2nd hand/refurb models.
Did I cuck myself for buying an X-T10? I wanted to try mirrorless and figured that anything would be better than my T2i.
Just wondering because I see a lot of Fuji trolling in these threads.
>>2784926
The X-T10 is a solid camera and quite lightweight. I'd advise updating the firmware to fix an EVF bug (when turning the power on).
Try not to pay too much attention to /p/ shitposting. Some of us are very autistic.
>>2784926
Buying anything fuji is cucking yourself.
New to photography, but I'm enjoying it so far. I decided I wanted to get a new lens since all I had was the 18-55 kit lens. I went to my local camera shop and looked at the used lenses, and I have two that I can't decide between: a Nikkor 55-200mm VR DX AF-S, or a Tamron 70-300mm Di LD. I will primarily be shooting nature shots. The Tamron is $100 at my local shop and the Nikkor is $125. I know these are both cheap lenses, and I don't expect them to be amazing, I just need a cheap telephoto lens for some trips that I have coming up. If I decide that I really enjoy photography then I'll look at purchasing some quality glass.
Thanks for any input.
Does /p/ ever come across baltently mathematically wrong things online?
>That’s more than two f-stops slower than an f/2.8 prime, which is the difference between using ISO 800 and ISO 6400 in low light.
6400 is _three_ stops faster, not two. 3200 is two stops faster.
Sony spillover shills are attempting a new method - falseflagging as others.
Today ITT they have begun by falseflagging as fuji users.
>>2784937
I'd probably go first party (the nikon lens)...actually, I'd tell you to save up for the nikkor 70/75 (can't ever remember which it is)-300mm with vr (it's like $300ish at keh), but I'd still go first party in this case because autofocus will perform better in the cheap lens side.
>>2784461
fucking garbage kid rofl you can't even get your shitty meme effect right
>canon lenses are so god tier that other manufacturers like sony are cucked into having adapters for them just to have a marginal userbase at all
>>2784945
>canon lenses are so popular from being in circulation from the late 80's that other manufacturers like sony are cucked into having adapters for them just to have a marginal userbase at all
People are less likely to invest in a new system if there's a paltry lens selection available. Canon already cucked themselves in the 80's when they used a similar flange distance for FD/EF.
>>2784948
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Windows) Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2016:02:19 13:20:33 Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 539 Image Height 549
I am getting an A6300 for 4K video, I am getting a Sigma 19mm 2.8, the new sigma 30mm 1.4 and a Sony 18-55 (so I can zoom in and out for some shots easier) plus the shit kit lens, along with a lighting set up, the Wasabi batteries and a tripod
Am I good for taking my amateur video shit to a level beyond me and a Canon Eos M + Kit lens?
>>2784981
Wasabi batteries suck.
>>2784981
Not that I don't want to and plan on taking still photos too, it's just mainly for video.
>>2784982
Do they? I read good things previously. Do the just die fast or do they run the risk of fucking up the camera? I mainly just want shit for if a shoot goes longer than a single battery can handle. Everything else I listed looking okay though?
>>2784746
Where was this taken? It looks oddly familiar.
>>2784985
Just low capacity.
>>2785002
Any other sony battery replacement you'd recommend?
>>2784981
the sigma is pretty awful for video.
you can hear the af motor with internal mic, so get a hotshoe mic.
my sigma 30 2.8 likes to hunt at 2.8, so i need to stop down.
>>2785044
I don't plan on using auto focus much to be frank. As a news photographer Ibe grown to detest AF.
>>2785044
Also who would EVER use an internal for recording? Naturally you would use a Lav or a shotgun. If I do use AF though, say at a sporting event can you comment on the Sigma's speed at all? To be honest I don't want to break the bank is why I am picking Sigma over Sony and when you get like 4 lenses like I plan to the extra 100 bucks starts to add up.
Hello /p/. I've lurker around this board from time to time for years, but this is my first time posting. You've probably answered this hundreds of times, but I would like some advice on what would be an ideal camera for myself.
I'm fairly inexperienced in photography and I would like to learn how to take better photos, learn all the jargon, and etcetera. I used to have a Sony RX100 (The first version) that I used for 2 years. I only ever took fairly casual photos, and tried to take things like landscape, sunsets, and nature photos. They weren't very good photos, but I was satisfied with what I had. I actually really liked the camera but I was in a fairly bad spot financially so I had to sell it.
Now, it's been a year since then, and I saved up decent sum of money for a new camera. This time around though, I want to try to pursue it a little more. My budget is about 1000 Canadian dollars, which is about 750 American, but I can go a little higher probably if the investment is worth it.
I plan on being very active around Vancouver when summer arrives by visiting a lot of gardens, lakes, and mountains. I don't really like taking photos of people. I was thinking of maybe the Sony A6000, Fujifilm X100T (Would have to look around for a used one), or just go back to the RX100, except with one of the newer versions.
I would really appreciate any help or suggestions. Thanks.
>>2785054
The focusing ring for manual is still pretty terrible for video.
In fact, most E-mount lenses have shit focus-by-wire.
Damping simply cannot compare to other mount lenses.
That is why /vid/ recommends adapting lenses with better focusing mechanics.
>>2785080
Ugh the thought of spending 500 bucks on a metabones adapter makes me woozy.
>>2785090
The Metabones isn't the only adapter. Cheaper ones will work fine if you're only using manual.
The new Sigma MC-11 at $249 delivers, should you change your mind, solid AF capabilities for most Sigma EF and SA mount lenses - good value for money lineup.
>>2785054
>>2785058
all the lens you listed are focus by wire.
not good for video.
i suggest you adapt old lenses like canon fd, minolta md, olympus om, etc.
i suggest olympus om 24mm 2.8 and any first party 50 1.4 or 1.7.
the 18-55mm is faster in af than the sigma 2.8 but it's no slouch either.
anyway, the a6300 have eye tracking, so it should be good.
another way is to get ef to e mount adapter. right now i suggest the sigma adapter, because it's the only adapter that supports tracking in video mode. it's only for sigma lenses though.
dslr sigma have mechanical manual focus.
>>2785058
>Also who would EVER use an internal for recording?
i'm just saying brah.
>>2785090
you don't need to buy metabones for crusty old manual focus lens. just get fotodiox or my trusted brand, k&f. they're $15 max.
if you want check out zhongyi's lens turbo. it's the only good chinese speed booster. about $150.
>>2784502
Using 2.8 zooms I've had to go up to 6400-12,000 when shooting in poor light. The attached photo was taken at 6400 2.8 as I recall (Exif was stripped and LR is on another comptuer). Higer usable ISO is never a bad thing.
Sports or not the AF of a pro body is miles ahead of anything I've used in mirrorless cameras. This could change (heck the X-T1 might be great) but for the most part I feel mirrorless cameras are lacking in this department.
The FF sensor allows a narrower DOF. Not that I am a bokeh junky by any means, but if we are comparing setups I would prefer to have more ability to control my background then less.
So, the DF is not a perfect camera. There are many better offerings (D750, 1DX, 5D). But for the most part it is a more useful camera to someone who shoots for a living than an XT1. And it rightly should be, it costs nearly $800-1000 more at retail.
I'm not saying that Fuji makes bad cameras. I am not even saying that they can't be used for pro work. What I am saying is this: there are better setups out there and IMOH Nikon and Canon are the only people making the toughest, fastest gear for shooting under any condition.
If Fuji keeps at it and gets a great EVF, excellent AF, FF sensor then they have a real chance of being a big player in 5-10 years. As it stands now though I see their gear as enthusiast-level stuff (some of the best photos are taken by enthusiasts I might add).
Take battery life for instance. I went out for 3 days with my D7000 and a spare battery. I was fine! Didn't even worry. I've used an OM-D (one of the earlier ones) that didn't even last a days shoot.
All this said I really want an X-T1! But that doesn't make it 'teh best camera'.
>>2785103
What makes focus by wire bad for video exactly? I've never heard the term before but I have only ever shot video with pro camcorders for the news. So when it comes to like still cameras I am not the most well versed. Also all the sigma ef and sa lenses seem pricier than just their e mount stuff on amazon at least. Is that right?
>>2785113
Ever driven a steering by wire car versus a physically linked system?
Notice the difference in feel between the two?
That's why.
>>2785113
The Sony ones focus based on the speed you turn your ring, not necessarily where the ring is turned. Even a focus scale isn't a guarantee of focus being mechanically linked. The Olympus ones with a manual focus ring on a clutch work pretty well, but are still focus by wire.
>>2785113
I really dislike focus-by-wire (FBW) for anything really.
For the uninformed, focus by wire is an electronically controlled focus ring. Turning the focus ring activates a small electronic motor that will cause the lens to change focus. This is distinct from conventional mechanically coupled focus mechanisms where rotation of the focus ring physically moves the internal elements around shifting the point of focus.
Some FBW lenses are 'damped' to a degree, where turning the ring more leads to a faster movement of the focal point. The only lenses I have used were early generation FBW lenses and I felt that there was a noticeable lag between turning the ring and the motor starting to change focus. I'm sure this flaw has been reduced, but I don't know if it can be entirely eliminated.
The downside of FBW should be immediately obvious. You are forgoing control to a computerised mechanism. This is the same reason why the T-W electrical zooms on most P&S cameras is so ugly!
Now on to your question: why would these be bad for video? First is lack of fine control over the focus mechanism. More importantly; to really nail focus one would be best served by using a 'follow focus' system (see attached image). An FBW lens will likely perform poorly with a conventional followfocus and lead to sheer frustration.
Everything I say here should be read with a grain of salt. I've only used older FBW lenses and found the experience to be absolutely horrible for MF. I much prefer a well made, silky-smooth mechanically coupled focus!
>>2785115
I know fuck all about cars but I can imagine it I suppose.
So I just found out that the kit lens and the zoom lens I thought about getting were basically the same so that clears up 150-250 bucks in my budget for an adapter. Really all I want is a 19-24 lens (to be a 35mm after crop) and a 35mm (to be 50mm after crop) should I focus on getting a newer adapter for AF for these if I prefer manual (and could probably use the kit lens if I am obsessed with getting an af shot like at a sports game or some shit) or should I get older lenses for those and just get a 20 buck ring adapter and not worry about the AF?
99% of what I plan to shoot will be planned out so that is why AF vs MF isn't a huge deal to me
>>2785118
Okay so now we are talking, yeah I prefer a position based focus ring, that's all I've ever used on pro camcorders.
>>2785118
the biggest problem with fbw with a follow focus is that the focus ring travels so short, and that it doesnt stop at either end. thus if you mark your focus points on the ff, you can't rotate the ring a lot without rendering them useless. You can get ff's with hard stops but that's an extra hassle.
Sorry if I sound like a complete retard but I'm very new to this. I've been considering getting my first SLR and was looking around for a moderately priced machine.
I've been looking at the EOS 1200D and DD3300 as they were recommended by a friend as decent beginner cameras.
I've also been thinking of maybe getting a more compact camera like a Nikon 1 J5 or Camon EOS M10. Is there much of a drop off in terms of performance/hassle? I know for the Nikon you need an adapter to use it with standard lenses.
I'm not looking to go professional. I'll mainly be using it for Street snaps, holidays, walks in the woods etc.
I'm happy to hear any and all input here, and if you know of different makes and models that might be better please let me know.
>>2785118
Looking at finally upgrading my 50D to either a 6D or a 5D and I am having a difficult time justifying the extra money for the 5D.
I mainly do "travel" photography but no so much "street" photography. A bit of landscapes and wildlife if the mood hits me.
I don't see why I'd need GPS and WiFi would be helpful but at the same time I am looking forward to buying a new batch of memory cards (still cheaper than getting the 5D).
Let me hear your opinions.
>>2785113
>turn focus ring slowly
>nothing happens
>turns fast
>all the way to the end
it's worse if you don't have the distance scale on the screen.
>>2785141
nikon 1 is kill.
get nikon dl.
eos m10 is crap aimed at girls. get m3.
>>2785141
> I know for the Nikon you need an adapter
The Canons need an adapter too. And, even the newest Canon mirrorless isn't really all that good.
Probably just get the D3300 if you want to stay at the low end in terms of price?
[Certainly not only professionals that might want a better camera than these, though... "moderately" priced for hobby use would be a bit more IMO.]
>>2785160
Do you shoot sports often? If not then you don't need the 5D AF coverage.
Also the 6D has better DR than the 5DMkIII which is better for landscape and generally everything. Get the 6D.
>>2785141
Pentax K-50, use all the M42 lenses you want without any hassle.
I want to buy my first flash for off camera flash work. I'm currently using a canon 6d and I'm a little lost on what to get since there are so many options. I know I need a wireless transmitter, can someone recommend a good starting speedlight? Cheers
>>2784997
Sheffield yesterday
>>2785187
Get a couple of Yongnuo flashes, the new one should have radio trigger built in.
Or get the two flashes and a radio trigger. Shouldn't cost more than a single first party flash.
>>2785187
Perhaps a YN560 III/IV + EX controller? They're very cheap and useful. YN660 also will be out sooner or later for even more power.
If you do need TTL/HSS, have a look at the YN600EX-RT.
Buy either from Aliexpress unless it's urgent, it can save a few dollars.
>>2785189
Cheers bud
>>2785178
I noticed the k-50 is a slight step up in terms of price. Would the models I mentioned above not have the same lens compatibility/require an adapter?
Is m42 the 'standard' or most common lens type that I'll be able to find around more and potentially get better deals on?
>>2785196
The M42 is a Pentax standard, same flange distance kept for the K-mount.
The K-50 is a lot more camera for the money, especially if you find a good used one. If you keep the kit WR lens then you can go on travel in any weather and get your shots.
The DA 35/2.4 and DA 50/1.8 are cheaper than some of the better and more sought after M42 lenses, search them on Flickr and see the results.
I'd say if you don't plan on going pro or shooting pro sports events the K-50 gives you more for the money.
The problem with the D3x00/D5x00 is those have gimped mounts without the screwdrive AF. You lose AF on most of the better lenses, and going with the D7x00 makes you spend double your budget. Also adapting M42 on Nikon is near impossible without degrading IQ substantially.
Why is the OVF for the Ricoh GR so expensive? Even the "cheaper" GV-2 is like £150. It's not like it's a super high tech EVF, it's just something to give a rough view through the lens. It should be like £40 at most.
>>2785207
I blame the hipsters. Get the one from Voigtlander
Alright I just bought a Nikon D600 and I also have a Fuji XE-1. I have the 18-55 fuji Kit lens,
I'm tempted to sell and buy the 27mm pancake so the Camera will fit in my pocket.
Or should I stop being afaggot and sell the entire thing for some nikon glass?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make NIKON CORPORATION Camera Model NIKON D90 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.3 (Windows) Maximum Lens Aperture f/1.7 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Color Filter Array Pattern 736 Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 52 mm Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2016:02:20 15:36:26 Exposure Time 1/125 sec F-Number f/1.8 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 200 Lens Aperture f/1.8 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Spot Light Source Shade Flash No Flash Focal Length 35.00 mm Rendering Custom Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Manual Scene Capture Type Standard Gain Control None Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal Subject Distance Range Unknown
>>2785225
Yes, that Fuji will never fit your pocket. Most cameras won't. Fuji glass is expensive and probably not worth wasting on a camera you won't be happy with. At least with Nikon glass, it will serve you for many future generations.
>>2785225
Enjoy the oil condensation on your sensor.
>>2785226
Well specifically it will fit in my Jacket pocket, but yeah...
>>2785228
Like a trench coat? Anon...
I guess do as you please.
>>2785209
The trouble is I want the smallest viewfinder possible.
>>2785232
Life is full of compromises. You can buy either of them, one is smaller and costs more money, the other is bigger but is cheaper. If you want the smaller one, be ready to open your wallet.
>>2785248
Fuji shills woke up... sigh. Yes it's some what pocket-able if you have cargo shorts.
>>2785249
>Fuji shill
Feel free to pay me to shill if you want :^)
I'm actually a shill for Mirrorless & Pancake LTD, they lobby for cameras which fit in real pockets.
Did someone say pancake?
>>2785250
Right.
Are you the same dickwad that says that the A6000 is pocket-able or that the X70 fits comfortably into your pocket?
>>2785252
>>2785255
Says the sony shill.
>>2785253
No.
>>2785255
If only it would stop appearing in every slightly gear related thread.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make FUJIFILM Camera Model X-Pro2 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.4 (Windows) Maximum Lens Aperture f/2.8 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 28 mm Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2016-03-05T14:54:37 Exposure Time 1/25 sec F-Number f/2.8 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 5000 Lens Aperture f/2.8 Brightness -4.0 EV Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 18.80 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1440 Image Height 1441 Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Sharpness Normal Subject Distance Range Unknown
>>2785261
The fedora of outerwear.
>>2785261
>taped up his fooji
>>2785265
It's taped because the same type of gearfags who are obsessed over shutter count are the same type of gearfags who care if the paint is scratched.
The X-T10 has shit-tier paint/coating and scratches easily. I need to sell it in the coming weeks.
>>2785265
Fuji fruities are embarrassed of their poor system.
>>2785274
Someone is having a discussion REEEEEEEE
>>2785275
Take your "discussion" somewhere else.
Should i get a sony or a fuji aps-c?
On the one hand sony has really good glass and professional features with 4k video.
On fuji you get a really good sensor pipeline and a good evf with weather sealing.
I'm shooting real state so i need to do architecture photography both in doors and out doors. Which would be easiest to mount to a drone?
>>2784868
thanks man
I'm lookin at buying a 42mm f/1.4 lens. Is it worth having?
>>2785291
For what purpose?
reminder that sony spillover shills from /v/ are killing /p/.
Reminder to neck yourself if you wear fedora clothing capable of pocketing a mirrorless camera.
t. /fa/
seriously. end your own worthless clife.
>>2785297
It's just one guy samefagging. The sheer effort put into this means he is a high functioning autist.
>>2785286
sonysonysony
and sony
a6300 best ever or fuck off
>>2785298
Agreed. /fa/ and /p/ are my fav boards, please cleanse it from those fugly neckbeards
So I'm looking for a small portable camera used or new in the 150 euro range. what should I take? compact or hybrid?
>>2785309
You either put €200-€300 more into that budget or just use your phone.
The ones you can get for €150 just doesn't worth the money.
>>2785311
even used like a nikon j3?
>>2785313
€300 is barely enough for a good used camera+kit lens set
Plus the Nikon 1 series lenses are way overpriced, and the camera itself underperforms. Waste of money, goy.
>>2785309
contax tvs and a box of portra :^)
>>2785318
I meant digital!
>>2784746
>>2784489
>>2784378
Yeah ignore the fucks whining about M43s.
Sure it might not be around permanently but you got a solid price on a camera that has a great system of lenses available, is one of the best in that price/size range and should do quite a lot for you.
For the Olympus lenses, look for the fast primes. 12mm and 25mm are nice easy lenses, the 17mm is awesome and while the 45mm is obviously a 90mm equivalent, for its price and size it's awesome.
For tele stuff go Panasonic, bit pricier sometimes but generally performs better. Excluding the Oly PRO lenses of course, the 12-40mm is awesome, haven't tried the new one (some bigass zoom) though.
Mention also to the amazing 75mm (150mm equiv) Olympus prime, bigger than the other premium zuiko primes but is just fantastic. Also the 100mm macro is pretty decent in a pinch.
>>2785320
Budget is too low.
>>2785286
> On fuji you get a really good sensor pipeline
I think the A6300 and other Sony have better sensor / sensor pipeline, DESU.
> I'm shooting real state so i need to do architecture photography both in doors and out doors. Which would be easiest to mount to a drone?
Probably an action camera. GoPro / Yicam is what a lot of drones already are prepared for.
Of course if you get a big drone, you can mount a regular camera like this, too, but I wonder if it's worth it...
>>2784753
Anyone? I don't know much about filters because most lenses I've bought used have come with a UV filter or something of the like. I've used gels and colour filters, but this is not the same matter.
Is there any reason not to get clear protection filters instead of UV's?
What does everyone think of the Sony 18-105 for video? Specifically for the A6300?
>>2785332
Too much zoom ruins the image quality on this one, like basically on all other 1x-1xx lenses.
http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Sony/Sony-E-PZ-18-105mm-F4-G-OSS-mounted-on-Sony-A6000---Measurements__942
I wouldn't use it for either photo or video, myself.
>>2785175
6D it is. Thanks, anon.
>>2785326
>raf ownens is usually what i'm dressed in
How's highschool going?
Unaware faggot here
I'd really like to get a general use camera mainly for a trip with some friends coming up in like 2 months, and I'm sort of debating between a standard pocket sized or a big lunker.
Factors going into it are: wanting to shoot a shitload of video and take a ton of pics when we're on our trip so I'm gonna be carrying it wherever I can go.
The two I saw are:
>Canon ELPH 170 today in the store and it has 20 mp with a 12x zoom and it seems like it's a tidy and simple camera and it was only 109 bucks.
AND
>Canon PowerShot SX400 on amazon for 135, 16 mp but 30x zoom and some bomb-ass pics in the customer reviews, I'd use this after the trip as a photography camera around my town or for projects. The only con I have with this is how large it is and I'm trying to bring a camera wherever I go on the trip.
Or suggest another one around the same price point?
>250 euros for Pentacon Six with biometar 2.8/80mm lens and ttl prism
is this a reasonable price?
>>2785548
250 euros for the Biometar 80/2.8 is a well reasonable price. Take the body as a generous gift.
>>2785544
Your Phone. Seriously that budget only gets you the cheap point and shits that don't really perform better than your phone. Waste of money. Double (or triple) the budget and get a Fuji X30 at least. Anything less than that will not give you your moneys worth.
>>2785544
I personally would definitely bring an actually good photo camera with a few lenses.
It certainly would not be a shitty $100 point and shit zoom compact. Though I guess these or a smartphone are still better than nothing, it's just not how low I'd want to go.
>>2785590
> I have a prepaid though, and the camera in it isn't the best.
The cameras you were looking at are also is far, far away from the best.
> Found the stats online
That sounds very terrible, too, despite these not being the full stats.
Well, since you have a smartphone camera that is apparently worse than what is found on a year old $100 Chinese smartphone (never mind a new one), the cameras you picked would be an improvement.
But they're still simply worse than anything I'd work with. Can't you spend like, two weeks or a month's worth of disposable income on something more useful than the cheapest equipment there is?
>>2785600
Yeah, I think that's a possibility.
I didn't explain this since I didn't think I'd have to, but it's a gift from a family member, they overheard I wanted a camera for the trip and they were with me when I saw the one for 109 and said "yeah find something around that pricepoint" so I have no clue if saying "hey if I throw in money can I get a better one than you're suggesting" would be cool, but I might.
I think what I might end up doing is if I do go with one of these, maybe it'll let me test the waters for a better camera if I truly am as interested in photography as I think I am. This one is technically free, so it can't hurt.
>>2785609
> if I truly am as interested in photography as I think I am
This is not a hard guess. Just get a D3300 or K-50 or A6000 or some other more /p/-worthy beginner's camera directly, and let them present you a used 35mm or 50mm or something prime lens for it instead.
Or upgrade your smartphone to a $100 Chinese one... at least it's a camera you always have with you.
>>2785609
A used K-50 or a K-30 with the WR kit lens will give you loads of camera for the money, just don't expect stellar video features.
If you want video above all the A6000 will be better but it will lack on stills and good lenses.
>>2785649
> but it will lack on stills
Certainly not?
It's the best of the three cameras for stills, though also the most expensive.
> and good lenses
Not really. There are less lenses, but if you just need your ~2 lenses to start out on a low budget? You won't really feel any limitation.
And even later, it's primarily a problem if you wanted cheaper AF zoom lenses. If you prefer good primes or any MF zoom/prime lenses, it's a good system.
>>2785625
A6000 all the way. Cheapest used market for lenses and best all around feature set.
