/p/ - Photography » Thread #2671707

[330 / 30 / ?]

70KiB, 670x503, philipbloom-pentax-snow.jpg

Gear Thread

Anonymous Sun 20 Sep 2015 18:11:29 No.2671707 View View Reply Original Report

Quoted By:

Gear thread

If you have questions about a new camera, what lenses to buy and anything related to gear or wondering about getting into photography, post it in this thread.
Do not attempt to make a new thread for your new Rabal, broken glass and being new. You have been warned!
I repeat, ANYTHING GEAR RELATED goes in here!

And don't forget, be polite!

Previous thread: >>2666988

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 21 Sep 2015 08:12:16 No.2671992 Report

Quoted By: >>2671996 >>2672036 >>2672074

Which one is better for wildlife photos on a 24MP camera?
1. A longer focal length (around 400-500mm) lens with decent but not overall excellent IQ
2. A shorter telephoto lens (70-200mm or 50-300mm) for the same price but due to sharp image I can crop in without losing detail

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO nikon-400mm-1707.jpg, 135KiB, 600x342

Anonymous Mon 21 Sep 2015 08:23:28 No.2671996 Report

Quoted By: >>2672002

>>2671992
Longer is better

or

Use extension lens for your shorter tele

or

Save your money to buy the longer and the best lens (either gold ring or red ring). Totally worth it especially if you invest all your time to do wildlife.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 21 Sep 2015 08:45:58 No.2672002 Report

Quoted By: >>2672021 >>2672154

>>2671996
I have set my eyes on the Bigma (Sigma 50-500) with OS, but the 60-250/4 costs just as much and from what I've seen on flickr the 60-250 is much sharper, where the Bigma still suffers from a bit of CA and a bit more fringing.
My target use is wildlife, but I'd also shoot in high contrast, against the sky like larger birds in flight or planes.
My friend uses the 100-400 on his 40D and that camera still makes excellent photos and cropping in at 200mm (kit telezoom) on my photos produce the same view angle and detail.
Getting one of these still involves a lot of saving so buying more than one lenses is out of the question, hence my debate.
At least I have multiple options for my intended use and used gear.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 21 Sep 2015 10:12:10 No.2672021 Report

Quoted By: >>2672023 >>2672032 >>2672035

>>2672002
get an olympus em5 or panasonic gx8.
put on a 75-300mm for a 600mm equivalent reach.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 21 Sep 2015 10:19:11 No.2672023 Report

Quoted By:

>>2672021
How about using my existing camera and having 1/10th of noise than on a microturd?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 21 Sep 2015 10:39:56 No.2672032 Report

Quoted By:

>>2672021
>2015
>Still rocking m4/3
Hi gramps

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 21 Sep 2015 11:00:47 No.2672035 Report

Quoted By:

>>2672021

or he could just crop his 75mm-300mm

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 21 Sep 2015 11:08:08 No.2672036 Report

Quoted By:

>>2671992
>A longer focal length (around 400-500mm) lens with decent but not overall excellent IQ
that's not a compromise you need to make, luckily. the nikon 200-500 5.6 or the 400mm 5.6 prime from canon have excellent IQ and would be cheaper than a 70-200mm 2.8, and about the same price as an f4.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1329995_140207064458_1.jpg, 16KiB, 300x300

Anonymous Mon 21 Sep 2015 11:41:42 No.2672044 Report

Quoted By: >>2672047

Bags are gear. Anyone have Caden M5 bag for multipurpose photo + laptop usage? Is it as cool as it looks(having price on mind ofc)?

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO National_Geographic_NG_W5070_NG_ (...).jpg, 38KiB, 500x500

Anonymous Mon 21 Sep 2015 11:46:11 No.2672047 Report

Quoted By: >>2672050

>>2672044
I only have similar, National Geographic Walkaround DSLR/Laptop bag, medium size. Comfy, rugged, fits all my gear and lappy and good price. Pic related

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 21 Sep 2015 11:57:16 No.2672048 Report

Quoted By: >>2672049 >>2672050

I am looking for a wide angle prime in the range of 16 to 20mm for my a6000. I want to try landscape photography, fast aperture and af are not needed, but price should be low. Any reconmendations?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 21 Sep 2015 12:00:26 No.2672049 Report

Quoted By:

>>2672048
Samyang/Rokinon 16/2 or 14/2.8

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 21 Sep 2015 12:00:26 No.2672050 Report

Quoted By: >>2672052

>>2672047
But there are 50Eur fakes and 200Eur legitimate ones. Which one do you have?

>>2672048
Don't think about 16 2.8 it's rubbish. 20 2.8 is not bad though. If you only want to try why not kit lens on 20-24mm(16mm sucks in 16-50)?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 21 Sep 2015 12:04:15 No.2672052 Report

Quoted By: >>2672053 >>2672062

>>2672050
What are you talking about? The original ones cost around 50 UK dollars.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 21 Sep 2015 12:09:43 No.2672053 Report

Quoted By:

>>2672052
http://www.amazon.de/Hochqualitatives-Reserve-Kamerakasten-Kamerarucksack-Top-Digitaltasche-Reisetasche/dp/B013YP4MMY/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1442837163&sr=8-1&keywords=national+geographic+5070

also National Geographic site gives around 180-200E price. I don't have a proof that 50E ones are fakes, but it's weird if same bag is 3 times more expensive in one place than in other.

So you have cheaper one and is it okay? I thought about it but I was concerned about this prices. Also the laptop compartment is only 28cm(and my big Latitude E6530 is about 29cm wide).

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 21 Sep 2015 12:10:11 No.2672054 Report

Quoted By: >>2672055 >>2672064

I need a small bag or something to protect my camera in my backpack during my travels. Any ideas?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 21 Sep 2015 12:11:47 No.2672055 Report

Quoted By: >>2672056

>>2672054
Buy some insert to your normal bag for 10$. Why another bag to pack it in another bag?(Bagception fetish?)

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 21 Sep 2015 12:16:51 No.2672056 Report

Quoted By: >>2672065

>>2672055
My backpack is a big 65L one so I need something smaller to protect the camera. It doesn't necessarily have to be another bag, that's just all I could think of.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 21 Sep 2015 12:39:38 No.2672062 Report

Quoted By:

>>2672052
I'm pretty sure that those are Asian fakes. Not that Asian (especially Chinese) fakes are usually bad.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 21 Sep 2015 12:43:04 No.2672064 Report

Quoted By:

>>2672054
I'd just pack a box-shaped camera bag into that other bag, because there are also other accessories I want to kinda keep and take out with the camera.

If I had just the camera, I'd probably get a shaped camera case made from leather, neoprene, hard plastic or whatever.

Not a big fan of inserts myself.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 21 Sep 2015 12:43:33 No.2672065 Report

Quoted By: >>2672378

>>2672056
Something like this might be an idea:

http://www.seatosummit.com.au/products/modular-packing/padded-soft-cells/

Not sure how big or protective they are. Loads of companies make them.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 21 Sep 2015 13:15:32 No.2672074 Report

Quoted By:

>>2671992
Get the Sigma 150-600mm F/5.0-6.3 Sport.

One of the best possible devices for your money, and adequate on 24MP.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 21 Sep 2015 13:20:17 No.2672078 Report

Quoted By: >>2672081

Hey anon, what are your thoughts on the neewar vk750 ii versus the yuong yn 560 iii? I am a hobbyest, so not able to pay prices for a nikon

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 21 Sep 2015 13:27:02 No.2672081 Report

Quoted By:

>>2672078
The Neewer is for on-camera flash with TTL.

The YN 560 III and IV are great for remote triggered off-camera flash, which overall is far better if you have the respective flashes and stands set up somewhere.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 21 Sep 2015 13:29:02 No.2672083 Report

Quoted By: >>2672104

Considering adapting Mamiya RZ lenses or Pentax 67 lenses to my 6D. Anyone have experience doing this?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 21 Sep 2015 14:08:21 No.2672104 Report

Quoted By:

>>2672083
Focal length is focal length, no matter the format. A 67 MF 50mm lens will still be a 50mm on FF or even APS-C, just with a bigger image circle.
Consider getting a tilt-shift adapter so you can use the full image circle if you need to, in landscape, architecture or city-scape. Post results, I'm also interested for APS-C adaptation.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 21 Sep 2015 15:58:47 No.2672154 Report

Quoted By: >>2672159

>>2672002
used 300mm f4 + optional TC?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 21 Sep 2015 16:12:08 No.2672159 Report

Quoted By:

>>2672154
I'm going to do event and other action kind of photography so a prime would limit me. Only considering wildlife and birds I would sell my body for a DA* 300. That 1.4x DA TC is still in the plans if I can get a used 60-250 at reasonable price. If not, the Bigma is on the second place. My budget is the limiting factor, since it is set at $1200.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Screenshot (746).png, 321KiB, 1366x768

Anonymous Mon 21 Sep 2015 17:07:50 No.2672178 Report

Quoted By: >>2672185 >>2672246

Is this worth buying as my first film camera?
I'm a student on a budget and shot my first roll of film today using a friend's camera

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 21 Sep 2015 17:28:15 No.2672185 Report

Quoted By:

>>2672178
Check the mechanics and the light seals before buying. If there is a lightmeter inside, check if it works alright. If not, get a separate lightmeter or use your DSLR or phone for metering.
Other option is getting a Pentax ME Super. Lightmeter usually works, tons of support for DIY fixing.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 21 Sep 2015 19:26:30 No.2672246 Report

Quoted By: >>2672255

>>2672178
no. go with nikon, canon, or pentax. much greater lens availability, larger userbase to give you help, and the lenses will transfer over to when you get a better film body or a digital body.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 21 Sep 2015 19:47:28 No.2672255 Report

Quoted By: >>2672269

>>2672246
>go with ... pentax. much greater lens availability
it's a k mount

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 21 Sep 2015 20:29:32 No.2672269 Report

Quoted By:

>>2672255
What the fuck are you on about, it's 30 bucks! Buy it, if faulty and fixing is too difficult, just throw it away and buy another one.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 22 Sep 2015 02:20:37 No.2672378 Report

Quoted By:

>>2672065
Looks good, thanks.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 22 Sep 2015 07:07:47 No.2672463 Report

Quoted By: >>2672499 >>2672500

Is it really worth in investing in lenses faster than 1.8?

Also, is there any mirrorless adapters for xl mount lenses?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 22 Sep 2015 08:19:14 No.2672499 Report

Quoted By: >>2672513

>>2672463
depends entirely on a.) which lens it is, and b.) how much you're paying. Two grand for a Canon 85/1.2 is probably a pretty tough sell. $300 for a manual-focus Samyang 85/1.4, or $100 for something from when manual focus was all there was? Different story.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 22 Sep 2015 08:19:25 No.2672500 Report

Quoted By: >>2672513 >>2672550

>>2672463
Yes, if you are a bokeh whore. In more than 90% of your photos you will not need faster than F1.8 lenses. You don't even need faster than F2.8 in most cases, or faster than F4 if you only shoot daytime.
Plus these fast lenses are typically soft wide open and not become usable until you stop them down to 2.8 or more. Especially old lenses. Not that it makes a good effect in some cases but it only makes these lenses more of a niche usage.
Think it through what you want to shoot and then make your decision.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 22 Sep 2015 08:54:34 No.2672513 Report

Quoted By: >>2672517

>>2672499

I just bought a manual 50mm 1.8 Olympus prime for $5 and I was wondering if I should ever look into something faster.

>>2672500
No, not a bokeh whore. I normally want the majority of my image to be in focus.

They're soft?

I was looking into it because I often find myself with low light when I'm taking pictures and I don't want to raise the shutter speed to several seconds.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 22 Sep 2015 09:04:43 No.2672517 Report

Quoted By: >>2672547

>>2672513
If you have the need, then why not? Buy it, experiment. If it doesn't work out the way you wanted you still have bragging rights about your aperture.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 22 Sep 2015 11:38:15 No.2672547 Report

Quoted By: >>2672549

>>2672517
I was just concerned that there may be unintended side affects such as a soft focus as said above.

Are there any good telecompressors for full frame digital cameras?

What are some good telescopic lenses that retain a wide aperture?

Are there any full frame camera lenses like this?
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Fujinon-TV-Zoom-5-5-77mm-f-1-4-/331656086582?hash=item4d383e4436

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 22 Sep 2015 11:45:53 No.2672549 Report

Quoted By:

>>2672547
Don't mistake soft focus with missed focus. With a very shallow DOF it is easy to miss focus.
Also the open aperture softness is always present more or less, but stopping it down a notch can take control over it. You can also use it for a sort of dreamy looking portraiture. Or wherever you see it works.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 22 Sep 2015 11:48:07 No.2672550 Report

Quoted By: >>2672551 >>2672554

>>2672500
are you fucking retarded? "you never ever need more than f4"

wat da faq

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 22 Sep 2015 11:56:47 No.2672551 Report

Quoted By:

>>2672550
That's barely similar to what he said. Are you 'fucking retarded'? Did you even read the post? Why am I even responding?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 22 Sep 2015 12:01:04 No.2672554 Report

Quoted By:

>>2672550
>daytime shooting town event
>Tv mode, 1/200-1/60s
>notice aperture setting is 8 or more
>same event after dusk, lighting is still good for f/4 on above mentioned setting
You tell me, why do I have to carry this huge and heavy 70-200/2.8 and 50/1.4 when I could have spent much less on the f/4 and f/1.8 or in the latter case buying a $50 CZJ 2.8 and going funky on MF?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 22 Sep 2015 12:05:15 No.2672557 Report

Quoted By: >>2672558

Tripod. I am looking for the new travel tripod. What do you think about VANGUARD Alta CA 204ATS and Stativ Manfrotto Compact Advanced.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 22 Sep 2015 12:07:04 No.2672558 Report

Quoted By: >>2672560

>>2672557
gearfag

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 22 Sep 2015 12:16:46 No.2672560 Report

Quoted By: >>2672562

>>2672558
What? Both are pretty pleb edition, nothing fancy.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 22 Sep 2015 12:22:51 No.2672562 Report

Quoted By: >>2672566

>>2672560
Get a chinese carbon 4 or 5 section one.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 22 Sep 2015 12:32:20 No.2672566 Report

Quoted By: >>2672571

>>2672562
The problem is I am leaving a country in a week and mowing to the other side of the Earth. So I am in a hurry I can´t wait few weeks for aliexpes. Also are these chinese tripods solid?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 22 Sep 2015 12:43:37 No.2672569 Report

Quoted By: >>2672571

Hello guys, I'm gonna make the jump from small format film to digital soon-ish and what ef-s mount lens would you recommend for my 350d until they come out with new sensors?

Cause the 18-55 kit lens isn't bad or anything just feels insanely cheap

Nothing too fancy, a zoom to cover the most common focal lenghts would be enough, something like the equivalent to 35 to 85, manual focus ring would be nice

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 22 Sep 2015 12:45:18 No.2672571 Report

Quoted By:

>>2672566
Sirui is the one that comes to my mind. As solid as Vanguard or Manfrotto, excellent piece of hardware

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/822125-REG/Sirui_BSRT1005_T_1005X_5_Section_Aluminum_Tripod.html
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/917559-REG/sirui_bsrt025x_t_025x_carbon_fiber_tripod.html

>>2672569
24-70 IS or 24-105 IS

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 22 Sep 2015 12:57:01 No.2672573 Report

Quoted By:

I recently got a Zeiss Ikon Nettar as a gift. Does anyone have any experience with it? Anything to look out for?

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO hsdhdshjlsdhjhsdfj.jpg, 84KiB, 640x266

Anonymous Tue 22 Sep 2015 19:07:46 No.2672726 Report

Quoted By: >>2672732

How does electronic shutter curtain affect bokeh quality?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 22 Sep 2015 19:11:32 No.2672732 Report

Quoted By:

>>2672726
I don't know, but it seems Sony made it possible. It's just no stopping these guys, huh?

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO IMG_1534.jpg, 716KiB, 1536x2048

Anonymous Wed 23 Sep 2015 02:39:58 No.2672969 Report

Quoted By: >>2673017 >>2673063 >>2673067

Hi there /p/. I know the hardly anything about photography, the only "camera" I own is my phone's camera, but I want to start investing my free time into learning about photography and taking pictures.

I'd appreciate any advice, books or online resources related to learning photography. What's the most cost efficient camera for beginners? I don't want to spend more than $300 on a camera, $100-300 is the price range I can afford, give or take.

Pic related, we took a few Polaroid's on the beach at night

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 23 Sep 2015 05:23:40 No.2673017 Report

Quoted By: >>2673067

>>2672969
Polaroid stuff (including Fuji Instax and that Impossible Project film) is very expensive per shot jsyk.

Get a used K-30 or K-50 and a used kit lens for it, that should just barely fit into $300. If it doesn't, tough, save more money. Do not buy a point-n-shoot or (worse) a "bridge camera" or one of those monster-zoom contraptions. Their sensors are no better than what's in your phone.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 23 Sep 2015 09:57:08 No.2673063 Report

Quoted By:

>>2672969
fuck off normalfag

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 23 Sep 2015 15:05:39 No.2673067 Report

Quoted By:

>>2672969
>>2673017
Seconding the used K-30
With it you get prism viewfinder (bright and clean opposed to the pentamirror which is dark, accumulates dust and has some CA), full weather sealing and in most cases a weather sealed kitlens. All this for $300.
See what the CameraStore has to say about it
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RMfSRpEASg

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO d3200.jpg, 64KiB, 500x500

Anonymous Wed 23 Sep 2015 15:38:51 No.2673075 Report

Quoted By: >>2673077 >>2673090

I have this Nikon D3200 fellow + a 18-55mm VR II kit lens. I'd like to buy a zoom tele and a fast prime for it. I don't think I want to upgrade to FX anytime soon (or at all). But later, I'm sure I'd like to move on to a more advanced DX one. Could you suggest lenses for this camera. I know the 24MP could be demanding, and lenses are investments too, but I don't have 1000s and 1000s of dollars for lenses. Thanks for your input.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 23 Sep 2015 15:43:45 No.2673077 Report

Quoted By: >>2673083

>>2673075
Get the 55-300 VR telezoom and the 35mm f/1.8 A-FS

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 23 Sep 2015 15:56:20 No.2673083 Report

Quoted By: >>2673090 >>2673093

>>2673077
thanks. why these?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 23 Sep 2015 16:10:45 No.2673090 Report

Quoted By: >>2673096 >>2673099

>>2673075
70-300 VR and 35/1.8 DX.
>>2673083
Because they're your only choices.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 23 Sep 2015 16:14:33 No.2673092 Report

Quoted By: >>2673095

What the fucking shit, Amazon? I ordered a a 105mm f/2.8G lens, not this 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5D piece of crap you sent me. I can't wait to see what arrives in the other shipments for this order. Are you going to try to call a 50mm f/1.8D the same as a 50mm f/1.4G? Will my D3100 turn out to be a D40?

Yes, I mad.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 23 Sep 2015 16:15:10 No.2673093 Report

Quoted By: >>2673102

>>2673083
They are affordable and have good IQ, 24MP won't be a problem. The 35mm is a good fast lens, cheap and 50mm equivalent. The 55-300 is a good IQ lens, variable aperture, compared to the professional 70-200 lenses it might look slow but this is what you get for a lower budget. It still very much usable in daytime, until dusk in cloudy weather. Has stabilization which is a good thing for longer exposures. Has a good reach for birds, planes, outdoors daytime sports, and action sports.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 23 Sep 2015 16:17:17 No.2673095 Report

Quoted By: >>2673098

>>2673092
Why are you bitching here? Go write a complaint to Amazon. It is probably the shops fault Amazon works with.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 23 Sep 2015 16:17:25 No.2673096 Report

Quoted By: >>2673097

>>2673090
which one? 55-300 vs 70-300? and why?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 23 Sep 2015 16:24:39 No.2673097 Report

Quoted By: >>2673102

>>2673096
The one you can afford. Literally, the difference is some $150-200. The 70-300 has better IQ, but not that much. The 55-300 is the usual kit telezoom and is a bit cheaper build.
If you can afford the 70-300, get it. If not, the 55-300 is still a very good buy.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 23 Sep 2015 16:25:31 No.2673098 Report

Quoted By:

>>2673095
I am working with them on getting the right lens (but it's going slow as hell trying to talk to some fucking paki at customer service). And this was not a third-party seller. The fuck-up was somewhere in packaging, because it came in the box for the lens I actually ordered.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 23 Sep 2015 16:27:17 No.2673099 Report

Quoted By: >>2673102

>>2673090
>Because they're your only choices.

70% agree with this guy. I have a D7000 and those are my actual lenses, the only difference is that I have the tamron 17-50 f/2.8 VR instead of the kit lens. With those lenses you can do almost everything with good enough results
The only thing I miss is a good lens for macro, I think I'll go for the 105mm which seems lovely

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 23 Sep 2015 16:36:17 No.2673102 Report

Quoted By: >>2673107 >>2673120 >>2674829

>>2673093
>>2673097
thanks guys.

>>2673099
thanks. I can see the tamaron 17-50 is faster than the nikon 18-55 kit lens. should I consider selling the nikon kit lens and buying this one? if yes, will it be a positive value/price change?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 23 Sep 2015 16:40:10 No.2673107 Report

Quoted By: >>2673117

>>2673102
It won't be as good as a prime. You are better off with the 35/1.8 and the kit lens than the 17-50/2.8. Not as fast if you want to use it in low light, not as good IQ as the prime lens and the kit lens is still fast and sharp enough for landscape and other daytime shenanigans.
Buy it only if you can afford it beside the prime and the telezoom.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 23 Sep 2015 17:00:03 No.2673117 Report

Quoted By: >>2673122

>>2673107
I see. so the tamron is more expensive? are they in the same league, so to speak? I mean the focal lengths of the zoom is closely the same (nikon 18-55mm and tamron 17-50mm), but it is a bit trickier, right?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 23 Sep 2015 17:04:19 No.2673120 Report

Quoted By:

>>2673102
I was basically obligated to buy the tamron 17-50 at the time, I usually shoot concerts and night events, sometimes you can't use flashes and personally I try to avoid that direct flash effect, so common in this kind of photos (I call it the flashbang effect).
Having a fast zoom allow me to shoot with poor lights, have a variety of focal lenghts without changing lens and most important, I can frame the photo without the need to move, during concerts you don't have that much space where to move.

I think that you have to set a priority on the purchase of the lenses based on your need.

For example, if you do lots of landscapes, I'll suggest to first buy the 35mm

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 23 Sep 2015 17:08:39 No.2673122 Report

Quoted By:

>>2673117
It's never the focal length, it has nothing to do with price. Build quality, glass quality, special glass elements, max aperture size (bigger aperture needs bigger lens), and most of all precision during the production, these are what is in the price. For example a very good quality 35mm or 50mm can be twice the price (or more) of a prosumer grade telezoom.
ED, SLD and other special kinds of glass can cost ten times or more of normal quality optical glass.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO DSC_0002.jpg, 710KiB, 1876x1408

Anonymous Wed 23 Sep 2015 17:18:01 No.2673124 Report

Quoted By: >>2673138 >>2673140

How do i start astrophotography with 500$ budget?
I want to do landscapes and maybe some deepspace if possible

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 23 Sep 2015 17:57:45 No.2673138 Report

Quoted By:

>>2673124
It is two very different approach.
For landscapes you will need a fast super wide lens, like Rokinon/Samyang 14/2.8 or 16/2, a good stable tripod and a remote.
For deepsky you need at least 400mm lens (super telephoto regular or mirror lens) and very sturdy stable tripod with precision geared head, or a motorized equatorial mount. Even better if you get an at least 150 size Newtonian with parabolic mirror (stay away from spherical garbage) and a remote. Even better if you have a startracker camera mounted on the newtonian tube.

Other option is the Pentax O-GPS1 thingy which can turn your camera/lens/tripod setup into a limited tracking setup. Of course you will need a Pentax camera with stabilized sensor for this.
It is not a wallet friendly hobby, I know, I am aiming for the same. Currently rocking my K-3 with an old super-tele manual focus prime on a shitty tripod. It is meh, but it has results. Not good results, but still more than nothing.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 23 Sep 2015 18:02:14 No.2673140 Report

Quoted By: >>2673142 >>2673161

>>2673124
You don't

For halfway acceptable results you will want a full frame body with a sony based sensor. a 2nd hand A7 will start at around $750, then a second hand fast manual focus lens like the samwangs mentioned will be another $300.

That will get you started on landscapes.

Deepspace gets 5 times more complicated and expensive still.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 23 Sep 2015 18:09:22 No.2673142 Report

Quoted By: >>2673147 >>2673152

>>2673140
To this day the Canon 6D is the astro beast, because in deep sky astro your sensor has the least to say in the overall result. I know of a guy who uses webcams and old point and shoot, not for planetary photos but for deep sky nebulae and his results are better than a gearfags with the bestest available gear.
For good astro, you need a precise mount with precise tracking, clean atmospheric conditions and a good large diameter Newtonian.
But hell, even an EOS 1100D makes a good capture device with a good setup so shut your shill mouth!

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 23 Sep 2015 18:21:01 No.2673147 Report

Quoted By: >>2673148 >>2673156

>>2673142
wow, any source for these claims? I want to believe

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 23 Sep 2015 18:23:56 No.2673148 Report

Quoted By:

>>2673147
http://nightskyinfocus.com/equipment/imaging-planets-using-webcams/

http://www.cloudynights.com/page/articles/cat/user-reviews/photography/ccd-and-webcams/getting-started-in-astrophotography-using-a-webcam-r138

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 23 Sep 2015 18:31:13 No.2673152 Report

Quoted By: >>2673153 >>2673154

>>2673142
>arguing based on what others use instead of facts

I recommended against canon as it has difficulty retaining colour information at high isos, yeah, that dude gets OK results out of a webcam, do you know how he would get even better results? By using suitable equipment.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 23 Sep 2015 18:33:27 No.2673153 Report

Quoted By:

>>2673152

Your retarded and have never shot any deep sky astrophotography.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 23 Sep 2015 18:33:40 No.2673154 Report

Quoted By:

>>2673152
Above ISO 1600, Canon full frame sensors have greater color depth and dynamic range than Sony sensors.

I can't find the charts that back up what I'm saying right now, so you're free to disagree, but if you do, be sure to cite something that specifically speaks to high ISO performance with regards to color.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 23 Sep 2015 18:34:39 No.2673156 Report

Quoted By:

>>2673147
See the astrophoto thread, look at the veil nebula photo exif.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 23 Sep 2015 18:45:51 No.2673161 Report

Quoted By: >>2673162

>>2673140
why mirrorless not dslr?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 23 Sep 2015 18:57:28 No.2673162 Report

Quoted By: >>2673301

>>2673161
Because he's a dumb faggot who doesn't realize in astrophotography, especially in deep sky you use a few specific wavelengths to capture nebulae and galaxies, star clusters etc... as opposed to regular photography where you use the whole visible spectrum.
It needs a different approach and a different processing. A lot more mathematics and statistics used to squeeze out the information from the few captured photons.
Sony has no interest in tuning its cameras for astro use since it is a very niche market from their perspective. The opposition is Canon, Nikon and Pentax who have specific departments for astrophotography, resulting in the 6Da, D810A and that Pentax GPS tracker.
Astrophotography is a scientific approach, it needs dedication, not a pure business approach.
Also Sony uses compression in their RAWs so in astro your pictures will be full of JPEG-like compression artifacts, around point-like stars, nebulositi contours and startrails. Completely destroys the image, I would highly recommend anyone to stay away from Sony when it comes to astrophotography.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 23 Sep 2015 20:02:43 No.2673214 Report

Quoted By: >>2673217 >>2673236

>I'm a film student without a camera. I am looking for a camera that's going to shoot great video and take decent pictures. My budget is roughly around 500 but lower would be better. Any advice would be great.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 23 Sep 2015 20:07:01 No.2673217 Report

Quoted By: >>2673220

>>2673214
Who are you quoting?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 23 Sep 2015 20:15:00 No.2673220 Report

Quoted By: >>2673236

>>2673217
Myself in a different thread forgot to take off the quote

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 23 Sep 2015 20:42:34 No.2673236 Report

Quoted By:

>>2673220
>>2673214
Panasonic GH4, Canon 70D, Sony A7s

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 23 Sep 2015 22:50:34 No.2673297 Report

Quoted By: >>2673331

So is $700 for a Nikon 105 DC f/2D a good price?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 23 Sep 2015 22:54:35 No.2673301 Report

Quoted By:

>>2673162

Sony no longer compresses its raws in its latest a7 series

All the other complaints are legitimate though

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 23 Sep 2015 23:56:05 No.2673331 Report

Quoted By:

>>2673297
crazy good. dont they go for $900?

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO dslrbag.jpg, 332KiB, 1500x1205

Anonymous Thu 24 Sep 2015 00:51:44 No.2673355 Report

Quoted By: >>2673513 >>2673521 >>2673527

This bag is an amazing value for 25$.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 24 Sep 2015 00:59:13 No.2673358 Report

Quoted By: >>2673395

Should I buy the Sony a6000 with the kit lens or without and invest in a decent one?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 24 Sep 2015 02:14:05 No.2673395 Report

Quoted By:

>>2673358
I personally only like the second kit lens of the 2 lens kit, the 55-210.
However, it isn't like the 16-50 is universally disliked by everyone. It's decent value, I'd say, and there are people who like using it.

But the 16-50's image quality simply is very much like on an entry level consumer DSLR kit lens. Which is to say, not really great.

Unfortunately, the Sigma 18mm / 30mm / 60mm -while better in terms of IQ, *especially* the actually great 60mm- aren't perfect replacements even if you have no issue with using primes. They only have 5 center PDAF points and no OS. I like this option better than the 16-50, but I can also see why many may not.

If you have money, you could just stick the high end e-mount FF glass on the camera and get it all including PDAF and OS. Or Canon EF with a smart adapter / speed booster, which still gets you almost everything. I understand that the price of a single glass (and maybe smart adapter / speed booster) will then usually exceed that of the A6000's body, but it is not a bad body for such optics.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 24 Sep 2015 06:38:51 No.2673513 Report

Quoted By: >>2673527

>>2673355
This is my first bag.
Only complaint I have is that it squeaks when I walk...

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 24 Sep 2015 07:15:22 No.2673521 Report

Quoted By:

>>2673355
looks identical to my monoprice bag. wouldnt be surprised really. good bag, if you dont mind the big black camera bag look. I fit 2 primes, a telephoto, and 2 bodies (1 small) in mine, plus various accessories.

Sakura !!3iOG6mbYys6

Sakura !!3iOG6mbYys6 Thu 24 Sep 2015 08:37:52 No.2673527 Report

Quoted By: >>2673868

>>2673355
>>2673513
My only complaint is the handle position. I'm scared that somebody will pick up the bag by it's handle while it's unclipped/unzipped & it will pour everything onto the floor.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 24 Sep 2015 17:49:39 No.2673680 Report

Quoted By: >>2673686

Anyone used the Plustek OpticFilm 7200 for scanning black and white film? Not the 7200i version. I've spotted a cheap one, wondered if anyone had some sample images that show off what the scanner can do. There are a few examples on flickr but I can't work out if they suck because of the scanner, or just because it's flickr.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 24 Sep 2015 17:55:23 No.2673686 Report

Quoted By: >>2673692 >>2673705

>>2673680
It's usually the scanner. Cheap ones compress the image and gives out artifacts like a 10% JPEG from hell. Get a good one or scan them with a DSLR.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 24 Sep 2015 18:10:03 No.2673692 Report

Quoted By: >>2673694

>>2673686
Cheers. I was thinking of picking up an older, cheap Sony NEX to use exclusively for scanning as an alternative.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 24 Sep 2015 18:13:43 No.2673694 Report

Quoted By: >>2673705

>>2673692
Get a good macro 100mm lens for maximum sharpness

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 24 Sep 2015 18:44:13 No.2673705 Report

Quoted By:

>>2673694
Yep.

Might get a Minolta, Canon or Nikon Macro on a "dumb" adapter if you want cheap.

>>2673686
As he said. Also, it's not easy to do good post on negatives with Lightroom and other such pieces of software.

It's easier with Silverfast, Photoshop or such.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 24 Sep 2015 22:35:45 No.2673792 Report

Quoted By: >>2673797 >>2673813

Helios 44-2 58mm f/2 or Zeiss Tessar 50mm f2.8?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 24 Sep 2015 22:38:55 No.2673795 Report

Quoted By:

Shopping for a (used) lens for my 350D

Can I basically shop for just about any lens and just use an adapter for whatever mount the lens happens to be, assuming I'm sticking to just Nikon F mount and Sony/Minolta A mount lenses?

Also if these lenses arent EF/EF-S will I still have access to autofocus or purely manual focus?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 24 Sep 2015 22:40:45 No.2673797 Report

Quoted By: >>2673810

>>2673792
Both.
Seriously, get both, they are awesome lenses.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 24 Sep 2015 23:02:47 No.2673810 Report

Quoted By: >>2673813

>>2673797
Hmm... But having two ~50mm lenses...
Also, I'm buying for my A6000. If that info is important.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 24 Sep 2015 23:04:25 No.2673811 Report

Quoted By: >>2673815 >>2674533 >>2675255

Hello /p/
I am here for 1 reason...
I want a better camera.

Now, I have to be honest, while I would love to get a dslr and some nice lenses for it, that is way the fuck out my budget.

Right now, its kind of a tossup as to which camera is better, the sony cybershot dsc-h10 or an almost the newest gen ipod touch... the reason being, even if I charge the battery the camera dies almost the same day with no use... and the memory card, is 2gb, while for the time it may not have been absolute shit, just cant cut it.

My budget is less than the cheapest new dslr+lense combo.

What I want is a camera that can take a picture in a low light area without totally shitting the bet, and if possible, able to take a picture of a hummingbird with minimal blurring of the wings. it would also be nice if it had a decent macro mode for when i want to get up close to that weird looking yet pretty bug on the wall, and if it also had at least a 8X non digital zoom that would be even better.

Megapixels to me is an after thought, as most cameras in my price range need images to be down sampled to look good, but the lowest i would want to go is 8mp.

I also prefer used to brand new, if only because brand new even on older bad cameras doesn't really go down with the times, however if there is a great camera that is new, i'll take it.

one last note, if i'm able to plug an external microphone into it, and it takes a fairly sharp video, that would be greatly appreciated, and when i say plug a mic into it, i'm not talking about xlr, i'm talking about a 3.5 male to male.

i'm sorry if this isn't where i'm suppose to post this or if this kind of post isn't allowed/frowned upon on this board.

let me also put one more thing out there, i dont do ebay, so if possible, amazon or other storefront places only.

Finally, thank you in advance, as I may pass out and not be able to reply, as I have been awake for far to long and thread may 404 before I can tell someone who helped me thank you.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 24 Sep 2015 23:06:47 No.2673813 Report

Quoted By: >>2673817

>>2673810
>>2673792
Either only if you want a very cheap lens or the respective defects for art reasons.

A Sigma 60mm F/2.8 or -if you have the money- a Sonnar T* 55mm F/1.8 matches the A6000 far better in terms of resolution and AF and all that, otherwise.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 24 Sep 2015 23:09:37 No.2673815 Report

Quoted By: >>2673819 >>2673849

>>2673811
Overall I cannot see how you can meet your requirements on a tiny budget.

The closest you can get is probably if you go to keh, grab ~2-4 year old Nikon or Canon, and a 50mm f/1.8 "nifty fifty" to shoot your hummingbird with at relatively low shutter speeds.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 24 Sep 2015 23:13:03 No.2673817 Report

Quoted By: >>2673833

>>2673813
>Sonnar T* 55mm F/1.8
Yeeeah no, my budget isn't that big.
+ it's a full frame lens, and I most likely won't get any new full frame lenses for my A6000.
I like the defects that old lenses have, like the swirly bokeh.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 24 Sep 2015 23:15:28 No.2673819 Report

Quoted By: >>2673849

>>2673815 (cont'd)
BTW, Ipod Touch is a shitty idea no matter what.

At least get a Redmi Note 2, Mi4i or something like that for those $200. Or some really cheap Canon or Sony or Pentax compact.

But the real answer probably is for the most part an used 2-4 year old DSLR (it will likely be entry-level anyways) with a nifty fifty.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 24 Sep 2015 23:30:43 No.2673833 Report

Quoted By: >>2674030

>>2673817
> Yeeeah no, my budget isn't that big.
Hm, okay.

> + it's a full frame lens, and I most likely won't get any new full frame lenses for my A6000.
They're a good match though. Overall, this camera only comes anywhere near close to actually resolving 24MP with higher-end (mostly FF) lenses and the native Sigma 60mm f/2.8.

> I like the defects that old lenses have, like the swirly bokeh.
Well, then there is no particularly big issue with getting one or both of those.

Just the obvious stuff - no AF, OS, and I'd say you get a guessed 8MP of usable image out of one of those lenses if you shoot well and process meaningfully - but that probably is still fine for basically almost every purpose if you frame your subjects right.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 25 Sep 2015 00:14:40 No.2673849 Report

Quoted By: >>2673868 >>2673870

>>2673815
What I want the camera for is just it would be nice if it did it, not a hard line requirement.

>>2673819

Able to point any out? When it comes to cameras I have never really had the money to where a new dslr was a feasible option, so I only know so much, like a high iso is good for low light, or in bright light takeing a faster image so like i said in the example above, the hummingbird's wings aren't blurry, and a full frame sensor is more desireable than smaller ones. That's my extent of knowledge.

On that note, the reason I brought the ipod touch up is because that's what we have as the best camera, replacing the battery on the sony would likely cost more than a new better camera, i'm not in the market for a phone, at least a phone that isn't that 48mp nokia one, I have seen the images that thing takes, if i could get it cheap enough, that would be a nice camera.

On a side note, did anything ever come of digital film? I remember seeing it a long time ago, the idea of adding a sensor to older film camera to make an analog camera digital, did anything ever come of that idea?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 25 Sep 2015 01:17:56 No.2673868 Report

Quoted By:

>>2673527
I do that all the time. get in the habit of putting on one clip

>>2673849
nasa and kodak did that in the 90s, then again with nikon and the d1.

>no, it doesnt work. there was a thread discussing it two weeks ago. the circuitry and batteries takes up too much space.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 25 Sep 2015 01:26:04 No.2673870 Report

Quoted By:

>>2673849
> What I want the camera for is just it would be nice if it did it, not a hard line requirement.
Certainly, but I assume you want to meet some?

Like, your hummingbird freeze - a current high-end camera / high-end lens combo is able to pretty much do this straight-up in a like 1/8000 shutter speed daylight shot.

But if you want to do this relatively inexpensively, you'll need to fire a flash to overpower daylight. Get a camera that can use external flashlights (by hotshoe or cable) and that has good control over aperture (and presumably ISO sensitivity, to tweak things), plus a powerful flash.

Besides, the bird also should be in focus, and that too might be a pain with a cheap compact.

Your external mic and macro are also more often found on interchangeable lens cameras.

One thing to note: Most compacts have a "macro mode", but that largely just means the automatic control will restrict itself to trying closer focus and smaller apertures and not the rest.
Those camera's lenses aren't too often capable of actual 1:1 (macro), and how small / close you can go varies *vastly* when you just have a macro mode.

>>2673849
> Able to point any out?
Looking through used deals takes time. You'll have to do it yourself.

> On that note, the reason I brought the ipod touch up is because that's what we have as the best camera
I misunderstood that as an option you're looking at for a purchase.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 25 Sep 2015 03:28:14 No.2673909 Report

Quoted By: >>2673910 >>2673938

Reposting this here:

I was hoping someone could educate me on a lens.

I'm looking at a Bausch and Lomb 1200mm lens.
Is it any good?

Am I looking to get fucked?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 25 Sep 2015 03:30:01 No.2673910 Report

Quoted By: >>2673943

>>2673909

Is it a mirror lens? It's probably not any good. How much are you spending?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 25 Sep 2015 04:40:16 No.2673938 Report

Quoted By: >>2673943 >>2673944 >>2673946 >>2673947 >>2673949

>>2673909
Bausch and Lomb once made optical equipment in the sense we think of it (lenses for cameras, microscopes, and other things), but they are now and have been for many years solely a maker of contact lenses and eye-related medical products.

I very strongly suspect that that lens is the usual cheap, nearly-unusable crap that is commonly found in the supertelephoto range, just that someone paid to put that logo on it. (or made it in China and didn't bother paying and did it anyway to sell on eBay)

Link us the product page so we can look at it.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO B&L01.jpg, 76KiB, 1024x768

Anonymous Fri 25 Sep 2015 04:52:04 No.2673943 Report

Quoted By: >>2673944 >>2673946 >>2673947 >>2673949

>>2673910

I hope to get it for less than $100 if I did buy it.
What's the better competing technology?

>>2673938

I'm not at my home computer so I don't know the lick but here's the images..

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO B&L02.jpg, 64KiB, 1024x768

Anonymous Fri 25 Sep 2015 04:53:05 No.2673944 Report

Quoted By:

>>2673938
>>2673943

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO B&L03.jpg, 61KiB, 1024x768

Anonymous Fri 25 Sep 2015 04:54:27 No.2673946 Report

Quoted By:

>>2673938
>>2673943
.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO B&L04.jpg, 49KiB, 1024x768

Anonymous Fri 25 Sep 2015 04:56:39 No.2673947 Report

Quoted By:

>>2673938
>>2673943
,

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO B&L05.jpg, 85KiB, 1024x768

Anonymous Fri 25 Sep 2015 04:58:45 No.2673949 Report

Quoted By:

>>2673938
>>2673943
'

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 25 Sep 2015 05:09:29 No.2673960 Report

Quoted By: >>2673964 >>2674038

That would indeed be a mirror lens. Well, actually it's not a lens as we'd call it, it's a telescope. It's a Schmidt-Cassegrain, and does indeed have a 1200mm focal length. astronomers would call it a 4", a photographer would call it f/12.

Something that long and that slow is going to be a bitch to use, and you may or may not have a way to focus somewhere other than infinity. It also has a reputation as a rather poor telescope in its own right, according to this guy, who improved one by taking it apart and replacing some bits.
http://www.astromart.com/articles/article.asp?article_id=844

So from the fact that you're asking here, I'm going to guess you aren't an expert in telescopes and their repair, so I'd advise you to look elsewhere.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 25 Sep 2015 05:12:12 No.2673964 Report

Quoted By: >>2673970

>>2673960
>astronomers would call it a 4", a photographer would call it f/12.

astronomers would call it f/12 too.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 25 Sep 2015 05:16:59 No.2673970 Report

Quoted By: >>2673978

>>2673964
Well yes, it's two ways of saying the same thing. It's just much more common to hear the former in an astronomical context, since they're usually more concerned with the absolute size of the aperture than the focal ratio.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 25 Sep 2015 05:21:23 No.2673978 Report

Quoted By:

>>2673970

>It's just much more common to hear the former in an astronomical context

literally every telescope maker lists the f/number for literally every telescope, often before the focal length, and sometimes before (or even without) the diameter.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 25 Sep 2015 07:08:57 No.2674030 Report

Quoted By: >>2674082

>>2673833
>Overall, this camera only comes anywhere near close to actually resolving 24MP with higher-end (mostly FF) lenses and the native Sigma 60mm f/2.8.
Not the Sigma 30mm f/2.8?
I plan on getting a mid to high-end lens, but I dunno which one or when.
>I'd say you get a guessed 8MP of usable image out of one of those lenses if you shoot well and process meaningfully
What does this mean?
Like, if I downsize the 24MP pics to 8MP or what?
Sorry, I'm new to photography.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 25 Sep 2015 07:31:35 No.2674038 Report

Quoted By: >>2674097 >>2674246

>>2673960

With how damn big the thing is, I don't expect the fact that it's a "slow" lens would be much of a problem. I'd probably use an f/4.6 600mm for my long range wildlife photography.

I just kind of wanted to play with a super telescopic lens without paying >$20,000

Are suggesting I rig my Canon to a better "telescope?"

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 25 Sep 2015 10:51:13 No.2674082 Report

Quoted By: >>2674089

>>2674030
> Not the Sigma 30mm f/2.8?
It may be a more practical lens for you. But the 60mm is certainly better at resolving than the 30mm.

> I plan on getting a mid to high-end lens, but I dunno which one or when.
Well, Sigma and Sony and I think also Zeiss apparently have promised some more glass for the E-mount in interviews anyways.

Perhaps there are some extra pieces of $500-800 glass amongst those lenses. If you wait, you might have more choices.

I wouldn't be too surprised if most of the new lenses are expensive FF ones, though - because the resolution of the cameras will go up at Sony's pace, and cheap lenses just aren't very adequate at even 40MP already.

> What does this mean?
> Like, if I downsize the 24MP pics to 8MP or what?
I mean that after carefully processing a well-shot image, you might as well reduce the actual resolution to 8MP when you save. You won't really loose any details.

I'd say the Sigma 60mm can do like 16-18MP total okay. Still only 1:1.4 of the camera's sensor, but I don't recall any lens that can resolve above 1:1.2 / 20MP anyways.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 25 Sep 2015 11:26:52 No.2674089 Report

Quoted By: >>2674096 >>2674233

>>2674082
The Sigma 30mm f/2.8 was the first lens I got (well, except for the kit lens) and it's been very useful.
>Well, Sigma and Sony and I think also Zeiss apparently have promised some more glass for the E-mount in interviews anyways.
Oh, Zeiss too? Only heard that Sony and Sigma were going to come out with more lenses.

I just want to know which one of the two lenses I should get.
I'm guessing the Carl Zeiss is better in every aspect, but seeing as I don't know for sure, I want opinions from people who own the two lenses/one of them.
But sure, a 50mm lens with autofocus would be nice...

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 25 Sep 2015 11:42:58 No.2674096 Report

Quoted By: >>2674104

>>2674089
wait for the allegedly soon to be announced 24mm f2.8.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 25 Sep 2015 11:45:02 No.2674097 Report

Quoted By:

>>2674038

And another related question, how much is a f/4.5 55mm-300mm worth?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 25 Sep 2015 11:54:59 No.2674104 Report

Quoted By:

>>2674096
36 equivalent... That sounds appealing, but I'm looking for a "nifty fifty".

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 25 Sep 2015 15:54:32 No.2674233 Report

Quoted By: >>2674235

>>2674089
>The Sigma 30mm f/2.8 was the first lens I got (well, except for the kit lens) and it's been very useful.
The lens is okay for its price.

But its resolving power, maximum aperture and -for various kinds of shots- lack of PDAF have bothered me pretty quickly. YMMV.

> I'm guessing the Carl Zeiss is better in every aspect
The 60mm kinda rivals the Zeiss 55 in sharpness and image quality specific features on the A6000.
The 60mm should not be underestimated, it is an actually great lens for its price of ~$160.

But well, Bokeh, OS, full PDAF, and especially the maximum aperture of f/1.8 are still a big advantage for the Zeiss. [Various small details too, like the grip on the focus ring or the motor's noise -at least my Sigma 60mm sounds a bit like a HDD head moving rapidly. Dat annoying KRRRR sound.].

Basically, if you primarily shoot in this range, just get the Zeiss.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 25 Sep 2015 16:01:07 No.2674235 Report

Quoted By: >>2674239

>>2674233
>and -for various kinds of shots- lack of PDAF
What the fuck? The AF sensor is in the camera, not in the lens.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 25 Sep 2015 16:11:16 No.2674239 Report

Quoted By: >>2674240 >>2674396

>>2674235
Yep, but the Sigma lenses can only use 5 center PDAF points, and even that only after an update.

Sony probably did not open up the camera-side API that is required to configure lens correction parameters for PDAF or some shit like that, IDK.

Either way, it doesn't work except in the 5 center points, not all ~180.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 25 Sep 2015 16:16:13 No.2674240 Report

Quoted By: >>2674241

>>2674239
My Sigma lenses use all the AF points on my K-3. What kind of prehistoric potato are you using?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 25 Sep 2015 16:19:44 No.2674241 Report

Quoted By: >>2674242 >>2674336

>>2674240
A6000.

It has probably everything to do with some software API (maybe an absent one?), so it is more a modern problem rather than an old one.

I'd say it is not at all that it can't work, but simply that Sony hasn't opened it up to work for 3rd parties like Sigma.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 25 Sep 2015 16:25:46 No.2674242 Report

Quoted By: >>2674250 >>2674374

>>2674241
PS: I looked it up - the K-3 has 27 PDAF points?

Not sure that is the right camera to talk about prehistoric potatoes here.

Again, the A6000 body has 179 PDAF points which work with Sony and Zeiss lenses (1st party and close partner). Just not (yet?) with Sigma (3rd party).

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 25 Sep 2015 16:37:13 No.2674246 Report

Quoted By:

>>2674038
just rent a lens bro. it's anywhere from $100 to 400 a week for a super telephoto (80-400VR to 600/4G).

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 25 Sep 2015 16:43:42 No.2674250 Report

Quoted By: >>2674383

>>2674242
So you need that 152 extra AF points to extend your penis to be comparable?
Looks like sonyggers always have the need for compensating

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 25 Sep 2015 19:51:20 No.2674336 Report

Quoted By: >>2674383

>>2674241
>It has probably everything to do with some software API (maybe an absent one?), so it is more a modern problem rather than an old one.

I highly doubt that.

More likely the camera, for whatever reason, sees the lens as being slower than f/5.6
With most cameras you need at least an f/5.6 lens in order to use all the PDAF points, this is normal and just a result of how PDAF works.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 25 Sep 2015 21:22:30 No.2674370 Report

Quoted By: >>2674396

It seems to me and I have proved it that a lot of pictures are judged by what type of camera is being used.
I posted a picture with the data and I was told that it was crappy by quite a few people.
Then a few months later I posted the same picture with the data removed and people liked it.
Not everyone can afford expensive cameras but still love taking pictures even though they might not be up to the standards of people with money and take pictures all the time.
Yes I was butt hurt but still like coming here and learning a thing or two.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 25 Sep 2015 21:28:26 No.2674374 Report

Quoted By: >>2674396

>>2674242
i think the sigma works if it's in the middle.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 25 Sep 2015 21:45:41 No.2674383 Report

Quoted By:

>>2674250
No, it's just what's good for about full frame PDAF coverage.

> inb4 who uses anything but the center of their lens

>>2674336
Which would make it highly logical that it can be set to F/2.8 or whatever from the camera body prior to shooting (including on full auto) and that the lens then communicates the aperture for the metadata too... no, it's not that. The camera knows about the available apertures.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 25 Sep 2015 22:06:50 No.2674396 Report

Quoted By:

>>2674374
Yes. As I said in >>2674239 , the 5 center PDAF points do work.

>>2674370
What if those weren't exactly the same people?

What if -like with games, movies, TV and everything else, people's standards with regards to image quality actually were rising? I propose that photography enthusiasts might just not be very happy with cameras that perform worse than a 1-2 year old smartphone.

No doubt this will be a pain if you have no money and seek acknowledgement, but you think pointing this out changes most people's opinions? If you want to impress someone with subpar equipment, you typically just have to perform way above average feats. It's unfair, but kinda normal too.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 25 Sep 2015 23:16:40 No.2674434 Report

Quoted By: >>2674441 >>2674443

sorry, i dont really lurk here so im sure this is a question that gets asked alot.
my roommate gave me his canon T5i with the stock lens (18-55mm). im not too camera savvy but as far as i know, this lens isnt good for shooting indoors with bad lighting or at nighttime.
whats a decent lens i can get to fulfill those shooting needs?
I know lenses are generally expensive but is there one thats priced decently for a beginner?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 25 Sep 2015 23:40:51 No.2674441 Report

Quoted By:

>>2674434
A fast prime (>f/2)

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 26 Sep 2015 00:01:00 No.2674443 Report

Quoted By: >>2674467

>>2674434
Look into the 50mm 1.8. Not good for shooting indoors as well, but a very good choice for bad light, nighttime and beginners in general

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 26 Sep 2015 01:02:03 No.2674466 Report

Quoted By: >>2674474 >>2674485

Is a 70-200mm f/4 fast enough for shooting sports at night, or will I need to spring for an f/2.8 lens?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 26 Sep 2015 01:02:42 No.2674467 Report

Quoted By: >>2674469

>>2674443
Not that guy buy why is it bad for shooting indoors? Is shooting indoors problematic for lenses/cameras in some way?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 26 Sep 2015 01:04:25 No.2674469 Report

Quoted By: >>2674517

>>2674467

A 50mm mounted on a crop camera has a fairly narrow angle of view that makes for some tight framing at the distances in which you usually find yourself indoors.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 26 Sep 2015 01:04:51 No.2674470 Report

Quoted By: >>2674477

Hi guys is there a /p/ approved beginners camera?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 26 Sep 2015 01:05:19 No.2674471 Report

Quoted By: >>2674477

Is it dumb to rent a A7s for a weekend? Ive always wanted to try something significantly better than my t3i. Im planning on going around and taking some photos in the city at night and also shoot some video.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 26 Sep 2015 01:15:50 No.2674474 Report

Quoted By: >>2674478

>>2674466
what's the body? if you can shoot ISO 1600 maybe you can get away with it. i don't know that i could answer definitively without trying to shoot f/4.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 26 Sep 2015 01:21:41 No.2674477 Report

Quoted By: >>2674534

>>2674470
You could use some of the best non-specialized pro cameras right away. Will still look better than a cheap camera, even in your hands, and you'll obviously learn a better camera as you go along.

The best cameras to use on full auto is IMO the RX100 IV.

For IL cameras with more control and with /p/ apparently mostly being fairly low on money or finicky about weight and size, the Sony A6000, Pentax K-3 / K-5, Ricoh GR, Nikon D3x00 - D7x00 and various cheaper Canon camera models seem far more popular than the Sony A7*, Nikon D8x0, Canon 5DS and so on.

It is usually better to spend more on lenses than bodies, too.

>>2674471
Unless they ask you to pay too much, renting is a great idea.

It makes sense to share cameras and lenses, they don't really wear out quickly - they just cost a lot to buy.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 26 Sep 2015 01:23:29 No.2674478 Report

Quoted By:

>>2674474
Nikon D3100. ISO 1600 gives me photos that are usable in newsprint, but not great. ISO 3200 is for emergencies only.

Still, it's a hell of a lot better than the D40X owned by the paper that I used to use. ISO 800 was pushing it on that thing.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 26 Sep 2015 01:30:46 No.2674485 Report

Quoted By: >>2674490

>>2674466
That very much depends on how those sports are illuminated. But *very* likely not.

YMMV if you're using an A7S and can accept not so good image quality.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 26 Sep 2015 01:58:10 No.2674490 Report

Quoted By: >>2674502 >>2674510 >>2674532

>>2674485
I was afraid of that. Can anybody speak to the quality of Tamron's 70-200 f/2.8 compared to Nikon's?

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO camara-de-fotos-3ehnt-zenit-et-5 (...).jpg, 194KiB, 1200x675

Anonymous Sat 26 Sep 2015 01:59:44 No.2674493 Report

Quoted By: >>2674499 >>2674506 >>2674508

Friends, I'm not /p/ AT ALL and just want a cheap analog camera to fuck around with. I found this old russian camera on my local classifieds site, but right before calling the seller I saw this picture of the camera in question. Like I said, I'm not /p/ but this doesn't look alright. Is the thing fucked? Is it a deal breaker? Thanks in advance.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 26 Sep 2015 02:12:12 No.2674499 Report

Quoted By: >>2674505

>>2674493

It looks like it been left open for years.
Does it operate?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 26 Sep 2015 02:13:53 No.2674500 Report

Quoted By: >>2674507

I'm looking to buy a larger prime lens.

If I was going to invest in a fast lens (1.8) should I get a 100mm or a 135mm?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 26 Sep 2015 02:14:47 No.2674502 Report

Quoted By:

>>2674490
The 70-200 f/2.8 DI VC is basically as good as the Nikon pendant. Differences are really quite small.

It's an excellent lens for a zoom like that.

Will it be enough to do your sports in the evening? Maybe. It's just one f-stop between f/4 and f/2.8, though.

Upgrading to a FF body equipped with a newer sensor could give you at least three extra stops (from sensor ISO and size) to work with, though...

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO camara-de-fotos-3ehnt-zenit-et-9 (...).jpg, 155KiB, 1200x675

Anonymous Sat 26 Sep 2015 02:19:20 No.2674505 Report

Quoted By:

>>2674499
It does, according to the guy. He says he never knew how to use it properly so it was kept stashed in a drawer for years after taking one or two pictures.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Untitled-1.jpg, 431KiB, 1000x1000

Anonymous Sat 26 Sep 2015 02:20:30 No.2674506 Report

Quoted By: >>2674513

>>2674493
You don't want to own that camera. The mirror is just covered is grime. Buy something in decent condition, for your own sake. Here's the mirror on the inside of my Pentax P30 just for comparison, so you can see just how dirty the one you posted is

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 26 Sep 2015 02:22:04 No.2674507 Report

Quoted By: >>2674525

>>2674500
Generally: The better one.

If in doubt: The shorter one, it will be easier to frame in all sorts of unprepared settings. YMMV if you want to shoot bigger wild animals in zoos or something - maybe a longer one is easier then, at least in the somewhat animal-friendly parks they tend to stand a bit away from the noisy crowds.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 26 Sep 2015 02:23:45 No.2674508 Report

Quoted By: >>2674513

>>2674493
If you're not /p/ at all, I'd very much recommend against *any* analog camera.

Getting film developed is either costly or very /p/ if you DIY.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 26 Sep 2015 02:24:17 No.2674509 Report

Quoted By: >>2674511 >>2674515 >>2674532

okay two things....

first: I'll have 1.2k to spend for photography equipment.
>part of big community of photographers in Detroit
>everyone's rocking sweet bodies
>I'm the only person in the "community" with a Canon Rebel T2i
>My shots don't look like it though
>I only have a 2 lenses (50mm 1.8 and 18-55mm)

LENSES OR BODY!? I need a body with a bigger sensor, I want a 6D but I only have 1.2k to spend... WHAT DO

secondly
I need a new camera bag. What's a good bag for under 60 that is like a full-sized backpack?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 26 Sep 2015 02:25:12 No.2674510 Report

Quoted By:

>>2674490
i own the nikon vr ii, the tamron is a great lens and was a very close 2nd choice. the copy i played with had some vignetting. since your body is an APS-C i believe the crop would actually remove the vignetting. i think the tamron is better than the sigma.

what about an 80-200 f/2.8? older lens. bretty gud though. nikon makes amazing glass, there's no denying that. you're not missing anything at 70-80 mm.

the vr ii is pretty much the BMW of the 70-200 f2.8s but there's a reason a lot of people drive toyotas and hondas.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 26 Sep 2015 02:26:32 No.2674511 Report

Quoted By: >>2674514

>>2674509
Always lenses. Not even an argument. Good glass is far far more important than a good body

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 26 Sep 2015 02:29:31 No.2674513 Report

Quoted By: >>2674518 >>2674527

>>2674506
Yep, I figured as much. Thanks for the comparison pic, gonna keep looking I guess!

>>2674508
Developing costs didn't cross my mind. The problem is, I'll probably never look at my pictures if they're on a screen. I'm not even a fan of looking at pictures, I just want to shoot stuff with a camera that doesn't make everything look pretty automatically and see what happens.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 26 Sep 2015 02:29:46 No.2674514 Report

Quoted By: >>2674522

>>2674511
Yeah of course, I don't know I just feel like I won't be taken seriously with this outdated ass body... my friend wants to sell me his rokinon 14mm for 185 so i think I should just get a range of lenses and a decent flash. Once I do have money to get the 6D I'll have lenses that could work with it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 26 Sep 2015 02:31:06 No.2674515 Report

Quoted By: >>2674526

>>2674509
what are you even shooting? you have a solid nifty fifty and a typical zoom lens. you don't have anything short/mid tele.

glass over body IMO. something like this:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=&sku=183198&gclid=CIad6cjTk8gCFdEYHwodnUcNqw&Q=&m=Y&is=USA&A=details

or, pick a similarly costed lens for whatever focal length you need. the 70-200s are classics though. versatile and talented lenses. you already have the 18-55 so that's what i'd pick.

and to be honest i don't shoot canon so i have no idea if this particular lens fits your mount but i'm just suggesting a good short/mid tele zoom.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 26 Sep 2015 02:37:21 No.2674517 Report

Quoted By:

>>2674469
Sorry for the dumb question

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 26 Sep 2015 02:37:52 No.2674518 Report

Quoted By: >>2674521

>>2674513
> Developing costs didn't cross my mind.
The cost of film rolls and all that isn't insignificant either at this point.

> The problem is, I'll probably never look at my pictures if they're on a screen.
Printing pictures - or having them printed by one of the shops that do that for you and send them to you- to a 15x10 inch typical photo paper or whatever with an inkjet is still far cheaper than getting photos developed and then printed.

Well, at least if you're not using extortionist priced HP ink or something like that, but something saner like a canon or epson with 3rd party ink / refills / continuous ink system.

> I just want to shoot stuff with a camera that doesn't make everything look pretty automatically and see what happens.
... uh, well, that's basically the equivalent to using either a cheap digital watch camera or random "m"anual mode settings on any kind of camera. Maybe an IL camera with some $20 legacy lens on a dumb adapter. Results will be very unpredictable overall that way.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 26 Sep 2015 02:43:59 No.2674521 Report

Quoted By: >>2674528

>>2674518
>Printing pictures - or having them printed by one of the shops that do that for you and send them to you- to a 15x10 inch typical photo paper or whatever with an inkjet is still far cheaper than getting photos developed and then printed.
I didn't know this
so maybe a digital camera is better for me? what's "IL"?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 26 Sep 2015 02:45:54 No.2674522 Report

Quoted By:

>>2674514
>Yeah of course, I don't know I just feel like I won't be taken seriously with this outdated ass body
you'll be taken less seriously if you start acting like a tremendous gearfag.
if the group is not full of them (in which case you are strongly advised to find another group) then they will start to think that you're trying to compensate for something (shitty technique) if you suddenly rock up with a fancy new model.

Make do with what you have until you can no longer achieve what you want with it - image wise.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 26 Sep 2015 02:50:21 No.2674525 Report

Quoted By: >>2674529

>>2674507

I already own a 50mm that's why I was asking if a 50mm and 100mm would be too marginal of a difference to invest in.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 26 Sep 2015 02:51:36 No.2674526 Report

Quoted By:

>>2674515
I shoot street and urbex...
I was thinking a wide like a 10-20mm or a 14mm. also maybe a 24-70mm

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 26 Sep 2015 02:51:48 No.2674527 Report

Quoted By: >>2674530 >>2674534

>>2674513
>I just want to shoot stuff with a camera that doesn't make everything look pretty automatically and see what happens.

If that's all you want all you have to do is get a camera (any enthusiast or pro model at this point) and only shoot in RAW. Forget about jpeg.

If you were developing yourself you might spend an hour, or many hours, in a darkroom.

Now you can spend an hour, or many hours, in front of a computer using lightroom.

You're going to have to learn how to develop a digital negative, and work at raw images until they look how you want them to.

It's not "pretty" automatic. It's just more convenient for pretty much everyone including you. Leave film for when you're really interesting in the medium, and this hobby in general.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 26 Sep 2015 02:52:28 No.2674528 Report

Quoted By: >>2674534

>>2674521
> so maybe a digital camera is better for me?
Very likely, yes.

Besides, if you give your images at least a brief glance, you can even just not print the entirely shitty ones. Saves further money. Having one basically completely white / black frame (wrongly triggered flash, some car's headlights messing up a shot, way too much aperture / exposure, someone walking in front of your shot and you just taking his hair or jacket from up close ...) happens.

> what's "IL"?
Interchangeable lens.

If you want to use old (+ cheap and fairly unpredictable) manual lenses on a camera, this is usually the way to go. Lots of them have a lot of "character". Some might give you giant flare effects, others swirly bokeh, others just vignette terribly. Lots of effects and odd shots relatively cheap, eh.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 26 Sep 2015 02:56:15 No.2674529 Report

Quoted By:

>>2674525
I did not see you asking that.

Between 50 and 100mm, here is a huge-ass difference in terms of field of view, distortion effects, and also kinda availability and pricing of lenses with various features (like, getting a f/1.8 aperture).

Between 100mm and 135mm - well, there is a difference, but again, if you have to ask, I think you're more likely to be happy with 100mm than 135mm.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 26 Sep 2015 02:57:35 No.2674530 Report

Quoted By: >>2674534

>>2674527
>If you were developing yourself you might spend an hour, or many hours, in a darkroom.
And if not you, then the guy you've paid to develop your film negatives has to do this. Not to even get into enlarging and printing.

You've already surrendered a significant degree of control at this point to some agency that is not your own.

Similar to shooting JPEG on a digital at this point.

Getting someone else to do it for you is giving them the control over your shit and might as well be the automatic mode that you want to avoid. Don't want nice looking pics "automatically"? Shoot manual. Develop your own film. Print your own film. This is going to cost serious money for someone who doesn't have a full interest yet.

On digital: Shoot RAW on a manual mode, post-process the file yourself ("develop the negative") and print it yourself - choosing your specific paper and all that other shit.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 26 Sep 2015 03:03:49 No.2674532 Report

Quoted By: >>2674545

>>2674509
never show up with a body, just show off pictures with exif scrubbed or edited to say 5D3. everybody will fall for it.

it'll just be like when you post here...

>>2674490
indoor sports is a tricky one. a tight budget and sports shooting rarely go hand in hand. also, it's usually relatively dim indoors, ball sports generally prefer higher shutter speeds, and you wont be pushing ISO above 1600. all of that is not a great combination.

a 70-200/2.8 VR2 is the obvious choice. I mean, it's the standard. it's a heavy bastard hanging off the end of a d3100, trust me. full metal build. it's also $2000.

the tamron, from what I read, is every bit as good optically, and half the price. for indoor sports, that stop of light could be worth it over the f4 VR. the VC I hear is damn good too.

what sport are you shooting though? I used to shoot a little badminton, and 70-200 was much too long. I made do with an 18-105 kit. plus side: it's cheap, downside: it's got kit sized apertures.

do not buy an 80-200/2.8D. it wont autofocus, and you wont have VR (but likely not an issue at the shutter speeds you need?)

d7100s are getting real cheap used, under $600. shooting at 5 fps in d9/no active d-lighting or distortion control and a fast sd card, the buffer isn't that big a limitation. if you think you can get away with a shorter lens, or make a cheaper one work (18-105, 18-140, 70-300 VR) you might consider that. the autofocus and ergonomics upgrade would be big too.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 26 Sep 2015 03:06:09 No.2674533 Report

Quoted By: >>2675255

>>2673811
>wants to shoot hummingbird wings
>wants to use an ipod touch
No

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 26 Sep 2015 03:08:31 No.2674534 Report

Quoted By: >>2674537 >>2674548

>>2674527
>>2674530
ffs photographers, this is a lot of god damned work. I'm talking way more casual than this.

>>2674528
Thanks for the help! I'm looking at this post >>2674477 where allegedly beginner cameras are mentioned and everything is expensive as hell. I'll try and search for used digital SLRs under 100 dollaroos and if that yields no results then I'll resume looking for cheap analog stuff.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 26 Sep 2015 03:19:05 No.2674537 Report

Quoted By: >>2674546

>>2674534
> and everything is expensive as hell
That's probably relative to your income?

In most regards, photography is as cheap as it never was before.

Shooting a 36 shot roll of consumer grade 35mm film and having it developed with minimal quality control cost ~$30 around here, and the price is only rising now. Some people even shot / shoot Polaroid, which was like $15-30 per 10 shots.

I can print like 200-300 higher quality images on photo paper from a selection of 500 digital shots for the same price now. Or store about 30'000 huge 24MP RAW images digitally.

Even the cameras and lenses themselves... corrected for inflation, there's really nothing to complain about, IMO.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 26 Sep 2015 03:23:28 No.2674539 Report

Quoted By: >>2674542 >>2674544

Flash question

I've used most high end flashes on the market

Today I did an event with the yn-568ex (nikon) and the AF assist was fucking useless

Is there any real difference between the AF assist systems in say, a 600ex or sb910 than the crap in chinese flashes?

Is it all just a matter of pattern, or is there technology beyond "point a red laser straight ahead" involved in the oem flashes?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 26 Sep 2015 03:27:27 No.2674542 Report

Quoted By:

>>2674539
I barely know anything about this but I used the AF assist on a SB700 and it was really bad. Why is it visible light?! it projects a gigantic red cross on everything and I didn't have much AF point flexibility

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 26 Sep 2015 03:31:21 No.2674544 Report

Quoted By:

>>2674539
Did you pay attention to the "center focus point only" limitation on the YN-568EX's AF assist?

At close ranges, it can be a little off-center on some bodies, I heard - and then it obviously won't work well.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 26 Sep 2015 03:32:36 No.2674545 Report

Quoted By: >>2674548

>>2674532
Outdoor sports at night, not indoor sports, for the most part. High school football, mostly. I'm pretty sure 70-200 would be just about right for focal length.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 26 Sep 2015 03:37:26 No.2674546 Report

Quoted By: >>2674548 >>2674549

>>2674537
No, it's probably relative to my ethics. I'm simply not willing to spend over 600 USD worth of gear (a DSLR camera and at least one lens) on a hobby I don't even know if I enjoy yet. And I definitely know buying and developing a 36-picture roll here doesn't cost that much here.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 26 Sep 2015 03:57:49 No.2674548 Report

Quoted By: >>2674577

>>2674534
let me tell you now, film isnt all rosy either. assuming you get your camera for free, and you do everything as cheaply as you can...

it's about $3.5 for a roll of 36 shot kodak ultramax. the cheapest places will develop it for $3-5/roll. you'll either need them to print (say, 4x6), or scan them since you dont have a digital camera to scan with, another $15 or more per roll. let's round up to $25/roll to see your pictures, or $15/roll ($10 roll $5 process) if you shoot slides (not recommended for beginners) and happen to have a projector. that will get you 16 rolls of film for $400, about 576 shots, more with manual cameras. or you could have picked up a d3100 or similar for under $400, and shot as much as you like.

there's a reason digital became the mainstream choice.

>>2674546
shrug. photography has always been a rich man's hobby. less so these days of course.

>>2674545
definitely the 70-200 then. the tamron and your current body should suffice. you'll be shooting wide open, iso 1600, 1/250th or so. I hear tamron's customer service is pretty good too. anything's better than nikon's.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 26 Sep 2015 03:57:55 No.2674549 Report

Quoted By: >>2674577

>>2674546
In the USA it might be like $5+$15, I guess?

And those $600 in a camera and lens can likely be resold for at least 1/3 value in the next ~3-4 years (-and with less effort than it takes to bring or send in 20 rolls of film in small batches).

Either way, if you want it cheaper, go to Keh, grab an used IL camera. Or even a bridge camera.

If your quality standards aren't more than the cheapest 35mm film and processing, grabbing even a 6-8 year old entry-level IL camera won't be a huge issue.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 26 Sep 2015 04:20:46 No.2674557 Report

Quoted By: >>2674581

an M43 love thread would be ok?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 26 Sep 2015 05:07:43 No.2674567 Report

Quoted By: >>2674579 >>2674582

Any recommendations for a rather cheap (~$300 max) wide-angle lens or zoom lens (min 24 to 35mm up to something reasonable?)

Shooting on a Nikon D3200, and I'm purely a hobbyist.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 26 Sep 2015 06:27:12 No.2674577 Report

Quoted By: >>2674582

>>2674549
>>2674548
I'll add that if you're shooting cheap film at $3-4 per roll, you;re getting about 4-6 MP of detail at best.

if you want to get the great tonality and detail of good colour film, you're shooting $8 portra or $6 ektar. slide film is another game entirely with far greater film and processing costs.

as others have said, if you're on a tight budget, go for digital. these days, film is best used by people with experience and larger budgets.

gavin bain photography

gavin bain photography Sat 26 Sep 2015 06:33:16 No.2674579 Report

Quoted By:

>>2674567
samyang 14mm prime

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 26 Sep 2015 07:01:52 No.2674581 Report

Quoted By:

>>2674557
Why would it be necessary?
Want to discuss m43 gear? do it in the gear thread.
Want to show off stuff you've shot with a m43 cam? do it in the critique thread.

Is there some kind of major news about the system? Ehh, shouldn't get its own thread but if it's important enough someone usually posts it.

A general fanboy thread for any specific brand is just too much, even for /p/ in this state.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 26 Sep 2015 07:04:29 No.2674582 Report

Quoted By:

>>2674567
24mm equivalent, you mean?

tokina 11-16 and 12-24. make sure you get the better of the two versions of each. I forget which one that is.

>>2674577
>mfw local places sell portra 400 135 for $13, pro packs for $60
fuq

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 26 Sep 2015 18:13:25 No.2674768 Report

Quoted By: >>2674771

I have a 50mm f1.8, the kit lens and a 55-200mm for my Canon and I was thinking of getting a new lens soon. I was thinking about the 17-40mm L lens as it's a pretty nice focal range that I am also used from my film camera (28mm and 50mm). It's just the minimum aperture of f4 that makes me kind of hesitant. As an alternative, I thought about about the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8. Which one would you guys recommend?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 26 Sep 2015 18:23:57 No.2674771 Report

Quoted By: >>2674813

>>2674768
Probably the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 is what I'd get.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 26 Sep 2015 18:28:35 No.2674775 Report

Quoted By:

>Looking at the lenses available for $50 and under

Slim pickins

https://www.keh.com/search/list?n=147&sort_by=priceMax-asc&mnt[]=11&mnt[]=9&price_min=&price_max=50

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 26 Sep 2015 20:40:24 No.2674813 Report

Quoted By:

>>2674771
thanks for the suggestion. Looks really nice, albeit a bit expensive. Gotta start saving some money I guess

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 3710450222_fa586bf2a5_z.jpg, 89KiB, 640x427

Anonymous Sat 26 Sep 2015 21:14:15 No.2674826 Report

Quoted By: >>2674827 >>2674831 >>2674847

Been thinking about getting a rangefinder and am looking at the Voigtlander R3M. (or R2M)

Any /p/hags currently own this or have owned it that can chime in with their thoughts on the camera?

Unfortunately buying something nice and used isn't really an option where I am, as post office theft and exorbitant customs fees prevent me from considering better deals that could be had in other countries, and the humid climate tends to promote decay in old things that are bereft of constant maintenance so the local used market presents slim pickings.

There's 2 Leica M-P's for about 4x the price of a new Bessa currently on the market, and a M3 that's about double the price - it's got some kind of custom, hammertone paint scheme? Whatever the fuck that is. I presume it lowers the resale value, hence why it's cheaper than it might have otherwise been.

And that's about it (well, some M6's that go for double the MP).

I'm intrigued by the R3M because of the possibility of battery free operation and that large viewfinder, well, that and the fact that its probably the least expensive route into rangefinder photography for me.

Looking at the Voigt Nokton 40mm as a first lens, I mean there are a bunch of Leica lenses available, but this Nokton interests me and is relatively cheap.

Bad idea?

Never used a rangefinder before. My last film camera was a Pentax compact about a decade ago.

I do wear glasses and have read that this can somehow interfere with seeing some of the frame lines (? can anyone elucidate on this concern? I don't quite understand how that could be the case - I've never had a problem with any DSLR VF.)

Any thoughts, recommendations or advice would be most welcome.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 26 Sep 2015 21:16:22 No.2674827 Report

Quoted By:

>>2674826
As a side note I might have to make a business trip to Hong Kong over the next fortnight, if anyone thinks I might find something more suitable there?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 26 Sep 2015 21:18:10 No.2674829 Report

Quoted By: >>2674840

>>2673102
DO NOT GET A 70-300. Get a 55-300. I know what you're gonna think but seriously. The 70-300 has so much trouble and I deal with people bitching to me all day. Theres a reason nikon puts a 55-200 in their bundles and not a 70-200

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 26 Sep 2015 21:23:48 No.2674831 Report

Quoted By: >>2675384

>>2674826
>battery free operation
Nice, but you can also get aperture priority, and LR44s are cheap, small, plentiful, and last a long time.
>Nokton 40
Good one.
>Range finder
Some find it fun, some find the lack of TTL viewfinder maddening.
>Framelines and glasses
I think that has more to do with eyepoint and viewfinder coverage.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 26 Sep 2015 21:43:33 No.2674840 Report

Quoted By:

>>2674829
niqqa what

are you talking about durability issues? because the glass is good, and focus/VR doesn't have any issues on my copy. The 55-200/300 is a slowtato and micromotors a shit.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 26 Sep 2015 22:27:21 No.2674847 Report

Quoted By: >>2675384

>>2674826
I've had both the r3a and r3m and sold the r3a.

The r3m viewfinder is bright but not that large. It's perfect if you like shooting with a 50mm lens but the 40mm framelines are barely visible and I don't even wear glasses. Even accurate, visible rangefinder framelines are just an estimation so I suppose you could shoot with a 40mm lens and just use the whole viewfinder to frame your shots but that's pretty retarded.

The focus patch is also very bright but as you get comfortable with shooting on a ragefinder you will probably start using it less. Zone focusing is much more practical, especially if you are shooting outside with a smaller aperture.

Also, you should keep in mind that the quality control on these guys isn't the best but it's mechanically simple enough to work on it yourself. The shutter speed/iso dial came loose at one point so I opened it up to see what the issue was. Whoever put the camera together forgot to use two screws to secure the dial and the one screw had come loose. Also, the coupling between the lens and the lens mount wasn't the most secure. It had a bit of give to it that you would feel when focusing that made it feel cheap.

I rarely shoot with it now and mostly use an old m3 while guessing the exposure with sunny 16, it works pretty well. I initially bought the r3m because I thought the 1:1 magnification would be nice but now I regret not getting the r4m instead. The r3m does nothing exceptionally and feels cheap, at least with the r4m you would have a camera that can do things no other can.

Why are you interested in ragefinders? If it's for the m-mount lenses it's odd you would choose a cv, not that they are bad but zeiss and leica lenses are obviously sharper. If it's for the form factor or discreteness there are better/cheaper options and if it's for the focusing mechanism like I said before you will probably not even use the focus patch very often. It's not a bad camera but there are better options.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 27 Sep 2015 00:16:49 No.2674888 Report

Quoted By: >>2674920 >>2674924

Whats the best value for money Canon used film camera? I wanna have a go at film photography

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 27 Sep 2015 01:26:07 No.2674916 Report

Quoted By: >>2675166 >>2675261

I need a new camera to travel with. I'll be going to SEAsia for 4 weeks. I want something small and compact that can do images. video recording is a plus. I need something small to put in out of my jacket. my friend wants to lend me his gh3 but I think it's too big and I don't want to fuck with lenses.

any ideas?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 27 Sep 2015 01:47:58 No.2674920 Report

Quoted By:

>>2674888
A Pentax ME Super

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 27 Sep 2015 01:55:54 No.2674922 Report

Quoted By:

Opinions on the chrome niko backpack or backpacks in general?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 27 Sep 2015 02:04:22 No.2674924 Report

Quoted By:

>>2674888
FTb
New F1
EOS 3

>T90 if you like ugly cameras.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 27 Sep 2015 02:06:14 No.2674927 Report

Quoted By: >>2674930

tips n tricks for the a6000?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 27 Sep 2015 02:12:08 No.2674930 Report

Quoted By: >>2675031

>>2674927
stop being a faggot
read your manual
learn how to use a camera
learn autofocus and metering modes
look online for methods to maximize battery life

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 27 Sep 2015 02:24:17 No.2674936 Report

Quoted By: >>2674957

Ihave a sony a7 and want a cheapish prime that isn't a 50/55mm. Ideas?

Currently have the kit and the 16-35mm

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 20141004_153131.jpg, 859KiB, 3264x1836

Anonymous Sun 27 Sep 2015 02:34:59 No.2674939 Report

Quoted By: >>2674940

So I'm taking my first step towards more serious photography by investing in a better camera. I'm currently planning on buying a Nikon D3300, even though a lot of sites have told me that mirrorless cameras are pretty much better in all regards at my price point (entry level). My rationale for my choice is that picking a DSLR is worth it for the better image quality (even if it's only marginal) and much larger lens selection (which will also be transferable if I decide to upgrade in the future). Can anyone give me a reason why I should in fact go for a mirrorless camera?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 27 Sep 2015 02:40:42 No.2674940 Report

Quoted By:

>>2674939
no

Goddamn I hate mirrorless

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 27 Sep 2015 04:06:44 No.2674957 Report

Quoted By:

>>2674936
28 F2
8

F
2

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 27 Sep 2015 04:22:05 No.2674962 Report

Quoted By: >>2674964

hey anon,
I am a photography newbie that wants to get into shooting artistic stills and short films, on a budget though.
I am considering getting the canon t5i 700d but i have heard that is outmatched in terms of video by the mirror-less Panasonic g7. Any thoughts?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 27 Sep 2015 04:25:41 No.2674964 Report

Quoted By:

>>2674962
second hand 600d

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 27 Sep 2015 04:33:48 No.2674968 Report

Quoted By:

javascript:quote('2674964')

really. but doesn't it just shoot 12 mins of video?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 27 Sep 2015 04:36:31 No.2674970 Report

Quoted By: >>2675014

I've been wanting to pick up an RX100 for some time now, but haven't been able to bring myself to due to the price.
I may be able to get one second hand for <$250, with the charger, a case, and a few memory cards; Would this be a decent deal and is there a good way to "test" it out before buying?
Of course I'll take a few photos, but are there any set tests I can do to see if there's something explicitly wrong with it?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 27 Sep 2015 06:19:01 No.2675002 Report

Quoted By: >>2675009

Hello /p/oint, click and u/p/load to FB!

Anyone with recommendations regarding an action cam, looking for something cheap currently at the Dazzne P3/P2 and SJCAM. Anyone can provide some feedback, can they really compare to GoPro Hero3?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 27 Sep 2015 06:55:43 No.2675009 Report

Quoted By: >>2675012

>>2675002
the gopro is quite bad, so it shouldn't be a problem to find something better for around 1/3 of the price.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 27 Sep 2015 06:59:35 No.2675012 Report

Quoted By:

>>2675009
Isn't the GoPro 4 the best action cam?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 27 Sep 2015 07:02:39 No.2675014 Report

Quoted By: >>2675016

>>2674970
go to a camera store.
isn't a new one costs $300?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 27 Sep 2015 07:12:36 No.2675016 Report

Quoted By:

>>2675014
Looking online (Amazon, Best Buy, etc) I've only seen the first gen for $450 or so, with the IV coming in at nearly 1K.

A quick google search brings up results in the mid-$300s, but still; If I could get it for $200 or so, that'd obviously be preferable.
That's already a decent chunk of a months pay for me.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 27 Sep 2015 08:53:32 No.2675031 Report

Quoted By: >>2675042

>>2674930
It doesn't come with a manual faggot, hence why I asked

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 27 Sep 2015 10:13:14 No.2675042 Report

Quoted By: >>2675202

>>2675031
Why would you want a gay partner handed to you with your camera? Is it related to your selection of a mirrorless camera?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 27 Sep 2015 10:14:51 No.2675044 Report

Quoted By:

I'm a photography student and I compete in some regional competitions for digital photography. I need to start working on my portfolio. Any good dslr cameras and a nice, cheap lens I should buy? Nothing too expensive on either side, but i'm willing to invest more on a lens then the body. Budget of about 1200. (only familiar with Canon at the moment)

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 27 Sep 2015 11:21:20 No.2675060 Report

Quoted By: >>2675061

bump for budgetaction cam

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 27 Sep 2015 11:23:17 No.2675061 Report

Quoted By: >>2675071

>>2675060
Mobius Action Cam. Hobbyking.com has all the accessories too and has EU, UK and USA stores.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 27 Sep 2015 11:39:16 No.2675071 Report

Quoted By: >>2675076

>>2675061
isn't the Mobius a lot worse than the SJCAM and Dazzne?

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO article-0-0EFA426700000578-545_6 (...).jpg, 85KiB, 634x428

Anonymous Sun 27 Sep 2015 11:42:51 No.2675073 Report

Quoted By: >>2675079 >>2675081

I'm taking some equipment to an island that requires a short RIB journey. A friend has lent me a Pelican Case but the insert is custom cut and the wrong shape for my equipment. Everything will be in its own padded bag but there's a significant amount of free space and I also want to put a tripod in there.

Time is limited so I can't order some new pick'n'pluck so would it be better to fill the empty space with beach towels or by putting the camera bags inside padded backpacks?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 27 Sep 2015 11:49:08 No.2675076 Report

Quoted By: >>2675078

>>2675071
You can't have EXC++ IQ on a budget.
You wanted a budget action camera, I suggested one. If you want good IQ then stop being poor and buy a GoPro.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 27 Sep 2015 11:50:53 No.2675078 Report

Quoted By: >>2675080

>>2675076
>good IQ
>GoPro

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 27 Sep 2015 11:50:58 No.2675079 Report

Quoted By: >>2675084

>>2675073
Buy a few packs of household sponge, cut to pieces, put them in soft cloth bags, fill in space.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 27 Sep 2015 11:51:59 No.2675080 Report

Quoted By: >>2675087

>>2675078
why are you a faggot?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 27 Sep 2015 11:52:09 No.2675081 Report

Quoted By:

>>2675073
The more squishy squish between the expensive camera and the hard object the better

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 27 Sep 2015 11:53:00 No.2675084 Report

Quoted By:

>>2675079
That's fucking ingenious, thanks man.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 27 Sep 2015 11:53:13 No.2675085 Report

Quoted By: >>2675089 >>2675094 >>2675099

What's a good upgrade from the 18-55 kit lens considering I like to take pics of flowers/insects/wildlife when I go hiking ?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 27 Sep 2015 11:54:08 No.2675087 Report

Quoted By: >>2675092

>>2675080
Why are you butthurt about your consumer grade crap?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 27 Sep 2015 11:54:45 No.2675089 Report

Quoted By: >>2675099

>>2675085
Nifty fifty.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 27 Sep 2015 11:55:46 No.2675092 Report

Quoted By:

>>2675087
You're the one who wants an action cam, not me. I have a real camera, in no ways I am in need of a shitty Action (tm) Camera

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 27 Sep 2015 11:57:52 No.2675094 Report

Quoted By: >>2675099 >>2675104

>>2675085
What size sensor? What do you feel that your current lense lacks? What sort of utility are you looking for out of this new lense?

It sounds like it's your first DSLR, so I'd say a good prime lense since they're a great addition to any kit. 50mm and 35mm are both good choices

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 27 Sep 2015 12:02:32 No.2675099 Report

Quoted By: >>2675103 >>2675104 >>2675113

>>2675085
>>2675089
>>2675094

I'm definitely buying a 50 soon, but I was more talking about macro/tele lens to take pictures of small things with more details, and be able to get closer without scaring them.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 27 Sep 2015 12:06:47 No.2675103 Report

Quoted By: >>2675142

>>2675099
>I was more talking about macro/tele lens

Like using a combination washer/dryer or choosing between a whore and a professional masseuse for a massage with a happy ending, you're never going to get both done competently by the same item/person.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 27 Sep 2015 12:08:05 No.2675104 Report

Quoted By:

>>2675099
>>2675094
50mm is too limiting on crop sensor, 35mm or 28mm is much more fitting for most situations.
Also if you like to shoot wildlife, a consumer grade telezoom is a good start, like the 70-200/4 Canon, 70-300 Nikon, 55-300 Pentax or similar.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 27 Sep 2015 12:40:19 No.2675113 Report

Quoted By: >>2675161

>>2675099
> to take pictures of small things with more details, and be able to get closer without scaring them
So I guess you want a 200mm macro lens?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 27 Sep 2015 13:39:10 No.2675142 Report

Quoted By: >>2675161

>>2675103
Combination washer / dryers are just fine, anon...

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 27 Sep 2015 14:34:00 No.2675161 Report

Quoted By:

>>2675142
>>2675113
A dedicated 100m macro lens is always better than a regular tele lens on extension tubes. They resolve much better on short distances, but they can also be used as regular tele lens with average to decent resolution on longer focal distances.
Get a macro lens, even a MF one will do, experiment with it. Doing macro is heaps of fun.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 27 Sep 2015 14:41:34 No.2675164 Report

Quoted By: >>2675168

I have had my camera for many years now. I am not a professional. I bought it because I have always loved cameras and shooting. I should have bought a lens cleaning kit and I still can if I need to. But I was wondering about safe ways to clean with what I have here at home.

I have seen conflicting opinions on message forums about using things such as eyeglass cleaner, distilled water, etc. I have eyeglass cleaner and cotton swabs. Will that type of cleaner damage my lens? I know to blow off large particles as much as possible first.

My lens is dirty enough that I notice the camera not judging bright sunlight properly because of glare from the dirt/oil/etc.

Thanks.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 27 Sep 2015 14:50:57 No.2675166 Report

Quoted By: >>2675169

>>2674916
>>2674916
bump. don't want to make a new thread

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 27 Sep 2015 14:51:04 No.2675168 Report

Quoted By: >>2675190

>>2675164
Pure isopropyl and clean(!) cotton pads. First blow off the larger particles then proceed to wipe off with the wet cotton. Hog off the majority of the mess with one then use another to clean it more. Repeat until clean. You can also use wet cleaning paper for glasses, but only if it is one of those smooth papers, we call it here "kodak paper".
Use cotton q-tips to clean narrow crevises around the glass.
Nothing fancy or special really, you don't actually need any "specialized" lens cleaning kit to clean your lenses. You can only scratch the glass if you push it hard down on the lens and there are larger hard particles on the surface or in the cotton pad.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 27 Sep 2015 14:52:36 No.2675169 Report

Quoted By: >>2675261

>>2675166
Ricoh GR or RX100. Get the GR if you can, and don't mind the fixed focal length.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 27 Sep 2015 15:17:17 No.2675190 Report

Quoted By: >>2675197

>>2675168
Thank you. I'll clean it up in a bit and give it "a shot."

ha ha ha

That's a little camera joke there for you.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 27 Sep 2015 15:28:02 No.2675197 Report

Quoted By:

>>2675190
I'd prefer you don't do that, telling camera jokes without warning.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 27 Sep 2015 15:32:47 No.2675202 Report

Quoted By: >>2675214

>>2675042
get that 300mm lens out of your ass faggot, the only thing thats gay here is your sense of humor

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 27 Sep 2015 15:36:42 No.2675206 Report

Quoted By:

is the RB67 worth it? i saw one while window shopping with a 90mm Sekkor C.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 27 Sep 2015 15:39:12 No.2675212 Report

Quoted By: >>2675218 >>2675220 >>2675270

Complete camera noob here, looking to get into photography without breaking the bank

Should I pick this up?

http://www.kijiji.ca/v-camera-camcorder-lens/city-of-halifax/nikon-d100-digital-slr-body/1105878794?enableSearchNavigationFlag=true

I've only ever shot on film so far so I don't know too much about digitals

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 27 Sep 2015 15:40:43 No.2675214 Report

Quoted By: >>2675249

>>2675202
Did I struck a nerve there? Do you feel so insecure to lash out like that? Are you suffering from ye olde closet syndrome? How about you learn to use commas the right way?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 27 Sep 2015 15:42:19 No.2675218 Report

Quoted By: >>2675224

>>2675212
Stay away from that shit. Get a D3100 or D3200, maybe a Pentax K-30 or K-50.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 27 Sep 2015 15:43:09 No.2675220 Report

Quoted By: >>2675224

>>2675212
god no

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 27 Sep 2015 15:45:20 No.2675224 Report

Quoted By:

>>2675220
>>2675218

Cheers

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO lumix-smart-camera-dmc-cm1_panas (...).png, 195KiB, 620x413

Anonymous Sun 27 Sep 2015 15:49:50 No.2675230 Report

Quoted By: >>2675241

Anyone used the Panasonic DMC CM1? The camera looks great and has dropped to £550. I just worry that it's too big for my pocket.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 27 Sep 2015 16:06:37 No.2675241 Report

Quoted By: >>2675243

>>2675230
It's an overglorified phone camera. Use your iPhone or get an actual real camera.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 27 Sep 2015 16:08:19 No.2675243 Report

Quoted By: >>2675245

>>2675241
It has a 1inch sensor though. That's several times bigger than an iPhone. Also an adjustable aperture.
It's about the same price as an iPhone though.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 27 Sep 2015 16:10:08 No.2675245 Report

Quoted By:

>>2675243
It is still a shit. If you want a compact camera, get a Ricoh GR.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO keyboard-warrior.jpg, 62KiB, 600x370

Anonymous Sun 27 Sep 2015 16:17:45 No.2675249 Report

Quoted By:

>>2675214
okay grammar nazi, you win

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 27 Sep 2015 16:29:28 No.2675255 Report

Quoted By:

ok, i'm >>2673811

just found this on woot.
Nikon D3200 24.2MP CMOS Digital SLR with 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 AF-S DX VR NIKKOR Zoom Lens

this seems like a fantastic deal considering the price and what i currently have available to me at a non back breaking price, any idea if its able to do some of what i said i would like?

>>2674533
I said what i have available to me so you get an idea of what an upgrade would be like, not asking how to do it with that crap.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO PhotoGrid_1443369696815.jpg, 365KiB, 720x720

Anonymous Sun 27 Sep 2015 16:29:45 No.2675256 Report

Quoted By:

It's not much but I have learned to use it quite well.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 27 Sep 2015 16:35:37 No.2675261 Report

Quoted By:

>>2674916
>>2675169
what about the Ricoh gr vs the lx100

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 27 Sep 2015 17:03:36 No.2675270 Report

Quoted By:

>>2675212
Yes, the pricing for the D3200 kit should now be very decent, and generally speaking it won't look too bad.

Stick a powerful flash on top of it and I guess you can get somewhere with that...

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 27 Sep 2015 17:12:49 No.2675274 Report

Quoted By: >>2675275 >>2675289 >>2675295

Wait a minute aren't cameras with the same sensor the same in terms of IQ? Like the Sony a6000 and the Ricoh Gr both have an aps c sensor

But the Ricoh is way more portable and yes I know you have lenses you can switch out on the a6000 but if you don't care about that the Ricoh gr wins because the image would literally just as good and detailed/sharp as the a6000 right?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 27 Sep 2015 17:19:55 No.2675275 Report

Quoted By:

>>2675274
Likebassume you have the cheapest 28mm lens or wait no the kit lens on the a600, were going for price point

Now I'm wondering why some cameras are more expensive

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 27 Sep 2015 17:53:06 No.2675289 Report

Quoted By: >>2675295 >>2675300

>>2675274
yes, cameras with the same sensor and equal quality glass would produce the same picture.

the ricoh and the sony neither have the same sensor or equal quality glass.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 27 Sep 2015 17:57:28 No.2675295 Report

Quoted By: >>2675300

>>2675274
It is as >>2675289 said.

I'd just like to add that APS-C is a sensor format (actually a set of formats about the same size - photography is just a mess of mostly proprietary standards).

It is not a specific sensor model as you seem to think.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 27 Sep 2015 18:06:10 No.2675300 Report

Quoted By: >>2675301 >>2675303 >>2675305 >>2675310

>>2675289
>>2675295
Wait its a sensor format? Are you saying like there can be an aps c sensor that has terrible pictures?

I need to go look this up. Does anyone know about Ricoh grs sensor? I want to know how good it is

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 27 Sep 2015 18:12:03 No.2675301 Report

Quoted By: >>2675330

>>2675300
If you compare two APS-C sensors of the same era and aimed at the same market and with the same megapixel count, then they should be similar. There will be small differences; some are better at high ISO, some are better at not overheating/long exposures, some are more reliable (fewer dead pixels). This is when megapixel count becomes important - what are you using the camera for? - as higher MP in general means worse performance at high ISO. Just as some full frame cameras are better at some things than others.

However, if you took (for example) a Sony a6000 and compared it with a Nikon D40; even though they both have APS-C sensors there would be a massive difference in IQ.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 27 Sep 2015 18:13:04 No.2675303 Report

Quoted By: >>2675330

>>2675300
>I want to know how good it is
it's good enough
and it's especially good enough for your purposes considering you didn't even know this basic stuff
heck, a 1" sensor would do you well enough

if you can't tell the difference, everything beyond the typical phone sensor is going to look good to you

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 27 Sep 2015 18:14:12 No.2675305 Report

Quoted By: >>2675330 >>2675349

>>2675300
Yes, it´s a format. APS-C is 1.5x crop (Sony, Nikon, Pentax, Ricoh) or 1.6x crop (Canon). APS-H is 1.3x crop (old Canon 1 series were split into the 1Ds (full frame) and the 1D (APS-H sensor, for longer reach and faster high speed burst) which was aimed at sports photographers).

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 27 Sep 2015 18:19:28 No.2675310 Report

Quoted By: >>2675313 >>2675330

>>2675300
>Wait its a sensor format? Are you saying like there can be an aps c sensor that has terrible pictures?
Yes. And yes, quite many actually.

By my standards, pretty much all 5-6 year old and older APS-C sensors are crap.
They almost all can't do low light well, they almost all have shitty dynamic range and pretty bad resolution.

Not that you *can't* take photos with those with a good lens and good light - but I prefer not working with devices that are largely worse than a modern smartphone (which, by the way, generally will have a sensor quite a bit smaller than APS-C).

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO ohboy.gif, 2MiB, 300x290

Anonymous Sun 27 Sep 2015 18:21:25 No.2675313 Report

Quoted By: >>2675315 >>2675328

>>2675310
>but I prefer not working with devices that are largely worse than a modern smartphone

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 27 Sep 2015 18:26:04 No.2675315 Report

Quoted By: >>2675325 >>2675328 >>2675332 >>2675335

>>2675313
Current smartphone are better than 6 year old cameras admit it

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 27 Sep 2015 18:32:11 No.2675325 Report

Quoted By:

>>2675315

No, that's an idiotic claim that instantly dismisses anything else you would have to say.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 27 Sep 2015 18:34:14 No.2675328 Report

Quoted By: >>2675335

>>2675313
>>2675315
Yep, modern smartphones are better than such older APS-C cameras, no doubt.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 27 Sep 2015 18:34:26 No.2675330 Report

Quoted By: >>2675331 >>2675337

>>2675301
>>2675303
>>2675305
>>2675310

Thanks guys apparently I still have stuff to learn. Anyone know where I can compare sensors?

>>2675301
If you don't mind, what would be the difference between the two in terms of IQ, this stuff interests me

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 27 Sep 2015 18:36:51 No.2675331 Report

Quoted By:

>>2675330
>Thanks guys apparently I still have stuff to learn. Anyone know where I can compare sensors?
http://dxomark.com for instance.

Most professional camera reviews also have samples and sometimes direct comparisons of some sensor+lens combinations.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 27 Sep 2015 18:40:01 No.2675332 Report

Quoted By: >>2675356 >>2675358

>>2675315
Nah.

I've got a seven year old 10 mp Lumix sitting around and would rather use it than my higher mp phone camera.

Ergo is better, glass is way better, even the small sensor is larger, AF is better, it's got a hot shoe, I can shoot in a variety of modes including full manual, I can shoot manual focus, RAW, the list goes on.

Only a true gear fag thinks the megapixel count and high ISO performance decides a cameras quality.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 27 Sep 2015 18:45:22 No.2675335 Report

Quoted By: >>2675345 >>2675356 >>2675358

>>2675315
>>2675328

Nonsense.

Maybe with a shitty zoom lens, but with a decent prime any 6 year old APS-C will blow away any smartphone.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 27 Sep 2015 18:46:47 No.2675337 Report

Quoted By: >>2675344 >>2675346 >>2675352 >>2675354

>>2675330
>If you don't mind, what would be the difference between the two in terms of IQ
It's not that simple
You can have the best sensor in the world but paired with a shithouse lens and a crummy image processor and you're still going to get shit pics

pair this with a lack of skill and you might as well use a phone camera for everything

sensor
processor
lens
most important of all: how to use it

knowing the inside and out of a system, all its strengths and limitations, and you can achieve great images regardless of gross technicalities and other wankery

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 27 Sep 2015 18:55:11 No.2675344 Report

Quoted By: >>2675354

>>2675337
This.
If you don't know what you're doing, buying something deemed "the best" by everything on the internet doesn't necessarily grant you the instant ability to generate good images.
Some slob who buys an expensive paintbrush that famous professional painters favor doesn't suddenly become a Michelangelo.

Keep this in mind and don't get too caught up in all the bullshit. Buy something within your means that's good enough for your current purposes. You might not need any more, nor may you find this hobby to your liking and plonking down thousands for gear you can hardly understand let alone use is fucking retarded imo.

Someone who buys a racing car isn't suddenly a racecar driver.

Sure, learn the differences and distinctions so you can make an informed opinion, but don't get carried away.

You have been advised and forewarned.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 27 Sep 2015 18:55:24 No.2675345 Report

Quoted By: >>2675348

>>2675335
I don't know man iPhone have pretty good cameras, especially the new one, Galaxy too.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 27 Sep 2015 18:56:23 No.2675346 Report

Quoted By: >>2675352

>>2675337
Except phone cameras have shit controls.
So a good photographer can't make the best of them, it all dependents on what the computer wants.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 27 Sep 2015 18:58:00 No.2675348 Report

Quoted By: >>2675357

>>2675345
Then why do all those underwear selfies taken in bathroom mirrors look like shit?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 27 Sep 2015 18:58:10 No.2675349 Report

Quoted By:

>>2675305
>APS-H is 1.3x crop (old Canon
How come nobody else adopted this format? Was it just because Canon were the only ones making this sensor size? I don't recall ever seeing anything else with a 1.3 crop factor.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 27 Sep 2015 18:59:27 No.2675352 Report

Quoted By:

>>2675346
>So a good photographer can't make the best of them
see
>>2675337
>knowing the inside and out of a system, all its strengths and limitations, and you can achieve great images

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 27 Sep 2015 19:03:26 No.2675354 Report

Quoted By: >>2675364

>>2675337
Oh man now there's processors to worry about? This is too much

>>2675337
>>2675344

Well I mean the difference is that with a decent camera the terrible photos would at least look good and and negate my lack of skill by a little bit

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 365Astronomy-microstage-iphone-c (...).jpg, 126KiB, 1024x738

Anonymous Sun 27 Sep 2015 19:07:46 No.2675356 Report

Quoted By:

>>2675332
>>2675335
You must have missed that I was comparing *sensors* primarily. It was pretty explicit.

If you want, you can also compare a smartphone to 5-6 year old APS-C kits.

Of course, once you use many accessories and stuff, things. Well, unless you do the same on smartphones - which is less a consumer-ready affair, but feasible.

> In b4 muh automatic phone controlled 360 degree panorama on a robot arm vs. your shitty manual pan tilt head 'cause your camera can't control robot arms

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 27 Sep 2015 19:08:29 No.2675357 Report

Quoted By:

>>2675348
Because they were taken in 2010, not 2014+

Go look at iphone6s underwear selfies and then come back. If only I hadn't deleted the bookmark to the.tumblr dedicated to those.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 365Astronomy-microstage-iphone-c (...).jpg, 126KiB, 1024x738

Anonymous Sun 27 Sep 2015 19:10:13 No.2675358 Report

Quoted By: >>2675359

>>2675332
>>2675335
You must have missed that I was comparing *sensors* primarily. It was pretty explicit.

If you want, you can also compare a smartphone to 5-6 year old APS-C kits.

Of course, once you use many accessories and stuff, things change. Well, unless you do the same on smartphones - which is less a consumer-ready affair, but feasible.

> In b4 muh automatic phone controlled 360 degree panorama on a robot arm vs. your shitty manual pan tilt head 'cause your camera can't control robot arms

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 27 Sep 2015 19:12:19 No.2675359 Report

Quoted By: >>2675363 >>2675373

>>2675358

The sensors are explicitly shit compared to any APS-C camera.

I say this as someone with the fucking two day old iphone 6s AND an aps-c released in 2008.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 27 Sep 2015 19:15:25 No.2675363 Report

Quoted By: >>2675367

>>2675359
How do you know the sensor in your phone is shit? You've only hadbit for two days...

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 27 Sep 2015 19:16:35 No.2675364 Report

Quoted By:

>>2675354
>Well I mean the difference is that with a decent camera the terrible photos would at least look good and and negate my lack of skill by a little bit
Not really.
Shit photos are shit regardless of what camera they were taken on.
Buying a decent camera doesn't mean you will shoot with the correct exposure, and with appropriate focus etc.

You'd also have to learn how to post-process to make your pics which is a whole other field of necessary skills in itself. This can help you mitigate a lack of skill to a degree, but not enough that the camera itself can "save" your pics.

Just buy something already and start learning how to take pics. If you pussyfoot for too long you'll never get anything done.
Choose from one of the various popular beginner systems in whatever class and be done with it. The research has been done for you since so many have trod on the same road. All you have to do is make a quick decision and hand over some money.

You want the ability to experiment with different focal lengths? Get the A6k or whatever ILC system you want from whichever brand.

Want a highly capable but fixed lens compact? The GR.

Want a capable high end compact that is kind of a swiss army knife? Sony rx100 series or Canon g7x.

Shoo.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 27 Sep 2015 19:17:11 No.2675367 Report

Quoted By:

>>2675363

You don't need to put it through wringer to see that it just doesn't hold up compared to my D300.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 6s-photosample-6.png, 2MiB, 1200x1121

Anonymous Sun 27 Sep 2015 19:22:40 No.2675373 Report

Quoted By: >>2675376

>>2675359
I disagree with you, and I don't even have an Iphone 6s.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/phonewisdom/sets/72157647661358346/

https://bgr.com/2015/09/23/iphone-6s-plus-camera-samples/

These photos aren't the same as a 6 year old APS-C sensor can produce, sorry. The noise in the black areas, DR and more is just better.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 27 Sep 2015 19:25:37 No.2675376 Report

Quoted By:

>>2675373

>These photos aren't the same as a 6 year old APS-C sensor can produce, sorry.

They're actually much worse. Sorry.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 27 Sep 2015 19:39:19 No.2675384 Report

Quoted By:

>>2674831
>>2674847
Thanks for the replies guys.

>>2674847
>Also, you should keep in mind that the quality control on these guys isn't the best
Disheartening to hear, but not unexpected.
>but it's mechanically simple enough to work on it yourself.
Well that's good. I don't mind working and tweaking something myself a little if need be.
>The r3m does nothing exceptionally and feels cheap
Like I said, it's probably the cheapest m-mount rangefinder I can get a hold of currently.
>Why are you interested in ragefinders?
Just curiosity on a system I've hitherto ignored. I became enamored with some MF rangefinders, like the fuji gw690/ii/iii's, and thought that if I was going to go through the difficulties of getting one from where I am I might as well take a crack at a 35mm rangefinder just to get a taste of the system.

>It's not a bad camera but there are better options.
Lack of cheaper available options, like I said, and I would like to keep the cost low in the off chance I find that the system is not for me. There's no capacity to rent gear in my country, and like I said, the only other RF's for sale are used Leica's that cost significantly more.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Watari-1.png, 226KiB, 773x765

Anonymous Sun 27 Sep 2015 19:41:42 No.2675386 Report

Quoted By: >>2675391 >>2675392 >>2675397

hi guys

lx100 vs Ricoh gr vs anything else?

need a slim(ish) travel camera to take with me. mostly photos, but want video also. will take to Asia for a forty day trip. any ideas?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 27 Sep 2015 19:47:17 No.2675391 Report

Quoted By:

>>2675386
Just get an iPhone 6S.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 27 Sep 2015 19:49:24 No.2675392 Report

Quoted By: >>2675400

>>2675386
RX100 IV if you can afford it.

Otherwise, the Ricoh Gr should be a little better for photos, the LX100 better for video.

Realistically though, if I went to do that, I'd probably carry an IL camera. Screw slim.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 27 Sep 2015 19:55:13 No.2675397 Report

Quoted By:

>>2675386
>need a slim(ish) travel camera to take with me. mostly photos, but want video also. will take to Asia for a forty day trip
unless you are familiar with and have a predilection for a 28mm fov, the lx100's going to be a lot more versatile for your general purposes

if you wanted or needed the gr, you'd probably already own it as you'd be familiar with what it's good at and what it's not so good at

besides, the panasonic has IS; some IS is better than no IS for video, unless you're fond of the shaky as fuck 10s clip

of these two, get the panasonic
if you actually want something pocketable, then the sony rx100m3 would be fine. there's always the canon g7x or sony rx100m2 if you're on more of a budget.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 27 Sep 2015 20:04:03 No.2675400 Report

Quoted By: >>2675408

>>2675392
Not that guy but what do you mean realistically?

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Nikon-NIKKOR-24mm-f2.8-Ai-S.jpg, 53KiB, 500x500

Anonymous Sun 27 Sep 2015 20:10:49 No.2675406 Report

Quoted By: >>2675407 >>2675415

Since the 24mm f/1.8G and 28mm f/1.8G are bullshit expensive, what is the best 24 or 28mm AI-S or D series lens? Going on a D3.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 27 Sep 2015 20:12:25 No.2675407 Report

Quoted By: >>2675413 >>2675415

>>2675406
How much are they?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 27 Sep 2015 20:12:36 No.2675408 Report

Quoted By:

>>2675400
Well, it is what I'd actually do.

Not bring a super small camera, but a good IL camera. Even if it is bigger.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 27 Sep 2015 20:16:38 No.2675413 Report

Quoted By: >>2675417

>>2675407

24mm f/1.8G = $750
24mm f/1.4G = $2200
28mm f/1.8G = $700

Sigma 24mm f/1.4 Art = $850

If I'm going to pay that much I'd rather put it towards the Tamron 15-30mm f/2.8 VC

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 27 Sep 2015 20:17:47 No.2675415 Report

Quoted By:

>>2675406
>>2675407
> a bit under $700
> bullshit expensive
Uh, no.

But perhaps have a look at the Samyang / Rokinons, or indeed, legacy nikons.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 27 Sep 2015 20:18:47 No.2675416 Report

Quoted By:

>>2675412

New thread

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 27 Sep 2015 20:20:11 No.2675417 Report

Quoted By: >>2675418 >>2675459

>>2675413
Are lenses normally this much?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 27 Sep 2015 20:24:52 No.2675418 Report

Quoted By:

>>2675417
Depends on IQ, special elements and maximum aperture size, but yes, lens are usually expensive
Cheap ones are the mass produced primes like 50/1.8 or 35/1.8 and there are the vintage and kind of older film era manual focus lenses.
In some cases there are screw drive focus film era AF lenses that are more expensive than the manual ones but still more affordable than the new ones.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 27 Sep 2015 21:18:23 No.2675459 Report

Quoted By:

>>2675417
Very good lenses are usually $800 or more, yes. The vast majority of those lenses however also costs less than $5000.

Only a bunch of lenses are around or above $10k. Mostly wildlife super telephoto primes or astrophotography telescopes come to my mind there. (Well, plus Leica Noctilux-M APSH 50mm f/0.95 and a select very few other such lenses.)

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 29 Sep 2015 18:57:54 No.2676732 Report

Quoted By:

I'm considering a 70-300 for my Nikon d5500. What would be my best bet, Nikon or Tamron? or is there one that would be better?

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Verified Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Manager Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts Only Founder Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images Only Spoiler Images Only Non-Spoiler Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

On these archives

Your latest searches

Gear Thread