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: >>2828277
Nikon can't customer service
Canon can't sensor
Pentax can't modern lens lineup
Sony can't lenses
Fuji can't video
Olympus can't market penetration
Panasonic can't body ergonomics
Daily reminder that all cameras are shit, you should just shit post on 4chan.
>>2830781
Or you could just walk outside to take some photos instead of busting your anus on such pointless nonsense.
>>2830781
>Nikon can't customer service
Nikon pro service is one recognized as one of the best.
>Canon can't sensor
Still produces the best images and wins most world press photo awards.
>Pentax can't modern lens lineup
Best aps-c line-up.
>Sony can't lenses
Best performing optic lenses.
>Fuji can't video
photography
>Olympus can't market penetration
For a while the OMD sold great and became pretty ubiquitous. I think their customers just gravitate toward fast pace technology advancement so they jumped ship to sony.
>Panasonic can't body ergonomics
Never heard this before.
>not being a fanboy of a dead camera company
Never hear anybody complain about them.
>>2830799
>replying to obvious bait
>>2830781
> Sony can't lenses
Has quite many of the best lenses & is now #3 or #4 system in terms of how many lenses are currently sold?
Apart from that, 3-4 lenses announced for release *every month* in the next few months, with probably more releases actual.
>>2830811
>>2830811
>quite many of the best lenses
Which ones are without that idiotic power zoom and focus-by-wire?
>>2830818
Like... 2?
The Loxia lenses aren't FBW, right?
>>2830822
There are 3 Loxia currently, the third one is completely new optical formula which outperforms older and much heavier Zeiss lenses, so it really stands out compared to the first 2 Loxia lenses.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CC 2014 (Macintosh) Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 2560 Image Height 1440 Number of Bits Per Component 8, 8, 8 Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Created 2015:11:19 09:56:13 Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 2620 Image Height 1500
>>2830818
> without that idiotic power zoom
Most of them, given that most of the lenses that you can consider a candidate for best are primes.
> without focus-by-wire
The manual lenses, mostly. It's not an idiotic feature though - it works really well.
>>2830835
>It's not an idiotic feature though - it works really well.
I agree after trying the FE 35mm F2,8. The focus ring itself has really good and smooth resistance to it when you turn the ring. If I ignored the fact that it has no hardstops, then it felt almost like any other manual focus lens.
http://flatfocus.com/2015/02/27/the-afaith-tripod-is-a-promising-mefoto-alternative/
If I can't get a DiC&Mic, how is this?
Pentax is working on somekind of new 75mm mirrorless compact.
>>2830850
Ever tripod with that basic design is good for stills. Those in your link are overpriced though.
For that same cost you could get a 159cm tripod made of carbon fiber.
http://www.aliexpress.com/item/FR-Stock-Promotion-Q476-Professional-Carbon-Fiber-Tripod-Portable-Monopod-Stick-Tripod-for-SLR-Camera-Ball/32565048162.html
If you're in EU, get that one, shipping from France to the rest of EU is like 5 bucks or so.
>>2830850
Q555 and Q999 and such should be fine too.
AFAIK the disadvantages are small.
>>2830861 (cont'd)
Ah yes, don't buy the linked listing, that shit is a rip-off.
They're much cheaper on Aliexpress.
>>2830851
source? Hopefully it's a medium format.
>>2830864
>digital medium format rangefinder-esque "compact"
So basically a Mamiya 6 or 7 in digital
..... i came
>>2830864
It's a 1 inch compact.
>>2830837
And yet Olympus has focus by wire with distance scale and hard stops.
Also, daily reminder that Sony can get away with selling a $1000 50mm prime that has a focus motor attached by glue known to fail regularly.
>>2830811
>3-4 lenses per month
>per month
>probably more even
Are sony fan boys delusional? You'd be lucky to see 3-5 actual on shelf releases from any brand.
Also
>e-mount
>lenses
A6300 confirmed for useless or attached onto an xbox hueg FE lens
>>2830884
>And yet Olympus has focus by wire with distance scale and hard stops.
So does the Sony E-mount 90mm.
>>2830879
That is what I thought at first but it would be weird to make a 75mm lens for a 1" sensor. That would be 200mm equivalent fixed lens compact. I guess it's possible but unlikely.
I think when they say 1" they mean 75mm/2.8=26mm=1in.
>>2830835
The more expensive Zeiss/Sony ones are pretty great, but the non G Sony ones are trash.
>>2830892
>non G Sony ones
It's not a good idea to generalise like that in my opinion.
The FF E-mount 28mm is really outstanding, and it has no fancy Zeiss badge or G badge.
>>2830867
There have been rumors of a medium format mirrorless camera for a while. Maybe Pentax got ahead of fuji an mamiya.
>>2830895
Mamiya got killed by PhaseOne. Or more like eaten alive.
>>2830893
The 28mm is indeed outstanding in it's high distortion, vignetting, and chromeabs when compared to any other modern 28mm.
>>2830889
>Are sony fan boys delusional? You'd be lucky to see 3-5 actual on shelf releases from any brand.
No, that's actually how it currently looks in the next few months. Someone listed a bunch of them here:
http://www.apotelyt.com/photo-lens/sony-fe
Of course I don't mean lenses made by Sony the company only, we are obviously talking about the E-mount as a system.
>>2830900
All those can actually be corrected for in post.
What's really interesting is how sharp the results are even after the corrections. It's ranked high up there along with other Canon lenses measured with 50 MP sensor.
It's definitely a lens that punches above its weight class.
>>2830884
> Olympus has focus by wire with distance scale and hard stops.
My FE 90mm has that too. And the focusing ring acts as AF/MF selector. Plus OSS on/off, focus limiter settings & AF lock button.
It's a fine lens.
>>2830850
I have one of the 555 ones, it's a decent tripod for under $50
>>2830890
Wow. One lens, and a macro lens at that. Insert slow clap here.
Meanwhile, Olympus has full time override, as well as that snazzy clutch ring with the hidden scales on what, 5 lenses?
One can only imagine what kind of shenanigans Minolta x Olympus could have dreamed up.
>>2830903
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA
What is a good travel bag to use if I'm going to be in Thailand for two weeks?
I want something I can carry around all the time as a daypack. I have a Samsung NX2000 that isn't too big.
I was learning towards the Lowepro Transmit Sling 150
http://store.lowepro.com/transit-sling-150-aw
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make SAMSUNG Camera Model NX2000 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 4.1 (Windows) Maximum Lens Aperture f/1.8 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 69 mm Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2016:04:24 20:27:31 Exposure Time 1/3200 sec F-Number f/1.8 Exposure Program Aperture Priority ISO Speed Rating 200 Lens Aperture f/1.8 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Spot Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash Focal Length 45.00 mm Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal
how good IS lens in term of video?
>>2830926
A brown paper bag or something similar and you'll probably still get beaten and robbed
No sense setting the raccoons off with an attractive bag
>>2830933
What lens?
hi /p/ i recently landed a job in video editing and photography and i need a camera with good video quality but I am a poorfag in a third-world country
what's a good camera for video shooting?
what's a good camera for video shooting that i can search secondhanded?
i saw a cool pix p600 really cheap but i need to hear opinions
>>2830781
>all cameras are shit
>Mamiya RB67 is a camera
Pick one.
>>2830539
YES! That pouch thing is what I'm looking for. I don't know how I didn't think to search up "DSLR pouch".
Also, there are a few different prices for their bags. It's less than $10 difference. Do you know what the difference between them is?
Anyone know the max write speed of the 5DM2? or is it dependant on only the memory card?
>>2830972
> Also, there are a few different prices for their bags. It's less than $10 difference. Do you know what the difference between them is?
Various seller's profit margins is my guess. It's a marketplace.
HELP! What is the best canon telephoto under $1000? I was looking at the 200mm 2.8. Is it any good? I have a canon 6d.
>>2830936
Good video quality is expensive.
How about you buy a Yicam? It is a decent sports video camera for ~$65 (well, with the accessories like the microSD card, case, mount it'll be like $80).
>>2830982
also forgot to mention it must be prime eligible. I need it by Friday of this week. Im torn between the canonf4 70-200mm and 200mm 2.8 fixed prime
>>2830936
1) how did you get on the internet
2) why did they give you the job
3) canon + magic lantern now pls go
>>2830982
200mm IQ > 70-20 F4.
USED 70-200mm F2.8 trumps both, can be bought used on Amazon with prime shipping for <$1000.
Used lenses are usually fine, even if they might be a bit scratched up.
I would say jump on an Ebay deal but their shipping speed is not certain.
>>2830982
Used Canon 400 f5.6L
>>2830982
Don't listen to these idiots. The Canon 135 f2 is by far and away one of the best lenses Canon makes.
How do I get good with all my auto focus points on the 5d mk iii and stop using the center AF and then recomposing
>>2831001
I was going to say that but decided against it.
Really, I want to know what he wants through telephoto.
But yeah, optically the 135 f2 is best.
>>2830993
Fuck off Sugar you faggot.
>>2830989
I not that poor
A Friend told me that a cousin of his needed a video commercial and I agree. I never had a course on photography or video editing but I know Photoshop and after effects is pretty much the same layout plus I saw tutorials on YouTube, next I borrowed a camera from a uncle and I did such a great job that they hire a me to do all the rest and I was paid to do more commercials. I guess if you want you can doit
Can you be a little more espesific plz? Thanks
[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 500 Image Height 667
Should I buy the Sony a7 or the Ricoh GR for a hiking camera?
>>2831008
R I C O H
I
C but really the A7's battery life is going to piss you off on a hike
O
H
>>2831011
How much longer will the Ricoh last? I'm also torn between taking a Nikon F3 or Olympus om1 for snapshits
FUCK, I can't decide on a dx mount wide angle STILL.
nikon 10-24 f3.5
tokina 11-16 f2.8
>some people say nikon is the sharpest ultra wide angle zoom, sharper than tokina, especially if you stop down to f/8
>meme man ken rockwell says nikon is sharp, even in corners (know this is wrong from sample images), and also sharper than tokina
>dxomark (LOL) says nikon is sharper than tokina in all cases and at all apertures
>everyone on dpreview says tokina is MUCH sharper than nikon
>bad CA, barrel distortion, and really bad flare though on tokina from all sources
>tokina is less than half the cost of nikon
>I value sharpness above all
Send help!!
>>2831021
Samyang 12mm f/2, or the 12mm f/2.8 fisheye.
>>2831019
The 400 f5.6L won't do well in low light because of its f5.6 minimum aperture. If birds are your thing, the 400 is the hot ticket but it's also not stabilized, keep that in mind.
The telephoto you need depends on what you define as most lighting conditions. The 500 dollar 70-300 IS would work just as well in general walkaround stuff. For 1000 you can get more reach and superb image quality with the 100-400L and you can find them used for <$1000
I have the 70-200L f4 IS it's a good walkaround telephoto but it's more suited for portraits and for 1000 the 70-200 f2.8 IS I is a bit better.
The more reach you want the more you have to pay and it's exponential past 300mm at comparable apertures.
>>2831023
Woops, the 12mm f/2 wasn't available for Nikon DX.
I guess it's either the 12mm f/2.8 fisheye or 14mm f/2.8, though the 8mm f/3.5 or 10mm f/2.8 might also work.
>>2831021
Sigma 8-16
Coming from the resident landscape ultrawidefag, sharpness is overrated. All lenses will do good at f/8 especially wide lenses.
If you need to mount filters, the Tokina is the ticket.
If you don't need filters, get the Sigma. It's TITTIES and absolutely ridiculous how wide it gets.
>>2831030
> All lenses will do good at f/8 especially wide lenses.
No, the wide angle zooms (except some expensive FF ones) generally still at most have a somewhat sharp center. Border regions -or in the case of your Sigma, almost the entire frame- will still be soft.
Check out the sharpness field map:
http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/Tokina-AT-X-Pro-SD-11-16-F28-IF-DX-II-Nikon-on-Nikon-D5300-versus-14mm-F2.8-IF-ED-MC-Aspherical-Nikon-on-Nikon-D3X-versus-8-16mm-F4.5-5.6-DC-HSM-Nikon-on-Nikon-D7000__872_919_366_485_375_680
Samyang is sharp at f/4. The other lenses don't get very sharp even at f/8.
If you want sharp, you want the Samyang prime.
I rock a EOS Rebel T5i. My memory card recently shit out on me and I'm in the process of buying a new one. Should I go with the 95mb/s or the 150mb/s? I usually don't shoot in Raw, but the second to best option next to it.
Any suggestions on the matter?
I am considering a very modest upgrade from an S110. Is a pentax K50 worth using with only its kit lens, the 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6? the weather sealing is nice but the aperture is scarily narrow technically beat out by point and shoots. is that a big deal? Using a kit lens could help keep things under 450 after case, tripod and batteries while decide if this a real hobby worth more funding with primes. Might even consider a k30 with a better lens..
>>2831080
>I usually don't shoot in Raw, but the second to best option next to it.
If it isn't RAW it's shit, but that's your choice, anyway I wouldn't pay double for what would be a completely unnoticeable upgrade.
>>2831080
>buying a 64GB 150MB/s card to shoot jpeg on a T5i
You neither need that space nor that speed when you don't shoot video.
I use two of the 16GB 95MB/s Lexars, think about it, your memory card stopped working once before, what if it does again at the end of a day worth of shooting? Do you want to lose 64 or 16GB of pictures just because you are too lazy to carry another memory card?
Also, shoot raw or even the 95MB/s is too overpowered and you are not using your camera to it's full potential.
>>2831034
>Tokina-AT-X-Pro-SD-11-16-F28-IF-DX-II-Nikon-on-Nikon-D5300
>versus-14mm-F2.8-IF-ED-MC-Aspherical-Nikon-on-Nikon-D3X
>versus-8-16mm-F4.5-5.6-DC-HSM-Nikon-on-Nikon-D7000__872_919_366_485_375_680
You just went full retard.
On a side note, the samyang only has a slight reason to exist on FF and has a notoriously nasty moustache distortion, the worst you can get, so forget about happy snapping in the city or say goodbye to the pixel peeper sharpness you crave so much.
Can I start to take photos with a note 3 camera?
>>2831141
No, it's forbidden.
>>2831141
Miroslav Tichý took photos with a camera made from cardboard and spools, so I don't see why now.
>>2831080
> Should I go with the 95mb/s or the 150mb/s?
Won't this camera just do like 40MB/s or so?
And huh, why not shoot in RAW?
>>2831137
> You just went full retard.
You are the one that doesn't understand shit?
Which camera they're mounted on has very little effect on *the sharpness field map*, especially not at f/4 or f/8.
> has a notoriously nasty moustache distortion
So notoriously nasty that a lens correction profile resolves it instantly. How the fuck is that hard? [Yes, the other lenses still are less sharp.]
>>2831141
Of course you can take photos with that camera.
It's just not a convenient or well-performing camera overall.
>>2831034
I shot the Samyang it's LOADED with pincushion distortion so you can forget using it on anything with a straight line through the image.
If corner sharpness is your thing you have completely forgot what ultra-wide angle lenses are designed for and should probably donate your gear to Goodwill.
And yes, any lens will be reasonably sharp at f8 good enough to get the job done even my shitty old Soviet glass cleans up at f8. f5.6 for you cropfags worried about muh diffraction.
Quit your pixel peeping and go take some photos.
>>2831180
>Which camera they're mounted on has very little effect on *the sharpness field map*, especially not at f/4 or f/8.
Wait a sec you're m4/3fag searching for revenge aren't you? Or you're just so clueless and not even aware of formats? That could explain the fact you're basically keeping on suggesting a 21mm to a dude that was torn between a 16.5 and a 15 eq.
>So notoriously nasty that a lens correction profile resolves it instantly. How the fuck is that hard?
Who said that blurring it up to literally correct a ball right in the middle of your frame was hard?
>[Yes, the other lenses still are less sharp.]
C'mon go find the charts doggie.
>>2831187
>I shot the Samyang it's LOADED with pincushion distortion so you can forget using it on anything with a straight line through the image.
Yes, with straight lines you certainly want the lens correction applied...?
> If corner sharpness is your thing you have completely forgot what ultra-wide angle lenses are designed for
These zoom lenses may technically have their unsharpness as compromise "by design", but it is not a feature people asked for.
> Quit your pixel peeping and go take some photos.
Sharpness was explicitly mentioned to be desired above all else, I just answered this question.
If you don't care, that's really your own preference.
>>2831223
> Or you're just so clueless and not even aware of formats? That could explain the fact you're basically keeping on suggesting a 21mm to a dude that was torn between a 16.5 and a 15 eq.
14mm is between 11-16mm and between 10-24. And 14mm is also still "ultra wide-angle" on APS-C. I picked something exactly in his range.
But even assuming anon wanted the wider end only: It surely wouldn't be too hard to just look at the 12/10/8mm that I also mentioned? Only he knows so far, though.
> C'mon go find the charts doggie.
Already linked all you need.
Dogs can't understand numbers, they just lick each others balls and think they're pretty great for it.
Should I get the Nikon f3 and sell my Olympus om1?
>>2831295
Depends on the megapixel. The higher is the better.
So I'm thinking of getting a Fuji x100 for kind of an every day carry camera. im between the x100 and the x100s since the x100t is out of my budget. Is the x100s worth the price difference or should I just go for the x100
>>2831300
The differences in the cameras, and the differences in price, are very well documented. Only you can judge whether the improvements are worth the price in terms of your shooting style and needs.
Planning on buying a used Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8 for sports (On my D3 and D4S). Any better option?
>>2831347
Depends if you need the extra speed with the extra weight. The 80-400 can give you better reach or the 70-200 F4 can give you the better mobility.
I got a 70-200/2.8 and debated wether or not get the F4 instead and now I realized I will rarely use the lens wide open and would be much better off with the lighter F4 lens. The heavy lens can stabilize panning but actually is a huge pain following erratic movements.
Make sure what you want before you commit to buy.
I'm upgrading from my ricoh GR and want to have my first FF dslr. Is the Nikon D750 still worth the money or are there better options out there for the money? Thanks.
>>2831368
The D750 is one of the best FF DSLR options. You will be fine with it.
What you can say about Samyang 16mm? Looks very cute. Going to replace Tamron 17-50 and Sigma 10-20 with it.
But i looked throught many samples - exelent sharpness in test rewiews and blurry smudged shit on flickr random images - sample to sample quality or just missfocus?
Manual mode not a problem for me.
>>2831411
Crop only.
>>2831412
And i'm not going to jump to FF, feel good with fast 70d crop body.
>>2831413
Then go for it.
Wasn't it a mirrorless design though?
>>2831347
> Any better option?
Tamron SP 70-200mm f/2.8 Di VC
Sigma Sport 120-300mm f/2.8
>>2831411
> sample to sample quality or just missfocus?
Probably aperture, it's only really sharp at f/4+:
http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Samyang/Samyang-16mm-F20-ED-AS-UMC-CS-Canon-mounted-on-Canon-EOS-760D---Measurements__1011
say I only wanted to take 1 or two primes to a trip to japan, what would you guys take?
I'm thinking 18-35 and 50mm
>>2831449
A 21mm and a 70-300mm.
So what fun new stuff did you pick up this week /p/? Can't wait to shoot a roll with this lens.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make FUJIFILM Camera Model X-Pro1 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows) Maximum Lens Aperture f/2.0 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 53 mm Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 4896 Image Height 3264 Number of Bits Per Component 8, 8, 8 Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2016:05:04 17:18:36 Exposure Time 1/125 sec F-Number f/5.6 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 100 Lens Aperture f/5.6 Brightness -3.6 EV Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Spot Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 35.00 mm Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 1000 Image Height 667 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Sharpness Hard Subject Distance Range Unknown
Does anyone have any recommendation for a $900-$1300 wide angle E mount lens? I'm using it on an A7S II for video, so something that can stay sharp wide open, works well in low light, and has minimal focus breathing would be great. Currently considering the Zeiss Loxia 35mm f/2 but the focus breathing on that seems a little too prominent and the cost seems a little much for how sharp it is at wider apertures.
>>2831465
Maybe the 28mm F2?
The Batis 25?
I think you can get away with F2,8 or even slower lenses, since the sensor compensates for low light really well.
>>2830933
What kind of lens and what style of video? Prime lenses are dope and you shouldn't be zooming while filming anyway
>>2831080
Why are you bothering with high-speed 64gb storage when you aren't even smart enough to shoot in RAW? Just get a shitty 8gb flash drive and hot-swap when your "high-resolution" JPGs fill it up
>>2831461
>Reply
How is the Hexar RF? I've been thinking about either that or a Zeiss Ikon ZI, but the latter is a good deal more expensive.
>>2831527
It's excellent, and a lot of fun to use. It feels solid but not heavy, the grip is just about right. Multicoated VF window. The RF patch is very bright. Very good meter too, it's hasn't failed me yet, and it has exposure lock. It has pretty much all the features of the Ikon, and some more. It's not for everyone though. If you're ok with electronic dependency, then it's a no-brainer.
Can anyone recommend the 35mm SLRs in the Canon EOS series or is there something better I could get in the same price range?
>>2831253
>14mm is between 11-16mm and between 10-24. And 14mm is also still "ultra wide-angle" on APS-C. I picked something exactly in his range.
You usually don't pick an ultrawide to not go as wide as you can...
>But even assuming anon wanted the wider end only: It surely wouldn't be too hard to just look at the 12/10/8mm that I also mentioned? Only he knows so far, though.
Oh so you're this retard too: >>2831023, not only showing lolrandom charts on FF for a DX body, but also suggesting lenses you can't even attach to anything but a mirrorless and fucking FISHEYES to this poor dude, who was wondering what rectilinear lens he should buy between the two ones he posted?
You must really be a Samyang chinese poster doing an half assed work or just plain retarded to put on a show like this.
>Already linked all you need.
>Dogs can't understand numbers, they just lick each others balls and think they're pretty great for it.
It really seems like it doggie.
>>2830982
Get a 300 f4 usm, the non is version, and consider investing what you save in cheap whores which you will sacrifice to satan, our lord and savior.
>>2831554
You've only got like two choices, EOS1 and EOS3.
>>2831347
For what price? The 80-200 2-ring is your under 1000 option. The Tamron is your $1000 option if you need every stop of light, the F4 if you don't. The F2.8 VR2 is something you might want to rent first to see if you like carrying 5 lbs of camera.
>>2831570
>You've only got like two choices, EOS1 and EOS3.
nope
>>2831554
Pretty much every single EOS film camera has accurate autofocus, a quiet, smooth, accurate shutter, every PASM exposure mode, a great meter (usually with switchable metering patterns), and mows down lithium batteries like your mom hoovers up dicks.
Basically, there are no bad ones, just choose the newest and nicest you can afford.
guys, how is canon 35mm f2 IS? does it worth the money?
>>2831626
I think it would make a bomb-ass lense for shooting HP5 at night time without a flash.
Currently I use a 30/1.4, which is great, but camera shake can waste a lot of film in the 1/8th and slower region.
Any camera recommendations for instant film photography?
>>2831661
Fuji Instax is breddy gud, readily available.
Polaroid Land Camera 350 and a special battery adaptor on ebay if you wanna shoot Fuji FP and keep it original-looking.
Polaroid Model 180? Their pro manual exposure rig that took Polaroid film I think Impossible Project makes the film for it.
SX70 and Impossible Project film if you're a hipster. Actually not a bad setup I have the SX70 folder it can be a bit cumbersome but it's kinda cool
Polaroid Spectra 2 and Impossible Film if you wanna be full retro and ease of use. Also have this camera, very ergonomic but still an automatic Polaroid.
Mamiya RB67 and Polaroid Back if you're a big baller. (I have this setup it's okay but it shoots square format on Fuji FP film, pic related FP3200 film) It's rather pricey for instant film but as far as instant film cameras there's not a whole lot on the market that will touch it save for a 4x5 view camera with 4x5 instant film which is mega-baller status because of how expensive the film and film holders (Polaroid 550) can be.
The plus side of the RB setup is it allows you to shoot multiple formats you may as well dive headfirst into medium format film at that rate.
For most applications the Instax will be fine. I believe Lomo makes a few cameras that take Instax film I could be wrong on that but the Lomo Wide got some good reviews.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS5 Windows Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 1200 dpi Vertical Resolution 1200 dpi Image Created 2015:01:27 01:20:27 Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 1375 Image Height 1083
>>2831664
Thanks for the reply. Been doing some research, and instax film seems like the most accessible (less hassle, less expensive). Those instax cameras look absolutely awful though.
>>2831674
Get the Mini 90 or 300, they look better and are slightly more photographer oriented.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make NIKON CORPORATION Camera Model NIKON D600 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.7.1 (Windows) Photographer copyrightDAN_FINNEN Maximum Lens Aperture f/1.7 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Color Filter Array Pattern 836 Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 50 mm Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2015:03:28 14:13:41 Exposure Time 1/100 sec F-Number f/5.0 Exposure Program Normal Program ISO Speed Rating 640 Lens Aperture f/5.0 Exposure Bias -1/3 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 50.00 mm Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Manual Scene Capture Type Standard Gain Control Low Gain Up Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal Subject Distance Range Unknown
>>2831683
wish they would make a polaroid camera with manual controls and a real, focusing rangefinder. That's the only thing holding me back from getting one
>>2831688
Polaroid 600SE or Mamiya Press. Fuji just killed off the last of their instant peel-apart film though, so it's getting up there in prices.
>>2831688
>>2831690
Oh and the 180 too.
how to stop gear lust?
>>2831694
stop checking gearfag sites and enjoy what you're using now. Every time you want a new camera remind yourself that good camera != good pictures
>>2831694
Buy the cheapest option for whatever you're lusting after; it's the only way.
>>2831694
Stay away from camera launch events full of Asian qt's:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8fLg9-MJis&feature=player_embedded
>>2831694
I honestly never really started lusting for gear until I made the switch to digital.
>>2831768
Kek.
I never had the means to indulge my lust for gear until I made the switch to film.
>40 bodies, untold lenses later, still googling old Pop Photo reviews of the EF-M
Hey guys, I always wanted to go for a full frame camera(for obvious reasons) and lately the price of Sony A7 dropped that much that its almost half the price of the second cheapest FX. I dont have a large budget, lets say Im enthusiatist, I do not want to spend a lot of money. I plan to use it mostly for video(there is no video board?). My other options would be Canon 70D or much cheaper Lumix G7. Or would you recomment anything else? Under $1000.
>>2831782
>I always wanted to go for a full frame camera
>I do not want to spend a lot of money
The A7 is a decent enough camera, but all the good lenses are at least $1000 and aren't really video oriented. Don't make the same mistake I did and think that the A7 is a great poorfag FF camera.
There's also usually a video general up. >>2821162
>>2831790
thanks
>>2831664
23 bux for 8 exposures of spectra film
F U N
U U
N U F
Tomorrow I'm getting my Olympus OM-D E-M10 Mark 2 with the 14-42mm 1:3.5-5.6 EZ Pancake and I'm already excited. It's my first real camera, what should I expect?
Pic related.
>>2831811
Decent camera and endless ">Meme 4/3" replies.
>>2831811
I have the mark 1, it's a pretty good camera. Low light is a pain, I'm trying to fix an ISO 1600 shot right now, not looking good.
>>2831816
Newfag here. Isn't the low light performance mostly dependent from the aperture of the lens?
>>2831818
It influences the amount of light getting onto the sensor, but ISO performance is tied to the sensor. If you have slow lenses like I do, you have to compensate by jacking up the ISO or shutter speed, each have their disadvantages.
>>2831811
It's a good camera. Have no worries, put it into S or A mode and go out shooting.
>>2831811
Get an M42 adapter and a Mir-20 20mm or Mir-24 35mm lens for a fast standard lens.
Just got my first real camera, a Fujifilm X-A2. Did some research and it looks perfect for my use case.
Besides, I got it heavily discounted. Can't wait to share some pics.
>>2831969
Okay.
>>2831818
Sensor ISO performance is the primary thing that can make a camera body more suitable for low light.
But you certainly also have the lens with it's transmission (the glass elements and coatings can take up some light - some lenses with wide aperture are still pretty bad in this regard) and maximum aperture.
>>2831790
> but all the good lenses are at least $1000 and aren't really video oriented
There are many MF lenses that you can use that are well below $1000.
And you're not going to shoot with AF anyhow unless you want to get a headache watching that video.
what do you think of today's purchase /p/?
I have two dreams /p/, dream number one is that major manufacturers start producing APS-H sensor cameras again as an interstitial between too-cheap APS-C, for which the best FF lenses are impractical (legacy or otherwise) and too-expensive FF sensors which are often too big or introduces engineering problems à la Sony FE. APS-H would maximise the sweet-spot of most FF lenses with smaller bodies and minimal change in quality and crop, I'm thinking anywhere from 1.2 - 1.3x crop. No more buying shitty superwides for your X-whatever, Awhatever or Dx0whatever just so you can eek out a 24mm equivalent when you can't afford the extortionate prices of native wide lenses, and no more intensifying of otherwise small aberrations in quality.
Dream #2 is that manufacturers broaden the ability to make auto focus adapters. The Techart contax G adapter makes me cream my pants, why can't there be contax AF adapters across all mounts?
>>2832007
Sigma sd Quattro-H
>>2832002
>buys lens to take photos OF, not to take photos WITH
You should've stayed with the kit lens or even better, you should've sold your whole gear.
>>2832007
The difference between APS-C and APS-H is not nearly enough to be noticeable in final results, or to have any meaningful size advantage over full frame.
>Why can't there be contax AF adapters across all mounts?
Because why would there be? Get the great lenses offered by first party manufacturers, and shoot the exact same photos, with no perceivable difference.
Also, most mounts have too long of a flange distance to accept those lenses without ruining the image quality with glass elements in the adapters.
Stop worshiping your gear, and go take photos. The shit you're dreaming about has no benefit to an actual photographer taking actual photos for reasons other than technical masturbation.
Im about to buy my first camera ever. I'm going with the D 5500 and was wondering if anyone has any thoughts on which kit lens I should go with (18-55 or 18-140)? Because of my lack of money chances are this will be the only lens I use for about a year or so so I was curious to find out if anyone had any experiences with either one of these lenses? I'm aware of the differences in focal length however I was wondering if there was any difference in quality between the two?
>>2832016
You are better off with a used D7100, it has the screwdrive AF drive so you can use the older Nikkor AF-D lenses. The D5500 has a gimped mount and can only use AF-S lenses.
I'm considering getting a Leica M8 but I can't find anywhere what you actually see through the view finder. No videos on youtube take you through the whole camera. Does the viewfinder give any information at all? What's shown on the screen in normal photo mode?
>>2832021
Just get a new X-Pro 2, it's cheaper and is much more usable. It also has a digital rangefinder and focus assist mode and you can use Leica glass on it with an adapter. But you have native glass available for it with better quality and much cheaper.
>>2832026
>better quality
doubt it's better than leica
>>2832031
>Leica glass
>radioactive aka Leica-glow
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3OTHyaz1uw
>Fuji glass
>Not radioactive
hmm... I wonder which one to choose
>>2832035
admirable memery
>>2832041
>walking in Paris central, streettogging away with mah Leica glass
>trying to capture a street artist
>suddenly feel something slamming into me
>see the street rushing up to meet my face
>the world suddenly consists of nothing but cold and pain
>everything turns black as my life slowly fades away
>the french police apologizes to my parents for the faulty reading of the radiation sensor, returns the camera without the glass
>glass is disposed of at a nuclear storage facility
>the trip to Paris was a graduation gift
>Dad commits suicide, Mother can't cope and suffers a heart-attack a week after
Such is life in human earth in the year 2016
>>2832031
In what way do you doubt that it's better than a leica? Speed? Autofocus? Menu system? Low light? Price? File quality? be specific, so we can educate you.
>>2832035
Youll be fine as long as you dont eat your lenses
>>2832043
General usability and cost/value
>>2832007
> too-cheap APS-C [...] and too-expensive FF
What are the odds that this is not because of production costs primarily, but marketing strategy.
Your best option is to save up money, really.
> Dream #2 is that manufacturers broaden the ability to make auto focus adapters
It's happening on Sony's E-mount.
I wonder if the other brands react by locking their systems down more, or if they follow suit...
> why can't there be contax AF adapters across all mounts
Because manufacturers don't make profits from these? Selling high-end first party lenses is better business.
Well, eventually someone will make a decent Android or Linux camera as a more open platform (which will be much better for 3rd parties and their necessary hardware support / camera profiles and stuff), but until then it will probably be a long while...
>>2832035
Shitposting aside, those old thorium coatings are harmless unless you eat the glass or strap the thing to your balls for a year.
>>2832089
At least my Takumar lens has the thoriated glass as the rear element so I don't walk around with an open hot source.
You do realize it's not the radiation itself is what's so dangerous but the numerous clueless officials with guns running around with hidden detectors and panicking at every banana stand.
Just imagine your reaction when you get a radiation detector after an open ISIS threat and some guy with a camera dressed as a tourist goes by and your beeping thingy goes haywire.
I guess your reaction would be to shoot the fucker and then ask what the beeping means.
>>2830770
what do you guys know about the canon EOS 5D MarkIII?? got the mark I and im considering buying a new one
>>2832096
They're a bit old but still good, although so is my information when it comes to Canon.
>>2832096
6D has the better dynamic range but 5DIII has the better AF. If you don't do action shooting then the 6D is the better choice.
Also both are dinosaurs considering most recent (2-4 years old) APS-C from the other manufacturers. Let's not talk about the differences between the other FF offerings.
I need a stabilizer for my Canon T2i, like glidecam, shoulder rigs, ect.
Something that I can use to get good stable footage, can hold a 3lb+ camera and gear, and easy enough to use one handed.
>>2832094
I've been here a while and have seen some retarded statements from retarded people but your are the winner. I hope you're getting the treatment you need.
>>2832096
Wait for the MKIV.
>>2832089
>not strapping your lenses to your balls when you're not using them
It's like you don't even want quick access to your gear anon
Is the 5d MKIV an actual thing or is it a meme? I've seen no indication that it is actually going to exist - one of my buddies insists that there are actual stats for it - contrary to anything I show him,
>>2832229
It will be a real thing (or should be) but at this point it's not even a rumor.
>>2832229
It's a speculative camera. Nothing has been announced yet.
What do you guys recommend for a flash for a Pentax K-5? I'm thinking the Yongnuo YN560 with a wireless trigger. Since the Yongnuo is a manual flash, should I just get a Neewer instead?
Also, what about high speed flash sync stuff? Any resources I can read about for this?
So i need a camera it's out of these. I mainly use for filming
Panasonic GH4
Lumix Gx8
Canon 7D
Any other good cameras to film on would be good, around the same price as the above ones?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS4 Macintosh Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 9000 Image Height 9000 Number of Bits Per Component 8, 8, 8 Compression Scheme Unknown Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Data Arrangement Chunky Format Image Created 2014:02:06 16:41:48 Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1772 Image Height 1329
What's a good flexible tripod?
There's this one that seems really solid.
>http://amzn.com/B002FGTWOC
>3.1 x 3.1 x 14.2 inches
>14.1 ounces
>$47
Or one of its many cheaper cousins in the $10 range.
>http://amzn.com/B0117C8VNC
>shorter
>lighter
>$16
Is there a big enough difference to pay that extra 30 bucks?
>>2832246
Sounds like you already know what you want and what you don't want.
what you think about this?
some softbox recomendation?
I'm basic af, I just want to be able to take passable photos at the baseball.
Which is the better option?
1. Buy a Nikon Coolpix p610
2. Buy a decent 200mm f2.8 lense for my Nikon 1 J1
My friend has a p610 and it takes photos vastly superior to my J1, but the lenses aren't interchangeable, so idk if I'll get better quality with a better lense on the J1 body.
>>2832257
Get a D7200 and a 200-500/5.6
>>2832258
Seems like what I really need to get is a better job.
What if I just chuck a 200-500mm on my J1, I know it would look dumb with that little body and big lense, but would the photos be decent?
Moving to Japan for the next 1-5 years, bringing my K-3 with me. Any essential gear I should pick up? Currently only have an 18-50mm lens and 50mm f1.8 lens and that's about it.
I'd like to get an external mic as well, but not sure where to look.
>>2832261
I don't know much about Nikons 1 inch system, that's why I suggested an APS-C set with a long telezoom. You might also do good with a 70-200, don't know if you can adapt it to the J1 or not. If it isn't sunny though you might be better off with at least an APS-C body to keep the noise down and shutter speed up.
>>2832271
The Tammy 70-200/2.8 is a good lens, you can get it there. Maybe a DA 16-85 for those sharp landscapes and generic walkaround lens. The DA 35/2.4 is so cheap you can throw that in as an extra.
>>2832271
You might wanna wait until you get here before you pick it up, camera equipment is cheap here at Bic Camera etc. and even cheaper on Rakuten.
>>2832275
Shit is that really true? I just left Japan a month ago. Bic Camera didn't really seem cheaper to me but I'm pretty new.
>>2832274
I was thinking about either the Tamron or the Sigma. If I could get either at comparable prices, wouldn't I want to go for the Sigma because of the HSM? I hear the specs are nearly the same otherwise.
>>2832247
>flexible
>solid
I'm looking for a reflector to use for portraits. I'll have someone else with me who can hold it for me.
Is 42" overkill for what I want? I'd like to use it indoors and out, but I'm worried it might be a bit too big for what I want.
>>2832304
No, bigger is usually better for people.
>>2832318
>Godox softbox
Thank you its the same but cheaper :D
>>2832279
Sigma HSM has a high failure rate, the Tamron has the screwdrive AF drive. It is actually faster than Pentax SDM and Sigma HSM, not quiet but not exactly loud either and is quick and accurate. I have one on my K-3.
I rarely use manual focus so I don't care about the extra hassle of switching over (AF-MF on body then focus clutch on the lens). If that bothers you then go with the Sigma.
>>2832388
Also it's a huge piece of glass and I find I rarely use it below f/4. A DA* 60-250 F4 would've been better but the price difference is huge.
>>2831694
My gear lust calmed down when I realized my dirty Nikon FG with a 50mm prime from 40 years ago is more fun to shoot than my D7100
mainly due to the viewfinder, I'm only now discovering the beauty of a large and sexy viewfinder and looking through the D7100's VF is tortuous now
so I guess I'm still a gearfag actually
I need some sort of tape with durable rubber on one side, and sticky surface on the other side to cover up the focus ring of this lens.
Does anyone know what those things might be called?
Anyway, I just received the Sigma trio, from what I tested, it's exactly as people say, the optics are really good value for the money. But I sort of understand the criticism now, the focus ring is not very good, it's not smooth, it's a bit bumpy and it feels like I'm scratching up some internal components every time I turn them and it's very unpleasant.
But for the price I paid, it's really easy to live with.
>>2832431
Go to a sports shop and look for tennis grip.
>>2832431
It's probably just the clutch mechanism that detaches the motor mechanism when you turn it.
>>2832432
Thanks Anon.
>>2832129
cant spend that much money, i was hoping the Mark III price would drop when the mark IV is released
i didnt even see this thread so im sorry but i made a new thread a while back but il just copy and paste what i said.
long story short im a NEET whos camera that my grandfather gave me broke due to getting in a car crash and my bag got fucked but i need to get a new one fast for a event coming up.
plus im really short on cash atm,is samsung WB1100F a good quality stater camera?
>>2832448
That's what I meant. Wait and see the price drop. Also see the people putting their MKIII on the used market for cheap to get the new one.
I recently got a canon 5d mk3 body with a 24-105mm lens. Now i'm looking to get a telephoto to shoot birds n shit with, right now im trying to decide between the canon 100-400 mk1 and the sigma 150-600 contemporary. Anyone have any experiences/recommendations with these or other teles for canon?
>>2832517
100-400mm mkII
>>2832523
alright thanks I'll check it out
>>2832485
Don't bother getting bridge camera, try looking into craigslist or equivalent for DSLR, you might find something that has better bang for your buck. Bridge cameras are basically tiny P&S sensors combined to big optical zoom to make them seem more DSLR-like, even tough the camera performance is on par with any cell phone camera after 2010. If you just need to get a camera fast and you can't find DSLR fitting to your budget, maybe try film? I mean, I grabbed old manual SLR camera and few rolls of film for around 50 just today. Just save your cash and get proper camera.
>>2832485
Get a cheap DSLR instead of that bridge camera.
I picked up a K10D with lens for a hundo and it only really starts to show shooting in bright daylight and shadows and in low light.
Get a KS1 or K50 or something.
>>2832432
On second thought. I'm reading that Tennis grips are made to absorb moisture and sweat, and camera equipment kind of needs the opposite of this.
Are you sure this is still a good idea Anon?
1100 dollar budget for my first DSLR.
I am struggling between the d7100 vs the d5500.
D7100:
Better features all around and can autofocus older lenses. However much heavier and the learning curve will be steep.
D5500:
Better ergonomics, simpler to use. Less options, especially in regard to lenses.
The lenses are questionable because I am skeptical about how often I'll buy one. In my unqualified and amateur opinion I would think the newer lenses are better than the older ones. As for learning curve, 7100 seems incredibly intimidating, however I am intending on keeping this camera for at least two years.
I plan on shooting, landscape and city photography. Eventually moving onto portraits, which I occasionally do already with my camera phone. I am not huge about video, image quality is king but I've read that 7100 and 5500 have minuscule difference in quality.
I am leaning toward the 7100, my months of research point to this but I am still experiencing doubts.
>>2832671
>1100 dollar budget
the d7100 is $800 for the body alone...that only leaves you $300
get a refurbished d5500 w/18-55 lens for $570 and you'll have $530 left over for more lenses, a tripod, etc, etc
>>2832610
Then get a smaller silicon rubber band, one of those wrist things and put it on the focus ring.
>>2832671
Pentax K-3, kit lens, DA 35/2.4, DA 50/1.8, HD DA 55-300, Tripod, bag, pack of Cokin P filters.
This should fit nicely in your budget.
Judge my kit. Fairly new to shooting, within 2 months or so. It should be noted that I am a /k/ transfer, so I gave up ACTUAL shooting, more or less, for this hobby.
Canon 700d
Kit lens + 3stop ND and circular
24-105 f/4L (looking back I may not have picked this up, but ill hold it for when I upgrade to full frame)
50 f/1.8 stm with circular polarizer.
18-35 f/1.8 art
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Canon Camera Model Canon EOS REBEL T5i Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.5.1 (Windows) Maximum Lens Aperture f/1.8 Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 70 dpi Vertical Resolution 70 dpi Image Created 2016:05:04 21:02:08 Exposure Time 1/160 sec F-Number f/2.8 Exposure Program Aperture Priority ISO Speed Rating 800 Lens Aperture f/2.8 Exposure Bias -0.7 EV Metering Mode Pattern Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 50.00 mm Color Space Information Uncalibrated Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard
>>2832700
generic/10
go out shooting instead of asking a third rate anonymous internet forum to rate your gear.
>>2832700
You've got a lot of overlap in your focal lengths, but you have enough to produce great photos when you come upon them.
You won't have much need for the kit lens (and therefore your filters) since you have higher quality, better build, and better aperture everywhere else.
>>2832671
D7100 - far more future proof. If you are at all serious, you will want to upgrade from a D5500 down the track. D7100 may have a learning curve, but you need to learn this shit anyway.
>>2832713
>learning curve
Such as? I have D5500 and D7100, and where is this curve?
>>2832715
It is the process of picking up the camera and going out shooting. For some people it is a hefty learning curve.
>>2832713
>If you are at all serious
that's the bigger question...and I bet most people aren't, but probably think they are
I'm not that serious about it, but that's also something I had to conclude after some thought and realizing that I wasn't planning on trying to get paid and probably wouldn't receive an award that would result in endless blowjobs from supermodels while hanging on the side of a cliff trying to take a picture of an American bald eagle shitting out an egg
I just want to take nicer pictures than what I could get with my phone or point and shoot cameras of things like my cats and other crap that most people wouldn't REALLY be interested in
I ended up with the D5500
>>2832726
No learning curve diff between D5500 and D7100 though.
I bought this friend on craigslist for $900 (supposed to be $850 but I had to buy someone out) and was stoked forgetting a deal
except the focus ring is STIFF as shit which has me believe the guy dropped it at some point. how much would a repair on that typically cost? I dunno if I should keep/repair or just sell it back to someone else.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Image Width 1423 Image Height 1889
I'm looking at getting the Elinchrom Dlite 400 kit.
Anyone use it currently?
College twat with no money. Have a FDMavica MVC-FD92 from way back when when a family friend loaned it, and we never gave it back. Takes floppies.
Would this work? Resolution is 1472x1104
Slight problem though.
>floppies
>>2832760
Did you not try the lens out before you bought it? Why would you buy it if the ring is stiff and you thought he dropped it?
>>2832770
>a family friend loaned it, and we never gave it back.
Assholes.
>>2832760
hard to say without examining the lens in person. if I were you I'd send it to canon for an estimate
Best camera bag for everyday 5d mk3 use with a couple lenses / laptop ?
hey m8's what umbrella is this?
Anybody here ever buy used from KEH?
>>2832773
to be honest I was inspecting it and shit and looking back at it, I said "ooh this is stiff" and he was like walking off already
idk I'm kinda a dumbass and I drove an hour and didn't necessarily want to go home empty handed. I might try asking him for some money back for repair but I doubt he would even respond.
>>2832794
do they look at it for free? there's a great camera repair shop an hour away and I wanna drop it off their but I have a music festival gig coming up next week so the timing is awful and I'm gonna have to live with it for a few weeks.
>>2832897
Yeah we all do, in my case every camera and lens I've ever owned came from keh used. Their rating and return systems are great.
>>2832897
I did. Would buy again. Pricier than eBay and eBay's policies are more buyer friendly than they used to be but hard to go wrong with KEH.
>>2832897
a bunch of people do. They have a reputation for very conservative condition ratings, something they rate as "bargain" is probably in better condition than you'd think that would imply. If they have something you want for a price you're willing to pay, go for it. Said price is usually a bit higher than ebay, but not by much, in my experience.
The new website they rolled out last year is kinda crap, though. Oh well.
A6300 vs D5500
>>2832900
canon always does estimates for free, you pay shipping both ways of course. bring your lens to get it examined by the repair shop if you'd like, in my experience canon factory even without CPS will have estimates, repairs and returns within about a week. if you ask nicely maybe they'll expedite the process
>>2832939
>LN-
it means that it doesn't come with the box or accessories, but otherwise you won't be able to tell that it isn't brand new.
>>2832944
Neat, their grading guide differs a bit from their 'grading youtube video' in the exact description of LN-, but thanks
>>2832770
Rock that camera so hard.
Ken Rockwell likes his.
http://www.dpreview.com/news/5478724395/pentax-k-1-added-to-studio-scene-comparison
it's over, everyone else is finished.
welcome our new overlord.
>>2833033
dat pixel shift
Is the Canon 5D Classic still a serviceable camera?
>>2832769
I got 3 of the 400s and 2 of the 200s
the heads themselves are amazing, it's only the transmitter module is a bit unreliable when the battery isn't completely fresh so always carry a few spare ones or shoot wired if every shot counts
the kit 60x60 softboxes are cheap shit that will break fast. get it with some rotalux ones if you don't want to replace them after 20 setups
>>2833033
>without pixel shift
meh
>with pixel shift
the best
Nothing new actually.
Also
>pixel shift on with iso 12800
mama mia!
>>2833060
You know that's just a meme feature, right?
You can just handhold a D810, take 3 images bracketed, your unsteady hand is automatically pixel shifting. So now you just merge the 3 images in post and get the same results.
>>2833062
2/10
>>2833062
I rather do it in camera. You can do 20+ images and merge for even better results but you are just sitting in your computer. Much smoother work flow. You need a static image too so it's not like you'll be using this for regular photography.
The application and functionality is nonsensical but you can't deny the results. For architecture and static macro this will be great. Maybe even some landscape. Yum.
What's /p/'s opinion about Nikon LS-1000 35 mm film scanner? I've been thinking about purchasing one as I only use 35mm film. I already have the required SCSI card and cables. I'd only need the film strip holder to use it.
>>2833068
Weak.
Get (/ rent?) the Super CoolScan 9000 or scan with a modern DSLR/MILC.
>>2832930
Easily the A6300... but they don't cost the same.
Isn't it a bad idea to to use a long focal length prime for wildlife?
If for example you go into a hiding spot to lurk on animals who pop up, you might be able to get good shots initially, but if the animal gets closer to your spot, you won't be able to zoom out and frame it properly. And it's not like you will be able to get out of your hiding spot just so you can move further away from it either.
And then you might miss out on some interesting shots.
>>2833272
seems like you already know then.
>>2833273
But I see so many people recommend that particular lens for example.
It's nuts when you think about how much limitations it has.
>>2833274
*many
It has one limitation, that buys you weight, aperture, image quality, and cost.
If it doesn't work for you, that's fine, but it doesn't mean it doesn't work for anybody. Long zooms are fucking expensive, or shit, with nearly no middle ground (other than 40 year old manual focus stuff)
>>2833276
>Long zooms are fucking expensive
The Sigma 150-600 isn't that expensive for what it is.
I think the ability to being able to frame the subject at all is like a primary pillar of importance, the other factors you mention just becomes secondary.
>>2833280
Then that lens doesn't work for your needs, and don't buy it....? What's the confusion?
If you're confused as to why ANYONE would buy it, consider many people bring two or more bodies out into the field. One may have a long zoom on it as well.
>>2833274
You have a decent amount of time to swap lenses or switch to your second camera.
>>2832940
any word on how much shipping is? I'm gonna try to get an estimate from this local place first.
talked to the owner of the 70-200 and he got really defensive about me trying to get money out of him for repairs. he used the lens for 100 pictures and bought it 4 years ago and never touched it which has me believe maybe it's stiff because it wasn't used? after using it for a few days it's loosened up a bit but it's a little rough around the wider end. I'm gonna shoot with it for the next week and when I get back from my festival gig I'm gonna bring it in to have inspected. would be great if it just needs to be lubricsted.
