Gore edition
Last one:
>>3216981 Read the sticky first!
Post anything gear related, cameras, lenses, bags, tripods, other fashion accessories (clothing, fancy straps, Leica) etc...
Post your question here, instead of starting a new thread about which lens to buy or what are the best beginner cameras.
And don't forget, be polite!
Anonymous
XE-3 vs T-X20 vs A7 or free pick in that price range
Anonymous
Anonymous
>>3220645 What’s your budget? Lenses ain’t free.
Xt1s are on eBay for 400. Deal of the century.
Anonymous
>>3219911 Good news! Nikon finally processed my camera and sent me info. It is still under warranty and it will be fixed free of charge! After reading so many horror stories of warranty refusals I was pretty worried. Though, I keep my camera in tip-top shape and never ever get it into rain, snow, high humidity, temp swing condensation, etc.
I seriously can't wait to get it back. I hope it doesn't die again after another 17k-18k photos. I only had it 4 months. Though, I plan on buying fully manual lenses. Having both focus and aperture rings. That way, if the aperture arm screws up again, it won't matter during the photoshoot/trip and I can still take photos.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3220616 Was that the 16-50mm lens that died?
>tips The a6000 has a lower battery life than the a5000 so make sure to turn off any features that would drain the battery more, like extra processing stuff or shorten up the timers for shutting down, turn off wifi/NFC, external flash, etc; whatever you are not using directly. I think using the viewfinder with the LCD screen off will help a lot for battery life.
Anonymous
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3220662 ~€1500, looking for a nice small 35mm to go with it
Anonymous
>>3220666 >17k-18k photos >4 months You should think more about what pictures you take and how many. Spray and pray won’t make good photography and will only damage your gear.
Anonymous
>>3220686 I do a great deal of wildlife, action, and HDR stuff. I simply have the wrong camera for my needs.
Anonymous
Convince me to get a full frame mirrorless (any of the a7's). I have the money but i'm still pussying out as to whether i should do it or not.
Anonymous
>>3220689 You simply don’t need 10-15 shot sequences and doing burst at every movement. You need to learn to judge which moment you want to capture and stop being a hair-trigger newbie.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3220702 If you don’t need it, you simply don’t need it. Spend it on a trip to make more photos.
Anonymous
>>3220702 Why don't you get a FF nikon and use the lenses you already own instead?
Anonymous
>>3220715 I have been so tempted to get the 610D ever since the A7 came out, especially since it's cheaper and i'm already pretty comfortable with the Nikon i have.
Just that with the amount of people converting from dslr to mirrorless and all the ass-licking sony's been receiving lately, I have been hesitant about it.
But yes, if i were to get a Nikon, the 610D is a very good deal especially with extra money to spare..
Anonymous
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3220711 You should probably step out of the studio sometime and get some real world expereince, gramps.
Anonymous
>>3220666 >never ever get it into rain, snow, high humidity, temp swing condensation or you know you could actually buy a camera that is built correctly and take it wherever the fuck you want.
Anonymous
>>3220645 Id go xt20 or a6300 (maybe even a6000+nice lens if you don't care about 4k)
Anonymous
>>3220638 this thread is shit since you put a shit canon in the img
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3220746 why not the original a7? is it that inferior?
Technically Correct !!lN6LSAdx7EV
>>3220686 That’s about 150 shots per day. Going out shooting action on a fairly regular basis will give you that easily. If models weren’t so flakey and hard to schedule and if I weren’t working around a 9-5 day job, I’d be shooting more than that without any spraying or praying.
Technically Correct !!lN6LSAdx7EV
>>3220720 This article is stupid and all of its arguments are easily refuted. Stop sharing it.
Anonymous
Pentax K-r anon here, I decided on a camera finally, and it's… Pentax K-30!
Anonymous
>>3220753 Paid Pentax shill goes climbining, his weather-sealed ruggedized camera and lens fall from 3000 feet, doesn't fly good and changes - BRICKED. Many such cases!
Anonymous
>>3220768 I don't see such refutation
Anonymous
Straps. What strap does /p/ recommend for their DSLRs?
Anonymous
>>3220753 >reverse image search http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/845602 Looks like it hit some tree limbs on the way down. Probably those springy ones on the tips of the trees, thus reducing the impact quite a bit.
Anonymous
Anonymous
Anonymous
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3220782 still not a Pentax
Anonymous
>>3220782 how did the lens border become visible?
Anonymous
Quoted By:
How did Pentax get its gay stigma? It's pretty much the Miata of cameras for some reason
Technically Correct !!lN6LSAdx7EV
>>3220775 Fundamentally, their argument is “the supposed advantages of mirrorless FF are mitigated so it’s merely equal to FF DSLRs”. Which, even if you grant all of their arguments, means that mirrorless FF is EQUAL, not WORSE than an SLR.
As for the individual points:
1. Size. There exists useful configurations of the A7 and lens that are vastly smaller than comparable DSLRs. While it’s true that a lot of other combinations are roughly the same size (some a bit bigger, some a bit smaller), a DSLR can’t match a mirrorless with pancake. So, mostly tie plus one big win means win overall.
2. Weight. Exactly the same argument as size.
3. In body stabilization. Nobody says that in body stabilization is an intrinsic advantage of mirrorless full frame, so this is already a straw man. People might say that SONY SPECIFICALLY is better because stabilization, but that’s certainly not an argument against them. His point here seems to be “anyone else could add sensor stabilization, too”, which is true, but in no way an argument against the Sony.
4. Adapting lenses. His argument against this advantage is that it makes you lose your size advantages that he claims the A7 doesn’t have, which is (a) not necessarily true, because you can adapt rangefinder lenses and old manual focus lenses which are smaller than AF lenses because they lack electronics/motors/etc, and (b) still not really a disadvantage because, again, you can choose between adapting an SLR lens or using a native pancake, and (c) mirrorless can adapt a wide range of glass that’s not usable on SLRs and the EVF means they’re actually usably focusable.
5. Live exposure preview. They claim DSLRs can do this too. So far, only Sony with their SLTs has tried. It costs you a significant amount of light, plus negates the main DSLR advantages (optical viewfinder; long battery life) to do so.
Technically Correct !!lN6LSAdx7EV
>>3220804 tl;dr:
He argues against a straw man version of mirrorless full frame, shows that DSLRs are equal to that straw man at best, and concludes from that that mirrorless full frame was a “fatal mistake”.
There are legitimate issues with the A7 line. There are similarly legitimate issues with DSLRs. This stupid clickbait article doesn’t discuss any of the legitimate issues. Stop posting it.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3220798 Probably the same way it happened on my Coolpix L100 one time when it dropped 6 inches onto a table top. Gentle tapping in the other direction fixed it. Someone on /p/ explained it, but I forget the exact terminology.
Anonymous
Anonymous
>>3220804 >1. Size. There exists useful configurations of the A7 and lens that are vastly smaller than comparable DSLRs. While it’s true that a lot of other combinations are roughly the same size (some a bit bigger, some a bit smaller), a DSLR can’t match a mirrorless with pancake. So, mostly tie plus one big win means win overall. The average lens is bigger. A pancake is a specialty lens.
>2. Weight. Exactly the same argument as size. And SLR wins again.
>3. In body stabilization. Nobody says that in body stabilization is an intrinsic advantage of mirrorless full frame, so this is already a straw man. People might say that SONY SPECIFICALLY is better because stabilization, but that’s certainly not an argument against them. His point here seems to be “anyone else could add sensor stabilization, too”, which is true, but in no way an argument against the Sony. The FF in-body stabilization is limited because E-mount started as an APS-C mount and they have problems fitting the stabilization system due to how cramped it is.
>>3220807 >There are legitimate issues with the A7 line. There are similarly legitimate issues with DSLRs. This stupid clickbait article doesn’t discuss any of the legitimate issues. Stop posting it. Portability is a legitimate issue. Normal lenses are much bigger for FF MILCs.
Anonymous
>>3220804 >makes you lose your size advantages That triggers me so much. People are so fucking retarded. I hate tiny electronics that at like bars of soap when you try to use them. Their form factors suck so hard.
Not the anon you are replying to, but thanks for the list and reasons.
Anonymous
>>3220753 Pentax can't use as many lenses as Canon EOS can, shortest flange distance for DSLRs.
Anonymous
>>3220812 >That triggers me so much. People are so fucking retarded. I hate tiny electronics that at like bars of soap when you try to use them. That's what MILCs are though.
BTW the flange distance they removed from the camera is now in the lens so you carry more stuff around if you use more than one lens.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3220815 I like the FFD, but not the size difference. I guess I just have big hands and fingers. The smaller they get the more hand cramps I end up with.
Anonymous
>>3220784 I dont see how a leather strap would be much better then the stock one
Technically Correct !!lN6LSAdx7EV
>>3220811 >The average lens is bigger. A pancake is a specialty lens. No, the average lens Ian about the same. That’s a tie, not a win, and it’s not even that because mirrorless gets points for pancakes. You describe them as a specialty lens as if they’re only useful for taking pictures of breakfast food. They’re not. They’re general purpose lenses with a specialty size.
>The FF in-body stabilization is limited And yet, there aren’t constant complaints of problems with image quality related to the IBIS, so I guess it’s not *that* limiting.
>Portability is a legitimate issue. Normal lenses are much bigger for FF MILCs. Again, no they really aren’t, and again, even where they are, mirrorless still wins or ties.
Technically Correct !!lN6LSAdx7EV
>>3220815 >you carry more stuff around if you use more than one lens Worst case scenario, that’s about one extra inch of length with no extra glass per lens, assuming exactly equal optical designs. Effectively zero extra weight. If you have more than one lens, you’re already in “carrying a camera bag” territory, so you’ve already lost the size/weight advantage. Most of the volume of my camera bag is empty air regardless of the system I’m using.
Technically Correct !!lN6LSAdx7EV
Quoted By:
>>3220821 >I dont see how a leather strap would be much better then the stock one It lets you contribute to the death of a cow. FUCK cows.
Anonymous
>>3220822 The average pancake is a wide prime, how is that not a specialty lens? There's only 4 Sony E pancakes and 3 of them are primes.
Anonymous
>>3220828 >arguing with gearfag sonygger tripfags Don't do it anon, they're dishonest by design.
Anonymous
>>3220824 >Most of the volume of my camera bag is empty air regardless of the system I’m using. >tfw my kit bag is overflowing with stuff and i can't even get my camera into it, not that it could fit into it well in the first place I can't wait until I have the Pelican case I want to get.
Anonymous
>>3220828 >The average pancake is a wide prime What the hell are you smoking?
Technically Correct !!lN6LSAdx7EV
Quoted By:
>>3220830 I’m a gearfag Canonfag tripfag; I just hate stupid disingenuous arguments.
Anonymous
>>3220832 Show me one current tele pancake
Technically Correct !!lN6LSAdx7EV
>>3220831 What exactly do you carry? When I’m doing serious shooting, I’ve got either body/50/17-40/85 or body/24-70/70-200; either configuration fits easily into a medium sized camera bag.
Anonymous
Are there any other point and shoots worth getting besides a Ricoh GR?
Anonymous
>>3220828 What the hell are we defining as a "pancake" here? Sony doesn't make anything in FE mount that looks like pic related.
Anonymous
Anonymous
>>3220852 zeiss 35 2.8
but who on earth is stupid enough to spend 700bucks for this
Anonymous
>>3220855 >anything in FE mount Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3220858 Damn, you're right. Which further proves the article is right too. Sony FE is bulkier than DSLRs.
Anonymous
Anonymous
>>3220861 >Pentax crop DSLR lens Anonymous
>>3220863 >make bullshit claims like, "The average pancake is a wide prime," >get totally BTFO >back pedallying ensues Anonymous
>>3220865 Most pancakes there are wide primes in that link though, specially the ones for E mount which was the original discussion.
Anonymous
>>3220863 https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/892390-REG/Sony_selp1650_16_50mm_F_3_5_5_6_Power_Zoom.html >Sony also offers a pancake zoom lens that retracts to 1.18" from the lens mount when not in use. The Sony 16-50mm/f3.5-5.6 OSS Alpha E-mount Retractable Zoom lens (24-75mm equivalent) has a stepping motor for smooth, quiet video capture, close-focusing down to 9.8", a dual-function control ring for manual focusing and zooming, and optical image stabilization. Anonymous
>>3220867 >get totally BTFO >back pedaling ensues Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3220868 Not Sony FE, also not average but a single exception.
>>3220869 I didn't get BTFO and didn't backpedal. The average pancake is a wide prime. Keyword, "average".
Anonymous
>>3220769 What about the K-30 aperture block failure? I haven't kept up with that issue, but last I checked it was still a problem.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3220849 Depends what you expect from point-n-shoot. But personally I think that pocketable mirrorless have taken up their spot. Pen-f, 5000, lumixes, even eos m10, m100...
Anonymous
Didnt wanna make a thread for this as I can imagine theres a ton of those, so I'll ask here.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3220849 there's a list
Canon G15/G16/G1x
Fujifilm x10/x20/x30/x70
Sony A7iii
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3220686 >you have a camera? >don't take photos with it you massive retard! >that's how you break it. t. Nikon
>>3220742 Some people can't afford a quality camera. That's where there's so many of them for under $500. Most people's first DSLR is going to be shit simply because they don't realize how shitty the field is with cheap plastic shit.
Anonymous
>>3220758 I know someone that does wedding photos. Holy shit, she takes like 6k-10k per day at those events. That's standard portraits plus random encounters and voyeur type stuff during the event and she has 2 other people working much the same thing for some of the larger ones. The clients are super satisfied at least.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3220839 The kit bag is super small, that's all. It was "free" with the D3400 two-lens kit:
https://www.nikonusa.com/en/nikon-products/product/camera-case/dslr-value-pack.html I feel it can safely carry 3 lenses; the 70-300mm, the 18-55mm, and one prime or small zoom attached to the body. I like the 18-55mm for general stuff so it is almost always with me. I have a few diy artistic prime lenses that take up tons of room. I also do a lot of outdoor macro work with rails, tubes, bellows, and ring light. On long trips, I never know what I want due to the nature of nature. For hikes I normally only take the body and 1 lens or just a pinhole cap. The only studio work I do is macro stuff, so that really doesn't matter.
I don't mind the soft bag, but the instant I put the gear in a vehicle I require it go into a hardcase if I don't have it directly in my hand.
Anonymous
>>3220909 So in 20 weddings she has to buy a new camera?
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3220857 MILC cucks that's who
Anonymous
>>3220924 More like 4 cameras in the past 10 years.
Anonymous
Anyone ever use a Dicapac? Going to Tulum in February and looking for an affordable option for my 5D mkiii when I go to the cenotes. Just looking to shoot topside while in the water and a couple shots underwater (reports being rated up to 15ft.) Anything deeper than that I'll just use a gopro.
Anonymous
>>3220758 If I were shooting 150 shots per day, with even minimal daily obligations, I would probably still get burned out pretty quickly. Also I would probably have to have an amazing life/location to keep that up.
Anonymous
>>3220719 >610D newly converted canon shill detected
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3220875 Not that anon. Most people I know with the problem switched from the D-LI109 batteries to the AA battery and half of the cases it solved the problem (weak battery) some got it fixed by replacing the block.
There are some though who don’t give a fuck and use manual aperture lenses.
The problem is not a pinpoint defect, more of a loose tolerance batch problem, it can affect users differently.
The AA battery (Eneloop pack) solution works for most, cheap and easy fix.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3220982 It helps to have several types of lenses so you can go from one type of shooting to another. Like from landscape to macro is wildly different as example.
Anonymous
Dumping some Gore
Technically Correct !!lN6LSAdx7EV
>>3220978 I used one of those for a bit. It works, and my camera (Also a 5D3, coincidentally) didn't get wet, but it's kind of annoying as shit to work with.
Main issue: It's a big bag full of camera and air. The camera part's fine. The air part? Makes it really tricky to take underwater pictures at any significant depth.
Secondary issue: Hard to work any controls other than the shutter when they're inside a plastic bag.
For the money, though, it works surprisingly well. If you're just gonna be using it to keep your camera dry while standing in the waves, or if you're looking to use it while floating on the surface with a snorkel, you'll be fine.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3221007 Should have put it in a Pelican case or something similar.
Anonymous
2/?
Anonymous
Quoted By:
3/?
Anonymous
Quoted By:
4/?
Anonymous
>>3221011 Some lady dropped it in lava in Hawaii, just proves that weather seal test they did recently where the Fony also stopped working from rain
Technically Correct !!lN6LSAdx7EV
>>3221024 Pfft. Can't handle a little dip in lava? When is Sony going to get serious about building a pro-quality camera?
Technically Correct !!lN6LSAdx7EV
Quoted By:
>>3221007 Not to blame the victim, but who the fuck puts a Noctilux in checked luggage?
Anonymous
Hey gear boys.
Technically Correct !!lN6LSAdx7EV
Quoted By:
>>3221082 Nikon D850, Canon 5D Mark IV, or Sony A7R III
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3221082 Use your iPhone with a cheap clip-on lens kit.
It isn't about the camera. It is about how you'll be using the camera and more importantly how you'll be using the images. Do you want to trade pics with friends on electronic devices only or will you be sending them in for 48x120 inch prints on 3mm DiBond Brushed Silver? Or, you know, anything in between.
Anonymous
>>3221066 I don't know, someone posted a video in another thread of a Nikon being set on fire and still working after. I bet it would have survived the lava too. I guess all the Sony memes are real!
Anonymous
>>3221008 Thanks for the detailed reply. Did you submerge at all? Any pictures?
Also did you have to hold the lens cover back over the barrel? I've read that for best results you're limited to two hands and shooting manually. Never shot underwater, looking for all the input I can get.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3221082 Fuji GFX50S with 45mm lens, ~$7k
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3221082 Im going to serve my 12 month mandatory millitary service. Want to buy motorbikes in vietnam in 2 years time and ride all over the country?
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3220813 canon has dual lenses? two, two lenses at the same time.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3220769 find a used k5 or k5-ii
Anonymous
>>3220720 >cherry picking, the article 10/10
Almost as good as the x-trans article.
Is petapixel a troll photo site or something?
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3220720 >article quotes Fuji saying IBIS is impossible in a mirrorless >Fuji's next body is going to have IBIS hahaha
Anonymous
>>3220638 I am looking for a compact flash for my mirrorless setup.
I don't have much experience with flashes, so I am not exactly sure what I am looking for.
What I hope to get is a simple, lightweight, compact flash that I can experiment with flash photography with.
I have stumbled across the Nissin i40, does anyone have any experience with this? Seems like a perfect match. Is there some fundamental flaw I am missing?
Anonymous
What are some good wide angle/ landscape lenses for Nikon FX?
Anonymous
>>3221192 That the Godox TT350 is half the price, offers most of the same features, and works as a master/slave controller in the Godox wireless lineup.
>>3221271 If you're going sub-20mm, stick with the zooms, or up to date third party primes (Samyang 14, Zeiss 15/18). Nikon hasn't updated the 14 2.8 since it was released in 99. For zooms, you could pick any of the Nikons (18-35G, 16-35/4 VR, 14-24) or third party (Tamron 15-30, Sigma Art 12-24) and you'll be fine.
>>3220889 You could take car photos with a potato and they'd be fine. Whatever you pick, invest in a polarizer. Any will do.
Canon's EF-M lens lineup is limited, although there's a couple really good lenses. The dual pixel AF is adequate, and decisive. Those cameras all have mic input if you wish to do video. The M6 and M5 have IBIS, important for smooth hand held video. The M6 has an optional viewfinder. If you need more lenses, you can always adapt full size Canon EF lenses at the cost of extra expense and size. I'd pick up the EF-M 22/2 and 11-22, which would cover most use cases for car photography. Add the 55-200 for trackside photos.
Of course, you have to ask if this is the camera of choice. I think the EF-M cameras make sense as a Canon DSLR shooter. They make a little less sense as your primary system if you compare features against other systems. I'd pick it if looking at the other systems you find the Canon still the most appealing. The Fujis can now shoot a good 4K, has a decent AF, have more lenses, but no IBIS. The Sonys have good video, decent AF, more (full frame) lenses, a full frame upgrade path, and IBIS. M43 has good video, voodoo IBIS, decent lens selection, but people are scared of peanut sensors. The traditional DSLRs do the same job with the benefit of battery life, lens selection, and AF performance, but generally do worse at video. EF-M does have the benefit of being not particularly expensive, while offering decent, but not class leading, video, AF, IQ, and features.
Anonymous
>>3221288 That IBIS in M5-6 is a software stabilization and is atrocious, makes everything look like jelly. No floating sensor.
Anonymous
>>3221288 Thanks i am planing on staying around 20mm.
All The lenses you recommended are around the price of the nikon 14-24 which is almost double of what i was planning on laying down on a wide angle.
So i guess the question is good 20/21mm Primes for Nikon FX?
Technically Correct !!lN6LSAdx7EV
Quoted By:
>>3221271 > Most pictures were taken at 14mm which should equal 20-21 on FX. If you're fine with 20mm, Nikon makes a couple of 20mm prime lenses. The 20mm f/2.8 can be had for under $400:
https://www.keh.com/shop/nikon-nikkor-20mm-f-2-8d-af-super-wide-angle-lens-117772.html Anonymous
>>3221318 >software stabilization That's the second worst IBIS there is. What were they thinking?
Anonymous
>>3221370 pfffft that's a bin chicken
Anonymous
Anonymous
Oh yisss. Got the D810, plus a 24-70 2.8, a 70-200 2.8 and the SB 910 speedlight for the price of the d810 body.
Anonymous
Is the nikon d750 a good camera or is it a mid range meme? I found one for 600$ and it looks good enough to me
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3220990 d610*
give a man a break
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3221413 Yeah, I'm going to say that is a good price.
Anonymous
Anonymous
>>3221318 Oh, i'll confess I didnt look into it much. Straight into the trash it goes then.
>>3221322 Pick a 20mm lens in your price range then. I dont think there are any bad ones. Certainly not the Nikon ones.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3221541 Friends photofirm that didn't quite pan out I think?
I'm not sure of all the details, nor did I care to much to ask given the price.
Anonymous
>just ordered a camera off amazon japan for way less than it sells for in america
Anonymous
>>3221555 Are you living in Brazil?
if NO. You're going to be OK
Anonymous
>>3221557 I live in the US. Ive just read differing accounts of what can happen when you do this.
Anonymous
>>3221568 You're fine. if taxed, it won't be much.
which camera did you bought?
Anonymous
>>3221575 X100T. Still goes for $1000+ in the US, got it for $730 in japan.
Anonymous
>>3221555 >>3221603 it's a good deal but you wont have a proper warranty
if you make any claim to fuji/canon/nikon usa they wont accept it because it's a grey market camera
Anonymous
>Can put 500-700 shutter triggers down per-natural light shoot over 2-3 hours >Wait for the moment I want, take 3-5 shots >100ish a shoot if I'm waiting for my flashes to catch up with me >Super easy to parse through after >People upsetti over 100 shot spaghetti
Technically Correct !c4MrSq6dfA
Quoted By:
>>3221624 This guy shoots.
Anonymous
I'm somewhat of a poorfag. Which system has the generally the "cheapest"/best bang for the buck lenses? I don't care for adapters for 50 year old lenses that may or may not need expensive servicing. I don't care if it's DSLR, mirrorless, APSC, m43, Pentax, Canikon, Sony, Panpus Olysonic or Fuji x-trannies. Thanks.
Anonymous
>>3221669 Nikon, since you can use most of their old stuff without adapters or worries.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3221288 Car boi here, thanks man!
Anonymous
Quick question before I pull the trigger on this. Do these style screen protectors come off easily without leaving any residue?
Anonymous
>>3221681 No and not really, but it's not something an hour, a toothbrush and some rubbing alcohol can't solve.
Make a evening of it, put on some cool tunes and a grab a beer homie.
Anonymous
>>3221682 It will come off eventually and leave minimal residue, then?
Anonymous
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3221671 Apparently I can get some good deals on 2nd hand D750s with around 70k clicks so that's not a bad idea. Thanks.
Anonymous
>>3221671 Why you lie? Unless he get's a 7k series or better he won't have AF with lenses that don't have a focus motor built in, certain older lenses won't meter with lower end bodies, and some old lenses can even damage newer bodies.
If he want's simplicity and good value for money then he should go with Canon.
Anonymous
>>3221689 I'm going full frame if I can help it and Nikon offerings are within my price range. Full frame bodies all seem to have the AF drive motor. In any case, I won't go for a very cheap body since I want to keep it for some time.
Anonymous
>>3221689 Okay bud, if you think those are major issues then continue to sit in your room never shooting.
All of these issues can be avoided by just googling compatibility before plugging the lens into the body, yet leaves him with access to hundreds of older design lens.
Not ragging on Canon either, due to their popularity over the years you can find great deals on bodies as soccer moms and gear dads move into the latest stuff however in this one regard, access to solid cheap lenses without adapters, Nikon is the obvious choice here.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>tfw spending about half my income on equipment each month
Anonymous
Quoted By:
I'm buying my first DSLR, I want to shoot photo and video; not planning to change it anytime soon.
Technically Correct !c4MrSq6dfA
>>3221692 >Okay bud, if you think those are major issues then continue to sit in your room never shooting. Those certainly aren’t insurmountable issues, but the Nikon lens compatibility morass is a long way from “without adapter or worries” lens compatibility.
Although given
>>3221691 it shouldn’t be an issue, since Nikon’s full frame bodies have pretty good compatibility reach.
Anonymous
>>3221700 I will fucking end you.
Just kidding tripfriend, I'm just tired of the incompatibility issues being argued like we're all just randomly grabbing lenses off a table - there are some lines that will fuck up your camera sure - but I'd hope everyone here would google something before trying it.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3221713 Of course most people would do some research before buying a lens and slapping it on their camera, but that doesn't negate the fact that if you use a lower end body it severely limits your lens options.
That said there will be people that are unaware that these incompatibility issues exist, most of whom will be using the lower end bodies. They might be unaware that if they'd just gotten a higher end body they'd be able to use more lenses.
Finally it's just a pain in the arse to have to check every old lens before you buy it, and it's annoying to find a good deal and then realise you can't use it.
Any Canon body can use any of the 130 or so first party EF lenses dating all the way back to 1987, and any crop body can also use the additional 20 or so EF-S lenses. No adaptors required and no worries (you can't even accidentally stick an EF-S on a full frame body and break it).
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3221621 Im fine with that. I bought a gray market X100S and had zero problems with it for three years (just sold it for $600 to fund my X100T purchase).
Any other input on customs?
Anonymous
At what point should I get my gear insured? I'm poorfagging my way to a small collection now.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3221545 Well there's
The bin 20 2.8 which is highly recommend. And 2.8 was always far enough for me for milky way shots on asked, so it should be on ff.
There's the Nikon 20 1.8 a bit more expensive.
Sigma 20 1.8 is a lot cheaper but I can't find anything about it on the web. Otherwise it seems like a good deal.
The sigma 201.4 art is highly recommend, pretty expensive and I tested it before on a friend's canon.
The new samyang 20 1.8 has no af but seems like an affordable option.
And then there's some Zeiss but I'm not even considering those.
Can I go balls wrong with any of those?
If the Nikon and the sigma 1.8 can be had for the same price, which one should I pick?
Anonymous
>>3221545 >Fuck my phone Well there's the Nikon 20 2.8 which is highly recommend. And 2.8 was always fast enough for me for milky way shots on apsc, so it should be on ff.
There's the Nikon 20 1.8, a bit more expensive.
Sigma 20 1.8 is a lot cheaper than the Nikon but I can't find anything about it on the web. Otherwise it seems like a good deal.
The sigma 20 1.4 art is highly recommend, pretty expensive and I tested it before on a friend's canon.
The new samyang 20 1.8 has no af but seems like an affordable option.
And then there's some Zeiss but I'm not even considering those.
Can I go balls wrong with any of those?
If the Nikon 2.8 and the sigma 1.8 can be had for the same price, which one should I pick?
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3220686 I take about 100-200 photos every day. It has nothing to do with art or anything like that and everything to do with documenting things.
Anonymous
>>3221751 I pay $325/year through a photographer oriented Allstate agent for $10,000 of personal gear coverage and $20,000 of rented gear coverage. That's replacement coverage, not actual cash value. It's worth searching for replacement coverage since depreciation will hit hard on any actual cash value claims for photo gear.
Anonymous
What would be a good cheap lens to get for a DX body? Was thinking the 35mm DX or 50mm 1.8d. I bought a D7100
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3221771 Seems like a rider on household would be better for me, but only if I grill the insurance company about it first.
Anonymous
>>3221751 I'm curious, what is this list? What is it supposed to represent?
As for insurance, you should get it when there's a high chance or loss or damage and that would entail a significant cost or obstruction to your work. The lower the risk the higher the value should be, for example if you had whatever the newest Leica is and a Noctilux you'd probably want to insure that shit even if you never left the house.
Anonymous
>>3221777 35 all day long. Much more versatile.
Anonymous
>>3221777 The 35 is great however I will always love the 50mm 1.8d - I bought it for my d3200 a few years back and have kept it with me this entire time - I do %90 of my portraits on it with my D7200
Anonymous
For $300, is a Fuji X30 a decent EDC/fuck-around P&S or look elsewhere?
Anonymous
Quoted By:
Whats the name in cheap NPF batteries these days?
Anonymous
>>3221792 >I'm curious, what is this list? What is it supposed to represent? Stuff with the red prices/stuff with a check mark is what I've already purchased; including stuff used to make DIY lenses. Stuff after that is stuff I have slated for purchase, but those prices are just a ballpark.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3221799 >>3221803 35mm it is then.
Thank you.
Anonymous
>>3221836 I see. So what's the actual point of the list, autism?
I don't mean that offensively, just want to say that if the purpose of that list is to find out the value that needs to be insured then it's pointless as more than half that stuff isn't worth insuring (and I wouldn't be surprised if insurers wouldn't cover it).
The only stuff you should even consider insuring is that over like $100, so that's the body and two lenses, memory card, and the mirror lens.
Anonymous
>>3220934 How is she making them go well past 200k actuations? Have her cameras failed in the middle of weddings for not changing them more often?
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3221168 >cherry picking It'd be true if pancake lenses were the norm rather than the exception. For regular lenses it's spot-on.
Now if you want to shell 700 bucks for a 35mm f/2.8 that's on you.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3221852 >what's the actual point of the list Pasting an image is easier then typing any one thing out. The list is for my own records. Itemizing is quite popular with household rider insurance. Having proof of purchase for everything also makes for very speedy insurance claims. I only know this because my homes have burned down a few times for various reasons (faulty water heater/exploding tanker truck/unknown cause.) I've been reset to 0 too many times and know the ins and outs from experience.
I'm now well versed in photography insurance and it seems to not be for me. A rider is more what I need since I don't make money with my work. I just need t o check with the company to make sure they cover this sort of stuff since some of them don't.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3221854 No clue. After looking into it, it seems some cameras can reach many millions:
http://www.olegkikin.com/shutterlife/ Bigsexy
Quoted By:
>>3220702 honestly unless youre getting into the sony e mount system for good theres not really a point outside of gear fagging on threads and posting pics of your a7 on instagram and not posting any actual pictures you take with it
Bigsexy
>>3220855 that lens is so bad tho. fucking corners are atrocious
Technically Correct !!lN6LSAdx7EV
Quoted By:
>>3221098 >Did you submerge at all? Yep! What I ended up doing was basically wrapping the underwater bag's strap around a kettlebell to counteract the buoyancy.
> Also did you have to hold the lens cover back over the barrel? Yeah. It depends on what focal length you're shooting at and how long your lens is, but yeah. I was shooting with my 17-40 at the wide end (the water effectively increases your focal length, so you're probably going to want to use a wide-angle).
I only did two shoots with that rig before switching to a setup that worked better--I picked up a cheap Sony NEX-C3 and 16/2.8 to play around with, then discovered that I could get an underwater hard case for it for only around $120 or so. Lost some image quality going from my full frame 5D3 to a Babbys-First-Sony, and the autofocus on it sucks, but the handling on that hard case vs. the camera-in-a-bag more than made up for it.
Here's a shot from the bag.
Technically Correct !!lN6LSAdx7EV
Quoted By:
>>3221681 I'm pretty sure that's just a clip-on screen protector with no adhesive, so you can just pop it off. That's how the one on my D70 worked anyway.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3221877 Corners aren’t so bad as much as the whole lens is soft.
The 20mm pancake is much better.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3221809 I've got an X20 and it's great. X30 is a bit bigger but the EVF is likely quite nice and it takes real batteries instead of the miniscule shit my X20 uses. Keep your expectations realistic (probably below ISO800 unless you're shooting BW) and you'll probably have a blast with it.
Anonymous
>>3221768 I wouldn't pick the old Sigma 1.8. The Nikon 2.8's good for about $300, but I wouldn't pay much more. The corners aren't going to be as good as a modern lens, naturally.
The Sigma 1.8 is the only one I'd never pick. It's an old, shitty design.
>>3221751 There's maybe 7 things on this entire list worth insuring, and 4 of hose you don't even own yet. What the fuck, man?
>>3221854 Those advertised numbers are MTBFs. You merely live on borrowed time after that point. Worst case scenario, you pick up the backup body, and send the main body for a shutter replacement.
Technically Correct !!lN6LSAdx7EV
>>3220855 That's E-mount, not FE; crop cameras only.
So yeah, Sony doesn't currently have a real pancake for full frame mirrorless. My bad. There's a third-party pancake for it, though, at least.
Technically Correct !!lN6LSAdx7EV
>>3221877 >[The sony 16mm f/2.8 pancake] is so bad tho. fucking corners are atrocious As long as you look at the pictures like a normal human instead of zooming into the corner at 100%, it looks fine. It's important to realize how rarely people put critical important compositional elements that need to be super sharp in the far corners.
Anonymous
Why do most photographers seem to autistically limit themselves to only one brand of camera?
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3221902 something about lens systems, I dunno
I use Nikon and Sony fullframe and adapt
Might get a Pentax too, sometimes I don't trust the Nikon sealing
Technically Correct !!lN6LSAdx7EV
>>3221902 >Why do most photographers seem to autistically limit themselves to only one brand of camera? That's not autistic at all. Jesus, why the fuck does everyone use "Autistic" to mean generically bad on this site?
Photographers limit themselves to only one brand because if you have a bunch of, say, Canon lenses for your Canon body, if you buy another Canon body, you won't have to buy all new lenses. And if you buy new lenses for that new body, you can also use them on your old body in case you kept it around for a backup. Ditto flashes.
Additionally, once you get really used to one camera brand's way of doing something, usually their subsequent cameras do things in a similar way. I'm used to Canon's position of the aperture dial on the front. It's easier to use another Canon and still have that muscle memory.
It's weird and kinda stupid for a photographer to own multiple different systems from different brands. It's something you really only do if you're a crazy gearfag with far too much time on his hands and poor impulse control with regards to purchases.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3221681 yep, you can remove it easily. a noice guard for your oily nose desu.
Anonymous
>>3221901 What's going on with this building?
Anonymous
>>3221905 It is autistic. How many lenses do you fucking need for a camera and why are you willing to settle on an inferior lens just so you can keep your aperture dial in the front and above the shutter when another brand with the aperture dial customizable in the front below the shutter makes a better lens in that focal length but maybe not in others?
Do you not take multiple bodies shooting anyway, at least sometimes? Isn't it true that some camera bodies do certain things better than others? (For example, autofocus, dynamic range, weather sealing, resolution, etc.). If I use Canon mainly, and on a given day I want to have a dedicated body for telephoto and another dedicated body for wide angle, then might it not make sense to use a Pentax for the second, wide angle body and bring along one or two compact Limited primes to keep down bulk while still having good optics?
The argument could also be made that we are in the gearfag thread right now and you're trying to make the argument that certain gear isn't worth having for arbitrary reasons. If you go to some of the other hobbyist boards on 4chan, you'll find totally different attitudes. For example,
>>>/k/36455469 the arsenal threads on /k/ are full of given collections that have many guns that take non-interchangeable magazines and non-interchangeable ammunition. Different firearms also have different ergonomics, the controls are in different places, you hold them a little differently, etc., but I never hear people bitching about that shit like I hear on /p/. God, you people are babies.
Anonymous
>>3221902 >more efficient to shoot with a UI/UX that your'e used to >financial reasons Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3221916 >what is spending about 20 minutes to learn how to use your equipment >what is poorfag problems Technically Correct !!lN6LSAdx7EV
Quoted By:
>>3221911 Man, who knows? Architects in San Francisco are weird.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3221911 Look at the tree. Trees grow straight up and down.
Anonymous
I kind of want an Olympus E-P1. Wanna get an adapter to use my FD mount Tokina 35-105 3.5-4.3 macro. Plus I can find one for under $100. Memes aside, should I? Pic relate, my A-1 that is gathering dust because money dictates that I can't do film right now
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3221911 >tfw when a tired sleepy wagecuck leans on you while riding the subway Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3221898 When you insure, you itemize and do a lump sum. If your UV filters cost $2 each and you have 5,000 of them, you still insure them. Same goes with mixed stuff.
Technically Correct !!lN6LSAdx7EV
>>3221914 > How many lenses do you fucking need for a camera Well, I can't speak for everyone, but I have about 10 I use on a semi-regular basis?
The point at which it makes sense to stick with the camera system you've got is "More than zero".
> why are you willing to settle on an inferior lens just so you can keep your aperture dial in the front Pro tip: there are a variety of factors that go into deciding whether or not a photographer can get a good shot with a given camera setup. Being intimately familiar with the controls is waaaaaay above any slight differences in raw image quality from different sensors or lenses.
> Do you not take multiple bodies shooting anyway, at least sometimes? Me? All the time. I'm a crazy gearfag with far too much time on his hands and poor impulse control with regards to purchases. But when I'm doing serious photography that really matters, I grab my 5D Mark III, which is the camera I am by far the most familiar with and which is in my primary camera system, and which is the camera system I have the most lenses for.
> might it not make sense to use a Pentax for the second Nope. Because you'll be trying to get a shot with the Pentax and try to change your aperture with the front dial and the front dial won't be there because Pentax puts the front dial on the other side of the shutter button and you'll miss the shot. And if you're bringing along two bodies and at least two lenses, one of which is a telephoto, you're already in the "I'm lugging a shitload of gear" bulk category. A little bit of difference in lens size isn't worth the muscle memory hit.
> the arsenal threads on /k/ are full of given collections that have many guns that take non-interchangeable magazines and non-interchangeable ammunition. Ask an actual soldier if he prefers to stick with the gun he spends most of his time training with.
Also: a magazine costs around $10-20. A good lens costs several hundred to a few thousand dollars. It's a significant difference.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3221905 >Jesus, why the fuck does everyone use "Autistic" to mean generically bad on this site? Literally 4chan vernacular. Don't think of it as a single word with a definition. Think of it as an insult point and nothing more. As example, take this poster for instance,
>>3221914 he seems to be an autistic cis soyboy, hung up on cucking himself with his gear choices. So, don't read in to it.
Technically Correct !!lN6LSAdx7EV
>>3221920 You can get older Sony E-mount bodies for under a hundred bucks these days, too. Same size class body, bigger sensor, more room to grow in the system. Plus the E-P1 is reeeeeaaaaally old--basically the first mirrorless camera.
Anonymous
>>3221924 >Ask an actual soldier So you liken photographers to soliders, do you? Jesus Christ, the autism.
Technically Correct !!lN6LSAdx7EV
>>3221928 >So you liken photographers to soliders, do you? Ohhhhh, okay, you're just trolling me with this shit.
You overplayed your hand by bringing in the gun analogy and then immediately calling me autistic for responding to the gun analogy.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3221933 >You overplayed your hand by bringing in the gun analogy What in the fuck are you on about now? Do you think you are somewhere other than the gearfag thread? I didn't talk to you, you talked to me. You're the one who got butthurt by a simple question about limiting gear brands.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3221900 If you remove the baffle it covers about 95% of a FF sensor.
There are acutally two FE pancakes. The Zeiss 35mm f/2.8 and the Samyang copy.
The Zeiss is pretty much optically perfect, it is an amazing lens, and usually sells for $550. The Samyang has slightly worse corners, but is only $350.
But if we exclude the G/GM lenses, most of the FE lenses are lighter/smaller than their DSLR equivalents. Sometimes by very little, but sometimes by quite a lot, i.e.- pic related.
Anonymous
>>3221927 I may get an a5000 if I can find a decent priced pink one.
Technically Correct !!lN6LSAdx7EV
Quoted By:
>>3221940 > pink one Respect.
Bigsexy
>>3221928 >So you liken photographers to soliders nigga when did he say that. go re-read his shit. only autism i see here is you
Anonymous
>Go check my Paypal wallet to see if i finally received my money transfer >I need it so i can bid on a lens on Ebay >Still haven't received it >Still says i'm going to get it by january 11
Anonymous
>>3221555 >>3221557 >>3221575 Canada fag here, if i decide to buy a camera/lens from Ebay or Amazon, will i get raped by customs or import taxes?
Anonymous
>>3221962 I had to pay tax and duties on my 105/2.8D from Japan. I don't think the Japanese are inventive enough to mark the item as a gift.
>>3221961 >waiting for a bank transfer on paypal Just use a credit card, dummy.
Anonymous
>>3221968 The price is over my credit limit.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3221962 You’ll see them, but if you’re buying used stuff it’s not the end of the world when you’re already getting an ok deal. I bought a $1200 body from the states and import charges were like $72
Anonymous
>>3221968 >I don't think the Japanese are inventive enough to mark the item as a gift. My weeb friend taught me to use proxy shopping service to avoid import duties. Of course you have to pay them something like $40+1% item's value, so it's only worth it if the duties are over $100.
Anonymous
>>3221973 Jesus, get a job or something, or stop buying 200/2s and 600/4s on eBay.
>>3221976 https://www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/trade-commerce/tariff-tarif/2017/html/05/ch90-eng.html Remember to check the tariff rates. Photographic lenses aren't subject to duties, but they can choose to make you pay taxes. When they choose to do that is a bit random, but happens more often with higher priced items ($200+).
Of course, you're supposed to pay taxes on all imported items, like a good go- citizen.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3221947 >nigga when did he say that. I literally quoted him.
Anonymous
New to photography and just got an EOS M2 and an old EF-S 18-55mm kit lens (and an EF(-S) to EF-M adapter). Waiting on my check to hit my account to order some more things. Gonna get a Yongnuo 50mm and a Canon 75-300mm for fairly cheap. For around $330 total, is this a decent beginner's mirrorless setup to figure out what I like and get some practice?
Anonymous
are there any benefits to using say a 28mm manual focus lens on a 5d? other than nostalgia I can't think of a good reason to...
Anonymous
Anonymous
>>3222002 You could just use the OG EF 28/2.8 and get the same results.
>>3221983 The 75-300 is garbage. You want a 70-300 IS at a minimum. It'd be a waste of $330. You could get a 50 1.8 STM and 70-300 IS for under $400. Those would actually be good lenses. Or swap the 50 1.8 for the EF-M 22 at about the same price, and have a general use, good, native prime for the M2. The 22 plus 70-300 IS would cover the majority of your shooting.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3222005 yeah I was leaning more towards the ef af prime for stills. if I were doing something like making movies I could see myself benefitting from the compatibility of older manual focusing lenses
thanks for the input anon
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3222003 S A L T W A T E R
Anonymous
Anyone here got a Pentax K-70?
Anonymous
>>3222065 you can't submerge it in water but snow and rain should be ok for it.
pentax cameras can move their sensor to follow the star movement.
Anonymous
>>3222070 Doesn't that require an astrotracer though? Would it take a decent shot of the northern lights without that attachment
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3222075 The O-GPS1 costs like $80 used, at least that is how I got mine. The K-3II has the GPS integrated.
You can look at the astrotracer images at PF, even with a kit lens it can do a lot in good hands.
>>3222065 Regarding AF it is fast and accurate, more so with lenses having their own af drive. I have a few screwdrive lenses including the Tamron 70-200/2.8 macro, it focuses fast and accurately.
I have the K-3, the K-70 shouldn’t be far off, only with having less AF points, but in 99% of cases I use the center point.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3222005 The $330 is meant to be for everything. The camera, adapter, kit lens, 50mm, and 75-300mm all together will cost around $330 when it's said and done.
I will take your suggestions into consideration though.
Anonymous
>>3221973 >>3221968 >>3221977 >2018 >still using (((credit))) of any kind I'm so glad I got rid of all my debt in all forms. My friends are so fucking jelly that I actually flat out own my house, car, and big ass tv. They get to hop from card to card reduced chasing %interests and are in rent-to-own electronic hell.
Anonymous
>>3222224 >he didn't make credit work for him, instead of actually owing money Looks like you're the real goy
Anonymous
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3221681 It's just clip on!
>>3221682 da fuq you on about?
Anonymous
Would it be a bad idea to get an 18-55mm VR if I already have a 50mm and a 35mm?
Anonymous
>>3222285 Is the new model?
the 18-55 is the kit lens, and the most basic of all the Nikon range. but, it always a good lens to carry if you own a crop camera. Light, and can deliver some good results. If it is as cheap as it could be, and you wouldn't mind to expend some dollars on it, you'd be doing good
now, about the 55-200 it's your choice, what do you want at the time. the 18-35 range or the 55-200mm range?
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3222287 Both are the VRII which I'm thankful for since the D7000 can't handle af-p.
Think I'll just tell him to wait for me a while and get them both, thank you.
Technically Correct !!lN6LSAdx7EV
>>3222285 I agree with
>>3222287 : it’s not the best of all possible lenses, but it’s a great all-arounder. Especially given that you currently have zero glass in the wide-angle range (assuming the 35 and 50 are all you have), it’ll open up some photography options you don’t currently have.
Kit lenses get a bad rep, but there was some fierce competition for a while between Canon and Nikon for who could make the best 18-55, since that’s what most users stick with forever, and so the modern 18-55 VR and 18-55 IS are decent little lenses.
Anonymous
hey /gear/, i'm new to photography, but I won a Canon 80D in a giveaway. i've been reading about it for quite a bit to get an idea of it, but are there any key things I should know about it?
Anonymous
>>3222285 The VR helps tons.
Anonymous
>>3222302 The pretty good camera with decent amateur video features and good autofocus with Canon's latest sensor. Keep it and use it. Look at getting any of the following in the future if you need more variety in lenses: EFS 10-18, EFS 24, EF 70-300 IS I or II.
Anonymous
>>3222261 >everyone I don't like is /pol/! this is getting so tiring
Anonymous
>>3222322 Don’t be a racist asshat then.
>>>/pol/ Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3222317 I would add the EF-S 17-55/2.8 or the Sigma 17-50/2.8 as well
Technically Correct !!lN6LSAdx7EV
Quoted By:
>>3222322 >everyone who makes overtly bigoted comments is /pol/! It’s not just people we don’t like. In this case, it was because antisemitism.
Anonymous
>>3222342 >calling people goy is racist wow what are you some sort of Nazi??? oy vey, don't you remember the 6 billion jews that died?
Technically Correct !!lN6LSAdx7EV
>>3222350 I mean, I wasn’t the dude who called it out, but my guess would be he was more referring to the “(((credit)))” racist dog whistle in the previous post up the thread.
Anonymous
>>3222353 Yes you are right, it is racist that such a small percentage of the population holds such a large stake in positions of power in the financial world! They even came up with a word specifically meant to further their "us vs. them" mentality and call us "goy" to our faces now. This Jewish supremacy racism is truly getting out of hand.
Anonymous
Technically Correct !!lN6LSAdx7EV
>>3222358 Anyway, fuck off back to /pol/, racist.
Anonymous
we should've merged with
>>>/fa/ already
Anonymous
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3222368 >>3222353 That isn't racist since they are not a race, but an institution.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3222368 >>3222367 Yes, yes, good goy, send that evil Nazi back to where he belongs! These goyim are truly getting out of hand, it's like they don't even remember the 6 trillion Jews turned into lampshades by their own kind.
Anonymous
Anonymous
Did I do good? Bought for $20 at good will. Just needs batteries, which no store cells.
Anonymous
Technically Correct !!lN6LSAdx7EV
Quoted By:
>>3222387 Not a bad deal. That takes CR123A batteries, which are actually still sold at Walgreens, in my experience. They’re an order of magnitude cheaper through amazon, though.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
Stupid nazi get punched.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3222065 K-70 has better ISO performance than my K-3 II, so going by that I would say yes, it's probably quite decent in low light situations.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3221093 Goddamn I hate it when I drop my camera in lava, it keeps happening! What a pain in the ass.
Anonymous
Anonymous
Any recommendations that aren't
>>>/pol/ for an e-mount lens aps-c, sub $400, good for up close shots or wide angle?
Anonymous
Anonymous
>>3222489 Thanks but I don't think those fat bois in skinny jeans and chink clothes will know
Anonymous
>>3221902 I use nikon film slr with nikon mount lenses and a pentax digital slr with pentax lenses.
And I can tell you right now, that even just using 2 different brands is a waste because I can't use my slr lenses on my dslr, and vice versa (except for my adaptall Tamron lens). There nothing "autistic" about just sticking to one MOUNT, which is really what people are doing.
As the other anon put it, I'm pretty much a crazy gearfag for owning 2 mount setups. I think it makes more sense to own a different brand if your other system is something completely different, like medium format or rangefinder.
Anonymous
>>3222492 >chink clothes Fuck off back to
>>>/pol/ you anti-semitic kike
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3221007 what type of camera bag? like, backpack made for camera stuff or your standard camera bag like pic related? if it's the latter he's pretty fucking stupid desu.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3222505 >jew-hating jew lmao
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3222224 If you think owning and using credit cards means you're in debt and pay interest, you're an idiot. There are plenty of rewards cards out there that basically give you free money for buying things as long as you pay the full statement balance every month. They're also way easier than debit to get things right if your card is compromised and people make fraudulent purchases.
Technically Correct !!lN6LSAdx7EV
Quoted By:
>>3222481 >I have an itch. Try Calamine lotion?
Anonymous
>>3222503 >can't use my AR-15 ammo or magazines in my AK-47 >"WHAT A WASTE!!!" Autism.
Anonymous
someone red pill me about the 85mm 1.4g nikon. i am about to boy it.
Technically Correct !!lN6LSAdx7EV
>>3222521 So you liken photographers to soliders, do you? Jesus Christ, the autism.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3222526 >you have to be a soldier to own a rifle Are you stupid?
Anonymous
>>3222488 Kit is more than good enough if that is how you are asking.
Anonymous
>>3222528 I'm finding I can't get close enough to objects I want to photograph with the kit lens
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3222529 Then get the 30mm macro too. Specifically for taking pictures of things close up.
Anonymous
>>3221905 Autistic children don't like to have to adapt to new things.
>the control dial is in front of the shutter instead of behind it >the white balance control is in a slightly different location >the zoom turns clockwise instead of counter-clockwise You realize there's nothing inherently better or worse about a single thing that you named, right?
Technically Correct !!lN6LSAdx7EV
>>3222531 >You realize there's nothing inherently better or worse about a single thing that you named, right? Of course not. The point wasn't that one was inherently better than the other. The point is that you develop muscle memory which allows you to be a lot faster with the camera system you use most. It's like if you had to switch between a QWERTY keyboard and a Dvorak keyboard all the time. It would constantly fuck you up and make you slower on both of them.
Anonymous
>>3222537 Then polyglots and people who play multiple musical instruments, or code in more than one computer language, or have more than one skill, or hobby in general, would not exist. You are quite simply incorrect about habitual memory. It's not any harder to learn two camera systems than it is to learn to speak two or more languages.
Anonymous
>>3222525 You're about to spend $1000 extra for something that's barely discernible from the f1.8
Technically Correct !!lN6LSAdx7EV
>>3222539 Are you the same guy I was arguing with before, or are you a new guy?
Anonymous
>>3222287 >>3222296 >>3222306 225 bucks a good price for them? They're pretty much mint except the 18-55 doesn't have its box.
Technically Correct !!lN6LSAdx7EV
Quoted By:
>>3222551 It's not a terrible price, but it's not a great price. That's about the price you'd pay for EX-quality copies of them on
keh.com Anonymous
>>3222548 I'm just a guy who can play guitar and banjo and speaks English and Japanese fluently. I can touch type on a qwerty keyboad and I can touch type on a T9 style keypad (how us old fuckers used to type out text messages). I don't feel that knowledge of one system impedes my fluency in the other system. I've used Nikon and Canon, and I prefer Canon lenses so I don't have any Nikon bodies currently, but I don't think I'd have any trouble switching from one to the other even on the same day. Never used Sony or Pentax, but glancing at some pictures of the control layouts, I don't really see what the big deal is.
Technically Correct !!lN6LSAdx7EV
>>3222555 That doesn't answer my question. Are you the same guy from
>>3221928 and so on, or are you a different guy?
Anonymous
>>3222556 It does answer your question, but for some reason you want me to spell it out. If I'm "just X," then I'm not "also Y." No.
Technically Correct !!lN6LSAdx7EV
Quoted By:
>>3222557 Okay, so, that guy was a troll.
You are currently arguing against a strawman (I.e., you thinking I'm saying "Knowing how to use a Canon makes it impossible to use a Nikon" rather than what I'm actually saying which is "Spending a lot of time training your muscle memory with one system adds a minor cognitive hurdle when using a different system. It's not major"). Either that, or you're literally arguing that the concept of muscle memory is not real, and if that's the case, that's an argument that's super hard to justify.
Obviously I'm not saying that someone who knows Canon really well can't use any other system. You can tell I'm not arguing that because I know Canon really well, but I also regularly shoot with Nikon, Sony, Pentax, Olympus, Fuji, Mamiya, Lytro, Sigma, Yashica, and any other camera I can get my hands on. It doesn't mean I *can't* use other cameras, it just means I'm slightly *slower* with other cameras. Not a lot slower, but sometimes the decisive moment happens in 1/250th of a second, so any extra fluidity is a big help. It's not the difference between being able to take a picture and having a worthless lump of magnesium in your hands, it's just the difference between knowing where a control is and not *having* to know where the control is because you're so used to it that it feels like an extension of your body.
Anonymous
Has anyone used the Tamron 10-24 VC? I'm trying to decide whether to get this or the Tokina 11-16 for my D3200.
Anonymous
>>3222539 >polyglots How much of the population actually are though?
I have trouble registering keybinds between different games to muscle memory, it takes me a while. Even worse between different console controllers (I still get tripped up on A/B/X/Y on Nintendo consoles if I haven't played one in a while simply because I've spent less time using one).
Tripfags point is that people will tend to buy the brand they use and know because the controls will likely be similar and as such there will be less learning curve to your new gear. It's not a difficult concept to grasp, at least I thought. This isn't a downside or upside to any camera, it only speaks volumes about how lazy a person is.
Anonymous
>>3222521 are you mentally ill? lenses are massively more expensive investment than magazines and ammo. more expensive than firearms themselves for that matter
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3222537 > It's like if you had to switch between a QWERTY keyboard and a Dvorak keyboard all the time. It would constantly fuck you up and make you slower on both of them. People do that all the time.
In fact, there is some evidence that learning a new layout, even one with minor differences such as an ortholinear, improves your speed with both.
You may have a short period of time where you have to get used to the different layout when switching, but it is minor and quickly overcome.
Anonymous
>>3222567 >How much of the population actually are though? Most estimates put the majority of the world's population as at least bilingual.
I'm too lazy to look up a proper source, but I have a degree in linguistics, and this factoid was often parroted as common knowledge. A quick Google search yields this result which seems to have some sources listed:
https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_the_percentage_of_bilingual_people_in_the_world Think of a person living in east Africa, for example, who has an indigenous language only spoken in the valley he grew up in, who learned Arabic growing up Muslim, who also learned Swahili when he left his hometown and went to a big city, and who learned English for economic reasons when he got a better job in that city. There are a lot of such examples in all parts of the world, albeit not always to such an extent. Bilingualism is far more prevalent in the third world than in the first, and it just happens that most people on Earth live in the third world.
>Tripfags point is that people will tend to buy the brand they use and know because the controls will likely be similar and as such there will be less learning curve to your new gear. It's not a difficult concept to grasp, at least I thought. I don't really care if you or he use one or ten brands of cameras at once. Like I said, I only own Canon right now. I'm just pointing out that it really *is* a difficult, non-intuitive concept to grasp to say that learning a new system is too difficult for the human mind to do.
Anonymous
>>3222566 Sell the D3200 and get yourself a D7500.
Your welcome.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3222575 >Think of a person living in east Africa, for example, who has an indigenous language only spoken in the valley he grew up in, who learned Arabic growing up Muslim, who also learned Swahili when he left his hometown and went to a big city, and who learned English for economic reasons when he got a better job in that city. There are a lot of such examples in all parts of the world, albeit not always to such an extent. Bilingualism is far more prevalent in the third world than in the first, and it just happens that most people on Earth live in the third world. Yup, my boss knows Arabic, Russian and English (albeit his English is poor and has trouble spelling out words as he tends to sound them out and spell them how they sound, often leading to hilarious emails I have to proof read), whereas I, most of my friends who I grew up with, and the majority of people I know whose mother tongue is English, only know English.
>learning a new system is too difficult for the human mind to do. Absolutely not. Our brains can easily re-wire themselves through enough practice. Whether a person is willing enough is another question.
Anonymous
>>3222569 >lenses are massively more expensive investment than magazines and ammo. more expensive than firearms themselves for that matter You don't own any guns, then. Or if you do, you don't shoot them. I own guns that cost well more than the average camera lens. As for ammo, I can easily go through 500 rounds of 9mm a month, and that's only getting a moderate amount of practice. I know people who can go through 1000 rounds a month or more in multiple calibers. I also shoot other calibers, but the annual cost of shooting just a single 9mm handgun regularly exceeds $1000/year for me.
Technically Correct !!lN6LSAdx7EV
Quoted By:
>>3222575 >I'm just pointing out that it really *is* a difficult, non-intuitive concept to grasp to say that learning a new system is too difficult for the human mind to do. Again, I'm not saying that it's impossible to learn more than one system.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3222586 If you've got that much disposable income, it's easy to see why you have no issue owning as many different mount systems as you want. However, calling other people stupid for not doing the same as you is absolutely ridiculous.
There's a reason most people only own one mount system. The rest of the world isn't crazy except for you.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3222586 What people are saying though is that basically you don't have to buy ammo in 10,000 round packs. Switching calibers for a day doesn't have to involve anything more than buying a $20 box of ammo and putting it in a $10 magazine. Having 2 guns in 2 different calibers is nothing like having a bunch of nikon glass and a bunch of canon glass where each individual unit costs hundreds or thousands of dollars. Every time you pull the trigger you're burning a few cents. The analogy totally sucks.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3222586 Stupid republicans.
Anonymous
>>3222521 The AK-47 has an FFD of 7.62x39mm while the AR-15 has an FFD of 5.56x45mm so you need to use an adapter with a correction lens or you'll loose focusing to infinity.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3222488 Probably a Laowa 15 f4, try jewgling it
Anonymous
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3222612 He's very obviously making a /p/ joke.
>using a correction lens on a bullet to focus to infinity Honestly, anon.
Anonymous
>>3222577 Nah, can't really afford the upgrade. I can hardly afford a wide angle as is.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3222636 Get the Tokina, it has a very pleasant image rendition.
Anonymous
>>3222503 Why did you go for pentax DSLR anon?
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3222566 I use a Tokina ver 1, Nikon mount. Noice lens desu. Don't know bout the Tammy tho.
Anonymous
first 2 lenses for a7s ii? Got one for the cheap.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3222765 Sigma 50-500 OS HSM and Tamron 18-400
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3222765 55mm f/1.8Zeiss or 35mm f/2.8 Zeiss (or the cheap Samyang if you can’t find the 35 cheap)depending on your preferred focal length.
And the 24-105 f/4 G
Anonymous
what the fuck samyang were thinking???
Anonymous
>>3222834 MIRRORLESS SO COMPACT
MUCH SPACE SAVE
POCKETABLE
Technically Correct !!lN6LSAdx7EV
>>3222839 >there exist mirrorless camera/lens combinations that are large, so the idea that you might want a mirrorless camera for compactness is foolish Anonymous
I just realized that one of 4chan banners features Pentax K-x in various colorways.
Anonymous
>>3222865 4chan is no fun without hyperbole
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3222867 >4chan is no fun ftfy
Anonymous
>>3222866 >4chan banners Christ I haven't seen those in years due to adblock stuff. lol
Anonymous
Why don't the new Pentaxes come in pretty customizable colors? The last one seems to be K-50, that offered many colors and full customization, but it's out of production.
There was K-S2 with some alternative colorways, but the choice was limited, ugly, and
>Color ordering of K-S2 has been terminated on 30th of May, 2016. There's Q-S1, but it's a mirrorless with Q mount.
All the modern models currently in production come in standard boring black, and sometimes in ugly silver. Even white ones are more difficult to come by.
>>3222880 Specially for you.
There's also second /p/-themed banner, with "Full Retard" setting on the camera mode wheel, replacing "Full Auto".
Anonymous
D7200 body at 20K clicks for about $680? Is this a good deal? >pic related. It's the seller's pic
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3222834 >we want the zeiss audience Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3222894 >There's also second /p/-themed banner, with "Full Retard" setting on the camera mode wheel, replacing "Full Auto". kek
www.chosis.com !!7G3bEhCMz+A
>>3220638 hey guys after i'm done in Erie i was thinking about starting a studio up. What are the best lights i should get for a basic studio for taking photos of beautiful women?
pic related, it's what's on amazon
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3222907 #9 is good, but delicate, be careful with it. You'll need more clamps too.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3222907 Chosis you only live once, and you don't have much longer! You spent all that money on your wonderful Sony system, why buy such cheap studio lights? You should buy some Profoto lights to let the beautiful women know you are serious about their photos
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3222759 my first camera was a nikon j3, didnt like it, sold it and got a pentax q-s1 instead. i fell in love with the system, so when I moved to dslr i stayed with the brand. the film slr came later.
Anonymous
I'm looking for a manual zoom lens about ~70 - ~210mm for Pentax mount that I can buy cheaper than 50$, are there any recommendations? There are only two things I need from it - nice lens speed and ir should fit in my budget. There are no local sellers of such lenses, so I'm thinking about ebay.
Anonymous
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3222525 >>3222541 Wich lens from nikon worth the 1000dlls then?
Anonymous
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3222901 there's nothing wrong with used equipment if the previous owner took good care of it
Anonymous
Quoted By:
NEW THREAD:
>>3222961 NEW THREAD:
>>3222961 NEW THREAD:
>>3222961
