Cameras are technology
What camera do you have and do you like it?
>"Cameras are technology"
>thanks dude.
>we know....
This and a 6D are what I use when I'm working. I'll replace it with a 7D soon. I like both of them but owning a 1d, even if it's an old one really highlights how plastic and amateurish the 6d is
Nokia iJew 7 KikePhone
Dumbphones are best millenials botnets, Goym
Ive got a pentax k-50
I really like it but lately I've been way too lazy to go out and shoot
nikon d3200
whatever, its just werks
>>52034268
Canon EOS XS
It's OK. I'm not really a fan of it, but I think I fucked up my lens choices. There are definitely better cameras, but I got it for free so I can't really complain.
FUCK OFF
>>>/p/
Phantom 3 Professional. It was cool until the FAA said drones have to be registered.
What is the Thinkpad of Camera?
>>52034524
5D Mk II
>>52034524
Nikon D600s, it's gud except at any iso that isn't low as fuck.
>>52034524
Leica
in all seriousness probably Pentax
Nikon D5
I had a Pentax k50 which was nice, but fool frame cameras aren't portable enough for me. So I sold my Pentax glass and the k50 and bought the m4/3 Fuji xt-10. It's been great so far.
>>52034268
Have the Canon Rebel T2i
Just bought a Canon EF-S 24mm f/2.8 STM for Christmas
Nikon D3300 vs Canon Rebel T5
Any Opinion ? Both On Sale ?
Nikon Is Clearly My Pick But Still , I Dont Know Jack Shit About Dslr
>>52034995
If you dont know jack shit then you wont notice a difference between either of them. Pick whichever one you think looks nicer
D600, and an old D60. I actually prefer shooting with the D60, dunno what it is.
>>52034598
How do you own a body that's not even released yet?
>>52034995
The D3300 hardware is better than the Canon T5, obviously that doesn't means just because you bought the D3330 you will take good pictures, but it's logical that only a retard would buy the inferior Canon camera.
I use a Canon 40D which does everything I want, still very water resistant unlike the later models like the 50D and 60D, and has the large thumb wheel and backlit top-side LCD. Sure, it doesn't do video, but that's what a video camera is for.
>>>/p/
oh wait, can't have gear threads in /p/.
>>>/trash/
>>52035115
thank you Anon!
Canon SL1
How do I get that blurry background while taking guts pics?
>>52034524
http://petapixel.com/2015/08/18/leica-m9-falls-off-balcony-and-breaks-the-ground/
Do thinkpads do this?
>>52035329
ThinkPad owners don't go outside
>>52035317
you decrease your aperture value, which opens up the aperture and you will get DAT BOKEH. So like 2.5 or so will make it nice and blurry back there.
>>52035317
B O K E H
shoot wide open with a lens with a low f number to get a shallow depth of field
D5300 + kit lens + 55-300mm telephoto.
It works. TF is wonderful for sports and the D5300 has really good low-light performance.
Nikon D3300
Great camera for the price
>>52035115
I can second this
>>52035359
>>52035365
I'm going to be that guy and point out that bokeh refers to the quality of the blur and not intensity. You can have an f/1.4 lens that looks terrible wide open because of poor OOF rendering, or an f/2.8 lens with a greater depth of field but a much smoother and consistent look in the OOF areas.
>>52035645
You're being pedantic though
you know what we mean when we say BOKEH straight away
>>52035645
>trying to be smart
Bokeh means blur, it is a noun and not an adjective. It can be good or bad, but the word by itself doesn't describe quality or quantity.
If the guy wants a blurry background then yeah he wants bokeh, the previous replies weren't incorrect in their usage.
>>52035970
Well not entirely. He is correct in that bokeh literally translates to 'blur quality' the blurred section of the background itself is called 'background blur'
Bokeh is literally the quality or aesthetic of the background blur but you're right about saying that the guy wants bokeh
>>52035970
"bokeh" is an appropriated word in english that specifically refers to the quality of the OOF area (ボケ味)
"boke" (ボケ) does literally mean "blur" if you are speaking japanese.
you're 20 years behind, man.
>>52036118
see
>f the guy wants a blurry background then yeah he wants bokeh, the previous replies weren't incorrect in their usage
>>52036055
>He is correct in that bokeh literally translates to 'blur quality'
No it doesn't, it's a (deliberate) misspelling of a Japanese word meaning blur, that's all. Bokeh can be good or bad, and there can be a little or a lot of it.
>>52036118
No. The misspelling is just intended to make it easier for people to pronounce, it doesn't change the meaning of the word, turning it from a noun into an adjective. The single word by itself does not, in fact it cannot, refer to the quality of the out of focus areas. Only when combined with an appropriate adjective (good, bad, great, or small) can it refer to the quality. Without one of those it can be used simply to refer to the out of focus area, regardless of it's subjective quality.
nikon d5000, screen is a nice gimmick but unusuable with tripods
dislike the lack of a focus motor, despite the d5000 sharing a digital rangefinder(for the viewfinder) with the d300/90, you can only use it in the p/a/s modes and you can't shoot with manual lenses in these modes, so if you want to use the rangefinder with manual lenses you have to switch to aperture mode, focus, switch back to manual, and take the shot - I'd rather have the d300's feature of inputting lens focal length and aperture to get exposure (and doing fine tuning of focus on liveview + zoom) rather than a half assed rangefinder that is awkward to use, besides, manual focusing is significantly easier to do in the viewfinder without a rangefinder than taking 1-3 test photos to gauge what exposure settings to use for a manual lens
I really dislike the lack of being able to input custom white balance settings, it's trivial to change white balance with raw but without a reference point it's pretty shitty
at the time of buying it I thought the video was comparable to the equivalent canons but I was sorely mistaken, 720p/24/30fps for 5 minutes max or 640x480 for 20 minutes (iirc) - auto everything only (although with a manual lens you can control the aperture manually), full manual video with 5 minute caps and I'd be content
really dislike the lack of being able to command flashes - have to use shitty radio hotplug adapters
I've been thinking about buying a used d300 body (on a budget/don't take photos all that often/etc) as I'd get all the nice features I'd like to have as well as some small nice stuff on top of it, but I don't get out of the house to get back into enjoying it as a hobby :(
given what I learned after buying it, I'd probably have preferred a pentax k-5 for weatherproofing and shit
as a side note, bought a nikon 18-70mm (yes, the d70 kit lens), absolutely love the mechanical design of the lens even if it isn't super sharp or has too big of an aperture (but it's still f3.5-4.5)
>>52034268
Fuji X-T1 and some film shit.
>>52035127
My 40D was great until after two and a half years it died in me.
>>52035645
That depends on the aperture of the lens relative to sensor size and distance from the subject(point of focus).
Canon 60D with magic lantern
Canon 20D (I still like it but I don't use it anymore)
Random shitty Nikon bridge
Contax 139 for 135 film, I have a 167 but with fucked up electronic
Zeiss ikon nettar 517/16 for 120 film but I use it very rarely
>>52034524
If analog probably, Nikon F or leica M
If digital Nikon/canon semipro reflexes like the canon x0D series... 20D,30D,40D ecc.
Sony nex/ fuji X for mirrorless
Fellow fujibro
>>52036510
Which Fuji lenses do you have? Just bought myself the 90mm f2 prime lens for xmas. Can't wait for it to get here from Nippon land.
>>52036947
Pic.
>>52034451
ive got the 3100
was good for learning I guess, I dont quite care enough to get a better one yet
nikon 3300 vs 3200 vs canon 1200D
the 3200 is $65 cheaper
Petri Blue Magic Touch (V)
Carl Zeiss Werramat
Sony A300 with some lenses
I use a Canon T5i. Decent entry level camera if you want to learn how to use manual settings. If you're just going to use automatic settings and never shoot in raw, don't buy a dslr. Buy some pleb camera with lots of optical zoom.
>>52038391
Do you need 60FPS video? If so take the 3300, if not take the 3200.
>>52034368
Check out dealsallyear.com , you can get camera bodies for a good price there, but avoid the accessories.
A6000 and got an a37 for sell right now.
Good enough for this hobby and easy to carry.
>>52038218
Nice, I've only got the 18,18-55, the 35, and now the 90 coming
>>52040299
I wanted 60 fps video so i have the d3300. I got it with the lens kit for 300 off a guy on craigslist, and I love it.
i love my d750, best camera i've ever had. amazing sensor and AF system, plus f/1.8 nikkors are great value
>>52035359
>>52035365
I got the "Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4.0-5.6 IS II Telephoto Zoom Lens " and the "18-55mm STM Lens"
which will be better for bokeh?
you'll get a much more satisfying discussion on /p/. why do you faggots need to have these conversations on your home board?
>>>/p/
>>52040925
Neither will be great, but shoot the 18-55 wide open at f3.5
>>52034368
1D bodies are sex. i have a gripped 300D original rebel, a gripped 20D, and had a gripped 7D.
one day i'll get a used 1Dx or 1Ds mk III.
i found out the hard way that photography really isn't fun once money gets involved. shooting amateur models on the cheap is fun. shooting weddings is not. buying lenses that cost as much as a car isn't fun. spending hours in lightroom isn't fun. storing TB of photos isn't fun. having 50 pounds of gear to haul around isn't fun.
give me a good model, my 20D, some cheap yongnuo triggers and a shoot through umbrella with a cheap yongnuo flash and i'm happy.
>>52034368
do you shoot sports or wildlife?
>>52034481
>>>/out/
>>52041026
>i found out the hard way that photography really isn't fun once money gets involved.
Really not true for me. There's good and bad gear in a variety of price points. Some used analog gear is dirt cheap and can be wonderfully enjoyable to use. I think the most boring thing to shoot with is a cheap DSLR because of the tiny viewfinder. It's something you get accustomed to in full frame pentaprism viewfinders, rangefinders, film cameras(especially medium format SLRs) and some of the better mirrorless models. Another quirk are the dials and ease of operation, changing the most important settings on the fly should be intuitive and quick. I feel like most manufacturers intentionally cripple the cheaper models in this regard which kinda makes them uninviting.
And hey I really like doing post processing in LR and PS.
>>52041158
yeah there's good price point gear. tamron f/2.8 zooms are a good price point, i got the 17-50 2.8 and it was a workhorse. i got the canon 70-200 f/4 L to replace my canon 200 f/2.8 L and it was a great workhorse of a lens. and the little 40 f/2.8 pancake is excellent.
as for ease of operation, any canon with the scroll wheel and the nub to move AF points is a breeze to operate. the cheaper models lacking those features alone are enough reason not to use them.
i used to enjoy post processing gigs of raw files but i simply don't have that kind of time anymore, and i was getting paid to edit other people's photos as well which made it a royal pain in the ass. i'm meticulous about my editing and don't half ass it. lightroom's ability to batch edit photos is a great time saver though. lightroom is slow as hell even on a modern i5 and a SSD.
i guess in the end it was mainly just wedding related drama from wedding planners, bitchy brides, and shitty assistant/2nd shooters that rubbed me the wrong way.
shooting for yourself is great. i might even start going to /p/ again.
>>52041256
>mfw 1D mk III prices are still high
https://www.keh.com/207758/canon-1ds-mark-iii-digital-camera-body-21-1-m-p
might as well just start saving for that 5Ds instead.
Samsung NX 300.
Some software quirks, kit lens is shit, no EVF. Pretty good otherwise.
Nikon D50, it's pretty good for a 10 year old camera.
![sony_ilce7sm2_b_alpha_a7sii_mirrorless_digital_1186034[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/q8m4RDB.jpg "sony_ilce7sm2_b_alpha_a7sii_mirrorless_digital_1186034[1].jpg")
>>52041026
How's the 20D from a professional viewpoint? I have it, bought when it was very cheap already because I needed a good DSLR to start, but I don't know how it performs in hands different than mine. I think that its only flaw was the terrible noise over 800iso but what a truly great body.
>almost 2016
>not having mirror less camera
>technology fucking board
Fucking plebs.
The claim that you can just snap a picture and focus it afterwards is pretty iffy. In order for that to work properly you have to manually edit the depth map it generates so much you may as well just spend your time editing the photo directly. The depth map doesn't seem to know what to do with reflective or even just smooth surfaces. If there's glass or anything semi-transparent in your photo fucking forget it.
It also only works in daylight or extremely well lit settings. I understand the technology behind it is supposed to be extraordinarily complicated but the result is a dumb gimmick that only sometimes works.
Just focus your own fucking shots.
I'm pretty casual and not a photographer, so the Rebel T5 I got on sale works really well for my needs. It's nice to be able to get high quality pictures whenever the need arises, and the video is smooth enough for my YouTube stuff. Pretty great entry/casual DSLR.
>>52042788
20D is a great camera for a dirt cheap price. so is the 5D classic.
bang for the buck still goes to a used t2i or t3i though.
as for the noise, if you're shooting raw and you should be, the noise even at 1600 is just fine for the 20D. use 'remove color noise' in lightroom or photoshop and enjoy the noise profile of the 20D.
I was thinking about buying a Samsung nx3000. Would any camerafags object to my decision?
>>52043091
this is generally fine advice given that you don't know what the anon is shooting, but you shouldn't be giving buying advice without that knowledge in the first place.
if you're shooting sports (even high school sports), the advice differs from the advice someone would give to a landscape photographer. as just one of many examples, focus speed and accuracy is less important for landscape photographers because they generally have more depth of field to work with, a tripod, etc...
so a body like a 20D is fine, but a 5D would be disproportionately better because while it gives up a lot of the modern AF features we come to expect in even a 40D or 500D, you get full frame and greater dynamic range.
all this is apples to apples, though; i've read that even lower end nikons yield better dynamic range, so again if you're shooting landscape you should probably at least explore the nikon side of things and see what people recommend.
See, this is all way too involved to expect to get good discussion in /g/. why is this thread on /g/ and not on /p/, where people who obsess about this shit hit refresh every 10 minutes waiting for an opportunity to dump this knowledge on you?
>>52043295
>this is generally fine advice given that you don't know what the anon is shooting, but you shouldn't be giving buying advice without that knowledge in the first place.
i'm pretty sure you come from /p/ already
>if you're shooting sports (even high school sports), the advice differs from the advice someone would give to a landscape photographer. as just one of many examples, focus speed and accuracy is less important for landscape photographers because they generally have more depth of field to work with, a tripod, etc...
i've shot tons of highschool sports. 7D with a 70-200 f/2.8 is the absolute minimum you should consider and even then it's shit compared to a 1D IV or a 1Dx. laws of diminishing returns given the body cost of both. 7D is 'good enough' when processing raw. I'd shoot in raw using 16GB sandisk ultra fast as fuck CF cards, batch process/resize in LR, and upload within the half hour from my laptop to have that shit online asap. shooting at night. ISO 6400. no bullshit, i want 1/500 minimum under the lights. that's what made my shit look pro compared to fags with rebels shooting jpegs or oldfags shooting on camera flash at 1/250 or 1/200
>so a body like a 20D is fine, but a 5D would be disproportionately better because while it gives up a lot of the modern AF features we come to expect in even a 40D or 500D, you get full frame and greater dynamic range.
what the fuck are you talking about? you don't get greater dynamic range. even the fucking 1Dx can't top 12 stops in dxomark (fuck dxo seriously fuck them). the 20D is rated at 11 stops.
>all this is apples to apples, though; i've read that even lower end nikons yield better dynamic range, so again if you're shooting landscape you should probably at least explore the nikon side of things and see what people recommend.
low end nikons with sony sensors have good sensors. that's about all they have. nikon button and menu layout is shit compared to canon.
>>52043405
yes you can peg me based on my acknowledging that you shouldn't be giving advice blithely. good work
your diatribe on sports shooting has gone completely off the rails. the point i made was that the needs for sports photography are different - autofocus matters more, for instance - compared to landscape photography. you tend to need faster lenses for sports photography as well, so the ecosystem matters a bit more (again, especially if compatibility like autofocus matters).
as for "what the fuck i'm talking about", it's not exactly controversial that a full frame camera is better for landscape than a crop body. if you insist on going down a rabbit hole arguing about dxomark, by all means feel free to run ahead without me. maybe some retard will catch up with you later.
Do i need to point out how trivial and stupid it is to weigh the quality of the sensor against menu layout?
the entire post i wrote served to make the point that what you're shooting matters, and i illustrated that with a few examples. you've decided for some unfathomable reason to nitpick my post in the most autistic ways imaginable. get some perspective. take a step back, or several, or go take a walk or something.
>>52043476
we're in the same boat faggot.
i didn't even get into AF mattering, that's a given. having the nub to move the AF points around and the option for AF point grouping and speed vs timing on taking the photo is something I really liked on the 7D. Obviously you need good AF to shoot sports in low light, which means multiple cross type points. if you really want to nitpick, no xxD body can drive a lens to focus faster than an xD body because of the shit batteries.
i'll disagree that full frame is better for landscape any day of the week. it's just as good as aps-c. a sony aps-c sized sensor that's better quality than a canon 'full frame' sensor is better for shooting landscapes given it's higher dynamic range. maybe you think that going wider angle on a FF sensor is better for landscapes or something. angle of view is about the only thing that a larger sensor can do better, otherwise you're stitching shots on a smaller sensor to get a similar photo.
you don't have to like the fact that i'm right.
>>52034546
I got this exact one at a thrift for 5$
Did I come up?
>>52043782
they're fine if you're a hipster faggot.
canon film rebel is my go to film shit. though i do have a nice pentax SLR.
they're virtually worthless to be frank, my brethren.
>>52043782
Thats how much mine was
If you got it with the 50mm 1.8 you did good. I love shooting either tri-x or ektar through mine
Don't listen to >>52043935 I've come to realize that even through all the inconvenience taking photos is still taking photos and that as long as you're doing it you're fine
>>52036947
I want to lick your 90 f/2bh
>>52040470
I'm thinking of getting an a6000 + rokinon 12 2.0, sigma 30 2.8, sony 50 1.8 and/or a rokinon 85 1.4.
Any other cheap and good prime suggesions?
>>52034268
Im still using a D80 + first versions of Tamron 90 2.8 di and Tokina 11-16 2.8. I'm a poofag so I am forced to like them.
just got babby camera d3300
funhobby/10
>>52040925
Use the 55-250 lens @ 250mm and @ f/5.6 to get the best background blur, the farther the background is from the subject, the better
>>52034268
Still using my Nikon D40. 6 MP is not only laughable by today's standards, but it was on the low end of the scale even back when I got it. However, I rarely print photos, so it's still good enough for me. And the overall quality of the photos is still better than my newer 14-MP phone.
>>52045622
D40 was like 2007-8 ish. Same with D80. Kek. I remember D40 with only 3 af points in the viewfinder and has no built-in motor so a Nikkon 50 1.8 will be all manual. Cool camera 2bh, light weight for a dslr.
>>52043015
There's another company doing like this, fuck I forgot. Probably read it from petapix or dprev
>>52040925
>>52045547
Cont.
You can also try 55mm @ f/3.5, 100mm @ f/4, 135mm @ f/4 and 250mm @ f/5.6 and check which has the best bg blur. Theoretically they should have almost the same blur where the subject is 7-10 meters from the background. Of course, there will be differences though.
>>52034268
I'm thinking about getting an extra lens for my Nikon D90. Something I can use for doing some close up pics (1m-50cm range).
Any recommendation/anything I need to look out for? Do all Nikon lenses work on all Nikon camera bodies? I've never bought a separate lens.
Panasonic GX1 with PanaLieca 25mm f1.4
Overall pretty satisfied. It's light, sharp, and decent at low light.
Sometimes I wish I had a wider lens but over all it's pretty sweet.
>>52034598
You stole this from a shop display
Canon 40D. Not sure if it's good. I'm brand new to the hobby. Got it used for ~$250 with the pictured lens.
I just got this Nikon 1 j1 yesterday.
In my opinion, it's pretty good.
A6000.
Yup, it's a very nice little camera, featuring almost everything that I liked on good FF cameras 4 years ago.
I still plan to upgrade to FF Sony at some point in the next generation or so of cameras.
What do you think about Light l16?
I think its interesting concept and it has potencial however looking at their website and developers half of them are poo in streets rajeets, I just dont think good product can come from such people.
Canon EOS 1200D
went to /p/ though and asked there
just needed a halfway decent camera to make shots of whatever I wanted to port into my pc game
... /p/ is a nice board
>>52047744
>not sure if it's good
40d is not-so-old semi-pro camera. It's great, and if you're amateur you probably won't need anything more in long time. Buy nifty fifty or any other proper lens when you'll start feeling like you have to spend some money on your hobby and have fun for years to come
>>52048470
nifty fifty is a prime 50mm lens? Won't I miss the zoom?
>>52048536
One of the neat features of your camera is the ability to change the lens for whatever is most suited to the situation. You don't just buy one and that's it, otherwise you may as well have just gotten a camera with a fixed lens and saved some money.
Just got a K-500 for pretty cheap.
>>52048536
Yes, it's 50mm f/1.8. Fixed focal length is just something to learn to use, to realize what you can and what you cannot do with it, so yeah - you will miss wide angle in wide angle situations, and then you'll just swap lenses. But with nifty fifty you'll be able to shoot sharp, fast pictures in low light (since it's hella bright, difference between 1.8 and 5.6 is really tremendous) and you'll get this strong blur on large apertures.
It's just a tool for certain type of photos, nifty fifty surely isn't *replacement* for your current lens. But i'm sure you'll have loads of fun with this one, of course as long as you're not shooting exclusively landscapes or something.
>>52048591
Ah I see. Yeah my kit lens is terrible in low light.
>>52048536
I almost solely use a fixed 35mm or 50mm full frame equivalent prime lens when I take my camera with me. 35mm when I'm shooting in a more cramped space like indoors and 50mm when I have more room. It forces you to think more about the shot and you need to "zoom" with your feet. It's kind of a cliche in photography world but zooming makes you lazy. Most people just rely on the fact that they can get the subject large on the photo regardless of their distance or position from where you are. There's nothing wrong with zooms as long as you have the eye to compose the shot and get close enough to the subject as needed. Only thing disappointing of almost all zoom lenses compared to a prime lens is their maximum aperture. A decent prime lens gathers a lot more light than the average kit zoom. It gives you the possibility to shoot at low light and creates a really nice shallow depth of field. 50mm as a focal length is usually really natural looking and pleasing to the eye.
>>52048727
My camera isn't full frame. I think a 50mm prime would give me an effective 80mm. Should I instead go for a 35mm prime?
>>52048777
Yes, just multiply the focal length with the crop factor of your camera body. Canon crop sensors have 1.6x crop factor, most others use 1.5x.
>>52048777
why not. Although 50mm f/1.8 II is ultimately cheap, it's like $90 new and even cheaper used. 35mm will be better for everyday walking around the streets, but 50mm on crop is still kinda enough to be used on the streets and yet it can double as nice portrait-ish lens.
Example of my "street photo" on 50mm crop.
>>52048777
The 50mm f/1.8 is one of the cheapest primes you can get, that's why it's always recommended.
What you get depends on your uses, 50mm may be fine or it may be too long. You've got a 17-85mm so try it out at 50mm.
>>52048815
what's up with the white balance mate
>>52048843
Have you ever been outside at night? That's the colour of most street lamps.
>>52044711
>I've come to realize that even through all the inconvenience taking photos is still taking photos and that as long as you're doing it you're fine
what does this even mean
>>52048826
ok thanks guys
>>52048843
>>52048851
As this guy said, that's what world looked like there. It was night, and city lights had this yellow-orange color.
Guys. I'm new to photos should I shoot RAW or JPG or both?
>>52048851
>>52048885
i'd make it considerably colder in post at least. pick up custom wb sample from the park sign P and then adjust the color temp towards warm until it looks pleasing as it's going to be extremely cold from just the sample.
>>52048928
raw
>>52048943
Ok. Is there any good free software to process the RAWs after?
>>52048943
You mean, like that?
Well, imo it needs this yellow tint for 'atmosphere', but maybe i'll understand your point when i get good at photography.
>>52048928
Depends how right you can get it in camera and how much you want to process it. Ideally we'd shoot RAW all the time but it has it's disadvantages (size, which in turn affect save times, burst shooting, and how many photos you can take; and the fact that it's a bit harder to work with, requiring certain software and can't be readily shared on most sites).
>>52048943
>i'd make it considerably colder in post at least
You're welcome to your opinion and all, but the guy that took the photo is representing real life, the main aim of street photography. Whether it looks good or bad to you that's just the way it is, if you go out at night shit tends to look quite warm.
Note 5.
Would post a pic but they are all way too high res to post here
>>52048928
Are you doing any postprocessing? if so, raw - if not, jpeg. Learning to process properly is important though, so if you're not processing, i recommend to start it soon.
>>52049040
Is it Photoshop or nothing?
>>52049064
No, why? For first steps anything is good, and photoshop is way too much. Lightroom is even more suited for photo processing, and if you're freetard then darkroom is great lightroom clone. You don't need a cannon to kill a fly.
>>52048928
If you don't have a Sony or one of the few other camera brands that has *both* sensible AWB and JPEG processing, always shoot RAW
Usually one or the other is a fuckup of small to epic proportions (the latter unfortunately also exists...) and you best process the RAW to fix WB or brightness or just to get a decent JPEG compression level of your choice.
Hobbyist with a 100D, just got a new lens and I love it.
Panasonic DMC FZ-38 user reporting in.
Bought it in early 2010, very durable and decent image quality. Also a very nice and high quality zoom lens.
>>52049377
god, it's so small and cute
i have soft spot for cute technology, i guess i'll buy this cute small lower-end DSLR one day for everyday shooting
>>52046769
Check the lens auto focus feature if you need it. The good thing is you can buy some old lenses that requires auto focus motor from your camera.
Any wide angle lens should do the job. I myself have a 18-140 which is pretty good assuming you are not protog
>>52049006
Nooo keep that tint. That is what give people the impression of the picture taken at night which convey the feeling of loneliness. Maybe tune down a little bit from the tint, but not all the way to that since you want to keep the scene as original as possible?
>>52049006
Now you've killed it but yes, kind of. White balance is something you have little leeway with imho. I think it's easy to first meter an accurate WB on the scene, use that and then adjust it in post to better suit what you want. Sometimes you might want some warmth, sometimes just accurate whites. If you feel like your photo does not feel warm enough, I'd start fiddling with curves instead of using WB to adjust it further. That very flat and dull color scheme you have now is a dream to adjust in post, especially if you shot it in RAW.
>>52048980
Lightroom.
>>52049017
>You're welcome to your opinion and all, but the guy that took the photo is representing real life, the main aim of street photography..
As all photography, street photography is what you make of it but I think all photography should aim to be pleasing or in some way interesting to look at. Documentary aspect of representing how things really look is popular in street photography but photographing buildings, doing portraits or creating something abstract could be street photography too. Being true to life can be very interesting and pleasing and anon's picture falls into that category. My complaint about it was the overly warm WB. I agree that at night street lights tend to cast a warm tone on everything so warm-ish WB is what I'd go for too. However the pic in question was warm to the point you lose most other tones and everything becomes a shade of orange or yellow.
>>52046769
Check for macro lenses, usually you will switch to manual mode with small apertures like f11, f16, f22 and so on to widen the DOF. You can also use an extension tube for the lens. Also use a flash or a lamp. You can also use a photo stacking software. These are all for macro photography.
>>52049976
I think so too.
Just for clarification - i'm not the guy who wrote that street photography should be as 'true' as possible, i only care about effect. It's just that in my book yellow tint fits there. This contrast between warm colors, cozy christmas lights and old man playing accordion alone while literally no one around cares is something i like in this photo.
>>52049465
>superzoom
>very nice and high quality
Pick one.
>>52050155
Very nice. Maybe ill go downtown today since no one will be out there
>>52043091
@1600 ISO the 20D is as noisy as my 60D at more than 6400iso, barely usable but yes I must say that it has a nice noise and once the color noise is removed the luma noise looks like film grain. As for the JPEG vs raw on the 20D a 3MB JPEG performs the same as a 8MB raw, on the 60D (and now I assume on most newer cameras) you just can't recover a black cover since the JPEG destroys all details on darker areas. I must remember this, I trashed a good pic because of this yesterday
>>52048865
Gear is irrelevant
If you're trying to learn photography whatever you can get is good enough
I'm rocking a Nikon D200 with a 35 mm f/1.8 as my sole setup. It's doing fine for day photo, but I'm craving for more ISO. ISO 800 is barely usable on this camera outside of b&w
What's a great, cheap old and handsome camera?
>>52051037
can it be film? if so canon a-1 or ae-1p
>>52051037
How much is cheap?
>>52051076
Less than 80$.
>>52045400
the sony 16mm with the hasselblad branding is going for $150
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1165358-REG/hasselblad_1100271_16mm_for_2_8_wideangle.html
It's not stellar in image quality, I wouldn't know how it compares to wide angle manual rokinons
but it's ideal for quick shooting on street or on trips with it's autofocus and small size
>>52051064
Gorgeous... Is there a good place I can get one?
Canon Rebel T5. Pretty nice entry camera, I just discovered it does video too.
Works great for my landscape pictures, since immensely high detail isn't too necessary.
>>52051198
whoa
nikon d70s? or maybe old rebel, 350d/400d
>>52051539
>whoa
I am that poor or did I over estimate the price I need to spend for getting started in a new hobby?
>>52034268
cummin though
and um yes, i love it
>>52051572
No, absolutely not. You can take beautiful photo with old rebel and kit lens. I just thought you'll aim for something more, this $80 is really 'minimum'.
You can also try to look for higher-end very old models like canon 20D/30D. That would be the best option, but i doubt you'll find one this cheap - still, worth a try.
>>52051572
$80?
One of my lens was $800
>>52051727
$800?
My tripod was $8000
>>52051633
Thanks, I'll give it a try.
This is just a hobby I want to try so I am likely to be happy taking pictures and love the result not because it is perfect but because I had fun doing so.
I had in mind as an end goal to be able to understand and tune every basic parameters by hand. Like chilling with my camera, slowly adjusting the tuning parameters wisely, not in a "i don't know what I'm doing" way.
>>52051727
Man, this is just a hobby of mine I want to get in.
I feel like buying such an expensive lens would be like buying a macbook pro for the sole purpose of shitposting.
But if you're happy with your stuff, good for you.
>>52051454
ebay or thrift shops
>>52051727
>800 dollar lens
meet 9,675 dollar lens
![oconnor1035[1].png](https://i.imgur.com/bTZiCqv.png "oconnor1035[1].png")
>>52051763
>tfw got $8000 tripods at work
>buying another arm for it costs $200+
>>52051844
Whats so special about them?
>>52051804
It's not really about 'parameters'. After a week you'll be adjusting aperture/iso/exposure time instantaneous - and from 'hardware' point of view, that's pretty much all there is. It's all about composition and overally planning your photo.
But yeah, have fun. Even if setting correct exposure won't be a challenge, i'm sure you'll find a lot of other things to tinker with in your photos.
>>52051886
It's the world’s fastest aspherical lens
>>52051886
about this particular one? f/0.95, it's so fucking bright that you probably can use it as night-vision
it's also probably super sharp and super everything since it's so high-end
>>52051931
>it's also probably super sharp and super everything since it's so high-end
It's anything but. It's a terrible quality lens optically in every single regard except for the maximum aperture. And you only get that sweet light transfer in the middle as it vignettes like hell. Mechanically it's superb but the asking price is ridiculous for the Noctilux. It'd rather get the extremely good Summicron 50mm.
>>52051851
Are you using powerbanks twice that amount, too?
What's a good and cheap compact camera, my gf needs one but I have no idea what to look for?
>>52051920
*currently in production for full frame sensors
>>52052105
of course
>>52040866
My nigga. got mine about a month ago. Came from d5100. I really haven't put it to the test yet, but I'm happy as hell to have upgraded.
>>52034995
I have the 3300 it's simple enough to just pick up and learn plus it takes great photos. 8/10 wish I would have waited for better deals.
>>52034268
D3100
Used it for about 5 years now, pretty good step up from P&S but now I'm wanting something better.
I have one photo printed on canvas at 2x3 feet and it looks pretty darn good.
>>52049536
I'd recommend it. I was deciding between it and the 750D, and after finding out the internals were identical, and the 100D was a few hundred cheaper, I couldn't say no.
>>52055097
Furthermore, I think it's still world's smallest DSLR, so there's your cute factor.
>>52054257
Bro, I had my d5100 for about 2-3 years. I thought about upgrading to d7200. I figured I'd out grow it though. I sucked it up and paid for d750. Go ff, the potential is astronomical compared to just going to a better aspc.
My phone's camera. I don't need to be able to dinstinguish individual molecules on my pictures. If I ever buy a camera, I'll just buy some $150 sony camera that's only as big as my phone, but shoots better pictures. No need for a $800 camera with a $400 lens and a $300 lens cap.
>>52034995
>>52035127
>>52035632
>>52054124
Ordered the D3300 on amazon
420 CAD
Thank you all anons
>>52051390
Thanks, I'll check this one out.
>>52034538
How about 5D Mk III?
>>52055760
You're dumb.
A $100 Canon point-and-shoot takes better pictures than any phone out there.
