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: >>2830770
anyone got experience with a 24-105 f4 L? Preferably on a 5DM2.
How is the overall quality? image quality, sharpness, etc
mind posting a couple of photos?
I want to get a new lense but I'm not sure which one to get. I shoot mostly landscape and wildlife sometime. I have a 18-55mm and a 70-300mm. I use a Nikon D3300 since I started only last summer. I've been thinking of getting a 35mm or a 24-70mm. Any other suggestions?
some recommendation umbrella stuff?, i just need one for portraits, i have a speedlight sb600 nikon
>>2833768
>umbrella stuff
If you don't know what you need, you don't need it at all.
Thinking about getting a prime lens, what are the benefits of 35mm vs. 50mm?
>>2833825
Thinking about getting a shoe, what are the benefits of size 9 vs. size 6?
>>2833760
I don't know how a 24-70mm would particularly help you shoot wildlife, so I guess that's for landscape?
What do you want from it that the 18-55mm couldn't do?
>>2833830
Well that's a somewhat shitty analogy. All shoe sizes have the same use - and thus, would not vary with intention but only with foot size. Focal length varies in terms of the *most convenient* use and with further information that would be a totally sensible question.
Of course, you can always shoot 8mm equivalent on LF, then crop down to your required FOV, effectively making all other gear useless, so maybe you're right.
>>2833832
Probably color contrast and sharpness. I assume he wants the standard zoom for landscapes.
>>2833760
35mm primes generally have almost no distortions and are best used for landscapes and panoramas. Even on a crop sensor.
Got myself a Pentax K-50 (in red, baby!) but now find out the K-mount 31mm lens that is my preferred focal length is £650!!!
The 35mm is nice an cheap but it's a little tight for my liking.
Are there any recommended old lenses with 28mm focal length? Do any of them have autofocus?
>>2833835
If sharpness is in the goals here, I figure he should go with a good prime.
>>2833836
> and are best used for landscapes and panoramas
I don't think that's the case for a 50mm equivalent lens. They're very general purpose.
Wide angle lenses (maybe some wide prime within 8 to 15mm on APS-C?) tend to be mostly used for landscape / astro / environment shots though.
>>2833838
There is the FA 28mm f/2.8 AL, there is a soft variant so be careful.
Alternatively the DA 35/2.4 is a very cheap for it's sharpness and not that much tighter than the 31 or 28mm. Just take a couple steps back.
>>2833840
>astrophotography
>wide lens
You mean those starscapes that are marginally relevant to astrophotography?
Landscape panoramas need images with almost no distortions or else the blending lines get blurry and distracting, hence why most panoramas are made with 35mm on FF and APS-C.
>>2833844
> Landscape panoramas need images with almost no distortions or else the blending lines get blurry and distracting
Uh, the usual lens distortions -even on these zoom lenses- aren't really a problem?
I don't know what you mean by blur lines - unless you're doing your panoramas manually in photoshop?
> hence why most panoramas are made with 35mm on FF and APS-C.
No, most panoramas are made with wide angle lenses.
Most people don't want to meticulously take like 30 shots on a vibration-free platform and stitch a 600MP or whatever image (it's a lot of work and a decent amount of processing power) to get their VR panorama shot or 180x180 degrees shot or whatever. It's only a sport for people who want very high-res panoramas.
>>2833846
>No, most panoramas are made with wide angle lenses.
Nope. Go out, learn some more before you post suggestions on the internet.
>>2833849
I guess you're right, I should correct this:
Most obvious panorama-specific setups (on a tripod) that I saw out there had wide angle lenses on them.
I guess the actual majority of panorama snapshits are sweep panoramas made with smartphones or APS-C cameras. Not that those have any blurry lines - they just are blurry overall.
Between these two, there are also amateurs (for example the /p/ and flickr crowd) that just make do with whatever APS-C or compact camera or smartphone setup that they already have, but stitch with hugin or photoshop or such to get a better result. They neither use a 35mm nor a wide angle primarily though, it's just all sorts of lenses.
>>2833861
Are you arguing that 35mm is not wide angle? I said it is a good choice for panoramas, even on crop sensor.
>tfw camera umbrellas will never be cool
>>2833868
> Are you arguing that 35mm is not wide angle?
It's not on an APS-C because it doesn't cover a 64-84 degrees field of view (I admit to looking the degrees up on WP, wouldn't have remembered that one - unlike remembering that 35mm is the extent of wide angle on a FF camera).
But that wasn't ultimately what I was arguing.
> I said it is a good choice for panoramas, even on crop sensor.
You said most panoramas were made with it.
And I dispute it's a good choice. While it's certainly somehow *possible* to shoot panoramas with a 35mm on an APS-C, I wouldn't buy one for this purpose.
It takes just too many shots and too much stitching (and too much processing power for most people's machines) even with a 180x180 degrees panorama, and you might want to do 360x180 or 360x360.
>>2833880
Camera raincoats look and usually work better, so whatever?
>>2833880
Or just buy a Pentax.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make NIKON CORPORATION Camera Model NIKON D3 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS5.1 Macintosh Photographer Ben Birchall Maximum Lens Aperture f/2.8 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Color Filter Array Pattern 850 Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 52 mm Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 4256 Image Height 2832 Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2012:09:19 15:03:57 Exposure Time 1/50 sec F-Number f/6.3 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 400 Lens Aperture f/6.3 Exposure Bias 0 EV Subject Distance 3.35 m Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Fine Weather Flash No Flash Focal Length 52.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 610 Image Height 406 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Manual Scene Capture Type Standard Gain Control Low Gain Up Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal Subject Distance Range Unknown
>>2833838
What the fuck? Where is the Spanish flag? Even the Turkish is there
>>2833755
I have some photos with that lens taken on a 7DMKII
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Canon Camera Model Canon EOS 7D Mark II Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows) Maximum Lens Aperture f/4.0 Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Created 2016:05:09 00:11:47 Exposure Time 1/125 sec F-Number f/8.0 Exposure Program Aperture Priority ISO Speed Rating 100 Lens Aperture f/8.0 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 60.00 mm Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 1000 Image Height 691 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard
>>2833891
Yeah, even the Hungarian flag is missing. Damn shame.
>>2833755
I love that lens though, it's essentially my go-to lens. s00per d00per quality, and weather sealing, IS as well. Dropped it numerous times, still holds up. Very dynamic range of focal lengths, and more than adequate sharpness.
Would reccommend if you can find it second hand.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Canon Camera Model Canon EOS 7D Mark II Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows) Maximum Lens Aperture f/4.0 Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 4991 Image Height 2448 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 2016:05:09 00:42:41 Exposure Time 1/400 sec F-Number f/7.1 Exposure Program Aperture Priority ISO Speed Rating 100 Lens Aperture f/7.1 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 84.00 mm Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 1000 Image Height 490 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard
>>2833755
That's one of the most common combinations of camera and lens on the planet. Just fucking google it. Stop wasting everyone's time with your specific gear test requests. The shit you want to know is already out there. Just type your questions into the google search bar rather than the 4chan reply box, and you'll already have your answers, comparisons, samples, and charts waiting for you.
>>2833912
>dynamic range
>depends on lens
Thank you for supporting the cause of making /p/ better by providing a tripcode to filter you out.
>>2833936
The range of focal lengths provided by the lens is dynamic. It's got a lot of zoom, is what he's saying. But at least you aren't ignoring context and throwing your ability to think out the window to be able to jump in and be the first to attack someone for the sake of your tiny penis!
>>2833920
Prime lenses are a bit more sharp and the 35 mm has little distortion
>>2833760
Sigma 18-35 f/1.8
It's the best lens, so why not buy it?
If I mostly wanna shoot video and on tight budget, 700d is the best choice for me?
Any experiences with this camera?
>>2834023
Yicam. Cheaper and better video features.
No interchangeable lenses and only some semi-gadgety effect lenses, but it also costs less than one typical lens anyhow.
I need an inexpensive lens for street/portrait photography. Currently have a t3i, noticed that my favorite pictures to take are of random people in the street. I was originally going to get the 85mm f/1.8 because I like the person to fill up most of the frame, but now I'm thinking about getting something more versitile in case I want a bit wider angle for pics like pic related.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Macintosh) Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 1596 Image Height 2000 Number of Bits Per Component 8, 8, 8 Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2013:10:21 17:28:54 Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 1596 Image Height 2000
>>2834029
Yicam?? What?
Any reason not to use all your focus points?
>>2834044
Speed and accuracy.
>>2834035
The Xiaomi Yicam. It is a better body for video than the 700D.
But of course you only get one fixed lens that isn't as good as what you could stick on a 700D if you had some money for lenses - which I currently assume you don't necessarily do.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software paint.net 4.0.5 Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 96 dpi Vertical Resolution 96 dpi
>>2834032
Am currently considering the 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 STM. Seems like the best option and I can pick it up for ~200 which is good.
>>2834053
I'm very unsure as to the accuracy of this statement... what sort of codec? What's the bitrate? can you put it in a flat profile for editing?
>>2834047
When do you find less points more usefull?
>>2834060
When I'm trying to place focus in a spot that may not be immediately obvious to the camera (e.g. there are obstructions in the foreground, but i'm trying to focus on the middle ground).
>>2834060
When you're scrolling from the bottom left of the frame to the top right, it's better to have five clicks than 24.
>>2834061
>When I'm trying to place focus in a spot that may not be immediately obvious to the camera (e.g. there are obstructions in the foreground, but i'm trying to focus on the middle ground).
Wouldn't that be a time to have MORE focus points to choose from, for more granularity?
>>2834063
If you're manually selecting the focus point, sure. If you're letting the camera decide, no.
>>2834058
> what sort of codec?
H.264/AVC,
> bitrate
35Mbit/s maximum IIRC
> can you put it in a flat profile for editing
Yea, but that is a script / firmware hack (like magic lantern).
>>2833832
I don't have a 18-55
I have a 40 and that's it, I don't think there is a 18-55 for 35mm lol
Yep mainly for landscapes and portraits
>>2834008
I'll check it out, thanks
>>2834150
> I don't have a 18-55
But >>2833760 -the post I responded to- said
> I have a 18-55mm and a 70-300mm
If that's not you... well, I honestly didn't necessarily expect you have a 18-55mm?
Either way, if you have a 40mm you might still want something wider for landscapes?
And it should already be rather good for portraits, though perhaps your lighting is not.
>>2834163
woops I am so sorry, replied to the wrong post, I misread the 24-70 as 24-105. My bad.
>>2834235
>A lens with less haze
Fucking what?
You're like... all of /p/ melted down and boiled down to a concentrate of no good photos, terrible posts, obnoxious googlable questions, and no fucking clue what you're talking about.
I'd filter you, but it's like you're a parody that's too funny to stop looking at.
>>2834241
err maybe wrong word, but unsharp in corners
if that triggered you, wait till you get out of your basement :^)
>>2834232
Makes sense.
Well, the 24-105 f/4L is a good "budget" event shooting lens (it's definitely much cheaper than the "obvious" Canon lens of choice, the 24-70 f/2.8L) or as a lazy man's travel lens. It probably really won't do badly at what you want it to do.
Then again, I personally likely wouldn't use it for typical modeled portraits and landscape shots even if I was on a budget. Primes can do that better for the same price if you're not too lazy to switch lenses.
>>2834252
By the way, I just remembered you might consider the Tamron SP 24-70mm F2.8 Di VC instead of the 24-105mm f/4.
>>2834252
sweet as, I think I'll stick to primes then, thanks heaps man
>>2833755
It's a decent lens but for a bit more money you can get the Tamron 24-70. Its 2.8 and has IS plus if you take a shot at 70mm and digitally crop it to 105 it's sharper than the Canon's native 105.
For canon cameras, and a guy who plans do shoot lot of video, is 16gb card enough for me?
>>2834274
No.
get a couple of 64gb cards.
>>2834274
>shoot lot of video
>16gb
Depends on the codec/quality. But I can almost assure you that is not enough.
>>2834274
No, and it's probably too small even if you intend to frequently copy that to a pair or more (redundancy...) of hard disk drives, which I'd recommend.
Why do we let an obvious pentax shill make this thread every single fucking day with some piece of shit camera in the OP?
>>2834435
because for the last 8 years is was a canon rabal.
>>2834435
Why do you care?
>>2834435
a.) it's common practice these days
b.) the OP picture doesn't matter much, as long as it has the title that lets people find it in the catalog
c.) why are you so butthurt about it?
>>2834443
take your babbys first plastic shit back to best buy and return your butthurt.
>>2834445
>implying my camera is even sold at bestbuy
fuck off plebe, unless your body is made out of pure carbon fiber with gold inlays, you are no longer allowed to reply to me
>>2834443
>It should be an actual photo of something interesting
Its the gear thread. The whole idea is that, ideally, the entire board except this thread should consist of threads about photos of something interesting and not people talking about which brand of camera is good.
if you're mad that the rest of the board often falls short of this ideal, that's understandable. If you're mad that the thread about camera equipment has a picture of camera equipment in the OP then I think you're a loony.
>>2834450
>you are no longer allowed to reply to me
Hahahahaha
The fucking faggots you find on this god damned fucking board... Jesus christ.
>>2834454
Don't talk to me or my hasselbad ever again
>>2834475
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS5.1 Windows Photographer Andrew J Cosgriff Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 1024 Image Height 1024 Number of Bits Per Component 8, 8, 8 Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2013:01:08 19:25:17 Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1024 Image Height 1024
>>2834450
>implying my camera is even sold at bestbuy
Urban Outfitters?
Is there an affordable (complete amateur) digital camera that has the dials for speed/exposure like film cameras had? So you can read the settings off the dial, not a screen.
>>2834584
Cheapest? Probably a XE1. Best cheapest? Used XE2, update firmware.
There's also the LX100 and X100 to consider.
>>2834450
Best Buy actually sells some pretty nice shit these days, I was surprised to see a D810 with a 24-70 on display the other day.
I need a wider prime lens for my DX D90 camera because my 50mm f1.4 ais seems restrictive.
Someone is selling me a Nikkor 28mm f2.8 af-d lens for $150 is this a good focal length for a normal focal length for DX? This will be equivalent to a 42mm for DX crop sensor body.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 600 Image Height 588 Scene Capture Type Standard
>>2834593
I'm wondering the same thing too.
D3200 body with 35mm 1.8G DX + 50mm 1.8G.
I want to go a little wider and was thinking about 24mm f/1.8G.
I have about 70/65k shots left on my shutter so I'll probably change the body in 2 years. Most of the local photographers I talk to suggest that I should invest into glass rather than the body.
The main concern I have is scaring people away on the streets.
>>2834593
I've been using the 28mm f2.8 Af on a nikon d3200 and I'm very happy with the results
I'm planning to try out an slr to see how it differs from my X100. What's a good older slr for less than £150? I'm happy going down to 10 mp and just want a good slr experience.
>>2834587
In wich ways is the XE2 better?
>>2834674
Come on man, Google.
>>2834677
I'm asking for a personal opinion not a stat sheet, sorry.
>>2834691
Okay so:
>the stat sheet points out the improved viewfinder.
It's my opinion that the viewfinder is better.
>The stat sheet points out a dramatically improved focus system.
My opinion is that the focus system is dramatically improved.
>The stat sheet suggests that the ergonomics have been improved with photography in mind.
My opinion is that the ergonomics are improved, and make it easier to shoot photos with it.
>The stat sheet says the X-E2 has wifi.
It's my opinion that if you need your camera to have wifi, the X-E2 has it and the X-E1 doesn't.
>The stat sheet says that the X-E2 has a wider range for EV comp.
It's my opinion that if you need a wider range of EV comp, then you'll prefer the X-E2.
>The stat sheet points out that the color profiles for the film simulations have been tweaked, and reviews say that some people like it better, and some people don't.
My opinion is that if you're some people, you'll like it better. If you're some people, on the other hand, you won't.
How's that?
Dude we don't fucking know anything about you. We don't know what you shoot, how much experience you have, how you work, what your priorities are, what your experience is, etc. How can we possibly give you totally subjective statements based off of nothing but the fact that we know you want to buy a camera?
The X-E2 is better. This is obvious to anyone with a google. The better camera costs more. Is it worth it? For some people, yes, and for other people, no. Which are you? We have no fucking clue.
What do you think is the best iphone camera app? I used 645 pro back in the day, but there are lots of apps with manual controls now.
Does anybody have experiences or advice regarding purchasing used lenses on ebay? I figure I'm probably better off buying from Japanese sellers but besides that I don't know what to look for to ensure good condition (besides reviews, which desu I don't trust very much)
>>2834733
Are you asking for help in picking what lens you need? or are you asking for help in knowing whether the one you're looking to buy is covered in fungus, or broken?
>>2834734
The second, I just don't want to get scammed with a busted lens
>>2834741
Be sure you read every word in the description, ask questions if it doesn't mention condition (lack of scratches and fungus, smooth operation, etc) and confirm that there's a return policy.
Getting screwed on eBay is pretty rare these days, and both eBay and PayPal will generally do whatever they can to protect you (in their own best interest)
>>2834748
Thanks for the advice. You keep mentioning fungus -- is this common for used lenses?
>>2834776
Not common, no, but of the few things that DO happen to old lenses, sometimes, that's one of them.
The older the lens, the greater the chance of fungus. If you're buying a used 70-200mm f/2.8, you won't have fungus. If you're buying something from the 40s, be on the lookout for it.
>>2834700
Next time don't bother.
It's not worth the effort m8ty.
first TLR, which?
- 150e max
- reliable
- clean shots (no lomo)
- bonus if made in USSR
- portraits mostly, with external flash. But most formats will do
thanks
>>2834879
Yashica D or 124/124g, Minolta Autocord, and MAYBE a Seagull if you want to go super poorfag.
>bonus if made in USSR
Flexaret.
>>2834675
Depends if you learned to shoot wide or normal. I find 50 a little tight, 35's perfect. The 35 DX is going to be better than the 35/2D. The 35/2 and 28/2.8 are kinda gimped. Decent enough centers, corners a little softer than I like, and not as good as their older AIS versions.
Get the 35 DX.
24-70mm f/2.8 ii
or
24-105mm f/4
>>2834264
>if you take a shot at 70mm and digitally crop it to 105 it's sharper than the Canon's native 105.
source?
evidence?
citation?
>>2834950
It's probably true.
The 24-105 is Canon's shittiest "L" lens.
>>2834952
Interesting
How does the Tamron compare to the 24-70 ii?
>>2834950
It was in a tony northrup video look around his channel for the the Tamrom 24-70 videos he did.
I have a Canon 100 2.8 L IS macro lens, problem is, I don't do macro, I got it because it was a great price (used but like new with all original packaging for 400€) and I needed a longer portrait lens.
Now, stabilization is fine. Very fine. And so is the very light weight and the extremely accurate AF. And I do take the occasional macro shot.
But sometimes I really wish I had that 135 f/2. I mean, 90% of use I'm getting from that lens is portraits, after all. Should I try to trade this for the 135 f/2? What do you people think?
>>2834966
who? why would i trust this guy for reviews?
How do I choose a tripod for my Mamiya RB67SD?
I am going on vacation in July and I'm going to be doing a lot of portraits along the way. I need a dedicated tripod that wont kill my bank account. Any suggestions?
>>2834976
>been living under a rock for 10 years
>>2834981
>Going on vacation with an RB67
For what purpose?
>>2834989
Except Tony Northrup is garbage.
>>2834973
if you ever handhold, the 100mm F2.8-IS should blow the 135mm F2 no-IS away.
When your field of view is a tiny sliver, shake is exaggerated.
The 1-stop faster aperture is already inferior to the listed 4-stop image stabilization of the macro prime lens, even if it was only half as effective as listed. And if you ever stop down the 135mm for any reason, then it won't suddenly regain the IS that it gave up for that F2.0
Now if you're doing entirely tripod portraits and tripod landscapes, it's less of an issue. I have no idea how common an ultra small angle 135mm is for landscape photography though.
Also, for portraits it's going to require you to stand even further away to get the same pose, inconvenient if you don't have a pretty large studio space or always shooting portraits in a field or something. Benefit is, of course, more background blur and 'lol bokeh'
It won't really have any noticeable benefit on portrait face shapes at all. The gap from 70mm to 100mm is pretty much the last where it's even slightly noticeable, anything more telephoto than 100mm looks essentially identical and no one could ever tell from a glance if they're looking at a 100mm versus a 120mm or 110mm from a single image.
>>2834991
I'm going to see some family that I haven't seen in years and they will probably die before I get back to see them.
They mean a lot to me and so I need my portrait camera to remember them
>>2834989
>no name shitter is relevant because anon says so
>>2835003
>if a retarded manchild sitting in his mother's basement hasn't heard of someone before, they're a "no name"
Thank you, name-database mcthreechins.
>>2835012
please don't project anon
American tourist in Seoul Korea here, gonna go to some big electronics market and see if I can grab a D5300 or similar on the cheap. Good idea? Non?
>>2834981
What's your budget, and how will you be transporting the tripod? (Do you need to fly with it or will it be in a car the whole time?)
A Tiltall is probably the best cheap tripod out there for big cameras, but it's not something you'll want to lug around much.
I have a Feisol legs/Photo Clam head setup and it works great with my Hasselblad or with a pro DSLR body and 70-200, but it's like an $800 rig.
>>2835046
I think I'd like to spend ~$300. Nothing too extravagant because I baby the fuck out of my equipment but I'm not cheap. It's going to be a nice road trip so size isn't really an issue.
I'll have to check out all the ones you listed, thanks!
Sony A5000 for video, guise.
Assuming I don't have an alternative, how good or bad?
>>2834889
>The 35 DX is going to be better than the 35/2D.
Where did you get that information? I have tried the 35/2 and the 35 DX and the 35/2 is clearly superior not to mention that it can be used for FX if you wish to upgrade.
>1800$ for a lens
>NO FUCKING IMAGE STABILIZATION
I'M SO FUCKING MAD RIGHT NOW
why is there a fucking ethernet port on this camera
is it a god damn router too
>>2834976
It's not a review and no trust I involved you will watch an image be cropped to 105 from 70 and it will still be sharper, the end.
Or just get the fucking 105 I don't give a fuck lol
>>2835140
If you shoot something like a professional sporting event, a cable runs from the camera to a computer where a person quickly picks, tags, and processes your pictures as you take them, and sends them to whoever you're working for.
>>2835140
What >>2835159 said, and ethernet is also faster, more secure (as in won't fall out of the camera) and works better with long cables than USB or whatever, so it's good for working tethered in the studio too.
Also, at sporting events, it allows control of the camera when nobody's actually holding it, for example that's usually how those photos from directly above the basket at a bball game are done, or how head-on drag racing shots are taken. (The latter because it's WAY too dangerous for the photog to be down there.)
>>2835140
It's one of those features that only pros will ever use.
>>2833731
whats a good camera with high zoom level that records video ?
i live in a warzone and want to record some helis/jets/ buildings from a distance
>not ISIS.jpeg
>>2835162
Nikon D40
is this good ?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Photographer kellar Image-Specific Properties:
>>2835166
>bridge camera
>MOAR ZOOM lens
>pile of shitty filters
>good-for-nothing macro/wide-angle screw-on converters
>chink shit tripod
this is actually an excellent example of something that is the exact opposite of good.
>>2835161
But if you have a use case for it then damn is it great.
>>2835162
If you have the budget, Canon XA30/Vixia G40 (same video quality but the XA has more audio stuff), or the previous XA20/G30.
They all have very good video quality and an excellent lens that's close to 600mm equivalent and which has great stabilization. I have an XA20 and use it to record auto racing events.
>>2835166
no. that's trash. enjoy your nikon lens error. your new camera is now a paper weight.
>>2835166
hahahaha.
NO.
>>2835162
nikon dl 24-500
Looking for a daily shooter/travel compact. Are cameras with RAW capability such as these still worth it despite their tiny sensors?
>>2835232
Your phone
>>2835233
Cheers but not very useful.
Looking for manual control, at least aperture priority and program mode, something wider than the 33mm equiv focal length of my iphone and can zoom to approximately to 100+mm, and as stated RAW capability
>>2835237
>wider
Ricoh GR, but you have to know what you are doing. Alternatively Fuji X100S or X70.
>>2835237
Get a LX100, unless it needs to be a true compact.
>>2834593
Go for 24/2.8 AF-D
Hey /p/,
I currently have a D3100, and I'm considering an upgrade to a D7100. Does anyone have experience with the D7100 that can tell me if this would be a good upgrade, or if I should hold off a bit more?
Thanks!
>>2835232
Pocket carry, or something you can toss in a bag?
For a bag camera, my choice is Fuji, either an X100T or a used X100S if the T is too expensive.
For pocket, probably RX100, whichever Mark you're willing to pay for.
>>2835322
The 7100 is a good camera, I might consider a D7200 if you can afford it though.
The only thing you'd really want to wait more for is a D610 or other FF camera, and that's getting into way more money.
What lenses do you currently have?
hi there guys.
quick question: anyone knows what kind of error is this?
is sensor related?
I really appreciate any help you guys can provide.
:peace:
>>2835324
When comparing the D7100 vs the D7200, I really don't think that the d7200 would be worth it for me.
I currently have the kit 18-55 and a 35 1.8g, but I really want to get some AF-D and AI-S lenses.
I'm not considering FF right now.
>>2835324
Forgot to ask. Are there any lenses you can recommend for the D7100?
>>2835329
That depends on what you shoot and what your budget is. My go-to lenses when shooting DX were the 12-24 f/4 and the 70-200 f/2.8. Neither one is anything close to cheap, though.
For what it's worth, I'm strongly considering downsizing to a Fuji system. It might be worth at least considering whether a brand switch would be of interest to you, since you're not heavily invested in Nikon yet.
>>2835232
nikon dl 18-50
>>2835327
sensor corroded.
not even joking.
>>2835327
I like how digital Leicas hold their age. Meanwhile my cheap Kodak point and shit is still working.
>>2835352
I use an old Pentacon 135/2.8 obviously non-IS, handheld. Not a single problem there.
>>2835358
You'd see a problem the moment you're trying to shoot something at slow shutter speeds. It's not impossible to use of course, but 4 stops of stabilization help a lot. I've had sharp results at 1/25, 1/10 even if you can lean against something.
>>2835369
I did okay at 1/60s and 1/30s, a little more effort into steadily holding it at 1/15s and making 4-5 shots will always result in at least one sharp image.
Oh, wait I always forget I have IS in body since I moved to Pentax. Sorry, nevermind, I do have IS enabled.
I finally got a second hand sony a6000 with kit lens, still had receipt and box.
I saw awhile back a hacked together adapter to enable audio in. I don't think it was the Tynan tutorial for the nex5, it was something else.
Any ideas?
Also what's some cheaper non sony accessories that I can get to use with the a6000? microphones, flashes, etc?
>>2835312
Why do you recommend the 24mm f2.8 af-d? It's like 35mm on dx format. Is it a better lens than the 35 f2 and 28 f2.8 af-d?
I have two of these with adapters and multiple 23w cfl's. Problem is I want to either use them with a softbox or make a softbox around them.
Has anyone used these before? I also have two light stands with 1/4" ends on them but these clamps don't stay in place on the light stands. Is there a way to adapt these to screw or sit on top of the light stand?
Thanks
Hey /p/, long time no see.
So I might be going to Antarctica for a reasearch project (unrelated to photography).
What body should I take, knowing that it will reasonably survive -40/-60°C?
What lens should I take?
Noob question. Aside for ergonomics and marginally better IQ, it's really worth it to get a 18mm or 27mm "pancake" lens if I already have 16-55 on the kit lens?
>>2835394
depends on the actual diffrence in IQ, but yeah, you should probably ge better in covering a different focal lenght, because possibilities.
is the Canon 5D Classic still a serviceable camera?
>>2835399
If you find one in good condition, yeah.
But Canon 5d2's are completely falling in price. Consider those, too, as they're amazing cameras.
>>2835399
I bought one a month ago. As long as you get it for cheap, and you aren't fussed about:
1. Liveview/EVF/Focus Peaking etc
2. Low-light performance (attached is a crop of a ISO 3200 -- max expanded pic)
3. Video (duh)
4. Muh Megguh Picksels
5. Weather sealing (if you can afford it get some L glass with the sealing ring otherwise the sensor vacuums dust (or at least mine does))
Then go for it. I've had loads of fun with it, a lot more than with my technically similar Oly E-620. It's built really well, feels REALLY nice to hold, but is also really fucking big and heavy, so if that's a problem to you, don't get it. You have to remember the camera is 11 years old, so the screen isn't brilliant and even customisation options are limited. Only 9 AF points but at least the huge OVF helps with focussing.
If you really want Canon FF and can afford the 5D2 or 6D, I'd say go with those though, but if the 5D1 is all you can afford then I don't think you'll be disappointed.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS4 Windows Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 95 dpi Vertical Resolution 95 dpi Image Created 2016:05:10 13:49:30 Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 1013 Image Height 678
Is it stupid to buy a 24-70mm ii without IS if I kind of have shaky hands and my current body can't do very high ISO?
>>2835421
Are you rich?
Hello /p/, lurking for a few days, first time posting, I come from /out/ and want to start taking photos, I was recommended a Pentax and found pic related in my local adds for 250 euros, was wondering if it was a good camera for a newbie and if it was a good deal.
This is the package:
Pentax K10
Flash Pentax AF-380FZT
lenses
Pentax DA 18-55mm
UV Hama filter
then a couple of SD cards, batteries and the transport case
>>2835421
Tamron 24-70 preforms almost as well and has 2.8 + IS
>>2835399
canon won't service the camera but there are third-party repair shops that will. the original 5D is a great camera, if you can find one with the mirror fix and a verified shutter count then by all means go for it. the 5D mark II was released in ~2008, costs nearly as much as the 6D and is nearly the end of its service cycle so keep that in mind if you're considering one
>>2835431
I've owned that camera
Pros:
* weathersealed
Cons:
* Old sensor, aweful lowlight performance
Also check that the lens is weathersealed too.
It's not a bad deal, but you could probably find a more recent weathersealed model for just a little more.
>>2835431
>2006
it's too old. 250€ is way too much, you don't care for all the extra shit, the camera is just too old, it's one guy throwing in a lot of stuff into one package in hope of getting some money out of it, but for 250€ you can find better - I've just checked and for around that price you can find Pentax K7's around.
>>2835431
I bought my K10D with a 28-70 f4 SMC-FA for $100
It's a good camera if you have light to work with however it sucks in low light. The CCD sensor has excellent color range but max ISO is a very noisy 1600.
For 250 pounds I strongly recommend getting a k50 or a k20d instead
>>2835448
If you can get them without really flinching, then there's no reason not to.
>>2835421
How are you doing Bass?
>>2835431
For that price you can find used K-30 or K-50 with kit lens. Much much better value.
What's a good place online that I can rent bodies/lenses?
>>2835455
But do they have weatherproffing?
I'd think that's a requirement for an /out/ guy
>>2835456
>>2835457
Yes, full weather sealing with the WR kit lens and in-body stabilization.
>>2835457
pentax makes some of the toughest stuff, of course weather sealed
>>2835459
I have done that but I thought i'd ask /p/'s erudite opinion as well.
I have a question:
My Canon 5d2 when used in av mode (for example) with auto iso does not go above iso 3200 even if it's fucking dark. I guess the native iso is at 6400 since h1 and h2 go after that. So why can't i get higher iso when I need it?
I've owned a 7d and it had a dedicated setting in the menu, where you could choose the maximum iso for auto setting. I couldnt find the same setting in my 5d2 except the "iso expansion" setting which I have turned on.
>>2835391
http://www.adorama.com/alc/0008151/article/Winter-photography-tips
>>2835526
There's usually a setting in the menu for auto ISO range. I assume h1 and h2 are custom modes, those use their own saved settings.
You should also see a setting for auto ISO for faster shutter speed or lower ISO.
>>2835526
The 5Dmk2 doesn't allow you to adjust the auto-ISO range for some reason.
>>2835553
Wow. Even an entry level Pentax can do that.
>>2835559
Most people. Why would you not?
INB4 a response that shows that you don't understand how your camera works.
Is it pretty hard to fuck up a lens?
I got some dust on my sensor so i'm kind of paranoid, but I figure that a lens for dust/etc you've only got the front and back surface - plus you can throw a polarizer or something on the front to protect it, so really just the back.
even if you get dust on it, it seems like you can clean it 1000x easier than a sensor.
>>2835564
>Is it pretty hard to fuck up a lens?
Yep. If you've done something to damage your lens, you'll know it (you will have dropped it onto a hard surface from head-height, or driven over it with your car)
Moisture and dust can get in and mess things up, but even that takes some pretty extreme climate and some very poor care on your part.
All of that coupled with the fact that dust and scratches on the front element of your lens have nearly no effect on image quality means that generally, you don't need to worry much.
>>2835567
Yeah that's why i feel pretty safe buying glass over bodies, as long as there's no physical impact it's hard to mess them up. even the back element, how could you even get it scratched?
have to be like changing lenses during a sandstorm or something.
one thing i dont know exactly is how to keep lenses ideally. they sit in my AC apartment which is always 69-75F and like 50% humidity or whatever, i figure is ok but ideally would have maybe some moister bag or something? or a little box, like cigars use, but not the same humidity settings?
>>2835569
I keep mine closed up in my camera bag and when I get a silica gel packet in some shoes or whatever, I toss it in there to keep the moisture down. That's about it.
If you're in a rain forest with no AC so your humidity is always ball-sweat level, you may want to take action, but otherwise, don't worry much.
5d mk iii owner- really want to buy a 24-70 2.8 L but that fucking price..... What's the best cheapest alternative, the Tamron 24-70?
>>2835625
Yes.
http://www.mirrorlessrumors.com/canon-ef-m-28mm-stm-lens-leaked-it-has-a-built-in-light/
>28mm 1.2:1 macro
>plastic mount
>built-in ring flash gimmick
>Not FF which would allow for more interesting and dramatic shots
I'd rather just get the 15mm Venus and adapt it instead
>>2835625
5Diii and Tamron 24-70 live in my work bag year round. Great all around lens and very sharp wide open.
>>2835526
Why would you go past 3200 on a 5d2. You're not getting usable pics out of it.
in b4
>but yes I am
sure, they look like shit though, whatever floats your boat.
>>2835561
I never do, adds variables that I don't like. When I'm in Av, I want the camera to decide only shutter speed. When I'm in Manual, I want all the control. After all in every scenario ever you won't have to change ISO wildly, so why use auto ISO?
Also often I'm using flashes so auto ISO is not an option, but when I'm using natural light it doesn't change fast enough to warrant using auto ISO - if I go indoors I just bump it up a couple stops, if I do outdoors I do the opposite. Not rocket science.
>>2835628
Man, that's like the lightest travel setup for macro with no need for external ring flash. At least something interesting in the new lens business.
>>2835327
It's not broken, it's ART. Pure digital art.
>>2835636
Cool, gunna try and find a used one
>>2835652
The problems I have with it are mainly that you won't be able to find filters for it and that you're going to have very little working distance despite having a 45mm-50mm equivalent. When you hear 28mm and macro together you think it would be something wild and new, but because it's for crop sensor you're going to get a very ho-hum FoV.
>>2835654
>glitch art
>>2835675
>MissingNo
Gotta catch'em all!
>>2835675
Honestly though, his Leica just made a Coogi sweater pattern.
>>2835675
>>2835715
>>2835654
TOP LEL
>>2835351
>>2835352
>>2835357
I googled "leica corroded sensor" and looks slightly different.
D3300 beginner here
Looking for a 50mm lens
Whats the difference between those 2? Which one to choose ?
Thanks
>>2835887
The G model will autofocus on your D3300, the D model will not.
The G model has a slightly updated optical formula and performs a little better (but not much) than the D model. It's about $125-150 more expensive, depending on where you shop.
>>2835887
35 1.8 DX
Why do so many people have problems understanding crop factor?
>>2835886
Don't forget that it's a D-Lux, so it's not a Leica, it's a Panasonic.
>>2835892
The main problem is that recommendations are made and taken without caveats. People hear "get a nifty fifty" instead of "get a normal prime lens like a 50mm on full frame cameras or a 35mm on crop cameras".
When there are no caveats you get smart beginners saying "hey this is too tight, why would anyone recommend this?" and you get the retarded beginners saying "I wanted my first lens purchase to be a 75-80mm equivalent all along, I love only being able to do portraits."
Recently got myself a Nikon D3200, Im new to photography so I know jack shit about lenses and such, but Im unable to get the pictures I want with my DX VR 18-55mm lens.
What kind of lens would you guys say is best for taking panoramic pictures of cityscapes?
>>2835912
Why can't you get the pictures with your 18-55?
Pretty much any lens can do multi-shot stitch panoramas. If you want something for single photos, you'll need an ultrawide of some sort, I really liked the 12-24 when I was shooting DX, and I've also heard good things about the Tokina 11-16.
>>2833731
here is a CHALLENGE for you guys. IGNORING PRICE... identify the better street photography kit.
Fujifilm X-10T and a Fujinon 23mm f/1.4
OR
a D600 and a Nikkor 50mm f/1.4 G?
>>2833936
I highly recommend you kill yourself, you dumb illiterate fucking faggot.
Are there other cameras with soft Leica shutter sound?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make SONY Camera Model NEX-VG30 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.6 (Windows) Maximum Lens Aperture f/5.0 Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 75 mm Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2014:11:23 16:35:59 Exposure Time 1/80 sec F-Number f/5.0 Exposure Program Normal Program ISO Speed Rating 1000 Lens Aperture f/5.0 Brightness 2.5 EV Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 50.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal
>>2835963
Leaf shutters
Other horizontal travel cloth curtain shutters
M43 cameras.
>>2835928
Why 50mm and not 35 for the Nikon?
For that matter, why not an X100 instead of the X-10T/23mm?
I think I'd take the Fuji given your specs, 35 equivalent is a better FL than 50 and the whole package is smaller, lighter, quieter, and less threatening.
FWIW I own a D610 and an X100.
>>2835978
I am in the weird position that i already own a nikkor 50mm 1.4g, but have no body. i might eventually get a sigma 35mm 1.4 hsm
i figured as a long term investment, an x100 or similar is limiting as an only camera because of the fixed lens (in spite of it being a very nice package).
an x-10t with a 23mm will be more open ended. with an x100 the next time you buy camera gear you have to start over completely.
>>2835984
I'm actually planning on selling my Nikon gear and buying an X-T2 and glass, so I agree about the Fuji interchangeable thing.
I just bought my X100 because it was a good deal used (I talked the local store down to $400 in mint condition, KEH wanted $500 for a BGN one at the time) and I was in the market for a "small" camera for casual use. I had m4/3 before and was considering a new body for that system, and was also looking at the X70 and at cheaper Fuji bodies, but the X100 seemed to be the best option and a good way of seeing what the whole Fuji craze was all about.
I've ended up liking the X100 so much that I'm just waiting for the X-T2 and the next batch of rebates, and then I'll trade in my Nikon rig and do a full switch. The X100 will still be relevant as a camera to keep in my backpack when I'm at classes or when I want a minimal setup for vacations and stuff, although I'll probably sell it toward the X-T2 if I can get back what I paid for it.
Oh, if you do go with the D600, though, I highly recommend the Sigma Art 35. I love mine.
>>2835992
wow that's a bold move. does the smaller sensor / reduced sensitivity vs your d610 not affect you?
Of all the compact mirrorless cameras out there, fuji seems to have the most optically sound lens lineup, but there still aren't many and they can't compete with nikon's long history.
those are the two things scaring me away from the fuji
the d600 is huge and obtrusive compared to fuji's cameras though.
>>2835992
siqq deal on the x100 by the way
Any tips or advice that can be given to a new photography fag? Camera is pic related.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Image Created 2016:05:11 02:21:24
>>2835928
Nikon.
The 1.4 G is sex.
Nikon is sex.
Flappy mirrors 24/7
>>2835963
Pentax K1 makes retarded soft shutter sound. It's weird.
>>2836000
I pretty much never shoot over 3200, so I'm OK with the Fuji low light performance. I also haven't been terribly impressed with the D610's performance, I had a D3S before and the 610 really pales in comparison to it. DoF also isn't a huge deal, I generally shoot my 1.4s at f/2 for sharpness and adequate DoF anyway, and the Fuji lenses seem to be great wide open, so it should be OK.
The things that concern me more are AF performance and the flash system. I use Nikon's Creative Lighting System a lot, and I'm not sure how close Fuji can come in terms of wireless TTL. I also occasionally shoot motorsports, so I need to know that the 50-140 can keep up with race cars decently. (From what I've seen, it should do fine.)
>>2836006
Don't buy bridge/superzoom cameras. You will regret it soon after.
>>2836008
The K-3 is very quiet, people on the side of the track and even on the street barely noticed I was shooting.
>>2835529
Thank you based anon
>>2835917
Any ideas on what might be more uh.. affordable?
>>2836250
How do you define affordable?
And as the other guy said, what issue are you having with your current lens?
Are you sure your issue isn't, in stead, that you're not getting in the right spot, composing well, and waiting for the right time of day, and then processing the image well?
The kit lens is a very capable lens, and since you've admitted that you're new, chances are very good that the issue is that you don't understand what goes into making a good photo, rather than the camera letting you down.
And if the kit lens is not high enough quality for you, you're going to need to spend money to get a better lens. Something out there for $150 is going to be worse, not better.
>>2836250
If you would have a Pentax there would be a few budget options for sharp standard zoom lenses. Even if you'd have a camera with screwdrive AF like the D7x00 series you would have some nice used AF-D lenses as budget options.
The problem with the D3x00 and D5x00 line is the gimped mount that limits your AF lens selection to the new lenses with the focusing motor in the lenses. You can still use the older F-mount lenses but as manual focus only.
I say stay with the kit lens and save up for a nice 24-70/2.8 or an ultra wide zoom.
Can anyone give advice on a camera + Lenses for product photos and promotional shots?
- $800-$1000
- Mostly macro shots with white backgrounds
- Occasional outside model shots
- Can be second hand
My old Camera was Canon 40D but it's lost along with the lenses. It was ok, but I'm looking for something a little better this time.
is a 24-70mm useless on a crop body?
I'm thinking about selling my canon 5d mark 3 and my small lense collection, which is not much but i do have the tamron 70-200mm 2.8 vc.
I'm thinking if I should go for the fuji xt1 or the fuji pro cameras. Any recommendation?
>>2836597
70D or 80D with 24-70/2.8 L and 100mm L Macro, some lights and a tripod.
Is the last 1dx any good?
>no c-log
>no double cfast
I've mixed feelings.
Anyone have experience shooting and backing up photos while off the grid? (about 1 week ~ 1 month)
I was thinking:
1. cameru
2. charger and lots of batteries
3. tablet with lots of storage
4. SD/CF to micro USB connector
5. Solar trickle charger thing
>>2836613
good for what?
>>2836615
Just buy a bunch of memory cards and copy after the trip. Quality cards of course, not the cheap shit chinese shit. Also shoot redundancy mode to two cards at once, RAW+JPEG in case of some trouble you still have a JPEG to work with.
>>2836622
I've a 5d mark 3 with magic lantern and I want to upgrade.
I do events.
>>2836615
I just use film
>>2836602
Well it turns into a 35-105 equivalent. So I wouldn't say it's as useful as it is on full frame, but I wouldn't say its useless either. Depends on how often you want wide-angle as opposed to a bit more reach at the long end.
>>2836607
>Any recommendation?
not really, since you didn't say what you shoot or why you're thinking of changing systems.
Is this a good entry level camera?
>nothing good to replace kit lens with
>>2836676
i dont shoot pictures of people so i feel like it will be fucking useless.
>>2836768
50mm f1.2
>>2836773
neck yourself
god damnit i just fucking KNOW if i get a 24-70mm it's gonna end up that every single shot i would take would want to take will be in the 18-24mm range
>>2836250
I can't really think of anything more affordable than the Tokina 11-16, unfortunately. You're not gonna do much better than $400 for a DX ultrawide.
>>2836771
If you're not shooting people, then yes, the 24-70 is kind of useless. I loved mine as a lens for quick event portraits and cosplay when I had it on DX, but it wasn't useful for much else.
The only other times I used it on DX were when shooting auto racing from very close to the track's edge.
I still say the combo to have on DX is a 12-24 and a 70-200. If you don't think you need the super wide end, though, maybe the Sigma 18-35 1.8?
