Gear Thread
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /p/ - Photography
You are currently reading a thread in /p/ - Photography
Gear Thread
If you have questions about a new camera, what lenses to buy and anything related to gear or wondering about getting into photography, post it in this thread.
Do not attempt to make a new thread for your new Rabal, broken glass and being new. You have been warned!
I repeat, ANYTHING GEAR RELATED goes in here!
And don't forget, be polite!
Previous thread: >>2739215
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 1024 Image Height 694
>>2742738
>I live in canada
>645n's are 400-500 alone Just for the body
>Implying you can shoot without a lens ore even a pinhole
I was going to start a new thread for this, but I think it could work here just as well. On /k/ they have "arsenal" threads where they post a picture of all their guns.
Post your camera and lens arsenal, critique others, get suggestions for your next purchase.
Pic related is mine. Not pictured: See EXIF data. Thinking about picking up a DA 40mm f/2.8 Ltd pancake just so I can round out the holy trio of pancake lenses. Brilliant idea? Stupid idea? Stupidly brilliant idea?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make RICOH IMAGING COMPANY, LTD. Camera Model PENTAX K-3 Camera Software PENTAX K-3 Ver. 1.11 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 39 mm Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Created 2016:01:12 00:20:37 Exposure Time 1 sec F-Number f/8.0 Exposure Program Aperture Priority ISO Speed Rating 200 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 26.25 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1920 Image Height 1280 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Contrast Hard Saturation Normal Sharpness Hard Subject Distance Range Macro
>>2742748
That 70mm
>>2742748
NO!
Don't start it again, it finally died off months ago.
Fuck off back to your containment board!
>>2742748
Post hidden. See how easy it is?
>>2742750
What about it?
>>2742751
>to your containment board
????
>>2742752
>post appears
>IP count does not increase
Keckles. If you don't like hearing others talk about gear, then you're in the wrong tablet-scratching thread on the wrong cave-painting board, on the wrong Nepalese yodeling website.
>Captcha: select all images with pancakes
>no Pentax lenses pictured
Google, get on your game.
I've got the kit lens for my xe1. What's another decent lens that i could get for it? I was looking at older lenses but manual focus is already tough enough. What would you recommend?
>>2742761
Why is it tough? Getting a russian Flektogon copy 24mm or 35mm should be cheap and easy and focusing with peaking shouldn't be much problem.
>>2742761
Get a pancake.
>>2742768
noisy as fuck motor.
hunts in low light.
pretty slow on the xe1 like my eos m + 22mm.
but it's sharp wide open.
>>2742774
>noisy AF motor
Who cares about AF noise?
>>2742774
Damn, that sucks. I was actually considering picking up an XE1 for the sake of getting this very lens.
>>2742748
Anybody?
>>2742801
Kindly fuck off.
You are not welcome here.
>>2742806
Yes, I am. You seem confused.
>>2742801
Your pathetic attempt at trying to flex your pentacks gear has not impressed anyone, now fuck off cunt.
>>2742807
You are a disgrace to us, Pentax owners. Go away!
>>2742808
>trying to flex your gear
I'm actually trying to get opinions about the 40mm lens...
>>2742814
>On /k/ they have "arsenal" threads where they post a picture of all their guns
>Post your camera and lens arsenal
>Pic related is mine
>B-b-but I'm actually trying to get opinions on a 40mm, that's why I posted all this useless shit in an attempt to impress people on the internet with my gearfaggotry.
If you wanted to ask a question about a 40mm then you would have done just that, but instead you chose to be an annoying cunt. Now for the 4th time, FUCK OFF.
Super pleb here with a EOS5D and a stock 35-55m. I shoot interior housing for work. I'm also awful at it.
I need a lens that gets me a much wider frame, and I'm not good enough to justify an expensive one. Sup /p/?
>>2742881
>5D
I see you bought into the fool frame fad. My iPhone has better DR and noise performance than that shit. I suggest you get a new camera, even if crop, also a Samyang/Rokinon 14mm.
Get a Pentax K-50 or K-3 or a Nikon D7100.
I require a cheap 35mm point and shoot film camera, I need a recommendation
>>2742748
>just so I can round out the holy trio of pancake lenses. Brilliant idea? Stupid idea?
You buy lenses in order to take photos, not to have lenses. So; stupid idea.
>>2742881
Rokinon will be your friend.
>>2742885
Nobody takes pictures with a Pentax.
Looking for old glass to use with my a6000. Are there any lenses apart from the leica m, that won't need such a large adapter ring to match the missing mirror?
>>2742887
the guy in the op image did
>>2742890
He's just posing with his camera.
His friend with the Canon took his picture.
>>2742891
>He's just posing with his camera.
yeah taking his picture with a pentax
>>2742887
Khm..
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CC (Windows) Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 533 Image Height 800 Number of Bits Per Component 8, 8, 8 Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2014:03:20 11:13:32 Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 533 Image Height 800
>>2742896
Still just posing with it.
>>2742748
The ultimate gearfag post
>>2742748
Some people just collect stuff and have the money to do so. I can't believe how many people have a problem with this, especially in the goddamn gear thread
>>2742958
I'm just butthurt because I could only afford the 35mm da with my k-50 but I really wanted that 21
I've been wanting to get a fairly portable 8mm or 16mm camera (if it was portable enough) to shoot b-roll with for my personal films and was wondering if anybody had any good recommendations.
>>2742958
The problem only comes in when people deny being collectors, and start pretending to be photographers. And if you're just collecting, asking advice on whether or not you should get a lens is pretty retarded. You won't use it, but if you want it, and you can afford it, get it. etc.
Hey /p/, I got sent here from /g/. I've been tasked with recording some short to medium-length fitness videos in a studio. I want to make them high quality, but don't know what the fuck I'm doing. I asked a couple people from the photojournalism department at my uni and they said if I wanted to spend <$700 (which I want to do), the best bet is to just get a Nexus 6p and a Rode VideoMic since I can use the phone for other things as well.
Are there any other better options? I was originally thinking about buying a used Canon T3i and a tripod with some type of boom mic.
Thanks /p/
>>2742973
You will not be able to use a Rode mic on a nexus 6p. A t3i is a solid option that many many people take as a means to their first video camera. If you want another option for a cheap, yet really good camera look at the lumix g6 and g7.
>>2742973
Used Canon T3i, kit lens, cheap tripod, cheap shotgun mic (rode is good) and a $75 continuous light kit from ebay should do you just fine.
Got a used X-T10 with grip today, still need a lens tho. Should I just go for a used 35mm f1.4?
>>2742977
The X-T10 has a grip? Cool.
lens depends on what you're trying to do with it. There aren't really any lemons in the Fuji lineup (other than SORT OF the 60mm macro, but even then). So it's a matter of your shooting style and subject of choice.
>>2742975
http://amzn.com/B018KIJGU8
>>2742979 (cont'd)
If you're fine with home video quality, get a Canon DSLR that can run Magic Lantern or Sony / Panasonic MILC, a (Yongnuo?) LED light panel, and a basic stabilized grip (you can also DiY one according to instructions posted online), and some kit zoom or cheap prime lenses.
Add the Rode on or off-camera for audio and it'll probably be an okay enough video if you work hard enough on it.
>>2742978
It does, the MHG-XT10. Might sell it though, because I don't really need it.
I shoot street and bands, with my film body I use a 50mm and 28mm. I know I'll want something wider if I only have the 35mm, but are the pancakes any good? I don't think I can afford the more expensive lenses yet.
>>2742826
>that's why I posted all this useless shit in an attempt to impress people on the internet with my gearfaggotry.
>If you wanted to ask a question about a 40mm then you would have done just that,
If you look at the other lenses I have in my collection, though, it kind of affects people's answer about the question. I have a 35mm prime and a 50mm prime, for example, as well as two zooms that cover this range. Just because somebody doesn't ask a question in a way that you find the most aesthetic doesn't mean that it's OK to just dismiss and ridicule their questions. Ignore, yes, if you can. But don't ridicule.
>>2742995
Also I need to order an OM mount adapter for it, I think the 50mm f1.4 Zuiko I have should make an okay portrait lens adapted.
>>2742970
>The problem only comes in when people deny being collectors, and start pretending to be photographers.
Usually this occurs only in butthurt /p/hags' minds only.
>And if you're just collecting, asking advice on whether or not you should get a lens is pretty retarded.
How is that retarded? Have you no idea that not all lenses are created equal?
>You won't use it
Don't be so sure.
>>2742883
what is fool frame
>>2743004
full frame / 35mm sized sensor.
Normally larger sensors will have better noise performance than smaller ones of the same generation, but because the original 5D is over 10 years old, modern cameras with aps-c sized sensors easily outperform it in image quality.
What standard zoom lens does /p/ recommend for mostly low light indoor situations? EF mount and sub $1500 are my limiting factors.
>>2743015
used 24-70L?
>>2742960
The DA 35 with the K-50 is a very good combination. Don't worry about it.
>>2743015
To shoot moving subjects, namely people? You'll usually have problems even with a fast prime. You actually probably want a good speedlight or a Sony A7S. (A7S II, A7R II, 1D X, D4S and so on are too expensive).
To shoot static subjects? Use a tripod & remote trigger (cabled or RF or IR) and set your camera to base ISO, then just shoot with whatever lens you have.
Hi guy, i more a videograph then photograph. I see a canon 550 d at 250€ (~ 270 $) with the lens of base (18-55mm) it's worth to buy it? It is a occasion
>>2742748
sell me that 16-85? or the 35 macro? or the 31?
>>2743028
How to spot cancer
Not totally gear, but close enough. Those of you that do home b&w developing, what's your cost per roll (ignoring startup costs, just maintanence / replenishing costs)? Any ballpark / guesstimate is greatly appreciated.
I just want to know what I'm looking at cost-wise, see if it's doable for me.
Only on /p/ is reality inverted with some sort of photography school guilt trip mindset where people are ashamed to admit how many lenses they own.
>>2742748
>Post your camera and lens arsenal
Nobody here owns any lenses?
>>2743038
>people are ashamed to admit how many lenses they bought in hopes that their photography would improve, only to lay unused on a shelf collecting dust while their owners post furiously on the internet about how great their lenses are according to test charts on the internet.
>>2743038
>Nobody here owns any lenses?
No one worth-while gives a shit about posting them
>>2743038
Stop forcing your bullshit nonsense and get your cancerous shit self back to /k/ you inbred fuckwit!
>>2743035
guy i m a poor little student in cinematography i canot buy a reflex at 2500 $ like the a7sII. But i'm not a retard like so many fags who buy a camera at 800-1000$ for online use the automatic mode. I just need yours advices on this
>>2743044
It's not the worst option, but you'd be better off with an a6000 for almost every possible circumstance.
>>2743040
>the only reasons people ever buy lenses is either misplaced hopes that their photography might improve, or else because they are a collector/hoarder
Could you throw any more of a tantrum about it?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Canon Camera Model Canon PowerShot S95 Maximum Lens Aperture f/2.0 Image-Specific Properties: Exposure Time 1/15 sec F-Number f/2.0 ISO Speed Rating 320 Lens Aperture f/2.0 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Flash No Flash Focal Length 6.00 mm Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto
>>2743044
> student in cinematography
Use the equipment provided for the courses?
>>2743047
Don't feed the troll goddamnit!
>>2743047
>I'm really sensitive about that topic, so I'm going to attack you, while pretending that you're acting hysterical. Look at all my lenses I have. I take good photos I promise.
>>2743051
>"while pretending that you're acting hysterical"
>, he says while samefagging insults like mad
This place is a gear-hater hugbox and you literally don't even realize it.
>>2743052
Tell me more about your opinions! This place is nothing but gear, and applying "hugbox" to /p/ shows how truly off your meds you really are.
>>2743052
It is you who expected a hugbox for all your gear. The gear thread is for helping people with actual problems and dilemmas, not to pamper gearfaggot egos.
For the last time, fuck off!
>>2743046
The hybrid camera let me spetic, i never use once it's really good? And i already have some EF-lens and i dont like use adaptator
>>2743048
My school have old equipement and just three cameras broadcoast ( 2 FS7 and one RED Epic) who have impossible to loan and the cameras of photography are really good for video (like the alpha series)
>>2743038
im a cheap bastard so i started buying cheap shit off ebay (the 50 came packaged with the camera). dont really use the 35-105 or the 80-200 because the IQ is pretty shit comparatively. the 28-200 is pretty solid for the 40 bucks i paid for it.
also have the newer HD 55-300 coming, which should be delivered sometime today
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Apple Camera Model iPhone 5s Camera Software GIMP 2.8.10 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 29 mm Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2016:01:12 14:50:10 Exposure Time 1/16 sec F-Number f/2.2 Exposure Program Normal Program ISO Speed Rating 100 Lens Aperture f/2.2 Brightness 1.4 EV Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Flash Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 4.15 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1689 Image Height 799 Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard
>>2743058
>The hybrid camera let me spetic, i never use once it's really good? And i already have some EF-lens and i dont like use adaptator
It's better than the Canon in basically every way. But if you want the canon, and can't afford anything better, then get the Canon.
>>2743071
ok thanks i think i will buy the canon i'm too poor for a better equipement
>>2743061
Disgusting
>>2743083
>needlessly buying shit you dont need for a hobby youre not good at
yes, that is disgusting
are all strobes and speedlights offer the same power output? i never understood the huge price gap between paulc and broncolor or yongnuo and canon/nikon
is it mostly because the refresh rate or TTL features?
>>2743087
> are all strobes and speedlights offer the same power output?
No. And there are a lot more parameters at work, too.
> is it mostly because the refresh rate or TTL features?
Partly technical features (TTL, refresh rate, power, overheating or not, expected life span & build quality, ...), partly system concerns (cables, light modifiers, battery & power systems...). Don't mind the overlap, of course some are also both concerns at the same time.
In a way, the systems are pretty ridiculously incompatible for how simple they are, so you're also usually paying extra to get that one thing that just gets it right, or adapts something in the right way.
That is, apart from the cheaper gear that the Chinese make. For the most part, that stuff is compatible, if sometimes a little basic (light stands and modifiers and stuff and things more than Yongnuo gear, they're doing quite fine overall).
>>2743087
No. They're rated by Guide Number.
For example, the Canon 430 EX is a guide number of 43, and the 580 EX is a guide number of 58 (more powerful)
There are also a lot of other differences, like flash duration, color accuracy, recharge speed, heat control, etc.
>>2743057
>your gear-related questions are irrelevant unless I deem them to be up to my own arbitrary, high brow standards as someone who hates gear
>>2743061
What is the contraption on the right?
>>2743047
>all that zeiss
I'm pretty jealous, but isn't it about time you upgraded your camera bodies?
>>2743096
80-200 zoom with two 2x teleconverters
>>2743098
Is the image quality at all usable with that?
>>2743047
autism: the post
>>2742748
How is the 55-300? I've got the cheaper 50-200 and I'm thinking of upgrading to something with more reach. It's either the 55-300 now, or the DA* 300mm prime later.
>>2743100
its not that bad really, but you lose a lot of light and its just kinda bulky. just got my hd 55-300 in like an hour ago to replace it
>>2743101
>still trying to get the last word in, even though he has nothing to say or contribute
You know a lot about autism, huh?
>>2742734
JUST USE A PHONE YOU NERDS
YOU DON'T EVEN TAKE PICTURES WITH THE GEAR YOU SURROUND YOURSELVES WITH
Anybody ever use one of these quick draw holsters and can comment on how well they work in real life?
>>2742748
>DA Limited
>holy trio of anything
It's not, really. The colors are good, but it's a slow lens and there's no reason to get it over the FA 43mm. Save up for the FA 43mm. There's no reason to limit yourself to f/2.8 and non-full frame compatibility... unless you really want to save the $200.
>>2743107
You should get one, it's definitely not the gayest thing I've ever seen in my life.
cheap pentax manual pancake lens for p30t?
>>2743107
You'd look like less of a fag if you stored the lenses up your ass.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Canon Camera Model Canon EOS 5D Mark II Maximum Lens Aperture f/2.8 Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 25 dpi Vertical Resolution 25 dpi Image Created 2011:07:20 18:28:30 Exposure Time 1/200 sec F-Number f/7.1 Exposure Program Normal Program ISO Speed Rating 160 Lens Aperture f/7.1 Exposure Bias 0 EV Subject Distance 0.62 m Metering Mode Pattern Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 24.00 mm Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 900 Image Height 641 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Manual Scene Capture Type Standard
Should I sandpaper the inside of my $3 chinese lens hood?
>>2743142
You could. But why? Got reflection issues?
>>2742977
Bumping my question for the Fuji shooters. I shoot street and bands mostly.
>>2743107
get a fanny pack and put your lenses in tube socks m8
>>2742995
>but are the pancakes any good?
sure they are.
The 18-55 is a fantastic lens as well, you should consider it.
>>2743158
Dad, is that you?
Hey /p/, I'm not sure where else to go for this. I need a camera for class that can record 1080p, as well as takes decent photos. I'm looking for something within the price range of <$250, I'm not sure if this is an unreasonable price or not because I don't know shit about cameras.
>>2743218
Your smartphone can do that.
>>2742734
What is with the pentax meme on /p/? Everyone knows you can't into digital without canikon
>>2743218
You can get a smartphone or Yicam or GoPro or something.
It will record very differently in terms of quality (despite resolution) from the gear the big boys use to make their nice documentaries, movies, or just TV, but it still will be some kind of 1080p.
>>2743100
sunny 16 brah
>>2743137
the thing is I bet that guy is doing a lens shootout or lens review
>>2743241
>Those are actually some really good suggestions.
Yup, unfortunately. I'd love lenses that generally solve this problem, but right now it's just specific new cameras and decent lenses.
> I think I might actually go for a speedlite and work on getting better with what I have.
Yup, that should generally work.
>>2743305
That man has more than one lens and that makes him a dirty autist. You sound like one too.
I want a back drop. I want a plain white backdrop that is so easily tranportable
and like i just set it up in about 3 seconds and take pictures out and about and then put it away
whats the best easy setup white backdrop? oh yeah also really cheap too lol
>>2743310
I guess you could use a giant collapsible reflector or something if you had an assistant.
For the most part, you'll be setting up tripods (usually the light stand variety), and then suspending the backdrop from a horizontal bar between them. It's more three minutes than five seconds, but not that long.
>>2742734
What gear would you advise for a beginner?
>>2743314
pentax nigga
>>2743314
pentax k-50 and either the 50 or 35mm prime
It's like 450 total and it's everything you need to learn
>>2743313
ah nice. reflector. good idea
>>2743314
You could use a professional camera right away.
Usually the problem isn't that you're a beginner, it's that /p/eople don't have enough money.
What are you going to shoot?
>>2743316
>pentax k-50
Not the same person, but assuming a beginner had a little extra money to spend, why not just get a K5/K5II/K3/K3II? What are you giving up with the K-50? Just the sensor size and continuous shooting speed? Looks like the K-50 has IBIS and is weather-sealed, which is a really nice touch at this price point. Just wondering if I went up to the next level
>>2743317
Yea, but only with an assistant. If you don't have one, it's too problematic / slow to work with one of these in my experience.
Maybe get and carry the two stands, bar and background anyways.
>>2743320
>assuming a beginner had a little extra money to spend, why not just get a K5/K5II/K3/K3II? What are you giving up with the K-50? Just the sensor size and continuous shooting speed?
yep
>>2743320
You could even get an A7R II or 5DS R or whatever with a $5k set of Zeiss glass right away, sure.
The camera (and remaining gear) will generally only make your life easier the more expensive it is, unless you move beyond general purpose cameras to more specialty cameras like a Phase One or Leaf or Sigma or whatever.
>>2743320
>a little extra money
You can get the K-50 body for 300 and the prime for 100. Honestly It's the best deal out there right now.
>>2743325
Cool strawman, autismo. We're talking about a difference of about $300 in price between a K-50 and a K-3. Not $1000s of dollars difference for a special snowflake mirrorless camera and German glass.
>>2743320
Doesn't the K-50 have a plastic body and the K-5/K-3 have magnesium bodies?
>>2743320
cant speak for the k-50 but i love my k-3
its fantastic
>>2743330
Strawman?
No, I'm not saying the K-3 isn't worth it. I'm saying that *even if* you grabbed $5k worth of lenses and bought an A7R II or 5DS R on top, you can get good value for what you paid for.
It just depends on your financial means, really.
>>2743338
>I'm saying that *even if* you grabbed $5k worth of lenses and bought an A7R II or 5DS R on top, you can get good value for what you paid for.
You were very clearly being sarcastic. Who the fuck recommends Sony with a straight face?
>>2743341
The a7 is a really nice camera. I think he's saying more along the lines that you can make good value out of any of those cameras as long as you use it
To a beginner k-50, k-5 or a7 it doesn't matter so just get something within your means
>>2743343
>The a7 is a really nice camera.
i'm strongly considering getting a D610, and for the price point/specs i see no other contender. D7200 maybe, but FF wins me over.
>>2743341
I do.
2015's most important industry awards for camera bodies largely went to the A7R II, too, so it's not just me.
>>2743349
That explains all the professionals using them.
>>2743345
What don't you like about them? When I tried it out the control scheme seemed a bit wonky to me at first but it functioned excellently and the lens selection sounds excellent
>>2743350
Yes, Sony's gain in market share has been very remarkable. Nobody has pulled that one off for a rather long time now.
Seems like quite a few professionals are indeed switching too, though of course there are no reliable statistics on that.
And much of rest is probably soon at least shooting Sony sensors if not Sony bodies, the way this appears to be going. As are most users that have selected their smartphone for its p&s photo performance.
What is the best possible light meter that I can use for various film based video and photographic cameras for under $50 and $100 as well.
>>2743319
More along the lines of models and weddings
whats good digital camera for $100 or less?
looking to buy my first camera.
>>2742734
>or wondering about getting into photography
Where should I start? I know nothing about cameras. I want to start to get into this because lately I'm always seeing stuff that would make an interesting picture, I feel like it'd be a fun hobby
Is an Olympus Pen S a good deal at $45? I'm a poorfag and I want to maximize my films with half frames.
>>2743407
Finding a used DSLR with a few cheap lenses would be your best bet.
Other than that, watch some youtube tutorials and take lots and lots of pictures.
>>2743407
You can always use the camera that came attached to your phone if all you want to do is photograph things that you think are "neat."
>>2743451
Nah I'd like to get into actual photography
>>2743454
>actual "photography" is based on gear
>>2743454
You could take any number of suggestions from this thread... there are more entry level cameras on the market than you can list on an 8"x10" piece of paper. I'm partial to Pentax because they put some pro-level features in their entry level cameras. Will these features be your priority? I don't know, but the K-50 is really inexpensive - the original K-5 isn't much more and has more features, and Pentax has some entry level lenses that are very affordable. I'd push you in that direction.
Otherwise, look for a used Canon Rebel or Nikon whatever their entry line is.
>>2743455
>implying Aperture Priority mode means anything on a phone camera
>implying you have actual control over your shutter and it's not just a simulated shutter with a phone camera
>implying low light performance is even a thing with a phone camera
>implying you can photograph distant subjects any other way than by walking toward them with a phone camera
>implying phone camera images will look acceptable at all if printed larger than 5"x7"
But gear doesn't matter, though, right?
>>2743455
When I posted that I was implying I'd like to evolve beyond taking pictures of "neat" stuff on my phone like some teenage girl
Nikon COOLPIX S3700
or
Canon ELPH 160 ??
first time camera buyer
>>2743457
>implying Aperture Priority mode means anything on a phone camera
>implying you have actual control over your shutter and it's not just a simulated shutter with a phone camera
>implying you cannot adjust the exposure on your phone camera
>implying low light performance is even a thing with a phone camera
>not shooting on optimum conditions and learn how to cope with the limitations of your camera
>implying you can photograph distant subjects any other way than by walking toward them with a phone camera
>implying you can't use your legs
>implying phone camera images will look acceptable at all if printed larger than 5"x7"
>implying you will even print your snapshits that will probably just go to Facebook for likes
But yeah go ahead buy an A7rII or a consumer DSLR.
>not using your phone camera first during the first two years to focus on what's important like composition and lighting instead of arguing what's the best focal length and pixel peeping
>>2743389
Weddings are tougher than you'd think, especially if you're not just shooting people comfy in front of a set up background somewhere inside with all the lights arranged hours earlier and all that.
People actually buy 2 pro cameras and lenses and bring an assistant or two with lights just to properly nail a good amount of shots of the people who are doing things. Most prepare the whole thing with the event organizers, too.
Frankly, I'd tend to making one camera an A7S and/or a Canon with wireless E-TTL speedlights on stands, plus a standing light.
And then your backup / secondary camera, and 1-2 pretty damn neat lenses for each camera.
Just models are a little easier, if you're not immediately going with the expensive ones and high-end contractors that want perfect ads or something you just take your time and work until you got it good enough.
For that, some manual YN560 III/IV on cheap stands controlled by a YN560TX + some cheap but big diffusers + a decent lens or two on *some* modern-ish APS-C + a background if indoors will get you to something really quite great already.
>>2743463
Good God. If you're going to quote my greentext, at least use double arrows for what you're quoting. Or just write in prose instead of in memes.
>implying you cannot adjust the exposure on your phone camera
Adjusting the exposure and manipulating the aperture and/or shutter are not the same thing. Anon said he wants to learn photography. Letting his phone meter the exposure automatically isn't going to teach him anything and it's not going to give him any artistic latitude with what these functions are capable of.
>not shooting on optimum conditions and learn how to cope with the limitations of your camera
Why be limited, though?
>implying you can't use your legs
Sometimes you can't, as is the case with wildlife, or distant mountains that are in good lighting NOW, and not in the time it would take to get closer.
>implying you will even print your snapshits that will probably just go to Facebook for likes
Well, anon wants to get into "photography," meaning he probably will have a few moments where he appreciates his work. It sounds like he wants the option to make prints.
>you can either spend $1000+ on a prosumer camera or you can just use a cell phone camera
False equivalence. There are plenty of entry grade cameras out there, like the K-50 I mentioned that can be found new for $300, which about half of what your iPhone 6 cost.
>not using your phone camera first during the first two years to focus on what's important like composition and lighting instead of arguing what's the best focal length and pixel peeping
Strawman. Who would actually want to continue with photography if they were forced to use a fucking phone camera for that long? You sound like a spoiled millennial who actually did get introduced to photography through your phone's camera. That's a laugh.
>>2743463
The A7R II and other high resolution cameras plus pixel peeping - able lenses usually give you the option to fix your shots up to great composition in post, and you're also not likely to actually miss a shot that you thought you had.
> Inb4 but muh skills honed by adversity
No, you just primarily learn to deal with useless shit you don't need to deal with on a good camera.
Hey guys still trying to find an ok zoom that wont break the bank.
I have an SL1 body and am considering a 24-105 F4 L which i can get for $470
or should i get the SIGMA 28-70mm f 2.8 for around $200? Is this sigma prone to missing focus alot?
>>2743476
pic bump because i need the attention.
>>2743476
> the SIGMA 28-70mm f 2.8 for around $200? Is this sigma prone to missing focus alot?
I'd expect there to be focusing issues with it on a Canon body, yes.
And I also seem to recall that's one of the rather old Sigma lenses that are just pretty bad overall.
>>2743483
alright thats what I thought. Not to judge a book by its cover but I saw how it looked kinda old with the yellow ring and I've heard so many people complain about the 50 1.4 missing focus left and right.
Hows the deal for the 105 sound? Comes wit h the hood caps and pouch. Looks in pretty good condition.
Hey so I'm looking for a good macro lense for my Nikon d5300 (dx). Any suggestions for around 200usd?
Currently have a Pentax K-5II. Is it worth it to get a 50mm f1.4? Or would just sticking with a f1.7 or f1.8 be good enough? Also, is it worth it to get an A mount version or should I just stick with M/K? I don't think I wanna get an m42 adapter because I don't have any other m42 lenses. Switching would be a pain.
What about a longer focal length prime for portraits? Somewhere in the 70-100mm range? Any recommendations?
Best camera body and glass for filming and my budget is 800 eur. i want a canon.. Give my your best suggestions..
>>2743492
Are you dead set on getting a manual lens?
>>2743500
Current average in so-so to usable condition is like 520+\
560+ for pretty good condition.
and this one looks pretty good.
just looking for an ok constant aperture zoom lens.
>>2743498
Would love autofocus but I can't really afford to get anything but manual. Also, the subjects I shoot don't really need autofocus - just landscape, portraits, candids.
I'm an avid amateur photographer, and I'm looking to upgrade from a shitty rebel that's more than half a decade old. I'm much more experienced with analogue than digital, but I'd like to go all in on digital now that film is too expensive where I live. Am I an idiot if I wait for the Mark IV (Canon) that should be coming out some time this year, or should I bite the bullet and grab a Mark III?
Why do I keep reading that the a7 & Co are so good for classic lenses?
Are there any classic lenses that do not need adapters?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 820 Image Height 1024 Scene Capture Type Standard
>>2743510
Just get a MkIII, there'll always be something new coming out. Whatever comes out next wont make the MkIII any less awesome. If it's good enough for you now, it'd be good enough for you then too.
>>2743513
Mirrorless allows virtually any lens ever to be adapted. They also happen to be FF so you get those benefits too. There really isn't any other FF mirrorless camera suitable for adapted lenses out there right now. Most all other mirrorless are APS-C, m43, or 1". Only other mirrorless FF I can think of is the Leica M's, that (while great) are an awful choice for adapting.
Any recommendations for something to travel with? I'd rather not switch lenses all the time and hoping for something compact, even if it's a decent point and shoot.
Looking to spend as little as possible, so the previous suggestions of the K-50 are looking alright. How would it fare lugging it around? And a possible general purpose lens?
>>2742978
the 18mm f2 is soft. might as well use the kit lens.
>>2743449
bump?
Here's a pic.
>>2743523
Decent smartphone. RX100 series. Ricoh GR.
>>2743513
An A7 II or A7R II can easily adapt pretty much every lens ever due to being FF mirrorless cameras, which means that they usually don't need glass in their adapters to make full use of adapted lenses.
They have focus peaking & magnification for very practical manual focus shooting, and you always have those features available because they have an EVF.
They have great IBIS that will stabilize adapted lenses in general -even those that never had IS, it's done with the sensor.
They will even adapt the Sony A-mount and Canon EF mount lenses with AF, and prototype adapters for Nikon F and Leica M have been presented too, and should be released at some point, too.
Never mind the specs and sensors in particular are generally really neat on those cameras, so images will look more or less as good as they can right now with adapted lenses.
There is just nothing else quite like that on the market right now.
>>2743461
Your phone. Don't buy bottom tier point and shoot or any bridge/superzoom cameras
>>2743537
Half-frame cameras sounds good on paper but you can't get cheap scans and prints from your drugstore.
>>2743574
DSLR scan is virtually free.
>>2743575
Please link me to these "virtually free" dslrs?
>>2743600
The DSLR you or a friend already has? Just use a cheap old 50mm lens with an extension tube and scan the negatives.
>>2743612
So what you're saying is, that things that have already been paid for are things that you don't have to pay for...
Good to know. Hey everybody, houses and Lamborghinis are virtually free! All you have to do is already have one!
>>2743615
I think what he meant was it doesn't cost you money per-scan.
But obviously if you don't already own a dslr it's useless information.
>>2743615
>Good to know. Hey everybody, houses and Lamborghinis are virtually free! All you have to do is already have one!
No, those things actually cost a lot in terms of taxes, operation & maintenance in most places.
DSLR are like $350-3000 or so and then work for like 100-300k shots for like $1 in electricity and $4 or something in cleaning supplies. It's ridiculously cheap to make digital photos, unlike with film.
If you're already poor, maybe you should get a digital camera, not a film one?
>yfw you saw the new leaked Oly Pen F digital design
>>2743627
Then a 35mm film scanner is equally free
>>2743637
Film and chems are not
Neat
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZpMiJeK6qrY
>>2743638
A low entry price (as low as $50 for a fully functional "full frame" slr and lens) can do a LOT to outweigh the (also low) continued cost of supplies. This is obvious.
For many people, it's easier to pay $10 a month for the rest of your life, than to pay $3000 once.
>>2743641
You only need to spend $300 for a good DSLR with a modern sensor, if you don't buy Nikon you can even use adapters to use your older lenses.
Or you can buy a used NEX 5N or NEX 7 for a cheap mirrorless.
>>2743637
You can get an okay scanner for ~$600 fixed, sure.
But film & development will still cost you. A lot. Have you calculated how much getting a roll of film, development, and scans / prints will cost you?
I don't think it will be more than a few thousand exposures (without even the print/scan part) before you break even.
>>2743641
>thinking that film is "cheaper" than digital
Shoot a couple hundred photos and the digital camera will pay for itself in saved developer costs.
>>2743684
>For many people, it's easier to pay $10 a month for the rest of your life, than to pay $3000 once.
Reading is hard, I know.
>>2743689
Some people are not lazy bums and able to afford a simple DSLR kit
>>2743708
Some people have different financial priorities, like saving, investing, or other hobbies. Also, responsibilities, like children, mortgages, bills, loans, etc.
Get over yourself. Just because something works for you doesn't mean it works for everyone else.
>>2743709
>children, mortgages, bills, loans, etc.
It's your choice to be poor
>>2743712
Yes. Point still stands,
>>2743713
My point also. Git gud.
>>2743712
If we spend the same money, you on cameras, and me on family, friends, and future, we have the same amount of money at the end. The difference is, you have a piece of equipment, and I have experiences, a network, joy, and a retirement plan. In 40 years, I'll be retired, and you'll be sitting there with a 45 year old piece of electronics.
>>2743718
The point is I still have the money to spend on my camera when I spend the same on family, friends and whatnot
Get a better job.
>>2743641
> For many people, it's easier to pay $10 a month for the rest of your life, than to pay $3000 once.
That is the case for just about everyone: $2990 gives $60 at 2% interest. You now have $3050.
A $300 DSLR vs. $50 film camera with additional costs for film, development, scanning or printing (can easily be $6-10 per 24 roll) is very different.
Besides if you keep the film cheap, the quality will be more like that of a <$100 P&S or ~$120 smartphone.
Run the numbers, film probably won't work out except for extremely sparse shooting. Really, save up for digital?
>>2743729
"the same" you have no idea what I make, or what I spend. You're just making it up in your head, and deciding that you are better than others.
What if someone's real passion is old cars, and they have 10 classic beautiful cars in their storage garage, and they spend most of their money on that, which is their true passion, but they also want to dabble in photography?
What if I'm saving up for a boat, which is more important to me than a DSLR?
>>2743731
A $300 dslr sucks. Buying Portra in huge bulk and developing at home is going to look great no matter the camera you put it in.
>>2743734
>A $300 dslr sucks
A D3200 really probably sucks a lot less than your film camera:
http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-Digital-18-55mm-Certified-Refurbished/dp/B00JQQPRGG/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1452711292&sr=8-4&keywords=d3200
> Buying Portra in huge bulk
You even are going with $6 rolls of film for just the film, and buy them in bulk so you have an up-front investment of $100-200 for just the film anyways - development, scan, print still to be funded?
(Actually, I'm just guessing US prices in some source better than Amazon, they're more like $9-10 per 36 roll over here in Europe, seeing your source would be interesting).
I'm in love with RX1's new little sister.
There is so much shiny new technology packed inside that delicious flat chest.
But she's so expensive and hard to get, I bet she is tsundere too ;_;
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make SONY Camera Model ILCE-7RM2 Camera Software PhotoScape Photographer fireNrain Maximum Lens Aperture f/2.8 Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 90 mm Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2015:11:19 20:28:01 Exposure Time 1/125 sec F-Number f/3.5 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 1250 Lens Aperture f/3.5 Brightness 4.7 EV Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 90.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 936 Image Height 624 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal
So, adapters for old glass. What's a good brand and how much should you be prepared to pay for one, if Speedbooster is out (too expensive)? There's some for like €5, some for €20 and some for €30.
Looking for OM, M39 and maybe M42 -> Fuji X.
>>2743742
From SLR to mirrorless, without speed boosting, it's just a tunnel of a specific length with a mount on one end, and a different mount on the other. These should be cheap, and it's very difficult to go wrong with them. Pay the cheapest you can, while still feeling confident that it will actually arrive to your door.
A6000 BWTFO
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make SONY Camera Model ILCE-7RM2 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.1.1 (Macintosh) Photographer fireNrain Maximum Lens Aperture f/2.8 Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 90 mm Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2015:11:19 20:28:02 Exposure Time 1/125 sec F-Number f/3.5 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 1250 Lens Aperture f/3.5 Brightness 4.8 EV Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 90.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal
What are some good light meters (can be used) for under $100?
>>2743758
MyLightmeter app on phone
>>2743740
Not him and not invested in this issue at all, but work at photo store, and wanted to share my costs
> they're more like $9-10 per 36
portra 160 ~ $8
" 400 ~ $9
" 800 ~ $10.50
wholesale cost on the 160 is ~$5.50 (can't recall others)
For my costs shooting film (absolute cheapest film, after my discounts, ignoring initial cost of my scanner), is around $0.12 a frame (or $4.25 per roll of 36). That's for the roll and developing (I scan at home). It could probably be brought down to $0.10 if I bought bulk b&w and home dev'd, but I value my time way more than that $0.65 difference (and I've dev'd so much in my life I'm just kinda done with it).
So even if you're gifted a film SLR, you wont even make it 2000 pics before a $300 DSLR is just outright cheaper. It might be more fair to compare FF DSLR's and similalrly built cameras, but even then, the difference between a $900 D700 and a $100 F100 is gonna go away pretty quickly.
"Film is cheaper" is basically just retarded, except for a few specific circumstances (film MF vs digi MF, film Leica vs digi Leica, you barely take any pictures, digi more prone to failure / needs replacements).
>>2743759
I tried that but literally all of that apps are utter trash.
>>2743758
Random one from Aliexpress is like $10-30.
Depends on what you need, of course.
1/2
Hi I just got myself a Pentax K2 DMD with the winder. I noticed that there is nothing about this camera on youtube and i was thinking about making a channel where i review my gear, it feels like a hecking tank and its heavy as heck. even the auto winder is in full metal.
>>2743786
2/2
But the winder came with this charger or wall adapter of whatever the fuck this is, no batery compartiment at all. Anyone know if i can just buy a plug converter to european plug and just plug that into the camera? I don't know the voltage shits, i don't even know what country that plug is from.
I just wanna see if the winder works.
>>2743787
Another pic.
>>2743787
> I don't know the voltage shits
But it's nicely labeled right on the plug for both the input and output?!
I recently bought a new camera s8600 fulfill? What are you think?
>>2743792
Honestly?
It's an crappy bridge camera that already got poor ratings when it was released in 2014. I am almost certain I would not be happy with it at all.
have about 500$ and want an ok setup for pictar taking. not sure if to get a6000 meme camera, canon or get a pentacks k-50, nice price durability and lens price/selection, only really want zoom, and a cheap prime. wat do?
>>2743810
K-50, DA 35/2.4 or 50/1.8 and HD DA 55-300
Maybe HD DA 16-85 or DA 16-45
>>2743718
>In 40 years, I'll realize that I wasted the most prime years of my life slaving away at a job without enjoying my life at all
Meanwhile, I'll have led 40 fulfilling, fun and exciting years of adventure, and then retire on my trust fund.
Sucks to be you.
Buying a new camera from Best Buy, I see they offer GeekSquad Protection
Would it be worth it?
>>2743839
no
t. a former best buy employee
also which camera and what price
>>2743840
inb4 2 years old Canon superzoom
Wanted to get into photography I'm looking for nature in general, animals, landscape, stars, macro I know I'm going to have to get different lenses for that but for a starting body what do you recommend? I like birds but I feel like there's a lot more than just them when I hear wildlife.
I think I want to go with Nikon the only advantage I really see with canon is the 400mm prime. For a starter camera I could either get a used 7100 for a decent price under 500 USD or a new d3300.
What do you guys think?
>>2743845
K-3 with DA* 300, DA* 60-250 or HD DA 55-300
D7100 doesn't have the buffer for burst shooting birds fighting, bathing or in-flight.
>>2743845
A Nikon D750 should be pretty good for your essentially "shoot next to everything" needs.
First of all I'm thinking about picking up some of the Sigma Art lenses for my Nikon (one wide and one normal, probably). Reviews seem pretty stellar, what do y'all think?
Second do I or do I not use these [pic related] UV filters, I keep getting conflicting answers with regards to both glass/sensor protection and picture quality. What about for film?
I currently have a 135mm for my 4X5 with one or two tiny imperfections/marks on the rear element. Will this effect image quality or should I not worry about it? If it will effect quality I'll probably pick up another 135, is the Rodenstock Apo Sironar-S a good one?
Thanks Friends
>>2743857
>Reviews seem pretty stellar, what do y'all think?
Most of the Sigma Art are great, yes.
> I keep getting conflicting answers with regards to both glass/sensor protection and picture quality
UV filters only hurt image quality, though the better ones do it less. Your image shows a polarizer, not a UV filter.
I do not see any reason to use them for digital cameras, better just use lens hoods.
> What about for film?
Depends on your film and lens. But probably barely matters if at all.
> Will this effect image quality or should I not worry about it?
You are best able to tell us this, you have the lens for testing!
>>2743840
t5i bundle for 750
>>2743853
>>2743854
I'm not too familiar with Pentax can they use nikon lenses? I wanted to stay with either canon or nikon.
The d750 seems nice but I'm trying to keep it sub 1000 for now just to see how much I really like it. The 7100 my friend is selling so its a decent price to see if I like it is the 750 a big difference?
>>2743862
That's not terrible but it's not really that great either
which lenses?
>>2743861
>Most of the Sigma Art are great, yes.
That's what everything points to, just wanted to get an opinion here.
>I do not see any reason to use them for digital cameras, better just use lens hoods.
Alright, I was leaning toward this thought anyway. Thanks
>Depends on your film and lens
Neopan Acros 100 and Sinar 135mm Apo-Sironar S. Acros is incredibly fine so I'll probably just forget the filter.
>You are best able to tell us this, you have the lens for testing!
I would but Neopan Acros is getting quite expensive these days (especially in 4X5)
>>2743865
18-55mm IS STM & 55-250mm IS II
>>2743868
Not completely terrible. If you're 100% on sticking with canon go for it but I'd recommend getting a decently fast 35mm prime to use instead of the 18-55
>>2743866
>Neopan Acros 100 and Sinar 135mm Apo-Sironar S. Acros is incredibly fine so I'll probably just forget the filter.
Never had those, sorry. Probably fine?
>>2743863
>I'm not too familiar with Pentax can they use nikon lenses?
Not with AF, no.
> The d750 seems nice but I'm trying to keep it sub 1000 for now just to see how much I really like it.
I'd get an A6000 in that price range and just start with the kit & cheap prime lenses. But I guess you just said want to stay with Nikon?
> The 7100 my friend is selling so its a decent price to see if I like it is the 750 a big difference?
Certainly, the D7100 is quite respectable. But sure, the difference is pretty noticeable if you ask me.
>>2743857
Regarding UV filters, they were designed to protect film from UV rays, which can degrade the image and cause a haze-like appearance. A Google search would have told you that they are therefore not needed for digital sensors. Some people use clear filters to protect their front element. This has been standard practice for many people for years, to the point that Canon's weather-sealed lenses are designed to only be weather-sealed when a front filter is used. Other people use a hood to protect their front element. Still other people like to live dangerously. Even if your lens does get scratched, minor scratches shouldn't affect image quality. A scratched lens won't take pictures with a line in them.
This guy >>2743861 didn't grow up with film cameras. Aside from just UV light coming through your lens, there are a whole host of things that can degrade film, including the X-rays use in luggage screening at airports. The image posted does indeed show the effect of UV rays on a film image. Another name for these filters is a haze filter.
>>2743878
Thanks for the heads up about the film.
> including the X-rays use in luggage screening at airports
So I take it that the "less than 800iso is fine" signs have been lying to me? fuck. Do you have any idea what sort of effect it will have on paper?
Also if you know what sort of filter is best? B+w?
thanks
>>2743891
>So I take it that the "less than 800iso is fine" signs have been lying to me? fuck. Do you have any idea what sort of effect it will have on paper?
It used to be that you could request hand screening of film. The effect, if I recall correctly, is to increase the visibility of the grain, hence why high ISO film is more adversely affected. Repeated exposures multiply the effect. Two exposures (out and back, on a trip) won't really be visible on low ISO film at normal print sizes, but it's still being affected.
>Also if you know what sort of filter is best? B+w?
Those and Hoya are considered top tier filters.
>>2743896
>It used to be that you could request hand screening of film.
You still can, I just saw the sign and assumed the government was telling me the truth. Thanks for the advice.
How is this Canon kit lens? Can it produce decent images, or should I upgrade? I really want the canon 24mm f2.8 on my camera to replace my kit lens for general photography because it becomes 38mm with the crop factor. Is the 24mm prime worth it compared to the kit lens?
>>2742741
dont bash pinhole swag
>>2743878
> The image posted does indeed show the effect of UV rays on a film image.
Unless you use some film much older than known to me, it just shows bollocks marketing.
I'll be glad to be proven wrong with some haze filter test.
By the way, if you're going with digital post anyways, this has way more of an effect:
https://blogs.adobe.com/richardcurtis/2015/06/16/creative-cloud-2015-whats-new-in-lightroom-cc6-1-for-photogaphers/
>>2743857
just remember to take it off inside, they can cause some wacky ghosting/flares against small and bright light sources (lamps, etc)
pic from google
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make NIKON CORPORATION Camera Model NIKON D300 Camera Software Capture NX 2.1.1 W Maximum Lens Aperture f/2.0 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Color Filter Array Pattern 806 Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 52 mm Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 150 dpi Vertical Resolution 150 dpi Image Created 2009:01:04 09:43:04 Exposure Time 1/60 sec F-Number f/4.0 Exposure Program Normal Program ISO Speed Rating 3200 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Tungsten Flash No Flash Focal Length 35.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 900 Image Height 600 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Gain Control High Gain Up Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal Subject Distance Range Unknown ISO Speed Used 3200 Image Quality NORMAL White Balance INCANDESCENT Focus Mode AF-S ISO Speed Requested 3200 AE Bracket Compensation 0.0 EV Lens Type Unknown Lens Range 35.0 mm; f/2.0 Shooting/Bracketing Mode Single Frame/Off Lighting Type NATURAL Noise Reduction OFF Camera Actuations 4623
>>2743905
Google it, bro. I don't have time to waste on millennials who can't at least do that much.
>>2743902
I meant that you can't soot with JUST a body and no lenses at all, that means not even having a pinhole to shoot with
>>2743911
I certainly did. Nothing but marketing bullshit came up.
No real tests showing how various filters and various brands of modern color film (which is however repeatedly listed as quite UV-resistant) might affect haze.
Well, apart from a few showing that it doesn't matter on DSLR, but that's not the problem here.
>>2743874
Thanks I appreciate it I want to stay with either nikon or canon so I can build something if I like it.
The d750 is really nice but I might just get the cheap 7100 for price sake of being under 500 for a body and I can sell it if I really get into it i just wasn't sure if there was something close to it I would stretch for
>>2743923
>Thanks I appreciate it I want to stay with either nikon or canon so I can build something if I like it.
Sure then.
> the cheap 7100 for price sake of being under 500 for a body
That's a good deal for you. So why not?
>>2743923
Just stretch your boy my friend.
What point and shoot would be ideal for live music photography? For shows in night clubs with poor lighting, I'm guessing something with the widest aperture would be the most important?
>>2743936
RX1R II.
Though a smartphone with a BSI sensor might be more something that you might buy.
D3300 or t5i?
>>2743900
It's decent but it's slow and plasticy and everyone and their mom owns it.
dunno about the 24mm, but people say it's good and f2.8 is a bonus
>>2743919
If consensus among film shooters and experimental evidence doesn't support my contrarian opinion, then it's marketing bullshit :^)
Just go back to playing Xbox.
Hey guys I got this EOS 630 and the only lens I have right now is an old silver kit lens. I'm thinking about getting a used 50mm 1.8 as my second lens. Sound like a good idea?
