'Want mirrorless + poor mans trinity primes, what's my brand?';

'>>4297594
I am a genderfluid, trans, enby otherkin and I want a camera equally queer as I am, what brand supports LGBTQIA+ folk like me?';

'How do I take better photos? Everything I take looks really flat and boring';

'>>4297605
Buy a Leica';

'>>4297597
mft';

'how do i shot web';

'>>4297600
Sony';

'>>4297623
>Electronics?';

'>>4297625';

'>>4297626
I am now realizing how much of DBS covid memory hole'd';

'are sony cameras considered shitty by /p/haggots? i see a lot of hate on them on this board. i just bought this as my first camera. thinking back, i might’ve got something else. only because other brands like nikon, canon or fuji, their whole focus are cameras and sony has hands in everything

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

'>>4297633
/p/ has no consensus on anything. If you're happy with it shoot it, and don't let any sperg here talk you out of it.';

'>>4297597
Canon EOS M6 mk2 with EF-M 22mm/32mm and Sigma 56mm. Discontinued, but probably still available used/like new';

'>>4297633
Sony had some issues and fixed them, but the “fixed” cameras are so new /p/ cant afford them. Also, their marketing info sucks. They call a bunch of lenses weather sealed that aren’t. The branding isnt even consistent - 90 G macro is not fully sealed.

Tbf canon isnt much better';

'I thrifted these 3 books for $2 each, what am I in for?';

'>>4297640
No idea, I don't look at photobooks and I don't think you should either unless all you want is to copy someone else's creative work';

'>>4297633
You do realize that Fujifilm is a chemical company, don't you?';

'>>4297633
Cameras are technology, Sony does technology very well. They don't quite have the history that Nikon and Canon does (and others like Fuji, Pentax, Olympus) but they still have a lot when it comes to digital and they also have Minolta and Zeiss. There's a reason why other brands use Sony sensors, but almost no other brands use other brand's sensors. Ergonomically (not just the physical stuff but also menus) people like to shit on them, but they're not as terrible as people make out and a lot of it is personal preference.';

'>>4297644
>There's a reason why other brands use Sony sensors, but almost no other brands use other brand's sensors
bait is supposed to be subtle';

'>>4297605
Try lowering your camera to like knee-level and take photos from there';

'>>4297639
basically this. Watch sports games, the news, etc, you see a7ivs, a1s, a9iis, a7rvs everywhere. The AP dumped canon for sony. Their pro support is as good as CPS.

/p/ can only afford a7rivs and worse and /p/ definitely cant afford the good lenses. Sony and canon are expensive brands.';

'>>4297647
Which brands use other other brand's sensors? Genuinely curious';

'>>4297653
Just because Sony owns the manufacturing plant doesn't mean that they are Sony sensors. Do you have any idea how expensive it is to spin up a silicon fab? It takes over a decade and billions of dollars. They aren't using Sony sensors, they are using their own sensors which happen to be made in a plant owned by Sony because they gain nothing by starting their own fab. That would be like saying Nvidia uses Samsung processors.';

'>>4297654
Nikon has used stock Sony sensors, Olympus has used modified/custom Sony sensors, Fuji has used Sony sensors, Panasonic has used Sony sensors, Canon has used smaller Sony sensors, Pentax/Ricoh has used Sony sensors, Sigma has used Sony sensors for non-Foveon cameras. All of those are brands that have also made their own sensors. Whether they used Sony because it made financial sense or because they were the best, they still chose Sony which means they were up to the task.';

'>>4297659
>Sigma has used Sony sensors for non-Foveon cameras
By "cameras", you mean one.

>All of those are brands that have also made their own sensors
Not Nikon
Not Olympus
Not Fujifilm
Not Pentax
Foveon is fabless, so not even Sigma manufactured their own.';

'>>4297662
>>4297659
>>4297654
This is an irrelevant brand fanboy argument but sony semiconductor and imaging are not separate and sony absolutely negotiates deals to cripple their competition just like canon put raw NR on the EOS Rs to fake their gearfag review results

Hence nikon bought RED including their sensor supplier contracts';

'>>4297605
+100 Saturation
+100 Contrast';

'>>4297605
recipe for general idea and composition
>keep taking pictures until you'll take at least a couple pictures you like
>save every picture you tried to get right, not quick snaps, save things that you've put conscious effort into taking
>look at good ones and ask yourself what you did right
>look at bad ones and ask yourself what you did wrong
>rinse and repeat

recipe for processing
>honestly no idea
>maybe your processing is just flat and boring? crank up those highlights, maybe make darks darker, don't worry about losing detail, you're trying to get a pleasant output, not ensuring viewers can see what's going on in some unimportant shadow bit in corner
>or maybe take pictures under different conditions, try meme golden hour, try other weather conditions, try night and tripod
>but no idea really, sorry, you'd have to post some pictures to get context';

'>>4297642
this is such a mind-numbing take i see repeated all the time here. please stop spreading this idiocy. you are going to copy someone else's work. the only difference you'll get from not looking at the works of others is ignorance that you have copied it
>>4297605
find better light or produce your own';

'>>4297737
feel free to leave anytime, no one would notice you were gone';

'>>4297635
>>4297639
>>4297644
thanks for the honest answers
>>4297643
i thought they were just cameras';

'>>4297594
When I'm developing film and it says agitate for 10 seconds every 1 minute do you do the first agitation at 1 minute and the next agitation at 2 minutes, or 2 minutes and 10 seconds? Then the next would be a 3 minutes and 20 seconds, etc.';

'>>4297748
Don't over complicate it.
>Agitate 10s
>Set 1 min timer
>*DING*
>Agitate 10s
>Set 1min timer
>???
>Profit';

'Any suggestions on a webcam that is good. The brio looks like shit compared to my gh5. I searched for a good mirrorless with dpaf, and all I could find was eos r100 at $450. A6000 is another option at $400. I cant believe there's not a point and shoot dpaf at 3.5f somewhere for $200. It feels like camera companies are gatekeeping. I'm looking for AF, dslr or mirrorless to use as a webcam at $200 or less.';

'>>4297749
Okay, so I was doing it right. It's just easier to agitate at the start of every minute rather than adding 10 seconds to the starting time of each agitation. It's really not that bad...';

'>>4297729
>look at bad ones and ask yourself what you did wrong
How do I know what is wrong? I haven't taken a photo yet that is good, and I can't pinpoint what is wrong with the others';

'Which camera is the spiritual successor to the 5D mk1?';

'>>4297754
The 5Dmkii';

'What's the ultimate hipster camera?';

'>>4297759
Holga lomo camera, maybe?';

'>>4297605
shoot something interesting, dependent on the feels.';

'>>4297622
With a macro lens, and manual focus.
Or cheat.
Shoot the whole web.
Set camera on a tripod and do focus bracketing to capture 100 shots and hope one is in perfect focus for the spot you want, delete the others.';

'if you exposure bracket 7shots 1EV steps for a total of +6EV
and your camera records 12bit
would your HDR merge from the 7 RAWs equal a higher bit depth composite or would that still just be 12 bit?';

'>>4297819
idk for sure, but it seems like it'd still be limited to 12-bit. You'd have more luminescence information from the higher dynamic range, so I guess you could make that argument. But you're not getting any more color information. It's still 12-bit, you're just changing your starting point for exposure. Also does it really matter? It seems like you're trying to build a cope right now. If you take these bracketed images and it looks good, does it really matter if it's 'only' a 12-bit file?

Also, what is the bit depth of your monitor?';

'>>4297819
The resulting image would still be 12 bit. You're not expanding the range of the information to be display on some theoretical 24 bit or whatever medium, you're compressing a higher range down.';

'>>4297594
I have a D3200 from 10+ years ago. its been awhile since I've taken pictures so i have to re-learn a lot of things. i'm traveling to texas to take pictures of the great north american eclipse. What are my options for lenses for an old DSLR body like this? what is the best lens i could get for good eclipse shots, and something that'll allow me to use an eclipse filter so i don't damage the camera or myself.

Given that this body is a lower end model, it doesn't seem to be compatible with some of those specialized lens that people use for this sort of thing.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

'>>4297875
>Given that this body is a lower end model, it doesn't seem to be compatible with some of those specialized lens that people use for this sort of thing.

Why do you think that? The mount is identical.';

'>>4297877
some lenses have a list of cameras they're compatible with on amazon, some don't. i wanted to make sure before i just buy one.';

'>>4297883
The camera is an F mount body. Any F mount lens will work (with some caveats for older lens). Which lens are you looking at?';

'>>4297875
For Nikon, look at their 55-200, 55-300, 200-500 depending on your budget. Can also look at Sigma/Tamron for a cheaper 150-600 option.
AF-S will be good to go, AF-P lenses probably wont work, AF-D lenses wont autofocus, and many manual focus lenses won't meter (can still use with manual settings).';

'>>4297889
https://www.amazon.com/Nikon-18-300mm-3-5-6-3G-Vibration-Reduction/dp/B00JKUPRF4/ref=as_li_ss_tl?keywords=Nikon%2B18-300mm%2Bf%2F3.5-5.6&qid=1556672180&s=gateway&sr=8-1&linkCode=sl1&tag=nikon_d3200_lenses-20&linkId=4a4dd995c2b86b59509e9b66fe18833b&th=1

i was looking at this. but it is pretty expensive.';

'>>4297893
meant for>>4297887 but thanks. that does clear a lot of things up.';

'>>4297893
>>4297896
Yes, that lens is compatible with your body, but I almost guarantee you that isn't a great lens for what you're trying to do. Super zooms (lenses with a very wide range of focal lengths) typically have very poor image quality. I would definitely ask around, maybe in the astro thread about what you should get especially if you're paying almost $700.

maybe take some of >>4297889 this anon's recommendations.';

'>>4297594
I have a hamdmedown D3200 since 2017. I want to get something new and better. Is the D750 or D780 a good step up? Quite the price difference between the two. Would the lens that comes with both be sufficient for a while or do I need to upgrade them to take advantage of the body?

Also need a good lightweight tripod I can take camping. I bet that will be expensive.';

'>>4297665
Source?';

'>>4297957
My dad works at sony and told me about it.';

'>>4297594
If my DSLR has an electronic shutter does it make my camera a mirrorless or a hybrid?';

'>>4297960
It makes it a DSLR with an electronic shutter';

'>>4297594
i have a nikon f100 with a full nikon lens set. I want to mess around with more film SLRs, but the ones I've tried feel like a worse f100. What cams do you guys suggest';

'>>4297964
Linhof master technika';

'>>4297964
EOS-1V';

'>>4297965
>Linhof master technika
>:( i want a 35mm
>>4297966
maybe i should get more canon lens';

'>>4297968
Just put a 35mm back on it like this one. It's a fantastic edc camera.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

'I had a Canon PowerShot G9 X Mark II, it's a great camera for the pictures I took, which was inside shots using natural light.
I also used the remote shooting app a lot of the time which is really helpful.
Unfortunately it broke, I was wondering if there's a camera recommendation that fits my needs or if I should just look for another one?';

'>>4297759
any big dslr';

'>>4297977
The RX100 series is also worth considering. A little thicker but still pocketable. There's quite a few to choose from. The I and II get you a little more reach than the G9, the III to V get you a little wider but lose some reach but are faster at the long end, and they also get an EVF and a tilting screen, the V also gets you better phase detect AF. The VI and VII get you significantly more reach from the lens at the expense of some speed, but still fairly decent and faster than the G9 at the long end. They all have faster continuous shooting rates, from 10fps up to 90fps depending on the model. They'll all do remote shooting from your phone and you can also get a wired remote, don't think the G9 has that option.';

'>>4297990
Anyone that recommends the shittier lensed models aafter thr rx100 Va is not to be trusted. That lens downgrade is unacceptable in every case unless you’re a pudding brained “muh zoom reach” boomer.';

'I have a whole bunch of valuable photography books (worth thousands each according to online auctions) that I'm looking to sell. What are the best websites to sell photography books?';

'>>4298081
KEH

When you guys go on photowalks, do you leave your camera on or turn it off after you've taken the shots you've wanted?';

'I have a a6400 and several cheap lenses. Mostly primes wideangles (7, 12, 20...) and the cheapest zoom possibile (the poo 55-210).
In the long run I'd like to buy a really great zooms like the 24-70 f2.8 or maybe another longer one but I'm really unsure.

Probably most of my needs can be fulfilled betweena 24mm and 150mm, more or less. The fastest the better because I frequently need to shoot dark interiors. I don't really like the idea to go longer than 24 as a minimum but 70 is probably too short to worth the effort (I would anyway switch lens alot),

Any great advice?

No prejudice on brand, but I don'r really wanna spend more than 1000€ for an aps-c lende as at some point I will move to FF.';

'>>4298169
sigma 18-35 and 50-100 f/1.8';

'>>4298169
The Tamron 35-150mm f/2-2.8 looks pretty neat, but not really very wide on a crop body. Just depends whether you're willing to carry around and switch to a wide prime. There are some pretty small ones that'll go in a jacket pocket but then you're left with a big zoom to carry.';

'>>4298243
No, that was a trip "/\mbush", he no longer posts here. I assumed he died from dog-aids.';

'>>4298243
Yes

He’s some turd world europoor who exploited the degenerate laws of certain germanic and later slavic countries to be evil';

'>>4298266
huskyfag and cANON are very clearly not the same person. They have completely different mannerisms and 'voice'. There is no reason to assume they are the same person';

'how do you pay photographers?
like if I wanted to hire someone to go out and take street shots of people for a fashion thing, would I just pay them hourly?';

'>>4298271
Typically it is either per hour or for a certain number of finished photos for a flat rate (ie 20 photos for $400) or whatever. But if you want them to cover an event, you'll likely just have to pay an hourly rate';

'>>4298272
I'd probably just ask them to go out to like a punk show or nightlife area once a month and get as many shots as they could
if it's a monthly thing like that then should I probably just go for a lump sum?';

'>>4298271
Ask them, they're all different. Some have a fixed session fee and charge additional per picture or picture package. Some charge by the hour or use half / day rates, which also may or may not include additional charges per picture. Some charge on a per project basis and it just varies.

Just make sure you're on the same page as far as what you actually are getting (prints, digitals, how many, quality, editing or not, usage rights, etc) for a given price.';

'I can't choose between a Fujifilm XT-5 (or wait for XT-6) and a Nikon Zf (but not the Zfc)

All that really matters to me are the exposure triangle dials because I learned on film cameras and it feels more natural to me. Whenever I get a camera with DSLR dials where you have to do everything with a spinny switch it turns me off and gets me out of photography for months/years.

I know the XT-5 is probably closer to the Zfc than the Zf, but the Zf is full frame and Fuji doesn't have a full frame option at all. Just shopping around and comparing brands.

The Nikon seems like a better camera while simultaneously having a technically worse sensor. I know everything's about glass. So maybe tell me about the glass options for each and which might end up better.
>>4297594
>The answer is always Nikon btw.
Sheeeeeit.';

'>>4298274
I just wanted to kind of gauge a price range or idea so I don't go in with an insultingly low offer on accident
I didn't even think about it but yeah, going over the minutia with someone directly is the only way I'll get an accurate price

follow-up question: if I lurked on /p/ for a while and made an offer to an anon, what are the odds they actually accept instead of assuming it's a scam and ignoring me?';

'>>4298273
>should I probably just go for a lump sum?
honestly it's really the same thing. If you want me to shoot for 4 hours, for example and I think it'll take an additional 4 hours of time to process, cull, and edit those photos and deliver all of them to you. I'm going to bake in those 4 additional hours into my hourly rate and charge you for "8" anyway. Whereas if you want to pay a lump sum, I'm just going to guess about how many hours it will take to get [x] good photos, edit them and deliver them to you.

It all depends on the person, how much they like doing the kind of photography that you're asking them to do and all that jazz. Also it's not uncommon to barter. If you have something you can offer like free concert tickets (when he's not working) or something you can do offer partial trades. I would just talk to some people and see what kind of prices you can get.

If you don't already know, this kind of photography is typically called something like "event photography". If you're looking for people.';

'>>4298276
>I just wanted to kind of gauge a price range or idea so I don't go in with an insultingly low offer on accident
Instead of going in with an offer, you could try describing with specifics about what you're looking for and ask how much they would want for that.

>I want you to cover some punk shows I'm promoting. They run from [time-time], I'm looking for shots of [kinds of images]. What would you charge for that?

Or something like that. It may be helpful to try and find some similar images to give as a reference and just to help you understand what it is you want.';

'>>4298275
Are there any rumor specs for the X-T6?

If you're planning on doing prints, how large? If not, then the megapixel difference will matter very little. The nikon is going to be guaranteed good at least until 11 x 14, but you could stretch it further of course.

I think Fuj has the better lens selection for the dials approach, many of Nikon lenses don't have aperture rings. Unless you use adapted older F lenses, of which I hear the adapter is pretty good.

Personally if it were me, I'd probably get the zf, just because of the full frame and the cool manual focus assist features.

But another route I would be tempted to go is to get an earlier Fuji like the xt-4/3. Because you'll pay half of what the Zf costs and the only think you're losing in the higher resolution (which you may not even need/want)';

'>>4298276
Really depends a lot on the market, but $50-75 per hour is probably a fair ballpark on the lower end (hobbyists, students, guy with a camera), and probably get you 20-200 pics depending. Going with an "actual" pro / part-time pro is probably 4-5x that amount. When I was getting started and did concerts, it was a flat $250 per night, and I delivered 50-100 from 2-4hrs shooting, but that was over 10 years ago.

Long time ago, there used to be actual /p/ meet ups, I've met and gone to an exhibit from at least one old trip here. Outside of a handful of trips, I wouldn't trust anyone here at all anymore.';

'>>4298275
I've had both since their respective releases, and overall prefer the T5, but Zf is the goat for manual focus lenses.
Zf had some quirks to get used to, and I hated the PASM override switch at first. Mechanically, the dials are nicer on the Zf, but functionally much worse imo. The ISO dial / auto ISO functionally is absolute garbage, but could be addressed with firmware. The more I use the Zf, the more I find myself missing certain quality of life features the T5 offers. Some Nikon lenses have a control ring you can use for aperture, but it's not quite the same. T5 is also significantly smaller and lighter. Both benefit a lot from grips, but I'd say necessary on the Zf which honestly feels terrible without it.
Both are great cameras, and I'm sure you'd enjoy both.';

'>>4297989
>any big dslr
he said hipster, not boomer';

'>>4298283
>>4298293
Thanks for the answers. Just more to think about, but definitely useful perspectives that help. It seems like I might enjoy Fuji's holistic system more but that the Zf is more rewarding from a technical standpoint (which will also mean more work). It's interesting to hear that the Zf's dials are kinda bad but also have a higher build quality. Is the Fuji plasticky feeling?

Sorry if I seem like a nophotos pleb. "Lol I like photography but am not passionate enough to stick with it through modern dials" must seem pretty scrubby. I grew up since I could remember taking tons of film photos on my dad's film SLRs and eventually learned more technical stuff and photo developing in college. So after that it's been hard for me to stick with things through using DSLRs and their on-screen settings rather than having ISO and shutter speed dedicated knobs alongside the lens' fstop.

Sorry for the blog just wanted to thank you guys for answering my questions.';

'>>4298298
The thing is there's just no need for a ton of dials these days for most situations. You just go aperture priority with a minimum shutter speed set and auto ISO, so one dial for aperture (or ring on the lens) and another for exposure comp. If you're shooting manual it's because you want you settings locked so you're not going to be fiddling with the dials much.';

'>>4298298
>Lol I like photography but am not passionate enough to stick with it through modern dials" must seem pretty scrubby
It's just a different way of shooing. Like the OVF/EVF thing, it's really just a personal preference. It doesn't make you less of a photographer.';

'>>4297887
>Any F mount lens will work (with some caveats for older lens)
This was the case until Nikon introduced AF-P lenses, which can't even manual focus on anything more than about 10 years old.
As as F mount user I often envy EF mount for its simplicity,';

'>>4298298
The Zf dials are solid brass, you can sand off the paint and picrel. T5 do feel plastically in comparison, but I wouldn't call them cheap feeling either.
To be more specific with functionality, on a T5 you can have the dials lock or unlock at any given position. With the Zf, the dials always lock at certain values (C on ISO, B/T/X/Step on SS), so if I want to turn the SS dial all the way around, I have to unlock it 4 times, always.
For auto ISO, on a T5, you just set ISO to A, and change it to C or another value to override. With the Zf, Auto ISO always overrides the dial, but the dial also changes the minimum ISO for auto ISO. I have to go through the menu or use one of the limited few custom buttons for Auto ISO, and it can't just turn it on/off. I have to hold the button, and then turn one of the command dials to turn it on or off.
With a T5, the SS dials will set SS as labeled, but then you can also use the command dials to fine tune +/- up to 1 stop, great for small adjustments. Zf dial speeds don't allow for further adjustment, and you're stuck with only the labeled speeds.
Given the above, I actually make use the dials on my T5, but Zf is almost always just in C and 1/3 Step. MASP switch is nice to leave a certain SS on dial for M, and then easily switch to A, but that's basically just ignoring the dial entirely.

It's okay, I like dials too.';

'>>4297751
just do whichever is easier, it really doesn't matter much at all. you could probably agitate every 45 seconds or 90 seconds and not notice the difference';

'>>4298307
don't forget "E" lenses which have fixed aperture except on certain newer digital bodies that are not listed on Nikon's website as best I can tell and only partly enumerated on ken "the krockpot" rockwell's site
>>4298083
I leave it on until I'm ready to put the camera away. honestly it pisses me off when I go to take a photo and the camera has to wake up first, worst case is EVF where I can't even compose. I know I can up the timeout but I haven't yet bothered to check how bad the battery life hit is.';

'>flip the screen around when storing the camera to protect it
>leave the screen exposed to reduce wear on the hinge
Which of these would you say is the better option?';

'>>4298369
If the screen gets scratched you will have a camera with a scratch on the screen
If the hinge cable breaks you will have a ewaste brick';

'>>4298275
So I'm a regular fuji (xpro) user who only ever played around with the ZFc, so take any advice I have to give with a grain of salt.

But the ZFc felt plastic and cheap. Also the lack of lenses is a real problem. Fuji has some tremendous lenses, really stand out stuff. While Nikon seems to be just scraping by.

Still I had some of my film era Leica glass and that would look good on either model. The ZF I take it has some very nifty manual focus trickery going on.

The xt4 i would occasionally borrow was an absolute joy to use. I even did some paid video work on it.';

'>>4298372
Oh just to add because I remember this was a big concern when I switched to Fuji 5 years ago.
The weather resistance is fine so far. I almost never cover my camera regardless of the weather (then again I don't shoot during the thunderstorm either) and 5 years of the expo 3 has been basically hassle free, despite dropping it on concrete more than once.';

'>>4298369
If you are worried about scratching the screen and wearing out the hinge, just slap on a screen protector.';

'I need a new USB SD card reader. They are all primarily chinese-ape garbage, but the respectable brands can be overpriced. Any recommendations?';

'>>4298372
>Fuji has some tremendous lenses, really stand out stuff. While Nikon seems to be just scraping by.
This is what xtrannies actually believe. Not to mention the fact that your post stinks of basedboy plebbitor. Is this a bait?';

'>>4298386
I been using the cheapest chinkshit card reader I could find for years with no problems whatsoever';

'>>4297594
Have a 90D that I bought a few months ago testing the waters to see if I actually like photography.
Now I realize I need low light and low noise capabilities. Should I upgrade to a FF Canon r5? Is the price hike going to give added quality or is the R5 not much better?
Been checking some Flickr pics from both cams and can't really see the difference.';

'>>4298401
You need to upgrade to an r6ii or nikon z6ii instead

Big pixels are better at high ISOs, small pixels have foggier and more colorful noise';

'>>4298401
ff will give you better quality at a given iso, an r5 would be like 1.5-2 stops better
ibis can get you several more stops, provided your scene / subject is static enough, canon claims up to 8 stops
make sure you consider lens too though, going from an f4 to f2 lens gets you a similar 2 stop improvement, among other benefits
if you are taking static pictures, a tripod alone can help you more than all of the above, but not as practical';

'>>4298401
If you’re upgrading from apsc, consider niggor as well as canon, since I imagine you don’t have any or many full frame lenses that would keep you on canon. The r6ii is nice but the z cameras seem like a better overall value in some ways if you aren’t married to the lenses';

'>>4297594
I just dug up my old Nikon D60 and bought a 300mm lens for taking on my hikes. I then find out the entire industry had changed in like the last two years.

I want to get a larger lens, and eventually better body, but now I'm hesitant. Are DSLRs still worth it?

I'm on a budget as it's not really going to be a hard core hobby.';

'>>4298420
On a budget yes they’re worth it. They still work, don’t they? A better question to ask is “what do I find myself unable to do with my current camera”? (Hint, 99% of the time there’s no solid answer and you just want newer and “better” which is fine but be honest with yourself)';

'>>4298421
Well going from my D60 to even a D3100, which I can get for like 70 dollars is a huge upgrade.
My worry is if I splash some cash for a good lens, upgrade the body it would be worth just going mirrorless perhaps?';

'>>4298420
>Nikon D60
That's what I started on, 15 years ago. The mirrorless transition really started like 10 years ago, and has kinda been the new standard for the last 5 or so.
If you're interested in video, I'd skip DSLRs, but they're still great for stills. In many cases the image quality and performance is still there, but the industry has definitely moved on. Lots of great options like a D850 for relatively cheap now.';

'I bought a used x100s long ago and it's starting to shit out (mostly loose buttons and such). I really like the pictures it takes, I mostly shoot cars I like and shit like that.
Should I replace it with an used x100v or maybe get the new one as a treat? Or will the retro vibes be lost (retro vibes as in picture is shit but enjoyable)?';

'>>4298435
>Or will the retro vibes be lost (retro vibes as in picture is shit but enjoyable)?
>retro vibes

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

'>>4298425
D850s user are still expensive...

But I don't really care for video. I'm into nature / wildlife photography, and like stills. I still need some practice so I guess I have time to think about it.';

'>>4298466
>$850-$1000 ebay BIN prices (aka much less if you know what you’re doing)
>expensive
used cameras are only expensive for impatient people';

'>>4298468
Considering most 850s were used by pros and have obscene shutter counts, decent low counts run 1200 - 1500 used.';

'GR III

Or

Fuji X100V / VI ?

Haven't bothered with photography since the start of the pandemic, and sold all my gear. Nothing really else excites me except smaller, travel-friendly cameras.

So, the dust vacuum or the wormji?';

'>>4298369
I think people who prefer tilt screens are actual retards. Flip screens are better in every way and only recently did I learn that people value tilts more.

I say this as a still photographer so no "muh flips are for video!"';

'>>4298509
The GRIII seems like a cool and special camera that does something specific.

The X100V/VI seems like overhyped junk that even positive reviews go "wink wink nudge nudge this thing sucks unless you own 10 camers already and want a gimmick."';

'>>4298526
I'm getting that vibe too. I had a xt10, long sold, and the new Fuji's are just boring.

The only thing going for them are the weather sealing, which the gr lacks.

Is the fragility of the Ricoh over stated? Seems that sending it in for service is a routine thing.';

'>>4298524
I like how quick and easy my tilt screen flips out for lower down horizontal shooting and doesn't need to be sticking out to the side. However it does such for portrait and a front facing option would be handy in some cases (wireless viewing with my phone will do though). I don't remember what particular brand it was but they had a neat system where it would tilt out like normal, and then it could tilt again in the horizontal direction.';

'>>4298532
Have you considered an OM-5? Its about the size of an x100v even with a lens

>>4298534
Sony a7rv does that but its also a snoy';

'>>4298532
I’ve owned a griii for a few years, I keep it in a little lowepro case which hampers the pocket ability a bit but in exchange I’ve had zero dust issues. Nice little camera if you like 28mm. I also own the iiix which I would not recommend unless you’re rich or like pointless debt. Not because it’s not a nice camera, it really is (recently took it on a trip to the west coast and it was great), but they are just a bit too close in FL imo.';

'>>4297746
of course they would. i post more photos than anyone else here. i already feel free to leave any time. however i'd rather improve this board than leave it to vermin like you';

'I have to use the minimum focal distance for a rounded surface (like a lantern pole photographing from very upclose) and everything has to be in focus
what f stop do I use?';

'>>4298577
Use Depth of field calculations. There are tables online.';

'>>4298577
Instead of going balls deep into f/32 and still having a blurry background use the sharpest aperture (f5.6 or f8) and use focus shift shooting on your Nikon(tm) or OM System(tm) and combine the shots in a focus stacking program';

'>>4298372
Thanks. I've been leaning toward the Zf with a Voightlander prime despite the good advice in this thread because it's a "full manual" experience. Though the usability of the Zf's dials vis-a-vis the XT-5 mentioned earlier very much concerns me.

I'll probably vacillate until the moment comes I want to buy one or the other in a month or two. Availability of the bodies and lenses I'd want keep me from diving in too quickly because I do not want to be on a waiting list for any part of the kit I want to put together from the get-go.';

'>>4298603
>Voightlander
Voigtlander* sorry';

'>>4298603
Honestly if you're shooting mostly Manuel the ZF is a perfectly fine choice.

My main reason for sticking with Fuji is how much I enjoy those original clutch focus lenses. Color etc is all relative.

Good luck anon. it's a good time to buy a camera, you can hardly go wrong.';

'>>4298535
Nope, the om-5 feels like a total compromise with features I'm not interested in. I need something pocketable and I don't care about a ILS. /P/ taught me to hate m43, and I partly agree.

>>4298544
The first true lense I shot with was a 28mm, something about it allows for scene capture and the odd portrait. I agree that 40mm is a bit niche.

Do you still own it? Do you use a UV filter to further protect the lense? Is moisture a serious problem?

I've had Fuji with no weather sealing and it could handle light rain/ heavy mist. I wonder to what degree the GR could handle similar.

Btw cute dog.';

'>>4298617
28mm is a goated focal length. Wish Nikon made a Z 1.8 version.';

'Is there any way to properly convert RAWs into a lossless 1/4 scale debayered raw image?
Like combining the red green green and blue pixels into one RGB value, saving that';

'Recently got a Finxpix Pro S3 secondhand, woke up the moment I put 4 eneloops in it.
I have a few shitty manual focus lenses and one bottom of the barrel all-plastic Tamron but I now want to slap a worthwhile autofocus lens on it for relatively cheap, like under $70. The shit glass I have really undersells it, my fucking up the exposure does not help either.
Should I go with anything other than the 35-70 f2.8?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

'>>4298215
>35-150mm f/2-2.8

Nice!
35 is not bad at all! The coverage is really great.';

'>>4298400
Thanks. I bought the cheapest one that didn't look like a knock-off Lego brick. It'll probably last me another 1 years like my last one.';

'>>4298603
I've still only ever used mine with my m mount voigtlander glass, and it's been great. There isn't really any z glass that interests me, and for AF lenses, I prefer the size / handling / relative performance of the newer x-mount stuff. I think I'd honestly be more likely to pick up an e-z adapter and some Sony glass, before I would z.
With the TTArtisan 6-bit adapter, you also get eye-level green box focus confirmation so you don't have to focus peak/zoom, and can even focus trap (hold shutter down, it fires when in focus). The subject detection working for MF is just awesome.';

'Does color science even matter between brands when shooting RAW? Aren't all RAWs the exact same shit?';

'>>4298699
No, raws arent raw, all cameras “cook” the raws and the color filter and analog-digital converter specs are different even before the data hits the cameras computer

You cant make an a7iii have the same great colors as a 5div. Its not possible. If you got close a slight illuminant change would make you start over just to get close again and never any closer.';

'If i can either for a decent price for something to wear around my neck while just walking about do i go with the z fc or the z5?';

'>>4298702
the zfc is plastic junk. get a z5. all well made cameras are big

g9ii- big
om1- big
xh2- big
Z_ big
Canons- big
Sony, zfc, fuji xt-no weather sealing, om-5 with its plastic tripod mount - small!';

'>>4298699
RAWs are all going to be a tad different, even across different models within the same brand. Lenses vary just as much in color too though. I wouldn't ever pick a brand based on their color, only really consider it when shooting multi-cam and how closely I'd want to match them.
Just learn how to process color well and it will help you more regardless of what camera or lens you're using.';

'Is this still worth 3 years later and all its firmware updates or do i go something more modern in a similar price range like the Fujifilm Xs20?';

'>>4298725
You are being ripped off. You could buy a used z6ii with an equally shit lens for $100 extra or buy a lightly used z5 with the superior 24-70 f4 for $1000. For that price new it should at least come with the 24-70, not the plastic non weather sealed 24-50.';

'I would like to have a super telephoto lens but I am put off by the idea of having to carry around a fuckoff huge lens like that. Looking at the snoy 200-600mm

How feasible it is actually for travel? I can't really rent where I am (bumfuck nowhere) so just asking for personal anecdotes';

'>>4298728
Shoot nikon and buy a phase fresnel prime instead of a zoom
Or shoot m43 and accept your lost lens speed';

'>>4298727
Thanks for the tip off, still new and shopping around trying to figure out where to look reasonable pricing';

'>>4298730
I will buy a nikon z8 if the snoy a7v will be shit (currently using a7iii)
Though until that information is revealed I am going to stick with the E mount, but I do acknowledge that our supertele prime options suck balls';

'>>4298731
Buy used cameras with low shutter counts and no visible wear (=hobbyists dumping shit) by stalking ebay and local listings. Check sold listing by sellers with 50+ feedback for prices. Not unsold listings. They are still up because they are expensive. Dont be put off by being patient and trying to snipe auctions.';

'Why do people take this place way too seriously?';

'>>4298741
A good troll mixes truth and rhetoric so you think theyre being serious but really you’re being manipulated with convincing bullshit. Then you fall for it, you buy a pentax/fuji/micro four thirds, and they segue into laughing at you for falling for it while you repeat their same bullshit back at them. It’s 4chan’s national sport.';

'>>4298732
Does e mount do anything well besides do f1.4 when nikon does f1.8 (with the same quality)? Its just one gen ahead on standard zooms and that wont last';

'>>4298752
Don't care about your retarded brand autism
Answer my original question nigger';

'Is the GR III a dust vacuum or is it just a meme?

Any measures to protect it from the elements?

I've heard a mix of reactions, either it requires yearly servicing, or it's never been an issue.';

'>>4298763
Never had dust issues with my GR II. I bought the official leather case with it and leave it inside when putting it in my pockets or bags. Blocks of all the dust and lint.

I think a lot of dust related problems relate to the 'pocketability' of cameras.';

'Any experience buying from KEH? Reliable?';

'>>4298769
Yes, pretty good, but a lil pricey. I guess the return policy is worth it for some.

I got a camera body from then, and they didn't provide an eyecup or a cover for mirror/lens hookup, which was a little annoying...';

'>>4298617
I still own it yea, nice little camera. I don’t use filters or anything like that they just add even more bulk. I just use a slim thin case to keep it in when I’m not using it, and that has served me well as far as dust. Don’t know about wet and moisture though, never really used it in those situations.
>cute dog
Uwu
>>4298763
From what I saw before buying mines, it could potentially be a problem if you rawdog it in linty pockets, or live in a dusty place, etc, but I’ve had mine for two years now with thousands of pics and no problem. And some of the dust samples I saw were honestly passable, just small barely noticeable imperfections in your image. Could be something you could live with, or it could drive you insane, who knows. No more sample pics cause my dog is the only one i have on my phone lol';

'>>4298728
You give up a bit of reach but save a fair bit on length and weight with the Tamron 150-500mm. You may even find that it's more useful for more situations when it can go down to 150 versus 200. To a further extent you then have the Sigma 100-400, a little shorter still and nearly half the weight of the Sony. And the Sony 100-400mm if you want a bit faster aperture. Sigma also have a 150-600mm but size and weight are on par with the Sony 200-600mm, but again it does go a little wider.';

'>>4298768
>>4298783

Nice, thanks for the insight.';

'Which body should I get (second hand)?
>5D Mk III
>6D Mk II
>Canon RP

5D III is dirt cheap on eBay, like 350€ but no continuous autofocus for video.
6D II has continuous autofocus for video.
RP is like 550€ used';

'I wanna get a "wide" prime. Full frame. How do I decide between 20mm and 24mm?
The main use would be for urban streetscapes.';

'>>4298795
If you’re interested in video get a videocamera, you silly goose.';

'>>4298812
20mm is ultrawide territory, I have one for my Z8 and I find it too wide for street snapshitting. 24 is perfect IMO.';

'Can I use a regular kit lens (18-55mm VR AF-P) for macro photography?

I've been using my phone which contains a macro camera for the past 3-4 years and it's been everything I've ever needed.

Any tips or suggestions? How do I transfer from a phone photographer to a decent full frame DSLR guy? I think I have the fundamentals down, and a good eye for shots.

>one of my favourites';

'>>4298905
No, macro means 1:1.
As in a 36mm wide object spans the 36mm width of your sensor.

If you simply mean "close up to some mushrooms", yeah, anything can probably do.
But if you try to do real macro like getting close to the shroom and try to focus up close on the tiny details of it, you will need a real macro lens.

OR

you need extension tubes to let you use a normie lens as a macro lens
but these types of lenses usually have flaws that won't result in great macro images, macro lenses usually have very little optical distortion while kit lenses rely on software post-process corrections which harm image quality a fair bit but produce a "good looking" final image for most uses.';

'>>4298914
Yeah that gives me my answer.

Yeah I want to get the level of detail, like rain droplets and moisture. High details of things like gills and the like.

Any suggestions for researching marco lenses? Should I just get on facebook marketplace and browse some that fit my camera body?';

'>>4298915
Additionally, how do I best go about capturing detailed images of moving subjects, ie insects?

If the good macro lenses have a fixed focal length, if they're moving (flying, crawling, whatever) how do I get that close up shot? I'm imagining that I will just have to get lucky and hope they stop enough for me to quickly snap a photo. Picking up a tripod to move and follow the insects seems somewhat difficult though.

Can the macro lenses be utilized for making videos or are they just good for still shots?';

'>>4298915
>>4298916
Macro is basically an exercise in autism.
If you're not autistic, you might not enjoy it.

Everything in this world is out to make it difficult. Tiny bugs skitter around very fast and flying bugs fly and autofocus is often unreliable or unable to keep up. You need extreme patience and dedication, most good macro photos come from off-camera diffused flashes and careful set up. Literally setting up the camera/settings/lighting and waiting for bugs to do their thing. You don't really go chasing them and expecting success. All the really cool shots are usuaully a result of 50 shots or so composited into one image using focus bracketing and editing the sharpest bits together.

If you're looking for tiny ants you'll want 2:1 macro, not just 1:1, but moths/etc are usually big enough to look good even at 1:2 (1/2 magnification) which makes those a bit easier.';

'>>4298915
Get a bellows extension instead of an extension tube. You can use math to determine your magnification ratio, and bellows compensation for proper exposure.

I would say get a monorail view camera for macro photography so you can utilize front/rear standard movements, but you don't need to worry about that as a beginner. And before you say it, yes, you can purchase a 4x5 back adapter that lets you put your digital camera on the back of your view camera. It's the most cumbersome, but objectively best and most autistic way to do macro photography.

Semi modern large format optics are incredibly good also, and much cheaper than a lot of the good modern af macro lenses.';

'>>4298917
As of last year I found out that I am actually slightly autistic from my sister who got tested.

>All the really cool shots are usuaully a result of 50 shots or so composited into one image using focus bracketing and editing the sharpest bits together.
At this point I am an amatuer in the purest sense. Have never even done any post editing, the photos I've posted are just from my phone.

>You need extreme patience and dedication, most good macro photos come from off-camera diffused flashes and careful set up. Literally setting up the camera/settings/lighting and waiting for bugs to do their thing.
I don't know if I'm that autistic. I know how to utilize natural light well. I can't I'm interested in this stage buying any lighting gear. I go hike 20-25ks into the bush and set up a tent taking shots along the way. I don't think that's very conductive to my lifestyle or future plans. Is it strictly necessary or just if you're going at it hardcore. I just want to get a better lens at this stage in my progression.

>>4298918
>bellows extension
damn that's fucking intense.

>math
Holy shit. If I'm looking to progress is this strictly necessary if I'm just doing it for fun?

>Semi modern large format optics
I will research this, thank you.

>>4298916
>>4298905
Essentially these are these kinds of images I've been taking up to now, just with my mobile phone out hiking.

I really need a set up that's portable. I'm a big thru hiker. A DSLR, trip and a few lenses is really the best I can do.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

'>>4298922
You don't need math if you're doing digital because you have ttl metering, and you don't have to get the shot right the first time, or waste your money on an underexposed piece of film.

Knowing that X bellows extension equates to Y magnification factor is useful, but not strictly necessary because you can go by eye.

If you're pre planning and want a kit that lets you go up to 5:1 or whatever you can calculate what focal length + bellows extension combination you will need.

Shorter focal length lenses require less extension to reach the same level of magnification, but your maximum focal distance will be significantly lower.

On my 4x5 using a 700mm lense I would need 4.5 feet of extension to reach a 1:1 magnification, but only 7 inches using a 90mm lens!

There's always trade offs.';

'>>4298926
Thanks for your feedback.

Based on what you've suggested I think I need to gain a better understanding of some of the core principles before I purchase anything and hope for the best.

Thanks for you help.';

'>>4298922
Since you're somewhat autistic then you might succeed.
Macro stuff can be fun but it can also be a lot of work, it's way easier to shoot portraits or bigger things that can behave or stand still.
>>4298927
Other anon is right, TTL metering is nice but if you can figure things out you can calculate optimal shutter times to adjust the look of your images for more control. If a scene is very well lit, you'll still want a flash, but you might only need 1/64th of what the flash offers to fill in the shadows while letting the natural light illuminate the rest. TTL metering will help you prevent blowing exposure and allow care free flash shooting but it by itself doesn't really give you explicit control. That bit will just come with experience. Once you get familiar with how bright your flash is you'll feel more comfortable.

1/30 with flash and TTL should produce an exposed image with no clipping
1/60 with flash and TTL should do the same
1/125 with flash and TTL should do the same

1/30 will have 4x the natural light ratio vs flash that 1/125 does, which will change the LOOK of your image (and white balance) despite them all being properly exposed from TTL metering making sure the flash provides enough

>I really need a set up that's portable. I'm a big thru hiker. A DSLR, trip and a few lenses is really the best I can do.
You can get lightweight flash diffusers or ring lights to go around your camera lens to help, without adding much weight. Definitely look into those.
Canon used to sell a macro lens with a built in LED ring but they discontinued it. That worked as a lamp not a flash so it was WYSIWYG, my theory is the LEDs burned out and didn't last as long as the optics so they stopped making it but idk for sure. All I know is it's gone.

If you want lightweight macro, apparently MFT with the Olympus 60mm or 90mm is a good option but micro four thirds cameras are all noisy and pretty low quality, with a base ISO of 200 which means even more noise.';

'>>4298936
>If you want lightweight macro, apparently MFT with the Olympus 60mm or 90mm is a good option but micro four thirds cameras are all noisy and pretty low quality, with a base ISO of 200 which means even more noise.
Is it worth investing in a second hand one just to get my eye in?

I've been insanely impressed with the quality of my phone's macro lens. I think to begin with I would take a lot of photos of things such as plants and moss. Maybe move up to insects once I have a better understanding of how to shoot manually, which at this point is quite limited.';

'>>4298942
I'd say it depends on the price.
I wouldn't spend big on MFT if you think you'll ever want to go APS-C or full frame. Better to jump right into a bigger sensor if you think you might be interested.

You can buy a new G7 and a 30mm macro for ~$700 and maybe find the equivalent used for $450 or so, but if this will set you far back from buying a better camera it might be better to not even try MFT. Unless you really need portability and compactness and don't think carrying APS-C/full frame with you on hikes would be a viable option.';

'>>4298945
Space is certainly a premium, and there is a pretty significant chance of damage occurring. Battery life is also key.

I own a D3400 at the moment, and from what I've heard it ticks a few of those boxes. I'll keep an eye out for used lenses and just give it a try.

Might be a better financial investment but my skills are so limited it seems pointless to upgrade my frame until I can utilize it properly.';

'How much of a deal breaker is weather sealing really? I see people say this all the time in regards to certain cameras around 1200 and my logic was well, no camera is truly water resistant dumbass';

'>>4298942
>>4298945
There is no real performance difference between apsc and mft if you use the camera light meter instead of copying dpreviews test and copying settings from a phase one reference camera';

'>>4298980
Wrong, APS-C cameras all generally have significantly better signal to noise and they also have the added benefit of a whole step worth of lower ISO, allowing you to gather more light in a well lit shot.
Don't even come at me with that "muh high ISO" shit, not every shot is a high ISO photo. Most daylight shots can be 100 ISO, and MFT being noisy at base 200 is a disadvantage you can't explain away.

The good thing MFT has going for it is the optics, but it's still far behind in sensors and body tech.
Sure, IBIS can be good, but again not everybody needs IBIS. When all you need is your camera body to be a dumb box with a good sensor capable of sitting on a tripod and capturing light, it does a poor job and that makes the platform less than ideal for many use cases.';

'>>4298980
>>4299002
2/2
also quite literally, some smartphone RAWs (real RAWs, not baked "computational" merged shit) from phones with low ISO values have lower noise than MFT bodies at their base ISO.

If you actually use non cuck software (no Adobe shit which applies raw denoise+denoise by defaults) and you actually look at the RAWs on well exposed well taken MFT shots it is a disappointment.
The workaround with tripod use is a 3-5 shot 1/3 step increment exposure bracket merged but when you have to do that just to get on an even playing field with a single-capture from an APS-C camera it kind of makes it a waste of time.

When MFT sensors stop cucking the MFT ecosystem then MFT will flourish, but we're not there yet.';

'Why is canon mirrorless so cucked?
I'm looking for a mirrorless system with macro lenses, so I started looking but this is what I found.

>Canon RF 24mm f/1.8 Macro IS STM Lens
>Canon RF 35mm f/1.8 Macro IS STM Lens
>Canon RF 85mm f/2 Macro IS STM Lens
All useless non-macro 1:2 garbage...
their only proper macro is a $1100 100mm L lens and that's ONLY 1.4x max magnification, not even 2x
wtf?

Like I get it, whatever, they have EF and you can adapt those but they're already starting off with mis-labeling 1:2 lenses as "Macro" and that's not a good look.';

'>>4299034
Ok now post the other mirrorless system macro lenses so we can compare and see if they’re “so cucked” for ourselves and not just take your word for it.';

'>>4299035
Why are you like this?

>Nikon NIKKOR Z MC 105mm f/2.8 VR S Macro Lens (Nikon Z)
1:1
>Nikon NIKKOR Z MC 50mm f/2.8 Macro Lens
1:1

>Sony FE 90mm f/2.8 Macro G OSS Lens
1:1
>Sony FE 50mm f/2.8 Macro Lens
1:1
>Sony E 30mm f/3.5 Macro Lens
1:1

>FUJIFILM XF 80mm f/2.8 R LM OIS WR Macro Lens
1:1
>FUJIFILM XF 30mm f/2.8 R LM WR Macro Lens
1:1

It's literally only Canon selling "Macro" labeled lenses without 1:1 capabilities.
There's one fuji at 0.50x though
>FUJIFILM XF 60mm f/2.4 R Macro Lens
2:1';

'>>4299034
It gets better

Not one single canon EF or RF lens without the "L" designation is weather sealed.
NOT. ONE. SINGLE. LENS.

In fact, non-L RF lenses don't even come with a lens hood most of the time. it's a separate purchase. This is like if nikon's 3 plastic mount FX lenses (24-50, 40, and 28) were multiplied several times over and only the huge f1.2 primes and f2.8 pro zooms had metal mounts and WR.

There is a reason every professional (writing off all their purchases and never using their camera outside weddings and studios) sucks canon's cock like their spunk tastes like marshmallows, but /p/ prefers nikon, olympus, panasonic, and fuji.

Canon is only worth a fuck if you're willing to spend $3500 minimum (one body one lens).';

'>>4297633
Resolution and AF-wise they tend to be ahead of the others but they just aren't nice to use imo, something is off about their vibes.

Anyways the "hate" here is mostly the backlash against certain histrionic autists (especially poopco) agressively shilling for them at times.';

'>>4297633
great on paper, great if you are a camera technician
always felt like i was using a computer more than a camera, and id rather enjoy the process';

'>>4299052
>>4299057
Really don't get this. I used Canon for years, switched to Sony and can't say I've noticed any major downsides. Probably the only legitimate complaint is that the menus are complex, there's a lot of options and some stuff isn't logically ordered or located so it can take a little while to find stuff. A bit like Canon's custom functions menu. However the sheer amount of customisation is great and after setting the camera up how you want you don't need to dive into the menus very often. If someone just hands you one then yeah you're probably going to struggle and think it's shit, but if you own one and use it for an extended period and then switch back to something less customisable you'll probably get annoyed at that instead.';

'>>4299059
for sure, it's easy enough to learn and get used to different cameras
i worked at camera shops for many years, was very accustomed to every brand, and certainly owned sony for a reason (also best discount pricing)
i just get more joy out of using other gear, id be 100% happy if had to only ever use sony, but im even happier elsewhere it seems';

'>>4299059
>camera vignetting correction alters raws, increasingly bad circular color shifts with 3+ stop shadow pushes counterintuitively getting worse as the ISO gets lower. most noticeable on lenses that approach 3 stops of vignetting, which are not uncommon on this poorly designed lens mount. (last confirmed, personally, on a7riv, no a7rv users have volunteered)
>corner smearing with some adapted lenses - absent issue on canon and nikon
>long exposures force spatial filtering - they actually do this on every camera, but even sony's newest iteration of the algorithm erases low magnitude stars
>sony calls every lens dust and drip or moisture resistant but not every lens is anywhere near sealed, only guarantee is if you only buy GM lenses or furiously research the individual lens to verify where the seals actually are
>bodies were not weather sealed until the a7riv/a7iv/a7c
>basically all sony bodies experience random IBIS issues in cold weather
>overrated IBIS, says 5 stop, most people get 3 stop
>partial controls/menu lock while clearing the buffer except on the updated processor bodies - a7iv, a7rv, a7siii, a1, etc
>holy fuck what is with the cripple hammering on a7iv/a7cii framerates? 12 bit lossy raws to shoot as fast as the a7riii? what a fucking joke.
>focus bracketing curiously absent on anything cheaper than an a7rv - this feature was on fucking APS-C DSLRs
>multi-interface shoe lol
>a7riii and older prone to the sensor assembly becoming partially detached
>a7riv and a7rv released with lots of weird firmware bugs
The more you ask of sony the worse it gets

There really isn't a flawless brand anywhere and never will be, but sony is definitely among the worst when you consider these are professional doitalls that cost well over $2k - all of them, even the older ones - not the compact hobbyist snapshitters they perform as. Knowing sony every single problem is absent on the a1 and a9 series cameras, and it was all intentional the whole time.';

'>>4299073
Oh god the vignetting correction. I remember shooting a wedding with an a7iii and frantically turning that setting on and off between video and stills because half of everything was backlit. A lot of couples like backlit. They also hate flash.';

'>>4298215

I've taken a look to tamron lineup and I've also seen the way cheaper 28-200 one. What bother me a bit is that there's no stabilization. Coupling this with no stabilization on my a6400 I fear it could be a quite unusable lens except bright externals

Opinions?';

'>>4299087
For landscapes, architecture, and posed available light portraits that is a valid concern. Not a big deal for everything else.';

'>>4297964
Get a good mechanical one like a FM2 or FM3';

'>>4299089

LoL, you basically listed my usecases.

Ty';

'Is Flickr still a thing? What are it's alternatives?
Instagram is too gay for me';

'Looking at buying a used 6d with a low shutter count but it has some audio recording and focus pull shit with it in the pics so I'd assume it spent most of its life as a video recorder. Would that be indicative of high wear? Obviously not the shutter but like do the megapickels and shit burn out or what?';

'>>4297625
>videogames?';

'>>4297640
>written by a woman';

'How do I make everything in focus? Only certain objects are in focus in my photos';

'>>4299146
Look up depth of field calculator. You input your sensor/film size, lens focal length, aperture, and focusing distance. It will spit out a focal plane distance for you.

If your lens has the focal distance calculations already on it you can use that as well. In pic everything from 7 feet to 15 feet would be in focus if I set my aperture at f5.6

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

'>>4299153
But how can I do that outside without a calculator?';

'>>4299154
You can get a free app for your phone. Your lens doesn't have the focal plane calculations on it?

The other thing you can do is use the aperture preview button if your camera has one. It will stop the aperture down and you can visually check how much of your image is in focus.

Do you know that the larger your aperture number the longer your focal will be? So at f2.8 you may only have a 1 foot focal plane, but at f22 it would be 30 feet. Im using fake numbers for an example.';

'>>4299155
I don't know, I just got it last night ;-;';

'>>4299161
Nice! This is the right place to ask questions!

My posts have a lot of keywords you should look up on your own. If you want a more fundamental understanding of how focusing works its a great place to start. If you just want to mess around try setting camera in aperture priority mode and see how a larger or smaller aperture influences how much of your image is in focus.';

'Will Nikon or Canon ever get rid of their DSLR style bodies for their mirrorless lineups?';

'>>4299189
Both brands have fully committed to cancelling their DSLR lines.
Both for consumer and professionals.

They might keep a few models in production but there is absolutely zero R&D being spent on the DSLR bodies and lens systems. It is a dead end. Mirrorless is the future nobody asked for but it is what we're getting.';

'>>4299089
those are also the exact situations in which everybody just used a tripod before VR/IS was invented, and you still could';

'>>4299189
Well Nikon have the Zf/Zfc as well as the Z30. Canon have the EF-M mount bodies, however they've now gone back to the DSLR style with the RF mount. Canon doesn't have as strong a design language as Nikon, you can tell a Nikon just by the grip with the red line, so I think they will probably stick with DSLR looking bodies.';

'>>4299223
>tripod

I travelled a lot with a small lightweight manfrotto tripod (less than 500g if I'm not wrong). It was ok, but not really the perfect more convenient solution travelling. I used it with a a6400 and lightweight lenses, with bulkier ones I would need a more serious tripod that cannot be allowed on flights hand baggage.

Moreover, setting a tripod is slow and you cannot do it too many times. Expecially if you are traveling with other persons. Sometimes you are also not allowed to use one, expecially nowadays that influencers are made rules and controls way more stricts.

So, yes, tripods are nice and feasible, and I would use them for paid works.

Tamron 18-300mm F/3.5-6.3 could be a nice compromise. =)';

'>>4297633
They're fine as tools but they're soulless.';

'>>4298905
Check the minimum focus distance for your lens. I've faked some macro looking shots by using a 55-200mm zoomed all the way in. It's not real macro but it can look pretty good when you can't afford anything else.';

'>>4299297
Oh sony cameras have a lot of soul. They have a look. They have a feel. It's a continuation of classic minolta camera design and they're very compact and unique among canikon blobs.

Or they did have soul, sony has been losing their soul lately because of all the whining and money associated with wedding photographers and journalists who want to handhold a 24-200 f2.8 and a 90w speedlight all day with a bag of f1.2 primes on standby.

What sony is total fucking ass at is the finer technical aspects like framerates, codecs, rolling shutter, and flexible raw files for natural light and landscape photography because of their baby mount and market stratification habit.

If you're not a major gearfag who pushes his cameras hard, treats them like humvees, and has "metameric error" in his vocabulary and instead just take photos that are at least 90% gotten right in camera and dont soak your electronics like a normal person I think sony is honestly the best brand';

'Where do i find a timeline of the most modern cameras from companies?';

'>>4299449
DPReview';

'If AF is done electronically in most modern cameras, why is there no option to assign manual focus to two buttons?';

'>>4299306
>has "metameric error" in his vocabulary
but this has become very important in the modern era, where shitty sensors are the equivalent of a "bad film roll" that can't easily be replaced with something more favorable
it's also not a brand thing
new cameras from all brands are getting worse at color each generation
it's a meme
metameric errors or sensor accuracy is at an all time low

snoy hasn't gotten better with their sensor color baseline, the other brands just got bad too
they sacrifice color in exchange for higher performance at ridiculous high ISOs

this has even led to a meme where people think CCDs had better color
but in reality they just had better bayer filters that had more color separation between the channels
CCD is panchromatic just like CMOS, it results in a grayscale image if it ain't behind a filter so it has no color superiority to begin with because color has always came from the filters';

'>>4299505
I think it's just a case of there not really being much point, using a ring is faster. The only reason I can think of is if you had a lens with a broken ring, but it would be such a shitty experience you'd just get the lens repaired or replaced. If you really must then I know Sonys can adjust focus using the plus and minus buttons on bluetooth remotes, perhaps other brands have the same option.';

'Does aperture size influence the focal plane of a lens' rear projection?

I ask because I have been having film flatness issues with a certain camera, and I was wondering if a higher aperture would help compensate for some of that.';

'>>4299510
Metameric error was very high in early cameras and was the best with the fuckin sony a99, and everyone hates the sony a99
Most ccd nostalgiafags are just that, nostalgiafags

Yet another dumb gearfag myth';

'>>4299605
I remember the last time this debate happened it was revealed a sony a7riii was one or two points off from a beloved canon dslr and the nikon z6ii that everyone loves the colors of was way worse than every sony

Metameric errors != bad colors, its just a blue:gold dress confusion thing under really really shitty artificial lights. Most movies have scenes where you can see heavy metameric errors as the lighting changes… no one cares.';

'>>4299605
It matters for repro work.
Cameras are so fucking bad, there's a reason why museums laser scan paintings instead.
>>4299608
Z6II and honestly all Nikon mirrorless and most other mirrorless bodies regardless of brand have very inaccurate colors, they rely on camera profiling (post-processing) to even get close to acceptable output and that is variable. When you view the raw bayer data prior to white balance/input profiles/demosaicing it's actually ridiculous how much camera sensors vary when viewing the same thing under the same lighting.

When you actually light a scene with good lighting such cameras just cause headaches from their inability to simply capture and render colors as they should, if you are an edit fag (hollywood is editfagging taken to 11/10, tripled, and then tripled again to at least a 99/10) so they're a bad example.They fuck with colors so far things don't resemble reality.';

'>>4299612
>repro work
Ah nothing important then.

There are devices sold specifically for this because machine accuracy simply isnt well loved in photography. Laser scanned paintings aren’t seen as the human eye sees them either, they’re just better data for recreating a real painting you can look at.';

'>>4299612
technically, the less accurate camera colors get, the more like film they are

zoomerGODS won';

'>>4297594
Is there a good place to download free lightroom presets?0th';

'Why doesn't anyone manufacturer a monochrom(panchromatic if autism) micro four thirds camera body?

With the sharp glass and open lens mount of the MFT system, and great benefits of B&W(no color filter losses) for noise performance we should be able to get a TRUE high quality 20MP greyscale images but currently we'd have to scrape the bayers off our cameras to accomplish this.
Most MFT bodies already omit the OLPF (antialias blur) filter for higher IQ, why is nobody competing with Leica's M11 Monochrom and the likes?

B&W does NOT need full frame to do well.
MFT is a perfect candidate for B&W sensors IMO.';

'Every second of every day, somebody is cumming in their own belly button.

It makes you think.';

'>>4299769
Profound';

'>>4299769
That person must be exhausted';

'>>4299586
Focus shift is a thing on fast lenses. Stopping down moves the focal plane back a bit.';

'>>4299791
so if you manual focus wide open and the camera is set to take the shot with a tighter aperture it can actually be out of focus?
fuck that's sneaky

and here I thought that I was the problem...';

'I've just realised that I have been shooting my D850 with compressed RAW files for over a year... ugh.

Anyway.

Here's my question: With the advent of Ai, how come none of the major editing software companies has vastly improved HDR rendering?
HDR has only slightly improved in decades, when we should be creating seamless bracketed shots by now. Same with Panorama software.';

'Just got a Nikon df a few days ago, and while the camera is in good shape, it looks like the aperture control lever is stuck. It moves when I physically press down on it without a lens, but when I attach one it just stops working. Is this an easy fix, or should I just say fuck it and return it?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

'>>4299717
pls respond';

'Is Sony actually a meme around here? I swapped to a new a6400 as my b cam for video stuff. Everyone here’s always talkin bout nikon canon or fujifilm';

'what are some good youtubers? i also like shooting video but Im really a beginner only been messing around in this around a year. I dont like those beanie wearing low fi hi hop youtubers btw';

'>>4300011
stick around longer, sony gets advocated here more than any other brand';

'>>4299990
HDR is for phones, with the dynamic range of ff and even aps-c you don't really need bracketing, there's enough stops that can be rescued just by hitting "auto" in LR, nobody gives a shit about bracketing since like 2010';

'>>4300011
All brands are a meme, it's what we do';

'>>4300034
You still need to bracket sometimes, shooting the eclipse and going from ISO 64 and 1/60th to ISO 3200 and 1/10th to go from the inner corona to earthshine';

'QUESTION:

Is it ok to hate EVFs, or should i just step over myself and get used to?

(Sorry for shouting)';

'>>4300047
EVFs are better dont be dim (you know whats dim? OVFs)';

'>>4300053
Just turn the ISO up on your OVF and it's not an issue.';

'I need help with Capture One
It's about my preset/style list.
When i click on one specific style and then on another one it just applys both.
In LR a click on a different style changes from the first to the second one.
Can configure this in Capture One too ?';

'>>4300308
Sounds like sane design. Style stacking has a function for editing tons of photos (ie: base style, flair on top) and disallowing it would be a flaw. Just turn off the other style.';

'>>4300308
There should (not saying that there is, but should) be an option to change style application behavior.
Look for anything that can set the style or the way they get applied to go from add/append/update to an overwrite mode if you're looking for A/B swapping.';

'>>4300047
maybe you just haven't met the right EVF yet and have yet to experience the pentaprism equivalent';

'>>4300047
Both have pros and cons. I prefer the experience of OVF, but view EVF as more functional.
>>4300308
If using the styles button, just uncheck "stack styles". If using Styles and Presets tool, 3 dots, uncheck "stack styles".
Depending on the style, you might also opt to apply the style as a new layer, then you can use layer opacity to adjust strength or use masking. Definitely worthwhile to stack styles though.';

'Some questions about aperture and vignetting. My technical knowledge is poor.

1) Why does stopping down improve vignetting? The aperture constricts from outside in, so shouldn't the corners lose more light?
2) To combat vignetting, why isn't the front element simply wider to let in more light at the edges? The front element doesn't even extend to the edge of the lens barrel in many cases.
3) Physically, why does the aperture opening affect DOF?
4) The aperture location seems to differ greatly depending on the optical construction; sometimes it's at the front, the center, or the rear. What affects this?';

'>>4300464
There are multiple types of vignetting and the two mains ones that you have certain amount of control over are mechanical and optical. Manual is that caused by opaque objects blocking light, say a poorly designed hood. Optical vignetting is caused by the lens elements and what is affected by the aperture. The light transmission from the front element varies across its surface, being less at the edges, so cutting that light by closing the aperture evens out the transmission across the image.';

'>>4300464
This answer >>4300466 is only half-right
1) Lenses where the front element isn't wide enough to supply the same aperture over the entire frame. This is also what causes cats-eye bokeh, that's basically the effective aperture shape in that part of the frame. While non-circular, it is smaller, so the corners have decreased light and increased depth-of-field. Stopping down reduces vignetting by making the aperture smaller across the entire frame, so that it eventually fits within the max effective aperture; you're still letting in less light, compensating for it with shutter speed or sensitivity.
2) Cost, weight
3) Parallax across the focus plane
4) Some lenses have magnifying elements, some have reducing elements, some have both; depends on the design goals; see https://www.pencilofrays.com/ for more / too much information';

'Is telephoto macro superior to close macro?
Macro is macro, but, I've been using 30mm oly and noticed when up super close the edges appear blurred.

This lens is supposedly good and doesn't have optical distortion and supposedly has corner to corner sharpness but I'm imagining that maybe my corner blur is due to perspective/proximity itself here?
The more I think about it, with a tiny lens up super close, how could something flat and in focus at the edge of the sensor size NOT be slightly blurred? It's being viewed from an entirely different perspective and in this case (picrel) the field isn't perfectly flat but when center focusing past the matte layer, other parts that are still sharp are focused on the matte later, and this stuff is fractions of a hair's width.
When I move the camera further from shit the edges look fine, they only fall apart when I get ultra close.

I'm planning to scan some film negatives and if I were to use MFT I wouldn't be focusing so close (I'd need just 0.5x magnification since negs bigger than sensor) but I imagine if my suspicions are right, if I found some smaller negatives (sub 35mm formats) and wanted to 1:1 or 1.25:1 them with this, the ultra short distance would be an issue?
Should I move to a 105mm setup to avoid issues? Or am I simply doing something wrong?
I see people say long macro is better/easier but people seem to say that because it's easier not having to get so close to subjects. I don't know if being so close has negative affects on actually capturing things, but from my little usage so far it sure seem to and stopping down doesn't seem to help. Only moving back.

The center of picrel isn't razor sharp but it's in proper focus.
This is focused through the anti-glare coating which is visible in other parts. If the screen were glossy the center would appear much sharper but that's beside the point. It's a YouTube thumb at nearly 1.25x mag on 20MP scaled to 1/3 from a 94PPI screen.';

'>>4300466
>>4300484
Cool, thanks very much anons.';

'>>4300488
2/2
Here's a shot from same lens and process only further back on fullscreened vid. Still not perfectly in plane and is same aperture.This was like 1' away and doesn't show the corner softness I get when the lens is like 0.25" away from upclose shit.
Neither images have had any sharpening applied.';

'>>4300488
Micro four thirds just sucks. I never had this problem on my nikon z6ii.';

'>>4300488
what aperture are you shooting at? it might just be lens-specific field curvature, but this doesn't look shot perpendicular either
i used to use an 80mm (on aps-c) for film scanning, but now just do it with a 30mm, both have been fine';

'Is switching from Luminar to Affinity or some other alternative (that's not Lightroom) worth it?';

'>>4300516
>>4300532
>what aperture are you shooting at?
Tried 3.5, 5.6, not really any difference
haven't tried very narrow ones since they cause diffraction and affect center sharpness but I guess I'll set things up and test it soon just in case that's the issue. I have some doubts though.

>nikon z6ii
FF
>i used to use an 80mm (on aps-c) for film scanning, but now just do it with a 30mm, both have been fine
APS-C

Since both of you are using bigger formats I guess it might be worth mentioning that the optics in the 30mm oly are quite tiny, and seem to be enlarged enlarged toward the rear, could this be the issue?
The front element is only around 12-14mm wide and it's 1.25x magnification, other lenses like Panasonic's 30mm appear to have bigger elements and most expensive lenses outside of meme probe stuff for ultra macro use (5x, etc) seem to be way bigger from what I saw.

Also part of the issue might be the subject, a "non flat" but layered LCD, so maybe oblique angles caused by the small optics are less of a problem with more flat/natural things but idk. I know monitors viewed up close in person have color shifts/glow issues and viewing them from afar improves their performance but this is a $200 lens so maybe I shouldn't have expected corner to corner sharpness at max magnification.


Also >>4300532 you're shooting film (I assume 35mm?) on APS-C, so that's probably not 1:1 unless you're stitching, have you seen whether 1:1 (not fitting the whole neg into frame) hurts your edges at all assuming you're not stitching?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

'>>4300546
At that close, you probably want to be f8 depending on your tolerance for diffraction.
Both of those macros handled 1:1 just fine. I've tried other macros with other systems that didn't as well. It's all just lens specific, regardless of brand or format or focal length. Neither of these pictures really indicate much to me. If you want to see how it handles a film scan, try scanning some film. I'd still guess your issues are more technique based than anything.';

'What is the single stupidest gear purchase you can possibly make, and why is it a single middling-power strobe with a smallish softbox?';

'I had this polaroid camera for a couple years and it was stolen overseas last December

Should I just replace it or is there something similar you would recommend that’s like a polaroid and easy for someone like me who doesn’t know shit about cameras

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

'I want a camera that is
>compact
>weather resistant
>durable
>will last 30+ years
And I will never use a tripod

Currently looking at an x-t4, anything else I should consider?';

'>>4300596
canon 6dii with an ois lens (ois lenses will fail before the body). have an all mechanical lens ie: zeiss, voigtlander on standby because ois, focus, and aperture motors have a 10 year life expectancy. camera lifespan depends on shutter count so dont use burst mode.

no fuji will ever last
https://www.google.com/search?q=fuji+weather+sealing+failure
nothing with ibis will ever last, its a delicate bearings in tracks mechanism controlled by magnets and if its even a little off it essentially fails because the camera cant even hold the sensor in place for “vr off”';

'>>4300604
*Canon 5DIV

I forgot 5diii and 6d WR was almost fuji tier, thats where olympus and pentax originally got their WR marketing advantage';

'>>4300552
>At that close, you probably want to be f8 depending on your tolerance for diffraction.
I did another try.
Couldn't get perfect A/B aperture changes since my remote app doesn't let me control aperture and the camera isn't mounted on anything secure and turning dials is kind of heavy handed however careful I try to be, so there was a bit of cam movement between tests. I did my best and there's like a subpixel's worth of rotation which would be like 1/300th of an inch however that translates to degrees.
Focus was manual remotely via the app.

f/3.5 has soft subpixels in the top right but the dust is sharp
f/16 has the subpixels looking okay but some of the dust to the right is less sharp

>I'd still guess your issues are more technique based than anything.
I think you're right.
There doesn't even seem to be 2mm of sharp DOF. I guess it is user error/technique and this distance requires WAY more precision than I ever imagined it would.
How much easier would it be be to use a longer lens at a further distance?

>If you want to see how it handles a film scan, try scanning some film.
That's a future project I still gotta get stuff for, including lighting. Best I got right now would be like an incandescent bulb, some white paper or sheets for diffusing, and trying to handhold the camera+film and I know that'd be a total joke so I'm waiting till I get some kind of film holder/stand+light source before attempting that.
I think I will hold off on scanning my film until I have a different camera, something that can do tethering so I can be totally hands off aside from moving negs through a holder.
All things considered, I'm now kind of impressed with what idiot proof flatbeds are capable of.

Anyway here are the images. A little bigger, 50% scale vs 1/3.
#1 f/3.5';

'>>4300621
#2 f/16';

'>>4300621
>>4300622
and if anyone's not sure of the real world scale
here is the reference, small section of yt thumb on a 94PPI display
shits tiny
maybe I was a fool to think this scale would be easy';

'>>4300621
>>4300622
That's some fairly major barrel distortion, wouldn't surprise me if the lens also has field curvature. It's something that is more common the wider a lens is.

Two downsides to using a longer lens, you're gonna need a faster shutter speed if you're not using a flash and the image is going to shake more as you try to line things up and get it focussed (the latter's not an issue if you're focussing remotely).';

'>>4300488
>the edges appear blurred.
field curvature of a shitty lens

>30mm oly
its a $350 lens, what do you expect. if you're doing macro you're probably focus stacking anways';

'>>4300639
>barrel distortion';

'I got back from a long trip about a month ago and want to start editing my photos and doing one of those trip-photo-dump threads. I have around 5000 pictures of which I intend to select and edit 75-100. I haven't done much post-processing before and only started using RAW in the past coupel of years, so in starting to do so I'm worried that I'm not going to do it justice.

I'm looking at some videos from a landscape photographer I follow and what he does is quite impressive but also seems daunting given that I'm inexperienced. I don't want my photos to look artificial and like the post-editing is carrying the photo. Is it generally okay to only do Lightroom editing on most photos and do additional Photoshop adjustments for my preferred ones?

Video examples
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=maoYbhML04Y
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2VL63RvdIpU';

'Trying to attach a eye piece to my cameras viewfinder so it frees up the hotshoe slot.

How do i attach silicone to rubber without leaving permanent residue?
Don't want to leave marks or residue on camera for resale value.
The eye piece also gets knocked around a lot and is quite flexible so needs to be a firm hold.';

'>>4300686
One thing I'd recommend, is try to focus more broadly on what they are doing to the image, and less so on the specific steps they use. Photoshop has more granular control and advance functionality, but LR alone is fine for 99% of images.
Without knowing any of the language, that first video is just about luminosity masking, making selections of different levels of brightness so, and then adjusting each independently. This functionality exists in Lightroom, and it's much simpler / more accessible too.
The second video is a specific technique to essentially make detail pop a bit more, and later uses masking to restrict the effect to certain areas. There's no direct unsharp mask in Lightroom, but plenty of options to effectively do the same thing.';

'>>4300686
Accept that your first attempts won’t be perfect. That’s fine. Practice makes perfect. Fuck up and have fun.';

'>>4297594
Why are Camera Prices so fucked in Germany? I'm bidding on an X-T3 and it's close to 600 € now. Everyone on YouTube is saying "yeah, grab an X-T3 for 300" and I'm losing my fucking mind over it.
Prices here are so fucking gay, a Sony Alpha 7 II (Alpha Seven Mark TWO) is MSRP 1'400€, 1'169€ right now (mini sale for some reason), 800€ on BlackFriday sale, and 700€ used on MBP and eGay.

>Buy overpriced, used goods
>Buy overpriced film
Why is this timeline so fucking greedy and gay?';

'If you want reach from a long focal length is it ever a good idea to instead use a higher quality (but shorter) lens and crop in with more megapixels or do truly longer lenses usually provide better results?
Not comparing 10k+ lenses to entry level, I'm thinking more in general terms.

assume the following with cropping to same equivalent FOV/framing
300mm 24MP
vs
200mm 45MP
(or whatever focal length euivalent would be, idk how the math works)';

'>>4300963
In regards to the math, say you're going from APS-C to full frame you need a 1.5x longer lens. However you'd need 2.25x the resolution if you wanted to crop down instead. Whatever is going to work out cheapest is going to depend on just how long you're going (the price difference between a 200mm and 300mm is going to be greater than an 85mm to a 135mm), and with there being 30+mp crop bodies if you go with one of them then you can't match it with full frame. I know you didn't mention full frame but the same applies to different res sensors of the same size, the resolution increase needed goes up faster than the focal length increase.';

'>>4300955
>I'm bidding on an X-T3 and it's close to 600 € now. Everyone on YouTube is saying "yeah, grab an X-T3 for 300" and I'm losing my fucking mind over it.
stop listening to retards on jewtube. the cheapest buy it now on ebay is $798

> Sony Alpha 7 II (Alpha Seven Mark TWO) is MSRP 1'400€, 1'169€ right now (mini sale for some reason),
roughly comparable to our prices, its $1000 plus tax so $1100. i'm assuming you guys have VAT factored in to your prices. i guess thank a greek for your higher taxes.';

'>>4300969
>stop listening to retards on jewtube.
noted.
>the cheapest buy it now on ebay is $798
Damn. Where the fuck do these dumbshits get these deals? Nepotism?
>roughly comparable to our prices, its $1000 plus tax so $1100.
It's on sale rn. Usually it's 1'400€. Paying 145% my monthly salary (studentfag) for a 10 fucking year old camera that cannot into 4K video recording just doesn't sit with me right. And even if it's 700€ during black friday, it's still a 10 year old out of production camera, it shouldn't cost that much in the first place.
>i'm assuming you guys have VAT factored in to your prices.
We do. 19% MwSt (literally meaning "Benefit-Adding Taxes") on top of 50% income taxes. Just peachy.
>i guess thank a greek for your higher taxes.
I would kick them out of the EU + NATO and have them isolated as a nation if I could. But at this point, it's not just them draining our tax-balls, it's the current government's spending spree flattening our dicks as well (340 fucking million Eurobux given away JUST for Cycling-Lanes in Peru in 2022, we're literally breaking our own backs by throwing money out as much as possible just to collapse this country (((for some reason))), it's become a meme here).';

'>take on paid work after being a free shoot fag for a while
>Every fucking second I am thinking about all the stuff I have to edit or cull or whatnot
>Before finishing that I get more shoots
>Edit in my free time constantly
>24/7 thinking about work
How do I stop this, if I relax I keep thinking I could be working';

'>>4301008
optimize your edit workflow, you could likely become more efficient and get more work done
If you get all your work done perhaps then you could then start thinking about getting more work instead? Then repeat.';

'>>4300985
>340 fucking million Eurobux given away JUST for Cycling-Lanes in Peru in 2022
wut? seriously? germoney is paying for cycling lanes in peru?

>Damn. Where the fuck do these dumbshits get these deals? Nepotism?
they're lying. the only ones going that cheap on ebay are broken ones, and even then they're typically x-t2
https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_nkw=fujifilm+x-t3&_sacat=0&LH_Complete=1&LH_Sold=1&rt=nc&LH_ItemCondition=7000';

'>>4301008
set work hours and stop working no matter what whenever the time is up. But honestly it's a common problem with people who work for themselves. Personally it's part of why I'd never want to do photography professionally, it'd kill my passion and fill that space with anxiety. Nothing worse than taking work home.';

'what's up with MPB's camera prices? like in the last two months all the cameras went up like $100-200. I just wanna buy a fricking RX100 V. Don't see why an 8 year old camera should be $600.

Plus, they add a random fee at checkout and will never disclose what it's for.';

'>>4301176
>Plus, they add a random fee at checkout and will never disclose what it's for.
This has never happened to me. Are you sure it's not your sales tax?

>like in the last two months all the cameras went up like $100-200. I just wanna buy a fricking RX100 V. Don't see why an 8 year old camera should be $600
tiktok creating artificial demand is why. Just wait a year the market will crash';

'>>4301019
>wut? seriously? germoney is paying for cycling lanes in peru?
Yes, I'm not even joking:
https://www.focus.de/finanzen/news/millionen-fuer-radwege-in-peru-wie-wir_id_259467977.html
>they're lying. the only ones going that cheap on ebay are broken ones, and even then they're typically x-t2
I have a good hand with repairing electronics, I maintained one of the most popular escape rooms in all of Germany for 2 years. I think I'm going to buy a few salvageable XTs, repair as many as I can and flip them.
Sounds like a plan?

>>4301207
>tiktok creating artificial demand is why. Just wait a year the market will crash
>2020: Just wait until corona is over
>2021: Just wait until everyone had their vaxx (didn't take the vaccine btw)
>2022: Just wait until supply issues are fixed
>2023: Just wait until the inflation turns into deflation
>2024: Just wait until the tiktok hype dies
I'm going to wait to death. I even got a better paying job to buy cool shit just to be told that I can't buy any cool shit like Cars, Computers or Cameras. Fuck this post harambe world.

Captcha: KKKK2J

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

'>>4301019
>>4301218
It's now at 700€ btw and it still has 17 hours left on the clock, also the seller has changed the description to "Lense not included". Just FUCK my Life.';

'>>4301218
>Check for broken / salvage X-T3
>None on all of eGay
>Whut
>Check MPB
>76 XT-3
>Only two of them "broken", one has a non-descript "electrical-failure", the other has a mainboard-power-sensing issue
>That'll be 380€ each plus tip please
>Decide that's gay, should hop to making money with this instead
>Check XT-2
>Only one (1) broken XT-2 on MPB
>It's just dead, no further information
>eBay also has non-descript cameras
Why is everything that has to do with cameras so unbelievably homosexual';

'>>4301223
i've seen plenty of retarded things when it comes to broken camera equipment. boomers wanting $1k for a Nikon Z 100-400 with a shattered front element';

'>>4300542
Sure, Affinity is good for complete control and very much like photoshop and not lightroom.';

'>>4300709
you could try buying a spare eyecup and modifying that one
they're really expensive for some cursed reason though';

'>>4300542
Affinity is more photoshop than Lightroom, anon. So you’re basically asking something like “should I switch from Lightroom to photoshop”. Different class of program entirely. Sure, it can do the things you can do in an image manager like LR, but the workflow isn’t streamlined for that purpose. Affinity have been cockteasing with their Lightroom “competitor” for nearly a decade now and it’s still MIA, pricks. And now that canva bought them it might only come as some kind of cloud based piece of shit lel';

'Looking at a Takumar 135mm prime lens with an adapter, yes/no?
Going to be mostly for night shots and daytime wildlife. From what I gather, 'vintage' glass is not very sharp for digital cameras.';

'>>4301235
Why are boomers so fucking delusional? It's the same over on >>>/o/ as well, they have a few rusted parts which used to be a car that was wrapped around a tree 40 years ago and they want a 100k for it.

Absolutely bonkers.';

'>>4297594
Is the Neewer NW 565 Ex flash worth getting second hand for $50? Never shot with a flash before, but want to pick one up.';

'>>4301311
>worth getting second hand for $50
are you retarded enough to not google this before posting the question. you clearly are this retarded considering these go for that much new on amazon.';

'>>4301313
They don't even come up on Amazon but on ebay there's a few up for ~75-80. Don't be ruder anon :( what's a decent priced flash I should try pick up if not that one?';

'Hello friends. I'm using an old Canon SL1 (crop) with a crappy 50mm. Portraits come out pretty nice, but I'm struggling to do anything beyond that. Any focal length and/or lens recommendations?';

'>>4301366
I think 85mm is probably my favorite focal length. So I don't really have any recommendations for you since a 50mm (canon) crop is ~80mm.

If I were you I'd grab something like a 24/28mm prime and a 35mm and see how you like something wider. Just find the focal length that matches your mind's eye when you visualize photos.';

'I feel incredibly dumb but I cant figure out how to get that highlight glow/halation effect thats really popular atm. the one on the image for lightrooms load screen. is it the clarity or something, how do I mask that without it not affecting/glowing further from the actual highlights?';

'>>4301366
just get the damn 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 zoom that the camera probably came with for its original owner, and use it until you find other focus lengths that you like. these kinds of lenses are $50 for both canon and nikon.
selling an entry level camera to poor people missing its kit lens should be illegal.
i'm a nikon guy but on my system we have a 35mm 1.8 prime which is just for DX crop system, that you should never own a dx dslr without. if canon has an equivalent, get it next.';

'>>4301253
It's not, but also not noticeable at web sizes, so depending on use it's fine. Do you know what model you're going for? some of them have quite nice bokeh';

'do you think people will buy a D4 with under 100k clicks
and a 14-24 af-s (pristine condition)
i could put the money towards a good full frame mirrorless video camera
it's so fucked i have all these old lenses but no body to use them on';

'>>4300955
it's because of me
you're welcome germanynigger';

'Are zoom lenses worthless for wildlife / bird photography?';

'Recc for a small bag I can put my camera in to put inside of a backpack
I use a fuji xs20';

'>>4301432
They're generally preferred';

'>>4301433
Mini kelly';

'>>4301434
I was talking to someone about the finished product of wildlife photos and sharper just meant better in pretty much all aspects. So I'd assume prime lenses are the best option.
Thing is they're so expensive.';

'>>4301384
There's an f/3.5 that seems common, but also a "bayonet" version that is a smidge faster, f/2.5. Been leaning toward the f/2.5 since I'm adding an adapter (and maybe a teleconverter) but I can't seem to find a listing that includes the hood that also isn't pushing $100, and I kinda like the barrel design of the f/3.5 better.

Honestly, I don't think I've ever got a 'sharp' picture out of this kit MFT zoom lens I have, so I'm not sure why I'm being a snob about $30 listings of old glass.';

'>>4301332
>They don't even come up on Amazon
thank you for proving how retarded you are twice now
https://www.amazon.com/Neewer-NW565EX-Speedlite-Diffuser-Cameras/dp/B00M7MXOIY/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_product_top?ie=UTF8';

'>>4301438
Composition is more important than sharpness. Zooms are very capable these days anyway.';

'>>4301446
i don't "bird" much because i'm poor but one thing that makes it seem like a costly hobby to get into is the zoom lens above 400mm are not particular "fast", to get a big aperture you need a prime. and telephoto primes are expensive (as opposed to normal primes which are the among cheapest of all lenses)
maybe with modern high ISO you don't care about aperture anymore?';

'>>4301476
Yeah with decent ISO performance and IS slower lenses aren't much of a concern. Gaining a stop in aperture at 300mm+ is going to cost you a significant amount of money, not to mention the size and weight penalty, but you can easily get 2-3 stops from IS (technically more, but you only want to go so slow with subjects that can move) and then you can also gain another stop or two of noise performance going with a modern body compared to one from say a decade ago.';

'What do all the different lenses mean?';

'>>4301500
So then how did wild life photographers do it before modern lenses?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

'>>4301505
Fast lenses, tripods, fast film and not giving a shit about grain. Some also used to use flashes, I don't remember the name of it but there was an attachment that was really popular like a decade or more ago that was a fresnel lens you'd stick on a flash to vastly increase its range.';

'>>4301502
A most excellent question! Please look at image for the difference between focal lengths.

Starting off I would recommend either a 35mm or 50mm lens, and maybe f2 maximum aperture to start off with!

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

'>>4301526
What is a "fast lens"?';

'>>4301530
I don't use millimeters
what does a 5 inch lens look like?';

'>>4301439
I have the M series 135 f3.5 and its nice, has an inbuilt lil hood too, so that might be an option for you, though I imagine K to MFT might be annoying to find.';

'>>4301534
anything thats faster than f 3.5 for 85mm and lower, and anything faster than f4 for 200 and 300, and f8 for longer primes. for telephoto';

'>>4301534
“Fast” = big aperture = can use a faster shutter speed for same exposure.
Learn to “exposure triangle”.
If your lighting is such that f/4, IS0 100, and 1/15s is a correct exposure then a lens that opens 3 more stops to f/1.4 will let you use 3 stops faster shutter 1/125 which can be the difference between a blurry shot and a good one. Remember there was no auto ISO until digital either.';

'>>4301535
Just convert it to mm. Mm is standard for basically all modern lenses.';

'>>4301535
Use mm. Your inch retardation has taken a toll on humanity long enough. Even the chinese are using it.
>m to dm: divide by 10
>dm to cm: divide by 10
>cm to mm: divide by 10
vs
>foot to inch: divide by 12, carry the rest
>inch to ...,
well, you're blank here, there's nothing smaller than inches so you make shit up and use fractions of inches and then thouthsands of an inch. It's imprecise, it's rudimentary, it's outdated, it's dumb.';

'>>4301535
Doesn’t matter. The lens is not actually physically the same size as its stated focal length. Telephoto lenses are shorter than their focal lengths. Wide angle lenses are longer than their focal length, sometimes very much so.
You just learn what angle of view a “50mm” gives and memorize it. The focal length number is mostly used as a way to talk about angle of view and magnification. 50 is considered the standard, so 100mm is really just a way to say 2x magnification, 200 is 4x, etc. these lengths only mean these magnifications on a 35mm format camera. A larger or smaller film or sensor size changes it. This is why you say your phone has a “28mm equivalent” lens. It’s not actually that focal length, it provides the same magnification that 28mm does on a full frame camera.

In short, just fuvking memorize it';

'>>4301530
Informative, excellent.

Do all lenses with my camera’s frame type fit? I don’t se any sensor types yet this one lense is exactly the one pictured fitting onto the camera.';

'>>4301659
You have two considerations (usually), the particular lens mount and the sensor size the lens is designed to cover. The simplest is if you have a 4/3s body, it's one mount and one sensor size across many brands of body. However if you had a Sony, Canon, or Nikon mirrorless then they each have their own lens mount and they use the same mount whether the body is APS-C or full frame, so you could end up with an APS-C lens on a full frame body and have to crop the image.';

'what's the name for this type of photo? i think it's stupid as hell';

'>>4301725
Post-processed social media faggotry.';

'Hello. >>4298275 here.

I finally went and physically touched a X-T5. Tomorrow I'll check out the Zf, but I feel like I've already made my decision after handling the XT-5.

It feels like cheap shit. Even compared to the X-T30ii beside it, which felt metal and tactile and solid. Dials and switches on the X-T5 were literal hollow plastic and mushy. The little tilt screen was actually wobbly. Everything bad I'd read about the X-T5's build quality is true and I cannot believe people out there say these things are myths or overblown.

I really wanted the Fujifilm because the dual full cards and SOOC quality seems more of a match to me. But the camera in-hand feels like a cheap piece of trash. I'm so disappointed.';

'Vague, stupid question incoming: I recently dusted off my old DSLR and the images seem blurry to me.
Is this a potential lens focus issue? Limitation of a 12MP APS-C camera? Incorrect settings?
This photo was shot at 50mm 1/400sec f/8 ISO 200.';

'I took my first film shot, what’s next? I need a scanner to make them digital. Do I need to edit the negatives’ light curves at all with a dedicated scanner? Is the Canoscan 8800f any good?';

'why does it look like theres a greyish filter over all my pics? Somehow they are always too dark when exposure is supposed to be balanced. When I add +1 afterwards it seems more normal.';

'>>4301939
12MP with an anti-alias (blur) filter, plus bayer penalty on sharpness, and probably not a premium lens, yeah
You're not going to get a sharp photo.
With that said your image looks like user error.
Use a tripod and remote shutter and a high shutter speed and f/8 it should all be way sharper.';

'Ok, give me your best advice on mounting a big heavy lens on a monopod.
My best approach so far:
>extend monopod to desired height, plant it on the ground
>put lens on top of the monopod
>lift the whole system slightly, rotate monopod until locked into place
Still kinda hard to do, as the lens is heavy as hell and it's hard to hold it with one hand (inb4 hit the gym)
Doing it with monopod retracted would be easier, but then getting it to the right height while holding everything on one hand is almost impossible.
For that matter, any adjustments to the height of the monopod with the lens on it is a nightmare, so I'd appreciate tips on this too.
Yes, I am unqualified for the gear I have.';

'>>4302174
For attaching the two together place the lens on a surface hood down (unless it's something ridiculously heavy it should be able to support it). You shouldn't really need to adjust the height once the lens is mounted, it should stay at eye level, but if you really need to do so then hold it upside down so the lens is hanging and then undo any clamps and extend or retract it.';

'what model of camera is this?';

'>>4302193
I want to say a Sony, possibly the CX450. The styling certainly fits and it has the output jacks under the screen.';

'>>4302174
>>lift the whole system slightly, rotate monopod until locked into place
what
don't tell me you're screwing it in';

'might get an a6000 to use with old minolta lenses
obviously it would be manual focus, but is there some indicator that shows when something is in focus or do you just have to eyeball it?';

'>>4302304
There's focus peaking, one of the big advantages of EVFs. The sharpest area of the image is highlighted in red (you can change the colour depending on the particular body). If you're tlaking about A mount lenses then Sony makes adapters that will AF with them, including one with a built in motor for screw drive lenses.';

'How do I avoid doxing myself with exif data?';

'>>4302506
Don't post phone pictures.';

'is it at all true that I'll have trouble finding work as a 2nd shooter by not using canon?';

'>>4302349
oh cool, thanks. I definitely think I'll get one then
unfortunately they're the older SR mount';

'>>4302179
Thank you, seems good.
Hood can hold the lens.

>>4302271
If you mean attaching the monopod directly into the lens without a monopod head, yes, that's what I'm doing. Shouldn't I? From all I've read, it's more a limiting factor than a hazard.';

'>>4302692
No it's a good method, just inconvenient as you've found out. Is the collar on your lens not removable? That way you could keep it attached to the monopod.';

'I forgot about how much I hate the youtube photography scene, but I thanks to the shitty algorithm I keep getting recommended this "KingJvpes" faggot.

I can't stand this piece of shit.';

'How do I scan my negatives without windows xp/disk drive';

'>>4302692
>it's more a limiting factor than a hazard
I'd still recommend a QD system like Arca, the more fucking around you have to do to attach the lens the more chance there is for dropping something';

'>>4297594
I want to have a balljoonted mount for my DSLR that isn't a tripod. I have a few inches of space on my desk in front of my lightbox and just wanted something so I can sit and take pics. Do these exist in any form or should I just pull the lightbox forward and set my tripod up in front of the desk? Like a balljoint/handle mounted on a flat base is essentially what I'm looking for. Mini tripods are too tall. Unless there's a tripod that lays totally flat like the bendy leg ones, which if you guys know a good brand of those I'll check them out as well.';

'>>4303060
You can buy a ballhead and then just screw it to a square of wood';

'>>4297594
My camera has been sitting in the corner for like for ever and I've finally decided to get into photography. However I don't know where to start: do you have any book or youtube channel to recommend in order to learn the basics? I would like to do mostly model like shootings';

'>>4297594
What is the purpose of lowering the megapixel of a photograph? I have a 20.1 mp. There are options for 15, 10 and 5.';

'>>4297956
I've been using my Rebel T6i since 2015 and don't feel an overwhelming urge to upgrade. Sure I'd like a nicer body but my entry level body continues to hang in there and do well for me.

You may be different. What makes you want to upgrade? What is your current kit lacking that compels you to upgrade?

Also define "light" when it comes to a tripod and "expensive" again in that context.';

'>>4303184
Saves card space, clears the buffer quicker, reduces transfer times, on some cameras it can increase the burst rate';

'>>4302788
better cough up';

'>>4303199
Thanks, man.';

'>>4303217
QRD on vuescan?';

'>>4303377
if you have the misfortune to have to use a scanner, it makes the experience slightly less awful, it mostly just works
autocrop does not work well and it often "helpfully" changes settings on its own
works on ganoo+loonux
costs money as you can see, the shareware version watermarks your images
maintained apparently entirely by some autist and his son';

'>>4303401
You mentioned that scanners are unfortunate. Are there alternatives or are you critiquing film and /fgt/ generally?';

'are electronic focus lenses proprietary cuckold glass or can you simply "power the lens" and adjust focus without a camera body on some other camera?';

'>>4303422
The problem is not film nor /fgt/, it's the scanners. They are all poorly engineered, poorly programmed, expensive but cheaply constructed rube goldberg disasters that will inevitably shit the bed at the least convenient time.
Lots of people use cameras with copy stands to avoid that bullshit, but that comes with its pain (definitely easier if you can leave the setup once you get it dialed in). Personally I use two scanners with vuescan and it is tolerable.
>>4303567
It varies depending on the specific type. For example, Nikon AF-S lenses with the M/A switch can be manual focused with no electrical connection, but Z mount servo focus or F mount AF-P won't focus at all without a body. Some lenses can't even stop down without electronics - Nikon G lenses can only be roughly controlled by the lever and on E lenses the aperture can't be controlled at all without electronics.';

'>>4297594
What happened to the m43 threads? Did the schizo m43 poster finally get on medication?';

'>>4303567
There are some adapters to use lenses from certain mounts on certain other bodies. However for focus by wire lenses where there is no physical connection between the focus ring and the optics I think that signal from the ring has to go to the body and then back to the lens, I don't think you can focus the lens without a connection to the body if you were wanting to use one on an old film body for example.';

'I was thinking about getting a cheap, vintage wide angle lens and an adapter (M42-EF), but read that a lens I was looking at risks damaging the mirror in some cameras. I didn't really get the context, not sure if it's even applicable to this pairing, but is that a common issue? Is there anything I should know about this stuff other than losing infinity focus?';

'>>4303694
You won't lose infinity focus with an M42 lens on EF mount, and very few SLR mount lenses will extend far back enough to hit the mirror. There was one of the ultra wide Nikons that could only be used in mirror lockup mode, I think it came with an external viewfinder. I've not heard of an M42 lens that is like that. There can also be issues with mounting some EF-S lenses on full frame bodies but that would just be dumb anyway.';

'Does the Canon 5D Mark II use the full width of the sensor while recording video in 1080p?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

'>>4300008
How much did you pay for it?';

'free as in freedom image processing programs? darktable';

'Any reason to change "Picture Mode" (Standard, Portrait, Fine Detail, etc.) from Auto on the camera when shooting RAW? Recently, I've only been using Auto. I sometimes switch it when processing the RAW later. On my previous camera I would shoot it with Standard in all shots, and occasionally change in processing.
For myself, I did like the more consistent look of keeping it on Standard. But, since I find myself switching between all the looks anyways, sometimes I value what the camera though was the best look for a shot with how it captured it.';

'Why isn't my camera shooting in AF? I have the “if not focused, don't waste a shot” mode turned on but the viewfinder seems to be in focus when this happens.

t. Minolta Maxxum 5';

'My brother in law commissioned me to take postcard photos for his town.
How much should I charge?';

'>>4297594
So I got a film camera and took pics, need them developed. Is the Darkroom the best option cost and quality wise? I want the negatives back, being the main point of using their service, as well as good hi res scans. Eventually want an at home scanning setup possibly, but yeah. Are they good or is there a better alternative?';

'>>4305192
The Darkroom should give you the negatives back, but their scan quality sucks and all you get are processed JPEGs even at their highest tier. Even if they say they're giving you a 16-bit TIFF, it's really not worth it since it's already post-processed just like the JPEGs, they have no unprocessed options.

Go with their cheapest shit scans from them and scan at home instead if you want quality.';

'I want to get a "cheap" camera to carry with me when I go motorcycling/hiking/etc. I've never been a photographer before and honestly don't know shit about it, but I've been finding myself wanting to do it when I go out and my phone camera just doesn't cut it.

Doesn't have to be real photos, digital is good, I just want something that takes actually good photos, isn't mega expensive, and is easy to carry around. Thanks for any help.';

'>>4305425
Do you want snapshots? or photographs?';

'>>4305633
Come on dawg no need to be pedantic you know I said in the other post "I dont know shit"';

'>>4305663
It's a serious question.

Phones = shit
cheap = crap but decent
mid range = good
high end = great
extreme = diminishing returns but noticeably better

you didn't even post a budget
what is your budget?

for example you can get a canon t7 dslr with 2 kit lenses for $600 that's mid range but is a bit "big" (not pocketable, not huge though) but if you wanted to match that quality in a smaller form factor like micro four thirds mirrorless you'd be paying like double

alternatively you can buy a point and shoot like the lumix ZS100 which can fit in a pocket (not skinny jeans, man pants or a coat pocket) but it's quality won't be anywhere near the T7 despite both being $600


so pick
snapshots(everyday carry, ease of use, portability) or photos(quality)?';

'What do all of the rings do?';

'why are camera sensors not measured in PPI?
This is a relevant metric... megapixels mean NOTHING and don't translate to any human comprehensible metric at face value especially when aspect ratios and crop values differ.

1:1 macro on a 20MP micro four thirds is like 7650 DPI
1:1 macro on a 24MP full frame is like 4250 DPI
this effectively gives the lower megapixel micro four thirds the edge in macro resolution at 1:1 pixel-display size

if you're shooting mirrorless canon
there are no macro lenses
they're at best 50% magnification
so 24MP canon APS-C would be like 2100 DPI or some shit, meaning micro four thirds macro offers 3x the effective magnification (when photosites per inch are factored in)

idk what the EOS R7 PPI is (too lazy to calculate atm but it's APS-C 32.5MP) but if they had a real fucking non-niggered macro that was 1:1, not 50%, I imagine this would be a mind blowing PPI
honestly though it seems like micro full thirds might be the way to go for raw resolution in macro even them with low res 16MP sensors they're still incredibly dense';

'>>4305962
How are you getting your numbers? How does shooting 1:1 effect the DPI?

People use megapixles because that determines the size of the image you're going to get, which determines how large you can print it and how high a quality you can print at (that's where DPI comes in), or how much you can crop an image.

The crop factor of the sensor (or just the size of it, for simplicity) doesn't change any of that. The aspect ratio does a bit, however most cameras are the same aspect ratio and even those that are different aren't by a massive amount. A 12mp photo from a 4/3 sensor and a full frame one are going to print at roughly the same size at the same DPI.';

'>>4306003
it doesn't
pixel density at 1:1 does
1:1 on 100 PPI sensor = 100 DPI image
1:1 on 200 PPI sensor = 200 DPI image

>People use megapixles because that determines the size of the image you're going to get, which determines how large you can print it and how high a quality you can print at (that's where DPI comes in), or how much you can crop an image.
it doesn't make any sense
at all
trust me
it is a marketing scam

do you know the difference between 24 and 47MP? or 47 and 61MP?
Yeah, you don't
now if they advertised the pixel length or something then you can math away with ease in your calculations

>A 12mp photo from a 4/3 sensor and a full frame one are going to print at roughly the same size at the same DPI.
but the 12MP from a 4/3 at 1:1 will have 2x the apparent size vs 1:1 from full frame
since the 12MP is covering a smaller area

to clarify
when I say 1:1
I mean magnification
as in
lens property
like a 5x5mm square being projected as a 5x5mm square onto the sensor
not 1:1 "playback" on a display after';

'>>4305882
The very center is split prism - image you see there will be sharper than result, but if you are backfocused, top of the image will be shifted to the left, and bottom will be shifted to the right. When you are frontfocused, it's the opposite. It's VERY intuitive - you rotate the lens as if you are moving the images in the split prism. When a subject image on top and bottom is aligned, you are focused on that subject.
Little crosses around it are microprisms. These are helpful when there isn't a good line you can cross with the middle split prism. If you see microprism pattern, you are out of focus. If it disappears, you are in focus.
All the rings around it are alternative to ground glass - when image is in focus, it will be sharp, when it's out of focus, it will be blurry. Note than unlike ground glass which shows true DoF, laser etched rings show you a bit less blur, and also will make the image a little more bright at apertures lower than f/2.8.';

'>>4305962
>why are camera sensors not measured in PPI?
You are supposed to just calculate it yourself and it's not very important - for same format, more megapixels is more ppi. In fact, increasing megapixel count by factor of K increases ppi by sqrt(K). In the end you just get HxW image, and from that point you can map it to whatever physical size depending on your DPI tolerance.';

'>>4306053
>1:1 on 100 PPI sensor = 100 DPI image
>1:1 on 200 PPI sensor = 200 DPI image
That makes no sense. You're displaying the finished photo, whether it be printed or on a screen, at a fixed DPI. The pixel density of the sensor has absolutely no bearing on that.

>do you know the difference between 24 and 47MP? or 47 and 61MP?
Yes, 23 million and 14 million pixels respectively.

>now if they advertised the pixel length or something then you can math away with ease in your calculations
That information is listed in the specifications for every camera. I get what you're trying to say, I can't equate 24mp to a particular photo size and 47mp to another. I don't know off the top of my head how large exactly the prints would be from those photos. However it does tell me that 47mp can print larger or be cropped more than 24mp, and likewise with 61 versus 47. If I wanted to compare two different sensor sizes that's also fairly simple math, for example I know that 42mp full frame is the same as about 18mp APS-C and thus a higher res crop body would give me better results than cropping down the full frame image.

>but the 12MP from a 4/3 at 1:1 will have 2x the apparent size vs 1:1 from full frame
I really don't understand what you're trying to get at. We are not in the days of film where we would shine light through a particular size section of film, a larger film giving a larger print at the same magnification factor. There is no reason why you would have to print or display the images at 1:1 based on the sensor size.

>when I say 1:1
>I mean magnification
>lens property
Oh I see, so you're talking about macro magnification. Again I don't see how that has any relevance. You are way overcomplicating things and it seems you're wanting manufacturers to advertise a number that would only apply in a very specific scenario, and doesn't even really matter.';

'I'm looking for the following in a camera:
- Compact, like a Sony Alpha 6400
- Decent MP
- Cheap
Are there any that fit this criteria? I know almost nothing about digital cameras. I'd just like to take a small but nice camera around to take high resolution pictures with.

Not sure if I should specify this, but I don't like post-processing. If the camera can just take a picture that looks as close to what I see with my eyes as possible, that'd be great.';

'>>4297594
Won't let me upload any photos claiming the images contain an embedded file.... Anybody know what's going on here and what I can do about it?';

'>>4306469
no fucking idea
autism all around
you can't really know what's going on

open image in ms paint
save as bitmap
re-open in editor of choice
re-save as JPEG
try uploading that

should strip all info
if you're trying to upload ai faggot images, don't';

'>>4306469
Remove the location metadata.';