File: Sticky2.gif (2 KB, 105x128) Image search: [Google]

2 KB, 105x128

Why is Sony so incredible? I mean, how can nikon/canon/fuji/pentax even compete with the A6300?

Retarded question time:

I have a 6D and just got a 70-200 f4 IS. Is it safe to place the setup on the table with the hood on or does this put too much pressure on the front of the lens?

>>2789196
You'll be just fine. It's a tough kit.

>>2789196
You can mount it by the lens with a tripod collar. This way the body is dangling off the lens putting far more stress than sitting on a table, and these things are designed to take these and some more.
Don't worry, you can put it on the table.

>>2789199
>>2789200

Thanks guys. It was a big expense for me and I want to take care of it as well as I can.

Hi, my friend is selling his Nikon d60 for 150€. Is this a good deal? Hows the camera quality wise?

>>2789209
You can find both the used price, and reviews for the camera, with a cursory google search.

File: 00X7hB-271517584[1].jpg (213 KB, 675x536) Image search: [Google]

213 KB, 675x536

I'm looking for a medium format film camera I can carry around relatively easily and not worry too much about damaging. Either high durability or low cost would be OK, as long as cost isn't so low the camera isn't terrible.

I borrow a Mamiya 7 a lot but it feels very fragile and I'm always worried about bonking it into something and suddenly being down $1500.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

>>2789209
It was a good camera. Not so now but if you know the limitations you can work around it. What kind of things do you plan to shoot?

>>2789209
It's very old. If you're a eurofag, 160 - 200 eur can get you a d3100 with a kit lens.

With a newer model you'll get less risk of it breaking down on you (less Shutter actuations)

>>2789209
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d60.htm
It's a long read but you can learn a lot about the camera. When you're done please don't forget to leave a donation, Ken supports his growing family from his website.

>>2789212
Nothing too fancy would use it on my travels.
>>2789216
>>2789220
Thanks I'll look into it.

File: Fuji_X100S.jpg (55 KB, 610x343) Image search: [Google]

55 KB, 610x343

i want to buy a x100s or a xpro1
how bad its the autofocus,batterylife and the rangefinder on the x100s?, after the hype what the owners think about it? or maybe the xpro1 its better?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS5.1 Macintosh
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	900
Image Height	506
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2013:01:08 10:54:44
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	610
Image Height	343

How do you edit your Nikon files? I find that the colors that I get out of Nikon files are ugly compared to Fuji and Canon.
How can I change it? They're often muted, tones are bad, no liveliness at all.
Not just a VSCO job, what editing techniques can I use?

>>2789260
>How can I change it? They're often muted, tones are bad, no liveliness at all.
Buy a Sony.

>>2789263
Fuck off

>>2789260
Look up Lightroom and Photoshop tutorials, color and tone editing etc...

>>2789182
so i just purchased my first film camera to start my 35 experience. Its a amazing nikon f4s with a nikkor 24mm f/2.8 lens. However im looking for a 50mm lens that would work with the camera. Obviously it needs to be a f mount and have a manual aperture ring. Can you guys recommend me a decent for the price of around 50-75 dollars on ebay?

>>2789196
You'll be fine. People have tossed around bigger and more expensive equipment in day to day use with no ill effect. Think about 5d3s and 70-200/2.8s being thrown around as workhorse setups.

>>2789260
Do you even post process? Do you know why people shoot with flat picture profiles or RAW?

>>2789230
The x100s is faster than the x pro 1 but still very slow. I have one, and I'm conflicted. The viewfinder is amazing, would hate to use just evf. The files, when you get a good picture, are wonderful.

Overall though it is very slow and and in general is a bad camera. Battery life is fairly bad. If I had to do it all over I would probably sacrifice the OVF and a few megapixels and buy an lx100.

Idk what you mean by how bad is the rangefinder, there is no rangefinder.

>>2789260
Post a raw. Let's see it.
Make sure it's one where the light is good and the colors in the scene are vibrant in real life.

>>2789260

Holy fuck we need to make a sticky about camera profiles.

Develop module.
Scroll the right panel down to Camera Calibration.
Select the drop down menu for Profile.
Pick a profile other than (presumably) Adobe Standard. Vivid is a good start.

>>2789297
Not that guy, but isn't the color profile stored in the RAW itself? I never had it go to Adobe Standard, it's always on Embedded.

>>2789230

Autofocus is decent but who cares you should be manually focusing.
Battery life is lousy.
Viewfinder (I assume that's what you mean) is fantastic.

I shoot my D810 and X100s pretty evenly and find that I get more keepers out of my X100s. Low light performance is surprisingly good, tons of DR, and once you get the hang of the weird tricks, it's a great little camera.

The Xpro1 is a little newer and little more versatile. I also wouldn't discount it. The X-mount is also the most adaptable mount on the market, so you can use pretty much any lens you want on it.

>>2789302

No, it's not stored in the RAW unless you use Nikon's proprietary software (which is super powerful and free, but clunky).

>>2789305
I have in-camera DNG

>>2789287
Have you, maybe, considered looking at Nikon's 50mm lenses? Perhaps comparing the price points and features of their various generations?

Because if you haven't, go kill yourself.

>>2789297
>not using camera neutral
Do you even DR?

>>2789312
>not using camera neutral
>Do you even DR?

I do, but homegirl was whining about how flat his images looked. Vivid is a good start. Once he grasps how camera profiles affect his image, he can start playing with other settings.

Also, DR shouldn't always be the end-all in post processing. There's something to be said for dramatic contrast.

File: Ricoh-GR-II-vs-Sony-Cyber-shot-DSC-RX100-IV-size-comparison[1].jpg (45 KB, 720x313) Image search: [Google]

45 KB, 720x313

So guys my dilemma and solution is, i want a decent wide angle lens and i also want an everyday carry compact camera.

I have a 2nd hand D700 right now and i just cant afford the expensive full frame lenses anymore.

So i figured since i need a wide angle and want a compact camera too:

How about i just get a Sony CyberShot RX100 IV? or Ricoh GR II?

I was thinking the Sony because i'd like some good video capability too.

Anyone have experience with these two cameras? am i gonna be downgrading in terms of image quality or noise performance?

>>2789322
>has a DSLR
Get the GRII. It's a camera for people who know what a camera is.
The RX100 is for families in the park

>>2789322
...you can't afford a $300 lens but you can afford a $1k compact?

>>2789325

Where did he say he can't afford a $300 lens?

>>2789328
When he said he wants a wide angle but can't afford "expensive full frame lenses".

>>2789328
>>2789329
I mean he could have been trying to say that he wanted a wide angle and a compact, but that's not really how it reads...

*shrugs* in any event I can't really see what the price of lenses has to do with getting a compact...maybe moving to some flavor of crop, but not compacts.

>>2789325
>>2789329

i just mean i would rather not spend that much on a lens when photography is just a hobby for me.

>>2789324
ok thanks, seems to be cheaper too

>>2789322
A6000. No reason to get an RX100.

File: Sony-Alpha-a6000-vs-Sony-Cyber-shot-DSC-RX100-IV-top-view-size-comparison[1].jpg (34 KB, 720x293) Image search: [Google]

34 KB, 720x293

>>2789337
the fact that i can put an RX100 in my pocket??

>>2789340
ha eat shit >>2789337

the only reason why I bought the RX100mk3 for my mother, cause its small and performs pretty well equal if not better than most entry level DSLR systems, its unlikely you'd bring the A6000 to a social occasion over a RX100.

>>2789260
Canon and Fuji tint most things ugly red *in the in-camera JPEG processing*.

Nikon is more neutral, but if you like the looks of a Canon, yank up the reds.

If you're talking about RAWs, IDK what is going wrong.

>>2789343
>its unlikely you'd bring the A6000 to a social occasion over a RX100
You would if you wanted good photos. An a6000 would easily fit in your jacket pocket and it's not as if it's significantly bulkier.

>>2789352
nananana I've used the RX100 at a heap of parties and it just fucking rocks, the quality is more than enough for a social occasion. and I hate the argument that a camera could fit in a jacket pocket - who the fuck wears such a large jacket and you'd only wear it in winter, wtf am i meant to do with it in summer you dopey cunt

>>2789337
A6000 and GR are better for stills. The RX100 is a better video recorder. Especially the latest one which can record really high frame rates.

>>2789355
Never heard of a blazer or suit jacket, m8?

>>2789370
hahahah there is no way I could fit an A6000 in a blazer without looking like a tool with a bulging pocket.
and there is not a snowflake's chance in hell I could fit an A6000 in my summer suit jacket without splitting it apart

>>2789370
only a fat fuck could fit an a6000 in their blazer and suit jacket and maybe pull it off, it might look like a socket of fat

>>2789303
>>2789290
thanks thats what im looking for, real toughts about the camera., the range finder i mean de Optical, how good o bad its? im going to change my olympus omd e5 because its too slow to power on the EVF

Anon, is it true that almost all Sigma lenses lack Micro-contrast/Depht so the images all look flat?
It happens that I recently bought a Sigma 17-50 2.8 and it looks flat compared to my 35mm 1.8g dx (Same everything on photo) and also to my kit lens, despite it being softer.

>>2789497
Older Sigma lenses and the cheap superzoom lenses lack contrast but the newer lenses including the 17-50 are quite nice.
The word you are looking for is spherical chromatization, if the lens is well corrected then there is very minimal chromatic aberration in the image making it look flat. You can add the contrast and adjust colors in post, but it will never be like those images made with older prime designs showing more lively images. It is a common issue with modern lenses.
The 35/1.8 G is an older design and the spherical chromatization is small enough to not fuck up the image and big enough to make a distinct colorization to the things in front and back of the in focus plane. You can use this to your advantage, using the 35/1.8 for people and events/street and the flat image of the 17-50 is more aesthetic on landscape shots, gives a more distinct look and widens space.

>>2789506
Thanks a lot anon! I will read about Spherical Chromatization.

>>2789510
There's not much on it, Pentax users call it "pixie dust" but that's it. Actually it is more useful info because the best lenses are labeled as such and easy to find. For your Nikon if it has the screwdrive AF drive you can look for older Nikkor lenses, mostly primes to give you the lively pixie dust look.

>>2789523
Or if you've got $1000 kicking around, the 105 or 135 F2 DC.

File: 002.jpg (335 KB, 800x600) Image search: [Google]

335 KB, 800x600

nice gear, bro

Is an olympus PEN EP1 a decent mirrorless to use for everyday carry (when I am not able to bring my DSLR) or are there better small digital camera's I can get for less than 200 euro used?

>>2789552
Use your phone instead or save up for a GR

>>2789370
>ACTUALLY PUTS SOMETHING BIGGER THAN A METRO CARD INTO THEIR SUIT JACKET

I BET YOU WEAR A SMART VEST, TOO

How well do Canon lenses work with the A7ii with the Metabones adapter nowadays?

What's the verdict on the eBay Chinese equipment? I want a "just in case" small flash unit but really don't want to spend a lot, and looking round ebay there are LOTS of cheap small Chinese flashes. (http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/like/Viltrox-JY-610C-Mini-On-camera-Speedlite-for-Canon-750D-760D-DSLR-Camera-H5J8/201508918565?hlpht=true&ops=true&viphx=1&_trksid=p2050601.c100280.m3483&_trkparms=aid%3D222007%26algo%3DSIC.MBE%26ao%3D1%26asc%3D20140729111637%26meid%3Daa73d70f3f4c4797821d42b66de9b244%26pid%3D100280%26rk%3D1%26rkt%3D4%26sd%3D281668817528%26clkid%3D3892680259018173251&_qi=RTM2108032 for example).

I like it because it's compact and can sit in my bag without taking up too much space -- I don't intend to use it unless I want to take a quick picture of something in the dark or an off-hand portrait. I've been looking at old film flashes which you can get for pennies but I'd rather not fry the 5-6V TTL circuitry with 300...

>>2789583 here
So, it turns out the 5D has a 250V flash threshold, so old film flashes should work. Is there any I should look out for? I have a feeling I'll need to shoot completely manual though.

>>2789583
>that url
You only need http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/like/Viltrox-JY-610C-Mini-On-camera-Speedlite-for-Canon-750D-760D-DSLR-Camera-H5J8/201508918565 m8

>>2789582
Sigma is releasing an adapter that ensures all electronic functions work. MC-11 I think is what it's called. Not out yet but there is a video about it.

>>2789588
Just did a quick google and it looks like that adapter will only work for Sigma EF lenses :(

>>2789588
It's going to be a third party adapter going on a third party body considering the lens. It will never work as well as on a first party body.
It will be a Metabones again, working with some lenses and not with others. The point is nobody knows which and how well.
No reason to get hyped about it or obsess over it.

>>2789587
safe bruv, now are they decent?

I want a pouch and a wrist strap for my GR, what to get?

>>2789595
Not much better than an on-board flash. Just get a Yongnuo, there is a TTL version for Canon.
Strange thing is they are more reliable than first party flashes.

>>2789322
i was having a look and found out about the Fujifilm X70. The camera looks to be great, i really want it lol.

Anyone used the Fujifilm X70? How is the noise performance? How is video?

It looks like a great camera for a decent price.

>>2789635
The sensor inside is the same as the X-T1, X-E2, X100t, etc. So you can look at samples from those cameras to see sensor quality (It's very good)

Video on the other hand, is bad. You don't buy Fuji if you want video. The processors inside aren't beefy enough to handle quality video so you get very nasty compression, moire, and artifacts. For a video of some native girl giving you head for your spank bank, it's okay, but if you want to actually "do video" you should look elsewhere.

anyone wanna trade a canon 35mm f/1.4L for a sigma 50mm art?

>>2789637
Thanks i was planning on just using the video for social stuff anyway.

I'm pretty sold on this camera @__@

Will see if they have it in stores tomorrow so i can try it out.

File: s-l1000.jpg (62 KB, 800x800) Image search: [Google]

62 KB, 800x800

So, I bought my very first camera: a Panasonic Lumix LX7.
I got it used with a practical automatic lenscover and 2 additional batteries for 200 Eurobucks.
I watched some videos on how to adjust the settings to be optimal (or the best standard setting for everyday photography). So far so good, I shot some Photos and tried to get acustomed to the controls. Unfortunately I am a total noob in regards to photography but I really want to make awesome looking portraits.
So I specifically ask you /p/eople:
how do I capture the best portraits with my new baby? With which settings should/shouldn't I tinker?

pic related (not mine though)

>>2789599
5D has no onboard. I'll look into the yongnuo.

>>2789707
Because on-board tier flashes are not good for anything.
The Yongnuo will be much better for you, the newest one has integrated RF trigger and can connect to other Yongnuo slaves.

>>2789599
A yongnuo on the hotshoe will be more powerful, but will look just as bad as onboard flash. It's not the flash that's the problem, it's the on-axis light that's a different color temperature than the rest of the scene.

Getting a yongnuo and then getting it off the camera and probably behind a modifier would be an improvement.

>>2789718
Bounce it off the wall or getting one of the cheap Yongnuo RF modules is the right solution.
On-axis is okay if you can work with it, putting a softbox on, setting it less powerful, setting the off camera one more powerful and holding it at arms length etc...
Even with a single flash it opens up a lot of options, you just have to be creative.

File: 1.png (3 KB, 248x376) Image search: [Google]

3 KB, 248x376

These Voightlander lenses caught my interest since they were so well priced. I don't mind that they are all manual focus.

Does anyone have any tips of which of them perform well optically, and which of them have some issues?

>>2789760
I had a 35mm f/2.8 color skopar classic that was fantastic optically. Small, great build quality, pretty. I loved it.

They aren't made for DSLRs though, so hopefully you're talking about mirrorless or a rangefinder film cam.

>>2789182
Amazon literally sold out of A6300s already, and it's not even noon CST. body only and body+kit lens. Damn

>>2789762
Yes, I'm adapting them to mirrorless.

The 35mm Nokton in particular looks insanely compact for what it is. But since I don't have any experience with voightlander I think I'm going into the wishful-thinking trap.

Something with such a large aperture in such small lens must have an issue somewhere...

>>2789635
I bought it and loved the IQ, but realized i cant live without a viewfinder. The hybrid on the x100t is amazing so im returning the x70 and waiting for a deal on an x100t.

The x70 is pretty small, if you have big hands you might struggle with the controls. The wide angle lens is beautiful and imo the camera is well worth the price if it suits your needs.

How do I store my lenses to maximally safeguard against mold?

In a bag with desiccants perhaps?

>>2789766
XPro2 is back ordered 1 to 3 months.

>>2789773
Dry.
>In a bag with desiccants perhaps
Indeed.

>>2789773
I keep my lenses in a DIY drybox, a sealed transparent plastic box from Tesco with a Ceresit desiccant inside.
The camera with a lens mounted and the accessories is in a small DSLR bag.

What's a good canon lens for landscapes?

>>2789805
That is very broad, anything from 10mm to 200mm can be used.

>>2789805
Sigma Art 20/35/50mm primes? Or the 24-35? Maybe the 18-50 on APS-C?

YMMV.

>>2789805
It depends on how you approach landscapes, and what sensor size you have. We can't tell you what's best for you.

>>2789694
Please respond

or direct me to the correct thread, I didn't find it.

>>2789838
Good portraits are not about camera settings, they are about light, connection with your subject, wardrobe, background selection, and your ability to capture the right moments. Get the exposure right, and the rest is out of the camera.

Unless you are specifically trying to use perspective distortion for an artistic effect, you should work to be between 10 to 15 feet from your subject, and then zoom in to whatever framing works best for you.

>>2789805
People usually use the 35mm on both APS-C and FF for landscapes and panorama. Th generic babbys frst prime nifty 35 on all systems is good for this, Nikon 35/1.8 G, Pentax DA 35/2.4, DA 35/2.8 XS and Limited, I dunno if Canon has one.
Samyang/Rokinon has a baller 35mm manual focus lens that is a beast for landscape and astro, has better sharpness than first party and almost no distortion, no chromatisation, coma and spherical distortion in the corners so it is an excellent astrophotography/starscape lens.

>>2789694
It's not the best camera for portraits, but use aperture priority and experiment with the depth of field. With strong backlight use your flash.

>>2789842
>Get the exposure right
Alright, what does that mean? I assume it's the technical term.

>>2789845
It means don't make your image be under exposed,or over exposed. Have you read your camera's manual yet? If not, do so, at least twice. It will explain a LOT of what you're unsure about.

>>2789845
Understanding Exposure by Bryan Peterson
read it.

>>2789838
The thing to do for amateur portraits?

You find/set up an adequate background, apply makeup, set up 2-3 strobes (YN560 III/IV + TX is my suggestion) on light stands, put diffusers in front of them (ideally fairly big diffusers, maybe an octagon or big umbrella - Godox has some nice inexpensive stuff) and maybe a reflector, and trigger them.

Yea, ideally you'd be working with studio strobes, a better lens, a better camera and stuff, but you can already get far with above setup.

>>2789844
Thanks
>>2789846
I am halfway through.
>>2789849
>>2789847
Okay, I realise that I have been too amitious in the way I phrased my question. I don't want to buy more equipment, just use what I got: the camera and myself.

>>2789855
> I don't want to buy more equipment, just use what I got: the camera and myself.
I guess you can try to do your best with sunlight or other strong existing light sources, maybe shoot in areas where light naturally bounces off a white wall or your bed sheets or something, and try to do your best in post with photoshop...

But if you don't happen to stumble across ideal shooting situations / locations, results will be fairly shit, sorry.

File: master_prime_lenses_stage_01.jpg (36 KB, 980x448) Image search: [Google]

36 KB, 980x448

Why are these so expensive.

>>2789865
do you really need to ask?

>>2789865

Because they aren't consumer lenses.

>>2789865
Optically excellent, fast aperture, corrective elements, low demand.

>>2789869
>>2789870
I wish they were more affordable ;_;

>>2789855
Be sure the sunlight is hitting the subject form one side and is not directly behind your back. Direct lighting makes portraits boring, light coming from the sides can emphasize the facial structure and is much more aesthetic. Backlighting (sun behind the subject is to be avoided but in some cases can make a nice photo if your flash is powerful enough to fill light on the subject.

File: 123630658716.jpg (141 KB, 529x359) Image search: [Google]

141 KB, 529x359

>>2789871
>12 mm/T1.3
>2.9 kg / 6.4 lbs
>156 mm / 6.1'' Front diameter

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS3 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2008:10:14 14:06:12
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	529
Image Height	359

>>2789859
>>2789874
Again, thanks for your input.

>>2789872

They aren't meant for individual ownership. A studio will own them. A rental shop will own them.

It's not like the cinematographer shows up on set with a bag of his own personal lenses.

>>2789872
Join the millions of people that make enough money to afford multiple of these a year. It always sucks to be poor.

Yes, I know this is not such helpful advice - but neither is wishful thinking about the high end of video lenses or other video equipment becoming cheap soon.

Plebs like us will just be using the $5k or less lenses for now, or rent the expensive gear for as short a period of time as possible...

wondering why more people transition to nikon from canon than the other way around.

the camera my company provides is a 5DMRKIII & II and been meaning to buy my own camera an the nikon d810 seems appealing. anyone can comment why they made the transition?

>>2789872
Why? The benefit over a normal lens is so ridiculously small that it make next to no difference. You should be using some $40 M42 lens, and focusing on lighting and scene design, and processing, and sound. All things that are MUCH more important than the lens used.

>>2789908
Because other companies are making improvements that normal people can take advantage of, and Canon isn't. Canon sensors have had nearly the exact same image quality since about 2008. They've made improvements to sports level autofocus in the super high end bodies but that doesn't benefit 99 out of 100 photographers. There's nothing drawing people to Canon whatsoever, other than the draw of using what the pros use on the sidelines.

>>2789908
>wondering why more people transition to nikon from canon than the other way around.
They don't. The internet just makes it seem that way.

>>2789914
They've improved more. But yea, it's mostly the 5D III and above that feels okay as compared to the overall market (even without paying very much attention to the Canon's higher prices).

File: 35mm_f1_7_ultron_stehend_silber.png (260 KB, 667x414) Image search: [Google]

260 KB, 667x414

The silver looks way cooler, but it weighs 330 grams.
The black one is so standard, but it weighs 100 grams less which is better for the upcoming autofocus adapter.

I wish I didn't have to choose like this, I prefer one for the shiny look, but the other for the low weight ;_;

File: 15694.jpg (188 KB, 830x1110) Image search: [Google]

188 KB, 830x1110

>>2789916
The 5Dmk3 has the same issues with the image quality as every other Canon sensor. It just has a nicer autofocus system, designed to keep up with sports that nearly nobody shoots.

File: 1423885678274.jpg (244 KB, 1846x1212) Image search: [Google]

244 KB, 1846x1212

>>2789924

>this hoary old cliche getting posted again

>>2789916
Did you ever see the Top Gear episode where they take a really crappy slow car and try to make it faster by adding brakes and shocks and sway bars and stuff, but don't touch the engine?

That's what Canon's doing. They're beefing up everything but the engine, and it's past a point where most people want it, and yet it still can't come close to keeping up with the rest of the pack.

On the other end of the spectrum, you have Sony, who has put a 1400 horsepower engine into their mom's Camry without touching the suspension, steering, tires, etc.

Nikon, Pentax, and Fuji are half way in between, taking the monster Sony sensors, and putting them into bodies that work well, are comfortable to use, and have nice ecosystems to support it all.

>>2789929
Feel free to post a more updated version. I guarantee it looks exactly the same (or worse, in the case of the new 5D offerings)

>>2789931
>implying people necessarily want or need a faster "engine"

When will idiots like you realize that not everyone has the same priorities as you?

>>2789933
He asked why people are abandoning Canon. I told him. I didn't say anything about the people who aren't abandoning Canon, of which there are many.

>When will idiots like you realize that not everyone has the same priorities as you?
The irony...

>>2789932

How about any canon photo that doesn't need to be pulled up 5 stops? It'll look pretty much indistinguishable from any other camera.

>>2789938
if you don't do medium to hard edits, Canon will treat you just fine, but for many types of photography where you can't control the lighting, you need to pick between highlights and shadows, and with an ISO invariant sensor, you can make that decision without much hassle.

I personally traded a full frame Canon kit for a Fuji kit, and find that I manipulate "too far for Canon" on about 1/3rd of my photos.

You'll find that the people who shoot stuff that requires the least dramatic editing (Sports, Documentary, Studio work) are the people who are still happy with Canon. These are the most lucrative people to cater to in the photo world, person to person, so Canon is still doing just fine.

>>2789778
That's impressive, but Sony has a wayyy bigger supply chain than Fuji does

>>2789964
And none of it contains lens. Or videogames. Only PS4 and A7RII

I have the opportunity to buy a good condition 5dmrkii with 130,000 shutter count for 800$. Would this be worth it or is the camera too far gone?

File: Screenshot 2016-03-10 16.18.41.png (119 KB, 1129x609) Image search: [Google]

119 KB, 1129x609

>>2789969
http://www.olegkikin.com/shutterlife/canon_eos5dmkii.htm

>>2789969
Depends on what you shoot. It is still very capable for studio and landscape.

>>2789973
Are you referring to the shutter or the camera in general?

>>2789972
Thanks for that!

>>2789982
I think he wasn't paying attention to the shutter count/didn't know that was a thing.

Anyway:
http://www.unitedcamera.com/canon-eos-5d-mark-ii/#ShowSelections
if you pick, shutter, it's showing a repair price of about $170.

I just sold my 5D iii and will be solely shooting with the iPhone 6s plus for the next 6 months. come follow my journey

>>2789982
>>2789987
Replacing the shutter is a cheap and easy service. You might as well get it done when you buy it, you might bring the price down mentioning the shutter "issue".

>>2789760
>>2789768
I own 3 of those, the 28, 35 PII, and 40 Nokton. Unless you're set on using it on a camera with framelines, I'd get the 40 over the 35 if you need the 1,4. The difference in FoV is close to negligable and there is a decent cost savings (I got mine for $350, where as you'd be ~$500 for same condition 35). I still keep the 35 PII because it really is compact enough to make a camera pocketable. If you want the 35 for sure, I'd look at saving up for the 1,7 Ultron or 1,2 ($750 / $800).

Whichever you get, I'd really recommend ponying up for a nicer adapter. A lot of cheap ones have too much flex which ends up degrading the sharpness quite a bit.

>>2789991
There is a new Autofocus adapter from Techart which I plan to use.
This is awesome because I can just manual focus when I want to save battery, and if I need AF in some emergency, it will autofocus with PDAF.

Of the lenses you own, is there one of them which is particularly good optically?

>>2790016
>having to resort to manual focus to save battery
MIRRORLESS MASTERRACE AHAHAHAHAHAHA

>>2790018
Having to? No. Having the option to, just like on any other camera? Yeah.

>>2790021
Why not just use an OVF to save battery all the time?

>>2790022
Because then you lose out on a live histogram, a live interpretation of your scene mode, live clipping warnings, focus assistance, a live electronic level, etc. Why would you gimp yourself like that on purpose? So you don't have to have a small light extra battery the size of a match book in your pocket or bag? Why not just shoot a full manual film camera if you're that worried about batteries that you'll give up awesome features to keep from running out?

>>2790022
Your OVF camera probably doesn't even offer AF adapter for M-mount lenses.

>>2790027
Because my OVF camera system actually has lenses so I don't have to resort to manual lenses on an AF adapter.

>>2790028
>Because my OVF camera system actually has enormous retrofocal lenses so I can't have the option to use tiny awesome manual lenses on an AF adapter, even if I want to.

File: 40mm_f2_8_heliar_stehend.png (58 KB, 600x391) Image search: [Google]

58 KB, 600x391

>>2790028
They don't quite compare in my opinion.

This one is pancake sized, and it's collapsible like this, which makes the mirrorless super compact.

File: Pentax-DA-40mm-F2.8-XS.jpg (51 KB, 787x519) Image search: [Google]

51 KB, 787x519

>>2790032
Pancake you say?

>>2790033
That's a pancake on a large body.

I'm talking about pancakes on a small mirrorless body.

File: 2015-05-31 15.11.17.jpg (186 KB, 1000x565) Image search: [Google]

186 KB, 1000x565

>>2790033

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Model	HTC6525LVW
Camera Software	3.4.0-ga9a3f03
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.0
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	0 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2015:05:31 15:11:17
Exposure Time	1/12 sec
F-Number	f/2.0
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	500
Lens Aperture	f/2.0
Brightness	-1.7 EV
Exposure Bias	-1 EV
Metering Mode	Other
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	3.82 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	2688
Image Height	1520
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	None
Contrast	Soft
Saturation	Low
Sharpness	Hard

>>2790035
That mirrorless is still not pocketable. Also the camera is there to take photos with not to look at all day. Are you a gearfag?

>>2790040
This is why i grab my A6300 when i need a pocketable camera.

>>2790035
That mirrorless looks like Trump

>>2789819
No it can't.

Landscape focal length means sub-kit lens.

>>2790040
At no point was it claimed to be pocketable. It's much samaller, less annoying, and easier to carry in a bag with other stuff, or to set on a table while eating.

>>2790056
You're right, that should go out to 1200mm...maybe even 2400mm if you throw on a 2x extender.

Focal length for landscape depends a lot on what the landscape is like. Yeah, generally you want a wider lens, but there are some areas that aren't suited to a wide lens, like the Great Plains for instance, where you'll often need a lot of reach to get any kind of point of interest in your shot in addition to the great flat nothingness.

>>2790061
>look at how contrarian i can be!! xd

everyone knows landscape is shot wide angle

>>2790063
Thomas Heaton. Watch his videos and you might learn something.

>>2789844
>>2789805
>>2789823
>>2789820
>>2789819
>>2790056
>>2790061
Bzzt, all wrong!

Correct answers, in no particular order:

>8-15mm
>11-24mm
>16-35mm
>17-40mm

Zooming into ""landscapes"" is so lazy and intellectually dishonest.

it's the outdoors equivalent of indoor miniatures and models and other staged psuedophotography.

Get your ass closer and take a real photo

>>2790063
No it's not being contrarian. I live in North Dakota. Many of the landscapes I shoot here, in Wyoming, Colorado, and Montana are at telephoto lengths. If you shoot wide angle out here, you only have around a half dozen different shots you can get. If you go tele, you can get a ton more compositions.

>>2790070
i know you just want to troll people but some unfortunate souls actually come here to learn

don't give them shitty advice for shits and giggles

>>2790072
>>2790071
>muh niche cases

telephoto = sports, birds
wide angle = landscape

>b-but some small % of the time you can make ersatz images with the Wrong Focal Length

please, stop being such a 4chanian piece of contrarian subhuman shit for once and give actual useful advice

you are the same fucking garbage that recommends thinkpads on /g/

>>2790073
>shooting mountains is a niche case
>shooting large open areas is a niche case
Gotcha

>>2790074
you faggots are trying to troll me into thinking i won't need a WA if i have a telephoto

>>2790076
The fuck? No. It depends on what you shoot.

But also recall that wide angles are best used to get really close to something and not to "get it all in".

>>2790076
In a landscape setting? WA is often more of a convenience, not an absolute necessity.

You can usually take a panoramic shot and tile it in Hugin.

>>2790087
And normal is generally better for stitching because normals tend to exhibit less distortion than wide angles or teles.

>>2790073
>you are the same fucking garbage that recommends thinkpads on /g/
gave away you /g/ use, famillama. Ample reason to discard any conversation.

You can't divide everything into genres like you can your video games and computer parts.

>>2789989
I'm going to sell my D7100 and thousands of dollars worth of lenses and flashes to switch to Sony full-frame. Mainly because I can get Sony stuff for so cheap through work.

File: 0f9574b56cf84e8abfc689fe037c125c.jpg (3 MB, 1600x2000) Image search: [Google]

3 MB, 1600x2000

telephoto landscape is cool

Is the Pentax Q a good camera for taking around when you need something small?
Not looking to use it for professional photography by any means, more for fun stuff on my free time.
It just seems like a good deal at about $299 USD with a basic zoom.

>>2790138
Get a used Sony RX100 instead. It'll offer more and a bigger sensor for the same money. I love Pentax, but the Q is rather mediocre.

>>2790138
Get the Q you will love it
I have a couple, carry one all the time
Since it is a interchangeable lens camera almost every lens ever made can be adapted to it
If you are really looking for a camera to have fun with get a Q

>>2790141
What about interchangeable lenses?

>>2790147
Thanks, I thought it looked like a fun camera to shoot with.
Do you think they'll put a new one out this year, or is it pretty much done?

How well does the a7ii perform with video?

I have a K-500 and am quite new to this still. Are the old super takumar lenses still worth getting with a k-mount adapter?

>>2790157
Not well, I think even the A5100 gets better results, but it's one of the cheapest FF for video.

File: slavoj-zizek-011.jpg (46 KB, 620x372) Image search: [Google]

46 KB, 620x372

>mfw I have to buy a new body, one with a Full Frame Sensor to shoot landscape because crop factor bodies are categorically incapable of shooting True Landscapes.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 5D Mark III
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	100 dp
Vertical Resolution	100 dp
Exposure Time	1/60 sec
F-Number	f/3.5
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	800
Lens Aperture	f/3.5
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Subject Distance	5.25 m
Metering Mode	Pattern
Focal Length	85.00 mm
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated

>>2790141
Why are Sony Spillover Shills using trips?

>>2790227
>mfw I have to buy a new camera, one with a large format sheet film holder to shoot landscape because small format bodies are categorically incapable of shooting True Landscapes.
ftfy

>>2790227
>mfw a retard thinks he has to buy a new body, one with a Full Frame Sensor to shoot landscape because crop factor bodies are categorically incapable of shooting True Landscapes.

The word "full frame" only means it's the size of 35mm film, there's NOTHING special about 35mm. It's not any more true to life than a strip of film that's 20mm or 40mm or 100mm or any other size.
You're nothing but a fucking gullible consumer retard.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHYidejT3KY

>>2790234
>using memeatic physical formats because you can only subsist on gimmicks and artificial novelty.
Lowest of the low.

>>2790235
>biting this hard on bait and calling someone else gullible.

>>2790235
>doesn't understand the problem is crop bodies blowing focal range up unacceptably high and invalidating Landscapes.

>>2790238
>doesn't understand that none of that is an actual thing

>>2790237
kek

>>2790254
>adding 50%+ onto focal length isn't real
?

>>2789766
the A6300 is now the #1 best selling mirror less camera on amazon

>>2790317
That doesn't mean anything when most of them will be returned within 1 month.

>>2790317
>this many idiots buying a unproven device
When will people learn to let shit be in the wild for at least a few months before dropping real money on it to find out what issues it has.

>>2790319
Is this your first camera launch ever or something?

The earl purchasers are all experienced people who want to see for themselves how good or how bad it is. Amazon has decent return policies, so most of them will be returned for refurbishing anyway.

>>2790154
In January Ricoh filed for a new patent in Japan for a 4.2mm f/1.8 for a 1/1.7″ sensor, if they have a new lens coming out for the Q it would imply they have not abandoned the Q line, the camera is very popular in Asia
I do not own any of the Q lenses, I bought it to use adapting other lenses, I only use manual lenses, I use a lot of old Super 8 lenses and the old Pentax Auto110 system lenses with the Q, even use my Pentax 6x7 lenses on the Q
As I said it is a fun camera to use and experiment with, even have a pinhole lens for it, you get a lot of looks and plenty of questions from people about the camera
Only thing that could make it better is a tilting screen
Lots of "photographers" bad mouth the Q, while I am out having a good time they can piss and moan all they want

File: image.gif (179 KB, 550x1359) Image search: [Google]

179 KB, 550x1359

Need lens advice.

I shoot casually, and I am looking for a longer lens for my Nikon d5100. My kit lens goes up to 55mm and that isn't cutting it. I love shooting from far away. Birds/wildlife and aircraft are my favorite subjects. I'd also like to shoot people from a bit further away with a rather shallow depth of field.

I have a 200 dollar max budget, and pic related is the range of lenses that fit. I am looking for opinions because I don't trust myself to make a good purchase based on just my potentially misinformed googlings.

>>2790358
55-200 VR

Hi! I want to start in photography, well... seriously, I save a lot of time, and I can buy a Nikon d5200, it's that a good camera for starting? Or should I see for other options with the cash I saved?

>>2790358
>>2790360
I'd actually say the 70-300mm VR if you can hold off for long enough to save up another $100. You can find them used for around $300 on keh so maybe cheaper if you shop around (but with less certainty of quality).
https://www.keh.com/shop/nikon-nikkor-70-300mm-f-4-5-5-6g-ed-if-af-s-vr-telephoto-zoom-lens.html

>>2790361
Get the Sony A6000

What is the best low-light performance camera that can be had for less than $1,000 (body only)?

>>2790361
>>2790363
Hate to agree with the shill, but you may want to at least look int it.

Having an oEVF makes learning how to shoot in manual mode much easier and it also makes using dumb adapters and old glass easier, too.

Basically, with an OVF, you're seeing through the lens. Even if the camera is off, you will see through the lens. WHAT you see through the lens, however, is NOT an exact representation of what is going to be in focus or what the exposure will look like. You will not know what the picture looks like until you click the shutter.

With an EVF or oEVF, you're seeing what the sensor is seeing and therefore what the picture you're about to take will look like (more or less).
So if you're shooting in M mode and your picture is going to be underexposed, you'll know before you click the shutter.

All of that said, both cameras are digital, so you can still get a pretty good idea right away if you got the shot or not.

There are a lot more lenses available for the Nikon, but, despite what the anti-sony's have to say, there are plenty of lenses for E-mount systems, too.

Other factors:

The Nikon will have better battery life. My A6000 doesn't have bad battery life, but it can't compete with a DSLR.

The Sony is much much smaller. Not quite pocket sized, but you can easily fit it in a glovebox or school bag (with all of your school/work stuff in it).

>>2790364
What kind of lenses are you talking about? 1.2, 1.4, 1.8, or smaller apertures?

I mean it's actually kind of an interesting question because full frame will have the benefit of having larger sensor sites, but you can get more advanced smaller sensors...in any event, if you're putting a slow as fuck lens in front of it, you're probably better getting a slightly worse performing body and a faster lens.

>>2790364

Sony A7 or canon 5d. Also, film camera, a tripod and some patience.

>>2790159
I don't know if the K-500 has focus peaking, but if it doesn't it is not worth buying Takumar lenses. If you want to experiment with old manual lenses get an M42 lens and an adapter (take off the damn spring so it doesn't stuck on) like a Helios 44M or Pentacon 50. It is worthy to get the Pentax O-ME53 magnifying eyecup for manual focusing.
It's not a bad camera but a super entry level one. If you can get a good deal try to move up to a K-50 so you get all the features.

>>2790364
Pentax K-5/II/IIs, K-3/II, K-1
Nikon D7100, D7200, D750

>>2790368
>>My A6000 doesn't have bad battery life, but it can't compete with a DSLR

>My Hummer doesn't have bad gas mileage, but it can't compete with a Prius

Best camera for portraits and street photography?
Under $1000 please.

>>2790377
Well, I mean, it's never died on me.

It's not like it can't make it through a day of shooting.

And there do exist, however rare, cameras that cannot handle a full day of shooting.

>>2790371
2.0 or larger

>>2790308
>>2790238
>implying you can't just use a wide angle designed for crop bodies

>>2790236
Do you even deep tones and sweet DOF? Not to mention movements.

>>2790383
This is bait

>>2790379
Mirrorless:
A6000 body + 35mm lens

DSLR:
Used 5D MkII + 50mm


You'll need something with interchangeable lenses. For street you want between 20mm and 50mm (wide-standard) and for portraits you want between 50mm and 100mm (standard - tele)

Now, the lenses I suggested for the above cameras are both going to be standard, meaning they won't distort the photos at all. You can use standard lenses for portraits but longer focal lengths are usually better.

>>2790386
>getting a 5D2 instead of a D700
shiggydiggydoo

>>2790388
I only recommended the 5D2 because I have one.
I have an A6000, too. I wouldn't recommend something without having it or at least having used it.
I've never used a Nikon before.

>>2790388
Because Canon lenses actually are the focal length they claim to be.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jva08HY6uLE

(and cheaper lenses like the 70-300mm are even worse)

>>2790391
nikon body, sigma art lens and thats it

>i could have gotten an a6300 for free because of amazon's return policies just like everyone else online bought it, so they can return it later
fuck

slickdeals was all over that

File: 1456588966895.gif (1 MB, 258x193) Image search: [Google]

1 MB, 258x193

>>2790368
>sony poster accuses others of shilling

File: SzkbT8pR8iTTEZz1N6Qp_Diving Baseball Catch.gif (2 MB, 536x302) Image search: [Google]

2 MB, 536x302

>>2790391
That fucking video...

I want a monopod, but they are all so damn expensive. Especially considering that non of them comes with a head.

Anyone know of a cheapass monopod?

>>2790521
>Anyone know of a cheapass monopod?
http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/koolehaoda-camera-stabilizer-travel-monopod-kit-with-swivel-ballhead-/262045175757?hash=item3d031c0fcd:g:U80AAOSwLqFV83Xq

I know nothing about this chinese piece of shit, but it's cheap and comes with a a ballhead.

>>2790527
Thanks bro. Can't buy from China as the fee for importing would be higher than the price for the monopod.

File: sirui_ps_monopod.jpg (34 KB, 925x230) Image search: [Google]

34 KB, 925x230

>>2790527
That looks terrible. Wouldn't buy it.

>>2790521
> are all so damn expensive
Like US$200 tops, even in the case of a nice monopod with a pretty nice ball head? Just save up and get a decent one.

>>2790532
>That looks terrible.
No shit it looks terrible, but he asked for cheap so I gave him cheap. He never specified a price range

>>2790532
$200 for a stick is straight up robbery. I don't need a ballhead, I just want a release plate so I can get the camera on and off quickly.

>>2790533
I'm not accusing you personally for probably providing what was asked.

But I want to point out that that thing is probably simply *too shitty* to actually work with even as hobbyist. It looks like something nobody should use.

These terrible looking internal twist locks and the 3kg load capacity combined with small height? That shit will collapse accidentally every few minutes, and probably break in a few days. Never mind the ridiculously small diameter on some segments - that thing will wobble too much.

Suggestion: Rest your camera on a backpack or a fence or whatever the fuck instead, or just handhold it.

>>2790535
> $200 for a stick is straight up robbery.
For the high-end ones that are quite a bit more than a stick? Not really. Carbon fiber construction, tripod feet with levelling mechanisms, pan functions, high load bearing capacity - that kind of stuff takes quite some work to get.

Most regular ones are more like $40-100. It is faster to just work a day and buy one than to make one yourself, that's more or less all you need to know about whether it is "robbery" or not.

> I just want a release plate so I can get the camera on and off quickly.
Why not buy the monopod locally and the clamp separately then? Are your import taxes very high for small items, too?

>>2790535
Then get a stick and screw a release plate head onto it??

I have a manfrotto monopod that has pop-out feet so it will stand up on its own. It extends to 7 feet. I could beat a man to death with it. It has solid clips on the telescoping segements that have been opened and closed thousands of times without breaking, with no maintenance at all. It's rugged, solid, and I trust it. And considering that I frequently put $5000 worth of electronics on the top of it, the $170 that I paid for it eight years ago seems like nothing.

This shit isn't priced for hobbyists because it's not designed for hobbyists. If you're a working pro making money off your shots, an extra $200 is nothing. If all you're doing is getting it so you can mount your rebel Xt and kit lens at the zoo, then it's not meant for you in the first place, so acting upset that it is out of your price range is like a kid two weeks from his 16th birthday complaining that he can't find a BMW M3 in the $4000 price range his parents gave him for a first car.

>getting ripped off
>getting defensive about it
>I like being raped int he ass for shit products
oh lad

do you buy lecia too?

>>2790547
> a manfrotto monopod that has pop-out feet so it will stand up on its own
Remark to other people that consider this feature now: The Sirui PS from >>2790532
stands way more firmly than the Manfrotto.

Not that you could have bought it eight years ago.

> $170
> isn't priced for hobbyists
Seriously? It's still just fucking $170.

We are talking about a sum that second world country wage slaves can afford after like a month or so, unless they spend it on kids or w/e.

>>2790373
The K-500 and K-50 are the same apart from weather sealing iirc.

It has focus peaking

>>2790558
It's not the $170 that's too high, it's the $170 on a monopod. Hobbyists are usually trying to find a way to buy lenses, or memory cards, or filters. A monopod usually comes at the end, after tripods, and flashes and all the other stuff that takes up tons of money. Mostly an afterthought.

>>2790560
Some features are not on the K-500 that are on the K-50. Dunno which ones right now but there are more differences than weather sealing

>>2790565
You can get a convertible tripod like the Dic&Mic if you have the tripod as priority first and only want a monopod as an afterthought...?


Certainly feel free to delay the high-end tripod with mini foot and bells and whistles to like 1-2 months after you're done purchasing the other equipment you like to have... but really, it's just not outside the realm of what hobbyists can afford.

>>2790569
That's not true, they're literally EXACTLY the same except for weather sealing.

>>2790570
You know there is a difference between what some one can afford and what they are willing to spend right?
Not everyone is a brainwashed consumer.

>>2790572
give him a minute, he's trying to justify lecia-tier overpriced trash

>>2790572
>You know there is a difference between what some one can afford and what they are willing to spend right?
Yea, everyone wishes everything was free or priced so low as to be inconsequential to their budget.

But I was talking about hobbyists. If it is your hobby, then yes, you can spend a month's disposable income on it. That is not fucking shocking, is it?

> Not everyone is a brainwashed consumer.
If you are not, then you easily have $100-200 to spend on your hobby.

[Parents and third worlders excepted.]

>>2790572
>Not everyone is a brainwashed consumer.
Not everyone is an edgy faggot who thinks he's the antihero pointing out that high quality things cost more than low quality things, and saying it's a conspiracy. Go through two shitty tripods you spent $40 and then come back and tell me that you won't pay more for one you can abuse.

Oh wait, your $40 tripod won't break, because it'll sit in your closet 364 days a year.

>>2790515
There's a difference between recommending something and shilling.

Recommending
>buy this because...

Shilling
>Get this

>>2790574
> lecia-tier overpriced trash
That applies the ~like $82 convertible Dic&Mic or a $40-200 monopod (normal to higher-end & fancy) in your head?

Man, your perspective is really quite skewed. This is really quite dirt cheap for the work involved.

>>2789211
Have you looked at the GW690? That might fit your needs. Most medium format cameras are either big or expensive or both. There are not many small ones unless you want to downgrade to 645 like the GS645.

>>2790589
>I don't need it at all, and I'd hardly ever use it, so I think paying more than about $20 for one is literally retarded, but for some reason, that doesn't apply to just me, and any company selling something I don't want for more than nearly-free is robbing people, and the only people who fall for it are idiots.

>>2790570
Vanguard makes a bunch.
>more than hobbyist can afford
This is a retarded way of looking at it. Hobbyist can't afford to not invest in a decent tripod. Yeah, they aren't going to be buying really right stuff or high end manfrotto, but there are other options to safeguard their cameras. And you're retarded for not investing in protecting that camera/lens because a tripod can easily destroy all of that in a few tenths of a second.

>>2789638
yes

>>2790587
t. shill

>>2789865
It's mostly the housing. They are pro lenses that need to be specifically made to fit exacting standards. You can't just get a consumer lens and expect it to work with all your other equipment. Optics are hard to design and manufacture but the same goes for the actual housing. Even more for cinema lenses. The optical quality is about the same as some high end photography lenses. Remember that the most these lenses are expected to do is 4k which is at most 11 megapixels. When they get to 8k then will get to the still cameras we have today. Zeiss even used the optics of their consumer lenses for a line of cinema lenses that cost like 4 times what the consumer lenses cost and they were a bargain compared to other cinema lenses.

Also you don't actually buy them. Most of the time they are just used as rentals and are owned by the rental houses who get their money's worth.

is this a good starter camera?

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0043M6F1E?colid=23OU1WDPZGIHN&coliid=IYEVHP3Y4NCMF&psc=1&ref_=wl_it_dp_o_pC_nS_ttl

why is the body + 18 lens 500$ but body only 660?

>>2790637
Yup
To clear stock

>>2790637

Because the body + lens is used.

>>2790640
>>2790641

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B004J3Y9U6?colid=23OU1WDPZGIHN&coliid=I2ENRZ9PUL1QZT&ref_=wl_it_dp_o_pC_S_ttl

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00DBPKAAG?colid=23OU1WDPZGIHN&coliid=I119K1NANXG4RO&psc=1&ref_=wl_it_dp_o_pC_S_ttl

i was looking at these other 2 as well what do you guys think?

mainly thinking of using it for some portrait photos and traveling

>>2790655
The K-50 is hands down the better one.
Get a cheap DA 35/2.4 prime and the HD 55-300 telezoom if it fits your budget

>>2790659
Thanks for the help

File: 1456533596326.gif (2 MB, 320x240) Image search: [Google]

2 MB, 320x240

Reminder that increasing your fstop at all results in sharpness loss due to diffraction limiting, the Ultimate Constraint Of All Optical Systems

Reminder that subpixel diffraction losses compound exponentially so even if your dunning kruger pixel peeping thinks "i-it's still sharp" it is not.

Also note that

>fnumbers less than 1 are elite.
>f/1 - f1.2 is good
>f/1.4 is ok
>f/1.8 and higher is garbage

>>2790684
bullshit

>>2790688
found a pleb shooting with unacceptable fstop

File: trolling.gif (4 MB, 640x360) Image search: [Google]

4 MB, 640x360

>>2790684
And this relates to photography (the practice of putting down your calculator, pushing away from your desk, leaving the house, and finding something unique/interesting/valuable to capture and share with the world) how?

File: 1457118988288.png (328 KB, 431x450) Image search: [Google]

328 KB, 431x450

>>2790693
>reveling in taking bad snapshits

>>2790684
So 0.95 is God Emperor tier then.

File: random-mayhem-760-NO001-55.jpg (77 KB, 550x550) Image search: [Google]

77 KB, 550x550

>>2790700
>Implying the diffraction at f/18 would be enough to ruin an otherwise good photo
C'mon brother. You can do so much better than this.

MFW I spend more time critiquing trolls on their trolling than I do critiquing photos, because at least the trolls are trying.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	550
Image Height	550

File: git gud son.jpg (302 KB, 1000x1008) Image search: [Google]

302 KB, 1000x1008

>>2790704
Almost.

F.

Zero.
Point
Fucking
S
E
V
E
N

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Acorn version 1.5.5
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/5.2
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Exposure Time	1/80 sec
F-Number	f/5.0
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	1600
Lens Aperture	f/5.0
Exposure Bias	-1/3 EV
Metering Mode	Partial
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	41.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1000
Image Height	1008
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>2790706
we halations now

File: 93409.1420011980.png (527 KB, 454x461) Image search: [Google]

527 KB, 454x461

>>2790722
>halo's because it is literally god tier

>>2790346
Great! Thanks for the discussion. I'm excited to get one!
Sounds like a lot of fun to shoot with old manual lenses.