[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 70 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]


Janitor acceptance emails will be sent out over the coming weeks. Make sure to check your spam box!


[Advertise on 4chan]


Loxia edition
Old: >>3934642

I never knew the Loxia 35/2 was the same as the ZM Biogon 35/2, but adapted for non-Leica sensors. I had considered buying a digital M for those ZM lenses, because I miss the Biogon I used to have. Best lenses I've ever owned. Time to sell my Samyang 35/1.4.
>>
Does /p/ put stickers on the hoods of their long lenses like people do with laptops? or is that lame?
>>
is there a fucking wide angle lens at 8mm or less that works on the BMPCC without costing a fortune and without vignetting? C mount lenses included
>>
>>3938641
lol
>>
>>3938634

My 70-200 f4L IS and 150-600 Tamron are stickerbombed with Bonneville Speedweek shit
>>
>>3938674
what an incredible contribution, thanks for replying
>>
Is my only sensible option for a super telephoto lens the Tamron/Sigma 150-600mm? I don't mind using older lenses but at long focal lengths they seem to be either notably slower, have bad IQ, or both.
>>
>>3938732

Probably. The Tamron model isn't bad, get the later G2, the G1 had a recall on the front element getting dust and shit in it.

For the same price as those super-zoomy teles you can get a nice 300/2.8 in your flavor of choice
>>
File: 1615051300212.jpg (454 KB, 1920x1920)
454 KB
454 KB JPG
>>3938542
Loxia 25/85 is the real power couple.

The 35 and 50 are old timers, just with some strict quality control.
>>
>>3938732
>Is my only sensible option for a super telephoto lens the Tamron/Sigma 150-600mm?
I heard from naturephotographers the Sigma and Tamrons on EF and F mount never really hits exact autofocus, so you will always get very blurry results in half of your photos.

Sigma's DG DN series, and VXD series work really well though.
>>
File: laowa argus35.jpg (449 KB, 1920x1080)
449 KB
449 KB JPG
Canon has done goof'd. On the EOS R Just changing the aperture can apparently mess up the auto-whitebalance.
>>
Looking to get the 7artisans 35mm f1.2 for Fuji.

I'm used to shooting in manual and wonder what people think of this lens?

Is it worth it to get the 2nd revision that has a closer focussing distancing and goes to f22 vs f16?
>>
what's the best way to test a 14 mm Rokinon? apparently some of them are bad, some are super sharp, how can I tell if I have no other 14mm?
>>
>>3938882
take pictures
if sharp you're fine
if soft return it
>>
>>3938873
It’s a Sonnar formula, like the Jupiter-8, which means that it’s soft and dreamy wide open, with a vintage character. It’s more of a lens for portraits and for artistic interpretation than for sharp realism, at least wide open.
>>
Nikon N-word 2000 camera with clean 28mm f/2.8 and in leather vest.
60 bucks, yay or nay?
>>
Just bought Samyang 24mm T1.5 for E-mount. I paid 170 EUR for it. Did I overpay or was it a good deal?
>>
>>3938734
>get a nice 300/2.8
Or better yet get a 300/4 which is much smaller and lighter and can still accept a 1.4x TC in some cases 2x TC. 300/4+1.4x TC is just enough on APS-C
>>
>>3938834
>auto-whitebalance
The real problem is with the retard who uses auto whitebalance
>>
>>3938793
All it's missing is a 180mm f2.8 Ssonnar
>>
>>3939170
Batis and Loxia were the pet projects of one of the veteran Zeiss engineers.
He passed away a few years ago, so those two lines have finalised.
>>
>RF 100-400mm F5.6-8 IS USM will be available this month for $649.
I kinda like Canon's approach of budget lenses with slightly dark apertures. On Sony cheapest 100-400 is $1k.
>>
>>3939222
>100-400
>only usable range for APS-C
>Canon EF-M is a joke
>RF to EF-M is impossible without glass elements and visible degradation
Maybe there will be an RF mount APS-C line like Nikon's Z50
Now you realize Nikon's Z mount is much less retarded than Canon's mirrorless mess.
>>
>>3939272
>only usable range for APS-C
what?
it covers FF
>>
>>3939273
The focal length. 400mm will leave you wanting for more reach on FF while on FF it will be plenty
>>
>>3939459
I meant on APS-C it will be plenty
>>
File: tastysnacks.jpg (190 KB, 1188x667)
190 KB
190 KB JPG
Do y'all keep any of these in your lens bag to prevent fungus? I don't, was wondering if maybe I should be doing that. I live in a super humid area.
>>
>buy high-end camera body that costs thousands of dollars
>comes with an incredibly crummy and tedious strap
Why does every single manufacturer do this? If third parties can make incredibly rugged, versatile straps for less than $100 why don't high-end cameras come with a strap that rivals that level of quality?
>>
>>3939528
Accessorizing strategies, same with buying focusing screens or cases.
>>
>>3939508
I have a proper dry box woth elctrical plug since I live in the tropics. Or just put your gear on a well ventilated room that sunlight can reach. Don't store your gear inside your closed camera bag when its rainy season, I learned it the hard way.
>>
>>3938641
Samyang has a fisheye 8mm got mft
>>
Which is better; the K&F K-series or Nano series CPL filters? The Nano series is multiple times more expensive than the K-series, are they multiple times (or just in general) better filters?
>>
Speaking of straps, are there neck straps that will let the camera naturally dangle lens down? Something that attaches to the tripod mount maybe?

With my current strap and a 135mm if I wear in on my chest it just dangles at 45 degree angle because the strap attaches at the top of the body and the lens is not heavy enough to bring it all the way down, feels like it might damage the mount this way.
>>
About to buy the 135mm Samyang F/2.0, any reason not to? I already know I want that focal length and don't mind MF only.

Was waiting for a better used deal but nothing comes up so I'm settling for 25% off store price.
>>
>>3939726
>Speaking of straps, are there neck straps that will let the camera naturally dangle lens down? Something that attaches to the tripod mount maybe?
A RRS L bracket and just hang a sling from your neck. They use rifle QD swivels so if you have a long lens, it'll hang down
>>
File: IMG_20210915_0805532.jpg (4.81 MB, 3996x2664)
4.81 MB
4.81 MB JPG
>>3939726
>>3939761
>RRS L bracket

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera ModelBBF100-2
Camera Software0
Equipment MakeBlackBerry
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)26 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationRight-Hand, Top
Image Created2021:09:15 08:05:53
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
ISO Speed Rating1600
Exposure ProgramNormal Program
F-Numberf/1.8
Exposure Time1/20 sec
Focal Length3.89 mm
FlashNo Flash, Auto
Metering ModeCenter Weighted Average
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Image Height2664
White BalanceAuto
Brightness-3.6 EV
Image Width3996
Exposure ModeAuto
Lens Aperturef/1.8
Color Space InformationsRGB
>>
>>3939738
I have that for Sony E. It's a near-APO design and I got it for 300 bucks. Completely ridiculous performance for the price.
The long focus throw is a bit annoying but it makes up for it!
>>
>>3938542

So closer to 1 the MTF curve starts, the more a lens resolves in the center right?
>>
>>3939726
>>3939761
You can also use a Smallrig L bracket and attach PD anchor mounts to the base so it will tilt down when dangling
>>
>>3939508
I keep beef jerky in my camera bag to keep it fresh.
>>
>>3939528
They can't even be arsed to print the model number on the strap like they did with the dslrs.
>>
File: DSCF5016 small.jpg (445 KB, 1500x1000)
445 KB
445 KB JPG
>>3939574
>multiple times
no
probably just water-repellent and transmission-enhancing coating

most filter companies have two series of cpls, an a affordable one (just the two filter pieces) and a decent one (proper coating, sometimes also better glass). always go for the decent one.
k+f is an intermediate quality brand, meaning that they're convinced enough of their product to put their name on it but of course the filters are only a fraction of the price you'd pay for a b+w or breakthrough cpl. if you can't spare the extra 50 to 80 bucks for one of their cpls, go and buy the k+f (you might as well get an amazon basic one judging from the reviews). but in any other case, i would recommend you to get a breakthrough x4 (first choice) or a b+w xs pro (second choice). they'll save you a lot of time with adjusting colors in post and have negligible nd effects.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
>>
>>3939855
It's just horseshit honestly. Local camera store here had some 20, 40 and 100 buck options for CPLs here. "Oh if you use GM lenses you really need the 100 buck option, otherwise you'll shoot yourself in the foot".
I picked the 40 buck option and gladly stuck it on my Sigma 24-70 DG DN that outresolves the GM.
>>
File: nd84pto4d0m31.jpg (308 KB, 1816x1494)
308 KB
308 KB JPG
>>3939836
>PD anchor mounts
lol at ever trusting these shitty plastic cords which are now on like their 4th generation because they keep on catastrophically failing over a steel swivel and 1" nylon strap
>>
Why is everyone so passive-aggressive here? This is even worse than the boomers on DPreview

>>3939860
I understand why he would say that and I also get that most camera store clerks don't know a lot about the stuf they sell. Cheap CPLs will polarize just fine, even if you go with the 20 buck option. The problem is simply that the cheaper the CPL, the more things they do on top of polarizing and those are mostly things you don't want them to do (vignetting, reflections, blocking parts of the visible spectrum i.e. color casts). Most of that can be and has been measured objectively. More expensive CPLs tend to just polarize and do very little on top of that, that's why I (and lots of professional landscape photographers) recommend them to people. A lot of people here spend top dollar for negligible improvements in camera bodies (a few extra MP, IBIS, etc.) and then play it cheap when it comes to equipment like tripods and filters. There is a lot of difference between different camera bodies and lenses in price whereas CPLs vary only by about 100 bucks and are an essential piece of equipment for landscape, so I would argue it's worth spending the little extra if only to have the iece of mind to know you're not compromising on quality.

>>3939861
Why did that person attach two of them to the same eye?
>>
>>3939870
have you ever used a PD strap? you have two ends to connect unless it is the wrist strap.

>passive aggressive
you clearly dont understand what passive aggressive means versus outright aggression
>>
>>3939834
Far left of the graph is centre, far right is edge

But they also label whether they're testing for 10, 20, 30, etc line pairs per mm, so you need to take that into account too.
>>
>>3939870
on 4chan?
>>
>>3939508
Silica does tie some of the humidity, but we're talking going from low precent to lower precent. They're useless in high humidity. A towel in the bag will do much better job until you bring it back inside.
>>
File: msedge_dwzxg7qatn.png (1.78 MB, 1920x1080)
1.78 MB
1.78 MB PNG
>>3939861
Meanwhile some of them are so strong that they literally tear the camera apart
>>
>>3939991
>literally tear the camera apart
you really are this retarded arent you, you /fag//? the absolute state of fujis
>>
>>3939992
So should PD can add "Stronger than fujis" to their advertising campaign?
>>
>>3938834
if only there was a way to match white balance between shots in post
>>
File: 6545_17536.jpg (42 KB, 640x426)
42 KB
42 KB JPG
Guess printers are gear. Anyone do their own prints know if the 12-ink photo printers are worth it?
Have parents' old plotter printer to play with and prints look pretty good on the right paper, but I'm wondering if the quality bump is worth the £600 and additional ink costs. Also intend to sell them and I'm slightly worried about the normal inks fading over time.
>>
>>3939528
Get yourself a two point rifle sling that mounts to you arcaswiss plate and never look back
>>
>>3939761
This. Best strap of all time. Doesn't come with any shoulder pad, so it can be uncomfortable after a day's hike.
>>
I think people will get mad when i will Ask this but : there is some good Lens for smartphone ? I already have a 5k$ camera setup and i'm a professional film maker. I will Travel in south America for 6 months and i dont to have my setup stole (and my setup IS too old (3years) for having decent insurrance possibility). So i thinking to just take my phone a osmo and maybe some Lens for smartphone.
>>
>>3940217
Never really seen those lenses do much good other than for specifically vlogging. The best thing you could do is probably spend a few hundred $ for a drone. Even the cheap ones are stupid impressive for video these days.
>>
>>3940029
have you done the math? A lot of inks for these printers are rated for 6 months before they start drying up and need to be replaced. I looked in to buying some $1k canon or epson, but when I looked in to the inks, they were only rated for 6 months and cost $500 to replace. I have no intention of spending $1k a year on ink just to make a few prints.
>b-b-but you can refill them
the inks will be shittier than OEM because you get what you pay for. they're fine if you're printing office documents that will be read once and then go in to the trash, but will suck shit for long term photo prints.
>>
>>3940031
>Doesn't come with any shoulder pad, so it can be uncomfortable after a day's hike.
I use a 2" Urban ERT sling which is made from the same stuff as a seat belt. Plenty of rifle straps like a Troy Industries I have come with shoulder pads. If the sling can support a 10-12lb rifle all day long, it can certainly support a camera with a 100-400 which weighs half that
>>
>>3940256
yeah, photo printers only make sense if you’re printing constantly, because of maintenance costs and ink expiration. That and if you keep a printer for long enough, the parts and/or inks won’t be made anymore and you’re left with a footstool. So you need to be selling those prints to make up for costs
>>
File: 71HLw7c-snL._AC_SL1500_.jpg (140 KB, 1472x1345)
140 KB
140 KB JPG
any experience with pic related
>ad200 pro
mainly for comfy indoor portraits due to it's size and mobility
>>
File: a063-3.jpg (40 KB, 584x584)
40 KB
40 KB JPG
Hmmm, USB-C port on the updated G2 28-75.

It's weird because this will just make them more susceptible to dust and humidity intrusion.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
>>
>>3940329
So it's not weatherproof then
>>
>>3940218
Yeah but in lot of south American countries drone fligh m'y IS forbiden for strangers even worst in some countries you Can not éven take a drone in because just import IS forbiden so i tuinkt drone IS not a solution in my case, but thanks for the reply
>>
File: a058-1.jpg (479 KB, 1970x798)
479 KB
479 KB JPG
Datasheet for the new 35-150mm F2 - 2,8.
https://www.scribd.com/document/525597707/T#download&from_embed

It's 1165 gram.
But it's also insanely big aperture, so that's expected.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop 22.0 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width1920
Image Height778
Number of Bits Per Component8, 8, 8
Pixel CompositionRGB
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2021:08:16 22:05:42
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
Image Width1970
Image Height798
>>
>>3940367
>>3940329
man I wish someone would make a 24-135mm that starts at F2, that would be a GOAT lens... probably not physically possible but a man can dream.
>>
>>3940367
That's 400g lighter than a canon 70-200 2.8
Tamron are actually goated.

>>3939991
Fujis are dangerously fragile and made for teenage girls.
>>
>>3940329
Not necessarily. The port could be sealed off from the rest of the assembly.
>>
File: printer.jpg (47 KB, 450x575)
47 KB
47 KB JPG
>>3940308
>>3940256
Yeah the math I'm not worried about.
I'm more just curious about that initial investment and the difference in quality, since no one has actual comparisons between the "technical" printers and the "photo" ones as far as I've seen.
>>
Are there compact digital AF zoom cameras that remember the last focal length used when powered off then on again or can be assigned in memory setting?
>>
>>3940439
>since no one has actual comparisons between the "technical" printers and the "photo" ones as far as I've seen.
Lurk more
>>
>>3940444
>yeah bro lurk moar instead of asking question, you have to patiently wait 2 years on this slow ass board for threads talking exactly about what you need to appear
lol
>>
>>3940461
>you have to patiently wait 2 years on this slow ass board for threads talking exactly about what you need to appear
Yes, this is not a yahoo questionnaire, this is an imageboard, you lurk and educate yourself by reading.
If you come up requesting answers that have been giving shortly before then you are a blatant newfag or a dummy who doesn't read, a nigger in short.
>>
>>3940462
there are almost no threads about printing and the ones that come up have at most 5 replies, fuck off retard all those words you wrote to just admit this board is borderline useless
>>
Does a tripod exist that doesn't have the most annoying play in the head? The ball head on my Fotopro droops significantly when I lock an ordinary two-kilogram camera in a portrait orientation, and the horizontal traverse lock insists on rotating some 3-4° when I lock it.

Doesn't have to be a metalworking lathe, but surely there's an affordable tripod that at least locks properly.
>>
>>3940470
yes but good tripods are expensive. I wanted a good quality tripod (buy once cry once), so I got a Feisol CT-3301 tripod base and paired it with a Feisol CB-50D ballhead + QR plate. it's rock solid, light, and is the proper height for me to use without bending over and without needing a shitty center column. but it cost about $500 with tax.
>>
Aperture progression through the zoom range.
>>
>>3940677
I was expecting a fast bit in the middle, this is much better. I think tamron are gonna clean up again with this lens, I hope it's sub $1k
>>
>>3940687
>I hope it's sub $1k
This will probably be the part that disappoints you.

It seems way too big and heavy to cost below 1000.
>>
>>3940687
>I hope it's sub $1k
What are you smoking, there's no chance. Tamron's 70-180mm f/2.8 is $1200 already, there's no way this is going to be cheaper.
>>
>>3940698
Variable aperture is normally cheaper than constant.
But yeah you're right in this case, the variable aperture dips into the opposite direction, to the fast side. So it's bound to cost at least as much.
>>
>>3940329
You do know weatherproof type-c ports exist right
>>
Between this and the 100-400mm L II it seems like the 70-300mm is the obvious choice for anyone who doesn't want to lug around $3000 worth of glass on a hike, but I barely see any mention of it anywhere. Is f/5.6 really THAT bad on a telezoom?
>>
>>3940733
>Is f/5.6 really THAT bad on a telezoom?
Depends what you want to shoot, i telephoto f16 with "usable" image quality which is enough for my own uses.
>doesn't want to lug around $3000 worth of glass on a hike
You put your life on risk which is worth more than $3000
>>
File: Screenshot_142.jpg (64 KB, 644x644)
64 KB
64 KB JPG
>>3940735
>You put your life on risk which is worth more than $3000
if i could afford going on a dangerous adventure I wouldn't be on a basket-weaving picture forum asking about a budget camera lens
>>
>>3940742
Then why bring hiking in the first place, you pretendo?
>>
>>3940792
Because there are such things as easy hikes, I just want to take a stroll in the woods not climb up a mountain in some far away country
>>
>>3940470
You can buy ballheads. Many years ago I ordered a Benro B2 (when actually I needed a B1 or something) and that has a 16kg max payload. Its bit heavy but I definitely have no drooping problems.
>>
>>3940367
>>3940677
>Not making a 70-300 2.8 constant aperture instead
>>
>>3940889
most people aren't autistic retards that are scraed to get within 10m of another human anon
>>
>>3940891
>Not wanting to get full body portraits with the background still blown out
>>
>>3940895
>not wanting a 35mm f2 on an all purpose travel lens
>>
I'm trying to toss up between a Sony A7C/Sony A7III against Fujifilm XT-4 at the moment, looking to pull trigger before christmas.

I am a complete amateur, I just enjoy taking shit pictures and remembering good events

Use case: taking pics of landscapes/city life, animals such as dogs/occasional national park animals such as ducks etc., family/friends - no professional dependency so specific memory formats or dual slots are not that important to me.

Currently leaning towards Sony:
I've heard people refer to Sony's Autofocusing as the benchmark and that full frame is generally better than APS-C including reasons such as lens choice/variety.
I heard the general shutter speed is 1/4000 limited on A7C - is this a issue? I generally don't shoot 1/4000 - I guess if I'm asking this question this won't matter to me.

Should I consider Nikon or Canon alternatives at the 1600 to 2000 USD bracket?
>>
>>3940796
A 100-400 lens can survive this, but it is heavier
>>
>>3938542
Are there lenses like Loxia but for aps-c? Manual focus but with E-mount interface support for EXIF?
>>
Is there a big difference between efm 32mm and the 22mm pancake in how close you can get to your subject? 22mm has less minimal focusdistance but 32mm is closer to the subject at the same distance because of the focal lenght.
I have quite often now that the 32mm is too close by to focus so looking for another lens.
>>
>>3940916
Tamron 17-70 F2,8
A6600

Better price, better battery life, better zoom range.
>>
>>3940949
The Samyang/Rokinon manual lenses support full frame and have the CPU contacts for E-mount. I don’t know of any APS-C lenses that are MF and have the CPU contacts.
>>
DXOMark rates the A7III above the A7S for low-light sensitivity - in fact, it’s their top-rated FF camera for high ISO. I didn’t know it was so good for that, and had been holding off on upgrading from my A7II. But maybe it’d be worthwhile.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution144 dpi
Vertical Resolution144 dpi
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width750
Image Height418
>>
>>3940990
It's only above the S after you processed the RAW and downsample the resolution to remove some noise.

The S forces you to get low resolution by default, in return the filesizes are super compact and noise level is very good by default.
But the S lacks the versatility of the basic model which can do sort of everything.
>>
>>3940989
I have a rokinon 21/1.4 for e-mount and it doesn't have any electronic contacts
>>
>>3940990
Upgrading from A7II to III before IV comes out is a braindead move.
>>
>>3941007
Sure thing, Snoy salesman
>>
>>3941007
I’ve been waiting for IV for around two years now. Might be another year still.
>>
>>3941010
If I was a Sony salesman I'd convince him to upgrade and then upgrade again once IV comes out.
>>3941013
Sure, probably will take a while. But do you actually need to upgrade? If you were switching to like A7rIV sure, go ahead, but I don't see a point going II>III.
>>
>>3941022
When the IV comes out and 2nd hand iii's drop to ~$1k whilst the ii still fetches $600, it would be a fair price for a decent upgrade.
>>
File: 780157_3_1200x1200.jpg (62 KB, 1000x1000)
62 KB
62 KB JPG
>>3940470
Post-lock shift is a common issue with most ball heads, even with some expensive/high quality ones
You should never buy a tripod/head bundle if you aim for top quality. unfortunately there's not a lot of ball head testing, but try your luck with one of the Sirui K series
>>
>>3940916
I would go to a camera store and try both of them if I were you
>>
talk me out of buying a ring light. here's why I'm considering it over something better

>I don't need strictly professional photos, just passable with controlled lighting
>my photography setup is small and a softbox light would take up more room / could potentially fall over and get in the way more than a ring light would
>I'm very skilled with post-production and can easily correct for something that doesn't look right
>most subjects I need to photograph will be small
>I can always buy one later, when certain things change
>>
>>3940916
>I am a complete amateur
>I need a mirrorless full frame
>1600 to 2000 USD bracket
Man...
>>
>>3940470
I got this Aoka ballhead off Amazon for $80 and is buttery smooth and locks comfortably in place. Its locking mechanism is so smooth I can twist to make a minor adjustment by being able to smoothly rotate wherever and lock back in place without any jarring movements whatsoever. Never had a nice head as this one.
>>
>>3940916
any lens you get that fits the A7C/A7iii will fit onto sony's APS-c cameras
it just won't give you the same "full frame" so people often use a time 1.5x crop when calculating the "equivalent" focal lengths. This is even for lenses made specifically for aps-c. they keep the same focal length #'s on whatever lens you buy. So a 50mm lens whether its made for aps-c or full frame will give you an 'equivalent' 75mm focal length because the 50mm is cropped by the sensor size

anyways, if you're just particular with the focal length (get a 35mm if you want a 50mm look, get a 24mm if you want a 35mm look, etc) getting an APS-C might be better. I had an a6600 and went to an A7C. I kinda wish i kept the a6600 sometimes. More custom buttons, better EVF, better for stills

but my A7C has a swivel screen
>>
>>3940975
>>3941063
>>3941107
Thanks will look into them. Hopefully as christmas aproaches, cameras get discounted
>>3941103
I want to get into this hobby, it ties well into outdoor activites, might as well get something that will keep me satisfied for years to come.
>>
>>3941102
ring lights make things look flat

>>3941105
first time i'm seeing this brand
looks like a chinese sirui copy but bold enough to sell close to sirui's price range and with a trademark on their heads
any reviews of their stuff online?

>>3941144
just buy used and 2000 usd will be plenty for a start
>>
>>3941103
why do poorfags always have to chime in with their whining about other people's lack of money problems?
>>3940916
get the a7III unless you're really dedicated to the form factor of the a7c. the larger body is much more ergonomic and has more buttons and dials, which is really nice to have when you're shooting. having to go into screens to adjust settings is very annyoing if you're trying to seriously shoot (i.e. not just throw it in auto and just snap). that's a much bigger difference than the 1/4000 vs 1/8000 thing.
I own both a current-gen fuji and an a7iii and I can tell you the autofocus on sony is significantly better. the fuji gets by, sure, but the sony is absolutely the benchmark for autofocus performance. a lot of the fuji lenses don't even have internal focusing like all sony lenses do, which means that elements physically move on the exterior lens as they focus. it's kind of laughable in a way how behind they are, but you have to realize that it's the niche fuji is targeting that limits their ability to compete directly in terms of pure performance. they are going after a smaller targeted market, which means they can't develop the best tech like sony; they differentiate themselves with their products' form factors, shooting experience, and with their film sim stuff.
>>
>>3940916
oh and ignore the guy telling you go to APS-C instead. full frame sony is a much better system unless you really can't spend the cash on the full frame lenses, etc.
>>
>>3941168
>Aoka
only my personal experience with the ball head. I was pleasantly surprised at the quality and construction.
Part of the reason I bought it too is the base matches up with my Manfrotto 190cxPro4 tripod's base. The last ball head I used left exposed aluminum showing on my tripod which kind of irked me. This looks like it was almost made for it because it lines up perfectly when it's screwed on.
>>
>>3941285
Tamron is investing into APS-C lenses now, so it's actually the best time to adopt APS-V for those who want to save money.
>>
>>3941283
Why are snoyi shills shitting every thread?

>>3940916
You should observe by the lack of photos posted by snoyicucks that their cameras are gathering dust. AF is the only crutch that they hang on. Get Fuji and call it a day.
>>
Why don't they make any f.95 lenses that are also autofocus?
All of them from what I'm seeing are manual.
what gives?
>>
>>3941313
>Why are snoyi shills shitting every thread?
How can they be Sony shills when they are shitting on the A6600 which has the best battery life in the world and access to the best value Sigma and Tamron lenses?

Just call them retarded instead.
>>
>>3941314
People would make fun of how crappy slow the autofocus is, and it would give the company bad reputation.
>>
>>3940329
I have a phone with USB-C port and headphone jack, which aren't even covered with rubber or anything, it can go for a swim and come back alive. Sad that there are still manufacturers that are not aware of this technology.
>>
>>3940329
Did they make it smaller than sigma 28-70?
>>
>>3941329
You probably still need rubber cover for that stuff, if one end of the metal contact become corrosive then the other end will as well.
>>
>>3941330
Its datasheet is here
https://www.scribd.com/document/525597803/a063#download&from_embed
>>
>>3941293
cool if I ever see a used one I might buy it to get some first-hand experience
>>
>>3941168
>ring lights make things look flat
what about a cob bulb with a softbox?
>>
NEX 7 to A7II: upgrade or sidegrade?

Same number of pickles, but I've found most of what I shoot is handheld low-light, so the larger sensor and IBIS (mainly the IBIS) seems like it would work better for me than the crop-frame plus speedbooster combo I normally use especially as I've found I prefer adapted manual lenses. Selling the NEX, speedbooster, and handful of native E-mount drop lenses should just about net the £600 a second hand A7II goes for.
The A7RII or A7III both are north of £1000 used, and just don't seem to offer double the camera for nearly double the money based on specsheets and tests, but maybe there's something else to a newer model that I'd be kicking myself for missing?
>>
>>3941644
A6600 is better than the 7ii in almost every way. except for the physical buttons.
>>
>>3941646
And the crop-frame sensor. No good reason to waste money downgrading the NEX 7 to the A6600 just to lose the extra control wheels.
>>
>>3941648
>And the crop-frame sensor
Less than 1/5 stop difference.
A7ii DR tested at photonstophotos iso 100: 11,16
A6600 DR tested at photonstophotos iso 100: 10,97
>>
File: DSCF3235 small.jpg (319 KB, 1500x1000)
319 KB
319 KB JPG
>>3941515
what you need is a way to move the light source relative to the subject
you can even use a ring light for that, just avoid frontal lighting

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
>>
>>3941648
>downgrading the NEX 7 t
The Nex 7 lacks Dual gain digital converter, so it's over 1 stop behind the A6600 between ISO 400 and ISO 6400.

Although I'm surprised to find out the A6600 only has twice the battery life than the Nex 7.
That means the Nex 7 processor was extremely simplistic and didn't consume much power at all.
>>
>>3941649
Full stop difference in SNR and tonal range, and two stops in colour range. AND not being able to take as much advantage of full-frame lenses (for the same MTF, you essentially get 1.5x the effective resolving power due to not packing the pixels so close).
For.. I dunno, a pokey-finger screen and some video stuff? Fuck that even if they were the same price, but I'd be paying near double for the a6600 then an A7II.
>>
>>3941653
>Full stop difference in SNR and tonal range, and two stops in colour range.
Is this actually important?
>>
>>3941655
No, but gearfags love to jerk themself RAW to meaningless numbers
>>
>>3941656
I meant to ask if it was a real advantage and makes a differenc ein the end result.
I always just thought dynamic range was it for image quality measurement.
>>
>>3941655
Not in bright light when you can use base to ~1600 ISO. Once you need to go beyond that, improved SNR and a wider tonal range let you recover much more before an image turns to mush.
>>
>>3941658
>I meant to ask if it was a real advantage and makes a differenc ein the end result.
No, not really.
>>
>>3941644
The a7ii is much nicer in use, the nex 7 definitely feels like a first gen camera.

Ignore the poorfags pleading with you to stay on crop, they're jealous and wrong. Not only do you have the low light advantage, bit also the resolution advantage from the larger sensor being more forgiving on lenses.

And full frame renders nicer (and speedboosters look like shit, even expensive ones, and do not preserve the rendering of the original lens well enough)

You will enjoy the a7ii.
>>
>>3941674
>poorfags
Lol, you are this mad?
>>
>>3941674
The irony is, the a6600 even used is more expensive than the A7II.
>>
>>3941674
>>The a7ii is much nicer in use
It isn't. The grip isn't ergonomic enough relative to its weight.

Among the Sony cameras it's the A660 that has the best grip shape relative to its weight.
But the A7ii is slow to clear buffer and you camera become sluggish during that time.
>>
>>3941677
>>3941679
>>3941681
>Sensorlet malding, can't even follow a conversation comparing 2 cameras, thinks anyone cares about burst performance over having photos that actually look decent, so mad has to post 3 times in a row.
>>
>>3941681
>But the A7ii is slow to clear buffer and you camera become sluggish during that time.
Oh no, you can't just spam the shutter rather than engaging your brain first! Anyway...
>>
File: IMG_20210920_221147.jpg (140 KB, 1080x541)
140 KB
140 KB JPG
Yo, whats upp?
>>
File: tamron.png (927 KB, 1251x798)
927 KB
927 KB PNG
a6600 is cheaper, smaller and lighter for equivalent fstop than a7ii
>>
>>3941684
A7ii is actually a downgrade in battery life over the Nex7.
I was surprised too. And it's like a 25% downgrade, so it's significant.

On the 6600 you never have to worry about any of that shit because it's the world's longest battery life in mirrorless.
>>
>>3941687
>one control dial
Plz. kill yourself already snoyishill.
>>
>>3941687
>a6600 is cheaper, smaller and lighter for equivalent fstop than a7ii
Used A7II is available for half the price of a used a6600
>>
>>3941696
Tamron is developing firmware so they can change focus ring to aperture control.
>>
>>3941696
6600 also have access to the 18-300 which is released from Tamron soon. It's like an ideal lens for landscape, and it doesn't exist yet on the full framer.

So it really does depend on what type of lenses you have a preference to,
The full frame has a bigger selection, but the APS-C has some really cool ones too.
>>
>>3941704
>we'll graciously give you back the ring we removed... but it'll cost you the ability to focus
>>
>>3941707
>one control dial
>>
>>3941721
Check this out: https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-eos-5d-mark-iv/3

For some reason Canon is doing just fine without complaints. But Sony cameras get mercilessly hammered over the same thing.
>>
File: HR_EOS_R_BACK_CL.jpg (162 KB, 1750x1400)
162 KB
162 KB JPG
>>3941744
Hm... DSLR... Notice all those buttons... What could it mean?!
>>
>>3941744
>For some reason Canon is doing just fine without complaints. But Sony cameras get mercilessly hammered over the same thing.
The 5D Mark IV definitely has two control dials.
>>
>>3941761
Could you point out where they are?

>>3941755
Wrong camera. Are you trying to dodge my point instead of answering honestly?
>>
File: back.jpg (739 KB, 2000x1380)
739 KB
739 KB JPG
>>3941763
>Are you trying to dodge my point instead of answering honestly?

lol, sony shill is mad

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeCanon
Camera ModelCanon EOS 40D
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CC 2014 (Macintosh)
Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.8
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpcm
Vertical Resolution72 dpcm
Image Created2016:08:22 12:07:01
Exposure Time1/200 sec
F-Numberf/11.0
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating100
Lens Aperturef/11.0
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length100.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width2000
Image Height1380
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceManual
Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>
>>3941655
>Is this actually important?
It means you can get a decent picture at 8pm with the cleaner ISO range than 7pm. Or alternatively use a higher shutter speed while using a telephoto, which can be the difference between handholding 200mm or 300mm.
Do you actually shoot? i laugh at half-stops but a full one or two is actually a palpable difference.
>>
>>3941790
It's always easer to handhold 300mm on crop. Sensor size makes a difference even when ibis is out of the picture. With ibis, crop get even bigger advantage. Now, if we're talking Sony, they're at an even bigged dissadvantages on ibis, since their mount is too small for the larger sensor.
>>
>>3941786
No, just disappointed by your bias and dishonesty.
>>
>>3941794
Wrong, FF can use twice as fast a shutter speed and get the same noise performance, so handholding FF is always easier.
>>
>>3941977
Actually you're both retarded and your pics suck.
>>
>>3941794
>It's always easer to handhold 300mm on crop
It's the same thing, what are you talking about, the thing that changes is the cleanliness on high ISOs because shakes will always be in any kind of sensor. That's what makes FF superior IF you have the lens to match, obviously the smaller sensors will get the advantage of size, i would like to say in price too but this is dubious lately.
>With ibis, crop get even bigger advantage
This is true but newer FF cameras are as good as APS-C in terms of IBIS, only Olympus stuff is above these.

>>3941978
Shut up nigger
>>
Need to finally buy some ND filters. Do I get a few specific strengths or one of these adjustable ones? What strength filters are the most useful?

In the winter I'll probably shoot a lot of snow-covered landscape on sunny days so I'm assuming as strong as I can get, right?
>>
>>3942049
adjustable ones are shit, they're just 2 polarizers stuck together. everyone serious uses dedicated ones.
>>
>>3942082
>everyone serious uses dedicated ones.
Highly debatable
>>
>>3942082
Will an adjustable ND filter act as a simple polarizer at its minimum setting?
>>
>>3942093
It's not even that. It's just false...
>>
>>3942082
>>3942093
>>3942116
ok, so are the adjustable ones ok in the end?
>they're just 2 polarizers stuck together
but does it make them worse?
>>
>>3942113
Yes. You could also get a cpl and a non-circular polarizer seperately and put them into series, it's more versatile but may get into the FOV with wide angles
>>
>>3942118
>ok, so are the adjustable ones ok in the end?
If you don't care about polarisation effects on your image, they're fine.
If you are trying to achieve a desired effect they can require excessive fucking about trying to get both the polarisation angle you want and the ND level you want at the same time (e.g. turn the front polariser, than have to unscrew the filter in order to rotate the rear polariser, then repeat those two actions over and over until things sorta line up, then hope you have some tape to stop it shifting if a gnat farts on it).
>>
>>3942049
>Do I get a few specific strengths
a set of 2, 4 and 6 stops does everything you'll ever need
don't get a vario, they look like anus
>>
>>3942118
2 polarizers stuck together tend to introduce x pattern on the image
>>
>>3942306
Not if you buy a decent one with fixed stops
>>3942244
>does everything you'll ever need
He may need to screw them on the lens and move the stops at will :^)
>>
>>3942313
I guess it's not noticeable at low levels of attenuation but because filters have a nonzero distance between them, that artifact is a kind of always on experience
>>
I have a 70-200 2.8 that I haven't used in about a year and I'm contemplating whether to sell it for some extra money or not. It's the original Canon 70-200 from like 25 years ago and I stopped using it since I got myself a mirrorless camera.
I feel like I'm gonna need it one day but for the past year I've been using the 24-105 f4 and a Sigma 85 1.4 and they've done everything I need them to so far. What do you think, /p/?
>>
>>3942879
I'd say keep it and adapt it to mirrorless but I googled around and it seems to be still worth a bit if I looking at the correct one. Might be worth selling it if you can get a good price, then you can buy something you actually want like a longer telephoto.

200mm 2.8 sounds nice though, but if you're not using it no point keeping it.
>>
File: Untitled.png (15 KB, 620x152)
15 KB
15 KB PNG
New APS-C F2,8 zoom from Sigma sooon.

L-mount
E-mount
EF-M mount
Micro4/3
>>
Planning to buy a telephoto zoom next year, need to slowly start thinking about which one to look out for bargains. I'm on Sony FE so native choices are limited(ignoring mirror lenses)
>Sony FE 200-600mm f/5.6-6.3 G - no way I can afford that even used
>Sigma 150-600mm f/5-6.3 - really neat but fresh release so only paying retail is an option
Then at 500mm, there's
>Tamron 150-500mm f/5-6.7 - not as much range, not that much cheaper, not that much older
and then only after going to 400mm there's
>Sigma 100-400mm f/5-6.3 DG DN OS - the only one at a decent price

On one hand I don't really want to spend much more than $1k, on the other if I'm spending so much money anyway it would be nice to have the full 600mm reach so I don't have to second guess my purchase... The other option is to buy an adapted zoom, like for example B&H has the older Canon EF Sigma 150-600mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM with an adapter for just over $1k, but I don't know if that's really a viable option.

Any advice regarding adapting lenses like that? And any new interesting upcoming releases/leaks?
>>
>>3943045
>not that much older
In a sense the Tamron is actually more modern than the Sigma option. The AF motor is much more advanced, it's linear electromagnets that push the optics back and forth. the best type of AF motors.

>Canon EF Sigma 150-600mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM with an adapter for just over $1k, but I don't know if that's really a viable option.
The E-mount naive Sigma will cost more, but you're really paying money for the improved optics,
It's sharper than even the Sprots version on EF, but has the weight of the Contemporary EF version.

I also heard the DSLR lenses from Sigma / Tamron had big AF precision issues on the Nikon/Canon bodies, and people would always recommend the native lenses from Canikon instead. it's worth avoiding them based on that alone.
>>
>>3942914
It's only for L an E mount, yet again snoy paying off lens makers to keep a monopoly.
>>
>>3943057
>not that much older
I meant in the way that it was released only a few months earlier so there's not much more hope of finding a good second hand deal.
>>
>Sigma 50mm 1.4
>Tamron G2 70-200 2.8

My friend has both of these lenses, which should I steal from his house? I don't want to take both.
>>
>>3943064
There is no need for pathetic conspiracy theories.

Lens mount support boils down the profits, not bribery.
Sigma actually wanted to make K-mount lenses at one point, but dropped them because they were losing money on the low volume.

The only acceptable instance of losing money is when they support their own mount, but use the healthier E-mount crowd to subsidise for the L-mount efforts.
>>
>>3943045
>>3943057
Did a quick reconnaissance on the local websites, and it looks like getting either an 150-600 and adapting it, or getting the 100-400 Sigma is going to cost me precisely 50% as much as the 150-600 native Sigma. With that much of a difference it kinda seems like a good idea to just find a good deal on the 100-400, use it for a while, and then sell it and get the 150-600 once the prices go down a bit.
>>
File: featuredimage-800x420.jpg (59 KB, 800x420)
59 KB
59 KB JPG
>canon made a 400mm f/2 lens back in the 70s and never again
Why? And why has no one else done the same? Genuinely curious. Clearly it's possible, and there's certainly a market for an extremely high-performance lens
>>
>>3943160
>there's certainly a market for an extremely high-performance lens
like 20 people and maybe 10 hiring houses.
>>
>>3943160
The trend in the 70's and 80's was towards super high aperture lenses . That's why we got weird rarities like the Nikon 300 f/2 and the NOCT 58 f/1.2, etc.

They fell out of style eventually because autofocus came into vogue, which doesn't always work well with those super heavy front elements. Only recently, like in the last 5-8 years, have we started to see a return to exotic super-fast lenses. So we might yet still see a 400 f/2, but you and i won't be able to afford it.
>>
>>3943160
Likely it can be done but not in bulk with a price affordable for more than few very deep pocketed customers.
>>
I just bought a budget 50mm fool frame lens for my Sony A7 (SEL50F18F), anybody here has ever used it? A friend of mine bought it (he is currently overseas) and used it in his NEX-F3, pictures look pretty okay.
>>
>>3943384
It's fine as long as you didn't pay more than $150.
>>
>>3943388
Bought it used, 110 euros
>>
>>3943392
that's a good price. From what I understand the AF is shit but optically it seems fine, particularly for the original A7. People usually recommend the Samyang 45mm F/1.8 instead but I have it and don't like it, much better to save some money and get something actually good later on.
>>
>>3943160
I'm surprised at how good it is wide open
it looks like it was originally for a separate lens barrel like Nikon's old Pre-AI supertelephotos
However the size of that hypothetical mount would be way too big for a 35mm camera. it looks big enough to fit the mount of a 120 camera
>>
File: 1.jpg (748 KB, 2844x1500)
748 KB
748 KB JPG
the new iphone 13 pro camera bump is a fucking chonker

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareCapture One 20 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Image Width2844
Image Height1500
>>
it's seriously massive. they've gone full retard with their camera shit

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareCapture One 20 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Image Width2754
Image Height1500
>>
>>3943471
Doesn't look like if has a long focal length like some of the other Huawei phones have.

125mm and 240mm.
>>
>>3943473
this is what they're claiming. nothing that long. but aren't there phones that use periscopes? maybe those do that?
>>
>>3943474
>but aren't there phones that use periscopes?
There are. That's what I meant.

It should be standard feature for flagship phones to have at least 1 super long lens.
>>
>>3943474
>>3943475
Samsung is holding all the patents, and they're not giving it to aplle.
>>
>>3943478
I heard Sony was first to make those long periscopes on smartphones. So that sounds really strange.
>>
>>3943069
The close flange distance probably helps with developing the same lens for L & E mount.
>>
>>3943493
That's not the reason.
RF and L have the most in common because they are 20mm away from sensor.
E and Z have more in common because they are 18mm and 16mm.

The reason is profits and mount politics.
L, RF, and Z are still fledgeling mounts, so Sigma wants to give their own L mount more advantages than the other two. And use E-mount to subsidise that effort since E-mount is already considered inevitable dominant.
>>
>>3943471
that's good, no replacement for displacement
now, they are going to run into not having adjustable aperture
>>
File: 08951049.jpg (72 KB, 437x458)
72 KB
72 KB JPG
Looking for a tripod that can get really low.
Looking to shoot small things on a desktop.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwarePicasa
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Created2016:12:10 17:57:28
Unique Image IDa82d5266391ec8c7589b3852a69a2f80
>>
>It's not about the glass
>it's not about the autofocus
>It' s the build quality, stupid
Goddangit, even the lens hood is ribbed to match the style.
So this is how Sigma defeated Tamron and Samyang.
>>
>>3943611
It looks good but i'm wary of the shilling campaign Sigma has made for that series, every reviewer even the obscure ones had one and some even 2 or 3.
They seem razor sharp but slow and the bokeh still has that borderline in some of them. I rather have the uncorrected but more natural Tamron SP line.
>It' s the build quality
If so they would know those long straight ribs get old really fast for bare fingers if there's no scallops ala Nikkor or diamond/square knurling like the premium FD Canon.
>>
>>3943613
The Sony 55mm also used to use long straight ribs like the Sigma, but they made their ribs ultra thin so it gets a similar texture as knurled surface.
>>
>>3943611
I'm buying the 24mm as soon as it comes out, but I'm disappointed they didn't make it the 90mm slightly bigger and made it F/2 instead of F/2.8
>>
File: 50mm_f_1_4_nikon_f.jpg (38 KB, 466x499)
38 KB
38 KB JPG
Im looking to buy a new budget prime lens for my D5300. Im between the classic Nikon AF-S Nikkor 50mm f/1.8G and the Yongnuo YN 50mm f/1.4.
Both arround 200$, i was surpsied at this price the Yongnuo one has f/1.4, is it as sharp as the 1.8?
>>
>>3943611
>not an art lens
into the trash
>>
>>3943649
>disappointed they didn't make it the 90mm slightly bigger and made it F/2 instead of F/2.8
Maybe they will still add a faster one, like the 24mm fov has redundant 24/3.5 and 24/2 to make a small one and a fast one. Though, they also already have 65/2 for the portrait lens.
>>
>>3943750
art lenses lineup is embracing the bigma meme
>>
>>3943754
what meme? they're pretty fucking good for their price range. but whatever
>>
>>3943755
>they're pretty fucking good for their price range
Not anymore, maybe 7 years ago.

Modern mirrorless lenses beat the shit our of bloaty Art primes.
>>
Looking for a cheap beginner ultrawide lens for APSC (nikon d5600). My options are:

nikkor 10-20
tamron 10-24
tokina 11-16

or a prime samyang 10 or 16 (the don't have inbuilt autofocus iirc though)

Which one would you recommend?
>>
>>3943757
>bloaty primes
kek, do you have thin spaghetti arms or something?
>>
>>3943823
Mirrorless lets you have bigger aperture at smaller size.
>>
>>3939222
>Canon's approach of budget lenses with slightly dark apertures.
Why didn't everyone like this when they were releasing EF-M dark zooms?
>>
>>3943823
Basically, yes. Contemporary primes are just very handy because they are small, they turn a full frame camera into something that looks like MFT setup.
>>
>>3943755
They are, they are just bigger
>>
>>3943616
>The Sony 55mm also used to
when? as far as I can tell from searching, the lens has always looked the same.
>>
File: 64050910.png (143 KB, 565x344)
143 KB
143 KB PNG
What's the best one of these light panels?
Battery is preferred.
>>
>>3943611
The metal hoods are really overkill
>>
>>3943959
nobody uses hoods anyway.
>>
>>3943960
I would feel bad not using it if I had a lens hood that pretty
>>
>>3942914
>EF-M mount
Oh wow if Sigma releases a Canon version it will be the first f/2.8 standard zoom for EF-M!
>>
Is it a terrible idea to go with m43 at this point? I’m looking towards photography of nature, specifically wildlife both big and small (sans birds, they’re not terribly interesting to me). The overall size, IBIS and weather sealing on the Olympus M5-III is appealing. Yet at the same time, I’m wondering if it’d better just to get a cheap dslr and work from that (like a Nikon d3500 or 5000 series). I know I’m retarded, but curious what people think. Feel like I’m overthinking the system and should just grab the cheapest thing with decent megapixels and a good zoom lens.
>>
File: untitled.jpg (523 KB, 2119x1029)
523 KB
523 KB JPG
>>3943959
I wish they actually gave these things a bit of rubber towards the front edge.
At the end of the day, it's the rubber that will absorb the impact and save your lens during a drop.

They also went maximum retad on the magnetic lens cap and shaped it in such a way that you can't take it out while the hood is in place, unless you fix it up with a long piece of tape to form a tap in the middle.

>>3943877
"used to" relative to the new GM lenses which has different design.
>>
crossost from /SQT/:
35mm vs 50mm for shooting scenes, landscape and the very occasional potrait?
I'm leaning towards 35mm because I want the majority of things to be in focus and it seems to be the most natural viewpoint from watching youtube comparisons. Only downside is that 35mm seems to be more expensive than 50mm.
Trying to move up from my kit lens and prime lenses seem to be more "weather sealed" since in variable length lenses it seems they suck air in and out from the camera. I'm not comfortable with moving parts on the beach
>>
>>3944035
Just grab an F4 zoom, or an F2,8 zoom.

Primes are for people who need at little in focus as possible.
>>
>>3944035
personally I think 50mm is boring and I'd rather go for 35mm between those two, though I personally myself steer the other way in that I prefer a longer focal length for my normal lens, like 65mm.
>>
>>3943957
Is viltrox any good?
>>
>>3944060
Most of the stiff with CRI 95 is usually good.
https://www.aliexpress.com/wholesale?catId=0&initiative_id=SB_20210926010916&SearchText=led+light+cri+95
>>
>>3944060
>viltrox
It probably the only game in town if you want affordable round shaped catchlight.
https://www.aliexpress.com/wholesale?catId=0&initiative_id=SB_20210926011420&SearchText=Led+Round+Light++cri+95
>>
>>3944040
Just looking at that Tamron again makes my head hurt. I still remember my shock comparing the two when I packed up the Sigma. The Tamron feels like a toy in comparison.
>>
>>3944081
The Tamron is the one with superior ergonomics, and handling.
>>
>>3944083
I feel like 24mm vs 28mm makes the Sigma more useful, 70 vs 75 is much less important.
>>
>>3944083
And how is that?
>>
>>3944086
Fits the palm better. You should have known this when you tried them.

The only reason why you like the Sigma more is because you instinctively place value in heavy things.
>>
>>3944087
And when do I hold a lens in the palm? I don't do that with mine. The Sigma is just an all-round better product, with more options for the user. The manual focus is on point, the rendering is a lot more pleasing and the auto-focus is faster.
We'll see with Tamron does with their G2 version of their lens, but right now there's no competition between the two.
>>
>>3944089
>And when do I hold a lens in the palm?
Holding the lens with left hand and resting it on the left palm is just standard posture. Are you pretending to be dumb on purpose?
>>
>>3944091
I do not enjoy holding plastic.
>>
>>3944092
There is more plastic in the Sigma than in the Tamron.
>>
>>3944040
thanks i've already got a 24-120mm f/4 but again, I don't want zoom as they don't seem to be more "sealed" against the elements. Or is this a common misconception?
I can't afford the more sealed Z lens f/2.8 24-70mm ( about 2000 USD) anyway since I'm retarded and got a Z6 II with FTZ for my AF-S 24-120mm f/4 (because i loved the handling of nikon in my hand compared to sony)
>>3944057
Cheers ill try and look for any discounts for 35mm
>>
>>3944095
You should look up the Tamron SP 35mm f/1.4 Di USD.
>>
>>3944089
>the rendering is a lot more pleasing
Subjective, i find Tamron stuff much more natural and pleasing than Sigma ultra sharp stuff with shit bokeh.
>>
>>3944095
>Or is this a common misconception?
It means you are retarded and don't read the manuals.
>>
>>3944097
It's the Tamron that has the clinical sharpness and sterile look with shit bokeh. You're just trying to be contrarian without actually having used both lenses.
>>
>>3944100
>It's the Tamron that has the clinical sharpness and sterile look with shit bokeh
Proofs? the contrary is the well-known fact
>>
File: 1500558531178.gif (494 KB, 250x152)
494 KB
494 KB GIF
>>3944089
>and the auto-focus is faster.
Anon... Is Sigma paying you to say all of this?

You do understand we have access to fact check you, right?
https://youtu.be/pOqBEh7mPyM?t=281

The Tamron is not only silent Autoficus, it is also significantly faster.
>>
>>3944108
Your mileage may vary.
>>
File: untitled.jpg (453 KB, 1920x1080)
453 KB
453 KB JPG
>>3944111
>the rendering is a lot more pleasing
ಠ__ಠ
>>
File: images.jpg (6 KB, 225x225)
6 KB
6 KB JPG
so my 10+ year old lowepro camera bag finally fell apart.
anyone using anything low-profile that doesnt scream "i'm a camera bag"? or should i just get a padded insert and use my running backpack?
>>
>>3944112
>I evaluate rendering by looking at charts and studio-setting tests
Go outside and shoot
>>
>>3944115
>I evaluate rendering by picking the lens with the most chromatic abberations
Shut up shill. I exposed you.
>>
>>3944113
I have shoulder camera bag with a removable insert so when I need to take more gear I just chuck it into my normal backpack. Works for me but obviously it's not the most ergonomic if you have like half a dozen lenses you need to switch between constantly.
>>
>>3944119
I tend to travel light these days (body+grip and a compact prime or kit lens), so the insert might be the way to go
>>
>>3944116
I know the Sigma has worse close-up performance at f/2.8 and that there is some LoCa. How does that make me a shill? I thought that this board was a little better than Smegma bad, Tampon good.
>>
>>3944126
LoCA typically give the bokeh highlights a harder green edge, which isn't very pleasing.

>I thought that this board was a little better than Smegma bad, Tampon good.
I mean you're contributing to this when you claim one of them is a toy lens, which you did.
>>
>>3944126
Smegma boy mad that the smaller, cheaper lens is much better, lmao
>>
File: untitled.jpg (699 KB, 1920x1080)
699 KB
699 KB JPG
I noticed Dpreview is the only lens reviewer so far who reviews corner sharpness correctly.

They actually relocate the AF point to the corner, and makes the lens set the corner in focus.
Whereas everybody else assume completely flat curvature, and basically ends up testing the lens for field curvature instead of testing how sharp the corner truly is.
>>
>>3944147
Do you care more about corner crops of images, or how sharp the corners of your full size images are?
>>
>>3944148
I care about correct evaluations.

The methodology the other rewivers use is equivalent to using out-of-focus images to test center sharpness.
>>
>>3943985
Why not just go with a Canon D50 or R or RP?
>>
>>3943985
MFT is still relevant for wildlife, because higher crop factor naturally tightens the field, but most aps-c systems also have good telezooms.
>>
>>3944170
For instance Canon APS-C has an inexpensive EF-S 55-250, but it could also mount a 100-400 EF lens. From what I remember, Nikon and Sony has similar stuff.
>>
>>3944172
Yeah, that’s been what’s holding me back, the Canon m50 seems like a very good starting point (or the R/RP for an upgrade) while leveraging a ton of existing glass.

Do you think the IBIS is worth it for low light? Seems like a near equivalent trade off through ISO and larger sensors at APS-C . Not that I mind the tripod. Wildlife photography is sort of my off season hobby when not hunting
>>
>>3944149
You didn't answer the question anon, is that because it made you feel stupid having to answer it?
>>
>>3944189
m50 has no good tele lenses, and using adapter is aqward. Go for mft for wildlife you can afford either panasonic leica 100-400 or olympus 100-400. Or something in that range, like panasonic 200 f2.8 with 2x tele, olympus 300 f4... With that you get proper pro kit, good enough to challenge any other combo.
Where the system is lacing right now is on cheaper end. There is substantial quality gap from 100-400 lenses to 100-300 panasonic or olympus equivalent, while the price isn't all that lower. Competition is better in that tier range. Canon has f11 600 and 800 on rf mount, and there's 100-400 coming, fuji has excellent 70-300, and sigmas are not far away in price range for e mount.
>>
>>3944193
Your question was a cope, and a defense of shitty reviews. I don't answer to useless fools.
>>
>>3944147
How often do you need one corner to be sharp, while every else not? Because this will happen if you focus on the corner.
>>
>>3944197
>Shitty reviews are when lens reviews consider how the corners look in photos.

Nice cope lad
>>
>>3944215
That's not even the point. Your shitty reviews give people the impression that some lenses can't show sharpness in the corner, the reality is those lenses are penty sharp in the corners, but the plane of focus is simply bending a little bit.

>>3944217
Nah, a shitty reviewer is someone who uses out-of-focus images to determine sharpness.
>>
Are there reasons to buy lenses that are made outside of Japan?
>>
>>3944220
>but the plane of focus is simply bending a little bit.
Which is the issue reviews are testing for. Nobody is going to stick an AF point in the corner and go around shooting.
>>
>>3944241
>Which is the issue reviews are testing for.
That is never what they say, they always claim the corners are soft until you decrease aperture. Meaning most reviewers don't understand the implication of field curvature either.

>Nobody is going to stick an AF point in the corner
You don't have to mofe AF to corner to reap the benefits of sharp corner performance.
>>
>>3944253
>Meaning most reviewers don't understand the implication of field curvature either.
You mean you don't understand the implication of field curvature...
What use is refocusing in the corner if the thing you're trying to frame is then out of focus?
By measuring the corners with central focus, you're measuring how good the corners are for your photos.

>you don't need more AF to reap the benefits of sharp corner performance.

Sharp corner performance is completely irrelevant if they're never in focus, is it anon.

You're just buttmad that you thought you had some golden insight, when 5 seconds of critical thought revealed it to be one of the dumbest takes on the site. suck it up, you got btfo.
>>
>>3944258
>By measuring the corners with central focus, you're measuring how good the corners are for your photos.
Only when your subject is a brick wall.
In real life the lens will give sharp results in a landscape even though your brickwall test shows the corners are bad.
Seems like you are as clueless as the reviewers.
>>
>>3944259
>In real like the lens will great sharp results in a landscape
Has Anyone Really Been Far Even as Decided to Use Even Go Want to do Look More Like?
>>
>>3944261
You mom has while you were budy sucking up to worthless internet reviewers.
>>
>>3944260
>The corners magically get sharper if you shoot "a landscape"

lol, care to expand on this or give any examples?
>>
>>3944263
>You mom has while you were budy sucking
Has Anyone Really Been Far Even as Decided to Use Even Go Want to do Look More Like?
>>
>>3944264
The corner's plane of focus will always hit something in the landscape. And that has a value which you can't just dismiss just because you made a brickwall test.
>>
>>3944265
You mom has while you were busy sucking up to worthless internet reviewers.
>>
>>3944266
So, no examples then, or any quantified explanation. lol.

Stay mad at your dumb take, maybe dig yourself a little deeper. Maybe just fail miserably at simple sentences again.
>>
>>3944268
Braindead reply because you you have too few braincells to understand plane of focus.
>>
>>3944267
>You mom has
Holy shit, fucked up the same sentence twice in a row.
You need to lay off the ambien anon.
>worthless reviewers
They're getting paid a lot more than you for your camera reviews anon, so they clearly have more worth than you ;)
>>
>>3944271
I don't think you make more money than Dpreview, you're just a loser who is doubling down on your failure methodologies.
>>
Whats the best time to buy lenses?
Black friday or is that a meme?
>>
>>3944278
If the lens is popular and new then it's not getting sales.
If the lens is old, sure.
If the lens is unpopular, sure.
>>
File: _DSC1203_mine.jpg (1.21 MB, 1500x1000)
1.21 MB
1.21 MB JPG
>>3944239
Sure.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeSONY
Camera ModelNEX-C3
Camera SoftwareGIMP 2.10.26
Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.0
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)0 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Image Created2021:09:26 15:46:33
Exposure Time1/160 sec
F-Numberf/1.0
Exposure ProgramShutter Priority
ISO Speed Rating400
Brightness-1.8 EV
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModeCenter Weighted Average
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length0.00 mm
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
>>
>>3944278
>>3944281
are you ever going to get better deals on lenses than just buying used?
>>
>>3938542
I want Fuji's GFX 100 successor to be action or sports focused with a fast burst rate (5fps or 6fps is realistic)
>>
>>3944331
My bad, GFX100S is already 5fps, 100S II should be 7fps or even 8fps is they push it
>>
>>3944333
Framerate doesn't matter if your AF math and AF motors suck dicks.





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.