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: >>2851645
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 700 Image Height 456
talentless fucking hacks, we need to rename the board to /p/ - Cameras
>>2853874
I am sorry sir, this is the photography board. No cameras allowed.
>>2853874
Gear is the only thing worth discussing on 4chan.
Go to 500px or Flickr or Instagram or whatever if you want to talk about your pictures.
Okay so I want to get a compact-ish camera, something like Fujifilm x100t, but I'm not sure what to get. What about the Ricoh GR? Any other camera's like that which are good?
>>2853911
X100s, X100t and GR are pretty much the top of the line in that budget range.
If you like using viewfinders then the Fuji is the better choice, the GR has no viewfinder but has features for quick stealthy streetshooting. Also the GR lens are very nice and gives that older film GR look. Also dust, if you are unable to keep it in a clean bag and not put it directly in your pocket.
If you like a zoom lens instead then go for a Fuji X30, X70 or Sony RX100IV.
>>2853916
I'm in my second year of my photography degree, I have a nikon d800 and whatnot, a decent kit, but I've come into some money and want to get a compact for some personal stuff. For mainly street and a bit of documentary, what would be better, the GR or the x100t.
Also, what is the real difference between the x100t and the x100s. Thanks heaps.
>>2853926
>what is the real difference between the x100t and the x100s.
google it.
There's also the RX100, RX1, X70, Canon powershot line.
I'm looking for a lens with a very small IMAGE CIRCLE of around 20mm, known for sharpness and with a very small barrel diameter. I thought about using security camera lenses but they seem to project pretty soft images. It doesn't have to be a DSLR lens. In fact, preferably it wouldn't be so that I could push the cost sub-20$ for it.
>>2853929
Making a spy cam to see your sister naked in the shower huh? Yeah, we've all been there. Try just hiding a gopro under some towels and doing wifi tether.
>>2853926
I can't really recommend one over the lother. The best way to determine is to go into a shop and try both. Whichever feels better in your hand.
Be sure to get a separate pouch for the GR though, the dust can be an issue later.
Anybody able to recommend a good starting camera for somebody who wants to get into photography?
Mostly going to be taking photos of birds/dogs and probably nature (like beaches and things like that).
Only experience I have is with a GoPro (which was pretty fun getting "action shots" of my dog at the beach in the surf and rain).
Is something like a Canon EOS 1300D Digital SLR Camera w/ 18-55mm Lens a good start? I really don't know wtf I am doing.
>>2853932
Hah, no. I want to stack them together to make a hideous octocam. 8 lenses on a 4x5 negative.
>>2853943
What's your budget?
What region are you in?
How seriously do you plan to take it? Will you be interested in learning post processing and editing, or do you want nice files directly from the camera?
How long do you plan to keep and use the camera before potentially upgrading?
When you say birds and dogs, do you mean fast action stuff like flying and running? or like standing and laying?
>>2853943
Buy a second hand canon x00D line. Make sure you get the 18-55 IS with it. Save the rest of your money for later.
>>2853946
1. Up to $400 USD (or around that)
2. Probably prefer nice photos straight from the camera. Probably won't do a lot of editing or anything like that. At least not right away.
3. Hopefully get a lot of use out of it before needing to upgrade, but this doesn't really matter.
4. As for photos, animals will probably be flying/moving. But I'd like to take photos of static scenes too. Maybe plants or rivers/beaches/buildings etc. I kind of want to be able to take photos of a little bit of everything.
What's the actual difference between the Canon 5D Mark III, the 5DS and the 5DS R?
Which one is better and why?
>>2853953
Look up Nikon D3300 with 18-55 VR or Pentax K-50 with 18-55 WR
>>2853959
For what?
5DIII is an allrounder, not spectacular in anything but more than decent in most.
5DS and 5DS R are both studio or landscape cameras, not really usable for anything else.
>>2853953
With that budget, you're probably going to struggle.
For photos that look really nice straight out of the camera, the only option that really stands out is Fuji, but you won't be able to afford any of the bodies that will actually be worth getting (X-T10, X-E2, X-T1, XPro2)
You can get some okay clean looking images out of normal DSLRs, but they won't be really "edited" looking, just well corrected. Many people like the rendition of Canon's jpegs, but they're not better or worse, it's just taste.
Getting good enough autofocus on a camera (and lens) for $400 is going to be your biggest challenge. Something like a D7000 or 7D would be okay, but I doubt you'll get that price for them.
For that low price, you'll be best off with a Pentax, probably, feature wise, but even then, they won't be giving you birding-level performance.
>>2853962
Thanks.
>>2853961
+1
Nikon D3300 is the way to go. They have Canon and Pentax beat on the most camera for your money. If a few months with a d3300 cant get you into photography, youre doing it wrong.
All that nikkor glass youll have access to is awesome as well.
>>2853966
Not on the D3x00 and D5x00 though, most of the awesome glass is manual only without metering on them.
If he intends to keep the body around, the Pentax is a better choice, for some years keeping it will only need a few better lenses.
>>2853966
>cripple tier nikon body
>most camera for your money
are you nigger serious?
Looking for recommendations for a compact camera.
Something that can do a little bit of everything (moving targets, photos of buildings/mountain areas, etc)
Most compact cameras that I have used were all pretty low budget and crap quality.
Thanks
>>2853978
Canon S110
>>2853978
How compact are we talking? There are a couple of cameras smaller than your standard DSLR that are okay at autofocus, but I wouldn't call them "compact".
a6000, a couple of the M4/3 options like the EM1 for instance.
>>2853963
How automated is lightroom processing? Does it pull lens profiles and clean a lot up itself?
I don't know shit about editing photos.
>>2853985
Lens profiles can be automated, and there are auto-processing settings you can click, but they just do some math based on exposure, and aren't able to discern subject, or your intent. They're almost entirely for correction, rather than processing.
Can anyone recommend me some great canon lens for cinematic photography ? Which one are most common for that kind of photography ? Thanks
>>2854002
What do you mean "cinematic photography"?
Chances are high that you are giving a lens credit for what is actually light, composition, subject, and processing, but we'll give you the benefit of the doubt here.
I guess you could mean anamorphic lenses?
>>2854005
I mean some great wide lenses with good f and bokeh, you can see on link below
https://flic.kr/p/HFLCiY
it doesn't have be cinematic, but good lens for portraits.
>>2854008
Well, great wide lenses are generally not good for portraits, since you either leave your subject very small in the frame, or have to get too close to them and make them look crazy from perspective distortion.
So what you really want is "a good lens" yes?
What is your budget? What is your planned purpose? What camera system will you be using it on? It sounds like you want a zoom lens, since you want both wide, and portrait lengths, and getting those with fast apertures that look good isn't usually cheap.
>>2854008
literally a kit lens could have taken that shot
>>2854008
I dont think you understand the effect a different lens has. Damn near any camera is capable of that kind of shot.
A better lens doesn't make a better photographer, it sounds like you're just trying to buy a lens because you want a new lens, not because your existing kit is holding you back
Oh look, another gear thread.
>>2853897
Wrong. Nothing is worth "discussing" on 4chan.
Do those chinese rubber lens tools work well?
>>2854012
Well i need new lens because old ones are broken, i have 18-55mm and 50mm which is btw great for portraits but i now i need something different, maybe zoom lens yes. I'm sick and tired of swaping lenses all the time, for landscapes, portrait, macro etc :) My price range is about 600 bucks
>>2854018
If you want a zoom lens for portraits, as well as landscapes, you might look into a 24-105 L? You're on crop though, so you won't get very wide with it.
There are ultra-zooms that go from 18mm to like 300mm, but they're not very good, image quality wise, especially for $600.
Still, the way you're talking about it, it doesn't sound like the issue is your lenses.
>>2854018
I get the feeling you don't even know what you want.
What specifically are you unhappy about with your current stuff? What limits you in what you want to achieve with your photography? Reach? Bokeh? Sharpness?
>>2854024
Let me put it like this, is there one lens that can take these photos(One lens ofc)
I dont talk about post procesing, just one lens which can take portraits or great landscape photos, full body models and close ups
https://flic.kr/p/HAhJG1
https://flic.kr/p/GHpRu3
https://flic.kr/p/HwXFor
https://flic.kr/p/HjxsAu
>>2854028
You'll want a 17-50 2.8 like http://photo.net/equipment/product-detail?product_id=480
>>2854028
There is no lens that can do all four of those photos for $600.
And you can "not talk about post processing" all you want, but you need to learn it, because that's a huge part of getting photos like that, and no matter what camera or lens you have, you won't get those results without knowing how to process.
>>2854033
I know how to edit photos, that is not a problem.
>>2854034
I definitely believe you. After asking for a "cinematic lens" clearly you have a great handle on what you're doing.
>>2854036
Ok ;)
i'm very interested in dental photography, but i have no clue about it
>>2854028
at that resolution your kit lens would work fine
>>2854043
Macro lens and a couple of flashes, I would guess? What's the draw, if I might ask?
>>2853970
For someone who does not want to or cannot drop 2000+ on a prosumer body plus lenses the d3300 gets you 24 megapickles, the best low light iso and noise performance youre gonna get under a grand. It has the same sensor as top of the line DX cameras right now. Youre clearly speaking from your ass familia.
Go look at some pictures taken on D3300s and still call it cripple tier. Its wayy more than enough camera for someone trying to get into photography.
>>2854051
>megapickles
>low light
>noise
sonyfag detected
next you're gonna link dxomark
>>2854058
>sonyfag
>recommending nikon
???
>>2854028
You did not answer my question.
>What specifically are you unhappy about with your current stuff? What limits you in what you want to achieve with your photography? Reach? Bokeh? Sharpness?
You've more than shown you really don't know what you're talking about.
You don't need some magical perfect lens that's good at everything, you don't even need some lens for about 600 bucks, you need to take your pair of perfectly adequate lenses and go out and shoot. Save your money and come back when you've hit the limits of what your gear can provide, when you know what exactly you want to achieve, and you'll be able to make an intelligent purchase. Right now you'd be wasting your money whichever lens you buy.
>>2854059
>nikon
>not using sony sensor
pick one
>>2854064
Well I have $600 what am I gonna do?
>>2854067
Not spend it on gear you don't need.
>>2854067
Buy one lens, then buy the other two-three lenses later.
>>2854067
You already have a wide lens for landscape and travel in your kit lens, and a portrait lens in your 50mm. Learn to use them. The photos you've posted are all made up of two important things - Being in a beautiful or visually interesting place, and then processing the image well afterwards. There is nothing about a lens that makes any of those photo difficult to get.
>>2854155
These photos are way sharper than most kit zooms can do.
Two have both good sharpness and pretty pleasant & even bokeh, a combination typically costing >$500 on a lens.
Especially "Lisa" seems like a shot that is just mostly result of using a quality lens (and a swimsuit model of course).
You could do something *a bit* like that on a nifty fifty, but really, you want a decent prime or high-end zoom lens to get exactly this result or better.
>>2854179
Yeah, no. With correct settings and technique, you can absolutely achieve that result with a kit lens. Especially after down-sampling.
First time buying a camera. Looking at older cameras as my budget is $150 or lower.
Would there be any downside to picking one type over another? Looking at dslrs, SLTS, and mirror less
>>2854184
Use your cell phone. You won't get better image quality for under $150.
Any serious point in getting a 50mm f/1.4 if I already have 1.8? Also, would I be able to use either on full frame if I upgraded from my T3i?
What's the significance of autofocus when making purchase decisions?
>>2854185
An A230 or 50D won't be better than a phone? Different lense options would be nice.
>>2854188
Potentially better build quality, and better overall image quality, but if you're asking, then no, you're fine.
>>2854190
The answer seems obvious to me, so I'm unsure how to reply... Some autofocus is better than other autofocus? Some is designed to be "okay" and "good enough for most people" which would be not good enough for demanding people shooting fast motion, or sports, or wildlife. Some high end cameras also have AF points that work with a lens that has a very small max aperture. For instance, a 1DX will focus with a lens with a max aperture of f/8 whereas a 750D will not.
>>2854195
I think the idea really is you should try to learn about composition and lighting with your readily available camera first before you dive into the game of bodies and lenses
I didn't have a camera on a phone when i started i had a Sony DSC-W55 point & shoot which is okay for a few things but i wanted to play with settings more so thats why i went on Keh and got me a Rebel XT & 18-55mm kit lens. Together it was under $125 iirc. I dont regret it but i really wish I went for a lens longer than 55mm.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Canon Camera Model Canon EOS DIGITAL REBEL XT Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2016:01:28 00:18:14 Exposure Time 1/100 sec F-Number f/7.1 Exposure Program Normal Program ISO Speed Rating 200 Lens Aperture f/7.1 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Partial Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 55.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 3456 Image Height 2304 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Manual Scene Capture Type Standard
>>2854195
>50D won't be better than a phone?
I'm finding 50Ds without any lens at all for double the budget. Where are you getting a 50D with a lens for $150?
>>2854202
In the process of learning that as is. Have an Xperia Z3, which has a pretty nice camera, but a dslr or something would be nice.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Sony Camera Model D6616 Camera Software 23.1.C.0.399_6_f2010010 Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2016:04:05 18:42:06 Exposure Time 1/1600 sec F-Number f/2.0 ISO Speed Rating 50 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 4.60 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 3840 Image Height 2160 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Night Scene Subject Distance Range Unknown
>>2854215
No idea why it was set to night scene.
Old pic.
>>2854204
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Canon-EOS-50D-15-1-MP-Digital-SLR-Camera-BODY-ONLY-/152105708075?hash=item236a34ea2b:g:jwwAAOSwagdXSG4k#viTabs_0 will probably go higher, but yea. Also mainly just looking for a body at that price.
Then a cheap ass lense for a bit.
>>2854216
>ebay
I might just be picky/paranoid but for used gear I'd stick to Keh or Adorama/BHPhoto.
Craigslist is a maybe but you'd need to know how to test and look for any issues. eBay would scare me a little and considering Keh sells the 50D @ $250 at the lowest I'd be skeptical of that deal.
Also everyone here will tell you not to go cheap on the lens. Really you'd want to go cheap on the body if anything. Cheap lens on an amazing body will still yield shit pictures and you wont feel good about your pictures either.
>>2854219
I've had good experiences with eBay for a lot of things (PCs included). Been looking at Keh and Adorama as well.
Is it worth it to buy a more expensive polarizer, or can I get away with a cheaper one? Is the difference in price just more about build quality than actual image quality?
>>2854181
...
What are the best speedlite flashes on amazon right now. Im not looking to spend 500 on one flash. lets keep it down under 100. ive seen some good ones but want your opinions.
i have a canon
>>2853929
no one has any lenses in mind?
>>2854304
Try any APS-C lenses
>>2854257
Yongnuo seem to get a good rap, it's what I'm gonna be going with soon.
I want to shift from film photography to digital but i want it to still look good while rgarding yhe colours. I have a canon ae1, a minolta xg1 and a canon af35ml. I really want the shots to feel ,,alive,, .
>>2854327
Also if i buy a fuji x series body ...what lenses will i be able to use on them. Can i use cheap lenses with adaptors or will yhis render t useless. Sorry fir being such a retard about everything.
>>2854373
It's an AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-55mm/3.5-5.6G EDII
>>2854330
Fuji X series is very good about manual lenses with adapters. Just do some basic research, dumbass.
>>2854396
Body is meh, but great for free. Lens is pretty sharp.
any R-D1 owners here?
>>2854406
Hey man, for my budget it was one of the cameras I was looking at.
Gonna learn basics and stuff with this and possibly move up to something with 12 MP and give this to someone else as a way to share the experience.
>>2853926
>photography degree
Enjoy your new job at the gas station.
Is the sigma DP Merrill a meme camera, or actually good? Are the raws a pain to work with?
>>2854432
meme
>>2854437
Why?
>>2854305
I'm trying to avoid DSLR because it's expensive. Can you buy APS-C lenses for less than 20$?
>>2854257
Yongnuo 560 IV
Hey /p/
A couple months ago I bought a D3300 with an 18-55mm II and between then and now I've bought a 50mm 1.8G, an old 28mm 3.5 AI, and I've borrowed a friend's 55-200mm VR. I've bought some other gear like a fisheye adaptor, a tripod and flash triggers (for when borrowing a flash), but I still feel limited.
Am I misguided to want to upgrade to a D5500/D7200 for features like wifi and more AF, or should I spend my money on working gear like a flash (I have a shoot planned in the next couple days and I'd rather not use OC flash).
Thanks
>>2854450
How do you feel limited? Wifi is a pretty shit feature IMO.
>>2854454
I don't like how much grain I get at ISO 800, but maybe I just need to keep practicing until its not an issue. I try to remove most of the noise in camera raw, but even sharpening afterwards doesn't seem to fix the blur of luminance correction
>>2854458
>muh noise
shoot @ 400 then
also noise is overrated, most pics are looked at on a screen these days an when you downsample to 1080p all the noise disappear
>>2854445
Could buy old cctv lens for about that I think.
Or those little toy camera holga ones.
>>2854469
But thats ISO 800 at 1/30sec and f/2 shooting people. Using 400 would mean 1/15sec, which is already hard to handhold
Actually I'm shooting with a Nikon D600 + 24mm 2.8 + 80-200 2.8 AF-S, but I'm thinking to move to Fujifilm and get some Xpro2 or XT1 with 23mm and the 100-400mm.
The problem is, as I work at parties and events, I would need a camera that can work nice at low lights and still be able to get me some low noise and light painting.
Would Fuji give me what I need or should I stuck with a DSLR for work only?
>pic is what I shoot at some parties
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make NIKON CORPORATION Camera Model NIKON D600 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.1 (Windows) Photographer E. Chiereguini Maximum Lens Aperture f/2.8 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Color Filter Array Pattern 858 Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 24 mm Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Created 2016:06:02 19:53:00 Exposure Time 1/10 sec F-Number f/8.0 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 1600 Lens Aperture f/8.0 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Center Weighted Average Light Source Unknown Flash Flash, Compulsory, Return Detected Focal Length 24.00 mm Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Gain Control High Gain Up Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal Subject Distance Range Unknown
>>2854474
then get out of the cave
>>2854476
Low light means you can't mirror less.
Poorer auto focus at low lights.
APSC has more noise at low light.
Stop thinking about meme cameras and keep to the real ones.
>>2853865
The autofocus on this thing is SO BAD.
Is it supposed to hunt for focus even in a well lit room?
Is it because it is a shit lens? Or will software updates fix it?
I guess it is what I should expect with it being so damn cheap.
>>2854495
I expected nothing less from something meant for the FE lineup that isn't Zeiss or a GM. I can already hear people on the SAL forums saying shit like "Well you should have bought the 55 Zeiss if you wanted a good lens!"
>>2854497
I probably should have, but I found it for $200 compared to the $800 on the 55mm Zeiss.
>>2854495
you got cucked by sony, they gave you a shit lens just so they can compete with the 'nifty fifties' from canikon.
dont worry though just use manual focus with peaking
>>2854501
It is a shame.
I probably would have been better off with their a-mount 50mm 1.4 and the LA-EA4 adapter.
>>2854507
or just use the takumar 50 1.4 adapted. that lens is hot.
>>2854508
>Takumar 50 1.4
It even gets autofocus with the Techart Pro adapter too.
>>2854510
wait you do?
holy shit
>>2854512
>deprecated
>get a laea3 + a7ii
Wait what?
The EA3 has no motor for the screw drive to focus with.
>>2854512
>enjoy your radiation.
that's why it's so good
also the radiation is miniscule as long as you dont eat it
>>2854513
Yep.
Made for M mount, but they also sell adapters for almost every other type of lens.
Only works on the newer bodies though.
>>2854510
Too bad that adapter makes the LAEA adapters seems blazingly fast.
>>2854532
Seems decently fast to me.
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5m722n1081s
From 1 to Just Fuck My Shit Up, how bad of an idea would it be to get a Leica R8? I personally love the look, and bodies can be found for sub $500.
Lenses would be the largest problem, right?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Canon Camera Model Canon EOS 5D Mark II Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS4 Windows Photographer Photographer Maximum Lens Aperture f/2.8 Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Created 2012:06:12 20:27:03 Exposure Time 20 sec F-Number f/13.0 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 100 Lens Aperture f/13.0 Exposure Bias 0 EV Subject Distance 1.54 m Metering Mode Pattern Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 200.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 3000 Image Height 2602 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard
>>2854534
That video makes it look a little more usable, but I wonder how many of those quick snaps it actually got in focus.
https://youtu.be/BUwyWx36-FU?t=7m22s
Still a neato concept though.
>>2854536
Also they make OM and MD adapters, but not FD for whatever reason.
Would be pretty cool to be able to use my 50mm SSC with AF on my A7.
>>2854536
If anything it is a good way of getting close. Combined wiht focus peaking and manual focus assist, it would be damn easy to use a MF lens.
I hear it has lots of trouble in low light, however.
>>2854537
That is because there are fully electronic FD only adapters out already.
Not as good as a native FD body of course, but some are supposed to be really nice.
>>2854535
Lenses have always been the R- Series' biggest problem. They aren't substantially different or better than contemporary Canon or Nikon glass, except for lacking autofocus, and they are still to this day heinously expensive.
When you consider that shooting an M camera, or a later Nikon or Canon body instead will give you access to the very best in modern lense design, there aren't many good reasons to shoot one, besides
>muh leica
>>2854539
Somewhat off topic but you just reminded me that these exist. They can be found for sub $50 and honestly that's mostly for the novelty.
Kinda want to get one for kicks desu.
>>2854537
how does the FD adapter AF work?
>>2854545
Outside on a sunny day with the expensive adapter ($400) on a modern body?
Pretty good. Not super fast, but very usable.
In a dark room with a launch NEX-3 on a cheap FD adapter?
Might as well manual focus.
>>2854537
>get techart leica m af adapter.
>buy fd to m adapter.
>magick.
>>2854546
as in how does it do it mechanically
>>2854548
Just like how the Contax G series does it; by moving the lens itself.
>>2854548
You set the lens to infinity focus, and Techart adapter moves the entire lens.
It only works on shorter lenses without adjustment ( under 50mm), and only works properly on unit focusing lenses.
>>2854551
Anything longer than a 50mm prime would probably rip the adapter apart too.
Not worth the $300+ they're charging desu.
>>2854552
Yes, 700g maxweight (400g for best performance).
The worst is they charge $70 for non-m adapters that sell for like $5 on ebay. But most ebay ones wont fit the weird adapter profile.
>>2854553
Are we talking about the same thing? I'm talking about Techart's AF Leica adapter.
>>2853929
you could look for interchangeable half frame lenses but i'm not sure how cheap that'll end up
>>2854555
Disregard that, I'm tired and suck cocks.
>>2854555
The Techart Pro Leica M to E adapter?
Yea.
I was talking about the extra adapters they sell for thwir adapter that lets it use MD and others too.
>>2853865
http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/yes-this-is-cool-first-canon-fd-autofocus-test-from-dirk-westermann/
>>2854559
That is so cool.
I was gonna order one.for my MD lenses, but they don't ship to Japan and didn't respond to my e-mail asking about it.
>>2854563
>their site lists antartica as a shipping option
>but not Japan
What the fuck?
>>2854563
You're going to need to get a proxy to ship it to you. Welcome to what filthy gaijins have to do if they want to buy from Japan.
>>2854551
>and only works properly on unit focusing lenses.
all lens can unit focus
I've only been a canon boi and I want to upgrade.
Fullframe with easy use of manual lenses but also a good fast AF.
I prefer to manual focus when I don't really have fast moving subjects. But I also love photographing my dogs and that's where my current camera really craps out with the AF.
From my own research it leans towards the sony A7 cameras.
Got any recommendations?
Why do all Pentax Primes suck? They're all overly cheap and non provide good, low, f values.
Sitting here with £260 to spend on a prime and I can't find shit.
>>2854612
Suck how so?
Both my cheap ass DA 35/2.4 and 50/1.8 give sharp images and the focus is snappy and accurate, not to mention the Limiteds being one of the best pancakes amongst all the ILC lenses.
Also why do you think £260 will get you any lower than f/2 lens? Those start at £600 at least. Just look at the DA*55/1.4 or the FA* 85/1.4
>>2854609
pentax k-1
>>2854615
My bad, I'm frustrated because for some reason finding lenses with Pentax fits is surprisingly hard.
Every lens I've tried to buy has tons of fits for Nikon, Cannon and even Sony surprisingly enough, but the Pentax fits? Always out of stock.
When you say limited pancakes, do you mean the SMC Pentax-DA 40mm F2.8 Limited?
Only one I can find is a used one from Japan. Worth going for or what? It'll be £110 + 20 shipping. I'd rather not buy used but I don't really have much of a choice because I can't find it anywhere else.
>>2854618
The used market fluctuates, try waiting a few weeks, checking every day, maybe you can even extend your budget more during the time.
Also look up srsmicrosystems on ebay, they have very nice used stock from time to time.
>£110 + 20 shipping
That is fucking gorgeous price for one, I say go for it until someone else notices.
I got my 35/2.4 plastic fantastic for £80 +shipping.
>>2854618
I myself am eyeing a DA 70/2.4 Limited for portraits, I might sell my 70-200/2.8 for one, since it will be replaced by a longer zoom lens.
>affordable, proper portrait focal length, sharp results
>half the complete size of an equivalent setup on an A7
>shooting street portraits with a stealthy pancake
What is not to like on this?
>>2854616
Oh yeah that one just came out. I'll look into it.
I haven't heard too much about any spectacular lenses from them though.
>>2854626
just use vintage lenses. you said you like manual
>>2854626
http://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/
Look at the D-FA, FA and especially the FA* series.
>>2854609
The A7 is a good choice. They can adapt almost any lens ever, which is great if you like manual. The new Techart Pro adapter adds autofocus to prtty much every manual lens too (though it is far from perfect).
Most of the native lenses are good too (though there aren't a whole lot) and you can adapt A-mount lenses with full electronics and fast autofocus too.
The problem is there aren't that many full frame e-mount lenses (and no pancakes!) and you are gonna want a body with image stabalization, which means the a7ii or a7rii, both of which are kinda pricey.
>>2854490
Hilarious, man. I'm on /p/ so I must be like you and be a basement-dwelling wizard. I cover a bunch of local parties so they have promo material for future events, and I'd like photos that didn't look like you, crater face.
Also, is an SB-500 a decent flash on a D3300 for shooting semi-professional stuff (i.e. where I need a flash but don't want to use OC)? I like the fill effect of flash especially when shooting on sunny days, but I'm not looking to spend $500-600 on an SB-700 for something I won't use heaps.
I've heard a couple things about Yonguo flashes, but not enough to know how useful they are.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make NIKON CORPORATION Camera Model NIKON D3300 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Windows) Maximum Lens Aperture f/1.0 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Color Filter Array Pattern 786 Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2016:05:21 17:02:18 Exposure Time 1/60 sec Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 100 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Center Weighted Average Light Source Fine Weather Flash No Flash Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 1000 Image Height 667 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
>>2854638
yonguo is basically the same shit but 3x less.
or you can buy canikon brand and pay the canikon price. do enjoy that japanese dick up your butt you.
>>2854627
>>2854628
>>2854629
Oh yeah forgot about the electronic adapters.
>Techart Pro adapter adds autofocus to prtty much every manual lens too
Whoa nigguh, that's impressive.
I think the Sony line is the winner since the K1 doesn't have peaking focusing, neither does canon or nikon, right?
Would really love to explore different brands of lenses with the adapters.
>>2854642
All Pentax DSLRs have focus peaking, senpai.
>>2854642
I am pretty sure Fuji has a mirrorless with focus peaking.
No idea if there is a full frame one though.
>Whoa nigguh, that's impressive.
It isn't perfect though. It uses the A7ii/a7rii's PDAF and moves the entire lens mount until it has focus. Has weight, and range limitations. Pretty much for primes under 50mm.
Here is the page:
http://techartpro.com/product/techart-pro-leica-m-sony-e-autofocus-adapter/
>>2854646
Not who you're replying to, but I know the XT1 has it, so the XT10 might, but who knows
>>2854647
Neither are full frame though I thought?
>>2854646
moving the whole lens to focus is a really dumb way to do it, though. you are wasting a lot of energy and it won't be fast.
at that price i will just manual focus. it's more fun anyway if you need fast AF just use a dslr with first party lens.
>>2854649
>read
I highly doubt you used any SLR digital or film before.
I call shill! Filthy fucking corporate shill!
>>2854651
>you are wasting a lot of energy and it won't be fast.
Yes, but as you can see here:
>>2854534
It can be pretty fast with the small M mount primes.
Wouldn't expect it to do anything with a big ass 18-200 lens though.
But yea, even native mirrorless is slower than a dslr (though not by all that much anymore).
>>2854648
Not full frame, but the XT1 has focus peaking. Not sure there is a full-frame mirrorless (Fuji or other). I think the Sony one died, but there are rumours that Nikon is having a go.
>>2854656
>Not sure there is a full-frame mirrorless (Fuji or other). I think the Sony one died
The Sony one is actually doing great. The A7 series. There have been 5 released so far with another that was supposed to release soon, but seems to have been pushed back thanks to the earthquake.
>Nikon
They don't even have an APS-C Mirrorless, right?
>>2854656
All Fuji cameras with an EVF have focus peaking, and split image focusing aids. They are all, however, APS-C.
There are many Sony full frame mirrorless cameras (A7, A7mk2, A7r, A7rmk2, A7s, A7smk2)
>>2854659
A-HA!
FUCKING SHILL!
>>2854655
>It can be pretty fast with the small M mount primes.
rangefinder camera lenses are bad on digital sensor tho
>>2854661
I know, right?
What kinda idiot would do that?
>>2854662
leica isn't known for its image quality. it's only known for being expensive.
stop being a gearwhore
>>2854660
What? What about those three factual statements makes me a shill? There isn't any opinion in there at all, or any hyperbole... I didn't say "Fuji have EXCELLENT AMAZING focus peaking that's WORLD'S BETTER than anyone else!" or "Sony is the only player in the game with cameras worth owning, their full frame mirrorless line is better than anything out there!"
I pretty much just read a stat sheet and a catalog at you since you couldn't read it yourself.
>>2854444
It's just not that great. I mean sure you could get good photos with it like any camera in its price bracket, but there are better alternatives
>>2854668
If anyone says something positive about Sony or Fuji here they get called a shill or gearfag.
>>2854673
Haha fair point. But it wasn't even anything positive! Only that they EXIST! Damn that's a low bar...
>>2854676
Well this is a containment thread, so you can't expect much in the way of rational discussion.
Hi /p/, I need a digital camera for my grandfather that
- has a zoom lens that goes to 150-200mm equivalent
- has an optical or electronic viewfinder
- has a sensor that's not cellphone tier shit
- under $600
Does this exist? I'm looking at Sony RX10, but it's $1000+ here and he's likely not going to be comfortable with something this expensive.
>>2854552
>FE mount pancake 40mm f2.8 for $250
why sony is not making this?
they will literally sell it to every a7 user.
it's like they hate money.
>>2854493
o-ok
>>2854682
Yea some of the FE choices don't seem to make much sense.
It took them forever to come out with a good pancake for the NEX series (though I hear the 16mm performs way better on newer models).
>>2854681
http://www.ritzcamera.com/product/AMZCNT64LK.htm?location=GGSHOP&tmreturn=true&utm_source=Google&utm_medium=shopping&prp=AMZCNT64LK&gclid=CLSLgfmCjM0CFYkCaQodoeIBWQ#fo_c=1041&fo_k=bd4e9adfeb6b46e590925243ad3de124&fo_s=gplaus
>>2854681
a canon 500d with the 55-250mm IS efs
>>2854681
Pretty much any entry level DSLR or MICL fits that bill.
Find out what brand he likes, look for a bundle.
Which of these are better for somebody new to photography? I can get both for the same price currently.
Nikon D3300 w/ 18-55 VR AF-P Lens
or
Canon EOS 1300D w/ EF-S 18-55 Lens
I've heard the D3300 is a pretty great body for beginners.
>>2854681
Canon 700D with 18-55 and 55-250
Nikon D3300 with 18-55 and 55-300
Pentax K-50 with 18-55 and 55-300
>>2854696
They are both good. One will have better capabilities for dramatic edits (the Nikon) the other will have (slightly) better video, and support for adapting lenses, as well as a lot of cheap options as far as first party lenses (the Canon)
>>2854701
Oh. Then get one of those superzoom lenses, like the Tamron 16-300 or brand 18-200 lenses for the chosen camera body.
Do you think he would like weather sealing?
>>2854699
Pentax K-50 is an extra $150 Australian. Is it worth that for a total beginner?
>>2854701
There are 18-200mm lenses for like everything.
Usually a little pricey though.
>>2854696
you should get a second hand x00d/3x00d body. entry bodies come out every year with marginal improvement so the price drop fast. You get more bang per buck with second hand.
i would suggest a 500d with 18-55 IS. nikon entry has crippled body.
>>2854703
see the specs, compare photos on flickr.
The K-50 has weather sealed bodies and the kit lens usually are weather sealed too. If you like to go out hiking or rather shoot some in the rain then it worth the extra costs.
Since I don't want to make a new thread, what are everyone's recommendations for medium-size camera bags (i.e. a body w/ lens, and space for another two lens, charger, cables)?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make NIKON CORPORATION Camera Model NIKON D3300 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Windows) Maximum Lens Aperture f/3.7 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Color Filter Array Pattern 858 Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 33 mm Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2016:05:22 23:21:13 Exposure Time 1/25 sec F-Number f/4.0 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 800 Lens Aperture f/4.0 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Cool White Fluorescent Flash No Flash Focal Length 22.00 mm Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 1200 Image Height 800 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Manual Scene Capture Type Standard Gain Control Low Gain Up Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal Subject Distance Range Unknown
>>2854701
Sony a65+SAL18200
Dirt cheap used, plus used minolta lens are so cheap it isn't funny if he wants something else.
>>2854707
National Geographic Walkabout and Earth Explorer
>>2854707
Check out Incase, and Think Tank.
>>2854618
>My bad, I'm frustrated because for some reason finding lenses with Pentax [mount] is surprisingly hard.
>Every lens I've tried to buy has tons of [mounts] for Nikon, Cannon and even Sony surprisingly enough, but the Pentax [mount]? Always out of stock.
>>2854621
>The used market fluctuates, try waiting a few weeks, checking every day, maybe you can even extend your budget more during the time.
Pentax problems
>>2854702
>>2854704
Oh, I actually borrowed a Nikon D80 with a 18-200 VR to try out for a few days, as he's been shooting Nikon F65 before, but apparently he wants something smaller/lighter. And since he doesn't change lenses and mostly shoots outside at daytime, my idea was to get him something with a fixed lens.
>Do you think he would like weather sealing?
I don't think you can get weather sealing in the entry level class aside from Pentaxes, which are ultra rare here.
>>2854709
35mm is close to 40mm, and 40mm is close to 50mm for portraits, so it can be used for both uses.
You can either look for a 70mm for longer portraits, or go wider, either a 15mm Limited or 21mm Limited, maybe get an FA 50mm macro for macro fun or an FA 85mm Soft focus, just for toying and experimenting with the special soft focusing element.
I really don't know what you actually want and there are many possibilities.
>>2854713
Trying to think interesting new ways to use my existing gear while I wait on the market. I wouldn't call that a "problem".
You know, actually using lenses, thinking outside the box, being creative. Not being a putrid gearwhore.
>>2854717
>something smaller/lighter
m43 or Sony NEX with an 18-200 and evf?
A couple bridges, but they usually have shit sensors.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Panasonic Camera Model DMC-G3 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS5 Macintosh Maximum Lens Aperture f/2.8 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 90 mm Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 4592 Image Height 3448 Number of Bits Per Component 16, 16, 16 Compression Scheme Uncompressed Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Data Arrangement Chunky Format Image Created 2011:10:16 08:59:23 Exposure Time 1/200 sec F-Number f/7.1 Exposure Program Aperture Priority ISO Speed Rating 400 Lens Aperture f/7.1 Exposure Bias 0.7 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 45.00 mm Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 226 Image Height 350 Rendering Custom Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Gain Control High Gain Up Contrast Soft Saturation Normal Sharpness Soft
>>2854718
Get the same from china. How dod you think I got a backpack and shoulder bag each for $50 and $2 respectively?
>>2854727
Considerably smaller than DSLR, but still large,
>>2854724
What about this lolympus? It seems very well built with a nice lens, but I have reservations about the 1/1.7 sensor.
>>2854471
Ah, y'see that's what I'm looking for. Extremely tiny size, and a correspondingly small image circle on the film.
CCTV lenses seem good, although I'm worried they project very soft images.
>>2854725
Spending all day every day coming the used market for lenses that may or may not show up, rather than going to a local shop and picking up any one of hundreds of used lenses for my Canon/Nikon sounds MORE gear centered, and less photo productive, than the other way around, but I guess maybe I'm just too overwhelmed having too many lenses to choose from to think about it clearly.
>>2854717
>apparently he wants something smaller/lighter
So:
>small
>good
>cheap
Pick two.
>>2854734
You are a good goy, I am proud.
>>2854724
It ignores the "$50" part and just gives me a list of whatever [insert rich photographer] uses when he's not jacking off or snorting white lightning with $100 bills with Steve Curry
>>2854738
The Tamron 18-200 is much better balanced imo.
But yea, if you want a long lens and an APS-C sensor, it is gonna have to be big.
>>2854735
Well duh, I don't want to choose between "huge", "bad" and "expensive", I need a compromise. But the middle ground between a bulky DSLR combo and a fixed-lens 500x superzoom with a cellphone sensor is scarce for some reason.
>>2854741
That's because most people who want a quality image, and also a 300mm image, aren't generally looking at fixed lens cameras.
You won't get a fixed lens APS-C camera with 300mm equivalent. It doesn't exist. If it did exist, it would cost a lot more than $600.
>>2854741
>is scarce for some reason.
it's called physics and maths
>>2854727
Is Nikon 1 series complete shit?
I know it has fuck all for lenses, but I only need one.
>>2854744
The one time I tried one, I spent 15min trying to work out how to change the shutter speed and I still couldn't get it to work properly because Auto mode wouldn't turn off.
>>2854744
Pretty much. Small sensors, shit interface, poor lens selections.
Pretty sure it will be killed off soon too, so you might be able to find one dirt cheap.
>>2854748
>le strawman face
eat a dick
>>2854682
Has Sony or Minolta ever made a FF pancake?
Is there any brand that has a 43mm true standard focal length lens, preferably pancake design?
>>2854769
Canon has a 28mm you can put on APS-C.
The obvious question would be, why? What's wrong with 40mm, which is a pancake, on Canon at least
>>2854775
40 is too long for normal
>>2854776
Well 40mm is shorter than 43mm... So...
>>2854775
I was just wondering, since 50mm as a standard focal length is a Leica invention since at that time it was easier to make a slightly telephoto lens.
The 35mm frame is about 43mm diagonally so a 43mm lens would be a true standard, but I didn't see any other than one Pentax lens, even that is from some special limited edition line so it must be really difficult to get one.
40mm is just as away from it as the "standard" 50mm. I'd like to see with my own eyes what difference it makes, but yeah, it looks like a 40mm is the closest I can get for now. Apart from zoom lens.
>>2854777
on apsc you imbecile
>>2854784
Who fucking told you to put a 40mm lens on APS-C to achieve a 43mm field of view you fucking retard?
The fucking question was:
>Is there any brand that has a 43mm true standard focal length lens, preferably pancake design?
Which is pretty fucking close to a 40mm pan-fucking-cake lens you fucking faggot.
>>2854769
pentax has 43mm
>>2854789
So because you can put one lens on aps-c, you have to put all lenses on APS-C? Even if basic logic says that NOT doing that actually achieves the fucking goal in mind? That's how your brain works?
>>2854792
>talk about apsc
>oh its not actually apsc
imbecile
>>2854769
Fuji's 27/2.8 is pretty close.
>>2854782
>I was just wondering, since 50mm as a standard focal length is a Leica invention since at that time it was easier to make a slightly telephoto lens.
I dispute this claim. The majority of normal lenses use double gauss design which is symmetrical.
>>2854794
What the fuck are you talking about? The conversation was about a 43mm focal lenght, and ways to get it. 28mm*1.5x crop is one way. 40mm is another. Jesus fuck.
>>2854799
>40mm on apsc is 60mm
imbecile
>>2854782
>one Pentax lens, even that is from some special limited edition line so it must be really difficult to get one.
"Limited" is just the name they use for some of their fancier stuff, it's analogous to Canon putting an "L" on a lens. It doesn't mean that they only make X number of them. You can just go to Amazon or Adorama and order one like any other lens. The did stop making the 43/1.9 and the other FA Limiteds in silver, though, so if you want a new one you can have any color so long as it's black.
>>2854782
>>2854797
~50mm has always been common on 35mm cameras just by virtue of being approximately a normal field of view on that format. You're probably thinking of its use on SLRs, where the back-focus needed for the mirrorbox precluded the use of lenses much wider than that until retrofocus designs were invented (originally in the 30s for movie cameras) and became widely available.
I do believe some 58mm lenses had that focal length chosen because it caused some math to work out nicely, back before this stuff was done by computers. I don't have a source on that though, so it might be an old wives' tale.
>>2854801
WHO FUCKING SAID TO PUT A 40mm LENS ON APSC HINT: NOBODY.
>>2854806
go back and read you imbecile im not gonna hand hold for you jesus christ
>>2854806
Stop replying to trolls and they will look elsewhere for entertainment. Everyone else knows exactly what you meant.
Is it worth it to get a new x-e2 over a second hand x-e2? the x-e2 is about 2x in price.
>>2854823
Nah, buy used for sure. Unless it's broken or something.
>>2854825
i actually meant new x-e2 and second hand x-e1 sorry.
>>2854829
X-E2 would be my decision. Though, used, if possible.
>>2854823
Get a second hand X-E2. X-E1 is very slow.
>>2854839
what about x-pro1 vs x-e2?
>>2854846
Same. XE2. The older bodies are so slow.
I'm looking for an affordable waterproof camera for vacation on the beach. My DLSR won't be getting anywhere near the sand.
I'm on the fence between the Olympus TG-870 and the Lumix DMC-TS6D. The specs on the olympus are overall better but people complain of the image quality.
Should I worry about this too much or just get the olympus?
halp plz
I use the hasselblad 500cm........
Hey guys, I am an intermediate photographer, I've been using an Nikon D5300 from my sister and I'm starting to like it... so I want to buy one for myself, and I've been looking to the Canon T6i or the Nikon D7100, which should I buy? Oh and also, I would like to record high quality video.
>>2854872
>I am an intermediate photographer
who made this appraisal?
