Gear discussion thread v. "I got some new gear and I got to post it here" - General

Just finished a talent show for video coverage, 8 cameras all Canon DSLRs.

lol snapsort rates the D5200 5 points higher than the D5300

Snap sort is a bit shit. [url]http://snapsort.com/compare/Canon_EOS-1D_Mark_III-vs-Nikon-D5200[/url]

[QUOTE=Roll_Program;43247785]Snap sort is a bit shit. [url]http://snapsort.com/compare/Canon_EOS-1D_Mark_III-vs-Nikon-D5200[/url][/QUOTE] yeah [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/wixGeVG.jpg[/IMG] i only see it as a way to make money off people that land there when trying to search for camera comparisons.

Yeah, it seems as if the camera doesn't have every single gimmick then it will get a bad score. [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/38WQYZm.png[/IMG]

it could be pretty great if the factors were actually weighted properly so start up lag isn't worth the same as a big sensor

Speaking of those bodies, I'm tryna cop a m240 actually, only barrier being it will eat up pretty much everything I have $ wise, so it would have to last me awhile. Might stick with that yung DSLR for awhile and see what the next gen or two of Leica brings. I used the A7r with Leica glass (courtesy of a rare brick&mortar Leica dealer in Holywood) and while it's a compact FF, just not quite up to same speed as them rangefinder FFs. [Also the Leica S2 is the worst camera in existence.]

[QUOTE=Eltro102;43248206]it could be pretty great if the factors were actually weighted properly so start up lag isn't worth the same as a big sensor[/QUOTE] It has "84" image quality!

it also seems to hate cannon, seeing as the category for beginner, semi-pro, and pro DSLR are most nikons/a few pentax in the top 10 (save for 3 canons at the end of the pro category list) [editline]20th December 2013[/editline] dont even get me started about lens hero *comparing 50mm and 35mm* "the 50mm has more zoom than the 35mm" "they are both poor telephoto lenses" "300 extra points for the 50mm because it has a focus motor"

Comparing apples with pears lol [editline]20th December 2013[/editline] Also, just bought a roll of 35mm Ilford Delta 3200 for those special moments during holidays. I'm trying to obtain one of them C41 B&W films by Kodak but a lot of photo stores don't supply those anymore and have to order first.

i keep reading "snapsort" as "snapsnort"

[QUOTE=notlabbet;43248889]i keep reading "snapsort" as "snapsnort"[/QUOTE] grinding up some good glass

Man, there's this antique camera shop near where I live, and it's owned by the most angry and rude leica loving italian ever. A friend asked a question about some of the cameras he sold, and he started ridiculing him in front of the customers and everything.. I'm afraid! Gonna check if my dad has some old analogs I can use instead. Problem is that the italian dude is also the cheapest when it comes to films and stuff

[QUOTE=Thaard;43249431]Man, there's this antique camera shop near where I live, and it's owned by the most angry and rude leica loving italian ever. A friend asked a question about some of the cameras he sold, and he started ridiculing him in front of the customers and everything.. I'm afraid! Gonna check if my dad has some old analogs I can use instead. Problem is that the italian dude is also the cheapest when it comes to films and stuff[/QUOTE] That's a good kind of shop owner, they think they are getting the best of you but you can use that in yoyr favor. I got a 58mm 1.2 Minolta for $115 from a shop like that, resold it for $550 [editline]20th December 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=bopie;43248273]Speaking of those bodies, I'm tryna cop a m240 actually, only barrier being it will eat up pretty much everything I have $ wise, so it would have to last me awhile. Might stick with that yung DSLR for awhile and see what the next gen or two of Leica brings. I used the A7r with Leica glass (courtesy of a rare brick&mortar Leica dealer in Holywood) and while it's a compact FF, just not quite up to same speed as them rangefinder FFs. [Also the Leica S2 is the worst camera in existence.][/QUOTE] I'd wait, Leica is rumored to be building an AF mirrorless with a new mount. I'd see what that holds, and how the a7 affects Leica's market share (if they eat into it Leica can get more expensive). What do you mean by not the same speed though?

He knows exactly what he is doing. He is the almighty neckbeard of the analog camera/photo world

Just look on e-bay or any other 2nd hand website that offers the analog camera you desire and keep a list of prices then try to haggle it down a few tenners or a free roll of choice and batteries to shoot right away.

Just today I had rekindled my interest in photography, thinking I'd be able to use a nice camera to take pictures for my new car blog, and ultimately ended up looking at two SLRs - the Minolta X-570, and Pentax k1000. I decided on the Pentax since it seems more simple and tanky, so I figured it'd be a good camera to learn as well as live with. I got a brown one - for $45, too! It also came with a SMC Pentax M 50mm f/2 Prime lens. I read complaints about their light meters though, is there a way to tweak it, and does anyone have any general advice?

would anyone here personally reccomend an LCDVF for video work? i used a z-finder for a few days on a project i did a while ago and thought it was great, but that's a little far out of my budget at the moment

[QUOTE=.Lain;43257140]would anyone here personally reccomend an LCDVF for video work? i used a z-finder for a few days on a project i did a while ago and thought it was great, but that's a little far out of my budget at the moment[/QUOTE] [url]http://shittyrigs.com/post/69926366657/my-homemade-lcd-viewfinder-i-was-a-lot-more[/url]

so I was watching a D600 and D7100 review out of curiosity and the guy was shooting sports and I noticed that his great photos he was getting was because he was shooting with multi thousand dollar glass, so it kind of hit me that if I were to get a new body I would be stuck with sub $300 lenses unless I saved up for a few months. So I am kind of rethinking it and I am thinking about selling my tamron 70-300 f/4-5.6 and buying either the 2003 nikon 70-200 f/2.8 vr or the tamron 70-200 f/2.8 vc. any advice guys? it seems dumb to buy a $1000+ camera and limiting it with mediocre or shitty glass

i think his great photos were less to do with his glass and more to do with him being a capable photographer, no? unless you're talking IQ, but glass that expensive won't make that much of a difference to the average person at all. [editline]21st December 2013[/editline] lenses don't go obsolete for a long time (at least with nikon). bodies do, somewhat quickly decide for yourself what matters more to you

im basically stuck between the sigma which is $989, the tamron is $1200, and the nikon is like $1000-$1200 used [editline]21st December 2013[/editline] i think im gonna go for the nikon

Don't underestimate your Tamron 70-300 VC. It's quite good, even on fullframe. Because a lens costs 2000 USD instead of 400 it doesn't take 5 times better pictures. Put a shitty photographer behind a $10k camera/lens combination and they will still make crappy pictures. Only upgrade lenses if you genuinely feel limited by it's capabilities, otherwise upgrading is no use at all.

and on that bombshell, its time to end (my 70-300) if anyone is intradested message me, id probably let it go for like $275 price range

[QUOTE=dwt110;43264469]and on that bombshell, its time to end (my 70-300) if anyone is intradested message me, id probably let it go for like $275 price range[/QUOTE] Do you ever listen to what people have to tell you or are you that stubborn? The Tamron 70-300 VC USD is a [I]GOOD[/I] lens on fullframe. I was one of the persons that adviced you to get it over the more expensive Nikon version. Look at this review on a FULLFRAME camera: [URL]http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/619-tamron70300f456fx[/URL] Apart from that it's not f/2.8 it's a just as good (or even better because it goes to 300mm...) as a 70-200 2.8. That it's actually a affordable lens does not make it a lesser lens than some ~~~~PRO~~~~ lens. If you are just focusing on how many zeroes there is behind the price of a lens you are doing something very wrong.

one of the most widely used lenses on DSLR's is the classic 50mm. a cheap, yet almost flawless design. if that doesn't say something about how price doesn't correlate with good photographs then i don't know what to tell you [editline]21st December 2013[/editline] lenses in the thousands do not give you a better picture, they give you better picture quality. there's a stark difference, and if you think your photo comp and shooting knowledge will improve with a new lens you need to shift in to a different mind set

[QUOTE=frag4life;43264953]Do you ever listen to what people have to tell you or are you that stubborn? The Tamron 70-300 VC USD is a [I]GOOD[/I] lens on fullframe. I was one of the persons that adviced you to get it over the more expensive Nikon version. Look at this review on a FULLFRAME camera: [URL]http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/619-tamron70300f456fx[/URL] Apart from that it's not f/2.8 it's a just as good (or even better because it goes to 300mm...) as a 70-200 2.8. That it's actually a affordable lens does not make it a lesser lens than some ~~~~PRO~~~~ lens. If you are just focusing on how many zeroes there is behind the price of a lens you are doing something very wrong.[/QUOTE] sorry but its hard trying to shoot sports games for my school when I cant get a shutter speed above 1/500th without making it look like high ISO grainy shit im not buying it just because its more expensive im buying it because I think that my current lens isnt great for what I am trying to do with it. dont get so defensive when you dont know why I want a better lens. by your thought process every pro should be using a manual focus 18-300 because they have more zoom range and are cheaper [editline]21st December 2013[/editline] yes I realize a better lens doesnt change your composition but it gives you better quality pictures which is exactly why I want a better lens

You aren't reading what i'm saying. God you're ignorant. EDIT: In your original post you weren't saying *gee, this lens isn't good enough for me to make pictures inside so it's limiting me*. No you were only focusing on the price of the lenses which is a wrong analogy. Anyway, last time I'm going to try to make my point clear to you. 2.8 vs 4.0 is just 1 stop diffence on the short end and 2.8 vs 5.6 is 2 stops on the long end. Both are respectively 1 and 2 ISO steps in your exposure. Especially on the long end you would benefit in getting some better shutterspeeds on similar ISO ratings. In theory that [I]SHOULD[/I] get your better pictures. But it certainly is not a[I] GUARANTEE[/I] for better pictures. Just buying a new lens and instantly expecting your pictures to be better is very naive way to think because it's not true. Before upgrading lenses you should at least consider trying a few thing before actually doing so: - Shoot in RAW with high ISO ratings like 1600, 3200 or 6400 because the sensor of the nikon d5200 is perfectly capable of doing that (the Nikon jpeg handling on high ISOs is the main reason you get ugly mushy pictures). - Shoot full manual or at least shutter priority in combination with the point I named above. Anyway, good luck on spending your money on something that is actually going to help you achieve getting better at photography. Just don't buy pointless things that you THINK you need because you dont have control of your current setup. I'm 100 percent sure with the current setup you have you can get good pictures even in your circumstances.

misunderstanding, then. didn't really seem like it in this post but whatever [quote]I noticed that his great photos he was getting was because he was shooting with multi thousand dollar glass,[/quote]

Ordered an 18mm f/2. It's so teeny tiny. [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/5N8QXsm.jpg[/IMG]