Pentax OP editionLast one: >>3159782Post anything gear related, cameras, lenses, bags, tripods, other fashion accessories (clothing, fancy straps, Leica) etc...Post your question here, instead of starting a new thread about which lens to buy or what are the best beginner cameras.And don't forget, be polite![EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS 20DLens Size17.00 - 85.00 mmFirmware VersionFirmware 2.0.3Owner NameunknownSerial Number1621016270Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2007:06:05 11:26:31Exposure Time1/125 secF-Numberf/10.0Exposure ProgramNormal ProgramISO Speed Rating100Lens Aperturef/10.0Exposure Bias0 EVFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length28.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width3504Image Height2336RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoScene Capture TypeStandardExposure ModeProgramFocus TypeAutoMetering ModeEvaluativeSharpnessHighSaturationHighContrastHighShooting ModeManualImage SizeLargeFocus ModeOne-ShotDrive ModeSingleFlash ModeOffCompression SettingFineMacro ModeNormalWhite BalanceAutoExposure Compensation3Sensor ISO Speed160Image Number132-3286Color Matrix0
While we're at it, does anyone have experience with both linear and circular polarizers? Are there any differences in the results or nuances at best?
>>3164694Also Lee or Cokin? None of that shitty screw on bullshit, I want a proper filter set starting with the polarizer.
>>3164701I don't have any experience using Corkin or Linear polarizers, but if you decide to go with Lee, I would recommend the 105mm screw on type. It can be mounted on the filter holder system, allowing you to still use nd grad filters like this photo (not mine).
>>3164707Lee looks very promising, but my wallet is not that wide. Will have to look up used ones.I know there are many Cokin sets used on the market, I just don't know if because they are shit or not.Got a Cokin compatible chinese set and after using it once I am already regretting buying it. Insufferable amount of flare and color cast beyond repair.I thought for starters I would get a 2-stop and a 3-stop ND for easy combination as a 5-stop, maybe a soft grad later, but a polarizer is a must for landscapes.
>>3164707>sony as a field cameraWew
I need a tripod that collapses to around 12 inches (no more than 14) and costs under $60 or so. I want something I can keep in a bag.
$300 for a d800 is a good deal?
>>3164744For that money it probably has the oil splatter shutter issue or something else broken, so you will also have to pay for a service.
>>3164744uhh, do you mean a D80? A D80 with kit lens for $300 isn't that good. For not much more you can get a Canon T3i/600D w/ kit lens which is a far more capable camera, or some similarly priced Nikon.If you actually mean a D800 that works then jump on that immediately.
>>316461720MP with anti aliasing filter, or 16MP without anti aliasing filter? which one will produce better quality images?
>>3164732what should it have been?
>>316475316MP has bigger pixels catching more photons. And I suspect the new 20MP sensors have artificial design flaws to reduce quantum efficiency because the older 16MP ones had over 65% efficiency while the new ones barely reach 55%.The 16MP one will have much better DR at base ISO while the newer ones have less but the new processing will give better high ISO performance. Not that much though.I would go for the 16MP one just because bigger pixels.
>>3164746It's a d800 with a 48k shutter count
>>3164773Look up D800 oily sensor issue
>>3164773Jesus fuck, if it’s an actual D800, jump on that goddamn yesterday. If it’s actually an 800D (ie, low end European Canon) or a D80, meh.
>>3164743Dic&Mic E302 / QZSD Q666, available on Ali. I usually recommend the 1/3-1/2 more expensive carbon variants of these, but I guess that would exceed the budget by too much? So I guess you get an alu model.Either collapses to ~35cm (13.7795 inches).Oh, and there are many more brands very comparable models are sold under - Zomei, Andoer and a hundred more. Maybe you'll be able to save a few bucks by comparing.Most of them should be ~the same for all I know, the Dic&Mic has the less common spiked feet (pretty nice) and center column lock (not all that important usually) though.
>>3164797IIRC the spikes can be retracted, but not sure if it is included or an option.
>>316478948k isn't too much?Also how much of an issue is an oily sensor? How would I even be able to tell?
>>3164807Worst case scenario, you have to replace the shutter a bit sooner. That’s a repair that usually costs around $200 or so, I think. Still a hell of a deal.
>>3164807Ask the seller.If it has the issue then you would have to send it in to Nikon service for a cleaning and shutter replacement, with a little luck it is still covered by recall warranty.
>>3164813may be stolen or some grey market thing that wont be covered by warranty
>>3164816The first part can be easily determined, the serial number posted with the advert or on one of the shots can be checked on forums and certain databases.The grey market thing is for the usual warranty stuff, if the manufacturer fucked up (like with an oil splattering shutter) it should still be covered.
>>3164806On the Dic&Mic they're screw-on rather than retractable and included. The Q666 doesn't have any spikes.IDK about other vendors making tripods exactly like these, but Sirui had some models with retractable spikes.
>>3164845I have an old russian travel tripod with retractable spikes and Manfrotto sells retractable spike feet as option for most of their tripods. The normal rubber feet work well on my 190XB for many kinds of ground, soft and concrete as well.
>>3164856> Manfrotto sells retractable spike feet as option for most of their tripodsFor $30-40, as far as I can tell from B&H. [On top of what a comparable Manfrotto tripod by itself costs extra already.}Even going with a Sirui will be cheaper, but the point really mainly was that you can get spikes for that $10 or so price difference from a Q666 to a Dic&Mic. Maybe also on other tripods, IDK.> The normal rubber feet work well on my 190XB for many kinds of ground, soft and concrete as well.Sure. Rubber feet work well on most grounds. It's obvious why essentially all tripods have them by default.Spiked feet are only for some specific situations - uneven hills and slopes, frozen or maybe somewhat rocky / grainy / silty ground like on a riverbed.Quite useful in some places outdoors, basically of no use indoors.
>>3164878Ah yea, you can also generally sufficiently rig even non-replaceable feet with 1-2 tent nails that have a loop or strap of sorts. [Usually no need to do all three feet.]It's a bit less pretty and maybe a bit harder to move around, but it also works.
I got cucked out of the 150 bucks K-r deal by another buyer. I guess I'll have my eyes peeled for any other camera that may show up.
>>3164901Look for a used K-30 or K-50, though it might need an aperture block replacement.
>>3164903Oh I'm not fixated with Pentax, it was just a nice DSLR in my country for 150 bucks. I guess I'll end up going canikon and ordering from abroad. Main problem is that I can't import anything over 200 bucks.
>>3164904>can't import anything over 200 bucksWhere do you live?
>>3164907UruguayI mean, I technically could but I'd get a 60% tax
>>3164913Wow. That sucks.Get an engineering degree and go to a better country.
>>3164917lol, you guessed my planI'm currently in university studying engineering and plan to flee once I get my degree
>>3164913Taxing imported luxury items will help you curb you consumerism and improve your photography. Also it is a boost to the country's burgeoning digital camera industry.
>>3164919Cool, what kind of engineering? I'm in material sciences, 3 more semesters until I get my world class ticket.
>>3164927Cool, don't drop out and I'm sure you will do it.I mean transprtation is not a real engineering, I'm sure you can finish it without any effort.
Urufag here again, D3100 or A700?I'm tempted by the Sony but IDK about the glass availability. I'd like to shoot landscapes mostly>>3164928lolit's harder than it seems tbqh
>>3164929A mount is dying, you might end up with a handful of unserviceable junk. Go with the Nikon instead.
>>3164936Nikon is dying in general.
>>3165001Nikon can make a decent weather sealing in its premium cameras. Sony can't.Nikon's cameras are used in the harshest conditions around the world. Sony strips the warranty if you go near 500m to a "large body of water" including streams or humid places.
>>3164929For the a700, Minolta glass (A mount before Sony bought Minolta) have pretty nice cosmetic designs if you're into that. You can get their 28-70/2.8 for about $400 USD, 80-200/2.8 for $600, 50/1.4 for $150, 85/1.4 for $3-400 on eBay or something. You will need a body with a built-in AF motor, which the a700 shoild have (I think). Like other anon said, A-mount is dead, but maybe more because it's complete. You can retain full AF functionality and all if you decide to go to E-mount later if you get the LA-EA4 or something. The newer A-mount bodies are all SLTs, so if you want an updated DSLR with A-mount, it won't happen.The Nikon is probably a safer choice.
I've been researching a bit while trying to pick out my first real camera. Can someone describe the real differences between entry and mid-range cameras? For example, the Nikon D7200 vs D5500. Both are crop sensor and have very similar specs, but they're $300~ apart.As a complete beginner, I'm sure I'm missing something. The D7200 has double the maximum shutter speed and has more focus points. However, if you use the same lens on both of them, is the D7200 going to produce a photo $300 better than the D5500?Considering the cost of cameras in the first place, I don't want to skimp, but I don't know how to value these changes in specs as a beginner.
>>3165092get the cheaper one because they're all shit compared to anything FF. if i didn't have my d810 i would pick a d3300 to save myself some money to save for a d810 lol
>>3165001I'm the guy asking if D3100 or A700, but you're delusional. It's literally one of the leading brands in the world.>>3165004>Sony strips the warranty if you go near 500m to a "large body of water" including streams or humid places.wtfJUST
>>3165092The glass is more important than the camera
What good old cheap vintage lense for shooting video are there? Preferably M42 or MD mount as I already have adapters.For a A600 vy the way so need to keep the crop factor in mind.
>>3165163Jupiter 9 or 11, Helios 44-2 or 44M
I bought myself a set of M42 Zeiss Jena primes for run and gun film work and I need an ND filter solution. They all have different filter thread sizes so should I buy 4 different circular variable NDs, step-up rings for each lens and then only one filter or is a matte box the only sensible option?
Sony SEL1650 or SEL1855. Also, Is the a6000 the best camera you can get for under 500$ if you want to start with photography ? I feel like most fora are unanimous on that subject, but sometimes I hear here and there that some Fujifilm camera is better.
>>3164617https://www.dxomark.com/nikon-d850-sensor-review-first-dslr-hit-100-points/>sonyshills on suicide watch
>>3165241Fuck it, I just don't know anymore. Have been scouting 2nd hand websites for the last two weeks, calculating what combinations of a new/used body + new/used lens would get me the best price/quality. a6000 kit lens. a6000 1670 Zeiss lens. TI rebel 7. Fuji XT20. All these lenses/body combinations. Avoiding scammers left and right. I really just don't know anymore. It feels like I start from 0 every day and I only want to know what is the best way to spend my 500+something schekels on a good all-around fun kit. Also the a6000 is fugly. \0/
Hey guys I'm a bit of a beginner when it comes to flashes, so please don't roast me for this question lmao --- Will a singular Canon Speedlite 600EX-RT II fire off camera (ie. mounted on a stand), with just a wireless flash transmitter on your camera's hotshoe? Or do you have to trigger it with at least one other Speedlite?Thanks :)
>>3165265>>3165241a6000Plus:>more (and arguably better)lenses>an actually usable raw format>lots of customizable buttons to make interface the way you want it>has an upgrade path (full frame bodies)Minus:>short battery life>old menu system kinda sucks>interface sucks before customization>some lenses can be large>ooc jpegs aren't anything specialX-T20Plus:>looks cooler>small primes>ooc jpegs have lots of cool effectsMinus:>most lenses suck wide open>raws need to be converted to be used with most common apps>autofocus is rather slow>gimmick sensor has color bleed and fuji worm issues>those jpeg effects kinda suckWant something for snapshots and travel? T20 is more than good enough. Want to try photography as a serious hobby, especially post processing? a6000
>>3165286Thanks for making the clear comparison anon, so the 6000 it is. I'm about to buy one for 330, it doesn't look like a scammer.
>>3165313Note that this >>3165286 guy is full of shit.
Is Sony E 50mm f/1.8 OSS a good lens for a beginner? Will be purchasing it with a 6300
>>3164617What tripod head is this? I've been looking for a good pan & tilt head.
>>3165265I'm just as confused as you are anon. There are TONS of options if you take into account used cameras too.My advice: don't focus on quality that much. Go somewhere you can take the cameras in your hand and try them a bit. Shooting experience / having fun using the camera is a very overlooked buying decision
>>3165356And here I thought I was able to finally make a decision. What do you in return recommend anon ? The guy full of shit was the bazillionth one to praise the 6000 as a good beginner camera.[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon PowerShot SD300Camera SoftwareQuickTime 7.0.4Maximum Lens Aperturef/3.2Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandImage OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2006:01:26 14:41:05Exposure Time1/8 secF-Numberf/3.2Lens Aperturef/3.2Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length7.11 mmColor Space InformationsRGB
>>3165362Yea, it is pretty solid.If you wanna save some money you can get one of the e-mount Sigma primes. They are a tad bit sharper, but they lack OSS.
>>3165396He wasn't.This guy >>3165356 is full of shit.Though you should really be looking at the a6300 and not the a6000. a6000 is a little old.
>>3164913>I'd get a 60% taxIs that why Uruguay's shit?
>>3165276I think the new Canon bodies have a built in radio transmitter so you don't have to worry about that shit.
>>3165286What's the Fuji worm issue?
>>3165396Get a Canon
Since the D850 is made in Thailand, is Nikon making anything in Japan anymore?
>>3165276>Will a singular Canon Speedlite 600EX-RT II fire off camera (ie. mounted on a stand), with just a wireless flash transmitter on your camera's hotshoe? >Or do you have to trigger it with at least one other Speedlite?Yes, you can fire it off camera with just a wireless transmitter. With most recent Canon bodies (ie, the ones with a built in flash), you don’t even need a separate transmitter, although that will use the optical wireless triggering instead of radio triggering (I don’t think >>3165432 is right about any Canon body having radio triggering built in, but I could be wrong, and it’s certainly a feature I anticipate being added in the future). That being said, I would strongly recommend looking into the Yongnuo YN600EX-RT and associated wireless trigger. You can buy a set of three for about the price of a single Canon flash, and I’ve been using them for the past two years with no problems. Plus, they’re compatible with all of the Canon (and even Nikon!) wireless TTL triggering systems.
>>3165286>fuji worm issuesUse Capture One / Silkypix / Irrident Developer.Poor lighroom kids are poor.
Thinking of getting my first camera. Choices are between the Lumix GX85, Olymps OM-D E-M10 and the Sony a6000. Anyone have any opinions on these cameras? I'm going to be using them majorly for shooting in the city. Video isn't really something I care about.
>>3165438Ah, unfortunately I have a 5d mk3, which means no built in flash nor wireless trigger feature (this is the only instance where I'll ever complain about having such a camera haha). I'll have to look into the Yongnuo's! Is there any difference from Canon's flagship other than maybe a decrease in build quality (which is totally negligible given that huge price difference O_O)?
>>3165534>Is there any difference from Canon's flagship other than maybe a decrease in build quality (which is totally negligible given that huge price difference O_O)?Yeah, the 5D3 definitely doesn't have the ability to wirelessly trigger a flash built in. It came out before the RT system.> Is there any difference from Canon's flagshipI've never actually used the genuine Canon 600EX-RT, but I'm sure there's some differences. I'm also sure, however, that it's been good enough for anything I've wanted to use it for. And worst case scenario, you can buy the genuine Canon 600EX-RT and it's compatible with the Yongnuo wireless triggers (both standalone and on the flashes), so they can all work together.
Are there any video cameras the size of an action cam which are *not* action camers (e.g. no wide angle, continuous recording, etc.)?
Poor boy here. Recently got a Pentax K-3 (Pentax OP) and a 50mm f1.8 to start out. Wanna get a zoom lens. Don't know what to get to best increase the breadth of what I can shoot. Help.
>>3165656DA 16-85 WR. Corner to corner sharpness, weather sealing, quick and silent AF.Budget alternative is the DA 16-45/4 but expect a bit less sharpness especially at the wide end, no WR, screwdrive AF but is cheap and has constant aperture.
>>3165442>>3165286>>3165433Only an issue if you pixel peep or are printing building sized images.But then again, there really is only a difference between any camera/sensor when you pixel peep.
>>3165703Even /r/photography hates x-trans, and they gargle Fuji's cock all day long.>https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/comments/6cxoqm/xtrans_waxy_watercolor_worms_is_it_serious_or/
>>3165703They look the same
I have a total budget of around $1200. I'm looking to buy my first DSLR camera. I've spent hours researching and looking at different cameras, but having no experience, I can't judge the quality of lens based on the specs sites provide alone. What I think I want is:>an entry level DSLR>a quality telephoto zoom lens that can go up to at least 300mm>a quality prime lens, maybe 50mm
>>3165720Are you blind, anon?Plus that is a very minor example. There is one of a snowy forest that hurts to look at.
>>3165725Maybe a used x0D body with the EF 100-300mm and 50mm f/1.4The zoom isn't of L series quality, but it's pretty good and it will get you started.
>>3165746Not him, but I must be.Can you circle it for me?I'm still having some difficulty.
The YN360 looks like a fun little device but all reviewers on youtube test it by sitting at their desk and shining it on themselves, I mainly use flashes but I was thinking I could really round out my kit with at least one piece of constant lighting.Anyone have any experience with it (Or the ver. 2) alternatively does anyone remember seeing any better than most reviewers of the device?
>>3165725Used Pentax K-5 series for ~300 USD, Tamron 70-200/2.8 (300mm full frame equiv.) for ~500 USD, Sigma or Tamron 17-50/2.8 for ~200 USD if you want a good zoom setup for ~1000 USD. If you definitely want a prime you can get the Pentax DA 35/2.4 for the ~50mm full frame equiv. for ~80 USD instead of the 17-50 zoom, which will cut your costs down to ~900 USD. If you want the 50/1.8, it's about the same price as well.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2017:10:07 20:20:14Color Space InformationsRGBImage Width2518Image Height1024
im a complete beginnerwhat do you think?
>>3165882I'd do this: >>3165880Same poster, but I'd do the K-5 with the Sigma or Tamron 17-50/2.8. You get dual control dials and a good fast normal zoom lens for about 500 USD. Or if you want to stick with Nikon, I think the D7000 should be about the same price as the Pentax setup with the same lenses in F(?)-mount.
>>3165887unfortunately for me $350 is nearly my max budget, thats why i was looking at refurbs
>>3165461I had the exact same decision as you earlier this year. I basically thought of it like this:gx85+ 4k video+ dual isem10+ best ergonomics in my opinion (articulating screen, evf, controls ect)+ ibis+ features like high res modea6000+ apsc+ I think it has the fastest af+ 24mpThey are all pretty even, but generally each one excels at a certain thing. For video capabilities id go gx85 (4k stabilized), for stills its between the em10 and a6000. em10 for architecture (high res mode), a6000 for people (fast af). Really they are close enough that one having a better deal could just tip the scales in its favor.
>>3165880If Pentax, you might want to recommend the DA 55-300 WR, excellent little light consumer telezoom. In the Pentax world it is considered as THE budget wildlife lens.But yeah, the Tamron 70-200/2.8 is a must have, mine works just as much as my dedicated wildlife lens.
So, I've been thinking about upgrading my 6dmk1 to a 5dm3. The thing is, it'll cost me around 400-500 Eurobucks to make the transition. The main thing I want to get is a better af system. And the double SD cards may be good for backups. But 500 euros for that?
>>3165241The cheapo d3300/3400 is a strong rival to your a6000
>>3165925Go for a 6DMkII instead, or just stay with the 6D and go to places.
>>3165172>>3165158Source: my ass
Wanted a 70-200 2.8 for almost 8 years now. I'm finally able to afford/getting one. It arrives monday. Hype![EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CC 2015.5 (Windows)Image-Specific Properties:Image Created2016-11-07T20:28:04+01:00FlashNo Flash FunctionImage Width2604Image Height1576
made about $2400 selling random shit I had in my basement. I'm Thinking of this setup, getting the stuff as cheap as possible, like on ebay and shit. Tell me what you think /p/. D750, w/ Nikon AF-S FX NIKKOR 50mm f/1.8G, Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 35mm f/1.8G, Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6G
>>3166052DX lenses are crop lenses.
>>3166053Didn't know that. thanks. What lenses would be similar (I wanted 3 so I can have a variety), that work really well with it?
>>3166053Or at least what lens combo would you recommend that add up under $100
>>3165950Yeah, second advice is probably a way to go. Thx
>>3166055Get the FX versions. 24-85 G VR, 50 1.8G, and 85 1.8G. Standard zoom, standard lens, portrait lens.That last lens could be any of your choosing. 85 1.8G for portraiture, 60/2.8G or D for macro, 70-300G VR for telephoto, the old 20/2.8 or 24/2.8D for wide angle.That's all assuming used prices.
>>3166052i'd just get the cheaper 50 1.8 that you can snag on ebay for $80. 35 is pretty boring, i'd rather have the 28mm f/2.8 (chances are if you have a 35 you won't really be using it wide open). 16-85 is okay but you will already have a 28 and a 35 which are wide enough. i recommend getting an 85 prime so you have that extra bit of aperture
>>3166038and that's the one you chose?anon, please
>>3166038What do guys are with these? I automatically assume they are all birders
>>3166075it's a good one>>3166079sports. seems like sports photographers don't post here a lot, though.
>>3166079>birding>200mmYeah, nah. 70-200 is good for most sports, but way too short to be birding for the most part.
>>3166093It's also good for portraits. Great telephoto range on crop and good normal-telephoto range on full frame.
>>3166079they are good for sports, portraits, some journalism, events. if you put a x2 telextender it'll do fine for birds
Trying to decide on a used FF Nikon D810 or a new Canon 80D. The Canon is Newer, Cheaper, lighter, 25% higher max ISO, 30 more cross type focus points, 2 fps faster, and last but not least has an articulating screen. The Nikon has a full frame 36MP sensor (50% more pixels), higher color depth, higher dynamic range, better high ISO performance, longer shutter life, slightly longer battery. HELP! I've been losing sleep over this decision.
>>3166073Ok, I think I'll Probably do the 24-85 G VR, 50 1.8G, and 70-300G VR. For a really well rounded first setup. Later I might get the macro. But that setup seems to cover most bases really well, without me feeling disappointed about the limits (like the 70-300 for distance)
Why are there so few new "body only" cameras available on Amazon? I want the full warranty without kit lenses.
>>3166111Since you like looking at numbers so much, I think a Sony would be better for you. Sony has cameras with the highest numbers.>>3166117Remember that there's two versions of the 24-85, three of the 70-300, and two of the 50 1.8. You want the 24-85 G VR, AF-S 70-300 G VR, AF-P 70-300E VR, and either of the two AF 50mms.
>>3166111The ISO range on the crop camera is not equivalent to ff. Crop factor applies to ISO too so ISO 400 on the 80D would looks noisy like ISO 600 on the 810D. Actual number will probably more than that since the sensor on professional camera like the D810 will have much better sensitivity.Tldr ff is always better don't listen to four turds and aspc fags.
>>3166111Canon's APS-C sensors are a mess these days so obviously D810. Your photos are still gonna suck though :^)
>>3165001>Can't make the D850 fast enough to keep up>dyingI'm not saying Nikon will last forever but you're jumping the gun. Also your F mount lenses will always be useful, even if Nikon goes bust in ten years and you have to use them adapted on someone else's mirrorless body.
>>3165092A D7x00 series camera is easier to hold, easier to look through, and has more buttons so it's easier to use. It also autofocuses with older lenses. I'd take a D7000 over a D5500, no question.
>>3165265Used D7000. Cheap enough that it doesn't matter if you don't love it, Capable enough to do 93% of what any other camera can do.You will love it though.
>>3165436The most expensive lenses and the D5. Possibly their super secret mirrorless project.Thai factories are just clones of the Japanese ones though. Sigma and Tamron are forced to make all their stuff in Japan because "MADE IN JAPAN" makes you less anxious about off-brand lenses.
>>3165461micro 4/3 as some incredible little lenses. The Olympus 45/1.8 is beautiful and not very expensive. The PanaLeicas are magnificent.
>>3165534Yongnuo flashes are pretty good. Plus, even if you break and replace four of them you'll still have spent less than the price of one Canon flash.
>>3165725I'd get a used D7000 instead of a Pentax because then you'd have a bigger second-hand lens market available to you.
>>3166052oh dear me...OK get a 35 f/1.8 or 35 f/2 (make sure it's FX goddammit) and an 85 f/1.8. Then use your feet.
>>3166132Ah, I didn't know crop factor effected ISO too. Just focal length and aperture. Thanks!
>>3166152Yea this Anon >>3166073Gave me suggestionsand I decided >>3166117
>>3166152>>3166155Does that seem good? or are your suggestion more preferable?
Voigtlander 21 1.8 or Loxia 21 2.8?I'm a sucker for sunstars and the Loxia is the king but Voigt speed seems nice for astro despite the vignetting unless stopped down to 2.8
>>3166159Either is perfectly reasonable. I just think it'd be a good idea to go with the 35 and the 85 primes first. Get to know the camera, get to know the lenses. Then get another lens later on when you have a better idea of what you're missing.A zoom is handy if you're feeling a bit lazy but a 35/1.8 lets in about 6 times as much light as the 24-85 and weighs nothing. That might make you quicker to grab it as you're going out the door.If, three months from now, you feel like you really wish you had a wider lens or you really wish you had a longer lens, you can get one then. Far better than spending money on a lens now and then never using it.I know this because I have a 70-200 f/2.8 and it's great when I use it, but I hardly ever do because it's fuckin hueg.[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.4 (Macintosh)PhotographerRoss Harvey PhotographyImage-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2014:09:29 10:42:03Color Space InformationUncalibrated
>>3166181So then Maybe the 24-85 isn't the first best. So I might get that later. but switch it with the 35 and keep the 70-300 because Having the Minolta Beercan, I Have found that I like Zoom and it definitely opens up more photos that may be harder to get without it (like an eagle lives near me, but it hard to photo because it takes off really easily). I think the 50 and 35 should cover all of my basic Photos and a well-rounded set. also thinking the 50 over the 85 for now because of the price. I think I can get great value for a starter lens from it.
>>3166190in the end, I'll Do a lot more research on ones you guys suggested and then determine which ones would fit me best.
>>3166181Why are weak beta numales allowed to buy cameras?
What is /p/'s thoughts on buying new gear? and what are some precautions to take? I was looking at the D750 being sold on amazon used. Are used bodies generally ok? and if I get a D750 with the flare problem, does Nikon honor recalls of buying used?
>>3166394If it has a full warranty, it's within the warranty period, and it's from the same country as you, then you should have no problem
i just impulse bought a sony NEX-C3 with 18-55mm lens for 150i've been looking at cameras for like a month now, i think the 18-55mm will be fine for general photography, correct?should i cancel my order or is this camera worth the price
>>3166550It's a good everyday MILC. Not something for serious work but something you can bring everywhere and take snaps.Dunno if it has manual mode, if yes you might even do some landscape photography with filters and such and a cheap light travel tripod.Find a nice 24-35mm prime for better IQ.
>>3166550How much did you spend?It is a solid camera, but pretty old now. The 18-55 is a solid kit lens, but not L or GM glass or anything.I hope you can get great results shooting raw, the jpegs coming out of that model are kinda bad.
>>3166554amazon warehouse deals had it for $150 with shipping which is why i impulse bought>>3166552what do you mean by manual mode?
>>3166554>>3166550Oh I see now, you said $150. That is a pretty good price. The lens alone is worth about that.>>3166552It does have manual and priority modes, but that it kinda awkward with the one control dial.My biggest issue with it would be the lack of evf. Some of the other NEC bodies of that time could take the evf attachment which makes it a lot easier to compose in bright sunlight.
>>3166557That would be the Nex-5n and upwards, the original Nex 5 and lower didn't work.>>3166556Manual mode is where the exposure is not set by automatic process or a priority program and you set all the parts yourself, like shutter speed, aperture and ISO.
>>3166558Yea, the NEX-3, 5, and 3C did not support the evf attachment.I actually have a 3C, it is pretty solid. It does lack lens profiles for newer lenses, but that is easily fixed with lightroom.
>>3165403As long as they're not for video use, Sigmas are noice.
Any non-shit tier sources on whether the Samyang/Rokinon AF 35mm f/2.8 for Sone is any good?
>>3166566It's not a Sony, that should be enough proof it is good.
>>3166566From what I hear it is okay.Falls short of the 35mm Zeiss (in image quality and autofocus), but it is worth it unless you can find the Zeiss cheap.
the nikon af-p kit lens is sharper than the fuji kit lens
>>3166631None of the fuji lenses are really sharp.But they have that fuji glow.
Looking for a camera, mostly wildlife and city still shot focused. Priorities are, in descending order:- Still image quality- Low light performance - Comprehensive auto focus- Weather resistance- Dynamic image quality- 4K Video (not absolutely required)Im looking to spend $1000-$1200 for body and lens (18mm-50mm is fine). Does anyone have any recommendations for me?
>>3166678no senpai, 18-50 ain't fine for wildlife. Grab a D3400 or something with a 18-55 and a 70-300You just ain't gonna get all that stuff in a good body at that price range.
>>3166687It doesn't have to have all of those things, that's just a list of priorities, with the most important things at the top. What's the biggest advantage of having a 70-300?
>>3166691I'm not that guy, and I don't even have a DSLR yet, but I've been taking pictures with a shitty point & shoot of birds, and the max focal length of 86mm is nowhere near enough. I'm right up on top of these birds and it's still not as close as I want the shot to be. If you're interested in taking pictures of animals that aren't going to let a human walk right up to them, you'll need something longer than 50mm.
>>3166692Makes sense! So far I've been deciding between:- Canon EOS Rebel XSi- Sony A7 - Pentax K-90- Canon EOS 80D- Nikon D5600- Nikon D7100- Olympus OM-D E-M10Clearly im all over the place, im finding it very hard to precisely evaluate how each of these cameras performs relative to one another. Are there any that are straight out for my purposes?
>>3166636No wonder it's Ken's favorite camera. >The X100 creates fantastic skin tones in any light, and make more accurate photos of tan colors than I've ever gotten from my Canon or Nikon DSLRs. When my condo was repainted, I wasn't able to get a photo that showed it accurately until I tried the X100. It's amazing how the X100 gives bright colors, as well as extremely accurate colors that used to be difficult to reproduce.[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeFUJIFILMCamera ModelFinePix X100Camera SoftwareDigital Camera FinePix X100 Ver1.01Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.0Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaMaker Note Version0130Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2011:05:25 11:55:10Exposure Time1/100 secF-Numberf/2.2Exposure ProgramNormal ProgramISO Speed Rating200Lens Aperturef/2.2Brightness3.3 EVExposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashFlash, CompulsoryFocal Length23.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width4288Image Height2848RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardSharpnessNormalSubject Distance RangeUnknownSharpnessNormalWhite BalanceAutoChroma SaturationHighFlash ModeOnMacro ModeOffFocus ModeAutoSlow Synchro ModeOffPicture ModeProgram AEContinuous/Bracketing ModeOffBlur StatusOKFocus StatusOKAuto Exposure StatusOK
>>3166636Is the glow, the weird white aura around subjects that appears? I've been doing test shots with my new x-t20, and there's always this weird softness and whiteness around the border of things unless I stop down to f8 or more. Is it like that on the prime lenses too?
>>3166699XSi has the worst sensor in all of the cameras you've listed, so it fails the image quality and low-light requirements. Also really old and loses to the rest of the cameras you've listed. Don't get it.The A7 has a good sensor and should be the best for image quality and low light. I think Sony has forced noise reduction even on the RAWs in low-light situations which kills detail though. AF isn't the fastest. Isn't weather sealed. Not sure about video.80D should do well for video with its dual-pixel AF thing. The x0D series is on the same tier as the Nikon D7x00 series I believe. Good all around like the D7100.D5000 series is kinda half-assed, so might as well step up to the D7000 series. Skip.D7100 is pretty good in terms of image quality and AF from my limited use of it. Low light is good, it should be weather sealed. Good all around except video, which is mediocre. E-M10 doesn't have weather sealing and has the smallest sensor of the bunch. Doesn't do as well in low light compared to the others except the XSi. Autofocus isn't the fastest. Not sure about video.I'd probably pick the 70D/80D or D7100/7200.
So I was after a new digital for my girlfreind (upgrading from a 5 year old compact... she has no idea about photography) for under £350 and settled on a Nikon B700, needs to be smaller so seemed ideal? Please be kind /p/, did I fuck up? What should I have got?
>>3166699I've been staring at this comment for 5 minutes trying the figure out why in the world you would include the XSi in a list with the other options.
About EVF. Is more dots always better? Is 2.7M dots LCD better than 2.4M dot OLED?
>>3166699Get the EM10. But if you’re not poor, buy the A7. You’ll be surprised how much cool design can affect your creativity
>>3166710I’m not sure why JPEGs are such a big deal in choosing camera. Nowadays you can easily control how your JPEGs will turn out. Even Olympus cameras can have that Fuji JPEG.
>>3166805Yes yes you did should of gone with any interchangeable mirrorless camera or low end dslr
>>3166714He was being sarcastic.Quite a few of the Fuji lenses are quite terrible until stepped down to f/4. Some should be avoided completely (the 18mm for example).
>>3166809Price and value considerations
How does focus by wire work? Is it the ring giving signal to make the optics move, or is it digital artificial focusing?
>>3166890Ring gives commands to focus motors.The bad thing is that many have a delay between rotating the ring and the focus motor responding. Others have a terrible acceleration, where the faster you spin the faster it changes.Only a few lenses (the Sony 90mm Macro for example) do focus by wire correctly.
Which one is the better brand in terms of full frame lenses? Nikon or Sony?
>>3166937Nikon has a hell of a lot more in terms of variety.All of Sony’s recent G and GM lenses have been absolutely fantastic though.
is this a good deal?
>>3166954Yes if it would be a D7200The D7500 is to be avoided at all times.
>>3166937Sony's E-mount has really amazing prime lenses from wide to short telephoto. But there are only a handful of great zoom lenses.Nikon F has long telephoto lenses, more choices for zoom lenses and more cheaper / average priced glass.
>>3166954Do you really need the online class?Are you going to use the case? My d7200 fits in my shoulder bag and you know thats a lot more comfortable.Two Sd card slots and you're going to throw in a single 32gb card?The kit lens is fine but the added lens is just okay. Warranty is solid thought I wont shit on the value that gives you.
>>3167035>...fits in my shoulder bag and you know thats a lot more comfortableThat's not entirely trueShoulder bags are practical but far from comfortable. If you want comfortable, get a trekking backpack
>>3167040I think there's a tier list to be made here, and I admit a shoulderbag would not be at the top, but it's above those little satchels like in the picture.
>>3166881Nah they really are not. Don't be a meme parrot.
why do noisy pictures look better in MFT pictures than FF? seriously. of course MFT pictures are prone to low resolution cropping, but when you shoot both in low light and high ISO, MFT results are more pleasing to see. they're like film.
>>3167074This is the gear thread. You were probably looking for the stupid questions thread here >>3157031
I had to photograph an event whilst wearing a paintball mask. I could hardly see the viewfinder it was very small.Is it possible to use like a loupe to correct the viewfinder so I can see the view finder normally
>>3167136Use the liveview and a liveview screen loupe
>>3167138I'm on a film camera
>>3167141That is your problem
so I'm still looking for the perfect camera>reinforced frame/chassis (or whatever it's called) >weatherproof>under £600 (with a lens)>compact (if possible)currently looking at the pentax q-s1 but can't find out if it's weatherproof and does anyone have sample pictures taken by it?
>>3167146Pentax K-50 or K-S2
>>3167150thats anything to look for when buying second hand cameras and is £350 a good price for the k-50 with a lens?
>>3167151The K-S2 has the new design kit lens which is considerably sharper than the old one.There is one for sale just in your budget, and white color.
>>3167153*one for sale here
>>3167153>>3167154at the risk of sounding stupid on this https://www.dpreview.com/products/compare/side-by-side?products=pentax_k50&products=pentax_ks2 it says image ration 3:2, does this mean I can't shoot 16:9 wallpapers? hope that makes sense
>>3167157Yes, it is stupid.The 3:2 ratio means the frame taken is a 3:2 ratio. It is entirely up to you what ratio to cop later, you can do whatever you want in post.
>>3167173ok thanks my man ks2 it is
So, should I get a cheap sharp 1080p action cam with decent EIS or cheap sharp action cam + cheap gimble.Or cheap gimble for my A7s (like the zhiyun) or something.I feel like an action cam + cheap gimble might go well, as you can still run that straight on your shoulder.
>>3167180EIS is bullshit, introduces more vibration than what it can fix, if it can fix some.Get a Session 4 or a Runcam 3 and a gimbal stick thing for stabilization.
never taken a photo before, where do i start?
Is is stupid to buy a Canon 5D mark I?
is it okay to take pictures of landscapes with a sun in the frame using mirrorless cameras since the sensor doesn't have a mirror to block the sensor before snapping a pic? I'm using a fast shutter speed so it's just a quick snap. Should I just not risk it? The california fire is making the sky very pretty today
I need some advice gents. I'd like to buy a cheaper/used DSLR camera that can also do 1080p video but I'm not sure what to buy.For the past few years, I've been making nature/hiking/gear-review types of videos for Youtube and have been using one of the Canon Powershot cameras that takes decent pictures and video clips in 720p. I'm tired of it and want something that takes better pictures and video.I've come close to buying a Canon camcorder that they sell at Costco for around $300 but didn't pull the trigger because it probably takes shit stills.What's my best option in $500 range for a new/used DSLR? What should I look out for?
>>3167316sony a6000, good af video tracking for your vlogs
>>3167322damn that's a nice camera! but it's out of my budget for now. got some other recommendations anon? something older/cheaper that I can buy used?
>>3167325you can find it secondhand for 350~eu
>>3167336>SonyWhy Sony? Just personal preferences? Aren't Sony lenses much harder to find for cheap?>>3167341Hmmm.. maybe they're more common in the EU. On ebay, when I narrow it down to NA sellers, they're not far off the retail price.
>>3167292Most modern APS-C outperform that dinosaur.
>>3167297Try it out and report back
check it out boyos. its finally here. and it looks ridiculous lol[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:PhotographerAaron BaxterImage-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpiColor Space InformationsRGB
>>3167424Show pictures taken with it, Aaron
>>3167439Dont tell me what to do! Also wtf, why is lightroom now including that in exif?
I'm looking for a low budged video fluid head and came across this thing: https://www.amazon.de/dp/B01LPFBZXE/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_atc3zb160E8TJCan anyone tell me what kind of QR plate that is? Would the base be compatible with my Arca Swiss plates?Glad for any info.
>>3167345>Why Sony? Just personal preferences? MIrrorless, so great video autofocus/tracking.Honestly the a6000 is quite old now, but will still outperform most DSLRs when it comes to video. >Aren't Sony lenses much harder to find for cheap?Yes and now. You should be able to find what you need relatively cheap.The issue is the G and G Master lenses (think Canon L) cost a few hundred more than their Canon equivalents.
>>3167424So how is it, Aaron?I was considering the Sony 70-200mm f/4, but I haven't talked myself into spending that much money yet.
>>3167465It's not bad, but I haven't done a lot with it yet. Just got it this afternoon. I would like to have the f/4 just to have that native AF, but hard to deal with low light. This is the first pic I got out of it.[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpiColor Space InformationsRGB
>>3167467It is a screw driven lens, right?I found the EA4 adapter to be good enough for most situations but it is far from fast.I really wish Sony would release an updated version with a99ii focus speeds.
>>3167481No, the Tamron is USM and the e-mount 70-200 f/4 is whatever high speed AF motor sony is using now. The LA-EA3 the Tamron seems to work okay from 70 to about 170mm, once you get close to 200mm it starts to struggle with tracking.
>>3167487I meant the Tamron, I know about the SEL70200G. Good to hear it is USM though.The EA3's performance is highly dependant upon the body used. It works a lot better on something like the a6500 or a9.
>>3167492I have it on the a6300 right now, which has the same AF system as the 6500. I've seen killer performance on the a9 though. If they put the a9's AF in the next camera (A7iii?) I might have to get a second job to get that lol.
>>3167499The 6500 actually has improved af over the 6300.Not by much, but there is a difference.
retard question, does canon Eos m6 goes down to 400/kit after 2-3 seasons?
I just bought this lens even though I already have the 55mm F1,8. Since the thing is 30% off.If the AF speed isn't too terrible for a walk around lens, I might actually keep it, and sell my 55mm.
>>3167424>There are people still shilling the a6000 as a proper replacement for a DSLRIt's a glorified compact
>>3167574It's better than most dslrs.
>>3167571What?The 55mm is better in every way. Pretty sure it is smaller and lighter too.
>>3167577But it doesn't have good Macro capability.I tried to equip some extension tubes with electronics on the 55, and the Autofocus became haywire. I lost the ability to focus to infinity, and close focus AF was really slow.This one is an all in 1 type of thing.
>>3167582If you want a good macro, get the 90mm, it is an absolute beast.
>>3167583I think the Sony lineup was made for the following combinations:FE 90mm G Macro + 55mm F1,8 Zeissvs.FE 85mm F1,8 + FE 50mm MacroI have been thinking since I already have the 85mm, the 50 Macro is probably the better match for my setup.
>>3167575Hahhahhaahah yeah if you count all dslr's sold in the past ~15 years, but compared to modern ones, no.
>>3167588>but compared to modern onesBut that's that I am doing. It's a ridiculously competent camera.
>>3167591No it fucking is not. You haven't even held a proper dslr, let alone used one.
>>3167588Compared to modern entry level cameras? Yea it blows most of them out of the water.Once you get past entry level it gets much less attractive though.
>>3167594You mean compared to Pentax K-70 and KP?I don’t think so.
>>3167623K-70 is a lot more.And a6000 gives it a run for its money.Plus Pentax is dieing.
>>3167628Pentax is not dying.
>>3167623>Pentax K-70Maybe they should try to release camera that doesn't fail at even the most simple AF tasks.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gt-JzpoPmiU
>>3167584> I have been thinking since I already have the 85mm, the 50 Macro is probably the better match for my setup.Not necessarily, no. The 90mm FE Macro is a somewhat different lens from an 85mm 1.4GM or 1.8. Quite interesting to have both, really.Of course it's a cost factor - if you can't, get the 50mm macro. It's still a great macro lens.
>>3167632>Of course it's a cost factor Yup, what draws me to the 50mm Macro is it's 30% off right now, and just 350 bucks.They ran out, and the backorder queue is 1-2 months, but I think I can sell my 55mm in the meantime.
>>3167630>AF without using the DSLR's AF moduleWhat's the point of doing that?
>>3167629>dropping market share>constant layoffs>less and less releases every yearYep, totally healthy.
>>3167635Because that's its greatest weakness.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8TF0ygp5WoYou wanted me to believe the A6000 sucked, but I'm telling you it's by far the more complete and competent camera across all disciplines.
>>3167639It's not a mirrorless camera, you're supposed to focus with the mirror down.
>>3167643Nah, they said they tried to improve the liveview with PDAF, but as you can see they hopelessly suck at it.So it's not for lack of trying, they simply don't have the competence.
Bought this at a thrift store for 30 dollars, how good(bad) did I do
>>3166147>Thai factories are just clones of the Japanese ones though.No they're not. They have Japanese supervisors but the QC will never be as good as if it was made in Japan.
>>3167645Finetuning will come in a later firmware update.It's just that it has a perfectly working PDAF for stills, video is not a priority on a Pentax.Besides as I read somewhere, the dual pixel AF algorithm is different in stills liveview and in video modes, tracking for video will be improved in a later firmware update.The fact that it takes as long makes me wonder what is in research at RICOH, could be they are working on a K-mount mirrorless with EVF and protruding element lens designs. If something like this, then I bet the firmware update is due a couple months after the new camera release.Just think about it, proper mirrorless operation on a full body empty mirrorbox APS-C and FF camera, recent design EVF, able to use all older lenses without an adapter, new lens designs allow for true pancake fast UWA lenses, proper grip and balance for bigger lenses, actually working weather sealing etc...Sony will have a bigger competition and Nikon will be finished.
>>3167654If shutter and light seals work, then it's a good buy. Now shell out that wad of cash for the film and developing chems. In a few months it will cost more than buying an intermediate APS-C/FF digital body instead.
I'm the dude who modified an EF-S 55-250 IS STM on the last thread to mount it on EF only bodies.Well, I've done the same with my EF-S 10-18mm IS STM and the results are much better than I expected.On this lens the rear element actually moves outside the EF mount boundaries when it's at 10mm, so at 10mm the mirror hits the element. At 11mm and more everything works well.There is a fisheye thing going on until 14mm, from there on it's basically rectilinear. The corners are much less soft than I would ever expect. Once you turn on the lens correction profile and let LR remove the chromatic aberration the photos look pretty good.Overall this is a very usable mod, much more than the 55-250 IS STM which vignettes too much.This lens goes for about $150 used, $200 gray market, so if someone wants a cheap as fuck ultrawide for their EF cameras this mod is insane. I've even painted a red ring with nail polish to acknowledge this lens's upgrade to full frame.[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Camera ModelPixelCamera SoftwareHDR+ 1.0.163413028zEquipment MakeGoogleSensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaMaximum Lens Aperturef/2.0Image-Specific Properties:Image Width3036Image Height4048Image OrientationTop, Left-HandImage Created2017:10:10 12:31:34Horizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiISO Speed Rating1268Exposure ProgramNormal ProgramF-Numberf/2.0Exposure Time15001/500000 secSubject Distance RangeMacroSharpnessNormalFocal Length4.67 mmSaturationNormalFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryContrastNormalMetering ModeCenter Weighted AverageScene Capture TypeStandardSubject Distance0.20 mExposure Bias0 EVImage Height4048White BalanceAutoBrightness-1.6 EVExposure ModeAutoImage Width3036Lens Aperturef/2.0RenderingCustomColor Space InformationsRGB
>>3167673>I've even painted a red ring with nail polish to acknowledge this lens's upgrade to full frameNow I know this is genuine trolling
>>3164732Implying any camera can't be a field camera as long as you know how to bracket and combine shots.>ISHYGDDT
>>3167677Why would it be trolling? I didn't even mention uncle terry or froknowsphoto[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Camera ModelPixelCamera SoftwareHDR+ 1.0.163413028zEquipment MakeGoogleSensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaMaximum Lens Aperturef/2.0Image-Specific Properties:Image Width3036Image Height4048Image OrientationTop, Left-HandImage Created2017:10:10 12:30:49Horizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiISO Speed Rating680Exposure ProgramNormal ProgramF-Numberf/2.0Exposure Time15001/500000 secSubject Distance RangeMacroSharpnessNormalFocal Length4.67 mmSaturationNormalFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryContrastNormalMetering ModeCenter Weighted AverageScene Capture TypeStandardSubject Distance0.15 mExposure Bias0 EVImage Height4048White BalanceAutoBrightness-0.7 EVExposure ModeAutoImage Width3036Lens Aperturef/2.0RenderingCustomColor Space InformationsRGB
>>3167673>>3167677>>3167680From top to bottom: 18mm, 16mm, 14mm[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS 5D Mark IICamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CC 2014 (Macintosh)Photographer@donotnootMaximum Lens Aperturef/5.2Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpiImage Created2017:10:10 13:14:02Exposure Time1/500 secF-Numberf/5.0Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating1000Lens Aperturef/5.0Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModeCenter Weighted AverageFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length14.00 mmColor Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width3000Image Height6000RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandard
>>3167681Corners are fucked beyond hope.The Tokina 10-17 performs better on FF than this piece of crapturd
>>3167686that's a fisheye and costs 2.5x what the ef-s 10-18 costs maygn
>>3167691There's the Tokina 11-16 and the Sigma 10-20 as wellIf you don't have the money, you might as well give up on photography you kakujin
>>3167673>that beat up 5d2how much did you pay for that thing?
>>3167695>If you don't have the money, you might as well give up on photography you kakujin>t. gearfag
>>31677109000 thai baht55k shutter count
>>3167719How many guys fucked your boipussy to be able to afford it? Did you like it white or black?
>>3167719not bad I guessdid you let the seller get into your boipucci to reach that price?
>>316772610 thai dudes and 5 ladyboysall black>>3167729It was on the shelf listed for 10000 baht (pic related), i looked at it, opened up calc on my phone, realized it was cheap as fuck and started testing every single thing i could think of. All seemed alright, then I asked what the shutter count was, which took like 5 minutes for the guy to understand and then connected it to a mac, said 55k, then i told the guy I'd give him 9000 baht and he said ok after asking the manager in thai.It came without batteries or charger but I already had a bunch because my main body was a 7D, which I had no intention of replacing at all until I saw this cheap as fuck 5D2.I'm adapting the lenses because I have nothing better to do with my time while I wait for my gray market 24-70 2.8 to arrive.I'm becoming such a gearfag fml I used to be so happy with my 40D and 28-80 USM a couple years ago...........[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Camera ModelPixelCamera SoftwareHDR+ 1.0.163413028zEquipment MakeGoogleSensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaMaximum Lens Aperturef/2.0Image-Specific Properties:Image Width3036Image Height4048Image OrientationTop, Left-HandImage Created2017:10:10 14:44:55Horizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiISO Speed Rating152Exposure ProgramNormal ProgramF-Numberf/2.0Exposure Time2501/250000 secSubject Distance RangeMacroSharpnessNormalFocal Length4.67 mmSaturationNormalFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryContrastNormalMetering ModeCenter Weighted AverageScene Capture TypeStandardSubject Distance0.08 mExposure Bias0 EVImage Height4048White BalanceAutoBrightness3.0 EVExposure ModeAutoImage Width3036Lens Aperturef/2.0RenderingCustomColor Space InformationsRGB
>>3167738Well, you obviously fucked up the precise seating of the mirror assembly, so you can say bye-bye to your AF accuracy.
>>3167743as if the 5d2 had precise AF anyway
WHAT THE FUCK!>https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1940283777/expect-the-unexpected-digifilmtm-camera-by-yashica
>>3167749that's the most retarded shit i've ever seen
>>3167749worthless toy for hipster larpers>>3167769same
>>3167749>1/3.2-inch CMOS sensor Why does it have this when it's a film camera?
>>3167635Because the K70 has dual pixel AF like Canon... except it sucks.And Pentax's traditional PDAF sucks too anyways.https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/pentax-k-70/6
>>3167806It’s not a film camera. It’s a digital camera and the way you control the settings is to pop in these little “digifilm” modules. It looks like, from the description on the site, they’re literally nothing other than settings setters for the electronics in the camera. It’s like if Canon charged you an extra fee to use iso 400 and black and white at the same time, then another fee to use iso 1600, then another fee to turn on vivid mode, etc. And the camera itself has a 1/3.2” sensor. That’s small even for a cellphone these days. Unprecedented.
>>3167813You also have to wind it.Gotta admit, I might have been interested if it had an ASP-C sensor and a decent lens, even with the gimmick.
>>3167811>tests AF tracking towards the camera with slow screwdrive lenses intended for single focusing and portraits>comparing results with higher tier sports oriented cameras>dpreviewYou know the K-70 is an entry level camera, right? There is a very good reason why it's performance is mostly "entry level"If you know a thing or two about photography you can do a lot with it though.
>>3167822>It’s like if Canon charged you an extra fee to use iso 400 and black and white at the same time, then another fee to use iso 1600, then another fee to turn on vivid mode, etc. Holy fucking shit. That's insane.These are things we take for granted these days. They have to be free features, or the camera is going to suck.
>>3167825The discussion started because some idiot said the A6000 sucked, and then he recommends a camera that's more expensive and sucks even more.I don't even-
>>3167826Californian residents will buy it in bulks to look hip while drinking their juicero drinks.
>the films aren't also write-once memory modules for 36 images that you read using a proprietary readerDropped the ball
>>3167825>When the same settings were applied to the kit 18-135mm lens, suddenly the camera had problems keeping up, apparently hindered by the slower autofocus motor. Performance was improved marginally by switching to the 70-200mm F2.8 for a couple roundsUSM, and DC motor, respectively.> AF is merely - at best - on par with some DSLRs, worse when used with the majority of slower-to-focus lenses>slow screwdrive lenses intended for single focusing and portraitsAnd yet Nikon had no problems tracking subjects with screw driven lenses back in the day.And this K70 uses the same SAFOX11 from the K3/K3-II:>What the K-3 struggled with rather more, every time we tested it, was subjects coming towards it (movement in the Z, distance axis), and we weren't ever able to get the camera to pretty successfully track a subject in both the Z and Y axes>Much of the problem with Z-axis tracking appeared to relate to the focus speed of the lenses, with even the fastest lens we used struggling to work at much above walking pace. (18-135, 20-40L, 55, 50-135/2.8).Good job Pentax.https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/pentax-k-3/8But wait, let's look at Pentax's best camera:https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/pentax-k-1/6>Unfortunately, the improvements really don't seem to make that great of a difference in terms of performance as the K-1's autofocus system behaves in much the same manner as the K3 II.>This hesitant behavior is more noticeable in AF-C mode, with focus falling behind the subject then having to jump to catch up.>single point continuous autofocus seemed to be the most effective way to utilize the AF system found on the K-1, but even that failed about half of the time during our AF bike test (all images were shot at 200mm using the HD Pentax D FA* 70-200mm f/2.8 ED DC AW lens). Continuous AF with a single point really struggled to maintain focus on an approaching or receding subject - something DSLR AF systems tend to do really well.
really tired of watching and browsing gears. i don't even know what i want anymore. i haven't even bought any camera or shot anything. been too occupied with browsing gears and sample images. and now i even lost the passion to take photos.
>>3167844>And this K70 uses the same SAFOX11 from the K3/K3-II>K-3 has 27 AF points>K-70 has 11 AF points>same
>>3167749>over 1000 backers now>1000 literally retarded people
>>3167844And there's still more, on low light performance:>The K-1 is capable of focusing in very dark situtaions, that much is certain. However, actual acquisition speeds in dark and low contrast shooting scenarios can be sluggish, though the camera does eventually achieve focus.> I often found the camera's AF acquisition speeds in AF-S too slow to keep up with the movement of the subjects, or to nail the decisive moment as soon as it happened. >Even a Canon 6D focused more quickly and confidently in and around -2 to -3 EV (in AF-S).If that's not the nail in the coffin I don't know what is.>K70: The battery is Pentax's D-LI 109, shared with the K-S2, and is CIPA rated at 410 shots per charge, which is the lowest in its class.>Nikon D5100: 660 shots CIPA>K3: The K-3 uses the D-LI90 lithium-ion battery, which is used in several other Pentax-branded ILCs. This battery packs 14Wh of energy, which allows you to take 720 shots per charge (measured with the CIPA standard). >Nikon D90: 850 shots CIPA>K1: It's also worth mentioning that the battery life is rated at 760 shots per charge which, while better than full-frame mirrorless models, falls behind most full-frame DSLRs.>Nikon D600: 900 shots CIPAThere's literally two things DSLRs are good at compared to mirrorless cameras: PDAF, and battery life. Pentax fails at both. They're cheap, weather sealed, and I'm sure the AF is more than sufficient to take pictures of trees, waterfalls, and fences, but for the rest of us, we ask more of our cameras.
>>3167849My bad. Mixed those two up since >K3: SAFOX 11>K70: 11 points
>>3167822>And the camera itself has a 1/3.2” sensor. That’s small even for a cellphone these days.They are literally trying to squeeze as much profit margin out of this sucker as possible.At least with Zenit they promised they were working on a proper Full Frame digital mirrorless that's as affordable as the A7.Yashica is just another dead end.
Deciding between Sony A7 and Nikon D7200. Anyone owned both of these and can comment?
>>3167854Trolling aside I have tried a Canon 70D with a 70-200/2.8 L non-IS and my own K-3 with a Tamron 70-200/2.8 screwdrive. RC airfield, relatively small subjects passing by with either the blue sky and some clouds in the background or distant trees, bushes and houses.Subject arriving almost straight at the camera going sideways then away straight from the camera.Continuous tracking and continuous burst. Both had around 70% hit rate as in keepers while the rest were missing focus. Canon wandered a lot between wingtip and fuselage while Pentax had either hitting the fuse and keeping it or losing completely until catching up again, few times latching on to the wingtip and not releasing until an AF button cycle.Many others say the Pentax tracking is not as far behind as reviewers claim it to be and mostly limited by the lens AF speed. While I had my Sigma OS HSM lens it had a spectacularly fine job with tracking birds and planes.So most of the reviews saying this is bad and that is sub-par, I always take it with a grain of salt. One reviewer actually claimed that at a horse race (jumping gates kind) he couldn't get a sharp shot with the K-1. A week later someone released a series of shots from a similar horse race and a motocross race with mostly straight on tracking shots and the focus was on target. Turned out the reviewer didn't even bother to set up the camera properly.Oh, and I read up on the original comments, why are you responding to obvious bait? Well, I did too but I thought it was a Pentax beating from one of the shitposters.
>>3167856Both have excellent image quality.D7200 has better AF.A7 has better video AF.D7200 has 0,4 stop higher dynamic range at ISO 100 stills.A7 has better video codec.D7200 has better selection of long range lenses.A7 has better selection of wide angle lenses.D7200 has longer lasting batteries.A7 has ability to adapt practically any lenses ever made.It's sort of an even matchup. But I believe the A7 is cheaper these days.
>>3167871>0,4 stop higher dynamic range>implying anyone would notice the differenceFingered a D7100 before, has a retarded two hander operation interface and bulkier than a comparable tier other DSLR. Didn't feel very good in my hands.
correct me if i'm wrong:D850 is a semi-pro camera. and semi-pro cameras are made NOT for professionals, but for gearfags. because they CAN make money from gearfags' sad cum. no one in the professional world needs that many megapixels. that's why the real pro cameras (D5, D4s, etc.) don't have high megapixels. because pixel size trumps resolution.
>>3167873>(D5, D4s, etc.) don't have high megapixels. because pixel size trumps resolution.Not quite.The reason is really because these sensors use old trash technology that couldn't keep up high enough bandwidth for high framefrates.So they had the sacrifice resolution to reseve the bandwidth for the framerate, since sports cameras kind of need the frame rate.What you are thinking about is the A7s.That one has been designed with the purpose you have in mind.Optimisation for low light.Making the pixels as large as possible.Using newest technologies to make the metal walls between each pixel as thin as possible.
>>3167873No, the flagship cameras are made to nail images at the olympics and other split second moments in time with as little technological compromise as possible. The typical consumer for these images are newswires, so they don't need incredible resolution.The D850 is no less pro than the F100, D700, and D800s were. It's merely your half body option compared to your full one, with more capability to be a better all around camera at less weight. And in today's lineups, it's Nikon's X model (high res, see d2x, d3x) to the flagship's s model (d2hs, d3s).
>>3167880but A7s is more like a video camera
>>3167889For low light, yes. And?
>>3167890Not very stellar AF, contrast detection only. A7II is a better comparison against the D7200.Also 95% of the time you will only use the center AF point.
>>3167892Not sure why you hare talking about A7 and D7200.We were discussing pixel size. Maybe you clicked on the wrong conversation.
>>3167908I knew that picture was uncanny as fuck
>>3167908>>3167935https://cmgoodenburyphotography.com/faith-abandoned/It's an actual photograph. I know that, being here on /p/, you're not used to seeing photographs, but that doesn't mean that it's CGI.
>>3167971It's butchered to hell with all that faux bloom and glow.It might have started as a photograph but so many photoshop effects went into it it hardly counts as a photograph. It is uncanny at best.
>>3167972>faux bloom and glow.So, never taken a picture inside a dark space with light coming in through the windows, huh?
>>3167978Yes, I did. Never seen such a bloom effect unless put there through photoshop. Light coming through the window is hard light, it will never produce such a soft glowing light.I assume it is a slight blur layer coupled with a luminance layer stacked on the original image to 15-20%, plus some slight brush adjustments.
>>3167982>Light coming through the window is hard light, it will never produce such a soft glowing light.I guess that’s true. You know, unless it’s sunrise/sunset light coming though stained glass, in which case it’ll give you exactly that look. Pic related, straight out of Lightroom with no edits and I can provide the raw if you truly don’t believe me.[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width960Image Height640Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>3168002Do you have another where the monkey is not in the picture?
is this the right thread to ask in for buying advice?
>>3168014No, make a new thread for it.
>>3168016I'll take that as a yes
>>3168018looking for a camera, here's what I want>compact>comes with lense>weather sealed>durable>under £400I'm fine with it not hitting all the criteria but the more the better
>>3168019Your phone in a sealed bag.
>>3168021I want a standalone camera
>>3168022Get a power bank.
>>3168023not helpful at all
>>3168024I sorry you have such impossible expectations of a do it all camera that is weather sealed but fits in your pocket. No such thing exists, let alone below 400 cuckeuros.You can get a Pentax K-50 or K-S2 with WR kit lens, but it won't fit in your pocket.
>>3168026ok thanks will look into those cameras, would removing weather sealed help find something hitting more of my requirements
>>3168028noYou can get cheap p&s and bridge cameras that fall apart at a light hike or hitting a bump on a bike.If you want durable, you get bulk and weather sealing as well, but it ain't cheap.Expand your budget and you can fit a Pentax K-3II, Nikon D7200 or a Canon 7DII in there, those are the durable ones, though Pentax reinforces its lighter entry level bodies well with an inner steel frame.
>>3168012>DIVERT! DIVERT! DIVERT!
I got a nikon G adapter for my 35mm 1.8g lens. What other nikon lens should I pick up? Preferably something with manual dials for aperture.Or should I pick up a minolta or helios 44? I think I'm interested in getting a 50 or 58mm lens for portraits
newfag here is this a meme or good?
>>3168277Cheap, but worthless in broad sunlight.
>>3168277It’s good, you can get an OVF as well for it
>>3168277i dont like the point&shoot look of it
>>3168277It was.Now it is overpriced.I’d say wait for GRIII, but Ricoh/Pentax will go out of business first.
>>3166147>Thai factories are just clones of the Japanese ones thoughThen why do they outsource them to Thailand?I hear this argument all the time from globalists, but if 99% of the manufacturing is automated and they still have to spend millions on the machinery and the factory plus the raw materials, what are they saving?If anything, they now have to pay the Japanese supervisors to live in these foreign countries instead of drawing from the native workforce.>and Tamron are forced to make all their stuff in Japan because "MADE IN JAPAN" makes you less anxious about off-brand lensesI think the "Assembled in China" kind of spoils the plan, though.Also, isn't a lot of Tamron's shit made in China as well now?
>>3166899What is the point of focus by wire besides the manufacturers getting to use cheap stepper motors?
>>3167636Be nice if they dropped APS-C shit and brought their MF production to the mainland.
>>3167848Good, now you can spend all that saved money on a useful hobby.
>>3168019Gopro Hero 4
>>3168002At first I thought this was a screenshot from an orc in Skyrim
what lens is this plz[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:PhotographerAnonymouseImage-Specific Properties:
Quick question about Sony mirrorless cameras... After reading this anon's comment >>3167322 >>3167336 about suitability of Sony's Alpha camera range for taking videos, I talked to a local guy who buys & sells used/refurbished cameras and he told me has A5000 for $350 and also Nex5T for $240. Hmm... never heard of Nex-5T but pic related has the comparison chart.Anyone familiar with it? Is A5000 worth the extra $110? Thanks for any insight!
hey guys newfag here, was looking at getting a mirrorless camera but not sure to choose between the Sony A6000, Canon EOS M3 or Olympus E-M5 II, pls help
>>3168723$350 for a used A5000 is a rip off m8, you can buy new at that price. The Nex5T is kind of old and isn't worth $240 used. Just get an a6000 if you're not that tight on budget,there's nothing comparable in its price range so you won't regret it.
>>3168780A6000, Sony dominate mirrorless market and the others are meme cameras.
>>3168780A6000 performs well for its pricepoint. You can also buy it used if you're on a budget.
>>3168891>$350 for a used A5000 is a rip off m8, you can buy new at that price.Where? Where are you getting your prices from anon? Please do tell what the best place to buy them from is. Thanks.
>>3168902$399 on Amazon, not 350 but $350 for used is ridiculoushttps://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B06WLQHD6J/ref=psdcmw_3109924011_t3_B00HNJWU3GWhere I live there are stores you could buy the body only, exclude kit lens and it cost around $330. Maybe you could look for body only on ebay. Kit lens is shit anyway.
Is it worth buying a Nikon SB 300? I have no plans for using off camera flash at this point and really just looking for something cheap. Do the 'features' on this flash justify it's price over some gook nonsense?
>>3168956I just got the answer by googling, perhaps you can do the same.
goddammit I think one of you rused me Someone reccomended a Pentax K-50 - the shutter died a year after the warranty was up.
>>3170499Sounds like you got a lemon.This thread is old btw, come to >>3168300