Previous >>3472014Tilt Shift EditionAll discussion and questions related to gear should take place in this exact thread.Redirection to this thread for questions is encouraged.
Any recommended small point and shoots with a viewfinder that will fit into a jacket pocket? There’s so many I get overwhelmed when googling.
Need a good tripod for video. Everything is either stupidly expensive or utter shit. Please help. Just need simple nice smooth tilts.
>>3476662Used fluid head with used legs. Manfrotto is cheap because some people like to hate it. See if you can replace the QR head and put on a chink arca-swiss replacement and a proper arca-swiss plate.
>>3476635GR II/III with mini ovfOLY XZ-2 or Pana LX-100 if you are a zoom pleb
someone noobpill me on tilt lenses, how the fuck do those worknand whats the big deal between the bokeh you get with these lenses, or just using 1.8 and zooming onto a busy intersection from a rooftop?[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeSONYCamera ModelILCE-6000Camera SoftwareSnapseed 2.0Maximum Lens Aperturef/6.3Focal Length (35mm Equiv)315 mmImage-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution350 dpiVertical Resolution350 dpiImage Created2019:02:23 23:31:04Exposure Time1/400 secF-Numberf/6.3Exposure ProgramNormal ProgramISO Speed Rating640Brightness7.5 EVExposure Bias0.3 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceShadeFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length210.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width3324Image Height2211RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceManualScene Capture TypeStandardContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessNormal
>>3476740They're not for bokeh. They're for architecture and occasionally landscape. When you're shooting a skyscraper and you tilt up or down on it, you'll get geometric distortions on vertical lines. Tilt shift's lines will stay straight.
Am I retarded for spending money to get the EF-S 18~135 IS STM to replace my EF-S 18~55 ISso I dont have to swap lenses all the time
How do remote cords work, is it just connecting two terminals? Because I want one but I don't want to buy one
>>3476831try searching instead for "perspective control photography"
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?
>>3476673>gr3by all accounts no
Going on a trip soon where I hope to see some wildlife. I have a full frame nikon and a 70-200. Amazon lens, not so good for wildlife.Should I bite the bullet and get the 200-500, or perhaps buy a 2nd hand crop body like a d7x00 and a 1.4 or 1.7 teleconverter?I'm a part time worker, full time student, so budget does factor into it write a bit!
>>3477020Are you going to use the lens for a bunch of other stuff after your trip?If not, just rent.
>>3477020Well consider >>3477029's point. But if you do want to buy the 200-500 is good and inexpensive, and Nikon put it on sale recently, I think that's still going. That kind of reach on full frame doesn't really come much cheaper. I presume you already know all the usual caveats: It's f/5.6 so you better have enough light, its big and heavy so you'll have to carry it around and I hope you lift if you want to handhold it for any length of time, make sure you check if it needs AF fine tune before you leave, etc.
I have an APS-C sensor Canon DSLR. I'm looking for a relatively cheap lens (~$300 max) that will provide great low-light performance. I don't really mind what the focal length is. I mainly shoot portraits and street photography.
>>3477029My issue with renting (at least here in Australia) for this lens is if you rent it for 2 or more weeks... You may as well buy one. It's pretty expensive.>>3477034Thanks. I guess I am just tossing up whether I buy it, or compromise with the 70-200 going down a stop and a half and getting ALMOST the same range on a crop body...
>>3477069>Thanks. I guess I am just tossing up whether I buy it, or compromise with the 70-200 going down a stop and a half and getting ALMOST the same range on a crop body...Literally might as well save money, just use a tele with your full frame, then crop in post. Literally the same thing.
>>3477069Lmao, the only rebtal places have like a 2 year lease
>>3477069sigma 100-400mm?it's a lot sharper than the 200-500mm so you'll be able to pull out more detail so the 400mm might not be a problemI don't know, I don't do wildlife
>>3477020A 70-200/2.8 with a 2x TC is often used as a beginners wildlife lens, and you only need the TC.You can also try the earlier AF 300/4 (non PF) and a 1.4x TC.
>>3477044Nifty 50 and a tripodYour likely going to be more limited by the camera being a low end rebel which are not great at low light because small limited iso sensor.Any wide open f2.8 or greater lens with image stabilization is gonna be more than 300$
What's a good and cheap second hand telephoto lens for with a K-mount, Focal length of 50+ in full frame.
>>3477232Tamron 70-200/2.8 IF MacroFA/D-FA 100/2.8 MacroDA* 200/2.8SMC K/M 135mm
Are those colorful straps a good idea if I want to appear like a carry a cheap shit camera? And are they good?
oh my god i love tilt shift lenses, i used to have a Canon FD 35mm/2.8 SSC tilt shift lens, i sold it because i have to save up for an 800mm canon lens and i needed money. i miss that lens though :(
>>3477323god no. everyone in my photography class in high school had these on their shitty Canon T3s and such. if you want to seem like a little baby that puts rocks in random spots and takes close up shots of soda cans or dogs then go for it. if you want someone to take you seriously, then hell no dont use those straps
>>3477323now i want a ddpat strap
>>3477323imo having a strap at all makes a camera look expensive
Has anyone here made their own V-Flats? I've read to use Gatorfoam, but it's really expensive.
>>347704450mm f1.8 usm or you may be able to find a used f1.4 for $300
>>3477424No sign of gatorboard for me in my areaI have made a few version with cheap pink styrofoam board and matte black spray paint. First version i didn't take the time to make very small light coat of paint so the Styrofoam was bend in less than 24hours. Last version was good many much longer but Styrofoam is not a practical material to be moved around so it will scuffed and bend pretty easily.I bought some metal tubing at my local hardware store to make an "sheet hanger" style vflat. Will figure out what material I will use with the frame.
What do you guys think of the 7D Mark II, and can I work semi-professionally with it? I can't really afford the jump to full frame since I'd have to update my ef-s lenses. I'm still rocking a 600D (T3i), mainly interested in more AF points, dual pixel AF, dual card slot and low light performance. Maybe there's another option I'm missing here.
>>3477521Canon crop generally is no good for low light.If you have to work with it I'd suggest saving up some money on a used 5DIII or maybe a 6DMkII and get the EF 24-105/4 L IS
>>3477529>Canon crop generally is no good for low light.the fuck are you talking about, the difference is barely noticable unless you pixel peep
>>3477530For hobby it is perfectly acceptable, but for work it is not. Demand is different when you bread and butter depends on the pixel level stuff.
>>3477529Really not feeling the single lens idea. Besides, what you propose is three times the cost so I could pick some primes anyways.
>>3477545In that case I'd rather go for the 80D, it is cheaper and has a more recent sensor than the 7DMkII.Get a Sigma 15-35/1.8, but take your sweet time testing it, you might have to return a few until you get one that has a more reliable AF drive. Other option is the Sigma 30/1.4.It isn't impossible to do pro work on crop, some people even specialize in that aspect, but mostly on Nikon, Fuji, Pentax and Oly. You really have to support your sensor disabilities with nice bright lenses.
>>3477530It's not unless you have 70/77/80dAnon said a lens under 300$ so I'm assuming he's not using one of those
>>3476856Don't cheap out on a bag and don't pay extra for a "photography bag"You want your bag to be as durable as possible, and maybe light too if you careFashion is not a priority don't buy some fuckboy looking shitGet a normal bag, look into nice hiking backpacks, military surplus works well too, then buy a padded photography bag insert for like 20 bux and put that in any bag you likeBonus points if you pair it with a proper sealed waterproof dry sackThen you can drop your bag in a lake and your equipment would still be fine
Why is the Canon EOS M5 more expensive than the M50 when the M50 is newer and has better specs?
>>3477371I never considered that but that seems reasonable
>>3477802Few more dials, better battery and higher quality build. No reason to go for m5, though.
>>3477826there's no reason to go EOS-M at all really
>>3477829m50, m3 and all the lenses are very tempting. You don't go for vid, but at least you see company doing something for the mount. Sony has completely abandoned apsc lens r&d.
Why doesnt Sony have any super telephoto lenses?Is it because their autofocus when using telephoto lenses cant keep up with the likes of a DSLR?
Canon EOS M100 Fujifilm X-A3Sony α5100 Kitwhich one of those should i chose for a first camera or should i go for a compact ? i don't want dlsr for the size reason
>>3477839If you go Fuji, don't get the XA-3 unless you really like selfies. Stretch up to the X-T20 or X-T100, or the X-T10 if you wanna be cheap. Having a viewfinder makes a big difference.
has anyone used 7artisans lenses? i gotta say $100 for a prime cinelens for mft is pretty amazing
the xpro2 is weather resistant right? that means I can take it out when its raining without worrying my camera will die?any alternatives or am I good to go with the xpro2? I don't need the ovf, but I don't mind it
>>3478159If you pair it with weather resistant lenes you should be fine. Very low worst case scenario with regular lenses is that water comes in from the lens and fries your body. Still, don't go crazy in ether case. Be very carefully around salt water.
I need 10bit for underwater use.Currently have a GH5 and GH5S.They're fucking enormous and difficult to use. Anything smaller that has 10bit 422?
>>3478086>buying from the manufacturers website nobody actually does this right?
>>3478190Depends on the price.Also, you can use it for price matching
Is Sony still manufacturing the A7ii and A7Rii?
Nikon DF for $1100 a decent deal?I really dig the design, and I already own older nikon glass.
Stupid question. But is the a6000 still the best bang for your buck mirrorless camera?
>>3478380depends on your definition of bang, but it is pretty good
>>3478394I want to do mostly want to take picture in the city. We also have a pretty neat zoo
>>3478395sounds fun!well, pretty much all cameras are pretty good, so that should be fine
>>3478380If you have quite a limited budget, yes, especially used. Plus if you want to get in one of those low cost, sharp E mount Sigma primes, also yes. I bought one last year because of what you've said. But of course, there are better alternatives but at a higher price point tho.
>>3478404arguably the a5100 is even better value
>>3478413yes, but no EVF nor hot shoe
>>3477837They are supposedly waiting for the Olympics before they launch those together with the A9II.
I want to get a drone for aerial photography.Is a DJI Spark good for mainly photos or do I have to spend more on a Mavic Pro/Air?I have experience in flying RC planes and racing drones so flying it will be no problem.
>>3477529All crops generally are, in a similar generation. Even newer better ones like the Sony 6500 or 6400 are a stop worse than the much maligned 6dmk2.
How much better is a ring flash with GN 59 from one having GN 49? For macro.
>>3478567Half a stop brighter at the same distance.They're both far too powerful for macro distances, I doubt you'd be using it at more than 1/32 power anyway.
Can we expect a D760 this year? Hard to picture with the mirrorless craze.
>>3478579>too powerfulI wish. I use the GN 49 at full power and it barely touches the macro shots when the lens is at f/8. God forbid I go higher than 1:1 magnification ratio. The light is an LED which seems to be shit and I think the companies lie about the GN numbers. The on-camera flash is only GN22 and it is way better and brighter than the ring light, but its position is just terrible.
>tfw happy with the gear you have
>>3478579Macro distances are factored and calculated differently. At 1:1 the f-stops are doubled. So an f/8 becomes an f/16 as far as light is concerned.
>>3478582after the D6 is coming out to share the af and ibis system probably and isn't the rebel sl3 doing well?I think DSLRs will still have a place in this world for heavy duty work, sports and wildlife which guarantees a market for it.how's mirrorless autofocus nowadays? not having to microadjust lenses seems really nice.I know the autofocus for video and accurate/smooth tracking is a lot better thanks to on-sensor pdaf but not as good at acquiring autofocus as DSLRs have thanks to a bigger/longer pdaf sensor but I can easily see that changing in the future.
>>3478644spark suck, mavic is much better, especially from a handling standpoint. Check the airspace you live in first because dji might not let you fly period (you can use litchi if you don't get their controller with the integrated screen)
>>3478499just throw your camera into the air with a timer dude
>>3478654How about I throw YOUR camera in the air on a timer, maybe near a huge body of water?
>>3478657I've gotten amazing underwater shots that way
>>3478663Ah, you use Pentax, huh?
Can someone recommend to me a lens for my Nikon d3300 for shooting portraits? I only have a 55-200mm lens and the 18-55mm kit lens
>>3478704Wait, no, that one won't work with yours.Get the newest DX 50/1.8, G or what it is called
>>3478588I wish I knew this feel
>>3478703tamron 45mm 1.8 VC if you want some serious quality with stabilization and 50mm 1.8G if you need something cheap but still decent enough.>>3478714yeah.it kinda sucks not having a screwdrive motor while doing portraiture because some af-d glass is particular is so good for it while being extremely cheap.
>>3478188What exactly is the problem with something being a bit huge when working underwater? I can imagine it being a bit easierSerious question and no I don't have an answer for your question
>>3478739Getting it to and from the water.
>>3478586Wait what??Are you talking about GN in feet maybe?Cause GN49 in feet is barely GN16 in meters, I was assuming meters.
Are there any small P&S worth getting that is better than a phone? My friend is asking. I said you can get an EOS M100 used for really cheap with the 18-55 and that should be better than a phone but too big for him I guess.
I'm looking at buying a lens on eBay and I see listings for lenses from Japan that are brand new and in box and cost $500 less than I can get normally. I think the catch is that it's got a Japanese warranty of 1 year? What does that mean? Can I not use the warranty? Should I buy this or will it be a bad idea?
>>3478887Panasonic Lumix LX-100, Pentax MX-1, Olympus XZ-2, Sony RX-100V
Beginner concert photographer/videographer looking to purchase my own equipment (have been practicing on work equipment for a couple years now -- Canon 80D with 17-55 f/2.8)Need something excellent in low light and competent shooting video as well as photo (I expect to take on some non-concert work while I'm starting out so I'll want to stay versatile). Preferably under $3,000 if at all possible.
>>3478921go talk to the /vidya/ guys (video general)
>>3478380gx85 with 12-32 and 45-150 is $500 new
Cheap filters, yes or no?Any brands I should look into for affordable filter sets?
>>3479155>imma spend $899 for this lens to get decent iq out of it>let me put a $20 piece of plastic or glass in front of it.
>>3479156I have not experimented with any filters yet, I want to play with some "ok" cheaper ones to see if I like to use them, then I can buy nice filters if I so choose. Not spend a shit load of money just to find out I never use 90% of themIt's just common sense anon
>>3479158Just get a good CPL, a good 3 stop, and you'll be mostly set to do just about anything you want. Maybe a GND if you're super into doing landscapes.
Gonna be traveling all around my country for about 5-6 months, 350 usd as a budget, my main use gonna be photo, zero interest on video, some landscape, street and city and seldomly portraits photos.Any suggestion?
What's the best place to go to get used camera shit? Just ebay?
>>3479278Gotta link for that?
>>3479277ebayis it the best? nobut it certainly makes things easier for buyers
Friend of mine has a D3200. She only has the 18-55 kit lens (3.5-5.6, I think) and an old, manual 50mm nikkor that I got for her.I found a NIKKOR 1.8G DX 35mm AF-S for $100. Will it beat out her kit lens in image quality, etc.? Or is it a waste of time?
>>3479309Yes the 35mm 1.8G DX will definitely outperform any version of the 18-55 kit lens
>>3479309it'll rape the kit lens and also rape the rape babies
>>3479339>>3479338I'm sorry to ask like a dumbfuck, but how will it do so? What's the real world difference? Or, more personally, what's your reasoning behind it?
>>3479341sharpness, colors, corners and wider aperturecan't say that the 35mm dx in particular is especially good but it sure as hell beats the kit lens
>>3479341As a rule of thumb, if a zoom is good it isn't cheap. This is basically because it's really complicated to make a zoom that stays sharp through its entire focal range, so cheap zoom lenses will tend to be sharpest at just one of the available focal lengths in the zoom range with the rest of the range just being meh. That and it's the kit lens. They want to encourage you to spend $$$$ on better lenses so they're just...functional. They do the job, but not super well.The 50mm on the other hand is basically THE lens. How to make one that's really high quality for dirt cheap was figured out decades ago, and it's a prime, so mechanically and optically, it's far simpler because they don't have to worry about correcting for one kind of distortion at one end of a zoom range then the other kind at the other end, then correcting the aberrations that all of those corrective elements introduced.
Is it dumb if I want a DSLR simply because it's heavier/bulkier? It feels like it'd be way more ergonomically satisfying than a mirrorless that is half the size/weight.
>>3479365Not really. Balance and ergonomics are things. Using something like a 70-200 2.8 on a mirrorless kinda sucks, especially the tiny crop sensor mirrorless bodies. There's just not enough to comfortably hold onto. But that's the cool thing about the market right now. You can make whatever choice works best for you.
>>3479365Get an old single digit pro body for cheap, toss a fat fuck 2.8 zoom on it, and carry it around wherever you go. Get it out of your system, it's great until reality and practicality set in. My neck is turbo ripped from years of carrying them around but it sounds like breaking bundles of raw spaghetti when I tilt it. Also hiking across a sand dune with a D2 and a slew of ancient metal battleship lenses was one of the worst experiences of my life. Now I shoot APS-C mirrorless instead.
>>3479369...you realize there's a middle ground, right?
>>3479365You're dumb because you ask questions like you're trying to get a sexual thrill out of us saying "haha, yep!!"
>>3479371Yeah, but if one wants a DSLR for bulk and weight, go big or go home, right?
>>3479365> It feels like it'd be way more ergonomically satisfying than a mirrorless that is half the size/weight.Not my experience. Decent glass on a FF MILC alone has some weight - even if it's a very noticeable bit less weight than on the DSLR pendants, it's still plenty.Pic related is one of the good lenses that isn't terribly heavy, but you'll likely still feel even that one within the hour.
>>3479365weight helps for handheld stabilization, otherwise it's stupid, just make sure you get a camera with a proper grip on it.
>>3479375No, it is typically used as a photographic device. Stuff your pants if you want to appear bigger.A DSLR / MILC may be chosen because of specific features on a specific model or because of prior investment into the lens system or any other such reasons.
How fucking scrawny is /p/Are you all literally bug men?I'm 5'9 150lb and carry a 70-300 around all day innawoods with no issue.Seriously just buy a 10$ strap that's not 1" wide like the shit that comes in the box, then sling it over your shoulder like a bag instead of hanging yourself with it only around your neck.
What kind of bags should I be looking at if I intend to carry an XT2 with 23 f/2 WR, 18-55, and that's it. I need to carry only that in terms of camera gear, but then other stuff like a laptop, jacket, etc. I sort of want access to the camera from the part that faces my back, like on those f stop bags.
Thoughts? I'm going to get the A6000 with a 16-50mm lens today for $500.
>>3479392Look at the national geographic bags on Ali express
My helios 44-2 cracked and now I'm looking for a lense in that focal length, currently I'm looking at the 7 artisans 55m 1.4 if i get the minolta 50mm 1.7 including the adaptors and shipping would cost me the same as the 7artisans, is the 7artisans worth it over vintage lenses?
What kind of bags should I be looking at if i want to carry an XT2, 23 f/2 WR, and the 15-55 f/2.8, and then a bunch of other stuff like a laptop or jacket, or other things one might pick up while traveling during the day. Basically a regular bag that has a good camera holding system, preferably with back panel access to the camera or side. Those Shimoda or F stop bags look nice but they're really expensive and I'm not hiking snowy mountains or anything, just some rain covers would be fine.
>>3479417Actually I'm not too keen on the side opening for fear of somebody opening it to steal my shit or perhaps it would just fall out then.
>>3479417Caden on Ali express
>>3479396I bought one last year. If you have a limited budget, it's fine. Also, the body and kit lens combo is lightweight and compact so a wrist strap for a point and shoot camera goes well with it.
>>3479449Also, you can get it cheaper bnew with sony intl wrty.
Any thoughts on older used DSLR's in the 250-400$ range? Need something for my trip to Japan coming up and just shooting random shit like my cars and whatnot. Used to be into film years ago bla blah. Been looking at anything from a Nikon D70s to a Nikon 5200 i found for $350.
>>3479452>Used to be into film years ago bla blahDo you already have any lenses?
>>3478524The DA 50-200 is absolutely horrifying, wouldn't recommend to anyonet. have one
>>3479384It's just one single autist samefag shilling, now it's the usual MILC vs DSLR, sometimes it is Fuji vs everything, but mostly Sony vs everythingIt is easy to recognize his posting style and we are fairly sure he never actually used a camera before. It is best to ignore his screechings.
>>3479462there is no 55-200 so he might have plausibly meant the 50-200/4.0-5.6 or the 55-300/4.0-5.8.I agree with your assessment of the 50-200. The 55-300 is better, but it is still a consumer telezoom. It's decent and okay, not exemplary.
>>3479452Old cameras are fine as long as you don't need extremely clean high ISO capability. The D200 is a vastly better camera than the D70s and costs about the same. Magnesium frame, weather sealing, much better finder, better AF, etc.
Got a bit of a poll for you guys:1) Does your most expensive lens + body combo cost more than your average monthly income?2) Does your total of all lenses and bodies cost more than your average monthly income?3) Are you a professional photographer?[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeFUJIFILMCamera ModelX100FCamera SoftwareWindows Photo Editor 10.0.10011.16384Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.0Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaMaker Note Version0130Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2017:06:17 17:23:05Exposure Time1/140 secF-Numberf/2.5Exposure ProgramNormal ProgramISO Speed Rating400Lens Aperturef/2.5Brightness3.9 EVExposure Bias0.3 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashNo FlashFocal Length23.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width1500Image Height1000RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardSharpnessNormalSubject Distance RangeUnknownSharpnessNormalWhite BalanceAutoChroma SaturationNormalFlash ModeUnknownFocus ModeAutoSlow Synchro ModeOffPicture ModeProgram AEContinuous/Bracketing ModeOffBlur StatusOKFocus StatusOKAuto Exposure StatusOK
>>34794671) No. £700 vs £2400. 2) No. £90 vs £2400. 3) Been shooting as a hobby for about 5 years.
>>3479467>Does your most expensive lens + body combo cost more than your average monthly income?No>Does your total of all lenses and bodies cost more than your average monthly income?Yes>Are you a professional photographer?No
>>3479467>1) Does your most expensive lens + body combo cost more than your average monthly income?More than my freely disposable monthly income ever was [not more than my monthly income was, but that's a rather useless metric].Good thing probably nobody needs to buy one of either / both every month, or this would actually be an expensive hobby, not a cheap one.> 3) Are you a professional photographer?No.
>>3479384>carry a 70-300 around all dayAnd that's likely a not terribly heavy APS-C or MFT lens? 700g or something?A decent FF 70-200 is typically 2-3 times that weight, and that's of course not even one of the heaviest options for a lens. That's probably part of the difference here. Maybe you're also just more fit.
best cheap wide angle wide aperture m43 lens?
>>3479488I recall one of the best cheap ones was the samyang 12mm/f2, this might still be the case.
>>3479467>1) Does your most expensive lens + body combo cost more than your average monthly income?No>2) Does your total of all lenses and bodies cost more than your average monthly income?No>3) Are you a professional photographer?No
>>34794671)No, $2500 vs $110002)No $3500 + $500 if you count my action camera3)No, I make no money off my photography
>>3479480>heavy dust pump with the resolution of a cheap consumer kit telezoom
>>3479452d7100/d7000 with a 35mm lens or d700 with a 50mm, all you'll ever need
I'd like to jump to full frame (used) with something bigger than 24MP, the D810 seems to be in a sweet spot. Am I missing another good option, and is something coming out in the next months worth considering? Also, can I expect its price to drop in the near future now that people dump their gear for mirrorless?
>>3479560> with something bigger than 24MPKeep in mind lenses matter to an extreme degree with regards what actual resolution you get even on 24MP, never mind beyond. Having a 42MP image with ~12MP-ish lens resolution is just a storage / editing issue, not much fun beyond that and it'd have been quite (although not exactly) comparable to shoot this on a 24MP same sensor size camera already.If you want something good there, you'll have pretty significant costs on that end.> another good optionThe A7 III should be worth looking at.
>>3479525Are you in law or the stock market, trucking or welding?Where the fuck does one earn 11 grand a month and how do I get in on the action?
What's a /p/ recommended cheap flash? Looking for something under 100 that can be used in a wireless setup for later.
>>3479732being good in school, getting a high paying sciences/engineering job
>>3479753Godox TT600 for manual, TT350 for TTL
>>3479785So in direct sunlight? Deleted my question as it seemed more fitting for the general question thread, not the gear thread, but thanks.
>>3479791yes, also at night where shit like street lights will create very obvious flaresDon't waste money on the overly expensive canon ones tho just find out what model you need for your lens and put it in amazon and the cheap ones will show up
>>3479791It's ok, gear = tech as well.
>>3479732i work a government job as an investigator
Do you guys put your camera lens down or lens up in your bag?
>>3479920That is stupid, if I was putting my lens up into the bag it would fall down right away, also everything would fall out of my bag from being turned over my head
Are these a meme? I'm new to photography, been told to get these for any lenses I buy to protect the glass. Will they degrade image quality at all or fuck with the light etc?
>>3479933Yes, one created by camera stores to sell you shit you don't need. First of all, it's extremely rare to actually damage the front element of a lens. The optical glass used for front elements is MUCH more durable than people think, and modern multicoatings are extremely hard. In 20+ years, I've never damaged one, and I'm not particularly careful with my gear. Second, a minor scratch on the front element has a negligible effect on image quality. Deep chips can be a problem, but if you drop a lens hard enough to chip the front element, it's probably hard enough to chip it through a UV filter too. Third, cheap UV filters use shitty glass with shitty coatings or no coatings at all, and noticeably degrade optical quality. Even good multicoated filters will have a slight effect on optical quality because every air-glass interface increases flare and reduces contrast, and the really good ones cost nearly as much as replacing a front element. The only use I can see for a protective filter is if you're shooting somewhere where there's a lot of debris flying around, like a paint booth or welding shop.[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CC 2014 (Macintosh)Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2015:08:20 22:40:00Color Space InformationsRGBImage Width1920Image Height1080
>>3479948Thank you for the my man.
>>3480001How did you answer yes to 1) and no to 2)?
>>3477323I have one its comfy desu i have the mexican zarape one . Hasnt left my nikon since i got it , but will once i get my K5
>>3479562>lens resolutionhasn't that become irrelevant in most modern mid-high tier lenses?
I have the budget for a 24-70 f/2.8 or an 24-70 f/4 + a prime or 2.thoughts?
>>3480270That entirely depends on what you want to go for and what you shoot.My 2.8 is on my camera most of the time but I swap out for primes 40% of the time. Do you just want to use one lens? Then get the 2.8. An important question is also whether or not you can stomach 4.0 as your 'best'.
>>3480327>An important question is also whether or not you can stomach 4.0 as your 'best'.That's one stop. On modern cameras with good high ISO performance, that's completely trivial.
Found this on marketplace but I'm pretty sure it's not a GR III because it looks like it has a flash. Still a catch if it's a II or am I missing something?[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Image Width1080Image Height1310Image Created2019:05:16 10:46:32Image OrientationTop, Left-HandImage Height1310Image Width1080
>>3480360nvm, I'm dumb, it's a GR Digital III.
>>3480066I am also curious about this
is $20 for this good? its hakubra e.v tripod made in japan. i just need a tripod.
I've got an 80D and I'm wanting to get some decent glass. I usually shoot landscape/architecture so I was thinking about the 17-40L.Are there any better wide zooms for a decent price? Sadly the 16-35L is a bit out of my price range.
>>3480623Be a little different. Get one of the tiltshift lenses
>>3480555No.Pay 50 bucks more, and get a far stronger Tripod.Look up the Q999H on aliexpress.
I picked up a vintage Minolta 135mm Lens for my A7ii a couple weeks ago and I'm absolutely obsessed with using it.Can anyone recommend me some vintage lenses in 24mm, 35mm and/or 50mm? Doesn't have to be Minolta.
>>3480670>Q999Hand why should I get this over the 3Pod Orbit? being able to take out the center column to use it as a monopod is a cool feature, but what I really want is the ability to get as low to the ground as possible, and so far, it doesn't seem like this tripod can spread its legs at a 85 degree angle like the 3Pod can. also, wtf is that site? I'd much rather buy from adorama.
>>3480679Get the 50 f/1.4 Minolta MD. fast and sharp.
remember thep4k is not cheap. this is the cost of a basic setup
Is there any website you guys prefer to buy from? I'm looking to pick up a a7 iii and it looks like the prices are pretty even across all sites
Using kit lens with em10 mark ii, am i the only one who thinks the 40-150mm is better than the 14-42mm IIR?I can't quite place it, but it just feels like the images are much more satisfying from the 40-150.
Does micro four thirds still have a place in this world?[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width2000Image Height1500
>>3480759whats up with the lens on the left?also what a silly question
>>3480762The plastic bubbly ring is the light metering sensor
>>3480759Yeah it does, full frame is flavor of the month right now because of the A7.Once people see the bills of just how much they spent on full frame lenses, they'll crawl back to the aps C hole they came out of.M4/3 will always be king in fast action photography simple because the size portability and the low power cost of a small sensor.Though iphone has pretty much slayed entry level cameras and i wonder if hasselblad will ever release those moto mod lenses.On another note that american company that is developing Sigma's Foveon Sensor said 3 years minimum.
>>3480765>M4/3 will always be king in fast action photography simple because the size portability and the low power cost of a small sensor.is the autofocus good enough for action?
>>3480765>M4/3 will always be king in fast action photography simple because the size portability and the low power cost of a small sensor.LOL
>>3479933>>3479948A Hoya coated filter is like 12 bucks and there is almost zero perceivable difference. It's easier to clean than wiping shit on the front element and also protects the filter thread from dents which can really hurt the lens resale value. I've literally never heard of anyone replacing a lens part let alone an element. I imagine the cost would be astronomical just for a small part and even impossible in the case of legacy lenses.Sure a lens hood works too but sometimes the compactness of a filter is better. Just get both for peace of mind.
>>3480793Yeah, ghosting, flares, and reflections are imperceptible. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0CLPTd6BdsUV filters do essentially nothing and if you're putting a $12 piece of glass in front of the highly tuned lens you spent $1300 on, you're a literal retard.
>>3480795>Uses tiffen shit uncoated filter>Oh no my photos look worseTiffen is the worst brand when it comes to filter. You can clearly see the uncolored reflection when looking at it proving that it is indeed uncoated. An amazon search also shows that is it uncosted Just buy hoya and forget about it.Also the guy is new. Why does it matter if he buys a cheap filter for his $100 niftty fifty.
>>3480797>buy hoya and forget about it.Or literally don't waste the money that does absolutely nothing. Shit like flares and ghosting are still there on even the expensive ones.>Also the guy is new. Why does it matter if he buys a cheap filter for his $100 niftty fifty.Because they fuck with IQ on all lenses. The *only* time you go for a UV is when you're using one of the lenses that need a filter to be fully weather sealed and have no need of any other kind of filter.
Question for wildlife photographers--do you put clear filters on your telephoto lenses for protection it do you just rely on the lens hood alone? I just bought a 150-600mm and was pressured into buying a filter by the store saying I needed it, but upon looking online it seems most people do without as it can affect image quality and doesn't actually protect much. Plus when I got home I noticed it cost me over 200$ for the filter which is super steep. I'm thinking of returning it. Thoughts?
Are tiltshift lenses worth buying outright?Seems they're only built to serve that niche purpose of photography making renting them a more practical solution, yet I'd be willing to challenge that notion and buy one if there are ways to use them to achieve a more unique effect.On that note, any particular recommended lenses for the e-mount that don't cost an arm and a leg? Ideally under 700€, nothing fancy, f4 would even be okay. Would be using these on a tripod anyway.>pic related Samyang 24mm f/3.5 ~570€
thinking about upgrading to a longer/nicer quality macro lens than my ef-m 28mm, any recommendations? thinking about the tamron sp 90mm because i've got the 45mm from the sp line and the optics and build quality are great
>>3480800i would, protective filters are dumb
>>3480801>Seems they're only built to serve that niche purpose of photography making renting them a more practical solutionWhat? They're in the same price range as all other quality lenses. That's like saying a 300mm 2.8 or 85 1.2 only exist to be rented.
>>3480798Did you personally tested the expensive filters or are you just basing your opinion on that biased video? I've tested myself and saw no difference and the protection I get from a filter outweighs any neligible IQ reduction.
>>3480810No my point about the price was that a t-s lens' use case is far narrower than a regular lens. You'd get much more money's worth of use out of regular lenses than you would from a t-s, but both a priced similarly.Yes, a t-s is more complex to build hence the expense, but if you only use it very seldomly for those few moments its worth it to just rent it. The point was more about if there are more use case scenarios for a t-s, which would swing favor away from renting and just buying one.
>>3480801Not worth it to me. They are overpriced medium format lenses.It's far more affordable to buy APS-C mirrorless, then Tilt-Shift adapt the affordable FF DSLR lenses.[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeSAMSUNGCamera ModelEX1Camera SoftwareAperture 3.2.3Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.3Sensing MethodUnknownFocal Length (35mm Equiv)57 mmImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2012:06:24 11:30:03Exposure Time1/45 secF-Numberf/2.8Exposure ProgramNormal ProgramISO Speed Rating200Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashNo FlashFocal Length12.30 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width1255Image Height837Exposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessNormal
>>3480810>They're in the same price range as all other quality lenses.Wrong. T/S lenses for FF bodies are medium format image circle.
>>3480697>also, wtf is that site?Chinese amazon, with usually free shipping to the west.>and why should I get this over the 3Pod Orbit?Because it's half the price of the thing you sugested. Did you forget you original wanted to pay 20 bucks?>>3480555Fuckings trolls these days. Short term memory loses.
>>3476592What can I do to keep my Nikon d5x00 safe while mountain biking lads? Are the Hazard4 hard shell packs a meme? I'm starting to think I should just save it for hiking and carry a point-and-sloot.
>>3480752Adorama is nice. They've got a rewards program.
>>3480851>Fuckings trolls these days. Short term memory loses.wgat?
This guy again: >>3478921/vid/ convinced me that the a7s is the way to go for what I'm looking for. Seems like it would kick ass for concerts, but have mixed feelings about the 12-megapixel resolution.I still intend to do photo along with video, so I need something that will tackle both well. If I wanted to take up portrait gigs for example, would an a7s hold up? Should I be looking at the a7 or a7r? Or maybe a separate DSLR for when I think I'll need the extra megapixels?
>>3480912>so I need something that will tackle both well. I think the A7iii and Nikon Z6 are around the same price tag.Their low light capability is almost as good ad the a7s.
>>3480915Was looking at the a7 iii. It doesn't seem that much behind the a7s but would love to hear people's experiences.I don't even know if I'll need the crazy high ISO of the a7s yet but I don't wanna regret not having it.
>>34809177s has more detail in low light.But 7iii and z6 have really good noise reduction which will trick most people to believe they look almost as good.There are lots of low light comparisons on youtube.
I'm looking for a new lens for taking pics of my gf, mostly outdoor. Price range is about $1k and i've been looking at the Sigma Art f/1.4s online. Which would be better for me, the 50mm or 85mm on a APS-C (Nikon d7500)?
>>3481100Probably 50. 1.6 takes it somewhere to 60mm, for a newbie, which you apparently are, that's already tricky focal lenght. 85 isn't practical unless you know how to use it right.
>>3481121>1.6 takes it somewhere to 60mmwhat? The D7500 is 1.5, and wouldnt that make it 75mm?>newbieyeah, i impulse purchased it a month ago for a road trip along with a 18-300mm f/3.5-6.3, and the 10-20mm f/4.5-5.6 AF-P for video
>>3481122>>what? The D7500 is 1.5, and wouldnt that make it 75mm?yes, that's correct, don't listen to the other anon. The 85 would be technically 127.5-equivalent, but everyone just thinks of it as 135mm-equivalent, since that's a common focal length. You can take portraits at that field of view, the stereotypical portrait range is 85-135 (equiv). But its a bit long and you might find you want something shorter. also the Sigma Arts, though they're of sterling optical quality, are big, heavy, and expensive. Well, less expensive than some things, but still quite a bit. If you aren't sure of what you want, you might look into getting a cheaper 50. Especially since cheaper lenses tend to keep their flaws out toward the full-frame edges and corners, which your crop-frame camera will lop off.
>>3481123>big, heavy, and expensiveI'm fine with all 3.>If you aren't sure of what you want, you might look into getting a cheaper 50.I'm mainly just looking to get one good sharp lens, but am not really sure which focal length to go for. I guess I could just take pics with the zoom I have and see which works better, but i'm lazy and thought I would ask the autists on /p/.. I have no intention of being a real photographer or posting shit to instagram or wherever people do these things, I'm just using this for family/private photos. I'm not really looking to get a large collection of lenses, i have one travel lens, one for PoV video, and just want to have one nice one.
>>3481121wrong 1.6 takes it to 80mm equivalencynikon crop is a tiny bit larger at 1.5 which means it'll be a 75mm equivalent>>348110035mm af-d f/2 or the 35mm f/1.4 which turns it into 50mm.get her the nikkor 35mm af-d and a sigma 100-400mm if you have $1000 to spend, the af-d 35mm has much better color rendition and the corners won't matter because APS-C.if you want to get her a portrait lens get her the 85mm af-d 1.4. or 60mm af-d 2.8, both super sharp with good colors.
>>3481127I'm not buying it for her, im taking photos of her.
>>3481128ah I misread, my bad.my recommendations still stand but you could opt for going for a 24-70mm 2.8 which leaves you with a lot of flexibility.tamron 24-70 2.8 G2 is the sharpest one available and really nice to use on APS-C.
>>3481126if you want to see whether that's a focal length you like, set your zoom to 50mm and then put a piece of tape on the zoom ring to hold it there. Then spend a day taking photos.
>>3481127>85mm af-d 1.4. or 60mm af-d 2.8, both super sharpalso dxomark says 13 and 12 mp respectively vs 19 for the sigma.
>>3481132>dxomarkthe sigma equivalent to those lenses do better corners, but that's it
>>3481135I need to correct myself, sigma equivalents also do better wider apertures.center sharpness is about the same when you step down.the true strength of af-d lenses is that they're extremely sharp with good colors while at the same time costing much less.sigma lenses are extremely sharp thanks to being more modern, but there's not much more to them.
>>3481134DxO mark is a garbage site that should never be trusted for anything, especially product comparisons. Fucking Daddy Ken is unironically a better source of information on lenses.
>>3481142"please feed my children" ken? or "fat fuck" ken? because they're both good sources for lens reviews.
>>3481142doesnt feed my children ken just say that every lens is a great lens?
>>3481135Dxomark indeed is the worst site for lens reviews. Their lens database is small and outdated.
>>3481145If you read his wordsalad at the top of reviews, yes. If you actually scroll down to his test shots, he pretty clearly states and demonstrates the strengths and weaknesses of a lens in real world situations.
>>3481325I really wish there was something like the pentaxforums lens database for other mounts.
fuji (XT-1) replacement batteries? what are my options
Has anyone here use the laowa 9mm f/2.8 or slr magic f/4.0?Or should i just get a used Olympus 7-14mm f/4.0?
>>3481431Original or take your luck with 3rd party. I've had some with dot.foto batteries. Left one of them in the rain, stepped on it when looking for it the next day, somehow still works... Not fuji, shipped with plastic cap that I by some luck, had on the battery.
>>3481431From what I've read, of brands available in the US Watson are the best. Of the stuff elsewhere, I've tried Newmowa and Rowa Japan. The Newmowa ones are good and consistently give a few hundred shots or several hours of shooting. The Rowa Japan ones are pretty crappy in comparison, avoid those
>>3481737Thanks for the info. BH has Watson-brand batteries for $20 while Fuji brand are $60. Probably just going to buy 2 Watsons
>>3476671I picked up to aluminum manfrotto tripods for around $30 each and put a manfrotto fluid head on it, works good. I spent like $120 on the head and $20 on the RC2 qr plate
>>3481145Genuinely bad modern lenses are exceptionally uncommon. Some day you might get over the pixel peeping and discover that Ken is pretty much right about everything.
>>3476740It shifts the focal plane so only a shallow slice of the image is in focus. Looks like you're shooting a miniature wide open. Like the other anon said, its normally for architecture, but it can be fun to play around with in other ways.
I am wanting to get an every day type camera as carrying my DSLR is not practical (bag is already pretty full).I am a uni student running on limited funds, so will be looking 2nd hand. I have never had a smaller camera, so I am curious, is there much different between say a fuji 100/ricoh gr type, and a a6xx or olympus m43 with pancake lenses?Where I am, there are not to many Fujis or Ricohs floating around 2nd hand, but the others are plentiful enough.Cheers
>>3481742If it works good, it is good.I spent ~150$ on a 190XB leg, a 410jr geared head and a 498 ball head, all in good condition, the 410 was basically untouched, and an arca swiss qr replacement for the 498.
>>3481776Pentax MX-1, Lumix LX-100, used GR/II or a GRD IVAlternatively a GXR with the APS-C M-mount module (manual focus only)
>>3481776depends how compact and lightweight you want the camera to be. the low cost ones in 2nd hand market? sony a5100/a6000 plus kit lens (apsc 1.5 crop) , rx100 older versions (1" sensor, fits the hip pocket) . canon m100 (apsc 1.6 crop). go to a camera shop, try them to check if one suits you.
I'm kind of new to photography and I want to get a camera for shooting mostly cosplay pics, probably some street photography and maybe some wildlife during travel. Generally - a bit of an all-rounder, though video is not that important for me. I'm currently considering (in this specific order):1) Fuji X-T30 + XF18-55mm/f2.8-4.02) Fuji X-T2 + ^ (but it's hard to get where I live)3) Fuji X-T3 (but it seems pricey and overkill for me right now)4) Sony a6400 + E18-55mm/f3.5-5.6I also considered Sony A7 II, but it's full-frame and old in terms of technology.Any recommendations?Maybe something from outside the mentioned list? I'd like to keep the camera body under $1k, but if overgoing this limit a bit gives me a camera that I'll enjoy using for years and will be of much better quality than the <$1k segment - please feel free to recommend it.
>>3481784>unironically recommending a5100why would you want bad things for anon?
>>3481801this board is already worse, what else is new?
Need guidance from fellow Fujibros, 35 f2 or 1.4? I know the f2 is the technologically superior lens but the extra stop would be nice, people seem to like it. But it's hard to separate the wheat from the chaff with all the boomers raving about how "magical" the 1.4 is. Is it really worth giving up WR, fast focus, and the extra dosh?
>>3481776The Fuji and Ricoh cameras are great but the fixed lenses and lack of proper finder makes them somewhat limiting. The small Sonys have incomprehensibly bad ergonomics, and the larger Sonys are too large to pocket and still have sub-par ergos. Olympus or Panasonic m43 is the way to go for a very versatile pocket camera IMO. I've been using an OMD E-m5 for about six years and have been very happy with it.
>>3481862No an extra stop is not worth it.
>>3481799Fuji for great lens selection and ergonomics.Sony for adapting vintage lenses if you like having many lenses for cheap at the cost of manual focus only.For me, I shoot both film and digital so Sony is the logical choice as I can use all my lenses. Don't care for autofocus. However if I were to shoot digital exclusively, I'd get fuji without a doubt.
Nikon D5100? good for a first DSLR on a budget? Can get it quite cheap secondhand (good condition, 6500 shutter count).
>>3481887>the small Sonys have incomprehensibly bad ergonomicsSo aside from perhaps a bit of grip pain if you're handholding shots for 5 hours straight, they're fine.>>3481776Not to sony shill, but the a6000 is going for a pittance now that people are dumping their Nex6 line to upgrade to an a7 or better. Kit lens is a 16-50mm f/3.5-5.6 zoom and the whole deal is quite compact. It was 500€ new and is easily half that when second-hand now, with relatively few shutter actuations.
>>3481970What about the Sony a6500, or anything really at this price range that has image stabilization?Is in-built IS a big issue, or can I compensate with the right lenses + simply trying to be stable?
>>3481971the 7000-series is a lot better. also keep in mind that you're gonna be spending additional money on lenses in the future
>>3481976You could compensate with just healthy shooting techniques. Higher shutter speed, wider aperture, and situationally pertinent higher ISO all mean you have a less blurry image without tripod and without IBIS.
>>3481976I wouldn't buy anything without IS it helps in every circumstance
>>3481985I can get the D5100 for 150 aussie dollaridoos, with an 18-55mm lens and some extra little bits and pieces (bag etc)Cheapest D7000 i see is $300 body only, nothing else included, with 22000 shutter count. I know thats still not overly expensive, but with having to immediately buy a lens and probably a bag of some sort means it'll add up. Really more than i want to spend, i am already using a semi decent bridge camera quite happily (mums camera but she has basically given it to me). I just happened across seing the D5100 for $150 and googled it, seems pretty decent so i though for that low cost it would be a nice start.Also, why would having the D5100 mean i have to spend more on additional lenses? As opposed to having a D7000. i though lenses were pretty universal when you stay in brand.
>>3482000>Also, why would having the D5100 mean i have to spend more on additional lenses? As opposed to having a D7000. i though lenses were pretty universal when you stay in brand.kit lenses are kinda crap. The 18-55 is alright, but that's it. Much of the advantage of using a "proper" camera is being able to use much better optics. Glass>body.
Is it possible to swap the focusing screen of an EOS 2000D to something like a split-prism screen?The stock one sucks, I can't realy focus with it.Especialy when using it during nighttime it kind of sucks to take 3 pictures, zoom into each one and adjust to have one in focus.
i just ordered a canun g7x ii for $420.should i cancel?
>>3481799xt20, eos m50, used a7.
>>3481779>>3481784>>3481887>>3481975Thanks anons! I'll check some of these out!
>>3482020>2000DMaybe get a proper camera that has swappable focusing screens and a bright pentaprism viewfinder
tell me why I shouldn't go for an a7iii with tamron 28-75mm and the tokina firin
>>3482113New gear won't get you better photos
>>3482113I would suggest the zoom lens and see if it's enough for your needs.Try to make the best out of it, then consider the 20mm if the zoom isn't enough.
>>3482114old gear won't get me better photos than new gear either>>3482118thanks
>>3482112That would be kind of expensive for just a different focus screen.Also the brightness isn't an issue for me, I'm taking pictures at moonlight with no issues except that I can't see if it is focused properly.pic somewhat related[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS 2000DCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Express (Android)Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2019:05:19 20:00:17Exposure Time30 secExposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating800Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModeCenter Weighted AverageFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length50.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBRenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandard
>>3482120What you have in common there is you. Replace that one.
Pentax just committed suicide.And they are doubling down on DSLR.It's an extinction event happening before our eyes.>Takashi Arai: First of all, we'll continue the 645 line within the Pentax collection. But what we are going to compete against our [rivals with] is not the pricing, but the quality of the picture. [That's what's] most important within the camera. So we will still continue to study and produce a good camera with good image quality: That is also the same within the 645 medium-format line.>Dave Etchells: Mmm, mmm. So you're not trying to come out with a cheaper and cheaper model.>Takashi Arai: At the current moment, no.
>>3482255Why would they try to go cheaper? They already make the most fully featured bodies at the lowest price point...
>>3482258What else can they do?They can't raise the price.They can't release a new camera.In the meantime people buy from the competition.
Do the newer RX100's outperform the original in terms of image quality in any other are apart from being better in low light?
>>3482261*any other area
>>3482258This is the real problem they face>Since then, though, Hasselblad has announced the X1D, and Fujifilm has released their pair of GFX cameras. In particular, the GFX 50R is a new-generation camera, but it's about 10% less cost than the 645Z. What are your plans for your medium-format line, given the increased competition there now? It's been about five years since the 645Z was announced...
>>3482255Apparently people will switch back to DSLRs because....users have to guess their final result and WB and exposure...?>Hiroki Sugahara:I believe. Because as I said before, each system has its own benefits or appealing points. The mirrorless camera is very convenient to shoot, because users can [preview the final] image before shooting. But I believe the DSLR has its own appealing point, because users can create their own image from the optical viewfinder. People can see the beautiful image through the optical viewfinder, and then think how they can create their pictures -- for example, exposure level setting or white balance or ISO [sensitivity] -- and then imagine how they can get [the result they're seeking]. That is one of the big [advantages] of shooting [DSLR] cameras, so some users will come back to the DSLR system.
>>3482260What they're doing. Ricoh doesn't give a shit if Pentax makes money. This has been clear for years now.The biggest thing that's keeping pentax from having greater market share is simply merchandizing agreements. People see Canon and Nikon at Walmart, Target, Best Buy, Costco, Sam's Club, etc. Hell, even Fuji and Oly are in some Best Buys. I've seen Pentax at ONE brick and mortar camera store in the last five years. They don't have brand recognition outside of people who have already usually put their money in another system. Hell, I don't think I've seen a Pentax ad since magazines were a thing.But again, Ricoh doesn't care.On the more /p/ro side, Pentax needs to do two things for wider acceptance:>better PS>improve autofocus
>>3482265>People can see the beautiful image through the optical viewfinder, and then think how they can create their pictures -- for example, exposure level setting or white balance or ISO [sensitivity] -- and then imagine how they can get [the result they're seeking]. That is one of the big [advantages]They are still dreaming, they haven't woken up yet.It's like they think they are apple, and think people are waiting in line to spend 10 grands of the Pentax MF experience.
>>3482266>Ricoh doesn't give a shit if Pentax makes moneyThis isn't true, they have reacted with layoffs a few years ago, so they very much are against the idea of losing money.
>>3482270>This isn't true, they have reacted with layoffs a few years ago, so they very much are against the idea of losing money.I love when /p/ tries to business.
>>3482268I tried EVF and OVF and I prefer the optical viewfinder. EVF doesn't seem real to me and breaks my connection with the scene.I don't know if lag plays a role in it, but EVF is just too uncanny for me.
>>3482277I'm with you there, but for me it's more of a matter of functional fixedness. I'm actually kinda similar to what Hiroki was talking about. Seeing that screen representation of the image kinda shuts my mind off for any other possibilities in a way...makes it harder for me to think of any direction it could be taken. Probably just because I spent so long using OVFs, but yeah.
F-fuck. I just bought a used RX100 a month ago, and the 1" sensor makes everything I shoot beautiful compared to my old bridge camera.I want to drop serious money on a full size sensor camera now if the quality continues to rise based on sensor size.Talk me out of this. I've been taking digital pictures for 15+ years as a casual consumer slimeball, and I have never owned a SLR/DSLR. Is full frame sensor going to give you the best pictures, no contest?
>>3482288>Is full frame sensor going to give you the best pictures, no contest?no, large format will
>>3482290>>3482288Both are wrong. Clear vision, talent, preparation and dedication will give you the best pictures, not gear.
>>3482288Maybe get a tripod instead>>3480670You will be surprised how much more you can get out of the camera you already have by unlocking longer exposures.
>>3482292OK that sounds like a great idea desu.any cheap one will do, or are there are actual good and bad tripods? preferably one I can throw in my bag with the little baby RX100
>>3482296>>3482292I'm an idiot I see the one you linked now
>>3482299It's a high end tripod that only cost 75 bucks.And the best thing is you can use the Tripod for full frame systems as well.
>>3482288depends on what you mean by "best pictures"there are digital sensors larger than 35mm but as always, skill and lenses matters more when you want something sharp.full frame helps a lot though and the true strength for me is how much you're able to crop for web use because of how much usable detail you get and how sharp the overall image is, not to mention much better low light performance.
>>3482280>>3482277This isn't really what most people want. They want the slim camera to the right.The MF mirrorbox just isn't a practical size.
>>3482310Dude, only you talked about MF. Nobody here cares about MF apart from that one art repro anon who uses a 645z and he only uses it in studio. The paintings don't care about mirrorbox either.
>>3482313MF could have included a FF sized crop option as well.So with a single mirrorless mount, Pentax could have served both the MF customers as well as the FF customers.I completely unironically believe Pentax could win against Canon and Nikon, if only they went that route.
>>3482316>I completely unironically believe Pentax could win against Canon and Nikon, if only they went that route.That's because you're dumb.
>>3482318They are falling off a cliff right now.The RP is a fiasco. Pentax could have destroyed them.
>>3482319Like I said, you're dumb. You don't have to keep proving it.
>>3482323>Pentax can never win!>You're just dumb!
>>3482324But you seriously are dumb. You have literally zero clue what you're talking about if you think that graph means anything to anyone at all or says anything.
>>3482296If you want an edc tripod that you can dump in your bag while attached to your rx100, just get those $2-3 chink mobile phone tripods (joby ripoff but lighter and has quick release).
>>3482319> Starting the same illogical argument in another thread because you where being ignoredJust wait he will start telling you that a $4000 camera should never outsell a $1200 camera because reasons
>>3482319i thought the Kiss M was the best selling camera in the world?? what's up with this list?
>>3482377It's a list from a single retailer from a single month in a single country So with that in mind you can extrapolate camera sales from the past 15 years and the next 15 years
How much are Fujis X100F going for and is it worth it?[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:
>>3482381>from a single retailerThe other retailers don't even register RP on top 10.https://capa.getnavi.jp/news/297481/RP just disappeared from the surface of the planet.
>>3482261From rx100iii they have a new lens, sharper. If you want the best, get panasonic lx10.
>>3482113Because a gmaster is better
>>3482288No, Adox CMS-20 in medium format has the highest available resolution in the consumer market.You can scan it at 20.000 DPI and barely start to see the grain.
How many shots on a used sony a7 ii is a lot? Im looking at one where the guy says it has 5k count.Is it worth it?
>>3482478Follow-up question:Which of these better to get?A7 iiA6400A6500Speaking generally, without going much into what it's gonna be used for. Taking into account lens costs.
>>3482506The lenses cost the same.Sony e-mount lenses fit on all of those, just make sure to get Full Frame lenses, irrespective of the expense, not APS-C lenses.a6400 is paradoxically better than a6500 (retarded naming schemes) since it came out more recently than the a6500. Same specs but with a fully axiable flip out screen.They are still both crop-* sensors* however, so cannot make full use of FF lenses.This is why FF lenses will list an "Equivalent 35mm focal distance" which refers to the sensor size (carried over from 35mm film, not focal distance). Example, the Sigma 16mm f/1.4 prime I use on my a6000 has an "equivalent 35mm" focal distance of ~28mm since it would be as though you "zoomed in" to 28mm on a full frame.The a7ii is a FF sensor body, and can only be used efficiently with FF lenses; APS-C lenses will introduce heavy vignetting on your image, or cut off corners entirely since a lot of the sensor is blocked off by what is essentially a smaller focal plane, despite the image being in focus.