[  3  /  a  /  adv  /  an  /  c  /  cgl  /  ck  /  cm  /  co  /  diy  /  fa  /  fit  /  g  /  i  /  ic  /  jp  /  k  /  lit  /  m  /  mlp  /  mu  /  n  /  o  /  p  /  po  /  q  /  sci  /  sp  /  tg  /  toy  /  trv  /  tv  /  v  /  vg  /  vp  /  w  /  wg  /  wsg  /  x  ]

/p/ Photography

Warning: All the content of this page originally come from 4chan.org. This is only a partial archive made to avoid destruction. Some posts and images may be missing. All the messages below have been posted by anonymous users and we do not guarantee any truth of what they said.
For any illegal content, please contact me so that I can immediatly destroy it!

Anonymous 2016-02-18 06:59:41 No.2771972

[Missing image file: ]

Gear Thread

If you have questions about a new camera, what lenses to buy and anything related to gear or wondering about getting into photography, post it in this thread.

Do not attempt to make a new thread for your new Rabal, broken glass and being new. You have been warned!

I repeat, ANYTHING GEAR RELATED goes in here!

And don't forget, be polite!

Previous thread: >>2769085

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS 7DCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS5 WindowsPhotographerMiles HeckerMaximum Lens Aperturef/5.4Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpiImage Created2011:04:07 11:00:17Exposure Time1/200 secF-Numberf/5.6Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating200Lens Aperturef/5.6Exposure Bias0 EVSubject Distance3.19 mMetering ModePatternFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length236.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width480Image Height367RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandard


>>
Anonymous 2016-02-18 07:05:12 No.2771975
Played around with the D5 & D500 a bit last night, quite a few things I never realized that I must've ignored in various previews. I'd honestly rather get a D500 over a D750 now.

>>
Anonymous 2016-02-18 07:09:25 No.2771976
I have a 7d mk ii, but I want a point n shoot for when I don't want to carry the dslr. Mainly just want one with an evf and possibly 4k. Any recommendations?

>>
Anonymous 2016-02-18 07:15:18 No.2771980
>Not using the K-1 as the thread image
Come on now anon

>>
Anonymous 2016-02-18 07:21:18 No.2771983
I'm looking to get more into good photography. Before I've used shitty cameras or a cell camera, but now I'm looking to make the move up to a DSLR or something that will really be worth it. So what would your suggestions be for the best camera I can get for around the 400-600 dollar range? If need be I'll be around for a while to answer any questions that might aid you in your suggestions.

>>
Anonymous 2016-02-18 07:21:57 No.2771984
>>2771976
rx100mk4, lx100, zs100

RX100's the smallest but most expensive. LX100 is 4/3 sensor, but largest camera. ZS100 is basically inbetween.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:PhotographerSeanImage-Specific Properties:

>>
Anonymous 2016-02-18 07:23:38 No.2771986
>>2771980
I was contemplating on it, but there is already two K-1 dedicated threads, so I decided to keep this one the traditional gear discussion containment thread.

>>
Anonymous 2016-02-18 07:26:27 No.2771988
>>2771976
I have a K-3 and use my phone as a generic walkaround pocket camera.
If I get something interesting, I shoot some angles to decide which one to take with the big camera next time.

>>
Anonymous 2016-02-18 07:29:03 No.2771990
>>2771975
I wonder how long it'll be until we start to see the D5/D500 features start to trickle into the D810 and D750 successors...

>>
Anonymous 2016-02-18 07:32:51 No.2771991
>>2771983
Any entry level from any of the major brands will be great (Canon T5 / T6 lines, Nikon D3xxx / D5xxx lines, Sony a6000). Pentax, Olympus, Panasonic, and Fuji will also have comparable cameras as well. There are going to be differences, but they're way overblown. They all make great cameras and differences are mostly margnial to non-existent when it comes to performance.

If you have access to lenses of a particular brand (through friends, family, work, etc), it may be worthwhile to stick with that brand.

If you want a retro aesthetic, Fuji and Olympus should be your go-to. If you want portability, Sony, Olympus, Fuji, and Panasonic. If you want easiest access to accessories / lenses, Canon and Nikon.

If you have absolutely no idea, try out a few different brands in store and pick the one you like best. Seriously, ergonomics far too often ignored. It's like driving a car, you gotta test drive and get one that feels right.

>>
Anonymous 2016-02-18 08:03:29 No.2771997
>>2771991
Awesome thank you. One of the most popular that I keep hearing is the Canon rebel t5 was considering going with that. It's good to hear it isn't just an over hyped fad camera.

I'm probably going to use it primarily for nature and or wildlife photography in all types of light levels of that makes a difference

>>
Anonymous 2016-02-18 08:11:28 No.2771999
>>2771997
You'll want good high-ISO performance and a long lens if you're shooting wildlife. Nikon's cheapo 55-200 is actually really good for the money, and their entry-level bodies have good sensors for high-ISO work.

I shot this pic way back in the day with that cheesy little 55-200 on a D2X, which was a pro body when it was new, but the sensor is absolute garbage compared to the cheapest modern cameras. It's not a great shot compared to the stuff I did years later, but it shows that the lens can keep up decently with some pretty serious action.

I'm not sure how Canon compares, and if they have a cheap telephoto that's as good as Nikon's. Maybe a Canon anon can help.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATIONCamera ModelNIKON D2XCamera SoftwareVer.2.00Maximum Lens Aperturef/5.7Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaColor Filter Array Pattern738Focal Length (35mm Equiv)400 mmImage-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2011:03:13 18:23:08Exposure Time1/320 secF-Numberf/9.0Exposure ProgramShutter PriorityISO Speed Rating200Lens Aperturef/9.0Exposure Bias0 EVSubject DistanceInfinityMetering ModePatternLight SourceCloudy WeatherFlashNo FlashFocal Length200.00 mmRenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceManualDigital Zoom Ratio1.3Scene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlNoneContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessNormalSubject Distance RangeUnknown

>>
Anonymous 2016-02-18 08:14:05 No.2772000
>>2771997
>One of the most popular that I keep hearing is the Canon rebel t5 was considering going with that.

If you can, do go a store to try them out. Brand ratings vary by an incredible amount by the region. FWIW my own store's sales had the D3300 outselling the T5 about 5:1 and in terms of first time users, ergonomic preference was solidly in Nikon's favor.

Don't by into hype for any camera. Anyone who says one is better than another is just an idiot. Pick the one you like using best, you can't go wrong with any of them, none are a "mistake".

>I'm probably going to use it primarily for nature and or wildlife photography in all types of light levels of that makes a difference

As I said before, literally any of the cameras in that price range will perform more or less the same for literally any shooting condition. What camera you pick isn't going to make a difference for what pictures you can get.

>>
Anonymous 2016-02-18 08:19:46 No.2772002
>>2771997
>primarily for nature and or wildlife
The T5 is not the best for that, you have to go higher like a 7D at least to have weather resistance. The t5 and the other entry level Canons are not sealed whatsoever and a bit of moisture can damage or even brick the camera.
If you can't go up in budget for the 7D there is the Pentax K-50 with the WR kit lens. It is fully weather sealed and comes with a few extra for your initial budget.

>>
Anonymous 2016-02-18 08:22:25 No.2772003
>>2771999
>I'm not sure how Canon compares, and if they have a cheap telephoto that's as good as Nikon's. Maybe a Canon anon can help.

i'm a nikon shooter too (I have a D750) but i took my buddy's T3i Rebel with a 75-300/4-5.6 III USM out for a spin while we were hiking together and I really like that lens. it's a cheap and light little piece of plastic and glass but seems to create some lovely images and the autofocus was fast and responsive

by the way i didn't namedrop the D750 except to say i shoot with some quality gear and so i'm not just endorsing the 75-300 because it's better than my P&S, lol. i really do think it's a good lens.

>>
Anonymous 2016-02-18 08:22:48 No.2772004
>>2771999
Different anon here. Do you have experience with the 70-300? I'm looking at either the d5500 or the d7100 (there's an instant rebate that makes the body about 700 USD ) and would appreciate input on a decent tele.

I have played with both bodies, but I feel that I'm in a weird spot. I felt slowed down by the d5300 menu options but slightly overwhelmed by all the d7100's stuff. Which one should I go with? I was leaning toward the 7100 because it felt nicer to hold and I like having the focus motor, but I'm not sure if it's too much camera for me at this point. I have experience with a Canon A-1, so I'm not completely new though.

>>
Anonymous 2016-02-18 08:30:25 No.2772005
>>2772002
Oh, and the new HD version of the 55-300 is an excellent weather sealed wildlife lens on a budget.

>>
Anonymous 2016-02-18 08:32:05 No.2772006
>>2771975
>Played around with the D5 & D500 a bit last night, quite a few things I never realized that I must've ignored in various previews. I'd honestly rather get a D500 over a D750 now.

the D750 is a real beast and I love mine but that D500 looks completely ridiculous for action and wildlife. 10 FPS RAW in an enthusiast camera? and does ISO 51200 look as good as 12800 on the D750?

i plan to have my D750 for a while but I can't even imagine what FF DSLRs are going to be able to do when I'm ready to buy again in a few years or so. the tech is out of control

>>
Anonymous 2016-02-18 08:35:32 No.2772008
>>2772004
Unfortunately I haven't really used the 70-300. I've heard it's pretty good though.

I don't see much that will give you trouble in the long run with the D7100. It's actually much easier to use once you get used to it, because you don't have to fuck around with menus and button combos for everything. The build quality and focus motor are also very much worth having.

Something you might consider, instead of a brand new consumer tele, is getting a used 2.8. The 80-200 2.8D is about $700 on my local CL, and it should work pretty well on the D7100, plus it'll work on FF if you ever upgrade, and if you decide to sell it you can probably get exactly the same amount you paid. I used to have one, used it on a D50, and even that ancient and cheesy body focused fine with it.

(If you're wondering why I went from an 80-200 to a 55-200, BTW, I sold the 80-200 to buy a 70-200, and then Nikon had some kind of shortage and I bought the 55-200 to use while I waited for the 70-200 to come back in stock.)

>>
Anonymous 2016-02-18 08:41:53 No.2772010
>>2772008
>Something you might consider, instead of a brand new consumer tele, is getting a used 2.8. The 80-200 2.8D

that's a beautiful fucking lens, but, it might be a bit short for what anon wants to do and the autofocus is relatively slow (at least on the lens I had). in comparison to the nikkor 70-200 vr ii i tried at b&h and the tamron 70-200 vc i ended up buying

but i'll reiterate, the 80-200 2.8D is an absolutely brilliant and beautiful lens. for the sake of sheer image quality i think it's the best fast telephoto zoom you can put on a nikon. if anon bought it he would not regret it.

>>
Anonymous 2016-02-18 08:42:44 No.2772011
>>2772008
Thanks! That's a good point. The price difference between the 70-300 and a used 80-200 isn't that big. I was going to pair whatever lens I get with a 30 mm, but I'm open to other suggestions.

>>
Anonymous 2016-02-18 08:52:10 No.2772015
>>2772010
How's the Tamron, anyway? I've noticed that used ones are REALLY cheap, and I bet they're in good shape because they're mostly bought by enthusiasts, unlike the Nikkors which are bought by pros who beat the fuck out of them.

The Nikkor 70-200s are some of the greatest lenses out there, though. I've owned my 70-200 VRI longer than anything else in my bag, and I see no reason to trade it in on the VRII. The only lens I've ever used that impressed me more was the 500/4, that thing is an absolute monster, and the focus speed is insane. It's so damn fast that you can't even see it focus, it just magically becomes sharp as soon as you press the AF-ON button.

Speaking of Nikon teles, I've been thinking really hard about getting the new-ish 200-500. I'm sick of rental fees on the 500/4 and can live with losing a stop of aperture, I just wish I could see some actual feedback on how well it keeps up with auto racing, which is what I'd be buying it to shoot.

>>
Anonymous 2016-02-18 08:57:46 No.2772022
>>2772006
Yeah it literally has the same AF system as the D5, focuses down to -4EV (which I think is f/2.8, 200 ISO, 60 seconds), which is pretty damn dark. Unlike previous cameras, it isn't resized for DX, so it's like you're literally croping in on the D5's AF point array, you have AF points fully edge to edge.

Another big thing was with the reworked processor, battery life actually improved. The D5 tested to ~8,100 shots in real world conditions, and D500 gets like 50% more shots than previous cam's using the same battery.

> 10 FPS RAW in an enthusiast camera?
Honestly, the buffer was even more impressive, you'll never realistically run into an issue of waiting for it to clear. D500 is definitely a pro level camera, not enthusiast.

Could only judge based of the LCD, but it was super clear. Had some ~40k ISO shots that people guessed 6400-12,800.

>>
Anonymous 2016-02-18 09:00:52 No.2772026
>>2772022
>Unlike previous cameras, it isn't resized for DX, so it's like you're literally croping in on the D5's AF point array, you have AF points fully edge to edge.

That's actually how the D300 was, too. I was actually kind of disappointed when I got my D3S and realized that it had the same AF array as my D300, and so it only covered half the frame.

Man, I miss my D3S/D300S pair. I wish I could have made enough of a career out of sports shooting to justify keeping them and eventually replacing them with a D5/D500 duo.

>>
Anonymous 2016-02-18 09:01:35 No.2772028
>>2772015
>I've been thinking really hard about getting the new-ish 200-500
It's a total steal at $1400, like great value. I've had customers trade in / sell their 200-400 f/4's for it. The VR pretty incredible too.

>>
Anonymous 2016-02-18 09:05:31 No.2772033
>>2772015
>How's the Tamron, anyway? I've noticed that used ones are REALLY cheap, and I bet they're in good shape because they're mostly bought by enthusiasts, unlike the Nikkors which are bought by pros who beat the fuck out of them.

can't complain a damn bit and i bought a sketchy import model off ebay.

>The Nikkor 70-200s are some of the greatest lenses out there, though. I've owned my 70-200 VRI longer than anything else in my bag, and I see no reason to trade it in on the VRII.

IMO, the VRII is disappointing especially for how fucking expensive it is. it doesn't seem to do anything better than the tamron, though i only tried the VRII and own the Tamron so maybe that's not a fair assessment. but what a hulking motherfucker of a lens i mean the VRII is absolutely gigantic.

>The only lens I've ever used that impressed me more was the 500/4, that thing is an absolute monster, and the focus speed is insane. It's so damn fast that you can't even see it focus, it just magically becomes sharp as soon as you press the AF-ON button.

lol i noticed that when i tried the new 24-70/2.8 VR. like it was focusing before i pressed the button. i actually don't like that lens but nikon's autofocus tech is amazing, completely peerless compared to TPM lenses.

>Speaking of Nikon teles, I've been thinking really hard about getting the new-ish 200-500. I'm sick of rental fees on the 500/4 and can live with losing a stop of aperture, I just wish I could see some actual feedback on how well it keeps up with auto racing, which is what I'd be buying it to shoot.

i had/have that lens on my wishlist. it's a super telephoto zoom selling for $1,400, and this isn't really fair since i haven't tried it, but i'm thinking you might be disappointed coming off the 500/4. you're gonna want to try it before you buy it to see how 500mm looks.

also i wonder if it does that thing some of nikon's zooms do where focusing at certain distances loses some of the focal length

>>
Anonymous 2016-02-18 09:08:46 No.2772035
>>2772022
>D500 is definitely a pro level camera, not enthusiast.

was referring to the FF = pro lol thing but i realize that's a silly point of view

especially in the face of what this camera seems to be able to do

>>
Anonymous 2016-02-18 09:09:42 No.2772036
>>2772026
>That's actually how the D300 was, too
Not like this.

>>
Anonymous 2016-02-18 09:11:38 No.2772037
>>2772028
They seem to be selling pretty damn well around here, too. I ask about it every time I'm at the camera store, and they're sold out every time.

>>2772033
Yeah, I definitely want to try it out before I buy it, but I'm also not covering racing professionally anymore, so I don't need the 500/4's level of performance.

I know a ton of people with race cars, and could probably pay the lens off within a few months of going out and shooting them on track for $200 a day or whatever.

>>
Anonymous 2016-02-18 09:13:30 No.2772038
>>2772036
Oh damn, that IS badass. This is what the D300's was like, and I thought it was pretty nice.

>>
Anonymous 2016-02-18 09:29:27 No.2772041
>>2772015
>Speaking of Nikon teles, I've been thinking really hard about getting the new-ish 200-500. I'm sick of rental fees on the 500/4 and can live with losing a stop of aperture, I just wish I could see some actual feedback on how well it keeps up with auto racing, which is what I'd be buying it to shoot.
I've owned this lens for about 4 weeks now, and shot with it about 3 times.

I haven't really used continuous focusing yet and can't compare it with the 500mm f4.

So far, I'm enjoying it and don't regret the purchase. It seems to be good value.

Not much help, I suppose, but it's not a complete stinker of a lense.

>>
Anonymous 2016-02-18 09:36:41 No.2772042
best lenses for mamiya 645?

>>
Anonymous 2016-02-18 09:36:49 No.2772043
>>2771976
a6300.
rx100iv.
lx100.
gx8.
g7.

>>
Anonymous 2016-02-18 09:37:16 No.2772044
In the market for a nee DSLR, currently got a eos 1200D and I want to stick with canon.
Due to a sudden increase of income I'm able to go high end APS-C, so 7dmkII or the 7D.
What would be a better choice? With a eye on the future I can end up doing nearly any kind of photography.

Suggestions are welcome /p/
Thanks in advance!

>>
Anonymous 2016-02-18 09:46:48 No.2772046
>>2772044
Get the 7DmkII, the 7D has the same sensor that's in your 1200D.
The mkII has a lot of improvement in the noise and high ISO performance that is worth the extra money.

>>
Anonymous 2016-02-18 09:48:57 No.2772047
>>2772044
7dii or 6d, maybe wait and see for 80d

>>
Anonymous 2016-02-18 09:51:40 No.2772048
>>2772044
What the hell, K-1 or D500

>>
Anonymous 2016-02-18 10:01:16 No.2772053
>>2772044
I upgraded from that camera to a 7D mk ii. I'd say get that or a 6D depending on what you want to shoot, and what lenses you have.

>>
Anonymous 2016-02-18 11:56:40 No.2772092
General opinions on the Panasonic Lumix series?
How does Panasonic, in general and broad terms, compare to the other camera makers?

Particularly interested in knowing how you feel about their mirrorless bodies.

>>
Anonymous 2016-02-18 12:17:50 No.2772098
>>2772092
see
>>2771753

>>
Anonymous 2016-02-18 13:26:06 No.2772128
I just ordered this off Ebay a couple days ago to try getting into film, any tips or suggestions. Films, techniques, etc.

>>
Anonymous 2016-02-18 13:37:43 No.2772133
>>2772128
http://curatingcuteness.com/2013/05/35mm-film-guide/

>>
Anonymous 2016-02-18 13:52:06 No.2772142
>>2772092
Usability-wise, I always liked Panasonic.

They don't perform well enough for my taste now, though.

[Sorry, can't give you a fancy overview / comparison to the whole camera landscape.]

>>
Anonymous 2016-02-18 14:00:57 No.2772146
>>2772128
Would a modern flash be compatible?

>>
Anonymous 2016-02-18 14:02:20 No.2772147
>>2772146
Yes. You just have to manually set the output on your flash.

>>
Anonymous 2016-02-18 14:03:18 No.2772149
Bought this camera in great condition for 25 eurobucks. Anyone got any tips? First film camera...

>>
Anonymous 2016-02-18 14:04:06 No.2772151
>>2772149
>eurobucks

>>
Anonymous 2016-02-18 14:06:30 No.2772154
>>2772006
> 10 FPS RAW in an enthusiast camera?
Nothing new. We've been there since 2014 on the Sony side of things... the Nikon answer to that took pretty damn long to happen, Canon's is still basically absent.

>>
Anonymous 2016-02-18 14:08:50 No.2772157
>>2772154
Mine does 8 FPS.

>>
Anonymous 2016-02-18 14:12:31 No.2772163
>>2772157
The corresponding enthusiast models are the A6000 / now A6300, which do 11FPS since (fairly early) 2014.

>>
Anonymous 2016-02-18 14:18:30 No.2772168
>>2772163
Not in non-ideal light and with moving subject. Taking 10 FPS burst of a lampposts is not real photography.

>>
Anonymous 2016-02-18 15:19:54 No.2772207
>>2772168
>Taking 10 FPS burst of a lampposts is not real photography.
The A6000 shoots moving subjects fine. Only at like 0 or more EV, yes. But that's still absolutely not negating that it already was an enthusiast camera with 11FPS *at higher 24MP resolution* released in early 2014 already.

The A6300 now shoots at -2EV. With still higher sensor resolution, and marginally faster burst rate. Never mind the better AF coverage and stuff and things.

Besides all of that, the A6000 costs only a quarter and the A6300 half as much as the D500. Again, it's not such a strong answer, and it took pretty damn long to happen.

>>
Anonymous 2016-02-18 15:41:06 No.2772214
>>2772207
Specs sheets don't take photos. No matter what specs it has when the body is a horrible design, worse UI, abysmal menu system and 4K, Megapickles, CMOS Exmor (tm) everywhere.
Face the cold hard facts, Sony cameras are designed for the philistenes who neve used a camera before.
If you try shooting with an enthusiast or pro level DSLR you will know the difference.
But you haven't and you never will because you are a marketing intern getting cucked out of your payment.

>>
Anonymous 2016-02-18 15:49:10 No.2772215
>>2772207
>The A6000 shoots moving subjects fine. Only at like 0 or more EV, yes. But that's still absolutely not negating that it already was an enthusiast camera with 11FPS *at higher 24MP resolution* released in early 2014 already.
It would be a lot more convincing if you were to post some of the photos you've taken of high speed objects in burst mode, rather than just copying and pasting from the product description.

>>
Anonymous 2016-02-18 15:51:48 No.2772216
>>2772214
> The D500 has cool value on its spec sheet, 20MP at 10FPS. Amazing to see an enthusiast camera with that!
> Well, this has been around since early 2014, 24MP at 11FPS
> OMG, SPEC SHEETS DON'T TAKE PICTURES!!!
Ridiculous.

Also, I have shot enthusiast film cameras, enthusiast and pro DSLR before, not just Sony MILC. Sony is doing fine.

And the published photos shot with Sony MILC (including, say, an A6000) look every bit as good technically as those taken with the corresponding -more expensive- Canon / Nikon or whatever camera setups.

>>
Anonymous 2016-02-18 16:08:14 No.2772221
>>2772215
Already documented tons of times. Here are some:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9I9ir6k8tw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=up8K_xd_iwU

If you want you also can find many articles and what not. This information is out there for years now. You're apparently just really ignorant of it?

If anything, the D500 is the one that we could use a bunch of tests for... somehow that seems to slip your bias?

>>
Anonymous 2016-02-18 16:36:41 No.2772238
Do you think Fuji will be coming out with a weather resistant X-E series any time soon?

Do you think they ever could?

>>
Anonymous 2016-02-18 16:45:02 No.2772241
>>2772238
No clue, how about just getting the X-T1 or something rather than trying to read the future?

Or get something else, if it needs to be more than "resistant" with no option to just use a plastic bag or w/e.

>>
Anonymous 2016-02-18 19:00:51 No.2772319
Hey, I'm the film guy again
I saw the Canon EOS elan ii and the Canon EOS rebel 2000.
Like one guy recommended, all canon EOS have shitty batteries ( CR123a or 2CR5 or CR2). None has AA's.

What I noted is that the elan ii is from 95 and the rebel 2000 is from 99

What's the difference in quality between elans and rebels?

Sorry but there are so many good choices that I don't know what to do!!!

>>
Anonymous 2016-02-18 19:02:59 No.2772320
>>2772238
Could they? Yeah probably. Will they? Who knows, but I doubt it will be any time soon. The X-E2s is just brand new recent.

>>
Anonymous 2016-02-18 19:50:32 No.2772350
>>2772319
Are they any good of a camera compared to antique film SLR?

>>
Anonymous 2016-02-18 19:54:19 No.2772353
>>2772350
EOS brand have autofocus. And they share the same EF mount of today's lenses. That's the main difference.
The first EOS from 87 is heavy as fuck, maybe a little slow to autofocus, but works great.

I guess you can buy an old EOS but if you get a newer one for the same money is better... I dunno.

>>
Anonymous 2016-02-18 20:00:29 No.2772359
>>2772319 again.
I forgot to say that both are around the same price.

I guess that the elan II has more "resell value" so I would go for that one.
I read that canon likes to release new stuff in midrange (elan), then when its proven enough, release it on pro line, and when it's cheap enough to the low line (rebel).
Rebels are not as though as Elans but if you use them ocasionally, Rebels are awwwwright.

So, since the rebel 2000 is newer than the elan ii, they must have the same "tech". The main difference is the material of the body, being the rebel lightweight and full plastic

That's all I know.







[  3  /  a  /  adv  /  an  /  c  /  cgl  /  ck  /  cm  /  co  /  diy  /  fa  /  fit  /  g  /  i  /  ic  /  jp  /  k  /  lit  /  m  /  mlp  /  mu  /  n  /  o  /  p  /  po  /  q  /  sci  /  sp  /  tg  /  toy  /  trv  /  tv  /  v  /  vg  /  vp  /  w  /  wg  /  wsg  /  x  ]

Contact me | All the content on this website come from 4chan.org. All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.

Dofus quêtes

Page loaded in 0.32591 seconds.