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: >>2808066
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS2 Windows Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2012:07:09 11:46:12 Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 300 Image Height 450
I have a 16-45mm lens which is nice and sharp but in a few occasions I found it being not long enough. Should I replace it with a 17-70 which is optically a bit worse for somewhat twice the money I can sell the 16-45mm?
Or just keep it and switch to the 70-200 when I need a longer lens? Maybe get a pancake instead for my GAS?
Is there still any real reason to spring for the Nikon 35 1.4G when the Sigma 35 Art seems to do literally everything better at a third of the price?
Objectively it's the weather sealing and the AF being designed by Nikon.
Subjectively lots of people go on about the "character" of the Nikon 35, the colours, the nano-coating, the bokeh.
Don't quite know how much is marketing BS but this is my first real expensive lens purchase so thought I'd ask.
>>2812041
>Subjectively lots of people go on about the "character" of the Nikon 35, the colours, the nano-coating, the bokeh.
These things, at least, are definitely bogus
>>2811723
Which current Nikon DSLRs will meter with manual lenses? I'm pretty far out of the loop, still using a D2HS, and now I can't make heads or tails out of how fucking convoluted their numbering system has become.
How far have they come in the last couple generations? Considering just getting a used D300 for cheap, are they hopelessly obsolete by now?
>>2812091
Everything full frame will meter with manual lenses as long as they are Ai-S. As far as crop bodies are concerned, D7XXX series will meter. All cameras will mount old manual focus lenses.
The D300 is fucking ancient by this point and I say this as someone who bought one the week it was released. Any of the newer crop bodies will blow it out of the water in terms of image quality. You can also pick up a D700 for less than a grand these days, and a D800 (36 megapixels, which will make you shit your pants coming from a 4 megapixel camera) goes for between $1200-1400.
I'm looking at a 6D for $1000 or a 5D mark ii for $900. Everything I'm reading says to lean toward the 6D, but my assumption was that they were arguing "everything being equal" (in other words, if both bodies cost the same, go for the 6D). Given that, I feel I should check in and see if anyone thinks the 5Dii is worth getting if it's $100 cheaper.
I'm coming from a 70D and a slew of other older crop bodies, shooting mostly landscapes, city stuff (street), and some portraits. I realize this'll throw all of my lenses into flux (focal lengths and apertures will have different effects), but I'm working on liquidating some gear to buy some others to work that out.
>>2812093
Thanks for the info. Are the D7XXX in the same vein as the D80/D90 then? And then any DXXX under 700 is DX, anything above FF?
FF would be pretty nice but since I mostly use my DSLR for wildlife I don't mind the DX crop. I just can't give up my Ai-converted 135 f2.8 Q-Nikkor or my Tokina 100-300 f4 since I really love those lenses and don't have the cash to replace them with fancy new AF glass. Pic related, I think the Tokina could really shine with a better sensor.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make NIKON CORPORATION Camera Model NIKON D2Hs Camera Software RawTherapee Maximum Lens Aperture f/1.0 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 450 mm Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 2474 Image Height 1640 Compression Scheme Uncompressed Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Data Arrangement Chunky Format Image Created 2012:06:07 13:39:17 Exposure Time 1/60 sec F-Number f/5.3 Exposure Program Aperture Priority ISO Speed Rating 1000 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Spot Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash Focal Length 300.00 mm Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Gain Control Low Gain Up Contrast Normal Sharpness Hard Subject Distance Range Unknown ISO Speed Used 1000 Image Quality RAW White Balance AUTO Image Sharpening MED.H Focus Mode MANUAL Flash Setting NORMAL ISO Speed Requested 1000 Flash Bracket Compensation 0.0 EV AE Bracket Compensation 0.0 EV Tone Compensation AUTO Lens Type Unknown Lens Range 0.0 mm; f/0.0 Auto Focus Center Shooting/Bracketing Mode Single Frame/Off Color Mode MODE3 Lighting Type NATURAL Noise Reduction OFF Camera Actuations 25664 Saturation 2 NORMAL
>>2811723
Will adapting Canon FD lenses to a digital Canon APS-C body yield good results? Or will the flange distance or adapter fuck me up somehow?
>>2812103
For crop, D7xxx is sort of a step above what the D90 was while still being a bit below the fully pro D300 (and soon the D500).
For full frame, the D600 (and D610 is literally the same camera but with the manufacturing flaws fixed) is basically a D7xxx with a bigger sensor. The D700 is a full frame almost D3 tier camera but with the battery grip removed. D800/810 is a very high resolution D700 but with a slight step down in build quality, D750 is sort of slotted in between the D610 and D800 bodies in build quality and """pro""" features.
It's all kind of a huge mess. If you want to keep DX then you'll probably be happiest with a D7xxx (they're all about the same) or a D500 if you want to spend that much and you really want the latest and greatest spiritual successor to your D2. D300 is a hell of a camera but it's old enough that I would probably hesitate to buy it unless you find a really good deal on a D300s or something.
If you do want full frame then honestly the D700 is a hell of a camera and goes for pretty cheap these days although again it's nearly as old as the D300 so make sure you're at least getting a newer one that hasn't been too heavily used if you go down that route. If not then you'll probably want a D750 or something, it won't be completely up to the same standard as the brick shithouse D2 you're used to but it's by no means a cheap or flimsy camera or anything like that.
>>2812106
No, it requires an adapter with glass in it, and they don't work well.
Cna anyone tell me what that lens is? Someone is claiming its an old Tamron 70-210, but it sure doesnt look like one. It definitely is a tamron though.
>>2812041
Yes, Nikon has a reliable AF, Sigma Art needs regular calibration and often suffers from overtravel, which you can't calibrate for.
>>2812106
Some FD lenses can be converted to EF but it is an unofficial mod, you have to find those who can do it and only for some lenses.
If you want to use FD lenses, your best bet is getting a mirrorless (Fuji, Sony etc...).
Ricoh GR (mk1) vs Fuji X70. Fuji is $60 more. Both brand new, grey market no warranty I am guessing. I was going to go a mirrorless as an upgrade to my g1x but I realized I'm always just taking tripod photos at wide zoom 99% of the time and a fixed lens with big sensor. The GR seems much more popular and it is cheaper, but older. Reviews of the X70 seem generally positive but not as fanatical as the GR.
TL;DR Want a camera. Never had anything past a small digital one that I got when I was about 11.
I've been travelling a lot but rarely take pictures, but seeming as Im heading the Japan and some other countries in the summer I thought I should start.
Would also be good to have something to do with my dad seeming as he's mad about photography.
My budget is around £100-200, all help is appreciated
>>2812392
Can you get a D3300 for that?
>>2812398
Well, that's what I'd suggest then.
>>2812320
The GR is a camera specifically designed for photographers who know what they're doing. It is a workmans tool, not a holiday family snapshooter. The X70 wants to be a GR but lacks some of the more useful features of the GR plus the x-trans sensor makes RAW workflow tedious so it's mostly a jpeg shooter. It is much more of a family in the park snapshooter.
>>2812392
That is a very low budget, but see if you can find a used Pentax K-30 or Canon 550D with kit lens. There isn't much options for that kind of budget, see if you can expand it first to get a used Nikon D3300 or a Pentax K-50.
> College kid running a 50 1.8 on s D7100.
I'm growing tired of the 50, how's the 24-120 f/4 and what would be good alternatives? (preferably <500$)
>>2812423
The 50mm and the 24-120 are both focal lengths which aren't really ideal for crop. Why don't you get the 35mm f/1.8DX or some sort of 17-xx or 18-xx zoom or something if you want a more useful focal length? The 35 would give you an actual normal lens rather than the sort of short tele equivalent you get from the 50, and the 24-120 on crop would be more of a normal to long zoom and wouldn't really give you any wide angle.
>>2812423
> how's the 24-120 f/4
Pleb zoom lens. Not very sharp or fast overall, 5x zoom ratio, mostly meant so you can shoot with a single lens.
Could be worse, but it is the kind of glass I don't like. Even if I got it for free, I'd almost never use it.
> what would be good alternatives?
How about a 24-70mm or some extra primes?
>>2812423
Look around the cheap older screwdrive AF lenses, you might find a few you will like.
>>2812207
Impossible to tell from this picture, do you have a higher quality one?
>>2812476
So you're going to buy lenses that aren't very useful to you now because they go better with another camera which you may want to buy at some point in the future?
Do you need a new lens to allow you some new photographic capabilities so that you can take photos which you want to take but can't with your current lens? Or do you need a new lens to fill out your gear collection?
If you had some goal in mind then maybe we could help you. "Best DX lenses" for what? For portraits, for macrophotography, for landscapes, for having a big camera bag full of all the expensive lenses to impress your friends online?
>>2812486
Implying that either of those lenses aren't useful. I bought the 50 as a low light street lens. (I realize now I probably should've gone with a 35)
I'm looking for a fast mid range zoom, I've been working on landscapes lately but the 50 feels so cropped no matter how far back I compose (and understandably so). People run 24-70s and don't touch anything else but I obviously can't afford 1500$+
As for my "gear bag" I have a Yongnuo speedlight and my 50 which i've made myself and some people very happy with
resposted from another gear thread
What would be a good lens for travelling?
I'm planning on travel a lot next year and I think it's time to upgrade my kit lens (sony a6000, your'e free to hate with the 18-55 kit lens) I'll use it mainly for street photography, some portraits and maybe some nature shooting
I was thinking about a 35mm/1.8, according to several internet reviews, but I'd like to hear other opinions
>>2812511
24-120 is not a fast mid range zoom on crop, it's a fast mid range zoom on full frame. That's the whole issue I'm getting at, there are better alternatives if you're on crop but you seem set on getting the full frame lenses instead even though they're less useful for you. 24-70 is not wide on crop. If you want wide on crop then you need some sort of 17-55 or 18-xx or whatever.
One of my broken digital cameras (SONY) gave me a USB-mini USB B cable. Should I keep it? I don't know if it works.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop 7.0 Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2004:09:22 16:27:08 Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 300 Image Height 300
I could have bought a Nikon FM3a for 370 EUR, but of course missed the opportunity. Did I fuck up?
Should I buy the extended 1 or 2 year warranty when buying a used camera from B&H? Ive never bought used before and Im just worried that it will die on me and ill be stuck with a $1k paperweight. I checked around and B&H is the only place that has used models for sale, so its either this or grey market, which is the same price.
KEH seems to be the go to place for used cameras but they havent carried the body I am looking for so I was wondering if anyone has any opinions as to what I should do here.
>>2812612
KEH is by far the best site for used, you could wait and see if they get it in stock soon.
But if not, B&H is pretty good too. I'm not sure what their warranty policy for used stuff is like though. I would definitely not buy any extended warranty for anything, those are always bullshit.
>>2812603
Do they come with lenses? If so, which?
>>2812623
Ah, thats what I thought. Thanks for the advice!
>>2812631
The 3200 comes with a AF-S DX VR 18-55mm
The 550D comes with a EFS 18-55mm
Although the 550D doesnt have a charger and has "deep scratches on the screen and body". Not sure if its worth, seeming as there's one in better condition for £170 that actually has a charger, although Id have to get a lens for it
Is there a list of cheap legacy K mount or m42 lenses that everyone should get?
New to photography, what would any of you suggest getting? I would like to take photos of buildings, water, crowded streets etc. Thanks in advance
>>2812636
>doesn't have a charger
It's stolen.
Why is it that every digital camera has to have something wrong? I thought I might have found the perfect camera after buying a secondhand x100t, but the autofocus is so slow that I miss half of my shots. Everything else is perfect, the lens, ergonomics, viewfinder etc.
I tried out an lx100 today and was impressed. Even though it wasnt as solid as the fuji, it was good enough. I'm not a fan of the erecto zoom though. Are there any comparable digital cameras that have good autofocus like the lx100 and are a similar size but have a mount where I can put a 35mm f2 lens?
>>2812656
>Is there a list of cheap legacy K mount or m42 lenses
Pentaxforums has a nice database of every lens Pentax has ever made, all the way back to the ancient M39 lenses from the '50s, when they were still Asahi Optical. All complete with user reviews, most of which have sample photos.
>that everyone should get?
well how the hell should I know which lenses you should get? You didn't say what camera you're putting them on, what focal lengths and apertures you want, and what you're intending to use them for.
>>2812664
Ideally a good FF or APS-C camera (MILC or DSLR) with some really great lenses - primarily between 12 and 50mm FF equivalent. Could be a mixture of primes and zooms. And probably a tripod.
I have no clue how much you can / are willing to spend, though.
I'm looking to get into photography but don't really know where or how to start. I'm guessing all the tech specs will come with time (after all, PC components used to be incomprehensible to me).
As of now, I'm thinking <$300 for my budget. I'm definitely looking for something relatively compact. If it's any help, I like the Leica Q's form factor (of course it may be much bigger in person). Planning on taking pictures of buildings, maybe nature, maybe both. I don't plan on doing photo shoots for weddings or senior pictures or anything like that, but I may take more detached pictures of groups of people that are some distance away.
Also, has anyone else picked up on the symbolism of their choice of picture subjects? Seems like there are several genres of photograph (portraiture, nature, urban, rural, architectural, etc). I just feel like you can learn more about yourself by thinking about the types of pictures you (plan to) take.
Here's a trite building pic.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Model MotoG3 Equipment Make Motorola Maximum Lens Aperture f/2.0 Image-Specific Properties: Image Created 2016:04:10 21:59:01 Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Geodetic Survey Data WGS-84 Color Space Information sRGB F-Number f/2.0 Focal Length 3.64 mm Lens Aperture f/2.0 Exposure Mode Auto Image Height 3120 Rendering Normal Saturation Normal Exposure Program Normal Program Sharpness Soft White Balance Auto Image Width 4160 Metering Mode Center Weighted Average Flash No Flash, Compulsory Contrast Normal Exposure Bias 0 EV Brightness Unknown ISO Speed Rating 2500 Exposure Time 1667/25000 sec
>>2812709
>Are there any comparable digital cameras that have good autofocus like the lx100 and are a similar size but have a mount where I can put a 35mm f2 lens?
The A6300 or A6000 has a fairly comparable body size and better AF than the cameras you mentioned.
And a 28mm f/2 is a very nice lens. It won't stick out any less from the front of the body though, nor do most other lenses. They're generally mostly pretty big (and mostly pricier and better than most M43).
>>2812763
> As of now, I'm thinking <$300 for my budget
Well, good luck.
> Seems like there are several genres of photograph (portraiture, nature, urban, rural, architectural, etc).
Sure, genres of subjects exist. But I cannot attach any deeper meaning to people's preferences and photos. With our current level of understanding of the software that runs in our brain, it's about as interesting and deep as the results of a throw of dice are.
>>2812768
Really? You don't a preference for portraiture is indicative a higher level of sociability? Or maybe architecture as symbolic of more structural thought/sensibilities?
I tend to look for symbolism in reality so maybe I'm biased, but looking at people's photographs, IMO, gives insight into the type of person they are and what's going on in their mind at and leading up to the photograph.
>>2812770
think*
>>2812741
I don't think 12mm is really too great a general use lens, more of a special effect use optic no? (besides there being 4 lenses across all slr's that can reach that, 1 being hugely expensive, one requiring mirror lock up, one being a really shit zoom, and one being a pretty good zoom (8-16))
I think starting off between 20 and 85 (24x36 equiv.) would be more reasonable.
>>2812763
<$300 budget and leica in the same paragraph....
>>2812773
Oh come on I was talking about the form factor man
>>2812093
well I'd say it's not quite obsolete as it will in fact still work with E lenses.
but you can still get a d7000 for fractionally more, and only lose out on body style and build quality....
>>2812770
> Really? You don't a preference for portraiture is indicative a higher level of sociability? Or maybe architecture as symbolic of more structural thought/sensibilities?
I don't. Give me these conclusions in the form of a model that can predict the outcome when applied to a person, and I'll of course believe them.
> I tend to look for symbolism in reality so maybe I'm biased, but looking at people's photographs, IMO, gives insight into the type of person they are and what's going on in their mind at and leading up to the photograph.
I also don't believe in that, but I wouldn't be surprised if some artists touted this as a sales point. Spiritual / religious nonsense always sold well, you have a financial incentive to provide it.
"The artist must have been struck by incredibly romantic feelings, wow, I must buy!"
>>2811723
fuck pentax! this mamiya survived holi!
>>2812741
> I don't think 12mm is really too great a general use lens
You're right about that, but it can be a good format for buildings and panorama shots involving water or crowded streets.
And I was actually thinking about anon ideally buying multiple lenses in that approximate range.
>>2812783
fair enough, for crop shooters the 8-16 is really quite a steal for what it gets you!
>>2812782
Survived as in having that shit all over the internals and never to be cleaned properly then yah, sure.
>>2812782
>just fuck my shit up
>>2812788
amusingly enough, none of the dust actually got into the internals. was good as new after some time with a blower and some alcohol wipes.
hour wasted dismantling it.
except for refusing to work in the cold, it was actually quite hardy durability wise. Most camera's I've had have been this way, maybe I'm just lucky *fingers crossed*
>>2812778
Make fun of it all you want, but choosing to photograph something is a decision and we all make decisions. Decision making is one of the ways that people define themselves. Jokes aside, I think it makes quite a bit of sense. I mean, it isn't a science by any means. Still interesting though.
blackmagic ursa/mini or red raven for the ~10000 price range
>>2812809
>choosing to photograph something is a decision
Yes? But it does not imply character traits like you said.
Someone would still have to show that preference for portraiture indeed is related to"sociability" (defined more formally and objectively, of course - the word as such means very little).
> Decision making is one of the ways that people define themselves.
People define themselves by everything. If you have a scar or big shoulders or big tits, that defines you a lot in other people's eyes.
Many people will also want to see *character traits* in these, but there is probably no relation there.
Hey guys I was wondering if I could get some advice.
I have ~$800 ( willing to go a LITTLE over) to buy a camera. However, I dont know anything about them and so im vulnerable to paying for things I dont need just because they seem fancy. However, I also could use a new cellphone, and was wondering if that might just be a better option for me considering my needs. I am with ATT if that changes my cellphone options, and I do understand that apparently cellphone images would not compare to any DSLR.
With that said, here are the things I hope to be able to do with the camera and some of my background.
First I would really love for it to be able to take high quality pictures. I am passionate about taking images of my family at gatherings and this is my first reason for wanting to get into photography. I would like to be able to take pictures that would be high quality for the internet, as well as to physically print as my mom seems to love physical images to hang. I want the best quality I can get there.
I work in the health industry, and because of it I plan on using the camera within this field. I need it to be weather resistant (all weathers and things including mud if possible), able to take lower light images as a lot of things are done early in the morning before the sun is up, mobile as im outdoors often, and something important for me is the ability to record and view in slow motion. I work with motion analysis and need to be able to record someones movement patterns and be able to review the record back in clear quality and very slowly.
These seem to be the true reasons I need/want it. I also have a business that will be opening up within the next couple of years and would hope to have something that could last around til then, or work well enough to use the images professionally.
If this can be dont with a good mobile phone that might be able to kill 2 birds with 1 stone as I could use an upgrade. Any suggestions would be great.
>>2812663
thanks!
>>2812830
You can't have all that in a $800 camera, and even less on a mobile phone (even if it's $800).
Have a look at the A6000 or A6300 or D3300 to D7200 or K-50 to K-3 II, and make your compromises.
Or go up to an A7S (II) if you actually want to focus on really low light capability.
What's the best platform for cheap lenses? I'm a poorfag who's looking to experiment, but I don't want to pay for an expensive lens I might not use.
>>2812840
Sony's A7R II (or A7 II), probably. You can stick all sorts of cheap lenses on that and they get IBIS and focus peaking for easy MF.
From context, getting the best platform *itself* might be too expensive for you, though?
Maybe it's more an A6000 or Pentax or some M43 that you're actually looking for.
getting my first camera soon
Im think of getting a 50mm with it
Is the 1.4 worth the price over the 1.8?
Im going to be doing concert stuff and I want to have enough money for a second lens that will have some zoom
>>2812848
> the 1.4
The Sigma Art 50mm f/1.4 is worth its price.
Some other 50mm f/1.4 lens may not be worth it's price, but I have no clue which one you're talking about.
>>2812852
Was thinking canon
Im going to be getting a 7D
>>2812839
can you explain a little why on everything? I really dont know cameras. What is so hard about having that in an $800 camera and whats the trade off look like in general?
And i know this might be a meme here, but would an iphone6s+ be sufficient for my needs overall? remember, I dont need anything THAT expensive where i should be looking into a $3k camera. I am asking if I am over estimating what I would need
>>2812830
You should probably get a Samsung Galaxy S7. It's not going to be excellent but it's the closest to meeting your asks.
>>2812855
Personally, I'd not get the relatively minor upgrade that is the Canon 50mm f/1.4.
I'd make a decision between the value (f/1.8) or quality (Sigma Art 50mm or f/1.2L) solutions myself, the thing in between is not *that* interesting to me.
That said, that's just me. The 50mm f/1.4 by Canon (or the older non-"Art" Sigma or such) might be precisely the right compromise for you?
>>2812865
Im beginning to lean towards canons 1.8
It would definitely leave some extra moey for a additional lens so I'd have two instead of just the 1.4
>>2812856
>What is so hard about having that in an $800 camera and whats the trade off look like in general?
You want low-light capabilities (shooting before the sun is up), high quality, fully sealed (including mud), plus slow motion video capabilities.
Even if you accept drawbacks on 1-2 of these criteria, you are looking at $1-6k camera bodies anyhow, and then the lenses and software and other costs on top of that.
> THAT expensive
Actually, photo cameras and glass got fairly cheap. Video shooters often pay a lot more.
Alas, if you don't want to pay that much, how about you cut back on requirements.
Try a K-50 or D3300 - won't be super high quality or have low light capabilities, and the latter doesn't have weather sealing, but at least these are more around $300-500.
Or a A6300 if somewhat good slow-motion video is a "must have" for you.
>>2812873
Yep, sounds like a good idea to go with the f/1.8 then.
>>2812882
Cool thx
>>2812878
I think I might be coming off as sounding as my requirements are more high quality than I actually expect.
Im working with human bodies, athletes, clients, patients. I need to be able to record fast movement as in bodies in action but the vast majority will be for controlled movement of the body. Low light because of outdoors work, a flash or light would be fine. Weather resistant i shouldve been more clear on. Im guessing a go pro would be better for something like that, but I attend a lot of events such as tough mudder and the sort. I would like to be able to take something through that.
Someone suggested the galaxy s7, that seems like it fits the needs basically and this comparison to a canon 70d seems nice
>>2812886
If your quality requirements are much lower and low light without extra light isn't a requirement, you could probably make do with a ~$60 Xiaomi Yicam or a GoPro and -if needed- some $30 LED light panel.
The Yicam has 1080p 60fps & 720p 120fps & can do pretty smartphone-like stills, too.
A Xiaomi Mi5 or Redmi Note 3 Pro smartphone might also apply, they cost about half / a third as much as the Samsung or Apple phone.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows) Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2015:09:19 10:40:25 Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 800 Image Height 600
>>2812891 (cont'd)
I forgot, it also can do 480p at 240FPS. Looks really quite ugly at that point, but you can probably still easily use it for body movement analysis.
See here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7TrCyG_zr0g
Obviously the other cameras also have samples on YT.
Hello!
Wasn't sure if I am to post this in the /film/ general or not but...
I found some film cameras on craigslist that I'd like to buy and I'm having trouble figuring out which to go with. I would very much appreciate some insight.
Minolta Maxxum 7000 - $120
Kalimar KX 5000 - $55
Pentax SF10 - $75
I'm a little sketched out by the $55 one. I used a Pentax K1000 a couple years ago in a high school photography class.
I plan to use this camera just to take pictures of people and things. Not really specific, I guess.
>>2812896
Go look those up on eBay now.
>>2812904
>Minolta Maxxum 7000
Oh
Oh fuck
Thank you.
Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L
yes or no? i'm a beginner.
>>2812927
It's a solid if unspectacular lens. If you're a beginner it's probably more than you should get right now, and it's less useful on the crop camera that you probably have than it is on a full-frame (or film) camera
>>2812927
> yes or no?
Too much zoom range to be actually good.
How about a 24-70mm f/2.8 instead? There are a bunch of *much* better lenses in that range.
> i'm a beginner
Not too important. It matters more what you want and how much you can afford to pay for it.
>>2812946
Why is the 24-70mm much better?
>>2812802
wasn't really including fisheye lenses or non dslr's, doesn't seem like what the guy was talking about? otherwise you could even include the canon 8-15 no?
>>2812997
The long end of the 24-105 isn't so good. At ~55mm-60mm and above, f/4 becomes ugly really quite rapidly.
You can stop the 24-105 down to about f/8 to get back to a fairly okay level of sharpness, but it is still going to be worse than the 24-70mm f/2.8L is at f/2.8, and of course f/8, which won't be ideal in quite many situations.
Alright! So I've been shooting with the Pentax K5 for 3 years using just the Sigma 18-200.
Now I can sell the body and lens for about $700 and all together have around $2400 AUD to spend on camera gear.
I mostly do landscapes and astro.
> So... should I switch to full frame? If so, which?
> Should I not sell, instead buy decent glass? If so, what glass?
> Or should I upgrade to a better body? If so, which?
Thanks in advance!
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi
>>2813065
That budget is probably too low to get a good setup with a recent FF camera.
Maybe just get a decent APS-C and better glass, or upgrade your Pentax a bit?
>>2813065
For $2400 you could get something like the Canon 6D with a 16-35mm f4 lens
There's no point upgrading one APS-C body to another APS-C
>>2813065
What's wrong with the K5, and what makes you think you'd be able to notice, while using a lens like the Sigma 18-200?
>>2813097
>Nothing, I really like the K5, I just thought it might be wiser to invest in full frame before I have a large collection of lenses for Pentax
Why do you need full frame? If you have a genuine need, then maybe? But chances are very good you have no need for full frame.
>>2813084
> There's no point upgrading one APS-C body to another APS-C
The D7200 and A6300 -APS-C bodies- are better than the 6D in pretty much every regard though.
I think that hints at there being a point.
new to this, I'm getting a d5500
what sd card(s) should I get? should I get the biggest and fastest I can afford? should I get bigger ones at all? five 8gb vs one 32? brands to get or avoid?
will be mainly for photos, small amount of video
>>2813065
The answer is always lens first. Get the DA* 16-50/2.8 or the HD 16-85/4 WR. If you really want to go FF then get the K-1 and the D-FA 24-70/2.8. But you should do well with the K-5 still especially broadening your possibilities with better lenses.
>>2813174
Also get the O-ME53 or whatitsname magnifying viewfinder cap, it will make your OVF as big and spacious as on a FF. It worked wonders on my K-3.
>>2813065
pentax k-1 my dudes, you can afford it with that budget. Full frame and fully weather sealed.
>>2813164
Personally I think 16GB cards are the best compromise between size and backup. You don't want a 10000GB card to lose every photo you've ever taken. As for speed look for anything with a write speed of 45MB+. Never had a real issue with Sandisks extremes myself so my be try them
>>2813191
Lenses don't matter on /p/ all that matters is that you have the best spec sheet. Don't you know where you are?
>>2813192
Oh shit you're right. Sorry, I thought I was in a place filled with logic and reason for a second
>>2813191
Oh shit, right. I forgot the money was in exconvict dollars. Well, if he's really up for the body upgrade, he can always save more. But the Pentax k-1 is his cheapest, and IMO, for what it offers at that price, his best option if he ever wants to go full frame. And it's not like he can't use his old APS-C sensor lens. Some adjustments to focal length will get rid of the dark areas around the image. Unless, of course, I'm an idiot again and the Smegma is incompatible with the K-1.
Why do I keep seeing these things everywhere do they even make a difference?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS3 Macintosh Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2008:09:18 13:04:45 Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 300 Image Height 225
>>2813196
I have one. I use it because it makes my shutter more comfortable to press. It's supposed to help with the jerking motion you get when depressing the shutter by spreading out the pressure of your finger, but I've never really noticed anything like that. For me, just comfort and a bit of style.
I'm currently shooting with a T3i(600d) with the kit 18-55mm lens and the 50mm f/1.8. I'm in need of a telephoto lens and have been heavily considering trying to get a used 7-200mm f/4L USM. Not having the IS on it concerns me a little, but I'm pretty sure I'll be ok. Anybody have one?
>>2813240
You don't want to let us know what you're planning to use it for, so we can tell you whether you need to worry or not?
Got an A6000 recently as an upgrade to my trusty old A37, not liking the mid-low light performance at all, photos seem far too underexposed or noisy all the time in situations where my A37 gave impressive images, although in perfect lighting the detail of the A6000 is rather impressive. Considering selling it and buying the new A68, A77 II or an A7/A7II. Anybody here have experience with either of these?
>>2813191
Expanding budget.
Using M42 lenses.
Not selling the K-5 and getting the lenses I mentioned in my post where I also said it is better to keep the body and buying good lenses!
Learn to read damnit!
>>2812824
I never said character traits. I said that you can learn about a person based on what they choose to photograph.
Comparing what I'm talking about to scars, big shoulders, or big tits is a strawman because there isn't any choice involved (unless talking about self-inflicted scars or plastic surgery).
Guys, I've been thinking about buying a Nikon D3300 because I photograph basic stuff, like portraits and landscapes, also getting a 55-200mm lens and a Wide angle lens, should I go for it or save more money and buy a FX sensor camera?
>>2813297
Don't fall for the fool frame myth. If you are currently looking at the cheapest crop nikon, you shouldn't worry about FX. Go for it.
>>2813297
>should I go for it or save more money and buy a FX sensor camera?
Crop will treat you just fine. FX is for really demanding stuff in very low light, or really wide angle shots that are prohibitively expensive or difficult to make on crop.
>>2813306
It's not the best camera out there, but it's very decent. You won't be disappointed if you stick to modern lenses. It's really very difficult to "go wrong" in today's camera market, so long as you're not buying a point and shoot from WalMart.
>>2813306
Every nikon with a higher number will be better. But its not not a bad camera.
This is my first time coming to /p/, I've tried reading this thread and skimming one or two previous threads, but everyone's questions seem pretty specific (even the 'so I'm new to this!' questions). Which makes me worry that my questions might be too vague.
Basically, I'm looking to take mostly still outdoorsy kinda modely photos. Not giant lake or mountain vista landscape photos, but more "I was out for a walk and this tree looked cool" or "hey stand by that building over there so I can get a picture" with the occasional indoor food-blog-tier picture of baked goods.
My budget's around $800 and I'm only just learning what the different model numbers of Canon cameras mean. I'm thinking I might be limited to getting a newer 3-digit canon or a much older 2-digit one, but my priority is manual control. The scenario I want to absolutely avoid is getting a camera that's basically a glorified pic-related with removable lenses. Also stuff like 'HD video recording' 'bluetooth pc connection' and 'rugged enough to take mountain climbing' aren't priorities.
Should I keep waiting longer and saving up, or do you guys have any entry-level recommendations that aren't so handholdy? I don't wanna fight with automatic features to try and get a decent picture. I should mention I'm looking to go digital.
>>2813309
Why canon?
It like choosing pikachu as your favorite pokemon (if pikachu had a shitty sensor that is).
>>2813309
Pentax K-50 or K-S2 or Nikon D3300 or D5500 with kit lens and a 50mm prime. Should fit your budget
>>2813307
What if I go higher with the budget? Like a $1000?
>>2813312
50mm prime on APS-C sucks balls.
>>2813309
You'd probably be fine with a modern cell phone for this type of stuff. No reason to lug a camera around if it's just for memories.
If you really feel that you need something more capable, any entry level camera will suit you. Your needs aren't very demanding at all, and your results won't be much to look at no matter how nice of a camera you end up getting, so spending a ton of money is going to be a waste to you.
>>2813316
What? You don't like a fast short tele?
>>2813164
Seconding 40MB/s+ write speed. I don't think the camera will support anything much faster, though. But you could look up what the maximum supported by the camera is.
But unlike anon in >>2813187, I don't mind 64 or 128GB cards.
And I had various brands of cards, but it doesn't seem to have affected their reliability, so I don't recommend a specific brand. Cards rarely fail totally, plus if you edit and use your photos digitally like most people, the rate at which you copy them to your computer is pretty much independent of card size - it only really depends on when you want to process them.
You should however set up a backup NAS/drive for your computer's storage so you have 2+ copies in the end.
>>2813309
You can get a D3300 or K-50 or A6000 kit, I think either will do quite fine.
>>2813311
You'd be right, mostly because I've just had the most exposure to Canon
>>2813312
I'll check these out
>>2813317
It's not 'just for memories' and though 'my needs aren't demanding', I very much want the freedom to experiment and learn and the potential to take high quality photos that even the newest smartphone just won't offer.
I also don't have a modern cell phone and don't really intend to get one.
>>2813242
The mid- and low light performance of the A6000 should be better.
I wonder if you have a difference in your lens choice? Maybe your camera can't pick as wide an aperture as it did on the A37.
Or maybe your A37 was limited to some ISO that was lower than the A6000 is now (I usually pick ISO3200 for the auto ISO limit on the A6000).
Not that an A6300, A7 II or A7S II will be bad... but I'm not entirely convinced this is the problem yet.
>>2813321
I should mention that my dad recommended me an eos 20d which range from breaking the bank new to pretty affordable used. If there already exist 5, 6, or even 7 cameras, do they really add anything I'd be missing out on by looking at the 2 instead?
>>2813192
>>2813193
Literally said this already in the first response posted (>>2813070), perhaps the other anons didn't feel like repeating the same idea?
>>2813097
> What lens/es would you recommend for the K5?
Some good prime / zoom lenses in the range you use most?
I don't know which those might be, both because I don't know what focal length you shoot most at (maybe look in your photo collection manager?) and because I'm not using a Pentax.
And to clarify: You could also upgrade the Pentax *body*, or get a another brand's good APS-C body.
>>2813309
Digital cameras are now getting obsolete because now there are smartphones that takes photos even better that a Digital camera, if you ask me, I'll go for the Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge, takes photos quick and also in a high quality (by the fact you want to spend $800 in a camera) and also it has a manual mode, you can modify your photos how you want to take
>>2813328
I myself most definitely would not buy a dinosaur like that.
Cameras got a lot better. Even a superficial comparion on snapsort or some other comparison site will show this easily:
http://snapsort.com/compare/Canon_EOS_20D-vs-Sony-Alpha-A6000/detailed
http://snapsort.com/compare/Canon_EOS_20D-vs-Nikon-D3300/detailed
>>2813196
Fuji/Leica wankery mainly.
>>2813337
The Galaxy S7? Can't really compete with the ~$300 D3300.
It's still a tiny lens on a tiny sensor, it doesn't look nearly as good in most situations. Plus the price difference is big on top of that.
If you must go with a smartphone P&S camera, IMO you're better off with a Chinese one that has a good new sensor, such as the Xiaomis (Redmi Note 3 Pro, Mi5 maybe - I already mentioned them earlier in the thread).
Those are ~$200 and ~$400 depending on the reseller and model variant and for whatever difference you accept in terms of camear performance vs. a MILC or DSLR on these you at least still get a good smartphone on top.
>>2813348
And what about a $135 Nikon Coolpix L340? Seems nice
>>2813348
>The Galaxy S7? Can't really compete with the ~$300 D3300.
With a similar field of view in good light for a still subject from 10 feet away? It absolutely can.
https://youtu.be/qZMvJ5qFWlc?t=440
Is there a difference between af speed for newer lenses with af built vs on old ones with a body that autofocuses with all lenses
>>2813364
Newer vs older? no, not necessarily. But there are faster and slower focusing lenses, certainly.
I'm buying a Pentax K-10D with 28-70 later today for $100 with charger and battery in good condition.
Did I do good? I'm broke as fuuuck and I have Pentax lenses from my film stuff.
I'm scared this thing is so ancient it won't do what I'm expecting it. Is 10MP enough? I do good with my mom's rebel t3 and shit kit lens.
>>2813367
Now there are cameras that are 20mpx and their value it's around 100-200 dollars... but if you're a basic shooter, you can't go wrong
>>2813367
In good light with standard subjects, you'll do just fine. Learn to use it, and it will treat you well. You won't have a wide-angle lens, but if that's not important to you, you'll be fine.
>is 10MP enough
Yep, for almost everything except large prints.
Is the Pentax Q-S1 good for a beginner interested in street photography?
Does it provide a decent amount of growing room for a beginner? I really like the form factor and style of it.
>>2813358
That one is very much like a smartphone camera (not really better!) with zoom. but it is not as small.
If you take a big camera, you might possibly be doing it because you want a better image...?
For me personally that super zoom wouldn't make sense. I'd want an IL camera with an APS-C sensor so I can use much sharper lenses and get a better sensor.
>>2813362
> With a similar field of view in good light for a still subject from 10 feet away?
Not the commonly always encountered situation by any means.
Plus if the situation is that ideal, you can also use a ~$120 Redmi Note 2 or whatever at that point...
>>2813367
Mega-pixels are only significant if you're zooming or want to make a large print, as >>2813370 says.
It's always nice to have better equipment but as long as you're improving and actually taking shots with it, it doesn't really matter what you shoot on [spoiler]unless it's a lomography camera[/spoiler]
>>2813337
Maybe I'm being a stick in the mud but I don't get how a smartphone with its super slim body and whatever lensing mechanisms it has to fit in that tiny space can compete with a modular dedicated device.
There's a whole handful of other reasons I'm not looking to get a smartphone but think I really should reiterate that what I mean by 'entry-level' is not 'easy to use and able to take good photos fast' but 'entry-level' as in 'an entry into hobbyist photography without jumping straight into buying the cameras they use at National Geographic'
So far the Pentax K-50 was a pretty good suggestion, seems to be in line with what I'm looking for. Understandably I'm not gonna drop in on the first suggestion I see, but that does seem to be in the right direction. I gotta do more research, but I'm not 100% sure what I should be researching.
>>2813377
The fact that it only records to 30fps it's getting me in a bad way... but if you're more photograph than video, it's ok... actually, I'm curious about that Pentax
>>2813377
> Maybe I'm being a stick in the mud but I don't get how a smartphone with its super slim body and whatever lensing mechanisms it has to fit in that tiny space can compete with a modular dedicated device.
Partly it is because Sony and Samsung can make fairly damn good tiny sensors.
Eventually, I'm also sure the vast difference in smartphone processing power and software quality will have an effect (regular DSLR / MILC cameras are actually pretty shit in that regard so far), but this is not showing much yet.
On the other hand, indeed, on the lens side and, smartphones really can't compete, unless you're comparing them to super zooms and p&s that really don't have good lenses, comparatively speaking.
>>2811723
So I'm new and see this as a hobbie and a small gate to art as I can't draw or paint but I think I see beautiful things I'd like to reproduce (sorry if I am too stupid to understand more, give me time), I don't even know if I need a DSLR but I guess so, and from what I gathered I should buy a canon or nikkon just because there is more secondhand market of lenses, get the cheapest one / best deal among the cheapest and play around until I know what the fuck am I doing and can understand what I really want.
Thinks I want to take pics of: Sky, city lights in the night, streets, animals, parks, rain. As oposed to, I dont know, gigs, or sports?
I think the secondhand market is interesting but I know too little as to be sure of what I'm buying and if it still has useful life. So,
tl;dr I'm new and want to know which would be right now the best deal for an entry-level cheap option for someone who has to learn everything by fooling around.
>>2813386
Honestly I'd get it without the ability to record at all if it'd bring the price down.
That snapsort seems to really like it. What sort of drawbacks should I be looking at? I've never heard of Pentax before. I assume it's because people flock to Canons the way art students flock to Apple. I hope I'm not derailing the thread too much, this is really interesting.
>>2813392
> Sky, city lights in the night, streets, animals, parks, rain
I figure you want a tripod and maybe one-two primes for that. Maybe some zoom lens for animals.
> the best deal for an entry-level cheap option
Have a look at the Nikon D3200/D3300 and Pentax K-50 for starters.
>>2813392
I've been in this thread for like an hour, asking pretty much the same thing so maybe you can learn something by skimming the last handful of posts.
I haven't asked anything about buying used lenses though so whatever replies you get will help me too
>>2813392
I would recommend you a Nikon D3300, a good deal but takes great photos
>>2813393
> What sort of drawbacks should I be looking at? I've never heard of Pentax before.
Different user that is primarily uses a Sony E-mount here.
DESU, I think you'll not be missing out on anything much with Pentax *for your (entry-level) price range*.
There is just a more limited range of high-end lenses (sharper/faster ones with more spectacular specs) and bodies (better AF, better low-light performance, more resolution, better tracking features, more support for peripherals TTL speedlights and stuff...) if you wanted to move "up" eventually, but that is not planned as far as I can tell.
And if you went with Canon or Nikon in the entry-level, you'd face camera systems that have a lot of features of the Pentax missing, including even software features (for example, some go "lel, you can't do AE bracketing on this body, fuck you! and the next tier of cameras can only do it with 3 shots at +- 1 EV steps, fuck you again, buy the high-end!"). CaNikon gives its customers some extra reasons to upgrade, eh.
People with nikon dx cameras what are your most used lenses?
>>2813442
70-300mm vr
>>2813442
Why would this be useful information to you? They don't shoot what you shoot, so why would you care what lens they use?
I guess this is related, how do you guys cope with the long-long waiting time for something you bought online? Especially if it's something you wanted for a long time and the post office tracking service is too lazy to update the tracking info for 3 days straight?
>>2813446
Slip into a masturbation induced coma until I get woken up by the doorbell.
I have a bag with a Canon A1 in it and a bunch of lenses. I don't have it with me though so I can't take a pic to show it off. Would the lenses fit/work with something much newer?
>>2813445
Just curious
>>2813451
Masturbation can't be the only solution, my dick can only be so chafed.
>>2813446
Well, maybe it gets the occasional moment of happy anticipation, but I usually ignore it until it's like a half a month overdue. It'll arrive, I have other stuff to do until it does.
I just ordered a used "9+/10" X100T from b&h for $899. Am i gonna make it bros?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make NIKON CORPORATION Camera Model NIKON D810 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.6 (Macintosh) Maximum Lens Aperture f/1.0 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Color Filter Array Pattern 804 Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 55 mm Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2014:11:07 14:58:13 Exposure Time 1/250 sec F-Number f/5.6 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 200 Lens Aperture f/5.6 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 55.00 mm Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Gain Control None Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal Subject Distance Range Unknown
>>2813474
Yeah, you'll be fine. Enjoy.
>>2813395
I've been looking at the k-50 all day. Getting the body by itself is surprisingly inexpensive, but the next step of finding lenses for it is a whole new ball game. Where do I even start? I assume the qualities I'd want to go for are 'versatile' and 'inexpensive'
Wassup wassup. Will a non-ai 55 mm micro nikkor and an m2 extension tube fit a d610 body? ... Just want to scan my film.
>>2813474
No it's slow and awful. You will pick it up and think it's the best camera ever. It looks so nice in all those pictures, and it looks like that in person.
Then you will use it for a week and the buyers remorse will begin to kick in. You're just using it wrong, you'll think. Just a bit more time until I get the hang of its quirks.
You'll spend the next month or so trying to convince yourself "it really is as good of a camera as all those reviews say!" You've bought fifteen batteries after all, you're invested. But, missed shot after missed shot will pile up. The seconds of low light autofocus hunting turn to months. Then, after your return period is up, you'll realize you spent $900 on a terrible camera.
But you'll keep telling yourself, "it c-c-can't be that bad, can it? I-I-I read this was the best digital camera ever made..."
Such is the life of a Fuji X100S/T user.
>>2813526
I have a k-30. The 35mm f/2.4 and 50mm f/1.8 are cheap as fuck and the glass is really, really nice. I mean you can get two primes for around $200 or less. It's a steal and the IQ is super nice.
If you don't want both, you might consider one of them (I have the 35 only) and then one of the WR zooms to take advantage of the weather sealing on the body.
Seriously though, those two primes are really great value.
>>2813535
You pretty much described my arc with the camera. I wanted to sell it after six or seven weeks. then I stopped relying on JPEG simulations and started teasing apart those 32 meg raw files it produces and fell back in love with it.
>>2813474
inb4 A6000
inb4 Fuji cuckshed
>>2813538
> started teasing apart those 32 meg raw files it produces and fell back in love with it
Yes, those wonderful files. If only there were more than one out of every twenty in focus!
You have simply descended into the final stages of Fuji X100 ownership, complete cognitive dissonance. Perhaps we will sell our cameras one day, eat the loss, and buy something that works. One day brother, one day.
>>2813535
What camera do you use?
>>2813544
I have more than one camera. That might explain why I'm not as salty.
I also don't have nearly as many focus problems as other people say they do. I just spent the whole day riding around my bike with my x100s. Still have it slung around my neck as a matter of fact. I'm eating dinner, but when I get home I'll check. Pretty sure the camera only missed focus two or three times.
I think what freaks people out is that when it does miss focus, it misses focus in the most painfully obvious what-the-fuck-are-you-doing way.
Daily reminder that every camera posted in this thread is complete dogshit and the only camera worth getting is a sony a7r 2 and you're pretty much a joke with your piece of shit fujis and nikons (lmfao)
>>2813371
It is in the sense that it's incredibly tiny and therefore you'll be less conscious about being too embarrassed to shoot strangers. Easy to carry in a coat pocket and pull it out real quick for a shot.
I agree, the style is really nice. Like a poorman's leica
>>2813544
>Yes, those wonderful files. If only there were more than one out of every twenty in focus!
I have an X100s, an XT1 and an XPro2. I miss focus maybe once in 100 shots. And I shoot in low light, a lot.
>>2813544
Good thing it has a manual focus ring and a blow-up in the viewfinder. Unless you're shooting spastic children that should be enough.
If thats the only "flaw" you can find in a measly $900 worth of gear then it's probably pretty good.
>>2813388
>fairly damn good tiny sensors.
So not really that good - compared to an aps-c sensor in a Dslr.
>Eventually, I'm also sure the vast difference in smartphone processing power and software quality will have an effect (regular DSLR / MILC cameras are actually pretty shit in that regard so far), but this is not showing much yet.
So irrelevant to the current situation.
>On the other hand, indeed, on the lens side and, smartphones really can't compete...comparing them to super zooms and p&s that really don't have good lenses
So again, not compared to an interchangeable lens on a Dslr.
The situation this person is looking for calls for a Dslr. I agree with you that in some cases a phone is enough, sometimes a p&s is enough, You're destroying your own argument in favor of a phone though. There is no benefit for a $600 phone vs. being able to pickup a brand new K-50 or used K-5 and a lens now for the same or less. They can add lenses as their needs grow - can't do that with your phone.
Anon, if there's a camera store near you go in there. Ask to hold cameras in your price range, the one that fits best in your hands is the one for you. Pretty much every camera in that same price point is perfectly capable. Sure some have benefits over others - Pentax has weather sealing and better build quality. Canon has a better used gear market. Nikon has a better flash system.
They're all going to be perfectly capable for your needs.
>>2813562
I'm one of the new guys who doesnt know a shit about anything, but by my experience in /tg/ you do sound like an asshole either leaving bait or just plain lying.
If nikons were shit they wouldn't be up there with canon, right?
Right?
(Considering starting with the 3300)
>>2813526
55-200WR for your longer shots on nature hikes and just get a cheap 18-55 kit lens for now until you know what length you like on the short end. You'll probably end up with a 35 from the sound of it though.
Quick question for a slr fan.
I put a different (70mm) lens on my pentax MX and when I change the aperature the viewfinder gets darker/lighter, however this does not happened with my SMC Pentax 50mm lens, anyone have any clue what's different about the lenses?
40mm pancake or nifty fifty?
>>2813631
The aperture is always at that f-stop, unlike youe Pentax 50mm where it stops down then the photo is taken.
>>2813595
If you take good photos then you can take good photos with anything. If you expect your camera to take your photos for you then you can chase after the latest and greatest hot new meme camera every 6 months but you're never going to get a good photo out of any camera anyway. Look at camera reviews and notice how 99% of them have absolutely garbage shitty photos and then look at good photos taken by respectable photographers and read or listen to them explain their work and notice how they don't give a shit about their camera unless they're being paid to shill it.
A D3300 is very good. Every camera for sale today is very good, cameras have all been very good for a long time now. Just pick one and stop worrying about it because it's like 95% irrelevant to your photography.
>>2813561
Here's a pretty quick example. I was riding my bike by at about 17 mph, brought the camera up to my face and shot in about a half second.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.0 (Windows) Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2016:04:11 20:53:17
>>2813655
but about a minute before that, it decided that this was acceptably in focus and went for it lol.
i shot about 100 photos today, many of them while riding my bike reasonably quickly or they're photos of moving objects. 3 were out of focus. all 3 were insanely, facepalmingly out of focus like this example.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.0 (Windows) Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2016:04:11 21:08:15
>>2813537
I know you replied like 3 hours ago, but seeing this made me feel pretty good since I also was settling on those same lenses.
What's currently driving me nuts is that I saw a 100mm lens recommended for macro-style food photos, but I assume with a crop factor of 1.5, I'd have to find a 60mm lens to come close to a 100mm lens, but I can't find one anywhere. Am I missing something?
>>2813690
The DA 100mm is made for a crop camera - it'll work for you.
>>2813702
Oh okay, because I saw "100mm" and every other lens was nice enough to provide a "35mm equivalent" in the description, but that one didn't so I wasn't sure
>>2813655
I like that shot man
Assuming comparable sharp lens around 35mm, is micro 4/3 like a panasonic or olympus going to come off much worse than a aspc sized sensor like an a6000 or fuji x100t for static shots in terms of image quality and depth?
>>2813754
Yes, your shots will look like shit because they weren't taken on Full Frame.
>>2813754
On good glass, the difference to a good APS-C can become pretty big.
But it is not a given that any subject requires the good APS-C.
i'm a manlet and is this gitzo tripod high enough for me?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make PENTAX Camera Model PENTAX K-7 Camera Software Aperture 3.2.3 Photographer FIONA EWERS Maximum Lens Aperture f/2.7 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 52 mm Image-Specific Properties: Pixel Composition Unknown Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2012:03:11 13:11:33 Exposure Time 1/400 sec F-Number f/8.0 Exposure Program Aperture Priority ISO Speed Rating 250 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Flash No Flash Focal Length 35.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 600 Image Height 960 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Manual Scene Capture Type Standard Contrast Hard Saturation Normal Sharpness Hard Subject Distance Range Distant View
>>2813763
Honestly what's even the point of making a tripod that tall? So you can shoot from a ladder or scaffold?
>>2813690
>>2813716
In macro the focal length only refers to what distance you want to place your subject to produce a 1:1 image. 100mm makes it easy for nature/insect/bugs macro without disturbing the environment, shorter focal lengths makes you place your subject closer for the same 1:1 image.
Also in macro (real macro, not the 1:3 or 1:4 "macro" short focal length stuff they market non-macro lenses with) you focus with moving the whole camera, the optical element movements only dictates the image projection ratio. Also real macro lenses are corrected to close focus, normal lenses are corrected for infinity focus.
If you want something with closer focus macro, try the FA 50mm Macro lens on ebay.
Should I change my Sigma 35mm 1.4 and LA-EA4 adapter with Vario-Tessar T* FE 24-70mm f/4
Main complaint is the size and weight
>>2813766
For what? Those two lenses are different in many ways. Why not just get the light and cheap nifty 35mm?
>>2813767
General purpose, I do a bit of everything, nightime photography, long exposure...
I think I didn't get that lens because of the vignetting... but that can be fixed in lightroom even if it significant, right?
>>2813768
Wait. You don't know what those lenses are for, got f/1.4 35mm and want to get a T* 24-70 but worried about vignetting...
You don't have a single clue what you have in your hand but you have no trouble shelling out all that money for those lenses and a FF body?
This is what's wrong with photography! This is what's wrong with Sony, bringing in clueless idiots into the hobby who have more money than brain cells!
Fuck off I ain!t helping you! Do your own research! We all had to go through this as a newbie without help AND without the money to throw at the problem!
>>2813754
Image quality no.
Depth of field shrinks due to the smaller sensor.
You will probably lose 1/2 stop of light due to sensor size but the image stabilization offered will make up for it.
Just get a damn Pentax and love life.
IBIS, great lenses, weather sealing, awesome build quality, and sick work flow.
>>2813773
>Depth of field shrinks due to the smaller sensor.
That's stupid
>Canon lifetime actuations estimates:
Canon EOS Digital Rebel XS / 1000D – 100,000
Canon EOS Digital Rebel T1i / 500D – 100,000
Canon EOS Digital Rebel XSi / 450D – 100,000
Canon EOS Digital Rebel XTi / 400D – 50,000
Canon EOS Digital Rebel XT / 350D – 50,000
Canon EOS 50D – 100,000
Canon EOS 40D – 100,000
Canon EOS 30D – 100,000
Canon EOS 20D – 50,000
Canon EOS 10D – 25,000
Canon EOS 5D Mark II – 150,000
Canon EOS 5D – 100,000
Canon EOS 1D Mark III – 300,000
Canon EOS 1D Mark II N – 200,000
Canon EOS 1DS Mark III – 300,000
Canon EOS 1DS Mark II – 200,000
Question; so does only the shutter need to be replaced when the camera wears out, or is the camera completely dead thereafter?
>>2813786
Think about your question for a second
>>2813786
It's generally only the shutter and mirror, but other electronic components can wear out over time.
I'm new to photography, should i get a Pentax k-50 (weather sealed, nice body) or a Pentax q-s1 (cheaper, small body and more portable)? I know it's a stupid question, but i want something that can last me long enough if i like to taking pics and decide to upgrade in future, but i don't want to spend much because there's the possibility that i'll get bored after a couple of years
>>2813805
K-50. The Q series while having interchangeable lenses is more of a sidekick camera for when you already have a good camera. Or you want to buy something nice for your mom.
>>2813805
Definitely get the K-50. The price difference between the two is very small, and you're getting a lot more bang for your buck with the K-50
Nikon D810 or a Canon 5D III?
>>2813840
For what faggot? Landscapes? Portraits? Cat photos?
>>2813842
all rounder.
street photography, sports, astrophotography, landscapes, POV when i'm shagging your missus.
>>2813844
>street photography, sports, astrophotography, landscapes
Nikon D810
>POV when i'm shagging your missus
Canon 5D MK III
>>2813773
>Depth of field shrinks due to the smaller sensor.
exactly fucking wrong. DoF vastly increases with 2x crop factor from the small sensor. DoF shrinks for a large sensor, not a small sensor.
Straight from the very first article on MFT
>"A larger crop factor (2× multiplier versus quasi-APS-C's 1.5× ) means greater depth-of-field for the same equivalent field of view and f/stop when compared with quasi-APS-C and especially full frame cameras. This can be a disadvantage when a photographer wants to blur a background, such as when shooting portraits"
>>2813764
Exactly
>>2813844
>street photography
mirrorless for street
>astro, landscapes, portraits
D810
>sports, POV
5D mkIII
>>2813885
When he says "Depth of field shrinks" he's using the term incorrectly, but you know exactly what he means.
>>2813887
>>street photography
>mirrorless for street
I've shot street in at least 8 major cities in the USA, starting with a 5D, then 5Dmk3, with 35mm and 24-70.
I've shot street with a 6x6 bronica with a prism finder and a big fat ass lens, and a speed winder.
I now shoot with an X100T and an XPro2.
There is no difference in what you can do with a large DSLR and with a small mirrorless camera in terms of getting shots on the street. People don't notice the camera, they notice YOU. People don't get weirded out by the size of your equipment, they get weirded out by your self presentation.
>>2813893
i feel like that's true up to a limit, you'd probably get a least a few weird looks if you were happily snapping away on the street with a telephoto lens
>>2813896
I've done it. I've shot street with a rented 1Dx and 300mm prime when I was testing the kit to see if it had anything to offer that would help in my shooting (went for the 5Dmk3 in stead)
If you're hiding in bushes trying to sneak around and clearly trying to take photos of attractive women, people notice, and people get weirded out. If you're standing in the middle of the sidewalk/park taking photos of genuine subjects while smiling and waving at people, you'll be fine. Literally I've done it.
Give me one good reason why I shouldnt sell all my canon fag shit and go Pentax.
>>2813901
Why do you want to give up your solid system for cheap weather sealing, sturdy build and unique and great lenses, image stabilization for all lenses including old manuals, huge usable dynamic range and ISO performance? Why do you want to switch to a body capable of 36 MP without interpolation and AA filter (although can be switched on)? Why do you want to have an easy to use tracking for starscape shots or even hunting for deep sky objects?
... wait
>>2813934
Well the weather sealing thing is mostly a gimmick for most photographers, as most people will never ever use it in a situation that would cause another camera to fail. IS lenses are readily available for Canon, and since Canon has a lens lineup from the last 10 years, there's not a big need to worry about using old manual lenses. Dynamic range is a nice benefit, but the ISO thing is a bit of a stretch, especially since he (you) didn't mention any bodies to compare against, specifically.
High megapixels are now and have always been a gimmick that again, most people will get no benefit from, especially when using old lenses designed for 35mm film which gets nowhere close to the demands of a high resolution sensor. Even if we were excited about it, the new 5D models have crazy high resolution, so Pentax loses there. Tracking is neat, but most people will never ever use it, ever. More important to a much larger group of people would be flash functionality and features, customer support and repairs, lens and accessory availability, etc.
The benefits don't really outweigh the hassle of changing over and learning a whole new ecosystem for most people.
If you're starting fresh in about two years, yeah, sure, get the K1 and some of the new lenses they're going to release for it. If you started ten years ago and you've got a whole Canon kit that suits you well, stick with it. Every system has its strengths and weaknesses, and anyone who's actively shooting photos rather than worrying about gear sheets can make do with any half modern camera from any brand.
>>2813953
I have a K-3 with both kit lens, 18-55 and 50-200. I used my 50-200 in rain covering a local event when I didn't actually know what to do and how with the camera, but it turned out good and most importantly the group had actual photos because the others were trying to shoot from the food tent while I ran around with the camera without any care. I was then welcome for a few warm up drinks but that's another story.
Having affordable and light WR lenses is something Canon, Nikon and Sony users will never understand.
>>2813547
Daily reminder that this was never answered
>>2813959
We all know we just don't give a fuck about pointless brandwars and brandtrolls.
>>2813959
No one cares.
>>2813957
It's not that nobody shoots in the rain. It's that you can shoot in the rain with any camera. I've been shooting in the rain since the day I got my first DSLR, a Rebel Xt, all the way up trough the Canon line with completely unsealed lenses. Water doesn't destroy stuff the way that people think it does. All of the delicate electronics are buried under layers and layers of plastic that fits together very nicely. Sure, you can't submerge it, or let the water pool up on the front element for hours, but rain won't kill a camera. My 50D probably saw use in 40 hard rains. Never a single issue with a short, malfunction, or any corrosion or growth of anything in the cameras or lenses. If you're going to be in a situation where you NEED weather sealing, it's going to be a hurricane, or huge splashing waves, or -20f. Yes, those times do exist, but most people will never be in that position.
>>2813964
I do. If you dont, then move along faggot, it's that easy.
>>2813535
If you're coming from a DSLR system, you have to learn to use the focus system on a Fuji. Not sure about other mirrorless cameras, but Fuji behaves differently when it comes to focusing. Where you put the point on the spot you're looking to focus on is different, what features you look for when picking a focus area is different, the capabilities and options are different, and on an X100(s/t) the parallax can cause errors in where you THINK you're asking the camera to focus if you're not used to it.
It's not slow at all, and certainly not awful by any means.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi
>>2813969
lol nice cuffed jeans and white gay boi sneakers you little faggot
>>2813974
What would give you the impression that those are my feet?
Are you such a basement dwelling chart reader that you can't even comprehend the concept of taking a photo of another person?
Or are you more likely an idiot troll? Hm.
I have a Konica SLR with a Hexanon 40mm lens that ive been really happy with. I'm looking to round out my lenses and shoot more film.
Pic related 28mm is $30. Should i cop? Anyone experienced with this lens?
>>2813977
Also the 50mm 1.8 in pic related can be had for $20. Is this worth buying or overkill since i already have a 40mm?
>>2813979
I wasnt saying one or the other. I was asking if anyone had experience with these particular lenses, and whether 50 is needed when you have 40. Can you read?
>>2813977
>>2813978
>My photos are bland and boring and don't have any interest in them, but I haven't yet learned that it's the stuff I'm pointing the camera at that's the problem, and not the number of lenses I have, so I'm thinking maybe if I try a different focal length, stuff will improve.
If you find that you need a wider lens for the photos you're trying to take, then get a wider lens. Don't worry about experiences and sharpness charts. If you find that your 40mm is too wide, get something longer.
>asking for people to type up thought and experiences with a lens over the princely sum of $20
>>2813986
I never said i thought other lenses would help take better photos. Different focal lengths are preferable in different scenarios. I'd prefer a 28mm for landscape shots and was wondering if anyone had thoughts on that particular lens.
I didn't realize there was a price threshold for receiving advice on this board. It's a widely used lens on film SLRs and Sony digitals, so i thought there might be some people here with some thoughts.
If you have no thoughts other than badgering people with your pre-formatted strawman bullshit, then kindly shut the fuck up, there is no need for your negative faggot attitude on such a simple innocuous question.
In the case of Canon vs Pentax, my biggest concern is the dynamic range of the sensors. I know that Pemtax's sensors are better than canons in terms of iso performance and dynamic range, but I ask you all, how much better?
>>2814001
If you need to push shadows dramatically, noticeably better. If you don't plan to do major edits involving dramatic changes in exposure, you won't notice the difference.
Is the K50 still the best bang for your buck? Looking to get back into photography.
>>2814005
for what
>>2814005
I liked mostly nature stuff and the occasional skateboarding.
>>2814008
Yeah you'll be fine with it.
D5200 has slightly better image quality stats, resolution, and AF system, but a worse viewfinder and a slower max shutter speed. It's all more or less the same at the bottom of the pack, but "nature stuff" is usually pretty low impact unless you're talking super long lenses for rare wildlife.
>>2813766
>>2813768
Well, as far as I'm concerned- no, the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 isn't too heavy.
It's only like 800g, that's not even enough to make me use a monopod or tripod more systematically.
Well, if only the weight and size bothers you, what stops you from using a Sony 28mm or a 25mm Zeiss Batis or whatever?
>>2813771
> This is what's wrong with Sony, bringing in clueless idiots into the hobby who have more money than brain cells!
Sony is fine, and we Sony users are not at fault for your poverty and envy, or his certainly not perfect understanding.
Hell, I wish you the low middle-class wealth it takes to get a good camera for your hobby.
>>2813771
Wow.
If I have a budget of 2k, what's the best to buy:
Sony A7ii and buy more lenses later, A7 plus another lens, or a6300 and 1 really good lens or 2 more lenses?
Hai /p/, can you give me pointers on an upgrade from D5200 + 35mm?
I'm frustrated with the AF and the low light performance. I'm also finding I want more options in terms of field of view. Here are some use cases, from most to least important:
> parties and social situations
35mm is many times too narrow, I could probably use something closer to 20mm. I have to push all the way to f1.8 most times even if I wouldn't like to, because otherwise there's not enough natural light. The sensor ISO performance isn't good enough to cover. I'd also like a shooting mode where the camera allows me to set the aperture but automatically adjusts shutter speed and ISO within some reasonable ranges, but haven't found that on the Nikon. The AF _really_ leaves me in the cold a lot in low light situations.
> portraiture
I'm drooling for something like 85mm f1.8 here. Shot with a D7200 and a legacy 85mm lens once, had a lot of fun.
> architecture and street photography
I could really go for a wider lens here, as above, but big aperture and good ISO performance aren't as essential. I guess I want light weight and carryability? I'm really not prepared to tug something like the D810 along with me in town.
I haven't really set a budget because I have no idea what would serve me best and what kind of money I need to be prepared to shell out. ~1000e seems okay for a body but I'm afraid lenses will easily cost me a fortune. Some options I've thought about and their pros and cons as they appear to me:
> Olympus OM-D E-M5 Mark II
+ dat 5-axis image stabilisation
+ nice ecosystem of cheap MTF lenses with decent optics
- small sensor, poor ISO performance?
> Sony A7 / A7ii
+ consistently on sale as new / available for decent price used
+ phase detection AF
+ faster AF than on R model
+ FF -> better ISO?
+ Viewfinder size
- no IS in A7
- lens options seem really expensive
Feel free to shoot me down and tell me these bodies suck. Can you point me to a combination of body and a few lenses?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make NIKON CORPORATION Camera Model NIKON D5100 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.6 (Windows) Maximum Lens Aperture f/1.7 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 52 mm Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2015:04:24 20:53:58 Exposure Time 1/40 sec F-Number f/8.0 Exposure Program Aperture Priority ISO Speed Rating 100 Lens Aperture f/8.0 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash Focal Length 35.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 662 Image Height 1000 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Gain Control None Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal Subject Distance Range Unknown
>>2814032
For what.
Lenses should always be the priority over a body.
