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: >>2837149
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties:
w2c after kit-lense
>>2840054
For what on what system?
>>2840025
Thanks. I'll probably try go for the A6000 then. I appreciate the help.
Has anyone used the Pentax K-1 yet? I'm wanting to get back in to photography after a few year hiatus. I used a Pentax k-1000 for some college-level photography classes and used a K-r for a while until I sold it when I needed some fast $$.
I'm familiar with the brand, but I was wondering if there's any features or quirks that make it enjoyable or a pain to use
>>2840073
Pentax cameras generally have a well thought out user interface and are comfortable to use. You won't get any better value deal in it's price range and packs a few very interesting features.
>>2840073
Haven't used it yet, but the initial reviews seem good.
>>2840051
OLYMPUS versus FUJI
Glass
> Olympus has more and cheaper glass
> Fuji has better glass, especially if you want to go wide and fast
Stills
> Fuji bests Oly only in sharpness and lowlight only in 10000x pixel-magnification crops which you would only notice if you were a turbo autist. If you were doing low light you would get a sony anyway.
Video
> Oly bodies shoot decent video
> Fuji video is so bad it is not even worth listing as a feature, except in their most recent stuff
AF
> Oly has decent AF
> Fuji has crap AF, so much so that people are switching systems
Special Attack
> Oly has in-body image stabilization for all lenses
> Fuji has an in-house ISOless sensor that makes RAWs very pliable and renders colors well
In the end, even though I think Olympus is better all around, I am choosing Fuji because their aps-c-sized glass and sensor size exceed the potential Olympus' m43 system has.
>>2840075
That's what I thought about my K-r. I think I'm just concerned about throwing that kind of cash for a camera that I cant get my hands on locally yet. I'm going to wait a few months, after the fanboying calms down and more reviews show up on Amazon before buying one
>>2840079
very few use olympus and fuji professionally. it's all canon, nikon and phase one in the big leagues
I was given an A6000 just the body. Whats the best bang for the buck prime factoring in the 1.5 crop?
>>2840101
sigma 35mm f/1.4 hsm art
used
>>2840101
The Sigma 60mm f/2.8 Art is probably the best deal for the system, but I have no clue if you want to shoot 90mm equivalent.
>>2840101
for what, retard.
Do I buy LN- from KEH or refurbished from Nikon's website?
If I buy refurbished, will I get a lens that looks brand new (no scuffs / scratches), or just takes pictures like it's brand new (good alignment / glass)?
I have a Yashica D TLR and I'm wanting to get a strap for it. Any recommendations? Looking for something not too expensive, comfortable and not too flashy.
>>2840121
whatever is cheaper.
if you have to ask, you wont be able to tell the difference.
>>2840087
Jason Lanier
>>2840121
refurb nikon, unless you are a poorfag, which is probably why you asked.
>>2840123
What do you mean, 'if I have to ask?'
Obviously I care about scuffs on my equipment which is why I asked if refurb stuff is going to be scuff free.
>>2840137
Semi-poor yeah.
Price difference between LN- grade and refurb nikon is about 40 bucks (refurb more expensive), so I wanted peoples opinions.
>>2840079
This nigga is right.
But I'm choosing M43 because I'm using the EM5ii as a travel camera, and am less likely to need every last bit of sensor performance at ISO3200+. Instead, I prioritize a broad, capable feature set, weight, and size.
I certainly wouldn't use M43 as my only and main camera system.
>>2840142
KEH LN- is only LN- because somebody opened the box and turned on the camera once. Could have been Nikon QC even, but Keh will still rate it LN-, or maybe EX because Keh is like that.
>tfw BGN still might as well be as new
>>2840157
Yeah that's what I read, just trying to decide who'll give me the best quality product, them or refurb nikon.
Went to a Nikon-sponsored birding event where retards and poorfags come to finger fuck the latest and greatest. Here's some concise and possibly wrong opinions:
>20 1.8G: WIDE. Wasn't very useful today.
>24-70 2.8G: I can see why it's so popular. It's about the size of a tallboy. The one I had had a stiff zoom ring. Size wise, good companion to the 70-200/4. I like the metal construction.
>105 VR: Didn't find much to shoot with it, but what I did, I cut in half with the sharpness of this lens. Damn. Autofocus isn't terrible, but god help you if you miss focus and it racks back and forth.
>70-200/2.8: The OG. Well, not that old. Not much needs to be said about it. Fast, fast, and sharp.
>70-200/4: Plastic construction, but hey, it's light, small, sharp. VR really does seem to put out the 4 stops on paper it advertises. Only slightly bigger than the 24-70, the two make a great pair.
>200-500: dis nigga right here. Canon 400/5.6 BTFO. $1300 US gets you versatility, massive telephoto, and penis compensation all at once. The AF is about as fast as the 70-200. The VR is incredible, even at 500. Rock steady image makes it incredibly easy to frame images with. Surprisingly, not that heavy. I could hand hold all day with this thing. Favourite lens today.
>200/2 with 2x: I've never seen autofocus snap so quickly and assuredly before. And that front element really is that big. If I had big tele kind of money, it'd be a 200/2 and the 2x.
>D810: My body for most of the event. It's nice having all the controls at your finger tips. Surprisingly not too heavy, about the same as my F100. You really do have to perfect your shutter technique to get the most out of it, otherwise you're getting a bit of blur. I'll see how the RAWs turn out later. 5 FPS isn't blazing fast, but enough for me. CAM3500 in D9 mode is surprisingly dependable still. Meter still reads a little low, shot at +1 compensation. I wish there were AF-on buttons on the prosumer Nikons.
>>2840161
>D500: The king is here. Grip's weird, it's similar to the one on the D750. Kinda long, sharp on the front. I much prefer the D810. Controls gud, AF pretty damn intuitive. BRRRRRT goes 10 FPS. I turned that shit off because I didn't need 100 shitty photos. AF nipple probably more useful for people dealing with it day in day out; reaching the nipple required changing my grip a little, enough to compromise right handed grip strength. Really really annoyed Nikon moved the Mode button to the left dial, that was a fucking dumb move. Battery grip is eh in terms of ergonomics. My Lexar 1000x worked first time inserting it, despite Thom Hogan's findings. Might just be lucky.
Didn't get a chance to have a go with the 3/4/5/600mms or the 300/4E. Too bad.
My local craigslist had a posting for a
Used rovelight 600 for $350. They said it comes with everything and is in good condition. I really want one for on location and the hss. Does it sound like a scam or too good to be ture to anyone else?
[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 640 Image Height 416 Scene Capture Type Standard
I'm currently poor and am looking for a good used camera from eBay for $180 and I came across the Sony A3000, it's simple and has everything I need, should I get it? Or would you guys recommend something else?
>>2840182
Its just out of date, that's all. The xplor 600 is a much better light.
>>2840161
>>200-500: dis nigga right here. Canon 400/5.6 BTFO. $1300 US gets you versatility, massive telephoto, and penis compensation all at once. The AF is about as fast as the 70-200. The VR is incredible, even at 500. Rock steady image makes it incredibly easy to frame images with. Surprisingly, not that heavy. I could hand hold all day with this thing. Favourite lens today.
kek'd
I'm up to buy one of this little telephoto lens because I'm need a better quality lens for surf and other sports, and sold my tc-20eIII because of it's loss of sharpness wide open
>>2840195
Why is it better?
>>2840199
far better radio, transmitter works with the entire godox line (so the v860II, AD360, AD600), some have TTL, better battery, higher build quality, etc.
Was there ever a product released to let an old SLR camera take digital pictures? Googling it, there was a failed Indiegogo campaign that talked about putting a sensor where the film should be.
I recently inherited a nice older camera, with a bunch of lenses, and would love if I could use it without having to develop film.
>>2840225
lol fgt
dont mutilate an old piece of equipment, let it rip rest in piece or make your way over to >>2835031
>>2840225
yeah, it's called a mirrorless camera and adapting your old lenses
>>2840225
What you're looking for is a 'digital back' but they mostly only make them for medium format cameras like Hasselblad and they costs several thousand dollars. Back in like the mid 90s I think kodak made something to do the same with a nikon SLR, but it only worked on one specific model and it was a piece of shit and obviously the quality would be unusable today.
>>2840225
Closest you're going to get is either a digital back for medium format cameras like the Hasselblad 503 and Mamiya 645, or the DMR module for the Leica R8/9. These are all expensive as shit on top of the camera itself, so good muck my dude.
Making a drop in sensor that fits almost all common film cameras is both expensive to develop and is one hell of an engineering puzzle, and is the reason why every attempt is met with the endless purgatory that is vaporware.
>>2840225
what camera and lenses
>>2840073
I used it and I absolutely loved it.
I wish I could buy but I'm forced into Sony forcibly.
>>2840325
I feel the same way. Sony suicide pact when?
Or maybe just all meet up and sell our gear at once I guess.
>>2840069
If I buy this camera would I need to buy anything else with it? Are there any bundles or "Kits" required to buy?
>>2840073
this field-test of the k-1 is quite informative and objective
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87yGmD71nyA
>>2840086
As much as I see, I have my K-3 and it performed exceptionally well. The K-1 is similar with a bigger sensor area and the pixel shift, 2 more axis in IBIS and the GPS gizmo integrated. Oh, and minus the burst rate, but it's still capable when you need it.
It can't really go wrong from here. While I won't upgrade to it soon or even later, the K-3 does everything I need but it is still a very tempting camera.
Coming from the older digital Pentax and even film, choosing the K-1 makes the most sense. The K-3 and K-3II come close second.
>>2840355
Your best bet is getting the kit lens. I'd suggest instead of the power-zoom A6000 kit lens, get a used older NEX 5 kit lens with manual zoom. Also get the kit telezoom for when you want to shoot sports, and distant things.
I'd also suggest to get a few cheap dumb adapters for M42, Canon FD and other mounts to get some cheap old manual focus glass. It is entirely different experience to shoot with them.
Your first manual lens should be a Helios "44M-4" and up or the newest "44M". I think "oddphoto" on ebay sells the newest lens with coating, tested mechanics and adjusted elements for maximum sharpness.
>>2840387
>kit lens
Damn seems like it'd cost alot. Its my first time though, so I'm still trying to stay around the £300 point.
>>2840407
Generally you want to spend more on lenses than on the camera body itself.
The kit lens is the most mass produced and cheapest lens you can get for a system (including the AF and whatnot).
You can also do a lot with a kit lens, from landscape to portraiture, cityscape, street photography, night shooting, startrail astro etc...
It will be the most versatile lens and with it you can learn to use your camera.
Guys, first time poster here who needs some advice. I am looking for a small compact cam that I can carry around basically all the time.
I was looking at the RX100III and the G7X, and basically did not see any good reason not to get the G7X since it is quite a bit cheaper, but has the same sensor. The things I am worried about, dust inside the lens/body, "automatic lens cap", probably apply to every compact camera.
What do you guys think?
>>2840420
should be: "automatic lens cap" getting stuck
>>2840355
You don't need to buy anything, but I'd suggest to buy one of the two possible Sigma 30mm primes or the 28mm f/2 or one of the other lenses around that range. And maybe the Sigma Art 60mm.
I have a question regarding video gear. Since 1 year I am really into photography and making videos, but due to budget limits I had to stick to cameras of my friends / my smartphone cam. Luckily, now my savings are "sufficient"(richfags will flame me for this) to buy an own cam. Of the models I shot with until now, I liked the Mark II and the A7s the most (as a good deal inbetween making brilliant videos and photos). Do you have suggestions for cheaper, but similar versions? People say the D3300 or an old A7 (wherever that can be found) could be a "replacement".
What do you guys think of my street photography camera?
>>2840438
Not too bad if you can cover all those LEDs
How do you find manual focusing? Do you use OVF focus assist or the liveview focus peaking?
>>2840437
A6300?
Maybe also the GX7, depending on what must be similar.
>>2840438
Nothing really. It will photograph street. People do that with smartphones too and since nobody has any idea what the result should be just about "everything" is good.
But whoever made that photo as a product shot failed to clean the camera.
>>2840441
To earn some pocket money, my friend borrowed his mark II for some "daytrip videos" that I did for uni folks. So the purpose was primarily to shoot the typical youtube stuff: high resolution - slowmotions, good in mixed-lightning situations. (basically videos like this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-veTvuvjwYE , but oftentimes in foresty/mountainous areas) If possible I want to keep this additional income source, without asking my friends for lending me their valuable cams.
I believe if these criteria are somehow met, this will suffice my privat standards as well.
>>2840440
LEDs are firmly off! I got the camera for £250 with kit lens and I really rate the sensor.
Focussing is okay at F8 just using my eye but I am considering the Pentax 35mm so I can have autofocus back :S
>>2840445
Won't really get cheaper than these cameras, and an A6300 or GH4 or such is the amateur entry level gear for high resolution slow-motion - by no means perfect equipment.
If you need something better for a job or another, you'll have to rent, I guess.
>>2840450
The DA 35/2.4 is an excellent lens. I can't believe I got it for $80.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make RICOH IMAGING COMPANY, LTD. Camera Model PENTAX K-3 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.6 (Windows) Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 52 mm Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2016:02:01 05:48:03 Exposure Time 1/60 sec F-Number f/2.4 Exposure Program Shutter Priority ISO Speed Rating 320 Lens Aperture f/2.4 Exposure Bias -0.7 EV Metering Mode Pattern Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 35.00 mm Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal Subject Distance Range Close View
>>2840454
Okay, thanks for the advice :) I think I will go with one of them. One last question though. Do you think there will be any major price drops in the near future, since I'm not aware of the current market situation and want to avoid a stupid buy. Many thanks!
>>2840455
Alright. Just ordered it. The 50mm on APS-C was too tight for me anyway.
This is the reason I went with Pentax; lenses are so much more reasonable.
>>2840458
Keep in mind that the A6300 has no in body stabilization and only very few lenses have IS.
GH4 has no in-body IS either but most of its lenses are stabilized. It is also easier to adapt cine lenses on micro 4/3 format.
About to get into telephoto, want to do it the serious way (sports, nature photography, motorsports, journalism since I live in the capital of my country, etc).
Need sharpness and fast, accurate autofocus, and for my budget the options are two:
TAMRON 70-300
NIKON 55-200
Sigma's equivalent is dumped because of the poor image quality compared to those two.
Which one do you think would give me the best bang for my buck in terms of AF speed/accuracy and durability/reliability? Also feel free to give some other recommendations. I shoot a NIKON D3300.
Pic related.
>>2840469
The Tamron 70-300 VC is a very good lens. Can have color fringing in high contrast areas, but that is true for all consumer telezooms including the Nikon 55-200 and 70-300. Otherwise it is a very sharp lens vith a good pricetag.
You may want to take a look at the Tammy 70-200/2.8 VC, for it's price it is an immense value. It is also a better lens for sports and journalism and can double for a portrait lens.
In low light indoor shooting the two are worlds apart. The serious way is obviously the 70-200/2.8. For more reach it is very friendly with 1.4x teleconverters.
Also buy used, you can save a lot of money that way.
Have the mark1 100-400mm on my 7dii.
Really tempted to try out a 70-200mm F2.8. Questions are:
>canon or Sigma for the 70-200
>if I bought a 2nd body, would running a 5d abd the 7d cause me any issues other than a couple of lenses only being compatible with the 7d
>does a 2x range extender work well with the 100-400mm? Would mean I'd have everywhere from 70mm to 800mm covered...
I'm looking for a tripod that can shoot straight down (kind of like pic related) for film scanning purposes. Any recommendations or search terms I should look for? (would only be using it for film scanning with a canon+macro lens so doesn't have to be particularly sturdy or high quality)
>>2840479
this >>2840476
doubles for you, the Tamron and Sigma 70-200/2.8 are very similar designs and are mostly as good as the first party equivalent lens.
For the 100-400mm I don't really recommend (or in general don't recommend) 2x extenders, they usualy fuck up the image in such way it just doesn't worth it. 1.4X extenders are a much better choice, those still degrade IQ but in much less amount.
I'd suggest also if you do get a FF body to use the 70-200/2.8 on the FF and leave the 100-400 on the 7DII. That way you can take full advantage of the FF angle and the crop reach.
>>2840483
Manfrotto and Benro have these, but I think you also could use an invertable column tripod too. It still shoots straight down, just from directly above.
I just brought a Nikon 35mm DX lens, I also have the 18-55 kit lens.
Should I have brought a zoom 55-300 say, instead of the prime? Prime is being delivered tomorrow, I couldn't make my mind up so just got the prime.
>>2840484
Yeah I figured there would be some iq loss with the extender otherwise people would be putting them on any lens to not pay the crazy prices for big teles.
Might hire the lens extenders from a shop nearby and see what's up with them too.
In terms of the Tamron/Sigma vs canon, how is the auto focus? I tried the Tamron 150-600 and felt like the af was slow and images soft, I'm doing motorsports so af is pretty essential
>>2840512
In motorsports you generally want your whole subject sharp so you need a large DOF to place it in. The subject separation will come from blurring the fore/background with panning. Just look at the last couple motor madness threads.
You need to put it at f/8 or even f/11 and do a panning shot. It takes a lot of practice so don't be surprised when your first 10-50 shots come out shit. Practice, practice and practice some more.
When you use it right even the older Sigma long telezooms give you decent to excellent images. You can also do it the oldschool way, prefocus on the track where you do the panning, switch to manual, set closed aperture and wait for the subject to arrive. It's not like they're going to choose another route, amiright?
>>2840483
I *highly* recommend the Gitzo I use.
It's a wonderful tripod.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make RICOH IMAGING COMPANY, LTD. Camera Model GR Camera Software GIMP 2.8.14 Maximum Lens Aperture f/2.8 Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 28 mm Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2015:10:28 08:08:19 Exposure Time 1/40 sec F-Number f/2.8 Exposure Program Aperture Priority ISO Speed Rating 320 Lens Aperture f/2.8 Brightness 1.6 EV Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 18.30 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 2138 Image Height 795 Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Sharpness Normal
What are some of the quietest and lightest DSLRs around? Preferably Pentax but al is welcome.
>>2840529
Pretty much Pentax DSLRs are the most quiet.
The other end of the spectrum has to go to Nikon, I could clearly hear someone firing off a Nikon DSLR from the other side of the street, 100m away in the middle of a huge crowd. That is shameful, man.
>>2840490
I'll look into those thanks!
>>2840503
seems like a good idea. http://www.amazon.com/ALZO-Horizontal-Accessory-Supporting-Photography/dp/B0015ASKMY/ref=sr_1_1?s=photo&ie=UTF8&qid=1463407486&sr=1-1&keywords=horizontal+arm+tripod
something like this? How does does it just have a screw plate for a normal tripod?
>>2840523
looks nice, but I don't want to spend 600$ for a tripod I would use 2-3 times per month for a few minutes indoor desu
>>2840536
I mostly use ebay and specifically search for the lenses. Maybe don't put the camera name into the search, do it like SEL1855 or SEL55210 or something like that. I don't really know the specific Sony lens names
>>2840529
If you want quiet and light, you should consider mirrorless. My camera in electronic shutter mode makes literally no sound when I take a photo.
hey /p/.
my dad recently died and I inherited this camera from him. does anyone have any experience with it? I reckon it's the F-1 New.
thank you.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Canon Camera Model Canon EOS 700D Lens Size 18.00 - 200.00 mm Firmware Version Firmware Version 1.1.1 Lens Name EF-S18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2016:05:16 16:37:29 White Point Chromaticity 0.3 Exposure Time 1/80 sec F-Number f/4.0 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 800 Lens Aperture f/4.0 Exposure Bias 0 EV Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 32.00 mm Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 2592 Image Height 1728 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual Scene Capture Type Standard Exposure Mode Manual Focus Type Auto Metering Mode Evaluative Sharpness Unknown Saturation Normal Contrast Normal Shooting Mode Manual Image Size Unknown Focus Mode Manual Drive Mode Continuous Flash Mode Off Compression Setting Fine Macro Mode Normal White Balance Auto Exposure Compensation 3 Sensor ISO Speed 256 Color Matrix 135
>>2840438
>didn't take a picture of it lighting up like a christmas tree
>>2840563
>FD mount
Your best bet is getting a mirrorless like the Fuji X-T series and buy an adapter. The camera itself is using film so it's useless nowadays.
>>2840563
The camera itself is one of the finest mechanical cameras ever made, you should be grateful your father died so thaat you could have it.
The two lenses we can see are trash, pull them apart to see whats inside, or just bin them. I can't see what is actually on the camera, but as long as its a canon lense and not a zoom, it will be fine.
Go buy some film and play with it.
>>2840571
>pull them apart to see whats inside
that sounds nerve-racking. are they that bad?
and thank you. I know that my dad took some great photos with it back in his day.
>>2840563
sorry about your loss anon :( Hope the memory of your dad will live on through the camera
>>2840534
>something like this? How does does it just have a screw plate for a normal tripod?
Costs half as much as an invertable tripod like the Dic&Mic 302 alu would, but I can't see why that wouldn't work on a tripod with sufficient weight and diameter between the extended legs.
>>2840563
It's a good film camera but I join the other anon in the suggestion that you'd better just use the lenses on an adapter with a modern digital MILC.
35mm 1.8 vs 18-55 nikon default which one is better for astrophotograpfhy, pic related
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi
>>2840584
Depends. 35mm is faster, 18-55 can go wider.
>>2840592
Joke's on you, I was only pretending.
>>2840584
35mm f/1.8
>>2840534
>http://www.amazon.com/ALZO-Horizontal-Accessory-Supporting-Photography/dp/B0015ASKMY/ref=sr_1_1?s=photo&ie=UTF8&qid=1463407486&sr=1-1&keywords=horizontal+arm+tripod
Yeah, that's the same one I found when I googled it. I assume it just has a normal tripod socket like the one on a camera body. I'd worry a little about putting something like a pro body and 24-70 on the end of it, but a small body and macro lens are probably totally fine.
I bet somebody out there makes one that attaches to the tripod itself and then has the larger thread for attaching a tripod head to the end, but I'm not seeing anything like that.
Something else you could try if it's really going to be studio only, by the way, is forgetting about a tripod altogether and using a C-Stand with a boom and a tripod adapter on the end of it. (Or a Manfrotto Magic Arm.) They're rock solid and meant for holding lights that are way bigger and heavier than a camera, and they get in the way less than a tripod does. You can get ones with wheels, too, which would be nice since you could roll the camera out of the way to adjust the product really easily.
>>2840051
Hey /p/, I'm thinking about upgrading my Nikon body from my D700, what can be the best possible solution out of the D810 and the Df (or others if you know better)?
I'm gonna use it as a "do it all" kind of camera like portraits, sports, events, street and such so "what are you gonna use it for" is not a very helpful question I'm afraid, every suggestion is welcome!
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make NIKON CORPORATION Camera Model NIKON D700 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.3 (Macintosh) Maximum Lens Aperture f/2.8 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Color Filter Array Pattern 740 Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 35 mm Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2016:05:16 01:01:38 Exposure Time 1/500 sec F-Number f/2.8 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 100 Lens Aperture f/2.8 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Spot Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash Focal Length 35.00 mm Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Gain Control None Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal Subject Distance Range Unknown
>>2840622
D750
or the K-1
>>2840623
I have a good number of lenses that I like so I don't really feel like switching sides, is the 750 that good? I really don't like the positioning of the buttons and it kinda look like overpriced to me, am I wrong?
>>2840624
It's like the one you already have but with bigger print size (more pickles) and better high ISO sensitivity.
I bet you want to upgrade to a camera just like the one you have but with these two specs improved, right?
>>2840624
You're gonna be sacrificing design and durability if you upgrade, unless you get something like a D4. The D700 is a hard act to follow. The 750 has amazing image quality, imo, but it isn't as "pro" as the original. The D810 is more along the lines of the 700 I suppose. The Df is honestly a good camera if you can look past all the bad design choices.
>>2840624
You're asking for a value judgement that only you can inform. We don't know your sense of value and worth. If it's what you need, and you can afford it, and the improvements are with the money to you, then yes, it's worth it.
Decide why your current camera isn't good enough for what you want, decide how much better those aspects need to be to get the photos you want, and then look for the camera that meets those needs.
And if a camera being "over priced" is in your warning signs, don't get the Df.
Howdy all. Currently interested in a 40mm Nikon macro lens for close range shots. Is its autofocus good at distances around ~6 inches, or am I just Sol with manual focus? I also have a 35mm prime lens if that matters but I noticed focusing at close range being a problem. Maybe I should just start cropping. Thoughts?
>>2840696
You don't want autofocus at macro distances.
>>2840705
Yep, at macro distances you focus by moving the lens-camera assembly altogether. there are special macro focusing heads for this.
>>2840733
It depends on what you use it for. Generally a 100mm macro is better to have a reasonable working distance, a tripod and at least one of those long plates to use as a focusing slider.
A decent focusing head is better because it has a fine adjusting screw mechanism but it costs pretty penny.
I found a 5D Classic with 25k shutter actuations that was recently serviced but without the mirror fix for about $400. should I buy it or do you guys recommend something else?
>>2840743
For what, idiot.
>>2840743
Literally all modern APS-C will shit on that dinosaur for less money. A K-50 or an NEX-5 shits on it.
Doesn't worth a damn penny.
>>2840745
lol wrong.
>>2840746
Good point.
>>2840743
Your camera body would be cheap, but lenses won't be. Get something like a D3300 used. It's got better image quality, better low light performance, better resolution, better autofocus.
The only way a 5D beats a modern APS-C is viewfinder and maybe the fat grip if you are into that sort of thing.
>>2840746
>mah fool frame
Let's see how it performs on ISO 6400 and 12800. I know those two (at least the Pentax) still produces very usable images.
>>2840743
I really don't think you should buy it.
A modern APS-C DSLR or MIILC will do better for almost everything.
>>2840749
Let's see how it performs at ISO 1600. I know the 5D will produce cleaner, better images.
>>2840752
When doing a comparison, be sure to down-sample the APS-C to 12mp to match the 5D.
>>2840752
No. No it won't.
>>2840754
Wanna bet?
>>2840756
So it's the same as a K50, has a lower resolution sensor, and has a lower max ISO.
>>2840756
kek
>>2840758
It's better than the K50. True, it's lower resolution, by about 3 and a half megapixels. Do you really think that makes a difference?
It has a lower max iso, but I bet you could boost in Lightroom and it would still look better than the Pentax. You can't fight physics, love.
>>2840761
So a 22% increase in resolution is negligible, but the space between these two lines is noteworthy. (looks to be about 40 for the K-50 and 40.5 for the 5D, which is a 1% difference) That's what you're saying?
>>2840752
>>2840756
Another suggestion.
>>2840766
>>2840761
These two lines, specifically. This is the difference that you're saying makes the Canon a better choice. Yes?
Also:
>Boosting canon files in lightroom at max ISO
>Still look better than the Pentax
Because of a 1% difference in SN ratio? Wow.
>>2840767
A6000 is 24mp. Down-sample to 12 and compare, and your 5D is blown away.
>>2840774
Yea, I probably should have explicitly said that this is in light of it basically otherwise outclassing the 5D more or less entirely.
There's also this graph for the print mapping (I think the other graphs might have been that, too).
Where can I get an a6000 with a kits/lenses for around £300?
>>2840767
goddamn, sony. get it together.
>>2840792
Eh, what? Even the A6000 is obviously doing fine, and it's the A6000. Not the A6300, not the A7S II, not the A7R II.
>>2840743
Ignore all the pixel peeping wankers.
5D is more fun to shoot than some entry level crap.
That's reason enough to buy it.
>>2840767
It shows up differently for me, ya loser
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows) Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2016:05:16 21:57:24 Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1209 Image Height 567
>>2840801
Why do you want him to spend his money on a crap piece of deprecated dinosaur?
>>2840804
I just explained why.
>>2840806
So you want him to get an inferior bad value crap instead of a good value tool just so you can feel better about yourself? How shit of a person do you have to be? This guy came up here, asking a legit question and got a few better recommendations, but you have to shit on him. Wanker. Total wanker.
>>2840801
>5D is more fun to shoot than some entry level crap.
There isn't any addtional fun in lower resolution very slow burst rate no manual focus assist shooting at lower DR which makes corrections in post harder... and all that with a ~3x heavier camera which can't do video.
The 5D is now below entry-level. It is just old like that.
>>2840802
No, it won't show up differently, but you just skipped the step where you read the graph.
>>2840819
I own a D800 and I still think he should get a 5Dinosaur.
>>2840811
Not to mention if he buys that piece he will still have to spend another $400 for fixing the mirror, $130 every one or two months for cleaning. And then he will need some worthy lenses for FF which cost from $700 to $2000 and more.
That is not $400, more like $3500 and going up.
Where a modern APS-C entry/intermediate (lets stay with K-50 since I know the lens tree better) will cost around $350 with the kit lens (weather sealed in the case of Pentax) and some nice lenses, zoom around $200, primes 35mm and 50mm for $80-100 each.
I am positive the other brands also offer similar glass for similar prices.
When it comes to sensor cleaning, all modern cameras feature a self cleaning method, either by a cleaning vibrator or using the sensor shift stabilization for shaking the dust off.
Also all the modern cameras have available feature to have the shutter open for cleaning so you don't have to spend $130 every month to get rid of a pesky particle or strand.
Just for the real world comparison.
>>2840824
>all the modern cameras have available feature to have the shutter open for cleaning
And the 5D really doesn't.
I find that hard to believe.
>>2840819
I'm "angry" with the 5D, clever guy. From that it follows that the 5D is fairly shit - not my current camera.
Your D800 isn't a 5D either. It isn't nearly as old or as terrible, comparatively speaking.
>>2840828
You have to go get it serviced and pay $130 for a 2 minute job you can do at home with a clean soft rabbit hair brush. All canons including a few fairly recent models are designed this way.
>>2840824
It's weird to me that you spent all that time typing up some estimates that no one else on the board would agree with or find reasonable.
a used camera ends up costing you $3500 lmao what the fuck senpai
>>2840842
Because clearly you can take photos with just a body with a developing or developed mirror issue. Yes, it is entirely logical not to spend money on anything after buying a faulty body for $400.
Why do you think the owner wants to sell it for $400 after fixing only the shutter but not the mirror? Because it costs more money to keep it working than what it actually worth, that's why.
>>2840847
you do have a point. without the retaining clips on the 5d it's a ticking timebomb. I've seen too many scratched rear elements and ruined mirror boxes for it to be a worthwhile purchase
>>2840073
everyone's forgetting lens lineup. afaik their lens selection is pretty damn small. shame too because it does sound like a fantastic no-brainer if you dont use the camera for video.
>>2840889
>pretty damn small
I'd like to prove you wrong, dear madam or sir.
http://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/
>>2840892
Most of the crop lenses wont work and the old FA lenses while good are still not really enough
That being said the new 15-30 they announced looks amazing but they still haven't shown any information on the other half of the lenses on their roadmap
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Sony Camera Model SO-01F Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows) Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 3840 Image Height 2160 Number of Bits Per Component 8, 8, 8 Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2016:02:25 01:48:46 Exposure Time 1/40 sec F-Number f/2.0 ISO Speed Rating 64 Lens Aperture f/2.0 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Center Weighted Average Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 4.90 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1400 Image Height 1004 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Subject Distance Range Unknown
>>2840900
>FA lenses while good are still not really enough
[citation needed]
Actually the FA lenses, especially the Limited line and the star lenses proved they are enough for the 36MP sensor
>>2840900
The 15-30 is just a rebranded Tamron that Canikon already have.
>>2840905
Just like the 24-70/2.8, it is a good lens. Nobody can deny it performs well on the K-1.
>>2840904
I mean not good enough in coverage of necessary lenses. Some of the limited lenses are expensive and hard to find or just worse than competitors. I've never liked the fa 50mm 1.4 I believe the da 55/1.4 SDM is a much nicer lens and I think that's one of the couple DA lenses you can use without having to use crop mode
That being said I'd love to use an FA 20mm 2.8 on a k-1 that sounds like a real nice combo
I'm not slamming pentax or anything here I just want to hear about the new primes instead of the old ones
>>2840905
Still a nice lens and I personally believe that you'd be paying much more to get comparable features on a body going canikon
>>2840910
They will probably put the old FA lenses back into production with the new coating, new D-FA outer designs and hopefully weather sealing.
Those older designs still perform well, it just makes sense using them for the new FF digital line instead spending money and time on developing new optical formulas.
*whisper* D-FA 43mm Limited WR
>>2840913
Well that being said I'm excited to see then because that sexy 43mm and the 31mm were always way too expensive or impossible to find
I'd love to see a cheaper high aperture 85mm or 135mm but whatever
Also the 100mm macro is too fucking good
>>2840900
>single focus.
Pentax confirmed too hip for "prime".
>>2840911
>"put on some image degrading UV filters to make it fully weather sealed" "sealing"
Every lens with a moving front element has that.
>>2840904
> Actually the FA lenses, especially the Limited line and the star lenses proved they are enough for the 36MP sensor
How many of them can deliver 3/5 or more of that resolution at f/2.8 or so?
It's basically only the Sigma Art prime, no?
>>2840924
It is still retarded. It only needs a few sealing rings on the barrel and one behind the front element.
>>2840927
Nope.
Can't be done.
You need a gap to allow the front element to move freely.
Only lenses with internal focusing and internal zoom (if any) can be fully weather sealed.
>>2840926
exactly my point as to why I'd like to see the new lenses which are probably going to be capable of that
even sony has that super cheap 28/f2 that can resolve quite a bit
>>2840932
You don't know much about sealing elements and mechanics, do you? Or about hydrophilic/hydrophobic surfaces? Go sit in school some more to enlighten yourself so you won't say such stupid things next time.
It is fucking easy to seal a moving element from water, you dumbass! It is happening all the time, a common element of engineering.
I recently purchased a D5500 and am looking to buy a 50mm lens. The thing is I don't understand the stuff about a full frame lens having a different focal length, or something like that, on a APS-C sensor. Will it make a difference?
>>2840938
Show me ONE lens that is fully weath sealed with a moving front element.
Just ONE.
What? too much of a challenge? - shame, was enjoying our little conversations. goodnight.
>>2840946
If it says "50mm" it's 50mm.
It's really not complicated until you insist in converting to "crop mm" then to inches and then to hoblidongs before getting back to metric.
>>2840935
There are more options even on Sony.
But more importantly, Sony, Nikon, Canon have quite many of them, even if they mostly cost more than $700.
Sure, that may hit a nerve with some /p/eople, but that group also mostly won't be paying $2k or more for a 30MP camera.
>>2840946
Most people use 35mm = full frame equivalent focal lengths to understand how a lens actually looks on some sensor type.
ALL real lenses have a different 35mm equivalent focal lenght if they sit on anything but a 35mm sensor (or maybe in front of a focal reducer that corrects whatever sensor size you have to a virtual 35mm / full frame sensor).
In the case of APS-C, you multiply the lens focal length by 1.5 (or ~1,6 in the case of Canon's special APS-C). Any 50mm will be equivalent to a ~75mm on a full frame camera.
>>2840948
DA 18-55 WR and DA 50-200 WR
Also HD DA 55-300 WR, DA* 60-250
and I can go on
All of these are fully sealed against water with a moving front element.
>>2840952
>There are more options even on Sony.
Exactly why I want pentax to release these lenses
>>2840962
Me too actually. I want Pentax to succeed okay in the FF market.
But I never saw Ricoh / Pentax as particularly fast.
And I also am worried that the currently announced lenses certainly seem less ambitious than Sony G Master, high-end Zeiss, Canon L, or Sigma Art / Sport lenses...
>>2840911
Jesus people will jump on sony shills like mad, but ignore the Pentax ones. Spoiler alert: SMC is run of the mill stuff, no different from SIC, and HD is equivalent or inferior to Nikon Nano or Canon ASC. Aero Bright seems to be a match or better for the Canikon coatings. Also of note is that all of the multicoating technologies have evolved while retaining the same name. A 28 2.8 AIS from the 80s has a different SIC coating than a current production model. Either way, all coating technologies seem to proliferate across the industry very quickly.
>>2840976
Pentax did the nanocrystal coating dubbed "HD coating" before Nikon.
>>2840051
My mom got me an old Nikon N70. The kit lens is 28-80mm, with Macro option. I've never been much of a photographer, but this is interesting.
How hard is it to develop your own film? What equipment is necessary, and what sort of scanner would you recommend?
Pic related, it's the shit I shot. The Walgreens down the street is the only place that does same-day development anymore, and I'd rather just do it myself.
>>2841021
Oh...and I guess I should ask what lens I should get next. Apparently 50mm lenses are good for film?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand
>>2841021
>>2841022
These are the only shots I took that I thought were worth sharing. Shot with Fuji Superia 400, just set the camera to Aperture mode and let it handle the rest.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand
>>2840976
Because people actually test and try Sony stuff. Nobody bothers to try Pentax stuff, so we don't know whether the glowing reviews are bullshit.
My first camera, how well did i do? GX8 with 45mm lens, £700
>>2841040
it takes photos, go use it
>>2841040
45 mm on m4/3 what is that, 1000 mm equivalent?
Nice FOV senpai LOL.
>>2840976
The people that jump on Sony posters are corssboarders from /v/. Sony apparently paid people to shill on /v/, and some people believe that they've spilled over here when they're on their lunch breaks or some shit.
Pentax has nothing to do with video games, so they don't believe Pentax shills exist.
>>2841021
>How hard is it to develop your own film?
Black and white is easy. Real B&W, not the stuff where it's black and white but developed in a color process. You buy chemicals and a developing tank and pour in various mixtures for set amounts of time, it's not hard. Color is a bit trickier, because you need to maintain a precise temperature. Well, you need to do that with B&W, too, but for B&W that temperature is near room-temperature and you have a lot more margin for error.
You have two main options for scanning the resulting negatives, either using a DSLR with a macro lens, or a flatbed scanner. The former generally gives you higher quality, the latter is easier and is useful for scanning other things than film.
>>2841022
>Apparently 50mm lenses are good for film?
50mm is approximately "normal" on 35mm film (or a full-frame DSLR). That is, neither wide-angle nor telephoto. So a lot of people like that as a general-purpose lens. It's also easy to make a 50mm lens, optics-wise, so they're generally fairly cheap and quite sharp, and open up to pretty wide apertures.
>>2841050
Precise temperature? How precise we talking? Is there any room for variation? What temp? And I guess I can get a flatbed scanner. I can't afford a DSLR...
Okay, so 50mm lenses are inexpensive and sharp. That sounds pretty much ideal, then.
Thank you.
>>2841054
B&W: 20C, +/- 2C or so. B&W is really forgiving, though, you can just develop a bit longer if the temperature is low, or vice versa.
C41 (color negatives): 39C +/- 0.5C.
also, once you open the chemicals, they have a shelf life, generally on the order of a few weeks to a few months, depending on the specific formulation. Inconveniently, they tend not to sell chemicals in batches smaller than "enough to do 100 rolls" or so.
also if you don't have the couple hundred bucks for a decent DLSR, you don't have the couple hundred bucks an okay flatbed scanner costs, either.
>>2841049
Also, people who have tried the cameras, and know the claims to be false.
Claims like "The a6000 autofocus is better than any DSLR" or "The a6000 fits in your pocket" etc.
>>2841056
>also if you don't have the couple hundred bucks for a decent DLSR, you don't have the couple hundred bucks an okay flatbed scanner costs, either.
well damn, don't break it to me gentle.
>also if you don't have the couple hundred bucks for a decent DLSR, you don't have the couple hundred bucks an okay flatbed scanner costs, either.
I've gotten multiple fantastic scanners at goodwill for 6 dollars each
flipped a few canoscans for 200+ dollars each
>>2841070
Shopgoodwill is an amazing source for shit like that, yeah.
>>2841070
>canoscans
Okay, which ones were the fantastic ones?
>>2841066
The a6000 does fit in the pocket of a taller male with looser clothes. It fits in my pocket albeit poorly with the 35 when I'm wearing shorts but I wouldn't call it a selling point.
>>2841066
>>2841073
My A7 fits perfectly in my trendy slim cut jeans :^)
>>2841072
The 8400, 8800f, are pretty good
The Canoscan FS2720U and FU2720U are good as well
That being said you'll be able to get better quality dslr scanning but I was just commenting that you really dont have to spend a lot to get a decent shitbed or at least an entry level dedicated 35mm scanner
>>2841073
Look guys! My camera fits in my pocket!
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Model HTC6525LVW Camera Software 3.4.0-perf-g4c1aa5c Maximum Lens Aperture f/2.0 Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 0 mm Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2016:03:11 17:09:28 Exposure Time 1/17 sec F-Number f/2.0 Exposure Program Normal Program ISO Speed Rating 320 Lens Aperture f/2.0 Brightness -0.6 EV Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Other Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 3.82 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1520 Image Height 2688 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Gain Control None Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal
>>2841074
That looks ridiculous and uncomfortable as fuck.
>>2841077
It really was.
>>2841075
wait wait, I'm the clueless fuck with the SLR and no sense
they make scanners SPECIFICALLY for 35mm???
>>2841081
Yeah. 120 too.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Phase One Camera Model P45+ Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS4 Macintosh Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 5201 Image Height 3010 Number of Bits Per Component 8, 8, 8 Compression Scheme Uncompressed Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Data Arrangement Chunky Format Image Created 2012:10:17 13:33:06 Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Created 2012:04:17 18:23:55 Exposure Time 9466/757281 sec F-Number f/18.0 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 100 Lens Aperture f/18.0 Exposure Bias 0 EV Light Source Other Focal Length 80.00 mm Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 620 Image Height 330
Why do they have to make DSLRs so damn thick, the grip doesn't feel as comfortable because of the thickness and the body weighs so much more.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Sony Camera Model D6503 Camera Software 17.1.2.A.0.314_9_f300 Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2016:05:17 07:46:47 Exposure Time 1/32 sec F-Number f/2.0 ISO Speed Rating 80 Exposure Bias 1.3 EV Metering Mode Center Weighted Average Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 4.90 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1500 Image Height 1125 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Subject Distance Range Unknown
>>2841117
Sensor, batteries, space for the processor, shockproofing, etc on top of an already thick design.
The only reason why mirrorless cameras can stay slim is because it's just the sensor and the tech without the added size of a mirror.
>>2841117
most of the reason a DSLR is thicker than a film SLR is the rear LCD. You could make a DSLR, mirrorbox and all, the size of a film SLR if it didn't need a screen on it, or controls on the rear panel. An articulating LCD, while useful, is even thicker.
>>2841117
Compared to AF film SLRs...
>Weight
An F100 with batteries weighs about as much as a D810.
>Grip
The D810 feels chunkier, but is still nice to hold. I certainly didn't have a problem using one this weekend.
Have you considered paying for larger hands?
>>2841040
I fucking love this thing. sure it might not be the biggest or best sensor but it's such a good camera to use. Big dials that aren't clustered or hard to reach, intuitive menus, a view finder that might seem gimmicky but it's amazingly comfortable to use. I hardly ever use the screen and just flip it back so it looks like some old range finder. It's really stealthy. If you aren't a gear fag obsessed with megapickles you'll find it to be a charming workhorse.
>>2841120
Is a D810 lighter than a D700? My D700 subjectively feels a bit heavier than the F100, but it may be the chunkier grip. Yeah it's comfortable and it fits your hand well, but you can wrap your hand around the F100 better because the grip goes in deeper since there's less fat body in the way.
>>2841118
>>2841119
I get why it is, it's just unfortunate. At least I'm comparing a relatively large AF SLR, it's even worse when you put it next to a small MF body like that FM2.
But also I have a counterpoint, the Ricoh GR film and digital bodies are all almost exactly the same size. To be fair, the GR1 bodies have viewfinders and the GR doesn't, but the GR manages to fit an LCD screen in the back in what is roughly the same thickness.
>>2841137
Sure, but careful what you wish for. Some people say the D750/D500 grip is nicer because it's deeper. I think it feels awful because it's deep and pointy.
D700 and D810 are about the same weight.
>>2841040
Good shit right here. Certified good shit.
>>2840788
anyone?
>>2841171
ebay
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87yGmD71nyA
BENTAX
E
N
T
A
X
>>2841182
Isn't the D810 pretty much the same price in the grey market?
The K1 is 4 years too late.
>>2841184
>buying grey market
>not having warranty and service cover when the nikon oil strikes the surface
It's like you want to be raped in the ass
>>2841182
I thought the review was really well done and entertaining to watch even if you don't care about the k-1. I'm disappointed they didn't show the wi-fi. I want to know if it's any good. Also they made a disclaimer that if they said anything bad about pentax people shouldn't get mad. They didn't say a single bad thing about it though.
>>2841184
Where can you buy a D810 new for under 1800$?
The pentax has better ISO performance and likely better weather sealing.
I know the D810 feels like it's 4 years old because it's just a rebadged D800 but it's only 2 years old.
>>2841190
As a Pentax user I can say it has everything I expected, including the AF performance. Somehow Pentax designs their lenses with a slower focus travel, maybe for improving AF accuracy or to increase torque on the SDM (to reduce load related breakdown), I don't know. They are not the ideal sports shooters, but at a reasonable distance they can track well (my own experience).
So it wasn't any surprise. I still think doing a predictive 3D algorithm would improve it a lot, even on screwdrive and is entirely doable in software. It's not very demanding on the resources either.
The pixel-shift processing for the moving parts, even at hand-held was very impressive, I didn't expect it to be doable.
All in all they described a very nice camera without any senseles bollocking. A bit boring but very much sensible.
>>2841186
http://nikonrumors.com/2016/05/16/great-news-you-can-now-repair-some-nikon-grey-market-cameras-at-third-party-us-repair-facilities.aspx/
>>2841195
http://nikonrumors.com/2016/03/07/new-low-price-grey-market-nikon-d810-camera-for-1899.aspx/
Almost 1800 dollars. Better AF, better lens selection.
>>2841212
It's 2359$ so that was only a sale... for a 2 year old camera. It has better AF and lenses but it's more expensive. For that price you can get the pentax with a lens.
>>2841215
I'm just saying people who wanted a 36MP dlsr already had their shot at that price range a long time ago.
It's just too little too late for Pentax.
What do you guys think about the gopro hero 4 black? My wife and I started a YouTube channel and I'm buying new cameras
>>2841118
Don't ever talk to me or my son again.
>>2841195
>better weather sealing
[citation needed]
>>2841216
People who have Pentax lenses or just want a 36MP DSLR can have a more affordable choice now. Nikon fans getting butthurt is not news.
>>2841225
They had some water run over the camera, but it wasn't a comparison to the D810 or other cameras.
It's not grounds to claim it's more weather sealed.
>>2841228
I shot my K-3 in torrential rain. With kit lens. No fucks given.
>>2841229
>my anecdotes are better than your anecdotes
>>2841230
Phasing out everything but your own opinion is not a comparison either. Just a single opinion without any reliable source to support it.
Game, set, match.
>>2841232
I'm not the one who claims my camera is better or worse weather sealing.
>>2841233
Yes you were. You clearly stated the camera from another brand has much less or no weather sealing at all to defend your chosen brand.
I was stating the camera in question is well sealed.
What makes your spinchter hurt so much about a new camera? Does it hurt your feelings on your expenses over your camera? Are you having buyers remorse? Or just plain gearfaggotry and brandwhoring?
>>2841235
No mate. Read my post again, I am pointing out it's baseless to say the pentax is better weather sealing without head to head comparisons.
An X100T for £600 is the best camera available for the price, right?
What are the bad sides?
>>2841238
>What are the bad sides?
fixed lens
not truly pocketable
not FF
>>2841219
How about giving us some information about what you're actually going to use the camera for you absolute mong?
I'm assuming the chanel will be your wife getting her ass annihilated by the local colored fellows, and that you meant to type youporn, so I'd probably suggest a dslr and microphone to really get the full atmosphere of what's going down on camera
>fixed lens
You're right, that sucks
>not truly pocketable
Mildly annoying
>not FF
Who the fuck cares.
>>2841212
Yeah man, maybe I can possibly get my expensive camera body repaired when a design flaw strikes, maybe possibly could be. That's worth saving $200. :/
>>2841238
It is a good lens with a good sensor although £600 goes pretty far in the DSLR world such as a Pentax K-S2 and the 35mm prime.
The viewfinder is cool but not perfect for framing with precision due to paralax and the guide frame is pretty far off IMO.
>>2841240
>>2841250
A fixed lens is fine as far as I'm concerned. 35mm is fine for me 90% and the tele converter looks heavy and cumbersome.
It barely fits in my big jacket pocket but yea totally not what I consider pocketable.
>>2841250
By the way, it's fixed, but there are converters to make it wider or tighter. You still won't get portrait lengths, but there are still options as far as focal length is concerned.
>>2841258
And destroying IQ with those shitty screw-on converters. Sounds fun.
>>2841259
[Citation Needed]
The converters are optically excellent. They're specifically designed with the lens formula in mind. Even in pixel peeping testing, the difference in IQ is barely perceptible, and in a final product, it's nonexistent.
>>2841263
All converters degrade IQ, the screw-on front extenders even more so than the rear extenders. It's a known fact. How new are you?
I have the X100T and teleconverter - its sharp as fuck with and without
Whats bad about the X100T - ergonomics, battery life
I want to elaborate on ergonomics and mention that some of the menus are annoying, some options are able to be assigned to function buttons but others remain 3+ layers deep into the menu system.
I'm not sure what the actual flash sync speed but I can sync pocketwizards at 1/1000, that together with the built in ND filter... it is totes amazeballs sir
shits on other APSC sensors I've used at high ISO
>>2841265
So no source then? Just what you believe to be logic? Nice. Glad to have you here.
As stated, there is a slight degradation, particularly in contrast with the wide converter, but in the final product, you can't tell.
I have used them. Have you?
>>2841268
I second the fairly bad battery life. Even just using the optical viewfinder only, it's easy to run it flat in half a day. I carry 2 spares but never got to the third one is one day shooting several hundred photos. .
>>2841268
It's a leaf shutter, so you'll be able to sync all the way up to your max mechanical shutter speed.
>>2841268
Could you explain what it means to be able to sync a flash?
Is it because sometime the shutter will open before or after the flash has fired? What is max shutter sync?
>>2841276
there was an excellent, lengthy explanation from another thread posted a day or two ago
anyone know where it is?
>>2841276
Your camera has to time up when to fire the flash in order to have the scene be lit when the shutter is open. This happens automatically, and is never an issue if your camera isn't broken.
You are past the sync speed when the camera's mechanical operation is firing the shutter in a way that means that the entire sensor is not exposed to the scene all at once. There's a good explanation elsewhere on the board right now, but I can't seem to find it. This happens at higher shutter speeds, and means that if the sensor is only half-exposed at any given time, then when the flash pops, only half of the sensor is seeing the brightly lit scene, and then the other half of the sensor sees the scene un-lit by the flash.
A higher max sync speed (speed before which the camera changes from entire-sensor exposed to partial sensor exposed) is seen as desirable, because it lets you cut out more of the ambient light on the scene, and gives the flash more perceived power.
>>2841276
Yes, it means you have the shutter open during the flash for x amount of time, preferably without missing the peak of the flash's brightness.
And yes, some cameras can't get that better than x unit of time because they only approximately coordinate with the flash and/or aren't fast enough in opening and closing the shutter, thus darkening parts of a picture relative to the rest.
My A6000 can do 1/250 of a second maximum without HSS.
>>2841273
While true, it will sync to 1/4000 if using the built in flash or wired connection to the hot shoe, my PW cannot go above 1/1000
>>2841293
aah, I was not aware! Sounds like a flaw with the transmitter though, rather than the camera. Still, doesn't change the fact that with your setup, you can't go faster than 1/1000.
>>2841272
Depends on your use - I use it in LCD+EVF w/ eye sensor mode, but will turn the camera off when its not in my hand. I do get approximately the rated 330 photos per battery - I use 16GB cards and will get low battery warning slightly before filling one.
I forgot to mention how good it is being able to charge via micro USB, don't have to carry a charger with you and can make use of portable chargers while traveling.
>>2841298
The beauty of it is you don't really need to anyway - at f/2 1/1000 with the 3 stop ND filter on you can just about shoot in midday sun
>>2841301
Yea. I often have my powerbank to charge my phone so it will also charge my X100t.
Do you set it to high performance?
>>2841324
I do have it bound to a function button but don't ever notice a difference when I turn it on :\
>>2841328
I read it was to do with focussing and power on time. I just leave it on.
>>2841324
That's blurry as fuck. Did you really pay 600 britbongs for that?
>>2841335
fucking lol.
>>2841335
Not to mention all the purple fringing. Fucking fuji lenses. People say they're amazing, but clearly not.
>>2841288
underrated post
>>2840051
Hi, I'm new to photography and would like to know what makes a "good" camera
