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: >>2849198
>>2851645
inb4 not Pentax OP
I bought canon because
>Best cameras for birding/sports/action/etc, e.g.:
>AF
>Framerate
>(other types of photography such as landscape you can use simple techniques like multiple exposures to get all the DR you'd ever need, but there are no techniques to get around insufficnetly fast AF or too low FPS for capturing action)
>Best resale value / market by far
>[hand in hand - an ecosystem I can expect to see other photos using and thus talk with about specifics, as well as share gear/etc)
>Good lens value (e.g. not massively overpaying because niche ecosystem)
>A company that is a camera company, not a generic electronics company that will make bad camera decisions or even sell off their camera brand at any random point because the CEO or investors don't like the ROI compared to say, video game consoles
>A company that was financially solvent and not hemorrhaging money (cough nikon)
Why should I have chose something else?
which monopod is best for fighting camera thief?
>>2851645
>he is dry
>camera is all wet
I love needless hardware abuse.
>>2851655
Go away, brandfag
This is the same level shitposting as anything in a Sony vs Fuji thread.
Kindly fuck off please.
>>2851655
>fuji
>camera company
>not hemorrhaging money
>excellent lenses
>excellent ergonomics
>lens value irrelevant since you would never want to sell any
>excellent AF that gets better with firmware updates
>x-trans sensor
>>2851655
>doesn't want an electronics company doing the electronics inside of their camera which is entirely electronic
That just doesn't make any sense.
Wouldn't a company knowing their way around electronics be a bonus?
>>2851664
Sony doesn't have any real skin in the game of cameras, it's just another branch for them.
They change mounts already too often, and show fundamental lack of knowledge of things like build quality and reliability.
If the winds change, they can easily be on the chopping block for the CEO since they're just another part of the company.
>>2851682
>They change mounts already too often
But Sony has not once changed their mount?
Unless you count e-mount. But that is kind of a different line.
>>2851682
>If the winds change, they can easily be on the chopping block for the CEO since they're just another part of the company.
A camera company which relies on only one product is at the whim of the market. A minor downtorun could ruin them **cough**Nikon**cough**
Literally none of the Japanese megaconglomerate camera manufacturers are "camera companies." They all have branches in heavy industry, medical supplies, microlithography, etc.
Do you retards know nothing?
>>2851686
It is what happened to Minolta.
They were making badass cameras for awhile, but go out because medical optics and the like were way more profitable.
>>2851686
>le electronics company meme
>>2851686
Nikon got rekt in the lithography business and gave up a lot of their market share, and cameras make up the large majority of the company if I remember right.
Nikon is the exception though, for most other camera companies the camera business is just a small portion of the company. That's also why Nikon is suffering so much now.
>>2851683
you know the phrase "fool me once shame on you fool me twice shame on me"?
>>2851696
Nikon does optics in general like Ziess though.
>>2851697
Even counting E-mount as seperate, it is still less than Cannon and Nikon have changed their mounts.
>>2851700
>History of Nikon SLR mounts
>F
>>2851696
Even then, Nikon is owned by Mitsubishi. The camera division of Mitsubishi could be doing terribly and they would still keep it around for the prestige.
>>2851700
canon abandoned FD and FL and R
What is the current state of mirrorless cameras? Did they catch up with DSLRs?
>>2851705
In general this discussion is pretty retarded desu.
>>2851707
In some ways, yes. In other ways, lol no.
>>2851661
>excellent AF that gets better with firmware updates
how? or was it shit to begin with and the firmware fixed it
also lens value refers to how much it costs to buy a lens, not just resale value
if it costs 4,000$ for a good telephoto zoom on system X, and 2,500$ for a basically equvilently good telephoto zoom on system Y, system Y has better lens value, even if both resell for 0$
>>2851707
do you sit inside and shoot test shots (or even worse just jerk off over dxomark reviews about DR/ISO, while making sure to ignore AF speed/FPS?)
if so yes
>>2851707
Focus is still slower, and lens collections are limited, but they are a pretty decent choice for most.
Though the only real options are m43 or Sony E.
>>2851707
They're getting pretty damn good, but I personally think EVFs are still inferior to a prism. Using an A7 against even a basic DSLR in condition where you would be shooting sub 1/30 brings up a huge gap in performance.
>>2851698
Zeiss makes all sorts of scientific instruments and that's the majority of their business, sure Nikon makes some microscopes and stuff too but not nearly on the same scale.
>>2851703
The keiretsu system is kind of weird, Mitsubishi doesn't really own Nikon outright. They are closely related though and all the Mitsubishi companies own shares in each other and I guess the Mitsubishi group would try to protect Nikon, but they're not really a subsidiary.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS4 Macintosh Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 683 Image Height 470 Compression Scheme Unknown Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Data Arrangement Chunky Format Image Created 2011:10:27 20:09:02 Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 600 Image Height 400
>>2851711
>how?
you install the firmware and it gets better
>also lens value refers to how much it costs to buy a lens
fuji is competitve
>>2851713
>Though the only real options are m43 or Sony E.
fuji
>>2851645
Are there any legit photo printers that can do smallish prints (13x19)?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Macintosh) Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 7000 Image Height 7000 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 2016:02:25 19:47:15 Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 810 Image Height 418
>Sony a3000
>Nikon D3300
Which is better for a beginner?
Can any /gear/heads dissuade me from this purchase?
>Nikon D5500 kit for $1,100 CDN
Nikon D5500 DSLR Camera with 18-55mm Lens (Black)
EN-EL14A Rechargeable Li-Ion Battery for Select Nikon Cameras
MH-24 Quick Charger for EN-EL14 Battery
EG-CP16 Nikon Audio/Video Cable
UC-E17 USB Cable
DK-25 Rubber Eyecup
AN-DC3 Camera Strap (Black)
BF-1B Body Cap
Nikon View NX2 Software CD-ROM
Limited 1-Year Warranty
>47th Street Photo Accessories
Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 DG Autofocus Lens
64GB High Speed Class 10 Memory Card (2)
High Capacity Replacement Li-ion Battery Pack (2)
Dual AC/DC Battery Charger with Car Plug & Euro Adapter
Opteka 67" MP100 Aluminum Monopod
Deluxe Digital Camera Padded Carrying Case (Large)
Opteka X-GRIP Professional Action Stabilizing Handle
Opteka 2.2x High Definition II Telephoto Lens
Opteka 0.43x High Definition II Wide Angle Lens
UV Ultra Violet Filter
Professional 3 Piece Filter Kit (UV-CPL-FLD)
Opteka VL5 LED Video Light
Professional Sling SLR Backpack
High Speed SD/SDHC/Micro SD Reader/Writer
Flower Tulip Lens Hood
Opteka GS-3 Neoprene Padded Dual Grip/Wrist Strap
Lens Cleaning Pen
Small Mini Tabletop Tripod
Lens Cleaning Kit
$50 Promo Code for Digital Photo Prints
47th Street Cleaning Cloth
It's for a person who has experience in DSLRs, but has never personally owned one. Shitty SD cards and accessories aside, is this a good deal?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Pixlr Image-Specific Properties: Image Created 2016:05:30 12:44:40 Light Source Unknown Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Metering Mode Unknown Image Width 1067 White Balance Auto Flash No Flash Image Height 1611
>>2851736
Don't pay for all those stupid generic accessories, they're all chink garbage.
>>2851736
You'll never use any of that shit trust me, also I've owned that 70-300 DG and it's a piece of shit
>>2851704
They've been on the EF mount for about 30 years now...
>either I should praise their adherence to the EF mount or brace myself for an incoming mount update
>>2851736
You'll only use a fraction of that stuff. The 70-300, light, bag, monopod, strap, filters, screw on telephoto, and probably some more stuff will all be crap.
>>2851724
D3300 without a doubt.
>>2851738
>>2851740
>>2851742
Thanks for the feedback, Anons.
The accessories do look like shit. However, this will be the gift receiver's first real camera system. They will likely use a bit of everything to test the waters with the camera.
Having read some reviews on the Sigma 70-300, I'm comfortable with the purchase. It doesn't seem great, but it's far from terrible as a first high-zoom lense.
I'll snoop around to see if I can find a bundle with less accessories. I really just wanted the bag and lenses.
hey...I'm coming from a Ricoh GR to a Nikon D750 paired with a Nikkor 50mm 1.8D. I'm a bit disappointed with the IQ compaired with the GR fantastic sharpness thanks to the lack of AA filter. My question is, will the Sigma 35mm ART 1.4 give me a IQ compared to GR? I asked about this particular lens because according to dxomark is the best prime for D750. btw sorry for my poor English, thanks.
trying to figure out what i should get for my first dslr body.
i've already figured i'm gonna get a 35mm prime lens but i'm not sure what body i want.
i started with a recommendation for a d60 but i've been looking at the 3100 and 3200 now, any suggestions? i basically just dont want to spend a lot over 200/250 because i'm already gonna spend like 180 on the lens.
I've always been interested in a compact camera, thinking about having an APS-C camera for everyday snapshots is liberating. how does the Ricoh GR II compare to an SLR in terms of autofocusing speed and accuracy?
also, because it has a 47mm crop mode could this be used for portraits as a working photographer's camera?
[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 1024 Image Height 599 Scene Capture Type Standard
how much do good enough printers start at
so i can print some shit to hang on my walls basically
or should i just use shutterfly/etc
>>2851757
the main cost isn't upfront.
Ink cartridges are ridiculously expensive for extremely tiny amounts of ink.
Fancy paper also costs something.
And affordable printers don't do large prints. If you want to hang some ordinary sheet of paper sized prints then doing it yourself may be an option, but if you want large painting-sized prints, it'll be far cheaper to go to a store.
>>2851759
Define large print?
I've made some, iirc 19"x13" or something prints for family members of their pets and shit on some ~200$ photo printer i got for 50$
>>2851796
Die CIS scum!
>>2851645
>>2851652
WHERE IS THE REAL OP!!!!
Also: I'm really torn between Pentax K-5 and K-50. I like the top LCD of the K-5 and the pro level feel, I never thought I'd like it ( as long as it works use it Toyota Tercel attitude ) but now I'm hooked on good construction.
I'm also considering the K-7 but I think it's too obsolete to really upgrade to from the K10D.
I'm also terribly, chronically broke.
Wat do, /p/?
>>2851860
K-50 has the newer AF module. If you're wondering about the higher level body then go for a K-5IIs instead.
>broke
K-50 bro, you won't regret it.
>>2851868
OK my dude.
Should I go with a white body for $60 cheaper?
Should I wrap it in realtree for the oddball hipster effect?
>>2851881
If money is a priority then go for it. I myself am not very fond of colorful bodies. It is the same camera and that $60 can get you a used 35/2.4 prime.
If anyone has had experience making the jump from the A6000 to the A7/A7II,
what is the low light performance improvement like?
>>2851888
>making the jump
another victim of marketing.
>>2851888
Usually 1 stop
>>2851907
I'm more of a 1911 type of guy.
>>2851724
Can confirm D3300. Nice little camera for stepping into the eco-system and it gives you the opportunity to test old and new lenses and see if a DSLR is right for you.
Looking at a second hand EOS 1D Mark II N, seller said it's missing a piece from it, not sure what it is though. Picture provided, is it an easy fix or not?
>>2852044
That's the focusing screen. Easy fix, takes 2 mins, no tools needed. It's actually designed to be replaced. I had a 1D Mk II (no N) and it was the greatest sports camera I owned for the price. Even with portraits it took great shots and could make sharp 16x20s, even with it's 8.2 mp resolution. Be warned though, they eat shutters every 100,000 or so clicks.
>>2851756
Crop is crop. Just shoot normal 28mm and then crop in post.
I've read that using a polarizer with a lens thats too wide can cause funky things to happen to the sky. How wide can I go before this starts being a problem? I'm specifically thinking of a 24mm (equivalent) lens
>>2852071
Nah I think that they're talking about 15mm wide angle lenses. I shoot a polarizer on my EF 24-105 without problems.
>>2852073
I use a normal polarizer on mine, but it is a zoom lens. Idk if it should be thin on a wider fixed focal lens. Any way you can test it out?
>>2852077
well I don't have the lens yet. and I was really hoping to buy my stuff online since the nearest full-service camera store (as opposed to a Best Buy) is over an hour's drive away.
>>2852080
If you're worried, I'd just go thin. 24mm is wide, but it's not -really- wide.
Is the d700 a good camera for baby's first full frame? I'm using a a6k and the D700 is the cheapest that I can see plus it sounds like its hard as fuck to destroy
>>2852084
Only real issue is that it's an older camera so you won't get the same resolution as the A6000, and it'll have a fairly high shutter count.
>>2852054
Okay thank you for your help! I went ahead and purchased it, and I bought an extra battery to go with it too, all for 140 bucks.
>>2852085
Besides that is it still a pretty good contender for today? The largest I print is 8x10, so resolutions not that important. I already have a 50mm f1.4D I can use on it. Anything I really need to look out for buying second hand?
Picked this Canon RebelG up without a lens
I was recommended the yungnuo 50mm f/1.8
Any other recommendations
>also poorfag here
>>2852084
I don't think you should upgrade just for muh full frame without any other valid reasons, people care way too much about sensor size. It's probably not going to give you any better image quality than what you get out of your Sony and as far as I know the a6000 is supposed to be a perfectly good camera.
I say you should consider whether you need a big fat full size DSLR rather than your much smaller mirrorless. Do you need weather sealing or an optical finder or Nikon's lens lineup or the control scheme and ergonomics which Nikon puts into their pro cameras or what is it exactly that you expect to get out of a D700 over your camera?
If you really do want a D700 though then I say go for it. Buy one in good shape with a relatively low shutter count, a lot of D700s are now like 8 years old which is a long time for a digital camera and many of them were heavily used by wedding photographers and other pros who like to put a lot of shutter actuations on their cameras.
I bought one a couple of months ago in very good shape and it's definitely the best digital camera I've ever owned. It feels totally rock solid and uncompromising and I expect to get a good few years out of it before it shits the bed or CF cards become impossible to find. It's certainly something of a legend of a camera and for good reason it's seen as one of the great DSLRs.
>>2852099
I'll be hiking in new Mexico in a year and I know that the a6k will shit itself on the first day and get dust scratches on the sensor. Plus I like using 28mm and wide angles which I can't use on a APC sized sensor. Plus my job in the Air Force as combat camera will use Nikon which I wanna familiarize with as soon as possible.
>>2852096
The Yungnuo is a great 50mm. More or less on par with the 50mm 1.8 II, although in some tests it shows to be a bit sharper.
A good flash would be a Vivitar Auto Thyristor 2800. Have one for my film shit and it's been working great. Not sure if the Rebel G has E-TTL or something of the sort though. If it does, go for a Canon flash.
>>2852106
If a tough full frame used Nikon is what you want then I would say the D700 hits a pretty sweet spot in price and performance. You could try to get a D3 or something if you really want a brick shithouse but it'll cost more and weigh a ton for not much benefit, or you could spend more to get a D800 with lots of megapickles, or you could save some money and get a D300 but then you have a more limited DX ultrawide selection, or a D600 probably costs about the same but you lose some build quality and autofocus performance and the fully pro control layout in exchange for gaining some resolution and some other minor stuff like dual SD card slots.
>>2852116
How big of a difference is the d3 vs the d700?
>>2852120
A battery grip, mostly.
Thom Hogan did a pretty good comparative review: http://www.bythom.com/nikond700review.htm
Keep in mind that this was years ago so it has hilarious outdated stuff like
>The D700 is near state-of-the-art at 12mp. Thus, the D700 is a respectable landscape camera. By respectable I mean that you can push landscapes up to the maximum size a desktop inkjet prints and get excellent detail. Given some of the lenses Nikon has put out recently, any softness in the resulting images is not the camera's fault.
Even though camera reviewers today will insist you need at least 50MP for a landscape.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Canon Camera Model Canon EOS 350D DIGITAL Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS2 Windows Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2008:08:13 11:04:32 Exposure Time 1/160 sec F-Number f/22.0 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 400 Lens Aperture f/22.0 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 44.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 2832 Image Height 2068 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard
>>2852120
If you mean the D3, they're well over $1,000 used and are full sized professional cameras that have been through the wringer that is a professional workload.
The D300 on the other hand is still a professional camera, but is a crop sensor versus the full frame one of a D700. At that point I would just say get a D7X000 or D700 if you were considering a D300, since either one will be newer than the D300.
>>2852134
d700 and d300 are the same gen, released within a few months of each other.
>>2852134
I just want a durable full frame camera under a grand. The D700 seems like the best I can get.
>>2852125
i honestly don't get why they make the vertical grip compulsory on the high-end FF camera. Sometimes you want the sensor/AF performance of a high-end body without the bulk
>>2852125
>you need at least 50MP for a landscape
Is it really that important? Or is it needless gearfaggotry?
What's the best printer I can go for printing A3 sized prints? Also, what would be better, Inkjet or laser? And also, being a Canon shooter, would there be any advantages to buying a Canon printer?
Also I have $1000 to spend.
>>2852137
They're a couple years apart, unless you mean the D300S.
>>2852159
Depends how big you want to make your prints or how dramatically you want to crop.
If you're posting your snapshits to instafag, then you don't need 50mp. If you're making prints to sell, then I would advise to go with the extra pixels.
>>2852164
if you are making big prints the best way is to use panorama anyway so all megapickles do is reduce the number of exposures you make.
>>2852163
No, I mean the D300.
D300 and D700 were both released in 2008. D300 was released in March, and the D700 was released in October.
>>2852170
Whoops I thought you said D7000 there. Either way, I completely forgot that the D700 was from the same year as the D300.
$300 - Tamron 70-300mm f/4-5.6 VC USD
$400 - Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L USM
$550 - Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 VC USD
All of these will be pre-owned because I'm poor.
Which one /p/? I'm heading to a job in the next couple of weeks. It'll be indoor with incandescent lighting (50W or so) so I'm leaning towards the f/2.8 but I'm only getting paid about $400 for the job...
I guess I'll be able to use the lens for other jobs, but I'm not getting enough hours to make this my full time career :(
Body is a Canon EOS 6D and I already have a EF 50mm f/1.8 STM and a Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 VC USD so I need a long/telezoom.
>>2852182
I, have it etched into my memory because I bought my D300 like a month before they announced the superior, better-suited-to-my-uses D700. It was too late by then, and I was stuck with it.
>>2852186
Get the Canon f/4L. It's optically superior.
Is a D3300 enough for professional freelance work? Should I invest my income in a better body or accessories like a strobe, reflector, and studio equipment?
>>2851716
I'd say they're more than competitive, if you compare Fuji glass to equivalent FF stuff from Nikon, Canon, et al.
With rebates, Fuji's 23mm 1.4 costs half of what Nikon's 35 1.4 does, for example, and their 50-140 is quite a bit cheaper than Canikon 70-200 2.8s.
>>2852230
A friend of mine shoots gigs for local bands with his D3200, so I don't see why not.
Buying 5D2 with 70k shutter count, used.
Bad idea?
From 40D to 80D, yes or no? Mostly landscape snapshits but I'm also looking for decent video.
>>2851645
Shouldn't these gear threads be in /g/?
They are more tech related than photography.
>>2852334
If all you're talking about is a comparison between pixel sizes in a sterile environment, yeah, but the idea is that you come into these threads to ask for advice applying the gear to actual photography, and getting advice from people with experience.
>>2852310
How much for?
MKIV going to be announced fall and the prices will drop.
>>2852406
500ish usd.
5D2 used usually go for around 650-750usd here.
/p/ why does spending money on good deals for lenses I'd actually use make me sad even though I'm not breaking my bank
>>2851645
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5m722n1081s
So according to their site, with the proper adapter, this thing works with MD lenses. Seems pretty awesome to me.
Is there any reason not to go with it?
I can get a Mamiya M645 1000S with the PD prism finder, 45/2.8, 80/2.8, 150/3.5 and 210/4 for €250. Good deal or not?
I've been looking for a MF SLR for a while now, after messing with a few folder cameras (which always felt a bit too finicky)
Good DSLR under 150-200$.
ATM I am a poor filmfag :(
Please anons waiting for some real good suggestions.
>>2852478
There are no "real good" suggestions. You can get exactly one acceptable LENS for that price, let alone a lens and a good camera along with it.
Get on KEH and start looking at well used 20D, rebels, and some older Pentax bodies.
Two stupid questions from a raging amature hobbyist.
-Any news on the 5dmkIV? do you think it's getting announced at that convention thing in September?
-I want a Canon 50mm 1,2, but do you think they're going to release a new version of it any time soon?
I don't want to buy something in that price range only to find out they're releasing a new version of it soon'ish.
I asked in the Leica subreddit about buying an older Leica M8.2 or M9 and 5 separate people suggested me getting a Sony instead. Could Sony shills be lurking Leica subreddit?
How can you even compare the M9 to a A7? They're completely different cameras and markets.
>>2852494
A7 can easily adapt (and now even autofocus) M-mount lenses, making it a cheap and easy way to use the 'leica glass' everyone orgasms about.
Hey
Wich one should I buy: Nikon d5300 or Sony Alpha 58?
Both come with an 18-55mm kitlens. The price on the Nikon is a bit higher. (around 150€)
But which one is better in terms of picture quality and focus?
Id like to use it for everyday photos nothing specific like sports or landscapes.
It would be my first dslr.
Thanks
>>2852408
That's darn good.
I'd be tempted to do it but I'm a Canacuck. Our >fuckingleaf
Money is worth nothing.
I'm a bit of a Pentax fan girl.
>>2852478
Nikon D40
>>2852622
I would suggest against the Sony.
Sony mirrorless is questionable by itself but the SLT that they make seem like they'll die out very soon.
Alpha 58, and Minolta glass is dirt cheap
when is Cosina going to get back into the digital RF game?
>>2852622
>>2852631
Yeah the A58 wins in terms of lenses since older Minolta Alpha lenses are dirt cheap and a lot of newer Sony Alpha lenses are just gussied up Minoltas, and because the A58 has IBIS.
The Nikon on the other hand will win in things like AF points and speed.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Panasonic Camera Model DMC-GX1 Camera Software GIMP 2.8.2 Maximum Lens Aperture f/5.0 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 58 mm Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 180 dpi Vertical Resolution 180 dpi Image Created 2013:10:03 19:19:17 Exposure Time 1/2 sec F-Number f/8.0 Exposure Program Aperture Priority ISO Speed Rating 160 Exposure Bias 1.3 EV Metering Mode Center Weighted Average Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 29.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 900 Image Height 900 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Gain Control Low Gain Up Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal Image Quality Fine White Balance Auto Focus Mode Unknown Spot Mode Unknown Image Stabilizer Mode 1 Macro Mode Normal Shooting Mode Aperture Priority Audio No Flash Bias 0.00 EV Color Effect Off Contrast High Noise Reduction Standard
$800 for a working sample, a shop is selling it, what do?
>>2852646
Buy it. It's not that complicated.
>>2852670
t. clueless
>>2852674
It's a 300mm f/2.8 with AF, ED elements so it's sharp and has little CA.
It usually worth double than that.
Any Pentax birders awake? Is it okay if I buy a DA* 300/4 for less than 600 britbongs?
I already have the HD DA 1.4x TC.
>>2852478
D200
2
0
0
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make NIKON CORPORATION Camera Model NIKON D2X Camera Software Adobe Photoshop 7.0 Maximum Lens Aperture f/1.4 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Color Filter Array Pattern 826 Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 100 mm Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Created 2006:06:15 13:26:30 Exposure Time 1/125 sec F-Number f/8.0 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 100 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash Flash, Return Not Detected Focal Length 50.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 720 Image Height 481 Rendering Custom Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Manual Digital Zoom Ratio 1.3 Scene Capture Type Standard Gain Control None Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal Subject Distance Range Unknown
>>2852641
Isn't Voigtlander's name owned by Cosina? Chances of a digital body are slim to none however, unless somebody can sell them a complete electronics package for cheap. Even so, the only people who'd buy a "Leica knockoff" won't be able to afford or justify M-mount lenses.
>>2852646
Decent price, AF-I motor won't amaze you or anything. Good for beating people into submission when combined with F5. Grab it if you want a cheap 300. The only other sub $1000 option is the 300/4D.
>>2852800
When a certain camera is bolted down all over the arctic and shows the world the recession of the glaciers, you know it's a damn reliable camera.
Hey guys, can you tell me more about shillerin (sp?) imaging? I want to see if I can do it at home.
>>2852806
Shilling is not viewed kindly over these parts.
>>2852806
It's when you shill Sony and Pentax products. You can do it easily at home, but these days, you can do it from your phone too. You don't even need to take any pictures.
Here's a quick guide:
Sony
Do: talk about body features, EVFs, sensors, DXO results, pretend OSPDAF is comparable to traditional PDAF, hypotheticals
Don't: talk about batteries, weather sealing, lens ecosystem, professional support
Pentax:
Do: talk about pentaprisms and dual dials on entry level bodies, IBIS, weather sealing, lens ecosystem stretching back to M42 mount, 645Z
Don't: talk about how old film lenses don't measure up, screw drive AF speed and accuracy, lack of pro support, market share, autofocus
>>2852805
Yup, it's also good practice to carry a camera that can double as a self-defense weapon
>>2852806
Literally 10 seconds in google/youtube
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZ0bYi9UFv8
I can't fucking do it /p/.
I've been researching and researching but I just cannot fucking decide which lens I should buy and every time I ask in these threads I get wildly different answers. I just want to buy something that won't give me buyers remorse.
I have £400. I don't know what the fuck I want to do with whatever lens I get, I was thinking full macro at first but perhaps I should just keep things simple and work on getting a few great quality primes first.
Anyway, I have a K-50 camera, £400 dedicated to buying a lens, and no idea really what I want to do with said lens, so I know that makes it hard on you guys.
Should I just play it safe and buy a 35/50mm lens? If so then which one(s)?
I want something that would be ideal to take out to some lush looking areas to take random pictures of the scenery, fauna, insects, people, buildings, and whatever other wildlife there is.
What should I do? I'm tired of this shit and just want to buy something at this point.
Oh and bonus (probably silly) question. Is it stupid to be buying lenses that costs more than the camera body I'm using? Will I notice any sort of bottlenecking?
End my suffering /p/, give me a unanimous recommendation for something that most people would consider a stellar choice.
>>2852846
one (1): If you go with primes, the babby plastic fantastics DA 35/2.4 and 50/1.8 are excellent choices. Good for generic shooting including some landscape on the 35mm, and excellent portrait capabilities on the 50mm. I have the 35/2.4, I can safely recommend it.
two (2): Getting a standard zoom lens, like a step-up from the kit lens. Something like the DA 16-45/4, DA* 16-50/2.8 or HD DA 16-85 will be good. I have the 16-45 and it is an excellent all purpose lens (some weak macro) but no WR.
Make your choice.
My Nikon D3200 got fucked and to be repaired I have to pay $200, with that I can buy another one at keh.com, and use this one as spare, since auto mode is still working, but manual is not, and to use aperture or speed priority is a pain in the ass for this particular failure I have.
So do I buy another 3200? or go for another one, I have my eye in a d200 since its in the same price range used. Im also a little inclined for a D90 for cheapnes since im poor, but the D200 has a motor built in, so I would be able to buy cheaper lenses in the future.
What are your tought /p/? another D3200? D200? or D90? I feel there is no sense in repairing the one I have, since I can get another for the same price.
Which old lense is neat af but cheaper?
>>2852860
What is your shutter count on the D3200? If it's low, just get it fixed.
Don't get the D200. It's obsolete, and the IQ doesn't hold up. Also, a pig on batteries. I know, because I have one.
D90 is basically a dumbed down D300s. It's good (I have both) but prefer the D300s due to better AF.
I'd just repair the thing, m8. It's a great little camera.
>>2851747
Listen to me, do not buy a kit like that, is a trap, it maybe refurbished lenses, or even the camera, look for a good deal on the camera, on the extra lens, and the bag, even if separatly, if you must buy a bundle because is a gift or something that you are receiving and cant buy multiple things is ok.
But dont fall for it, you wont taste the waters with any of those accesories, I have a few of them. All crap.
>>2852863
is around 10,000 I think.
the D300, was another option but is a little more expensive.
What do you think on buying another d3200 for almost the same price of the repair?
>>2852870
Depends on what the shutter count on the other D3200 is, assuming it's used. 10,000 is nothing, really.
Once the D500 drops in price, expect to see a lot more D300s floating around. Something to keep an eye on, although I'd still take the image quality of the D3200 over it.
Should I get a Ricoh GR?
I know it's fixed lens, but so is my phone and I think they have the same field of view
I hear getting a bigger sensor makes a picture more detailed
>>2852878
Yes the Ricoh is definitely a big step up from a smartphone.
The lens is much better, and better depth of field control with a sensor that big.
>>2852800
Don't forget cameras like the D2H and D2X if you want to look super pro.
looking into buying a Laowa 105mm because I like unique lenses like this
does anyone have experience with it or the patented nikon version?
http://www.venuslens.net/product/laowa-105mm-f2-smooth-trans-focus-stf-lens/
>>2852904
I owned a 105mm DC for a few weeks and it was a very nice lens but that was because it was very high quality optically and had amazing build quality and the defocus control stuff was just a very minor little added feature on top of an already excellent lens. I don't think that feature on its own is really worth much and I doubt that putting it on some low-budget Chinese garbage is going to make it into a good lens.
Someone on craigslist is selling a Fuji FinePix S1 Pro with a bag and Tamron 28-200mm Super Zoom for $100 with a bag and the original boxes.
Is this a good idea for someone's first camera?
I've really only used an older Sony Cybershot, disposables, and my cellphone.
>>2852972
No, it's going to be dogshit. It's a primitive frankencamera, if you're hung up on getting a Fuji DSLR spend a little more and get an S5 instead. For $100 you could get a D70, D50, D40, maybe even a D80, all of which would beat the shit out of the S1 on the playground and steal its lunch money
>>2853003
Alright, I'll keep my eyes open for deals then.
Thanks, anon.
I'm trying to grow up and evolve out of my newfaggotry by looking into videos, books, tutorials, etc.
Right now, all I have is my trusty rabal, a kit lens, and a 50mm f/1.8. Recently, I've been feeling like it's not good enough though. What would be a good camera to upgrade to for both photo and video for no more that $1k? I've been seeing into an Olympus OM-D E-M10 mkII and that looks pretty cool. I'm also worried about lens prices, since everything past entry level skyrockets in price.
If I'm just being a gearfag, what can I read to help me figure out my needs better?
[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 1100 Image Height 617 Scene Capture Type Standard
>>2853009
>If I'm just being a gearfag, what can I read to help me figure out my needs better?
I don't think there's anything you can read that's really going to help you with that.
What are the limitations that you keep hitting when using your current kit?
>>2851655
I bought canon because
>it's something I'm used to
>werks
>lots of support
>>2853005
Sure thing, I checked out the Fujis in the past. The S1and S3 are just old midrange film SLRs with digital guts basketball-engineered into them. For a first DSLR it would be an exercise in masochism and frustration. S5 uses a D200 body (glorious) and is quite a bit more refined, but incredibly niche when you can almost get a used D300 for the same price. What kind of shooting do you want to do?
>>2853017
Digging around on ebay found a Sony A200 &230, EOS 20D & 30D, a D60 & D70 for all less than $200.
Most sitting around 100 or less right now.
Kind of partial to Sony.
Any suggestions? (probably will just push this off for a month of two in all honesty, see what I can get then)
>>2853021
https://www.keh.com/shop/cameras/digital-cameras/bodies.html?dir=asc&order=price
Personally I would get a D200 since it'll meter with old MF lenses which are a terrific value. For under $200 you could get both the body and a decent AI prime or two.
>>2853031
Cool site. Thanks anon. The buy it nows were sub 200. $150 is honestly the most ID be looking for with lense. I'll have to look around in the morning. Thanks again.
>>2853012
eos m with 22mm + 18-55mm was $300.
w-why not.
it turns out to be a great camera.
colours is better than my sony although dynamic range is crap.
the 22mm is the best lens ever.
>>2853036
>heavy for a pancake
>slow as fuck autofocus
>focus by wire
>best lens ever
One of these things is not like the other
>>2853035
They're also very conservative with their gear ratings so don't be afraid of anything marked "bargain", I've gotten numerous times from them in the past and it's always been in far better shape than expected.
Also a great place for repairs, they fixed the aperture solenoid on my D2Hs for a fraction of what Nikon repair quoted me.
>>2853038
>heavy
wat
>slow
yes
>fbw
yes
>best lens ever
the optics are better than anything sony have to offer until they went xbox huge.
>>2851645
>rent 70-200/2.8 for a race for my D3100
>think it's a heavy bastard to lug around
>years later
>go to photo event, borrow D810 and 70-200/2.8
>this thing's so light damn son
>200-500/5.6: now this is telephoto
>200/2+2x: correction, now THIS is telephoto
>24-70/2.8: wow this thing is tiny, and it's only $1800 that's so reasonable
I should get a GR.
Sigma 17-50 f 2.8
or
One prime lens for a similar price
What would be best to get for a casual shooter that still wants very nice image quality?
I must admit, I am skeptical about how well zoom lenses perform after how disappointed I am with my current kit lens, but I also don't really know shit about photography so my skepticism could be misplaced.
>>2853072
Either would be leagues better than most any kit lens. Although I would have to say go for the zoom. In most cases, the convenience of having a zoom lens outweighs the drawbacks.
Oh, and for a zoom, I strongly recommend looking into the Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4 DC Macro OS HSM. It's a fantastic lens. And considering what modern cameras are capable of, fast lenses are becoming less and less important.
>>2853072
I recently bought this lens. It's very good.
I have a lot of lenses, and based on what I have used and own I would recommend this sigma over a prime. My previous most loved/sharpest lens was the FA 50mm/2.8 macro, and the sigma easily supersedes...for me.
Really the only lenses I use any more are:
http://www.pentaxforums.com/userreviews/sigma-17-50mm-f2-8-ex-dc-os-hsm-no-stabilizer.html
and
http://www.pentaxforums.com/userreviews/sigma-70-200mm-f2-8-ex-dg-apo-macro-hsm-ii.html
The 17-50 is sharp as fuck wide open, but I found this to be useful info:
http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/Sigma-17-50mm-F28-EX-DC-HSM-Pentax-on-Pentax-K-3-versus-Sigma-17-50mm-F28-EX-DC-HSM-Pentax-on-Pentax-K5__786_914_786_676
most notably becasue of knowing how sharp it is near f/4 when I was thinking f/2.8 was sharp in my shots, now i'll be much more likely to try to shoot at f/4 even in very dark situations, which is usually when i use this lens most.
>>2853081
>>2853082
Thanks for the info.
I'm actually quite surprised and glad that you mentioned the FA 50mm/2.8 macro though, because I was actually looking at that and it had a decent chance of being what I was going to choose, but if you feel the Sigma is the better buy then that makes my decision much easier, since the Sigma is a fair bit cheaper than that 50mm lens in particular.
Would you say the Sigma is surpasses the 50mm in terms of sharpness?
I plan on using it with the K50 camera too, so hopefully it performs well on that body in particular.
>>2853072
>casual
the zoom
>>2853085
Since you don't really know what you want the lens for, the standard zoom is the better choice. Step up with the primes later, the DA 50/1.8 and 35/2.4 are very cheap.
>>2852629
>SLT dieing soon
>new A99 on the verge of release
Not really.
>>2851687
Sony happend
>>2853118
Nah, Sony happened to the userbase, not the company itself.
>>2851687
>They were making badass cameras for awhile, but go out because medical optics and the like were way more profitable.
lol no.
this is retarded. never in the history of business has anyone stopped making shit because 'something else was more profitable'. they will just do both.
what happened was minolta was getting #rekt by canikon in the digital dslr then it sold itself to sony.
the end
>>2853085
Looks like dxomarks data on anyhting but new pentax lenses is very lacking.
I don't really do comparisons as such, but I do notice when a lens produces crispy images with ease and in difficult light.
The FA macro is in that category, but it's screwdrive is noisy and after using HSM for a while there is no going back. The FA also seeks a bit, probably due to the macro-related long focus throw, which makes the noise worse.
I suspect in terms if simple sharpness that the two lenses are very similar, but the HSM silence and speed, and the zoom range makes the sigma the better lens IMO. Of course I'll be using the FA when I go to digitize my negatives, and it's the ideal lens to use with the ring flash I have - kinda bummed the sigma is too big to fit it actually.
Yeah, the sigma is a no brainer really. Just don't drop it like I did, the construction is nowhere near as robust as the FA, and it is significantly larger, so .. yeah.
Options/thoughts on monitor calibrators? Could do with buying one at work as we get more things printed now, is there any reason to spend more than the £132 that picrelated Spyder5PRO costs?
>>2853085
>since the Sigma is a fair bit cheaper than that 50mm lens in particular.
it should be noted that I'm talking about an older FA50/2.8macro... just in case newer revisions exist.
I mention this becasue i got my FA50 for $250 or thereabouts, and the sigma is about $400. I got mine off topbuy.com.au, which strangely no longer lists them.
https://www.topbuy.com.au/default.aspx#s=eyJzZWFyY2hWYWwiOiJzaWdtYSAxNy01MG1tIGYyLjgifQ==
Japanese ebay sellers would be the next place i'd source one. Screw paying australia tax on gear they import from the same sellers and just re-post out to us. The .au warranty means nothing.
>>2852846
get a manual 35mm and an adapter
>>2852878
why not get a fuji instead? getting fixed prime lens is gonna be bad cost/benefit wise
>>2852904
it's pretty good but you have to be careful not to use the effect too much or the bg will just be a color blob
I'm looking for a cheap loupe/viewfinder for my Nikon D5500 since I do video stuff with it. What would you guys recommend? (I'd prefer something that's under $60)
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS4 Macintosh Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2012:04:05 04:01:14 Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 600 Image Height 450
>>2853040
Probably not here right now, but do you have an opinion on the E-Volt Cameras or the Panasonic Lumix mirrorless?
Wondering if anyone here has any experience with the Sigma or Tamron 150mm-600mm telephoto zooms. I'm looking to get one as a first wildlife/bird lens for my D3300. Worth a look? I really can't afford fast primes and quite frankly this is just a hobby. I'm mostly concerned about the auto-focus working correctly. Would something like a Nikon 200-500 be better for the extra money?
>>2853200
I looked at those myself but just ordered a 300mm f4 Nikkor (AF-D verson). I figured it'll give me better IQ for a lower price even after slapping a TC on it, but I suppose that's not an option with the 3300. Between those two I'd go for the Tamron, lots of comprehensive video reviews of it on Youtube and the general consensus seems pretty good.
>>2853072
sigma lenses have focus problems
>>2853157
>whatever the fuck that is
"please kill me, it hurts to live" - the accessory
>>2853200
switch to canon and get the 400mm 5.6
>>2853207
you mean the 100-400mm ii right
>>2853200
The Sigma and the Tamron are both very capable lenses.
Alternatively there's the Sigma 50-500 DG OS HSM with a bigger zoom range and decent AF.
>>2853210
the 100-400 is more expensive.
but yes if you can afford it
>>2853205
Yes, all Sigma lenses have focus problems. Get real.
Hey /p/ I opened this board by accident but it just so happens I've been looking at getting a new camera.
I read somewhere that a good DSLR for beginners is the nikon d3300. Is this true? What lens kit should I get? All I would be using it for is photographing events, and the occasional scenery pic. It comes with 18-55 and/or 55-300 lenses? What's the difference?
Can be had for around 400AU without lens, 450-500 with 18-55 and 650+ with both lenses.
>>2853225
Pentax K-50 with WR kit lens
>>2853225
18-55 is a general purpose wider lens and the 55-300 is a telephoto with quite a good reach for a kit lens.
>>2853205
I have 3. None of mine have focus problems, on either my 5Dmk2 or my 5Dmk3.
>>2853225
buy a second hand 5d1 with a 50mm 1.8 for $400
>>2853072
If you "don't know shit about photography" then a mid-range zoom or a mid range prime will both be more than sharp enough for anything you're doing, and you don't even realize yet that your technique has more to do with the sharpness in your photos than your gear.
To get "bad" image quality that will actually detract from your photos, you'll be paying less than $100 for a lens designed in the 60s.
Don't worry about gear. Start worrying about light and content. That's where your quality will be hidden.
>>2853231
Don't listen to this guy. 5d isn't a good beginner's camera in the most remote sense and it's ridiculous to limit your possibilities to only 50mm, especially just starting out.
Unless you just want to shoot dull, pretentious "street" hipster garbage. Don't need a DSLR to take pictures of trash bags and homeless people and fat girls in yoga pants.
>>2853144
Diminishing rate of returns. If you have hundreds of thousands of dollars a year riding on the exact perfect accuracy of your colors, then it makes sense to upgrade. If it's for puttering around and low level production, a cheap spyder and enjoy. They get you 97% of the way there.
>>2853233
Thanks. Of the recommendations I've been given, and the d3300, which would you suggest? I don't really want to spend too much because I'm just starting.
Is the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 worth the money?
>>2853233
>5d isn't a good beginner's camera in the most remote sense and it's ridiculous to limit your possibilities to only 50mm, especially just starting out.
that's funny since beginners since the 50s had used 50mm on a manual camera just fine.
as you got it assbackwards, starting out you want to limit the choice available to you so you have focus on learning the basics not 'which focal length should i use'.
desu youre an idiot
>>2853235
>buying new
mate...
>>2853235
>>2853237
I think the 3300 is an absolutely fantastic camera for beginners. It's a stellar value, modern guts, and a simple, intuitive interface. Punchy results without postprocessing too. Nice portable size makes it a great little backup or lightweight travel body if you upgrade to something bigger. I started with a D60 many years ago, an ancestor of the 3300, and it was a great little rig.
>>2853239
Yeah, fuck this guy if he wants to shoot landscapes, or sports, or wildlife, or a dog running in a field, or anything far away, or anything else you can't do with a 50mm. Not like they had any choice back in the 50's, dickweed.
>>2853241
buy a nex-5 online for $150 then buy any vintage 35mm online + adapter for $50.
that would be enough for all your need
save the rest of the money
>>2853243
>Yeah, fuck this guy if he wants to shoot landscapes,
not a problem
>sports or wildlife,
then he would have to up his budget to 2k at least for a lens anyway so its gonna be a different conversation
> or a dog running in a field
lol
>or anything far away,
turn the focus wheel then you moron
>or anything else you can't do with a 50mm
you can do plenty with a 50mm
>Not like they had any choice back in the 50's,
they did, retard
you're the dumbest newfag i have ever seen for at least 2 years
>>2853225
A D3300 is not a bad choice. It's pretty much the bottom of the barrel as far as modern equipment is concerned, but when your needs are pretty casual and simple, you won't need much more. If you want to, you could probably do a bit better, feature wise, if you went for a used higher-end model, but you'll be fine without most of it unless your events are happening at night in a cave.
>>2853227
How is that better for his uses than a D3300?
>>2853228
Correct
>>2853231
Do not do this. Outdated technology, poor autofocus, poor high ISO capabilities, low resolution. 50mm f/1.8 has poor loud autofocus, bad build quality, and is not very flexible at all, and for many people, the focal length is both too tight and too wide.
>>2853233
accurate
>>2853245
Are you a fucking ass? 55-300mm on a DX body is totally usable for wildlife and sports. Yeah, it's not going to be equal to an exotic telephoto but it's a whole hell of a lot better than a fucking 50mm prime. Yeah, I know, optically 50s are great, blah, blah blah. But it's just not practical for a beginner. The focus wheel isn't going to magically make that critter 300 yards out any bigger, fuckface.
>You don't think fool frame and a 50 is the greatest shit ever, hurr hurr newfag
Please, if you're going to troll me at least put more effort in; you're only embarrassing yourself.
I have 5 lenses I regularly use spanning from 18-300mm and the 50mm prime gets the least use out of all of them. Not everybody is into such limited photography as you.
>>2853248
>>2853243
Thank you both for your fantastic responses.
What kind of features is the d3300 missing that I might find in similarly priced competitors? Is it mostly quality of life stuff or would it impact my ability to do different types of shots? Is the image quality much the same in this price range for modern cameras?
>>2853252
I can't speak for other systems but as far as Nikon is concerned the biggest omissions are the top LCD, built-in AF screwdriver, and metering with manual lenses. If you're willing to go used the D7000 would be a good choice if you want such features.
>>2853248
>Outdated technology
sonyfag detected
>poor autofocus
useable autofocus. paying only for what's needed
> poor high ISO capabilities
sonyfag detected lol
>low resolution
muh megapickles
>50mm f/1.8 has poor loud autofocus
perfectly fine autofocus that is 'louder' than alternative but its not loud
> bad build quality
irrelevant
>and for many people, the focal length is both too tight and too wide.
you just went full retard
you are clearly a retarded sony gearwhore
>>2853251
>55-300mm on a DX body is totally usable for wildlife and sports.
yeah mate enjoy your speedy AF on your bottom tier body LOL
>But it's just not practical for a beginner.
it's perfectly practical. you are like a camera store saleperson who has never taken a photo in his entire life except with his smart phone. telephotos are the least useful of all the focal lengths.
>I have 5 lenses I regularly use spanning from 18-300mm and the 50mm prime gets the least use out of all of them.
yeah sure bud i have 50 lenses and my 50s are the most used. perfect for any occasion. im not a superzoom casual like you
>>2853248
>How is that better for his uses than a D3300?
Weather sealing, bright 100% accurate pentaprism finder instead of the dark dustmagnet pentamirror in the Nikon, cheaper lenses and more options to choose from, 100% seamless integration of old lenses, no gimped menus and software lockdown.
So it is pretty much better in every single way.
>>2853254
Uh, no, I"m a canon fag, who used a 5D for six years. 12mp on full frame is great if it buys you great high ISO. On the 5D, it doesn't.
The autofocus is worse than the 5Dmk2, which is bad, compared to pretty much everyone else. The 5D has autofocus comparable with a 6 year old rebel.
The iso maxes out at 1600. The mk3 goes up to 25,600. That's fully four stops higher, or 16 times the brightness. It's not dismiss-able, especially for events shooting.
>bad build quality irrelevant
If it's his only fucking lens, and the front element and housing fall off, I'm sure he's going to find it pretty relevant.
>>2853256
Yeah, I can see where a telephoto might be useless in mommy's basement. Show me your baller wildlife shots with your 50mm and we'll talk.
I've been shooting wildlife for the past 6 years with manual focus lenses and I've got the shots to prove you wrong. Fight me, fucker. If your sorry ass can't get a shot at 300mm with even the most basic AF it sounds more like a problem on your end. Keep digging your hole.
>>2853257
Weather sealing? How is that important when you're shooting events?
That "bright" viewfinder is aps-c. It's not noticeably brighter than any other aps-c finder.
Cheaper shittier slower lenses that are old and used, have to be hunted down and researched because no store carries them, with awkward focal lengths since they're all cropped from full frame. Not to mention worse autofocus, no support...
How is it better for his uses? He may never buy a lens that isn't his kit lens and that zoom.
>>2853260
>12mp on full frame is great if it buys you great high ISO. On the 5D, it doesn't.
the 5d high ISO is fine. nobody is shooting @ iso 20000
>The autofocus is worse than the 5Dmk2, which is bad, compared to pretty much everyone else
autofocus is fine
>The iso maxes out at 1600.
not a problem at all.
>It's not dismiss-able, especially for events shooting.
and this is where your gearwhoring makes itself evident. nobody is buying a camera to 'shoot events' or do 'bird photography'. go jerk off to your ISO number.
>If it's his only fucking lens, and the front element and housing fall off,
that's not gonna happen you retard. just because the build quality is not as good as other lens doens't mean it's bad.
fuck i hate gearwhore
>>2853261
wow you are dumb af
a beginner is not gonna be shooting 'wildlife' you moron.
>muh wildlife
>muh low light
>muh action
fuck off
>>2853262
>That "bright" viewfinder is aps-c. It's not noticeably brighter than any other aps-c finder.
this shows you're a fucking statjerking gearwhore. a pentaprism reflects all light unlike a mirror. you clearly have never used a pentaprism body.
>>2853265
Why not? It's what I did. God help the guy if he wants to take his camera to the zoo or something.
If a beginner with a D60 can catch this with a 55-200 kit zoom there's no reason a d3300 with a newer lens and nearly a decade of AF tech improvements can't.
I guess I must be "dumb af" because I wanted to take my new camera out and shoot challenging subjects.
>>2853248
How can one man be so wrong?
I should have known better than to ask 4chan. All I get is memes. Even if the guy is wrong y'all are ruining the credibility of this board by just spouting "muh" and "fag" at everything he says.
>>2853270
that photo is shit so nothing is lost
>God help the guy if he wants to take his camera to the zoo or something
a 5d would do fine at a zoo
>because I wanted to take my new camera out and shoot challenging subjects.
it's so challenging point a camera at a bird and letting the AF do the work. you gearwhores love to pretend to be doing shit while in reality the camera does all the work.
Got a new PEN E-Pl6 for 199e with kit lense. Did I do good?
>>2853276
You already bought it. Go out and take photos.
>>2853266
Mirrors you find in your house reflect anywhere from 50-80% of the light (assuming you got it from Target for your dorm room)
Optical purpose mirrors usually reflect around 95-99% of light.
I can't find any information on the types of mirrors that are going into DSLR bodies, but since you can get comparatively large (8-10") ultra high reflective mirrors in a telescope for astro purposes for about $75, it's not hard to imagine that they're really high quality mirrors in there, especially knowing that it's one of the biggest complaints people have about entry level bodies.
Oh, and also, I have used both pentamirror and pentaprism. There's not much difference at all. Jumping from pentamirror to full frame pentaprism is impressive, but aps-c to aps-c, is incredibly minor.
>>2853264
>Look at all these things that are objectively worse than a new camera at the same price point
So? Doesn't matter.
Good points.
>nobody is buying a camera to 'shoot events'
The guy who asked the question that started this conversation literally is.
>>2853279
I can only conclude that you have shitty eyes
>>2853282
Which two cameras have you used extensively, providing you a real comparison between the usability of both?
>>2853284
i have used all the canon bodies buddy and i can tell that the pentaprism is superior
>>2853287
>i have used all the canon bodies
Sounds real!
>>2853290
too hard for a gearwhore to comprehend?
>>2853293
Incorrect
>>2853293
The K-50 is not a pro level body. The K-3 is intermediate. The K1 MIGHT be pro level.
>>2853295
Your well thought out argument sure showed me there.
Optical grade mirrors cost as much (in some cases more) than a prism etched from optical grade glass. A company with the intent to lower production costs won't put that kind of mirror into an entry level body, you can be sure it is a simple normal grade mirror with precise planar surface. It will reflect around 80% of light so at every bounce the light does it luses 20% of the previous amount of light. It means the whole pentamirror assembly reflects 50% of the initial light tops.
>>2853296
who cares?
>>2853298
>who cares?
Apparently you do.
Remember when you typed:
>one is a pentamirror entry level body, the other is pentaprism intermediate/pro level body.
>It means the whole pentamirror assembly reflects 50% of the initial light tops.
And yet you can pick up a T5i, and a 7Dmk2, and compare the viewfinders, and the 7D is absolutely not twice as bright as the T5i
>>2853301
>and the 7D is absolutely not twice as bright as the T5i
what do you think twice as bright look like?
>>2853301
You seem to misunderstand basic sentences. Where in that sentence did I state any brand or camera types?
>>2853306
Are you autistic?
>>2853306
im pretty sure you have never looked at pentamirror and pentaprism side by side
>>2853308
Nope. Maybe you are though? Let's go back.
>Hey guys, should I get a D3300? - paraphrasing
>>2853227
>Pentax K-50
>>2853248
>How is that better for his uses than a D3300
>>2853257
>bright 100% accurate pentaprism finder instead of the dark dustmagnet pentamirror in the Nikon
Unless you mean the 7D vs T5 thing, in which case, I'm fucking holding both of them, and actively looking through both viewfinders simultaneously with the same lens on them, and the 7D is not twice as bright.
>>2853314
your eyes cant tell when something is twice as bright
>>2853314
1 stop in aperture is 2x brightness. Just try any of your lens, stop it down 1 stop (f/2.8 to f/4, f/5.6 to f/8 etc...) and press the DOF preview. You will see the difference between 2x brightness.
>>2853335
Yes. Now hold up an aps-c pentamirror, and an aps-c pentaprism. You WON'T see the difference between 2x brightness. You know why? Because it isn't there.
>>2853359
There is one thing definitely there in the pentamirror that is not in the pentaprism. All that dust you can't clean.
No matter how good you treat your camera it will accumulate dust. Not to mention it will always show less of what will get on your frame.
Hi /p/ro's
I am currently using my OM system with a variety of lenses and I want to buy an OM-EOS adapter so I can use them on my crop sensor 600D. What do I need to be looking out for when buying an adapter? I don't know what I need to look for to be sure I make a good purchase so advice is much appreciated.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Time (UTC) 17:05:55 Date (UTC) 2016:06:01 Color Space Information sRGB F-Number f/2.0 Focal Length 3.79 mm Lens Aperture f/2.0 Image Width 3200 Image Height 1800 Flash No Flash, Compulsory Rendering Normal ISO Speed Rating 400 Exposure Time 1/50 sec
>>2853368
I have a six year old rebel with exactly one fleck of dust in it. Also, that dust has literally not a single tiny affect on the final photo.
>show less of what you get in the frame
Please post a photo you've taken (just one!) where that would have mattered.
Let's do math, shall we! On a 24mp sensor with a 95% coverage finder:
You lose: 75 pixels on each side
You lose: 50 pixels, on the top and bottom.
This is not a problem.
Hi /p/ro's
I am currently using my OM system with a variety of lenses and I want to buy an OM-EOS adapter so I can use them on my crop sensor 600D. What do I need to be looking out for when buying an adapter? I don't know what I need to look for to be sure I make a good purchase so advice is much appreciated.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Time (UTC) 17:12:21 Date (UTC) 2016:06:01 Color Space Information sRGB F-Number f/2.0 Focal Length 3.79 mm Lens Aperture f/2.0 Image Width 1280 Image Height 768 Flash No Flash, Compulsory Rendering Normal ISO Speed Rating 600 Exposure Time 1/30 sec
>>2853371
You need to look for an OM to EF adapter.
That's pretty much it.
>>2853371
any adapter would do. you won't need any optics or electronics on your adapter, just use liveview to focus.
>>2853374
watch out for the radioactivity tho
>>2853379
Thanks for the heads up famelam, thankfully this is a later version with SN 847xxx which isn't radioactive. Silver noses (first version) are radioactive though.
>>2853204
That's interesting because I've seen reviewersl reviews that favor the Sigma.
