[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Search] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/p/ - Photography


Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.



File: 1303188531655.jpg (62 KB, 600x800)
62 KB
62 KB JPG
This is the thread where we discuss everything related to gear.

What camera is gud? ASK HERE!
Previous thread >>3423985
>>
>>3427558
Just bought a gh5 for vid and pic. Did I did gud?
>>
What's the best camera to have with me?
>>
>>3427587
The one.
>>
File: One.png (708 KB, 600x400)
708 KB
708 KB PNG
>>3427601
This?
>>
>>3427575
Yes
>>
>>3427620
Hey, you have the same one with you?
>>
I've been looking far and wide for a decent third party teleconverter for the x100. Any suggestions?
>>
>>3427663
I should add I'm looking to get a 50mm focal length
>>
>>3427663
does it have to af?
>>
Would replacing my FF Nikon D600 with an APS-C D500 be an upgrade or a downgrade?

I probably shoot about 25% wildlife, 50% portrait and 25% other random stuff. Obviously the D500 is a no brainer for the wildlife, but will it perform well for portraiture? I guess the bokeh won’t be as good, but I’m getting kind of tired of ultra-blurry backgrounds anyway.

One of the main drivers is that I’ve heard the D500 has stellar AF capabilities whereas I’m not completely satisfied with the AF performance on the D600 (especially when things are moving).

I would definitely like good low-light performance as well, which would point towards keeping the FF camera. However, I think the two models actually give similar low-light performance due to the D500 having a more modern sensor.

Or should I just go full gearfag and switch to Sony?

Thoughts please?
>>
>>3427666
Nope
>>
File: _DSC1074-Edit.jpg (649 KB, 1000x800)
649 KB
649 KB JPG
>>3427668
D600 almost got me away from Nikon. Now I own a D500 and I must say I'm very impressed. it has better everything when comparable to the D600, and you can handle any ISO easily with a fast AF in low-light conditions.

for wildlife and portraits you'll enjoy a lot the D500, it will give you some great results with great colour and dynamic range.

. pic related

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATION
Camera ModelNIKON D500
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 8.1 (Macintosh)
Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.7
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)52 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2019:01:26 11:29:11
Exposure Time1/250 sec
F-Numberf/11.0
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating1250
Lens Aperturef/11.0
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModeCenter Weighted Average
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash
Focal Length35.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceManual
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Gain ControlLow Gain Up
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessSoft
Subject Distance RangeUnknown
>>
>>3427668
more sidegrade, as long as you aren't shooting low light I'd say that it's an upgrade.
the d500 body is also great
>>
File: _DSC0243.jpg (394 KB, 1000x667)
394 KB
394 KB JPG
>>3427677
from the D600, it's a hell of upgrade, trust me. The D500 blew away many FF sensors.

vivid profile
+31 clarity
+16 contrast
-11 shadows
only

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATION
Camera ModelNIKON D500
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 8.1 (Macintosh)
PhotographerChiereguini.e
Maximum Lens Aperturef/4.0
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern876
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)450 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2019:01:31 01:17:19
Exposure Time1/1000 sec
F-Numberf/8.0
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating640
Lens Aperturef/8.0
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModeCenter Weighted Average
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash
Focal Length300.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceManual
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Gain ControlNone
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessSoft
Subject Distance RangeUnknown
>>
File: pantecks.jpg (63 KB, 500x372)
63 KB
63 KB JPG
>>3427558
>primes

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
>>
>>3427681
It actually doesn't, the d7500 has better iso performance and does not compete with full frame when it comes to low light.
Both are super good for APS-C though.
>>
>>3427684
DXO much, huh?
>>
>>3427675
>>3427677
>>3427681
>>3427684
Thanks for the responses.

>>3427677
But does the D600 really perform better than the D500 in low light? The native ISOs on paper are 100-51200 (D500) vs 100-6400 (D600).

Also, I find my D600 has a tendency to stumble around like a drunk when trying to AF in low light. For me, good low-light AF performance is just as important as good low-light ISO performance.

Another option would be to get a D750, but I’ve heard such wonderful things about the D500...
>>
File: chrome.png (671 KB, 579x648)
671 KB
671 KB PNG
>>3427688
Shadows.
>>
>>3427681
I love this It looks like one of those paintings on velvet.
Are you the Brazilian protest anon by chance?
>>3427692
>I find my D600 has a tendency to stumble around like a drunk when trying to AF in low light
Well yeah the D500 has the AF module from the D5 and D850 and the D600 has the AF module from the D5200.

>>3427682
I know right? seems weird not clicking on some ugly bastard of a camera.
>>
>>3427693
I still rather the D500. Overall sharpness and contrast seem better imo
D610 on this test is good, but can't stand how soft that sensor is.

>>3427694
Yes, it's me lol

The D500 AF is amazing
>>
>>3427696
Having no AA filter on your sensor does wonders on tests like these, though I'll admit I'd rather use the d500 thanks to the body being fantastic and having the best DSLR autofocus.
>>
Is there a web resource that compares AF hit rates of lenses, especially third party manufacurers like Sigma and Tamron compared to native lenses of Sony, Canon, Nikon lenses? It doesn't have to be fully detailed at least percentage hit rate tests in certain situations like low light, AF hunting, firmware updates and other factors.
>>
>pana s1r
>180MP hi-res mode
>price just over 3k eur
where were you when medium format fagits were btfo?
>>
>>3427704
shit posting on the chan
>>
>>3427704
>just over 3k eur
Where are you seeing that?
https://www.mirrorlessrumors.com/leaked-images-and-specs-of-the-new-panasonic-s-cameras-and-lenses/ says 3400 GBP which is almost 4k EUR.
>>
File: 5867028.jpg (90 KB, 968x681)
90 KB
90 KB JPG
i want best bang for buck point and shoot camera for high depth of field and landscape, mostly. some long exposure and night photography of same nature.

i had a Nikon D3200 and thought it was the shit. i like that i can rely on its white balance settings and rarely had issues with them.

so far the RX100 v1 looks ok. v3 seems best for me but more than i wanna budget for point and shoot + i hate sony's menu system from my a6000 days but did like its zebra effect and function to tell what was in focus. don't know if those are present here

spend my money
>>
>>3427728
the rx100's are great but only if you don't care about iso performance
>>
How does /p/ feel about those little Litra Torches? Are they a gimmick or do they actually add functionality?
They seem like a pretty nifty product but I an curious to hear what other folks think.
>>
Will I regret swapping Oly 45mm/25mm/Panasonic 14mm primes for an Oly 12-40mm? I use my 25mm most of the time but don't usually shoot wide open. Not sure how I'm going to feel about the size as I do like having a less conspicuous camera for street shooting
>>
>>3427704
Banging your mom.
>>
cop or not for babies first camera?

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Samsung-NX100-14-6MP-Mirrorless-Interchange-Lens-Detachable-Flash-Digital-Camera/254097672703?epid=101899640&hash=item3b2966c9ff:g:Gs0AAOSwLMtbWGpl:rk:26:pf:0
>>
How is the 24mm f2.8 in low light indoor ? Only have a kit lens. Don't want to keep using the flash to take pictures of my toddler who is a small Speedrunner
>>
>>3427801
Definitely don’t get a Samsung. They dropped out of the camera business several years ago, so it’s a dead, dead-end system that never had very many accessories/lenses/cameras made for it in the first place.
>>
Sony 18-105mm f/4 vs 18-135mm f/5.5-5.6?
I like the internal barrel of the 18-105 and the constant f/4, but the added reach and manual zoom of the 18-135 is nice as well. If either had a true manual focus ring I'd be sold, but both don't. Price for the 18-1335 seems a little steep for what a lot of people call a 'glorified kit lens'.
Opinions?

>mainly for photos
>weight isn't an issue
>>
>>3427829
any recs for something similar, not looking to break the bank here
>>
>>3427801
>>3427834
A mobile phone is better than that.

> not looking to break the bank here
if you want a camera with interchangeable lenses it means you are going to spend to buy additional lenses. Get any used Canon or Nikon DSLR to start, you will find very good deals on discontinued models (you won't notice the difference with more modern models if you are a beginner). Do some research.

Otherwise, get a decent point and shoot (non-interchangeable lens). Save money and gain in portability.
>>
>>3427844
I was under the impression that mirrorless cameras were the middle ground between DSLR's and phones
>>
>>3427812
>24mm 2.8
It's fine if they are sitting still.
But if they are running around your best bet to freeze motion is still going to be flash.

Also unless you are on full frame a 24mm is going to be a lot more of a narrow field of view than the 18mm wide end of the kit lens that your are probably used to.
>>
>>3427847
Mirrorless cameras' body is smaller but with lens attached they have more or less the same size of DSLR cameras.
Point and shoot cameras can even be smaller than a phone. Bridge cameras are in between.
What are exactly your needs?
>>
>>3427854
I want a decent camera with inter changeable lenses that offers the best price/performance, size is not an issue.
>>
I currently shoot with a Sony a57. It’s a decent enough camera, but I don’t want to invest in glass for a dead system. The obvious upgrade is the a7 series, but good native glass is more than I want to spend. Is m43 suitable for product and macro? That makes up the bulk of what I do, and the g9 looks neato.
>>
>>3427868
Get a Nikon D750 or D7200, used lenses are plenty and affordable.
>>
Used Gitzo or RRS tripod?

Gitzo has the lifetime warranty, but RRS seems to be slightly better build.

I just need a sturdy AF tripod.
>>
>>3427869
good prices to shoot for.
D7000 $200-300
D7100 $400-500
D7200 $600-700
D750 $750-900
D800 $700-850
>>
>>3427868
>m43 suitable for product and macro
Actually, that's where it's at it's best. All macro lenses are spectacular, and don't cost as much as pro macros from canon and nikon. You don't need to go to focus stacking as often because of wider depth of field. As for product photo, where you can shoot on tripod and static objects, you can also use high res mode with cams like g9 for extra resolution.
>>
Hey /p/, been shooting on a D3200 for a couple years now and finally looking to upgrade. Saving up some money to make a big upgrade and I'm looking at either sticking with Nikon or trying something new and getting an Olympus EM1 Mark ii. Mostly do wildlife and landscapes, with some portraits and street photography every once in a while. Any recommendations?
>>
>>3427987
what's your budget?
>>
>>3427988
Around $2000 for the body.
>>
>>3427991
what do you have for glass?
>>
Just for Nikon
>>
>>3427994
yeah but is it all kit lenses or what?
>>
>>3427992
>>3427994
Oops, meant to put that I just have a Tamron 70-300mm and 35mm prime so I haven't invested too much in glass for Nikon
>>
>>3427997
Well the 70-300 is good if it's the VC
And the 35 works pretty good on full frame even though it's a DX lens,
I think I would go grey market or used D750 or D810. And still have money left over for either a nice pocket camera or a maybe an 85mm for doing portraits.

I don't think I'd sink a bunch of money in to M4/3 these days unless I was doing very specific video work.

If you want the Oly just for looks maybe think about a Nikon Df they are retro looking and in your price range.
>>
>>3428001
oh almost forgot the D810 has Group AF.
Works great for birds and wildlife.
Go check out some videos about it if that kind thing interests you.
>>
>>3428001
>>3428003
Thanks man, will definitely look into these! Already seeing that a used version of a D810 is pretty decently priced, thanks again.
>>
I have no clue where to begin... I've been using a T5i to learn for the passed 5 years or so and just picked up on videography again... I'm thinking of getting a new camera for filming but I'm not sure where to begin, or if I should get a new lens (18-35mm sigma). Any recommendations?
>>
I'm hearing the 50mm 1.8 is sharper than the 1.2 and the 35mm 1.8.Is it true?
>>
File: av8Awmb_460s.jpg (21 KB, 460x296)
21 KB
21 KB JPG
what storage can actually record 4k raw raw to the pocket cinema 4k? i read the usb is gimped to 3.0 so even a samsung t5 aint doing shit (seems like a retarded move desu fampai)
>>
Is this gearfag general?
>>
>>3428311
Nope, that would be:
>>3427219
>>
>>3428132
Yes
>>
>>3428315
>stupid questions generals
So no more gearfag generals? I haven't been on /p/ for a long time.
>>
>>3427558
Is there any digital camera that delivers highlights like film (especially mf) does? Regarding upper shoulder curve

From what I've gathered, digital has surpassed film in terms of DR but, looking at pictures, it looks like it stills respond in a very linear fashion, especially upper shoulder curve, where it fails to capture highlights details (unless you underexpose it and try to recover on post which is "doable")

This comparison is far from perfect (it would be better if it were a portrait) but it gets the idea:
>http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2018/01/30/nikon-vs-nikon-nikon-f-film-vs-nikon-d850-digital-by-huss-hardan/
While both images seems to be exposed for the wall (white), the main difference to my eyes is that the shadows on digital look much more dark and unnatural. In a gross pic like that it's a matter of just lifting up a bit the shadows since the whites are much more brighter so compression won't be apparent. However, on portraits there's a continuum of very subtle tones and doing such operation would be messed up (as it is), especially when the subject has fair skin

Of course one can easily manipulate digital images to look like Portra wth if you got a side by side. However doing this each time straight from digital is kinda messed up, since you got work each channel individually to actually improve its curve (from my experience, yellows and red hues are usually compressed on digital, so expanding it to match greens and blues takes a while manipulating luminance and saturation of each red pink orange etc channel)
>>
>>3428336
digital is very linear by its very nature, it's your job to tonemap the dynamic range to your liking
>>
>>3428336
>huff
That guy is in a league of his own. Informative reviews, and no senseless gerfaging. Owns and shoots everything from mft to film to gfx.
>offtopic off

Best way to get rid of this in digital is doing multiple exposures, and then stacking in post. The difference is mainly in one thing. Digital does a very harsh transition when it encounters overexposures. It quickly goes from pure white to data, and it's often very distracting and obvious, needing a lot of work in post. Film, being chemical process, will do it's way and spill too bright results over it's surface in an even way. It's still not natural effect, but it's much more pleasing from the start.
Don't fool yourself that it's any easier to get results with film. High key, high contrast scenes are some of the hardest to do right no matter what.
>>
>>3428320
No, that guy’s wrong. This is the gearfag thread.
>>
>first camera, want to do macro shots mostly
>reading up a bunch
>thinking of getting a secondhand Nikon 3400 & extension tubes to get a feel
Any suggestions in the same pricerange (€300~€400)? I have not read much about other brands.
>>
File: eu-japan-trade-deal.png (234 KB, 943x533)
234 KB
234 KB PNG
Are you ready for cheaper cameras from Japan, fellow europeans?
>>
>>3428645
fellows*
>>
>>3428645
Would be nice if this removed the 30 min record limit. I buy grey import already either way.
>>
>>3428645
In reality this will probably make prices go up somehow,
This looks like it will just make it easier for Japan to buy EU products (not necessarily cheaper) I don't see anything about this making Japanese products cheaper in the EU.
>>
>>3428668
>what is import tax
>>
>>3428669
>Thinking they won't find a way to get their cut anyway.
>>
>>3428669
Are you confusing customs fees with tarrifs?
>>
>>3428674
yeah, maybe
but when I will buy directly from some shop in Japan I won't be fucked in the arse with import tariffs
>>
>>3428645
>>3428669
The agreement only removes tariffs on EU exports to Japan.
There weren't tariffs on camera and lens imports in the first place. You will still have to pay your country VAT (19% Germany, 20% UK, 25% Sweden etc.) and custom duties.
>>
>>3428683
now you've shattered my dreams of cheaper cameras
>>
>>3427731
eBay to the rescue

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
CommentScreenshot
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width640
Image Height601
>>
>>3428689
well, lrn2read.
>>
>>3427777
checked
>>
At a few camera options want to get one film and one digital

Opinion on a Nikon F3 and D2X. Also looking at F4 and F100
>>
Good astrophotography vintage lens for under $100 go
>>
>>3429016
That's not a thing.
The closest thing I can think of would be the 19-35mm af promaster/tamron/vivitar.

It wouldn't be fun to manually focus and the whole thing is plastic, even some elements I think. But, they are cheap if you can find them.

Tamron SP 24mm 2.5 is probably cheap enough. It's manual and the copy I own is soft as baby shit. But if I was a broke fuck I'd give it a try. Everything wider or faster is going to be Over $100
>>
>>3429019
Could I get a busted lens and fix it for less than that?
>>
>>3429022
a busted what exactly?
I don't even know what brand you shoot.
>>
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_tRTlpFPiIk

either that's a huge hand or em1x is really tiny.
>>
File: received_320616781827120.png (1.11 MB, 1200x1048)
1.11 MB
1.11 MB PNG
Thinking about getting my first flash. Just planning to to bounce on the ceiling for now, nothing fancy. I can get the Cactus RF60 for a pretty good deal, should I go for it? Seems it is designed for creating more complicated setups, but the price is real good, so maybe I should just go for it? If I want to combine it with other flashes in the future for something more fancy, would I need the cactus-recievers specifically? I don't really get what they are for.
>>
Tell me what your /p/ related everyday carries/camera bag items are.
>>
File: groups.png (218 KB, 1920x1126)
218 KB
218 KB PNG
>>3429197
> my first flash.
>should I go for it?
Do it anon, any flash is better than no flash.

>would I need the cactus-recievers specifically
No, you can use generic brand radio triggers, they will trigger any flash (like if they were just a cable).
You would need a compatible Transmitter/Receiver just for more advanced uses for studio photography (controlling groups, etc.).
>>
>>3429199
iphone
>>
>>3429220
Thanks man, everyone is trying to sell their own stuff so finding information on this stuff is really hard. So for now I'm planning to use the RF60 simply on-camera. But if I want to later use the flash externally I would be able to just stick some generic wireless transmitter on my camera and the flash will be able to recieve the signal since it is a Transmitter/Receiver?

Thanks a bunch for the help once again.
>>
>>3429199
d850+MB-D12 with a sigma 200-500 f/2.8 and a 24-70 f2.8G
>>
Does all sony share same battery?

I used to have some old nex 5n and recently bought an a7ii. Can i just gut the battery and use the old battery charger ?
>>
File: 81+qtbE-y-L._SL1500_.jpg (234 KB, 1500x1500)
234 KB
234 KB JPG
>>3429226
yes, in the future you can buy something like pic related for 20 usd and you will be able to trigger your flash remotely (as long as they are compatible with your camera model and hotshoe type) but you will have to set up each flash individually from its own display.
If you want more advanced functions and control everything from the controller (changing settings without touching your flashes at all) you have to buy a more expensive flash controller (generally with a display on it). It's up to 300usd for a Canon Speedlite Transmitter.
>>
>>3429282
I think so. I recently bought an A7II too and I use third party batteries that are labelled NEX-5 and A7 series.
>>
File: happy hearts man.jpg (11 KB, 201x219)
11 KB
11 KB JPG
>>3429291
thanks

<3333
>>
how much do you if any do you think the ffs sony on the used market will go down bc off the 6400
>>
Hey p

I want to get into 35mm, and really like the point and shoots and, specifically, the look and ergonomics of the Ricoh Gr1 (I have the ricoh Gr2 and love it.)

My only concern is that its spendy and hard to find. I really want to shoot ektachrome.

Thoughts on the Gr1? Cameras similar I could find for cheaper?

I also was looking at the nikon l35af, but thats full auto from what I understand and I dont want that...


Thanks!
>>
if I wanna take super clear (non-grainy) pretentious fashion photos, should I get a 50mm 1.8aperature prime lens?

also how to reduce grain in photos on overcast days where i have to raise the ISO above 400?

im shooting in raw at 50mm with 800 ISO 1/00th shutter and generally 5.6 to 8.0 f stop

please help
>>
>>3429319
Ricoh R1 is very similar and should be cheaper
That said any p&s in that range (high end, fixed and fast wide angle lens) should not be cheap
>>
>>3429282
Everything before the third generation Sony's uses the W type battery. Those are compatible which eachother.
>>
I have arthritis, and I went to try out a camera (my first) I'm interested in buying, because my hands are quite fucked up.
With some effort I could support the camera a bit with my left (my best) hand, and press the shutter button with my right.
However, I couldn't really fit my hand around the lens for zoom/manual focus.
Is there an existing aid for something like this, and if so, what search words do I use?
I mean like a rubber band with a protruding stick or something like that, or will I have to mcguyver something?
>>
>>3429439
Try carnivore diet unironically
It's nothing but amazing how it works for recovering from arthritis

>like a rubber band with a protruding
It's called universal focusing handle
There's also quick focus handles which are similar but fitted for 1 lens
>>
Is it common for the aperture slider on old lenses to break? I mentioned I got a new camera to my dad so he gave me a couple of his old ones, but the one on the 135mm seems to be busted. The sliders move, but the blades are stuck open.
>>
>>3429444
Is it set to auto? There could be A/M switch on the lens.
>>
>>3429449
Nah, I'm pretty sure it's a manual only. He said he got it in the 70s or so.
>>
>>3429443
Cheers, but I've heard that before, maybe from you too? Anyways, there's a whole lot of types of arthritis, and mine (reumatoid) physically wrecked my joints, the worst, with flares and everything, is over thankfully, but my joints are fucked anyway, short of replacing them there's no fix. But I get by & I know how to use my body as efficiently as possible, so I'm gonna postpone any more surgery as long as I can.

>>3429443
>universal focusing handle
And that is exactly what I had in mind, many thanks!
>>
I want a telephoto zoom, but I can't afford one for Sony, so I'm thinking of getting something old and manual with adapter, is this a good idea?
>>
>>3429488
Old, manual-focus telephotos tend to be pretty soft with a double order of chromatic aberration. That goes double for zooms.
>>
>be pentacks shooter (K-1)
>be snapshitter
>tired of lugging around a 1kg body for that
>consider finally switching to mirrorless
>like the idea of a mount alliance
>Pana S1 is also 1kg
why?
I'll guess I'll just "downgrade" to Fuji X. Or stick with K-1.
>>
got an old Lumix LX2, which is a decent point and shoot. I lost the charger and want to bring it back to live. Which 5$ chinese rip of charger (or charger + compatible battery) could i buy?

Battery is a Panasonic Model NO.CGA-S005E 3.7V 1150mAh Li-ion

Dont want to spend much since you can get the cam for <50 bucks now.
>>
>>3429444
Blades might be gunked up with old oil. Disassemble and clean. Old manual focus primes can be pretty easy to open up and remove the apertures from. Search youtube for tutorials for your specific lens.
>>
A7ii or stretch my budget and get A7rii? Both used. Is Continuous eye AF and other improvements worth it?
>>
>>3429687
leica m10 or bust
>>
>>3429926
What lens do you want to get?
7ii has a ton of issues that might not be for you.
>>
>>3429943
Start off with a 50mm prime. No lens to adapt since I'm coming from a fuji x100
>>
>>3429951
Sharp but slow lens, I'm not sure you ill be happy with it.
You should be thinking about lenses before the body really.

In your shoes I would be stretching for the Tamron RXD lens.
>>
>>3429953
the 28-75 is not a bad deal used. Might consider this as my all in 1
>>
>>3429970
Canon is also releasing a cheaper FF body soon.
>>
>>3429973
so, a mirorless 5d Mark 3 with no ibis?
great...
>>
>>3429975
6Dm2.
>>
File: bert.png (106 KB, 999x382)
106 KB
106 KB PNG
>>3429926
I think this is the new MSRP.
>>
>>3429687
Get a gym pass instead, twiggy.
>>
So, I've settled on the Nikon D3400. I don't have it yet, but they are pretty common in the local secondhand market.
I shopped around on aliexpress a bit for some accessoires that I don't want to blow big money on yet, seeing how I'm just starting out (and I tend to spend way too much money on new hobbies too quickly).
I looked for relatively decent options, not the cheapest.
Is there anything else I should get? I'm intend to mostly do macro photography.
>ring flash with diffuser
>small tripod
>remote
>AF extension tube
>black backdrop cloth
>focussing handle
>>
>>3427558
>prime around 90 to 120mm
>2.8 or faster
>autofocus
>aperture ring
>optically stabilised
>available for nikon F mount
Does a lens like this exist? The tokina 100/2.8 and the sigma 105/2.8 both look really good, but the tokina doesn't have OS and the sigma doesn't have an aperture ring.
>>
poorfag that wants a upgrade from smartphone cameras mostly for low-light and landscape performance

is the craigslist dslr a good option? I'd rather get something _new_
>>
Are there any digital cameras that are better at monochrome than others aside from the super expensive specialized ones?
>>
>>3430534
>Are there any digital cameras that are better at monochrome than others
Only in the smartphones I think.

But there are lenses that are better for Monochrome than others.
The Apochromatic ones like this one: https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1574251/
>>
>>3430530
>cheap
>low-light
You sort of need a good tripod for that. Most cameras will do on a tripod.
>>
Sonyfags reveal yourselves.

What's the 100-400 G-masta like? Good for wildlife? How about portraits? Would like one lens that is good for both.

Also, can you recommend a 50mm prime (or close to 50mm) which is good, light, small and relatively inexpensive? Thx
>>
>>3430541
No idea, never tried that one before.
>>
>>3430541
>almost 3k€
damn
>>
>>3430530
a tripod
what do you currently have?
>>
>>3430568
nothing currently
>>
File: tfw no condor.png (125 KB, 922x882)
125 KB
125 KB PNG
I don't get which one of these I'm supposed to get

https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B00MYUPOXC/ref=ask_ql_qh_dp_hza
https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00UHJ6JH2/ref=psdc_332217031_t2_B00MYUPOXC

They are pretty much the same as far as I can tell but one comes with batteries and one does not. The more expensive one is featuring a pair of cables I can't figure out what they are for. Also the recievers/transmitters look different, but I dunno if it actually makes a difference.

Using a D3200, thanks a bunch for the help.
>>
Looking for a decent cheap general camera.
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1365794-REG/nikon_26510b_coolpix_b700_digital_camera.html
how's this? trying to stay under $400
>>
>>3430530
>low light
Don't expect a cheap dslr to be much better than your phone in low light. Most phone cameras have lenses with a very large aperture (f/1.5 to f/1.8) as well as OIS and IBIS. You won't find IBIS in any dslr and OIS lenses are either expensive or not very sharp. You'll need a tripod and/or a mirrorless system with expensive lenses for good low light performance.
With a phone you can get away with exposure times as low as 1/4 if you hold the phone steady, with an unstabilized dslr you shouldn't really go lower than 1/30. Add to that the difference in aperture (let's be generous and assume you're using a 1.8 prime) you'll have to use 10x higher ISO for the same scene as a recent samsung phone. That's a big difference especially with cheaper APS-C cameras.
>>
>>3430616
do you assume I have a good phone?
my phone's camera is barely passable
>>
>>3430616
>Don't expect a cheap dslr to be much better than your phone in low light. Most phone cameras have lenses with a very large aperture (f/1.5 to f/1.8) as well as OIS and IBIS. You won't find IBIS in any dslr and OIS lenses are either expensive or not very sharp.
Wow, this is...all wrong.

1. A cheap DSLR, even with a slow kit lens, will give you vastly better image quality in low light than a cellphone due to the exponentially larger sensor.
2. There are DSLRs with IBIS—Pentax makes a bunch, and Sony used to make some before they abandoned SLRs for mirrorless.
3. Modern DSLR kit lenses for both Nikon and Canon have optical stabilization and they’re both pretty sharp. Not as sharp as better DSLR lenses, obviously, but certainly sharp enough to absolutely destroy a photo from a smartphone.
4. You can get an f/2 or f/1.8 prime for a DSLR for around $100, which will give you great low-light performance on even a cheap DSLR.
5. You can only get away with slower speeds on a smartphone because no one looks at them larger than smartphone-screen-sized
>>
>>3430530
d7000 with a 35mm f/1.8 DX+18-105mm kit lens
everything used and sharp as shit
>>3430616
>Don't expect a cheap dslr to be much better than your phone in low light.
yes it will, even on f/5.6, you just need to add some actual post processing.
>>
>>3430617
Well in that case it's probably worth it. Nikon has better sensors and plenty of old cheap lenses that are still compatible, canon has better lenses further down the line once you're ready to invest more.
>>3430626
>>3430624
Those kit lenses with OIS are f/3.5-5 which brings it back around needing x7-12 higher ISO. ISO 3600 does look better on a dslr than ISO 300 on a phone but it's not going to be night and day especially on an old APS-C sensor.
>>
>>3430642
that old APS-C sensor is holding up really well despite being almost 9 years old now.
I also recommended two lenses to him, one for landscape and one for low light.
believe it or not nikons 18-105mm DX is sharp enough from corner to corner to be used for landscape and general photography.
I'm only telling him to buy it because it's cheap as shit used($100) and you'd definitely need more than 55mm(80mm) for landscape at times, in fact the 18-105mm vr is sharper than the 18-55mm vr despite having a larger range and they both go for the same price, he should skip out on the 18-140mm though, that one is absolute garbage even for older kit lens standards.
>>
File: 217131__9260194.jpg (475 KB, 1600x1200)
475 KB
475 KB JPG
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0aFcs8NCPI&feature=youtu.be

Mirrorless native, 20mm F1,8 for 280 bucks.
Almost 0 distortion.

Samyang used to do lenses like this, but only for DSLR.
And now the Chinese have become the new Samyang. Funny how the market is shifting like that.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeOLYMPUS IMAGING CORP.
Camera ModelE-M1
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 7.3.1 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.8
Color Filter Array Pattern810
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)42 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution240 dpi
Vertical Resolution240 dpi
Image Created2018:09:26 16:36:17
Exposure Time1/60 sec
F-Numberf/3.5
Exposure ProgramAperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating1600
Lens Aperturef/3.5
Exposure Bias-0.7 EV
Metering ModeCenter Weighted Average
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length21.00 mm
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Gain ControlHigh Gain Up
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessSoft
>>
What happened to gearfag general /p/?
>>
File: 300px-EBay_logo.svg.png (9 KB, 300x120)
9 KB
9 KB PNG
>>3427558
Someone is selling a lens I want on ebay for $500. The next cheapest one is $640 and the retail price is $1k.
The ad says it's in "as new" condition and the seller has 100% positive rating but there are no images of the glass. Can I get my money back if it's fucked, or can he claim some stupid shit like "as new" doesn't mean it's in good condition just that it looks new or something?
>>
>>3431285
can't you ask him for more images and for more information?
>>
>>3431285
Send me a link. i'll say you more about the seller.
>>
new lens hype. slapped it on my a7 just to see how it performs and it seems i got a good copy. pretty damn sharp even at the edges @5.6.

gunna be my main shooter on my FD camera's for the next lil while to get used to this ridiculous FOV
>>
Has anyone taken a good photo with these or are they only for rich streetshooting old men?

They arent that bad here second hand here with a 23mm.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width600
Image Height400
Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>
>>3431313
>made by panasonic
Kidding a bit. Should get everything you need, great cam, great lenses, just ask yourself if you're willing to spend few grands per lens.
>>
>>3431313
It looks like a nice system but I'm not sure how I feel about L vs M system. I assume Panasonic won't make crop camera's and crop lenses for the L mount so it might wind up as a bit of a weird system.
If you can justify the pricing for the lenses you want for the camera it could be a really good lightweight system.
>>
15mm f1.7 (I have this currently) + 25mm f1.7 or the olympus 12-40mm f2.8?

I don't like switching lenses much but with 2.8 as my fastest I don't think I'll be able to do anything in low light scenarios. Admittedly, they aren't that frequent for me.
>>
I have the:
18-55 kit lens
50mm Canon lens
55-250 telephoto

What's the next lens I should buy?

t. beginner
>>
>>3431333
What do you like shooting?

If I were in your position, my next lens would be a fast normal prime (28mm or 35mm or thereabouts).
>>
For Leica M series owners: do you use a aftermarket grip on your body? I heard good things about a thumb grip that sits in the shoe. So I've seen leather cases that wrap around d the body with a bump on the side to aid in grippage. What about wooden grips?

Any advice on which brand/maker is good for those types of grips and cases?
>>
>>3427749
As far as switching from prime wide to wide-standard with my Nikon I have a 20mm f/2.8, 28mm f/2.8 and a 35mm f/1.8. a number of years ago (10) I picked up the 17-35 f/2.8. It's quite the amazing lens. I love my primes but fast (f/2.8) zooms are so much more convenient in close spaces.
>>
I was just thinking, when one uses a crop lens on a full frame body the camera brings up the APS-C crop. However seeing as how a lens projects a circle, could you bring up a square crop? Like a 24x24mm image area since that's the minimum image circle needed for an APS-C lens and you have that extra room due to the 24x36 size of the full frame sensor.
Am I missing something somewhere?
>>
>>3431396
You can probably disable the cropping and crop the picture in postpro.
>>
>>3431359
City and sea shots. Don't focus on people much.

I was looking at the canon 35mm but it's very expensive.
>>
>>3431430
Yongnuo makes a very affordable 35/2 for canon mount. The autofocus sucks, but it kind of sucks on the genuine Canon 35/2.
>>
>>3431396
some lenses project larger than strictly necessary image circle on crop, e.g. sigma 30/1.4 art, that lens actually covers pretty much the whole full frame sensor. on nikon at least.
>>
>>3431396
>Am I missing something somewhere?
In theory this should probably work with most lenses. There might be a few out there with fancy aspherical lens elements that don’t project a radically symmetrical image circle (ie, correcting for optical issues out to the full 24mm width but not height), but I don’t know enough about optics to know if this is actually a thing or not.

But yeah, surprised cameras don’t offer this as an option now that you bring it up. Seems like it would be easy to do, especially with mirrorless.
>>
>>3431327
>>3431317
Honestly i consider it just to try a leica once in my life. Its not that expensice with the 23mm and i would probably dump the body if i didnt enjoy the experience, then just adapt the lens to my other system.
>>
>>3431434
Do you know how it compares quality wise? Don't want to spend money on something that would suck.
>>
>>3431333
Get the 24mm STM pancake. Less than $150 and a great walking around prime. Love mine.
>>
Is a Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 STM worthwhile on a crop sensor camera for anything besides portraits?
>>
>>3431617
It's also great if you ever shoot shows.
>>
Trying to get a full frame, what would the best bang for the buck body be?
I'm most likely going to be using an 85mm 90% of the time for portraits
>>
Ok sonyfags, you won. Your endless shilling has finally beaten me down. I just ordered an a7iii + 100-400mm GM. Will probably also get the Tamron 28-75 when it's next on sale.

Feel free to shill some other lenses.
>>
File: 1376243441820.png (584 KB, 680x684)
584 KB
584 KB PNG
>>3431721
>Your endless shilling has finally beaten me down
I didn't really meant it that way, I just wanted to brag sometimes to feel superior.

Please just go back to your old brand.
>>
>>3431721
>Will probably also get the Tamron 28-75 when it's next on sale.
That's not going to happen. The demand is too high so the price has increased by 80 bucks or so. If you are lucky there might be some "sale" back to its original price of 800.
So it's still not too late to cancel your order if that was a part of your plan.
>>
>>3431721
You got bullied into spending $5k on camera gear? Neat.
>>
>beginnner
>compact or mirrorless
>350€ budget

I'm completely lost in this photography world and I'm looking to what to buy as first camera. In my local market these are available as second hand:
-Sony a6000+kit €350
-Canon G16 €250
-Canon G9X €200
-Fuji X-E2 body€300
-Canon M10 €350
-Fuji X20 €250

What should I aim to?
>>
>>3431731
I would recommend a goof tripod from aliexpress, those let you experiment with really slow shutter speeds while you are learning the exposure triangle. 60 bucks or so is enough to get a good one.

Then get one of the cameras that can change lenses.
I wouldn't really recommend Canon these days. Because I think it's just a matter of time before their new RF-mount gets APS-C bodies, so the old EF-M mount will probably be phased out.
>>
>>3431732
I'll definitely look for a tripod, thanks.
So, I should either choose the a6000 or the X-E2, right?
Do you recommend any other cameras?
>>
>>3431332
The 12-40 will be sharper than the 25 1.7. the 12-40 is also weather sealed so you might consider that too. On the downside you will lose some stops with the zoom.
>>
>>3431740
I'll probably get the 12-40, sell the 15 and get the 25 later down the line then. Or maybe the panny 20mm. Just something fast.
>>
Is it even worth buying EF-S lenses?
Shouldn't we all aspire to full frame + EF?
>>
>>3431980
Canon crop lenses are pretty shit when compared to second hand full frame glass. Unless you know you are going to stick with crop canon DSLRs I'd skip the crop lenses.
>>
stupid gear question:

so I bought a Watameter I accessory shoe range finder on ebay and I got it and can't see through it. I suppose it's cloudy with fungus and whatnot inside.

is it possible to disassemble one? they're really small and it's not immediately obvious how it comes apart. has anyone ever seen a service manual or a thread on a photography forum where someone took one apart and cleaned it?

thanks
>>
>>3431722
Nah, you got shilled man.
Might as well start shopping for whatever you are going to replace it with in 2-3 months.
>>
File: dfd pumping.webm (660 KB, 1024x576)
660 KB
660 KB WEBM
panasonic homos will defend this
>>
File: 1359202719248.png (74 KB, 210x285)
74 KB
74 KB PNG
>>3432211
>he doesn't know still objects are secretly the most demanding AF task of them all
>>
>>3432211
>AF on a still subject
found the retard
>>
>>3432222
>the panasonic homos actually defended it
>>
>>3432224
bruh I don't even own a digi camera. Keep being an ignorant brandfag, continues AF on a still subject using retard tho it's hilarious
>>
>>3431980
the 24mm is a pretty nice lens

if you're planning on sticking with canon, then FF is a better choice.
>>
>>3432225
phase AF wouldn't have any problem knowing that the subject distance hasn't changed -> no pumping.
>>
>>3432225
>continues AF on a still subject using retard
It really isn't.
The bigger ideal is to make AF-C usable in as many situations as possible.

If you have to spend seconds to change back to AF-S, then your camera has failed you.

Same thing with manual focusing. If you are forced to use manual focusing because the still subject is too "demanding", then your entire AF system is a failure.
>>
Looking for a a cheap master flash for canon 6D to trigger an external flash( Speedlite 430EX).
I only want to trigger the external flash, will the 90ex work for this or do i need a radio transmitter?
What is the cheapest option ?
>>
I'm in the market for a new laptop. Mine is 9 years old, and basically on the shitter at this point. What do you guys recommend? I've been looking at stuff with good displays (i.e. good sRGB gamut), but most of it is almost 2k, and I can't justify spending that much on a laptop. Do I bite the bullet and buy a fruitbook? Do I get some gaming laptop? Looking for some good opinions here. I see some people talk about Thinkbooks with an IPS display, is that a more budget-friendly option? I'd really like to keep it around 1k, but less is obviously preferable. I'm really at a loss here, the world of laptops has evolved so much since I last bought one.
>>
Any use upgrading a sony a7ii to a7rii or better just to wait?

Im not sure how easy one could sell the 7ii.
>>
>>3432278
Avoid gaming laptops, they are heavy and get hot, serve better as a crippled mobile workstation.
What do you need a laptop for?
They are useless for video processing. If you want to edit RAWs and do postpro, you would aim at something higher-end, 16GB RAM minimum.
As for a good display, your choice will be severely limited if you want 100% gamut.
You will likely have to aim closer to 2k than 1k.
>>
>>3432282
Looking for it for editing RAWs, 100% I think is overkill honestly, but maybe I'm wrong. I'm not a professional (yet) but am looking to start doing portrait sessions, and selling prints. Is a desktop perhaps a better investment then? I have one I got on the cheap from a friend of mine with a fried mobo, I could definitely cannibalize the parts that still work in it and just rebuild it.
>>
>>3432281
The upgrade is the mark 3 in my opinion.
The R might have better stills, but it comes at the cost of processing the massive files really slowly on your computer.
The basic one has better video.
>>
>>3432283
you can edit raw on an ipad or ms surface on the go and have a workstation at home
>>
File: IMG_20190208_203309.jpg (115 KB, 1920x960)
115 KB
115 KB JPG
I just got this including the lense for £250 as my first camera, how did I do /p/ and what essentials outside of a bag to keep it safe should I invest in?
>>
>>3432278
a thinkpad or a macbook
refurbished
>>
>>3432278
>I see some people talk about Thinkbooks with an IPS display, is that a more budget-friendly option?
Yes, they're nice
You can get either X2xx or Txxx and install an IPS panel own your own as well, it's readily available on ebay etc
>>
File: Q999H.jpg (53 KB, 900x900)
53 KB
53 KB JPG
>>3432315
Look up a good Tripod from aliexpress. Get the ones with horizontal mode like pic related.

They usually cost about 75 bucks.
>>
>>3432315
I would advise to just start shooting and having fun with it. Don't get all your gear now.
See what you run into while you're out and about. Learn what challenges your process as you're shooting and then try to see if there are piece of gear that fit into those needs.
>>
>>3432323
not that guy, but what do you use the horizontal part for? is that how you dslr scan film negatives?
>>
>>3432315
a comfy strap
>>
>>3432332
>but what do you use the horizontal part for?
If you want to take a picture of something directly from above, it's super useful.

Especially since it can be hard to handhold such an angle.
>>
>>3432337
i see, so like food and product photography
>>
>>3432339
Yup.

They basically cost the same as the older models without that mode, since the horizontal mode is such a minor modification to the tripods, so it would be a shame to get one without.
>>
arghhhg why is the genuine RC2 L-brackets so fucking expensive and the chinese copies just shit
>>
>>3432323

I've used Ali a few tims, do they often state which cameras it should fit or do I usually need the dimensions on hand?

>>3432324
I'm not going to get crazy with the gear as it's my 1st entry into this and I'm not sure if I'm going to drop it or not. But ideally I just want to make sure I cover the basics. I've notice I would like a better zoom for something that might be a bird in a tree for example.

>>3432333
The stock strap isn't too bad. But I can feel eit's going to get irritating pretty quick on longer days of use. Are there any /p/ recommended brands?
>>
>>3432363
The tripods fit every camera since they all use the same standard thread filter at the bottom.
>>
>>3432363
>I've notice I would like a better zoom for something that might be a bird in a tree for example.
You could get yourself a nice vintage tele lens. They go for as little as $50 and can take fantastic pictures, especially on a smaller sensor like the A6000s.
>>
>>3432363
>Are there any /p/ recommended brands?
shiggydiggydoo

there is an open thread about this somewhere on the board. i mentioned i like op-tech shit because it is cheap and the quality is good. once you put the quick disconnect things on your cameras, you can swap different straps among them depending on what you're doing or in the mood for. i shoot heavy dslr's mostly so i switch between the shoulder strap and the wrist strap. i have a neck strap also so i can carry 2 cameras and still have my hands free.
>>
File: DSC02661.jpg (1.25 MB, 1920x2560)
1.25 MB
1.25 MB JPG
>>3432379
>>3432363
Heh, this is why I have the 18-135mm.

I hate changing lenses when I'm out on the bike.
And Autofocus is a godsend in situations where you just want the AF to snap, since the subject can disappear very suddenly while you adjust the settings.

I don't think I could live without AF.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeSONY
Camera ModelILCE-6000
Camera Softwarepaint.net 4.0.5
Maximum Lens Aperturef/5.6
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)202 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution350 dpi
Vertical Resolution350 dpi
Image Created2018:06:27 07:46:43
Exposure Time1/640 sec
F-Numberf/9.0
Exposure ProgramNormal Program
ISO Speed Rating800
Brightness7.8 EV
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length135.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width6000
Image Height4000
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
ContrastHard
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
>>
>>3432405
It kind of depends on personal preference I would say but for a small APS-C body I feel like a wide range like the 18-135 does make sense. It's well priced and portable too, so why not.
>>
I shoot a 5D and several Canon EOS 35mm film cameras. The only lenses I have right now are a couple of 50mm's (an STM and and an older one) and a Tamron 28-80 that came with a film camera (and is particularly awful when compared to the sharpness, contrast, and colors of the 50's when shot on the 5D and edited at 100%, even when shot stopped down between f8 and f11).

So what is the best all around lens I should buy next on a tight budget, say $200 or less? (used is fine, obviously)

It would be nice to go wider than 50 and I like how a zoom can be used to get things in and out of my composition without moving around.

I've been thinking about the EF 28-135 IS https://kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/28-135mm.htm

What do you guys think? L glass is just out of reach for right now
>>
File: image.jpg (379 KB, 1200x675)
379 KB
379 KB JPG
Anyone know any good and compact 35mm to go into my Nikon DF?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width1200
Image Height675
>>
I am planning to up my game from a Canon 1000d I inherited. I will get a 6dmkii as I have a 70-300mm EF tele which I love.

What lens should I get? I am not very well situated so I can't throw thousands of dollars at a lens. I was kinda vacilating between a 50mm or a 35mm prime. Thoughts?
>>
>>3432278
2015 MBP imo, touch bar models are overpriced and donglehell tier

But MacOS is worth it for the workflow.
>>
>>3432554
if i could only shoot one lens it would be a fast 50. get the f1.4 L if you can swing it or the f1.8 STM is a great value for around $100.

canon also makes a f2.8 40mm pancake lens that's like $179 new and a little wider and also well reviewed
>>
>>3432554
I'd get a 35mm prime; 50mm is good as well but not as versatile; if you ever need to, you can crop to look like a 50mm without losing much if you're shooting 35mm lens, but you can't reproduce 35mm field of view of you're using a 50mm
And 35mm field of view is a must for indoors and impromptus like street photography
>>
>>3432469
The Nikon 35mm f/2D lens would be good. Very small and great performing lens.
>>
>>3432570
>get the f1.4 L if you can swing it
There's not a 1.4L. There's a 50mm f/1.4, but it doesn't have huge advantages over the 50/1.8 STM--the USM motor in the 1.4 isn't much better than the STM in the 1.8, and the aperture difference is negligible.
>>
>>3432601
my bad. there is a L series 50 and it's f1.2. I've read that about the 1.4, but I understand the build quality is better.

I have a metal Minolta a-mount f1.4 50mm I love
>>
>>3432618
>Build quality
Get the 50 1.8 II. Rock solid and not soft wide open like the 1.4. seriously, that is borderline unusable
>>
>>3432622
>Get the 50 1.8 II. Rock solid and not soft wide open like the 1.4. seriously, that is borderline unusable
Build quality and autofocus motor in the 50/1.8 II suuuuuucks. The 50/1.8 STM is much better.

>>3432618
>I've read that about the 1.4, but I understand the build quality is better.
The build quality on the 1.4 is definitely better than the 1.8 II, but not significantly better than the 1.8 STM.

Source: Have owned the 1.8 II, 1.4, and 1.8STM, in that order. I got the 1.8STM when I broke my 1.4 and haven't regretted the decision to go with that instead of buying a new 1.4.
>>
>>3432626
>>3432622
Different guy here -- is the EF 50mm f/1.8 STM worthwhile on a crop sensor camera or is it too tight?
>>
File: 20190210_212504 (1).jpg (1022 KB, 4264x3152)
1022 KB
1022 KB JPG
>>3432626
what about the original 50mm f1.8 that was made from 1987-1990, where does that fit in? it has a metal bayonet mount and it's heavier than the stm. I've only shot with it on 35mm film cameras so I never really compared it to the stm on a full frame digital.

>>3432635
80mm equivalent on 1.6 crop factor aps-c sensor
>>
>>3432635
>is the EF 50mm f/1.8 STM worthwhile on a crop sensor camera or is it too tight?
It makes a great portrait lens on crop. Not too bad as a walking-around lens as long as you're outdoors and can take a step back. Great if you shoot shows (bands etc) on stage.

>>3432644
>what about the original 50mm f1.8 that was made from 1987-1990, where does that fit in?
Better build quality than the II, but identical optics (and I think it has a similarly crappy autofocus motor). They tend to sell for more than the STM used, so I'd recommend just getting the STM.

The only real reason to go for the original 1.8 is if you want to use the distance scale (e.g., for zone focusing). For that, though, you'd probably be better off getting a manual focus lens with an adapter for much cheaper.
>>
>>3432659
>I think it has a similarly crappy autofocus motor

it's noisier but seems to work well and fast enough on the EOS 620.

autofocus motors from the eighties actually sound like broken toy cars. cameras with the motor mounted in the body are even worse. i have a maxxum 7000 that i was dying when i bought it a year ago, but it's actually fine and those noises are normal.
>>
New to this shit, just got my first dslr, but it was body only, what lenses are absolutely essential?
Is it just 18-55?
>>
>>3432598
>great performing lens
nigga what you smoking?
>>
>>3432768
No particular lens is essential but you kind of need a lens in "normal" focal range. The kit lens is included in camera kits for reason.

The 18-55 kit lens (crop Canon?) should be cheap 2nd hand. Get the IS version if possible. Sigma or Tamron 18-50/2.8 zoom is not that expensive. Or a EF-S 24/2.8 or something.

(Lots of manual vintage lenses can be adaped to EF mount and generally are ridiculously cheap. But if you are just starting you better have a modern autofocus lens.)
>>
>>3432635
Don't worry about tight, but worry about soft.
>>
>>3432794
>The most important feature of a lens is whether or not I can jerk off to its test charts. Using it for actual photography is not a concern of mine.
You're the worst.
>>
Just got a Canon full frame- what are the "must have" lenses? What do you guys use the most?
>>
>>3432211
It's trying to catch if something is moving. That's what you want when you are in continuous autofocus.
>>
>>3432813
40mm f2.8 is pretty much the go to. Cheap, sharp, pancake sized, autofocus is blazing. I find 40mm a bit more useful than 50mm.
>>
what camera accessory will get me in bed?
>>
>>3432819
thanks for the recommendation. any good mid to long zooms that aren't L prices but still worthwhile?
>>
>>3432875
take a journey and look for yourself
https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx
set it at f/8 and compare mm
>>
File: IMG_5213.jpg (602 KB, 2048x1365)
602 KB
602 KB JPG
got 2 specs when I take long exposure shots. Is it dust?

Can I clean it? is my camera fucked?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeCanon
Camera ModelCanon EOS 2000D
Camera SoftwareAdobe Lightroom CC 2.1.1 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.8
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution240 dpi
Vertical Resolution240 dpi
Image Created2019:02:11 18:08:56
Exposure Time10 sec
F-Numberf/18.0
Exposure ProgramShutter Priority
ISO Speed Rating100
Lens Aperturef/18.0
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length50.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceManual
Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>
>>3432885
Might be a dirty lens or sensor. Does the issue persist with other lenses?
>>
>>3432887
Persists with the lens. Really worried lads, I didn't fuck my shit up did I? You can't really see it with fast shutter speeds btw.
>>
File: 1531256809645.jpg (3.95 MB, 3024x4032)
3.95 MB
3.95 MB JPG
Hi /p/ long story short I've been wanting to take some better quality pictures than my phone produces cause I'm moving from my home country to another continent soon. I've been looking at beginner DSLRs, nothing particularly fancy, and a friend reocmmended either a Canon 600d used + a Canon 80d kit lens used or a Canon 2000d with the 18-55mm kit lens if buying new (I'm a little warey of buying used when I don't really know much about cameras, incase I buy a hunk of shit). I'm learning fast but also a bit lost in all the gear so here I am.

What are some good starter DSLRs that you guys like? Is buying used pretty risky? Pic related is an example of the type of photo I've been taking (pls no judge), if that changes your suggestions.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Softwarepaint.net 4.1.5
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution96 dpi
Vertical Resolution96 dpi
>>
>>3432894
I use the 2000D that I got myself for Christmas last year and it's pretty sweet. This me, and you can check the EXIF to see I shot it with the 2000D >>3432885

I recommend it and think it's great, although I haven't used another DSLR since this is my first.
>>
>>3432885
>f/18
nah it's not fucked dude, really normal, I got some shit on my DSLRs as well, get some swabs and swab juice and clean it, don't use cube gels because they'll just fuck your sensor up.
I've used 22 swabs on my d7100 in total without any troubles and I'll be cleaning my d810 which has shitton of dust in it currently.
just learn to swab properly so you won't leave any residue from the liquid on it, it's pretty easy to do, if there's liquid residue in the form of stripes just swab it one more time or until you get it, putting pressure on your sensor is important but besides that it's pretty easy to do.
you'll probably need 3-8 swabs for the first time you do it but after you learn it, it will only take you a single one, useful skill.
don't be afraid because the sensors can handle it thanks to the layer of glass they have on top of them and are pretty much made to be cleaned, just don't clean up liquid with a dry swab, use a bit of pressure against the sensor instead so there will be no residue.

if you can't be bothered to clean it yourself just send it in to a cleaning service or something, it'll be much more expensive though and learning how to do it yourself is pretty easy and useful if you switch lenses a lot.
try shooting at f/22 or above if you can at a blank surface to look at your dust particles more closely.
>>3432889
wait does it show up with other lenses or what? if it does you're safe because lenses are hard to clean depending on where you get the dust.
>>
>>3432881
>https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx
neat
>>
Photography is the only hobby I’ve encountered so far where I bought used gear in “excellent” condition and immediately had to repair it.
Did anyone else here do that or is it just a coincidence? Is that expected?
>>
>>3432977
coincidence most likely or you got ripped off
what did you get and what was wrong?
>>
>>3432977
on ebay, everything shipping from Japan is labeled EXCELLENT+++++ regardless of condition

a seller's feedback is better than the item description as far as what to expect. below 99.8% positive is bad feedback
>>
>>3432980
>>3432986
Yes, the “excellent” was a canon FD 70-210 zoom that had to be disassembled before I could turn focus ring.
Another was an open box a6300 from BBY with misaligned flex cable rendering AEL/AF switch in AF position. This one I suspect was actually Sony’s fault.
>>
Is the Sony A7III the best value all around camera currently?
>>
>>3433024
no
>>
>>3433024
yes
>>
>>3433025
>>3433026
thanks
>>
>>3433024
Almost everybody is trying to make something like it more or less, except for Olympus.
>>
>>3432894
Camera bodies come and go but good lenses stay.

I'd take 200d kit over 2000d kit. Should be about same price new. But its just my prejudice.

Was happy with my 600d. When it ded I got the cheapest 2nd hand 100d I could find and felt it was an upgrade. Only missing the flippy screen.

Any of 200d, 2000d, 600d, 100d and more will do the job. And even humble Canon kit lens is not a bad start.
>>
Which Nikon 70-200 f2.8 do I get?
>>
>>3433170
There are more on eBay, but you get the idea
>>
File: 1520689827235.png (267 KB, 938x396)
267 KB
267 KB PNG
>>3432898
>>3433047
Thanks for the replies guys. I was hoping to go with a kit lens for now, and then if I take a liking to the hobby in the way I hope, I can think about upgrading to a 'proper' lens for sure. I had a look round for the 200d and there are 2 variants on Amazon as far as I can tell. I'm too new to really understand the difference but from what I can see the only difference is the f-stop range. How important would having 3.5-5.6 over 4-5.6 be (to a total beginner like me) cause it seems like the 200d might be worth it for just a little extra.
>>
>>3433170
Can confirm that the Tamron is stunning. Haven't used the Nikon version but I can't imagine the price difference is justified. No idea about the Sigma.
>>
>>3432894
For real, if you want to pay less than new prices but are worried about functionality then check out canon’s refurb site. Last i knew their stuff came with a one year warranty.
>>
>>3433175
The 4-5.6 is just the newer version of the 3.5-5.6 kit lens. Have not tried it but difference from 3.5 to 4 should not be not significant.

When you start to feel limited you get a wider lens anyway.

I still do use kit when there is enough light cause its much less bulky than my fancy 17-50/2.8 and good enough for snap walks. I generally use aperture 5.6 unless there is a reason to not.
>>
>>3433238
..difference from 3.5 to 4 should not be significant.
hait typing in tiny window.
>>
>>3433274
>>3433238
Cheers. I think I'm gunna go with the 200d then. I'll make do with the kit lens for now of course, but do you guys know of any good guides with regard to lenses when I decided to upgrade to my first 'proper' one. I'm not sure how to go about choosing a focal length and f-stop based on what I'm taking pictures of, but I know I'll end up wanting to spend more money pretty quickly.
>>
>>3433200
How's the Tamron hit rate?
>>
Is fuji xt100 worth the extra shekels over the xa5? I'm a retard and had a bridge camera before, but want to upgrade. Not sure if the viewfinder is a deal breaker.
>>
Suggestion for 35mm lense for fuji, I wanna buy vintage but i dont know enough pls halp my budget is 200$
>>
>>3433314
View finder is absolutely necessary i would suggest u look at a xt1 second hand for that money you'll get a better camera if ure intrested in fuji
>>
>>3433308
60-ish %
>>
My Nikon 55-300 is toast. Best closest matching replacement that isn't the same lens?
>>
>>3433337
you can get those for $150 used.
There's not a better option in that price range.
>>
I bought a Godox V860 and a X1T to use with my film camera (hey don't judge I just want to shoot mf).
The X1T connected through PC sync ports works well, but when it goes to sleep and I fire the shutter it doesn't trigger the flash, so I have to keep touching the dial so it doesn't sleep. Quite annoying.
My question is: will a XPro transmitter solve my problem (not going to sleep)?
Or a Pocketwizard? Do they have something that works with Godox speedlites?
>>
>>3433341
And if price is no issue?
>>
>>3433318
Thanks mate, I'll have a look at t1 as well, I assumed newer would be better due to software updates and whatnot.
>>
>>3433170
Something funny actually, despite being cheaper the tamron is better than both the nikon and canon counterpart thanks to better image stabilization, microcontrast, AF, sharpness etc.
Also as a sidenote the tamron 24-70 f/2.8 G2 is the best 24-70 f/2.8 lens as well while also being cheaper, they also got a 15-30 f/2.8 that shits on nikons "legendary" 14-24 f/2.8, trust me I've seen it with my own eyes, maybe nikon lenses are just overpriced, I'm really starting to believe it after using third party lenses.
I know some sigmas are sharper but they have some troubles and official lenses is for journalists and professionals, save some money while getting better glass at the same time.
>>
>>3433387
Thanks for the advice, I'll look into Tamron
>>
I've got a sony a7II running with 2 canon lenses but looking to move over to E mount. I was looking at the Sony zeiss 24-70 f4 since I can get a good deal for it and then to adapt some cool m42 primes. Thoughts?
>>
>>3433450
The Tamron RXD instead, the extra stop of light is worth it.
>>
>>3433451
Tamron is arguably better than the G master I've heard it is insanely sharp but also double the price of the 24-70 f4. That's a really good option though
>>
>>3433452
My mistake, a used 24-70 f4 is much cheaper but new for new the tamron is a no brainer
>>
>>3433452
>better than the G master
It isn't really, the GM is the sharper lens, but the RXD is a lot more pleasant to use due to the size and weight.
>>
>>3433454
Agreed, but the G master is simply overpriced imo. Hows the bokeh on the Tamron? Some reviews say its ugly some say its good
>>
File: DSC09324.jpg (604 KB, 1800x1200)
604 KB
604 KB JPG
i purchased a sony a99 recently... its my first full frame digital and i absolutely enjoy using it but i almost feel as though its "too much camera" and its effecting the quality of my shots... maybe i just havent used it enough idk. i just purchased the sony 50mm 1.4 and the old minolta "secret handshake" lens and im hoping these help me get a little more comfortable with it. (pic related)

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeSONY
Camera ModelSLT-A99V
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.5.1 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperturef/5.0
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)52 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution240 dpi
Vertical Resolution240 dpi
Image Created2018:10:20 15:29:18
Exposure Time1/100 sec
F-Numberf/5.6
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating400
Lens Aperturef/5.6
Brightness4.6 EV
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length35.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
>>
Got a second-hand Nikkor 300mm f/4 PF for my Z7 this afternoon.

Here's a SooC JPG (the small 2MB ones sent via SnapBridge), taken a few minutes ago.

Not too bad for a 1/15s handheld 300mm shot indoor at night.
>>
File: NZ7_1089.jpg (778 KB, 1620x1080)
778 KB
778 KB JPG
>>3433493
Eh, picture did not attach properly...

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATION
Camera ModelNIKON Z 7
Camera SoftwareVer.01.02
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern1084
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)300 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Image Created2019:02:13 00:34:23
Exposure Time1/15 sec
F-Numberf/4.0
Exposure ProgramAperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating1600
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash
Focal Length300.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width1620
Image Height1080
RenderingCustom
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Gain ControlLow Gain Up
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
Subject Distance RangeUnknown
>>
File: 1547259790884.jpg (211 KB, 1024x1004)
211 KB
211 KB JPG
>>3427558
Posting for curiousity... full frame vs NEW mirrorless? Specifically mid-range priced FX line nikons vs the Fuji xt3
>>
>>3433540
depends on what you want
FF for quality and low light performance and the x-t3 for a nice camera to carry around that doesn't look like a alien spaceship
your choice
what are you really looking for in a camera though? do you already have full frame glass for nikon? and what cameras were you thinking of?
>>
Can /p/ recommend me a camera system? Does this exist?

I mainly like landscape, light wildlife, some night stuff and some video. Travel/hike so weight is important. Not birding or crazy astro though. Sold all my nikon gear a few years ago when I thought I was getting out of the hobby so I dont know the scene anymore.

Looking for a healthy camera system that's not crazy expensive (budget for body and lenses <2k for now) A good body, + wide angle prime + medium telephoto
>>
How much better is the fuji xt2 than the xt1? theres an xt1 that came up on CL for $475CAD.

I'm returning to digital after shooting film for a couple years.
>>
>>3433577
Things that the XT2 has that I wish my XT1 had:
1. Screen that articulates in both directions, so you can shoot at high/low angles in portrait orientation.
2. USB charging
3. Custom menu for frequently-changed things.
4. AF point select joystick
5. Better autofocus system with more phase-detect points
6. Generally faster operation
>>
>>3433597
appreciate the input
>>
>>3433553
You're asking for everything. The closest you'll get to all is with m43. Light wildlife means at least 200mm 35mm equivalent lens, with m43 you get that already with 100mm. It won't be stellar, though, but you won't find anything light that will be. Vid should be, Panasonic body for best vid, make sure it's got body stabilization so you can use Olympus telephotos on it, that should save you some weight. Or again make some compromises with em10iii, not best vid features but it is 4k, not that heavy and pricey. You're loosing good night performance, somewhat manageable with fast lenses, but you'll have to make compromises. You won't get everything you wish for in one system. Look at alternatives as well. Fujis have heavy metal lenses, bit larger sensor helps in light. Sony apsc, will require looking elsewhere for quality glass, and that means Sigma which is heavy. For ff cams you'll have to ditch long range. Pentax k70 looks attractive as well, It's practically mirrorless size, fully weather sealed, definitely something I'd look at if I'm buying now. I know little of that system, so can't help you there.
>>
>>3433493
I have that lens too and love it. Best thing is how lightweight it is, although it's also bloody sharp. Bokeh can be a little weird though. Definitely consider getting the 1.4 teleconverter if you like the lens.
>>
Anybody on here has any experience with the Sony Zeiss 24-70 f2.8 for the A mount? I'm looking to get a 24-70 for the E mount system but the G master is overpriced, the tamron has hideous bokeh imo, and the 24-70 f4 is mediocre. I was thinking of adapting the 24-70 f2.8 due to its impressive image sharpness. Thoughts?
>>
>>3433718
> the tamron has hideous bokeh imo
Ouch. I just ordered the Tamron yesterday :)
>>
File: _MG_0373.jpg (956 KB, 1920x1280)
956 KB
956 KB JPG
Is this lens worth $140 USD? Got my eye on one pre-loved on sale right now. Shooting full frame so thinking between this or a Rokinon 14mm f/2.8.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Color Space InformationsRGB
>>
I'm cheap as fuck, and I'd like to take some really distant shots--why are 200mm lenses meh in terms of length, but 300mm Tokinas are far mcfuckendless?

Furthermore, what should I be paying for them? Are there any really good primes under $100 for this?
>>
>>3433764
Given that that’s a lens designed for crop sensors, I’d recommend against getting it for a full frame camera.
>>
>>3433715
Yeah, a TC-14E III is being considered, though for now the "base" 300 PF is more than fine.

Can't seem to find a single one lot of them secondhand, lots of TC-17E II and TC-20E III though.

>>3433764
As >>3433782 mentioned the one you attached is a DX lens, since you say that you shoot full frame, the equivalent Tokina is the 16-28mm f/2.8 (or the 17-35 f/4 if you don't need f/2.8).

The Samyang/Rokinon 14mm f/2.8 is really great for nightscapes due to its low coma.
>>
>>3433546
I own a 50mm 1.8 nikkor, and a 24-55mm nikkor

I was mainly looking for a boost in quality, low light isn't necessarily a huge issue because I mainly shoot slow / static scenes when low light is involved anyway I suppose... But based on what I've been researching, I really do enjoy fujis colorscience and the overall aesthetic of the camera
>>
>>3433764
for $140? fuck yeah
though personally I'd go the extra mile and go for the 16-28 FX but that's like $350 used
>>
>>3433811
if you just want quality, just go full frame, getting the x-t3 won't improve it for you if you've owned a nikon DSLR that's been made after 2010. since you already got nikkor lenses just get a d750, d800 or d810(this one in particular makes things extremely crisp), take your pick.
the advantage of good corners in APS-C is not a thing on the x-t3 either, you buy it for the delicious body but then again maybe you really don't need that extra quality and resolution and end up loving the x-t3.
what camera did you have before?
>>
File: Z-sony-a6000-onHand[1].jpg (104 KB, 1024x627)
104 KB
104 KB JPG
Any reason not to get a Sony A6000 as my first mirrorless? I like the size and the price, and having never used a mirrorless before, I love the viewfinder. My only digital camera is a Canon 5D from 2005, and though it still takes great images, it's big, heavy, and slow with no live view or other niceties. Sometimes I'd just like to travel lighter and I don't have a $1000+ budget for a full frame A7 series camera.
>>
>>3433492
I love those old Minolta lenses. That 50mm f1.4 almost never leaves my old Maxxum 7000, and when it does it's to switch to the 70-210mm f4 "beer can" .

Fantastic lenses for the prices they sell for. I want to get some the wide ones like the 35mm f1.4 or the 20mm f2 but they get bigger money.

One day I want to grab an A99 also just to use them with a full frame digital and no adapters.
>>
Are the X-pro, X-H and X-T series equally weather-sealed? Is Fuji weathersealing reliable in your experience? Considering switching from a DSLR.
>>
Currently have a Canon 2000D with kit lens. I have about £200 I can budget at the moment for my first new lens. What would you buy or would you save up to a higher budget?
>>
>>3433818
You can get the a7 2 with kit lens for under 1k
>>
>>3433818
The EVF on the A6000 is not great. It's very usable but it's not in any way a modern EVF. The sensor is more than fine still. Make sure you can get the lenses you want for it, the reason I got rid of my A6000 myself was a lack of good glass in the Sony crop line.
>>
>>3433885
What kind of lens are you thinking about getting? Prime? Zoom? Telephoto? Wide angle? Canon makes a few nice crop sensor-only zooms in that price range.
>>
So I do videography, and some long-exposure microbiology/astronomy. Should I go with a d750 or a gh5? Which is going to be less costly in terms of lenses in the long run?
>>
>>3433917
Well I was kinda looking at all different types, and am having a hard time narrowing it down. I wondered what other people would suggest as a first lens to go with the kit. I'm new to the hobby and taking a large variety of picture types, though I must say landscapes and up close wildlife is my favourite so far. With that in mind I liked the look of Canon's 50mm 1.8 and 24mm 2.8 which are both well below 200GBP and looked nice, and would allow me to go to much lower light levels than the kit lens.
>>
>>3433922
I have both of those lenses and would recommend either one. The 24mm is a little nicer for walking around, but it is slower than the 50.
>>
Has mirrorless af caught up to the af sensor of DSLRs yet?
I read somewhere that the Sony a9 beat nikons 3D tracking and the Canon equivalent.
I'm all for it if that's the case thanks to not worrying about microadjusting lenses and ?being faster? but are these claims correct?
How does Sony manage to have such good(supposedly) digital af?
>>
>>3434159
FUCK
I was supposed to post this post in the /sqt/, whatever.
I'm curious because last time I used a mirrorless I was relying on contrast-detect which wasn't fun at all and I know that mirrorless has surpassed DSLRs in the computing part of the camera for a long time now.
How does the af system of MILCs compare to the huge af sensor of DSLR/SLRs?
>>
Lookign for a good display for gaming(144hz and or freesynch preferably) and photoediting. low ower consumption is also a plus.
>>
>>3434343
Use this website:
https://geizhals.eu/?cat=monlcd19wide#gh_filterbox

It has the most autistic filtering system every conceived, and can filter off all the hz, freesync and power consumption stuff so you find the model you want.
>>
Thoughts on Fuji xt-30?
>>
>>3434357
Looks great.
I would buy it if it had weather sealing, I don't get why Fuji didn't throw absolutely everything they could into it considering the competition in the a6400.
And the a6400 had weather sealing but hardly any sealed lenses.
I get that most people don't care about sealing but the cost of putting it in isn't that high.
>>
new bread when
>>
New Bread
>>3434823
>>3434823
>>3434823
>>
Alternatives?
>>
File: foldablebeautydish.jpg (227 KB, 1000x1000)
227 KB
227 KB JPG
Does anyone know how well these foldable beauty dishes work? Will it produce anything like the light from a regular metal one? It just seems nicer to have one that isnt an enormous metal bowl lying around all the time.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATION
Camera ModelNIKON D810
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.8
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern966
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)105 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width7360
Image Height4912
Number of Bits Per Component8, 8, 8
Pixel CompositionRGB
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Image Created2016:06:23 18:25:21
Exposure Time1/125 sec
F-Numberf/25.0
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating100
Lens Aperturef/25.0
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModeOther
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length105.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width1000
Image Height1000
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceManual
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Gain ControlNone
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
Subject Distance RangeUnknown
>>
>>3433822

I bought an A99ii so I could use it with old Minolta glass. A99ii might be the last hurrah for the A-mount so I went for it. Now I am spending all my money collecting more Minolta glass. I currently have

50mm 1.7
28-85mm 4.5
100mm Macro 2.8
70-200mm 2.8 APO

Trying to decide which one to get next.
>>
poorfag here, could drop a couple hundred on a camera+lens but not like $500 on just a body
just want a nice cheap dedicated camera for infrequent use
don't mind buying used stuff
>>
>>3432278
I got a used M4800 for like $400
it's got a very nice display



Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.