Last one:
>>3241331 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
There is only 1 company these days who has the balls to release a lens with just 7 piece of glass. This is a time where everybody put 10, 11, 13 or more piece of glass into their lens to correct aberrations and whatever.
Anonymous
>And SHARP, Super Sharp from each of the 4 corners.
Anonymous
Anonymous
>>3244093 >Being this mad because Zeiss has an optical marvel made from just 7 pieces of glass Anonymous
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3244095 >that feel when bootyblasted by the mere association of Sony in 2018 because his nintendo 64 got blown the fuck out 30 years ago Anonymous
Anonymous
>>3244082 I have a camera bag and I'd like to buy a cheap-ish and light backpack, to take my camera on a bike trips or short hikes with me. From my research, Fjord Nansen Tomte might fit the bill, I would just sew in few velcro straps to hold the tripod in the side pocket.
Does pack matter so much, as long as everything fits? Do you prefer any particular models or brands or maybe different methods to tranport your gear?
Anonymous
>>3244102 Bike trips are more demanding than on-foot hikes for a camera bag. The soft linings and inserts need to hold the gear secure enough that they don't start jiggling around on during a bumpy ride.
I don't know about the bag you mentioned but I would definitely look for ways to secure my gear more, no matter what bag I'd get.
With that said I use a Lowepro Flipside 400 AW for hikes and love it.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3244102 I like the Ortlieb bags myself because they are 100% airtight and water tight.
The backpack version of their brand is pretty expensive though, so it's probably not for you.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3244090 85mm is EASY and a SLOW 85mm is RIDICULOUSLY EASY. Making it in small quantities in high quality assembly line -> little to no quality variations. Simple, really. Anyone could do it, but they couldn't charge the seemingly exorbitant price that zeiss brand can (but what is needed to produce the lens while also making some profit).
Anonymous
>>3244090 >>3244092 >>3244094 >$1400 list price >A full stop slower than the Canon 85/1.8 you can get for for $300 If your composition is so bad that pixel-level optical defects in the corners would ruin it, you're a shitty photographer.
Anonymous
>>3244104 I have a camera bag and I would put the camera in the bag, and then this bag into the backpack. The bag itself is not very comfortable to carry around as it is this top loading box-shaped bag. It holds my stuff well enough, though.
Instead of investing in another bag, I was thinking about more modular solution. I'd put in the camera bag if I want to transport my gear, but if I don't then I still have a backpack I wouldn't be hesitant to treat rougher than my regular pack (my day pack has a main compartment divider and bag doesn't fit very well there).
Anonymous
I just got an a7ii. Redpill me on investing in the E mount ecosystem.
Anonymous
Anonymous
>>3244120 People will get mad at you because you have available pretty much some of the best lenses there is.
Technically Correct !!Y42F2zb/zVh
>>3244120 You should invest in the E mount ecosystem because you already bought the damn camera and it’s not going to be very useful if you don’t have any lenses to put on it.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3244118 Me again, I relaised how shitty the sentences are, I just hope it makes sens in general.
Anonymous
>>3244124 Thing is, I'm in a position where I can buy a 1k~ piece of glass a month while being financially responsible. It's not terriby hard to cut my losses and unload the body and the only lens I have.
>>3244121 So... don't shoot under a rainstorm. Got it.
>>3244123 What would you recommend? I ordered the 28 2.0 and I'm seriously debating between the 55mm 1.8, the Batis 85 and the G Macro 90 for my next lens. I have never had a macro lens before and I am considering getting the G Macro as a double duty lens for portraits and macro fun.
There's also the ever-so-tempting 24-70 2.8 with its prime lens sharpness. It's probably too hefty though. I'm into mirrorless because of weight reasons and joint complications.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3244132 I would recommend the 24-105 G to someone who just started out and call it a day. But it seems like you're a prime lens person.
Can't really go wrong with either of them. The Macro is super useful for taking detailed shots of the wedding rings and such. Can't really go wrong with that one either.
Technically Correct !!Y42F2zb/zVh
>>3244132 >It's not terribly hard to cut my losses and unload the body and the only lens I have. Doesn't make sense to.
There's not a camera system out there that would give you significantly better performance than Sony. Similarly, there's not a camera system out there that would give you significantly worse performance than Sony. At a macro level, it really just doesn't matter. There are a few ways that, say, Canon is better than Sony, and a few ways that Sony is better than Canon, but all of those things are trumped by the simple fact that you've got the A7 already in your hand, so you should just go ahead and shoot with it and not worry about any FOMO for other brands.
Anonymous
>>3244090 CA is easily removed with 2 elements of different glass types (crown & flint) coupled together as one lens called an achromatic lens. Other types of aberrations are corrected with other means; spherical aberrations via diaphragm. A lot of times the extra elements are just to shorten the barrel of the lens. The biggest problem with lenses is how fast/bright they are. Getting a fast lens becomes very expensive. Which is why a lens like the "Leica Noctilux-M 50mm f/0.95 ASPH" costs more than my house. It has 8 elements.
>>3244095 >weather testing a camera that isn't weatherized against cameras that are weatherized >water gets in Sherlock would be proud.
Anonymous
>>3244132 E-mount has an FFD of 18mm, meaning you can adapt just about any other lens from other camera mounts to it. Meaning you can buy dirt cheap lenses that are old, but still really good and use them on your camera.
Anonymous
>>3244149 >$3000 camera >not weather sealed Everyone else seals their high class cameras, some even started to seal their lower or even entry level cameras as well. This is just downright neglect and mistreatment of the customers from Sony, something they are very experienced in.
Anonymous
>>3244152 Here is their page on the α7R III:
https://www.sony.com/electronics/interchangeable-lens-cameras/ilce-7rm3 The most they even state is, "reliable performance even under harsh conditions" but do not once mention anything about weather sealing of any kind not even for dust. "Harsh conditions" could mean anything they want it to mean. The funny thing is, everyone is testing the weather sealing, but the company doesn't even state anywhere that it is sealed in any manner at all. I'm really not sure where they are getting the idea that it is weather sealed at all. All mentions I find about weather sealing are from 3rd party people and reviewers. Some even go as far to say that, "a Sony rep says," but there's never anything actually linking to Sony saying such things.
Here's an example of that from one reviewer/blogger:
>Weather Sealing >The a7r iii is dust and weather sealed, but I was a little disappointed that this was not made as a major feature of the camera. This was a huge fault of the a7rii. >When the Sony a9 was released, it was clearly marketed as having dust and weather sealing, but a Sony rep candidly said that the weather sealing was good, but still not on par with what Nikon does with their weather sealing. >So while I'm glad to see there is dust and weather sealing, the lack of the marketing push on this fact makes me think it's only moderately sealed. This camera is clearly marketed towards landscape shooters with the heavy focus on dynamic range, so I would have liked to have seen a better focus on sealing. >I have a bit of a reputation for torturing and killing cameras with the elements, so I especially need this. Yet, there's no proof of anything of this actually happening and no links to any information on the page at all to backup such claims with legit citations. To me, the lack of stating something is weather sealed mean that it is not at all weather sealed and thinking it is weather sealed is really kind of retarded.
Anonymous
>>3244162 >The a7r iii is dust and weather sealed >To me, the lack of stating something is weather sealed mean that it is not at all weather sealed HEERP DERP DERP
Anonymous
>>3244166 Do you not understand what you were reading? The green stuff is quoting someone who isn't from Sony. Sony does not say anything about dust or weather sealing on the webpage for that camera.
Anonymous
>>3244180 >defending a meme brand this hard Anonymous
>>3244182 He is pretty much just balancing out the force.
It's you who go apeshit over Sony just because someone posted something about a Zeiss lens.
Anonymous
>>3244182 I'm not defending it. I'm just giving information. I have all Nikon equipment and will never buy Sony, their products are not up to snuff. I got Nikon because I didn't know much when I started. If I get anything else it will be Pentax specifically for their weather sealing.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3244184 Wow. Just wow. What kind of stupid fantasy do you live in? Do you think you are in a movie? What kind of fucked up thinking is that?
fucking cuck !!L1lx81epp6B
>>3244149 You live in a house that cost less than ten grand?
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3244185 Just avoid getting into contact with the Pentax userbase.
Their collective anal devastation is contagious.
>Literally go into a review of E-mount lens to whine about the lack of Pentax mount option Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3244187 I built it myself for about $8k, but it is appraised at like $25k. It would cost like $50k to build with today's prices.
Technically Correct !!Y42F2zb/zVh
>>3244162 >"Harsh conditions" could mean anything they want it to mean. To be fair, this is actually true of "weather sealed", too. There's not any real standard, so it could mean "guaranteed not to fail because of a light breeze".
Technically Correct !!Y42F2zb/zVh
Quoted By:
>>3244182 >thinking that saying "Yeah, it doesn't have weather sealing worth shit" is defending Sony. Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3244193 "Harsh Conditions," can mean anything from bad weather to being bumped around a bag on a bicycle for 100 miles. "Weather sealing," specifically means sealing for weather conditions.
Anonymous
Does anyone know where I can get a film back for my Nikon D3100?
Technically Correct !!Y42F2zb/zVh
>>3244224 You can’t. That’s not a thing.
Anonymous
>>3244230 If you don't have anything constructive to say, then just keep your mouth shut.
Anonymous
>>3244232 he wasnt being rude?
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3244233 I didn't say the word "rude"?
Anonymous
>>3244224 I think the best you can hope for is a film camera you can get a digital back for.
Technically Correct !!Y42F2zb/zVh
>>3244232 You asked a question and I answered it. I don’t know how more constructive I could’ve been to that discussion.
Low end digital SLRs don’t have removable backs. They don’t make film backs for them.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3244150 >ill really good and use them on your camera. Yeah i've been reading up on good vintage glass. Currently considering a Contax Zeiss 35-70 f3.4. It's a fucking deep rabbit hole with decades worth of lenses to choose from. I usually have trouble with choosing new purchases so this is a bit too much for me.
>>3244144 Fair enough. Makes sense. Thanks!
Anonymous
tfw want d7500 to have a flippy screen and touch but its not worth it when you already have a d7100
Anonymous
>>3244239 Your lack of knowledge and self-importance in assuming everyone seeks your worthless input doesn't lend itself to constructive answers. Somebody already posted an example of a camera with both a digital and film back so you're pursuing this even having been debunked. You're worse than fake news.
Anonymous
>>3244249 It's a shame what Nikon did to the D7xxx line
Anonymous
>>3244250 You asked a stupid question and expect a serious answer? be happy you got a straight one and not a whole novel on how stupid you are. Please kys.
Anonymous
>>3244254 Put your trip back on, butthurt tripfag.
Anonymous
>>3244255 Not the same guy, idiot!
Anonymous
Technically Correct !!Y42F2zb/zVh
>>3244250 >Somebody already posted an example of a camera with both a digital and film back so you're pursuing this even having been debunked My answer wasn’t debunked. The guy asked where he could buy a film back for a d3100, not whether there were cameras that could use both film and digital backs. Those are different questions and so have different answers.
You can’t buy a film back for a d3100. Film backs for the d3100 are not a thing. If you can show me a commercially available film back for a Nikon d3100, I’ll retract my answer, as I always do when someone shows me I’m wrong about something.
Technically Correct !!Y42F2zb/zVh
Quoted By:
>>3244254 >You asked a stupid question and expect a serious answer I don’t think that’s the same guy who asked the initial question. My best guess is he’s the guy I called a tool in another thread yesterday.
Anonymous
>>3244090 >This is a time where everybody put 10, 11, 13 or more piece of glass into their lens to correct aberrations and whatever bruh
Anonymous
>>3244266 >you can't buy film backs for digital cameras >except for....err.....the ones that you can buy film backs for You're so deluded it's not even funny.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3244185 Unless we're talking about low-end, crop, f/5.6 kind of stuff, Pentax doesn't really have any advantages over Nikon when it comes to weather sealing.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3244271 All of those are old deprecated shit. Let it go, anon.
Anonymous
>>3244270 Anon we're not talking about bad lenses.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3244271 R9 was sold with a film back, and DMR was sold separately. I don't think it qualifies as a digital camera.
Technically Correct !!Y42F2zb/zVh
>>3244271 Are you just trolling me or are you really that bad at reading comprehension?
Anonymous
>>3244282 What's it like to be so dumb that you can't follow a simple conversation online?
Anonymous
>>3244275 You can find quite a few "good" modern lenses with <10 elements, like Fuji 35mm or Panasonic 20mm. It's also a completely pointless metric to wank over.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3244285 He's a sonychu poster, what did you expect? CWC tier retarded over a brand.
Anonymous
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3244090 >>3244092 Can you stop shilling for Zeiss?
Technically Correct !!Y42F2zb/zVh
>>3244284 >him: question about d3100 >me: answer about d3100 >you: calling me a meanie >someone else: there are entirely other cameras that can do that, but not yours >you: ha ha, tripfag got told Consider the possibility that you’re the one not following a simple conversation online.
Anonymous
>>3244290 Single card, no indexing tab, no grip, less weather sealing than previous models. The D7500 is basically a D5500 with the D500 sensor. Pointless feature when the camera itself offers less functionality than the D7200 or D7100.
Nikon literally reduced the intermediate/prosumer D7xxx line into the entry level soccermom pleb tier D5xxx.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3244090 wake me up when it has autofocus, it's not 1965 anymore.
Technically Correct !!Y42F2zb/zVh
>>3244290 The D7500 is a slight downgrade from the D7200 in a few ways:
* lower resolution sensor (21 vs 24MP)
* only one card slot
* lower resolution LCD
* no NFC wireless
It’s an upgrade in a bunch of other ways, but a lot of people consider it a step backwards.
Technically Correct !!Y42F2zb/zVh
Quoted By:
>>3244295 Oh shit, I didn’t realize it dropped the AI tab.
Anonymous
>>3244299 You forgot
* can no longer use AI lenses
Thanks for leaving the AF screw at least, faggots.
Anonymous
>>3244299 does it make me casual if I wouldnt miss any of these things?
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3244304 The lack of grip and no redundancy would make you one, yes. You are better off with a cheaper D5500.
Technically Correct !!Y42F2zb/zVh
>>3244304 Not those things, but as
>>3244301 pointed out, I missed that they dropped the aperture auto-index tab, which means you can’t use any manual focus Nikon glass (except for a few niche ones with electronic control) with metering support from the camera. M-mode only, and not even a viewfinder meter display to help you expose.
Anonymous
Anonymous
>>3244310 >you can’t use any manual focus Nikon glass with metering support from the camera. The most offensive thing is that if you mount the same lens with an adapter on Canon, Sony, Fuji, Olympus, Panasonic, fucking Sigma, it WILL have metering. Stop-down metering, sure, but it's better than nothing at all.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3244312 Rei all day erryday
Anonymous
>>3244312 Asuka>Shinji>Rei
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3244132 >I'm seriously debating between the 55mm 1.8, the Batis 85 and the G Macro 90 for my next lens All pretty damn nice.
I love the 90mm G macro, but if you primarily think of portraits you may prefer the 55mm or 85mm Batis. Between the AF speed, more gradual vignetting (this is very subjective but some people feel the uncorrected 90mm G vignetting seems like something poorly added in post-production) and aperture settings, the other two make for slightly more convenient portrait lenses. Plus the 90mm G will probably require a bigger bag - it's not heavy, but pretty large.
If you want macro or product shots or if you want to "scan" your old negatives, the 90mm macro is definitely the best option, though.
That said, again, all of these are some neat lenses and should be very useful anyhow.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3244294 Why are you trying to make this all about you?
Anonymous
>>3244322 Asuka is disgusting smelly lunatic cunt. Rei is fresh every morning.
Anonymous
Anonymous
>>3244327 Rei is the Oedipus Complex choice
Anonymous
>>3244329 No. I bet you like Shinji, you faggot trash!
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3244330 don't project your homosexuality on to me anon
Anonymous
so yeah I guess an upgrade from the 7100 would have to be the d500?
Anonymous
Technically Correct !!Y42F2zb/zVh
Quoted By:
>>3244313 Yep. In their defense, it would probably require extra hardware to implement stop down metering to the point that they’d lose their cost advantage of pulling the AI hardware, and I’d wager that 90+% of d7x00 users don’t ever consider buying manual focus glass.
Anonymous
this may not be the right thread to post in but...
Anonymous
Are some landscape guys here? I'd like to spill some bucks on a gnd filter system. Filters should be coated on both sides. Which filter holders and which filters can you recommend and why?
Anonymous
I’m planning to upgrade to a brand new modern DSLR someday. Which DSLR do you think is the best one money can buy under $3k?
Technically Correct !!Y42F2zb/zVh
Quoted By:
>>3244349 Best is highly subjective, but my vote would go to the Canon 5D Mark III, which you can get for half your budget used these days.
Anonymous
>>3244337 not worth it
>>3244349 if you have nikon lenses stay with nikon you can get the topline d850 for 3.3k
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3244346 Generally you can't go wrong with Lee filters and the Lee filter system. Cokin's new Nuances series is also good. For Cokin filters it is better to use the Lee holder or the Hitech filter holder.
Be aware of the filter sizes, for starting out the Cokin P sets with the plastic filter holder is good enough. The new Cokin Pro filter system is retarded, stay away from it.
For landscapes you might want to also invest in a 5 stop ND and a CPL filter.
Anonymous
>>3244355 I’m poorfag. One lens is a 30 year old 35x70mm Nikkor lens, the other one is a Tamron 70x400mm lens.
I do think the Nikon DSLRs might be better as they seem more like an evolution of the D70 meaning they will feel very familiar
Anonymous
>>3244358 Either the D850 or a D810 will be good for you. I assume you like landscapes and nightscapes, so maybe going with the D810 used and spending money on a nice used 50/1.4, 35/1.4 or 28/1.4 would be the better option.
Anonymous
>>3244358 I could be wrong though, and that the newer Nikon DSLRs are completely different from the D70, or that most DSLRs out there have very similar button layout
>>3244361 I like to do landscape, but I might do plenty of portrait photos, wildlife photography, travel videos etc.
So outstanding 4k video is a must too.
Do these lenses have quite wide FoV?
Technically Correct !!Y42F2zb/zVh
>>3244366 No, if you’re familiar with the d70, you should stick with Nikon. Obviously there are gonna be a bunch of differences between that many generations of camera, but the overall Nikon control idiom is the same and different from other companies’ cameras.
Anonymous
>>3244366 Both those bodies have high resolution, so don't expect per pixel sharpness from your old lenses. That is no reason to not use them though. Downsampling a bit will help a lot.
The lenses I mentioned are good gereic use lenses with wide aperture. The 28 and 35mm are wide angle and the 50mm is normal focal length.
Asking such questions is strange considering you used your camera for years. try looking up basic photography tutorials on YT and read Understanding Exposure by Bryan Peterson.
For wildlife you will need a telephoto lens, something at 200mm or longer. Getting a 70-200/2.8 is also usable for portraits and you can use a teleconverter for better reach. It will also have much better sharpness than your old lenses.
Wildlife, portraits and landscape all need their specific focal length range so expect to spend some more later on. Wildlife especially with the big superteles, it is a never ending circle of wanting more reach or bigger aperture, I know it form my own experience.
Anonymous
What’s a good entry level camera?
Technically Correct !!Y42F2zb/zVh
>>3244377 Canon Rebel, Nikon D3x00 series, Sony a6000 series. Moderately older models are fine. Try ‘em out in a store and see which feels best to you; they’re all pretty close in terms of technical chops.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3244345 > are there any days that are better to buy cameras? Generally no. [Well, the day when the prices drop eventually is pretty good. That said if you generally have such knowledge, maybe better just become a billionaire on the market and buy whatever camera you want.]
> how cautious should i be about grey market sonys? Not really. You're just bypassing regional marketing bullshit (this is unfortunately an effective technique for companies).
But you will probably not get local warranty.
> would buying a used one be worth it for someone who doesn't know very much about how cameras break? If the deal is good and the seller trustworthy enough? Cameras don't break extremely easily, so by and large most people will keep them intact enough.
Anonymous
>>3244388 >they’re all pretty close in terms of technical chops Not really. There is a large differences even between a sample of three of the cameras you just listed.
Size, weight, burst rate, buffer size, AF coverage, smartphone connectivity, available number of cheap lenses (anon sounds like there is no money available for anything great), video capabilities, manual focus assists and so much else varies quite vastly. Particularly strongly different between the Sony A6000 and some Canon Rebel / Nikon D3x00.
Anonymous
>>3244397 >splitting hairs, the post Why don't you just be an insufferable gearfag over at reddit? You would fit in much better with your autism.
Anonymous
>>3244377 > but like, good ones Always depends on whose idea of "good" we're talking about.
Entry-level cameras and lenses aren't usually the tool of choice if you mean good good. But they can do "better than some smartphone in most situations".
> I want something that would be good for hallway shots and mini photoshoots. You maybe want lights. Strong portable strobes or even a studio strobe.
It can take pretty high nice camera gear to shoot dim hallway natural light easily. Adding artificial light will generally be more reliable and cheaper. Of course it always depends on what light levels you have.
Anonymous
>>3244398 Shouldn't you be on some vintage film forum to circle jerk about how 9/10 technical features on cameras are actually useless?
These aren't minor differences.
Anonymous
>>3244397 There’s money available but I’m not going to shell out $1200 on something where I’m only going to use 10 of the 75 functions.
>>3244399 Have you seen how bright these places are? Hall shots happen all the time without lighting. Like even the pro guys just use their flash unless their in the shoot rooms.
Technically Correct !!Y42F2zb/zVh
>>3244402 >These aren't minor differences. The point I was making is that they all more or less even out and the core “ability to take pictures” features are all very similar.
Anonymous
>>3244403 >There’s money available but I’m not going to shell out $1200 on something where I’m only going to use 10 of the 75 functions. Unfortunately, this is not what you tend to pay for. You can have WLAN and such in entry level models. Not too surprising, given that it's in all smartphones - it's only surprising some don't have that.
Usually the core functionalities are the costly ones. Reliable image shooting (even in low light), with good image quality. Being able to quickly take photos. Stuff like that costs the most.
See, this is an old market, and camera companies know how to tier and sell their cameras.
> Have you seen how bright these places are? Sure. And they very often are too dark. There are a whole lot of hallways and rooms that are too dark.
Even just one large sunblind that is open on the side can cause issues with exposure times where you then need your models to remain VERY still... or better, use a strobe.
> Like even the pro guys just use their flash unless their in the shoot rooms. Usually done with a good FF camera and "fast" lens, because otherwise reliability suffers a lot, particularly in locations that may have varying light conditions.
Granted, sufficient sunlight obviously DOES work. The question is: Do you have it?
Anonymous
>>3244408 Concerning the last part, yeah usually.
I’ve been to one con that has shitty soft lighting but the others are super well lit.
Anonymous
Someone tell me what camera to buy right now
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3244406 All of these minus maybe smartphone inter-connectivity are essentially "core ability to take pictures". AF, buffer size and all of that included - even if there is that one guy that only manually focuses his shots and does okay.
>>3244410 > I’ve been to one con that has shitty soft lighting but the others are super well lit. Maybe they have great or ideal lighting in one place, if that's the only place where you want to shoot.
Consider this though: Have you seen anyone with a DSLR / MILC use their strobe there?
Maybe it wasn't just for fun. It takes some rather very strong light to get "ideal" conditions for photographing humans, and this is even more the case with cheaper gear.
Minimum insurance if you keep it cheap: Bring a portable flash.
Anonymous
>>3244411 The best lens+camera you can reasonably afford. Unless your shots are all very easy to take and you don't really care if they are keepers most of the time.
In which case, maybe use your smartphone, a GoPro or clone, some compact, an entry level MILC or DSLR.
Anonymous
What is the best entry level full-frame camera?
Anonymous
>>3244427 Define "best" and define "entry level."
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3244371 Nice, then a D850 would probably be the one to go. It’s the best all around Nikon camera on the market right?
>>3244375 >Asking such questions is strange considering you used your camera for years. oh, no that D70S is my parents’. I’ve been using it only recently
Thanks alot for the advice though. I screwed up by forgetting that the shorter the lens, the shorter the focal length, the wider the FoV
I’d probably go with the D850. The way it looks on paper is amazing.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3244101 >>3244095 >Oh no! My camera not rated for weather resistance isn’t weather resistant! I will return it today! Anonymous
>>3244116 Shit, Sony themselves sell a faster, damn good 85mm for considerably cheaper.
I see no reason to get the overpriced Zeiss.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3244419 Something versatile but preferably weather sealed enough to handle rain/snow and dust.
Anonymous
What Pentax camera is this
Anonymous
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3244434 A 6d, D610, A7 or K1. Best for still shots.
Anonymous
Used 6D or used 80D? 6D is full frame of course but the 80D is considerably younger and has more modern features
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3244491 The 6D still has the advantage in low light and with diffraction (far larger sensor pixels).
There are reasons to choose either, you're the one that knows what you need more.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3244480 Asahi Pentax 6x7
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3244224 remove the internals temporarily, then insert an oly xa2 inside.
and don't forget to lick the sensor fully 3 times for new year's luck while enjoying your nachos. it will produce edge to edge sharp pictures when you place it back desu
Anonymous
anyone on here ever watch the anime fooly cooly? cause I just noticed the character mamimi uses an olympus xa. and now I want one of those on top of a 4001 bass and a vespa.
Anonymous
Anonymous
>>3244237 I’d love for a ground up camera design with interchangeable 135 and digital backs.
Never gonna happen though.
Anonymous
>>3244504 >anyone on here ever watch the anime FUCK OFF!!!
Anonymous
>>3244508 Because it is stupid and retarded.
Anonymous
What f/1.4 lens that is 50mm or less for Nikon would you recommend that doesn’t cost that much(<$300)?
Anonymous
Anonymous
>>3244511 ...
If you can't afford it then get the cheaper nifty 50/1.8 or 35/1.8
Technically Correct !!Y42F2zb/zVh
>>3244509 >getting super mad about someone liking anime on 4chan Come on, man.
Anonymous
>>3244516 >>>/a/ and stay there!
Anonymous
>>3244514 Isn’t the difference between 1.4 and 1.8 quite huge? I want it for lowlight photography. I don’t really have the budget yet but I’d love to have a short focal lenght lens with big aperture that will also be decent on whatever next Nikon DSLR I will upgrade to
Technically Correct !!Y42F2zb/zVh
Quoted By:
>>3244517 I don’t watch anime myself, I just realize that getting annoyed about that on 4chan is like going to France and bitching about everyone speaking French.
Anonymous
>>3244523 It's like a third of a stop
Technically Correct !!Y42F2zb/zVh
>>3244523 >Isn’t the difference between 1.4 and 1.8 quite huge? Nope. It’s less than one stop. And 1.4 is very tricky to use due to how narrow the depth of field is. The main reason to buy a /1.4 over a /1.8 is usually that the /1.4 has better build quality and a little better image quality at comparable apertures, not for a rounding error worth of extra light.
Anonymous
>>3244530 >acts like the difference is light is negligible but somehow the difference in depth of field is significant but wait wait also meant to say the difference in depth of field ISN'T significant you totally don't need 1.4! Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3244541 lol. what an absolutely shit tier tripfag.
Technically Correct !!Y42F2zb/zVh
Quoted By:
>>3244541 >implying I said the difference in depth of field is significant Sorry for the confusion, I didn’t word that bit as well as I could have.
The depth of field difference between 1.4 and 1.8 is also negligible (in fact, I just took a couple of test shots since I’ve got the 50/1.4 mounted on my canon right now, and I couldn’t really see any difference). That’s why I didn’t mention it as a reason to go with the 1.4 over the 1.8.
What I meant when I said that 1.4 was too narrow to be particularly usable most of the time was that you’d generally want to be up around 2.8 for a more usable amount of depth of field, at which point it doesn’t really matter if your max is 1.8 or 1.4.
Anonymous
>>3244529 >>3244530 Ah well which 1.8 lens should I go for then considering I will use it with my potentially future D850?
Anonymous
>>3244556 Highly depends on what you are going to use it for. The body doesn't matter.
Technically Correct !!Y42F2zb/zVh
>>3244556 >>3244558 The body matters a little bit. Specifically, what do you have now? If it’s a d3x00 or d5x00 (or lower), you’re definitely want to get the 50/1.8G since the older 50/1.8D won’t autofocus on your camera. If you have a d7x00 or better (or if you want to use it on older film bodies too), the D version is going to be a lot cheaper and pretty much just as functional.
Anonymous
>>3244560 >>3244560 >>3244558 I’m the one with D70S. I want to use it for low light photography
Anonymous
>>3244510 No, it'd be awesome. There should be more hybrid cameras like that.
Technically Correct !!Y42F2zb/zVh
>>3244564 Ah, gotcha. The cheaper 50/1.8D will be fully functional on a D70s, so I’d recommend just going with that one then.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3244517 4chan is for anima. Perhaps you are on the wrong website?
Technically Correct !!Y42F2zb/zVh
>>3244566 It would be a lot more fragile, much more expensive, and bulky as shit.
1. More fragile because the sensor would be exposed on the digital side. You think dust is a problem now when most DSLRs never have their sensor fully exposed outside of cleaning mode, imagine how much dust you’d get with a sensor totally exposed while you fumble around for the back cap for it. Plus, if you fumble a bit putting the cap on, or the cap falls off in your camera bag, you’ll end up with a scratched sensor. Good possibility of accidentally fingerprinting it at some point, too.
2. More expensive because there would be twice as much engineering involved. Basically as complex as making a whole digital SLR and a whole film SLR plus the extra engineering challenge of making them one unit. And very few people would find the idea appealing, so less-than-Leica economies of scale.
3. Bulky as shit because it would basically have to have the full size of a digital camera to accommodate all of the processing electronics in three body, plus extra size to hold the whole film path and mechanical parts of the film system, plus the digital back would have to have the sensor stack (which is a lot thicker than a lot of people realize) plus the LCD and control buttons for the digital half. Plus you’d need to carry around both backs, otherwise what’s the point? It would likely be as much bulk as carrying around a film camera with your digital.
And really, what would be the benefit?
Anonymous
>>3244567 And it’ll be completely fine on a D850 too? Wouldn’t it be better to find a 35mm lens instead considering I already got a 35-70mm lens?
Anonymous
>>3244574 Those are design issues t hat can be fixed with a little R&D. Something as simple as compartmentalizing the sensor when you dismount it will take care of dust issues. The film could actually run in front of it and when you switch between film or digital the sensor mount just moves forward enough to where the film was. It'd never be exposed where you could see it until cleaning mode. I could go in to detail for everything, but there's no real need. The short of it is that it is just some minor tech issues. The same goes with bulk. The cost is irrelevant.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3244441 >I see no reason to get the overpriced Zeiss. Lenses have a "resolution" to them, just like sensors.
https://youtu.be/SSKbMh_nGF4?t=109 Unfortunately it's a difficult feature to advertise for because they don't have a standardized megapixel number. So Aperture focused lens makers get a marketing advantage over lens makers who just want to design the most sharp and high contrast lenses.
On the E-mount there are certain lenses which are more exceptional in resolution than others. These include lenses like
Sony 90 G Macro
Zeiss Loxia 85
Voigtlander 65 APO
Technically Correct !!Y42F2zb/zVh
Quoted By:
>>3244579 > And it’ll be completely fine on a D850 too? Yes.
> Wouldn’t it be better to find a 35mm lens instead considering I already got a 35-70mm lens? I don't know. Do you prefer the 35mm focal length to the 50mm focal length? Your 35-70 goes through both, so you can try them both out. Note that on the D850, they're both going to slot down a peg, so 35 will be a wide angle and 50 will be normal instead of 35 being normal and 50 being short telephoto.
I don't know enough about Nikon 35mms to really make a recommendation, other than to tell you not to buy the Nikon 35mm f/1.8 DX because that won't cover the full image sensor on a D850.
Technically Correct !!Y42F2zb/zVh
>>3244581 Hmm, might be feasible as just one single camera without the removable back idea. Like, have a mechanism inside to retract the sensor and replace it with a pressure plate, then load the film in from the bottom like with a Leica. It'd still be bulkier (you'd have to accommodate both the film hardware and the digital hardware), but keeping them one piece solves a lot of the issues.
It'd still be more expensive than just having two cameras, though, given how cheap film camera bodies are. And you still haven't answered the "What's the point" question.
Anonymous
>>3244608 Actually, my idea was to have a thing on the lens mount to move the lens forward or backward then have the film in front of the sensor. When you load the film in, you adjust the distance of the lens to "film" setting which moves the focal plane onto the film instead of the sensor.
>What's the point I ask the same thing every time cameras and phones are made even smaller. Basically, instead of carrying two cameras, you carry 1 camera. Like the digital backs for large frame cameras, you can do several shots with digital before using your film/slate. Thus you know how to stage the film shot far better than you normally would, without taking a shot and needing to develop it.
Anonymous
>>3244608 >>3244610 Why not just get an old film body that can use your current lenses?
Sony a99ii and Minolta a7 is a freaking awesome combo.
Anonymous
>>3244616 Because that's 2 cameras.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3244618 Yeah but who cares, only fucking turbo autists still shoot 35mm film
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3244618 Carrying a second camera isn’t that much more work than a bulky film back.
Anonymous
Technically Correct !!Y42F2zb/zVh
Quoted By:
>>3244610 >Like the digital backs for large frame cameras, you can do several shots with digital before using your film/slate Except in this hypothetical, after figuring out the exact shot you wanted using the digital half, you’d switch to film mode and... be stuck there for 36 frames because theres not really a good way in that scenario to swap back to digital before you’ve used all your film.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3244517 >mongolian basket weaving forum made for chink cartoons >complains about chink cartoons shoot yourself desu
Anonymous
Thoughts about nikon coolpix A? Found one for quite an acceptable price and I'm wondering if it's worth having. I tried one years ago and remember that the af was really slow, but I could live with it if the iq is good enough, small size being the main attraction to me. I have rx100iii but I don't like it's iq and how poorly it handles.
Anonymous
I'm getting this in about 5 weeks. I can't freakin wait. This is literally the last thing I have left to gearfag over. Once I have this there's nothing else I want.
Anonymous
>>3244682 >there's nothing else I want you sure sweetie?
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3244691 W-well I guess I'll need to test the lens out somehow. It has a minimum focus distance of only 5".
Anonymous
>>3244682 >fisheye Looking forward to your dank sk8 vids, bro!
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3244695 I don't do sk8 videos and I like that it's zoomable. Right now I have a fisheye conversion which I have a lot of fun with, it's just the quality isn't that great. I can take full 180º vignetted spheres with it or zoom into it. After owning a fisheye for a few years and still loving it, I think it's time to get a piece of real glass. Still gonna keep the conversion lens though, because the sphere photos are fun.
Anonymous
>>3244682 There is always something you will want.
Also that lens is great, I have one, you will love it. Focusing ring and zoom ring has a nice dampened feel to it and the image is sharp, works well with hemisphere or cylindrical warping in photoshop. Lens profile in lightroom produces not so stellar results with rectilinearizing.
Anonymous
>>3244682 Not that comparable, but I have the Rokinon 8mm, and I never find a reason to use it.
Anonymous
>>3244705 >There is always something you will want. I guess so, but really I don't have any other lenses on the list anyway. Got an 18-55, 50-200, got a macro, and then I'll have my fisheye-wide lens. The example shots I've seen with it are really nice, I can't wait. I don't use photoshop, I generally use Aperture but I have the PTLens plugin which usually does a really nice job, guess I'll see.
Anonymous
>>3244708 >unironically likes the 50-200 I have one, there is nothing to like about it. Nobody wants it so I can't get rid of it. You will eventually want a Tamron 70-200, you will want to replace the 18-55 with a 16-85 or 16-50.
Trust me, there is no end to it.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3244710 I've had those kit lenses for 4 years now anon and honestly I'm fine with them. I rarely use the 50-200 though to be fair. Tography isn't my primarymost hobby/interest, I'm pretty much ok with stuff that's just okay.
Audio gear on the other hand... I go broke
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3244707 Looks great value, but I still like the fact the Pantax lens is zoomable. I think it just makes it that much more versatile. That Rokinon does look good though and the price is fantastic!
Anonymous
Quoted By:
I have about 200 Euro for a gift, have a fuji xt20, a tripod, enough lenses... whaththefk do i need?
Anonymous
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3244826 I always found it funny how the smaller sensor manufacturers have an inferiority complex to the the sensors that are 1 size up.
Reviewers kept criticising the GH series for shitty low light capability so they had to make a big deal out of the GH5s's low light improvements compared to APS-C.
And APS-C manufacturers have an inferiority complex to Full Frames, sending their shills into attack mode on "fool frame" constantly.
Anonymous
>>3244657 The coolpix should be worse in terms of IQ and in most other ways.
You want a a MILC or DSLR, RX1R2 (yup, not cheap - but that would be one of the compacts with notably better IQ) or RX100 V.
Maybe the G7 X II, but not mainly for IQ. More for other reasons like the handling with its bigger grip and stuff... but it's also heavier and the battery life is shorter.
Probably it's actually time to go for a good MILC or DSLR with a higher-end lens if it's about IQ, really. Those are mainly what produce the higher IQ images you see on the internet. (MF is rare, everything else doesn't really look equally good).
Anonymous
>>3244826 Only Panasonic removing IBIS from the GH5S kills anything.
Olympus, Sony, Pentax, Panasonic and so on on had good IBIS for a while now - no one who needed it was waiting for Fuji. It's just Fuji being late to the party again.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3244853 PS: That video they show is really bad - not because of IBIS, but because of IQ.
https://youtu.be/28VHgM_HdYY?t=1m45s This is an APS-C, not a phone camera. How can that video look this shit?
Anonymous
>>3244853 It was kind of hypocrite of the Fuji fanbase for a while when they claim it wasn't needed.
If anything it's their system who needed it the most, out of all systems since only 1 of their prime lenses had optic stabilisation.
Anonymous
>>3244853 The rationale for not including IBIS in GH5S is "if you're serious enough about video to spend $2k+ on a 10MP quarter frame camera, you should have a gimbal"
Technically Correct !!Y42F2zb/zVh
>>3244843 The CoolPix A is the one with an APS-C sensor, so image quality should be on par with aps-c DSLRs/MILCs and better than the compacts you listed (other than the rx1, obviously)
Anonymous
>>3244864 > image quality should be on par with aps-c DSLRs/MILCs No. Fairly shitty lens, and the sensor isn't technologically equivalent to newer MILC/DSLR or the RX100 V or such. So it's really only very marginally better in IQ than your RX100 III in most situations, if you can see anything at all.
It should have a bit less noise in low light, I remember its AF sucks balls in low light. Not that it has great AF anyhow.
Obviously the remaining capabilities also are pretty much all better on a RX100 III never mind V. There's a reason for the price tag.
A current good APS-C MILC/DSLR with a good lens will do much, much better.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3244859 Yea. Well, I hope we eventually get to the point where all cameras have good IBIS that can play well with optional in-lens stabilization.
Doesn't feel like there's any reason not to have this.
>>3244862 Very clever indeed. Might as well go "gib shekels". Well, fortunately there's currently a decent amount of competition. I hope they're forced to drop this stupidity again.
Anonymous
Why was Pentax K-1 considered the first professional camera from Pentax, being their first FF model (i.e. going beyond APS-C), when they already had multiple 645 models, which are medium format?
Technically Correct !!Y42F2zb/zVh
>>3244870 >So it's really only very marginally better in IQ than your RX100 III in most situations, if you can see anything at all. Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3244882 >when they already had multiple 645 models, which are medium format? Overpriced slow lenses? With very low selection?
That's not a very pro thing.
Anonymous
>>3244882 Because most pros shoot weddings and portraits with Canikon FF camera and FF became the quasi professional format
Anonymous
>>3244883 You have a 7/8 the same on the Sensor Overall Score, and:
> the Sensor Overall Score does not show a camera’s resolution and ability to render fine detail And now you have a camera with 20MP that is 7/8 in "quality" per pixel on the sensor and one with 16MP that is 8/7 in "quality" per pixel. You might see how this doesn't really lead to a profoundly different IQ overall.
I already mentioned the difference in low light as well.
Technically Correct !!Y42F2zb/zVh
Quoted By:
>>3244882 >Why was Pentax K-1 considered the first professional camera from Pentax Begging the question. Who considered it that? You ask that like it’s common that everyone considered it Pentax’s first pro camera, but I don’t think that’s actually the case.
Anonymous
>>3244887 And Sony now, but the point will more be that the FF cameras have better stabilized lenses, better burst rates & larger buffers, better autofocus, and can sync faster flash speeds than like 1/60.
MF cameras had and still have very serious issues in taking images unprepared on the spot, handheld or even just quickly. You don't want that for wedding or journalism or event photos whatever.
It works much better for products and landscapes and very deliberately posed shots.
Plus of course most photographers aren't rolling in cash, so there's the cost reason too.
Anonymous
>>3244892 Those do not depend on the format. You can get pin sharp, stabilized lenses for smaller formats as well, not to mention buffer rate, burst rate and AF, just look at the 7D and D300/500 line.
The main reason is Canikon made it into a quasi standard by deliberately gimping the APS-C lines and keeping them at entry/hobbyist level. Sony was just meddling with the SLT system when this was already the main trend.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3244896 addendum, just look at the APS-C line of Nikon and Canon, you'll see how sparse and hobbyist oriented it is.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3244896 > Those do not depend on the format. Except you can't buy MF or larger sensor cameras with good specs in most of them.
> not to mention buffer rate, burst rate and AF Of course that may be easier on lower resolution APS-C or whatever, but as professional you don't want BOTH lower resolution and smaller pixels anyhow. It affects reliability and results adversely.
FF is better, the only question is if you could use MF, and you can't.
Anonymous
A D40x is shite right?
Anonymous
>>3244916 No no no no noooo no. NO! That shit is worth $120 at most. D40 is such ancient pos it's not even worth having for free. Walk away.
Anonymous
>>3244926 But the lenses tho... I kinda want something other than a 50mm
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3244916 > A D40x is shite right? Ancient shit from the advertised as "fun and easy" consumer low end back then, yes.
Not that you always should pay attention to marketing, but in this case it's pretty telling.
> That a good price? Doesn't seem completely unfair. Personally I'd not buy them though. There almost certainly are focal lengths in there that you use a lot, and for that you better get nice lenses IMO.
Technically Correct !!Y42F2zb/zVh
Quoted By:
>>3244896 >The main reason is Canikon made it into a quasi standard by deliberately gimping the APS-C lines and keeping them at entry/hobbyist level. This is completely incorrect.
Nikon’s first two flagship generations, the D1 and D2 lines, were aps-c. They didn’t get full frame until the d3. The d200, d300, and d500 are also pro-level crop cameras that continue today.
Similarly, while Canon’s flagships weren’t APS-C, half of them were still (1.3x) crop cameras up until the 1Dx unified the 1d and 1ds lines. The 20/30/40/50d weren’t as feature rich as the flagships, but they were more advanced than their contemporaneous 5D and 5D Mark II brethren and certainly not “gimped” entry/hobbyist cameras. When they went down a notch with the 60D, canon also introduced the unquestionably pro-level 7D series.
You’re confusing “all low-end cameras have traditionally been crop” with “all crop cameras have traditionally been low-end”.
Technically Correct !!Y42F2zb/zVh
Quoted By:
>>3244916 It’s an acceptable price on a camera and lenses you shouldn’t want. If you really just want the lenses, you can get both of ‘em used for about $200-250 totaland not waste money on the d40x you don’t need.
Anonymous
Sup everyone. I'm the guy with the D70S photographing northern lights. Finally managed to transfer all the RAW files to my PC. I tried to edit one picture I was really satisfied with, but the exported picture has a more yellowish green to the northern lights than the source photo. I know some of the quality will be reduced when converting from RAW to PNG, but I have no idea how the colors can be THAT different.
Anonymous
>>3245014 Use jpg and sRGB profile.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3244929 there are always tons of those two types of lenses on local marketplace sites, just keep your eye out
Technically Correct !!Y42F2zb/zVh
>>3245014 There are two different color profiles (ie, mappings between a number in a jpeg file and an actual visible color on screen) that are commonly used: sRGB and Adobe RGB. Your image files all include a little piece of metadata that says whether it’s meant to be displayed in one or the other. Unfortunately, a lot of software just ignores it and shows them in sRGB regardless, which will make your colors look wrong in web browsers when they looked fine in your editor.
So like
>>3245026 said, make sure your color profile in your editing software is set to sRGB.
Anonymous
>>3244864 >image quality should be better than the compacts you listed Depends on what you're shooting. Coolpix A's lens is only f/2.8 and has no VR, which means that in low light you'll have to bump up the sensitivity higher than on e.g. RX100 III and likely lose most, of not all, of the IQ advantage from the larger sensor.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3244853 you can't shoot video walking on the sony.
>bentax >video haha
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3244889 get lx10.
f1.4 lens, more light than coolpix a.
Anonymous
>>3244123 ...the majority of which have much better (and cheaper) incarnations on previous systems. E mount is good for adapting only, native lenses are extortionate.
Anonymous
Gonna buy my first camera soon. Ive done a lot of research i think and i'm thinkibg of grabbing the Nikon D7200 used, refurbished, or new. That said what are the best sites to order from?
Anonymous
>>3245163 keh.com is really good for used stuff, don't be scared of things in "bargain" condition, they're almost always as nice as stuff listed as 'excellent' on eBay or wherever.
getting a 50 f1.8 is a good idea, it will mostly be a portrait lens for you, it's a bit of a tight frame for general shooting -- look into either a 35mm or 28mm prime for walking around.
would hold off on a telephoto until you're sure you need one if this is your first camera. to be honest i'd recommend just getting a 35 (for your low-light and bokeh whoring) and a 18-55 (versatile everyday stuff) and you'll be set while you learn.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3245180 Sweet, thanks anon. I'll check out Keh once i get the last bit of cash i need for the camera. I was considering grabbing the 18-55 kit lens but i also thought about grabbing the one that i think is 18-140mm since it gives a bit more range. What are your thoughts?
I also hadn't thought about grabbing a 35mm or a 28mm lens but i'll definitely look into it. I'll be honest when i say i'm not 100% sure what a telephoto lens is for but i was under the impression it would be good for landscape/scenery shots. I've been wanting to take some shots of the environment around me, and maybe get some photos of wildlife. How much of a zoom would i need for something like that? Thanks again.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
20mm+24-70mm tamron vs 20-35-85mm f1.8 for d750? I am doing street photography and landscape.
Anonymous
Used nikon d3300 with 18-55 AF VR kit lens as first DLSR for 290$ Asking for a friend.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3245199 yeah that's alright
Anonymous
I'm planning on getting a wide-angle zoom lens. Should I prefer one that's stabilized? Or is it not something I'll really miss at those focal lengths?
Anonymous
>>3245199 Seconding that is a good deal and a good camera and standard lens for entry-level DSLRs. Keep it dry. Buy a 55mm reverse ring with aperture adapter so you can do good macro shots with that kits lens.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3245219 >>3245199 Oh and if you do get a reverse ring, leave it on the camera body and unscrew the lens off t he ring instead of trying to use your hand to unscrew the ring off the lens. Many people have trouble trying to manually take the ring off because the grips are so thin. Using the camera body to unscrew is it a piece of cake then you simply take the ring off the camera body.
Anonymous
Anonymous
should I upgrade my eos 450d or get new glass
Anonymous
>>3245219 Filter thread is 52mm on the AF-S models.
>Nikon abandoning 52mm filters with the AFP lens REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
>>3245205 It's not as necessary, unless you want to take hand held slow exposures.
>>3245120 The Coolpix A is supposed to be a GR II competitor of some sort. And if you think a Nikon APS-C sensor at 2.8 is going to lose to a 1" at 1.8, you'd be wrong.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3245237 Depends on which will help you more. If you're satisfied with the ranges you have then go ahead and upgrade the body
Technically Correct !!Y42F2zb/zVh
>>3245237 What lenses do you have now?
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3245161 >...the majority of which have much better That lens is not high resolution across the frame.
It was designed in a different era, with practically no computational power, and no access to the special Anomalous Dispersion glass the modern Zeiss lenses use.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3245238 >Filter thread is 52mm on the AF-S models. Oh you are correct, good catch.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
in not very knowledgeable about gear
Anonymous
Left: Canon 1D Mark II with 50mm f/2 lens and iso 500
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3245238 >The Coolpix A is supposed to be a GR II competitor of some sort. It lacks the tricks like snap focus that made GR popular, and IIRC launched for a few hundred more. I don't think I've seen anyone with a Coolpix A in the wild.
>And if you think a Nikon APS-C sensor at 2.8 is going to lose to a 1" at 1.8, you'd be wrong. When the 1" sensor has a VR lens and can stay at base ISO while the APS-C sensor must go up to 1600? It is. Granted, that's a limited use case as VR doesn't help with moving objects.
Anonymous
>>3245306 One thing to keep in mind is that you are not comparing identical sensors that only vary in size.
A BSI sensror like in te a7rii or D850 will shit on almost anything. Even though they are considerably smaller, their performance matches and at some ISO settings surpasses the medium format sensor in the Fuji GFX for example.
Anonymous
>>3245310 Do you have a comparable iso 500 image from a D850 to compare with?
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3245310 What I care about would be whether or not the exposure time would be equivalent when selecting the same ISO on different cameras.
Anonymous
>>3245306 >But he says smaller sensors are not noisier in the same video. And right after that he says they are if you set them to the same ISO. You have to adjust your ISO to compensate for the difference in light gathered by the sensor. Whether or not your camera has the range to do that is a different question.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3245317 You mean light per photosite. The size of the sensor doesn't mean anything, it is the light gathered per photosite is what matters.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3245313 Wouldn’t be worth the trouble since the lighting conditions would be different.
Anonymous
>>3245026 >>3245117 thanks. Looks much better now. Should I always keep it in sRGB?
Also, is it better to save it in .jpg or should I keep it in .png to keep all as many details?
Anonymous
>>3245323 I would set the white balance a bit cooler still to remove the remaining yellow cast from the aurora.
Anonymous
>>3245326 Yeah, after looking at other pics on google, I saw they made the photos cooler and therefore a little bit more bluish. I did it with the following pic.
But should I save it all to jpg or png?
Anonymous
>>3245338 png was made for more simple vectorized graphics, not ideal for photographic images. Definitely save to jpeg, but when you want to re-edit, just adjust the RAW and export again. Set the jpeg quality to around 80%, there is no real difference above that.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3245338 >>3245339 >Set the jpeg quality to around 80% I would disagree with this.
From Jpeg 100 to Jpeg 99 is where you get the most file size reduction while retaining the most image quality.
Down to Jpeg 98 is another huge chunk usually.
But from 97 down to 92 is usually linear reduction in image quality and file size reduction.
I would personally never go below 90, because that's MSpaint territory with all sorts of crappy jpeg compression artifacts.
My rules of thumb is:
99-98 for best size/quality compromise.
97-92 is you are for whatever reason desperate for disc space.
>png was made for more simple vectorized graphics, not ideal for photographic images This one is super correct though.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3245242 ef 50mm f1.8
28-80mm USM IV
Anonymous
Any questions I should ask the seller when buying used on ebay and the like?
Anonymous
Dayum. New f/2.8 lineup.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3245377 Buying a camera+lens kit, by the way.
Anonymous
>>3245378 Tamarin actually made one of first third party zooms for e-mount back when it was still NEX.
But yea, this is their first fullframe lens.
Anonymous
>>3245388 The barrel is significantly smaller than the Sony GM. So I'm guessing it will vignette a little bit.
Or maybe not at all.
The wide angle reduction from 24mm to 28mm must have paid huge dividends and mad it this small and short.
It's really interesting to see them try out new things than the same 24-70 which everybody is memeing.
Anonymous
Beginner here. How do I get into film cameras and working with film?
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3245422 >Is working with film obsolete when digital exists? pretty much yes
Technically Correct !!Y42F2zb/zVh
>>3245422 >Is working with film obsolete when digital exists? This is more of a philosophical question than a technical one.
Photography is an artistic medium. If a particular artist prefers working with film, prefers the look they get with film, prefers the cameras he can use with film, etc, then it makes perfect sense for them to use film. Saying that film is obsolete because digital exists is like saying that painting is obsolete because photography exists.
That being said, there is not a pure technical reason (eg, resolution, sharpness, etc) to choose film over digital in most cases. There are a few edge cases—eg, if you need ridiculous high resolution, large format film will beat digital for a very long time to come; if you need to make an exposure long enough to be measured in hours or days, film doesn’t need to run a battery through the whole thing; there are some low-speed black and white films that still beat digital for resolution even in 35mm—but these are few and far between. But sometimes it’s fun to play around with cameras more interesting than the DSLRs and mirrorless bodies that digital has these days, and sometimes you want to get that film look without reproducing it in post, and those are entirely valid reasons to shoot film.
Technically Correct !!Y42F2zb/zVh
Quoted By:
>>3245422 Oh, and in answer to your main question:
>How do I get into film cameras and working with film? Go to a thrift store and buy a film SLR. Buy some film for it. Take pictures with it. Develop that film.
Several of these steps will likely turn out to be more complex than you expect. Cross those bridges when you come to them. Feel free to come ask us if you need any more help, but also probably you should leave /p/ and never come back because this place is awful and toxic. Good luck!
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3245393 The GM is a little bit overkill to begin with. Could certainly sacrifice some size for quality and still be a good lens.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3245438 The resolution of budget 135 film is still pretty respectable.
Wouldn’t worry about your shots going to waste because they are on film or anything.
Anonymous
Does anyone know why the Tamron lenses have that milky white glass?
Anonymous
>>3245482 >milky white glass eeeeee wut?
Anonymous
>>3245485 You can see the soft white colour on the glass.
Anonymous
Fuck /p/ros, I went to B&H yesterday to try the X100F... I'm super fucking disappointed. Thought it could be my new camera, but there's too much to dislike.
Anonymous
>>3245517 >pray for a GRIII Pentax and GR is dead. X100 is the future.
You will have better luck waiting for the X100F's successor.
Anonymous
>>3245517 Did you try the Coolpix A yet?
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3245521 Sure seems that way. I'm hoping it's not true.
>>3245522 No, it's discontinued, plus it's like the exact same sensor configuration as the GR. Similar to a Fuji X70 too. Friend of mine has that one and likes it. I like the GR's retractable lens, it's the smallest of the three.
Anonymous
>>3245378 28mm? What is this, 2002? Looks small at least, and lack of 24mm won't bother some people.
>>3245489 What colour is your lens in a softbox when viewed at an extreme angle? Perhaps the color of the softbox reflected in the front element?
Anonymous
>>3245517 >though the lens even without a hood intrudes on the lower right quarter of it. The mirror/prism is misaligned.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3245528 Could be, it was from the Fuji rep's table, so maybe somebody banged it around during a demo.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3245525 >Looks small at least, and lack of 24mm won't bother some people. Pretty much. I think Tamron will price it very competitively as well.
So it will be a great contender vs the 24-105G for beginners.
Anonymous
I don't know what camera to buy anymore.
Anonymous
Anonymous
How big of a print can I have made and still have it look good when viewed from 1-2m? Photo taken with a canon 80D.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3245612 Your only hope is to buy an a7riii and use pixel shift
Anonymous
>>3245612 Rent a digi 'blad, my man.
Anonymous
Anonymous
>>3245623 Too expensive by about 1500$.
Anonymous
>>3245620 That would be fun, but since I already have the picture and it’s not really a billboard that I’m after I’m gonna have to say no.
Even if it looks a little rough my mum will still love it. She prints my snapshits from FB/IG on her inkjet and hang em on the fridge. The main crowd I’m trying to please are her neighbors that doesn’t seem to have the same rose-tinted glasses my mum does.
Anonymous
>>3245628 >tfw my mom criticizes everything I do and is never happy with anything >tfw my mom is /p/ Technically Correct !!Y42F2zb/zVh
>>3245628 I’ve printed 5MP shots to 16x20 (about a2) and they looked perfectly fine. You can probably print A2 or A1 with no issue.
Technically Correct !!Y42F2zb/zVh
Anonymous
>>3245635 I'm not made of money grandpa
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3245631 Thanks for helping. will probably go with A1 then
>>3245629 My dad is like that, but I think that’s only because he’s a projecting alcoholic ass.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
Is there a site to search for pouches by giving inner dimensions?
Technically Correct !!Y42F2zb/zVh
>>3245644 GO HEAVILY INTO DEBT AND BUY THEM ALL. CAPITALISM COMPELS YOU!
Anonymous
>>3245663 I'm going to spend all the money I've saved up on an a7riii and then not have any money left for good lenses is that good enough for you uncle sam
Anonymous
>>3245673 Dude using old shitty vintage lenses is why you buy the A7RIII. $3.5k camera + $50 eBay lens = magic.
Anonymous
>>3245705 It just doesn't seem right to buy a $3000 camera just to put $50 lenses on it. Plus muh autofocus
But that's honestly what I'll probably end up doing anyways
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3245706 Well if you want to spend some serious cash, go for a Canon 50mm f/.95 The Dream lens. Find the weirdest most exotic shit. A Cosina/Voigtlander 12mm.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3245612 Cut a section from a picture and print it on A4 first to see how it looks?
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3245612 Rule of thumb: 300 DPI images will hold up well when inspected closely, but you could go all the way down to 200-250 DPI for images viewed from over a meter away.
The question is how much it'd cost to print.
Anonymous
>>3244708 Oh bless, I was like you once.
"I'll be happy with the kit lens"
"I'll be happy with this cheap A 50/1.7"
"I'll be happy with this cheap 70-300"
"I'll be happy with this 28mm Vivitar"
"I'll be happy with this 10-20mm"
"I'll be happy with this 50mm AF"
"I'll be happy with this 35mm Ltd"
"I'll be happy with this 300mm DA*"
"I'll be happy with this 15mm Ltd"
"I'll be happy with this 70mm Ltd"
Just a warning, it never stops. LBA is a serious problem (to your bank balance). And that's before you get into travel lens, tripods, straps, speedlights, studio gear, bags, models, filters, IR conversions.
Technically Correct !!Y42F2zb/zVh
>>3245705 >$3.5k camera + $50 eBay lens = magic. Try thrift stores. That $50 eBay lens can probably be had for $5 at a thrift store with some sort of camera attached to it.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3245323 >Should I always keep it in sRGB? It's the most widespread gamut. Some printers use others but if you're not printing it doesn't matter. If your monitor isn't calibrated, it makes little difference anyway. What it looks like to you on your screen will be different to someone else on their screen - unless they're all calibrated identically. I'd guess that 99.9% of all monitors aren't calibrated because most people don't care. It's more important for print media or professional sales because you need your pictures to look identical to how you editted them.
I'm sure you knew all that, but there will be some that don't
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3245482 That's a reflection/stylistic choice
They don't have a milky front element. I'm shocked anyone would think that - thank you surprising me.
Anonymous
>>3245793 >>3245705 Which lenses do you guys recommend then?
Anonymous
>>3245802 Seriously, I'd recommend getting a worse body and good lenses. Older bodies are 80-95% as good as the most recent ones
Lenses are for keeping, bodies are for changing
Anonymous
>>3245804 Okay well either way what vintage lenses are recommended? I still want to get a mirrorless and a7iis are cheap so that's still an option. Regardless of which I get I want to try out old glass on it. Stuff I shoot doesn't really move anyways
Technically Correct !!Y42F2zb/zVh
>>3245802 Personally, I recommend just picking up whatever you come across. It's more exciting that way. Never know what you're gonna get.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3245806 That does sound kinda fun desu.
Anonymous
>>3245802 >>3245805 I'm not sure on Sony lenses. The best people to ask are on the Sony camera forums. There'll be a long list of them probably!
If it's anything like the Pentax forums, there'll be a ratings and review system. It's best to start off with your kit lens and learn how the camera works first anyway. You might be happy with just that, and then develop into other lenses - photography is a journey of learning, about composition, exposure and yourself.
Anonymous
>>3245816 I'm not new to photography, just don't know about film camera lenses and stuff cause I always shot digital. I'll check out the forums though thank
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3245831 Ah okay, thought you were new. Forums are really useful. I went Pentax based partly on the forum and the fact that all lenses since the 60s fit the thing and I knew I had some old ones sitting around from the 80s. Made for an easier barrier of entry.
Probably not the "best" camera system, and there's lots of critics, but I'm pretty happy having weather resistance when I go out into the desert. It's all subjective anyway - my most liked picture on Flickr was taken on a cheap P&S 10 years ago and only edited last week. It happened to get into Explore and away it went.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3245792 I appreciate your concern m80 but I'm not a serious tographer. My money gets burned on audio recording gear. Photography for me is for fun and capturing memories, not so much art, display, or profit. I just don't get gearfaggy about it like I do with audio gear.
Anonymous
Anonymous
>>3245517 >Just give me a rangefinder with 28/35/50 lines, M mount, and a decent FF sensor. Just buy a used M9. Given the minuscule size of the RF market, even if another company makes a digital rangefinder, it's not likely going to cost less.
Anonymous
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3244682 >Once I have this there's nothing else I want. You actually thought you could get off this ride?
Anonymous
>>3246126 Anon, the XH1 is too expensive by 1500$, it's 1800$, that meant my budget is 300$.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3245914 if cosina decided to make another digital bessa it'd probably still be cheaper than a leica digital
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3246159 Used panasonic LX100
