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: >>2769085
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Canon Camera Model Canon EOS 7D Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS5 Windows Photographer Miles Hecker Maximum Lens Aperture f/5.4 Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2011:04:07 11:00:17 Exposure Time 1/200 sec F-Number f/5.6 Exposure Program Aperture Priority ISO Speed Rating 200 Lens Aperture f/5.6 Exposure Bias 0 EV Subject Distance 3.19 m Metering Mode Pattern Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 236.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 480 Image Height 367 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard
Played around with the D5 & D500 a bit last night, quite a few things I never realized that I must've ignored in various previews. I'd honestly rather get a D500 over a D750 now.
I have a 7d mk ii, but I want a point n shoot for when I don't want to carry the dslr. Mainly just want one with an evf and possibly 4k. Any recommendations?
>Not using the K-1 as the thread image
Come on now anon
I'm looking to get more into good photography. Before I've used shitty cameras or a cell camera, but now I'm looking to make the move up to a DSLR or something that will really be worth it. So what would your suggestions be for the best camera I can get for around the 400-600 dollar range? If need be I'll be around for a while to answer any questions that might aid you in your suggestions.
>>2771976
rx100mk4, lx100, zs100
RX100's the smallest but most expensive. LX100 is 4/3 sensor, but largest camera. ZS100 is basically inbetween.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Photographer Sean Image-Specific Properties:
>>2771980
I was contemplating on it, but there is already two K-1 dedicated threads, so I decided to keep this one the traditional gear discussion containment thread.
>>2771976
I have a K-3 and use my phone as a generic walkaround pocket camera.
If I get something interesting, I shoot some angles to decide which one to take with the big camera next time.
>>2771975
I wonder how long it'll be until we start to see the D5/D500 features start to trickle into the D810 and D750 successors...
>>2771983
Any entry level from any of the major brands will be great (Canon T5 / T6 lines, Nikon D3xxx / D5xxx lines, Sony a6000). Pentax, Olympus, Panasonic, and Fuji will also have comparable cameras as well. There are going to be differences, but they're way overblown. They all make great cameras and differences are mostly margnial to non-existent when it comes to performance.
If you have access to lenses of a particular brand (through friends, family, work, etc), it may be worthwhile to stick with that brand.
If you want a retro aesthetic, Fuji and Olympus should be your go-to. If you want portability, Sony, Olympus, Fuji, and Panasonic. If you want easiest access to accessories / lenses, Canon and Nikon.
If you have absolutely no idea, try out a few different brands in store and pick the one you like best. Seriously, ergonomics far too often ignored. It's like driving a car, you gotta test drive and get one that feels right.
>>2771991
Awesome thank you. One of the most popular that I keep hearing is the Canon rebel t5 was considering going with that. It's good to hear it isn't just an over hyped fad camera.
I'm probably going to use it primarily for nature and or wildlife photography in all types of light levels of that makes a difference
>>2771997
You'll want good high-ISO performance and a long lens if you're shooting wildlife. Nikon's cheapo 55-200 is actually really good for the money, and their entry-level bodies have good sensors for high-ISO work.
I shot this pic way back in the day with that cheesy little 55-200 on a D2X, which was a pro body when it was new, but the sensor is absolute garbage compared to the cheapest modern cameras. It's not a great shot compared to the stuff I did years later, but it shows that the lens can keep up decently with some pretty serious action.
I'm not sure how Canon compares, and if they have a cheap telephoto that's as good as Nikon's. Maybe a Canon anon can help.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make NIKON CORPORATION Camera Model NIKON D2X Camera Software Ver.2.00 Maximum Lens Aperture f/5.7 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Color Filter Array Pattern 738 Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 400 mm Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2011:03:13 18:23:08 Exposure Time 1/320 sec F-Number f/9.0 Exposure Program Shutter Priority ISO Speed Rating 200 Lens Aperture f/9.0 Exposure Bias 0 EV Subject Distance Infinity Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Cloudy Weather Flash No Flash Focal Length 200.00 mm Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Manual Digital Zoom Ratio 1.3 Scene Capture Type Standard Gain Control None Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal Subject Distance Range Unknown
>>2771997
>One of the most popular that I keep hearing is the Canon rebel t5 was considering going with that.
If you can, do go a store to try them out. Brand ratings vary by an incredible amount by the region. FWIW my own store's sales had the D3300 outselling the T5 about 5:1 and in terms of first time users, ergonomic preference was solidly in Nikon's favor.
Don't by into hype for any camera. Anyone who says one is better than another is just an idiot. Pick the one you like using best, you can't go wrong with any of them, none are a "mistake".
>I'm probably going to use it primarily for nature and or wildlife photography in all types of light levels of that makes a difference
As I said before, literally any of the cameras in that price range will perform more or less the same for literally any shooting condition. What camera you pick isn't going to make a difference for what pictures you can get.
>>2771997
>primarily for nature and or wildlife
The T5 is not the best for that, you have to go higher like a 7D at least to have weather resistance. The t5 and the other entry level Canons are not sealed whatsoever and a bit of moisture can damage or even brick the camera.
If you can't go up in budget for the 7D there is the Pentax K-50 with the WR kit lens. It is fully weather sealed and comes with a few extra for your initial budget.
>>2771999
>I'm not sure how Canon compares, and if they have a cheap telephoto that's as good as Nikon's. Maybe a Canon anon can help.
i'm a nikon shooter too (I have a D750) but i took my buddy's T3i Rebel with a 75-300/4-5.6 III USM out for a spin while we were hiking together and I really like that lens. it's a cheap and light little piece of plastic and glass but seems to create some lovely images and the autofocus was fast and responsive
by the way i didn't namedrop the D750 except to say i shoot with some quality gear and so i'm not just endorsing the 75-300 because it's better than my P&S, lol. i really do think it's a good lens.
>>2771999
Different anon here. Do you have experience with the 70-300? I'm looking at either the d5500 or the d7100 (there's an instant rebate that makes the body about 700 USD ) and would appreciate input on a decent tele.
I have played with both bodies, but I feel that I'm in a weird spot. I felt slowed down by the d5300 menu options but slightly overwhelmed by all the d7100's stuff. Which one should I go with? I was leaning toward the 7100 because it felt nicer to hold and I like having the focus motor, but I'm not sure if it's too much camera for me at this point. I have experience with a Canon A-1, so I'm not completely new though.
>>2772002
Oh, and the new HD version of the 55-300 is an excellent weather sealed wildlife lens on a budget.
>>2771975
>Played around with the D5 & D500 a bit last night, quite a few things I never realized that I must've ignored in various previews. I'd honestly rather get a D500 over a D750 now.
the D750 is a real beast and I love mine but that D500 looks completely ridiculous for action and wildlife. 10 FPS RAW in an enthusiast camera? and does ISO 51200 look as good as 12800 on the D750?
i plan to have my D750 for a while but I can't even imagine what FF DSLRs are going to be able to do when I'm ready to buy again in a few years or so. the tech is out of control
>>2772004
Unfortunately I haven't really used the 70-300. I've heard it's pretty good though.
I don't see much that will give you trouble in the long run with the D7100. It's actually much easier to use once you get used to it, because you don't have to fuck around with menus and button combos for everything. The build quality and focus motor are also very much worth having.
Something you might consider, instead of a brand new consumer tele, is getting a used 2.8. The 80-200 2.8D is about $700 on my local CL, and it should work pretty well on the D7100, plus it'll work on FF if you ever upgrade, and if you decide to sell it you can probably get exactly the same amount you paid. I used to have one, used it on a D50, and even that ancient and cheesy body focused fine with it.
(If you're wondering why I went from an 80-200 to a 55-200, BTW, I sold the 80-200 to buy a 70-200, and then Nikon had some kind of shortage and I bought the 55-200 to use while I waited for the 70-200 to come back in stock.)
>>2772008
>Something you might consider, instead of a brand new consumer tele, is getting a used 2.8. The 80-200 2.8D
that's a beautiful fucking lens, but, it might be a bit short for what anon wants to do and the autofocus is relatively slow (at least on the lens I had). in comparison to the nikkor 70-200 vr ii i tried at b&h and the tamron 70-200 vc i ended up buying
but i'll reiterate, the 80-200 2.8D is an absolutely brilliant and beautiful lens. for the sake of sheer image quality i think it's the best fast telephoto zoom you can put on a nikon. if anon bought it he would not regret it.
>>2772008
Thanks! That's a good point. The price difference between the 70-300 and a used 80-200 isn't that big. I was going to pair whatever lens I get with a 30 mm, but I'm open to other suggestions.
>>2772010
How's the Tamron, anyway? I've noticed that used ones are REALLY cheap, and I bet they're in good shape because they're mostly bought by enthusiasts, unlike the Nikkors which are bought by pros who beat the fuck out of them.
The Nikkor 70-200s are some of the greatest lenses out there, though. I've owned my 70-200 VRI longer than anything else in my bag, and I see no reason to trade it in on the VRII. The only lens I've ever used that impressed me more was the 500/4, that thing is an absolute monster, and the focus speed is insane. It's so damn fast that you can't even see it focus, it just magically becomes sharp as soon as you press the AF-ON button.
Speaking of Nikon teles, I've been thinking really hard about getting the new-ish 200-500. I'm sick of rental fees on the 500/4 and can live with losing a stop of aperture, I just wish I could see some actual feedback on how well it keeps up with auto racing, which is what I'd be buying it to shoot.
>>2772006
Yeah it literally has the same AF system as the D5, focuses down to -4EV (which I think is f/2.8, 200 ISO, 60 seconds), which is pretty damn dark. Unlike previous cameras, it isn't resized for DX, so it's like you're literally croping in on the D5's AF point array, you have AF points fully edge to edge.
Another big thing was with the reworked processor, battery life actually improved. The D5 tested to ~8,100 shots in real world conditions, and D500 gets like 50% more shots than previous cam's using the same battery.
> 10 FPS RAW in an enthusiast camera?
Honestly, the buffer was even more impressive, you'll never realistically run into an issue of waiting for it to clear. D500 is definitely a pro level camera, not enthusiast.
Could only judge based of the LCD, but it was super clear. Had some ~40k ISO shots that people guessed 6400-12,800.
>>2772022
>Unlike previous cameras, it isn't resized for DX, so it's like you're literally croping in on the D5's AF point array, you have AF points fully edge to edge.
That's actually how the D300 was, too. I was actually kind of disappointed when I got my D3S and realized that it had the same AF array as my D300, and so it only covered half the frame.
Man, I miss my D3S/D300S pair. I wish I could have made enough of a career out of sports shooting to justify keeping them and eventually replacing them with a D5/D500 duo.
>>2772015
>I've been thinking really hard about getting the new-ish 200-500
It's a total steal at $1400, like great value. I've had customers trade in / sell their 200-400 f/4's for it. The VR pretty incredible too.
>>2772015
>How's the Tamron, anyway? I've noticed that used ones are REALLY cheap, and I bet they're in good shape because they're mostly bought by enthusiasts, unlike the Nikkors which are bought by pros who beat the fuck out of them.
can't complain a damn bit and i bought a sketchy import model off ebay.
>The Nikkor 70-200s are some of the greatest lenses out there, though. I've owned my 70-200 VRI longer than anything else in my bag, and I see no reason to trade it in on the VRII.
IMO, the VRII is disappointing especially for how fucking expensive it is. it doesn't seem to do anything better than the tamron, though i only tried the VRII and own the Tamron so maybe that's not a fair assessment. but what a hulking motherfucker of a lens i mean the VRII is absolutely gigantic.
>The only lens I've ever used that impressed me more was the 500/4, that thing is an absolute monster, and the focus speed is insane. It's so damn fast that you can't even see it focus, it just magically becomes sharp as soon as you press the AF-ON button.
lol i noticed that when i tried the new 24-70/2.8 VR. like it was focusing before i pressed the button. i actually don't like that lens but nikon's autofocus tech is amazing, completely peerless compared to TPM lenses.
>Speaking of Nikon teles, I've been thinking really hard about getting the new-ish 200-500. I'm sick of rental fees on the 500/4 and can live with losing a stop of aperture, I just wish I could see some actual feedback on how well it keeps up with auto racing, which is what I'd be buying it to shoot.
i had/have that lens on my wishlist. it's a super telephoto zoom selling for $1,400, and this isn't really fair since i haven't tried it, but i'm thinking you might be disappointed coming off the 500/4. you're gonna want to try it before you buy it to see how 500mm looks.
also i wonder if it does that thing some of nikon's zooms do where focusing at certain distances loses some of the focal length
>>2772022
>D500 is definitely a pro level camera, not enthusiast.
was referring to the FF = pro lol thing but i realize that's a silly point of view
especially in the face of what this camera seems to be able to do
>>2772026
>That's actually how the D300 was, too
Not like this.
>>2772028
They seem to be selling pretty damn well around here, too. I ask about it every time I'm at the camera store, and they're sold out every time.
>>2772033
Yeah, I definitely want to try it out before I buy it, but I'm also not covering racing professionally anymore, so I don't need the 500/4's level of performance.
I know a ton of people with race cars, and could probably pay the lens off within a few months of going out and shooting them on track for $200 a day or whatever.
>>2772036
Oh damn, that IS badass. This is what the D300's was like, and I thought it was pretty nice.
>>2772015
>Speaking of Nikon teles, I've been thinking really hard about getting the new-ish 200-500. I'm sick of rental fees on the 500/4 and can live with losing a stop of aperture, I just wish I could see some actual feedback on how well it keeps up with auto racing, which is what I'd be buying it to shoot.
I've owned this lens for about 4 weeks now, and shot with it about 3 times.
I haven't really used continuous focusing yet and can't compare it with the 500mm f4.
So far, I'm enjoying it and don't regret the purchase. It seems to be good value.
Not much help, I suppose, but it's not a complete stinker of a lense.
best lenses for mamiya 645?
>>2771976
a6300.
rx100iv.
lx100.
gx8.
g7.
In the market for a nee DSLR, currently got a eos 1200D and I want to stick with canon.
Due to a sudden increase of income I'm able to go high end APS-C, so 7dmkII or the 7D.
What would be a better choice? With a eye on the future I can end up doing nearly any kind of photography.
Suggestions are welcome /p/
Thanks in advance!
>>2772044
Get the 7DmkII, the 7D has the same sensor that's in your 1200D.
The mkII has a lot of improvement in the noise and high ISO performance that is worth the extra money.
>>2772044
7dii or 6d, maybe wait and see for 80d
>>2772044
What the hell, K-1 or D500
>>2772044
I upgraded from that camera to a 7D mk ii. I'd say get that or a 6D depending on what you want to shoot, and what lenses you have.
General opinions on the Panasonic Lumix series?
How does Panasonic, in general and broad terms, compare to the other camera makers?
Particularly interested in knowing how you feel about their mirrorless bodies.
I just ordered this off Ebay a couple days ago to try getting into film, any tips or suggestions. Films, techniques, etc.
>>2772128
http://curatingcuteness.com/2013/05/35mm-film-guide/
>>2772092
Usability-wise, I always liked Panasonic.
They don't perform well enough for my taste now, though.
[Sorry, can't give you a fancy overview / comparison to the whole camera landscape.]
>>2772128
Would a modern flash be compatible?
>>2772146
Yes. You just have to manually set the output on your flash.
Bought this camera in great condition for 25 eurobucks. Anyone got any tips? First film camera...
>>2772149
>eurobucks
>>2772006
> 10 FPS RAW in an enthusiast camera?
Nothing new. We've been there since 2014 on the Sony side of things... the Nikon answer to that took pretty damn long to happen, Canon's is still basically absent.
>>2772154
Mine does 8 FPS.
>>2772157
The corresponding enthusiast models are the A6000 / now A6300, which do 11FPS since (fairly early) 2014.
>>2772163
Not in non-ideal light and with moving subject. Taking 10 FPS burst of a lampposts is not real photography.
>>2772168
>Taking 10 FPS burst of a lampposts is not real photography.
The A6000 shoots moving subjects fine. Only at like 0 or more EV, yes. But that's still absolutely not negating that it already was an enthusiast camera with 11FPS *at higher 24MP resolution* released in early 2014 already.
The A6300 now shoots at -2EV. With still higher sensor resolution, and marginally faster burst rate. Never mind the better AF coverage and stuff and things.
Besides all of that, the A6000 costs only a quarter and the A6300 half as much as the D500. Again, it's not such a strong answer, and it took pretty damn long to happen.
>>2772207
Specs sheets don't take photos. No matter what specs it has when the body is a horrible design, worse UI, abysmal menu system and 4K, Megapickles, CMOS Exmor (tm) everywhere.
Face the cold hard facts, Sony cameras are designed for the philistenes who neve used a camera before.
If you try shooting with an enthusiast or pro level DSLR you will know the difference.
But you haven't and you never will because you are a marketing intern getting cucked out of your payment.
>>2772207
>The A6000 shoots moving subjects fine. Only at like 0 or more EV, yes. But that's still absolutely not negating that it already was an enthusiast camera with 11FPS *at higher 24MP resolution* released in early 2014 already.
It would be a lot more convincing if you were to post some of the photos you've taken of high speed objects in burst mode, rather than just copying and pasting from the product description.
>>2772214
> The D500 has cool value on its spec sheet, 20MP at 10FPS. Amazing to see an enthusiast camera with that!
> Well, this has been around since early 2014, 24MP at 11FPS
> OMG, SPEC SHEETS DON'T TAKE PICTURES!!!
Ridiculous.
Also, I have shot enthusiast film cameras, enthusiast and pro DSLR before, not just Sony MILC. Sony is doing fine.
And the published photos shot with Sony MILC (including, say, an A6000) look every bit as good technically as those taken with the corresponding -more expensive- Canon / Nikon or whatever camera setups.
>>2772215
Already documented tons of times. Here are some:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9I9ir6k8tw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=up8K_xd_iwU
If you want you also can find many articles and what not. This information is out there for years now. You're apparently just really ignorant of it?
If anything, the D500 is the one that we could use a bunch of tests for... somehow that seems to slip your bias?
Do you think Fuji will be coming out with a weather resistant X-E series any time soon?
Do you think they ever could?
>>2772238
No clue, how about just getting the X-T1 or something rather than trying to read the future?
Or get something else, if it needs to be more than "resistant" with no option to just use a plastic bag or w/e.
Hey, I'm the film guy again
I saw the Canon EOS elan ii and the Canon EOS rebel 2000.
Like one guy recommended, all canon EOS have shitty batteries ( CR123a or 2CR5 or CR2). None has AA's.
What I noted is that the elan ii is from 95 and the rebel 2000 is from 99
What's the difference in quality between elans and rebels?
Sorry but there are so many good choices that I don't know what to do!!!
>>2772238
Could they? Yeah probably. Will they? Who knows, but I doubt it will be any time soon. The X-E2s is just brand new recent.
>>2772319
Are they any good of a camera compared to antique film SLR?
>>2772350
EOS brand have autofocus. And they share the same EF mount of today's lenses. That's the main difference.
The first EOS from 87 is heavy as fuck, maybe a little slow to autofocus, but works great.
I guess you can buy an old EOS but if you get a newer one for the same money is better... I dunno.
>>2772319 again.
I forgot to say that both are around the same price.
I guess that the elan II has more "resell value" so I would go for that one.
I read that canon likes to release new stuff in midrange (elan), then when its proven enough, release it on pro line, and when it's cheap enough to the low line (rebel).
Rebels are not as though as Elans but if you use them ocasionally, Rebels are awwwwright.
So, since the rebel 2000 is newer than the elan ii, they must have the same "tech". The main difference is the material of the body, being the rebel lightweight and full plastic
That's all I know.
I'm entertaining the idea of a 35mm camera. is there any reason for me to choose a 5d mark II over a 6d for anything other than a headphone jack?
>>2772416
Price, ergonomics, feel, and video 1/8000 shutter speed. Other than that, not really.
But don't let Canon meme you. Canon full frame is behind Nikon APS-C in terms of image quality, and the two you're looking at are behind Nikon APS-C in everything I can think of.
so i need to film a birds nest for many hours.
the camera will be stationary at all times, so the ability to charge while filming is a must
the distance is 40-50 meters where i would like to zoom close enough to see a single hair sticking out crystal clear
1080p/60fps a must
will just film during the day so i dont care about night abilities.
a huge advantage will be the ability to be connected to a pc at all times while filming and operating the camera setting from the pc, also saving to the pc's hdd while filming at all times.
i dont know if the last one is a thing but the rest are non negotiable.
price 350 max
any suggestions?
ty
Ohhhh... its so complicated to chose a camera to buy!!!!
Since tech differences are not so strong, I will chose with my heart. And my heart says "Go for the Elan film SLR. You already own a DSLR rebel, you never had a medium level camera!!!"
So I'll do that. I encourage all of the people that has to take a decision with this many options to chose anything, if they aren't pros and aren't looking for anything specific. All cameras are good enough...
>>2772422
> the distance is 40-50 meters where i would like to zoom close enough to see a single hair sticking out crystal clear
> price 350 max
Nope. Just nope. The lens to do this alone will cost a multiple of your budget without even really meeting the 'crystal clear' standard.
Rent a camera, that *could* possibly be 350 max.
>>2772422
>film a birds nest for many hours
You spelled "14 year old neighbor boy through his bedroom window" wrong
I have an apsc camera (70d) and want to do more portraits. I have a 50mm 1.4 and a 24-105 L. Should I invest in an 85mm or is the 50mm good enough? Should I really be trying for that 85mm to get the 135mm equivalent?
>>2772443
If it helps I was looking into the Rokinon 85mm 1.4 because of how cheap it is and how sharp it is.
>>2772431
> anyway best available for 500?
I'll refer you to the /p/ video thread's sticky:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Gh-fomKSuIEZ-GJo2tere4YMjsDvmmsuyiJKzQ-1ZRk/edit?pref=2&pli=1
But you are still way too low with your budget, even for hobbyist video. Things got very much cheaper recently, but not *that* cheap.
A Sigma 150-500mm "Bigma" lens alone already costs more than your budget. And that's an inexpensive telephoto lens option - what serious wildlife / sport shooters use normally costs around $3-12k... the price of getting somewhat near to "crystal clear", at range.
> what about my other concerns. are they doable?
Yes, theoretically you can send video to PC 24/7.
Usually with SDI, HDMI, USB, WLAN or such.
>>2772443
You'll probably be limited to headshots, upper half maybe. because if you step back enough to make up for the longer focal length, the DOF decrease will be pretty much the same as the 50mm. 136mm from the 85mm is a lot longer than your L at 105. That's a tiny field of view.
but yeah the rokinon is cheap so may as well get it
>>2772443
>>2772447
A 50mm Sigma f/1.4 or something will really do quite fine for most people's portrait needs.
Get the 85mm (alternatively, I'll suggest the 100mm macro "L" - more versatility, eh) only if you think you are going to do a whole lot of head & shoulder - type portraits, or actual studio shots in a big studio.
>>2772443
Invest in good lighting instead.
Which is the best?
http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-100-400mm-F4.5-5.6L-IS-II-USM-review-Worthy-upgrade
http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Sigma-50-500-mm-f4.5-6.3-APO-DG-OS-HSM-Canon-mount-lens-review-Modest-price-good-performance
http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Sigma-150-500mm-f5-6.3-APO-DG-OS-HSM-Canon-and-Nikon-mount-lens-review
http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Tamron-150-600mm-f5-6.3-Di-VC-USD-Canon-mount-lens-review-New-contender
My gut feeling is 100mm-400mm + 1.4x tele extender is the best all around option. i wouldn't be surprised if tele extender on the other lenses is going to result in too small an aperture to be useful
>>2772449
thx buddy, ill look into it
>>2772455
Yes, you can probably easily use the 100mm Tokina macro as a substitute in most situations. Both will +- be head & shoulder portrait lenses. Or you'll be standing either 8 or 9 meters away to get a normal-sized human with a trivial amount of surroundings - that usually requires a suitable location which isn't *every* location for sure... either way, not a huge difference WRT that.
Not that Samyang lenses aren't fun, but given the lenses that you already have, it might be possibly be more interesting to instead get a 35mm or even 14 or 16mm or something...? Or just portrait lighting.
>want to buy lens
>can't justify doing so before upgrading base
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS3 Windows Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2010:10:09 02:06:03 Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 550 Image Height 380
>>2772468
I already have a 35 1.4, 11-16 2.8 and a few off camera flashes so I'm good for those. I think. Thank you though!
>buy sony camera
>cuck yourself out of high end photography like sports and wildlife
>>2772470
if you already have a half-decent camera, you should have a much more noticeable improvement by upgrading from the kit lens, than changing the body, unless you're one of those who actually need crazy ISO or fps. A bright lens allows for more flexibility on what you can do.
depending on whether you opt for a prime or zoom lens, it will also affect your shooting style and give you a newer eye.
in short; buy glass.
>>2772492
but it's fucking retarded to buy nice glass on a bad body
>>2772501
What? No it's not.
>>2772490
>sports
>wildlife
>high end photography
come on now, you can't be serious.
those are niche, a ton of people don't give a shit about those, no matter the system.
aaand, like, you're saying this for something missing in the sony lineup? 70-200 2.8 is not enough for your taste? I'd love to see you holding your 600mm L lens.
>>2772502
>have 500$ body
>buy 2000$ lens
yeah real good choice
>>2772504
>you're saying this for something missing in the sony lineup?
the technical term is autofocus performance
>>2772508
It is a good choice. I'm not sure what you don't understand.
>>2772513
tthere's no fucking way you can justify top end L glass on a rabel
>>2772508
yes?
more expensive bodies will get you better noise performance at high ISO. honestly, not something you use so much.
expensive lens will get you more range of control on the aperture (so you don't even need high ISOs), while providing a sharper image, and all that with some fancy focal length (or lengths). seriously? yeah, it's a real good choice.
>>2772514
Sure you can. Lenses are far more important than the body.
I've seen way too many morons with $2000 cameras and $100 lenses.
>buy lens that is sharp to ~30MP
>put on 18MP body
>/p/ thinks this is a good idea
>>2772514
I *hate* Rabals and yet I think that is okay because it will *still* get quite a bit better results than crappy glass.
Now, certainly, I wouldn't stick with a Rabal... but eh, that's a different story.
GOOD:
>Good Lens + Good Body
SHIT AND EXPENSIVE:
>Good Lens + Bad Body
SHIT AND CHEAP:
>Bad Lens + Bad Body
>>2772521
> lens that is sharp to ~30MP
It's not quite like that.
In simplified terms: There are lenses on the high end that are like 2/3 sharp on even at 16, 24 or 40MP. They cost a lot of money.
And then there are the usual crappy lenses that have like less than 30% resolving power at 16 or less than 20% at 40MP... etc.
You still gain resolution from buying better lenses for a Rabal - that you can do 2/3 of your sensor's resolution, rather than 1/3.
>>2772529
Also new glass gives you options of new focal lengths / subjects you couldn't shoot before
>>2772529
I think homeboy's just bored and trying to ruse us. I gave up a few posts ago.
>>2772523
I started off with a t2i, and there was a huge improvement with good glass compared to cheap stuff and the kit lens. If you more or less know that you'll stick with a given system I would still advise going for better lenses rather than a good body if I had to choose between the two.
>>2772542
Do canon lenses work well enough on sony with an adapter?
That would mean they are a Safer investment than a body if so.
>>2772544
Lenses are a safer investment no matter what.
>>2772549
Why?
>>2772544
Yes. The caveat here is that AF will only work about as well as natively on an A7 II or A7R II specifically.
If you do all MF on the other hand, it's mostly about Sony being a generally good body to adapt lenses to, all of the recent e-mount MILC work (all have focus peaking, EVF, short flange focal length to adapt Canon lenses without glass, decent sensors...)
>>2772550
They hold their value far better and far longer than bodies do.
>>2772550
because you upgrade bodies, but not good lenses.
>turns out the objectively correct upgrade path in photography is
>entry level body / entry level lens
>entry level body / top end lens
>top end body / top end lens
>you literally should go from the worst body available to the best body available.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Canon Camera Model Canon EOS 5D Mark III Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 100 dp Vertical Resolution 100 dp Exposure Time 1/160 sec F-Number f/8.0 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 100 Lens Aperture f/8.0 Exposure Bias 0 EV Subject Distance 1.01 m Metering Mode Pattern Focal Length 100.00 mm Color Space Information Uncalibrated
>>2772431
Forget a DSLR, a decent camcorder will do this much better. See if you can rent a Canon XA20, I own one and have been consistently impressed with it at the long end of its zoom.
>>2772447
I own a Rok 85 and it's excellent, but focusing it on a crop viewfinder might be a bitch.
>>2772504
Yes, Sony is absolutely missing critical things in their lineup for anybody who wants to shoot sports. They've done a good thing by making a 500/4 (my favorite lens, by the way), but a 400/2.8 is critical for sports work, and they're also lacking a pro-level supertele zoom, or even a prosumer one that can compete with the Canon 100-400.
> I'd love to see you holding your 600mm L lens.
No 600mm here, but here's an old pic of me on the job with a 200-400/4.
>>2772521
This is exactly the kind of thinking that drives me out of my mind. I used lenses that were "sharp to 30mp" on 12mp bodies for years, because those lenses were fast, had great AF, and were rugged. Lens sharpness is a fucking meme these days, it's not like the '80s-'90s when everybody was churning out plastic garbage.
>>2772564
>shoots blurry low IQ shit
>gets mad people who made the Right Choice get Glorious Edge To Edge Crispness with Proper Gear like the Sony A7.
>/p/ tries to troll a newbie into putting 2000$ worth of glass onto a 200$ body
>>2772563
no
>mid-to-high level body (K-3, D750, 7D mkii) + kit lens and mid level glass
>acquire top level glass
>acquire top tier body if needed
i dont see why retards insist on slowly progressing through bodies and shit wasting tons of money. if you're not a pro, buy the best camera you can afford and shoot with it until it breaks or you need something that does what you need where your current camera cannot
1.4x or 2.0x tele extender?
>>2772579
To put on what lens?
In general the 1.4x is the way to go. 2.0x loses you so many stops that your AF system is likely to start having trouble, and the amount of IQ you'll lose by cropping a 1.4x shot is a hell of a lot less than what you'll lose by being out of focus or having to pull too long of a shutter speed.
>>2772581
75-300mm now, 100-400mm later.
>>2772319
Most of the EF rebels were pretty similar. Most of them have around the same number of AF points and are limited in shutter speed/sync speed.
The only huge jump in that age from Canon was the EOS 1v which is a huge jump in price.
You're pretty safe to buy whichever film rabel you want. Judge it based on how aesthetically pleasing it is to you, AF points/shutter speed/price.
You really can't go wrong if you're using EF lenses.
>>2772419
>But don't let Canon meme you. Canon full frame is behind Nikon APS-C in terms of image quality, and the two you're looking at are behind Nikon APS-C in everything I can think of
yeah, canon's prosumer 6d and the professional 5d mark ii are lacking in comparison to nikon's aps-c offerings
>put extender on lens
>ehehehe sorry goyim can't AF now
>unless you shell out for le new body ;^)
Maximum jewing.
>>2772449
>3k-12k
?
The Canon 100-400mm II is 2k anon.
>>2772590
Accurate.
Are the National Geographic Walkabout bags on Ebay from China cheap knock-offs?
http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/New-National-Geographic-NG-Walkabout-W5070-Camera-Canon-Backpack-Shoulder-Bag-/171538258305?hash=item27f07a1981:g:sn0AAOSwcF9UYZPD
>>2772626
DON'T TELL ME WHAT I CAN'T BUY
>>2772633
I don't know what the fuck you're talking about, I just want to know if they're the same quality senpai
>>2772642
Seems to be just marketing... probably not the highest quality but it'll work.
>>2772626
I bought one of these for my friend recently as he liked mine. The counterfeit had better stitching than the NG bag!
>>2772642
anyone know if the pentax 35mm macro limited can be used to wide angle macro stuff? is it wide enough? using a k-3 if that makes any difference
>>2772626
Yes, but I think they work. Also, eBay is the more expensive source as compared to Aliexpress, as far as I can tell.
Can anyone recommend me a cheap 35mm rangefinder that's very quiet?
I want to try some street photography but I'm a massive pussy.
>>2772684
Olympus 35RC is the cheapest I've found so far, £60, are there any better/cheaper options?
>>2772684
Just pick up a canon a-1
They're pretty dang quiet and they're black so you can be stealthy as fuck
Hey guys 2 q's
1: are there any good current model olympus camera bodies? lookin to upgrade from my e-420 and prefer to stick with oly cus I have a ton of good old OM lenses that I could adapt up
2: what is the best low end medium format camera? I have my eye on a pentacon six but I heard its middling and shipping is enormous
BONUS Q: there is no easy way to fix a fed-2 with a busted shutter wheel? I lent it to a friend and they changed before advancing the film so now its fucked
I dont come to /p/ much so pls no bully
Looking to find an adapter to mount a vintage Pentax lens on a Sony A-mount camera. I'm struggling to find one, probably because A-mount was so unsuccessful. Anyone know of one I can purchase?
>>2772710
The OMDEM1 will give you PDAF with 4/3rds lenses. The EM5II has some awesome IBIS in a reasonably small body. Both have great EVFs.
All M43 options will attract the ridicule of anybody with a larger sensor size than you, however.
I recently got the Canon 760D as a gift but have been having a lot of trouble with live recording. I have tried a number of settings but no matter what I do all I ever seem to get is constant zooming in and out. Can anyone help me out I have no idea how to fix this?
>sigma 50-100mm f1.8
>apsc
>sigma ef to e-mount adapter
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Color Space Information Uncalibrated
>>2772813
stop turning the zoom ring in and out, aho.
>>2772870
If only these Sigma Art lenses were full frame. Although if they were, they would be twice the price I guess
A friend is selling a Nikon D1H for $25 without battery. Is it a good deal?
I'm looking for a cheap F mount camera to play with some lenses Sigma lenses I have.
I'm using a t3i right now. I have a 50mm 1.8, 30mm 1.4, and the kit lens.
I want full frame, but I also want a ricoh gr.
Should I buy a 5D or a Ricoh Gr, they're about the same price.
>>2772957
For what.
>>2772957
To hell with the GR, get the 5D
Get the best of both worlds. Interchangeable lenses and a good sensor with the portability of a GR. A6000/A6300. Much more full featured.
>>2772962
Do they make an a6000 without the enormous grip now? Where can that be found?
>>2772963
What? You want it to fall out of your hands?
>>2772964
Do you have trouble grasping things in your hands?
You claimed it had the same portability, and it doesn't.
Does your phone have a giant grip on it?
Gonna pick up a Mamiya 645 in the near future. Is there any vital reason why I should splash out some more cash for a 645 Pro over a 645 Super.
Alternatively, should I be looking at like the Bronica equivalent?
>>2772974
I have no answers to your questions specifically, but as someone who loves the Pentax 645N (and the 2) I will suggest you check that out too. Very good cameras with great lenses. But no interchangeable backs.
What do you guys think of Russian lenses, specifically the Jupiter 3 or 8 lens?
They're pretty cheap and look sharp, but I was just wondering if anyone actually had one and could say if it would be worth to buy or not.
>>2773013
They're nice if you can get them for cheap. Not all that great if you're anal about image quality.
>>2772956
Please help
>>2773016
It's $25. What do you need to hear?
Can you source a battery for it? Are you willing to pay that price for "playing"?
>>2773017
Third party batteries are about $15 so it's not too much.
I can finance it.
I was asking because I could get a Fuji S3 for a little more. I wanted to know if It was shit compared to most other older DSLRs or if it was still acceptable.
>>2773018
It's $40. You know it's a 2 megapixel camera. You aren't going to get anything great for $40. Why are you so worried about this.
>>2773023
>You know it's a 2 megapixel camera
That was the S1 and S2 and those where 3MP
The S3 and S5 are 6MP while the Nikon is 4.
4 is good enough for me. I was just wanting to know if it wasn't a piece of trash.
I don't want it just for lens testing, I would like to have a good experience using it if I wanted.
>You aren't going to get anything great for $40
My 350D was pretty good for $30.
>Why are you so worried about this
I don't want to feel like I wasted my money at the end of it.
I'm not a collector, I just want a decent/good F mount camera for an affordable price.
just bought my first camera, a minolta maxxum 5000i and was wondering how to know what kind of lenses are compatible
Is the sigma 18-35 1.8 a good substitute for getting 19,24 and 35mm primes?
>>2773028
It is, yes. That's sort of what it's for. The only drawbacks could be price, and size/weight.
>>2773028
Yes. It's not a perfect substitute for the same FL as individual primes, but unlike other zoom lenses, it gets close.
>>2771972
Just wondering.
If you'd want to pick either a Nikon D810 or a Sony A7II, which one would you pick?
Factoring price, future proof, handling etc.
I think they're both great camera's but i'm really not sure what to go for. Sony seems to be innovating a lot ( specs, size, Carl Zeiss line-up etc. ) but Nikon seems to be a reliable kind of choice.
Would appreciate any opinion.
>>2773030
>It's not a perfect substitute for the same FL as individual primes
How so?
>>2773024
>Nikon is 4.
No, it's 2.7
>native apsc e-mount
>30mm f1.4
ids habbening
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Macintosh) Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 500 Image Height 355 Number of Bits Per Component 8, 8, 8 Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Created 2016:02:19 16:25:28 Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 700 Image Height 355
>>2773050
Once again, other systems can't compare to Sony's superior might.
>>2773053
You spelled "weight" wrong. Also, don't forget size.
>>2773056
That lens looks tiny. Don't pretend like Fuji's or pentacks lens' aren't as hefty.
>>2773057
Feel free to compare it against the Fuji 35 f/1.4.
>>2773057
Pancake lens you said?
>>2773059
Not 35mm. Not f/1.4.
Also daily reminder that lens element count above 10 is destroying IQ and image depth.
>>2773061
>image depth
hahaha wat
>>2773059
That lens is optically terrible.
>>2773063
That thing that makes an image "pop". The thing that makes you go "whoah". The fairy dust.
>>2773032
High-end primes (including the corresponding Sigma Art) are still sharper.
Well, if you're like most /p/eople. the 18-35mm probably will still be the best glass you ever had.
>>2773066
And how does one measure "whoah" to determine the correct number of lens elements optimize it?
How can you go from this...
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Canon Camera Model Canon EOS D30 Maximum Lens Aperture f/5.0 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Lens Size 28.00 - 135.00 mm Firmware Version Firmware Version 1.00 Serial Number 0171049191 Owner Name Phil Askey Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 180 dpi Vertical Resolution 180 dpi Image Created 2001:02:11 10:31:37 Exposure Time 1/8 sec F-Number f/5.0 ISO Speed Rating 400 Lens Aperture f/5.0 Exposure Bias 0 EV Subject Distance 0.71 m Flash No Flash Focal Length 65.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 2160 Image Height 1440 Exposure Mode Program Focus Type Auto Metering Mode Evaluative Sharpness High Saturation Normal Contrast Low Shooting Mode Manual Image Size Large Focus Mode One-Shot Drive Mode Continuous Flash Mode Off Compression Setting Fine Macro Mode Normal Sequence Number 1 White Balance Auto Exposure Compensation 3 Sensor ISO Speed 224 Image Number 173-7387
>>2773072
That's the thing about it, you can't determine it by calculating charts, you have to go out and shoot photos.
>>2773077
Oh, so you have photos you could share that have lots of image depth then? I'd love to learn what you're talking about.
>>2773080
The easiest thing is going on flickr and search for DA 40 and FA 43 and see the effect for yourself. Also you can search for lower element count lenses of your own system for comparison.
>>2773072
People say that Zeiss lenses (as an example) and older designed lenses have more "3D pop" to them
>>2772745
When you say Pentax do you mean K-mount or M42? M42-to-A is uncommon but available, just search for it. K-to-A is very uncommon, both due to that being an odd pairing and due to the fact that there isnt a large enough difference in the flange distances to make an adapter without compensating optics. If your Pentax lens is K and not M42, then give up, or use a different camera.
>>2772649
On an APS-C camera, 35mm is not wide angle at all. It's normal, neither wide-angle nor telephoto. That lens is equivalent to a 50mm macro on a full-frame camera.
>>2773075
To this master piece of engineering and designed only rivaled by expensive MF cameras?
>>2773089
Oops forgot my picture.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make SONY Camera Model ILCE-7M2 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.1 (Macintosh) Photographer ©Brian Smith Maximum Lens Aperture f/2.8 Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 90 mm Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2015-06-17T13:54:57-04:00 Exposure Time 1/160 sec F-Number f/18.0 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 80 Lens Aperture f/18.0 Brightness 3.2 EV Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Daylight Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 90.00 mm Image Width 640 Image Height 427 Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Manual Scene Capture Type Standard Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal
>>2773088
If you don't see it then photography is clearly not for you. Or anything visual.
>>2773075
To this?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Panasonic Camera Model DMC-GX7 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Macintosh) Maximum Lens Aperture f/1.7 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 43 mm Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 4592 Image Height 2584 Number of Bits Per Component 8, 8, 8 Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 180 dpi Vertical Resolution 180 dpi Image Created 2016:02:17 13:55:52 Exposure Time 1/2500 sec F-Number f/1.8 Exposure Program Aperture Priority ISO Speed Rating 200 Lens Aperture f/1.8 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 20.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1280 Image Height 720 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Gain Control Low Gain Up Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal
Thoughts on the Panasonic G7 as a camera that would be a pretty good for both video and stills?
Are there any disadvantages to not getting a dslr instead?
>>2773091
Just looks like thin DOF to me too.
>>2773132
Get a A6000 or a A6300. You have better lens options and higher image quality. The A6300 even comes with 4k and slog.
You should watch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bwLqxqWfWMQ
M43 is dead.
>>2772686
I can't tell if you're joking because I've never used an older Canon SLR but I have heard of "Canon cough" and I have a Ricoh 35mm SLR that is about as noisy as a camera could be.
Pressing the shutter causes the aperture to close (unless you set it to fully open), the mirror to flip up, the front curtain to open, the back curtain to close, the mirror to flip down, and the aperture to re-open. All together that's quite a noise.
>>2773093
There are a lot of years in between those two cameras.
Post lenses you can only dream of getting.
Let me start:
>Olympus OM Zuiko 250mm f2 ED IF
>>2773160
>Olympus OM Zuiko 250mm f2 ED IF
I bought one of those recently for 90 usd. I checked ebay but no listings came up. I guess it's not very sought after, i hope i didn't over pay. It looks cool though.
>>2773160
Looks like a Tamron rebrand. That lens was shit.
>>2773165
>Tamron rebrand
>didn't do research
http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/olympusom1n2/shared/zuiko/htmls/250mm.htm
i have a nikon d5100 with default lens. im going to the patagonia soon, need some cheap gear recomendations
>>2773170
It looked very much like the 300mm f/2.8 here http://www.adaptall-2.org/lenses/60B.html
which was a really shitty lens
The optical formula looks quite different though.
The Tair 300/4.5 is something worth noting in that range.
>>2773171
35mm G and a tripod for panoramas.
>>2772879
Most of them are, aside from the 18-35 1.8 and the few mirrorless-specific primes.
That 18-35 would be pretty damn cool on FF, though. I don't think it'd be possible to make one with a 1.8 aperture and FF coverage though, at least not for anything close to a reasonable price.
>>2773050
>>2773056
>>2773057
It's probably the same lens as the existing 30 1.4 for Canikon APS-C, just rebodied to fit on E-mount. Judging by this shot, it looks to be about the size of a Nikon 50 1.4G, and then the Sony version will have an extension to make up for the flange distance. It'll be reasonably compact but nothing spectacular.
I'd be more interested to see Sigma adapt some of their FF lenses to E-mount for use on the A7. I have a 35 Art for Nikon and it's an excellent lens.
>>2773176
Is the 300mm 2.8 from Tokina better? I've seen samples and they look pretty sharp, there's a few that pop up on the bay as well for pretty cheap
>>2773183
Dunno, I've never looked into that. I'm mostly browsing for M42, K-mount and Adaptall lenses.
>>2772710
still looking for an answer to question 2 dawgs
should I just be a shitter and go holga?
>>2771972
I've been into photography for +4 years and recently i began to try out movie making.
I have a nice Fluid Head tripod and i thought that would be enough for amateur movies, but i've wanted to make more dynamic shots and they end up pretty bad, so i'm looking into getting both a nice but relatively cheap Slider and Glidecam off of Amazon.
I'm already set on what Slider i want:
http://www.amazon_com/gp/product/B00QIEVQJG?psc=1&redirect=true&ref_=ox_sc_act_title_3&smid=A2VDNI0TG8S8RC
But i'm not sure what glidecam i should be getting. Can anyone recommend me a nice one in the 60-120$ range? Is pic related worth it? Or should i spend a bit more and get a drastically better one?
>>2773188
Bronica SQ? I preferred it very much to my Pentacon Six.
What's the best bang for buck I can get out of an old SLR lens? I don't give a shit if it's a 35mm lens. I just want something cheap that isn't obscenely blurry.
I'm trying to make a triple-eyed 4x5 shit camera, for fun. The knurled barrel bullshit on most old lenses needs to be taken off in order for them to fit on the area of a 4x5 lens board. It's clear that the lens barrel, sans bloated focusing apparatus would be able to sit side by side in such a small space.
>>2772710
>are there any good current model olympus camera bodies?
Sure. E-M5 II, for instance.
>>2771991
not him but some of my buddies ive been hanging out with have started playing shows more often (edm so club type stuff) and id like to use something more than my phone to capture either live performances and/or us just traveling around.
so basically, something nice not super bulky i guess and price range around $500?
>also, have pretty much no photography experience
Iam trying to help a friend who's been using Canon eversince... he wants to sell his 5D mark 2 and get a sony fullframe...
i never used any of these 2 that's my question here. What do you think of trading 5d mark 2 and get a sony full frame mirrorless ??
>>2773248
One is an older camera. The other will be a newer camera. Both are cameras, and take photos.
>>2773250
i bet you can't give a better answer than that anyway....this ment to be a board to share minds.
Iam talking about the Quality of the lenses, camera etc.
if you asked me i'd tell him to go for the sony ff
>>2773253
Yes the Sony A7 series is a good choice.
Anyone use Lightroom Mobile for the iPad Pro?
How easy is it to use that as a small, mobile workstation to offload images to at the end of the day?
How easy is it to move the images over to normal Lightroom once you get back home?
Can you use the Apple Pencil to apply those easy masks you can do in normal Lightroom?
here i am seriously considering buying a $2,000 lens for a camera which goes for probably $300 now
/p/ trolled me hard, didn't they
>>2773266
Is it a Pentacks? Yeah it gets parroted a lot here, specially bird photographers. (see what i did there?)
>>2773261
Ah, never mind.
I've watched some videos about the Adobe mobile suite.
I just wish it synced to Lightroom only over local network. Anyone know if it can do that?
I don't like the idea of sending my photos over the internet.
>>2773268
>Is it a Pentacks
No, canon lens on a canon body.
>>2773270
T3i? Well at least you get to use the lens in case you decide to upgrade the body. Lens last from body to body.
>>2773272
t2i, and 100-400mm II
oh I need to save money to get a medium format mamiya
>>2773031
I just stuck with Nikon since I already had a shit ton of lenses, and I like their interface a lot more.
I'm thinking about getting some cheap UV filters for my lenses. Are they worth it for the protection? I don't pixel peep so I don't really care about sharpness that much.
>>2773147
A good majority of them dont have canon cough
I picked up a pretty beat up one at goodwill for 10 bucks and it is pretty dang quiet
>>2773323
UV filters prevent physical damage to the front element if you say for instance have butterfingers and drop the lens. buy anything with a brass ring (b&w, maybe hoya) because they're less likely to bind with the threads
>>2773266
My friend uses the older pump action 100-400 on his 40D. Don't worry about it, the lens is awesome and the camera can take it.
>>2773087
>On an APS-C camera, 35mm is not wide angle at all. It's normal, neither wide-angle nor telephoto. That lens is equivalent to a 50mm macro on a full-frame camera.
i know but i dont have the money for a laowa 15mm macro
>>2772649
I use the DA 16-45 if I want something macroed in wide angle.
>>2773408
That's fine, but the answer is still no, it can not be used for wide angle, because it is not wide angle.
Hey guys just wondering since we're talking about wide angle lens. What's the widest lens on Sonys e mount?
I want to take photos of buildings
I'm thinking about getting the Tair 300mm and was wondering what the best way to mount a large lens like this to a tripod would be?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make NIKON CORPORATION Camera Model NIKON D80 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Windows) Maximum Lens Aperture f/4.8 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Color Filter Array Pattern 810 Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 75 mm Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 640 Image Height 429 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 2016:02:20 17:11:32 Exposure Time 1/250 sec F-Number f/5.6 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 100 Lens Aperture f/5.6 Exposure Bias 1/3 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash Focal Length 50.00 mm Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 575 Image Height 352 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Manual Scene Capture Type Standard Gain Control None Contrast Normal Saturation High Sharpness Hard Subject Distance Range Unknown
>>2773430
...by the lens tripod collar?
Welp, I guess I'm getting a CM1 next week.
Just broke my phone, I'm not due for an upgrade, and as long as B&H doesn't raise the price back up in the next few days, the CM1 is cheaper than paying full retail for any Apple/Samsung/etc.
Expect some samples and feedback in a few days, I know some other anons have been curious about this thing.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties:
>>2773440
get a case and tempered glass screen protector this time.
>>2773460
Neither would have helped haha.
I'm actually really gentle on phones, this one was a total fluke - was pulling up my pants after going to the can and it fell out of my pocket into the toilet and fried.
Any tips on getting into film photography? I have a film camera but I don't have any way to process the film.
>>2773470
shoot one roll and take it to a local place to get developed to make sure it works and they usually do scans along with developing it for you
after that just take it to get developed until you can develop/scan it yourself
>>2773440
I'm interested in your thoughts about the camera. please keep us posted
>>2773476
I don't think there's any place near where I live where I can get it processed. Any tips on processing basics?
>>2773480
Here's a tip: go fucking google it yourself
>>2773440
I tried it yesterday.
It's pretty meh, but I guess you're used to phones so It should be a little upgrade.
>>2773480
where do you live?
>>2773508
Your mom
>>2773506
Depends what you mean by "used to phones."
I have an FF DSLR with nice glass, a couple of MF flim cameras, and an m43 setup, but I like the idea of the CM1 because I don't always have space to carry a dedicated camera, but I'll always have a phone with me.
Where does /p/ recommend buying glass?
>>2773440
>badgr2
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 352 Image Height 450
>>2773594
Uh, basically anywhere you can get the glass you want...? Internet or local stores, eBay, keh, even Craigslist and so on.
If you buy newer high-end glass (which is neat), try looking on the international market rather than just the national one. Usually, regional marketing sucks the money right out of you otherwise.
If you had to chose your top three Nikon FX lenses, what would they be?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make NIKON CORPORATION Camera Model NIKON D90 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.3 (Windows) Maximum Lens Aperture f/1.7 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Color Filter Array Pattern 736 Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 52 mm Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2016:02:20 15:36:26 Exposure Time 1/125 sec F-Number f/1.8 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 200 Lens Aperture f/1.8 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Spot Light Source Shade Flash No Flash Focal Length 35.00 mm Rendering Custom Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Manual Scene Capture Type Standard Gain Control None Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal Subject Distance Range Unknown
>>2773605
I mean, Amazon or BHphoto or ...?
>>2773616
??? The price will be the exact same, the service will be the exact same, the lens will be the exact same. What do you imagine the differences are?
>>2773613
Sigma Art 24-35mm
Sigma Art 50mm
Zeiss Otus 85mm
Something like that? If I shot things further away, it'd be more the Sigma Sports 120-300 or one of the two Nikkor 400mm f/2.8 or something, but I don't usually.
>>2773616
Any if it's your domestic ones. They all can send you a box in a package.
But as I said, you might want to import internationally if it's higher-end glass to save some hundred dollars.
So, Amazon (Germany, Japan, USA, ... whatever works), eBay, a random Swedish or Swiss or Australian or Hong Kong or whatever store that is willing to export... doesn't really matter.
>>2773618
warranty or some shit
or maybe you get 5% cashback at some place for loyalty idk
I'll just leave this here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ch_m23pn0ZQ
I'm thinking about picking up a Nikon D2X to supplement my Fuji S3 Pro. I've already got nikon glass and need something faster then the Fuji for sports. Are they a decent value now?
>>2773632
yes.
