Breakthrough Photography X4 CPL editionPrevious edition >>3954704
>>3962588I got 3 CPLs, the lazy chink company brought each in fuckhuge cases. Carrying that shit feels like too much bulk, what can I use to carry them in a more compact way? Sizes are 53mm, 62mm and 72mm
>>3962594There are camera filter bags and these can be found on chink sites or Amazon and probably you can pay ten times the price for some western brand. I would recommend instead of buying different sizes, just buy filter step up rings (these are also ridiculously cheap on AliExpress, and I don't recommend getting the kits, you want to just have one 52mm->72mm).
>>3962602NO DO NOT GET STEP UP / DOWN RINGS!i mean the idea is really awesome and i also use them BUT MAN I HATE THEMThey will literally fuse together and wont come apard.I tried everything and the only thing that will bring them apard are two pairs of plires and A LOT OF FORCE yea nah just buy the cheapest filers that work for your mount.Also i got them stuck on a lens once and nearly broke my lens trying to get them of.
>>3962697All of mine work without problems. I didn't buy them together, all of them are from different companies even. I have one shitty b+w cpl that does this. It glues itself to whichever lens or ring I screw it on, and does require pliers to get it off.
Attempting to de-yellow a yellowed lens with a 4 W LED bulb and a small mirror. The lamp works at 12 V so it's safe to connect with just some wires. Curious to see if this is effective at removing the yellowing.[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeSonyCamera ModelE2303Camera Software26.3.A.1.33Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.0Sensing MethodNot DefinedImage-Specific Properties:Image Width950Image Height713Horizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2021:11:13 23:23:00Exposure Time1/10 secF-Numberf/2.0Exposure ProgramNot DefinedISO Speed Rating1931Lens Aperturef/2.0Exposure Bias0 EVSubject Distance0.00 mMetering ModeCenter Weighted AverageLight SourceUnknownFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length3.57 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width950Image Height713Exposure Index366RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeUnknownGain ControlUnknownSubject Distance RangeUnknown
>>3962699Nah i dont mean the filter itself... i mean the step up / down rings All my filters work without problems Its just the rings
>>3962704Ry sanding down the inside of one of them, it cold be due to not enough grease or tiny inaccuracies in the machining process
>>3962704I am talking about my step up rings. Ive no problems with them.
>>3962697>BUT MAN I HATE THEMKek, I thought of this, and that a fuckhuge disc for every lens looks fucking stupid and did buy separate filters for my lenses.Sadly I live in a shithole so I can't really get a comfy filter bag. Guess I'll stuff the fuckhuge 10cm cases in every compartment of my bag.
F-fujibros...I don't feel feel so good right now.Why can't we get sharp in the center of the frame?
How can we ever recover from this...
Zeiss T* coating defeats 3 Japanese coating.
>>3962784Does Sony gm use t*?
>>3962787It's the only explanation I can think of.Zeiss is very heavy on enforcing their patents, they even go after Samyang for copying the Milvus barrel shape.So something like T* patent would be even more scrutinised.
>>3962784Zeiss is japanese nowadays too
>>3962779>>3962782>>3962784>>3962796You're comparing a $1,600 lens with a $2,800 lens. What do you expect?If the image quality is worth the extra $1,200, get the Snoy. It's that simple.[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationRight-Hand, TopHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width4032Image Height3024Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>3962811>picwhat the fuck, man.
>>3962811>You're comparing a $1,600 lens with a $2,800 lens. What do you expect?Don't get me wrong, it would have been fun to see the 1200 dollar Tamron 70-180 BTFO the 1600 dollar Fujifilm as well.Oh wait, it actually did.
Hmm, the Tamron doesn't reach the same level as Zeiss/Sony coating. But it somehow manages to get close.It's clearly not as sharp as the big 3, but its coating is the 2nd best.
>>3962699>>3962697It's because the two metals weld together over time.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_welding[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Pixel CompositionRGBImage OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72Vertical Resolution72Image Width799Image Height447
What would you recommend for a camera that's great in low light, compact but also able to be a good "everywhere all the time" kind of camera?
>>3962925Anything can do lowlight when given enough time on the tripod. Even smartphones.The challenge comes when you have moving subjects in low light.
>>3962801we must pledge to never support any brands manufacturing in the usa, germany, or japan.we must only buy chinese designed and built goods.
>>3962925Do not ask for gear advice without stating your budget and a more detailed description of your shooting situations than that. Also useful is your experience level as well as the limitations you have run into with your current gear.
>>3962588Complete beginner, been researching over the last week what camera to get (used £400) and picked this body + lens to start with. Want multipurpose as possible for a first lens, mainly street and landscape photography. Also portability was a huge factor, I want to keep it on me 24/7.I feel like I'm 90% set with my pick, just wanted to ask if I'm seriously fucking up with any parts/missed opportunities before I hit buy. (Can't afford to price up)
>>3962996it's a fantastic place to start, but 400 bongdollars is way too fucking much
>>3962950Easy. Get a moving tripod.
>>3963000It's alright if it includes that lens and some other kit, maybe a little high. The only time they start to feel lacking is when you do heavy crops but they blow every other 16MP camera out the water on features.
>>3963000>>3963010Thanks for the help - honestly a lot of the 400 is coming from the lens, think I'm paying a 50 premium to get silver instead of black bc autism.
>>3962965Sure thing, yid
Do I buy the HD Pentax DA 15mm f/4 ED AL Limited Lens OrHD Pentax DA 20-40mm f/2.8-4 ED Limited DC WR LensHint: I own a kit lens, da 35mm and da 50mm primes and could do with wide but an improvement in picture quality to the 20-40mm range could be worth it.
Ausfag here, want to get a decent quality webcam because autism but the most expensive webcam still looks like ass and I feel jewed if I have to buy them: https://reincubate.com/support/how-to/why-are-webcams-bad/Thinking of making one using the raspi HQ camera but can't find known good supplier of CS-mount lenses and no autofocus.Now considering HDMI capture card and either Canon M50 mk2 or Sony ZV-1, can justify it as xmas present. Also want to use it as a travel camera to take pics (not into vlogging). Confused on what I should pick.Canon- has EVF- has swappable lenses- 5 years warrantySony: - half the weight - f 1.8 lens- can be USB-powered without buying a separate tethering kit.skill level: Beginner, used DSLR in the past but always on auto mode basically as point-and-shoot. Location is Australia.>why do you want to drop this much dough on a webcam if you're not vloggingautism basically
>>3963086I'd save your money and get neither; the 20-40 is a very narrow range and not even constant aperture, and definitely doesn't beat the 35 and 50 primes stopped down. the 15/4 is cute but still slow and not great on the edges no matter how far you stop down. Both are very expensive for what you get. Move on anon, it's a dead system.
>>3963091or maybe I should buy a DSC-WX500 or DSC-HX90V instead?
>>3963091oh, and I heard EF-M mounts are going to be dead / ignored by Canon, do I need to worry much about it? I don't plan to start collecting lenses or investing into an ecosystem, maybe just 2-3 lens tops
>>3962796For the hair, doesn't Nikon give most contrast there?
So, we all know the bread-and-butter old school DSLRs that can be had for cheap, like sub $300. Stuff that a novice could buy right now and be decently satisfied with, stuff that even some professionals still clutch onto after all these years. Canon 5d, Rebel t4i/t5i, Nikon d3100/3200, 7000 etc.Could anyone provide a few names that follow this same concept, like "old as fuck but reliable", but with mirrorless cameras? I'm looking for something that will take nice snapshits, maybe shoot some artsy fartsy shit and maybe some low-level professional work like local wedding or restaurant photography. Thanks
new gimbal arrove! I've never used one before and was pretty exhausted after work so I only got as far a balancing the camera and doing a test shot, haven't worked-out the button functions or got any skillz yet but hopefully with a week or two to practice I'll be gliding around with the best of em.The plan is to expand my field recording content by making smooth immersive nature videos with binaural sound (hopefully with minimal wheezing as I get out of breath from being fatty fatfat)
>>3963116Fujifilm X-T2. One of my favourite cameras ever made.
Are there any particularly good compact cameras with large sensors. Preferably 5+ years old so I can get it cheap and EVF preferred.
>>3962909If you were wringing your bodyweight off of the stepdown rings, maybe.The only reason stepdown rings stick is if you grab them in your masturbation death grip and twist them on as hard as you can. Just spin them on like a normal person and they work fine. Stick a bit of gaff on the rim if you're really worried about them working loose.
>>3963100>doesn't Nikon give most contrast there?Nope, you can literally see the hair disappears into the flare on the Nikon.The screenshots with the eyes is the 1:1, while the hair image is zoomed out.
>>3963141I don't use filters at all, I'm just explaining the phenomena.
>>3962697>>3962699If you have a stuck [whatever] it’s really simple to remove. 1. Flat narrow shoelace2. Face camera towards yourself 3. Wrap lace approx. 1.5 times around [whatever]. It doesn’t matter if it’s a bit wider, just let the excess width hang off the end, don’t wrap it around the lens too. 3. It’s slightly fiddle here until you’ve done it a couple of times, but hold the lace in place to stop it slipping on lens, and pull it anti-clockwise. It will tighten on itself and grip the [thing] to unstick it. Because it tightens evenly, it won’t deform the [thing]. It’s soft, so won’t scratch or otherwise damage from gripping tightly. I feel I should make a quick YT vid on this because it’s much easier to demonstrate than explain… let me know if required.
>>3962723>not enough grease or tiny inaccuracies in the machining processIt’s electrolysis between different metals/slightly different alloy mixtures. Steel-Alu is really bad, but different Al-Al formulas will do it too.
Thinking of buying Nikon D500, will buy a tele later, for them birds. Going abroad this month, would like to buy a good all-round lens for the trip. Anyone got any recommendations or experience with one if these? Review of Nikon 70-300 f/4.5-5.6 VR IITamron 18-400mm F3.5-6.3Would like some reach, or should I go for the 17-55?
>>3962697using copper rings work a lot better
I'm tempted to get a GRIIIX but they're sold out everywhere in UK and there are no second hand ones. What do? Anyone on this board got one?
>>3963201I did this once but used moll grips for extra leverage.
Is this a good deal?
>>3963464I keep almost getting the latest GR and never pull the trigger (kinda focusing money and efforts on my DSLR instead) but I keep thinking someday I'm going to sell the whole DSLR kit and just buy a GR7 or whatever number they're up to
>>3963474The 40mm one changed everything for me. Couldn't give a shit until the X came out and it suddenly became my perfect camera (except for lack of VF).
>>3962811>it's only a $1600 lens bro, budget AF >what do you expect!
>>3963522We call these mole grips in UK.
>>3963530>budget AFThe sad part is I'm not even sure it was an AF problem.The subjects were completely immobile and stationary. 0 movements.So either Fujifilm struggles with immobile subjects, or their optics is complete donkey shit.Perhaps both.
>>3963533lmao i meant budget AS FUCK, abbreviated as AF
I want this lens...
>>3963538no you don't. its a soft chinese piece of shit
>>3963530Tonny video never tested AF. Also did that niggerfaggot really compared image from 26mpix XT4 to 50mpix a1 and said that fuji image is softer?
>>3963530The autofocus is fine though. I don't think they cheaped out.
I'm thinking of selling my zooms and switching to primes. I find whenever I use a zoom, I'm either as wide or as tight as possible.I can sell my 24-70 for a 35 and 85 and still be okay. But what about my 70-200? I don't often see telephoto primes. I would love a 200mm and 400mm prime.
>>3963546Relax retard. Everybody can design good prime lenses these days.
>>3963549 >from 26mpix XT4 to 50mpix a1 and said that fuji image is softer?You know damn well those 3 Full Frame systems would still be sharper even with a 24mp body.It's the lenses that are responsible for the majority of those differences. And those three 70-200 are nearly perfect optics.
>>3963575>You know damn well those 3 Full Frame systems would still be sharper even with a 24mp body.Brainlet detected.
>>3963530>>3963534I don't know what you mean by "budget as fuck", but the other stuff is indeed what I said. What point are you trying to make?
>>3963609He is being sarcastic about the overpriced fujifilm lens being raped to buts by even the 1200 dollar Tamron lens.There were other points you could have used to defend Fuji, but affordability isn't one of them.
>>39635529/10 times a telephoto prime is retarded because when you're shooting shit that far away you're doing so because you don't want to walk that far or would spook the animal if you did.
>>3963610I still don't follow.If need more sharpness over the Tamron but can afford to lose some flare resistance, spend another $400 and get the Fuji. If you need more sharpness and more flare resistance yet, spend another $1,200 and get the Sony. Which one is affordable and which one isn't depends entirely on what you use them for.For holiday snaps I wouldn't call any of them affordable. If you're a pro who shoots in particularly demanding conditions where missed shots affects your bottom line, maybe the $2,800 Sony is the affordable one and all the others are unaffordable.
>>3962869>Hmm, the Tamron doesn't reach the same level as Zeiss/Sony coating. But it somehow manages to get close.It probably doesn't need nearly as good coating as the Sony and Fuji since it only has 19 elements over the latter two's 23 each. I would even go as far as to say it has the least sophisticated coating of the three. Fewer corrective elements would explain both the disadvantage in sharpness and the advantage in cost. Also weight, the Tamron weighs 810g, the Fuji 995g and Sony 1,480g.I don't see how any of these BTFO any of the others. You just have to pick which metrics are the most important to your application and choose your lens accordingly.
>>3963552>I find whenever I use a zoom, I'm either as wide or as tight as possible.I have this bad habit too. Then I kick myself when reviewing the photos seeing it would have made a better picture if I had zoomed in or out slightly. Especially the latter since you can't fix it in post.The way I see it it's better to try to unlearn it and make better use of the full range of focal lengths that you have rather than just throw it all away. I'd only get a prime if the max aperture or some other property was unaffordable or completely unavailable in the form of a zoom.
>>3963616>It probably doesn't need nearly as good coating as the Fuji since it only hasBut it already has better coating than the fujifilm.Is it so unthinkable that the well priced 1200 lens is better than the overpriced 1600 dollar lens?
>>3963615>>I still don't follow.>If need more sharpness over the TamronThat's because you don't understand that the Fujifilm is not sharper than the Tamron.
>>3963660>But it already has better coating than the fujifilm.Why do you think that?If all three lenses had the same coating, the Tamron would obviously flare the least of the three, and the Sony would probably flare the most. The Tamron doesn't need super high tech coating to get the same level of performance, that's probably a huge part of why the lenses are priced the way that they are>>3963662You must be blind if you don't see it. Not that I'm not knocking the Tamron, nor am I saying that sharpness is the be-all-end-all of photography. But for some photographers that is a factor that's worth a $400 premium.The really atrocious one is not the Fuji, though, it's the Canon. It costs the same as the Sony but doesn't have anywhere near the same performance. But I bet it's super nice in some other conditions that don't involve flare. As I keep trying to say, these are all compromises. The different lenses are good at different things. If they were all the same the market would be perfectly competitive and the profit margins of each of the companies would just evaporate.
>>3963677>Why do you think that?Because the Tamron image has less flare and more contrast than the fujifilm image.So much so that you see it necessary to invent a new metric (flare per element) just to cope.>You must be blind if you don't see it.The other way around, you would be blind to not see the Tamron is the sharper lens.>it's the CanonThe Canon lens is likely the sharpest, or second sharpest lens of all 5.
>artisans 50mm F0.95>for 210 dollars
>>3963698Trying to find samples. All everyone is posting is f0.95, f2.8, or even worse, everything in black and white. If it's good at f1.8 it could be worth it lugging that heavy brick around. On a plus side, it should bring tt artisans f0.95 down in price.
>>3963531>We call these mole grips in UK.Ah Rodger, I wondered if that’s what you meant. Most places I’m aware of they’re called vice grips, which is - what do you call it when a brand name becomes the common name for something? Mole grips I’m guessing is probably a UK brand too?
>>3963091Get a real camera and lens.[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeAppleCamera ModeliPhone 12 Pro MaxImage-Specific Properties:Exposure Time1/121 secF-Numberf/1.6ISO Speed Rating64Lens Aperturef/1.6Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternFlashNo FlashFocal Length5.10 mmExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAuto
>>3963702Nevermind. The seller just raised the price back to 236.
>>3962965how in the cunting fuck is amazon a billion dollar company with a retarded ass page like that???
>>3963819It's the customer service.Once my package got delayed due to some show storm and they send me a 20 dollar giftcode.
>>3963820This. I’ve returned $40 items and had them just tell me not to even bother returning it.
>>3963091zv-e10?m50 between the two, since it got clean hdmi now in mk ii, it would be a fine 1080p webcam.Canon is probably leaving EF-M without lens updates for a while, but check the lenses they did already make.
>>3963852>zv-e10?This costs identical to ZV-1 but requires me to drop another AUD$500 for a f1.8 lens, which is a bit too much for a beginner like me. EF-M 33mm f2 is half the price, less if I can find a bundle. I want a fast lens since I want to point-and-shoot pics when travelling - is this a good rationale or I'm missing something?I believe both cameras have clean HDMI so that's a non-factor. I said >>3963096i have no plans to get more then 2 lens, so I dont think EF-M being ignored is a bad thing but I might be wrong?>>3963792> almost twice the price for not much benefit to a beginnerdoesnt sound convincing for me aon
Strange how the 210 dollar deal this morning vanished as I was browsing.But this allowed my to find even more savings just 12 hours later. I guess the system wanted me to save 3 bucks very badly.
Phew, Sony just won big time.The A1 is progressing forward in the market. Looks like R6, R5, R3, and Z9 couldn't change the outcome.
>>3963135sony nex-6, assuming you wanted an interchangeable lens
>>3963467Bump. Going to see it tomorrow. All I know is there an M4 in great condition and a 21mm Angulon which I'm can flip for £2400 alone.
>>3964273Just realised this is an M3. Cancelled my appointment.
>>3964139the canon R line is a complete disaster. Z9 makes sense its just late to the party.
>>3964295I honestly don't think the news outlets appreciate the removed physical shutter in the Z9.They likely want gear that has both physical and electronic shutter.
>>3962697>>3962909>>3963276Is it true that Brass rings don't get stuck? I forgot where I heard or read it but apparently high quality brass filters are the best.
>>3964339Nah, it's just bullshit (the idiot claiming galvanic corrosion is a factor is a particular breed of gullible moron). Cheap chinesium filters/step up/down rings will warp with moderate force, and warping is what causes jamming. Using any non-shit filter or step-up/down made of any half-decent aluminium, steel, brass, etc will be just fine as long as you spin it on rather than trying to wrench it on.
Just grabbed 2 of these. They are good for swiping the laptop screen as well.Free shipping (as the best offer) is kind of a rare thing these days.
>>3961988Psst anon! I got the 14mm lens today and holy shit it's exactly what I was dreaming it would be. Superwide, cinematic, sharp as fuck and no goddamn barreling! It cost me a fucking grand but all the quality memories this is going to make for me are easily worth it.I also got my new gimbal and tried some walthroughs with my fisheye and had no success whatsoever making it look good, but this 14mm was perfect first go. Yeehaw I'm happy.
>>3963012You could probably find it for a lower price from a private seller, check uk photography forums and Facebook marketplace.
>tfw pentax owner in bumfuck NZ>tfw almost no access to digital era lenses second hand>tfw extensive gouging on the most common of lenses from film erait hurts but at least I love my camera and what I do have lens wise
>>3964496forgot that there isnt a single store that carries pentax anything and you have to order and pay for new stuff blind
>>3964496>>3964497Not familiar with the NZ situation but yeah, your best bet for new stuff is Ted's (AU) but that's still buying blind. For the rest you have to hit eBay and everything good will come from Japan or USA. At the moment shipping from Japan is on time, from USA it's still fucked.I just got my 14mm and feel your pain. I bought on eBay and shipping from Japan was only a few days but ho-lee-fuk did I pay >>3964481
>>3964499cunts here on trademe asking 400 bucks for an old SMC 50mm 1.4, 350 for a K1000 body at the moment without film testing. Im trying to save up for some ebay stuff before the US summer rush pushes the prices up when all the hipsters cop a bunch of everything, but its hard when im split between a crop DSLR, old film K mount bodies, and my 67. why did I get into this hobby its pain 95% of the time
I always thought my copy of Super-takumar 50/1.4 has very poor resolution at f/1.4 and infinity focus. But it turns out the lens focuses past infinity. It's very sharp with AF point confirmed focus. Pic shows comparison with the focus ring turned all the way to infinity vs. AF-confirmed focus (slightly short of infinity endstop). Is this common?[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakePENTAX CorporationCamera ModelPENTAX K10DCamera SoftwareGIMP 2.10.24Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaFocal Length (35mm Equiv)0 mmImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2021:11:19 12:44:44Exposure Time1/500 secF-Numberf/0.0Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating100Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModeCenter Weighted AverageFlashNo FlashFocal Length0.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width774Image Height520RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessNormalSubject Distance RangeDistant View
>>3964500Idunno man it's a shitfight. You should just choose once camera and like 4 lenses and then get out of the market and just shoot. Easier said than done, I've been buying like 2 lenses a year for awhile now because I'm a glutton for pain and MOREBest of luck Kiwianon
>>3964501Forgot to mention that those pictures are unedited 100 % crops.
>>3964501Yeah, it is. This is why when you read astro'tography (night sky) blogs half of them say focus to infinity and the other half say "use autofocus on the brightest star in the sky" because depending on how perfect the tolerances of the lens are, infinity rarely actually focuses perfectly on objects millions of light years away
>>3964502Thanks anonI think once I get a second 67 lens, and a sharp 50mm for my K3iii I should be okaybut fuck all the cool shit like 75mm shift lenses for the 67, or the 50 1.2 lenses from the SMC and PKA lines are so cool to me
>>3964496Everything’s insanely expensive here mate. Do a quick conversion next time you hear an American complain about fuel prices!And you can get a new F150 for <$30k CANADIAN, and their dollar is usually pretty close to ours ( until Jacinda anyway). A used one on trademe for 165K.
current gear, might get rid some of the P&S' and an m6 perhaps[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Hello I have a Leica M2the shutter got stuckso I opened it and tried to move the curtain, but it literally got off the guide and now it's just hanginghow expensive of a repair can it be? in Europe(photo not mine, but looks same)
Argus 35mm has a really special lens flare.
Argus 33mm has a different, consistently red circular flare.I bet it could look nice in black/white as well.
A more subtle usage of the red flare.
>>3964501I had an old Takumar 200/4 once that I thought was damaged or just soft until I figured out one day that it wasn't actually making it to infinity focus when turned all the way to the stop. I had to undo a few screws on the focus ring and adjust it, which I was only vaguely sure how to do but it worked. now infinity is slightly past infinity, but that's a much better problem to have.I read somewhere that lenses with ED elements shift focus slightly with temperature changes which is why almost all modern AF lenses go past infinity.
It's kind of brave of Venus Optics, and 7Artisans to release APS-C on RF mount, long before the existence of RF APS-C camera.But that also means 0 sales, and loss of money.And potentially bad reputation to them from RF shooter who don't understand why these lenses have APS-C tier vignette on their full frames.And it's going to be embarrassing to these 2 lens makers if Canon decides to stick with EF-m, and never release APS-C for RF.
Christopher Frost is such an over rated reviewer.This is what he did to claim the Pergear 2x Macro lens is incompatible with Full Frame:>Aperture all the way down to 16>Focus all the way to infinity to maximise vignette.>ignoring the distance to the subject to to prove his pointAnd then he conceals the fact that this lens actually does fit the Full Frame image circle at x0,5 magnification, x1 magnification, and x2 magnification.
>this lens actually does fit the Full Frame image circle at x0,5 magnification, x1 magnification, and x2 magnification.*Almost.
What do you think about Nikon D5600? Is it good for its price?
>>3964824I thought Nikon was dead
>>3964826Well i don't know, i'm rather new to photography.
>>3964826If people want their old dslr camera over the new z50, then maybe it really is on that course.
How's the OM-D E-M1 Mark III for night shooting?
>>3964842Anything micro4/3 above 800 dollars is kind of over priced.
Tamron lots of criticism of their bokeh for years.And it looks like they took that to heart, and improved the out of focus quality by a ton in the new G2.
I often take pics of flat surfaces (walls, posters, windows etc.) at a very close distance. Im using canon efm with 32mm 1.4 for it but sometimes i get too close and it wont focus properly. Should i get a macro lens for it or rather a zoom lens if i want the picture to be in focus all over?
>>3964908>Tamron lots of criticism of their bokeh for years.when need to shill too fast and forget to write properly
>>3964921Are you upset because people talk about improved and superior gear than the shit you own?
>>3964908What do you mean in the "new G2"?I got my 70-200 G2 in 2018 and I love it. Is there a new revision?
>>3964934>Anon can't see the lens models written in the pictureThe Tamron mirrorless are getting G2
>>3964937Okay, but you alleged Tamron has had criticism for their bokeh. What are you on about? I've never heard someone complain about this.
>>3964940You probably never read any reviews of that particular lens, hence you have no idea what people say about it.
>>3964944Thanks for clarifying you don't know what you're talking about.
>>3964947Oh, so you are an avid reader of the Tamron 28-75 reviews?Then you would have known what they say about it. Or you could have simply used your eyes to examine the sample image that was posted.
Hello /gear/: I currently have a 15-35mm f/2.8 zoom lens, and a 150-600mm f/5-6.3 zoom lens. I shoot golf mostly, I'm on payroll at the nearby club. Do you think I should get a 24-105mm f/4?
hey guys, I'm new to this shit. My camera came with a NIKKOR 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G lens. Sometimes I can't get enough light when I'm taking closeups of my dog or other things. Is there a prime lens you guys would recommend for specifically these sort of shots? Sorry if it's a dumb question, I am still learning.
>>3964954Sorry, I should have clarified further. I was asked if I could do profiles of some of the golfers for promotional material. I am told f/5 is not good enough and the 150mm is too much distortion. I could get a 24-105 and fill out my range, or something like an 85mm f/1.8. They're looking for body profiles, not headshots or above-the-shoulder portraits.
>>3964956I come from a Canon ecosystem so not quite sure how it works for Nikon, but isn't there like a 50mm f/1.8? If it's a crop body, 50mm will crop to like 75-80mm which is fine for pet portraiture.
>>3964959I believe you're right. This 50mm / "nifty fifty" is frequently brought up and I was leaning towards that since it's so popular but I wanted to confirm before I drop $200. ty
>>3964956Well, what focal length on your zoom do you find yourself using the most for those shots? Take that, and find the closest fast prime to that length. Easy peasy.
There's two Canon 2x extenders and sigma 150-600 lenses here that I can literally just walk off with... Help me not be an excessive melanin individual.
>>3964560Why the fuck do you have two M6's in the first place?
>>3965181Obviously a collector of gear
I need some help to identify the lens that was used in this shot.It's one of the the following lenses, but he never specified which one>Sony 24mm GM F1.4>Sony 35mm F1.8>Sony 85mm F1.8>Sony 90mm macro F2.8>Tamron 17-28mm F2.8>Tamron 28-75mm F2.8>GoPro Hero 9Does anyone know which of these 7 lenses have this flare characteristic?
>>3963821Well, they trash and burn just about everything that's returned, so it's not their loss either way. Amazon is absolutely insane.
>>3965181i bought it for like 2000 eur with the summicron 50 (right one) from some elderly retard and I already had that one on the left. i'm probably getting rid of the red logo one but keeping the lens obv
Is it worth getting the Sony A7III for hybrid use, or is the upcoming Sony A7IV that much of an improvement?
>>3965488It's going to have software features that eliminate focus breathing on the fly during vidoe recording.Which is a pretty smart move.Nikon resorted to giga size lenses to avoid focus breathing.Canon intended to live with focus breathing all along.Whereas Sony actually had a plan.[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop 22.1 (Macintosh)Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution144 dpiVertical Resolution144 dpiImage Created2021:03:16 16:00:54CommentScreenshotColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width700Image Height394
>pentax SMC K mount 50mm f1.2 up for sale usedis this decent? I dont want to fall for the fast but soft meme.
>>3965504no that's a pretty legend'ry lens. it was a bit too dear for me and I went for the ƒ1.8 blastic fantastic version because it was affordable but even that's a gorgeous piece of glass
>>3965506aight imma try to cop, its about 350USD at the buy out price, which Ill probably have to do if it doesnt sell before payday
>>3965507Generally on eBay if I find what I want that's what I do, just straight-up Buy Now. Bidding is for priceless items or when you're drunk and feel like dabbling without a hard commitment.I just bought the 14mm 2.8 (only two new on all of eBay) and it cost me $1k and shipped from Japan. It's 100% what I wanted and soon it'll be impossible to find new anywhere so fucket. no ragrets[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeRICOH IMAGING COMPANY, LTD.Camera ModelPENTAX KPCamera SoftwareAperture 3.6Maximum Lens Aperturef/130.2Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaFocal Length (35mm Equiv)21 mmImage-Specific Properties:Pixel CompositionUnknownImage OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72Vertical Resolution72Image Created2021:11:22 14:51:43Exposure Time1/13 secF-Numberf/11.0Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating400Exposure Bias-1 EVMetering ModePatternFlashNo FlashFocal Length14.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width2048Image Height1362RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessNormalSubject Distance RangeClose View
>>3965512fair enough haha, I would buy now, but have to wait like I said, im very strict about not touching my savings once its in the account, so payday it is. Hope I get it! And grats on a 14mm, those are great from what ive read
>>3965529good luck anon, report back when you nab it
>>3962700is it actually noticeable in the photos? I have a yellowed radioactive lens and the colors look nicer than my other lenses with it.
Do I really need 600mm of reach? Both the 150-600mm Sigma and Sony 200-600mm G are $1500+(the first one new the second one used)The 100-400mm Sigma is $1000 new and probably as low as $750 if I wait for a good deal used. I can afford it, but I'm really not sure if it's worth paying twice for 200mm more.
Some dude is selling a Sony A/iii with a 24-105mm G lens, together for 750€, apparently bought in 2021 and still under warranty. Original packaging and accessories included.Where's the catch, or rather, what do I look out for? Seems sketchy af and way too cheap.[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Photographertom dulaneyImage-Specific Properties:
>>3962588looking to get a camera for when hiking, I know nothing about cameras but my phones can't handle zoom well at all (pixel 5) ideally I'm looking for>durable>good zoom>under £700
>>3965618Stolen, typed the price wrong(like missing a 1 at the start), or it's the price just for one, probably the lens, and not for both.If you can buy in person I'd still reach out, the 1% chance it's actually a sucker would be worth it.
>>3965620LX100 ii or rx100
>>3965618>what do I look out for?Give it a full frame video recording test and see if the lens zoom and lens AF works.The lens alone is worth that money.
>>3965621>>3965626Thanks, he insists it's not a typo and the camera is under warranty, doesn't want to show the original invoice or even just a time stamp with the gear though... guess it's a scam.I'll see if he's up for me coming by and having a look, then I'll keep in mind the video recording test and testing all functions of the lens.>The lens alone is worth that money.That's what I was thinking, I'd keep the A7iii body and sell the lens again, I mainly use old primes anyways, and be even. We'll see, thanks for the input.,
This is pretty cool, they are actually innovating the adapters.Now they can manually write Exif into camera.
I've owned an entry-level DSLR for a few years and never used it much, recently I figured that a mirrorless camera would boost my desire to go out and shoot so I got an X-T2. I chose it because of its compact size, amound of manual controls and because a friend offered me the 50mm f2 for a bargain price. I am absolutely loving it, the ergonomics, image quality, film simulations, everything really.While initially I thought that I would be satisfied with just a couple of primes, now I love taking photographs so much that I would like to try out all sort of focal lengths. So far I have mostly shot portraits and nature pictures, but I would like to experiment with a wide angle for landscapes and a telephoto for birds.And this is where I found out that Fujifilm lenses aren't very wallet-friendly outside of some primes. Then I looked at prices for the M4/3 system and questioned my choice of Fujifilm. For example the Fuji 10-24 is at least 500€, while the olympus 9-18 can be had for around 250. It's even worse for telephoto zooms.I am conflicted, because I really love the Fuji camera and the lens that I have, but being an amateur on a student budget it seems that switching to M43 (say with an E-m5 ii) would be more affordable. I know those lenses are probably lower quality than Fujifilm's, but again I am no professional nor a pixel peeper.What do you advise?
>>3965648Good lenses on m43 are as expensive as good lenses on x mount. Although it's good to have two systems.
I own these for FF:>15-35 f/2.8>70-200 f/2.8>35 f/1.8>85 f/1.4>135 f/1.8I'm missing a gap between 35mm and 70mm. Should I consider a nifty fifty? I've never shot at 50mm before.
>>3965712No. It's the most boring focal length. Get a proper telephoto first.
>>3965648The XF10-24mm is more comparable to the Leica DG Vario-Elmarit 8-18mm or the Lumix G Vario 7-14mm. So as >>3965655 said, the price difference for good lenses on the two systems is negligible.If you love the Fuji, stick with the Fuji. And when you're no longer a student and can afford it, you can get the gorgeous XF50-140mm or XF8-16mm, the latter of which there is no M34 equivalent.
>>3965712Just shoot the 35mm with a 1.4x crop for a while. If you do it often enough to warrant the cost of the new 50mm lens, get it.
So, i got a lense that cant do auto-focus.Most of the time its manual focusing.I can access AF-S and AF-L, but the camera had to be locked first. And when its on that mode, it apparently wont shoot.Are there a special way to use it, or its just really cant use autofocus?
Just bought the Canon RF 100-400 non L lens, how much did I just fuck up?
>>396308620-40 is quite good if you want a relatively compact, weather sealed zoom with sharp optics. Not that useful of a focal length range over a prime, excepting the weather sealing. If you want a wide angle, the 14mm is the best on K-mount because of the close focusing capability.
>>3964780>utilizing slave labor to produce an inferior product is “brave”Dude.
>>3965643Please pay for advertisements, Chang.
>>3965928Very much. Please reconsider the life choices that led you to this moment.
>>3965620As answered or a Lumix TZ~ something.
Is this the most unique DSLR? It’s Four thirds and there’s one on eBay now for £130.[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width1024Image Height683Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>3965495Which of these has the best EVF?
is one of the thinktank hydrophobias the best option for a pentax dslr sports setup? just a 70-200 (well a 50-135) but thinking ahead to next hockey season and how wet its gonna be, I dont have any decent WR glass so a rain cover system sounds like the best go[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeRICOH IMAGING COMPANY, LTD.Camera ModelPENTAX K-3 Mark IIICamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 10.2 (Windows)Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaFocal Length (35mm Equiv)355 mmImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpiImage Created2021:07:17 22:13:42Exposure Time1/1250 secF-Numberf/5.6Exposure ProgramActionISO Speed Rating12800Lens Aperturef/5.6Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModeCenter Weighted AverageFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length230.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBRenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessNormalSubject Distance RangeDistant View
I'm completely lost when it comes to filters, I will need some ND filters for the winter since I want to take some snowy landscape pictures, but I have no idea what to buy - the price range is massive. How much is it worth to spend on filters? Also are adjustable ND filters really bad enough to make it worth bothering with few different strengths of regular ND filters?
>>3965629>I'll see if he's up for me coming by and having a lookHow to get robbed; /p/ edition
>>3966126>implying I'm not gonna rob him of his already stolen shitjk, I live in a civilized country
>>3964501>Is this common?every lens does this except for cine lenses, and even then they are even more difficult because you have to use shims to adjust the distance between the lens and camera body to correct for infinity adjustment. this infinity issue with lenses occurs due to tolerances in the manufacturing process.
>>3964782>>3964787>such an over rated reviewer for actually testing the lenslol go home Pergear shill
>>3966085Sony of couse.
>>3966236How much are you getting paid to post here?[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
>>3966238And yet they give you the absolute SHIT in the a7C that is worse than an APS-C camera'sfucking hell Sony
>>3965618Possibly something like a scratch on the sensor. I heard a guy loosing out on a purchase like that. INSPECT IT CAREFULLY and if seller doesn't let you, don't buy it.Otherwise, just ask. Person could just need a mortgage/rent payment ASAP. I had to sell something to get my car out of impound once. Sometimes you just gotta sell something immediately
>>3964959>>3964971Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 35mm f/1.8GI got this and now pictures I wanted to take previously actually look really good. This is a gamechanger for me. Feels good.
>>3966286Many APSC cameras have great EVFs. XT4 for instance.
>>3966276It makes absolute sense when anglokike wants everybody in Xin Jiang to be unemployed.Makes it easier for you to recruit into your proxy armies when they are poor and desperate.
>>3966286Over time Sony will usually increase that resolution.We just need to criticise them in public and make a stink over it, and they usually try to up the game to get parity with Canon.
Thinking of swapping my X-E4 and three lenses (27mm, 35mm and 18-55) for a GRiiiX and a canon 6D with a nifty fifty 1.8. My reasoning is that I will have ultra compactness (the main reason I love my X-E4) when I want and full frame goodness when I can carry something a little heavier. I would miss those fujifilm colours though. I don’t do any PP except cropping and contrast.[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandColor Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width1280Image Height1280
>>3965493>>3965495Thanks anons, I'll probably just wait for the A7IV. It comes out next week anyways.
>>3966538That's a waste of money. 6d with 1.8 will give you nothing over x-e4 with 35mm. You don't know how poor cheap f1.8's are on ff. It's practically unusable at f1.8, so all the dof advantage is gone, and 6d's sensor has weaker dynamic range and low light capabilities than fuji's apsc, so you'd not even get anything out of larger sensor.
>>3966579>It's practically unusable at f1.8Are you a lithographer? if not then post examples on why are they unusable
>>3966579The FF sensor isn’t the only reason. It’s about £300 cheaper and I have a budget. I had a 50mm 1.8 ii before and loved it. I loved the shallow DoF even though it became a bit of a crutch and made my photos more boring.[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandColor Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width1280Image Height720
>>3966594Is the 33 or 35mm f/1.4 all that much worse than an f/1.8 for full frame?On one hand I like your idea since you also get to bring and shoot both without changing lenses. On the other, if I were to ditch Fuji for full frame and still be fairly compact, I'd also look into the Sony a7C together with their FE 50/1,8 and FE 40/2,5 G?Also, why not a plain GRIII (or FE 24/2,8 G if you go Snoy) instead for wider spread of focal lengths?
>>3966617I only like 40-60mm. If I need wider I use my phone.The 35mm Fuji I have is F2 so it’s a fairly noticeable increase in subject separation. I also don’t do any post processing and shoot only in jpeg so Sony is out for me.[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandColor Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width1237Image Height1280
>>3964496buy directly from yahoo auctions japan.
>>3966620In that case I'd just get the much nicer looking 35mm or the new 33mm f/1.4 for the X system and not bother with a full frame camera. Otherwise it seems like a lot of extra stuff to carry for just ½ extra stop of very nervous bokeh. It would have been a completely different matter if you were talking about a Canon 50mm f/1.2
My new heckin lens came in this morning. Only my second lens ever. I'm gonna cooooooom.
>>3966620I second 33mm f1.4. It's silly good 50mm eqiv, and you can bokeh whore with it.[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeFUJIFILMCamera ModelX-Pro3Camera SoftwareDigital Camera X-Pro3 Ver1.21Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.4Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaFocal Length (35mm Equiv)50 mmMaker Note Version0130Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2021:08:31 11:55:16Exposure Time1/240 secF-Numberf/1.4Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating160Lens Aperturef/1.4Brightness4.0 EVExposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashNo FlashFocal Length33.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width6240Image Height4160RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardSharpnessNormalSubject Distance RangeUnknownSharpnessNormalWhite BalanceAutoChroma SaturationNormalFlash ModeUnknownFocus ModeAutoSlow Synchro ModeOffPicture ModeAperture Prior AEContinuous/Bracketing ModeOffBlur StatusOKFocus StatusOKAuto Exposure StatusOK
I have the X-T4 with my favorite XF56mmF1.2 lens and now I'm thinking of what second lens to buy to go wider. I'm interested in the new XF18mmF1.4. But at the same price I could also buy the Ricoh GR III with a same focal length. Then I would not need to change lenses at all. Also probably easier to transport as I can keep the GR in my jacket pocket anytime. What do you think?
>>3966654>>3966632Are you high? X-E4 £600, 33mm f1.4 £700. 6D £400, 50mm 1.8 £50. This is my main decider. Also OVFs kick ass.[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeFUJIFILMCamera ModelX-Pro2Camera SoftwareWindows Photo Editor 10.0.10011.16384Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.0Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaFocal Length (35mm Equiv)53 mmMaker Note Version0130Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2019:08:18 11:42:54Exposure Time1/340 secF-Numberf/5.6Exposure ProgramNormal ProgramISO Speed Rating400Lens Aperturef/5.7Brightness7.1 EVExposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashNo FlashFocal Length35.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width6000Image Height4000RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardSharpnessNormalSubject Distance RangeUnknownSharpnessNormalWhite BalanceAutoChroma SaturationNormalFlash ModeUnknownFocus ModeAutoSlow Synchro ModeOffPicture ModeProgram AEContinuous/Bracketing ModeOffBlur StatusOKFocus StatusOKAuto Exposure StatusOK
>>3966683Makes sense, but consider that the Fuji lens is weather sealed, as is your X-T4. As far as I can tell the GRIII isn't. Also the Fuji lens will probably long outlive your X-T4.
>>3966688>6D £400You're buying used 6D for 400 pounds? Ugh... Just imagining all the pubic hair on the sensor makes me cringe.
>>3966691£450 get a monty in UK. Everyone’s selling their DSLRs to buy Sony mirrorless.
>>3966579this isn’t fanfiction.net
Is the Ricoh GR iii X overpriced? Seems expensive for a camera with no viewfinder.
Why does it have to be so huge?? I like to carry my camera everywhere and this is just too big. It’s a shame Pentax couldn’t make a smaller FF DSLR like the 6D as they’re great at making compact APSC DSLRs.[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:PhotographerNickname joergens.miImage-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width1280Image Height1307Scene Capture TypeStandard
Why didn't anyone tell me that M50 is going to freeze in video mode?
The Tamron 35-150 f2-2.8 almost seems way too good to be true. The major obvious issue is bad flaring but other than that how is this not insane for the price & quality it seems to be putting out?
>>3966844>$1899aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaamore than I thought. I have a 24-105 I got for 1k so that's good enough for me. it it were around the same price I'd exchange
>>3966844if it was 24-135 I'd sell all my other lenses to get it. As it is I'd rather have a 24mm and 70-200
>>3966850My main usage would be portrait stuff so yeah I guess if you wanted to do more landscape style stuff 35 might not be wide enough. Something in my brain keeps telling me there has to be a major downside but people have only had positive things to say about it.
>>3966853Personally I really don't like anything like 35-55 so the whole bottom end would be wasted for me. But yeah, it seems a great lens overall, if someone can afford it. The launch price is pretty steep. Waiting a year and picking up a lightly used copy for $1400 might be an option.
>>3966751Is that the intended texture, or did someone coof all over the prism housing?
>>3966764because you dont do research?according to internets its either bad sdcard or the eye sensor:https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/64667760https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/62839471spoonfed since you make me slighly worried>t. going to buy M50 mk2 this weekend
>>3966751Hugeness is the best attribute in a camera
>>3966884You've never held a real working camera on your hands
>>3966941It's more the weight. It's nearly 300 grams heavier than the 6D and 200 grams heavier than the DF. Pls, Pentax. Release a compact version of the K1.
Just get a KP
>>3967019Be a man and lug it around, sissy
>>3966844>Tamron 35-150 f2-2.8FUCK SHIT I just got the 28-70 f2.8, this is faaaar better as a walkaround for my shooting. Can't justify spending an extra £600 to switch though.
>>3967029Well, more like £1000 (fucking britbong tax).
>>3967026KP's the bees tits. I don't have le limited edition but yeah, love this little nigga like you wouldn't believe[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeAppleCamera ModeliPod touchCamera SoftwareAperture 3.6Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaFocal Length (35mm Equiv)31 mmImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2021:11:25 21:13:25Exposure Time1/17 secF-Numberf/2.4Exposure ProgramNormal ProgramISO Speed Rating400Lens Aperturef/2.4Brightness-0.9 EVExposure Bias0 EVMetering ModeSpotFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length3.30 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width2048Image Height1536Exposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandard
>>3967036My main problem is that there's no good nifty fifty for it. Is there a 35mm F1.4 or 1.8 that I don't know about?
>>3967040In the 35mm there's only a Sigma below ƒ2, but I don't see it as a deal breaker to get the Pentax ƒ2 but that's just me
>>3967043This one? I just feel that the 6D with a 50mm is like 100 grams heavier for lot of extra sensor.[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CC 2018 (Windows)Image-Specific Properties:Image Created2019-01-31T08:12:30FlashNo Flash FunctionImage Width780Image Height470
Apparently the 40mm f2.8 ltd works well on the K1. I guess that makes sense as this 40mm was originally adapted from an old 35mm film lens. Combined weight of 1100 grams.[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:PhotographerROB BATEMANImage-Specific Properties:
>>3967045you do you anonI prefer Pentax for other reasons but when you need specific glass I guess that takes precedence
Feels good, bros.[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandColor Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width1280Image Height960
do I spend 5/7 of my weekly paycheck on an f1.2 50mm K mount, a 'nicer' 6x7 55mm thats pristine and comes with both caps and a hood compared to my busted one with fungus and no caps, or just like not buy anything and watch is sail into the distancePic rel is missing the 6x7 and my 16-50 an 50-135 f2.8 pentax lensesi've been drinking if this matters>>3967026the J Limited cameras are so nice man like not even kidding>>3967048sad the one I have doesnt have working af tbqh, and the focus ring is hella rough[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
>>3967055Have you considered a K1?
>>3967056yeah I really want one but theyre hella expensive in NZ and theres no real used market for pentax, anything that comes up that isnt trashed is a unicorn find
>>3967058>>3967056should add I shoot sports mostly and the K3iii was cheaper than a K1ii at the time and apsc is more useful for me generally
>>3967059What do you use the film cameras for?
>>3967060i rotate through themI treat film as a break from shooting sportsomething calming about it after blasting 1200 shots or so per gamethe p30n and t are my parents, and the n in particular is my mothers so I really treasure shooting with it.also I collect things and currently just trying to have 1 of each gen of pentax, and sorta looking at getting all the pentax m primes, or at least one of each focal length[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 10.2 (Windows)Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpiImage Created2021:03:19 23:16:01Color Space InformationsRGB
>>3967064You have a fantastic collection, Pentax-bro.
I'm looking to get a camera and I absolutely need it to be compact, what am I sacrificing if I can't budge on this?
>>3967100How compact? You mean X100 compact or Ricoh GR compact?
>>3967131Both, but more leaning to GR. I want to be able to take it with me anywhere but also not have it draw attention to myself like a full on lens camera would
>>3962697thisalso a pain in the arse to change lenses with and they don't work with hoods and caps anymorejust jet a cpl for each of your landscape lenses
>>3967177>just get a cpl for each of your lenses broFuck off yids, just buy better step rings
Should I get a 35 f/1.8 or 24-70 f/4 as first lens on a Z6? They both seem optically good, zoom is more flexible and cheaper than prime but I'm wondering how much difference 2 stops make, and the prime might force me to get good.
>>3967203Get the 24-70 F/2.8
>>3967177>>3967184should I bother getting a CPL for a 14mm wide os is it too wide to bother?
Does anyone, like, actually test lenses?I'm looking for MTF charts at high resolutions specifically, 100+ lpmm.
>>3967245But Anon I can't afford it.
>>3967282why did you buy into a system you can't afford glass for then
>>3963464Try DPreview's marketplace
>>3964596just call leica and ask them
>>3966119why would you need an nd filter for snowy landscapes?
>>3967276>a 14mm wided-do you mean focal distance or filter thread diameter?>>3967184fuck off i bought into the step up ring meme and hate myself for itfinally ordered a high end cpl and should have done so months agobetter buy a set of cheap amazon basics cpls than a fucking step up ring
>>3967368focal distance anon
>>3967365It's way brighter on a sunny day in the winter when everything is covered with a white, reflective substance. >>3967368hey maybe he's trying to buy a filter for that one laowa probe lens
Are L lenses all done depreciating?
Debating what to buy next. Another lens (I don’t have many) or a basic lighting setup (off camera flash, umbrella etc)? I was intrigued by the posts on strobist.com.
>>3967444Do you normally take the kind of photos that would need a light setup? Lights are nice if you have professional aspirations or have enough social graces to be able to shoot portraits of consenting people, but being where we are, I'm not going to assume that about you.
why the fuck can i find hundreds of listings for any canon or nikon camera ranging from 2001 consumer p&s to current professional DSLR and mirrorless, but any modern fuji mirrorless has 2 fucking US listings and like 20 japan listings? are they only sold in japan?
What's up with the pricing here? Why the sudden $500 jump?>>3967404I wish.This thing used to be $1800 new, now you can buy it used for almost that much ($1600).
>>3967468When you become a Fuji owner, you will understand. There's just no driving impulse to sell a Fujifilm™ camera.
>>3967468no. of units sold. of course canikon takes the crown.
>>3967516Dollar is becoming toilet paper.
any discounted film deals this black friday weekend?
>>3967444Ever since I bought my camera I have mainly shot portraits of my girlfriend. I don’t feel confident enough in my skills to ask others to take pictures of them (I’ve had a couple of requests though), but maybe I would with some lighting gear to make it look like I know what I’m doing.On the other hand another lens would allow me to branch out into other kinds of photography as well.
>>3967591135mm is my go to for portraits. also the 200mm f/4. Great bokeh
>>3967068Thanks anon hahastill a lot of holes to fill, though I have an SL with a 55 1.8 locked in, and a 105 2.4 just popped up on an auction site im gonna try to nabplus that 50 1.2
I want to fill a gap in my lenses, was thinking of picking up an 85mm but one that>has a bright maximum aperture(all my other lenses are going to be F2)>AF(2/3 of my lenses are manual)I'm on Sony. How bad is the Samyang F1.4 85mm? It's a lot cheaper than the alternatives. I could also swing for the Sigma 85mm F1.4 Art as well, it seems to come up for sale used pretty cheap. Anything else announced/rumored with similar specs? I won't be buying for a while, just making initial assessment. The GM Sony is unfortunately out of the question, this is not going to be my main lens(probably) and the GM is twice the price of the Sigma and three times the price of the Samyang.
>>3967641Actually never mind I looked at some reviews and the Sigma DG DN is so much better than both the older chunky Sigma and the Samyang I'll probably have to buy it.
>>3967641>(2/3 of my lenses are manual)>I'm on Sony.AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
>>3967718what exactly amuses you here?
>>3967741Classic snoyboy meme.then:>all of snoy's lenses suck, but I bought the body a as a digital back for all these cool, cheap (but they were overpriced as soon as the NEX became popular) rangefinder lenses!now:>with having to upgrade bodies every 2 years, I can hardly afford to buy lenses, and snoy's lenses are all too expensive for me, so I have to make-do with adapting manual shitbox lenses from yesteryear
>>3967756But I'm not adapting anything, I have the Samyang 135 F2(ok this one's cheap as fuck but amazing for the price), Sigma 24mm F2(this one has AF) and I'm picking up a Voigtlander 65mm F2. I also have a cheap AF Samyang 45mm F1.8 but I don't like it so going to sell it.You sound like a projecting apsc user.
300 dollars for APS-C 16mm F1,4Looks like Adorama can't compete with BH this year.
Any thoughts on my gear bag? This is just my storage case for home. If I ever bring my camera out, I usually just bring 1 or 2 lenses, a flash, and camera in a smaller bag.>EOS R>Godox V1C>EF 70-200 f/2.8>EF 24-70 f/2.8>RF 15-35 f/2.8>RF 85 1.4>RF 35 1.8[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
>>3967876needs a telephotoalso I'm curious, are you actually getting any use of the 15-35? it's such a limited range I always though getting a 21 or a 24mm prime instead would be pretty much just as good.
>>3967885>telephotoI'm considering a 150-600, just not sure yet if I should wait to see more RF offerings or dip again in EF glass.>15-35It's probably the lens I use most. I shoot mostly landscapes and it's usually one of the lenses I always carry. The PQ is very nice across the whole range, I got it after the 35mm even though there's some overlap because the sharpness is great.
opinions on picrel ? not for fineart...just want to buy one for my nephew/niece as gift so they can use it for their homeworks, also to print some small format photos for fun etc.>EcoTank ET-2720
>>3967920That market is a scan. They place software locks into the printer so they stop workingafter 2 years, and then you take them to the printer repair shops they they push a few buttons to reset the timer.Some brands also put software countdown timer into the ink cartridges.Call your local printer repair shops and ask them which brands they have to repair the most.Those are the printers you should avoid.
*That market is a scam.
Researching some options for replacing an adapted 50mm Super-takumar on an APS-C pentax camera. I like this lens a lot but its handling is not the easiest on digital. It's great when mounted on a Spotmatic, though.Is the Samyang 50mm T1.5 basically the same lens as the 50mm f1.4 AS UMC, but with clickless aperture? The smooth aperture control of the T1.5 version is fascinating, but this lens costs about 100 € more than the f1.4.Another one I'm interested in is the Pentax DFA 50mm f2.8 macro. That one gets very good reviews at PentaxForums. I could use the DFA as a general purpose lens and also for digitizing 35mm film negatives.[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS6 (Macintosh)Image-Specific Properties:Image Width1998Image Height1670Number of Bits Per Component8, 8, 8Pixel CompositionRGBImage OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2015:06:16 00:34:14Color Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width1200Image Height900
>>3967835The problem with these Sigma primes is minimum focus distance, which is a big deal to me for wide angle. F/1.4 is nice to have, though.
>>3968112Wide angle macros have always been a niche, people in general prefer longer working distances so they don't scare off the butterflies and bugs and so on.1:5 isn't really macro anyway, and I sure as hell would never pay 1000 dollars to step up from 0,1 magnification to 0,2.The Sigma is clearly the one to grab, and then have 700 dollars leftover for a real macro.
>>3968115I'm not talking about macro.
>>3968116Macro is just a lens with superior minimum focusing distance.
>>3968118Good for you. I'm talking about the ability to use perspective distortion in a wider variety of photos, doesn't have to be bugs, which would be an odd choice. But when your wide angle lens doesn't allow you to get as close as another lens, then you don't have the same range of options for how you can use it.[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS M6 Mark IIImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2020:02:06 16:30:50Exposure Time1/80 secF-Numberf/4.0Exposure ProgramNormal ProgramISO Speed Rating6400Lens Aperturef/4.0Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternFlashNo FlashFocal Length11.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width6960Image Height4640RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandard
>>3968112>The problem with these Sigma primes is minimum focus distanceThe Sigma 56mm has the best minimum focus distance among all 56mm.
>>3968121Why are you like this
>>3968119If 0,3x magnification is a big deal to you, then you clearly have the lens you need.
>>3968124Maybe I don't like lazy generalisations that are wrong.But also, why do you think it is wrong to compare gear in the gear thread?Maybe you're in a place you don't really want to be in.
>>3968125>0,3x magnificationThe Sigma 16mm has 0.1x maximum magnification. That's a pretty big difference. And I'm not saying that the 11-22 is the be-all, end-all. It's a slow lens. I'm just pointing out why maybe the Sigma primes don't sell too well.
>>3968126>But also, why do you think it is wrong to compare gear in the gear thread?Isn't that what I've been doing this whole time?
>>3968127>I'm just pointing out why maybe the Sigma primes don't sell too well.A needless concern in my opinion, they have sold enough over the years to the point where Sigma now stopped miking with them and given people F2,8 zooms instead.
>>3968128>Isn't that what I've been doing this whole time?Maybe, but it's something you permit yourself, but don't permit others to do.As soon as others try to compare gear you ask them what's wrong with them, when in reality it's a problem inside your own brain.
>>3968129Who said I was concerned? Someone posted a deal. I said, maybe this isn't as much of a deal as it seems. Then you got butt-blasted for some reason.... Did you impulse-buy one?
>>3968131>Who said I was concerned?That's the implication when you say stuff like>I'm just pointing out why maybe the Sigma primes don't sell too well.
>>3968133No, it isn't.
>>3968135Conduct yourself better then if you don't want to be misunderstood.
>>3968136No. YOU fuck off, princess. I'm going to continue to say whatever I think.
>>3968137If you keep say stuff that will get you misunderstood then by all means continue your life of petty arguments.
>>3968139>If you keep say stuffhuh?
>>3968127>And I'm not saying that the 11-22 is the be-all, end-all.Good because there is absolutely nothing special about the Canon zoom at all.
>>3968145Did you miss where it says "Sony E"? The Tamron needs to be used with one of "those" cameras, so not exactly a fair comparison when you can use the 11-22 with a real Japanese camera made by a photography company that has no gaming consoles in their product catalog.Also,>70% of the length>65% of the weightThe appeal of the 11-22, IMO, has a lot to do with the fact that it's so small, for being so wide, for being a zoom, and also for having IS. Optical quality is also quite good. It's a cool lens. Albeit, it has certain limitations, like how slow it is, and you can ONLY use it on a camera system that has a very limited lens ecosystem, but you can't deny that it does fit into a niche for Canon M.
>>3968150>a real Japanese camera made by a photography company that has no gaming consoles in their product catalog.That's not a god thing Anon. They always overprice their products, and recently raise the pricing of all of their EF lenses just because.Also when their camera sales fall into a slump and they start losing ground they won't have other branches subsidising them.
>>3968150You just have to wait a little bit. The Sigma primes were not on EF-M initially either, but eventually they got there.
>>3968151Cope harder, Chang.
>>3968154Are you that britkike who always REEEEs about 7artisan lenses?
I have a 18-55 kit lens that sometimes produces images that are a bit blurry on side of the frame just like this example here. The trees on the left look better defined than on the right, at least to me. Is this abnormal or just something that such cheap optics tend to do?[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakePENTAX CorporationCamera ModelPENTAX K10DCamera SoftwareK10D Ver 1.31Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaFocal Length (35mm Equiv)46 mmImage-Specific Properties:Image Width1500Image Height1007Number of Bits Per Component8, 8, 8Compression SchemeUncompressedImage OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Data ArrangementChunky FormatImage Created2021:11:27 13:39:09Exposure Time1/90 secF-Numberf/6.7Exposure ProgramCreativeISO Speed Rating100Exposure Bias1 EVMetering ModePatternFlashNo FlashFocal Length30.63 mmImage Width1500Image Height1007RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessNormalSubject Distance RangeDistant View
>>3968159Here's SOOC[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakePENTAX CorporationCamera ModelPENTAX K10DCamera SoftwareK10D Ver 1.31Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaFocal Length (35mm Equiv)46 mmImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2021:11:27 16:57:00Exposure Time1/90 secF-Numberf/6.7Exposure ProgramCreativeISO Speed Rating100Exposure Bias1 EVMetering ModePatternFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length30.63 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width1824Image Height1216RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceManualScene Capture TypeStandardContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessNormalSubject Distance RangeDistant View
>>3968159>>3968161seems like you got a decentered lens. If you just purchased it you should be able to return it/exchange it for a working version.
New thread: >>3968182
What are some good gifts for a photographer? Any pieces of gear that you think makes your shoots easier/better that you could recommend?