Tripods Are For Losers EditionAll discussion and questions related to gear should take place in this exact thread.Redirection to this thread for questions is encouraged.Previous: >>3468298[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:PhotographerAlexanderImage-Specific Properties:
Man im having so many second thoughts on what MFT lenses to get. I just want one that can do decent close ups and decent shots for video reviews. Im not going to be super far away or anything, but I want a nice framing and sharpness. Furthest distance will be like 5 meters (although more is prefered for other lines of work, but whatever goes really)
Tempted to buy a Panasonic G9 but I'm not sure if there's something better in the m43 world thats better for less
>>3472023what are you doing with it
>>3472028I do mostly landscape/architecture photos right now (I know m43 isnt the best for this), but I'm interested in taking portraits of friends & family in the future
>>3472045well its ok but my understanding is its geared more towards film
I started photography a year ago with an old aps-c nikon dslr I got from a friend as a giftI would actually like to invest a some money into itbut I don't really know where to start... apsc? full frame? mft? nikon? canon? fuji? sony? ...let's say I have 2.000€, what can I expect for this?should I wait because something new is coming out right now?I mainly do portraits, street and some travelI think I want a mirrorless camera, my nikon isn't big but even with a prime its kinda chunky and heavyI just need one or two primes and a telezoom lens, nothing more to be honest
>>3472023E-M1 Mark II is still it's equal, but I think it's still more expensive. Below you've pen-f and other panasonic 20mp cams, with new g95/g90 to come this month. Might be worth double checking facts in case it's sporting Panasonic sensor, other than that, there shouldn't be much between them.
>>3472029Exists already with Mamiya, Pantecks, albeit in medium format.If a budding hipster wants to hipster, they're just going to go all out and get a film-only camera, and then their digital fallback for instagramming their latest tall half-caff cafe espresso frappucino, triple shot.Niche product otherwise. R&D costs on it and the low production volume would make it hideously expensive (medium format territory) or hilariously shit. A few start-ups have tried to achieve something similar in creating backs for extant film cameras, and they've all failed miserably (well, their products 'work', but....)See example: https://petapixel.com/2018/09/21/im-backs-digital-backs-for-old-35mm-cameras-are-now-in-production/
>>3472055I'd go for APSC since it should be lighter than FF. The one that will fit your budget that I know of is Sony A6400 (newest apsc Sony) with 18-135 3.5-5.6 kit lens ($1300) plus Sigma 56 1.4 ($424) for portraits. Sigma has 16, 30, 56 1.4 Dc Dn lenses for E mount. 30 1.4 ($289) is lower in cost, good for tight indoor portraits but the 56 1.4 has better background separation. If you want a small, light, low cost prime lens as a walkaround lens, you can also get one of the Sigma 19, 30, 60 2.8 lens. ($140-150). Then buy more batteries and a chink dual or triple charger for a straight day and night of use.The Fuji XT30 is also a consideration since the Fuji lens selection is abundant but might be more expensive, you'd go overbudget for the same equiv zoom and prime focal lengths.
I want the equivalent of a nifty fifty for an aps-c canon, closest I can get is a 30mm lens but I hear it's just better to go 35mm. wat do
>>3472014what´s the best semi-affordable 50mm lens option for m-mount?either i can get a really old summicron or a barely used voigtländer nokton 1.5i don´t really need the fast aperture of the nokton, but i guess it´s nice to have. how does a zeiss planar compare?are there other options (except for chinese and soviet lenses)
which ff mirrorless have the best touchscreen integration ?
>you're starting from scratch>have to pick a system>you shoot wildlife and macro mostly, but dabble in everything>it's a hobby, you don't make money off your photosWhat system do you buy into /p/?
>>3472221Dslr apsc, m43. Bathing in money case, ff plus top end lenses.
OLYMPUS prices taking a hit, they just shat themselves because of earning reports, mass discounts and OMD EM5 MARK III INC!>buy omd em10 mark ii last week, return cause i saw marks on the IR filter for the sensor.>Look last night cause Crapazon finally gave me refund.>$499 for em10 Mark II, 14-42mm IIR and 40-150mm R lense combo.>some stores are letting you intermix both these so you don't have to buy black only.Trade up contract with Olympus, can submit any camera (I MEAN ANYTHING even your grandmas 1991 Zoom camera) for a quote, and they will give you a discount code for the EM1 MKII and EM5 MKII. You do not need to follow up with the trade, the code still gives you the regular discounts as reported by people on dpreview.>Post YFW Olympus crashing, burning and dieingWhat do i do AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!
>>3472236>m4/3 why even bother?
>>3472258seriously what is olympus thinking>big ass "pro" camera>weighs more than a 5d mk3>baby dick sensor>costs 3 grandyou could buy a k1 mk2 and three crispy wr lenses for the price of this monstrosity, and youll have a 36 MPfull frame camera of the same weight, a couple killer lenses (20-40 mm limited, 100mm macro, 55-300mm wr would be my choices), and the whole package is weather sealed, and offers IBIS and pixel shift res.Why would anyone buy this?
>>3472236Olympus needs to make a larger sensor. I'm not fucking downgrading my apsc lineup regardless of supposed innovations in the babydick sensor. They need to come out with a FF mirrorless camera that is competitively priced and will help drive down the cost of all other ones. They won't do that because they already have babydick mft cameras priced equivalently to absolute killer FF ones. Olympus is in a rough spot.
>>3472262stop fucking shilling the k1I've tried it myself, it's great and the 36MP sensor is literal perfection for regular use but we get it.
>>3472262Pro sports and wildlife cam. Completely different sector than what and you I would be looking in a cam. They're selling and it's a statement in trust of the system. That often counts more than anything else, just ask Canon and Nikon.
So with Canon projecting massive losses this year and Nikon rumoured to be in serious financial trouble as well, how much longer can the camera market survive realistically? I struggle to see a future for the market in 10-15 years that isn't ultra niche and expensive even more than the inflated prices of today. I'd like to think Nikon and Fujifilm will still be around in 20-30 years killing it but I just can't see sales picking up, only declining as more people settle for their smartphones. Not shitposting here btw, just thinking about the future of the market with all this doom and gloom news dripping out.
>>3472262How big is a 1Dx mark II, how much does it weigh and how much does it cost?
>>3472273>How big is a 1Dx mark IIfull frame.
>>3472054The G9 is primarily developed with wildlife still photography in mind. G80/85 are more video oriented.
>>3472267You seem overly sensitive towards a single brand, buddy
>>3472014>Tripods Are For LosersYeah, pretty much. I got an expensive tripod a while back. I never use it really. Good to have for just in case scenarios, landscapes and astro but meh.Good for macro and test shots tho. If you want your camera to be still you could duct tape it to a brick.
>>3472014>Tripods Are For Losers EditionAgree EF 70-300 IS USM II has godly IS
>>3472319B+W are good filters but you dont NEED a UV filter on a DSLR since the sensor already has a UV+IR filterIts really only for protecting the front element and even then if you smash the filter the glass is gonna scratch the front element anyway
>>3472336>mirror less everything else is the same you still have a shutter and a sensor with glass/coatings in front of it so my statement still applies you only NEED UV filters for film cameras.Any filter you put on is going to reduce IQ even the really really expensive ones, your adding another layer of glass that light has to pass throughIdeally you dont want to use a filter unless you have a specific need for one such as a polarizer or ND
>>3472319Not worth it to me, needs a filter adapter or the hood and adds bulk for no real benefit. The X100 has such a tiny front element you don't really need to worry about special protective measures. Mine has been kicking around loose in bags for years with just the leather case and no lens cap and isn't any worse for the wear.
>>3472364>Hoya filters are only 10 bucksone came free with my nifty 50 and gave insane flares from any light source
>>3472364Cheap filters are cheap for a reason. Google around, there are sections of some photography review sites which specialize in reviewing different filters to check for things like colour casts, flare, ghosting etc.
>>3472272>Not shitposting hereYes, you do, buddy. market is not photography, >>>/biz/
Canon 28mm 1.8 USM or Sigma 30mm 1.4 Art? OR Sigma 30mm 1.4 EX DC HSM? For crop sensor.
I have the below lenses:>18-55mm WR>55-300mm WR>50mm f1.8>100mm f2.8 WR macroanything else I need or am I good?
>>3472527How should we know what YOU need?I assume Pentax system, I'd suggest instead of the kit lens see what the Limited primes offer, and buy accordingly, ONCE you know how to use your kit lens and what focal lengths you prefer.Also instead of the 55-300 I suggest you either look into a Tamron 70-200/2.8 and a 1.4x TC or get the 300/4 prime. Again, after you know what you want. Plan ahead, save up your money, look for bargains online in the used gear department. This hobby ain't exactly cheap, even with Pentax.
>>3472487>t. never been to /biz/
>>3472543Mostly was curious about the 20-40mm limited or some other wider angle lens for astro shots.Wanted to upgrade to the 150-450 for wildlife but couldn’t justify 2k on a lens so copped the macro and really digging it.
>>3472573The 20-40 seems a nice lens but has prominent dark purple CA. Looks like there are many people who dig it, if you can live with that then go ahead.I would go for a 15mm or 21mm since those can be also used for generic stuff and street.For astro... boy, that is a whole lot in itself. Samyang/Rokinon maybe? I've been trying to put together a set and always end up ditching the DSLR and put in a proper astro CCD in the package making the already high price skyrocket. See if you can do anything useful with the kit lens in astroscapes, starscape/landscape, maybe the 100mm WR can be useful for bigger blobs of nebulosity around the galactic plane, saggitarius/milky way season is coming up, get a nice tripod and use that funky astro thingy Pentax cameras have.
>>3472487/biz/ is barely about business though. It's mostly about crypto and investments.
What would you say is an acceptable price for a used Canon 100DAnd by "used" I mean under 1000 shutter actuations.But also without any accessories (batteries and whatnot)
>>3472608>>3472570not a reason to bring this crap here!
What's a good wildlife lens for Canon around the £1000 pound coin mark (give or take, not a limit)
>>3472262>Why would anyone buy this?They don't
>>3472272yeah cameras will probably at least get more expensive. hard to compete with smartphones being purchased/replaced regularly.
>>3472615its related enough to this thread to be posted.. This thread isn't called "camera buying advice thread".If no one answers the question the 'problem' sorts itself. If they do its a few posts in a thread used, big whoop, its literally an infinite resource.
>>3473026Be an autist somewhere else! This is a photography board, not a market share board!
>>3473152says the autist using constant exclamation points, and caring this much about something not being 100% on topic, though still definitely on topic enough. But Like as in you are showing actual signs of autism, getting bothered by things that dont really matter but go against how you have decided things should go.i wasn't even original guy anyway, just noticed your autism and thought i'd point it out.
>>3473153You are only embarrassing yourself, anon
24mm f/2.8 af-d or 24mm f/2.8 ai-s?and what's some other alternatives for lightweight but sharp 20/24mm primes I can keep in my pocket?[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationUnknownColor Space InformationsRGB
>buy camera from amazon warehouse in "very good" condition>literally $400 less than new>get it>only one scratch on the lens cover, nowhere else>shutter count: 8who the fuck buys a camera, and takes only 8 pictures before returning it lmaogoddamn these cameras depreciate like a chrysler off the lot but I'm not complaining considering how much I saved
any recommendations for a budget (<$400cad) point and shoot for camping/hiking?
>>3473385>who the fuck buys a camera, and takes only 8 pictures before returning it lmao>goddamn these cameras depreciate like a chrysler off the lot but I'm not complaining considering how much I savedFYI, one of the ways some people test bodies is to buy one through someone like amazon, try it out for a few days, then return it.
>>3473397I get that but it's a fixed lens camera so still weirdoh well fuck jeff bezos cheaper cameras for me
My gear for heading to a car show this weekend. Got a hood for the kit lens and one for the 55-250 is on the way[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeHUAWEICamera ModelEML-L09Camera SoftwareEML-L09 22.214.171.124(C782E3R1P11)Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.8Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaFocal Length (35mm Equiv)27 mmImage-Specific Properties:Image Width3968Image Height2976Number of Bits Per Component8, 8, 8Image OrientationUnknownHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2019:05:02 22:09:22Exposure Time1/25 secF-Numberf/1.8Exposure ProgramNormal ProgramISO Speed Rating400Lens Aperturef/1.8Brightness0 EVExposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceDaylightFlashNo FlashFocal Length3.95 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width3968Image Height2976RenderingCustomExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlNoneContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessNormalSubject Distance RangeUnknown
>>3473443Also should I get an ND or Polariser first? I do a lot of film work at uni, but also photograph mainly cars
>>3473444A CPL would be nice to cut the glare, only for the 15-45 thoughI hope your hood comes with a removable tab so you can rotate the polarizer without having to take off the hood
>>3473444you don't need a ND filter unless you're doing video or long exposure photographya polariser is always nice to have
>>3473443I'm going to a small-deal, local car show on Sunday. New to photography, though. Any tips or resources for photographing cars?
>>3473450Look up images on google, see what is the subject of each image, what angle and at what lighting/light angle they are photographed. Try to imitate a few.It's just cars, so nothing extraordinary about it.
Imagine for a second that the alpha a7iii is $500 morw than the pcc4k. For just video, is the pcc4k still a better choice quality wise?In mind at least, the price difference is the cost of a speed booster, so id go as far as to say theyre essentially the same price in this situation
>>3473447The 15-45's hood doesn't, but since it's a wider lens so it's not hard to get my fingers in. Not sure about the 55-250 but i doubt it
>>3473450Practice if you can. Experiment as much as possible, push yourself out of your comfort zone. I picked it up pretty much straight away but you've really just got to get in there and learn. Look up other people's work online before though, pick up on how they work and what they do.Also don't feel pressured. Unless the car is moving there's no need to rush.
>>3473385mental. what cam?
>>3473490Yes sir. I try something new basically every time I shoot.>>3473454I appreciate it. No worries.
>>3473525good to know, was thinking about picking one of those up
>>3473381You don't say what body you're going to put it on, but I'd make the choice more on that than on optics. If you're going to be focusing manually anyway, get the manual-focus AI-S lens, it's a lot nicer to use, manually focusing an AF-D is a pain. But the AF-D can autofocus. >>3473447I've only ever seen that removable bit in the lens hood on Pentax lenses, and I have no idea why every other manufacturer hasn't copied it, it's incredibly convenient. I bet they patented it or something.
>>3473157its an anonymous board i literally can't embarass myself. But if one could i'd be far more embarassed to be you, getting so worked up because 1 post doesn't sit within your own self developed idea of what this thread is about.
Anybody ever fuck around with chinkshit cameras? I'm thinking of buying a cheap camera on aliexpress as an experiment.
>>3473605What one? Xiaomeme stuff is ok
>>3473607not sure. I was just browsing and saw some cheap shit lol
>>3473587d810 so it has a motor mechanism, I'll be manual focusing anyways since 24mm but wondering which one of them are optically superior, especially corner sharpness at f/8.from what I've gathered they're optically identical aside from coatings and based on what you're saying I'm leaning heavily towards going for the ai-s because I like smooth focusing, thanks.I also ended up looking at the 28mm 2.8 ai-s which seems nice.
>>3472116First of all, it depends on what you want from the lens. Between all the 50mm lenses that have ever been made, and all the 50mm LTM lenses you can use with an adapter, there's a lot to choose from. A couple considerations to narrow it down: will it be used on film or digital? Do you want modern, flat, ultra-sharp images, or are you looking for something else?If you want to use it on digital, seriously consider sticking to more modern lenses. Definitely go with something multicoated, and if you're very concerned about sharpness then you need to stick to very recent lenses. If it's for film, that's less important. If you're shooting mainly black and white film, consider some older lenses, including LTM.As for some general recommendations, the Voigtlander 50s are probably the best value for the money. All their 50s are good, none are amazing. Some have more modern designs and coatings, some less so. LTM vs M-mount doesn't matter. The adapters are cheap and effective. If you don't mind going a little wider, the 40mm M-Rokkor is probably the best value you can get for an M-mount normal lens and outclass the Voigtlanders by a decent margin. The Zeiss planar very nice for what it is. It's made by Voigtlander for Zeiss using a classic optical formula with modern coatings, to slightly higher standards that Voigtlander-branded lenses. Don't expect it to perform like a modern lens though. The best value for a fully modern 50mm suitable for digital is probably a used Leica Summarit 50mm f/2.5 (or f/2.4 version: same lens, slightly different configuration, slightly more expensive). Rendering is similar to a summicron, but much cheaper than the latest 'cron, and a bit more character since it's not an APO lens.
>>3472264>Olympus needs to make a larger sensorWhy the fuck would they do that when the entire point of their system is that it's tiny and light. The full frame market is saturated.
>>3472055>but I don't really know where to start.That's a good indicator that you don't actually need a new camera. There's no reason to upgrade unless you're being limited in some specific way by your current gear. Unfortunately nobody ever listens to that advice and hast to figure it out on their own after a few years and a big pile of cash, so you might as well just go buy the most expensive shiny thing you can afford.
>>3473587Yeah I've never heard of it since I've always been a Canon shooter. Sounds like a kickass feature though
>>3473719If you want corner-to-corner sharpness on a 36-megapixel sensor with no AA filter, you don't want either of them, or any other wide-angle of similar vintage. Modern lenses are significantly bigger and heavier, but sharpness away from the center is exactly the area in with all the modern aspherical and high-refractance tricks have really noticeably improved matters since 1990, most especially in wide-angle lenses. You have a camera that has more than enough resolution to really show up the flaws in older glass.
>>3473443How's the 55-250? Do you get good quality at the far end?
>>3472014Does anyone know what's going on here? It's a nikon lens. The seller is saying it's fully functional and doesn't affect use at all. I've seen this on two separate lenses, they're both priced similarly to other lenses which don't have this issue. Does it really not make a difference?
>>3473443why is the 40 bigger then the 15-45?
>>3473765not that guy, but i like mine a lot. plus they're everywhere on the used market so you can grab one for next to nothing
>>3473777Can't argue with those digits.
>>3473777SecondedI love mineI got it and a kit lens in a bundle for 70€
>>3473777>>3473797Wait till you get your hands on an EF 200/2.8 L
>>3473799i dunno, if i'm gonna drop L lens money i think i'd wanna go longer than 200
>>3473397I bought a new em10 mark ii off amazon and when i took the lense off, the IR filter over the sensor had a stain, promptly returned that shit.
I may need some help/ideasI'm currently shooting on a Canon Eos 550d (landscape and architecture photography) and I'm not sure if I should buy a new camera or not.Is there a worthy alternative for up to 800 bucks (tight on money) or should I just stay with my 550d?
>>3473857you could go with an m5 or an m50 and keep all your current lenses. you might wanna hold off on that though, as there's supposed to be some new eos m bodies announced this year
Bought a Canon 100D today and I honestly love itFeels great to useOne question though, on the bottom side of the viewfinder there's a little line where you have your shutter speed and whatnot written down & it only appears when you half-press the shutter button and disappears fairly quickly.Is there a way to change the duration the thing shows? I'd prefer it to be a tiny tad longer
>>3473865thanksI also dont mind buying used - is there anything else I could check out?
>>3473865also what about an eos 250?
what straps do you guys use?
>>3473857what are you dissatisfied with on your current body? other than megapickles, I think new bodies will only have better dynamic range/low light performance/autofocus, but you are shooting landscape and architecture..
>>3473880yeah I dont know if it wouldbe much of an Upgrade and my photos would noticeably improve.The 550d is my first DSLR and I like it a lot, but i wasnt sure if I should buy a new one by now, considering its such an 'old' camera - maybe you can help me out?
>>3473882Fun fact: there's no rule against using any trip you want, but there is a rule against spamming/flooding.
>>3473868Download the manual from Canon support. I think that dispay is hardcoded to 4s. If you keep pushing the AE lock button (the one with a * on it) to see it longer but I'm not sure if it does what you want. rtfm!
>>3473881well the tech hasn't been improving that much, I think. what about your lenses? I suspect upgrading them will have a greater impact on IQ. anyways, you can look at sharpness or whatever comparisons online, or better, just bring some lenses and an SD card to a store and try some stuff out. but if you're short on money then it seems irresponsible to pay $500 for +8 MP.
Is there anything i should be looking for in particular with my tripods?
>>3473751don't worry I know and I've gone through being dissatisfied with lenses thanks to my sensor before, but now if I cared that much I'd get the huge Tamron 15-30, still though I just need it to be usable for 2000px snapshits.worth the tradeoff and I like characteristics of vintage glass.
>>3473890I bought a 'new' used lense last year for 120€ in Europe becuase my old one broke whilst on a trip.I'm currently shooting on a Canon Zoom Lens EF-S 18-55mm 1 : 3.5-5.6 IS STM(I have no clue what half of that means but I hope it helps and you can give me some advice)
>>3473895go by a 50mm 1.8 (don't worry, they're cheap), then as you play with that, figure out what all that stuff means and why the 18-55mm is abject shit.
>>3473772>they're both priced similarly to other lenses which don't have this issueJust buy one that doesn't have that issue
>>3473893its popular to get ones with hooks that let you hang a bag between the legs for stability. otherwise, in general weight ==> stability due to f=ma and moment of area stuff. but I think unless you are shooting in windy conditions, its better to buy a cheap and cheerful one first, and then you'll know what you care about if/when you decide to upgrade. but I use a cheap one and its been fine.
>>3473897>50mm 1.8but i like my wide ancle shots ( 18-30mm)
>>3473899>>3473893This and also tripod headThere's a few types to pick and some make more sense than others in certain tasksIf you're just taking photos then a ball head is okIf you're doing any sort of video work or want to shoot panorama then you'd probably want a panning head
>>3473893I personally hate twist locks. Look for aluminum (carbon fiber doesn't give you enough weight savings to make it worthwhile for most people) and a decent ball head (the general use kind of head, if you have long, heavy lenses, then you may be better served with a gimble head, if you're doing stuff like astro/macro where you need to make accurate adjustments to position, then a gear head). I'm a fan of vanguard tripods because they're not stupidly expensive, have a good feature set, and the heads are reliable. One thing before you cheap out: remember you're going to be putting a camera and lens on top of it. Remember how much that cost you. Ask yourself how much you trust that $40 set of sticks from china to ensure you don't lose all that money from it falling over cracking your lens and busting the mount...
>>3473907Canon's 10-18mm is cheap and far, far better than that kit lenses (kit lenses are basically universally garbage). Go for that first instead.
>>3473895>>3473897yeah the kit lenses have pretty bad IQ, like similar to some high end point and shoots. so its absolutely not the body holding you back. Getting the 50 1.8 is great advice, but you can also consider a wider angle lens seeing as you're into landscapes and on a crop body. maybe the 24mm f2.8 or the 10-18mm f4.5-5.6.
>>3473912I see them for about 180€ online, is that an acceptable price or too much?
>>3473898There's a limited amount of those lenses and these two are in the best cosmetic condition. I'll just play it safe and get the more scratched up ones, it's not a huge difference.
>>3473916Sounds about right. Note though that 10mm is MUCH wider than you probably think it is too.
>>3473899Do you keep changing your trip? I'm pretty sure I filtered you like twice already
>>3473921Someone is dicking with trips by using different trip codes with the names.
>>3473921ya sorry. just filter out for the name instead.
>>3473914whats the problem with kit lenses? (note that my current lense wasnt bought in a kit but in a specialized camera shop) and is a 18-55mm lens always bad? I wanna be flexible and not tkae more lenses with me than needed
>>3473922I've always wondered why this isn't more common, no one even remembers the actual trip of random tripfags, only the name.
>>3473925well, customers are price sensitive, so when they see a cheaper product, they are more likely to buy. most customers are clearly okay with paying less in exchange for lower quality, probably because they don't know any better. this is with the exception of Fuji, who seems to make decent kit lenses
>>3473930but are there still good 18-55 lenses?I noticed quite a change in picture quality when changing the lens from the old one to the new one (which seems to be 3 generations newer)
>>3473878I personally use a mismatched wrist strap from an old point and shoot. but peak designs stuff is popular
>>3472707I’d say sigma 150-600 C instead, bit this isn’t necessarily a bad choice either.
>>3473385For real. Never buy brand new. Do open box/factory refurb/reputable used seller erry time.
>>3473932yes*, they just aren't made to be sold in a "kit" with the entry level bodies. the sigma 18-35 f1.8 is popular in this category
>>3473937*maybe not the same exact focal length range
>>3473925In general, they're made super cheaply and have worse image quality because of the shortcuts in manufacturing. >>3473932The EF-S 17-55 2.8 is pretty good, but it also shows in the price.
>>3472707>>3473935isn't the sigma 100-400mm better than both?it sure as hell is a lot sharper which makes up for 400mm in my theoretical opinion
>>3473939>EF-S 17-55 2.8Sadly i dont have 800 bucks spare to buy it :/
>>3473925The Fuji 18-55 is probably the best kit lens there is, they didn't skimp on the quality at all. Ultra sharp at all focal lengths and tack sharp. A lot of the others aren't too great in order to encourage people to upgrade to other better lenses.
>>3473914how much should I spend on one of these lenses? I dont really want to spend more than 200€ if I dont really know if I enjoy shooting with it
>>3473945that one looks sweet but I'm okay with my canon 18-55 rn
>>3473948if you can't afford such lenses I would buy a prime, or just focus on composition and using what you have. I think the canon 24mm f2.8 is a good fit for your needs
>>3473951yeah I'm experimenting with composition rn and maybe get a prime lense...Thanks for all the support and explanations, considering we are still on 4chan here
>>3473955 excuse you, this is 4channelhaha good luck with it!
>>3473951is 100€ a good price for a 24mm lense?
>>3473959decent, you might be able to do better. search ebay for "sold" listings
>>3473961I'm looking on german craigslist, so i can see how much is the usual price and which lenses dont get sold
>>3473962hmm, then I'm not really confident if you should go for it or not. the good price on ebay is around $80. so its kind of up to you, is it worth saving $20 to get it sooner.
>>3473893Here's my vanguard 238ct with a sbh250 head. Around 6 years of being tossed around, rattling in the back of my truck, used in the ocean, rivers, and creeks, in temperatures from -35 to 110 and the only complaint I have is that I wish it was one of the multiangle center column ones. I did upgrade the head a few years back to a stronger one and am now thinking about getting a gimbal head.
>24MP censor>200k shutter life>proper magnesium alloy body>8 fps burst shooting with 20+ RAW shot buffer>IBIS>fully weather sealed>access to hundreds of current digital and legacy glass, including the glorious Limited line of lenses>access to astrotracer, or built in astrotracer functionality depending on the model for atro photography>looks way fucking better than sterile canikon bodiesWhen did you realize the Pentax K-3 (or K-3 II) is the only camera you will ever need for any type of photography that will last your whole life?
>>3473986Never because I like true wide angle, so the K1 is my shit.
>>3473988I shoot mostly wildlife and macro so getting closer is my eternal struggle.Pentax is the true redpill, it's ridiculous how good they are for what you pay.>mfw paid under 1500 bucks for all my gear>k-3>50mm f1.8>18-55mm kit lens>55-300mm WR>100mm WR macroand that includes my Induro tripod, Lowepro Flipside sport bag, speedlight, and tamron 1.4x tc. Only the 1.4x tc and 18-55mm were bought used, everything else new and still a slick budget.Still can't help myself from oggling the X-Pro2 on occasion though.
my 5d mk ii becomes unresponsive basically when a lens is attached to it. i can change the aperture and shutter speed but none of the menu buttons on the left side of the body function, it cant switch to live view, and it cant take a picture. there are no issues with the camera when a lens isnt attached apart from not being able to switch to live view. anyone know how to fix this?
>>3473995If they ever manage to nail autofocus down, the only reason to shoot any other brand is their professional services for pros and the weak justification of better used markets for everyone else.If you don't mind ok AF instead of great AF, then there's really not much reason for most to not go Pentax.
>>3473986>20-40mm (30-60mm equivalent) f/2.8-4.0I've never understood what they were thinking with this lens.
>>3473998>If they ever manage to nail autofocus downI've had some wild luck with their AF that's for sure.I've missed tons of shots to poor focusing even of still subjects, and in at different times managed to capture what I'd think to be absurd shots with AF.pic related, this was captured as I was walking through the woods and a heron that was below my on the river bank popped out within 20 ft of me.Never even got the camera to my eye, swung my arm up, held my finger to the AF button and sprayed the shutter. Not the best shot but not a missed shot.[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeRICOH IMAGING COMPANY, LTD.Camera ModelPENTAX K-3Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.3 (Windows)Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaFocal Length (35mm Equiv)450 mmImage-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution600 dpiVertical Resolution600 dpiImage Created2016:03:02 12:12:20Exposure Time1/1000 secF-Numberf/5.8Exposure ProgramNot DefinedISO Speed Rating400Lens Aperturef/5.8Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModeSpotFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length300.00 mmRenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceManualScene Capture TypeStandardContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessNormalSubject Distance RangeDistant View
Anyone have experience tinkering with the old nikon 80-200s? I got a push-pull one with the focus ring a bit dented and I need to disassemble it to beat out the dent from the inside and want some idea how complicated it's gunna be. I found a manual but I'm honestly a bit lost.
>>3473765Haven't had a proper chance to test it, but from what limited results I have it's pretty consistently sharp across the board. It's a cracker of a lens, especially for £140 new on Amazon
>>3473774>>3473776What this guy said basically, it's got my EF to EF-M adapted on top of it. I got the 40 when I used to have a 100D. Plus I prefer buying EF/EF-S glass to EF-M lenses as I'm not sure if my next body will be a mirrorless, and if the M lenses will hold their value as well.
>>3473878Been going strapless for a while. Need to find a good QD wrist/hand strap that fits the M50's tiny strap mount
>>3473878made a wrist strap from some blue webbing and parachute chord
>>3474001It's a limited lens. Yeah, zoom, I don't think anyone beside the main designer knows why. I can understand the thought behind the primes, small size, least amount of glass, sharp rendition without distortion, etc... meaning the design wandered off to those odd focal lengths. But the zoom is a mystery.
>>3473986Wildlife 55-300 anon? You got the 20-40? How do you like it?
>>3474067>Wildlife 55-300 anon?yeah that's me, but I don't have the 20-40, that's just an image I found on google. >>3474057 however is my camera with my newest (and most expensive) lens in the 100mm WR macro.
>>3473941Dunno. O tried both 150-600s and ended up sticking with the sigma, but I don’t know how they stack up to the 100-400. I have heard good things about that lens though.
>>3473986>>3473988>>3473995>>3473998>>3474002>Based Pentax fanbase acknowledging weaknesses of system and not pretending that it's magically perfect gearSee these guys? If you're going to fanboy, fanboy like this.
X-Pro 2 or the X-T3?Or should I just wait for the X-Pro 3?
>>3472272Nikon is part of the Mitsubishi group. They just need to suck daddy's dick and say it will be very shameful for Mitsubishi if they went under and they suddenly have access to near infinite money
>>3474095X-T3 is the superior camera in every respect. X-Pro is only worth it if you're a diehard OVF fetishist. You can use the EVF to get around the limitations, but it's tiny compared to the X-T finder. Assuming you'll be using the OVF most of the time, it sucks for zooms, it sucks for big/hooded primes that'll block your view, sucks for long lenses, sucks for macro, and it's a bigger body.Personally, unless you're 100% sure you want to make the sacrifices for an OVF I would recommend the X-T, and then if you want to try giving optical a try pick up an original X100, X-Pro 1, or X20 for cheap. You can always sell and switch bodies later, and once the X-Pro 3 drops the 2 will probably get pretty cheap.
Currently have the T7I and I'm somewhat a beginner. What's a good wide angle lens to get, one that doesn't have fish eye and can allow me to take a picture a few feet in front of me instead of 15 feet away?
>>3474144Forgot to mention but something that is on the less expensive side since I'm not exactly rich
>>3474146>>3474145And the 10-18 is almost the answer regardless of budget. The 10-22 is excellent, but it's not really better enough to justify the additional price over the 10-18--and depending on your needs the 10-18 is the better choice because it has IS.
>>3474147Bit of a different question but what online store do you reccomend buying them from?
I'm looking to buy myself a new camera, and am not sure whether to go with a DSLR or a mirrorless. I've been using a DSLR for a few years now, and I'm happy with it. But I've tried out my friend's mirrorless camera and I'm pretty impressed with it. I'm currently looking at the 80D for my next DSLR. Is there a mirrorless alternative within the same price range as an 80D? How about a Nikon alternative?
>>3474157nikon equivalent of that is the d7200, it's a bit cheaper used as well but if you're buying the d7200 you might as well just go full frame and get the d800, same for the 80d, just get a 5d3 if you have canon glass already.however, I'd suggest not getting a DSLR if you want to stay on APS-C and opt for mirrorless and get a fujifilm x-t2.what do you currently own now?
>>3474158Thanks for the advice anon. I’m currently on a 1300D/Rebel T6. It’s been pretty good to me but I’d like to make an upgrade soon so I can take better low-light photos, timelapse videos, etc.[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS 1300DCamera SoftwareVSCOMaximum Lens Aperturef/4.0Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2019:05:04 00:26:47Exposure Time1/400 secF-Numberf/8.0Exposure ProgramNot DefinedISO Speed Rating100Lens Aperturef/8.0Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length55.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width1867Image Height3024RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandard
>>3472264No, they don't. This full frame nonsense needs to stop. I'm old enough to remember the weight and bulk of a full frame 35mm setup. I dont want that again.The benefits I get from digital FF are extreme, but they are in the fringes of my work. I don't need amazing high ISO shooting or wider dynamic range everyday. I'd rather have the portability and phenomenal image stabilization I get from my MFT setup.
>>3474160>I’d like to make an upgrade soon so I can take better low-light photosthe 80d is better than the 1300d for low light but not significantly, what you really want is better glass but an upgrade from that body will also help.I'd really suggest going full frame if you want to go low light but the 80d is an option and definitely is an upgrade, maybe even save a bit and get the 70d with a 35mm f/2.0 instead.I just looked at the price again and I swear the 5d3 was much cheaper than it was going for on ebay, at least the original 6d is pretty affordable with pretty up to date iso performance.switching is also a possibility because the d800 is extremely cheap for what it is, a professional grade camera and a direct competitor to the 5d3 with modern iso performance.or here's another idea, get a tripod instead which will increase your low light way more than a new camera, probably won't help you that much in handheld though.also ignore how well the d7200 holds up to the 5d3 in this picture because in the real world the difference will be way more pronounced.what's your budget anyways? I'm just basing what I'm typing on your idea of getting an 80d.
>>3474166My budget is ~$1500, which is what the 80D (including the 18-35 kit lens) costs in Australia
>>3474166Also I should note, I’ve been using a 55-250mm IS Canon lens for almost 2 years now since the kit lens for the 1300D is trash. Would there be a more noticeable difference with the 80D kitted with the 55-250? Or will I have to buy another lens to make it worth it over soemthing like a full frame or a mirror less?
>>3474169oh fuck well I really would not buy a 80d for all that money since I could get one for $750I'm a nikon user myself but go for canon since you're already using one, here's what you do:go to ebay and look for a "canon 5d mark III", find a seller with near 100% reputation and above 2000 sales, I found this https://www.ebay.com/itm/Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-III-Digital-SLR-Camera-With-Box-Shutter-Count-13590-21290/133033835354 and I've bought a lens from this store in specific before so I know personally that they're good.after that you get a 50mm lens, I'd recommend the tamron 45mm 1.8 which is fantastic for low light shooting thanks to stabilization.if this is a little bit tight on your budget you can go for the 6d or d800 with the tamron 45mm 1.8 and if you're extremely reluctant to buying used then don't bother and just get a 80d.>>3474170it would be noticable in terms of iso and dynamic range but sharpness not really.but here's a thing to consider though which might lead you into getting a 80d, the cameras I mentioned above(5d3, d800, 6d) are all full-frame cameras and not APS-C so if you use the lenses you have now on any of them it'll look like pic related because the sensor is way larger, it'll work of course and the picture quality will be almost the same as a 80d but it'll make you not utilize the strength of full frame, so new lenses is a must if you are buying into full frame.
>>3474174That's AUD, the retarded cousin of USD and CAD, doesn't worth as much as it looks.
>>3474170>>3474166Get the 80D, it is a nice camera. Maybe look for a used 70D to ease up your budget.The lens will look pretty much the same, maybe a bit better AF from the better body. If you have a bit of extra budget I'd recommend getting a Tamron or Sigma 17-50/2.8, very nice sharp lens and excellent bokeh.
>10-18mm f/4.5-5.6 IS STM>24mm f/2.8 STM>50mm f/1.8 STM>55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS STMAre these the four horsemen of the budget Canon shooter? What would you change?
>>3474191ah my bad, I missed the australia partyou should still be able to get a FF camera for that price but you'll be spending a lot of effort while cutting a lot of corners just to buy the stuff and I don't think it'd be worth it, I'd suggest getting a 70/80d with a cheap prime since glass is much more important anyways.
>>3474197If he wants to tele, crop is better and lighter, wildlife and sports are mostly crop nowadays. Street, landscape and generic shooting is crop compliant as well. Only part where FF is the go to is wedding and studio portraits, but the new 645 formats are getting that territory as well with professional landscapes, only thing left for them is wedding photography and I wouldn't touch that shit again with 10 foot pole. That is some seriously soul wrecking shit.
>>3474157the m5 is more or less the mirrorless version of the 80d
>>3474199the person is question is interested in low light, hence the big focus on FF
How much does multicoating matter? These two are the same price except left is single coated. But it looks a lot better in my opinion.
>>3474152Whichever of the used retailers has a good condition used one for the best price (lens authority, b&h, adorama, keh, eBay).
going to japan in summer, thinking of getting a camera to take some pictures (mainly architecture). i'd like to spend around 300€. is it worth getting a dlsr to learn the basics etc? was thinking of maybe 50d+24mm f/2.8 stm combo. or is that a stupid idea and i'm better off mirrorless?
>>3474265Just get one of the better point and shoots. Haven't priced any recently, but Ricoh, Canon, and Sony's top series are all good. Might have to go a generation or two back to hit your price point though.
>>3474265go mirrorless or point&shootmaybe look into mft cameras
>>3474272I'd honestly strongly push point and shoot (well, compact for those that sperg over high end, greater functionality fixed lens cameras instead of the low end shit cameras), simply because greater flexibility and quality available at that price, especially when combined with having to learn to use it in a short period of time.If there wasn't the time factor, I'd probably say it's a toss up over wanting portability versus flexibility
>>3474275i mean the time factor is not a big problem desu, i'm a neet and i still have a few months until i go to japan.
>>3474204Most modern crop from 5 years ago perform well in low light. Also learn to make your own light.
>>3474205Non-multicoated lenses flare like a motherfucker. Multicoating was a big leap in contrast and flare control, this is why Pentax "Super Multicoating" SMC was so big back in the day, it controls well even on today's digital sensors. When you have to choose, always go multicoating. In other words, anything less than multicoating is immediate trashfodder
>>3474265LX-100. If you want to earn instant jap respect, MX-1 or Anime colored Pentax Q.
Can anyone recommend a flash shoe cellphone holder there are a ton on amazon and i would prefer to get a decent one that wont drop my phone
>>3474302All of them are the same chinkshit. Get the first one you come across and call it a day
Just bought a X100FWhat are some must have accessories for it?
>>3474299Yeah, I figured. I ended up just getting the right one, it's a 24mm so it would be difficult to just rely on framing to avoid flares. I still think the single coated one has much better aesthetics but I know it would be hipsterfaggotry to get an inferior product just for that reason.
What is a reliable torrent source for Capture One Pro 12 and crack?
>>3474297I know I used one myself for that purpose but are you just going to completely dismiss the advantage of a bigger sensor for low light?
>>3474397Yes, because the sensor area has nothing to do with low light sensitivity.It is affected directly by the size of the individual pixel, and the construction of said pixel (QE, dark current noise, readout noise, BSI etc...)Sensor size has nothing to do with sensitivity.
>>3474398and yet a 50MP 35mm sensor will do better in low light than a 16MP APS-C with the same technology
>>3474400Those two sensors, I assume the 50MP is the Canon and the 16MP is the Nikon (Sony) are 3 generations apart. Definitely not the same technology
>>3474400Also 8-10 years ago people had worse tech in FF than we have today in crop, how do you explain the good low light shots back then? It all comes down to technique and the skills of the photographer and his/her ability to control light.
>>3474401it was a theoretical examplelisten, if two cameras came out today with one being 12MP 35mm and one 24MP 35mm it'll do the same in low light.more megapixels will theoretically do worse thanks to the space between the photosites but in reality it won't matter.looking at the 100% zoom doesn't count since downscaling exists.>>3474402that's not a part of this discussion, I've shot tons of handheld APS-C low light, I know how important technique is>4 points of contact grip>stance>bursts shootingand fucking getting a tripod which will beat any new camera
>>3474205>>3474299Cant you just use lens uv filters?
>>3474406Flares are caused by internal reflections of the lens elements. Extra elements like a filter only induces more flare
>>3474412Right thanks, not him but if i get a lens with olympus' ZERO coating, thats a double coating right?
Is $500 for a gh3 and Olympus M.Zuiko premium 45mm 1.8 a good price?
>>3474384No need to torrent, I just jewgled with my C1 v.12 install.
>>3474338I'm a big fan of the leather cases, you can just toss the camera loose in a bag with one. If you're adventurous you can replace the fake leather with an Aki-Asahi leather kit, it's only an hour's work or so.You can also get the WCL/TCL converter lenses if you want to shoot 28mm or 50mm.
>>3474430Very high actually. Gh series is vid centric, but it is outdated at vid. Vid is as much about resolution as it's about bit rates. And you can get that 45mm 1.8 for 270 new. Should get something like used panasonic g2 or even g5 with kit lens for 200 and buy used 45mm, and get lower price. 500 is basically used price of that cam, and new 45mm 1.8. For 500 you can get new em-10ii with stabilization, or new stabless but 4k g7.
>guy is selling a cool vintage lens>messages him and he mesaages back>ask about lens condition>never messages againgod i hate people like this
What’s the most compact yet fun camera with a 50mm equivalent focal length?I currently have a PEN F and the 25mm Olympus lens but something doesn’t feel quite right. Am I missing something? Maybe I just prefer the satisfying clunk of dslrs?
>>3474419Oly zero coating is a kind of multicoating, just because its name is "zero" it doesn't mean it has no coating
>>3472221>hobbyist>wildlife and macrothis is more like a phase, so just get an all rounder that you can explore photography with- anything would do (preferably aps-c if you don't want to spend too much). If you are serious about wildlife and want to invest in glass- Nikon d500but honestly, don't take my word for it and just explore your options. I'm a hobbyist and have a Nikon d7200 but I did a lot of research before I got it.
>>3472221Pentax K1 if you want full frame, K3 if not. autofocus will be annoying, but by far the best bang for your buck.
I am mostly a landscape shooter and I have been thinking of upgrading my camera into a Sony A7R3.How is the weather sealing on Sonys, I like to shoot in a rain so I do not want my cameras to break because of bad weather sealing.
>>3474994what do you shoot now, and why haven't you bought the K-1 already?
>>3475002Because I do not want to carry a big DSLR with me.
>>3475025k3 then.fyi, most of the size "savings" on a mirrorless body are simply moved from the body to the lens.
>>3475025and what do you shoot now?
>>3475030>most of the size "savings" on a mirrorless body are simply moved from the body to the lens.. as in?
>>3475040There's only so much you can do with the focal length between the objective and the sensor plane without fucking the image quality for any given. Now, note that I'm not saying that there is no savings, just that they're not as great as a lot of people think just imaging a camera without a mirror box. They still can be significant enough to matter to you.https://camerasize.com/compact/#691.580,660.471,ha,t
>>3475044Oh, and for full transparency, this doesn't really effect some lens formulae (like pancakes are still pancake-y), but generally, you'll see it on more complex lens formula where there's a lot of elemental groups.
Does anyone use lightroom on mobile? Thinking about grabbing an iPad instead of a laptop when I get my next computer. How does it work, you use an adapter to move images off the SD card? Any info about mobile usability would be appreciated.
full frame ricoh gr when?
>>3475086kek what fucking camera? why do you need to upgrade?
>>3475089Canon 70D, my favourite lens is Sigma 18-35mm. I need more resolution, so I can print bigger pictures and crop more.When it rains I have a plastic bag to cover my camera and I want to know if I need to keep doing it if I get Sony A7R3 or can I trust the weather sealing.
>>3475105>I need more resolutionk-1 is the same 36 MP sensor as the D810, and has better ISO performance>When it rains I have a plastic bag to cover my camera you'd never question the weather sealing of the K-1
>>3474994they aren't known for having the most confident weather sealing.
Anyone have experience with the Godox TT350 TTL flashes? How well/reliably do they work?I already have a TT600 but it is a manual flash, works well, a tiny bit on the cool side of lighting. I ordered one for my Pentax since there are not much options for P-TTL. I just want to know if I didn't just order a second smaller manual flash
>>3475105I think the other guy just gave you the answer >>3475110That sensor in particular is fucking crisp but modern lenses might be a problem getting for pentax and slow autofocus is also a downside.Can some pentaxfag lead this guy in the right direction for lenses?
Hey dudes, I'm pretty new to photography and I've just been messing around with my girlfriend's old Nikon. There's a sale going on now, a Nikon D3500 with the kit lens, a 70-300mm lens, and a bag for $400. Would that be decent for a beginner looking to mess around with all kinds of photography like me?
>>3475319Yeah, nothing spectacular there, but $400 is a decent price for that setup. You'll have a lot of focal length range to play around with to see what kind of shoot you tend to do which can help inform you of what decent lens you should get next. Won't be great in low light and you can't bokehwhore with that setup though.
>>3475322the other lens is prolly the 18-55 (at least I'm reading that as the 70-300 in addition to the kit lens)
>>3475319that's a decent enough deal but I'd suggest getting a new lens asap
Is there a better choice than the p1000 for cheap astrophotography. I like the clarity but i want to go beyond the moon
>>3475330cheap telescope with a dslr mount
>>3475327What kind would you suggest?
>>3475337I'd strongly suggest you play with it first and see what focal lengths you like out of what you are playing with. There are good, cheap options out there for ultrawide angle, wide angle, normals, and teles -- but if you don't like shooting say short tele, then something like a 50mm won't really help you much when something like a 24mm would. Those lenses that come with it aren't very good, but they are still usable.
>>3475333What sort of telescopes should i be looking at? Or is that beyond this thread
>>3475353It's definitely beyond my knowledge, but I know that doing anything deep sky is pretty much beyond the reach of most camera lenses. You can do stuff like sharp pictures of the milky way with a decent equatorial mount or dick with star trails, but that's about it.Haven't seen any astro threads lately so I'm not sure if we have anyone around any more who can guide you a little better. Sorry...might just have to google.
>>3475338Ok, thanks for the advice!
>>3475359Thanks, i looked at some setups to get pics of jupiter and saturn, honestly it saddens me how low res they look. Is high def gas and ice giants not viable?
>>3475374scroll down to astrozoid's posthttps://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3996096
>>3475313I really do not want to buy a DSLR when there is an option for a mirrorless camera.>>3475110Sony A7R3 has 42MP and it has EVF.Also isn't Pentax and Nikon close to bankruptcy?I am not keen on investing a system that might not have any future products.
>>3475180It's TTL. Being lightweight and compact is the main reason to buy it, only needing 2 AA batteries. Best for light camera bodies and not top heavy. Other people mainly use it as fill flash. Not as strong as a regular one with 4 AAs but gets the job done most of the time. Good for small group and portrait shots, ideal for wide to normal focal lengths when bounced. If the distance gets far then direct flash is required. It also works well with the X1T trigger, both TTL and M. The 350TT can also act as a trigger to other Godox flashes.
>>3475391>I really do not want to buy a DSLR when there is an option for a mirrorless camera.Why? That seems strangely partisan. It's your money so it's your choice, but it seems like you're locked into mirrorless for frankly no real reason.
>>3475391>Also isn't Pentax and Nikon close to bankruptcy?Pentax is a toy project by Ricoh. They could lose a billion a year for the next century and be fine.Nikon is owned by Mitsubishi group, for whom the same is true.
>>3475391fujifilm then if you want good weather sealing on a mirrorlesspeople are recommending you DSLRs because they're rugged and can withstand a rainstorm
>>3475395Mostly because of the marketing buzzwords: "Mirrorless is the future and DSLR's are dead">>3475414I suppose you guys are correct, the file sizes of these cameras seem to be quite big, how do people manage it? Do people need to spend a lot of money for memory?>>3475414I know nothing about economics, but if a branch does not do profit won't companies shut them down?
Does apsc to mft still require a speed booster? The sizes and crop seem fairly close
>>3475426>I know nothing about economics, but if a branch does not do profit won't companies shut them down?I don't know shit about that stuff too, but beside cameras and lenses for consumers, same branch probably developing and producing industrial optic, machine vision and that kind of stuff. So no point in shutting it down. As another anon said, both companies are part of much bigger groups. Look at Sony smartphone sales - they nosediving like Ethiopian Boeing, but nobody plans to shut down their department. I understand your concern, but that how market are. Sales of "proper cameras" is going down everywhere and all big players diversified their business long ago. Canon, for example, breddy big in medical equipment, if i'm not mistaken.
I've been looking into smartphone lens accessories, are moment lenses as good as everyone thinks they are or are there good, cheaper alternatives?
>>3475391Pentax is in development of more FF glass for the K-1 and I believe an APCS body to replace the K-3 II will be released next year.Also November is their 100th anniversary
>>3475393Thanks, just what I need. Plus looks like I'll be able to control my TT600 as well off camera in TTL mode. Neat.
>>3475330It doesn't have tracking. Of all cameras only Pentax has inbuilt "tracking" using the IBIS. I'm not saying it is unusable, but it has pretty tight limits, especially on telephoto. Good for light setup starscapes on normal and wide lenses.The next step is a smaller tracking mount like the StarAdventurer or iOptron SkyGuider Pro and a small refractor/astro CCD/off axis guider setup.
I finally went FX. Nikon D750. Upgrade from a D7200. With the 24-120 f/4, it is fantastic.
Considering a Leica M240. Am I a huge idiot?I shoot mainly street and I have an appreciation for simplicity and fun and don’t really do any post processing aside from cropping, exposure and simple tweaks. Any digital Leica users on this board?
>>3475466Nice, just a heads up, D750 had a shutter unsync problem, resulting in partly unexposed frames. If you notice something like it, Nikon service should be fixing it for free.
>>3475468Get a GRII/III with an OVF instead
>>3475466congratsthat lens isn't bad either
>>3475470I find 28mm far too wide. I like 50mm almost exclusively. Thanks for the suggestion though. Does a compact camera with 50mm focal length exist?
>>3475472GRIII has enough MP to use it in 50mm crop modeAll these compacts like the GR, X100 series, X70 and X10 use crop mode for that since a 50mm equivalent lens means it is not a compact anymore, like the RX1.
>>3475052I've picked up an iPad pro for Lightroom and it's so much better than a computer. It's also a really nice way to look at photos too. Get the pencil too. A USB C hub with an SD card slot makes importing raws easy.
>>3475479I may as well use my iPhone’s tele lens for the amount of sensor size that’ll give me. I currently have a PEN F with a 25mm and it’s my favourite camera so far but the menus and buttons are a little OTT for me. A Leica 50mm full frame sounds pretty dreamy right now but not sure about the full time manual focus of a range finder.
>>3475482Also there is the weird Ricoh GXR and the Leica M mount APS-C module
>>3475469Thanks for the heads up. I saw the recall notice for that. Nikon had a site to enter my serial # and it came back as not needing service.
>>3475471I bought it to use on my D7200, but I felt like I wasn't getting everything out of it putting an FX lens on a DX camera. Plus, I wanted the FX size sensor.
>>3475484Thanks. I’ll take a look.
>>3475490guessing you've already noticed the sharpness increase of switching to FF?
>>3475502Only taken a few photos so far. Took video at a martial arts tournament and they look fantastic. Going to get into it with the 24-120 and the 50 1.8.
>>3472524sigma 30mm art
D7000 or D7100?D7000 comes with two extra battery and gripD7100 comes with extra battery100eur difference
>>3475472all I can think of that's near 50mm equiv are Sigma DP2 Merrill, 30mm lens at 45mm equiv. focal length. DP2 Quattro is longer but also 45mm equiv.
>>3475542D7000Spend the extra cash you saved on a nice lens like a Sigma 17-50/2.8
>>3475542D7100, it is newer and the price difference is small.
>>3475542I could go for either, they are both good cameras
>>3475544Thanks. I’d never heard of these. Tbh my perfect camera doesn’t exist. The closest is the PEN F with a 25mm. Hardly pocketable though.
>>3475603Ars vs eur is like 1:55 now, so the difference its actually something, is really the sensor on d7100 muchbetter?
>>3475542Get the d7100. It's got a lot more AF points and more megapixels means you can crop harder. Also, extra batteries and grips for DSLRs don't tend to get that much use unless you're an event photographer blasting bursts all day.
>tfw winning an ebay auction for a boat load of lenses for ultra cheapIs there no better feeling other than getting a good shot of course?
>>3473745thanks for the advice. i went for 70´s summicron v3. I will mainly use it on film but i will also adapt it on digital. Some say it´s the worst summicron, yet i am really impressed by lens
Recommend second hand and vintage glass for use with a K mount
>>3475702Helios 44M (M42 mount adapter: disassemble, remove spring and screw!!!)Meyer Optic Görlitz/Pentacon 135/2.8Anything CZJI have these, they are great.Also look up PentaxForums lens database for the recommended vintage lensesAlso good vintage looking lenses: all Limited primes
I was looking at Nikon Z7 stuff and it reads,>ISO 64 (Expandable to ISO 32)>ISO 25,600 (Expandable to 102,400)Why not have it like that in the first place? I'm noticed a lot of cameras are like that. Reduced in factory but "expandable."
>>3475726Three kinds of ISO>native ISOThis is just how the sensor responds with zero changes to the circuit (be it software or electronic). This is just a single value (usually 100).>Expanded ISOThis is the range you can get by basically pumping more electricity into the sensor (signal amplification). This can only go up. This is what camera makers typically advertise as the ISO range.>simulated ISOThis is achieved using software to basically estimate what a given sensor output would be at an iso that's not within the above range (like how the z7 there can "go" down to ISO 32 when its native ISO is 64). People who know what they're doing ignore simulated ISO for most all cases.
>>3475743>simulated ISOUgh, sounds like "digital zoom!" Thanks for the explanation.
>>3475748Yeah, there's a lot of marketing bullshit along those lines. Really the worst thing that's happening with ISO is that not everyone is rating ISO the same these days.
>>3475754I basically look at those charts where it shows noise levels then avoid the drop off areas like the plague. Like anything past 1600 on a D3400 is hipster noise territory.
Nikon D600 vs D700????Which entry level Nikon FX should I get? I'm already into Nikon System DX, but I already own some FX lenses.The D600 is somewhat more expensive. Dxomark score is just as good as any other FX camera, but the body has amateur controls. On the other hand D700 is old as fuck, image quality is worse than the D3500, but it is cheaper and has pro controls.
>>3475944>image quality is worse than the D3500Why are you saying stupid things?
Hello /gear/, I got gifted this camera and I wanted to know if it was better than my phone. I don't know about photography nor cameras, but this camera seems pretty old. I have a Galaxy J7 Pro
>>3475726>>3475743just so you know, 64 is the native ISO on that sensor, though you're right a lot of others are 100. In Nikon-land, anything with a number is an actual ISO value, anything "lo" or "hi" is one of those simulated ones they get from just multiplying or dividing the numbers that come out. Also on the D850 and I think on the Z7 too there's a different sensor readout method that kicks in at ISO 400, which actually has (slightly, but measurably) better noise and dynamic range than ISO 320. >>3475944Is a D750 out of budget here?>>3476071With the exception of having no optical zoom and being limited to touchscreen controls, the phone is going to be better in every respect.
>>3476087>>3475743>(like how the z7 there can "go" down to ISO 32 when its native ISO is 64).
>>3476071Someone gave you a gift. That’s worth more than whatever takes good pictures.
I found 2 (very) used Nikon SB 700 flashes - one has a problem with the batteries not making good contact and the other has a zoom error. I could get either one for around $50.I'm a hobbyist but I want to get into using artificial lighting. Is this a good deal?[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakesamsungCamera ModelSM-G930FCamera SoftwareG930FXXS4ESC1Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.7Focal Length (35mm Equiv)26 mmImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2019:05:06 11:58:35Exposure Time1/25 secF-Numberf/1.7Exposure ProgramNormal ProgramISO Speed Rating200Lens Aperturef/1.7Brightness0.3 EVExposure Bias0 EVMetering ModeCenter Weighted AverageFlashNo FlashFocal Length4.20 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width4032Image Height2268Exposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardUnique Image IDC12LSII00VM C12LSLC01GM_
>>3476266Go with one of the Chinese ones (yongnuo and godox are better chinkshit). You have no clue how much life is left in those bulbs, the battery thing sounds like an easy fix, but that begs the question of why wasn't it fixed and what else is wrong with it. Zoom thing can be a major pain if it's stuck at say 200mm and you're trying to shoot 50mm or 85mm. Wouldn't be as bad if it is stuck along the wide end as it'll just not be as strong for narrower shots.I'm a fan of finding deals and fixing up stuff, but I wouldn't pull the trigger on either of those two for more than $20 each.
So I can buy a new Sony A7iii for about $1600 with just the body due to my discount. Or I can buy it with the 28-70 for $1899 or slightly less. I would go for a7r but i do not get much of a discount off of that.Would it be better to save the extra $250 and invest in a better lens or battery grip?I was thinking about just starting off with just the cheap 85mm 1.8. Maybe the sigma 85 1.4 but I'd want to rent some lenses first.I currently have a canon sl2 and a tamron 85 1.8 and I just feel like I want something better.
>>3476280GLASS>BODYNever forget this.
>>3476282I'm well aware. But I cannot afford a GM 85mm 1.4. I could buy the sigma 50mm 1.4 art as I can get 20% off.
>>3476283Nah friend you're not really aware. You're predicating everything on the body and don't even apparently know what focal lengths you're going to shoot. A 50 is very much not an 85, especially on a full frame where you don't have crop factor minimizing the difference between the fields of view. This is the exact opposite of the direction you should be deciding. Pick what lenses you want, then see what bodies fit in the remainder of your budget. That said, it is your money, so spend it as you wish, but with how you're apparently not sitting on a solid enough hunk of money to get a high end body and decent focal length coverage in lenses, the priority should be the lenses.
>>3476271thanks Anon, I think I'll get a godox flash at some point instead. They are much cheaper than Nikon ones and people seem to be happy with them.
>>3476283You sure you want go Sony? I love features they introducing in latest cameras, but their glass too expensive. That reason alone turned me off to other brands. Other than that, why 85mm specifically? Go with "universal 50" first, if you want prime. Then add 24 and 85. Maybe 135, if needed, and you (probably) set. Or, if you want to rent something, go with body, rent and try and then buy what you like.
>>3476290I am actually aware. I like the 85mm and I know that is more of a 120ish mm on a crop sensor camera. So I would like to buy the 85mm but it is a bit too pricey for me atm. I want a full frame and efv. I don't particularly have any issues with my sl2, but there are things that I wish I had that it lacks. If I were to stick with Canon the only cameras in my price range would be the RP or the 6D mk2. Both of which are about 300 within the price of of the a7iii. And the a7iii destroys them.I can sell my sl2 and 85 1.8 and can afford the sigma 85mm, sigma 50 or the zeiss 50 1.8 as those are the focal lengths I like to use.
>>3476299Like I said, it's your money. Blow it however you wish, but it's pretty clear not thinking about anything other than that Sony body and are looking for validation and not purchasing advice.
Let's try here...I hate photos coming out of my original OnePlus One. Wanna up my day to day photography game but still keep things portable. Should I just get a better smartphone (like Note 9, S10e or Pixel 3) or try to "futureproof" myself with something like Sony A5100?
>>3476323i mean the top end phones rn have some pretty good cameras. honestky id rather the latest huawei over a cheap point and shoot, but obviously a similarly priced camera will get better shots
My friend has asked me to be his unofficial, no pressure photographer at his wedding and I obliged. It's a low budget outdoor wedding and I don't want to bring my main camera as it might get wet or broken or stolen.What's a good, cheap point and shoot with a flash that will produce great looking, lo-rez digital images with the flash? I'd love that early 2000s vibe. Alternatively I wouldn't mind a camera with a hotshoe that I can off-camera flash with. Anyone help?
>>3476331Does anybody know the name of that lady photographer that uses a dated PAS camera for the "vintage digital" aesthetic?
>>3476331buy a secons hand digital camera from the 2000s...
Poorfags with no camera: everyone is trying to dump stock of the d3500 with 15-55 and 70-300 kits, so you can get an ok setup for $400.
Are either of these camera bags worth it?https://www.aliexpress.com/item/DSLR-Waterproof-Canvas-Camera-Bag-Multi-functional-Photography-Bag-Outdoor-Wear-resistant-Camera-Backpack-for-Canon/33000135058.htmlhttps://www.aliexpress.com/item/Professional-Retro-Fashion-Casual-Waterproof-Canvas-Camera-Tripod-Bag-Photography-Tripod-DSLR-Backpack-for-Canon-Nikon/32900627479.htmlor is there something better for the price?
Should I get a video tripod or just a regular tripod and find some other way for pans and tilts and whatnot?Having a bitch of a time trying to pick one. How the fuck are they so expensive?
>>3476474No idea but you can get pretty good prices on the version 1 think tank retrospectives. I have one coming in the mail, I’ll let you know how it is.
>>3474833>Oly zero coating is a kind of multicoating, just because its name is "zero" it doesn't mean it has no coatingWhat a dumb name lol.
>>3477080What was lolympuss thinking, lel
>>3475542i had both, d7100 is considerably better