Last one:
>>3247743 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
OP should be Sony from now on
Anonymous
Anonymous
>>3249575 With the new a7iii Sony has won cameras.
Anonymous
>>3249584 its still made like trash, the issue wasn't features, it was build quality with sony.
does sony even do lossless raw yet?
Anonymous
Quoted By:
Fuji gear thread:
>>3248680 Sony gear thread:
>>3249413 Use these threads to discuss these brands without the Pentaxian toxicity of the garbage containment thread (this one).
Anonymous
Will mirrorless eventually kill DSLR in the future or will they both coexist in the distant future?
Anonymous
Also what’s the point of a viewfinder on a mirrorless considering you can just look at the screen instead?
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3249645 Depends on many things. I see potential in Lumix, Oly and Fuji because they produce good quality builds with good features and possibly good improvements still in the future.
Right now DSLRs coexist with MILC because ther are many uses where a mirrorless is not as good or not as productive as with a DSLR.
>>3249647 Stabilizing hold with both arms and your face giving a 3-point firm hold. A two point hold with looking on the screen is nowhere near as stable if it is stable at all.
Anonymous
It's good to know that Canon still manages to produce high quality entry level gear.
Anonymous
>>3249658 You can almost hear the plastic crack by looking at the picture.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3249647 If you've ever shot more than two pictures in your life you know why.
protip: the entire point of existance of reflex cameras is that they have an optical viewfinder, and their name derives from the reflex mirror used to achieve that. So that's how fucking important it is: it's vital, it's more important that how good the sensor is, how fast the AF is, everything.
Having a great camera doesn't matter if you cannot see the photo you're taking.
Anonymous
>>3249661 I unironically think it will be a hit amongst the tethered microscope and astrophoto users. For them the camera is just a tool, they only need the sensor and electronics so this package will be ideal.
Technically Correct !!Y42F2zb/zVh
Quoted By:
>>3249658 >This will make them stop losing sales to the second hand market for sure! You say that sarcastically, but yeah, that's what it'll do. The majority of DSLR buyers:
1. Buy the cheapest camera they can get
2. Aren't aware of how cheap the cameras on the used market are
3. Don't look at specs beyond megapickels ("18 is kind of low... But look at that price! Hopefully it's still enough megapixels for my Facebook profile picture.")
4. Never take off the kit lens, so a plastic mount is not a big deal.
Just the fact that it looks more "real camera"ish is going to make it sell more than a much-higher-spec Sony.
Anonymous
I'm looking to get a wide angle lens for buildings and landscape shots, any recommendations? Preferably not too expensive
Anonymous
>>3249658 >plastic mount Christ, I have a hard enough time with my shitty plastic mounts on the kit lenses I have. I can't imagine plastic mounts on the fucking body. I'd take gear as heavy as lead so long as it is durable as fuck. I'm so sick to shit of plastic ruining every god damn thing. I don'g give a shit if it is some Kevlar carbon nano tube graphene magic plastic, "alloy", fuck it.
Anonymous
>>3249658 who do you think will buy this shit? Soccer moms and 14 year old who beg their parents to buy them a DSLR so they can become the next Logan Paul/whatever else is popular on JewTube Right now
Anonymous
>>3249700 No flippy screen so no vloggers will buy it. They will get the M50 and stick on a 10-20 or similar lens so they can shoot in 4k to downsample to 720p and have YT compression wreck the image
Anonymous
>>3249709 >tfw I use a mirror taped to a second tripod so see the lcd when doing stuff with the IR remote in front of the camera and have it in front of the camera to reflect the IR when doing stuff behind the camera a long ways off to reduce floor vibrations. A flip screen and IR receivers that get 720 degrees of coverage would be really nice. But, the entry level range of my D3400 just doesn't include that stuff.
Anonymous
>>3249715 I bet someone recommended getting a used D7100 or a D7000 but you didn’t listen
Anonymous
I have about $1000 dollars to spend and I want to get back into photography.
Anonymous
Where are the Nikon F-mount versions of this? I can't seem to find anything online at all. I was actually going to DIY one before I found this thing existing.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00LJRD8PW/ Anonymous
>>3249727 Couldn't afford it.
Anonymous
>>3249765 >used D7000 >can't afford it >can afford new D3400 kit I don't believe you
Technically Correct !!Y42F2zb/zVh
Quoted By:
>>3249755 For $1000, you can get the canon 5D Mark II, which is a much nicer camera than the original 5D, plus the canon 50/1.4. The EF 50/1.4 isn’t as high-end as the Sigma, but it’s likely basically indistinguishable when shooting anything other than a test chart costs about a third of the sigma.
Anonymous
>>3249763 Focusing doesn't work the same at macro distances. It doesn't focus, only changes the already low macro ratio. In macro you focus by moving the entire camera or the subject, this is why there are cheap things called "macro rails" for sale on ebay and amazon.
Anonymous
>>3249715 Doesn't the D3400 have wifi? You could use qdslrdashboard. Or alternatively:
https://petapixel.com/2016/07/14/wirelessly-control-dslr-less-40/ Anonymous
>>3249779 Or get a Flucard or EyeFi card. Better than any first party attempt at WiFi, especially the battery eater slowshit that Nikon snapbridge is.
Anonymous
I went for a walk today and saw a guy who turned it on (?), left it and sat at the side. Is this some 360° video/VR camera?
Anonymous
Anonymous
>>3249697 You have to be a special kind of autist to wear out ABS-grade plastic.
Anonymous
>>3249806 Most remotely better lenses have metal mounts. Metal wears out plastic, no matter what kind of plastic.
Technically Correct !!Y42F2zb/zVh
>>3249816 This camera is marketed at a never-changes-lenses segment of the population. It shouldn’t be a big deal.
Also: it’s not the first Canon body with a plastic mount, and I’ve never heard any actual data saying that they wore out faster. There’s a very good chance that “plastic mounts wear down easily” is a myth. Ditto for plastic mounts breaking off more easily—lots of canon lenses and bodies actually have metal mounts attached to plastic support structures, so if the plastic were prone to breaking, there’s a bunch of potential points of failure other than the mount itself.
https://petapixel.com/2014/01/03/metal-mounts-really-better-plastic-lens-rentals-investigates/ Anonymous
>>3249772 I only buy camera bodies from the manufacturer. I bought a D3400 2-lens kit. At the time there was a sale on them. Good thing I bought it from Nikon because I've had to send it in 2 times now for repairing the aperture arm. I thought it was going to be a 3rd time, but a little jiggling of the arm seems to have completely fixed it this time around.
>>3249775 I have every macro piece of gear there is except for a powered focus ring. The lens' focus ring won't work unless it is powered. There are times when you can't use the rail or bellows to focus because it moves too much. The DOF is just too razor thin at F/8 and 10:1 to 20:1. Even moving the subject is disastrous when focus stacking. Having the lens powered may also help with vibrations since that is a huge problem and the lens has an anti-vibration feature on it. I'll probably end up making my own version from some AF extension tubes so I can use ultra long tubes and bellows.
>>3249779 >>3249785 It uses blutooth only and doesn't support control over the camera. It is only for transfer of files.
>>3249806 >>3249830 Plastic wears out or cracks very easily when it is as thin as it is for hooking into the flange. Every time it gets shoved into the flange ring it puts pressure and torque on the plastic reducing its life due to flexing up the flange like it is a hinge. There's a set number of times you can put the lens on and off before it breaks, no matter how careful you are. This is because the tolerances are so close. The top thing to break on those lenses are the plastic mounts. Thankfully, it isn't too difficult to replace if the warranty is up or they won't cover it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOF67_IVY4o Granted the plastic on Nikkor lenses is better than that of cheap 3rd party parts from amazon. Like those on all plastic extension tubes. Metal flanges mounted on plastic have the same stresses, but the metal takes it, the plastic under it doesn't feel it.
Anonymous
This is my first ever camera I plan on buying. Yes, refurbished.
Anonymous
Anonymous
Crop sensor lens general post here
Anonymous
Do m43 cameras have a future?
Technically Correct !!Y42F2zb/zVh
>>3249856 >Plastic wears out or cracks very easily when it is as thin as it is for hooking into the flange. You can’t say this about “plastic” since there are so many different types out there.
Even so, the question is more if it will be an actual issue in practice. If it wears down, but only starts to become an issue after 8.5 million lens swaps, that’s not really a big deal. Any time camera like the old rebel G come up, people talk about how its plastic mount is such a huge downside... but I’m unable to find any evidence that there has ever been any actual problem with them. Like, not even anecdotal evidence. Google searches show me there’s people talking about how the mount on their cheap lens broke, but not the mount on the camera.
Granted this isn’t super scientific, but generally if something’s a real issue, there’s a lot of chatter on the internet about it.
Technically Correct !!Y42F2zb/zVh
>>3249870 >Do m43 cameras have a future? Olympus is currently the #1 selling mirrorless camera brand, so probably yeah.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3249871 Often times you can buy a box of lenses with broken plastic mounts from camera repair shops. Usually, the people who do that tool their own replacements from metal stock.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3249870 no, makes no sense to buy for m4/3 when Sony literally throws free full frame sensors around.
Anonymous
>>3249856 >Plastic wears out or cracks very easily I guess that explains why bulletproof vests and even guns are made out of "plastic" these days. Oh, wait. It doesn't.
Anonymous
>>3249859 >only one reason >not a hundred reasons No top LCD.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3249907 None of which is good for a critical stress point and it stressed continually over time.
Anonymous
Problem with plastic mounts is that one half of it is going to be metal. And metal is harder than plastic, so any contact will shave off a bit of plastic, maybe an imperceptible amount, but it will. In the long run it will break, but the worst part is that you're dropping plastic shavings on your sensor, which is... yeah.
>>3249658 This sort of extreme cost cutting is so fucking atrocious, and they'll still sell these because THEY LOOK LIKE BIG CAMERA I AM PRO! *gorilla noises* - while all Canon has to do is to kill the reflex Rebel range, just kill it, pull the mirrors off and put an EVF in its place. DONE. Keep the same mount, just fucking put an EVF on them to save money.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3249683 >astrophoto users. For them the camera is just a tool, they only need the sensor and electronics so this package will be ideal. yeah no, they'll just get a real cooled cmos instead of this pattern noise riddled piece of garbage
Technically Correct !!Y42F2zb/zVh
Quoted By:
>>3249945 >Problem with plastic mounts is that one half of it is going to be metal. Lots of lenses have a plastic mount and every canon DSLR up until this point has had a metal mount. It hasn’t been a problem. It will likely continue to not be a problem.
Anonymous
is there a rule of thumb on howmuch i should spend on filters?
Anonymous
Anonymous
Quoted By:
Nikon fanbase is in a meltdown over Sigma.
Anonymous
>>3249945 >Problem with plastic mounts is that one half of it is going to be metal. And metal is harder than plastic, so any contact will shave off a bit of plastic, maybe an imperceptible amount, but it will. There are pistols that have completely plastic frames, and the metal slide reciprocates at extremely high velocities against the plastic frame rails, yet these guns don't degrade perceptibly after 10,000's of rounds. The Ruger P95 is such a handgun, for example. It's possible to make polymers that are extremely hard and abrasion resistant these days.
Most consumers use a plastic smartphone that's strong enough for them to sit on it without the frame deforming, but they still think that their plastic lens is going to inevitably crack when exposed to the sun for too long. Your information is way out of date.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3249979 No, there is not an arbitrary rule of thumb like that.
Anonymous
>>3249994 >>3249907 That's not even the same plastic that is in your chinkshit camera, kid.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3250001 How do you know? Where is your source?
Anonymous
>>3249908 Like, seriously?
Anonymous
>>3249856 >Metal flanges mounted on plastic have the same stresses, but the metal takes it, the plastic under it doesn't feel it. So you say a plastic kit lens on a metal camera mount is better than vice versa?
Anonymous
>>3250011 Yes, seriously. Although it's possible to check your settings in the viewfinder or on the rear LCD, the top LCD is a helpful way to see, at a glance, whether you accidentally left exposure compensation on +3, your WB set to tungsten, or some other setting which could ruin your first few photos in a session. Most people also like to occasionally change settings in anticipation of a shot, which you can do without bringing the camera up to your eye or using the battery-draining rear LCD.
There are lots of other reasons not to get a Rebel as well, but you only asked for one.
Anonymous
>>3249870 I'm not optimistical about it. I have a m43 setup and I'm slowly moving towards FF. The difference between an E mount system and a M43 one is not a large one, as it was between M43 and say... canikon. They have also gone off the rails with the prices of a some of their lens.
I found staying into the system hard to justify.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3250030 I meant price-wise difference. I just realized I didn't specify that.
Anonymous
>>3250011 this man here
>>3250020 is retarded and most likely anthropormophising photo cameras to the point of hating or loving them as if they were actual people. Probably unresolved social issues, self-worth, or both. Goes without saying that you should never listen to people like him. Obsessively hating and sperging over a camera manufacturer (or conversely loving another exclusively) are telltale signs that something's wrong. Especially when said cameras (usually top manufacturers) are bought by a diverse enough group of people, from all walks of photography, whose output spans across all aesthetics known to man-kind.
Sure, when you develop your style and know what you want, you'll be able to figure out that some cameras will aid your specific work better than others - this is not the case for the majority of people on /p/. But for now, being that you're at the beginning of your journey the rebel t6 will do just fine. Even with the kit lens, but if I were you I'd only get a body with a low mileage on it and swap the kit lens for a sigma 17-50mm f2.8 or two primes like a nifty fifty (50mm f1.8) and another wider prime like the sigma 28 1.8. But get whatever and learn to compose and expose first.
Anonymous
Used Sony a5000 for 250$ vs Used Nikon d3300 for $325 as first "serious" camera?
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3250014 •Metal to metal is best. Wear over time is minimal. Some metals are better than others of course.
•Body metal to plastic lens is 2nd best, because it the lens falls off, because of the metal eating into it at the very least, you at least have the body and can use another lens.
•Body plastic to plastic lens is 3rd, because at least they will wear each other out at the same time and which one breaks for any reason first will be odds of 50/50.
•Body plastic to metal lens is 4th because the metal of the lens will eat away at the plastic mount. If the lens falls off, it means all the lenses will fall off since the plastic mount is broke.
Barring dropping something, the main problem is the friction of putting the lens on.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3250098 d3300 obviously. Since you're considering it, I'm taking that you're not bothered with size difference. Besides controls are a mile better. 5000 shoots just as well, but you seriously need to set up everything before hand to get anything decent out of it, and you need to have knowledge to do that.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
Since we are talking plastic mounts vs metal mounts, I decided to take pics of the mounts of most of my lenses. I have more, but they are all metal and show little to no wear at all, mostly just black mars from plastic rear lens caps. One plastic one, I rarely use, doesn't have any wear and isn't pictured. Those in the photos are the ones showing real wear and the most used lenses. The top one fairs the best for the plastics ones, but the top of the first flange is wearing down, though the image is a bit blurry. All the front edges of the flanges are nearly worn round. The 3 other lenses' mounts are worn and/or snapped off due to torsion pressures from not being perfectly the right size to slide into the camera body mount. Over time that snaps them off. Some lenses show gouge marks on the flat section below the flanges. That mark comes from a little metal pin button, on the camera body, that the lens presses when it is put on the camera body. Why its edges are not rounded I'll never know. The bottom lens' metal mounts were pretty much wear free. I decided to test the metal flange by using a knife to scrap at it. It took quite a bit of pressure to peel up that much metal. I feel confident it will never wear or break from normal use, unlike everything else that's plastic.
Technically Correct !!Y42F2zb/zVh
>>3250098 A5000. It’s cheaper.
For your first camera, you’re either going to end up hating photography and put it down and never pick it up again, in which case you’re going to want to have wasted the least amount on that first cam, or you’re going to love it and want to upgrade to something better, in which case you’re going to want to have wasted the least amount of money on that first cam. Either way, cheap is the way to go.
Added bonus, the 5x00 series is fractionally nicer than the 3x00 line.
Anonymous
>>3250107 I know I like photography, I took a class for my last 2 years of highschool and now that I'm out I find myself missing it quite a lot. I'll probably just stick with the Nikon because that's what I'm used to, as we used Nikon D5000s. I just don't want to buy new because 1. I'm a poor uni student and 2. I know I'll like it, but I don't know if it will become a major hobby for me, but I'm comfortable with spending up to $350.
Anonymous
Is the G85 going to be good enough for me for Instagram and Facebook content?
Technically Correct !!Y42F2zb/zVh
Quoted By:
>>3250121 Oh, I thought you meant Nikon d5000 not Sony a5000. Somehow even managed to write “a5000” without it penetrating my brain.
It doesn’t actually change my recommendation though.
Technically Correct !!Y42F2zb/zVh
>>3250123 Far more than good enough. So much better than you need for Instagram and Facebook that I’m 95% sure you’re trolling.
Anonymous
redpill me on older lenses on a d7100?
Anonymous
Anonymous
Quoted By:
I've got a Tamron AF Aspherical XR LD [IF] 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 Macro lens. The one without the Di designation. It's decent.
I've also owned one of the older versions of this lens, the Tamron AF 28-300mm F/3.5-6.3 LD Aspherical (IF). It felt a little better constructed, but I don't think it was as sharp as the one I have now. And it was heavier.
But now I see this one on ebay:
https://www.ebay.com/itm/Near-Mint-Tamron-AF-28-300mm-f-3-5-6-3-LD-Macro-Lens-for-Canon-EF-From-Japan/162911845568?hash=item25ee4d7cc0:g:PoYAAOSwoLpajRlu Tamron AF 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 LD Macro
It's silver, and it looks like it has metal flanges instead of the plastic I had on the other two. Is this an even older version of the lens? I can't really tell from the photos but it looks like the whole lens might be metal.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3250034 >hey guys, give me a reason why not to get a rebel >the rebel doesn't have a top LCD, which is a useful feature and since you asked for clarification, here's a list of reasons why it's useful >"YOU ARE ANTHROPOMORPHIZING CAMERAS YOU SICKO!!" What the hell is wrong with you, dude?
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3250137 Not trolling, I'm just totally new to this stuff. For lenses can you explain what the difference will be between the 12-60 kit lens and also the 25 f1.7 lens? I want something to give me a lot of blur around the subject, but also something to work well in low light.
Anonymous
SO I was looking at getting my first Interchangeable Lens Camera. I was looking at the A5100 as I absolutely love the size of it and the flip up screen.
Anonymous
I've got some nice DSLR's that do their job well but I'm apprehensive to take them with me sometimes just because of the weight so I was looking for a mirrorless or some other kind of compact. I was considering either something Fuji or one of Sony's offerings. I'm in college so I'm not looking to spend too much, I'm more then likely going to get something used. Somewhere around $200-400
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3250185 A6300 or go for the Panasonic Lumix line if you want 4k video recording
Anonymous
Anonymous
Can you buy a sticker for your lens so it will show the correct focal length when multiplied by the crop factor? I'm getting tired of having to calculate what focal length is equivalent to what on zoom lenses.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3250235 So memorize it, retard. The 25-35mm range is considered a normal FOV, with 27mm being true normal, as the human eye perceives it. Below that is wide and above that is telephoto. It isn't difficult to do, same as learning metric or military time.
Anonymous
>>3249590 bump, genuinely interested. Does the A7s do lossless RAW?
Anonymous
>>3250185 The a5000 line is due for an update, rumor has it something is in the pipeline, but there is nothing concrete.
The current best crop e-mount body are the a6300 or a6500. Both are considerably more expensive, but they are also some of the best crop bodies on the market at this date. a6000 is also an option, but I don’t think it has 4k.
Anonymous
>>3250243 None of the Sonys do lossless RAW. Get a proper camera instead.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3250199 a6000 is really your only option at that point.
Anonymous
>>3250244 What would you say about the G85 vs the a6500? Here the G85 is $1150 with the 12-60mm kit lens, a6500 is $1750 with the 16-50mm kit lens. Also, the GH5 body is $2200, if I was to look at the a6500 I'd naturally look at the GH5 as well, but I'd still need to spend at least $250 more for a lens bringing that to $2500. So, $1150 vs $2500, G85, a6500, or GH5? Which would you go for for shooting video, and lots of social media content (Instagram, Facebook, YouTube)?
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3250199 Save your pocket money for something good. This isn't a poorfag kid hobby.
Anonymous
>>3250243 a7 series has uncompressed raw, or lost compressed. There is very little difference between the two. I haven’t seen a comparison that shows a major difference to date.
Anonymous
>>3250249 If you are doing LOTS of video, I’d say go with the g85. It is a little less capable in low light than the a6500, but it is cheaper and just as capable when it comes to video.
If you ever intend to do photography too, go with the a6500. It is much more capable as a camera.
Anonymous
>>3250249 Panasonic is a better option for YouTube and social media content. Sony can't match them for 4K video at the moment at a reasonable price range. Panasonic camera bodies are also absurdly cheap on eBay when you look at the used market so it's a good way into the M43 4K system, even with a slightly older body.
Anonymous
>>3250255 Can you tell me a few reasons why the a6500 is better? A noob at this so I don't know the real differences. I do want to do photography, and also low light shooting for sure, didn't realize there was a difference in their low light performances.
>>3250259 The eBay route isn't an option for me in Canada because they all want you to pay import fees and that defeats the purpose of saving money shopping through eBay for a used system, since the import fees end up being whatever I would save.
>Example of something I want to video at night but also photograph. Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3250262 Fuck didn't upload the example.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3250262 In general, a larger sensor means better low light performance.
It won’t be too big of a difference between the g85 and a6500, but if it is something very important to you, it is worth keeping in mind.
Anonymous
>>3250253 but not lossless compressed? that’s a major shame, that’s the least they could’ve done for having a shit build. There were many complaints on lost stars for astro and crappy detail and banding on skin. I’m surprised you hadn’t heard, it was a major issue. Maybe sony just paid websites off to not mention it any longer, under the table of course.
>>3250246 is that honestly true? why tf would anyone use sony?
Anonymous
>>3250285 I can just imagine you gently caressing your 2.6x crop 4k camera and tenderly removing lenses from their plastic mount while you continue to shitpost about Sony
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3250290 I don’t know why you hav a fantasy for anons on 4chan with micro4turds cameras, but i have a 10 year old canikon camera that’s made and still making me a lot of money, enough to live a carefree life and shitpost on /p/ at least :^)
Anonymous
>>3250285 >lost stars, crappy detail, and branding They have updated since then, isn’t technically lossless, but no one has been able to point out extensive flaws like that anymore.
Anonymous
>>3250300 there we go, some good news.
Anonymous
>>3250306 Yea when the a7 launched it was pretty bad. They didn’t even have uncompressed at one point.
Honestly, Sony really needs to get off their ass and release a properly weather sealed body. None of this “major buttons sealed” shit like they did with the a7riii.
I suspect they might hold off on the pro features for the a9 line though. Kind of like Minolta did in the old days.
Anonymous
Anonymous
>>3250307 >Sony really needs to get off their ass and release a properly weather sealed body. Well to be honest most bodies are weather sealed enough just by being tightly assembled. My 450d took rain and snow with never a single issue, it's still going strong today.
Weathersealing is overrated, until it isn't - like, when you actually wade through rivers and shit daily with 99% humidity and dust all the time, but then you don't want a mirrorless camera really.
Anonymous
Any pantecks users used this? I don't have any WR-lenses and this seems like a nice body cap to own.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3250339 Yeah, but Sony isn't even that. Non proofed Olympuses and Canons do without problems in slight rain, Sony's will break on slight moisture.
Anonymous
>>3250339 >Weathersealing is overrated, until it isn't - like, when you actually wade through rivers and shit daily with 99% humidity and dust all the time, but then you don't want a mirrorless camera really. So, anything outside a studio then.
Anonymous
>>3250392 snapshits of people's backs isn't wading through a river
Anonymous
So I bought a cheap Canon EOS 1000D, it came with two lenses. One's a Pentax-DA 1:3.5-5.6 18-55mm AL with an adapter, and the camera can't seem to connect to it to control the aperture area. Is it just how this lens works or do I need to find a different adapter?
Anonymous
>>3250392 As I told you, my 450d handled rain and snow well - never a single issue and it's a very cheap plastic reflex. If you go one day out and your camera gets some rain and dust on, then you go home and wipe it, you won't have problems.
If you're in India photographing street shitters in the jungle and your camera is always going to be exposed to mud, dust, rain, shit, etc. then you really want weathersealing.
Anonymous
>>3250411 Holy crap a Canon with a Pentax kit lens? That's some frankenstein shit.
Going off my memory here, but doesn't K-Mount have an aperture lever that has to be mechanically operated? That won't do on Canon, EF is fully electric.
Anonymous
>>3250415 Ah you're absolutely right, there's a small lever that controls the aperture.
Do you think I should just resell it and buy another lens, an EF by Canon? Or would the 28-80 be enough for a start?
Anonymous
>>3250418 >Do you think I should just resell it and buy another lens Absolutely
>Or would the 28-80 be enough for a start? It is enough to understand how to take pictures, but your camera has a crop sensor, so you must multiply those focal lenghts by 1.6x, and that lens ends up being a 45-128 lens... so pretty much normal to medium tele, no wide angle, it's also a VERY old and cheap lens so it will have mediocre results at best.
You should definitely try to sell the pentax (might be impossible though, and not for any decen amount of money too, it's just a kit lens) AND sell the canon (might be slightly easier just because there's more people with Canon gear around) to try and get a Canon 18-55 STM, the latest iteration of Canon's kit lenses, which is quite a sharp and generally good lens, if not very bright, but it will be the lens you want to get around at first.
I'd suggest a prime (fixed) lens too, but first you need to try some different focal lenghts for yourself.
Anonymous
>>3250413 >As I told you I'm a different anon. I use a bag over my camera to prevent snow and rain from getting on it. Only the front lens element gets anything on it. I use as large/long a lens hood as possible, but some shots are sometimes upward so they can still get water on them. I have to bag the camera and lens when I go indoors in winter to prevent condensation. I would never not do these things unless I had a Pentax or similarly well weatherized camera and lenses. The last thing I need is to send a camera in only to have them refuse free repair on warranty because of, "water damage".
>>3250394 Why are you taking photos of people's backs? Are you doing some things like this? Let me be the one to tell you. It has been done already, kid.
Anonymous
>>3250418 >>3250411 Isn't there an adapter that allows manual control of the aperture?
Anonymous
>>3250422 >the latest iteration of Canon's kit lenses, which is quite a sharp and generally good lens, if not very bright, but it will be the lens you want to get around at first. Won't there be compatibility problems since the camera body itself is so old?
Will definitely try to resell, though.
Technically Correct !!Y42F2zb/zVh
Quoted By:
>>3250426 >Isn't there an adapter that allows manual control of the aperture? Not for K mount. There’s barely enough room between their flange focal distances for any adapter at all; those that exist only work on crop sensor canons because it has to reach into the mirror box a little.
There exist Nikon G adapters for canon bodies that have an extra ring around the mount to control the lens’ aperture, which is probably what you’re thinking of.
Technically Correct !!Y42F2zb/zVh
>>3250427 >Won't there be compatibility problems since the camera body itself is so old? 1. It’s not that old
2. Canon has the best full compatibility record in the camera industry currently. Your 1000D has full compatibility with every lens canon has ever made for the EOS system.
Technically Correct !!Y42F2zb/zVh
>>3250392 >So, anything outside a studio then. Unless you literally live in a rainforest, there are quite a few situations outside of a studio where you don’t need weather sealing.
Anonymous
>>3250425 >I use a bag over my camera... All that you are doing is fine, but, it's really overkill. Remember that ever since like 2012 some shitty $100 android phones have been able to sustain 30 seconds UNDER WATER just because they're tightly assembled. So I'm pretty certain drops of water don't have the pressure to get inside your camera, cheap entry DSLR's can't be put together worse than a cheap android phone... I hope.
>>3250427 No problems, that 28-80 still works right? That lens is from the stone age of the EF mount, I think it was a cheap kit lens for film cameras in the early EF days.
Anonymous
>>3250363 I have got it as a kit lens (the SMC DA L version), but got sick when got it along with the camera, and haven't got a chance to take it out to take photos.
It works really well, but you need to manually lock and unlock it using that tiny button, when you want to get it out of the compact form to the usable range, and vice-versa.
Anonymous
>>3250435 Yeah, that's what I'll do. Take chances that don't need to be taken. Like driving without a seat belt or fucking your mother without a condom (look how that turned out last time).
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3250432 >Unless you literally live in a rainforest Temperate rainforest, but yeah. I'm sure it rains and snows other places too.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3250431 >>3250435 Alright, thanks a lot.
Technically Correct !!Y42F2zb/zVh
>>3250435 >So I'm pretty certain drops of water don't have the pressure to get inside your camera, cheap entry DSLR's can't be put together worse than a cheap android phone... I hope. Nope.
Cameras have a lot more moving parts. Cheap android phones can be made watertight pretty easily because they don’t have:
1. Lens mounts with interchangeable lenses
2. Buttons and knobs all over the place
3. Easily accessible memory cards slots
4. Battery slots (depending on the model)
5. Pop up flashes
Etc
Plus, cameras are simply physically bigger with more complex shapes, so there’s a lot more surface area that would need to be protected and seams that just don’t exist on a phone.
Anonymous
>>3250461 Not only that, but any zoom lens acts like an air pump when you adjust it. That can suck in water the instant you use it, if water is present on the outside in any location where air can flow in. Button presses can also help water transgress into the unit by acting as a capillary action pump (something that doesn't happen with dust and grit).
Anonymous
>>3249945 Decent EVF costs way more than pentamirror.
Anonymous
>>3250456 Did /p/ turn to /b/ in the years I've been away?
>>3250461 >>3250475 I don't know how to say it anymore
450d
dust
rain
snow
no issues
still going strong, 8 years later, of which 4 were under my ownership, now it's not in my hands anymore.
This includes the 18-55 IS kit lens, yes - not a speck of dust.
>any zoom lens acts like an air pump when you adjust it. That can suck in water the instant you use it, if water is present on the outside in any location where air can flow in. You mean "any piece of shit below kit grade lens"? Because really that never happened to me, I only had a similar issue with Canon's 50 1.8 lens, which also happens with their 50 1.4, because of the focusing design that has a full mm of free space to suck air in through the front. (not water though, but it made the inner elements dusty, nothing to do against that, just a shit design on Canon's side. DID I ALREADY MENTION that while my 50 got dust inside, my 18-55 was and still is completely dust-less?
Cameras aren't toys, don't over value the importance of weather sealing, or come back when you have actual proof of OMG MY ZOOM GOT RAIN ON AND NOW THERE'S WATER INSIDE!!! Instead of repeating some rumors you've heard on the internets.
Weather sealing it's just a goddamn rubber ring. It's a placebo for most of us.
I work nightlife and events regularly with unsealed lenses, so rain, drink spillages, dust, humidity and the like are the norm. I've never had any sort of leakage and I've never had dust get inside the lens, never, in 4 years. Most of you guys sit at home and take snapshits of peoples backs and flowers in the rain, that's not going to require weathersealing.
Anonymous
>>3250499 The required camera design work around a pentamirror is more expensive.
One is a set of mirrors with moving parts that have to be synched to the shutter.
The other is a screen.
para !micro43xx.
Quoted By:
>>3249870 why do redditors keep asking this?
Anonymous
>>3249874 >Olympus is currently the #1 selling mirrorless camera brand Source?
Technically Correct !!Y42F2zb/zVh
Quoted By:
>>3250512 Hey, I had a 400D (XTi) that worked great for years and gave me great pictures in light rain, Buffalo lake-effect snow, heavy storms bashing gigantic waves against the Lake Erie shoreline, and others.
Then I was walking somewhere to take some pictures, a big raindrop fell off a tree, and hit the camera at exactly the right spot to fry it forever.
The fact that you’ve gotten lucky with your Rebel for 8 years doesn’t mean anything other than that you got lucky. Usually you should be fine with lower end cameras with no sealing in inclement weather... but you won’t always be and you can’t rely on it.
Technically Correct !!Y42F2zb/zVh
Quoted By:
>>3250513 >The required camera design work around a pentamirror is more expensive. While that’s true, the required design work for a pentamirror has already long since been completed.
Technically Correct !!Y42F2zb/zVh
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3250536 why do japs love olympus so much
Anonymous
Anonymous
>>3250512 I have used my a7ii in rain and heavy snow without issue too. It is 100% functional and has shown no moisture damage.
A lot of it is luck.
>inb4 my anecdotal evidence trumps yours >>3250536 I wonder what the lens attach rate is? Mostly see them with gwc here in Japan.
Surprised Sony hasn’t recovered from earthquake drop by now too. They need to launch an updated a6k and a5k imo. A cheap full frame body in a6k styling would be neat.
Anonymous
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3250547 >>3250536 I wonder if they get numbers direct from manufacturer sales?
A LOT of sales are done direct from manufacturer websites.
Technically Correct !!Y42F2zb/zVh
>>3250546 >They need to launch an updated a6k They’ve released two updated a6ks. They’re keeping the a6000 itself in the lineup because building ‘em gets a little cheaper each year so they can have a cheap “low-end” camera with relatively high end features for cheap.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
Hello, fellow gearfags. Any of you have a copy of the 7artisans 50mm f/1.1 for M-mount? Or enough hands-on experience to describe it properly, particulary with regards to use with B&W film, perhaps in comparison to other cheapo Sonnar-based designs such as the Jupiter-3 and Jupiter-8.
Anonymous
>>3250561 I meant an update for a model that would hold its current position. i.e. - dirt cheap but a hell of a camera.
Anonymous
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3250512 >muh anecdotal evidence Sorry kid, but that doesn't cut it among professionals.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3250512 >it is okay to take blatant chances with your $300-$1000 piece of equipment. You talk like you have no clue what weatherizing is nor know anything about generalized rating systems for water and dust ingress.
Anonymous
Mirrorless or DSLR for a noob? I have some experience with cameras from a HS photo class in which I used a Nikon DSLR. I'm looking to buy a used camera for ~$310.
Anonymous
>>3250612 dslr, you wont find good used mirroless for that price. When buying used you're looking at one to two gen old mirroless, everything back is too outdated.
Technically Correct !!Y42F2zb/zVh
Quoted By:
>>3250567 The reason they can sell the a6000 so dirt cheap is because of how old it is. They keep getting a little more efficient at making them, the parts get a little cheaper to make each year, etc.
If they were to introduce a new model, it would not have those advantages and so would cost more. If they discontinue the a6000 and move the a6300 or 6500 into that slot, it would cost more. If they release a new a6700 and keep the a6000 around another couple of years, it’ll cost less and bring people into the Sony ecosystem where they’ll hopefully buy expensive lenses and eventually upgrade to a7 or a9 bodies.
Anonymous
>>3249564 Are there any speed boosters that can be used together with rebel t3i?
Anonymous
>>3250650 Aren't speed boosters only for cameras with short FFDs? Like mirrorless? I'm sure you could have one for a DSLR that was using large format lenses or maybe medium format lenses, but those are probably not made.
Technically Correct !!Y42F2zb/zVh
Quoted By:
>>3250619 >you wont find good used mirroless for that price. That’s about the price of an A6000 these days.
Technically Correct !!Y42F2zb/zVh
>>3250650 Nope. Speedboosters are only a thing because the flange focal distance of mirrorless cameras is so small that they can fit extra optics in addition to the physical lens mount adapter. To have a speed booster on a t3i, it would have to use lenses from a format with a much larger flange focal distance, which means medium format, which means slow lenses that would cost more than an equivalent fast lens in EF mount.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3250654 >Aren't speed boosters only for cameras with short FFDs? Well, technically they are for cameras that have short-er FFDs than that of a desired lense's mount.
>>3250666 Oh well, i guess ill just have to accept the loss of an f-stop of light and focal length shenanigans when buyins lenses for my crop.
Anonymous
Bidding on this beauty on ebay. How much should I pay before I start being a fucking cuck?.
Anonymous
>>3250701 Here's an example of this lens compared to a fucking loxia for extreme corner sharpness.
Anonymous
>>3250701 About $350.
Why you're bothering with old slow zooms is beyond me though. Yeah, I'm sure it's sharp stopped down to F8. So is a plastic kit lens today.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3250703 I've always shot prime and I figured it would be fun to test the waters of both manual and zooms with this lens. Also, i've never had a macro lens and this one does 1:2 I believe.
This lens embodies all the things I'd like to try out. Other than this glass i'm considering a 16-35 F4 and a 85mm 1.8.
Anonymous
>>3250702 The C/Y 35-70/3.4 looks as bad as some of the lenses I make. lol
Anonymous
>>3250706 Wait what... you make lenses?. Pics or it didn't happen.
I'm not buying it for being pretty, but for being versatile and possibly fun. Also, these hold their value quite well so it should be easy to resell if I get bored.
Anonymous
>>3250707 I don't grind my own glass. I just slap together lenses and make tubes for them. But, once the aperture is properly figured out the quality is very close to the C/Y 35-70/3.4 pics in
>>3250702 for the achromatic doublets.
Anonymous
>>3249564 hola from /diy/.
I want to get into videography, especially filming repair work I do on electronics. I teach classes on electronics and soldering
>but it would be nice to also be able to have an ok platform to learn to take actual photos Is a Sony α5100 or 6000 an ok camera for starting that kind of thing?
giannis
>>3250702 That's extreme corners?
The Vario Sonnar is on the right, correct?
Impressive for a zoom lens. I mostly see more contrast for the Loxia, not much difference in resolution especially at f/5.6 and lower.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3250731 Left: LOXIA 50/2
Right: C/Y 35-70/3.4
Technically Correct !!Y42F2zb/zVh
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3250744 well that was easy
Anonymous
What tripods do you like? I've got a new mirrorless a6500 that needs a tripod but I've only found a couple of videos that mention what they personally use with that camera. I probably need an all-rounder that's $150ish or less; can reach up to maybe 60', pan/tilt, used for indoor and outdoor, so at least somewhat lightweight.
Anonymous
I just picked up my first camera today. Konica Autoreflex TC with a Konica Hexanon Ar 50mm F1.7 lens for 19.49$.
Anonymous
>>3250800 Vanguard aren't the highest quality, but, in general, they're a hell of a lot better than the majority of the Chinese crap that Amazon sells.
Anonymous
>>3250800 Vanguard is good but it's heavy which is both a good and a bad thing
Anonymous
>>3250803 >>3250805 So the others in the pic are not good, and is there any better option that's slightly more expensive? Can maybe go up to $200 for something that's more reliable but lighter weight, since I'm weak. Also saw in preview thread ebay may be a good option for getting one used.
>>3250802 I'm new to this but something for $20 to experiment with sounds great.
>came with a Mickey Mouse strap too. Sound nice, I plan on getting a cute strap too. /p/ probably doesn't care for turning their gear into fashion accessories but I like to add a cute touch to my shit.
There was actually a cute pinkish tripod by Mefoto but reviews said legs didn't tighten well, what a shame.
Anonymous
>>3250815 Manfrotto Befree
Anonymous
>>3250815 I have a Giottos tripod and monopod and I really like both and I've also heard good things about Manfrotto. A decent head is an important part of a tripod setup, you want something Arca Swiss compatible and you'll probably be looking at spending 25-50% of the cost of the tripod on that. I have a ball head from Triopos, I think it's Chink but decent quality and cheaper than similar heads from higher tier brands.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3250816 >>3250822 Giottos and Manfrotto look bit out of my price range since they don't come with heads when sold new, but I see some used on ebay for cheaper with heads, plus the Vanguard kits comes with a head. I'll do more research on those 3. Thank you.
Anonymous
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3250800 Dic&Mic E302 carbon. But it seems there are actually cheaper variants of that on ali now.
Anonymous
>WTB a light meter
Anonymous
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3250800 just dont buy anything amazon basics unless its something your expecting to break
most of there stuff is made the cheapest way possible cut every corner save every dime in production costs
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3250701 $50
slow zoom, fucking stupid zoom range, blurrier than a kit lens.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3250034 >But get whatever and learn >whatever This is something /p/ finds hard to accept
Anonymous
Quoted By:
Hey,
Anonymous
>>3249564 Hey /p/, I'd really like some help.
I've been shooting film since January and I've really been enjoying the experience of home developing and scanning B&W film. I've gone through the standard set of Ilford films, and I'm going to be trying out either Porta or Ektar soon and developing them in a local darkroom.
My problem is, I just finished shooting, processing and my first roll of Pan F, anticipating a whole new level of clarity in my images, and instead they looked completely soft and full of noise at anything greater than 1200dpi. I thought it was odd, because I'm using the same Zeiss lenses which when adapted outresolve the FF 21mp sensor on my DSLR, and as far as I can tell Pan F is meant to be basically as finely grained as film can get. At this point looking through my older scans, it was clear that nothing I had shot was anything but soft at >= 1200 dpi. Only my medium format scans came close to 8mp total resolution (at low dpi) and they were with an uncoated lens from 1937. Looking at the Pan F shots I now noticed frankly pretty shit levels of digital noise and aliasing which I had assumed previously were just an error.
So, it turns out, despite its incredibly handy film auto load feature, my Epson 3590 photo is bunk. Can anyone please, please recommend a flatbed A4 scanner which will do transparencies and will get around 8-12mp out of a 35mm negative (i.e. go to 24/3200 dpi without looking like the negative's been smeared with Vaseline.) which can be found at the 80-100 £/euro mark used. The Epson Perfection V370 Photo looks ok and I know their software still works on Win 8.1, but I'd rather avoid Epson because I wasn't very happy with this experience (1/3 of claimed optical resolution.)
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3251044 film is garbage m9
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3250800 The mefoto roadtrip is pretty good
giannis
Quoted By:
>>3251044 >Can anyone please, please recommend a flatbed A4 scanner which will do transparencies and will get around 8-12mp out of a 35mm negative (i.e. go to 24/3200 dpi without looking like the negative's been smeared with Vaseline.) No modern, or reasonably priced flatbed can do that. You'd be lucky to get anything above 2000dpi with the latest, top of the line Epsons (that cost $800+).
My advice is to keep your scanner for medium format and gets a dedicated film scanner for 35mm. Plusteks, Minoltas, etc., will get you upwards 3600dpi (resolving grain clearly), which is about 6x the resolution that you're getting now, if you're getting 1600 measured dpi to begin with.
Otherwise you can lurk eBay or closing studios/labs for some of the professional flatbeds, like Heidelberg Linoscan, Fuji Lanovia, Cezanne, etc. . A total hell for driver compatibility, most probably you'll need SCSI and a virtual machine, but they're the only option that could be found at a reasonable price and deliver excellent resolution for larger than 135 film.
(Don't be fooled by their "flatbed" characterisation, in that context it meant that they're not drum scanners, nothing to do with modern flatbeds. They have better optics and focusing than even dedicated scanners).
>shit photo, but PanF+ is indeed sharp and contrasty Anonymous
how do i make photos like 13thwitness without robbing a bank?
Anonymous
>>3251067 There is nothing special about this image. What exactly do you mean?
Anonymous
Anonymous
>>3251072 i just want to make photos like this. so what gear do i have to buy without breaking my bank.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3251077 a camera would be a good start
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3251077 it's like asking what kind of shoes you have to buy to dance like Gene Kelly
giannis
>>3251077 Buy a fucking tripod and a 80A filter.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3251085 mhn les malakies bre giannaki
Anonymous
>>3250710 So you're saying you can put together a lens that matches the resolution of a Loxia. Yep, that happened.
>>3250731 Yeah. Here's one for center sharpness. Loxia on the left, CY on the right
Anonymous
>>3251130 Oops, forgot pic.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3251133 And... here is center sharpness @50mm against the 24-70GM. 24-70 on the left, CY on the right.
It just seems like great value for the price if your use case isn't greatly affected by manual focusing.
Anonymous
>>3250701 I got mine for £290. The cheapest I saw one go for was £225 and I was kicking myself because I had a slow connection and the confirm bid page didn't show quickly enough. The thing about the 3.4/35-70 is that it's really quite small, much smaller than a modern 2.8/24-70 and basically just as capable. Add to that that it's very sharp at 70mm wide open and satisfyingly sharp at 35mm (matching sharpness requires stopping down to 4.5 - half stops are recognised on C/Y SLRs.) At 5.6 (tele) and 7.1 (wide) it'll outresolve 24mpx. Zeiss' coatings are also worth mentioning, they're definitely special. I'll append a sample to this.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
anyone have the 14mm Rokinon for e mount? Thoughts? Is it still a gamble to get a good copy?
Anonymous
Quoted By:
What are /p/'s thoughts on Promaster?
Anonymous
>>3251159 The one i'm bidding on is going at 204 eur at the moment, and I'm winning with 24 hours left. What's the usual ebay bidding behavior?. I'm guessing a few people might be waiting to try and strike last-minute. A few people who was contesting the bid already stopped.
I'm not a filmfag so I intend to adapt it on an a7ii. The interesting thing is that, as you said, this lens might outresolve that sensor. The idea is using it as a walkaround / landscape glass to complement a 16-35 F4 i intend to get.
If I can't get this one, i'll go big and get one of those mint ones from nip vendors for 300 eur + shipping + taxes.
Anonymous
>>3251181 The whole point is to strike in the last 30 seconds. If you don't strike last minute you're driving the price up for everyone.
Also don't buy nip lenses unless they're on the cheaper side. You'll get stung with $100 import duties for nothing.
I tried to find a picture which was representative of a use scenario while still being useful to draw resolution conclusions from. This is 35mm at 5.6 on a 5DMII (21mp.) I don't have any wide angle pictures wide open with a flat image plane where I can point out the corners are ok really because if the composition / lighting demanded a wide aperture, the corners are practically guaranteed outside the plane of focus.
Anonymous
>>3251181 This is a 100% crop at 70mm wide open,
(Sharpening and CA control off.)
Not bad for an 80's SLR zoom, 'eh? Sure there's a little colour aberration (which some would call character) but wide open, sharpening set to 0, all detail is crystal clear. Why they engineered it to resolve far beyond the medium onto which it is projected I have no idea.
Anonymous
>>3251130 Putting together lenses is like playing with Legos. It is really easy and you can get high quality glass for cheap from surplus shed. Sometimes making the barrels, aperture, and focusing costs about the same as just buying a finished lens.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>tfw after pushing iso1600 images by 11 stops (that's over iso three million), the read noise alone starts to clip
Anonymous
Looking to upgrade from a Canon Rebel t2i, and after spending a lot of time looking around I feel Fuji fits my shooting preferences the best. I plan on shooting almost exclusively in the rain, are there any resources available to letting me know which camera's got the best weather sealing?
Anonymous
>>3251209 inb4 tampax and lolympus shills
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3251211 Pentax was originally what I was going to go for, but I prefer Fuji's lens lineup and the greater range I can get, compatibility wise, with a mirrorless camera. I also shoot at night a lot, so I'm never touching a m43 camera because it would be pointless.
Anonymous
>>3251209 I have been reading various Fuji forums for the past several weeks, and I don't think I've seen weather sealing brought up once, as it relates to actually using the camera in the rain, unlike with Pentax shooters who will tell you about how they tested their camera's weather sealing personally. I can only assume that most Fuji shooters aren't actually walking around in the rain with their cameras.
I'm a little confused how someone could say that they shoot photos "exclusively in the rain." Do you not shoot photos when it's not raining? That's really weird. Some of the best lighting happens when the sun is out...
I haven't had my Fuji for long enough to test this either, but I used Pentax in the past and even then, I got a bit of moisture inside one of their weather-sealed lenses, so I don't think any weather-sealed camera is completely water-tight.
Technically Correct !!Y42F2zb/zVh
>>3251209 The high-end lines. So X-Pro2 (but apparently not 1), X-T1 and X-T2, and the new X-H1.
Remember you also need a weather sealed lens, too, or the seals on camera are basically worthless. Be sure to look up prices on glass before you pull the trigger ‘cause they ain’t cheap in fujiland.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3251220 The 35mm f/2 was what I planned on going for for my walk around every day lens. I might go with either the X-H1 or the X-Pro2, but I'm not sure yet.
Anonymous
where were you when olympus won?
Anonymous
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3251214 Almost exclusively in the rain meaning I'm in the pacific northwest and have to basically assume it's going to rain while out shooting.
Anonymous
Anonymous
>>3251226 >>3251227 What am I looking at?
Anonymous
>>3251230 the coolest cameras in existence
Anonymous
>>3251232 But those aren’t Sony a7iiis?
Anonymous
>>3251233 are you blind? how could you mistake a hideous Sony for an OM-D?
Technically Correct !!Y42F2zb/zVh
>>3251234 Follow the thread.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3251226 >>3251227 TFW a camera is so sexy you want to stick your dick in it but the mount diameter and flange focal distance is far too small to accommodate you.
Anonymous
>>3251229 >>3251227 >>3251226 Are these factory options? What's going on here. Would appreciate a little context. All I can find is this tweet by a Japanese weeaboo.
The carbon fiber, gold painted edges, the wood grip and the pre-aged appearances are all easy enough for a manufacturer to do, logistically. But the steampunk-styled cameras are really extraordinary. I've never seen anything like that on any mass-produced product of any kind.
Technically Correct !!Y42F2zb/zVh
>>3251241 Special edition versions, apparently.
Photorumors.com has a post about it.
They’re not pre-aged; that’s just because the photos are shitty and low res and compressed.
Anonymous
>>3251241 >really extraordinary extraordinarily shit. OMDs age badly enough without cheap bits of fake wood and leather added.
pic related is my less than 1 year old body.
Anonymous
>>3251238 >ctrl + f "a7iii" >2 results >one of which was the quoted post brainlet
Anonymous
>>3251243 >They’re not pre-aged; that’s just because the photos are shitty and low res and compressed. You're just retarded.
Anonymous
>>3251244 you're complaining about the weathered look? weathered is cool and lets others know what you use your camera a ton
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3251245 Sony and Fuji get their own threads because discussions are too productive to get lost among the shitposting here. Sony:
>>3249413 Anonymous
>>3251248 why the fuck would I care if other people know I use my camera?
Anonymous
>>3251250 Because, like all people, you are susceptible to your own vanity.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3251251 do you really think I'd have bought an OMD if I cared about what people think of me based on my gear?
Technically Correct !!Y42F2zb/zVh
>>3251247 Oh, I didn’t see those ones. Only saw the gold leaf ones.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3251253 You could have just opened up
>>3251227 and read the tag.
>Aging <AGED-OM-D> You can see the scratches and wear clearly in that photo.
Anonymous
>>3251244 Do you store your camera together with other shit with metallic edges?. Does your camera strap have metal in it?. That kind of wear only happens if you store your camera negligently.
Anonymous
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3251256 >if you store your camera negligently. Not him, but how is it negligent? The camera is made of metal. A few scratches in the paint isn't going to break it. The wear just makes it evident that he takes his camera with him wherever he goes, even when the storage options are less than ideal, as opposed to leaving it at home where he can't take any pictures with it.
Anonymous
>>3251256 It either sits on my desk or hangs off my shoulder. There's no in between.
Anonymous
>>3251193 >>3251189 This only confirms my suspicions!. I hope I can snatch it tomorrow.
>>3251194 What kind of surplus shed are we talking about?. How do you go about designing a lens from scratch?
Anonymous
>>3251262 It seems to be caused by friction, as it looks somewhat sanded. Do you think it's all the contact with your clothes, then?
Anonymous
>>3251264 Who gives a fuck? This never happened with my Fuji, my Sony or my Canon. Just shitty Lolympus.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3251263 https://www.surplusshed.com/ You just have to know what your goals are then get the glass you need to do it. Use the, "Lens Finder," to get specific glass. To know more than what you want a lens to do, start googling how to make lenses and DIY lenses. The hard part can be making focusing mechanisms and aperture mechanisms.
Technically Correct !!Y42F2zb/zVh
Quoted By:
>>3251268 Maybe you baby your gear too much? I also have a canon and it’s got lots of spots with worn off paint after 6 years near-daily use.
Anonymous
>>3250949 too lazy to post again
Technically Correct !!Y42F2zb/zVh
>>3251283 Cheap rangefinders aren’t a thing, if you want digital.
If you just want a rangefinder-style body, you have more options. What are your actual requirements?
Anonymous
>>3251285 sorry, I meant film
I just want something that's holdable with decent glass
Technically Correct !!Y42F2zb/zVh
Quoted By:
>>3251289 In that case, Canonet QL17 GIIIs are pretty nice. And there are a lot of point & shoots with f/2.8 prime lenses if you're willing to spend some time looking, and they're usually fairly high quality. Check out antique and thrift stores if you've got time--not sure how strong your 'ASAP' is.
para !micro43xx.
>>3251226 nothing makes me harder than the jps colours
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3251289 Minolta CL
Dank m-rokkor and Leica glass, compact size.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3251291 Funny thing, they went and sponsored Walter Wolf Racing later as well.
Anonymous
Anonymous
>>3251075 >since "enforcing copyright protection against millions of tourists is impractical, [...] the average tourist is likely to come to no legal grief if he/she posts a nighttime photo of La Tour Eiffel on Facebook." So, if you don't plan on trying to make money with your pic, you shouldn't be arrested by France's copyright police.
Anonymous
Can someone explain the difference between the Voigtlander Nokton 10.5mm F 0.95, and 17.5mm F 0.95? Is it just the wideness of the lens? Maybe the question should be what is the difference between those two millimeters and which one would be better for cinematography?
Technically Correct !!Y42F2zb/zVh
Quoted By:
>>3251326 Camera is a Contax Aria.
I'm not sure about the lens, but my best guess would be the Carl Zeiss 45mm f/2.8.
Technically Correct !!Y42F2zb/zVh
>>3251399 >Maybe the question should be what is the difference between those two millimeters Seven.
> which one would be better for cinematography? That depends on the look you're going for in your scene.
Anonymous
>>3251413 What type of look does the 10.5 provide vs 17.5? Is the 10.5 more zoomed in or zoomed out?
Anonymous
>>3251415 >>3251399 >planning on getting 0.95 lenses for cinematography >doesn't even know about FLs is this the M4/3 meme I've been hearing about?
Anonymous
>>3251420 Yes... looking at GH5 plus this lens, and a telephoto of which IDK what to get yet.
Anonymous
>>3251422 You should probably learn a little more about cameras before buying such an expensive cam
Anonymous
Anonymous
>>3251399 They're both good, but you're totally clueless, so pick the cheapest m43 lense you can find first. mm is focus length.
Anonymous
>>3251422 Don't even bother with manual focus primes in this case. You go for them when you've mastered everything else and know exactly what you're looking for. If you've the cash pick one of the wide angle zooms. m.zuiko 12-40mm or lumix g 12-35mm. You can always turn them to manual focus and fool around when you want, and you'll learn about focal distances as you go with them.
Anonymous
Is considering a refurbished camera in the $400-$500 dollar range advisable?
Technically Correct !!Y42F2zb/zVh
>>3251399 Okay, quick guide to lenses.
The “mm” number is your focal length. The lower the number, the wider-angle the lens, the more it gets in frame. From a cinematography standpoint, the main thing to understand about it is perspective.
With a wide-angle lens, you get wide-angle perspective. Things in the foreground are going to look more stretched out and farther from things in the background than they actually are. Usually not what you want for taking pictures (or video) of people close up, but fine for wide shots where they’re off in the distance a bit.
With a longer (ie, telephoto) lens, you get telephoto perspective. The foreground looks closer to the background than it is in real life. Everything looks more compressed.
Somewhere in the middle, you’ve got normal perspective. With normal perspective, the foreground and background look about as close to each other as they do in real life.
The exact focal lengths that go along with it are dependent on your format size. For the 4/3 system, normal is around 25mm. Anything significantly less than that is wide, more than that is telephoto.
So 17.5mm and 10.5mm are a wide lens and a very wide lens, respectively. The 17.5 would work fine as an all-around lens (its wide, but it’s close enough to normal that it can be used as a normal unless you get really close). The 10.5 is pretty much only useful for really wide perspective (it’s in “ultra-wide” territory).
Technically Correct !!Y42F2zb/zVh
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3251561 if I knew what I know now I would buy used instead of new
Anonymous
D5300 + 18-55mm kit lens for 466€ as the first DSLR. Yay or nay?
Anonymous
>>3251425 Never really been that way, I just buy and learn later
>>3251536 I will buy the 25mm f1.7 from Panasonic as well, since it's only $250 CAD, but I was watching some videos for lenses and came across the Voigtlander which looked utterly amazing
>>3251545 I'm pretty good with figuring things out but it's an option, I just would rather buy the best lens for each scenario instead of one to work alright for everything
>>3251564 This was awesome, so combining this with f numbers, the smaller the f number the more light that gets into the shot, but also with that comes more noise in your video/photos, I think that's how it works based on what people said during reviews, so the Voigtlander 10.5 or 17.5 will be equally as good in low light since they're both f 0.95? However the 10.5 will just give me a wider field of view than the 17.5.
Anonymous
>>3251561 Just make sure you're buying a refurbished camera from an authorized dealer or or directly from the manufacturer. I recently bought a used camera that just happened to come in a refurbished-marked box and the seller falsely advertised it as refurbished condition, which is very different from used condition. This camera was dirty and had a lot of miles on it. Typical refurbished cameras are going to come to you in pristine, like new condition.
Anonymous
>>3251579 It‘s a good camera for starters. Just know that you can‘t use very old Nikon glass on it due to the gimped bayonet.
Technically Correct !!Y42F2zb/zVh
>>3251581 >the smaller the f number the more light that gets into the shot, but also with that comes more noise in your video/photos, Close.
Yes, smaller f/stop lets in more light. That doesn’t add noise, though—it makes your depth of field shallower. So your background and foreground will be blurrier (with your main subject staying sharp). In fact, that generally gives you LESS noise, since closing down your aperture (ie, letting in less light) means you need to increase your exposure along another axis, and that’ll usually be ISO (ie, the sensitivity of the sensor). Raising the ISO aid what causes noise.
Technically Correct !!Y42F2zb/zVh
>>3251581 But yes, f/0.95 gives you the same amount of light coming in (more or less; there are caveats if you wanna get pedantic) regardless of the f/0.95 lens.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3251595 Ah the ISO is what adds noise, alright got it
>>3251596 Thought as much, but thank you so much for the last few responses, extremely helpful!
GH5 + Voigtlander here we go
Anonymous
>>3251581 >I just would rather buy the best lens for each scenario instead of one to work alright for everything Yeah, you're clueless alright. In laymans terms. I advised you on two top of the line lenses that have autofocus that vogtlander lacks. Plus they both allow you to zoom in and out, something that's very important on any film camera, again something you won't get. What you will get is larger f number. You'll be able to open your lens more and get shallower depth of field. That's it. Trust me on this one, autofocus is important. If you're still sticking to prime, then again rather look to Pana's and Olympu's own primes. You can even blow if for Pana Leicas if you really need low f, and you'll still get auto focus!
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3251605 It's not just the money saving I know I can get the Panasonic lenses or Olympus lenses but the Voigtlander carries a name with it that will be beneficial for marketing purposes when marketing my content on social media, that's why I'm stuck on that because it works and it will receive more attention from the people I'm targeting with my content, I do see your point though and it makes sense but I'm not worried about saving since the marketing aspect is more important for my business!
Technically Correct !!Y42F2zb/zVh
>>3251605 >Trust me on this one, autofocus is important. Not if he’s buying it specifically for “cinematography” as he mentioned. People generally don’t do autofocus for serious video work.
Anonymous
Does anyone know the differences between the Bronica zenanon (ETRS) lens types? Or is this something for /fgt/ ?
Anonymous
>>3251592 do people actually use old glass on dslrs?
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3251635 You can still buy the Nikon 50mm f/1.2 AIS and 35mm f/1.4 AIS brand new. So yeah.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3250307 I was kind of hoping that they would give the a9 a better feeling body like something similar to Minolta's old maxxum 9, along with a 1/12000sec shutter speed
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3251584 it's "certified refurbished" according to amazon. i've purchased other refurbished tech items off amazon and have never had any issues. but i'm new when it comes to cameras.
Technically Correct !!Y42F2zb/zVh
Quoted By:
>>3251635 >do people actually use old glass on dslrs? Yep. Remember that every great, prize-winning photograph from before 2018 was taken using lenses made before 2018. The idea that you need the latest and greatest glass to get a good photo is mainly marketing.
(And actually you CAN use even the oldest pre-AI Nikon glass on it BECAUSE of the gimped bayonet, you just lose your metering when it’s mounted. And you also lose autofocus support on older autofocus lenses.)
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3251632 http://camera-wiki.org/wiki/Bronica_lenses#ETR_6x4.5 The P* type Bronica lenses are later model lenses, some with only coating updates, others with new lens designs. If I recall correctly, it was the release of the GS1's PG lenses that initiated the redesign of earlier MC/EII/S lenses to their later designs. I could be wrong but it's something like that.
Anonymous
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3251754 I lost, but I made some fucker pay 310 eur for this instead of 223.
Anonymous
Retard here buying my first DSLR. Used Nikon d300 with some accessories and no lens for $300 or d5100 with kit lens and a fuck ton of accessories for the same price.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3251618 Serious video work on g5 and vogtlander? Even if ibis works with that lense, I'm willing to bet he wont have a clue setting it up, at the same time it's all automatic with native lenses. It's kids first cam, and he's buying it with his dad's cash. I'm doing him a favour, but he thinks that using a lens that he knows nothing about will be good for his youtube exposure. Put those two together and you know that he seriously needs af.
Anonymous
>>3251759 Oh god I'm dumb, the d300 isn't even a full frame camera, in that case I'll probably just go for the d5100 because it has everything I need rn in accessories
Anonymous
>>3251761 What the hell do you mean by "accesories"? It's an extremely vague term that means absolutely nothing.
Anonymous
>>3251766 Didn't want to make the post too long
D5100 comes with kit lens, tripod, 2 batteries, 32GB sd card, battery charger, bag, strap, and a remote
D300 is body only, strap, remote and charger
Anonymous
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3251769 d300 (which is not full frame) is older then the 5100 and you would still have to buy a lens I wouldnt bother
Anonymous
Are graduated ND filters still a necessity for landscape photography?.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3251823 For film they are needed.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3251823 ND filters in general are something you can replace with multiple exposures merged in PS. It's more work but considering how fucking expensive good NDs are it's helpful.
Anonymous
>>3251823 Polarizers are pretty much only ones you can't replicate.
Anonymous
Is the Nikon d3400 a decent camera for a complete beginner? It has no mic input which seems kind of dumb but I don't care that much about video
Anonymous
>>3251883 Own a D3300 and have been mildly happy about it. My only gripe is that it has been a pain trying to find Nikon Lenses. I only purchased it because I got it for less than $150, brand new. If it were not for that I probably would of purchase a Cannon or Sony Camera.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3251921 The alternative is something like a Canon 1300D. But from all the comparison videos I've seen, looks like the Nikon is better
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3251883 I have one. My gripes are wonky menus you have to dive into and change things until you have it right and no real weatherization.
Anonymous
What's a good late 2000s CCD point-and-shoot? I hear some of them have pretty good lenses.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3251957 >I hear some of them have pretty good lenses. someone's been lying to you
Anonymous
Anonymous
Quoted By:
I just bought this with the kit lens and a 128gb SDXC 90mbps. Arrives tomorrow. Even paid extra for next day shipping. Did I fuck up? I just saw it was made in 2016. Should I have bought something else?
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3251962 Not so great for architecture because of the monster mustache distortion.
Anonymous
>Christmas >Buy myself a Spark >Couple days later >Mavic Air is announced
Anonymous
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3251997 You should've got the Mavic Pro flymore instead, anon
Spark and Air is balls for photography
Anonymous
Quoted By:
Holy shit, this thing is already a best seller.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3251835 I was thinking of those, and the strong ND filters for very long exposures.
Anonymous
How is A7 III gonna do for landscape photographers?
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3252163 Not as good as the riii of course but you can still get good landscapes. If you don't make your money from landscapes then you probably don't need the riii
Anonymous
Haven't seen anyone mention this thing yet.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3252190 It's retarded bullshit that's just gonna fail.
Anonymous
>>3252190 That seems very shit, why isn't it engineered so it can keep pointing at the ceiling as he rotates the camera so it at least has some slight advantage?
Anonymous
Anonymous
>>3252214 Doesn't seem that way to me. It is way too slow and might even have a cheap ass imprecise gyro.
Anonymous
>>3252190 Seems very gimmicky.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3252222 It's not super quick, although some of that delay is going to down to having to double half press the shutter to get it to reorient. It's quick enough to be a lot faster than moving the head yourself.
It also doesn't matter how precise it is, it only needs to know the difference between landscape and portrait for orientation switching. It just moves things by 90 degrees left or right, it doesn't recalculate the angle based on the precise camera position (so for example you couldn't hold it at 45 degrees). For the auto bounce angle I also think it assumes the camera is completely level (in portrait or landscape) and then calculates the angle based off test firing the flash and measuring the light that bounces back.
>>3252224 That's exactly what it is. However if they can get the cost down (to the manufacturer) I can imagine them putting it in all future flashes whether people want it or not. People will get used to it (at least the landscape to portrait switching) and they'll miss it if they ever use flashes from other brands.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
Does anyone have the tamron 70 - 200mm G2?
Anonymous
noob to the flash cable world
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3252474 You almost certainly want a RF trigger compatible with the YN560 III type RF. The YN560-TX.
Else you can't even change settings without running over to your flash and all that.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
I recently came into ownership of a Sony a850 and two Sigma Lenses in exchange for a small motorbike. This is not the camera i am after, I am after a camera to record a documentary with over the next 1-3 years depending on how things turn out, and was looking at the Canon Eos 70D after i sell this gear
Anonymous
hey guys does the Nikon Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 AF D Lens fit on the Nikon FA? Sorry im new to SLR's and wanting to get into it, I've got the FA body but looking at an affordable lens.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
Been seeing a lot of these generic 85mm f/1.8 prime lenses on ebay lately. Does anyone know anything about them? You'd think they'd have terrible optical quality being generic unbranded stuff from china but it's hard to know as nobody has written anything about them that I can find. (e.g.
https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/85mm-F1-8-Portrait-Photo-Large-Aperture-Manual-Focus-Lens-for-Nikon-Cameras-/202159574225?_trksid=p2349526.m4383.l4275.c10 )
Anonymous
>>3253102 Yes, that lens in particular should work with every nikon camera ever made. Autofocus won't work on low end DSLRs though as they lack the drive motor. (you need the G version of the lens for autofocus on low end DSLRs) But the lens will still function properly with aperature control, lens information and manual focus(and auto focus if you have one of the modern high end bodies). I have one of these lenses and use it on an old Nikon FE(older but very similar camera), works absolutely perfectly, just like the 50mm lens that came with it would have, only this lens can be attached to a modern camera and utilize it's auto focus capabilities.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3253672 Also worth noting that the G version of the lens isn't compatible with older nikon film cameras like the FA.
