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

[Advertise on 4chan]


Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.


[Advertise on 4chan]


D5600 Edition

Old thread: >>3865721

>All discussion and questions related to gear should take place in this exact thread
>Redirect other gear-related threads to this thread
>Remember to be polite.
>This is the thread in which you can be a gearfag

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeOLYMPUS CORPORATION
Camera ModelE-M10MarkII
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CC 2017 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.8
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)90 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width4608
Image Height3456
Number of Bits Per Component8, 8, 8
Pixel CompositionRGB
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution350 dpi
Vertical Resolution350 dpi
Image Created2017:01:23 12:36:45
Exposure Time1/100 sec
F-Numberf/5.6
Exposure ProgramAperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating1600
Lens Aperturef/5.6
Exposure Bias0.3 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash, Auto
Focal Length45.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width4398
Image Height2412
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Gain ControlHigh Gain Up
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessHard
>>
My D5600 arrives today, very excited. First upgrade in 10 years. Gonna sell the D5100 to a mates daughter. Kinda sad :(
>>
>>3870388
reposting from previous thread
aw you didn't go for the D5300
I don't like the D5600 but I hope you do, enjoy.
To me D5100/200/300 represent the pinnacle of ergonomic achievement.
>>
>Speck of dust on my focus screen.
>"Oh no problem I'll just cue-tip that off."

Guys I want to fucking die how could I be so stupid
>>
>>3870409
Cheer mate. Didn't want to buy 2nd hand so just bit the bullet and got the D5600. Gonna hit central London later and give it a whirl. It was only £530.
>>
>>3870412
Nice, enjoy. I miss my D5100, moved to Canon out of need but damn, that was a lovely camera and Nikon is the best brand when it comes to ergonomics and UI. I hate the Canon disc lol.
>>
>>3870410
>cue-tip
you sound pretty stupid alright
>>
>>3870391
It's not much of an upgrade, mate
A D7000 would have been a better upgrade. Cheaper as well.
>>
>>3870414
>that was a lovely camera
Yeah it's been great little cam, gonna be sad to see it go.

>>3870418
>It's not much of an upgrade, mate
But I have more megapickles! Seriously though, low light performance and image quality are much better. And it still has a flippy screen. The D5100 has the same sensor as the D7000 so that's not much of an upgrade imo and I didn't want to buy 2nd hand.
>>
>>3870418
lol, you don't know what you're talking about.
A D7000 would be a sidegrade more than an upgrade, same sensor, worse video, better convenience features and viewfinder, better build quality, heavier, fully compatible with more old lenses but with less new ones, fixed screen.
With the D5600 he gets more resolution and probably better ISO performance, two things the D7000 can't provide. And he keeps the lovely swivel screen. That screen can be a dealbreaker and for good reason.
>>
>>3870422
I swear mate, these people never tried a D5x00 and still feel confident to diss it.
>muh plastic
>muh weather sealing
>muh dedicated AF-ON button
>muh control dials
>>
>>3870388
wow i have this camera
>>
Why is this a bad camera to consider?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeOLYMPUS IMAGING CORP.
Camera ModelE-M1
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.6 (Macintosh)
Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.8
Color Filter Array Pattern802
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)80 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2016:07:28 14:06:43
Exposure Time1/80 sec
F-Numberf/2.8
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating200
Lens Aperturef/2.8
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModeCenter Weighted Average
Light SourceFine Weather
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length40.00 mm
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceManual
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Gain ControlLow Gain Up
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
>>
File: pentax-k-5-ii-in-rain.jpg (628 KB, 664x1000)
628 KB
628 KB JPG
>>3870426
>>muh weather sealing
>>muh dedicated AF-ON button
>>muh control dials
Also
>talking about plastic like it is a good thing

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS6 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width3657
Image Height5509
Number of Bits Per Component8, 8, 8
Compression SchemeUncompressed
Pixel CompositionRGB
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution240 dpi
Vertical Resolution240 dpi
Image Data ArrangementChunky Format
Image Created2012:09:10 13:06:28
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width664
Image Height1000
>>
>>3870410
What happened?
>>
I got a D7100 now and I have zero gear knowledge, never used a camera before.
What do you guys think about a D7100? Is there anything I should know? Other than not trying to clean the lens/sensor?
>>
File: IMG_20210424_153948.jpg (363 KB, 1387x1849)
363 KB
363 KB JPG
Love it! Great UI and touch screen. Waiting for the battery to charge and Im off out with it.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Makesamsung
Camera ModelSM-A715F
Camera SoftwareHDR+ 1.0.291816818zd
Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.8
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)24 mm
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Image-Specific Properties:
Compression SchemeJPEG Compression (Thumbnail)
Image Height4624
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Image Created2021:04:24 15:39:48
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Image Width3468
Lens Aperturef/1.8
Subject Distance RangeMacro
Exposure Bias0 EV
Exposure ProgramNormal Program
Color Space InformationsRGB
Subject Distance0.13 m
Image Height4624
Brightness0.1 EV
White BalanceAuto
RenderingCustom
Exposure ModeAuto
Exposure Time1/25 sec
FlashNo Flash
F-Numberf/1.8
ISO Speed Rating231
Image Width3468
SaturationNormal
ContrastNormal
SharpnessNormal
Focal Length5.23 mm
Metering ModeCenter Weighted Average
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Light SourceUnknown
>>
>>3870422
How gud is D5500 for video? I'm torn between it or the EM5 ii.

I have a D600 but I want the flip screen. Only problem is I have like 5 D series Nikon lenses that I love which won't autofocus on th D5xxx series. Also have 10+ Ai/s lenses which I have been collective which I also can barely use for video/vlogging. on the other hand I have like 3 MFT lenses though... hmmm decisions
>>
>>3870655
No idea, but I used a firmware patch from here on my D5100:
>http://simeonpilgrim.com/nikon-patch/nikon-patch.html

It gives you the ability to record at higher bit rates and a load of other features including manual controls for video. Danger is you can brick the device if anything goes wrong.

Ebic flip screen is ebic.
>>
>>3870679
>he thinks the flip out screen is epic
breh
>>
>>3870490
Expensive, fixed lens
>>
>>3870699
>People and reviewers prefer fake colours.
True and sad.

>But under 1000 dollars I'm not even sure there will be that much difference.
I figured entry level sub 1K cameras may have engineers more tempted to sacrifice color detail for better low light sensitivity, and since many entry level buyers will just accept whatever JPEGs come out anyway few would complain.
Still hoping to buy the best option within budget though. Wouldn't wanna buy a Nikon to learn later that a Fuji or Sony would've been better for my needs.
Guess maybe I'm asking too much.

>>3870706
You're just so wrong it's not even funny.

>You don't understand how color works. Colors are not "bleeding into each other."
They do, because we only sample using RGB. Everything in between is from mixing and some sensors have poor separation between primaries, meaning reds from RAW may look orange vs red because they have a relatively high amount of green mixed in.
A good sensor might capture RGB 80%/15%/3%, while a bad might capture RGB 80%/25%/5%.

>An accurate CFA would have to allow overlap, as do the cones in your eye.
This is true but some simply fail to do a good job.

>Less ISO sensitivity (i.e. more noise) REDUCES the number of distinct colors which can be accurate captured.
This is also wrong because ISO is just gain. When the issue is related to the properties of the capture device and actual light hitting the sensor, it doesn't matter what ISO you use, colors at base/long exposure will also result in compromised color.

>Basically everything you've been told by film fags and Foveon fags is a meme.
Film fags can't even cope with their negs being brown. They refuse to admit they rely on post-processing and insist their edits are objective.
Foveon is nice, but it is also susceptible to the color separation issues. Foveon is also a scam because Sigma tries to advertise their 20.3MP sensor as a 60.9MP sensor which is fucking RETARDED.

They really did this. Pic related is not a meme.
>>
File: 20180823_161131.jpg (479 KB, 2048x1152)
479 KB
479 KB JPG
Hey /p/brains, /n/fag here.
Looking for a camera that will fit easily in the pocket, be fairly shock proof, waterproof too if possible, for taking on mountain biking trips etc, just want something that will take reasonably decent pics without too much fuss and is going to be fine taking the occasional knock.

Budget is small, around £130
>>
>>3870796
>fairly shock proof, waterproof too if possible, for taking on mountain biking trips
>take reasonably decent pics
>£130
Not asking much aren't you. I can only think of old Olympus Tough cameras, they are actually nice but we depend a lot on your definition of "reasonably decent pics".
>>
>>3870796
Your phone
>>
>>3870796
FUCK OFF GCN SHILL
>>
>>3870805
>Your phone
I have a Nokia 3310 anon, no smartphone.
>>3870801
>I can only think of old Olympus Tough cameras
Thanks, but they are way out of my budget, during my search this popped up
>Fujifilm FinePix XP140
Any good?
>>
>>3870809
You are fucked then
>>
Thinking about buying a pentax k-70 kit for stills and portraits. Is there any better alternative for 800$? I cant buy used ones since I plan on buying it in installments.
>>
>>3870793
Damn anon, you made me confused and I replied to the guys you quoted in the other thread.
So I'm gonna paste my replies here:
>>3870677
>Apparently Canon uses weak CFAs, leading to capture metamerism in exchange for better ISO. I'd rather have less sensitivity for better colors so colors don't bleed into each other as much.
Not only Canon, but as you've seen in that picture the 5D is a good choice.
Nikon D700 is better than the average camera nowadays in that regard, and Nikon D2X and D200 are just superb.
Foveon is great too.
Sony CFAs are the same as on modern Nikons and Pentaxes, the CFA is baked in the sensor nowadays, not added afterwards.
You either go Foveon or go with an older used camera.
>>3870706
>Colors are not "bleeding into each other."
Yes they are. It's a similar issue to what some colorblind people have, where one of the pigments in the cones is sensitive to wavelengths it shouldn't be.
>>3870706
>Basically everything you've been told by film fags and Foveon fags is a meme. The reason Foveon looks "better" than Bayer at the same resolution is because there is no slight blurring from the CFA or from an AA filter (and actually Foveon sensors have pretty harsh aliasing showing they need an AA). The Foveon photos that Foveon fags like to produce to "prove" it has better color are meme shots (underexposed, contrasty, saturated) which could be produced on any camera.
Explain why D700 picks tonalities newer cameras aren't able to. If you have less color separation you have more color confusion
>>
File: shock+waterproof.jpg (125 KB, 1022x526)
125 KB
125 KB JPG
>>3870809
>but they are way out of my budget
Bullshit, pic related cunt, in the UK they are a bit more expensive tho for some reason.
>FinePix XP140
I didn't know that one, sample pics look pretty good to me but i don't know if it costs less than 130. 16mp for a 2.3'' sensor seems way overkill and i don't know how would it fare on low-light, the JPGs themselves look very presentable.
>>
>>3870817
The 18-135 kit? If you're shopping at B&H then the Nikon D5500 with the 18-140 is at the exact same price right now, they're both on sale. But the Nikon is only the red version. The black version goes for like $1200.
You'd have to see if you mind it being red (I probably would) and also which lens produces better images, the DA 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 ED AL DC WR or the AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-140mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR.
The Pentax combo is also weather sealed.
I'd probably go for it, the K-70 induces gear lust in me.
t. cANON
>>
>>3870821
That's a sylus not a tough lol
>>3870809
This one is a great one
https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/184782211005
Maybe if you offer him 130 he'll take it.
There's also this one:
https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/324494502168
And this one going for auction, TG-5 (12MP)
https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/233972911624
>>
>>3870817
Sorry im a eurofag, I can choose between the 18-55mm (f3.5-5.6?) kit or the 50mm f1.8 kit. Im leaning towards the prime one.
I'll take a look at the Nikon since I like being able to buy a wide variety of lenses (not sure if that's actually true). I still have PTSD from fuji xf lense prices (they're good, but pricey).

Thanks!
>>
>>3870825
>>3870829
t. wrongQuote
>>
>>3870827
Thank you anon, I'm going to check them out. I'm not an expert with cameras, anything I should look out for when buying used?
>>
>>3870829
Show me the store you'd be buying from and I'll look at what's offered in the same price range like I looked at BH. There may be something on sale that's worth it.
18-55mm is a good zoom to start with but having the option of going a bit longer is nice.
>>3870831
lel
>>
>>3870834
On a compact basically exterior condition and if there's some picture of the battery compartment that's a good thing, but it's not something you see often. Check for scratches on the lens.
>>
>>3870835
www.foto-erhardt.de
its in german have fun lmao
>>
File: Sanok.png (1.16 MB, 797x595)
1.16 MB
1.16 MB PNG
>>3870837
Cheers, much appreciated
>>
>>3870839
I just noticed one of the ones I linked has a cracked screen lol, discard that one
>>
>>3870838
lol, it will be no issue
>>
>>3870838
I took the liberty of looking at other stores too, the D5600 can be found with the 18-140mm lens for 748€ at Billiger and Fotokoch.
Billiger also has the K-70 with 18-135mm but it's 1099€.
Fotokoch also offers other two kits with the D5600:
With Sigma 18-200mm it's 839€ and with Tamron 18-200mm it's 699€.
I'd probably buy the Pentax if I were you, even if the lens is a bit more limiting. It has the advantage of in-body stabilization so you can put any old lens on it and have it stabilized. The viewfinder is also superior (larger and brighter as well as with more coverage) and it has better features where it counts. Stuff like astrotracer you can't find on a Nikon (works with GPS and the stabilization system).
The Nikon has more normalfag features like touch screen and bluetooth, but its main advantage is having more AF points. However, AF in that series used to be slow at least. I haven't used the newer ones but I think it's highly dependent on the lens you use.
Also the Nikon is more limited in terms of compatibility, AF-D lenses work in a gimped manner in it. It's a great camera still, don't get me wrong, but the K-70 has almost everything that's great about the D5x00 series (ergonomics, swivel screen) while adding a bunch of Pentax goodies like hyperprogram or TAv mode.
>>
>>3870859
Holy shit dud thanks a lot for taking the time.
I think I'm going with the Pentax, the zoom one aswell, not the prime. I don't think I'll need more than 55mm since my 300mm creep times are over.
I'd really love to get a Nikon, but it seems like anything worse than a D850 isn't worth it, and I wouldn't spend that much money on a camera (again).
I'm getting the K-70 for sure.

Thanks again for your time anon
>>
>>3870827
>That's a sylus not a tough lol
It still is waterproof and shock proof, unless he actually meant hitting it with a hammer and diving with it.
>>
>>3870885
No problem anon, it's always a pleasure to help.
The Nikons are nice, the thing is that the K-70 is even nicer lol. Pentax's philosophy is largely untainted by fads and they don't act like a greedy company despite profit being their goal just like any other company's is. They seem to care little about market segmentation.
The only downside with them is video performance and sometimes the rarity of items because they don't have dealers everywhere like Canon and Nikon do. If you like to adapt old stuff I can't think of a better brand to buy.
>>3870890
Sure, but Tough is a line of cameras.
>>
>>3870890
Oh and Tough cameras are generally newer, with cleaner sensors.
>>
>>3870655
Now the tranny will do video? His gonna make a chaturbate account now lol. Gtfo and fuck off p you degen

>>3870821
>olympiss

Damn you micro four penis retards should leave p as well
>>
>>3870892
>Tough is a line of cameras.
>Tough cameras are generally newer, with cleaner sensors
Can't argue with that, i guess he/i could've been confused easily with that name. Still the SW Stylus were pretty decent and for a 20 it's hard to beat unless you find an old Cybershot.
>>
>>3870903
>Damn you micro four penis retards should leave p as well
Those are compact cameras not MFT. Don't let the tranny faggot make you insane. When it comes to waterproof cameras it's hard to beat Olympus.
>>3870905
Fair enough
>>
>>3870793
>still believing that color depth and low light sensitivity are opposing goals
ngmi

>>3870793
>You're just so wrong it's not even funny.
Says the person who is ignorant of color theory.

>>You don't understand how color works. Colors are not "bleeding into each other."
>They do, because we only sample using RGB.
They do not as was explained to you in that post, and will be explained to you again in this one.

>Everything in between is from mixing
Yes, exactly, which is why you would expect 'everything in between' to pass some photons through 2 or 3 CFA points. Once again for the kids riding the short bus to school (that's you): the cones in the human eye also have overlap (pic related). You could not accurately reconstruct most colors without overlap.

>and some sensors have poor separation between primaries, meaning reds from RAW may look orange vs red because they have a relatively high amount of green mixed in.
Take a good look at the red/green overlap for the human eye. Also: I have never seen orange where red should appear in the RAW file from any camera in 18 years of working with digital cameras.

>>An accurate CFA would have to allow overlap, as do the cones in your eye.
>This is true but some simply fail to do a good job.
Post the RAW files you think illustrate this.

>This is also wrong because ISO is just gain.
You increase gain when you're collecting fewer photons. Fewer photons collected = lower S/N from both photon shot noise and read noise. More noise = lower color depth.
>>
>>3870818
>Not only Canon, but as you've seen in that picture the 5D is a good choice.
>Nikon D700 is better than the average camera nowadays in that regard, and Nikon D2X and D200 are just superb.
DxOmark tested color bit depths:
5D: 22.9
D700: 23.5
D2X: 22.1
D200: 22.3

R5: 25.3
D850: 26.4

A D2X can distinguish just under 4.5 million colors while a D850 can distinguish over 88.5 million colors, nearly 20x as many. And you think the D2X has better/more accurate color and is 'just superb'? No.

>>>3870706
>>Colors are not "bleeding into each other."
>Yes they are. It's a similar issue to what some colorblind people have, where one of the pigments in the cones is sensitive to wavelengths it shouldn't be.
Please see the image attached to this post: >>3870937

Color blindness is not caused by sensitivity overlap, but by lower or missing sensitivity. A person with cones that had no RGB overlap would be color blind.

>>>3870706
>Explain why D700 picks tonalities newer cameras aren't able to.
It can't. It detects roughly 11.8 million colors while a D850 can detect 88.5 million.
>>
I didnt use my external viewfinder yet for taking pics
is this blasphemy?
>>
D700 is an amazing camera, but no comparison to the D850 or R5. who's saying that is just a brainlet.
>>
>>3870818
>Foveon is great too.
Given how noisy Foveon sensors are in general I bet their color bit depth is 22 or lower. Too bad DxOmark hasn't measured Foveon because it would be fun to put these inane theories to rest.
>>
>>3870937
>more noise=lower color depth
kek
The problem with weakened CFAs is that they're so weakened that they start confusing colors. There is too much overlap, the green photosites become too sensitive to blue for example.
>>
>>3870956
>>more noise=lower color depth
>kek
Imagine not understanding why this is, but lecturing other people about color.

>The problem with weakened CFAs is that they're so weakened that they start confusing colors.
Claimed repeatedly with no evidence, no sample RAWs, nothing. Without evidence your theory is not a theory, it's just your silly imagination.

>There is too much overlap, the green photosites become too sensitive to blue for example.
You mean like in the human eye? >>3870937
>>
File: 1612123084213.jpg (87 KB, 1200x675)
87 KB
87 KB JPG
>>3870962
This has been debated for nearly a decade with plenty of proof, not my fault your google-fu is subpar.
The newer sensors often get colors wrong so you need to fix in post while the older ones got them right. They also tend to fail to distinguish between similar hues.
I'm not gonna post RAWs.
Trust me bro™.
>>
>>3870975
>plenty of proof
>can't even post a link
Does your dad work at Nintendo?
>>
>>3870979
>Does your dad work at Nintendo?
No, Cray Research, Inc.
>>
>>3870885
Get the 35/2.4 plastic fantastic, goes for pennies used, not much higher if you buy new. Cheap, light build and fantastic sharp image and the bokeh is nice too.
If you want something nicer, get the DA 40 or 21 Limited prime, maybe the 20-40 Limited zoom, also weather sealed.
>>
File: Rollei.jpg (63 KB, 512x427)
63 KB
63 KB JPG
I was thinking about buying one of these, and wanted to ask for some opinions or things i should know before making the decision. Thanks!
>>
>>3870917
>When it comes to waterproof cameras it's hard to beat Olympus.
>Olympanon defending the tranny faggot

kek it seems you want his dick as well. Olympus is Olympus you faggots. And it's dead!
>>
>>3871251
>And it's dead!
Just like a Sony A7III after a light rain
>>
File: 1555528567721.jpg (96 KB, 598x598)
96 KB
96 KB JPG
>>3870979
>Does your dad work at Nintendo?
You know you threw amazing insult at guy, when months after that happend he keeps repeating it.

Feels good
>>
>>3871313
It's an old meme you newfag cunt, you didn't come up with it and it's probably not even the same guy you said it to.
I'm the guy he posted at, but to claim you created an years old meme is preposterous.
>>
>>3871194
They’re great.
You can get 40 exposures out of a roll if you load carefully.
Keep in mind it’s a viewfinder camera, no focusing aids, you just guess and rely on DoF.

If you want a tiny and light camera, especially one that’s very pocketable (really do not meme), also check the minox 35 line.
>>
Hey guys, I've been looking for a film rangefinder for some time now, maybe someone here would propose something.
My basic requirements were:
- rangefinder
- 35mm film
- ILC
- mechanical shutter/works without batteries if needed

My budget ia not set in stone but I was eyeing things in the range of bessa r3m (because the r2m is just not fucking available anywhere) or leica m4-2 or m4-p. Opinions on those? better alternatives within the price range or lower?
>>
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDcT8GawJBs&ab_channel=CanonEurope
who finna cop?
>>
>>3871379
Just put your existing EF one on the adapter, it is most probably the same optical formula on a "mirrorbox spacer ring"
>>
>>3871380
i dont have any ef lenses or the adaptor
>>
>>3871380
>it is most probably the same optical formula
lol no, RF designs have new formulas
it's not fucking Sony
>>
>>3870818
>Damn anon, you made me confused and I replied to the guys you quoted in the other thread.
lol

>Nikon D700 is better than the average camera nowadays in that regard, and Nikon D2X and D200 are just superb.
Checked out their color response measurements on dxo and they do look good. Thanks.

>>3870937
>>still believing that color depth and low light sensitivity are opposing goals
>ngmi
They literally are.
Ultimate low light performance is having no color filter at all. Then you get maximum SNR from the sensor, within the means of the sensor itself of course. Color filters are a compromise in sensitivity to begin with in order to allow for capturing some color information.

>They do not as was explained to you in that post, and will be explained to you again in this one.
We're talking about cameras.
Rods/Cones and the human eye are a different subject. The issue at hand is that cameras do not accurately represent what the human eye sees and some manufacturers design it that way by choice, as a compromise.

The closest thing to a human eye when it comes to a CFA would be a 2x2 array of Red, Green, Blue, plus an unfiltered photosite to give luminance and color information to act as a rod with RGB wavelength filtering similar to the cones.

>>3870956
>The problem with weakened CFAs is that they're so weakened that they start confusing colors. There is too much overlap, the green photosites become too sensitive to blue for example.
This.

>>3870962
>Claimed repeatedly with no evidence, no sample RAWs, nothing. Without evidence your theory is not a theory, it's just your silly imagination.
Take a raw photo of something that's a very cool green, with virtually no red in it, then check your own RAW. You'll find the red photosites register quite a bit of light, well above the noise floor.
This isn't something you can simply post process out like vignetting, it affects things globally within the captured image. It leads to a bad "starting point" for accuracy.
>>
>>3871376
Oh wow, these are also really compact, really cool models. Thanks!
>>
Why would anyone ever buy into the Canon EF-M series line of cameras?
It seems like a shitty way for Canon to fool new buyers into buying Canon and getting stuck with the sunk cost fallacy with a proprietary mount, rather than going with something with a universal mount like MFT.

All it is really is just a Canon-only MFT alternative but with APS-C sensors and crippled lens selection with a weird crop factor. Like, if it were any other brand with 1.5x crop it might be nice but fuck Canon's 1.6x "APS-C but smaller than all the other brands" garbage.
>>
>>3871391
>Checked out their color response measurements on dxo and they do look good.
They're worse than any currently shipping camera by a significant margin.

>>>still believing that color depth and low light sensitivity are opposing goals
>>ngmi
>They literally are.
Noise, not ADC bit depth, is the boundary on tonal/color separation in cameras today. In other words no one has gone to 16-bit ADCs because there would be no gain against the noise floor. Improvements in sensor noise and/or signal collection result in the ability to distinguish more distinct tones/colors.

Better SNR = improved tonal/color separation = more accurate matching of real world colors. A D2X will 'see' a color that falls in between a pair out of its 4m color palette while a D850 gets the exact shade.

>Ultimate low light performance is having no color filter at all.
No one is sacrificing color accuracy for SNR, which is why you cannot produce any evidence of your inane claims. Only your own words. Manufacturing and/or algorithm improvements permitted a more finely tuned CFA.

>Rods/Cones and the human eye are a different subject.
Both our eyes and our camera sensors detect and reconstruct color on the same basic principles.

>The issue at hand is that cameras do not accurately represent what the human eye sees
Well to do that I guess there would have to be MORE OVERLAP. Try comparing the camera RGB graph in the other thread to the human eye one in this thread.

>>>3870962
>Take a raw photo of something that's a very cool green, with virtually no red in it, then check your own RAW. You'll find the red photosites register quite a bit of light, well above the noise floor.
I'll also find the green is a close match for the one in reality. And if I could play with a RAW frame from my own retina, guess what I would find? Red cone excitement.
>>
>>3871388
That depends on the lens. Some are complete redesigns like the f/1.2 primes. Some aren't that different from the last/best EF version.

The RF 100mm macro brings some interesting things to the table (1:1.4 and SA control). That said I don't think it's going to revolutionize macro photography and if you're on a budget there are any number of good EF options.
>>
File: IMG_20210425_0001.jpg (1.27 MB, 3448x4920)
1.27 MB
1.27 MB JPG
I made a decision flow diagram for modern ILCs.
What should be different?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeCanon
Camera ModelCanoScan LiDE 300
Camera SoftwareIJ Scan Utility
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution600 dpi
Vertical Resolution600 dpi
Image Created2021/04/25 20:06:45
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width3448
Image Height4920
>>
I recently tried out an a7iii at a photoshoot with the 24-70mm GM f2.8 and really liked the sharpness and Eye AF, but don't like looking through an EVF and hated the way the camera feels in the hand.

I've hyped up the 5D Mark IV ever since I tried it out but felt I had better results with the a7iii (I concede that I likely was not using the Mark IV to its fullest). Is mirrorless the way to go these days?
>>
>>3871412
The extra crop makes them have extra reach. Also it's smaller because it's the first APS-C that came out, before APS-C was a standard in any way.
It has nothing to do with MFT, doesn't intend to compete with MFT and the best selling camera in the world is an EF-M model.
The only awful thing about them is that they're mirrorless, but that's what the market demands after Sony brainwashed the consoomers so it's not like there's any alternative.
But if I HAD to use mirrorless, M6 II would be my first pick.c
>>
>>3871391
>Checked out their color response measurements on dxo and they do look good. Thanks.
No problem anon. A friend of mine got a D700 a few months ago, he's been enjoying the colors a lot. He's compared it with other cameras he owns and the D700 sees tones the others can't.
>They literally are.
>Ultimate low light performance is having no color filter at all. Then you get maximum SNR from the sensor, within the means of the sensor itself of course. Color filters are a compromise in sensitivity to begin with in order to allow for capturing some color information.
Bingo! That's why monochrome sensors do so well compared to color ones.
>The closest thing to a human eye when it comes to a CFA would be a 2x2 array of Red, Green, Blue, plus an unfiltered photosite to give luminance and color information to act as a rod with RGB wavelength filtering similar to the cones.
In other words, RGBW. There has been some research done but it's still at a young stage, and with Kodak's financial troubles it slowed down a lot.
>Take a raw photo of something that's a very cool green, with virtually no red in it, then check your own RAW. You'll find the red photosites register quite a bit of light, well above the noise floor.
>This isn't something you can simply post process out like vignetting, it affects things globally within the captured image. It leads to a bad "starting point" for accuracy.
Some Canons in particular have a particularly nasty tendency to generate magenta noise, partly because of the coloring in the filters and the intensity of it. The 5D classic had colors the 5D II can't really achieve, specially when it comes to landscape or good lighting conditions in general. But the 5D II beats it when it comes to getting pleasant skin tones even under low CRI lighting like fluorescent tubes. That pleasantness comes at the price of accuracy. Instead of having RGB, it has orange, warm green and blue filters.
>>
>>3871438
You're failing to consider that Fuji RAWs suck ass, and you're also failing to consider the ecosystem, the lenses that work with the camera, are much more important than the camera body.
>>
>>3871438
Actually not that bad. If nitpicking you could put gh5s for vid low light, and you should put gfx100/s for high res.
>>
>>3871376
>minox 35
they look like Lomos lol
>>
>>3871480
In your zeal, you've failed to read. For your next zeal, I'm not the anon you've replied to.
>>
>>3871498
It says that if RAWs are a dealbreaker then Fuji is the way lol, it also recommends Hasselblad and Phase One "if compactness isn't a requirement and cost doesn't matter" as if they didn't have tons of other downsides stemming from the lenses they use.
>>
File: 1616713313243.jpg (8 KB, 183x275)
8 KB
8 KB JPG
sup guys, first time posting here, need to buy a camera and maybe a few lenses for less than a thousand

What should I aim for if:
- I wanna make semi-pro video
- I'd like to have 1 or 2 different lenses to start with
- why not be able to take high quality photo with it, so I can make a few bucks off of it

thanks for your help
>>
>>3871476
>The 5D classic had colors the 5D II can't really achieve
Post even one example midwit.
>>
>>3871518
read: >>3871438
>>
>>3871518
Panasonic g9 with kit lens is my vote.
>>
>>3871518
Ask on /vid/, less braindead posters.
I'd go APS-C or MFT if I were you.
Good luck.
>>
>>3871521
>>3871529
>>3871530
thanks for the recs, will maybe post updates
>>
>>3871512
>It says that if RAWs are a dealbreaker then Fuji is the way lol
There are people out there who really do not like the idea of dealing with RAWs and processing them, but also want a "great looking camera" for pictures. Fuji's SOOC jpegs give them an advantage when it comes to this. If you wanted to process Fuji RAWs, that's fine, but the X-Trans sensor makes it hard for most software to handle those RAWs.
>>3871485
I would consider the GH5s to be counted within the compactness segment, I wanted to avoid duplication wherever possible.
GFX would probably fall within the same category as Leica, Hassleblad and Phase One on cost. Say what you will about it being cheaper than medium format DSLRs... but Pentax's 645Z is cheaper yet.
>>3871521
Lmao. I wanted to make the flow chart for a friend to give them a sort of guide into what gear offers what for the kinds of red lines and requirements someone may have. There is no one "perfect" camera. That's a marketing myth - the idea was to point people in the right sort of direction.
>>
>>3871563
>Say what you will about it being cheaper than medium format DSLRs... but Pentax's 645Z is cheaper yet.
It's not (unless you're buying used, and that's because there's some old beat up 645Zs at this point).
GFX is the poorfag gimped option for when you want medium format but don't care about the stuff that makes people go for medium format such as leaf shutters.
>>
>>3871470
>It has nothing to do with MFT, doesn't intend to compete with MFT
lol
Canon doesn't have a signle MFT camera. As a result, it does, because the manufacturer makes it so.

>and the best selling camera in the world is an EF-M model
Which one?

>The only awful thing about them is that they're mirrorless
The mirror isn't used by most people, why is getting rid of it for compactness a bad thing?
>>
What should I look for when buying a used camera, I don't know shit about cameras other than like the bare essentials like larger megapixels being better, I just need something simple, and I'm guessing like with most technology niches, there's a common cheap used option that'll serve well, like buying used thinkpads is a great option in the laptop space, what would be the camera equivalent?

Cause I know places near me sell great used technology for like nothing all the time because they basically just guess their value, so I'd like to take advantage of that.

For reference the only camera I've ever owned has been a mavica.
>>
>>3871597
oh and my budget is pretty low, I just need something to take pictures of stuff for ebay listings that's better than my phones potato camera, nothing more, I'm running a small laptop refurbishing business and low quality images scare off potential customers.
>>
>>3871598
How low?
There's a huge difference between $100 and $400 in what can be recommended to you.
>>
>>3871391
>use charts
>to know if the color is good
ahahahahahahAHAAAAAAAAA
>>
>>3871668
The only way to do it without having access to the cameras you want to compare.
>>
File: kaede up close.webm (536 KB, 960x720)
536 KB
536 KB WEBM
>sold my 12-24GM
>preordered 14GM

12mm was nice, but there's literally no way to use it without the corner distortion
>>
What is the best "normal" prime lens for Sony? I was thinking about the Zeiss Batis 40mm. I like lenses that show very little distortion. It has to be around f/2 because I don't like big and heavy prime lenses.
>>
>>3870793
>marketing megapixels = actual megapixels x 3
I hate marketing and their dots so much.
>>
>>3871598
Any crop dslr/mirrorless that you can find with 16+ of those megapixels?
>>
File: peepeepoopoo.jpg (206 KB, 1800x1197)
206 KB
206 KB JPG
Pretty sure this is fungus. Thoughts?
>>
>>3871882
It's actually fucking insane.
By their logic a 4K UHD TV has 11520x2160 pixels and is a 24MP device.

I feel like if that claim makes it into a spec sheet or anything and is sold with that on packaging it should lead to class action lawsuits. The concept of photosites and pixels are well established and so are subpixels vs pixels. Foveon doesn't have more pixels it has greater detail.

An 8-bit 1080p JPEG isn't 4K if it's saved as a 16-bit TIFF.
>>
>>3871886
Seems like it, yes
>>
>>3871812
Afro Knows is keeping the 12-24.

He likes expensive high ends.
>>
>>3871883
24MP is actually almost the ideal cope resolution.
6000x4000 scales down nicely to almost fullscreen in 4K or 1080p, and is just big enough to be viewed at 1:1 on an 8K screen.

6480x4320 would be ideal.
1:1 mapping to our digital displays at 8K, perfect 360 PPI for prints from an EPSON (they use 360 PPI, not 300). Next best would be 5400x3600 (just under 20MP) for perfectly matching 18x12 prints at 300 PPI machines like Canon and such but wouldn't fit monitors so well.
>>
>>3871812
>12mm was nice, but there's literally no way to use it without the corner distortion
There's nothing wrong with distortion.
>>
My Pentax 43/1.9 Limited arrived today, so excited!
The build is excellent, all metal, has aperture ring, hyperfocal markings, and the focusing ring is creamy smooooth.
Images look very sharp and bokeh is creamy goodness by the first test shots, but weather is shit at the moment. It will clear up later this week to go out to take some proper shots.
Also it is a MIJ piece, haggled it for $400.
>>
>>3872007

Are you going to use it on a K1?
>>
>>3872014
Primarily yes, but I also have a K-3
>>
>>3872030

Great. I hope you will post some photos later on.
>>
>>3872055
It will be nature stuff though, not much people stuff to shoot right now
>>
File: 1376785883307.jpg (47 KB, 426x341)
47 KB
47 KB JPG
Looks like Sony has had enough of being humiliated on APS-C.
They have likely requested Tamron to create those affordable F2,8 APS-C zooms to coincide with their upcoming APS-C flagship launch in May month.
>>
>>3872156
What the fuck tamron is thinking with their ultrawide zooms? They relased 17-28 on full frame and it is really unappealing zoom range. You might as well shoot prime and crop in, because it is 1.6 zoom range.

11-20 is better, but still not amazing. Id rather take slower zoom with more useful range, or fast prime.
>>
>>3872167
>You might as well shoot prime and crop in,
Zooms are for people who knows how to compose on the spot.
Even a small zoom factor is helpful to get just the right composition.

If you don't like that, then don't use them I guess?
>>
>>3870410
Get yourself a can of compressed air immediately
>>
>>3872168
>Zooms are for people who knows how to compose on the spot.
And promes dont?
>>
>>3872170
Primes forc you to find a fidderent position and a different point of view. Or force you to crop.

With zooms you don't need to crop in post. And some people appreciate that.
>>
>>3872171
>With zooms you don't need to crop in post. And some people appreciate that.
His complaint is that those zooms are almost primes that force you to crop.
Learn to read dummy.
>>
>>3872174
>are almost primes that force you to crop.
1,6 zoom factor is huge compared to a prime.
Has there ever been a case where you needed to crop your RAW by 60%?

If that's the case then you are the problem, not the gear. Learn to compose better.
At this point I'm just iterating basic shit to you, it's a bad hill to die on, but go ahead.
>>
>>3872176
>If that's the case then you are the problem, not the gear. Learn to compose better.

Wut? What if I want to crop in my ultrawide to get desired, longer perspecrive? Isn't that the whole point of sharpness and resolution do we can take use of it and crop in?

On apsc there is already samyang 12 f2. Not quite as wide (11 vs 12), but one stop faster, small and compact but most important dirt cheap.

I already have one. And tamron is giving me very little reason to even consider this zoom. And quite honestly I cant imagine much usercase for such zoom.
>>
>>3872182
>>Wut? What if I want to crop in my ultrawide to get desired, longer perspecrive?
Then you lose resolution. And you're happy with that so good for you I guess?

I wouldn't want to lose resolution by cropping in post. So I compose it right the first time.
>>
File: 1619482903420.png (157 KB, 415x345)
157 KB
157 KB PNG
yo gearfags what camera is heemgannou using?
>>
>>3872185
Ngannou is based
>>
>>3872187
yeah francis is a cutie but i need to know
>>
File: 1426253913794.gif (2.23 MB, 320x384)
2.23 MB
2.23 MB GIF
>>3872167
Tamron also released a 17-70 wiich is a stronger zoom range.
But then people began to bitch about the size of the lens.
>>
>>3872188
D850 pal
>>
>>3872185
I'm not a gearfag but that's a D850
>>
>>3872190
>>3872194
thanks friends
>>
>>3872196
No problem, enjoy your purchase.
It's a wonderful camera (but I like the D810 with its integrated flash better)
>>
>>3872189
Whoa, just like zoom range, light, price, build quality are important factor when choosing a lense. Cant imagine that being the case.

Also, you will never be a woman.
>>
>>3872206
It's utterly brilliant.
When they have a compact zoom, shit on their zoom range.
When they have a good zoom range, shit on their bloat size.
>>
>>3872206
OMG, they relased big fucking Lens. Cant believe they complain about it being big. OMG, they relased Lens with useless zoom range. Cant believe they complain about it. Tamron didn do nothing, each their Lens is perfection.
>Crying_soy_wojak.jpeg
>>
>>3872167
The 17-28 is simply an APS-C visualizer to see how cannon cucks see things.
You shoot 17mm, and if you wanna see how it would look on a Canon APS-C you extend the lens.
>>
File: 1364584352810.gif (569 KB, 162x152)
569 KB
569 KB GIF
All the Fujicucks lurking SAR are lterrified, and are iterally begging Sony to drop the APS-C market.
>423 comments
>>
>>3872223
just took a look, what a shithole
fujislugs and sonytards seething at each other like faggots rooting for their gay teams and making retarded remarks from both sides
>>
Also PPP you're a faggot, I know you post here because you have a weebcuck avatar and you were greentexting in the comment section.
Full frame is not the end-be-all of photography, cope nigger.
It is a sweet spot of compromises for most uses, but being a full frame absolutist is autistic and pointless. I hope Fuji and Sony kill each other, the two most cancerous brands in the market.
>>
>>3872241
>but being a full frame absolutist is autistic and pointless.
I suspect some of them are shills who are working for a 3rd party advertisement company who are hired by many camera makers.

That would explain why they are shilling for Company A to stick to FF, and shilling for Company B to have dips on APS-C.
It makes their life easier.

But ideally they should just get laid off.
>>
>>3872239
>seething at each other
It's only one side who is seething and are terrified.

The other side can't wait until there is some additional competition on the market.
>>
>>3871497
Yeah. But plastic build makes them featherweight. They barely weight more than the film that's inside, you can literally tell if it's loaded or empty by picking it up.

>>3871407
Anon I like tiny 35mm cameras, I've tried or owned most of them.
In practice, i.e. daily use, the Minox is on a league of its own when it comes to *pocketability*. This is because, aside from the very small size:
1. they fold, making them even smaller
2. folded they're absolutely flat so they slide in and out of the pocket very easily, like a pack of cigarettes, because there's nothing to catch on.

Actually if you have a 20-pack of cigarettes, it's a great approximation of the size and dimensions of a minox camera when folded (tiny bit longer, same height, tiny bit thicker).

The lens on the Rollei is a bit better, but this is not of great importance for the type of shooting these cameras are intended (no focus aids, so stopped down for DoF, in which case you won't notice shit between the lenses by f/5.6-f/8).
The Minox lens is a bit wider too, which I find useful (bit more leeway for framing).
>>
>>3870631
This is my first camera too and only recently started to take it out
>>
>>3872247
No, there's some full frame faggots mad that a new APS-C is being made.
I shoot full frame, don't get me wrong, but I don't get why someone would get mad at a product being launched to cover another segment.
Do you see F-150 drivers get mad when a new F-250 comes out? Because that's what this comes across as to me.
>>3872247
No, there's a state of permanent seething from all sides involved. Fucking pathetic, they managed to seethe about Pentax of all companies. A company that has been consistently ungreedy, going as far as updating the existing K-1s to the new version for a small fee. A company that does things approaching a circular economy.
And then they start arguing about video bits. My DSLR from years ago records 14 bit raw and these mirrorlessfags are arguing 8 vs 10. It's like watching retards fight.
Mirrorless was a mistake.
>>
Does the RX100 VII produce images in a high enough resolution for wallpapers?
>>
>>3870631
It's a wonderful camera. I'll tell you what I know you should know, not an expert but is what I can help you with.
Make sure your firmware is C: v1.04 or newer.
Don't buy a VR DX AF-P lens for it. You can't disable the stabilization on those so it limits the usability mounted on a tripod (always disable the stabilization when mounted, as it amplifies the vibration instead of reducing it).
Also if you buy an old manual lens make sure it's Ai or modified to be compatible (also known as Ai'd).
If you mount a non-Ai lens on it you'll damage the aperture feeler.
This is only a concern if you buy very old lenses.
Unironically check Ken Rockwell's site for more info on this.
>>
File: Untitled.png (132 KB, 739x402)
132 KB
132 KB PNG
>>3872254
>they managed to seethe about Pentax of all companies.
You men this one? That's an anti-Sony marketeer using Pentax as bait.

Come one dude, you have enough brainpower to figure that out by now.
>>
>>3872260
No, that guy is praising Pentax.
In fact I'd agree with him if not for the delusion that Pentax makes a dent into Sony's figures.
>>
>>3872265
>No, that guy is praising Pentax.
He's baiting the others to attack Pentax. Anon you're not as smart as I thought.

Sometimes he ise Canon to bait them. Sometimes he use Nikon.
>>
>>3872268
Maybe he does it for the lulz. Can't fault him for the idiots attacking Pentax lol. Pentax is essentially a boutique company.
I wish I didn't need the video features Canon offers, I'd get a Pentax overnight.
>>
>>3872156
I bet next Sony releases camera with x-t4 sensor and evf hump (I can already fucking see them publishing "magnification" for the evf based on aps-c sensor size) for $2k
>>
File: 1291497652498.jpg (91 KB, 554x439)
91 KB
91 KB JPG
>>3872270
>Can't fault him
Anon proceeds to defend a marketeer troll who uses every opportunity to criticise and ridicule Sony. why am I not surprised?
>>
>>3872272
Nah, if they were smart they would build a sensor that is superior and has better battery consumption characterisitcs and develops less heat.

Or go will out with A9 / A1 tech.
>>
>>3872273
>a marketeer troll who uses every opportunity to criticise and ridicule Sony
He's not wrong though, both Sony and Fuji are unergonomic toys.
>>
If Sony were smart they would build a new generation of camera with croff type autofocus:
https://www.sony-semicon.co.jp/e/products/IS/mobile/2_2_ocl.html

Unfortunately they're not that smart, and they don't want to kill off their competition too much.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CC 2018 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution800 dpi
Vertical Resolution800 dpi
Image Created2019:12:03 16:58:33
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width960
Image Height315
>>
>>3872279
Why does exmor team hate alpha and don't give them best sensors?
>>
File: 1334973225915.png (25 KB, 188x140)
25 KB
25 KB PNG
I would be such a ruthless CEO if I was in charge.
Aggressive pushing of technologies.
6100 would have 1000 cipa battery rating.
6400 would have 900 cipa battery rating.
7m3 would have x0,9 magnification EVF with 5 million dots
7m4 would have Cross-type autofocus across the whole sensor.
1-inch flagship with 120 FPS burst at 12 bit raws.
APS-C flagship with 80 FPS burst at 12 bit raws.

God damn, all the other camera makers would be terrified.

>>3872285
Alpha tema doesn't want to pay for it.... just yet.
Or perhaps they haven't figured out the ultimate AF algorithm for Cross-type yet.
(this is new insight I gained recently from observing how bad the PDAF performance is on on the FP-L. Just because the AF hardware is there, is not a guarantee for good AF)
>>
>>3872258
Broskis?
>>
>>3872288
It's fine as a tourist camera. Especially when there is good sunlight.

For wall papers you're probably well served by just browsing flickr or something like that.
>>
>>3872289
But I wanted to make my own wallpapers
>>
>>3872290
Go for it I guess? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
>>
Newfag here I need a camera for my video production and photography class which one do you guys recommend? My budget is 800 usd.
>>
>>3872293
The one you have with you
>>
>>3872293
EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 USM lens (not as silent as an STM but it was the only bright zoom with constant aperture in the price range, the Tamron and Sigma alternatives available have worse image quality and noisier and less accurate AF) and T5i/700D. Install Magic Lantern and say hello to 14-bit RAW.
>>
>>3872005

If you're trying to fill the frame at 12mm, the weird fisheye shit at the ends is really distracting.
>>
>>3872293
>>3872304
Oh and also spend the rest of the budget on gear that will be useful to you.
Slave flashes, lighting modifiers, variable ND filters, tripod. One great thing about the camera's built-in flash is that it can control slave flashes.
420EX, 430EX in any version, 270EX II, 320EX, 550EX, 580EX in any version all can be used as wireless slaves. Or you can get a radio trigger system, but that's more expensive.
>>
>>3872293
>>3872304
>>3872310
Last but not least, the 320EX does double duty as an on-camera light for video.
>>
>>3871450
Just bought an a7iii with the sigma 24-70 f2.8 and I’m liking it so far. Just depends what you’re looking to do. I added the extended pinky grip to mine and it m added it feel better in the hand
>>
>>3870942
>>3871420
>D2X
dxoweenie

Humans look at images. Did you ever think to do human testing, you nerd?

I get so tired of it, yes, the camera is better at measuring the chemical composition of a tree or whatever, but that's not our use for cameras, is it? We're looking for HUMANS to look at the PICTURES and actually like what they see. Or, in some cases, to just agree it represents it as they saw it.

You may pass this off, and say it's a display issue, or a printing issue, but over-resolution and over-tonality results in all kinds of BARF - in some cases. Sometimes high resolution works out okay.

But think about the Zorn palette next time you read those autism numbers from dxoweeniesperg.
>>
>>3872260
I think he means the endless shitflinging and snoyseething when the Pentax K-3III release was announced a few weeks ago.
It was funny really.
>>
>>3872332
Did Sonyfags storm pentax forums to sling shit or something?
Because that would be the equivalent to what those guys are doing on SAR.
>>
>>3872333
It was here on /p/, even the everpresent fuji vs snoy shitflinging halted so everyone could focus on Pentax. Then the weather sealing and shutter issues came out and all it took is mentioning the Pentax aperture problem and how Pentax is still servicing it. Then the seething was in full swing. It was beautiful.
>>
>>3872338
>Then the weather sealing and shutter issues came out
Is that... a "seething"?

It sounds like you're calling everything a seething.
>>
>>3872332
It sounds like the trashing was a universal thing. Even Pentax fans trashed the thing apparently: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m1gFUlC3dcw

Now I'm kinds of sad I missed those threads.
>>
File: 1376880216112.gif (876 KB, 144x192)
876 KB
876 KB GIF
Wait....What the fuck.
Why is the K3-iii more expensive than the K1 full frame?

I.... Pentax I...
>>
File: 1340546208679.gif (1.69 MB, 139x215)
1.69 MB
1.69 MB GIF
>>3872348
>more expensive than the K-1II
>>
>>3872327
>dxoweenie
>Humans look at images. Did you ever think to do human testing, you nerd?
The fucking irony of some faggot theorizing about MUH RGB SEPARATION! resorting to the "humans look at images" argument. If we're going to NOT be autistic for a minute and rely on "humans look at images" then just about any DSLR ever made can capture more colors more accurately than humans care to notice. Canon's 3mp D30 had 12 bit ADCs and RAW and that's more than enough for a satisfactory color gamut.

>We're looking for HUMANS to look at the PICTURES and actually like what they see.
HUMANS don't seem to have any issue with the color gamut of any digital camera made in the last 20 some years, though they will argue profiles, film sims, editing, etc.
>>
I'm going to spend $900 to use with a $150 lens and there's nothing you can do about it.
>>
>>3872344
Pentax announced something along the lines of "essence of photography" and them sticking to that route. Whatever that means.
It is essentially going if not straight against but at least completely diverging from the current gearfag and spec sheet and charts trends currently leading by Snoy but Canon is quick in catching up (even though Canon and Nikon started it way back). As I understand it Fuji is somewhat diverging as well while going into hipster realms of gearfagging in the meantime.
The main thing is Snoy and Snoyshills (and Canonshills) just can't really do anything about it, they don't understand it which is not surprising as currently not many people understand it either. I know a few old photographers on my local forum who know what it is about but they stick to film most of the time, as they say even digital takes a lot from the "essence".
So it's a mess. Pentax basically threw a big rock into a pool of shit. The waves seems died off for now, we will see where this thing goes.
If Snoy keeps cutting on corners and quality suffers they will be in a whole lot of shit, even Nikon looks undecided and put the brakes on the whole mirrorless reformation thing.

>>3872348
Oh right, there's the price thing. If not just cameras you will be surprised what you'll pay for basic food and stuff in the coming year, there's a pandemic going on and an economic crash coming in (and it will hit and hit harder than 2009). Plus the OVF has special glass and there's the new AF, I'm not surprised about the price hike. Pentax always had lowball pricing up until now. But I always buy used, so meh.
>>
File: proxy-image (4).jpg (6 KB, 275x183)
6 KB
6 KB JPG
bought an LCD viewfinder for my 5D2, really excited to use it, i keep missing focus outdoors and i think it might be a little more stable if i can glue my eye to something, and provide a third point of contact to offhand shooting. Maybe itll give me a smoother handheld shot
>>
File: 1566973690962.gif (352 KB, 256x256)
352 KB
352 KB GIF
New to photography. What makes one camera better than another? What are the specs to compare against? Is the lens much more important than the camera itself?
Also, what about post production? How much post is considered "cheating"?
>>
>>3872399
>what makes one camera better than another?
handling and preference is usability and controls
>what are the specs to compare against
only the features that you need on a camera to camera basis. Do you need IBIS, do you need advanced colour profiling, do you need an affordable lens mount family, is fast glass available in that lens mount, will your computer render whatever you shoot etc.
>is the lens much more important
"Date the body and marry the lens", just find any full frame or crop sensor camera and perfect your lens choices. We've come to the point of deminishing returns between camera models and everything is perfect now, choosing a body is the easiest choice and choosing the lens the hardest, since a lens dictates your aesthetics and relationship with photography.
>how much post is considered cheating
shut the fuck up and just shoot goddamnit, just stop asking stupid damn questions and just shoot images you goddamn faggot incel retarded nigger idiot cuckolded asswipe juju looking motherfucking ass dick fucker cocklick
>>
>>3870805
130 pounds tho? Maybe on a payment plan.
>>
>>3872419
"Your phone" as in you already have it.
>>
>>3872392
why don't you just use the viewfinder? Holding the camera half a foot from your face isn't going to be very stabilizing
>>
Any EU stores worth looking at for camera deals? My country is often particularly expensive within the EU and there are no deals running right now for the what I want.
>>
>>3872426
also I don't want to buy from the states but Adorama and B&H are even more expensive, huh. Don't they lower the price for new old stock items?
>>
>>3872423
its a dslr, the mirror blocks off the optical viewfinder during video mode. So you lose the third point of contact when holding the camera away from your face to focus but i could get it back with this LCD viewfinder
>>
>>3872455
Next time don't forget to mention you're using it for video
>>
Sony A7II + kit lens for $870, yes/no? 20-something thousand shutter count, some wear and tear, clean sensor, 3 months warranty.

Seems like a good deal even with how cheap the lens is, still can get $150 for it.
>>
>>3872259
Thank you.
>Make sure your firmware is C: v1.04 or newer
Just checked, I'm at C:1.01 and L.1009. Will not updating the firmware give me problems? I bricked a phone recently and I don't want to risk my camera too.
>lens
I have zero knowledge on them. I have a "AF-S NIKKOR 24-120mm" which seems good according to my research (not like I got money to get a lens). However I'll keep your tips in my mind if I ever buy one.
>>
>>3872361
>Plus the OVF has special glass
Did those worthless reviewers actually measure whether or not that "special" OVF is better than the K1 OVF?

Or did they just spend all their airtime confessing how much they love Pentax?
>>
>>3872476
check ebay sold listings and stuff that's sold on fredmiranda and reddit /r/photomarket. if it's in the same range then go for it.
>>
https://www.etsy.com/listing/992992580/leitz-wetzlar-leica-m3-ds-kit-summaron-m?ga_order=most_relevant&ga_search_type=all&ga_view_type=gallery&ga_search_query=leica+m3&ref=sc_gallery-1-1&from_market_listing_grid_ad=1&plkey=f95ab9b8cc915a59cf3ffe7bb260bb79f3f2f643%3A992992580&frs=1&cns=1

WHY IS IT SO CHEAP WTF
>>
File: d5782b-39f529--3.jpg (31 KB, 660x440)
31 KB
31 KB JPG
There is a guy selling a 5DmkIII a town away from me. He's asking $500. I am currently using a 7D and the only EF lens I have is a 50mm 1.8.
>>
>>3872491
Either it's a scam or it's already been sold because that's about $1000 less than a 5D3 goes for these days.
>>
>>3872501
Do you mistake prices with a Mark IV?
>>
>>3872507
>Do you mistake prices with a Mark IV?
Huh, actually yeah, maybe I did. Looks like the prices of the Mark III have come down a lot since I last looked at them.

$500 is still a good deal for it, though.
>>
>>3872361
Pentax are plain wrong if they think DSLRs will ever mak a big comeback. The truth is, LCD screens and autofocus are getting better and better on mirrorless cameras. Pentax will be dead within a decade. It's a shame as their Q range was pretty decent for the time but they didn't run with it.
I'm saying this as someone who loves the KP and Pentax in general.
>>
Amazon Prices are crazy. The KP was £525 back in December and now it's £1000.
>>
>>3872480
It's a requirement if you want the ability to use AF-P lenses at all and it probably comes with some new features (check the changelog if available). You probably don't *need* it if you only have and plan to use an AF-P lens. It shouldn't brick the camera but it could happen if you run out of battery during flashing because it wasn't full or if you somehow install a firmware for the wrong model if that's possible.
>>
>>3872491
That's a steal if in good condition, go get it.
>>
>>3872523
Seems to be working well for Leica...
>>
>>3872488
>etsy
We've been over this 2 threads ago
>>
>>3872556
I wasn't there, what was the conclusion regarding etsy
>>
>>3872482
That crop APS-C OVF literally gives the same view angle as the K-1 FF OVF. As in corner to corner you get the same size OVF.
>>
>>3872523
It doesn't have to come back, Pentax is fine being a niche DSLR company among all the gearfagging mirrorless crowd
>>
>>3872571
>literally gives the same view
That's not enough.

Since it's more expensive, is it better?
If it isn't better than the FF OVF, then why should I pay extra to crop my senseo?
>>
>>3872574
Pixel density for sports, wildlife and other types of photography. Ask Eggy why he doesn't shoot full frame.
>>
>>3872558
Scam
>>
>>3872583
>Pixel density
That's not what I asked though.

If the OVF better in the K3-iii, or is it merely the same despite costing more?
>>
>>3872574
>is it better?
It is an optical viewfinder, on crop, that is bigger and brighter than the ones before and is the equivalent of the FF OVF. How hard can this be to comprehend?
And it is not entirely connected with the price hike, I can imagine it was decided Pentax no longer lowballing their prices and most likely that is what happened. I wouldn't expect the OVF alone (or even with the new AF) would do such a price hike.
>>
>>3872590
Thanks, so it's the same as K1, not not better in any way.
That was tough to get out of you faggots.

>I wouldn't expect the OVF alone (or even with the new AF) would do such a price hike.
The new AF comes from a cheaper sensor, so it's serves as a counter argument to you.
>>
>>3872592
You are an idiot.
>>
>>3872584
Yeah I am the anon that got scammed for $600 on a 70-200 on Etsy. PayPal literally finishes reviewing my claim tomorrow and I can expect a refund by May 5 if they decide in my favor, otherwise I have to contact my credit card company for a chargeback. Don't go for any "deals" on Etsy.
>>
>>3872592
It has more magnification. The VF size is equivalent to the K1, but objects show 1.5x larger (linearly) with the same lens.
>>
>>3872592
Oh and the AF doesn't come from a cheaper sensor. The SAFOX 13 module has 101 focus points and it was developed for the K-3 III. It's much superior to the one on the K-1.
>>
>>3872599
>You are
No U.
Pentax did actually make bullshit advertisements about supah special materials that decreases OVF distortion.

I wanted to know if that was BS or not, but I guess you shouldn't expect that type of thing from reviewers, they are only there to kiss the ass of their employer.
>>
>>3872607
Why so mad, anon? :^)
>>
>>3872612
Because you are an idiot.
>>
>>3872476
The only issue with the A72 is that it has the high ISO of a crop camera. No idea what Sony screwed up in that specific model. If you want FF to shoot low light then look for something else.
>>
Whatst eh cheapest way to set up a negative scanner with a camera?
>>
File: nikon_f5.png (109 KB, 318x210)
109 KB
109 KB PNG
what's the cheapest (fool frame) mirrorless with a good evf and with decent video capabilities? i'm not too bothered about lens selection as i will be using the older manual lenses i already own.
>>
>>3872875
Just use old DSLR if you don't care about lenses with good image quality.

People reach out for mirrorless because their autofocus is fast and silent.
>>
So I already have a d3300 but I'm looking for the cheapest possible full frame nikon to just play around with cheap vintage glass I find at thrift stores or flea markets because I want to see how FF feels without the damn aps c magnifying crop. Its also to test the feel of how a 35mm prime feels, an 85, a 300, a 28, a 500 everything.

Doesn't need high megapixel count or autofocus just Full Frame and nikon because they have lotsa cheap vintage glass laying around
>>
>>3872898
Jesus Christ even the D3 the very first digital full frame is like 500 bucks, I didn't realize cameras really hold their value more than any other tech. If a full frame is gonna be 500ish used I may as well drop 1k on a new FF I suppose
>>
>>3872875
Define decent video. Decent AF? Canon RP (but it's 1080p only). 4k30? Probably Sony A73 or Canon R (but R has a crop). RAW? Z6 or one of the Panasonic bodies that supports RAW.

Honestly if you're on a budget look at an X-T3 and just accept the crop. It's still S35 size and the video specs/IQ are fantastic.
>>
i can't remember the name of a camera that i really liked, i found it a few years back. i remember it might have been an olympus, but i also think it had a 'z' in the name. i know there were multiple iterations. i am talking about the second 'ii'/mark2. it was not a dslr, more of a point and shoot in the $700 range with bluetooth, a touch screen etc. I do not want to buy it anymore, but it is infuriating that I cannot remember what it was so I am on a mission to solve the mystery.
>>
>>3872711
Tripod
Macro lens
Cardboard and tape
Sunlight
White bedsheet or diffusion paper

Don't bother camera scanning unless your light source is 95+ CRI and your camera has a high megapixel count
>>
>>3872907
It doesn't actually hold value, though.
Old cameras are obsolete. Only semi-recent cameras are good, or niche specialty style ones like 3CCD designs. Old Bayer cameras aged like milk. Only expensive because sellers are idiots. Kinda like how that retard down the road on Craigslist is still trying to sell his Dell Optiplex he bought for $500 for a low low price of $300 even though it's from 2007 and runs Vista.

Don't look for asking prices, look for what buyers are willing to pay. Don't go for "The first" camera because that'll be skewed by collector autists and not representative at all of the market for full frame DSLRs in general.
>>
>>3872907
>the very first digital full frame
From Nikon. It's fairly new.
D3X is a more interesting value proposition though.
>>
>>3872654
I thought shit low light was just expected before A7iii
>>
>>3872927
And the answer to that was the same old cope, oh, all cameras are good, just use 100 ISO bruh, just get a tripod
>>
>>3872927
It's worse than a 5D mark II. The A7 II literally delivers aps-c tier high ISO which is odd because it has decent base ISO DR.

I mean...at the end of the day "aps-c tier" is roughly 1ev worse than FF. It's not the end of the world if you find one for a good deal. But it is a strange aberration for Sony.
>>
File: 1611205610122.png (75 KB, 877x962)
75 KB
75 KB PNG
>>3872969
What's so strange about that?

Canon had more money than Sony back then.
Sony didn't sell any meaningful amount of cameras until the mark 3, so it makes sense that they were poorfags who couldn't invests much into sensors and optics like that can today.
The Sony of today is in a different financial situation than the Sony in the past.
>>
>>3872971
>What's so strange about that?
Other Sony made sensors, including Nikon sensors and the sensors in the A7r bodies, were competitive at high ISO. So it's odd that their first two 24mp sensors lagged in this respect.
>>
>>3873007
>So it's odd that their first two
You mean their first sensor which they reused multiple times. You probably have no idea how old that sensor really is.
>>
File: 1379881527868.jpg (75 KB, 559x364)
75 KB
75 KB JPG
>Sigma used a Sony body to demonstrate their new 35mm F1,4's AF capability
>instead of their own FP camera
>instead of using Laica's pr Panasonic's cameras
That was one hell of a humble pie they just took right there.

It's as if they know their presentation is aimed for the E-mount userbase, rather than their own L-mount userbase, which gives me the feels.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2011:09:17 12:20:05
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
Image Width563
Image Height364
>>
>>3872654
>>3872969
>>3873007
Interesting. I'll probably still get it, I want the cheapest body so I lose the least money when I upgrade later once I have a good lens setup(I know A7 is cheaper but I think it would be harder to re-sell).

So A7RII has better low light performance? Is there any reason you wouldn't get it over A7II other than price?
>>
>>3873044
R2 was quite the revolution back in the day.

It wasn't just the image quality, but also the first babysteps to the continuous eyeAF feature you see in the modern cameras.
That was the camera that made everybody understand that Canikon needed to be careful or Sony is going to hit them like a truck.
>>
>>3873047
Neat. Shame it doesn't seem like it sold much in my country, can't find any used deals for it, basically sells close to MSRP.
>>
>>3873014
Perhaps that's it. I don't know it's full history.

>>3873044
>Is there any reason you wouldn't get it over A7II other than price?
Nope. If you can get an A7r2 instead, do it. Better camera, much better sensor. I love the immersive detail of high resolution 35mm sensors, and the 42mp sensor qualifies.
>>
File: 1527123080_1410642.jpg (447 KB, 2500x2500)
447 KB
447 KB JPG
Film guy here looking to get into digital
I read this (probably dumbshit) article about the best mirrorless cams for under 500. the list was
fuji x-t100
canon m50
olympus om-d e-m10 ii
sony a6000
lumix gx85
Which one would you say offers the best bang for my buck? Or better yet, if there's better ones that didn't make the list, I'm all ears
>>
>>3873075
Get a DSLR
>>
>ISO invariance
This is just photofag shill speak for a good signal to noise ratio, right?
>>
>>3873079
i appreciate rangefinders as a film shooter and its mostly because of size/form factor/weight. i like mirrorless cameras for the same reason. i've used SLR before and I've found that I'm not really missing much by NOT using an SLR.
so no thank you
>>
>>3872921
>Don't look for asking prices, look for what buyers are willing to pay.

So check ebay for the winning bids? Gotcha
>>
>>3873088
Not even that but look at quantity and how fast things go.
There are a lot of scams on Ebay involving false sales, from a third party working together with the seller and such. If you see an item being sold on Ebay it does not at all represent an actual sale in an open market.

If you see a dozen sell for a price, that's a different story.
>>
Etsy scam retard here for my last uodate. After a week and a half It's finally over.
>>
File: untitled.jpg (522 KB, 1515x1004)
522 KB
522 KB JPG
Biiiiiiiigmaaaaa~~

I guess the nickname is something they have earned and deserved.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Softwarepaint.net 4.2.7
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution96 dpi
Vertical Resolution96 dpi
>>
File: 51DyhyuEoOL.jpg (55 KB, 1000x1000)
55 KB
55 KB JPG
hi autists, I'm a color noob and I'm wondering, does a chink, no name color checker/color card like pic related have any practical use?
it has the RGB values of each color printed on the back side but they don't correspond to those on any of the big name color cards, so is there any software or """creative""" way to use it as a practical calibration tool, or do all of those rely on preset values for each brand-name product?
>>
>>3873249
>big fat lenses for big fat americans
>>
File: 1343434691294.jpg (13 KB, 160x160)
13 KB
13 KB JPG
>>3873285
That feel when "European cut" bike suite is code word for normal built.
And "American cut" bike suite is code word for obese biult.
It's like a gentle form of mocking. But it's become necessary so people don't buy the wrong shaped clothes.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2010:10:13 17:40:48
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
Image Width160
Image Height160
>>
>>3873281
It doesn't really matter what you use, just that the real-world color matches the input data. So if your shade of red is different than the non-chink ColorChecker, all you need is to know the right info for it.

Trying to calibrate using that under the assumption that it is a genuine ColorChecker with color patches that don't match will simply mess things up.

It's worth noting that the ColorChecker isn't even that great of a tool. 18 patches is a joke. Look at an IT8 target for comparison, you can use those for photography too for more accuracy. WAY more patches.
>>
>>3873368
>ll you need is to know the right info for it
I get the general principle, but in reality I haven't been able to find a software that lets me input the color data myself, care to point me towards one or two?
>IT8 target
that's a scanner target, not a camera target
there are bigger camera targets than the xrite's or datacolor's but they're something else, and they too have their own proprietary software, preset to their product's value
>>
>>3873085
Mirrorless isn't old enough to have the same savings in used.
>>
>>3873249
just bought the 50mm 1.4 art impulsively because I'm a massive faggot.

it seems sharp, what should I expect?
>>
>>3873449
>what should I expect?
DSLR AF motor.

Acceptable for still. Bad motor type for video.
>>
>>3873451
it's manual focus is very heavy, it kind of sucks to use it manually. Maybe I'm announcing it. Gotta stick for a few months them try to sell.
>>
>>3873475
Sigma is going to release a mirrorless DG DN version eventually.

It might even be F1,2 aperture, who knows.
But it will upgrade its AF motor for sure.
>>
>be noob
>find an old kodak pixpro az362
is it even good? I have no idea.
>>
I'm buying my first interchangeable lens camera. I'm more or less settled on what body/lenses to get.

But what accessories should I get from the start? Other than getting a bag, I have no idea. Filters? If yes, what kind? Should I get additional batteries? Are aftermarket straps worth getting? Anything else? I'll get a tripod eventually, but probably not right away because I'm not sure what type I want yet.
>>
>>3873664
Tripod should be the first thing.
>>
>>3873672
why? also what the nbest triopod ynder 200
>>
>>3873673
>forces you to slow down and think about composition
>eliminates hand shake
>only way to shoot dark night/astro
>best way to shoot for motion blur (i.e. rivers, waves, clouds)

>what the nbest triopod ynder 200
Go to B&H Photo and search for tripods in the $100-$200 range, ball head, Arca type plate. Pick one that fits what you want in terms of size, load capacity, etc.
>>
>>3873672
I'll get one within like a month but I'm not sure if I want to get a full size one, a monopod, or one of those small ones - I guess I'll just see what situations I'll get in when actually shooting.
>>
>>3873664
Does it have an integrated flash?
I agree that the tripod is a must, because it will enable you to take low light pictures that you couldn't otherwise.
Filters, definitely get a circular polarizer.
More batteries are never a bad thing, but they are a must if you buy a camera that's power-hungry or <an used one with a tired battery.
A lens hood is recommended if your lens lacks one.
An IR shutter release is cheap and fun to use.
5-in-1 reflectors are recommended if you plan to do any kind of portraiture.
>>
>>3873676
>circular polarizer
Yeah that looks useful. How do you decide which one to buy? Even with one thread size I'm seeing prices ranging from like $5 to $40 at least.
>An IR shutter release is cheap and fun to use.
Will get with the tripod for sure.
>>
>>3873683
>$40
Scratch that, I'm seeing they go up to and above $100. So yeah, what's the deal with that?
>>
>>3873683
>>3873685
Better ones don't tint the image and they also rob less light. Nikon in particular makes some super nice and super expensive ones, they're also very thin which helps prevent vignetting.
>>
>change aperture value
>nothing changes
cool
>>
>>3873379
>software that lets me input the color data myself
I know you can make custom charts to use with DarkTable, but to do so you will need to use AgryllCMS and a spectro.
>>
What are the brightest and highest magnification optical viewfinders out there besides the K-3 III? I'm tempted to get an Olympus E-5.
>>
Anybody have any recommendations for a camera in the 2-300 dollar range? I want to get into photography but that's about all I can afford.
>>
>>3873711
get a used nikon d3400 off ebay.
>>
>>3873673
Vanguard Alta Pro 263 is a pretty good deal. Not suited for travel or hiking though.
>>
I'm a noob & got a cheap meike 320 flash
I just noticed if I take a few quick pictures with it, even when not at full power and/or only taking 2 pictures in a row, only the first flash is properly powered, the next one is way weaker.
I'd expect it to just not fire if the flash isn't ready, but that obviously isn't the case. Is upgrading the only solution?
>>
Why is the a7rii so much cheaper than the a7riii? They’re the same sensor, the 3 just has better autofocus and burst speed. Is the autofocus really so bad to justify the 2 being half the price of the 3, or is the 2 just undervalued right now?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width1280
Image Height720
Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>
>>3873880
Sony's shutter is made to fail. rII price can be lower due a high shutter actions.
>>
File: 1593906671012.jpg (146 KB, 716x537)
146 KB
146 KB JPG
Newbie here, is it good idea to replace my 18-55mm and 55-200mm with a superzoom 18-200mm or 18-300mm? Nikon system, mainly worried about image quality.
>>
>>3873884
Even new there’s a huge gap. Seems like a really nice camera if you don’t care about video.
>>
>>3873901
>Seems like a really nice camera
That's because you have no idea about cameras
>>
>>3873887
Only if you want a light lens with the wide to telephoto range and willing to sacrifice image quality. Like a travel setup so you don't need to pack several heavier lenses. Even in that case I wouldn't touch a 18-300 or 18-200 even, only a 18-135-ish range. That would give you a nice 24-200 FF equivalent range and better image quality than the large superzooms.
>>
>>3873887
Only if you get it for cheap. iq will be about the same.
>>
>>3873880
The RIII has sensor shift super resolution.
>>
>>3873949
your mom has sensor shift super resolution
>>
>>3873880
Yes, also the processing is horrid on the II so you get lots of noise, like APS-C tier.
>>
>>3873957
ISO invariance and high ISO noise look very similar on the dpreview comparison tool, both better than Sony apsc and wiping the floor with Fuji. Am I missing something?
>>
>>3873957
>processing is horrid on the II so you get lots of noise
Fake.

All of the R sensors are top tier, especially when downsampled from their high resolution.
>>
>>3873957
Did you accidentally select the A72? The A7r2 is quite good at high ISO.
>>
>>3873880
The FZ battery is in the version 3 afaik.
That means more than twice the battery power of the mark 2.
>>
>>3873957
>>3873968
Gonna clarify with this: A7r2 (and high resolution 35mm in general) high ISO is quite good at the same view size. If you pixel peep thereby magnifying the higher resolution image more then any flaws (noise, CA, motion blur) will be magnified more as well, giving the impression it's worse.
>>
>>3873969
It can be powered off usb though, and $1000 will buy lots of spare batteries. I really think I like the rii bros, it will be a nice upgrade from my rebel xsi.
>>
>>3873984
What lenses are you going to get for it?
>>
>>3873968
>>3873973
I meant a7 II my bad
>>
I'm looking for an aesthetic camera strap. What are your recommendations? I would like something that is unique but practical. No harnesses. I use a sony a7ii
>>
>>3873959
>>3873963
>>3873973
I misread and thought of the a7 II.
The dpreview tool is overrated though.
There's high chances of getting disappointed if you buy a camera based on it. The conditions at which you'll use high ISO irl are very different from that lab test.
even boomers on forums can be a more useful input sometimes.
>>
>>3874022
If you want unique go to Etsy
Otherwise my main advice is to try to find out if the tie-on part (the stringier part that ties onto the camera, not the neck part) is made out of nylon. it frays easily and cannot be fixed.

cheap nylon used on the straps are the reason I've thrown more away even though the overall strap is in OK condition.
>>
>>3874028

Thanks for the heads-up on nylon stringers. I'll do my best to avoid nylon.
>>
File: DSC07285.jpg (3.41 MB, 6000x4000)
3.41 MB
3.41 MB JPG
Hey all, I need some advice. I have been taking photos now as a job for about 8 months. I work as a photography guide in Rocky Mountain National Park. I love my Sony A7II that I bought with the 28-70mm kit lens on sale for $900. After that i needed a wildlife lens so I picked up the Sigma 100-400mm f5.0-6.3 DG DN. Now that I have learned most of the basics of photography I feel that my camera and maybe my lens is holding me back when it comes to my wildlife shots. I take mainly shots of elk and moose and relatively stationary animals. I have recently been very interested in photographing birds in flight and specifically birds of prey like osprey and falcons. The last time I was out I was lucky enough to shoot an osprey hunting on Sprague Lake in RMNP but my camera felt so upsettingly slow to focus on the osprey with how low the light had gotten and how fast it was going in its dives. look at the EXIF for my settings if you think that was the problem. This was the best shot I was able to get out of all of my tracking shots. the rest of them are either out of focus or unusably noisy due to light. So my question is, what camera should I be looking into for an upgrade? Sony a7III, a7RIII, a7RIV, A9 and also do you think I should be looking into the Sony 200-600mm G lens or is my sigma 100-400mm more than enough?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeSONY
Camera ModelILCE-7M2
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 10.2 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperturef/6.3
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)400 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution240 dpi
Vertical Resolution240 dpi
Image Created2021:04:29 15:02:35
Exposure Time1/2000 sec
F-Numberf/6.3
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating3200
Lens Aperturef/6.3
Brightness4.2 EV
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length400.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
>>
>>3874039
To add on to this, I saw that there was a leaked APS-C Sony body coming soon targeting wildlife and sports photographers. Should I be waiting to see those results before I make any decisions?

Thanks in advance everyone
>>
>>3874013
I’d probably mostly use it with the 28-77 kit zoom because it’s good enough for landscapes, and I might pick up a Rokinon 85mm F1.4 for portraits. E mount also adapts well to old film lenses, so it might be cool to fuck around with that. I’m reasonably new to photography, so E mount seems pretty flexible for anything I’d want to buy because of all the third party support.
>>
>>3874027
>The conditions at which you'll use high ISO irl are very different from that lab test.
No they're not. People just tend to underexpose in high ISO situations, then complain that the ISO they were at is bad when in reality they should have been shooting a couple stops higher and expecting that level of IQ.
>>
>>3874039
>osprey and falcons
The A9, for whatever reason the A9 Zone Focus mode appears to be perfectly tuned for bird shooting:
https://youtu.be/PWnm38kIGLY?t=316

And Sigma's lens motors are not known to be the best, but you might as well try to use it since you already have it.
>>
>>3874059
>I’d probably mostly use it with the 28-77 kit zoom
I wouldn't recommend that. The other Anon is correct about the high resolution sensor magnifying the flaws of crappy lenses.

It doesn't have to be expensive lenses, but but it needs high quality lenses.
This one goes for 200 sollars these days: https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Tamron-35mm-f-2.8-Di-III-OSD-Lens.aspx
>>
Should I buy a Sony A1 to become a better photographer?
>>
>>3874104
You should ask better questions to become a better troll.
>>
>>3874039
A9 is great an will hit much better than A7ii or A7iii, never tried A7Riv.
If the new APS-C camera has stacked sensor and similar AF reaction speed, might be really good, but I wouldn't count on Sony.
>>
I shoot with the 40mm batis and looking to buy the 35mm G Master f/1.4 for more full body shots of models I shoot.

Should I switch to the 35?
>>
When is Nikon making a DSLR successor to the 850? Its been 4 years since the d850 was announced in July 25, 2017. It seems about time right? I'm thinking I can scoop up a panic sell off and buy one for less than the 2.8-2.5k USD~ average they go for right now (used, ridiculous).

I can't justify dropping more than a grand on some entry level FF dslr or early adopter tax mirrorless FF if I can get the best in class used for just a bit more
>>
>>3874150
My guess is they want to get out ahead of Olympus (rumored partnered w/ Samsung).
>>
>>3874205
35 vs 40mm isn't THAT different.

Do you really want the heavier GM lens?
>>
Why hasn't DxO tested the Fujifilm GFX 100S, Fujifilm GFX 50S, or the Fujifilm GFX 100?

Wouldn't they be in the top 15 easy? Wouldn't that put pressure on Sony, Nikon, and Canon to start flirting with medium format? The 100S is 6k its up there with Flagship pricing like the A1 and whenever canon gets around to its R1 after it releases the R3.

It just seems the industry can only focus on one upgrade/sidegrade at a time, and thats mirrorless. It seems at this rate we'll have to wait until mirrorless is more mature in half a decade or more for the companies to shift R&D cost to Medium format, once they've milked everyone buying into the bodies and lenses
>>
>>3874223
>Wouldn't that put pressure on Sony, Nikon, and Canon to start flirting with medium format?
Has Phase One ever put pressure on the FF cameras?
No.
Do you think Fujifilm would put pressure on FF with an inferior format?
>>
>>3874223
>Wouldn't they be in the top 15 easy? Wouldn't that put pressure on Sony, Nikon, and Canon to start flirting with medium format? The 100S is 6k its up there with Flagship pricing like the A1 and whenever canon gets around to its R1 after it releases the R3.
Because nobody cares lol, medium format isn't really desirable. Even dedicated cameras are less desirable than ever, and DxO reflects that in their failure to test new cameras in favor of phones.
>>
ive been waiting for like a month for this package to come in the mail containing gear that will let me scan all these 35mm negatives. it has cleared customs today O_O
>>
>>3874226
>>3874229
okay okay no one cares gotcha.

But will we see Nikon/Sony/Canon MF bodies EVENTUALLY?
>>
>>3874232
It's suicide to support more than 2 sensor formats in the state of this current market.

Sony and Canon tried to push the 1 inch sensor format with their fixed lens cameras, but they seem to be struggling.
So I wouldn't count on it.
>>
>>3874233
kay so after they've milked the mirrorless FF market in like 2 decades and need to restart the milking process
>>
File: 1575196049275.jpg (102 KB, 700x528)
102 KB
102 KB JPG
>>3874237
If they survive 2 decades, they would probably still stick to FF and APS-C, just with curved sensors.
APS-C is the all important mass volume market. The sheer quantity of APS-C bodies flood every other formats.
Full Frame is the all important lens sale market. Sheer number of Full Frame lenses being sold absolutely flood all other formats.
They are the brad and butter of big 3 giants.

Besides, Sony has found synergy in FF and APS-C since they can share mount.
Nikon is trying to replicate this.
Canon kinda wants EF-M dead, but are also addicted to the money EF-M gives them.
Sigma is just fucking pissed that Panasonic is protecting micro4/3 market inastead of investing in APS-C and L-mount.

As you can see, the market revolves around FF and APS-C.
Even Pentax knows it's all about FF and APS-C.
>>
>>3874222
I'm just trying to get the best image quality out of my a7r iv, plus I want something a bit wider for full body shots.
>>
Is there a good "general purpose" focal length for a telephoto? for a crop sensor if that matters

I have a 135mm prime which is decades old so no cpu and no auto focus, as well as 70-200 zoom telephoto that is also manual focus and no cpu. Im considering geting a more recent tele that could do autofocus since 90% of my photo shots suffer from out of focus issues.
Is anything from 100-150 an okay range?
>>
>>3874226
Phase One is exclusively for stunt photography.
>>
>>3874278
Since when did people use 150mp 645 sensor digital MF cameras, which cost as much as a house, for stunt photography?
>>
>>3874226
>Canon 5Ds sensor is bigger than Canon 5DMkIV sensor
I don't think that picture represents any useful information
>>
>>3874315
Eh rentals
>>
>>3874320
It's a shitty "Resolution scale" laid out like a sensor size chart.
Misleading and garbage.
>>
File: 20200527_123559.jpg (597 KB, 1000x750)
597 KB
597 KB JPG
can anyone recommend a good camera for someone who's never bought a camera before?
I love taking pictures, but only in the past couple years have I been able to get anything good with my fancy new phone, though the thing turns to pretty much absolute shit beyond like 10 feet and it'd be great if I could get something that I could use to take halfway decent shots of hills/mountains or just generally anything at a fair distance.

also I'm a jew so cheaper the better

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Makesamsung
Camera ModelSM-A505U
Camera SoftwareA505USQU5BTE1
Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.7
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)26 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width4032
Image Height3024
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2020:05:27 12:36:00
Exposure Time1/60 sec
F-Numberf/1.7
Exposure ProgramNormal Program
ISO Speed Rating80
Lens Aperturef/1.7
Brightness8.6 EV
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModeSpot
FlashNo Flash
Focal Length3.93 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width4032
Image Height3024
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Unique Image IDH25LSLJ02YM
>>
>>3873887
18-200 will be soft from 135-200. but still practically usable irl. the lens will give you the focal length flexibility and not changing lenses but you slap equivalent weight of those 2 kit lenses on your camera.
another possible alternative is get a prime lens for the IQ and low light capabilty of the focal length you most and just retain your kit lenses.
here is a good link to start you into gear fagging.
https://www.opticallimits.com/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests
>>
>>3874703
Canon AE-1 Program
>>
>>3874790
as much as I like film, it's expensive and hard to get, and a pain to get developed
shoulda added I'm looking for digital, though I wasn't expecting any film recommendations
will keep yours in mind though
>>
>>3870796
If you don't care about manual controls just get one of those point and shoots by any of the big name camera makers. Walmart usually has them.
If you really don't care about manual controls then I'd just save and get s smartphone though.
Used ones are cheap enough.
>>
>>3870796
Kinda in the same boat as this guy.
I have one of these https://www.amazon.com/Canon-PowerShot-Stabilized-2-7-Inch-Black/dp/B0035FZJJ4 and it's served me well for many years but it is honestly such a piece of shit it's sad.

It doesn't shoot RAW and has zero manual controls. I'm happy with everything else but it just sucks unbelievavly bad because of those two things. If I could get this with RAW output (with a lens profile for correcting distortion) and shutter/ISO controls I'd be happy. It's the perfect pocketable size. Literally the size of a credit card and all metal construction.

I have a DSLR but I want an EDC camera that ain't my phone, because as good as phone cameras are they're not actually all that good and usually have wonky colors.
Plus did you guys know most android phones simply can not under any circumstance take a photo with an exposure time longer than half a second? These point and shoot cams usually all at least let you do 30s exposures which is neat with a tripod so even if just for that they still clearly have a purpose and aren't obsolete. Phone shills can die in a fire.
>>
Right now, the z5 + 24-70 f4 and ftz adapter is on sale for 1700$usd. I was looking to upgrade to an entry level ff system this year and am I right in thinking this is about as good of a deal as I will probably get? Anyone know if there was anything during black friday last year or something similar?

The only other things in that price range are like a rp which is way worse, and the a7ii which is super old now.
>>
>>3874894
Why do you want FF? Do you actually need it?
As someone who uses both FF and APS-C the differences are negligible unless you specifically need the FF system.
If you just want to take some photos the APS-C systems are more than enough, some have plenty of APS-C focused lens lineup like Fuji or Pentax.
>>
>>3874894
>a7ii
And also A7RII. But that depends on what you're planning to do next. Do you just want to get a body and like one or two cheap lenses and call it a day? Then sure, get the best body you can afford. But if you plan to actually build a decent lens collection it might be a better idea to get the cheapest body for whatever system you're interested in so you can upgrade it later and lose less money.
>>
Let me get this LCD/EVF Pixel density and resolution math out here and ya'll can tell me if I'm way off and how PPI works with LCDs vs EVFs

Okay so the Nikon D850 has a 3.2 inch LCD with 2.4 million dots. Divide by 3 to get the pixel count of 800k. 894.43 x 894.43 gets you to 800,005 (I'm assuming the LCD is a perfect square whatever). Okay so plug that into pixels per inch calculator with the 3.2 inch screen and you get a PPI of 395.29. Not bad?

The R5s EVF is 5.76 million dots, divide by 3 thats 1.92million pixels (almost 2 megapixels, meaning almost 16:9 1080p/FHD), gonna assume the EVF is a perfect square at .5 inches and 1385.641 x 1385.641 gets us at 1.92 million pixels. okay plug in those dimensions to the ppi calculator at .5 inches. (the site: https://www.calculatorsoup.com/calculators/technology/ppi-calculator.php) and we get...

3919.118 Pixels per inch. its half an inch so, cut that in half to 1959 PPI

Um, that seems really high, even for something you put right up against your eye. That seems to blow the LCD out of the water? How does the 23mm eyepoint affect this? Does anyone know how far away the screen is to your eye? This just seems like the highest PPI screen which ofc it has to be since its so close to your eye but holy shit. Is this overkill? Is reviewing the image on the EVF better than on any other screen you own including a 2k monitor or flagship 800+ sony experia phone? An external monitor like the Atmos ninja?

It seems people think past 500PPI is a waste but then why did Canon go so far beyond that?
>>
File: IMG_20210501_051240.jpg (452 KB, 1080x2173)
452 KB
452 KB JPG
>>3874958
Ah and one more thing apparently as you can see by this top EVF chart, the Sony A1 and Sony A7SIII have even higher resolution, of course both thier screens is a little bigger than .5 inches, yet it seems they would both still have higher PPI. Perhaps if someone has tried both the EVF on the R5 and one of these Sony's they could confirm or deny if they felt one was sharper, trying to ignore all other factors like contrast or color accuracy.
>>
>>3874822
I gave you a fully manual, mostly analog camera something I learned on! It's what came to mind when realistically yes digital is the way to go.
>>
>>3874958
Canon's is high because they are trying to convince their OVF customers to spend money on mirrorless.

>>3874973
Sony's A1 and Siii are basically muscle flexing.
>>
My ages old Pentax K-10D has better pixel density in the viewfinder than your shiny new toys
>>
>>3875081
What does it feel like to spec whore a feature which nobody in the market cares about any more?
>>
>>3870388
How does one know if the light meter on an old film camera is bad?
>>
>>3875149
Generally you will know when it doesn't give you the right exposure value. Also if the camera is very old and has a selenium light meter then you are out of luck. Those things go bad and were replaced by silicon based semiconductor lightmeters loooooooong ago.
>>
>>3875149
Calibrate with something more accurate, like a cell phone light meter app.
>>
>>3874909
I basically want it for the added flexibility, especially in low light, I've mostly been using mft and Id prefer not to have to rely on ibis as heavily under those circumstances, but I have used apsc cameras and am considering them but the prices seem pretty similar, but I haven't really paid much attention for a few years, I was planning on upgrading some time within the next year but I just came across that deal.

>>3874928
I was originally thinking of going Sony because of the tamron zooms, but this deal popped up which seemed decent. I am mostly a hobbyist so I wouldn't be dumping a huge amount on lenses, but maybe a prime or two and a good zoom. I actually didn't realize that the a7rii was in that price range now, that seems like a good option, but I heard the batteries are pretty poor for those earlier alpha bodies. I don't think id want to go cheaper since those bodies have bigger sacrifices compared to the z5.

Thanks for the consideration.
>>
>>3875708
The modern APS-C sensors came a long way. I'm into Pentax but Nikon uses the same sensors. With Pentax the KP and the K-70 are pretty much the same in high ISO and low light performance as the K-1. The K-1 is perfectly usable at ISO 6400, images only show a bit of noise but in focus is pretty sharp. My K-3 is only good up to ISO 1600-2000, over that things start to get soft and noisy, still at ISO 6400 images can be salvaged with downsizing and accepting some grain. From what I've seen from the KP and K-70 those sensors are leaps ahead of my K-3.
The Nikon equivalent would be the D7200 and D7500 or going mirrorless and Z50. Mind you, Nikon (and Canon and Snoy) have limited lens selection for APS-C and in some specific uses will severely limit your options or have none at all.
Also take it into consideration a FF system will be big and the lenses will be huge and heavy compared to APS-C specific or the MFT you've been used to, can be a pretty big mood killer. APS-C is considerably lighter than FF and you will keep it on you more often.
>>
>>3874973
>.5 inches
That doesn't sounds right, they give the "magnification" right next to it and it's 0.9 against full frame 35mm sensor.
>>
Please no hate, I know it's frowned upon and I'm working towards acquiring a proper camera.
In the meanwhile, what types of photography should I avoid doing with a smartphone so as to not waste time because of the limitations of a phone camera?
>>
>>3875907
The way to get into photography is not to avoid doing photography. Just take your phone out and take photos. Pay attention to framing, composition and what story does the photo is telling or where it is leading your eyes etc...
>>
>>3875874
I mean I have no idea how magnification affects the perceived ppi, size, and other factors
>>
>>3875907
You take photos of what you want with your phone and then figure out where your limitations are so you can learn how to work with what you have and how to improve and move forward from there. You might find that you're happy with just the smartphone. The only time wasted is not taking photos so you can learn more about the craft, even if it's stuff you don't like about it.
>>
File: ProMaster WBC.jpg (37 KB, 1268x916)
37 KB
37 KB JPG
I just got a ProMaster White Balance Card set

This is so amazing, I used the card set next to my keyboard which is White LED illuminated, and the light behind me is a Vintage-style Yellow LED

So my pictures always came out yellow/orange tinted on AWB. With the card, it looks spot on with the custom set to the grey card, it's like magic!

Coolest piece of gear this month
>>
I got an a6300 with red pixels. But the pixel mapping doesnt remove them. Any idea why?
>>
>>3876079
>Snoy
That's why. Send it in to service, they might allow you to buy a new one.
>>
>>3870388
A friend of mine is selling a Sony Alpha a7M3 Full-Frame 35mm y 24.2 MP with a 28-70 lens for like 1200 bucks is this a good deal? I'm a complete newfag so idk if this is a good buy for me.
>>
>>3876161
That's a steal. But the lens isn't very good, so you should upgrade it to a better lens when you get a feel for the focal lengths you prefer.
>>
Fuji XT-4 or Panasonic S5?

Hybrid usage and taking into consideration the lenses / system
>>
>>3873887
55-200 is a dogshit lens.
Sell all and invest in some expensive shit.
>>
>>3876161
That lens is worth $150 at best so it's basically $1050 for the body, dunno how the second hand market looks where you live but I'd buy it, significantly cheaper than any I've seen, PLUS you're buying from a friend so better chance you don't get fucked over.
>>
How do I drop big $$$ for used camera gear without being paranoid about being scammed? More I look into offers the more suspicious ones I find. Can't realistically buy in person.

There's one used camera store that looks safe and has what I want but even with them I read comments about selling gear with factory defects and refusing to take it back.
>>
Traded in my canon r and rp for sony a7riii and a7rii, I really hate sonys grips, they give me hand cramps, extended grips help alot but they are a sub par solution, the autofocus on the a7riii is much better in day light for tracking subject, the autofocus for the R was much better in low light. Modern tamron lenses don't work well with sonys. A7rii doesn't have a custom menu, the menus are a mess, the controls are fairly ok to half deccent on the sonys. Image quality is a noticeable leap up in terms of sharpness and dr. Sony 3rd party lenses are a massive saving grace.
>>
>>3876228
How much better do you think Riii is over Rii? Worth the price difference?
>>
>>3876228
Man, I just love how my camera has excellent focusing in daylight as well as in low light. There is just no substitute to the performance of a DSLR
>>
What's better? The high build quality and repairability of the Minolta MC-X lenses or the Improved Image Quality of the later MD-III lenses at the cost of plastic parts and terrible repairability?
I really like the minolta system and wanna build a whole set of primes with their manual focus lenses but I can't decide which series to get
>>
>>3876161
yea it's good, it's like the very first sony camera that was actually good
>>
>>3876229
same image sensor, the controls on the a7riii are alot better and help you work faster but it depends really on your shooting style. the evf and screen are bit better on the a7riii, the af is definately alot better and it works better with my tamron glass. Dual card slots will help alot in pro shoots and better battery life. IDK if its worth the extra 1k to 500 for you
>>
>>3876305
I think the R and the a7riii definately has its advantages over a dslr, im definately getting better hit rates with 1.4 glass and better low light af then my 80D dslr. I saw a side by side of an a7riii vs d850 and the d850 was better in sports but the a7riii wasnt far off. Having no need to calibrate AF is a godsend and eye af that works.
>>
>>3876678
nah looks like I'd be good with the rii, kinda bummed I can't find any deals on it.
I was thinking between
>buy an A7ii since it's cheap as dirt, upgrade to something actually good in a year once I have some glass
>buy an A7rii and maybe don't upgrade for longer
but I'm too cheap to pay MSRP for the rii and there are literally NO second hand deals for it. I'm seeing stuff like 5% below cheapest new ones for a busted camera, it's dumb. A7ii is 30%+ off at least, A7riii is also around 30% off(bit more than I want to spend still) but the fucking one I want is holding value like crazy.

I've been browsing for like 3 weeks, don't want to wait longer so I'll probably end up with the A7ii for now. At least looks like I'll be resell it easily if it doesn't break.
>>
Is the cheap
>Samyang AF 50mm f/1.4 FE
even a better lens than the even cheaper
>Sony FE 50mm f/1.8
? Seems to have some of the same issues. I've been reading some reviews and it almost seem like it's not much of an improvement but I find it hard to tell if that's the truth or is it because the Sony is an older lens and standards changed. Or maybe I'm just reading the wrong reviews.
>>
>>3876679
>hit rates with 1.4 glass
I didn't know spray and pray mentality is something to brag about.
>>
>>3876982
They are both bad lenses, but for different reasons.
The Sony is a bad lens because they only charge 250 for it, and made it bad deliberately.

The Samyang 50 is a bad lens because it was their first ever mirrorless lens build with Autofocus. And they apparently didn't have a clue on how to design such a lens.

The Samyang 45mm however, that one is quality. Got for that one.
>>
>>3876996
I'll probably buy the Sony 50mm for now(it's $125 used) and then something good in a bit. Or maybe that Tamron macro that one anon keeps shilling in these threads. That Samyang just caught my eye because it was 1.4 so I read some reviews and it didn't seem great.
>>
>>3877013
125 for the Sony lens?
I'm not sure what to make of it. Could be a good deal.

Anyway, I recommend checking out some reviews on the Samyang 45 before you buy either of the 50s.
>>
>>3877034
are you ok
>>
>>3877036
Well, uh that was embarrassing.
>>
>>3876926
I bought an a7rii for 850 on ebay, check out fred miranda or /r/photomarket
>>
>>3876994
Just explaining how 1.4 glass works better then a dslr for me
>>
>>3877071
importing used gear from abroad feels too risky for me... that's an amazing price though, even if I got slapped with customs and tax it would still be worth it compared to local prices.
>>
File: 20210504_100709.jpg (2.52 MB, 2848x2136)
2.52 MB
2.52 MB JPG
wow a lot of D700 fawning itt
I bought this one a year ago for like $140 and never really did anything with it.
I don't even have a proper working lens for it,
It has some weird plastic sensor for aperture that hits vintage lenses and would probably break over time, picrel
I bought an old AI lens for it but the auto focus would only work if I took the lens off and put it back on, as soon as the camera entered sleep (after just 5 seconds) it would no longer focus or control the aperture
Id rather not buy another ai lens and have the same issue

Will I even like this camera if I buy a proper lens for it? For under $200 my options are an af-s 50mm f1.8, and that's it.
Ive stuck my af-s dx lens on it and it works fine but after crop is not many pixels left

I would just sell it but everyone seem to think it's worth noting because it has a ton of shutter count. Also I don't really need money and probably can't get anything else full frame for the worth
>>
>>3877077
yeah if your overseas then its tough, good luck though
>>
Opinions on Sony 18-105mm f/4 OSS G? I'm not that interested but there's a good deal on a body and lens set with it that's tempting me. Think I'd be able to resell it easily if I don't like it? With the prices I'm seeing for second hand ones it would be worth it but I'm sure people are buying.
>>
File: DSC04142.jpg (135 KB, 1048x700)
135 KB
135 KB JPG
Is this kind of distortion normal on 1-inch sensor compact cameras?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeSONY
Camera ModelZV-1
Camera SoftwareRawTherapee 5.8
Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.8
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)24 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width1048
Image Height700
Compression SchemeUncompressed
Pixel CompositionRGB
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Image Data ArrangementChunky Format
Image Created2021:05:04 22:41:57
Exposure Time1/160 sec
F-Numberf/4.0
Exposure ProgramNormal Program
ISO Speed Rating125
Brightness10.1 EV
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length9.40 mm
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
>>
>>3877191
It's kind of been made obsolete by Tamron's 17-70 F2,8.
>>
>>3877196
Sometimes? It's different from lens to lens.

Distortion has nothing to do with sensor size.
>>
>>3877199

It's the ZV-1 which has an 24-70 equivalent fixed lens.
>>
I know i'm super late to the thread, but i'm on the market of upgrading from my D5100 that I used to film skateboarding. $1700 budge but I can be convinced to go up to $2000 if the camera is exponentially better. Has to have good video capabilities, and be able to mount a fisheye lens. I was looking at Sony Alpha's because some came with something-200mm (I believe) lens but haven't commited to anything.
>>
>>3877202
Are you saying 24-70 lenses ought to somehow incapable of distortion?

It's fucking irrelevant anyway since most people wouldn't even to able to tell an image has been distortion corrected.
>>
>>3877203
Also, i wanna see if I can sell off my D5100 to a skater or someone starting out in photo and want a cheap camera, what would be a fair price for the D5100 the 18-55mm lens that came with it.
>>
>>3877205

Distortion correction makes it more like a 31mm equivalent field of view at the wide end.
>>
>>3877219
Can you prove that?
Try to correct that image and show how much of it is actually cropped away.

Secondly, how do you know that "24"mm wasn't a 20mm all along, and made to be distortion corrected?
>>
File: 1.png (819 KB, 720x695)
819 KB
819 KB PNG
Looking at two A7ii's.

This one slightly more expensive, but still a great deal, shutter count under 6k. Body in great condition, no scratches, peeling screen protector. Sensor kinda dusty and looks a bit weird but I have no experience but dunno if that's normal.
>>
File: 2.png (1.64 MB, 1420x953)
1.64 MB
1.64 MB PNG
>>3877443
Second one, comes out cheaper because it includes the kit lens that I could sell(overall ~$80 more for the set than the previous one).

25k+ shutter count, somewhat worn body, most noticeable peeled paint on the flash mount. Sensor looks clean. The shop is camera focused unlike the previous one and comes with 3 months warranty(some mixed opinions from like a decade ago but they've been in business for a WHILE). The other seller is basically a pawn shop, with more recent mixed opinions but selling through e-bay like site so some buyer protection.

Between those two, which one would you get? I'm leaning towards the second one, though there's a chance that it's listed but not in stock.
>>
>>3870388
D5600 was my first camera. I was originally going to sell it to upgrade to a mirrorless one, try out another brand. But I got too sentimental as I manage to make a short film with it. Keeping it as a B-cam
>>
>>3873905
>>3873919
>>3874729
>>3876200
Thanks frens. I do have a 35mm f/1.8 that I love btw, wanted to complement with something versatile. Guess I'll keep my stuff for the being moment.
>>
>>3877502
>Guess I'll keep my stuff for the moment being
Wise choice, anon. Buying gear for the sake of buying is never a good idea. If you definitely know you need something, like the versatility and portability of a travel zoom or an exact focal length or your exisitng focal length gives you unappealing image rendition etc... then you are justified to reach for your wallet.
Go and shoot with your existing gear and enjoy yourself.
>>
>>3877513
New thread



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

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

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