Digital bonanza edition
Why a Pentax?
>FA J >APS-C body
>>3908844>they wrote the focal length at which variable aperture kicks in on the lensPentax is so based
Is this every Pentax shooter's Dream lens? It sure is mine.
Never had a pentax DSLR but I love how they look <3
>>3908844>6 gear threads>fuck it we need one moreyou're a nigger of the highest degree.
>>3909152six? thers like two tops at any given time....
I had mildly thought of getting an 85mm f1.2 lens, specially as i don't do a lot of portrait photography, but somebody with another hobbyist i know did buy one just now and I am feeling like keeping up with him, even though I have more native lenses than he has (just that one).What do?
> be me> 2021> litteraly buying a K3-IIIyou're face[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeRICOH IMAGING COMPANY, LTD.Camera ModelPENTAX K-3 Mark IIICamera SoftwarePaintShop Pro 23,00Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaFocal Length (35mm Equiv)77 mmImage-Specific Properties:Image Width1200Image Height800Horizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage OrientationTop, Left-HandImage Created2021:06:30 18:05:31Color Space InformationsRGBImage Width1200Image Height800Exposure Time1/125 secF-Numberf/4.0Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating200Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length50.00 mmRenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardContrastHardSaturationNormalSharpnessHardSubject Distance RangeDistant View
>>3909745Go for it, 85mm's are great even outside of portrait photography.
>>3909750you are face?
>>3909837I am face, anon.[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeRICOH IMAGING COMPANY, LTD.Camera ModelPENTAX K-3 Mark IIICamera SoftwarePaintShop Pro 23,00Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaFocal Length (35mm Equiv)309 mmImage-Specific Properties:Image Width1200Image Height800Horizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage OrientationTop, Left-HandImage Created2021:06:13 14:15:08Color Space InformationsRGBImage Width1200Image Height800Exposure Time1/800 secF-Numberf/4.0Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating100Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length200.00 mmRenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardContrastHardSaturationNormalSharpnessHardSubject Distance RangeClose View
>>3910086But then who was phone?
>>3909750I've still for a k3-ii, no intention of giving it up any time soon. In fact, I'm going to get that 70-200 f/4 that came out last year (I don't really need a 2.8). Might be tempted if they make another ff in a year or so. But I've literally not really hit any limitation on it yet - I don't do sport so don't need super fast butthole-af
>>3909132Already have the FA 43/1.9 MIJ
>>3910793Poor and outdated
>>3913388That's the entire Pentax lens lineup in three words
>>3913538Also applies to canikon and snoy
Why don't Sony cameras ever seem to get brought up in conversations about great street photography cameras?They have many small options. Is there a lack of great lenses?
>>3914315Sony cameras feel like shit
>>3914315the best street camera is the one you can slap a manual lens on and zone focus
>>3914315sonys have arguably the word human-machine/ui/ux interface of any camera manufacturer. it's awkward as fuck and consistently gets in the way between intent and execution.who gives a fuck about its winning specsheets if its an awkward piece of fuck you just want to yeet across the room for being an ass backwards fucking piece of a shit.
>>3914315Sony cameras don't like street photographers, try one
>>3914455What are you trying to do with your camera that a Sony can't do without triggering you so much?All you need is shutter and aperture controls how can those be so bad on a camera? Are those actually the problem or are you diving into menus trying to shoot RAW+JPEG for one shot then JPEG only in the next or something? Explain yourself.
>>3914315The problem is that Sony renders colors about as well as a 90s CCTV camera.
I want a new camera and I want to do 4k video and architectural photography, among other things, so the first lens I get for it is probably going to be wide. I've been thinking about a z6ii because I already have some F mount lenses, but that and a wide lens is gonna be like $3000. I could downgrade to a z6 but I don't have a cfe card for it, so it'll only be a few hundred more for a z6ii anyway.Anyone have any recommendations for me in semi-professional quality but the cheaper the better?
>>3914319this. i had some time to kill in the city a few weeks ago, so i went into a big electronics store that also had some new camera. the sonys all felt like chalky gummy chinkshit in my hand like they should be priced half of what they were. why don't they make their cameras to at least give the impression they'll last more than a year?
>>3915622Used Z6s go for $1100 all day. 64gb XQD cards go for $99 and are faster than any UHS-II card that goes for the same price.
>>3915622>semi-professional qualityWhat is professional quality? you can still do weddings with 10yo cameras if they don't want video>hurr they all want videoYou can still do weddings with 6yo APS-C shit, a real pro can shoot everything with a Canon Rebel or two if he must.>Z6 IIIt's a great machine but a Z6 with firmware can do everything it does other than moderately fast sports and battery grip, that's it as its only advantages are bigger buffer, slightly better noob AF and two card slots.
What would be best for wildlife?Was about to grab Nikon D500, but there is a huge sale an cashback on Sony..Making the Sony A7iii the same price as the the D500..Price being 1969,68 $ where I live...Thanks in advance!
Should I go full retard on spending and get a Nikon D780 to get back into this? Does it seem like it will last a decade? Haven't thought about lenses much until I can visit a store beyond the default casual type like an FX with 35-70 (maybe 135) mm. Dropped out for a long time because never left the house and poor but got cash to burn and doing shit now so if it lasts, I'll keep using it.
Is there really a stark difference between the Sony RX100 III vs IV? The price difference used is insane. I just want a pocketable camera
Best ef m telelens or zoomlens?I want it to remain compact.Also i guess its over for M series lenses so i wonder if theres any good third party stuff.
>>3917030EF 70-200/4 with an adapter
Oh fuck. I bought a full frame camera and now I’m a bokeh whore. I actually hate myself. I am everything I always hated. Trying to make the mundane look good with gear.[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandColor Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width1280Image Height853
>>3917063And the problem is?..
>>3917065It’s a worthless photo that I only found acceptable to keep due to the bokeh.
>>3917070Arent most peoples photos objectively worthless and only valuable in the eye of the photographer?
>>3917063lmao, you've suddenly memed yourself into thinking the most important part of your photos is the out-of-focus backgrounds.
>>3917128I'm sorry father for I have sinned. Saying that I've not tried this camera at night so that might be where FF fully matters.
>>3909745You should definitely get a 85mm but don't bother chasing after f1.2 Bokeh is great already at f2 on such focal lengths
>>3917123imo photos only gain any objective value in hindsight when they're impossible to take again, making them look nice aesthetically is just a bonus
>>3917151Please give an example of a photo that couldn't be taken again. This seems extremely limiting.
>>3917157just people aging, city scapes changing etc
Is there any way to have a camera output extra pre-set white balanced JPEGs?Like if I take a photo I want four files.1. JPEG with AWB2. JPEG with 2700K3. JPEG with 5000K 4. RAWCan this be done?I know, shoot RAW, but the JPEGs can come in handy for quick shares and some subjects just don't white balance well without locking WB with a card and sometimes you don't have something to lock WB onto, so having common lighting colors pre-baked into the JPEG output as options would be great.
>>3917157Like >>3917166 said, imagine a basic bitch photo but of your parents 10 years younger.Not interesting at the time, but could be great to have if there weren't already plenty around that time.
>>3917182>100% bullshit.Sony fan here.No, it's not 100% bullshit. Sony colors can be objectively fucking terrible. They aren't always though.They definitely got better recently and have won blind tests on their newer models compared to other brands but even for their older "bad" cameras the problem was just their JPEG/MP4 output. The RAWs have always been fine. The sensors were always fine (other manufacturers even used Sony sensors lol) but their post-processing in-camera wasn't great. That was their weakness. That's what people complained about. Newsflash any JPEG/white balance is already post-processed with at least like 5 different settings before you even see it. Judging a JPEG isn't a valid metric to judge hardware because that can all change with a software update.JPEG shooters whined about Sony JPEGs and Sony became a meme. The real meme for smart people has always been JPEG shooters outing themselves as JPEG shooters when they complain about their JPEGs, but sadly for video output since they don't do RAW you've been forced to have at least a little bit of what Sony/Nikon/Canon/Fuji gave you in video and Sony's earlier stuff wasn't great at that despite their sensors being fine.
>>3909750I like this.Two sets of people, old and young meeting.
>>3917197He said "Sony renders colors about as well as..."not "Sony _used to_ render colors about as well as..."he said "Sony _renders_", present tense.modern Sony bodies do not have any problem with color rendering. as you've mentioned, they have won blind tests for color rendering. and the raws have always been fine. so in other words, it's complete bullshit.
>>3917177Fuji cameras can do white balance bracketing: https://fujifilm-x.com/en-us/stories/advanced-month-2-exposure-7-exposure-bracketing/Not sure if any other brands can.
>>3917270Lots of currently in use, perfectly viable, competitive cameras today just not current 1-2yr old models from Sony have color issues.When people talk about products they're not talking about the cutting edge latest models or upcoming products, or shit from 10-20 years ago.The issue is that many sony cameras that are still "new" enough to be considered relevant have color issues while competing brands don't exhibit such problems.So, no, again it's not complete bullshit.Sony buyers beware. Look into your products before buying and you'll be fine. If you shoot RAW it won't matter because if you shot RAW then it never mattered.
>>3917289>Lots of currently in use, perfectly viable, competitive cameras today just not current 1-2yr old models from Sony have color issues.The a7iii has no color issues and it's 3 1/2 years old already.and since you openly acknowledge that if you shoot raw it doesn't matter, then you must understand that that means it doens't matter full stop. jpeg-only shooters are not worth discussing.
I'm a bit confused lads, anyone experience with Meike?I'm in the market for a new lens for my camera with an APS-C. I got 2 vintage lenses, 28mm and 50mm which would come down to 42mm and 75mm on the APS-C.If I want to get a Meike 35mm (which is marketed for APS-C, hence confusion) do I keep in mind the cropfactor aka it comes down to 50mm? Or, as its sold for APS-C, it comes down to 35mm = 35mm?
>>3917303it's a 50mm equivalent. the actual focal length of the lens is always what's marketed. 35mm on a 1.5x crop sensor becomes a 50mm full-frame equivalent.
>>3917311>the actual focal length of the lens is always what's marketedThis clarifies a lot, cheers. Might look for a 25mm then
>>3917061Wouldnt that cause a lot of extra weight and mass?Anyway its for sale for around 450 euros refurbished.
>>3917303Had a Meike 50mm 1.7. It the sharpest part of the lens was not centered. The edge performance was poor. It made a grinding noise which sounded like there was sand in it when focusing. It never seemed to actually be focused on what the focus peaking said it was. The TTArtisan 50mm 1.2 is a little more money, but it had none of those issues.
I want to get a tiffen pro mist black filter. What is the highest power I could use before it is no longer a subtle diffusion effect?
>>3917177I know Nikon has WB bracketing but only when shooting JPEG.If it's for a quick share you could use the in-camera RAW processing I guess.
>>3917428they literally have a video on the product page where they swap out the various strengths in front of a test scene so you can see the effect of each strength.
>>3917303The Meike 35mm f1.4 is actually a 50mm f2.1 on fool frame. A lens is always listed for its physical focal length which is the same across aps-c and ff. The crop on your sensor just turns the 35mm into effectively a 50mm in comparison. But it's still a 35mm lens.You should get it if you want to larp as a film shooter. It's optically a bad lens but it's very fun to play around with and because of it being soft etc it can get nice results.
>>3917459>but only when shooting JPEGwell obviously. there's no point bracketing WB on raws because you can freely adjust WB on a raw with no loss in quality.
>>3917498t. Listened to 4chan tards
>>3917182Thought it was just a meme, but holy shit I've never seen skin tones way off. Sony ain't JPEG friendly. I shoot RAW+JPEG, but fuck me if I just want to share a pic.Never saw skin so red prior to trying out Sony.
>>3917500No, I own it. Of course f1.4 is also f1.4 across the board but for the artistic effect of aperture it does scale with he sensor size which is what people buy f1.4 lenses for anyway. Miss me with that muh lowlight shit
>>3917501again if you shoot jpeg then I don't really care if it's fucked up. if you feel there's a bias you can adjust the white balance bias to always lean in a certain direction, magenta or green. have you tried adjusting that? I feel like people are unwilling to make the slightest effort to get jpegs out of non-fuji cameras, yet with fuji they'll go to the ends of the earth to customize the jpegs how they like them.
>>3917503You're speaking gibberish, tard
>>3917512You clearly can't read stupid faggot
>>3917513Said the illiterate tard
>>3917427>TTArtisan Is that the same Chinese manufacturer for the 7artisans? I read some similar complaints to the 7artisans with the complaints you listed about the Meike>>3917498>You should get it if you want to larp as a film shootermainly why, I have some vintage glass but the hipsters in my country overprice vintage glass and it's just cheaper to import them from china or etsy. Looking to get the 25mm Meike tho, I had a 28mm Tokina and a 50mm Minolta before I researched the entire crop factor thing. Now I'm looking for a 35mm equivalent.
>>3917530After having used LingLing manuals that don't require an adaptor etc I've never looked back at vintage lenses again
>>3917537>walk around streets with adapted vintage lens>hunchbacked, my neck is hurting, camera scraping the floor >pic rel is my gear
>>3917540>He doesn't use the mass of adapted vintage glass in order to mess with earth's gravitational field bending light creating physics breaking images no consoomer can ever reproduce
>>3917281Cool, thanks.>>3917459Damn, that sounds retarded to me.You sure it won't do WB bracketing in RAW+JPEG mode?Seems like a silly limit to have to opt-out of RAW to get the extra WB'd JPEGs. I'd rather just shoot RAW at that point desu.
>>3917517What can't you understand about the bigger the sensor the thinner the DoF? Are you stupid? It seemed pretty clear to meGonna call it a crutch?
>>3917553imagine sneeding deph of feeld to take photos why'll chad's roam aboot using they fones and backgroun blurry algirithms instedd
>>3917540Is it the Leica thambar 90mm f/2.2?
>>3917571You're speaking gibberish, tard
What's the best way to take photos through glass without them looking blatantly obvious that you shot through glass?A polarize filter? Anything better?I know if the glass is dirty there's no fixing that but I'm talking about the haze/glare/reflections mostly. The shit visible even when the glass is clean, can that be reduced?
>>3917683put your hands around the lens to block out light from the sides. use a hood. use clarity & raise the black point in post if you need to.
>>3917658Lmao that guy really pissed in your cereal.You're such a tard you can't even understand how glass works.
>>3917683shoot at night
>>3917499He also wanted to save a raw file.>>3917550My D800 won't do it and the manuals for the Z cameras say they won't do it either. Not sure if the Fuji WB bracket does it. I don't have any Fuji newer than an Xpro-1 to test with.
For E-Mount, has anything bested the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 DC DN for the price/performance around that focal length? I can get it for under $200 used readily. I do a fair bit of event shooting, especially indoors, and it seems ideal for that.
>>3917843They're not good lenses at all. They exhibit crazy flaring when near light sources. And need to be stopped down to f4 to get somewhat acceptable edge sharpness. And are nearly unusable at f1.4 to f1.8 because of it's purple fringing.
>>3917846So what would you recommend instead for a fast lens?
HelloI bought chink tripodIt's pretty decentThat is all
I want to start taking photos of nature but have no idea what camera to get the things I want (in order of importance) are>durable>waterproof>compact>beginner friendlybudget is around £500
>>3917912Pentax K-70Or just get a rain cape on any DSLR in the price range
>>3917912Unironically a hi-end smart phone that lets you shoot RAW.
>>3917916something like this? https://www.amazon.co.uk/Pentax-Digital-Camera-18-55mm-3-5-5-6/dp/B08R76HV65>>3917917can't use my phone unfortunately
>>3917917what the fuck is wrong with you dude. you should know better.
>>3917409>wants telephoto>Wouldnt that cause a lot of extra weight and mass?You can have light and compact or telephoto, you can't have all of them at once.>whyneck yourself
How do lenses work?I have some old film SLR lenses I want to use with my smartphone but I'm not sure how to do it. Basically I want to use my lenses to make a makeshift copystand or get some super up close macro shots.>lens makes a circle>circle is focused based on lens at certain distance>try to guess distance>set phone to focus on that>doesn't seem to work, like, at allI see there are some focus screen type accessories for this where you focus your phone's lens on that but I'm not really looking for bokeh I want to just adapt the lens as it is, crop factor and all. Is that possible?
>>3917953I thought it was a reasonable suggestion. For what he wants with an emphasis on 'compact' and 'beginner friendly' compounded by the £500 price point. What's the problem? This new fucking captcha is doing my nut in.
>>3917843The full frame samyang 35 1.8 or Sony's own version, but it's much more expensive
>>3917988phones don't take good photos. they don't even take acceptable photos. their photo functions are for either pure utility (e.g. "look at this thing") or for those who don't know better (durrr I made phone picture). you have a camera. you know better. you shouldn't be dispensing shit advice.
>>3918027You are wrong and have likely never even seen what a phone is capable of.Just opt out out of the overbaked JPEG look by shooting RAW.it's that easy.>you know better.Than you, he does.>you shouldn't be dispensing shit advice.He isn't, he's telling the truth.Notice how he took the time to say "that lets you shoot RAW." ? Yeah, that's because he knows what he's talking about. RAW from most phones is objectively decent. You're limited to the fixed lens and won't compete with fancy cameras but they are perfect for beginners on a budget.
>>3918026>>3917843The Samyang 24mm F1,8 AF is sharper than both of those.
>>3917843I have this, it's decent but I should have got the f1.8 for OSS instead.
>>3918028>You are wrong and have likely never even seen what a phone is capable of.lol, do you think I've been living under a rock? I know exactly what phones are "capable of." it's called utter shit.>Just opt out out of the overbaked JPEG look by shooting RAW.I have an iPhone 12 Pro. It has their proraw bullshit. I've shot raw photos on past phones. all of the pictures are shit quality.>Than you, he does.LE REVERSAL WHOAOAA>RAW from most phones is objectively decent. You're limited to the fixed lens and won't compete with fancy cameras but they are perfect for beginners on a budget.nope, nope, nope, nope. a phone shooter is instantly identified. a phone photo does not hold a candle to a photo from a real camera. any time a phoneposter posts somewhere where people with real cameras are posting photos, it's obvious from the shit quality and eyes are rolled. get a real camera kiddo. they're really not that expensive. there's no excuse not to. my only regret is that I didn't get one sooner!
>>3918027Phones are fine for sharing and consuming pictures on phones. If you want to do anything else with the photo it falls apart. No phone raw won't save you. If you literally only care about phones it's not a bad suggestion
Question. I am leaving for a 30 day hunting trip (working not the client) in the Alaska Range. I leave in less than two weeks and I kind of want to get a camera better than my iPhone SE 2020. Will pic rel be a total waste of money.[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution144 dpiVertical Resolution144 dpiImage Width750Image Height1203
>>3918047and anon was posting on a photography board where people post photos with real cameras to be consumed on computer screens, so clearly it was not a good suggestion. I agree that if you're on a phone and staying on phones it doesn't matter. but that's also not to say that you can't notice real camera quality on a phone, especially if it involves bokeh or any focal length other than wide.
>>3918170Not if you need 35x zoom
>>3918038>I've shot raw photos on past phones. all of the pictures are shit quality.You most likely suck at photography and failed exposure or didn't hold it steady enough, or didn't clean your lens.>a phone photo does not hold a candle to a photo from a real camera They do. You're wrong.>any time a phoneposter posts somewhere where people with real cameras are posting photos, it's obvious from the shit quality and eyes are rolled.Autistic.>get a real camera kiddo.You were born after 2000.>they're really not that expensive. there's no excuse not to. my only regret is that I didn't get one sooner!Most people recommending phones for budgetfags already have multiple cameras. You're not going to get anything competitive with a nice phone that checks all the boxes, especially fucking waterproofing.You're a troll. Go elsewhere.
>>3918218>You most likely suck at photography and failed exposure or didn't hold it steady enough, or didn't clean your lens.lol, nope.>They do. You're wrong.nope, nope, nope. you can say it as much as you want but it isn't true and everybody knows it.>Autistic.cope.>You were born after 2000.early 90s, wrong again!>You're a troll. Go elsewhere.nope, not a troll. it legitimately annoys me when people tell people to get a phone instead of a camera. it's fucking terrible advice and it's doing people a disservice. I'm speaking out against it out of genuine interest in these people not making bad decisions and listening to bad advice that goes unchecked.
>>3918227Here is a phone photo at 1:1. This is plenty good for beginners.More samples below.https://www.photographyblog.com/reviews/samsung_galaxy_s10_plus_review#sample_imagesYou have no genuine interest and are doing nobody a service. You are just a dumb gear obsessed fag. The only bad advice and terrible thing in this thread is you.
I bought a big zoom lens and I really have used it in a useful way in a few timesMy fast prime lenses never let me down and they are the reason I shoot photos. I pour one out for the 35mm lens I dropped but that's the reason I have gotten adept at 50mm and 85mm recently. Canon EOS RP + RF 35mm, EF adapted nifty fifty, and RF 85mm is a winning combo
Should I get a teleconverter or should I go for one of those vintage teles?There's a 300mm lens for $40.
>>3918276>Should I get a teleconverter or should I go for one of those vintage teles?Do you understand the intricacies of teleconverters?
>>3918276Teleconverters crops the optics.APS-C crops the sensor.You actually get sharper results through a high resolution crop sensor than if you crop the optics.
>>3918240they all look like shit. are you that blind that you think these look good? it's just sad at this point.
>>3918303You must be one of those idiots who is addicted to the overcooked look and doesn't care about accuracy to the real-world scene. Pic related.Post a photo that you consider to be good and something a phone can't do. $1000 equipment budget max. DOUBLE what that anon was asking for. You won't.Challenge mode: don't be a faggot, no narrow DOF bokeh shit because phones can't do that and we already know this.
>>3918317here's an example, although you'll probably disagree because you would never admit that you're wrong, I can tell.https://www.flickr.com/photos/chrishootonphotography/51308925697/in/pool-nikond3100/the accuracy of the colors; the way the subjects closer to the focal point are sharp without being oversharpened like cameras always do (as a necessity from their shit sensor tech); the soft, lifelike tonal rendering that's unlike what a smartphone would do, because smartphones basically always compress dynamics too much (and in raw capture they don't do it enough, so you're left with the awful DR of the sensor, or you have something like apple proraw where they bake the hdr effect into the raw, so you have only the illusion of DR but it still isn't nearly as editable as a raw from a real camera). even an entry level nikon dslr with an aps-c sensor destroys a smartphone.but go off, you'll say "a smartphone could have taken that!!!!" and we'll go round and round again.
>>3914319My issue is that they seem to make my hands get sweaty really quickly, I don't have this issue with my Olympus bodies
>>3917540Why do Leica accessories all sound like the person naming them is sneezing?
What's a good ball head to get? The one that came with my tripod makes my camera shift down a little as I'm tightening it
>>3918651I have a "FEISOL CB-50D Ballhead with QP-144750 Release Plate". It's pretty dope.
>>3918651>makes my camera shift down a little as I'm tightening itI suspect all ballheads do that.If you're looking for ultra precisions then look up the gear-heads instead of ballheads.
>>3918786pro level ones like the one that I mentioned above do not.
>>3918812That one is above half a kilogram already. At that point you might as well just rock with a gimbal head.
>>3918332>here's an examplePhones can take photos like that just fine dude.>the accuracy of the colorsReal cameras will have better colors, yes.The phones can still deliver acceptable results especially if you bother to use a color checker.>the way the subjects closer to the focal point are sharp without being oversharpened like cameras always do (as a necessity from their shit sensor tech)Phones can be plenty sharp.Sharpening is purely software, not present in RAW. Most DSLRs are oversharpened and deliver overcooked JPEGs out of the box as well.>the soft, lifelike tonal rendering that's unlike what a smartphone would doThat's literally what >>3918240 is before applying nonlinear localized edits like in >>3918317>because smartphones basically always compress dynamics too muchIn JPEG.>(and in raw capture they don't do it enough, so you're left with the awful DR of the sensor, or you have something like apple proraw where they bake the hdr effect into the raw, so you have only the illusion of DR but it still isn't nearly as editable as a raw from a real camera).Use real RAWs, not "optimized" proprietary shit.>even an entry level nikon dslr with an aps-c sensor destroys a smartphone.Sure, but not in dynamic range or clarity. You need good optics to really shit on a fancy phone. The actual main benefits will be in ergonomics, autofocus speeds, more accurate autofocus, a mechanical shutter, an actually usable flash, the swappable lenses, cleaner low noise images and better color accuracy.If you're taking daylight photos of static scenes a phone can do it, and it does it pretty well. That's the point. No, it's not as good as a proper larger sensor camera but beginners don't need them and they'll be better off learning with a phone in manual before investing $1K in a real camera. They'll be more likely to use it since it's always with them too.
>>3918815shocking to hear you say exactly what I thought you would.https://www.flickr.com/photos/192778266@N04/51317846421/in/pool-nikond3100/here's another btw. there's no way you're getting a shot that looks this good out of a phone.but sure whatever tell people bullshit. then watch them be disappointed when they are stuck shooting phone snapshots that look like garbage and they decide to find a different hobby instead. you're the worst kind of advice giver.
>>3918817>here's no way you're getting a shot that looks this good out of a phone.And that's a good thing...
>>3908844Got a hasselblad x1d 4116 for kek. It’s got a lot of quirks, lens doesn’t detect like 40% of the time, especially if you turn it off and on a lot, which you have to because the battery sucks.Overall it’s cool but not worth the hassle, glad i didn’t pay sticker price like a retard. $2400 for body battery and 45 3.5.
>>3918817>here's another btwThat looks like shit, that looks like an "HDR" edit.You can do that on phones just as well.Come on, show us something actually good for a change. We all know cameras are better so pick something that actually showcases the strengths of a better sensor and clean imaging. Not memes.
>>3918317>Post a photo that you consider to be good and something a phone can't do. $1000 equipment budget max. DOUBLE what that anon was asking for. You won't.Lack of interchangeable lenses means that most phones can't really take a shot like this without doing digital zoom and absolutely destroying the image quality.[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS 40DMaximum Lens Aperturef/5.7Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiF-Numberf/7.1Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating400Shutter Speed1/1000 secExposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternFocal Length300.00 mmColor Space InformationUncalibratedExposure ModeAuto
>>3918843Moment makes some clip on telephoto optics for iPhones to give them some reach. Focal length isn't really a good argument. If it were, Nikon's zoomers would be the king of beginner cameras.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pa4l6Ey-prAThat's not a good photo either. None of the signs are in acceptable focus and it's just a low quality crowd shot with nothing interesting in it. A phone could do this especially with the blown out street light. A real camera image processed fine would maintain the green instead of clip it.It's like you're not even trying.
>>3918846>If it were, Nikon's zoomers would be the king of beginner cameras.And they are, you are just a monkey who can't compose with telephoto because you don't have the eye.
>>3918896>And they are,They're not.Most people simply don't need zoom lenses for the stuff they want to take pictures of. Wide angles are more popular and portrait length 50-200 are typically the longest people like to use normally.>you are just a monkey who can't compose with telephoto because you don't have the eye.Lol.
Hey, I'm in the middle of a possible life/career change making a shift to try and become professional photographer and videographer and want to hear if somebody has an opinion about the Canon R5.What are your opinions on it as an all purpose video and photo camera?My previous and only camera is a 5dmkii that I bought years and years ago. I've been very happy with it and used it for photoshoots, music videos, promo videos, and lots of other shit.I wore out the shutter and had it replaced three years ago. My idea was to get a new camera and use my 5dmkii with a 50m as my second camera and then the new camera use my 24-70m I got with the 5dmkii.The R5 looks like it does pretty much everything I want it to do. I won't be filming in 8k or anything and I think having the R5 with the more versatile lens and then the 5dmkii with the 50m is an ideal setup for me. Yes I realise I'm a moron who doesn't know shit about anything and I'm unrealistic etc etc etc. I'm just interested in opinions on the R5 for all purpose workhorse use.
>>3918956Video is notorious for being hard to work due to the way it's coded last i read, images are top notch but most cameras deliver that today.Do you need the megapickles? if so then probably yeah it's a good choice if you like Canon (Z7 or even a Sony sound better if you want easy video with good image quality).If you don't need the pickles then grab a R6. If i were you i would rather go for a 5Dmk4 but if you want an R# means you need RAW video or the premium C-Log.>used a camera for photoshoots, music videos, promo videos, and lots of other shit.>I'm in the middle of a possible life/career change making a shift to try and become professional photographer and videographerWhat the hell were you before that you did all that shit yet weren't a professional?
>>3918956>Hey, I'm in the middle of a possible life/career change making a shift to try and become professional photographer and videographer and want to hear if somebody has an opinion about the Canon R5.turn back now.
>>3918969Thanks for your opinion anon. I'm trying to gather as much info and opinions as possible.I was considering "just" getting the newest 5d, but are there any rumors of a 5dmkV coming soon?The R5 kinda seems like the natural progression from the 5d series in a way, but yeah, the video coding for the files in the R5 look like a huge hassle to deal with.I'll have to upgrade my computer a shitload too in order to edit the video. Not to mention I'll need a shit ton of storage for the massive video file sizes....I'm not familiar with C-log (I told you I'm a retard), but shooting in Raw would be fucking amazing.And yeah, it looks like you're going to get a really good quality for straight up photo use with pretty much any camera in this price range / caliber.I worked in a music instrument store for many years where I did a lot of promo videos, interviews, demos and through that got into shooting a couple of music videos from connections. Did some photo shoots for bands.I have a big ass family and know a ton of people too who I did family, wedding photos for too and shit. It was all just hobby stuff and out of interest.I originally got into it because I wanted to shoot videos and photos for my band at the time since nobody else is going to do shit for you. I've become a jack of all trades and my peak level is painfully mediocre.But I hate my life and want to kill myself every day. I've reached a crossroads in my life and one road I could take was to try and go pro with photo/video.Sorry for ranting. I guess it's context for my potential decision.
>>3918973You have no idea what I would do to go back to before this shit.
>>3918978and im saying turn back, photography is a total dead-end, especially post-covid.strongly consider photogrammetry and uav surveying. stuff like regular construction site scans daily/weekly are hugely valuable and well paid for liability/supervision, for example.
How bad of an idea is 85mm as a general purpose walkaround lens? I bought my camera with a Samyang 45mm F/1.8 and to be honest I kinda hate it, I'm using my vintage 50mm and 135mm lenses a lot more even though they're heavier and less practical. I'm thinking of selling it but maybe instead of replacing it with something else around 50mm(which would probably be the Sony FE 55mm F/1.8) I'd get something longer instead. Truth be told I think I'd like something around 70mm the best but it's not exactly a popular focal length outside of zooms. Maybe I'll just buy a few more vintage manual lenses instead.
>>3918976>But I hate my life and want to kill myself every dayWell i don't know how swerving to another job you are familiar with will help with that seeing that you have a family and i suppose a steady job but one cannot see the corners of another's adventures, but at least you have the contacts to build yourself up.>I'm not familiar with C-logIt's a flat as hell profile that can be color graded more easily than a normal profile but isn't as flexible in terms of range and the usual push n' pulls one does in a RAW photography. If you are going to do a quicky then it's usually the best option, RAW video is when you need to squeeze everything in a file that you know will need to be pushed hard which isn't the case often unless you do heavy editing or need to film in dire conditions like i suppose a backstage at night might present.>a 5dmkV coming soon?I didn't know that, i don't doubt it as Canon like to punish their userbase by releasing products out of order (some people bought a R5 thinking a C70 wouldn't be released soon). If you need to update your PC to edit then that's a big no if i were you, a R5 is 4k some lenses already, for a good video set i can imagine a bunch of new lenses costing 3k so you will have a bigger, more comprehensible library and the machine might not be needed to upgrade unless you want more RAM and a video card, which is 1k at most.The difference in photo quality is pretty thin if you know how to edit/push the limits, in a normal photo i don't think there won't be a noticeable gap unless you print big shit and the clients are autists who will look at it from 20 centimeters or so. Aaaaand it seems from reading a bit that the 5DmkIV also shoots RAW, i don't recall how much an Atomos costs but i can't imagine it being more expensive with the 5D than the R5 only.Again, if you are accomplished you can get away with plenty, a friend still delivered wedding videos using a crop Canon T4i in 2020 because he's a dirty old bastard editing.
>>3918979>strongly consider photogrammetryPractically dead too if that compact radar shit gets commercially released within two years.>regular construction>post-covidlol, right now construction is fucking dead too and it's not temporal anymore in many sectors. Ask me, i work(ed) pimping concrete and making revamps.
>>3918979I've spent the last 12 years or so of my life trying to "make it" as a musician. Becoming a photographer/videographer would be a step up in terms of career choices and life success.Also worked in an office doing car loans in the family company for the last six years and I'm not cut out for doing "non creative work". I don't care if I make less money, I just want to be happy and not want to die all the time.I don't know if you're serious or ironic or in between. My brain is fried and I can't respond properly anymore.>>3918985I need a change or I legit will kill myself soon. I need to do something I like and I've done enough photo/video work to know I could (with a shit ton of effort and work of course) make it a realistic path.Ah, I've been using Cinestyle for my 5dmkii for all these years and I've been very happy with it. I'm sure shooting in C-log will be familiar for me. I honestly couldn't imagine shooting in anything that isn't a mega flat image like that.I'll look more into more camera comparisons. the R5 is just what I've been looking at the most. My current computer is from 2016 and is perfectly fine for my audio and visual work, but I'm pretty sure I'll need to upgrade to start working with 4k etc.I doubt I'll have to make large prints.I'm not accomplished in any way and I think I'm insanely mediocre at best, but I think I have a good eye for framing, colour grading, editing. I usually have a very clear idea of what and how I want to shot things. same with music and just creative stuff in general.
>>3918993you can't mix creativity+photography and expect to make money when: everyone has a fucking camera in their pocket, and "photographers" are prepared to work for free.you're not bringing anything new or novel to the table, you're just a chump operating a piece of equipment thats doing all the work for you.i'm 100% fucking serious when i say photography is a deadend as a career, and that something actually fucking useful to companies is something that actually pays well:https://www.reddit.com/r/photogrammetry/https://www.reddit.com/r/UAVmapping/+ surveying and other downstream occupations.this is still a new enough niche of photography that you can carve out a business and grow very well.
>>3916859Do you live in AUS? If you don’t, do NOT pay that much for either of those cameras anon.
>>3918994You're right, it was just a dead dream and a dumb hope anyway.
>>3918986>lol, right now construction is fucking dead too and it's not temporal anymore in many sectors. Ask me, i work(ed) pimping concrete and making revamps.it's not just construction, but maintenance (especially utilities), surveying... remote asset surveys are a massive thing right now, being able to remotely see the status of assets like pumps/valves/condition, and check them temporally. a utility i worked for has a subcontract for a uav survey team to weekly 3d map some sites, which they use in their assset management.same company i saw were doing flybuys of highway underpasses with various sensors, not just photographic, to do condition assesments of rusting steel.etc.
>>3919006anyway point is, its a really young field with demand far outstripping supply. if i was a bit of a dummy and needed a new career, my god the opportunities and growth potential are ridiculous. another life though.and you can even buy leica geosystems gadgetry and be a /p/ faggot. two-for-one.
>>3918993>I need to do something I likeWorking on things that were previously hobbies will either make you good money or hate everything you know, proceed wisely.>I'm sure shooting in C-log will be familiar for meThen you are set, it will be somewhat similar if a bit more flexible at times.>I'm not accomplished in any way and I think I'm insanely mediocre at bestHard work beats lazy creativity, and recently the former is harder to find, or at least was pre-kung flu. If you spend extra time learning editing then you are going to be in the upper 25%.>>3918994>Linking to redditYou should make like the photography career and die already
>>3918994>>3919006>>3919008>>3918996and when you aren't using your equipment for work, having a floating camera in the air has obvious implications for art/videography -> your creative output.
>>3916859Get a used Canon 7DMkII and EF 400/5.6
>>3918843That's really why people buy interchangeable lens systems. Fisheye, wides, zooms, telephotos, portrait lenses for shallow field, macro. Plus they are better for actual low light while keeping proper single short exposure.Phones recently did get to the point of being a decent street snapshotter.
>>3918956R5c will be probably be released 1st Q 2022, but that might be too long of a wait for you.
Why it's so much harder to take a good picture with a camera than with an iPhone? I'm talking auto mode + NO post production.Are iPhone algorithms smarter than me? Or is Canon's auto software just shit compared to Apple's?
>>3919033iPhone is way smarter than just taking one exposure and spitting it out as is. Does your camera have bracketing for auto hdr or multiple exposure nr? Phones do it by default every time using black and arcane magic to keep motion blur away.
Curious as to what lights you guys have in your kit. I was thinking of getting a ring light or something to light portraits.
>>3918240It's fucking shit mate
>bought a focus rail>didn't fix any of my problemsWorst part is I kinda saw this coming
>>3918956you don't need the R5. it's a luxury product with feature's you don't need and will never use. It's designed for people with way too much money being tricked into believing they need it. For a professional use, get a far more practical camera like the 5dmkiv.
>>3918956>>3919277also, get a specialised video camera if you want to do video work
I bought a lens from eBay but came out fucked up, asked the seller what's up thinking they would refuse to acknowledge me but he agreed without hesitation i was in the right.Then asked what's my idea on how to fix this issue, no returns policy so practically my only option is ask for a refund but how can i negotiate that or know how much can i ask? it's my first time doing this so i have no idea if i should ask for a full refund or a partial one, lens was 30 bucks anyways but listed as usable and clean (which isn't).pic semi-related[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS-1D Mark II NCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS2 MacintoshImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2010:11:18 09:27:18White Point Chromaticity0.3Exposure Time1/60 secF-Numberf/2.8Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating1600Lens Aperturef/2.8Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModeSpotFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length45.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width624Image Height864RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandard
>>3919301>ebay>item doesn't match descriptionhttps://www.ebay.com/help/policies/ebay-money-back-guarantee-policy/ebay-money-back-guarantee-policy?id=4210
Quick, Samyang 24MM F/1.4 ED AS IF UMC for around $300, yes/no? For Sony FE. I need a 24mm, and I don't mind manual focus, particularly at this focal length. And it's cheap. But it's an older design so the reviews compare it to other things from more than half a decade ago. If I don't buy it I'll probably buy the new Samyang 24mm F/1.8.
>>3919031I realistically or most likely won't be able to make a serious purchase until early next year any way given my current life/income (it's shit). So waiting it out a bit for possible new releases late this year or early next year is not a problem.>>3919277You're right, it does seem a bit like.... why not just go all in and get a proper medium format camera or whatever it's called instead?I think it's just because the only camera I've ever had was the 5dmkii which I have loved and I just saw the R5 as the natural progression.I'm going to do a lot more research and check out as many comparisons as possible between them. But if I decide to go for another 5d (which was my initial plan for a few years to upgrade to) I may wait until they make a mkV instead of getting the mkIV.I still have a lot of time before making a purchase, so I'll see in a bit.>>3919278I would if I had the budget for it. I'm going for maximum quality and versatility for now. I won't be doing high level video work (I think) and having something like a new and modern version of my 5dmkii would be great for me. That camera was so good and served me well for many years.But I would like to eventually get a dedicated video camera if this career choice had a chance of panning out. It would be sick to have a dedicated video camera as my main camera and then a new camera as my B cam for video shoots and then the new camera as my main camera for photo sessions with my 5dmkii as B cam there.I need money....Thanks again for the replies. It's rare to get actual responses from people on this site. I'm just trying to gather as much info as possible.
>>3919363Canon might not even make a 5d mk v. they've already discontinued manufacturing of EF lenses. they're really all in on mirrorless. that said, there's no reason not to get a 5d mk iv, especially when you can find them used at a cheaper price than new with relatively low usage.
Thoughts on WXF991 for video?
>>3919410Dadcore. For the same cash you can get g85 that does everything with a larger sensor, ibis, and better iq.
Tamron 18-300 3.5-6.3 with VC for E and X mount announced bros why my pp hard. I have the 17-70 2.8 and 70-170 2.8 and they're both great.
>>3919407Forgive me for being a complete retard, but do you mean my EF 24-70 f2.8 lens won't fit a mirrorless camera without an adapter or something?I'm a retard when it comes to gear. I bought my 5dmkii with that lens and have only ever looked at the EF 50m f1,2 USM. Other than that I'm a gear retard.It would be a missed opportunity to skip a mkV. I mean... 5dmkV should be where they come out guns blazing.
>>3919416>product announced>pipi get hardsuch is a life of a gearfag
>>3917182The older ones are terrible. Shooting raw helps, but my pentax stuff never needed color correction while every picture out of the NEX6 does
>>3919436your EF lenses will not natively mount, but you can use a lens adapter to mount them. EF lenses should have basically perfect performance on a Canon mirrorless body. they'll just stick out off the camera a bit. the R5 doesn't come with the adapter, so you'll need to pick up one of these (I'd go OEM if it were me): https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/accessories/Lens-Adapters-for-the-Canon-R5/1547009-REG-89914?from=detailI think Nikon & Canon both know that they stand to make a lot of money by releasing new SLRs. but they also want to drive that mirrorless is the future and they want to show that they are successfully pivoting to mirrorless.>>3919459shooting RAW means you can adjust colors however you want. it's literally a non-issue.
>>3919442Just say you're mad because you're poor next time. You can take photos and get erect over gear you know.
>>3919463Wow that fucking sucks the lenses don't fit. I thought you were more or less solid if you got an EF lens.... Fucking shit man. That may steer me way clear of the R5 and look more to the 5dmkIV or hopefully mkV if they ever release it since they're all in on mirrorless.Fuck man. That really sucks...... I need even more money now........ I'll never get there.
I'm after a carbon fibre tripod that is around 1m tall when fully extended with just the legs.Also needs to be fairly thin in the folded girth to be able to hold it with your hand.I need it for my gimbal as a foot as well as a grip.Looked at amazon and I've found a few small ones, but they are weak.Does /p/ have any recommendations?
bros, what happens when you buy a camera from amazon or other popular ecommerce sites, then you use it for a few weeks, rack up an ample number of shots, then return it for a refund. does the seller sell it again labelled as open box, slightly used, or brand new? have you received gear that was already used even when it said brand new in their list?
>>3919704depends how trustworthy the site is. a trustworthy seller will never sell used gear as new. an untrustworthy one, not so much. stick with sellers like b&h, adorama, etc. and you will never have to worry.
>>3919704If it is ship and sold by Amazon they give you your money back and dont give a fuck. I did it with a D5600 a couple years ago when I realized I really wanted a D7500 instead, it had 1500+ on the shutter. I didnt even have the box anymore. I can only assume they're sold as part of Amazon Warehouse deals.
If I wanted to build my own film camera how difficult would it be?I'm not interested in auto focus or any advanced features. I literally just want a mount, a way to use the film, a way to select shutter speed and control lens aperture (usually on the lens itself). Auto film advancement isn't needed either. True basic bitch tier is my goal.I'm worried making a shutter capable of operating at fast enough speed would be the difficult part. I know I could tripod, ND filter out the ass, and use a lens cap like pinhole camera guys do but that's not my goal.
>>3919940lmao jesus christ
>>3908844I'm reposting this here. I'm trying to figure out what type of camera I should get for recording long road trips.I want to mount it to the dash/windshield inside the car. I want a camera that at least records in 1080p, preferable higher. I would like it to either be able to stabilize itself or have the ability to be stabilized so it's not shaking a lot while driving. I also want it to have high storage and a long battery life (or be plugged it into a USB port or something to keep it charged in the car while recording). I want to be able to record for a long time or at least record lots of segments without it overheating. I would also like it to be at least decent in lowlight for night driving. I'd like to spend around $500 but I'm open to more expensive options if there's nothing like I want in that price range.I've been doing some research, I thought a GoPro would be the way to go but it seems like if you aren't using it for short action videos it'll overheat. I thought about getting a dashcam but it seems like that's more for 24/7 security purposes and that's not really what I'm looking for but I'm not sure.I'm completely clueless about cameras. The only one I own is a Sony Handycam HDR-CX110 which is ok but I think it's time to upgrade. Any advise would be helpful, thanks.
>>3919957GoPro will be your best bet.
I'm kinda burnt out on film, what with developing and scanning myself, and then all the correcting and the constant needing to pay for film and chems etc. It all feels like 500% more work for 10% nicer photos.Now I'm wondering, if you were in my boots and had a Pentax 67 + 2 lenses & a nikon f3hp + 35mm lens.. what would you sell it all for?I shoot mostly fashion, so I need a wide lens, a 35mm prime and then something to cover up til maybe 100mm~ as i don't take a lot of super tight shots. I already own a D750 which is ok but my real crux is getting equally appealing shots out of my dslr as opposed to my film shots. I think my post-processing needs work but I'm sure there are youtube vids out there. As far as the d750 goes it's fine but misses AF at times, but if I could throw that + my tamron 24-70mm + tamron 90mm macro into that.. that's a lot of potential money I could invest into 1 system that will do everything I need. I don't necessarily care if something is mirrorless or not I just want a solid system that will have access to great lenses and give me phenomenal results.
>>3919940This is something a 15 year old would write
>>3919940Take a look through any older film camera service manual.The original Nikon F has a 52 page list of precisely tooled parts.It may actually be easier to build your own hand-wound mechanical wristwatch.
>>3919940Quite simple.At its most basic a camera is a lightproof box with a hole in the front and a light sensitiive medium at the backLens apeture can be controlled in the same way as an original kodaks -e.g. a series of holes drilled in a strip of metal of the F stops you want.Shutter speed would be more difficult but a leaf shutter could be made with a simple flat spring of the correct tension or an elastic band to guess.If I was really anal about speed I might consider attaching a solenoid or stepper motor to an arduino or similar to get the requirementsHeres a model to tryhttps://blinkythepinholecamera.tumblr.com/thecamerakitYou won't get amazing results, but its fun trying.
>>3919940Also forgot to mention, I made my own lenses for a microscope a few years ago. It was easier than normal lenses. Used PDMS resin on the bottom of a slide to get a curve using the surface tension, and as it dries clear, it worked quite well, but of about 50 drops I got maybe three usable products.Relevant picture taken with homemade lensFor a bigger lens you'd have to find a more viscous resin Make a form for the curve and grease it.Put it into a container like an egg poaching ringVibrate to get bubbles outPolish with headlight cleaning paste[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareGoogleImage-Specific Properties:
what camera is this
>>3920113Its a mystery
>>3920071>what would you sell it all for?> do my price research for mego to wherever you're going to list it and see what they've been selling for. these aren't rare items. it depends on the condition and stuff too. just don't be a fool and go on ebay and base your prices on ebay and then go sell on reddit or facebook because then your prices will be inflated. get prices from sold listings on whatever site you're going to list on.>my real crux is getting equally appealing shots out of my dslr as opposed to my film shotsyeah a lot of people feel that way, myself included. it's the struggle of digital and it's what keeps a lot of people shooting film.
Picked these up recently, the g5x as NOS for around $400 and the pen f used for $600.I've ordered a couple chinese all-manual lenses for the pen, a 35mm 1.8f TTA and a 25mm 1.8f 7A, i plan on getting a proper lens like the olympus 17mm 1.8f later.[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2021:07:23 00:41:00Exposure Time1/15 secF-Numberf/2.4Lens Aperturef/2.4Brightness659/10181 EVExposure Bias0 EVFocal Length4.28 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width3264Image Height2448Exposure ModeAutoScene Capture TypeStandard
>>3920004Do you think I'll have problems with it overheating? I ask because I would like to record as continuously as possible. It seems like it really only has problems when recording at 4K60FPS but I would be putting it in a car and I live it the South. Would getting a external battery bank/pack be a good idea?What GoPro do you think I should get? I've seen comparison videos between the Hero 9, 8, and 7 and I kind of like each one for different reasons but the 9 seems to have the most fun/extra features. I've heard they all have issues with freezing though, should I be concerned?
>>3920239Go pros are unreliable, they'll randomly freeze and stop recording
>>3920233Report on 25mm. I've a feeling that there's a ton of average to poor cheap manual 25mm's out there, while 35mm's tend to be all decent to even very good.
>>3920242yeah, i mostly got them just so i had some lenses for the thing, but the TTArtisan 35mm has good reviews and the 7Artisan 25mm has vignetting and is not particularly sharp at 1.8f, but they seem like they'll be fun to use in conjunction with the creative modes of the pen f.
>>3920240Well shit, what would be my other options? I was looking at the Insta360 ONE X2 and so far it looks pretty decent. Any opinions or things I should know about it?Should I just try to find a better more expensive camera or will I run into similar issues either way?
>>3920242>>3920244oh, btw the 25mm i ordered off of eBay so it'll take up to a month before i can take pics with it and give any sort of review of it
>>3919416>Tamron can into X mount nowInteresting times ahead
Howdy folks,I'm a Sony user and use the a6000 and the a7rii. I recently bought a Fuji x-e4 as an edc. Still getting used to the Fuji system but enjoy the old film rangefinder aesthetic and it's a lot better than my old a6000.I'm wondering what my first lens should be. I have the new 27mm wr f2.8 that came with it but need something a little bit wider. I was considering the 18-55 f2.8-4. Needing something a bit wider and versatile for video. Should I also look into the viltrox af lenses?Any recommendations?
Will we ever see another ef m lens?
>>39202535mins playing around with the g5x yielded this[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
>>3920207I worked it out and basically for the price of pentax 67 + 2 lenses + nikon f3 + 2 lenses + my macro lens I use for scanning negs, I could afford to get sigma 14-24 2.8, 35mm 1.4 and 85mm 1.4 + AU$1k leftover. Pretty tempting.What's the consensus on sigma lenses?
>>3920310It seems as though EF-anything is deadAt this point just the name alone, "EF", screams outdated from a marketing point of view. People want to see "RF" in 2021.
What's the cheapest macro lens, or any lens, with no focus breathing?
>>3920327Does this mean ef lenses will get cheaper?
>>3920321depends on the lens. when the art lenses were initially released for E mount, they were literally just the DSLR lenses but with an adapter permanently attached, so they were big, bulky, and front-heavy compared to native lenses. plenty sharp and whatnot, but not ideal for a nice mirrorless system. since then they've released some updated versions of some lenses. I'd say you should look into each individual lens. native glass is going to be your best bet with Sony, I know their native offerings at those focal lengths are awesome, but they're also expensive so if you can save some money by going with Sigma and you find reviews of each of the lenses saying that they don't have dogshit AF (which some Sigma lenses do, I just don't know which ones personally) and you're willing to put up with added bulk potentially, then you're good.
Dayum Baby!Autofocus enabled.
On a canon 80D body, is the 100mm L IS macro a worthy upgrade from the 60mm macro ?The 60's currently my sharpest lens and currently is my most used, in macro and almost everything else, and was wondering if the upgrade was worth the money, and not an avoidable loss of practicality on an aps-c body
>>3920483Strange, the AF works without any adapters on those lenses on my camera
>>3920518Are you having a bad day Anon?
>>3920519My day is wonderful, how about you, chum?
>>3920525Weord since you sounded like Somone peepeed in your breakfast.
>>3920332>Does this mean ef lenses will get cheaper?This is my guess (and I am stressing that I do not know anything or have facts):1. EF glass gets cheaper as people see it as outdated and garbage compared to RF lenses [f/2.8 zooms and other popular options will always remain popular]2. Prices may later go up due to a decrease in available products, because people realize it's good glass and the adapted lenses on RF bodies generally look great, and/or people don't like the high prices on most RF glassFor what it's worth: I bet EF-S glass prices will really go down, but they will be able to adapt to a future "RF-S" type camera
hey guysI have an olympus om-d e-m10, and 3 lenses, nothing too fancy or expensive, but I think overall my lenses are fine (mainly use the 14-140mm F3.5-5.6, and I have a Panasonic 25mm f/1.7, and the Olympus kitlens the camera came with when I got it some 4 years ago or so)I don't really want to spend money on an entire new system and new lenses etc, so I want to just upgrade my camera bodysince olympus is kinda dead, I was looking at panasonic stuffmost of the reason for my desire to upgrade is for quality of life features like an actual articulated screen, decent ways to connect to my phone to transfer pictures on the spot, stuff like thatI ended up at Panasonic Lumix DC-G90 aka DC-G95does anyone own this? if anyone else has something similar, could you give me some feedback about it?
I have a Pentax SMC-DA 18-55 kit lens that is often soft/blurry at one side of the frame. I assembled this image of test shots that shows the problem. I looked it up and lens de-centering could be the reason. Can't see anything wrong with the lens, but when I shake it gently there's a slight rattling or clunking sound. Is there something I could do to fix it?
>>3920644Get a DA 16-85 WR
>>3920649>>3920644Or even a DA 16-45/4
>>3920649>>3920655How 'bou Pentax-F 35-80 or Pentax-F 28-80? Could buy one of those for 20..30 € where I live. I couldn't care less about wide angle or Zeiss tier sharpness. I just want a general purpose lens that a) performs uniformly across the frame and b) lets me shoot Program mode.[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATIONCamera ModelNIKON D600Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 7.5 (Macintosh)Maximum Lens Aperturef/3.2Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaColor Filter Array Pattern772Focal Length (35mm Equiv)60 mmImage-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpiImage Created2021:06:29 11:08:25Exposure Time1/160 secF-Numberf/20.0Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating100Lens Aperturef/20.0Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModeSpotLight SourceUnknownFlashFlash, Compulsory, Return Not DetectedFocal Length60.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBRenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceManualScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlNoneContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessNormalSubject Distance RangeUnknown
>>3920667Those are for FF and much worse than the DA kit lens. Get a used 16-45, it is one of the sharpest lens in the DA zoom lineup, only the 16-85 is a little bit sharper in a few aspects.
>>3920638look at the size of that sensor. look how small it is. doesn't that bother you? it should. it should bother you a lot. that's not a real camera sensor. that's a baby sensor stuck on a camera body. why are you paying a premium for a real camera if the money isn't even going to a normal sized sensor? it makes no sense. you're letting the manufacturer pull a fast one on you. they've sold you on lies of equivalent image quality and compactness as a plus. but it's not even true. you're just overpaying so they can make a quick buck off saving money on the sensor. free yourself from the tyranny of small sensor destitution. get a real camera with a real sized sensor.
>>3920669>much worse than the DA kit lensI'd say that pretty much any lens would be better than the current de-centered one I have. Also the DA 16-45 costs over 300 € new and 180 € used, I'm a poorfag at the moment and can't afford that kind of expense...
>>3920682I have one, I could sell it to you.But I don't want to.
Help, I have analysis paralysis. I want to buy a wide angle. This will be the only wide angle lens I will buy for a long time. I'm having a hard time deciding which one though. >around 20mm or around 24mm? 24mm might a bit safer but is it wide enough? >AF vs manualDo I even need AF at this focal length? I don't shoot moving subjects much anyway. >F/1.4 vs F/1.8 or F/2F/1.4 is nice but will be much heavier than most F/1.8, and I will most likely keep this on my camera when walking around for an extended amount of time. And this is even before I look at actual optical quality differences between the lenses in my budget. Any input?
>>3920930Different solutions for different mounts.The e-mount has Tamron 17-28, and Sigma 14-24 which is lighter than their old 14-24.
>>3920930you need to tell us what camera system you're on. also have you taken wide angle shots before? if so show us some that you like.
>>3920938>>3920944I'm on Sony FE, didn't take any real wide angle shots since widest I have is 45mm. But I want to use it for mostly landscape and some urban photography. Not really looking to buy a zoom, the most expensive lens I'd consider was $700 but I'd rather spend closer to $500.
>>3920948Samyang 24 F1,8 AF then.
>>3920950yeah that's the default option since it seems to be a good lens(unlucky it's so new and no one is selling used). My two hang-ups:>I shoot manual a lot and don't like Samyang's focus by wire implementation>the above mentioned 20mm vs 24mm dilemma
>>3920954There is also a 20mm Tamron prime. Very slow, but cheap and has half macro.
Just bought a Pentax-F 35-80mm f4-5.6 to replace my kit zoom (>>3920644). After a couple of test shots it seems just a tad soft at the 35mm end, but nothing too bad really. At 80mm it's much sharper. It's lighter and focuses much faster than the DA kit zoom. Overall it seems great for the price (25 €).[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeSonyCamera ModelE2303Camera Software26.3.A.1.33Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.0Sensing MethodNot DefinedImage-Specific Properties:Image Width700Image Height525Horizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2021:07:26 17:31:12Exposure Time1/10 secF-Numberf/2.0Exposure ProgramNot DefinedISO Speed Rating3196Lens Aperturef/2.0Exposure Bias0 EVSubject Distance0.00 mMetering ModeCenter Weighted AverageLight SourceUnknownFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length3.57 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width700Image Height525Exposure Index376RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeUnknownGain ControlUnknownSubject Distance RangeUnknown
>>3920971Test picture[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakePENTAX CorporationCamera ModelPENTAX K10DCamera SoftwareK10D Ver 1.31Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaFocal Length (35mm Equiv)79 mmImage-Specific Properties:Image Width950Image Height638Number of Bits Per Component8, 8, 8Compression SchemeUncompressedImage OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Data ArrangementChunky FormatImage Created2021:07:26 12:40:48Exposure Time1/60 secF-Numberf/4.5Exposure ProgramCreativeISO Speed Rating800Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModeSpotFlashNo FlashFocal Length53.00 mmImage Width950Image Height638RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardContrastNormalSaturationHighSharpnessHardSubject Distance RangeMacro
>>3920948get the 24mm GM or the 12-24mm GM if you want more versatility but the compromises of a zoom. you can't go wrong with either. I have the 24mm GM myself and I think it's plenty wide as my widest lens.
>>3921012Too rich for me, I have few more lenses to buy and can't justify the $1k+ price tag.
>>3921019The voigtlanders have the best manual controlm but they will also be too expensive for you.Most likely you will be happy with some 7artisan lens which have excellent manual mechanics.
>Have D750 (mirrorless too small for my bear paws)>Want a macro lensNikon 105 f/2.8 VR?Sigma?Tamron?
>>3918651Depends on your setup (tripod type, tripod quality, camera weight, lens length etc.)See https://thecentercolumn.com/head-rankings/ball-head-rankings/, figure out your weight class and go for the one with the best stiffness/weight DPreview has only tested a small selection of ballheads only, but they usually do post-lock shifts, too
>>3918983uhm, it's good for shooting faces i guess[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeFUJIFILMCamera ModelX-S10Camera SoftwareGIMP 2.10.24PhotographerVM BRAUNMaximum Lens Aperturef/3.5Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaFocal Length (35mm Equiv)111 mmMaker Note Version0130Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2021:05:30 22:50:29Exposure Time1/1250 secF-Numberf/3.7Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating160Lens Aperturef/3.7Brightness8.8 EVExposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashNo FlashFocal Length74.10 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width6240Image Height4160RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardSharpnessNormalSubject Distance RangeUnknownBlur StatusOKChroma SaturationNormalContinuous/Bracketing ModeOffAuto Exposure StatusOKFlash ModeUnknownFocus ModeAutoFocus StatusOKPicture ModeAperture Prior AESharpnessNormalSlow Synchro ModeOffWhite BalanceAuto
Thinking about picking up this old Tamron 46A 70-210 mm f/3.8-4 for my Nikon D3300. I'm a beginner, but do you guys think it'll be good for macro?
Should I get the Canon rf 35mm macro for product photography? Or should I save and get the 100mm macro?
i ordered the ee-s focus screen for my 5D and it'll be here friday! original shipping estimate was a month from now so i'm pretty excited. I have a handful of m42 lenses with ef chipped adapters to check focus with but i got a samyang 35 f1.4 a couple months ago and the ae chip doesn't work. i'm excited bros
>>3921146That's a big lens
I made the switch from Fujifilm to Canon FF and I have bought a 50mm, 40mm and a 28mm for the price of my Fuji 27mm F2.8 WR.This feels like cheating.
>>3921207Don't know quite what to take from that
>>3921192Not sure about product photography, but the Canon RF 35mm is a great lens. I bet you could find some use for the lens if you will get it.
>>3921146>do you guys think it'll be good for macro?No. Honestly just get a modern macro lens.
>>3921210how tf did you get ef lenses so cheap?
>>3921249Not him, but second hand stores and classifieds usually have a lot of cheap shit from people who genuinely just want their stuff sold.Ebay is your worst enemy as there are rarely any deals there anymore.[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Camera ModelHD1913Equipment MakeOnePlusFocal Length (35mm Equiv)27 mmImage-Specific Properties:Image Width1125Image Height1080Image Created2021:07:26 19:30:29Lens Aperturef/1.6Exposure Bias0 EVExposure ProgramNormal ProgramISO Speed Rating200White BalanceAutoShutter Speed1/145 secFocal Length4.76 mmFlashNo FlashF-Numberf/1.6
>>3921252I obsessively check classifieds and I don't see EF lenses going for that cheap ever. unless his idea of the price of the 27mm WR is just really inflated.
Is there a downside to using a full frame lenses on an APS-C body? I know I'll get a 1.5X crop factor but for me that's more of a feature than a bug.
>>3921268Just the pricing is an issue.I'm happy with using the Tamron 70-180 on APS-C for example.
>>3921268yes. you lose sharpness in addition to spending money on and carrying around bulkier glass than you need. see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8-vfiq33R4
>>3921268Yep, there's literally no problem besides crop factor.
>>3921280>you lose sharpnessDepends on the glass.>Linking Tonehlol
Any tripod recommendations? Fiance uses a Canon 5d mark 1 with battery pack and wants to be able to do our self portraits and the family. Anything that won't break the bank but also isn't a cheap piece of shit?
>>3921299Obligatory Toneh postings:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQ8VodC19-ghttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7tfd3ntgagc
>>3921299>Depends on the glassas Tony covers in the video>>3921312health food snake oil fag is funny sometimes but he doesn't even take pictures. he's a literal nophoto.
>>3921304So she's looking for a studio tripod only? How much would she be willig to spend on it?
>>3921324We usually take our photos outside not really indoors studio photography. Preferably sub 200
>>3921326>>3921321Sorry if I sound retarded she's the photographer and I'm just trying to find her something nice
>>3921326I was asking because it depends on how far you're willing to carry it (i.e. how bulky/heavy it should be)A systematic tripod will give you most stability for your money but you can't really carry it around on, say, a hikeIf she's looking for something smaller that will fit in a backpack, she will sacrifice stability for size, which might not matter if all she will use the tripod for is a self portrait at the summit in broad daylightIn the latter case, you can go for any dirt-cheap aluminium tripod -- if you want to use it for anything else in the future, you should consider spending a little more on it and buy a carbon onebecause stability will greatly matterThe best travel tripods (small and light) are made by Really Right Stuff (crazy expensive -- 800 bucks) and Gitzo (somewhat more affordable, starting at 450, at least if you live in Europe)At 200, you could also get a LeoFoto LS-284C, which is a very decent tripod for hikes but doesn't come with the same level of customer supportFor big bulky ones, you could get an Induro one for less than 180, which will probably give you the most stability per penny spentI suppose you are also looking for a ball head, in which case you could try to get your hands on a Colorado Tripod Company Mini. I believe it's currently out of stock, but sold at $20 when new, so maybe you can find a mint one on ebayThe problem with tripods is that there's a lot of them out there but hardly any objective data, and in the end even the best tripod might not suit your individual needs (ergonomics, compatibiity with a particular ball head, aesthetics, etc)
>>3921210based as fuck. I've been considering something similar. take advantage of everyone wanting to move to mirrorless and get dslr's for cheap.
>>3921329Oh and whatever you do, don't get her a Manfrotto Befree AdvanceIt's crap
>>3918956The R5 is a fantastic camera. The one flaw is overheating in some video modes, which is better with newer firmware but still a bit shy of the thermal performance of some competitors.If you don't need 45mp or 8k the R6 is much cheaper but otherwise very similar feature wise. And Canon has finally added C-Log 3 to the R6.>>3918969>Video is notorious for being hard to work due to the way it's coded last i read, Are you thinking of the R6 because of it being limited to IPB compression?>If you don't need the pickles then grab a R6. If i were you i would rather go for a 5Dmk4 but if you want an R# means you need RAW video or the premium C-Log.C-Log 3 is now on the R6. The 5D4 is a great camera BUT the 4k video is cropped and motion JPEG. If you can live with the 4k crop the R is the better cinema camera, but the R5/R6 beat them both.>>3919277>>3919278This is a retarded take.>>3919407>they've already discontinued manufacturing of EF lenses.No they have not. They've stop making some EF lenses, still make the bulk of them. Over time that will dwindle as sales and resources shift to RF. But there are so many EF lenses, all of which adapt seamlessly to RF, that it's a non issue.
>>3919501Why are you flipping out over a cheap metal tube? EF lenses work perfectly on RF bodies, even using 3rd party adapters because the adapter in this case just has wires to pass the pins through. RF protocol is a superset of EF protocol, so RF bodies talk directly to the lens without translation. (The control ring adapters likely have a chip for that, but otherwise pass through the EF protocol.)>>3919501>I need even more money now........ I'll never get there.If money is an issue then look at the R6, R, or 5D mark IV. Don't spend yourself into the poor house over gear.
>>3921329>>3921332>>3921329>>3921332Typically we're pulling over and walking less than a mile round trip so something a little heavier ain't too big of a deal. Thanks for the advice I really appreciate it.
>>3921348ah there was a report a while back that they were. it appears it was clarified later with a statement from canon. https://www.canonwatch.com/canon-is-not-discontinuing-ef-lenses-but-making-sort-of-spring-cleaning-report/
bags with similar style (vintage/hand-me down from grandad look) to wotancraft trooper? im about to pull the trigger but wanna know if anyone here has alternatives. something that doesn't look like a camera bag, and doesnt look like its worth stealing but is still built well and will last me decades. i travel and don't wanna be a nigger magnet.
anyone got messenger bag suggestions?Just don't want a floppy bag and have to wrap my camera upLeaning towards PD messenger as it's pretty clean in black, thinktank ones look decent too but velcro galore
>>3921501just keep in mind that if you get one that closes with straps and buckles like that it will be annoying as fuck to take your camera out for impromptu shots.
>>3921249eBay, used camera stores and Facebook Marketplace. The awesome 50mm 1.8 II is like £60; I actually prefer this one to the STM as the focussing is not fly-by-wire.
>>392125327mm f2.8 wr is £280 used50mm 1.8 II £6040mm F2.8 £11028mm F2.8 £130Close enough. Might be cheaper in UK than USA... Not sure.
>>3921510A lot of the bags with straps like that only use them to tension the flap.The main closere is held with poppers or velcro
Still looking for a wide angle for Sony FE, found the >Zeiss Batis 2/25 for $680, is it worth it at this price? Most reviews negatively compare it to the Sony FE 24mm 1.4 GM but that's literally TWICE as expensive. I'm having a hard timing finding info on how those older lenses stack up with more modern but cheaper ones. Like would this actually be better than the new Samyang AF 24mm 1.8?
>>3921518>for $680, is it worth it at this price?Absolutely.The Samyang 24 F1,8 has incredible optics that punch way above its class. But Seizz has metal build barrels which always feel nicer to hold. And good optics as well.
is a pentax k-x worth picking up or too old at this point? reposting because i posted it in the meme pentax thread by accident
Total fucking newbie here. This lens seems decent and the price is right 40 canuck bucks. "50mm Olympus Zuiko MC Auto-S 1:1.8 - nice condition with the exception of a 1/8” mark in front coating, a large speck of dust in the centre and what looks like air bubbles in the rear glass."No caps with it either , is it worth it?
>>3921640What do you wish to attach to that ancient shard of image projection
>>3921641A mirroloess digital camera with an adapter then eventually an OM-1n or an OM 4.
>>3921128Recent tamron zooms actually have really good iq (17-70 and 70-180 are both great). I haven't tried the 28-200 but i would be surprised if the 18-300 had shit quality
>>3921656I don't doubt that Tamron makes decent lesnes, but that's a zoom factor of more than 15The lenses you mentioned are 5.5 and 2.5, respectivelyIt would be nice to have more third party options at the higher end of the focal range but I doubt that the 18 mm at the lower end help with the quality at 300 mm. I never thought the 18-135 mm Fuji was a lens worth possessing, and this one seems much worse
Seems like the R3 is going to be 24mp.[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:
>>3921610Seems like a nice camera. My problem with it would be that it has only one control "thumbwheel". It's also not weather sealed.
Is a A7R2 worth buying for $1000 new? The local camera shop will throw in a Snoy 50mm 1.8 too. How does the AF on the A7R2 compare to the recent models?
>>3921715Af is poor. R models don't get pdaf.
I'd like to hear /gear/'s resident pixel peepers' opinion about this 100 % crop of unprocessed raw file. Is it just me or is this zoom lens (>>3920971) a bit soft at its wide end?[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakePENTAX CorporationCamera ModelPENTAX K10DCamera SoftwareK10D Ver 1.31Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaFocal Length (35mm Equiv)52 mmImage-Specific Properties:Image Width1303Image Height866Number of Bits Per Component8, 8, 8Compression SchemeUncompressedImage OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Data ArrangementChunky FormatImage Created2021:07:28 19:42:07Exposure Time1/13 secF-Numberf/8.0Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating100Exposure Bias1.3 EVMetering ModePatternFlashNo FlashFocal Length35.00 mmImage Width1303Image Height866RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardContrastNormalSaturationHighSharpnessHardSubject Distance RangeDistant View
Is the canon ef 24-105mm f4 lens worth getting? I shoot mostly 40mm and 100mm and usually at f5.6-8 when I'm using my primes. It seems solid and would allow me to not have to bring additional lenses when traveling.
>>3921715Depends where you live. I've seen better deals on dedicated camera gear forums but I haven't seen anything nearly this good locally. I'd buy it.
>>3921726Look up some online reviews. In general It's very common for zoom lenses in that range to exhibit this behaviour. They're either soft on wide end and sharp on telephoto range, or the reverse, or they're soft on both, and sharp in the middle.
>>3921519>>3921518I've watched a few more reviews and I think I'm going to get it, need to wait a week for my paycheck but it's been available for almost a month so should be good(sellers who misspell the name of the stuff they're selling are a blessing).
>>3921758Ooh, I think I know what listing you are referring to. Don't mind me getting it before you do.
>>3921758>>3921766stop trying to lure /p/chaners into your frawd auctions
>>3921766doubt you're in the same country as me but knock yourself out.
can we talk monitors? Do I need a 27", or will 24" be fine. And if its 24" will there be any benefit from getting a 1440 monitor, or can I go with a 1080 (or 1200 in a 16:10 aspect ratio)? My desk is only about 60cm deep, so I'm going to be fairly close, so I'm not sure if 27" will be too big. Also, its much cheaper to get a 24" that has decent coverage of wider gamuts.
>>392197827 1440, 32 4k, 16:10 if you can find, ips for angles and colors, va for blackedget the 27, moving your eyes to see monitor extremities is actually good for your eyesight, same for the neck
>>3921978i use 32 at that distance btw no issues and 5he real estate allows 4 laptop sized windows at once
>>3921981Really? Because I use a 27" and I find that tiring.I have resorted to using just the center area of the screen.
>>3921992yes, having your eyes fixed for long periods of time is bad for their muscle memory. look it up
>>3921744>In general It's very common for zoom lenses in that range to exhibit this behaviour. They're either soft on wide end and sharp on telephoto range, or the reverse, or they're soft on both, and sharp in the middle.Okay, thanks for confirming. Mine seems to be slightly on the first category, however personally I don't think it's a problem for me. It's pretty obvious that some compromises had to be made on optical quality due the light weight of the lens (185 g). It's even lighter than the DA18-55 APS-C kit zoom.
What are some decent EF lenses I should get for my RP? I have an adapter but I barely use it since the only EF lenses I have are doodoo
>>3917063i want to touch that hoseit looks so soft
Guise, need your help. I'm going hiking for a couple of days next monday and realsied, I won't have fun lugging my nikkor 200-500 around. Need something smaller for wildlife. Budget is up to 1.5-2k usd. I'd have rented but it's going to be my bd and I thought I'd treat myself with something I will be actually using.
>>3922027Rent a hiker to carry your lens if you are so weak.
>>3922029It's not about weakness. I won't be able to use a tripod and sit around in one spot all day, so I need a lens to carry on a harness or a strap that is not too large, that I can just grab and shoot.200-500 isn't such a lens.
>>3922027The Tamron and Sigma 100-400 are like half the weight of yours, no idea how good they are.
>>3922030It is about weakness but i get your point.Like this anon said >>3922031 those are plasticky but light enough and are pretty sharp, i would lean towards the Tamron for its build quality and stabilization although i think it is not as corrected.
>>3922033>photoThanks. I'll look into getting a harness. Maybe try one on.
>>3922030You could get a monopod, they're not too inconvenient to carry. It might even fit in your bag.
Daily reminder that APSC is enough.
>>3922064Very true, went to take pictures of birds from a hide today, wish I'd brought my D3500 rather than my D750 for the extra reach without compromising AF and sharpness by using teleconverters.
>>392200540mm 2.8100mm f2 USM
>>3921715don't listen to >>3921722, he has no idea what he's talking about. the a7r ii has pdaf. af is worse on the ii series though, vastly improved on iii and up to be class-leading af, as well as battery life. much more worth it to spring for an a7 iii or a7r iii.