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: >>2825700
noice
https://youtu.be/sXv2HTQCK6k
Anyone have one of these? Considering it over the new 1.8 due to size.
>>2828304
Not that much smaller and the 1.8 is faster.
>>2828304
I have one and I love it.
It's very sharp and doesn't have much distortion. What it does have is easy to correct.
Using it a lot on my crop Nikon until I buy a 35 mm prime but I do also sometimes put it on the film Nikons for the full 20 mm experience.
>>2828308
>Not that much smaller
What? Mass wise, maybe.
>>2828304
I've been lusting after one for a while.
Remember, of the AF-D lenses, the 28 and 35 don't hold up to their AIS predecessors. The rest are fine though.
>>2828315
Sorry, forgot Nikkor lenses are fuckhuge due to the retarded flange distance.
>>2828324
>77mm
what
It's 52mm on mine and 49mm on the 35. Oh yeah, it's Pentax.
>>2828333
Pentax doesn't even have a 28/1.8
>>2828342
And?
>>2828324
The 35's acceptably good, but apparently the corners fall off too fast. If you're not a corners guy, it's not so bad, but for a wide angle... The 28 collects the salty tears of 28/2.8 AIS users.
>>2828323
t. Sony user
ask someone who got their greasy hands on a m-mount ricoh gr 28/2.8 anything
>>2828386
Why not just buy a GR1v if you wanted film or a GR if you wanted digital? Aren't those converted lenses really expensive? The GR lenses are nice and all, but to me the real point of the camera is the full package, transplanting the lens onto a Leica or onto a mirrorless camera or whatever seems kind of pointless.
>>2828386
You mean GXR?
>>2828386
Is it sharp?
>>2828399
I think me means this lens.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Canon Camera Model Canon PowerShot TX1 Maximum Lens Aperture f/3.5 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Firmware Version TX1 JPEG Owner Name re Version 1.01 Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 180 dpi Vertical Resolution 180 dpi Image Created 2009:03:21 09:32:12 Exposure Time 1/60 sec F-Number f/5.0 ISO Speed Rating 400 Lens Aperture f/5.0 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 6.50 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1600 Image Height 1200 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Image Number 103-0716
>>2828407
Looks like a waste of money. At least the lens is good.
why shouldn't i buy a k3ii in the next 30 minutes?
>>2828410
Because K-1
>>2828410
Because pixel shift is studio only with dead subjects, has no tethering and the K-3 is much more practical.
>>2828408
yeah its more of a collector's item than a user lens, you could probably cop 2 voigtlaenders or a contax g2+lens for that money, but luckily I just got it lent to me for a couple months by a wealthy acquaintance, would never buy it for myself
>>2828403
>>2828398
I'd say the biggest selling point of the 28/2.8 for leica is that you can use the famous gr lens on your equally famous leica cam, optics wise its great but nothing special. It doesn't distort much at all and has little CA. Its also constructed beautifully, pure camera porn.
So yeah, definitely not a user lens. One for the shelf inside a 200$ moisturized lens display case
What's a good tripod to buy for a beginner?
>>2828470
Dic&Mic E302C
>>2828277
hey guys
beginner here.
what are your recommendations for a good first tripod? I dont want it to be too expensive, but i also dont want something that falls apart after a month.
>>2828422
but muh astrotracuh
>>2828487
the reality of tripods is anything under 100 is gonna be wobbly as shit if you're gonna use it outdoors and is gonna be a *liability* more than money saved.
You're more likely to break your priceless gear with cheap shit so it's really the last thing you want to skimp on.
>>2828493
Just buy the O-GPS1 instead. It uses it's own battery.
Oh, and use Lithium AAA battery.
>>2828410
I'm waiting for the K-1. Not to buy it but to see all the pentax crop lenses and cameras go on the used market for a steal. It's going to take a while.
>2828068
>2828046
My buddy is going to let me borrow it for a week before I make a decision.
Odds are i'm going to keep it though
>>2828448
But the GR lens isn't famous, the whole GR camera is. The lenses are pretty good and not lacking in any way or anything, but the selling point of the camera isn't some pretty plain unremarkable 28/2.8 lens so I don't see the point in it when there's a million M mount 28mm lenses that don't require destroying a GR and doing a whole bunch of work.
>>2828545
the gr lens for leica is not a conversion it was made by ricoh specifically for the m-mount and it shows
For street, xpro1 or x100s
how serious its the lack of autofocus in the xpro1?
worth the money the 27mm 2.8?
or maybe the 18mm?
24-105 f4 is or 24-70 f2.8?
what do you guys think about the extra stop of light vs the IS and zoom?
planning on some travel and landscape photos
>>2828628
I think it mainly depends on how you use it.
I also remind you that IS can't do shit for motion blur caused by the subject moving. Generally, IS is also less useful on wider angle focal lengths.
As for focal length, if you're talking crop, you're talking a field of view difference of around 50mm...how much use that is to you depends on how you shoot.
>>2828626
I recently faced this choice. I went for the x100s because the PDAF makes the AF marginally faster and it's a bit smaller. The AF is still really slow. I can imagine the XP1 is unbearable.
It ultimately comes down to whether you would like to trade slower AF and larger size for interchangable lens.
>>2828633
that bad its the autofocus on the x100s?
Dxo states that the Nikon D810 sensor is the best on the market. However when you couple lenses to the D810, the resulting combo performs worse than with the D800e. Why is that?
Also, how is the Zeiss Apo Sonnar more sharp than either of the Otus lenses? It is sharper than the D800e can resolve (but the D810 is not as sharp FFS).
How is the Sigma 50mm sharper than the Zeiss Otus 55?
Is this all bullshit?
>>2828643
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Picasa Image-Specific Properties: Color Space Information sRGB
>>2828643
And why does Canon get BTFO'd on Dxo rankings? They can't possibly be that behind, no way.
>>2828645
You know doing that shit can get you banned, right?
>>2828655
Making fun of retards? Yeah, no, I know it's in the rules, but no. that's the only reason most of us even come here.
>>2828662
You sure showed me.
>>2828626
X100s or XE2 not xpro 1.
I have XT1 and X100s, I would get the x100s if you have a DSLR or the XE2 if it's going to be your main camera.
>>2828666
No no, he made fun of you. Very different.
>>2828628
Both, get the Tamrom 24-70 2.8 IS I've seen videos "digital cropping" the 24-70 to 105 and it's sharper than the 24-105 is at 105. Get an extra stop of light and keep the IS. Win win.
>>2828670
I agree with this, I've tested the sigma 24-105 and the tamron 24-70 and went with the tamron. You can definitely crop to 105 and get better IQ.
>>2828668
i will consider very serious this opinion, idk why but i kind a like the OVF of the xpro1, so it is not worthy?
>>2828640
Yes, the AF on the x100s is very bad. In low light, it is essentially unusable. Hope you like zone focusing.
>>2828689
well im a poorfag so i cant buy a xpro2.
xpro1 with the 27mm 2.8 and OVF for the lack of batteries
>>2828686
The XE2 got more updates giving it better focus and more features for a lower price. My x100s is slower than the XT1 but honestly not by much I've never had a problem with the focus on the x100s ever and I've shot well into 15k photos with it so far it's fantastic not sure if it's worst than the XPro1.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make FUJIFILM Camera Model X100S Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.2 (Macintosh) Maximum Lens Aperture f/2.0 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2016:04:17 18:41:00 Exposure Time 1/15 sec F-Number f/16.0 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 200 Lens Aperture f/16.0 Brightness 6.1 EV Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 23.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Rendering Custom Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Sharpness Hard Subject Distance Range Unknown
>>2828643
>Dxo states that the Nikon D810 sensor is the best on the market.
I think the A7RII scored higher.
>Why is that?
Did you look at the metric? Some lenses are sharper on the D800e and some hove lower t stops on the D810. Could be sample variations or different image processing between the two.
>Zeiss Apo Sonnar more sharp than either of the Otus lenses?
Someone from zeiss said in an interview that the only reason the 135 APO was not an otus is because it was introduced before the otus line was created. It is up to otus standards. Just be lucky you don't have to pay the otus premium for it.
>How is the Sigma 50mm sharper than the Zeiss Otus 55?
Again look at the breakdown. The otus is sharper wide open, that's what it's made for. The sigma is sharper once you stop it down especially in the corners.
>Is this all bullshit?
No, you just have to understand the limits of Dxo. Lenses vary sample to sample and their scores don't mean anything because you don't know what calculation they used in their algorithms.
>>2828651
>And why does Canon get BTFO'd on Dxo rankings?
Canon is behind because sony leaped over in sensor technology.
If you care about sharpness so much just rank the lenses in dxo in order of sharpness and you will see the the canon 5ds actually has the sharpest lenses.
You need to know what this all means when you are actually taking a picture: not much. The D810 and D800e have identical sensors. The difference you see in DXO is so small you will never see it in the real world.
Those big expensive lenses are really sharp wide open but stop them down and only the corners will be sharper than a cheap 50mm f1.8.
It's all about perspective. DXO is just a guide. It's not all that matters when you consider a camera or a lens. Make your own judgment.
Already asked in the /vid/ thread but I'll ask here too.
I'm thinking of upgrading my D80 to a D7000 so I can do some videography. How bad of an idea is this? I don't have a huge budget, and a used D7000 fits into the range nicely. Are there any overall better Nikon options in the $350-$450 range? Don't mind buying used.
Any input is appreciated.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make NIKON CORPORATION Camera Model NIKON D80 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.1.1 (Windows) Maximum Lens Aperture f/4.8 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Color Filter Array Pattern 930 Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 21 mm Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2016:04:07 15:56:45 Exposure Time 3 sec F-Number f/5.6 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 100 Lens Aperture f/5.6 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Spot Light Source Tungsten Flash No Flash Focal Length 14.00 mm Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Manual Scene Capture Type Standard Gain Control None Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal Subject Distance Range Unknown
>>2828277
What do you think about getting the k1 as a working DSLR?
It's basically got the same sensor as a D810 except a drought for lenses.
>>2828743
Coupling with the new D-FA lenses and some of the FA lenses it is a beast.
Can anyone recommend a decent & affordable portrait lens for a crop Nikon? I occasionally do headshots for work, and so far I've been using the Nikon 55-300, which basically works, but is not ideal, for oh so many reasons.
I'm considering the 50mm f1.8, since it cropfactors up to 75mm which is a decent portrait length. Are there any downsides to using FF glass on a crop body? Is it true that it wouldn't really be F1.8 since I'm only capturing a limited portion of the light it's designed to pull in?
Any other suggestions? Ideally I'd like something prime, fast-ish, designed for crop, and with a focal length roughly equivalent to 85mm on FF, which I understand is considered standard portraiture/headshots.
Any advice appreciated.
>>2828770
Do you mean portraits as in zoomed in head only shots or environmental portraits? cause the 35mm is much more versatile and 56mm equiv is more than enough for that
>>2828778
Head & Shoulders shots, the sort of thing you'd see on a department noticeboard with the subject's name attached as a sort of "here's who these people are if you want to talk to them" primer. I'm getting pretty good at these and would like to have a sharper, more appropriate lens to really nail the next shoot instead of a cheapo superzoom.
I have the 35mm f1.8 and it's a great wee lens for full body / environmental stuff, but trying to shoot H&S with it would be.... unwise. It'd be nice if Nikon (or Sigma, Tamron, whoever) made something functionally similar but in the 55-60mm sort of range.
>>2828780
>trying to shoot H&S with it would be.... unwise
why's that?
>>2828781
Getting close enough to fill the frame with a human face would produce distorted and unflattering results. Shooting at a distance would require a lot of cropping, which I'm not against in principle, but it seems like a waste of a good sensor to throw away half to three quarters of the image when you could've just shot at the correct focal length...
>>2828781
bc 50mm or 85mm
>>2828643
>Is this all bullshit?
No, you just want to look at the detailed measurements?
The overall score isn't *too* helpful. It's a quick indicator, but not good enough to tell you how sharp a lens is and with what settings.
I recently moved countries and in the process some of my gear got mauled.
I use a Nikon D7000 and a Sigma 150-600 f/5-6.3 for wildlife photography. 99% of it is handheld and happens when trekking, so no tripods or resting or camping.
The Sigma got busted and I'm looking at some of the newer lens as a replacement: Nikon 200-500, Sigma 150-600 C and the S.
The Sigma Sport seemed perfect, especially with the weather sealing because I travel fairly often to dusty places. But it's heavy as shit.
The Nikon 200-500 seems noticeably better than the Sigma Contemporary, but sometimes I did think that having an extra 100mm could have been useful so the 150-600 C doesn't seem like a bad option.
>>2828837
So basically, I'm torn between:
Same as now, but way, way better.
Somewhat better and a bit more range.
Much better and massively less delicate, but potentially too heavy for prolonged trekking & handholding.
>>2828839
I can't rent any of them, I looked and couldn't find anyone offering them (yet).
>>2828837
Oh shit, I mean I use the old Sigma "bigma" 150-500, not 600.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make NIKON CORPORATION Camera Model NIKON D7000 Camera Software DXO Optics Pro v7 Maximum Lens Aperture f/6.3 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Color Filter Array Pattern 15770 Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 750 mm Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2011:03:11 18:37:51 Exposure Time 1/80 sec F-Number f/6.3 Exposure Program Shutter Priority ISO Speed Rating 2500 Lens Aperture f/6.3 Exposure Bias 0 EV Subject Distance 17.78 m Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash Focal Length 500.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1280 Image Height 847 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Gain Control High Gain Up Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal Subject Distance Range Unknown ISO Speed Used 2500 Image Quality FINE White Balance AUTO1 Focus Mode AF-C Flash Setting NORMAL Flash Compensation 0.0 EV ISO Speed Requested 800 Flash Bracket Compensation 0.0 EV AE Bracket Compensation 0.0 EV Lens Type Nikon G Series Lens Range 150.0 - 500.0 mm; f/5.0 - f/6. Shooting/Bracketing Mode Single Frame/Off Noise Reduction OFF Camera Actuations 1368
>>2828839
Are we supposed to guess if you'll be too lazy to use a heavier lens (maybe on a monopod that you have on the side of your backpack) or not?
For documenting a motorcycle trip, filming and taking pictures as well, is there a cheaper or better price/quality alternative to the Nikon d3300?
Basically I want an all in one alternative, I already have an Olympus e-510 but I need something better and more versatile (ie video). I'm using a couple of gopros for the action and super wide angle stuff.
>>2828843
Kind of! If I could rent them each for a weekend it'd be an easy enough task to pick one, but since that's not an option I was wondering if people had hands-on experience, especially with the massive Sigma S.
>>2828854
Sure: https://www.flickr.com/photos/51108381@N05/albums/
I don't pretend to be any good though, and almost everything is very incidental (like all the mongolian hawks being shot from horseback). But I still absolutely love spotting and photographing wildlife.
>>2828861
hey you got very good photos , I gave you a follow :)
Fuji x100t.
Opinions, thoughts?
I just stumbled across this little guy and I have to say I'm impressed, what does /p/ think?
>>2828890
It's a fixed lens camera. I'm not particularly impressed with how it performs overall, and it is generally not a camera for me.
>>2828890
It's the best for a very select number of things. It's pretty okay for a bunch of others, and terrible for many more still.
>>2828890
Nice camera, but you could to better for the price.
Hello, I'm pretty new to photography and my folks gave me a Canon Rebel XSi for a birthday.
My question is: is it worth the materials its made of or is it absolute shit
>>2828943
Why don't you take some photos with it and see? It was free, wasn't it?
>>2828945
I have been using it for a while now but i got no experience and nothing to compare it to, i was hoping you guys could tell me what the consensus is on the camera, obviously im happy i have it and it seems to do a good job but id still like to know how it compares to other cameras
>>2828947
Why? If you're happy, then use it. Another man's penis being bigger doesn't suddenly mean yours stops working.
Take photos. Stop worrying about your camera.
>>2828946
Why don't you read a couple of reviews? Everything that can be said about it has already been said, many times, by many people, on many different sites.
If you'd like us to be more specific, then you have to do so as well. What interests you about it? What would you be using it for? Do you have any other gear? What style of photos do you shoot? What features do you rely on in a camera? Etc.
>>2828948
I do certainly use it and I'm not suddenly craving for another but whats wrong with a bit of curiosity?
>>2828950
Nothing. Except that it's completely useless, and asking other people to tell you if your 8 year old entry level camera is out of date is a waste of pretty much everybody's time, including yours. If you'd like to find out the capabilities of modern cameras, google it.
>>2828952
You do have a point, I guess it will be better if I just keep using it until I feel I actually need an upgrade.
Thanks I suppose.
>>2828949
This is more like it!
I've read a shit load of reviews, and it seems it like it's a winner - contrary to what's mentioned here.
>What interests you about it?
It's small, bullshit-free and what you see is what you get.
>What would you be using it for?
Holiday snap-shits, and some artsy project stuff. Casual shooting. I'd prefer a 28mm lens, but it's 35mm seems like something I can adapt to.
>Do you have any other gear?
I'm new to photography (relatively), I shoot film exclusively with my SLR (Canon-ae1) and rangefinder (Canonet ql17), and in black and white. I mainly shoot in B/W, and develop and print my shit. It's tedious but rewarding. Just want a more painless solution to photography.
>What style of photos do you shoot?
Usually wide, like 28mm. Fucking love this focal size, it just captures everything. I'd go 24mm, but I'm a poorfag, and 28mm has given me superb results.
>What features do you rely on in a camera? Etc.
Build quality. No useless features. Like, the x100t has a poor movie function, but if I wanted to shoot film in high quality, I'd get a film camera.
Wonder if /p/ would back me up / debate me on this.
>>2828994
> Holiday snap-shits, and some artsy project stuff.
Yea, it works as a holiday snapshit camera. No surprise there.
And it will allow you to look like like a hip artist with a machine that has a retro body and a bunch of knobs.
> Casual shooting. I'd prefer a 28mm lens
Well, if it seems correct for your budget, go for it.
That said, to me it seems like you might just as well save half your budget and get a Ricoh GR... or use a smartphone.
i'm someone who has a slight interest in photography, albeit that i do not have much knowledge about it.
i was wondering if there are any good sources where i can learn to do so, if booklearning is even profitable when it comes to taking photos, and also which camera would be recommended for a beginner.
i'd prefer if it wasn't too expensive - if at all possible, does anyone have any answers for me?
>>2829011
Book learning isn't super useful. The manual that comes with a camera you'll get will teach you the technical aspects you need to know, and the rest will have to come with your ability to identify interesting and unique subjects, and work on understanding the concepts of composition, light, and storytelling.
Start looking at photos you really like, and work on breaking them down as to why you like them, and how they achieve their goals. Look for how the photographer dealt with framing, distractions, lighting, colors (what colors are present and what colors aren't, in the photos you like) etc.
>>2829011
You can learn in whatever way you want.
Books or Youtube videos (could be for photography itself or for post-processing), articles or just seeing how other people shoot in their studios... whatever works for you.
> and also which camera would be recommended for a beginner
I'd recommend one of the best IL cameras and lenses you can afford. It's not like operating the camera is difficult, and better cameras & lenses (up to a certain point) just are easier to work with.
Of course, money is a limited resource on even the camera equipment scale for most people here - you kinda need to decide how many hundred or thousand dollars that is.
> i'd prefer if it wasn't too expensive
Relative to your income. Perhaps a Nikon D3300, Pentax K-50 or A6000 will work out? Consider reserving 1-2 times as much for lenses and equipment on the next year or two too, though of course you can shoot with the kit lens(es).
>>2828709
>pls respond
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make NIKON CORPORATION Camera Model NIKON D80 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.1.1 (Windows) Photographer panzergrenadierphotography.tumblr.com flickr.com/photos/panzergrenadierphotography Maximum Lens Aperture f/1.7 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Color Filter Array Pattern 870 Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 75 mm Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2015:12:16 00:57:17 Exposure Time 1/4000 sec F-Number f/1.8 Exposure Program Shutter Priority ISO Speed Rating 100 Lens Aperture f/1.8 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Spot Light Source Fine Weather Flash No Flash Focal Length 50.00 mm Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Manual Scene Capture Type Standard Gain Control None Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal Subject Distance Range Unknown
>>2828994
I've used the x100s since it came out almost daily.
You could get the x100t or you could get a x100s used and couple in the 28mm screw on lens for the same price as the T.
They have a 28 and 50 filter lens that keeps the F2, no light or iq loss.
>>2829023
So I guess you enjoy using it?
Our ol' buddy Ken Rockwell laughs off the screw adapters and claims they negate the compactness.
Still, thanks for tip.
>>2829009
>Ricoh GR... or use a smartphone.
The GR is a different animal in a lot of ways, the x100t has that awesome viewfinder, and several other small yet key features.
>>2829016
I don't feel the D7000 is a good video camera.
Unless there are (telezoom? shallow DoF and bokeh?) lens reasons to get it, I'd probably honestly go with a GoPro or Yicam or SJcam or something instead...
>>2829027
Up until last week when I got the XT1 it was my sole camera for all my own projects. I still use a DSLR with full light and lens kit for paid work but Fuji has stole my heart for everything else.
It's never let me down, I once completely fucked the OFV it had a huge hole all the way through it the EFV was still working, I duct taped it and finished off the riot, fuji repaired it and sent it back in like 6 working days.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CC 2014 (Macintosh) Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2016:05:01 18:56:25 Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 530 Image Height 1238
>>2829027
> The GR is a different animal in a lot of ways, the x100t has that awesome viewfinder, and several other small yet key features.
Maybe there are key reasons why an X100T would be better or necessary, but I did not hear any so far.
Holiday snapshots + some artsy photos (B&W?) at ~28mm basically really make me think a random P&S or smartphone would do the job fine.
Even if you want a viewfinder rather than LCD, some random P&S or a RX100 III or something can provide that for about half the price or less of a X100T.
>>2829027
>screw adapters and claims they negate the compactness.
Yes, but only when you want them to. Much like any mirrorless camera, it can be compact and sleek when you want it to be, and if you need it, can be expanded at the expense of size.
>>2828994
I absolutely loved mine for travel, and environmental portraiture stuff. I sold it and got an X-T1 for more portrait oriented stuff.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi
>>2829037
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi
I've never had a DSLR before (only older SLR film cameras) so I thought I start at the beginning. I've bought a Nikon D3200 + 18-55 VRII kit lens about a year ago. Unfortunately, I've already feel the limits of this entry level model. My major problem is noise at high ISO. 400-800 is okay. around 1600 I need serious after touch to remove noise, when I reach 3200 there is a serious, incurable quality drop.
I know a faster prime (eg. 35mm f/1.8) can remedy this, or a speedlight (I don't really know falshes) or the two together. I'm also thinking about upgrading the model - should I buy a "smarter" DX or an average not the most recent FX? I need some input. Thanks!
>>2829043
Depends on your usage.
I want to do high quality art film. Short scenes with two person dialogues and impeccable lighting. Good affordable but high iso starters? Most shots are close up and mid range.
>>2829043
Your camera has around the same specs as my x100s, your sensor is not the problem, you are.
Flash will allow you to shoot lower ISO with moving subjects, a tripod will allow you to shoot lower ISO with static subjects. Master both and the camera is a non factor. Don't get another body, but also don't buy lenses that can only be used on APSC to leave room in a few years, instead invest in a nice light tripod, a cheap flash, 2 remotes to get it off the camera and then some primes.
Do not be a fuckboi and think the camera is the problem, this leads to a life time of being a total gear faggot.
How much should I pay for a used X-Pro1?
Is 250~300€ a good price?
>>2829047
A fuckboi? A total gear faggot (it's 2016, 21st century, you know that, right)? Are you serious? Do you know anything about photography? Because if you do, you should know that a tripod is not always the solution (in my experience, half the time it's not). And I DO have a tripod, a remote, and I very well know how and when to make low noise pictures.
/p/ee, what's the best wedding body-lens combo out there right now for around 2000$?
may urinary tract infection avoid you /p/ee.
Caught a rebel sl1 on sale for $125 (with an IS lens), sold it for $250.
Am I a piece of shit for not throwing it into the trash?
>>2828277
You folks are probably tired of hearing questions like this, but what'd be a good kit for a poorfag college student looking for a camera+lens(es) that does both photos and video pretty well?
My budget is around or below $500, and I'd like it to be something I can keep for about 3-4-ish years.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 630 Image Height 354 Scene Capture Type Standard
>>2829060
Is that the only one for sale on the entire continent, rendering you unable to compare pricing?
>>2829082
If leaning more photo than video, Nikon D3300. With kit lens 18-55 sells around $300 on many sites.
If no lean and a balance, Sony A6000 with 16-50 lens.
>>2829089
Leaning more video, so I guess I'll heavily consider the a6000.
>>2829067
the truth is if your total budget is 2k you're not ready to shoot weddings at all. You could volunteer to be an assistant in a pair if someone else with 2k+ of gear wants to help, but for solo
If you want to do it at all right
$2000+ in two bodies. At minimum one good body and one backup (say $1400 main, $600 backup)
$1000+ in telephoto lens
$1000+ more spread between a prime-quality wide lens (for groups of 6+ people) and some general zooms (like 24-70 or 24-105 for full frame, or 18-135 for crop)
$250-600: At least one, pref two attachable, aimable (not forward body flash at all) flashes like 430EXII or even two Yongnuo flashes (big discount, but they're cheap chinese plagiarisms so bring at minimum 2 of them for when one of the fucks breaks leaving you with no lighting at all)
$100-ish per flash accessories: Stand, lighting umbrella, umbrella mount and hotshoe adapter for each off-camera flash if you don't have a perfect wall or ceiling to bounce every flash off of.
$150+: several extra camera batteries. Several extra CF/SD cards. Extra batteries for flashes.
Easily looking at $4500 for a no-frills gear setup that won't miss all the wedding moments the second your gear suffers ANY malfunction (body, only lens at a focal length, only storage card, only lighting option, etc.)
And as weddings can last several hours and require movement around crowds, a malfunction is entirely too likely for some bozo with zero backups to think they can one-man-show it.
>>2829028
>telezoom? shallow DoF and bokeh?
pretty much all of these. i'm not looking for something to take vacation videos with.
>>2829101
Nikon is not the answer for video. Even Canon is better for that, but your best bet would be a sony. Their video quality is very very good. As well as things like the GH3/4
>>2829092
thank you
>>2829104
i'd like to try and avoid investing $1500+ on an entirely new platform (especially when i already have the whole range of lenses covered with nikon), hence the $350-$450 price range. is nikon really that bad for video?
>>2829111
If you're filming seagulls on vacation, it's fine. If you're trying to actually produce something serious, yeah no.
Samyang-Question:
I want to buy a Sony Alpha 6000 (seems to be a cheap but reliable camera) and for some compatible lenses. The camera itself has an E-Mount. Two lenses which came to my attention are the Samyang 24mm F1.4 and the Samyang 100mm F2.8 Macro. They are available in variants for the E-Mount AND a Sony Alpha Mount. WTF? What exactly is the technical difference here? Are these variants both compatible?
>>2829104
lol wut. nikon takes terrific video.
>>2828743
The lack of lenses thing really should be a meme by now. Unless you absolutely need some specialty lens there are plenty of K mount lenses to fill whatever you need, you can use any film era lens on Pentax digital cameras.
>>2829121
24-70 f/2.8?
70-200? f/2.8 IS?
85mm f/1.2 with AF?
>>2829115
Samyang designs its lenses with a fairly long flange distance, so that all they have to do to make a version for any camera is to put a different mount on the back. The glass inside is the same no matter what the mount is.
>>2829126
The ones designed for mirrorless that don't need to account for the flange distance can be very different.
16mm f/2 for instance.
>>2829043
Usually the cheapest solution is a speedlight.
A faster prime helps, but often still isn't fast enough. And of course your DoF will get very shallow.
>>2829122
They have 24-70/2.8 and 70-200/2.8s now. They do sensor-shift stabilization so any lens you put on it is stabilized. For a portrait prime there's the FA 77/1.8 Limited, or you can go get a used FA* 85/1.4.
>>2829129
They have mirrorless-specific lenses, and those are different, but the 16/2 isn't one of them, since its available in SLR versions. If you get a 16/2 in a mirrorless mount you're getting an SLR lens with a built-in adapter, basically.
>>2829101
Well, even then, that framerate sucks.
Then the fairly poor sensor and file formats, color depth, uselessly hyperactive AF and annoying MF with no focus peaking, rolling shutter and so on... the D7000 is just not a video camera.
If you have some MF Nikon lenses, you're better off adapting them to an entirely different camera - or get a much better Nikon at cost.
>>2829115
The A-mount is the old Minolta mount. Some still call it the Sony Alpha mount.
You need the E-mount for use without an adapter.
>>2829203
sony with a f mount adapter
>>2829204
Got some bad news son.
Looking to get a good telephoto lens (canon), what should i look at?
is sigma 30mm f1.4 art for canon good?
or what is the best wide prime lens for canon?
>>2829254
gonna need some more intel, chief
>>2829331
The 35 f2 IS is fucking sweet for the price. If you want it solely for portraits I would go with the Sigma if also for travel and other subjects I'd go with the 35 f2 IS
>>2829327
Also, should i upgrade my body from my t3i to a better body like a 70d (or maybe even a 5d) or should?
>>2829351
does the triple price for IS worth the money?
>>2829353
so your saying the IS is the only reason to get the 5d? It's it pretty noticeably more durable/resistant and better in low light?
>>2828277
I'm a newbie at photography. I'm very interested in taking beautiful pictures of scenery that relates to nature, both from distances and up close. Do you have any suggestions for a camera that I should buy? Thanks.
>>2829365
Used xe2
Samyang 12mm f2
Fuji 35mm f2
Are there any cinema lenses worth checking out for a Galaxy Note 5? I'm aware phones aren't widely accepted here, but this is all I've got.
Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM Lens or Canon EF 24-70mm f/4L IS USM Lens?
>>2829351
t3i's 18mp is already close, you won't notice a big difference with 20.2mp from a 7d-ii. (12% increase)
The things t3i lacks are
- modern focus system. Stuff with 61 cross type focus points (my 7d2) instead of 1 cross type and 8 shitty focus points and slow selection and auto-focusing. The old focus systems are so bad you use center-only for any moving objects really and only use side ones occasionally for immobile shit.
- phase detect sensor. Further helps 7d-ii and other recent canons to get shots in focus, especially important if you ever touch video mode.
- battery life. 440 (t3i) versus 670 shots for my 7d-ii. 1090 shots for 6d.
- rapid speed shooting: shitty 3.6fps for t3i, 7d2 can do 10 shots per second. 6D is 4.4 fps.
- rapid shooting buffer: shitty 5 for t3i, 27-33ish for 7d2, 17+ for 6d.
- low light shooting: 1,082 (7d2) vs 2,340 (6D full-frame) vs 793 iso (shitty t3i)
- ease of life features. Wifi on 6D for computer and phone connection, remote and upload. GPS on 7d-ii if you want to know where each photo was shot (real estate or landscape or restaurant, etc.)
- custom modes: save settings for quick access. I can turn dial to c1 / c2 / c3* (third only on 7d2 not 6d) and it immediately jumps to settings I saved for it.
Whatever is convenient, for example
Set up a custom mode (P or AV or TV) with the highest ISO you can stand for night shooting like 12,800 or something or for shots you know won't be printed large. It's far faster to turn dial to Custom1 than to open iso menu and click 22 times to get all the way to 12,800. Then twist dial back to non-custom and you have your normal iso100 day settings or whatever.
Or use it for lens shake, normal TV mode is 1/50 for your 50mm and low ISO, slap on your 200mm telephoto and twist dial to custom where it starts at 1/200 shutter and higher ISO since there is less light, etc. Whatever convenient settings you can imagine, a few custom dial slots is nice.
- durability or waterproofing
>>2829399
Yeah my main problem with the t3i is the auto focus seems very slow (that and the more limited water resistance). I'm worried that if i get some thing like Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM as my telephoto i won't be able to properly use it as i won't be able to get focus on anything not stationary.
>>2829394
Tarmon 24-70 2.8 IS.
It's on level sharpness wise with the 24-70ii 2.8 but has IS and is also weather sealed unlike the f4 24-70.
Fav lens in my working kit, can also digital crop to 105 and it's still sharper than the Sigma/Canon 24-105 are at 105.
>>2829380
Nope.
>>2829403
as in Tamron SP 24-70mm Di VC USD (~$1300)? I looked at a comparisons and it seems that the canon is slightly better and it'll be a graduation gift so i'd rather just get the best. Already spending more than a grand whats a few hundred more for the best.
>>2829409
I'm saying it has the best of both lenses, It's on par with the 2.8 in sharpness and has IS like the f4.
I've used it for tons of paid work and it's always given me great results. If you're shooting mainly events/moving subjects (weddings etc) get the 2.8 if its mainly for travel and studio get the 4.0 if you want the best of both get the Tamron.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Canon Camera Model Canon EOS 5D Mark III Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.2 (Macintosh) Maximum Lens Aperture f/2.8 Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2016:05:02 02:58:26 Exposure Time 1/400 sec F-Number f/8.0 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 400 Lens Aperture f/8.0 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 70.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard
>>2829412
Thanks ill probably go with the tamron as i mostly just take pictures while walking / moving around and want something good for low light in concerts and the like. Was somewhat considering the L series 50mm 1.2 as i like the $100 1.4 i have but it seems like it might not be worth the huge price jump.
>>2829414
The Canon 50 1.4 is part of my work kit but I've used the 50 1.2 a few times and Its a real dreamy lens but the price to performance ratio is way off It's a pretty old lens now and costs far to much for what it is. When the mark ii comes out it will be all over ebay for cheap as fuck.
>>2829417
I'll have to keep my eyes out for it
>>2828626
Not fond of my 18mm.
Doesn't see much use anymore.
Don't like the distortion.
You'll want to keep your human subjects dead center if the 18mm is on your menu, unless you want silent hill shit going on.
>>2828994
If you like the 28mm so much just get the fuji x70 in hipster silver.
Just missing the ovf, but for holiday snaps and shit it's not like you'll be missing much.
Done.
>>2829065
>and I very well know how and when to make low noise pictures.
Then why are you here asking what you ask?
>>2829365
Something properly weather sealed and durable.
Pentax k-50 or better.
>>2829516
so bad that 18mm?
Just copped a Samsung Galaxy NX with 30mm (F2) prime and kit lens for £150.
Hoping to do some pretty subtle and silent street photography with the pancake 30mm.
The screen on this thing is massive and the lack of hardware controls is a bit of a pain...
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make NIKON Camera Model COOLPIX P500 Camera Software COOLPIX P500V1.1 Maximum Lens Aperture f/3.4 Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 23 mm Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Created 2013:09:23 17:39:50 Exposure Time 1/25 sec F-Number f/3.4 Exposure Program Normal Program ISO Speed Rating 400 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 4.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 4000 Image Height 3000 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Gain Control High Gain Up Contrast Normal Sharpness Normal Subject Distance Range Unknown Color Mode COLOR Image Quality FINE White Balance AUTO Image Sharpening AUTO Focus Mode AF-S ISO Selection AUTO Image Adjustment AUTO Tone Compensation AUTO Auto Focus Unknown Scene Mode SCENE AUTO Saturation Normal Noise Reduction OFF Image Optimization NORMAL Saturation 2 NORMAL
Have anyone here ever been in a situation where they used a lens in the 18-21 mm range and thought
>I wish I had AF on this lens right now
or
>wow, thankfully I had AF at that time
?
Whats a good cheap 35mm film scanner?
>>2829565
No crops, I'm talking about full frame.
>>2829557
Oh God. There's no way to have the huge screen display just the camera metrics or to have the camera on viewfinder only.
I've made a huge mistake...
>>2829566
I figure it might be the case if you want to shoot events close to the border of a crowd? Nothing else comes to my mind.
Landscapes, panoramas, even macro (with the *very* few lenses that support wide angle macro) are all fine on infinity or done with MF.
>>2829571
This is all planned situations of course. If there comes unforeseeable situations where you can't change lens because the other lenses are in the backpack in the hotel, then maybe AF could come in handy.
I was in Edinburgh for the weekend and I saw 1 pentax compared with dozens and dozens of nikon and canon. Why aren't pentax more popular? Is it the silly colors which put people off? The viewfinder are noticeably better on the entry level cameras.
>>2829586
im always baffled as to why I don't ever see any ricoh gr action
>>2829586
Pentax is a company that struggles to even launch the K1. They promise a lot for the money but people have 0 trust in them.
>>2829586
Body and lens lineup. Presence in stores and on marketing materials.
Hello,
I just bought an X100T, but now I don't have an adequate camera to photograph my X100T with and brag around with it on Instagram and other such places. What do?
>>2829586
They're called Pentax
>>2829591
obnoxious mirror selfie
>>2829593
Ebin idea. You see, I'm not much of a photographer and don't have such ideas. Creativity is not my thing. I just hoard gear in order to convince myself my life has any meaning. Consumerism is my game.
>>2829589
Well memed, friend. Pentax has one of the best lineup in lenses and offers the best bodies in their price range. I agree on the lack of marketing.
>>2829599
> Pentax has one of the best lineup in lenses
It's a lineup of comparatively unsharp lenses. Sigma, Canon, Sony, Nikon and so on all have better lenses.
Dxomark and others have detailed measurements if you want to know what is wrong with the Pentax glass - just compare the good Pentax glass to the good glass of the brands mentioned & look at the detailed measurements.
You get a decent deal with the few ~$150-300 lower-end lenses. That's about it. Sure, one would think that has appeal to more people, but I figure a lot of people will base their purchasing decision on the professional & highly rated photos they saw in reviews...
>>2829608
>Dxomark
How to spot the idiot. Compare the same Sigma lens on Canon, Nikon and Pentax and see the score changing. DXOmark is bullshit, nonscientific garbage.
You can tell how bullshit it is by simply using a Pentax lens and see how sharp the image is.
Spouting DXO scores and charts on the internet will not get you forward, it will make people point and laugh at you.
>>2829611
You are the absolute idiot.
I *explicitly* said to look at the *detailed measurements*.
Unlike the scoring which is weighted according to their idea of what is good, those are just scientific facts.
> You can tell how bullshit it is by simply using a Pentax lens and see how sharp the image is.
Usually not sharp at even half the resolution, never mind 1:1. I don't care to subjectively discuss this though, it'll lead nowhere.
Look at & compare the measurements!
>>2829599
>best lineup in lenses
>lack of marketing
The opposite of everything you said, Pentax has a lot of marketing people such as yourself.
Their lenses don't compare to the other companies.
>>2829615
And I am looking at real life photos made with Pentax lenses. Have fun masturbating over your charts, Billy.
>>2829611
>Compare the same Sigma lens on Canon, Nikon and Pentax and see the score changing
That's because those cameras have different sensors.
When you change lens, the performance changes, when you change sensor, the performance changes.
You criticism is invalid.
>>2829621
troll/10
>>2829618
> Muh numbers and graphs are too objective, let's instead judge this topic by gut feelings so I can win.
Pure denial.
It's just a fact that your lenses produce an image pretty much exactly as unsharp as DxO's measurements predict. Ditto for everything else they measured.
> I am looking at real life photos made with Pentax lenses.
I guess you didn't want to know what was wrong / inferior on Pentax. You apparently wanted to hear that indeed Pentax is subjectively good enough *for you*.
You can also play this game with the iPhone & Android users shooting around you. It has no objectivity.
>>2829624
Not the guy you're arguing with but I've read some shit about dxomark that doesn't exactly make me trust their findings.
Can't remember when or where since this shit isn't exactly one of my priorities, but I would be hesitant to trust them outright on everything.
>>2829627
He didn't ask you to trust them on everything, he asked you to study their measurement data.
>>2829629
It is the same, dipshit. Accepting their measurements means you trust them which would be a huge mistake.
>>2829631
No, it's their scoring system which can seem a bit arbitrary.
Their measurements is as good as other websites. I will believe in DXO over a pentax shill from 4chan any day.
>>2829624
>It's just a fact that your lenses produce an image pretty much exactly as unsharp as DxO's measurements predict. Ditto for everything else they measured.
Not that guy but there's a couple pentax lenses that do score quite well but the main thing I'm seeing is that they haven't included any of the FA lenses except for one. I'd love to see how well the FA 20mm 2.8 and 85 1.4 scored
That being said their performance is quite good. I've used the da 35mm 2.4 for quite some time and I bought it for literally 100 dollars and even though it's three times less expensive than the sony DT 35mm 1.8 it scores about the same across the board. Same goes for the EF 28mm f/1.8 USM which while not being the same focal length is still four times as much but according to dxomark is right around the same rating in terms of sharpness
Pentax just has no current full frame lens lineup and the crop lens lineup is a bit odd but you cant really say Pentax is shit all across the board just because they don't have an equivalent to G master or L glass
>>2829627
I read somewhere they don't test every lens on every camera. Usually they just upscale old test images to the newer MP and ISO and just post that number as the "reliable result".
Nikon makes sure they get the newest cameras and lenses for testing (and some donation) so they get better scores.
>>2829629
He didn't ask me anything.
My first post in that discussion.
I was just pointing out that you can't take dxomark's word as gospel for reasons.
I think I was reading some dpreview thread where that shit was pointed out to me, some kind of flaws in their measurement. Needless to say I didn't retain it as like I said, don't really care as I don't buy lenses anymore.
>>2829636
There that french group that apparently is more consistent in their approach. Forgotten their name.
>>2829638
I know photozone.de is a much more reliable source, but their data is dated. Still it's a lot more reliable when you are looking for lenses.
>>2829638
You know chances are that website will score the pentax lenses worse than the other companies as well.
Not everything is a conspiracy to keep pentax out of the market.
>>2829642
Nice assumption, mate.
>>2829642
Don't really give a shit about pentax m8ty.
Just discussing shit about shit.
>>2828277
I recently bought my first DSLR camera. I got a Nikon D3300 with some random manfrotto tripod and some kind of lens. Here is a photo I took of a tiger.
Did I into photography correctly?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make NIKON CORPORATION Camera Model NIKON D3300 Camera Software Ver.1.01 Maximum Lens Aperture f/5.7 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Color Filter Array Pattern 15256 Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 82 mm Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Created 2016:04:27 13:07:35 Exposure Time 1/125 sec F-Number f/5.6 Exposure Program Aperture Priority ISO Speed Rating 1600 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash Focal Length 55.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 6000 Image Height 4000 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Gain Control High Gain Up Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal Subject Distance Range Unknown
>>2829663
It is a very capable camera but you have a long way to go. Start by reading up tutorials (like Digital Camera World) on the exposure triangle, see what other aspects of photography looks interesting (wildlife, landscape, street, portraits,astrophotography etc...) and look into them. The key thing is getting out of your comfort zone, it makes you think in creative ways.
Have fun, practice more shooting.
Oh, and look up DigitalRev TV on Youtube so you can have an idea what NOT to do with your camera. Or with your life.
>>2829667
>exposure triangle
I totally read about that just before. I was trying to take a photo of some lightning outside in the dark. My photography skill was too low.
Also how do I bokeh?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make NIKON CORPORATION Camera Model NIKON D3300 Camera Software Ver.1.01 Maximum Lens Aperture f/5.7 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Color Filter Array Pattern 15256 Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 82 mm Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Created 2016:04:24 13:38:24 Exposure Time 1/2000 sec F-Number f/7.1 Exposure Program Aperture Priority ISO Speed Rating 1600 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash Focal Length 55.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 6000 Image Height 4000 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Gain Control High Gain Up Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal Subject Distance Range Unknown
>>2829670
For "bokeh" you need out of focus parts go very out of focus. Either get close subjects with far away background on longer focal length or use wide aperture, generally on a fast lens (f/2.8 or wider aperture lens, speed relates to faster possible shutter speed on wider apertures). Your kit lens is not fast enough for fully blown bokeh but it can manage some nice shallow depth of field shots. It is very usable to separate your subject from the background.
Your depth of field varies due to focal length (wider towards short focal length, shallow towards long focal lengths) and by aperture (wider aperture-shallow depth of field, narrow aperture-wider depth of field).
try photographing a flower in close focus and wide aperture in Av mode and compare it to different focal length and aperture settings.
>>2829670
> how do I bokeh?
Buy a prime lens with appealing bokeh, use it at maximum aperture.
>>2829637
> I think I was reading some dpreview thread where that shit was pointed out to me
And the next faggot will refer to this thread as to why there is some kind of flaw in DxO's measurements.
What are the odds that the original complain was about scoring (the known problem) rather than the lens measurements...?
If you have anything else, show conflicting data. Everything else is just random people living out their confirmation bias.
Anyone here used a Samsung NX30? With the 30mm it could be a pretty nice and light camera right?
Should I buy a Canon G series to be a carry around?
>>2829808
lol you bought a dead mount camera. samsung is done with cameras
>>2829878
already have a D600, need a smaller for street and to be around everywhere. D600 calls a lot of attention
Looking for a point and shoot to keep in my gymbag, interested in buying used, sub $450 before shipping ideal - any models come to mind immediately?
I already shoot a bunch but it's hard finding room to keep my dslr on me as I walk to work/gym
>>2829916
Fuji x10. It's a solid build, great image quality, and goes pretty cheap on Ebay now. It may sound like it has a smaller sensor (2/3"), but it has never disappointed me, also the camera itself looks sexy as fuck.
>>2829886
So you mean cheap AF lenses and accessories and a perfectly functioning camera for years of enjoyment. What's the bad side?
>>2829926
I'll look into it m8, thanks!
Just got a D7100 why are the dials such a pain to use?
I've been using my Fuji X-E1 for a about 2 years now, 95% of the time with manual lenses, and I'm starting to get annoyed by the terribly slow (and unpredictable) write speeds because you can't use focusing aids while it's writing. I've already got a fast SD card but it doesn't help much.
Now that prices for the X-E2 are coming down I was wondering if it would be a worthwhile upgrade. Ideally I would like to be able to use focusing aids (the 4x and 10x live zoom) instantly or nearly instantly after taking a picture. Other stuff like AF and burst are of lesser importance.
>>2829748
Accept the fact mate, dxo is a shit. Instead of looking at the scores just compare photos with the lens you are interested in and go out shooting real life subjects.
The back of your chair and your cat might come out as really sharp images but will do nothing to improve your photography.
And for this it doesn't matter if you are using Sony, Nikon, Pentax, Fuji or whatever camera.
>>2829890
Use a smartphone? People will obviously notice a Canon P&S about as much as they will notice a DSLR.
>>2830003
i just used the x-e1 for 2 weeks.
the write speeds are definitely atrocious.
the evf lags like mad in low light.
unusable.
you must be a cuck for hanging on to it that long.
>>2830008
> Accept the fact mate
> real life subjects
The DxO measurements are facts with a good degree of objectivity and apply *exactly* to shooting real life subjects. They are not valid in the studio only.
Your unfounded suggestions about something being wrong with DxO are what is not a fact.
> The back of your chair and your cat might come out as really sharp images but will do nothing to improve your photography.
Of course better gear improves photography in most instances. It's why people buy better gear and why better gear *is* better gear.
Nobody forces you to shoot cats and chairs or lens caps or any other ridiculous thing you can accuse people of somewhat necessarily shooting either. You realize that the discussion started with the CaNikon users being out in force in Edinburgh, right...?
>>2829679
Pro advice tyvm. I am going to go try this today.
>>2829667
>look up DigitalRev TV on Youtube so you can have an idea what NOT to do with your camera. Or with your life.
would this be a better example to follow?
I know absolutely nothing about photography. However I'd like a camera that can shoot decent pictures and decent video for under $300. Any recommendatIons? I'm just trying to get the best bang.
>>2830100
> decent pictures and decent video for under $300
Unless "decent" is midrange smartphone quality to you (->Yicam?), this is not possible.
You can probably get a fairly decent photo camera for about that much if you get a Nikon D3200 or K-50 - but it won't be decent for video.
>>2830100
find a used canon rebel on craigslist
>>2830100
for $50 more I'd suggest a refurbished nikon d3300
>>2830111
D40 MAH NIGGA
>>2830132
>video
>>2830145
Why the fuck would you film video with a DSLR?
So i'm looking at getting an adapter for my cropped nikon to save money. Aside from auto controls, do I lose anything from using an adapter?
Could people comment on their experiences buying glass on ebay?
I want to buy a nikon 10-24 ($900 new, $600-700 'like new' on ebay).
Anything to watch out for?
Most of the lenses I find look like they're in pristine condition.
Should I ask about any scratches on the front / rear element? Drops / or other damage?
Never bought a lens on ebay before.
>inb4 buy a 3rd party, i've extensively compared all dx wide angle lens options
>>2829990
Because you're a fuccboi and you need to git gud
Are you talking about the control dials? Because they are based and in the proper position, get rekt Canonfags.
Are you talking about the mode dial? How often do you need to use the mode dial? It's got a locking button, so you can leave it unlocked if you like. Are you talking about the shooting speed dial? Just put it in CLow, and choose a framerate that suits you.
>>2829121
Call it a meme if you want but it's true. Pentax has a lot of lenses for film like you said. They just don't have many full-frame lenses designed for digital sensors. They have 5 zooms, 2 of which are rebadged tamrons for sale. The rest are film lenses.
Don't worry even pentax knows that that is not acceptable. On their lens road map they have wide, normal, and medium telephoto, and ultra wide primes. Until those lenses materialize the K-1 is just like the A7 when it came out. A great camera that could only use old film lenses. There are people who don't mind that but the others like using the right lens on the right camera. I have plenty of film lenses and they are great on my film cameras.
>>2830191
Sellers on eBay are individuals, but the buyer protection is pretty strong.
What you really want to do is just to fully read the article description and dispute if what you bought doesn't match what you got.
>>2830163
Why the fuck would you comment without following the thread?
>>2830191
Australian shipping address here.
With a few exceptions my experience has been: American sellers are cunts, and often stupid. ie: They list things as excellent condition when clearly the item isn't, sometimes this is even obvious in the (usually shithouse) photos they take of the item, so are either lying or stupid. Probably both. They seem to assume everyone is trying to rip them off, so dealing with them is tedious and frustrating if you have an issue with the item or want to get them to deliver to addresses outrider the continental US.
American's seem to always send everything by the fast or priority method, which isn't usually very fast or prioritized, and it seems like there is no option to send anything by a slower more cost effective method. They frequently drastically over or under pack items. It's as if some people don't understand that their box needed packing on all sides of the item, and that maybe the box might be turned upside down or even on it's side during transit.
Big professional sellers are ok usually, albeit usually arrogant to query.
Fuck their freight prices though.
Chinese items take forever to arrive, sometimes do not arrive, but things I buy from there are cheap and trivial, so that's rarely an issue because they quickly refund or resend no questions asked.
Europe can be a good source for things, and mileage may vary, but generally my experience has been good.
Japanese sellers offer the best possible experience with actual photographic items. They are generally intelligent, polite and business-professional, and when they say an item is immaculate they mean it and document things photographically in detail. I have purchased numerous used lenses from japan that were several decades old, and all have been as good or better than expected..
There will be exceptions, but I will always look to Japan for camera gear before anywhere else. Also their freight pricing and speed of delivery to my part of the world is excellent.
>>2830201
not exactly.
If a lens comes in a variety of mounts, and some of those variants are full frame cameras, then the pentax variant will be just fine on FF
Many crop lenses are totally useable on FF too, with *some* vignetting in *some* cases.
The whole "pentax doesn’t have a full range of lenses" schtick is just canikon marketing faggotry appealing to peoples sense of entitlement and overlooking the fact that producing a completely new and extensive range of lenses for every major body release is reflected in the usual suspects significantly higher prices.
>>2830099
He's fair for knowledge but I hate that damn kike with his damn hair so much.
>>2828890
I bought an X100T as my second camera because I wanted something smaller than my DSLR but still capable with manual controls.
It far surpassed my expectations.
People complain of AF being slow and bad in low light, I don't have that experience. Yes it is slower than my DSLR.
Its sharp af
It produces clean images up to ISO 1600, IS3200 is usable too.
Leaf shutter sync speed is supposed to max out at 1/500s but I get it to sync using pocket wizards at 1/1000s which is insane when I'm used to being limited to 1/250s on my DSLR, 2 stop advantage is huge when using speedlights.
I find it really easy to hand hold at low shutter speeds without introducing motion blur... 1/15, 1/8 with a bit of care
I have an older (pre-2008) Nikon body. Would it be worth upgrading to a newer (used, not brand new) Nikon with the Gen2 sensor? If yes, what are some recommendations on sub-$500 used models?
>>2830191
I bought 2 M42 lenses on ebay, one of the best in my set. Bought a new b-stock zoom lens for half price, box had visible wear but the lens was pristine. Bought a used 70-200/2.8 on ebay from a spanish photographer, arrived in like new condition.
Also I bought my camera with kit lens used from ebay, like new condition etc...
You can check the seller for bad feedback, if you see something you don't like then find another.
>>2830364
I'd pretty much recommend all of the D7x00 line, the D7000 might be getting a bit old but is the cheapest, the D7100 and the D7200 has the same sensor but the D7200 has improved image processor and bigger buffer, the D7100 is still a very good camera and somewhat cheaper.
I want to get an 8mm fisheye (samyang, bower, rokinon etc etc all the same)
Is it worth paying like a hundred bucks more for the new version that can communicate with my camera or should i save money, go full manual and use it as a tool to git gud?
>>2830334
for australia i reckon japan or hong kong is the way to go, they give a great price, have good products and it arrives in like 3 business days
>>2830378
Having exif data will help you on later, even in the immediate post or later.
If that doesn't matter then just get the no contact version.
Thoughts?
Not even a sony user just interested if people will use them.
>>2830421
Samyang really ought to learn how to calibrate the focus scales on their existing stuff before they start building AF systems if you ask me.
>>2830421
Samyang provides for the demand where Sigma and Tamron are too snobby to touch.
Thank fuck for the free market, they deserve to win for the effort alone.
>>2830421
>>2830421
The FE mount desperately needs an AF 50mm lens that doesn't turn everything purple.
>>2830431
>tiny
More like massive purple fringing where the cheapest plastic lens have barely noticable color fringing.
That lens is a failure, hopefully the Samyang will be better and cheaper.
>>2830435
It has a small amount of purple / green CA if you shoot wide open.
> That lens is a failure
You obviously don't use the lens, but feel free to switch to the 50mm f/1.8 or a Sigma Art 50mm on a MC11.
>>2830437
No, I use better lenses. In the 55mm range I use my trusty old Helios 44M that has much-much less CA and is tack sharp even on digital.
>>2830431
Its on their website...Its real.
I love the 12mm f2 its great on my fuji
>>2830440
> No, I use better lenses
No, you don't.
> I use my trusty old Helios 44M that has much-much less CA
But it does not.
DxO measured CA, here are the results plus two other good 50mm's for comparison:
http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/Sony-FE-Carl-Zeiss-Sonnar-T-STAR-55mm-F18-on-Sony-A7R-versus-Sigma-50mm-F14-DG-HSM-A-Nikon-on-Nikon-D800E-versus-EF50mm-f-1.2L-USM-on-Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-III__1252_917_1307_814_197_795
Yes, the Sigma Art is a bit better, but the 55mm really isn't bad.
I wished I could compare it to the Helios, but I really think it's not going to be anywhere near as good overall.
>>2830447
>dxo
get out, pleb
>>2830441
> Its on their website...Its real
Can't find it on Samyangs website ... you mean that random internet rumours website?
Yea, I think it's bullshit until I see it.
> I love the 12mm f2 its great on my fuji
I actually have the 12mm f/2.8 FF fisheye in a package on the way to me, has been something I wanted since I first saw it.
