[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/p/ - Photography



Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.



File: pentax-k-70-in-snow.jpg (91 KB, 1000x932)
91 KB
91 KB JPG
Winter ahoy!

Last one: >>3191523

Post 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!
>>
If you could only carry one prime lens with you, which would you choose and why?
>>
File: delet-this-pichu.jpg (86 KB, 750x743)
86 KB
86 KB JPG
>>3195304
>>3195304
>>3195304
>>3195304
>>3195304
>>
>>3195579
I would take a superachromat lens like an Otus, if only they weren't so heavy.
Because beautiful pure white pearlish bokeh highlights without disgusting colour fringe.

But since I like smaller lenses and are more lightweight, the Voigtlander 65 F2 is my current perfect lens for me.
http://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/voigtlander-602-apo-lanthar-loca-focus-shift/

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeCanon
Camera ModelCanon EOS-1D X
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CC 2017 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.4
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width5184
Image Height3456
Number of Bits Per Component8, 8, 8
Pixel CompositionRGB
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Image Created2017:07:28 11:24:06
Exposure Time1/80 sec
F-Numberf/1.6
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating200
Lens Aperturef/1.6
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length85.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width1918
Image Height1278
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>
>>3195552
This is what happens when someone does not post the link to the new thread and just makes a new thread. This is also what happens when someone does not double check for a new thread before making the new thread. At least you put a link for your new thread in the old thread.
>>
>>3195600
It was such a bland OP I didn't notice. Also on the second look it still looks more like an MFT vs something shitposting thread
Whatever, I can't delete the thread anymore so it stays. We use one thread then we use the other.
>>
>>3195613
DELETE IT AT ONCE FAGGOT!
>>
>>3195579
I usually only do carry one prime lens with me, and it’s a 50mm f/1.4
>>
Click the box next to the title of the thread, scroll down to the bottom of the page and on the right side hit the button that says delete.
>>
>>3195619
>You can't delete a post this old
It's like you are new to 4chan
>>
>>3195667
I came here yesterday from reddit. Why?
>>
>>3195552
50mm or 35mm for a first prime on APS-C? And why?
>>
USE THIS THREAD
>>3195304
>>3195304
>>3195304
>>3195304
>>3195304
>>
>>3196193
I use APS-C, not MFT
>>
>>3196193
lol ok!
>>
No joke, for my style, it would be a 200mm.
I prefer to get farther from my subject than get closer :)
>>
>>3196246
No shit, I have my set of telephoto for my birds and other wild things. A zoom going out to 300mm is what I use, but I want to get down to portraits and street and all I have is the kit and tele zooms.
Figured getting a nice prime would get things started
>>
>>3196190
A 35 tho a 50 might be cheaper. I would still choose a 23 for APSC desu.
>>
>>3196299
What do you think of 40mm? Seems like a middle ground between 35 and 50
>>
>>3196306
If you’re considering a lens of one of those focal lengths, it’s likely because you either want a normal (35) or a portrait lens (50) and the look that goes along with that. Getting a 40 as a compromise misses the point. It’s not long enough to be a good portrait lens while still being so long that it’s a little annoying and cramped to use indoors. It’s like saying “hmm, I like hamburgers, and I like cake, but I don’t know what I’m in the mood for right now, so I’ll get a cupcake with a slurry of beef fat and ketchup on top”.

(Don’t get me wrong, I have a 40 and it spends most of its time on my APS-C Camera, but that’s because it’s a convenient pancake size, not because it’s a good focal length. I bought it before Canon’s 24/2.8 pancake came out)
>>
>>3196339
Good reasons, made me think more about it. I'm more interested in portraits and keeping a bit of a distance. For wider shots I still have the kit lens.
I might get a 50 or a 40, depending on which one will be on sale, thanks a bunch, man!
>>
>>3196193
No
>>
>>3195552
op sad that he got overun by different thread the thread

>>3195304
>>3195304
>>3195304
>>3195304
>>3195304

Seriously no need for another gear thread.
>>
>>3196351
>Seriously no need for another gear thread.
I prefer this one. It looks like a gear thread rather than a thread with a question about one specific piece of gear like the other.

No real reason NOT to have two gear threads, too.
>>
>>3195579
sigma 85 f1.4
>>
File: 0322-main-kesha-pcn-4.jpg (63 KB, 718x559)
63 KB
63 KB JPG
is there a favorite tripod around here in the $50-$100 range? looking on amazon and there is about 10 million different tripods to pick from and i'm a newb buying a gift for someone else. they have a nikon d3400
>>
>>3196354
Yeah, it is.
>>
>>3196428
ask in dedicated asking thread and ill reply
>>
>>3196432
Arent you such a premium cocksucker?
>>
>>3196432
I thought this was the thread for gear questions. Certainly you don't want your board shitted up with yet another stupid question thread?
>>
>>3196435
I'm a wimin and I do enjoy it, yes. Swallowing is gross though.

>>3196437
Well you could just read the whole thread could you now? The actual gear thread is opened, this is dedicated shitting thread now.
>>
>>3196442
Well excuse me for not shitposting
>>
>>3196428
We usually get our tripods used, Manfrotto, Benro, Vanguard etc... but a good deal is hard to find and takes time.
Buying a better chinese one like Dic&Mic E302C also takes time because christmas time parcel is hell, so I'd recommend taking your time and drawing something vaguely similar and giving that for a present.
A good tripod costs a lot and a good but used one still above $100, more around $150. The chinese ones work but not really that good. Below those are the absolute shit tier ones that I recommend staying away from, especially at $50.
Generally anything below $100 is considered crap.
>>
>>3196444
You did just that. There really is nothing wrong with the older thread, op just needed to have his shitty pic plastered all over this page, so he created another one and shitposted to have it up.
>>
>>3196454
The only one shitposting in this thread is you, sperglord.
>>
>>3196464
What the fuck are you doing then, gathering roses?
>>
>>3196493
still shitposting, spergy
>>
>>3195579
A 35 pancake for FF.
>>
Got myself a D500.

What do?
>>
I am looking at a used Tamron 90mm without VC for macro on the D750. since it won't be my primary lens I am looking to save there since from what I see it looks just fine (and I am not a professional). is VC necessary for macro? also is the picture quality up to snuff for the D750 or am I better off paying 3x to get one that will be better?
>>
>>3196642
> is VC necessary for macro
No. In most cases, it's not that amazingly useful to have VC. For the most part, you just want a tripod.

> also is the picture quality up to snuff for the D750
Reasonably so.,

> am I better off paying 3x to get one that will be better?
Generally yes - I'd prefer the optically best lenses.

But it's obviously a matter of money. For some, it's just diminishing returns on the high end of optics. For others, a bit more sharpness or better features saves a lot of time (by avoiding "wasted" shots you aren't going to use), or gets more sales, or just makes them happier. YMMV.

If it wasn't for money, most here would surely use some of the best glass.
>>
>>3196448
> The chinese ones work but not really that good.
I disagree, most of the somewhat popular ones above $80 or so are good, at least among the handful that I've tried.

There's probably no reason to get anything else if you are in this price segment.
>>
>>3196648
so it sounds like, it would only be worth it for pixel peeping and professional work? and that the Tamron would be more than enough for online posting?
>>
>>3196651
>>3196648
because of the diminishing return is kinda what I'm thinking about. since I am not a pro. also is it pretty sharp? as in if I got it would I be left wanting more?
>>
>>3196642
>>3196648
It really depends on what type of macro you'll be doing. VC is a god send for macro if you don't have great lighting. You need a ring light if you are outside shooting live subjects and several lights if you are inside. Otherwise, you'll need VC. A tripod outside has wind problems and often times you can't sandbag it with live subjects that move. Inside, you need a solid floor and a remote if you can't get shutter speed fast enough due to subpar light.

I use every trick in the book for macro, but I don't yet have a dedicated macro lens.
>>
>>3196651
> so it sounds like, it would only be worth it for pixel peeping and professional work?
It's worth it if you want a optically better recorded image.

This may also be relevant to hobbyists, ultimately they're doing basically exactly the same macro shots as the pros - simply minus running the business end.

>>3196653
> as in if I got it would I be left wanting more?
I did and I personally never regretted buying the better glass. Only some of the cheap shitty lenses were a waste of time.

But people's (subjective and objective) needs vary. I wouldn't even know if you wouldn't be happier with a smartphone + microscope device for your macro shots.

Figures the average /p/ would think that the cheaper Tamron macro is "good enough", though.
Then again, that includes people who think MFT with more than low end glass is more than anyone who isn't the best professional needs. And you obviously have a FF camera already, so maybe you don't agree.
>>
>>3196655
> VC is a god send for macro if you don't have great lighting.
Sure. Then again, adding great lighting will almost always do more than adding VC.

Arguably I'm not saying it's useless. Maybe you are shooting animals that run away from light or just prefer the possibly faster working speed with VC or you use the macro lens for something else like handheld product shots.

I'm only saying it's PROBABLY not really amazingly useful for macro itself. Also under the assumption that you would use artificial lighting where necessary.
>>
>>3196655
if I have a flash for the macro would handholding be fine? as a test, I used my flash on my current carry around lens, I put my aperture up to f/22, shutter speed of 250, and iso 100. in a room with no lights, and it was still well lit.
>>3196659
for my macros, before I got the D750 I used the rx100 with some close-up filters, and with editing, I was able to come up with stuff like this. just by looking at pictures I am assuming that it would be much better in quality, and would you rank the sharpness near, above, or below your standard lenses that are not macro? if they are above I would probably not notice or be disappointed too much
>>3196663
I don't often do animals so I wouldn't be sad about missing some shots on them I would just have to take more shot and learn how to utilize my gear and try to find opportunities, but mostly I will be shooting still stuff like pic related.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeSONY
Camera ModelDSC-RX100
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 7.0 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.8
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)34 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution500 dpcm
Vertical Resolution500 dpcm
Image Created2017:11:29 22:05:27
Exposure Time1/100 sec
F-Numberf/5.6
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating200
Lens Aperturef/5.6
Brightness4.6 EV
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModeCenter Weighted Average
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length12.78 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
>>
>>3196667
> before I got the D750 I used the rx100 with some close-up filters, and with editing, I was able to come up with stuff like this.
The amount of work involved to get a good shot is obviously a huge factor.

Suffice to say, a shot like that one you posted there shouldn't take much work at all to surpass with a FF camera and macro lens. Yep, "even" the non-VC variant should *very easily* give you a sharper image with less diffraction than that.

> would you rank the sharpness near, above, or below your standard lenses that are not macro?
If by "standard" lenses you mean kit lenses, it's obviously above that.

> if they are above I would probably not notice or be disappointed too much
Then sure, the non-VC variant will do the job for you.
>>
>>3196668
standard as in maybe a 50mm prime, or I use a Tamron 24-70.
>>
>>3196669
The non-VC Tamron macro should still be better than the glass I think you are referring to, yep.

And again, it should be very easy to get a shot like the one you posted, or better. I don't doubt you might have worked a good while to get it with the RX100, but on a FF camera with a macro lens that's basically pretty much a snapshot that didn't turn out *too* well.

I figure you'll be fine, eh.
>>
>>3196672
thanks, sounds very promising, I really did feel limited with the rx100 and filters, getting this should make me feel great and hopefully learn more on a better system.
>>
>>3196672
also one last question. thoughts on extension tubes to combo with it? good for getting closer? or better of cropping later?
>>
File: DSC_8337a.jpg (211 KB, 1024x683)
211 KB
211 KB JPG
>>3196663
Yeah, some things just don't like light at all. A good dedicated flash needs to be used with them, but you never have much time regardless. The faster you can get the shutter speed the better, less ISO, less blurry, etc. There's a balancing point and type-of-use is the tipping point for everyone.

>>3196667
>if I have a flash for the macro would handholding be fine?

It depends on the flash. Like there's no way I can use the built-in flash on my camera for very close macro. If I use extension tubes with a telephoto lens then the working distance is far enough where the built-in flash will work, though with some telephoto it doesn't because it the minimum working distance is too far away.

>I put my aperture up to f/22, shutter speed of 250, and iso 100. in a room with no lights, and it was still well lit.

Actual macro is a whole other world of light. A dedicated macro lens will do a lot better than the setups I use simply because I go beyond 1:1, but regardless you still need tons of light for macro or longer exposures. Some of my exposures can reach 15 seconds easy, but that's also ISO 100 and non-moving things.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATION
Camera ModelNIKON D3400
Camera SoftwareVer.1.11
Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.0
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern980
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)0 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Image Created2017:11:12 08:08:03
Exposure Time1/500 sec
F-Numberf/0.0
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating6400
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModeCenter Weighted Average
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length0.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width1024
Image Height683
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Gain ControlHigh Gain Up
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
Subject Distance RangeUnknown
>>
>>3196675
They could be better at getting closer, but even with a FF macro at like f/8-f/16 you don't have a super generous DoF to work with. I don't usually expect you to work with extension tubes.

That said, they're so cheap and light, you might as well bring some to some trips anyhow. Who knows... maybe there is an even smaller insect or surface you'd like a macro shot of, just for fun.
>>
>>3196675
Not him, but E.tubes are great so long as they match whatever your lens needs like autofocus. Also, only buy tubes that have all metal mounts on both sides. E.tubes are better than using a teleconverter since there's no glass in the e.tubes. You might need more light with them.

There's also a macro thread: >>3190931
>>
>>3196631
Take pics
>>
>>3196442
you're a giant faggot actually
>>
Is it a good idea to buy a grip so I can use a pack of Eneloops beside the Li battery in the body?
>>
File: 4660008_sd.jpg (124 KB, 1000x523)
124 KB
124 KB JPG
hey /p/, I recently bought a Sony a6000 and I'm going to Japan next year. I am a graphic designer, but new to photography so I don't really know what I'll need. I'm poor so this will be my only trip abroad for a while, and I'm not looking to take any serious photography, just some nice wallpaper / instagram material so I probably won't be getting a ton of stuff. I bought this starter kit that had some cleaning supplies, a screen protector, cable, bubble level and a wireless remote, and I bought a camera bag as well. I have a small 5 ft~ tripod, i don't know if i'll bring it with me though.

Mainly just hoping to get some info on things that I will need to take nice photos on my trip. I don't know much about filters, lenses or anything else. Also, if you have any tips on bringing gear abroad, would appreciate that as well! I've never left the US so this is all new to me.
>>
>>3197945
I always carry-on my camera gear with me all the time when flying, not checked in. An extra battery plus charger and sd cards. Shoot RAW for editing. Clean your lens when travelling with a cleaning cloth or cleaning pen since you'll always be using your gear those times.

I'm not sure how good enough the kit lens is but I would rather spend the extra money on other travels that will make memories rather than buying a new lens that I really don't need.

Since you still don't know what focal length(s) you'll be shooting with most of the time and you said you're a poorfag, stick with your kit lens first I suppose. Only invest on a new lens, filters, or other additional gear if you already know exactly what you need.
>>
>>3197951
thanks for the reply. I'll definitely have to pick up a spare battery, and i want to bring a 10k / 20k mAh battery pack with me as well for phone and camera and maybe laptop. I'll be only bringing a carry on with me I think (only going for two weeks), so that shouldn't be an issue. Definitely will shoot RAW. I have a cleaning pen, i will have my cleaning kit in the bag with me. As for the lens, I heard the telephoto 210mm from sony is nice but it's pretty expensive and yeah, i don't really know what i'll be shooting mostly. I just want some nice pictures that are better than my cellphone, but not cheap digital camera shit. The kit lens has served me well in my practice so far, I think I see most of its shortcomings though.

any recs for the filters? there's a kit on amazon with like UV, ND and some other ones, should I just grab them all?
>>
>>3197945

That is a pretty good starter set-up. Make sure to grab some extra batteries, lens pens, and sensor swabs too.

As for lenses, you might wanna try to go shooting with it a little bit before you leave so you get an idea of what focal length you prefer. If you want a better zoom, look at the SELP18105G. It is an awesome lens, and relatively cheap.
>>
>>3195592
Still got some weird shapes and onion rings in that bokeh.
>>
>>3196190
I'd go for 35mm on APS-C
Not too wide, not too narrow
>>
>>3198019
I'm with this guy

I went crop from full sensor, and my 35mm were a remain, first I thought about selling it and buying a 17-55. but now I not even considering get it away from me. it will stay

although, still thinking about a 24mm1.8
>>
Why aren't there remotes that lets you change shutterspeed?

I want to DIY some shit and need to be able to control both the shutter and shutterspeed via a remote.
>>
>>3198148
What you are looking for is called "tethering"
I use a flucard for wireless tethering.
>>
>>3198152
So it's only possible via pc/phone?
>>
>>3198148
>Why aren't there remotes that lets you change shutterspeed?
You can do this with pretty much any recent camera that has WiFi. I know my Canon 70D and Fuji X-T1 both let me control shutter speed from an phone app.
>>
>>3198158
>>3198156
>phone

All this cool stuff, but I don't even own a phone let alone a smartphone.
>>
>>3198158
The thing I want to do is a sort of shoulderrig for a large heavy lens.
My right hand holds a handle with the shutterbutton and shutterspeed control, left hand focusing.
Can't do that with a phone.
>>
>>3198156
You can build an arduino setup for the tethering communication and use a small LCD to set exposure and whatnot.
>>
>>3198166
>shoulderrig for a large heavy lens
Are you building a tacticool panty sniper?
>>
>>3198164
Well, congratulations on traveling here from the year 1986. I hope you’re finding the future to be an exciting time.

You should be able to do it with a low-end or old Android or iOS device. Doesn’t need to be connected as a phone, just needs WiFi.
>>
>>3197980
thanks! that cleaning kit came with a lens pen, not sure about the swabs though. I will definitely have to do some testing and see where it falls short. I've heard theres options with these for vintage lenses too, I like the vintage look but not sure what to look for / where to look.
>>
File: Camera Strap Brains.jpg (464 KB, 788x2080)
464 KB
464 KB JPG
>>
What's better: an average, modern smartphone (nokia lumia 920) with those meme clip lenses or sony alpha a3000 with kit lens?

I want to get into photography without spending fortune (I'm still not sure is it a hobby for me) and I can buy used sony a3000 for just 100$. It seams to be the best mirrorless camera that I could get for that price (according to comparison tools from sticky), but if I won't be able to notice any difference between photos from camera and from my phone, then it would make me really disappointed. I really don't know how to compare them.
Help please?
>>
>>3198331
At least get an alpha 5000, the A-Mount is a fucking atrocity.
Also, Sony's DSLR viewfinders are the most eyecancer inducing pieces of shit ever on a camera. Why would they design a camera with all the drawbacks of a DSLR, none of the advantages and a worse EVF than a low-level mirrorless?
>>
>>3198331
A super crappy old DSLR will still beat the crap out of the most modern high end smartphone.
>>
>>3198340
Thanks Anon! I'll check that camera out.
>the A-Mount is a fucking atrocity
Really? I thought that it's easy to buy some adapters?
>>
>>3198345
Thanks for that clarification - I wasn't sure. Have a (You).
>>
>>3198346
>Really? I thought that it's easy to buy some adapters?

Don’t confuse the A mount with the E mount. The A mount is on Sony’s (and Minolta’s) SLRs; the E mount is their mirrorless mount. Adapters are plentiful for the E mount, not nearly as much for A mount. It’s confusing because Sony decided they’d all be branded “Alpha” at some point, so it’s non-obvious which uses which mount.

I don’t agree that the A mount is a travesty—there’s some really neat lenses for it—but it’s kind of a dead end mount at this point. They haven’t announced end of life, but Sony’s momentum is clearly with their mirrorless bodies.
>>
Are Fotodiox adapters worth the price? I'm on the fence about buying one to adapt my FD lenses on my A7.
>>
>>3198366
I'm not sure about mount adapters for different mounts, but the reverse lens ring and aperture adapter I have are solid metal construction and seemingly good quality. If the adapter has a corrective lens then it will introduce various aberrations. That happens anytime you add extra glass. If it doesn't then that part won't matter.
>>
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VwovFUXux8w

>rabal t3
>em10
is this guy serious?
rich people.
>>
My 550D is about to crap out. I don't do professional.

What's my next logical upgrade?
>>
>>3198444
Sony A7
>>
>>3198444
Just get a used 70D
>>
>>3198451
pretty much this.
found 1 for $650 but didn't buy.

no lens?
just buy old lens and adapt.
>>
So I got my first DSLR, my first real camera actually, and I'm enjoying the hell out of it. So far I've been doing the photography courses on coursera which have been great help, and watching random youtube videos. Any good books, youtube channels, whatever you can think of to recommend to a newfag?
>>
>>3198508
Understanding Exposure by Bryan Peterson
>>
>>3198508
Also YT, Thomas Heaton and Simon Baxter that come to my mind at the moment
>>
>>3198508
If you live in glorious European Union and you're a NEET master race, then could get professional training and get some qualifications for free.
>>
I have a Nikon D3400 I bought brand new in August. It has about 12k photos now. I got the 2 lens kit directly from Nikon. I'm having some troubles with the aperture on the 18-55mm lens and occasionally with the 70-300mm lens. I use the 70-300mm lens less, so it may also have the same amount of problem. Basically, when I attach the lenses to the camera the preview I'm getting on the LCD screen or in the viewfinder is dark. I need to run the aperture setting up and down from min to max then take 1 or more photos to fix this problem. I have to do all this in manual focus mode or the camera will just cycle the AF and not let me take a photo. After taking a photo in manual mode, the viewfinder and LCD brighten up. It is as though the aperture was as closed as it could be. Sometimes, I need to take the lens off and put it back on and repeat the process.

Previously, I was getting the error, "Error, press shutter release button again" after which I merely cycled up and down with the aperture to clear the issue.

Does anyone here have specific experience with this sort of thing happening with their aperture controls? It seems to be a problem with the camera, not the lens, since it happens on both lenses sometimes.
>>
>>3198631
Does the lens have an aperture lever? if yes, move it with your finger, it should move free with only a slight spring force to it. If it feels sticky or gritty even a little bit then the lens is the problem.
If not, then the problem is the aperture block in the body. In both case send it in for service, should be covered by warranty. That is if you didn't use it in rain or humid weather.
>>
>>3198637
It seems more like a problem internally in the camera. I tried replicating the issue and I can get it to do this from time to time, including the "press button again" after one photo. I just turn it off/on, set focus to manual and cycle up and down the aperture to fix.

It is under warranty, I'm just wondering if anyone else has had this problem before. I'll probably live with it until I can't take photos with it then get it repaired.
>>
>>3198666
You should get it repaired while it is still under warranty.
You wait some more and you get hushed away by "lol water damage" and you have to pay for the whole shit regardless of it actually touching moisture or not.
>>
anyone use sd card readers?
>>
>>3198674
Every camera has at least one sd card reader
>>
>>3198418
Was watching this as well and wondered if most people agree with it? They have 1000% more experience with all these cameras than I do, but at least for my probable use ( sports/ video+stills) I find myself "disagreeing" with many of Tonys videos.

Quite big jumps in price (900 to 3000) and they really seem to dig Fuji. To me Panasonic and Sony seem to be a cheaper and "better" alternative as a hybrid shooter. Was also surprised to see G7 instead of G85.

I know people shy away from Sony due to the menu, but how often are you really in the menu? Maybe it's because I'm used to DSLR's, but with memory recall buttons for presets I'm not seeing myself change much more than shutter/f-stop/iso. I'm honestly quite set on the Sony A6 line, depending on what I find used, but seeing as the high-end is A7, is there any reason to start with the old A7 or A7ii? They seem quite far behind current A6XXX in terms of video, unless you go way up in price in A7 lineup.
>>
>>3198679
lel i meant like an external one on there computer
>>
>>3198672
Doubtful.
>>
File: 250.jpg (43 KB, 800x600)
43 KB
43 KB JPG
I need a gear backpack.

Stuck between lowepro protactic 250 and 450. The price is 100 vs 200usd.

I need to fit an a6300, 300/2.8, 135/1.8 and 4 average sized lenses. I think I might be able to fit it all inside the 250AW.
I don't think I'll ever fit anything larger than all this in the backpack.

Anyone with these backpacks?
Any other backpacks that are worth it?
>>
>>3198751
I have the 450

just get it, i fucking love it.

I use it for everything and its actually quite small. But keep in mind im not from burgerland and I would be considered a giant over there at 183cm
>>
>>3198751
I had a backpack for a while. Never used it—it was too much of a hassle to get anything out of it when I was actually shooting.

Obviously your mileage may vary. The girl I gave mine to uses it all the time. Just make sure your shooting style lends itself to backpack life before dropping cash on one.
>>
Just got my first full frame, D750 and looking to purchase a standard zoom, thinking of getting Tamron 28-75mm or Nikon 24-85mm. Is this a good decision if you are on a tight budget?
>>
>>3198751
I have a Protactic 350, and it suits my needs. With the military inspired modular style, you can add some more pouches for lenses/tripods and other miscellaneous gears if the main compartment cannot handle it. I upgraded mine with a knock-off peak design camera clip for 1/5th of the price and works fantastic.

For the 350 size, I can store a D750, D5500, both with prime/standard zoom and an extra lens and mic. It's very sturdy and I am pretty happy I made this purchase where my only need is to carry the cameras and a laptop (13inch).

Just pull the trigger.
>>
>>3198751
I have the 400 AW flipside and I can fit a DSLR body with 16-80/2.8, 50-500, some misc primes and a flash.
You will definitely won't be able to fit the 300/2.8 in the 250AW.
>>
>>3198859
Go for the 24-85. You'll enjoy the extra wideness and ability to "zoom" a bit further. The 24-120mm would be better, but that's like $300 extra I think.
>>
>>3198859
I just got the Tamron 28-75. I haven’t really gotten a chance to test it too extensively though—is there any sort of shot you’d like me to try to get with it to see how well it works for that?

(Note that I’ll be shooting on a d7000 instead of full frame, so expect the corners to be worse)
>>
>>3198888
Yeah, additional zoom range is one of my considerations.
>>3198890
I'll be taking this lens as a travel companion, so maybe touristy type of shots? Also considering some night street photography. But I want zoom, so yeah. I appreciate this gesture.
>>
Looking for a new not too big flash for my Lumix G81.
>needs to be fully articulating
>not too big
>under 200€

I looked into it and the Nissin i40 seems to be my best choice. I also quite like that it has two control dials rather than these unintuitive mushy rubber buttons
>>
>>3198934
Godox TT350
>>
>>3198936
>look up review
>one says "unlike other flashes like the i40, this will actually moves around in all different directions so you can bounce the light"
>remember the i40 articulates around completely,a ccording to reviews
>"so if you look at other things like [...] the i40 [...] those all have much lower guid numbers, this has a guide number of 36"
>i40 has a guide number of 40
what?

Also, I made bad experiences with Godox Videolights, their LED videolights are horribly miscoloured despite big claims to being colour true
>>
>>3198945
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58NRsXx60Lg

Always watch video reviews, just don't listen to what the people are saying for the most part. Watch them work with the product.
>>
>>3198966
The video is like 90% retarded menus and confused stammering
>>
>>3198968
Didn't you see him bending it around? Also, don't listen to people on youtube for the most part. Everyone is an idiot.
>>
oh no! Posted in the last thread :(

Canon shooters:

If you had to have one awesome lens, what would it be?

I'm currently a crop shooter with a few lenses in the house. I'm mostly interested in travel (sites, landscapes, some wildlife and cultural details) and taking shots (portraits if she's being cooperative) of my kid. I've currently got the EF-S 17-55mm f2.8, a Rokinon 85mm f1.4, 40mm f2.8, the 100mm macro (on loan) and some kit garbage. While a couple of these are passable, none of them really blow my tits off (Rokinon is awesome when I can nail focus, but it's MF only).

Struggling with the choices I have right now between a few of the more popular lenses and upgrading the body (using a 7D, atm, and wish for better low-light performance).
>>
>>3199011
For wildlife I would either get a 70-200/2.8 and a TC or just go all in with a 400/5.6 prime.
The 7D will do fine for years, don't worry much about it.
>>
>>3199039
70-200/2.8 was my main focus. To your knowledge, is the Tamron G2 an acceptable alternative to the Canon (or 1st-gen Canon vs II)? It's going to hurt, but I'd like to minimize the pain as much as possible.
>>
>>3199043
I have the Macro version, the one before the G1 and I used it for wildlife with a 1.4X TC, so I guess the G2 will be more than adequate for your needs.
Later on I found the 70-200+TC too short and got a 300/4 prime to be used with the TC as an equivalent for a 400/5.6 prime. That is why I said going all in with a 400mm prime, since you already have portrait lens options with the Rokinon and the EF-S 17-55/2.8.
I use an APS-C camera BTW.
>>
>>3199066
Thanks! Good news is, nothing's on discount right now, so no rush. Appreciate you sharing your experience.
>>
>>3198791
>>3198798
>>3198878
>>3198883
Geez, well seems like I will have to bite the bullet on the 450.

I've had too many scuffs on my lenses from transporting them badly.

Just never have dumped this much money on a backpack before, I guess I'll get a taste of the higher tier now..!

Thanks!
>>
What's the smallest superbright light for video I can get around? I don't care about size of the lightsource, I can work out some way of diffusion.
The Lumecube is 1500 lumens I heard but it's also super expensive. I can live with less.

Also, why is it so damn hard to find proper info on what LED lights output in lumens?
>>
File: Schablone.jpg (31 KB, 564x778)
31 KB
31 KB JPG
Wanna make myself a foto-tent. I saw lots of simple ones on amazon and thought I could make one myself from thin paper or wire or translucent plastic. Is there some place where I can find blueprints? It should be able to fold together flat.
>>
>>3199138
Just buy one of those 10,000 lumen CREE LED flashlights and mount it on a tripod, stand or camera. You can get them on amazon. The important part is what batteries you use. Cheap ones won't work properly so get something like 26650 Trustfire rechargeables. Otherwise, just wire them up to a lead acid battery if you don't mind the weight.

>>3199141
I just use a cardboard box with holes cut in it, and a white trash bag.
>>
Just bought myself a 7artisans 25/1.8 for my fuji thru amazon. Anyone have any experience with it? I mostly got it because it's really small (and cheap), my 23/1.4 is fantastic, but quite large.
>>
>>3199224
Sounds like sketchy chineseium lens
>>
>>3199224
From the videos I've seen about other 7artisans lenses, they are some kind of offbrand. Or the other brands are the offbrands rather..

From what I recall they were ok for the price.

No personal experience though.
>>
Anyone have recs for a bag for a small system? I'm talking slr, a few primes, maybe a flash eventually, and some space for filters and film. Something that doesn't scream "camera gear" but I also don't want to pay a premium for aesthetics. I've been looking at Domkes but other suggestions are appreciated
>>
File: ZURBE.jpg (128 KB, 1024x739)
128 KB
128 KB JPG
Hello,

I recently got interested in photography and I'm right now planning on saving money over the next year, to buy myself a decent camera and a lens or two. I'd like to start photographing manual lenses as I've tried it out at a distant relative and I really enjoyed the process, eventhough I had no idea what I was doing.

Currently I only have access to a weak point and shoot Sony Cyber-shot DSC-H70 and a Xiaomi Redmi 4 prime phone, both of which have a really bad image quality, from my noob perspective.

Are these decent devices to start learning photography on? My plan is to learn photography, composition, light, etc... everything that comes with photography and to research good photographers and their work, while I save up money.

Just want to know if I should buy a different entry level camera or are these enough to start learning on.

Any help appreciated!
Sorry if this is not the correct thread to ask this
>>
>>3199300
Oh yeah, I can only save about 50-75€ per month, so it will take me quite some time to buy something decent, right?
>>
>>3199300
Get a DSLR and a couple lenses. It makes the world of difference.
>>
I intend to pull the trigger on a Sony A7ii... however, being the financially responsible mother fucker that I am, I do not intend to buy any proper e-mount lens at the moment, until I get rid of my m43 system.

Question is... what is a good fun, relatively inexpensive glass that I can use for urban photography on the E mount with an adapter?. I'm thinking of some prime around 25-55mm.

Also, there are some new A7ii bodies on ebay.co.uk for 899 GBP. Too good to be true?.
>>
>>3199301
I bought my D3400 with 2 lens kit literally with change I'd been throwing into a chest over the last 20 years. Now I'm spending about as much as what you can spend getting extra stuff for it. Save up for something good at least.
>>
>>3199305
I wish I started saving 20 years ago like you too. But I didn't realise photography can actually be this fun until I've recently tried it.

I mean, I liked taking pictures, but taking them with a phone wasn't satisfying at all.

I was thinking of saving for some Olympus mirrorless. E-M10 II used are around 450€ here and it seems like a decent camera.
>>
File: 1510927366726a.jpg (4.36 MB, 5616x4240)
4.36 MB
4.36 MB JPG
>>3199306
I really didn't know what I was going to spend that pile of change on until my point and shoot broke and I needed a new camera immediately.

I suggest saving up and in the mean time, read what you can about the simple stuff and go from there.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS5.1 Macintosh
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Image Created2015:09:11 16:42:51
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width5616
Image Height4240
>>
What is the benefit of a fixed lens camera like a Fuji x100f over a interchangeable lens camera? Isn't it a shame when you can't use the lens on another body after the camera reached the end of it's lifespan or when there is a better camera body available?
>>
>>3199300
Do not spend money on entry level crap that will be insufficient the moment you start to enjoy photography. You should stack up a little bit of money and buy anything BUT a DSLR/Mirrorless. This is because interchangable lens cameras, although often having low initial purchase cost, cheapen out in several ways which are key to the experience (viewfinder size, kit lens - the default lens which comes with the camera, and overall build quality / ergonomics.) You'll find that if you buy a camera with interchangable lenses you'll have your camera and kit lens which were cheap, and the second you want something better everything's 2x as expensive as what you're attaching it to (Fuji/Sony are super expensive, Canon's APS-C lineup is terrible - they basically have one good APS-C lens, the 40/2.8. No idea about Nikon, Micro 4/3 has great lens selection at good prices with some interesting lenses, but the sensors are underwhelming and you may as well have APS-C.)

A compact fixed lens camera is much more suitable for learners. However, you want something that's still suited for pro users in terms of control. Typically such cameras are marketed as a pro's 2nd camera for fun when they're not on the job. This kind of camera is what you want to look for. Examples are the LX100, Sony RX-100 (all good, but MKIII or later are great,) Sigma DP compact series (Merrill or older, not Quattro.) Fuji X100, Ricoh GRI or II. You're more likely to take this out to an event or a nice walk because you don't have to have it hanging around your neck - you can just slip it in your pocket.
>>
>>3199309
>What is the benefit of a fixed lens camera like a Fuji x100f over a interchangeable lens camera?
Compactness.

To a certain extent, also price—the equivalent interchangeable lens camera with an equivalent lens would be more expensive. And the manufacturer can tailor the camera very specifically to that lens (eg, by correcting a lot of defects in software automatically instead of making the lens better. Software is cheaper than glass).

But mostly compactness.
>>
>>3199310
Don't recommend mirrorless. They are tiny pieces of crap.
>>
>>3199310
>Canon's APS-C lineup is terrible - they basically have one good APS-C lens, the 40/2.8
1. All of Canon’s full frame lens lineup works on APS-C
2. Canon actually has several good APS-C lenses. Really everything but the original 18-55 and 18-55 II are pretty good.
3. The 40/2.8 is a full frame lens. You might be thinking of the EF-S 24/2.8 pancake, which is also pretty good.
>>
File: 81uNapA-2nL._SL1500_[1].jpg (218 KB, 1500x1274)
218 KB
218 KB JPG
I've been thinking about the Tokina 11-16 for use on my d3200 for a while, but I've heard that there's some soft edges and CA in the corners. Has anyone used this or the Sigma 10-20? Which should I go for?
>>
>>3199301
>I can only save about 50-75€ per month, so it will take me quite some time to buy something decent, right?
If you go for something used, it shouldn’t take that long. I’m not sure what euro prices are, but you can get a decent older model camera body in the us for around $1-200.

>>3199310
>You should stack up a little bit of money and buy anything BUT a DSLR/Mirrorless.
This is awful advice.
>Sigma DP compact series
This is somehow worse advice.
>>
>>3199315
>but I've heard that there's some soft edges and CA in the corners.
1. Every ultra wide has some soft edges and CA in the corners.
2. You will almost never compose your photos in such a way that you have a critical compositional element in the corner of an ultra wide shot which will ruin the shot if it’s not tack sharp when viewed at 100%. If you do, you’re probably composing badly or should be shooting with something ridiculous like an 8x10 view camera.
3. Honestly this goes for every other lens you’ve heard is soft in the corners, too.
>>
File: 1519182.jpg (680 KB, 1200x1200)
680 KB
680 KB JPG
>>3199304
Maybe start out with the Samyang 35mm F2,8. It's really affordable for a native E-mount lens.

Later on you can buy the really good stuff, like the Voigtlander 65mm APO lens.
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1451413/35#14172985
It's currently the ultimate sharpness of the E-mount.

(The two Batis it is being compared to are not soft lenses! They are really, really sharp too, but the Voigtlander is in another league entirely)

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS6 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Image Created2017:09:07 14:38:50
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width1200
Image Height1200
>>
Ordered the Sony E 50/1.8 OSS during Black Friday. Don't have a camera yet, but the plan was to buy A6300 used (or A6000 if it was with awesome lenses), so I sort of bought the lens as a "might return it but the price was better than getting it used".

The thing now is that they sent me the FE 50/1.8. It cost the same amount during Black Friday but is obviously a bit more expensive normally. Should I return it or is this a sign that I should go FF? I will kind of need the OSS unless I go for A6500, but that is kind a bit too steep for me.

I will use it as hybrid stills/video camera and sports are involved. As far as I know A7/A7ii are not really ideal for this. No 4K, but more importantly no 120fps for smooth slow motion. Also heard bad things about AF on A7, but maybe it's fixed?
>>
>>3199325
Oh, and only 5 fps compared to 11 fps.
>>
Thinking of buying the Sony Cybershot DSC-RX100 III for my trip to Japan. I'm going for 2 weeks during x-mas and new years eve. The IV is a bit too expensive for my liking, and I'm not sure if the 4k filming is worth the extra price. Anyone with experience with this camera?
>>
>>3199308
Thanks for all the help, man!

>>3199310
>>3199316
>you can get a decent older model camera body
That's what I was thinking of, whether to buy something old and cheap or to stick with what I have and save up for newer and more expensive.
>>
>>3199328
Get something old and cheap.

If you like photography, eventually you’ll want to upgrade to something really good. If you start with something cheap, you’re not out much when you do that.

If you don’t end up liking photography that much, again, you’re out less money.

Either way, go old and cheap.

Just don’t go TOO old. Anything after about 2005 is fine; anything before that often sucks a lot in terms of actual usability.
>>
>>3199312
>anything but a DSLR/Mirrorless
I didn't.
It's full frame or Compact fixed lens for me.
>>
>>3199314
yeah, I meant the 24/2.8
Putting a full frame zoom lens on an APS-C camera is a waste. None of them are suitable because you have all of the bulk of a FF zoom with a funky zoom range. FF primes can be good on APS-C, the 40mm is noteworthy, otherwise it's like - just buy a 5DII for 500 dollars if you're going to buy FF lenses.
>>
>>3199327
I can tell you that 4k video is not necessary for vacation videos
>>
>>3199336
>None of them are suitable because you have all of the bulk of a FF zoom
This is only true sometimes, other times it's simply a myth.
Fujifilm has a lot of APS-C lenses that are heavier and bulkier then any Full Frame counterparts. Such as the 100-400mm, the 90mm, the 80mm.

This argument should not be used in my opinion.
>>
>>3199337
It is for mine. You can downgrade yourself if you like.
>>
File: 1.png (399 KB, 1409x361)
399 KB
399 KB PNG
>4 days later
>Still processing
They will cancel the order won't they?

It was too good to be true after all. I will never get a Voigtlander 65 for this cheap. Fucking hell.
>>
>>3199336
>Putting a full frame zoom lens on an APS-C camera is a waste.
Not for telephoto zooms. They’re still telephoto, with a bit of extra bonus length.

Normal zooms go from normal to tele instead of wide to short tele. Still a useful lens if you don’t need wide.

I’ll grant that it’s a waste to use a full frame wide zoom on crop.

>FF primes can be good on APS-C
They are. I used full frame primes on my APS-C canon for years. Still do, mostly.

>just buy a 5DII for 500 dollars
There are cheaper crop cameras which, other than the sensor, are superior to the 5d2. Plus, some people just don’t have five hundred bucks for a 5d2 but have a hundred bucks for a Rebel and can slowly afford to build up their lens collection until they can buy something full frame.
>>
>>3199348
I ordered a lens hood off amazon last week. I'm still waiting for the "shipped" notice. Sometimes they just chuck it into the mail and never update their shit on amazon to update me. I dislike that. I also dislike drop shippers when the store is in the USA, but when I order it, it gets shipped from fucking Asia. The entire time it is in "processing" until it reaches the USA then "shipped!" Which can be a month later. But, everything is dirt cheap.
>>
>>3199352
Too bad there's no speedbooster for Full Frame to APS-C, but they'd hit the mirror.
>>
>>3199341
No, that's not necessity. That's desire. Better saving the money for a microphone or something to capture good audio than spending it just to tell yourself you've got the best specs on your camera
>>
>>3199358
>No, that's not necessity. That's desire.
You don't know. Maybe his vacation is a sex holiday that he plans to film for HotAsianGirlsFuckDoughyWhiteDudesIn4K.com. They have pretty strict contractual requirements as to the resolution required from their freelancers.
>>
>>3199358
Why shoot in 2k when you can shoot in 4k? You have more data to work with in post. You basically just said, "no need to shoot in RAW, just use BASIC".
>>
>>3199381
Damn, never thought of that

>>3199382
No, it's like saying you don't practically *need* 50mp, because 24 will do you just fine. The "why" is the money thing you mentioned in your first post.
If you're dead set on 4k then go for it, but there's point in asking for advice if you're just going to ignore it anyway
>>
>>3199282
bump pls
>>
>>3199382
>money thing you mentioned in your first post.

Different anon.
>>
>>3199465
Fair enough, ignore the last part. The rest still stands tho
>>
Into a DX body

16-35mm f4 N, 17-35mm f2.8 or the 17-55mm 2.8 DX? is the DX the best choice for the crop body? or maybe a full frame lens would fit it better?

I don't want to go full frame atm
>>
are there any good 35mm point and shoot film cameras for cheap?
>>
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TzwenXbTIm8

lol scam.
>>
>>3199553
Old news
>>
>>3199501
If you're wanting a fast normal zoom and don't intend to go full frame, get a DX lens.
>>
I goofed up. Purchased a used Nikon 24-120 3.5-5.6 VR for around 200 bucks. Should I sell it back and get that older 28-70 3.5-4.5 lens for $40 instead?
>>
>>3199501
Sigma 17-50/2.8
or 15-35/1.8
>>
>>3199601
yeah, it was what I read. the f4 is light and seems pretty nice, but the 17-55 is built like a tank, and maybe it could fit my needs...

>>3199617
going to take a look. art versions isn't it?
>>
>>3199619
The 15-35, yes. The 17-50 is just simply a good lens
>>
>>3199497
Go ahead. Buy that 8mp cellphone for your amazing photography. Don't mind that itch in the back of your mind called buyer's remorse.
>>
Can someone help walk me through Canon's APS-C cameras? Why are there 6-7 models? What are their Nikon equivalents?
Nikon is easier for me to understand because it only has 3 models, 4 if you count the D500.
>>
>>3199655
Well there's trash, some more trash, shit, garbage, 80D and 7D2. 80D is a bit cheaper consumer model and sort of video oriented, 7D2 is a pro sports and birding model.
>>
File: 1.png (1.11 MB, 1742x945)
1.11 MB
1.11 MB PNG
>>3199340
>Fujifilm has a lot of APS-C lenses that are heavier and bulkier then any Full Frame counterparts.

You're so full of shit. pic related. sony doesn't even have the same range as the fuji here.
>>
>>3199660
>trash, some more trash, shit, garbage
Which is why I ask. Why 4 weak models? Who are those for?
I get that 7D2 = D500 and 80D = D7200
>>
>>3199655
Jesus, it really is pretty confusing.

Okay, you’ve got the T6, which is the lowest of the low entry level. Shitty autofocus, no tilty flip screen. Roughly equivalent to d3x00.

Above that is the T6i. Adds an articulated screen and better autofocus system. Think Nikon D5x00.

Then you’ve got the T6s, which is still a Rebel, but has midrange features like dual control dials and a top settings LCD. The midrange is very cluttered right now. Also in he midrange is the 77D (bumps the autofocus system a bit, faster FPS, iso 25600 vs 12800, and a few other little things) and 80D (three better. Adds weather sealing, better viewfinder. It’s also a bit older, so doesn’t have Bluetooth). Frankly, I’m a canonfag and think it’s ridiculous that these are three different models. Especially when they’re not in a strictly “x better than y better than z” relationship but rather have a few advantages and disadvantages based on position in the line and how recently they were made. They roughly correlate with the d7x00 line.

Finally, you have the 7D Mark II. Single digit means professional. This roughly corresponds to the Nikon d500.

Oh shit—not finally. There’s also the Rebel SL1. It’s a Rebel whose primary goal was small size, so it’s somewhere around the bottom end because features that would increase body size have been pulled and because it’s an older model, but it’s not designed for cheap so has a few advantages over the T6 and its ilk.

Christ, Canon, tidy your shit.
>>
>>3199655
Pentax K-70, KP or used K-3II
>>
>>3199668
All that and I messed up—current model is the T7i, not the T6i.

My best guess is that Canon has an OCD Vice President who thinks his mother will die if they don’t have a different camera at every $100 price point under a grand.

Either that, or they hope that by having their salespeople go through all of the available entry level models and the differences between them, consumers will just break down crying and say they’ll buy anything if only the guy stops detailing the differences in number of autofocus points.

Either way, I guess the strategy is working, since Canon sells more DSLRs than anyone else.
>>
>>3199662
This. It's the pit of having full frame. You get larger sensor, you get larger lenses. Physics. There is absolutely no way around that.
>>
>>3199602
No, get a 24-85 G VR.
>>
>>3199325
>>3199326
No comments on this before I return the FE 50/1.8?

As long as I want to shoot both video and stills A6300/A6500 is a better route than A7/A7ii, correct? Would also force me down the rabbit hole of more expensive FE glass and future bodies, which I don't think I want.
>>
>>3195552
Looking to get into photography and want to purchase a camera to start with. I was looking at the Canon EOS 1300D that comes with the lens but i think it'd be a better idea to start with something like a bridge camera or something else and then slowly work my way up to a decent DSLR instead of buying the Canon.
Essentially - What starting camera should I buy with a budget of less than 200 (I'm sorta looking for under 150 but maaaaaybe an exception could be made)
>>
File: 1.png (48 KB, 845x310)
48 KB
48 KB PNG
>>3199662
>You're so full of shit.
Nope. This APS-C lens is longer than any of the Full Frame lenses.
It has the second biggest diameter.
It's 20 grams shy of weighing just as much as the Sony and the Canon. (At least the Nikon is excuses by the fact that it covers 80mm range)

You are literally deceiving people like the good cunt you are by arguing your lenses are smaller.

https://www.dpreview.com/products/compare/side-by-side?products=fujifilm_xf_100-400_4p5_5p6_r_lm_ois_wr&products=sony_fe_100-400_4p5-5p6_gm_oss&products=nikon_80-400_4p5-5p6d_vr_afs&products=canon_100-400_4p5-5p6_is&sortDir=ascending
>>
File: 1.png (38 KB, 787x396)
38 KB
38 KB PNG
>>3199681
>Physics. There is absolutely no way around that.
Fuji physics is a bit special.
It's reversed.
The smaller the aperture, the bigger and heavier the lens gets.

You pay more the smaller the Fujifilm aperture gets.
>>
>>3199717
You are comparing it to the wrong lenses, dirtbag. it's 150-600 equivalent lens. Sony doesn't even have one of those. Idiot.
>>
>>3199721
No. 100mm is 100mm, no matter how much you crop your shitty sensor.

That's physics.
>>
>>3199668
to make the entire Rebel this easier: outside of the US they're called for example 650D, rather than T6, to give you an idea of what they're most like.
>>
>>3199720
80mm is a macro 1:1 lens you mongoloid
>>
>>3199736
Macro or not doesn't matter, the Sony lenses has a incredibly compact 50 macro, and the Canon system has a super compact 30mm Macro, both are 1:1.

I'm mainly talking about the apertures, you wanted to talk physics, that's the paradox you should investigate. The smaller Fujifilm apertures become heavier and heavier.
>>
>>3199681
>You get larger sensor, you get larger lenses. Physics. There is absolutely no way around that.
Oh man, there’s a bunch of ways around that.

I mean, yes, if you look at exactly equivalent lenses with the same aperture and same optical design and just one made to cover full frame while the other only covers crop, the crop is gonna be smaller. But all else is rarely equal. Most of the size of a modern lens is autofocus hardware, for instance—a full frame Leica 50mm is gonna be smaller than a crop Sony 50mm.

Plus, you’re taking crop factor in account for field of view but not for depth of field and low-light ability. Eg, the Fuji 16-55/2.8 is a little bit bigger than the Canon 24-70/4.0 (and doesn’t offer image stabilization).

And what about more exotic things, like Canon’s DO lenses, which are super small for their focal lengths? You could make the argument that a crop company could copy an optical design that yielded smaller lenses, but that’s prevented by the legal system, which has very little to do with physics.

You can say that a crop lens is usually smaller than its full frame equivalent, but you can’t say that physics demands that this always be the case.
>>
>>3199721
>150-600 equivalent lens. Sony doesn't even have one of those.
You can use the Sony A6500 on the 100-400 if you wanted the same conditions, couldn't you?
The 6500 is the APS-C comparison you wanted.
In the Nikon lens, you can use Nikon APS-C. On the Canon lens, you can ise Canon APS-C.


The lenses are basically the same size, but like the others point out, you saved nothing by crippling your Fujifilm lens to APS-C whereas the other 3 lenses can cover Full Frame, and are basically less than 1 ounce difference.

If you look at it objectively, the Full Frame lenses are far more value for the money, becuase you can use them on APS-C + Full Frame, and they weigh the same. Two of them are shorter even. That's crazy.
>>
File: 1.png (488 KB, 838x570)
488 KB
488 KB PNG
>>3199720
You are being deliberately obtuse. Dishonest. You found the only lenses that are somewhat large and refuse to acknowledge the differences in the requirements and features of each lens and system. The 80mm is a macro with amazing image stabilization and is in no way comparable to some random short tele that can't focus close or have IS or aperture ring or no way near as good build quality. Like, why is this sony lens such a huge monster, with a T-stop of 5.6? What a piece of shit.
>>
>>3199729
>Canon cameras have different names in the US, Europe, and Japan
This actually makes the lineup more confusing, not less. :)

Like, I get the point you’re trying to make, but for someone trying to wrap their brain around the Canon lineup, it doesn’t really help.
>>
File: 1.png (40 KB, 787x396)
40 KB
40 KB PNG
>>3199743
See>>3199739
Sony and Canon can make 1:1 Macros without turning the weight twice as heavy as F1,8 lenses in the vicinity.

>amazing image stabilization and is in no way comparable
KEK! Did you actually think you could win the argument by crying foul on that?

See the Batis, it's still smaller and lighter than your Crop shit.
>>
>>3199668
>>3199674
Christ, thanks for that write-up. My friend got a T6 but was considering switching it for one of the better ones and asked me, except I literally couldn't wade through the differences of the T6/7i, T6s, and 77D.
I would've just recced the 80D since I use and love the D7100 but it's too much $.

Obviously I'm not familiar with Canon APS-C but it seems like Nikon DX outperforms APS-C in most ways correct me if I'm wrong.
The t6i is the D5x00 equivalent and the others are D7x00 equivalents yet it seems like the D5500 beats them IQ-wise. But the dual control dials and better ergonomics are significant, true

I dunno, just confused why friends keep flocking to Canon APS-C despite the clutter of their model lines.

>>3199729
>>3199745
Yes. Fuck that noise
>>
File: 1.png (1.73 MB, 1646x1272)
1.73 MB
1.73 MB PNG
>>3199747
Here, I made some more comparisons for you, in your own style!

Btw that batis is still not a macro or have IS! funny that.
>>
>>3199753
>Btw that batis is still not IS!
The Batis 85 does have IS. You have the wrong facts.

You can't compare the crop 56mm to the Full Frame 85mm.
If I use the 85mm on the A6000, your nearest equivalent is the 90mm.
Your lens is not only heavier and larger, it is also way more overpriced.
>>
>>3199698
bump?
>>
>>3199740
I think the main difference is the Sony guys think the FF capability is a bonus, while the Fuji guys think the FF capability is a penalty.

It's all in the psychology. The Fuji guy is not used to argue against FF lenses used on A6000.
>>
>ballhead dirty
>open it up
>clean and regrease
>put everything together
>shit ain't working

The pan doesn't turn when I have screwed the ballhead tight.
Ballhead doesn't move when I have screwed the pan screw right.

I've tried all the possible combinations.
But shit ain't working.

What the fuck did I fuck up?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
>>
>>3199748
>Nikon DX outperforms APS-C in most ways correct me if I'm wrong.
Nikon DX *is* APS-C. Nikon’s version of APS-C performs so closely to Canon’s version that any differences are entirely academic.

>I would've just recced the 80D since I use and love the D7100 but it's too much $.
Something like a used 70D will be much cheaper and pretty much equally functional. Like the difference between a d7000 and d7100.

>it seems like the D5500 beats them IQ-wise.
Eh. DxOmark says it does, but not by a wide enough margin that you’d actually notice in actual usage. Certainly not a big enough difference to justify swapping systems.

>just confused why friends keep flocking to Canon APS-C despite the clutter of their model lines.
People don’t really look at the whole model line most of the time. They look at “what is the cheapest?” And “what is the cool expensive camera I can aspire to”. Plus, they look for what they’ve heard of and what their friends have, so Canon being the top DSLR seller for the past few years is somewhat self-perpetuating.
>>
>>3199756
It does? Well, it isn't macro, which makes the comparison completely stupid in any case.

>You can't compare the crop 56mm to the Full Frame 85mm.
If I use the 85mm on the A6000, your nearest equivalent is the 90mm.
Your lens is not only heavier and larger, it is also way more overpriced.

What? This makes no sense at all, where'd you even get any of this? Are you new? Obviously you'd compare 56/1.2 on fuji to FE 50/1.4 planar on a crop sony. While apparently very good, that fucker is huge and almost double the price. And not as fast. There's also 55/1.8 that is small and sharp, as expensive as the fuji but much slower and suffers from massive spherochromatism. The problem with sony is that there just isn't many crop lenses at all, and not a single one at the same level of quality as the fuji lenses. Well, maybe some zooms, but who gives a fuck about those.

I can't understand why you are so hung up on that 90/2, that is so specific field of view that very few hobbyists or even pro's have much use for that. Sticking that 85/1.8 on your a6k (that is your camera, right? and you got it like, two months ago?) doesn't make much sense unless you only do headshots and have wet dreams about that a7rii that you surely upgrade to, any day now.
>>
Thoughts on Canon M5? Is it any good? Is fuji X-T20 better? How about A6300?
>>
>>3199767
Probably a spring somewhere not set in correctly. They'd keep it floating up so the two settings don't interfere with each other.
>>
>>3199783
>Well, it isn't macro
It doesn't need to be, because your 90mm isn't macro either.

>What? This makes no sense at all, where'd you even get any of this?
Using the 85mm F1,8 on the A6000 makes no sense to you?
But it's just 550 dollars. Really affordable lens unlike your Fujifilm lens.
It's super light, unlike your Fujifilm lens.
It's really small, unlike your Fujifilm lens.
And its aperture is larger by a 3rd of a stop.

Your Crop equivalent 90mm loses on ALL parameters, which is pretty spectacular. So I understand why you are no so crazy about using it for comparison.

>Obviously you'd compare 56/1.2 on fuji to FE 50/1.4 planar
E-mount has many, maaaaany options in that category.
Rokinon AF 50mm f/1.4 FE which is just 550 dollars.
Sony FE 50mm f/1.8 which is just 200 dollars.
Sony Crop 50mm f/1,8 which has image stabilisation.
Mitakon 50mm which is only manual, but has f/0,95.
SLR Magic Cine 50mm f/1.1 which is just 270 dollars for that huge Aperture.
And of course the Planar as you mentioned, but it's really expensive.

You are failing in the argument becuase your thought process is too rigid.
>>
>>3199773
>Nikon’s version of APS-C performs so closely to Canon’s version that any differences are entirely academic.
>DxOmark says it does, but not by a wide enough margin that you’d actually notice
That's what I mean. Most people don't know or care that the difference between an 83 and a 79 is negligible. They just say "oh 83 is better let's go with that" or "this one has 24 MP vs 18 clearly that's better"
least that's how I thought it would work

>Something like a used 70D will be much cheaper and pretty much equally functional
True but they seem pretty set on the latest and newest

>Canon being the top DSLR seller for the past few years is somewhat self-perpetuating
You're right. Even people who have no photo friends go to Canon. Eh
>>
>>3199788
They’re all in about the same class. Image quality is not going to be significantly different.

A6300 has the advantage that you can upgrade to full frame without losing all of your lens investment. Canon has that as a theoretical probability, but no full frame body exists yet. Fuji seems to have decided to rule out full frame.

What do you value in a camera? What do you plan to use it for?
>>
>>3195552
Anyone here own/shot with the Nikon 85mm 1.8g? Is it the best 85mm under $500?
>>
anyone use a neweer flash?
>>
Just got my Canon 70-200 f2.8 L IS

This thing is amazing
>>
>>3199841
I’ve got one of those.

It is indeed amazing but Jesus Christ it is a heavy sonofabitch. I rarely use it just because it hurts to lug it around.

When I do need it, though, it’s a godsend.
>>
File: DSC1953.jpg?w=2160&ssl=1.jpg (344 KB, 2160x1440)
344 KB
344 KB JPG
what's a decent and cheap film camera if I want to try shooting film? preferably 35mm focal length

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeSONY
Camera ModelDSC-RX100
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.0 (Macintosh)
Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.8
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)28 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2013:08:29 22:05:39
Exposure Time1/6 sec
F-Numberf/1.8
Exposure ProgramAperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating125
Lens Aperturef/1.8
Brightness0.5 EV
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length10.40 mm
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
ContrastSoft
SaturationLow
SharpnessHard
>>
newfag to photography/filmmaking, have a job making decent money and want something on the low end to just get started and stop daydreaming about making 5 minute films as a hobby after work

Canon Rebel T2i/T3i/whatever else is low end on sale on amazon + Magic Lantern, or a mirrorless Sony a5100? Don't want to get much more expensive than either of these, I'm 21 and I'd prefer to save most of my money like a good wagecuck thinking of his sad future. Also because I probably need to invest 100-200 in other gear
>>
>>3199920
Go to the /vid/ thread,
but I guess they'll tell you to get a Canon Rebel T6 used. Or maybe a Lumix G7 used and some vintage glass. You'll have to invest some money.
Sony before the A7II is just straight up torture. Sony's cameras are horribly designed messes and they are just now learning how to make them work. Nice sensors though.
>>
>>3199906
just brought one of those from a second hand store for 5 bucks, sold it on FB for 140 in the same hour, only cause its the second one i found for cheap
>>
>>3198924
>I appreciate this gesture.
Okay, just posted a thread of shots from the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8: >>3200091
>>
Can someone help a newfag out? What is the appeal of mirrorless cameras? I've seen a lot of talk about them being able to use vintage lenses, but can't any camera do that? I would imagine there are some limitations, e.g. a mirrorless Nikon would not be able to use a vintage Canon lens. Can someone explain this shit to a guy who has no idea what the fuck he is talking about?
>>
>>3200117
You’re a little backwards on the vintage lens point. Mirrorless are the most versatile cameras for adapting lenses from other manufacturers because of flange distance and shit you don’t really need to care about. DLSRs are like 100% proprietary with their mounts afaik.

The other big advantage is size, without the big prism there’s no reason for them to be big gross mounds of rounded plastic like DSLRs have been for 20 years. There’s trade offs because of that too, like battery life, but honestly anything else you need to know is so easily googleable I don’t know why you haven’t already.
>>
I just had a possible stupid idea.

Apsc censor.
Speedbooster.
Focal reducer for medium format lenses.

Will the adapter in between the sensor and medium format adapter result as an extension tube, meaning macro tube?
>>
>>3200206
>Will the adapter in between the sensor and medium format adapter result as an extension tube, meaning macro tube?
Nope. All of the adapters in the described system just shove the lens out to where it expects you to be focusing from already, so there’s no extension and macro/infinity focus is not affected.
>>
>>3200208
That's neat.

Might experiment with this.
>>
>>3200117
>What is the appeal of mirrorless cameras?
The original appeal was that they were much smaller than DSLRs. No mirror means no need for a big mirror box and a big viewfinder and all of the associated electronics and moving parts to swing a big reflex mirror out of the way. Additionally, having an electronic rather than optical viewfinder (ie, an LCD screen) means the camera can show you EXACTLY what the sensor is going to capture, including things like your exposure and any JPEG image settings.

Now, though, since the mirrorless manufacturers have fleshed out their system offerings somewhat and mitigated some of the mirrorless disadvantages (mainly, slower autofocus, poor battery life, and EVFs aren’t as smooth as a real optical viewfinder), the appeal of mirrorless is starting to be “they’re small, plus also just about as capable as a DSLR system”. Ie, it’s not so much that mirrorless cameras are appealing specifically as mirrorless cameras, it’s that they’re appealing as camera systems without the mirrorless aspect per se being a primary consideration.

They do also have, as you mentioned, some big advantages with regards to using vintage lenses. Short version: Lenses are designed to focus to a focal plane at a specific distance from the lens mount. That’s known as the Flange Focal distance. If there’s enough space between where camera body A’s mount is and where lens B expects to be mounted, you can fit an adapter in there and it’s really cheap and easy and doesn’t require any extra optics.

Mirrorless cameras have a TON of space between their lens mount and where an SLR lens expects to be mounted, so it’s super easy to make an adapter. So easy that they can fit adapters that have all the electronics to translate electronic control from camera A to the electronic control lens B expects to talk to it. You can even fit in reducing optics so the lens gives you the same field of view on crop that it would on full frame.
>>
>>3200220
God, I hate small electronics. They are like bars of soap half the time unless you put rubber grips on them and their buttons and shit are too small and/or tightly packed for average adult hands. I'm glad I didn't go mirrorless when I got into non-point-and-shoot.
>>
>>3200206
>Speedbooster.
>Focal reducer for medium format lenses.
What's the difference between these two things?
>>
>>3200208
That would depend on the lens system, wouldn't it?

There are mirrorless Medium format with really small flange now, you will mess up everything if you extend them.
>>
>>3200230
Iirc speedbosters are both focal reducers and they increase the light by 1 stop.
Focal reducers don't give you 1 more stop of light.

I remember the medium format adapter doing that anyway.
>>
>>3196448
https://www.ebay.com/itm/BENRO-T600EX-LOCK-FREE-PHOTO-VIDEO-TRIPOD-IN-BLACK/122729661529
should i?
>>
>>3200240
No.
>>
>>3200223
Have you only looked at the A6xx, XT10/20 and m4/3 systems or something? Most are the same size cameras have been for 50 years
>>
>>3195552
Is a standard D800 still worth it in 2017 (Pracically 2018) or should I skip it?
>>
>>3200326
Skip it, only get the newest, anything else is a waste of time
>>
Whats the best camera I can get for cheap (max 200-300 euros) Basicly just for taking selfies, high res pics of circuits, animals etc. I dont know much about cameras so help is needed! I'd just end up buying the camera with the largest mpix.
>>
Maybe a D200 + a lens
>>
>>3200354
Ok thanks. What lens would you recommend?
>>
>>3200351
If you don't mind with manual focus. Any of the sony NEX cameras with focus peaking and vintage lenses that fits your style.
>>
File: 36707643310_bdef86ee89_h.jpg (701 KB, 1600x1066)
701 KB
701 KB JPG
Why don't you own an APO lens yet /p/?

Achieve beautiful white Bokeh pearls like this without any trace of colour fringe straight out of the camera.
>>
>>3200354
Jesus. Lenses are more expensive than the camera.
>>
>>3200373
As they should be
>>
A7ii or A6300 for sports photography and video?
>>
>>3200376
So that just thrashes my budget. 200-300 euros for EVERYTHING.
>>
>>3200380
The reason people make such a fuss about buying into a system is because of the lenses. They should last you several generations of bodies and arguably have a higher impact on your picture taking experience
>>
>>3200381
I could get nikon d5000 and NIKON 1 10-30mm f/3.5-5.6 VR

for a total of 200 euros. Is it worth it?
>>
>>3200394
Thats 235 usd. Im already hovering over the buy button.
>>
>>3200397
Nikon 1 lenses don’t mount on F Mount bodies as far as I know.
>>
>>3200399
Is the d5000 F mount type compatible with FX? Also is the d5000 worth the 160usd
>>
>>3200399
Lol
>>
>>3200401
The D5000 is compatible with FX Nikon f-mount lenses, yes, with a bunch of compatibility caveats like all Nikons.

It is emphatically not compatible with Nikon 1 lenses.
>>
>>3200371
>spherical aberrations out the ass
Go fucking kill yourself. There are plenty of lenses that'll get fringeless bokeh without your disgusting aspheric onion rings.
>>
>>3200410
Did someone pee on your breakfast?
>>
Im just going to buy a digital camera..
>>
Is Canon EOS 500D good enough for a beginner? Or is it too old (it had premiere in 2009) and I should save money for something newer?
>>
>>3200685
Perfectly good for starting. Get a 50/1.8 (portraits) or a 24/2.8 (street and generic walkaround) prime for it along with the kit lens.
Read Understanding Exposure by Bryan Peterson
>>
File: 1511627915120.jpg (40 KB, 625x415)
40 KB
40 KB JPG
>>3200371
Because i don't have the money.

I do plan getting this lens during the year tho.
>>
File: blue hour is suffering.jpg (1.29 MB, 3264x1836)
1.29 MB
1.29 MB JPG
>>3195552
Blackberry Z10 anon here, I posted pics a while ago and asked for advice on buying a DSLR on a budget. I finally got a D5100, but I haven't bought a lens yet. What wide angle lenses would you anons recommend to me? I can't spend more than 100 bucks and I want to do landscape and cityscape photography mainly. The 35mm equivalent on my BB is 31mm, I want something at least as wide as that. From what I read, I'd need 20mm or lower.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeBlackBerry
Camera ModelBlackBerry Z10
Camera SoftwareBlackBerry 10.3.3.2205
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)31 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2017:09:28 19:12:41
Exposure Time0.2 sec
F-Numberf/2.2
ISO Speed Rating800
Exposure Bias0 EV
Subject Distance0.34 m
Metering ModePattern
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length4.04 mm
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
Image Width3264
Image Height1836
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeNight Scene
>>
Got my zhongyi lens turbo 2 for my a6300.

It won't mount to the camera body though.

I know how to mount it, read the instructions and checked online, but no solution.

The ring turns slightly but it won't twist further, so I can not lock it properly. It just dangles on 1mm locked.

Anyone that can help?
>>
>>3200371
It is the perfect test chart lens, looks good on tests, reviews and in numbers.
The reality with real life use the image is sterile, lifeless and the bokeh is atrocious. I would rather stick my Helios 44-2 on or if I had to spend money I would even spend more money and buy a Pentax DSLR and one of those funky limited lens. Or a Nikon and an older AF-D prime.
It seems rather wasteful that todays lenses are mostly designed for test charts and review sites. The few actually good ones are spread throughout a number of systems like Nikon, Canon, Pentax and to a lesser extent, Fuji.
>>
File: StrobePhoto.jpg (90 KB, 640x427)
90 KB
90 KB JPG
Got my Godox TT350 for my Lumix today. loving it. can't believe I was considering getting a Nissin i40, for twice as much money and without the strobe function.

Any fun projects one can do with the strobe function except pic related (yes I'm already planning that)

How do I use a flash in daylight?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeCanon
Camera ModelCanon EOS 20D
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS2 Windows
Maximum Lens Aperturef/4.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution240 dpi
Vertical Resolution240 dpi
Image Created2006:09:23 21:52:30
Exposure Time1/2 sec
F-Numberf/4.5
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating100
Lens Aperturef/4.5
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
FlashFlash, Compulsory
Focal Length33.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width640
Image Height427
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>
File: 36933525362_de874ac551_h.jpg (459 KB, 1066x1600)
459 KB
459 KB JPG
>>3200794
>It is the perfect test chart lens, looks good on tests, reviews and in numbers.
And in real life usage too. Incredible flare control straight at the sun. The sharpest details you can ever get from center to the corner.

None of your old lenses is really a match to it.
>>
>>3200798
Nice stock photo, did you made it yourself or just posting random junk from the internet?
>>
>>3200371
whats an apo lens?
>>
>>3200797
>How do I use a flash in daylight?
Set it at 1/64 or 1/128 for fill flash in portraits or 1/1 to 1/8 for overpowering daylight and setting exposure for the subject lighting making the background go dark. Amongst other things.
>>
>>3200820
It's a Sigma designation for their upper line of lenses.
>>
File: 599px-Apochromat.svg.png (17 KB, 599x213)
17 KB
17 KB PNG
>>3200822
>>3200820
It means the lens is better corrected for chromatic aberrations to reduce color fringing, especially in high contrast out of focus edges
>>
>>3200820
Short for apochromatic.
>>3200788
Because you're both stupid and poor, get the 18-55 G VR, either original or version II.
>>3200797
You bought a TT350O, right? Protip: fire it in TTL for balanced fill flash, because who's got time to fuck around with flash power in varying light conditions.
>>
>>3200834
Shouldn't I get a prime instead?
>>
>>3200836
Later, yes, but until then you need the kit lens to shoot whatever whenever and figure out composition and light.
>>
>>3200837
Isn't it easier to get fast glass on primes?
>>
>>3200834
Fuck off with your TTL bullshit!

>>3200797
Learn to use your flash manually, most demanding situation have no place for TTL fiddling, it is the equivalent of Auto mode.
When light changes you will learn to judge your light just by looking.
>>
>>3200822
I hate smegmafags so much.

It's the worst combination of Dumb&Poor you can get.
>>
File: P1020987_TWO.jpg (285 KB, 1000x667)
285 KB
285 KB JPG
>>3200848
>>3200834
>>3200821
Thanks. I have a bit of experienc ewith manual mode, since my first flahs was an old Minolta from the 80s my dad gave me, until it died.

Things I still have to learn:
>focussing in dark conditions on a mirrorless
>tracking
>that the strobe-effect only works with bright subjects against dark backgrounds

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakePanasonic
Camera ModelDMC-G80
Camera SoftwareGIMP 2.8.16
Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.8
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)54 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Image Created2017:12:07 20:14:35
Exposure Time1/5 sec
F-Numberf/14.0
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating200
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModeCenter Weighted Average
Light SourceUnknown
FlashFlash, Compulsory
Focal Length27.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width1000
Image Height667
Exposure ModeManual
Image QualityUnknown
White BalanceAuto
Focus ModeUnknown
Spot ModeUnknown
Image StabilizerUnknown
Macro ModeNormal
Shooting ModeManual
AudioNo
Flash Bias0.00 EV
>>
>>3200839
>Isn't it easier to get fast glass on primes?
Yes in general, no in this specific case.

You’re looking for a wide angle lens on crop Nikon. Nikon doesn’t make a lot of primes for crop cameras, so what you’d actually be buying is an ULTRA wide for full frame to get a wide look on crop. Ultrawides are rarely particularly fast. So buying a prime wouldn’t get you a heck of a lot of benefit and it would cost you a shit-ton if money.

The 18-55 is cheap, fast enough, and wide angle on your camera. Buy it and use it until you understand enough about cameras to know for sure why you need something else.
>>
File: 1258791441788.jpg (32 KB, 320x259)
32 KB
32 KB JPG
So, is Pentax dead, or will they someday get the D850 sensor?
>>
>>3200885
Dead in what way? They are releasing a 50/1.4 and 85/1.4 next spring for FF and an f/2.8 APS-C UWA zoom later. All three are star lenses.
>>
>>3200890
Dead as in stuck-with-a-2012-sensor way of dead.
>>
>>3195552
anyone here know how quickly Adorama typically sends out backordered items?

I bought a lens online last Friday during a sale, that their site said was in stock, and then Sunday morning I get an email saying it's on backorder. I can wait a another week for it to ship, but I really need the lens before I go out of town for the holidays. Considering going ahead and cancelling the order, and paying a higher price at B&H, Amazon, or somewhere else for it.
>>
>>3200895
No. The K1 was released relatively recently, and full frame cameras have long product cycles. So it’ll be a while, but eventually Pentax will release a camera with an updated sensor.

And that being said, the K1 sensor is pretty good. DxO shoes it being better a few points better than Canon and Canon is this top seller of full frame cameras in the world. The distance in quality between it and either the d850 or the 5d4 is so small that you’d never notice it in practice.
>>
>>3200914
Why don't you contact adorama, dude?
>>
File: 0.jpg (32 KB, 480x360)
32 KB
32 KB JPG
>>3200921
>full frame cameras have long product cycles
hello
>>
>>3199808
>Is it the best 85mm under $500
Yes
>>
>>3200885
Pentax is on life support, and has been for a long time. Every decade, the corpse will twitch, and you finally get a 50/1.4 and 85/1.4. Top fucking kek.
>>3200857
spoopy
>>3200836
They don't make (new) wide angle primes, wide angle primes wider than 20mm are expensive, wide angles even in the 20-24 range aren't cheap, and at the wide angles, a zoom is more practical in any case. Since your camera's too old to be compatible with the new AFP 10-20 DX, you're stuck with the 18-55 as your cheapest widest option.

>>3200848
Show me where on your camera the TTL touched you. Or perhaps you don't understand how your camera chooses exposures, so TTL is some magic black box you're afraid of. Either TTL exposes correctly, or you have to dial in compensation. It's little different than shooting any auto exposure mode, and little different than shooting manual, chimping, and fucking around with settings.
>>
>>3200927
Valid.

Okay, except for Sony, which sprays full frame camera bodies all over the floor like a porn starlet in a “squirting” video which we all know deep down is really just pee but we all have collectively more or less decided to maintain the fiction that it’s not, full frame bodies have long product cycles.
>>
File: P1160661_TWO.jpg (632 KB, 1330x1000)
632 KB
632 KB JPG
>>3200932
>spoopy
yeah, I made this a year ago by accident with my dad's old flash, and now I want to make a photo-project on something similar

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakePanasonic
Camera ModelDMC-G70
Camera SoftwareGIMP 2.8.16
Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.8
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)24 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Image Created2017:12:08 00:01:02
Exposure Time25 sec
F-Numberf/2.8
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating100
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceTungsten
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length12.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width1330
Image Height1000
Exposure ModeManual
Image QualityUnknown
White BalanceHalogen
Focus ModeManual
Spot ModeUnknown
Image StabilizerMode 1
Macro ModeNormal
Shooting ModeManual
AudioNo
Flash Bias-0.33 EV
>>
>>3200942
>>3200927
You are both sort of right and wrong. Sony's secret is multiple lineages.
They have 5 Full frame lineages right now, 7s, 7r, 7, 9, and the 99.
That's why it looks like they are releasing a new one every year.

But the truth is the A7ii is celebrating its 4th birthday next year, for example. And it hasn't been replaced yet.

Nothing stops Pentax from making multiple line ups though. Sports and wedding photographers only want 24MP. Landscape, art, product shooters would like 40-50 because that's what their competitors have. And so on, they should have at least 2 line ups.
It's dumb not to.
>>
>>3200968
The A7ii is getting replaced next year, though. Does that he or hurt what you are saying?

3 of the 5 models you mentioned are all replaced in essentially the same cycle, the 7, 7r, and 7s.
>>
File: release stairway.png (1 KB, 114x104)
1 KB
1 KB PNG
>>3200971
>the same cycle
That cycle is spread out usually, so it becomes 3 releases in the span of 2 years.
>>
>>3200971
>Does that help or hurt what you are saying?
He’s saying the A7 has a ~4 year cycle; the fact that that cycle is just about up isn’t really relevant. The Pentax K1 is only about two years old.
>>
>>3200921

The issue with the K1 isn’t the body. The big du is pretty nice for what it is.

The issue is the barren wasteland that is the modern pentax fullframe pens lineup.
>>
So:
https://www.43rumors.com/new-panasonic-8k-organic-sensor-presented-february/

Organic sensor with 33MP from a company previously only dealing with at max 20MP sensors. and notoriously bad noise-perfomance.
What are the guesses? What are the hopes?
Also, what's the deal with organic sensors? is that just standard CMOS or something new?
inb4 "BLOOBLOOBLOO, MICRO FOUR TURDS SHOULDN'T EXIST!"
>>
>>3201006
Open up your chemistry book, look up the organic molecule chapter.

It's probably just some fancy marketing name for sensors that using some form of Carbon in it.
>>
>>3201005
see
>>3200890
>>
>>3201057
That isn't impressive. That only illustrates how they are far behind everybody. And proves his point.
>>
>>3201021
I know organic chemistry. But CMOS is technically also organic.
Question is: how does it work? Are we advancing to light sensitive compounds/molecules rather than diodes?
>>
>>3201059
Which is moot.
The fact is the second hand market has bumped greatly since the K-1 started and the FA limited lenses and the FF capable DA lines are selling well so there is no real shortage on lenses for the K-1.
>>
>>3201063
No it really shows your system is lacking behind everybody else.
>>
>>3199336
>Putting a full frame zoom lens on an APS-C camera is a waste
While that's true, when you upgrade to full frame you don't have to get rid of all your lenses and break the bank buying new ones
>>
>>3199743
>Like, why is this sony lens such a huge monster, with a T-stop of 5.6? What a piece of shit.
because MILCs are a meme
all the compactness you win with the camera you lose with each lens you carry
>>
>>3201106
That was a salty shitpost. The GM lens with F2,8/T5,6 is a specialty lens, a unique tool that doesn't exist on DSLRs.
>>
What's a good external flash for fuji cameras?
>>
>>3200333
hey guy i’m srs
I’ve heard the D800 is a bit slow to work with, and the files are a bitch. I’ve found myself wanting more when it comes to resolution though. Is the D800 still a good buy in 2017?
>>
>>3199336
bullshit
you also get a crop of the best part of the lenses MTF curve
>>
File: Capture.png (20 KB, 622x435)
20 KB
20 KB PNG
>>3195552
Winter?
What is winter?
>>
>>3196190
50 1.8 because sharpness and just the best canon lens going around (in that category)
>>
>>3195552
Well, I own a 28, 40, 50 85 135 and 200 prime and 70% of my published shots are from my 135mm f2 so I'd have to say that one.

Long enough to get candid shots, short enough that I can take portraits without walking a mile away, fast enough to do it at night and sharp enough (wide open) for literally anything.

Also my go to lens for water sports which is what I initially started shooting.
>>
>>3201162

New thread
>>
>>3201157

>water sports

Why would you want to take pictures of people peeing on things?
>>
>>3200694
Thanks anon! That book is great!
>>
Can I get a new lens recommendation for a nikon D7100? Something for urban landscape shooting
Also at least under 500
>>
>>3201581
> Can I get a new lens recommendation for a nikon D7100?
No, you cannot




Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.