[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


Name
Options
Comment
Verification
4chan Pass users can bypass this verification. [Learn More] [Login]
File
  • Please read the Rules and FAQ before posting.
  • There are 92 posters in this thread.

05/04/17New trial board added: /bant/ - International/Random
10/04/16New board for 4chan Pass users: /vip/ - Very Important Posts
06/20/16New 4chan Banner Contest with a chance to win a 4chan Pass! See the contest page for details.
[Hide] [Show All]


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



File: PentaxK3_camera_BW-0081.jpg (331 KB, 1000x1000)
331 KB
331 KB JPG
Winter is coming and going

Last one: >>3238391

Read the sticky first!
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!

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakePENTAX
Camera ModelPENTAX K-01
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.0 (Windows)
PhotographerWALLACE_KOOPMANS
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)75 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution240 dpi
Vertical Resolution240 dpi
Image Created2013:11:09 08:34:42
Exposure Time1/40 sec
F-Numberf/5.6
Exposure ProgramNormal Program
ISO Speed Rating3200
Lens Aperturef/5.6
Exposure Bias-0.7 EV
Metering ModePattern
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length50.00 mm
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceManual
Scene Capture TypeStandard
ContrastHard
SaturationNormal
SharpnessHard
Subject Distance RangeMacro
>>
what x should I buy for my y? My budget is z
>>
>>3241332
z can't get you anything good, expand to at least ZZZ
>>
My nikon 70-200mm is being a cunt

The camera works fine when set to m/a, but the second the lens itself is switched to a/m the camera shows f0

the fuck
>>
>>3241332
Doesn't matter what x is recommended, x' is right around the corner.
>>
I have Nikon lenses (with aperture dial) and Tamron, Sigma (no aperture dial) Nikon mount lenses. I'm planning to buy a Sony A6000, what non-AF adapter with aperture dial would you recommend?
>>
I added very carefully cut and small pieces of scotch tape to the latch between the clip and screw of my K-mount to EF adapter. This removed the 1mm of slack and now the lens fits on as tightly to the camera as a native lens (minus not being able to click into place).
>>
File: 1366659749309.png (441 KB, 300x900)
441 KB
441 KB PNG
>Samyang is about to release the fourth 85mm AF lens on E-mount.
>Sigma is on their way with a 5th 85mm eventually
My face when faced with too many options. And 85 becomes the new 50.
>>
Hopes for the new 14-24mm by Sigma
>>
What the fuck is the difference between the A7Rii and the A7Sii, both with kit lens, A7Rii 50mm 1.8, and the A7Sii is 50m-50m 1.8-2.2.

I'm mainly wanting to make videos outdoors, at night and during the day. Which one do I buy?

The price for the A7Rii with lens is $3500 CAD, and the A7Sii with lens is $3600 CAD.

>Some autist please explain in ENGLISH, which will be better for video

, especially going between daytime and nighttime. I also will be having portable lights attached to my cage / cam caddie, which can dim and are fairly bright at the max output, on either side of the lens, so I will have lighting if that makes a difference for these cameras, or if you'd rather suggest something cheaper since I have lighting.

Also have the Rode VideoMic Pro Plus, and the Beachtek DXA Micro Pro preamp for recording good audio already, so I'm really just left to buy a camera and tripod which I won't buy until I have the camera to test it out with in a store, probably something from Gitzo or Manfrotto with thicc legs since I'll be outdoors mostly.
>>
>>3241466
Rii has better AF and is 2400 CAD new on ebay.
Sii is the better low light sensore, but is slow AF and more expensive.

One has very big RAW files, one has very small RAW files. They are both pretty decent for video, it's the Stills aspect that really sets them apart.
>>
>>3241471
o_o $2400 new? wtf. I was looking on Amazon, also that's $2400 new (i'm only seeing $2700-$2800 on ebay but still cheaper)

Thanks for putting it so plainly. A7Rii seems like a good choice for me then since I have external lighting anyways, and the parking lots I will be filming in are also lit by street lights.

I have a follow up question about lenses, the kit lens doesn't come for that $2400 or $2700-$2800 price, it's just the body, so which lens would I have to buy for a wide angle lens that also makes video look nice? Or perhaps two separate lenses but the video is the primary concern so it'll be the first lens I buy.
>>
>>3241484
Grey imports on ebay. But I guess ebay only gives you local results.

For Video you probably want a lens with aperture ring that is declickable.
The Loxia lenses have declickable aperture.
The GM primes have that too.
Tokina has a 20mm prime with declick.
Laowa has a 15mm prime with declick.

It just depend on what you want I guess.
>>
>>3241385
>Adapter with aperture dial
First time I thought about that. I am not sure they even exist.

Might be wrong though.
>>
>>3241466
>I'm mainly wanting to make videos
SO GET A VIDEO CAMERA.
>>
>>3241484
>o_o
Enjoy your ban.
>>
File: 100-.400GM.jpg (242 KB, 1092x615)
242 KB
242 KB JPG
>Watching some white house stuff
>recognize the GM lens
>Don't hear any camera noise, they must be using the A9
>That feel when DSLRs are banned for clapping the shutter and mirror too loudly
Now I understand better why Canon is trying to get into mirrorless despite not having the AF technology quite there yet.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Softwarepaint.net 4.0.5
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution96 dpi
Vertical Resolution96 dpi
>>
I just got a job with a porn production company. What’s the best e mount lens for cumshots and feet(separately)?
>>
>>3241564
70-200 because they're already white
>>
Looking for an affordable 6x7 med format, found similiar price RZ67 - 90mm & RB67 50mm for a hundred bucks.

I know, for portrait use it's logical to chose the RZ one with it's 90mm, but what are the risk of choosing RZ over the RB? is the electronics stuff in the RZ Robust enough to last? Which lens is more available?
>>
File: IMG_20180127_134515836.jpg (3.46 MB, 4608x2592)
3.46 MB
3.46 MB JPG
can I get a quick rundown on tripods? Im a omd em5 mk2 shooter so my camera and heaviest lens probably weighs less than 1kg. I'm really lost when looking at tripods. I don't want to spend more than £100 on one but I can go higher if all below this price are bad enough to not bother with. I want something that's lightweight and not wobbly
>>
>>3241595
Looking for an affordable 6x7 med format, found similiar price RZ67 - 90mm & RB67 50mm for a hundred bucks.
Shit nigga that's cheap, mfs in my country cost at least 400-500$
>>
>>3241598
i like your necklace
>>
File: Ballet.jpg (430 KB, 751x1000)
430 KB
430 KB JPG
OK, I know "which camera" is the most stereotypical question in these threads. But I'm ready to upgrade from my Nikon D3100 that I got in 2011. And all of the options I'm looking at are such a big improvement that I don't know which to settle on. Hell, I can't even decide whether to stay with a DX body or go to FX. On the DX side, I'm looking at a D7200, D7500, or D500. On the FX side, I'm looking at a D610 or D750.

Whichever camera I get, I also will be getting a 60mm f/2.8 macro lens, and probably an 85mm f/1.8 (now if I get one of the cheaper bodies or later this year if I get one of the more expensive bodies). My current lens lineup includes my 18-55mm kit lens, a 35mm f/1.8 (DX), and 50mm f/1.4. I'm aware that if I go to full frame, the kit lens and 35mm will be obsolete. My main interests for shooting currently are portraits, landscapes, and architecture, maybe with some action sports (skateboarding, etc.). I also want to shoot some video, although that isn't as big of a concern for me.

So here are my questions:
>Is switching to full frame worth basically starting over on lenses?
>If full frame is worth it, are the D610 or D750 specifically worth it, or should I skip them for a D810 or D850?
>If full frame isn't worth it, is the D500/D7500 sensor worth the extra cost over the D7200?

In order to not be 100% cancerous, here is the photo I took in 2007 that really made me want to do more photography.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATION
Camera ModelNIKON D80
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom 4.4 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperturef/5.7
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)120 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Image Created2017:11:02 13:14:18
Exposure Time1/250 sec
F-Numberf/5.6
Exposure ProgramNot Defined
ISO Speed Rating2500
Lens Aperturef/5.6
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length80.00 mm
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Gain ControlHigh Gain Up
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessHard
Subject Distance RangeUnknown
>>
>>3241695
The D500 is the best of the ones you listed, except for portraiture, where an FX sensor will give you a slightly thinner possible depth of field (for a given lens, you'll be able to get closer to the subject for the same framing, which thins the depth of field), and for landscapes, where the slightly higher resolution and dynamic range of the D750 and D610 will give those cameras an advantage.
>>
>20.1MP 1"-type BSI CMOS sensor
>F3.3-6.4 24-360mm equiv. zoom lens
>2.33M dot LVF with 0.53x equiv. magnification
>10 fps burst (AF-S), 6 fps burst (AF-C)
>5-axis in-body stablization
>UHD 4K/24/25/30p video
>3" touch LCD
>Depth from Defocus AF
>Wi-Fi and low power Bluetooth
>4K Photo
>USB charging
RX100 literally and unironically BTFO
>>
How do you clean your lens?
>>
>>3241718
>>Depth from Defocus AF
What's that?
>>
>>3241720
Clean cotton or microfiber. Remove any dust by air first, in case it's sand, and rubbing it into the lens will scratch it.
>>3241718
>IBIS instead of OIS for long lens
>f3.3-f6.4 vs 1.8-2.8 for a peanut sensor
>no pdaf for surefooted video af
It's not BTFOing anything, except for the superzoom appealing to the typical compact camera buyer.

>>3241695
You're not really starting over on lenses. The 18-55 stays with the D3100 when you sell it, and the 35DX will retain value and demand. You continue to use the 50 on FF, and you pick up a 24-85 G VR if you want a FF kit lens. Everything else is FF compatible.

A D7100/7200 represent the best value for pixel density and AF performance. The D610 is the best value for just getting FF, but the D750 also adds in AF performance. The D500 and D8X0s represent cameras you get when you're positive you're sure you know what you need in life (absolute speed and range, high pixel density and DR combined with D4/D5 AF). They're not worth the money otherwise. The D750 and D7200 are better value for anybody needing anything less than state of the art performance.

>>3241733
Panasonic's CDAF technology, where it compares the bokeh in a frame to the lens' bokeh profile to determine which way to focus and how far. Fast, better than plain CDAF, works as a weak substitute to PDAF in AF-C tracking.

>>3241598
Jnironically Dic&Mic E302C.

>>3241564
Voigtlander 10mm Heliar.


>>3241595
The electronics are no less reliable than any other camera from the 80s with an electronic shutter or meter. They'll be just fine.
>>
>>3241777
Do I need to use any liquid or do I just dry rub the clean cotton?
How often do u clean your lens
>>
>>3241718
how much?
>>
>>3241779
799 shekels
>>
My friend has a Nikon F3 with three lenses. He’s been loving photography so far and might get a DSLR for a college graduation present. After visiting a local camera shop the salesman recommended a D7200 and claimed that it was the only Nikon camera that would work with his old manual lenses due to its “exposure metering”. For some reason this set off my bullshit alarm and I wanted to get /gear/‘s opinion - is he better off getting a D7200 that will give “exposure readings” on his old lenses or would an older model (5xxx, 3xxx) be better so that he could get a few AF lenses and other paraphernalia? Sorry for the paragraph and thanks in advance.
>>
>>3241778
Some people fog it up with their breath, others use lens cleaning solution, still others only use the cloth to remove oils.

I never clean my lenses because [spoiler]I dont go outside or take pictures[/spoiler], but [spoiler]actually I only clean it when I've got large amounts of dust or fingerprints/smudges on my lens. That's not very often, despite not using front caps or filters.

>>3241785
Salesman is right, the D7200 is the cheapest currently for sale Nikon DSLR that will take exposure readings using AIs lenses. Also the best value in Nikon APS-C DSLRs.
>>
>>3241787
So he should drop all that money just to use old lenses.. or get a slightly cheaper DSLR and AF lenses?
>>
>>3240509
>>3240512
>>3240523
Thanks for the advice!
>>
>>3241777
>The electronics are no less reliable than any other camera from the 80s with an electronic shutter or meter. They'll be just fine.

But there's no second chance right? once dead will stay dead? (unrepairable)
>>
>>3241778
Microfiber is preferable to cotton. There are companies that manufacture synthetic materials specifically optimized remove oils from lenses without risking scratches on the anti-reflective lens coating. The swab end of a LensPen is also very good, although not exactly the same thing. Cotton is just fiber that's harvested from plants; and in refinement, they can remove 99% of the coarsest fibers to leave you with only softest fibers, but you could never say that a cotton cloth had been engineered from the ground up to be the best tool for the job.

A general rule of thumb is to only touch your front element when absolutely necessary. Lenses will take sharp photos even when their front element is covered in dust and dirt, so there's no rush to clean it when it gets a little dusty. If you can, try to get the job done with pressurized air or a very light brush (for example, make-up brushes, or the brush end of a LensPen). Minimize the amount of rubbing that you do to the glass because the anti-reflective coating on the glass is softer than the glass itself and can be scratched and even thinned by repeated cleaning. Modern lenses have much more durable coatings than lenses of 20+ years ago, and a scratched or thinned anti-reflective coating isn't the end of your lens, even if it does happen, but it's still something to keep in mind as an eventuality of repeated cleanings. Also, another rule of thumb would be to minimize the amount of cleaning fluid you use, since not all lenses have a perfectly water-tight seal around their front element. You wouldn't want Windex to seep into the body of your lens!

UV filters may not be necessary to prevent haze in sunny photos with digital sensors, as they were with film, but using UV filters in particularly dusty, wet or saline conditions can certainly help you minimize the number of times you have to touch your front element to clean it.
>>
>>3241777
>>IBIS instead of OIS for long lens
It's got both, moron.
>>
File: 61jZKU9B2LL._SL1000_.jpg (88 KB, 1000x1000)
88 KB
88 KB JPG
GOBE

DO WE RATE THEM
>>
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UCaZt5ndRW0

pixel peepers and MP whores BTFO
>>
Why do people want 4k 60fps for video? It's useless since not many can watch it... Is it just for downsampling to 1080 and having better quality?
>>
File: 4fd.png (75 KB, 919x737)
75 KB
75 KB PNG
>>3241823
>designed in australia
>>
File: i-wBHJkcm-XL.jpg (73 KB, 937x625)
73 KB
73 KB JPG
I really want to pickup an A7ii. With rumors but no announcement of a A7iii coming, how long should I reasonably wait before picking one of these up?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeFUJIFILM
Camera ModelX-T1
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.2.1 (Macintosh)
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution1 dp
Vertical Resolution1 dp
Image Created2015:11:11 18:36:44
Exposure Time1/125 sec
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating200
Lens Aperturef/6.4
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length56.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
SharpnessSoft
Subject Distance RangeUnknown
>>
File: TS940x940.jpg (69 KB, 800x506)
69 KB
69 KB JPG
Well, today I got the dremel out again and removed a 3mm section of one of the flanges of my K to Ef mount adapter. This is the section which was tripping the Lens Detection Microswitch you can read about here:

http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/eosfaq/manual_focus_EOS.html

Now the 100% manual lens can be properly locked into place and still allow the camera to take photographs without tripping this switch.
>>
I want to buy a new camera to photograph my other camera.
How many bodies do you have? Are they same or different systems?
>>
Give me your thoughts on my run and gun so far! Also will the VMP dead cat fit on this new Plus? Is the foam good enough to shoot outdoors?
>>
>>3241836
Wait till march, Sony will probably announce A7III on CP+ expo.
>>
>>3241817
>poster doesnt mention ois at all
>no reason to suspect inclusion of ois
>doesnt provide link to full spec sheet
Who's the moron now?

>>3241811
No worse than a mechanical camera exploding. You simply have to replace things, or if it's not cost effective, replace the whole camera. You're basically having the same thoughts photographers in the 80s had at the advent of electronic controls. But think about it: where are those cameras now? That's right, they're still shooting.

>>3241792
Depends what he wants to do. Manual focusing is a pain on all DSLRs anyways. At the same time, the D7200 is something you wouldnt need to ask more from unless you really wanted FF. And yet again, lenses > bodies. And back to the other argument, what lenses could they even buy for the price difference? What do they even want to own?
>>
>>3241836
>>3241871
The A7ii is at an unprecedented 1100 USD at ABH.
I think it's a little bit out of touch to believe it will go further down in price.

Unless you meant that you want the mark 3. Then you would have to wait of course.
>>
>>3241831
>filter screws on upside down
>>
New Pentax FF when? New Ricoh GR when?
>>
>>3241856
Reporting in, the CAMP deadcat does not fit on the new Pro Plus. :( How am I supposed to get good audio outdoors now?
>>
>>3241894
>New Pentax FF when?
Announcement expected at CP+. Leak suggests new sensor tech, either A7RIII or D850 sensor tech expected.
I sure hope they step up their AF sensor game.

>New Ricoh GR when?
Nobody knows. They need to step up their lens sealing game or use a fixed fixed lens like in the X70.
>>
>>3241898
VMP* fucking phone. Does Rode make a deadcat for this new one yet? Or any after market ones?

Also, anyone have any ideas on how to mount this to my rig? It's kind of heavy to mount under the lights, and it's too fat to mount under the mic because the lights are there on the sides. I'm guessing I need to push the lights out more with some sort of extension plate, but I have no idea what to get
>>
File: 1482013926502.gif (771 KB, 381x400)
771 KB
771 KB GIF
>>3241899
>A7RIII or D850
There is a couple of issues with this.
The 42MP sensor design is owned by the image division, and Nikon wasn't allowed to purchase it from the sensor division. The chance for Pentax to acquire it is slim to none.

The 46MP sensor design is in all likelihood owned by Nikon. If that is true then Pentax has 0 chance of getting it.
The second problem with the 46MP sensor is the limited quantity of it, so even if it was available to Pentax, Nikon would be able to bid more money on them.

My guess is the sensor will be 36MP.
>>
>>3241903
To tell the truth I'd be happier with a ~20MP super efficient sensor. Never could understand all the hype about super duper MP count, the pixels are small and not very efficient.
>>
>>3241909
Downsampling 46MP to 20MP gives more detail and less noise than a native 20MP image.
>>
>>3241894
use the camera you have gearfag
>>
File: 256131-1_300x300.jpg (16 KB, 300x300)
16 KB
16 KB JPG
What's the deal with this thing? Why is it shaped like that? Nikkor 90mm
>>
>>3241909
And yet the a7rii has similar dynamic range to the a7sii, doesnt it?
>>3241950
All large format lenses look like that. They fit on to a lens board, not a bayonet. They dont barrel shaped bodies.
>>
>>3241957
That is due to the BSI architecture...
Holy shit you are right, it might be BSI or stacked BSI sensor!
>>
>>3241785
If he's used to an F3, better to move to a full frame DSLR. D610, D700, D800 are all reasonably cheap these days.
>>
>>3241871
Nice, thanks for the heads up. I'm not up to date on all the announcement things

>>3241881
I'm comfortable with the 1100 price, but if the 3 came out a month or two after I bought the 2, I'd be pretty cheesed off. Looks like I'm holding out for the 3 to be released.
>>
>>3242018
Are you hoping the A7iii will cost 1100 dollars or something?
>>
>>3242020
No.
>>
just bought an EF mount 28-105mm usm for 75 bucks
did I fuck up? anyone else use this lens?
>>
>>3241785
>After visiting a local camera shop the salesman recommended a D7200 and claimed that it was the only Nikon camera that would work with his old manual lenses due to its “exposure metering”
Surprisingly, not entirely bullshit.

Lenses need to communicate their maximum aperture with the camera body they're attached to. The reason for this is that they take meter readings and let you focus with the aperture wide open--the meter in the camera needs to know how far this is from the aperture you've actually selected to shoot with so it can give an accurate reading.

Modern autofocus lenses communicate this information electronically. Old manual focus lenses communicated this mechanically. For Nikon lenses made after about 1977, this is done with a little widget called an "auto-indexing tab". A little cutout on the lens matches up with a little lever on the lens mount and the distance the cutout turns the lever tells the camera what the max aperture is.

Lower-end Nikons (d3x00/d5x00 series; older d40/d60 series; some other older ones) don't have the little lever that reads the aperture. So the lens can mount, and the lens will let you focus wide open, and when you take a picture, the lens will stop down to the aperture you've selected... but the camera has no way to know what the difference was between the light coming in while you were lining up the shot and the light that'll be coming in when you take the picture.

Nikon solves this dilemma by just entirely disabling the metering system. No auto modes work at all, you can't use the built-in flash, and even manual mode doesn't tell you what the lens is metering. You can use it in manual mode, but you'll have to do so using your keen knowledge of how different lighting situations should be metered or use an external meter, because the built-in meter will be out having a smoke break behind the dumpster.

Additionally, the lower-end Nikons also won't autofocus with older autofocus lenses.
>>
>>3242026
Which 28-105? There's at least two versions of that lens.
>>
File: 51TRNYX303L._SX355_.jpg (23 KB, 355x320)
23 KB
23 KB JPG
>>3242032
the IV with the ultrasonic focus motor
>>
i want to pick up a range finder, never shot one before and i want to see what these Leica boys rave about. sub $100 any recs? was thinking canon G3 QL17. or Konica Auto s2
>>
>>3241332
Sell y and get a q. You won't regret it.
>>
File: 1482567291077.jpg (118 KB, 1200x764)
118 KB
118 KB JPG
I always dreamed of owning a fancy full frame digital camera since I've always only been able to afford a rabal and a few film cameras (most of which I had to sell later anyways). I nearly have enough for an a7rIII and I was gonna trade my old dslr in too but even with that I won't be able to afford a decent starter lens alongside the camera.
Should I just keep poorfagging it up and continue to save or just give up and buy a noose instead. My pictures are garbage anyways but I genuinely enjoy the act of photography.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
>>
New Tamron generation incoming.
For mirrorless I'm guessing. Why else would they steer from their brand new SLR lenses.

>>3242073
The mark 2 still has the advanced BSI sensor, and it's over 1000 dollars cheaper than the mark 3. Grey imports on Ebay are incredibly cheap, like 1900 USD kind of cheap.

For what it's worth though I don't think it's your gear that's the problem. You just need to practice more.
>>
>>3242081
I certainly don't think better gear will help, like I said I just enjoy it. I'm a very selfish photographer and I just like looking back at things rather than sharing them. As long as a camera isn't a piece of junk it feels nice to shoot.
The features do actually appeal to me though I guess. The video and tilty screen and resolution and all the shiny things seem nice, especially when I'm used to barebones photography.
I thought about the rII but the battery issues are just too much of a deal breaker. I can't afford to carry around tons of battery when I go out. $1k is still quite the difference so I'm still unsure. BH and Adorama have a trade in program going and I could potentially get an rIII for $2400 or so.
>>
File: 2424.png (131 KB, 700x966)
131 KB
131 KB PNG
It's beautiful.

Absolutely beautiful.
>>
File: 2525.png (273 KB, 1254x980)
273 KB
273 KB PNG
Similar design principle as the 21mm.

But the new 25mm has far more impressive MTF curves, and not much larger lens.
>>
>>3242149

Neat looking lens.

Why 25 instead of the more standard 24 though? Not that it matters really.
>>
>>3242151
To create a little bit distance to the 21mm I guess.
>>
>>3242152

Ahhh good point.

They have a nice line up with these Loxia lenses though.

All Sony has to do is release them with AF motors and they will make bank.
>>
>>3242156
You have Sony/Samyang/Batis for that.

The Loxia is more of a hybrid lens for photo + video. It has an aperture ring that can be reconfigured so you can racket the aperture smoothly.
>>
How much is new X-T10 body only where you live?
750$ here, I feel like I'm being screwed over.
>>
>>3242163
>new
>xt10
An xt20 costs that much.
>>
>>3242165
I guess it's old unsold units.
Lol x-t20 is literally 1000 bucks.
>>
$60 fucking dollars fuck you Sony.
It will be here Monday
>>
>>3242168

Shoulda just picked up a chink one of ali express.
>>
>>3241331
Oly E-M5 mk. 1 or E-M10 mk. 2? used, they are both priced about the same
>>
>>3242198
How important is weather sealing?
If it is important, E-M5, if not, E-M10II.
>>
File: D3S_5207-oblique[1].jpg (61 KB, 600x507)
61 KB
61 KB JPG
Looking to pick up a Leica M 90mm, currently looking at the Tele Elmarit since it suposedly works very nicely on the CLE. Any tips on haggling with old gear? I am not sure if it's accepted to try and talk the price down.
>>
>>3242222
Absolutely unacceptable to haggle down. You're actually expected to haggle upwards with Leica products. You won't get the sale otherwise, and the seller will look elsewhere.

Also, check'd.
>>
>>3242223
>Walk in to buy it
>Seller asks me where my Leica is
>"uhhhh I have this Minolta CLE here"
>Seller looks at me with a disgusted look
>Pulls out his M10
>Slaps me in the face with it
Such is the life of poor off brand entryism.
>>
>>3242081
I would love to see a 70-300 f/4-5.6 specifically designed to trim size and weight for an APS-C mirrorless camera.
>>
>>3242222
Well, if you don’t have any luck haggling, consider the M39 option, the APO Lanthar 90 f3.5

Damn good little lens
>>
>work in a charity shop
>sorting out some donations this morning
>spot a tripod
>friend has been looking for a cheap one so I go to check it
>see the manfrotto logo on the side
>"huh, neat, what is it?"
>190CXPRO4 legs
>468MGRC2 head
>i begin sweating heavily
>ask my boss for a price for me to buy it at
>he asks me to leave it with him to check, my dreams are dashed
>end of the day i ask him if he's had a look
>he says since it's missing the release plate and looks beat up he will give me it for £1 (one)
>I have to stand there and pretend I'm not underpaying by several hundred pounds
I think this might be the best deal I ever get in my life.
Friend is getting my current tripod and I'm upgrading by a huge fucking margin, holy shit.
>>
>>3242284
Nicely done.
>>
>>3242284
Damn that's lucky. That's where gear knowledge finally pays off
>>
Hey /gear/ I love u anyways.

I want a tripod and I've been eyeing the Manfrotto 290 dual with the 3 way head kit.

You guys think those 2 are any good? Any tripod you'd recommend beneath 240 usd?
>>
>>3242358
In that price range and size I'd rather get a Befree
Also a used 190 legs and 496 head, maybe even the E302C from Aliexpress
>>
just how bad is the 6d mk2? I've heard many people were disappointed in it but it's still really cheap for a fullframe
>>
>>3242436
Imagine Canon engineers taking a look at the 6D and laughing at how shitty its dynamic range is, and then making the dynamic range in the successor even worse than the 6D.

So yeah...
>>
>>3242437
>and then making the dynamic range in the successor even worse than the 6D.
I don't think I've seen anyone (who knows what they're talking about) claim this. The complaints people have about the 6DII are that while it's a slight improvement over the original 6D, it's not enough of an improvement, and certain features have remained deprecated so that Canon can offer a FF camera in the sub-$2000 price bracket.
>only 1 SD card when 2 SD cards has been the industry standard for many crop frame DSLRs for years now
>only 26 MP when they could have just borrowed the same 30 MP sensor that the 5D uses for probably less cost than to develop an all new, hobbled sensor for the 6DII
>no real dynamic range improvement over the original 6D, about the same
>no front of camera function buttons
>no AF point joystick
>pointlessly fewer AF points than older generation Canon cameras
>1/4000 sec max shutter speed
>no 4K video, which is now industry standard on even consumer grade cameras from other manufacturers
>no user customizable positions on the mode dial
>>
>>3242450
Well
http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Canon%20EOS%206D,Canon%20EOS%206D%20Mark%20II,Nikon%20D750
Let's just say the complaint are many things.

The slight downgrade in image quality is the final drop that makes people lose their minds.
>>
>>3242462
At 100 ISO, both are probably within the margin of error for a sample number of 1. The ISO 50 isn't the base ISO on Canon cameras, but is a sort of extra feature.
>>
I'm shooting APS-C cameras, BUT I only shoot primes

is a 28mm1.8 a good add to my 35mm + 85mm lenses?
>>
>>3242450
All of these complaints boil down to "It has the features of a consumer-grade camera", which is what it is. It's just a consumer-grade camera with a full frame sensor and people expect that "full frame" = "pro". Full frame sensors have come down in price sufficiently that you can make a medium-low-end full frame camera now.
>>
>>3242469
>Full frame sensors have come down in price sufficiently that you can make a medium-low-end full frame camera now.
I remember buying my 5D Mark II new for the same price that the 6D Mark II is selling for these days. How has the price come down?
>>
>>3242465
Normally I would agree with you, these measurements are subject to margin of errors. And it would seem nonsensible to make your sensor worse on purpose.

But we do know it's not the same sensor, they did go in and alter it with new features like dual pixel.
So I'm still skeptical of that camera.
>>
>>3242468
28 isn't that far from 35, especially on aps-c. It's basically slightly short normal vs slightly long normal. I'd suggest going wider.
>>
The canon 70-200 2.8 is about $600 cheaper than the 70-200 2.8 GM. How bad would adapting the canon be?
>>
>>3242485

Depends on your body. A more modern body will AF it at close to native speeds.

That said, the GM is a much better lens.
>>
>>3242485
I heard the two latest cameras can perform EyeAF on adapted lenses.

You really should go for the GM though, it's pretty spectacular in its class of lenses.
>>
>>3242477
>I remember buying my 5D Mark II new for the same price that the 6D Mark II is selling for these days. How has the price come down?
5D Mark II MSRP new: $2600
6D Mark II MSRP new: $1899

That's about a $700 difference. My guess is you got a 5D Mark II late in its run when the price had dropped a few times. Or maybe you're comparing the body-only price of the 5 to the with-L-lens price of the 6.

Plus, the 6D2 has a lot of extra tech the 5D2 didn't at launch, like WiFi/GPS, flip screen, dual-pixel AF, much better autofocus system, etc.
>>
File: 123630658716.jpg (141 KB, 529x359)
141 KB
141 KB JPG
Oh boy, I just saw the leaked news on the Pentax K1ii
Look like I guessed correctly here>>3241903

They discontinued their 36MP camera to release a "new" 36MP camera.
This is the most retarded thing I have seen this year.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2008:10:14 14:06:12
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width529
Image Height359
>>
>>3242514

There is no reason to buy it if you already have a K-1, and no reason to switch to it from another mount.

Completely useless.
>>
>>3242518
>Completely useless.
It's downright bad news. The K1 won't get anymore firmware updates, because they make it exclusively for new owners of mark 2.
>>
>>3242483
24 maybe?
>>
>>3242529

Pentax and Ricoh are circling the drain.

Should have made a real go at mirrorless while they had the chance. Look what it did for Sony, they went from nothing to a market leader.
>>
>>3242536
>market leader
youre gonna rustle some jimmies.
>>
>>3242542

They can hate on Sony all they want, but they went from a dead mount with practically zero market share to having a third.
>>
>>3242536
A-mount had a good 12% chunk of the marketshare.
>>
File: Fly Eye_00a.jpg (452 KB, 1024x666)
452 KB
452 KB JPG
I'm having trouble with clarity possibly due to micro vibrations during extreme macro/micro photography. I'm using a D3400 and there's no anti-vibration for it or IBIS. I have everything sandbagged and I'm using a ring light.

This photo is a fly eye with 30 second exposure and focus stacked. As you can see, the focus is terrible. I really don't think this is due to how extreme the diopter is, but it might be since it uses a reversed 18-55mm lens set to 18mm with 404.4mm of extension tube/bellows on it. Have I reached the limit of light for this lens where it will never be in actual focus or do I just need to rig up some snoot lights to drastically lower the exposure time to reduce possible vibration problems?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATION
Camera ModelNIKON D3400
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CC 2017 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.0
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern762
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Image Created2018:02:15 01:06:19
Exposure Time30 sec
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating100
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModeCenter Weighted Average
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
Image Width1024
Image Height666
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Gain ControlNone
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
Subject Distance RangeUnknown
>>
>>3242585
I forgot to mention it was set to about f/8.
>>
>>3242585
There should be somewhere in the photo that there is the plane of focus. If everything's blurry, your solutions are to shorten the shutter speed, use flash, and/or use a remote. I find sometimes even a delay shutter isn't enough.

Also time to git gud with photoshop and focus stack the shit out of it.
>>
File: DSC_3400ca.jpg (171 KB, 1024x684)
171 KB
171 KB JPG
>>3242587
You see the blurry stuff in the background? That is outside the DOF. The bumps are inside the DOF and focus stacked. If I pull back a great deal and use less extension tube/bellows I can get this sort of clarity with a focus stack. Both images are resized, but not cropped much, just what is lost via focus stacking.

Both photos cost about $7 in batteries each. I really need to get some rechargeables or rig up an AC/DC unit for the light.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATION
Camera ModelNIKON D3400
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CC 2017 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.0
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern762
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Image Created2017:12:24 22:35:48
Exposure Time1.3 sec
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating100
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModeCenter Weighted Average
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
Image Width1024
Image Height684
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Gain ControlNone
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
Subject Distance RangeUnknown
>>
>>3242587
This is the basic setup I'm doing. The camera and extension tube/bellows are aimed and sandbagged. I can't use a tripod or it can pick up everything from sound vibration to a car going by. The mirror is up with liveview. I have a remote and a mirror to bounce the signal to the front of the camera. I sit just at the edge of the remote's max reach, about 15-16 feet away.

The best thing I can think of is to add more light, but that will take some time and a good bit of money even for a DIY rig.
>>
I have a Kodak Ektanar projector lens in my possession. It says

"4 to 6 inches" and is a f/3.5 aperture.

Is it good for anything? Is it radioactive? The glass is completely clear.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeSAMSUNG
Camera ModelSM-G900T
Camera SoftwareG900TUVU1ANE6
Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.2
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)31 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width5312
Image Height2988
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2015:01:17 19:10:31
Exposure Time1/61 sec
F-Numberf/2.2
Exposure ProgramNormal Program
ISO Speed Rating40
Lens Aperturef/2.2
Brightness4.6 EV
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModeCenter Weighted Average
Light SourceUnknown
FlashFlash
Focal Length4.80 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width2957
Image Height2264
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Unique Image IDE1100F0933924756B5FF2F480D7E9A61
>>
File: Capture.png (303 KB, 1371x651)
303 KB
303 KB PNG
Should I upgrade from the X-T1 /p/?
>>
>>3242563
The only chance for them on mirrorless would be in the micro 4/3. They wouldn't have a chance otherwise, their new mount would be eternally no-lens status.

Remember you're talking about a company that can't afford anymore firmware support for its 1 year old flagship.
>>
>>3242602
If you shoot video maybe, otherwise literally why
>>
>>3242597
My research so far says the lens was made for a Kodak Ektagraphic III slide projector, and those were made from 1981 to 2004.

So probably not radioactive?
>>
>>3242609
Not him but same situation.

Touch screen, better af, ibis, more pickles, nicer grip.
>>
>>3242604

They could go e-mount. Sony is willing to license it.

Probably too many restrictions though.
>>
Hey /p/, i want a tripod.
Had one - a cheap and ugly, it broke.

So what do i care:
- weight - doesnt matter, i dont want to pay premium for carbon
- it should hold an old FF and 70-200 2.8, so sturdy enough
- i want the central column to be reversable and the legs connected via metal screvs with the abulity to go upside-down, or at least be horizontal to use tripod low enough for the macro mushrooms.
- i also think i want a ballhead

Any suggestions? Is that BENRO - okayish brand? Or should i only Cullman and Manfrotto?
>>
>>3242624
And what about Velbon?
>>
>>3241695
I was recently in the same spot. Renting a D500 and a D750 helped me figure out what I liked/needed in my field, which happens to be lighting for theatre, dance, ballet, etc.

I felt like the D500 was meant mainly for wildlife, especially with 10fps. For low-light theatre, entrainment photography, a FX sensor performed much better in my opinion.
From what you listed of what your interest are, a FX body is probably the better option for you. To save some money, a used short zoom would work to replace your kit.
The D500 and D7500 aren't worth it if you are not strictly doing wildlife and/or video. A D7200 or D7100 are good price saving options as well (and they can still use FX glass if you get some to later upgrade to FX).
>>
What are the chances the a7siii/a7iii or 7Dmk3 will be announced at CP+? I'm looking to upgrade to something higher than a 70D but I've also thought about going mirrorless. Should I hold off until then?
>>
>>3242673
The d3400. That line is older and has less problems than the newer line of a6000. It is also cheaper so you can get more gear for it. Keep in mind that it is entry level and doesn't have any weatherization so no going out in the rain or snow without a rainbag.

http://cameradecision.com/compare/Sony-Alpha-a6000-vs-Nikon-D3400

The a6000 has more features, but the quality of the images isn't as good. It also drains batteries like crazy. With the D3400 you can turn off pretty much every feature it has to save battery life and take something like 5000 images on a single battery charge (without flash) once you learn how. The A6000 also has AA which also lowers the quality of the images. It is best to do anti-moire in post than in-camera.
>>
What are the disadvantages of macro lenses in normal(=non-macro) applications?
I've done some searching and found these:
-flatter colors
-takes longer to autofocus due to longer range
-more elements -> slightly worse image + bigger and heavier
-on or two lenses can't focus to infinity

How much do these affect image quality and are there more? Would it be better to just use extension tubes as needed?
>>
>>3242701
Use macro lenses for macro and normal lenses for normal applications. Problem solved.
>>
>>3242701
Some are good for portrait type photos, but you'd need to research which ones specifically.

They are built specifically for a special job and excel at that job over all other methods for taking macro shots. They are made to correct problems with taking macro shots via how their lenses are coated and shaped as well as what elements are being used. Don't get me wrong, you can do a shit load of awesome stuff with a normal lens with stuff like extension tubes, bellows, reverse ring, 2-lens coupling ring, and even close-up/macro lens filters. Though, the latter will produce more aberrations than anything else.
>>
>>3242685
Pretty high. All three of those are due for a refresh. CP+ is in March, so it’s worth holding on for a month since you’ve got a working camera—if nothing else, there will be *something* cool announced then, which will add more 7d2s and a7 variants to the used market.
>>
>>3242619
>>3242602
If you can afford it and want the video capabilities, get it. Its photographic capabilities aren't that different from the X-T2, though. It does have a lot more ergonomic grip and shutter release, and the top LCD will be nice to check things like WB and AF settings at a glance, but the X-T3 might have those features too. It's rumored that the X-T3 will have a new sensor, so I would wait.

What I plan to do is wait for the X-T3 to come out later this year, then either grab an X-T2 for a discount or, if I have the money and it looks like a good camera, I might buy an X-T3 new.
>>
>>3242602
>>
>>3242514
i don't think you realize what a massive improvement the new imaging processing chip is over the old one. honestly, kp high iso performance makes my k-3 ii look like shit. (it also makes 80D looks like shit) it'll be that much better on the full frame k1 ii even with the same 36mp
>>
>>3242685
I'm going to guess something will get announced.

> Should I hold off until then?
Not sure. The new models will likely cost a bit more again and it's possible that you don't need the new features..

The good lenses likely also won't really get cheaper.
>>
>>3242783
It's a messy situation because the discontinued camera will be abandoned. And only those who pay for the new revision gets firmware support.

That's not a proud situation to be in.
>>
>>3242701
> flatter colors
> more elements -> slightly worse image
Not really, no.

> takes longer to autofocus due to longer range
Yea, the faster AF capable macro lenses like the Sony 90mm FE or Canon 100mm L still aren't all that fast as compared to non-macro higher end glass with AF.

> bigger and heavier
Well, if we take the lenses from before: 90mm G - 602g, 100mm L - 625 g. Won't really be the most notable lens in a set of good FF lenses unless you bought intentionally all lightweight lenses and no zooms.
>>
>>3242788
the discontinued cameras get firmware updates as well, just not extra features. The KAF4 compatibility was an extra with the K-3 and K-50.
Bug fixes will be patched for some time after the camera is discontinued.
>>
I am going on a road trip after my summer semster and wanted a good lens to take landscapes with but also be able zoom a little. My budget is around 800-1000 dollars. I have a nikon d3400 so its APS-C but I wanna move up too fool frame eventually. So what is the best zoom lens that my money can buy? I have a kit lens and a 85 f/1.8 rn. Thanks bois
>>
>>3242832
16-80/2.8 or 17-55/2.8
>>
>>3242832
AFS 70-300 VR, AFP 70-300 4.5-5.6E VR, AFP 70-300 4.5-6.3G DX VR. Pick any of thosen and your two zooms will cover damn near anything you want to do, until you git gud enough to know what you really want or need.
>>
>>3242832
Nikon has an 18-200mm zoom which is actually quite good. Something like the 17-55/2.8 would be kind of a waste on your camera, plus it has barely any reach. Get the 18-200 and spend the rest of your budget on gas and accommodations on your road trip.
>>
>>3242879
>tfw bought the 55-300
>>
>>3242832
I'd get the 70-300mm AFS VR and a 35mm 1.8. That way you have 2 useful fast primes and 2 zooms with VR for wide angle and tele. Spend the change on beer and hookers.
>>
>>3242884
Poor you. I bet you bought it new. But you know better now, right?
>>3242886
Exactly my setup. If someone were to buy it all used right now with a D3200, you'd be well covered from 18-300 for $800 all in.

>>3242882
I'd rather the 17-55 than the 18-200, honest. It's not the best choice in this situation, and >>3242832 does seem like a god damn casual, but man, superzooms...
>>
File: 1512682442967.jpg (25 KB, 349x349)
25 KB
25 KB JPG
I have $2k which lens is heavy enough to knock me out forever
>>
>>3242903
Pretty much any f/2.8 full frame zoom (e.g., the Canon 24-70 f/2.8L or 70-200 f/2.8L). Since you're aiming for damaging power rather than image quality, the older models (like the 28-70 f/2.8L) should be fine, too.
>>
>>3242903
Unless you plan on killing yourself by picking the lens up, you should concentrate on the velocity of which you can launch an object at your face.

That being said, the best lens I could find is an Nikon Nigg0r AF-I 300 F2.8 at $960 and a whopping 2.95 kg. If you can spring $3000, the 600/4 AIS is 5.6 kg.

https://www.keh.com/shop/nikon-300mm-f-2-8-d-ed-if-af-i-autofocus-lens-39-695506.html
>>
>>3242913
>KEH is the only source of used camera gear!
Hurr I'm a retard. $1720+shipping will get you this 5.1 kg 400 2.8 AIS.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/Nikon-Nikkor-Ai-s-400mm-F2-8-MF-ED-Lens-CT-400-Case/202219632804?epid=101761067&hash=item2f153ab8a4:g:3wMAAOSwhplaUFpk
>>
>>3242772
Kys
>>
File: DSC_2610b.jpg (448 KB, 1024x683)
448 KB
448 KB JPG
>>3242585
Well, it seems the problem is the lens itself, rather the size of the extension tube. I made a snoot light and was able to get 1-5 second exposures without a problem. I focus peeked with the LCD screen and turns out these two images are the best it gets in the DOF with clarity. This image was a much smaller fly with eyes much smaller than those in the post I'm replying to. I didn't focus stack this image. The DOF is closer to the front of the eye along with some of those hairs on the left. I think I've gone past the limit of the lens.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATION
Camera ModelNIKON D3400
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CC 2017 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.0
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern786
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Image Created2018:02:15 20:03:59
Exposure Time5 sec
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating100
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModeCenter Weighted Average
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
Image Width1024
Image Height683
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Gain ControlNone
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
Subject Distance RangeUnknown
>>
im looking into the canon 6d or the nikon d750

which one should i get

i have a few canon kit lenses from my last canon but nothing i cant replace easily
>>
>>3242932
D750 by far
>>
>>3242932
>>3242933
are there any other full frame cheap-ish cameras i should be looking into
>>
>>3242932
Which Canon kit lenses? They might not even be compatible with the 6D if they're crop kit lenses.

In any case, I'm a Canonfag and the D750's a better camera.
>>
>>3242938
the 18-55 is ef-s so im pretty sure it wont work on full frame
but ill be losing the 70-300 f/4 and the 35mm f/1.8
not the end of the world
>>
>>3242935

a7ii and a7rii.

a7rii is honestly a steal at $1900 grey market.
>>
>>3242945
>cheap-ish
>$1900
You might want to look after the meaning of "cheap"
>>
>>3242946
That's cheap for one of the best full frame cameras out there
>>
>>3242945
holy shit 42mp
if you downsized the a7rii photos to the a7ii resolution how much better would the a7rii photos be
>>
>>3242947
You're a snob asshole
>>
>>3242953
What the fuck? That's just how photography is dude. Full frames are gonna be more than $1k unless they're very old. The a7rii is barely 3 years old
>>
>>3242945
>>3242945
>>3242935
>>3242932
so how does the a7ii do vs the nikon d750?
>>
>>3242946

For the most advanced sensor tech on the market? Yea that is dirt cheap. The comparative Nikon is the D850 which pretty much costs double.
>>
>>3242982
>most advanced sensor tech on the market
That's not how you spell Nikon
>>
>>3242968

Sensors are roughly the same.

The Sony has IBIS and better autofocus. Lenses will cost more, but tend to be a tad better than others on the market. You can also adapt anything.

The Nikon has pretty much triple battery life and better weather sealing. Modern lenses slightly cheaper than a7ii equivalents, but older lenses can be had dirt cheap. Can’t really adapt anything though.
>>
File: sony-tears-in-battery.jpg (188 KB, 600x597)
188 KB
188 KB JPG
>>3242987
>The Nikon has pretty much triple battery life and better weather sealing
You mean "the Nikon HAS weather sealing". Because Sony sure does not, pic related
>>
>>3242989

Well the Sony is rated for "weather resistance" which means it can be splashed or hit with light rain.

It really is a shame, a properly weather sealed a7 would be nice as hell.
>>
>>3242998
Th review says otherwise
https://www.imaging-resource.com/articles/2017-weather-testing-nikon-d850-vs-sony-a7riii-canon-5div-olympus-e-m1II
>>
>>3243001

Dunno about the riii, but I have used my a7ii in rain storms numerous times without issue. But then again, I never had water in my battery compartment.
>>
>>3243003
I like this post, especially the solid proofs.
>>
>>3242998
>>3243001
>>3243003
>>3242989
The camera in that test isn't weatherized and is not advertised as being weatherized on Sony's website for it.
>>
>>3243005
I don't think you understand what "weatherized" means.
It means to make something look old and worn.
>>
>>3243007
In this usage it means gaskets and sealing to keep out water. That camera doesn't have that.
>>
File: Untitled.png (9 KB, 658x310)
9 KB
9 KB PNG
>>3243007
>>
>>3243008
The expression you are looking for is "weather sealing" or "weather sealed"
Something all Sony cameras lack. Makes them look like cheap entry level plastic trash
>>
File: Untitled.png (35 KB, 735x647)
35 KB
35 KB PNG
>>3243010
>>3243007
>>
>>3243007
That's "weathered".

"Weatherized" does, indeed, mean to make something more protected from the elements. Although it usually refers to things like houses rather than cameras, which are usually referred to as "weather sealed". But "weatherized" is valid, and definitely does NOT mean "to make something look old and worn".
>>
>>3243007
>I don't think you understand what "weatherized" means.
>It means to make something look old and worn.
You're fucking retarded, m8.
>>
File: 71KGTpZLeaL._SL1200_.jpg (143 KB, 1177x1200)
143 KB
143 KB JPG
>Sony a7 ii on sale brand new for $1100 at B&H, or $1300 with the 28-70mm kit lens
>Canon 6D selling for $800 used on ebay all day long
>Nikon D800E selling used in the $1000 range now
>Pentax K-1 about to be deprecated with the release of a K-1 ii

Was there ever a better time to get into full frame?
>>
A few years back all my camera gear got stolen and for various reasons I never got round to replacing it. Recently had a nice cash windfall, thinking of starting again. I’m interested in using vintage lenses because I’m an insufferable faggot, would I be better off with a DSLR or mirrorless body? Also I used to use Canon bodies, but I hear they’re not as good as they used to be. Does /p/ have any gear they would recommend to me?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width884
Image Height484
Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>
File: s-l300-1.jpg (15 KB, 300x225)
15 KB
15 KB JPG
Someone redpill me Schott shit. Is it really worth the price?
>>
>>3243062
>I’m interested in using vintage lenses because I’m an insufferable faggot, would I be better off with a DSLR or mirrorless body?

Mirrorless is the way to go.

>Also I used to use Canon bodies, but I hear they’re not as good as they used to be. Does /p/ have any gear they would recommend to me?

You really can't go wrong with any of the big three (Canon, Nikon and Sony). Pentax and Fuji are also worth a look.

Since you are interested in adapting, take a look at Sony and Fuji specifically. The Sony a6000 is a hell of a deal at ~$400, and works extremely well with adapted lenses. If you want to go full frame, then look at the a7ii or a7rii.
>>
>>3243020
Nope. Just think about it;
(used prices; based on what I've seen on eBay)

Canon 5D Classic - $300
Canon 1Ds I - $350
Canon 1Ds Mk II - $450
Sony A7 I - $600
Nikon D700 - $700
Nikon D3 - $749
Canon 6D - $800
Canon 5D Mk II - $800
Sony A7 Mk II - $900
Nikon D800 - $950
Sony A7r I - $1000
Canon 1Ds Mk III - $1050
Nikon D800E - $1050
Canon 5D Mk III - $1100
(list goes on)

Soon to be hit by hefty depreciation:
Pentax K-1
Sony A7r Mk II
Nikon D810
>>
How often do you guys upgrade your camera body? I've had a 550D since it came out and nothing else since aside from random film cameras I found for cheap on eBay. Would it be such a bad idea to upgrade now? It still works (although who knows how long) but it is still clearly dated.
>>
>>3243130
When the limitations will start to bother me or a new feature is introduced which makes me want to upgrade.
>>
>>3243130
When the old one dies a death so terrible it can't be fixed. My previous camera got run over by a truck after 8 years of solid service.
>>
>>3243081
>Pentax and Fuji are also worth a look.
Did Pentax ever fix the notorious "mirror slapping" issue (when the mirror goes wild on its own, like on K-30 and K-50)?
>>
>>3243174
Yes, couple weeks after the first reports in a firmware update.
>>
>>3243087
Sorry, what am I thinking about?
>>
>>3243081
Thanks, I think full frame might be more than I’m willing to spend at present, but I’m quite impressed by the Sony A6000. Apparently I could pick one up with a kit lens and a 55-210mm lens for about £500. My only concern is that I used to shoot everything completely manually - aperture, focus, etc - and relied quite heavily on the viewfinder. Is the digital one on a mirrorless camera as reliable as a regular SLR? Because if not I might just get myself a Nikon DSLR and stick to old F-mount lenses.
>>
>>3243205
>Is the digital one on a mirrorless camera as reliable as a regular SLR?

No not at all. It lags too. When you move left to right or up and down the screen takes time to catch up with what happened. If you need to take photos of action you'll want one with an actual optical viewfinder. You can see it happening on any screen with any camera.
>>
>>3243081
>>3243234
It depends on what you mean by “reliable”.

It has the downside that it’s only on when the camera’s on, so there’s a bit of a pause when it turns on. On the other hand, it’s gonna be big, bright, 100% coverage, and always perfectly aligned with the sensor because it IS the sensor. With an optical viewfinder, the focusing screen might be slightly off from the actual focal plane. Plus, it shows you an accurate screen for the exposure you’ve set instead of showing you reality.

The other guy who said there’s a lag is working on old information. The lag is imperceptible in modern EVFs.
>>
>>3243273
>Always perfectly aligned with the sensor because it IS the sensor

And I think you just sold me on mirrorless. It always annoyed the piss out of me when the final image didn't quite match up to what was in the viewfinder.
>>
>>3243273
>lag is imperceptible

No, it isn't. It is easily seen, it is better than older versions, but there is lag. It is the same type of lag you get from playing a twitch FPS with a wireless controller. It is obviously there, but most people don't notice it. With a camera it is a big problem if you are taking photos of unpredictable subjects. For stuff like portrait, landscape, long exposure, and similar things it really doesn't matter at all.
>>
File: 1473012576912.png (67 KB, 700x600)
67 KB
67 KB PNG
What's a good (used) full-frame canon body to look out for to use alongside a Canon 80D?
Also, any of you who use both full-frame and APS-C, using them alongside each other or separately, have you ever found out that you use one body much more than the other? I'm afraid of finding myself using the full frame more than my APS-C should I get one
>>
Anybody use a wide gamut monitor when processing images? Realistically does contraining your palette to sRGB make much difference?
>>
>>3243294
6D classic
>>
>>3243292
Obviously YMMV, but I just picked up my Fuji and really tried my best to perceive any lag and couldn’t. Felt just like using my Canon, except the exposure would adjust. I’ve felt the same way with my Sony, although I don’t have it next to me to try it out and make sure right at the moment.

What mirrorless cameras have you used?
>>
>>3243294
>any of you who use both full-frame and APS-C, [...] have you ever found out that you use one body much more than the other?
I definitely use my full frame more than crop. This was true even when I had a 5D classic and 40D—the 40D was a newer, nicer camera, but the images I got out of the 5 were better enough that I basically never touched my 40D after I went full frame.
>>
>>3243298
Not mine, it was a old friend's new a6000.
>>
File: 31AFgy3--lL._SL1500_.jpg (14 KB, 441x370)
14 KB
14 KB JPG
Just got a Panasonic G7 and am looking to try out some video shooting as an absolute beginner.

The camera has no internal stabilization, and from what I've read, proper stabilizing gear is really expensive. I found this hand stabilizer on Amazon though, and it seems to have good reviews.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01IFM8ZI8/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_sM0HAbM8GE03A

Can anyone weigh in on whether this would be a good ultra-beginner piece of gear to pick up (given I don't expect much for $17)? Any other inexpensive beginner gear recs (like a tripod) for this camera would be great too
>>
>>3243321
it's cheap plastic and foam with a garbage plate on top, the legs will break some day, and the plastic will bend. get a cam caddie instead, they're made of aluminum i believe and are much sturdier
>>
File: 61cviE1XsmL._SY355_.jpg (21 KB, 355x355)
21 KB
21 KB JPG
>>3243321
I have one and it's okay quality for chink shit. It's A LOT cheaper on sites like AliExpress. I'd personally go for a camera cage with handle myself like
>>3243322 said. Less size and you can reach the camera to adjust settings more easily.
>>
>>3243321
Save up for a proper gimbal imo, like the Zhiyun Crane 2. You don't want to waste your money on chink shit as a beginner video shooter.

Try shooting video with a tripod and handheld first to see if you stick with it. You can easily stabilise in software.
>>
>>3243205
the viewfinder on the a6000 is pretty shit compared to other electronic viewfinders and the camera lacks some features i would expect from a modern camera, like a touch screen
>>
>>3243322
>>3243324
>>3243324

The advice/leads are appreciated!
>>
>>3243205

EVF on the a6000 is pretty good, not up to modern standards, but it won’t lag. Frame rate will drop to shit in low light though.

For manual controls, I think you only have two dials though.
>>
I remember Digital Rev did an episode comparing a cheap body + expensive lens and expensive body + cheap lens. It was like 10 years ago and tech has advanced a lot and even cheap lenses can still be quite good. What do you guys think, have things changed or is glass still the most important part unless you're shooting some specialty theme like sports where you need the high frames and iso performance?
>>
>>3243395
Nothing has fundamentally changed about physics in the intervening years.
>>
>>3243395
still the same.
>>
GFX or 645z for studio work?
>>
File: 1513567811222.jpg (37 KB, 1400x800)
37 KB
37 KB JPG
I'm a total newfag but have always been interested in photography, I just never upgraded past my phone. I recently started taking a class and an loving the control you get with an actual camera. I've seen some Nikon 3100's for like 200$ in good condition, is this a good camera to start with for a cheapo like me?
>>
>>3243403
If it comes with the 18-55 G DX VR, then yes.
>>
>>3243405
Fuck it sold already. There is also D3200 with a 18-55 VR II for 300$ which is still available. Should I bite the bullet or keep looking? It seems like it's in pretty good condition.
>>
>>3243417
Even better. More sensor, newer lens. Nab that shit. Git gud, and learn how to get every last bit of mileage out of that body for your intended photography before moving on. If you get the hankering for lenses later, it's 35 1.8 DX and AFS 70-300 G VR for you. AFP lenses are not compatible.
>>
I want to be more like my idol chosis and get into street photography. Is the 70-200 long enough or should I spring for the 100-400mm?
>>
>>3242436
6d mII is the vlogger camera. I don't think it's a bad camera, just not the best value unless I was planning to vlog.
>>
>>3243422
I always imagine chosis as this 300lb neckbeard nervously peeking around corners with a massive pedophile-tier zoom lens sweating profusely as he snapshits drug dealers and underage girls all while muttering "you are creating narrative works of art" under his breath.
>>
>>3243447
c a n d i d
>>
I have a d3300 with a kit lense any suggestions on a good first lense to buy?
>>
>>3243471
or should I just upgrade to a newer camera, instead?
>>
>>3243471
That depends on what you wanna shoot
>>
>>3243474
The D3300 will do 95% of the tasks a pro could require of it with ease. What and how much do you shoot photos?
>>
>>3243395
These days, you can get a DSLR that was "top of the line" just a few years ago for cheap, so it's not really a fair comparison. The real answer, though, is that you don't take pictures with just a lens or just a sensor. A camera is the whole system. You can achieve a comparable result with just about any reasonable combination of camera and lens if you are patient, but do you really want to?

I recall the reason I switched from Pentax to Nikon was because Pentax's AF kept failing to track moving subjects, and certain lenses would often hunt for focus unnecessarily or hesitate to lock focus to the point that I'd often get misfocused shots of stationary objects too. The screwdrive lenses focused more confidently, but were relatively noisy and some were slow. The SDM and DC lenses focused less confidently and though they were silent, the speed was even slower. By contrast, even some of Nikon's cheaper bodies from a few years ago and low end lenses do a better job at AF than Pentax's flagship cameras.
>>
>>3243479
>>3243478
a mix of stuff, travel, landscapes, maybe some portraits, honestly I'm still pretty new to this. Was thinking of getting 55-300mm lense or a 50-200mm, but also perhaps the 50mm or 35mm, maybe even a 18-105mm. I personally am sort of interested in trying a telephoto lense and trying some different lense sizes.
>>
>>3243491
The sigma 24-105 might be alright. On crop it'll be close to 35-155 or something. Pretty tele but not particularly wide. If the wide end isn't enough for you you could get a wide prime to supplement it for when you wanna do landscapes.
I use Canon so I don't know much about Nikon but 24-105 is a convenient focal range
>>
>>3241331
I have a question about the Canonet QL17 Giii, how reliable are the wein cell batteries for them?
Asked this in /fgt/ but got no response
>>
Hi, so im looking into getting more serious into photography. I love traveling the wrold and am starting my second long term backpacking trip in April. That being said, i want a camera i will be able to take stills ill be able to start my portfolio with (I want to be a travel photographer). I was thinking of the Fuji X-T2 but then the X-H1 was released and now I'm stuck on the decision. My budget for all of the camera gear I'll need is 5-7K but I'd honestly love to keep it as low as possible but still premium gear. (just like everyone else lol)
>>
>>3243531
Are you into videography too?
>>
>>3243531
I would like to start exploring street, travel, and landscapes.

>>3243532
Also I'm not sure if i want to vlog. I feel like i could but that would be a ton of video editing and I'm not sure if I'm ready for the commitment.
>>
>>3243533
X-T2 then
>>
>>3243534
Any reasons why? Would you recommend any lenses and travel gear? I usually travel with one backpack but have been looking into getting the peak design 5l sling
>>
>>3243535
Considering the fact that you usually travel. And that you're not sure if you want to get into videography.
>>
>>3243537
Good point, also i should be going for prime lenses right?
>>
>>3243538
Honestly you ought to figure that out on your own
>>
>>3243540
This is good advice.
>>
>>3243540
honestly I'm just looking for confirmation on what decisions I've made. I think im going with a 35mm f1.4, 50mf2, and maybe a 18-115m superzoom (i think thats what its called)
>>
err, wait i think one is the 23mm f2
>>
>>3243542
28, 35, 50, and 85 are good primes, 50 is the most popular for street and 85 is good for portraits.
>>
>>3243549
what accessories do you recommend?
>>
>>3243550
For the X-T2, a battery grip for starters
>>
>>3243550
Street doesn't really require much you should be fine. Maybe a small Speedlite for your portraits. Tripod is good for portraits and landscapes. Polarizing filters are pretty good but you might not need them. Also spare batteries are a must unless you have reliable charging areas
>>
>>3243555
do you have a lens rec. for general travel photography?
>>
>>3243558
I don't know I'm lucky if I get to travel to the city 2 hours away. If you're backpacking wouldn't you prefer to travel light
>>
>>3243560
yes i want to go light but i also want the best items that will make my life easier.
>>
>>3243563
Premium cameras and lenses can be really fucking heavy. On the plus side they can take the beating that comes with traveling, but the con is you'll also feel beat yourself.


The 16-55mm 2.8 for the Fuji is a good all around lens. That and one or two primes should be enough.
>>
File: PANASONIC-Lumix.png (20 KB, 240x148)
20 KB
20 KB PNG
Any opinions on the Panasonic Lumix TZ71?
I could get one for 330$.

Would be my first camera so I don't expect anything grand bud would like to have a decent start.
>>
Anyone who has experiences with the Sony HX-60?

I already know that the RX100 is supposed to be better, but my budget is low and I wonder if the HX60 is decent enough for newbies?
>>
>>3243506
I've been using a Wein cell in my Yashica 12, it didn't work at first but a day later it was fine. The meter gives me the same reading as it does with an alkaline battery for whatever that's worth.
>>
>>3243565
They're generally good at small magnification, but still give you some fooling round room on the other end. They tend to have shitty battery life and some don't shoot RAW, but you do get fantastic dof on those small sensors. The bad thing tend to be that controlls are configured for morons, so iso, shutter and f controls are usually hidden away in hard to access menus. They do the opposite in the higher end point and shoots.
>>
>>3243580
Are the readings off though? I should have definitely just gotten an AE-1
>>
>>3243567
> decent enough for newbies?
Newbies that regardless want to spend the usual minimum amount time and effort making photos would be best off with a high-end APS-C or FF camera with a high-end lens. Or if it needs to be a compact, the best compacts. It's a money problem, not a skills problem.

And well, the HX60 is pretty shit, but what do you do if you don't have money? It'll take photos as long as they don't need to be particularly sharp, the subject doesn't move too fast and the lighting conditions aren't too dark. Maybe it's enough for your purposes. Otherwise, save up.
>>
>>3243471
See >>3243418 although the D3300 is also capable of using AFP lenses.
>>
>>3243531
I'd suggest a Sony A7 II or A6500 or such, carbon tripod (chinese will do) with not too huge folded length (under 50cm maybe? 30-35cm is possible with an useful extended height), some powerful speedlight, and a bunch of good lenses.

Primes for me mainly, there are very nice Sony / Zeiss / Voightlander / ... that cost a pretty penny but are awesome. Apart from the still great but cheaper Samyang etc. But primes vs zooms is always a matter of what compromises you prefer / the situation demands.
>>
File: fat.jpg (403 KB, 1000x1000)
403 KB
403 KB JPG
>>3243447
>>3241007

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeSONY
Camera ModelILCE-7RM2
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CC 2017 (Macintosh)
Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.8
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)55 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width7952
Image Height5304
Number of Bits Per Component8, 8, 8
Pixel CompositionRGB
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution240 dpi
Vertical Resolution240 dpi
Image Created2017:12:22 14:18:16
Exposure Time1/800 sec
F-Numberf/2.0
Exposure ProgramAperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating100
Lens Aperturef/2.0
Brightness7.7 EV
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length55.00 mm
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
Image Width1000
Image Height1000
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
>>
>>3243542
35 f2 is sharper, faster and weather resistant, which could be useful with xt2 on travel. Do you really need that extra aperture?
>>
File: DSC_2723b.jpg (659 KB, 2046x1364)
659 KB
659 KB JPG
For those who have followed the thread here, https://archived.moe/p/thread/3210596/ I finally got around to making a test aperture for the Dream lens. The aperture can be just about anywhere in/on the lens so I just slapped it on the outside like one of those bokeh filters. It is just paper. This gets rid of most of the dreamy haziness of the lens that was caused by Spherical Aberrations. If I can calculate f/8 and cut it out perfectly, it'd be even clearer looking than these photos. With extension tubes for macro, it looks even better of course. For normal shots there's still a good bit of aberration around the outside of the photos.

I think I'll make a few different aperture cut outs for this with a more durable material using a, "sheetmetal knockout punch kit" so the edges are near perfect.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATION
Camera ModelNIKON D3400
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CC 2017 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperturef/5.7
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern1002
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)82 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width1024
Image Height683
Number of Bits Per Component8, 8, 8
Pixel CompositionRGB
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Image Created2018:02:17 13:44:26
Exposure Time1/200 sec
F-Numberf/8.0
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating100
Lens Aperturef/8.0
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceUnknown
FlashFlash, Compulsory, Return Not Detected
Focal Length55.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width1024
Image Height683
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Gain ControlNone
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
Subject Distance RangeUnknown
>>
>>3243693
Use a trip so we can filter your attention-whoring. Or better yet, get a blog.
>>
File: DWPNEjEW4AA3phl.jpg (41 KB, 500x500)
41 KB
41 KB JPG
>>3243633
>>
>>3243693
Your thread reminds me of a Youtube video. Be sure to watch it all so you can get the punchline.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=woOkBo_26lA
>>
>>3243726
Can you do the same? I'd like to be able to filter out people who are needlessly dickish.
>>
>>3243615
They usually seem pretty reasonable unless there's really bright sky in the scene. Even if they're perfectly functional meters of that era were pretty crude. If I feel the reading is too outlandish I usually double check with a phone meter, and it's almost always in the same ballpark as long as strong light sources are accounted and compensated for.
>>
>>3243813
Someone is cranky tonight.
>>
>>3243824
Center weighted meter. You have to know to compensate for strong light sources. Common of the era.
>>
>>3243849
It really rustles my jimmies when someone on this board actually does something cool and creative and actually posts cool, creative photos and gets shit on. Like, that dude made his own lens. And he posts photos from that lens. And he’s even using the gear thread to talk about the gear part of it. Motherfucker’s doing everything right. He is a model /p/ citizen.

And this asshole is all “let me filter you or just leave forever”.

Fuck that guy.
>>
I want to get into full frame and was thinking of getting a 5Dmk3. Sony seems very inviting however. The lenses are more expensive though and I also have big hands. I'd love to be able to try holding one but there are no camera stores anywhere near me unfortunately. Anyone else that has switched to mirrorless from canon willing to share their experiences?
>>
>>3243875
>The lenses are more expensive though
That's simply because they are higher quality optics.

The opposite can't be said about Canon's sensors though.
>>
File: 1517872987198.jpg (59 KB, 498x500)
59 KB
59 KB JPG
>>3243878
>sony lenses
>high quality optics
>>
I have several dust specks on my rx100 sensor. One solution I've read is that you can vacuum them out if you turn it on and off and zoom out and in while the vacuum is sucking it. Does it work?
>>
File: lanthar-loca-2p8-1-10.png (45 KB, 859x786)
45 KB
45 KB PNG
>>3243893
See>>3242147 for example.

And this: http://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/voigtlander-602-apo-lanthar-loca-focus-shift/
E-mount is riddled with unique optics that surpass all others.
>>
>>3243869
It really rustles my jimmies when people come to an anonymous image board and treat it like their own personal blog, or worse, a forum with screen names. When have you ever contributed to /p/ in a positive way? Fucking hypocrite.
>>
Look what my friend 3D printed me for my birthday

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeMotorola
Camera ModelXT1575
Camera SoftwareSnapseed 2.0
Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2018:02:17 23:47:55
Exposure Time3333/50000 sec
F-Numberf/2.0
Exposure ProgramNormal Program
ISO Speed Rating1000
Lens Aperturef/2.0
BrightnessUnknown
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModeAverage
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length4.67 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width1365
Image Height793
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
ContrastNormal
SaturationLow
SharpnessSoft
Geodetic Survey DataWGS-84
>>
>>3243653
Honestly i think i dont but im unsure, i figured it would be a nice thing to have but I know its not a must
>>
>>3243909
Is that a film back for your Canon T6?
>>
>>3243906
He's contributing a lot more than you, always posting factual information and engaging in conversation like an actual human being instead of always getting his panties in a bind and dripping with edge like SOME people around here...
>>
>>3243899
Something I really like about Canon, Nikon and, to a degree, Fujifilm are that they all have three tiers of lenses, from entry to mid level to professional, and the majority of lenses in each tier have actually good optical performance, being mainly differentiated by build quality or the optics going that extra mile (f/1.2 vs. f/2.8). Pentax's lenses always bothered me because they don't really differentiate like that, but that's partly a consequence of so many different generations of lenses overlapping and so little development on their modern lens roadmap.

With Sony, I just don't see the logic of their lens roadmap. They have a ton of variable aperture zooms, most plagued by some combination of optical flaws. Then you have these top tier lenses that cost as much as a car, surpassing Canon and Nikon both, for equivalent glass, and the only people who actually own them are professional Sony shills, like Jason Lanier and his ilk, so you never know if the lenses are actually good or not. Many of the users who have actually shelled out the money for the Sony-Zeiss primes have complained about sample variation, probably as a result of exporting labor to the third world. Sony is an electronics company. I have zero faith in their ability to produce a decent lens.
>>
>>3243913
Suck his dick harder.
>>
>>3243915
Nice, what are you, 12? You're going to have to try harder than that.
>>
>>3243906
>When have you ever contributed to /p/ in a positive way?
1. Constantly on here trying to answer people’s questions for them, especially newbie questions that everyone else usually responds to with unnecessary dickishness
2. I post photos in just about every non-RPT group photo thread (with trip dropped)
3. Back in the day, I ran weekly photo challenges for a few months and passed on my big list of a full years worth of prewritten challenges to a new maintainer when I left.
>>
>>3243918
>typical attention-whore, he thinks anyone cares about him
>>
File: Loxia 85.png (87 KB, 761x880)
87 KB
87 KB PNG
>>3243914
All those three will be irrelevant on this topic until they enter full Frame mirrorless.

The E-mount has the highest quality optics. You can cry at the pricing but it won't change that fact.
>>
>>3243920
It's weird how you haven't posted a single photograph taken with a Sony, and instead keep masturbating over these charts as if they have meaning.
>>
File: 1323340131617.jpg (106 KB, 554x439)
106 KB
106 KB JPG
>>3243921
You bitched about pricing. And those graphs tell you why it's priced that way.

They simply are the highest quality lenses.
>>
>>3243923
You know there are Zeiss lenses (real ones) available for other mounts, right? I don't think you do.
>>
>>3243914
I regret buying into the Sony platform due to the price. Often I see nearly mint used Nikon DSLRs being sold with multiple high quality lenses included cheaper than ONE good Sony lens.

There's a reason just about every A6000/A6300 I see in the wild has one of those Sigma 30mm or 60mm 2.8 on them. Sigma is filling an entry level to mid-level that Sony is completely ignoring right now. It's all good to call people poorfags and fap over charts, but in real world this is just a casual hobby to most people and a clear entry, mid, enthusiast, pro price structure would work wonders.
>>
File: Milvus 85.png (54 KB, 761x880)
54 KB
54 KB PNG
>>3243924
Since you bitched about Sony pricing, it's fair to assume the Otus lenses are out of your league.
That leaves you with Milvus, while good, they are a different series of lenses compared to Loxia which is designed to be sharpest across the frame while retaining a thread filter radius of 52mm.

Milvus does not prioritise sharpness across the frame, they prioritise bokeh. Pic related.
>>
>>3243927
Post literally a single photo that you took with your Sony.
>>
>>3243928
I can't, I'm a fat bald guy who spends all my day making youtube videos in my mom's basement.
>>
>>3243925
There’s a good reason I only use adapted lenses, Samyang, and Sigma with my E-mount cameras.
>>
>>3243929
I know your lying because fat bald guys who spend all day making videos all like Fujifilm.
>>
>>3243930
Christ, that's so sad.
>>
>>3243919
>asks me to talk about myself
>bitches when I do
To reiterate, this started with me trying to promote an anon who I thought was doing good shit. You’re the one who decided you wanted to make it about me.
>>
File: 1332624391625.gif (1020 KB, 170x146)
1020 KB
1020 KB GIF
I honestly don't even know why Zeiss is releasing those MTF charts.

All they will so is reduce the sales of their Milvus lenses, which are more expensive than Loxia lenses.
They are frankly telling their customers the cheaper Loxia lenses are superior to their expensive Milvus lenses.
>>
>>3243932
I've got multiple hobbies always competing for attention and only so much cash, so when I see a Sony lens at £350 and Sigma offering pretty much the same thing minus OSS for £220 it's sort of hard to argue in favour of the Sony. Especially because I just do this for fun, not to make money or become YouTube/Instagram famous.
>>
>>3243919
The irony here is staggering
>>
>>3243933
Yep, you're a narcissist. We get it.
>>
>>3243934
MTF charts don't mean as much as you probably think they do.
>>
>>3243937
>>3243933
>so insecure that he answers rhetorical questions
DURRRRRRR

Fucking idiots.
>>
>>3243939
They are the measurement of sharpness and contrast of the lens. Which is what most customers prioritise a lot.
>>
>>3243940
>So insecure he projects all over the board
>>
I'm waiting for the rumored eos 90d.
If they could do 4k, I'll get it as a replacement for my old rebel 450d.
>>
>>3243912
It's a 35mm spool adapter. It's currently in the back to my rapid omega 200 (medium format 6x7)
>>
What are good travel accessories for a fuji X-H2?
>>
I droped my super takumar 55 mm and the filter ring is not only dented but it's coming off anyone know where I could find replacement parts that isn't eBay
>>
>>3243935

The OSS is worth the extra hundred.
>>
>>3243962

An X-E3 so you actually have a compact camera to take with you while traveling.
>>
24-70mm GM is one stop faster than the 24-105 G, but the G has OSS. Is the OSS enough to make up for that extra f stop the GM has over the G?
>>
>>3243988
The 105G is the best in its class, but it's not as sharp as the GM.
It's a case of you get what you pay for.

The G is lighter though, and has more range in addition to being cheaper.
>>
>>3243984
I want to build an amateur professional camera for stills and maybe some video
>>
>>3243990
I don't want to sacrifice sharpness given how unforgiving the a7rIII's sensor is. It does mean an extra long prime if I wanted to round out my kit and the GM is so heavy compared to the G.
>>
>>3243992

Then why did you spend a fortune on a crop camera that is larger than some full frame cameras.

You could have gotten comparable or better performance from cheaper and smaller bodies.
>>
>>3243998
I haven't bought a camera yet, just looking for recommendations actually
>>
>>3244082
New thread
>>
20mm+24-70mm tamron vs 20-35-85mm f1.8 for d750? I am doing street photography and landscape.
>>
>>3242925
>>3242585
Idiot macro anon, I recommend taking the front focusing group off your lense.
Google how to do it.
The core lenses inside are much sharper and very good for macro, and you can use the zoom to focus them.




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.