[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 124 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: 7D_Mark_II_Hero-1.jpg (189 KB, 1080x720)
189 KB
189 KB JPG
Last: >>3317045

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:
Equipment MakePanasonic
Camera ModelDMC-GH4
Camera SoftwareAperture 3.6
Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.8
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)72 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2014:11:02 13:20:50
Exposure Time1/60 sec
F-Numberf/2.8
Exposure ProgramAperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating200
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length35.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width1080
Image Height720
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Gain ControlLow Gain Up
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
>>
I'm going to buy a 7D Mark II when the Mark III is announced this fall and prices start to drop on the old model. Can someone recommend a good lens for shooting birbs?
>>
>>3322084
>>
>>3322085
What?
>>
What kind of ratio would you guys recommend when buying a new camera and lenses, should it be 50% camera, 50% lenses? I honestly have no clue
>>
>>3322084
The most expensive telephoto prime / zoom you can afford. If its the 200-400 f/4 L, that is unironically a popular birding lens, even at its cost. If its the 100-400 f4.5-5.6L that's also not bad. But I figure you'll be cheap and get the 70-300 f/4-5.6 II or sigma 70-300 or Tamron 150-600, perhaps.
>>
>>3322099
I buy camera bodies as cheap as I possibly can then invest the rest into lenses. I started out being cheap buying vintage lenses or kit lenses nobody wanted, then realised if I save up instead I'll have something actually good and worth reselling down the road.

So I maybe spend 30% on bodies 70% lenses.
>>
>>3322099
Depends on your needs. But having high-end lenses is a good idea. Since not all cost even $1k these days, you may end up with a ratio lower than 50% on a good body and few lenses, or far above 50% on a cheap body with a handful of lenses.
>>
>>3322099
There's no hard-and-fast rule, just guidelines.

-Invest in lenses, since they hold their value (provided it's in a modern mount, like EF, F, E/FE, X or MFT).

-Upgrade, hopscotch and cycle through bodies, since the value depreciates, they wear out, and the technology becomes less relevant over time.

Don't compromise on the lens or the technology needed to run it for your uses... for the sake of getting the latest camera body. You might need a good camera body to get good results out of your lens, but there are diminishing returns from upgrading to a camera body only 3-4 years newer than what you have. That said, there might be a big difference in autofocus speed between a camera body that's 10 years old and one that's 5 years old.
>>
XT2 has been discounted on promotion by Fuji by $500. It now retails for $1100 USD.
>>
>>3322058
Is a second hand nikon d3200 for 400 worth it. Its shutter count is lower than 500 and nikon 35 mm 1/8g. Its going to be my first dslr, and going to use it for street photography.
>>
>>3322115
>for 400 aud.
>>
>>3322115
$200 for the body, $140 for the lens
>>
>>3322110
It's a very nice camera, I got one used a while back for 900 euros. Still, quite a lot of money for what it is.
>>
>>3322122
So, should i ask for a discount? Is it good.
>>
>>3322124
Ni
>>
>>3322084
The one you have with you.
>>
I'm a photo newbie looking for a decent camera. I'm not much of a gearhead so I don't really expect to buy a lot of lenses.

I started looking at the Lumix FZ80/82. And then also the FZ300/330 came to mind. I like that the 300 has a semi waterproof body and that the photos that I've seen from reviews seem a little less noisy when compared to the F80. Also they're both in the same pricerange, between 300 and 400 euro. One on the higher, the other on the lower spectrum.

But my beef here is that the sensor is almost the same as a high end smartphone. And it seems to reflect in noise levels. So looking a bit further I got to two other options. They're quite a bit more expensive though, and more than I'd like to spend.

The Lumix FZ1000 and the Sony A6000. The FZ has a way bigger sensor than the other Lumix models and the lens seems to be of really good quality, from reviews. Also the level of noise is way down. Now I know, these are all hurr-durr bridge cams. So that's where the A6000 comes in. I really like how it performs in low light and that it seems to be quite a bit smaller and lighter than the FZ1000. But in reviews they say the stock lens that comes with it is mediocre. The prices of both are almost identical if I buy the A6000 as a kit, around 570 euro. The body itself is around 470 but I doubt there's a 100 euro lens that's better than the Sony one.

Now I'm sort of leaning towards the Sony but the FZ1000 as a complete kit really stands out to me as well. Most reviews lean either one or the other way. And there's not many reviews comparing those two camera's.

So I was wondering if you guys would have any input on this.
>>
>>3322171
Buy a few decent prime lenses with the A6000. Then it looks really quite good.

Apart from that, the uninspiring kit 16-50 is probably still better-looking than the FZ1000 lens.
It's just pretty terrible once you know how the better glass looks. Unsurprisingly, hobbyists and professionals often have that point of view - even the better glass ultimately isn't terribly expensive.
>>
>>3322173
Then I think I'lll just go with the A6000 with a stock lens. It'll probably be a while before I want to upgrade. By that time the stock lens will have paid its dues.
>>
>>3322171
>>3322173 (cont'd)
As for comparisons, this can easily happen on the FZ1000:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/164598929@N03/42339056765/in/pool-2717527@N22/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/152576325@N08/42320761932/in/pool-2717527@N22/

Even the kit lens is already a lot better on the A6000:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/peterthoeny/28378175297/in/pool-2558197@N23/

And then the much better primes on the A6000 [sorry, no very comparable image on a brief look, maybe you find one]:
https://www.flickr.com/groups/2955549@N21/
https://www.flickr.com/groups/sigma60f28dn/pool/

Not all of them shot with the A6000, but the A6000 is one of the better/more often used bodies.

Superzoom -> kit lens on A6000 -> prime lens on A6000 is always a good step up in IQ and a good step down in zoom range. Can't have it all and for cheap, too.
>>
>>3322174
Personally, I'd recommend going with the Sigma 30mm Contemporary f/1.4 instead of the kit lens.

Can't zoom at all, but you get a much sharper image at more possible apertures and can crop a lot more in post, and it's still a good general purpose lens.

But of course, needs vary.
>>
File: Vivitar 28mm f-2.5.jpg (16 KB, 300x290)
16 KB
16 KB JPG
>tfw expanding my all manual vintage lens collection.

Who else likes vintage manual lenses/manual lenses more than the modern electronic ones? I just picked up a couple f/2.5s in 28mm and 35mm. I like their weight and how they feel. I also like being able to change aperture without holding down more than one button on my entry level crop garbage and getting a hand cramp.
>>
>>3322179
I too do like them better than "entry level crop garbage" lenses, but no chance whatsoever against the modern good lenses. Regardless if they're modern mechanically focused or electronically focused (linear motor, ultrasonic motor, ...) lenses.

The only time I seriously used one of my old lenses in recent memory was when I misplaced the modern variant and had no time to search before leaving. Didn't enjoy that retro situation, either.
>>
>>3322179
Got bunch of SMC Pentax-M primes. Small, good, cheap (mostly). Manual focusing without having split prism screen on camera kind of sucks.
>>
>>3322175
>>3322177

Thanks. I just ordered the A6000 with kit lens. Guess it's time to play tomorrow.

>>3322177
With that lens being 350 dollars from what I see from a quick search, adding that would really blow my budget out of the water. I'll be rolling stock for now, I can always upgrade when I as a photographer will feel the need. Right now, my only experience is tapping the red button when taking a picture on my phone.
>>
>>3322182
PS: Definitely get the advantage over "entry level crop garbage" even more so if you need to to use buttons to change aperture, rather than having a wheel. That's pretty much just them being asses over a $1 part to get you to upgrade, really.

>>3322187
>Manual focusing without having split prism screen on camera kind of sucks.
IMO focus peaking works even better. There are less situations where it becomes difficult to see what you're focusing on.

It had a decent implementation on Sony first, but now has a decent implementation on most current generation MILC.
>>
>>3322193
D3400 has 1 wheel for manual setting changes. To change ISO and aperture you need to hold down one of two buttons then rotate the wheel. The Fn button, for ISO changes, is on the front left of the camera and just under the flash button. It is a pain to use and often times you can hit the flash button instead. The button for the aperture changes in on the top right near the shutter button. You have to take your finger off the shutter button to use that one while rotating the wheel at the same time.

I'd love for a camera to have dedicated to 4 wheels, exp, ISO, aperture, and WB. One set of 4 wheels on each side so either hand can change it at a moment's notice. Of course, that's asking too much isn't it?

>>3322187
>Manual focusing without having split prism screen on camera kind of sucks.

Yeah, I can see that. Some lenses are more of a pain than others. You can focus peep using the LCD on most cameras now to compensate, but that's cumbersome.

>>3322182
>Didn't enjoy that retro situation, either.

I've been able to do much better with the manual ones than without. For action stuff that is when I need something, "now!" instead of waiting around or with slow focusing rings. Anything that is still life or whatever really doesn't matter too much. Though, I find I have to use AF + manual in order to get the focus close to where it sorta needs to be then move the ring a bit to get the actual focus I want. That's only a problem when focusing through/around stuff.
>>
>>3322179

I have been enjoying early autofocus lenses lately.

Minolta especially had some great glass that holds up today even.
>>
>>3322197
>To change ISO and aperture you need to hold down one of two buttons then rotate the wheel. The Fn button, for ISO changes, is on the front left of the camera and just under the flash button. It is a pain to use and often times you can hit the flash button instead.
Definitely the usual $1 missing wheel / button reason to make you upgrade to a much better camera even if you have few other needs.

But that's part of this camera market. Not enough competition, even now that we got a 3rd FF / APS-C system company.

> Of course, that's asking too much isn't it?
Somewhat, but WB becomes not very important when your sensor and software is good, and exposure compensation is generally manipulating shutter speed or ISO anyhow.

Point being, the better bodies do have what you need.

> I find I have to use AF + manual in order to get the focus close to where it sorta needs to be
That also gets vastly less necessary once your AF system hits precisely even if you use a small area / single point.

A while ago, the AF systems became not only faster but also more accurate / reliable than me, despite having a good bit of routine.

But arguably, the "retro situation" wasn't using MF but just using the old, less sharp, less bright, less color accurate / contrasty / flare resistant lens that also doesn't have a correction profile for its vignetting and distortion and so on unless I create one.
>>
>>3322193
I find focus peaking inferior to split prism (or rangefinder) in that latter hints direction and distance from focus. It may be just me or my entry dslr, but on 80s Ricoh or even EOS-M manual focusing feels natural and fast. Too bad I don't 35mm film any more.
>>
>>3322220 ment EF-M
>>
>>3322209
>tfw all your vintage lenses have sharper quality and better contrast than your kit lenses
>>
File: 1504806018604.jpg (658 KB, 4368x2084)
658 KB
658 KB JPG
>>3322058

First camera:

Lenses for A6500: 16-70mm F/4.0 OSS and the 35mm F/1.8 OSS are my two choices... I have considered going for the Sigma 30mm 1.4 as I have heard much great about it, but it's a tad too big for my taste.

Combined with the essentials: Memory cards, a bag for my gear, a tripod(Joby 3k kit), cleaning kit, extra battery and charger, a UV-filter and maybe an ND-filter and some nice strap.

This all adds up to around $3400 minus some Sony cashback discounts. Thoughts on what I might miss with this gear?

Of course, I don't have an ultrawide, a macro or a zoom, but I feel that my lens choices cover most of the "normal" photography and video that I will take, namely street photography and the like.

I've considered spending $50 for Capture one Pro, but I think I will try to learn darktable or Rawtherapee first.
>>
I'm currently shooting film mostly, but I'm thinking about getting a DSLR for some cheaper shooting.

So I'm already bought into Nikon lenses, what are decent entry level Nikon DSLR's out there?
>>
>>3322230
Forgot to mention, fine with an older model
>>
>>3322226
Save the 35 for later
>>
>>3322243
I'm talking about buying both. The 16-70mm and a prime... If I had to pick only one, I would definitely wait with the 35mm.
>>
File: sonnar180mmf28.jpg (51 KB, 700x350)
51 KB
51 KB JPG
>>3322179
I'm trying to expand my collection of manual lenses as well, currently I got a 300mm f/4 with IF coming in.
My next lens will likely be a fast tele for portraits, probably a 180mm or a 200mm f/2.8.
I'm really eyeing up the Zeiss Sonnar in Contax/Yashica mount, it has very low CA for a non-ED lens.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeMinolta Co., Ltd.
Camera ModelDiMAGE F100
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS5 Windows
Maximum Lens Aperturef/4.7
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)114 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width2272
Image Height1704
Number of Bits Per Component8, 8, 8
Pixel CompositionRGB
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2016:01:18 06:10:41
Exposure Time1/20 sec
F-Numberf/4.7
Exposure ProgramNormal Program
ISO Speed Rating200
Lens Aperturef/4.7
Brightness1.2 EV
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length23.40 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width700
Image Height350
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Gain ControlLow Gain Up
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
Subject Distance RangeMacro
>>
>>3322197
>D3400 has 1 wheel for manual setting changes. To change ISO and aperture you need to hold down one of two buttons then rotate the wheel
Does it do that even in Av? What does it default to in M (turning it with no button held), shutter speed? The issue with ISO is should be negligible, you should be using auto ISO these days unless the D3400 just has a shit implementation of it.

Ideally you'd be shooting Av and controlling the aperture with the single wheel, then the body adjusts the ISO to keep the shutter speed high enough. In M the dial would default to aperture control as that's what's changed most often, and again ISO would be on auto.
>>
>>3322298
Focus indicator, ISO, WB, are mostly shit. ISO is probably the worst not simply due to it being used incorrectly, but because anything past ISO-800 is like pointillism art. The focus indicator and WB don't work around f/8 and WB doesn't work well when ramping up the exposure speed when you want to do some exposure bracketing. I use PreWB for things done in the dark or set it by hand when it can't do proper WB for the Pre image.

"A" on the D3400 just means "Auto" for everything. There's no "Av", but you can select aperture priority if you want in the menu system by turning it to "A" then turning the rest of the stuff you don't want to be Auto to manual in the menu. It takes quite a while to do that, but saves the setting for you unless you leave the battery out for too long or reset everything. "M" is similar in that everything is Auto until you turn it to Manual which drove me insane when I first got it because the menu system is scatterbrained in design.

Basically, everything is better in full manual with Auto WB until you get into tighter apertures or low light.
>>
>>3322305
>"A" on the D3400 just means "Auto" for everything. There's no "Av", but you can select aperture priority if you want in the menu system by turning it to "A" then turning the rest of the stuff you don't want to be Auto to manual in the menu
I've never used a Nikon camera but I find that very hard to believe. I just looked it up and A is supposed to be Aperture Priority (I just call it Av because I used to use Canons) and then S is Shutter Priority (Tv), M is obviously full Manual, and then P is Program which is basically Auto but you can choose to change stuff if you want.

I see no reason why A would default to a completely automatic mode (when there are separate auto modes on the dial) that you then have to dive into the menu to set it to work how it should.
>>
>>3322307
>I just looked it up and A is supposed to be Aperture Priority

Everything on the dial is as auto as possible until you set your own stuff via the menus. The damn thing even has lengthy tutorials for 1st time camera users and editing features all taking up menu space. It is a real cluster fuck. The best thing about the menu is that it has a "last commands used" section where you can go to and quickly find what you use most often, but only if you leave the menu with that menu section open. Otherwise, there's extra button presses to get to it depending on where you left the menu at the last time.
>>
>>3322084

Sigma 150-500 OS, can be had around 500 and the stabilizer at the big end is pretty effective. My mother uses one on her Canon Rebel SL1 and I got to play with it and I was impressed. Image quality is fantastic, takes 95mm filters. I bought hers spanking new for 750 dollars from a camera shop.

>>3322179

Literally the big reason I bought a Df, native compatibility with glorious pre-AI Japanese heavy metal

>>3322199

Find a 35-70 f4 and the Beercan, those were legendary lenses, had them both on my 9xi

>>3322230
>>3322233

D7000, will natively meter your AI and AI-s lenses.
>>
Where can i buy decently priced camera straps, why a strip of leather costs 100$ is beyond me
>>
>>3322323
>Find a 35-70 f4 and the Beercan, those were legendary lenses, had them both on my 9xi

I have the 35-70, but not the Beercan.

I love my 28-135 though. Fabulous lens.

Want to get the 85mm f/1.4 G and the 28-70 f/2.8 G, but they are a little pricey.
>>
File: Because_01_3.jpg (381 KB, 1280x720)
381 KB
381 KB JPG
I've got an A7ii. I really want a wide lens 24mm+/-, I also want a 85mm to work on portraits. I've got a 35mm and a 24-70mm kit lens. What do?

>selling/dropping kit lens no matter what
>Buy a Rokinon 24mm prime and a Zeiss Sony 85mm
>Buy a Sony 24-105 f/4 G Lens
>Buy a nice Nikon/Canon 24-85/24-105mm with an adapter

Basically I can't decide between two primes or one zoom and if it's worth it to get a nice non native lens.
>>
>>3322307
Is this a change specific to the D3400? On my D3300 all the auto stuff was off by default and you had to enable it.
>>
>>3322456
I'd go with native primes.

Either the 90mm macro, 100 STF or 85mm f/1.8 for "85mm". And then the Tokina 20mm f/2 or the 20mm Sigma Art f/1.4 or the Loxia 21mm f/2.8 for a wide lens, depending on preferences.

Maybe a bonus 12mm Samyang fisheye [mainly for panoramas] or a 12mm Venus Optics or 14mm Sigma Art for rectilinear WA shots and some more too, but it's a matter of needs and budget.
>>
>>3322230
> I'm thinking about getting a DSLR for some cheaper shooting.
Just about any DSLR will be cheaper if you shoot a few thousand photos per year, so that's a good idea.

> what are decent entry level Nikon DSLR's out there?
The entry level is intentionally not terribly decent in various ways. How else are they going to sell the six or more camera "tiers" above the entry-level?

Get a D7200 or D750 or some such. Not the newest, not really entry-level, but decent & still far cheaper than film, even if the cost is more up-front.
>>
File: prism.jpg (43 KB, 622x480)
43 KB
43 KB JPG
>>3322220
Had a split prism + microprism like probably most people in the later film era. While certainly adequate in most situations, it wasn't quite as informative as the focus peaking is now.

Can't say I saw distance or direction better & not seeing where the objects in the rest of the frame are without putting in serious effort to aim at everything carefully is a downside [all those film era shots with distracting half-focused branches and people on the side of the image; it definitely wasn't just me who often failed in this regard].

And it's more frequently the case that the split prism becomes hard to see. IIRC it got difficult when your lens flared, when it was dark or when the subject was beige-ish? [Has been a long while, I don't even trust my memory on the details.] Either way, I do remember having to guess some shots on almost every day trip.
>>
>>3322477
Ah, and macro photography usually didn't work either. Don't remember if it was because the prism was too large and slightly too inaccurate or because you often want even f/8-f/16.

Either way, this also works better with focus peaking. It's a nifty little trick IMO.
>>
>>3322482
I do a lot of focus peaking with macro because I simply can't see anything in the viewfinder half the time and micro focusing with a razor thing DOF without focus peaking isn't happening.
>>
I bought a Nikon D90 camera from work for a couple of $$$

which lens should I get for it?

http://www.nikon.com.au/en_AU/product/nikkor-lenses/fx-format/single-focal-length/normal/af-nikkor-50mm-f-1-8d#overview

http://www.nikon.com.au/en_AU/product/nikkor-lenses/fx-format/single-focal-length/normal/af-s-nikkor-50mm-f-1-8g-special

http://www.nikon.com.au/en_AU/product/nikkor-lenses/dx-format/single-focal-length/af-s-dx-nikkor-35mm-f-1-8g

I mainly want it to learn photography to shoot action figures and my kids

also what's the main difference between the two 50mm lenses. the second one seems to be double the price
>>
>>3322498
> action figures
100 or 200mm macro lens & some lights.

But I figure you can make do with the 50mm and some lights if you need to.

> my kids
I guess the 50mm f/1.8d will do okay.

Not that I personally don't have the impulse to use a better camera and better lens even for family.

>what's the main difference between the two 50mm lenses
The "d" is the old lens without an internal focusing motor. On the current cameras, you need a D7000 or better to autofocus with it because Nikon reserved the external focusing motor to the midrange cameras and up. IIRC your D90 has the focusing motor, though.

As you might expect from the context, the "g" has an integrated motor.

There also are some other minor differences like in focusing speed and focusing accuracy and noise, but I'm not sure it'll actually matter in this combination.
>>
does cannon vs Nikon really matter?
>>
File: sony_a7iii_gero_web.jpg (84 KB, 1000x667)
84 KB
84 KB JPG
I bought a Sony A7III because I want to create travel videos and take pics. My first trip will be to Iceland next month. I don't have a gimbal (yet). I will probably purchase one after Iceland. This probably means that the lenses I use for video will need OSS, which is probably better for video anyway.

>Budget
My budget is €2000 max, preferably less.

>Wide angle
I'm not sure which lens(es) to get. I will probably need a wide angle, like the Sony Zeiss 16-35mm f/4. I can get it for about €900 (new), it's hard to find secondhand here.

>Prime lens
I thought about getting a 50/55mm lens, like the cheap 50mm 1.8 (€200) or the Zony 55mm 1.8, which is really sharp, but also more expensive (€600)

>Zoom lens
Probably the 'main' lens. I do have the kit lens, but will probably sell it soon for a profit. I'll replace it with either the Sony G 24-105mm f/4 (€1350 new, €1150 used) or the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 (€800).

The Tamron doesn't have OSS, so I would need a gimbal, but it's a much faster lens so I may no need to purchase a prime lens (50/55mm), so I could put that money towards a gimbal instead. (Crane 2 is about €450). I think I could make it work with just the Tamron and the Zony 16-35mm f/4, but again, I would need a gimbal. Another option is to just get the 24-105mm and a gimbal or just the Tamron and a gimbal. I also have a Mavic Air for drone shots.


What would you suggest? Any input is really appreciated.
>>
>>3322456
>selling/dropping kit lens no matter what

It is a decent enough kit lens and a useful zoom range. Plus you wont get much for it anyway. Might as well keep it, especially if you go all primes.

>Buy a Rokinon 24mm prime and a Zeiss Sony 85mm

The Zeiss 85mm is nice, but the super cheap Sony one is 95% as good for a hell of a lot less.

Could also look at some of the wide angle zooms. They are where e-mount shines. Sharp as hell, and light to boot.

>Buy a Sony 24-105 f/4 G Lens

Solid lens, well worth it. A little on the large side, but not unreasonable.

>Buy a nice Nikon/Canon 24-85/24-105mm with an adapter

Terrible idea. The Sony is superior in every way.
>>
>>3322507
Yes, a bit? They do have a relatively different lens and camera lineup.
>>
>>3322508
>>3322508
>Wide angle
Tokina 20mm, but actually the Samyang 12mm f/2.8 stereographic fisheye isn't bad either.

If you're not sure yet that you will often shoot WA, get the cheaper 12mm & consider the rectilinear Sigma Art 14 or 20mm [out soon, not yet] or aforementioned Tokina later.

> 55mm 1.8
Yea, just get that one.

> Zoom lens
Get the Tamron.

> The Tamron doesn't have OSS, so I would need a gimbal
But you have an A7 III right? It has really rather good IBIS, you know. Not sure at all that you need a gimbal.
>>
>>3322508
>but will probably sell it soon for a profit
kek
>>
>>3322513
Thanks! The Tokina looks great. I'm gonna pick up the camera from the post office in a few hours, will check out the IBIS. If it turns out as good as you say, I'll just get the Tamron. Sample images looked excellent, especially considering the price.
Not sure if I'll still get the 55mm 1.8 right away, since the Tamron will be likely be fast enough for now, especially if I also get the Tokina to accompany it.

>>3322519
I got it for 100 USD, it's 225 EUR here used, mine is brand new, so that'll be at least 150 USD profit.
>>
Can anyone recommend a good somewhat inexpensive digital camera? I'm not a photographer, I just want to be able to take my own reference photos for drawing. I want high quality images but don't need anything extra outside of that
>>
>>3322521
Your phone
>>
>>3322520
> If it turns out as good as you say, I'll just get the Tamron.
At least for photos and video when you stand still you shouldn't have any particular difficulty.

Its not quite a gimbal [or the best IBIS in existence] while walking around, but frame 20-25% wider and you can probably just let software in post stabilize everything remaining without any particular effort.

> Not sure if I'll still get the 55mm 1.8 right away, since the Tamron will be likely be fast enough for now, especially if I also get the Tokina to accompany it.
Sure. Should work okay.
>>
Recently got an E-M5 mark 2 as a 2nd body for travel, so far have 12-40mm f/2.8, 25mm f/1.7 and 45mm f/1.8. Currently looking at possibly either the 14mm f/2.5 or 20mm f/1.7 pancakes for a 'pocketable' setup i can take anywhere or a tele zoom like the 40-150mm f/2.8. I'm wondering if the tele zoom would come in useful while travelling as I have never really shot with long glass before, and which pancake to get, if at all?
>>
>>3322526
>>3322526
>Its not quite a gimbal [or the best IBIS in existence] while walking around, but frame 20-25% wider and you can probably just let software in post stabilize everything remaining without any particular effort.

Yeah, that should work fine. Thanks a lot!
>>
>>3322477
>>Had a split prism + microprism like probably most people in the later film era.
The "later film era" had autofocus cameras and lenses, you 22 year old boomer.
>>
>>3322058

Which one and why? And which lens to go for when I want travel photography.?
>>
Asked in the previous thread, but is the olympus E-P2 still worth getting? Is the autofocus way too slow?
>>
>>3322551
Get a crop sensor camera so you can use travel lenses, like 18-135mm or 18-200mm.
>>
File: IMG_20180712_120221.jpg (4.06 MB, 4160x3120)
4.06 MB
4.06 MB JPG
I'm new at >photography and bought a NEX-3 for $100 with a 18-55 lens. Shutter count is around 25000. How long should i expect it to last? Should i be able to learn basic concepts with this camera?

Besides that it doesn't record in Full HD and it has almost no control buttons i'm happy with my camera.
>>
>>3322556

Solid enough starter camera, and that was a good price. When it comes down to it, it is a solid sensor with a good mount.

Will probably quickly get fed up with the interface and controls though. Usable enough for priority modes, but try to go full manual and it can be rough.

Shoulda gotten the red body though. Way cooler.
>>
>>3322099
>What kind of ratio would you guys recommend when buying a new camera and lenses, should it be 50% camera, 50% lenses? I honestly have no clue
>>3322102
>I buy camera bodies as cheap as I possibly can then invest the rest into lenses

The days of buying a camera body "as cheap as possible" because the differences don't matter ended long ago when film died. With film cameras, the actual technology differences in most of the bodies was not really worth getting worked up about, and so most people didn't understand or appreciate the advantages of going for a really advanced body with better autofocus and burst shooting (which even then wasn't that good), even though those advantages have become so evident today with digital photography that we take them for granted.
>>
>tfw getting a notice that your shipment of lenses are on the way

Good thing I'm not rich or I'd sit around ordering camera shit all day long.
>>
You get the Sony A7III and the Tamron 28-75 f2.8, you get to pick one other prime. Something wide, a 50, or an 85. What do you take and why?
>>
>>3322572
>spending a lot of money on a fast standard zoom
>buying a fast prime that falls within that lens' zoom range
Are you retarded? What's the point of buying the fast zoom if you're not going to actually use it?
>>
>>3322573
Anon, I don't even know where to begin, but you need to lurk moar.
>>
>>3322573
Something wife is probably going to be less than 28, and 85 is not within that range?

Get good
>>
>>3322572
> wide
> 50 or 85
Those are normal and narrow.

>>3322573
I don't see a problem with this though. Why wouldn't you use both? The prime isn't as lazily versatile, and the zoom isn't as bright and sharp. You can easily use both in different situations.
>>
>>3322587
>zooms aren't as sharp as primes
Myth.

>I could make good use out of the extra two stops of light
No, you couldn't.

If you don't need a zoom, then don't get one. There is a difference between the usability and output of images one gets from a 28mm and 75mm lens, but it's probably not enough difference to matter for your shooting, or else you wouldn't be asking such beginner questions.
>>
>>3322572
My entry APS-C with f/2.8 normal zoom goes down to 24mm FF equivalent. Why can't sony do what entry DSLRs can?
>>
>>3322058
> Playing around with a 50mm prime lens I bought but never got to use
Where has this thing been all my life?
>>
>>3322618
I know right? I got a nifty 50 and damn everything improved vastly. I'm getting a 24 and 35 wides to go with it.
>>
>>3322632
I was thinking of getting those too. I'm still an absolute noob but would you say those are ideal for full body shots?
>>
>>3322634
I wont' know until I have them on my camera, but on my crop the 24 and 35 will be 36 and 52.5 equiv FOV.
>>
>>3322616
Why isn't your APS-C zoom lens equally sharp as a 24-70mm f/2.8 GM on FF?

Why isn't your entry APS-C a FF camera if Canon / Nikon / Sony can make them?

So many difficult questions in life.
>>
poorfag here

buy a used canon SL2 or a used canon t6s?
>>
>>3322739
SL2 for sure. small, lightweight and good.
>>
I got a Sony a7III about a month ago, currently on a trip brought the camera out today for some pictures. And as I was shooting I started to hear a noise coming form the camera. Sounds like it could be the sensor/IBIS it moves like if it was stuck and it can’t move like it normally should. One of the pictures i took even came out blurry and I was standing still . I should mention I took for a hike today. I just wanted to know if anyone is having this problem or had.
Thanks for your time.
>>
>>3322058

Sup, /pee/!

What's the best entry-level DSLR package out there these days? Are Canon and Nikon "worth it", or can a bum like me get by on any "just as good" brands? My budget is about $500 - $700. I'd mostly be using the camera to take pictures of crime scenes and victims, so a lot of static shots, but I might want to use it to take pictures of my kids doing kid shit. I don't think I'm gonna get into anything fancy, but my 8-year-old $70 shitty Kodak digital camera sucks.
>>
>>3322808

a6000 or d3300
>>
>>3322809

Thanks!
>>
>>3322809

Shit, I see some kits going for around $300 on eBay. Thanks for saving me some $$$
>>
Is it worth looking for used lenses in other countries small towns?
>>
File: primeday.jpg (62 KB, 950x534)
62 KB
62 KB JPG
Heads up, Amazon UK has revealed some of the offers for Prime Day ahead of the sale on July 16th. One of those offers will be 30% off on Canon & Sony cameras.

It might be worth grabbing an Amazon Prime trial if you're in the market for any camera from Canon or Sony, that's a pretty hefty chunk off the usual price!
>>
>>3322836
I'm going to guess that does not mean *all* Canon / Sony cameras including the A7 III, A9 and 5D IV and so on?
>>
>>3322823
No. The vast majority of people never bought good lenses anyhow - buy some nice new ones.

And even if you are willing to deal with some crappy lenses, the internet is a far faster way to get these.
>>
>>3322842
No one knows which of the cameras are discounted yet, they always "leak" some vague details on the deals a few days before the sale. Most likely it'll be the lower end or slightly older models though, yeah
>>
>>3322593
>Myth
No, measured fact. See DXO or whereever else they have sharpness measurements across zoom ranges.

Of course it's not the case all primes are better (e.g. the crappiest vintage prime beats the modern high-end zoom).

But even at the high-end, zooms do not achieve the sharpness of high-end primes, and this is also the case at most comparable price points below the high-end.

> No, you couldn't.
Virtually any photographer hits this situation quite frequently, with this planet having a day/night cycle and a lot of not well-illuminated structures.

Apart from that you can also use the wider aperture for subject isolation.
>>
File: 135.png (124 KB, 680x680)
124 KB
124 KB PNG
>>3322846
>DXO
>fact
>>
>>3322848
> Hurr their measurements conflict with my opinion, they must be fake and wrong
>>
a400 ssd's are on special for $99 for the 480 gb variant (AUD). Should i tentatively buy one for my future blackmagic or should i wait?
>>
>>3322891
only buy the drives they list in the manual, these are tested to work without dropping frames
>>
>>3322892
i dont get it though, the drive is rated for fairly high endurance (125MB/s sustained)
>>
>>3322895
what the manufacturer states is one thing, but for how long it can actually sustain that speed in the actual scenario needs to be tested
>>
>>3322858
DxO measurements are widely debunked and questioned by the majority of the non-low IQ photography community m8. You must be new here to be calling them "measured fact". At best they can be called a loose guideline but nothing more unless you're so impressed by any chart or graph you need to call it "fact".
>>
File: image.jpg (308 KB, 1200x900)
308 KB
308 KB JPG
Yahoo Auctions has some wild shit.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width1200
Image Height900
>>
>>3322910
why buy
>>
File: image.jpg (285 KB, 1200x900)
285 KB
285 KB JPG
>>3322914

Parts I guess.

But the mount is ruined and the back isn’t much better. Not sure anything is worth salvaging beyond the eye price.

Why even bother listing it?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width1200
Image Height900
>>
>>3322917
I am always baffled by this. I guess people just want to make money out of anything they can get their hands on. I've seen Leicas being listed for £200 plus that are absolutely unsalvageable due to rust and dirt.
>>
>>3322929
Some people are really skilled at repairing or refurbing busted old gear to brand new levels and relish buying this stuff up. I wish I had the skills desu, must be comfy.
>>
>>3322846
>all zooms this
>all primes that
>see DXO if you don't believe me!

You have discredited yourself.
>>
>>3322058

Canon or Nikon?
>>
>>3322987
hasselblad
>>
>>3322593
Zooms are no where near as sharp as primes. Every sort of field test, objective test either through DXO, Imaging Resource, or even Lens Rental proves this. There are a few Sigma Zooms which are extraordinary sharp, but beyond those 3 models, primes are sharper than zooms.
>>
>>3322662
At least mine operates in rain. How hard can it be to design a few gaskets into a camera?
>>
>>3322804
Had my K-50 with the basic kit lens out with me on many hikes, some light rock climbing even. Had some truly shit weather on more than one occasions. Never had any trouble with the IBIS or any other parts of the camera and lens, it works just like new. Not even the occasional dings and whacks you always get on a hike/climb knocked any of its parts out. Works well and true to this day.
I just can't believe some top dollar camera a top electronics entertainment company designs would get knocked out from a light hike and outdoor usage.
Not even my friend's old ass 40D had any problems on the hikes.
>>
>>3322908
> DxO measurements are widely debunked and questioned by the majority of the non-low IQ photography community m8.
You mean you can find more people who don't like the results and you can agree with them while they agree with you. Pick the more pleasant conclusions over pretty careful measurements.
>>
>>3322947
>all zooms this
>all primes that
Explicitly not. Learn to read.
>>
>>3322910
Wow. That's some not so subtle camera gore.

>>3322917
>Why even bother listing it?
People are overly optimistic about their chances to get money in gambling, right? Might be the same thing, but on auction platforms.
>>
>>3323010

Since the vast majority of cameras AREN’T waterproofed, I’d say probably pretty damn hard.
>>
File: images.png (8 KB, 225x225)
8 KB
8 KB PNG
what's a good tripod?

i don't want to spend over £100 on one. my setup is quite lightweight, om-d e-m5ii plus my heaviest lens is probably only about 900g
>>
>>3323022
manfrotto befree, save up a little and get the carbon fiber one that's only a kilogram
if you can, the regular one is 1,4 or so. it's ridiculously light, tiny, sturdy and comes with an usable head and a nice little bag
>>
>>3323017
Actually it isn't. It's just a piece of rubber o-ring between the parts.
>>
>>3322808
"Entry level" cameras dumb down the functionality too much"

Do you want to have manual control or do you want a blown-up smartphone that swaps out lenses?
>>
>>3323013
If you knew anything about measurements, any kind of measurements, you wouldn't say such stupid things. You reek of underage, kid.
>>
>>3322848
>>3322858
>>3322846
DXO is for scientists with cameras who can't take any real world results because they'll burn up in the sunlight if they try going outside.
Cameras are tools for documenting the world around you, there is more to the world outside one's studio or home office.
>>
File: canon, nikon, iphone.jpg (39 KB, 620x279)
39 KB
39 KB JPG
>>3322987
>>
>>3323028
Cameras -as just about anything else- were both made possible and actually produced by engineers and scientists.
They actually can take photos themselves fine. You can't without them.

Understanding numbers and trying to do better in an objective sense has all to do with the real world. Go scratch some rocks and see if they turn into equally good lenses or start taking photos for you, heh.
>>
>>3323022
If you want a light travel-sized one I can highly recommend the Sirui T-005X, or the carbon fibre T-025X if you can stretch your budget.
It's surprisingly well-built and finished for the price. Not the sturdiest thing in the world, but good enough for most things. I've shot 12s exposures with it in somewhat windy conditions.

Also daily reminder of the tripod triangle: lightweight - stable - cheap, you can only pick two. £100 is a small budget for a good tripod.
>>
>>3323022
You can order decent carbon tripods with ~1.5-1.8m fully extended height from Ali at around $80-100. Maybe a Q666C or such. [There are a bunch of brands and model names with pretty comparable specs, some can be a few bucks cheaper.]

If you are okay with a few hundred grams more weight, picking an Alu tripod can save you another $30 or so.
>>
>>3322999
What a hilariously uninformed post.
>>
File: image.jpg (834 KB, 1733x1800)
834 KB
834 KB JPG
How is Manfrotto for tripods?

Seem cheap enough and they have custom quick release plates for some cameras.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width1733
Image Height1800
>>
>>3323014
I didn't misquote you.

>>3322846
>But even at the high-end, zooms do not achieve the sharpness of high-end primes

This is demonstrably false.

https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=787&Camera=979&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=2&LensComp=403&CameraComp=979&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=4
>>
>>3323075
Usually pricier and not better than the Chinese tripods but otherwise generally fine.

Some tripod models in the past weren't that good, but I don't think you're likely to see any of these when buying new.

Apart from that: I myself prefer the Arca Swiss compatible plates [not necessarily by Arca Swiss] over the Manfrotto ones. Bigger system overall, cheaper, better in most cases.
>>
>>3322987
False dichotomy
What's your price range, tho?
>>
File: sku_167809_3.jpg (21 KB, 600x600)
21 KB
21 KB JPG
>>3322058
Any cheap alternative to the NEPS1 and DK-22 for a circular viewfinder on a D7200? Found this TENPA MEA-N but since it's very rare, I guess there must be another option.
>>
>>3323076
> This is demonstrably false.
Demonstrably true, just pick high-end in performance rather than just expensive:
https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=787&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=0&LensComp=941&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=3
>>
>>3323087
>sigma

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
>>
>>3323053
Test charts don't matter.
How full of yourself are you if you think that people are cavemen because they want to see VARIABLES in lens tests, cause reality has variables and is not predetermined or sterile.
>>
>>3323104
Don't bother, anybody who puts such extreme faith into DxO or DPreview results, to the point of calling them facts, is a lost cause.
>>
After some years without a camera (I used my smartphone for very basic photos) I got a really nice deal on an used Lumix ZS100. I'm curious about 52mm filter adapters like the one Lensmate makes. Are they worth a shot?
>>
File: Dat Goat.jpg (57 KB, 540x554)
57 KB
57 KB JPG
Any of you nerds get your Canon T7i jacked? I just bought it off some Mexican I met on Craiglist for $200. I just wanted to say thanks because it's a really nice camera. I'm only every going to use it in A+ mode because learning everything else about the camera is too hard.
>>
>>3323150
i only shoot in video mode and extract the still afterwards
>>
>>3323104
Nope, measurements are not only working in a lab. They do represent reality. And yes, they do provide data points for variables and constants of the behaviour of the lenses and bodies in question.
The result of pressing a shutter is absolutely to an extremely large degree predetermined and predictable to a relevant degree of precision. Nothing about that is "sterile".
>>
>>3323013
Nobody here believes in DxO or DPreview lab results because their findings almost never reflect real world conditions or lighting. Plus their results have a ton of inconsistencies, especially when DxO made their own camera and fucked up their results to prop it up. You can't accuse people of blindly believing things that agrees with them while you put ALL your faith in DxO to tell the truth when they've fucked up constantly in the past.
>>
>>3323013
The DXO results aren't trustworthy because DXO itself is a for-profit organisation in bed with camera manufacturers as well as making the DXO One themselves. They are paid by the camera companies to do some consultancy work on imaging systems. In that way, they've been found to be flawed multiple times and have had to re-do a ton of their tests due to flawed results like with the 70-200 IS MkII being scored lower than the first gen 70-200mm.

They also have a ton of inconsistencies, particularly in the way they assess sensor quality.
https://www.eoshd.com/2017/01/opinion-dxomarks-camera-scoring-makes-zero-sense/

This is only one article about it but anybody who looks through the top 50 camera sensors starts to notice that something isn't right with some lower end cameras beating out camera 4x their budget. Like anything, you can take what DXO say and mix that into a wider analysis but taking the testings as "truth" just because they involve some form of scientific methodology is kind of crazy.
>>
>>3323015
>That's some not so subtle camera gore.

Camera gore is kinda cool. Just gotta wonder how people do these things.
>>
>>3323022
>>3323064
>>3323067

I was going to ask the same thing. Something that is relatively small and light so that I can actually bring it with me. At first I was looking at the usual Manfrotto BeFree and some Sirui models but stumbled upon this video:
https://youtu.be/s4QW-Lambkg

K&F Concept TM2324, which seems to be the same as Zomei Q555. Anyone got experience with these or similar models? How well do they stack up? Folded it's 45cm and weighs 1,3kg. Center hook to hang stuff to weigh it down and it's also not screw locks which is a nice bonus.
>>
Looking for a rather budget friendly mirrorless to use with vintage glass. Any experiences with the fuji xt-1? I used to own a Sony a6300, but didn't like the colors and ergonomics at all.
>>
>>3323178
>how people do these things
mostly by dropping their stuff
>>
>>3323188
>Any experiences with the fuji xt-1?

Solid downgrade from the a6300. Worse sensor, outdated ergonomics.

Better off looking at X-T100.
>>
>>3323188
If you have a camera shop nearby go in and try it. Don't trust a bunch of shut-ins on /p/ who take only photos of houseplants. Ergonomics is sort of subjective from person to person anyway.
>>
>>3323176
DXO's *scoring* methods that condenses many factors into on single "easy" score each don't make sense for everyone.

But you really don't need to read that on 3rd party sites who treat it like a surprise - it's explained what they mean with these scores on about on every fucking page where they publish a score like that. Click the question marks on the results and you get linkage like:
https://www.dxomark.com/dxomark-camera-sensor-testing-protocol-and-scores/
https://www.dxomark.com/dxomark-lens-camera-sensor-testing-protocol/

So yea, the formula for deriving the aggregate score is their choice, but that doesn't make the individual, also published measurements particularly subjective.
>>
>>3323174
They have not fucked up constantly, and they corrected all mistakes IIRC.

Yes, these measurements reflect real life. And far more accurately so than many people's "belief" which is wildly inaccurat.

But that is what we're apparently generally discussing when someone complains about DXO.
When is it ever contradicting careful measurements? It's pretty much always someone just not liking either the results, or the very fact that photographic capabilities of lenses and so on could be quantified because photography equipment is probably supposed to be magical and depend wholly on the user or something in their mind [I don't even know, it's never more quantifiable than some crafty sentences].
>>
>>3323201
>>3323205
You're looking for objective scientific analysis of camera gear from a for-profit consultancy company in bed with camera companies. Why do you think major discrepancies show up in their lens and sensor reviews annually? Could it be that DxO are in it for money and never suggested otherwise? Sure, their testing can be useful as a loose guide, but citing them as "fact" is what bothers me. Nothing about DxO is particularly factual or objective. They're guided by profit or else they wouldn't offer their "consultancy" services to all these companies or release their own cameras.

I'm not making shit up, just citing that their measurements aren't taken for objective means or to benefit the consumer in a neutral way towards all companies. It's all for money yet people treat DxO as this neutral good entity serving everyone when they aren't and never have been.
>>
>>3323207
> a for-profit consultancy company in bed with camera companies
So they offer their testing equipment and more things commercially. And?

All you have to do is prove their measurements are severely wrong even with the same tests parameters as documented. Good luck with that.

>Why do you think major discrepancies show up in their lens and sensor reviews annually?
I think less than annually? Either way, it put what, 1-2% of the results in doubt and even those AFAIK got fixed. And of course, the other side doing the doubting was also sometimes wrong.

> Sure, their testing can be useful as a loose guide, but citing them as "fact" is what bothers me.
The measurements are pretty much fact unless you can show otherwise with measurements.

Which, again, doesn't even seem to happen annually for one part of the measurements on one device, from all I can tell.

It's just complaints about how the results don't please this or that faggot's opinions or some single poorly done test that disagrees with everyone's tests and thus of course Canon bribed everyone to lie about how good their lens is.
>>
>>3323207
> It's all for money yet people treat DxO as this neutral good entity serving everyone when they aren't and never have been.
Of course you assume they're neutral evil because it is an US company and part of the US propaganda/war machine. [Sorry if the sarcasm doesn't translate well over the internet.]

All that matters is them showing the reason (measurements) and the approximate method how they got them.

Feel free to show that they got the vignetting metrics on the Sigma Art 50mm wrong. Or that the sharpness field map at f/1.4 does not make any sense at both lower and higher measurement accuracy than indicated. Or the same for distortion.
>>
>>3323211
Oh, or part of the French/NATO propaganda/war machine, if you go by the headquarters rather than where they allegedly do their shady business. Right.
>>
>>3323210
>>3323211
Amazing that both of you don't get that a for profit corporation are out for their own interests and not that of consumers, which makes any of their corporate measurements inherently suspect as there's always profit in mind, yet you either paint me either as a butthurt brand loyal basement dweller when I never pointed out any brand loyalty or as someone who just hates the US for some reason (?). Nice strawman arguments.

No point going on with this if this is the kind of discussion you want to have. I'm out.
>>
>>3323215
Your broad concerns (in your case "muh capitalism" rather than "muh US/French aren't always honest") do not invalidate measurements, no.

That's the point, and the realization that you can easily raise any number of such fallacious "concerns" but not easily make genuine measurements that will disagree and also convince third parties who do their measurements.

DXO did measure and it's pretty much all accurate even if they made that mistake [corrected] once or whatever.
>>
>>3323225
I'm not talking about "muh capitalism" you fucking loon, I'm talking about the fact that DxO are for profit and for profit companies are in it for profit. It's in the name. Scientific analysis groups that need to be objective in their analysis don't tend to be for profit because it taints the findings. They stay non-profit so they can assess purely for the consumer. I'm not pointing out how evil corporate America is or anything like that, I'm pointing out the reality of how for profit companies work in comparison to non-profits and why DxO as a non-profit would be more objective and thus most trustworthy. The fact they're in it for themselves isn't an indictment of corporatism or some shit. How you got that from what I'm saying I have no idea.
>>
>>3323227
That's still the argument that muh capitalism taints results.

No, you don't need government- or people-funded measurements for measurements to be objective. It's very nice to have such entities, but it's just as well that for-profit companies provide the same kind of data.

What matters is, however, only that you can disprove the data if it's wrong. That lets you disprove the data, rather than endlessly repeating that the entity that made it surely must be wrong in its conclusions and measurements.

Turns out this isn't really happening except for a few results where they made a mistake and the DXO data is just fine and reliable.
>>
>>3323188
My main complaint about the X-T1 was the slow AF, although that varies by lens. Using manual glass pretty much negates this. Apart from that, I wouldn't buy any camera because I liked the "colors." Yes, the film simulations can be look nice, IF USED APPROPRIATELY. The statement really needs to be qualified because most of the film simulations really crush the blacks or change the saturation dramatically. There is no single film simulation that looks good for every type of scene. Anyway, you really should be shooting in raw with any camera.
>>
Hello, I'm new to this so I have very little idea of names and technicalities, so I'm might get lost, be gentle

So, a family member upgraded their camera a year ago, because the previous one was "broken". I decided to look at it in case I could using it this summer, it's a Canon EOS 1000D. The error it gets it's the err99. Looking in google it seems to be comon on this camera. When they sent it to Canon, they said it's just broken, that it just gave its life away from the use. I tried looking at internet solutions, but nothing worked yet.

The little "inconvenient" right now to try every solution is that I don't have an sd card to use, I might buy one this this afternoon to try every posibility.


What can I do? This camera will be thrown away anyways, so I don't fear opening it, even if it's to learn. Any advice?
>>
>>3323249
https://improvephotography.com/10372/error-99-canon-camera-fix-repair/

If that doesn't work -- and it might not, since you don't know where that camera's been, maybe underwater or sitting in a hot car all summer -- then sell it on ebay marked as "broken/for parts." You might get $50. The 1000D isn't a particularly capable or modern camera. I wouldn't spend money to get one fixed. The repair could easily cost more than the camera is worth.

Use the proceeds of selling it for parts toward buying yourself a camera made within the past 4-5 years. I'd recommend buying a lightly used camera body of a model that currently sells used in the $400-600 range. Sellers will generally know the shutter count of their cameras, which is a general way to tell how much a camera has been used. The cosmetic condition is a good way to tel how much it's been abused. Camera shutters tend to be rated for 100,000 actuations (like miles on a car), but (like with cars) cameras might start having problems before that point. A highly worn camera with a high shutter count could start giving you problems earlier than an impeccably clean camera with a high shutter count. I bought a 50D once with 50,000 clicks on the shutter, which had a sticky shutter release button. It needed to be totally disassembled and cleaned, which might have cost $200 minimum (mostly for labor) at a local camera repair shop. I decided to just send the camera back to the seller and wash my hands of it, since I'd only paid around $175 for it to begin with.
>>
>>3323251

Y that's the page I followed, but didn't seem to work.

I won't sell it myself because it isn't mine, but I will consider it.

I'm gona try to change the date battery and put a new sd card to see if it works. Will reply with results
>>
hi
what tele lens do you recommend me to sony a6000 to take photos of skittish animals like lizards?
>>
>>3323257
What is your price range? Sony makes a great 100-400mm that sells for around $2500.
>>
>>3322084
Prime only.
400/5.6 L or 300/4 L with 1.4x TC
>>
>>3322572
No, you get the Zeiss 24-70 used and get the 28mm f2 and the 85mm f1.8
>>
>>3323274
Why would he not just get the kit + the two primes in that case? I don't ever see anyone recommend the 24-70 Zeiss since it's basically kit-lens quality for a lot more.
>>
>>3322058
I'm eyeing a lens that has a "focus shift" problem, where the focus shifts slightly across different apertures, which is a problem because the camera focuses at the widest aperture.
Could this be solved by holding down the aperture preview button while focusing? Does anyone know a reliable fix for this besides manually focusing every time? I don't know if my eyes are shit or what, but I can never achieve completely sharp focus with my hands
>>
>>3323284
You know what you're right actually
The Zeiss sucks at the longer end unless stopped down so it may as well be a 5.6. do that anon.

I think I got a rather decent copy but yeah, not worth $720 at the time I paid for mine.
>>
>>3323241
I didn't fucking say it's "wrong", I repeatedly stated it's best you take DxO as part of a wider picture when researching and not to put too much faith in their results. If a company isn't making measurements for the consumer then it's always best to take it with a grain of salt. You're the one who painted me as a communist for some reason which is not my argument at all, I'm stating that DxO aren't out to help you make decisions or be objective, they're a for profit company and that means they never can be objective since so much money flows through them via camera companies since they do imaging hardware consulting and other services. Not to mention inherent bias for the DxO One. That doesn't mean you can't look at their results but don't take it as objective fact or put massive stock behind them.

I feel like I have to repeat myself constantly on /p/ before you faggots get it, wtf.
>>
>>3323288
As a general walk around zoom, there's also the Minolta MD 35-70. I have it (and 28/2 + 85/1.8) and I think it gives quite nice results for very little cost. Obviously not ideal for events and such but then I think we are back more to primes or Tamron/2.8 lenses.
>>
>>3323259
im europoor so price range is 250usd
>>
should I sell my x-t20 and get a sony a7iii
>>
>>3323487
yes
>>
>>3323487

Dunno.

Do you need full frame?
>>
File: Capture.png (40 KB, 758x356)
40 KB
40 KB PNG
Self-educated filmmaker here. My work is starting to take off and I've got some money to spend for the first time. I want to upgrade from decade-old DSLRs to something suitable for the big screen. Pic is from the Netflix partner guidelines for minimum camera specs. Is this info a good bar to set when seeking out cameras with a "professional" image? Because of my limitations these are features I never had to consider before. Obviously I'm going to do my own research to learn this stuff, but any opinions are welcome.
>>
Any good ultrawide lenses for nikon FX under 1k?
>>
>>3323515
If 20mm isn't ultrawide, then no.

>>3323487
Yes. Your gear fagginess and inability to take pictures with what's on hand is a clear indication that only spending money will bring you true, temporary happiness.
>>
>>3323515
If you can give up autofocus you can get that Samyang 14/2.8. It's dirt cheap and really sharp, though with some pretty monster distortion. Astro people like it because it has pretty low coma for something that wide.

There's also that Irix 11/4.0, which is really fucking wide indeed, but I haven't used that one. The reviews say its pretty good though.
>>
File: Sans titre.png (545 KB, 1576x1176)
545 KB
545 KB PNG
I'm looking to buy a dedicated portrait lens and I'm hesitating between two Canon's:
- 100mm macro f/2.8 (non L version)
- 85mm f/1.8

Both are about the same price second hand where I live (280-350€. I need something that'll give me the sharpest files possibles straight of the camera at F/8-f/11.

Buddy of mine let me spend some time with his 100mm macro and I loved it, however I'm on an crop sensor and 160mm will be too long or my home studio. I'd like the 85mm f/1.8 cause I'll have more room but also I could use the wide aperture.

If somebody used both these lenses I'd be glad to hear from them.
>>
>>3323515
>>3323523
You also have the Laowas 12mm f/2.8 or 15mm f/4 macro.
>>
File: 20170624-IMG_7521.jpg (963 KB, 2000x1125)
963 KB
963 KB JPG
>>3323602
>If you're on aps-c
The 85 1.8. Faster focusing speed. Pic related.
>If you're on full-frame
The 100mm 2.8 L. The macro-USM version is trash. Or you can search for the 100mm f/2 second-hand, which is really close to the 85mm.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeCanon
Camera ModelCanon EOS 7D
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.14 (Windows)
PhotographerDavid Mornet
Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.8
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2018:07:15 09:22:51
Exposure Time1/160 sec
F-Numberf/3.2
Exposure ProgramNormal Program
ISO Speed Rating400
Lens Aperturef/3.2
Exposure Bias1/3 EV
Metering ModePattern
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length85.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>
Im mainly interested in a camera for producing low budget movies (which is why im waiting for the black magic launch) however i do want to take photos of my pets as well to blow up onto large canvas. Would i be better off renting a camera for this or should the bm be fine? Assuming its at least better than a gh5 for still images
>>
>>3323523
>>3323609
I was already looking at the samyang 14/2.8, will probably get this unless I find something better. What about the sigma 12-24 art lens? I was originally not considering it because of the focus shift issue, but if I'm gonna have to manually focus either way it might be good.
I don't have any sort of wide angle lens, but I do have a 35mm prime, and I don't want to make the same mistake I did by getting a 50mm, which I pretty much never use because I can't be bothered swapping it so I just walk a few steps closer and/or crop a bit. So I kind of want a really wide one because I feel like 28/24 would be too close to the 35mm
>>
>>3323301
The generic suggestion to "see a wider picture" and "just be suspicious" is nonsense.

We're talking about measurements that you could disprove if they were wrong.
It is obvious that you do not have contradicting measurements that would put the measurements or integrity of DXO at large in question. [They were accurate and/or were corrected when a mistake showed up, that's why you can't...]

> You're the one who painted me as a communist for some reason
I don't really care to chart out your political spectrum and never said you were a communist. You could be many things if you are not using the insanely narrow US model of a political spectrum, anyhow.

But you no doubt did try the "muh capitalism probably taints results" - argument, and repeated it.
It's fine to suspect silently and run your own measurements, but it's a different thing to imply that DXO probably had interests that tainted the measurements [without proof] and that all sorts of sources are probably better and should be consulted instead/too.

Since you don't like one of the major other sources of measurements -presumably because it doesn't contradict DXO either- who would you even suggest to consult? People's opinions until they "beat" measurements? This is not meaningful.
>>
>>3323682
> What about the sigma 12-24 art lens?
YMMV, but it's usually more interesting if the widest setting is better than having zoom.

As such, I'd suggest the Sigma Art 14mm f/1.8 instead if you go into that price range.
>>
>>3323487
Selling a X-T20 won't anywhere near cover a A7 III and good lenses.

If you'll benefit from the upgrade and are willing to spend some, then sure.
>>
>>3323487
Yes, if you want to go FF. Still depends on your needs tho.
>>
>>3323499
It's a very basic list
>>
is full frame a meme?
>>
>>3323748
no but medium format is
>>
I’ve been offered a Sony Rx1 mk1 at a decent price- is it worth taking over say an a7?
>>
>>3322058

I'm an Illustrator/Graphic Designer so I know a lot about the computer side of photography but nothing about cameras.

I'm looking to take up photography as a hobby to just get out every now and then and I'm also saving for a new PC so I'm looking to find the best camera I can possibly get for ~£100 or less. If nothing else I'd like to at least find out what are the most important things to prioritise when buying a camera?

Thanks in advance to anyone that help me out here.
>>
>>3323759
Depends how much cheaper it is and which A7 you're comparing it to. Even the Mark I has a built in EVF, better AF, a tilting screen, Wifi and NFC, and better battery life. Sure it's smaller than the A7 with the 35mm f/2 but not by a huge amount and it isn't small enough to really be pocketable.
>>
>>3322118
Haha, I paid AUD$400 for my D3300 about 5 years ago. I'd offer $200 and walk away if they are stubborn. Much better to get a brand new D3500 or whatever they're up to and get a new kit and warranty with it
>>
>>3323257
bump
>>
>>3323772
A7 mk1
>>
I found a deal on a second hand sony rx-100 iv today for 510eu which is bearly used. Going to get it tomorrow. What are some must-buy accessories and things to know to start off, it comes with an extra oem battery and a 64G SDXC SanDisk card? My previous experience with photography is using the manual settings on my phone's camera and reading up on it online.
>>
Canon 7D for $300 and low (less than 15k) shutter count - good deal? I currently only have a rebel XSi
>>
>>3323779
And what's the price difference? Would you be happy with the fixed 35mm focal length or would you prefer the ability to mount other lenses? Do any of the things the A7 has that I mentioned matter to you?

>>3323785
Get a grip for it, I use the official Sony one. I also have a magnetic filter adapter which comes in handy, I use it for either a polariser or a close up lens. Check the card requirements here to see if the one you're getting will limit you in any way: https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sony-cybershot-dsc-rx100-iv

As for actually using the camera I have a few tips. Set it to auto ISO and you'll probably spend most of your time in Av (you can set the upper and lower limits for the ISO as well as adjust the shutter speed threshold for when it should start increasing the ISO).

Don't be afraid to really dive in and customise the camera to how you like it, there's something like 9 buttons that you can set custom functions to with a shit load of options for what they are, there are 12 quick settings on the Fn button that you can change. If you go to the Controls section of that review it'll list all of the options. You'll probably want to turn off the auto-shutdown when you push down the EVF.

If you have any questions once you've got the camera and had a play with it feel free to ask and I'll do my best to answer them.
>>
>>3323789
The rx is 150 dollars cheaper.
I’m fine with the focal length as I mostly do street
>>
>>3322058
I want a Fuji X-Pro 2 but it's way more expensive than X-T2 + 18-55 (cashback counted in)
Fuck me
>>
>>3323790
Well, that's quite a significant saving especially when you factor in the cost of a lens for the A7. For street the worse AF and lack of EVF might not be an issue if you're one of those people that uses zone focusing (either shoot from the hip or get an optical finder for the hot shoe).
>>
>>3323795

X-T2 is better anyway.

Faster autofocus and a better viewfinder.
>>
i fear my expensive new camera might be stollen in 3rd world shithole i visit from time to time
is it
https://allegro.pl/szelki-strap-dual-na-dwa-2-aparaty-nl-qd-i6778884018.html
a good idea?
the bad thing is that it is not made of metal so a thug can use knife and cut camera off. please recommend me something made of metal so that my camera can be safe
>>
>>3323789
Forgot to mention but it has a grip on it as well, looks like the official one based off of the pics. I was also looking into an adapter for those exact reasons.

One question I had in advance was the possibility to swap lenses. I understand the lens is stuck to the body and cant be taken off, but you can add a lens to the end of it? And could these be lenses which enhance the optical zoom distance?
>>
>>3323801
You can get wide angle and teleconverter (more zoom) lenses, I haven't tried any personally so can't make any recommendations but they can be had for cheap enough that they could be worth trying.
>>
>>3323805
That does sound interesting to look into, thanks
>>
>>3323768
get yourself a second hand Sony RX100 mk1 or a Canon G series compact expert camera
>>
>>3323768
For £100 or less you're not going to get much for your money. I'd look on Gumtree for local ads and wait for someone to offload their Canon or Nikon kit for cheap. I saw a few listed for £50-80 near me recently. You could also look at older mirrorless models. I sold my Sony Nex 5n body for £65 on ebay auctions recently so it's definitely possible to get a deal. The original Canon EOS M is very affordable on eBay right now.

You can also try a local camera shop if you have one, mine has a used Canon 550d for £110 right now.

I wouldn't get a compact camera at that price range as they don't tend to be all that much better than your phone. Just grab any DSLR or mirrorless + kit lens you can afford.
>>
>>3323616
I'm not hard pressed on the focusing speed, I don't plan to use it outside of my home studio, where I'll rarely shoot under f/5.6

How trash is the macro-USM version though? According to Kai the biggest issue is the lack of stabilization, but once again not really on issue since I'll use it mounted on a tripod 90% of the time. As I said I owned it for a while and the quality was all right.

Can't afford the 100mm L version.
>>
>>3323602
Definitely the 100mm f/2.8L. It's only $700 or so now.
>>
>>3323838
yeah but as I said I can't afford it right now. That's definitely a lens I will own though.

I have about 350€ to spare on a "portrait" lens and I'm hesitating between the 85mm 1.8 and the 100mm f/2.8 macro USM cause they cost about the same.
>>
>>3323773
The current D3400 isn't any better than the D3300, it's even worse in some aspects.
>>
How much should i pay for Sigma 17-50mm f2.8 for EOS?
>>
>>3323768
Get a used Canon 40D or Nikon D80 off ebay. Buy a fast cheap lens like a 50mm f1.8 and you'll be set. If you're a beginner you should mostly be focused on learning exposure and composition, any camera with manual controls will do for that. If you still enjoy it 6 months for now, invest in something better.
>>
>>3323862
second hand ? no more than 3/4th of the price.
>>
>>3323912
the retail price i mean. also depends of the condition. zoom lenses get beat up easily.
>>
>>3322058

Anyone able to recommend a decent macro lens for a Canon T7i? Are Sigma lenses "good enough", or will I wish I saved a little more and bought a Canon lens? Thanks in advance.
>>
>>3323786
That's a decent price, and still a great camera. Just remember it has exactly the same dated sensor as the 550d. But honestly I have seen 50k shutter ones in good condition go for 250-270$. I'd spend a bit more and go for the 70d, it's just touching the 400$ mark in my country.
>>
Alright so what’s the absolute best tripod I can get for traveling? Using a GA645Zi which is medium format but isn’t too big and heavy if that helps. Budget is pretty out there, I’m just curious right now but try to keep it under $700 or so.
>>
>>3322551
Don't get a FF camera for travel. That shit can get fatiguing to the point where you don't want to use it. Go crop or mirrorless. If you really need FF get a used Sony A7. You can find the first gen ones under $1000 USD. Just be sure to buy 4 or more batteries.
>>
>>3322809
>D3300
I'd recommend a D5200 or above over that meme. Imo the D3300 is very limiting from the get go and it's extremely annoying that it has large steps in manual ISO mode when trying to increase or lower it.
>>
>>3324049
Manfrotto BeFree Advanced Carbon Fiber probably.
>>
Ive been lurking a bit and am wanting to bite on a mirrorless camera as my first foray into photography beyond my phone. Im between the Panasonic GX85 and the Sony A6000. Budget around $600.

Is there something else I should be considering and is there a clear winner? Im leaning towards the Panasonic for the image stabilization and UI.

I'll mostly be shooting plants and animals for work, though it'll come on trips and whatnot as well.
>>
>>3324090
Go for the one with lenses that excite you most. Camera bodies with lots of bells and whistles are cool and all, but eventually you'll outgrow the kit lens and be looking for some quality glass. That's what really separates these cameras.
>>
>>3323957
Multiple Sigma Art lenses are better than the Canon lenses.

But for macro, the 100mm Canon L macro and the 100mm Zeiss macro are best on Canon IMO. Not that the Samyang 100mm or Sigma 105mm macro are useless, but the Canon L would be my go-to by default, even on APS-C.
>>
>>3324049
Chinese carbon tripod would still work.

Which depends on your target height/ folded size compromise. Look at the Sirui / Benro carbon tripods if you want to pay extra for brand names, though buying the less westernized ones also should work.

Obviously also pick "the absolute best" tripod head. Maybe original arca or rrs, ... if merely great like a Sirui head isn't what you want.
>>
>>3324056
Why? What do you mean fatiguing? Is it heavy or something?
>>
I'm thinking about buying something wide for my ff, what do you guys think of Tamron af 19-35mm 3,5-4,5? Will it be sharp enough for 5D cls?
>>
File: primegay.jpg (143 KB, 1367x427)
143 KB
143 KB JPG
Prime Day seems p disappointing (again)

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
>>
>>3323912
It was actually 18-50mm f2.8. And second hand yes
>>
File: 1531553259653.jpg (147 KB, 1148x746)
147 KB
147 KB JPG
Is it really important to shoot in raw, edit the image manually and convert it to jpg?
I heard the Canon 7d shoots really shit jpgs and you have to shoot in raw, and I'm thinking if it's the case on all cameras.

t. no camera haver.
>>
>>3324188
Some cameras have really good straight outta the camera jpegs. The Ricoh GR and all modern Fuji cameras come to mind. But yeah, most of the time it's best to edit them yourself.

It's really not as much hard work as you'd think, all you do is move a handful of sliders until the image looks good to you. After a while you can save a few presets and the work becomes as minimal or as extensive as you want it to be. Some people spend hours layering in Photoshop, some ten minutes in Lightroom. It's up to you.
>>
>>3324190
Guess I'll have to manage with raw capturing.
Is the 7d still a good choice for a cheap and sturdy camera?
>>
>>3324188
> Is it really important to shoot in raw, edit the image manually and convert it to jpg?
Most decent IL cameras and also the higher end fixed-lens cameras generate JPEGs just fine, including applied lens correction and so on.

But if you edit for any reason, you want to edit the RAWs, not the JPEG images.

Since there is practically no effort involved in processing RAW to JPEG in bulk with any decent RAW software, I'd generally suggest to just shoot RAW so you have an appropriate image if you want to do some edit.
>>
>>3324195
> Is the 7d still a good choice for a cheap and sturdy camera?
It's normally sturdy and maybe [hopefully?] extremely cheap if you find one used.

But its pretty bad. Honestly, get something more recent [like the 80D if you need a Canon].
>>
>>3323257
bump
>>
>>3324188
Besides already stated. Jpeg is burned image, you can't do much with it in postprocessing. Temperature and tint are locked to few values, and you can't edit exposure as much as raw file. That way you can easier correct errors in shooting and it gives you more options in editing image. Raw is also ageless. Once you learn new tricks, or new processing techniques come along, you can easily bring up decade old raw and edit it.
>>
>>3324213
Don't really need a Canon, just something well made that will last a while.
>>
Any opinions on the Sony cx675? For all around use, mostly homemade first person porn.
>>
>>3324222
Pretty much all IL cameras that will last for a few years unless you mistreat them badly.

If you're not committed to Canon yet, pick a system with great lenses for your purposes and get these and a decent body. Apart from some specific types of photography, that's usually the better approach than picking a great body and then making do with average or bad lenses.
>>
>>3324233
Cheap, not good. It'll record like shit in lower light [porn, all around use]:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PArA017_Fco
It's also just generally pretty unimpressive.

The question is if you're willing to pay for something like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lo9ma_ecGI4
or
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tMayFRoNgIs

Or maybe even a RED or such. They're all still hobbyist/low end professional video cameras, but not so cheap anyone will "naturally" buy them.
>>
>>3324234
>IL camera
what does IL stand for?
>>
>>3324237
Interchangeable Lens camera.

As opposed to fixed lens cameras where you can't swap lenses.
>>
>>3324097
The Panasonic has micro 4 3, so its got a ton more lenses available right? Since I'm just starting out and don't have a lense assortment, nor do I particularly know much about them, I'm not sure which lenses excite me most.
>>
>>3324242
> so its got a ton more lenses available
The E-mount has more lenses in pretty much any store online.
Check B&H, Adorama or your discounter store or whatever else, it's probably the same anywhere.

Still, in simplified terms: You'll probably have more choices for good zoom lenses with MFT and more choices for good primes with the E-mount. Although even that might not be too relevant since you may not be interested in buying even 1/10 of what's available on either system anyhow.
>>
File: ZLENSOFF.jpg (117 KB, 1024x672)
117 KB
117 KB JPG
Is the E-PL1 a good camera to meme around?
>>
>>3324236
So is buying a camcorder useless compared to buying a camera then? It looks like I'll be going with the lumix despite it being obsolete in the stabilization department.
>>
>>3324283
It's pretty terrible. Doesn't even have a viewfinder, shitty sensor, slow AF, slow bursts, no IBIS, huge shutter lag and a lot more flaws.

The E-M5 II is good if you want an Olympus. [In most situations I'd personally go with a Panasonic if I wanted MFT, though.]
>>
>>3324283
Probably better getting a used Panasonic LX100 if you want a tiny MFT camera to meme with.
>>
File: ursa_mini_pro.jpg (66 KB, 500x500)
66 KB
66 KB JPG
>>3324287
>So is buying a camcorder useless compared to buying a camera then?
Not entirely. Various REDs or Blackmagics or Canon C300 [... and so on, obviously including cameras more expensive than these] are in many or even all regards better for video.

But they cost more, and video already can look quite decent in HD or 4K on the most suited of the photo/video cameras. Ergo using the better suited of the currently available photo cameras for video is a popular option.
>>
Panasonic lumix gx85 vs Sony a6000 for video?
>>
>>3324293
Panasonic. The A6000 has okay video but it's fairly dated feature wise.
>>
>>3324293
GX85 among these two. IBIS, better video bitrate and a bunch more that might be pretty decisive advantages for most videos. The A6000 will be better only in very very few specific situations.

Of course neither is a dream video camera anyhow - if you can, spend more.
>>
>>3324304
Any recommendations for 500-600 range?
>>
>>3324325
Used Panasonic G7
>>
>>3324332
Instead of the gx85?
>>
i bought stroboss 60 flash for sony.
i put it on Sony a7II, camera says it is not compatibile. What do i do? Do i have to do sth in settings or what.
>>
>>3322846
Not the guy you're replying to but my 24-70 f/2.8 is sharper than my 28, 40 and 50mm primes at f/2.8 and about even with me 135mm f2.

If I'd tried them all for a while first, I never would have bought those primes. Maybe just the 50 for the couple of stops extra for night shots.

DxO can measure whatever it wants but owning these lenses, I'm telling you zoom is sharper.
>>
>>3324213
>> Is the 7d still a good choice for a cheap and sturdy camera?
>It's normally sturdy and maybe [hopefully?] extremely cheap if you find one used.
>
>But its pretty bad. Honestly, get something more recent [like the 80D if you need a Canon].

What's wrong with the 7D?
>>
picked up an A6000 as my first camera. Looking at the Rokinon 135mm f/2 as my first portrait telephoto. Is Rokinon as sharp for the price as people say? I know...manual focus, but I've been enjoying working with manual lenses, and I put shit in burst mode to get the shot with the best focus in my subject anyways.
>>
>>3324288
>>3324291
even if i get it for like $150 bucks?
>>
>>3324213
>7D
>its pretty bad.

Eh? I'm guessing you're never owned one.
>>
Anyone have the Sigma 24mm Art for Sony?
>>
>>3324449
You're better off getting the Sigma 60mm f2.8 imo, it's dirt cheap and extremely sharp. Sharper than the Sony 50mm f1.8. I believe it's an equivalent 90mm focal length so excellent for portraits.

https://mirrorlesscomparison.com/e-mount-lenses/sony-50mm-1-8-vs-sigma-60mm-2-8-dn/
>>
>>3324464
That's a lot for that
>>
Hey there /gear/, I'm a comp sci student looking to get into photography. Don't know too much about camera hardware. Budget is less than 800 CAD, and I'd like to travel with the camera. Mostly going to be using it to take pictures of streets, buildings and sometimes people. Is there a major difference between a mirrorless vs DSLR? Also is it worth it to just get the body and separate lens? Currently looking at the Sony A6000 and Nikon D5600, but wondering if there's any other alternatives/suggestions. Thanks in advance.
>>
>>3324646
I'd pick a6000 for street photography because of convenience: it's 100g lighter and completely silent; but I've never tried it actually, so my opinion is pretty much invalid.
>>
>>3324646
of you want a compact and lightweight camera, go for the a6000. if you want a rugged one and probably better high iso, go for the D5600.
>>
>>3324648
>>3324659
Thanks, I'll take that into consideration. Are there any lenses you think would be great with either camera?
>>
>>3324648
>>3324659
The A6000 is not completely silent, it has a fairly loud shutter compared to some of the competition. When I use it in the streets people always I know I'm taking their photo unless it's incredibly busy/loud where I am.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7nobNkGeZA

Compare it to the Panasonic shutter sounds for instance:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9CyJyThy7Yg

I use a Ricoh GR on the streets which is completely silent and can't really go back to having a loud af shutter.
>>
>>3324646
I'm this guy
>>3324664

Don't listen to A6000 shills who suggest it constantly even when it's not appropriate, it's NOT a good street photography camera in my opinion due to its loud shutter and poor one handed ergonomics. I'd personally recommend looking for any camera that is 1) compact 2) black 3) has a leaf shutter/silent mode.

I personally use a Ricoh GR (2013) and love it, you can control everything easily with one hand, it looks like a tourist point and shoot so it's very stealthy, and it has a silent shutter. The images it makes are incredible too imo. The drawback is that it has a bad tendency to suck in dust onto the sensor though I've not experienced that (yet).

You can also look at the Fuji X100 series, the brand new ones are pricey but you can get an original X100 or X100s for cheap on the used market.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VDOgpdYeYVY for an idea of how loud their shutters are. They haven't got fantastic AF but in the streets you'll be at f/8 or above anyway so it's not a big deal.

There's also lesser known ones like the Nikon Coolpix A or the Fuji X70 which do the same thing. I see the Coolpix A go for very cheap on eBay and it's very underrated, almost as good as a Ricoh GR.

If you do for some reason get a DSLR or mirrorless for the streets, make sure to pair it with a pancake lens. They tend to give a good wide angle and they're less noticeable so you're more likely to get the shot.
>>
>>3324666
Solid advice, thanks! I'll take a look into those cameras. The silent shutter sounds like it'll come in handy.
>>
I bought EOS 40D and Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 for 200 bucks. How did i do?
>>
>>3324663
for the a6x00, sigma 30 1.4 for lowlight but not that compact. you can also use the compact kit lens for wide shots. you can also get a lightweight wide angle lens like the rokinon 12 or the sharp sigma 16 1.4 but not compact. if you want a silent one, go for the the a6300, dont know the price tho. you can also use face detect, eye af, tracking af to shoot people with the a6x00. or manual adapted lenses if you want to go low cost. for the nikon, the kit lens, 35 1.8, 50 1.8, I also used a tokina 11-16 2.8 tho its a bulky lens, sharp tho.
>>
>>3324683
The Sony 35mm f1.8 is much more compact and a better option for the streets than the Sigma 30mm despite not being quite as sharp as the Sigma. Plus the OSS goes a LONG way if you're shooting while on the move or filming any video unless you're on the A6500 with IBIS.

I'd say the best go to lens for street photography would be the Sony 20mm f2.8 pancake. It's not the sharpest but it makes the camera ultra compact and non-threatening while giving you a consistent wide angle to play with. It's fairly affordable on the used market these days too.

http://www.keenanrivals.com/journal//first-impression-of-the-sony-e-20-f28

Also if you use a Canon EF to E-Mount adapter, the Canon 24mm f2.8 pancake is really good on the A6*** series, though AF can be spotty depending on the adapter you get.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeSAMSUNG
Camera ModelEK-GN120A
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.3 (Macintosh)
Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.4
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)130 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2014:03:14 10:20:17
Exposure Time1/125 sec
F-Numberf/2.2
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating400
Lens Aperturef/2.2
Exposure Bias-3 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash
Focal Length85.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
>>
Want to upgrade from Canon T6. Suggestions? I’d like to stay in Canon line ups.

I’ve considered SL2 and 77D, as my budget is under $700.
>>
>>3323837
My main issue with the 100mm USM is the focusing speed and accuracy. It was hunting in the shade like no other lens of mine on my 6D. The L version is one of the best lens you could have with Canon. But on apsc, the 85mm is bang for bucks, fairly small and has a decent bokeh & sharpness (but has issue with chrome abs wide open, like the 50mm 1.4).

>>3324694
>Suggestions?
Keep that money or buy a prime, instead. A 24mm f2.8 or a 35mm f2 IS.
>>
does
>tamron 18-200mm F3.5-6.3 DI III VC
fit into sony a6000? im considering buying it
>>
>>3324696
How about a 35mm L instead of 35mm f/2?
>>
Used X-T10 for 350€ vs used X-T20 for 650€.
I'm indecisive, tell me which one to get. I know the differences.

They're both ugly silver so I'm thinking about the cheaper one.
>>
>>3324664
> The A6000 is not completely silent, it has a fairly loud shutter compared to some of the competition.

God it really is. Terribly sorry. I need some sleep I guess. Looked into a6000 a bit more and that really is a bad idea.
>>
>>3324717
Nah mate, the one with the stabilization is more useful.
>>
>>3323178
>tfw spending 2 hours repairing a ribbon like that one today

Fuck ribbons.
>>
>>3324696
>My main issue with the 100mm USM is the focusing speed and accuracy. It was hunting in the shade like no other lens of mine on my 6D.
Were you using center point only and did you have the focus limiter switched off? Macro lenses take longer to focus in general, but there are ways to get around that.
>>
I’m lookikg into buying a fujifilm x100f but I see people giving the shutter count for the camera. What number should I not surpass? Is 9k alot? Or should I go for one with like 2000
>>
>>3324851
Shutter count is just an objective measure of how much a camera has been used. The shutters of these mirrorless cameras aren't as much of a liability as the complex mirror-shutter mechanism of a DSLR, if only because they would cost less to replace, but if you don't know the life expectancy, a good number to go by is that by 100,000 shutter actuations, the camera may need their shutter replaced, if not other serious servicing. In reality, most cameras will need service before that, though. Buttons break, rubber flaps wear out, circuit boards occasionally fry themselves.

When I'm shopping for myself, I try to find used cameras with shutter counts as low as possible, if only because I don't like having to clean dust out of the viewfinder or off the sensor/mirror. I would accept anything under 10,000, but I'll typically buy minty used cameras with shutter counts under 1000. You do pay a bit of a premium over the nasty ones in the 40,000 range, but it's still quite a bit less expensive than buying new.
>>
>>3324874
>>3324851
A camera with around 10k photos is good because you know they initial death nails aren't going to happen. Most electronics will break pretty early on if they are going to break at all from normal wear. Then they take forever to die until someone does something stupid.

Also, it is 100k to 150k for most cameras.

>if only because I don't like having to clean dust out of the viewfinder or off the sensor/mirror

I do that almost daily.
>>
>>3324718
X T20
>>
>>3324718
Can you afford the Fuji lenses?
>>
Are teleconverters a meme? Would it be worth getting one to get some extra reach for wildlife photos on my 300mm f/4.5 lens or will it make the image too dark and blurry?
>>
So I'm a complete beginner but looking to get seriously into photography. Have been using my Galaxy s9+ but its really time to transition to something a little bit better. I shoot mainly still travel landscape photography with subjects in them usually.

Now I've set me eyes on the a6000's series and wondering what you would suggest. I can get

a6000 Body only - $500 AUD
a6300 Body only - $950 AUD
a6500 Body only - $1315 AUD

or in package deal format
a6000 with 16-50 lens - $720 AUD
a6300 with 18-135 lens - $1443 AUD
a6500 with 18-135 lens - $1783 AUD

Now obviously the best would be the a6500 but will I notice much benefit? Or would you suggest buying the body and lens separately etc etc. THANKS SO MUCH!
>>
>>3324915
Offcourse not, everyone's using them. It won't make image dark, it will increase it's f stop. Bright day, you won't see a difference. But they take a bit of sharpness off, but you'll learn to live with it. Besides, only other option for getting more reach is buying another lens.

>>3324916
Ether a6000 or something else entirely. I mean you get better sensor with a6300 and stabilization with a6500, but pricewise I don't think it's worth it. Sony's putting everything into it's full frame lineup, so you're left with leftover in lens department. If you're set for mirrorless, you've many more healthy environments in that pricerange.
>>
>>3324918
Cheers for that. What would you be opting for in that case?
>>
>>3324916
I personally would just get an a6000 and a sigma 30 1.4. Tho it will depend on your needs. But if you just want a compact lens for edc, get the kit lens. If you outgrow it, then buy the lens that will fit your needs. The package deal of the a6000 seems expensive tho.
>>
>>3324916

I started on the a6000, and still love it despite moving on to mostly full frame. Stay away from the kit lenses. They're just not going to give you the results you want. I recommend the Sigma 30mm 1.4 or the Sony 18-105 if you really want a zoom.

I use a lot of my crop lenses on my a7Rii when filming in super35 4K. I also use a couple of my full frame lenses on the a6000 when I want the extra reach. The 85mm 1.8 is an excellent telephoto on the a6000, and the 55mm 1.8 serves as a perfect portrait lens for it as well.
>>
I will be going on a huge "as long as my money lasts me" trip through Japan, China, Taiwan, HK, Korea, and Vietnam and I would like to get a decent camera.

I have always wanted one, but never had the money to spend, and also never went anywhere interesting to take pictures of.

So, I am a beginner. I see a lot of people on the internet recommending the Sony a6000.

However, I feel the 6000 is too expensive, not only the camera but the lenses, I don't need much, just two lenses and that would cost me almost $1000 if I go for the a6000.

So, I am looking at alternatives. namely,
>Olympus OM-D E-M10 Mark II
>Canon EOS M100
>PANASONIC LUMIX G7 or GX85

All of these are much cheaper but seem to be of good quality. Anybody have any suggestions as to which one to get? A different suggestion? I wont be making this purchase right away and will be looking for any potential sales in the meantime.
>>
>>3324951
What two specific lenses (or types of lenses) do you have in mind?
>>
>>3324951

Only one really comparable to a6000 is the M100, and that costs more. Plus the lens selection is kinda meh (though I hear their 22mm pancake is fantastic).

Best bet would probably be (other than the M100) the E-M10 mk. 2. Solid body, relatively new, has some nice IBIS, and a nice lens selection. Keep in mind the sensor is smaller and it has worse low light performance if you are into that sort of thing.
>>
>>3324951
>never went anywhere interesting to take pictures of.
Letting you know now, if you couldn't take good shots where you are now, you won't be able to take good shots in the places you're traveling to.
>>
>>3324952
Just going on what I see in bundles, something like a 16-50mm and a 55-210mm or stuff comparable to that? I don't know enough to care down to the mm exactly but something like that,

>>3324954
???? As I said, I am a beginner. I haven't taken any shots. And as I said, I live in a boring place? Is that so hard for you to understand? Obviously I will buy one early and practice here, but is it so hard to understand that rural bumfuck US isn't very interesting and that I never felt the need to take pictures here? It isn't a matter of me being unable to take pictures.... Why are you so aggressive?

>>3324953
I am not really into any specific thing because I have no baseline. All I know is that the a6000 is just slighty to expensive for my tastes. I DO want a good beginner camera, but unless I can find a really good deal the a6000 seems to be $100-$200 too much for me.
>>
>>3324958

>a6000 seems to be $100-200 too much for me.

So you want a $200-300 camera body? Not much in that range.
>>
>>3324958
RX10 II will get you that range all in one lens with a decently fast aperture and IS (A6000 has no built in IS nor does the M100) with both of those making up for the worse noise performance of the smaller sensor (still very good). The only downside really (other than not being able to change the lens) is the AF isn't as good being just contrast based, but it would be good enough for most stuff you'll likely come across.
>>
>>3324959
No. The a6000 is $798 on amazon with the two attatchments, without a case or anything. I cant afford almost $1000.

$500 to $700 okay. But not above that. Are the cheaper options I listed really so shit they are not worth considering? I am not set on the a6000, i just always see it listed as a beginner camera but there is nothing beginner about the price to me
>>
>>3324963
That is an outrageous price for the a6000.

Should be looking at $400-500 for body w/kit.

Could also look at the Nikon d3300. Same sensor as a6000, but a dslr.
>>
>>3324958
I wasn't being aggressive, I was just letting you know that being in an interesting place won't automatically make your photos better. I guarantee you I live in a more literal nowhere bumfuck area than you do but I still manage to make interesting shots to take rather than wait for one to fall in my lap.
>>
Hi /p/. First time poster here. During that rather odd glitch on Target's website, I ended up buying a camera. I figured it was valuable enough to resell if I didn't want to keep it, but I've always sort of wanted a camera. I don't know shit about them, though. And I was unsure how long I had to choose a camera before they fixed their site, so I just chose one that was a relatively high msrp and that had good reviews. In hindsight, I might have gone for a DSLR, but I hadn't even heard the term until I began researching the camera after I bought it.
Anyway, I got a new Canon Powershot SX530 HS for $90. About $30 more got me a strap and bag on Amazon, plus a couple of batteries and a 64gb memory card. Did I get a decent haul for my money? Is it a decent camera, especially for a beginner and an amateur? Will I be able to take a good variety of different types of photos with it, allowing me to learn about the craft? Thank you for any and all responses.
>>
>>3324982
>no viewfinder
>no manual focus
>no interchangeable lens
>effectively a 24-1200mm zoom lens
You don't get that kind of range without making very serious compromises to image quality, especially not for that price. It'd be an okay camera if you just have an amateur youtube channel or just want to post random things you see on facebook or something, but if you're serious at all about photography you'll return it and buy a few photography books and a real dslr. Hell, you can get away with just reading articles online and buying decade old gear and you'll be miles ahead of anyone who buys a Canon Powershit.
>>
>>3324888
Maybe
>>
>>3325006
>Maybe
If you can afford Fuji lenses comfortably then yeah, go for the X-T2. Otherwise, if you're actually a poorfag, get the X-T1 and invest the rest of the cash into lenses. You'll need it.
>>
anyone think the noct nikkor is worth it?
>>
File: Noct_nikkor_58mm.jpg (54 KB, 640x480)
54 KB
54 KB JPG
anyone own it?
>>
>>3325016
Sorry, I don't know about that exact lens but if you're curious about that lineup of lenses, I recently bought a similar one. 50mm Nikkor, full manual focus and aperture. I love it. It's sharp as fuck. Only problem is my camera can't read the aperture settings so the light meter doesn't work. I always have to take a few test shots to check how my exposure settings match up with the current lighting, but I have little issue with that.
>>
So I'm still using an old YN460 II

What should I replace it with?

Hypothetic wish list:
More output power
Faster recycle time (At least equivalent power vs full power on YN460 II, lipo?)
Inexpensive
>>
Want to buy Fuji xt20, what are the alternatives to consider?
I can get one with 18-55 kit lens for $980 from where I live.
>>
>>3325012
Thanks, gonna go for the cheaper one
>>
Can anyone recommend a fisheye lense that won't break my bank and isn't huge? Mostly for porn, so the more compact the better.
>>
>>3325019
The noct-nikkor is a totally different thing than other manual fast 50-somethings from the same era. The claim to fame was that it was one of the first lenses with an aspherical element in it. Which, thanks to the manufacturing capabilities of the time, was hand-figured for each lens by some dude in Japan. This gave it two things: one, very low coma - you can shoot it wide open at night and point lights won't have bat wings at the edge of the frame. Two, a stratospheric price tag. They still go for several thousand dollars today.
>>
>>3324709
bump
>>
>>3325063
Please don't, porn with that fisheye effect is incredibly annoying.
>>
I've been using the Sony a5100 for a while and while I'm pretty satisfied with both the size and overall picture quality, the loud shutter sound and lack of viewfinder are a bit of an annoyance. I really recently received the opportunity to trade it in and get an a6000 for $110 USD. Would the trade be worth it, or should I just wait and save up for a different model altogether? I only have a couple Sony lenses (which I don't mind selling if I switch brands), and I'm not particularly interested in recording video.
>>
>>3325002
Your response has crushed my enthusiasm and made me a sad man. Thanks for your honesty, though.
>>
New thread: >>3325218
>>3325218
>>3325218
>>
Was repairing my rangefinder and lost a screw. What do?

Found a twig of the same dimmensions on the floor, while looking for it though. Killed me.
>>
>>3325159
A lot of porn you probably watch has a slight fisheye. It makes a big difference if it's slight and unnoticeable. I've got a small dick.




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.