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.
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: >>2811723
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make PENTAX Camera Model PENTAX K-5 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS5 Windows Photographer Brian J Davies Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 75 mm Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 120 dpi Vertical Resolution 120 dpi Image Created 2013:11:19 08:09:55 Exposure Time 1 sec F-Number f/8.0 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 100 Lens Aperture f/8.0 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Center Weighted Average Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 50.00 mm Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 758 Image Height 720 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Manual Scene Capture Type Standard Contrast Hard Saturation Normal Sharpness Hard Subject Distance Range Macro
€7.50 in a secondhand store. It's fully working. Anyone that shares my love for these P&S cameras?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make NIKON CORPORATION Camera Model NIKON D7100 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.4 (Macintosh) Photographer Huip van den Ende Maximum Lens Aperture f/1.7 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Color Filter Array Pattern 834 Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 52 mm Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2016:04:13 15:19:46 Exposure Time 1/50 sec F-Number f/1.8 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 800 Lens Aperture f/1.8 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 35.00 mm Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Gain Control Low Gain Up Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal Subject Distance Range Unknown
>>2814481
I don't even know if I need an DSLR but I think I'll get one to try this as a hobbie. As I'm not sure if this will be for me, I want the cheapest one (within reason, I'd pay a little bit more for something clearly better). What my research has shown me its that I could get anything I want and get the same results as I don't have any fucking idea. Later, when I have learned, maybe I could choose better. I know that I'd shoot in poor lightning conditions, and I like skies, stars, city night lights, sundowns, etc.
Bearing that in mind, any tips for getting a cheap reasonable DSLR in London? I don't need the best gear ever as I don't know how to use or if I'll stick to this.
>>2814496
Pentax K-50 with kit lens or Nikon D3300 with kit lens. Maybe Canon 1300D with kit lens.
Try srsmicrosystems.co.uk, they sell used stuff with 1 year warranty.
>>2814486
They're nice until I realize I might as well just use my SLR, and the P&S gets to sit in the back of the bookshelf until I bother selling it.
Wanna get into photography/videography
need help finding a camera, was looking at the canon t5i but still want more options
Budget 600
I'm looking for lens+camera combo to take around the world with me. I want to shoot portraits and landscapes. Weather sealing and good low light performance is vital.
Any suggestions? My budget is max 2000$CDN.
I have a b&w 77mm 10-stop nd filter and a Canon nifty fifty.
Thanks
>>2814497
Thanks, Im going to check that
Want to start photography as a way to earn some money on the side. Such as working at local churches for weddings, and baptisms. And non church weddings as well. Would this be a good idea to start up a file, and experience, to eventually apply myself to crime scene photographer?
What kind of bag does /p/ use to carry around their hefty medium format kits?
I have a mamiya rz67 with 3 lenses, 3 backs, prism and waist finder. My current bag cannot handle all of that plus a tripod. I'd prefer a backpack so I can work away from my car/studio or areas that require a hike to get the nice views. Thanks.
>>2814506
>Want to start photography as a way to earn some money on the side.
Please don't underestimate the effort taken to make money from photography.
>>2814503
Never, ever buy a Canon DSLR if you're going into videography. Bad investment.
Look at the Panasonic G7 if you are on a $600 budget. If you want to spend even less, look at the G6.
>>2814506
>...this is the corpse of Mr. Johns, the bullet entry hole can be seen on the golden ratio. The color tones were tweaked to show the blood in a more vibrant blue instead of red and the focus was placed to nicely melt the background away...
Yeah, shooting weddings is a great experience for crime scene photography.
>>2814511
>Never, ever buy a Canon DSLR if you're going into videography. Bad investment.
Er, video for Canon is still somewhat applicable since their glass is great and ML comes in handy for post production.
I think you could get a 4K blowup from a 7D or 5D iii under the right conditions.
>>2814506
> weddings
Are these somehow easy to shoot where you live?
> apply myself to crime scene photographer
What, they have an opening anywhere near where you live?
I can imagine most regular police stations just make officer Joe use a camera in cases where it is needed, heh.
>>2814503
Panasonic makes great cheap very video capable cameras. Figure out what you want out of capability. I think 4k is a bit overrated compared to good ol' 1080/60fps.
You need to spend on stabilized lenses and gimballed cages etc.
>>2814504
Pentax K-3.
It has really good dynamic range and good low light performance compared to other crop systems. Important because I find landscape can be kind of tricky in that regard.
Spend the rest on lenses, and other supporting gear. You probably could do almost all of it on the 28mm Pentax lens, although I find life becomes easier with a good zoom. Sometimes you can't zoom with legs.
I'm finally convinced to sell my Canon gear and switch brands.
I'm pretty poor at the moment so I will only have around 2000EUR after I sold all the Canon stuff. I want to invest in a Camera body only and use my M42 and Hasselblad lenses on there before I can save some money and get new glass.
Is the Sony A7 series the best camera for that approach? I was thinking about the A7ii.
I couldn't find another system that works as well with old lenses, have I overlooked something or am I on the right track?
>>2814531
That would be a downgrade matey
>>2814532
How do you know? He could have a T1i for all you know.
>>2814533
The T1i wouldn't sell for 2000€
>>2814532
How come?
My current combo is the 70D and a Sigma 18-35. I can't really complain about it most of the time, but the quality is lacking a little too often and it's just too bulky.
I played around with the A7 for a day when it came out and I was positively surprised, the A7ii fixed most of the stuff that bothered me back then.
I tried using my Zeiss Planar on the 70D and it feels like shit, using it to it's full potential on digital would be great.
>>2814540
>70D
>wants to "upgrade" to Sony
Just get better lenses and get gud.
Most of the lacking quality comes from you and it will be present on the new camera.
There is nothing you can do on the Zeiss Planar with the A7II that you can't on the 70D.
>>2814537
I assumed he had lenses for it.
>>2814540
M24 and hasselblad lenses have long flange distances, so you won't benefit from switching to a mirrorless body for size reasons. You would get focus assistance though, which may be useful to you.
I'm really confused as to why you're looking to make this move, and it has all the hallmarks of someone who is currently blaming his gear for the lack of "magic" in his photos, and thinking that older more unique glass will change that, but hey, I'm not you.
The A7II is a good bet if you're firm in your plan.
>>2814537
The 70D and the Sigma are the only two things that would still sell for 500+, the rest are mediocre lenses that I still have from when I started. They all suck, but I got a lot of them to get to 2300EUR after looking at the ebay prices for the last month.
I should get a second hand A7ii body for around 1300EUR if I'm patient and have around 700EUR left for another lens or I'll save for another month or two to get the A7Rii
>>2814530
how does it compare to the k3 II? There's a 400$ difference
>>2814560
K3II has GPS integrated but no poppy-uppy flash, also has pixel shift resolution which wouldn't concern you unless you shoot studio stills. Everything else is the same as the K-3.
Get the K-3, you can get the GPS addon later if you want and the pop-up flash is much more useful.
Hey everyone,
Im looking to buy my first camera, a fuji x100t, but my problem is currently the price. I missed the sale fuji just had so a new model is $1,300. KEH does not have any used models in stock, ebay ones are nearly $1k, B&H has one in stock (excelent condition) for about $950. And on top of that I can get a grey market one from valuebasket.com and abes of main.com for only $900.
Any suggestions? I have money to spare but I intend to sell this and use that money to upgrade to the x200 during fujis next year end sale. Should I just take a chance on a new grey market model? I mean, I only intend to keep it for about a year and if it gives me problems before that I can send it somewhere (like keh) to get it fixed right? I really love this camera and really want one but I dont know what where to get it or in which condition to get it in.
Any advice or personal experience would be soooo appreciated.
Thanks
>>2814622
Grey market should be fine, second hand should be fine too desu.
Why do you specifically want the X100t over the S? The sensor is exactly the same and there are very few improvements.
>>2814622
>to upgrade to the x200 during fujis next year end sale
That camera isn't even in the rumor stage right now, is it? How do you know you'll want to upgrade to it once it might maybe ever become a thing?
This is a very unproductive way to buy cameras...
If it breaks you can still send a gray market camera to Fuji, it will just cost you money to be repaired, since you won't have a warranty.
>>2814639
in a few places the T and S sell for the same price, and where i am the X100S is actually more expensive everywhere even though it's much older
>>2814645
There have been a bunch of rumors on the x200. Mostly from fujirumors.com, basically it talks about the sensor in the X Pro 2 being put in the x200. The main difference is an increase from 16 to 24mp. While I normally would not care about something like that I do print a lot of large prints, usually larger than 2 by 3 feet, so the increase in resolution is very appealing. I was really hoping for it to come out soon or so I would not have to buy and then swap like this but I am going on vacation early June and I need a dedicated camera that is small enough to be taken around anywhere while still having the quality I'm looking for
>>2814639
I would consider the s model, but from what I've read the T-Model fix a lot of the autofocus issues that the s model had. Since my kids tend to run around I figured I better autofocus would probably benefit me in this situation
>>2814659
You should get a DSLR then or at least a recent mirrorless IL camera. Kids, pets and other things running around don't mix well with contrast detection AF.
>>2814675
Both the X100s and the X100t offer phase detect AF...
>>2814681
...while being much too slow for running around subjects. Your AF sensor can be good but if the lens focusing isn't on par it's just no good. I've seen how it works and moving subjects you are just a split second too late or the lens start hunting wildly.
It's a good camera for travel and stills but in it's price range there are better options when you go for photographing your kids playing.
>>2814684
That has not been my experience with my X100s. I wouldn't shoot F1 with it, but it's been plenty for horse jumping and children running around for me.
>>2814688
You might have lower standards than me when it comes to image quality.
Which isn't exactly a bad thing, I can barely stand when my subject has just a tad bit of motion blur when I wanted frozen motion, or focusing on the nose or hair instead of the eyes.
>>2814692
>Which isn't exactly a bad thing, I can barely stand when my subject has just a tad bit of motion blur when I wanted frozen motion,
THEN DECREASE YOUR SHUTTER SPEED YOU DUMB FUCKING RETARD.
>You might have lower standards than me when it comes to image quality.
I think your standards are too high, if you can't be bothered to expose properly in the first place.
That has nothing to do with the AF or even the lens and everything to do with your own skills at exposing an image.
>>2814519
>>2814519
Or you could, you know, fucking buy a camera that already does 4K, and is cheaper than the 7D or the 5D, that can also use those lenses.
This is bad advice. Awesome magic lantern being available is not a good reason to buy a camera. If you spend a premium on a canon and to hack it with third-party firmware just to make it even competitive with the low-end Panasonic's, it's not a good investment.
Also ML raw is highly unwieldy and unreliable, I would never use it for professional workflows.
>>2814695
I have a perfectly good camera but when I had to shoot with my friends camera it wasn't on par with my expectations. That's it.
He and the missus liked the shots so it's fine. I still wouldn't touch that camera with a 10 foot stick.
>>2814692
Well motion blur has nothing to do with the AF system, and if you're focusing on the nose in stead of the eyes, you're just using the AF wrong... But that being said, use a camera that works with you, rather than settling for a camera that you have to learn to work with.
>>2814699
Your post isn't on par with my expectations.
>>2814701
Practice reading then
>>2814704
Practice exposing your pictures properly next time, then.
>>2814706
Why would I want to practice on a Fuji shitbucket? My A7II does everything I need and is a better value than any Fuji shit.
>>2814699
>I have a perfectly good camera but when I had to shoot with my friends camera it wasn't on par with my expectations.
Like how the camera was so shit it couldn't even freeze motion...?
>>2814712
>The exposure triangle is unique to every camera and requires practice with each and every camera that you use
Nah. Doesn't work like that. A shutter speed is an absolute value. A bad workman blames his tools.
Feel free to tell us what motion the camera failed to freeze at 1/4000. As I figure it, only the terminal velocity of your mother could be faster than that.
>>2814531
Yes, the A7 II is good.
It wasn't necessarily a good idea to sell all your Canon lenses - if they were okay, they'd have been pretty nice on the A7 II.
>>2814531
A7II is pretty much the best camera in this planet right now.
>inb4 json lenier shil
>>2814481
I've saved up $2500 for my camera fund. I'm currently looking at either getting Sony A6300 or save up more to get Sony A7rII or save and wait for newer A6300 which has touch and may may a selfie screen as I do personal video diary entries during my long backpacking trip.
Please suggest what approach should I take. Also what are the three best lens to have with A6300. I do street photography, portrait photography -- better bokeh!, and shoots stars and shit at night like pic related
>>2814699
If you lack the competence to understand how to freeze motion using somebody else's camera, I doubt you lack the competence to participate in this thread in any capacity
>>2814481
Anyone have experience with the 70-200 f4 L? Compared to the 40 2.8, how sharp is it and how's the overall quality of that lens? Preferably on a 5DM2
>>2814911
There is literally no such thing as "obvious bait" when it comes to anon suggesting Sony on /p/
>>2814882
> and may may a selfie screen as I do personal video diary entries during my long backpacking trip
Don't need it, you can use your smartphone as a selfie video display, the camera can send a video stream to it by wlan.
That said, at this point, you could also just carry a $60 Yicam.
> wait for newer A6300 which has touch
Could be a year or longer, we really don't know.
> Please suggest what approach should I take
Take your own pick.
> Also what are the three best lens to have with A6300
Matter of taste.
> street photography
28mm f/2, both 30mm Sigma Art lenses, Zeiss Batis 25mm or Sonnar 35mm ? Or perhaps more the 19mm Sigma Art, Sony 20mm or 10-18mm, Zeiss Loxia 21mm for closer to 35mm equivalent?
> portrait photography
Samyang 85mm f/1.4, Batis 85mm, Sony 90mm Macro or 85mm G Master, 60mm Sigma Art f/2.8, 55mm Sonnar T*,
> stars and shit at night
Samyang 8/12/16mm wide angles, including the 12mm full frame fisheye. Sony 10-18mm. Sony 16mm f/2.8. Sigma Art 19mm...
Just a bunch of ideas, and not a complete listing. Plus basically every MF and decently adaptable other lens.
Currently own an a7rii and a 6D with a good range of lenses (16-35 f2.8L, 40mm 2.8, 50 1.4, 85 1.8, 70-200 non-is and a simple 55 1.8 zeiss on the sony side)
How can I get my dog to hold still for a photo?
I have around 6K to build a good photo and video setup for weddings. Already have a 4K drone, Zoom mic, and all the other peripherals. Mainly looking for advice on the following:
with $6,000 to spend, what is the optimal gear loadout for my photo and video setups? I was thinking a Pentax K1, Nikon D750, or Canon 6D and 3 lenses for photo ($3,500) and an a7s or GH4 with 2 lenses and a metabones ($2,500). Thoughts?
>>2815023
Give the dog the A7, take picture with 6D
>>2814882
I'll sell you my a7rii for $2500 if you're interested!
>>2815028
I would, but my pup refuses to shoot raw and I find that very annoying.
I really don't know much about gear so maybe you guys can help me out
I recently bought an olympus omd em5 and my friend told me he had an old olympus omd film with a bunch of lens
they should be the same size and all (micro four thirds), but do I need to be worried about using it on a digital cam? As long as they work proficiently I don't mind if the exif data of the lens isn't recorded.
>>2815023
Give your dog some diazepam.
That fucker will hold still long enough for a photo.
It's what I do.
anyone here have any knowlege of the huawei p9 leica thingy?
>>2815078
it's a potato and makes leica look even dumber
>>2815023
Treat above the lens. this gives them something to look at. Make sure you are firm with the pup and let him/her know to sit, otherwise that fucker will try and bite your lens off. Reward with treat.
As a 35mm film camera fan I kind of love the new Nikon DF http://www.nikonusa.com/en/nikon-products/product/dslr-cameras/nikon-df.html
Does anyone have any experience with this camera, I want to hear a bit about it before I purchase.
>>2815034
Micro Four Thirds is a digital format which has only existed for a few years. The OM film cameras use regular 35mm film which is full frame sized. OM lenses will not mount on your camera unless you use an adapter and will not perform any better than any other old film lenses would, the fact that they were also made by Olympus won't change anything. Also, being full frame lenses they will most likely come in focal lengths which are much too long to be useful on your m43 camera for many.
You're welcome to buy an adapter and try it if you want but there's really absolutely no relation between the digital m43 OM-D cameras and the 35mm film cameras except for the fact that the OM-D cameras are made to look a little bit retro like the original OM cameras.
>>2815108
The film lenses will come in focal lengths which are probably longer than what would be useful to you on m43*
I fucked up that sentence.
>>2815096
>new
I feel like this is a shill post, but in case it's not.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=en5z-Q4po4M
Currently shooting nikon
See this bad boy X30
>MFW I get a boner everytime I think of it
I was thinking of buying one when I save some money, but I fear I'd end up only shooting this and leaving my DSLR in a corner.
Does anyone here have two/more than two cameras and shoot both regularly?
>>2815121
>>Does anyone here have two/more than two cameras and shoot both regularly?
a lot of people do that. A lot of time the big DSLR gets packed when you're specifically going somewhere for the purpose of taking pictures, and the small mirrorless is your "EDC" camera so that you have something better than a phone with you wherever you happen to go.
>>2815119
>shill
Nah man I love old film cameras xD I know there is tons of hate on the camera.
>>2815108
>the fact that they were also made by Olympus won't change anything
Of course lol, my friend just gave the impression that because they are the same "models", they should have the same mount sizes.
thanks for the info, my friend gave me some misinformation on these lenses
I'll just invest in some new m43 lenses rather than dick around with this shit
>The film lenses will come in focal lengths which are probably longer than what would be useful to you on m43
Can you please elaborate? Like it won't be useful how? How long is too long for my m43?
>>2815121
I use my GR for everyday carry and then when I take out my big camera I'll often have a normal lens on it plus my GR in my pocket for when I want wide. I think it's an excellent combination and on vacations and stuff I'll usually end up getting about half my photos from the point and shoot and half from the big camera.
>>2815121
> but I fear I'd end up only shooting this
And what's the "fear" in that? I think all that means is that you just found a better camera for yourself?
>>2815119
Holy shit this video is spectacular. And why is he dressed so much like me...
>>2815124
I love old film cameras too, but I would still never buy the Nikon DF.
>>2815131
This video just keeps getting better xDDDD
"It might even help me make some new friends"!!!!
BTW what is your favorite metal body film camera?
>>2815132
Leica M4 xD
>>2815078
I think it's sick. I've got a Huawei phone myself and I love it. A better camera and monochrome sensor is always welcome.
>>2815133
Leicas are nice, favorite part is there overlay style focusing works great in any light, but that's only on the new ones. Anyway thanks for the great video this made my day.
>>2815125
The mounts are totally unrelated, Olympus/Panasonic designed the m43 mount from scratch to work with modern digital cameras with autofocus and electronics and stuff and to cover the size of the m43 sensor. The OM mount is an old basic mount for 35mm film cameras and it's all mechanical with none of the electronic stuff. They have different dimensions and don't even physically fit together without an adapter.
m43 has a crop factor of 2 times when compared to 35mm film. You can read up about it if you really want, just avoid all the angst and dickwaving and pissing contests everyone gets into over sensor size. Basically it means that for your m43 camera a wide lens would probably be something like 17mm, normal would be around 25mm, and long would be like 45mm or more. The OM lenses were made for a format where wide is like 28, normal is around 50, long is like 90+. So there aren't any 17mm OM lenses that you can use on your OM-D, for example. Or if you buy a 50mm OM lens which is the most common medium focal length for everyday purposes, then it will be a very long lens on your OM-D and will probably be unwieldy and inconvenient for a lot of uses. And obviously you won't have autofocus or automatic aperture control or any of those modern features.
>>2815138
all makes sense now, thanks
I'm not a gearfag so I won't get into any pissing contests, don't worry
>>2815119
>mfw my dad wants the Nikon DF because it's like the Canon AE-1 he used to use
Only planning on walking around with the camera, maybe some light hiking...what kind or brand of budget strap should I get for a dslr?
What about these? -
http://www.amazon.com/Focus-F-1-Quick-Shoulder-Cameras/dp/B00J2NVJ7O
http://www.amazon.com/Koolertron-Camera-Single-Shoulder-camera/dp/B00EZIHPWO
< < Are these things trustworthy?
>>2815121
Absolutely. My main system is FF Nikon, but I love my "secondary" X100 so much that I'm seriously considering selling my Nikon gear and buying an equivalent Fuji setup when the XT-2 comes out.
I don't think the X30 is the way to go for a second camera, though, simply because its sensor is so tiny and so it's not much good in low light. I've tried several "second camera" options in the past, and found that if a camera was too big to put in my pocket, but didn't produce great results, it'd end up collecting dust. I'm anything but a Sony fanboy, but I'd strongly suggest looking at the RX100 if you absolutely must have a zoom, because it blows the X30 out of the water and is legitimately pocketable.
>>2815222
Sling straps are a meme for anything other than multi-camera sports shooting. Just get a Domke Gripper and be done with it.
>>2815121
I take my x10 with me EVERYWHERE. Literally, going to pick up some groceries and coming right back? Going on a drive downtown to see what's going on? X10 is right next to my keys.
Going to an event/concert? Going to do some studio work/video tests? Blow the dust off the DSLR, grab a neck strap and an extra battery or two.
I've never had a single moment where my x10 performed significantly less than a dslr on spur of the moment shots, but obviously it doesn't replace everything else depending on what I do.
>>2815222
Just buy any strap on Aliexpress if you need some extra strap. But usually DSLR come with one already.
>>2814882
I'm kind of in the same boat as you. I have an 50D right now, and I would like something newer and lighter to take backpacking, but the a6000 seems kind of delicate and I want some kind of weather sealing optimally, while the a7ii isn't that much lighter and has worse battery life than my 70D. Also, full frame glass is going to be heavier.
Hey, i'm fairly new to photography and I've been wanting to start with SLR cameras for a while now. I found two different cameras (Canon FX 35mm and the Praktica MTL3 35mm) and i was wondering if someone could tell me which one is a better camera in general. Oh and also the Praktica comes with 2 lenses (a Helios Auto Wide Angle 1:2.8 f=35mm and a Hanimar Automatic 1:2.8 f=135mm) however the canon does not come with an extra lens.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make NIKON CORPORATION Camera Model NIKON D70 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS2 Windows Maximum Lens Aperture f/5.1 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Color Filter Array Pattern 946 Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 105 mm Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 100 dpi Vertical Resolution 100 dpi Image Created 2006:03:18 16:37:03 White Point Chromaticity 0.3 Exposure Time 1/100 sec F-Number f/10.0 Exposure Program Manual Exposure Bias -1 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash Focal Length 70.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 600 Image Height 399 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Gain Control None Contrast Soft Saturation Normal Sharpness Soft Subject Distance Range Unknown
>>2815250
> but the a6000 seems kind of delicate
It isn't very delicate.
> and I want some kind of weather sealing optimally
$5 plastic bag.
How would you rate the importance of buying a hood for your lenses?
>>2815304
Depends on the lens. I don't bother with them on small primes, but they're nice on big zooms, more to protect the front element when swinging the camera around than for actual flare reduction.
>>2815304
Low, but only because they're pretty much always included. I basically always use them.
>>2815234
To be honest for my budget x30 is the best choice because it's less than 450€, has a luminous, sharp lens (28-112; f/2-2.8) and with that I'd only need an external flash and a flash cord for my purposes.
Size sensor is not that big of a deal for low light since performance is great until iso 1600 (I never shoot more than iso 800 on my d3300) and my main thing is portrait and street photography.
Main concerns are not being able to get a shallow enough DOF on a 2/3" sensor and losing the ability to do sports/action photography in the future.
Plus RX100 doesn't have af-s and lacks a button for AF mode selection, and I just hate af-c. Doesn't work with my shooting process.
I'm stuck choosing a system, I own a GR which I love and took with me on travel doing some street and landscapes. However, I find myself sometimes wanting a wider / tighter crop. Ideally I'd like to try portraiture, have something weather sealed and get an ultra wide for landscapes. That's why I'm considering a system.
I'm looking at Pentax (K3) and Fuji (XT-1), Both have their ups and downs. I was wondering if anyone had any input.
>>2815376
if you like the gr you should go mirrorless due to the size. get an x-t1 or x-t10. pentax is fine, prob has better autofocus, but ergonomically fuji kills everyone.
Which one should I buy /p/? Both seem to have great IQ, about the same size and the same price.
>Canon FD 300mm F4 L
>Carl Zeiss Jena Practikar 300mm F4 MC
>>2815385
>using telephoto without optical viewfinder
yeah nah
>>2815236
hey man are you me? X10 for everything
I'm not sure what this means. Normally a lens will peak in sharpness and contrast at F5,6 right?
But this particular lens seems to peak while it's wide open. Wait, what?
So either it's F2,8 is so sharp that it's eqivalent to its F5,6 mode.
Or it's F5,6 aperture is so dull that it's as bad as the F2,8 aperture.
I just hope Zeiss knows what they are doing.
What's your take on this?
>>2815388
Why on Earth would the focal length matter in that situation? If you're okay with an (excellent) EVF at 35mm, then there's no reason to not like it at 300mm
>>2815405
Lenses are sharpest wherever they're designed to be sharpest. It's very possible to make a lens that's sharp wide open, but it's usually expensive, and requires more elements to make it happen, and since lenses are generally designed to hit a size and price point, rather than an absolute quality point, they get the lens as sharp as they can, as wide as they can, while still keeping the weight below X and the cost below Z.
>>2815304
If you shoot in direct sunlight often, and want to reduce the affect of the sun hitting your lens and lowering contrast and causing flair, then it's important. If not, then it's not. I never use one unless I'm in a situation where I'm being a little rough with my gear and want to keep things from bumping my front element.
>>2815376
If you're serious about outdoors, will shoot any sort of action or movement, and you like having great cheap lenses pick Pentax.
They're the best build quality in the business. My K10D gets me fired up, and that thing is 10 years old.
Besides, you already have le meme camera that fits into your pocket why should you carry around a small compromise for your "full" rig?
>>2815405
Its frame-corner sharpness falls off rapidly wide open, whereas it actually gets sharper in the corners at 5.6
>>2815407
Because holding a long focallenght steady is much harder than with wide lenses, and not having three points of contact with the lens (hand, hand, face) makes it harder to stabilise, more difficult to see in bright light, and slower/less accurate to focus.
Also the lower mass and general distribution of mass, alone, would make it more difficult to hold / stabilise, but holding it out from your body would just make it more difficult.
...and whats the crop factor on the intended camera? Stabilising 300mm+ isn't trivial.
>>2815376
I love my X-T1 and will always suggest it when appropriate, but know that your body won't be weather sealed unless you also have weather sealed lenses, and only a few of Fuji's lenses are, and for the most part, they're expensive "pro" lenses
35mm f/2 (The cheapest on the list at $400)
18-135
16-55
50-140
16mm
90mm
100-400mm
All others are not weather sealed. The listed lenses are all excellent lenses, but you should know what you're getting into cost wise if you want Fuji and need weather sealing.
>>2815414
>and not having three points of contact with the lens (hand, hand, face) makes it harder to stabilise
None of that is relevant when a camera has an EVF.
>and slower/less accurate to focus.
It may be slower depending on the comparison (and lens used) but it will be no less accurate.
And the lenses he's asking about are both manual focus anyways, which will be EASIER to use on an EVF with focus assist features not present (or possible) on an OVF camera.
>Stabilising 300mm+ isn't trivial.
No, it isn't, but it's no more or less trivial on a camera with an EVF than it is with an OVF.
>>2815222
Assuming the thing is screwed in tightly and made of brass or steel like the usual suspects are. Yes, they are quite good. The connector between this lug and your strap is probably more likely to break through fatigue on it's swivel joint than these things are.
BUT you have to have it *tightly screwed in* and should check it frequently for the first few days so you learn exactly what that means before it unscrews through movement and you drop your camera.
I remebmer seeing a load rating for the cheap chinese ones I use, and it was an 80kg dead-load applied for several hours.
Obviously a grain of salt is required in chinese specifications, but these lug attachments are inherently very strong. Stronger than the tripod mount in the average entry level camera.. if you ever applied a force huge and sudden enough to do so.
>>2815418
You are correct in theory, but I have spent time with people using EVF and relatively long zoom lenses while I use my 70-200mm and OVF, and I can tell you they do not find it as or quick to focus, nor stabilise the camera. Very noticeably so, it was almost farcical how they missed focus on anyhting that wasnt completely still, and almost every shot had significant shake.
You may not even be capable of realising this fully until you have experienced a well weighted lens on an OVF body. I wasn't until I used a well balanced setup for a long time and then tried going back to less balanced lenses. Then it was obviously a huge hassle.
I guarantee its even more hassle when holding the camera EVF style. Without the benefit of a third contact point....as unimportant as you may think that seems.
...specifically at 300mm * crop factor
>>2815236
I second this.
5Diii for work
X100s for travel
X10 for EDC
>>2815418
EVF means the viewfinder is electronic instead of an optical coupling with the lens. The camera or rather the lens works the same regardless of the viewfinder type.
EVF is not an allround magical thing that makes photos taking easier or better quality. It depends on how you select your subject, how you frame, compose, how to select the focus area and controlling DoF and holding the damn thing straight and stable.
I can now assume you never had a camera before and just talking shit out of your ass.
Does this seem like a well rounded selection?
I use a 5DIII for work and have the trinity (16-35. 24-70. 70-200) but want something lighter for travel?
I know the fuji 10-24 is better than the 12mm but I already have a bulky super wide so I'm not sure.
I also know fuji make a 35mm WR but I really want the extra stop and will get the 23MM WR when it comes out to replace my x100s.
Does this seem gud brehs?
>>2815427
I currently own (and frequently use) a 5Dmk2 and an X-T1 with 50-140, and can tell you that my ability to use and stabilize them is exactly the same. The focusing is slightly slower on the X-T1 because it always is, no matter what, unless I have a truly shit lens on my 5D (like my pre Art Sigma 50mm)
You still brace the camera against your brow, in exactly the same way. You hold the lens the same way. It's the same thing.
>holding the camera EVF style
Are you trying to say "LCD style" where you just watch on the back screen? If you are, then yes, I'll heartily agree with you, but that's a pretty retarded way to shoot in any situation, and anyone with a half decent EVF isn't doing this.
>>2815430
>EVF is not an allround magical thing that makes photos taking easier or better quality
Where was that suggested in even the vaguest sense? Everything I said is saying that it isn't worse than an OVF for long lenses. At no point did I say it was better.
>>2815432
Do not, never, ever underestimate the retardation of the tourist photog pleb.
>>2815437
Well I suppose you're right on that count. But still, it's not an issue with the EVF, or the camera, as you can shoot live view on the back of a DSLR just as easily. There is no added struggle to use a long lens on a camera that has an electronic viewfinder.
>>2815405
Ideally, if you look at just sharpness and ignore other optical defects, lenses are always sharpest wide open and stopping down will always reduce resolution due to diffraction.
In practice lenses also have various optical flaws which are maximised at wide open. Stopping down reduces these flaws and also reduces the ideal resolution, the combination of both factors causes lenses to typically become sharper as you stop down the first few stops until eventually the trend reverses and you start to get worse sharpness as you stop down more.
However if the lens was designed to work best wide open and has very few optical aberrations to begin with then it might be at its best wide open and only get worse with stopping down just because there are no major flaws to be improved by stopping down.
>>2815468
This post is bullshit.
Learn some basic university level math and physics and you will realize how much oversimplifying and bullshit you just did.
>>2815474
Or you could just explain it as you know it, and help everyone out.
>>2815475
You want me to explain two semesters of math and two semesters of physics on an image board? Go to school and don't try to be smart in things you don't (yet) understand.
>>2815477
So it's almost like over-simplification is necessary to answer a question on /p/...
Weird how you'd attack a guy for doing something, and then explain that that something is also necessary. Also weird how you'd imply that he's wrong, but not say what the effect of his wrongness is.
Is it possible that a real life lens is sharpest wide open or not?
>>2815477
>everybody on a board about photography should understand all the math and science I know and should explain everything in the most complicated terms possible because simplification is for idiots
Hopefully you'll stop thinking you're so damn smart after you've had more than two semesters of college.
>>2815480
Finished 10 years ago mate, it was piss easy.
>>2815477
Oh do they cover optics, light frequency aberrations, and lens construction in "math" and "physics" in the first two semesters now? School has changed since I was there.
>>2815483
Shitty state universities don't, but who would purposely go for such a shitty education?
>>2815488
You ever wonder whether people think others are believing them or not, or whether they're just playing a part knowing everyone is laughing?
I'm wondering about you at the moment.
You're obviously doing the "I know I know something, but can't really explain it, so I'll just imply that people who don't know it are dumb or poor and it'll be accepted that I know what I'm talking about" thing, but I can't tell if you're really a guy who thinks that works, or if you're sitting there giggling because you think it's funny to pretend to be that guy.
>>2815491
Not being able to explain or just not caring enough to explain are two very different things. I'll let you think about your above explanation of lens designs and maybe you'll find the flaws on your own.
>>2815494
So you really do think we're buying it then. Okay, cool. Just checking.
>>2815495
I don't care if you get it or not. Having more dumbasses in the world only makes me earn more money.
By now you could've checked a few sources or a quick google search on the "theory" but noo, you want to stay dumb.
Next time you pay someone to do a better job than you are capable of, well you'll be paying me.
Damn stupid goyim.
>>2815498
Wait, can you learn it in a quick google search? Or does it take two semesters of math and two semesters of physics? Because before you suggested that the only reason you didn't explain yourself is because it's too hard to explain, but apparently I should have learned it for myself in about 20 minutes... Maybe they just tech really really slowly at your nice "non state school"?
I want to get into photography and video and whenever I asked this on here everyone told me to get a systemcam or DSLR, even if I want to focus more on video.
I made some tests and learned the ropes with the cameras of friends, most commonly doing event photography, nothing big, but also took photoshop courses (though I work with GIMP atm).
I worked with a Sony systemcam that, according to my friend, had cost 500€ plus again 500€ for the lens. More I do not remember.
So, I saved up all of my shekels for a while and am at 1150€ now, I can increase by 100-150€ every month. I want to get a camera by end of August.
What I mostly plan is independent reporting and making videos. I live in a city with two tech-colleges/universities and a lot of students want to get their projects off the ground, so I'd have plenty of opportunities to train and learn making PR videos and such.
I guess I would be okay with buying used for now. I can also concentrate 100% on lens+camera, since I can get Tripod and bag and stuff like that from other people for free.
Are there specific cams I should keep an eye out for on a site like Kijiji or Craigslist? I think Kijiji allows "alerts" to be set if certain items come on sale.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Photographer Miyomo Image-Specific Properties:
>>2815409
I've read that you should always use them, outdoors or indoors. It increases the contrast in your shots, regardless of the presence of flaring issues.
>>2815563
They don't increase contrast at all, they prevent direct light from decreasing contrast. If there's no light hitting your front element in a way that will lower contrast, then it will do nothing.
>>2815468
>stopping down a lens will cause diffraction on the whole image
>a lens will be sharpest wide open
I am reminded yet again not to accept help from /p/
>>2815568
Stopping down a lens DOES add diffraction.
and a perfect theoretical lens will be sharpest wide open.
As the aperture gets smaller, diffraction increases.
As the aperture gets bigger there are other flaws that come into play that lower sharpness, but they can be minimized with additional elements (and size, and weight)
The reason lenses are (generally) sharpest a couple of stops down from wide open is because at that price point/size/weight point, the engineers have worked to correct those issues in a way that there is a "best of both worlds" spot where aberrations and other "wide open" problems are minimized, but before the increasing diffraction has gotten noticeable.
>>2815575
>Stopping down a lens DOES add diffraction
Nope. There is literally the exact same amount of diffraction at maximum aperture as there is at minimum.
What you should be wondering about is what makes diffraction more apparent at smaller apertures.
>>2815575
Do you actually believe what you write? Unironically? Are you sure you're not joking?
>>2814496
I'm in your same situation, and i'll probably buy a Pentax K-50 (mostly because it's weather sealed, so i can bring it everywhere)
>>2815579
He's not wrong, you know.
>>2815601
I always find it fascinating when artschoolers dip their toes in science. It's like watching monkeys dealing with a TV.
>>2815603
Well, go ahead and educate us with your super STEM knowledge. So far the only sensible thing you have demonstrated here is the capability to be an edgelord.
>>2815579
not an argument.
>>2815618
Your point? It doesn't make the idiocy being spewed any more correct.
>>2815620
not an argument.
So I'm planning on my buying my first camera, the D3300 + af-p 18-55 vr ii kit lense for general photography.
Should i buy something else instead or is this fine?
>>2815623
>implying physics can be subverted through rhetoric
Keep showing off that Philosophy 202 class you took. You're doing your other fry friers proud.
>>2815628
not an argument.
>>2815636
Actually, in truth, your not really doing those fry friers all that proud because one does not have to supply an argument against incorrect facts. The incorrect facts are incorrect. That's pretty much all there is to it.
>>2815641
there's no such thing as fry friers so i'm a bit lost as to what you mean.
still, the point stands, you've just said "he's incorrect", which is not an argument.
>The Zeiss Batis 18mm f/2.8 Distagon is the finest 18mm lens ever to be produced for full frame cameras.
Diglloyd is creaming himself all over the new Batis.
>>2815644
There's no one who fries fries? That's news to the likes of McDonalds.
>which is not an argument
Which might matter if we were debating whether or not the rule of thirds is good for amateur photographers; however, in the case of objective fact, there's no argument. A fact is either true or it is not. In this case, it's actually measurably untrue. It's like if someone claims that the Washington Monument is 8500 feet tall. The only reply necessary is "no, no it is not". It's not the onus of anyone to even go this far, nor is it the onus of anyone else to provide further information as to why something factually said is wrong. If you care so much about the topic and think it's correct, you're more than welcome to go and do research to see for yourself that it is in fact as wrong as it is possible to be.
Also, *I* have said more than that, but it doesn't matter since you're infinitely more interested in winning an argument than you are actually learning something.
Btw, I just put a roast in the oven, so I have time friend.
>>2815579
If you'd like to say something to the contrary, that's actually a discussable fact, with some sort of source to back it up, we can have a converastion about it, but until then, you can continue to imply and insinuate until you're blue in the fingers, and it won't make you seem any more right, or make what I wrote any less true.
>>2815650
Stupidity is neither fact nor discussable. It's just plain stupidity.
>>2815650
>seem more right
I don't care about seeming. Frankly, I don't care if you keep being stupid.
>discussable fact
There's no real discussion when it comes to measurable facts. The physical property is the physical property, period. How well someone argues that it isn't or how someone else feels about it or whether or not someone is capable of understanding it does not matter the least bit.
What's hilarious is that you are requiring of me what you don't provide yourself.
>>2815652
I'm actually kind of curious if you're even bothering to type that at this point or if you're just copy pasting.
I'd copy paste.
>>2815666
>What's hilarious is that you are requiring of me what you don't provide yourself.
Do you need me to link you to the thousands of lens reviews that show lenses being softer wide open than they are stopped down by a stop or two, and then losing sharpness again past about f/8?
Or do I need to link to the thousands of articles and conversations all over the internet that talk about stopping down to achieve better sharpness, but not too far, because you'll get diffraction?
Or maybe to Ansel Adams himself, who discusses it in his books?
Maybe just this snippet from LensRentals
>A little while ago I wrote an article on the 7 common lens aberrations. You don’t need to go read it, here’s the summary: 4 of the common aberrations (coma, astigmatism, spherical aberration, and lateral chromatic aberration) are all improved by stopping down the aperture to f/5.6 or more. For that same reason, they are all worsened, and more difficult for lens designers to correct, when the aperture is really wide. A couple of other issues, focus shift and spherocromatism (also called color shift) affect only wide aperture lenses.
https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2010/10/how-to-shoot-with-wide-aperture-lenses/
>>2815669
Literally none of which states in any manner that stopping down "adds" diffraction.
But please, keep showering us with your amazing understanding.
Here's a little thought for you:
Which is hotter: 1lb of cheese with a single jalapeno pepper added to it or 1 oz. of cheese with a single jalapeno pepper added to it?
>>2815673
Oh, I didn't realize it was the even EASIER to understand concept that was throwing you off. Here's just a quick wiki link...
>As a lens is stopped down from its maximum (widest) aperture, most lens aberrations (spherical aberration, coma and astigmatism) are decreased, but lens diffraction increases. The effect is that for most lenses, the balance between the decreasing aberrations and the increasing diffraction effects of stopping down the lens means that lenses have an optimum aperture for best results, often about three stops closed down from maximum aperture, so for a lens with a maximum aperture of ƒ/2.8, ƒ/8 would be the optimum aperture.[2]:180
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stopping_down
Man, I figured they would have gone over this in two semesters of math and physics about optics...
>>2815677
>still missing how he's wrong this hard
>>2815678
Should I go outside and take a photo at f/4, and at f/32, and show that the second one is softer because of diffraction? or...
I'm not even sure what you're saying here, since you won't actually assert anything other than the idea that everyone else is wrong and also ignorant.
>>2815682
>implying you understand optics well enough to actually show that any resulting softness is due to diffraction
At no point have I claimed that smaller apertures do not make diffraction more apparent.
I already have. Multiple times. You're just thick as fuck.
>>2815682
Most lenses have a excellent range from f8 to f11 where they get best performance.
Super shallow DOF and maximum DOF both have softness, although wide open the center is usually pretty okay.
>>2815687
Maybe the old film lenses was like this.
The more modern lenses today peak at F5,6.
>>2815684
>Literally none of which states in any manner that stopping down "adds" diffraction.
>But please, keep showering us with your amazing understanding.
>>2815689
As it has always been, it depends on the maximum aperture, yurofag.
>>2815689
Mine peaks at f/4. It's a few decades old Pentacon 135/2.8.
>>2815717
Oh, the peak lasts until f/16
>>2815709
The very fact that you think those statements are contradictory says volumes about your abject lack of understanding.
My roast is almost done, so this will be my last post. I'll say this much diffraction in a lens does not change. Apparent diffraction does.
>buy a used "9+" camera from B&H
>wait anxiously for it to arrive
>it's packaged like absolute shit with one piece of bubble wrap covering 1/3 of the box
>its an "africa/middle east" version
>it's missing accessories
>mfw i had to request an RMA 5 minutes after opening the box
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 900 Image Height 900
>>2815740
www.keh.com
>>2815740
>buying from b&h, not keh
You deserved it.
>>2815740
>Getting Jewed in the most literal sense
>>2815740
reminds me of the time I bought a 50mm e43 summilux from stan tamarkin the shady leica dealer. aperture blades were scratched and coated with grease, focusing ring didn't rotate smoothly, aperture click stops were off. I feel your frustration m8
>>2815757
And in the meantime they have use of your money and you don't.
>>2815758
Im not poor so having to wait a few days means nothing to me. It's more the hassle of taping the box and going to UPS.
used to have a dicapac, worked fine, lost it.
Now have A7s, any budget friendly snorkeling and underwater options (not diving depths).
>>2815770
>thinking being "not poor" has anything to do with anything
>>2815730
Oh, so you're a Sony user.
>>2815366
The RX100 has AF-S and AF-C, just looked it up, but yeah I imagine you have to dig through menus to get it because Sony.
It's a shame there isn't an X40 or something like that, with the same design and a similar lens but a 1" sensor. The X30 should be alright for street and portrait, but the lack of shallow DoF might be pretty limiting. If you have the lens set to 85 equiv, it'll be at f/2.2 or so, and DoF will be something like f/8 on FF.
So I feel for the meme and bought a ricoh GR. The autofocus was terrible and the "manual" focusing was also a terrible experience. What should I replace the ricoh with in the $~500 used budget range?
>>2815827
For what.
Instax or Polariod snap?
Instax Pros: Better print quality, more controls, more cameras, asthetically pleasing
Instax Cons: Expensive, slower lenses, bulkier no matter the camera
Polaroid Pros: Smaller, faster lens, cheaper, simple to use
Polaroid Cons: So-so print quality, less controls, cheaper feeling
If /p/ had to pick one which one would it go for?
>>2815831
I already have a t3i, just wanted something I could "every day carry" a bit better. How about the G7X ?
I shot a handful of pics in .PEF rather than the other raw format, and can't open 'em. Feelin' like an idiot.
I installed the "Microsoft Camera Codec Pack' which naturally has made 0 difference.
Running win 7 and shot with a K-3.
newfag here with a D60
getting sick of kit lense, want something for streetish stuff
need autofocus
what should i get ?
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1040758-REG/canon_eos_rebel_t5_dslr.html
Is this good for a first camera (first DSLR camera, of course)?
I can get a weston light meter for $10, not quite sure about which model it is. Should I do it?
>>2815827
I can't say I've ever had a problem with the focusing, both automatic and manual and snap. Are you sure the problem wasn't with you? And also no point and shoot is going to have phase detect AF with the speed of a DSLR, if that's what you want.
Should I sell my RB67? Another dream, a much less available one that I have ben chasing for years, has made itself available and I can always buy another RB system now that they are hilariously cheap, I would sell the RB and probably one of my Canon outfits to fund this.
>>2815883
What are you trying to fund?
So I already own a 50mm for this shooting bands and music but I also want something with a little bit of zoom
But I only have about 150 US to spend
Would the canon 55-250 STM be a bad purchase
>>2815880
Someone hasn't experienced the Sony a6000 yet. ;)
>>2815884
One of these in immaculate condition with a good body and good paint, that hasn't been molested by its previous owners. It's a clean car good interior it has a high-mile motor but I was going to swap in a low-mile 200hp KLZE anyway.
Also: very early Sugar work.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY Camera Model KODAK C340 ZOOM DIGITAL CAMERA Maximum Lens Aperture f/3.2 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 53 mm Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 230 dpi Vertical Resolution 230 dpi Exposure Time 1/350 sec F-Number f/5.6 Exposure Program Portrait Mode ISO Speed Rating 80 Lens Aperture f/5.7 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Center Weighted Average Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 8.60 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 2576 Image Height 1932 Exposure Index 80 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Portrait Gain Control None Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal Subject Distance Range Unknown
>>2815942
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make SONY Camera Model ILCE-6000 Camera Software Photos 1.0.1 Maximum Lens Aperture f/1.8 Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 52 mm Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2016:04:04 22:23:27 Exposure Time 1/100 sec F-Number f/4.0 Exposure Program Shutter Priority ISO Speed Rating 640 Brightness 3.2 EV Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 35.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1200 Image Height 1200 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal
Can someone with experience give me a opinion on the Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 14-42mm lens?
Came with my Olympus om-d em5 and it seems just okay. New m4/3 lenses are fucking expensive.
Here's a random campiss snapshit I took with the lens.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make OLYMPUS IMAGING CORP. Camera Model E-M5 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.5 (Windows) Maximum Lens Aperture f/3.5 Color Filter Array Pattern 800 Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 84 mm Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2016:04:15 00:06:14 Exposure Time 1/13 sec F-Number f/5.6 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 200 Lens Aperture f/5.6 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 42.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Gain Control Low Gain Up Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal
>>2816029
It's a lens. It covers a decent focal range.
There, you have your opinion.
>>2815846
Use Lightroom or that horrible factory RAW converter. Switch over to DNG next time.
>>2815954
> It is the camera's fault when you aren't using eye AF or face detection, then have the camera set to focus on the closest thing in a wider area, and that closest thing on average happens to be lots of dirt on your mirror.
Now that I ruined my most used lens I'm thinking of buying a Sony a7 and selling my pentax k-5
I want to keep my gear small and the A7 kits go for 1k euroclams now ... I could use lenses from my film gear with it + get the 28mm and maybe 50 for it
Will horribly regret this?
Anyone changed from Pentax to Sony? How did that go?
>>2816074
The A7 has pretty poor AF and some more things.
I'd prefer the A6000 or A6300 myself if the A7 II or A7R II weren't an option for some reason.
>>2816074
You will eventually want better lenses with AF and seeing the same lens on Pentax costing $200 and small while you are left with fuckhuge Zeiss licensed lenses costing $1500 or more will hurt you dearly in the wallet.
Just get a few Limiteds, you won't regret it.
>>2816077
thanks, I'll look into them
I probably should have mentioned that it is mostly for general travel photos, landscapes etc. I dont do sports or anything where fast af is relevant, but I want it to be accurate
>>2816078
> the same lens on Pentax
You mean "a lens" with the same FL.
No, the Pentax lenses are not as good overall as these Zeiss (though most are more like $800...) or other expensive glass on the E-mount.
Of course, you don't have to want or need high-end glass and can prefer cheaper / smaller glass. Not saying going Pentax is insane - but it's really not the same glass.
>>2816079
Well, IBIS also helps with these old MF lenses. And the ergonomics got better on the A7 II.
But if you're not getting the upgraded A7 II, it'll *probably* really have some advantages to get the A6000 or A6300 over the A7. Faster burst rates, better AF on native lenses, and some more. And cheaper price in the case of the A6000.
If you must have the same FoV on your old FF lenses, you can still use a focal reducer "speed booster" (~$100 or so for the Chinese ones - of course you could also get the high-end Metabones, but that's maybe not too attractive for the older low end to midrange glass that most people have).
>>2815270
got a similar issue´:
shooting for a while with a nikon D5100 and want to buy my first SLR. Through my research i`ve been told, that the canon AE series adn Nikon FM modells are a good starting point.
Any other good starter SLRs within or under this price range? Help is much appreciated
>>2816082
Pentax glass is godly for the price you're paying (most of the time). Pentax systems also have the most complete line of lenses in existence (if you're fine with MF).
I'm gonna buy a second hand camera? What do I need to look for? Thanks/p/
>>2815779
Explain how the comment i responded to is relevant in any way if im not poor.
>>2816102
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1BxXPTIvtHA
what a bunch of jews
Need a new cam. I really want to go full frame but I just don't have the money at the moment.
>60D ~€300 (how many clicks would be acceptable?) and maybe a Tokina 11-16 as an extra
or
>70D ~€600 with only >10000 clicks
What do? I'm a nightclub photographer coming from a 1000D + kit lens.
>>2815523
Noone?
>>2816111
Might want to learn about how finance works.
Also, if you don't know anything about this, then frankly you're poor.
what camera is this, /p/ ?
>>2816140
Save up until you can afford a 7dmii...the 6d won't give you any significant performance improvements (you'll want a 5dmiii for that)
>>2816234
Panasonic gh4 would probably be a better choice for doing video. Ask in the vid general, you can get better answers there
can someone recommend a good tripod in the 150-250$ price range? i was looking for something that i could take on hikes and travel with if it comes down to it i'm okay with something that has a some weight to it.
>>2816241
Hasselblad 500 or 501 of some sort
>>2816093
All of them. They all work the same. Film cameras are all just boxes where you can put film at one end and a lens at the other. If you have a preference for Nikon lenses or Pentax lenses or some specific brand then buy a camera that will mount those lenses, but aside from that they're all like 95% the same exact thing.
>>2816271
Check out the Sirui T-1005X
How do you switch brands? I want to try another, but i am already invested into one.
>>2816279
Stop being a pansy and use what you have until you have a reason to switch.
>>2816279
I've done it. It sucks and it's a pain in the ass and wasn't worth it, don't bother.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Sony Camera Model D6503 Camera Software Pixlr Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Metering Mode Unknown Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash
>>2816249
Yeah, with a starting price of 1.000€ I can't find any decent offers that include a lens as well.
Currently torn between the Canon EOS D600, One offer with a 18-55mm lens as well as several extra batteries, filters and flashes and a bag for 420€.
A Nikon 5200 with a 18-200mm lens and an additional flash for 550€
And a Olympus EM5 without any accessoires for 600€. I heard the EM5 has problems wil already moderate ISOs
I also found a Leica V-Lux 114 for 925€ but can't find any really flattering reviews of it. Also it doesn't seem to be a camera with a lenssocket.
I can't seem to find any offerings of used cameras in the 800-1.200€ bracket except for lenses. Could it be that people hold on to cameras above a certain price and don't re-sell?
>>2816284
Out of those, the Canon b/c you can add Magic Lantern.
Seriously though, /vid/ general is where you need to be. Photography and videography are like 80% the same, but that 20% difference is really damn important.
>>2816279
You sell your stuff, and buy new stuff...? Where is the confusion?
>>2816278
>Sirui T-1005X
i'll look into it thanks.
>>2816271
Vanguard makes some awesome tripods in that price range. They'll be a bit heavier than bespoke hiking/travel tripods, but super stable.
>>2816291
I personally own the T-024X, which is carbon fibre and a little more expensive at around $300. I can definitely vouch for it, and even though it's bigger than the T-005X, it still folds up small enough to fit inside my backpack.
Actually if you're in the US then the T-024X would be in your $250 budget, as I'm an Ausfag.
>>2816271
Dic&Mic E302C or P303C
Hi guys, I'm looking to buy a good low light lens for my 70D (I shoot in theaters and filmings) and I'm between the sigma 18-35 1.8 which I can get used for about 630 usd used or the sigma 35 1.4 which I'd have to get new. I'm on a budget so every penny counts, but I hear the prime lens quality is just astonishing. Which one do you recommend? Are there any other options in the range that are worth?
>>2816323
What are you actually shooting in theaters and filmings? Can you get close to your subjects? If so, get the Sigma.
>>2816325
A lot of things, from close-ups of actors to some wide shots of staff, sometimes video as in making of, but I prefer and most of the times can get close to the subjects. I have a 18-135mm kit lens that gets me covered in distance shooting (that's usually in daylight so I got no problem for that, and most of theaters I work are small). I take it you mean the prime one? both are sigmas
>>2816329
Oh. I mean the zoom. More versatility. The 35 will be really tight for a lot of stuff, if you are up close.
>>2815954
Clean your mirror so it doesn't focus on the cum stains
>>2815742
>>2815743
>looking for a dp2 merrill
>find one on keh for a good price
>picture is of an original dp2, but the description says it's a merrill
>ask customer service to confirm what it is because of conflicting description
>they confirm it's a merrill
>trust them because everyone says how amazing keh is
>box arrives 2 days later
>it's a fucking old ass 4 megapickle dp2
>rrreeeeeeeeeeeeeee internally
they let me return it without a problem, but they should know what item they're selling ffs.
So I'm looking for a camera bag that doesn't scream "STEAL ME CAMERA INSIDE". My budget is around $150, but I'm willing to stretch that a bit. Ideally it would hold a 6D + 24-105L combo, a 12 in macbook, and a moleskine. Satchel/messenger bag style preferred but backpacks are alright.
>>2816346
Any bag is going to get stolen if you leave it lying around or leave it visible in your parked car, it doesn't matter what the bag looks like unless you use a trash bag or something.
>>2816346
Why do idiots think this shit is true?
THIEVES HATE CAMERAS. The fuckers are next to impossible to safely move. They want shit like ipads, various kinds of cellphones, laptops, and the like.
>>2816356
What? Cell phones are usually locked and encrypted and impossible to lock, cameras have absolutely no security and I bet only a small minority of people even have their camera gear serial numbers written down.
>>2816359
You're an idiot.
>>2816359
Most cell phones are neither locked, nor encrypted. They ARE, however, mostly beat up scratched up worn out and outdated, and therefore not a good source of income for a thief.
is it worth it?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Unknown Metering Mode Unknown Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash
Hey guys, I was wondering: is there really no Canon to regular 4/3's adapter out there? I have been searching for the last hour and found nothing. :(
Thank you.
>>2816398
Why would there be? Canon's flange focal distance is bigger.
You'd have to pay for a fairly expensive adapter with glass to get these lenses to be sharp and even more glass to make them cover the sensor of some Canon EF(-S) somehow. And then it'd kinda suck anyhow.
There's probably no market for this. Get a Sony E-mount if you want adapters.
>>2816420
*bigger than possible. Adapters with ~1mm size aren't going to work, even less when you want to correct the projection's size.
>>2816420
Yeah I was thinking I would just deal with the issues that arise. But you're right, thanks
