[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


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 76 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]



File: 1528488307187.jpg (57 KB, 1024x536)
57 KB
57 KB JPG
Last thread: >>3305870

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!
>>
>>3307144
First for Chosis is autismo
>>
>>3307153
>Then your sensor doesn't sense anything
If you take off the lens cap it will.
>>
So if I want to be a pixel peeper but want to stay in the realm of DSLRs/Mirrorless instead of medium format with a budget of $2.5k
>What do I look at?
>>
>>3307157
That would be the A7Rii or the D810.
>>
>>3307157
Don't be a pixel peeper.
>>
>>3307176
But I scream internally when I zoom in on a normal spot and it's noise ridden and disgusting.
>>
>>3307178
Buy something that is not a Sony then.
>>
File: bye bye ambush.png (23 KB, 922x399)
23 KB
23 KB PNG
>>3307150

Gentle reminder that Ambush is the new Chosis.
>>
File: what the shit.png (50 KB, 757x471)
50 KB
50 KB PNG
How the fuck does the Nikon D500 score so damn low on DxOMark in terms of Low Light High ISO score??? I mean, it scores fucking lower than the D7500, a budget model of the D500. And the D600 scores so much higher despite it having ASS ISO performance at +12k??
>>
>>3307228
>trusting DxOMark high ISO scores
>>
>>3307228
Maybe it's on par with the D7500.
20 points less or more in the ISO scale is almost nothing.
>>
>>3307228
Ignore the scores and look at the graphs
>>
>>3307216
lel so mad
>>
>>3307228
Ignore DXO altogether
The sensors today are ISO invariant (has been for 3 generations or so) so it doesn't matter
>>
>>3307216
Ironic image considering his posts and images weren't all that great.
>>
>>3307271
What does that even mean? Are you really going to shoot everything five stops underexposed? The colors still look like shit when recovered from that level of “invariance,” I don’t care the sensor.
>>
>>3307280
This. Ambush is just another self-important tripfag who will do anything for attention.
>>
File: CanonEF200mmf28L_old.jpg (30 KB, 522x311)
30 KB
30 KB JPG
I received an EF 200mm f/2.8 L USM as a hand-me-down from an uncle not too long ago, and I'm trying to figure out what to do with it. He says he doesn't care if I sell it, and I might just do that to get a lens that I'll find more useful.

I have a 7D, so it's pretty damn long for a portrait lens (I also don't shoot portraits very often). The close-focusing/macro ability is not very good, either. For wildlife, I find 200mm too short, even on a crop sensor. I just get a lot more utility out of zooms, in general. I don't ever shoot indoor sports, although that's what the previous owner bought it for (he couldn't find a use for the lens after his kids grew up, though). I don't think I could get over $400 for the lens, though, so selling it seems kind of like a waste.

Basically trying to ask, if you had this lens, what kinds of photos would you take with it?
>>
>>3307176
Thanks for the advice Jered Froknows..... DOT COOOOM
>>
>>3307358
I use the Mark II for wildlife and portraits.
>>
>>3307144
Thoughts on the LUMIX TS7?
Isn't out yet but how are Panasonic point and shoots in general? Is there another rugged camera I should look at? The EVF is kind of important to me.
>>
>>3307358
I would put it on a 2x TC and use it as a 400/5.6 lens. That is what I do with my 300/4 and 1.4x TC.
>>
>>3307424
>>3307358
BTW I used 200mm as my longest focal length for birding for a few years, it works like a 300mm on a crop body. Can be used effectively, you just have to practice on how to get closer to the birbs. The lens is crazy sharp, should be sharp enough to be able to crop in deep.
>>
File: EF50mmIIUSM.jpg (298 KB, 2000x1000)
298 KB
298 KB JPG
Hello people,

I am rather new to the whole SLR stuff and fell for the 50mm meme.
I got a used EF 50mm f1.4 II USM for my EOS 1300D because I thought it would be cool to have something for low light shots.
However, at 1.4 I only get blur, it basically looks like my astigmatism. Only at around 2-2.5 I can start getting sharp pictures.
Now I did some research and there are people who say that is normal and such aperture values are just advertisement.
Some reviews, though, attest the objective good sharpness even at 1.4.
Now I am confused as to whether it is the objective or me.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeCanon
Camera ModelCanon EOS 1300D
Camera SoftwareDigital Photo Professional
PhotographerJNC
Firmware VersionFirmware Version 1.1.0
Lens NameEF50mm f/1.4 USM
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution350 dpi
Vertical Resolution350 dpi
Image Created2018:06:08 19:57:09
Exposure Time1/200 sec
F-Numberf/2.2
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating100
Lens Aperturef/2.3
Exposure Bias0 EV
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length50.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width2000
Image Height1000
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Exposure ModeManual
Focus TypeAuto
Metering ModeEvaluative
SharpnessUnknown
SaturationUnknown
ContrastHigh
Shooting ModeManual
Image SizeUnknown
Focus ModeAI Focus
Drive ModeContinuous
Flash ModeOff
Compression SettingFine
Macro ModeNormal
White BalanceAuto
Exposure Compensation3
Sensor ISO Speed160
Color Matrix33
>>
>>3307462
Generally lenses are the softest wide open, sharpest at f/8 and get softer again with closing aperture due to diffraction.
Fast lenses, especially older designs, like your 50/1.4 have stronger softness wide open.
Fortunately, with some PP work you can remove much of the softness because the information is in the image.
Other aspect of wide open softness is slightly missing focus, wide open the depth of field is the thinnest, and focusing close to the lens also gets the thinnest DoF throughout the focusing range, close focusing wide open is easy to miss focus slightly.
All this I get with my first generation Tamron 70-200/2.8, so I have to be more careful focusing close and I need to increase clarity in LR a bit and apply non-built-in sharpening tricks in PS if I go wide open. Nothing to worry about, most of the time it is not even visible in the image unless I go full retard pixel peeping mode.
Lesson to learn: be more thoughtful and don't be a pixel peeper.
>>
>>3307467
>>3307462
Oh, I forgot, older lens designs have strong field curvature in close focus and is somewhat apparent in mid range focus as well, that can also cause softness in parts of the image as well because those parts creep out of the DoF.
Try looking up focusing for field curvature, but generally when that occurs it is best to use a tripod and focus manually in live view and check parts of the image you want sharp.
Or just go f/2.8-f/8 to increase your DoF. Depends on the situation.
Don't worry, you'll get used to it after some practice.
>>
>>3307462
You are retarded for buying a 50mm for a crop.
You are retarded for thinking a lens this cheap could be sharp wide open on crop.
>>
>>3307493
Idiot, a 50mm on a crop is an excellent portrait lens.
>>
>>3307493
MOOODS! Autismo is at it again!
>>
File: Untitled.png (114 KB, 1537x775)
114 KB
114 KB PNG
>>3307216
He needs to up his filter game.
>>
File: 1525448446208.gif (1002 KB, 240x190)
1002 KB
1002 KB GIF
>>3307493
>got it for low light shots

>"no you are retardo!!!"
>>
>>3307467
>>3307468
Okay, so it's just me, gotcha. Thanks m8.
>>
File: FE 50mm 1.4 ZA.png (57 KB, 1002x581)
57 KB
57 KB PNG
>>3307462
You shouldn't use 64 bit codecs by the way, 32 bit is superior, because they can playback movies inside both 32 bit and 64 bit games.

>>3307506
It also depends on the brands sometimes. They have different patents to different optics.

Sony's 50mm F1,4 is a lot more exceptional wide open.
>>
>>3307467
>Fortunately, with some PP work you can remove much of the softness because the information is in the image.
Sure is summer in here. Jesus.
>>
>>3307559
Sony's 50/1.4 is a new design. Nikons new 50/1.4 is also a new modern design and the coming (?) Pentax 50/1.4 also a new modern design. These are commonly designed for modern digital standards, high resolution sensors and to be sharp and with a flat field wide open.
Anon's lens is an older design, halfway into digital but still based on the film era optical design.

>>3307561
Have you heard of frequency separation?
>>
>>3307563
I wasn't aware Nikon had a new 50mm F1,4. I couldn't find it on BH.

On the Canon / Nikon mount, there is the Sigma 50mm F1,4, which is on level with the Sony lens.
>>
File: giphy.gif (477 KB, 420x315)
477 KB
477 KB GIF
>>3307563
>Have you heard of frequency separation?
Do go on.

Dis gone be good.
>>
>>3307427
>>3307424
>>3307396

>>3307358 again.
I forgot to say that I do have an EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS II USM already, which is sharp enough for my uses, and it has image stabilization. I could get a 1.4x or 2x extender for the 200mm f/2.8, but it would be unstabilized, and also not as sharp as the unstabilized 400mm L f/5.6 prime.
>>
>>3307587
Even with a TC it will be much more sharp than the EF 70-300
But yeah, it is much better to get the real deal, if you can, trade it off for the 400/5.6 L IS, I would also get rid of the dad zoom 70-300 as well for the prime.
>>
>>3307589
The mark II version of the 70-300 is a cut above the typical "dad zoom," but I tend to agree that I should just trade both lenses off to get a prime, whether that's the 300mm f/4 L IS USM or the 400mm f/5.6 L USM (which does not have IS, unfortunately). Even if sharpness is the same, it would be nice to have a stop faster lens to use a stop slower ISO and consequently have the ability to recover more details with the 300mm f/4 lens.
>>
>>3307599
>which does not have IS, unfortunately
Oh, I didn't know that. I'm on another system, for me the 300/4 and TC works very well. I don't have IS in viewfinder either.
Don't worry about the ISO, if you expose correctly even ISO 3200 on the 7D is not a problem, of course it limits how much you can crop in. Use partial metering to meter for your subject, maybe compensate, plus 1 for dark feathers, minus 1 for white feathers.
The amount of details depends more on the lens than on the camera. And of course the photographer to focus properly.
>>
>>3307559
>games

You have children that use your equipment or something?
>>
File: IMG_4068.jpg (4.75 MB, 3888x2592)
4.75 MB
4.75 MB JPG
Ok /p/, so I've had an old hand-me-down Canon EOS Rebel XS for about a year now. I'm satisfied with the images it produces and I don't really need anything better since I'm a wholly amateur photographer but I don't like lugging the huge thing around with me, and I often find that it's size can be limiting. I've been eyeing a Sony RX100 MKIII since they're universally praised but I'm concerned the image quality will be inferior, even to such an old DSLR. How much better/worse will my pictures turn out overall?

TL;DR Is the RX100 III a worthwhile "upgrade" from a Rebel XS?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeCanon
Camera ModelCanon EOS DIGITAL REBEL XS
Lens Size18.00 - 55.00 mm
Firmware VersionFirmware Version 1.0.7
Serial Number-135435379
Lens NameEF-S18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2017:08:03 09:22:24
Exposure Time1/200 sec
F-Numberf/9.0
Exposure ProgramNormal Program
ISO Speed Rating400
Lens Aperturef/9.1
Exposure Bias0 EV
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length20.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width3888
Image Height2592
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Exposure ModeProgram
Focus TypeAuto
Metering ModeEvaluative
SharpnessUnknown
SaturationNormal
ContrastNormal
Shooting ModeManual
Image SizeLarge
Focus ModeAI Servo
Drive ModeContinuous
Flash ModeOff
Compression SettingFine
Macro ModeNormal
White BalanceAuto
Exposure Compensation3
Sensor ISO Speed224
Color Matrix129
>>
>>3307629
The sensor in the RX100 is on par with a 7D in terms of noise performance but has more dynamic range. The 1000D has better noise performance but a much lower resolution, downsize the RX100 images to the same size and they'll be very similar.

If you can save the extra cash I'd recommend getting the IV, it has a higher res viewfinder, faster e-shutter, faster burst rate, and better video including high frame rates (240/480/960fps). Battery life is 40 shots worse by CIPA standards, in real life the performance is going to be closer.
>>
>>3307644
>The sensor in the RX100 is on par with a 7D in terms of noise performance but has more dynamic range.

kekkles
>>
70d used with battery grip with 18-whatever kit lens.
30k shutter count. And two extra batteries.
$650 used. No scratches on screen.

Worth it if I want to get into canon products?
>>
X-Pro 2 or X-T2?

Why is the X-Pro 2 more expensive than the X-T2?
>>
>>3307648
Or should I offer less? I currently have a gx7 but want to get into dslr territory and trying to figure out if this is a good deal.
>>
>>3307655
nifty hybrid viewfinder
>>
>>3307655
It's marketed for hypster stretphotogs. The dumb kind that's then browsing interwebs for tips on to changing their lens.
>>
>>3307648
>>3307680
IMO, not worth it, although I have no idea what a used 70D sells for on ebay. I do know, however, that you can get a brand new gray market 80D with a shutter count of 0 for $725-750 on ebay, regularly. Compared with a used camera, neither comes with a warranty. I also know that I bought a used 7D with a shutter count of 1200 for $450 not too long ago, and for virtually the same resolution, the same number of focus points, virtually the same burst rate -- and before you say that the 70D is newer, yes, but only by 4 years and both cameras are out-of-date by the standards set by the 80D -- I'll take a magnesium alloy framed 7D with AF joystick over a pasticky 70D with the weird rear multi-controller, any day of the week.
>>
File: noise.png (98 KB, 1635x808)
98 KB
98 KB PNG
>>3307646
I'd say this is pretty fucking close, gets even closer if you downsize due to the RX100's higher resolution. Dynamic range is close to a stop better at ISO 100 and is pretty much equal from 400 and up.
>>
>>3307648
I would go with it for $550, it is a nice camera. You need to ask if the grip is first party or chinkshit, if the latter, $500 tops.
Look for a Sigma 17-50/2.8 later, or for an EF-S 17-55/2.8 if you want a better build.
>>
>>3307700
70D has dual pixel sensor and has better focusing in video and liveview. The sensor is much better than the one in the 7D.
>>
>>3307705
Depends on if you want to shoot video with it. A camera is not just a sensor.
>>
>>3307706
Yes, but the sensor in the 70D performs better altogether than the one in the 7D. The 70D also performs well in focusing and somewhat decent (compared to 7D) in tracking, so for the money I think anon is better off with the 70D. It is still a very good camera that can perform well in various situations, from sports, wildlife to landscape and anything inbetween.
>>
>>3307707
Again, a camera is not just a sensor. For sports, the 7D has an edge with its 8 fps burst rate and 24 shot RAW (or >320 JPEG) buffer vs. the 70D's 7 fps burst rate with 16 shot RAW (or 65 shot JPEG) buffer. The difference in dynamic range is, IMO, not worth getting excited about. If you want a crop sensor Canon with good dynamic range, get the 80D. The 7D has a 100% coverage viewfinder, while the 70D has a 98% coverage viewfinder -- minor, but useful for landscapes. I find the AF joystick to be essential for portraits, to get the AF point on the subject's eye quickly. And like I mentioned, the magnesium alloy body vs. the 70D's plasticky body is also an advantage to the 7D.

What I'm saying is that these are two out-of-date cameras, and while the 70D has certain advantages by virtue of being 4 years newer, those advantages are not all-encompassing, nor are they, IMO, worth the $200 difference cited here >>3307648, which is why I recommended a 7D instead.
>>
File: 61gVWeq9ljL._SL1000_.jpg (81 KB, 1000x1000)
81 KB
81 KB JPG
Anyone use a Yongnuo YN560-TX with Sony A7 cameras? I recently got an A7 and have this flash/receiver from my Canon. Can't get the controller to work right with the A7ii.

>Yongnuo flash works perfect in the hot shoe, flashes every single shot
>Controller in Hot Shoe: Will only flashes once.
>If I change the power it'll flash again, so I've just been toggling the power back and forth real quick between shots.

Will the Yongnuo controller just not work with the A7? Any other options I can pick up that'll work with the Yongnuo flash so I don't have to buy an entire flash setup?
>>
Need to replace a d70 with a fucked up scratched sensor, was inherited with two nikon lenses, 70-210mm and the stock 18-70mm.
What's a good lightweight replacement that I can still use with the lenses?
>>
>>3307704
It is first party.
I’m gonna offer $500 tomorrow and see what she says.
>>
>>3307740
Lightweight? The D3300 weighs as little as a DSLR can. It won't focus your 70-210 though.
>>
File: Canon_L.jpg (139 KB, 750x887)
139 KB
139 KB JPG
What has better performance, the Canon 200mm f/2 IS or the 300mm f/2.8 IS?
Which works better with 2X TCs?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS5 Macintosh
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width3400
Image Height2550
Number of Bits Per Component8, 8, 8
Pixel CompositionRGB
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution350 dpi
Vertical Resolution350 dpi
Image Created2011:05:04 13:35:38
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
Image Width750
Image Height887
>>
>>3307740
Which 70-210?
>>
File: 1525959934327.jpg (63 KB, 609x485)
63 KB
63 KB JPG
>>3307885
These are $6000 lenses, my dude. And of all people to ask, you chose the group of people who can barely afford a Nikon D3300 or Sony a6000, and actually recommends both of these cameras unironically.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
>>
>>3307897
I know it's not the best of places.
Who do you advise asking?
I haven't found any posts online of someone directly comparing them.
>>
>>3307885
if you have enough money to buy these things then you have enough money to rent each of them for a week and try them out.
>>
>>3307903
There is a lot of money on the Fred Miranda forums. Look at the EXIF data of people in the wildlife subforum. Ten thousand dollar lenses are not uncommon. I'd ask there. Also, >>3307904.
>>
>>3307908
Thanks for the suggestion.
I wanted to get a better understanding of the lenses before I rented.
>>
>scored a $100 camera backpack for $25 because it was a discontinued model
anybody else have any good finds lately?
>>
70d, g7, d3400
>>
>>3307940
got a 70d body only for $575 which is a nice upgrade from my t5
>>
Anyone know how well the low light high ISO performance of the D500 is? How does video mode at night with a wide aperture lens fare? Can you like see the stars a little clearly with manageable noise to reduce?
>>
>>3308008
It's Average, and Nikon's video crop factor will make the video much worse than average.

You would be much better off with a Sony or Panasonic at that point.
>>
>>3308036
>Panasonic
>into good high ISO performance

>Sony a7S series
>good at anything beyond low light video
>>
File: 1.jpg (78 KB, 803x466)
78 KB
78 KB JPG
>>3308040
>Panasonic
>into good high ISO performance
It's much batter than cropping an already cropped sensor.

>Sony a7S series
Their APS-C camera use the full sensor area for video, unlike your Nikon.
>>
>>3308043
>It's much batter than cropping an already cropped sensor.
Enjoy your unbearable grain at 6k ISO

>Their APS-C camera use the full sensor area for video, unlike your Nikon.
And those APS-C cameras aren’t really that good at lowlight either

Chill just use a short focal lenght lens nigga
>>
>>3308060
Do you not understand you Nikon sensor is smaller than even the Panasonic Micro4/3 when it's applying double crop factor?
>>
>>3308036
So what Nikon camera should I go for then? I feel like the D5 is the only Nikon camera that actually has great low light performance, but it's not exactly the cheapest camera around, it can't record indefinitely in 4k and the lack of tilting display might be an inconvenience
>>
>>3308070
All Nikon cameras are forced into tiny itty bitty sensor area for video.

You brought into the wrong brand, and just have to deal with sucky video.
>>
>>3308072
dude, I know about the crop factor but that's not my question here.
>>
>>3308062
nigga just means that the image is cropped. Won't affect anything else, just use 20mm lens or less

>>3308072
D500 is actually among the best performing Nikon cameras in terms of high ISO. Too much noise? Just use Neat Video plugin. Doesn't cost all that much
>>
>>3308077
>nigga just means that the image is cropped
Then stop critisizing Panasonic for shitty low light performance.

You don't have that right when you frop your sensor even smaller than Panasonic sensors.
>>
>>3308076
Your question is which Nikon camera is good for lowlight video.

The answer is they all suck behind their competitors.
The truth is people buy these cameras for their Stills AF. Not for their video AF or video quality.
>>
Why does it seem like everyone either loves Canon or Sony Cameras with a mix of Fujifilm people.

Seems like everywhere I go I see people talking about their "transition from Canon to Sony".
>>
>>3308080
If you don't like Nikon criticism, then don't ask about Nikon video performance.

I'm not going to lie to make you feel better.
>>
>>3308080
There's a phenomenon that when someone spends a lot of money on a product they have a psychological need to defend their purchase. This is where brandfags come from and why /gear/ even exists. The people who move past this phase of justifying their purchase to literally everyone are out there taking pictures and not in here.
>>
>>3308078
Because cropping can be worked around
Severe noise can't
Otherwise they probably have some of the best full frame cameras for recording
>>
>>3308087
>Because cropping can be worked around
>Severe noise can't
This doesn't make any sense.

High crop factor means small sensor means bad high ISO noise.
>>
>>3308079
I know they aren't the best and that's mainly because of the crop factor for the D500 and their video autofocus, which pretty much only Canon has managed to master.
But I'm not buying it primarily for video. Then I wouldn't be talking about Nikon to begin with. My primary intention is for stills in general, timelapses, and then video.

So even with a double crop factor on the D500, I can still somehow work around it as the other anon said.
>>
>>3308091
>>3308008
>>3308070
You can go for the D850 which has probably as good ISO performance as the D5, no crop factor and is priced in the middle between D5 and D500
>>
>>3308096
also can do 120 FPS in 1080
>>
>>3308089
Cropping doesn't change the sensor. It is still the same sensor, same noise performance, you retard
>>
File: 64354363253.png (75 KB, 403x448)
75 KB
75 KB PNG
>>3308089
>>3308089
>seriously believing this
ay m8, let me try to overload your brain here. When you take a surface with evenly distributed dots, and then crop it, does the dot density decrease? No, it's just less dots due to less surface. That's what cropping does so that the image/video becomes "narrower".
A small sensor perform just as well as a large as long as they have same pixel density. What matters is pixel size and pixel sensitivity.
>>
>>3308106
You have to be exceptionally retarded to critisize Panasonic for bad low light performance, and then turn around and pretend your 2,25 crop factored sensor has good high ISO performance.

>A small sensor perform just as well as a large as long as they have same pixel density.
This is retarded. The larger sensor can downsample its result, and achieve less noise.
>>
>>3308107
>The larger sensor can downsample its result
Except the real world doesn't work that way, it would mean heavy processing and compression to be able to stream he image into buffer and on to the storage media.
In reality the image comes from single selected pixels instead of adding together clusters of pixels into individual pixel data.
The retardus is you
>>
>>3308104
Can you at least admit a crop factor 2 sensor performs better in low light than a crop factor 2,25 sensor?
>>
>>3308113
>Except the real world doesn't work that way,
Have you ever heard of 6K Full Readout video downsampled to 4K?

Time to update your brain, gramps.
>>
>>3308114
Crop factor alone doesn't describe sensor performance.
You need to know it's SnR in the current lighting situation, the exact electronics readout noise, ADC noise ratios, photonic sporadic noise.
It all boils down to lighting essentially, so if you run into lack of light, you should control the light. Just running around in the dark and trying to shoot is amateurish and doesn't count to actual photography and videography experience.

>>3308116
>talks about consumer cameras
>get told with facts about said consumer cameras
>oh no look at this professional cinema camera it can do that
Nice moving goal posts, have you ran out of arguments?
>>
>>3308114
It doesn't
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uiVHo2kAEmQ
>>
File: sony-a7-iii-logo.png (361 KB, 1280x720)
361 KB
361 KB PNG
>>3308118
>oh no look at this professional cinema camera it can do that
I think sony would be flattered if you gave them that kind of feedback.
>>
>>3308080

Because Canon and Sony have the largest market share.

Sony in China, and Canon everywhere else.
>>
>>3308120

>best body
>worst lens

I threw up in my mouth a little.

Why would someone do that?
>>
>>3308119
The Nikon has some noise rediction and detail reduction going on. Easily seen in the bottom center pillar of the Eiffel tower.

But if you like the result, then it's good enough.
>>
File: usp_decklick_switch.jpg (54 KB, 308x261)
54 KB
54 KB JPG
>>3308127
>worst lens
Their F1,4 primes are very exceptional>>3307559
Clicky aperture ring for stills.
Smooth aperture ring for video.

The only problem is their price tag, but that doesn't make them "worse".
>>
File: 1514372316891.png (77 KB, 645x729)
77 KB
77 KB PNG
>>3308128
>Eiffel tower
>>
>>3307887
70-210/4-5.6 D
>>
>>3308131

Maybe so, but the pictured lens was the 50mm f/1.8 with the super underpowered focus motor.
>>
File: photovests.jpg (77 KB, 640x453)
77 KB
77 KB JPG
What's the best photography vest money can buy?
>>
>>3308156
>best
Isn't clothing just a subjective thing?
>>
>>3308096
>D850
>max ISO no more than 25.600
DROPPED
R
O
P
P
E
D
>>
What's your favorite m4/3 lenses?
>>
Video review of the newly released super cheap Yongnuo 50mm f1.8 II lens for Canon and Nikon mounts. Can also be adapted to Sony or M43 with an EF adapter.

https://youtu.be/I9GYaeVP1F0
>>
>>3308171
Correction, only for Canon at launch.
>>
Reagenheart nuovola x900 is best optic lens for degrading toxosis women with vapid neuro uzsora
>>
Redpill me on tripods. Usually do sports, events so never had the need to use one.
Thinking about trying some landscape/astro so I need a tripod.
Are the more expensive ones just easier to use (as in set up, carry, operate) versus cheaper ones which may not be so easy to set up, yet hold the camera in place without it creeping? What point may have I missed?
>>
>>3308178
High quality carbon fiber tripods last a hell of a lot longer, are light as a feather, very hard to damage and don't rust.

To be honest the majority of the cost of tripods you're paying for the head, not the legs. Like a fluid head can pull off smooth pans that a cheap tripod couldn't. Some even have motorised parts if you're using it for video for automated pans via a smartphone app. It depends, there are different tripod heads for different uses.

So in general you're paying for the quality of the materials (carbon fiber vs something like aluminium then plastic at the very bottom) and the quality of the head. And yeah, they're rated for their ability to holding amounts of weight so a cheap tripod will likely collapse once your gear is on it.
>>
>>3308159
wait wtf seriously? Only native up to 25.6k?
>>
>>3308178
You will need sturdy build, so the cheap ones are wasted money.
Generally recommended are the Manfrotto 190 or 055 legs, Manfrotto 496 or 498 ball head or whatever you like ball head, 410jr geared head if you're into that.
Buy used if possible.
>>
>>3308194
No, it goes much higher than that, only it is usable up to 25600. Which is a lot considering the previous gen sensors were usable up to 6400 with the same kind of detail.
>>
Nikon d200 for $150 body only with battery grip.
>>
>>3308198
No. Try to find a D300s instead
>>
>>3308196
ah but is it worth extending it to say 51.2k? Because I've noticed the sweet spot in low light conditions is up to 51.2k
>>
Full frame or cmos?
My budget is 750 for the body but I can't figure if an older full frame will out perform a newer cmos.
>>
>>3308210
>Full frame or cmos?
wat
>>
File: spec-1.jpg (160 KB, 699x493)
160 KB
160 KB JPG
93 gram,
Same filter size and weight class as their 35/2,8.

Not bad Samyang.
>>
>>3308288
If they release a 50mm f/2 lens with about the same form factor, I will sell my Canon and Fujifilm gear and buy a Sony.
>>
>>3308293
I wouldn't worry too much, They will adapt these new AF lenses to Canon FF mirrorless as well.
>>
>>3308205
Not really. In my experience when you have to move above 6400 you already have to face with photonic noise, no electronics can clear that. In that realm you already need to have a control on lighting.
>>
>>3308307
Ah. That's my only hinderance in getting a D850, that it's not native to 51.2k. As it has acceptable noise even at max native ISO from my experience
>>
>>3308314
Maximum ISO is never about "it has acceptable noise at that ISO"
It is literally "it has some discernible information in the soup of noise" ISO.
Pentax has ridiculous ISO levels with the K-70, KP and K-1/1MkII, same for the Nikon D5 and D500, but it only means you can have acceptable image quality at ISO 12800-51200 etc...
What is acceptable IQ really only depends on you and the situation.
If the ISO is your only "problem" with the D850 then I say go for it. There are very few extreme situations where you have to go that high, and when you actually go that high you will inevitably run into issues governed by physics yo can't do shit about, no matter what tech you have in the camera.
>>
>>3308320
>>3308314
You can also go with a D810 and save some money.
>>
>>3307144
How important are full-frame/APS-C sensors? I'm looking for my first camera, and currently have my eyes on either the RX100 V(For convenience of its size and aperture as well as video options) or the RX10 M4(for its zoom range, versitility and shared features of the RX100. Obviously both have fixed lenses so easy to bring all gear). There are some other options but these are the main ones as far as compact/bridge cameras go.

The thing is that they are both 1-inch sensor cameras and I'm not sure how important that can be? Will I notice a difference? 1-inch sensor cameras tend to be cheaper and smaller, and offer a relatively wide aperture(1.4 or 1.8 is common) unless they are zoom-cameras... In my experience.
>>
>>3308322
>I'm looking for my first camera
Get an APS-C entry body with kit lens, use it for a couple years then you can decide which way you need to go.
>>
>>3308322
>How important are full-frame/APS-C sensors?
The sensor is like a third of the equation. The other two thirds being lighting and lenses.
But you can work around it with lighting equipment like flashes and strobes.

>Will I notice a difference?
To performance will be subpar it low light situations.
But that's not really the point of those cameras to begin with. They are more like Vacation cameras whit emphasis on enjoying the vacation and not grabbing your bag and changing lenses all the time.
>>
>>3308295

Will take awhile unless Canon releases their af protocol.
>>
>>3308329
That's true as well I guess.

Not to mention the cameras themselves risk disappoint very badly.
The longer they take to release, the higher expectations people have.
>>
>>3308322
As an RX100 owner (IV) I'm not sure I'd recommend it to a beginner, due to the lack of physical controls and the immense amount of options available to you it can be difficult to find things unless you really know what you're doing (it's very customisation so you can set shortcuts, but you won't know what you want those to be right away).

Of course it will no doubt give you good images even if you just leave it in auto, but that's probably not something you want to do (if you want to learn) and it wastes a lot of the potential of the camera.

My suggestion would probably be something like a Fuji X100 (S/T/F, not the first gen). Decent controls that are simple to use and still small enough that you could stuff it in a jacket pocket. There are also models with smaller sensors and zoom lenses like the X30 (electronic viewfinder) and X20 (optical viewfinder) but image quality won't be as good as the RX100. There's also the cheaper X70 which is basically an X100t with a wider but slower lens and no EVF but a tilting screen.

Of course there's also the option of just getting a DSLR/MILC, that'll be cheapest (at least to begin with) and give you the best image quality but it'll never be as small as a fixed lens compact and it seems like that is important to you.
>>
>>3308329
Doesn't Samyang already make an AF lens for Canon?
>>
>>3308350
That's the old EF mount.

Even Yongnuo makes crap lens with AF for that, so it only makes sense Samyang adapted some of their older optics with AF for EF.
>>
File: Camera.png (20 KB, 776x466)
20 KB
20 KB PNG
>>3307144
My Konishiroku Pearl III has sat for two weeks now at customs in Frankfurt Airport on its way from Japan, which is a shame because I need it for something on Wednesday. Is this normal? Is there anything I can do about it? The DHL website is pretty useless, I tried ringing up but none of the options on the answering machine seemed pertinent. I've been checking my postbox every day and haven't received a notification slip. Shit.
>>
>>3308356
Customs takes time, usually more than the time it takes to actually move the package from origin to destination.
All hail bureaucracy!
>>
File: P6100061.jpg (287 KB, 1200x900)
287 KB
287 KB JPG
>>3308322
Lenses and filters. A polarizer saves your life even if it's your sunglasses.

[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 Created2018:06:10 09:56:14
Exposure Time1/500 sec
F-Numberf/9.0
Exposure ProgramAperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating200
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash, Auto
Focal Length14.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width4608
Image Height3456
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Gain ControlLow Gain Up
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
>>
File: camera.jpg (360 KB, 1178x441)
360 KB
360 KB JPG
I found pic related at a garage sale...it won'd turn on or do anything (except display random error messages when the battery is inserted). Any ideas?

[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 Created2018:06:10 13:10:19
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width1178
Image Height441
>>
File: desire.png (608 KB, 838x737)
608 KB
608 KB PNG
>>3308356
>>3308363
Want it so bad com/p/atriots.
>>
>>3308380
Send it in for service, it is probably an internal switch or fuse broken from short circuit or overheating.
Costs money but much less than it would cost to buy a new one.
>>
>>3308383
Thanks. How much would a service be roundabout? About how much is everything worth in the picture? I cant decide if I want to use for myself or sell.
>>
>>3308385
Depends on what's wrong. They won't tell you until you send it in with shipping costs thrown into it but it could be pretty cheap. Or not. Depends on what it is but at that point they send it back for free usually.
>>
>>3308386
cool..who do I send it to, canon?
>>
>>3308390
Go find the support number on the site, look around and see if they have general ranges in the services faq they probably have, check some forums for general ideas on how their repair service is (I'm assuming good based on other people fucking with canonshit and what I've dealt with elsewhere that wasn't good) and send it in if you feel like spending shipping on a yard sale find just to see if it's worth fixing.
>>
File: 1488729603972.jpg (92 KB, 500x591)
92 KB
92 KB JPG
>>3308392
thanks bud
>>
File: 1528526192681.png (239 KB, 630x441)
239 KB
239 KB PNG
What is the Panasonic 20mm 1.7 of APSC cameras?
>>
>>3308537
On E-mount, lots of options depending on how much money you have and what lens size you are okay with.
Batis 25/2 FE
Sony 24/1,8
Sony 28/2 FE
Sigma 30/2,8
Sigma 30/1,4
>>
Should I get an EM10 mk ii with or without the kit lens if I've never shot photography seriously

People tell me to just get the lens that this guy was talking about >>3308537
>>
>>3308541
>if I've never shot photography seriously
Don't you have a smartphone for that?
>>
>>3308547
ive taken about 25k photos with my s7 and i feel like ive reached its limitations
>>
Should I actually be buying the Sony A6000 if I want it for photo AND video?
>>
>>3308560
Well i CAN be used for video, so long as you use the AVC HD codec which it was born with.

The XAVC-S codec was introduced via firmware, and the camera has some issues with it.
>>
>https://www.ephotozine.com/article/samyang-af-24mm-f-2-8-fe-review-32367
Dat uniform performance across aperture 2,8 to aperture 16.

Modern lens manufacturing is so good at complex F1,4 lenses, so when they use all their knowledge to make F2,8 lenses, they become really good.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CC 2018 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2018:05:31 14:08:48
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
Image Width1500
Image Height1018
>>
I'd like some input from owners of both. Which one did you end up keeping?

I am leaning heavily towards the GR, but the reported claims of dust issues concern me. I'm no stranger to disassembling devices, but I've heard some unlucky people say they have to do it every 4 months

I do not plan on doing video. Stills 99% of the time
>>
>>3308160
oly 45 mm f/1.8
>>3308541
if you can get it for cheap go for it. use it for some time and then decide what prime fits your style. with a fast lens near the standard length you can't go wrong though
>>
>Nikon 500 f/4 costs $10k
how is this possible. How can someone even afford such
>>
>>3308611
Those are two extremely different cameras.

If you're stills-oriented, want something to have with you in your pocket at all times, don't care about having the fixed 28mm, and don't mind the lack of a viewfinder then go Ricoh GR.

If you want to buy into a lens system, want an evf, and want 4k video (though it sounds like you don't), then go for the GX85.

Personally, my vote is for the Ricoh. I haven't owned one myself, but I've never met someone unhappy with one. I have owned Panasonic in the past though and I've never been that impressed with them for stills. Not to mention the image quality on the Ricoh is superb, you have the option for a conversion lens, it's incredibly convenient to use, and will cost you less than the Pana in the long run. The GR line has always been considered the best compact for a reason. I wouldn't let dust concerns bother you
>>
>>3308541
Buy one with it. You won't be shooting gallery pieces even if you buy pro line prime to go with it. It's got huge focal range for you to fool around.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeOLYMPUS IMAGING CORP.
Camera ModelE-M5
Camera SoftwareVersion 1.7
PhotographerPicasa
Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.8
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution350 dpi
Vertical Resolution350 dpi
Image Created2014:02:25 14:23:42
Exposure Time1/160 sec
F-Numberf/16.0
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating200
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length45.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width2631
Image Height1661
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Gain ControlNone
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
Unique Image IDdeca6931753fffd624b585e81de9d01e
>>
>>3308611
LX100
>>
>>3308620
>>Nikon 500 f/4 costs $10k
>how is this possible. How can someone even afford such
(1) By either inheriting lots of money or having a real job; i.e., not being a starving photographer, but rather by working as a financial analyst, engineer, lawyer, etc., making good money, not having debt, and having modest living expenses. Even many blue collar jobs, like welder, CNC machinist, electrician, etc. pay good enough money to afford such luxuries easily if... (2) you don't have a family to feed or a wife to manage your money for you. Also, (3) when you are relatively young and in good health, it still feels too early to save for retirement, and your monthly expenses might be relatively low because you may not even have health insurance or feel the need to keep any money in reserve for potential medical expenses.

Of course, if you are a photographer with any reasonable skill in your craft and in ability to market your photos, this is just another business expense and can be written off on your taxes and justified by the fact that it will make you back more money than it cost. Many pro photographers rent such lenses rather than buying them, though, since they may only use these lenses one or two weeks out of the year, on annual trips to Yellowstone or similar locations.
>>
>>3308611
>comparing two completely different cameras
At least compare the LX100 and Ricoh GR to make it fair.
>>
>>3308620
Very few people ever need a 4/500 and those who do are professional sports/wildlife photographers, and even of those many probably simply rent that thing for a shoot.
>>
>>3308072
>All Nikon cameras are forced into tiny itty bitty sensor area for video.

You mean 1920x1080 standard video resolution instead of downsizing the full sized area of the entire sensor? Unless you need 6000x4000 resolution video I don't see the point of using the entire sensor area for video that will be downsized to standard resolution anyway. Even 4k is 3840x2160, which doesn't even use all the sensor area on most photo-dedicated cameras.
>>
>>3308823
>Even 4k is 3840x2160, which doesn't even use all the sensor area on most photo-dedicated cameras.
On the D500 it uses an area even smaller than the micro 4/3 sensors.

>I don't see the point of super sampling
It increases the image quality.
>>
My nikon doesn't crop when it shoots video. Where is this meme coming from?
>>
>>3308822
>the only people who could ever "need" a 500mm lens are pros
I really wish the photography community weren't so full of such elitist poorfags.
>>
>>3308823
When I record in 4k I personally down sample it to 1080p because the resulting file retains a higher image quality than a native 1080p video. It also gets around some of YouTube's compression as the quality is so much higher than your average 1080p file it comes out the other end looking nicer after YouTube's compression. There's plenty of guides out there about this if you don't understand it.
>>
I recently bought an xt1 can some anons suggest me good straps from ali express, also can i buy a 3rd party hand grip i know a 3rd party battery grip exists i'm enquiring about a hand grip
>>
File: IMG_20180612_002648726_LL.jpg (2.86 MB, 4160x3120)
2.86 MB
2.86 MB JPG
Also my camera came with this attached to it, what does this do? Seems like PD is written on it

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Makemotorola
Camera ModelXT1650
Camera Softwaregriffin-user 8.0.0 OPL27.76-51 58 release-keys
Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.8
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2018:06:12 00:26:48
Exposure Time6999/100000 sec
F-Numberf/1.8
Exposure ProgramNormal Program
ISO Speed Rating400
Lens Aperturef/1.8
BrightnessUnknown
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModeAverage
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length3.68 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width4160
Image Height3120
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
ContrastNormal
SaturationLow
SharpnessSoft
Geodetic Survey DataWGS-84
>>
>>3308869
That is an emergency transponder. If you sign up for the service, it will call the Police Department. My guess is that your camera was owned by a woman or basedboy who didn't own a gun.
>>
>>3308869
that's for a Peak Design wrist strap. They connect to that.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Peak-Design-Camera-Wrist-Charcoal/dp/B07193B7TL/
>>
>>3308870
Xd
>>
>>3308869
https://www.peakdesign.com/anchor-links-317
>>
>>3308872
>30£
Wew can't i get a Chinese rip off of this?
>>
>>3308879
they're high quality straps designed to last forever unlike chink shit so no, probably not. Why did you buy a Fuji camera if you're a poorfag? Can you even afford their good lenses?
>>
>>3308880
Everything is made in China and fuji lense are cheaper compared to nikon lenses so yeah I can afford a few primes also i plan on buying chink lenses too
>>
>>3308882
>Fuji lenses are cheap than Nikon lenses
that's not true at all, who told you that? Look at Nikon lenses vs Fuji lenses on any shop front to see that's totally untrue. It's not even close.
>>
>>3308885
Yeah how much does a nikon 24 f1. 8 cost compared to a 23 f2, also good look buying wide angle apsc lenses in nikon i still have my d5300 the lense ecosystem is what pushed me to fuji, I currently own the 18 to 55 ive already bought a 25 1.7 and 7.5mm 2.8(7artisans) my next first party lense will be 18 f2
>>
>>3308839
Could you post some of your work so we can see and decide?
>>
>>3308886
Luck *
>>
File: 500d.jpg (255 KB, 3144x2536)
255 KB
255 KB JPG
Is the 500D still good for someone who want's to learn and only prior photography acclaim are tourist pictures?
>>
>>3308900
Yep
>>
>>3308797
The LX100 has more in common with the GX85, 4/3 sensor (slightly cropped, but same aspect ratio), EVF, 4k video, and it's too thick to really be pocketable (same thickness as the GX85 with the Olympus 14-42mm or Panasonic 12-32mm or 14-42mm power zoom).
>>
File: Untitled drawing.jpg (41 KB, 960x720)
41 KB
41 KB JPG
So to make a long story short, I got my lens back from wherever the fuck best buy sent it, and now the front lens mount thing is fucked up.
I want to use filters, but even the lens cap can barely stay on it, I assume the filter threads are even more fucked up. It is a Nikon 18-55 DX

Is this something I can fix?
>>
>>3308960
It's plastic so you could try heating it up and bending it back, screwing in a filter to form it to the exact shape. Fire would be a bad idea and a hairdryer probably won't be hot enough so you'd need a hot air gun.
>>
>>3308960
bring it back, that's unacceptable
>>
>>3308960
just use a phone, faggot. this isn't for you.
>>
>>3308960
They broke your lens. Take it back.
>>
Is the EVF on the GX85 as bad as people say? I hear they use that same one on a few other cameras like the LX100, GX9, GX7, etc.
>>
>>3308839
>>3308826
So, you want 6000x4000 just so you can downsample it to 4k? You realize the bitrate would be lower right? That's where they normally balance out. You get say 4k video at low bitrate, but you get 1080p at a much higher bitrate. It all depends on codecs & shit and you need to check all that before you go to the trouble of doing anyhting.
>>
>>3309079
It uses a field sequential LCD which means you get colour separation (commonly called "the rainbow effect") when panning the camera and apparently also when blinking/moving your eye or using menus. Also it won't look as good as an OLED EVF. That said I've never used one so I can't say just how bad it is, some people say it doesn't bother them. Either go to a store to try it out or buy from somewhere that allows returns.
>>
>>3308960
Get on their ass about that shit. Don't be a beta cuck. Stand up for yourself. Also, double check the numbers on your lens to make sure they sent the same lens back to you. Someone might be doing a swap on you which fucks over your warranty if you are using one.
>>
>>3309086
>So, you want 6000x4000
No. If your sensor is 6K wide, you will want the sensor to record video 6K wide.
If your sensor is 5K wide, you will want the sensor to record video 5K wide.
If your sensor is 4K wide, you will want the sensor to record video 4K wide.
etc.
You shouldn't want it to record 4K from a sensor area that is smaller than micro4/3.

The fact that the camera automagically super sample my 6K recording into 4K for my convenience and workflow is just a massive bonus.
>>
>>3309091
It isn't super sampling for you.
>>
>>3309097
And why do you say that?
>>
I’m stuck in choosing camera
I was thinking of a D500 but then found out the cheaper D7500 is quite similar with a few downgrades, so I thought why not go for that one considering the sensor is almost exactly the same, and the only differences are that D500 has almost 3 times more AF points, can take 2 cards, has higher screen display and can accept a grip
But then I read comments on YouTube stating how absolutely awful the D7500 is compared to the D500 as if it was an exclusively inferior product that takes shitty pictures
They also state that the D7200 is a much better alternative

So what’s the real answer?
>>
>>3309188
D7200
>>
>>3309193
>only a few bucks cheaper
>smaller pixels
>worse ISO performance
>statistically, its advantages are only marginally better
>6 FPS vs 8 FPS
>>
>>3309196
>and no 4k
>>
>>3309196
Also
>non-gimped interface
>indexing tab
>same AF as in D7500
>bigger buffer

A camera is much more than sensor performance. Besides, you have to deal with physics above ISO 6400, no electronics or clever programming can do anything about photonic noise.
>>
>>3309199
Damn, forgot
>much better weather sealing
>>
>>3309200
>>3309199
Damn twice, also
>has optional grip for more battery life
>two SD cards instead of pleb single slot
>>
File: IMG_20180611_182312_323.jpg (1.36 MB, 3932x2604)
1.36 MB
1.36 MB JPG
I have a Nikon D5100 and these lenses:

Nikon Nikkor AF-S 18-55mm VR Lens f/3.5-5.6G
Nikon Nikkor AF-S 55-300mm VR Lens f/4.5-5.6G
Nikon AF-S DX Micro-NIKKOR 40mm f/2.8G Close-up

Here's a picture I took today with the 18-55.

I'm not a gear buff, so should I do some upgrading or is my setup decent?
>>
>>3309199
>indexing tab
>has optional grip for more battery life
>two SD cards instead of pleb single slot
Literally non-issues for begginers, fuck off Theoria Apophasis you fat ugly thumb

>much better weather sealing
>bigger buffer
Not even true

>Besides, you have to deal with physics above ISO 6400, no electronics or clever programming can do anything about photonic noise.
Bigger pixels can make a difference you dumbass
>>
>>3309208
Dual memory card slots are crucial for autists who can’t keep track of where they saved all their pictures

AI compatibility is crucial for dirt poor pajeets who can only afford cheap chink grade AF lenses from the previous century

If you’re not autistic and/or from India, those things won’t be that necessary
>>
>>3309203
If you like the versatility of zooms, a faster long zoom or really fast wide zoom. Or a 1.8 prime at a focal length you like working with. You probably don't need to upgrade if you can't find something that's lacking in your current setup, but a fast telephoto is almost always significantly sharper and has insane versatility as a portrait lens, wildlife, and really tight landscapes.

I was a bit of a primefag until I used a good zoom and was able to do shit I was doing with a fast 50mm without having to hike across a field or cross a street for a shot. Your mileage will vary, long lenses are an acquired taste and a significant investment.
>>
File: 60d_front_main.jpg (227 KB, 800x661)
227 KB
227 KB JPG
>>3308900
500D's ok, but if you can get a 550D or a 60D for a little bit more you'll be a lot happier with it. The grip's a bit small, the next generation 18mpx sensor is a significant upgrade, and the xxxD generation have tiny viewfinders.
>>
>>3309290
>maybe if I only quote and post a brainlet pic, I will prove them wrong
>>
>>3309290
>>3309205
>>3309204
>>3309091
On a more cancerous board, like /pol/, you might fly under the radar, but on /p/, it's painfully obvious that you're the only person posting this cancer here. Why don't you take a look around you before taking a dump on our threads, and think up something interesting to contribute before just shitting out the latest wojak may-mays you saved from 9fag?
>>
>>3309320
So /pol/ knows Nikon sucks at video? Good for them.
>>
Look at the filenames. He didn't even save the images from 4chan.

>>3309290
>>3309205
>>3309204
>>3309091
>>
>>3309322
But we need to be more diverse and inclusive on /p/.

Diversity is our strength.
>>
>>3309320
I posted these:

>>3309204
>>3309205
Because the D7200 retard said shit that was nowhere near true compared to the D7500
The others aren’t me

>>3309322
>what is iPhone image naming
lurk moar on biz
>>
>>3309331
Pic related
>>
File: 1291497652498.jpg (91 KB, 554x439)
91 KB
91 KB JPG
>>3309333
The commie wants to built a wall between /p/ and /pol/ for some reason. Maybe Trump has traumatized him too much.

He has forgotten all the tolerance and exclusivity his rabbi has taught him.
>>
What is a good E-Mount travel zoom for someone who can't afford the 18-135?
>>
>>3309419
Adapted Canon FD 35-105mm f3.5
>>
>tfw i wanna sell all my m43 stuff so i can buy into e-mount
>>
>>3309333
So (You) use your phone to samefag on /p/.
Nothing new here.
Gave you one extra (You) so be nice and say thanks.
>>
>>3309426
Too narrow. I'd rather cut on the tele side
>>
Stuck on deciding which budget friendly camera to pick for my sister as an iPhone upgrade. Looked at used RX100III, RX1000IV, LX100 and a5100. Didn't think so at first, but the a5100 with 16-50 kit actually seems like the best option. I don't think she'll make much use of the manual controls of the LX100 and since it's about the same size as the a5100 even though it's an ILC... Small but not tiny requirement.

I can get one used (with kit) for 250€ which seems like a great deal from what I've seen. Gives me space to get a Sigma 30 or Sony 50 down the line.
>>
>>3309419
>for someone who can't afford the 18-135
>can't afford the 18-135
>can't afford a kit lens

YOUR PHONE!
>>
>>3309341

Nobody cares about your political opinions, snowflake.
>>
>>3309462
Panasonic ZS (TZ) 100/200 depending on cost. If you don't think she'll make use of the zoom range then Canon G7/9 X I/II (again, depending on cost). RX100 IV would be my first recommendation if she was actually going to utilise it well but it doesn't seem like that's the case.
>>
File: 1528830182870.png (90 KB, 1116x847)
90 KB
90 KB PNG
>>3309472

Are you perhaps a Russian spy?
You are so unwelcoming, hateful, and spiteful, it's almost as if you're trying to give Liberal assholes a bad name.
>>
>>3309478
Hmm, just reading the specs the TZ100 seems quite nice with that large zoom range. Costs 500€ new and 400€ used, so a bit more than the A5100 though. You don't think it'll be better to go for a larger sensor instead of a 1" ? Will check out a few videos on the TZ100 tomorrow though.

I suspect it will be used mostly as a point and shoot. I'll try to teach her a bit, but yeah... It's mostly going to be used as a walk around camera and to take pictures and videos of her son.
>>
>>3309490
I'm just making assumptions but I doubt she'll appreciate the extra image quality. I'm imagining she's going to use it just like she would her phone, on auto and then uploaded straight to IG, FB, Twitter, etc. Also to be a true phone replacement and upgrade it needs to be pocketable, or slip easily into a handbag/purse. If you get her an A5100 she'll hardly ever take it with her and she'll just go back to using her phone all the time.

If she did want the extra image quality then that's where the Canon G's would come in with their faster lenses, less range than the TZ100/200 but still much more than a phone.
>>
>>3309457
You can use a NEX-FD speedbooster to not make it narrow at all. Constant aperture makes the lens excellent for video too. Whatever though, up to you. I own the 35-105mm and love it for A6000.
>>
>>3309495
Hmm, mostly true. Using it like a phone and on auto is true, though part of the reason for the upgrade is that she was disappointed with the quality of phone photos when making prints. So that's where I think the extra IQ will help, so it's not for web only + making it feel worthwhile to upgrade. They are always impressed by some proper bokeh, so I figured that's where APS-C and a faster prime could come into play down the line if she was still interested.

Sadly I can't seem to find much of the Canon G series on the used market here.
>>
>>3309504
Most likely the TZ100/200 would still be an upgrade in image quality, certainly more than good enough for standard sized prints (something like 6x4" iirc).

For a shallower depth of field you could try and find an LX10, or there is still the RX100 (the upgrades of the IV probably aren't worth it to her, better viewfinder, high frame rate and 4k video, faster burst shooting, etc.).
>>
File: s-l500.jpg (30 KB, 500x500)
30 KB
30 KB JPG
Experiences with any of the Yongnuo lenses? I'm looking at either the Canon 35mm f/2 (non-USM), or the Canon 40mm f/2.8 STM as a cheap "50mm equivalent" on crop. The Yongnuo 35mm f/2 could be a cheap alternative that has a faster aperture than the 40mm pancake.
>>
>>3309591
there's already thread about chinese lenses here
>>3295992
>>3295992
>>3295992
>>
File: 1528834154928.png (955 KB, 1920x1080)
955 KB
955 KB PNG
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Ht5cDAbRms

BTFO by a PHONE

how embarrassing
>>
>>3309739
Sony needs to rework the Auto Exposure speed on those sensors. Bumping them up to A9 speed should help a bit.

But his argument about using the Front camera for display/framing is a bit dishonest because the Front camera is much lower quality, and even smaller sensor than back camera.
And he didn't test the front camera, he tested the back camera, while recommending the front camera... so, eh.
>>
File: 1.jpg (293 KB, 1679x940)
293 KB
293 KB JPG
Samsung turns you into Rudolf the Red-Eared Raindeer.
>>
I have been thinking of upgrading my D800 into a D750 or D810. I am more into the D750, but I strated to think about the manual focusing. Since all my lenses are mf lenses. How much different it is to focus with D750 compared to D800 or D810?
>>
>>3309445
>having this low IQ
>can't spot the differing context of the posts
don't respond to me that you were only pretending to be retarded
>>
File: 6435346435.gif (1.03 MB, 250x190)
1.03 MB
1.03 MB GIF
I was considering buying the D750 because it's an overall decent full frame camera for
My only gripes are that it don't do 4k, can't do more than 6.5FPS and its max native ISO is no more than 12800(if it was just one stop higher I would definately buy it)
So I though the D500 would probably be better, but I don't really like DX-sensor cameras

help pls
>>
>>3309776
All those issues are childish.
D3400 and learn photography before you even look at any specs
>>
I don't understand lenses.
How come the Sigma 20mm f/1.4 is more than twice as expensive as the Sigma 30mm f/1.4?
>>
>>3309806
Wider lenses are more specialized and harder to make well, especially at at wider apertures. It's usually bigger glass to get the f stop at the given focal length and the glass needs more elements to be sharp and not have all kinds of distortion that comes with being so wide.
>>
>>3307740
D7x00 series isn't as light as d3x00, but can autofocus af-d lens
>>
>>3309809
>harder to make
This is probably the stupidest thing I've read on /p/ in a while.
>>
>>3309872
People are autistic about their wide primes more than any other lens.
>>
File: Nifty Fifty f1.4.jpg (537 KB, 1894x893)
537 KB
537 KB JPG
I did it. I bought a 50mm for a 1.5x crop. I just hope it looks as good as it did in the photos once it gets here. I needed something all manual and fast. 75mm seems like it will work for my current needs. My next lens purchase will probably be a vintage 35mm f1.4 if I can find one in my price range that doesn't have bad glass. I'd like to get a 28mm F/1.4 D, but I highly doubt I'll have that much to spend.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
>>
>>3309806
Each lens has its own research and development costs that need to be recouped from lens sales. If it took more man-hours to design the 20mm lens than the 30mm lens, then the cost of paying the R&D team for their work, AS WELL AS the opportunity cost of NOT using the R&D team for other things, needs to be factored into the price.

The cost of construction is a factor. Some lenses are easier to build by virtue of having fewer elements, while others have lower standards and fewer QC steps that make them faster to build. Some lenses are made in factories that cost less to operate. A factory in Japan doesn't only cost more because of labor costs. The cost of the real estate, taxes, insurance, utililities, maintenance (and different building codes that might not require certain types of costly maintenance in third world countries) all go into the price of the products that come out of the factory.

With less popular lenses, supply and demand is likely also a factor. On /k/, you'll hear people complain that .32 ACP ammunition costs about twice as much as 9mm ammunition, even though a .32 cartridge has about 50% less of the same basic raw materials (brass, lead, copper, gunpowder, etc.) than the 9mm cartridge. That's because both cartridges are made on the same machines in the factory. The time spent to manufacture a box of .32 ammo that will sit on store shelves for longer and sell fewer units, regardless of the price, is time not spent manufacturing 9mm, which consumers buy the shit out of. With lenses, people love certain focal lengths, but don't really care for, or don't know how to use, others. I have noticed that 35mm are widely considered a useful lens for environmental portraits, but the same photographers complain that 24mm is "too wide," which just means they don't know how to use that focal length lens. People have it in their heads that there are legitimate reasons why certain focal lengths are popular, so certain focal lengths just don't sell.
>>
>>3307144
Was shooting at the beach today and a wave splashed my camera. It's supposed to be water resistant but it stopped working. I turned it off and back on like an idiot. It's probably dead now right? I noticed only the battery compartment got wet and nothing else but I'm not sure if that matters.
>>
Can someone tell me what the advantage of strobing is over normal flashes if I DON'T want to make artsy projects?
I like toying with the feature but I fail to see its merits. I thought maybe people would like the not as blindingly strong light more when photographed, but it doesnt really add up, since I need to use 3-4 relatively strong flashes to get a decent exposure within the maximum frequency when using handhelt exposure time (1/30 and up).
>>
>>3309941
>I turned it... back on
That is where you went wrong. If something like this happens you take the battery out and go home to properly wipe and dry it out. I assume salt water, you don't want any of the salt residue to remain in there.
Make a dry box out of a sealable plastic container and a pack of silica gel car desiccant, put the camera in after the wiping.
If it still refuses to turn on, send it in for service. Expect a heavy bill.
>>
>>3309974
Same thing basically. The bigger flashes are usually called strobes, those you put on poles and too big to mount on the camera.
Nothing fancy about using them, it is a flash that can give more light if you want.
>>
>>3309997
I mean the small flashes that go on cameras and can strobe, i.e. flash with a lot of tiny flashes in quick succession, like 4x 1/64power at 100Hz at 1/25s instead of one 1/16power flash
>>
>>3310002
Ah. Multi exposure of motion perhaps. Never used that function.
I could think of a few uses though, not just artsy but sciency stuff as well.
>>
Should I always opt for prime lenses if necessary or are zoom lenses usually good enough?
>>
>>3310035
A fast zoom that costs more than a decent prime is good enough and usually better than the midrange primes. 2.8 is usually good enough unless you're shooting in the dark or crop factor comes in and math is involved. Kit zooms are great on all but the cloudiest days or in anything less than mild shade. After that is when you notice the limitations, especially when you're watching your isos upping the shutter to account for the focal length.
>>
File: 1389362060956.png (29 KB, 1000x1000)
29 KB
29 KB PNG
not sure where to ask and doubt the guys over at /g/ can help me.
is buying pre-owned/used DSRLs from ebay worth it compared to buying brand new?
just looking to save some money here and was wondering if there's some stuff I should know before buying one used, not looking for one for anything professional just need an actual DSLR for various uses.
just fucking kill me if I'm asking a stupid question.
>>
>>3310077
I'm going to get raped for replying with this video, but it's the best option if you do your research, want a great deal and can compromise on a lot of other shit. He's a corny bastard but I've sifted through a couple hundred reviews and reviewers and he is honest, in this one at least.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kob8NwBX3c
>>
>>3310081
alright thanks man, that video helped me a lot.
I looked around for a while and I think I'm going to land on buying a D7100 with a 18-140mm lens which I can get for pretty reasonable prices (600$ total, maybe even less).
going to do a little bit more research on some similar cameras because canon has some pretty appealing offers around that range as well.
>>
File: S100-001.jpg (144 KB, 530x351)
144 KB
144 KB JPG
Is this still good in 2018? I was looking at the GR and RX100 but this is way cheaper and seems much smaller too.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATION
Camera ModelNIKON D7000
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS6 (Macintosh)
PhotographerVictor Tang
Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.8
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern902
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)36 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width4928
Image Height3264
Number of Bits Per Component8, 8, 8
Pixel CompositionRGB
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution240 dpi
Vertical Resolution240 dpi
Image Created2012:07:13 12:52:28
Exposure Time1/50 sec
F-Numberf/4.0
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating400
Lens Aperturef/4.0
Exposure Bias-1 EV
Subject Distance0.01 m
Metering ModeSpot
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length24.00 mm
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
Image Width530
Image Height351
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Gain ControlLow Gain Up
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessHard
Subject Distance RangeUnknown
>>
File: IMG_0664s.jpg (2.45 MB, 3648x2736)
2.45 MB
2.45 MB JPG
>>3310206
RX100 had better image quality even back then. Except for the optical zoom, which is not even that long with the Canon, you are going to get BETTER image quality at the pixel level with a cell phone camera in 9 out of 10 cases. Sure, you can shoot with raw and you have a PASM mode dial, but your actual creative control is very minor due to the small sensor.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeCanon
Camera ModelCanon PowerShot S95
Camera Softwarepaint.net 4.0.21
Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.0
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution240 dpi
Vertical Resolution240 dpi
Image Created2013:08:08 13:22:24
Exposure Time1/1600 sec
F-Numberf/8.0
ISO Speed Rating400
Lens Aperturef/8.0
Exposure Bias0 EV
Subject Distance3.44 m
Metering ModePattern
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length6.00 mm
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>
>>3310206
If the camera in your phone is shit, you don't want to risk damaging it, or you want to preserve battery life then I guess it's okay. Also the zoom range is an advantage over a phone camera.
>>
I'm lookingbasically for a fast (2.8) mid-range zoom (starting at 24 or less to 70 or so) for e-mount that does not require me to sell a kidney.

Any tips?
>>
>>3310347
So you're basically looking for a generic kit lens zoom range but faster? Honestly, don't bother. Learn to use your legs to zoom and buy two primes at each end of the range. Your wallet will thank you for it. Any zoom maintaining a speed like f2.8 or faster isn't going to be cheap.
>>
>>3310347
The new Tamron RXD should be good enough.
>>
File: 1258791441788.jpg (32 KB, 320x259)
32 KB
32 KB JPG
Is it even necessary to shoot raw anymore these days?

I have tested my camera on the Dynamic Range optimizer from levels 1 to 5, and it works exactly like shadow/highlight recovery in post processing.
So if I do that, and make sure I set the custom white balance correctly with my greycard, what's even the point of post processing anymore?

Sharpness and Contrast can be applied in-camera as well.
>>
>>3308326
>The sensor is like a third of the equation. The other two thirds being lighting and lenses.
How to be completely retarded.
Maybe sensor and lenses combined are 1/3 of the equation at max unless you are tasked and paid for taking the most pixel-accurate images ever.
Framing, composition and separation are way more important. a blurry, grainy image can still be awesome. Half of the equation is lighting. a flash can improve your images by so much it's insane. but if you want to make sharp, boring images, go ahead and listen to anon
>>
>>3310385
Framing and composition isn't equipment purchase.

Lighting, lenses, and camera are.
>>
>>3310386
Sometimes i wonder, why "camirah didn't mattah" cultist are so aggressive?
That's gear thread, person asked question about sensor importance in relation to gear and got answer, but suddenly there is cultist rushing in, screeching about retardation and "muh pixelpeeping".
>>
>>3310396

>"muh pixelpeeping"

I get that at some point pixel peeping is ridiculous (and the internet is good at taking it to absurd levels).

But there is a really big difference between an a6000 and a D850. Sure, they can both take great photos. But the D850 takes better ones much easier. To think otherwise is just wrong.
>>
>>3310378
>I have tested my camera on the Dynamic Range optimizer
Care to post what have you tested? I've no idea what you're doing but generally Raw is the only thing that retains full dinamic range of the shot, even tiff looses at least three stops up and down.
>>
>>3310415
Shadow recovery and highlight recovery. It applies that in-camera into the JPEG.

So if all you need is some .jpg to upload online somewhere, the camera itself already have the post processing built in.
>>
>>3310415
I tested DRO in OFF/1/2/3/4/5
Off is 0 recovery as expected.
1, 2, and 3 gave very reasonable shadow recovery.

level 4 and level 5 made the picture a bit too overblown.
>>
>>3310417
>>3310421
Yeah, but what's the point? Say you want to process the shot later a bit, or aren't as satisfied with end jpeg. You can still fix everything with raw, can't do that with jpeg, as all data is lost.
>>
>>3310427
>Say you want to process the shot later a bit
Getting the whiite balance right, and the shadow recovery right is usually enough, isn't it?

Shooting jpeg just makes the workload easy as pie.
>>
>>3310428
As long as you're happy with it. Don't say I didn't warn you when you'll be hitting yourself on the head, when few days worth work goes down the drain.
>>
>>3310428
>Shooting jpeg just makes the workload easy as pie
It is the exact opposite
>>
>>3310428
White balance can only be turned manually in 50k intervals on my camera and fine tuning in post is sometimes necessary.

Sometimes you cannot expose for shadows and highlights because of high contrast so you need to expose for highlights and boost shadows in post.
>>
>>3310440
I use a greycard for custom white balance.
>>
>>3310005
>could think of a few uses though, not just artsy but sciency stuff as well.
like what? That was my initial question!
M initial proble remains that in order to get a significant ammount of flashes off in a normal exposure time without going into long exposure, the flashes need to be super weak and ineffective. Maybe my Godox TT350 is just too whimpy of a flash to have any significant effect.
>>
>>3310445
Just use a dark room, set long exposure, use flash as shutter.
>>
File: 1396835864880.jpg (59 KB, 720x720)
59 KB
59 KB JPG
Is there any way to reliably get a good copy of the Sony zeiss 16-35? I want an ultra wide zoom but I know that the Zeiss zooms for sony are riddled with issues.

Is there any way to get a good copy or should I just save and try and get the 12-24 f4?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
>>
>>3309766

From D800 to D750 isn't really an upgrade more of a sidegrade. Is the manual focus on the D800 doable? Most of the time people recommend Mirrorless for manual focus (peaking).
>>
>>3310462
Most people seem to be using the canon with a mount. For video.
>>
>>3310462
Sigma 18-35 Art
>>
>>3310490
I assume he means for his a7, since neither 16mm nor 18mm is considered "ultrawide" on FF, and that Sigma zoom is a MFT lens that only works on sensor sizes up to APS-C.
>>
I'm in the market for a telephoto, looking at the canon 70-200. F/4 because the extra stop isn't worth the money or weight. Probably gonna get one used from someone reputable. Am I falling for the 70-200 meme? Are they actually worth it? Also, do you like any of the third party alternatives?
>>
>>3310537
If you have a full frame camera, then yes, get that lens. Even f/4 has plenty of subject separation when you need it and the focal length range is very useful for a broad range of shooting.

70-200mm is a lot less useful range on APS-C, though. On full frame, I find myself using these lenses a lot around the 70mm end for portraits and landscapes, so if I lost that, especially at f/4, it would be more of a limited telephoto zoom -- too short for wildlife and lacking the subject separation for portraiture (f/4 is only the equivalent aperture of f/6.4 on APS-C). You can still get some subject separation if you get really close to your subject or use the telephoto end, it's just not what it should be.
>>
>>3310537
Tamron 70-200/2.8 VC USD G1. Cheaper than the first party f/4 and new Tamron 70-210/4 and sharper stopped down to f/4.
>>
>>3310462
Buy one, if it's shit send it back. Unless you live in some shithole that doesn't have distance selling regulations.
>>
>>3310490
>>3310486
If people are doing video I wonder why they're not using the 10-18mm in super 35.

I'm mainly into stills and use an a7rii so apsc is really pissing away mega pixels.

I think I'll save for the 12-24mm for a few months. Thanks guys.
>>
>>3310583
>$1350+ tax multiple times till I get a good copy

I'd much rather spend almost the same to get a used 12-24 that has much less sample variation.
>>
>>3310586
Pay with cash at a brick-and-mortar store, then.
>>
>>3310586
You know you get a refund when you send stuff back? At most you'll have to pay for return shipping and maybe a restocking fee.
>>
>>3310595
Refunds take up to 10 business days to process, though. In the meantime, that's over a thousand dollars that he wouldn't have full use of. How much cash do you have in your bank account to tie up in refunds? Most people would probably notice a few unprocessed refunds for thousand dollar lenses.
>>
>>3310598
I'd image someone willing to drop $1.3k on a lens has a fair amount of funds saved up and isn't living paycheck to paycheck. If buying the lens is going to leave you struggling for 10 days then you shouldn't be buying it.
>>
I'm still kinda new to photography and I wanna do some low-light landscape photography but also wants to add some portraits into it.
Thus I should get a 1.4 prime lens. What focal length would you suggest for my needs?
20mm, 24mm, 30mm, 35mm or 50mm?
It will be on a FF so there's no cropping
>>
>>3310603
Not necessarily as cash, though. I think you might be surprised how little cash even "well off" people have laying around. People don't normally raid their 401k's to buy lenses. After all bills are accounted for, food, living expenses and taxes are budgeted for, and savings accounts are contributed to, I bet most people have less than $10,000 in their checking accounts at any one time, lots are going to have under $5,000.
>>
>>3310608
>After all bills are accounted for, food, living expenses and taxes are budgeted for, and savings accounts are contributed to, I bet most people have less than $10,000 in their checking accounts at any one time, lots are going to have under $5,000.
Like I said, if you don't have the spare cash then you shouldn't be spending it. Let's say he bought the lens and got a good one, that means he's not going to get the money back in ten days so he's gonna have even less money until the next paycheck comes in. The only way this is even possibly an issue is if he's too impatient to wait for the money to come back in.
>>
>>3310614
>Like I said, if you don't have the spare cash
I am literally talking about spare cash. A lot of people have enough spare cash to buy a lens like this once, even twice. Not four or five times, though.
>>
New thread: >>3310621
>>3310621
>>3310621
>>
>>3310617
Then what's the fucking problem? Buy one or two, send back the worst one or if neither are good send both and wait until the money comes back and repeat the process. I never implied that the guy should buy 4 or 5 at a time.
>>
>>3310623
Re-read: >>3310598
>>
Want to get my first camera. Im thinking about getting the D3300 its about 350€ with the kit lens. Are there better options?
>>
>>3310628
You can get a lightly used Canon 7D for about $400 over here and a kit lens is about $50. That's about 350 E-dollars, I think.
>>
>>3310628
Consider mirrorless, if only for the features. It makes a good point of comparison down in that range even if you aren't interested in one.
>>
>>3310625
But if it's spare cash why does it matter if he doesn't have access to it for 10 days? Does it not also matter that if he decides to keep the lens he's short of cash for an even longer period of time?
>>
>>3310640
You asked a question >>3310595 and I answered >>3310598. Stop trying to nitpick all these specific what if's and "but some people do it differently" scenarios. I know it's hard for you to understand, but different people apply the same principle to their lives a little differently than other people. That doesn't mean that the principle doesn't exist. What are you even trying to prove here?
>>
>>3310642
>You asked a question and I answered
I asked a rhetorical question, you replied that refunds can take 10 days to process as if it actually matters. I asked you why it matters and you have yet to answer that question.
>>
>>3310643
If it was intended as a rhetorical question, then you implied something that was not the full truth. If you return something, you don't immediately regain access to your money. Since the topic is sample variation of a thousand dollar lens, it may involve multiple returns, perhaps three or four, while waiting on both shipping and the bank. Over the course of a year, you could be deprived of your full spending power for a month or more, cumulatively. That is financially significant, no matter your income.

If, as I gave you the benefit of the doubt in assuming, you wanted to learn something about the thought process of >>3310586, then my reply to you was appropriate and you need to stop nagging me. If you just wanted to badger that person about being poor, then my reply was not appropriate, and I would take it back and replace it with a "fuck you" for good measure.
>>
>>3310650
It's "spare" money, money that won't come back when he decides to keep the lens. That the refund takes 10 days to process instead of being instant is completely fucking irrelevant. The only way it matters is if the guy is too damn impatient to wait a month or so before getting a satisfactory lens.

If you feel that it matters in some other way then, like I said, explain it to me.
>>
>>3310653
Fuck you.
>>
File: 1494539208991.jpg (55 KB, 966x1024)
55 KB
55 KB JPG
when the fuck are they gonna announce the D760

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
>>
>>3310606


pls respond




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.