[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 136 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]


Happy 18th Birthday, 4chan!

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


[Advertise on 4chan]


This is the tenth gear thread and I'm sorry for that, but I would like to focus our attention to how to get good cheap lenses or bodies.
For example I need a new lens for my Olympus Mark II micro 4/3 but prices from stores are still high as hell, I've tried to check on e-bay and fb marketplace and it seems like there are quite a few cheap options in my area, but I'm afraid of being scammed buying lenses without having the opportunity to look at them, make sure they are in good conditions or even trying them.
There are some good online stores that sells used gear in good conditions, some place trustworthy when it comes to quality in second hand?
Also general tips thread to buy gear at a convenient price for poorfags like me

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Created2016-04-05T03:42:15-20:00
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Image Width640
Image Height430
>>
First for the Soviet Union
>>
No one buys used cameras or lenses eh?
>>
>>3938790
of course not
>>
>>3938795
Why?
>>
>>3938706
I've bought two lenses from mbp both where exactly as described they also have a 7 day return window and 6 month warranty.
>>
>>3938807
it's nasty
>>
>>3938812
Thank you! That was exactly what I was looking for. If anyone knows any other reliable source for used lenses: the sharing of knowledge is highly appreciated
>>
X-T20 with XF35mm/f2 or X-T2 with XC35mm/f2 for the same price, all used? X-T30 is significantly more expensive when bought brand new so I'd like to opt for used options.
>>
>>3938706
I bought a camera and lenses from KEH and the whole thing was smooth. Got slapped with an import fee though
>>
I have a existing 28-120mm nikon lens and want to go for a mirrorless camera that's portable and can be thrown into a small cambera cube.

Would it better to stick to the Nikon mirrorless eco system? and get a FTZ adaptor?

I was mildy interested in XT-4 as well and was wondering if something like https://www.metabones.com/products/details/MB_NF-X-BT1 would work to mount existing nikon AF-S lens to XT-4 without any issues.

Will take any other recommendations for cameras below 1500 USD (would prefer new)

Would prefer fast or workable AF as well as wireless transfer to phone through wifi built in.
>>
>>3938706
I've never had problems buying used at all, but I've heard Ebay/Paypal are pretty protective of buyers, so if you buy something that's not in the condition it was reported, you shouldn't have any problems returning it and getting a refund. Just read the description carefully and check out the seller's feedback. I'd be more wary of sites like Craigslist that have absolutely no buyer protections whatsoever since there's nothing you can do if you end up buying a lemon.
>>
>>3938891
Are there no xt30 on used market?

>>3939556
If you really want to keep that lens yea. You can probably find used Z6 in your budget already.
>>
>>3939575
I've brought a second hand 5D MK3 as a backup about 3-4 years after release. Has been fine since. Bought a new 5DMK3 a few months after release, both work the same and have been great.

Bought two new A73's and they keep randomly shutting off etc.

Also bought a 70-200 F2.8 MK2 IS and that also had a guide inside break, though it was repaired by the company I bought from, only to break not long after. I sent it to a repair place and it's been great since.
>>
>>3938706
Another gear thread? there's already one here >>3938542 you piece of shit
>>
>>3938891
What kind of photography do you plan on doing? For street and travel, the smaller x t20 would be the way to go.

If you need weather sealing, go with xt2
>>
File: statenisland (1).jpg (329 KB, 1280x1280)
329 KB
329 KB JPG
my entire kit:
>minolta cl + voigtlander 28mm f2
>hasselblad 501cm + 80mm 2.8, 50mm f4
sucks that now I have to go out and take pictures

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareGIMP 2.10.8
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Image Created2021:09:15 18:03:19
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width5145
Image Height5145
>>
File: 20210917_160121.jpg (4.88 MB, 4000x3000)
4.88 MB
4.88 MB JPG
>always been just hobbyist nature photographer
>pic rel is my gear bag
>first paid gig at end of month, daytime portraiture

Am I missing a portrait critical lens?

>Sigma 18-35 f1.8
>Sigma 50-100 f1.8
>Sigma 10-20 f3.5
>Tamron 24-70 f2.8

They know I'm just a hobbyist and don't expect the world. I do want to impress them, though.
>>
>>3938807
Bed bugs
>>
>>3940651
Looks like the 50-100/1.8 will be perfect, only choose your background wisely, either interesting enough to only blur it just a little or a natural color to blur it out completely
Also get lights, as in more than one, off camera.
>>
>>3940692
I've never used lights before and only recently got my flash. Do I really need lights during a daytime outdoor shoot?
>>
>>3940699
>Do I really need lights during a daytime outdoor shoot?
Yes
>>
>>3940720
>>3940699
Also a gold reflector and helping hands and good natural light to start with
>>
File: 423.png (197 KB, 498x441)
197 KB
197 KB PNG
buying picrel because many reviews (86pcs sold) and satisfied customer feedbacks
>godox sk400ii
>bowen mount softbox 95cm
>126€ropoors

it costs atleast 180€ on a->z and it comes without the standard reflextor cap....just need /p/ confirmation and blessings before i buy
>>
>>3941719
Why do you need our blessings? You know what to do with them if you're buying, right?
>>
>>3941792
i just wasn't sure about e_bay. that was my only concern. i just ordered this set
>>
Is a nikon d3100 with the kit lens at all viable? Or is it just shit? I found my old one i had since i was like 12
>>
>>3942829
>Or is it just shit?
Just shoot it already, you have it in your hands
>>
Just purchased a Sony A7M3, coming from a Canon M50 (kit 15-45 & 22). What should be the first lens I purchase for the camera?
I'm mainly use my camera as a webcam since I work remote, but I also shoot general hobbyist applications (daily life, travel, astrophotography, etc.). I do think I want to start shooting semi-professionally (side gig) for real estate and portrait photos. I also currently do semi-professional run and gun night videography for a musician. Not trying to spend more than the cost of a used 24-70 gm ($1600). Thoughts?
>>
>>3942951
>buys a Snoy
>doesn't buy a lens
How about the kit lens you massive plebeian faggot?
>>
>>3942829
It’s viable if you like the pictures from it.
>>
>>3942960
I'm buying a lens which is why I'm looking for suggestions. I only have limited experience with aps-c sony glass so I was hoping people who use e mount FF glass could give suggestions. I found a good deal where it was cheaper to buy the body (and body + kit lens separately). Since it doesn't have the kit lens I figured why not just something nicer like a fast wide prime and something else or whatever. The kit lens is an option.
>>
Anyone have experience with the old Nikkor-p 105mm f2.5?

I'm trying to snag a copy for a decent price but it's either $60 for a beat up copy with haze or overpriced at $250 dollars. I can find some for around $125 but they want like $45-60 shipping.
>>
>>3942951
I have a Sony A7RII and found the only lenses I needed was the 28 f2 and the 55mm f1.8 zeiss.

I only shoot portraits and fashion. I have lots of other manual lenses but those 2 Sony lenses are my most used lenses.
>>
Are colorgels outdated or is there a reason to choose them over modern LED color studio lights? Obviously this won't be very powerful but I'm about to pick up this $40 light from walmart on an impulse to try it out. It seems like a good option for color accents and such

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareAndroid RP1A.200720.012.G988USQU2DUH1
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width570
Image Height665
>>
>>3942951
It sounds like the 28mm f/2 could serve your purposes well. >>3942974's suggestion of pairing that with a 55mm f/1.8 is a good one, I think. That would be a great combo and would come in under budget.
>>
>>3942974
I have both these lenses too, and I'm not a fan of the 28mm, I'd say pick up one of the numerous 35mm instead, my 35mm 2.8 spends a lot more time on my sony than 28mm f2.
>>
>>3942989
What's wrong with the 28mm? I would think something wider would help with astrophotography and real estate, so I'm not entirely convinced a 35mm will be the right focal length, but I willing to be shown otherwise.
>>
>>3943034
I'm just not too keen on the rendering, I even kinda prefer 28mm on the tamron 28-75.
The samyang 24mm f1.8 would be my choice of an affordable wide, fast prime, it's even got a special mode just for astro.
>>
Is the Sony/Zeiss 24-70 f4 any good for around $480? I'm looking for a zoom that I can keep on instead of swapping primes around.
>>
>>3938706
I wish Medium Format systems didn't use the sensor size as a crutch for their lenses being more "pro" than full-frame or crop. When your lenses are all no faster or less plasticky than your cheaper, smaller-sensored rivals, you are not pro.
Medium format systems lack things like constant aperture zooms, long macro lenses, and ultrawides.
GFX needs a 180mm f/2.4 to act as an equivalent to the 135mm f/2 in 35mm systems, it needs a 30-90 f/4 for the 35mm's 24-70 f/2.8's, and a 90-250 for the 70-200's, a 20-45 for the 16-35's
>>
Which modern cameras have fastest auto exposure?
>>
I want a flash setup for macro (was using old one that finally broke) (d750+tamron 90 2.8) that wont break the bank. but I do want to be really bright so I can take any photo I want handheld no problem
what should I get?
>>
>>3942989

If you’re going to shoot portraits I’d spend a little more and get the 35/1.8 or even more and get the 35 or 24 GM. If you have a tiny budget then I’d spend money on lighting instead.
>>
>>3944947

PS I don’t know how you can use the 28/2 for portraits with that weird ass distortion you get. The lens correction in LR doesn’t really get it fixed either.
>>
File: DSC_0384_01.jpg (2.88 MB, 3712x5568)
2.88 MB
2.88 MB JPG
>>3940651
50-100 is so nice

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATION
Camera ModelNIKON D500
Camera SoftwareNX Studio 1.0 W
Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.7
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern994
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)123 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Image Created2021:09:28 13:38:55
Exposure Time1/800 sec
F-Numberf/4.0
Exposure ProgramAperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating100
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModeCenter Weighted Average
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash
Focal Length82.00 mm
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
Image Width3712
Image Height5568
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Gain ControlNone
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
Subject Distance RangeUnknown
>>
I've been thinking about picking a camera up and a friend of mine has spare E mount lenses that he's willing to bro deal me with. Is it still worth picking up a Sony A7iii at this stage or am I better waiting for the A7iv?
>>
I got a nikkor-p 105mm f2.5 from eBay for 75 USD. Was trying to get the guy down to $60 cause the exchange rate hurts a bit and the lens has the original owner's drivers license number engraved on the barrel.

Will know how it performs when it arrives.

Has anyone used this lens before?
>>
File: D3S_7255-1200.jpg (303 KB, 1200x1884)
303 KB
303 KB JPG
Why should I have several different lenses if this exists?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
>>
>>3945188
A7iv will be more expensive, but admittedly better in almost every way

but you don't "need" any of the advanced features. I am assuming this because if you needed them, you'd already know what to choose.
>>
>>3945358
Low sharpness, feels cheap, hideous bokeh, VR isn't as good as having actual wider apertures for shooting in low light, focus is extremely slow compared with primes - so no good for birding or sports, bulky to carry and use on the camera, lens creep on that model means you have to keep rechecking focal length.
The 28-300 would be best used on a tripod, at f/11, for replacing carrying multiple primes for making landscapes. Another use could be to fill a memory card with it, and then analyze your photos to see your most-used focal lengths in order to buy the appropriate prime lenses.
>>
I need some advice on product photography gear. I stumbled into doing some product photography for an acquaintance. They enjoyed my work and rehired me multiple times, I've been getting more referrals and it's spiraling out of control.

I keep just buying cheap white poster board and foam board for my white backdrop. But it's getting to be a pain in the ass setting up an AD200 and V860II with their own soft boxes for all this small shit. I'm thinking about getting an all-in-one lightbox and I landed on the Foldio3 full kit. Anyone have experience with them? Is there anything else out there that's more worthwhile?
>>
Does anybody here have any experience with a stuck shutter on an omd em 10? I could pick one up for 29€ but I'm not sure if that malfunction is one that can be fixed.
>>
Any opinions on Voigtlander 65mm f2 apo-lanthar? I'm planning on replacing my normal lens with it. Not going to be paying full price, I'm seeing it around $700-750.
>>3938706
So far I bought exclusively used gear. But I don't think I can offer any specific advice, because I use only local marketplaces that are exclusive to my country. General tips:
>use marketplaces that offer secure payment and/or have good seller feedback systems
>pay with your card whenever possible
>be wary of offers with few pictures and details, but if they're a good deal try asking the seller for more and judge by their response

Keep in mind that in my experience prices of used(but not vintage, mostly stuff that you still can buy new) gear are mostly determined by
>how long ago was it released - older = cheaper
>how popular it is - more offers = cheaper
>how good it is in its price range
and less by actual condition of the item.
>>
Uncle gave me his old analog Nikon F601 (god bless him) but the backdoor lock is broken and i've read that it is a common problem with those
Anyone know where i could cope a spare one, or even fix it myself ?
>>
Was watching Ashens' camera video and now I want a lens cap that says "camera" on it
>>
>>3945547
>the backdoor lock is broken
My ex had the same problem
>>
I want a flash that is really really bright while also being at a really high speed so I can do a black background macro kinda shot, in the sun, while being able to handhold really easily
what should I get?
>>
>>3945614
elb 1200
>>
>>3945617
ok might consider something like that, but if I also want it to be handholdable/attatchable to one of those extension brackets, is there something that can work?
>>
>>3945618
you can attach the head to whatever you want, it's pretty lightweight
>>
>>3945620
what about something like this? Godox AD200Pro? it seems like its pretty usable out in the field. but I guess, how do I check if the higher speeds can be used at higher settings?
>>
>>3945620
>>3945626
oh I guess its the Watt/s. I currently have the cheap altura shit, what kinda W/s is that about?
>>
File: 24mm-f2-dg-dn-c-403-4d0.jpg (359 KB, 1500x1500)
359 KB
359 KB JPG
Ordered the new Sigma 24mm F/2. First lens I'm buying new and most expensive one by far. Hope it's worth it.
>>
Would I be a fool to go from an X-T2 to an X-E4? I want the reduced weight, want the sports viewfinder and the white balance saved setting with custom C modes.
I don’t care about the loss of the back dial (I just use the exposure comp) or the focus switch (I only use autofocus).
I’m 95% decided, just want to make sure I’m not missing something.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareCapture One 21 Macintosh
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Image Created2021:03:10 10:04:09
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width1000
Image Height667
Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>
>>3945698
I own the 45mm version and enjoy it a lot
>>
>>3945759
yeah, the series seems to be getting good reviews all around, as well as this one in particular so I'm not really worried. Paying $250 more over a used Samyang F/1.8 just for the build is maybe a questionable financial decision but I can live with it.

I just hope they don't announce like a 20mm F2 in 6 months because I'd rather have it that little bit wider.
>>
>18-35 f1.8 EF-S
>50-100 f1.8 EF-S
>24-70 f2.8 EF
>85 f1.4 EF

Do I need a 70-200?
>>
Fuji gsw690iii vs the gw690iii?

The gsw690iii has an equivalent of 28mm on 35mm but the gw690iii has an equivalent of 40mm.

I want to but for everyday photography but for portraits too. It seems that the wider gsw690iii is like $300 cheaper.

Which do I go with and any experience with either camera?
>>
Tamron 35-150mm F2-2.8 is officially announced, price is $1899. I expected around $1500 but almost $2k is steep.

Still wish it was 24-135mm instead.
>>
>>3945826
You want to shoot portraits with a 28mm equivalent 2:3?
>>
>>3945826
For film I would go for 40mm.

As 28 is only good for 'portrait in surrounding' pictures here, taking which is a lot more troublesome on film (as you can not properly account for edge distortions).

And I am 20-28 guy myself.
>>
Is it much of an upgrade to the GR 3X? I have an RX100 7, but apparently the 3Xs sensor is much larger.
>>
>>3945611
this is a great joke but it doesn't help me much
>>
>>3945908
If you like the 40mm or 50mm focal length it's a great camera. For me I couldn't live without a viewfinder and I feel it's very expensive for a point-and-shoot.
>>
>>3945908
diff. cameras. are you fine without evf, just using 40mm equiv. focal length and need the snapfocus capability?
if not, rx1007 has better AF and video capabilities. if lowlight noise is an issue, you can use the flash or a pocket tripod.
>>
I’m moving from MFT to FF and I’m wondering if the Sigma 24-35mm f2 is a good pick over the Canon 35mm f2 IS USM.
I like having that wide angle for landscape and 35mm for general photography

It lacks IS though. Will the lack of IS be an issue?
I like taking stills in low light. The IBIS in MFT cameras made it fun to do.
>>
>>3946019
Forgot pic

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution96 dpi
Vertical Resolution96 dpi
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width490
Image Height490
Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>
>>3946021
Both of these seem a bit crap.

Between those I'd get the zoom because 24mm is more interesting, but to be honest I wouldn't get either.
>>
>>3946035
The question isn’t the preference to one’s focal length but if the lack of IS will be an issue in general.
>>
>>3946037
what body are you getting?
>>
>>3946039
I’m using a 5D mk ii
>>
>>3945698
>>3945766
Got it today, took some test shots. Overall very satisfied.
>great look and feel, perfectly balanced
>metal hood is almost overkill
>the magnetic cover CAN be used with the hood but it's not practical
>aperture ring could have more resistance, actually moved it by accident a few times
>thought AF/MF switch would be useless but I quickly started using it all the time
>really nice bokeh when shooting small things close up
>noticeable purple fringing when pushing it hard in adverse conditions
Not going to become my favorite lens because of the more specialized focal length, but close second right now.
>>
>wanted to get ef lens for sony e mount
>thought about it for a while
>figured id wait for possible e mount version
>years pass by
>it arrives
>now having doubts if i truly want it for e mount
>>
>>3946652
what lens?
>>
>>3946666
Sigma 150-600.
I've been thinking of switching system. So investing further into sony e at this point seems like a bad idea.
Then again it will be used on an a6600, that's a pretty great long range combo. So I could just keep it for that purpose.
Talking to one self sure helps coming up toba conclusion of thoughts.
>>
>>3946671
Well yeah buying it now since it just launched is going to lose you some money on resale if you decide to get rid of it. But if you're thinking of switching systems do make sure you're doing it because of your research and not because /p/'s consistent snoy circlejerk got to you.

Are you planning on switching to another aps-c system or full frame? Are your current e mount lenses mostly aps-c or ff? The only scenario in which switching would make sense is if you have aps-c lenses mostly and you want to switch to a full frame system. Or if you're switching to medium format. Otherwise you're just throwing money away for debatable improvement.
>>
I got the nikkor-p 105mm f2.5 in the mail Yesterday. I had ordered a Nikon to Eos adapter to use on a Eos to Fuji focal reducer.

The adapter wouldn't fit the lens as it's a pre-ai lens and the aperture ring sticks up a bit past the lens mount.

I have an old pre-ai to nex adapter and that works fine with my Sony, but I really wanted to use the 105mm on the Fuji with the focal reducer.

Is there a way to adapt non-ai/ pre-ai Nikon lens to canon ef?
>>
For a cheap set up I bought a Nikon d200 and a tamron 90mm macro lense. I think it ended up being like 360ish? Did I fuck up for my first set up? I just want to take fun close ups and some nature stuff
>>
>>3946678
Yeah it'd be a keeper, wouldn't resell for a long time.
It'd be a canon fullframe I'm thinking of switching too. And they already have the lens.
All apsc lenses but not too many. The 150-600 would push it into staying with sony.
I love sonys autofocus, I'm not getting swayed by someone.
>>
How come I don't see midrange lightstands for sale anywhere? It's either top-of-the-line Manfrotto stuff or cheap Neewer/AmazonBasics type stuff.
>>
>>3946671
150-600mm on full frame and APS-C are two big differences, if you are looking at Canon RF, would their 800mm f11 lens be interesting for you instead?
Sigma was also kind of meh from release, competing with a arguably better Sony 200-600.
>>
Please recommend me a pan tilt head without the fluid shenanigans for video. I don't want a ball head either, just a cheap but sturdy pan tilt.
>>
>>3945704
Sidestep upgrade, don't bother. You won't take better pictures with an x-e4.
>>
What 35mm camera would you guys recommend for someone trying to get into film? I’m looking to score one for under £50 ($70).
>>
>>3947445
If it's for 5 rolls of film, get whatever camera you can
>>
I want to get a super telephoto (reaching at least 500-600) for my d750
I was looking at getting the Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6, how is it? are there any other lenses I should consider?
>>
My mom got a Sony a6000 as gift recently and I want to give her a nice lens for christmas but I have absolutely no clue about photography whatsoever...
She has the stock 16-50 of the a6000 so from the research I've done so far either a better replacement lens or some different addition would be a good idea.
From what I've looked at I'm considering the Sony 18-135 for about 350-400 EUR and the Sigma 16/1.4 for about 300-350 EUR.
What would be the more sensible choice or are there even better similarly priced options? Really got no clue so please don't meme me.
>>
>>3947698
talk to your mom about what she enjoys
>would she rather have a larger but more flexible lens?
>or maybe something smaller she could pocket easily?
image quality is not everything, she has to actually want to take photos with it. "the one you have with you" is the meme for a reason.

Did she show you what pictures she's been taking so far? This might give you a clue what kind of lens she'd enjoy.
>>
>>3947701
Apart from normal/casual stuff she usually shoots from her phone she really enjoys shooting closeup stuff she sees while taking a walk like random nature stuff including plants or animals.
>>
>>3947713
What kind of pictures does she want to take? Does she go hiking often? Does she take pictures of wildlife or birds?

If she likes street photography and take closeups casually a Macro would be a fun option since she would be able to closeup as much as she wants and still focus to infinity without changing lenses.

If she likes landscapes and is not satisfied with the 16-50 you could get her a wider lens to compensate the APS-C factor. If she would like to picture wildlife or far away things a 70-200 is a better idea.
>>
>>3947756
Also, If she likes closeups and is up to the bother she could try extensor rings instead of the macro, a cheap option but may be uncomfortable since that won't let you focus back to infinity.
>>
>>3947756
>>3947758
In that case a macro sounds like a good idea. She really likes her closeup shots.
Have you any recommendations for good macro lenses? I initially considered the Sigma 16 because it gets recommend to high heavens everywhere you look, although not a macro (I know that at least).
>>
>>3947824
I was happy with the 90mm FE even on the a6000 series but YMMV, it's not a cheap lens. Maybe she wants the 30mm sony macro or 100mm samyang / tokina or such.

For non macro, Sigma's 16mm and the better Sigma 30mm are great too, yup.
>>
are there no adapters for the new mirrorless mounts? There's obviously adapters for a brand's own DSLR lenses to their newer mirorless mount. I can't seem to find any adapters for mirrorless to mirrorless. My friend has a Sony E mount camera and I have a Canon RF camera; there seems to be no adapters for us to share lenses.
>>
>>3947854
Do you think the Sigma 16 is a good addition to the standard lens to build something like a 3 lens kit? Want to give her some options in future, maybe a lens a year until she got her whole kit together, nothing to crazy or too expensive, it's just her hobby and she only has a used a6000 after all.
In such a scenario, would it be better to just get some AIO do it all lens?
>>
>>3947869
I think the 16mm is nice, yes.

AIO isn't really all that great in many cases.
>>
>>3947862
Nikon flange distance is 16mm, Sony 18mm canon RF 20mm. So best case would be mounting RF on Z, which would need a 4mm thick adapter. Nothing can mount on your RF without optical correction which would destroy image quality.
>>
>>3947883
There are E-to-Z adapters with AF support
>>
>>3947882
Thought so, a convenient AIO would have been great tho. Jesus there's so many choices why can it not be a simple as cars or computers..
>>
>>3947889
Yes, it's 2mm thick spacer, it can get away with it as Nikon has a very large mount compared to Sony's, so the electronics can fit inside the mount. Sony having an open mount format helps a lot too.
>>
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCl4LWM4D9U
>>
>>3947892
ask her what focal length she uses most with the kit lens. or at least, is it the widest, mid, or the tightest? tell her to only use widest (16mm) only, then mid (30mm) only. you also have to factor in the weight of the lens you want to buy. the kit lens is compact and light for a reason.

sigma 1.4 dc dn primes
https://www.flickr.com/groups/3137574@N20/pool/
https://www.flickr.com/groups/2977944@N23/pool/
sony 30 3.5 macro
https://www.flickr.com/groups/1978129@N23/pool/
tamron 17-70 2.8 e mount
https://www.flickr.com/groups/14808206@N22/pool/page1

or maybe she prefers a camera with a touch screen instead. lel
>>
>>3942951
check the new samyang 1.8 AF lenses which are light, sharp and inexpensive. 24 1.8 is also aimed for astro
>>
>>3947932
>ask her
That's the issue. She pays little to no detail to anything at all and just shoots what/how she find it suitable at the moment.
Also I doubt she will know.. we're talking textbook female here. I had to teach her what fuel to use with her car and she asked me if 98 can hurt car if she's normally using 95 ffs.
>or maybe she prefers a camera with a touch screen instead. lel
My guess would be she actually would prefer that lmao..
>>
>>3947559
I have it and like it. Surprisingly inexpensive for a Nikkor. It'll hold up well to things higher-resolution than a D750 even at the long end. It's kinda on the edge of what you can hand-hold, mind you, even though the VR is quite good. You also can't get through the whole zoom range with one turn of your wrist.

Tamron makes a similar lens that goes to 600 and Sigma makes two (a cheaper C and a more expensive S) but they're f/6.3. I haven't tried any of these though.
>>
>>3938706
I bought a Tamron 70-300 4-5.6 that was defined "well used" at 134€ and... It was brand new lol.
Honestly mbp never failed neither me or my friend that bought many lenses from there. You should give it a try.
>>
>>3947862
Physically impossible sadly.
I'd also love to get an E-mount version of EF-M 22mm but it just doesn't exist.
>>
kind of feel like buying a fujifilm X10 as my first digital camera. anyone have experience with it?
>>
>>3947433
They no longer exist I looked for months.
You either have the cheap ass plastic ones that are on Amazon basics tripods or $600 + video heads.
It's a shame because the pan tilt twist handle to lock style heads are superior imo.
>>
What is the most pointless piece of camera gear have you ever seen? To start off, I nominate this body cap:
https://kondorblue.com/products/sony-e-mount-cine-cap-metal-space-gray-aluminum-alloy-camera-body-port-cap
>>
>>3947936
>little to no detail to anything at all and just shoots what/how she find it suitable at the moment
I suppose the 16-50PZ was made for this
>>
>>3948262
About all of them.
Notably canon when they bring out Canon Eos M in 2010 that has better internals, shoots raw, is as small as an acp-c camera is ever gonna get, has useable tracking autofocus and costs 100$ (total) including kit-lens but afterwards we get 10 iterations with the only real difference beeing marketing and plastic instead of steel and furthermore they try their hardest to memory hole the existance of it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFgAs-qMtaM
What I now want is manual focus assist on the levels of a samsung s20 fe or whatever with that laser thing in all my cameras.
>>
Get the Fuji X100v now or wait for the refresh? I know this is an age old problem, but anyone has a guess when the refresh is coming? If it's 6 months Id rather be patient
>>
>>3948437
Don't buy an X100V, its a waste of money, buy a cheap FF camera and 35mm.
I had an X100V, thank fuck I pissed it off before the resale tanked.
>>
>>3948263
The more I think of it the more I realize buying some expensive lens will be a complete waste until she knows what she wants and what she's doing.
Maybe I get her the Sony 55-210 to widen her perspective, with that and the 16-50 she will have covered pretty much anything for the time being.
>>
Is ND8 going to be a strong enough ND filter for most things? I picked up two lenses with new thread sizes so thinking of getting UV/CPL/ND filter sets for both, but those sets come with ND8 filters only.

Usage would be
>snow covered landscape in winter
>some timelapses
>>
>>3948527
Not really
I need 6 stops or more all the time when the sun is out, nd8 is just 3 stops
I'd say just get a set of 2, 4 and 6 stops and combine if you need even more
>>
>>3948527
>>3948535
No
My usual ND filter is a 10 stop
>>
>>3947984
shame I guess I'll take a 40 bucks ball head then
>>
File: print sizes.jpg (41 KB, 800x722)
41 KB
41 KB JPG
I use an old 10MP DSLR to capture my snapshots. How large prints would 10 MP digital photos make? Something like 5"x7" should be quite easily attainable, right? Maybe even 8"x10" if the image itself is sharp and uncropped?
>>
>>3948587
Depends on the viewing distance
If it's something you can holding your hands or on a wall you can stand right in front of then stick with the typical 300dpi
>>
>>3948587
https://dslrbodies.com/cameras/camera-articles/image-quality/how-big-can-i-print.html
>>
>>3948594
>>3948603
Excellent, thanks
>>
UG grade lenses in KEH; what's your experience with them? Barely usable? Optically fine but scraped up lens body? Surprisingly good? Completely fucked? I want some opinions before I make a certain purchase
>>
>>3948680
>certain purchase
I'm looking through the list right now and going to buy it before you do.
>>
>>3948703
Fuck you. At least if it's bad you'll get a bad lensé you mongrel
>>
>>3948438
What did you hate about it?
>>
State of the art gear question.
What's the minimum price to have at least aps-c web camera to support 4K, and what options do I have? Include the capture card.
>>
>>3949043
Presuming you want 60fps and want to stream for hours on end?

Very very few options probably Sony a7siii and elgato 4k60 pro, but that doesn't come with a hardware encoder so it's going to be absolutely hammering your CPU whilst in use.
>>
So do I buy the GR III or the one with the X tagged along?
>>
>>3949055
How should we know what you want?
>>
>>3949080
Is there any difference except for the focal length?
>>
I'm looking for a good camera/lens setup that can handle Alaskan conditions. High moisture, extremely variable lighting, moderate cold.
I lost a cell phone to salt spray this year.
>>
>>3949100
Consider that this is a fixed focal length fixed lens camera. It's the biggest difference. X is a bit fatter.
>>
Sony E-mount, full frame:

Tamron 150-500mm di III vc vxd f5-6.7
or
Sigma 150-600mm dg dn f5-6.3

i'd immediately jump on Sigma for specs, but I like that tamron has a removable tripod collar. It is smaller in physical size, and lighter. I'm really torn. I can't afford both.
>>
>>3949246
For me it would be Sigma no contest. If the Tamron was 100-500 maybe there would be reason to consider it but as it is there's none.
>>
Why do I have to wait 1-2 months for GR3x delivery?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareACD Systems Digital Imaging
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Image Created2015:11:25 09:22:10
Image Width269
Image Height344
>>
>>3949003
Dumb joystick sucks ass, lowlight sucked ass, 35mm is a awkward focal length that isn't wide or tight enough for portraits.
Plastic camera leather, any sort of sweat will make the camera a slippery eel...why Fuji, not having any grip doesn't help.
Lens isn't weather sealed, you need to buy a use a filter with an adapter to get any sort of weather sealing.
AF is useless in anything but the most basic of situations.
NOISY AF, sounds gross, you can tell its an old design.
Electronic manual focus is awful and imprecise, focus ring is scratchy, feels like sandpaper.
I really could go on, you can do a lot better for less.
>>
I want an overhead tripod or some other mounting mechanism, so I can do some (hopefully mostly) flat surface macros and other such close up photos of things; circuit boards, flower petals, leaves, etc. - however, photography is just a hobby, I'm not trying to make money from it, and as such I'd rather be somewhat cheap about it.
Would anybody mind pointing me in the right direction, whether that be pre-assembled, assembly-required, or even DIY setups?
I've only got a basic cheap tripod that I got from a nearby op shop, and have no knowledge of where to look, what to look for.
>>
My camera is a Pentax K-S1. I very much like it but the thing is that I don't use it very often because it takes up too much space in my backup to carry it with me daily. I also own an EF mount Samyang 135mm which I am holding on to despite having sold my 100D which I used for astrophotography, because I bought this lens for a great price, although I don't have a camera to use it.

I would like to complement the Pentax with a more compact camera, and to get a body to mount the Samyang on while spending as little as possible.

How would you go about this? Could a single mirrorless maybe fit both the requirements?
>>
File: 1631280099928.png (2 KB, 402x257)
2 KB
2 KB PNG
>>3946495
>the magnetic cover CAN be used with the hood but it's not practical
Here's a nice trick, you can add a transparent tap to the magnetic cap.
Just add some tape and fold it like this.
>>
Samyang 24-70mm f/2.8
Samyang has officially entered high-end optics design.

Current line of F2,8 competitors on E-mount.
>Samyang 24-70mm f/2.8
>Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8
>Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 G2
>Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8
>Sigma 28-70mm f/2.8
>>
>>3949386
>Tamron 17-70 f/2.8
Probably the best and most expensive aftermarket option.
>>
>>3949386
Which of these are weather sealed?
>>
>>3949390
Oh, that's a different lens in the APS-C space.
>>
>>3949391
We don't know the details yet.

But they say it's a Parfocal lens. Which likely means it will not be as sharp as the Tamrons or the Sigmas, but it will have some neat video zooming features.
>>
File: Edit 612.jpg (313 KB, 1732x1334)
313 KB
313 KB JPG
>>3949246 (me)

I went with the Tamron. In June I had already tried the lens out from a tent-event from a tamron rep. I was fairly impressed by it then. I like the idea of the Sigma, but I like the compact telephoto idea. It pairs really well with my A7C.

1/4

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeSONY
Camera ModelILCE-7C
Camera SoftwareCapture One 21 Windows
Maximum Lens Aperturef/6.7
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)500 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Exposure Time1/250 sec
F-Numberf/6.7
Exposure ProgramAperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating100
Lens Aperturef/6.7
Brightness9.2 EV
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length500.00 mm
Image Width1732
Image Height1334
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
>>
File: Edit 613.jpg (203 KB, 1526x1261)
203 KB
203 KB JPG
2/4

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeSONY
Camera ModelILCE-7C
Camera SoftwareCapture One 21 Windows
Maximum Lens Aperturef/6.7
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)500 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Exposure Time1/250 sec
F-Numberf/6.7
Exposure ProgramAperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating250
Lens Aperturef/6.7
Brightness7.4 EV
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length500.00 mm
Image Width1526
Image Height1261
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
>>
File: Edit 614.jpg (153 KB, 996x950)
153 KB
153 KB JPG
3/4
this one came out nice

I'm also cropping the hell out of all these. Modern cameras are so fucking great.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeSONY
Camera ModelILCE-7C
Camera SoftwareCapture One 21 Windows
Maximum Lens Aperturef/6.7
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)500 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Exposure Time1/320 sec
F-Numberf/6.7
Exposure ProgramAperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating100
Lens Aperturef/6.7
Brightness9.4 EV
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length500.00 mm
Image Width996
Image Height950
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
>>
File: Edit 615.jpg (1.18 MB, 3000x2324)
1.18 MB
1.18 MB JPG
4/4

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeSONY
Camera ModelILCE-7C
Camera SoftwareCapture One 21 Windows
Maximum Lens Aperturef/6.7
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)500 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Exposure Time1/200 sec
F-Numberf/6.7
Exposure ProgramAperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating100
Lens Aperturef/6.7
Brightness8.3 EV
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length500.00 mm
Image Width3000
Image Height2324
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
>>
i have a sony a65 (A-mount) and a few lenses, sigma 50mm f/1.4, 70-200 f/2.8 and a few older minolta lenses. the a65 doesn't turn on anymore :(
should I get an adapter to a non dead mount and keep using the lenses, or just get what I can for the lenses and move to a different platform?
>>
>>3949683
>i have a sony a65
Doubt.jpg
>>
File: 2.8-FE-lens-10.jpg (102 KB, 1419x1117)
102 KB
102 KB JPG
>>3949391
This is what they are advertising so far.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width1419
Image Height1117
>>
>>3949683
It depends on few things
>do you like the lenses you already own
>what system are you thinking of switching to
>how much money do you plan to spend
Adapter is probably going to end up being cheaper but I would like the freedom of selling everything and starting fresh, it's up to you.
>>
File: 2.8-FE-lens-1.jpg (271 KB, 1631x1628)
271 KB
271 KB JPG
Focal length: 24-70mm
Maximum aperture: F2.8 – F22
Maximum magnification : 0.1 × – 0.27x
Closest focus: 0.35 meters
Lens placement: 17 elements, 14 groups
Special lens elements : 2x ASP, 1x HB, 3x HR, 3x ED
Focus system: Auto Focus
Autofocus Motor : Linear STM
Aperture curtain: 9 pieces
Filter face support: 82 mm
Lens body size: 128.5mm long
Protection: Weather Resistant
Camera support: Sony FE-mount

They are hiding the info of the weight because it's going to be heavy.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width1631
Image Height1628
>>
>>3949386
Both the Sigma 28-70 and the first gen Tamron are under $800 right now even with added VAT in my country, so that Samyang better be no more than $600.
>>
File: 2.8-FE-lens-6.jpg (162 KB, 1680x1117)
162 KB
162 KB JPG
>>3949690
I think you should be careful of what you wish for.
800-600 for a modern F2,8 zoom is the pain threshold.

The difference between 600 and 800 dollars will be in quality control. The 600 dollar zoom will force more elements that failed QC into the retail product.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width1680
Image Height1117
>>
>>3949691
At $800 there woud be no reason to buy it over the Tamron in particular, particularly if it's actually less sharp. And if it's as cheap feeling as the rest of modern Samyang AF lenses.
>>
File: 2.8-FE-lens-2.jpg (90 KB, 1194x963)
90 KB
90 KB JPG
>>3949692
>At $800 there woud be no reason to buy it over the Tamron in particular
Parfocal zoom.
24mm on the wide end.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width1194
Image Height963
>>
File: file.php.jpg (62 KB, 960x960)
62 KB
62 KB JPG
Weight: 1 027 gram

This is going to be a blunder from Samyang. What were they thinking...
Oh well, it's their first attempt at modern F2,8 zoom, so I guess they don't have much experience.
>>
135mm FD prime lens good?
>>
>>3949691
Why isn't anyone talking about the elephant in the room?

That body style doesn't come in 2-tone silver/black. What camera body is that?
>>
>>3949715
Which one? I had the 2.8 but the LoCa was off the charts. Nice and small though.
>>
>>3949727
canon, 135mm prime 1:3.5, cheap ebay listing popped up and it looks decent
>>
>>3949723
Skickers. aka "camera skins"
>>
File: IMG_20211011_111000.jpg (293 KB, 1000x1000)
293 KB
293 KB JPG
>>3949686
>i have a sony a65
>Doubt.jpg
why would you doubt it?
>>
>>3949878
would you consider getting an a99ii ? They're only about 1200 used now, fucking insanity.
>>
So apparently Samyang made a 24-70mm 2.8 and its already on sale in Thailand
>>
>>3949885
>only
Nigger, that's enough to buy a 5D3 and a decent lens and it's not some EVIL camera.
Seriously electronic viewfinders are the worst thing ever and SLTs are proof that you don't have to go mirrorless to be cancerous.
>>
>>3949688
>It depends on few things
>do you like the lenses you already own
I do, but I don't have any sentimental attachment to them, would probably streamline the amount of lenses and get a short zoom and a long zoom and call it a day
>what system are you thinking of switching to
fuji possibly, I really haven't kept up with what all the brands offer these days
>how much money do you plan to spend
havent decided, I have more money than sense though - $5k possibly
>Adapter is probably going to end up being cheaper but I would like the freedom of selling everything and starting fresh, it's up to you.
yeah, I think I might, doubt I'll be able to get much for the old kit.
>>
>>3950021
$5k gets you a really nice full frame setup, so I wouldn't limit yourself to fuji.
>>
Sony a6400 + 18-135 kit lens = good entry point into photography (no videos)?
Or should I get the body only with a different aftermarket lens or lenses?
>>
>>3950026
The Tamron and Sigma lenses is what gives you the value to match the body.

Check out the 18-300 from Tamron, it's a bigger lens, but has much better autofocus motor, and image quality is good.
Tamron also released the 17-70mm, which can be the only lens most people need.

Both options are good.
>>
>>3950031
>Tamron 17-70
Yeah, I've heared that thing is one of the best travel or standard zooms for E-mount right now.
>18-300
I don't think I need that.
>18-135
I'm considering this specifically because I may have the chance to get one for cheap with a used 6400 for about 600 afghan pesos.
>>
>>3950042
$600? for that price don't think twice, it's a steal.
>>
File: 1634039587768.jpg (77 KB, 977x935)
77 KB
77 KB JPG
How important is form factor or cuteness of gear in your purchase decision?
>>
>>3950344
not
>>
>>3950344
I ruled out the Canon ecosystem because I can't stand the look of their cameras.
>>
>>3950344
Cuteness? No.
Form factor? Customizable dials and compactness are a must.
Weight? I autistically count by the grams.
>>
>>3950344
It's worth at least $250. That was the price difference between a used Samyang 24mm F/1.8 and new Sigma 24mm F/2 and I went with the Sigma pretty much because of build quality, form factor(aperture ring) and aesthetic.
>>
Speaking of form factor, I'm looking at Snoy vs. Nikon. It's unclear what the extra weight and bulk of a Z6 gains me, compared to an a7iii which has a much larger second hand lenses market, many of which are smaller to boot (Nikkor 50mm 1.8S vs. Sony Zeiss 55mm 1.8 for starters). What am I missing? Is it just the ergonomics or is Z mount just a ploy to get F mount users?
>>
>>3950344
if it fits in my backpack it's not too big
>>
>>3950355
>I went with Sigma pretty much because of build quality
rofl
>>
D750 owner. I'd like better video. D780 and be able to use existing F lenses or get a mirrorless and adapt them?
I'd be buying an Atomos Ninja V either way to get 10-bit video.
>>
Does anyone regularly use the Canon MP-E 65?
>>
>>3950375
mirrorless
>>
>>3950411
Planning to send some dickpics?
>>
What do you get for batteries?
The way I see it, right now OEM batteries astronomically expensive but there are literally no alternatives. Wasabi shit (aka powerextra, aka ravpower, etc.) is blatantly overrated on sticker and expand very soon, but their are dirt cheap. Watson and Jupio are a bit more expensive and have honest rating, but reviews say they are also losing capacity and bulging. Most of these batteries are just plastic cases with 2S arrangement of pouch style cells. It's like, OEMs sell that plastic like gold, but no one else can get their hands on good cells to stick inside their version?
>>
>>3950447
I spent too much money on garbage third party batteries and went back to buying OEM. They got us by the balls man.
>>
>>3950444
Just wondering if it is a cool lens you play around with for a month or if it's actually a good value.
>>
>have RX100 VII
>favourite things to shoot are night and rain and rainy nights
>rain gets on lens and body however
>also the low light is good but only with a tripod
Not sure if I should switch it for something better suited for low light, rain and also needs to be compact, if such a thing exists.
>>
Hello, what do you think of the EOS R or EOS R6? The R seems to be more solid and professional, but the inside of the R6 is more powerful.
>>
>>3950457
>also the low light is good but only with a tripod
Anything can be good for low light if you assume available tripods
>>
>>3950371
in the past couple years they've stepped up their game.
but yea, older tamron stuff is.. uh. .yea
>>
File: 1632631719075.jpg (523 KB, 2119x1029)
523 KB
523 KB JPG
>>3950371
Have you even seen the new stuff from Sigma?
>>
>>3950534
I fucking wish they made them in silver, shit that looks nice
>>
>>3950537
I wouldn't be surprised if they come out with a limited edition at some point. The build quality is ridiculous to the point it's a bit overkill, particularly the metal, machined, serrated hood feels like you if you stabbed someone with it you could carve out a nice round chunk.
>>
>>3950533
Have they? I still remember their notoriety for wobbly zoom lenses. You'd shake a cam a little, and it'd zoom on it's own.
>>
>>3950577
I just bought the 150-500 and its really fucking solid. No lens creep. It also has a locking mechanism to lock at any focal length. But I've not noticed I really need it since it doesn't shift anyways.

I mean, I'm not whipping the damn thing around like some crazy person; maybe the smaller lenses are different, not sure
>>
>rectilinear wide angle lenses (15mm or wider) for Canon

Any examples or suggestions? Can be MF or AF, Canon or aftermarket, RF or EF mount. Needs to be fullframe, though.
>>


[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution144 dpi
Vertical Resolution144 dpi
CommentScreenshot
Image Width1128
Image Height664
>>
File: untitled.jpg (351 KB, 1920x1080)
351 KB
351 KB JPG
The new 70-200 GM is good.

Internal zoom
The lightest 70-200
Good contrast
Good AF

Sony and Nikon and the only 2 bastions of Internal zooms left.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Softwarepaint.net 4.2.7
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution96 dpi
Vertical Resolution96 dpi
>>
>>3950886
Right image exhibits massive focus breathing. Into the trash it goes
>>
>>3950941
Into the trash you go.
>>
Tony Northup just sabotaged his own credibility.

Using different crop coordinates to create optical illusions when the real difference is less than 1%.
>>
>>3950967
Snoy shilling should be against the rules
>>
File: 1246006734.jpg (117 KB, 640x640)
117 KB
117 KB JPG
I'm planning to buy a p&s film camera for a friend who's using a very cheap one atm. I found a Minolta pico mini (same camera as Leica mini) for 70 and an Olympus Mju 1 for 120.

Which one would you get?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width640
Image Height640
>>
>>3951028
>70$
>120$
>p&s film camera, which one would you get?
None, too expensive.
>>
>>3951029
Well it's a birthday gift and prices for premium p&s cameras are absolutely jacked now.
>>
any reason not to go sony alpha 7 iii full frame when fujifilm aps-c bodies cost the same?
>>
>>3951031
Buy the man a real SLR with a 50mm 1.8, i bought such thing for 60 bucks 2 weeks ago.
If not then buy him film, buying """premium""" point n shoots is throwing money to the trash because the older ones might fail out of nowhere, namely the mju 1 which doesn't have a particularly reliable lens.
Can't speak of the Pico Mini, if you really want to buy a pos then go for that one.
>>
>>3951034
He has a Nikon SLR with a 50mm 1.8, but he only shoots with the one he has with him (a slow and bulky Minolta P&S).

It's a good idea to add film with the camera, I'll do that.
>>
>>3951033
I'd take it over aps-c any day, yeah.

But DON'T buy it right now - A7IV is launching in a week and A7III prices will come down a lot for sure.
>>
>>3945455
lightboxes suck, can be annoying to light the bottom of the product. better to just use white backdrops and position flashes/softboxes around.
>>
>>3951045
>he doesn't know about price guarantees
>>
>>3951338
>price guarantees
no price guarantees for used gear though, but I guess that's assumption on my part that everyone buys used.
>>
File: 20211015_220514.jpg (2.29 MB, 3124x2114)
2.29 MB
2.29 MB JPG
>dumpster dive outside camera store
>find picrel among other stuff
>what do

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
>>
Please recommend good monitor
>>
>>3951668
V350 is also LiOn.
>>
>>3951671
Ah, that's right, the entire V line is ion battery.
>>
Does anyone make these fucking bastards that are easy to remove?

The circular ones spin, and the little bit at the bottom is fucking impossible to grip to unscrew.
>>
>>3951675
Sony needs to hurry up with on-sensor polarisation.
>>
>>3951675
buy a filter wrench. Also the more expensive lenses and filters are less likely to have this happen, since cheaper aluminum threads are more likely to bind than more expensive brass ones.
>>
>>3951675
how about the magnetic ones?
>>
File: 1dx.jpg (1.14 MB, 1400x1418)
1.14 MB
1.14 MB JPG
I have two 1Dx bodies and a 5D3 and will be staying with Canon. I can't figure out what the hell I should upgrade to. Wife and myself are wedding pros and would like to keep one body for backup regardless. Considerations:

2x R6 with body grip - $5600
2x 5D4 with body grip - $4000
2x 1Dx mk II - $6000

Only real 'upgrades' I want is the dual pixel AF and/or Eye IF, but I can't afford to go RF and hear there are AF issues adapting EF lenses on RF bodies. Also I'm just fucking spoiled from using 1D bodies and anything less feels like a toy.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeCanon
Camera ModelCanon EOS 5D Mark III
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS2 Windows
Photographerdecltype
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution350 dpi
Vertical Resolution350 dpi
Image Created2014:01:05 19:26:47
Exposure Time1/100 sec
F-Numberf/11.0
ISO Speed Rating400
Lens Aperturef/11.3
Exposure Bias0 EV
FlashFlash, Compulsory
Focal Length100.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width1400
Image Height1418
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceManual
Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>
Let me tell you about this lens.

This is not the Superwide Sigma released in 1981, or the refresh in 1986. It might be related to the 1975 24mm Filtermatic, as the typeface on the lens suggests it was released around the same time, and there is a 24mm f/2.8 listed on that year in the Sigma Imaging UK site's timeline. It's hard to find evidence of this lens existing outside of the example I have, and it probably didn't sell well.

The first thing that'll be obvious is that this lens flares up. Specular light sources inside the image circle will produce internal reflections that appear inside the frame, which recognizably match the shape of the light / aperture with a light blue ghost (in-frame sunlight produces 2x14 distinct ghost hexagons). Side-entering light just fogs up the image and reduces contrast. This lens should really have a hood, but the body design makes that impossible for full frame, so it makes sense that Sigma didn't bother.

This lens has a 62mm filter mount, which is too small for how long the body of the lens is. There is a heavy gradual vignette in the full frame image, and even an APS-C sensor will get clipped by the filter mount at minimum focus. I wouldn't bother mounting a filter to the front of this, as it'll just make things worse. This lens body may have been repurposed later for the more common 28mm f/2.8 Sigma-Z on M42 (1978?), and the relative abundance of that lens suggests that the body may have worked better with that focal length.

When shot in a way that eliminates the vignette, you're left with a lens that has a distinct character in its flares and achromatic aberrations. It isn't as difficult to use as the Helios, because it actually behaves itself at small apertures aside from flare, but it is a restrictive tool that can be a little spicy at times.
>>
>>3951927
I have an R with mostly adapted lenses.

>Sigma 35mm f1.4 Art
>Sigma 24mm f1.4 Art
>Sigma 135mm f1.8 Art
>Tamron 24-70mm f2.8 G2
>Tamron 70-200mm f2.8 G2

They all adapt fine and none of them are upgraded past the 1.0 firmware. They focus faster than on native EF hardware, it's really kinda crazy and breathed new air into my older lenses. Often it focuses before I can press the shutter button completely, you don't even need backbutton focus IMO.

As for native lenses, I only have:

>Canon 15-35mm f2.8 RF
>Samyang 85mm f1.4

Really dig the system, my vote is for R6 personally.
>>
Best nikon f mount non-af lenses? Trying to spare a buck or two. Looking for a wide angle and long zoom
>>
>>3951966
vivitar 28mm 2.5 is p cheap
>>
Hello

Total amateur here with a nice camera. Couple asked me to take their pregnancy announcement photos tomorrow. Do I take the 24-105 f4 IS lens or my 50mm f1.8 lens? For canon 6D, full frame. My guess is f4 will be plenty subject separation for portraits
>>
>>3952044
Obviously 50/1.8 but since you're an amateur the 24-105/4 gives you much more flexibility and better ability to film, which is a nice. Also what stops you from taking both lenses?
>>
>>3952049

That’s interesting. I was leaning 24-105 since 80mm+ Is so flattering for portraits, and I wouldn’t think I needed more than f4 for daylight

I can bring both but I guess it’s a pain to swap on the fly

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeCanon
Camera ModelCanon EOS 6D
Camera SoftwareAdobe Lightroom 6.4.1 (iOS)
Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.8
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Image Created2021:10:14 21:10:50
Exposure Time1/320 sec
F-Numberf/4.0
Exposure ProgramAperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating200
Lens Aperturef/4.0
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length50.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width3648
Image Height5472
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceManual
Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>
>>3952044
24-105 if its outdoor shoot or in a bright room.

take the 50 along and use it if its a darker inside or cloudy/dark outside. You can even bump it to f2.8 probably.

also depends what kind of shots. Mother and baby both? doubtful 1.8 or 2.8 will get both of their eyes in the focal plane. if you want sharp across the spectrum, shoot about f8 at the 90mm range for the separation but better focal plane.

good advice for armature - i'm sure pros can do better with the experience but their experience won't help you
>>
>>3951956

>>3951956

Thanks. I'm also just considering blowing a few grand upgrading lenses but there's nothing i really NEED.

Current lenses:

20-35 3.5-4.5 USM
35 f/2 IS USM
50 1.8 STM
85 1.8 USM
100 USM MACRO
70-200 L IS USM

Lenses sold I didn't like:

28-70 2.8 L USM - was nice but rarely used
24-105 f/4 L USM - does nothing great or bad

Want list:

135 f/2 L USM
50 1.4 USM
85 1.4 L IS USM
35 1.4 L USM


I'm open to suggestions.
>>
>>3952115
I'm not on canon so I can't advise you on that specific one but my 135 F/2 is by far my favorite lens and I think everyone should have one or similar.
>>
>>3952115
I mean, you do whatever you think is right. If you don't need anything, it's hard to suggest anything.
>>
>>3952115
desu the sigma 105 f/1.4 or 135 f1/.8 are better buys than the canon 135 f/2. they're like half the price and are much sharper with better contrast
>>
>>3952197
>ligma 105 $1,599.00
>canon 135 $999.99
nigga what
>>
>>3952200
canons 135 is $1,399 in my country and sigma 135 1.8 is $1,199. sorry i make mistake, you are right, the 105 is $1,999 here lol
>>
>>3950648
Laowa / Venus Optics?
They're the one that pops to mind for rectilinear UWA, pick your favorite focal length, they have a few MF available on RF.
>>
Do you have a favorite lens that's not good on paper, but you just kinda like using it the most anyway?
>>
>>3952370
I have an old radioactive moldy Zeiss Jena 50mm and I like it a lot more than my modern 45mm.
>>
I used to use a bronica SQ-AI with the metered prism and I miss the ginat viewfinder. Do full frame DSLR/mirrorless just not have as large viewfinders?
>>
>>3952425
No, sorry. .7x to .9x magnification of a 35mm frame is going to be small. Medium format is deceptively huge, especially once you're used to it and go back to small format. The closest feeling is using the tilt screen on the back of a mirrorless.
>>
I foolishly bought into the EF-M meme and have an M6 mkii. It's a nice camera, but I'm having a moment of gearfaggotry weakness. If I want to jump ship to the R mount, I'd most likely get an EOS R as the R5 is simply too expensive for now. The numbers seem to report that there's only mild improvements between the M6.2 and the R. Would it be sensible to get one? Swapping to an actively supported mount does seem pretty enticing when thinking about the long run.
>>
>>3952470
Tough question. Most times for hobby you don’t need more than aps-c but the EF-M is such underdeveloped and underappreciated system, Canon practically forces you into the FF range. The problem with FF (even mirrorless) is the lenses are big, heavy and expensive.
With that said your EF-M lenses are not useable on R so you’ll need to ditch them so you can go into a system that has good aps-c lens selection. First that comes to mind is Fuji but fear not, Pentax also has excellent aps-c lineup, only DSLR only.
>>
>>3952115
I've tried out the Sigma 24-35/2 and the 85 1.4 Art
Although a bit heavy,both perfoms great on my R5
>>
>>3952470
The EF-M mount was in such a weird position as it had some of the best compact canon lenses ever(22/2 and 32/1.4) and if you wanted to gearfag there's also the Sigma trio(16,30,56) and a large collection of DSLR lenses
It sold well too
It just never took off it seems,a bit mediocre system imo
>>
File: 442246_1vd703_0.jpg (55 KB, 600x450)
55 KB
55 KB JPG
Considering to get a new Fuji X-T200 with the XC 15-45mm OIS PZ for $530.
Main uses will be filming instructional videos and taking portraits of family (already got an XF10 as travel camera). Would it be a mistake to buy one? Are there better options around the same price point?
>>
File: OH NO NO NO NO.jpg (63 KB, 700x324)
63 KB
63 KB JPG
OH NO NO NO NO NO A7IV BROS ?? Super35 CROP ???
> camera for movies
>>
How strong is the IR filter on Olympus OM-D E-5 Mk3? Is buying an IR filter a waste?
>>
>>3952578
I'm more pissed at the 10fps if that turns out to be true. I was expecting 15 or 20. Reeeeeeee
>>
>>3952470
I'm not sure if this helps, but I went from an M5 to an R. I don't know how the M6 compares to the M5, but at the time the M5 was the flagship EF-M system.

I really like the EF-M ecosystem, a lot of their lenses are super tiny yet of high quality. For street stuff, I'll still use my M5, but going to the R, it's night-and-day quality wise. I don't use my M5 much anymore unless I need something compact.

Be warned RF lenses are insanely expensive. Even two years later or whatever, you don't see many third parties enter the market. Samyang/Rokinon makes an 85/1.4 and 14/2.8 with AF, I think 7artisans and Laowa make some MF lenses for it. It sucks because the Canon RF lenses are really spectacular but there's no middle ground between their $3000 lenses and $300 lenses, and no third party to fill the void.

Sigma has a conference I think tomorrow, and some rumors suggest they're going to announce an RF line of some of their Art lenses. I'd wait until there's more third party offerings before joining the RF crowd, unless you have deep pockets for Canon glass, which are admittedly spectacular PQ and clarity.
>>
>>3952609
>Is buying an IR filter a waste?
only useful on film cameras, a waste of time on digicams
>>
>>3952618
It'll be for the 18-50 2.8 which is similar to their 28-70 2.8 FE
Still lack in comparison to the 18-35 1.8 Art that was released almost 10 years ago
Man
A 24-50/2 FF lens that's lightweight will literally sells like hot cake
>>
File: lensbaby.jpg (35 KB, 741x593)
35 KB
35 KB JPG
Lensbaby Velvet 85 f/1.8
>>
Looking for an action cam or similar that can fit in my jackets top pocket and record in landscape orientation while poking out the top. I guess the form factor of the insta 360 is what I'm looking for.
>>
>>3952578
Litrally the only thing worth of note is the Bionz XR tag.
That means it will get the AD speed of A1 and A7Sm3.
>>
New Sigma F2,8 APS-C lens.

L-mount and E-mount, EF-mount, MTF.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution96 dpi
Vertical Resolution96 dpi
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width2048
Image Height1493
>>
File: s-l1600.jpg (165 KB, 1600x984)
165 KB
165 KB JPG
>>3952733
Mediocre zooms come and go, I just bought the first one for any system, really.
>>
Why haven't many youtubers reviewed the Z FC? Kai W, Lok C, Theoria, CameraStoreTV or Mattias Burling are all lacking in a ZFC review...
>>
>>3952914
Most likely they spared spare Nikon from criticism.

fc is still using that old sensor from the z50 which didn't impress anyone.
>>
>>3952917
Nice shitpost snoyboi, the D7000 sensor still impresses to this day
>>
>>3952931
The D7000 would get slaughtered by reviewers today. You're just out of touch with reality.
>>
>>3952931
Impresses who? It's bin tier next to sony
>>
>>3952931
>Anon writes a polite reason why Nikon isn't bothering sending samples
>Screeching autist gets upset
>>
File: 1634099105531.png (196 KB, 361x359)
196 KB
196 KB PNG
>>3952935
>spec number is 1 higher than other spec number therefore its trash
holy shit so this is what its like to own a snoy. bozo
>>
>>3952960
At least he has lenses, unlike the fc.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution96 dpi
Vertical Resolution96 dpi
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width1809
Image Height1222
>>
>>3952961
>sigma
imagine bragging about that
>>
>>3952965
Everybody want affordable F2,8 zooms and affordable F1,4 primes.
Nobody wants a system with 0 support.
>>
>>3952733
EF-M gets a f/2.8 zoom too? Interesting times.
>>
>>3952986
E-mount aps-c has 3 of them with this release.
>>
Why are there no digital sensors with 7:6 aspect ratio?
>>
>>3952990
EF-M had zero.
>>
File: 1634664200473.jpg (278 KB, 2000x1200)
278 KB
278 KB JPG
>>3952961
impressive, just 290g for a constant 2.8 apsc lens. almost the same size as the 30 1.4.
>>
File: 20211019_135547.jpg (4.64 MB, 4000x3000)
4.64 MB
4.64 MB JPG
Anyone else use hard cases?
>>
>>3953087
I don't have enough gear for it to make sense, though I do need to figure out some padding for the drawer I keep my spare gear in.
>>
File: padtest.png (42 KB, 1053x821)
42 KB
42 KB PNG
>>3953088
I had to do a lot of planning for the foam. It comes perforated so little "pixels" of foam come out, you're not just cutting blind. I originally cut room for my speedlight but it didn't make sense to store it that way, and unfortunately you can't undo it.
>>
>>3953082
The Sigma and the Tamron are so different and cater to completely different preferences.
But it does feel like the native Sony lens is squeezed tight between two solid choices.
>>
File: untitled.jpg (153 KB, 1920x1080)
153 KB
153 KB JPG
>>3952986
>>3953038
>EF-M gets
A-a-annon.... I'm so sorry.

I was terribly naive and thought Sigma would extend the lens to MTF and EF-m.
Looks like EF-m is considered dead by Sigma now.

I swear I had a chat with a Sigma customer support who was also enthusiastic about porting such a lens to MTF.
But I guess the reality is the tech support and customer reps don't have any influence in the decision making.
>>
>>3953123
Aww, well, maybe after Canon stacks the entire RF lineup, they will do something
>>
Are AF confirm chips worth the extra money for lens adaptors?
>>
File: 1542390891682.jpg (947 KB, 683x1024)
947 KB
947 KB JPG
Thinking of selling my Fuji gear (X100V, X-A5 and lenses) and getting the Sony A7 III or perhaps IV. Looking at full frame pics on Flickr it just has something more that I miss with APS-C. More crisp, more details, etc. Would the Sony be a good step forward? Also thought of the GFX 50R or something but they are too expensive for just a hobby.

Or any other recommendation for around 2000€?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeSONY
Camera ModelILCE-7M3
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 7.5 (Macintosh)
Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.3
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)50 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Image Created2018:11:16 10:54:24
Exposure Time1/400 sec
F-Numberf/4.5
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating640
Lens Aperturef/4.5
Brightness2.4 EV
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length50.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
>>
>>3953163
I recently bought into Sony FE myself. In my opinion
>it's better than APS-C in general
>has better lens selection and availability than other FF mirrorless
If you're at all budget limited go for it. If you have cash to spare than maybe other FF mirrorless could be suitable for you, just make sure they have the lenses you want.

Full frame DSLR could be an alternative, but with mirrorless being seemingly the future, you might find yourself buying into a dying ecosystem.
>2000€
Is that for body only or body + lenses?
>>
>>3953186
>but with mirrorless being seemingly the future
Who cares you homo, he wants it to shoot pictures not invest resources
>>
>>3953196
>smartphone user screech
Photographers care a lot about lenses, especially new ones that are released.
>>
File: untitled.jpg (655 KB, 1920x996)
655 KB
655 KB JPG
Sigma < Tamron
>>
>>3953226
Sigma: if there is an edge it must also be green
>>
>>3953229
To be fair, Tamron paid for that good performance by compromising with heavy bulk and size.

But they also took the opportunity to include lens stabilisation, so both lens designs have synergy and harmonises.
>>
I want to get into wide/ultrawide photography, but I'm not sure what focal length would be good for a start. 20? I'll be doing a lot - portrait, urban, landscape.
>>
>>3953299
Maybe something like the Sigma 16/1.4? Should be versatile enough for wide, urban and portrait.
>>
How do you guys store your cameras and lenses? Currently I just have them all loose in a drawer.
>>
Comparing my 28mm F2.8 with the sports viewfinder with my 35mm F2 produces pretty damn similar results even when peeping.
Am I crazy to just use the 28mm and use the in-camera crop when I need to get slightly closer?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeFUJIFILM
Camera ModelX-E4
Camera SoftwareDigital Camera X-E4 Ver1.03
Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.8
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)41 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2021:10:20 10:23:17
Exposure Time1/100 sec
F-Numberf/2.8
Exposure ProgramNormal Program
ISO Speed Rating1250
Lens Aperturef/2.8
Brightness1.5 EV
Exposure Bias0.7 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceDaylight
FlashNo Flash
Focal Length27.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width1086
Image Height724
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceManual
Scene Capture TypeStandard
SharpnessHard
Subject Distance RangeUnknown
>>
>>3953314
Fujifilm btw.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeFUJIFILM
Camera ModelX-E4
Camera SoftwareDigital Camera X-E4 Ver1.03
Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.0
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)53 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2021:10:20 10:23:44
Exposure Time1/105 sec
F-Numberf/2.0
Exposure ProgramNormal Program
ISO Speed Rating800
Lens Aperturef/2.0
Brightness1.4 EV
Exposure Bias0.7 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceDaylight
FlashNo Flash
Focal Length35.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width1086
Image Height724
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceManual
Scene Capture TypeStandard
SharpnessHard
Subject Distance RangeUnknown
>>
>>3953299
Do you want to get into wide photography, or do you want get into fisheye photography? There's a difference.
>>
>>3953313
as long as the room or space doesnt get too dusty, well ventilated, sunlight gets inside, for me it should be ok. I'd avoid storing it inside a closed bag for long periods during wet season.
>>
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZLVLudZ33o
>>
I have an EOS M3 and a 22mm f/2. Are the Sigma EF-M lenses (16mm, 30mm, 56mm; all f/1.4) worth it? I bought the camera originally for family photos but I want to learn more about photography. I already know kit lenses are garbage.
>>
>>3953388
>Are the Sigma EF-M lenses (16mm, 30mm, 56mm; all f/1.4) worth it?
Worth it. They are in all likelihood the only and last lenses EF-m will get from Sigma.
>>
>>3953393
tbqh theyre in all likelihood the last ef-m lenses from any manufac
>>
Sony saised thr price of their basic model to 2800 dollars.

Their marketshare will be completely obliterated if basic mark 5 becomes 3500 dollars.
This will be Nikon's chance when Sony shoots itself in the foot.
>>
>>3953401
wow I expected $2500 but that's a bit silly
>>
>>3953427
Sony is on the path to suicide.

Tamron and Sigma can literally facilitate the destruction of E-mount my pointing to RF and Z, especially with customers being unhappy about the raised price ceiling of the basic models.

It will require a perfect shitstorm to kill E-mount, but it's doable. Especially if mark 5 gets on the wrong side of 3000.
>>
What Fujifilm camera to buy now?
X-T3 1000€
X-S10 1000€
X-E4 800€

It's gonna be my only and main camera for the next years. I feel like the best bangs for bucks would be the X-T3 as it comes with that nice viewfinder which I'm sure I would love. But it lacks of the new classic negative sim (which I probably don't like that much anyway).

X-S10 has IBIS but I don't know if I really need it for photography. Maybe evening shots?

X-E4 looks best imo because of that rangefinder style. But maybe too small for larger lenses and not enough grip.
>>
>>3953431
>Sony is on the path to suicide.
They learned well from their smartphone department lmao.
>>
The VR of the 17-70 Tamron is appealing but it's a big lens. I like the smaller size of the Sugma 18-50 but it has no image stabilization and neither does my camera.
What do??? I don't like standing out with my camera in public.
>>
>>3953473
>I don't like standing out with my camera in public.
Stop being a pussy that gives a fuck about what other people think, problem solved.
>>
File: 1625839236260.jpg (54 KB, 611x674)
54 KB
54 KB JPG
>>3953474
holy shit... thank you...
>>
I have an Canon EOS 1000D that I bought many, many years ago as a beginner camera because I like photography. I've dusted it off now and have started taking photos again, which has got me wondering. I've watched some videos about photography where they say that the type of camera doesn't really matter that much and you can still take decent photos with pretty much anything, would you guys agree with that? I see now that the entry level is 3000D for Canon and it's pretty cheap, but is there basically very little point to upgrading? I know that shit technique will make shit photos regardless of how good the camera is, and that lenses would probably be a better investment, but just thinking about whether the better cameras would make any noticable difference to anyone who's not highly autistic about quality.
>>
>>3953325
I wrote wide/ultrawide, didn't I?

Anyways, I'm just wondering whether 20mm is the sweetspot or not. I want to do those close up full body portraits with distortion, but which aren't full on fish eyes. And would it be possible to also do nice wide landscapes?

Anyways, I'm on Nikon F mount, budget is $300. Don't care about anything special, just good optics and at least an aperture ring.
>>
>>3953508
I wouldn't go wider than 20mm, no. Personally I was torn between 20mm and 24mm and ended up with 24mm - turns out anything wider would have been pretty hard to use so I'm glad I did.
>>
>>3953473
Do you want extra reach value and functionality?
Or do you want small, light, compact that might be functional enough for you needs?
>>
>>3953431
but when will Canon and Nikon open their lens protocols or did they?
>>
>>3953598
They don't have to. Samyang reverse engineered them.

Sony just happens to be lucky that Sigma doesn't want RF and Z to trample all over the L-mount.
>>
>>3953508
for me, 24 FF equiv is the sweet spot where it doesnt look distorted but has the wide feel.
>>
im looking for a camera body to hold me off for a while. im a professional photographer who has no idea about the mirrorless market, ive been shooting with a canon 5dmkiii for a while using studio strobes. any recs?
>>
>>3953698
im looking for something for up to 5000$ in the mirrorless family, hopefully canon but okay with moving into a new system, as long as it syncs well, is supported in studio settings and wont give me issues
>>
>>3953700
>>3953698
EOS R5
You can still use your old glasses
The old EF 50 1.2L on the R5 is simply phenomenal
>>
>>3953707
>The old EF 50 1.2L on the R5 is simply phenomenal
The result will be unremarkable actually. No different from the results on the initial R camera.

You can't draw additional detail out of a lens that is unremarkable by simply increasing the resolution..
>>
>>3953401
>>3953427
>>3953431
turned out to be $2500 as expected.
>>
>>3953707
>>3953709

I think the ability to get focus at 1.2 may be what he's referring to here.

I'm on the fence about the 50 1.2 as a low light lens. mpb has one for $1029 and it's in my cart.....but so is the r6 and an rf/ef adapter.

fucking ridiculous canon wants $350 for the battery grips for the r5/r6 and there's no aftermarket grips anywhere.
>>
File: 1495153649295.jpg (141 KB, 529x786)
141 KB
141 KB JPG
>got new job recently
>massive pay bump, from $75k to $122k
>still tempted to cheap the fuck out on lenses and gear
In the market for a mirrorless, my first thought was to go for broke with an A7R IV but I think I've landed on an A7 III with a 24-70 mm F2.8 GM and either a Sony 70-300mm or Sigma 100-400mm. Going to buy it all preowned since I can evade taxes by purchasing on this one site online that somehow just does not give a shit about collecting 10.1% extra from me. Just waiting for the A7IV release to drive the cost down further on the A7III.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareMicrosoft Windows Photo Gallery 6.0.6001.18000
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution600 dpi
Vertical Resolution600 dpi
Image Created2009:11:08 19:23:37
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
Image Width1762
Image Height2617
Unique Image ID1273FC061E754C7182F77911EE169BBE
>>
>>3938706
I'm going skiing soon, should I bring a 24mm, 35mm or 50mm prime lens?





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.