Gear Thread
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /p/ - Photography
You are currently reading a thread in /p/ - Photography
Gear thread
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. You have been warned!
I repeat, ANYTHING GEAR RELATED goes in here!
And don't forget, be polite!
Previous thread: >>2689068
So I'm looking at the Sony a7rii right now, trading up from a Canon 70d. The full frame, megapixel count, low light ability, and 4K all seem fantastic. Primarily I would be using it for video, but I do photography as a hobby. I've got Nikon glass right now, been using converters, and I'd have to invest in new ones for the Nikon F to E-mount switch.
What I'm worried about, as discussed in the previous thread, is Sony dropping the mkiii a7r in the next few months, at a comparable rate to where the a7rii is right now, and me missing out on something much better.
So, what would be the safest route going forward? Should I be looking elsewhere? What cameras are comparable to the A7rii right now that won't be outdated in the next 6 months to a year?
>>2692571
Sonyfags are always worried about what's around the corner.
>>2692571
The best camera is the one you have with you.
If you have the need then it is better to get the existing one. You can be left out of some better shoots if you wait for a rumor. That is if your business depends on it.
You can already buy the A7RII, why would you wait for another one?
>>2692571
>Sony dropping the mkiii a7r in the next few months
Nah, not the R camera, but the Vanilla camera.
Remember they have 3 lines.
A7
A7R
A7S
It's the A7 iii that is at play.
But there is no way the A7R ii can be replaced by the A7 iii. they are just too different.
>>2692565
This is my question. Pic related.
thinking about getting a 1D MKIII or a 1Ds MKII to replace my T2i
s it worth it or are these pro series cameras so outdated it's not even worth it?
>>2692602
Have mast to right ass, realize she looks like my sister.
>>2692574
Because you don't get a Sony to take photos now, you get a Sony to brag about having the most modern thing. It's like a Hummer H2. You don't get it to invade a middle eastern nation, or to rescue people from the wilderness. You get it to be able to look at people using their Toyotas on the highway and say "Look here pussy, if this highway were two feet of mud, you'd be FUCKED" But when someone shows up with an ACTUAL military hummer, your dick blows away like an untied balloon and it even makes that little fart noise.
The film advance lever has stopped forwarding the film on my Minolta X700. I know they can be fixed, but I've been using this camera for 10 years and it's time for a change.
Would you recommend the X-570/X-500 or a Minolta XK?
>>2692605
Yes, that's exactly what I dislike about the Sony scene.
With Canon/Nikon it's often the exact opposite.
We like battle scars.
And we buy expensive bodies only because they last 20+ years, so it's actually not that much on a year to year basis.
I get the impression Sony shooters completely missed that part of the equation and think writing off hundreds of dollars per year on a camera body is normal.
>>2692605
Silly war analogies that don't really work aside - there isn't actually any camera that blows an A7R II away.
It's just one of the best cameras, and it will appeal to and possibly be the choice for people looking for such gear.
You're deluding yourself if you think they're not going to shoot photos with it only because they are trying to get and maintain the best gear.
>>2692629
>there isn't actually any camera that blows an A7R II away.
You're sort of proving his point... also, wait six months.
>>2692635
A7 Mark 3 won't be able to blow the A7R Mark 2 away.
They will be completely different beasts.
>>2692467
>A7 mark 3
>24 Mp.
>>BSI.
>Variable Low-pass filter.
>299 point PDAF with lens adaptor compatibility.
>Internal 4K recording.
>S-log3.
>0.78x magnified EVF.
>Reworked sensor architecture replacing Aluminium with Copper for higher bandwidth.
>Stacked RAM on sensor for even higher bandwidth.
>15 FPS continuous burst shoot at 24 Mp.
>Increased PDAF speed to keep up with burst speed.
>USH-ii bus compatibility.
Proper 1000 FPS Video record mode at 1080P resolution.
>>2692602
Want to try again, with a lot less egocentrism? Maybe give some more information, or expand on what you mean by "worth it" or "outdated"? Maybe talk about your lenses, your budget, your usage plans, what you would get out of a pro level body designed to be used on the sidelines at the superbowl, and in combat zones?
Complete failure. 3rd try.>>2692643
>>2692635
> You're sort of proving his point...
No? His analogy just already falls apart because the A7R II is in fact not an inferior body in any particular way
> also, wait six months.
For what?
Are you hinting at the decision to buy one of the best cameras now somehow being bad because in six month, the same company releases a better one?
>>2692628
Kais review was pretty good about the A7RII where he said something along the lines of you can always wait out to get the best or you can have something good now.
At the rate Sony releases cameras is like buying video cameras a year or two ago or even still now, with 4k always being on the edge and people could get a good camera at the moment or wait it out and get something better.
>buy camera that does 1080@24p, 720@60p
>then comes release of camera that does 1080@60p, 4k@24p
>Then comes 4k @60p and 1080 @120p
>Then comes something with 10 bit 444 output.
>etc.
>>2692643
As anon points out, Sony is at least trying to work more shit into their cameras to make them better so props to Sony for doing that. But It is pretty fucking gay how they upgrade 1 of the 3 A7's every year.
I enjoy my A7R tho. Fun camera to use, feels good to use. My brain has only hemorrhaged a couple times from the menues.
>>2692644
not doin any birdwatchin/superbowlin photography this year, the 1D MKIII/1Ds MKII are just old compared to the cameras released today. they've got old digic II and digic III sensors, the iso maxes out at 3200, the lcd screens aren't as nice as the T2i, 1Ds doesn't have live view etc. it'd be disappointing to replace my entry level T2i with a pro grade 1D and have noisier photos for a camera that is only a couple of years older than the T2i.
I've got a 28mm 1.4, 50mm 1.4 and a 85mm 1.8, don't have a budget in mind but know I could find those older 1D's for < $700.
don't need the 1D's for anything specific like fast shutter speed/autofocus but just as a general upgrade from my T2i. having a aps-h/full frame is an upgrade to me and megapixels aren't that big of a deal
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Canon Camera Model Canon EOS REBEL T2i Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.0 (Windows) Photographer Amir Prses Maximum Lens Aperture f/1.8 Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2015:10:26 21:48:36 Exposure Time 1/100 sec F-Number f/2.5 Exposure Program Aperture Priority ISO Speed Rating 100 Lens Aperture f/2.5 Exposure Bias -0.7 EV Metering Mode Center Weighted Average Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 50.00 mm Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto Bracket White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard
>>2692651
>they upgrade 1 of the 3 A7's every year.
It's necessary to shift the launches, due to the extensive technology roadmap they have.
For example:
-A7S couldn't be launched at the same time as A7 and A7R, because the technology for the sensor wasn't ready.
-A7R II couldn't be launched at the same time as A7 II, because BSI manufacturing wasn't mature enough yet, at the time.
I don't know why they couldn't release A7S II at the same time as A7 II, but I'm sure there was a good reason for that too.
>>2692651
> But It is pretty fucking gay how they upgrade 1 of the 3 A7's every year.
Not seeing the problem. It's not like most camera manufacturers have a tradition of delivering great updates to cameras after release.
So it kinda doesn't affect you negatively... only positively if you happen to have bought the camera in the same year it was released?
Or am I missing something here?
> My brain has only hemorrhaged a couple times from the menues.
Could be better, but they didn't gimp those on the less high-end cameras (A6000, RX100, and so on), and ultimately they're not terrible, just a bit rough.
>>2692652
>dat clownshoe
nice
>>2692652
so you don't need weather sealing, you don't need monster AF, you don't need more megapixels, you don't need speed, you don't need robust build quality... but for some reason your T2i isn't good enough anymore, and you want to buy a bulletproof shithouse of a camera...
Sure. go for it.
Should I 70-200 2.8 vr or 70-300
Got the 35, 50, and 85 1.8s and need a Tele...
I want a camera to take video with that can zoom out very far and take wide shot video, what spec would one look for that would indicate this?
>>2692657
Tamron Di VC? Yea, the 70-200.
Also the 70-200 in most other cases where you have a new lens.
>>2692658
You can't go from very wide to very narrow / far and retain decent image quality.
You get bridge camera-style images... which actually basically do what you ask. Just, again, the image quality sucks.
Granted, there are lenses for interchangeable lens cameras that do 18-300mm or such, too, but these also are pretty bad as far as IL camera lenses go...
>>2692666
Calling the difference 50 meals at a restaurant also wouldn't help to make a decision.
At that point, it is more about your priorities than the lens itself.
If it happens that the trip would be your main opportunity to use such a lens with little else soon, I guess renting one might be best.
>>2692656
image quality is really at the top of the list, everything else is a nice bonus- but when the 1Ds mkii /1D mkiii is more than 8 years old, I don't know if I'd get any better image quality over my more modern T2i.
>>2692685
Get an a6000, or maybe one of the a7 line if you can swing it.
>>2692655
a very based two seater station wagon bread van
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make NIKON CORPORATION Camera Model NIKON D90 Camera Software Ver.1.00 Maximum Lens Aperture f/1.7 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Color Filter Array Pattern 690 Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 75 mm Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Created 2011:06:23 12:16:50 Exposure Time 1/125 sec F-Number f/2.8 Exposure Program Aperture Priority ISO Speed Rating 200 Lens Aperture f/2.8 Exposure Bias 0 EV Subject Distance 8.91 m Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash Focal Length 50.00 mm Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Gain Control None Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal Subject Distance Range Unknown
>>2692689
any lighting here or just natural?
>>2692691
didn't take that photo, 100% it's golden hour sunset light though
>>2692700
I should wax my shitty volvo and take pictures of it
>>2692671
Good point, thanks for the perspective.
>>2692666
75-300 a shit. 70-300 IS a good.
>>2692657
What do you need the tele for?
Portraits and events, even some action/sports can be covered by a 70-200 but more specific uses need more specific zooms or primes. Wildlife and birding needs more reach, probably around 400mm, this longer focal length can be used for bigger field sports and racing/track. A good zoom like the 150-600 or a good prime 400/5.6 or 500/6.3 is even better. In these cases you will be cropping, no exception, in some cases more heavily than usual. The prime have the benefits of not having to think about zooming, just point, focus and shoot. Primes also have better IQ than zooms. It is always a bummer when you put the zoom into the soft region, which all the zooms have, no matter the advertising.
tl;dr: be more specific for better tips
>>2692658
I don't know of any camera with a fixed lens that goes very wide.
So if budget allows I would go for an interchangeable lens camera (DSLR or mirrorless) and a dedicated super wide lens.
But look for the lens FIRST and then look for a matching camera.
Super wides can be very expensive and don't even exist for all camera mounts.
>>2692797
Really it's more a general use tele.
I've no real care to get away from using the 85mm 1.8 for portraits (yes, longer tele lengths give better feature compression, but much of my money comes from shooting fatties who are better done with wide angle than tele).
It's honestly a deal that's more of a "so I have one" which leads me more to the 70-300 than the 70-200 f/2.8 because I don't really have a pressing reason for a fast tele. I'm kinda gearfagging in lusting after the 2.8 and realized that earlier tonight so I ordered the 70-300mm so I could still have tele reach but much cheaper.
I don't really count on speed because I primarily shoot in the day and know how to work my D810, so yeah...
>>2692813
If you don't need the 2.8 don't buy it. It is a lot of extra weight compared to a slower lens.
I'm not that into Nikon gear so I don't know which one of the cheaper ones cover FF. Get the 70-300 or something like that.
>>2692802
30mm equivalent is barely wide-angle. 25mm is better, but still not "zoom out very far"
>>2692888
You can't get a decent wide on APS-C, but there was no budget specified also so I went with the most common choice.
16mm on APS-C can still make some more than decent wide shots.
>>2692943
>You can't get a decent wide on APS-C
http://www.amazon.com/Canon-EF-S-10-22mm-3-5-4-5-Digital/dp/B0002Y5WXE
>>2692943
>>2692959
Also quite reasonable.
>>2692565
I'm looking for a new lens for night / long exposure. I'd like:
>prime, somewhere around 20 to 30mm
>manual focus only preferred
>for a canon 7d, so EF or EF-S mount
>at least f/2.8 would be preferable so I'm not freezing my ass off for too long
>not having to starve for a month to afford it would be nice
Ideas?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Canon Camera Model Canon EOS DIGITAL REBEL XS Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.1.1 (Windows) Maximum Lens Aperture f/1.8 Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2015:10:26 08:22:40 Exposure Time 2.5 sec F-Number f/16.0 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 100 Lens Aperture f/16.0 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 50.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard
>>2692965
And of course the 8mm fisheye, if you like fisheye optics.
I'm looking to get a manual focus 35mm Pentax. Has to be K mount and ~ $50. Any recommendations?
>>2692966
Rokinon 24mm?
>>2692966
I think switching to an A7S (II) with an adapter for your current 20-30mm lens might be more effective than whatever lens you might buy.
If you insist in sticking with Canon, there is the 35mm f/1.2L & the Mitakon Speedmaster 35mm f/0.95, for example.
Camera+Lens for 500 EUR for my niece, used marked.
I considered
Sony RX10
Sony A5000, A5200 + Kit
Oly E-PL5, E-PL7, E-M10 + Kit
Canon M, 50D + Kit
I cannot provide shooting preferences, nor what she's gonna shoot since she doesn't know either. She'd like to buy something more than a compact camera, stated a 600D and other stuff, maybe because her friend got one. Currently she's shooting on a mobile phone, which shows better results than her shooting on a cheap compact camera on program auto. Probably she's just enjoying touch af/exposure.
Since I do not know preferences, right now I'd suggest the RX10 because of the given flexibility: wide focal range, macro capability.
Although I enjoy shooting Canon, I doubt that it's still good to get started with some mirror system, which is why got into this discussion. I don't know any of the cameras that I mentioned, If you do, let me know your opinion.
Thanks!
>>2692972 (correction)
Woops, I meant 1.4L. The 1.2L was a 50mm.
>>2692972
So you want him to drop his "cheap" thing to upgrade his whole camera, or to just use a lens that's outside his desired focal length (and again, his budget)
Cool. Great advice.
>>2692973
A6000.
Or actually, some RX100, since most people turn out to be casuals. They'll not carry anything but a compact and never buy any lenses.
>>2692977
>people turn out to be casuals
I consider that possible, however, yet I wasn't able to persuade her of any pocket camera.
Comparing the specs, there's not much gain from an A5100 to an A6000, mainly the ips and cost.
>>2692976
> So you want him to drop his "cheap" thing to upgrade his whole camera,
Yup, because 5-8 extra t-stops in ISO sensitivity won't come any cheaper on lenses.
> outside his desired focal length
35mm is certainly still "somewhere around" 20-30mm.
> again, his budget
I guess I'm just going with the default assumption of employed & USA or Western Europe. $1k or less every now and then isn't really going to cause you to starve.
YMMV, but it wasn't meant as an insult to you if you're on a Chinese or Indian salary.
>>2692985
You are so far up your own arse you don't even notice the smell anymore
>>2692985
"I would like to put a cold air intake into my Civic. I don't have a ton of money to spend, but I want to have a little fun. Any suggestions?"
"yeah, your best bet is to upgrade to a Porsche 911 Turbo. Or at least a heavily modified STI"
>>2692981
The image quality is pretty comparable.
But the lack of EVF, flash hotshoe, buttons and wheels and a lot of other such features are quite inconvenient.
Arguably, we don't know she's going to use those... but perhaps a E-M10 or D3300 is on the safer side if the A6000 costs a bit too much.
>>2692970
Isn't that a cine lens?
>>2692972
I appreciate the advice, but I don't think I want to switch bodies. I don't want to switch my whole lens collection, and adapters have always made me feel ill. The canon 35 is an option, but it's a bit too close to 50mm... You see, the shortest length I have is 50mm so I want something firmly in the wide-angle class.
>>2692997
>Isn't that a cine lens?
No.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/819786-REG/Rokinon_24mm_f_1_4_ED_AS.html
>>2693000
Kindly fuck off and please die in a fire on your way out.
>>2692998
Thanks anon, I think I might get this one.
>>2692997
> I don't want to switch my whole lens collection, and adapters have always made me feel ill.
For manual focus at night -as you mentioned it- it shouldn't matter.
But I can of course understand the disadvantage for AF / OS lenses in other situations - the respective adapters are quite good, but not like native.
>You see, the shortest length I have is 50mm so I want something firmly in the wide-angle class.
Hm. Typical ideas for new lenses there might be the very inexpensive 24mm Canon EF-S STM f/2.8 pancake, or the 24mm f/1.4 Sigma Art.
>>2693006 (cont'd)
Someone recently compared a bunch of the obvious suspects for higher-end 24mm including the Rokinon from >>2692998 here:
http://petapixel.com/2015/04/02/testing-the-sigma-24mm-f1-4-art-lens-against-lenses-by-major-manufacturers/
While you might want to look at the cheap Canons anyways, the expensive ones are probably not worth it there or actually worse. Get the Sigma or Rokinon.
>>2692995
Good to know, thanks! I can leave it up to her whether an EVF and other things are worth some more money, if we just find some direction in this jungle.
To make a decision yet I'd like to hear some opinions about the E-M10.
>D3300
I got that Nikon entry-level > Canon entry-level, however, If one starts from zero, there's the question "How long does it take to have MILCs head to head with DSLRs and which one will be cheaper?".
I don't like to unleash a discussion, I doubt that DSLRs will be cheaper so I just ask when.
Anyone knows anything about 'chinese' SD cards?
Are they somewhat reliable?
Compatible with everything?
Such as that.
Example:
http://www.aliexpress.com/item/Extreme-PRO-16gb-32GB-64GB-128GB-Memory-Card-SD-Card-UHS-1-U3-SDHC-SDXC-633x/32411200752.html?spm=2114.01020208.3.21.gp8lAL&ws_ab_test=searchweb201556_2_71_72_73_74_75,searchweb201527_3,searchweb201560_9
>>2693024
I would never trust that.
Too many horror stories of copy brand SD cards not having the storage space they claim to have.
They even infiltrated Amazon and there was a lot of stink over fake Samsung cards.
>>2693024
Would you trust your hard work on a cheap piece of shit that can fail any moment?
I can tell you what I do: I buy Sandisk SD cards and since my camera uses two, I write my raws on both cards. This way IF one card fails I still have the other one. The Sandisk badge is just an added security of proper testing and quality control in the factory.
>>2693030
It wasn't much of a scandal since Samsung in itself stinks.
okay. here we go.
im looking at two used cameras on my countrys craigslist.
a lumix gx7 with oly. 25mm lens
VS
a fuji x-e1 with the fuji 12-55 and a jupiter 8 (yeah, i know its soft as fuck)
the dilemma is really: image stabilisation vs IQ
>>2693018
> I can leave it up to her whether an EVF and other things are worth some more money, if we just find some direction in this jungle.
Good idea.
>"How long does it take to have MILCs head to head with DSLRs
As such, that already happened. The A6000 mostly beats even the higher end of Canon / Nikon's APS-C DSLR bodies in just about everything but battery life.
It even matches or beats most of their midrange FF camera bodies in most of regards.
> If one starts from zero
> which one will be cheaper
Well, you just heard about the body. Lenses are a mixed bag, tendency more expensive.
Sony has fewer native low-end options. That might be a cost factor, in the sense that if she has to buy a higher end lens when she would have been fine with a cheap one, she'll pay extra.
If you're on the other hand fine with lenses on an adapter, Sony is cheaper / a bit more suitable.
And if you want high-end lenses suitable for 24-42MP anyways, they'll be about the same.
Now, if you have a MFT mirrorless like the Olympus, the situation is different. They also have cheap low-end lenses.
> To make a decision yet I'd like to hear some opinions about the E-M10.
Its operation & software are quite good.
But I did not buy it or use it extensively. It just immediately was evident it can't catch enough light & doesn't have enough ISO sensitivity for my preferences, which include easy shooting of people in overcast weather outdoors and with indirect daylight indoors.
>>2693081
I don't know what you want, but I'd say have a tendency towards IQ?
You can compensate for absence of image stabilization with a tripod or bright light & short exposures.
However, judging by the sample images that I saw, the GX7 kinda looks equal or better anyhow?
>>2693081
xe1 af is slow but if you want to adapt slr film lens the xe1 is a better choice.
however, if you use a speed booster the gx7 is good too.
xe1 video is shit. consider that too.
>>2693087
>> To make a decision yet I'd like to hear some opinions about the E-M10.
>Its operation & software are quite good.
Maybe a complex menu is some flaw for Sony cameras. However automatic programs shouldn't be hard to use.
>>"How long does it take to have MILCs head to head with DSLRs
>As such, that already happened.
Then I'll look at the A6000 also for me. I know votes against too, guys switching from the A7RI off again. Version II seems a lot more promising though, I'd still go for EF lenses.
Thanks!
>>2692969
Fifty bucks is a tight limit. Maaaaybe you could find an old Takumar 35/2 for that, but then you'd need an M42 adapter.
You really need to budget at least 100-200 for this.
>>2693087
While the A6000 is a great camera, the EVF is terrible IMO. Don't like it at all. And while I'm deftly afraid of dropping any camera, the thing would most likely shatter if dropped.
>>2692969
how about a manual focus k mount 35mm lens that costs what you want to pay?
Jesus christ, what's wrong with you kids.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/10/27/canon-results-idUSL4N0SM25K20141027
>>2693113
> the EVF is terrible IMO
Hm, its not the best one I've seen, but it is not really slow, tiny, or particularly low-res.
Most OVF seem worse to me. So I don't immediately get the issue.
> And while I'm deftly afraid of dropping any camera, the thing would most likely shatter if dropped.
It has a typical magnesium alloy chassis with a bunch of plastic and metal parts. I'm not going to try it, but I'd suspect it won't shatter.
Probably bad for most lenses to drop them anyways.
Should I get a Ricoh GRD 3 for 100$? The Play button and fn2 button aren't working. I dont really care - I'd treat it like a film point and shoot.
>>2693137
I would not buy it. But it is probably better than a new $100-ish travel zoom.
If that is okay for your needs, go for it.
>>2693137
Don't buy busted gear. It is not a point and shoot, you need those buttons to access the basic settings.
>>2693142
b-b-but its so cheap. What is it then if not a point and shoot? I think I can access through the menu
>>2693114
Fuck I should've said
>pentax body
There's a shitload of bodies out there and I'd like some pointers.
>>2693221
so you want a 35mm film body in K-mount for $50?
you want an ME Super. K1000 is like a hundred bucks because hipsters. You can also get bodies from the early AF era for cheap. Some of them suck though - check the Pentaxforums database for specs and reviews. You want one that at least gives you aperture priority. They made a few program-only consumer cameras in that era.
Hi, I just bought my first icl camera, the Panasonic G7, and it came with a 14-42mm lens.
What I want to know is, do the lenses made for MFT take into account crop factor? or is the lens in practice a 28-84?
>>2693291
>do the lenses made for MFT take into account crop factor?
No, becasue focal length is focal length.
It's not viewing angle
>lens in practice a 28-84?
yes
>>2693291
>do the lenses made for MFT take into account crop factor
I haven't ever seen any lens try to add the crop factor to the focal length numbers. Although it seems some superzoom p&s paste those numbers on.
Fixing to buy 24-105 F4, any reason not to?
>>2693336
It's sort of slow, and not exactly spectacular at any point in the range. It's kind of large, also.
Do you have a reason TO buy it? That's a much more important question.
>>2692965
>tfw no 12mm f/2.0 for SLRs
Looking for a tripod for portraits, and a monopod for cityscapes/street photos.
I have a t3i, and the 18-55 + 50 prime.
Woot has a sale on 'espeo, espod, and sbh-250, models'
see electronics.woot.com
The amazon reviews of the gear, make them seem like fairly sure buys. Anyone have any horror stories about theirs?
>>2693377
Why would you need a tripod for portraits? Learn to hold your camera right. Long exposures need a tripod but not portraits.
Monopods in my experience are more cumbersome than useful. City architecture/street also handheld territory with long exposures and cityscapes needing a tripod.
Forget the monopod and get a proper tripod, look up Sirui, Benro and Dic&Mic tripods. These are budget friendly and well made.
Stay away from the plastic shit cheap ones, those are more of a threat for your gear than being useful. Also they wobble too much ruining your results.
>>2693377
Vanguard is over of the better, cheaper tripod companies. It'll serve you well like mine has me.
How weather sealed is an EOS 3 and 24-105 f4L? I took it out in the rain earlier and I'm not sure how much rain it can take
>>2693444
Not very much. Get a 60D at least or a 5DMkII/III if you want some degree of weather sealing. It isn't going to be like a Pentax K-50 with kit lens, but at least they try.
>>2693452
Idiot
>>2693377
I like this specific Sirui monopod.
For a Tripod, >>2693430 already said it. Dic&Mic off Aliexpress is my first suggestion for a cheap one.
>>2693458
Oh yeah, good point
Hey, I would like to join the DSLR league and since I'm in a video production course in college it would only help me.
My brother which took the same course has a 60d with the standard 18-55mm / 16-35mm / 50mm .
I posted the lenses my brother has because we live together and he can lend me without any problem any of those.
I was looking for a DSLR ( canon ) tops of 750 euros ( body alone ).
Any help would be much apreciated.
PS: I'm also open to the used market. Thanks in advance.
>>2693444
Telescoping lenses are never fully waterproof.
But unless it was hurricane like rain and wind it should be fine.
You'll probably get more moisture in the lens from condensation in humid conditions than from light to medium rain.
The body should be absolutely fine.
>>2693571
> video production course
Get a Blackmagic or some other film camera that can use Canon lenses.
>>2693358
Well, I'd say before that, anon's problem with ultra-wide is no FF camera.
But yea, if 12mm f/2 is a requirement, you might have to jump ship to mirrorless.
Holy shit.
So I had to use a Nikon D810 for a shoot (w/whatever Nikon's top level 70-200 is, I can't keep their abbreviations straight). You poor, poor bastards. The autofocus on these things is trash. Yeah, they're not unusable, but it's only just.
Does anyone know if the A7 ii has a screenprotector on its LCD by default?
>>2693628
>averagepersonwhodidn'tspendenoughtimefiguringouthowtouseautofocusonanewcamera.jpg
>usingnewequipmentonthejobwithoutbeingfamiliar.gif
It's your own fault. I once picked up a 7D2 and couldn't get the thing to track, and there was no manual at hand. I put it back down again.
>>2692565
This video needs to be in the OP going forward:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qUE2HIbotXc
Also, why do we not have the sticky linked in the OP of the gearthread?
>>2693657
>making ignorant assumptions about someone else
Nope, I got it the week before the shoot, went through the manual, and practiced for at least 10 hours using the thing before I went on the shoot.
The autofocus is painful compared to what Canon gives you to work with. IQ was great, but fuck autofocus.
I got this through the mail earlier today. My first FF camera.
It's feels pretty solid when you hold it, but the thing is actually pretty fucking heavy. It's not a light camera at all.
The lens is supposed to only be 200 grams, but it feels like it adds so much more weight to the camera when it's attached.
Strangely enough, even though the body feels so heavy, when I place it on the table, the camera tips forward and the tip of the lens goes downwards to the table.
There is some kind of gravity imbalance in the camera.
Anyway if this thing already feels heavy to me, I think I made the right decision to more get a DSLR.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make SONY Camera Model ILCE-7M2 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CC (Windows) Maximum Lens Aperture f/1.8 Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 55 mm Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2015:10:28 20:15:35 Exposure Time 1/100 sec F-Number f/1.8 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 6400 Lens Aperture f/1.8 Brightness -4.1 EV Exposure Bias 3 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 55.00 mm Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 1000 Image Height 667 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal
>more get
*not get
>>2693430
Thanks for the tips, made me think through my needs a few more times.
So, I'm thinking the tripod because I'm starting to do some product portraits. Taking photos of some art (glass and non-glassed), small sculptures/trinkets, and women's accessories.
I was thinking the tripod would be helpful with the 'continuity' while capturing various angles of the products. In other words, just rotating the product and such in order to speed up the photo taking process but also to reduce distractions from photo to photo (photos will be used on ebay)
>>2693461 : A little to heavy for my tastes, but thanks for introducing the brand to me!
>>2693734
>>2693734
Have you held it side by side with a D750? With a 50mm 1.8 on the front they're almost exactly the same size and weight. Sony is completely full of shit when it comes to the "size savings" of that camera.
Also, I like that you used your new A7ii to take a picture of the box it came in.
>>2693734
Now all you have to do is learn how to take a non-shit picture.
>>2693734
holy shit I thought this was a phone picture until I saw the EXIF
I cant even take a picture that grainy with my eos 300d
>>2693853
D750 would be even heavier and clunkier than this one already.
The thought alone is already scaring me.
>>2693853
Plus, it's more expensive, and I would lose IBIS.
>>2693863
Same weight but better balanced.
Also easier to hold in the correct way (ie: like in the pic)
>>2693865
Just adding 200 gram alone was significant to my arm. You're not going to see me pay more for less features and more weight.
>>2693865
By comparison: what you have to resort to with a small lens on an A7.
You're going to need that IBIS.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties:
>>2693734
This photo wasn't actually taken with the a7 was it? My nexus 5 takes a better photo when I cover the lens in Vaseline and use it underwater in the dark.
>>2693870
Less is more. It's better and draws less attention to yourself.
>>2693874
It look like you are holding your shrivelled little Sony loving penis.
>>2693875
Smaller penis is best when you want to blend in and pretend to be a tourist.
>>2693868
>Just adding 200 gram alone was significant to my arm.
How weak are you?
>>2693863
I feel like you didn't read what I said when I told you that with a lens THEY'RE ALMOST EXACTLY THE SAME WEIGHT YOU FUCKING MORON
>>2693890
If you're so convinced that you're right (you're not) then prove it.
>>2693893
I was only 40 gram off. Not too shabby.
>>2693896
Troll of the century. I don't even know what you're talking about anymore.
>>2693897
You were talking about how the D750 alone is the same weight as the A7ii + 55mm lens combines.
>>2693898
Cite your sources then, faglord.
>>2693899
http://camerasize.com/compare/#579,567
The 55mm lens is just 281 gram.
281-241=40
>>2693734
You show every sign of buyer's remorse.
Plus you you can't even take a decent picture of a box lol.
Just got a free EOS 450D (or rabal XSi) with kit lens and an older 75-300 non-IS. Would switching to the 55-250 STM be a large enough improvement for $130? How much would the 75-300 sell for nowadays? $50?
>>2693913
Congratulations on your weather sealed lens on your non weather sealed body. Let me know how advantageous that is.
>>2693915
or rather, isn't there something wrong with this setup (body is 450D)? and is the 75-300 is the III version?
>>2693926
It's the first generation A7 bodies that couldn't handle the rain.
The ii generation can handle rain .
>>2693929
Source?
>>2693935
A yourtube channel I follow used one of the ii cameras in the rain, he had it on video.
/p/ros,
I found this mamiya film camera at a local pawn shop, but I know nothing about medium format cameras. Is $299 a decent price for this? Searching for the model on ebay it looks like everything similar is more expensive but I have no idea what i'm looking at. According to the woman there it "works" though I doubt they've tested it extensively.
>>2693952
fucking snag that anon. that is worth way more than 300 dollars
>>2693913
>The lighting was bad.
There was plenty of light coming from the.
All you had to do was turn around.
You could also have used a flash.
This is why you fail: a real photographer always thinks about the light before taking a shot.
>>2693952
Is that including the lens?
Lenses can be very expensive.
>>2693926
I wonder how bad it is to get water inside a mirrorless body.
Sensor should be fine I think, it's behind glass.
IBIS might get fucked?
Any other electronics just out there?
>>2693981
The only light source in the room was my computer monitor.
It would be very hard to hang from the wall behind the monitors like spiderman to take the shot from the other side.
>>2693990
Yeah, there is no other way.
>>2693990
you know you could just have made enough space to put the camera on a little tripod between them and done a long exposure. that way you don't even need a flash if you don't have one
>>2693995
Minimum focus distance and all that.
Too little space on my desk, you will notice the boxes sits on the edge of the desk.
>>2693997
it doesn't have to be on your desk. it could be on something on the other side of the room. even at ISO 200 you can take a bright picture from a monitor on the other side of the room in 30 seconds or so. I know this because I've done it before
>>2694001
My room is too messy, and I didn't have table space without cleaning up ;_;
>>2694001
He's really poor.
He has no lights and not even a floor.
>>2694003
don't be lazy!
>>2694007
I just wanted to take a quick snapshot, not cleaning up my room into studio condition...
>>2694009
excuses! you'll never learn how to take a good photo if all you do when you take a photo is make excuses! you must strive for perfection in everything!
lmao
>>2693981
he could meter on the box
he could fucking turn on the lights in the room because who the fuck tries to take product pictures with no lighting if they dont have to
>>2694012
Stop bullying ;_;
Has anyone here owned/used the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8? I'm looking at getting it in the future and was wanting to know your honest thoughts and opinions
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties:
>>2694037
Yes. It's good.
>>2693734
that's probably the worst picture i've seen from any A7. what's more absurd is that you took it with that zeiss.
>>2694037
A colleague took his to the office one day.
It's thinner and lighter than I was expecting from the video's.
I normally shoot full frame lenses and they are much bigger and heavier.
>>2694024
Fucking deal right there. Try and haggle the price
im really new to this, is there any way to get a not shit nikon body or lens for <200? willing to buy used as fuck- looking for something useful for landscape photography
>>2694087
Uhh not really. Wait a few months and get something you'll really appreciate.
>>2692565
heyy guys! im in need of your unrivalled gear expertise again.
Gx7 with Olympus 25mm 1.8 for 654$,
or Gx7 with kit 11-42 and the really sharp Minolta 50mm 1.4 (100mm eq) manual lens with adapter for 619$?
I need the camera mostly for concert photography at a local jazz club, what focal length do you imagine will be most useful for this? The manual focusing does not matter to me, i need to get good at that sooner or later anyways.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Canon Camera Model Canon EOS 5D Mark II Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.6 (Windows) Photographer Daniel R Edenholm Maximum Lens Aperture f/1.4 Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2014:10:09 17:21:38 Exposure Time 1/125 sec F-Number f/1.4 Exposure Program Shutter Priority ISO Speed Rating 2500 Lens Aperture f/1.4 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 50.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard
Just finished UV treating my old 50mm Takumar to get rid of the thorium yellowing, worked great!
Used a cheapo ebay UV lamp that is meant for setting fingernail polish or something, was like $10.
Took 2 days, turned the lens over in between.
No photos because I'm a retard and forgot to take a before photo.
>>2693927
Use them as is, when you do feel the need to improve your tele, get a 70-200 F4 or F2.8 IS. Or the older pump action 100-400 IS.
Until then you will have all the fun with your existing lens, just pay attention to your shutter speed to eliminate shake blur. Also learn to hold the camera properly, this alone takes some time. Don't mind anything, just shoot.
>>2694105
MICRO4TURDS SHIT SENSOR NOISE NO DETAIL WHY DIDNT YOU BUY FULL FRAME
Seriously, I like M43 as a travel/light/casual camera, but I wouldn't use one indoors in a dimly club.
>>2694105
gx7 + panasonic 20mm 1.7
>>2694105
I'm sorry, but for clubs and concerts you do need the FF. At least an A6000 with a very good fast lens could be used too. Still not as clean as a FF.
>>2694113
enjoy your radiation poisoning.
>>2694127
I have some bad news if you like bananas.
>>2694124
>>2694126
Im not interesting in veiling bad photography in nice technical fidelity. I wanna learn to shoot noisy photos that look nice anyways. also this is the best i can get on my budget.
The gx7 body is set, im asking about the lenses. im buying used and these are the only two viable options to me rn.
>>2694087
Well, if you meant $200 for each, entry level DSLR like the D3200 or D3300 + kit lens cost you like $300 (stock clearance pricing / used).
You could also consider a Pentax K-50 or something like that.
I'll remark that this is not gear that I'd use. It is an option when you can't / don't want to pay much for your camera...
>>2694147
>I wanna learn to shoot noisy photos that look nice anyways
We call that Delta 3200.
Otherwise, >>2694125 is right, the 20/1.7 is your cheapest, fastest option. As a bonus, it's wicked sharp too. The 14/2.5 is your cheapest, fastest wide angle option, possibly better in an indoor setting than a 40-50mm equiv. lens. The Panasonic lenses also benefit from DFD AF, right?
There's a selection of f0.95 lenses if you've got $1000 to burn.
I would not adapt a 50mm f1.4 for indoor photography. Your aperture gains are going to be offset by the focal length. IBIS won't save you.
If I had to choose between those two options, I'd take the 25/1.8. Sharp lens, very fast focus, and if the GX7 is anything like the EM5II, it'll handle autofocus just fine in somewhat dim light.
i just started becoming interested in photography and have the 70D as my first camera. Is this fine for a starter camera?
Also i want to take some pictures of the landscapes near my town what sort of lens should i look at getting or will the stock 18-55mm IS STM lens do a good enough job for a casual?
>>2694178
> and have the 70D as my first camera. Is this fine for a starter camera?
It is a good start. Adequate as a body for a lot of photography.
> Also i want to take some pictures of the landscapes near my town what sort of lens should i look at getting or will the stock 18-55mm IS STM lens do a good enough job for a casual?
Well, I typically suggest getting a rather expensive lens simply because it usually does more for the image quality than the camera body itself, provided we are talking at least about an okay body (which this is).
A Sigma Art might be good - 18-35mm f/1.8 for APS-C or just a 35 or 50mm f/1.4 prime should work excellently for what you mentioned, but also a Tamron Di VC 70-200mm or such.
But if you just get the kit lens and maybe a nifty fifty (50mm f/1.8) or something like that, you're not doing something uncommon or terrible. A lot of people seem to do that...
>>2694188
Thanks for the suggestions i shall look into these
>>2694188
>>2694190
I'd point you to the 28mm if you go prime and warn you off of the 50mm 1.8. The focus ring is a pain in the ass to use compared to the 1.4. Outside of that there's a massive step up in build quality for the 1.4. The 28 would be a much more useful lens for you on a crop body for landscapes than a 50mm as well.
If you're not going to be super anal about IQ, I'd also point you to the longer focal ranged kit lens (18-135mm) -- optically, it's not as good as the 18-55mm, but for your purposes, you won't notice and it's still a useful lens (it's the one I got with my 70D and I still use it from time to time this day). You can go with this, then get the 70-300mm and have most every useful focal length covered. You'll suck balls in low light because these are both slow lenses (narrow aperture), but just wandering about during the day? It'll be a great setup for fairly cheap (you can get the 70-300mm with IS off KEH for around $300 and you really want IS).
If you're only interested in the wider end of things, Canon's EF-S 10-18mm is an excellent lens and one of the better values out there. If you go this route, remember: wides are for getting close, not so much for getting it all in.
>>2694115
Thanks for the advice, but shouldn't I be getting a better body long before I get $1000+ L lenses? The 450D is pretty old at this point, although it's not like Canon's entry level DSLRs have improved that much. I can manage blur-free up to 100mm or so on the unstabilized tele with shutter speed of 1/60 or less, but need at least 1/120 for the long end. How would I improve that without a tripod? That 75-300 is really hard to keep stable.
>>2694298
Get an IS version.
>glass before body
Glass is always the priority. Even on crappier bodies
>>2694298
>>2694303
The first lens I ever bought for my 400D way back was the 70-200 f/4 IS for $1,200 when it just came out. It was a complete eye-opener for me and I couldn't even apply sharpening to my photos without them getting too sharp. The lens went on to serve me well when I moved to the 5D2 later on.
>>2694298
> Thanks for the advice, but shouldn't I be getting a better body long before I get $1000+ L lenses?
Ideally, you'd get both. But if you can only get one, >>2694303 is right - glass first, generally speaking.
I'd probably prefe Sigma (Sports?) or Tamron Di Vc over "L" zoom lenses, though.
> although it's not like Canon's entry level DSLRs have improved that much
Well, the high end ones are a mixed bag, too.
But if you're not ready to jump ship, just go on with improvements to your Canon setup...
>>2694253
>recommending any lens with optical qualities less than a modern 18-55
m8
>>2694324
The differences between the 18-135 and 18-55 are marginal in real world usage, not enough to justify gimping yourself in focal length especially if you're not going balls deep into photography. If IQ is priority, then the 24-105 L is a good "bargain" single lens solution with something like the 10-18 for wide angle needs (on crop) or the 20mm if you don't mind wide as opposed to ultra wide.
If money is no issue, then you do the trinity glass.
But if homie just wants to fiddlefuck around, there's nothing wrong with anything I listed prior.
>>2694341
tru dat
whatever fuck it i'll bite on the 55-250 STM. you guys were no help. how much better can even an L zoom get compared to this on APS-C?
>>2694351
>how much better can even an L zoom get compared to this on APS-C?
Much.
The 70-200mm is probably the second most researched and developed lens after the 50mm. It's a standard for a reason (the aperture/IS combinations are based off of your budget needs and basically only different in electronics design and the size of the elements, not the shape).
>>2694351
Considering it's an f/4-5.6, and the DOF on crop is closer to f/5.6-8, it can get a lot better. There is a lot more to a lens than what shows up on an MFT chart. Stop being a technician and start taking photos.
Anyone here have experience with the Nikon 1 series?
I would like dat reach for birds, and it's really cool that I could use my nice f-mount glass.
>>2694393
hey what's up agno. Just buy the x30.
>>2694397
>Just buy the x30.
>fixed lens
Did you read my post? I want reach.
>>2694351
>how much better can even an L zoom get compared to this on APS-C?
With the smaller pixels on APS-C sharpness is even more important than on full frame.
And with older sensors it's especially nice to have a faster aperture so you can keep the ISO down.
Student here, looking to photograph poorer areas around my city. What's a sufficiently cheap-looking compact film camera, preferably with a 35mm focal length lens?
>>2693952
>>2694067
>>2694069
So I bought it and holy fuck, this was an even better deal than I thought. It came with a case, a light meter, and a polaroid instant film back. Looks like it works fine, but it needs a battery. easy to find.
Knowing the way this place usually pays sellers, they probably gave whoever sold it to them 50 bucks and re-sold it for 300.
Either they didn't know what they were selling or didn't think it would sell. Looking on ebay the prism finder alone is worth what I paid for the whole kit. talk about highway fucking robbery...
>>2694428
Literally any camera. Cameras are *not* a thief in the US's priority or desire. They're too hard to move and not worth the effort.
>>2694428
Leica with 35mm Summilux
Canon should make a video camera with the EOS-M mount, it plays nicely with adapters and would help bringing third party lens makers to their mirrorless system.
>>2693875
>Small camera
>Small penis
I don't think that's how it works, anon. have you ever heard of the term "penis car" before?
>>2693590
The closest in FF is Sigma's 20mm f/1.4, but it can't take filters, just like Leica's 21mm Summilux
Sorry about image size but this is funny.
What camera travel and transport bags, backpack preferred, does /p/ recommend?
>>2694557
pop question for a newbie, what is a fixed focus lens and how does it differ from a normal lens?
>>2694559
you focus by moving yourself.
>>2693628
>One of the best AF systems of any camera with one of the fastest focusing lenses is shit.
Cool story /p/ro
>>2693676
what settings were you using? what were you photographing? how were you composing?
>>2692629
>Silly war analogies that don't really work aside - there isn't actually any camera that blows an A7R II away.
I swear on all things good and holy just yesterday one of the photogs in my area took to facebook crying about how her sensor was fucked by a 6 inch fall...
And she was the third one to have her a7r break this month from something ridiculous that you'd expect an actual top of the line camera to handle.
Call me when engineers get hold of that thing instead of designers and we can talk. Until then? Keep your fashion accessory to yourself.
6D or 7D mk2?
Also, Sigma Art lenses, any reason not to?
>>2693915
If you're in the US Ill sell you mine, perfect condition, with original caps for $110.
>>2694610
No thanks. I already have the III USM and will be replacing it with the 55-250 IS STM.
I'm wanting a proper CPL. I'm currently using a cheap ass eBay one, which works, and also colour casts the shit out of my pictures. Everything is beige, and no amount of white balancing is fixing it.
Two questions:
Nikon CPL, or fancy B+W Kaesemann foil MRC?
What size do I buy? Naturally, one would choose the one they're most likely to use it on, but Nikon at some point decided to go haywire with filter sizes. Most of my lenses are the good ol' 52mm, but that precludes the use of the CPL on my telephotos. Alternatively, I can use a step-up ring for a 72mm filter, but risk looking like an idiot with that big filter hanging off the front. I use both sets of lenses often.
>>2692565
Yo guys need your help.
I'm going on a family vacation to Japan next year.
Think of taking a
goPro HERO+ LCD
and a DSLR
and obvious mobile phones too
So, I was think is it worth taking both? Any recommendations for a modern good compact DSLR for travel within a decent price range. Waterproof is a must as we'll be more outdoors than indoors.
>>2694557
>in the right autistic hands
lyl
>>2694559
>>2694579
I found someone at a flea market trying to sell a fake plastic slr with a "focus free" 50mm lens for 45 bucks because it had a tripod.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Canon Camera Model Canon EOS 5D Mark II Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Windows) Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2015:10:30 07:08:57 Exposure Time 1/80 sec F-Number f/7.1 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 3200 Lens Aperture f/7.0 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Partial Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 46.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1000 Image Height 667 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard
>>2694668
> So, I was think is it worth taking both?
Maybe? Depends on your needs.
Xiaomi Yicam are very cheap and about as good as a Hero 3; if you're not sure you need an action camera, maybe take one of these.
> good compact DSLR for travel within a decent price range. Waterproof is a must as we'll be more outdoors than indoors
You can have some of these attributes in a Pentax DSLR.
Or a mirrorless or compact camera that is not in fact a DSLR - actually, waterproof bags for cameras exist and are cheap.
>>2694683
Looking on ebay these are pretty commonly listed for $50+
Which seems like a bargain considering they originally tried to sell them for $600
They must charge a premium for that ROYAL viewfinder and color optical lens :^)
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Windows) Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2015:10:30 07:37:13 Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 1000 Image Height 750
>>2694637
Go straight for B+W or even Rodenstock.
Just because I'm crazy I have both an 82 and 72mm CPL, but I suggest a step-down ring.
>>2694598
And I also actually recently heard on the internet recently that someone's Canon 5D broke from no evident reason while holding it and shooting. And someone broke their Canon 7D, too.
You'd not expect a camera to break for no reason and Canon clearly had accounting and their truck drivers engineer their camera.
Also, *of course* people's idea of "small bump to the lens" or "6 inches drop" or "light rain for a few minutes" or whatever are typically factual.
> Inb4 only top of the line cameras should be built not to break, low end ones should break
>>2694608
> Also, Sigma Art lenses, any reason not to?
No, they are pretty much all good.
>>2694558
You kinda need to know your own needs.
A backpack to just move your gear from studio to car <-> car <-> shooting location is different from a serious hiking backpack, or a day trip backpack.
You might also carry different amounts and sizes of lenses and cameras and other gear than other people.
Aliexpress and Amazon have cheaper models that are good in quality.
If they don't seem entirely right for your needs, you will surely find something in the extensive backpack sections on B&H or Adorama.
I wanted to look into a super wide angle primarily for landscapes, and maybe the rare occasional astrophotography.
I'm contemplating between this
http://voigtlaender.com/10-mm-f-5%2c6-hyper-wide-heliar-e-mount.html
And this
http://voigtlaender.com/15-mm-f-4%2c5-super-wide-heliar-e-mount.html
I'm unsure which one to go for.
220€ for a used Fuji X-E1 in good condition with some equipment (spare batteries, two grips). Good Price? Should I hit it? Been wanting to get that camera for a while
![jack-wolfskin-acs-photo-pack-pro[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/GT7wNt3.jpg "jack-wolfskin-acs-photo-pack-pro[1].jpg")
>>2694558
I use this. First heard about it here.
But the reason I ultimately chose it is because:
1) it is the correct size for me. I'm 186cm tall, and my previous backpack would only fit decently for someone <170. Carrying this one is a billion times more ergonomic experience for me, but for a much shorter person it most likely wouldn't be a very good pack.
2)Just the right feature combination: It's a 50/50 split for camera/other stuff so I can use it for day hikes or short overnights. Straps, raincover, and a tripod attachment thingy, side pouch for water bottle. It also has a mesh back system which allows airflow and keeps your back from turning into a complete wet mess during exertion, a huuuge plus IME.
4) Camera compartment is just large enough for a Graflex (without rangefinder) + 2 extra lenses or Graflex + Grafmatics. (I tend to put my grafmatics in the laptop compartment, though :D)
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Paint.NET v3.5.11 Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 96 dpi Vertical Resolution 96 dpi
>>2694828
Personally, I don't do ultra wide on one lens often enough - for my taste, the resolution drops off too much, both because ultra wide lenses just aren't quite as sharp, and just as compared to the area covered.
Using Hugin to stitch panoramas works better for me. Landscapes aren't generally too tricky with that.
So with that in mind... I'd probably get the 15mm amongst these two, unless the 10mm happens to be sharper?
The mirror on this old FE2 is somewhat stuck. It wont go back in its normal position. What do?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Microsoft Windows Photo Viewer 6.2.9200.16384 Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Image Created 2015:10:31 01:00:44
What's the cheapest Canon dslr that can take relatively the same quality of photos as a t3i? I was thinking maybe a used XSi for around $150, but I don't know if there's anything I can get cheaper.
>>2694962
>both because ultra wide lenses just aren't quite as sharp, and just as compared to the area covered.
Idiots, idiots everywhere.
Gearthread, everyone.
>>2694978
Put batteries in it.
>>2694978
It could be that the dampening foam has gotten sticky and the mirror is stuck to it. I had that happen to me with a canon ae-1. But I have no experience with that model.
Does anybody know if there were any changes to Nikon's SIC coatings between the late 90s and current production lenses? I'm deciding between used and new production AIs and AF-D lenses. I've heard AIs lenses got updated coatings, but I'm unsure about AF-D ones.
Any Lubitel owners in this thread? I'd really like to know how you tackle correct focusing with it, sans guesstimating and zone focusing.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Unknown Image Width 576 Image Height 573
>>2694999
I'm pretty sure they changed the exact details of the coating quite a few times.
I mean, the coating was optically different between a bunch of lenses even when you looked at it.
But I don't think they documented much what they did. So basically you can just guess they coated that they needed to.
More recently they however introduced and advertised nano crystal coatings. Those weren't in lenses in the 90s.
>>2694711
I thought the sigmas were good stuff. Plus I get an employee discount so everything is 66% off retail.
>>2695188
> everything is 66% off retail
Lucky you.
At 33% of retail, I'd probably go buy half the lineup of higher-end Sigmas.
>>2695188
He's saying there is no reason not to get them. The Sigma 35 art is my favorite lens I've ever owned for any system across 35 years of photography.
>>2695194
Heh, I didn't even realize he could have misunderstood what I said. Anyhow, yes, I meant that there is no reason not to get them.
Sure, the 19 and 30mm prime for APS-C are a bit mediocre, but they don't really cost too much for how they perform.
Most of the rest of the Sigma Art lineup is just excellent in both value and raw performance. The 60mm for APS-C, the f/1.4 primes at 20,24,30,35,50mm, and the 18-35mm as well as the 24-35mm zooms are *really* beautiful lenses.
>>2692565
SPOOKY SCARY SKELETON Senpai HOLD ME
This just in, do not refresh the page.
Crazy shitty Halloween theme inbound.
So my friends. I picked up a Agfa Karat IV, for 10$ at the Goodwill.
It has a Synchro Lever on it. Says V X M.
I checked the manual online and got nothing. What does this lever do?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Right-Hand, Top Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 3264 Image Height 2448
>>2695239
It is for the flash. M for manual, X for synch and dunno about the V.
>>2695245
Oh neat. Thanks!
So I've got this old film, and nowhere around will develop it. I bought a camera at goodwill, and it came with this in it. Had no exposures left.
How should I go about developing this myself? I really want to experience the nostaliga of what was on this film.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Right-Hand, Top Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 3264 Image Height 2448
>>2695239
For some reason your image loaded right to left instead of top to bottom.
Its weird and i blame spooky skellingtons.
>>2695275
>google "How to C-41 at home"
>develop the film in C-41 process
>scan negatives and hope you didn't fuck something up
>>2695319
>accidentally google "How to C-4 at home"
>knocking at the door
>a nice gentleman from the FBI would like to talk to me
>>2695320
With significant effort, you can learn that via Wikipedia
What's the best rugged compact?
