[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] [Search] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/p/ - Photography



Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.



File: crying babby LEN.jpg (56 KB, 300x300)
56 KB
56 KB JPG
Last thread: >>3303196

Read the sticky first!

Post anything gear related, cameras, lenses, filters, bags, tripods, other 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:
Camera SoftwarePaint.NET v3.5.10
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
>>
full frame or m4/3.
Which is better in the $800 bracket and why?
>>
Just bought a Ricoh GR in the 20% off everything ebay.com sale. Immediately have buyers remorse. Ah well, I've wanted one for years so I'll put it to good use until the GR III comes out.
>>
>>3305874
What do you want to do with it? $800 can get you a lot of camera these days.
>>
>>3305874
full frame would be the safe bet. M43 only good if you want cheap body with high quality IBIS or small form factor
>>
File: 3.jpg (18 KB, 852x480)
18 KB
18 KB JPG
Hey guys, I need to print out a passport portrait with these measurements: 2in x 2in, or 5.08 cm x 5.08 cm

So I assume I'm just going to paste a jpg into a word document, then print it.
What resolution should the image be?
>>
>>3305890

Just go to Walgreens. They do it for you
>>
>>3305879
Take portraits and super bokeh flowers/insects.
>>
why is this hyped so much?
>>
>>3305875
>see the sale email first thing in the morning while i'm still in bed
>groggily apply it to the most expensive item on my watchlist to see the price difference even though i could have just read the fine print
>accidentally hit the one-tap purchase thing instead of my home button
>spend an hour or two sweating whether a $4k refund comes through or not

fuckin' great way to start the day, i'm a goddamn moron.
>>
Can you recommend me a tripod for my d5300

I dont need the best one, just a simple lightweight one for vacation

I'm thinking about spending like 100-200€ max.
>>
>>3306006
Big-ass APSC sensor inside it
Sharpest lens of all compacts
Is designed that you can use it one handed
It has the best B&W presets around
Tiny, fits in your pocket
Stealthy
Daido Moriyama used them
The Ricoh GR has a cult following after the Ricoh GR1 film cameras. Still some the best and most advanced film cameras you can get today so lots of people who came from film admire it.
>>
>>3306009
I mostly have regret because the 20% off made the Sony 20mm f2.8 pancake lens about £150 and I'd have loved to own it at that price. Ah well, always next time.
>>
>>3306035 Slik Sprint Pro II
>>
>>3306035
I reviewed it last thread but the AmazonBasics Carbon Fiber tripod would suit you well if you can get it cheap off Amazon Warehouse. Really well built, no branding, easy to set up and collapse in seconds. Plus it's cheaper than other carbon fiber tripods unless you buy from AliExpress.
>>
>>3305961
>>
d700 worth it in 2018?
>>
>>3306088
If that's all you can afford, sure. But if you have anything more modern at all, it's going to disappoint you.
>>
File: Consider the Following.jpg (2.27 MB, 1550x2325)
2.27 MB
2.27 MB JPG
>>3306006
Because it is the best normie camera you can find and normies get inflated egos about it. you can tell the type of normie by what type of PaS camera they think is best. Normally, you have 2 main categories one will mention the GR while the other will mention the P90. The P90 normie crowd basically has no clue about anything and has the biggest ego about owning a P90. They also have the most fragile ego. GR people at least has a partial clue and can often be the type of person who graduates from normie cameras to a DSLR, but sometimes they get (((duped))) into buying one of these early mirrorless cameras making the rounds today; the technology of which jsut isn't there yet. The main problem with that is the previously play GR person turns into a Mirrorless monkey who has a super fragile ego due to his own extreme case of buyer's remorse once he realized who much he's fucked up. If he went from GR to M4T then simply don't mention anything at all or he will be in the news as the main suspect in the next school shooting.
>>
File: 654918.gif (2 MB, 345x310)
2 MB
2 MB GIF
>buy brand new D3400 because sale
>aperture arm starts fucking up after only 2k snapshits
>google google google
>it is a huge problem for other people
>even find /gear/ threads about it on /p/

God damn it. I google the shit out of this and didn't find that shit until after it happened. The older D3000 series doesn't seem to have the problem. It seems to start with the D3300, but the D3400 has it in spades.
>>
>>3306103
You're reading into it way too hard. The Ricoh GR is one of the only truly pocketable large sensor compact cameras that ever came out at an affordable price. Even the Nikon Coolpix A released at over $1000 even though it's now affordable in 2018. Plus the large cult following from the Snap Focus feature that they've had since the film days carves it a unique space out of most cameras. It's a feature most cameras simply do not have.

If you wanted to strawman Ricoh GR owners you could call them b&w whoring artsy fartsy beret wearing college dropout """street photographers""", not go on about mirrorless monkeys or whatever the hell that rant was.
>>
>>3306065
Didn’t you say yours broke?
>>
File: 41mo-gdhkhL.jpg (40 KB, 495x500)
40 KB
40 KB JPG
>>3306125
it didn't break, I had inside a messenger bag with the head hanging out on the way to an event and knocked it against a wall, a knob fell off (red circled) without my realising at the time and Amazon didn't have a replacement part to give me for some reason. It still worked perfectly fine and I'm sure I just dealt with a lazy customer service rep.

Lesson learned, I'll only keep a tripod in a proper backpack in future.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
>>
>>3306088
Not really with regards to what camera you could use with your time. Current high-end models are much better.

But of course a D700 is cheap. If you've got no money, maybe it's a good choice.
>>
>>3306006
It allows you to be very lazy and not carry anything big to get your photo.

Also, I guess it's probably at the upper limit of the typical /p/overty budget; the maximum quite many people can still buy conveniently.
>>
>>3306188
With that 20% off everything on eBay promotion yesterday pretty much everything was brought down within my budget. Shame it isn't always like that.
>>
File: 07_mamiya645_1.jpg (26 KB, 500x367)
26 KB
26 KB JPG
Have shot 35mm film on and off for about 3 years, never even considered shooting 120. Can any 120 shooters give me on advice on shooting this format, film prices, film bodies, lenses?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareGoogle
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width500
Image Height367
>>
>>3306197
If you have a budget reaching significantly above a Ricoh, I think you're in a small minority here. Smaller than it is on flickr or 500px or DA or such.

But sure, it's not everyone. Just a few here seem to have significant travel expenses and MF film and stuff, or current-ish FF cameras.
>>
>>3306207
I bought the first gen one, not the Ricoh GR II. With the 20% off code yesterday it was brought down to £280/$376 with a year guarantee. I could have spent £226/$336 on a cheaper used one but the seller refused to show any pictures to prove if the sensor had dust or not.

With that same code I could have had a used Fuji X100S for £299/$400 or a used Coolpix A for £239/$321.

And I wouldn't consider myself rich, I think people spend the same amount on a Nintendo Switch + games or on weed/booze. This is just my main hobby and I don't drink/smoke anymore so I tend to have lots left over.
>>
>>3306131
>a knob fell off and I couldn't use the tripod head anymore
>it didn't "break," though. I swear!!
Stop apologizing for the Chinese.
>>
>>3306226
> knob fell off without anon realizing it
I interpreted that as a part getting lost.
>>
>>3306119
Don't try to find reason in his ramblings, we had this autismo on the board for some time and he always goes on about something. It is never consistent, the only common in his ramblings are the deep anger. He sometimes goes against Fuji or Sony vs the other, go against MFT and their users, Sometimes have a go at DSLRs while praising the shit out of all mirrorless (then when faced with MFT he quickly switches and tard out at MFT)
Sometimes he picks a brand and makes up some bullshit he puts together from skimming the camera manual .pdfs. Last time he went all out against Ambush in the wildlife thread for no apparent reason.
He has a distinctive writing (or rather rambling) style so he is easily spotted. It is best to just ignore him.
>>
>>3306231
Correct, if I had found the knob it would slot right back in no problem. It wasn't broken off, it had been popped off by force and I must have had headphones in so I didn't hear it drop to the ground.

>>3306226
I don't apologise for the chinks, although /csg/ is the comfiest general on 4chan :^)
>>
>>3306243
You can always /csg/ buy a new tripod head with the knob for like $20. Or a new tripod for $40-120 [depending on what you need].
>>
File: 1525380924190.jpg (821 KB, 1763x1032)
821 KB
821 KB JPG
>>3306119
>>3306233
Spotted the mirrorless and M4T guys with buyer's remorse.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CC 2017 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width1920
Image Height1080
Number of Bits Per Component8, 8, 8
Pixel CompositionRGB
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2018:05:03 17:23:21
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
Image Width1763
Image Height1032
>>
>>3306131
>and Amazon didn't have a replacement part to give me for some reason.

That's because you bought from the marketplace where it is some Asian dude in a basement selling stuff that, "fell off the truck".
>>
Looking for a new point and shoot
Is a GR ii worth the money? Should I save for a Fuji x100 or a sony equivalent?
>>
Is it just me or is the A7 III still out of stock almost everywhere in the USA and Europe?

I mean, at the ~$2k+taxes price level, not interested in scalper offers or preorders.
>>
>>3306254
Amazon Marketplace is different from 3rd party marketplace. Amazon go ahead and fix things up completely before they send it back out. Most of the time it's things someone buys then sends right back that day so not even used. Never had a bad experience using Amazon marketplace as a buyer.

T. used to work for Amazon and dealt with their marketplace, it's all good quality stuff.
>>
>>3306255
> Is a GR ii worth the money?
The GR II is probably worth its price, yea.

You might also have a look at the G7 X II and such as alternative, some prefer mixed features over sensor performance.

> Should I save for a Fuji x100 or a sony equivalent?
They can also be worth their price.

I wouldn't go very far over $1k though. At some point it's just time to admit that you better carry an IL camera for your image quality and shooting performance, even if you have to use a slightly bigger bag or backpack to carry it around.
>>
>>3306243
>>3306231
Knobs aren't supposed to "just fall off" of quality tripods.
>>
File: Untitled.png (10 KB, 645x241)
10 KB
10 KB PNG
>>3306257
>Amazon Marketplace is different from 3rd party marketplace
>>
>>3306257
This is such horse shit. I have personally received counterfeit goods from a "Fulfilled by Amazon" seller. Amazon doesn't do anything "right" except not ask questions, which is going to come back and bite them in the ass when all the fraud finally catches up to them.
>>
>>3306263
Wow, /p/ really is low IQ.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Amazon-Warehouse-Deals/b?ie=UTF8&node=3581866031

Amazon warehouse deals is their refurbished stuff, in their description they detail exactly what's wrong with it if anything. I had to work with Amazon for a while and they're ultra autistic about you measuring even the tiniest scratch at a fraction of an inch.

>>3306268
You aren't following what I'm talking about. See above. I'm not talking about Fulfilled by Amazon, that's chink shit that Amazon sends for the chinks (they drop crates of it every morning), I'm talking about the Amazon warehouse refurb centre where they sell back used things at a discount.
>>
>>3306256
It shouldn't be so hard to place a backorder and wait in line.
>>
>>3306262
It was knocked off, against a wall when I swung my messenger bag with the head exposed. I don't know how in-depth I have to go with a simple story, it was knocked off by being smacked into a wall, I didn't realise a part was missing, Amazon didn't have a spare part to send me, so I sent it back.
>>
>>3306275
It broke during regular use and transport. Probably because it was a shitty cast aluminum part like typical Chinese junk. I have treated my tripods much worse than you and the worst that's happened is I had to re-tighten screws. Nothing ever split in half because it made contact with a piece of drywall.
>>
File: 1521054159420.jpg (76 KB, 564x841)
76 KB
76 KB JPG
>>3306270
>move goal post to say "amazon warehouse" instead of "amazon marketplace"
>>
>>3306271
It is hard.

The local backorders are not at the ~$2k plus taxes level but also ~15% marked up [probably for a quick buck and to cover their asses because minor price changes on orders can't be passed on to customers], and an "unknown" delivery date is just not plannable.


But I figure your answer means that as far as you know, they're out of stock everywhere?
>>
>>3306281
>The local backorders are not at the ~$2k plus taxes level but also ~15% marked up
What?
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1394217-REG/sony_ilce_7m3_alpha_a7_iii_mirrorless.html
>>
>>3306279
It didn't "split in half", the knob was a piece of plastic wedged onto the carbon fiber of the ball head so I assumed Amazon might have a spare part to slot in. And I haven't denied the tripod is rebadged chink shit, I even said I'd probably buy whatever chink tripod they've rebadged next time since chinks will actually send you spare parts to avoid a 1 star feedback and meeting the firing squad.

The tripod was good quality for what it was and I used it for a long time before this whole thing happened. I wish I'd never come to this place to give a review to be honest.
>>
>>3306282
> Does not deliver outside the USA
Local store isn't always in the USA, you know.

Preorders here are at the ~$2.4k level, which is about the local taxes + 15% markup
>>
>>3306209
The difference is that a Ricoh costs less than a decent lens for anything else. Without even gearfagging, you end up with over a grand of glass and have maybe 3 lenses that barely cover the bases of what even a cheap camera can do. Take the base price of any camera and start adding 3-600 dollars every time you want to hit f 1.8 at a given focal length. Everyone I know who does anything remotely specialized (portrait, astro) has a lens that costs more than their camera. It may be their only lens besides a shit zoom, but it's the real cost of everything more expensive.
>>
>>3306284
That's what you get for living in Not-America.
>>
>>3306283
Why are you defending a tripod that uses substandard materials for critical knobs?
>>
>>3306287
Do you have borderline personality disorder and can only see things in black and white? I gave a balanced review last thread saying "hey, this tripod was good, served me well, but unfortunately this thing happened to it so I had to send it back". I repeatedly stated that I know it's rebadged chink shit but it served me well dozens of times before that part was lost.

I think you're just chasing me with this because you can tell I'm getting pissed off having to explain myself over and over so I'll just stop responding.
>>
>>3306286
That's usually a positive given the differences.

But I guess in this specific instance where there's apparently a global shortage and I can't cross-import, it's a negative for waiting in pre-order queues.
>>
>>3306285
I think you're overstating your point a bit. Instead of buying the Ricoh I could have bought a Sony 50mm f1.8 for my A6000 which would be half the price. Or I could have went even cheaper and bought a Sigma 60mm f2.8 instead.

And I know lenses are often more expensive than camera bodies but lenses also stay with you for years. I still have lenses I bought ten years ago that work fine. People get hung up on camera bodies too much, bodies come and go but lenses remain as long as you want. And lenses aren't ALL $300-600, especially at f1.8. You're just not educated on the subject at all if you think that. Those are usually the most affordable options. At f1.4 you start reaching big costs you're talking about.
>>
>>3306289
If it broke due to shoddy materials, then it wasn't a good tripod.
>>
>>3306294
It didn't break, it lost a part. If you can't see the difference between those two things then you're a brainlet. I did everything I could to ask for a spare part but they wouldn't give me one. The tripod was still completely functional and I didn't want to send it back, all I wanted was a spare knob.

Anyway fuck this, I'm out.
>>
>>3306296
It touched a wall and then it wasn't working anymore. But sure. It didn't break. Whatever you have to tell yourself to justify continuing to buy chink shit.
>>
>>3306295
Muslim rape gangs? What does that have to do with pre-orders?

Also, no, we don't really have rape gangs or rape prisons or anything like that. Some individual rape happens, but it's rare and almost always parents rather than strangers.
>>
File: 1521017411011.jpg (208 KB, 938x714)
208 KB
208 KB JPG
>>3306299
You were the one who brought up how superior your country supposedly is to America.
>>
>>3306299(cont'd)
>>3306299
I even just checked. Yearly US prison rape alone is like 100 times the yearly total rape we got here.

And on top of that the regular rape rate per capita seems to be over 3 times higher. Still not an astounding amount in the USA, but your very random argument seems considerably weak.
>>
>>3306307
>>3306306
>>>/pol/
>>
>>3306306
> You were the one who brought up how superior your country supposedly is to America.
No. I only responded squarely to >>3306286. Hinting at it not really being a problem to be in Not-America but here with regards to cameras or otherwise.

Then you completely went off the track with some "muslim rape gang" BS that does not in the least make sense.
>>
>>3306293
All I'm saying is that the slight increase in cost is actually pretty large once you get into lenses that actually take advantage of a better body and that it's too much for these pisspots to afford. A grand for the 600 dollar camera you actually wanted is a bit much, even for me and I've played that game a number of times. You underestimate how broke and/or underage most of 4chan is. Judging by /k/, one of the more affluent, autistic, and "get drunk on youtube with the credit card out" boards, a Ricoh is about what most of them can afford.

I've been eyeing a Ricoh for carrying around so I'm not shitting on it, just pointing out that more expensive options are much more expensive than they initially look. I'm still not done kitting out an Oly and it's starting to get to painful lens purchases. I like shotting birbs.
>>
>>3306315
If photography is a passion of yours that you truly enjoy then you should never feel bad about investing in it. I sure don't.

Plus you're talking about the high costs associated with the hobby but lenses and, to a lesser degree, camera bodies hold a lot of their value for years so you can always quit and sell everything at any time for most of your money back. I think compared to most other hobbies this is one of the least expensive to be honest, I just brutally sell things I'm not using and buy a new thing with the cash. To afford the Ricoh GR I sold a few old Sony camera bodies I was keeping around for no reason. No big deal to me.

I know a lot of 4chan are underage or NEET but that's no concern of mine really. I used to talk on the 4chan IRC but I left when I became one of the older guys in the room. I haven't found a site that makes me laugh as hard as this one so I keep crawling back.
>>
>>3306329
It's not feeling bad about investing so much as the investment being fucking insane. I started as a kid when you could inherit an ae1 and get some fd lenses for nothing. I wouldn't want to inherit a 10 year old xti now. The buy-in is so high to properly try something out, by properly I mean using some facsimile of professional tools, that it's off-putting.

It's all easy to sell but I still have issues with how inflated everything has become and actually held off for years before doing the big buy in. I'm glad I did but if I'd done it before I gave up on film and gone to college for the second time, I'd have a rebel xti and a kit lens for the past 10 years like my friend and wouldn't be having the same kind of fun. Shit, spending 90 bucks on a lomo lc-a hurt me inside back when I was a teenager. The expense, even if you don't enjoy it like you thought, is worth it in the end but shit's just gotten ridiculous.

I miss old anons, some of these kids can meme but the era of early adopted, relatively intelligent dorks and outcasts is long gone. Those fuckers would suck dick in an alley and buy the memest thing you could shit about for keks and zozzles. I also miss meme point and shoots that were fucked up in a good way and made for good shots. Like when 8mp through a chinese plastic lens was awesome.
>>
>>3306341
> you could inherit an ae1
Or you could not inherit an AE1 and then camera and film and development cost used to be a lot more expensive than digital photography and even the optional printing to paper is today.

>The buy-in is so high to properly try something out, by properly I mean using some facsimile of professional tools, that it's off-putting
> the investment being fucking insane
> shit's just gotten ridiculous
I don't get this at all. It has gotten ridiculously cheap.

Taking 5-10k photos would have been a prohibitive expense for me with an entry-level camera in the past (and much worse so for grandma - holy shit, she still paid a lot if you consider inflation).

Now I can buy a good camera and take 150k shots over a bunch of years plus print the best-of and still barely feel it.

And then on top of that, since you mentioned it, the vast difference between disposable income level between kids and adults. Cameras that are a "facsimile of professional tools" barely cost $1-1.5k, and probably nobody will contest it can be considered a fully professional camera setup if you spend $4-8k.

The earlier would have been like the entire money I got to spend myself and on requests over my childhood. Now it's not really much, certainly not over the 5+ years you could surely use such a camera.
>>
File: balls.jpg (548 KB, 2100x1200)
548 KB
548 KB JPG
Anyone ever try out those inexpensive Neewer ball head mounts on Amazon? Looking try out ball heads on a monopod, don't want to spend a ton of money just to find out I don't like ball heads.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width2045
Image Height1200
Number of Bits Per Component8, 8, 8
Pixel CompositionRGB
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2018:06:07 16:06:29
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width2100
Image Height1200
>>
>>3306366
you're probably better off asking /csg/ on /g/, people here are mostly snobs about chink shit camera accessories.

http://chinkshit.xyz/ for the latest thread.
>>
>>3306366
I like how they use the Solid Edge renders instead of actual product shots, that should tell you what I think about them.
>>
>>3306370
>>3306366
Also look for used Manfrotto 496 or 494 ball heads. they are cheap and excellent quality, something you can trust your expensive gear in rain and strong wind.
>>
>>3306347
I'd prefer if the entry level sweet spot were 650 including a good lens. It's close to that but still not there. I have to be careful here, I don't consider most new entry DSLRs right now to be up to par and midlevel mirrorless features overshoot them in spite of faster shitty AF and shit sensors. I think we might hit it in a couple years. I'm not so concerned with digital superiority with pics developed because poorfaggery and battery life are the new 24 shots per roll. Shoot less, shoot better still applies with the kids I know. Give them a 2gb card and they start thinking again.

The real issue for me is that the market has shunk. It raises the cost of even hot garbage.
>>
>>3306366
>just to find out I don't like ball heads
They are single point where you want and lock devices. 3-way or 3D heads have to be loosened or locked 3 times. Really depends on your usecase, usually ball heads are better for stills while 3-way heads are better for video.

>>3306373
You can buy a used entry body with kit lens for $350
>>
What's a good full frame sensor dslr 2013 or newer? Looking for cheapish prices but still want that good old full frame for pixel peeping.
>>
>>3306376
>I don't consider most new entry DSLRs right now to be up to par
They aren't bad but we're at the point where there only needs to be pro enough and prosumer tiers. Most entry bodies feel too intentionally gimped to me for the price. The marketing model is a little out of date for where cameras fall right now. The aspirational model is either gimped more than the price point or just a dated hand me down.
>>
>>3306387
The price is not too high, you don't have the money to spend. Get a job! Complaining on the internet never solved anything!
>>
Why do people hate the EM10 mark ii?
>>
>>3306393
Care to tell me the profit margin on entry level bodies?
>>
>>3306400
A lot of /gear/ are Sony/Canon/Nikon fanboys and stick to their brand. Very few have tried the camera simply because it's made by Olympus. From all accounts it's a solid entry level mirrorless body with great ergonomics and IBIS, there's not a lot to hate other than lack of weather sealing which the competitors in the same price range also lack. Plus the M43 sensor is smaller than Sony ASPC but there's a wider lens selection than Sony so it's all pros and cons you have to weigh.
>>
File: IMG_20180606_170240179_LL.jpg (4.49 MB, 4032x3024)
4.49 MB
4.49 MB JPG
>>3306400
Mediocre sensor, starts at ISO 200, the AF is worse than a 10 year old canon on anything moving or dark or just because, shit battery, can't afford it, pix are like just good enough if you put in effort; it's not the em5 and it has all those problems. Still a nice camera, good grain and reminds me of shooting film without all the bullshit and better in every way. It should have more em5 features. In fact the whole line should have the em1 body.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Makemotorola
Camera ModelMoto G (5) Plus
Camera Softwarepotter-user 7.0 NPNS25.137-93-10 12 release-keys
Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.7
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2018:06:06 17:02:40
Exposure Time1/15 sec
F-Numberf/1.7
Exposure ProgramNormal Program
ISO Speed Rating1600
Lens Aperturef/1.7
BrightnessUnknown
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModeCenter Weighted Average
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length4.28 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width4032
Image Height3024
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
ContrastNormal
SaturationLow
SharpnessSoft
Geodetic Survey DataWGS-84
>>
>>3306400
This >>3306402 is why. This single post should be enough proof that /gear/ and /p/ is infested with a bunch of autistic nontographers.
People who care about charts, numbers on specs sheets and now, profit fucking margins! They also don't have cameras and don't take photos. This is the single stupid reason.
>>
File: IMG_20180607_170937781~2.jpg (777 KB, 3154x1503)
777 KB
777 KB JPG
>>3306406
Seriously reminds me of the old girl.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera ModelMoto G (5) Plus
Camera Softwarepotter-user 7.0 NPNS25.137-93-10 12 release-keys
Equipment Makemotorola
Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.7
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Created2018:06:07 17:10:07
Image Width3154
Image Height1503
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Geodetic Survey DataWGS-84
Color Space InformationsRGB
F-Numberf/1.7
Focal Length4.28 mm
Lens Aperturef/1.7
Exposure ModeAuto
Image Height3024
RenderingNormal
Scene Capture TypeStandard
SaturationLow
Exposure ProgramNormal Program
SharpnessSoft
White BalanceAuto
Image Width4032
Metering ModeCenter Weighted Average
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
ContrastNormal
Exposure Bias0 EV
BrightnessUnknown
ISO Speed Rating400
Exposure Time1/30 sec
>>
>>3306412
Can we see your work?
>>
>>3306419
Just peek into the wildlife thread
>>
>>3306421
Hi Ambush, dropped your trip to attack people as anon again?
>>
>>3306421
>>3306419
Ooh, and I have a few in the segue thread as well, if it is still up. Plus about 2000 shots from this month waiting to be processed after the finals.
>>
>>3306103
imagine being like this guy
>>
>>3306424
OMG LOL it is so easy to spot the autismo, I had a feeling it was you, tardus.
And no, I am not Ambush though I also shoot Pentax.
>>
>>3306426
Don't care, I'm drunk and work in marketing and own an entry level. They're overpriced as fuck, 35% is the average over wholesale cost. Higher level shit is around 20% over, which is more respectable. Some pro bodies are close to cost. It has to do with things you're too autistic to understand.
>>
>>3306421
that doesn't show me which is yours friendo.
>>
>>3306430
Being an intern is not the same as having a job, Peter.
>>
What camera is best for taking photos of food? My boss runs a catering business and since he sees me as his tech guy he wants me to find him a camera that can take good pictures of food so we can show pictures to his clients and etc.

Budget no more than $500
>>
>>3306382
>good
>cheapish prices
Some definitions are in order.
>>
File: bye bye ambush.png (23 KB, 922x399)
23 KB
23 KB PNG
>>3306428
>>3306421
You should have fucked off from /p/ forever like you promised you would.
>>
>>3306449
heh
>>
>>3306449
Some sort of macro lens.

But you need light equipment which is more important, and outside your budget.
>>
File: burger41.jpg (987 KB, 1600x1067)
987 KB
987 KB JPG
>>3306449
Used Sony A6000 body only and a fast lens like the Sony 50mm f1.8 so you can get the creamy background effect. The lower the f-stop the better.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CC 2015.5 (Windows)
PhotographerTilo Gockel
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width7218
Image Height4157
Number of Bits Per Component8, 8, 8
Pixel CompositionRGB
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2016:08:31 21:39:46
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width1600
Image Height1067
>>
>>3306454
Not Ambush, sorry my dear little autismo child
>>
>>3306452
Pick the top 3 used around $1k usd
>>
>>3306473
Lens prices are worth keeping in mind too. Canon 5D Mark III and Nikon D800E are from the same era, are both available for around $1000 used and are still good today. The Canon 6D and Nikon D610 are also still good, and were originally designed for a lower price point, so they should be available for less than the above-mentioned flagship DSLRs (5DIII and D800E). You should also be able to find a used Nikon D750 for a little above the $1000 mark. Pentax K-1 prices are coming down and the camera was very value-priced to begin with, although I think you still can't get one for $1000.
>>
>>3306458
What's so funny
>>
>>3306449
> What camera is best for taking photos of food?
You don't strictly need an awesome camera for that. Some APS-C with 2-3 good prime lenses (one of which macro) and a set of 2-3 good lights will get you far.

And I don't really mean awesome on either end. The A6000 the other anon mentioned is okay. As is a set of 2-3 YN660 with a 560-TX as trigger [cheap but powerful chinese manual flashes, no TTL and tricks but reliable triggering and good enough cycling times and lots of light] .
>>
>>3306480
You can get the camera but the whole kit and time spent in post editing is more than a photographer.
>>
>>3306427
imagine being a mirrorless owner
>>
>>3306488
Okay, you got any good guides for editing pictures of food? I have Photoshop
>>
>>3306481 (cont'd)
BTW, I agree with >>3306460 - your budget is low as fuck.

You actually should bring $1-1.5k if you include software and all that and want decent working speed.
>>
>>3306493
It's a small town caterer I'm not shooting pictures for McDonald's. Any pictures I take would be on sight on the job so I wouldn't be able to lug around lighting equipment which is why I mainly wanted to know of a good lens and camera
>>
Olympus Om-D E-M10 II for £234 from Amazon! You need to apply for £65 cashback from Olympus after paying £299 but it seems like a great deal.

https://www.hotukdeals.com/deals/olympus-om-d-e-m10-mark-ii-compact-system-camera-body-in-black-299-amazon-great-price-for-a-body-only-even-less-with-a-cashback-65-2951576
>>
>>3306495
> It's a small town caterer I'm not shooting pictures for McDonald's
McDonald's likely will have a bunch of $80k digital medium format cameras. And the video ads will probably be $150k+ productions for only a few seconds. You certainly avoid that.

> Any pictures I take would be on sight on the job so I wouldn't be able to lug around lighting equipment
Yea, you would. These are portable flash units.

And you almost have to do this, the food shots will generally come out like shit if you don't add the correct light. As do virtually all product shots. Yea, some of them look okay enough with the right sunlight, but that would be a highly unreliable thing or you'd be setting up a place outside with the correct reflectors every time to even get decent shots.
>>
>>3306500
PS: $1k to 1.5k isn't even normal un-famous town photographer equipment.

Normal photographer equipment is like $3-8k "what he's holding in his hands right now" and then quite a bit more that he also owns for other opportunities.

Maybe you should just hire someone or rent the equipment if you can't bring yourself to pay for even a hobbyist setup.
>>
>>3306449
literally any APS-C entry body with the kit lens and a couple of desk lamps with a couple of white shirts as diffuser.
>>
Why is APS-C dying? Were the M43 bros right? Was APS-C just a meme stepping stone to be killed off by camera makers so they can push their full frame's instead
>>
>>3306516
Yes

>>3306509
Buying the body only and renting good fast prime will be more beneficial to product photography, otherwise I agree.
>>
>>3306516
Fuji is literally the only APS-C you should be buying prove me wrong.
>>
>>3306518
M43 would work for product photography too
>>
>>3306509
> APS-C entry body
Maybe

> the kit lens
If you do 5cm x 5cm newspaper quality product shot prints in the end. Otherwise you'll generally see the problems with the kit lens APART from likely having very serious annoyances with minimum focusing distance.

> a couple of desk lamps
With the correct bulbs, maybe

> a couple of white shirts as diffuser.
Eh? If it's a diffuser rather than bounce, you'll see how not exactly white the shirts are. Pretty bad idea.

OTOH I guess if you really want to do <$500 that's as close as you get - it's going to be an arsepain to get good shots though.

>>3306521
Or a smartphone, if you're doing everything with spit, improvisation and a lot of your time.
>>
>>3306516
>Why is APS-C dying? Were the M43 bros right?
Is it? If it is, I think MFT was dying even a lot more:
https://www.flickr.com/cameras/

> Was APS-C just a meme stepping stone to be killed off by camera makers so they can push their full frame's instead
No, I don't think they're killing it? But yea, Canon / Nikon and Sony want to upmarket to FF if possible, sure.
>>
lumix g7 worth it if I want a cheaper mirrorless with decent lens options?
>>
>>3306523
Sony have been releasing more lenses for their full frame cameras and focusing more on promoting full frame at the moment so it gives the impression the e-mount side is dying. They might announce a slew of things for e-mount at Photokina so who knows.
>>
File: atomic_thonk.jpg (151 KB, 698x698)
151 KB
151 KB JPG
>>3306523
>apsc aspies mad their format is dying
>literally have to reverse the narrative and pretend M43 is dying when it's the other way around

M43 is growing and once ASPC dies it's going to inherit all the dank sensor tech and see a huge push
>>
>>3306529
Go away, autismo
>>
>>3306530
>>3306523
SEETHING
>>
>>3306524
I think it's a valid option.

>>3306528
They're surely more focusing on the FF-E mount. It's more lucrative and more future-proof - the low end is increasingly getting squashed by smartphones. Which are however not currently at risk of getting sensors and optics as big as FF has.

Still, they did release new APS-C E-mount lenses even this year? And there are three other APS-C camera makers that also still do APS-C.
>>
>>3306535
Go away, autismo
>>
>>3306538
S E E T H E
>>
File: 1517655523624.gif (80 KB, 611x542)
80 KB
80 KB GIF
>>3306529
What's backing that up? I only see abysmal user numbers on flickr, there aren't too many actually good sources.

> it's going to inherit all the dank sensor tech and see a huge push
Uh... yea. Sure.
>>
Why do people hate m43?
I love my EM10 mk iii no bully.
>>
>>3306536
>>3306528

It makes sense to make fullframe lenses until their lineup is complete. That is where the money is. FF users are usually more serious and own more lenses, plus you get crop users buying FF lenses in the hopes of “upgrading” to fullframe eventually.

Their crop lineup is already about equal to Canon’s EF-S or Fuji’s X-mount.

Honestly, Sony’s problem is they keep producing professional quality lenses. What they need to do is make some fast, compact, good enough lenses like Fuji’s crop line but for fullframe.
>>
>>3306541
Go away, autismo
>>
>>3306529
>sensor tech
APS-C and M4/3 cannot have the most expensive sensor tech, because ALL the camera makers depend on high volume sales from these two segments.

They have to keep sensor costs down, that means using slightly older tech than Full Frame.
They need high volume, and low costs here, or else they will go bankrupt.

Even the Olympus/Fujifilm cameras you see at 2000 dollars can't afford to give you Backside Illumination for example.
They need to survive on the old tech, even though they charge 2000 USD for their bodies.
That's because their previous mass market P&S products are dead.
>>
>>3306551
>>3306551
>Honestly, Sony’s problem is they keep producing professional quality lenses. What they need to do is make some fast, compact, good enough lenses like Fuji’s crop line but for fullframe.
I doubt that has any point for now. Bad lenses would poorly support current and future Sony FF cameras.

Them having good lenses and sensors is probably the main reason why I want to get a Sony FF.

If I wanted something that competes with Fuji's crop lenses, there are already the APS-C E-mount lenses that are often better and cheaper anyhow [well, for primes - you might be thinking of zooms].
>>
If i'm going full frame and want to get into weddings (Cancer but decent money and plentiful)

Can't decide between the Nikon 810 and 850.
>>
>>3306566
Fuji has nailed the "walking around" lenses market with their many compact prime options. Sony seems to focus more on making great telephoto zooms lately. The only thing keeping me from swapping to Fuji is their high lens prices and consistently high demand for bodies on ebay, people say Sony is expensive but Fuji is next level. I struggle to find a deal on any of their gear.
>>
>>3306528
>>3306536
I seriously don't get why people moan that you don't get 50 new lenses every year. Lenses last for fucking ages and are hard to improve on. Sony currently lists 45 lenses on their site, 15 of which are crop only, and they cover a wide variety of uses.
>>
>>3306572

Exactly. Sony needs to make more lenses like their FE 85mm and 50mm (the last with a better focus motor).

Affordable, compact, good-enough lenses. Not record breaking primes that cost a fortune.
>>
>>3306577
Honestly the only lens that appeals to me and how I shoot from Sony's crop line-up is the 35mm f1.8, whereas there's tons in Fuji's line-up that I'd love to use. Sigma does a better job at catering to my style than Sony does, I just don't like the size of the 30mm f1.4 or the 16mm f1.4. Nothing says discrete like shoving a massive barrel 16mm lens at someone.
>>
>>3306580
>muh discreetness
cringe
>>
>>3306580

The Sony 20mm is also pretty neat.

The only Fuji lens I am interested in is their 56mm.
>>
>>3306577
Look at the olympus and pana lines. The core lenses before you even bother with midrange good enough lenses are primes and long telephotos. Those are surprisingly what people buy. I'm surprised MFT has the range it does, although cheap wides are lacking and adapters miss the point as far as clarity.
>>
>>3306572
>Fuji has nailed the "walking around" lenses market with their many compact prime options.
I feel the lenses aren't good enough, yet so often $1k... Not going to be my choice as long as they continue that.

>>3306577
That's merely what you'd like. I think it's not what succeeds in the market.

> Not record breaking primes that cost a fortune
But they mostly only cost as much or less as Canon's EF "L" lenses did. $1-2k for the most part. Canon sold at that price before recent inflation, too. And it also made them more popular than Nikon, overall.
>>
>>3306580
All those lenses are 900-1000 dollars. Except for the 18mm.

That's a bit of a rip off if you ask me. 1000 primes are more like Full Frame territory.
>>
Realistically how many more years of technological progression until mirrorless is objectively superior?
>>
I have a D750 with lenses that cover all of my bases. I actively shoot weddings and portraits, with business heating up. The camera is becoming more invaluable to me, so taking it out to do landscapes and street photography is always a bit of a gamble. As well I ride a motorcycle and if I crashed I wouldn't want all of my gear to get damaged.

I've been eyeing up the x100f. I'm rationalizing buying it by telling myself I can use it as a second body for weddings and I can take it places on my motorcycle. Should I buy it?
>>
>>3306589
Right now they are superior enough to carve out their own niche and draging Canon out from its hideout.
>>
>>3306589
2020ish after the next sensor doubling and some trickle down for crop. Improved AF for FF. Whenever Canikon get off their asses.
>>
>>3306590
Fuji have a new compact camera coming July 5th, you might want to wait and see how that looks. It'll likely knock down the prices on the X100F just by existing.

https://www.fujirumors.com/fujifilm-xf10-announcement-on-july-5-and-one-more-fujifilm-camera-registered/
>>
>>3306592
>sensor doubling
Not sure what this even means.
>>
>>3306594
Sensors double in density every 8 years or so, so far. Basically processor die shrinks for cameras.
>>
>>3306596
I don't think mirrorless need more pixel density though. It was always the AF that was questionable.

But it's fine and dandy now.
>>
>>3306593
Thanks for the heads up!
>>
File: 1366051613579.jpg (34 KB, 413x395)
34 KB
34 KB JPG
>>3306597
>it's fine and dandy now

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Pixel CompositionRGB
Image OrientationUnknown
Horizontal Resolution0 dpi
Vertical Resolution0 dpi
Image Created2010:10:16 20:45:06
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
Image Width413
Image Height395
>>
>>3306587

>what you’d like, not what’s successful>

I have spent an embarrassing amount on those stupid expensive lenses.

Every other mount has a line of dirt cheap lenses, and everyone seems to have one of said lenses, I don’t think it would hurt to sell these.

But you are right, making all these telephoto sports lenses and the like has more value than just sales. It helps Sony to be viewed as a professional mount, which helps more general sales.
>>
>>3306588
I spent $900 on my SEL90M28.

Fuji doesn’t have anything that comes close, especially for that price.
>>
>>3306602
Well yeah, we're all saying Fuji is too expensive atm. I think they're realising that with the Fuji X-T100 and these rumoured cameras on the horizon also being targeted at the budget end of the market. I'd imagine they'll also turn to making budget oriented lenses for these new cameras if they're smart about it.
>>
>>3306590

Do you want to be talked into it or out of it?

Other reply seemed positive, let’s have a negative one.

x100F is a solid camera, but it does have some limitations.

First is that the lens sucks, especially at close range. Anything up to about 12 feet is going to be soft as fuck. You can completely forget about macro distances. The autofocus is much improved over the first gen x100, but still subpar for a modern mirrorless camera. Manual focusing the thing is an exercise in frustration, and to be honest the hybrid viewfinder is pretty terrible.

Oh and for the price you could get a solid mirrorless body (most of which are actually smaller!) and a lens, be it m43, Fuji, or Sony (or the upcoming Nikon?).
>>
>>3306605
What makes the MF so frustrating? I really appreciate the input. I had an A6000, which I used with a nikon adapter. I sort of enjoyed it, but it wasn't really an optimal experience. I do enjoy using film rangefinders, which is what has drawn me to the x100f. Is the very finder really terrible? I enjoy seeing outside of the frame
>>
I'm a beginner does sensor size really matter that much? I looked into getting a micro 4/3rds and the lenses are a lot cheaper than apsc. I looked into the EM10 mark iii and it looks perfect for me to be honest
>>
>>3306577
>Exactly. Sony needs to make more lenses like their FE 85mm and 50mm (the last with a better focus motor).
Third party lens manufacturers are helping out a lot here.
>>
>>3306619
>does sensor size really matter that much?
Not really. You can start with just your phone, concentrating on practicing composure.
If you like the camera in your hands, you will like using it, no matter if it is FF, APS-C or MFT.
>>
>>3306622
But why do people get so autismo about apsc vs MFT
>>
>>3306588
>All those lenses are 900-1000 dollars. Except for the 18mm.

>That's a bit of a rip off if you ask me. 1000 primes are more like Full Frame territory.

IIRC, the only $1000 lenses there are the 16mm, 56mm and 90mm. The 23mm is around $800, the 35mm is around $600 and the 18mm goes for around $500, although it can be found for as low as $325 gray market on ebay, which is a steal for the quality of lens.

Those are all Fuji's high end lenses, too. They also have the smaller "Fujinon" primes which go for less. It's not too different from Sony, though. Sony has some affordable mid range lenses as well as their more premium glass that sells in the $1000 range per lens. Not sure why sensor size should matter here. You are paying for the design, engineering and quality of construction. You aren't buying glass by the pound or anything. Quantity is irrelevant.
>>
>>3306571
>>
>>3306625
>but why do people get so autismo
You're in a gearfag thread on 4chan, most people here don't even own a camera. They just like to wave spec sheets around and act autistic. Buy a camera that fits your budget with lenses you want to use and don't listen to them.
>>
>>3306626
>The 23mm is around $800
The list pricing is 900, Which is why I said 900-1000.

>Not sure why sensor size should matter here.
If you have seen the pricing of medium format lenses, they are in the 3000~5000 tier more often than not.
The manufacturing of larger glass pieces is actually more expensive to get it right.

I guess that's why a ton of people percieve high end FF lens at 1000 dollars to be much superior value than high end crop sensor lens at 1000 dollars.
>>
File: P6070216.jpg (182 KB, 1000x750)
182 KB
182 KB JPG
>>3306625
autism and brand loyalty. It's how you justify poor decisions.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeOLYMPUS CORPORATION
Camera ModelE-M10MarkII
Camera Softwarepaint.net 4.0.21
Maximum Lens Aperturef/3.5
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution350 dpi
Vertical Resolution350 dpi
Image Created2018:06:07 15:31:00
Exposure Time1/20 sec
F-Numberf/4.5
Exposure ProgramAperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating4000
Exposure Bias-0.7 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash, Auto
Focal Length21.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width4608
Image Height3456
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Gain ControlHigh Gain Up
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
>>
>>3306632
Sure, bro. Half the lenses were significantly under your price range, but they are all thousand dollar lenses. Gotcha.
>>
>>3306626

The 18mm is a terrible lens. As bad if not worse than Sony’s 16mm. Worth avoiding even at $325.

The rest are great though.
>>
>>3306634
>Half the lenses were
1 out of 6 doesn't constitute half.
>>
>>3306571
Help you guys are supposed to be good sources.
>>
How's the kit lens on the EM10 mark ii?

Was thinking about buying from here http://www.getolympus.com/us/en/outlet/reconditioned-cameras.html
>>
>>3306610

It is a shitty focus by wire system, and it hard to do accurately with the viewfinder.

The viewfinder is great in theory, but in reality is both a subpar evf and a subpar off.
>>
>>3306644

The D850 obviously.

How is that even a question?
>>
File: 1540498.jpg (20 KB, 400x400)
20 KB
20 KB JPG
>>3306652
Kit lenses are generally all the same, passable but not great optics and a usable zoom distance. I'd buy a used Panasonic 20mm f1.7 if you can find one, a fast prime lens will make you happier and you can get into the meme creamy bokeh stuff that beginners love.
>>
>>3306655
Is it worth the price increase?
>>
>>3306657

It got the latest and greatest Sony sensor on the market, hell yea it is worth it.
>>
I need a compact camera with excellent IQ and a viewfinder. Is there anything besides the rx100 worth getting?
>>
File: P6070264.jpg (122 KB, 1000x750)
122 KB
122 KB JPG
>>3306652
It's okay. The 25mm 1.8 is better.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeOLYMPUS CORPORATION
Camera ModelE-M10MarkII
Camera Softwarepaint.net 4.0.21
Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.8
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution350 dpi
Vertical Resolution350 dpi
Image Created2018:06:07 22:23:48
Exposure Time1/25 sec
F-Numberf/1.8
Exposure ProgramAperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating1250
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash, Auto
Focal Length25.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width4608
Image Height3456
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Gain ControlHigh Gain Up
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
>>
What do you guys do for a living? Wanting to step into the realm of restaurant/food images for local places around town and can't decide if snapshit + promotion or canon sl2 + instagram for them would make me more $$$.
>>
File: 20180525-DSCF4336.jpg (375 KB, 800x1200)
375 KB
375 KB JPG
>>3306610
people here are super critical of the x100 line for some reason in general

one thing re: rangefinder style -- similar to a leica with 35mm frame lines you're not seeing too much outside the frame. that said, i enjoy having the option and mostly shoot with the OVF, and when you need precise framing it's beautiful to be able to switch to the evf at the flick of a switch.

lens sharpness concerns are a meme, realistically you're probably not banking on the macro function with a 35mm equiv lens and wide open close focus is really the only area where it struggles. you can still shoot that stuff stopped down to f4 if it's really that essential and get nice sharp results without sacrificing all of your dof.

they're wonderful cameras, and if you're a wedding shooter, something that's insanely nice about them is they will virtually never fuck up skin tones even with flash. i've worked event shoots before and it was always a breeze batch processing fuji files with people in them over any other camera system i've used.

they are pricey though, like the other dude said further up it's probably worth waiting for the next fuji announcement to see if that camera is better suited to you, or to see how it affects prices on the current releases.

i'm still humming along with an X100S, it's not the fastest shooter in the world but it's a delight to use and I'm still quite happy with the results. in fact, have a free beach snapshit.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeFUJIFILM
Camera ModelX100S
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.14 (Macintosh)
Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.0
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Image Created2018:06:03 15:39:35
Exposure Time1/500 sec
F-Numberf/2.8
Exposure ProgramAperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating800
Lens Aperturef/2.8
Brightness8.2 EV
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceUnknown
FlashFlash, Compulsory
Focal Length23.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
SharpnessHard
Subject Distance RangeUnknown
>>
>>3306665
Fuji X100 series. Used X100S or X100T depending on your budget.

The Panasonic Lumix LX100 is also great bang for buck on the used market.
>>
>>3306670
GL. Restaurants barely make any money. Weddings, real estate, headshots are common venues
>>
>>3306676
I feel like in my market area real estate is dominated by this small company that love using mavic pro for drone footage in high quality. Their interior shots leave a lot to be desired but those beautiful exterior zooms are awesome.
>>
>>3306665
At that size, not really. All the others with EVFs are fixed resulting in them being larger, pretty much everything else as small has no viewfinder and if it has a larger lens it'll likely have a fixed focal length.
>>
>>3306635
I would love to know a single reason why.
>>
>>3306637
>6 lenses total
>only 3 cost $1000
>the other three cost $325, $600 and $800
>"5 of these are thousand dollar lenses"
Only retard math could arrive at this number.
>>
>>3306684
>$600
There is no 35mm at 600 dollars in that list. You were imagining things all along.

>$800
That's a sale. That has nothing to do with the MSRP we are discussing.
And we are not discussing grey markets either.
>>
How come smartphone sensors get the latest technology but standalone cameras don't
>>
>>3306687
>There is no 35mm at 600 dollars in that list. You were imagining things all along.
Please do the BARE MINIMUM of your own research before embarrassing yourself this badly in the future.
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/839139-REG/Fujifilm_16240755_35mm_f_1_4_XF_R.html
You stupid ass.

>hurrdurr das a sale, u shud compar MSRP onli
These are arbitrary goalposts that are not consistent with reality. You don't seem to realize that the "S" comes from "suggested." Prices frequently drop in response to the market because manufacturer suggestions are not the final decision of how a product will be sold. $800 is what these lenses sell for in camera stores. I don't know why anyone would deliberately hobble their spending ability by choosing to pay full MSRP when the street price is $100 lower, literally everywhere. The Nikon D810 has an MSRP for $3200, but the street price isn't a cent higher than $2800, and only an idiot would pay more than that. Are you an idiot? No need to answer.
>>
>>3306696
Look at this image more closely>>3306580
Then look at this post more closely>>3306588

I specifically said "those lenses". That means those particular lenses inside that image.
I also said "Except for the 18mm", which in theory should have stopped you from apprehending about the price of the 18mm, but theory and practice rarely go hand in hand when I'm up against low functional autitsm.

My bad I guess.
>>
>>3306694
Because smartphones are destroying the camera market. The money is going into R&D for smartphones because that's what people are buying and a significantly better camera sells phones.

Camera makers don't have any incentive to innovate because the compact camera market is dead in the water. If anything, most companies are getting the fuck out of there. The interchangeable market is largely stagnant other than mirrorless shaking things up. Canon stopped trying years ago and dripfeed improvements. Same with Nikon.
>>
>>3306698
That image is depressing
>>
>>3306697
You are discrediting yourself, even as you correct someone's oversight.
https://www.ebay.com/itm/Brand-New-Fujifilm-XF-14mm-f-2-8-R-Ultra-Wide-Angle-Lens/192554590422?epid=115801452&hash=item2cd525e0d6:g:ZTUAAOSwQFNbDw7R
https://www.ebay.com/itm/NEW-Fujifilm-Fujinon-XF-14mm-f-2-8-R-Lens/222787952652?epid=115801452&hash=item33df32600c:m:myS7-8kIVE-UH26KAOQFsmA
https://www.ebay.com/itm/Fujifilm-Fujinon-XF-14mm-f-2-8-R-Lens-Brand-New/183175587821?epid=115801452&hash=item2aa61da7ed:g:cS4AAOSwvGlaWCks
>thousand dollar lens, amirite?
>>
Lol aspergering actually got wordfiltered into apprehending.

Mods on /p/ are more classy than the rest I guess.

>>3306701
The essence of the discussion was overpricing. Those launch prices are definitely overpriced.
And you can't guarantee the temporary sale at BH is there permanently.

Compare launch price to launch price, and the comparison is fair.
>>
>>3306698
Also people who bought cameras in the boom period of 2008-2011 are likely to still be using the same camera if they haven't moved to their phone. Unlike a computer or a phone, decent cameras age gracefully and last a long time. I know plenty of people who bought DSLR back then and still have zero incentive to buy another.
>>
>>3306703
That's a good thing though. A new phone lasts 2 years tops. A good camera can last you 5 if not 8. That's why I hate these basedboys who buy the new camera model every time a new one drops.
>>
File: RF3eNZN.jpg (101 KB, 600x450)
101 KB
101 KB JPG
>>3306702
Sure, bro. First it was the prices that were in the thousand dollar range. Then it was the MSRP. Now it's the "launch prices." M'kay. I'm glad we are having a heated conversation about the most relevant price for someone interested in buying one of these lenses today. GOTCHA.
>>
>>3306705
>First it was the prices that were in the thousand dollar range.
That's what it was the whole time.

The desperation of you resorting to QC rejects from ebay is the most telling of all desperations.
>>
>>3306704
Not a good thing for a camera company faced with that graph
>>3306698
>>
>>3306707
If that's the reality you have to invent for yourself to preserve your ego, then you go right ahead and delude yourself. Such a pity that you'll never be able to afford a Fuji lens, since every single one of them costs $1000 and all. Keep shining on, you crazy diamond!
>>
>>3306709
Keep in mind I did say 900 to 1000, and except one of them.

And people just happens to think that's overpriced when lenses for Full Frame systems are in that price range.
But at least you learned that lenses for larger FF and MF sensors actually cost more to develop and manufacture, so something productive did reach through your autism.
>>
>>3306710
Yep. You did say that. You're absolutely right, too! 800 is the same as 900. Similarly, 700 is also the same as 900. 600 and 500 are likewise the same as 900. 400, 300 and 200 are also 900. You can have all the answers when you invent your own reality. You can always be correct when you live in your own deluded wonderland.

>But at least you learned your lesson, stupid autist
DUUURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR, IMMA DUM AUTIST, DURRRRRRRRR, HOW IS BABBY FORMED, DURRRRRRRRRR, HOW GIRL GET PRAGNENT, DURRRRRR, THANK YOU OH WISE ONE FOR SCHOOLING DUM LITTLE ME, NOW TAKE ME TO SEE THE WIZARD!
>>
File: 1522504447268.gif (3.91 MB, 471x494)
3.91 MB
3.91 MB GIF
>>3306711
It's summer, you need a vacation from the stressful and harmful opinions about prices on the internet.

I suggest sightseeing in Syria, or Yemen.
>>
>>3306712
Take a look at the OP for your portrait, you little baby.
>>
File: 1519095749472.jpg (34 KB, 460x619)
34 KB
34 KB JPG
>>3306714
That probably isn't me. I don't go into a fit of aspergers when someone thinks my super expensive camera system is pricey.
>>
>>3306694
Such as? The main advancements in phone cameras are either software (fake bokeh) or simply sticking another sensor and lens in. Things like backside illumination and stacked sensors exist in standalone cameras (I don't even know if those are in many or any phones but they're probably the two biggest advancements in sensor technology in recent years).
>>
>>3306717
>Things like backside illumination and stacked sensors exist in standalone cameras
I think it was developed smartphones first. For two reasons.

1. Since the smaller chips are easier to manufacture with the latest manufacturing techniques.
2. Since the smartphone sensor market is much more important to the foundries.

We are basically at the mercy of how the Smartphones, Cars, and Robotics sensors steer the market.
>>
>>3306718
But he never said anything about them getting stuff first, he implied that they have something that dedicated cameras don't. The only things I can think of are fake bokeh and multiple sensors and lenses.
>>
>>3306719
You're right on that one I guess. I stopped reading halfway though.
>>
>>3306716
>when someone thinks my super expensive camera system is pricey.
The biggest obstacle in a stupid person's life is just understanding what they read and hear. You think I'm objecting to the statement "Fuji lenses are pricey" when in fact you didn't even say that. You said "those are all thousand dollar lenses," which was demonstrably false. Then you escaped into your world of delusion.
>>
>>3306723
>You think I'm objecting to the statement "Fuji lenses are pricey" when in fact you didn't even say that.
It was like 3 people who said the same thing with the same sentiment>>3306603 and>>3306602

It's just you who got triggered and thought otherwise.

The fundamental difference between you and me:
When someone says my camera is expensive as fuck, I take it as a badge of pride, and may even brag about it.
When someone says your camera is expensive, you become aspergers and offended, because you are really here to sell and shill the camera.
>>
>>3306683

Soft as hell and the autofocus sucks.
>>
>>3306684

>you can buy this really shitty lens that no one wants used at $325 if you get really luck on ebay, so that means it should be counted as a $325 lens

lol
>>
>>3306725

Don’t forget the atrocious corners.
>>
>>3306725
>soft as hell
Not even close. You must not own one or have ever used one.
>autofocus sucks
Lol, what? Now I'm convinced that you don't own one. The 18mm has one of the fastest autofocus implementations of any Fuji lens.

>>3306726
>if you get really good luck on ebay
You can't read -- either my post or a search of ebay's completed sales. I clearly stated earlier >>3306626 that the $325 price was for brand new gray market. No luck involved.
>>
>>3306727
>atrocious corners
Which photography blog did you read this on?
>>
>>3306743

/r/fujix

Haven’t seen anything about center softness, but I see autofocus complaints a lot too.
>>
>>3306745
>source is literally plebbit
Thanks for admitting that you don’t have a fucking clue what you’re talking about at least.
>>
>>3306741
> The 18mm has one of the fastest autofocus implementations of any Fuji lens

Are you on drugs? It is by far one of the slowest and most inconsistent.
>>
>>3306749
You don’t own one and have never used one.
>>
>>3306745
>>3306747

A subreddit dedicated to circle jerking Fuji X even says it is bad.

It is bad.
>>
>>3306499
holy fuck i paid 600€ a year ago for body+kit lenses
>>
>>3306750

Of course I don’t have one.

I am no retarded enough to waste my money on a shitty lens.
>>
I just bought a 5dmkiii, am now starting to really want an a7iii instead

What do?
>>
>>3306619
the em10 mII offers so much that Olympus crippled the MIII. it's the best entry level camera out there imo. no canikon or sony at that price range will give you dual dials, touch screen, ibis, four customizable buttons.
>>
Batis 18mm vs 25mm

Which would you choose?
>>
File: 25mm.jpg (394 KB, 1125x900)
394 KB
394 KB JPG
Panasonic 25mm F1.7 prime lens for MFT has dropped in price via Amazon UK today. Grab it for £117! Ideal for the Olympus Om-D E-M10 II for £234 deal here >>3306499

https://www.hotukdeals.com/deals/panasonic-25mm-17-mft-lens-117-amazon-2951754

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeSONY
Camera ModelILCE-7M2
Camera SoftwareILCE-7M2 v2.00
Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.8
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)55 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution240 dpi
Vertical Resolution240 dpi
Image Created2016-01-08T20:18:43+19:00
Exposure Time1/125 sec
F-Numberf/9.0
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating500
Lens Aperturef/9.0
Brightness2.3 EV
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceUnknown
FlashFlash, Compulsory, Return Detected
Focal Length55.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width1125
Image Height900
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
>>
>>3306784
A Pentax Limited
>>
>>3306784
25mm because that's wide enough for me.

The 18mm is more of a specialised focal length.
>>
>>3306784

16-35 Gmaster
>>
>>3306886

easy, Rockefeller
>>
>>3306885

I think you're right. 18 would be nice to shoot in alleys or something, but outside of that I don't know if I could fill the frame with something interesting the whole way.

>>3306886

Yeah, I'd get that if I had the spare $2k lying around
>>
>>3306885
>>3306907
isn't 18mm an APS-C 28mm equivalent?
>>
File: chosis.jpg (107 KB, 671x870)
107 KB
107 KB JPG
Hot deal for Britbongs,

Argos eBay outlet is offering 25% off if you spend over £100. You can also stack an additional 10% off with coupon code PERFECTTEN stacks to make it 35% off. The Argos eBay outlet has tons of camera kits from Canon, Nikon, Sony and Fuji.

The 10% code runs out at 6pm today so hurry if you want anything.

http://stores.ebay.co.uk/Argos/

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CC 2017 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2018:06:07 15:51:50
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
Image Width671
Image Height870
>>
>>3306937
Correction, it ends at 8pm, not 6pm.
>>
File: 91zYSVNuQiL._SL1500_.jpg (245 KB, 1500x1161)
245 KB
245 KB JPG
Anyone have experience with this little guy for stills? How are the manual controls?
>>
>>3306751
>>3306756
Amazing how willingly you admit your ignorance, while at the same time opining authoritatively about the same subject. The Dunning-Kruger Effect is in full force here.
>>
>>3306957
GoPro is better
>>
are wi-fi SD cards a meme?
>>
M4/3, Full Frame, or some other variant?
>Have $700 budget for camera + 1 lens for now
>Would love fast auto focus, don't care about video
>>
>>3306969
rx0 has a nicer focal length though
>>
can someone recommend me a body+lens weather sealed combo for under $1000? Might want to keep it light too so i'd prefer mirrorless.
Only one i can think of is x-t1 + 23mm f2
anything else?
>>
>>3305870
hey, anyone got advice on gimbals?

I take videos now and again and they are really shaky. I was thinking of dropping some cash on one for either my cell phone or my gopro. But I'm surprised that the cheap ones are still a little over $100. Are these things difficult to use? Should I bother at all? Suggestions on which to buy? I would like something light and portable.
>>
>>3306652
Depends if your talking the pancake zoom or the collapsible zoom.

Pancake trades some quality for smaller size.

The regular zoom is good for a kit lens—sharp, fast autofocus. It just has a slow variable aperture.
>>
>>3306980
You can replace the lens on a GoPro, uses standard M12 screw mount lenses
>>
How does speed boosters work?

It seems so weird to me that you can take a full frame lens, like a 50/1.4, and convert it to something like 30/1.0.

Am I missing something? There are plenty of cheap 50mm lenses, and a speed booster isn't that expensive either. Why aren't lens manufacturers making 30mm f/1.0 lenses?
>>
>>3307033
A crop sensor can't take advantage of full frame lens. Since it's roughly half the surface area.
50% of the outermost area is cropped away, while the 50% area closest to center is captured by the crop sensor.
That's why it's called crop sensor.

What?
Did you actually believe your Crop sensor captured everything that goes through a full frame lens?
>>
File: 61KZrJfr-BL._AC_SL1500_.jpg (67 KB, 520x1085)
67 KB
67 KB JPG
What's the consensus on this thing?
>>
>>3307041
Takes your money and craps out in a couple months. Get an Ultrapod instead, or a manfrotto pixi tripod.
>>
File: MagnificationIllo_l-1.jpg (30 KB, 640x310)
30 KB
30 KB JPG
>>3307033
Focal length makes a lot more sense with something like a telescope, where it is literally the distance the light travels within the telescope, from the objective to the eyepiece. You can measure a telescope with a tape measure and easily determine its focal length.

With camera lens designs, things tend to get more tricky because they have elements that manipulate focal length built right into the lens. Without such teleconverter-like elements and speed booster-like elements, it would otherwise be impossible for lenses like the Pentax DA 21mm f/3.2 and 70mm f/2.4 pancakes to be the same physical length and size while one has over twice the focal length. That's why not all lenses produce sharp images when you further add on an external teleconverter or speed booster. Sometimes, the result is fine, other times, the result is just not sharp.

>>3307038
>A crop sensor can't take advantage of full frame lens. Since it's roughly half the surface area.
>50% of the outermost area is cropped away, while the 50% area closest to center is captured by the crop sensor.
>That's why it's called crop sensor.
>
>What?
>Did you actually believe your Crop sensor captured everything that goes through a full frame lens?

You are retarded and I'm quoting your retardation in full just in case you decide to delete it out of shame and embarrassment.

A speed booster is literally a piece of glass you attach to a lens that changes the actual, not equivalent, focal length and maximum f-stop. It has nothing to do with sensor size.
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1158844-REG/metabones_mb_spef_m43_bt4_canon_ef_micro_4_3_t.html
>>
>>3307047
>A speed booster has nothing to do with sensor size.
This is the most retarded post today.

Congratulations.
>>
>>3307048
A speed booster is a piece of glass, a lens element. Lenses has nothing to do with the sensor size.
You put a small sensor behind it won't magically turn into a longer focal length. This is elementary physics, I am really surprised you don't know this.

>>3307033
A speed booster literally takes the projected light from the lens and projects into a smaller image circle. So a FF to APS-C speed booster takes the FF lens image circle and squeezes into the smaller APS-C area. The side effect of this is it gets more light per area making the resulting image brighter. Aperture stays the same.
>>
File: backpedal-500x270.jpg (59 KB, 500x270)
59 KB
59 KB JPG
>>3307038
>the sensor is entirely responsible!

>>3307048
>sensors are tangentially related?
>>
>>3307054
No I'm saying your post is retarded.
>>
>>3307055
What a deep and profound addition to the conversation. I will make a note of it and look forward to more intelligent posts from you in the future.
>>
>>3307052
>You put a small sensor behind it won't magically turn into a longer focal length
But the black plastic around your crop sensor will absorb 50% of the light coming through your Full Frame lens.

Because.....*drumrolllllll*.....you cropped the Full Frame sensor to get your crop sensor.
>>
>>3307056
Sorry but it's not my fault you crop babies suffer from retardation and wishful thinking.
>>
>>3307058
You just blew my mind. Again.

Wow, what deep thoughts will you post next???
>>
>>3307057
It is literally a crop, nothing more.
We've been through this many times and autistic trolls try to bring the flames up all the time.
Face it autismo, you can't say anything new in this matter. We know how it works.
>>
File: 1504463476242.jpg (372 KB, 1920x1080)
372 KB
372 KB JPG
>>3307060
>nothing more.
It's a loss of 50% of the light coming through the Full Frame lens.
That's the 50% the Speedbooster recovers, you mong.

This might blow your mind, but when you crop 50% sensor area, you lose 50% to the total light.
>>
>>3307061
The incoming light is the same. If you crop a FF image it won't magically turn darker.
The light per are as in light per square mm is the same no matter what sensor is used.
>>
>>3307061
>This might blow your mind, but when you crop 50% sensor area, you lose 50% to the total light.
This might blow your mind, but you don't know what light is and how it works. Finish school first, kid. I know it is hard for a new york table game store clerk, but it is taught at every engineering university course, first and second semester
>>
File: 1.png (14 KB, 575x316)
14 KB
14 KB PNG
>>3307062
>>3307064
For the Crop babies.

Elementary pictures even babies should be able to understand.

The purple lines are the light the Speedbooster recovers.
>>
>>3307066
>wasted light

No vignetting or fall off, though
>>
>>3307066
Excellent academic work, autismo. Go back to school and this time try to finish it.
>>
>>3307068
It's still 50% of the Full Frame len's light that's wasted on the black plastic.
And that's the light the Speedbooster puts back into the Crop sensor, causing the Aperture to be the 1 stop higher equivalent.

>>3307071
You guys make me think Crop sensor people are perhaps the most retarded people on the planet.
You should stick to point and Shoots, or even smartphones.
>>
>>3307072
You might believe that, autismo, the reality is I have a solid well paying engineering job and am well respected in my field while you mop the floor at 362 Grand st, New York City
>>
>>3307076
It's much more easy to believe you are loser when you don't even understand the crop sensor doens't have enough area for a full frame lens.
>>
>>3307078
see
>>3307060
>It is literally a crop, nothing more.
>>
>>3307080
Crop = you lose the light because the light hits outside your sensor
>>
>>3307081
You don't lose light. It doesn't work that way
>>
>>3307082
Any light the sensor doesn't pick up is lost light.

It works exactly that way.
>>
>>3307083
HAHAHA no.
>>
>>3307084
Why else do you think the Speedbooster magically gives the lens +1 stop of light?

If redirects that lost light to the crop sensor.
>>
What's the best full frame I can get for $2000
>>
>>3307085
It increases the photon density.
The photon density stays the same behind a lens if you vary the light sensitive area.
Again, if you crop an image it won't be magically dark.
>>
>>3307087
5D classic, 5D MkII or 5D MkIII
>>
>>3307088
>It increases the photon density.
But to do that, you need light. Where does that light come from?
>>
>>3307090
You are confusing a lot of things here. like I said, go back to school, try to finish it and then we can talk.
It's not my job to teach imbeciles.
>>
>>3307092
No it is you who play retarded Crop Baby.

The Lens cannot magically gain +1 stop of light.
The Speedbooster simply reorganize the the light which was lost by your shitty crop sensor.
>>
>>3307094
It is always amusing watching a tardus trying to run in circles. So futile, so entertaining.
But I can't stay, I'll be going on a camping trip, shooting wildlife the whole weekend.
>>
>>3307096
That's because the explanation is fully explained by that circle.

Whereas you still have to explain where that double increase in photon density comes from.
>>
File: 140.jpg (22 KB, 500x375)
22 KB
22 KB JPG
>>3307072
>Full Frame len's
>>
>>3307087
Used Nikon D810.
>>
>>3307100
Ironically lens' and len's is pronounced the same way.
>>
File: Angni.jpg (55 KB, 650x441)
55 KB
55 KB JPG
>>3307088
>the photon density.
>>
>>3307104
Incoming photons per base square area. I know it is oversimplified, but the simplification is needed in this case.
>>
>>3307105
He's probably one of those people who object to photons and believe in Magnets.

Still, you need to explain how you increased that density.
The light has to come from somewhere.
>>
>>3307105
>>3307104
Also there is a time value, but yeah, simplifications.
>>
>>3307101
What about D850? Or A7iii?
>>
>>3307110
>$2000
Also there is the Pentax K-1 and K-1 MkII
>>
>>3307111
>Pentax K-1
It's time to let it sleep now. The II has replaced it.
>>
>>3307089
6D as well!
>>
>>3307119
That as well, yes.
>>
Regarding the speedbooster argument. A lens doesn't become slower when you stick it in front of a smaller sensor. You are losing light (you also still do even with a larger sensor) but that light isn't being lost from the part of the projected image that's actually being captured. That lost light doesn't decrease the exposure, it simply decreases the size (field of view) of the resulting image.

A speed booster works the same way as using a magnifying lens to burn ants using the sun. You're focusing the light down onto a smaller surface area, increasing the density of the photons except instead of producing more heat they give a higher signal at each pixel on the sensor. Teleconverters work the opposite way of course, spreading light out and producing a larger image but dimmer.
>>
>>3307129
>You are losing light
As soon as you say this though, the crop babies get autistic.

It's a very problematic sentance, because they don't understand the multiple ways the light can be lost.
>>
>>3307133
Losing part of the image is not the same as losing light.
>>
Retry

NEW THREAD!!
>>3307144
>>3307144
>>3307144
>>3307144
>>3307144
>>
>>3307140
Light is light. If the light isn't sensed by the sensor, it's lost.
>>
>>3307148
Then your sensor doesn't sense anything. The part it would sense is nothing compared to the light in the universe.
>>
>>3307153
>compared to the light in the universe.
We are talkign about light that goes through the lens though.
>>
>>3306995
if you are serious about weather sealing look at Pentax or Olympus. Olympus is mirrorless and more compact. Weather sealed are the em-1 and em-5.
>>
>>3307110
You asked for the best, not the top three. I don't think you'll find a D850 for $2000, although of course that would be better. The a7iii is good, albeit without the resolution, the ergonomics or direct controls, the robustness, weather sealing, etc. IMO, the a7riii is a serious competitor to the D810, but the a7iii is not. You also need to understand that with Sony, you'd be getting into a system with some seriously expensive lenses. The expensive lenses ARE good, quality lenses, and there are also third parties doing autofocus lenses for FE-mount, but Nikon is just better for lenses, both in terms of value and quality. If you have a price limit on your body, then I'm assuming you have a price limit on your lenses too. Sony isn't going to be the best option for you as a system.




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.