/p/ - Photography » Thread #3511677

[355 / 57 / ?]

/gear/ - Gear Thread

Anonymous Fri 26 Jul 2019 00:39:34 No.3511677 View View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>3511681 >>3511683 >>3511965 >>3512108 >>3512414 >>3512453 >>3512580 >>3512672 >>3512846 >>3513379 >>3513431

Previous thread: >>3509089

All discussion and questions related to gear should take place in this exact thread.

Redirection and answering questions in this thread is encouraged.

And don't forget, be polite!

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 26 Jul 2019 00:44:04 No.3511681 Report

Quoted By: >>3511714 >>3511965

>>3511677
that ken DSLR is missing the 100% sharpening and jpeg compression

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 26 Jul 2019 00:44:41 No.3511683 Report

Quoted By: >>3511692

>>3511677
What's the deal with Ken Rockwell, always see people memeing him

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 26 Jul 2019 00:59:30 No.3511690 Report

Quoted By: >>3511691

From the old thread
>>3510648
>What's the best APS-C body for the Sigma 18-35 1.8?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 26 Jul 2019 01:01:10 No.3511691 Report

Quoted By:

>>3511690
snoy a7riv with mc-11 in aps-c mode

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 26 Jul 2019 01:02:55 No.3511692 Report

Quoted By:

>>3511683
he says a lot of objectively dumb things

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1535448695249.jpg, 183KiB, 1231x923

Anonymous Fri 26 Jul 2019 01:13:22 No.3511693 Report

Quoted By: >>3511694 >>3511695

So here is the that monster of a lens I have created.
tldr:
>got two cheap canon kit lens
>EF-S mount
>turned one into and FD mount by literally gluing in it to a 5mm extension tube
>now I can use it on my Olympus
Actually works p. good

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1560017113654.jpg, 91KiB, 692x923

Anonymous Fri 26 Jul 2019 01:14:47 No.3511694 Report

Quoted By: >>3511698

>>3511693
Yes, thanks for asking, that's real ray leather on it from a cartier wallet...

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 26 Jul 2019 01:15:58 No.3511695 Report

Quoted By: >>3511698

>>3511693
Why tho

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1532647050074.jpg, 3MiB, 4632x3464

Anonymous Fri 26 Jul 2019 01:19:14 No.3511698 Report

Quoted By: >>3511699

>>3511695
Would you rather have it sitting around?
>>3511694
14mm f3.5

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1547365261758.jpg, 4MiB, 4632x3464

Anonymous Fri 26 Jul 2019 01:21:45 No.3511699 Report

Quoted By: >>3511700

>>3511698
that was 18mm not 14
this at 55mm 3.5 with lights adjusted a bit in post

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1537138327494.jpg, 149KiB, 1231x923

Anonymous Fri 26 Jul 2019 01:25:54 No.3511700 Report

Quoted By: >>3511701

>>3511699
let's slap on more tubes

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1543846002800.jpg, 3MiB, 4632x3464

Anonymous Fri 26 Jul 2019 01:27:03 No.3511701 Report

Quoted By: >>3511702

>>3511700
also keep in mind that focal length double up on M4/3
So with this 18x2=36mm with 5+10+20+20 I can focus on the dirt on the front element

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1552510577754.jpg, 4MiB, 4632x3464

Anonymous Fri 26 Jul 2019 01:29:28 No.3511702 Report

Quoted By: >>3511704

>>3511701
on 55mm

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1555113891508.jpg, 4MiB, 4632x3464

Anonymous Fri 26 Jul 2019 01:35:30 No.3511704 Report

Quoted By: >>3511707 >>3511845

>>3511702
outside with some post processing

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 26 Jul 2019 01:37:11 No.3511706 Report

Quoted By: >>3511710 >>3512294

wait for Sony E 200-600 or buy much cheaper A mount 150-600 Tamron w/ E mount adapter?

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1561265262345.jpg, 4MiB, 4632x3464

Anonymous Fri 26 Jul 2019 01:38:06 No.3511707 Report

Quoted By: >>3511845

>>3511704
outside, no post at all

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 26 Jul 2019 01:40:35 No.3511709 Report

Quoted By: >>3511711 >>3511721

Does anyone know which EOS film cameras definitely work with modern 3rd party lenses? I got a really nice EOS 50 which is well built and specified, and even has a couple of cute features and then I found out that it refuses to take a picture with my new Tamron SP 24-70mm when the aperture isn't set wide open, which is kind of a dissappointment. Is it better to try a newer or older model? I can glean from google that this is the case for all elan models, but as far as I know it should be fine on an EOS 300v or 300x, but I'm hesitant to pick one of those up as they have small CR2 batteries and pentamirror viewfinders. Does anyone know if, say, the EOS 10 or EOS 1000F N would work? Cheers.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 26 Jul 2019 01:42:27 No.3511710 Report

Quoted By: >>3511715 >>3512294

>>3511706
The A.mount Tamron may be cheaper, but the new 200-600 actually has good enough AF for video and fast action.

You get what you pay for, as it most often is.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 26 Jul 2019 01:46:55 No.3511711 Report

Quoted By:

>>3511709
Probably not. That incompatibility happens because 1st party makers will change up some small little thing in how the lens communicates with the camera every once in a while and usually do it in a way that earlier compatibility isn't broken, but 3rd party makers have to reverse engineer that stuff and it's usually not worth the effort to make it to where it works with both the older bodies and the newer ones, so they say screw the older ones.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 26 Jul 2019 02:02:46 No.3511714 Report

Quoted By:

>>3511681
It's also not saturated enough. Damn it people, saturate, saturate, saturate!

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 26 Jul 2019 02:03:08 No.3511715 Report

Quoted By: >>3512294

>>3511710

thanks!

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO le_so_artistique.jpg, 778KiB, 2560x1542

Anonymous Fri 26 Jul 2019 02:09:35 No.3511718 Report

Quoted By: >>3511726 >>3511730 >>3511873 >>3511899

Absolute newfag, pls no bully. I have a D5500 with the 18-55 kit lens. I'm not rushing into buying extra lenses but I'm trying to get an idea of what I'll need for the types of shooting I want to get into. I was under the impression that my kit lens will work well for landscape work (haven't had the chance to go exploring with it yet), however I also want to do indoor and night shooting (tripod is in the mail), as well as some super close up shots of small subjects.
The AF-S DX 35mm f/1.8G seems to be fairly well regarded for a budget lens and the common advice is that it's a better fit for general shooting than the 50mm variant given that I'm using a APS-C sensor. Is this a good pick for low light work?
Regarding more macro photography, I have read good things about the Tamron SP 90mm f/2.8 Di VC and Sigma 105mm f/2.8 EX DG, they can be found used for less than I expected. One thing I want to know is can a lens of this type double well for, say, portrait work if I want a lot of bokeh? My attitude towards blurry backgrounds is that if the background is picturesque I either want it in focus or only mildly out of focus. However if the background is mundane or ugly, I'd like to obscure it with blur as much as I can.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 26 Jul 2019 02:11:50 No.3511721 Report

Quoted By:

>>3511709
I have two Tamron lenses: the 45mm VC and 70-200 f/2.8 G2. I've had the 45mm on my EOS 3 before and it works fine. But to my surprise the 70-200 will only shoot wide open.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 26 Jul 2019 02:20:41 No.3511726 Report

Quoted By: >>3511733

>>3511718 >>3511718
>The AF-S DX 35mm f/1.8G seems to be fairly well regarded for a budget lens and the common advice is that it's a better fit for general shooting than the 50mm variant given that I'm using a APS-C sensor. Is this a good pick for low light work?

I'm a Canon fag so I can't speak to that specific lens. But on APS-C a 35mm f/1.8 in general is a great choice for a standard, low light lens. So if that specific Nikon lens is sharp then yeah, it's a good choice.

The f/1.8 aperture is what makes it good for low light. Only thing better would be an even faster (and more expensive) f/1.4 variant, or a variant with image stabilization. I have the Tamron 45mm f/1.8 VC on FF. The stabilizer works really well, the lens is tack sharp to the corners, and it's built like a tank. They make a 35mm f/1.8 VC which you might want to look at, though it is more expensive than the AF-S DX 35mm.

>One thing I want to know is can a lens of this type double well for, say, portrait work if I want a lot of bokeh? My attitude towards blurry backgrounds is that if the background is picturesque I either want it in focus or only mildly out of focus. However if the background is mundane or ugly, I'd like to obscure it with blur as much as I can.

Macro lenses generally make good portrait lenses. f/2.8 is not going to give you quite as much background blur as f/2, f/1.8, or f/1.4. But you will get decent blur and bokeh. If you have time to move the person you're photographing, keep in mind that more distance between them and the background will also help blur things out.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 26 Jul 2019 02:24:31 No.3511730 Report

Quoted By: >>3511733

>>3511718
Yeah, you're pretty on track. Wider maximum aperture gives you more light to work with in lower light.

You get thinner depth of field by focusing at minimum focus distance with longer focal lengths at wider apertures. Degree of blurring also depends on distance between subject and background (father away=more blurry). You may want a 3 stop ND filter so you can shoot wide open in the day because otherwise you might not have a fast enough shutter speed to not over expose the scene.

On the macro side, I'd recommend playing with either reversing rings or extension tubes before getting a lens for that purpose.

Consider getting a three speedlight setup ( yongnuo has three 560 III plus a trigger for like $250) to help with the shooting inside and shooting macro.

Otherwise, good job actually bothering to look shit up. I don't say that ironically.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 26 Jul 2019 02:42:17 No.3511733 Report

Quoted By:

thanks anons
>>3511726
yeah a 1.4 lens would be sweet, but the price difference is just too large for me right now. I will have a look around to see what third party 1.8 options that aren't dramatically more expensive are around.
>>3511730
>good job actually bothering to look shit up. I don't say that ironically
lol, yeah I prefer to go into with at least some easily google-able surface knowledge before asking people, otherwise it just comes across like you're wanting to be spoon-fed everything.
Thank-you for reminding me about filters, I will do some reading about them. I did watch a video about reversing lenses and extension tubes so depending on cost it could be a good way to dip my feet into macro.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1514029653.jpg, 160KiB, 900x689

Anonymous Fri 26 Jul 2019 04:35:34 No.3511798 Report

Quoted By: >>3511877 >>3511900 >>3511945

Canon 24-105 4 vs 24 70 f4 for photos?
They both cost the same used and I really want one for 24mm. I don't really think I'm gonna use the 105mm that much. From the reviews that I've read these two lenses seem to be pretty similar in terms of performance. Please tell me about your experience if you had one of these lenses.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 26 Jul 2019 05:10:23 No.3511843 Report

Quoted By: >>3511845

How do people use cameras and not put on a screen protector like the first thing they do?

Sort of glad sony's lcd have a second life once you peel off the plastic layer.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 26 Jul 2019 05:11:23 No.3511845 Report

Quoted By: >>3511898 >>3512043

>>3511707
>>3511704
yikes, bretty noisy

>>3511843
find me a glass protector for my bmpcc 4k and ill buy it. theres only utter shit for it and idk why

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 26 Jul 2019 05:40:42 No.3511873 Report

Quoted By:

>>3511718

You technically shouldn't need a fast lens or high ISO with a tripod, since the whole point of a tripod is to let you take longer exposures than you could possibly hand-hold even with VR.

The 35mm is still a really good lens and you should still get one though.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO wolf 100% crop.png, 1MiB, 1092x575

Anonymous Fri 26 Jul 2019 05:48:54 No.3511877 Report

Quoted By: >>3512104

>>3511798
24-105 is more versatile, however my uncle has the 24-70 and he swears it's sharper (although not by much). I love my 24-105 though, especially because it has an image stabilizer which makes low light shit much easier. Both are weather sealed to some degree and I've had no issues shooting in the rain or by the ocean.

Here's a 100% crop of a pic of a wolf I took with my 24-105 on Provia 100f.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1.jpg, 113KiB, 660x660

Anonymous Fri 26 Jul 2019 06:11:37 No.3511881 Report

Quoted By: >>3511890

I only shoot 35mm film but I keep hearing how good the (original) Fujifilm X100 is and I'm seriously considering buying one.

do you think I'll actually use it or is this just gear lust?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 26 Jul 2019 06:49:38 No.3511890 Report

Quoted By:

>>3511881
It’s got pretty bad autofocus and manual focus is by wire.
If you’re going X100 get the T.
Other than that, only you can decide if you want to make the jump to digital.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 26 Jul 2019 07:24:07 No.3511898 Report

Quoted By:

>>3511845
>find me a glass protector for my bmpcc 4k and ill buy it
What are the display dimensions in millimetres? Maybe you should just fine a close match for a smartphone screen this size, then get a screen protector for that.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 26 Jul 2019 07:30:25 No.3511899 Report

Quoted By: >>3511957 >>3512843

>>3511718
>my kit lens will work well for landscape work
Don't let me stop you from trying, but if you ask me: No, it sucks for that.

Use primes both on wide and normal shots, obviously makes landscapes look better with the higher resolution. YMMV if all you do is post to instagram, that site nearly completely mangles images anyhow.

> One thing I want to know is can a lens of this type double well for, say, portrait work if I want a lot of bokeh?
Yes but no specifically on the "lot of bokeh". Macro lenses can do sharp portraits, but pretty much all don't do very fancy bokeh. You can just get the background out of focus a bit, that's about it. They're generally not doing f/1.4 with BOKEH, you got non-macro lenses at the same focal lengths for that.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 26 Jul 2019 07:45:19 No.3511900 Report

Quoted By: >>3511914 >>3512104

>>3511798
What about a Tokina or Sigma Art 24-70 f/2.8 or even a 24mm prime if you're mainly going to use that end anyhow?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 26 Jul 2019 08:32:42 No.3511914 Report

Quoted By: >>3511922

>>3511900
Don't know how the prices compare but I would add the latest Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC to that list. If you don't care about 105mm then consider f/2.8 + VC.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 26 Jul 2019 08:54:32 No.3511922 Report

Quoted By:

>>3511914
Anon is right, the Tamron Di VC too is great and you also should have a look at that one.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1535938351906.png, 585KiB, 933x720

Anonymous Fri 26 Jul 2019 10:00:17 No.3511941 Report

Quoted By: >>3511944

Jesus christ, remind me never again to read user comments on DPReview (or any website, really) when it comes to /gear/. It's just brand fanboys trying as hard as possible to shit on other brands, spec sheet nerds, or "aperture not large enough" bokeh whores.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 26 Jul 2019 10:08:55 No.3511944 Report

Quoted By:

>>3511941
>(or any website, really)

Especially here.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 26 Jul 2019 10:14:07 No.3511945 Report

Quoted By: >>3512104

>>3511798
I just got the Tamron SP 24-70mm, It's cheaper than both and performs better at f/2.8 than the Canon Model does at f/4.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 26 Jul 2019 10:42:55 No.3511957 Report

Quoted By: >>3511978

>>3511899
>Don't let me stop you from trying, but if you ask me: No, it sucks for that
Are you saying that this very specific lens sucks, or that zoom lenses suck in general?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 26 Jul 2019 11:06:15 No.3511965 Report

Quoted By:

>>3511677
>>3511681
the ken dslr should also be left handed

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 26 Jul 2019 11:32:16 No.3511978 Report

Quoted By:

>>3511957
This specific one as well as many other MFT/APS-C as well as some FF and MF zoom lenses suck for landscapes.

You should use it until you have something better. But if you see serious flaws, that's not just your imagination.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 26 Jul 2019 13:37:52 No.3512024 Report

Quoted By: >>3512027

Hi I have been wanting to get into photography for a very long time and am finally gonna buy a camera with the idea in mind that I want to capture and document the current times we live in.

Now I only have £250, so with that in mind what type of camera is best for me to buy?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 26 Jul 2019 13:42:57 No.3512027 Report

Quoted By: >>3512028

>>3512024
Very little. Can you get an used A6000 for that or something?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 26 Jul 2019 13:48:07 No.3512028 Report

Quoted By: >>3512030

>>3512027
Yeah looks like there are a few older ones on ebay, what exactly is it?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 26 Jul 2019 13:53:25 No.3512030 Report

Quoted By:

>>3512028
It's a decent APS-C camera that had a lot of successors quickly and thus got cheaper quickly - without actually being bad.

Put a good lens (extra costs later on, admittedly) on that and you got a reasonable imaging device.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 26 Jul 2019 14:29:19 No.3512043 Report

Quoted By:

>>3511845
>yikes, bretty noisy
well 800 iso and have had the cam in "vivid" mode wit saturation, contrast up, otherwise it's not too noisy so far.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 26 Jul 2019 15:44:20 No.3512104 Report

Quoted By: >>3512125

>>3511877
Thanx for the info and a nice wolf pic. Did you shoot it at the zoo? Would you mind sharing a full pic?

>>3511900
>>3511945
Thanx for the advice guys. It's a good idea, it's just that I don't have that much of a choice in terms of gear in a place where I live. And ordering online is difficult because of the import taxes. But I'll keep my eyes open.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 26 Jul 2019 15:52:00 No.3512108 Report

Quoted By: >>3512112

>>3511677
I think it'd be funny if there was a couple little fat saturated dslrs next to that

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 26 Jul 2019 15:57:41 No.3512112 Report

Quoted By:

>>3512108

His growing family

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO scan0002.jpg, 2MiB, 3735x5459

Anonymous Fri 26 Jul 2019 16:22:10 No.3512125 Report

Quoted By:

>>3512104
It's my friend's pet wolf. Her name is Keme.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 26 Jul 2019 16:33:18 No.3512126 Report

Quoted By: >>3512128 >>3512131 >>3512183

I’m looking to go pro with my photography. Have used a soccer mom Canon for a few years and am looking for something versatile for capturing portfolio images. Ideally this camera would serve me for the next four years.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 26 Jul 2019 16:39:49 No.3512128 Report

Quoted By:

>>3512126
I can spend up to a maximum of £2,000 but the cheaper the better.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 26 Jul 2019 16:40:50 No.3512129 Report

Quoted By: >>3513507

Sup guys,

not a regular here. I was looking to buy a good analog camera for my girlfriend's birthday, but it has to be cheap, since I'm not working right now.

I was looking into the Canon AE-1 and the Holga 120N. But honestly, I don't have any idea. Any recs?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 26 Jul 2019 16:43:03 No.3512131 Report

Quoted By: >>3512134

>>3512126
Keep what you have, get fast primes for it in 50mm, 85mm, and maybe a 105mm (there's also the 50-100 1.8 that sigma makes that gives you a similar field of view to a 70-200 2.8 on FF).

Spend that money on lighting.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 26 Jul 2019 16:47:07 No.3512134 Report

Quoted By: >>3512146 >>3512152

>>3512131
It’s a Canon EOS 1100D and am not even sure it works with most lighting setups. Should I at least upgrade to a 6D or something?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 26 Jul 2019 16:47:45 No.3512135 Report

Quoted By: >>3512215

I want to replace my EF-S 18-55 with something similar that has better AF and without the wobbly moving front barrel focus and also not break the bank <400$

I'm stuck between the EF-S 18-135mm IS USM and the Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 EX DC OS HSM.
I want to lean toward the sigma because its faster but reviews say the AF is not great.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 26 Jul 2019 16:59:46 No.3512146 Report

Quoted By: >>3512152

>>3512134
>lighting setups
if it has a hotshoe (it does) it will work with most strobes

git gud with what you have before you waste money on a camera body you can't even being to fully utilize

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 26 Jul 2019 17:16:11 No.3512152 Report

Quoted By:

>>3512134
>It’s a Canon EOS 1100D
That'll do for practically any job you'll get for the first few years.
>not sure it will work
see >>3512146

You want a good differentiator, and being good with lighting and having a nicely portable two or three light setup (Godox or Yongnuo) is a massive differentiator. People are scared shitless of using artificial light and it's seriously easy to use competently (look up "strobist 101", ignore his lightgun suggestion though because the chinkshit is better and cheaper).

If you dick with lights in daylight though, you'll also need a decent VND filter.

Trust me, your camera is perfectly fine. You'll know when you NEED to upgrade and you'll know what you're looking for with that upgrade when the time comes.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 26 Jul 2019 18:50:07 No.3512183 Report

Quoted By: >>3512186 >>3512190

>>3512126
A7 III maybe? Or A7 IV if it doesn't cut too deep into your lens (+ lighting) budget.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 26 Jul 2019 18:58:13 No.3512186 Report

Quoted By:

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 26 Jul 2019 19:08:34 No.3512190 Report

Quoted By:

>>3512183 (cont'd)
Ah, I missed the other information. At only 2k GBP you're probably forced to stick with APS-C for now, yep.

I personally would still switch to a A6400, the Sigma 16/30/56mm f/1.4 primes and make do with one Godox V1 and bits and pieces.
This is a pretty big upgrade on body and lenses - the A6400 gives you an extremely autofocus system that is really good at shooting people because it latches on to faces and eyes better than you can, better manual focus, better bursts, generally more stuff and things, better sensor. Also you get decent video capabilities - certainly enough to record the odd performance during an event or such. As for the Sigma primes - well, they are extremely nice. Just look at the sample shots; it is basically as good as these focal lengths get on APS-C - any system.

But the other people also make sense. Certainly there also is a rather solid argument for saving the A6400/system switching cost and getting more Canon (maybe already FF for a later migration) lenses or studio strobes or such.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO image.jpg, 238KiB, 791x800

Anonymous Fri 26 Jul 2019 19:46:15 No.3512198 Report

Quoted By: >>3512398 >>3513547

Is this a good lens? I’m getting a Pentax DSLR.
What other lenses are good for Pentax? Manual and automatic welcome.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 26 Jul 2019 20:28:21 No.3512215 Report

Quoted By: >>3512342

>>3512135
get the ef-s 17-85.

you won't be disappointed

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 26 Jul 2019 22:20:28 No.3512246 Report

Quoted By: >>3512254

is the zenit ttl a good starting camera for a poorfag like me? i found a pretty cheap one on ebay

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 26 Jul 2019 22:36:07 No.3512254 Report

Quoted By:

>>3512246
Film photography is very expensive apart from more time consuming in comparison, so probably no.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO image.jpg, 1001KiB, 1242x1220

Anonymous Fri 26 Jul 2019 22:44:05 No.3512255 Report

Quoted By: >>3512256

If your watch doesn’t have applied minute markers, why are you even living?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 26 Jul 2019 22:44:55 No.3512256 Report

Quoted By:

>>3512255
gj, retard

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 27 Jul 2019 01:59:14 No.3512294 Report

Quoted By: >>3512305 >>3512307 >>3512360

>>3511706
>>3511710
>>3511715

Me again

Got back from an event where I once again did not have enough focal length @ 70mm

Trick is, I was thinking if I had the new Sony 200-600 it would be a chonky to carry around an event like this.

Wondering if a used G Master 100-400 would better suit my needs...

thoughts on G Master 100-400 VS new Sony G OSS 200-600?

Maybe paired with a 1.4x teleconverter down the line?

Are GM lenses worth their pricetag vs non GM?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 27 Jul 2019 02:35:46 No.3512302 Report

Quoted By: >>3512310

I'm currently running a Nikon D3500, and I'm really itching to find a body with some more features. So far, I've been really considering the D7200 due to the immense amount of lenses it's compatible with, shortcut buttons, etc. but I'm also tempted to move up to a full-frame like the D600/610. If all of my lenses are DX, is it even worth moving up to a full-frame, or should I just keep looking for a cheap 7200?

808 !!wuWc99Hdepg

808 !!wuWc99Hdepg Sat 27 Jul 2019 02:37:39 No.3512305 Report

Quoted By: >>3512309

>>3512294
Yes. But situational the more up in mm you get.

Remember that teles multiply the focal but also the minimum f stop, but from what I've read the teleconverters can fuck with the sony af

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 27 Jul 2019 02:53:18 No.3512307 Report

Quoted By: >>3512309

>>3512294
You seem to have a good idea of what you want.
But I doubt you will be able to find the GM for cheap, it tends to be more expensive than the 200-600.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 27 Jul 2019 02:57:18 No.3512309 Report

Quoted By: >>3512363

>>3512305
>>3512307

thanks for the good feedback... the other lens I was considering is non native, the sigma 60-600... super super tempting due to the variety of ranges it can hit... but to tell you the truth I have never tried a non-native lens so I am pretty scared of going that route

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 27 Jul 2019 03:04:04 No.3512310 Report

Quoted By:

>>3512302
>If all of my lenses are DX, is it even worth moving up to a full-frame, or should I just keep looking for a cheap 7200?
If you got a D850/Z7 it would basically be the same resolution when using the DX lenses. But unless you have a bunch of money to spend on new glass, then no. Start buying FX glass then move to FX.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 27 Jul 2019 04:07:36 No.3512321 Report

Quoted By: >>3512442

Guys. Guys! I really want to buy a MFT camera. Should I buy a G9 (Y/N)? Why or why not?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 27 Jul 2019 05:11:51 No.3512342 Report

Quoted By:

>>3512215
Thanks for the input but I think I'm going to go with either the 18-55 stm or a used 18-135 usm
The 18-85 seems nice but it's old, the IS isn't as good (3 stops vs 4) and it has a well documented issue with chewing through the AF ribbon internally.

I'm also gonna wait and see what lens the bundle with the 90d whenever that comes out.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 27 Jul 2019 06:45:59 No.3512360 Report

Quoted By: >>3512790

>>3512294
I think the 100-400 is probably still better, but it costs more.

> Are GM lenses worth their pricetag vs non GM?
Most are. But vs 3rd parties it can be a bit less clear. For example I personally didn't need the 24-70GM f/2.8 after I saw the Tamron 24-75 f/2.8, the Tamron is much cheaper / somewhat lighter while also slightly better (and generally quite competitive) at one end.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 27 Jul 2019 06:53:11 No.3512363 Report

Quoted By:

>>3512309
I thought the MC-11 adapter was quite good on most newer models of Sony cameras.

And I don't think there are many better lenses with that 10x zoom range, [relatively ugly as though the 60mm end may be, most such lenses are overall worse - not a big fan personally, but it could be what you prefer].

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO cameracollection_125__dsc4745.jpg, 290KiB, 640x426

Anonymous Sat 27 Jul 2019 10:43:32 No.3512398 Report

Quoted By: >>3512399

>>3512198
>digital
You can start with kit zoom, 18-50 (or older 18-55).
Check https://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/search.php?cat=64
If you want weather sealing, the lens needs to be marked as DA*, D FA*, or have WR or AW suffix.
>manual
Get original Pentax M42 adapter (pic related) and you can adapt old screwmount lenses retaining focus on infinity. 3rd party adapters usually have flange and are not so good.
Go on eBay, etc., filter by mount you are interested in (M42, Pentax K), then search Pentax forums' lens reviews database for brand and maybe focal length, e.g.
https://www.pentaxforums.com/userreviews/showcat.php?cat=all&stype=1&si=Chinon+55
The older lenses might come in various variants, e.g. same lens with M42 or PK mount, newer model with MC (multi-coating), some zooms will have Macro.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 27 Jul 2019 10:49:53 No.3512399 Report

Quoted By: >>3512402

>>3512398
Wouldn't it be easier to just get vintage MF Pentax K mount lenses rather than adapting to M42?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 27 Jul 2019 10:57:15 No.3512402 Report

Quoted By: >>3512406

>>3512399
Changing lenses is easier with Pentax K (PK) mount, but not all lenses might be available in PK mount. It's just widening your options. There's no difference in how old manual PK and M42 lenses work on modern digital bodies.
I know some people buy multiple cheap adapters, remove springs which lock them in place in body, screw them on their lenses, and use as if they had PK mount.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 27 Jul 2019 11:15:50 No.3512406 Report

Quoted By:

>>3512402
Ah ok. Thanks for the info.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO pentax_13960_k_s2_dslr_camera_wi (...).jpg, 371KiB, 2000x2000

Anonymous Sat 27 Jul 2019 11:23:55 No.3512410 Report

Quoted By: >>3512413 >>3512419 >>3512425 >>3512439 >>3512464 >>3512505

Is there something intangible that keeps people shooting DSLRs? Is it the solid feel and grippable size of them? Or the lovely shuttersound and mirror slap?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 27 Jul 2019 11:34:41 No.3512413 Report

Quoted By:

>>3512410
>Is there something intangible that keeps people shooting DSLRs?
Sales keep going down year over year.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO camera.png, 934KiB, 1600x600

Anonymous Sat 27 Jul 2019 11:39:36 No.3512414 Report

Quoted By: >>3512423 >>3512425

>>3511677
Hey /p/eople, I need to buy my first photocamera,
I was thinking to buy ither a Nikon D5300 with standard camera lens 18 55mm, or a Canon Eos2000D with the same counterpart Canon lens 18 55mm
The price is similar, Nikon goes 499€ the other for 459€
Is it a good deal? I want to use it mostly for modelling shots inhouse or outdoors, like cosplay photos and what not.
Thank you in advance niggers

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 27 Jul 2019 11:49:04 No.3512419 Report

Quoted By:

>>3512410
I just get lost when looking through an EVF or live view.
Admittedly I've never used a good mirrorless, just shitty bridge cameras but I just always lose perspective of what I'm looking at.

An optical viewfinder is just nice

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 27 Jul 2019 11:55:50 No.3512423 Report

Quoted By: >>3512443 >>3512445

>>3512414
Between the two, absolutely no question the Nikon.

But you're being a retard for buying either of these new.
The 2000D is VERY entry level, the Nikon is still a middle entry tier but beats out the canon in features

You can get these sorts of cameras for 200€ less if you buy from a retailer that sells used goods while still having them covered under warranty

And if you're planning on shooting indoors you'll find that these kit lenses don't open their aperture enough to be properly comfortable to use, though they'll do fine for outside.

Keep in mind that for portraiture you probably won't be satisfied with the subject separation from the background.

Not much blur to be had at these focal lengths when you'll be shooting f5.6 wide open most of the time.

I'm of the opinion that for your workloads you'll do better for yourself by getting the Nikon on the used market (Or stepping up to a 7100, it's the same but even better and can probably be had for your current budget if used) and buying a cheap but much better 50mm f1.8 lens

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 27 Jul 2019 11:56:08 No.3512425 Report

Quoted By:

>>3512414
Get one of these >>3512410
It's weather sealed (including lens), got IBIS and 100% viewfinder coverage. It's also got two control wheels and probably cheaper as nobody buys Pentax.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 27 Jul 2019 12:29:16 No.3512439 Report

Quoted By: >>3512469

>>3512410
Casual shooters use compact cameras, because they are small, cheap, and marketed towards them and their needs.
Only hobbyists and professionals use more professional equipment. The only real options here are MILC and DSLR cameras. Optical viewfinder (and all that comes with OVF in DSLRs) is the most important difference between the two.
MILC are more similar to compacts in size, so they might get some market overlap.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 27 Jul 2019 12:36:32 No.3512442 Report

Quoted By:

>>3512321
1200€ for mft. Get e-m10 mk ii. Everything above 500€ is wasted.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 27 Jul 2019 12:38:00 No.3512443 Report

Quoted By: >>3512445

>>3512423
I found one used with the basic package for 300€ on ebay, should I ask for 200 or 250? also I found the lense you are talking about I think?
I'm a Italian fag, and also very ignorant regarding cameras

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Screenshot_20190727-143252_Chrome.jpg, 534KiB, 1080x1920

Anonymous Sat 27 Jul 2019 12:39:17 No.3512445 Report

Quoted By: >>3512447

>>3512443
>>3512423
forgot the picture

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 27 Jul 2019 12:46:02 No.3512447 Report

Quoted By: >>3512451 >>3512483

>>3512445
Why in the world are Nikon 50mm that expensive
I checked locally and it's about the same price as well
A Canon equivalent is literally half the price

Either way, look at the ones on the used market and I post the listing for the camera here I guess

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 27 Jul 2019 12:57:23 No.3512451 Report

Quoted By:

>>3512447
alright thank you, as for the nikon listing here, https://www.ebay. it/itm/Nikon-D5300-18-55-VR-II-KIT-/143316372004

Thank you anyways for your help, I was about to spend 500 bucks on something that I could get for less

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 27 Jul 2019 12:59:34 No.3512453 Report

Quoted By:

>>3511677
K-rock “the saturated shock” rockwell

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 27 Jul 2019 13:35:18 No.3512464 Report

Quoted By:

>>3512410
Mostly that they had a DSLR already, or that they could buy one cheap?

The hobbyists and pros are migrating to FF, multiple countries seem to have the situation where FF MILC beat FF DSLR on sales in 2018.

> Or the lovely shuttersound
Not really any different on MILC, unless you turn on fully electronic shutter. The sound of silence is also pretty lovely at times... and you don't have to give up AF or anything much for that.

If Sony mass produces its prototype global shutter design for cameras, maybe then cameras will eventually not bother with a shutter, but you'll keep hearing the sound for quite a while then.

Do you really need a mirror slap? IDK, I don't.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 27 Jul 2019 13:44:11 No.3512469 Report

Quoted By: >>3512480 >>3512482

>>3512439
> all that comes with OVF in DSLRs
At this point all that remains exclusive to DSLR is the better battery life due to the camera not draining much/anything with the OVF vs an EVF display.

That's basically it. MILC just started having live displays with no perceptible latency and less viewfinder blackout, the on-screen display capabilities are better anyhow (superhuman vision in low light, various focusing aids for manual focus, ...), and so on.

DSLR pretty much lost all their important advantages, just slightly better battery life won't be enough on the mass market.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 27 Jul 2019 14:37:03 No.3512480 Report

Quoted By: >>3512827

>>3512469
The pro market on the other hand cares about things like ergonomics and battery life, and mirrorless cameras feel like ass with anything longer than short tele on them. Using a 70-200 2.8 all day long blows ass.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 27 Jul 2019 15:02:06 No.3512482 Report

Quoted By: >>3512827

>>3512469
>mass market
You realize the mass market has chosen phones over cameras?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 27 Jul 2019 15:04:02 No.3512483 Report

Quoted By:

>>3512447
Because its a nicer lens

https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=989&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=766&CameraComp=614&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Nikons3.jpg, 1MiB, 3000x1986

Anonymous Sat 27 Jul 2019 16:20:08 No.3512505 Report

Quoted By: >>3512518 >>3512633

>>3512410
I will never be convinced by shooting through an electronic viewfinder. I just wish that DSLRs had managed viewfinder sizes as large as their film forefathers before mirrorless took over. Also, there's no reason why DSLRs couldn't be significantly smaller while still being FF. For some reason the plasticy, bulky and rounded construction of Canon and Nikon's high end film camera designs informed their DSLR development, which made sense in the beginning because they were for professionals only, but what with ultra thin sensor and display stacks you see on the likes of mirrorless cameras nowadays, you would think that they could now make a compact FF DSLR verging on the size of the size of their film counterparts. If mirrorless completely takes over, I'm probably going to be stuck using hotshoe viewfinders for the rest of my days.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 27 Jul 2019 16:29:43 No.3512508 Report

Quoted By: >>3512515 >>3513249

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 27 Jul 2019 16:39:10 No.3512515 Report

Quoted By: >>3512522

>>3512508
>going for the most overpriced meme film camera there is immediately over all else
I don't know what e-celeb youtube videos everyone is watching but why is it ALWAYS the Canon AE-1 people look at?

If she's brand new to film and you're broke, go for a Canon EF film camera. They're dirt cheap, have autofocus, multiple exposures, autowind, full compatibility with first party Canon EF lenses. Plus they're a third of the price of the meme FD ones. She'll get better results. Most people have never manually focused a lens in their lives and get more out of a newer film camera. I use a Canon EOS 620, it's built like a tank and works great. I get way more keepers out of it than my all manual cameras. It doesn't have the hipster look of the older FD ones but it's a breeze to use by comparison.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 27 Jul 2019 16:54:47 No.3512518 Report

Quoted By:

>>3512505

Just carry on shooting film and stop worrying about the new camera the adverts tell you to buy.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 27 Jul 2019 17:07:52 No.3512522 Report

Quoted By: >>3512550 >>3512575

>>3512515
Hahahah it was the first one that popped up.

But thanks man, I'll check that one. She's not brand new into film, she's been doing it for 4 years, she just wants an analog one.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 27 Jul 2019 17:15:15 No.3512528 Report

Quoted By: >>3512633

Anybody tried to use the old ef Tamron 28-70 f2.8 on a Sony a7m2 through adapter? I like the lense but also thinking about switching body to something compact with ibis and unfortunately Canon is 100 years behind in this regard.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 27 Jul 2019 18:42:00 No.3512550 Report

Quoted By: >>3512575 >>3512627

>>3512522
>not brand new into film, she's been doing it for 4 years
>she just wants an analog one

wut?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 27 Jul 2019 19:49:35 No.3512575 Report

Quoted By: >>3512627

>>3512550
She probably has a more modern SLR with electronics and whatnot and wants a fully mechanical one.

>>3512522
Find out what body she already has and then look up what mechanical bodies (if any) are compatible with it.

While a lot of older mechanical lenses are pretty cheap, there's not necessarily reason to make her have to go out and get duplicate lenses if she's already bought into a system.

Also, Nikon fm2s are still good values. They're knocking on the door of getting too expensive for what they are, but haven't gotten there yet.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO AD1A9461.jpg, 66KiB, 600x600

Anonymous Sat 27 Jul 2019 19:59:47 No.3512580 Report

Quoted By: >>3512591

>>3511677

Would it be worth picking up a lightly used Canon 80D after the 90D drops? Coming from a 60D.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 27 Jul 2019 20:33:30 No.3512591 Report

Quoted By: >>3512629

>>3512580
What’s wrong with your 60D?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 27 Jul 2019 22:45:15 No.3512621 Report

Quoted By:

Should I hold out for Fuji's new 16-80 f4 to round out my general purpose kit? I've already got the 23 f2 and the 35 f1.4 but thinking of replacing the 23 with one of Fuji's 16mm because early impressions say the 16-80 is better at its longer focal length than its wide ones.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 27 Jul 2019 23:07:53 No.3512627 Report

Quoted By: >>3512628

>>3512575
Perfect my man, thanks a lot. I'll find out what she has.

>>3512550
As the other dude said, she has modern SLR.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 27 Jul 2019 23:13:57 No.3512628 Report

Quoted By:

>>3512627
If she wants a more manual SLR you should look into the Nikon FG-20. You can get them pretty inexpensively and they're pretty reliable.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO fcaee1598becc6f867bef69635e27bca.jpg, 20KiB, 600x280

Anonymous Sat 27 Jul 2019 23:18:45 No.3512629 Report

Quoted By: >>3513300

>>3512591
Nothing (yet), it's just starting to show it's age some.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 27 Jul 2019 23:37:46 No.3512633 Report

Quoted By: >>3512676

>>3512528
Dunno, but the new 24-75 is fine.

>>3512505
> I will never be convinced by shooting through an electronic viewfinder
What difference does it make, except seeing what light hits your sensor now with info displays vs seeing it later on the image you want?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 28 Jul 2019 01:15:13 No.3512667 Report

Quoted By: >>3512669

Want to get a camera to take on deployment and take good photos of the ports we hit, what would be a good choice? Should I go DSLR or Mirrorless? Full frame, or APS-C?

Any and all input/suggestions welcome, budget is about 1-1500, would rather spend the lower end of that number, though. Just want to take pretty pictures and have memories to share when I get home.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 28 Jul 2019 01:20:03 No.3512669 Report

Quoted By: >>3512670 >>3512682

>>3512667
If you're in the military, go for something rugged. A Pentax or weather sealed Fuji would work well.

https://youtu.be/Eo61t5fH6Qw for Pentax weather sealing in the military. It's crazy how well their cameras hold up to dust and moisture.

For Fuji, X-H1 or X-T3 depending on if you want image stabilisation for the former or better specs over all for the latter. They're both weather sealed and rugged.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 28 Jul 2019 01:23:09 No.3512670 Report

Quoted By: >>3512878

>>3512669
Am military. Navy, specifically.

I'll look into that, thank you. Do they have interchangeable lenses? I meant to say I wanted interchangeable lenses, sorry.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Sony.png, 205KiB, 1000x1000

Anonymous Sun 28 Jul 2019 01:26:45 No.3512672 Report

Quoted By: >>3512767

>>3511677
I am looking to get into Digital photography as a hobby , Ive heard good things about sony cameras I can get a NEX-5 for 170? with the lens. Would this be a good introductory camera? I mainly want to take pictures of spiders , flowers and other nature stuff

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 28 Jul 2019 01:46:07 No.3512676 Report

Quoted By: >>3512677

>>3512633
>What difference does it make, except seeing what light hits your sensor now with info displays vs seeing it later on the image you want?
EVFs still need improvement. They still do not match the color/brightness/relative brightness of the scene. They still have annoying flicker under certain circumstances. (Even the supposedly 'no blackout' Sony A9, which I've shot with, has annoying flicker while shooting.) They still are 'rough' (i.e. pixelated) and can still show lag. And contrary to all the claims of how good an EVF is at night, they show shit when it comes to truly dim scenes like with astrophotography.

On the plus side, they give you a fairly accurate preview of exposure. When I shoot mirrorless I basically shoot M because I don't need an AE program nor do I need to spot meter and mentally calculate. I just need to turn a dial until the picture is pretty.

Can't speak for the other anon, but at the moment I still prefer OVF though I would welcome a truly awesome, OVF-like EVF.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 28 Jul 2019 01:48:58 No.3512677 Report

Quoted By:

>>3512676
One of my issues with evf is when shooting at night, it fucks my night vision.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 28 Jul 2019 02:37:17 No.3512682 Report

Quoted By:

>>3512669
This is the most retarded video ever. They pour some dirt on them and then wash them off and then check to see if the flash fired on the body. They didnt do shit like pump the zoom or focusing system to have the lenses suck in air. They didnt take the lenses off, open up the aperatures and then use a macro lens to show if shit got in the lens, they didnt even take before and after test photos. Even the lens caps were on the entire time.

You should feel bad for posting this video.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO IMG_20190727_222637__01.jpg, 224KiB, 1000x1000

Anonymous Sun 28 Jul 2019 03:14:46 No.3512684 Report

Quoted By: >>3512686 >>3512688

Maybe this doesn't count as /gear/ but I just picked up my first big boy camera and I need recs for a decent bag to lug it round in. I probably only need room for like one spare lens for now since I haven't got anything but this old 50mm and some spare batteries to my name.
Also, how much storage is too much? I was gonna have a split raw + jpg setup; do y'all think 128gb for the raw card is enough?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 28 Jul 2019 03:30:14 No.3512686 Report

Quoted By:

>>3512684
Too much storage can be a bad thing
Gives you excuses not to empty out your card and then you lose shit when it breaks

Really anything 32gb and up is more than enough.

As far as bag goes, if you've only got that much gear then I don't think you need to invest in a big boy camera bag, just toss it into a bag from your student days, at best invest in foam camera bag inserts

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 28 Jul 2019 03:34:25 No.3512688 Report

Quoted By:

>>3512684
>y'all think 128gb for the raw card is enough?
Its more than enough assuming you copy them off the card to your computer periodically. I have a D7500 with a 400GB card and it holds 8,200 raws. iirc the battery only lasts for 800 or so images so you would have to be really lazy to fill up a card.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 850.png, 1MiB, 1264x1144

Anonymous Sun 28 Jul 2019 03:46:34 No.3512690 Report

Quoted By: >>3512727

is the D760 worth waiting for or should I just get a used D850?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 28 Jul 2019 08:33:05 No.3512725 Report

Quoted By: >>3512726 >>3512763

a7 ii or a76400?? Which would you get, with prime lens?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 28 Jul 2019 08:36:25 No.3512726 Report

Quoted By: >>3512853

>>3512725
depends how much money you want to spend

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 28 Jul 2019 08:42:53 No.3512727 Report

Quoted By:

>>3512690
There is always some thing in future to wait for.

Get a thing if you need it now and sell it later if you decide to switch to other thing.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 28 Jul 2019 11:32:50 No.3512760 Report

Quoted By: >>3512764 >>3512797

I currently store my camera in a shoebox, wrapped in some fabric with a sachet of silica beads. It's a dslr with a few accessories, whats a decent storage method thats not as fucked?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 28 Jul 2019 11:42:18 No.3512763 Report

Quoted By: >>3512853

>>3512725
YMMV, but IMO the A6400 is a more well-rounded camera with its better AF and video capabilities and such.

Plus you'll probably like the lens price-performance on the Sigma primes and other APS-C lenses.

Won't be quite that cheap for the nice primes or zooms on the A7 II, and given that it's almost certainly the price that made you stay away from the A7 III / A7 IV... probably go for the A6400.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 28 Jul 2019 11:54:48 No.3512764 Report

Quoted By: >>3512781

>>3512760
I usually kept my Sony MILC(s, now) ready on a desk and some equipment is in an Ikea plastic boxes. No silica beads or such.
On some larger trips the camera is padded with either my clothes or in actual camera bags / backpacks, but usually a smaller subset of the gear is just tossed in a compartment in an unpadded backpack that I DO kinda try not to drop carelessly because it's still something like $3-5k in equipment.

Most I ever broke so far is a battery compartment latch, and even that happened after it was opened quite a lot of times during the maybe 200k shots it took before that.

Gear is pretty robust. I don't think your DSLR is worse, and if your climate isn't super humid all the time I don't think you have that much to worry about with storing yours in just SOME boxes.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 28 Jul 2019 12:12:53 No.3512767 Report

Quoted By:

>>3512672
For starters you probably want to plan in a macro lens if possible or at least some achromat close-up filter lens like some Marumi (and maybe an extender tube) to get better photos of your small things, that should have some additional budget.

Main thing to plan for. Although you can also see what other hobbyists and professionals pick for current camera bodies. You theoretically want the same in terms of conveniently / reliably taking nice photos. No training on older / worse cameras required.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 28 Jul 2019 12:50:36 No.3512781 Report

Quoted By:

>>3512764
im in australia, winter rn so not too humid but i tend to travel to asia a bit (not sea or anything) and it gets pretty humid there (japan in particular gets pretty bad). ever developed fungus or anything?

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Crib1.jpg, 697KiB, 1000x666

Anonymous Sun 28 Jul 2019 13:03:43 No.3512788 Report

Quoted By: >>3512796 >>3512838

So my wife bought me a used/lightly-beatup a5000, and a LTM adapter for it. I inherited a bunch of russian counterfit camera stuff from my uncle (he died like 35 years ago, so I guess...before it was cool?), slapped an Industar-50 on it, and I used it on our Caribbean Vacation (pic related).

I know next to nothing about photography, but I am a Forester. People tend to know fuck all nothing about trees, actual enviormentalism, actual ecosystem health, etc. So I want to make an educational blog with my own photos.

I can't afford a full complement of expensive lenses that I don't warrant having at my level of skill (I know I'm fairly terrible), but what lenses would you all suggest for innawoods photography with an a5000?

My budget isn't a huge concern but it is a concern.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 28 Jul 2019 13:07:11 No.3512790 Report

Quoted By: >>3512796 >>3512838

>>3512360
>I think the 100-400 is probably still better, but it costs more.

New 200-600 non GM
vs
Used 100-400 GM

~$2000 USD

Still unsure

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 28 Jul 2019 13:18:54 No.3512796 Report

Quoted By: >>3513013

>>3512790
Just decide based on how important 100-200 is to you, vs 400-600.

One is a better indoor lens, one is a better outdoor lens.

>>3512788
>but what lenses would you all suggest for innawoods photography with an a5000?
Maybe the Sigma 16mm F1,4. It's good for low light conditions.

But it depends on how many degrees angle of view you want.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 28 Jul 2019 13:19:16 No.3512797 Report

Quoted By: >>3512808 >>3512810

>>3512760
a dedicated plugged drybox with a control dial and humidity reader

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 28 Jul 2019 14:21:48 No.3512808 Report

Quoted By: >>3512810 >>3512844

>>3512797
ah cool man, any idea how well these ones work/ if they make any noise? For the price I might just build one

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Screenshot_20190728-222007.png, 493KiB, 1536x2048

Anonymous Sun 28 Jul 2019 14:23:40 No.3512810 Report

Quoted By:

>>3512808
>>3512797

whoops

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 28 Jul 2019 14:58:01 No.3512827 Report

Quoted By: >>3512857 >>3512858

>>3512480
Mirrorless cameras make the overall setup more lightweight, so frankly a MILC with a 70-200 f/2.8 all day long sucks less than a DSLR. Although the difference isn't huge.

>>3512482
FF is still a mass market with hundreds of thousands of cameras. That specific mass market.

Not the biggest market - sure, that'd be phone sensors and lenses.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 28 Jul 2019 15:07:59 No.3512838 Report

Quoted By: >>3513013

>>3512790
I too suggest deciding based on the focal lengths.

Double check against measured properties at the focal lengths you care most about. If you care more about 100/200mm, you might want the lens to be good wide open on that end.

>>3512788
> I don't warrant having at my level of skill
I get limited budgets, but this part isn't really a thing. You can operate any lens unless you're actually severely handicapped, in which case I'd not necessarily expect you to be able to write as you just did.

I don't know what you want to show though.
Could you possibly want a wide lens like the 12mm Samyang f/2 or 16mm f/1.4 Sigma?
Examples:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/95759768@N03/45662803411/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/downstreamer/48072272703/

Or do you want to show more small details on leaves and mushrooms and such (that'd be more like some macro lens and lights?)

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 28 Jul 2019 15:13:03 No.3512843 Report

Quoted By: >>3512977

>>3511899
>that site nearly completely mangles images anyhow
Mangling an image with high amount of detail that was not yet removed by aggressive noise suppression if it was present in the first place as rendered by a tiny lens gives better results than otherwise. Even on insta.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 28 Jul 2019 15:13:29 No.3512844 Report

Quoted By: >>3512855

>>3512808
Could come useful for extremely humid and hot environments, otherwise it's overkill. In temperate hemisphere, without you getting any mold indoors, you only need a dry closet.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 28 Jul 2019 15:13:55 No.3512846 Report

Quoted By:

>>3511677
What are everyone's thoughts on the Pentax K-3 not the K-3 II? I have old Pentax gear but no DSLR and over looking over different cameras settled on a good condition used K-3 as it was the highest end I could go within my budget currently. I've seen people complaining about image sharpness in jpeg but, others also saying that's due to user error. Also how do they stack up to other brands current lineups? Thanks.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 28 Jul 2019 15:42:21 No.3512853 Report

Quoted By:

>>3512763
I just saw that the A7 ii and a6400 were around t the same price, and the A7 iii was more than twice the price. Is it worth it over the A7ii?

>>3512726
Roughly 1500 bucks. I want to get a camera and a few nice lenses.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 28 Jul 2019 15:44:58 No.3512855 Report

Quoted By:

>>3512844
fair enough man, my house has a full dehumidify mode but i hate using it

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 28 Jul 2019 15:47:24 No.3512857 Report

Quoted By:

>>3512827
>Mirrorless cameras make the overall setup more lightweight, so frankly a MILC with a 70-200 f/2.8 all day long sucks less than a DSLR. Although the difference isn't huge.
>I don't know anything about how ergonomics work
They're lighter, yes. That's the only positive.
For most, the design of their grip doesn't fit the hand, especially when holding or manipulating a weight that extends outward from it.

Trading a few ounces for something to be designed to be held by humans is very worth it.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO DSC_3458.jpg, 3MiB, 5568x3712

Anonymous Sun 28 Jul 2019 15:47:58 No.3512858 Report

Quoted By: >>3512866 >>3512877

>>3512827
>FF is still a mass market with hundreds of thousands of cameras
>the overwhelming majority of which are DSLRs
>I'm going to try to desperately somehow tie this in to proving that MILC cameras are better
I went to the Chicago Botanical Gardens yesterday. I saw 4 other people with real cameras. Two were Nikon DSLRs, one was a Canon DSLR one was a Sony A-something. Everyone else had phones out. The camera market is tiny, by no means mass, and people rarely buy new bodies every few years.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO DSC_3461.jpg, 3MiB, 5568x3712

Anonymous Sun 28 Jul 2019 15:56:07 No.3512866 Report

Quoted By: >>3512877

>>3512858
The Canon was owned by some Gen-X asian guy with a Benro tripod. God only knows why he brought it and had it setup in an indoor area overlooking the greenhouse. The other Nikon was for a photographer who had it on a gimbal mount on a tripod for a wedding. It didnt have a lens large enough to warrant a gimbal. I can only assume he thought bigger head=more pro.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 28 Jul 2019 15:58:26 No.3512867 Report

Quoted By: >>3512873 >>3512875 >>3512884

Is the a6400 with two lenses for 800 a good deal? I know there's a weird stigma about kit lenses but I mean... They can't be that bad.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 28 Jul 2019 16:09:46 No.3512873 Report

Quoted By:

>>3512867
Fucking derp. a6000, not 6400.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 28 Jul 2019 16:14:27 No.3512875 Report

Quoted By:

>>3512867
>I know there's a weird stigma about kit lenses but I mean... They can't be that bad.
There's not a "weird stigma". They're objectively worse than every other offering in almost every aspect. It's not just the slow variable aperture. They're softer, they often display poorly handled aberrations, focus more slowly, and the like. And camera companies do this on purpose. They do it to save money and to encourage buying other lenses.

That said, if you're starting out and on a budget, they're mostly good enough, especially if you don't want to deal with primes (used primes are usually where you can find the cheapest and best IQ).

To your question, dunno. Look at places like adorama, keh, and ebay to get a general baseline for what used prices are.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 28 Jul 2019 16:19:35 No.3512877 Report

Quoted By: >>3513094

>>3512858
It's *still* a mass market with mass produced cameras.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_market

You're redefining the term to mean "dominant type of camera" or something. Of course I too know most people use smartphones, I even indicated so.

>>3512866
Maybe there was a reason for what they did. Not easy to know unless you recognize all the gear involved and the subject they shoot. and maybe the health conditions of the people photographing.

Maybe the Canon guy did some focus stacking or exposure bracketing and the Nikon guy just had some issues with his hands.

Still, what's this supposed to tell me? You were in a botanical garden and some people who you apparently think sucked ass shot DSLR. Okay, where is the connection here to to MILC not having practically only advantages with the only remaining mild disadvantage being battery life at this point?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 28 Jul 2019 16:20:49 No.3512878 Report

Quoted By:

>>3512670
Yes they're interchangeable lens systems. If you want a quick recommendation just get the X-H1, it's pretty much what you want.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 28 Jul 2019 16:28:34 No.3512884 Report

Quoted By: >>3512926

>>3512867
Yea, although I wonder what two lenses they would add to an A6400, it tends to already cost $800. Probably the pretty shitty 16-50 and something else?

> They can't be that bad
I got rid of the A6000's 16-50 on day one when I used that camera. That was not what I got a 24MP IL camera for. It was just as bad as the typical CaNikon APS-C kit lenses.

I can only advise you to start with a 30mm Sigma f/1.4 instead, and maybe some other decent lenses.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 28 Jul 2019 17:38:13 No.3512926 Report

Quoted By: >>3512950

>>3512884
Would you suggest the 30mm sigma over the 50mm Sony? They're the same price, currently.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 28 Jul 2019 18:06:58 No.3512935 Report

Quoted By: >>3512953

yo nigs, wrecked my d3300 and hate me panasonic g7 because it's too small and i hate the crop with old 35mm lenses, alright for old cine lenses though but i just havent got along with it
moving to an a7 mk1, w/ the 28-70 that ill not use and throw either my helios 44 because bokeh funny or me dead grandads oreston 50 1.8 then either use vintage shit or if i have the bank actually use something decent like a constant apeture zoom or good fast lens lol - maybe samyang set but the only packages are the cine ones and fuck that noise for photos lol, tell me im retarded or something please

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 28 Jul 2019 18:34:50 No.3512950 Report

Quoted By: >>3512960

>>3512926
Yes, it's a very nice choice for a first lens.

I'd also suggest the 56mm Sigma f/1.4 over the 50mm Sony. Unless you mean another 50mm Sony - the macro lens might be interesting enough if you want macro. But 50mm on APS-C isn't all that wide, not a great choice for "typical" needs.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO expensive gear.jpg, 186KiB, 800x450

Anonymous Sun 28 Jul 2019 18:35:28 No.3512951 Report

Quoted By: >>3512957 >>3513017

I have an A7 II, I am willing to fall for the manual lens meme in an effort to improve photography skills. I value compactness in my setup so smaller the adapter+lens the better.

Any recommendations on (cheap) (old) manual lenses? Which adapted should I even get? Googled this for hours and didn't gain any wisdom.

M42 seems like a solid choice if I try to find some old-ass cheap lenses. Does Leica M have old lenses that don't cost 5k USD? Any and all experiences appreciated.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 28 Jul 2019 18:39:11 No.3512953 Report

Quoted By: >>3512959

>>3512935
Hard to tell, how cheap is the A7 mk1? Because the A7 II is only $800 or so now, and you get IBIS.

Want faster glass? You could skip on the 28-70 regular kit if it reduces costs and just get the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 28 Jul 2019 18:41:52 No.3512957 Report

Quoted By:

>>3512951
> I am willing to fall for the manual lens meme in an effort to improve photography skills
That is not a thing. Just set your camera focusing to MF and MF if you think it will help with the shot at hand.

And no, having no lens correction profile doesn't improve your photography skills either.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 28 Jul 2019 18:45:08 No.3512959 Report

Quoted By:

>>3512953
the a7 with the kit is for about $750 new where i am, dont care much for IBIS as it was in my gx85 and it just made me uneasy for some autistic reason. i can sell shit to get the 28-75, was thinking on adapting the tamron 28-105 2.8 for shits and giggles as it can be found really cheaply, like 100-300 pounds

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 28 Jul 2019 18:46:25 No.3512960 Report

Quoted By: >>3512963 >>3512976

>>3512950
Oh cool! I just looked them both up and the Sigma does seem to take better pictures.

Do you have any suggestions on a pancake lense?? And maybe a lens for animal/nature photography?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 28 Jul 2019 18:50:50 No.3512963 Report

Quoted By: >>3512965

>>3512960
>And maybe a lens for animal/nature photography?
The longest you can afford.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 28 Jul 2019 18:53:24 No.3512965 Report

Quoted By: >>3512975 >>3512978

>>3512963
Prime?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 28 Jul 2019 19:29:41 No.3512975 Report

Quoted By:

>>3512965
Prime=single focal length, so like a 50mm f/1.8

Zoom=changeable focal length, so like a 24-70mm f/2.8

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 28 Jul 2019 19:34:51 No.3512976 Report

Quoted By:

>>3512960
> Do you have any suggestions on a pancake lense??
For FF the Samyang 35mm f/2.8 might be interesting, but I don't feel any pancake lenses are actually good on the APS-C models.

If you can't stop yourself regardless, maybe:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QiD8ipQ0WHQ

> And maybe a lens for animal/nature photography?
Typical nature can be photographed pretty well with that 30mm and the 16mm by the same manufacturer or the 12mm Samyang f/2.

Animals... depends on how large and how far away they are. Cats and dogs and so on work fine with the 30mm. Birds... not usually, that's more telephoto.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 28 Jul 2019 19:35:53 No.3512977 Report

Quoted By:

>>3512843
meh, what's the point?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 28 Jul 2019 19:35:53 No.3512978 Report

Quoted By:

>>3512965
nigga if you want a prime for normal shit go 30/35, 50mm on apsc is too long, gotta be 1.8 or faster

for telephoto a 70-200 2.8 or if youre cheap f/4

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO nsr.gif, 2MiB, 316x213

Anonymous Sun 28 Jul 2019 20:53:04 No.3513013 Report

Quoted By: >>3513016 >>3513226

>>3512796
>>3512838
>Just decide based on how important 100-200 is to you, vs 400-600.

>One is a better indoor lens, one is a better outdoor lens.

>I too suggest deciding based on the focal lengths.

F-fuck... I am so indecisive with this kind of money

I shoot outside nearly exclusively, but the 100-400 is supposedly capable of crisper images than the 200-600

Ahhhhhh!

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 28 Jul 2019 20:57:33 No.3513016 Report

Quoted By:

>>3513013

I think I'm gonna save for the GM 100-400

then later buy a 1.4 teleconverter if I am missing reach

gonna save cash for a couple months

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 28 Jul 2019 21:09:56 No.3513017 Report

Quoted By:

>>3512951
I have that same camera and a bunch of old minolta MF glass I use on it—focus peaking and IBIS make it really fun. Minolta SR mount lenses are relatively cheap but very good. I dropped something like 40 bucks on a 50mm f/1.4. The 50mm f/1.7 can be found for 20-25 bucks.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 28 Jul 2019 21:41:21 No.3513028 Report

Quoted By: >>3513032

when is the a7 iv released

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 28 Jul 2019 22:13:21 No.3513032 Report

Quoted By: >>3513292

>>3513028
No clue. Maybe this or next year.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 28 Jul 2019 23:49:03 No.3513077 Report

Quoted By: >>3513082 >>3513084 >>3513192 >>3513212

a6400 or a7 iii???

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 29 Jul 2019 00:00:29 No.3513082 Report

Quoted By: >>3513083

>>3513077
Fuji or Panasonic

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 29 Jul 2019 00:02:12 No.3513083 Report

Quoted By:

>>3513082
The one you have with you

No but seriously, why?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 29 Jul 2019 00:20:01 No.3513084 Report

Quoted By:

>>3513077

the one u have without u
or the one ur mum has

? ? ?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 29 Jul 2019 00:45:05 No.3513094 Report

Quoted By:

>>3512877
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_market
You didnt read your own link did you?

>The term "mass market" refers to a market for goods produced on a large scale for a significant number of end consumers. The mass market differs from the niche market in that the former focuses on consumers with a wide variety of backgrounds with no identifiable preferences and expectations in a large market segment.
>significant number of end consumers
That would be phones, not me a few other people with real cameras in a location with god knows how many thousands of people with phones out.

> Okay, where is the connection here to to MILC not having practically only advantages
>muh focus peaking
I could walk around with my PIX-E5 and get the same thing on my DSLR and have a fuck huge screen. Oh wow, a Nikon Z6/Z7 weighs 2 ounces less than my D7500. It means fuck all when I have a lens (Sigma 85mm Art) which weighs twice what my body does on my camera.

I'm not the autist trying to argue against MILC cameras. I'm the guy pointing out that cameras arent mass market, they were replaced by phones a long time ago and the historical sales figures from Canikon prove this. If I wanted to drop another $3.5k in to a hobby im just starting to get in to I would buy the Sigma 14mm/40mm/135mm Art lenses before a Z7. But at this point dropping that much on a body and not having lenses to match it would be kind of silly.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 51Kjm5iwzEL._SL1001_.jpg, 63KiB, 1001x1001

Anonymous Mon 29 Jul 2019 01:23:24 No.3513133 Report

Quoted By: >>3513142 >>3513151 >>3513152 >>3513223

Can anyone recommend me a tripod under $100? Or at least talk me out of these amazon monstrosities?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 29 Jul 2019 01:31:14 No.3513142 Report

Quoted By:

>>3513133
i had the amazon basics "carbob fiber"- yeah right- tripod, had a decent ball head but it couldnt support much at all- it was fancy but a bit shit.

try and get a second hand video fluid head or something, they dont go crazy low or mad high but they work pretty well for photos- i pikced up a used manfrotto with a fluid head and designed for old larger eng cameras for about $80 and it kicks ass, can always change the head to suit your needs tho

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 29 Jul 2019 01:48:34 No.3513149 Report

Quoted By:

FUCK I WANT A NEW LENS

FUCK

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 29 Jul 2019 01:49:12 No.3513151 Report

Quoted By: >>3513152 >>3513223

>>3513133
Get a tripod from AliExpress. There's a number of rebrands of the Q999(C/H) that are good. Brands include Zomei, QZSD, Innorel (they use different model names), among many others.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 29 Jul 2019 01:50:19 No.3513152 Report

Quoted By:

>>3513133
>>3513151
kek just realized you posted a pic of a Zomei tripod. Get them off Aliexpress to save some money.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 29 Jul 2019 03:44:09 No.3513192 Report

Quoted By:

>>3513077
a7iii unless you really want that flippy screen

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 29 Jul 2019 04:42:25 No.3513212 Report

Quoted By:

>>3513077
Depends, but likely the A7 III if you don't mind buying FF lenses.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 29 Jul 2019 05:10:03 No.3513223 Report

Quoted By: >>3513229

>>3513133
>>3513151
You should use Q999h as the search term specifically.
Otherwise you just risk getting an older model.

The brands are actually irrelevant. The Chinese tirpod makers change brands like a Snake sheds its skin.
Dic&Mic is now completely defunct for example now not a searchable term anymore.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 29 Jul 2019 05:15:10 No.3513226 Report

Quoted By:

>>3513013
>I shoot outside nearly exclusively
That's important, then the 600mm end is valuable.
Even though it's bigger it's also built very well and has internal zoom.

>supposedly capable of crisper images than the 200-600
That bit might be less important than you think
The teleconverter will lower the image quality.
So I don't think the 100-400 will get you the same image quality if the target is far away and you need that 600mm.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 29 Jul 2019 05:31:36 No.3513229 Report

Quoted By: >>3513230

>>3513223
>Dic&Mic is now completely defunct for example now not a searchable term anymore
Yea, it's now Innorel (or at least the same tripods are, maybe it was both all along).

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 29 Jul 2019 05:39:24 No.3513230 Report

Quoted By: >>3513251 >>3513273

>>3513229
Probably because they violated some Tripod patent which they didn't want to pay for.

Doesn't matter anyway, I used multiple brands and they mostly work the same. It's the models that matter.
For example you wouldn't want to get a clone of the older Q666 when the new Q999H cost about the same.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 29 Jul 2019 06:23:20 No.3513249 Report

Quoted By:

>>3512508
You should get her a new boyfriend with a job.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 29 Jul 2019 06:28:44 No.3513251 Report

Quoted By: >>3513252

>>3513230
How can I tell which model is newer or older? The model numbers don't really tell me the generation of product; at least it doesn't seem obvious to me.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 29 Jul 2019 06:32:55 No.3513252 Report

Quoted By:

>>3513251
More features = newer
That's the only indication would trust.

Q999H is fairly distinctive because H is for horisontal, so anything with horisontal feature is based off it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 29 Jul 2019 07:34:05 No.3513273 Report

Quoted By: >>3513274

>>3513230
>Probably because they violated some Tripod patent which they didn't want to pay for.
Unlikely. Not least because they seem to have carried on with the same tripods - that RT50C seems to be the same as the Dic&Mic I have.

They probably just wanted a rebrand and dropped the colour variants in the process.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 29 Jul 2019 07:43:21 No.3513274 Report

Quoted By:

>>3513273
>They probably just wanted a rebrand and dropped the colour variants in the process.
That's meaningless because their brand had no negative controversy.
It wouldn't benefit you to do that in the slightest.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO which one.png, 400KiB, 800x455

Anonymous Mon 29 Jul 2019 07:44:37 No.3513276 Report

Quoted By: >>3513280

Top or bottom, which lens would you pick, and why?

Both are very large aperture primes.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 29 Jul 2019 07:52:25 No.3513280 Report

Quoted By: >>3513281

>>3513276
Dunno, are these wide/ultrawide shots? I don't think this bokeh is great for normal or even telephoto.

Also I wouldn't usually pick based on bokeh mainly, got any better images or measurements to show the lens sharpness in relation to aperture choice?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 29 Jul 2019 07:54:58 No.3513281 Report

Quoted By: >>3513282

>>3513280
One is 24 F1,4
The other is 35 F1,2

Bokeh is important!

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 29 Jul 2019 07:59:48 No.3513282 Report

Quoted By: >>3513283 >>3513285

>>3513281
> Bokeh is important!
Well if it's just that, the lower one is probably better. But if it's not the wider lens but the 35mm, I think you might find some improvements.

Still, I'd also not disregard sharpness either.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 29 Jul 2019 08:03:55 No.3513283 Report

Quoted By: >>3513288

>>3513282
What about onion characteristics? One seems to have more onions in center, one has more onions in the corner.

Interestingly enough you picked the bokeh of the 24mm over the 35mm one with F1,2.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 29 Jul 2019 08:04:44 No.3513285 Report

Quoted By: >>3513294

>>3513282 (cont'd)
BTW that 's not to say somewhat more lentil-shaped bokeh with a bit of a mirror image is always bad.

I think a 35mm that is about in between these two is the Sony-Zeiss 35mm f/1.4, and it looks fairly pleasant bokeh-wise:
https://www.flickr.com/groups/sel35f14z/pool/

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 29 Jul 2019 08:20:29 No.3513288 Report

Quoted By:

>>3513283
> What about onion characteristics?
I usually don't want them. But I guess they're mostly a matter of taste and are probably quite okay on some shots (IMO not as often as not having onion rings is okay, though).

Avoiding more strongly lentil shaped bokeh isn't just taste, it also rather objectively tends to make non-centered crops look like they had some seriously weird movement or something. Not typically good at all.

> Interestingly enough you picked the bokeh of the 24mm over the 35mm one with F1,2.
Sure - there are wide angle lenses that have nice bokeh, it just always depends on the lens.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 29 Jul 2019 08:42:28 No.3513292 Report

Quoted By: >>3513295

>>3513032
Looking at the a7riii and a7iii release dates I would guess mid November. How about you?

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO bokeh_gm_85_1.4_1.4.jpg, 23KiB, 800x161

Anonymous Mon 29 Jul 2019 08:49:46 No.3513294 Report

Quoted By:

>>3513285
I'm kind of glad the Bokeh factor is the one Sony's main focus in their GM prime line.
The 24GM above, circular all the way to the corner.
<-The 85GM, pic related, it's godly.
The 100GM is small but round as fuck.
No idea about the 135GM yet.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 29 Jul 2019 08:51:53 No.3513295 Report

Quoted By:

>>3513292
Next one is A7S, not A7.

The A7iii is in a special category right now, it's the kind of camera you would want to milk for a few years before replacing it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 29 Jul 2019 09:20:30 No.3513300 Report

Quoted By: >>3513344

>>3512629
tfw my 60d is currently on 336,000 shutter actuations

any day now

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 29 Jul 2019 09:23:22 No.3513303 Report

Quoted By: >>3513304 >>3513316 >>3513326

A6000 with both kit lenses for 680 or A6400 for 898 and no lenses?

Is the A6400 worth the 218-plus dollars since I'd have to grab up a lense. I'm not super concerned about bokeh or anything, I just want to take pictures.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 29 Jul 2019 09:26:04 No.3513304 Report

Quoted By: >>3513314

>>3513303
You're going to want a good quality lens regardless of which body you pick Anon.

Most people recommend the one of the three F1,4 Sigma lenses.
I recommend the 18-135 for travels.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 29 Jul 2019 09:36:20 No.3513314 Report

Quoted By:

>>3513304
>suggests a $600 lens to somebody obviously on a budget

It's not going to take the best pictures your camera is capable of, but for somebody just starting out, it's more than adequate, and gives the anon a wide variance. YES they should probably snatch up a sigma 30mm but it's not necessary for somebody just starting out and figuring things out.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO DSC06190.jpg, 581KiB, 4912x2760

Anonymous Mon 29 Jul 2019 09:47:54 No.3513316 Report

Quoted By: >>3513328

>>3513303
I'd go for the A6000 out of the two since any spec improvements in the A6400 you won't understand or appreciate as a newcomer to photography. You could even go older, the Nex 6 is still a capable camera in the Alpha family. Supports all the same lenses. Even the Nex 5n is still perfectly fine image wise. Pic related was taken with the older Sony kit lens.

Get whatever body leaves you enough money to buy the best lens possible within your budget. Lenses >>>>>>>>>>>>> camera body in terms of overall image quality and importance.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 29 Jul 2019 10:12:17 No.3513326 Report

Quoted By:

>>3513303
>Is the A6400 worth the 218-plus dollars since I'd have to grab up a lense
Yes, if you want video, the much much better autofocus or many other things - sure. It's a really nice upgrade over the A6000, actually.

Apart from that: The 16-50 isn't even a lens I wanted to use. Even if you're not super demanding and like "just taking pictures" when it gets a bit darker indoors or whatever is much easier with one of the Sigma f/1.4 primes. Of course you're not zooming with these too, but there are always trade-offs involved.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 29 Jul 2019 10:14:54 No.3513328 Report

Quoted By: >>3513355

>>3513316
> any spec improvements in the A6400 you won't understand or appreciate as a newcomer to photography
Not true. Even in full auto it's a great benefit that the camera is really good at focusing on faces and eyes with additional registration (so your family members can often be picked out from a crowd), or tracking subjects, and so on.

Plus while you may not know it very actively as a beginner, you do probably get better (/less useless) pictures in not entirely ideal light.

Sure, lenses still matter a lot, but you can't really trade one for the other entirely.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 29 Jul 2019 11:30:44 No.3513344 Report

Quoted By: >>3513372

>>3513300
Holy shit I'm only at like 45,000 on mine.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO s-l1600.jpg, 100KiB, 1000x1000

Anonymous Mon 29 Jul 2019 11:33:41 No.3513348 Report

Quoted By:

Anyone used the viltrox 2x teleconverter? I have a 70-200 2.8 and there is an air show coming up and there is no lens hire shops near me, its only £60 so thought it might be a cheap alternative.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 29 Jul 2019 11:52:14 No.3513355 Report

Quoted By: >>3513356

>>3513328
The A6000 has perfectly functional face/eye tracking. Maybe not ultra blazing super duper fast like the A6400 but no slouch either. Just because something better exists doesn't mean the older thing isn't perfectly functional.

If he buys the A6400 (body only) he admits he'll end up with $218 left for a lens. So whatever lens he buys for that will probably be shitty or manual focus only meaning he won't even experience the whiz bang autofocus. I'd personally never put myself in that position and would ensure I get the best lens I can then worry about the body.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 29 Jul 2019 11:54:27 No.3513356 Report

Quoted By: >>3513357 >>3513360

>>3513355
I think it only has face tracking. It's not the same as eye tracking, and it's not continuous either.

Continuous was something introduced in the 2015 cameras.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 29 Jul 2019 11:58:27 No.3513357 Report

Quoted By: >>3513360

>>3513356
You can bind a button to cause the camera to make an Eye AF attempt, but it's certainly not ad good as the A6400 rapidly picking up faces, eyes etc.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 29 Jul 2019 12:08:29 No.3513360 Report

Quoted By:

>>3513357
That's what I used to do with my A6000, I had a button bound to it. It's a little known feature and most people miss it, mostly because it's buried in the godawful Sony menus. It worked okay. I've since sold all my Sony gear and moved to Fuji because the menus and ergonomics were still annoying a year later.

>>3513356
See the other anon, it does have eye tracking but obviously not as good as the A6400.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 60d.png, 15KiB, 720x480

Anonymous Mon 29 Jul 2019 12:45:21 No.3513372 Report

Quoted By: >>3513374 >>3513375

>>3513344
I'm amazed it's still going, I use it for my day job which is taking basic photos for car ad listings, and I treat it like total shit

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 29 Jul 2019 12:49:16 No.3513374 Report

Quoted By:

>>3513372
Not bad. Then again I expect most decent cameras to last 200k actuations or more anyhow.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 60d-1.jpg, 895KiB, 2048x1365

Anonymous Mon 29 Jul 2019 12:49:50 No.3513375 Report

Quoted By:

>>3513372
pic if you're curious what a 330k 60d looks like

the gaff tape is due to the weatherproofing around the shutter release starting to fail, gaffed the mic up too to stop water getting in lol

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 29 Jul 2019 12:52:57 No.3513377 Report

Quoted By:

Just bought an nd1000 filter for pretty water and tourist elimination
Did I do good?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 29 Jul 2019 13:07:22 No.3513379 Report

Quoted By:

>>3511677

Nice try NOOB!

These were sold in the Bermuda Island MacDonald's in 1999. There weren't any bigger than the size of your balls!

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1349660759678.png, 24KiB, 345x369

Anonymous Mon 29 Jul 2019 14:44:40 No.3513403 Report

Quoted By: >>3513405 >>3513784

Tamron releasing a 17-28 soon. 420g and cheap.
Sigma is relasing a 14-24 too. 795g.
Both are F2,8.

Goddamn it feels good to be spoiled by choice.
But the problem is I don't have the slightest clue which one of them to pick.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 29 Jul 2019 14:57:23 No.3513405 Report

Quoted By: >>3513406

>>3513403
Wait for reviews and measurements? Arguably this is easier over here since the current pre-release prices are quite inflated anyhow.

Personally I currently think I'll get the Tamron, but Sigma has changed my mind before.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1286043931535.jpg, 98KiB, 497x501

Anonymous Mon 29 Jul 2019 15:02:11 No.3513406 Report

Quoted By: >>3513420

>>3513405
Tamron: Half the weight, Filter compatible, ~500 bucks cheaper.
Sigma: MTF chart out of this world, extra wide angle.

It's not going to be easy.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 29 Jul 2019 16:13:45 No.3513420 Report

Quoted By: >>3513468

>>3513406
Do we even have a few data pieces for the Tamron yet?

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1490241041035.png, 974KiB, 900x900

Anonymous Mon 29 Jul 2019 17:25:03 No.3513431 Report

Quoted By: >>3513450

>>3511677
how's the weather, sony vid niggers?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 29 Jul 2019 18:00:44 No.3513449 Report

Quoted By: >>3513450 >>3513451 >>3513458

Why did Sony cheap out with not having touchscreens on their second gen bodies?

Going back to my nex 5n its so much easier to choose focus points with touch

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 29 Jul 2019 18:02:59 No.3513450 Report

Quoted By:

>>3513431
Not doing any video, but should be fine:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8IKqmmZF2k

>>3513449
Dunno, but I also don't really know why they don't have touch menus WHEN they have touch screens. I guess their firmware somehow isn't set up to handle it, which I find odd given that it came from an Android 4.x lineage and might still be running Android.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 29 Jul 2019 18:03:34 No.3513451 Report

Quoted By: >>3513458

>>3513449
I never understood this either. When I upgraded from 5n to A6000 I immediately felt the loss of the touch screen. Seems like an odd step backwards.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 29 Jul 2019 18:08:11 No.3513458 Report

Quoted By:

>>3513449
>>3513451
Sony didn't have a lot of confidence back then and looked toward Canikon.

They looked at the D4s and 1DX and thought photographers preferred old technology.
In short, Sony got meme'd on.
1 generation later, Canikon reversed their boats 180 degrees. The Nikon 4D and Canon 1Dxii got touch screen. And that gave Sony a "doh" moment, and they followed suit right after Canikon and re-implemented touchscreen again.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO fp_size_main_image.jpg, 46KiB, 920x385

Anonymous Mon 29 Jul 2019 18:09:47 No.3513460 Report

Quoted By:

testWhat do you guys think of the sigma pocket cinema camera 4k? I was a bit worried when I saw the announcement (just bought a pcc4k) but then I saw it cant so 60fps so to me at least its a worthless camera. Seems like a seriously bad decision imo.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 29 Jul 2019 18:14:01 No.3513462 Report

Quoted By:

>4D and Canon 1Dxii got touch screen
*D5

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Voigtlander_21mmF14_Review-03242.jpg, 153KiB, 800x734

Anonymous Mon 29 Jul 2019 18:25:44 No.3513468 Report

Quoted By: >>3513611

>>3513420
Why do plebs care about zooms so much when you can have tiny small F1,4 primes instead?

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO a7 meme.jpg, 40KiB, 533x533

Anonymous Mon 29 Jul 2019 19:40:52 No.3513491 Report

Quoted By: >>3513493 >>3513611 >>3514002 >>3514515

Hello !

Got a meme a7 mk1 Toys.

Is there a cheap lense for edc in my bag between 50 to 200 that is :

Obliviously manual
Between 35mm - 55mm
Under f/2.8
smaller than your usual slr + adaptor

Don't have to be a zeiss but at least image quality to be " The weird but cool virgin photographer"

If there isn't anything i look for a bentax 50 1.7
And wait to buy the fe 55mm zeiss
i don't find a comparative review about 7artisan , Meike ... and all chinkoptic.

Thanks for your answer

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 29 Jul 2019 19:45:53 No.3513493 Report

Quoted By: >>3514002

>>3513491
>>Between 35mm - 55mm
Voigtlander have a lot of F1,2 and F1,4 lenses in that range.

The 40mm F1,2 is super popular.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 29 Jul 2019 20:04:31 No.3513507 Report

Quoted By:

>>3512129
Without knowing more my gut reaction would be Canon AE-1 with a Canon 50mm f/1.8. Workhorse of a 35mm film camera.

Lookup the infamous "AE-1 squeak" and if you get one that has any hint of this, lookup a YouTube video on how to fix it. NOTE: you should not have to do anything more than remove the bottom plate to get a drop of oil in the right spot. Ignore any videos that have you disassemble the entire fucking camera.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Sigma-18-35-Lens-SIGMA-Art-18-35 (...).jpg, 29KiB, 500x500

Anonymous Mon 29 Jul 2019 21:13:45 No.3513534 Report

Quoted By: >>3513540

Has anyone here ever actually had a problem with the Sigma 18-35mm F1.8 Art?

I just picked one up and it outperforms all my Canon L lenses and hasn't missed focus a single time.

Was the negativity just ignorance and misuse?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 29 Jul 2019 21:26:56 No.3513540 Report

Quoted By: >>3513542

>>3513534
no, but its apparently bad for video because of the background/bokeh not focusing right

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 29 Jul 2019 21:32:01 No.3513542 Report

Quoted By: >>3513544 >>3513612

>>3513540
Wife wants to get into doing portraits for local families, what camera do you guys suggest?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 29 Jul 2019 21:39:35 No.3513544 Report

Quoted By: >>3513546

>>3513542
>what do you guys think of this lens
>not good for video
>ok, wife wants for portaits. what camera should i get
???
weird conversation flow. no budget listed either. what camera? id say a74 but do you have the 5g for it? also 18-35 for portraits is a bit weird is it not? wouldnt a 45mm prime be the better choice?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 29 Jul 2019 21:47:12 No.3513546 Report

Quoted By: >>3513553

>>3513544
Fug. I didn't mean to quote that anon. That's my fault.

SO, completely unrelated conversations.

Wife wants to get into photography, budget is $1000 USD.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 29 Jul 2019 21:54:03 No.3513547 Report

Quoted By:

>>3512198

Yeah, it is decent for a cheap plastic lens. Decently sharp f8 and up. Good colours. I've been shooting Pentax for upwards of 10 years, always using old or vintage manual K and M42 mount lenses. I got this to have something with AF but finding I use it a bit more than I thought.

If I remember I'll post some photos I took recently with it.

Which Pentax are you getting?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 29 Jul 2019 22:06:20 No.3513553 Report

Quoted By: >>3513671

>>3513546
fair, 100P total with lens, tripod extra gear or just 1k for the body? thats 1k for everything get an Olympus OM-D E-M10 Mark III and get a m.zuiko 45mm f1.8 prime to go with it (non pro, thatll blow you budget). then get some tripod to go with it. theyre all the same, especially for your case where its just portraits. get one with a weight hook though. bingo, about $900, spend the remainder on nd/uv filters and a bag for it. Or look at the used market

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 29 Jul 2019 22:38:20 No.3513563 Report

Quoted By: >>3513566 >>3513613

What's the best lens environment to invest in? Is there any word on whether certain lenses are going to be phased out or what?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 29 Jul 2019 22:40:27 No.3513566 Report

Quoted By: >>3513579

>>3513563
ff (ef, e pl) are sound futureproofers. m43 is suprisingly gaining support (canon just patented a m43 design) so we might see prices go up or down. sigmas l mount is also good but a little more niche

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 29 Jul 2019 23:09:12 No.3513579 Report

Quoted By: >>3513606

>>3513566
Canon m43 lenses are for industrial use, not saying it's not gaining traction. Moviecams and even high end drone cinematography is pushing it forward. There's a shit ton of lenses released for it.
I'd say all mirrorless are safe right now. Dslr are a question already. Pentax is probably safe, though you never know what Ricoh has in plans for them. Nikon and Canon have both new mirrorless mounts cameras on the market now. Canon even on two mounts. They're making lenses for four mounts right now. Something will change, but the question is what and when. FF or APSC dslr. A good indicator is usually how many new lenses a year are released for certain mount. Nikon 1 mount, went completely silent for a while, and was then quietly discontinued.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 29 Jul 2019 23:24:03 No.3513587 Report

Quoted By:

I love the price/performance of higher end APS-C DSLRs, I hope they don't get phased out :(

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 29 Jul 2019 23:45:42 No.3513594 Report

Quoted By: >>3513596 >>3513604 >>3513615

Best value APSC ecosystem (camera, lenses, etc.)?

Not interested in going full frame ever, just want good performance and a good selection of lenses at a decent price.

I was thinking Fuji or Nikon DX.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 29 Jul 2019 23:51:20 No.3513596 Report

Quoted By:

>>3513594
if you dont mind DSLR, defintiely nikon DX. fuji lenses are good but close in price to FF lenses. nikon has a well rounded, broad and often cheap catalog of them.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 29 Jul 2019 23:59:52 No.3513604 Report

Quoted By: >>3513610 >>3513615 >>3513679

>>3513594
Nikon only really thinks of APS-C as either an on-ramp to full frame, or as something you sell to retarded consumers (D3x00s and 18-whatever superzooms)

Fuji is committed to crop frame, but they're far from "best value". And you need to be okay with X-Trans and the fact that with a lot of lenses they don't bother to correct distortion and vignetting and just tell the software to do it.

Canon is mostly similar to Nikon, except those yahoos made two mounts (EF-S and EF-M). The latter of those has what, seven lenses total?

Sonly updates the A6K bodies now and then but hasn't given a shit about dedicated crop-frame lenses for quite some time, they're doing the same thing with big full-frame glass that Canikon do, since there's more money in that.

Pentax is all but dead at this point, they're only a going concern at all because it's easier for Ricoh to lose a modest amount of money and maybe get some PR or something from it once in a while than it is to close down the division and deal with the layoffs (which are difficult and expensive over in Grorious Nippon)

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Jul 2019 00:04:41 No.3513606 Report

Quoted By:

>>3513579
define industry. do you mean it as non hobby or highly specialised? id like to see what canon offers as a "pro" videographer.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Jul 2019 00:45:07 No.3513610 Report

Quoted By: >>3513615

>>3513604
Idk about Canon treating high end APS-C as an on-ramp to full frame. The 7D Mk. II seems pretty well rounded and I know a couple of sports photographers that swear by their original 7Ds.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Jul 2019 00:50:57 No.3513611 Report

Quoted By: >>3514002

>>3513468
I do have primes. But I probably do want the wide zoom lens if it is as good as I think it is.

And that Voightlander is about normal size for a ~20 mm anyhow, isn't it?

>>3513491
Maybe you a Minolta Rokkor?

That said a Samyang AF 35mm f/2.8 or such might be more useful than vintage gear.

> And wait to buy the fe 55mm zeiss
Or this one, sure. I think you can buy it without worries, it's pretty much a known good lens.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Jul 2019 00:53:23 No.3513612 Report

Quoted By: >>3513655

>>3513542
Probably an A7R IV. Should be about the easiest camera to work with.

Although if budget is limited, you might be better off getting an A7(R) III and then some studio strobes and more glass.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Jul 2019 01:01:15 No.3513613 Report

Quoted By:

>>3513563
> What's the best lens environment to invest in?
The one with the high-end lenses you need now, probably. It's not really an investment, but an expense.

> Is there any word on whether certain lenses are going to be phased out or what?
Not unless you heard of it.

In reality, even the currently booming E-mount could be phased out whenever Sony decides to do so.

It certainly doesn't seem terribly LIKELY to happen, but maybe they'll just decide to make a medium or large format mount or leave the business, and then it's unclear to unlikely if anyone else will take over & continue the mount and camera line. We saw that a few years ago with Samsung, for example.

The exception to that might be MFT, which is is a true multi vendor open standard that is actually being used - but it doesn't feature the nicest cameras/lenses in terms of achievable image quality and resolution.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Jul 2019 01:10:55 No.3513614 Report

Quoted By: >>3513618

is 180k shutter count too much for a D610

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Jul 2019 01:11:06 No.3513615 Report

Quoted By:

>>3513594
If you want to shoot primes, Sony.

Sigma delivered some of the best APS-C primes around for the E-mount and the A6k line cameras are some of the best / most cost effective around. Yes, >>3513604 is correct that Sony itself doesn't release many APS-C lenses (one per year is still accumulating over time), but various 3rd party APS-C and FF glass works just fine on these; Sony is one of the companies that disclosed their lens mount specs and protocol to just about anyone who signed their paperwork.

>>3513610
It even kind-of is on Sony's even more well-rounded / faster AF A6400.

It's certainly not that either of these cameras is "just useless" - they're really rather nice. But the FF side is still always better, and not only just for the bigger sensor size. They pretty much always gave you a handful more arguments than "it's the same thing, but with a bigger sensor".

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Jul 2019 01:17:20 No.3513618 Report

Quoted By:

>>3513614
It might certainly live past 250k, but I still probably wouldn't buy a camera even weaker than the 750D with this many actuations for the chance it does not. Getting the shutter replaced will virtually not be worth the cost and effort.

But if you already have that anyways and are happy with it, I wouldn't be certain that you need to organize a replacement already, it might certainly live past 25% more photos.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Jul 2019 03:05:37 No.3513638 Report

Quoted By: >>3513649

Would a D7100 be worth getting instead of a D7200? Judging by all the comparisons I've seen, the only differences are really in the image processor and video capabilities. Additionally, the D7200 seems to go for exorbitant numbers on ebay in comparison to the ~$300 for the D7100. I already have a handful of DX lenses, and am moving up from a D3500.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Jul 2019 04:03:39 No.3513649 Report

Quoted By: >>3513910

>>3513638
I recall it had a tiny buffer of like 1 second on its anyhow only 5-6fps burst, and other flaws.

The D7100 was eliminated pretty early on when I chose my camera, the D7200 made it to near the end.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Jul 2019 04:42:01 No.3513655 Report

Quoted By: >>3513657 >>3513671

>>3513612
>"you need 40-60mp for family portraits"
>the absolute state of the sony shill
I would say anything with 16mp or more will do, and in fact there were some good 12mp cameras (like the original Canon 5D or Nikon D700) that can do it as well.

Focus your budget on glass and lighting, making sure to leave enough for a solid body. I would go FF for portraits because of the glass and bokeh. But you can do solid work for years with nothing more than a 5D mark II.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Jul 2019 05:05:24 No.3513657 Report

Quoted By: >>3513671 >>3513673

>>3513655
>"you need 40-60mp
Not what I said at all.

I essentially said it's easier (and I'll add more reliable - and yes, more sensible) to work with the nice fast 60MP camera. Take somewhat wider shots from where you stand, only very rarely miss focus on people due to the nice AF, crop into perfectly nice high shots with a high yield for a short shooting time.

I did clearly NOT say that you absolutely need the >40MP cameras. The A7 III that I mentioned right after that is only 24MP. It just gets progressively harder to work with less great cameras and glass.

> for family portraits
"for local families". I interpreted that as probably professional portraiture.

If it's your own family, sure, you'll be fine keeping it cheaper or cheap if you prefer to do so. You'll have a lot more opportunities and less critical moments and no need to use your or their time THAT efficiently.

Not so much the case if you get paid to quickly get high yields of photos (possibly in critical moments at events) in quality so good they couldn't easily have recorded it themselves.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Jul 2019 05:46:21 No.3513671 Report

Quoted By: >>3513673 >>3513688

>>3513657
>>3513655
he literally said his budget was 1k. you guys are reccomending fucking pro setups which while good dont me3t his needs at all.

>>3513553

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Jul 2019 06:18:05 No.3513673 Report

Quoted By: >>3513674 >>3513695

>>3513657
>>"you need 40-60mp
>I essentially said it's easier (and I'll add more reliable - and yes, more sensible) to work with the nice fast 60MP camera.
How the fuck are 60mp files for family portraits going to be easier? Is anon going to buy a top end PC and an external disk array as well? Are these portrait shots going to be printed to 80"?

>Take somewhat wider shots from where you stand, only very rarely miss focus on people due to the nice AF, crop into perfectly nice high shots with a high yield for a short shooting time.
Any AF SLR made in the last three decades can handle portrait AF, and IQ would be better for using a portrait lens the way it's intended to be used.

>It just gets progressively harder to work with less great cameras and glass.
Pretty much any digital ILC made for the last 15 years can handle this task easily.

>>3513671
I didn't recommend a specific setup, and in fact mentioned older used cameras that would fit within a $1k budget with lenses/lighting.

Canon 5D used - $275
Canon 85mm f/1.8 used - $225
Canon 35mm f/2 used - $150
Yongnuo Speedlite YN600EX-RT II new - $112 (can serve as optical master)
Pair of Canon 430ex II's used - $150 (optical slaves)
Flash umbrellas and stands new on ebay - $50-$75

That's $1k and those two primes will cover close up head & shoulder shots as well as group shots. The flashes can be used indoors or out.

I'm recommending FF for bokeh but anon could go with a newer (relative to the 5D) crop body like the 7D and actually save money. 7D has built in optical master so you can get 3x 430ex flashes instead of one new Yongnuo, and the 7D itself can be found for $200-$250. You would maybe get the 28 f/2.8 instead for group shots in that case.

Either way that's a $1k kit that can make 16x20 and 20x30 portrait prints all day long. Having three flashes with stands/umbrellas and learning how to use them will trump an A74 with the finest lens and no lights when it comes to portraits.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Jul 2019 06:20:38 No.3513674 Report

Quoted By:

>>3513673
Note: you could put together similar kits in Nikon's system or maybe even Sony's if you're willing to go with older used.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Canon-1.jpg, 77KiB, 700x476

Anonymous Tue 30 Jul 2019 06:33:18 No.3513679 Report

Quoted By: >>3513683

>>3513604
>Pentax is all but dead at this point
It's Canon who is in free fall. Not Pentax.

Their Imaging division had a disastrous 2018 with 32% profit loss.
This has now doubled into 64% profit loss in Q2 2019.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1564339713722.png, 180KiB, 1992x1078

Anonymous Tue 30 Jul 2019 06:41:08 No.3513683 Report

Quoted By: >>3513684 >>3513961

>>3513679
>Canon
>"freefall"
Sony is projecting a 45% drop in net income this year. The ILC market is contracting for everyone, but Canon is at least taking a larger slice of the smaller pie.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Jul 2019 06:45:03 No.3513684 Report

Quoted By: >>3513706

>>3513683
Marketshare is irrelevant when the market itself is in free fall.

Canon's Q2 financial statement admitted they had lost 18% sales.
This is a loss in sales, not an increase which you tried to imply.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Jul 2019 06:48:05 No.3513688 Report

Quoted By:

>>3513671
>he literally said his budget was 1k.
Not in the post I responded to. Did not read responses to responses.

> you guys are reccomending fucking pro setups
Certainly, because it was "portraits for local families" rather than snapshits of his own family. Professional use. Go at it with decent gear to get good yields quickly, they will not pay you $40 for 2 shots done in your well-prepared studio like in the film age.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Jul 2019 06:59:55 No.3513695 Report

Quoted By: >>3513705

>>3513673
>How the fuck are 60mp files for family portraits going to be easier?
They are. How the fuck do you even have to ask?

> Is anon going to buy a top end PC and an external disk array as well?
No, just decent midrange, and can be bought off the shelf.

Yes to the disk array though. It's a needed safe enough secondary copy and has cheaper running costs than outsourcing it all "to the cloud".

> Are these portrait shots going to be printed to 80"?
No, but they can be cropped or shrunk after noise reduction etc. if you did not have time or a good location to set up strobes.

> Any AF SLR made in the last three decades can handle portrait AF
No. You don't usually achieve critical focus with these, and they're also not good at positioning focus in groups so you have to line everyone up or pick f/4+. It's not as ad-hoc.

> Pretty much any digital ILC made for the last 15 years can handle this task easily.
With 1/3 the productivity and generally a result that looks not that much different from a decently lit smartphone shot - perhaps so. Good luck to your business, eh.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Jul 2019 07:27:36 No.3513705 Report

Quoted By: >>3513733

>>3513695
>>How the fuck are 60mp files for family portraits going to be easier?
>They are. How the fuck do you even have to ask?
Answer the question instead of begging it.

>No, but they can be cropped or shrunk after noise reduction etc. if you did not have time or a good location to set up strobes.
So can smaller files, including snapshit off family phones. "Muh MEGApixels!" are not going to differentiate you or anon from the masses. In a 16x20 portrait they can't tell the difference between your 60mp and the 12mp of an original 5D, and at 8x10 or on Flickr they can't tell the difference between your 60mp and a smartphone.

Location, lighting, pose, the ability to interact with the subjects getting them to relax and smile and act natural...these things matter. And if you really want to go all out, the ability to utilize props, costumes, and a makeup artist for those who have the patience and money. There are situations where resolution matters. This isn't one of them (beyond the bare minimum needed for a 16x20 print).

>No. You don't usually achieve critical focus with these,
Yes, and yes you do. The AF systems in 90s 35mm film SLRs could achieve critical focus in a portrait situation.

>and they're also not good at positioning focus in groups so you have to line everyone up or pick f/4+.
The AF system doesn't change this reality. DoF is DoF no matter how fancy your AF system is. Sony can't magically have multiple planes of focus shooting at f/2.

>With 1/3 the productivity
There is nothing in Sony's lineup which alters productivity here. 60mp files will actually harm it. You could argue that eye AF will increase keepers in fast moving situations. But paid portraits are posed and therefore trivial to focus. You can manually focus them.

>and generally a result that looks not that much different from a decently lit smartphone shot
The same is true for an A74 in the hands of an amateur who doesn't even own lights much less knows how to use them.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Jul 2019 07:33:21 No.3513706 Report

Quoted By: >>3513707 >>3513708

>>3513684
>Marketshare is irrelevant when the market itself is in free fall.
Actually it's often the thing which determines who survives and who folds.

>Canon's Q2 financial statement admitted they had lost 18% sales.
>This is a loss in sales, not an increase which you tried to imply.
Sony's unit sales losses were greater, hence the marketshare loss. Their $ revenue and profit may have been higher (don't know, don't have their results in front of me), but that would only be because they had the FF MILC market to themselves and that's a higher priced, higher profit margin niche. They don't any more. Canon, Nikon, and Panasonic are all in that market niche now. This will eat into Sony's unit sales, $ revenue, and $ profit even if Sony maintains a #1 position within the niche. There's no way for Sony to avoid the competition and related losses in 2019.

In truth that has fuck all to do with choosing a camera system since the big names are unlikely to go any where. Want a Sony, buy a Sony. Want a Canon, Nikon, Panny, Fuji, Oly, etc...buy them.

But you wanted to shill and FUD by lying about the implications of a quarterly report, so it's appropriate to fire back with the truth.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Jul 2019 07:37:00 No.3513707 Report

Quoted By: >>3513709

>>3513706
It's a simple question, would you prefer a 1% marketshare loss, or would you prefer 19% sales loss?

Most sane people would prefer the former.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Jul 2019 07:39:10 No.3513708 Report

Quoted By: >>3513712

>>3513706
>But you wanted to shill and FUD
The other way around. The other guy said Pentax was dying, so I directed his attention towards Canon.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Jul 2019 07:41:30 No.3513709 Report

Quoted By: >>3513710

>>3513707
It’s an irrelevant question because Sony had both.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Jul 2019 07:43:16 No.3513710 Report

Quoted By:

>>3513709
>Person 1: Pentax is dying
>Person 2: No, look at Canon
>Person 3:N-no! Look at Sony! Sony is worst at everything!
Person 3 that's you.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Jul 2019 07:44:12 No.3513712 Report

Quoted By: >>3513713

>>3513708
That’s retarded because Canon is not “dying” they’re the market leader by a wide margin. As to Pentax as long as they can turn a profit they can make cameras but honestly if the market continues to decline they would be most likely to fold or sell. Wouldn’t stop me from buying a Pentax if it best fit my needs.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Jul 2019 07:45:01 No.3513713 Report

Quoted By: >>3513714

>>3513712
>>That’s retarded because Canon is not “dying
Yeha mate, a 64% profit loss is just a flesh wound.

Let's pretend it never happened.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Jul 2019 07:49:42 No.3513714 Report

Quoted By: >>3513716 >>3513728

>>3513713
>12.7 b yen profit in one quarter
>”THEY HAD A LOSS”
You are either stupid or a paid shill.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Jul 2019 07:51:23 No.3513716 Report

Quoted By: >>3513946

>>3513714
From 35 billion yen down to 13 billion yen.

That's a massive amputation of your business mate.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Jul 2019 08:10:05 No.3513728 Report

Quoted By: >>3513946

>>3513714
You need to include 2017 for the full picture.

Q2 2017 = 49 billion
Q2 2018 = 35 billion
Q2 2019 = 12 billion
Now you can properly project 2020.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Jul 2019 08:22:34 No.3513733 Report

Quoted By: >>3513951

>>3513705
>Answer the question instead of begging it.
Seriously, why do I even need to explain this? Higher resolution portraits being easier and better was a thing even with large format film, it looks better. (Yes, with the correct lenses).

And nowadays you can additionally easily trade resolution to reduce the impact of not perfect light and not perfectly framed images and so on.

> "Muh MEGApixels!" are not going to differentiate you or anon from the masses.
The combination of your gear is. Yes, including muh megapixels and muh studio strobes.

You certainly don't always maximize the 60MP images into a "perfect" 40MP shot though, you use the leeway gained for cropping/NR when you couldn't pick ISO100, [...]

> Yes, and yes you do.
I'm in all likelihood some decades more experienced than you at manual focusing and I still prefer to get the help of more reliable AF. Family anything these days is not generally just them standing there for one group shot, it's nearly always event photography as well as portraits with amateurs.

> The AF system doesn't change this reality.
It generally catches the other people's faces and adjusts the aperture if you let it, it gives you a good hint that some faces are not in focus otherwise, it also just plain hits precisely far more often.

> There is nothing in Sony's lineup which alters productivity here.
Keep repeating your idea that it's not helping, but it is.

Particularly if you want to extract a livable wage out of photography that is clearly better than what the enthusiast kid with her iPhone will take at the same event while not asking "too much" per shot (which is a low amount with typical families - meaning your best option is really to get many good shots that don't need much post).

> The same is true for an A74 in the hands of an amateur
No. Works fine.

> who doesn't even own lights
Yes. You need these too. But I said this thrice now - we still agree they're important.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Jul 2019 10:52:15 No.3513767 Report

Quoted By: >>3513784

a7 ii vs d610?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Jul 2019 11:51:34 No.3513784 Report

Quoted By: >>3513786

>>3513767
D610 has better 300-600mm lens options.
Better for shooting things far away.

A7 ii has better 10-35mm options>>3513403
Better for shooting very wide angle.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Jul 2019 11:56:16 No.3513786 Report

Quoted By: >>3513788

>>3513784
i wont be getting either super telephoto or super wide lenses, if i had money for those i wouldn't be looking at either the d610 or a7 ii

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Jul 2019 11:59:05 No.3513788 Report

Quoted By: >>3513789

>>3513786
>if i had money for those
The wide angles aren't that expensive to be honest.
Due to mirrorless they can be constructed much smaller and cheaper than last generation.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Jul 2019 12:01:35 No.3513789 Report

Quoted By: >>3513792 >>3513797 >>3513863

>>3513788
still, even if i got the d610 or a7ii i'd only buy 1 lens to start, like the 24-70 tamron for nikon or a 50mm 1.8 for sony

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Jul 2019 12:05:55 No.3513792 Report

Quoted By:

>>3513789
Anyway those are biggest main differences. That's what you were curious about right?
Otherwise what's the point of asking.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Jul 2019 12:13:57 No.3513797 Report

Quoted By: >>3513798

>>3513789
>like the 24-70 tamron for nikon or a 50mm 1.8 for sony
Tamron also released a 28-75 for the E-mount.

They have been on a roll lately with a lot of good releases.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Jul 2019 12:18:55 No.3513798 Report

Quoted By: >>3513802

>>3513797
Yet they still haven't managed to update one of their best lenses (F017 90mm f/2.8) to work on the Z6/7...

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO file.png, 648KiB, 444x679

Anonymous Tue 30 Jul 2019 12:23:38 No.3513801 Report

Quoted By: >>3513809 >>3513816

Is 18-200mm too wide a range for just like daily use? My only other lens is a 50mm and I don't know what I'm doing.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Voigtlander_21mmf1p4_Review-03989.jpg, 193KiB, 800x561

Anonymous Tue 30 Jul 2019 12:23:56 No.3513802 Report

Quoted By: >>3513838 >>3513869

>>3513798
Z-mount can just adapt things though.

Man if I used Z-mount I would go to town with the Voigtlander 40mm F1,2 and Voigtlander 21mm F1,4.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Jul 2019 12:51:24 No.3513809 Report

Quoted By:

>>3513801

It's a lot of hardware to have to tote around and affordable ones are pretty slow. If you can live with that, go for it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Jul 2019 12:52:54 No.3513810 Report

Quoted By: >>3513843 >>3513865

Is an 85mm prime worth fooling with on DX? Or are they really more useful for FF?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Jul 2019 13:01:45 No.3513816 Report

Quoted By:

>>3513801
it's a general purpose lens, but might be not that sharp and has alot of distortion in the wide side. it might also suffer from zoom creep and might feel heavy at times for daily use. it's quite flexible though, especially when used in good lighting conditions. I'd probably use a light, pancake lens as an edc tho.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Jul 2019 13:32:40 No.3513838 Report

Quoted By:

>>3513802
It's the adapted F-mount one that does not work properly (it sometimes does though...).

I'm eyeing a Voigtländer 110mm f/2.5 Macro APO Lanthar (which would require an E-to-Z adapter) but I'm still waiting for Tamron to do something about the F017 or maybe Nikon to announce a native Z-mount macro lens for either 2020 or 2021.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Jul 2019 13:56:45 No.3513843 Report

Quoted By:

>>3513810
Not bad for landscapes. Working distance with a model would be too far to be comfortable though.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Jul 2019 15:07:34 No.3513863 Report

Quoted By: >>3513868

>>3513789
28-75 Tamron for Sony is definitely worthy too. Grab that one.

I'd go for the A7 II if I were you, at the very least it's relatively likely that the A7R III and maybe also A7 III will drop in price sooner or later and the A7 II is generally one of the best FF deals on the market at its ~$800.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Jul 2019 15:09:25 No.3513865 Report

Quoted By:

>>3513810
Certainly. I was rather happy with the 90mm FE Macro on APS-C before I moved to FF.

A lot of 85 to 105mm primes will be good on APS-C, both APS-C and FF glass often has sharp looks at that focal length without being extremely expensive. What they however obviously aren't are "general purpose" lenses, it's a narrow field of view.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Jul 2019 15:15:19 No.3513868 Report

Quoted By: >>3513871

>>3513863
I found one A7 ii for 660$ here, it seems like a good deal

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Jul 2019 15:16:11 No.3513869 Report

Quoted By:

>>3513802
>I would go to town with the Voigtlander 40mm F1,2 and Voigtlander 21mm F1,4.
Do you actually like these? They seem like lenses that are rather pricey, not terribly sharp. Most of them feel like heavily vignetting bokeh effect lenses.

Wasn't too impressed with how they performed on the E-mount, I'm guessing this is no different on the Z-mount.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Jul 2019 15:18:15 No.3513871 Report

Quoted By: >>3513874 >>3513880

>>3513868
The cheapest I saw the kit (with the worse 28-70 that I don't even recommend) brand new here was ~$780, so $660 should be generally quite good even if it doesn't have the kit lens.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Jul 2019 15:24:06 No.3513874 Report

Quoted By: >>3513880

>>3513871
what do you mean the worse? isn't there only one sony ff kit lens?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Jul 2019 15:28:46 No.3513880 Report

Quoted By: >>3514052

>>3513871 (cont'd)
BTW in the overall picture - it's an amazing deal. I remember when the D750 was $1500 or something like that just a few years ago and that was hailed as a bargain for a new FF camera. $660 for a new FF camera that was above average on its release just four years ago is rather very good. I don't recall this ever happening before..

>>3513874
I see some other kits with the 24-70 mm f/4 ZA here.

Alas, don't worry about it if it's just the body, you might want the Tamron 24-75 f/2.8 anyhow if it's your sole lens for now.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Jul 2019 17:24:45 No.3513910 Report

Quoted By:

>>3513649
What did you end up getting? Since most of my lenses are DX and since I'm on a budget of like $500, the D7200 seems like the end of the road unless I can somehow score a sub $500 D750 or some shit.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Jul 2019 19:20:45 No.3513946 Report

Quoted By: >>3513949 >>3513955 >>3513976

>>3513716
>>3513728
THE ENTIRE MARKET IS CONTRACTING. The same thing is happening to Sony and Nikon you fucking shill.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Jul 2019 19:27:47 No.3513949 Report

Quoted By: >>3513953

>>3513946
I'll take some notes.

According to autistic retards on /p/ it's oka to say Pentax is dying.
But they get ass mad when you say it's really Canon is dying.

Your autism has been Duly noted.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Jul 2019 19:32:30 No.3513951 Report

Quoted By: >>3513986

>>3513733
>Seriously, why do I even need to explain this? Higher resolution portraits being easier and better was a thing even with large format film, it looks better.
Once again: in a 16x20 portrait most people can't even tell the difference between a 12mp FF and your shiny new 60mp toy. 16x20 MF portraits looked better than 35mm portraits at the same size because of grain and tonality, neither of which is an issue here.

>And nowadays you can additionally easily trade resolution to reduce the impact of not perfect light and not perfectly framed images and so on.
>I can photoshop my way to success
Posed portraits are not going to involve massive crops. And no, resolution is NOT going to make up for shit lighting. For portraits I would rather have a 5D or D750 and a three light setup than 60mp.

>The combination of your gear is. Yes, including muh megapixels and muh studio strobes.
Anon has a budget of $1k. You're going to buy an A74 and strobes for $1k?

>I'm in all likelihood some decades more experienced than you at manual focusing
Doubt, and that has nothing to do with your ignorant claim that only the latest mirrorless cameras can "achieve critical focus."

>it's nearly always event photography as well as portraits with amateurs.
How many millions of critically focused event prints have been made with DSLRs dating back to the very first models?

>It generally catches the other people's faces and adjusts the aperture if you let it,
It must be so difficult to just, you know, stop down on your own when it's a group shot.

>Keep repeating your idea that it's not helping, but it is.
Keep repeating your idea that it helps, but it doesn't.

>Particularly if you want to extract a livable wage out of photography that is clearly better than what the enthusiast kid with her iPhone will take
If you're relying on gear fagging rather than talent and creativity to differentiate you from the kid with her iPhone you're already dead in this industry.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Jul 2019 19:34:24 No.3513953 Report

Quoted By: >>3513954

>>3513949
>According to autistic retards on /p/ it's oka to say Pentax is dying.
Pentax isn't "dying" and nobody is fooled by your shilling just because you jumped into shilling off a Pentax post.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Jul 2019 19:37:16 No.3513954 Report

Quoted By:

>>3513953
That just means their fanbase isn't as autistic as the canon niggers.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Jul 2019 19:38:48 No.3513955 Report

Quoted By: >>3513961

>>3513946
>The same thing is happening to Sony and Nikon
Prove it.
Sony increased profits despite decreased sales.
Nikon also increased profits due to licensing money.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Jul 2019 19:54:36 No.3513961 Report

Quoted By: >>3513966 >>3513974

>>3513955
>>The same thing is happening to Sony and Nikon
>Prove it.
See: >>3513683
Everyone's unit sales decreased, and both Sony and Nikon's decreased faster than the overall market contraction while Canon's decreased less. That's how a marketshare shift occurs.

>Sony increased profits despite decreased sales.
>Nikon also increased profits due to licensing money.
And Canon is investing a ton of money into R&D and manufacturing for new lenses, bodies, and sensors. Did you take that into account or did you just "hurr durr Canon's profits dropped CANON IS DYING" like a gear fag?

Canon is not going to end up in a loss position with a 40% marketshare. Now stop brand fagging.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Jul 2019 20:02:05 No.3513966 Report

Quoted By: >>3513989

>>3513961
>And Canon is investing a ton of money into R&D and manufacturing for new lenses, bodies, and sensors
I look at the release schedules and see Sony release far more bodies, lenses and sensors.
So you can't be correct about that.

Have some Canon Q1 numbers as well.
Q1 2017 = 29 billion yen profit
Q1 2018 = 25 billion yen profit
Q1 2019 = 5 billion yen profit
29 billion to 5 billion in 2 years, not sure how much worse it can get.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Jul 2019 20:21:22 No.3513974 Report

Quoted By: >>3513989

>>3513961
Isn't researching in-house supposed to be very cheap?
It's not like your engineer will suddenly ask for double salary or triple salary just because you make him work on a project.
They just have their normal salary which Canon pays them no matter how much they are idling.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Jul 2019 20:27:23 No.3513976 Report

Quoted By: >>3513989

>>3513946
Are you sure that WITH smartphones added (where Sony is the primary player), the market really got much smaller?

Sony is actually probably the company banging this market up. Smartphone sensors, RX100 VII, A6400, A7 III, A7R IV. Competition for everyone else up to the $10k GFX100.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Jul 2019 20:54:19 No.3513986 Report

Quoted By: >>3513996

>>3513951
> Once again: in a 16x20 portrait most people can't even tell the difference between a 12mp FF and your shiny new 60mp toy.
300DPI for a standard photo print, so that's 4800x6000 ~= 28.8MP.

40+MP sensor is pretty good for that when you account for what you loose on the lens and maybe some cropping and editing.

> Anon has a budget of $1k. You're going to buy an A74 and strobes for $1k?
Obviously increase the budget to make the business more viable? What are you going to do otherwise, try to undercut the competition with your cheaper equipment just a lot work more?

> Doubt, and that has nothing to do with your ignorant claim that only the latest mirrorless cameras can "achieve critical focus."
Did not say ONLY them. Said it helps.

> How many millions of critically focused event prints have been made with DSLRs dating back to the very first models?
Not too few, surely, but probably also a lot less than you'd like now that everyone has digital displays to check your digital work.

And then they also don't walk into your studio and get 3 photos quickly and pay $40 or $250+ for an on-site shoot with only a bunch of handful of resulting photos.

> talent and creativity
It's not even in demand outside of the biggest artfag circles of which only a select few will ever pay anything.

You're dead in the industry IF you rely on this nonsense. Not that you can't butter up clients a bit by putting your great creativity into your sales pitch... but the rest is generally not very creative.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Jul 2019 20:59:09 No.3513989 Report

Quoted By: >>3514001

>>3513966
>I look at the release schedules and see Sony release far more bodies, lenses and sensors.
Except that they don't.

>>3513974
>isn't R&D cheap?
No.

>>3513976
>what about muh smartphones!
Smartphones are not Interchangeable Lens Cameras.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Jul 2019 21:11:43 No.3513996 Report

Quoted By: >>3514017 >>3514195

>>3513986
>muh 300 dpi meme
300 dpi is not a standard any more and never had anything to do with photography. It was a standard in publishing during the 80's/early 90's when laser printers were 300 dpi and image setters had resolutions which were a multiple of 300 (1200 and 2400 were common). It was the target resolution for bitmapped clip art.

Go ahead and see how many people can tell the resolution difference in 16x20 portrait prints: https://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/08/technology/08pogue.html

>> Anon has a budget of $1k. You're going to buy an A74 and strobes for $1k?
>Obviously increase the budget to make the business more viable?
A Sony A74 is not going to make it any more viable ffs. Your special toy does not make you special.

>but probably also a lot less than you'd like now that everyone has digital displays to check your digital work.
People have had computer monitors and Photoshop for pixel peeping since the 90s.

>good creative work is not in demand
>only gear faggotry
Do you even own a camera?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Jul 2019 21:21:17 No.3514001 Report

Quoted By:

>>3513989
So how does the research work?

Are the engineers extorting Canon and demaning and higher salary every time Canon begs them for a new body?

At that point what is even the point of in-house development?
Just buy all your shit from 3rd party then.

You're not making any sense so you're obviously wrong.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO B_0519_Samyang_45_1.jpg, 90KiB, 970x776

Anonymous Tue 30 Jul 2019 21:22:30 No.3514002 Report

Quoted By: >>3514007

>>3513491
here

>>3513493
It's more than i wanted to spend but i will definitely look at these voigtlander FE

>>3513611
Got a bentax but i wanted to avoid reflex lenses (i already got a decent plastic ricoh 50 1.7)

i eard about samyang AF what about the the 45mm 1.8 and 35 2.8 ?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Jul 2019 21:27:04 No.3514007 Report

Quoted By:

>>3514002
Those Samyang lenses are super affordable and have nice AF.

But it just feels more special when you rotate a real mechanical focus ring. That's what makes Voigtlander and Zeiss so nice.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Jul 2019 21:35:34 No.3514017 Report

Quoted By: >>3514026

>>3513996
>Do you even own a camera?

35mm (full-frame) 61.0 MPback-illuminated Exmor R™ CMOS sensor
(with latest-generation BIONZ X™ image processor)

15-stopdynamic range at low sensitivities
(as measured by to Sony)

ISO 100-32000 natively (numbered), expands to50-102800

10 FPSwith full AF / AE trackingfor approximately seven secondsin full-frame mode, approximately 3X more in APS-C mode (26MP)

567 phase-detection AF points covering 74% of the image area, and 425 contrast AF points

Real-time Eye AF for video recording

Advanced Real-time Trackingplus Real-time Eye AF for stills

5.76 million dot UXGA (Ultra-XGA) OLED Tru-Finder™ electronic viewfinder with outstanding detail, brightness, and contrast

Upgraded connectivity and operability including high-speed Wi-Fi support, wireless PC remote connectivity, FTP wireless transfer, faster data transfer via USB and more

Professional 4K movie recording functionality including full pixel readout with no pixel binning in Super 35mm mode, S-Log3, HDR workflow support

Multi-Interface Shoe™ with digital audio interface delivers high-quality sound recording with Sony’s new microphone and XLR microphone adaptor

Additional enhancements to the body design, including an improved grip and button layout for improved control with the compact, lightweight body
There you go bud

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO maxresdefault.jpg, 51KiB, 1024x432

Anonymous Tue 30 Jul 2019 21:53:18 No.3514026 Report

Quoted By:

>>3514017
>the shilling is strong with this one

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Jul 2019 23:07:16 No.3514052 Report

Quoted By:

>>3513880
oh its not new, it's 660$ for a used a7 ii

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 31 Jul 2019 03:26:34 No.3514194 Report

Quoted By:

I love my D7100 but it's so goddamn heavy. Is there anything smaller and reasonably cheap that will give me similar sharpness? Been thinking about a Fuji x100.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 31 Jul 2019 03:37:34 No.3514195 Report

Quoted By: >>3514290

>>3513996
>Go ahead and see how many people can tell the resolution difference in 16x20 portrait prints: https://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/08/technology/08pogue.html
One not scientific experiment with print, a small sample size of people in a library, apparently conducted on just one image, in 2007. 3/50 people could tell even then, and even this quick experiment's author mentions cropping etc. as reason to have larger images regardless?

> A Sony A74 is not going to make it any more viable ffs. Your special toy does not make you special.
Yup, it's not a special toy. Other professional photographers pretty much all have >12MP cameras, a whole lot have 40MP+ cameras.

Pretty much no one actually works successfully for many different clients with ancient 12MP meme cameras.

> People have had computer monitors and Photoshop for pixel peeping since the 90s.
People were accustomed to VHS and national TV broadcasts being displayed with signal noise, most normal people didn't have computers at home yet, and if they did their displays were 800×600 to 1280x768. Most media people saw then were lower resolution/higher on compression artefacts and they were not generally zoomed into.

> Do you even own a camera?
Yes, obviously. And I don't doubt you have one either - just apparently no experience with better gear and somehow can't make the connection from any sort of practical or theoretical understanding as to why most working photographers and a lot of serious hobbyists use these machines.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 31 Jul 2019 03:38:29 No.3514196 Report

Quoted By: >>3514199 >>3514200

What's a good cheap mostly mechanical 35mm camera on the smaller/lighter side. Ideally the only electronics would be a lightmeter. Durability is important as well.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 31 Jul 2019 03:42:20 No.3514199 Report

Quoted By:

>>3514196
Mechanical (film) bodies are pretty much all cheap to buy. Get some Nikon F2 or such.

You are aware that they will however be pretty much all expensive to actually use, right?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 31 Jul 2019 03:44:10 No.3514200 Report

Quoted By:

>>3514196
Mechanical (film) bodies are pretty much all cheap to buy. Get some Nikon F2 Photomic or such.

You are aware that they will however be pretty much all expensive to actually use, right?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 31 Jul 2019 09:11:10 No.3514290 Report

Quoted By: >>3514630

>>3514195
>muh camera's better
>muh camera's better
>MUH CAMERA'S BETTER
Go be a gearfag shill somewhere else. Maybe reddit. Bet you can find someone who will appreciate your 60mp cat photos.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Screenshot_2019-07-31 Olympus OM (...).png, 918KiB, 836x1282

Anonymous Wed 31 Jul 2019 10:47:02 No.3514313 Report

Quoted By:

Is this a good price? It's in AUD. Anything better for around this price?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 31 Jul 2019 12:33:35 No.3514335 Report

Quoted By: >>3514341 >>3514361

Will the new Tamron 17-28 for Sony work for me as an all purpose lens? I can zoom further in with my feet

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 31 Jul 2019 13:08:21 No.3514341 Report

Quoted By:

>>3514335
obviously not, what a dumb fucking question

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 31 Jul 2019 13:31:44 No.3514361 Report

Quoted By: >>3514364

>>3514335
At it's tightest, it's wider than even 35mm, no way
Maybe for aps-c

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 31 Jul 2019 13:41:28 No.3514364 Report

Quoted By: >>3514623

>>3514361
But the 28-75 is too narrow as an all purpose lens, so wouldn't the 17-25 be fine?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 31 Jul 2019 18:50:57 No.3514468 Report

Quoted By: >>3514601 >>3514632

I just ordered a cheap ass D600, what's a good FX lens to start out with? I have some DXes, and I'm thinking a 50mm AF-D would be sufficient for the time being.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 31 Jul 2019 21:23:27 No.3514515 Report

Quoted By:

>>3513491
Olympus OM has some good quality and small size lenses.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 31 Jul 2019 23:59:49 No.3514601 Report

Quoted By:

>>3514468
skip the d and get the g version, its much better and worth the price difference
depending on your budget you can get the Nikon 24-120 F4
or the amazing fucking tamrom 24-70 2.8 di vc
85mm 1.8g isnt too expensive and its an amazing lens too
if youre a cheap bastard you can get the 28 85 kit lens

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 01 Aug 2019 00:39:23 No.3514623 Report

Quoted By:

>>3514364
> the 28-75 is too narrow as an all purpose lens
Wat. No, that one is a best guess for a general (though not *all*) purpose lens.

The very most common full frame (/equivalent) focal lengths are probably around 28-35mm and 50-55mm with the vast majority of photos being done in about 20-100mm. That doesn't mean nobody needs to shoot 12 or 600mm, though.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 01 Aug 2019 00:53:53 No.3514630 Report

Quoted By:

>>3514290
Some Reddit *actually* is likely to suck your dick over how gear doesn't matter and how you can artfag everything with 12MP fossils.

It would be the ideal place for you if you don't want to come into contact with people that try to explain to you why the vast majority of photographers aren't stupid for choosing (much) better cameras than that. Being so resistant to reality, I guess you'll fit right in.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 01 Aug 2019 00:56:14 No.3514632 Report

Quoted By: >>3514681

>>3514468
Actually all good glass might apply. Regardless if it's just a D600, it still helps.

If you think a nifty fifty is 'sufficient' for you, try that first. If you can get and will carry a Sigma Art 50mm, of course get that instead.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 01 Aug 2019 03:10:20 No.3514681 Report

Quoted By:

>>3514632
Are Series E/AI 50mm lenses worth it? It seems that AI f/1.4 lenses are rather cheap, about as much as the average AF-D 50mm.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 01 Aug 2019 05:34:13 No.3514708 Report

Quoted By: >>3514718

Nerd near me selling an a7r iii body for $600. It's a scam, right?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 01 Aug 2019 06:20:36 No.3514718 Report

Quoted By:

>>3514708
or stolen. if it seems stolen just say its your camera and youll call the police (have a knife or gun on you). free camera

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 9B3D5DF7-D084-441F-A12E-11B8B0C2 (...).jpg, 771KiB, 2500x2500

Anonymous Thu 01 Aug 2019 08:42:48 No.3514739 Report

Quoted By: >>3514745

What would be some good portrait lenses for the Nikon F(or Z) mount? Thinking of 85mm f/1.4-8

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 01 Aug 2019 09:27:38 No.3514745 Report

Quoted By: >>3514747

>>3514739
NIKKOR Z 85mm f/1.8 S

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 01 Aug 2019 09:50:44 No.3514747 Report

Quoted By: >>3514750 >>3515632

>>3514745
b-but no 1.4 ;_;

Oh well... better use the mount then

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 01 Aug 2019 09:58:07 No.3514750 Report

Quoted By:

>>3514747
It is for the correct mount, sharp, can into reasonable bokeh plus shallow DoF alright.

I don't think you're missing out on anything in particular without that f/1.4.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO ZomboDroid 03042019105110.jpg, 46KiB, 561x421

Anonymous Sat 03 Aug 2019 06:39:55 No.3515632 Report

Quoted By:

>>3514747
fat is you, at the top of the stairs. disgusting family got to go

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Verified Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Manager Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts Only Founder Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images Only Spoiler Images Only Non-Spoiler Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

On these archives

Your latest searches

/gear/ - Gear Thread