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: >>2845210
>>2849198
70-200 or 17-40? both f4, both muh L lenses, one has weather sealing, one has a nice focal reach.
mostly for landscapes but I also do a little portrait, I have clowns to the left and jokers to the right, someone help
>>2849205
Fucking sit down and think which one you need first, they're both dirt cheap L lenses and you should be able to get your hands on both for less than a grand.
Which lens do you NEED
>>2849205
They are for completely different things you mong
Its not asking the difference between apples and oranges you are literally asking us which one you should eat
>>2849205
Do you have a kit lens? If yes then 70-200/4 first, can be used for portraits and landscape as well but I would rather suggest you go with a Tamron 70-200/2.8 VC or Sigma 70-200/2.8 OS HSM instead. Same price or even cheaper, both have excellent IQ, almost as good as the 70-200/2.8 L and are better for portraits with better control of DOF.
Then get the 17-40 with the money you saved at the above.
Will be travelling through Europe for 4 months and I have a 35mm 2.4 and a 50-200mm 4-5.6 lens. Is that going to be sufficient? Any recommendations?
>>2849213
Yes, but you wouldn't use the telezoom that often. It would be better to bring a kit zoom for the UWA end for landscapes and use the 35/2.4 as standard focal length small form factor shooting, for most stuff.
If you don't have a kit zoom then try to get a used 16-45, it is cheap and very sharp.
Stay away from the DA 17-70!!!
>>2849208
I do both landscapes and portrait/fashion shoots, both would be helpful for both genres, I was looking for opinions on both glasses, sorry, next time I'll specify.
>>2849209
>They are for completely different things
whoever told you they're for 2 different uses is wrong
>inb4 it was yourself
>>2849212
ta mate, dont have a kit lens, just a 40, again my bad, should've specified
>>2849213
cant suggest too much, but I travel with just a 40, its fine as it is, sometimes I want wider but I just stitch photos for that, some times I want narrower, cant do much for that, your kit is fine, but if you can, sell the 35 and get a 24-70 or 11-24 or some UWA, and/or what >>2849217 this fella said
>>2849217
>kit zoom
>landscape
enjoy your curved horizon
>>2849222
Dude, then get the wide-standard zoom, that should be a priority over a telephoto.
Also look at the Tamron/Sigma, having a red ring or "L" designation is just showing off with those two available at such prices.
And stop giving bad advice, selling the 35/2.4 would give very small money and replacing that sharp and small plastic fantastic with a bigger zoom to carry around on the camera all the time will be a pain.
The 35 definitely worth it to keep it, not redundant at all. Keeps the camera light and small, lets you focus on your trip and the scenes.
>>2849223
There is this thing they call a COM-POOH-TER that can run programs for processing photographs, such as lens distortions and CA amongst other things.
>>2849205
if crop then get 10-18
if not then get raped with one of the wide zoom L lenses
>>2849224
>And stop giving bad advice, selling the 35/2.4 would give very small money
okay yea I didn't know how much they go for, but unless hes going in the streets, size of the lens shouldn't matter too much
anywho, will ge tthe wide angle then, the only reason I mentioned L is to compare between the two, not other ones, also, weather sealing is something I'd also be looking for, not sure if tamrons and sigmas have that, will have a look though, but yea thanks, have a good one
>>2849223
m8 seriously? distortion is easy to fix
>>2849225
>raping the pixels with transformation
then you might as well use your phone camera
>>2849223
>his kit lens is that shitty
sorry m8
>>2849226
5d2, ta m8
>>2849231
then enjoy getting raped by canon lol.
>>2849228
If you would've actually done prints of photographs you would know that the printing and paper texture does more to cover pixel level defects and inconsistencies so even something made with a kit lens looks great.
Pixel peeping is useless, has no real meaning in practice.
>>2849230
>his standard is that low
sorry buddy
>>2849234
not everybody prints with office printer on an a4 buddy.
your argument is basically
>this other thing sucks so i will suck at everything
great attitude
>>2849222
>whoever told you they're for 2 different uses is wrong
Please post all of the professional portraits and short distance sports shot with a 17-40mm f/4 lens?
>>2849205
for portrait i would just get the 85mm prime. way cheaper and smaller, faster and sharper.
>>2849238
Now I know you never seen professional paper prints.
That argument you brought up, it's actually yours.
Just so you know your shitty attitude reeks of highschooler on vacation. Go outside, play with your friends instead of arguing about your imaginary experience on the internet.
>>2849246
>calling people high schooler
Post some of your expert photos, friend.
>>2849248
>raping the pixels
>everything is fine lol i got ants in my eyes
lol
>>2849250
>I read an article about it, and it said that you lose a tiny fraction of image quality, so I never ever ever do it ever for any reason. I also only shoot at ISO 100, and at f/8 (even though in real life, my best aperture is probably f/4.5) because I read about all of it!
Faggot, you've clearly never ever tried it.
If you have, feel free to prove me wrong by posting a comparison image of one of your flies, showing an uncorrected image, and one that's corrected with noticeable degradation. You're a photographer, right? And you have experience, so it should be really easy to post just one fucking photo showing it.
>>2849251
>Faggot, you've clearly never ever tried it.
I have tried plenty of times. Your eyes are just bad that you can't see the damage.
Why don't you post some of your photos that you raped?
>>2849258
>If you have, feel free to prove me wrong by posting a comparison image of one of your flies
>>2849262
>Why don't you post some of your photos that you raped?
>>2849267
Because you're the type of enormous faggot who will look at a perfectly correct photo and say "Well if you can't see the issues with that, then you're as fucking stupid as you are dumb"
While at the same time, I know you're full of horse cock with absolutely no clue what you're talking about, and have never EVER tried it, because it "makes sense in your head" which happens to be where most of your experience comes from.
>>2849034
>the reason the 70-200 is sharp is because it's easier to make sharp long lenses. it's not because it's L.
thanks for the insight. people say the 2.8 II is sharp, so I imagine the F4 will be decent for what it is. unsure if im gonna bite the bullet though
>>2849269
You are clearly a skinny-dick who doesn't know wtf he's talking about.
Just a heads up, the image you see in the RAW converter or in your SOOC JPEGs are just an interpolated estimate from the Bayer or X-trans matrix RAW data.
It already has huge impact from the interpolation including softness, gaussian blur and artifacts near hard edges.
>>2849233
>lol enjoy your rip off!
>17-40 f4 literally selling for £500 these days
>still a fine lens
fuck you
>>2849277
>I read about it.
>>2849283
don't be mad at me. be mad at canon for not making an affordable wide angle. clearly they can because they make the 10-18 efs but only because it's doesn't cannibalise their FF wide lens sale.
>>2849288
I'm not mad I'm laughing that you think good lenses can cost less than £400-£500, especially UWAs
>>2849289
They absolutely can. Do you actually take photos?
>>2849289
>muh only expensive things are good
abstract gearfaggotry
>>2849270
The original 70-200 f4 was soft at 200mm, the IS version is much improved in this aspect and also overall, but I still get softness at minimum focus distance at 200mm. Same with the 2.8 versions. In my opinion the IS is an essential feature with a max aperture of just f4.
>>2849293
maybe im just used to kit lens level of IQ, but this is a jpg out of my baby crop body
blew my mind coming from a kit lens
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Canon Camera Model Canon EOS REBEL SL1 Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2016:04:22 21:53:43 Exposure Time 1/800 sec F-Number f/4.0 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 125 Lens Aperture f/4.0 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 200.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 5184 Image Height 3456 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard
>>2849296
Take a shot with a kit lens.
>>2849292
Give me an example of a good cheap FF UWA then
>>2849293
>not recommending the 80-200 2.8 L
>>2849299
Rokinon 14mm
anybody here have a fuji x70?
whats the verdict? fuji x70 vs. ricoh gr?
or if I already have an iphone, is it smarter just to stick with my phone cam and use that saved cash for good lenses? ...the more i think rationally the more this seems to make sense. do modern compacts really offer any value to picture quality that modern smartphones dont already achieve?
>>2849303
I rented both for a weekend and decided to get neither.
Neither is better or worse than the other, though they both have (well documented) strengths and weaknesses. If I had to buy one, I'd probably go with the X70, but that's because I personally have experience dealing with Fuji files, so it was more "at home" for me. That wouldn't apply to you though, probably.
I'd suggest coming up with a list of what you want out of a compact, and then seeing which fits more closely. Then go hold them both if you can.
>>2849301
touche
>>2849303
I can't speak for the x70 but I've got an x20 and it absolutely wipes the floor with phone cameras. No contest at all. It's so much more capable and the quality is so much higher that it's no contest at all.
>>2849308
Sorry, been drinking. Please don't call the department of redundancy department on me.
>>2849306
>>2849308
ok to clarify ive been leaning a lot more heavily on the x70. mainly for one reason:
fuji quality jpegs out of camera and their actually pretty good picture styles. id essentially want a compact that i can use without ever putting on the computer, and could upload pics straight to my phone/insta. from what i understand the x70 beats out the ricoh for jpeg quality, but loses on raw. not really interested in shooting raw for a casual compct, I have a FF for that shit. slightly better AF on the x70 is also nice.
but my biggest concern is pocketability. if i cant fit the x70 in my pocket then what's the point? if im biking around or just walking about casually i dont want to have it dangling on my neck or wrist... though i guess i could get a belt buckle for it if i was really enamored with it?
I guess I'll just need to go to a camera store and check out the two for myself.
>>2849312
Fuji's profiles (simulations) are pretty great. The only struggle I can think of is that since they're so nuanced, you may spend a lot of time between shots setting up your parameters to make each photo look the way you want it.
On my cameras, you get:
Contrast
Saturation
Sharpness
Noise reduction
and that's it, so you just set them and forget them.
On fuji, you get a lot more control, and while you can set up a lot of profiles to choose from quickly, you may still get bogged down.
You can shoot in raw on the camera, and then while you're sitting on the bus or whatever, you can go through and pick profiles and edits after the fact with the in-camera raw editor, which is a bit tedious, but very great in terms of quality and control.
But if you have only a few set styles you like, you can just set those styles to your profiles and ignore everything I just said.
>>2849312
Of course I'm biased but personally I'd go x20/x30. If you want an optical viewfinder get the 20 and if you don't care get the 30. They've got all the film simulations and the lens is a 28-112mm f2-2.8 and it is absolutely excellent, much more practical than the 70's fixed lens. IQ is pretty much unbeatable for a compact and the jpeg engines are great. Really the only advantage of the x70 will be low-light performance and if you already have FF does it really matter? For half the cost I think it's much more flexible and a better value.
(And the x20 OVF is swag as fuck)
>>2849326
fair points and i do like that the x20 actually has an OVF, tho it doesn't look pocketable at all. again i dont see much point in getting a compact if i cant fit it in my right side pocket; any bigger and i dont mind lugging my 5D if it has to hang around my neck either way. and the sensor is not APS-C, so im willing to bet picture quality isn't going to be very comparable.
ill check out the x20 while im at the store tho.
Is the D300s still worth buying today, considering the body ergonomics? You can sometimes find a D300s with grip or other accessories for $600 or so. Or would you deal with the prosumer ergonomics (no AF-ON, AF-L button too far away) to take the advances in software that something like a D7100 would have?
How about the same question for the D700 and D7200? The D700 will trump on ergonomics and being a based camera, but the D7200 has it beat on software and sensor.
Casual snapshitters who have no need for advanced body features or controls need not respond.
>>2849372
The D300s was a great camera but it is just too dated now.
Todays cameras, even in the intermediate/entry level surpass it's capabilities.
It's better to get a used D7100 or D7200 instead.
>>2849372
What will you be using it for
>>2849372
>Or would you deal with the prosumer ergonomics (no AF-ON, AF-L button too far away)
Explain this, I'm considering d7100/d7200 rn
>>2849379
It has less buttons
>>2849372
Pentax doesn't have this problem. Even the lowest tier cameras have prosumer/pro ergonomics
>>2849372
I would take a D700 over a D300(s) since they're both really cheap these days. In fact just a couple of months ago I bought a D700 and I absolutely do not regret it at all, it's a great camera. If you really do want crop instead then I guess the D300 is fine, but if I remember right that was the same 12MP sensor as in my D90 from way back and although I'm no pixel peeper I do have to say that modern sensors really have improved a lot over that sensor in pretty much every way. With the full frame 12MP sensor from the D3/D700 the difference is less clear cut in my opinion, I'm more than happy with the quality my D700 puts out.
And I would take the ergonomics over whatever software bullshit any day, if you're used to the way the controls are laid out in the higher tier cameras then there's really no going back in my opinion. Not to mention the fact that I just got back from a vacation where my camera got rained on pretty much all day every day and never missed a beat, I probably would've been a bit more concerned with a D7x00 or D600 or something. The only area the menu systems and stuff show their age in the D700 is that you have to menu dive to switch Auto-ISO on and off where the current models let you do that with just the control wheels, and the D700 settings banks are a bit more tedious to set up and switch between. I'm assuming that the D300 is basically the same in that regard, since they are very similar cameras from the same era.
>>2849386
>he only area the menu systems and stuff show their age in the D700 is that you have to menu dive to switch Auto-ISO on and off where the current models let you do that with just the control wheels
Speaking of auto ISO, are there any nikons where auto ISO is automatically disabled when you switch to M and then automatically re-enabled when you switch to P,S,A? I'd love that.
>>2849386
And also now for my question:
Like I said, I'm using a D700. I want a macro lens but I'm not sure which one to pick. I'll be shooting mostly inanimate objects, no bugs, so I'm not too concerned about short working distance which is why I've been mostly looking at the 60mm macros. I previously owned the screwdriver AF version of the 60mm and it was a really good lens, but I'm sort of considering the AF-S model since it has a fancy new optical design which is supposedly a bit better and it focuses internally.
I'm also open to considering the 105mm versions, but I'm not sure it's worth the increase in price and size and weight. And even though the AF-S 105mm version has VR, I'm not sure how useful the VR would be since I'll probably just use the lens at macro distances 99% of the time and very rarely use it as a regular telephoto lens. The main reason I'm considering the 105s is to have them do double duty as a macro lens and as a short tele, but I'm not sure if that would really be worth it or if I should just have two separate lenses for macro and for tele.
So the four lenses I'm considering are 60mm f/2.8D, 60mm f/2.8G, 105mm f/2.8D, and 105mm f/2.8G. Any suggestions? Should I just get the cheapest one and save that cash for something else?
>>2849382
No, Pentax doesn't have that problem. They do, however, have other problems. Like lenses, autofocus capabilities, software issues like shutters randomly firing for no reason, or refusing to fire when you want them, etc.
There is no perfect camera system.
>>2849391
No.
But, again, it takes literally 1/4 of a second to disable auto iso on a current nikon, so why would you need that?
>>2849382
pentax shill pls go nobody wants your shitty film era lenses, extensive crop only lens system, and dated body hardware. Also only the K1/3/5/7 have the full controls. K50 only has twin dials.
I'll stick with my own film era lenses and worst value body features in any DSLR system, thank you very much.
>>2849379
You'll know if you've ever had a chance to shoot with a pro ergo Nikon camera. WB, ISO, QUAL have dedicated buttons on the left dial. Metering mode has its own selector. A mode button to select modes, instead of fiddling with a dial. AF-ON button naturally placed under the thumb for back button focusing. Everything has a purpose and a place, and it feels Just Right™.
By comparison, the prosumer bodies have a mode dial, WB, QUAL, and ISO share buttons on the back and turn on the screen when you use them, I don't even know how you change metering mode on a prosumer body, and Nikon hates us so much they nudged the AF-L button too far to the left to comfortably use as an AF-ON button. Not that you can't but it doesn't feel as natural.
By comparison, Canon has pro ergo on everything from the XXD bodies and up, with an AF nipple here and there.
>>2849391
No.
>>2849392
I'd say a used cheap 105/2.8D is the best value of the bunch. Short tele, better working distance. The 60/2.8D is the cheapest of the bunch, but still optically great. The 60 G I've not looked at. The 105 G is truly very sharp, and you don't have to use the VR.
I don't know about the D lenses, but the autofocus on the 105 G isn't /terrible/. It's about as fast as the cheaper AF-S lenses (18-xx, 70-300VR), just with a longer focus range. Just use the distance limiter.
Is a used Sigma 70-300 DG macro worth 50 euro?
>>2849394
>pulling shit out of your ass and sell it as facts
Haha, you don't fool me, I empty my nostril in your direction!
>>2849406
Are they paying you to take it? If yes then yes.
>>2849410
Well if your nickname for "google" is my ass, then I guess maybe you're right.
Here's the first page of results when you search for "K3 Shutter"
>>2849417
Oh, and I can't really cite it, but I learned it originally from the 3 Pentax DSLRs I went through. A K-30, a K-5, and a K-3.
They have issues in certain areas, and strengths in others. Just like any system out there.
>>2849417
Which was fixed in two weeks with a firmware update.
How was that about Nikon and oil splatters on the sensor? Also how was that with Nikon lying about the issue and instead doing a proper callback and fix just released a new model of the camera and let their customers deal with the shitty older ones?
>Oh hey, sorry about that crippling faulty construction, here, you can buy a whole new camera!
Except Nikon never said "sorry", only "buy a new camera"
oh my god im shaking
freaking get
>>2849444
>Which was fixed in two weeks with a firmware update.
I guess that's why there are reports and complaints spanning multiple years, right? Did the firmware fix the slow heavy autofocus? Did the firmware add new modern lenses with fast autofocus and wide apertures at normal focal lengths new from a store?
>How was that about Nikon and oil splatters on the sensor?
Maybe you got too mad at the truth to keep reading, but my final sentence was:
>They have issues in certain areas, and strengths in others. Just like any system out there.
>>2849449
>busop1028
It's been probably dropped too many times. Make sure to check it for hidden defects.
>>2849453
People being stupid and not updating firmware is a whole different issue, senpai.
Yes, all systems had issues, but Nikon takes the lead by far.
>>2849458
have you bought something from him that had drops?
I guess that would make sense. when i bought my 35 f2 is usm there were some dents around the filter. Would explain why i got it for $100 less than the going rate at the time.
however mine still works fine despite whatever happened to it
if worse comes to worse i could file a case or resell it.
Hello all, I was told that /gear/ could help me with a recommendation.
Soon I will be traveling through some mountains and to the west coast. Last time I went on a holiday I only had my LG-G4 and found myself burning through my battery and begging employees at shops/eateries for an outlet to charge my phone because I, figuratively, could not stop taking pictures. This time, I would like to have a nice camera to take along so that my phone can just be a phone.
I plan to do a mixture of both landscape (hiking trails) and street photography; a lot of walking either way. I am moderately familiar with manual shooting and I would like to become more adept at it over time so I would like full manual features. I rather like cameras that do not have aperture/ISO/SS/manual focus hidden behind some kind of menu. Having some form of viewfinder would be a plus. Additionally, I would like to be able to record video of our trip (ideally 1080p@60fps).
I am open to either DSLR, Mirrorless, or Point-and-Shoot cameras; I am leaning towards the latter for portability, though I understand that DSLRs can be manageable while traveling. I like the idea of having the camera in a pocket, though a slightly larger frame slung under my shoulder does not seem too cumbersome. (Also, something to note is that if I do go DSLR, a family member who is into photography has offered to buy me a lens.) As far as point-and-shoot, I was looking at the RX100 Mk4 but I read that the MK V could be announced (released?) as soon as the end of June. Regarding DSLR, the aforementioned family-member is, apparently, rather fond of Nikon.
Ideally, it would be nice to stay around $1,000 but I could go as high as $2,000 if it were worth it for the future. I really plan for this to be something that I delve into as I find it rather enjoyable!
Thank you in advance for the help!
>>2849240
> professional portraits
> short distance sports
You smoking that purple haze shit? I'm not a professional that makes prints, the 35/40 focal length would do me good enough for portraits (yes, people use 35/40 for portraits), where in the 2 genres of landscape and portraits/fashion does sports fit in? Where did I even mention sports?
>>2849241
Which 85?
>>2849506
The RX100's one hell of a camera. Probably the most versatile compact on the market. If you have a Best Buy nearby, go try and play with one there. Go play with everything there, really.
>>2849508
Did you even see the quote in that post you fucking retard? You said "Whoever told you they're for 2 different uses is wrong"
And those are the different uses of those fucking lenses.
>>2849519
>News flash: Anonymous person plays with genitals in Best Buy, children scarred for life.
>>2849506
>because I, figuratively, could not stop taking pictures
good for you for knowing the difference between literally and figuratively
>manual controls
any DSLR or mirrorless. better PnS cameras have it too, some don't though.
>battery life
DSLRs win over mirrorless pretty decisively
>viewfinder
All DSLRs have an optical through-the-lens viewfinder. Many but not all mirrorless cameras have a viewfinder, if they do it's electronic (you're looking at a tiny LCD). EVFs are a divisive thing, some people love them and have no idea how they ever got along without one, some people hate the things and wonder how anyone tolerates them. Ideally you should do what >>2849519 says and go to some store that'll let you hold the cameras and see what you like.
I don't know enough about video to say much on that front.
Whether it's worth considering getting a Nikon body to use your family member's lenses depends on what lenses those are.
I have Nikon coolpix p900 why is the video blurred when i zoom in like 80% halv mile away but when i take a pic the picture is clean.
>>2849544
a.) video uses a different shutter speed
b.) image stabilization isn't magic and isn't as effective as a tripod
>>2849544
>P900
go away, please
>>2849548
aaand we dont want ppl like u in this thread go to b pls ok kid. i asked a question but u dont have a brain and pls continue with ur cellphone camera,
>>2849548
I bet p900 is better than your shit toys
>>2849535
He went out of his way to post about 2 irrelevant genres to what I was talking about then? If it were to be relevant, he'd imply 2 different genres being landscape and portraits, not sports and professional portraiture.
Anyway, have a good one, I'm out, maybe I'll be back in like 2 hours
>>2849574
How did you get off my filtered list...
>>2849590
Even your computer loves me :^>
>>2849355
Here's a SOOC jpeg, resized only, from the x20. What's the price difference between the 20 and the 70 where you are?
>>2849372
I would say absolutely. I recently upgraded and was between the 300 and the 7000. I tested both at the shop and found the 300 much more agreeable coming from a D2Hs. All these tech weenies crying about it being obsolete seem more concerned with spec circlejerking than actually using the camera. I couldn't be happier and it was like new with box and accessories for 28,000 yen or about $260 US.
>>2849639
And another, right out of the camera. The lens is great for portraits which you'll lose out on with that fixed wideangle. The x70 has some kind of alleged "digital teleconverter" that goes out to 50mm but doing that you're not really any better off from having the larger sensor anyway.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make FUJIFILM Camera Model X20 Camera Software Digital Camera X20 Ver1.02 Maximum Lens Aperture f/2.0 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Maker Note Version 0130 Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2015:07:05 16:11:00 Exposure Time 1/1000 sec F-Number f/2.5 Exposure Program Shutter Priority ISO Speed Rating 250 Lens Aperture f/2.5 Brightness 6.0 EV Exposure Bias -0.3 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 16.70 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 666 Image Height 1000 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Sharpness Hard Subject Distance Range Unknown Sharpness Hard White Balance Auto Chroma Saturation Normal Flash Mode Off Macro Mode Off Focus Mode Auto Slow Synchro Mode Off Picture Mode Shutter Prior AE Continuous/Bracketing Mode Off Blur Status OK Focus Status OK Auto Exposure Status OK
>>2849312
Check out the canon s110 or whatever iteration they're on now.
>>2849686
Just be wary of the lens error issue on that line of cameras, it's the reason I got the x20 in the first place after my S100 lens shit the bed. Apparently Canon was fixing some of them for free but mine fell outside the serial number range. It was a great little camera but it was incredibly disheartening watching it go from fully functional to completely useless in normal use conditions. It was fine one moment and then when I brought it up for a shot it was toast. Haven't touched a Canon camera since.
>>2849686
they're replaced with g9x
Anyway to not get cucked buying 6v el223ap batteries?
Best place online to get with decent shipping?
Are there any retailers that sell?
>>2849854
Use a digital camera.
>>2849639
Needs color correction, the green looks unnatural.
>>2849863
Thanks, where can I get one of those?
Is Olympus pen e-pl6 worth 299e or should I wait for better deals?
>>2849880
Yes.
>>2849864
That's how Velvia mode rolls
>>2849926
It looks like shit
>>2849927
Thanks for your wholly informative opinion, I'll make sure it gets discarded through the proper channels
I've got a nifty fifty and used to use it with my 400D, now I've switchted to 700D and the quality of the pictures taken with the 50mm decreased
They all seem to be blurry (even if shot at f 8.0)
is this a thing or am I just shitty with focusing
properly with a fairly new camera
also the quality of a cropped picture seems to be way worse, it's as if I shoot it with a slightly softer kit lens, while with the ones I took on 400D you couldn't tell that it was a crop at all
>>2850063
Verify focusing issues by shooting a picture in live view.
need help friend wants a 4k camera that has interchangeable lenses but isn't an slr, she likes the feel of micro 4/3rds cameras, maybe something like that
she wants something under 1,000 dollars, is that possible? I need recomendations, i am an slr guy so i don't even know
>>2850125
GH4
>>2850154
THIS lol
So my dad wants to buy himself a camera. Call it mid-life crisis if you will. The A7II has his attention, because bitches love big sensors. It's expensive though, so he's possibly looking at the a6300, but a6300 has no lens.
The only other option is Fuji, right? Do old men like Fujis? I figure between nice JPEG processing and slapping the camera into auto/program mode, they ought to do pretty well. The 18-55 is a good lens, unlike the FE28-70 and E16-50, so that's a plus for saving money.
>>2850217
yeah just get an xpro1 or xt10 and it will remind him of his youth and not cost too much
Looking for a pocket camera, tired of lugging my 5diii around everyday. I want something I can stuff into a jacket pocket or loop to my hand and I prefer that I can operate it one handed. I used a friends xpro and liked the rangefinder but don't necessarily want to invest in a new lens system - I'm thinking either x100s or Ricoh Gr with the hotshoe finder. What do you guys use?
>>2850305
pretty sure the x100s is not a "pocket camera" per se. Easy to throw in a bag, but not quite compact. The X70 is Fuji's answer to the GR, but it sounds like for the most part the GR is better spec vs. spec.
I've been kinda tempted by those smaller options, but I find the XPro with a small lens easy enough to lug around
>>2850324
Maybe pocket camera was the wrong term - 'EDC' camera?
I got a pentacon six and it's a lovely camera, but the overlapping frames are a big problem for me. I want to sell it and get something better, what can I get? a mamiya 645? I am still a babby when it comes to medium format
>>2850329
I had an X100s and absolutely loved it. The AF was a bit of a struggle at the beginning, but after spending some time with it, I got used to it. I personally didn't need the OVF though, and decided I wanted to be able to shoot portraits and some sports, so I sold it to get an X-E2.
>>2850351
RB67 or RZ67
Maybe a Pentax 6x7
>>2850353
thanks m8
>>2850351
I was in your exact shoes about five years ago. I went with a Bronica SQ-A, and then transitioned to a Pentax 645N and was very happy with both.
As far as the Pentax was concerned, I would have very much preferred to have a Contax 645 system, but couldn't justify the price. The images from the 645N were great.
>>2850351
mamiya 6/7 if you have money is awesome.
>>2849506
I'd suggest to bring a 20Ah power pack, or a bunch of 10Ah ones so that you actually can use your phone when you feel like it?
Depending on how you travel, why not also charge it with a solar panel or your car's power port?
Camera wise, with your budget, you could get an A6000 (or A6300 if you also intend to shoot in worse light).
What's the weirdest lens mod you've done
Canon EOS 1D Mark I N. Is it still good, despite its age?
>>2850558
For what
>>2850217
>FE28-70 is bad
I bought my a7ii without a lens, but I have heard nothing but good thing about the FE28-70.
how sketchy is buying expensive gear from ebay?
the camera I want is discontinued, so I've been having a hard time finding it for a decent price anywhere and I see one up for bids on ebay ending in a couple days. b&h hasn't posted a used model in a while either, so I feel like it's my only choice.
>>2850581
pay attention to your details and the seller description, and be sure they're well rated, and have a return policy. Only pay with paypal. You're fine.
>>2850584
they have good feedback and it's an old account, but returns not accepted...
guess I'll just wait for b&h to relist one if they ever do.
thank you for the help
>>2850581
What're you looking for? Why couldn't you find it on
KEH
E
H
soup /gear/ i just picked up a canon rebelG from the thrift store its in good condition just without a lens
I was wondering what would be a decent lens to put on her
thanks
>>2850575
Yea, the FE28-70 is just fine. Of course one might complain that it's really not quite like a 24-70 GM, but neither is the Fuji 18-55.
>>2850596
yong nuo 50 1.8
>>2849198
So is the Leica->E-Mount Techart Adapter any good?
I hear the A-Mount one is awesome, and the Canon one varies a bit between lenses.
But how well will this one work?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS5 Macintosh Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 2560 Image Height 1920 Number of Bits Per Component 8, 8, 8 Compression Scheme Unknown Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 96 dpi Vertical Resolution 96 dpi Image Data Arrangement Chunky Format Image Created 2016:02:08 02:08:56 Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 610 Image Height 390
>>2850651
just jewtube it.
>>2850651
oh right,
people have adapted canon fd mount with the techart and get it to autofocus. you can literally AF any old MF lens, even huge telephoto.
you move the camera instead of the lens.
>>2850651
Shit sounds and focuses like a Nikon 35AF. Neat idea though.
>>2850659
It supports Minolta MD.
I kinda wanna try it, but it feels stupid to spend more on an adapter than all my MD lenses combined.
I'm getting a canon 16-35mm f4 IS for free.
It has been waterdamaged from saltwater, I don't know how bad it is, but AF and IS is broken but MF work and the guy who gives it away says that after initial tests, the pictures are usable.
Can it be repaired or is saltwater repair too expensive?
>>2850767
saltwater damage mean all the electrical parts including the wires and flexi and solid panels has to be replaced and the rest of the salt has to be removed from the lens. It is at least a week long process of repeatedly putting the disassembled lens parts into warm distilled water.
It will cost money, that is for sure.
Is this a good deal/idea for a first camera? I will go backpacking around Europe this summer and I'd like to bring a decent camera.
http://www.adorama.com/INKD3300KR.html
>>2850790
>http://www.amazon.com/dp/B01A5UC6FQ/
Should I get the Canon 1000D for 130€ with kitlens tomorrow? If yes - what should I look out for? What are things that are often broken? How many shutter releases should the camera have max?
I want to get into photography more to see if it's for me. What's a good camera between €200-300 euros, preferably <€200, to start with? My guess is picking up a camera second hand will give you more bang for the buck.
Mainly interested in medium-distance photographs of objects, persons and animals (1-4 meters).
currently using d300 and nikon 24-70
I'm saving up for a d810 (or whatever replaces it) but I'm starting to get curious about getting an even wider angle lens to try and do real estate work.
Are there any worthwhile FX wide angles? I'm only seeing the widest being 16mm, which doesn't seem like a justifiable jump from 24mm.
I'm leaning towards a prime, but the only worthwhile one seems to be the 20mm which seems like an even worse decision.
should I just stick with the mid range?
>>2850808
You will find a tilt shift lens would be very beneficial for architecture and real estate photography
>>2850793
No. For that money get an NEX 5N instead.
Who /leica/ here?
I got a 6 figure job in January... maybe I should waste some of my money??
>>2850840
Or just use your existing gear and spend the money on a nice trip.
Also nobody is /leica/ here because everyone knows it's just useless gimmick meme camera.
If you want to spend your money so much, get a nice set of 6x7 MF gear and a bunch of film.
>>2850819
any other suggestions in that price range? cant seem to find any for 130€...
A guy is selling a Nikon f3(good condition) with 50mm 1.2 ais for 350$.
Should I accept this deal?
>>2850856
Yes. The f3's GOAT and The 50 1.2 is good for adapting to other formats, the f3 should be fine as well. keep both, but check if it meters, shutter releases etc. also check for battery corrosion
>>2850855
You're better off saving up some more and get a decent camera instead. around $300 you should be able to get something nice like a Canon 1200D, Nikon D3200 or Pentax K-30/K-50.
>>2850846
This right here.
Get a Fuji x100t and have a nice fucking holiday instead.
Most leica users are insufferable losers that use words like 'spiritual' to describe the camera operation.
>>2850806
Maybe a D3300 is close enough?
A "good" camera + lenses cost a lot more though. And under 200 Euro is not where you get a good camera.
>>2850873
>all that gear
>wants to buy leica
Damn son
>>2850874
>not managing your emotions from buying stuff
i thought this was the gear thread
>>2850875
Yeah, this is the /gear/ thread. We like to maintain decency around here. All that pointless gearwhoring is just is just wrong, on so many levels.
Use your existing gear and go on a nice trip instead.
>>2850808
A 20mm is wiiiiiiiiiide. Not as wide as the 16 (isn't it a bit old?) or the 14-24 (sharp, heavy, wiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiide).
You might want to invest in your lighting setup too if you want to do real estate work.
>or go full meme, and get the A7ii, and stick the Voigt 12mm on it?
>>2850809
shit I forgot about those, I'll look into them. Thanks anon
>>2850866
I already own Nikon 5100.
But I really want a decent film camera.
What are your guys thoughts on plain glass filters for protection on lenses at all times? Is that a /p/ hornets nest topic? People say various things about them, like degrades/enhances image quality, changes colors.
>>2850913
Get a Pentax ME Super or a Nikon F3
>>2850915
My question was:
A guy is selling a Nikon f3(good condition) with 50mm 1.2 ais for 350$.
Should I accept that deal
>>2850808
Get rokinon 14mm. There's no AF but you don't need it anyway for ultra wide. Very high quality lens.
You can also get the rokinon 24mm tilt-shift if you want perspective control for architecture.
>>2850916
I would not because you would be spending money on bokeh meme lens when the F3 can be had for $200.
>>2850917
I am a total noob in film.
How to check shutter release and meters?
Please explain that little bit.
>>2850921
Okay so which lense you would recommend.
>>2850926
Ignore him. It may be labeled as 'le meme lens xdxd' but youre getting around $200 off the lens if you were to buy it alone. You are getting the camera for a good price, and youre getting an insanely good deal for the lens.
>>2850925
Google will help you. Type 'how to test nikon f3 shutter' or how to test nikon f3 meter
>>2850926
50mm 1.8d
>>2850943
U mad bro?
F3 body costs 200$ and 1.8 costs 100$.
Then why not f3 and 1.2 combined for 350$
>>2850944
because you are spending $50 more for a lens than is bigger and heavier and if used @ 1.2 would be hard to focus and soft all because muh value and muh bokeh meme
>>2850768
I've been testing it out today, and the electronics inside the lens is working, you can manage to autofocus if you're lucky but its really noisy. I haven't seen the picture quality yet, but the pictures seems fine looking at the camera. I guess it would be expensive getting it repaired, but I think it's worth doing it.
>>2850958
Salt water corrodes metals under electric charge. It eats up the leads, the soldering, the electric components and the crystallized salt residue puts the mechanisms under stress and extra load, especially the delicately precise helicoids and gears.
You are better off sending it in to repair, Canon service is used to such damages. It will cost a few hundred but you will end up a nice lens. Unless you fuck up the mechanism by stupidly trying to make it work.
Think of the salt as abrasive inside your delicate lens. Dou you want that shit out or would you ignore it and keep fucking with it until it becomes as loose as your moms vagina?
>>2849392
Anybody else want to weigh in?
>>2850963
If you have to ask you don't actually need it.
>>2850963
100 or 200mm macro is usually worth it. Even if you shoot products and don't have to worry about spooking animals, subject lighting will still often be a major be a pain in the arse if you have a 50 or 60mm.
Only get that 60mm if you absolutely have to pinch pennies. Otherwise, get a 100 or 200mm.
>>2850808
>>2850918
I like my Samyang (Rokinon) 12mm f/2.8 stereographic fisheye lens.
It is really quite sharp for such a wide lens (can't put a subject in the corners, but even they are at least not very distracting). And 180 degrees of view are nice.
This is also a MF lens, and like the other anon said, it is not really a problem. Most shots are going to be done with focus at infinity.
>>2851100
I didn't know Samyang made medium format lenses.
>>2851104
The 12mm f/2.8 fisheye is a full-frame lens, available for the camera that was indicated.
MF means manual focus. Certainly, it could also mean medium format, but that obviously is only a secondary meaning at this point. (Try your search engine, unless you're in a search bubble "MF lens" will give you almost only manual focus lenses).
Is the Sony a7 a durable camera?
>>2851114
Not in the least. No shock resistance, body is mainly plastic with a magnesium top plate (On a slightly off topic note, why do people in the photography world cream themselves over magnesium alloys? In any other circle it's called pot metal because it's cheap and either brittle or easily malleable depending on what the magnesium is blended with. It's not exactly known for durability. Why not aluminum?), and the weather sealing is such a joke that Sony had to retract that and label them as "Moisture and dust resistant".
Perfectly fine camera for everyday stuff, but it's not going to be able to go through what high end Canikon or any Pentax cameras can take.
t. A7 owner.
>>2851121
What's the most durable FF for a grand then? I'm hiking through New Mexico next year and Im split between getting the A7 or more shit for my Olympus om 1
>>2851127
That's a tough one. For around a grand you're looking at things like the Nikon D700 or D600, Canon 5DMKII, and MAYBE a Sony A900 (I was going to say the A99 too, but Sony apparently retracted the weather sealing statements for those too). Anything newer than that and you're either going to have to compromise and get a crop body, or pay over a $1,500.
>>2851121
Magnesium is lighter than aluminum and easier to machine (as long as it doesn't burst into flames). So I guess it was an improvement on the brass that used to be used for cameras which is very easy to machine but also really soft and heavy.
People cream themselves over it because for some weird reason people really fetishize metal construction in their consumer products, which is also why people look down on the composites that Nikon is starting to make parts of their bodies out of, even though that's probably a superior material.
>>2851131
How does the d700 perform compared to the a6k? My only problem is that I would have to switch my stuff to Nikon. I'm using a ton of legacy glass on my a6k. What primes would you recommend for for the d700? I'm thinking of a 28mm and I have the 50mm f1.4D. thanks for the help!
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make SONY Camera Model ILCE-6000 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.5 (Macintosh) Maximum Lens Aperture f/1.0 Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 1000 dpi Vertical Resolution 1000 dpi Image Created 2016:05:26 10:42:20 Exposure Time 1/2500 sec Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 100 Brightness 5.7 EV Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash, Compulsory Color Space Information sRGB Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal
>>2851134
50mm f/1.8G is the best 50mm lens Nikon makes by far, don't fall for the f/1.4 meme. The 28 f/1.8G is a nice little lens too. I really like my D700 myself, they go for really cheap these days and it's an excellent top-tier """professional""" camera and that seems to be what you're asking for.
I'm not sure it's worth dumping all your gear and switching systems though. Do you really need an all new camera system just to go hiking? Why can't your current camera handle it?
>>2851139
The a6k is not built well enough to handle the harsh condtions of philmont. I'm talking about freezing rain then 100 °f days. Plus I'm enlisting in the air force for combat cam, so I'd like to practice a little before I go to boot camp
>>2851141
Well if you're sure then I would say the D700 is a pretty good choice. And older "professional" DSLR will probably be more durably made than most mirrorless cameras.
>>2851134
You would need to technically switch over all your lenses to FE anyways if you got the A7.
Also if you can do without FF, look at Pentax's lineup of cameras. Both the K-50 and K-S2 are cheap as hell and come with full weather sealing and are cold weather capable (with the K-50 as low as 14F, not sure about the K-S2 but they say it's temperate resistant).
Is there actually a point to buying a full frame camera? A previous instructor told me that if I wanted to actually take photography seriously in the future that I should not buy any new gear and just save up for a full frame camera.
Why are they so bad?
>>2851176
kek
Dicapac or Meikong for A7s?
I'll be using adapted lenses not the kit zoom.
Snorkelling in Indonesia, will likely get filter too.
>>2851121
>why do people in the photography world cream themselves over magnesium alloys?
because they are fucking stupid
plastic is cheaper and light
and if you drop your lens/camera the inside are gonna get obliterated before the outer plastic/metal shell is damaged. so having metal shell is moot.
>>2851160
not really. APS-c is very good now.
the only problem is that camera manufacturers don't make aps-c lens because it would cannibalise thier higher end FF gears so you will have to use third party like sigma to maximise your IQ.
I have a D7200 but plan to move to FF in 2-3 years. I have the kit lens but mostly use the 35mm DX prime. Is it better to just invest in FF lenses from here on out? I want a wide angle lens for a trip to NYC and have narrowed my options to the sigma 17-35 1.8 and the Nikkor 20mm 1.8. I want a lens I can use for museums and nighttime ventures around the city. I've read reviews that the nikkor's corners aren't as sharp on a DX body, but I like primes for their light weight and I'm hesitant to invest in the sigma since I want an FF body eventually. Thanks!
Can anyone point me in the direction of a 10$ or less shitty bargain bin lens that is common enough that I could find three of it? This would be a 35mm lens.
>>2851294
you should be buying FX lenses anyway, keep your D7200 for now, nikon or canon don't have anything worth selling that for unless you want that 50MP one. Btw FX lenses will be sharper on crop bodies lol
>>2851303
industar 61
>>2851294
get rokinon 14mm
or get a canon crop + efs 10-18
>>2849198
What is the smallest option for a 50mm on my A7II?
Autofocus would be nice but isn't needed.
The native one is nice, but kinda huge.
Also, as of yet there are no full fram pancakes right?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make SONY Camera Model ILCE-6300 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Elements 13.0 (Windows) Maximum Lens Aperture f/4.0 Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 84 mm Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 6000 Image Height 4000 Number of Bits Per Component 8, 8, 8 Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 150 dpi Vertical Resolution 150 dpi Image Created 2016:04:08 16:35:36 Exposure Time 1/100 sec F-Number f/4.0 Exposure Program Normal Program ISO Speed Rating 640 Lens Aperture f/4.0 Brightness 3.4 EV Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 56.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 480 Image Height 320 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal
>>2851337
You're looking at it. To go even smaller would be like the Zeiss 35mm or a Canon 40mm+adapter. Smallest I could think of would be like a Voigtlander or Minolta M mount 40mm, but obviously none of these are 50mm.
>>2851176
Have a Pentax and love it. Still laughing my ass off.
>>2851337
industar 61 with adapter
>>2851345
I hear good things about that canon adapter.
How do you like it?
>>2851366
get the sigma mc11.
best adapter.
Hey guys, need a new monitor. What's the best I can get for under $300 AUD? I will be buying a Spyder also.
>>2851121
Magnesium alloy is short for Al matrix with the main alloy Mg over 5%.
It's not pot metal in any way.
>>2851378
pls
>>2851378
any IPS screen will do
all the screens are made by 2 manufacturers anyway.
>>2851382
Can I get a fucking straight answer other than some vague shit like this?
Jesus christ, it means nothing when you don't know shit about monitors. I want the best display for under $300 AUD. It doesn't need to be colour calibrated.
>>2851421
>Can I get a fucking straight answer other than some vague shit like this?
nobody owes you an answer, faggot.
>>2851421
www.google.com
>>2851371
I heard techart was best, but expensive.
And fotodiox is the better cheap one.
>>2851421
piss off you ungrateful prick
Anyone here use a Tokina 12-28 f4? I've been shooting landscapes for many years with just a kit lens (18-55 Nikkor VR I) and stopped down with a little technique I can get surprisingly good IQ out of it, but I'd really like something wider. I tried a used 12-24, the predecessor, but ended up returning it within hours when that particular unit had a sticky aperture problem. I hear the 12-28 is nice and sharp, minimal distortion, but with some CA. I usually shoot raw and can fix it in post and D300's got internal CA correction so that doesn't bother me.
Any field reports?
btw kit lens hater gearfags can blow me
>>2851451
What technique did you use? Pls. elaborate for all the kit lens owners.
>>2851452
It's not worth it to stop down much past f8, past that the diffraction will start to fuck away your sharpness. Also better to go a millimeter or two away from the extremes, it can make a big difference in overall sharpness and vignetting. I'm not sure how accurate exif reporting is but in my experience even 18.3-18.5 is noticeably better than 18 maxed out.
A circular polarizer can really go a long way, although it's a colossal pain in the dick with a rotating front element like most kit zooms have. On the plus side, since most kits have 52mm or similar filter diameters they're quite a bit cheaper than the 72 or 77mm of fancier glass.
>>2851456
Here's an example of what you can get with the kit lens/polarizer combo. Being able to darken the sky is a good way to make up for the occasionally inferior contrast of cheaper lenses and it can make for some stunning B&W conversions.
>>2851459
I think the Nikkor is a little weaker on the long end compared to the wide end, but I guess another general tip is just to experiment with longer focal lengths sometimes. It's really easy to get hung up on wiiiide. It might be worth deliberately framing some throwaway space to crop away the ever-present kit lens vignetting...mine has visible falloff even at 55mm.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make NIKON CORPORATION Camera Model NIKON D80 Camera Software Capture NX-D 1.4.1 W Maximum Lens Aperture f/5.7 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Color Filter Array Pattern 868 Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 82 mm Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Created 2016:05:26 17:48:10 Exposure Time 1/160 sec F-Number f/8.0 Exposure Program Aperture Priority ISO Speed Rating 200 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash Focal Length 55.00 mm Comment (C)Jordan Tetzloff Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 1000 Image Height 486 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Gain Control None Contrast Normal Saturation High Sharpness Hard Subject Distance Range Unknown
>>2851456
>diffraction being a problem past f/8
pretty sure it doesn't matter until at least ~13 unless you have a truly shit sensor
>>2851463
Well, to be fair I was using a D2Hs, with a Shroedinger's litterbox sensor that's simultaneously shit and not-shit. I find the results distasteful past f9 and had occasional sharpness issues at 11 and beyond.
>>2851465
ok i just know /p/ has a hard on for hating high f/stops and i can quickly see this balooning into "even on a 3000$ FF dSLR if you go past f/4.0 you'll get raped by diffraction"
Someone is selling a used Nikon D3 in mint condition with 45k shutter for 1000$, how much of a bargain is that?
>>2851463
It's not the sensor that causes diffraction. If there is some dust in the middle of the lens, near the aperture plane it can introduce extra diffraction and softness.
>>2851456
Never had an issue with rotating front elements, but then again I use Pentax lenses.
This is actually a serious issue fucking the customers up, there is literally no extra work and precision manufacturing in designing the front element to not rotate.
If one measly company can do it with the lower end lenses then why can't Nikon or Canon? This seriously grinds my gears.
>>2851467
>45k
>mint
i don't think he knows what mint means
>>2851465
The diffraction-limited aperture of a 21mp full-frame sensor is about f/11. The D2Hs is APS-C, but even so, it should technically allow for much larger apertures than that. must have been something else...
>>2851467
Did someone get robbed again?
>>2851469
So... don't get dust on your lens?
I'm so fucking confused now actually since /p/ is always saying not to use anything on the front element (e.g. that you can switch out if it gets dusty or scratched) and generally that good photographers treat the gear like they don't own it
how can you get dust anywhere else on the lens? on the back part that mounts on the camera??
>>2851471
*smaller apertures than that.
>>2851469
>This is actually a serious issue fucking the customers up, there is literally no extra work
there is extra work.
>>2851471
What's the diffraction limited aperture of an Nmp APS-C
Also how can it be measured in f/# when f/# is a ratio of the focal length to the aperture opening
I thought diffraction was only a function of the aperture size (e.g. independnet of the focal length) and the wavelength of the light (so some hundred nm depending on color)
which also implies diffraction should show chromatic aberration like effects
>>2851473
Zoom lens suck in air, except internal zoom constructions, but while not as easy as outer zooms those can get dust inside too.
It's just a question of when it gets enough dust to become an issue.
The only way not to get dust inside your lens is not using them at all. Which is pretty much standard for /p/ as I understand.
>>2851470
>but what is body condition
Stupid fuck.
>>2851477
So are you telling me even these 2000$+ zooms will get destroyed by dust, just like a ricoh gr?
>>2851472
The guy selling is some old relatively rich diaspora.
>>2851475
Not much really.
It's something that makes the cost go up like $10-20 at retail, especially with a lens manufactured in such abundance as the kit lens.
>>2851478
>i used the camera for 45k shutter but the body is 'mint'
you are the dumbfuck. read a few book son
>>2851482
im pretty sure you are pulling the number out of your ass
aslo $20 is a significant increase in price for a kit lens
>>2851480
GR gets dust on the sensor. Lens dust will soften your image, you won't see the actual dust particles when it's in the most sensitive part of the optical formula.
I have a Sigma 400mm with a small focusing group and literally no seal to protect it. It has a nice even dust layer and it is near impossible to get to that part without destroying the focusing group.
