/p/ - Photography » Thread #2907229

[325 / 42 / ?]

39KiB, 550x366, image.jpg

/Gear/ - Gear thread

Anonymous Sat 20 Aug 2016 19:35:41 No.2907229 View View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>2907675 >>2907691 >>2907875

Last one hit bump limit

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

Don't open new threads for gear-related issues
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

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 20 Aug 2016 19:46:59 No.2907236 Report

Quoted By: >>2907239 >>2907242

what's everyone think about the leaked 5ds mk iv specs

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 20 Aug 2016 19:49:42 No.2907239 Report

Quoted By: >>2907240

>>2907236
>30mp
good enough

>improved dynamic range
finally!

>4K
sweet

>GPS and WiFi integrated
good addition.. the pros will love it

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 20 Aug 2016 19:52:05 No.2907240 Report

Quoted By:

>>2907239
What's the DR? I couldn't find it.

Also don't pros use ethernet rather than wifi?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 20 Aug 2016 20:17:50 No.2907242 Report

Quoted By: >>2907244

>>2907236
>5ds mk iv
There will not be a 5ds mk iv.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 20 Aug 2016 20:20:29 No.2907244 Report

Quoted By: >>2907249

>>2907242
Why not?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 20 Aug 2016 20:24:47 No.2907249 Report

Quoted By:

>>2907244
Out of curiosity, how many models has Canon named 5Ds and 5Dsr?

I'm pretty sure that the answer isn't three.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO IMGP7615-2.jpg, 210KiB, 1000x665

Anonymous Sat 20 Aug 2016 20:30:27 No.2907253 Report

Quoted By: >>2907254 >>2907312

Which would be a better replacement for my 55-300mm for wildlife:

DA* 300mm f4
D FA 150-450mm f4.5-5.6
Bigma 50mm-500mm f4-6.3
some other lens

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 20 Aug 2016 20:33:10 No.2907254 Report

Quoted By:

>>2907253
DA*300 and DA 1.4x TC
Or DA*60-250 with the same TC

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 20 Aug 2016 20:34:36 No.2907256 Report

Quoted By: >>2907258

do most wildlife/birding pros use TCs?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 20 Aug 2016 20:38:43 No.2907258 Report

Quoted By: >>2907259

>>2907256
Depends
If they need the reach then they will use whatever they can to get the shot. Either get through a marsh and get frozen in a lake or use a TC. A good shot doesn't always mean pixel level sharpness, but they usually already use sharp expensive fast teles so a TC IQ degradation isn't that much of an issue.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 20 Aug 2016 20:39:53 No.2907259 Report

Quoted By: >>2907262 >>2907387

>>2907258
Is the sharpness loss more important than the fstop loss? (and potential loss of light if you have to use a faster shutter in the cases where camera movement is the limiting factor rather than the subject matter)

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 20 Aug 2016 20:44:15 No.2907262 Report

Quoted By: >>2907263 >>2907265

>>2907259
Sharpness loss is only apparent on mediocre hobby level lenses. Light loss is more of an issue, but on a 600mm f/4 you get a 900mm f/5.6 with a 1.4x TC or 1200mm f/8 on a 2x TC.
If you do daylight shots light loss is not really an issue.
Also just using more pickles like a D810/K1 or 5Ds R you can do crop-in without a TC and keep the light for darker scenes or faster shutterspeed.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 20 Aug 2016 20:45:11 No.2907263 Report

Quoted By: >>2907266

>>2907262
Does something like the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II count as a mediocere hobby level lens which suffers sharpness loss?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 20 Aug 2016 20:46:49 No.2907265 Report

Quoted By: >>2907267

>>2907262
How does cropping on a 36/50MP FF compare to shooting on say, a crop ~20MP?

I've heard this can be basically the one thing that crop cameras excel at compared to others - at least for the price point.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 20 Aug 2016 20:47:22 No.2907266 Report

Quoted By: >>2907268

>>2907263
It is considerably less sharp than a tele prime like the old Canon 400/5.6 but still sharper than a Sigma or Tamron equivalent telezoom

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 20 Aug 2016 20:48:53 No.2907267 Report

Quoted By: >>2907269

>>2907265
Using a crop sensor is exactly the same as cropping in, but a 36MP still has better pixel pitch than a 20pickle crop sensor so noise performance is better on the FF. Though 1 stop only.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 20 Aug 2016 20:49:50 No.2907268 Report

Quoted By: >>2907270

>>2907266
>It is considerably less sharp than a tele prime like the old Canon 400/5.6
Really? did not know that.

I can't find the 400/5.6 on DXOmark unfortunately. What's up with that?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 20 Aug 2016 20:50:55 No.2907269 Report

Quoted By: >>2907272

>>2907267
Meaning here that you can shoot one stop in ISO higher and get the same noise? Does the DR suffer?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 20 Aug 2016 20:51:07 No.2907270 Report

Quoted By: >>2907271

>>2907268
Don't use DXOmark. It is misleading, use example shots at the proper distances.
Flickr is your friend.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 20 Aug 2016 20:52:06 No.2907271 Report

Quoted By: >>2907275

>>2907270
>Don't use objective scientific measurements

>Use post-processed to hell random handpicked examples

What?

Can you explain how it is 'misleading'?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 20 Aug 2016 20:52:09 No.2907272 Report

Quoted By: >>2907274

>>2907269
Are you trying to make another crop vs FF or crop factor debate? It is useless, just read up on them and then come back.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 20 Aug 2016 20:53:17 No.2907274 Report

Quoted By:

>>2907272
No, I just want to know if the improvement is only in noise performance or also in DR.

It was also worded in such a way that it sounds like a fundamental attribute of sensor size, rather than a difference between specific camera models.

I know DOF is different intrinsically between FF and crop, but is noise also due to the pixel size on the sensor?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 20 Aug 2016 20:54:06 No.2907275 Report

Quoted By: >>2907278

>>2907271
DXO makes their evaluation on printed charts at set distances. They quantify a planar subject when your real subject is 3D and moves around. How comparable are the results?
Even more o you can develop a lens for the DXO tests or develop for real subjects, the end results will be very different. Think about that.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 20 Aug 2016 20:58:19 No.2907278 Report

Quoted By: >>2907697

>>2907275
Do you also have a problem with MTF charts?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 20 Aug 2016 20:59:18 No.2907279 Report

Quoted By: >>2907284 >>2907287 >>2907296 >>2908861

how weatherproof are the pentax cameras? can i use one in pouring rain or is it more "okay in a drizzle"?

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO bald ass eagle.jpg, 238KiB, 1000x665

Anonymous Sat 20 Aug 2016 21:02:03 No.2907284 Report

Quoted By: >>2907295

>>2907279
I saw a video on YT of a soldier or marine throw a bunch of sand all over one and bury it, then take it into the showers and clean it off. I've only had mine out in heavy snow, but it worked well there, pic related

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 20 Aug 2016 21:03:29 No.2907287 Report

Quoted By: >>2907295

>>2907279
They are "oh god I'm going to die in this fucking downpour" weatherproof, assuming the lens is proofed as well.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 20 Aug 2016 21:15:33 No.2907295 Report

Quoted By:

>>2907284
>>2907287
cool, looks like it'll be pentax for me then since i always seem to get all my stuff soaking wet at some point.

/\M8U5H !!zJbpV0948+w

/\M8U5H !!zJbpV0948+w Sat 20 Aug 2016 21:16:18 No.2907296 Report

Quoted By: >>2907302 >>2907361 >>2907408 >>2907449 >>2907451 >>2907454

>>2907279

Drizzle is the worst weather for a camera, or any weatherproofing, really.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 20 Aug 2016 21:18:42 No.2907301 Report

Quoted By:

Is weather sealing on non-pentax brands acceptable, or is it better to not risk it?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 20 Aug 2016 21:19:46 No.2907302 Report

Quoted By: >>2907306

>>2907296
>Drizzle is the worst weather for a camera, or any weatherproofing, really.
That's counter-intuitive.

Why?

/\M8U5H !!zJbpV0948+w

/\M8U5H !!zJbpV0948+w Sat 20 Aug 2016 21:22:09 No.2907306 Report

Quoted By: >>2907310 >>2907449 >>2907451 >>2907454 >>2907548

>>2907302

Large water drops have surface tension, and will sit on seams / permeable surfaces. Tiny droplets like mist / drizzle get in everywhere.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 20 Aug 2016 21:28:51 No.2907310 Report

Quoted By: >>2907317

>>2907306
You're claiming that water, in any amount that can be described as having a surface, doesn't have surface tension?

I don't think you know how physics works.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 20 Aug 2016 21:31:53 No.2907312 Report

Quoted By:

>>2907253
I should also mention I usually take my photos when I'm just hiking and stuff. I have a tripod but it's just a smaller Induro that mostly stays strapped to my bag. So a handholdable lens is more important than a 600mm f4 (not that pentax has much to offer in that segment)

/\M8U5H !!zJbpV0948+w

/\M8U5H !!zJbpV0948+w Sat 20 Aug 2016 21:35:15 No.2907317 Report

Quoted By: >>2907322 >>2907324

>>2907310

Jesus, saw that coming a mile away... the predictability of you autists is shocking. I was going to delete it and be more specific, but had the faintest of hopes that someone would have enough sense to understand what I was saying.

Of course the small droplets have surface tension... but that's irrelevant. I'm saying the large drops don't really break down into droplets small enough to become a real nuisance due to surface tension.

>what is common sense

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 20 Aug 2016 21:40:01 No.2907322 Report

Quoted By:

>>2907317

there are lots of industrial processes that rely on this. pretty cool really

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 20 Aug 2016 21:40:46 No.2907324 Report

Quoted By: >>2907334

>>2907317
>autists
When you're talking about something technical, there's absolutely nothing "autistic" about being technical.

Aside from that, your post was literally wrong in every imaginable way, even including twisting around the words you used to mean something entirely different.

Here, have a read:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/surten.html

The tl;dr is two things affect surface tension: temperature and solutes. Higher the temp, lower the surface tension. As for solutes, depends on the precise chemical in question and the amounts as some increase it, some decrease it.

>what is common sense
Apparently some mystical ability of yours to assert confidently incorrect information then get butthurt when you're called out for being wrong.

/\M8U5H !!zJbpV0948+w

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO semipermeable.jpg, 10KiB, 275x183

/\M8U5H !!zJbpV0948+w Sat 20 Aug 2016 22:03:51 No.2907334 Report

Quoted By: >>2907336 >>2907339 >>2907375

>>2907324

Uhh... nothing you said had any bearing on what I said, autist.

Small droplets permeate farther than large ones on semi-permable surfaces. For instance, I have a jacket that keeps me dry in the rain, but soaks through in mist. It is the surface tension that keeps the large drops from becoming small drops, and helps them bead off rather than penetrate.

Nowhere did I say small water drops don't have surface tension... I said the surface tension of the large drops keeps them from penetrating. Nowhere did I say temperature didn't affect surface tension. Nowhere did I mention molecular solutes or solvents. That was all your autistic ass.

We're talking about water on seams and gaskets. Focus, autist.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 20 Aug 2016 22:09:31 No.2907336 Report

Quoted By:

>>2907334

This makes sense. Thanks for the info

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 20 Aug 2016 22:13:09 No.2907339 Report

Quoted By: >>2907342

>>2907334
I'm just going to leave this here and let you figure out how you have no clue what you're talking about.

http://www.autexrj.com/cms/zalaczone_pliki/4-07-2.pdf

/\M8U5H !!zJbpV0948+w

/\M8U5H !!zJbpV0948+w Sat 20 Aug 2016 22:21:39 No.2907342 Report

Quoted By: >>2907343

>>2907339

>not knowing the difference between hydrophilic and hydrophobic

Embarrassing, Anon... all you keep doing is copy / pasting non-arguments.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 20 Aug 2016 22:26:09 No.2907343 Report

Quoted By: >>2907345 >>2907349 >>2907354

>>2907342
>not getting that it's the angle that's important irrespective of if the fabric is hydrophobic or hydrophilic
>not getting that capillary action, the term that he keeps kinda referring to but is too stupid to actually know the term for, is entirely dependant upon surface tension of which droplet size is not a factor
>doesn't understand the role of wetting and its relation to these processes
>still tries to claim authority while not understanding basic level texts

But sure, get triggered by a single word and think you can build an argument around that again. Gotta love that "common sense" at work.

Out of curiosity, have you ever even taken a physics or chemistry course?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 20 Aug 2016 22:27:38 No.2907345 Report

Quoted By:

>>2907343
Oh
>inb4 you pretend insults and dismissal of fact proves you correct, again.

/\M8U5H !!zJbpV0948+w

/\M8U5H !!zJbpV0948+w Sat 20 Aug 2016 22:38:01 No.2907349 Report

Quoted By: >>2907372

>>2907343

Spectacular display of autism. But sure, I'll follow you down your rabbit hole yet again.

>not getting that it's the angle that's important irrespective of if the fabric is hydrophobic or hydrophilic

You're the one posting links to irrelevant .PDFs about textiles, autistically assuming I don't know what is happening regarding that particular jacket.

My jacket is a hydrophobic outer layer that employs mechanical means (weave size and pattern) to shed water. It has a hydrophilic inner liner to allow vapor to escape outward (making it breathable).

Problem is, in mist, it can work in reverse. Its functionality is dependent on large water drops being on the outside, not mist... the mist is small enough to pass through the outer weave.

It's mechanical issue... like drizzle getting into places on a camera body where large water drops can't as easily.

/\M8U5H !!zJbpV0948+w

/\M8U5H !!zJbpV0948+w Sat 20 Aug 2016 22:43:44 No.2907354 Report

Quoted By: >>2907357 >>2907372

>>2907343

>not getting that capillary action, the term that he keeps kinda referring to but is too stupid to actually know the term for, is entirely dependant upon surface tension of which droplet size is not a factor

Once again, this is irrelevant when referring to hydrophilic materials and weave patterns. Yet again, dismissing the mechanical aspect that was my whole point to begin with: Smaller water drops fit into smaller spaces.

Do you have ADD as well? You're all over the place.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 20 Aug 2016 22:48:41 No.2907357 Report

Quoted By:

>>2907354

You're being trolled m8

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 20 Aug 2016 22:49:54 No.2907359 Report

Quoted By: >>2907364

I've been using a nikon d3000 body for over 4 years now. I've got a couple of okay nikkor lenses, but I'm really starting to reach the limits of my body. Well actually I've been dealing with it for a long time. I can't take it anymore and i need to upgrade. I have about a $1000 budget and I would like to stick with nikon. I'm leaning pretty heavily towards the d7200. Does anyone have any input or experience with the d7200 body?

I do mostly nature shots with some sports and urban shots.

/\M8U5H !!zJbpV0948+w

/\M8U5H !!zJbpV0948+w Sat 20 Aug 2016 22:54:54 No.2907361 Report

Quoted By:

>>2907296

How a healthy person reads it:

>the surface tension of large water drops can prevent them from entering the smaller spaces

How an autist reads it:

>the tiny drops have no surface tension

/\M8U5H !!zJbpV0948+w

/\M8U5H !!zJbpV0948+w Sat 20 Aug 2016 22:57:55 No.2907364 Report

Quoted By:

>>2907359

There's nothing better than the D7200 in terms of resolution or dynamic range for that money.

Controls are great, too... you can't go wrong.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 20 Aug 2016 23:29:23 No.2907372 Report

Quoted By:

>>2907349
>>2907354

>is dependent on large water drops being on the outside
Nope. Please, find ONE, just one source that links droplet size with anything that affects permeability.

You'll notice it doesn't exist because it's all about surface wetting. If the surface isn't wetted, nothing in liquid phase will pass through. Hydrophobic/hydrophilic affects the shape of droplets and the ability for the water to actually wet the surface. Velocity in which the drop impacts the surface is also important in this, but you're already in so deep you can't begin to understand so I'm not going to bring up that or how the thermal mass is important as well.

>It's mechanical issue
That you don't understand the mechanics of.

>this is irrelevant when referring to hydrophilic materials and weave patterns.

It's actually literally the main mechanism by which this takes place. I'm so glad you're here to educate us on this.

>Do you have ADD as well? You're all over the place.
It's not ADD, it's you have so little understanding of the topic that you think all of this is related.

By the way, good job on pretending insults and dismissing relevant information proves you correct.

gliderbro

gliderbro Sat 20 Aug 2016 23:43:42 No.2907375 Report

Quoted By: >>2907377 >>2907380 >>2907383

>>2907334
And where can I find these semi-permeable surfaces on a camera? It's not like cameras are made of goretex.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 20 Aug 2016 23:48:24 No.2907377 Report

Quoted By: >>2907383 >>2907389

>>2907375
Nigger doesn't have the first clue what he's talking about. Like in that picture, the blue is liquid phase water and the red is gas phase water.

Right now he's constructing yet another wall of text that boils down to
>nuh-uh, it's the droplet size because I say so and because you have more education than me you're an autist and wrong.

/\M8U5H !!zJbpV0948+w

/\M8U5H !!zJbpV0948+w Sat 20 Aug 2016 23:52:37 No.2907380 Report

Quoted By:

>>2907375

Lens mounts, gaskets, dial seals are all entry points for water, in any form. The smaller the form, the more likely it will get in.

Humidity is a great example... saturated air can easily ruin a lens, getting in where rain won't. It doesn't care much about umbrellas, or gravity either.

/\M8U5H !!zJbpV0948+w

/\M8U5H !!zJbpV0948+w Sun 21 Aug 2016 00:00:34 No.2907383 Report

Quoted By: >>2907385

>>2907375
>>2907377

>samefagging this hard

Also:

>muh gas phase

Semantics, as always... it's water. It could easily be mist flowing through a screen door.

You keep trying to jam that square peg into the round hole, though.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 21 Aug 2016 00:07:41 No.2907385 Report

Quoted By:

>>2907383
State phases are not semantics. You're amazing. Anything you don't understand must be "semantics", "irrelevant", or just "autistic".

There are basically two ways that liquid water gets in: through the air gap which is governed by the same stuff as regular flow and capillary action, which is an intersection of internal cohesive forces and cohesive forces between water and the media. I'm sorry you're too dense to understand this.

>You keep trying to jam that square peg into the round hole, though.
Keep dismissing the facts. It's definitely making you right.

Let's see, in addition to the very creative and varied insults you've flung, you're now accusing me of samefagging, what's next? Calling me sugar without my trip?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 21 Aug 2016 00:11:08 No.2907387 Report

Quoted By: >>2907394 >>2908852

>>2907259
as a rube who bought a 1.4x extender iii for my 70-200 F4, I can tell you the loss of light is a deal-breaker for the high price.
It becomes F5.6 max which really gimps any possibility of hand-holding and means vastly longer shutters = bye action shots.

I happily use the lens with just the F4 without the extender, so I'm thinking I'd be happy with extender on the 70-200 F2.8 that brings it back to F4 again. You'd lose the advantage of the 2.8 for low light action (like indoors sports) but if it's day-time birding or other animals then the reach is useful. (200 x 1.4 extender x 1.6 crop = 448mm on my APS-C body, I just wish mine was faster)

/\M8U5H !!zJbpV0948+w

/\M8U5H !!zJbpV0948+w Sun 21 Aug 2016 00:13:21 No.2907389 Report

Quoted By: >>2907392 >>2907465

>>2907377

>b-but gas phase

It's super cute how you forgot that it can change from a gas back to liquid... especially since the liquid phase is such an important stipulation for you.

It's called condensation, retard, and it's a nightmare for lenses. Here's 422,000 Google results on the topic for your ignorant ass:

https://www.google.ca/search?q=camera+lens+condensation&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&gws_rd=cr&ei=8PC4V8bcJoPFmQGF8LCgBw#q=condensation+inside+lens

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 21 Aug 2016 00:16:12 No.2907390 Report

Quoted By:

What's a decent, inexpensive option for "studio lighting" if I want to try modeling photography?

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1466883547223.jpg, 257KiB, 1500x1500

Anonymous Sun 21 Aug 2016 00:18:38 No.2907391 Report

Quoted By: >>2907404

should i be shitting bricks when my lens fogs up

even if it's just temporarily

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 21 Aug 2016 00:19:42 No.2907392 Report

Quoted By: >>2907401 >>2907405

>>2907389
Wow, really grasping at straws now, aren't we?

You might want to read some of those links because you might find out that gas permeability is a different matter from liquid permeability and it's affected by different physical mechanisms.

Damn, you moved goalposts (unless you're seriously about to claim that misting is gas phase water), I missed a possible incompetent's tactic.

Btw, feel free to attempt to educate me on some other third grade science class info. I'm curious what those "conglomerate rocks" are.

Do you even have a GED?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 21 Aug 2016 00:20:08 No.2907394 Report

Quoted By:

>>2907387
it could be worse

i bought a TC for a lens it wasn't compatible with

luckily i ended up buying a few lenses it was afterwards

/\M8U5H !!zJbpV0948+w

/\M8U5H !!zJbpV0948+w Sun 21 Aug 2016 00:27:51 No.2907401 Report

Quoted By: >>2907417

>>2907392

These arbitrary rules you keep laying down are semantic in nature. You're saying size doesn't matter when it comes to water getting into a camera, unless it crosses a phase change boundary, despite the fact that it's still water.

Not only that, it's directly in line with what I originally said: The smaller the water drop dimensions, the easier it can get into your camera.

Steam / mist will get inside your camera easier than rain will. Everyone knows it. Except you, apparently... I'm positive you're the same autist form the wildlife thread who had no experience shooting wildlife. I'm assuming you've never gotten your camera wet, either.

Stop being so jealous.

/\M8U5H !!zJbpV0948+w

/\M8U5H !!zJbpV0948+w Sun 21 Aug 2016 00:28:57 No.2907404 Report

Quoted By: >>2907433

>>2907391

Not if it's external.

/\M8U5H !!zJbpV0948+w

/\M8U5H !!zJbpV0948+w Sun 21 Aug 2016 00:30:07 No.2907405 Report

Quoted By:

>>2907392

These arbitrary rules you keep laying down are semantic in nature. You're saying size doesn't matter when it comes to water getting into a camera, unless it crosses a phase change boundary, despite the fact that it's still water.

Not only that, it's directly in line with what I originally said: The smaller the water drop dimensions, the easier it can get into your camera.

Steam / mist will get inside your camera easier than rain will. Everyone knows it. Except you, apparently... I'm positive you're the same autist from the wildlife thread who had no experience shooting wildlife. I'm assuming you've never gotten your camera wet, either.

Stop being so jealous.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 21 Aug 2016 00:33:18 No.2907408 Report

Quoted By:

>>2907296

Can confirm it is horrible. Especially ocean mist.

>the horror

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 21 Aug 2016 00:38:32 No.2907417 Report

Quoted By: >>2907449 >>2907451 >>2907454

>>2907401
>These arbitrary rules you keep laying down are semantic in nature
So you also don't know what "arbitrary" means.
>You're saying size doesn't matter when it comes to water getting into a camera, unless it crosses a phase change boundary, despite the fact that it's still water.
There is no such thing as a "droplet of steam" Gaseous water and liquid water are two very different things that require very different kinds of intervention for keeping them out. That you're now trying to point to water vapor getting into a camera in an attempt to somehow prove your continual idiocy in this matter is downright pathetic.

>Not only that, it's directly in line with what I originally said: The smaller the water drop dimensions, the easier it can get into your camera.
Once you're dealing with something that's not a drop, you're dealing with an entirely different set of mechanisms that require not liquid tight sealing, but air tight sealing. I can't wait to see you attempt to claim that these are the same thing.
>Steam / mist will get inside your camera easier than rain will. Everyone knows it. Except you, apparently...
If you read back, you'll notice I never argued that point. So you suck at teh Engrish too. I'm just telling you that you have no clue what mechanisms are at play.
>I'm positive you're the same autist form the wildlife thread who had no experience shooting wildlife. I'm assuming you've never gotten your camera wet, either.
>Stop being so jealous.

Ah, so you can't call me Sugar without a trip so you try to call me someone else. I would bother denying this, but there's no point. I will say I'm not surprised to hear that you've responded like a spoiled baby before.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 21 Aug 2016 00:46:33 No.2907433 Report

Quoted By:

>>2907404
you mean on the external element basically

fucking florida is a pain in the ass

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO classic 4chan.png, 155KiB, 2460x230

Anonymous Sun 21 Aug 2016 00:48:01 No.2907436 Report

Quoted By:

/\M8U5H !!zJbpV0948+w

/\M8U5H !!zJbpV0948+w Sun 21 Aug 2016 00:55:57 No.2907449 Report

Quoted By: >>2907471

>>2907417

>doesn't know about wet steam
>still enforcing arbitrary ruleset

But enough of your bullshit, and back to the argument:

>>2907296
>>2907306

The finer the water, the smaller the places it can easily reach in your camera... autistic arguments and diversions aside.

With the simple act of water drops landing under weight of gravity, the smaller they are, the easier they penetrate things like lens mounts and switches. They also move laterally, and even vertically. You can't shield a camera from fine mist by leaning over it like with rain. On top of that, they still ends up collecting into large drops anyway.

It seems you have zero practical experience, and live life through copy / paste.

/\M8U5H !!zJbpV0948+w

/\M8U5H !!zJbpV0948+w Sun 21 Aug 2016 00:57:36 No.2907451 Report

Quoted By:

>>2907417

>doesn't know about wet steam
>still enforcing arbitrary ruleset

But enough of your bullshit, and back to the argument:

>>2907296 (You)
>>2907306 (You)

The finer the water, the smaller the places it can easily reach in your camera... autistic arguments and diversions aside.

With the simple act of water drops landing under weight of gravity, the smaller they are, the easier they penetrate things like lens mounts and switches. They also move laterally, and even vertically. You can't shield a camera from fine mist by leaning over it like with rain. On top of that, it still ends up collecting into large drops anyway.

It seems you have zero practical experience, and live life through copy / paste.

/\M8U5H !!zJbpV0948+w

/\M8U5H !!zJbpV0948+w Sun 21 Aug 2016 00:58:51 No.2907454 Report

Quoted By:

>>2907417

>doesn't know about wet steam
>still enforcing arbitrary ruleset

But enough of your bullshit, and back to the argument:

>>2907296
>>2907306

The finer the water, the smaller the places it can easily reach in your camera... autistic arguments and diversions aside.

With the simple act of water drops landing under weight of gravity, the smaller they are, the easier they penetrate things like lens mounts and switches. They also move laterally, and even vertically. You can't shield a camera from fine mist by leaning over it like with rain. On top of that, it still ends up collecting into large drops anyway.

It seems you have zero practical experience, and live life through copy / paste.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 21 Aug 2016 01:04:59 No.2907465 Report

Quoted By:

>>2907389

>having to explain condensation to someone
>literally worst thing ever for a photographer

those cross board banners sure are adding to the diversity here

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 21 Aug 2016 01:09:41 No.2907471 Report

Quoted By: >>2907520

>>2907449
>thinks wet steam in any way invalidates anything I've said
Seriously, you don't have the first clue. Here's two little facts that if you were able to actually think, might lead you to why it is entirely irrelevant to anything being discussed here (actual irrelevance, not your "I don't understand" irrelevance)
>temperature is the AVERAGE kinetic energy of a system
>pressure changes result in changes in boiling point

>With the simple act of water drops landing under weight of gravity, the smaller they are, the easier they penetrate things like lens mounts and switches.
Most of the time with proper misting, gravity isn't involved, and permeate is the correct verb to use.
>They also move laterally, and even vertically.
Because all of that gravity.

You're cute when you try to explain things you don't understand. Here's a tip for you: don't try to sound smart. You don't have the necessary qualities to pull it off.

>It seems you have zero practical experience, and live life through copy / paste.
Nice, get proven wrong, insist you're right because of some kind of experience and I have zero experience? Not to mention how questionable it is to try to make someone sound bad for sourcing the facts that they're using. I mean, I know a physics website isn't your "common sense" but it's something that everyone can read.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 21 Aug 2016 01:24:15 No.2907488 Report

Quoted By: >>2907491 >>2907497 >>2907510 >>2907515 >>2909007

>tfw APS-C canon-cuck
>start shooting film
>buy myself an EF body
>acquire 35mm f2 IS lens
>ignore the hate
>it's a fucking monster
>move away from canon
>sell cameras to friends
>finally get rid of the 35mm f2 is
>a year passes
>buy more and more gear
>55mm and 50mm lens left and right
>more film bodies
THE HUNGER BUILDS

>still not satisfied
>let buddy know about the hunger
>You can have your EF film body back if you get the 35/f2/IS
REND
SLAUGHTER
DEVOUR YOUR ENEMIES
THERE IS NO OTHER WAY TO SURVIVE
YOU CANNOT ESCAPE YOUR HUNGER
>quicky search web
>repurchase 35/f2/is At the same price I sold it

HELP ME YOU FUCKING GEARFAGS, YOU DID THIS TO ME.
IT'S BEYOND AN OBSESSION AT THIS POINT. IT'S THE PERFECT AUTOFOCUS 35MM LENS

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 21 Aug 2016 01:25:51 No.2907491 Report

Quoted By: >>2907539

>>2907488
Put camera down for two months.

Shoot with nothing but cell phone in this time.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 21 Aug 2016 01:29:50 No.2907497 Report

Quoted By: >>2907539

>>2907488
>filmcuck

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 21 Aug 2016 01:44:36 No.2907510 Report

Quoted By:

>>2907488
>IT'S BEYOND AN OBSESSION AT THIS POINT. IT'S THE PERFECT AUTOFOCUS 35MM LENS
It really is. Enjoy.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Slobruthers046.jpg, 150KiB, 1203x800

Anonymous Sun 21 Aug 2016 01:48:52 No.2907515 Report

Quoted By: >>2907516 >>2907539 >>2909007

>>2907488
YOU'RE A CUNT
I WANT TO BUY THIS LENSE BUT THE DUDE SELLING ONE WON'T ACCEPT MY LOWBALL $450AUD OFFER
I'M TRYING TO SAVE MY SHEKELS FOR AN A7R ANYWAY
I HAVE A 30/1.4 THAT WORKS JUST FINE
BUT STILL
I CRAVE

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1471380356430.jpg, 72KiB, 651x768

Anonymous Sun 21 Aug 2016 01:50:09 No.2907516 Report

Quoted By: >>2907552

>>2907515
>LENSE

/\M8U5H !!zJbpV0948+w

/\M8U5H !!zJbpV0948+w Sun 21 Aug 2016 01:54:59 No.2907520 Report

Quoted By: >>2907530

>>2907471

I've never seen someone wielding grade 9 science so viciously.

Omission does not mean lack of knowledge, Anon. Some of us have things like discretion, and reason, and priorities. Me pointing out the surface tension of an average sized raindrop prevents it from entering every crevice of a camera body like a fine mist doesn't mean I thin the drops of mist don't have any surface tension. Nor does it mean I don't understand the other factors at play that make the larger drops issues as well. It means it goes unsaid, because it's obvious.

I'm saying mist is worse than rain, and I know this because I've camped in it, and hiked in it with equipment for years. That's it. Simple.

Capillary / wicking action? Really? Who the fuck doesn't have a grasp on that? Who hasn't observed a drop of water running erratically along a surface, or soaking into fabric? Who doesn't know how a candle works? Who doesn't understand solubility, and molecular packing at at least some basic level? YT videos from Vsauce and Veritasium are have millions of views. People enjoy knowledge. Come on, man. You're not some intellectual snowflake. Sure there are stupid people out there, but there are also those of us who omit because they don't enjoy needlessly nitpicking every single possible facet of every argument, covering every base just in case of semantics, and preemptively mentioning irrelevant things just in case some Anon is going to go there... because you fucking know they will. Better type a goddamned novel while making a simple, common sense comment just in case, right?

I made a simple statement that mist is a bigger problem than rain. You took it to so many other places that I just don't want to go, because there is no need, and it never fucking ends with you.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 21 Aug 2016 02:10:15 No.2907530 Report

Quoted By: >>2907543 >>2907553

>>2907520
>viciously
Yet another word you don't know how to use.

>Omission does not mean lack of knowledge.
Never said it did, and you didn't omit anything. You were and plainly are wrong.

>I'm saying mist is worse than rain, and I know this because I've camped in it, and hiked in it with equipment for years. That's it. Simple.
No, you said some crap about smaller droplets not having surface tension, then amended that to mean that surface tension was different for smaller droplets, both of which statements are wrong.

>Capillary / wicking action? Really? Who the fuck doesn't have a grasp on that?
You.

>I made a simple statement that mist is a bigger problem than rain.
Except you didn't. You speculated based off of some ignorant ideas of the mechanisms involved.

>You took it to so many other places that I just don't want to go
Because they prove you don't know what you're claiming to know.
>because there is no need,
So little need that you felt the need to start saying stupid shit about the size of droplets.
>and it never fucking ends with you.
Still pretending I'm you some boogie man? If that lets you sleep better at night...

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 21 Aug 2016 02:21:37 No.2907539 Report

Quoted By: >>2907552

>>2907515
g-go for it senpai, you wont regret it. I've been re-lustining after it for so long for a reason.
>>2907491
Tried that, didn't work.
>>2907497
*kicks your crutches away from you*
OH WHAT'S THAT YOU LITTLE SHIT? CAN'T SHOOT IN LOW LIGHT? CAN'T SEE YOUR IMAGES IMMEDIATELY?

/\M8U5H !!zJbpV0948+w

/\M8U5H !!zJbpV0948+w Sun 21 Aug 2016 02:31:14 No.2907543 Report

Quoted By: >>2907547 >>2907549 >>2907558 >>2907590

>>2907530

>No, you said some crap about smaller droplets not having surface tension

That's not what I said, autist. That's what you saw, because that's what you wanted to see, because you're autistic. You're basing this entire argument on something I never said.

I said large drops have surface tension... therefore, they can sit on top of gaps (such as tight seams on a camera) without entering. It's much easier to deal with.

Smaller drops such as mist (didn't feel the need to mention that they also have surface tension because it goes without saying to non-autists) can fit easier. They are getting places the large drops aren't right off the bat, and will help to pull drops in behind them.

You know, if you started reading what people type instead of what you want to see, you'll do a whole lot less arguing about nonexistent things.

Honest question: Have you ever been diagnosed with a personality disorder? I won't judge.

/\M8U5H !!zJbpV0948+w

/\M8U5H !!zJbpV0948+w Sun 21 Aug 2016 02:34:31 No.2907547 Report

Quoted By: >>2907558

>>2907543

>Large water drops have surface tension, and will sit on seams / permeable surfaces. Tiny droplets like mist / drizzle get in everywhere.

Translation for autists:

They get into seams easier because they are smaller, not because they don't have surface tension.

/\M8U5H !!zJbpV0948+w

/\M8U5H !!zJbpV0948+w Sun 21 Aug 2016 02:36:30 No.2907548 Report

Quoted By:

>>2907306

>Large water drops have surface tension, and will sit on seams / permeable surfaces. Tiny droplets like mist / drizzle get in everywhere.

Translation for disjointed autists:

Tiny droplets like mist get into seams easier because they are smaller, not because they don't have surface tension.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 21 Aug 2016 02:38:17 No.2907549 Report

Quoted By: >>2907551

>>2907543

>arguing with obvious troll

You new or what? Nobody is that stupid, you're being trolled.

/\M8U5H !!zJbpV0948+w

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 9876.jpg, 295KiB, 900x675

/\M8U5H !!zJbpV0948+w Sun 21 Aug 2016 02:44:11 No.2907551 Report

Quoted By:

>>2907549

Maybe.

Here's the day one of our backup cameras (D5100) died because I forgot to close a flap on a pack and pic related was happening for a good 7 hours.

Tried drying it for a few days, but nothing... put it in a closet and forgot about it. Remembered it a few months later, tried it out. Worked!

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 21 Aug 2016 02:44:52 No.2907552 Report

Quoted By: >>2907554

>>2907516
:^)
>>2907539
>g-go for it senpai, you wont regret it. I've been re-lustining after it for so long for a reason.
But I want dem 36MP film scans more...
>also, you know IS is a crutch, right???

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 21 Aug 2016 02:49:01 No.2907553 Report

Quoted By:

>>2907530

>>2907530

after going back and reading some of this shitfest it's safe to say you are legit autistic m80. stop being such a tard

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 21 Aug 2016 02:50:11 No.2907554 Report

Quoted By:

>>2907552

is is not a crutch but isi is a crotch

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 21 Aug 2016 02:52:52 No.2907558 Report

Quoted By: >>2907560 >>2907566 >>2907567

>>2907543
>>2907547
My first post was phrased as a question for a reason. The rest of all of this comes from your answer to that question and how it is in fact wrong.

Like take these two bits:
>I said large drops have surface tension... therefore, they can sit on top of gaps (such as tight seams on a camera) without entering. It's much easier to deal with.

>Smaller drops such as mist (didn't feel the need to mention that they also have surface tension because it goes without saying to non-autists) can fit easier. They are getting places the large drops aren't right off the bat, and will help to pull drops in behind them.

Still entirely wrong.

>You know, if you started reading what people type instead of what you want to see, you'll do a whole lot less arguing about nonexistent things.
I did read. I then asked a question to which I got a nonsensical answer. You seem to forget the novel's worth of idiocy that you spewed after that initial post.
>They get into seams easier because they are smaller, not because they don't have surface tension.

That you keep repeating this shows you still haven't managed to even somewhat understand what's going on here. What's especially idiotic is how you keep involving surface tension in any way when the reasons surface tension exists is exactly why capillary action works.

>Honest question: Have you ever been diagnosed with a personality disorder? I won't judge.
Says the guy twisting and turning to win an internet argument.

It's simple guy, don't spew shit you don't know if you don't want to be corrected. This is the internet. It'll happen time and time again. If not me, then your buddy from before, or someone else. There's always someone out there who knows more about any given subject than you do. The best thing to do in those cases is just accept that you're wrong.

/\M8U5H !!zJbpV0948+w

/\M8U5H !!zJbpV0948+w Sun 21 Aug 2016 02:55:31 No.2907560 Report

Quoted By: >>2907575

>>2907558

You are beyond hope, and I doubt you've ever had to fight to keep a camera dry before.

Mist is worse than rain for getting deep into cameras and fucking them, end of story.

Should have been my first and last response to your autistic ass...

/\M8U5H !!zJbpV0948+w

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO autist1.jpg, 270KiB, 969x723

/\M8U5H !!zJbpV0948+w Sun 21 Aug 2016 03:04:47 No.2907566 Report

Quoted By: >>2907573 >>2907576 >>2907577 >>2907585

>>2907558

/\M8U5H !!zJbpV0948+w

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO autist2.jpg, 251KiB, 1079x481

/\M8U5H !!zJbpV0948+w Sun 21 Aug 2016 03:05:49 No.2907567 Report

Quoted By: >>2907573 >>2907576 >>2907577 >>2907585

>>2907558

/\M8U5H !!zJbpV0948+w

/\M8U5H !!zJbpV0948+w Sun 21 Aug 2016 03:09:40 No.2907573 Report

Quoted By: >>2907579 >>2908861

>>2907566
>>2907567

It's much worse with actual mist... that shit gets in everywhere no problem. All cameras enjoy some natural weather sealing just from water viscosity, but mist doesn't care about that. I've taken non-weather sealed cameras in the rain plenty of times without issue, but mist / fog is for sealed cameras only.

I guess inner-city plebs who baby their cameras in satchels on their way to Starbuck's wouldn't know about it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 21 Aug 2016 03:11:18 No.2907575 Report

Quoted By: >>2907577

>>2907560
>You are beyond hope, and I doubt you've ever had to fight to keep a camera dry before.
Says the guy getting his nose rubbed in the correct information but ignoring it.

>Mist is worse than rain for getting deep into cameras and fucking them, end of story.
Never once debated this or claimed it wasn't the case. Double points for continuing to miss this point after telling me that *I* should read posts and only respond to what's actually said.
>Should have been my first and last response to your autistic ass...
No, wrong lesson here. The lesson here is don't speculate on shit you don't know about. You tried to sound like you knew what you were talking about by throwing "surface tension" in and just showed you had no clue.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 21 Aug 2016 03:12:42 No.2907576 Report

Quoted By: >>2907580 >>2907583

>>2907567
>>2907566
Wew, you're a pathetic one.

/\M8U5H !!zJbpV0948+w

/\M8U5H !!zJbpV0948+w Sun 21 Aug 2016 03:13:15 No.2907577 Report

Quoted By: >>2907579

>>2907575

Not reading your irrelevant shit anymore, cuck.

For your enjoyment:

>>2907566
>>2907567

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 21 Aug 2016 03:14:31 No.2907579 Report

Quoted By: >>2907583

>>2907577
>>2907573
+3 internet points
(bonus point for claiming irrelevancy)

/\M8U5H !!zJbpV0948+w

/\M8U5H !!zJbpV0948+w Sun 21 Aug 2016 03:14:56 No.2907580 Report

Quoted By: >>2907584

>>2907576

10/10 rebuttal

you sure destroyed those images

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1471544900170.gif, 1MiB, 480x358

Anonymous Sun 21 Aug 2016 03:15:16 No.2907582 Report

Quoted By:

never knew /p/ got this triggered by water

/\M8U5H !!zJbpV0948+w

/\M8U5H !!zJbpV0948+w Sun 21 Aug 2016 03:16:00 No.2907583 Report

Quoted By: >>2907586 >>2909135

>>2907576
>>2907579

Haha, he's getting mad now!

Well, more than he already was... such angst in this one. Bitter anger, always.

Small-dicked virgin?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 21 Aug 2016 03:16:46 No.2907584 Report

Quoted By: >>2907587

>>2907580
I love that you seriously, honestly believe that they prove anything.

Thought you weren't "reading my irrelevant shit" anymore?

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 546765.jpg, 60KiB, 424x377

Anonymous Sun 21 Aug 2016 03:17:26 No.2907585 Report

Quoted By: >>2907596

>>2907566
>>2907567

but what if they were made of hydrophilic fabric?

HOW U GON STOP DAT WICKING BRUH? HUH? DAT SWELLING?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 21 Aug 2016 03:18:51 No.2907586 Report

Quoted By: >>2907594

>>2907583
Am I? Is that what you need to believe? I'm sure your inability to actually move on and ignore me while drawing red lines to "prove" something definitely is me getting mad.

/\M8U5H !!zJbpV0948+w

/\M8U5H !!zJbpV0948+w Sun 21 Aug 2016 03:19:10 No.2907587 Report

Quoted By: >>2907591

>>2907584

I said it so you'd say that. You're predictable as fuck.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 21 Aug 2016 03:21:02 No.2907590 Report

Quoted By:

>>2907543
Is it kinda like if you put a big droplet of water on a rose petal it will roll off but if you spray a fine mist of water on it it will sit there, less likely to roll off?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 21 Aug 2016 03:21:11 No.2907591 Report

Quoted By:

>>2907587
Oh, I'm sure.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 21 Aug 2016 03:24:02 No.2907593 Report

Quoted By: >>2907598

I am developing a DIY sensor system that needs to have a shutter that closes momentarily over the sensor to collect dark current. I've read that shutters for mirrorless cameras are in their open state when power is not being applied, so it seems like that is the kind I would want.

Is there anywhere one could acquire one of these shutters on the cheap?

/\M8U5H !!zJbpV0948+w

/\M8U5H !!zJbpV0948+w Sun 21 Aug 2016 03:24:18 No.2907594 Report

Quoted By: >>2907615

>>2907586

>move on
>ignore me

Nice exit strategy... calling me small for not ignoring you. YouTube comment section tier stuff.

Copy / paste all the bullshit you want, but it doesn't change the facts that smaller rain drops penetrate a camera easier than large ones.

You've never gotten a single drop of rain on your babby's first snapshitter, and it shows.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 21 Aug 2016 03:25:40 No.2907596 Report

Quoted By:

>>2907585

I must be tired, because I lol'd

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 21 Aug 2016 03:26:39 No.2907597 Report

Quoted By:

when is weather sealing not going to help? What's a good mirrorless with weather sealing?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 21 Aug 2016 03:28:16 No.2907598 Report

Quoted By: >>2907633

>>2907593
Getting a cheap body off of ebay/craigslist/some other outlet would probably be your best bet. Might be best to go with an EOS M because of the work done hacking the firmware for the likes of Magic Lantern...

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 21 Aug 2016 03:30:35 No.2907600 Report

Quoted By:

Nothing is worse than heavy mist.

/\M8U5H !!zJbpV0948+w

/\M8U5H !!zJbpV0948+w Sun 21 Aug 2016 03:31:45 No.2907601 Report

Quoted By:

Hiding this shit thread now.

So long, autismo.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO herp.jpg, 67KiB, 528x960

Anonymous Sun 21 Aug 2016 03:48:32 No.2907615 Report

Quoted By:

>>2907594
>Nice exit strategy... calling me small for not ignoring you. YouTube comment section tier stuff.
I'm having fun. I only bring it up because you stated that you were ignoring me. Great cover with the "I GOT YOU!" response by the way.

>Copy / paste all the bullshit you want, but it doesn't change the facts that smaller rain drops penetrate a camera easier than large ones.

And I'm the one who argues against something that's entirely made up.

>You've never gotten a single drop of rain on your babby's first snapshitter, and it shows.
If you keep throwing random shit out there, I'm sure some of it will stick eventually.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 27693_Nikon_1_V3_left.png, 295KiB, 700x595

Anonymous Sun 21 Aug 2016 04:02:38 No.2907626 Report

Quoted By: >>2907632 >>2907636 >>2907637 >>2907661

(I asked in the last gear thread but the thread died.)

I am moving back to Japan in a few months and was trying to avoid having to buy a DSLR. Planning on doing lots of video interviews, still portraits, and landscapes of Tokyo. Strictly a hobby--I just don't want to lug around heavy gear and a ton of lenses (space is very much at a premium).

Is there a premium compact that provides the following?

- Interchangeable lenses (i'd prefer to buy a single, high quality 35mm or 50mm and just use that)
- Flip-around screen so I can frame video shots from in front of the camera
- External mic input so I can connect a better quality mic for interviews

I've looked at:

- Sony a6000/a6300 (no flipping screen)
- Fuji X70 (no mic input)
- Fuji X100T (no flipping screen [the remote app is nice, but requires wifi to let your phone frame the shot which I may not always have])
- Nikon V3 (picture left--has a ton of shit reviews about the image quality)
- Canon G7 (no interchangeable lenses)

Is there anything else I should look at or is a DSLR (e.g. GH4, Canon 80D, Nikon D5500) going to be the only way to get these features?

thanks in advance

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Sony_200mm_14183524464_e5b875c4d (...).jpg, 367KiB, 1024x683

Anonymous Sun 21 Aug 2016 04:05:41 No.2907630 Report

Quoted By: >>2907660

Has anyone removed the rear baffles (3 small screws) from Sony NEX e-mount lens to use on full frame? Specifically experience with the 55-210mm

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 21 Aug 2016 04:07:31 No.2907632 Report

Quoted By: >>2907636

>>2907626
LX100?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 21 Aug 2016 04:07:41 No.2907633 Report

Quoted By:

>>2907598
Thanks, I will look into that. Hopefully the shutter assembly won't weigh a lot.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 81wPivrnsiL._SL1500_.jpg, 155KiB, 1500x1125

Anonymous Sun 21 Aug 2016 04:12:21 No.2907636 Report

Quoted By:

>>2907626
>>2907632
you know what's crazy? the moment i posted this, i stumbled upon the panasonic gx8...which might do the trick

https://www.amazon.com/Panasonic-DMC-GX8KBODY-Mirrorless-Camera-Stabilization/dp/B011B8QW38/ref=dp_ob_title_ce

+ interchangeable lenses
+ flipping screen
+ mic jack

I will check out the lx100 though.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO size comparison.jpg, 710KiB, 1920x1080

Anonymous Sun 21 Aug 2016 04:12:51 No.2907637 Report

Quoted By: >>2907639

>>2907626
Eh, there really isn't a "compact" that has interchangeable lenses, so if you're looking with that as a search term, you'll probably run into some issues.

Sounds like you're mainly looking for a mirrorless and likely a micro 4/3 one. The GH4 that you mentioned is really small. Not full on compact small, but it's definitely very much on the small side.

Those are gh4s on the left and 5DmkIIIs on the right.

I'm not sure of how they compare to the Panny, but the Sony crop sensor cameras are pretty damn small too.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 21 Aug 2016 04:18:02 No.2907639 Report

Quoted By: >>2907642 >>2907646

>>2907637
I should really go see them in person I think to get a sense.

I know people rave about the GH4 for video, but how do they do for stills? Trying to minimize gear, so I definitely don't mind having to drop a little $ on one good lens to save space.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 21 Aug 2016 04:22:02 No.2907642 Report

Quoted By:

>>2907639
>I should really go see them in person I think to get a sense.
This is really the best bet. Also, I remember hearing somewhere that it's best to buy stuff like cameras in Japan if you're over there. Dunno how much truth there is to that, but it's definitely an option for you.

This site can help you a little, but in person is best.
http://camerasize.com/compare/#347,162

>I know people rave about the GH4 for video, but how do they do for stills? Trying to minimize gear, so I definitely don't mind having to drop a little $ on one good lens to save space.
They're good, not exceptional in any way, but not terrible either. On the weaker side when it comes to low light performance, but that's true of basically all smaller sensored cameras.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 21 Aug 2016 04:28:15 No.2907644 Report

Quoted By: >>2907648

I got into photography through film, but I'm considering investing in a DSLR to try to get into professional photography.

So, I really like the Fujifilm X-E1, but is it a good camera for professional work? Will I be able to use it for at least a decade without it becoming obsolete?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 21 Aug 2016 04:31:07 No.2907646 Report

Quoted By: >>2907657

>>2907639
EM5II
M
5
I
I

The IBIS will be nice for video. Video quality won't be outright as good as the GH4 though.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 21 Aug 2016 04:33:48 No.2907648 Report

Quoted By:

>>2907644
There are people out there making a living with rabbles, D5xxx's, and the like. "pro" bodies tend to just make tasks easier and workflows more efficient, not so much making them possible.

As far as a decade goes, don't worry about obsolescence. There are still plenty of bodies like the original 5D that are still in the wild and being used. Whether or not the body will be able to be productive for that amount of time depends more on what your needs are, if they change, and how well the lens ecosystem suits your needs.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1470501851005.jpg, 23KiB, 300x300

Anonymous Sun 21 Aug 2016 04:42:51 No.2907652 Report

Quoted By:

100 replies in and people are still arguing over water.. the fuck is wrong with you??

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 21 Aug 2016 04:54:01 No.2907657 Report

Quoted By:

>>2907646
thx for the suggestion! actually the video looks pretty great to me.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VDHw6OOzW0M

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 21 Aug 2016 05:08:38 No.2907660 Report

Quoted By:

>>2907630

I tried it on a 16mm I had lying around.

It covers 90% of the frame.

Haven't seen antone do it with the 55-210mm.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 21 Aug 2016 05:12:32 No.2907661 Report

Quoted By: >>2907662

>>2907626

I answered in the last thread.

The best bet would be mirrorless for the small size. Sony, Fuji, and m4/3 are the only ones worth looking at.

Sony e-mount (a6300, a7 series) can take great photos and video, but none of them have an LCD that flips around though so they would be out (though you can control it wirelessly with a smartphone).

Fuji would work(x-t10 and so on), but limited video options. They have some nice affordable lenses even though the selection is rather limited.

Best bet would be micro four thirds, specifically the panasonic gh4 which is great for video. While it does not look nearly as cool as the Sony or Fuji bodies, it is quite a nice camera. The m43 sensor is smaller than the Fuji and Sony sensors which means worse low light performance, but it is considerably larger than a cellphone or point-and-shoot meaning you would get some pretty great images.

I don't know if you planned to or not, but be careful buying a camera in Japan. With the exchange rate it is more expensive, warranties are not honored outside of Japan, and some companies release Japanese only firmware models.

And are you gonna be one of those annoying gaijin that runs around taking videos of everything from buying train tickets to ordering mcdonalds?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 21 Aug 2016 05:22:19 No.2907662 Report

Quoted By: >>2907664

>>2907661
thx for the reply--definitely not an annoying gaijin :) i lived there a long time in my early 20s and got it all out of my system.

you're right that micro 4/3 seems to be right in the sweet spot for my needs.

what would you say to the suggestion of olympus? how's their reputation? the panasonic stuff looks great, but this olympus also looks awesome, and seems to have the edge on high quality stills because of their IS system.

http://www.getolympus.com/us/en/digitalcameras/omd/e-m5-mark-ii.html

i will definitely be buying a camera here in the states.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 21 Aug 2016 05:31:35 No.2907664 Report

Quoted By: >>2907667

>>2907662

Olympus makes some of the better m43 cameras. Their e-m5 and e-m10 are pretty awesome bodies.

The only real issue with them is that they are quite expensive. The em-5 is what? Close to a grand? For that price you could get a full frame a7.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 21 Aug 2016 05:43:21 No.2907667 Report

Quoted By: >>2907673

>>2907664
It's funny, you're right about the full frame, but the features start to drop as you get into the more prosumer/pro stuff like the a7--no fully reversible tilting screen, for example, which makes a huge difference when i'm in the field and just want to frame a shot really quickly. I'd rather have a smaller sensor and be 100% sure the shot is framed right, despite how gorgeous the video output of the Sonys are. Also, that sony rolling shutter is hideous...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXeB5uyuboc

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 21 Aug 2016 05:52:54 No.2907672 Report

Quoted By:

are Summilux Aspherical lenses good invesments? Can it be a family heirloom for my future grandkids?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 21 Aug 2016 05:55:52 No.2907673 Report

Quoted By:

>>2907667

Not a single Sony model has a flip around or even touch screen. Well except the e-mount camcorders. And the rolling shutter is pretty terrible unless you shift it to aps-c mode which defeats the purpose.

Hopefully the upcoming a7iii and a9 fix some of those little issues. They are so close to being perfect camera bodies.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Pentax-SMC-DA-70mm-f2.4-Limited.jpg, 160KiB, 1600x1055

Anonymous Sun 21 Aug 2016 06:07:46 No.2907675 Report

Quoted By: >>2907698

>>2907229
Bought this off a jap ebay store today!

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 21 Aug 2016 06:21:46 No.2907679 Report

Quoted By: >>2907703

Hi /p/ would sincerely appreciate a recommendation here.

I'm going to University soon and I'll have the opportunity to take pictures of the landscape, its essentially a mini-city built in the middle of a rural area, which has a suburban outer border.

A friend of mine had this big bulky camera and a black room where he developed photographs, some of the scrap books he made were wonderful. He got to take a lot of nude photos of girls he knew but claimed to be abstinent.

I mention all of this because I'd like to do what he does, just capture moments, capture bits and pieces of life and put them in scrap books. He had this funky looking analog SLR with lenses from 15mm-150mm, he loved to capture photos of military things like WWII Submarines.

So what kind of analog SLR would you recommend to a beginner, if at all? I do have access to a dark room.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO maxresdefault.jpg, 188KiB, 1920x1080

Anonymous Sun 21 Aug 2016 07:04:21 No.2907691 Report

Quoted By: >>2907710 >>2907965

>>2907229
I want to buy a d500 so I can take pictures of moving things, but I also want to take some landscapes. Is the dx sensor going to fuck for that?
This is my first camera, but I want to buy one so I have something to do when I go to shitty events.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 21 Aug 2016 07:50:28 No.2907697 Report

Quoted By: >>2907709 >>2907714

>>2907278
MTF charts show things that have very little in common with real life uses.
This is through experience, not just some picked up /p/ bullshittery. Look at third party lens scores with different mounts, like a Sigma art lens on Nikon, Sony and Pentax bodies. These all have the same sensors so scores should be near each other. Except Nikon is on top, fololowed by Sony not-so-closely, a Canon body score between these and Pentax. Massive bias from an undisclosed scoring and quantifying algorithm. DXO scores are marketing, nothing else. If you are curious about actual performance just look at photos made with the lens and make your own evaluation based on if you like what you see or not.
Don't let some marketing people tell you what you have to like and what not.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 21 Aug 2016 07:53:00 No.2907698 Report

Quoted By: >>2907747

>>2907675
I assume you want to take portraits.
>Taking pin-sharp portraits with a kit 5x more compact than an equivalent mirrorless kit.
I am jelly.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 21 Aug 2016 08:02:22 No.2907700 Report

Quoted By: >>2907701

Some guy is selling a Nikon AIs 20mm 2.8 in mint condition for $100, should I cop?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 21 Aug 2016 08:03:39 No.2907701 Report

Quoted By:

>>2907700
Yes

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 21 Aug 2016 08:08:50 No.2907703 Report

Quoted By:

>>2907679
If ultimately the only reason is that you want prints, then you should just do digital.

It will be cheaper per shot and yield more good shots (assuming you don't pussy out on the initial costs).

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 21 Aug 2016 08:21:36 No.2907709 Report

Quoted By: >>2907714

>>2907697
Oh, I forgot to add that all the low scoring shitted-on lenses on DXO produced pin-sharp more than decent and excellent results.
The 70-200/2.8 that was praised on Nikon and booed on Pentax has excellent sub-pixel sharpness, entirely the opposite of what DXO claims.
Their scoring has nothing in common with reality.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 21 Aug 2016 08:21:46 No.2907710 Report

Quoted By: >>2907965 >>2907992

>>2907691
>I want to buy a d500 so I can take pictures of moving things, but I also want to take some landscapes
Get a A6300 and put the price difference into your lens(es).

> Is the dx sensor going to fuck for that?
Nah, why? Of course it depends on how much you want to crop, but >20MP only reduced by some (because you are using a good lens that won't blur your image to shit) leave you a lot to work with, either way.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 21 Aug 2016 08:36:18 No.2907714 Report

Quoted By: >>2907715

>>2907709
>>2907697
The measurements show you how a lens performs, no way around it.

Lenses that were measured to have low sharpness just don't produce "pin-sharp" results.

On the other hand, derived aggregate scores are obviously a guesstimate what might matter to people and no longer so objective. They may be completely meaningless if you don't understand what they represent.

Simply put, read and understand the detailed measurements if you want to know how lenses perform in detail.

> The 70-200/2.8 that was praised on Nikon and booed on Pentax has excellent sub-pixel sharpness, entirely the opposite of what DXO claims.
Let's start with the basics.
1. Where is such a DXO "claim"?
2. Where is the proof that they are wrong?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 21 Aug 2016 08:43:55 No.2907715 Report

Quoted By: >>2907723

>>2907714
Nope. The measurement shows how a lens performs with that exact measurement. If a lens is designed for different parameters than the measurement is designed for it will give a false reading.
Like I said, not all lenses are designed with a complete planar DoF, so when the measurement with planar reading gives a bad result it doesn't mean the lens is bad, it means the DoF doesn't overlap the planar chart. It can and will give sharp and excellent image while the false scoring will show bad results.
Also massive brand bias.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 21 Aug 2016 09:10:35 No.2907723 Report

Quoted By: >>2907733

>>2907715
> Like I said, not all lenses are designed with a complete planar DoF, so when the measurement with planar reading gives a bad result it doesn't mean the lens is bad
It does, since the *best possible case* of a photo in that image plane already was shit?

Do you think a fair test condition would be to try a pattern on adequately curved balls framed in the center of their shot? Because that's what we will shoot ... at some point... maybe?

> Also massive brand bias.
You could provide solid evidence or even a proof for this, perhaps? Last claims didn't get anything at all.

I'm getting a "science sucks since it doesn't back the result / brand I want" vibe here.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 21 Aug 2016 09:53:11 No.2907733 Report

Quoted By: >>2907743

>>2907723
You still refuse to see the results for yourself.
Go on DXO, see third party lens with multiple mounts and compare the scores of THE EXACT SAME OPTICS over different brands. Even better if you compare over Nikon, Sony and Pentax since they have the same sensors.
Do your own research! This is a third rate anonymous internet forum, nobody gives a shit about "solid evidence" when you can easily dig it up for yourself. Unless you are a blatant shill and/or troll. In this case fuck you.
DXO is poison in the photography world.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 21 Aug 2016 10:34:03 No.2907743 Report

Quoted By:

>>2907733
> compare the scores of THE EXACT SAME OPTICS over different brands
THE EXACT SAME OPTICS were even tested with multiple bodies of the same brand and the aggregate scores weren't the same either.

The only thing this shows is that you haven't even read the basic DxO explanation about what the scores mean.

> nobody gives a shit about "solid evidence" when you can easily dig it up for yourself
Seems like this isn't easy to dig up, because these things you presented as "facts" were apparently randomly made up by you.

> Do your own research!
No, YOU back up your claims.

You said shit about "sub-pixel sharpness" on a 70-200/2.8 that DxO apparently "claimed" wasn't good, and I can find neither part of that.

You said there is brand bias. You said there is logic to measuring non-planar parameters and that tests would show something significantly different than DxO would to the point where DxO's tests are "false readings".

I mean, this shit should have some concrete sources with good, objective measurements. But apparently it does not.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 21 Aug 2016 10:45:58 No.2907747 Report

Quoted By: >>2907751

>>2907698
yeah. been using the samyang 85mm 1.4 so far which is fantastic already at f2.4 but it's really hard to focus manually on a low DOF and my eyes are shit.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 21 Aug 2016 10:52:18 No.2907751 Report

Quoted By: >>2908145

>>2907747

Yea, I had the same issue with the Voigtlander 40mm f 1.4.

If it weren't for manual focus assist zooming, I might as well be shooting with my eyes closed.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 21 Aug 2016 11:34:55 No.2907762 Report

Quoted By:

>DXOmark doesn't have good scores for the camera ecosystem i bought into, therefore it is not valid

Yeah, ok.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO TB2qS21iXXXXXc.XXXXXXXXXXXX_!!92 (...).jpg, 122KiB, 900x974

Anonymous Sun 21 Aug 2016 11:49:05 No.2907765 Report

Quoted By: >>2907769

Anyone have experience with this kind of monopod feet?

I'm sort of curious about which kind of surfaces it would have problems with.
Let's say a slippery grassy hill tilting 30 degrees, would I be able to plant my monopos on such a hill and have the monopod stand completely vertical withour the feet slipping down the hill?

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO sirui_ps_series_monopod.jpg, 78KiB, 712x943

Anonymous Sun 21 Aug 2016 12:15:12 No.2907769 Report

Quoted By:

>>2907765
I have this "kind" in the form of a Sirui PS monopod and its wide foot, yes.

>Let's say a slippery grassy hill tilting 30 degrees, would I be able to plant my monopos on such a hill and have the monopod stand completely vertical withour the feet slipping down the hill?
Probably not, at least not with the one I have.

I mean, it could work just barely somehow, but it's definitely not a good idea. Use a tripod for that.

Muhmegapickels !!0Z+XAssRGPW

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1467690763521.gif, 551KiB, 245x163

Muhmegapickels !!0Z+XAssRGPW Sun 21 Aug 2016 16:11:43 No.2907875 Report

Quoted By: >>2907968 >>2908074

>>2907229
>Leica marketing not only to the rich in general but filthy NEW MONEY CASUALS with absolutely PLEBIAN tastes
Tape magnets to Barnack's corpse and wrap some copper wire around his coffin, and Germany would have free electricity forever.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 21 Aug 2016 17:54:09 No.2907907 Report

Quoted By: >>2907924 >>2908274

The market of mirrorless is changing every year. This makes old comparisons or "guides" nearly useless.

Basically, for normal street photography/travel wat mirrorless is gud?

EM-5 MKII is expensive but it seems like the best choice.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 21 Aug 2016 17:55:01 No.2907910 Report

Quoted By: >>2908389

I'm debating between an EF-X20 and a Nissin i40 for a Fuji compatible flash. What do?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 21 Aug 2016 18:13:10 No.2907924 Report

Quoted By: >>2907927

>>2907907
> Basically, for normal street photography/travel wat mirrorless is gud?
Was that a question? Yes, it is.

> EM-5 MKII is expensive but it seems like the best choice.
For that? Well, it's a pretty good option.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 21 Aug 2016 18:18:34 No.2907927 Report

Quoted By: >>2908136

>>2907924
I'm looking all around. The EM-5 MKII is said to have a good, but not perfect autofocus system. The in-body stabilization is a big plus, too.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 21 Aug 2016 20:08:08 No.2907965 Report

Quoted By: >>2907970 >>2907992 >>2908276

>>2907691
>I also want to take some landscapes. Is the dx sensor going to fuck for that?

It will be fine.

Some cameras like the D810 are even better for landscapes, but that's like comparing a 280km/h Porsche to a 300km/h Ferrari: both are more than adequate for the job and the real world differences are hard to even notice.

My only concern would be finding good wide-angle lenses for the DX sensor. - this is a little easier for full frame at the moment.

For your action shots the high FPS and awesome auto focus system will make a real difference. (don't listen to trolls like >>2907710 - mirrorless cameras have shit auto focus not suitable for moving subjects)

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 21 Aug 2016 20:11:54 No.2907968 Report

Quoted By: >>2907971 >>2908004

>>2907875
I always smile when I see airport electronics shops sell Leica's next to Rebels.

Leica is officially for snobs now, deal with it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 21 Aug 2016 20:13:40 No.2907970 Report

Quoted By: >>2907991

>>2907965

Is the Nikkor 10.5mm any gud?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 21 Aug 2016 20:13:44 No.2907971 Report

Quoted By: >>2907983

>>2907968
>nouveau riche mainland chinese and beverly hills soccer moms
>snobs
They'd eat goose turds if you told them it was escargot

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 21 Aug 2016 20:22:45 No.2907983 Report

Quoted By:

>>2907971
A snob is anyone who isn't nobility.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Bxb2fTTCAAA_GAX.jpg, 72KiB, 600x450

Anonymous Sun 21 Aug 2016 20:28:52 No.2907991 Report

Quoted By:

>>2907970
It's a fisheye lens.
Meaning it severely distorts the image.

For landscapes you generally want a rectilinear lens.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 21 Aug 2016 20:30:05 No.2907992 Report

Quoted By: >>2907995 >>2908004

>>2907965
>For your action shots the high FPS and awesome auto focus system will make a real difference. (don't listen to trolls like >>2907710 - mirrorless cameras have shit auto focus not suitable for moving subjects)
The A6300 has *exactly* high FPS and awesome AF.

Not suitable my ass, it works easily for just about anything and should actually perform better than the D500 in normal light (2EV or so?).

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 21 Aug 2016 20:31:42 No.2907995 Report

Quoted By: >>2908018

>>2907992
Troll softer

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 21 Aug 2016 20:57:06 No.2908004 Report

Quoted By: >>2908006 >>2908022

>>2907968
Leica has been for snobs for way longer than most of /p/ has been alive. Conspicuous consumption has kept the company afloat since SLRs supplanted rangefinders as the most common type of camera in the late 60s. That doesn't change the fact that they produce excellent cameras and superlative lenses, so Leica is also a good choice for serious photographers who can afford them.

>>2907992
Modern mirrorless AF systems are extremely fast and accurate. That hasn't been an issue since the first or second generation.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 21 Aug 2016 20:58:55 No.2908006 Report

Quoted By: >>2908022 >>2908025

>>2908004
>Modern mirrorless AF systems are extremely fast and accurate.
>extremely
No, they are on the faster side, but they are by no means "extreme"

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 21 Aug 2016 21:10:03 No.2908018 Report

Quoted By: >>2908024

>>2907995
To keep it short:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-j4SwEuBGLI

If you want many extensive reviews, you'll find them on the internets, but in general, if you have a non-shit lens ($1k+ cameras, don't put utter shit on them...) and have somewhat reasonable light, it'll be a fucking good AF system.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 21 Aug 2016 21:11:33 No.2908022 Report

Quoted By:

>>2908004
>>2908006
They are alright at static subjects, but moving subjects is a whole different matter.

The guy was specifically looking at the D500 to "take pictures of moving things"

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 21 Aug 2016 21:15:42 No.2908024 Report

Quoted By: >>2908040

>>2908018
That video only shows it can pick the right AF points.

It doesn't mean the shots will actually be in focus.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 21 Aug 2016 21:16:28 No.2908025 Report

Quoted By: >>2908029 >>2908030 >>2908031

>>2908006
Ok, how about "more than adequate for 99.99% of actual uses".

https://youtu.be/up8K_xd_iwU
Keep in mind that's 2 years old now. Unless you're seriously debating whether to buy a top of the line DSLR vs a mirrorless that costs 1/6 as much, there's nothing left to discuss.

What's with the mirrorless hate around here? Is it insecurity about your decision to purchase an SLR, or is it just retards echoing other retards on the internet? Just deal with the fact that pretty much any camera on the market today is more capable than you are, and it's your fault if your shots aren't good.

Positive-ly Negative

Positive-ly Negative Sun 21 Aug 2016 21:22:12 No.2908029 Report

Quoted By:

>>2908025
Mirrorless hate? Every other thread becomes either a Sony or Fuji appreciation thread

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 21 Aug 2016 21:23:28 No.2908030 Report

Quoted By:

>>2908025
Make that around 70% and you might have a point.

>mirrorless hate
Correcting your hyperbole isn't hate. It's being honest about the capabilities, unlike your mindless fanboy "MIRRORLESS IS THE GREATEST THING EVER IN EVERY WAY".

Honestly, if you read most of the replies talking about mirrorless, they're even keeled about the subject these days. They talk about the weaknesses and strengths. People like you take any mention of how a mirrorless body might not be perfect for absolutely everyone as "hating" or some other idiotic bullshit.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 21 Aug 2016 21:23:55 No.2908031 Report

Quoted By:

>>2908025
>Unless you're seriously debating whether to buy a top of the line DSLR vs a mirrorless

That's exactly what's going on.

Guy was asking about the Nikon D500.
It has the same AF system as the top of the line D5.

Then (you?) claimed a mid-range mirrorless will have not just similar but BETTER AF than the D500.
...and then you cry "mirrless hate" when the bullshit gets called out.

Mirrorless is fine for casual snapshitting.
But it is not a replacement for $2000+ professional level DSLR's.
Sorry if this causes you to experience pain inside your rectum.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 21 Aug 2016 21:35:57 No.2908040 Report

Quoted By: >>2908053

>>2908024
No, it does not miscalculate the distance or anything like that. Works exactly like you'd expect from seeing that.

But I CBA to go down the review trail. There are surely burst shot samples and video samples in lots of reviews, on YT and across the various review sites doing illustrated reviews on the internets.

Anyhow, works excellently.

Not that there are zero downsides vs a D500. Which I think it can for example take faster storage chips and clear the buffer faster. And which has bigger batteries.

But with "moving things" and landscape shots being the goal stated, I think the like $800 or 40% increase in price over a A6300 which has advantages on its own is very possibly not worth it.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO img_01.png, 134KiB, 338x272

Anonymous Sun 21 Aug 2016 21:49:00 No.2908053 Report

Quoted By: >>2908068 >>2908071

>>2908040
>No, it does not miscalculate the distance or anything like that. Works exactly like you'd expect from seeing that.

Focusing on objects that move towards or away from the camera is very difficult.

Modern DSLR's don't just look at the distance when you press the shutter.
They also look at the speed to predict where the subject will be during the exposure, moments after the shutter was pressed.

To achieve this, DSLR's have a dedicated sensor that's nothing like a normal image sensor.
Cameras with just an image sensor can never compete, a couple of phase detection pixels isn't going to overcome this.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 21 Aug 2016 22:00:56 No.2908068 Report

Quoted By:

>>2908053
Yep, separate phase detection AF sensors have special AF sensor lenses to project a very different image on the AF sensor. The image is more of a cropped part of the circle of confusion distorted into a thin donut shape by the special lens. Then this CoC is picked up by a linear sensor and depending on where the lightband is it can determine which way to focus. It is a very clean and efficient way of focusing and can use less light to accurately determine focus.
You can't do this on a mircoprism sensor integrated AF, especially on longer focal lengths since the CoC gets way bigger than the on-sensor AF sites so AF only works on a narrow focal band. Outside of that band it is the same old hunting try-and-fail contrast detection AF.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 21 Aug 2016 22:02:49 No.2908071 Report

Quoted By: >>2908080

>>2908053
> Cameras with just an image sensor can never compete, a couple of phase detection pixels isn't going to overcome this.
Never? It already works right now.

Yes, these cameras shoot objects moving toward or away from the camera while focusing on them accurately and rapidly.

I don't care how hard it was for Sony to introduce this feature on the same chip module rather than having it off the module somewhere else... it already works.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 21 Aug 2016 22:04:10 No.2908074 Report

Quoted By:

>>2907875
It is a little amausing to me that my black AE-1P with the FD 35/2.8 on it cost about $50, but would mark me out as a man of discerning tastes and refined style, but that any modern leica barring the MA is the instant identifier of the t. pleb

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 21 Aug 2016 22:08:45 No.2908078 Report

Quoted By:

Not sure if this is the right thread but does anyone know what settings/apps I can use to maximize the efficiency of my S7 camera?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 21 Aug 2016 22:09:29 No.2908080 Report

Quoted By: >>2908109

>>2908071
>It already works

Nowhere as well as on a DSLR.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 21 Aug 2016 22:09:43 No.2908081 Report

Quoted By:

I am in a dilemma, just tried comparison shots with OS enabled vs in-body SR on the Bigma.
The OS gives a steady viewfinder image but gets more blur in 90% of the shots while in-body SR gives shaky viewfinder image and steady sharp shots 90% of the time.
It doesn't help that with the OS off the floating element has a bit of shake induced vibration visible in viewfinder.
After this short time I am really tempted to part from the Bigma and get a non-OS shorter lens somewhere around 300mm.
Should I sell it or just swallow my pride and keep carrying all this burden?

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO ZF-ZF2.png, 402KiB, 720x500

Anonymous Sun 21 Aug 2016 22:14:19 No.2908085 Report

Quoted By: >>2908090 >>2908093

I'm currently shooting film on a Nikon F3HP body w/ a 50mm f1.4 Nikkor AI-s Lens and I was wondering if the Zeiss Distagon T 35mm F/1.4 ZF.2 Lens for Nikon F Mount would be compatible with it.
I know that its predecessor at F/2.0 w/ the ZF is compatible because it has the same coupling as the AI-S lenses but I'm not sure if the ZF.2 would be.
I read that the ZF.2 is similar to the AI-P lenses, which are compatible with the F3, but I'm not entirely sure. Any help?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 21 Aug 2016 22:19:55 No.2908089 Report

Quoted By:

Nevermind, a quick search on wikipedia says " ZF series lenses fit the Nikon F-mount. Four design variations are designated ZF, ZF.2, ZF-I, and ZF-IR. All are manual-focus designs with Nikon AI-S type aperture indexing.

ZF lenses have AI-S aperture indexing, half-stop aperture ring detents, and no electronic features.
ZF.2 lenses are like ZF lenses, with the addition CPU functionality, similar to Nikon AI-P lenses. They allow electronic focus confirmation, full metering compatibility, and electronic aperture control with Nikon SLR cameras which require CPU lenses."

I guess my answer is yes, it will work fine.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 21 Aug 2016 22:20:05 No.2908090 Report

Quoted By: >>2908095

>>2908085
>ZF is the original product line. ZF.2 lenses are CPU-enabled (similar to Nikon AI-P lenses) offering full metering compatibility with the full range of AF Nikon SLR cameras.
To me it sounds like it should work without problems. The only difference is the electric contacts that don't connect with anything so it is effectively works as a regular ZF mount.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 21 Aug 2016 22:22:07 No.2908093 Report

Quoted By:

>>2908085
Don't purchase something that spendy without finding out for sure:
https://www.borrowlenses.com/product/Zeiss_35mm_1_4_for_Nikon

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 21 Aug 2016 22:23:25 No.2908095 Report

Quoted By:

>>2908090

Haha yeah I agree with you. I thought the coupler ring was important for the aperture pin on my camera body but it doesn't actually use it or have it haha

Thanks for the reply :)

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 21 Aug 2016 22:44:03 No.2908109 Report

Quoted By: >>2908798

>>2908080
Easily better than most DSLR, until you hit low light situations at which point the DSLR AFAICT slow down less rapidly?

And I guess DSLR usually also still have more clever subject tracking - except when face tracking works, then Sony is kinda better.

Sugar !egyYvoBZV2

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1137-4321.jpg, 777KiB, 1440x954

Sugar !egyYvoBZV2 Sun 21 Aug 2016 22:54:55 No.2908117 Report

Quoted By: >>2908118 >>2908119 >>2908120 >>2908123

Rate my Holy Trinity.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 21 Aug 2016 22:56:29 No.2908118 Report

Quoted By: >>2908127

>>2908117

poverty first-gen AF/10

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 21 Aug 2016 22:56:30 No.2908119 Report

Quoted By: >>2908127

>>2908117
>no red rings
Nothing holy about that shit.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 21 Aug 2016 22:58:05 No.2908120 Report

Quoted By: >>2908127

>>2908117
Seriously though, get the 20mm D...I think it's an f/2.8, but 35mm is way too close to 50mm for my taste.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 21 Aug 2016 22:58:51 No.2908123 Report

Quoted By: >>2908127

>>2908117

1.8/10

Sugar !egyYvoBZV2

Sugar !egyYvoBZV2 Sun 21 Aug 2016 23:05:41 No.2908127 Report

Quoted By: >>2908129 >>2908172

>>2908123

kek

>>2908119

I went through my red ring phase already there's nothing special about those unless its a 200/1.8 or 50/1. I liked them but I could get the same performance for less money elsewhere.

>>2908120

How is the distortion on that 20? I'm looking to pick up an UWA Nikkor something and I was looking at 20mm. I know Nikon makes a shit ton of them.

I have a 35 for my D7000 because the 1.8DX a shit.

>>2908118

>He shoots neutered Chinese G lenses. Look at him and laugh.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 21 Aug 2016 23:08:18 No.2908129 Report

Quoted By: >>2908133

>>2908127
>How is the distortion on that 20? I'm looking to pick up an UWA Nikkor something and I was looking at 20mm. I know Nikon makes a shit ton of them.
>I have a 35 for my D7000 because the 1.8DX a shit.
Let me pull out my hdd and I'll export some in a minute. Not that bad as I recall. As for shooting dx, that means you really, really need wider.

Sugar !egyYvoBZV2

Sugar !egyYvoBZV2 Sun 21 Aug 2016 23:18:49 No.2908133 Report

Quoted By: >>2908143 >>2908167

>>2908129

I'm stepping up to the Df here soon the D7000 will be my carry piece or when I need some reach

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 21 Aug 2016 23:27:30 No.2908136 Report

Quoted By: >>2908326

>>2907927
>good, but not perfect autofocus system

That describes every mirrorless except Fuji, which 'passable, but not good'.

Personally, I'd lean more towards something with a larger sensor like the said Fuji or a Sony.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 21 Aug 2016 23:37:09 No.2908143 Report

Quoted By: >>2908167

>>2908133
I apparently have murdered my dropbox account so here are some snapshit (including a spectacular failure at trying to shoot an aurora for bonus) raws. I figure raws would be best so you can throw them in lightroom and hit the lens profile correction so you can see how it is. Ignore most of the vignetting because these were shot on fx.

I don't remember what lens that shot in Moab was shot with, but I can't be assed to delete it.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B3Sn6QNDm1INV0F6dzlxNWhCblE

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 21 Aug 2016 23:38:42 No.2908145 Report

Quoted By: >>2908147

>>2907751
wait did you use that lens on pentax?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 21 Aug 2016 23:41:13 No.2908147 Report

Quoted By:

>>2908145

No, not Pentax.

I was just agreeing with the annoyances of razor thin dof.

It is a great lens though.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 21 Aug 2016 23:41:35 No.2908149 Report

Quoted By: >>2908151

I own an a57 and I'm thinking of getting a new camera. What do people think of Sony's mirrorless cameras? How does the a6000/a6300/a7 compare to the a57 in terms of image quality and low light performance?

Also, does anyone know how old A mount minolta lenses work with the mirorless cameras (w/ adapter of course). I'm guessing I'll lose AF.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 21 Aug 2016 23:46:44 No.2908151 Report

Quoted By: >>2908156 >>2908159

>>2908149

A modern e-mount is a step upin image quality. New sensors are generally always better.

I am unsure of the autofocus, I never tried an SLT. Probably rather similar, but with a sharper drop off in speed in low light. Go look at some youtube reviews of modern bodies to get a feel.

A-mount lenses are FULLY adaptable to e-mount. The LA-EA4 has an autofocus motor and translucent mirror built in, and gives normal autofocus speeds with every a-mount lens ever made. The LA-EA3 is a little more compact, and is for modern lenses with a motor in lens only. It uses the camera's own autofocus. Can be quite fast depending on the lens.

Best bet would be to go try one out in a store.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 21 Aug 2016 23:54:42 No.2908156 Report

Quoted By: >>2908162

>>2908151
>A-mount lenses are FULLY adaptable to e-mount.
That's great. Am I stuck with the Sony adaptors or are there decent third party adaptors that are a little cheaper?

I don't mind the slower AF in low light. I'm used to manual focus in low light anyways. A sharp drop in ISO performance at/above 3200 would be a deal breaker though.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 21 Aug 2016 23:57:23 No.2908159 Report

Quoted By: >>2908162

>>2908151
Oh wait, if it has a translucent mirror built in, wouldn't that introduce some of the flaws of the SLTs (namely, the 30% loss of light)?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Aug 2016 00:03:46 No.2908162 Report

Quoted By:

>>2908156

Nope, only sony makes proper a-mount adapters unless you want a dumb one without electronic contacts.

They go on sale all the time though. I got my LA-EA4 for $250

>>2908159

1/3rd of a stop not 30%, and yes. It really isn't an issue in most situations.

The LA-EA3 does not have a mirror, but only works with more modern lenses.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Aug 2016 00:09:58 No.2908167 Report

Quoted By:

>>2908143
>>2908133
I dropped a few more snapshits in there.

Oh, and why the Df? I honestly can't comprehend spending that much for a gimped body. I'd sooner just get the D750, but I guess you do you.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Aug 2016 00:17:24 No.2908172 Report

Quoted By:

>>2908127
>He shoots neutered Chinese G lenses. Look at him and laugh.

Are you like, pretending that all of those lenses aren't cheap plastic?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Aug 2016 01:18:20 No.2908215 Report

Quoted By: >>2908238 >>2908243

- Compact Point N Shoot
- 35mm film
- meters 1600/3200 ISO
- Exposure compensation so I can push
- 35mm or wider lens
- Wide aperture
- Decently pocketable (not a pants pocket, but close)
- Autofocus
- Flash switch

Name that camera

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Aug 2016 02:13:38 No.2908238 Report

Quoted By:

>>2908215
Nikon af600
Pentax Espio mini
Olympus stylus epic

Just use the dx coding to adjust iso

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Aug 2016 02:17:19 No.2908243 Report

Quoted By: >>2908253

>>2908215
How about the Rico GR21?

https://www.lomography.com/magazine/255976-lomopedia-ricoh-gr21

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Aug 2016 02:27:46 No.2908253 Report

Quoted By:

>>2908243
>linking lomo for a discription of a ricoh camera

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO FILE0513.jpg, 2MiB, 2592x1944

Anonymous Mon 22 Aug 2016 02:52:40 No.2908264 Report

Quoted By:

So baby here wants his first camera to take with him to field to take pictures of /k/ related shit.
Got myself a Roam3 Contour and absolutely loved taking it with me and recording/taking pictures.

What should I get and what should I look for?
Also are there any infographs that can get me up to speed with camera/photography terminology?

Pic semi-related, camera shot from one of the shoot houses.

<table class="exif" id="exif1471834360269"><tr><td colspan="2">Camera-Specific Properties:</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td>Equipment Make</td><td>Contour</td></tr><tr><td>Camera Model</td><td>ContourRoam3</td></tr><tr><td>Camera Software</td><td>3.01</td></tr><tr><td>Maximum Lens Aperture</td><td>f/2.6</td></tr><tr><td>Sensing Method</td><td>One-Chip Color Area</td></tr><tr><td>Focal Length (35mm Equiv)</td><td>18 mm</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">Image-Specific Properties:</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td>Image Orientation</td><td>Top, Left-Hand</td></tr><tr><td>Horizontal Resolution</td><td>72 dpi</td></tr><tr><td>Vertical Resolution</td><td>72 dpi</td></tr><tr><td>Image Created</td><td>2016:08:08 18:32:38</td></tr><tr><td>Exposure Time</td><td>10/299 sec</td></tr><tr><td>F-Number</td><td>f/2.8</td></tr><tr><td>Exposure Program</td><td>Normal Program</td></tr><tr><td>ISO Speed Rating</td><td>137</td></tr><tr><td>Lens Aperture</td><td>f/2.8</td></tr><tr><td>Exposure Bias</td><td>0 EV</td></tr><tr><td>Subject Distance</td><td>Unknown</td></tr><tr><td>Metering Mode</td><td>Center Weighted Average</td></tr><tr><td>Light Source</td><td>Unknown</td></tr><tr><td>Flash</td><td>No Flash Function</td></tr><tr><td>Focal Length</td><td>2.50 mm</td></tr><tr><td>Comment</td><td>FW version:1900 V3.01
</td></tr><tr><td>FW name</td><td>ContourROAM3
</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">
</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">UPDATE:N
</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">UPDATE_FW:N
</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">
</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"> SWITCH_1
</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">1RES:D
</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">1BR:M
</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">1EV:0
</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">1SHRP:3
</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">1AE:C
</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">1CTST:62
</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">1MIC:30
</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">1SILENT:0
</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">1LSR:0
</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">1LED:0
</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">1AWB:0
</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">
</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"> SWITCH_2
</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">2RES:P/3
</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">2BR:H
</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">2EV:0
</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">2SHRP:3
</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">2AE:C
</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">2CTST:62
</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">2MIC:30
</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">2SILENT:0
</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">2LSR:0
</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">2LED:0
</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">2AWB:0
</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">
</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"> GLOBAL
</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">FPS:60
</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">CAMERA NAME:[email protected]
</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">DT:2016/08/08 18:14:09
</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">DCF_PREFIX:FILE
</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">
</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"> CAMERA INFO
</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">CUID:141450010150017
</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">
</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">
</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">
</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"> USER DATA
</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">DATA:Contour ROAM3 CAMERA
</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">
</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">
</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">DATA STRUCTURE
</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">UPDATE
</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"> Y:YES
</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"> N:NO
</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">UPDATE_FW
</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"> Y:YES
</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"> N:NO
</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">
</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">Format Settings
</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">Resolution(RES)
</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"> (A)1920x1080 30fps (NTSC)/25fps (PAL)
</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"> (B)1280x960 30fps (NTSC)/25fps (PAL)
</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"> (C)1280x720 30fps (NTSC)/25fps (PAL)
</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"> (D)1280x720 60fps (NTSC)/50fps (PAL)
</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"> (E)848x480 30fps (NTSC)/25fps (PAL)
</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"> (F)848x480 60fps (NTSC)/50fps (PAL)
</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"> (G)848x480 120fps (NTSC)/100fps (PAL)
</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"> (P/#)Still picture 5Mp captured at intervals of 1 picture every 1, 3, 5, 10, 15, 20, 30, 45, 60 seconds
</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"> (where the time is measured from start of picture to start of picture)
</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">Bitrate(BR)
</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"> (H)High
</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"> (M)Medium
</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"> (L)Low
</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">Exposure(EV)
</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"> -4 ~ 4
</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">Sharpness(SHRP)
</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"> 1 ~ 5
</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">Auto Exposure(AE)
</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"> (C)Center
</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"> (A)Average
</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"> (S)Spot
</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">Contrast(CTST)
</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"> 1 ~ 255
</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">Microphone Gain(MIC)
</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"> 0 ~ 59dB
</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">Silent Mode(SILENT)
</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"> (0)Enable Beeps
</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"> (1)Disable beeps
</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">Lasers(LSR)
</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"> (0)On
</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"> (1)Off
</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">LED Indicator(LED)
</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"> (0)On
</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"> (1)Off
</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">AWB mode(AWB)
</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"> (0)AUTO (1)2800K_Incandescent (2)4000K_Fluorescent (3)5000K_DaylightD50
</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"> (4)6500K_DaylightD65 (5)7500k_Cloudy (6)9000k_Shade (7)10000k_XenonHID
</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">
</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">Global Settings
</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">Frame Rate(FPS)
</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"> (50)25/50/100fps
</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"> (60)30/60/120fps
</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">Camera name(CAMERA NAME)[up to 20 characters]
</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"> Name entered by user e.g. 'Jason's Contour'
</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">Date and Time(DT)
</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"> YYYY/MM/DD hh:mm:ss
</td></tr><tr><td> YYYY </td><td>2014 ~ 2045
</td></tr><tr><td> MM </td><td>01 ~ 12
</td></tr><tr><td> DD </td><td>01 ~ 31
</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">DCF File Prefix (DCF_PREFIX:FILE)
</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"> FILE = 4 character DCF file prefix.
</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">User Data(DATA)[up to 100 characters]
</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"> 'User' value in the universal settings section
</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">where the line contents are simply preserved by the camera.</td></tr><tr><td>Color Space Information</td><td>sRGB</td></tr><tr><td>Image Width</td><td>2592</td></tr><tr><td>Image Height</td><td>1944</td></tr><tr><td>Exposure Index</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Rendering</td><td>Normal</td></tr><tr><td>Exposure Mode</td><td>Auto</td></tr><tr><td>White Balance</td><td>Auto</td></tr><tr><td>Digital Zoom Ratio</td><td>1.2</td></tr><tr><td>Scene Capture Type</td><td>Standard</td></tr><tr><td>Gain Control</td><td>None</td></tr><tr><td>Contrast</td><td>Normal</td></tr><tr><td>Saturation</td><td>Normal</td></tr><tr><td>Sharpness</td><td>Normal</td></tr><tr><td>Subject Distance Range</td><td>Unknown</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr></table>

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Aug 2016 03:26:00 No.2908272 Report

Quoted By: >>2908865

I can't think of the name of this camera. I was talking about it with a friend. The camera would capture the image 3 times and you were able to compile it as a gif. I'm pretty sure it would capture the image at the same time and give a fake "3d" feel to the image. Anyone know the name?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Aug 2016 03:28:45 No.2908274 Report

Quoted By: >>2908283

>>2907907
Nikon D810

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Aug 2016 03:30:04 No.2908276 Report

Quoted By: >>2908278

>>2907965
>mirrorless cameras have shit auto focus not suitable for moving subjects
Except not really tho

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Aug 2016 03:34:29 No.2908278 Report

Quoted By:

>>2908276
>tho
You're definitely an expert. Thank you for chiming in with your highly useful and intelligent response.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Aug 2016 03:43:15 No.2908283 Report

Quoted By:

>>2908274
>le ebin troll XD
Fuck off cunt

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Aug 2016 04:47:05 No.2908326 Report

Quoted By:

>>2908136
> That describes every mirrorless
Nope, Sony is noticeably ahead of the other brands in terms of AF.

> except Fuji
Fuji actually also got at least "good" on recent models like the X-Pro2.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Aug 2016 04:55:00 No.2908328 Report

Quoted By: >>2908361

What are good vintage lenses I can get for cheap? (Brand/Mount doesn't matter because I will be using adapters for my a6000)

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Aug 2016 06:54:33 No.2908359 Report

Quoted By: >>2908361

Im looking into photography and thinking about getting the nikon d3300 is it worth it and what are your thoughts on nikon 55-300mm?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Aug 2016 07:00:53 No.2908361 Report

Quoted By:

>>2908359
"acceptable" on both counts.

A Pentax K-5/K-30/K-50 will cost you less and give you some nice things that a D3300 won't though. The Pentax 55-300 is both pretty good and pretty cheap.

>>2908328
you're spoiled for choice. Any Canon FD, any Nikon F or Pentax K manual stuff (these are more expensive since they work on current DSLRs), any other old mounts like Contax or Minolta, or M42 screwmount (Pentax Takumar, many others)

most primes will be pretty good (getting less good the farther you get from 50mm), many zooms will be questionable.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Aug 2016 09:27:57 No.2908389 Report

Quoted By:

>>2907910
Nissin, although I did catch ear that something about the TTL system might fuck with both those listed flashes. But for now it's a good idea. Or just go manual.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Aug 2016 10:56:41 No.2908407 Report

Quoted By: >>2908410

Whats the downside to using a lens adapter on a mirrorless and using dlsr lenses? Can someone clarify would appreciate it a lot.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO EjJopdb.jpg, 16KiB, 600x600

Anonymous Mon 22 Aug 2016 11:06:01 No.2908408 Report

Quoted By:

>2000$
>professional

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Aug 2016 11:12:19 No.2908410 Report

Quoted By:

>>2908407

In some situations (particularly low light) the autofocus isn't as fast as using said lens on a native body. Not all lenses work either. And while they may be similar to autofocus on an entry level dslr body in good lighting, anything decent will beat them even in perfect lighting conditions.

Oh, and only newer bodies have a decent autofocus with non-native lenses (a6300, a7ii, a7rii) and these cost quite a bit.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Nikon1.png, 219KiB, 700x348

Anonymous Mon 22 Aug 2016 12:02:20 No.2908429 Report

Quoted By: >>2908432

>Dpreview just told us that Nikon killed the “Nikon 1” system!
>No new Canon EOS-M camera or lens at Photokina
The 1 inch interchangeable lens mirrorless market is officially dead.
Sony never participated, and Canon/Nikon are closing shop, possibly to bet on APS-C mirrorless.

Rest in peace.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Aug 2016 12:14:32 No.2908431 Report

Quoted By:

Shit, I didn't realise EOS-M was APS-C.

I guess is Nikon drops 1 inch and Canon drops APS-C, there is a chance they will both migrate to full frame mirrorless.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Aug 2016 12:15:05 No.2908432 Report

Quoted By: >>2908434 >>2908445

>>2908429
Why not just buy an Olympus or Panasonic MFT camera and lens if you want a small compact ~1" mirrorless system?
They work just as well and the sensors are actually bigger.
APS-C mirrorless is drowning in the masses of the APS-C DSLR, barely noticeable participant and the FF mirrorless is just getting an-heroed by Sonys retarded non-weather resistant weather resistant design. Actually that design is even less weather resistant than the lowest level plastic entry DSLR since it sucks in moisture from your eyes and from the environment when the camera is turned on.

So all in all have no worries, you still have plenty good options in your desired area.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Aug 2016 12:16:49 No.2908434 Report

Quoted By: >>2908446

>>2908432
I think the death of the 1 inch Nikons will give a good breathing room to the m43 systems.

So I guess there is always that.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Aug 2016 12:27:56 No.2908445 Report

Quoted By: >>2908448

>>2908432
Sony's lenses are mostly poorly weatherproofed if at all, but they certainly don't have any special moisture sucking capabilities.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Aug 2016 12:30:06 No.2908446 Report

Quoted By: >>2908447 >>2908450

>>2908434
The Nikon 1 market was so thin it will be barely noticeable. I think people still prefer the Oly and Pana MFT to the Nikon 1, that is why it was phased out.
It is not very apparent on this board but MFT is still more popular than Fuji, Sony APS-C/A7 and Canon EOS-M line together where I live. I would say MFT is very far from being dead, but people start to complain about the lack of upgrades and new product line entries.
Pentax is the strange one, being able to keep the Q line alive somehow. Must be due to the the Pentaxian zeal. Even the K-01 freak mirrorless is alive on the used market.
Since larger sensor mirrorless is mostly Sony, the retarded design decisions can kill most of the MILC market.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Aug 2016 12:34:06 No.2908447 Report

Quoted By:

>>2908446

Sony's a6000 and a6300 are some of the best selling mirrorless cameras ever.

And while the a7 series does have its faults, Sony is constasntly improving the bodies. It really is a shame they pulled weather resistance fom the a7 series, they would have been a lot more attractive with it. The upcoming a9 is rumored to be an absolute beast.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Aug 2016 12:35:01 No.2908448 Report

Quoted By: >>2908451 >>2908454

>>2908445
I was referring to the body wicking moisture on the surface of the heatsink. Surface diffusion if you like, the transport process fueled by the heat gradient.
You don't need salty air or humid conditions since you place the thing on your eye and the sweat and moisture from your own body is caught and driven inside of the camera where the magnesium/copper and steel/copper contacts start a corrosion process killing the electronics of your camera.
Of course it looks like a liquid damage but it is a serious design flaw. It is not the question IF you get caught by it but WHEN you get caught and then it is Sony who will fuck you in your ass.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Aug 2016 12:35:36 No.2908450 Report

Quoted By: >>2908456

>>2908446
I know the M43 is more popular.

I just feel sorry for the folks who invested into the Nikon system.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Aug 2016 12:36:57 No.2908451 Report

Quoted By: >>2908456

>>2908448
This bullshit trolling is going too far.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Aug 2016 12:40:48 No.2908454 Report

Quoted By: >>2908456

>>2908448
So you're ultimately telling me that the camera is warm, somehow evaporates that water in your eye and transports that moisture to its inside where it then condenses on contacts that are made of "magnesium/copper" "steel/copper" and then they get ... rusted?

I think your fantasy is running a bit too wild.

Besides even with all the people using especially the APS-C Sonys now, apparently very few have broken theirs even in rain...

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Aug 2016 12:42:01 No.2908456 Report

Quoted By: >>2908457 >>2908459

>>2908450
It doesn't mean their cameras won't function anymore. It just didn't get updated.

>>2908451
>>2908454

Not trolling. You spend your first year on an engineering course in college you learn all the physical and chemical processes that do this thing. The same processes used in fusions of metals and creating numerous alloy properties just by allowing time for a diffusion process to complete or not.
It doesn't matter if the process happens at 700-900°C or at 25-60°C, it still happens.
Go ask your chemistry teacher about it. The related course is Physical-chemistry BTW.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Aug 2016 12:44:02 No.2908457 Report

Quoted By: >>2908460

>>2908456
Just shut up already. You're a waste of space.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Aug 2016 12:45:28 No.2908459 Report

Quoted By:

>>2908456
Anon, better try this with Tumblr.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Aug 2016 12:48:19 No.2908460 Report

Quoted By: >>2908462

>>2908457
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transport_phenomena
http://old.vscht.cz/fch/en/tools/breviary-online.pdf
and the likes. Ask your chemistry teacher.
Also 100 years ago people refused to believe that sound can be transferred in the air and captured by a "radio device" and you could hear the news or the president speak in your living room. It still happens even if you close your eyes and ears and pout in the corner.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Aug 2016 12:49:47 No.2908462 Report

Quoted By: >>2908468 >>2908471

>>2908460
https://youtu.be/HYhQhWozheU?t=524

Sony glass repel moisture.
Canon glass sucks up moisture.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Aug 2016 13:06:37 No.2908468 Report

Quoted By: >>2908469

>>2908462

Sony glass suckw up moisture too, but like that other qnon said, The Sony bodies suck it all up from the glass and your eyeballs.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Aug 2016 13:07:41 No.2908469 Report

Quoted By:

>>2908468
That's a nope. I have the video evidence, you have shitpost.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Aug 2016 13:10:25 No.2908471 Report

Quoted By: >>2908472

>>2908462
Forget about the lens already! There is a gaping hole on the A7 series bodies that allows moisture to build up and corrode the insides of your investment.
It is your problem though, my camera is properly sealed from the environment even in torrential downpour.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Aug 2016 13:11:23 No.2908472 Report

Quoted By: >>2908474

>>2908471
>muh moisture
>muh investments

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Aug 2016 13:12:41 No.2908474 Report

Quoted By: >>2908478

>>2908472
No, no. Your moisture, your investment.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Aug 2016 13:13:42 No.2908476 Report

Quoted By: >>2908477

What the fuck man, I hate my camera gear now, I better sell it all.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Aug 2016 13:15:29 No.2908477 Report

Quoted By:

>>2908476
Or just be on edge to back your claims to Sony when shit hits the fan. Be dicks to them because they are dicks to you.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Aug 2016 13:17:18 No.2908478 Report

Quoted By: >>2908482

>>2908474
I wonder if you actually think anyone will believe your shitposts.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Aug 2016 13:21:56 No.2908482 Report

Quoted By: >>2908484 >>2908528 >>2908546 >>2908550

>>2908478
https://www.flickr.com/photos/125233350@N03/28031739394

Thing is anon, he's not shitposting. And this woman isn't the only one that's gotten fucked by Sony.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Aug 2016 13:24:49 No.2908484 Report

Quoted By: >>2908501 >>2908555

>>2908482
Sounds like a hoax to me.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Aug 2016 13:49:16 No.2908501 Report

Quoted By: >>2908507

>>2908484
Sonyniggers everyone.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Aug 2016 13:51:29 No.2908507 Report

Quoted By: >>2908511 >>2908555

>>2908501
You need to stop being an angry photographer, just go to bed.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Aug 2016 13:53:42 No.2908511 Report

Quoted By:

>>2908507
What flavor koolaid is the sony stuff? Red? Orange?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Aug 2016 14:08:43 No.2908528 Report

Quoted By:

>>2908482

So your best source is a flicker post by someone with broken english and no proof what-so-ever?

Sounds legit.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Aug 2016 14:34:25 No.2908546 Report

Quoted By: >>2908555

>>2908482
Every shot on her Flickr is around salt water or directly above it.
Never peed water my ass

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Aug 2016 14:36:11 No.2908549 Report

Quoted By: >>2908555 >>2908666

The angry photographer strikes again.

How can Sony ever recover from this deadly blow?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Aug 2016 14:36:49 No.2908550 Report

Quoted By: >>2908555

>>2908482
>https://www.flickr.com/photos/125233350@N03/28031739394

the woman is a total nutjob
https://www.flickr.com/photos/125233350@N03/28851464460/in/datetaken/

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Aug 2016 14:39:43 No.2908555 Report

Quoted By:

>>2908550
>>2908549
>>2908546
>>2908507
>>2908484
$0.20/per post?

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO bce.jpg, 25KiB, 608x402

Anonymous Mon 22 Aug 2016 15:22:57 No.2908589 Report

Quoted By: >>2908595

MFW i took my a7r ii out in heavy rain 3-4 times before i sold it for more than i bought it new

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Aug 2016 15:26:12 No.2908595 Report

Quoted By: >>2908602 >>2908627

>>2908589
I'm sure it survived just fine and still take great pictures today.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Aug 2016 15:37:32 No.2908602 Report

Quoted By: >>2908610

>>2908595
The problem is not about the camera taking good photos or not, the problem is it being a ticking timebomb.
>Herro, you buy $3000 camera.
>It broke? Too bad, buy another one!

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Aug 2016 15:53:46 No.2908610 Report

Quoted By:

>>2908602
I don't think that's an actual problem.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 10423-s.jpg, 964KiB, 1600x1040

Anonymous Mon 22 Aug 2016 16:10:21 No.2908627 Report

Quoted By: >>2908637

>>2908595
nope. the a7r ii's color rendition is awful. also has problems with moire and it is unreliable with rendering certain skin tones. it literally rendered parts of the skin as a bright orange and needed a lot of work doing to fix it. the lenses are also poor for the price you pay. other than that is was awesome to use and totally retard friendly, very easy to expose and focus and awb was always pretty incredible.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Aug 2016 16:11:23 No.2908629 Report

Quoted By: >>2908632 >>2908635

I'm sure people are tired of this question, relatively new to photography, using an old D5100.

Bout to make my first lens purchase not including the one 18-55 that I got with my camera.

friends are telling me get the nikon 35mm as my first but part of me is pulling toward getting 55-200, as I'm not really a portrait guy. I mainly shoot pictures walking around towns/cities I visit, maybe a skyline, whaddaya reckon?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Aug 2016 16:18:04 No.2908632 Report

Quoted By: >>2908640

>>2908629
35mm is not a portrait lens

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Aug 2016 16:28:02 No.2908635 Report

Quoted By:

>>2908629
Get the 35mm first than the 55-300

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Aug 2016 16:35:52 No.2908637 Report

Quoted By: >>2908643 >>2908646

>>2908627
>color rendition is awful
>awb was always pretty incredible
Which is it, niqqa?
Why can't you correct your damned colours yourself?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Aug 2016 16:38:22 No.2908638 Report

Quoted By:

Recommendations for a DSLR that is easy to manage and takes reasonable pictures of black things (clothing details, textures)?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Aug 2016 16:42:22 No.2908640 Report

Quoted By: >>2908649

>>2908632
Apologies

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Aug 2016 16:53:16 No.2908643 Report

Quoted By:

>>2908637
try reading what i said m8. white balance was fine, always got in pretty much accurate unless in awkward lighting. the way it actually renders <(u see that word?) skin tones is a horrible problem that even the d3100 doesn't have. on certain people you will get mostly realistic tones then blotches of red and orange, a very fast contrast from one color to another. also go read of its disgusting moire issues probably from way too many pixels. have you ever even used one? do you just assume that it's the holy grail of camera bodies because of the sensor memes and impressive numbers? that's what Sony have managed to achieve, scoring the highest in certain overlooked areas then as a result engineer without prejudice a shit piece of gear. i didn't just sell it for fun, i actually kinda miss it - it was a beast with bad eyesight

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Aug 2016 16:58:50 No.2908646 Report

Quoted By:

>>2908637
color rendition has nothing to do with white balance you spaz

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Aug 2016 17:01:15 No.2908649 Report

Quoted By:

>>2908640
if your heart is set on a 55-200 you should get that but getting a fast 35/50mm you can put to use when light is sparse is very valuable.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Aug 2016 17:21:52 No.2908658 Report

Quoted By: >>2908661 >>2908665

What's the cheapest 70-200mm f/2.8 lens that I could find that's not complete trash?

I'm thinking like under $200. Mount doesn't matter as long as it'll work with a NEX adapter.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Aug 2016 17:29:14 No.2908661 Report

Quoted By:

>>2908658
Tamron's24-70 and 70-200 F2,8 zooms are ridiculously high IQ for the cost.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Aug 2016 17:40:54 No.2908665 Report

Quoted By:

>>2908658
>I'm thinking like under $200.

I seriously doubt you'll find one that cheap.

But AFAIK every 70-200 (or 80-200) f/2.8 is good, even very old ones.
So maybe an abandoned mount

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Aug 2016 17:43:19 No.2908666 Report

Quoted By: >>2908668 >>2908843

>>2908549
>https://www.flickr.com/photos/125233350@N03/28031739394
Why do these retards never have insurance? ... I have one as well but i got dat dere electronics insurance just in case.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Aug 2016 17:47:25 No.2908668 Report

Quoted By: >>2908670

>>2908666
Because this shit basically doesn't just happen.

Because insurance in this cost range are quite useless - you can pay that out of pocket anyhow. No need to pay for the profits and overhead of the insurance company as well.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Aug 2016 17:50:41 No.2908670 Report

Quoted By: >>2908672

>>2908668
if my camera breaks it will pay for my insurance for 30 years. I think im ok with that.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Aug 2016 17:59:33 No.2908672 Report

Quoted By: >>2908676 >>2908678

>>2908670
Your insurance has determined these cameras break way less than once every 30 years on average and/or perhaps that the cost of being able to choose between replacement and repair or monetary compensation usually leads to a cost well below the camera's full cost?

Either way, this isn't going to be a risk that is effective or meaningful to insure for you. But I guess it's good business for them...

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Aug 2016 18:06:37 No.2908676 Report

Quoted By:

>>2908672
Insurers dont make money on insuring people they make the lions share of their profits from their investments.

You have a lack of understanding about how an insurance company works. Outsourcing my risk to an insurance company makes a lot of sense, since im not willing to take on that risk and the covered risk is worth more than the policy hike.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Aug 2016 18:09:40 No.2908678 Report

Quoted By:

>>2908672
Besides its not a camera insurance its for everything in my house, and i have electronics worth 25000$ in total at least. A retard may spill soda over any of my gear and i would be fucked w/o insurance.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Aug 2016 20:02:38 No.2908742 Report

Quoted By: >>2908764 >>2908765

Ugh, why are Tiffen filters such trash? Pretty much every shot I took with a rented Fuji 50-140 yesterday is ruined because of the one the rental house put on it. Thank god I had plenty of good shots from other glass, including the Canon 100-400L I also rented. (I had a bunch of good Hoya and B+W 77mm filters, so I put one on the 100-400, but didn't have a better 72mm and didn't want to run a rental lens "naked" when I knew I'd be beating on it.)

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Aug 2016 20:21:46 No.2908761 Report

Quoted By: >>2908786

wait. the a7 line is not weather sealed? What about the lenses?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Aug 2016 20:33:09 No.2908764 Report

Quoted By:

>>2908742
Tiffen filters cost $10 each.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Aug 2016 20:34:47 No.2908765 Report

Quoted By: >>2908781

>>2908742
If you can't comment on the image quality how was the fuji generally? Did it shoot like a proper 70-200mm despite the crop?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Aug 2016 20:58:50 No.2908780 Report

Quoted By:

Been looking at d5300/5500 and d7100/7200
I think the d5500 suits what I want for now but it seems most would recommend the 7100/7200 over it. Can I get some more opinions?

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO RWEGT3-Live-4.jpg, 408KiB, 1000x667

Anonymous Mon 22 Aug 2016 21:05:04 No.2908781 Report

Quoted By: >>2908782 >>2908784 >>2908805

>>2908765
Yeah, I was actually pretty impressed with in general. The FL range is pretty natural, having switched to Fuji from an FF system with a 70-200, DoF and bokeh wide open are pretty nice, and AF is surprisingly good. It's pretty much indistinguishable from a decent DSLR+70-200 when focusing on stationary subjects, and tracking is pretty passable.

Here's a shot from yesterday. The only real issue I found with panning shots is that it seems to want to focus on the middle/rear of the car and not the front, not sure if that's an issue with the system or if I just need to change my technique.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Aug 2016 21:06:05 No.2908782 Report

Quoted By: >>2908784

>>2908781
Crap, that was a 7D shot and not the Fuji, oops. Gimme a minute to find a Fuji pan.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO DSCF1680-Edit.jpg, 406KiB, 1000x667

Anonymous Mon 22 Aug 2016 21:13:12 No.2908784 Report

Quoted By: >>2908805 >>2908845

>>2908782
>>2908781
OK, here's a Fuji shot.

You can kinda see how the sharp area tends to lag behind. Maybe it's just my technique, though, doing pans with an EVF and a very strangely balanced setup (I suspect an X-T2 with grip would suit it much better) is a new experience for me.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Aug 2016 21:18:10 No.2908786 Report

Quoted By: >>2908787

>>2908761
You need both to be properly weather sealed to have a weather sealed system. It doesn't matter if the body is sealed if you put on a non-sealed lens and vice versa.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Aug 2016 21:22:32 No.2908787 Report

Quoted By:

>>2908786
I agree, like a cheap Pentax K-50 with a WR kit lens is a properly weather sealed system while an A7RII with a G-master lens is not. The difference is huge between the two when the rain starts pouring down.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Aug 2016 21:30:10 No.2908798 Report

Quoted By:

>>2908109
t. youtube review enthusiast

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Aug 2016 21:34:41 No.2908805 Report

Quoted By:

>>2908781
>>2908784
That doesn't look too bad actually, a clean 1/60th pan would be tough with that setup. I can't see how the tiffen fucked with the image quality but I'm not really a pixel peeper and actually prefer the rendering from the fuji over the canon.

Maybe try playing around with your focus points? Not sure how the x-pro cameras deal with that.

Guess I'll have to check one out myself.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Aug 2016 22:56:29 No.2908843 Report

Quoted By:

>>2908666

Because she is quite literally a nutter:
>https://www.flickr.com/photos/125233350@N03/28851464460/in/datetaken/

Also, if you look at all her pictures, she is always near water. Pretty sure she dun fucked up and got the camera soaked, and is now trying to pin it on Sony.

One thing you learn in customer support is that the customer aways lies.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO DSCF5573.jpg, 138KiB, 1500x844

Anonymous Mon 22 Aug 2016 23:02:43 No.2908845 Report

Quoted By: >>2908864

>>2908784
I've already commented on Fuji AF on motorsport when you were asking earlier about Canon settings. Were you using C-AF or S-AF? I find C-AF on the XT10 wobbles focus in and out continuously when presented with static/constant distance subjects. Unsure if they fixed this with the new AF system. That's likely the source of your problem; I gave up and relied on S-AF. I'm surprised you got on well with the EVF. It drives me crazy, seeing that high contrast low dynamic range preview, and the blackout is not helping during pans. Maybe the XP2 is better, but still. The pro telephotos definitely need a XT body with grip to feel "ok". Even a plain XT is too small. even with a grip, it doesn't compare to an ungripped SLR body.

As for polarizers/ND, it really seems you need to splurge on not-shit ones (Hoya HD at the minimum). The cheap ones are such a crapshoot, it's a massive headache. I had a whole pile of shots ruined by some cheap filters. It's amazing how something so simple can make your photos look like a kit 3x zoom from the 90s.

>tfw no money for dat b+w kaesemann
>tfw cant figure out what hoya antistatics are marketed as in NA, but lenstip says they're the best performance and value in their 15 (?) polarizer comparison review

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Aug 2016 23:20:40 No.2908852 Report

Quoted By:

>>2907387
What body are you using you can't just adjust for the loss of light by increasing ISO?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Aug 2016 23:48:35 No.2908861 Report

Quoted By:

>>2907279
>>2907573
Since this all started with the question of Pentax and weather sealing I'd just like to point out that they are weather sealed.

http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/115-pentax-k-5/195116-weather-sealed.html
Anecdotal evidence but one guy submerged his camera with no issues.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Aug 2016 23:53:55 No.2908864 Report

Quoted By: >>2908887

>>2908845
I was using C-AF for the pans.

I actually found that it really wasn't that bad. Composing with the EVF was no problem, dealing with the blackout was hard though, since it essentially gives you a "delayed" view. Tracking itself seems fine, and the XP2's EVF is quite nice, with a very accurate preview of what the shot will actually look like.

I actually do have good polarizers (Hoya) and one of them was on the Canon lens and did fine, but I was stacking it on top of the UV on the 50-140 because it was a rented lens and I didn't want to leave it without a filter when I dumped it in my bag while using the polarizer on my other Fuji lenses. In retrospect I should've just left the polarizer on the 50-140 and not bothered with the UV, because I pretty much never used it on my other glass anyway.

I'll probably buy my own 50-140 soon, and I don't even bother with UV filters on my own lenses, so that'll solve itself.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 23 Aug 2016 00:03:23 No.2908865 Report

Quoted By:

>>2908272
Are you thinking of the Lytro cameras?

Hhh

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO image.jpg, 58KiB, 640x640

Hhh Tue 23 Aug 2016 00:13:31 No.2908868 Report

Quoted By:

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 23 Aug 2016 00:39:28 No.2908877 Report

Quoted By: >>2908885

Any good wide angle lens for landscape shooting around 600$? Planning to equip onto my a7

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 23 Aug 2016 00:46:10 No.2908885 Report

Quoted By: >>2908886

>>2908877
If I were you, I would look for manual focus UWAs on KEH and look up reviews for each one. If you have an AF adapter, you can use a recent Canon or Nikon AF UWA second hand.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO PORNOGRAPHY.jpg, 847KiB, 1024x1381

Anonymous Tue 23 Aug 2016 00:48:26 No.2908886 Report

Quoted By: >>2908891 >>2909081

>>2908885
Forgot pic. I would love to shoot landscapes with an ultra high res camera. I discovered the insane dynamic range magic power of multiple exposure processing recently. It feels like the constraints of the film workflow have finally been purged from my blood, and I'm free to make as many images as I can please with noise-free shadows and infinite highlight range. It's magical.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 23 Aug 2016 00:49:19 No.2908887 Report

Quoted By:

>>2908864
Yeah, go try and use the EVF and C-AF with your XP2 on a stationary subject. The XT10 does the CDAF wobble-and-reconfirm continuously, like it doesn't believe the PDAF is telling it the subject hasn't moved. It makes sense, from a processor workflow point of view (gotta reconfirm focus), but you don't see the Sonys doing this.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 23 Aug 2016 00:51:04 No.2908891 Report

Quoted By: >>2908892 >>2908897

>>2908886
>I discovered the insane dynamic range magic power of multiple exposure processing recently

Someone post the /p/hotographer's progress image with the HDR hole.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Stages-of-a-photographer.png, 40KiB, 1116x936

Anonymous Tue 23 Aug 2016 00:52:43 No.2908892 Report

Quoted By: >>2908897

>>2908891

never mind, found it on my hard drive

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO RV-13604_5_6_7-1100-1024x635.jpg, 243KiB, 1024x635

Anonymous Tue 23 Aug 2016 01:00:51 No.2908897 Report

Quoted By: >>2908903 >>2908939

>>2908891
>>2908892
That picture is from a time when /p/ largely couldn't tell the difference between HDR and tone-mapping. I remember when it starting showing up. When that chart referenced HDR, it means this. The reason that the quality of photos goes down so much during this era (aside from the hideous look of tone-mapping) is that the photographer doesn't have to think about light anymore. Light is the most important aspect of any photograph, as photography is literally the graphing of light. But tone-mapping crushes all images regardless of the quality of light to look basically identical. This is not what we're doing in multiple exposure and/or multiple process images. In fact, if you can tell that it isn't a single exposure even a little bit, you've done it wrong.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 23 Aug 2016 01:10:23 No.2908903 Report

Quoted By: >>2908910

>>2908897

I bet the average intermediate photographer could tell. I certainly can, and i'm an idiot.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 23 Aug 2016 01:19:52 No.2908910 Report

Quoted By: >>2908934

>>2908903
You probably can't, and just don't know that pictures you're looking at are done that way.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 23 Aug 2016 02:27:16 No.2908934 Report

Quoted By:

>>2908910

Wanna bet?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 23 Aug 2016 02:34:02 No.2908936 Report

Quoted By: >>2909067

Sony A7 w/ 28-70mm kit lens for $1100 AUD ($840 USD). Not sure of the shutter count, but it's in excellent condition. Is that a great price or fairly average?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 23 Aug 2016 02:40:43 No.2908939 Report

Quoted By: >>2909302

>>2908897
>as photography is literally the graphing of light
holy shit you are the most autistic underaged summerfaggot to have ever typed a paragraph on this page please kill yourself with your fathers necktie in your mothers panties please and thank you
btw you are a faggot, flaming, flaming faggot

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO $T2eC16RHJHMFH!gQfEm,BScRu8,VHg- (...).jpg, 20KiB, 494x410

Anonymous Tue 23 Aug 2016 03:46:07 No.2908968 Report

Quoted By: >>2909000

M7, yay nay?

with a 35mm f2 Summicron ASPH probably

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 23 Aug 2016 05:36:27 No.2909000 Report

Quoted By:

>>2908968
Nay for me at least. I don't need an analog age fashion accessory.

Not that the lens is entirely bad, but you're paying like $3k for an ultimately somewhat mediocre lens because it is fairly small and muh Leica.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO IMG_2528.jpg, 3MiB, 5184x3456

Anonymous Tue 23 Aug 2016 05:52:27 No.2909007 Report

Quoted By:

>>2907515
>>2907488
It's a great lens, I was amazed I got mine one year ago for $400 US.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 23 Aug 2016 08:40:04 No.2909067 Report

Quoted By:

>>2908936

In mint condition with under 100 shutter actuations, sure.

But that is really not much less than a new one.

The lack of warrranty is not worth the trouble.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 23 Aug 2016 09:30:12 No.2909081 Report

Quoted By:

>>2908886
Enjoy your corroded electronics

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 23 Aug 2016 10:36:29 No.2909135 Report

Quoted By:

>>2907583
Wow, this is a new level of retardness that I didn't see before on this board.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 23 Aug 2016 14:30:09 No.2909302 Report

Quoted By:

>>2908939
Go away child.

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/ - Gear thread