Full metal bodies editionPrevious thread: >>3483031All discussion and questions related to gear should take place in this exact thread.Redirection and answering questions in this thread is encouraged.And don't forget, be polite!
>>3487649Contact g1/g2. Yay or any? How difficult is it to get it repaired.?
>>3487662You can't, you effectively have a fancy paperweight.Besides that, the AF on the camera is crap and it is so massively overpriced it's really only for rubes.
hows the D3 by todays standard? Im switching to it from a d7100, is it going to be an upgrade or a downgrade?
best 100-150$ camera?? for just amateur use
>>3487712it's still good and definitely an upgrade in many ways but why not a d700 for a more compact use, hell for that price you could go for a d800 as well.you really need that burst rate and professional body? oh well I assume you already got it and it's pretty good but I fail to see what a casual user will get out of a body like that.
D700.... viable first timer DSLR?
>>3487751oh lord, the post right above this one is talking about a D700 also... j f c I guess it answers my questionUsed D700 > Entry level "baby's first DSLR" APS-C kit for same price?
>>3487718For that price range, you might be better off sticking with your smartphone until you get a bigger budget. If you're dead set on getting a camera, old 35mm film cameras in good condition with decent lenses can normally be found for cheap.
>>3487718Sony a7 RII
I'm saving for a d7200, actually using a d3000I want to get a speedlight that will work with both bodies.My question is: will a decent speedlight get me more usability from the d3000/get me closer to product ph first attempts? I also shoot a lot of portraits and want to learn flash photography to apply on analog
>>3487769Godox TT350 is small and has good power with TTL. I assmue Godox has a more powerful one with TTL as well, but if you get a manual Godox TT600 you can control it with wireless through the TT350 and with TTL as well.
>>3487762He can definitely buy something older that'll be a good entry into photographyD90s and such go for that sort of price range, maybe even some newer cameras if he gets lucky>>3487718
Can anyone recommend a nice economical lens that's good for portrait and/or cosplay photoshoots?Sony E mount, full frame please.I've seen recommendations for a 50mm f/1.8 and for 28mm f/2 (for a kind of "environmental portrait").
>>3487843Sony 85/1.4 GM
>>3487843If you want economical lens then you chose the wrong system. Replace body with a DSLR and you have a plethora of affordable excellent quality lenses to choose from.
>>3487847>affordable excellent qualityNah, affordability comes at its cost in its own way.
>>3487858[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:
>>3487862>extremely thick payer of purple CA at glass edge>completely sharp clarity of reflections in the drink>nothingIt's true that you should just stick to the cheapest if you can't see the difference.
>>3487864When you need to look at fucking 3:1 to notice anything, you're pixel peeping faggot and should be place before a wall and shot on spot.
>>3487868It's just a 1:1 crop.If image quality means nothing to you just stick to your smartphone.
Has anyone got any photos that were taken with a mirror lens? Curious about the image effect
>>3487877Have you tried google?Also /r/ the webm of the see-around garden tap
>>3487726because i found the d3 for 350$
>>3487914It is a big camera, it comes with big camera related things. Do you know what they are and are you ready for them? If your answer is at least one "no", then you don't really need one. Take the advice we gave you in this and the previous threads and get an intermediate/prosumer FF camera instead: D700, D750, D600/610, D800/810
what's a decent tripod legs + head combo for under $200? considering pic related
>>348791972 dollars for the Q999H
>>3487712>>3487914are you willing to get FX lenses to take advantage of the FF sensor? if not, it's probably not worth it.>>3487752>Used D700 > Entry level "baby's first DSLR" APS-C kit for same price?yes, but keep in mind (modern) FF lenses are much more expensive than DX ones>>3487769afaik, the only advantage of the D7200 would be nikon's wireless flash trigger system, which is only usable with nikon's speedlights. otherwise a good flash would work equally well on both.
>>3487922>>3487919pistol grips are nice. are there any downsides to them? I can imagine they might not be great for video. but if you're just shooting stills, they seem super convenient.
>>3487916im a big guy>>3487923ill get the 35-70 f2.8
Should I shell out $1200 more for the a7 iii now that the a7 ii is on sale? I was going to do so before I found out about the sale. I'm planning to just use it to take pictures of cosplayers at conventions.
>>3487947>I'm planning to just use it to take pictures of cosplayers at conventions.skip the camera
>>3487947The EyeAF in the 7 ii is a bit outdated. It doesn't have continuous tracking like the newer generation does.
>>3487937You don't need the D3 for the 35-70/2.8Get the 24-70/2.8 VR or VRII if you want to use it properly. Like I sadi it comes with big camera related things, this is one of them.Also related video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hk5IMmEDWH4From what you said you have a big chance to become THAT guy
>>3487959yeah but those lenses cost 2x the amount of the d3 and the 35-70 is only 150$ and its really not bad
>>3487981You must be either a romanian/bulgarian tier post commie shit or a brhue with that amount of poorfaggotry.If you can't dish out for the glass, you don't need pro gear. Now fuck off!
>>3487985not bulgarian/romanian but you were closefuck off, it's just a hobby and im not dropping 800$ for a lens
>new video-focussed S1 variant gets announced>4000 fucking dollaridoosWhy is the S1 line so fucking expensive? Is it because it's new and the new line hasn't paid off yet?
>>3487987Hungarian then, which is actually worse. Fuck off nazi shit!
>>3488002Pana actually poured a lot of time and resources into developing it instead of halfassing it like Sony did with the same pricetag
What is the chadest camera on the market?
>>3488019>full frame>rugged as shit>same sensor as d810 butt manages better noise performance>IBIS>pixel shift>fucking bargain>pic related
>>3488021Ok that's pretty cool
>>3488017Canon RR rated Canon, need I go further?
>>3488068more like Canon R shit
>>3488068have to agree its pretty chad like to go out and spend money on a piece of shit and give zero fucksliterally the mustang of cameras
>>3488070>>3488081Exhibit A: Virgins hate it.
should i offer $4K?
>>3487843Depending on what you call economical, the Rokinon/Samyang/Bower/etc. 35 and 85 1.4 MFs are really good for how cheap they are, and if you're willing/able to spend more the Sigma Art 35 1.4 is really fucking good too.
Haven't looked at bodies in a while, what APS-C or FF DSLR/Mirrorless has the fastest flash sync speed these days? MF with leaf shutters (too expensive) and systems with HSS (too weak for daylight shooting, not compatible with enough strobes) need not apply.
Is $675 a good price for an open box Fuji X-T20?
>>34881051/320 for the Panasonic S1 and S1R.Sony has 1/250 but if I remember correctly it only works with Sony speedlights and gets limited to 1/160 with third-party ones.I think that the Leica SL goes up to 1/250 with whatever speedlights (not limited to Leica ones like with Sony).The Nikon Z6 and Z7 and Canon R top at 1/200 while the Canon RP only goes up to 1/180.
>>3488145Olympus has 1/320 on original e-m1, but there was a catch with it. Either with one specific flash, or only with onboard one. Can't remember.
Which one and why. Assume you’ll only ever be shooting with the 50mm equivalent lens.[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width1280Image Height640
/out/bro here. I'm interested in getting a dedicated camera for outdoor shots, not looking to spend a ton on it seeing as I am a complete beginner with no photography experience. Max I'm looking to spend is around $300. Any help and advice would be greatly appreciated
>>3487752>>3487751>>3487726D700.Anyone actually used it, or is it another meme?About to pull the trigger on this one.
>>3488151the one with a FF sensor.
>>3488145> limited to 1/160>Canon RP only goes up to 1/180.the fuck my T6 does 1/200
>>3487923>the only advantage of the D7200 would be nikon's wireless flash trigger systemThat system also requires a WR-R10 which is out of stock everywhere and costs like $130, and is a tiny dongle just asking to get lost.
>>3488157D700 is one of Nikon's flagship cameras which people still hold on dearly today. There's no video options, but for photo, it is good enough. A cult favorite so to say among Nikon users.
I have a shitty 55-250 lens and a crop sensor cameraIt's just not proving to be enough for birding.Given my relative poverty, should I consider a teleconverter or will that degrade the quality of an already not great lens too much?
>>3488241That's the consensus yes. I just wanted to hear what's what from someone who actually used the camera.
>>3488306Dude, it's a fully featured, "pro" level camera. It has a great build quality, but the electronics are slightly dated so you will have to worry a bit more about getting exposure right, it won't be able to clear its buffer quite as fast as newer bodies, there won't be the latest "greatest" features that have been crammed in, autofocus will be a bit slower than the best stuff now, and that's about it. Literally same shit as with any body from the last 5 or so generations. It's perfectly capable and more capable than you. Just like a 2005 Rebel.
>>3488151Pls halp. Any super obvious disadvantages to either?
>>3488151>>3488335why would you ever buy a m43?Xpro 2 is fucking sexy, and I've only heard great things about the hybrid viewfinder. What do you want to shoot though? Which system would you want to own in 15 years when both bodies are obsolete? Also xpro 3 probably released sometime this year
>>3488156Same nazi shit
>>3488172It's based on the 6DII, both the 6D and 6DII have 1/180 flash sync.
>>3488151Pen will be cheaper considerably smaller and lighter, and it has larger lens collection. Cheaper quality 25mm lens as well. Xpro, larger resolution, a bit better low light performance, and xtrans hybrid viewfinder. Xtrans is bit of an advantage and drawback. Controls are some of the best in the market for both of them.Not sure why you're looking at them really. They're not in the same pricerange.
>>3488350What did nazis do to you?
>>3488376super tiny, if you're into that, but doesntr have Pana's IBIS
>>3488104Thanks, I saw this samyang somewhere as well, seems interesting to me.Maybe I'll buy it later for MF experience, but for now I've settled on a sony 50f18 cuz it's dirt cheap on a local promo.As for the sigma art 1.4... when i go into this price range i think a used sony Zeiss 85f18 might be a better bargain, correct me if I'm wrong with this one.
>>3488309You didnt use it, why you answer?
>>3488376IMO, get something better.
Best lens for a t3i for $200?
>>3488367They are in U.K. only about £100 in it. Thanks for info fellers.
>>3488415the one you have with you
>>3488415Canon 24mm stm
I have a deal setup for a good, used Sony a7 rII… thing is if I drop my money on it, I'll only be able to get a Sony FE 28-70mm lensIs that sufficient for a newbro or do I need to start out with multiple lenses w/ a cheaper body?
>>3488471The Tamron RXD zoom is a massive step up from that.I would go for that lens. Then a body that fits it.
>>3488473I am beginning to think I am too much of a poorfag for this hobby
>>3488473>Tamron RXD zoomomg these sample photos are the crispest thing I have ever seen
can't I buy really amazing vintage lenses and just buy a $20 adapter and jam them on a sub-$1000 Sony A7 II ?
>>3488471I don't understand why everyone thinks a7r will somehow make you a good photographer. It won't, it's ff camera with good image quality, but it's very hard to use, has notoriously bad Sony controls, and practically demands to be used exclusively with a tripod. Not to mention that you'll need a fortune in storage and powerful enough comp to process massive raws you'll get out of it. Just buy lower priced body, and rather spend most of the money on various lenses that'll teach you the hobby. Save the rest for future.
>>3488476that's why I bought an A6K and Smegma 1.4 dc dn lens instead
>>3488476That's why many people start with APS-C then later upgrade to Full Frame.For your information, that Tamron lens is actually superb street lens on a cheap APS-C camera.It's equivalent to a 42-112mm zoom.
>>3488500As long as you're not starting with Sony apsc, it's like shooting yourself in the foot before a marathon.
>>3488422>>3488499you guys are really bad people
>>3488485a7r is pinnacle of technology and any other camera is basically trash now due to sony's exclusive ability to innovate, so this is why it is sought after so much
>>3488415EF-S 24mm stmEF 50mm stmEF-S18-135mm IS STM used
>>3488512>sony's exclusive ability to innovateUh whut?"Big sensor, genius!"The only thing Sony invented is horrible ergonomics and lying about weather sealing
>>3488523backlit sensor homie.
>>3488523>shooting at 24 MPhahahaha omg, ok if it makes you happy or w/e
>>3488512>>3488523A lot of companies are innovating the sensors. But Sony is definitely the leader at the moment.
>>3488528>A lot of companies are innovating the sensors.not really. It's basically just Canon and Sony going at it. Fuji is still jerking off their dumb as hell xtrans, but not really doing anything new. Pentax and Nikon use Sony sensors. The coolest thing Leica has done was make a true monochrome with the M, and how long ago was that?No, we're in kind of a bad place because Sony holds the key to the big keystone technology that still is currently the unique solution. Until someone successfully comes out with a competing technology, we'll continue to see only Canon and Sony really doing much.
>>3488528>>3488530Oh yeah and the foveon that's quickly going nowhere and being adopted by no one.
>>3488530>No, we're in kind of a bad placeI wouldn't really call it bad. Sony isn't stagnating, they are forcing themselves to keep innovating because they want to automated car market.That's why you have seen the babysteps towards 960FPS video recording.They will keep innovating, just not with our market as the driving factor.
>>3488534>They will keep innovating, just not with our market as the driving factor.Which isn't a good thing for those of us interested in photography.The history of digital has been pushing into the dark end through higher ISO sensitivity and better noise characteristics. We've been pretty much where we need to be for that. What we need for photography is someone working on improving the handling of the bright side and the graceless drop that digital gets there.
>>3488530Isn't Panasonic the one doing the organic sensors?
I have a fuji x100 and a Nikon D5300since I got the fuji I never touched the Nikon again expect when I want to use the Tamron 70-300I'm spoiled by the evf from the fuji and love how compact it is Switching between the cameras/using both is annoying, wish I could mount a zoom lens onto my x100what do I do now? sell my dslr and invest money into a fuji aps-c camera and lenses? Invest into sony fullframe because why should I invest into aps-c again? do something completely different?
>>3488548Get an xpro2 lad.
>>3488545Those are just more of the same pushing into shadows that we've already seen if the tech actually does go anywhere.A slightly interesting thing that could happen more easily with organic sensors is not rating the entire sensor at the same ISO (which might actually be how they are achieving the wider dynamic ranges that they're talking about, not sure about that though). But yeah, it's just an iteration that allows for finer control. Nothing so much as innovative as manufacturing can handle small enough components to do it finally.
>>3488545Pretty much only cam so far to use Panasonic sensors is S1R, and I seriously doubt it's yet. But it is the best sensor on the market, so I'd say that the future is bright for them.
>>3488473I think I am going to take your advice. The entire reason I want to jump to full frame pro camera is CRISPNESS, and that lens exudes crispness
is Zeiss a meme or legit quality product?
>>3488591so german designs but manufactured in japan = amazing? seems legit
>>3488589Sonyzeiss is same as Panaleica. Good but overpriced. Zeiss themselves only make high end cinelenses.
>>3488598the zeis 24-70 is cheaper used than the Tamron RXD zoom by like half
>>3487923yongnuo yn560 iii + rf605 i can get this combo new here in argentina for 170usd, is it worth for d3000, do i need the rf or im better of saving for a new camera?
>>3488600they're the same price new (~$800) and the zony is f/4 while the tamron is f/2.8
>>3488598>Zeiss themselves only make high end cinelensesYou sure about that? and ZX1 soon too.
Now that IBIS is getting pretty good can we expect to see lenses manufactured without stabilization and other crap that makes them so fucking massive?Will we ever see a resurgence of small primes like the Pentax Limiteds or more compact telephotos?
>>3488619>Made in JapanAll of them. Zeiss Germany only makes cine lenses.
What would be a better lens to use for portraits on a crop sensor? The 85mm 1.4 or the 35mm 1.4?
>>3488652wouldn't the 50mm L be best I often hear 70~85mm is best for portraits so 50mm on 1.6 crop is 80mm
>>3488657I only have those two options to be able to rent for however long I want, cause I can't afford to actually buy either of those. Another option is the 70-200. This is just going to be used for a photoshoot that'll last one day.
>>3488619If I am not mistaken, the only non-cine lens made by Zeiss in Germany is the Leica M-mount Distagon 15mm f/2.8 in Germany, the other photography lenses (including the Otus line) are made in Japan by Cosina Voigtländer.
>>348865285 on a crop means you’ll need a lot of working distance between you and your subject. I shoot 85 on a full frame and I don’t like being so far from my subject. But that’s a personal preference I guess, still something you should consider.
>>3488423I’d say 50mm stm but damn is that lens a close second.
>>3487649Sorry for the basic question, but the site on the sticky doesn't seem to work...I'm an illustrator and I've been very interested in photography as a way to experiment with composition. What would be a decent and affordable analogic camera for a complete begginer?Thanks[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS5.1 WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image Width2477Image Height3500Number of Bits Per Component8, 8, 8Pixel CompositionRGBImage OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2014:01:18 20:53:23Color Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width1646Image Height2492
>>3488697Analogic? You mean.......film? Or a snakecam for inspecting prostates?
Will I get buyer's remorse?
>>3488698Language barrier... yes, film
>>3488701No worries friendo. Are you looking to shoot 35mm or something bigger?Do you prefer something older and manual or something with electronics and autofocus? Interchangeable lens or compact?
>>348865285, but the 35 will be more flexible in tight spaces and environmental portraits
Picked up some vintage lenses for cheap recently, they are Minolta AF lenses, but i'm running micro 4/3.I figured i could buy an adapter for them, but i'm unsure which mount they use.Are they Sony A mount? is it still the same mount?A lense for reference >Minolta AF 70-210mm F4Also is there any adapter i can use that is able to use autofocus with these lenses?
>>3488699Hey man, if you don't need 4k and want more control over the camera, get the EM10 Mark II, because it gets a free 40-150mm f4.5-5.6., and its only $500 instead of $600. Note that it comes with the 14-42mm IIR lense, but it has better image quality than the EZ lens.If you were in EU i would say get the Mark III because they get a free 50mm prime lense.Go on olympus's website they still have the deal i believe.
What lens should I use for a wedding on a DSLR? A friend is getting married and I want to get experience taking shots of it for fun. I have a D7200 with 35mm lens.
>>3488714>Are you looking to shoot 35mm or something bigger?I don't know what this means, so probably 35mm(?) Simple stuff>Do you prefer something older and manual or something with electronics and autofocusManual, I want to learn by having complete control>Interchangeable lens or compact?Following the same logic, interchangeable would be better, no? So maybe a budget set, something very basic
>>3488797Well if that's the only lens you have that's your only choice
>>3488804Get out, you have no idea what you are doing.Use your phone or some cheap compact, to see if you won't drop photography next week.
>>3488797A fast one if you're going to shoot indoors.
>>3488145Damn, that's disappointing. I guess MF is still the only game in town for fast sync with studio strobes then. >>3488151The Fuji is the one I actually bought. Never tried the 50 equivalents though, I've always hated that FL and strongly prefer 35s and equivalents, the 23 1.4 is my mainstay lens and it's great.
>>3488859Yeah, Hasselblad, Phase One or Pentax 645Z (with one of the leaf shutter lenses), unless you can make-do with a Fujifilm X100.
is A7 II shit? I can't afford A7 III body
>>3488973It will give you good images.But has a lot of usage issues.I never recommend it because I don't want to hear increased amount of people whine about its problems.
>>3488973If you can't afford a7iii body, don't buy a7ii, since you won't have for the lenses these bodies requires.
>>3488990Yeah, that's just silly... Honestly, but apsc fuji mirrorless instead. Don't bother with ff mirrorless unless you're able to spend a grand on one lens, and another couple of hundreds on a tripod.
>>3488154Film camera for half that price, no need for batteries so you can do a thru hike and still take pics.OK if you don't like film then personally a phone would've been better as I learnt myself. I brought a D7200 with me because it's the only one I had, and I regularly... just left it in my pack. It's too troublesome to take out. Buying a compact is dumb because it's gonna end up getting fogged or sweaty or what not. I got a note 8 that I kept in my pockets, even during kayak sections because it was waterproof and that was quite satisfactory.
>>3488995I doubt he can afford fujifilm either for that matter.they are the most overpriced APS-C brand.The answer is smartphone as usual.
>>3488995>>3489004sorry y'all I didn't think folks were seeing the post before I deletedbasically the Tamrom 28-75 reviews have me sold, along with anon's recommendation on here. It is ~$900 USDIt's just a bit more expensive than the Zeiss meme lens I was going to get for a first lens.I wanted the A7RII but those are $1,200 used for a body, so $1100 USD for a toy is a bit much for me. I "can afford" it but I am a filthy consumer and not a real photographer so don't know if it's worth it to me.Sick of bridge cameras having tiny sensor
>>3488797The 18-140mm 3.5/5.6 is super flexible and quite sharp. You can get one refurbished for under $300.
>>3489006You're correct that the sharpness and image quality characteristics are mainly inherent to the lens' quality.Have you considered the A7?It's the first rendition of their camera.It has a lot of shortcomings but it's the lightest FF camera around, and cost like 700 dollars or something like that.
>>3489009Well, I've found I can get an A7 II, body only, for about $575 - $600 if I snipe an auction on ebay. Doesn't the original A7 lack the in-body stabilizing of the II?
>>3489013>$575 - $600That's very cheap. Good luck anon.
>>3488973I just got an a7ii and I’ve been adapting ef and minolta sr lenses. I fucking love it.
>>3489013Yeah, IBIS showed up for the a7ii. It’s a fucking treat to have too. Even works with old manual focus glass.
i bought some watson and wasabi batterys because I didn't feel like spending $60 on a single fuji XT1 batterywas this a bad idea
>>3489090with batteries, you get what you pay for
>>3489098Not from my experience. There is no difference between them.
>>3489033>>3489034So would I be stupid to pick one up cheap, but only have something boring like a Sony branded lens?/p/ has made me believe I should spend most of the cash on a sick lens instead of the camera
>>348911610 years from now, that Tamron RXD will still be superb and work handily with an A7 mark6 body.Whereas the bodies today won't seem so hot anymore.I think the Sony branded lenses are outside your budget. That's why people suggested the Tamron and the adaptedmanual lenses.
>>3488825Heh, I mainly just take snaps with my phone up until I started to develop more interest in photography as a side hobby. Planning to get more into astrophotography eventually but that's like in the distant future, my hopes and dreams anyways for a past time hobby.>>3488846>>3489008Gotcha. I'll look into it.
>>3489101>>3489098In my experience the "you get what you pay for" is more correct.My three Nikon en-el15s that are about 4 years old still give me around 6 hours of shooting long exposures each.The 2 Best Buy knockoffs I have only last about 3 hours doing long exposures.The 1 duracell knockoff lasts about the same as a new one but also costs about the same as an oem.As they're all rated to the same mah, I think it's more of a quality control thing than a quality thing because I know a couple of people who are just as hard on batteries as I am-I don't store them correctly, I have them out in really hot and really cold weather, I totally discharge them and leave them dead for a few days before I get around to charging-that get great times out of the BB knockoffs.
would i be a dumbo if i bough the A7, the newer models seem too pricey
>>3489209How will you afford lenses?
>>3489209Yeah. The old model really is getting behind technically. The A7II is the minimum if you don't want to get completely frustrated with your camera.Keep some room in your budget for decent lenses too.
>>3489209Pros:Full FrameCheapVery lightweigtNice aluminium dials.Cons:Everything else, And that's a lot of cons.
>>3489215Any alternatives in a 1000 euro range?
Beginner amateur here. I've been doing photography for about six months and I have a question regarding upgrading lenses. Is it one of those scenarios where if I have to ask if I should upgrade, I'm probably not ready to?
>>3489216btw im not like a proffesional or anything i had a couple of courses at school and had alot of fun, just wanted to spend the summer taking pictures
>>3489216>>3489218There are probably a lot of alternativees.The old A7 shouldn't even cost 1000 euro.
>>3489220A7 and 2 lenses are about 1000 euros, I thought it was a good idea
>>3489217That entirely depends on your portfolio and your wishes. If you feel like you want to replace a lens one by one you might have made a bad choice before but if you want to buy things to supplement your options that's always good I would think.
hii like my k1thanks for listening[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeGoogleCamera ModelPixel 3Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.5.1 (Windows)Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.8Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaFocal Length (35mm Equiv)27 mmImage-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpiImage Created2019:04:30 10:55:20Exposure Time1/8 secF-Numberf/1.8Exposure ProgramNormal ProgramISO Speed Rating78Lens Aperturef/1.8Brightness0.1 EVExposure Bias0 EVSubject Distance0.44 mMetering ModeCenter Weighted AverageFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length4.44 mmColor Space InformationsRGBRenderingCustomExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessNormalSubject Distance RangeMacro
>>3489231Nice camera. I just got rid of my 70-200 (pic related) and miss it already but it was for good reason: I'm planning to get 200 f/2 instead.My hoarding days are over. I got rid of 9 lenses and 3 bodies last year, and it feels good. Especially the bodies. I mean, I loved my D300s but why would I ever use such a dated sensor? It was essentially a paperweight for the past 6 years.[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:
>>3489235im only just starting to get a collection of gear,started shooting with a k50 and a few different cheap lenses, decided it was time to upgrade.should probably sell the k50 now, it's fine, but if i use it for anything ill just be thinking "the k1 would have done it better"i don't wanna hoard too much gear but i sure do like buying shit.
>>3488154Sup outbro look for a D7000. Mine was about 350 with no lens but this was a couple of years ago and it was pretty much new with only 3000 shots on it. A good lens would be a 50mm 1.8d. Super cheap and takes some decent shroom pics.
So like. What shoulder strap do you guys use?
I can get a Canon 60D and i get to choose between two of them:1. Roughly 35000-40000 shutter releases with two batteries, programmable remote, meike battery grip, straps and all that jazz. I can get a 50mm 1.8 lens (non-STM) for additional ~43 usd from this guy as well.2. roughly 15000 releases, two batteries, simple push-button remote, straps etc.Both are for the same price (just body) of ~325usd. Which one would you pick? I don't think i will find a use for the grip desu. This price is as low as i can find here.
>>3489284I use the blackrapid breathe cross shot. It’s well made, versatile, and not cumbersome.
>>3489316Does it have to be a canon? Because the camera the guy above you is talking about is better and should be around the 60D's price. All the canon has going for it is a couple pickles and the flippy screen.
trying to decide on a mf camera. right now i have a few cameras in mind bronica sqa or etrs, mamiya 645, or a fuji gw690ii. any opinions on any of these? it'll be my first time with mf and i'm basically trying to do it cheap and reliable. the gw690 really seems like the winner just because of the 6x9 frame.
>>3489485Well i liked the fact it runs magic lantern and that it is cheap. Why so anti-canon?
>>3489485i asked in different thread about buying a D5100 or D7000 and i was told i will regret it. I get to work with the D5100 and video quality is pretty meh. Also no nifty controls of mic input etc.
>>3489508¯\_(ツ)_/¯ its possible
>>3489513DSLRs won't exist in 5 years - it'll all be about the interchangeable mirrorless cameras and APS-C cameras and their lenses are just not worth investing in until they are dirt cheap from nobody wanting or supporting them anymore.
Is a D610 still worth? Literally everything will be an upgrade for me since I have a D3000, but I want something in the 300-500 range that will last me at least 5 yearsCan someone enlighten me on PENTAX? They seem to have much better features for better price.I'll be using it for fashion/product ph
>>3489510Well if you feel like people are anti canon it's because they gimp their shit too much. Take for example the D7000 and the 60D, both came out in the same month but under the hood they're years apart. Nikon usually wins when compared to its canon competitor.As for magic lantern, while I do think it's a valid reason to go with canon. It's not as relevant nowadays as it was before with what sony and panasonic offer. And even fucking nikon out of nowhere upped their video from one of the worst to one of the best (if not currently the best under 2000).Dunno about you but me and many others would rather go with a brand that wants to improve.
Anyone knows what's new in ver.II?
Is there any alternative to the 85mm equivalent for Fuji? My wallet is dancing around a X-T20 with a 18-55 2.8-4 kit and I know their lenses are superb in quality, but I'm trying to at least get another faster wide and semi-tele for portraits and it seems quite expensive (or should I go for canon/nikon bodies for the more available/cheap lenses?)
>>3489734The later right now. Fuji is doing Sony with lenses. They lure you in with cheap bodies, then you notice every quality lens is few grands. Their kits and lower end stuff is at least half decent, though. Sony has some truly atrocious stuff in their lineup.
>>3489714Optical redesign, I watched some reviews and it looks to be much better.
>>3489008I use this 90 percent of the time on my d7100
I just can't win a cheap A7 RII - the demand is just too highWhat is a Nikon or Canon full frame alternative AND a lens that produces equal sharpness to the Tamron 28-75 RXD? Any thoughts?
>>3489741Are you me?
>>3489745Considering it's a kit lens that was sold with the D7100 at department stores... no?
>>3489714Christopher frost just reviewed it. Can’t be assed to link though.
Is there such thing as a hip pocket camera with interchangeable lens? Preferably with a prime and a zoom that go with it.
>>3489907 There are rather small interchangeable lens cameras with some small lens choices. (For example Pentax Q, but I have no idea if it actually works in practice better than a P&S.) Nope if you are actually going to carry the camera in your hip pocket. A smaller P&S might fit and a tough one would also take the abuse and lint.
Someone redpill me on speedboosters.As far as I'm concerned they let you save what would otherwise be a wasted outer region of a full-frame lens image by concentrating it into the space of a crop lens.This all seems fine and dandy, you effectively get an extra stop of light and you get full use of the minimum focal-length of the full frame lens. Everyone wins.What I don't understand is why these are only made as an intermediary adapter between different mounts. Eg, I'd like to make full use of my FF Sigma 16mm 1.4 on my a6000, but every single speed booster that exists serves to solely go between canon's full frame EF mount lenses to something else.Am I missing some crucial understanding here about speedboosters or do people just not make what I am looking for?Also, whats with the funny little foot/pedestal on all of them?
>>3489924>As far as I'm concerned they let you save what would otherwise be a wasted outer region of a full-frame lens image by concentrating it into the space of a crop lens.That's a bizarre way of looking at it, especially considering they existed long before digital cameras or crop sensors.>Everyone wins.No. Every air-glass interfaces always comes at a cost. They're going to increase flare and reduce contrast. The cheap ones shit all over the optical quality of your lens. Anyone regularly using a speed booster on a good lens is a retard. One stop is negligible with the high ISO performance of modern digital cameras, so I really don't see any reason for speed boosters to still exist.>Am I missing some crucial understanding hereNo. Apparently nobody makes what you want.>Also, whats with the funny little foot/pedestal on all of them?Tripod mount. It's a holdover from the old days when people pretty much only speed boosters on very long tele lenses in order to reduce the focal length and gain a little speed.
>>3488652Get a lens designed for crop sensors and you won't be carrying around wasted optical performance in the form of additional weight and cost.
>>3489934Then he just lose ability to use full frame.And the cost isn't really cheaper than FF lenses.
Which is betterA6000+Decent lens (maybe can afford 2 decent ones)ORA6400+Kit lensI'm a noob, I only had a shitty superzoom camera before. I mostly took landscape pictures, wildlife and street photos. Oh and eventsWhich might be the better option?On the one hand, if I go with A6000+decent lens, i can just upgrade the A6000 next year on a bigger budget and still have decent lensOn the other hand I could go for the much more modern 6400+Kit lens. Figure out what I really wanna photograph and then get decent lens for that specific thingAnyone?
>>3489957oh yeah, just to saymy own gut feeling says that the A6000+decent lens is the way to gobut I know nothing about anything so I thought I'd ask here
>>3488021If only it did good video to go along with that IBIS. Classic compact Pentax glass, stabilised for video would be a saucy combination.
>>3489957If the "decent lens" is a full frame prime, then get the a6000. Unless you *need* 4k video, then start saving for the a7Riii. The a6000 is fine, although it cannot charge while being used. The others can.
>>3489962yeah I don't do video, so 4k and the fully flipping camera of a6400 is not importantim not sure about the decent lensI've been looking at some sigma and sony lensesSigma 16mm F1.4 either Sony 35mm F1.8the OSS of the sony could come in handy idkmaybe the sony 18-135 as telephoto?
>>3489966Are you me? I have that same Sigma 16mm 1.4, effective equivalent focal distance will be 28mm due to a crop sensor.However it does not have inbuilt stabilisation, neither does the a6000. Do the sensible thing and get an IBIS lens or make sure to upgrade to a body that does have it. If you cheap out now, you will pay for it sooner or later. That being said it's its a great inexpensive lens.OSS lenses are basically the IBIS of Sony, so either of those should be okay. Still, I hesitate to buy crop-lenses if the intention is to eventually upgrade. Which you want to do. Which is not up for debate. I guess the Sigma isn't a *true* FF, lens, there is a little bit of shadowing on the corners, but this is less apparent with the Sigma at 16mm than with say the 18-135 aps-c zoomed to 56mm.All depends on how much your budget is willing to future proof itself.
I want to sell my DX glass and buy a prime for FF since im buying a d610 by decemberI think 50mm is best choice since will give me the same crop as the 50 1.8 apsc I mostly shoot portrait and product, is nikkor the cheapest choice?
>>3490002Wait is the 50mm f1.8g FX compatible?
>>3490002>>3490008Why not get the new Z-mount 50mm F1,8 lens instead?
>>3490002>>3490008Yeah, the 50mm 1.8G is a FX lens.In fact Nikon only has 4 DX primes:- 10.5mm f/2.8G (fisheye)- 35mm 1.8G (not to be confused with the FX one)- 40mm f/2.8G (macro)- 85mm f/3.5G (macro)For portrait you could look at a 85mm f/1.8G (or indeed a 50 f/1.8G for a less tight framing).Another option for both portrait and product could be the 105mm f/1.8G or a Tamron 90mm f/2.8.Note that I am only listing current lenses, Nikon also has some nice older ones.Another thing, if you can gather the cash I would go for a D750 instead of D610.
>>3490016He's talking about getting a D610, what would he do with a Z-mount 50mm f/1.8S?
>>3490016Because i dont want a Z series
>>3490018Nice, I already have the 50 1.8gThen i will look forward for the 105 or 90 if I end up getting the d610 instead of a d750 now that it has been mentioned
Been thinking about a camera-purchase for like a month now, and still am not able to decide. I realize the decision isn't really about money or need, it comes down to whether new gear will get me photographing again or not. So my question, has it worked for you? Buying gear to get the inspiration back?
I haven't done camera research in a long time but the last time I did was 6 years ago. At the time the Cx405 sony handycam was a decent buy. Is that still true today?
Panasonic lx100 or Sony Rx100 III?I'm having trouble deciding although I leaning towards the Panasonic due to the manual controls and it's superior looks.
>>3490027Yes. But I'm seeing myself more as a dry photographer, not an "inspired" artist. I shoot situations, things and locations that are interesting and relevant to me plus I occasionally share and publish those that would be relevant to communities I'm active in and random strangers on the internet.My personal contribution isn't usually much more than shooting them adequately. So it perhaps matters more greatly to me how well this "adequately" works out in relation to the time and effort I have to put in.
>>3490002> Go FF instead of APS-C> Get a mediocre lens and bodyAre you sure that's not a flawed plan? A good lens on APS-C may be a better compromise (or wait until you can put a good lens on FF).
>>3490067I have the 50mm 1.8g which i didnt knew was fx, so no worries with thatIs the D610 that bad? i dont think I willbe able to spend much more than that
hi /pee/, I'm unable to choose between the EF-S 17-85mm and the EF 24-85mm. anyone have experience with either or both that can share their opinion?
New to cameras. Is a Nikon D5600 good for taking pictures of the moon or night skies?
>>3490242The D610 isn't bad but the D750 is much nicer to use if you can afford the difference
>>3487923if he's willing to use manual focus, older Nikon lenses can be found on the cheap and have excellent optical quality
>>3490249If you want to take good quality pictures of the moon or night skies, be prepared to spend much more on lenses than on the D5600 iself.
>>3488154If you can find a D610 for that price jump on it, otherwise a D7100/D7200 would do perfectly
>>348879750mm 1.8. Yongnuo makes a shockingly good one that you can buy new for <$60
>>3490253We talking 3k plus?
>>3490244Do you plan to move to full frame anytime soon? If not, go with the EF-S. Image stabilization and a more useful zoom range on a crop sensor.
>>3490249>>3490261sigma 100-400mm + a good tripod + any nikon body after 2009 is what you want.>>3490242>>3490251a d800 is 20% more expensive and the extra coin is nothing compared to what you're getting, it's larger and built better but not much heavier as well.
>>3489966If you really want a decent lens then go for one of the Sigma 1.4 lenses. OSS is nice but for stills, you can get away without one unless it's for telephoto use handheld. Or just get the 18-135 kit lens as a decent zoom with OSS. As an A6000 user, I just use the 16-50 kit lens which I use more than my Sigma 30 1.4 since the former is lightweight and compact for edc and travels even though some say it's a meh lens, I have no issues with it for general snaps. Then I use the Sigma 30 1.4 for portraiture, casual events, lowlight shots. 1 zoom and 1 prime setup works for my needs. Also, I'd get the A6400 rather than the A6000 but that will depend on your budget tho my A6000 is still serving me well.
>>3490002An 85 1.8 will be the nearest to the 75 equiv.
>>3490261Well, there are various price points but on APS-C the Tokina 11-20 f/2.8 (or earlier 11-16) is a nice and affordable zoom lens for night sky stuff.On the affordable prime side you have the Samyang 10mm f/2.8 and 16mm f/2.
brosrx100 III for 300€ or g9x mk2 for 270€
So, I really like the Pentax K-1.I really have no fucking idea about DSLRs. I just want to get into photography.Is current-day pentax a meme?I know they were highly regarded many years ago.
>>3490534>Is current-day pentax a meme?The body itself is fine.But the optics are less so.You will also be looking jealously at the Canikon mount which has access to awesomely affordable 3rd party lenses.It's a brand that will live and die by the DSLR. They have admitted they will never make the transition to mirrorless.
>>3490244IS is far far more useful than half a stop over the zoom range, the 24-85 is actually a fairly OK lens on APS-C though, go for it if it's less than half the price of the 17-85, but be aware it doesn't go that wide.
>>3488103Where in Ireland u live?
Newbie here, picked up a Canon M50 with a EF-M 15-45MM lens. Been playing with it for a bit and it seems fine, alright zoom and all that, quality is pretty sharp unless I zoom all the way in, though people tell me it's shit and I should buy different ones. Question is I don't really understand the differences. Why wouldn't you just get one that had the most range on it to cover all bases?Instead the most highly recommended so far was a 22M, yet they also sell 32, 18-150, 11-22, 28, and 55-200. I'm guessing they're all more specialized for different things, like low light/indoor, portait or landscape, or stuff like that, but again I don't see why you wouldn't just buy the one with the most range/zoom. Is the quality drop-off between that and a narrower range really that much better?If anyone wanted to spell it out cliff's notes style that'd be grand. Or an EF-M lens recommendation, though the 22M seems to be the one to go for. Thanks much.
>>3490540Most of those awesome third party affordable lenses are Pentax designs, most specifically Tokina lenses.Also the newly revamped optics department is coming out very nice new lenses for FF digital, like the D-FA* 70-200/2.8, the D-FA* 50/1.4 and the soon to be out D-FA* 85/1.4, priced accordingly as well. There are some new APS-C lenses as well, like the soon to be out DA* 11-18/2.8The old FF Limiteds are still superb as well as the APS-C Limiteds, and there are some really good affordable lenses like the DA 16-85 WR and DA 55-300 PLM WRSo yeah, current-day Pentax is not so much a meme you want to make it out to be
>>3490568Canon EF-M 15-45mm f/3.5-6.3 IS STM is the kit lens which comes with body (or not). No modern kit lens of any brand is bad and most are pretty good. It is the one a beginner should use until they have learned the basics. Many hobbyists never need anything but the kit lens. Worry about lenses when you start feeling limited and have idea what you want next. (Wide angle, street pancake, telephoto, macro, massive aperture and so on.)
>>3490568>Why wouldn't you just get one that had the most range on it to cover all bases?these kinds of lenses are called superzooms and they're usually worse quality optically than regular zooms or primes since they are trying to make such a large range of focal lengths all workable in one lens. speaking from my experience, which is directly relevant to you since i have an m5, the 18-150 is the worst lens i own in terms of image quality. it's not unusably bad, but i do find myself somewhat hesitant to actually put it on my camera. i've got the 18-55 ef-m lens also and while it obviously doesn't reach as far, it still seems like it's a bit nicer in image quality in the focal range it covers. i'd probably recommend to avoid it unless you foresee a lot of situations where you're going to need that whole range and not want to be switching lenses.as for the other ef-m lenses, i will second all recommendations for the 22mm. great little lens in terms of image quality, plenty fast at f2, and when it's on your camera with a lens cap it's still easily compact enough to throw in a jacket pocket or purse or what have you. as for the other primes, the 28 is the macro lens and the 32 is the more high end prime in the lineup (faster aperture of f1.4, better optics, but also larger).i'll also put in a recommendation for the 11-22 if you're feeling like you wanna go wider than 18mm. used to have a sigma 10-20 but i switched to this and i'm really enjoying the boost in image quality + huge reduction in size/weight.one final note though: if you are thinking of going for the superzoom, just be aware that 3 of the 5 lenses that have been announced as the next ef-m lenses (coming probably this year or next) are superzooms. there's an 18-130mm, 18-200mm, and a 15-130mm. so if it won't kill you to wait a bit, you might wanna see how those stack up against the current 18-150
>>3490568>>3490709also, one last thing, don't be a sucker like me and buy the name brand canon ef-efm adapter, third party ones are cheaper and people don't seem to report having any issues with them (really, if you think about it, it should be pretty hard to screw up a plastic tube with 2 different mounts on either side and wires connecting the contacts)
>>3490708Budget rebel and nikon equivalent kits are pretty crap. Also nearly every sony kit. m43 have pretty good overall kits, currently panasonic has a bit lousy telephoto, and olympus has lousy prime pancake. New mounts like Canon R, Panasonic L, and Nikon Z have all very good kit lenses.
>>3490686>Most of those awesome third party affordable lenses are Pentax designsLie number one.Tokina isn't relevant in this day and age.Sigma is.Tamron is.Samyang is.
>>3490686>So yeah, current-day Pentax is not so much a meme you want to make it out to beLie number 2.I was actually being kind to you and didn't go into AF performance.https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/pentax-k-1/6[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeRICOH IMAGING COMPANY, LTD.Camera ModelPENTAX K-1Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Macintosh)Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaFocal Length (35mm Equiv)200 mmImage-Specific Properties:Image Width7360Image Height4912Number of Bits Per Component8, 8, 8Pixel CompositionRGBImage OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2016:07:07 12:22:03Exposure Time1/1000 secF-Numberf/2.8Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating320Lens Aperturef/2.8Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length200.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width576Image Height384RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardContrastHardSaturationNormalSharpnessHardSubject Distance RangeDistant View
What are some of your top must-have accessories? Share everything ranging from extra batteries/a new strap to things that made you think "wow how could i have functioned without this???"Asking partially because I recently bought my first camera, but also because it's genuinely interesting to seepeople's preferences on gear in photography.
>>3490722I like that chart, very informative, thanks I guess I won't get a Pentax.I asked because it's pretty much the first DSLR I ever held. A friend let me shoot a couple pics with it the other day while hanging out.
>>3490722>>3490723How could we let this happen 'taxchads, on our territory of all places...
>>3490722>dxomarkthe same dsomark that waited 2 years to post the review of the 645z which was the first sensor to receive a score over 100, and they only posted it right after the hasselblad scored a 102?
>>3490723>muh afI literally didn't even have my camera up to my eye to shoot this, heron popped up from the riverbank and i held the af button as i raise the camera and prayed.Didn't nail the eye but thats because I didn't have the viewfinder to my face to aim at the eyes[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeRICOH IMAGING COMPANY, LTD.Camera ModelPENTAX K-3Camera SoftwareGIMP 2.8.22Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaFocal Length (35mm Equiv)450 mmImage-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution600 dpiVertical Resolution600 dpiImage Created2019:06:01 15:56:03Exposure Time1/1000 secF-Numberf/5.8Exposure ProgramNot DefinedISO Speed Rating400Lens Aperturef/5.8Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModeSpotFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length300.00 mmColor Space InformationUncalibratedRenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceManualScene Capture TypeStandardContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessNormalSubject Distance RangeDistant View
>>3490757Pentax af is perfectly capable, it's just not as competitive with the bigger brandsHere's one with a 250 dollar 55-300 superzoom plus a cheap tamron 1.4x tc. bird zipped across the sky, hit focus and nailed the shot[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeRICOH IMAGING COMPANY, LTD.Camera ModelPENTAX K-3Camera SoftwareGIMP 2.8.22Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaFocal Length (35mm Equiv)450 mmImage-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution600 dpiVertical Resolution600 dpiImage Created2019:06:01 16:05:57Exposure Time1/2000 secF-Numberf/8.0Exposure ProgramNot DefinedISO Speed Rating640Lens Aperturef/8.0Exposure Bias0.3 EVMetering ModeSpotFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length300.00 mmColor Space InformationUncalibratedRenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceManualScene Capture TypeStandardContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessNormalSubject Distance RangeDistant View
>>3490758Here's a few in a sequence of shots that hit focus as an eagle flew past and overhead[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeRICOH IMAGING COMPANY, LTD.Camera ModelPENTAX K-3Camera SoftwareGIMP 2.8.22Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaFocal Length (35mm Equiv)450 mmImage-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution600 dpiVertical Resolution600 dpiImage Created2019:06:08 11:39:14Exposure Time1/2000 secF-Numberf/8.0Exposure ProgramNot DefinedISO Speed Rating640Lens Aperturef/8.0Exposure Bias0.3 EVMetering ModeSpotFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length300.00 mmColor Space InformationUncalibratedRenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceManualScene Capture TypeStandardContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessNormalSubject Distance RangeDistant View
>>3490759[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeRICOH IMAGING COMPANY, LTD.Camera ModelPENTAX K-3Camera SoftwareGIMP 2.8.22Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaFocal Length (35mm Equiv)450 mmImage-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution600 dpiVertical Resolution600 dpiImage Created2019:06:01 16:01:28Exposure Time1/2000 secF-Numberf/8.0Exposure ProgramNot DefinedISO Speed Rating200Lens Aperturef/8.0Exposure Bias0.3 EVMetering ModeSpotFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length300.00 mmColor Space InformationUncalibratedRenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceManualScene Capture TypeStandardContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessNormalSubject Distance RangeDistant View
>>3490760>Pentax can't autofocuswrong[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeRICOH IMAGING COMPANY, LTD.Camera ModelPENTAX K-3Camera SoftwareGIMP 2.8.22Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaFocal Length (35mm Equiv)450 mmImage-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution600 dpiVertical Resolution600 dpiImage Created2019:06:01 15:49:48Exposure Time1/2000 secF-Numberf/8.0Exposure ProgramNot DefinedISO Speed Rating160Lens Aperturef/8.0Exposure Bias0.3 EVMetering ModeSpotFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length300.00 mmColor Space InformationUncalibratedRenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceManualScene Capture TypeStandardContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessNormalSubject Distance RangeDistant View
>>3490761>Pentax isn't sharpwrong[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeRICOH IMAGING COMPANY, LTD.Camera ModelPENTAX K-3Camera SoftwareGIMP 2.8.22Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaFocal Length (35mm Equiv)150 mmImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2019:05:19 11:25:32Exposure Time1/160 secF-Numberf/8.0Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating100Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModeCenter Weighted AverageFlashFlashFocal Length100.00 mmColor Space InformationUncalibratedRenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessNormalSubject Distance RangeMacro
>>3487662never ever ever IMO.
>>3490757>>3490758>>3490759>>3490760>>3490761not actual arguments without 100 percent crops sorry
>>3490774strange that i don't see any moving birds in that shot
>>3490730>must-have accessoriesIn no particular order: tripod, remote, spare battery, camera bag, lens hood, dust blower.(Also consider lighting, light is kind of important in photography...)
>>3490776[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CC (Windows)Image-Specific Properties:Image Created2019-06-08T13:08:41-05:00FlashNo Flash FunctionImage Width1000Image Height1097
>>3490770didn't know you published 100% crop samples with your photos
>>3490812if focus was nailed you would see it at 100 percent and i don't see why you have an issue with this if you are being honest. you can make any remotely focused shot look good at 1000 pixels so there is no point posting those as examples
>>3490774More like 100% CRAP!
I've owned a Tamron 15-30 G1 for a year and a half now. I have a filter system for it and everything, but it's just so god damn clunky compared to screwing in a filter on my 24-70. I still want to have a wide angle lens, but I also know having something that can take regular filters would make my life so much easier. So here's the question, should I keep my 15-30 and stop bitching, buy a 16-35 f/4, or buy a 20 1.8? Or maybe buy another lens I haven't considered? I shoot with a Nikon D810 btw
>>3490758>>3490761fixed it in lightroom[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CC (Windows)Image-Specific Properties:Image Created2019-06-08T16:05:22-05:00FlashNo Flash FunctionImage Width1000Image Height665
>>3490723Ah, is this from that famous review where the reviewer deliberately missed focus? I remember the reviewer had a comeback where he claimed being a PhD means he is always right, then a couple threads on Pentaxforums clearly proved him wrong where fast subjects, motocross and horseback riding, clearly moving towards the camera could nail focus and hold focus in continuous shooting.Strangely nobody claims a Canon xxD or a Nikon D7xxx or D610/750 misses focus in continuous at least a couple times, and only Pentax is being measured to full out pro bodies despite Pentax only makes intermediate/prosumer bodies, not full pro bodies.But we already had this argument before numerous times and you got busted all those times despite all your efforts on pushing goalposts. I see now it is Pentax for the flavour of the week now, did you get tired from all those MILC vs DSLR, Sony vs everything, Fuji vs everything and MFT vs everything threads?
I'm about to buy a Nikon P1000. I'll be using it for aviation photography, which is why I'll need the zoom that this camera has. Anything I should know before buying?
>>3491087I don't think he deliberately misses the focus.She is just capturing a situation which requires better tracking than what Pentax has.The subject moving directly towards the camera is a different situation of your examples where the subject move along the focus plane.
>>3491093It was discussed long at the time, the reviewer set the camera on a tripod, fixed position (as in not tracking the subject) then the guy on the bike moved slowly towards the camera in a zig-zag motion. It was deducted the subject left the AF area numerous times, that is what induced the focus hunt and latching on behind the subject. The reviewer also failed to set the camera up properly and the AF was not configured to hold on to a position, as in "sticking" to a tracking pace. It was a failed test, the reviewer was too egoistic and redid the test with the exact same mistakes as before. Then several posts came up on PF showing full continuous sequences showing working tracking AF and some articles were written on how to set up the camera for different tracking situations.I am not the anon posting the bird shots BTW, but I have experience in tracking with an intermediate crop Pentax body, both crappy lens and good lens. I can say the quality of the lens and the focusing speed greatly affects the AF performance, slow focusing lenses, screwdrive or motored will track less, while fast focusing lenses, screwdrive or SDM will track much better. Also the sharpness of the lens affects the end results as well, a kit lens like the anon with the 55-300 will not have tack sharp images even when focus is spot on. With that said, the DA 55-300 is one of the nicest kit telezooms with nice results on the long end.
>>3491098>then the guy on the bike moved slowly towards the camera in a zig-zag motionThat's not true. He only does that in the 2nd test.The first test the bike ran straight.I'm not sure why you would lie about this when the dpreview site has both sets of 14 frames for everybody to see.
>>3491098>>3491093Also this was the major controversy (along with some milder ones with some Fuji and Panasonic camera reviews) that led to DPreview having to hire the TCS TV guys as familiar and liked faces who are known for their easy, friendly "subjectively objective" reviews and heavy reliance on real life situation shooting for reviews. The previous reviewer just couldn't handle public relations and face well enough.
>>3491102I think it's understandable to be a bit on the edge when you are faced with dishonest fanbases who use false arguments.
>>3491101The only one lying here is you, pushing your nonsense agenda, pushing lies that are simply not true.
>>3491104The evidence is right there:https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/pentax-k-1/6You can see for yourself the bike did not go left and right in the first set of pictures.
>>3491103Here is a sequence with the subject moving towards the camera with high speed. Gee, so much missed focus from an intermediate camera that supposed to perform like a pro sports bodyhttps://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/190-pentax-k-1/328219-pentax-k-1-continuous-sequences-subjects-moving-towards-photographer-af-c.html
>>3491106I don't trust pentax shills to be fair about Pentax, so that has no worth.
>>3491107So you admit it is your own agenda, thank you for confirming me.
>>3491108The only thing I admitted was I trust 3rd party reviewers more than I trust brand shills.
>>3491109Now you are pushing the goal posts again. You don't want to trust a full sequence posted by a Pentax user because it is not the specific failed sequence you posted.The only shilling done here is by you, although I am not sure what you are trying to shill, other than a stupid meme.
>>3491111Both posts convey the same distrust, so no goals were really pushed.
Tracking af has such a limited use that I've no idea why people are so obsessed with it. You need s-af that's accurate, and that's all that matters for 99% of everyone's photography. Personally I don't see much in Pentax cams, but it's is obvious that both it k1, and k1 ii were recipients of smear campaigns on various popular sites. Big boys, Canon and Sony mainly, have been known not to play fair, and have used all means to discredit any newcomer to the market. Regular opus operandi is to find a perceived weakness of the camera, then nail as hard as possible at it until every casual looker will see it. One out of the way, now everyone is hitting at Panasonic/Nikon/Canon/Olympus newest entries.
>>3491113>Tracking af has such a limited use that I've no idea why people are so obsessed with it.I think it's because it's the most demanding AF discipline. So it becomes a benchmark of sorts.
>>3491113It's simple gearfagging. It plagues the photography world, like pixel count and live exposure preview in EVF. Most newbies today rather buy something that does the job for them instead of sinking in time and effort to learn how to do it properly. The newest retardation is machine learning based composition and timing AI, the camera deciding what to shoot and how instead of you.
>>3491113>but it's is obvious that both it k1, and k1 ii were recipients of smear campaignsIt's not like I wanted to rag on you. I originally just wanted to point out the 3rd party lens support is lacking.But this was your reply>>3490686
Is there a compact APSC camera with good weather sealing? I'd love to get a smaller camera for EDC and be able to take it mountaineering in cold rough environments. Ideally something a few years old.
>>3491113>Tracking af has such a limited use that I've no idea why people are so obsessed with it.What are you on about? continuous AF is useful literally whenever you're shooting something in motion. That's hardly an uncommon or exotic thing to do.
>>3491117Yes, in sense that "good weather sealing" and "compact" are relative. For cold rough mountaineering I'd suggest a whatever model Olympus TG and living with the small sensor.
>>3491134They seem good but those sensors are so fucking small.>>3491141Which one?
>>3491184fuji's xt line i believe is weather sealedxt1 or xt2 depending on your budget. xt3 is the newest model. also Pentax weather sealing is top tier and they're as rugged as you're going to get if you want a dslr.
>>3491133There is lot of """artists"""" who refuse to acknowledge any other form of photography. Also, "giar didnt matah" cultists don't like this topic simply because shit-tier continuous af leads to significant amount of misfocused pictures and showing that gear could matter [in some situations].
I bought the x100f and damn the lowlight af sucks. How much of an improvement is the X-T30 / X-T3 lowlight AF compared to the previous generation?
What is the best/easiest way to back up your photos when you are out traveling? I will be gone for 3 weeks and I dont want to bring my laptop for the sole purpose of backing up my photos.I might have acces to decent internet so Im thinking of uploading it all to google drive through my phone.
>>3491283You could carry a little portable hard drive/SSD/Other form of flash storage and get an adapter that lets you plug it into your phone
>>3491283why not bring more SD cards? Chances are the transfers are not full size so you'd be better keeping all your originals
Stuck on decision between a sony a6000 and a canon sl2. Going to be first camera purchase, will mainly be used for traveling with an emphasis on landscape/nature shots. If any other great options are available for this price range and camera size, I would love to hear them as well
>>3491287I always recommend the A6000 with the 18-135 level for travels.That's my travel setup, everything fits into a slingbag so it's always compact.No idea about the Sl2 though.
What's the best overall tripod? Got an A6000 which I intend to use for astrophotography (using Rokinon 12mm F2.0 Ultra Wide Angle Lens). I don't want to spend a lot of money though, lol.
>>3491113>is obvious that both it k1, and k1 ii were recipients of smear campaigns on various popular sites. Big boys, Canon and Sony mainly, have been known not to play fairMore like the unregulated "reviewer" and influencer youtube fanbase would do anything to please their chosen deity. I say there should be hard regulation and taxation for anyone doing "reviews" and influencer videos on mass media, no matter what. That would help culling the idiots and scammers.
>>3491297The Q999H.Best is terms of cost and feature. You can find iit with free shipping on aliexpress.
>>3491317It's the other way around. Reviewers are afraid to call the Pentax AF shit because you guys smear the reviewers.
>>3491327Nice try moving the goal posts, senpai
>>3491328>>3491327Also how luck would have it, my local EU representative is a prominent person in EPP, I might pitch this idea for "regulation of previously unregulated online personal advertisements", might even give some tax bux to gloat about.
>>3491287Go with the mirrorless option. It opens up tons of other lens mount ecosystems because you can use adapters.
>>3491115>The newest retardation is machine learning based composition and timing AI, the camera deciding what to shoot and how instead of you.Yeah, that shit is getting really popular on all stages of photography.>>3491133>>3491243I constantly shoot moving object. I only ever use s-af/mf. It's more accurate and efficient. I can imagine why someone lesser skilled may depend on tracking focus, but it's obvious that reviewers aren't sports photographers, so no wonder that they're having trouble assessing af performances.
>>3491328I have a real example right here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_guaalcqTwHe praised the camera a ton and called it his favourite landscape camera, but that wasn't enough, the fanbase were still rabid and vengeful.The same way in this thread, I literally said "The body itself is fine."But that wasn't enough either. You had to attribute malice to my post because I dared to mention something about 3rd party lens support.Notice the pattern yet?You guys are the one snowflake fanbase who demands to be held with kids gloves.
Wasn't the guy that makes these threads a pentax shill? Why would you ever trust anything a pentaxfag on /p/ says.
>>3491339FUCK YOU! For making me click TONY the shill link!That pathetic fucker deserves all the hate he gets. Last time I checked he was advising people to buy A7 over the new S1R for VIDEO!!! I don't think I need to explain how moronic that is.And before you start, I'm not bentax shill in any way, I've no dimes here, I wanted to see what you're talking about, and I inadvertently clicked your asswhipes link, so fuck you again for that!
>>3491351>A7 over the new S1R for VIDEOCitation needed.
>>3491354Choke on it:https://www.eoshd.com/2019/02/clearing-up-the-utter-bull-in-this-tony-northup-panasonic-s1-video/
>>3491357I gave him a +1 view and saw through it.There was a lot of praise.Some heavy criticism of the contrast detect AF.And he even declares his love for the GH5 at 9th minute mark. (but again that usually isn't enough for you guys)There was no A7 mark1 mentioned in there.But I heard him recommend the 5DSR over the Panasonic.Lots of fair criticism like 2300 dollars for a 50mm prime. And that's the only prime lens availableAnd then he ended the video by recommending the GH5: https://youtu.be/dGFSxbLxnFQ?t=1498So basically you haven't seen the video and don't know what you are talking about. You're just a dull tool who obeys other shitposters
>>3489586I just went from a nikon d3100 to a pentax k 5 and I swear it's the best shit ever senpai. Low Knight tography exists now for me.
I've been slogging it out with the X-Pro1 for 6 years and I think it's time for something new.I know any newer camera is an upgrade in the video department in some way, but if I'm going to make a purchase, I hope it'll last as long as the X-Pro1 did.That being said: looking at the X-H1 vs the X-T3 as hybrid shooters.People have been saying the video capabilities of the X-T3 are so significant as to warrant choosing it, but it seems to me that 200 MBPS more maximum in 4K shooting and 2 more megapixels is not worth ~$400 USD price difference and IBIS. I have no doubt, that both would perform admirably, of course.Anyone have personal experience?
Should i skip the sony kit zoom and go straight for tamron rxd? Or is there something inbetween?
>>3489924You might be forgating flange focal distance.If your sigma is also a mirrorless mount it needs to be that same distance or similar to your a6000.the reason theres lots of EF mounts to everything else is because EF having a mirror has a large focal flange distance. this allows manufacturers to put the glass required for the focal reducer in an adapter without damaging the internal pieces of the camera mount and the back piece of the lens.I use a focal reducer for older lenses. If you want to shoot modern glass in canon but you have a sony. why not buy a canon camera its about as much as the adapter itself and you wont have the extra glass degrading the quality of the lens
>>3491580The Tamron is pretty much as cheap as it can get for a lens of that level of quality.The "something in between" you are thinking of would be an F4 zoom, but none of them are particularly cheap.
I am a newbie that have virtually no understanding on photography but I want to take photos that are better than what a generic smartphone can take. I am not prepared to get into the world of lens. What sort of camera should I get?
After 7 years with a GH2, I got myself a GX80 after considering changing to the A6300 for some time and realizing the lens options were too expensive for my taste. I got myself the kit lens, Pana, 12-32 and already had a 20mm 1.7 I pancake prime (which I love despite the abismal slow focus speed) and a 50mm Yashinon-DS 1.4 which gives some nice portraits although needing a lot of distance. I was considering getting myself an used 14-140 for a versatile zoom, but the price kinda pulls me back (almost 2/3 of the cost of the camera for a pre-owned one on ebay). Having a 45-200mm lens kinda pulls me off to have to change lenses on a travel if I need to go wider. Any reason not to go for the 14-140? I do enjoy more video than photo but I find myself taking more pictures than videos. I believe I'll hardly ever need to go beyond 280mm, but If I do, I don't really like the idea of buying a dedicated expensive zoom lens like a 100-300mm. For its price I rather get a ZS80 and have a backup camera together with the compactness while sacrificing IQ and low light performance.Also, which would be better: Getting a speedbooster for the 50mm 1.4 yashinon-DS lens (which is in average condition, some haze and low contrast, pic related) and sending it for cleaning (maybe polish? The coating is quite yellowish), or should I just sell it and put some more money into a 35mm 1.2 7artisan chinese lens?[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakePanasonicCamera ModelDMC-GX80Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.0Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaFocal Length (35mm Equiv)0 mmImage-Specific Properties:Image Width4592Image Height3448Number of Bits Per Component8, 8, 8Pixel CompositionRGBImage OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution180 dpiVertical Resolution180 dpiImage Created2019:06:10 15:45:30Exposure Time1/20 secF-Numberf/0.0Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating400Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length0.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width4592Image Height3448RenderingCustomExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlHigh Gain UpContrastHardSaturationHighSharpnessHard
where do you buy your used cameras from?
>>3491625On the short run 7artisans will obviously perform better. Mirrorless lenses require lesser curvature of the front lens element, so most adapter lenses will perform worse than native ones. On the other hand quality(!) speedbooster is a good investment. Not sure if quality m42 to m43 exists, but you could get it going by buying m42 to EF, and then use EF to m43 adapter. Adaptors are thin, so you shouldn't have big problems there.
https://youtu.be/ip6Vn24FwBk?t=996Is this guy shooting video and photos at the same time? Is that a thing?
>>3491594Any brand 2nd hand DSLR / mirrorless with kit lens. As long it works it will be better than any phone.Note that while a proper camera will give better image quality and usability, its up to photographer to take good photos.
>>3491826Sorry for not being clear enough.. what I mean is cameras that have integrated lens
>>3491826Maybe I should be a bit more specific: RX100 III or G9X II or G7X II, or any other options?
>>3491854Whatever compact camera has largest sensor and best optics for your budget. Any proper camera will be better than a phone. (A good compact is probably more expensive than older 2nd hand interchangeable lens camera w kit lens. That's why you might want one instead.)Reason why phone camera sucks is tiny lens and tiny sensor which require excessive noise reduction and sharpening even with good light.Also try the new gear thread. This one is full>>3491665