>>4320101
Went with family ya dingus. Sorry i didn’t elucidate enough for you.

File: pepe-u-frame-glasses.jpg (69 KB, 1024x937)

69 KB JPG

>>4320118
Why would I assume anyone on /p/ has a family, let alone a gf?

Also you seemed to be paying a lot of attention to what teenage girls were doing, anon.

>>4320120
You have projector lenses strapped onto your eyes, anon

>>4320122
True. I do be doin' that.

>>4320101
Prime cunny territory
Where else can you find them without having your 150-600 mm lens stare out the window of your white broken down van parked next to a kindergarten?

Should I buy a DSR-PD175P for 150 EUR?

>>4318417
>>4318698
>Ligma projectors are cheap on ebay
>make sure to get one with an modern hdmi ligma out
>/vid/ knows as much about projectors as ligma
>hopefully avatar fag ligma (aka zach) can give you a balls deep rundown

>>4319428
Are you a transexual or some other kind of sexual deviant? Because I can’t think of any other reason why you’d willingly use that website other than wanting to engage in degeneracy.

>>4319900
there is nothing inherently wrong with the website

>>4319429
nah, if you're going to buy miniDV, at least get a CCD one

>>4319985
Does cannot really not have a 24-120 or a 35-150? Lol

>>4320107
Not quite those numbers but they have the 28-200 boomer vacation lens and the 28-300L, and the super old 35-350 and 50-200 and a few other oddballs here and there. Don’t think they have anything besides thr 24-105 and 24-240 for rf yet since it seems they are more focused on expensive “pro” lens coverage vs these boomer zooms

>>4320107
It does.

>>4320107
There's the 35-135mm

>>4320023
Take your meds

File: 3523.jpg (512 KB, 1000x668)

512 KB JPG

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

File: DSC_1835.jpg (1.04 MB, 2500x1656)

1.04 MB JPG

Missed the focus like always.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop 24.2 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	4928
Image Height	3264
Number of Bits Per Component	16, 16, 16
Compression Scheme	Uncompressed
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format
Image Created	2024:06:01 11:03:56
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	2500
Image Height	1656

File: DSC09128compressed.jpg (2.85 MB, 5374x3583)

2.85 MB JPG

First time out with the new lens. Definitely some things to learn

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-6400
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 12.5 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/6.3
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	900 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	238 dpi
Vertical Resolution	238 dpi
Image Created	2024:06:01 10:49:16
Exposure Time	1/1000 sec
F-Number	f/7.1
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	640
Lens Aperture	f/7.1
Brightness	7.8 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	600.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

File: IMG_0399.jpg (1.39 MB, 1920x1280)

1.39 MB JPG

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 90D
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 13.3 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/6.2
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2024:06:01 20:10:11
Exposure Time	1/800 sec
F-Number	f/9.0
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	3200
Lens Aperture	f/9.0
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	325.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

File: DSC01545.jpg (1.33 MB, 2500x1667)

1.33 MB JPG

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-6700
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 13.2 (Macintosh)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/6.3
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	525 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2024:05:31 18:54:02
Exposure Time	1/640 sec
F-Number	f/8.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	125
Lens Aperture	f/8.0
Brightness	11.2 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Daylight
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	350.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

>>4320042
Annie leibovitz claimed she used a fuji gfx in an interview, but in most real photoshoots she is always using a combination of cheap canonikon DSLRs and sony mirrorless.

Most pros are like this. Being seen once with a hassy is self marketing. IRL they shoot generic ff.

So no
Reason? “Medium format” is less big compared to full frame than full frame is to APSC and the professional down low on apsc vs ff is already “NEGLIGIBLE IF EQUIPMENT WAS OF EQUAL GRADE” (camera companies cripple apsc hard, ie: no ports no features no wr, xtrans, worse glass, to keep the money flowing from consoomer impulsive starter camera>upgrade patterns)

>>4320109
The way these people work is you need to pay extra for them to use a medium format camera because they actually rent it. It’s pointless unless you truly need 100mp+ for your printing specifications.

The event photographer at the party I was at tonight was using a Leica mirrorless.

>>4320132
pics or it didn't happen

>>4320134
Bruh it’s 3:40 last call was like a hour ago. I can find her IG when stories get reposted.

>>4319816
Here where I am the only reason is once you factor in development costs (either lab or diy), colour is like 4 dollars more expensive per roll, and so being cheap I just don’t shoot color. If I really need colour I have an eos R and a full set of nice lenses which I can use, or my griii, or old 1d if I want to retro larp, etc. I just like developing film so black and white is good enough. It’s the process more than the product, basically.

File: ansel.jpg (971 KB, 1316x1000)

971 KB JPG

bonafide zoomer here (2004) and ive been shooting film for a few years now. ive shot 3 rolls of b/w and like 15 of colour. i have 3 rolls of trix that im going to shoot over the rest of the summer though. i mostly shoot colour because of my belief that with colour, you can always just desaturate in gimp, but with b/w you can't really easily colour it.
that being said, does anyone have example pics with an orange contrast filter? i'm trying so hard not to gearfag but all of my b/w in the past has come out pretty thin so i feel like a contrast filter will suddenly make me ansel adams

File: TMAX100_0413_029.jpg (614 KB, 1000x622)

614 KB JPG

zoomers heard BW dev prices are skyhigh but dont know about the C-41 BW so they just still with "filtered" color film like cinestill

sad i like BW a lot

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	1664
Image Height	1035
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Compression Scheme	Uncompressed
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	1200 dpi
Vertical Resolution	1200 dpi
Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format
Image Created	2014:09:22 19:46:47
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	1000
Image Height	622

>>4319823
Why c41 if shooting bw? Purely so Walmart/etc can still develop it or some other reason?

>>4320129
nta, but my lab's c-41 price is like half of the b&w price, so if you didn't want to/couldn't do it yourself it would save you money provided you could get it for the same price

>>4319204
Why would the idea matter? Critique what you see, this isn’t Reddit pics where you need a life story with every photo to get your updoots.

>>4320119
nta but as i understand it, judging intent against result is the basis of critique, generally
>>4316216
decent frames OP. i kind of like the datestamps

>>4320121
For fine art paintings, maybe. These are snapshits. The story will hardly improve anything

>>4320127
i disagree, and i'm not even going so far as 'story'.
i want to hear what OP aims to show or express with each photo

>>4320127
>These are snapshits.
This is the point. Snapshits have nothing to critique

File: Dek1796960861683748864.png (898 KB, 1209x650)

898 KB PNG

>>4319844
>N1 system was bungled by Nikon. It may have had potential, but the sensors they chose was poor
Small sensor means you need less glass to get closer to the object. We really REALLY need small sensor cameras right now in my opinion. Because even m4/3 with its crop factor of 2 isnt really compact. And these days even small sensors are pretty good, phones can see in the dark like nothing and they have tiny 1/3" sensors or somewhere around there. 1" sensor, at least these days, would be a pretty good compromise. Compact and cheap (smaller glass is cheaper), yet better than most compact cameras and phones, since sensor would be equal or bigger.
>But the images were underwhelming especially in less than perfect light.
Idk, here is one of the few photos ive taken with that Nikon (yes, it did work sometimes but I suspect it was dying SoC or broken solder ball somewhere which is really hard to diagnose and id have probably killed it anyway during the repair). Id say it did well. Obviously not as good as bigger sensor (especially modern sensors), but decent enough.
That was taken indoors with artificial light, approx 1000 lux at desk ? with a pinhole (since lens dead).

Idk. UI of that thing was retarded too. "creative mode" my ass. Why not make standard "full retard" P A S M and whatever.
>Pentax Q
Yeah, something like that would be pretty good. Essentially a digishit with interchangeable lens. Maybe slightly bigger sensor would have been better. 1/1.7" or 2/3 or whatever.
Other problem of those meme cameras is mount.
Nikon 1? There were like only 3 lenses made for it, rest is unobtanium, or variation on same shit. Adapter to F mount? $200!
It's like guns, camera should be made for lenses, not other way around. If it had F mount compatibility for reasonable money, or other mount (MFT or whatever)... I might have not hammered it and continued searching for fault.

>>4319878
Hm...
You can get snoy sensors from alibaba for $10-20... The 1/1,7" or whatever.
I should try making emount digishit.

>>4319536
Lay off on the caffeine, you tremble like my grandfather with Parkinson's.

>>4319971
I was about to destroy a camera I tried to repair, so i was bit nervous.

Soooooooooo... I've been having second thoughts about killing that thing, until I realized that ive recorded some videos with it too.
There were no sound, and I was talking bullshit whole time i was doing it because I was in a videocall.
After trying to find any sort of repair manual for any sort of nikon camera (which is pretty fucking hard), it did indeed seem like that SoC ASIC had a ball issue, and since camera had no signs of impact (hammer proves that any sort of impact will leave a dent on aluminium-magnesium-whatevererium) it is safe to assume that issue is in the balls between chip substrate and silicon (its fucked) , and not balls on PCB (could have been repaired). This explains SD card being intermittent and responding to bend.

Another lead-free solder victim. Or Smasnug semicon fab victim, idk.

File: DA BEARS MK2.jpg (3.6 MB, 4947x4947)

3.6 MB JPG

>>4318639
lil more lively here, an old county fair I was at. I miss 400h

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Lightroom 9.3.0 (Android)
Image-Specific Properties:

File: AAA030A.jpg (468 KB, 980x1471)

468 KB JPG

>>4318639
one of the shots im most proud of

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Pakon, Inc
Camera Model	F135
Camera Software	Adobe Lightroom 9.3.0 (Android)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Created	2024:01:26 01:15:

>>4318693
Personally I’d say composition seemed almost entirely absent. Harsh criticism to follow, I’ve never been a believer in positive encouragement.
>>4318639
No subject. Looks like a random accidental photo.
>>4318640
It’s a bridge. So what? The eye travels around and settles on the janitor’s marker.
>>4318641
Beautiful area, but you don’t capture the beauty. Unbalanced, unfocused, again the composition seems accidental
>>4318643
I assume this was taken when you sat on your camera.
>>4318645
You took a poor photo of someone else’s boring art. Why?
>>4318647
The first one with ok composition, but indistinguishable from any other cemetery photo ever taken.
>>4318648

Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.

File: AA015.jpg (707 KB, 1470x2205)

707 KB JPG

>>4318964
Didnt see this til today. Taking at least some of this as actual criticism of the compositions, so appreciate that anon. a good majority of these arent shot for "meaning" so that whole banksy rant's pretty funny to me (swear Ive seen it copypasta'd on here before). In all seriousness though what's some actual composition tips you could give?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Lightroom 9.3.0 (Android)
Image-Specific Properties:

clean your lens holy shit
>>4318956
the only good one

>>4319841
>>4319864
the only good player in /gg/ was, WAS, bluejem (yes, froosh sucked too)

jcope and sam are equally bad.
>bro you want out of time, out of tune 50s wank or out of time, out of tune 80s wank
neither

in terms of skill lgbtele and eric (our very own pant5uit, in fact) eclipsed both of them as absolute beginners. lgbtele had more creativity and skill, eric had vastly more creativity despite less technical skill. i had a 30yo cousin pick up guitar and he eclipsed both of them pretty quick by learning megadeth solos, then he quit guitar and learned soprano sax. he only plays silent whisper and the epic sax guy riff. that's the level we're talking about here.

File: chkleop-015-positive.jpg (163 KB, 800x790)

163 KB JPG

hey /fag/s

i recently came into some money, and want to treat myself to a new camera. Digitally, I've been a nikon shooter for years, but my d3500 is getting dated and i want to try something new. I shoot film most of the time, but want to go back to digital for awhile.

I had my eyes on one of the fuji x100 series, especially the x100f. however, prices have gone up so high I dont think it makes sense to get one. My budget is around 700 or less. Is there another fuji camera I could pick that does rougly the same thing? I love the rangefinder look as most of my film cams are RF's, and i love the film simulations and build quality that fuji brings. Their lineup is sorta confusing, could I get any help?

Ill post some pics as a thank you if anyone responds.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-7RM4A
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 12.5 (Macintosh)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	70 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2024:04:19 18:28:54
Exposure Time	1/200 sec
F-Number	f/5.6
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/5.6
Brightness	8.7 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Other
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	70.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	800
Image Height	790
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

>>4319992
The X-E series is Fuji's EVF-only rangefinder-style ILC while the X-Pro series is the more premium line with hybrid OVF/EVF and a bigger body

The X-E3 is the same sensor as the X100F but just the body alone might hit your budget limit

The X-E2s is the next step down and its sensor is the prior generation of X-Trans sensor. If you can get a good deal, you might be able to get a lens as well and stay under your budget.

As for the X-Pro series, your budget limits you to the original X-Pro1

File: IMG_9436.jpg (570 KB, 1170x1088)

570 KB JPG

>>4320037
ok, thank you!
are those older cameras still worth getting, or should i save up for something more modern?
have some medium format as thanks

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	216 dpi
Vertical Resolution	216 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1170
Image Height	1088

Do you guys have any recommendation for a cheap 3rd party wide angle ?

>>4319916
I wouldn't you look at them at all. Just go out and take photos and find your own style. Then once you've developed a base you can look at other people for interesting ideas.

The problem is if you start out "emulating" someone else, it becomes foundational and you never really stop emulating that person. I've seen people that have shot for years/decades producing extremely derivative works of much better photographers and they never broke out of it because they believed they needed someone to tell them how to shoot.

>>4319916
New york by Reinhart Wolf.

The book is big, the printing is very high quality, and the images are inspiring. :D

>>4319936
I'm not cANON. But I wish he'd be my friend, he's funny and cool.

File: RITE-crab-bucket-signs.jpg (272 KB, 1028x702)

272 KB JPG

>>4319880
On /p/, you'll get this. Pic very related. This board is full of literal jobless manchildren. They live in their parents homes. They sleep in twin beds. These are the people insisting on DSLRs. They don't want you to enjoy photography! They want you to be a "serious" autist like them and shoot building corners.

Ignore the people saying real men this and that, they are skinnyfat noodle armed nerds who derive their sense of masculinity from operating a camera - a toy computer. That's like saying "real men compile linux from the source code". Just imagine the kind of prematurely balding pizza faced fuck that would say that.
>i prethed a button on a computer to make the number correct im THO MANLEE *farts*

Using a mirrorless is freeing. No more doing the "asian tourist pose". No more black blob making people nervous. You can just take your camera with you and be a more normal person. A GOOD camera, that doesn't spit out blurry colored fog if you shoot indoors without flash. Some of them even fit in pockets.

>>4319886
This is the truth. Overall mirrorless has better lenses and smaller cameras apples to apples. Physics applies some (an f1.8 lens needs a front element of a certain size, a 50mm lens can only be so small) but generally you can get a smaller setup if someone has made the option. Autofocus is also better, and there's exposure preview - but autofocus is NOT better on Nikon's Z cameras.

Mirrorless can also have larger lenses on the smaller cameras because removing the mirror makes room for exotic optical designs. These lenses are super sharp and closer to the optics used for spy planes. They are totally unlike anything you can put on an SLR except for $$$$$$$$$ "cinema" lenses. You can not compare them to DSLRs. Nikon's Z mount is infested with such incomparable lenses. They really are super sharp compared to DSLR lenses, but why would you want them? Just get a sony or olympus, stick to the smaller lenses and enjoy life instead of pixel peeping.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1028
Image Height	702

File: 1716057392702494.jpg (54 KB, 1500x860)

54 KB JPG

>>4315946

>>4316137
That the ISS is sponsored by Nikon?

>>4319968
All of 4chan is powered by performative contrarianism to cope with their past of being shoved into lockers

>>4319229
>Lens Aperture f/3.2
>tight
Are you okay?

>>4317166
>>4317422
D for uptown dandy?

>>4319112
>she would legit cut me
Where, with what and how severely?

>>4319311
>Needed years or therapy afterwards
Why?

>>4317052
This is good haha, look at his face

>>4319949
>not gay
As someone who like trannies more than you, you're at least bi

We DESPERATELY need some women on this board. RIGHT. NOW.

>>4319955
women ruin everything though

>>4319953
The implication you are making here that liking a trans woman is anything but heterosexual is extremely problematic chuddie

>>4319984
I don't care. I will hold this opinion and still choke on thick tranny cock multiple times per day everyday

>>4318988
Because they are motivated by getting the best shot they can instead of mincing about with the bling brand their choice of, trying to look cool and waiting for someone to notice them.

>>4319266
What this guy said. They're a pre-internet generation, so they're not vain and hollow and terminally self-conscious. They know what they like and do it regardless of what other people think, and this extends beyond their willingness to ignore "social norms" to achieve it and into their actual photography.
When a younger person does this we call it "cringe" or "autism," and we have a negative term for every possible artistic effect reserved for photos taken by such people.

Just look at that incel. No fashion sense, no grooming, using outdated hipster gear. Probably being a nuisance in a public place, probably being laughed at. No doubt he hasn't gotten laid in decades. Probably shooting some lame street shit, for God's sake he doesn't even have a tripod.
And the worst part is he doesn't even care. Imagining him being happy for so little effort and money makes my millennial blood boil.

>>4318988
based on what?
Their seriousness is probably based on their age and the environment they grew up in. Hard times build strong men and all that.
Meanwhile a zoomie would worry about touching grass

>>4318988
>sees an old man being dumb because his iq score drops 10 points every year
>omg based!

>>4318988
They’re too blind to use screens. A diopter on an ovf is literally mandatory.