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: >>2833731
Can someone give me an objective breakdown of Sony cam and lenses? Where does all the hate come from?
/p/, help me out. I'm looking for a decent camera (16MP or better) to bring on kayak so I don't drown the Nikons (D80 & D7200)
Mostly landscape shots but lots of wildlife so decent zoom would be good. In a perfect world it would be TTL viewing with diopter adjustment since I"m old as fuck and my eyes have gone to shit.
Waterproof
Prefer to stay under 400, ideally 200ish but can go higher if needed.
thx in advance for any help.
>>2837156
Make your own thread. This does not belong to /gear/.
>>2837157
Used K-50 with the WR 18-135mm kit lens or the WR 18-55mm kit lens and the HD 55-300mm WR.
thoughts on the sigma mc11 adapter for sony cams?
im considering switching from canon to sony and this seems the best option for adapters, if i dont want to pay a huge amount for crappy sony glass. but im a little confused as to how it functions.
if i understand correctly, say i have a bunch of sigma lenses with the EF mount. would the mc11 adapt these lenses for sony cams? and subsequently, i could have the best worlds of both canon and sony? seems like a nobrainer considering sigma lenses are the best price/value on the market, or so it feels.
>>2837241
Wait until canon 5d mkIV
>>2837241
What does a Sony body offer to you that the Canons don't?
>>2837253
video capabilities mostly. its been a long internal struggle for me, hard to decide on the 5Diii (once the iv comes out and the price drops significantly) and the a7sii as my first full frame. ive been using a t2i for something like 7 years now and only invested in glass, so now I feel like a chump considering canon is fucking over their customers considerably when it comes to updating their bodies.
ive been leaning heavily on the canon since i want to use it for photography as well, and i already have a decent EF glass collection. i much prefer canon ergonomics and AF performance but cant deny that the sony is definitely a far better camera in regards to its sensor and DR.
however it feels like the mc11 would let me use my sigma lenses while having not-shit AF, which is my biggest complaint with sony. i can deal with the ergonomics. so just wanted to field if anybody here's used it yet, had any issues with it, if it performs signifizantly better than the metabones (which imo doesn't seem worth it after hearing that it doesn't work too well in the AF department).
>>2837270
If you're hard cocked about video then the decision seems legit.
However for all other photographic purposes stick with canon or at least a DSLR
>>2837241
> thoughts on the sigma mc11 adapter for sony cams?
Seems good, but I haven't done a hands-on yet.
> crappy sony glass
It's expensive, but it is certainly not crappy in most instances.
>would the mc11 adapt these lenses for sony cams
Yep, for "global vision" era lenses. There is a compatibility listing.
When I first starting making money in photography I went a bit gear mad and had no fucking clue what I was doing. Selling the following;
- 7D: £350
- Tamron 17-50mm f2.8: £100
- Sigma 30mm first gen f1.4: £100 (Damaged filter thread)
- Canon 50mm f1.8: £50
- Two batteries
- Battery Grip
- 2 CF cards
- YN560 Speedlite
- Generic tripod
= £600
I've priced the body with the 3 lenses at £550 and the rest for £50 do you think I should up the price or does this seem about right? It's pretty much everything someone new would want and I think a fair price??
Do you use legacy lenses on MFT? What's your favourite and why?
I'm thinking of getting something cheap but fast for natural light portrait photography. A friend of mine apparently has a Hexanon 57mm f1.2, seems like a cool albeit heavy option. I guess a Canon 50mm new FD f1.4 would be the go-to choice here. Recommendations?
>>2837241
mc11 does not officially support canon lens.
please check out what people have tested it and find out what works properly.
>>2837293
I certainly think it's fair. enough to start a new life if you've got the hustle
>>2837294
i have a mint nfd 50 1.4.
best thing ever.
if you get a pentax m 50 1.4 you can adjust the helicoid easily so it stops at infinity with your adapter. the nfd nameplate is a little difficult to pry open.
most chink adapter focuses past infinity.
also check out zhong yi lens turbo ii, since 100mm equivalent is too long for normal use.
>>2837293
i'll take the smegma for 50quid.
>>2837294
keep in mind that mft has a 2x crop factor, so a 50mm lens will be 100mm. If you get a speedbooster adapter, that will reduce the crop factor, but keep in mind there's more glass involved so you might lose some image quality, too.
So I shoot Canon for work and Fuji for pleasure but on certain jobs I simply need more dynamic range and don't want to carry two lens systems so does anyone have any experience using the Commlite or Metabones adapters with the Sony A7? I can pick one up used for £500 and that's only going to get cheaper.
I plan on carrying my 5Diii for everything other than the scenes where DR is all that's important, mostly static shots like landscapes, interiors ect also some video work using Slog with my Tamron 24-70 2.8 IS.
I have far to much Canon glass to want to switch to Nikon and have no plans to use this with native lenses. Manual focus is no problem as I'm shooting static subjects with it.
>>2837303
> i have a mint nfd 50 1.4.
> best thing ever.
Will keep that in mind.
> check out zhong yi lens turbo ii
Thanks, that looks interesting. Good price/performance ratio.
> 100mm equivalent is too long for normal use.
You think so? For portraits? I've used a 105mm f2.8 briefly before and found the results wonderful, so I thought 50mm f1.4 on 2x crop might be just right.
>>2837409
The original A7? it's a piece of shit. Save up for the A7II or A7RII.
>>2837413
All I care about is the Dynamic range and there is hardly no change in that respect from model to model so I'm just going to get the cheapest I can find. I will not be using this as a main camera it will be used for maybe 1-2 hours a week just for stuff that's a hassle to capture for my 5Diii.
>>2837415
The DR of a Fuji sensor is essentially identical to the A7.
>>2837419
They are close but not the same.
Both are sony ISOless sensors though it's just a bit smaller. X100 is a good benchmark as its super close to Xtrans 2 like my XT1.
I don't want to carry in my work bag a canon set up with all my flashes and lenses then a fuji set up with the same lenses just in the fuji line its far to much. I just want a little fullframe mirrorless camera that lets me use all of my Canon glass with out any crop factor and gives me better dynamic range than my 5diii for when I need it on jobs. All my own personal work is being shot on an XT1.
I've always been interested in the x100 series cameras but can't commit to dropping $1200 or whatever it costs for the latest T version. how does the original x100 compare to the S and the T in terms of general daily use?
>>2837436
X100 has the same IQ as the other two but is slower not just in focus but also interface operations.
X100s has the same speed as the T but less features.
I've had the x100s since it came out and can recommend it they are cheap as fuck used.
>>2837149
Hey guys can someone give me some advice on a good cheap teleconverter? I need to duplicate the focal length of an old ai-s lens for my Nikon D700
>>2837453
2x TC in my experience don't worth shit. Too much image degradation for little gain. Go for the 1.4x TCs, while still have an impact on IQ the degardation is much much smaller and the results are still decent enough to work with.
>>2837436
theres a fujirumor that theyre going to release a 23mm f/2 pancake which turns an x-t10 into an x100t
just wait for that
>>2837460
pancake you say?
>>2837438
oh really? with the firmware updates I thought they'd be more in line with one another. I'll look into the S then, thanks for your help!
>>2837453
https://www.keh.com/shop/nikon-tc-201-teleconverter-lens.html
keh apparently has happy hour. with the coupon code smile512 it's 25% off all accessories, 15% off flashes
>>2837459
>>2837463
Thank you so much!
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make NIKON CORPORATION Camera Model NIKON D700 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.3 (Macintosh) Maximum Lens Aperture f/2.8 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Color Filter Array Pattern 740 Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 35 mm Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2016:05:10 18:00:39 Exposure Time 1/800 sec F-Number f/2.8 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 200 Lens Aperture f/2.8 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Spot Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash Focal Length 35.00 mm Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Gain Control None Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal Subject Distance Range Unknown
Newfag here.
I've been exposed to the alternate side of camera work, screen writing and acting.
I'm considering adding cinematography to my repertoire, what camera do you recommend to a newb?
>cam
>tripod
>lenses
>lighting
>sound
Any and all help would be appreciated.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows) Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 2048 Image Height 1363 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 2013:11:05 11:57:23 Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 1920 Image Height 1200
>>2837476
what's your budget
>>2837482
400-500 USD
Do I need to save up more?
>>2837483
nah, I got a D3100 for $120
>>2837508
wew
Was it worth it?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make NIKON CORPORATION Camera Model NIKON D2Xs Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS2 Windows Photographer Tech Sgt Keith Brown Maximum Lens Aperture f/2.8 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Color Filter Array Pattern 1402 Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 78 mm Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Created 2007:06:12 13:43:15 Exposure Time 1/500 sec F-Number f/8.0 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 125 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Fine Weather Flash No Flash Focal Length 52.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 2850 Image Height 1998 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Manual Scene Capture Type Standard Gain Control None Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal Subject Distance Range Unknown
What's a speedbooster and when do I need one for my Lumix G7?
>>2837511
works fine for me, I wouldn't use it to attempt anything professional but it's perfect for fucking around with
>>2837149
are there any cool and chill adapters for fuji x mount?
i mean like retro helios and takumar stuff
>>2837540
I hope she used the flash
Any recommendations for a tripod? 200-300 budget?
Used for DSLRs/Handycams, nothing weighing more than a 6D. Would be used for video and photo, so would prefer something that can do tilting/panning, is that what a fluid head is for? I hear Velbon is a good brand but I'm not an expert here. I'm using an entry level manfretto with a pistol grip/ball head which absolutely blows for video work.
>>2837628
Shit, I was mistaken, this will need to support more weight, as it will also be used with a rail system and added accessories. The Manfretto compact one I use now can barely hold the rail/camera/ipad teleprompter kit, but BARELY. Hopefully there's something out there that's not like, ENG level bulky but can still offer what I need. I appreciate any help guys, thanks!
>>2837628
Dic&Mic E302C or P303C
sup /p/, first time here. I do some commercial photography as one of my duties at work. for the past 5 years i've used pic related and it's been a great device, but it's finally starting to get those dark spots on the inner part of the lens that translate to images i take, from what i assume is some sort of flash burn.
What's a good compact point and shoot in this day and age? Looking for something similar to this samsung, small, with a good lens(the schneider-krueznach lens has been a beast, considering i can sometimes take upwards of 500 shots a DAY). Was honestly thinking about just getting another one of these but figured i'd come check a gear thread out on /p/ and see what you guys thought, as i'd kind of like to upgrade the MP as well. would like to be sub 300, as these bad boys are still 280$ on amazon.
>>2837635
Sony RX1R II
>>2837638
Should have left out "first time here" I take it?
Are these actually any good?
I want to use it for mainly video recording.
it's either this, a GH4 or a GX8
Someone please give me some insight
>>2837639
You did ask for a good compact point and shoot.
Otherways, try the RX100IV or III or the Fuji X70
>>2837641
True. I did say my budget was 300$-ish though. I've been doing some research and pretty much seeing that anything in that range is typically no more than 24MP which is fine. Just figured I'd see if /p/ had any point and shoots they liked for any reasons. I'm mainly looking for longevity. /g/ would just tell me to stop being a faggot and use my phone, im sure.
>>2837650
Any good modern point and shoot will cost more than that.
If you are okay with bigger size, you can get a nice used DSLR with a kit lens for that money, like the Nikon D3200 or a Pentax K-30/K-50. Those will probably have more control and better resolution for your uses.
>>2837632
Anything with some form of handle for control? Or do higher tier tripods not use those? Like I said, I know nothing of tripods. Doesn't necessarily need to be a compact like that E302C looks, but I've been seeing some ENG holding tripods that are like 7 inches wide on each leg. Do not want
>>2837657
It's a very solid tripod, just as good as the others at 5x price. The money you saved on the E302C you can spend on a nice fluid head.
>>2837640
GH4 would be much more cost effective for strict video.
If you're also serious about photography, I would suggest the Sony.
Neither the A7 nor the Gh4 have in body image stabilization so they'll age like sour cream in the sun because both makes have transitioned or a are going to transition to IBIS and thus future lenses aren't going to be stabilized.
>>2837293
Why are you selling it? Seems to me like you have a still good camera with great af and a bunch of lenses that would cover lots of photography needs.
>>2837652
Do you have any suggestions for a point and shoot with an emphasis on ruggedness and a good lens? Like i said the samsung mv800 was just simply a beast for what i put it through, constantly opening and closing the lens, amount of pictures taken, ect. and it lasted 5 years.
Was looking at the NX mini 20.5MP, it seems to have some pretty good reviews and has a 650 shot battery life which i like.
>>2837681
I have the 16-35 II 2.8, 70-200 II 2.8 IS, Tamron 24-70 2.8 and 85mm 1.2 for work now so very little need for Canon APSC stuff, plus have a 6D as a backup body so all my needs are met. Plus I have a Fuji xt1, x100s, x10 with a few fuji lenses so I'm pretty well covered for travel too.
>>2837662
Would the GX8 be the better option then?
Could you recommend a good camera for video and stills as a side hobby?
>>2837640
I have a question while you are at it: what is your opinion on the Blackmagic Pocket? As a pure video camera it seems top (although it seems to only record at 30fps, which seems a bit lackluster if you're not into "cinematic" 24fps
I've recently seen it drop to 880€.
>>2837694
Seems legit actually. I forgot Panasonic put that out.
>>2837694
GX85. Not released yet, but cheaper, same 4K, and better image stabilization. Too bad the panasonics dont have a log video profile.
Need a cam to be everyday in my pocket, I'm thinking about a Fujifilm X10 or a Nikon p7700. opinions about which one?
>>2837778
they are both small cameras.
Why is Canon 6D considered a meme camera?
>>2837794
>20MP FF
>>2837801
Sony shill detected
>>2837801
>implying the new Nikon D5 is a shit camera
>implying high megapixels = good images
anyone own a sony rx100 3? if so what are the pros and cons compared to its rivals and from personal opinion?
>>2837794
I don't know, recently copped one for 1100 maple dollars + tax. So far I like it
What's the drone equivalent of a rabble? Something cheap and entry level but good enough to get you quality photos if you're not a complete retard?
>>2838039
> DXOmark proved this long ago -- with good lenses you NEED high MP sensors to not bottleneck the system
I'd say what it shows is the other way around.
You need good lenses to not get 50% or more trash data already on mediocre sensors.
A good lens on an average sensor is getting you quite good results. A bad lens on an great sensor will suck quite much.
>>2837293
I'll take the 50mm?
Lemme know senpai
>>2837294
>I'm thinking of getting something cheap but fast for natural light portrait photography. A friend of mine apparently has a Hexanon 57mm f1.2
the hexanon 57mm f1.2 isn't cheap...
Got a 5D mark 3 with 56k shutter count, a Tamron 70-200mm 2.8 vc, a canon 50mm 1.8 and a canon 430xii speedlite.
Got the 5D for about 1000$ as used and bouth the Tamron as new, but don't use it as much as I hoped I would. It cost me around 1200$. Add a few hundred bucks to the other gear, I should be selling it for around 2000$ right?
I just shoot street photography and small family events. I study journalism so I also shoot a few people for my articles. I live in greenland and I'm really tempted to sell all that canon gear and go Fuji X-T1. Someone offered me a used one, so if I could sell my kit I might be able to buy some sweet lenses for the fuji.
>>2837425
>muh dynamic range
the difference between 12bit and 14bit is imperceptible to humans so just use your 5d3
>>2838069
a 5dmkIII for $1000 is a great deal. where I live in burgerland the mkII is that price
>>2838078
Yes, the guy who sold it was desperate for a sony mirrorless so he sold it cheap with around 40k shutter count.
I'm loving it, but on the other hand I want a more discrete camera.
>>2838089
>desperate for a sony mirrorless so he sold it cheap
Fuck yeah, take advantage of the willingly retarded! Nice deal!
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Elements 9.0 Windows Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2014:03:24 10:48:03 Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 600 Image Height 450
Came so close to selling my 2x Nikon D810s and a load of glass to go Canon today.
Still holding my breath for a camera from Nikon that competes with the 5D series. The 750 comes close but is still hampered by the functionality and build resembling the more entry level D610.
The D810 on the other hand, just finding it so slow compared to the D750 and I really don't need 36mp for what I do, give me speed and better AF any day of the week.
Did I dun goofed?
>>2838089
Discrete camera is a myth. Nothing you bring up to your face will discreet. The only way to be discreet is to shoot from your waist.
>>2837293
i could take the sigma if ur still selling
>>2838094
I see.
So I guess I can sell my tamron 70-200mm and go for a 24-70 or the sigma 35mm.
Another reason I'm considering the fuji is that a friend studying photojournalism in denmark told me that he learned his canon 6D startet to feel too big and bulky compared to a fuji, and many of his classmates has turned to fuji for their work-camera.
Not sure if I'm falling for a meme/myth.
>>2838070
Bit? you mean EV?
I have raws from the A7 and my 5Diii in Lightroom don't tell me I can't see a difference I very much see a difference.
It's not so much the 12 vs the 14 that's the problem it's the ISO invariance, You can push a ISO 100 file 5 stops in post and it will look the same as iso 6400 in camera, I can shoot a landscape at iso 100 for the highlights and then push the shadows to a very clean iso 3200.
his might help you a bit.
http://improvephotography.com/34818/iso-invariance/
>>2838105
You can see a difference when you push them, because they're designed differently, but if you just take a photo with the same settings and same parameters, you won't really see a difference.
>>2838108
But why would I shoot them the same?
They're designed differently and I can use them differently to get effects that I want. I really don't understand why you care so much about how or what I use to shoot landscapes... Fact is when I'm in the studio, shooting events, weddings ect I'm using Canon. When I want to shoot poorly lit landscapes for publications using grad nd filters n shit id rather just whip out the A7, put my Tamron 24-70 on it and make my life easy.
My whole point is they will be used for different jobs, stated it from the start and now you're like " because they're designed differently" no shit why do you think im asking about it here and maybe buying one? It's not to track brides or shoot sports ffs.
>been shooting with the same two lenses for over a year
>trying to find other lenses
>can easily spend over 1000 for a handful
>no chance of recouping that money any time soon
am i just stuck with buying older non-af lenses until i get good enough to sell/make money from my work?
>>2838099
It's all about personal preference. I've used a 6D and it's perfect with the 50mm f1.8 stm. With any zoom thought it's way too big. I don't know if you mean x100, x-pro or xt-1 when you say fuji. x100 is great as a small camera to have with you all the time. x-pro and xt-1 will be almost the same as a DSLR in both size and performance.
If you don't need the 70-200 then sell it. It's great for portraits and press conferences but not as good all around as a 24-70 or 35mm. The sigma is great optically but the AF might not be as good as some other lenses.
I can only tell you what I like. I don't know enough about you to give you the best advice.
I'm looking at getting a prime for my Pentax K-50. Are there any good older 28mm lenses before I pull the trigger on the 35mm smc? I'd prefer a 28mm desu.
Do you get Autofocus with older lenses?
>>2838105
>it's the ISO invariance,
You just said you wanted more dynamic range now you say you want ISO invariance.
what is it?
>>2838121
ISO invariance will give me more USABLE DR than my Canon.
If I wanted more than 14 ev I have to go digital MF.
Why are you such a dick?
>>2838121
iso invariance is directly related to dynamic range performance...
I have an old polarizer filter from the 80s. It still turns but is very difficult. Can i put something in it to make it turn better?
>>2838123
What do you think ISO invariance mean?
It doesn't give you anymore DR. you get max DR @ base ISO you don't get anymore because you are using a 'iso invariance' sensor.
>>2838128
I understand that but it gives me more usable information to edit. able to do tons more editing and recovery that looks like more range, the client does not give a flying fuck about all the small details.
>>2838132
What are you trying to do exactly?
>>2838134
EXPOSE FOR THE FUCKING HIGHTLIGHTS AND RECOVER SHADWOS TO ADD MORE FUCKING RANGE.
I've said it 2 other times to you now, i'm fucking done.
>>2838135
And why can't you just expose normally at base ISO?
>>2838138
Because sometimes exposing normally at base ISO doesn't keep both your highlights and shadows exposed correctly on a low dynamic range sensor.
>>2838138
.........
Are you dumb? Not even being rude i'm really asking???
If I expose for the highlights and the trees are 4 stops darker, I cant get that information back with my Canon, I can in the A7.
Now please fuck off.
>>2838140
in that scenario how can muh iso-invariance save you?
hint: it cant
>>2838143
>I cant get that information back with my Canon, I can in the A7.
dont shoot in jpeg mang
>>2838148
So you've never used both then.
I shoot concerts. I shoot on a 5D, and on an A7.
I expose for the brightly lit faces of the performers, which leaves the rest of the scene dark. I then try to push up the shadows to equalize the scene a bit.
The Canon files fall apart to banding and detail-less noise at about 2 stops of shadow push. The a7 files give me 4 or 5 stops without issue.
>>2838152
Pretty much this.
I shoot Canon 5Diii and XT1 and the amount of total range I can get after editing on my XT1 KILLS my Canon. But I have far to much high end Canon glass to switch so I'm getting an A7 used for the few jobs I really need the DR.
>>2838152
Or you could just expose to the right and pull down highlight like a non-autist
>>2838157
Canon highlights don't pull back more than about a stop before turning gray.
>>2838157
Expose for the shadows?
Are you fucking insane?
Do you even paid work?
>>2838158
What this nigger said.
I don't think people who don't own the gear they are talking about should fucking comment.
>>2838159
Don't bother. He's a7 guy who thinks he's discovered a new technique with ETTR. He's never shot a concert, and thinks that a room with a skylight, at high noon on a clear day, constitutes a dark room. Just leave him be.
>>2838159
>Expose for the shadows?
>to the right
Do you even read?
well what's the point of asking anyway since you probably will think im trying to order a pepperoni pizza
>>2838161
>He's never shot a concert
lol wat i have shot more concert than anybody else in the world
at no point did i have to use
>muh iso-invariance
all my photos came out fine
L2photography not relying on the latest buzzword from a consumer electronics company
>>2838157
Exposing the highlights (a white guy's face lit by a spot) to the very edge of the histogram on a dark concert stage leaves the shadows (anything not light by a spotlight) nearly black.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi
>>2838167
so you want basically pic related version of a concert?
>tip top kekkle
>>2838169
forgot pic
>>2838169
If there was a second performer standing three feet to the right that needed to be exposed as well, or perhaps a screaming intense crowd, then bringing information into the shadows would be very important.
>>2838207
>or perhaps a screaming intense crowd
unfortunately, a camera can not capture a scream
the technology is just not there
>>2838209
Your camera doesn't have an on-board mic?
>>2838180
I'd stick to your 5D its a tank of a work horse.
I own a 5Diii, 7D, Fuji XT1, X100S, X10.
It really depends on what jobs I'm doing but 80% + of my paid work is done on Canon.
>>2838180
>Yeah, the X-T1 does look like a same size as a 5D.
They are not anywhere close to the same size.
>>2838157
Here's a shot with a Canon camera, exposed for the shadows. Straight out of camera, exported the raw directly to JPEG.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Color Space Information sRGB
>>2838226
Here's the "recovered highlights to keep from adding noise to shadows"
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Color Space Information sRGB
>>2838229
He is so retarded.
This was taken on my XT1 and pushed, I could not do this with my £2300 Canon 5Diii and I don't need to as I don't use it for this kind of stuff.
5Diii + used a7 is a godly combo to get the best of both worlds.
>>2838099
>Not sure if I'm falling for a meme/myth.
Stop it.
>>2838234
a 5d3 would do that no problem
>>2838238
Literally 1/10.
>>2838246
Better. 6/10
In what way is it not? Musicians love photos of them including a crazy amped up crowd screaming along, jumping around, reaching to touch the performers, etc.
>>2838180
Not even close buddy.
>>2838240
Show me a photo of a 5Diii raw being pushed two stops (let alone the 5 I'm able to do with my XT1) and it remain clean AT 100%, not all of us use pro gear to post photos to flickr, if it looks clean at 100% it will look clean in the final print my clients get.
Show me that you know gear you clearly don't own better than I, someone who day in day out works with these tools for a living. I even know what ISO works for what sized print I am a motherfucking craftsmen, you move you shit posting faggot. If you know something I don't about the 5D you will be saving me £500 on a used A7.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make LG Electronics Camera Model LG-H815 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CC 2014 (Macintosh) Sensing Method Not Defined Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 2988 Image Height 3984 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 2016:05:13 18:04:36 Exposure Time 1/24 sec F-Number f/1.8 Exposure Program Not Defined ISO Speed Rating 150 Lens Aperture f/1.8 Brightness 3 EV Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Center Weighted Average Flash Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 4.42 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 3000 Image Height 2250 Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Altitude 0.00 m
>>2838250
the crowd that is reaching out is lit enough to be seen
have you actually shot a concert?
>>2838266
>gearfagging extremely hard
>I am a motherfucking craftsmen
top fucking kek
i have shot concert back before digital was a thing, where you couldn't even change the ISO. i did fine.
and i just shot a concert tour of one of the most famous female pop musicians.
but okay buddy, im sure you need the latest and greatest buzzword to do something that other people have been doing for decades.
>>2838267
Tell me more about all your experience shooting concerts?
I didn't even have to go hunting through my library for this. I just picked a random show I've shot, and glanced through quickly.
Notice how the performer's face is beginning to clip. Can't bring in more exposure without losing the most important guy in the shot.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 150 dpi Vertical Resolution 150 dpi
>>2838279
that pic is shit so it doesn't matter if the crowd is lit or not that would just make it worse
>>2838279
Or this one.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 150 dpi Vertical Resolution 150 dpi
>>2838275
I'm not gear fagging I'm explaining that one system can't do everything and a true craftsmen understands the limit of each tool and knows when to use what.
Before digital mosts pros used MF and had changeable backs to use 2 ISO's at once.
Images please.
I'm not your buddy and you did not show me a 5Diii pushing shadows two stops and being clean at 100% so you can't say shit.
Also why are you talking about gigs, I stated I need an A7 for LANDSCAPES, my 5D will do fine at a gig, bit hard but it will keep up.
I'm the main photog for Barclays social sector and SSE, I use my tools day in day out, show me me a 5Diii pushing 2 stops or get fucked.
[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 6.2 (Macintosh) Maximum Lens Aperture f/1.2 Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2016:05:13 18:21:54 Exposure Time 1/200 sec F-Number f/2.2 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 1600 Lens Aperture f/2.2 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 85.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard
>>2838281
you clearly can up the exposure on this one and pull down the highlight
You need to get the fundamentals down
>>2838281
The crowd is always lit anon! The crowd is always lit! I mean, it makes sense in my head, so why wouldn't it be totally true!!
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 150 dpi Vertical Resolution 150 dpi
>>2838285
Shit man, sometimes the crowd is just lit TOO well! Like, damn, put on your sunglasses! Gotta bust my my 10 stop ND to keep from over-exposing this crowd!
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 150 dpi Vertical Resolution 150 dpi
>>2838282
>and a true craftsmen understands the limit of each tool and knows when to use what.
yeah and no craftmen existed before somebody came up with iso-invariance
>Before digital mosts pros used MF and had changeable backs to use 2 ISO's at once.
This is clearly false. MF is large with slow lens and unsuited for concert. additionally nobody is changing backs in the middle of a dark concert but since the lighting if fixed anyway it is not even necessary.
>Images please.
no for various reasons
>I stated I need an A7 for LANDSCAPES,
so you can have muh iso-invariance?
lol
go ahead buddy spend your money im not gonna bend over backwards to save your money.
>corporate SJW hire
>proud of it
you really amuse me you know that?
>>2838291
you seem to think posting your 2/10 photos prove anything.
maybe spend more time thinking about composure next time and not shooting @ 5.6
>>2838292
>no for various reasons
Various reasons, in this case, being, because you don't have any that prove your point.
>>2838294
Oh man, I got wind burn from those goalposts flying by so fast! Knocked all the papers off my desk...
So you concede that you're full on wrong about the need for dynamic range, pushable shadows, and the existence of scenes that are beyond certain sensors?
Once we get past that, I can go ahead and post some of my published shots, rather than the stuff I have tagged as rejects because they're poor exposures?
>>2838292
I own the rights to my work and can post it freely you on the other hand have "various reasons" you can't.
I'm proud of earning £100 an hour to shoot social corporate events yet remain artistically free as a freelancer you bet your left nut I'm proud.
Still no Canon 5Diii pushing 2 stops bro.
I already have iso-invariance in my XT1 and it's fucking amazing, cant wait to have an A7 to shoot side by side with my 5Diii it's unlikely Canon will match Sony anytime soon best of both it is.
I shoot for one of the biggest corporate banks on the planet and own the rights to my images, you can't even post your shit pics of a tarted up, coked up whore, let that sink in.
[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 6.2 (Macintosh) Maximum Lens Aperture f/1.2 Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2016:05:13 19:04:52 Exposure Time 1/160 sec F-Number f/2.2 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 1600 Lens Aperture f/2.2 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 85.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard
Hi first tune here is started a thread with an advice question and was directed here.
I have £150 to spend on a compact to be used on holiday when not using my larger Lumix G3.
I was looking at Lumix TZ60 Sony HX60 or a Lumix LF1
Used or refurb is fine any thoughts on the above or is there a better option.
>>2838377
canon powershot s100 (or the S series in general) is a truly pocketable camera, shoots HD video, it should be fine for stills and video on holidays
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddL-ycOksHM
>>2838377
Used Sony RX100 M1 off ebay is like 150
>>2838377
Have you tried Google?
>>2838395
>Iv spent days on Google its driving me crazy
You've spent days googling a £150 purchase? Fuck man, just pick one and buy it. They're all going to be shit, and they're all going to be more or less the same.
>>2838402
Fair point haha £150 is pretty low I know
Is the GX8 a good camera? I can get it for £600 with a 14-45mm lens.
Is it good for video?
Advice would be much aprreciated
>>2838459
Yes.
>>2838459
It's an okay camera.
I'd still definitely prefer an A6000 for a combination of photo and video or maybe a GH4 if video is particularly important.
>>2838467
Go away Sony shill!
>>2838469
Fuck off yourself. The A6000 is just the better combination camera.
The GX8 doesn't even have particularly good CDAF and no PDAF and is almost generally worse as a photo camera, too. And its photo sensor is just worse.
>>2838472
Not even a Sony fan but he is making a good point.
If he wants to mainly for video go MFT if not the Sony is fine.
>>2838472
>implying DFD isn't the fastest CDAF technology out there that can even do C-AF in a pinch
>implying rolling shutter: the camera even competes with the panasonics on any level
>implying meme6000 has ergonomics that make sense, uncompressed raws, and a good button layout
GX85 is the better camera in my opinion thanks to IBIS. Seems like Panasonic shot themselves in the foot... but the bullet went on to kill the EM10II.
I just bought a used Pentax K-5 with a DA 35 prime lens for 340. I have no experience and no other gear, did I fuck up?
I need opinions on both teleconverters and macro extension tubes. I shoot weddings on a full frame, 17-40, 50, 24-70, and 70-200. I would like a little bit extra reach for ceremonies and the ability to do macro stuff of details like rings and things. I don't want to buy entire lenses for such limited use so that why I'm interested in these things but I have zero experience with them.
>>2838474
> My issue with sony is their specific mount type
The lineup of current lenses on the E-mount is getting quite big. I think B&H and others have more E-mount lenses than MFT lenses in stock now.
And the mount takes practically everything you might want to use on a cheap "dumb" adapter ring, same as MFT, just also including MFT (doing E-mount on MFT is not easy). But the E-mount is giving better results if you want to use typical 35mm lenses with a focal reducer in that adapter.
> I want mainly video but have only read mainly great things about the Gx8.
It will probably actually be the better camera for *only* video due to the stabilizer, 4k & the mic in.
OTOH absence of a more neutral, easier to grade color profile and its low light noise and more are why I'd really recommend the GH4 or something else. Too bad you can't afford it.
> and want a camera that won't get outdated in like a month.
iMO neither of these two are "future-proof".
Frame rates, bit rates, color depths, rolling shutter, the stuff I already mentioned and more... they both have many deficits. They already look somewhat amateurish today unless you invest a great deal of effort to conceal their deficits, and they'll possibly not hold up to a decent smartphone camera 2-3 years down the timeline (it is not even all that might change, perhaps we also will encode H.265 in 8K and so on).
>>2838486
Nope, it is a solid equipment. The 35mm is fast and sharp but having that single focal length can be limiting. I'd suggest getting a kit lens or a standard zoom lens to have a wide angle to portrait range for more versatility, especially the wide end. See if you can get a DA 16-45 or a DA 17-70. If you're interested in shooting sports and wildlife, get the HD 55-300.
>>2838495
btw the DA 17-70 only offers zoom range over the kit lens, in some parts it is even worse than the DA 18-55 kit lens. The 16-45 is one of the sharpest standard zoom lens in the budget range.
Am I using my gear properly?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make samsung Camera Model SM-G850W Camera Software G850WVLU1BOD7 Maximum Lens Aperture f/2.2 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 31 mm Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 3264 Image Height 1836 Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2016:05:13 16:29:59 Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Exposure Time 1/30 sec F-Number f/2.2 Exposure Program Normal Program ISO Speed Rating 100 Lens Aperture f/2.2 Brightness 2.2 EV Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Average Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash Focal Length 4.80 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 3264 Image Height 1836 Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Unique Image ID G16QLHF01SM
>>2838525
yes
>>2837149
Are the Fuji Instax printers dank?
>>2838528
Do you smoke weed?
>>2838527
Good.
>>2838532
No :-(
>>2838528
I'd go with Canon Selphy if you want a printer for your camera. Despite the fuckers only selling their battery as an extra it's the better printer.
>>2838091
I know that feel man. All I want is a D800 body with the D5's sensor and other bits in it, just like the setup that made the D700 so great.
>>2838324
you're right anon i don't even 'own' my stuff by any meaning of the word literally anything i do i have to call my lawyers.
most of it is to pay my ex-wife's extravagant life-style
what a joke
aight guys, I've never really been on /p/ before but decided to ask a question because most of you know your shit.
my stepdad bought me this lens from a garage sale today, thinking it'd help me not be so fucking miserable all the time. Can you tell me what it is and what i need for it to work (if it can) on an EOS 1200D?
>>2838722
the other end
I've honestly never seen anything camera related that has been stippled until now. Is this more common that it seems to me?
for a newbie on a small budget should i go canon or nikon or maybe someone else?
>>2838770
Have a look at the Pentax K-50, Nikon D3x00, A6000, depending on which budget is small for you.
>>2838770
nikon d3300 when they run the 2 lens kit sale if you want new.
>>2838781
You can get 2nd hand versions of these. I'd not recommend getting older digital bodies though. The low end of current bodies is bad enough in many situations as-is.
Getting a camera with focus peaking will help with manual glass, so I'd tend to the A6000 or K-50 myself. Can't say that I much like most old glass though.
Give me suggestions for a camera with this kind of shit in mind:
Small-ish
Good for large prints
I tend to shoot with one lens, usually a slightly wide angle so huge lens options aren't important
I guess I'm looking at stuff like the XT10, A6000, GX8 kinda stuff, its been a long while since I've done some photography and I don't know shit about all the techy geeky shit.
It seems like Fujis are highly praised, I had some of their film cameras and they were awesome, but I'm looking at video and images from the XTI, XT10 and they remind me of the hyper plastic-y globby colors of the very first digital cameras...
is that a common sentiment or am I just looking at bad examples?
>>2837628
Look at weifeng or fancier ones on eBay. Cheap and good
>>2838806
> is that a common sentiment or am I just looking at bad examples?
I don't know what pictures you looked at, but it's probably Fuji's default gaudy and somewhat odd color grading on their JPEGs? Presumably nothing you couldn't fix in post.
I'd personally go with the Sony A6300 (or A6000, but that one is really not in the same price range).
I had a D3200 a while ago, I really liked the image quality of that camera. Are todays mirrorless cameras able to produce images like that or better?
The D3200 images had really nice natural color, does that suffer with mirrorless? I don't know shit about cameras.
What I'm trying to say is I'd like a mirrorless camera with image quality (interms of color and dynamic range) to be equal to or better than the D3200 I had, are there any cameras that fit this description?
>>2837628
I'd go with the Dic&Mic. Otherwise some Sirui or Benro.
Optionally you could also stick a Sirui high-end head on a Dic&Mic.
>>2837657
> Anything with some form of handle for control? Or do higher tier tripods not use those?
Though the fancier models of pan-tilt heads are good for videography, they are usually not a tool of choice for most people's photography. Also not on the high end.
Ball or for big lenses gimbal heads are indeed what you probably want to use.
>>2838822
Weifeng has a few that are just barely passable, but I'd not recommend the brand all in all.
Especially not the cheaper lineup, they also have some fairly trashy ones.
>>2838828
> I had a D3200 a while ago, I really liked the image quality of that camera. Are todays mirrorless cameras able to produce images like that or better?
Sure. Sony is like the best sensor manufacturer out there, and their own recent cameras do have some of the best sensors you can get.
The D3300 also has a Sony sensor, and just a decent one - not the very best. It is still an upgrade over the D3200's sensor though.
> The D3200 images had really nice natural color, does that suffer with mirrorless?
No.
> What I'm trying to say is I'd like a mirrorless camera with image quality (interms of color and dynamic range) to be equal to or better than the D3200 I had, are there any cameras that fit this description?
Yes, I think apart from the Sony cameras I already mentioned various (usually higher-end) Olympus, Fuji, Panasonic, Leica and other MILC also fit that description.
Who here /Leica/
>>2838838
Let me rephrase, massive get cheaper legs, but make sure you get a good head. And if you are going to be hanging heaps of accessories on it, get over with an adjustable counterweight. It makes a huge difference.
I have my slider on two fancier 3 section carbon fibre legs that were $109 AUD each and they are fine. Not as nice as my nice fluid head cf manfrotto, but definitely fine for 1/6 the price
>>2838795
>Can't say that I much like most old glass though.
why not?
Whats the 2016 equivalent of a 650D? One of my friends has one and that thing is idiot proof, you'd almost be fooled into thinking you're actually a good photographer since it basically does everything for you and pumps out the nicest looking pictures. I'm no longer a NEET so I have some money to burn on hobbies now, and I'd like something like that that takes a really nice photo while still being friendly to amateurs.
>>2838852
Literally nobody.
>>2838883
760D
I'd personally go for a used 70D though. Or a K-50.
>>2838781
Note about old glass on Nikons. Most non-pro nikon bodies (anything cheaper than d7000) don't have any way to know what f-stop a non-CPU lens is set to, which keeps the meter from working. You can still use it, you just have to use an external meter or guess the exposure using "sunny 16" rule or something.
>>2838929
That's funny, even the lowest entry level Pentax can meter in aperture priority on an M42 lens.
>>2838929
what about mirrorless and metering on manual lenses?
>>2839015
Mirrorless works differently.
>>2839039
I don't get why it would be difficult for a nikon either. Film SLRs had metering long before auto exposure or electronics in the lenses.
>>2839104
It's just the gimped design decision for the lower end cameras. the sensors, lenses and the controls are mostly like in the big boy cameras so the only way to nudge the user to upgrade to a bigger level camera is to disable features either by software limitation or by taking out stuff, like the screw drive focus.
I'm genuinely surprised you are surprised about it, this is pretty much how every other company works.
Does anyone know what lens this is? They're using it to shoot porn, likely photos not videos.
>>2839237
Probably an 80-300 f/2.8 L
Why does it matter?
>>2839237
>Caring more about the lens than the porn
Never change /p/
>>2839248
>80-300
a what? that's not a thing in L glass land.
and yes, it's L glass.
>>2839252
Meant 80-200. Typo.
>>2839251
so post some fucking porn, what should I get excited by looking at that picture? are you creaming yourself from seeing porn written down?
>>2839251
ever since I started coming to /p/ porn annoys me. Blown highlights everywhere, fucked up colors. I actually checked the exif info on a photoset of some chick cosplaying an elven stripper. Canon 85/1.2L, every shot with it wide open. There were more than a few shots with the girl's eyes in focus but not the long plastic ears she was wearing. (The costume was nicely done, actually. Go figure.) Oh, and bonus points to JAV for that "lets just use a fisheye so we don't have to bother with framing or focus!" shit.
can we discuss, which is better. the sigma 1.8 18-25 for crop sensor or the 2.0 24-32 for full frame? I personally like the 18-35 because it is a portrait focal length range its a stop down from 2.0, whats your opinion on these?
>>2839279
>18-35
>Portrait length
>/p/ was named in honor of p-mode
based moot
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Canon Camera Model Canon PowerShot A590 IS Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Elements 6.0 Windows Maximum Lens Aperture f/4.5 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 180 dpi Vertical Resolution 180 dpi Image Created 2011:06:27 20:35:38 Exposure Time 1/5 sec F-Number f/4.5 ISO Speed Rating 200 Lens Aperture f/4.5 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 16.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 400 Image Height 293 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard
>>2839289
>>/p/ was named in honor of p-mode
>>2839039
Could you describe it abit to help me decide what camera to get if i plan to use a lot of manual lenses?
>>2838929
I thought cheap Nikons could stop down meter with MF lenses?
Personally I don't think MF glass really has any place on entry-level Nikons, though. It's just too damn hard to focus through their viewfinders, and you don't even get focus confirmation on the cheap bodies.
>>2839428
On the K-3 you don't have to mash the green button. It meters even more automagically than on the K-5 and before.
Already have a dslr. Thinking of getting a Ricoh GR just to bring to concerts that don't allow dslrs. The only point and shoot camera I've owned was a cheap Sony Cybershot that was like $100. It was a pretty shit camera, and I didn't know what any of the settings meant back then so that couldn't have helped. How much of an upgrade is a Ricoh GR compared to a cheap entry level dslr?
>>2839428
Might as well get the K1 if you're going that route, it's pretty cheap for what it is and the film lens prices make up for what the body costs if you're just going to shoot vintage glass anyway.
>>2839320
I'd get a recent Sony MILC. They're excellent for adapting lenses. They all have focus peaking and magnification, good sensors, and more adapters than anyone else.
The A7[S/R] II also provide IBIS that works just fine with manual lenses.
>>2838882
Because they are usually very much not sharp (with secondary CA and so on), and often had noticeably poor transmission of light. Sometimes the issues with flaring and such also are terrible.
Personally I don't usually want a photo with "vintage effects", I just want something nice and clean that I can crop and edit if I care to. Good modern glass does this a lot better.
Anyone here switched from a DSLR to a mirrorless system?
How did you find the autofocus system of a mirrorless compared to a DSLR?
>>2839582
Sony's AF is just fine, better than most midrange DSLR. Try it hands-on on an A6300 or A6000 or A7 II / A7R II if you have doubts.
>>2839582
eos m the best.
>>2839568
Stop buying shitty glass with scratches, fungus and misaligned elements. I never had any problems with my Pentacons and the Helios 44M, all sharp with very-very small CA. Of course I didn't buy from dubious sources from Bumfuckistan or whatever third rate countries.
Old glass can be as good as todays glass, the only thing you have to keep in mind is the lower contrast and pastel color rendition, all these are easily corrected in post if needed.
tl;dr: stop being a raging idiot
are books gear
i need a book for composition for beginers
I'm not quite how to categorize this lens after spending some time with it.
On the bright side, it's APS-C which almost has full frame coverage with fairly good center sharpness, and it only cost me 140 bucks. And it's very tiny and lightweight too.
On the bad side... Dat corner performance.
It gets ridiculously soft in the corner because the lens was never meant to work for full frame.
I guess it's a good poorfag lens if you have a cheap A7 and want a cheap, super compact, wide angle with AF.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make SONY Camera Model ILCE-7M2 Camera Software paint.net 4.0.5 Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 6000 Image Height 4000 Number of Bits Per Component 16, 16, 16 Compression Scheme Uncompressed Pixel Composition RGB Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Data Arrangement Chunky Format Image Created 2016:05:16 01:35:27
>>2839666
>I'm not quite how [sic] to categorize this lens after spending some time with it.
Yes, you are. It's an APS-C lens. That's how it's categorized.
>>2839675
It's a really good APS-C, but it's also more than that.
>>2839666
What the fuck are you talking about? Not only do we not know what lens you're talking about, it's shit, and you might as well have bought one of any of the old film era 24/28s.
>>2839682
Is it? Seems like you said it isn't, because when you put it on full frame, it sucks. You can use a hammer to open jars in your kitchen. It does a really bad job, and everyone who sees it is going to go "huh?"
That doesn't make it more than a hammer.
>>2839666
What is this? The 19 or 30mm Sigma Art?
Anyhow, of course you typically forfeit the corners if you use an APS-C lens on FF.
And regardless which this is - it is a *really* good deal for a $140 lens anyhow, if what you posted is a 1:1 crop into the corner of the shot.
what are your thoughts on purchasing a used 5D Mark II these days? coming from an original 5D is there going to be a noticeable difference in daily use and image quality?
>>2839683
My bad, I didn't think paint.net would mangle the exif to death.
>>2839689
I hate the AF on the 5D II and more.
Definitely get the 5D III instead, it is so much better.
>>2839687
>The 19
Yup.
There aren't many alternatives with AF yet. It's either this super cheap one, o the new Batis 18, or it's the big 1Kg Sigma F1,4 adapted.
I guess all things considered, I prefer the Batis by a long shot.
>>2839693
oh for sure, the 5D3 is a much better camera however used is almost two grand which is nearly as much as buying one brand new. I guess I'll skip the 5D2 then, thanks for saving me a couple hundred bucks anon
>>2839689
If you mostly use the center AF point then you can take a look at the 6D. It's AF is dated but the DR is better than the 5DIII and the center point is (mostly) spot on.
>>2839694
I think this hack works better with the 30mm and even more the 60mm, but again, this isn't bad. I figure I'd just script the cropping of the useless areas and be quite happy with them.
OTOH you can usually do just fine in this range without AF. Perhaps have a look at the Samyang etc. lenses eventually if the corners bother you too much anyhow?
>>2839696
Well, I should have figured money is the reason.
But let me put it this way: I'd also take a D3300 or K-50 or A6000 (or other APS-C cameras) before the 5D II for almost any kind of photography. Even if that meant that sometimes I'd have to use a $80-100 optically not quite perfect Chinese MF only focal reducer.
>>2839700 (cont'd)
I just saw the post posted 20 seconds earlier too late, but I'll add that the 6D *also* is better in almost all situations, yes.
I figure the only situation where I might still slightly prefer the 5D II over the APS-C cameras is small products / macro shots in a studio.
i need help. i'm torn between buying Canon's EF 24-70 f/2.8L or their EF 24-70 f/2.8L II. or even buying a smaller camera in general to minimize space without losing image quality. I've also been toying around with the idea of picking up an X100 or similar as it's smaller, not 100% sure though. any of those suggestions would be wonderful.
my 35mm f/1.4L is busted (but still works) and i need to send it in to be repaired, however i would like to replace/add to it with better all-around lens before i go off to Europe for a couple of weeks in July. shooting almost exclusively with the 35mm has been a lot of fun, but it has had its limitations. a couple years ago i was using a Rebel or a 7D with a Canon EF 10-22 and i got some not so bad pics out of it.
is there enough of an image quality difference that i should drop the extra dosh on the II versus the original? i've set my limits at ~$800 for the original 24-70, and ~$1500 for the II version.
in case anyone was wondering, i'm shooting with a 5DmkIII. i'm planning on bringing my it with either the 24-70 or my 35 f/1.4 if it's repaired in time.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Canon Camera Model Canon EOS DIGITAL REBEL XSi Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS5.1 Macintosh Maximum Lens Aperture f/3.5 Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 4272 Image Height 2848 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 2016:05:15 15:09:14 Exposure Time 1/50 sec F-Number f/5.6 Exposure Program Landscape Mode ISO Speed Rating 100 Lens Aperture f/5.7 Exposure Bias 0 EV Subject Distance Infinity Metering Mode Pattern Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 12.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1000 Image Height 667 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard
Trying to figure out which to get, between a D5300 with a Rokinon 16mm f2 or an a6000 with Rokinon 12mm f2, speaking more of the bodies, which has higher IQ, any other mentionables around the $400 used body price-point?
>>2839802
>$400
Pentax
>>2839789
>Canon 17-40mm f4
>Canon 20mm f2.8
Or buy the 24-70 mk2. It's mandatory with a 5dmk3. Definitely bring the 35mm too, or grab the f2 IS.
>>2839812
currently have the 35mm 1.4 but i'm trying to pack lite, i'm just hesitant because of the price difference, but god damn if that 24-70 mk2 isn't tempting.
Hi, I'm planning on buying my first camera. I'm a complete beginner and want to buy a camera to take pictures as well as record videos for whatever the case. I was wondering what's a good starting camera that isn't too outdated but does a good job? Preferable around £300 or under. I don't want to go all out on my first time. I heard the 1D was good according to a friend but I'm unsure on where to start. I don't watch to make a mistake on purchases since I don't know much about this.
Any other advice anyone could offer on that too? Thanks.
>>2839823
Also to add would it be better to get a DSLR or Mirrorless. I recently heard of these terms, but I'm looking to do it casually as a hobby occasionally, not to be a serious photographer.
Just got a TX55 for £80 did I fuck up? Im after something small cheap and reliable
>>2839834
*TZ55
>>2839833
DSLR is a trusted and tested design, it will most definitely suit all your needs. Mirrorless as the name states gets rid of the mirror assembly and replaces it with electronics. It can be as capable as the DSLRs but people still associate it with the old digital point and shoots and companies design them according to this, so you will often see unneeded features packed in and important features neglected or outright taken out.
