[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]

Name
Options
Comment
Verification
4chan Pass users can bypass this verification. [Learn More] [Login]
File
  • Please read the Rules and FAQ before posting.
  • There are 121 posters in this thread.

08/21/20New boards added: /vrpg/, /vmg/, /vst/ and /vm/
05/04/17New trial board added: /bant/ - International/Random
10/04/16New board for 4chan Pass users: /vip/ - Very Important Posts
[Hide] [Show All]


[Advertise on 4chan]


File: frontview.jpg (112 KB, 1310x948)
112 KB
112 KB JPG
Digital bonanza edition
>>
Why a Pentax?
>>
File: 7287_pen18-55_obu2.jpg (54 KB, 550x431)
54 KB
54 KB JPG
>FA J
>APS-C body
>>
>>3908844
>they wrote the focal length at which variable aperture kicks in on the lens
Pentax is so based
>>
File: frontpage.jpg (40 KB, 480x386)
40 KB
40 KB JPG
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 more
you're a nigger of the highest degree.
>>
>>3909152
six? 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?
>>
File: IMGP0326.jpg (226 KB, 1200x800)
226 KB
226 KB JPG
> be me
> 2021
> litteraly buying a K3-III
you're face

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeRICOH IMAGING COMPANY, LTD.
Camera ModelPENTAX K-3 Mark III
Camera SoftwarePaintShop Pro 23,00
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)77 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width1200
Image Height800
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Image Created2021:06:30 18:05:31
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width1200
Image Height800
Exposure Time1/125 sec
F-Numberf/4.0
Exposure ProgramAperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating200
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length50.00 mm
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
ContrastHard
SaturationNormal
SharpnessHard
Subject Distance RangeDistant View
>>
>>3909745
Go for it, 85mm's are great even outside of portrait photography.
>>
File: 1614602270877.jpg (32 KB, 657x527)
32 KB
32 KB JPG
>>3909750
you are face?
>>
File: IMGP0214.jpg (88 KB, 1200x800)
88 KB
88 KB JPG
>>3909837
I am face, anon.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeRICOH IMAGING COMPANY, LTD.
Camera ModelPENTAX K-3 Mark III
Camera SoftwarePaintShop Pro 23,00
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)309 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width1200
Image Height800
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Image Created2021:06:13 14:15:08
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width1200
Image Height800
Exposure Time1/800 sec
F-Numberf/4.0
Exposure ProgramAperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating100
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length200.00 mm
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
ContrastHard
SaturationNormal
SharpnessHard
Subject Distance RangeClose View
>>
>>3910086
But then who was phone?
>>
>>3909750
I'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
>>
>>3909132
Already have the FA 43/1.9 MIJ
>>
>>3910793
Poor and outdated
>>
>>3913388
That's the entire Pentax lens lineup in three words
>>
>>3913538
Also applies to canikon and snoy
>>
File: fuji sony.png (316 KB, 947x387)
316 KB
316 KB PNG
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?
>>
>>3914315
Sony cameras feel like shit
>>
>>3914315
the best street camera is the one you can slap a manual lens on and zone focus
>>
>>3914315
sonys 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.
>>
>>3914315
Sony cameras don't like street photographers, try one
>>
>>3914455
What 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.
>>
>>3914315
The problem is that Sony renders colors about as well as a 90s CCTV camera.
>>
File: 1564564512345131.png (89 KB, 656x376)
89 KB
89 KB PNG
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?
>>
>>3914319
this. 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?
>>
>>3915622
Used 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 quality
What is professional quality? you can still do weddings with 10yo cameras if they don't want video
>hurr they all want video
You 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 II
It'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.
>>
>>3917030
EF 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-Hand
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
Image Width1280
Image Height853
>>
>>3917063
And the problem is?..
>>
>>3917065
It’s a worthless photo that I only found acceptable to keep due to the bokeh.
>>
>>3917070
Arent most peoples photos objectively worthless and only valuable in the eye of the photographer?
>>
>>3917063
lmao, you've suddenly memed yourself into thinking the most important part of your photos is the out-of-focus backgrounds.
>>
>>3917128
I'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.
>>
>>3909745
You should definitely get a 85mm but don't bother chasing after f1.2
Bokeh is great already at f2 on such focal lengths
>>
>>3917123
imo photos only gain any objective value in hindsight when they're impossible to take again, making them look nice aesthetically is just a bonus
>>
>>3917151
Please give an example of a photo that couldn't be taken again. This seems extremely limiting.
>>
>>3917157
just 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 AWB
2. JPEG with 2700K
3. JPEG with 5000K
4. RAW

Can 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.
>>
>>3917157
Like >>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.
>>
>>3915541
100% bullshit.
>>
>>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.
>>
>>3909750
I like this.

Two sets of people, old and young meeting.
>>
>>3917197
He 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.
>>
>>3917177
Fuji 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.
>>
>>3917270
Lots 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.
[citation needed]
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?
>>
>>3917303
it'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 marketed

This clarifies a lot, cheers. Might look for a 25mm then
>>
>>3917061
Wouldnt that cause a lot of extra weight and mass?
Anyway its for sale for around 450 euros refurbished.
>>
>>3917303
Had 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?
>>
File: E0ltBhXXoAIRMqP__02.png (67 KB, 1396x920)
67 KB
67 KB PNG
>>3917428
>>
>>3917177
I 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.
>>
>>3917428
they 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.
>>
>>3917303
The 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 JPEG
well obviously. there's no point bracketing WB on raws because you can freely adjust WB on a raw with no loss in quality.
>>
>>3917498
t. Listened to 4chan tards
>>
>>3917182

Thought 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.
>>
>>3917500
No, 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
>>
>>3917501
again 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.
>>
>>3917503
You're speaking gibberish, tard
>>
>>3917512
You clearly can't read stupid faggot
>>
>>3917513
Said 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 shooter
mainly 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.
>>
>>3917530
After 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
>>
>>3917281
Cool, thanks.

>>3917459
Damn, 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.
>>
>>3917517
What can't you understand about the bigger the sensor the thinner the DoF? Are you stupid? It seemed pretty clear to me

Gonna call it a crutch?
>>
>>3917553
imagine sneeding deph of feeld to take photos why'll chad's roam aboot using they fones and backgroun blurry algirithms instedd
>>
>>3917540
Is it the Leica thambar 90mm f/2.2?
>>
>>3917571
You'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?
>>
>>3917683
put 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.
>>
>>3917658
Lmao that guy really pissed in your cereal.
You're such a tard you can't even understand how glass works.
>>
>>3917683
shoot at night
>>
>>3917499
He also wanted to save a raw file.
>>3917550
My 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.
>>
>>3917843
They'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.
>>
>>3917846
Bench racing
>>
>>3917846
So what would you recommend instead for a fast lens?
>>
Hello
I bought chink tripod
It's pretty decent
That 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 friendly
budget is around £500
>>
>>3917912
Pentax K-70

Or just get a rain cape on any DSLR in the price range
>>
>>3917912
Unironically a hi-end smart phone that lets you shoot RAW.
>>
>>3917916
something like this? https://www.amazon.co.uk/Pentax-Digital-Camera-18-55mm-3-5-5-6/dp/B08R76HV65
>>3917917
can't use my phone unfortunately
>>
>>3917917
what 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.

>why
neck 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 all

I 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?
>>
>>3917953
I 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.
>>
>>3917843
The full frame samyang 35 1.8 or Sony's own version, but it's much more expensive
>>
>>3917988
phones 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.
>>
>>3918027
You 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.
>>
File: 1630725223.png (160 KB, 750x540)
160 KB
160 KB PNG
>>3918026
>>3917843
The Samyang 24mm F1,8 AF is sharper than both of those.
>>
>>3917843
I 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!
>>
>>3918027
Phones 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-Hand
Horizontal Resolution144 dpi
Vertical Resolution144 dpi
Image Width750
Image Height1203
>>
>>3918047
and 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.
>>
>>3918170
Not 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.
>>
>>3918227
Here 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_images

You 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 times

My 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?
>>
>>3918276
Teleconverters 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.
>>
>>3918240
they all look like shit. are you that blind that you think these look good? it's just sad at this point.
>>
>>3918303
You 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.
>>
>>3918317
here'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.
>>
>>3914319
My issue is that they seem to make my hands get sweaty really quickly, I don't have this issue with my Olympus bodies
>>
>>3917540
Why 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
>>
>>3918651
I 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 it
I suspect all ballheads do that.

If you're looking for ultra precisions then look up the gear-heads instead of ballheads.
>>
>>3918786
pro level ones like the one that I mentioned above do not.
>>
>>3918812
That one is above half a kilogram already. At that point you might as well just rock with a gimbal head.
>>
>>3918332
>here's an example
Phones can take photos like that just fine dude.

>the accuracy of the colors
Real 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 do
That's literally what >>3918240 is before applying nonlinear localized edits like in >>3918317

>because smartphones basically always compress dynamics too much
In 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.
>>
>>3918815
shocking 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...
>>
>>3908844
Got 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 btw
That 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.
>>
File: P090315-2104.jpg (647 KB, 1000x667)
647 KB
647 KB JPG
>>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 MakeCanon
Camera ModelCanon EOS 40D
Maximum Lens Aperturef/5.7
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
F-Numberf/7.1
Exposure ProgramAperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating400
Shutter Speed1/1000 sec
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Focal Length300.00 mm
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
Exposure ModeAuto
>>
>>3918843
Moment 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-prA

That'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.
>>
File: R5.jpg (73 KB, 1200x630)
73 KB
73 KB JPG
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.
>>
>>3918956
Video 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 videographer
What 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.
>>
>>3918969
Thanks 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.
>>
>>3918973
You have no idea what I would do to go back to before this shit.
>>
>>3918978
and 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 day
Well 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-log
It'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 photogrammetry
Practically dead too if that compact radar shit gets commercially released within two years.
>regular construction
>post-covid
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.
>>
>>3918979
I'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.

>>3918985
I 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.
>>
>>3918993
you 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.
>>
>>3916859
Do you live in AUS? If you don’t, do NOT pay that much for either of those cameras anon.
>>
>>3918994
You'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.
>>
>>3919006
anyway 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 like
Working 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 me
Then 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 best
Hard 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 reddit
You should make like the photography career and die already
>>
>>3918994
>>3919006
>>3919008
>>3918996
and 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.
>>
>>3916859
Get a used Canon 7DMkII and EF 400/5.6
>>
>>3918843
That'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.
>>
>>3918956
R5c 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?
>>
>>3919033
iPhone 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.
>>
>>3918240
It's fucking shit mate
>>
>bought a focus rail
>didn't fix any of my problems
Worst part is I kinda saw this coming
>>
>>3918956
you 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
>>3919277
also, get a specialised video camera if you want to do video work
>>
File: oldtapey.jpg (201 KB, 624x864)
201 KB
201 KB JPG
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 MakeCanon
Camera ModelCanon EOS-1D Mark II N
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS2 Macintosh
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2010:11:18 09:27:18
White Point Chromaticity0.3
Exposure Time1/60 sec
F-Numberf/2.8
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating1600
Lens Aperturef/2.8
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModeSpot
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length45.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width624
Image Height864
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>
>>3919301
>ebay
>item doesn't match description
https://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.
>>
>>3919031
I 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.

>>3919277
You'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.

>>3919278
I 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.
>>
>>3919363
Canon 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?
>>
>>3919410
Dadcore. For the same cash you can get g85 that does everything with a larger sensor, ibis, and better iq.
>>
File: tenor.gif (1.37 MB, 480x360)
1.37 MB
1.37 MB GIF
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.
>>
>>3919407
Forgive 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 hard
such is a life of a gearfag
>>
>>3917182
The older ones are terrible. Shooting raw helps, but my pentax stuff never needed color correction while every picture out of the NEX6 does
>>
>>3919436
your 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=detail
I 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.
>>3919459
shooting RAW means you can adjust colors however you want. it's literally a non-issue.
>>
>>3919442
Just say you're mad because you're poor next time. You can take photos and get erect over gear you know.
>>
>>3919463
Wow 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?
>>
>>3919704
depends 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.
>>
>>3919704
If 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.
>>
>>3919940
lmao jesus christ
>>
File: 57028635_p0.jpg (3.62 MB, 2355x2444)
3.62 MB
3.62 MB JPG
>>3908844
I'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.
>>
>>3919957
GoPro 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.
>>
>>3919940
This is something a 15 year old would write
>>
File: page 51.png (872 KB, 1500x750)
872 KB
872 KB PNG
>>3919940
Take 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.
>>
>>3919940
Quite simple.

At its most basic a camera is a lightproof box with a hole in the front and a light sensitiive medium at the back
Lens 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 requirements

Heres a model to try
https://blinkythepinholecamera.tumblr.com/thecamerakit

You won't get amazing results, but its fun trying.
>>
File: IMG_20151214_195012.jpg (138 KB, 1199x899)
138 KB
138 KB JPG
>>3919940
Also 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 lens

For 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 ring
Vibrate to get bubbles out
Polish with headlight cleaning paste

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareGoogle
Image-Specific Properties:
>>
File: 1626757213926.jpg (65 KB, 613x463)
65 KB
65 KB JPG
what camera is this
>>
>>3920113
Its a mystery
>>
>>3920071
>what would you sell it all for?
> do my price research for me
go 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 shots
yeah 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.
>>
File: haul-1000px.jpg (224 KB, 1000x750)
224 KB
224 KB JPG
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 Area
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2021:07:23 00:41:00
Exposure Time1/15 sec
F-Numberf/2.4
Lens Aperturef/2.4
Brightness659/10181 EV
Exposure Bias0 EV
Focal Length4.28 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width3264
Image Height2448
Exposure ModeAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>
File: 1587061226548.png (147 KB, 640x480)
147 KB
147 KB PNG
>>3920004
Do 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?
>>
>>3920239
Go pros are unreliable, they'll randomly freeze and stop recording
>>
>>3920233
Report 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.
>>
>>3920242
yeah, 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.
>>
File: H2zJc8.gif (755 KB, 320x240)
755 KB
755 KB GIF
>>3920240
Well 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
>>3920244
oh, 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 now
Interesting 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?
>>
File: IMG_0018-1000px.jpg (109 KB, 666x1000)
109 KB
109 KB JPG
>>3920253
5mins 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
>>
>>3920207
I 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?
>>
>>3920310
It seems as though EF-anything is dead
At 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?
>>
>>3920327
Does this mean ef lenses will get cheaper?
>>
>>3920321
depends 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.
>>
File: DSC0316_3-1536x1024.jpg (164 KB, 1536x1024)
164 KB
164 KB JPG
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
>>
>>3920483
Strange, the AF works without any adapters on those lenses on my camera
>>
>>3920518
Are you having a bad day Anon?
>>
>>3920519
My day is wonderful, how about you, chum?
>>
>>3920525
Weord 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 glass

For 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
>>
File: 2002622300.jpg (126 KB, 853x800)
126 KB
126 KB JPG
hey guys
I 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 body
since olympus is kinda dead, I was looking at panasonic stuff
most 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 that
I ended up at Panasonic Lumix DC-G90 aka DC-G95

does 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?
>>
>>3920644
Get a DA 16-85 WR
>>
>>3920649
>>3920644
Or even a DA 16-45/4
>>
File: pentax-28-80m-7479-jk.jpg (382 KB, 2048x1367)
382 KB
382 KB JPG
>>3920649
>>3920655
How '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 CORPORATION
Camera ModelNIKON D600
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 7.5 (Macintosh)
Maximum Lens Aperturef/3.2
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern772
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)60 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution240 dpi
Vertical Resolution240 dpi
Image Created2021:06:29 11:08:25
Exposure Time1/160 sec
F-Numberf/20.0
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating100
Lens Aperturef/20.0
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModeSpot
Light SourceUnknown
FlashFlash, Compulsory, Return Not Detected
Focal Length60.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceManual
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Gain ControlNone
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
Subject Distance RangeUnknown
>>
>>3920667
Those 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.
>>
>>3920638
look 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 lens
I'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...
>>
>>3920682
I 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 manual
Do 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/2
F/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?
>>
>>3920930
Different solutions for different mounts.

The e-mount has Tamron 17-28, and Sigma 14-24 which is lighter than their old 14-24.
>>
>>3920930
you 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
>>3920944
I'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.
>>
>>3920948
Samyang 24 F1,8 AF then.
>>
>>3920950
yeah 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
>>
>>3920954
There is also a 20mm Tamron prime. Very slow, but cheap and has half macro.
>>
File: DSC_0446.jpg (68 KB, 700x525)
68 KB
68 KB JPG
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 MakeSony
Camera ModelE2303
Camera Software26.3.A.1.33
Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.0
Sensing MethodNot Defined
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width700
Image Height525
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2021:07:26 17:31:12
Exposure Time1/10 sec
F-Numberf/2.0
Exposure ProgramNot Defined
ISO Speed Rating3196
Lens Aperturef/2.0
Exposure Bias0 EV
Subject Distance0.00 m
Metering ModeCenter Weighted Average
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length3.57 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width700
Image Height525
Exposure Index376
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeUnknown
Gain ControlUnknown
Subject Distance RangeUnknown
>>
File: imgp8420_v1_950.jpg (177 KB, 950x638)
177 KB
177 KB JPG
>>3920971
Test picture

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakePENTAX Corporation
Camera ModelPENTAX K10D
Camera SoftwareK10D Ver 1.31
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)79 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width950
Image Height638
Number of Bits Per Component8, 8, 8
Compression SchemeUncompressed
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Data ArrangementChunky Format
Image Created2021:07:26 12:40:48
Exposure Time1/60 sec
F-Numberf/4.5
Exposure ProgramCreative
ISO Speed Rating800
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModeSpot
FlashNo Flash
Focal Length53.00 mm
Image Width950
Image Height638
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
ContrastNormal
SaturationHigh
SharpnessHard
Subject Distance RangeMacro
>>
>>3920948
get 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.
>>
>>3921012
Too rich for me, I have few more lenses to buy and can't justify the $1k+ price tag.
>>
>>3921019
The 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 lens

Nikon 105 f/2.8 VR?
Sigma?
Tamron?
>>
>>3918651
Depends 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
>>
File: DSCF2036 small.jpg (165 KB, 1500x1000)
165 KB
165 KB JPG
>>3918983
uhm, it's good for shooting faces i guess

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeFUJIFILM
Camera ModelX-S10
Camera SoftwareGIMP 2.10.24
PhotographerVM BRAUN
Maximum Lens Aperturef/3.5
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)111 mm
Maker Note Version0130
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2021:05:30 22:50:29
Exposure Time1/1250 sec
F-Numberf/3.7
Exposure ProgramAperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating160
Lens Aperturef/3.7
Brightness8.8 EV
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash
Focal Length74.10 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width6240
Image Height4160
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
SharpnessNormal
Subject Distance RangeUnknown
Blur StatusOK
Chroma SaturationNormal
Continuous/Bracketing ModeOff
Auto Exposure StatusOK
Flash ModeUnknown
Focus ModeAuto
Focus StatusOK
Picture ModeAperture Prior AE
SharpnessNormal
Slow Synchro ModeOff
White BalanceAuto
>>
>>3919416
>18-300
sigh
>>
File: 818_1738458847.jpg (272 KB, 1200x1600)
272 KB
272 KB JPG
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
>>
>>3921146
That'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.
>>
>>3921207
Don't know quite what to take from that
>>
>>3921192
Not 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.
>>
>>3921210
how tf did you get ef lenses so cheap?
>>
>>3921249
Not 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 ModelHD1913
Equipment MakeOnePlus
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)27 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width1125
Image Height1080
Image Created2021:07:26 19:30:29
Lens Aperturef/1.6
Exposure Bias0 EV
Exposure ProgramNormal Program
ISO Speed Rating200
White BalanceAuto
Shutter Speed1/145 sec
Focal Length4.76 mm
FlashNo Flash
F-Numberf/1.6
>>
>>3921252
I 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.
>>
File: Zeiss-Loxia-50mm-f2.jpg (48 KB, 650x477)
48 KB
48 KB JPG
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.
>>
>>3921268
Just the pricing is an issue.
I'm happy with using the Tamron 70-180 on APS-C for example.
>>
>>3921268
yes. 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
>>
>>3921268
Yep, there's literally no problem besides crop factor.
>>
>>3921280
>you lose sharpness
Depends on the glass.
>Linking Toneh
lol
>>
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?
>>
File: 1627317156838.jpg (20 KB, 400x400)
20 KB
20 KB JPG
>>3921299
Obligatory Toneh postings:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQ8VodC19-g
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7tfd3ntgagc
>>
>>3921299
>Depends on the glass
as Tony covers in the video
>>3921312
health food snake oil fag is funny sometimes but he doesn't even take pictures. he's a literal nophoto.
>>
>>3921304
So she's looking for a studio tripod only? How much would she be willig to spend on it?
>>
>>3921324
We usually take our photos outside not really indoors studio photography. Preferably sub 200
>>
>>3921326
>>3921321
Sorry if I sound retarded she's the photographer and I'm just trying to find her something nice
>>
>>3921326
I 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 hike

If 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 daylight
In 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 matter

The 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 support

For big bulky ones, you could get an Induro one for less than 180, which will probably give you the most stability per penny spent
I 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 ebay

The 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)
>>
>>3921210
based as fuck. I've been considering something similar. take advantage of everyone wanting to move to mirrorless and get dslr's for cheap.
>>
>>3921329
Oh and whatever you do, don't get her a Manfrotto Befree Advance
It's crap
>>
>>3918956
The 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
>>3919278
This 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.
>>
>>3919501
Why 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
>>3921332
Typically 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.
>>
>>3921348
ah 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/
>>
File: IMG_2787.jpg (465 KB, 1000x1333)
465 KB
465 KB JPG
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 up

Leaning towards PD messenger as it's pretty clean in black, thinktank ones look decent too but velcro galore
>>
>>3921501
just 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.
>>
>>3921249
eBay, 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.
>>
>>3921253
27mm f2.8 wr is £280 used
50mm 1.8 II £60
40mm F2.8 £110
28mm F2.8 £130

Close enough. Might be cheaper in UK than USA... Not sure.
>>
>>3921510
A 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?
>>
>>3921640
What do you wish to attach to that ancient shard of image projection
>>
>>3921641
A mirroloess digital camera with an adapter then eventually an OM-1n or an OM 4.
>>
>>3921128
Recent 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
>>
>>3921656
I don't doubt that Tamron makes decent lesnes, but that's a zoom factor of more than 15
The lenses you mentioned are 5.5 and 2.5, respectively
It 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:
>>
>>3921610
Seems 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?
>>
>>3921715
Af is poor. R models don't get pdaf.
>>
File: imgp8552_v1_pixelpeep.jpg (410 KB, 1303x866)
410 KB
410 KB JPG
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 Corporation
Camera ModelPENTAX K10D
Camera SoftwareK10D Ver 1.31
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)52 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width1303
Image Height866
Number of Bits Per Component8, 8, 8
Compression SchemeUncompressed
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Data ArrangementChunky Format
Image Created2021:07:28 19:42:07
Exposure Time1/13 sec
F-Numberf/8.0
Exposure ProgramAperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating100
Exposure Bias1.3 EV
Metering ModePattern
FlashNo Flash
Focal Length35.00 mm
Image Width1303
Image Height866
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
ContrastNormal
SaturationHigh
SharpnessHard
Subject 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.
>>
>>3921715
Depends 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.
>>
>>3921726
Look 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
>>3921518
I'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).
>>
>>3921758
Ooh, I think I know what listing you are referring to. Don't mind me getting it before you do.
>>
>>3921758
>>3921766
stop trying to lure /p/chaners into your frawd auctions
>>
>>3921766
doubt 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.
>>
>>3921978
27 1440, 32 4k, 16:10 if you can find, ips for angles and colors, va for blacked

get the 27, moving your eyes to see monitor extremities is actually good for your eyesight, same for the neck
>>
>>3921978
i use 32 at that distance btw no issues and 5he real estate allows 4 laptop sized windows at once
>>
>>3921981
Really? Because I use a 27" and I find that tiring.
I have resorted to using just the center area of the screen.
>>
>>3921992
yes, 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
>>
>>3917063
i want to touch that hose
it 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.
>>
>>3922027
Rent a hiker to carry your lens if you are so weak.
>>
>>3922029
It'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.
>>
>>3922027
The Tamron and Sigma 100-400 are like half the weight of yours, no idea how good they are.
>>
>>3922030
It 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
>photo
Thanks. I'll look into getting a harness. Maybe try one on.
>>
>>3922030
You could get a monopod, they're not too inconvenient to carry. It might even fit in your bag.
>>
Daily reminder that APSC is enough.
>>
>>3922064
Very 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.
>>
>>3922005

40mm 2.8
100mm f2 USM
>>
>>3921740

Bump
>>
>>3921715
don'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.
>>
What's the best Olympus for both stills and video and low light?
>>
Posted in wrong thread. My b

looking for a cheap set up for doing video portraits for Instagram and Tiktok of pretty women frolicking in grass fields.

Right now I have Fuji XH1 but I’m not really invested too deep since I only use the Viltrox lenses. I fucking hate the autofocus, it loses the model even when she’s literally standing still.

I was thinking staying Fuji and getting the XS10 with a Weebill S, but wondering if the autofocus would really be that big of a step up for video. Otherwise, was thinking an a6400 + Crane M2 with a cheap Sigma.
>>
File: 20210727163825_IMG_1161.jpg (109 KB, 1620x1080)
109 KB
109 KB JPG
came here to show off my vintage lens. Got it for free from a friend and I fixed it. I'm so proud of myself I'm like a little kid.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeCanon
Camera ModelCanon EOS RP
Firmware VersionFirmware Version 1.6.0
Lens NameRF35mm F1.8 MACRO IS STM
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2021:07:27 17:07:23
Exposure Time1/100 sec
F-Numberf/1.8
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating400
Lens Aperturef/1.8
Exposure Bias0 EV
FlashNo Flash
Focal Length35.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width1620
Image Height1080
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Exposure ModeManual
Focus TypeAuto
Metering ModeEvaluative
SharpnessUnknown
SaturationNormal
ContrastNormal
Shooting ModeManual
Image SizeUnknown
Focus ModeOne-Shot
Drive ModeUnknown
Flash ModeOff
Compression SettingUnknown
Macro ModeNormal
White BalanceAuto
Exposure Compensation3
Sensor ISO Speed224
Color Matrix129
>>
thoughts on sigma?
looking at getting the 14-24 2.4 and the 35 1.4 for my d750.
Also after something like a 50-100 or thereabouts but not finding much. My tamron g2 24-70 might have to be enough.
>>
>>3922237
sigma balls
>>
>>3922238
ayy
sold
coming from 6x7 film so not sure which lenses are best quality
but the fact mf's cann sigma balls sells it
>>
>>3922212
Can't see shit
>>
>>3922237
Sigma is shite with frosting on it. Go with Tamron, Venus Laowa or Samyang/Rokinon for third party, or be a chad and buy used screwdrive Nikkors.
>>
>>3922255
wrong
>>
>>3922192
Get a Lumix.
>>
>>3922005
I love my 50mm 1.8 II. I also have the 50mm 1.8 STM and I don't notice much of a difference in focussing speed but the II has a direct manual focussing ring.
>>
>>3908844
>Nikon DX wide-angle for real estate photography
No idea where start. Halp pls.





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.