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: >>2796589
What's the point of a dedicated camera when phone cameras are just as good? I'm just wondering.
Have you guys seen the Galaxy S7 images?
>>2798590
![12038323_1631699727082345_5759414639781442770_n[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/WRGqEHF.jpg "12038323_1631699727082345_5759414639781442770_n[1].jpg")
>>2798590
>cuckdroid
well for one
>>2798590
>I'm just wondering.
*I'm just baiting.
I wouldnt recommend throwing a camera out of the window
I just broke my eos 3 to see if it could take a 3 storey fall, turns out it couldnt
>>2798600
Yeah that sounds about right, anon.
Did you photograph the damage at the scene so that we can learn how to 3-story-proof our own EOS 3 cameras?
>>2798600
Post pics then faggot
>>2798600
I hope you took a picture of the result.
>>2798600
>I wouldn't recommend throwing an EOS 3 out of a window
ftfy
Wouldn't recommend throwing a F4 out a window, you might kill somebody, and damage the road or other public space. Possibly cause an earthquake, or at least a fissure to open releasing the hellspawn.
>>2798603
: ^ )
>>2798590
Phone cameras are not "just as good" as dedicated cameras. They are pretty good though.
A dedicated camera will give you better ergonomics, more lens options, more megapixels, better noise performance, and more features.
A modern camera phone is great though. You likely have it with you at all times and it's small. The great performance of phone cameras makes it so you need to spend a bit more money before a dedicated camera really makes sense.
>>2798611
I hope you burn in hell for what you did to that eye control masterpiece.
I'm trying to get my girlfriend a good introductory film camera for her birthday. my budget is a maximum of 200, though I would like to spend more around 150.
At the moment I'm thinking of:
Nikon FG + 50mm 1.8 E ($80 - 120)
Canonet QL17 G-III QL ($90 - 100)
Rollei 35s ($90 - 150)
what else should I consider? I would prefer a meter for her, but honestly what I really need is something portable.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make PENTAX Corporation Camera Model PENTAX Optio S40 Camera Software Optio S40 Ver 1.00 Maximum Lens Aperture f/2.6 Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 88 mm Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2006:06:29 18:42:24 Exposure Time 1/15 sec F-Number f/4.4 ISO Speed Rating 100 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Center Weighted Average Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 14.60 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1024 Image Height 768 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Contrast Soft Saturation Normal Sharpness Hard Subject Distance Range Macro
>>2798626
Get her a point and shoot like an olympus stylus epic. Nobody wants a gift that requires work and effort. I hope you are buying her film and getting it processed for her too.
Unless she specifically asks for something don't get it for her. I'm just trying to save you money. Also if you think she would not like it get her something you might like too. That way if she doesn't like it you can use it yourself so you don't waste your money.
been wanting to try photography for a couple years but thought i needed a 400 dollar camera and I never had the money so i just forgot about it
but I just found out that someone on tumblr whos photos I like uses this camera and I was surprised that it was so cheap around 82 new and as low as 60 used:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00I8BIBCW?refRID=K6JB4XECQANWDTF4W2FX&ref_=pd_ybh_a_9
should I spend a little more to get something that I stereotypically would imagine a 'real camera with more options' would look like with the big lens like this since I can get it Used for around the same price as I could for the other camera New?:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00M0QVG3W?redirect=true&ref_=pe_54610_187340550_em_1p_2_ti
or do you think something small and simple would be good for a complete novice?
>>2798734
Post tumblr link, I want to see these photos
>>2798611
kek
>>2798626
Rollei 35s could prove a challenge as a first film camera. It won't have a working light meter, and reqires zone focusing with no optical aid for assisting with focus.
Advantage of the Nikon is that it can grow with her through picking up a nice range of lenses.
No experience with the Canon, but it is rated as a good range finder option.
>>2798611
#EOS3REKT
>>2798734
> something that I stereotypically would imagine a 'real camera with more options' would look like
What you linked in either case isn't really one of these.
Just buy a normal digital IL camera like every hobbyist. Something like a A6300, D7200, K3 II.
Or a A6000, D3300, K-50 or whatever if you need cheaper.
Ultimate poorfag here, is it possible to get any /p/ quality shots out of this gear, or am I forever fucked?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Model Nexus 6 Camera Software HDR+ 1.0.106412213r Equipment Make motorola Maximum Lens Aperture f/2.0 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Image-Specific Properties: Image Created 2016:03:22 14:50:43 Image Width 4160 Image Height 3088 Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Color Space Information sRGB F-Number f/2.0 Subject Distance Range Unknown Focal Length 3.82 mm Lens Aperture f/2.0 Exposure Mode Auto Image Height 3088 Rendering Custom Scene Capture Type Standard Saturation Normal Exposure Program Normal Program Sharpness Normal Image Width 4160 Metering Mode Center Weighted Average Subject Distance 0.00 m Flash No Flash Contrast Normal ISO Speed Rating 685 Exposure Time 4931/125000 sec
>>2798615
Can more recent phone cams shoot raw?
>>2798854
Some, yes, but there are still a lot of limitations. Small sensors mean noise in lower light, poor color depth, usually low dynamic range (seen in sunsets and other high contrast situations) etc.
>>2798850
Is that the Oly or the Sony turd of a latch-on camera?
To answer your question, yes, you can do good photos but using that shit is a pain in the arse and you can forget action/subject in motion shots.
>>2798850
Any photographer worth his salt can take good shots with minimal gear.
>>2798734
Save up and get a Fuji x10.
I've grown tired of my 700d which I bought as my first DSLR in 2013.
I've especially grown tired of the APS-C sensor, so, what would be the ceapest best step up towards full frame ?
I've been thinking of a Canon 5D mkII, but there might be something better/as good for less than a thousand dollarydoo
(pic unrelated, just picked something at random on my desktop)
>>2798929
When you say you're "tired of it" what does that actually translate into as far as features? Knowing what you're trying to get away from, or knowing what you're hoping to get with a larger sensor camera may help with advice.
The fact that you only post three of your photos, year after year, suggests that maybe the problem is your lack of drive, creativity, or vision, and not your camera's sensor being slightly smaller than what the cool kids have.
I'm looking for alternative for nikon DL24-85.Size, speed, BSI, electronic 1/16k shutter, x-sync 1/200 or better. DSLR is too bulky and not suitable for my activities.
>If they only released that lens separately from body, the n1 system would be rocking today.
>>2798929
Sensor size really isn't the problem. Going full frame won't solve away problems which doesn't involve technicality. Cameras are tools, not some sort of magic boxes.
That being said, if you do want full frame, a Nikkon D810 is a good choice but if you want full frame for cheaper, I'd recommend waiting out for the Pentax K-1. People are afraid about the low frame rate, but I'm willing to bet that a firmware update will solve that. They will also be updating their lens line-up and Ricoh looks to be a promising and responsible parent company.
>>2798898
Sony QX1, got it because it had nearly identical guts to a α6000 but cost only £250. Again, poorfag.
I can see what you mean about it being a pain, but it honestly isn't that bad one you figure out it's way easier to wrap the entire camera with one hand and hold the viewfinder with another instead of using the phone mount thing.
>>2798570
Can someone suggest me a wide angle lens for Nikon under 20mm? I have a D7100 and i can't find anything that isn't super expensive, ais lens are also more than welcome
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make NIKON CORPORATION Camera Model NIKON D7100 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.3 (Macintosh) Maximum Lens Aperture f/4.1 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Color Filter Array Pattern 804 Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 99 mm Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2016:03:21 01:08:56 Exposure Time 1/60 sec F-Number f/4.2 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 500 Lens Aperture f/4.2 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Center Weighted Average Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 66.00 mm Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Gain Control Low Gain Up Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal Subject Distance Range Unknown
>>2798959
>>2798930
What I actually mean by me growing tired of APS-C is that I use UWA lenses a lot, and I'd greatly benefit from being able to gain 6 or 7mm of field of view by switching to a full frame body.
Also the crop factor bugs me in general
Also I have drive, creativity, and vision, but want to keep working on the little things now, and really get into every thing I want to do and think of as "important projects" once I have a good enough setup.
And I post more on other websites, I don't really use /p/ a lot to post/look at pictures
>>2798981
kit lens, or a lens I got recently, the 18-70 3.5-4.5, might be good cheap options m8
>>2798959
>but I'm willing to bet that a firmware update will solve that
Pentax shills on suicide watch. That's the line anybody uses when their favourite device can't do something as well as its competitors. Face it, the Pentax is hardware limited, not software. The D810 is 5 fps itself, so it's not like the Pentax has a lot of headroom in just software.
Posted when I got this K1000 from my grandmother a few days ago, got a new lens, a new fuckhuge tripod and cleaned it up a bit. Maiden voyage tomorrow while I'm at the Tarpon Springs sponge docks, hoping everything goes well.
>>2798991
Thanks man I'll check it out!
>>2798950
Do you have the camera or do you want it in a different form factor?
>>2798997
>implying burst rate can help you to catch that elusive moment.
A bad photographer will always blame the gear.
>>2798850
Your gonna need a camera
I kinda want to upgrade from my d5100 but the 7200 doesnt have the flip screen which I use. Would the 5500 be much better or should I wait for the 7300?
>>2799019
The camera is behind the Canon nifty fifty and the Minolta kit zoom. It's one of those "put it on your phone and connect-disconnect by wifi" dildo cameras.
>>2799021
A6300
>>2799021
The D5500 is not much of an upgrade. What are you using the flippy screen for and how often? The D7200 is much more of a camera than the D5100 even without a flippy-breaky screen.
I started carrying around everyday my small kit (Canon 100D, 24mm pancake, nifty fifty).
What bag should I use? I currently drop dslr and lenses in an old camera pouch, which itself goes into a 20 L backpack (I also carry food, water, cables, ecc)
I also own a Think Tank Retrospective 10 but I think it's too big...
>>2798959
Pentax is not known for firmware upgrades. They release final versions of their cameras. Fuji is the one who releases beta cameras so they can fix them later on and people think they got something for free.
>>2799032
Just throw it in whatever bag you have. No need to buy a new bag. When you have multiple bodies, multiple zooms, and a plethora of accessories you need to carry all at once then you can get a bag.
>>2799015
DL isn't out yet for most places. I want it's lens as nikon1 system lens, since it's the same crop and i've shot at 27 and 50mm too long.
Or some other mirrorless system with affordable setup of 24-80+
>>2799044
Do you have a nikon1? Why not just get the DL 24-85 when it comes out?
>>2799048
I have one, it's great for my small needs. Even ISO 3200 can be healed in DxO significantly. I suppose DL24-85 will have same old 1/60 x-sync since this value isn't stated anywhere. And second turn down of it is compact barrel zoom, like in LX100 which isn't sturdy at all. My 18.5 and 10mm primes don't eat dust nor move the front element.
Btw, found DL's will be released 3 months later so there is plenty time to wait and compare.
I had a freaky encounter today. I had the opportunity to be near the national airport during golden hour so I decided to try some plane spotting. Quickly googled the usual spots, went off the main road only to find a bunch of armored personnel carriers parked around the airport. I went past like it was my intended route and spent an hour in the city finding my way back to the road. I only have my camera for a few months and was scared to death. I just got home from work and it's still bugging me, did something happen? I'm in Yurop btw.
>>2799068
>>2799068
You don't watch TV or you trying to be funny?
>>2799074
I don't have a TV, I'm on my phone right now and trying to get a sleep since I have to get up early tomorrow.
Don't tell me some idiot blew himself up in Paris again
>>2799076
Fuck, I googled it.
Goddamn tenorists interfering with my hobby!
>>2799076
Was in Brussels
Why should I get a tripod instead of a monopod with support feet?
>>2799081
Well, I never liked their sprouts anyway
>>2799083
Tripods are definitely more stable and can be used on slopes or whatever.
That said, I very much like my Sirui PS for urban or indoor use. I am glad I have both.
>>2799083
Because you would need a decent tripod along with that. Those things are unstable as fuck, try to get a long exposure on it in any degree of wind.
>>2799083
Tripod for slow thought out shots like landscapes, monopod if you need to take the middle ground between stability and speed.
>>2799091
You can go with this thing, it also converts to a monopod (well, without support feet, but that's already something...) and generally is a very good deal.
>>2799096
Couple it with a NatGeo Walkabout and you have a killer set.
>>2799091
a monopod sounds like a nightmare for long exposures, any slight vibration or movement will destroy the image, you'd be better off leaning the camera against a car hod instead of a monopod. Definitely get a real tripod.
>>2799100
>>2799102
In a purely modern urban setting, it is not really a nightmare with the Sirui PS.
Works without much of a problem, including long exposures. I never felt like I needed to bring a tripod along, too.
That said, the Sirui PS is not for medieval city parts with cobbled roads, the outdoors, slums, ... whatever. It can't really do well on uneven ground. As great as it is, it is still a specialized device.
>>2798989
quit being a fucking faggot and just buy a full-frame Camera if you want a full-frame Camera. You'll soon realise that you're better off with a crop camera. UWA lenses are literally 0 excuse. UWA lenses for Crop Cameras are far cheaper and far smaller. Get a 7(0)D and Canon 10-22 USM. I can guarantee that's more Camera than you know what to do with.
It's pretty obvious you know fuck all about Gear and likely even less about actually using the Gear.
My actual recommendation? Go outside, use your Camera. Splurge on a new Lens if you want/can and then go somewhere new. Because it's obvious you don't ever shoot, you just want new Gear.
>" […] Because now the camera is costing somewhere around several hundred to a thousand dollars. So it’s ridiculous for us to ask customers to upgrade every two years or so.”
-Fuji
Meanwhile over at Sony...
>>2799135
> Because now the camera is costing somewhere around several hundred to a thousand dollars.
This isn't something new (unless you don't know inflation).
Good cameras with good glass have cost some to several thousand dollars at current value for like forever now.
> Meanwhile over at Sony...
Rapid improvement. Only a problem when you are poor and jealous of those with a better camera...?
Otherwise, you probably got a better camera when you bought it because Sony did 1-2 extra iterations meanwhile...
I've been using my D3300 for some time with a 50mm fixed and a 70-300 lens and want to expand/change my arsenal, so I have a couple of questions and am looking for recommendations.
I can spend about $150 on each of the lenses (don't mind buying used).
-First, I'm gonna get rid of the zoom and get a 200 prime, it's too muddy for my taste. Anything in particular you can recommend here? I'm looking to use it mostly for wildlife.
-Second, I'm looking for something to do landscapes, so I guess a wideangle is what I want here. However, from what I've seen the 18mm lenses are expensive as fuck. Would a 35mm work or should I look for something in between?
Apart from the lenses, there have been several times where I found myself wishing I had a polarizer at hand. From what I've gathered, cheap is never the way to go in this case because the materials will be poor and end up affecting the clarity of my image. Any particular brand I ought to look for? Also, is there some other type of filter that is a must have or could be of interest?
Thanks in advance for the help.
>>2799144
> However, from what I've seen the 18mm lenses are expensive as fuck.
Samyang / Rokinon has a lot of fairly cheap manual lenses. They're just sub-$500, but that is still relatively cheap for a good lens.
> Would a 35mm work or should I look for something in between?
35mm on an APS-C is a normal lens, not a wide one.
Now, you can shoot overlapping photos with that and stitch a panorama in Hugin, but it requires more shots than I personally like to take.
> From what I've gathered, cheap is never the way to go in this case because the materials will be poor and end up affecting the clarity of my image.
Actually, I'd get a cheap Chinese one for that...
>>2799150
>Samyang / Rokinon has a lot of fairly cheap manual lenses. They're just sub-$500, but that is still relatively cheap for a good lens.
The ones I'm seeing are still way above my budget. $150 is the top I can spend; I live in a third world shithole were every single extra dollar means a huge difference in price to me, and I can't push it further for now.
>Now, you can shoot overlapping photos with that and stitch a panorama in Hugin, but it requires more shots than I personally like to take.
I'm with you there, not much of a fan of merging or stitching photographs. Thanks for the data, I hadn't thought about that, I'll probably have to get something at 24mm top or a lens specifically designed for crops in order to ensure its wide-ness.
>Actually, I'd get a cheap Chinese one for that...
Good to know, thanks!
Still looking for specific recs if anyone got any.
>>2799251
Keep your zoom. You can't afford to get something decent for wide and replace it.
I'd definitely *not* go cheap for a polarizer.
If you're using manual focus lenses you can get linear polarizers instead of circular which can be cheaper though (Linear polarizers fuck up some autofocus systems).
>>2799254
I always use manual, so I'll look into those linear polarizers.
I don't mean to replace the zoom for the wide, I mean to replace the zoom for a 200mm fixed; the wide is entirely apart (though yeah, from what I'm seeing, the wide just is outside of what I can pay).
>>2799260
That's what I'm saying though, you won't be able to afford a decent replacement for the tele even for what you'd get for that 70-300.
Plus, that'll give you more budget room for getting a decent wide like a 20mm 2.8D
>>2799262
Ohhh ok, I misunderstood what you meant. I'll look into that then, thanks again for the help!
Hey so I've been shooting film for a while and have a pretty neat set up. But, I'm looking to at least dabble in professional shooting meaning joining the digital club. All my film stuff is full frame nikkor ai glass.
So my questions are does light metering work w/ old ai lenses and modern nikon bodies? I don't have a huge budget for a whole kit, 2.5k would be around max for body + 2 or 3 lenses, and from maybe 20 minutes of looking around full frame might be a little out of budget but I might be mistaken. So is it possible to get a good full frame nikon set up for sub $2.5k? Although if light metering won't work w/ my old nikkor lenses, I don't really care what system I use.
>>2799302
As for the compatibility:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/compatibility-lens.htm
As for a good Fx setup: you can get a D700 for less than a grand from keh and a D800 for about $1500.
Can anyone tell me ( in general) about warranties that come with a new camera? More specifically I was looking to buy a nikon d3300 or d5500 from B&H until I found out that my gf's employee discount would get me 15% off if I bought it at target's website. I had no idea that target's website carries DSLRs but since they both are the same price I might as well save over $125 at target.
I was curious if anyone knew if, in the case that the camera had a problem, would I go through nikon or the website that I bought it at? If the website i bought the camera at handles returns or warranty issues I might stick with B&H because I assume a specialty shop like that would be better off at handling any problems. Any suggestions on this? I'm sorry for the long post but the thought of saving a lot of money (for me anyway) versus a better experience in the event of a problem or camera defect is just killing me here. No idea what to do.
>>2798598
What the fuck it this supposed to be?
>>2799343
The warranty is through Nikon...so you would send it to... Nikon
Is the Minolta/Sony A mount dead?
I managed to get some soda on my lens, which is now basically a nice crisp layer of sugar for any potential fungus action. How do I get to cleaning it?
>>2799389
Almost, but there still is a small trickle of A-mount SLT cameras released by Sony.
I think the end is evident, though. There is far more interest in the mirrorless E-mount, and far more releases happen for it by Sony, too.
>>2798590
Mobile phone cameras are fantastic for what they are—a compromise between quality and portability.
>>2798854
Lumia 1020 can. It only offers modest advantages though. I have a small tripod that brackets around the phone to use along with it, but it's still a bit difficult to take good night shots with it.
is pic related (Yongnuo YN-565EX TTL) a decent flash? It's my first flash, want to use it mainly for event photography and maybe fuck around a bit with portrait stuff once I buy myself a light stand and softbox. Is there a better flash (new/used) I can get fro around the same price (120 euro) that will work with i-ttl on my nikon d5100?
>>2799444
Yes. For portraits get the RF transmitter for it and get the flash off camera, either on a stand or holding it at arms length.
>>2799450
would it be possible to use the setup strobist recommends, with a 3.5mm jack cable and two hotshoe adapters? was thinking I'd use that for maybe event photography too to get the light coming in from a better angle. for portraits maybe as well if it works with a long cable, otherwas maybe stop my onboard flash down to the lowest setting and optical slave trigger the yongnuo. sound viable or no?
>>2799487
You can also control the flash with the on-board flash. It usually (if set up right) fires just before the shutter not to interfere with the lighting.
Why do I need to spend lots of money on a wide lens just because it has a wide apperture. idgaf about f2.8 im a landscape whore. so i can use a cheap af lens rite?
Is 315 euros a good price for a Canon 24-105 F4 L IS USM?
Someone is offering it for that price and I don't know it seems like a good deal. It'd be my first L lens.
He's a pro photog and says it's in good condition, he's selling because he's just bough a 24-70 2.8 or something like that.
>>2799508
Yes. It's a very good all-round travelzoom lens and an excellent video lens.
>>2799506
> Why do I need to spend lots of money on a wide lens just because it has a wide apperture.
You don't necessarily.
But on most camera systems, you do to get a sharp lens, rather than some kit lens or worse.
>>2799510
Yeah, I could even just re sell it on the UK (I live there but I often come and go to other EU countries that's why they're offering it in euros) for like 400 quid too right? I don't know, it seems like a too good to be true deal... I guess I'll have to make a lot of questions to the dude.
>>2799508
The price is good, but the lens is kinda bad (not for 5x zoom range lenses, but AS a 5x zoom range lens).
>>2799506
If you're shooting Canon EF-S the 10-18 F4.5-5.6 is a pretty fucking decent lens for what it costs. Not good for low light obviously though.
Test
>>2799517
What do you mean? I've read a review and the only bad thing is the amount of distortion it has a 24mm. What's bad about it? All the other lenses I have are EF-S and a 50mm from Yongnuo so I guess this one would be better than those in terms of sharpness and whatnot?
>>2799515
Being a larger zoom ratio is not ideal for stills IQ (but it doesn't show up on videos) plus the narrower aperture makes it a light and cheap build making the lens cheap to begin with. People wanting a lens for stills will be looking for the 24-70/2.8, so I guess the market is much narrower on this lens.
It's not the deal of the century, actually it's a fair price for such a lens.
![DSC_0006[1] (2).jpg](https://i.imgur.com/Kw2W7oh.jpg "DSC_0006[1] (2).jpg")
>>2798929
Ayyy dream thread poster?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make NIKON CORPORATION Camera Model NIKON D3300 Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Image Created 2016:03:22 15:40:18 Exposure Time 1/1000 sec F-Number f/9.0 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 800 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Flash No Flash Focal Length 200.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB
>>2799522
> What do you mean?
It has poor corner sharpness (on FF cameras) at ~70mm and more, and f/4 also is getting generally very unsharp around there.
> All the other lenses I have are EF-S and a 50mm from Yongnuo so I guess this one would be better than those in terms of sharpness and whatnot?
... it should be better than most of these.
>>2799506
That's not what wide means.
Wide refers to the focal length which tells you about the field of view of the lens.
The three more popular divisions of lenses are:
>Wide (anything below around 35mm)
>Normal (around 35-65mm)
>Telephoto (anything above around 65mm)
The thresholds above are not definitive (I'm not super sure if there is a definitive list), but they're close enough to how most people use the terms to ensure you won't come off sounding like an idiot.
You'll also hear people talk about ultrawide angle, which I generally think of as below 20mm and super-telephoto which I think of as above 300mm.
Others may use modifiers like long and short. So like a short telephoto means something in the 70-95mm range (a portrait lens).
Another way you might hear these terms used is in speaking of zoom lenses to describe the lens's zoom range like a wide-normal zoom (e.g. 24-70mm), telephoto zoom (e.g. 70-200mm), or similar.
>>2799629
These are FF equivalent focal lengths BTW.
How much better is nikons 70-300 vs the 55-300 ? Is the newer nikon kit lenses noticeably better the current?
>>2799631
Kinda.
Since you decided to complicate things, why don't you explain what crop factor actually affects. Please ensure you're correct and cover the topic in the depth it deserves.
>>2799632
The 70-300 is actually sharp from 70-200. Also it has delicious ring motor for all time manual focus and faster AF, and is also internal focus, so you don't have that fucking ring moving around up front. It's vastly better lens for not much more money on the used market.
>>2799487
Yes optical trigger works just fine. Use a bounce card to stop your on camera flash from contributing to your lighting. Even 1/32 at close ranges can give you some weird on-axis effects, so just tape a business card to the flash to bounce light towards your trigger. Remember that the optical trigger has two modes: ignore TTL flashes, and trigger on any flash.
>>2799021
Anyone else?
>>2799665
Why do you care so much about a screen feature that makes your camera more vulnerable? There is a good reason why all pro cameras don't have a flip screen.
>>2799666
Guess pros won't be using the D500 then
>>2799674
>nikon
>pro
haha ayy lmao
>>2799674
>crop
>pro
haha, no.
>>2799035
> using the screen when it's sunny
That's exactly why the viewfinder exists you dingus.
>>2799035
Sounds like you have a problem with operating a camera properly.
>>2799021
Iq between 7200 and 5500 should be nearly identical.
I got an offer to write a 4-5 page article in a scale model magazine and I need a camera for this kind of work (I've just been using phones).
I'd like to spend under a grand. I need to take shots of both completed kits and individual pieces down to a couple of cm. I don't have any preferences, but what would you choose in this price range?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make OLYMPUS IMAGING CORP. Camera Model SH-50 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows) Maximum Lens Aperture f/3.0 Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 33 mm Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 3072 Image Height 4608 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 2014:10:27 17:16:08 Exposure Time 1/30 sec F-Number f/3.4 Exposure Program Creative ISO Speed Rating 125 Lens Aperture f/3.4 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 6.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 900 Image Height 1350 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Gain Control None Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal
>>2799688
A cheap nikon crop camera and the 40mm f2.8 micro.
>>2799689
Something like the D3300 or D3200? Is the D3300 worth it over the 3200? I appreciate the help, I'm super new to this stuff.
>>2799688
The Fujifilm X30 has macro up to 1cm
>>2799688
don't get a nikon m8, you will regret it
i'd say canon 100D or maybe an older 40D or something like that, couple yongnuo 560's for the product lighting and some cheap macro lens
>>2799697
>Whats otg?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aRpq2gpM3mw
>>2799696
is that a decent camera?
>>2799705
Yes.
>>2799675
>Ami Vitale
>Steve McCurry
Nikon is perfection in good hands. Stop being elitist
>>2799694
Nikon D3200 is worth with a 40mm 2.8 DX. You'll be fine.
f/11 and good macros.
>>2798626
A modern SLR like Canon Elan 7, and the 50mm f/1.8
>>2798850
>/p/
>quality shots
Canon EOS 1200d is good for a first dslr?
Why are Sony cameras so expensive?
>>2799722
>implying that wasn't understood
He (you) now knows what wide actually means.
Next up in photography vocabulary, we'll cover fast versus slow in terms of lenses since in neither of your posts have you managed to use this useful photography term when it was appropriate.
A "fast" lens is one that has an aperture that opens more widely than usually around f/3 (so f/1.2, f/1.4, f/1.8, f/2.8 or similar, likewise a 50mm f/1.4 is faster than a 50mm f/1.8). "Slow" lenses will typically feature a maximimum aperture of f/3 or larger with one major exception: supertelephoto lenses. Once you get above 300mm, you'll rarely see lenses faster than f/4.
Bonus lesson:
Why are smaller numbers considered bigger?
Because they're not actually smaller numbers. f/1.8 is the focal length divided by 1.8--a fraction. 50mm/1.8 is larger than 50mm/8
Your extra credit question:
>Is it still stopping down if you close the aperture by less than a full stop?
>>2799729
you can say that about most sony things desu
>>2799729
Which ones exactly?
>>2799729
They are not...? Most of them are cheaper than comparable Canon / Nikon cameras.
Some of the glass is more expensive than Canon/Nikon's high end glass, but mostly it is also pretty comparable, and there are also a bunch of great deals for the E-mount - some by Sigma rather than Sony, but they exist.
I was leaning towards 7d mkII for stills, but now I'm wondering how it'd compare to the new 80D for video.
The 80d has a flip screen and touchscreen focus, whereas the 7d only has the focus knob and no rotation.
Was considering putting it on a cheap steadicam equivalent. Is life gonna be much easier with an 80d for that kind of video setup?
>>2799813
If you're doing filming even semi-seriously, you're not using autofocus, so don't consider that to be a feature. The flip screen may be beneficial if you aren't using a monitor (which you should be, since nailing focus on a 3" screen is very difficult)
>>2799817
Thanks for the insight. If I can get some spoonfeeding.
Roughly how affordable are monitors for this purpose? Is there some proprietary hardware/software BS that makes it expensive or can I get a decent quality one for $300-600-ish?
>>2799822
any decently cheap android tablet can act as a monitor.
best results are with those that have an hdmi slot, but thanks to random apps, you can use most with certain cameras.
>>2799822
It's like anything else, where there are expensive ones, and inexpensive ones.
here's a basic search through B&H to get you started.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/buy/On-Camera-LCD-Monitors/ci/1984/N/4028759510?origSearch=dslr%20monitor
So im buying this one. I recently decided to pursue a education in photography. For that I need to make a bigger and better portfolio (only have like 4 pics I like) I am a newb and Going to a photograph seminar soon.
My question is, is this camera to much to start with? My old camer was a canon EOS600D but had to sell that a year ago due to financial situation. Have not been photographing for that year.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 960 Image Height 960 Scene Capture Type Standard
>>2799862
Get the 760D instead or the 70D if your budget allows.
>>2799862
No, it's far from too much. Ideally, you'd get the high end cameras.
Personally I don't like Canon's current low end. I'd rather get a Sony, Nikon, Pentax...
>>2799862
It is not too much, no. It is, however, a poor choice unless you are going to be putting some very expensive lenses on it. Canon's entry level cameras don't perform well against the competition, in terms of image quality, and only match it in terms of ergonomics. You'd be better off starting with something like a used D5300 (which is rated as having better image quality than Canon's 5Dmk3), or one of the many very robust offerings from Pentax (though their lens selection is less comprehensive)
You should also check out an a6000, or X-E2.
There isn't really such thing as "too much camera to start with" until you're spending about $7000 on a 1Dx or D4.
>>2799872
>in terms of image quality
>DR is all there is to image quality
>>2799872
So what about the nikonD5500?
Would that be a better option on that price range?
>>2799873
No, there's also color, in which Canon also gets its ass handed to it (Unless you have never learned to process your images) and noise rendering.
>>2799894
>implying that practically the entire photography world doesn't hate how nikon renders skin tones
>noise rendering
Which is dynamic range.
>>2799888
Yes it would.
>>2799888
Nah. Limited lens selection, no good option for the cheaper ones.
A D7000 or D7100 would be the better option and you can use the old AF drive lenses.
>>2799898
What if I go all out and go the 70D then?
Is there an easy way to get your head around all this different kind of gear?
>>2799904
Yes. You choose a system based on the lens. For example I choose Pentax because I liked the color rendition and the limited lenses unique images.
Is there anything special you like about the 70D or the D5500?
>>2799904
7D is generally a better choice than 70D, especially if you can cop for the 7DmII.
But really, any camera around that price level will be capable of great results once you learn how to use it.
As for the difficulty curve of learning to use it, it's not super hard or complicated until you start getting into some of the specialty areas that require you to know a lot about how cameras and stuff like perspective works/or just requires spendy as fuck gear (like high level architecture or astrophotography -- macro is almost in this same boat too). The tutorials at cambridgeincolour are a great place to start and Bryan Peterson's Understanding Exposure should come with every camera sold.
>>2799907
I've decided to go with the D5500 after some thought. And if I go this price I will be able to afford tripod, bag and larger SD card. Like I said I'm am new so I don't really have any presences. I liked canon because the easy interface and if was what I was used to.
>>2799908
Thank you! I will be sure to check that out!
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 334 Image Height 500 Scene Capture Type Standard
>>2799912
>I've decided to go with the D5500 after some thought
If you go Nikon, I echo the other guy, aim for the 7xxx series cameras. You lose a lot of the advantage of using Nikon by eliminating being able to use screwdrive focus.
>>2799912
>if I go this price I will be able to afford tripod, bag and larger SD card
Very wise choice.
I'd advise you get a cheap Cokin P filter set from china with ND and graduated filters and adapter rings. Not very expensive and can get you started on long exposure and landscape photography basics. Also get a wireless trigger, china has them at a few bucks per piece.
>>2799917
Yeah, you can manual focus, but you want always want to use manual/be able to easily use manual.
As for compatibility in general, our Lord and Savior has a good article:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/compatibility-lens.htm
>>2799417
Disassemble it and clean the lens elements. If you are asking it's probably a good sign that you shouldn't do it yourself and should pay a pro to do it. This is assuming the lens is worth it. If it's cheap you are better off getting another one. If you are clumsy invest in a weather sealed lens and camera.
>>2799389
Yes.
>>2799725
yes
I got a couple recommendations for this >>2799688 today
Nikon D3300 + kit lens + Tokina 100mm f/2.8 = $794
Sony a6000 + 30mm f/3.5 = $776
I'm a little worried about the short focal length of the sony even though I've heard it's good for the price. Some uniform glossy parts require really specific lighting so getting too close would be an issue. Any thoughts on these choices?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make SAMSUNG Camera Model SAMSUNG-SM-N900A Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Windows) Maximum Lens Aperture f/2.2 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 31 mm Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 4128 Image Height 2322 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 2016:03:23 21:01:05 Exposure Time 1/40 sec F-Number f/2.2 Exposure Program Normal Program ISO Speed Rating 64 Lens Aperture f/2.2 Brightness 3.3 EV Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Center Weighted Average Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash Focal Length 4.13 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 2928 Image Height 2322 Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Unique Image ID D13QSGI01OA
>>2800007
forgot to resize
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make SAMSUNG Camera Model SAMSUNG-SM-N900A Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Windows) Maximum Lens Aperture f/2.2 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 31 mm Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 4128 Image Height 2322 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 2016:03:23 21:04:35 Exposure Time 1/40 sec F-Number f/2.2 Exposure Program Normal Program ISO Speed Rating 64 Lens Aperture f/2.2 Brightness 3.3 EV Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Center Weighted Average Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash Focal Length 4.13 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1200 Image Height 952 Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Unique Image ID D13QSGI01OA
>>2800007
short macro distances due to short focal lengths are kind of annoying, but the 30mm sony also makes a good walk-around lens, although it doesn't sound like you care. and don't forget that you can just adapt any manual focus macro lens from pretty much any mount. just use a cheapo adapter from amazon or ebay. manual focus, but you should be using manual focus for static macro work anyway. you'll save hundreds that way.
>>2800013
That's a good idea, it's just static stuff anyway. What should I look at if I want to go the adapter route?
Completely new to photography and am looking for an entry-level (cheap) camera that can achieve a noisy, casual look.
I just need a camera for my this summer because it's my senior year and I want to take a lot of photos before I leave for college, but i also know I wont continue with photography into college.
I want my photos to have some noise (pic related) and I want something fairly portable and easy to learn.
I don't know anything about lenses at all and my only photography experience is with a polaroid and a holga
>>2800058
Any camera in nice bright light, slightly over-exposed, with a Portra 400 VSCO preset applied on import.
>>2800058
Whatever you can afford that has come out in the last four or five years and has interchangeable lenses.
>>2800065
You're in a good time for cameras, even shitty cameras from companies you've heard of (e.g. ignoring random knockoffs you find on like aliexpress, but sony, nikon, canon, fuji, olympus, etc.) all perform really damn well. You can't go wrong in the sense of "OMG THIS IS FUCKING UNUSEABLE", but only in the sense of "eh, you could have gotten more for your money if you did this".
>>2800066
whoops, forgot to mention pentax
>>2800069
Eh, still gotta develop skills to use the stuff, it's just at a point where you can't really blame it on the gear.
>>2800071
>it's just at a point where you can't really blame it on the gear
oh yes I can, I prove that here every day
>>2800075
well, where you can blame it on your gear and it be true.
What are any, anything at all, drawbacks of buying Tamron lenses. I'm look to buy 24-70 and 70-200 in the near future and looking at DxOmark and digitalpicture Tamron seems to edge out Nikon.
The only weakness I've found compared to Nikon is that it's not as durable.
Would the difference between these two be worth the $100 price difference?
https://www.amazon.ca/Sony-W800-Digital-Camera-Black/dp/B00I8BIBCW
https://www.amazon.ca/COOLPIX-S7000-Digital-Camera-3-0-Inch/dp/B00TGX9PQW/
Anything else sub $200 that might be worth getting over these? I really just want something with more oomph than a phone, but small enough to keep in a pocket
>>2800203
alternatively, https://www.amazon.ca/Canon-PowerShot-Elph-160-Black/dp/B00RKNMLRU/
>>2800203
>>2800205
For the most part, cheaper compacts aren't really worth it. The sensors are generally under an inch and don't really perform much better than a modern phone.
That said, I'd point you to Canon because CHDK can let you play with a lot more control than you'd generally find (something like the 3xx series Elphs) at those price ranges.
For around that price you should be able to find an EOS M which is much better and still pretty damn small. To get significantly better at that size, you're looking at around $400.
>>2800211
so, this https://www.amazon.ca/Canon-PowerShot-Enabled-Wide-Angle-3-2-Inch/dp/B0075SUJQK/ ?
it does seem like a lot to spend if a phone is mostly comparable, although i don't know if my galaxy s3 really stands up, even if it's mostly just for fucking around
>>2800216
Yeah, that'd be a decent one, but really, the advantages over your cell phone are very limited (mainly having optical zoom, plus some of the stuff like intervalometer/long exposure stuff CHDK can open up).
https://www.keh.com/shop/eos-m-blk-18-m-p.html
https://www.keh.com/shop/canon-18-mm-55-mm-f-3-5-5-6-zoom-lens-for-canon-ef-m.html
This on the other hand would be a significant step up (and keh is really, really damn respectable).
Changing my Sigma 35mm F1.4 for Sony Sonnar T* FE SEL 55mm F1.8 ZA.
Any better lens that are better? Kind of want a zoom lens though....
I have a Sony A7
Will this be a good change? It's just too heavy, I need portability this is why I want to change it, the adapter adds to the weight aswell...
>>2800234
Why not just use a Helios 44M or any other similar older standard prime? There are tons and only a simple M42 adapter is needed.
CZJ Pancolar 50mm, Pentacon 50, Meyer 50, Helios 77 etc...
>>2800234
> Any better lens that are better? Kind of want a zoom lens though....
The main competition with the same IQ that comes to mind is the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 on a MC-11 or Metabones adapter.
Of course, if you want to compromise on IQ and FL a little, there are a lot of lenses that could be more lightweight...
As for zoom lenses, I figure the 24-70 GM will be the closest to equal at 50mm if you really need one. But it is an expensive lens.
The guy on the right side isn't actually twice as wide as the guy in the center, and his head isn't twice as big either, it's some sort of funky distortion that happens to really wide angle lenses. It distorts the person in the edge of the frame even though the two are same size and same height.
But does anyone know what the correct terminology for this distortion is called?
You can see on the edge of the table the lens is perfectly Rectilinear, so it's not a fish eye distortion.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software paint.net 4.0.5 Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 96 dpi Vertical Resolution 96 dpi
>>2800289
That's what rectilinear lenses do.
>>2800291
But it's not a distortion you will find on 85mm rectilinear lenses, or 135mm ones.
It's something funky that happens to wide angles. Does it have a name?
I'm also curious about whether there is a sweetspot where a wide angle lens no longer displays that sort of distorion.
Is it at 18mm?
Is it at 24mm?
Or at 35mm?
That could explain why some of those focal lengths are so popular.
>>2800295
With rectilinear lenses it only looks distorted when you tilt the lens up or down.
It's just perspective.
>>2800315
So, it's called perspective distortion?
Here is what I have trouble understanding. Lenses with long focal lengths don't exhibit the same traits.
On an 85mm, you won't see the guy at the edge being twice as wide as the guy in the center.
That's why I figured this type of distortion must have some sort of name so people can talk about it.
>>2800317
Rectilinears have their edges pulled outside to achieve straight lines, hence the name rectilinear. Fisheye shows the distortion as it is.
Both have the extreme perspective distortion due to short focal length. The two separate categories exist because of the very different image characteristics.
>>2800317
Perspective distortion happens when you are close enough to an object that features of the object seem larger than other features on the object that are further away (like on a face, the nose will appear larger because it is substantially closer to the camera than the ears are, at close distances). Perspective distortion happens on any lens at any focal length, as it doesn't depend on the lens at all.
Rectilinear / fisheye distortion is a product of the lens, and won't really be affected by distance to the subject, but more on where in the frame you place the subject.
>>2800234
Hmm
Will this work with those lens?
http://www.f64.ro/inel-adaptor-m42-minolta-af-sony.html
>>2800321
cont.
Perspective distortion is merely the effect of an object's distance from the camera. If you have two objects that are the same size, and put one 5 feet in front of the camera, and the other 10 feet in front of the camera, one is twice as close, so it will appear to be twice as large.
Now, your objects are five feet apart. Leave them there, but now back yourself up 10 feet. So now your position is You - 15' - Object 1 - 5' - Object 2
Object 2 is not twice as far away anymore. Now it's only 33% further away, therefore it will only look 33% smaller than the close object. You're removing perspective distortion by moving further away, which is lowering the relative distance between the objects (from an extra 100% to merely an extra 33%)
This is useful for facial features. Let's say your nose is five inches in front of your ears. If you take a photo of your face from two feet away (Selfie distance), that five inch distance is enough to noticeably increase the size of your nose in the image, because it's nearly 20% closer to the camera than your ears. When your working distance is two feet, five inches difference is a large percentage of that. But if you move the camera back to 15 feet away from you, that five inch difference from your nose to your ears is only about a 3% difference, which isn't very much at all. So at that range, your nose will appear more or less 3% larger than it does in real life. Not noticeable.
>Pic Related
The cups don't move in this shot, only the camera moves. On the left, the camera is very close, and on the right, the camera is moved back, and a longer focal length is used to make up for the distance.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Greenshot Image-Specific Properties:
>>2800322
Correct, though you might do well with google searched and conversation by calling it "fisheye distortion" or "wide angle distortion" (though neither is really accurate, since it isn't a fisheye lens, and wide angle lenses can be rectilinear as well)
>>2800329
In the attached photo, note also the affect on the background. In the wide-angle shot, the camera is very close to the cups, and the items in the background are many feet away (10 to 15 feet) which is something like 1000% further away than the cups, so they seem very small. But in the second photo, the camera is 10 to 15 feet from the cups, and then 10 or 15 more feet to the background, so in stead of being 1/10th the size, they're only something like 1/2 the size).
This affect can be used to help minimize distracting backgrounds, crop out features you don't want in your frame from the background, etc.
>>2800334
A car becomes more complex when it can go forward and backward, and turn left and right, rather than when it just goes straight forward.
A toolbox becomes more complex when you have more than just a hammer in it.
Yes, it's more complex (I guess) but you can do a LOT more with it. Limiting yourself and calling it a benefit doesn't make a lot of sense.
Also, nobody's making you zoom a zoom lens. If you want to learn to work with one focal length, set it to 24mm, tape it for a month, and only shoot that focal length. But things like background/feature compression SHOULD be things you think about when building a photo.
>>2800336
Do you notice a general tendency for people to want to leave the room when you're talking?
>>2800344
People who don't like accepting the fact that they're wrong when they spout ignorant shit do sometimes, yeah. You should try it. Go play with your film cameras and prime lenses that limit you enough to keep you thinking about your shots. The rest of us will use the tools available to us.
Hello /p/. I have a pentax k7 like i like but its shit for video. Im looking for a camera to use mainly for video. Mirrorless is preferable so it can function as a compact alternative for photos too. Im looking to buy used and spend 2-300. My main contenders are the EOS M and th Nex-5. Any thoughts or advice?
Ive considered the K-01 to continue using my lenses but it seems barely better.
>>2800346
The NEX-5 is much better than the EOS-M. M3 is not much better also.
Sigma APO 50-500mm F4.5-6.3 DG OS HSM or Pentax D FA 150-450mm F4.5-5.6?
I like the Pentax better, IQ seems higher too, but the price difference in my country is huge. 1200 eur vs 2200 eur
Thoughts?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make PENTAX Camera Model PENTAX K-5 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS5.1 Windows Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 600 mm Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 445 dpi Vertical Resolution 445 dpi Image Created 2012-07-15T18:01:12+03:00 Exposure Time 1/2000 sec F-Number f/6.3 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 320 Lens Aperture f/6.3 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 400.00 mm Image Width 950 Image Height 633 Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Contrast Hard Saturation Normal Sharpness Hard Subject Distance Range Distant View
>>2800348
I plan on selling that Sony LA-EA4 adapter though
Yea, Transylvania
>>2800351
Well, the Pentax is a bit sharper, but it's more expensive, so I guess all that's left is to ask yourself "Is the more expensive lens better enough for my uses to warrant the expense" huh?
>>2800351
Get the Sigma 150-500 instead, the 50-500 is not that sharp and very-very-very slow to focus. No real uses when the subject is moving.
>>2800352
So either he's saying that one focal length is better, which is ridiculous, or he's stating an obvious fact that one focal length is less focal lengths than many focal lengths, which doesn't need to be said at all. Either way, it should be pointed out that limits, while making things simpler for stupid people, also remove options and possibilities, and when lenses and cameras are literally tools to achieve a goal, more options are better.
>It was my first post in the thread
Ask me if I believe you.
>>2800356
Second post here: good God you must have some sort of intellectual disability. So now you're saying your chain of logic is:
>Consider a post not to contribute as much as you'd like to the thread
>Deliberately woefully misinterpret the post so as to guarantee that you contribute nothing but spite
>Add a point that is entirely irrelevant to anything
What is the point in you?
>>2800355
> Get the Sigma 150-500 instead, the 50-500 is not that sharp and very-very-very slow to focus. No real uses when the subject is moving.
Are you sure? this is the first time I read something like this, everywhere people say that the 50-500 is an improvement over the old 150-500. Do you have any sources?
I can't seem to find the 150-500 anyway, it's not in production anymore and got no luck on the used market so far.
>>2800359
Have you tried the Pentaxforums lens database? Literally everyone says focus tracking is slow on the 50-500.
>>2800357
>What is the point in you?
Trying to keep people from spreading shitty advice to people who come here to learn.
How would you interpret the post that I "woefully misinterpret" differently than I did? Be specific.
>>2800361
One interpretation is ridiculous, the other is obvious, so you assume he means the one that you consider ridiculous. So obviously posting in bad faith is not a great way to help people learn.
>>2800363
If the one you believe he's suggesting is obvious, then why does he say it at all? Hence the:
>A car becomes more complex when it can go forward and backward, and turn left and right, rather than when it just goes straight forward.
>A toolbox becomes more complex when you have more than just a hammer in it.
>>2800334
What is your point?
>>2800356
>>2800357
I wasn't advocating one focal length. But sometimes that one prime lens you have with you is all you got.
Anyway my thinking was this:
- if perspective distortion didn't exist, then everything is easy to understand and figure out.
- But since perspective distortions exist, all the nuances you can get from the various focal lengths become so much more diverse. It just surprised me, that's all.
>>2800367
I think he was making a throwaway point, that may not be particularly enlightening, but does not warrant your insane knee jerk response. Do you feel a need to try and derail a thread any time an Anon posts something that doesn't meet your standards for content?
Fundamentally, he was probably trying to thank >>2800321 >>2800329 for taking the time to explain a point in a way that helped him, while also showing that he'd read and understood the comments. This is 4chan, there isn't a "Like" button, so if you want someone to know that you recognize their contribution a comment is the only way. That doesn't mean you have to get butthurt about it and pretend to think that the guy has said something stupid that bears little relation to what he actually posted.
>>2800369
Why is this board always seeking so much confrontation when there is none meant?
>>2800257
>24-70 GM
Way too expensive I'm afraid
>>2800373
It's a self fulfilling prophecy. Two or three people run around as anon arguing with everything, or spouting very ignorant opinions as if they are fact (for instance, film is better for learning, and limits help you learn), so when anon says something that could be taken as an attack, you assume it's an attack and defend yourself, which pisses people off.
>>2800371
>>2800372
I see, I understand, and I apologize for being a dick about it. My fault entirely.
>>2800371
yes you're correct, it's something many people don't think about or plan for, or even understand, and yet it has a huge impact on your final photo, and can be used to great effect when it comes to composition, both for simplicity/environment and for using perspective to make something seem large/small for emotional effect.
>>2800376
You could roll the dice and get a Zeiss 24-70 f/4
>>2800380
You da real MVP, anon. Now we're all friends again!
>>2800381
I want to roll the dice and get a Zeiss
So my camera bag was stolen. In it was my camera body (D7100) and all of my lenses (18-55 VR, 35/1.8, 85/1.8). Trying to replace everything, but was wondering what opinions are on the best Nikon kit zoom, because I can't afford to replace everything at once, and having just a 35/1.8 is fairly limiting for what I shoot (having something wider is important to me).
>>2800385
16-85 VR
>>2800385
sucks, dude. how'd it get stolen?
>>2800181
Tamron lenses will not hold their value as well as camera brand lenses. The camera makers also don't give third party manufacturers like tamron access to their proprietary software. Tamron have to reverse engineer their lenses. That usually means that autofocus performance is not as good as first party lenses. When nikon releases new cameras and/or makes changes to their mount in the future they will try to keep their old lenses compatible but there is no guarantee that tamron lenses will work the same they do now.
If you want the best optical performance right now get the Tamron. If you want to invest in lenses for a long time consider the Nikon. Optical performance should be very similar in the real world.
>>2800393
I was camping and someone apparently got into my car and took it (which could have been when I popped into town for a couple of hours to get food).
>>2800406
>not having your gear on your person at all times
It sucks but you had it coming.
>>2800406
Tough call, man. It's good to know you're getting back in the saddle.
>>2800234
28 f2.
35 f2.8
smegma 30 2.8 with rear baffle removed.
19 2.8 with baffle removed and cropping.
>>2800404
Ignore this fool.
Nikon lenses lose MORE value over time becasue they are twice as expensive to begin with.
Percentages aren't important, absolute values are.
Only cheap lenses lose a whole lot of value, becasue the market is flooded with them.
But the same applies to Nikon kit lenses.
Quality glass like the current Tamron f/2.8 zooms will keep value decent enough becasue there is a demand.......until everybody switches mirrorless. (another reason not to pay the brand name premium at this point in time)
>>2798981
Sigma 12-24 f4.
Got one on my D7100 right now for around $180.
>>2800404
the only reason to buy Nikon glass now is if you want a superzoom or vintage primes.
>>2800573
This post is retarded
>>2800234
The 55mm f1.8 is great optically but focus by wire ruins it. It's very expensive too.
Fuji X100s or X-e2?
>>2800652
for what. Their differences are obvious.
Fuuuuuuuck, the big bundle sale for 7d mkii with a bunch of free stuff added on disappeared from amazon the very day before the new shitty 80d releases.
The previews for 80d make it look like another total disappointment from canon's no-body-features slacker division, I just wanted another hundred or two shaved off that 7d II.
>>2800424
I know, typically I do a very good job of that but I slipped up once and am now paying the price. Still kicking myself about it.
>>2800654
Buy grey market
Or enjoy actual shadow detail with 80D
>>2800666
enjoy paying $1100 for a featureless turd camera that has uglier pictures than a $500 nikon.
>>2798570
Hey guys I'm new to this board, I'm planning to buy a nikon i5 for semiprofesional uses (blogs and Web page images), is 300 usd a good price for it? Any other suggestions? I'm really new to all thus photography stuff but I'm very interested also I'm interested into doing time lapse videos any suggestions/experiences/tips on that?
>>2800648
> but focus by wire ruins it
Why? It works great.
> It's very expensive too.
It is priced very normally for a good lens.
Almost the same as a Sigma Art 50mm and half as expensive than the (faster, but not optically better) Canon L 50mm.
