If you have questions about a new camera, what lenses to buy and anything related to gear or wondering about getting into photography, post it in this thread.
Do not attempt to make a new thread for your new Rabal, broken glass and being new.
No pointless (brand) arguments and dickwaving allowed! You have been warned!
I repeat, ANYTHING GEAR RELATED goes in here!
And don't forget, be polite!
Previous thread: >>2819396
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Macintosh) Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 3657 Image Height 5509 Number of Bits Per Component 8, 8, 8 Compression Scheme Uncompressed Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Data Arrangement Chunky Format Image Created 2012:09:10 13:06:28 Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 664 Image Height 1000
Can anyone suggest a set of prime lenses for A7ii? ~35, 50, 85. I'm looking for bang for the buck and fun shooting, not the absolute best in performance.
Can they be manual lenses?
If not your choices are limited and not cheap.
>>2821386
>Sony
>Bang for buck
No such thing, mate.
>>2821386
Why the fuck would you pick a body and hope they have lenses to fit your needs?
You pick the lenses you want and then go with the body that can provide that not the other way round.
Funny thing is Fuji do a really nice set and costs a bit more than just the 85mm 1.4 G master.
23 1.4 + 35 2.0 + 56mm 1.2 = 2297 on amazon right now. The 85 G master is $1,798.00.
You fucked up OP.
>>2821402
Because picking the best body means I have the best photos, and I win. Have you seen the stat sheet for the a7 series? They're the best cameras dude.
anyone used the Fujifilm X-Pro2?
I'm looking to exit full frame and go to something lighter and smaller. How are the fuji lenses?
>>2821406
I have one. I like it very much. The lenses are good if you're willing to pay out for the newer, more professional ones. The older ones are optically good, but you can run into trouble with noisy slow AF, or other quirks like the looks of the 60mm when it's actually in use.
The only reasons I'd ever caution someone about the XPro2 are the battery life (Better than some people feared, but not nearly as good as people had hoped) and the viewfinder. The eye relief on it is straight up bad. With your eyeball jammed up against the glass in the viewfinder, you can juuuust make out the whole frame of the EVF, and if you pull back a bit, you lose the corners. I was very surprised by it. The X-T1 doesn't have this issue, and the viewfinder on it is incredible. X-T1 also has a battery grip so you can get a ton of shots out of it.
I own both, and mostly use the XPro2, and keep the X-T1 as a backup.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make FUJIFILM Camera Model X-Pro2 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.5 (Windows) Maximum Lens Aperture f/2.8 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 27 mm Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Created 2016:03:23 17:08:06 Exposure Time 1/2400 sec F-Number f/4.0 Exposure Program Aperture Priority ISO Speed Rating 400 Lens Aperture f/4.0 Brightness 8.9 EV Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 18.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Sharpness Hard Subject Distance Range Unknown
Can anyone recommend a smallish bag that can hold a Canon 100-400 Lens with a 60D attached and then possibly a bit of space for a lens (24-105)?
Because picking the best body means I have the best photos, and I win. Have you seen the stat sheet for the a7 series? They're the best cameras dude.
Well then use a pin hole. You apparently need nothing other than that.
>>2821386
Sony 28mm f/2
Samyang 85mm f/1.4
Stats mean fuck all though?
Get some lights and a fucking tripod all this high ISO bullshit is getting out of hand.
>>2821386
new FE 50mm 1.8
>>2821417
>Not craving dat ISO 3,000,000 to shoot through your 13 year old neighbor's bedroom window at night.
>>2821413
NatGeo Walkabout
>>2821402
> 23 1.4 + 35 2.0 + 56mm 1.2 = 2297 on amazon right now. The 85 G master is $1,798.00.
And the 85mm Canon L is ~$1900.
In either case, it's not the fucking same kind of glass.
What you listed is more like the $420 Sony FE 28mm f/2, $289 Samyang 85mm f/1.4, $250 Sony FE 50mm f/1.8 = $959 or something like that. Fuck it, let's replace the 50mm with the 55m Sonnar T for $898, its still = $1607.
>>2821429
>$289 Samyang 85mm f/1.4
>doesn't even have autofocus, and is huge in comparison
>>2821429
>$420 Sony FE 28mm f/2
28mm is not 23mm. f/2 is not f/1.4
>>2821429
>50mm f/1.8
>costs more than $100
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA
>>2821411
Sounds good, apparently they are releasing an X-T2 this year so i might wait to see what thats like.
>>2821437
According to rumors, it will have an X-T1 style viewfinder (big and bright, easy to see) the same sensor as the XPro2, most of the same features, with the addition of 4K video. Should have the same AF system, the same image quality, the same capabilities. More or less the beefy guts of the XPro2 in the form factor of the X-T1.
>>2821429
The Canon is the only 85 1.2 with auto focus in production don't compare it to the Sony. You have to compare it to other 1.4s.
A 28 f2 is nothing like a 23 1.4 so no.
The Samyang does not even have auto focus and is a stop slower so no.
50 or 55 1.8 is not a equivalent 50 1.4 so no.
You're not very good at this are you?
>>2821439
I just got a near mint XT1 for £450.
It's a great time to get into the fuji ecosystem.
>>2821441
Well remember, he's a sony guy, so all he's trying to do is get the numbers to line up, because numbers are what make good photos. Forget image quality, and unique characteristics that make a lens actually desirable, so long as the numbers in the description aren't too far off, they can be stretched to let the price go lower, and therefore, Sony wins!
>>2821446
I used to get pissed off at the Nikon and Canon faggots but this generation of Fuji and Sony faggots is far far more rage worthy.
Artists make great photos not cameras.
>>2821433
I almost always use MF for portraits myself, and I could easily use AF.
That said, if the 85mm isn't cool enough for you, get the 90mm FE for $1k.
We're now at $2318, same price range as the Fuji lenses you listed.
>>2821434
>>2821435
And the Fuji lenses really aren't as sharp, from what I saw. They are more like the 28mm f/2 than the other two lenses.
Data of the newer set of three here:
http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/Sony-FE-90mm-F28-Macro-G-OSS-on-Sony-A7R-versus-Sony-FE-Carl-Zeiss-Sonnar-T-STAR-55mm-F18-on-Sony-A7R-versus-Sony-FE-28mm-F2-on-Sony-A7R__1517_917_1252_917_1516_917
The Rokinon also is fine. http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/483-samyang_85_14_5d?start=1 - yea, this is for the Canon version, but it doesn't matter.
>>2821449
>And the Fuji lenses really aren't as sharp, from what I saw. They are more like the 28mm f/2 than the other two lenses.
We aren't comparing sharpness, we're comparing focal length. Only a fucking retard would give up his desired field of view to get the ability to pixel peep his photos (the only way you'll see the difference in sharpness is at 100% on a screen).
Fuji have many problems bub but sharpness is not one of them. Most of their optics are very on point. They have been making lenses for what 50 years? I think longer.
>>2821449
>>2821441
> You must compare by maximum aperture
I was thinking about resolving power / sharpness.
If you want muh maximum aperture, get the 50mm f/0.95 ($849) and 85mm f/1.2 ($800) and 35mm f/0.95 ($600)...
I bet we'll move to "but muh aperture < AF" next...
>>2821455
>I bet we'll move to "but muh aperture < AF" next...
Why would that be ridiculous? Lenses are made to be used for photos. With the options being presented to you, you get improved usability for less cost and the same features.
Why didn't you suggest Kubrick's f/0.7? It's even faster! Who cares that you have to sacrifice the total value of a large upper class house to get one!
>>2821455
>I bet we'll move to "but muh aperture < AF" next...
So you already know why your argument is stupid, and we don't need to bother refuting it? That's very kind of you.
>>2821386
If you can handle a bit of vignetting in the corner check out the Sigma APS-C primes, they exist in 19mm, 30mm, and 60mm, and they can be modded so they almost cover the full frame.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4o46pqs4i3k
These lenses can be bought for 170 dollars each if you shop in the right places.
>>2821451
> the only way you'll see the difference in sharpness is at 100% on a screen
It's more like from 50% up...
Yea, that's a big difference - you can crop more, apply more NR, digitally publish higher resolution images, and a lot more things.
Maybe you don't need it since you only do 4x6 prints or something, but generally, sharp lenses are what you want - not just on Sony, but also Nikon and Canon.
> Only a fucking retard would give up his desired field of view
The difference between 28 and 35mm on FF? Eh, very few would sweat that one much.
>>2821461
The shit you guys will do to make your A7's usable.... outstanding.
>>2821465
Do you actually deny that's bad value for the money?
>>2821465
I just put a cheap Limited prime on my K-3 and be done with it.
>>2821464
>It's more like from 50% up...
>Yea, that's a big difference
That thing you just made up is a big difference? Wow. Glad you made it up then! Any sources for your information? We've seen sources from major lens reviewers saying the opposite, but surely, anon from 4chan knows better.
Hi, it's
>>2821386
here. That blew up nicely.
>>2821402
> Why the fuck would you pick a body and hope they have lenses to fit your needs?
>>2821456
> He fell for the Sony meme. Can you blame him? There is some shill in here who literally tells everyone to buy an a7
I don't have an a7. I'm thinking about getting a mirrorless for the tasty EVF, and I have to say Sony is looking very decent as IBIS and good AF are something that also interest me.
I ask about the lenses because as far as I can see, the lens ecosystem doesn't exactly suck but isn't cheap either. I wanted to know if I was mistaken until making the same conclusion as this guy here:
>>2821394
>>Sony
>>Bang for buck
>No such thing, mate.
>>2821420
> new FE 50mm 1.8
Thanks! Maybe that's a sign of things to come?
>>2821459
> Why would that be ridiculous? Lenses are made to be used for photos. With the options being presented to you, you get improved usability for less cost and the same features.
Because it's a mixed equation and people have different needs.
I absolutely do not think it makes sense to discount sharpness for the sake of getting a wider aperture.
And less cost has so far mostly been on the E-mount's side? You have a wider range of options, and arguably most are better in one or multiple parameters.
They're only generally larger.
> Why didn't you suggest Kubrick's f/0.7? It's even faster!
I didn't because that one can't *be currently bought for the E-mount*, unlike the f/0.95 lenses.
Stop trying to push this narrative that fuji lenses are not sharp just google any fuji sharpness results like I have posted above.
Cropping is over rated, get it right in camera by using the right gear for the job, ibf "Lol ur only gots 16 pickels" So does the d4 that most pros use. If your making money doing landscapes build-boards ect I can totally understand needed above 30 but for everything else its utter nonsense.
"More NR" or you could just bring a light and not have to use high ISO?
I can make great looking prints that are huge using 16 pickles thanks.
28 vs 35 may not be a big deal but f2 vs 1.4 is. So you don't have to do that NR your faggot ass was talking about.
In conclusion 16 pickles is not amazing but it's fine. High ISO is sometimes needed but not nearly as often as most faggots use it invest in 2 speed-lights, some remotes and a tripod.
K.
>>2821469
It's because they are feeling the heat, you know the typical being threatened by the new guy in the workplace.
Either way, do check out those Sigma prime lenses, especially the 60mm one is said to be exceptionally sharp.
This >>2821473 is to 2821464
>>2821470
>absolutely do not think it makes sense to discount sharpness for the sake of getting a wider aperture.
You don't have to.
>And less cost has so far mostly been on the E-mount's side?
Only when you sacrifice focal length, and aperture.
>and arguably most are better in one or multiple parameters.
And then worse in the rest.
>>2821455
>If you want muh maximum aperture, get the 50mm f/0.95 ($849) and 85mm f/1.2 ($800) and 35mm f/0.95 ($600)...
Also available on Fuji... What's your point?
I'm right now looking at getting a fast 85mm lens. I've been shooting a D7100 but plan to upgrade to full-frame in the next year or so.
I am considering either the Nikon 85mm 1.8G or the Samyang 85mm 1.4. They are both fairly inexpensive, $400 to $300 respectively, but I wonder if the Nikon quality is worth sacrificing light and money for. Thoughts? Other suggestions? Thanks
>>2821486
Unless you're going get a mirrorless I would stick to the one that has auto focus. M focus on DSLR's is far to tricky and will just piss you off. Sharpness does not mean a thing if its not in focus.
>>2821486
Nikkor 85mm Ai-S or AF-D
how much should i sell this for?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Canon Camera Model Canon PowerShot SX400 IS Maximum Lens Aperture f/5.0 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Lens Size 4.30 - 129.00 mm Firmware Version Firmware Version 1.00 Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 180 dpi Vertical Resolution 180 dpi Image Created 2016:04:21 12:57:08 Exposure Time 1/15 sec F-Number f/5.0 Lens Aperture f/5.0 Exposure Bias 0 EV Flash Flash, Auto, Red-Eye Reduce Focal Length 16.24 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1000 Image Height 750 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Focus Type Auto Metering Mode Evaluative ISO Speed Rating Auto Sharpness Normal Saturation Normal Contrast Normal Shooting Mode Full Auto Image Size Large Focus Mode Single Drive Mode Single Flash Mode Red-Eye Reduction (Auto) Compression Setting Fine Macro Mode Normal Subject Distance 0.580 m White Balance Auto Exposure Compensation 3 Sensor ISO Speed 192 Image Number 104-0714
>>2821456
To me it's either the Sony way or the Pentax way, since they are the only two Full Frame manufacturers who provides image stabilisation on the sensor.
It's just a fantastic thing when you can take a 50 year old manual lens that was never meant to have stabilisation, and then make it better than it ever was on its native platform.
I want a telephoto lens for my Nikon D7100. Ideally something that also performs well in low light if possible.
Any suggestions?
>>2821403
>Have you seen the stat sheet for the a7 series? They're the best cameras dude.
I really hope for your own sake that you're attempting to troll
>>2821494
>since they are the only two Full Frame manufacturers who provides image stabilisation on the sensor.
Might I ask what you shoot that that's a huge priority for you?
>make it better than it ever was on its native platform.
You won't be making it better, you'll be preventing poor technique from making it worse.
>>2821493
about $3.50
>>2821498
It's a help in every area where your camera isn't on a tripod.
>>2821501
Well, unless you have enough light to be at a reasonable shutter speed...
>>2821502
Even in reasonable situations, there are times where you benefit from lowering the ISO 1-2 stops further than you normally would, because the IBIS helps you with a slower shutter speed.
>>2821504
Tripod > IS > IBS
Anytime you're shooting anything moving all 3 are worthless and you need more light (a speedlight) or a higher aperture.
Anytime your IBS comes in handy, my tripod or lenses with IS do a better job.
Mute point, next.
>>2821504
So these vital features, for which you'll completely discount entire manufacturers for not providing, you can't even really come up with a real life example of when you need it. It's just "It's better because it makes it better"?
Brands that don't offer IBIS offer lenses with IS for when you need it. If you're shooting in good light, you will never need IS at all. If you have a tripod, monopod, or the flexibility to brace your camera, you'll never need IS. If you do all your shooting at night, or indoors without extra lighting (for some reason), and can't afford new lenses with IS, then yeah, you may see the benefit of full frame with IBIS with ancient lenses. I'll assume that that's you, and wish you well.
>>2821507
>IS > IBS
No. The IBIS actually works in conjunction with stabilisation in the lens. And let's not forget that not every DSLR lenses have IS.
>>2821509
Look at any online test looking at IBIS vs IS they all come to the same conclusion unless shilling like faggots.
I hate having a flu I want to be out shooting but I'm stuck on 4chan correcting a sea of faggotory.
>>2821508
>>Brands that don't offer IBIS offer lenses with IS for when you need it.
Not always. http://www.amazon.com/Canon-24-70mm-2-8L-Standard-Zoom/dp/B0076BNK30
>>2821507
>Mute
You mean moot.
And even then you're wrong because declaring a point moot is declaring that it is debatable.
>>2821510
Mate, I can tell you're just too sour because someone else has a feature you don't have.
Curiously, does each and every lens you own have IS?
>>2821513
The Tamron 24-70 2.8 IS is cheap, almost as sharp and in some situations sharper and is also weather sealed. Or you could get the 35mm f2 IS and just keep it in your bag for when you need IS. Or do what most pro's do and carry A FUCKING TRIPOD.
And another faggot bites the dust.
>>2821468
It's not easy to find good comparisons. Fuji lenses really need DxO measurements so everything is measured the same way.
Well, here's some MTF50 charts that measure in lp/mm:
http://www.lenstip.com/420.4-Lens_review-Fujifilm_Fujinon_XF_56_mm_f_1.2_R_Image_resolution.html
vs.
http://www.digitalkamera.de/Zubeh%C3%B6r-Test/Testbericht_Sony_FE_55_mm_18_Sonnar_T_ZA_SEL-55F18Z/9187.aspx
The Sony is clearly better. The average difference is about 20%? (Maybe more if you go by the weakest area in the image) But you can get a 50% difference at f/16, and since neither is perfect, you will be often seeing the limits of your image at 50% *in your editor*.
If you instead wanted to compare to the 90mm FE:
http://www.digitalkamera.de/Zubeh%C3%B6r-Test/Testbericht_Sony_FE_90_mm_28_Macro_G_OSS_SEL-90M28G/9509.aspx
Pretty much the same story. The 28mm is more comparable - stronger center, but also weaker edges:
http://www.digitalkamera.de/Zubeh%C3%B6r-Test/Testbericht_Sony_FE_28_mm_F2_SEL-28F20/9523.aspx
>>2821482
The point is that *that* is the lens with the biggest aperture if you care about aperture primarily.
>>2821520
But do you understand the irony when the Sony platform can actually provide stabilisation for that Canon lens, which Canon can't?
>>2821524
How is that irony?
>>2821524
What use is stabilization when it can't provide a reliable AF? Also what kind of shit system relies on third party adapters to have a usable lens lineup?
>>2821518
I have 2 lenses on my fuji system with it and 3 for my Canon system.
I'm not saying I would not use it but I have a tripod and I have lenses that can do the same thing when I know I will need it.
You're making it sound like its a total must and its simply not the case.
>>2821525
When a lens functions better in a non-native body than in its native body.
>>2821527
In my case I can mostly eliminate the need for tripod most of the time.
Which also give me more mobility.
To other people they might appreciate those lenses for video shots, who knows.
>>2821528
It's not functioning better though. IBIS doesn't affect the performance of the lens in the slightest.
>>2821526
Well apparently the Canon system relies on Tamron to provide their users with IS for 24-70 zooms.
>>2821521
>The point is that *that* is the lens with the biggest aperture if you care about aperture primarily.
Right, but nobody cares about aperture, primarily. We care about the total usefulness of the lens in the field. Aperture, Build quality, image quality, AF performance, price, all are equally important.
Also, none of your comparisons show what it looks like at anything other than 100% magnification. Ultra fine detail doesn't show up at all at 50% or less. There's also the fact that a lens can BE sharp without LOOKING sharp if it doesn't have well applied contrast between small details, etc.
Here's a shocker: MTF charts don't tie to real life results. This is why you get tons of people in gear threads going "I don't know if I got a good copy, or what, but my 12 year old $250 zoom lens is razor sharp!". When you're backed away from 100%, almost all lenses look sharp. If you'd like to find two photos taken by the lenses and compare them at viewing sizes, we can discuss that, but you're going to be disappointed.
>>2821533
Um
>>2821524
You're lens mount is too shallow as it, adding IBIS just made it even harder to make good lenses for the Sony's. Even the head of Sigma said it was bullshit.
Good optics and a tripod > IBIS.
We have a true 70-200 2.8 that does not have focus breathing for head shots. 11-24MM Ultra wide. The only 50 1.2 and 85 1.2 with auto focus in production... The sensor gap will close, we will upgrade our bodies and then what? you have next to no lenses and the ones you do have are over priced as fuck. While we have lenses you will simply never have.
Buy lenses not bodies you fucking perfected faggot.
Nikon and Canon are the only true options for the working pro currently. Pentax can do some stuff well and Fuji is in the right direction for their ecosystem. Disregard everything else.
>>2821496
plz bros
>>2821532
Relax Anon, denial isn't always a healthy thing.
It doesn't cost you a lot, take a step back, it only cost you an acceptance that the competitor to your favourite brand might have an advantage in some of the features.
This isn't expensive, you can move on with your live once you've found peace in this.
>>2821541
70-200 f/2.8 VR II
>>2821545
Thanks I'll check it out.
>>2821544
It's not an advantage if IBIS degrades IQ (well documented) and makes it harder to make certain lenses for the system.
You sir are a fucking shill.
>>2821544
You could stop denying that Sony taking on extra features with little to no benefit to actual photographers out taking photos is a marketing ploy that only really positively affects internet forum trench fighters, and get the gear that actually allows you to take good photos.
Most photos don't need IS at all. There is no brand out there that doesn't offer IS for the shots that do need it. Hell, even kit lenses on Canon and Nikon come with it. It's not some rare thing.
>>2821540
I would put it like this:
Good optics + IBIS + Tripod > Good optics + Tripod
My setup have more flexibility for more situations than yours.
>>2821549
They look to be about the same price.
>>2821555
You're not meant to use any form of IS on a tripod you absolute amateur.
IS > IBIS so your point is mute anyway.
Fuck this though, post me to your instagram/website something point me to shots where your camera is simply the only one that could take the photo.
>>2821552
>IBIS degrades IQ
IS on lens is know to degrade IQ on Nikon systems, but that's because of mirror slap and shutter slaps.
Mirrorless systems have electronic silent shutter modes.
>>2821555
IS + Tripod is, at best, the same as just a tripod, and at worst, much worse because the IS jiggles around looking for motion to remove that isn't there, and gets caught in a feedback look correcting its own corrections. You should turn off IS when on a tripod.
>My setup have more flexibility for more situations than yours.
Post three sample photos that your added "advantage" has gotten you that would be impossible to take on an APS-C sensor with an IS lens on it?
>>2821544
It's not denial. I don't have any dog in this particular hunt, but the way you're talking about this is both retarded and baiting. It's a difference in bodies. The lenses themselves have nothing to do with it. The lens isn't performing any differently on either body.
It's like you're trying to say that it's "ironic" that a given set of tires can do an 8 second quarter mile on a sports car but do a 22 on a minivan. There's no measure of irony in this.
>blah blah blah
I still don't have a dog in the fight. I'm not strongly tied to any system. Nice try though.
>>2821566
>Post three sample photos that your added "advantage" has gotten you that would be impossible to take on an APS-C sensor with an IS lens on it?
...are you serious? You just transcended mere disagreement and shot well into vapid absurdity.
>>2821571
Well then why can't you replace "IBIS" with "in lens IS" when needed?
>>2821574
Because when each and every one of your lens have stabilisation, you can choose any of them without restriction.
Why do you hate freedom?
>>2821573
What, implying that a Sony user would take as many as 3 photos is "vapid absurdity" now? I didn't realize it had gotten so bad...
>>2821554
>it's just a ploy
>sony is evil
>it's all a conspiracy!
fucking hell with this thread, are these gear threads always this retarded
>>2821587
No, this last bit is a lot worse than usual. Mostly it's people asking dumb questions, and other people either directing them to google, or answering them. They can be pretty okay if you need to talk about gear in a specific setting.
Sometimes you get a dreamer who knows that his waterproofing makes his photos better than yours, despite the fact that he's never taken it near the water, and things get a bit hairy.
what's a good lens trio for a pentax k3ii that would be compatible with the mighty k1?
thanks
>>2821589
>makes his photos better than yours
Nah, I meant it makes the photos better for me.
For example the Sigma 60mm prime I bought the other day, it's so ridiculously cheap for what it is, but it doesn't have IS, but I'm glad my sensor does.
>>2821596
There is no photo that's impossible, but if you have better equipment, you can get things like less noise, more dynamic range, more accurate colurs, etc. given the same situation.
>>2821587
I'm the OP and even I think this last 95 posts in 3 hours is pants on head retarded, not to mention pointless.
I recently came into possession if a Nikon DW-31 6x high magnification finder. I don't need it, as I don't use a Nikon. I wouldn't mind selling it, but Google gives various prices for what it's worth.
Anyone here have any ideas?
Hey, /p/!
After years of using better compact cameras (Sigma DP2 Merrill, Fuji X20) i want to go a step further.
The picture shows the setup i figured out would be a nice setup for me. What does /p/ think about this setup? Especially about the macro lens. The reviews i read about the Samyang 100mm mainly claim the glass is worth its money, but maybe someone here has the lens and has another opinion. Another choice for the macro would be the Zeiss 2.8 Touit 50M. But this lens is sold at twice the price of the Samyang (and has just 50mm, which may be bad for a nice unsharp background in macro mode).
And another question is, is it really a good idea to buy macro extension tubes to boost the capabilities of a maco lens?
Thanks in advance for some advice.
>>2821696
You've only got two prime lenses, and nothing wider than a 50mm equivalent. Is that okay for your uses?
If 1:1 reproduction on a 100mm macro lens isn't enough, yes, an extension tube will help you go further, but no real need for both.
>>2821607
Check ebay?
Or just sell it for whatever you can get, since you 1) didn't buy it 2) don't need it 3) don't know what it's worth 4) are essentially getting free money no matter what?
>>2821696
I would throw in a basic kit zoom lens just in case you want something wider or between 35mm and 100mm. Relatively inexpensive and has many uses.
>>2821700
Yes, the 35mm is enough for my needs. There will be the typical crop factor of 1.5 on the sensor anywyas, so it will generally work for me as a ~50mm. Street and macro is my thing. That's why i want to buy the 35mm/1.4. Seems Fuji did a really great job with this lens. Too bad Fujis own so called macro lens for the XF system is a joke.
>>2821707
Maybe i'll buy something more versatile later. But my older cameras have prime lenses too. Zooming by using my feet worked for me in the past. So i think i'll go with primes for the beginning.
>>2821710
My first camera came with a telezoom and two old manual lenses. I tried to use them, footzooming and soon enough I was desperate to get a wide to standard zoom lens. This was my experience, this is why I said I would throw that zoom in the bundle.
>>2821709
If you need quick or silent focusing, the 35mm f/2 will be a better bet for you, but if you need the f/1.4 then it's still a pretty good lens. Optically very nice, but in operation, a little annoying.
Yeah, the macro is a shame, but there's a much improved one in the pipe.
>>2821696
Save your money on the battery and get a 3rd party. Don't get the kit lens the fuji system shines with its primes, you might also want to get the 18mm f2 or something else wide but everything else looks great.
If you enjoy your Samyang lens try the 8mm f2.8 or the even better the 12mm F2.
Sooo...why would someone buy an Otus when the Milvus line exists?
>>2821721
>35mm f/2
Uh, this one was actually not on my radar. This lens may be an option. Thanks for the tip.
>>2821725
Because not everyone falls for the Sony meme.
Also why would you buy Zeiss when the Pentax Limited primes exist?
>>2821725
Otus is generally faster, and is also better (on paper).
>>2821728
Glad to help. I had the 35 f/1.4, and sold it, and got the f/2. The hunting, and the noise, were really annoying to me. The small size of the f/2 is neat too, as well as the WR (I have the X-T1 and XPro2, the X-T10 won't benefit from it much)
Is buying a AF-S f/1.8 50mm nikkor lens worth it?
Last spring I was backpacking i SE asia and I used a AF-S 18-55mm 3.5-5.6G lens which I felt was kind of shit, and of course super slow
I'm using a d5100 with it
but considering the 50mm one really isn't a super great lens either, is it worth the upgrade?
I'm doing doing a bike tour on iceland next month
>>2821729
Apparently you don't even know what is what. Milvus is for Canon and Nikon DSLRs. The Sony series is Loxia.
And FYI Loxia 21mm is higher IQ than Milvus 21mm.
>>2821737
Is it worth what? Cost is obvious, but Nobody can determine value but you.
>>2821741
worth the money fren
i'm a total newblord
>>2821742
>Cost is obvious, but Nobody can determine value but you.
>>2821743
I'm feeling anyone can determine value better than me in this field really
>>2821748
So why are you free with calling a lens shit?
>>2821747
You have to be more understanding of other people's neurological disorders.
Sony-allergy is a real thing you know, just the slightest suspicion of association with Sony will trigger them. In this case discussing Zeiss lenses is a big no no, even if they are for DSLRs.
>>2821748
We don't know anything about you. That much money is disposable for some people, and it's a huge windfall to others. We don't know how much you'll use it, if it will work for your shooting style, or whether you'll have to give up eating for two weeks to afford it. Value is subjective. If that focal length and aperture are more important to you than the amount of money it will cost you to acquire it, then buy it. If not, don't.
>>2821754
The Milvus 85mm f/1.4 isn't that far off price of other (It's around $2000) 85mm f/1.4 while being significantly better than many with the exception of not having AF (which is a thing for some, and not for others).
>>2821747
>Otus just doesn't seem worth it.
To most people who already own primes at the Otus focal lengths, and who use them regularly, and who paid $400 for them, and who realize that nearly any lens available is sharp and high quality enough to take incredible photos on, the Otus has never ever seemed worth it. Diminishing rate of returns, in the dictionary? Just as a photo of the Otus next to it. It's a lens line designed (and priced) for masturbation.
>>2821754
There are expensive production costs associated with Zeiss lenses because they use anomalous dispersion glass which other manufacturers don't.
But the image quality of the lenses also isn't always reflected by the the pricing, for example the Loxia 21mm is higher optical quality than Milvus 21mm, even though the Milvus is over 300 dollars more expensive because it needs more glass production and more complicated assembly, etc.
>>2821757
>implying you're using the absolutely cheapest option that can still "take incredible photos"
I haven't looked much but why are you guys all upset about in body versus in lens? I can imagine that having the IS in the body means you don't have to build it into every lens and then all your lenses have IS. Am I wrong?
I'm stuck between an X-E2 or e1 or an Xpro1, both used, probably paired with the standard zoom. Or some other option like omd em-5 is any good. I'm unsure on everyone lens lineups.
>>2821801
All of them are good cameras but I'd go with the X-E2.
>>2821801
>Am I wrong?
Not at all. It's one of the reason manufacturers like Sigma can keep their 18-35mm F1,8 zoom cheap and affordable.
But in this situation it's more an upset because Sony is involved. IS in body is a perfectly fine feature for other manufacturers.
>>2821769
I'm not, because the features on the cheapest option aren't enough for what I use my equipment for. But the image quality provided by the cheapest option would be more than fine for me.
>>2821822
And you don't see the hypocrisy here, do you?
>>2821801
>I can imagine that having the IS in the body means you don't have to build it into every lens and then all your lenses have IS. Am I wrong?
You are not wrong, but as with most things in life, it isn't quite that simple. One stabilization system for every lens and focal length means it can't be fine tuned to the specific lens, image circle, focal length, etc. In lens IS systems are designed with every other aspect of that lens in mind, so in theory, the very best in-lens IS systems will be better than the very best in-body IS systems.
It also adds bulk, complexity, intricacy, and therefore cost to your body. Many people have no use for IS at all, so offering a body that's larger, more expensive, harder on the battery, and theoretically more prone to failure, with no benefit to them, is not a positive thing.
In practice, both work very well, both come in hand when you need them, and yeah, it's a bit lame that you can't get IS on an adapted old lens. But in 2016, high ISO is so amazing, (and modern glass at a low price point is so great) that it's really only a problem to a very small group of people (who have IBIS bodies to choose from if they need it)
The X-E2 is better than the XPro1. It's faster, has a better viewfinder (unless you're in love with the OVF tunnel) and dramatically better autofocus.
>>2821829
No feel free to explain it.
>>2821832
I figured the x-e2 was better purely because it was newer. And yeah ISO and sensors are just so good nowadays I figured IS wasn't always necessary. I'll have to go handle some of the fuji's.
Now, if ISO and sensors are good enough to potentially negate the constant need for IS, are new sensors just good enough to negate sensor size to some degree. i.e. is there going to be a huge quality difference between the e-m5 and the x-e2 just based on sensor size? Are fuji's and olympus's optics similar in quality? I have an olympus microscope I quite like. At least some comparison photos on dpreview seem to make the omd look better than the x-e2.
>>2821841
No because micro four TURDS will always be shit and you should never buy small sensor picture will be smudgy mess just look at four TURDS and make it micro buy big sensor buy sony you want ibis and oss best of both worlds remove micro four TURDS
>>2821843
This Anon's grandmother died in a car accident, ran over by Sony's CEO.
Anyone tried the Fotodiox m42 to K mount adapter?
http://www.amazon.com/Fotodiox-Adapter-Pentax-Camera-K-5IIs/dp/B001G4LOCC
I got it cause it was cheap, but I'm having some issues with infinity focus. It's right up on the metal mount, yet it can't focus to infinity. I thought that issue was for other adapters with a huge flange? Or am I just being dumb?
>>2821843
But I don't really care about IS that much, or muh sony. It's nice olympuses lenses are cheaper because they don't have IS and a used e-m5 body goes for very cheap. I'm just worried that the larger sensor size will outdo all of that assuming the glass is similar.
>>2821841
The differences between sensor sizes in terms of image quality are real, but not enormous. A larger surface area means more light hitting it, larger photo sites, etc. But things are advancing.
Right now, the best M4/3 sensor is probably more or less even with some of the very first full frame sensors. But a modern full frame camera performs better than a modern APS-C, which performs better than a modern M4/3. You just need to decide what you actually need.
Personally, I found that the size, weight, and price of full frame equipment didn't earn me enough of an improvement in IQ to justify keeping it all, so I dropped down to APS-C. I considered M4/3, but the low light image quality wasn't good enough for what I need.
There are tests showing that the newest 24mp APS-C sensors can compete very closely with some of Sony's newest full frame a7 series sensors (The A7II specifically) but even then, it's just barely, and the APS-C loses in the end.
Small sensors can be made amazing, but you can't beat physics, so the technology that makes a small sensor amazing, will always make a larger sensor more amazing.
>>2821853
I figured this was the case. I understand the physics of image sensors and stuff, I just haven't looked at consumer stuff in awhile. I mentioned it in the other threads but I regularly use a ~$700k Nikon A1R+ microscope and the optics and detectors on that are incredible, obviously. I'll have to go handle a few cameras and whatnot. Still got some time before I want to buy anything. Flickr shows some great M4/3 results but I have a hard time trusting everyones results on flickr.
>>2821859
If you have nice bright light, you won't notice the difference really. The lenses are good, and there are lots of fast options that are easy to make with such a small sensor surface area to get you some bokeh too, but in middling light and low light, the flaws start to show up. The M4/3 heavy hitters try to compensate for that with great stabilization that will try to keep you at a low ISO, but obviously it doesn't work for moving subjects and stuff, so it's a bit of a half measure.
>>2821867
The EOS M 3 is pretty good. No viewfinder though...
>>2821875
One last thing then, why's the OP in all these threads pentax? Seems like the pentax's are pretty good? Maybe I'll just get a DSLR. Or maybe I'll just say fuck it and buy another bronica, I miss mine.
>>2821696
The 35 1.4 is probably my favorite lens, but compared to the R f2 it is slower, noisier. Renders wonderfully, however (it's not that bad). In less than ideal light I usually revert to manual focus.
>x-t10
Tbh, with all the deal going on the x-t1 going on at the moment, I would be more inclined to pick up one of those.
The t10 felt flimsy and cheap, but only in comparison to the x-t1.
Up to you though; I like the grip and weather sealing of the latter more.
>>2821801
>I'm stuck between an X-E2 or e1 or an Xpro1, both used, probably paired with the standard zoom. Or some other option like omd em-5 is any good. I'm unsure on everyone lens lineups.
A great advantage of the olympus is if you want/need the most portable WR ILC kit for outdoorsey type stuff like hiking or some shit.
Their WR zoom lenses paired with the WR body makes for a nice kit for those who go camping and hiking and are desperate to shed bulk and weight.
You could also carry a pocketful of primes with ease.
The olympus would be a great travel camera.
>>2821725
Otus is sharper.
I'd say that the E-mount Batis is the better compromise anyhow, even more so than the Milvus.
how much sharper is summitar f2 than rokkor 50 1.7, if any? both are near mint condition
>>2821867
The Canon mirrorless system is pretty sad so far. Don't bother, both the bodies and lens selection suck, relatively speaking.
>>2821889
Mostly because guy wants his pentax in the OP. But Pentax is fine as an overall deal. With it, you can get weather sealing, ruggedness, IBIS, and a bunch of pretty good and relatively inexpensive lenses...
is there any way at all i can get a decent camera for under $300?
i'm about to drop like $200 on this nikon coolpix s7000 but the more i read, the more i realize how shit it really is. photography is never going to be something i could even call a hobby, so i don't want to drop a huge amount of money, but at the same time i don't want to drop $200 for absolutely fucking nothing either, if i could spend a little more and get something actually worth it
but it seems like the barrier of entry is like $400, and i really don't think i can justify that
am i fucked?
>>2821968
Ricoh GR if you want APS-C and are okay with only 1 focal length lens.
RX100 is you want a good zoom lens.
>>2821841
x-e2 got a big firmware update with the release of the x-pro2; its autofocus was improved even more and now has an electronic shutter should you need it. Also they released the x-e2s which is mostly an updated version of the x-e2 but pretty much the same. Meaning the price of the x-e2 should have gone down.
>>2821968
unless you have a phone already you're basically fucked. Ricoh GRD IIIs and IVs skirt $300 on amazon but those aren't close to the spec of the current GR and they're pretty limited in what they can do
every single compact below $300 is utter plastic disposable garbage and there's little point even looking at them, and any over $300 is just surpassed by entry-level DSLRs anyway
every entry-level DSLR and mirrorless with kit lens is around $400 or more so you'd better save some more up
>>2821986
The first RX100 is on amazon for 290 though. It's probably his best option for a compact at that range.
>>2821990
i'd probably go for that, if i could find it for that price. but i'm in canada. the cheapest on amazon is like $500, $400 used on ebay and kijiji
>>2822002
so you want a non-shit camera for under 300 canadian dollars?
now i understand why you're having so much difficulty you're basically powerfucked
how come you can't afford to spend a little more? there's basically nothing good in that price range unless you're in the market for decade old used DSLRs, and you'd still need to get money for lenses anyway
don't even bother with whatever cheap travel compacts or bridge cameras they offer at that price, just use your phone
>>2822002
Get a k10d or a k20d or a k50.
Very decent bodies with excellent cheap lenses if you can tolerate manual focus. If auto then it's just "good cheap" ones.
I kind of think I should sell all my other camera gear and buy a Phase One back for my Contax 645. Even if I did it probably wouldn't be enough, 50mp iQ1 starts at $20k I think?
>>2822019
You did already do a hands-on test with the 40-50MP FF cameras that are available from $3k up, right?
>>2822024
I don't need to. 50mp compacted into 135 format gets significantly limited by the optical resolution of the lens versus 50MP on a MF sensor with MF lenses
Don't get me wrong, I've seen and worked with files out of a 5DS shot with high-end Canon L glass, and they are good, but from what I've seen there's noticeable shortfall on detail at 1:1 resolution.
>>2822012
it's not that i can't afford it, it's that i don't think i'd get the value out of it
i mean photography isn't a hobby of mine, i just want something that takes better pictures than my samsung galaxy s3 mini, and i'd still want it to be compact
the rx100 would be a really nice fit if i could find it for around $300 CAD but it doesn't look like that's happening. i think the nikon s7000 is probably my best bet. i'm a casual and i deserve casual shit, can't be helped
>>2822028
> but from what I've seen there's noticeable shortfall on detail at 1:1 resolution.
That's not really my own perception. The high end of FF lenses got pretty much as sharp as MF lenses.
Apparently, those MF sensors also have smaller pixels now? Even diffraction issues when stopped down seem fairly equal...?
That said, I haven't investigated this one very objectively in depth, but I think you might maybe want to do that.
>>2822038
But the issue is still the size of the sensor, if you're cramming 50mp into a sensor less than half the size you will need lenses with twice the resolving power for it to actually compare.
I haven't actually done any side by side comparisons but I was mildly disappointed by the results I've seen out of 5DS when looking at 100% scale. I might soon have a chance to check out a Hasselblad CFV-50c, so I'll get to see how that does.
>>2821848
No, you got the right kind of adapter. Other than checking to see if everything is screwed in all the way, you might have a bad copy. (or a bad lens, for that matter).
>>2822036
>$300 CAD
>CAD
Yeah, that's not going to happen anytime soon.
>>2821416
> Sony 28mm f/2
> Samyang 85mm f/1.4
>>2821420
> new FE 50mm 1.8
Now that I did a bit of research, seems like a pretty viable combo of decent budget options. Starting to think there's some sense here. Is the 50mm f1.8 out in Europe? I can't seem to find it on ebay or any of the other places I checked, only a few sellers shipping from Japan.
>>2821968
Eos m from keh
>>2822124
The Sigma Contemporary 30mm f/1.4 also looked pretty good for its price.
> Is the 50mm f1.8 out in Europe?
No, and I think even in the USA it's out only in early May? You could use the superb and only $150 60mm f/2.8 until it is out.
Seems unlikely that the 50mm f/1.8 is going to be just as sharp anyhow.
>>2822124
I'd say steer clear of the Samyang, I thought it could fill the role nicely as it's cheap and fast and supposedly sharp, but wide open it's rank as fuck and it's stupidly large compared to a nikon 85 f1.8/f2, as you're gonna have to stick with MF at this sort of price level for the time being, there's no reason to go for shit glass just because it's newer and marginally faster.
And 85mm looks freaking great at f4, I found there were almost no situations I wanted to shoot wide open due to the iq and tiny dof.
Sony brought out a cheap, decent 85mm for A mount, so I'm sure an FE one won't be far behind now they're moving away from luxury and exotic lenses to the ones the plebs actually will buy.
The 28mm f2 is fucking fantastic though, almost too sharp, awesome correction profile in LR, tiny, light and reliable.
Should I get a Carl Zeiss Jena Flektogon 20mm f4 (good condition, £190)
or
an Asahi Pentax Takumar 20mm f4.5 (great condition, £180)
or perhaps someone knows some other such lenses (m42)?
>>2822171
> The Sigma Contemporary 30mm f/1.4 also looked pretty good for its price.
Hmm, totally missed that. I thought it was APS-C only?
> You could use the superb and only $150 60mm f/2.8 until it is out.
Is this one of those APS-C to FF mod deals now? I'm not trusting that yet, read enough about compatibility problems to get myself some novel ones of my own.
>>2822175
> I'd say steer clear of the Samyang
Thanks for the advice. Do I take it that you have a comparable alternative in mind?
>>2822180
Ah, you wanted FF lenses.
Yea, it would be a mod-down on the 60mm.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/l111210/sets/72157638780185196/
I don't know if/how the 30mm f/1.8 will mod well.
>>2822180
>Thanks for the advice. Do I take it that you have a comparable alternative in mind?
After having a play with various legacy canikon bits I'm on the hunt for a nice 85 f2. The sample I tried had lovely contrast and colour and was a smidge smaller than the f1.8 models and fully usable from f2. But really with legacy glass you can't say "x lens is good" especially at this end of the budget. Gotta hunt for the right one!
I have a panasonic and switched over to Linux. Now I can't use the software I used to unload my images. Can anyone recommend a Linux-programm for automatically unloading all my photos from a camera onto a specific set folder and packaging them into folders based on date and series?
hey /p/
some guy is selling a 70-200 f4 L non IS on craigslist for $400.
should i bite? or is something too fishy
my aresonal currently consists of te 18-55 kit, and a 35mm f2 is.
sorry i cant reply to everyone else asking questions because i dont know enough to give you a good answer
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Canon Camera Model Canon EOS 400D DIGITAL Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS3 Windows Photographer unknown Maximum Lens Aperture f/5.6 Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2009:04:10 11:54:31 Exposure Time 1/200 sec F-Number f/9.0 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 400 Lens Aperture f/9.0 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Flash Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 55.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1944 Image Height 1296 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard
>>2822264
Why would it be fishy? They're $600 new and it's like a 10-15 year old lens so there are plenty of old copies.
>>2822268
just curious because most used copies in good condition are asking like $500+ in my experience of searching.
>>2822270
You can buy them for $470 with a 1 year warranty direct from Canon refurbished, usually they are basically flawless from what I've read and the one lens I got (24-105).
Hi new here, looking to upgrade from typical phone camera. (*cringe*)
Planning to take stills and portraits.
Considering the Fujifilms X Pro1 with 35mm 1.4R prime lens setup based on reviews. Trying to be cost effective (around ~$700) with good image quality.
Any tips would be appreciated. Thanks
>>2822308
The image quality will be very good. The speed of operation will not.
>>2822308
don't cringe
x-pros are pretty old and slow now. look at the x-e2.
A7s question next, prepare:
So... I'm more into shooting video and shorts.
I live in a problematic place and like to go to riots and protests to document and edit videos explaining the issues in a dramatic way.
Should I get the A7S? Riots and protests are usually at night and I dont have the time to set up lights and shit
Tell me why the A7s is not for me annlona
>>2822331
>X-E2
This, if it's in your budget. It's better in almost every meaningful way.
>>2822308
what's your price range? like the other anons have said, the X-E2 is a major step up from the x-pro1 and with the release of the X-E2S it got a new firmware update whilst lowering in price
also if you're getting a 35 consider the F2 R WR instead, it's much less shit wide open
>>2822333
It's a great camera. Especially if you get a good lens on it. Only thing I might worry about is it getting destroyed. During riots, many people get upset with people filming, so it might get trashed.
>>2822331
>>2822335
I understand the XE2 is definitely better.
I've heard advise that its better to go cheap as possible on body and pay more on lens since they hold up value better in resale.
Not sure if that is true.
The XE2 will harder on budget, even a used one will cut into funds for a good lens. Budget is around $700-800...
>>2822339
Nah they're mostly by young people and Im young so they're cool with it
ok so about to change from canon to nikon, pretty nervous although I'm hardly invested in much glass
I own a 5d 2, great video but the Nikon lenses are what I need right now and I don't do pro video at all
really want the 20mm 1.8g, nothing like it on canon that isn't 1,500 dollars, even those suck hard, the wide zooms all suck but the f4 16-35 but the tamron 15-30 kills that of course, canon why you so shit with wide lenses
I also want the 80-200 2.8 D from nikon for potraits, I am salivating I want it so hard
Anyway I didn't do much research when I started buying lenses and actually bought the tamron 70-200 vc usd for my 5d 2, the noise on the 5d2 makes me cry, the tamron is great for action, not so great for potraits, I also have a shit sigma lens to sell
So 2 lenses and a 5d2, and a 420 ex2 flash or wtvr, all about 2,500 dollars to sell
I really want to get an ok condition d700 while investing in glass early, and maybe buy a d810 next year when the price drops and use that for landscapes, I am very excited but nervous
has anybody switched brands b4? any advice?
>>2822341
What you've heard is true, but it is only true to an extent. The XPro1 has a very slow AF system, old sensor, and old processor. It's just a sluggish camera in general. Using it in priority modes causes noticeable lag as the camera tries to deal with the data it's taking in.
These aren't deal breakers for many people. If you can handle that, then you'll be very happy with the camera in general.
If you get a hard used X-E2 and 35mm f/1.4, you can probably fit it in your budget (without any actual hardware issues)
Boom:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Fujifilm-X-series-X-E2-16-3-MP-Digital-Camera-Silver-Body-Only-with-XF-35mm-/201555868233?hash=item2eedaa7a49:g:Jl8AAOSwsN9XA9rF
>>2822348
Also
Boom #2
http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/B00FPKDSC2/ref=dp_olp_used?ie=UTF8&condition=used
>>2822311
this.
If you really like having an ovf with framelines, the xpro1 is still a very usable camera; but you'll have to be ready to shoot it as slowly as you would a film rangefinder.
If you want a fast operating camera, get the XE2.
The Xpro1 is pretty niche at this point.
>>2822345
I was in a very similar position. Had a 5Dmk2 and a bunch of accessories and lenses.
Went to the store to check trade-in prices and feel up the Nikons. I was VERY disappointed in the feel and operation of the bodies, and left disheartened. Ended up keeping my Canon gear and a couple of years later switched to Fuji.
I'm not suggesting you switch to Fuji, I'm suggesting you go get the gear you want in your hands to know what you're getting into. If you like it, then get it.
>>2822348
>old sensor,
This part is completely irrelevant, and not exactly accurate. The "old" Fuji x-trans sensor isn't really inferior to the second generation one. The Xpro2 has a clearly improved sensor, but thats third generation. The second generation was more or less a modification of the first generation (with some opinions being that the first generation was better than the second, mostly to do with skin tones at high iso)
The xtrans II cameras having a newer processor is the relevant bit. It's the slow, slow processor of the first generation that turns some off (and is indeed responsible for the camera being veryyyy sluggish in priority modes. I prefer to only ever let the camera pick a single variable, because any more than that and it's just way slower than I am)
More recent models of Fujis are very modern cameras with very modern capabilities. First generation X cameras are more like digital film-era cameras. Very capable, but very much so best left to people looking to be all manual, all the time.
>>2822355
what Nikon did you try? I would love to buy a fuji xt-1 with a vertical grip that would be incredible after I buy a bunch of Ai-s Nikkors, it looks like such a sexy camera, so did you sell your gear for the fuji at the trade in stores? I live in Japan and so it would be easier than trying to handle an online auction I don't mind taking a little hit but did you recieve a fair price?
>>2822356
Thanks for this clarification. I posted it, I thought that the sensor was transmitting data slower as well (I may have misunderstood something I read somewhere about it)
>>2822357
I believe I tried the D610 and D800. I didn't like the button layout, the thin grip was a completely turn-off to me, and the shutter sound reminded me of my old rebel. They're both great cameras, but they didn't have the feel and experience that's important to me.
I ended up getting an X100s as a gift. Loved it, but needed to change lenses, so I sold it and used the money (plus a little extra) to get an X-T1 with the kit lens, that I've slowly built up to a grip, and a bunch of lenses.
Just recently, I sold all of my Canon gear and used the money to buy an XPro2, so now I have both, and am very very happy.
I didn't trade the Canon gear in to a store in a lump, because I would have gotten raped on the price. When I took it all in to test out the Nikons, they gave me an out-the-door-with-a-check price of about $2000. I put it all up on amazon used, and got over $4000 for it at the end.
>>2822337
>also if you're getting a 35 consider the F2 R WR instead, it's much less shit wide open
I never found my f/1.4 to be shit wide open! It's it usually touted as being a fantastic wide-open lens? Particularly with nice out of focus areas? I do know the f/2 is sharper, but it's suggested by lots of reviews (and in my personal experience) that the overall rendering of the image is a lot less "magical" as it were.
Just got me one of these as my first digital camera that isn't a cellphone or point and shit. I'm a film shooter but felt the need for a handy little digital camera for casual stuff and school projects. What lenses does /p/ recommend for the M4/3? I guess the 1.8/50 prime goes without saying, but does the system have some other lenses in particular to look out for? I will have to wait until I get my first paycheck from work though, in the mean time all I have are East bloc meme lenses with an M42 adapter.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Jolla Camera Model Jolla Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 Vertical Resolution 72 Exposure Time 1/25 sec F-Number f/2.4 ISO Speed Rating 800 Lens Aperture f/2.4 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Average Flash No Flash Focal Length 4.22 mm White Balance Auto
>>2822362
fuck I may have to sell then online somehow, it's just the tamron lens too bad I bought it for portraits, sily me I'll visit the store tomorrow let's hear what they say, I would take 500-600 dollars for the 5d 2 which is literally in perfect condition and since the tamron is in fucking stellar condition, maybe 700-800 dollars for the tamron 70-200 vc usd
thx but hey if you want to check this vid out, it's great if you're saving up for a xt-1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r206JTTduWQ
>>2821411
I have an X-t1 and am very happy with it.
Four eyes so the xpro2's VF is not as comfy as the T1's massive with the long eyecup, not at all.
Anyway, how are you finding the files you're getting from the new sensor?
Do you use jpegs SOOC?
Raws?
Seeing much of an advantage over your T1?
Since the T2 is going to have the same internals I'm curious as to how it's going for you now/
>>2822372
>I would take 500-600 dollars for the 5d 2
I realize you're not in the US, but I sold my 5Dmk2 literally three months ago for $1050 along with two spare batteries and a memory card.
>>2822377
ya but I mean selling it a store that needs to make a profit I don't mind taking a hit, I bought this camera used for that, I hope I get north of what I want but anything other than what I want then I have to sell online, but when you sell online there is 15% tax to ebay and then international shipping, ill take >600 dollars for the 5d2 and use all of that for my d700 at least that is my plan
>>2822375
Really I don't notice much difference in the files, but that's my usage, not the camera. I never shoot for perfect files. I hand hold, and push my shutter speeds slow when they want to go slow. I shoot wide open most of the time, etc. I'll probably get in and compare the detail between the two when I find a crack for the new Photo Ninja that can handle RAFs but for now, in lightroom and C1, they handle about the same. The "worms" sharpening issue is still there. The AF system is a lot more granular, but doesn't really perform any better (I don't have issues with the X-T1 AF, even in low light or moving subjects after the 4.0 firmware)
I shoot raw, so the presets don't do much for me in the end result, but I do prefer having the extra toning control for what I see in the viewfinder.
The biggest advantage for me is the AF nipple, and the rangefinder design.
If you're looking for an upgrade in image quality, it's there, but it's nothing dramatic. Both cameras produce excellent photos.
The only real reason I'm keeping the X-T1 is for the grip and battery life (which at this point is just hypothetical, because I've done lots of shoots with the XP2 now and have never had a battery life issue), and for the viewfinder. Sometimes the eye relief just gets too annoying for me. But other than those couple of thoughts, I absolutely love the XPro2, but for personal preference reasons, rather than any real world advantages.
>>2822391
Here's a link to two RAFs
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/nlu9dyyr2k2gwvo/AABKhWF2Mm2RE_djDDd1IlqJa?dl=0
>>2822366
>50mm f/1.8
>adapted 35mm lenses
anon did you read up on what sensor size that camera has? You might find 50mm to be a bit too long. I recently stopped using m43 but I can still recommend a few lenses.
The Olympus 25mm f/1.8 is supposed to be pretty good and compact but I went for the Panasonic/Leica 25mm f/1.4 instead but mostly just because I got a good deal on it. It's a very good lens but a bit bigger than the Olympus. They're both pretty damn expensive for being just a normal 50mm equivalent, though. Unfortunately m43 doesn't seem to have a cheap nifty fifty.
The Olympus 17mm f/1.8 and the 45mm f/1.8 are also both really good and nice and small. I was personally never a huge fan of the 17 probably just because I don't like 35mm equivalent that much, but the 45 is totally worth getting and it's an excellent short tele lens.
I don't know if you have any interest in macro, but if you are then the Olympus 60mm macro is an incredible lens. It is honestly probably one of the best lenses I have ever used and it's the only lens I really miss. I really have pretty much nothing to say about it except that it is totally flawless.
>>2822345
>80-200 2.8 D from nikon for potraits
wh....what kind of portraits?
>>2822396
long distance ones obviously desu
>>2822396
What's strange about that? That's the most common portrait zoom range there is.
>>2822408
Well, minus 10mm, anyways.
>>2822394
Thanks for the advice. I'm well aware of the crop factor, which is why I want M43 lenses as soon as possible (although I guess I could get a 28mm Takumar). The Leica will probably be far out of my league but the 25mm Olympus is within reach. I've found 35mm to be an awkward focal length to use so I guess I'll pass on the 17mm, but I'll have to keep an eye on the 45mm, a short tele always comes in handy.
I try to avoid zooms, but just in case, does the M43 have any notably good ones?
>>2822409
10mm potraits are cool desu
>>2822417
-Minus the 10mm of range between 70mm and 80mm, missing from the 'REAL' most standard portrait zoom range, which is 70-200mm
>>2822420
80-200 used to be the norm.
Also 28-80
>>2822423
Also yes.
>>2822410
I bought the Olympus 12-40 f/2.8 when I bought my E-M1. The lens felt totally rock solid and it was really really good and it could do pretty much everything well. I returned it though because it doubled or tripled the size and weight of the camera and I've never been big on zooms either and especially not midrange zooms. The 40-150mm and 7-14mm lenses are supposedly just as great but I've never used either and they're both pretty expensive too.
>tfw brand new X100S for $649 arrives tomorrow
>>2822448
Enjoy, homie. Don't get discouraged if it operates differently than what you're used to. Once you get the hang of its rhythm you'll love it.
And learn to work with the RAF files. There's a lot of latitude.
>>2822453
Was going to post exactly this.
The AF system will throw you for a while if you're used to DSLRs but it's not broken, it just works differently. If you're in OVF, learn to deal with parallax shift which will make you put your focus point next to or behind where you think it is. Learn the different modes.
And if you feel disappointed in the files in lightroom, before getting mad and giving up, give the free trial of Photo Ninja a try.
>>2822454
>it's not broken, it just works differently
Famous last words. Enjoy missing your shots.
>>2822454
>tfw ovf with digital bubble level and live histogram
i had no idea how much i loved having a live histogram in an optical viewfinder until i used my DSLR seriously for the first time in months.
>>2822456
Why don't DSLR's have live histograms?
My D800 has a 91.000 pixel metering system.
Which should be plenty to build a histogram.
And there is already an LCD overlay to display focus points, crop mode frame lines, etc.
Anyone have any reliable site recommendations besides Amazon. I'm thinking about getting a GH4.
>>2822462
The technological difference between the viewfinder that can display a live histogram or level in an optical viewfinder, and a light up autofocus grid is kind of like the difference between the screen on an Apple Watch, and an old digital Casio from 1990.
The Fuji system is actually reflecting what's happening on a screen off to the side of the viewfinder in an overlay. On the auto focus light up, it's just predetermined boxes on the focus screen being activated or deactivated by having a current going to them or not. It's a very different thing.
>>2822473
I think 1990 is being overly generous. 1980 is more realistic. Every time I look into my dslr's viewfinder it's like looking through a time machine. I know this sounds like one of those glib statements that makes dslr users hate mirrorless guys (I know it made me hate them, at least), but it's totally true.
>>2822462
Ironically, the DSLR I was using was a D800 as well. At least live view has a live histogram.
>>2822479
That's the advantage of being a fujifag. You can shitpost all you like and have the Sonyfags deal with the counter reactions from the nikonfags.
>>2822365
Same and frankly on APSC you want to gather as much light as you can. I've tried both and I'm happy to put up with the quirks they don't outweigh the benefits.
>>2822341
>I've heard advise that its better to go cheap as possible on body and pay more on lens since they hold up value better in resale.
This kind of thinking was more important back in film days when cameras weren't just little computers with photosensitive little stickers on them.
As with all computers, moore's law applies.
The new ones will be faster, better.
The xpro1 is nearing dinosaur-tier for fuji x.
If you can spring for at least the x-e2, do it.
>>2822479
Well I didn't mean "1990" as an insult or statement of advancement, more as a way to express liquid crystal display in a recognizable way. It's pre-determined areas being lit in a clumsy chunky way, rather than a display made of pixels like a screen
>>2822481
i'm both a fujifag and a nikonfag, so I've got both sides of the field covered.
>>2821351
I'm picking up a tamron 70-300mm nikon mount for 70$ tomorrow. is this a good deal?
>>2822365
>that the overall rendering of the image is a lot less "magical" as it were.
Yeah you hear that buzzword spread around a lot.
Like "3d pop", or "zeiss look".
Who knows.
All I know is that, of the images I've taken with my fuji, overall, I prefer the ones taken on the 35/1.4. Never had a problem wide open, but then again I'm not exactly the most discerning snapshitter.
Haven't had much chance to get to grips with the 35/2.0. We'll see.
>>2822473
You don't even need that many "boxes".
100 X 100 would be perfect.
But even the 51 "boxes" for the AF points would be enough for a rough indication.
Even calculators from the 1990's had plenty of "boxes" to draw complex graphs.
>>2822479
The refresh rate and the digital Ness of evf makes me angry. I also can't shoot both eyes open.
>live histogram in viewfinder
How bad do you have to be for needing that? I bet Ansel Adams when he was prepping his set was thinking "hmm... maybe I'll need a live histogram, I just can't shoot without it"
>>2822509
Did I strike a nerve?
>>2822512
The exact opposite.
>>2822508
If you think Adams wouldn't have nutted to be able to use that, you have literally no clue about the man.
>>2822512
I don't think they are jealous of your lack of histogram Anon. I could be wrong though. Not sure.
>>2822503
Those are valid reasons to dismiss an EVF camera from your choices. Though every EVF is different. The two that I have used (X-T1 and XPro2) have very fast refresh rates that I've never noticed a flicker while shooting.
The shooting with both eyes thing would be strange. You can set up the viewfinder to match the scene, but if the light or contrast changes dramatically, you'd have to do it again, and it would be a hassle. There is always the XPro/X100 option with a tunnel finder, but hey, why not just stick to a DSLR at that point.
Is it worth replacing my current Sigma 17-50mm f2.8 with Sigma 18-35 f1.8?
I'm on Nikon D7000.
I'm basically looking for sharper photos in daylight and more light at night.
I already own Nikkor 50mm f1.8d so I don't mind it being shorter.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Windows) Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 1280 Image Height 640 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 2016:04:22 22:10:27 Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 828 Image Height 640
>>2822410
Umm, most portraits that are shot with a 70-200mm are shot at 200.
>>2822522
That isn't even a tiny slight baby bit true.
>>2822517
>>2822519
Oh yes, I forgot, your new technological gadget will make you a better photographer! Oh wait no it won't!
Do you think people before digital cameras needed a histogram? Literally there are hundreds of people out there right now making breathtaking photos without a histogram poking in their eyes or even having a digital sensor!
You don't need that to be a photographer. You need it because you're a cockmunching gearfaggot and you need your fix because a hundred dicks in your mouth 24/7 just don't cut it!
