/p/ - Photography » Thread #2896806

[311 / 38 / ?]

124KiB, 1871x603, 324324234.jpg

/gear/ Thread - Meme4/3 a shit edition

Anonymous Fri 05 Aug 2016 17:54:20 No.2896806 View View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>2897138 >>2897288 >>2897417 >>2897906 >>2899046 >>2899550 >>2900087

old one reached BUMP limit.

Meme4/3 a shit edition.

Anything about Lenses, Cameras, mounts, Systems, buying, pricing, selling, etc. GOES IN HERE!

Do not attempt to make a new thread for your shit MFturds, inferior Olympus glass, ugly plastic Panasonic and being new.
No pointless (brand) arguments and dickwaving allowed! You have been warned! Just questions, answers and advice!

I repeat, ANYTHING GEAR RELATED goes in here!

And don't forget, be polite!

Old Thread:
>>2895302

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 05 Aug 2016 19:23:42 No.2896863 Report

Quoted By: >>2896894 >>2896896

Got a deal on a Nikon D7100 for $400 body only. I have a Nikon D90 for three years now. Should I do it? Will I have usable shots at iso 3200 now?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 05 Aug 2016 19:39:44 No.2896881 Report

Quoted By: >>2897408 >>2897481 >>2897712

just bought a fuji xt10
what am i getting into?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 05 Aug 2016 19:50:03 No.2896894 Report

Quoted By: >>2896896

>>2896863
>Will I have usable shots at iso 3200 now?
Nope. Lowest Nikon for decent ISO 3200 performance is the D600. You gotta go fool frame brah

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 05 Aug 2016 19:53:32 No.2896896 Report

Quoted By:

>>2896863
That is a really amazing deal.
7100 is a great camera.
And just ignore him>>2896894

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 05 Aug 2016 20:39:34 No.2896928 Report

Quoted By:

>6 months into photography as a dedicated hobby
>be out for 4 days on a trip
>shooting lots of stuff, events, landscapes
>talking to other photographers/videographers
>gathered lots of experience
>can't wait to take my gear out for a spin again
>return
>go into recent threads to share pictures
>visit /gear/ thread
>shitload of shitposting
>gearfaggotry
>people arguing about pixels and sensors and f-stops and dynamic range and compactness and speed and stabilization and autofocus and and and
>suddenly become doubtful about my gear
>think about getting better lenses
>buy a lens out of impulse
>think about switching systems
>look online what I can get for my gear
>spend sunny days inside doing these things
>friend tells me he wants to do a bicycle tour
>come with him and take some small gear
>experience the same high as with the long weekend
>learned more stuff
>realize /gear/-threads are literally making me a worse photographer and an unhappier person

Jesus Christ, frequenters must be miserable people.

BJDrew !!LkyLqEm9G0v

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 8186179137_d4dcca43ac_o.jpg, 766KiB, 1500x998

BJDrew !!LkyLqEm9G0v Fri 05 Aug 2016 20:40:13 No.2896929 Report

Quoted By: >>2896983

Was going through old Flickr.

It is disgusting that this is basically a SOOC image from a 50 year old lens and a noisy CCD sensor.

I want every photo to look like this.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 05 Aug 2016 20:46:25 No.2896934 Report

Quoted By: >>2897145

Shooting on a 5D

I'm finding 50mm and even 40mm really cramped and claustrophobic. What should I look at?

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO tumblr_o4fivigGRG1s9l9gio1_1280.jpg, 78KiB, 640x1136

Anonymous Fri 05 Aug 2016 20:50:45 No.2896938 Report

Quoted By: >>2896944

Alright fuck-idiot experts I have a thread for you.

I shoot w/ a Nikon D3300

I do nightlife photography and attempt to do model photography.

I bought the cheap 35mm 1.8 Lens which is working great for daytime modeling shooting.

I mostly still use the stock lens of the Nikon to do my "nightlife" photography, which is a mindfuck considering I bought a new lens.

Can anyone direct my dumbass to a lens I can happily shoot "nightlife/nightclub" photography without being a douche w/ the stock lens??

I do use an external flash. Thx - Greg

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 05 Aug 2016 20:56:08 No.2896944 Report

Quoted By: >>2896948 >>2896952

>>2896938
You only deleted the picture...

Anyway, what don't you like about your kit lens? I mean it sounds like you like what it's doing for you just fine, you just don't like the idea of using a kit lens, and if you're using a flash, the slowness of the lens isn't that big of a deal.

Anyway, the sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 is a great fast zoom, but you'll be restricted to 50ish mm FoV on the long end. In any event, for doing stuff like club photography, you'll tend to want to use zooms for the flexibility when it comes to framing. Sometimes you just can't move closer or farther away.

Basically, tell us what you're looking for a little more in depth and we can give better recs.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 05 Aug 2016 20:59:02 No.2896948 Report

Quoted By: >>2896951 >>2896956

>>2896944

I want more than a stock lens while shooting at stupid "clubs" and idiot "Djs" some thing that maybe bends the back ground slightly. You surely have a better suggestion that the D3300 kit lens.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 05 Aug 2016 21:00:53 No.2896951 Report

Quoted By: >>2896954

>>2896948
So you want a pancake lens?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 05 Aug 2016 21:00:57 No.2896952 Report

Quoted By:

>>2896944
Apart from the zooming problem what setting can I use on the 18-34mm to get the subject I want focused instead of the back ground ?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 05 Aug 2016 21:04:54 No.2896954 Report

Quoted By: >>2896987

>>2896951
What setting do you suggest w/ a 18-35 at a club?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 05 Aug 2016 21:05:33 No.2896956 Report

Quoted By: >>2896957 >>2896958

>>2896948
>I want more than a stock lens while shooting at stupid "clubs" and idiot "Djs" some thing that maybe bends the back ground slightly. You surely have a better suggestion that the D3300 kit lens.
I'm assuming by "bends the background" you mean shallow depth of field, so yeah, give the 18-35mm f/1.8 a shot.

That said, I think right now your biggest problem is you don't seem to have the first clue about what you're doing and need to correct that.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 05 Aug 2016 21:07:10 No.2896957 Report

Quoted By: >>2896959

>>2896956
I accepted the fact I such ass a making music and photography. Im 25 fuck it! I'm going out and sucking ass tonight and then tomorrow go shoot some mediocre model. It's better than nothing.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 05 Aug 2016 21:08:23 No.2896958 Report

Quoted By:

>>2896956
Also, don't you think I tried 1.8 at a damn club fuckhead. I got some "ok" shots.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 05 Aug 2016 21:08:30 No.2896959 Report

Quoted By: >>2896962 >>2896968

>>2896957
google "triangle setting explanation" and "photography depth of field" to begin with.

Learn how to use what you have before dropping dosh for more gear.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 05 Aug 2016 21:09:57 No.2896962 Report

Quoted By:

>>2896959
ok gracias señor ill probably fuck off out of here because i have enough information.

Thanks for Florida dickface

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 05 Aug 2016 21:13:46 No.2896968 Report

Quoted By: >>2896980

>>2896959
when using the 1.8 tonight what F stop is recommended considering club setting and external flash ? ? its just the depth of field i want to achieve correct?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 05 Aug 2016 21:21:42 No.2896980 Report

Quoted By:

>>2896968
When using a strobe, aperture determines both depth of field and the exposure of the subject.
Shutter speed determines the amount of motion blur and the exposure of the background.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO R0220046.jpg, 279KiB, 530x800

Anonymous Fri 05 Aug 2016 21:23:24 No.2896983 Report

Quoted By: >>2896991 >>2897047 >>2897109 >>2898050 >>2899448

>>2896929
>rockwell beckons you closer
But seriously, why do you think fujifags like their cameras so much? Getting nice SOOC colours is the most important thing.
The problem with canikon is that their sheer ubiquity has made their standard palettes boring to us, but their professional market means they're never going to deviate from them.
Canon colours or Nikon colours have become a baseline from which they do all of their processing and people expect consistency between models.
These days whenever I use my GR it's in slide film emulation mode with a blue base tint and slightly warmed up WB, and I find that I'm usually happy to either post them directly, or do any editing I want from those jpgs.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 05 Aug 2016 21:26:49 No.2896987 Report

Quoted By:

>>2896954
fuckin crank that ISO up boi

There's a ton of low light guides out, concert/indoor event photography is super popular.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 05 Aug 2016 21:33:30 No.2896991 Report

Quoted By: >>2897013

>>2896983
stop posting this.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO R0210042.jpg, 269KiB, 533x800

Anonymous Fri 05 Aug 2016 22:13:07 No.2897013 Report

Quoted By: >>2897230

>>2896991
Soz breh, I don't use the GR very much, so when I want to make this point I default to this image.
This is the other one I like to use :3

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 05 Aug 2016 22:16:35 No.2897015 Report

Quoted By: >>2897017 >>2897020 >>2897025 >>2897031 >>2897272

So doing a quick budget of swapping out my entire EF mount kit to go to F mount;

Selling off (EF gear);
Canon EOS 6D (+$750)
EF 17-40mm f/4L USM (+$400)
EF 50mm f/1.8 STM (+$60)
Speedlite 430EX II (+$130)

Buying (F-Mount);
Nikon D600 (-$530)
Speedlight SB-5000 (-$500)

Net loss (rebuying lenses);
Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 VC USD (-$300)
Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 VC USD (-$400)
Sigma 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6 HSM II (-$450)

This is starting to sound like a bad idea to me /p/, starting to regret this move...

I just wanted a dual-memory card slot and this seems like it's just going to hurt me bad :(

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 05 Aug 2016 22:19:29 No.2897017 Report

Quoted By:

>>2897015
>This is starting to sound like a bad idea to me /p/, starting to regret this move...
>I just wanted a dual-memory card slot and this seems like it's just going to hurt me bad :(
It is a bad move, especially just for dual slots. I mean seriously, all of that pain in the ass for something that doesn't really matter all that much?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 05 Aug 2016 22:21:59 No.2897020 Report

Quoted By:

>>2897015
That's a net loss of $800+ just for that additional SD card slot. I can just buy a 5D MK III by selling off the 6D, D600 and the 17-40mm f/4L USM (which I don't use anyway)...

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 05 Aug 2016 22:29:45 No.2897025 Report

Quoted By: >>2897026

>>2897015
Just buy a second SD card and shove it up your ass. If you're going to switch to Nikon at least get something good like a D700 or D800. Not that going from one DSLR to another is going to make any difference at all, and not that I advise switching systems after having done it and regretted it and gone back. What are you even going to accomplish with this shit? Why do you need to cover every single focal length from 12mm to 200mm with overlap? Buy some good first-party prime lenses instead of all that big heavy zoom Tampon garbage and go back to taking pictures.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 05 Aug 2016 22:31:29 No.2897026 Report

Quoted By: >>2897028

>>2897025
Work nigga. 12-24 for nightclubs, 24-70 and 70-200 for my events photography (aka bread and butter).

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 05 Aug 2016 22:35:29 No.2897028 Report

Quoted By: >>2897030

>>2897026
Honestly, if you are considering making a move, 80D would make more sense.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 05 Aug 2016 22:45:47 No.2897030 Report

Quoted By:

>>2897028
I hope you're just pretending to be retarded.

Get a smaller sensor? You're fucking dumb as shit.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 05 Aug 2016 22:52:19 No.2897031 Report

Quoted By:

>>2897015
Hmm just realized that I can just sell off the D600 and buy another 6D... not only will I have to SD card slots, but I'll have a dedicated tele/bokehprime body!

I'm a fucking genius!

BJDrew !!LkyLqEm9G0v

BJDrew !!LkyLqEm9G0v Fri 05 Aug 2016 23:21:39 No.2897047 Report

Quoted By:

>>2896983
The impressive thing about this to me is the color of that darker red car almost right in center of frame. I can't describe it clearly -b but that's really good color for a deep shadow area. This is where a Canon would fall apart. Sony too for that matter.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO image.jpg, 48KiB, 720x322

Anonymous Sat 06 Aug 2016 01:18:14 No.2897107 Report

Quoted By: >>2897209 >>2897217 >>2898130 >>2898143

>mfturds
>It is compact they said, it will be smaller than an aps-c they said.

ቖ !z55cZmEHMI

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO FOTO6807_v1.jpg, 414KiB, 1000x667

ቖ !z55cZmEHMI Sat 06 Aug 2016 01:22:43 No.2897109 Report

Quoted By:

>>2896983
Precisely the reason I bought the xpro2 and have been shooting it the way I have.
I've found I'm able to get where I want wayyyy quicker with the flexibility of the film simulations. I mostly just do curves over those these days, if anything at all.

ቖ !z55cZmEHMI

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO FOTO9007_v1.jpg, 310KiB, 1000x667

ቖ !z55cZmEHMI Sat 06 Aug 2016 01:24:51 No.2897111 Report

Quoted By:

While I've still got my raw files, particularly so I can push them whatever way I want in camera if I want after the shot, their presence on my PC/backup is largely a redundancy at this point for me.

...and that's made all the more hilarious I guess by the sheer filesize of xpro2 raws.

ቖ !z55cZmEHMI

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO FOTO8770_v1.jpg, 404KiB, 1000x667

ቖ !z55cZmEHMI Sat 06 Aug 2016 01:25:56 No.2897116 Report

Quoted By:

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 06 Aug 2016 02:22:39 No.2897133 Report

Quoted By: >>2897135 >>2897143

What photo hosting service is free, allows uploads of possibly hundreds of photos categorized into 'folders', and doesn't steal your photos like Facebook and Google?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 06 Aug 2016 02:25:14 No.2897135 Report

Quoted By:

>>2897133
Those don't steal your photos, and frankly if you're anal about that shit, just make your own site. It's easy as fuck.

More Gold Medals

More Gold Medals Sat 06 Aug 2016 02:28:33 No.2897137 Report

Quoted By: >>2897207

what's a good camera between the price of 400-1000?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 06 Aug 2016 02:29:48 No.2897138 Report

Quoted By:

>>2896806
>using an olympus pen digital ever

The Olympus Pen lineup is the worse of the Olympus lineup. You should get and OMD EM10 instead or an pen lite or a pen micro if you want something smaller.
The pen lite is good because it is small, same sensor as the pen and has features that casuals love like selfie screen. The original pen half frame cameras are indeed aimed at casuals.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 06 Aug 2016 02:40:51 No.2897143 Report

Quoted By:

>>2897133
Your own website and web server. I agree with the other guy. It's simple. Just use a template, and google what to type.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 06 Aug 2016 02:44:26 No.2897145 Report

Quoted By:

>>2896934
24, 28, maybe 21? It's difficult to find a cheap lens in that range because they dont make as many

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 06 Aug 2016 05:09:51 No.2897207 Report

Quoted By: >>2897241

>>2897137
For what purpose? Sports, landscape, travel, detail, film,digital?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 06 Aug 2016 05:11:01 No.2897209 Report

Quoted By: >>2897312

>>2897107
Good point, but dumb photo. RX100 series have smaller sensors.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Canon-Printer-PIXMA-PRO-1-03.png, 206KiB, 640x480

Anonymous Sat 06 Aug 2016 05:20:06 No.2897215 Report

Quoted By:

I bought a Canon Pro 1 pigment printer for $700 with about 10 spare inks and generally pretty full carts inside.
I'll be using it to print my colour film scans.
Anybody have some sweet recommendations for paper, or general use of this thing?
I'm moderately concerned that taking on my own printing is where my rejection of Adobe Bloatoshop in favour of GIMP will come to bite me in the ass.
As far as paper goes, my preference for real photo paper is cooltone doubleweight glossy fibre, which I do not tone or finish in a print burnisher/hot press/whatever they're called. This gives good contrast, but leaves the paper still with a bit of tooth. I'm thinking that for colour pigment printing, a nice matte paper with the chroma optimiser finish over the top will come close?
>also how fucked am I for ink costs???

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 06 Aug 2016 05:22:07 No.2897217 Report

Quoted By: >>2897312

>>2897107
That's a 1 inch sensor on the Rx 100.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 06 Aug 2016 05:43:51 No.2897230 Report

Quoted By: >>2897332

>>2897013
Please explain your jpeg settings.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 06 Aug 2016 06:01:14 No.2897241 Report

Quoted By: >>2897247

>>2897207
Travel, detail, and digital

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 06 Aug 2016 06:28:03 No.2897247 Report

Quoted By: >>2897314 >>2897374

>>2897241
Sony RX100 MK VI if you can find it on sale but the MK III is still breddy gudd.

If you can stand something a bit bigger but the ability to swap out lenses, the Sony a6000 series is awesome as well.

I personally have a Canon EOS M3 but it's far from the best camera you can get for the money.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 06 Aug 2016 07:23:33 No.2897266 Report

Quoted By: >>2898136

Looking for a compact. Not interested in a hybrid, i just want a compact.

What's the best compact currently, canon powershot ?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 06 Aug 2016 07:37:34 No.2897272 Report

Quoted By:

>>2897015
Just get rid of your 6D for a 5D II you fucking cuck

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 06 Aug 2016 08:30:34 No.2897288 Report

Quoted By: >>2897312

>>2896806
>No pointless (brand) arguments and dickwaving allowed!
B-but I want to wave muh dick. Fuck you man!

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 06 Aug 2016 09:13:38 No.2897312 Report

Quoted By:

>>2897288
There's no one here arguing against a brand. M4/3 is a system and it really has no purpose in the photographic world.

>>2897209
>>2897217
>That's a 1 inch sensor on the Rx 100.

Yet it shoots better photos and has better low light capabilities than the mft.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 06 Aug 2016 09:21:31 No.2897314 Report

Quoted By: >>2897523

>>2897247
Any feelings about the m3 other than not the best for money? I have a few canon lenses; and, although I'd like to get an a6000, I don't want to have to sell all of my gear to switch. What do?

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO fiber.jpg, 14KiB, 448x363

Anonymous Sat 06 Aug 2016 09:42:54 No.2897323 Report

Quoted By: >>2897335 >>2897559

I'm looking for a portrait lens or standard lens for the olympus pen that I got from my sister. I only own the kit lens.
I found someone selling online locally a used Panasonic (Lumix) Leica DG Summilux 25mm f/1.4 ASPH Lens lens for $320.Brand new it costs $600. Is this a good deal?

The only problem is that it has a strand of fiber behind the rear element. Pic related. The seller says it doesn't affect picture quality but I have doubts. What do you think?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 06 Aug 2016 10:13:01 No.2897332 Report

Quoted By:

>>2897230
Hey, they are as follows.

Effect - Positive Film (Vividness 7 Contrast 3 Sharpness 5 Vignetting Off)
Aperture Priority starting at 2.8
Evaluative Metering
Auto ISO (I think it shifts at 1/80 between 100 and 400; 1/40 for higher ISO's)
Evaluative WB with a shift to warm
Spot AF

I set it up as a custom settings bank when a female friend asked me if she could borrow it to take pics at a wedding, she wanted it to 'just take nice photos'. I now use it all the time.
It turns my point and shoot into a point and shoot.
It's great.

Shooting film really makes you realise that digital "image quality" is a meme; they all have more than enough resolution for most uses and can take photos practically in the dark.
The differences between good and bad pics all come down to the lense and the nut behind the wheel taking the photo and processing it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 06 Aug 2016 10:17:31 No.2897334 Report

Quoted By:

I am looking to put together a budget wildlife kit. Something like a sharp manual tele lens like the Tair 300/4.5 or the Canon FD 300 L on a mirrorless body.
Fuji seems like too much of a hassle to work with after and Sony has a huge bling tax over here.
The E-M5 II or the E-M1 both give stabilisation and works like a 2x extender. If I can afford a longer AF zoom lens later which one offers me the better AF? So far I'll be using manual and both are great for my uses so the deciding factor has to be the better AF capability for later.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO fiber2.jpg, 8KiB, 443x417

Anonymous Sat 06 Aug 2016 10:19:24 No.2897335 Report

Quoted By: >>2897406 >>2897559

>>2897323
Here's another photo. I encircled the fiber inside the lens. It's right inside the rear element.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 06 Aug 2016 12:25:30 No.2897374 Report

Quoted By: >>2897523

>>2897247

Is the sony a5000 any good compared to the a6000

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO my-growing-family.jpg, 423KiB, 950x950

Anonymous Sat 06 Aug 2016 12:59:23 No.2897385 Report

Quoted By: >>2897387 >>2897403 >>2898050

take a look at my growing family.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 06 Aug 2016 13:02:34 No.2897387 Report

Quoted By: >>2897407

>>2897385
There are people out there who make better photos with a single kit lense. Just saying.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 06 Aug 2016 13:36:10 No.2897403 Report

Quoted By:

>>2897385
>all that mudblood glass
kys my man

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 06 Aug 2016 13:50:34 No.2897406 Report

Quoted By: >>2897577 >>2897584

>>2897335
Literally noone cares about your micro-turdburglar problems.
The money you're considering spending on this one obsolete lense for a dead system could get you a fucking -patrician- Olympus with a real 50/1.4,and enough film to get you well on your way to hanging out with the grownups in the FGT.
http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/Olympus-OM-2N-SLR-camera-with-original-F1-1-4-lens-flash-zoom-lens-access-/112079832566?hash=item1a187a85f6:g:yPsAAOSwI3RW-Mjj

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 06 Aug 2016 14:06:42 No.2897407 Report

Quoted By: >>2897539

>>2897387
You sound like somebody who doesn't afford a growing family, very sad.

>implying you have any idea about my photography

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 06 Aug 2016 14:08:45 No.2897408 Report

Quoted By: >>2897481 >>2898139

>>2896881
High quality images and an excellent user experience

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 06 Aug 2016 14:37:42 No.2897417 Report

Quoted By: >>2897439

>>2896806
Gear threads really are cancer.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 06 Aug 2016 15:28:18 No.2897439 Report

Quoted By:

>>2897417
It's only a single autist making a big racket about nonsense. Just ignore it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 06 Aug 2016 16:09:14 No.2897455 Report

Quoted By: >>2897526

Canon 50 mm 1.4 USM or 50 mm 1.8 STM

Is the STM 1.8 better than older 1.4?

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1I1A0719.jpg, 117KiB, 590x393

Anonymous Sat 06 Aug 2016 16:16:36 No.2897460 Report

Quoted By: >>2897466

Why do people use ultra wide lenses like this when the results are so horrible and full of distortion in the corners?

What the heck is even the point anymore when it becomes this ugly?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 06 Aug 2016 16:31:35 No.2897466 Report

Quoted By:

>>2897460
>horrible
>ugly

Maybe one day you'll realize that your opinions are neither universal nor are facts, and you might, then have some understanding of why people do things differently from you.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1455978337204.jpg, 15KiB, 229x200

Anonymous Sat 06 Aug 2016 16:42:26 No.2897481 Report

Quoted By: >>2897520 >>2898142 >>2898146

>>2896881
This >>2897408
but your getting in a world of hurt with raws.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 06 Aug 2016 18:48:38 No.2897520 Report

Quoted By: >>2898146

>>2897481
>Fuji
>shooting RAW
>professional uses
Fuji was designed to shoot JPEGs, RAW is just a necessity forced on by Canikon "pros"

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 06 Aug 2016 18:50:03 No.2897523 Report

Quoted By:

>>2897314
The Canon EF-EOS M adapter is decent with STM lenses, but anything else, the focusing slows a fair bit down. You'd be better off using the native EF-M lenses, though how little they number in (22mm f/2 STM is breddy gud tho).

>>2897374
a6000 was the toppest of all APS-C mirrorless for a few years, get that if you can afford it. Even secondhand, I'd rather prefer that over a brand new a5000.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 06 Aug 2016 18:51:14 No.2897526 Report

Quoted By: >>2897725

>>2897455
f/1.4 USM is sfot as fuck. The f/1.8 STM has somewhat slightly improved optics over the original f/1.8s.

Get the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 ART if you can afford it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 06 Aug 2016 18:52:10 No.2897527 Report

Quoted By: >>2897528 >>2897537

Is it just me or are Canon primes mostly from the late 90s/early 2000s?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 06 Aug 2016 18:53:22 No.2897528 Report

Quoted By: >>2897537

>>2897527
Most prime lens designs are, especially compact designs.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 06 Aug 2016 19:05:20 No.2897537 Report

Quoted By: >>2897566

>>2897527
>>2897528
Sigma and Tamron are the only ones bring out plenty of new primes, though Canon is now only starting to replace the main favourites.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 06 Aug 2016 19:06:35 No.2897539 Report

Quoted By: >>2897556

>>2897407
Can you support my growing family? Just a little donation would do.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 06 Aug 2016 19:34:41 No.2897556 Report

Quoted By:

>>2897539
I'm already a monthly supporter, Ken.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 06 Aug 2016 19:39:31 No.2897559 Report

Quoted By: >>2897577

>>2897335
>>2897323
That mark isn't significant but I instead recommend the Olympus 45mm f/1.8, as this lens is about as nice, feels better (metal exterior) and blurs the backgrounds more due to the longer focal length, despite the slower aperture.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 06 Aug 2016 19:46:08 No.2897566 Report

Quoted By:

>>2897537
Fuji designed all its lens from scratch and continues to do it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 06 Aug 2016 20:10:52 No.2897577 Report

Quoted By: >>2897582

>>2897406
>implying I don't already have a superior OM-1 with lens which I got for $100

>>2897559
The Oly 45mm f1.8 is too tight. I much prefer a standard focal length lens. They are also almost the same price.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 06 Aug 2016 20:13:41 No.2897582 Report

Quoted By: >>2897587

>>2897577
You said portrait or standard lens. The 45 1.8 can be had brand new for $100 less than the lens you're looking at damaged.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 06 Aug 2016 20:14:14 No.2897584 Report

Quoted By: >>2897641

>>2897406
I forgot:
>implying I don't regularly post on FGT and even made the general thread multiple times

Literally kys

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 06 Aug 2016 20:18:05 No.2897587 Report

Quoted By: >>2897620

>>2897582
The 45 1.8 is $299 on b&h its probably cheaper somewhere else. Also sorry about saying portrait but coming from shooting film, I am used to shooting the 50mm for portraits and also as my daily beater lens.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 06 Aug 2016 20:51:21 No.2897618 Report

Quoted By: >>2897728

Looking for UWA prime for EF-mount which will be easier to carry around for nightclub photography. My Sigma 12-24mm had a couple of finger prints on the front element so something that's a little bit less likely to be soiled pls.

Also would like to keep it wider than 15mm and max at $1,500.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 06 Aug 2016 21:04:00 No.2897620 Report

Quoted By: >>2897896

>>2897587
Please don't ever buy a lens new from b&h. You're literally flushing hundreds of dollars down the toilet for nothing. I bet you don't even get next day shipping for free there.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO image.jpg, 33KiB, 384x384

Anonymous Sat 06 Aug 2016 21:21:45 No.2897629 Report

Quoted By: >>2897814

Recently bought this combo.
Is it good /p/?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 06 Aug 2016 21:37:02 No.2897641 Report

Quoted By: >>2897653 >>2897848

>>2897584
>implying every OP that I did make myself hasn't been complete garbage
>implying you can buy batteries for your OM-1
>implying that even if you could, the meter would be even nearly as good, or the shutter speeds nearly as accurate

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 06 Aug 2016 21:56:29 No.2897653 Report

Quoted By:

>>2897641
http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/37597/what-are-battery-replacement-options-for-the-olympus-om-1
?????????????????

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 06 Aug 2016 23:55:11 No.2897712 Report

Quoted By:

>>2896881

Slow autofocus, a barren lens selection, and poor raw support.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 07 Aug 2016 00:20:24 No.2897725 Report

Quoted By: >>2897750

>>2897526
>sfot
you mean fat? i don't mind the weight. I have a $150 gift card I can use so it's either a cheaper 1.4 or basically a free 1.8

I'm shooting on a Canon 550D crop

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 07 Aug 2016 00:31:22 No.2897728 Report

Quoted By:

>>2897618
I like my 12mm Rokinon FF fisheye.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 07 Aug 2016 01:00:41 No.2897737 Report

Quoted By: >>2897750

Looking for a new monitor for the computer where I use LR. Budget is $200. Anything that cheap worth fooling with?

More Gold Medals

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Z-sony-a6000-onHand.jpg, 108KiB, 1024x627

More Gold Medals Sun 07 Aug 2016 02:01:39 No.2897745 Report

Quoted By: >>2897746 >>2897750

I'M GONNA BUY IT

AND YOU CAN'T STOP ME

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 07 Aug 2016 02:03:45 No.2897746 Report

Quoted By: >>2897748

>>2897745

Wouldn't want to. As far as mirrorless goes it is one of the best.

More Gold Medals

More Gold Medals Sun 07 Aug 2016 02:08:25 No.2897748 Report

Quoted By:

>>2897746
I need a good, but smallish camera, I want to take it with me over seas in the Navy

>inb4 whatever policy they have on cameras

I need to check that first

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 07 Aug 2016 02:09:12 No.2897750 Report

Quoted By: >>2897773

>>2897737
No.

>>2897725
He's saying it's soft.

>>2897745
Don't forget to buy le- oh wait

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO ss.jpg, 109KiB, 960x720

Anonymous Sun 07 Aug 2016 02:49:42 No.2897772 Report

Quoted By: >>2897781

Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS $800
+
1.4 extender (like 100-200 used I think)

or

Tamron/Sigma 150-600 $800

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 07 Aug 2016 02:51:37 No.2897773 Report

Quoted By: >>2897779 >>2897781 >>2897802

>>2897750
> Don't forget to buy le- oh wait
Yea, the meme doesn't work anymore when you have over 100 E-mount lenses to pick from.

Plus all the ones you can adapt.

More Gold Medals

More Gold Medals Sun 07 Aug 2016 03:01:50 No.2897779 Report

Quoted By:

>>2897773
this

there's such a wide variety of lenses now, and I can buy some adapters just in case

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 07 Aug 2016 03:05:21 No.2897781 Report

Quoted By: >>2897804

>>2897773
Buying FE mount lenses is like buying boat anchors. Third party manual focus lenses might as well be useless. Adapted lenses is for shitters with no lenses, and they don't autofocus as fast or confidently anyways.

>>2897772
100-400, gotta get dat red ring

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 07 Aug 2016 03:29:17 No.2897802 Report

Quoted By:

>>2897773

>over 100

Last I checked it was 80 something.

But still, largest selection of any APS-C mirrorless by far. Fuji only has 20 lenses.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 07 Aug 2016 03:30:23 No.2897804 Report

Quoted By: >>2897829

>>2897781
> Buying FE mount lenses is like buying boat anchors.
In that boats presumably have been using various types of anchors successfully for millennia?

Yea, this very successful practice didn't start with Sony's E-mount and it also ver likely won't stop with it.

> Third party manual focus lenses might as well be useless.
Shooting with the Samyangs I have is a pleasure. No problem at all.

I am almost certain that your idea that this doesn't work is not a conclusion from any hands-on experience.

> Adapted lenses [...] don't autofocus as fast or confidently anyways.
Can be close enough:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-dRWx6NJWA

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 07 Aug 2016 03:43:25 No.2897814 Report

Quoted By:

>>2897629
50mm is going to be like 100mm, so mild telephoto. Quality will be soft wide open but sharpen considerably stopping down. Still probably won't get better than a new 14-42. Iso will be bad so consider a tripod. You can take nice pictures with this.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 07 Aug 2016 04:15:22 No.2897829 Report

Quoted By: >>2897867

>>2897804
>Shooting with the Samyangs I have is a pleasure. No problem at all.
So you shoot still life? Get out and come back when you shoot something that is live.

>Can be close enough:
Close enough is not good enough. I didn't buy the camera to have half assed functionality.

>Yea, this very successful practice didn't start with Sony's E-mount and it also ver likely won't stop with it.
Then I hope you have the money to shell (shill?) out for the FE lenses.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 07 Aug 2016 05:00:18 No.2897848 Report

Quoted By:

>>2897641
>using a 40+ year old lightmeter on your film camera
>not having any grasp of sunny 16
>he cannot shoot without a lightmeter

Now I know why you depend solely on your Fool Frame gear to make decent shots. Literally kys.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 07 Aug 2016 05:26:11 No.2897867 Report

Quoted By:

>>2897829
> So you shoot still life? Get out and come back when you shoot something that is live.
I don't *only* shoot still life. No. I shoot people too, Yes, with MF.

If you think MF is something so special -never mind difficult-, you are the one that needs to go out and shoot.

Plus you obviously never tried it with a modern camera that has focus peaking.

> Close enough is not good enough. I didn't buy the camera to have half assed functionality.
Does your PDAF system even perform as well as the one in the video in any circumstance? Tracking that reliably across the image frame?

Besides, how many lenses can you adapt that will work better? Not having support for that is obviously more "half-assed" than good support with some lenses and adapters.

> Then I hope you have the money to shell out for the FE lenses.
It's almost obvious that I would have, unless you think I steal all my shit?

But I can eliminate the remaining doubt for you: Yes, I do.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 07 Aug 2016 05:38:03 No.2897875 Report

Quoted By: >>2897882 >>2897885

What filters do yall recommend? Is there a brand I should look for? I'm seeing ND filters run up to like 300 some dollars, is that a rip off or should i expect to pay that much for quality? Are polarizers necessary or can I get the effect in post? Should I buy individual filters or just get a bundle and not worry about them ever again?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 07 Aug 2016 06:03:11 No.2897882 Report

Quoted By:

>>2897875
>Is there a brand I should look for?
LEE and Nisi are the two most known and respected ND filter makers. You also have cheaper brands like Formatt Hitech and Cokin.

>I'm seeing ND filters run up to like 300 some dollars, is that a rip off or should i expect to pay that much for quality?
Like any good photography related gear it's going to be expensive, that's just how it is. But yes, you pay for quality.

>Are polarizers necessary
For landscape/architecture I would say yes absolutely, some people will disagree though.

>can I get the effect in post?
No. Skip to 10:50 in this video, there's a good example there: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_806DA2O4i0&ab_channel=ThomasHeaton

>Should I buy individual filters or just get a bundle and not worry about them ever again?
That's really up to you, not us. If you're into landscapes, I'd probably recommend a 3 Stop Hard Grad, a 3 Stop Soft Grad and a normal 2, 3, or 6 Stop.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 07 Aug 2016 06:10:05 No.2897885 Report

Quoted By: >>2897886

>>2897875
With a digital workflow, I wouldn't really recommend anything but ND and CPL filters.

And even with those, you should basically just watch a video or tutorial on what they do buy them if you determine you want that.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 07 Aug 2016 06:16:03 No.2897886 Report

Quoted By: >>2897887

>>2897885
Actually, I guess I should include linear polarizers as well.

But graduated filters, colored filters and all that? You don't need them. You can do these effects better in post.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 07 Aug 2016 06:21:07 No.2897887 Report

Quoted By: >>2897898

>>2897886
>But graduated filters, colored filters and all that? You don't need them.
If you're wanting to capture everything in one shot and keep editing to a minimum, then grads are a must. I agree you don't need colour filters though.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 07 Aug 2016 07:07:54 No.2897896 Report

Quoted By:

>>2897620
So should I try ebay instead? Or amazon?

Anyhow I might get the Pana-Leica 25mm 1.4 since the fiber won't affect the photos. Is it possible to have it opened by a repairman so and have the fiber removed? Or will it damage the lens?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 07 Aug 2016 07:12:00 No.2897898 Report

Quoted By: >>2897917

>>2897887
If you want to keep editing to a minimum, sure.

But adding a regular gradient to an image or applying them from a filter imitation template in digital post is really quick, easy and versatile.

If you just want the same result as a graduated filter would have given you, it's not a given that doing it physically is faster.

Plus you can't make (admittedly semi-rare) mistakes with gradients messing up an image instead of improving it when some animal or person moves into it or you just made a little positioning mistake / missed some high-contrast detail.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 07 Aug 2016 07:25:34 No.2897906 Report

Quoted By: >>2897911 >>2897920

>>2896806
Newfag here
What is meme4/3 /p/?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 07 Aug 2016 07:37:21 No.2897911 Report

Quoted By:

>>2897906
It's telling you to lurk moar

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 07 Aug 2016 07:54:08 No.2897917 Report

Quoted By:

>>2897898
Personally I only only bother with grads with slide film - with digital I either do multiple exposures or expose for the highlights and then bring up the shadows in post, because easy digital magick.

That said, you can't really replicate ND grads in software authentically. Adding a gardient in the PS editing phase does nothing if the information isn't there in the first place because the image burned/blacked out in that area.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 07 Aug 2016 08:20:40 No.2897920 Report

Quoted By: >>2897924

>>2897906
Some autistic user doesn't like a system because small sensor but will happily recommend you microsensor cameras. Just ignore it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 07 Aug 2016 08:33:45 No.2897924 Report

Quoted By:

>>2897920
If you don't like something, that is complete shit.
>Seems legit

>Just ignore it
Okay

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 07 Aug 2016 08:37:41 No.2897925 Report

Quoted By: >>2897939 >>2898002

Why normies hate Fuji?
And
Why /p/ praise Fuji?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 07 Aug 2016 08:50:06 No.2897930 Report

Quoted By:

Should I buy Fujifilm XT-1 body + battery grip + 2 batteries + case for 650€?

Im upgrading from Canon 450D, I only have one canon lens (the kit)

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 07 Aug 2016 09:27:33 No.2897939 Report

Quoted By: >>2897943

>>2897925

Normies hate Fuji because slow autofocus, no lenses, and shit raw support.

/p/ loves it because underdog and they fell for the gimmick sensor marketing.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 07 Aug 2016 09:48:56 No.2897943 Report

Quoted By:

>>2897939
Autismo nonsense

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 07 Aug 2016 10:33:32 No.2897956 Report

Quoted By: >>2897958

CANON EF 400mm f/5.6L USM FOR $400. NO FUNGUS, NO DUST, PREFECT OPTICS, SLIGHT WEAR AND TEAR ON BODY AND FOCUSING GRIP, $600.

Y/N?

Been eyeing off a super-tele ever since I got a 70-200mm f/2.8 which is one of my work horse lenses, this however this will be a very occasional lens (birding,astrophotography etc.). So is it wort h it?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 07 Aug 2016 10:38:14 No.2897958 Report

Quoted By:

>>2897956
>$400
>$600
Which one is it? Either way obviously yes, that's very cheap.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO image.jpg, 148KiB, 1075x723

Anonymous Sun 07 Aug 2016 11:21:06 No.2897968 Report

Quoted By: >>2897970 >>2897974 >>2897986 >>2897987 >>2898122

/p/ not thread related but FUUUUUCK I cried like a little bitch.

Pic related

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 07 Aug 2016 11:29:25 No.2897970 Report

Quoted By:

>>2897968
What board?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 07 Aug 2016 11:42:06 No.2897974 Report

Quoted By: >>2897986

>>2897968
Fuck, too much feel. This belongs on /p/, for sure.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 07 Aug 2016 12:26:24 No.2897986 Report

Quoted By: >>2897989 >>2897999

>>2897968
>>2897974
>crying for an old slavic rapist
These people don't matter. Glad every day I don't have a vagina to infect me with these pathetic "feelings"

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 07 Aug 2016 12:38:23 No.2897987 Report

Quoted By:

>>2897968
Fuck you, anon.. this is not a feels thread ;_;

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 07 Aug 2016 12:42:13 No.2897989 Report

Quoted By:

>>2897986
ow the edge

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 07 Aug 2016 13:00:29 No.2897997 Report

Quoted By: >>2898044

Fuji question. Out of the 18mm, the 18-55mm kit zoom and the 27mm pancake, which would you get/which do you prefer? It'd be for street photography.

I'll pair that with the 23mm f2 when that comes out. Though I guess I could just try to get the f1.4 version instead if it makes more sense.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 144765248394857.png, 62KiB, 300x200

Anonymous Sun 07 Aug 2016 13:02:26 No.2897999 Report

Quoted By:

>>2897986

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 07 Aug 2016 13:04:39 No.2898002 Report

Quoted By:

>>2897925
Why /p/ hate meme4/3?
And
Why normies praise micro four thirds?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 07 Aug 2016 14:50:11 No.2898044 Report

Quoted By: >>2898071

>>2897997
What focal lengths do you like to shoot with? They're all decent lenses.
The 18/2 is known as Fuji's least sharp lens, but it's pretty small and fast. 27/2.8 is sharp and super tiny, but no aperture ring. I personally like the "perfect normal" focal length. The 18-55 is nice, OIS can come in handy, and it's more versatile if you like zooms, but a lot bigger than the other two.
Just for street I'd personally pick the 27, but if you're a 35mm (equiv) guy you might find it a bit too narrow.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 07 Aug 2016 15:02:27 No.2898050 Report

Quoted By: >>2898170

>>2896983
I'd swear Nikon's colors have gotten worse, too. D2X and D3 images were really nice, but the D4 and D5 feel really flat. My disappointment with newer Nikon sensors was a major factor in my switch to Fuji.

I'm not shooting full-time anymore (if I were I'd still be stuck with Nikon), but I still do a few gigs and I'm consistently amazed with how fast my workflow is compared to Fuji.

>>2897385
What's the big prime on the right?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 07 Aug 2016 15:38:46 No.2898071 Report

Quoted By:

>>2898044
I'm a 35mm equivalent guy, but I like 28mm equivalent as well (I have a GR too). The size is my biggest turn off about the 18-55 - IQ wise I've read it's just as good as the 18mm at 18mm, although obviously a tiny bit slower. I like the idea and size of that 27mm but the lack of aperture ring is a little bit of a turn-off. Also no hood, though I'm not sure if the flare is bad on it.

How's the AF speed comparing these three?

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO image.jpg, 79KiB, 700x700

Anonymous Sun 07 Aug 2016 16:40:30 No.2898122 Report

Quoted By:

>>2897968
Fuck you man

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 07 Aug 2016 16:48:36 No.2898130 Report

Quoted By:

>>2897107
I own an LX100 it's a fantastic camera. Not sure what point you're trying to make.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 07 Aug 2016 16:50:35 No.2898136 Report

Quoted By:

>>2897266
I gotta throw the Pany LX100 into that mix. Very superior camera. IIRC still hovering at top 5 most popular camera on DPR despite being out for almost 2 years. I love it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 07 Aug 2016 16:51:55 No.2898139 Report

Quoted By:

>>2897408
Can confirm. Got mine a month ago. Highly impressed with it so far.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 07 Aug 2016 16:52:58 No.2898142 Report

Quoted By:

>>2897481
Yeah unfortunately right now I'm converting into DNG (not OP)

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 07 Aug 2016 16:53:08 No.2898143 Report

Quoted By: >>2898504

>>2897107
Slightly bigger sensor, slightly bigger camera. What's unusual about this?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 07 Aug 2016 16:58:34 No.2898146 Report

Quoted By:

>>2897481
>>2897520
The RAW thing is really overblown. Fuji RAWs processed with LR are more than good enough at any reasonable viewing size, you'd never notice the loss of detail unless comparing side by side at 100%

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 07 Aug 2016 17:32:42 No.2898170 Report

Quoted By:

>>2898050
Sigma 180mm f/2.8 OS

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 07 Aug 2016 17:37:31 No.2898174 Report

Quoted By: >>2898514 >>2898518

Anyone got experience with those dirt cheap MIXZA "shark" SD cards? The 64GB looks very tempting and apparently the performance is very decent. Are they reliable in the long run though?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 08 Aug 2016 02:07:04 No.2898504 Report

Quoted By:

>>2898143
/p/ is weapons grade stupid about brands. ignore

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 08 Aug 2016 02:31:32 No.2898514 Report

Quoted By:

>>2898174
They're microSD cards. And yea they're fine.

> Are they reliable in the long run though?
Endurance seems normal so far.

Probably just don't rely on them for longer term storage and it'll be fine.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 08 Aug 2016 02:36:36 No.2898518 Report

Quoted By:

>>2898174
/csg/ on /gear/?
I frequently visit /g/'s chink shit general so I also have a shark. I have a 32gb version and it works perfectly on my pen meme4/3.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO image.jpg, 344KiB, 1200x1145

Anonymous Mon 08 Aug 2016 21:59:07 No.2899046 Report

Quoted By: >>2899078 >>2899183 >>2899184

>>2896806
Good wide zooms for e mount? The 16-50 and 18-55 all have pretty bad reviews and I'm tired of carrying 3 primes
Alternatively what are some good light manual focus wide zooms you could recommend? I'm cool with adapting

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 08 Aug 2016 22:20:47 No.2899078 Report

Quoted By:

>>2899046
Do you have $850? Yes? 10-18/4. No? Shouldnt have bought Sony then.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 09 Aug 2016 00:01:58 No.2899183 Report

Quoted By: >>2899184

>>2899046
>16-50 and 18-55 all have pretty bad reviews and I'm tired of carrying 3 primes

Those two are kit lenses. They aren:t terrible, but they aren:t especially good either. The 18-55 is the better of the two.

Your only other options are the 10-18 ($700), or the 16-35 ($1200).

If you are on FF you actually have a few more options. The 28-70 kit lens is actually VERY nice.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 09 Aug 2016 00:02:59 No.2899184 Report

Quoted By:

>>2899183
>>2899046

Oh, and you can just adapt something. If it is Canon, Nikon, or M-mount you get pretty fast autofocus on the latest gen of bodies.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO image.jpg, 33KiB, 414x356

Anonymous Tue 09 Aug 2016 02:37:18 No.2899294 Report

Quoted By:

Is the Original Olympus M-1 rare? I found it for $75 with lens but I already have an Olympus OM-1 with the same 50mm f1.8 lens.

Should I sell the original M-1 to collectors and keep the OM-1 or should I keep the original M-1 and sell the OM-1 instead?

Thanks!

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 09 Aug 2016 02:49:21 No.2899300 Report

Quoted By: >>2899310

Recently purchased a Bronica SQ-a. It came with a prison finder but no WLV. Really excited to take it on a trip soon but I had a few questions. I'll be sure to add pictures once I get the 50mm lens cleaned.

Should I get a light meter? Is it worth it to get a WLV? Any favorites for 120mm film?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 09 Aug 2016 03:03:34 No.2899310 Report

Quoted By: >>2899313

>>2899300
>prison finder

a what

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 09 Aug 2016 03:07:39 No.2899313 Report

Quoted By:

>>2899310
Probably meant "prism" finder

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 09 Aug 2016 03:10:06 No.2899316 Report

Quoted By: >>2899319 >>2899431

Are Samyang lenses good for a beginner at their price-point

or are they absolute shit?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 09 Aug 2016 03:12:49 No.2899319 Report

Quoted By: >>2899320

>>2899316
Most of them are good.

> for a beginner
What does that have to do with anything?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 09 Aug 2016 03:13:29 No.2899320 Report

Quoted By:

>>2899319
I'm poor, and want to save money

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 09 Aug 2016 08:36:10 No.2899431 Report

Quoted By:

>>2899316
They are very good IF you get a good copy. Their quality control is fucking ass, and if you buy online you'll most likely go through a few copies before you get a good one.

If you're able to test them out in a store then do so, if not you'll potentially spend a shitload on return shipping (depending on where you live) before getting a usable copy.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 09 Aug 2016 09:24:37 No.2899447 Report

Quoted By:

Are there any normie-friendly quality comapcts that are worth buying at a price point below stuff like the RX100 and ZS100?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 09 Aug 2016 09:27:43 No.2899448 Report

Quoted By: >>2900123

>>2896983
>The problem with canikon

LOL! Canon has great color. Sonikon has great DR.

Fuji has great color and pretty good DR.

The last two Canon releases have great color and good DR (1DX II and 80D). Canon finally put their ADCs on sensor.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 09 Aug 2016 09:29:58 No.2899449 Report

Quoted By: >>2899528 >>2899699

What is the problem with MFT cameras? they are great performers I never had any problem with mine.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO IMG_1453.jpg, 2MiB, 2304x3456

Anonymous Tue 09 Aug 2016 09:34:19 No.2899450 Report

Quoted By: >>2899453 >>2899457

Some anons recommended me the pentax k5 and a super takumar lens.

Okay so I will be purchasing a new camera today, but still confused. Where can I actually find these products? Most are on ebay or warehouses and go for the following prices:

The Pentax k5 i, all good, probably around $600 usd for the body?

A super takumar 50'mm with F:1.4 m42 mount for $70-150

Can I find these in a camera store?

pic somewhat related, the type of photos I take.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 09 Aug 2016 09:49:34 No.2899453 Report

Quoted By: >>2899457 >>2899458

>>2899450
Don't get the Super-Takumar 50mm f/1.4 unless you love lens flare. Super-Multi-Coated or SMC Takumars have excellent multicoating and are a lot better at pretty much the same price.

The Tak you can always find on eBay or probably cheaper on your local second hand site.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 09 Aug 2016 10:08:42 No.2899457 Report

Quoted By: >>2899458

>>2899450
>A super takumar 50'mm with F:1.4 m42 mount for $70-150
Don't buy this lens. First reason being said here >>2899453, and the second reason being the M42 mount. You'll need to buy a genuine Pentax M42 adapter mount which can end up costing the same amount as the lens. Of course you could buy the real cheap adapters off ebay but you won't be able to focus to infinity, and they also get stuck to body and can be very hard to remove.

Buy the Pentax-M/Pentax-A 50mm f1.7, extremely good lens and very cheap. If you really need the f1.4 (doubt it) then they have that version as well, but costs a lot more and is generally worse than the f1.7 anyway.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO IMG_1551.jpg, 3MiB, 3456x2304

Anonymous Tue 09 Aug 2016 10:19:52 No.2899458 Report

Quoted By:

somewhat pic related another of my shots (1 year experience). sorry for no resize but its very grainy resized.

>>2899453
>>2899457
okay thank you. my current lens is f/4 but some anon recced me the s.t. so I just figured it would be fine. Thanks for the information

I definitely am not a fan of lens flare. Where I am from the winters are very bright and cold and produces nothing but flare from snow and the road.

Do you think a local camera store would carry these? Best buy doesn't, and the prices are inflated double what they should be.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 09 Aug 2016 13:35:07 No.2899528 Report

Quoted By: >>2899542

>>2899449
>What is the problem with MFT cameras? they are great performers I never had any problem with mine.

I'm guessing it is because specs wise mft cameras can't compete with aps-c or full frame cameras. It sucks at low light as well. But if you are not a pixel peeper mft is more than enough. Also, mft is pretty much targeted towards women especially the smaller rangefinder styled ones like the pen and the GF and GM series. For instance I was recently researching for reviews of the epl7 since a friend sold hers to me for $220. It comes with a kit lens and I can say that it fulfills my needs in regards to photography. I use it for product photography (I sell goods online and also through IG and Facebook) and for taking photos on a daily basis. I find it awesome as well since I can easily edit the raw file itself from the camera and it has filters as well. The on the fly editing and posting immediately on IG is critical for me since I also manage social media sites.

Bottom line is that mft cameras isn't marketed towards /p/'s demographic. I should have said that I hate mft as well 4 years ago when the EM5 came out. I used to shoot with a D90 camera on bars and clubs and an EM5's battery life won't cut it for me back then.

Anyhow what's your mft? I'm thinking of buying a standard (50mm equivalent) or a wide angle lens for it. If mft really dies soon it will pretty much be a good thing since lens prices will plummet.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 09 Aug 2016 13:59:43 No.2899542 Report

Quoted By: >>2899581

>>2899528
EM10 MkII with kit lens and just acquired a Canon FD 300mm lens for £80, might get into some wildlife as well.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 09 Aug 2016 14:12:48 No.2899550 Report

Quoted By: >>2899551

>>2896806

Found a Minolta a-7/Dynax 7 w/ 24-105 lens for $160. Usually that is the price for either of them alone.

Seller has good reviews and lists it as good condition, should I buy it?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 09 Aug 2016 14:18:44 No.2899551 Report

Quoted By: >>2899552

>>2899550
a7 doesn't have IBIS and the lens AF compatibility is limited. it is much better to get an a7II

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 09 Aug 2016 14:24:23 No.2899552 Report

Quoted By: >>2899553

>>2899551
>a7 doesn't have IBIS

Considering the MINOLTA a-7 is a film camera, I kinda expected that.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 09 Aug 2016 14:29:31 No.2899553 Report

Quoted By: >>2899556

>>2899552
Oh, I thought it was the Sony a7. But still the a7II is a much better choice for adapting nearly all of the best lenses.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 09 Aug 2016 14:32:52 No.2899556 Report

Quoted By:

>>2899553
I actually have an a7ii. I was looking for that 24-105 lens to use on my LA-EA4. I only have prime lenses and wanted a shot at a zoom. Rebiews for it say it is very good.

Seeing the combo with the body is pretty tempting though. Just have no idea what i should be looking for/testing when the film body arrives.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 09 Aug 2016 15:14:36 No.2899581 Report

Quoted By: >>2899674 >>2899677

>>2899542
>Canon FD 300mm lens for £80, might get into some wildlife as well

That's cheap. I have a bunch of old Nikkor AI glass that I want to adapt as well. 300mm AI nikkor cost a fuckton though.
Do you own mft lenses?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 09 Aug 2016 17:04:06 No.2899674 Report

Quoted By: >>2899677

>>2899581
I don't think it is the L version but I have to wait until it gets here to actually look.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 09 Aug 2016 17:05:50 No.2899677 Report

Quoted By: >>2899700

>>2899581
>>2899674
Ah, apart from the kit lens, no.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 09 Aug 2016 17:33:30 No.2899699 Report

Quoted By: >>2899702

>>2899449
/P/ is in an age of autism greater than ever in the past where a camera's merit is based on the scores in a lab, not based on it's usefulness or the pictures it's used to take. P lives in a time where the camera chooses the photographer, blind to the reality that photographers choose whichever camera works for them.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 09 Aug 2016 17:37:29 No.2899700 Report

Quoted By: >>2899705 >>2899706

>>2899677
Why? Are the mft primes not a good investment and should I get old manual film primes instead and use an adapter for m4/3?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 09 Aug 2016 17:39:01 No.2899702 Report

Quoted By: >>2899704

>>2899699
While there is an element of that, it seems like you weren't here when the board was plagued with m43 is god/crop factor is a myth/boulder in a purse shitposting (like three-four years ago irrc, maybe longer). That left a very bad taste for the format in a lot of people's mouths. It's mostly always been a hatred of the userbase and not so much the equipment.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 09 Aug 2016 17:41:04 No.2899704 Report

Quoted By: >>2899710

>>2899702
No I was here for that. That was a very small group of people or a single extreme autist just as this"mfturds, Fuji is the one true system" is now.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 09 Aug 2016 17:41:04 No.2899705 Report

Quoted By:

>>2899700
In my opinion, the biggest reason to buy into a m43 system is to adapt lenses. If I gave enough of a damn about size to allow it to affect the body I'm using, I'd just use a good compact.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 09 Aug 2016 17:41:42 No.2899706 Report

Quoted By:

>>2899700
The kit lens was simply fine for my uses. I didn't have the need to get more until now.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 09 Aug 2016 17:46:35 No.2899710 Report

Quoted By: >>2899713

>>2899704

Fuji-turds shit on everything.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 09 Aug 2016 17:49:13 No.2899713 Report

Quoted By:

>>2899710
I want to say it wasn't fujifags who were in that first group...oly I think.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 09 Aug 2016 17:52:56 No.2899715 Report

Quoted By: >>2899732 >>2899738 >>2899812 >>2899907

As a beginner what's the next lens I should worry about getting. Nikon here.

Got an 18-55mm kit lens now.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 09 Aug 2016 18:09:39 No.2899732 Report

Quoted By: >>2899738

>>2899715
You should worry about taking good photos.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 09 Aug 2016 18:13:34 No.2899738 Report

Quoted By:

>>2899715
This
>>2899732

And it sounds like a jerkoff response, but it isn't. If you focus on just learning to use what you have, you'll learn its limitations compared to what you want to do. This will in turn give you the information you need to decide on your own what lens is best for you. At that point, when you've narrowed down to what focal lengths you're interested in, come back here and we can talk about the differences between your choices in those focal lengths, but now? Who knows? Maybe you're interested in faster, maybe you're interested in wider, in longer...none of us can know. We can throw some general bullshit at you about get a nifty fifty or some other assorted crap like that, but that really benefits no one.

Learn what you have, look at pictures, and it'll be pretty clear to you what you want next.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO lens[1].jpg, 72KiB, 600x398

Anonymous Tue 09 Aug 2016 20:14:06 No.2899812 Report

Quoted By: >>2899924

>>2899715
I'd say adding the 35mm 1.8 and the 55-200mm 4.5-5.6 is worthwhile. You can't appreciate what fast glass can do for you until you try it. Same goes for the telephoto

And that then is the point where you never again buy anything unless you know specifically what problem it will solve for you

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO image.jpg, 4MiB, 4032x3024

Anonymous Tue 09 Aug 2016 22:01:08 No.2899890 Report

Quoted By: >>2899902 >>2899918

Lmao why do I even shoot dslr's anymore?

On the left, D800 with 35 f/1.8. On the left, X100s with a 35mm (equivalent) f/2. Even with a lens hood on it's barely bigger than the grip on the D800.

I bet the X100s is built better, too.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 09 Aug 2016 22:13:11 No.2899902 Report

Quoted By: >>2899915

>>2899890
If you're happy with a X100S, you never needed a DSLR in the first place.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 09 Aug 2016 22:17:39 No.2899907 Report

Quoted By:

>>2899715
Pick a lens that fits your needs...?

As far as I'm concerned figure out what you want to shoot most and then just buy a relatively high-end lens for that next.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 09 Aug 2016 22:26:40 No.2899915 Report

Quoted By: >>2899919

>>2899902

I had a DSLR in the first place and have for years. Hence, the "anymore". I bought an X100s as a fun little weekend camera and now it's all i use. Bought the 35 1.8 since I love the focal length. Carrying the two cameras is a very telling study in contrasts and usability. Namely, my D800 is like shooting with a brick and the X100s feels like a camera.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 09 Aug 2016 22:30:54 No.2899918 Report

Quoted By: >>2899921 >>2899922

>>2899890
I have to agree with the other anon. If a X100S is enough or even preferable for you, you probably never needed a DSLR like a D800.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 09 Aug 2016 22:31:37 No.2899919 Report

Quoted By: >>2899921

>>2899915
If you're a casual shooter then yeah the X100 is a good enough camera.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 09 Aug 2016 22:35:50 No.2899921 Report

Quoted By: >>2899922 >>2899927

>>2899918
>>2899919

kek, love you guys making assumptions about my shooting needs.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 09 Aug 2016 22:38:48 No.2899922 Report

Quoted By: >>2899960

>>2899921
You do realize that >>2899918
is saying literally exactly the same thing you said, right?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 09 Aug 2016 22:39:24 No.2899924 Report

Quoted By:

>>2899812
FWIW, a different opinion: I have a Sigma 17-70 Standard zoom, and a 35mm 2.0 prime for my crop pentax.

Even though I've often packed it with me, I find I almost never use the 35mm on my K5 (I do use it on my film body).

Very rarely do I need so shallow DoF that the difference between 3.5 and 2.0 would be warranted, and in low light I usually rather bump the iso than start switching lenses, because the former is just so much easier to do and the result on picture quality is negligible in most basic situations.

While the 35mm prime is somewhat better in terms of sharpness and color, the 35mm range also happens to be where the Sigma zoom is "at its best", and to be honest, good enough for most of my needs.

ymmv, of course.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 09 Aug 2016 22:41:35 No.2899927 Report

Quoted By:

>>2899921
No need to get KeK (May His Memes Be Dank) involved in this. We are merely making the most logical conclusion with the information you have provided.

No shame in being a casual shooter that prefers a point and shoot to a DSLR.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 09 Aug 2016 22:43:39 No.2899929 Report

Quoted By: >>2899930 >>2899935

Fuuuuck saw a Nikkor AF-S 14-24mm f/2.8G on sale for $1,000 just a couple of hundred bucks cheaper than a Tamron SP 15-30mm f/2.8 VC USD... Is it worth it despite losing VC?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 09 Aug 2016 22:44:50 No.2899930 Report

Quoted By:

>>2899929
On a wide angle? I'd say so. If you were talking about a 70-200mm, I'd probably sing a different tune, but yeah. I'd pull that trigger if the deal's legit.

/\M8U5H !!zJbpV0948+w

/\M8U5H !!zJbpV0948+w Tue 09 Aug 2016 23:00:01 No.2899935 Report

Quoted By:

>>2899929

VC / VR means fuck all for that range. If it really comes down to it, you can always use a tripod.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 09 Aug 2016 23:53:19 No.2899960 Report

Quoted By: >>2899962

>>2899922

One was a rhetorical aside about the hilarious difference in sizes between a DSLR and a fixed-lens compact, the other was an assumption about someone's "needs" (and by extension, a judgment of their capability).

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 09 Aug 2016 23:56:11 No.2899962 Report

Quoted By:

>>2899960
Ya know, when you go out of your way to say you don't need x, it's not surprising when others agree that yes, you didn't need x.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 09 Aug 2016 23:57:22 No.2899964 Report

Quoted By: >>2899970 >>2900004

Pen f vs x-pro 2
>casual street and family shooter
>primes only

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 10 Aug 2016 00:15:21 No.2899970 Report

Quoted By: >>2899990

>>2899964

x-pro 2 for sure every time

fuck olympus and their four thirds balls

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 10 Aug 2016 00:22:34 No.2899974 Report

Quoted By: >>2899975 >>2900003 >>2900009

why is the a6000 so expensive and when is its price likely to drop?

i really want one but it makes no sense because i can get a dslr with same spec for almost half the price

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 10 Aug 2016 00:25:04 No.2899975 Report

Quoted By: >>2899977 >>2899980

>>2899974
The fuck are you talking about, anon.
Used A6000s are like 300 bucks or even less these days.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 10 Aug 2016 00:26:57 No.2899977 Report

Quoted By:

>>2899975
Fresh meat who doesn't know how much cameras go for.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 10 Aug 2016 00:33:56 No.2899980 Report

Quoted By: >>2900226

>>2899975
uk is expensive as fuck to buy electronics

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 01BookTalkK2.jpg, 613KiB, 2048x1365

Anonymous Wed 10 Aug 2016 00:39:37 No.2899987 Report

Quoted By: >>2899991 >>2900011

Im very new to photography and bought a d3300 to use for my upcoming trip to nepal because I dont want to use my phones potato camera. If I do enjoy photography whats my next step? Should I get a new camera or a lens? If I do enjoy it I plan to do a lot of landscape shots of mountians and valleys, and maybe invest another 500 dollars into photography and want suggestion for next future upgrade piece

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO original.jpg, 357KiB, 1280x720

Anonymous Wed 10 Aug 2016 00:39:44 No.2899988 Report

Quoted By: >>2900004

any views on the samsung nx30?

seems to be a pretty good deal to me

are the lenses optical in these things?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 10 Aug 2016 00:42:53 No.2899990 Report

Quoted By: >>2899993

>>2899970
What about fuji focus issues?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 10 Aug 2016 00:43:20 No.2899991 Report

Quoted By: >>2899997

>>2899987

d3300 is a very good entry level camera, unless you are going full pro i dont see why you would need a new camera

spend your money on a nice sharp lens for it, i take it you have the standard kit lens? 18-55 3.5 or something?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 10 Aug 2016 00:46:47 No.2899993 Report

Quoted By: >>2900004

>>2899990
couldnt say, what focus problems have you heard?

it has 200 odd focus points compared to a dslr which may only have around 15

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 10 Aug 2016 00:50:50 No.2899997 Report

Quoted By: >>2900002

>>2899991
Yeah thats what I currently have. I want to take decent photos for my patagonia trip in the next 2-3 years if I save up enough money. So this nepal trip would be my beginners attempt at trying to get decent shot practice in for mountians which I love. I heard something like 70mm-200mm are good as well as the 20mm and the 24-70mm lenses are good but they are way out my budget

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 10 Aug 2016 00:59:42 No.2900002 Report

Quoted By:

>>2899997

i couldnt say much about what lenses to get except that if you are doing landscape then you probably want a wider angle than some zoom lens, id say 70-200mm wouldnt be much use up a mountain but then again i dont know much about mountains

id personally go for a wide angle with small f number, for example theres a 20mm f1.8 which sounds good or a 24mm f2.8 which gets good reviews

this will let you get nice wide angle but sharp shots of the awesome landscapes

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 10 Aug 2016 01:04:05 No.2900003 Report

Quoted By: >>2900008

>>2899974
I got mine for like 365 usd used on eBay
I thought there would be a significant price drop when the a6300 came out but there wasn't
Honestly the price won't drop significantly for like 2 years

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 10 Aug 2016 01:04:19 No.2900004 Report

Quoted By: >>2900007

>>2899964
E-M5II+28/35/50 equiv of your choice (P14, PL15, O17, P20, P or O25)+P42.5 or O45.

>>2899988
No, they're analog lenses. Try a NX500.

>>2899993
Doesn't matter how many you have if they are slow, inconsistent, and indecisive.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 10 Aug 2016 01:11:10 No.2900007 Report

Quoted By: >>2900019

>>2900004
>Doesn't matter how many you have if they are slow, inconsistent, and indecisive

how slow are we talking here? like a second or is it noticeable? is it that bad?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 10 Aug 2016 01:12:44 No.2900008 Report

Quoted By:

>>2900003
the prices in america are so much cheaper than the uk

i was hoping for a price drop in the next few months haha, might have to give mirrorless a miss at the moment and just go for a dslr

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 10 Aug 2016 01:13:05 No.2900009 Report

Quoted By: >>2900010

>>2899974
> why is the a6000 so expensive
It isn't, not even new. This is an entry level to low midrange camera.

> because i can get a dslr with same spec for almost half the price
No, you can't.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 10 Aug 2016 01:15:08 No.2900010 Report

Quoted By: >>2900014

>>2900009
>No, you can't

d3300 = £300
a6000 = £500

okay, not half but not far off

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 10 Aug 2016 01:15:46 No.2900011 Report

Quoted By:

>>2899987
> Should I get a new camera or a lens?
That's more something you need to decide.

If you thought you wanted easier AE bracketing / faster shooting speeds / more low light capabilities or something else like that, then it's probably more the body that you might want to swap out first.

If you want a bit sharper images, wider or narrower field of view, macro capability or more zoom, it's more likely the lens.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 10 Aug 2016 01:19:09 No.2900014 Report

Quoted By: >>2900024 >>2900026

>>2900010
> d3300
Not remotely the same thing.

A A6000 is more comparable to a D7200.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 10 Aug 2016 01:25:21 No.2900019 Report

Quoted By: >>2900326

>>2900007

A second? Hah! You wish it was that fast!

Ok, I admit, i am kind of exagerating. A modern body, while slower than e-mount, is decently fast.

But early x-mount bodies lenses are unusable. It has been patched to a degree, but if you are shooting the
18mm for example (which is somehow even worse than Sony's 16mm) you are gonna have a bad time on even the most up to date body.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 10 Aug 2016 01:33:51 No.2900024 Report

Quoted By: >>2900033

>>2900014
Why? Same sensor, same megapixels

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 10 Aug 2016 01:42:06 No.2900026 Report

Quoted By:

>>2900014

lol nah. it's more like a d5500.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 10 Aug 2016 01:49:59 No.2900033 Report

Quoted By:

>>2900024
Burst rate and AF coverage for starters. Plus lots of software features like +-5 EV AE bracketing, focus peaking and more.

It just has most of the stuff you might pay for when moving up from a D5300 to a D7200.

That's not to say the A6000 is better than the D7200. Just closer to the D7200 than the D5300.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 10 Aug 2016 01:52:41 No.2900035 Report

Quoted By: >>2900036 >>2900043 >>2900057

i have a d750. what is a good lens for underwater photography?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 10 Aug 2016 01:56:53 No.2900036 Report

Quoted By: >>2900040 >>2900056 >>2900057

>>2900035
Dude...that's some high risk stuff you're talking about there. If I were you, I'd just get a good compact and use that for underwater stuff. I know too many people who've had housings fail on them to ever be comfortable using my body in one.

/\M8U5H !!zJbpV0948+w

/\M8U5H !!zJbpV0948+w Wed 10 Aug 2016 02:03:47 No.2900040 Report

Quoted By: >>2900056

>>2900036

All my this.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 10 Aug 2016 02:05:14 No.2900043 Report

Quoted By: >>2900056

>>2900035
No lens is for "underwater". You use a diving camera case for that - one designed to accommodate and allow for operation of your lens, or at least one that is big enough.

But they actually don't tend to be cheap, it's specialty equipment.

Well, except for Yicam / GoPro cameras. Which I actually suggest you use for this if you can - a Yicam 2 or GoPro in some "up to 30M" or whatever diving case.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 10 Aug 2016 02:18:38 No.2900056 Report

Quoted By: >>2900059 >>2900070

>>2900036
>>2900040
>>2900043
i have insurance so if it floods it floods. and I've read a bit about housings and ports. have an opportunity to shoot video and pics for tourists. was thinking about nikkor 16-35 but have heard mixed reviews.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 10 Aug 2016 02:18:59 No.2900057 Report

Quoted By:

>>2900036
>>2900035
Rent, and rent from a place that specializes in cameras for diving like this one (never used this company before so it's just for reference):
http://www.bluewaterphotostore.com/rentals

You don't want to rent from someone like lensrental/borrowlenses for this because iirc their insurance doesn't cover diving with their gear (you might be able to talk to them and work something out though, both companies have great customer service and tend to try to find ways to work with you to meet your needs).

But for the love of god, unless you have a bunch of money to replace your body, a huge budget that someone else is putting up that has enough room to destroy cameras, or something similar, don't risk your gear diving. Assume any camera that goes in a waterproof housing will be broken.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 10 Aug 2016 02:22:48 No.2900059 Report

Quoted By: >>2900065 >>2900070

>>2900056
Will your insurance actually pay on that though? Seriously, call them up and ask.

Your lens choice is partially dictated by your housing choice. You'll want wider because if you're diving any place but like the middle of the pacific, your visibility won't justify having a long lens. Aside from that you want as fast of a lens as possible because aside from possibly using a red filter (you can color correct in post so you don't need those any more) which cuts light, it's just surprisingly dark under water so you're going to need to use fairly open apertures.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 10 Aug 2016 02:30:50 No.2900065 Report

Quoted By: >>2900073 >>2900078

>>2900059
thanks for the tips. how wide is wide enough do you think? the water is super clear and i really want to avoid a fisheye effect.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 10 Aug 2016 02:36:54 No.2900070 Report

Quoted By:

>>2900056
Okay? My guess is that a wider lens might be better. Possibly a prime.

I'd actually probably still bring a Yicam 2 or GoPro, they'll be good to increase your yield per dive and actually better for a bunch of situations.

>>2900059
> it's just surprisingly dark under water
You want your own lights (probably two or so of them), that's for sure.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 10 Aug 2016 02:38:46 No.2900073 Report

Quoted By: >>2900078

>>2900065
16-35 is a good range. I'd actually probably just roll with something like the 20mm D if you can get your hands on one. I'd go prime because many cases don't let you zoom. You generally want to go a little wider than normal because at best you'll use live view, but if you want to conserve batteries (like having to spend a couple of hours in more shallow water), you'll basically be firing from the hip just kinda hoping you have the camera pointing in the right direction.

Don't worry too much about lens distortions because as long as you're not using a true fisheye, something like lightroom can easily correct them or you can pull manual correction settings from Uncle Ken's site to use in a free program.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 10 Aug 2016 02:46:10 No.2900078 Report

Quoted By: >>2900080

>>2900065
> how wide is wide enough do you think
Around 18-24mm (~74-90 degrees FoV) is my own first guess.

>>2900073
> Don't worry too much about lens distortions because as long as you're not using a true fisheye
Even a true fisheye (as long as it's a good one) can usually be corrected to a good standard:

https://luminous-landscape.com/rokinon-samyang-12mm-f2-8-fisheye-defished/

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 10 Aug 2016 02:47:15 No.2900080 Report

Quoted By: >>2900094

>>2900078
>Even a true fisheye (as long as it's a good one) can usually be corrected to a good standard:
Yeah, but you end up having to trash a bunch of the frame.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO image.png, 49KiB, 648x280

Anonymous Wed 10 Aug 2016 03:02:23 No.2900087 Report

Quoted By: >>2900298

>>2896806
ALRIGHT DUDES EMERGEMCY IN THE HOUSE
MY CAM JUST HAD A HOT PIXEL AND I FIXED IT BY DOING THAT FORWARD MONTH THING
BUT
Is this a sign that my camera is approaching the end of its life cycle?
Should I sell it before it's too late or is this a common thing?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 10 Aug 2016 03:19:10 No.2900094 Report

Quoted By:

>>2900080
Certainly. On the other hand, fisheyes have a wider field of view at the same focal length. They usually can focus closer. Plus they work better with small dome ports. And they are often more compact than a comparable rectilinear lens.

I'd really not dismiss them easily, but I guess YMMV.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 815KuDtbEHL._SL1500_.jpg, 179KiB, 1500x1068

Anonymous Wed 10 Aug 2016 03:50:34 No.2900106 Report

Quoted By: >>2900107

is the nikon s7000 a good camera? I mainly just want to camera to take progression pictures of model kits I do in good quality.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 10 Aug 2016 03:53:30 No.2900107 Report

Quoted By: >>2900108

>>2900106
It's a fair bit below even an entry level DSLR / MILC with a kit lens.

Doesn't mean you can't do model pictures I guess (put up some bright lights to make it work better...), but I'd certainly not call it "good".

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 10 Aug 2016 03:54:56 No.2900108 Report

Quoted By: >>2900111 >>2900119

>>2900107
what is considered good then? I know almost nothing about photography.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 10 Aug 2016 04:00:00 No.2900111 Report

Quoted By: >>2900114

>>2900108
Nikon D810 or fuck off

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 10 Aug 2016 04:03:36 No.2900114 Report

Quoted By: >>2900115

>>2900111
a 3000$ camera looks a bit overkill anon

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 10 Aug 2016 04:06:37 No.2900115 Report

Quoted By: >>2900121 >>2900126

>>2900114
fine be poor your whole life

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 10 Aug 2016 04:09:54 No.2900119 Report

Quoted By: >>2900126

>>2900108
I'd place "good" for a camera somewhere near the mid-range of interchangeable lens (IL) camera+lens combinations.

A noticeable bit above the "average" entry level IL camera gear which is itself a fair bit above the cheap "low end" cameras a lot of people use. But also a noticeable bit below the "great" gear that professionals might use.

With all cameras involved judged by current technology.

At least that's how that would make some sense to me.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 10 Aug 2016 04:11:51 No.2900121 Report

Quoted By:

>>2900115
I'm sure buying a 3k camera as a firsty is a good way to not be poor

fucking kids and their retard logic, I swear

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 10 Aug 2016 04:18:43 No.2900123 Report

Quoted By:

>>2899448
>80d
>good color and DR
I can vouch for this, I was snapshitting with relatives on shutter priority and the pictures were fucking amazing off the camera, I didn't even have to do anything in post. Had them printed, too.

I need a better lens, though. I'm thinking of picking up the 50mm 1.8 because the kit lens despite being pretty nice, it isn't sharp

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 10 Aug 2016 04:21:25 No.2900126 Report

Quoted By: >>2900131

>>2900119
I'm mostly just looking to get a modern digital camera that can shoot quality photos and have all the current standard features like 1080 video and wifi. Something that's not going to give me nasty grainy photos with artifacts all over. I would be almost exclusively taking photos indoors.
>>2900115
I'll get to being rich once I can walk a half mile kek

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 10 Aug 2016 04:32:45 No.2900131 Report

Quoted By: >>2900146 >>2900151

>>2900126
> I'm mostly just looking to get a modern digital camera that can shoot quality photos and have all the current standard features like 1080 video and wifi
D3200 or D3300 with that WLAN adapter thing, perhaps?

D5500 or A6000 should work too.

> Something that's not going to give me nasty grainy photos with artifacts all over.
If you have good lighting conditions (can be produced artificially for your models with some form of constant lighting or photographic strobes), just about any halfway modern digital camera won't be very "grainy".

What you can still get easily is "blurry/unsharp" - due to shitty lenses, compression issues and stuff like that.. And over/underexposed areas. Poor color accuracy. And slow inaccurate autofocus. No option to manual focus. And a lot of other flaws that aren't good at all even when you have good light.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 10 Aug 2016 04:55:54 No.2900146 Report

Quoted By: >>2900151

>>2900131 (cont'd)
I also just remembered image compression artifacts also still are a very noticeable thing on a good number of cheaper compacts, which only offer JPEG compression. They usually (lossily) over-compress even that, and it results in artifacts.

And then actually editing already compressed JPEG and compressing them again can easily lead to further artifacts.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 10 Aug 2016 05:21:40 No.2900151 Report

Quoted By: >>2900161

>>2900131
>>2900146
I think the type of camera(don't know the official term for it, professional style I guess) might be a bit too excessive for what I'm looking for, I'm mostly looking at the 200-300 range, you know a step up from the basic tier stuff but not in the professional level tier. I don't think I would really care about photo compression at all since file size should be no issue since I have a free terabyte which would take quite a while to fill before needing a dedicated hard drive. I'm mainly interested in the nikon s7000 right now since it's relatively recent at 2015 and has the features I was looking for and I was originally wondering if there was a clear better alternative in that range. I know very little about cameras in general, I really just want to take fairly basic photos of model kits in a bright room(using 6500k lights so it's bright as all fuck) and I prefer asking people on 4chan since I can usually expect a fully honest response while a review site is obviously tainted opinion wise. Last camera I remember having I think had around 6 or 8 megapixels with 3x zoom around mid 2000s.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 10 Aug 2016 05:54:52 No.2900161 Report

Quoted By: >>2900165

>>2900151
> you know a step up from the basic tier stuff but not in the professional level tier
That's basically what I think I suggested.

(I didn't suggest the D810, that was probably a troll post by someone else)

> I'm mostly looking at the 200-300 range
But a D3200 kit is around $300 on Amazon, and the D3300 is close when it was used...?

You might find better deals.

> I don't think I would really care about photo compression at all since file size should be no issue
Sure. But almost all of these "low end" cameras have *no option* to get an uncompressed or losslessly compressed image. You are usually stuck with relatively severely lossy JPEG compression.

I do remember some of the Canon compacts have 3rd party hacked firmware called CHDK to get more options for compression and (almost?) uncompressed images or such, but that's probably not a first choice anyhow overall.

> Last camera I remember having I think had around 6 or 8 megapixels with 3x zoom around mid 2000s.
Okay the S7000 probably wouldn't be worse than that.. If that's all you want, go ahead.

That said, more zoom => usually a shittier performance by the lens. Applies even to IL cameras.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 10 Aug 2016 06:20:31 No.2900165 Report

Quoted By: >>2900195

>>2900161
With cameras is wear really a issue when looking for used ones like you said? How do these things age? I guess I wouldn't mind trying to get a 500-600$ camera used for 300-400 if there really is that big of a difference.

So the D3300 is what is considered mid-range for cameras? What are the main benefits over "low end" cameras?

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1469209261050.jpg, 53KiB, 313x286

Anonymous Wed 10 Aug 2016 08:16:11 No.2900187 Report

Quoted By: >>2900197 >>2900205

What should i pick as my first camera? I want to start photography, snap clouds, atmospheric phenomena stars and animals. I'd like to have mirrorless camera, what should i pick with 1000 usd budget? I'm okay with used.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 10 Aug 2016 08:53:52 No.2900195 Report

Quoted By: >>2900367

>>2900165
>With cameras is wear really a issue when looking for used ones like you said?
Not terribly. Yea, shutters and stuff can wear out (depends on the camera model for how many times they are rated to last on average), but that takes a fair amount of time.

Many hobbyist sellers didn't use their cameras all that much.

> How do these things age?
Batteries: Most are fairly bad or broken in a bit over a decade or so. But you usually can get replacements for major camera systems like that.

Sensors and lenses and stuff can "age" in that newer models obsolete them eventually, but it's not like they should break much over time. Ditto for Wlan module standards and cabled ports and the like.

> So the D3300 is what is considered mid-range for cameras?
Entry-level IL camera, but it is somewhat "average" in the context of all available consumer cameras, technology(feature and performance)-wise.

It's below mid-range in terms of price.

> What are the main benefits over "low end" cameras?
Much better sensor, interchangeable lenses (not only more options but they can be far better - the kit lens beats the fixed lens of a low end camera), can shoot RAW as well as JPEG, better autofocus, the option to manually focus your lens, more buttons and knobs than most low-end cameras (faster operation), can shoot at a higher frequency than many low-end cameras with the same resolution, and so on.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 10 Aug 2016 08:56:20 No.2900197 Report

Quoted By: >>2900202

>>2900187
Probably the A6000, because I assume you want to fit your lens(es) in the budget too?

If it's just the body, the A6300 is nice too.

As for lenses, the 8 and 12mm APS-C Samyang lenses are popular wide angles to shoot sky, landscapes and stars.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 10 Aug 2016 09:01:59 No.2900202 Report

Quoted By: >>2900205 >>2900216 >>2900234 >>2900727

>>2900197
no sony, weird hotpixel removal algorithm removes stars from photo in bulb mode

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 10 Aug 2016 09:19:26 No.2900205 Report

Quoted By: >>2900207

>>2900187
>>2900202
Pentax. Why? Good and cheap lenses and astrotracer.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 12063755_911036858979491_7508593 (...).jpg, 33KiB, 455x482

Anonymous Wed 10 Aug 2016 09:21:01 No.2900207 Report

Quoted By: >>2900210

>>2900205
but it's not mirrorless :(

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 10 Aug 2016 09:44:27 No.2900210 Report

Quoted By: >>2900212

>>2900207
If you want mirrorless I have bad news for you.
Star eliminating algorythms, nolens and unreliable, hunting AF above 100mm amongst them
Plus if you put any lens on the body the size and weight difference disappears.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 10 Aug 2016 09:47:37 No.2900212 Report

Quoted By: >>2900215

>>2900210
so pentax k-3 ii it is then, thanks

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 10 Aug 2016 09:50:46 No.2900215 Report

Quoted By:

>>2900212
Or wait for the K-70 and use the separate GPS unit.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 10 Aug 2016 09:52:30 No.2900216 Report

Quoted By: >>2900218

>>2900202

Why would youever shoot bulb mode anyway? Combining multiple 30 second exposures turns out a better shot.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 10 Aug 2016 09:54:56 No.2900218 Report

Quoted By:

>>2900216
When you start doing astro and nightscapes you will realize the fault of that thinking. Many shots need more than 30s, even more than 2 minutes even if you do daylight landscape.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 10 Aug 2016 10:13:16 No.2900226 Report

Quoted By: >>2900228

>>2899980
uk is expensive in all areas

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 10 Aug 2016 10:17:41 No.2900228 Report

Quoted By: >>2900233

>>2900226
And it will get even worse thanks to Nigel and the band of idiots

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 10 Aug 2016 10:27:34 No.2900233 Report

Quoted By:

>>2900228
Switzerland is one of the cheapest places to buy Electronics in Europe though. Not EU either.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO loRvFQB.jpg, 5MiB, 4024x6024

Anonymous Wed 10 Aug 2016 10:32:32 No.2900234 Report

Quoted By: >>2900236 >>2900238

>>2900202

Sure about that?

This is a single 3 minute exposure with an a6000. Don't see any issues with it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 10 Aug 2016 10:40:21 No.2900236 Report

Quoted By:

>>2900234
I see alot of missing stars...

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 10 Aug 2016 10:41:41 No.2900237 Report

Quoted By: >>2900256

Is exposing your sensor for that long not gonna cause problems in thelong run or is it fine?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 10 Aug 2016 10:42:07 No.2900238 Report

Quoted By:

>>2900234
Because you don't know what to look for. Also loads of color soup there, you should refine your exposure a bit.
Lots of stars are missing in the center region where the lens distortion didn't turn them into lines. There are more stars visible in the distorted parts.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 10 Aug 2016 11:41:48 No.2900256 Report

Quoted By:

>>2900237
No, they are designed to be exposed like that, however, actively cooled sensors will perform better at controlling digital noise.

Most cameras also have a safety shutdown feature if the sensor becomes too physically hot if exposed for too long.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 10 Aug 2016 13:41:18 No.2900298 Report

Quoted By:

>>2900087
As someone who uses their digital cameras from shelf to death instead of upgrading every six weeks. I can tell you that these can start to appear between 1/3 to 2/3 through the camera's life. It's more common for less than half of the camera's life to be passed when they start to appear. The only failure you have to worry about is mirror failure in SLRs.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 10 Aug 2016 14:20:33 No.2900326 Report

Quoted By: >>2900328

>>2900019
Unusable? I'd hardly say that. I shot street with the XF 35mm f1.4 and while it wasn't great, it definitely wasn't unusable (on an X-T10).

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 10 Aug 2016 14:25:16 No.2900328 Report

Quoted By: >>2900335

>>2900326
The xt10 isn't an old body. But I agree with that anon, the early bodies were terrible. Disgusting, even.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 00dWju-558754584.jpg, 110KiB, 541x700

Anonymous Wed 10 Aug 2016 14:50:21 No.2900333 Report

Quoted By: >>2900334 >>2900391 >>2900407

Guise: Nikkor 300mm PF or 200-500? Which and why? So far they seem pretty even in pros/cons.

300: lighter, smaller, at 300mm better IQ
200-500:big and heavy, cheaper, better reach

Really can't decide. Pic very much related.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 10 Aug 2016 14:51:36 No.2900334 Report

Quoted By: >>2900342

>>2900333

what is your subject?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 10 Aug 2016 14:54:49 No.2900335 Report

Quoted By: >>2900376

>>2900328
What are you agreeing with? He said that the first gen lenses are unusable even on the modern bodies. I do not agree with that.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 10 Aug 2016 15:06:50 No.2900342 Report

Quoted By: >>2900344

>>2900334
Airplanes mostly

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 10 Aug 2016 15:13:20 No.2900344 Report

Quoted By:

>>2900342
Go for the zoom, better flexibility and better reach for certain types and sites.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 10 Aug 2016 15:54:46 No.2900358 Report

Quoted By: >>2900359 >>2900391 >>2902507

has Nikkor 50mm F1.4G a soft ring to use manual focus? the D version of it is just the worst lens to use manual focus... cringy worth

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 10 Aug 2016 15:55:50 No.2900359 Report

Quoted By: >>2900363

>>2900358
>soft ring
How disgusting

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 10 Aug 2016 16:02:42 No.2900363 Report

Quoted By: >>2900366 >>2900391

>>2900359
it's not disgusting! Try to manual focus a 50 1.4/1.8 D. the ring just skips some parts, it's cringe!! the other lens like 24 2.8 or even the 80-200 2.8 D is soft and quick to manual focus properly, the 50 1.4 D is awful!!

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 10 Aug 2016 16:06:02 No.2900366 Report

Quoted By:

>>2900363
The focus ring on my 50/1.8 works fine, I can focus manually but why would I do that if I have autofocus?
But then again I use Pentax, maybe you should upgrade too.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 10 Aug 2016 16:08:27 No.2900367 Report

Quoted By:

>>2900195
thanks anon

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 10 Aug 2016 16:29:10 No.2900376 Report

Quoted By:

>>2900335
"But early x-mount bodies lenses are unusable"
Learn to read better please

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 10 Aug 2016 16:47:09 No.2900391 Report

Quoted By:

>>2900358
Yes.
>>2900363
I figured the 1.4D would be better than the 1.8D in that regard. That's good to know.

>>2900333
200-500 for sure, unless you know you shoot at 300mm all the time. I bet you don't though.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 10 Aug 2016 17:12:45 No.2900407 Report

Quoted By: >>2900409

>>2900333
The alternative is the Sigma 150-600 with better range and price and it is a similar performer to the 200-500

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 10 Aug 2016 17:17:39 No.2900409 Report

Quoted By: >>2900425

>>2900407
afroman has a 20 minute video of him using the 150-600 contemporary at an air show

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 10 Aug 2016 17:49:17 No.2900425 Report

Quoted By: >>2901307

>>2900409
I have the new 50-500 and while it is a good performer the 150-600 wipes the floor with it.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO DSC00752-Edit-1024x562.jpg, 141KiB, 1024x562

Anonymous Thu 11 Aug 2016 00:42:58 No.2900727 Report

Quoted By:

>>2900202

Is that all e-mount? aps-c only? latest gens only? I can't find information on this.

www.lonelyspeck.com even recomends a7 models for astrophotography.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 12 Aug 2016 00:19:18 No.2901307 Report

Quoted By:

>>2900425
I got my 150-600 yesterday and it's been a great performer so far. I'm really glad I got it over the Canon 100-400 because even 600 isn't always enough for wildlife.

The IS on it is spectacular as well so handholding is entirely viable (if you don't mind the weight)

I'll probably get a better strap than the stock canon one though before I use it for long periods without a tripod

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO IMG_20160606_071517.jpg, 2MiB, 3125x2344

Anonymous Fri 12 Aug 2016 15:09:50 No.2901631 Report

Quoted By: >>2901648 >>2901838 >>2901844 >>2901854

Is this photo ok or should my sensor be bigger?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 12 Aug 2016 16:01:02 No.2901648 Report

Quoted By:

>>2901631
thats a lot of skin cancer just in one photo

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 12 Aug 2016 16:08:27 No.2901656 Report

Quoted By:

I know this is sort of veering off, but how do you all feel about the 3:4 ratio? do you crop it to 6:9 as per the usual D/SLRs?

I bought a 6x8 recently (the ratio is slightly less than that though) and was researching when they were used - turns out most magazine covers are it. But I don't see it much at all in galleries and other websites. And despite old TV ratio being by and large done with it seems to work well at times, but is harder to handle.

IDK, how do you all feel bout it?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 12 Aug 2016 21:23:06 No.2901838 Report

Quoted By:

>>2901631
I dunno, I give your sensor size a 6/10
You should take out a second credit card if you want to get in a gallery!

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 12 Aug 2016 21:33:03 No.2901844 Report

Quoted By: >>2901857

>>2901631
This ratio is 4:3...

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 12 Aug 2016 21:46:13 No.2901854 Report

Quoted By:

>>2901631
that poor woman
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mkbA3E363So

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 12 Aug 2016 21:49:08 No.2901857 Report

Quoted By: >>2902235

>>2901844
Is it a pen 5 or a 646z??? The world may never know

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Captura de pantalla 2016-08-13 a (...).png, 386KiB, 565x686

Anonymous Sat 13 Aug 2016 08:47:10 No.2902235 Report

Quoted By: >>2902516

>>2901857
Actually is the oldest m43 olympus

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 13 Aug 2016 20:05:22 No.2902507 Report

Quoted By:

>>2900358
I have a 1.4D, what's wrong with the focusing?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 13 Aug 2016 20:39:51 No.2902516 Report

Quoted By:

>>2902235
Cool stuff. Reminds me that I should quit fucking around and get a 25mm already.

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 - Meme4/3 a shit edition