Sick as a dog edition
Last one:
>>3227814 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
Anonymous
>>3229856 Perhaps they should also list the FOV.
Technically Correct !!lN6LSAdx7EV
>>3229969 You’d have to list the field of view for every format it could be mounted on. So if I’m selling an M42 lens, I’d have to list the FF field of view, 1.3x crop of someone puts it on a Canon 1D, 1.5x if someone puts it on a Sony or Pentax, 1.6x if it goes on a Rebel, 1.7x if it’s adapted onto a Sigma, 2x for four thirds, etc.
So much easier and less confusing to just list the focal length and make everyone responsible for knowing their crop factor.
Anonymous
>>3229979 I was actually thinking max FOV the lens can offer.
Technically Correct !!lN6LSAdx7EV
>>3229982 That would be super confusing for things like tilt shift lenses.
Anonymous
>>3229992 You are not confused when seeing 18-55mm on a lens. If the FOV of a tilt-shift lens changes then you can list it like 60-70° or whatever.
Technically Correct !!lN6LSAdx7EV
Quoted By:
>>3230005 Or you could just list the TS-E 24mm, EF 24mm, And EF-S 24mm as being 24mm and not worry about any of that. Which is what they do, and I’m confused why people constantly think that listing all three of those with different fields of view would make things less confusing.
Anonymous
>>3229859 I have a Canon 700D with a few cheap lenses. Kit lens, 50mm 1.8, 10-18mm wide, 24mm pancake, 8mm Samyang fish eye. Between the camera and lenses, really only about $1000 invested total.
I'm Considering I want to step my game up and get a "real" camera. I'm drawn to Nikon, but before I start dropping serious dosh: am I going to care that much? Am I going to see that much difference?
I know this is a loaded question and at the top level they're probably comparable brands in all but the most minute details. I guess what I want access to in Nikon is some of the older lens compatibility and better low light performance since I seem to shoot at night A LOT more than otherwise (because I have an 8-5 job). Canon seems more accessible (which is why I got what I did - T5i is flexible, more of a "do everything" camera especially when it comes to video, which I will shoot occasionally).
Nikon seems like a superior brand for straight up photography though. Even though Canon is lagging compared to Sony and Panasonic - neither Sony nor Panasonic seems to have even a fraction of the lens ranges that Canon and Nikon have.
I get it that at the end of the day, a good operator would be able to get amazing pics out of the 700D (with the lenses I mentioned). I guess I'm just looking for where to invest since I don't feel committed enough to Canon yet to buy L-lenses.
Technically Correct !!lN6LSAdx7EV
>>3230045 >I'm drawn to Nikon, but before I start dropping serious dosh: am I going to care that much? Am I going to see that much difference? Nope. You won’t see any difference. Image quality differences between equivalent Nikon and Canon bodies are basically academic.
Also, you can drop like $15 on an adapter and your T5i will work better with legacy manual focus Nikon glass than anything south of a d7000.
Anonymous
Wish me luck. I'm tired of expensive ILC cams + lenses and super high MP files that are annoying to transfer + edit. Got a 3-year warranty on it since Soyny cams have dogshit build quality.
Anonymous
>>3230072 >1700 usd on a new camera when it sounds like you already have a camera gross
Technically Correct !!lN6LSAdx7EV
>>3230072 >1700 usd on a DSLR-sized new camera with a 1" sensor and fixed superzoom lens Good luck, I guess?
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3230072 But that one is 201 MP!
Anonymous
>>3229854 >You won't find an UWA lens usable with normal filters. Physics don't work that way. Your physics is retarded, my man. It's entirely possible to have a filterthread on this 12mm lens. They just needed to make the hood has a wider diameter, which they were not willing to do.
The 15mm has 58mm filter thread. For example.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3230086 >>3230095 Getting it around half off so not very expensive at least.
Anonymous
>>3229859 Any glaring flaws with the FX 70-300 VR?
If there is I'll just go for the af-p one.
Anonymous
Getting a K-70 soon and looking for Weather Resistant glass that could be used on the K-1. Both the DA* 55mm f/1.4 and the DA 55-300mm f/4.5-6.3 can be used on a K-1 later on with only slight vignetting. I'm torn between one or the other as my first lens. On one hand I'd like a fast lens because I prefer to shoot at night, and the overall optical quality of the f/1.4 looks to be fantastic, but on the other hand a 300mm zoom lens is going to be FAR more versatile to start with. I also want to get a D FA 100mm f/2.8 Macro later on, and I worry if picking a more extensive zoom might make that choice feel a little redundant.
What should I pick?
https://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/hd-pentax-da-55-300mm-f45-63-ed-plm-wr-re.html https://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/SMC-Pentax-DA-Star-55mm-F1.4-SDM-Lens.html Anonymous
>>3230188 The DA* 55 is a crop portrait lens mostly for tedious work, the AF is slow. It can produce some lovely crisp details in landscapes.
The HD DA 55-300 is a consumer level telezoom but is one of the better ones. Many list it is the consumer budget wildlife lens.
I would suggest going with the kit lens first, maybe the plastic primes 35/2.4 and 50/1.8. They are not WR but perform very well.
It is really hard to help without telling what you want to shoot. There are different options for normal and wide zooms and telephoto.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3230175 The new one is more optimized towards the long end
Anonymous
>>3230045 >>3230060 Disagree. Check out the high ISO shots of the clock/mantle on ken rockwells page for the D850 vs 5dm4. D850 blows it away on details and clarity. Pushing shadows in raw files on landscapes with a lot of dynamic range and other places with bad lighting in high ISO situations shows that Nikon's advantage there is more than academic.
Anonymous
>>3230221 >anon talks about his 700D >Hey, let's compare the Nikon D850! why are you retarded?
Anonymous
>>3230226 Because
>Image quality differences between equivalent Nikon and Canon bodies are basically academic. It doesn't fucking matter what two bodies it is based on that statement, I picked two modern equivalent cameras and compared them. Fuck you.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3230231 You are an idiot
Anonymous
>>3230142 Seems pretty handy for filter, that 12mm any good?.
Im considering the lowa 12mm zero d
Anonymous
>>3230259 It doesn't have a filter thread though. I'm saying it easily could have had one.
Anonymous
>>3230263 >you can put screw on filters on an UWA >posts lens without filter thread Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3230278 I replied to a dumb Anon who said the construction is physically impossible.
Obviously you should have enough brain matter to realise it is physically possible with just a slightly larger barrel.
Anonymous
>>3230213 I'm primarily a landscape photographer who wants to get into some wildlife photography on the side. I've been shooting landscapes on a, more or less, 55mm equivalent for a while. I'd say my ideal range would be from 24-55 for landscapes and 100-300 for wildlife photos. I don't do any portrait photography, so my main interest in going for as fast of a lens as possible would be to be able to shoot night shots in windy areas.
Anonymous
>>3230309 I should add: I rarely take whatever camera I'm working with off of a tripod, to give an example for what I'm used to. I do a lot of compositing in my shots.
Anonymous
Hiya
Anonymous
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3230309 >>3230311 Can you afford a 70-200/4? Or a Tamron 70-200/2.8? Those work well with a 1.4x TC if needed and you can still use the 70-200 for landscape, especially for those compression and landscape in landscape shots. Thomas Heaton uses his 70-200 a lot for landscapes.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3230312 Tamron 70-300 VC has decent IQ and the focusing is fast enough for tracking.
Anonymous
>>3229859 How long do selenium light meters last? There’s one I’m eyeing from the 1950s that looks cool but i want it to double as a keepsake collectible AND a workable meter. I emailed the user selling to see what “tested” entails because even if the needle moves with light, doesn’t mean it’s moving correctly. 99% of people selling them are like “uh the needle moves by I dunno how this works so buy at ur own risk”
Anonymous
>>3230394 Selenium elements were unreliable in their own days, that is why silicon semiconductor elements were such gamechangers.
Anonymous
>>3230396 Surely people in the 50s were capable of getting correct exposures though, right? Or did they correct in the darkroom?
Anonymous
>>3230188 >Pentax >"I'd like a fast WR lens" I've got some bad news for you. The majority of Pentax's WR lenses are either these slow, variable aperture comsumer zooms, or else they are extremely overpriced DA Star lenses that use a focusing motor (SDM) known for premature failure. The majority of their fast lenses are outdated designs from the film days.
>>3230213 >The HD DA 55-300 is a consumer level telezoom but is one of the better ones. The red ring HD 55-300 is the one that sucks. The newer, green ring, retractable version with PLM focusing is significantly better.
>>3230309 Why do you want a fast lens for landscapes? I don't think you're a landscape photographer.
>>3230311 >I should add: I rarely take whatever camera I'm working with off of a tripod Then there's no reason you need a fast lens. If
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3230405 Yes, but selenium elements simply decay over time. Even if it works I doubt it is accurate enough to use. Would be a nice photo decor and still subject for rainy days
Anonymous
>>3230446 >extremely overpriced DA* lenses That is simply wrong, I have a few and never spent more than 1/3rd of the Canikon equivalents. The optical qualities are on par with any L lens
Anonymous
>>3230446 >SDM plaque Only in the early models the ones after SN #904xxxx have been redesigned and work without trouble. Also most DA* lenses can be easily converted to screwdrive, something you can’t do on Canikony and those fail as much as well.
You are full of bullshit, my friend.
Anonymous
>>3230451 >and never spent more than 1/3rd of the Canikon equivalents The Canikon equivalents are sharper wide open and are not known for having their autofocus motor dying a year after the warranty expires. The DA* 50-235mm f/2.8 that I owned was noticeably soft in the center until stopped down to f/8. Then the SDM died and the kit zoom superseded it in usefulness.
>>3230455 >they got their act together, I swear That just means that there is no shopping for DA* lenses used, like I can with Canikon lenses. And from what I've read, even the redesigned SDM has sporadic problems.
>you can convert them to screwdrive Not if you own a newer Pentax body than about 2013. You can't hack the firmware of a lens through a K-3 or newer body. Not that you'd want to. You'd just be converting from a broken, slow focusing system to a working, slow focusing system. This is a last resort to make the lenses work on old film cameras, not a desirable feature.
Anonymous
Anonymous
>>3230462 Not my problem you bought a shitty piece. Why did you not sent it in for service under warranty? One year is way within warranty in the EU. You either bought a dubious busted piece or grey market and whining about fucking yourself. Or never had one and just busting your ass on the internet
Anonymous
>>3230462 You can get it converted for cheap, there are services for this, check it on PF. If you have any, which I highly doubt.
Anonymous
>>3230462 > focusing speed Reports say the screwdrive conversion has faster focusing speed, which is nice considering my DA* lenses already have nice and snappy focusing.
Again you are just busting your ass getting butthurt over a brand. This is a sure sign of autism.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3230469 >Not my problem I'm not asking you to take responsibility for my actions, that would be ridiculous. I'm asking you to take responsibility for your words. One year is an extremely short warranty period, considering that people are still using older Pentax lenses (as well as Canikon lenses) from three or four decades ago without issue. Most SDM failures happen around the 2 or 3 year mark. The reviews of other DA Star lenses I've read often mirror my experience. They can be too soft wide open and the autofocus breaks. Apparently the newer SDM implementation has been redesigned, so add onto that the fact that you really can't buy them used. You must pay full retail of $1000+ per lens. They really aren't superior to Canikon's equivalent lenses. They're worse and cost more.
>>3230470 >>3230485 >Reports say the screwdrive conversion has faster focusing speed, which is nice considering my DA* lenses already have nice and snappy focusing. "Reports" written by Pentaxians are not objective accounts of reality. SDM is slow and hesitant at its best. Screw drive conversions might be a little snappier, but are louder and still lag compared to 25 year old Canikon lenses.
Anonymous
Im shopping for some new glass for Canon and want some suggestions, im not a professional, but i want quality stuff for reasonable prices, so im maybe not looking to get L-glass. You probably get what im going for.
Anonymous
What's the difference between the DS and the other lens, (apart from the price) what does DS stands for? Which one will suit a D7200 better and why?
Anonymous
>>3230530 http://lmgtfy.com/?q=rokinon+cine+vs+ds+difference found it
>>3230512 EFS 24, EF 40, EF 50, EF 85, EF 200/2.8, EF 400/5.6, EFS 10-18
Anonymous
Quoted By:
Question for Fujifilm users
Anonymous
Anonymous
Quoted By:
Cheapo tripod legs and head recommendations? I'm thinking about the Sirui K-20X head but I don't know what legs to pair with it. I don't have anything too heavy, just an X-T10 and maybe the XF55-200 down the line.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
If a lens says "K/AR" at the mount, I guess it means it's a Konica AR mount? I won an auction on a Vivitar 80-200 f4.5 Macro for $7 (basically the shipping cost only), but I can't find too much info about it. Is it worth getting a Konica > Nex adapter for it?
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3230538 Thanks for all the suggestions, any offerings from other makers that might be more value for money?
300+ stuff i already own good glass, i got a good deal a few years back on some L-lenses from my grandpa, including 300,400,100-400.
I do own very good zooms in the ”kit-lens” range aswell, but ever since i borrowed a few primes from a coworker last year and saw the photos i produced i was blown away, wel not really but it got me excited enough to decide and get some.
Side question, one of the lenses i borrowed was EF 50 f/1,4 and he claims it will make prettier photo than th f/1,2L, is this in any way true or just a load of shit?
Anonymous
>>3230072 Well i got the cam and it's pretty underwhelming. Don't know what i was expecting but it's unusable past ISO 800. Probably gonna return it and get a modern FF/APS-C cam instead. Sucks that everything FF is 24MP minimum outside of the A7S with dogshit AF and the expensive pro canikons. What's the best <30MP FF/APS-C cam with not too expensive lenses? I'm starting over fresh since I already sold everything to a bud. Budget around $5K for body + some lenses. No Fuji since I hate the shitty ergos (top shutter + no grip).
Anonymous
>>3230777 oh and i forgot, AF is dogshit in even somewhat worse lighting. the camera is probably fine for tele but probably only 10% of my shooting is beyond 150mm or so. i might just try out tele a bit more and maybe keep it since 100mm+ teles on FF and APS-C cost about as much as I paid for this whole camera.
Anonymous
>>3230072 It's a nice all in 1 solution that fills minimum space in the luggage for a 600mm equivalent.
>>3230782 I saw a review on that one that that surprised me a lot. I believe it was in movie mode, it has some very decent 600mm stabilisation.
On top of the physical stabilisation, there is an electronic one as well which helps it even more.
I was skeptical at first, since I have always been biased towards physical stabilisation vs electronic, but after seeing a review where he showed handheld video at 600mm, I was sold on it.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3230814 Yeah I just tried the stabilization at 600mm and I can get steady shots at 1/30 shutter or less. Intelligent Active and Active steadyshot are only usable for 1080P and below. 4K only has standard stabilization since the camera probably crops quite a bit for the Intelligent/Active stabilization modes.
I wanted this camera to do everything and cure my GAS, but it seems like it's only good for video and telephoto. Haven't been able to test HFR video since most of the lighting in my house is LED and that causes issues. The leaf shutter is actually pretty nice since it syncs up to 1/2000, but the whole purpose of this cam is to use the eShutter.
Anonymous
Nikon Cameras with AUTO ISO? Any model. Not to be lazy but it's quite useful.
Technically Correct !!lN6LSAdx7EV
Quoted By:
>>3230777 If I had $5K to spend on a camera starting from scratch, I'd get:
Canon 5D Mark III (~$1700)
+ 50mm f/1.4 (~$250)
+ 85mm f/1.8 (~$300)
+ 24-70 f/2.8L (~$800)
+ 70-200 f/4L IS (~$800)
Then spend the rest of the budget on plane tickets somewhere photogenic.
Technically Correct !!lN6LSAdx7EV
>>3230859 I think they pretty much all have auto ISO. I know that my D70 has it, which indicates that it's been around forever, and I know that my D7000 and D3200 both have it, which indicates that it's still there today.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3230859 >>3230867 D3400 also has it. Took me forever to find the buried menu to shut it off.
Anonymous
should I buy several cheap ef-s lenses or save up for one good L lens?
Technically Correct !!Y42F2zb/zVh
>>3230889 >several Which EF-S lenses are you looking at?
Anonymous
>>3230909 Was thinking of covering most ranges. The 10-18, the 24mm, the 55-250.
I have the 50mm and the kit lens. I'm still unsure of what I want to shoot although there is an abundance of nature here so I figured I'd keep doing landscapes and maybe wildlife with the 55-250
All of those would be about the price of a used 70-200 L IS I probably so I'm wondering if I should instead go for that or a 24-70 or whatever, especially since I'm kinda only interested in so many lenses just so I can play around and see what I like. But I don't wanna then realize I really like one of the focal lengths and then I'm stuck with several different subpar lenses.
Anonymous
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3230922 All of those lenses are good. Buy them used, sell them for the same price if you don't like them. But now you've got lenses covering everything from wide to tele.
The 70-200 is only useful if you're always using it, and always shooting in that 70-200 range. Cover your bases first.
Anonymous
Anonymous
I plan on buying my first DSLR this year but i'm struggling with deciding on a camera to grab and be satisfied with for the next few years. The two i'm currently looking at are the Nikon D5600 and the Canon T7i. I'm far more interested in taking photos than I am in taking Video, but the option for good video would be nice. I'm definitely interested in something with an articulated screen and a touch screen, but i may be willing to let go of this want. I'm more worried about the lens options as after initially buying the camera (preferably refurbished) i would like to buy a new lens or two (whether i get the kit lens or not).
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3230997 Used 70D, D7100/7200 or K-3/K-3II
Anonymous
>>3230777 You know you can set cameras to output files smaller than their max resolution, right?
www.chosis.com !CHoSISGsR.
Besides blue suade shoes in the pouring rain, what gear should I bring with me to go walking in Memphis?
Anonymous
Technically Correct !!Y42F2zb/zVh
Quoted By:
>>3231042 That songs gonna be stuck in my head all day now.
Bring a telephoto. Most of the stuff at Graceland is cordoned off behind a rope line. Other than that, normal camera stuff.
Anonymous
Why does it say "sample" instead of "Made in Japan"? Is this rare?
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3231075 it'a s SMC Pentax-M 50/1.4
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3231075 Store example or review piece, normally not meant for sale.
Anonymous
>>3231042 this is both the best post and the worst post
Anonymous
Anonymous
>>3230221 >on ken rockwells page Not sure if trolling...
Technically Correct !!Y42F2zb/zVh
Quoted By:
>>3231140 Yeah, after that I’m nominating that Chosis as Best Chosis. Quote-unquote-real chosis can go fuck himself.
Anonymous
I'm thinking about buying a Fujifilm camera and either the 18-55/2.8-4 kit lens or a normal prime to play around with pretty soon. Eventually, I might get an XT2 and go balls deep into Fuji, but that body is too expensive for a taste-test. Supposedly there will be an XT3 release in the fall, which should cause used prices on the XT2 to start to drop, so I might wait until then, but I'd still like to get a starter Fuji right now, even if I upgrade bodies in under a year.
Anonymous
Anonymous
>>3230777 >unusable past ISO 800 >AF is dogshit Probably a lens problem, not a body problem.
Anonymous
>>3231163 Get an X100x and you’ll have something worth holding on to once you buy the interchangeable body, while still getting familiar with the handling/files
Technically Correct !!Y42F2zb/zVh
>>3231246 Depends on the camera. Modern canon and Nikon bodies have “sRAW” modes that produce lower resolution raw files.
Technically Correct !!Y42F2zb/zVh
>>3231248 That’s a bridge camera, so lens and body are one piece.
!P3141593qY
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3231268 I wondered why the flash thing was so damn close to the lens barrel. lol
How horrible.
Anonymous
>>3231283 I've got the irix 15mm and I can vouch for it. Terrific lens, especially given the price.
Anonymous
>>3231249 Maybe you missed the part where I said price is a factor.
!P3141593qY
Anonymous
>>3231290 you can get an x100s for about that much if you watch ebay closely.
!P3141593qY
Quoted By:
>>3231297 and a daylight shot with it
Anonymous
>>3231298 I'm really looking at the interchangeable lens cameras only. Having the ability to switch between a standard zoom and a fast prime, at the very minimum, is critical. Having a telephoto lens in my bag is also useful to me. I'm less interested in having something that specifically replicates an old rangefinder, and more interested in something that does (most) everything that a DSLR does, even if it just happens to look like a rangefinder. I'm skeptical of moving all the controls to their own analog wheels located in various positions around the camera and losing the DSLR's traditional PASM mode dial, but I can see the logic of how I could get the same functionality out of the camera when each wheel also has an "A" setting.
What do you think about the three models I mentioned, XPro1, XE2 vs XT1? They all seem to come from the same era, sensor-wise, but each is set up a little differently.
Anonymous
>>3231311 xpro would be the one to go for. it's more or less the same camera as the xt1, but it has a terrific rangefinder-style setup.
Anonymous
>>3231311 >>3231312 If you have even the slightest possibility of using a zoom lens like you said, avoid the XPro1 like the plague. Garbage EVF
Anonymous
>>3231402 i mean, all the first generation fuji bodies are gonna have terrible evf's.
Anonymous
>>3231407 The XT1 at least has a bigger one, I thought?
I’ve only had an Xpro1 and an X100s which are awful if you’re not shooting optical but had heard the XT1 is better
Technically Correct !!lN6LSAdx7EV
Quoted By:
>>3231417 X-T1's viewfinder is pretty good, as a guy who usually shoots full frame.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
Is this camera worth getting? I saw one on a yard sale for $30 bucks.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3231266 >Most >D4s and D810 Completely different category compared to an rx10. Canon has it in their mid-range APS-C bodies at least. Still a whole other category compared to an rx10.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
Played with the cam a bit more and it's actually quite fun on my dog (needs good lighting though). I don't shoot sports or fast actions, so I can use a fairly slow shutter to keep the ISO low and the high burst makes it so there's almost at least 1 frame with no blur in each burst.
Anonymous
If you could have just 1 reflector, which one is the universally most useful?
Anonymous
Quoted By:
I want an something small, light, with excellent image quality on a full frame sensor. how's this 28mm f2.8 IS version of the lens?
Anonymous
I did it, /p/. Ordered my last lens today. The collection is complete.
Anonymous
I've been shopping ebay lately, and I just can't figure out why there are so many lenses that would normally come new with hoods, which are offered for sale without hoods. Why are so many people buying lenses and losing their lens hoods? What the fuck is wrong with people?
Anonymous
>>3231509 >be moron >buy lens >open box, grab lens hood >"wtf is this?" >throw in pile with packing materials >throw away >sell lens on ebay 4 years later that's how
Anonymous
What is the general consensus on buying refurbished camera bodies?
Technically Correct !!lN6LSAdx7EV
>>3231511 Or just
>Be not-exactly-moron >don't like the extra bulk of the lens hood >set it carefully aside so you don't lose it >lose it anyway I've got the lens hood for my 17-40L somewhere, I'm sure, but I'd really have to dig for it. I never use it because it gets in my shot at 17mm--not sure if I somehow got a shitty 3rd party hood with it or if there's something weird with my 17-40 or what, but I always see a little bit of lens hood in the edges when I'm shooting at its widest.
Anonymous
Anonymous
>>3231501 Get a 5-in-1 my man. Why would you have to choose?
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3231520 Pretty sure you've got a fucked up lens hood. I recently sold my 17-40L, but I took many photos with it at 17mm and the factory lens hood should not be visible in the picture.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3231519 refurbished to me means unboxed returns or a gently used return. having purchased canon refurb lenses they're practically indistinguishable from brand new. I would assume they have the same standards for bodies as well.
Anonymous
>>3231519 >What is the general consensus on buying refurbished camera bodies? fine by me. refurbished refers to gently used or unboxed returns. if there are problems you'll usually spot it right away and if not manufacturers offer a one year warranty so there's nothing to be worried about.
which body are you looking at?
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3231143 A picture is a picture. Framing and all variables are basically identical. Got something specific to actually say about the differences in the two images or did you just out yourself as a canon fanboy that can't actually refute the plain-as-day evidence that the two companies have drastically different sensor quality under less than ideal shooting conditions?
Anonymous
>>3231522 Because it's a secondary feature in this situation.
The white one is the universal one, right?
Or is it silver?
Anonymous
>>3231528 silver is more intense and specular, white is more diffuse and less intense.
Anonymous
>>3231529 I think I will just go for the white one.
It seems to be the one that's mass manufacture, since they are so insanely cheap.
Anonymous
>>3231531 ... just get a 5-in-1. i literally don't understand why you wouldn't.
Anonymous
>>3231538 Do those things have the 18% grey colour?
They don't really advertise that.
Anonymous
>>3231542 nah, but that's an overrated feature compared to the versatility of getting all five reflectors. .
if you're really concerned about color accuracy, get a color checker. otherwise, shoot RAW and you'll be fine.
Anonymous
>>3231546 >get a color checker. otherwise, Isn't that just the same thing as
>>3231531 ?
Like I said, the reflector thing is just secondary. Not really important.
Anonymous
>>3231550 no, a color checker is a little card with about 20-30 certified accurate color swatches. you take a picture, then you match it with software in the post process.
a neutral grey card will only get you so far, plus if that's what you're after more than a reflector, get one of those cards that will fit in your pocket.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3231554 >a neutral grey card will only get you so far Hmm, in the few youtube custom white balance guides I saw, they just went into lightroom and clicked 1 button on the neutral grey card.
They didn't go into the other colours for some reason.
Anonymous
I just bought an x100t
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3231560 about two or three weeks for the camera to make sense, and then two or three years of inseparability.
get an unobtrusive strap and carry it everywhere.
Anonymous
Hi /p/eople, I'm looking for a sturdy head for general use and to do wildlife. I wish to try the monopod, but will mostly use it on tripod. Would you recommend ball head or 3W head? As I see it, it will be 20% wildlife (forests, beaches) and 80% other things. I know that gimbal or at least sidekick would be the best for wildlife, but I don't want to invest in it just yet. Thanks!
Anonymous
>>3231626 Manfrotto 498 or 495 ball head with an arca swiss plate replacement from Hejnar Photo.
Also if you only expend one leg of the tripod it functions like a monopod, at least that is how I use it when I need it. I don't need it as much to justify spending on one.
Anonymous
Anonymous
>>3231629 Do you think it is worth to get the newer edition of this head, i.e. MHXPRO-BHQ2 or MHXPRO-BHQ6 (BHQ6 has arca swiss)?
Anonymous
>>3231638 Compare the prices. The old ones are pretty good still, my 498 had no problem holding a Bigma steady.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3231639 Yes, the price difference is significant and I was wondering if it's justified. Thanks!
Anonymous
Hey /p/ i'm getting started in photography and i have a question for you. Someone is selling a canon 80d to me. For what i gathered from the internet is a pretty good camera, i'm mainly focused in street photography and portraits right now. My question is: is it a good camera?
Anonymous
>>3231759 Yes, get the EF-S 24/2.8 and 50/1.8 STM lenses for street and portraits respectedly.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3231762 Alright, thanks man.
Anonymous
Would any one say this is a good buy together with something like a T6i body?
Anonymous
>>3231818 No. Find a good used copy of each. You can get the 17-40L on ebay all day long for $325, and a nice-looking copy of the 50/1.4 for around $225. That's $350 less, which would be enough to buy another nice lens.
Anonymous
>>3231818 Also, the 17-40L isn't really a "good" choice for a standard zoom on APS-C. Yes, it's sharp, but it's also quite large and heavy, and the hood is big enough to shade your pop-up flash.
Anonymous
>>3231823 It's for a present, so I guess I should have mentioned that.
>>3231824 >>3231824 The person I want this for mostly shoots outdoors. So, flash would not be used anyways. Besides that, are there any other issues I should consider?
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3231826 >>3231818 It's a nice package especially as a present. I'd be delighted to get a gift like this.
Anonymous
>>3231826 >any other issues 40mm is a little limiting, especially compared to a standard zoom that goes to 55mm or 85mm, although still very workable. Also, the lens lacks IS, for whatever that's worth. An alternative set of lenses you could give for approximately the same cost are the 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM ($800), which is an excellent extended standard zoom with very sharp and well controlled optics; and either the 50mm f/1.8 STM ($125), which will provide access to a thin depth of field for portraitures (and the 50/1.4 isn't much better anyway); or the EF-S 24mm STM pancake ($150), which is a very sharp and handy lens to have for a lot of situations.
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/647013-USA/Canon_3560B002_EF_S_15_85mm_f_3_5_5_6_IS.html https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1081812-REG/canon_9522b002_ef_s_24mm_f_2_8_is.html https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1143786-REG/canon_0570c002_ef_50mm_f_1_8_stm.html Anonymous
>>3231840 I had worked perfectly well with a 16-45. It is not a tourist superzoom range but it is perfectly usable, Coupled with the 50/1.4 it is a well rounded package, more so if it is extended by a Godox TT600 or Yongnuo YN560 manual flash.
Anonymous
>>3231840 >especially compared to a standard zoom that goes to 55mm or 85mm but on APS-C it's like 25-60mm so what's the problem officer?
Anonymous
>>3231842 >>3231843 Why intentionally limit yourself when you could have more range for the same price? The 15-85 is also designed as a standard zoom, so the bulk and weight are more practical (it weighs about half what the 17-40L weighs, and the lens hood attaches to a 58mm front element, as opposed to being a wide angle design attaching to a 77mm front element).
>I had worked perfectly well with a 16-45. It is not a tourist superzoom range but it is perfectly usable If you can start over from scratch, then you can buy literally anything available with the funds you have. It makes no sense to intentionally choose something that you know is limited in functionality or practicality, and that you have to rationalize with a "I know it's not ideal, but it's been basically good enough for me."
>Coupled with the 50/1.4 it is a well rounded package Except it's not, since the longest focal length stops at 50mm. There is no telephoto capability.
Anonymous
>>3231842 >A 16-45mm zoom worked for me, so therefore it will work for other people. >My parents spanked me when I was a child, so therefore it's OK for me to spank my kids. >A stranger burglarized my home, so therefore it's OK for me to burglarize strangers' homes. Not an argument.
Anonymous
>>3231849 >>3231847 >I dislike it so everyone else should as well Not an argument is not an argument
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3231840 Oh shit, I didn't notice they don't have IS. that's a deal breaker. I'll keep looking I'll check the links once I'm home
Anonymous
>>3231852 I did make an argument, though. An argument is a conclusion that is affirmed by its premises. That's all present in my posts.
List of reasons I previously gave (premises):
>1. The width of the hood will block the pop-up flash. Since the recipient owns a Rebel, it should be assumed that the pop-up flash is used occasionally, so the 17-40L is not an ideal pairing for a Rebel user.
>2. Size and weight: The 17-40L is quite large and heavy for what it is on APS-C. Since it was designed as a rectilinear ultra wide angle lens, it was never optimized as a standard zoom on APS-C. Standard zooms for APS-C are half the weight, less bulky and therefore easier to carry around.
>3. The zoom range is limited at 40mm. Again, since it's optimized as an ultrawide on FF, it was never intended to be very useful on APS-C. All Canon standard zooms designed for APS-C go to at least 55mm.
Statement that is affirmed by the premises:
>The 17-40L is not the ideal choice of a standard zoom lens for an APS-C user. Not only is it an argument, but being supported by logic and empirical evidence, it's a good argument.
When you said, "because it worked for me, it will work for someone else," that's not an argument because, since every person is different with unique needs, it's doesn't logically follow that just because something worked for you, it would therefore be the the best solution for someone else. Something "working for you" doesn't even make the claim that it was best for you. No attempt is even being made to affirm the conclusion that the 17-40L is the best choice for the money. This is not an argument.
Anonymous
>>3231866 You said I was assaulting children and being a burgler, just because I could work with a 16-45mm zoom.
I do wonder what kind of mental illnesses you have to throw such nonsense at me just because I disagree with you.
And yes, you are completely wrong and I strongly suspect you never held a camera let alone operated one.
Anonymous
>>3231873 >You said I was assaulting children and being a burgler I very clearly did not say that. I showed how your statement was a non-argument through analogy with two other non-arguments. Can you really not tell the difference between criticizing your words and criticizing your character????
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3231826 I would get a feel of the person, and if they buy used lenses themselves, go with used + 3rd nice lens for whatever you save.
I'm coming from a hobby where buying used brand for presents is perfectly acceptable, so take this advice with a grain of salt.
Anonymous
Is the Leica Full Frame series abolished, or will there be a successor?
Technically Correct !!Y42F2zb/zVh
>>3232012 The M10 was released just last year. What makes you think Leica is planning to end it there?
Anonymous
>>3232024 They have been sort of inactive with the SL lenses.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3232027 They just released 2 primes for SL.
Technically Correct !!Y42F2zb/zVh
>>3232027 Ohhh. Yeah, I have no idea. Leica's non-M lines of cameras are weird and enigmatic and they never really get the support or attention that the M line does, but they've put out a few different cameras in that mount, so you never know.
Are you just curious, or are you considering investing in a Leica SL? If the latter, I'd probably counsel against it in a world that also includes the much-better-supported and much cheaper Sony A7 series and A9.
Anonymous
>>3231526 NTA but i am considering buying a nikon D3400 from beachcamera am i about to get scammed
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3232039 Apparently They are still trickling lenses into the system, so not all hope is lost.
They are just a little bit slow about it.
Anonymous
>>3231875 I think being a child abuser and a thief are very different from being able to use a certain focal length my dude. I'm gonna have to agree with that anon and say you must have some sort of mental illness
Anonymous
I'm in need of a versatile lens for DX so I'm thinking about getting the 18-55mm, but i'm wondering if any of you think the Nikon 18-140mm is worth the extra money. Thanks for your advice.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3230859 Whats wrong with auto-iso?
Anonymous
>>3232040 >beachcamera I would say stick to a reputable dealer like b&h, adorama or if you must buy from the manufacturers directly.
Anonymous
>>3232109 You don't understand what an analogy is, do you?
Anonymous
>>3232196 When you compare two things. Those are not comparable unless you're sick in the head.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3232200 So you don't understand. Thanks for clarifying.
Anonymous
What's a good SLR for beginners, excluding AE1?
Anonymous
Is it worth more than twice the cost of getting a Nikon AF-P 70-300 over a Tamron AF SP 70-300?
Anonymous
>>3232265 Minolta X-700/X-600/X-500/X-300.
Anonymous
>>3232273 What about the olympus cameras? I heard the OM1 has a battery that isn't really produced anymore
Anonymous
>>3232275 Yea, the older ones tend to have out of production batteries, and meters that are iffy.
You can get adapters for the old batteries though.
Anonymous
>>3232278 Too much trouble though innit? Any good rangefinder styled cameras though? I'm really sorry for having lots of inquiries, I really don't know much about film and I don't exactly know where to begin on reading up about it.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3232279 Cheap rangefinder with ICL I would recommend Minolta CL/CLE or a Bessa.
Anonymous
WHY isn't there a lightweight, inexpensive and fast nikon DX 35mm FF equiv fov like a 24mm F1.8? Whywhywhy?
Anonymous
>>3232284 Shoulda gone Fuji.
Could have had the 18mm f/2.
Anonymous
>>3232286 But Fuji's apsc so that's a 28mm equiv roughly?
Anonymous
>>3231297 >>3231288 >>3231283 How big is that thing? I have been looking for a wide FF lens, but I'd prefer something as small as possible.
Am ok with it being slow (not going to shoot landscapes at a wide aperture anyways), and manual focus, as long as the IQ is good.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3232292 Forgot to say, I owned the Samyang 14, and never used it. Way too big.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3232194 Hey thanks, turns out the company is shady as fuck. Gonna buy from the camera shop in my town, support local business and all
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3232289 It is also the worst mirrorless lens ever made.
Anonymous
Is it a stupid idea to get a used 5d mk3 for $1300 (40k clicks, from a trusted seller) and a 50 mm lens separately as an intro to photography?
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3232308 actually scratch that 50mm, just realized the 100mm f/2 is probably the best lens to get for the money as my first if I want to shoot mostly portraits. The 40mm f/2.8 isn't bad either but I think the 100 will be perfect.
Technically Correct !!Y42F2zb/zVh
>>3232308 The 5D3 is an amazing camera. If you know you’re gonna want to get deep into photography, definitely get it. The 50/1.8 is fine on it and will easily outresolve the sensor; the salesperson probably just wanted to sell you something more expensive because he works on commission.
Anonymous
>>3232345 I didn't have the chance to thank you about your input before (I've been in other threads and you've answered to me before).
However, isn't the 100mm f/2 a better first lens if I plan to go into portraiture? Or I should just get the cheapest prime (the 50 or 40mm) and save up for some L glass?
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3231626 Me again, I like to give the updates if I make the decision. I went with Benro B3 for arca swiss, no lockup shift and overkill load capacity.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
How'd I do, /p/?
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3232266 You would probably do even better to just get the Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR
55-200mm f/4-5.6G ED VR II
It's $150. Use the saved money elsewhere.
Technically Correct !!Y42F2zb/zVh
>>3232354 100mm is a *very* limiting focal length if it’s your only lens. You’re basically not going to be able to shoot anything indoors except for tight face shots. You can use a 50 as a general do-whatever lens, including portraits, but you can’t use a 100mm as pretty much anything other than a portrait lens.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3232390 Which 50mm would you recommend? I'm really impressed by the reviews of the tamron 45mm F/1.8 Di VC USD. It has vibration reduction, weather sealing and sharpness comparable to the 50mm sigma art, and also costing less.
Anonymous
>>3230777 gearfag btfo
>>3231509 hoods are cheap I wouldnt make a big deal out of it
>>3232117 i use my 18-140 on my d7100 for pretty much everything
Anonymous
Astrophotography lens for a Canon 5D2. Budget is flexible, ideally sub-$700.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3232409 Anything from circular fisheye to 1200mm reflector and a tracking mount
Anonymous
>>3232400 >hoods are cheap I wouldnt make a big deal out of it Anonymous
>>3232409 Should be fine. I did some night sky photography with a 17-40L, but I always wanted a faster lens to minimize sensor noise. It would be ideal if you have a lens that opens up to f/1.4 or so while still being sharp.
Anonymous
I just bought a manufacturer refurbished Fujifilm X-T1 for $479. How did I do and which lens(es) should I get to start out?
Anonymous
>>3232432 That amount of noise is atrocious, even on APS-C
!P3141593qY
>>3232292 pretty big.
if you want small, there is Zenitar 16
Anonymous
>>3232456 The camera was designed in 2008, it's not really the ideal tool for the job. It's possible to do night sky photography with a 5DII, but the point I'm trying to make is that you don't want to *have to* do 30 second exposures at 4000 ISO because you lens needs to be stopped down to f/5.6 to get sharp corners. The faster the lens, the less sensor bullshit you have to deal with.
Anonymous
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3232459 Just get a Star Adventurer Mini and use whatever aperture you need to get exposure times well over 2 minutes.
Anonymous
Anonymous
>>3232476 Literally same for Nikon, Canon and every other manufacturer.
Anonymous
>>3232482 It really isn't, though. Even for a Canikon hood with a comparable retail price, the difference is that you'll be able to find a million copies of the Canikon hood used for $10-15, but you'll rarely ever see a used Pentax hood, at least for many models.
Anonymous
>>3232507 Same size Nikon lens hood costs $48.99
Your autism is showing.
Anonymous
>>3232512 You completely disregarded what I wrote and then just repeated what you said earlier. Did you really expect me to take you seriously when you clicked "Submit"?
Anonymous
>>3232523 Your autism is showing even more
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3232524 >>3232512 >Your autism is showing You say that as if you're well acquainted with this as an everyday problem. I wonder why.
Technically Correct !!Y42F2zb/zVh
>>3232512 You completely failed to read or understand the argument that you're replying to.
Also, it's not even true. The Nikon 18-135 uses an HB-32 hood, which is about $13:
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/324207-USA/Nikon_4125_HB_32_Lens_Hood.html And the main thrust of his argument is that you can ALSO get a replacement hood for cheap on the used market because there are more Nikons out there.
And he didn't even get into the fact that you can get something like this:
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/749700-REG/vello_lhn_hb32_nikon_hb_32_lens_hood.html because Nikon and Canon are popular enough that it makes sense for third parties to make their own versions.
Technically Correct !!Y42F2zb/zVh
Quoted By:
>>3232551 Aside: While looking into that, I *did* at least find a $27 copy of the Pentax lens hood from Wal Mart. I would invite you all to look at the "With/Without Lens Shade" images on the page because it's pretty hilarious. This doesn't have anything to do with the argument at hand, really, I just thought you all might enjoy a good facepalm today.
https://www.walmart.com/ip/Pentax-SMC-DA-18-135mm-F-3-5-5-6-ED-AL-Pro-Digital-Lens-Hood-Flower-Design-62mm-Nwv-Direct-Microfiber-Cleaning-Cloth/719746868 Anonymous
Eric Morris
I've always liked Photography but cant afford a Pro-camera, so i'll stick to my Samsung S7, the thing is I want to buy a tripod, a cheap one, aroud $10, The tripod fully extended is 1.3m. Do you think it's a good idea or a waste of money?
Technically Correct !!Y42F2zb/zVh
Quoted By:
>>3232563 Go grab yourself some random vintage prime lenses and appropriate adapters. The X-T1 is great for using old manual focus glass.
I don't really have any advice for autofocus Fuji-branded lenses for the system. All I've got for mine is the 27/2.8 pancake. It's fine, but nothing really particularly special, just nice because it's really small and light.
Anonymous
>>3232400 What would you choose between a 18-55 VR with a 70-300 VR and a 18-140? Think I know the answer already, but I wanna ask anyways.
Anonymous
Anonymous
>>3232585 For what?
That matters, idiot.
Anonymous
>>3232585 18-55 VR II and 70-300 VR without knowing what for.
It is just the better combination than a shitty superzoom.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3232588 Taking pics, obviously.
Anonymous
>>3232457 That's a fisheye, apparently. I want a rectilinear lens.
Anonymous
>>3232597 Literally one click in LR.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3232599 Gets you a soft image. No.
Anonymous
>>3232592 I want a walk around lens, no need for the 18-140 with the 18-55 I suppose.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3232602 If you want a walkaround lens get a prime, preferably around 24mm to 30mm.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3232566 Go for it, dont expect a big change but 10 bucks is cheap
Anonymous
>>3232437 Their lenses are rather expensive, though their primes are pretty decent (though super soft wide open).
Just pick your favorite focal length.
Anonymous
Can anyone ID this camera for me? Looks like a Fujifilm X100 but I’m not sure
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3232706 Looks like a Leica but I don't see the dot
Anonymous
I want a D850 but I know it won't make me better.
Anonymous
How well would a reversed 50mm 1.8 do macro?
Technically Correct !!Y42F2zb/zVh
Quoted By:
>>3232706 My best guess: Leica M-P
Anonymous
>>3232681 >(though super soft wide open). Which ones?
Anonymous
>>3232725 Pretty much everyone except that one and the 56mm.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3232718 Very well, especially with cheap extension tubes.
Anonymous
>>3232730 Center sharpness is all that really matters at really wide apertures, and all the tests I've seen on these lenses show that they have it. Thin depth of field is for subject isolation, and the subject goes in the middle of the frame 99% of the time I'm doing that. If you need the edges a little sharper, you can just stop down the lens by one stop. It doesn't take much stopping down to get edge to edge sharpness on these lenses; however, I would consider the edge sharpness acceptable even for low light indoor shooting.
You can compare this "soft" Fuji lens to the lauded Canon 50mm f/1.2.
Anonymous
>>3232737 Here's the 85mm f/1.2 to start. Also, keep in mind that this is on an APS-C sensor.
Anonymous
>>3232738 I mean *Canon 85mm f/1.2.
And here's the Canon 50mm f/1.2. Note that this one is on full frame, for illustration, since this is a full frame lens.
Anonymous
Anonymous
Quoted By:
just got myself a zenit 122k in perfect state, how good is it?
Technically Correct !!Y42F2zb/zVh
>>3232715 >I want a D850 but I know it won't make me better. It won't make you better, no, but fuck it. Photography is fun. Half the fun of photography, at least for me, is playing around with cameras. Only buying gear that you know will make you better just seems like a dull existence. You recognize that buying the fancy toy won't make you better, and that's important, but doesn't mean you shouldn't get it.
Treat yo' self.
Anonymous
>>3232750 It's like I know I should just buy a good lens instead of a body that just got released that's gonna depreciate like $1000 in the first year but having a hot shit just released camera is something I've never had.
Anonymous
>>3232750 Does this mean I can buy a sony just because I like how they look
Technically Correct !!Y42F2zb/zVh
>>3232755 >>3232754 We are all locked inside the decaying meat-prisons of our own frail bodies. Nuclear war could happen any moment. You could have an aneurysm tomorrow and drop dead with no warning. Find joy where you can. Buy the camera.
Anonymous
>>3232790 Alright give me money then
Technically Correct !!Y42F2zb/zVh
>>3232796 No, I need that money so I can try to fill the black sucking void in my own soul with camera gear I don't need.
Anonymous
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3232754 >>3232715 If you want the Discount version of that sensor, there is always the A7Rii for 1900.
That isn't bad at all for a new condition camera with that sensor.
Anonymous
Quick question.
Anonymous
>>3232847 Are you sure he didn't mean a film Olympus? I don't see any advantages of using a film era zoom on m43.
www.chosis.com !CHoSISGsR.
Quoted By:
I just copped a never used new old stock Minolta x570 and Rokkor 50mm 1.7 for US$52 plus $8shipping. Just wanted a backup body to my x700 and don’t need the lens so it was pretty much a $15 brand new X570 after I sell the lens. >There are people that buy shitty half broken yashica compacts for 4-5x that.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3232809 I do too but I work a shit job so I'll never be able to buy all the fancy cameras I've always wanted. Also fuck mirrorless for making old lenses expensive again
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3232852 potentially? I'm not sure.
Either way, he's only asking for $35.
I've seem some bracket mounts on Amazon for ~$20.
I've currently got the 14-42 kit, and I'd like something a little more versatile.
Like I said, I have no fucking clue about m4/3.
I've only ever used APS-C and FF.
Anonymous
When is that new X-T fuji camera coming out for God’s sake
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3232437 35 1.4
56 1.2
The kit lens is also fantastic
Anonymous
Quoted By:
https://www.aliexpress.com/item/Neewer-Meike-Battery-Grip-for-Sony-A6300-Camera-Built-in-2-4GHz-Remote-Control-Work-with/32769792648.html Does anyone know if this grip will work for the A6000?
(Some previous grips by Meike is clearly marked dual compatible, but this one I'm not sure)
2nd question, will the remote control work on the A7 cameras as well, or is it made specific for this particular grip?
Anonymous
Quoted By:
https://www.aliexpress.com/item/Neewer-Meike-Battery-Grip-for-Sony-A6300-Camera-Built-in-2-4GHz-Remote-Control-Work-with/32769792648.html Does anyone know if this grip will work for the A6000?
(Some previous grips by Meike is clearly marked dual compatible, but this one I'm not sure)
2nd question, will the remote control work on the A7 cameras as well, or is it made specific for this particular grip?
Anonymous
>>3232862 Rumor has it that the T3 will include IBIS, even though Fuji has claimed it is useless with how small their mount is.
I wonder if it will be any good?
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3232437 I would probably get a 23 f2 WR as an edc lens
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3232882 nothing fuji makes is ever bad. believe in fuji
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3232882 >even though Fuji has claimed it is useless with how small their mount is. All companies lie and bullshit around all the time.
This remark was probably a remark to make people shut up about IBIS requests.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3232566 There'd be a change, if you do it well, a tripod is the best you could buy. I think there is a special thread for cellphone and that kind of stuff
Anonymous
>>3232308 used nikon d750 + lens should easily be in that pricerange and is better than the 5d3 imo
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3232292 If you want wide angle and small, the only real answer is you brought the wrong system.
Wide angle + small is only possible in Mirrorless.
Pic related. Two ultrawide SLR lenses and an equivalent mirrorless lens.
Anonymous
>>3232862 What is wrong with you? The XT2 released just over a year ago. Give it some fucking time.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3233012 it'd be pretty hard to find a d750 for $1300 at under 50k shots. Especially with a lens. Though I'm really in no rush. I think it's worth considering.
Anonymous
I really like the advantages of mirrorless having such a short FFD, but god damn, do they have to be so fucking small?
Anonymous
>>3233101 Considering how few people would buy such a thing, would you actually be willing to shell out the tens of thousands of dollars for a camera like that? Or would you wait until it hits the used market (read: shitpost about it on the internet because there's no way in hell you could afford it)?
Anonymous
>>3233102 Certainly not with your attitude.
How about making an open source system that uses off the shelf camera/electronic parts like Frankencamera?
https://petapixel.com/2009/09/04/stanfords-open-source-camera-project/ https://graphics.stanford.edu/papers/fcam/ Even the Nikon D300o is open source for the firmware and apps; including video games.
Anonymous
Anonymous
which camera strap will make me look most pro?
Anonymous
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3233125 what if i only have 1 body?
Technically Correct !!Y42F2zb/zVh
>>3233101 >3 card slots Only thing keeping this from falling to Poe’s Law for me.
Anonymous
>>3233081 There is something with IBIS coming out maybe this spring, im waiting for it
Anonymous
>>3233142 Same. Fuji told people for so long it was impossible and now it's right around the corner.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3232715 I see no shame in wanting an awesome camera. If you can afford the equipment, have post processing power and archivization space, then by all means go for it.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3233119 Take the across the body strap, however it is called. It will be the most comfortable and easy to reach on walkarounds. I peak design makes good ones.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3233150 two nukes werent enough
Anonymous
Anonymous
>>3232862 >>3232882 The current "rumors" (which are accepted as truth on DPReview) are that there will be an X-H fork that will have IBIS and be more specialized for video. The X-T3 won't have IBIS. Both cameras will be announced at Photokina 2018 in the fall and probably on the market by February 2019.
When I decided on an X-T1 as my first Fuji camera a few days ago (
>>3232437 ), I was operating on the assumption that we will get an X-T3 eventually, and the prices on minty used X-T2's will fall down into the $600 range by shortly after release of the new model. I think the X-T1 will retain its value pretty well, so it would be a pretty easy upgrade when the time comes.
I own a Pentax K-3 and I don't put much emphasis on IBIS or even OIS anymore. A lot of the time, I have it turned off anyway (I know you can never truly turn IBIS off, but active IBIS anyway gets turned off whenever ANYTHING in the frame is moving). It's a crutch for the camera's metering that has backfired on me too many times when photographing moving subjects, even in broad daylight with my ISO deliberately set high. Even with plenty of light, the camera will inexplicably try to meter out a 1/focal length exposure times, which results in the background and foreground being perfectly sharp, but motion blur on my subject more often than not. Don't get me wrong, it's cool to take a 1/2 second photo at night time and have it be sharp, but the feature gets in my way more often than not when the subject has the capacity to move.
Anonymous
>When you realize that an eight year old pentacks kx has about the same IQ and high iso performance as today's top apsc and m43 offerings.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3233179 Not really. The best DR and ISO performance was with the 16MP sensors, K-5/II/IIs, K-30/50
I know because in astrophotography I have the best performance of my K-3 at ISO 1600, while the K-5 series sensors produced 1 stop better DR at ISO 3200. It was the pinnacle of sensor performance, same sensor worked so well in the Nikon D7000. The key is quantum efficiency, that sensor had about 66% while the newest sensors don't really go above 53%. That is percentage of photons converted into electron.
I sometimes wonder if I should buy a K-5 just for night photos and astro.
Anonymous
>>3233179 The k-7 has better specs and better prices overall. Most K-X are overpriced and a terrible color.
Anonymous
How do I get the best value for my 60D & accessories. Pic related.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3233192 KS-2 is available in a similar camo green. I was lusting over it for a year, if only the K-3 was available in that color.
Anonymous
>>3233199 Look at ebay, especially reputable camera shops. SRS Microsystems, Foto Köberl Graz, KEH, Adorama etc... has good and well checked used items, with some form of warranty.
Anonymous
>>3233202 I want to sell, not buy.
Anonymous
>>3233207 You should've specified that.
Look at trending prices at ebay, -10% ensures quick sale with most of the profit.
Anonymous
>>3233192 Kx has way better high iso performance than k7. Just go to the dpreview comparometer and look at the test images yourself
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3233211 >dpreview I'll pass.
Anonymous
Anonymous
>>3233211 >better high iso performance Who cares? I only shoot ISO100 or less.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3233218 Well, I care cause I don't.
Anonymous
Anyone have recommendations on cheap Olympus lenses? My gf and I are looking to start a photo business and we need some cheap gear to get the ball rolling.
Anonymous
>>3233224 Olympus 35-100/2
Anonymous
How do you keep your gear safe when it rains? I'm using a cannon rebel t6, is it safe to use it while there's a downpour or should I only use it if it's lightly raining?
Anonymous
>>3233218 If you only shoot iso 100 or less then how do you shoot in a dim room?
I find that flash fucks up the shot so Im forced to bump up my iso
Anonymous
>>3233227 is this screenshot from kai w's video when testing 70-200?
Anonymous
Technically Correct !!Y42F2zb/zVh
Quoted By:
>>3233224 Have you bought the camera yet? If not, I’d recommend Canon or Nikon rather than Olympus; they’ve been around long enough that there’s a much deeper supply of cheap used lenses and equipment.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3233224 45mm 1.8 prime if you’re shooting headshots and portraits. You just missed the sale where it was $199 but you may be able to get a used copy at that price still.
You can also use the Panasonic 20mm or Olympus 25mm but depending on your use they may be too wide. 45mm is the best for subject isolation outside of the (both expensive) 75mm or the 45mm 1.2.
Anonymous
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3229890 What makes this lenses worth 2 Grand
Anonymous
>>3233226 >cheap >that lens Hmm
Also isn’t that an older four thirds lens they’d need to adapt?
Anonymous
>>3233245 The f/2.8 then. My point is all MFT lenses are expensive.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3233246 A fast zoom with a wide range is gonna be expensive regardless. That’s why if they wanna do simple headshots or even some events I’d recommend using the 25 or 45mm. They’re cheap.
Anonymous
Any of these worth grabbing lads?
Anonymous
Anonymous
>>3233276 >He doesn't want that nifty fifty Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3233277 That is only 50x zoom, the Tamron has up to 200x zoom.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3233175 any word on x-t3 then? Really expected the H to come out 2nd quarter this year, not in 2019
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3233277 I already have the 50mm 1.8 OM lens so not going for that. The Tamron looks interesting, or the Minolta 35-70 mini beercan.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3233228 Longer exposure. Also, if you need to use a flash, get better flash equipment or see if your camera has manual setting for flash strength. The auto TTL isn't always "correct" for the scene and neither is having the flash on the camera. And finally, get a faster lens for what you can afford. Just 1 stop of light brighter for your lens makes a massive difference.
Anonymous
best used body for ~250 USD? i'm a student, i'll get good gear when I get a decent job.
Anonymous
>>3233441 Canon T2i or T3i
Nikon D3200
I dunno Fuji / Olympia / Pentax / etc
Anonymous
>>3233441 >>3233445 If he wants to use new AF-P lenses, he'll need at least a D3300.
Anonymous
Anonymous
Been lurking for some time, and it's my first time picking my own camera, I'm looking for a something compact that I can carry around and use at any moment (not to say I want an auto everything) somewhere between 100 and 200 cost wise. I mostly do low-light/night photography in suburban/landscape areas.
Anonymous
>>3233598 A good 80 dollar tripod alone is going to cost half of your budget.
>low-light/night photography Save up for an A7s?
Anonymous
>>3233599 I'm just a beginner so that's a lot for me, don't really want to carry a tripod, just a camera I can take if I go on a walk and I see a good shot
Anonymous
>>3233601 It's just very hard to do night photography with that budget. The Tripod is the only way to get it done for cheap.
Without the tripod, you're basically stuck with the A7s, so you're going to save up either way.
Anonymous
>>3233605 how about low-light? In the evening with streetlights
Anonymous
>>3233607 Anything will do if there is streetlights I guess.
Anonymous
>>3233610 what should I look out for in terms lens size, f/, ISO, etc? According to sticky "'fast' 'normal' lens. ~50mm f/1.4"
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3233616 >what should I look out for in terms lens size Whatever field of view you prefer
https://www.pointsinfocus.com/tools/depth-of-field-and-equivalent-lens-calculator/ Shallow field of view gives you more "zoom", and more detail on objects far away.
Wide field of view gives you more wide images, but less details.
Anonymous
