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: >>2814481
Fuck, anons.
I wanted an a6300 for all its awesomeness but the screen doesn't tilt enough for "selfies."
I'm making a short movie this September that involves a lot of recording myself talking and that's a total deal breaker.
Is there any workaround?
>>2817012
mirror+duct tape
If doesn't work, use more mirror and more duct tape.
Or get an a5100.
I'll just copy/paste this here since the old thread's going to die.
/p/ what camera do I want? Used to have a bronica and an EOS1n, sold everything a few years ago to go digital with an x20. Image quality is ok but I find myself wanting something else. I only really care about still image quality, I'll rarely shoot video. Was thinking of getting an OMD E-M5 since they go for cheap used and the lens lineup isn't expensive like fuji's.
>>2817012
afaik You can use a tablet or something as a remote and get the image up on that screen. It works with stills on the a6000 not sure about video.
>>2817014
>/p/ what camera do I want?
That's not a question for us.
>MFT lens lineup isn't expensive
it's pretty fucking expensive compared to APS-C lineup from Canon/Nikon/Pentax
There is really not enough information to help you choose something. Do you want small form factor? Do you want the regular optics with a DSLR? (assuming you'd like something you already know) What do you want to shoot? Street, landscape, sports, nature, wildlife etc...?
You answer these you might be able to answer your own question.
I'm still using a Nikon D80. What would be the equivalent in Nikon's lineup now?
I don't mean equivalent in specs, I mean in terms of where it fits on the "entry level" to "pro" scale.
I want an UWA zoom.
Looking at the following;
- Tamron 15-30mm f/2.8 Di VC USD ($999)
- Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM ($999)
- Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM ($1,100)
- Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM ($700)
- Tokina AT-X 16-28mm f/2.8 Pro FX ($600)
I'd like to keep it under $1,500 so unfortunately no EF 11-24mm f/4L USM ._.
Sigma 20-40mm f/2.8 EF mount on a 5Dino.
y/n?
>>2817028
Try a D7100 or D7200
>>2817018
>>2817014
Fine fine. I like the idea of the OMD E-M5 because it's small, weather sealed if paired with a sealed lens, and it's small. I've never used a mirrorless camera as of yet, but I like the idea of the smaller package. I miss my bronica but carrying it around was tough in some situations. Really I'm only concerned about image quality, the ability to edit raws easily. Is a used one worth the money compared to an APSC sized mirrorless camera like the X-E1 or X-E2 which are both more expensive and the lenses are more costly as well.
>>2817056
If you are interested in low light image quality then MFT is not for you. It can be controlled somewhat but doesn't give you much leeway, or just plain smacks you in the face with ugly noise. MFT is mostly good in daytime and open area but when the light drops just a bit the AF loses its reliability. Go for the Oly if you know what you are doing though.
You will need at least an APS-C for lower light and cleaner images but from here on it is mostly affected by how good the lens are. I wouldn't recommend Sony because it will smack you in the head and run off with your wallet. It only has bad low level lenses for many dolla ($300 and up) and Zeiss, G master and zeiss license for much much more dolla ($1500 and way up)
I'd say you're best off with a DSLR like a Nikon D7200 or Pentax K-3 if you want image quality and low light with reliable AF.
If you make your choice, definitely go for used. I got my gear less than half of new price and does the exact same.
With Nikon D7x00 get older screwdrive AF primes, with Pentax get some DA or FA Limited primes for the best experience.
>>2817068
I'm not too big on autofocus use really so continuous focus isn't something I care about really single shot AF I'd like to be reliable at least. That was my main concern that no matter how good of a system it is, and at least among comparable cameras, a larger sensor is always better. The aps-c mirrorless cameras are no good then? I like the size. I haven't been keeping up with all the new consumer camera stuff but I'm no noob when it comes to optics and light, I use an extremely expensive nikon microscope to do stuff. But that technology doesn't entirely translate to cameras.
I'll have to go to B&H and hold some stuff. The other problem is that I'm a phd student so money is tight, so I'd obviously buy used. Thanks for the advice, I might just go the regular DSLR route.
>>2817075
The APS-C mirrorless are good but Sony lens selection is bullshit, Fuji is expensive but very good, Canon EOS M3 is meh.
It really depends if you want to shell out the money on the G Master and Zeiss lenses or the Fuji lenses. If not then DSLR is your only choice, at least Pentax has an excellent lineup of small Limited primes and both Nikon and Pentax have a huge selection of excellent older lenses to use on digital.
If you manage to get over lower shadow sensitivity then Canon can be also a choice, 70D and 80D has the new improved sensor.
>>2817077
I wouldn't and don't have the money to shell out for the expensive Zeiss stuff. I like the fuji system but it's also expensive. The X-E1 goes for pretty cheap now but the lenses are costly. I was never really a fan of having too many lenses though, I think one standard zoom would be enough for me. That's why the olympus seemed pretty appealing, micro 4/3rds aside, a used E-M5 and and the weatherproof standard zoom would come to about 500 bucks I think, and I'd get a little bit of trade in value on the x20 I have I hope (and I mean and expect very little).
It's ok, I have time.
>>2817085
>body is more important than glass
You're literally all that's wrong with photography these days.
>>2817089
relax, I'm aware of the importance of glass.
What I'm saying is I'm not convinced that the high cost zeiss and fuji lenses are worth if from a price/performance perspective and that I can get by with cheaper alternatives.
>>2817092
While entirely ignoring that you can get a different body and still afford good glass.
>>2817085
Look up Pentax DA 40 Limited on Flickr. It's one of those primes one must have on the camera.
Hey guys, is there somewhere I can look at upcoming not yet out cameras?
I want the latest one
>>2817104
www.kenrockwell.com
>>2817110
It says it's temporarily offline, is there some other place I can look at?
I'm going to an expo soon and I want to take pictures
>>2817112
Get the Sony RX1R II, it is the latest camera with the best specs.
>>2817113
It's a little expensive...
>>2817116
Get the Nikon D40, Ken Rockwell say it's the best large format camera out there.
>>2817009
Is this the fucking EVF view on the a6300? Seriously? How much bullshit do you need around the edges of this frame???
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Greenshot Image-Specific Properties:
>>2817121
Oh but at least there are 40 pages of menu items to deal with too...
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Greenshot Image-Specific Properties:
>>2817119
>Nikon D40
>large format
>>2817119
How old is this thing?? It only has 6 megapixels.
>>2817121
The joys of not having a top LCD or dials/switches you can glance at.
>>2817127
Certain things I can understand. Shutter speed, aperture, ISO, EV comp, obviously. Battery life and shots remaining? Okay. Focus mode? I don't know maybe. Listing of your video frame rate? A battery guage AND a battery percentage? Whatever +/-0+/-0+/-0 is? PP1? VIEWFINDER FRAMERATE??? A giant graphic listing what your control wheels happen to be assigned to at the moment?
>>2817133
There's like 6 different layouts to choose from and you can have a different one on the EVF and the LCD.
>>2817138
Nobody would ever accuse Sony of worshiping at the alters of consistency or muscle memory, I suppose.
>>2817133
Why *shouldn't* it be possible to display these elements?
Yes, you might certainly want to be able to recheck most of your settings at a glance occasionally.
If you don't like this, how about you just turn it off?
>>2817147
> consistency or muscle memory
Consistency with what? The camera you seem accustomed to? (Presumably some low information OVF thing?)
And what muscle memory? It's an information display, not a touch screen UI.
Thinking about ordering a Fuji XT1 with the 35mm 1.4 and the 12mm F2, then later down the line the 55-200 F4-5.6.
Does anyone have any feedback to my lens choices, maybe something cheaper that's as good or some other suggestions?
Recommend me a camera smaller and quieter than DSLR and it's kit zoom starting from 24mm.
I've shot too long at nikon1 system at 27 and 50mm(equivalent) and want now flexibility of zoom and a bit better sensor.
New panas GX80 looks ideal, with all that focus bracketing and ibis, anything to buy before July?
>>2817206
King of cheap quiet right now is the x100 from fuji, dirt cheap on ebay and near silent. But no zoom breh.
>>2817207
>x100
It's 35mm after crop.
>>2817191
>And what muscle memory? It's an information display, not a touch screen UI.
That's the fucking point you retard.
Stupid question from a sort-of-newbie experimenting with borrowed cameras:
Will aperture ever go "above" (i.e. wider) than 3.5? currently using a Lumix 14140 and it just seems weird that the aperture wont get wider than 3.5. is this a technical limitation of this lens or most lenses or all lenses?
>>2817208
They have 28 and 50mm adapters with no IQ or light loss. Its silent, small and feels great to handle.
>>2817210
this is beyond stupid
>>2817209
That's no fucking point.
You'd still want an information display to be arranged something like this, even if you also had a touch screen UI or if you remapped all those programmable buttons and wheels to affect those settings on the display for some "muscle memory" control - not that I can see the point vs. using the function menu for less used things.
>>2817206
some fuji camera with the XC 16-50mm
>>2817210
It's a limitation of the lens. Your lens's maximum aperture is f/3.5. You can get a lens that has has a wider maximum aperture.
>>2817210
Maximum and minimum aperture are lens features on IL cameras.
You can get f/0.95 to f/32 on major FF / APS-C camera systems.
IDK about your Lumix though.
>>2817121
I thought this too, but you can turn all that off by hitting the DISP button
>>2817223
Do you then lose the important and useful stuff too? On my Fujis you can add and remove viewfinder elements one by one, and have only exactly what you want to see. I imagine the Sony is the same way?
>>2817212
Literally new to the technicalities of photography, just borrowed a friend's camera, watching some introduction vids on Youtube, pressing button to see how it goes, reading user manual.
Just wanna know what this is specific to.
Sorry if not everyone has ten years of professional photography experience like you!
>>2817030
The 16-35 f/4 IS has been proven to be the best overall deal and quality.
>>2817251
>Wide-angle lenses have bigger apperture maximums, but there are long lenses that have bigger maximums as well
What kind of medication are you taking? I really want to understand how your brain works.
>>2817251
> Wide-angle lenses have bigger apperture maximums
No. They have a shorter focal length / larger field of view.
They don't usually have a very wide aperture.
> expensive as fuck.
Relative to your expectations. You can get a lot of really fast glass between $500-2000 already, with some more at $100-200.
If you wanted a Rokkor 35mm F/1.4 G in the late 80ties, you paid >$2k in today's dollars.
> So the Maximum Aperture seems to be a massive price-point.
Sure, it's one of the things that gets prices up. Wider maximum aperture (with still good sharpness).
It also tends to make lenses bigger and heavier.
>>2817251
Focal length and maximum aperture aren't really tied together. But maximum aperture and price ARE tied together. To get a lens that looks good with a very wide aperture takes a lot of glass, coatings, and engineering, and therefore, price.
Prime lenses have larger maximum apertures (theoretically) than zoom lenses. You can get an f/1 prime lens, but the fastest zoom lens that I'm aware of is f/1.8
>>2817012
Play Memories on your phone, and use it as a viewfinder. Then kill yourself for using the word 'selfie'.
>>2817012
I don't get why'd they go for this weird new tilty-screen anyways, when the old swing&flip is perfect for almost any stance.
WTF sony?
I've never seen a situation where the exposure compensation is any easier to dial in than just having the camera in manual mode in the first place would have been. Either way you are second guessing the cameras metering and doing something that has to be checked in the lcd output. Manual is actually more natural I find.
Is this a function of the cameras I've used making exposure comp less ergonomic than it should be? Or am I just missing some use case where it's the perfect feature?
>>2817318
If you're second guessing the meter, you have no clue how the meter works.
So, I'm from Brazil, and as you guys must have known, we are in the middle of governmental crises and economic heavy recession.
But, I'm in a doubt about gear, should I get a Fuji X100 (not s or t since is cheaper) or should I get some Nikon FE/F3/FM/F2 because it's even cheaper than the digital fuji? My aim is Street
consider the money I spent on any of this cameras is important for bills
Complete idiot here. How can I make my Nikon 3200 take less-grainy pictures? Is it the ISO settings?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make NIKON CORPORATION Camera Model NIKON D3200 Camera Software Ver.1.01 Maximum Lens Aperture f/5.7 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Color Filter Array Pattern 37354 Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 82 mm Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Created 2016:04:16 10:21:01 Exposure Time 1/100 sec F-Number f/25.0 Exposure Program Shutter Priority ISO Speed Rating 200 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash Focal Length 55.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 6016 Image Height 4000 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Gain Control None Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal Subject Distance Range Unknown ISO Speed Used 200 Image Quality FINE White Balance AUTO Focus Mode AF-A Flash Compensation 0.0 EV ISO Speed Requested 200 Flash Bracket Compensation 0.0 EV AE Bracket Compensation 0.0 EV Lens Type Nikon G Series Lens Range 18.0 - 55.0 mm; f/3.5 - f/5.6 Shooting/Bracketing Mode Single Frame/Off Noise Reduction OFF Camera Actuations 2919
>>2817349
>F25
I can't be ISO since it's 200. So, turn Noise Reduction ON and take faster shutters speed
>>2817349
ISO is 200. Generally speaking, ISO100 should be a little less grainy than that, but that's clearly not what messed up this image.
Do you have a nifty fifty to try some shots at like f/5.6 - f/8?
>>2817356
My main lens is a 18-55mm. I think for that shot I was out playing with my new 55-22mm.
I still don't know what half of the things on my camera do. I took a lot of different shots to test out different settings with different lenses. Some of them came out really well. Maybe I should just remember those settings until I get a better hang of it.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make NIKON CORPORATION Camera Model NIKON D3200 Camera Software Ver.1.01 Maximum Lens Aperture f/3.5 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Color Filter Array Pattern 38778 Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 27 mm Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Created 2016:04:16 13:12:19 Exposure Time 1/640 sec F-Number f/7.1 Exposure Program Aperture Priority ISO Speed Rating 100 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Spot Light Source Fine Weather Flash No Flash Focal Length 18.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 6016 Image Height 4000 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Gain Control None Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal Subject Distance Range Unknown ISO Speed Used 100 Image Quality FINE White Balance SUNNY Focus Mode AF-S Flash Compensation 0.0 EV ISO Speed Requested 100 Flash Bracket Compensation 0.0 EV AE Bracket Compensation 0.0 EV Lens Type Nikon G Series Lens Range 18.0 - 55.0 mm; f/3.5 - f/5.6 Shooting/Bracketing Mode Single Frame/Off Noise Reduction OFF Camera Actuations 3015
>>2817357
*55-200mm lens.
>>2817349
That's not grainy at all.
>>2817357
It's more about light conditions that what settings or lens you use.
Go out when it's party cloudy.
Or early in the morning/evening.
>>2817382
this
>>2817388
It's not "static-y". It's got no fine detail in the image because you shot it at f/25 on a shit lens made for a crop camera. Your maximum detail on that lens will happen around f/4 or f/5.6. Every stop down you take adds diffraction, and lowers fine detail.
>>2817390
>shit lens made for a crop camera
So how should I be using this lens? I got it because someone was selling it locally for a good price (compared to Amazon) and I wanted a zoom lens for wildlife.
>>2817398
Don't zoom all the way in, or out. Use it around f/5.6, and don't expect nice sharp photos out of a lens that costs about as much as a pair of shoes.
A good lens in that range of focal lengths will cost at least $1500 new.
>>2817400
Okay. It's just wild that my stock 18-55mm lens can take sharp photos but this one can't. I didn't think the build quality would suffer that much.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make NIKON CORPORATION Camera Model NIKON D3200 Camera Software Ver.1.01 Maximum Lens Aperture f/3.5 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Color Filter Array Pattern 36690 Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 27 mm Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Created 2016:04:16 13:03:27 Exposure Time 1/1600 sec F-Number f/3.5 Exposure Program Shutter Priority ISO Speed Rating 200 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash Focal Length 18.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 6016 Image Height 4000 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Gain Control None Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal Subject Distance Range Unknown ISO Speed Used 200 Image Quality FINE White Balance AUTO Focus Mode AF-A Flash Compensation 0.0 EV ISO Speed Requested 200 Flash Bracket Compensation 0.0 EV AE Bracket Compensation 0.0 EV Lens Type Nikon G Series Lens Range 18.0 - 55.0 mm; f/3.5 - f/5.6 Shooting/Bracketing Mode Single Frame/Off Noise Reduction OFF Camera Actuations 2999
>>2817030
If you've got an APS-C body, you should add to your list the
Sigma 18-35mm F/1.8 art. I got it for $799 USD.
It's fast as hell and sharp as hell. Only downside is if you're using the lens for video instead of stills, then the lack of image stabilization could be a dealbreaker. With how quick shutter speeds it allows while handholding, you can easily get equivalent shots without IS for any non-video work.
I can't imagine ever using 15-16mm, I have no interest in using an ultra-distorted fisheye piece of shit myself. Ruins geometry, ruins humans or animals, I don't find any benefit.
Get a more pleasing panorama ultra-wide shot by using a tripod and having software combine several 18-35mm shots together to get one that's both wider and less distorted.
If your camera is FF and you're shooting video then disregard... but neither is mentioned in your question.
>>2817402
Your kit lens is a good lens, only rendered inexpensive and "pleb" because they made millions of them, and gave them to everyone. The build quality is low, but the quality of the optics is not.
Your new lens, however, was NOT produced in such high volumes, and has not had the same care taken in its design. It's meant to be a crappy cheap lens for people who can't afford real lenses. You can still take okay photos with it, but I don't advise ever stopping down past f/11 if you can help it.
>>2817195
the 35mm 1.4 is a little loud and slowish focusing, maybe look at the 35mm f/2
the 55-200 is actually f/3.5-4.8 and is really good. Great image stabilization too.
>>2817195
The X-E2 and X-T10 are cheaper. As is the 35mm f/2.
>>2817406
I didn't know. I should have asked /gear/ about it before buying, I suppose.
Are there any other reasonably-priced lenses for a 3200 out there that are optically sound?
>>2817410
The 70-300 is pretty okay.
>>2817412
http://www.nikonusa.com/en/nikon-products/product/camera-lenses/af-s-vr-zoom-nikkor-70-300mm-f%252f4.5-5.6g-if-ed.html
That one?
>>2817413
Yep
>>2817009
I'm saving up for a neat camera and begin practicing photography. Anything I should be looking for in a camera? Is there anything I need to know or learn beforehand, like any principles?
>>2817428
> Anything I should be looking for in a camera?
Interchangeable lenses and the best lenses you can afford.
Requires you to think a moment about what you'll be photographing most often, I guess.
>>2817406
Ken Rockwell loves this lens iirc
>>2817450
He likes a lot of questionable things.
Bout to buy this fucker, what are my chances of getting a good one that doesn't need to be sent back?
>>2817497
I just realised that image is the 10mm not the 14mm. I'm asking about the 14mm
>>2817251
> So the Maximum Aperture seems to be a massive price-point.
Not necessarily. There are some pocket money cheap fast primes out there; the Nikon 35mm F1.8 is only ~$200 / ~£150, and for the money it's a pretty damn good lens.
>>2817497
Fairly good. Mine was good, but then I had nothing to compare to either. I do now, it's a good deal sharper than a 17-40 f/4L, even wide open so I guess it's acceptable?
>>2817030
The Tammy is said to be a fucking king in terms of image quality. Second option would be the 16-35 f4 IS.
Hello senpaitachi,
Does anyone know of a good rectilinear wide angle m42 lens? preferably wider than 28mm
I'm aware of the Flektogon 20 and the Mir 20
btw where do you usually buy them? So far I've only ever purchased them on ebay but maybe theres other good (uk) sites?
It's my understanding that VSCO hasn't been updated to support the a6300 with its own camera profile get (only with a generic camera profile).
Is that correct? I shoot Portra 160 so I'm very reliant on accurate film emulation so my digital shots match my film shots.
>>2817552
There are Pentax Takumar 24/3.5 and 20/4.5 models you might like. They're about as good as you can expect vintage super-wides to be.
theres also a 15/3.5 but they barely made any of those, so it's a thousand-dollar collector's item.
Panasonic g6 good for beginner videography ?
>>2817591
Yup. Pretty good camera for video, surprisingly so actually.
>>2817581
thanks, i'll check them out
I currently have a 650D, and I'm only using the 50mm 1.8.
I'm soon going on a small trip by bike and I'd like to do more videos in general.
I find that the 650D autofocus in video is not really good but the camera's definitely ok for stills.
Would you get better lenses or invest in a smaller camera good in videos (like the LX100)? If so which one?
>>2817613
Using autofocus for videos is something designed for your aunt Mildred. People who know what they're doing manual focus for video. Get better lenses.
>>2817638
Focus peaking is very helpful. Have you looked into Magic Lantern?
>>2817640
I haven't tried it myself, heard some goods and some bads about it. Also not really sure about installing a third party software on my camera.
>>2817644
You don't "install it on the camera" it lives and runs off of your memory card. It can't hurt anything because if it doesn't work or screws up, all you have to do is take out the memory card, format it, and put it back in, and you're good to go. It's very safe.
>>2817645
Ah nice, I might give it a try then. Thanks !
>>2817649
Magic Lantern is amazing, it increased the life of my 500D, and made it passable for video (you can increase the bitrate as much as you want, still only max 21fps for 1080p though) The focus peaking is very good, much better than the focus peaking I had on my X-pro1 or X-e2 subsequently. It also has a few other bits and bobs that allow you to get the absolute maximum out of aging canons.
What's a good full-frame camera for landscape and video? I found good deals on a 6D, D610 and an A7R near me. All with nifty fifty's. A7R being an old school 1.4.
I really want to pair one up with a rokinon 14mm for UWA video and Astro/Landscape work. Doing so would cap my budget.
Thanks!
>>2817670
Don't get the 6D for video, it's got a lot of issues for video that aren't present for photo. The D610 isn't great either. Not sure about the A7r, but it's most likely your best bet.
Anybody here use an A7 and if so how would you recommend it for portraits/candids in addition to some architecture and landscape photography?
Looking for a solid, portable new body that I won't have to sell both my kidneys to afford.
These 360 degree 4k cameras have caught my interest.
Anyone else see great potential in products such as the GoPro VR?
>>2817349
F22 is too aggressive and will cause softness due to diffraction.
Check a proper review of your lens. Peak sharpness should be between 5.6-11
>>2817685
Holy fuck I didn't even notice. He's shooting at f/25. Should probably learn how to use a camera first.
>>2817678
Nearly any camera will be perfectly capable of achieving those photos. No need to bolt yourself to full frame.
>>2817349
You can start by using auto mode
Just a small gear question:
I just got my first real cam and now looking for a cheap but effective tripod (will probably buy used).
Currently using one I borrowed from my father (it's so old it still has "made in West Germany" written on it).
Since I also want to make short films with this, I may prefer one with a handle for smooth following or paning.
Also, what's your opinion on bipods/monopods?
And also, what's with "your image contains an embeded file" stuff?
Just tried to post an image fresh from the camera?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Panasonic Camera Model DMC-G70 Camera Software Ver.2.0 Maximum Lens Aperture f/5.6 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 260 mm Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Right-Hand, Top Horizontal Resolution 180 dpi Vertical Resolution 180 dpi Image Created 2016:04:17 16:35:55 Exposure Time 1/30 sec F-Number f/5.6 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 400 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 130.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 4592 Image Height 3448 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual Scene Capture Type Standard Gain Control High Gain Up Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal Image Quality Fine White Balance Auto Focus Mode Auto Spot Mode Unknown Image Stabilizer Mode 1 Macro Mode Normal Shooting Mode Manual Audio No Flash Bias 0.00 EV Color Effect Off Contrast Low Noise Reduction Standard
Is it true what they say about the Sony AXXXX series being trash? I have heard a lot of discussion about it lately and most people seem to conclude that unless you're going to get the A7SRII, then you shouldn't even waste your time with sony models and should just stick to Nikon since it has superior image quality and lenses in that sub 3,000 price range. I dunno...everyone says the a6000 is shit and the flickr pics look true
>>2817800
There is no camera available in the last 5 years that produces bad images where another camera would produce a good image. Think about what features and capabilities you'll need, and find a camera that matches those needs. Don't worry about anyone else.
And don't trust Flickr pools. A bad photographer will make a Hasselblad look worse than a 7 year old rebel and kit lens in the hands of someone who understands light and subject selection.
Don't just look at price, look at ergonomics, lens availability, focus capabilities, weather sealing, buttons and knobs that let you do what you want, weight, size, potentially resale value if you aren't keeping it forever, service, etc.
>>2817767
Any good tripod will have a replaceable head.
So you can always buy a separate head for video.
>what's with "your image contains an embeded file" stuff?
I get that as well.
Just 4chan being retarded.
Hey, gear!
what is the best kit for cleaning dust and wetmarks?
Plz.
Are any pentaxians going to purchase the k-1 if it comes out?
>>2817800
It's not true. For entry level ie t6i stuff, Canon is gonna give the worst image quality and ergonomics, Nixon the best ergonomics, and Sony the the best form factor and relatively identical image quality to Nikon. The advantage with sony is if you don't neeed auto focus you can adapt any old lens, which there are tons of available cheaply for pretty much any focal length over 24mm. If you're not interested in that definitely buy a Nikon, as it'll be much cheaper to build a small lens collection.
>>2817984
>[canon the worst] ergonomics, Nixon the best ergonomics,
HAHAHA
Hey, I asked a few days ago about what camera I should get as a beginner on a budget (cheers for the advice lads, got myself a D3200 for £200). Now Im wondering what software (preferably free because Im a broke cunt) I can use for editing raws?
Or at least a way I can open my raws in something like GIMP to convert them to JPG?
>>2818015
>Or at least a way I can open my raws in something like GIMP to convert them to JPG?
Just a tip for future: save both jpeg and raw, at least for the time being.
>>2818015
Free:
Rawtherapee for Windows (if running Win 8, the photo viewer can do it but, meh)
Darktable for *nix
You'll get a cd with the camera that has processing software on it too
Paid
Lightroom+Photoshop CC for $10.00/month.
In your opinion, what is the best 35mm film camera you can get, in terms of image quality, for under £300. I already own a Yashica T4 and its pretty good, but Im thinking of selling my a6000 getting another 35mm because I enjoy film that much
>>2818020
Basically any.
Depends on what lenses you like. A film body is just a light-tight box.
>>2818021
I getthat, I guess I was asking what camera + lens combo would give a great image quality when considering value for money Or alternatively, what fixed lens option would option a similar choice
>>2818024
Fuck I wrote that bad, its late
>>2818024
Basically any.
Seriously, it basically doesn't matter:
Minolta
Canon
Nikon
Olympus
Pentax
Contax
>a bunch of other companies I can't remember
Get a body with a 50mm 1.8 or 35mm 1.8 (or near to that), and you'll be good to go. This is literally something you don't have to over think.
Hi
I!m looking for a flash for my 600D. I have about 100$. What do you recomend?
I have an HP Photosmart R827. Is there anything I can buy that would be a worthwhile improvement on image quality with a decent zoom at around $150?
I have a feeling because my budget is so small it's going to be a waste to even get another snapshot pocket camera.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties:
>>2818038
Yongnuo YN-500 series (I think the model for TTL II is 568, but don't quote me) with as big of a roman numeral after it as you can afford. The 600 series is pretty cool to because they have radio transceivers.
>>2818041
>>I have a feeling because my budget is so small it's going to be a waste to even get another snapshot pocket camera.
Well point-n-shoots are kinda dying off, because most people who want that kind of camera just use a smartphone. And really they have pretty much the same image quality nowadays, since PnS cameras and smartphones use the same sensors.
If you want a significant improvement on image quality you have to start looking at a proper interchangeable-lens camera. Used or old-model DSLRs start at $300 or so and even low end ones will be a lot better. They also don't fit in your pocket though.
>>2818059
>people who want that kind of camera just use a smartphone
That's what I figured. I'd probably be better off getting one of those.
>>2818059
>They also don't fit in your pocket though.
Size and storage isn't an issue; the only reason I was considering another pocket camera was the price. The zoom quality of it is awful. Even shooting from 20 feet away, from a 1st story window is just grainy mess. I don't need extreme ranges, but I don't know if a smartphone camera is going to be much better in terms medium distance.
>>2818066
smartphone cameras often have no optical zoom, they have one moderately wide angle lens (usually about 28mm equivalent) and fake it with "digital zoom", which is just a fancy way of cropping a piece out out of the center of the image. Your PnS probably does the same, which, coupled with a small, noisy, and low-resolution sensor, explains what you see.
Any SLR kit lens will have "real" optical zoom. Kit lenses aren't the greatest but they'll still be miles ahead of that thing you have now. They generally start at that same moderate-wide-angle field of view and go until short telephoto. If you want to photograph an outfielder on the other side of the baseball stadium or something, you'll need another lens, though, which'll be another couple hundred bucks for a cheap one. Again, even the cheap ones will be way far ahead of what you can do now, though.
posted this in old thread because I didnt see this one
buying a nikon d3300 with my tax return, first dslr / non phone camera. should I get the kit or just the body? my dad has a 50mm 1.8 that I can use, will that be sufficient?
Also what is more suited for street photography, the 50mm or 35mm? moving to a city in the fall
>>2818033
Cool
Theres one more thing I have considered - Would any SLR with a 50/35mm lens outrank a high quality compact (e.g., Yash T4, Contax T2) in terms of IQ?
I understand the ergonomics and such would be superior on an SLR, but still, this question bugs me. If not, then I wouldn't honestly see the need in buying another 35mm camera.
I have a K-5II. I'm looking into primes around the 80-135mm range and something at 200 or 300mm. I'd love to get a macro lens, but they're out of my budget (<$75). Have you guys ever tried an actual macro lens vs a telephoto lens with an extension tube?
>>2818097
50mm on crop sensor means 75mm practically.
You can have a bunch of fun with that, so it might be more powerful to not get the kit zoom and play with that until you get a 35mm (50mm equivalent).
It depends on whether you want really sharp photos with a bit of a framing headache, or you want the luxury of framing with zoom, but a slight reduction in IQ. 75mm equivalent is almost impossible to use indoors to be honest.
>>2818105
Depends on the lens in question/what you consider better.
Aside from that, it's just personal preference. Kinda like the difference between rangefinders and slrs -- there are advantages to each formfactor and whichever is best for you is best for you...not trying to be evasive, but the differences that are universally important are generally pretty small and the subjectively important ones are the biggest differences.
An slr/rangefinder would tend to give you access to larger apertures (I think the largest aperture I've seen on the better compacts is f/2.8, but I'm honestly no expert on compacts, someone'll be round to correct me if I'm terribly off base). You'd also have the option of more focal lengths should you decide later on that you want one...that said, bodies are cheap enough that if you decide to go with one of the better compacts, it's no big deal to get an slr/rangefinder later.
>>2818097
35mm without a doubt. Like the other anon said, 50mm on a crop sensor will be closer to 75mm which is a short telephoto focal length and would be somewhat difficult for street.
>>2818120
thanks man
How the FUCK is 18-300mm physically possible
What the fuck Nikon
>>2818180
they got a bridge camera with an 83x zoom lens. It's something like 24-2000mm equivalent.
all you have to do is subordinate sharpness, CA correction, distortion correction, vignetting, maximum aperture, and a few other things to zoom range. Plebs will buy it because they don't know about any of that other stuff, they just figure that more zoom is better, right? It's like what Intel did when they made the Pentium 4, computer buyers didn't know about bus speeds, instructions per clock, memory bandwidth, or any of that stuff, but they sure knew that more megahertz meant faster.
Reminds me of a post on the lensrentals blog where they mentioned some woman rented a Canon body and an 85/1.2L, and then called up to yell at them because it didn't zoom, and what kind of shitty camera can't even zoom?
>>2818242
...is that lomo's new lensbaby?
Someone is trying to sell his Sony rx100 III at half price, as a newbs what should I check for? It has warranty card and box but well shit like I'm not legible to claim can happen.
>>2818105
>>2818116
Seconding this. The first lenses I got for my D7200 was a 50 1.8d. I love that lens, but it can be hard to maneuver in tighter spaces at 75mm. The 35mm DX has more breathing room, but mine seems to have a distortion problem. I bought a refurbished 18-140 for about 200 dollars, so I usually bring it with me just in case.
>>2818242
>go pro mounted ON an amazon $99 super telephoto
>overweight
>ponytail
Jesus Christ, it's r9k trying to photog.
>>2818300
I actually think this is really not the worst idea for a poorfag setup.
>>2818311
...that looks a lot like a D700/750/800/810
>>2818242
what the fuck
how terrible is that 24-2000mm at max range
because that's a huge fucking focal range, i mean i'm tempted to rent it to see what it's like for shooting (unmoving) birds and shit
>>2818320
Just buy one for shits and giggles. They show up on sites like overstock for like $50 from time to time.
>>2818321
>600$ on amazon
>lolololo 50$ on vaporware website
neat dude!
when does the 100$ f/0.95 glass show up?
i know it's gonna be shit so i wouldn't touch it with an 83 foot pole in terms of buying but if it's cheap i'd rent
>>2818324
>vaporware
You're aware words have meanings, right?
>>2818329
overstock doesn't ever, EVER have the p900 for 50$ fagtron
nobody fucking does that is 1/12th MSRP
>>2818320
it has a tiny sensor and therefore a ridiculous crop value but yeah it is pretty wacky
>>2818318
Maybe? Figures he probably has better lenses for normal range or macro or something if it is one of the cameras you listed.
Maybe you'll just make do with some very improvised setup when you shoot an event... I myself certainly also did that before.
>>2818320
https://photographylife.com/what-does-a-24-2000mm-zoom-range-actually-look-like
>>2818337
>actually decent IQ with insane zoom
well
uhhh
i'm buying one i guess
>>2817227
Yes you can do the same customization for each screen that cycles with the DISP button
>>2818115
A Pentacon 135/2.8 should fit in your budget, altough the cheap 6-blade aperture version. The Bokehmonster 15 blade version costs a lot more.
I would advise to build up your budget more though, and get a used Tamron 70-200/2.8 or a Tokina 80-200/2.8 instead, that would cover most of the needed focal lengths and give you crystal clear images to crop in for smaller subjects further away.
>>2818340
Decent IQ in this sense means it is comparable to other point and shoots. It is vastly inferior to a DSLR with kit lens, plus the novelty of the long zoom range quickly wears off. It is better to spend on a used DSLR, a used standard to wide zoom lens and a nice consumer zoom in the 50-300mm range.
Money spent on the P900 (and any other superzoom or bridge cameras) is like throwing money out the window. It might feel good at first but you will regret it very soon.
How do you clean your lenses of simple dust and the occasional waterdrop?
I currenlty use one of those standard microfiber glass cleaning cloths you get at every optician.
Is there some secret or trick to it or is it just normal, circular wiping?
Can I also use those disposable wet-wipes for glasses and touchscreens?
>>2818572
I use my breath (or lick the lens) and wipe with my t-shirt.
>>2818572
Standard microfiber cloth and breathing on the lens.
>>2818469
i have a dslr and a nice telephoto
this thing still has over 3x the effective focal length
it has far superior iq than the dslr will because the dslr will be a mash of 50 pixels where this will be 1000 pixels
>>2818608
You know what, it will suit you. Go ahead.
>>2818611
No hold on let me try to get close to this incredibly skittish bird oh shit he's gone oh well
>>2818612
Let's see this 2000mm equivalent shot OH GOD IT'S AN AWFUL MESS OF CA AND HORRIBLE BLUR!
Good luck getting a useful shot out of it, kid.
So I got this couple of years old YN-560II chinese flash, that recently stopped working. Back screen lights up and you can click on all the functions and stuff, and the green light is on, but nothing happens when you push the test button, and it doesn't fire when on a camera. It also shuts down after maybe 10-15 seconds even with brand new batteries. Fixable or throw it in the bin?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Model Nexus 5 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CC 2014 (Windows) Maximum Lens Aperture f/2.4 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 2368 Image Height 3200 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 2016:04:18 17:39:58 Exposure Time 18007/500000 sec F-Number f/2.4 Exposure Program Normal Program ISO Speed Rating 432 Lens Aperture f/2.4 Subject Distance 0.00 m Metering Mode Center Weighted Average Flash No Flash Focal Length 3.97 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 740 Image Height 1000 Rendering Custom Exposure Mode Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal Subject Distance Range Unknown
>>2818615
Definitely more expensive and more hassle to fix it than it is to get a new one. They're what, $60 brand new?
>>2818614
Too bad it's already been confirmed to be more than acceptable kiddo
https://photographylife.com/what-does-a-24-2000mm-zoom-range-actually-look-like
git gud and learn to read.
Remember that your dSLR will be in the 500mm range. Now look at the 2000mm
look at all these terrible shots
http://g-ecx.images-amazon.com/images/S/amazon-dp.dpreview.com/sample_galleries/nikon_cpp900/3198631.jpg
http://g-ecx.images-amazon.com/images/S/amazon-dp.dpreview.com/sample_galleries/nikon_cpp900/3197933.jpg
http://g-ecx.images-amazon.com/images/S/amazon-dp.dpreview.com/sample_galleries/nikon_cpp900/3197951.jpg
literally only digiscoping can match this. what's that cost to get into?
>>2818616
yeah, pretty much what I thought.
on a student shoestring budget, but I guess I'll manage without.
>>2818620
Absolutely horrible image quality straight from the shitty lens.
A bridge camera will be always a shitty bridge camera no matter how much technology you cram behind a shitty lens.
>>2818623
Meanwhile, dslr and mirrorless are cucked out of even being able to take an image, and will look 100x worse if you try to crop the messy blur you get at the tiny as fuck focal length
>>2818627
I can't think of a single situation where you have to be a half mile from your subject, where you can't make do by being a quarter or 8th of a mile from your subject. The most skittish animals on Earth are still pretty relaxed from a quarter mile away. And I imagine if you're bothering to shoot those situations, and you're taking all the time and trouble to get there, you'd want a good image to come out of it at the end.
>>2818643
>my weather is shit so everyone else's is too
?
not a problem here champ
>>2818647
>weather
Not what I'm talking about but it does effect it. Any thermal currents mess with the image.
>>2818658
Are you unable to understand that dSLRs have a huge blindspot of no good long focal length lenses?
>>2818608
"good" superzoom shots are insanely oversharpened and look like garbage compared to a crop of even a 70-200 2.8. And once you compare vs a 300mm f4 w/ TC or the Canon 400mm f5.6 the gap widens even more. The only advantage superzooms have vs DSLRs is size and cost.
>>2818668
Incorrect, even a 100-400 ii on a crop body can't resolve detail that the 2m focal length on that can
It is 1/4th the cost of a good telephoto, therefore it makes sense to carry along as a 2nd camera as needed.
>>2818665
>no good long focal length lenses for less than $10,000, and also I don't know about teleconverters.
FTFY
>>2818677
10k only gets you a fixed 400mm or maybe a meme 500-600 or something
800? lol there's like 3 in existence
>>2818677
teleconverters DESTROY any IQ that a dSLR boasts about, and is retarded because they cost as much as this camera itself
>>2818696
1) No they absolutely don't...
2) You can get a 2x teleconverter for $430 brand new.
>100% crop from a 300mm lens with a 2x TC on it.
>>2818694
>>2818696
Thing is you don't need more than 600mm unless you are a NatGeo photographer. Sigma 150-600 consumer and Sport telezoom will be enough for everything and fits well into a decent budget.
No need for 10k gear unless you want f/4 at 600mm which is not usual hobby use. Your entire argument is stupid, that 2000mm equivalent lens is a needless gimmick. If you have ever held and used a decent camera you would know.
Your argument is as pointless as the existence of that shitty bridge camera.
So it would fit you well, buy it, use it, report back and post photos.
>>2818707
>no AF
>>2818708
>bigma garbage
only good glass is superior to this meme camera
not shit tier glass like sigma or tamron.
you'll get equal IQ between the 600$ bridge or their glass, and it'll have many more uses along with a further focal length
>>2818709
>gives you AF on non-AF lenses
>Tair 300 photosniper with 510mm extended focal length and AF
>>2818712
>>2818717
>defending pentacks
sides runneth over
>>2818709
It absolutely allows for AF. What are you talking about?
>>2818717
>sigma and tamron are acceptable
t. man who shoots with subpar glass
>>2818720
Yeah, not like the guy extolling the virtues of a superzoom bridge camera...
>>2818722
it's 1/4th the cost of a decent telephoto, every good photographer carries more than 1 camera anyway, if you are going pure birding it is better to carry this with your dslr.
>>2818727
>if you are going pure birding
you are not using a bridge camera. Plain and simple.
>>2818728
>neat bird way off in the distance, shame my dslr can't reach it, oh well i guess there's no solution to this problem
>>2818730
You've been spouting the same stupid shit over and over, no matter how many times you repeat yourself, no matter how much you believe in your stupidity it won't make it any less stupid. The argument is pointless and your trolling is weak. Go away.
>>2818734
He's not trolling, he just desperately wants to believe that there's a $200 alternative to what the pros use, which is a place most of us have been at one point or another in our lives. He'll figure it out.
>>2818740
>He's not trolling
That is actually pretty sad.
He probably saw the Camera Store TV video about the Fuji superzoom vs DSLR with that fuckhuge Sigma 300-800 zoom lens cannon stool thing and skipped over the tounge-in-cheek sarcasm part.
Dammit isi, you made me do it!
>tfw I actually got myself an X-Pro1 to play around with
>Fujicuck
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Apple Camera Model iPhone 6 Plus Camera Software 9.3 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 39 mm Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2016:04:17 15:09:56 Exposure Time 1/100 sec F-Number f/2.2 Exposure Program Normal Program ISO Speed Rating 40 Lens Aperture f/2.2 Brightness 5.3 EV Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 4.15 mm Comment Edited with Afterlight Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 2448 Image Height 2448 Rendering Unknown Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard
>>2818744
No counter arguments because stupidity is not an argument. It's just plain stupidity.
>>2818744
All the counter arguments were already made, and haven't changed.
>the same IQ on a DSLR
Yeah, except but no...
>>2818749
>telephoto with a 2x TC on a crop, the only way to get near that focal length, is going to look any better
Nope.
>>2818750
I forgot, you're gonna have to not just use a crop body but also crop in post! Even worse.
>>2818751
No, because I would never ever take a photo from that far away, no matter what camera I'm holding. And neither will you.
Looking for a new digital compact that isn't a clunky mess. Had the RX1, going to sell it soon because even if the IQ is amazing (pic related), it is just a mess of a camera and has convinced me not to buy into Sony for a very long while (or at least until they do some serious work on their menu system and body ergonomics).
Was about 95% sure on the ricoh, but saw fuji just came out with the x70. Seems absolutely perfect. Wanted the x100t over the gr, but couldn't justify it since it can't fit in my pocket. but it looks like the x70 can.
fuji x70 vs. ricoh gr?
and in other news, anybody want an RX1 (after my raving review, lol)? Will sell it with the EVF, battery charger, two batteries and a card for $1600.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make SONY Camera Model DSC-RX1 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CC (Windows) Maximum Lens Aperture f/2.0 Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 35 mm Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2015:09:09 06:22:41 Exposure Time 1/400 sec F-Number f/8.0 Exposure Program Aperture Priority ISO Speed Rating 100 Lens Aperture f/8.0 Brightness 10.5 EV Exposure Bias 0.3 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 35.00 mm Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 1000 Image Height 1500 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal
>>2818745
Does that tape allow you to grip it better?
>>2818753
Why not the Canon G5X?
>>2818753
If you find that the Fuji control scheme and ergonomics work well for you, then the X70 will treat you very well. Both cameras have fairly well documented quirks, and you simply need to pick the one that's the better fit for you.
The x70 should be better in low light, have better AF, and produce better JPEGs if you set it up correctly. It should also avoid the dust issue that the GR is plagued by.
That said, the snap focus on the GR can be very helpful if you shoot a certain way, and the lens is a little better (on paper, at least)
>>2818756
Oh, and the GR files will be a little bit easier to edit, if you're so inclined.
>>2817030
Buy my 16-35 f2.8L!
>>2818752
>i'll just hover over this water, cliff, or other obstacle to get to the thing i want to take a photo of
?
I have a K10D, should I shoot in PEF or DNG ? I'm editing in light room.
>>2818755
butt ugly
>>2818774
DNG
>>2818773
You can always come up with a ton of hypothetical situations where you might use something, but I stand by what I said, it'll never happen in real life. There's nothing floating a half mile out into a body of water to take photos of. There's nothing a half mile off a cliff to take photos of. If there's an obstacle in your way, you move around. You're also ignoring the fact that it's going to be literally impossible to compose a traditional shot at that focal length because of the compression. There will be no background. You can't layer features in, you can't show the environment.
In the real world, you aren't looking for things to take photos of from that far away. Even if you're looking for birds specifically.
>>2818778
?
birding doesn't require comp, the bird is the point of the photo
>>2818780
I'm dismissing birding, because one of the most important aspects of birding is fine detail, and at that focal length, you won't have it. The best you're going to get is "Look at this bird I saw you guys! I have proof that I saw it!" level shots. If that's what you're after, then fine, I concede it's a great camera for your needs, and I hope you have a blast using it.
>>2818783
>cheap easy way to open up shots you can't get expect by switching lenses to 10,000$ worth of gear
>sample images show good detail even at 2000mm
>it's bad because i said so
alright
>>2818785
>sample images show good detail even at 2000mm
Post one image with "good detail" at 2000mm.
For reference, here is "good detail" in a bird photo.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 1024 Image Height 819
https://www.flickr.com/photos/jimpic/26173318440/in/pool-2751059@N20/
>This is acceptable guys!
>So much better than dSLR guys!
Open it, magnify the image and weep.
>>2817210
>>2817239
The aperture is defined by the lens, you can get lens with bigger aperture, they're usually more expensive but make your photos clearer by letting more light in
They also increase the "background blur" effect
Don't listen to these rude cunts anon. They're just unhappy that there are more people getting into their hobbie/passion and have a constant need to feel superior
It's almost like they don't remember that they weren't born knowing everything they do
If you truly like photography and keep studying and practicing, you'll eventually get really good at it.
Why don't you post some of the pictures you took here? I would enjoy them.
>>2818791
I posted a lot of them in some other threads, but I can try
I've also started to post-process them in GIMP since I do have experience and took a basic Photoshop course. I normally adjust levels, increasing contrast and Saturation and adjusting Brightness and
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Panasonic Camera Model DMC-G70 Camera Software GIMP 2.8.16 Maximum Lens Aperture f/3.5 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 28 mm Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 180 dpi Vertical Resolution 180 dpi Image Created 2016:04:18 19:09:26 Exposure Time 1/1000 sec F-Number f/14.0 Exposure Program Landscape Mode ISO Speed Rating 200 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 14.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1148 Image Height 862 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto Bracket Scene Capture Type Standard Gain Control Low Gain Up Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal Image Quality Fine White Balance Auto Focus Mode Auto Spot Mode Unknown Image Stabilizer Mode 1 Macro Mode Normal Shooting Mode Scenery Audio No Flash Bias 0.00 EV Color Effect Off Contrast Unknown Noise Reduction Standard
>>2818794
>>2818791
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Panasonic Camera Model DMC-G70 Camera Software GIMP 2.8.16 Maximum Lens Aperture f/3.5 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 28 mm Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 180 dpi Vertical Resolution 180 dpi Image Created 2016:04:18 20:04:49 Exposure Time 1/500 sec F-Number f/7.1 Exposure Program Normal Program ISO Speed Rating 200 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 14.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1148 Image Height 862 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Gain Control Low Gain Up Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal Image Quality Fine White Balance Auto Focus Mode Auto Spot Mode Unknown Image Stabilizer Mode 1 Macro Mode Normal Shooting Mode Unknown Audio No Flash Bias 0.00 EV Color Effect Off Contrast Low Noise Reduction Standard
>>2818798
>>2818791
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Panasonic Camera Model DMC-G70 Camera Software GIMP 2.8.16 Maximum Lens Aperture f/3.5 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 28 mm Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 180 dpi Vertical Resolution 180 dpi Image Created 2016:04:18 20:13:39 Exposure Time 1/100 sec F-Number f/3.5 Exposure Program Normal Program ISO Speed Rating 200 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 14.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1148 Image Height 862 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Gain Control Low Gain Up Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal Image Quality Fine White Balance Auto Focus Mode Auto Spot Mode Unknown Image Stabilizer Mode 1 Macro Mode Normal Shooting Mode Unknown Audio No Flash Bias 0.00 EV Color Effect Off Contrast Low Noise Reduction Standard
w2c weather sealed dslr with nfc and wifi
Shooting a d7000 now and I'm definitely ready for an upgrade.
D810 or D4?
I'm doing a lot more paid work now so I'm less incline to waiting for the next release/price drop
I'm doing mainly portraits and commercial work so a high fps isn't a huge deal to me, neither is the megapixel difference.
I'm mainly concerned with being able to use the popup flash as a commander, and battery life
Halp pls
>>2818807
>I'm definitely ready for an upgrade.
Your stated needs are achieved through your current camera. Why are you "definitely" ready for an upgrade?
You don't list your lenses or lights, which suggests (but doesn't guarantee) a poorly balanced priority.
>>2818807
Just throwing ideas out here
Why don't you invest in some lights instead?
Should I get the Batis or Loxia?
I took this from their website and resized them so the bottom mount becomes the same width.
The Batis turns out to be such a fat ass, while the other is slender and small.
Just the look of the lenses alone is pulling me towards to Loxia.
On one hand the Batis has AF, but on the other hand the Loxia has optics as superb as it can get at that small size, and proper hardstop focus ring and aperture ring.
>>2818807
If you definitely have to upgrade the body then go with the D810 or a D750, but upgrading lights, getting a couple or more flashes and an RF commander would be my first step.
The D7000 while being a crop body is still a very capable camera.
>>2818794
>>2818798
These are really nice. I love the classic building/sky composition. The clouds look really nice too, especially on the first one.
>>2818802
I don't like this one too much. The subject is really nice, but maybe perhaps you could've tried a different angle. Either get closer to it (if possible) or stand lower.
Is the local close to you? You could go there again
You're doing a great job for a begginer anon. Have you ever tried taking pictures of strangers in the street? I love doing that, and it's really good training for begginers, getting good compositions of unpredictably moving people without letting them notice is harder than most think.
>>2818834
Smaller and slender hurts less when inserted.
Jokes aside what is better for you? Superb optics but missing focus slightly on most of your shots or having somewhat less IQ (while still being excellent IQ) and having all of your shots in focus?
>>2818804
Pentax K-S2 or K-3 with the factory wi-fi flucard.
>>2818843
Sense and reason is telling me to get the AF, but the one with AF is so fat, it's such a turnoff.
>>2818834
Don't buy a lens based on how it looks. Buy a lens based on your needs, and the lens's features.
>>2818853
don't forget
chicks dig fat optic tubes
>>2818853
Think about how easier it will be to hold and balance, also being fat means when you switch over to manual focus you can set it much more precisely than the slender Loxia.
>>2818807
>D4
>>2818754
No. It's simply black meme tape to cover the brand/name of the camera
>taping your XP1 so nobody will know that you are a Fujicuck
>>2818753
I compared the X70 to the GR on imaging resource and the X70 produced better images; it wasnt even close. See for yourself.
I bought the X70 for pocketability but honestly it doesnt really fit in your pocket unless you wear really baggy cargo pants or something. It's more just an awkward size that sacrifices ergonomics and doesnt provide the benefit of pocketability. I returned it and bought the X100T - if im going to have something in a case on my belt either way, it might as well have a built in viewfinder and better ergonomics.
>>2818842
It is close.
I will try getting some strangers. I actually started with a friend's cam (Sony Alpha 77) taking pictures on parties in a local he rented out.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Panasonic Camera Model DMC-G70 Camera Software GIMP 2.8.16 Maximum Lens Aperture f/3.6 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 30 mm Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 180 dpi Vertical Resolution 180 dpi Image Created 2016:04:18 21:45:53 Exposure Time 1/200 sec F-Number f/5.6 Exposure Program Normal Program ISO Speed Rating 200 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 15.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1148 Image Height 862 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Gain Control Low Gain Up Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal Image Quality Fine White Balance Auto Focus Mode Auto Spot Mode Unknown Image Stabilizer Mode 1 Macro Mode Normal Shooting Mode Unknown Audio No Flash Bias 0.00 EV Color Effect Off Contrast Low Noise Reduction Standard
>>2818811
>>2818828
>>2818836
I have two sb600s and two second hand 910s, so I'm fine there.
Main lenses used are tokina 11-20 which i'd have to replace, 24-70 no vr, 70-200vrii
and why do I have to justify getting something newer than my six year old camera? I want something newer, faster, possibly being able to offer larger prints in case of the d810.
I do newborn photos in hospitals, and I'm doing way more work for hipster owned coffee shops and consignment stores so I want to advance from my graduation present camera
>>2818900
>and why do I have to justify getting something newer than my six year old camera? I want something newer, faster, possibly being able to offer larger prints in case of the d810.
You don't have to justify anything. But if you're saying you've outgrown your current camera and want to replace it, and you want our help to make that step a good one, then we need to know what you're looking to get out of the new one.
You have a great camera already, so the truth is, you'll see a LOT more benefit from getting a new better lens than you will by using the same lenses on a new body.
From the looks of it, you should be able to take care of more or less all your needs with what you have, so if you feel like upgrading, do what you want, but don't expect to see any changes in your results.
>>2817347
Ricoh GR is the cheapest decent Street camera you can get.
>>2818889
Great! Try that and post here
Is this one from the same location?
I really like this one, but I think you could try experimenting with other angles and see how that turns out.
Also, here's a pretty cool tip: if you think of a picture and don't move around to take it, you're probably doing it wrong.
The more you move (and move things, if possible) around, the better (usually, ofc)
>>2817347
I don't really know about your financial situation, but honestly I think that you shouldn't just buy the cheapest one because it's cheap
A camera is a life-long investment if you take good care of it, and in my opinion it's worth it to save up and get a good one, cause you won't really get a new one so soon
But still, you shouldn't compromise your finances just to get good gear
t. A fellow brazilian
