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.
No pointless (brand) arguments and dickwaving allowed! You have been warned!
I repeat, ANYTHING GEAR RELATED goes in here!
And don't forget, be polite!
Previous thread: >>2784263
>>2785993
Sorry for the late response, I was asleep.
So the S95 is a good choice then? Because I can get one like new for 150 after shipping with all the stuff included.
Is this the way to go for someone who just wants a really high quality point and shoot that can still do pretty crisp/less grainy pictures? Because I'll grab it when I'm back from work if it is.
>>2785649
>>2785600
>>2785585
>>2785589
Also to you guys, I didn't ignore what you said and I'm still gonna save up for 500-700 dollar-ish one because yeah I do have disposable income, I just want something that I can carry around in my pocket at the moment that isn't completely garbage-tier like you warned me about.
Would saving for the starter kit of the canon D3300 or the EOS Rebel be a good place to start, or should I really consider the ones you already suggested?
>>2786122
Nikon D3300. Yes, that's one option.
I personally do not like the Canon Rebels. High-end Canon (e.g. 5D III and above) are fine, but the Rebels and older/low-end Canon cameras are lacking in sensor performance & software features in comparison to the other brands.
I don't see why you wouldn't get a Pentax, Sony, Olympus or whatever else instead...
>>2786122
I got a Pentax because I had a limited budget and wanted the most camera for my money.
What I ended up with is a Nikon D7200 comparable camera for a D5500 budget.
Look up Flickr the DA 35/2.4 and DA 50/1.8 photos, also if you're into tele, the HD 55-300 lens photos. The primes cost $80-$120 a piece, the telezoom costs around $250.
Of course you can get the same from Canon and Nikon but not at the same price.
Just my two cents if you're budget conscious.
>>2786106
Asked in the last thread but after some more opinions, I'll simplify the question.
I'm after a 35mm fixed prime camera. Fuji, Leica or Sony?
>Fuji X100T
>Leica X2 / X typ 113
>Sony RX1 / RX1R / RX1RII
I'm not going to be able to go for a Leica Q due to the insane price and I'm not too into the 28mm.
X100T (and RX1RII) has a finder so that's nice, but the Sony and Leica IQ seeming pips it by a bit.
Anyone used more than one of these and can offer comparisons or opinions?
I know the Fuji is a popular fixed option but I've little experience with using their cameras (or Leicas).
>>2786197
RX1R II is the best of these, by a pretty good margin.
>>2786197
Depends on your budget. Go to a store, try them in your hand and decide on which is the most comfortable to use.
All of them are very capable cameras so other than budget the ergonomics is the best deciding factor.
>>2786204
Well it's certainly the one with the most tech, but is it worth double the price of the Leica and 3 times that of the Fuji?
I've read and heard a lot about the RII, but how does the RX1 and original R stack up, still worth buying?
>>2786208
> but is it worth double the price of the Leica and 3 times that of the Fuji?
Some diminishing returns effects certainly apply here, but it also is a much more powerful camera for photos.
Whether it is worth it is an individual thing, I guess. It'll be more worth it if you have a decent income and a more complete aversion to carrying an APS-C or FF camera and want to maximize the picture yield / quality during the time you shoot. This is just the closest you can get with a compact.
> but how does the RX1 and original R stack up, still worth buying?
The first RX1R was pretty bad with its AF and other things. I personally wouldn't bother with that one.
I never tried the other one hands-on, but I don't think it is any better.
>>2786100
>>2786092
I've been wondering about this.
What's the best budget-good super-telephoto setup on canon?
(budget-good meaning not the entry level ones with horrible IQ but not the 5 or 6 figure prime behemoths either - so like low 4 figures)
>canon 100-400mm ii
>tamron 150-600mm
>sigma 50-500mm
I figure canon will have better AF performance and probably better IS, and probably be somewhat sharper (and thus can crop more)
But the tamron and sigma have it edged out in focal length
I also figure though (with the caveats of AF, so need a higher body to have it at all) you can throw a 1.4x TC on the 100-400 and have acceptable IQ but not with the other two.
>>2786231
400mm f/5.6L
>>2786231
The Sigma 150-600 is an excellent supertele. The 50-500 gives more focal range but is difficult for tracking a subject due to the optical formula. It likes to hunt a bit.
The Canon 100-400 L pump zoom and 100-400 L II is a very good lens but not as long as the Sigma. There will be situations where you will need the extra bit of reach.
The Tamron 150-600 isn't bad either but I didn't see any images yet.
Go on Flickr, search the lenses and compare the images. That should help you decide.
>>2786231
> canon 100-400mm ii
>tamron 150-600mm
>sigma 50-500mm
I'd consider the Sigma 150-600mm Sports. Still cheaper than the Canon 100-400mm II...
>>2786245
And then you pay 3x the price of a Sigma 150-600 for worse image quality and unreliable AF performance.
TCs aren't magic, they always degrade and darken the image. I'd recommend avoiding using TCs.
>>2786231
I would go with Canon's 100-400 II. Superb lens and still makes me wants migrate to Canon from Nikon..
>>2786248
Yes it's a compromise, but the canon is superior in every regard except native focal length
>>2786250
>implying you would notice that on an A4 print or on a display.
>>2786253
you would in a A4 print fine paper...
>>2786256
Yes with a magnifying glass and furious pixel peeping. Just hang it on the wall and people will be amazed even if it's pixelated as fuck.
Local gallery is full of shitty pixelated prints and people don't mind.
Also the new Sigma lens is as sharp as the 100-400, only the contrast is less to some degree but not much really. Certainly an easy fix in post.
See how Jewfro did on an airshow shoot, pretty much on par with the pump-zoom 100-400 images I've seen.
>>2786230
Hmm, good point. I feel like the jump in price won't do much for me since if I needed the kind of quality the RX1RII gives in a pinch I might as well spend less and get something bigger.
Fuji X100T or Leica X 113 it is I guess, decisions!
>>2786345
> I feel like the jump in price won't do much for me since if I needed the kind of quality the RX1RII gives in a pinch I might as well spend less and get something bigger.
It is basically the trade-off with all of these.
> Fuji X100T or Leica X 113
Well, between these two, the Fuji.
>>2786106
whats better 21mm or 24mm focal length?
>>2786394
thats a ridiculous question and the least of concern when comparing 2 lenses
>>2786359
Yeah I feel like I'll end up with the Fuji, just wanted an opinion on potential alternatives, since it's a couple years old and also so popular.
I guess that's for a reason though, having handled it a bit I do like a lot about it. If only Leica had released the X 113 with a finder on it, I guess it's time to finally own some Fuji.
[spoiler]Oh god, black or silver Ughhhhhh[/spoiler]
>>2786400
I'm pretty sure that if your primary concern when buying a lens isn't its focal length, you're doing things very wrong.
>>2786400
>What's better x or x focal length
>Thats a ridiculous question
>the least of concern when comparing 2 lenses
What? Just, wait a minute. What?
Please tell me what other things concern you more than focal length when buying a lens that rank above focal length in importance. If someone was to take your post very literally, it could mean that you consider looks, colour, smell and rigidity of each lens first over focal length.
Please, tell us what you consider more important than focal length.
>>2786400
its for landscape photography for printing and building wallpaper-non professionally, quality isn't much of concern since i've found most lenses to be more then adequate. just unsure whether 21 will be too much or if 24 isn't enough.
>>2786402
why do you want a new lens in the first place?
and why don't *you* know what length you want?
Maybe you don't need either.
>>2786407
Go wider. Cropping is easier than stitching.
>>2786394
Neither is "better", unless you have a camera with infinite resolution and a perfect lens, in which case the one closer to 0mm?
Otherwise it becomes a question what field of view you want to record with your available resolution... and one of individual lens' properties, 'cause not every 21 or 24mm is the same.
>>2786408
*WHEN* buying a lens.
Not whether or not you're deciding to purchase a lens in the first pla
>>2786409
Cropping is also subtractive, whereas stitching is additive. That's an incredibly shitty reasoning.
Neither 21mm or 24mm is wide enough that it should be a first choice for stitching anyway however. If you're stitching, you should really stick to normal or longer for your headache's sake.
>>2786408
>and why don't *you* know what length you want?
I'm glad to see that like most autistic people, you are incapable of empathy.
What if you've never shot a wide lens before? What if you don't know what a 24 or 21mm lens feels like to use. Where you need to stand.
Have you tried to live without oxygen? Maybe you don't need that either.
>>2786413
>Cropping is also subtractive, whereas stitching is additive. That's an incredibly shitty reasoning.
No shit cropping is subtractive and stitching is adding.
The point is, it's easier to deal with having too much in frame than it is to having too little in frame, especially with landscapes.
>What if you've never shot a wide lens before?
Then /p/ cannot give you relatable advice and you need to try things out for yourself, you bozo.
I mean, if you don't know what a 21mm is compared to a 24mm, you're sure as fuck not going to understand a fov number for it.
>What if you don't know what a 24 or 21mm lens feels like to use. Where you need to stand.
Then you need to use a kit zoom that covers those lengths, or rent them, or...
what do you expect someone online to tell you? which ones wider? You probably already know that, and that's about as much as can be expressed without using it yourself.
>Have you tried to live without oxygen? Maybe you don't need that either.
this pants on head retarded analogy of yours is actually useful, if it were a nitrogen-breathing being discussing oxygen.
£350 will get me a Pentax K50 and the 35mm prime Lens.
Is this the best I can get for this money? I just want a nifty fifty (equivalent) and a decent body.
Also it can't be black...
>>2786429
>Also it can't be black...
Beggers can't be choosers.
Pentax kicks ass. Do it.
Is a SAL-35F18 the best choice for babbies first prime lens, or are there better 35 mm choices under 200 bucks?
>>2786432
Yea I find black dslrs intimidate people more than a red or yellow one.
Red K50 or White KS1 though??
>>2786442
Whatever you do, don't ever buy a KS-1!
K-50 or K-S2 are okay.
Did anyone get any lenses from Canon's refurbished sale today? I finally got my 70-200 2.8 for $1500
>>2786466
While you could get a Tamron 70-200/2.8 VC Macro for half of that. Good job.
>>2786448
Why is that, brother?
>>2786473
muh canon.
muh red ring.
>>2786483
The K-S1 lacks everything that makes a Pentax DSLR awesome. It lacks weather sealing, half the features in the K-50 and looks like a fucking clownshoe. Doesn't worth the money. At least the K-500 looked like an actual camera, features-wise was the same.
The K-S2 has been totally redesigned and is more of a successor to the K-50 than that LED ridden abomination K-S1.
>>2786483
you tell me senpai
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Macintosh) Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2014:08:27 17:57:00 Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 622 Image Height 270
>>2786495
It has a blue ring and is more usable.
>>2786500
>he doesn't want sick LED's all over his camera
>he doesn't want a giant blue backlit "ok" button
>He doesn't want a trackball shutter.
Do you also hate yourself?
>>2786507
Let me guess, you also think the Nikon Df is an excellent and beautiful camera.
>>2786515
>Let me guess, you also think the Nikon Df is an excellent and beautiful camera.
No. That's a pig disgusting fat wolf in sheeps clothing.
I am a poorfag who has a chance to acquire an Epson Perfection V370 Photo scanner for my negatives for 15 euros, or slightly more in dollars. Should I? My knowledge in the field of scanners is less than decent, and I don't know if I should spend my eurodollars on that.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 490 Image Height 320
>>2786536
I don't think you can get much better for 15 Eur.
But if you have friends with decent DSLR/MILC, those would make for better scanners for your old negatives.
>>2786536
€15 is nothing, if it works even for a month you had your moneys worth.
>>2786536
You can probably flip it for over double what you put into it even if you don't decide to use it, so if you don't need the money at this moment, why not?
>>2786540
I have a Pentax K-7 which will be 7 years old this year and glass of dubious quality (recently been shooting with adapted Soviet M42 lenses which are both dirt-cheap and usable on my film cameras), so can't say my digital setup is very decent. Anyhow, turns out the scanner has some dandy features regarding text scanning, so all the more reason to buy it. Gonna contact the seller tomorrow. Thanks for the quick responses, guys!
Hi guys, can someone help me with this problem?
I have an old MIR 20mm f3.5 lens, it's an M42 lens. I was wondering if there would be issues with using it on a E-mount camera (sony a7s) through an m42-EF adapter (which I already own) attached to a EF-E mount adapter (which I don't have yet).
I basically want to combine two adapters so I don't waste money on a m42 to E-mount adapter that I would probably use only for this lens.
I don't think I should have any problems with vignetting or something like that, maybe a little extra weight, but that's negligible. I'm not sure though
>>2786596
>I don't think I should have any problems with vignetting or something like that, maybe a little extra weight, but that's negligible. I'm not sure though
Never tried it but this should be the limit of your problems. Might be far more than you expect though.
Also might be problems with focusing to infinity.
>>2786600
Well I just found out m42 to e-mount adapters are a lot cheaper than what I thought. I think I'll just buy one instead of experimenting
http://yannickkhong.com/blog/2016/2/23/the-problem-with-modern-optics
Would you consider this a well grounded OP-ED or a Zeiss advertisement?
is the x100t really pocketable for jackets? thats my decided factor over the ricoh
Hi, I would like to buy a good scanner for both 35mm and medium format, does anyone have any suggestions ?
>>2786632
I mean yeah sure, but you'll have this heavy pendulum in your jacket if you're putting it in one of the lower pockets.
Nikon 200-500mm
Yay or nah?
>>2786614
> Sharp: all lenses today are SHARP
Immediate fail.
Followed by many random diagrams without numbers or data sources. Fucking nonsense.
>>2786641
- The highest resolution DSLR you can get your hands on + macro lens + stitching software (there are open sauces ones like panorama tools)
- Reflecta MF5000 (probably the most likely option on a budget if not DSLR / MILC scanning?)
- Nikon Super Coolscan 9000 ED
- Hasselblad Flextight X5
All of these also best are supported by some software like SilverFast HDR or ColorPerfect or such if you are dealing with color negatives.
What camera(s) to buy, if I want to do amateur /p/ and semiprofessional /vid/? I aim for festival shortfilms as my scripts want to get honored. My budget is around 5000$ for bodies and lenses. Crowdfunding is an option, but first I want to produce some good footage for promoting my ideas. I already have a T3i with a 50mm 1.4, which fits nicely for stills. For videos though it isn't enough, not even nearly (inb4 kendy ty).
The following specs are important for me:
-4K (reframing, virtual dolly, downsampled FullHD etc)
-high dynamic range
-light body and light lenses (for steadycam, slider, drone etc)
-good performance on ISO 6400 (unlike GH4)
Features which would be nice:
-AF in video for steadycam shots (like A6300)
-mechanical lenses
First I thought about getting the A7S II, but the native Sony lenses suck in MF. I imagine FBW ruins Sony for my purpose. Of course I could buy some Rokinon MF lenses, but then I would have some focal length twice).
Should I wait for a hybrid like GH5 (gonna be a monster with Speedbooster and Sigma 18-5, 1.8?), A6300 or 5D Mk IV? Or should I stick with my T3i for stills and buy a handy /vid/-body like the BMCC 4K? What are the alternatives?
>>2786676
Sony NEX-FS700R
>>2786676
> but the native Sony lenses suck in MF
Most Zeiss and higher-end Sony don't suck?
> Of course I could buy some Rokinon MF lenses, but then I would have some focal length twice)
A very adequate solution where they do suck. Never mind you can adapt practically anything you want to the A7S II when you MF.
>>2786473
Implying I want a lens with slow focus
>>2786693
I think the big problem with Sony and Zeis FE lenses are they're focus-by-wire.
>>2786698
I do not see the problem with FBW here, unless you have no mic directional enough to not pick up the motor noise?
It's not like FBW has poor response on new cameras. There are quite many people who thought the 90mm FE macro is mechanical on the internet (I came across these comments when researching the lens)... but it's definitely FBW.
Figures you can try this hands-on to convince yourself if it's too bothersome or not...?
A6000 or RX100?
>>2786708
A6000. RX100 if you want an actual pocket camera.
>>2786706
I think you cannot focus from A to B on time without reshooting the scene >9000 times. Even when pulling the focus with a follow focus, you have to retry. This is because in Sony lenses the speed of focuspulling effects the focus change.
>>2786706
I personally haven't had a chance to shoot with any of the super expensive Zeiss or G lenses, but I found the 28mm and kit to be kind of "mushy" when it comes to focusing.
No clue about how the higher ones feel, but hopefully my opinion will change once I get to try them others out.
>>2786659
Nice, thank you !
I've been thinking of tinkering with DSLR scanning but I don't really think I want to do it this way, even if that means I'll spend more money
Anyway, thank you again, I'll take a look at these
>>2786761
Holy shit ok, the suggestions were nice but I mean
Wowie
Isn't there something for like under 500 dollarinos ?
Because if not, fuck that I'm building a DSLR rig
>>2786766
For medium format, the best you can do for that price is a shit flatbed.
>>2786767
Couldn't I like
Use an extender with a macro lens and just take about 4 or 5 pictures for each negative and then stitch them together ?
Even though that'd be pretty shitty, I wouldn't want to go through multiple rolls at once
>>2786783
With a DSLR, yeah, that would be better. I meant "scanner" wise. With the DSLR you'll get better dynamic range, better detail, and faster results (if you get a good rig going) but you may have trouble with getting your colors right.
>>2786789
Yeah I'll look around and eventually find something, I've seen an article about scanning 120 film with a DSLR, it was quite a lot of work for every single negative
Maybe I'll end up with some flatbed scanner or something, I'll upgrade later if needed, and if everything goes right in my life I should have access to a lab to make prints at the end of the year
Thanks for the help !
So I have a question. is there a difference in image quality between the a5000 and a6000. is the a5000 a good choice? what about EOS M?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS5.1 Macintosh Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 2677 Image Height 2076 Number of Bits Per Component 8, 8, 8 Compression Scheme Unknown Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 400 dpi Vertical Resolution 400 dpi Image Data Arrangement Chunky Format Image Created 2013:11:05 18:32:20 Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 2677 Image Height 2076
>>2786983
A5000 has no EVF, EOS M is ass. I hope this helps.
>>2786992
I know for the efv but is it the same captor? It should give the same quality as the a6000 no?
>>2786983
Don't cuck yourself with the EOS M. If you MUST go canon mirrorless, at least pick up an M3. They're not expensive and it's a world apart from the limitations of the original M.
>>2786995
http://www.imaging-resource.com/cameras/sony/a5000/vs/sony/a6000/
It's far from the same camera. I'm guessing you're on a budget, but I think I would have a very hard time with my a6000 without the EVF. Using the screen becomes quite problematic as soon as the weather is not entirely shit and considering that I have only been testing it in winter I expect that to be the case a lot more in the coming months. Even the difference when reviewing shots in bright daylight between the EVF and the main screen is night and day. Pun intended.
>>2787086
To add to that: you would probably want to slap a screen protector on it. I've used mine for one day before mine arrived and even during that time it got covered with micro-scratches that are visible when held at a right angle. It's not a big deal and you really have to look for them, but it's a tad disappointing. I would not use it without a protector for any prolonged period of time. Needless to say, with a protector, the visibility suffers another notch.
>>2786983
> is the a5000 a good choice? what about EOS M?
Both are shit, get an A6000.
Having an ISO flash hotshoe is another reason apart from those already mentioned.
Been looking for an affordable camera bag for ages, after buying a new camera and tons of lenses i didn't have much left over to spend on a camera bag that would carry a decent set up.
I bought a padded bag insert off aliexpress for 30 dollars which doesn't even have much versatility and it's not so well padded. A few days latter i found this absolute steal on amazon:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B009RRAADO
Fucking 9 bucks gets you a good looking well made bag. Holyshit. The reviews are really good too, most people complain about not fitting their xbox huge SLR equipment in it.
The reason this bag is so cheap is because the company went out of business a while back, they were a part of lowepro. Anyways i'm still trying to cancel the shitty bag i bought off aliexpress.
Sorry about my blog post but i thought you guys might be interested in a cheap good bag. Also comes in grey but it's 30 dollars (still a bargain)
>>2787153
>http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B009RRAADO
Damn shame, if only they made bags for men
>>2787153
> Anyways i'm still trying to cancel the shitty bag i bought off aliexpress.
Most ~$30 camera bags and backpacks on Aliexpress are really rather good. Maybe you should not comment about bags you never owned and only try to cancel?
$10 is okay for a thing like you posted - but as you already can see in the reviews on Amazon, why would you want to use it as a camera bag?
>>2787160
Lmao
Yeah it's not for everyone, they did make a backpack version with is more 'manly' but it's expensive and not a 10 dollar deal.
I dunno, i guess being a fag has it's perks when it comes to being able to wear slightly effeminate looking bags.
>>2787163
Yeah they are good, specially the NatGeo bags but i didn't want another backpack. I'm not bashing aliexpress bags it's just that after some thought the bag i chose was not really ideal.
http://www.aliexpress.com/item/Professional-DSLR-Digital-Camera-photo-Bag-for-CANON-600D-500D-400D-NIKON-D200-D700-SONY-A290/32261872744.html
This bag would slip into my 10L day pack so no only would i have to open up my back pack i would also have to open this little compartment. It's just not practical. I just wanted a bag that i could easily
slip out my camera, take a picture, and slip it right back in with no hassle. I mean come on, 10 dollars for a bag? That's pocket change for a bag that used to cost 100 dollars and meets my needs in every way.
I want that bag because i use mirrorless cameras which this bag is capable of fitting all my gear and still being small enough to not be cumbersome. Sorry if i came off as bashing aliexpress.
>>2787171
Yea, that certainly looks too expensive for China. Not sure why you'd pick that one on a budget, though.
> That's pocket change for a bag that used to cost 100 dollars
It probably always cost $2-5 to produce and ship to the USA.
But yes, at $10 it certainly has an okay price.
Can non weather sealed lenses survive light rain? Also I have a weather sealed body so i don't know if having a non sealed lens affect it's weather proofing.
>>2787197
Pretty much all of them will survive some exposure to rain, but it still depends on the lens and how exactly it gets wet.
The biggest problem usually is when enough water gets inside to like, move oil or dirt onto inner lens elements.
And sometimes the inside can fog up or accumulate droplets and it can take a not sealed lens a while to dry, during which time you won't be shooting much.
>>2787197
Yep. I used many unsealed bodies and lenses in hard rain for years without issue. Don't leave your stuff on a tripod in a hurricane, and be sure to do what you can to keep wiping it off as you shoot, but it won't hurt anything. Just don't store it wet.
>>2787196
It's because i wanted to use my existing backpack as a camera bag. I was thinking that the cheapest way to go about getting decent space + protection on a budget would be to adapt my back pack to be a camera bag.
Unfortunately camera inserts are expensive, I was looking at the Tenba BYOB 9 which was 39 dollars and i found this alternative which offered more space. I dunno what i was thinking at the time but it was hard to find a
good deal on a bag that fit my needs. You're probably more informed than i, what would you have bought for 30 dollars to fit a small mirroless system and 2-3 lenses plus accessories, preferably something that doesn't look
like an obvious camera bag that would be easy to spot.
>>2787206
> Unfortunately camera inserts are expensive
You can literally just cut the handle off on a ~$8-10 or so camera side bag (there are tons on aliexpress and Amazon both)?
> preferably something that doesn't look
like an obvious camera bag that would be easy to spot
It's all inside your 10L day pack anyhow.
Apart from that, I never got what it helps.
I've been to some poor areas before... but you're just the foreigner with the bag anyhow, - doesn't really matter how shitty the bag is. Thieves and robbers expect you to carry smartphones and money and stuff anyhow, a camera isn't really much more interesting.
>>2787206
NatGeo Walkabout
You're welcome
>>2787265
why the fuck do you keep telling people about this shitty bag that nobody has heard of? especially to a guy who said he's on a budget
>>2787265
Considered it but It just didn't see myself being happy with it. It doesn't have the right dividers, It looks hastily put together, looks like a cheap army surplus bag, the canvas material just looks like it will soak and absorb water, some bags had loud Velcro flaps.
I don't know, each bag seemed to have something i didn't like. Anyways i got a super good deal on this new bag AND it's getting here in a day where i was going to wait a month or more on any bag from aliexpress. I'd rather be out shooting right now than waiting
around for weeks.
>>2787295
>>2787299
I have one, thats why I recommend it to people on a budget. Considering its price it is an excellent bag, well put together, sturdy and fits all my gear and more. It also looks generic enough to not look like a huge bulletin saying "thousands of dolla photog gear inside, please rob me and rape my face"
But jokes aside its a good bag to go to campus with or go on a hike in the mountains.
>>2787310
hmm, may have to check this out
>>2787295
>hy the fuck do you keep telling people about this shitty bag that nobody has heard of?
People suggest Pentax and Sony on this board all the time, and nobody says a word. Why would this one bag upset you?
>>2787346
Because it's shitty and only one guy suggest it.
>>2787408
>citation needed
>>2787408
What's shitty about it? Have you ever been in the same room with one?
Going to Israel/Jordan next week, planning to shoot some portra 400 and Tri-X along with my x100t
Managed to snag a Rebel film body and 24mm 2.8 for $35 on ebay, should I bring anything else?
>>2787522
Is this your first time shooting photos? Because such questions usually come from first timers.
i have a nikon d5100+their 35mm 1.8 (doesn't matter). What's the cheapest flash i can get to shoot terry richardson-esque photos at parties? would i be okay with something like sb-400 or do i need a full size flash? are chinese cheap-o ones acceptable?
>>2787528
yongnuo flashes are really good for the price you pay
>>2787528
YN560 III/IV/RX if you can deal with manual flash.
Don't remember how the Yongnuo TTL flash for Nikon is called, but it exists - AFAIK you'll need extra wireless transmitters to take that one off-camera, though, I think the -RT system only is for Canon. (Yongnuo also has TTL wireless transceivers for Nikon for sure, though).
How does the tamron 24-70 2.8 compare to the Canon 24-70 mk1?
>>2787541
The Tamron has IS.
Should I get a Mamiya 645 or a Bronica SQa?
I like the look of both but I can't decide whether square format or slightly more exposures per roll is better
Maybe I'll get this on my third try desu.
Anyone know what's up with the two purple lines running down the side of the frame?
I'm wondering if it's my scanner or a problem with my film back or a problem at the lab.
>>2787576
The Mamiya 645 is a good and capable system. I have 2 Pro TL bodies and they're solid. They are a bit more expensive than I tend to find Bronica's for though.
I'd suggest looking at the lens lineup and accessories available for both before pulling the trigger.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make SEIKO EPSON CORP. Camera Model EPSON scanner Camera Software EPSON Scan Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 2400 dpi Vertical Resolution 2400 dpi Image Created 2016-03-07T23:38:32
>>2787609
It's the same thing that happened to my old flatbed before it finally fell to its colorful noise pattern grave.
hey /p/, im finally selling my old canon rebel xs with lens and charger and battery and strap, how much should i sell it for? works great
>>2787668
about $30 would be a fair price.
Okay so I've been looking into Sony cameras for an upgrade, and I'm very conflicted between the a7r and the a6300.Right now I have a Canon T3i and a bunch of vintage lenses so I'm not stuck with a system really. The t3i is annoyingly cumbersome and I never really feel like taking it out with me. I mainly shoot landscapes and posed portraits so no need for fast autofocus and idgaf about battery life so Sony appeals to me. The question is, are the newer features of the a6300 and it's smaller form factor worth the downgrade to less resolution and crop sensor? Also do you think that lenses for the a6300 will be considerably cheaper, because there's no point in having 36 megapixels if I can't afford a camera that can resolve that. Looking for honest responses from not sony shills, and also would be happy for another camera if the change in price/quality overrides the larger size.
Considering selling my Fujifilm X-A1 and using some of the money to either buy a Ricoh GR or GR II. Is there really much of a difference between the two models aside from lack of wireless connectivity on the GR?
>>2787781
This is literally the only good use of snapsport
>>2787711
Spoiler: The pixel pitch on the a6300 is even higher than FF 36MP. The only advantage is that it's taking the sharper center portion of your lenses.
>>2787711
>The t3i is annoyingly cumbersome and I never really feel like taking it out with me.
...I hate to tell you, but you're not going to be getting a significantly smaller camera. Yes, it's smaller, but not enough so from the t3i that you'll go from thinking "fuck I don't want to carry this cumbersome camera" to "oh my! this is so wonderful!"
>lenses significantly cheaper
HAHAHA, no.
The upside is greater adaptability to older cheap lenses which are no longer all that cheap because a lot of people are doing what you're doing. You'll also find a significantly smaller market than for Canon glass.
As to the A7r, wasn't that one shit for some reason (hyperbole, but I thought I remembered some glaring defect in it)?
As for whether the tradeoffs are worthwhile, that honestly depends on what you value. You obviously know the differences. How would they affect your workflow and capabilities? Which one gives you the most improvement in the areas you truly care about and don't just think are neat?
>>2787788
>As to the A7r, wasn't that one shit for some reason (hyperbole, but I thought I remembered some glaring defect in it)?
It had ridiculous shutter slap that made all those megapixels useless.
>>2787711
I would say worth it.
The megapixel downgrade isn't all too bad - if you're shooting pro, then maybe, but even cropping with 24 is not an unpleasant experience.
Crop sensor shenanigans, on the other hand - maybe, but like the other dude said, adaptability is the miracle of E-mount.
That new Sigma MC-11 is going to change the game for both FE and E.
I personally feel killed by the lack of quality E-mount lenses, and gravitate towards adapting myself more and more. Shit sucks. Prices are indeed going down for E-mounts though, so maybe cost reductions out weight quality for you.
But really, for the price, the A6300 does a lot of shit well.
Speaking of E-mount, anyone here have experience with the Zeiss 16-70 F4?
>muh zeiss
but it's really the focal range and potential image quality that interests me the most. It's very attractive for my combined stills and video interests, yet all I see online is 'THIS LENS IS THE SHIT' versus 'THIS LENS IS SHIT'.
Quality control issues, bad image quality - and then the other camp is in love with it.
What gives? Should I jump on this $1000 lens (700 white box) or adapt Sigma 24-105 for $850?
>>2787795
Is that it? I honestly thought there was more that made someone seriously never want an A7r that they corrected in the ii
I want to buy my first tripod and I wanna go cheapo, just not 20 dollar cheapo.
From what I've been reading, I've narrowed it down to: if it has leg braces, it's probably crap.
So I've been looking at Dolica tripods, anyone have experience with this brand? I'm looking primarily at something under $100, maybe $200 if it really makes that much of a difference
>>2787801
I've read that the A7 and A7R both glare like a motherfucker when using certain older lenses. I've experienced it from time to time with my A7, but once again I blame the glass since I don't own any modern lenses yet.
>>2787803
I've had a Dolica for years now.
Great tripod but the clasps are kinda cheap, and the mount has a cork pad so if you have long lenses without their own tripod socket then it will slowly sag.
>>2787801
That's actually a pretty big issue. If a camera is worthless at 1/60 or less, it would put a lot of people off from buying it. In the A7r2 they added electronic front curtain which fixed it.
There was also an issue with the microlenses on the sensor that led to awful purple lens flare with ultra wide rangefinder (e.g., not retrofocal) lenses.
Can anyone recommend a replacement case for a Yashica Mat 124 that works kind of like the original (where you can use the camera while it's protected)?
is a Voigtlander Nokton 35mm for $360 off CL a steal? Or save up for Ziess glass?
I'm not knowledgeable and I'm sure this question doesn't have enough info but...
My budget is around 500, and I'm mostly interested in video/audio quality.
What would you recommend or where should I start? And if this post sucks, can you point me in the direction of where I could do some research?
>>2787819
Older glass had much weaker coatings or none at all. Most of them have strong flares, some have it in a very unique way giving characteristic look like Jupiter short tele lenses.
You can improve on the glare if you tape the insides of the adapter with black textile tape or even better if you can fix a piece of thin velvet in there.
You know the old saying, if you can't buy it DIY it.
>>2787803
Dic&Mic E302C or P303C from Aliexpress.
I'm currently borrowing my brother's D5300 and I have a couple of Nikkor lenses of my own.
I want to buy my own camera for landscape, architecture and street photography. Should I get the D7200 or the Sony A6300, and adapt my Nikkor lenses? The Sony seems better in literally every regard, but they're about the same price. Am I missing something?
>>2787976
If you want reliable AF then get the D7200. Native lens is always better than adapting.
>>2787977
So aside from autofocus, no reason to get the Nikon? I kinda like the interface and button placement, so I'll have to hold the Sony to see how I like it.
What do you mean by reliable? I'm not planning on shooting fast moving subjects, if that's the issue.
I'm also adapting a few old manual focus lenses. I expect the focus peak to make it more reliable to use these on the Sony than the Nikon, right?
>>2787980
Missing the focus and hunting in lower than ideal light will make your photos look ass. From the A6300 reviews it is clear that adapted lenses often miss focus and don't work well over 100mm, with native lens you have to go deep into your wallet to get lenses with decent IQ.
You already have lenses for Nikon, it is the better choice to get a Nikon body. The lenses will work well and above all else reliably.
Specs sheets don't make photos, people today make award winning photos with old cameras like a Canon 20D or Nikon D300s or even D200.
Also Sony goes for two kind of markets at once, the Leica-tier users with disposable income and not much interest in actual photography and gadget geeks who obsess over technical details. Which one are you fitting in?
>>2787844
$500 gets you an A6000, which is an excellent camera. You can get a used lens for it for another hundred. Another 40 should be enough for accessories like protective filters and batteries. Alternatively, you can get a D5300 for the same price. The body is much bulkier and heavier, as are the lenses, though you have more of them to chose from. I'd go for the A6000. You're just in the right price range for it.
>>2787976
A6300. Save yourself the extra weight. Might actually make even more sense to get the A6000, which is much cheaper, and spend the rest on lenses.
>>2787980
> I'm also adapting a few old manual focus lenses. I expect the focus peak to make it more reliable to use these on the Sony than the Nikon, right?
Yes. Well, I think the D7200 has focus peaking, but you'd only be using it in live view - on the A6300 it also works in the EVF.
>>2787980
>>2787985
I do not think the AF adapter for Nikon is very useful yet to begin with? And MF won't miss focus.
>>2787985
> Also Sony goes for two kind of markets at once, the Leica-tier users with disposable income and not much interest in actual photography and gadget geeks who obsess over technical details. Which one are you fitting in?
I bet the D7200, on the other hand, is a gentleman's camera that is neither for "gadget geeks" nor "Leica users", despite being the same price and you obviously buying it for better specs than, say, the D3000 or D7000?
It's always the same fucking nonsense. The A6300 just is the better body, but somehow CaNikon users need to be dismissive of it...
>>2788026 (corrected)
Seems like I was wrong. The D7200 does not have focus peaking. Ouch.
Also, I looked it up - the first smart adapter with AF by Commlite for Nikon is scheduled to release in April, and even on the cameras where currently the EF adapter works near perfect (A7 II, A7R II), it looks like it is struggling a bit on some lenses.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dlq4aXiJtH4
I'm looking at two lens combinations which I constantly go back and forth between.
The first one is:
15mm, 35mm, 55mm.
The second one is:
24mm, 55mm.
What would you suggest?
>>2788019
>General wisdom:
Spend 40% on a body, and 60% on a lens, because a lens is what really matters.
>Sony wisdom:
Spend 100% on a body, and then magically find $100 more for a shit lens, and then another $40 for things that cost about $70.
>>2788059
...?
What advice do you actually expect to get, given that level of information
>>2788062
I forgot to mention it's for landscapes.
Which boils down to 24mm vs. 15mm+35mm.
>>2788065
OBVIOUS ADVICE:
If you prefer more versatility, get 2 lenses.
If you want something in between, get the 1 lens.
??? What the fuck?
There is literally only one person who can give you a useful answer here, and that person is you. We don't know your shooting style, we don't know your goals, we don't know your tastes, we don't know your gear, we don't know whether you'll be hiking with the stuff and would prefer to save space and weight, we don't know whether you'll buy a good 24 or a shit 15.
Only you can answer this question. What makes you think that anyone else would have anything to say that isn't completely obvious?
>>2788070
>We don't know your shooting style, we don't know your goals, we don't know your tastes
But I'm sort of asking what you and others would do.
>>2788076
If I saw a genuine use for three wide primes for landscape, I'd get a wide zoom. Probably the Sigma 18-35.
>>2788037
What? Even the entry level Pentax body has focus peaking. My K-3 has focus peaking and I actively use it in landscape and astrophotography. What the shit Nikon?
>>2788085
Pentax resigns you to using tons of antique glass. Nikon offers accurate fast autofocus, and therefore doesn't really have much need for FP. Especially considering the flange distance doesn't lend it self well to adaptation.
>>2788089
You didn't shoot much landscape, astro, portrait and wildlife before, did you?
Manual correction is an integral part you know.
H6 VS H4n
I recently ordered Rode NTG-2 because I am at the beginning of a small business doing commercials of small events and interviewing people.
Now I don't have a recorder yet and I try to keep the budget as low as possible, although I don't want shit quality.
I know the internet is full of this, but what are you guys using/what do you prefer?
Is the H6 really so much better than the H4n? Despite the 300€ difference I think I'm going to go for the H6.
Daily reminder that Sony shills are the type of people to buy Hyundais and Kias. They're only looking at the features and spec sheets, and not actually looking at ease of use, reliability, and as a system.
>>2788102
Why would you need a wide aperture for landscapes? Are you planning to go to all the effort of finding a gorgeous location to shoot, only to destroy 70% of it with blur?
>>2788108
That's sort of what you need to have to compensate for lower lighting conditions sometimes. Unless you want lots of long trails of car lights.
>>2788061
The other general wisdom says that you should buy things worth buying. I would rather spend 100% on a good body and then work with an older lens for a few months while I save for the better ones than buy a shit body. Unless you're a teenager whose budget is fixed to whatever you were given for Chrismas, there is no need to limit yourself in advance.
>$70 for a cheapo bag, a spare battery and a protective filter
kek
>>2788101
Daily reminder than nebulous comments are nebulous.
>>2788131
What's nebulous about that? Sony is best on paper, and pretty bad in actual use, compared against other brands. This is pretty universally accepted, and was the general consensus between pretty much everyone until the a7 line came out and started tempting the "I don't take photos, but I like nice cameras" crowd. Now, people who take photos first, and look at specs second, say "Yeah, it looks nice, but I don't really like the way it holds, and I don't like the lens selection or the idea of a bulky adapter" and kids on their computers who think a camera makes a photographer talk them up big but only really take photos of pets and planters.
So I should be getting my Memecoh GR tomorrow. I was thinking about ordering a little pouch thing for it, so it'll be less likely to get issues with D U S T. Any tips/what do you use for yours?
>>2788132
That's still pretty nebulous and doesn't really seem to have much of a factual basis. I think you might just be butthurt.
>>2788137
>thinks that the concept of holding and using a camera is nebulous
Sounds like a Sony user.
>>2788138
Pretty sure Sony users hold their cameras too. Low quality shitposting, m7.
How much of a difference is there between the canon 50 1.4 vs the ssc version?
Price doesn't really matter because they're both dirt cheap on ebay but just wondering
>>2788085
Yea, I honestly thought it had.
No doubt Pentax is one of the "other" brands that tries to add features to even low-end cameras, rather than intentionally removing them to create more layers of products (hello CaNikon...)
>>2788132
> Nobody shoots anything with Sony except pets and planters.
Reality check:
https://www.flickr.com/search/?view_all=1&text=a6000
https://www.flickr.com/search/?view_all=1&text=a7S
>>2788151
>a6000
So many plants and pets and one fat girl
>>2787970
>Dic&Mic E302C
Nice, is there a way to make that center column shorter? One of the things I like about the Dolica TX570DS
>>2788182
No, it can only extend, not retract further, but you can invert it if you want to have it only a few millimeters above ground.
>>2788255
You and your Sony buttbuddy had your first and last warning. Make your own argument thread!
Better yet, take this shit off the board itself. Get a fucking room!
>>2788255
>Cool
Yep
>Relevant
Not sure...
>>2788259
There's more than one of them. You can't contain it, it's pointless to try. The only thing each side can do to stop it is to ignore other posts and stop getting triggered and baiting the other group.
The ironic thing is that they're arguing over which is better. Feature vs feature.
A film SLR does everything both cameras do and better.
>>2788255
No, they could have picked a more interesting X photographer to focus on.
>>2788263
>Relevant
>Not sure...
>>2788259
Most of the annoying Fuji shit lately is the same idiotic Sony faggot. You can tell because it comes out of the blue, isn't related to the topic at hand, and seems like a caricature. Actual Fuji shills just state the features of the camera and occasionally post photos.
>>2788268
Funny that most of the video, I was thinking "These would be great photos, but the video quality on this sucks. I wonder if they did with with the XPro2? Where are all the colors? Maybe that's his point that it looks like shit..."
So what you're really saying is that even Fuji fags use Sony cameras more than Sony fags do.
>>2788271
>but the video quality on this sucks
What a shame.
>>2788272
Not sure where "what a shame" is supposed to lead, but either way, the look of the video is fairly obviously the processing, rather than any failing of the camera. If someone is looking for a video camera, no Fuji fag will say "You should get a Fuji"
I have never shot a video in my life, however, so a video function is pretty useless to me.
>>2788255
Could have been sharper and less grainy and shot with a lens that has less mushy unsharpness even near the center (really, it's quite distracting...)
Soundtrack and what was shot is okay.
>>2788274
Keep in mind it's just a vimeo compressed version of the original video which only mr. Harvery and the client has access to.
>>2787788
When I said cheaper, I did not mean canon to sony, but the crop E mount vs full frame lenses. The a7r did have shutter slap, which was a problem from 1s to 1/60s shutter speeds I believe. Also the a6300 with a pancake lens is fucking tiny compared to the t3i.
Opinions? I just want a dece portable camera.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties:
>>2788342
Get an X20 instead if you absolutely must get the looks.
Also look at the first two Sony RX100s.
>>2788342
It is portable and a camera, I guess it will be good for you
This is so cheap, what's the catch?
>>2788347
The catch is it's also bad.
>>2788352
B-but it has the red ring ;_;
>>2788347
Never heard of this lens and not going to bother googling it (which would give you a definite answer) but likely:
>shit IQ
>probably not true macro (probably something like 1:2, 1:3, or 1:5) and is just a closer focusing lens
>probably fully manual
>probably has terrible CA and flaring problems
>no IS/VR/whatever the company calls image stabilization
Just save up the extra $150 and get the 75-300mm IS II or whatever that first party one at around $300 used is.
>>2788353
Not the good kind. Forget it, it has no detail rendition, low contrast, Af hunts like it's fucking duck season.
It's bad.
>24-35mm
Is there even a point to having a zoom lens in this range?
This thing might as well be a Prime lens.
>>2788353
no, it has a red ring, not the red ring
>>2788363
...if you think 24mm is anything like 35mm, then you have a lot to learn about focal lengths.
>>2788347
It's trash. I was photo ed on my college paper back in '09 or so, and we had some of those. I tried one out once and it was horrific even on a 30D. (I had my own gear but wanted to see what the guys I was sending out on assignment were stuck with.)
>>2788363
I kind of have the same thoughts on it, but I figure it's like having a 24, 28, and 35 all in one lens, and apparently you don't lose much in the way of IQ compared to 1.8 primes. It's pretty affordable, not much more than one of Sigma's 1.4 primes, and might be nice for a situation in which you don't want to change lenses much or when you just want to bring a body and one lens and know you'll shoot wide.
Now that I think about it, it's actually a pretty decent range. You get a wide enough wide for landscape shots and stuff like that, and then 35 is long enough to shoot closer subjects like people without terrible distortion.
>>2788363
you think thats bad, look at the Tokina 11-16
>>2788401
...you know on crop bodies, that's a 25% difference in field of view, right?
You also know that the wider the angle, the more dramatic differences in focal lengths are, right? Like how an 8mm is very different from a 10mm, but a 100mm and a 102mm would be basically the same?
>>2788401
That is just like the Sigma, actually. A ~1.5x zoom ratio lens. (Compare 35/24 to 16/11).
In both cases, you might possibly have a stand-in for 2-3 prime lenses.
Just got my new ND filter
>>2788388
>and then 35 is long enough to shoot closer subjects like people without terrible distortion.
The distortion thing has me a bit worried. It's kind of like when people say a 15mm will cause crazy distortions and make people appear shorter/wider than they are, right?
Wouldn't a 35mm just be a better wide lens in general then?
>>2788467
35 is generally considered a normal, not a wide.
Google up perspective distortion.
Wheres the cheapest place I can buy a 5D Mark 3? I don't care about grey import and I live in Australia if that matters
>>2788469
>35 is considered a normal on APS-C
fixed it for you
Olympus PEN E-PL6
is it worth the $300 if i want to take pictures of skateboarders
or should i hold out for something else?
>>2788758
You can take photos of skateboarders with any camera, the question is what kind of photos you want.
First of all, IBIS is a good thing, MFT sensor not so good considering wide angle lenses.
Also you will need high shutter speed so fast lenses are a must.
It can be used if you can add a second camera for closer and more in-action shots, like a GoPro or YiCam.
The most problematic is the focus system, the E-PL6 can't focus fast enough or track moving subjects. I'd suggest getting an APS-C DSLR instead. An older Canon like a 40D or a Nikon D90 or D5200, maybe even a Pentax K-30/K-50 would be better suited for this kind of shots.
>>2788758
Hold out for an entry level DLSR like a Nikon D3300 (or whatever the canon equivalent is). The Olympus Pen cameras have really had their moment in the sun and they're fading away now. The sensor tech is old and the cameras do not offer any value over conventional SLR cameras.
For skateboarding you'll probably want a wide angle fisheye lens. Nikon and Canon are the two most popular lens mounts in the world, meaning whichever camp you choose you'll be able to get the right lens for the job, which can't exactly be said for the Olympus mount
I wanna have some fun with photography but i never did before so i want to ask you which camera should i buy as my first. I was thinking about sony dsc h300 but im not sure. Can anyone recommend a good camera for beginners?
>>2788764
Any entry level DSLR like Nikon D3x00, Canon 1200D/100D, Pentax K-50 or some older mirrorless like a Sony NEX-5n will be good for a beginner. With these you can try most aspects of photography, for example portraits, landscape, cityscape, architecture, some basic not much acion sports shots etc...
Buying used can lower the costs, also be sure it has at least a basic kit lens.
>>2788764
I forgot to add: whatever you do, do NOT buy a bridge or superzoom camera. You will regret it.
>>2788767
Okay, I'll look for the used cameras you recommend. Thanks!
I found this camera online - is anyone able to ID it for me?
>>2788794
It's a Fujifilm
>>2788794
Looks like a Fujifilm, my man.
>>2788794
Fuji Tiara
>>2786632
No.
If you want a pocketable fuji get the X70. Even that is pushing it depending what kind of clothes you wear.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make OLYMPUS CORPORATION Camera Model E-M10MarkII Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS5.1 Macintosh Maximum Lens Aperture f/3.5 Color Filter Array Pattern 898 Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 28 mm Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 3913 Image Height 2201 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 2016:01:14 11:12:59 Exposure Time 1/25 sec F-Number f/3.5 Exposure Program Shutter Priority ISO Speed Rating 200 Lens Aperture f/3.5 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 14.00 mm Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 610 Image Height 343 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Gain Control Low Gain Up Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal
>>2788794
FujiFilm DL Super Mini aka Tiara
hey /p/ I'm looking for a small and especially cheap camera I can carry on me at (almost) all time, so I can practice more often. I regularly find myself in a position where I see a sweet shot but haven't got my DSLR on me because I normally cannot be fucked dragging it along.
So basically looking for a camera that is:
- Cheap
- Small
- Decent image quality (and able to shoot RAW)
- Digital
- Cheap
Something like the ricoh GR, but cheaper. Any reccomendations?
>>2788851
Used ricoh GR
Your cell phone
>>2788851
Yicam? Your cell phone?
> because I normally cannot be fucked dragging it along
Wear a backpack or something.
>>2786646
rent it first
I've a question, my 5d2 died last week; should I get a clearance 5d3 or wait for the 5d4?
I mostly use magic lantern for video.
>>2788881
If you don't want to wait for a year or more then get the 5DMkIII.
>>2788881
Obviously just get the the 5D III or an A7R II with adapter.
It'll be a while until the 5D IV is out.
SONY IS KING.
>>2788889
King of sucking your mom's dick
So I've sold off the last of my crop lenses and now need so fool frame ones.
Already have a 50mm f/1.8 and a 24-70mm f/2.8 so looking at maybe a 35mm f/1.4, 85mm f/1.8 and a 70-200mm f/2.8?
That solid range for fool frame /p/?
>>2788905
For what, retard.
If you don't know exactly what focal length you need, you don't need it. Don't play pokemon with your lenses.
>>2788905
>70-200mm f/2.8
>f/2.8
f/4 ones are much lighter also cheaper, I used mine with a 2x extender
>>2788909
>f/8 lens
Hope you have a monster camera that can focus at those apertures. Most don't.
>>2788910
>how do I math
Go back to school
It was more around f/6. Aperture is already a multiplicative factor.
>>2788912
With a 2x teleconverter, you lose two stops.
f/4 > f/5.6 > f/8
>>2788914
this
>>2788909
6D, for instance, won't focus unless the lens is at least f/5.6. An f/8 lens won't work on it.
>>2788910
400mm at 2lb and 1500$ is pretty much a good deal
>>2788922
Not if it won't autofocus, and you can't get a good shot because your max aperture is f/8. It's fine for some situations on some cameras, but for many others, not so much. For portraits, for instance (the main use for a 70-200 lens) it's not going to be very good.
>>2788922
For that much, you're better off with a used 80-400.
fuji X70 or panny LX100?
both are in roughly the same price range (the X100S/T is slightly out my range otherwise i'd be a hipster fag and get that), i'm interested in both primarily for the convenience of a premium compact (otherwise i'd get the A6000 or an m4/3) and i'll mostly be snapping on the streets or whatever catches my eye
the GRs are cheaper but the general handling of the X70 and LX100 are why i'd prefer both over a GR
>>2788992
Nikon dl 18-50
>>2788992
The GR has the upper hand on both due to sensor size.
Also the GR handling is tailored to people who can work a camera, not really automated for instagram people. If you want to shoot street, see if the GR special features (more specifically the snap focus) are available on those two.
Why I'm saying is the two cameras you mentioned and the GR are very different cameras. Those two are more of a generic point-and-shoot family snapper while the GR is more of a street artist tool. You need to decide first what you actually want and what kind of tool you need for it.
>>2788992
LX100 has more versatility. Get that.
>>2788999
>Nikon dl 18-50
What a joke.
>>2788999
i was considering the upcoming nikon compacts, but the LX100 is a similar package with a larger sensor and is also cheaper, and if i want to wait for those to roll out i could just wait for an LX200
>>2789001
i had a long ass reply for this but realised i was just pointlessly shilling the LX100 and X70's features, so i'll just say i agree with you that the GR is more specialized but the features on both the other cameras weigh in more on my decision to get one or the other
Is there are point when the perspective distortion just becomes too severe for landscapes and architecture?
Maybe below 18mm?
Below 21mm?
>>2789010
If it's rectilinear, it is good for architecture.
Landscapes can work with rectilinear and fisheye distortion also.
The lens barrel/pincushion/mustache distortion is different, it can be addressed in post or in camera.
>>2789010
Perspective distortion has nothing to do with the focal length of your lens.
>>2789010
See for yourself. This is 8mm.
It really depends on if there's foreground. Any fisheye shot of the horizon in the middle, is flat and straight-lined.
Any foreground stretches right up to the front and looks funky sometimes.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Canon Camera Model Canon EOS 6D Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.1 (Windows) Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2016:02:21 10:18:37 Exposure Time 1/125 sec Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 100 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Spot Flash No Flash, Compulsory Color Space Information sRGB Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Manual Scene Capture Type Standard
>>2789010
>>2789015
Another example of 8mm, can't really tell it's a massive fisheye in this one as well.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Canon Camera Model Canon EOS 6D Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.1 (Windows) Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2016:02:08 18:16:48 Exposure Time 1/30 sec Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 100 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Spot Flash No Flash, Compulsory Color Space Information sRGB Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Manual Scene Capture Type Standard
>>2789016
The cloud stripes have the distinctive "arch", it's fairly obvious. It's still a good shot.
