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: >>2774227
>>2776130
Powered by RICOH PENTAX CORPORATION LTD.
Why don't you own a A7Rii /p/? Are you just subhuman?
Still haven't gotten an answer as to whether it's worth purchasing the MK III Canon now, or waiting for the MK IV which is supposedly due sometime this year.
>>2776138
It really depends if you use it for hobby or make your money with it. If the latter then by all means buy it, it will make the money for the new one when it comes out.
If hobby only then, well, I'd buy it still. It's a good camera and you can sell it for a nice price when the new body comes out.
>>2776138
A Canon 5D III is a pretty good camera, but ultimately it is basically beaten bloody by Sony's almost equally priced A7R II.
Wait for the 5D IV, maybe Canon will put some extra effort into it?
>>2776138
Depends on how badly you need the new features. The different in image quality will probably be virtually unnoticeable.
>>2776151
Would you say it's negligible?
Cheaper alternative to the alpha7? I can't blow 1k on this thing.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Canon Camera Model Canon EOS 5D Mark III Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.3 (Windows) Maximum Lens Aperture f/4.0 Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2014:02:27 01:19:32 Exposure Time 1/60 sec F-Number f/8.0 Exposure Program Aperture Priority ISO Speed Rating 400 Lens Aperture f/8.0 Exposure Bias 0.7 EV Metering Mode Pattern Flash Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 70.00 mm Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard
>>2776158
I would.
>>2776160
Sony A6000?
> I can't blow 1k on this thing.
I think it is probably usually going to be better to blow 1k on the A6300 now anyhow - or 1.5k on the A7 II.
>>2776160
Pentax or Nikon crop DSLR.
K-50, K-S2, K-3 etc.. or D3300, D5500, D7200 etc...
Maybe Canon 70D or 7DMkII
>>2776146
I do plan on making money with it. In my town, there's an abundance of freelance jobs and few photographers. No idea why. I had a friend who grabbed a MKIII three years ago, at 18, and he was making obscene money here on freelance bullshit. Fucker's never worked a real job in his life and he's already involved in some post-processing company making 40k a year.
>>2776148
Can you break down for me why the mirrorless is a good choice? I keep hearing "mirrorless meme" "shitty kit" etc. I'd like to hear the case for it without a contextless recommendation. Likewise, if anyone would like to chime in and give me more than a 2 word phrase reason not to buy one, please do.
I want to get simple protective glass filters for all my large format lenses. I've never really had to purchase basic filters, because, luckily, buying used means that lenses often come with them. What exactly am I looking for? Are there clear filters? All I can find for basic shit is UV filters. What are some decent priced brands for filters? I'm not looking for fancy shit, I just want something that won't noticeably depreciate image quality.
>>2776166
> Can you break down for me why the mirrorless is a good choice?
Because Sony made a better camera than the competition.
The expert press thinks so too. You can read their reviews and explanations why almost all the awards went to the A7R II.
https://alphauniverse.com/stories/awards-season-recap--sony-cleans-up-/
The spec sheet ("inb4 lel only spec sheet, it means nothing") reasons are here:
http://cameradecision.com/compare/Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-III-vs-Sony-Alpha-7R-II
Of course the other thing is that with this largely simply better body, you can still use all the Canon EF lenses. Adapters work really well for that.
>>2776166
What magical land do you live in?
>>2776101
>>2776117
>>2776108
I've been shooting lowlight handheld with my D20 and a cheap lens for years, surely the MarkII and a nice lens would be a step up?
I often shoot at 6400, which works for me, except for noise. Is the MarkII good on noise?
>A7S
No one's offering to sell me an A7S cheap, and I already shoot canon.
What about it makes it particularly good for low light?
>>2776166
The 5DIII is a pro body.
Sony A7 line is enthusiast level consumer shit.
That is the main difference. If you want to make your living on photography you don't buy a throw-away consumer camera, you buy the one that has pro service backing.
If something happens to your gear while doing your job Canon will fix it AND provide a kit to use while doing so. Sony will shit on your business and you will have to freeze your business for weeks.
Which one you choose?
>>2776173
>What about it makes it particularly good for low light?
A sensor that can do ISO 25600-51200 at relatively low noise.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1W-bPyYR0k
>>2776130
OP pic really ought to switch from Pentax to Sony if only to consummate the constant barrage
>>2776172
Canada's capital. It's a shit city full of lazy federal employees. If you're looking for accountants, or report-writing, overpaid liberal arts degrees, there's a deluge of them.
If you want skilled video and photography work, it seems there aren't enough people, or at least none that will work for a reasonable price. I imagine there's a local industry of folks who have gotten fat on government shit, and won't do lowly freelance work, even though that shit pays miles above minimum wage. That's how my friend made it.
>>2776181
Huh. I wonder if the same thing holds true for DC. It's certainly not the case here in NYC.
>>2776177
>watch video
>think "huh, that looks like Coney Island but the beach is half empty and everyone is Slavic"
>filmed on Brighton Beach
>atlastItrulysee.jpg
>>2776173
I have a 5DkII and it is absolutely shit in lowlight.
3200 iso and up are practically unusable.
It's a GREAT camera, but it just doesn't do lowlight well.
>>2776187
Post examples then. Should be very easy for you.
>>2776192
ISO 3200.
>>2776198
>not bothering to focus properly
Anyone have experience buying bargain bin "MISCELLANEOUS" brand lens from keh? Some of them are like $10, I figure they might be fun to play with at that price.
>>2776182
I think it's partially due to the population of federal employees. I know that one of the jobs my friend worked was for a rich dude that had always dreamed of making his own movie. The dude embarked on a relatively ambitious personal project that employed a bunch of people. The movie ended up being shit (a period civil war drama), and I can't remember if my friend volunteered or was paid. Either way, I think it exemplifies the local demand; there are rich, or relatively affluent people here who know nothing but their jobs and are willing to pay handsomely to have video and photography work done.
NYC is just too bloated with people, period. I wouldn't want to work there, I wouldn't want to date there, etc. There will always be someone local that is better than you. I cannot imagine the sort of competition one must face in all aspects of life in a hive like that.
>>2776202
Better spend that $10 on M42 russian lenses, playing with them is actually worth your time.
>>2776203
>(a period civil war drama),
Canada had a civil war?
>I wouldn't want to work there, I wouldn't want to date there, etc. There will always be someone local that is better than you.
Geez, that's a scary way to look at things. But you have a point. I never thought of my hometown that way. But it's been my experience - not only are the always some people better than you, there's also always some people who are willing to work for less than you, or work for free.
>>2776209
>Canadian civil war
Canada never had a civil war. He went to rural Ontario and filmed an American civil war drama. WTF indeed.
In Ottawa, the competition for some jobs is low because the kind of person who would do it (young, educated) doesn't exist. Most people between 18-30 in Ottawa are either tradesfolk who live on the outskirts, or university students studying something that will get them a job in town, with the government, or out of town.
There aren't many institutions for more technical arts like photography or videography, and all the related jobs are government shit that is likely locked up by big companies or well-connected older people.
Frankly, I don't even live there anymore because it's so shit for young people. I live close enough and go back often enough that I could snap up some of the freelance shit to supplement my pay.
>>2776200
Oh fuck you.
You asked me to post an example and I did. I haven't USED iso 3200 since I was a noob because it doesn't look good.
But you know what, buy the camera. Have fun.
>>2776220
I didn't ask you anything. I just stated the fact you completely missed focus on an example photo.
So far I can safely assume you do the same on your bread and butter photos.
>>2776187
>absolutely shit
Here's my 5DmkII at ISO 3200 at 100% view, without ANY luminance noise reduction, and the Lightroom default color noise reduction.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Greenshot Image-Specific Properties:
>>2776230
further on if you guys want to boost your low light IQ you can always use magic lantern's dual iso for cleaner shadows
>>2776230
For reference, this was to show how ridiculous it was to say that it's absolutely shit, not to agree with it. If you can't make a usable file out of that... well then there's no camera on the planet that is going to help you.
>>2776231
yep. Never found a need for it though.
>>2776198
The issue in this image is that your light is shit. It's not the camera, or the ISO. the most advanced camera in the world that falls out of a time warp from 2027 will give you a shitty dim pink looking image when you are shooting in dim pink looking light. That's what was there. Your camera can only do so much to make up for how lazy and unwilling to make a good photo you are.
Did you try to color correct a jpeg for this, too?
>>2776230
WTF? Why would you cover the last numbers? I wanted to call Whitney.
>>2776230
>>2776231
or just buy nikon :}
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make NIKON CORPORATION Camera Model NIKON D750 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.7 (Windows) Maximum Lens Aperture f/2.8 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Color Filter Array Pattern 750 Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 200 mm Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2016:02:23 12:22:54 Exposure Time 1/250 sec F-Number f/2.8 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 5000 Lens Aperture f/2.8 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Spot Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 200.00 mm Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Gain Control High Gain Up Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal Subject Distance Range Unknown
>>2776230
>>2776231
Looks like same IQ as my K-3. I managed to salvage an event in shitty weather at ISO 6400. One stop lower and boosting exposure is very much usable even on paid gigs.
>>2776233
I have to agree 100% on the light issue. Most photos are ruined by shitty lighting. Even in wildlife/nature and landscapes you have to choose the exact time and angle for the best results.
The famous Hungarian bird photographer built a birdwatching site with an artifical pond to be used on afternoons giving the best lighting on the subjects. He also placed a mirror behind to give a strong backlight for the splashing water.
Planning ahead for the light makes up for half of a good photo.
>>2776242
Wow, your 1000 pixel down-sampled image from a camera released six years later is really super relevant to this conversation.
>>2776244
remove salt from your diet
>>2776245
No offense but that was a pretty shit photo, especially for showing high ISO performance.
>>2776245
Not salty at all. Just pointing out the obvious. Why would you think that would be relevant? If you want to show that the Canon sucks, post an image at ISO 3200, the same level of noise reduction, and 100% crop.
>>2776242
>discussion of specific camera
>hurrdurr buy unrelated brand
>>2776173
Some guy here mentioned that noise is nearly the same for the 5dm2 and 5dm3 if you do shoot raw. Like there's just silly jpeg rendering
I can give you a comparison between the 6d and 5d3 at the weekend
>>2776250
The 6D is obviously better at low light situations, that's why it became the defacto astrophotography camera.
It's AF though is dated and not that accurate at tracking as the 5DIII
>>2776250
Gosh, look at that:
http://blog.planet5d.com/2012/12/the-high-iso-battle-of-the-full-frame-heavy-weights-canon-6d-vs-canon-5d-mark-iii/
>>2776163
>A7 II
>choosing the A7 II over the OG A7
No. Why would you do that? The OG A7 has more dynamic range than the Mk II.
>>2776249
>taking the bait
>>2776263
>being a gearfaggot
>using a tripcode
It figures.
>>2776266
Poe's Law. Learn it.
>implying this board isnt a giant gear thread
Cokin A filter holders - I'd like to get one used to cut down on costs. I see that many of those for sale on Ebay lack the adapter ring that comes with the kit normally. Is that ring necessary? It's not clear to me how the filter holder attaches to the lens. Does it screw on or slide on?
>>2776263
Slightly worse in DR.
But it has much better AF, IBIS, full compatibility with the Canon EF adapters, and a better grip / better shutter placement / extra custom buttons... and I think more that I can't remember right now.
Ive got a nikon n90s, an eos rebel ti, and a minolta maxxum 7000. What is the best one to start with/best system to buy into? Im assuming the nikon but i just need a another opinion.
>>2776281
Sony or Nikon
Sony is usually the better deal overall (features vs cost) and adapts Minolta lenses and EOS lenses as well as the Nikon lenses. EOS lenses can even work with AF and IS on a smart adapter (some only work well on the A7 II or A7R II so far).
Nikon will adapt Nikon lenses better.
Another filter question: How do I find out what the "real" prices of lens filters are? There are so many low-priced hoya's on ebay, all from China and Korea, and it's hard to tell which are genuine.
>>2776294
I buy the filters from the local shops. Those are not that expensive and guaranteed to have a stock of Hoya or Polaroid.
>>2776294
Get off of ebay...
Adorama
B&H
Amazon
Midwest Photo
135mm f2 L or 24-105 F4 L?
Not like I'm ready to blow the money on either, but curious to what others have to say. I like primes and I'm pretty sure everyone says the 24-105 isnt sharp for what it costs right?
>>2776309
For what, retard. They are not for the same purpose.
>Hey guys, should I buy a shovel? or a wrench set? I prefer shovels, and someone told me that wrenches can get lost sometimes, right?
Hey is an x10 a good camera for a poor fag walkabout?
I have a film camera too but sometimes I want digi.
>>2776314
Yep.
>>2776299
I live in Shitnadia. The same filter that costs 30$ CAD at B&H retails for 70$ at Henry's (the local photography store). I'd prefer to find it locally, and avoid the shipping costs/duty/added taxes if possible.
>>2776319
You can't avoid shipping costs and taxes but cutting out the middle man can give you 30-50% advantage. Henry's probably gets most accessories from B&H or similar retailer/distributor and just hikes up the price.
>>2776309
If you don't know whether you need a slow standard walk around zoom, or a specialized uber-sharp tight-portrait prime, then you don't need either of them.
If you aren't ready to be spending money, then why are you looking at gear, rather than working on finding good subjects, good light, more practice, or adventure?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 200 dpi Vertical Resolution 200 dpi
Is anybody else hoping that Nikon will put the D5 sensor in a smaller body? It annoys me that there isn't really a modern version of the D700 in the lineup right now, and that you're forced to choose between a consumer body with a good sensor (D610/750) or a pro body that's overly studio and landscape focused (D800). (Or yeah, the Df, but it's an ergonomic nightmare.)
The D700 was awesome because it had the D3's moderate resolution, low light-focused sensor in a D300 body, I really hope they do something similar and put the D5's sensor in a D500 body. It'll be my next DSLR if so.
So im inking about getting into photography, my friend recommended me to this board, although I do already use 4chan (I visit /soc/).
So like, where do I start? What is some good shit to take pictures of? What is the best camera ever I could buy? and how do I take a good photo??
>>2776354
Sticky
i bought this, can someone tell me whats the missing part at the top?
>>2776382
also, is 100dlls a good price for a 50mm?
>>2776134
I'm a poorfag that's why
I've been planning on picking up a 6D as my first full frame camera for a while now but after the announcement of the K-1 I'm not so sure what should I go with. What should I do? I shoot landscape, and wide field astro as much as I can.
>>2776382
Looks like it is missing the lens hood bayonet and filter thread part. It's plastic, it is possible it was broken at the previous owner.
Bring it into a photo store or Canon service point and get it fixed.
>>2776390
K-1 with the D-FA 24-70/2.8 and Rokinon/Samyang 35mm should be perfect for landscape and wide field astro.
The built-in Astrotracer can be handy for tack-sharp starfield stacks.
>>2776394
Wow, I hadn't heard of that Astrotracer thing and just looked it up. That's pretty damn cool. Pretty impressive that it can do a 5 minute exposure as well, I wouldn't have expected there to be that much range of motion in the sensor.
This reminds me that I really need to get my equatorial mount working. I've had a pretty nice Meade Schmidt-Cassegrain since I was a kid, but I packed it away years ago with batteries in the pack and they melted and destroyed it. Fortunately it's an external pack so it shouldn't be too impossible to replace.
>>2776134
Because I don't have the glass to make the full use of the sensor.
My $800 A7 works fine, but I would like to one day upgrade to the 7ii for the better ergonomics and body when the price drops into the range is my poorfag ass.
>>2776408
Range of*
>>2776390
What's the coolest astro photo you've taken?
>>2776134
Because it offers nothing that I need and has lots of drawbacks.
My priorities for a camera body are, in order of importance:
-Lens availability and compatibility, without fucking around with adapters.
-Compatibility with lighting systems, especially TTL wireless.
-Ergonomics and UI
-Speed of operation
-Durability and weather sealing
-Autofocus performance
-Sensor low-light performance
-Viewfinder quality
-High FPS performance
-Battery life
-Size and weight (and there's such a thing as too small)
-Sensor resolution
-Video
So, basically, the A7RII loses against my DSLR on almost every point toward the top of the list, aside from AF performance, where it's about the same as long as you have the right lenses.
The places where the A7RII "wins" are things that don't matter to me. In fact, its resolution is if anything a negative to me, I don't need that many pixels for anything I shoot and its files will just waste drive space and slow down my workflow.
I've been looking around and trying to compare prices of a Mamiya 645 Super that I found for $500. It comes with Sekor C 80mm f2.8, Sekor C 150mm f3.5, autowinder grip and manual winder knob, film back with 220 and 120 inserts, AE prism finder, and some of the original boxes.
The price doesnt seem that bad, or could I find a RZ67 or another different 645 for a better price?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make SONY Camera Model DSC-P93A Camera Software Adobe Photoshop 7.0 Maximum Lens Aperture f/2.8 Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2006:08:08 20:48:54 Exposure Time 1/15 sec F-Number f/4.5 Exposure Program Normal Program ISO Speed Rating 100 Exposure Bias 0.7 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 17.80 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1230 Image Height 1000 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal
Should i get a nikon 50 1.8d for 100 ish bucks? And is it worth. /p/ help plos
>>2776440
What body?
Grab it if you're on FF. Look for a 35 1.8 DX instead if you're on DX.
If you're on DX and want 50mm for some reason, don't forget that it won't autofocus on any D3x00 or D5x00 series camera.
>>2776432
Might not be what you're looking for exactly, but have you considered the Bronica ETRSi?
>>2776442
Thanks for the heads up on that,I haven't looked into that Bronica much at all, I will do some reading on it tonight. It is along the lines of what I am looking for, this 645 came up locally so I thought it was maybe worth a shot.
I am completely new to photgraphy and have about 1.5k to spend on a camera. Now, I am wondering if I would get a better band for my buck in the long run by getting a 6D compared to a cheaper model. What I mean is that, in terms of glass, would I be saving enough money to make it worth while?
Also, before you lecture me about "it's the photographer not the camera just get an entry level bla bla bla" I would like to specify that I plan on making that I plan on taking this seriously for many years to come, if not my whole life, and would much rather spend big bucks once than a little bit at first and then a lot later on.
TL;DR: As far as glass goes, for someone who is interested in pretty much every kind of photography but wildlife and sports, what would be the better long term investment? a 6D or an APS-C model.
>>2776273
The ring screws on to the lens and protrudes slightly, the filter holder slides over the ring. You can buy various size rings to fit your lens' filter threads. I'd suggest going for a P though since you can use them for wider angle lenses and larger diameter filter rings. Get a GND filter if you do landscapes and a few ND filters.
Redpill me on pentax, is it as shit as /p/ makes it out to be? I'm not into bird photography so i don't care about high fps. I do care about low light performance and auto focus because i do street photography.
>>2776470
Their big thing was weather sealing and a generally lower price than the competition, but pretty much all cameras at their price point have it now.
you know i often hear and see Sony glass being better than canon's and nikon's offerings but what i don't see is people switching over from canon to sony or from nikon to sony. the prices are very affordable so i don't see why that's the case. my question is: how strong a foothold does canon and nikon have in the industry? how much of their money is going towards advertising and buying costumers instead of improving their technology. on the best photos of the year thread you see a lot of professional photographers using canon bodies and these guys are sponsored by canon, does it go much deeper than that?
>>2776479
> but what i don't see is people switching over from canon to sony or from nikon to sony.
It happens. Slowly:
http://www.diyphotography.net/sony-germany-sold-more-cameras-than-canon-and-nikon-in-august/
> how strong a foothold does canon and nikon have in the industry?
Strong enough that Sony is the first big threat to various of their lucrative market segments in a decade or more.
>>2776479
No that covers it - they're both entrenched from the film days. They have professional networks set up for service issues for a cost. They dump a lot of money in to advertising and when that's the only thing seen on tv that's what the average consumer is going to buy.
>>2776479
Canikon are the two largest brands in most of the photo industry with deep immovable roots; ranging from entry level stuff to professionals.
Sony can definitely exist alongside the big two, like any other brand, but I doubt they can ever dethrone Canikon. And this is coming from an A7 owner.
>>2776494
This. My local photo shop is having a special "Nikon exhibition" for the D500 and D5 which was some super sekrit exclusive event where you had to RSVP; but not pay a single cent.
I don't want to be that guy and feel bad for asking..but I'm wanting to get into photography.
Should I go digital or film? What are the merits to each format?
I've only ever bought throwaway cameras and wouldn't know anything about where to start.
Should I just give up before I start?
Casual non-professional here. Sorry if it's asking for spoonfeeding, but I've read FAQs, watched a dozen videos, visited a dozen shitty recommendation sites and am still undecided on upgrade directions.
Current camera is a canon digital rebel xti (dslr from 2006, 10.1 megapixels) and mostly just using the basic 18-55mm non-stabilized crappy kit lens.
Considering upgrading to a decade more modern body like the Rebel T6i or Nikon D3300 (24.2 megapixel, much more modern sensor, probably better algorithms for ISO, autofocus, etc.) 500-1k price range.
Will this let me just run a higher ISO and use quicker shutter times (at least half the time I don't shoot on a tripod) or is the sensor not really gonna change much.
On the telephoto lens front, just how big is the performance gap between F/2.8 and F/4 lenses?
For example,the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM is on sale for $1668 whereas the 70-200mm f/4L IS USM Lens I've seen for $600 less.
Of course, it should last 20+ years fine so the difference wouldn't be that much averaged out.
Then there are really affordable options instead like... $600 gets the canon 70-200 F/4L USM with no stabilization.
Or $300 gets EF-S 55-250mm F4-5.6 IS STM, stabilized but budget internals.
Is there a good way to decide from just looking online or do I need to look through each of these in person at a store an hour's drive away to make a non-stupid decision?
I'd rather hear from real people, not the thousand mysterious review websites getting free product to give out favorable reviews since it isn't their money being spent.
>>2776497
"cant_hold_all_these_primes.jpg" would have been a good filename for that one.
I wonder if they actually have a body dedicated to every lens.
On a side note, it just occurred to me how much money we're looking at right there. A quick estimate says it costs between $6,000 and $9,000 just to launch a D4S body into space. Getting that supertele up to the ISS probably cost about as much as a decent compact car.
having a blast with my a7ii/voigt 50 mm combo because poorfag; any recs on any m-mount lenses excluding leica?
>>2776543
Voigtlander 35mm 1.4?
>>2776547
is voigtlander the only alternative to leica lenses?
apparently my old 400D from 2006 has a sensor with 146% larger pixel area than most of the same category of cameras from ten years later.
400D xti Rebel T6i
32.60µm2 vs 13.84µm2
More tiny sensors gives higher resolution but much less light can reach each individual sensor = more noise from inaccurate sensor readings, right?
Whole lot larger file size with extra inaccuracies, is there a reason they did this other than to cut costs? Honestly curious.
>>2776552
They're pretty much the only ones that are available brand new.
Konica and Minolta made M-mount lenses in the past, and they're supposed to be pretty good, but they might actually cost more than vintage Leica glass because they're rarer.
>>2776567
I think the only Minolta lens (off the top of my head) that isn't super expensive is the M-Rokkor 40mm f/2 for the Minolta CLE.
Speaking of the CL and CLE, is it just me or have they gone up in price by a lot? I remember them going for under a grand but now I'm only seeing ones that are $1k+.
i'm interested in buying a yashica electro 35 gsn as a walkaround camera, since i have some experience with film (zenit, canon a-1)
i'm concerned about the weight and ease of use.
what are the thoughts of /p in this camera?
Recommended or should i stick with the a-1?
Do you guys think the a6000 will drop in price when the a6300 is released?
I don't know if I should get it now or wait.
>>2776621
That's how tech always works, unless the tech is REALLY good.
>>2776623
So I should wait?
>>2776567
u r forgetting based ricoh 28 & 21mm
also kobalux/avenon 28mm
also zeiss
Any recommended m42 primes? Looking for stuff under $100. Already have a 35mm and 50mm so I don't think I'll need anything with those focal lengths. The Voigtlander Ultrons seem cool but way out of budget.
>>2776134
because I'm poor and because it would be wasted on me anyways
I can barely get out to shoot as is
>Looking for more poorfag lenses for my A7
>Uncle Kenny's Contax G page says that the 40mm f/2 goes for around $150
>They're going for at least $300 now
>>2776406
5 minutes is the absolute maximum, it is safe to half the suggested exposure time and stack a few frames.
On my K-3 at 400mm I usually do 30s exposure max, no matter if it suggests 1 minute at some places.
>>2776647
>buys A7
>doesn't have money for the Zeiss and G lens
And this is why you shouldn't buy into the Sony meme. It has no lens, the ones it does have are too expensive for hobby.
For professional use there are far better options with proper service and lens selection, also the second hand market can cut expenses on the business.
Be rational, don't buy Sony!
>>2776641
Pentacon 135/2.8 Bokehmonster
Jupiter lens
Flektogon and MIR copy
Helios 40
etc...
>>2776647
i bought a pentacon prakticar 28mm f2.8 for $5.
made in german.
the adapter is more expensive, $13.
>>2776655
I really want to try the FE 28mm f2 on an a7r2
That'd probably be my favorite combo ever
>>2776655
What really sucks is that I only realized after the purchase that I could have bought a D700 with a couple of hundred dollars to spare for glass or accessories, and I would take a massive hit if I were to resell or trade in the thing. It's a damn shame because I honestly like the camera, but there are so little options for lenses outside of Zeiss or G lenses (which I plan to get when I get off my NEET ass and get another decent job).
B-but hey in the mean time I still have all my legacy glass that flares like crazy, and I don't need that plebeian image stabilization. Ansel Adams never used IS!
>>2776660
Maybe, but there really needs to be more "entry level" FE glass that isn't their regular E lenses with an adapter. The 28mm is a step in the right direction though.
For example, a Nikon 50mm f/1.8G is ~$217 on Amazon while the only FE prime closest to 50mm (to my knowledge) is the Zeiss 55mm F1.8 which comes in at just two dollars shy of $1000 on Amazon. I understand that they're two different lenses with one being a basic prime, and the other being a professional grade hair sharp lens, but there's such a gap between them.
I could understand the lack of cheaper FE glass if there was just the A7Rii, but when you have more "babby's first full frame" like the A7 and A7II you need some cheaper offerings.
I don't know. Maybe it's just my poorfag talking, or sour Zeiss grapes or some shit.
>>2776464
Have a look at some comparisons of ISO performance of the 6D and any Canon APSC body (I assume you're looking at the 70D/80D). The 6D will give 2-3 stops better performance, ie the same noise at ISO 6400/12800 as a 70D at ISO 1600. That is a big deal if you're hoping to take photos in low light.
If I were buying my first camera today that would be a major consideration in hindsight.
>>2776670
>there really needs to be more "entry level" FE glass that isn't their regular E lenses with an adapter.
I'd agree with that. Personally I'd love to have a 10-30mm wide angle zoom and some sort of fast 135mm lens
I never realized how wonky the sony lens selection is though. I'd love to have an a7rii but after buying the body I'd not have any left for lenses and there's very little to choose from
That 70-200 G looks incredible though
>>2776677
Yeah and by that point you're looking at other FF DSLRs with greater lens selections.
Also battery life is pretty much worst in its class.
>>2776680
Battery life really doesn't bother me that much since I don't really ever shoot burst and I don't think I've ever shot over 300 shots without charging my battery
Like lately I've been wondering what mirrorless I'd get if I was to ever get one and it just baffles me that fuji has such a neat lineup but the x-t1 is a bit expensive for my tastes
And by the time sony releases an a7 model that's amazing the a7rii will probably be cheaper and they might actually have some more lenses out so the only winning move is not to play at the moment honestly
Are Takumars better than Pentax K-mount?
>>2776690
I've got the 28mm 3.5 and the 135mm 3.5
They're ok lenses but dont bother paying a lot for them. I got both of mine for 5 bucks each in the leather cases with the hood for the 135mm at goodwill. I vastly prefer my DA 35mm 2.4 even if it's a bit longer than the 28mm
The 50mm 1.4 tak is probably the nicest of the bunch but I've also heard the 50mm 1.7 pentax-m is very nice
>>2776695
>DA 35/2.4
I fucking love that lens, it's so sharp and they still managed to get a few grains of the fabled pixie dust in for such a small price.
I'd love to have the DA 40 Ltd too. I know the XS is the same but it's just too fucking tiny for my bare hands.
>>2776699
I'm gassing hard for the 12-24 so I can shoot some super wide stuff but I'm worried about how slow it is for indoor stuff and I'm not really sure if I want to invest any more into pentax stuffs
>>2776695
I'm asking because there are a lot of die hard takumar fans out there and not a lot of Pentax k-mount fans. This is of course in regards to the manual film lenses.
>>2776703
Depends on your subject, if still then use tripod and longer exposure.
If moving, then use lighting to your advantage, bouncing flash, diffuse lighting, only have your subject lit, use lighting as part of composure etc...
I have the DA 16-45 F4 and I can manage well indoors and low light on a tripod, but outside it's fast enough. I guess the DA 12-24 was primarily designed for landscape and funky skater shots.
>>2776441
Yeahyeah d7000 its dx tho so should i consider a 35 1.8 for 100 bucks more?
>>2776769
Get the 35/1.8 for generic everything shooting, plus panorama.
You might want to consider the 50/1.8 if you specifically want to do portraits.
>>2776703
Get a tokina 11-16 2.8. You will never regret it. You will never miss the focal lengths beyond 16 IMHO.
>>2776796
Did they make one in k-mount? I cant seem to find it anywhere
>>2776799
Nope. But you can look for similar UWA lenses here
http://www.pentaxforums.com/userreviews/
>>2776160
E-M5 Mark II if you want high res.
E-M5 if you don't.
>>2776801
Yeah I'm looking right now
Apparently the Samsung D-Xenon 12-24mm F4 ED and the Tamron 10-24mm F3.5-4.5 are decent
The samsung seems to be of better quality and far sharper and it seems there's a 10-17mm samsung that doesn't actually exist. Well now I've certainly got a better idea. I'm definitely looking for something in the 10-17 range though
>>2776173
Get an E-M5 or E-M5 Mark II. Or Pen F. Or E-M1. The 5 axis will let you shoot at ISO 400 or 200 when you would normally use 6400, assuming you are using primes. When compared to an IS lens, you can shoot at ISO 3200 or 1600 instead of 6400. Also since you have more DoF to work with, you don't need to stop down as far, meaning even lower ISO.
>>2776805
The Samsung lenses are rebranded DA lenses. Exactly the same, only the brand, the grip texture and the ring color are different.
>>2776806
>PEN F
>M4/3
>GOOD LOW LIGHT
Now this is shitposting
>>2776803
>high res
uuuhhh
>>2776801
Dam I love the Tokina ultra-wide. Got it on Ken's recommendation (got it cheap too, so that's also a reason) and have to say it one of the most entertaining lenses I own. Don't get me wrong, I've used 1 70-200 2.8 at a camera show and found it jaw-dropping (on a 5D or something). But UWA are just fun to use, at least I find them to be the bees-knees.
>>2776506
I don't mind spoon feeding we all start somewhere.
Newer cameras will always have better sensors, but what you have right now would be fine! I bought a second hand d70 in about 2011 when I started and the ISO performance was decent. If you want to see how your camera stacks up against others I've used this tool:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/studiocompare.asp
This is what motivated me to jump to the d7000, and has motivated me to stay here (not feeling I need an FF for low light atm, my gear is fine).
Regarding the difference between an F/2.8 and F/4. The 2.8 will let in more light allowing lower shutter speeds. Note that lenses get sharper as you stop them down (constrict the iris more upon exposure). Its my experience that an F/1.4 stopped to F/1.8 is sharper than a lens at F/1.8 wide open. The improvements are often minor, but depending on lens can be noticeable I guess.
That 55-250 F/4-5.6 IS you mention is a kit lens I believe. Sure it has stabilization but it NEEDS it because its smaller aperture will force lower shutter speeds accentuating camera shake. The F/2.8 could benefit from it but really doesn't need stabilising, hence why it is cut from the design. It would just be extra money, weight and size for little benefit.
Further improvements will come by way of build quality, AF performance and the fact that you'll get a pretty garish off-white L-series bit of glass! These differences are best felt rather than read about to see if they meet YOUR needs (remember, you are shooting for you. A reviewer can talk all he likes but you should feel these aspects out).
>>2776671
Different guy. Where can I check out these comparisons?
>>2776811
Couldn't find one anyways but I have no idea why I wasn't looking to sigma
I'm going to probably heavily research the Sigma 8-16mm f/4.5-5.6 as apparently it's sharper than the 10-20mm and I'd take ultrawide over it being fast honestly
>>2776816
Continuing my ranting
>>2776504
Massive topic. Plenty to read on the web. My two cents? If your starting out pick up an el-cheapo second hand DSLR with the cheapest prime lens you can get. Check Craigs List. Research and don't over pay and you can find a steal for last generations tech. If you find that you don't like it just foist the gear off again, if you do that prime lens will stay with you forever (or until you trade it for a better one :P)
>>2776497
Jesus. So...much...gear. I guess I have the money but wouldn't it just be cheaper to change lenses?
>>2776479
My main reason for not getting a Sony would be battery life. Mirrorless cannot compete with an SLR for battery life, that EVF will rape any battery. Not an issue for most, but I've been out in the bush for 3 days with no power and only two batteries, no issues with Nikons!
>>2776470
For me I found the lack of 3rd party lens and accessory support, fewer second hand lenses in my area, lack of FF (back in 2011, though I still shoot crop haha) to be a deal breaker.
>>2776468
>>2776273
I'm thinking about getting this cheap eBay shit for $25ish. Now cheap shit is usually pretty garbage but anyone have experience with these fitlers?
I expect there to be lots of colour cast (especially with ND16), probably loss of sharpness too. But a 77mm Hoya ND set is out of the option. This is really cheap as chips though!
I can live with colour issues and even a bit of sharpness loss though (shooting on the nice n sharp Tokina 11-16 2.8).
>>2776823
I'll stop if you stop with the blatant Sony shill.
>>2776825
Why are you blaming me? I didn't do it.
>>2776829
They always say that.
When confronted with justice, everyone is innocent.
>>2776833
Justice? Real cute dude.
>>2776504
>Should I go digital or film? What are the merits to each format?
Go digital unless you know you want film.
Chemical reactions of various sorts is the way we took photos for over a century, but it is now largely obsoleted by electrical light sensors which don't have the same operating cost in terms of chemicals and increasingly just all around better capabilities.
The operating cost difference and the ease of proceeding to and doing subsequent processing steps already made digital the way to go for most people ~5-10 years ago, even before sensors became basically on par or better than film in most regards (as they are now).
I bought a mirrorless (fuji XT1) because going at conventions with the full DSLR gear killed my back.
Anyone who uses it got any advice or things to know or tricks or whatever?
For now I got the default short lens, I'll see in the future if another one would suit me better
>>2776901
Mark III has a much better sensor than the Mark II, but it is still not very impressive. About 1 stop better ISO performance than M4/3, but the body has no IS, meaning you MUST use expensive IS lenses, or forgo IS on most primes. M4/3 would be better for low light unless you shoot fast action sports in low light.
>>2776873
Not that guy but just wondering why you would need 80mp?
I thought you guys told me that megapixels didn't matter?
>>2776904
Stupid question, what's IS? Remember, I haven't gone camera shopping in a decade.
Searching for "IS photography" or "IS camera" hasn't helped.
>>2776907
I'm not sure, unless you print it wouldn't matter but considering how poor the Penf handels noise levels at even moderate isos and the dynamic range is limited, i wouldn't consider it a good contender for large prints. A MF or Full Frame would be better for that purpose.
>>2776911
In body stabilization. It's generally good for low iso slow shutter speed but you have to pair it with a fast lens. Even then you will only be shooting landscapes at low light which to me it's not that impressive since you can just do a long exposure on a tripod.
>>2776873
>Seems like the best low light system available to me.
Only if you're shooting static subjects.
>>2776925
the D20 has a lens with stabilizing permanently attached. The 5DIII is a DSLR with lenses that have stabilization. Or not, depends on which lens you put it on.
Most of the high level lenses have IS, some of the low level including some kit lenses have IS.
>>2776925
"IS" usually refers to in-lens stabilization, not in-body like >>2776913 said. Nikon calls it "VR" and I'm sure other brands have their own names too.
In-body is usually "IBIS."
Are you the anon from /cgl/ who mentioned being offered the same setup, by the way? 5D3 with a 24-70 is a great combo.
If so, forget about the whole IS thing, it's only useful for stuff that doesn't move. No amount of IS is going to make a person's face sharp at 1/10th or whatever. A good body with a good lens, being smart about how you use natural light, and bringing flash into the equation when necessary is the way to go.
>>2776621
Maybe a bit but it's already quite low.
The a6300 is a full $500 more than the a6000. I'd be surprised if it went down more than $50 if at all.
The used market, on the other hand...
>>2776930
My bad, I meant a 20D.
>>2776937
>Are you the anon from /cgl/ who mentioned being offered the same setup, by the way? 5D3 with a 24-70 is a great combo.
Yep. I find I prefer /cgl/ for my photography discussion, but figured I'd come here for a gear question.
I guess I shouldn't be too worried, if I can shoot night scenes and concerts without a flash with the 20D, it can't possibly be harder with a 5D3?
>>2776943
On the other hand what?
I'm an amateur birder and was looking for advice on what kind of lens and camera to get. I mostly take photos from a slow moving boat and the birds are often hundreds of feet away. I'd like to keep it as budget oriented as possible because this is a hobby and not my profession .
I've never used any kind of DSLR camera but my dad said I could have his Canon rebel T2i with the stock 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 lens. Is this a piece of crap?
New to photography, thoughts on Canon EOS 100D DSLR Camera with EF-S 18-55mm III Lens for a beginner?
>>2776977
It's a good start but you will need good light.
The EF-S 55-250 is a good starting lens but if you have the money you can go for a Tamron 70-200/2.8 to compensate for the lack of ISO performance in the T2i.
Later on you can go for a used 70D or 7D, or even a 7DMkII.
If you can get a used 100-400 IS pump-zoom for a good price, that would be your next step after the new body.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make RICOH IMAGING COMPANY, LTD. Camera Model PENTAX K-3 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.6 (Windows) Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 300 mm Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2016:02:24 13:33:49 Exposure Time 1/2000 sec F-Number f/5.6 Exposure Program Shutter Priority ISO Speed Rating 100 Lens Aperture f/5.6 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 200.00 mm Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Manual Scene Capture Type Standard Contrast Hard Saturation Normal Sharpness Hard Subject Distance Range Distant View
>>2776989
thanks man
>>2776982
Get a D3300 or A6000 or something.
http://snapsort.com/compare/Canon-EOS-100D-vs-Nikon-D3300/detailed
You could also spend more, it's not really as much about being a beginner as it is about what you can / want to afford.
>>2776130
I make youtube review videos and currently use a OLD Sony CX110 handycam. The style of my videos are interviewish, so is it worth it to upgrade to a DSLR or should I just stick it out.
>>2777003
Don't plan on using that T2i for long, just use it for getting the hang of it and save up for a new body as quick as you can.
>>2776911
I am pretty sure IS is a Canon marketing term Internal Stabilised or something for their lens lineup.
Nikon has VR (Vibration Reduction).
Pentax has OIS.
Sigma has OS.
Tamron has VC.
Tokina has VCM-S.
battery grips are cool.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Digital Photo Professional Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 350 dpi Vertical Resolution 350 dpi Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1000 Image Height 695
>>2777102
Y-you forgot about Sony
>>2777121
What is "Sony"?
Looking to get either a camcorder or DSLR to make the transition into 4K with. I was thinking of the Panasonic HC-X1000 but the reviews on its low light performance plus the price tag make me weary. Any suggestions around or below 3K to shoot 4K? I shoot for a news station but our stuff is crap so I want something at home to practice and make videos with
>>2777125
Sony A6300 my man.
>>2777126
Can we stop talking about the a6300 already?
SONY SONY SONY
That's all I ever hear now.
>>2777125
Why not GH4?
>>2777128
It's got 4k and Slog.
>>2777129
No thanks, i considered it but with the poor low light performance i would have to get a really expensive fast lens with a metabones adapter. The amount of noise coming from that sensor is horrendous.
>>2777130
I will see once the reviews come but by the looks of it, it will be hard to beat.
>>2777129
If I can be honest? I don't know much about lenses so I'm intimidated by DSLR options even though I am open to them.
>>2777125 here
Am I crazy for thinking the A6300 looks like exactly what I want? And at 1100 I could easily get another lens. Wish DSLRs had XLR ports though. I'll have to get new microphones.
>>2777150
You aren't. It even comes with a mic and audio jack. 6k down sampled to 4k for that detail and noise reduction.
>>2777163
We work on Sony cameras at my station with that shit SxS media which I detest, any word on if it is gonna use that or sd?
>>2777166
SD card.
>>2777130
this isn't video general
>>2777163
HOLY SHIT! HOLD THE FUCKING PRESS!
It comes with a mic AND an audio jack?
WHAT KIND OF SORCERY IS THIS?
IT'S LIKE IT HAS NEVER BEEN DONE BEFORE!
SONY DOES IT AGAIN!
>>2777172
HOLD THE COKE MIRROR STILL BRO, I NEED LINES FOR SHILLING
>>2777172
Hell yeah! At that price nothing competes.
I don't get it, why didn't the a6300 have a BSI sensor? Even the RX100 has one.
>>2777172
>>2777174
>>2777175
sample image from the a6300 coming in
>>2777177
That looks crisp.
>>2777177
looks like its from film. Nice contrast, but not sharp edges.
>>2776773
Okay sweet thanks mate
>>2777177
Wow, this was taken during a cloudy night. A6300 low light capabilities are insane.
>>2777177
P good I guess.
Probably taken with the kit lens but it really shows how much things like lens filters and post processing matters.
>>2777183
That's only at 200 iso @ 1/40th second hand held by a old many with parkinson's too. pretty impressive by my standards
>>2777177
Looks shit. Dramatic shit, but shit anyhow.
I bet someone struggled to get that shot with decade old lenses and a different camera entirely.
I want to buy my first softbox for a Hotshoe flash. I've found some cheap light stand and a softbox itself. What other components do I need to put it all together?
http://pages.ebay.com/link/?nav=item.view&id=311455066676&alt=web
http://pages.ebay.com/link/?nav=item.view&id=131521169070&alt=web
Please help, p! Pic unreleated
>>2777204
Maybe a smaller Godox diffuser, too? You might want to carry your portable speedlight around.
Also, the prices on eBay are again higher than on Aliexpress:
http://www.aliexpress.com/item/Godox-80cm-31-5in-Portable-Octagon-Flash-Softbox-Umbrella-Brolly-Reflector-for-Studio-Photo-Flash-Speedlight/32591239714.html
> What other components do I need to put it all together?
Dunno if you already got one with your speedlight already, but usually you need an adapter to mount your speedlight on a light stand...
I'm a complete beginner photographer and was researching cameras to start out with. Right now i've narrowed it down to a pentax k-s2 and a nikon d5500. I'm mostly looking to do portraits and maybe some landscape later on. Price difference isn't that big of a deal because there's only a $100 difference. Which would be a better option for me?
>>2777209
oh and to add to this I personally like the feel of the Nikon more than the Pentax but it's not that important to me.
>>2777209
> I'm mostly looking to do portraits and maybe some landscape later on.
> Which would be a better option for me?
I think either will work about as good as the lenses you get for it do...
>>2777125
It depends what style of shooting you intend to do.
DSLRs generate exceptional footage, but you have to treat them like a cine camera, not like a camcorder. They're awful for run & gun work.
I was in a similar situation a couple of years back, aside from only needing 1080p, and after trying a few options I settled on a Canon XA20, because I needed to be able to keep up with fast motion and shoot without a crew, often handheld. Having proper sound controls and inputs was also a major factor for me.
Just wanted to let you know I got the Sigma 18-35mm F1.8, fuarking sharp bros. Good to great bokeh, better than sigma primes by miles. A little sad that no IS but damn 1.8 is just as good as my old 17-50s f2.8! I dont do any video anyways.Thx for recommendation. Still if you wanna be on a budget get the 17-50 since its under 300$ lol
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi
>>2777222
> I got the Sigma 18-35mm F1.8, fuarking sharp bros.
Yes, it is excellent for an APS-C zoom lens.
> Good to great bokeh, better than sigma primes by miles.
Eh? Your lens isn't bad at all, but the current generation Sigma (Art) primes in the respective range are better.
>>2777219
I want something more cinematic truth be told. I'd spring for a black magic if I wasn't a cheap ass.
>>2777207
Yeah, prices are cheaper on AliExpress, but I'm located in Germany and it takes approx one month for the goods to get here.
Regarding the adapter - how are they called? Cuz I believe that I need the one which has a slot for the softbox tube so that the softbox has something to hold to.
>>2777227
Just out of curiosity, are you absolutely sure you need 4k? If you were willing to settle for 1080p, the Blackmagic Pocket Cine Camera would be a really interesting option.
>>2777224
Srry didnt clarify, I meant the older primes
Has anyone ever used one of these el cheapo brand-less focal reducers? Do they do the job or are they not worth it?
>>2777248
CA city
>>2777230
> but I'm located in Germany and it takes approx one month for the goods to get here.
Well, whatever works better for you.
> Regarding the adapter - how are they called?
Flash/speedlight bracket/mount for most cheap mounts that clamp down on the ISO hot shoe (something like depicted).
There are other options such as S-type clamp/bracket that will clamp on the speedlight's head instead.
Or you can put a suitable ball head on top of your light stand, then use a speedlight stand with a 1/4-20 or 3/8-16 thread in the bottom on top of that.
The latter two options are usually more secure against speedlights falling out of your stands (ISO hotshoe clamps aren't nearly as good as arca plate clamps ... it can happen far more easily).
Well, that's just what comes to mind right now, there must be more ways.
>>2777255
Check out the Frio. You can attach it to a tripod or to the adapter that comes with most lightstand swivels, and it's much more secure than typical speedlight clamps. (Especially if you loctite the threads.)
It's also quite cheap, which is nice. I got one for free when I went to a lighting seminar, and liked it so much I ordered a few more.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Canon Camera Model Canon EOS 50D Photographer Kerry Garrison 949-579-2005 Maximum Lens Aperture f/3.0 Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2011:01:15 13:53:27 Exposure Time 1/60 sec F-Number f/5.6 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 100 Lens Aperture f/5.6 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 70.00 mm Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard
>>2777241
a lot of people claim its the sharpest lens for crop bodies
>>2776952
Well, people that have and like their a6000 maybe be likely to sell them so that they can buy a6300s.
If a lot of people are selling a6000's at the same time, the price goes down, since they have to compete with each other.
>>2777252
fair enough, you get what you pay for I suppose. Thanks
>>2777262
Thanks for the hint. I might give them a look at some point.
So far, I had a decent enough experience with the dirt cheap AS-21 (depicted, can be bought under $1 a piece) stands, and the very comparable stands that come as an included accessory with newer Yongnuo flashes.
They work okay on flat ground on their own or when screwed onto almost any 1/4-20. You just need to make the trivial effort to ensure you aren't inserting the flash the wrong way around into the hot shoe like the tired idiot you may happen to be, or it can slip out.
That is a situation not unlike what happens on quite a few cameras' hot shoes though, and it is tight enough for normal shooting situations if you do it right.
>>2777294
Yeah, those are fine too, I used them before the Frio. The biggest reason I switched is that my flash triggers don't have a lock pin, and I don't want to risk trigger+flash sliding out and falling.
I also use the Frio with my Chimera OB2, which comes with a terrible clamp-style adapter and doesn't have enough room for an AS-21. (Not my awful photo of it, by the way.)
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Image Width 826 Image Height 826
>>2777233
Same price point, so why not get 4k? Also I don't NEED it but I want it to try it out. I use an Eos M right now so I want a huge step up desu.
>>2777391
I guess that makes sense. I had the option of 4K when I bought my camera in 2013, but decided that I'd rather have a sensor that wasn't first-generation, didn't want to have to buy a 4K display to actually be able to SEE my recordings, and didn't want to deal with the demands on storage, battery life, and computer hardware that are all part of shooting 4K.
>>2777396
Really I probably won't keep anything in 4k but rather down size it to 1080 to basically make all my 1080 videos amazing, it essentially let's me get my wide and medium shots in a sequence with one shot. But I'm not an expert so if you have anything to say about the black magic pocket stuff I'd be happy to listen, I'm stuck at a long story tonight anyway so I'm down to listen.
What's a good second lens for someone with a D7200 who only has the 35mm DX? I like portraits and going to the zoo, so I was thinking the 80-200 AF-D F/2.8 or the 70-300 vr ii. Local camera store tried to dissuade me from getting the 80-200 though and suggested a Tamron 70-200 F/2.8. Thanks!
>>2777404
>Local camera store tried to dissuade me from getting the 80-200 though and suggested a Tamron 70-200 F/2.8. Thanks!
because your local store is gonna get a lot more money if they sell you the tamron
i own the tamron and it's a great lens but if you only own a 35mm DX then it makes more sense to get the 80-200 (which is a great lens) and then bank the money or buy something else later. the optics on the 80-200 are the best of any F-mount fast telephoto zoom, it's like canon's magic drainpipe. it lacks the AF speed and stabilization of the tamron which is probably the second best F-mount telephoto zoom.
So why do so many cameras shoot 4K only in 30fps?
Have a d3300 with a kit lense, any suggestions for lense suitable for beginers?
>>2777421
50mm f/1.8g
>>2777421
35mm 1.8
>>2777415
Why do you need 60 frames? The human eye can't see past 30 anyways
>>2777429
That's not at all true, it's a misunderstanding that's been spread around 4chan.
The human eye can't distinguish more than 30 (iirc it's actually like 26 or something on average) individual images per second, but it can easily tell the difference between 30fps video and 60 or even 144. It's not picking individual frames out, but there's a blatant difference in the way motion is rendered.
>>2777405
I figured they were trying to push the Tamron, but if you like it I'll look into it as well. Cheers.
>>2777432
Random question but what's the difference in video quality between a camera at 4k and a video camera at 4k? assuming they're from the same company
Just found a Canon t70 at my parents place , with a 35 -70mm lens and a 70-210mm lens. I need a flash for it what would you recommend?
>>2777443
As in a DSLR/mirrorless and a camcorder?
The DSLR will have better noise control and shallower DoF.
The camcorder will have much, much better AF in most cases, and usually will have better sound, thanks to the fact that pro camcorders have XLR inputs and manual audio controls.
In general, under perfect conditions, the DSLR/MILC will have better video quality, but in the real world the camcorder is much easier to work with.
How much of a upgrade would the D7200 be to the D5300. I really like the added features on the D7200 like dof preview, flash commander mode, faster control because you don't need to use the menus to change every setting, but i can't really find a answer on how much image quality and high iso performance has been improved. Dxo even rates the d5300 as having slightly better low light preformance. Preformance on higher iso is important to me because i shoot a lot indoors with bad light.
Any advice?
>>2777449
See for yourself
https://www.imaging-resource.com/cameras/nikon/d5300/vs/nikon/d7200/
http://snapsort.com/compare/Nikon-D5300-vs-Nikon-D7200/detailed
>>2776677
>70-200mm G
If you mean the f/2.8, isn't that thing supposed to be like $3-3.5k? Both the Nikon and Canon 70-200mm f/2.8s are around $2k now.
That being said, I DO kind of want to get a 70-200 f/4. Maybe I'll rent one or some shit to give it a go.
>>2777502
That's going to be an 82~450mm lens when you factor in the 1.5 crop factor, so I hope you have a tripod.
>>2777405
>the optics on the 80-200 are the best of any F-mount fast telephoto zoom
Except compared to any 70-200 introduced after the 80-200?
>>2777404
The 70-300VR is $400 used, the 80-200 is $600 used, the 70-200/4VR and Tamron are $1100 used/new respectively, and the 70-200/2.8 VRI is $1000 used. Pick your poison. /p/ will tell you the Tamron is the best value and you should choose that. The 80-200 has the advantage of being a front heavy metal beast pig from the film era. The 70-200 VRI is only acceptable on DX. The 70-300VR is pretty sharp, pretty fast focusing, but obviously you're missing 1-2 stops of light. If you shoot at high shutter speeds, the 80-200 is probably your best value. Otherwise look at an image stabilized model.
>>2777513
>The 70-200 VRI is only acceptable on DX
bullshit. It's an excellent lens in the real world, the "soft corners" are invisible with the shallow depth of field you'll be using anyway. Maybe it's different for landscape, but if you're shooting PJ shit, portraits, fashion, or sports, it's completely irrelevant.
Pic was taken with the VR1 on FF.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make NIKON CORPORATION Camera Model NIKON D610 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.6 (Windows) Maximum Lens Aperture f/2.8 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Color Filter Array Pattern 802 Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 135 mm Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2015:03:31 23:05:04 Exposure Time 1/160 sec F-Number f/2.8 Exposure Program Aperture Priority ISO Speed Rating 100 Lens Aperture f/2.8 Exposure Bias -1 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 135.00 mm Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Gain Control None Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal Subject Distance Range Unknown
>>2776242
That's an obscene shutter speed for such a time of night
>>2777517
>1/250
>200mm
>obscene shutter speed
Obscene or not blurry?
>>2776824
I don't have any experience with pic related, but could you link me it on evilBay? I'm interested too, cheers
How do old Nikon AIS lenses like the 28/2.8 55/2.8 and the 105/2.5 compair to todays midrange lenses like the 18-105 and 55-200? Are they really that much sharper or just hipster gear?
>>2776130
What is the cheapest camera you guys would willing recommend as an upgrade to a smartphone?
>>2777222
Sigma f1.8 zoom + M4/3 on a speedbooster = f/1.2 zoom with 5 stops of IS.
>>2777626
Pentax K-50, Nikon D3300 with kit lenses.
>>2777626
Olympus E-M5. Good enough to use for a long time, especially if you get a good lens or two.
>>2777633
Weren't you shilling for Sony last week?
>>2777636
Nope. I am the "E-M1 Fag". I haven't been on here in a while.
