I took the advice on an anon on here and bought a Pentax LX and I love the size, especially with the manual lenses. Is there something I can get with a FF digital sensor around the same size for around $1000?

File: 66850016s.jpg (608 KB, 1920x1274)

608 KB JPG

What's the most sexy looking 35mm SLR that has all manual operation (battery only does meter/optional) and doesn't cost a shit load of money?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Noritsu Koki
Camera Model	QSS
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 4.2 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2013:05:17 21:49:19

>>4303610
Black edition Honeywell Spotmatic if talking 35mm

>>4303610
Canon F1

File: 1712915847222.jpg (580 KB, 2500x1667)

580 KB JPG

>>4303610
For me it's the SRT

What are the “must-have” focal length/aperture lenses for any camera? So far I have a 50mm f/1.8 and an 80-200mm f/4

>>4303623
35mm, the thinking man's focal length

M43 owner (E-M5.2) looking for a (very) cheap telephoto I won't worry about getting carried and banged up. Narrowed it down to the Olympus 40-150 f/4-5.6 or the Oly 75-300 f/4.8-6.7. Heard a lot of good things about the 40-150 'plastic fantastic', not quite as much about the 75-300, so I'm leaning towards the former. Any other suggestions/ideas? I don't know much about the non-Oly/Panasonic lenses like Sigma and friends. Not sure how much I'd actually use 600mm eq. length, my old system went to 400mm but was also ancient so the 40-150 would probably be equally good at 300mm eq. and cropped, assuming it's decently sharp all the way to 150 and doesn't fall off too bad.
>Other options:
-Panasonic Lumix lenses, there's a few with what would be my ideal range like the Pana 45-200, but I've had noticeable issues with the purple fringing Lumix lenses can have on Olympus cameras and also the twist direction for focal length is backwards (clockwise vs anticlockwise) compared to the Olympus and Canon setups I'm used to and that drives me nuts.
-Pana Leica lenses, out of budget and dual IS doesn't work with Olypus
-Oly Pro 40-150 f/4 or f/2.8, the 2.8 is definitely out of budget and also massive and frankly a little silly, the f/4 is new, probably less prone to bad copy variation than the el cheapo kit lenses, and not that much bigger than the 4-5.6 and the weight is offset by the beefy E-M5.2 body, but has the turn-to-extend-before-use setup the small Oly kit lenses have and still no dual IS

File: IMG_7204.jpg (294 KB, 1400x788)

294 KB JPG

>>4303610
>most sexy looking
OM-1, no competition

Just remember to run wein cell batteries (1.35v) or take it to a shop to perform a diode conversion. If you want to diy here's a link, it's a 15 minute job:
https://youtu.be/dFq9etVH2og?si=EI-nrUcJuq-DLqZU

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1400
Image Height	788

>>4303623
Relevant thread for you here >>4302433
For me, it’s 28mm. Inb4 “just use your phone”

File: implying micro four third(...).png (840 KB, 2401x970)

840 KB PNG

>>4303623
Zoom.
>implying you need more

>>4303626
35mm/40mm is the snapshit focal length

Great for getting all your friends in the frame without distorting their faces
Great for taking a photo of your girlfriend, and also where she is, without making her nose look big.
Not so great for everything else

65mm is the actual best focal length

should I get a canon r6 mk2 or a z6ii? I'm just a hobbyist with an old SLR and want a digital camera to blast away with

>>4303688
I have no friends and no girlfriend and I still think 35mm is great.
>65
Hipster shit.

>>4303698
You don't get the full benefit of everything they put into the R6ii without an RF L lens, and it's also a more expensive body (because it shoots faster, with a forced drop to 12 bit raws)
The R6 applies forced shadow NR at low ISOs so one shot HDR is worse with softer recovered shadow detail than off-camera NR can manage.

The Z6ii shoots slower even if you set it to 12 bit raws, has worse rolling shutter in e-shutter/video (important for golf photography, not for anything else), and has fewer video options, but produces cleaner files and has a better selection of well made native lenses at lower price points instead of a hard dichotomy between non-sealed f2.8 plastic primes and f1.2 showoff lenses for wedding photographers and giant sports zooms

or you could get a newer sony I guess but its about the same price as nikon FF

If you're not 99% a sports and wedding photographer, specifically a professional one who absolutely has to get specific sjots, not big into video+heavy post production, and think good lenses should start at $500 rather than $1500 buy the z6ii. It's a better balanced camera, and it's a better balanced system as a whole. The R6II is for poorer professionals who are still using a 1d series but can't ugprade to the r3. Canon doesn't even have a real z8 yet, and probably never will. It's just not in their brand philosophy.

>>4303699
>I have no friends and no girlfriend
>I think 35mm is great.
gentlemen, as you can see, 65mm is best. 85mm is an acceptable compromise.

>hey anon what's an inexpensive camera I can get as a gift for my husband for pets and landscapes and stuff?
How the fuck do I respond? Beginner cameras are like $600 now so that's out of the question. Men like to shop and gearfag in general so getting something he'll use and prefer seems impossible. I'd like to recommend something that beats phones at a minimum. Do I just say fuck it and recommend a ricoh?

>>4303715
A canon EOS M6 II and a couple of lenses?
Fuck might as well buy an a6600 at that point

Maybe the best thing to do is buy him a gift card for a camera store so he can go "honey, we're getting a z8"

i have a mental disorder

i keep fetishizing buying a shitty compact camera and a single wide-ish or tele-ish prime or a hasselblad 907x 100c and a single wide-ish or tele-ish prime

this will not make me a better photographer but i think it will for some reason.

>>4303630
>I've had noticeable issues with the purple fringing Lumix lenses can have on Olympus cameras

what lenses are you seeing this with? my pana 25mm f1.7 fringes a ton if i shoot against a very bright light or something but otherwise its basically the same as any other lens.

i have a pana 45-150mm that i've never seen have awful purple fringes like my primes have too. works fine, OIS is good at longer focal ranges.

>>4303700
how does the RF L glass stack up to Nikon's Z S-line stuff? I'm coming to terms with not needing a gorillion megapixels and I feel like a higher end entry level/mid grade body with even a single pro grade zoom would have me set for years to come. the Z glass definitely seems more affordable but if I'm gonna be spending 2 grand on some top tier glass with either company, idk what to pick. the new 24-105 L lens seems like a perfect do it all lens

>>4303723
I've seen it with the Pana 12-32 pancake, the 14-42 ASPH II and the popular 20mm 1.7 of all things. Granted, they're all low end lenses and I might have had three bad copies, but the purple on the 20mm in particular was pretty bad in most all lighting (so now my shorty prime of choice is the Oly 17 1.8, which still fringes shooting towards super bright light but just basic blue/red fringe, not the super huge purple blur of the Panas- it's an old Chinese production one, not the newer Vietnam version). Maybe I'm getting too autistic about it, I dunno, I just found it a lot more noticeable than 'eh, fix it in post' level.
>i have a pana 45-150mm that i've never seen have awful purple fringes like my primes have too. works fine, OIS is good at longer focal ranges.
I'll give that one a look, I'm assuming in lens IS works better at the long end than the in body IS? My hands are one step above Michael J Fox tier unfortunately. Might take a bit to get used to the opposite zoom direction.

File: Z4106680_DxO-3.jpg (2.16 MB, 3652x2738)

2.16 MB JPG

>>4303754
>but the purple on the 20mm in particular was pretty bad in most all lighting

with my 25mm i basically have to shoot into a bright light/sky to see purple splotches which i assume would show on any lens at that point

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	OLYMPUS CORPORATION
Camera Model	E-M1MarkII
Camera Software	DxO PhotoLab 7.3
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.7
Color Filter Array Pattern	24026
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2024:04:12 18:26:20
Exposure Time	1/125 sec
F-Number	f/1.7
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	200
Exposure Bias	1 EV
Subject Distance	3.26 m
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	25.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	3652
Image Height	2738
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	None
Contrast	Soft
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Soft

>>4303630
50/2 titty artisan. It's 100mm equivalent so technically telephoto, cheap, small, minimal vignetting (it's also sold for FF), nice mechanical handling.

Currently working with an EOS RP, 24-105mm f4 L, 50mm f1.8, and a 100-400mm f5.6-8.

Should I cop an R5, an R3, or another lens?

>>4303746
nikons 24-120 has a slightly better mtf on the wide end, and slightly worse mtf on the tele end with a better zoom range. both are f/4.

>>4303775
the nikon is also $200 cheaper

>>4303746
It depends, lens to lens, on what you want

For RF L 24-105 vs Z 24-120 S, it depends on if you want the range or the stabilization.

File: IMG_20240415_153902154.jpg (3.05 MB, 4096x3072)

3.05 MB JPG

My old D3 and D-series lenses

File: IMG_20240415_153938441.jpg (3.33 MB, 4096x3072)

3.33 MB JPG

>>4304624
Muh 5D Mk II with 17-35mm f/4, 50mm f/1.8, and 70-200mm f/4

>>4304624
>>4304625
But which (D)inosaur is your favorite?

File: IMG_20240415_154017329.jpg (2.46 MB, 4096x3072)

2.46 MB JPG

>>4304625
I think I have a problem.
Pictured: Nikon D800, Tamron 45mm f/1.8 VC, Tamron 85mm f/1.8 VC.

Not pictured: Nikon 18-35mm f/3.5-4
5 D, Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8 D, Nikon SB-600, Nikon SB-80DX, Canon Speedlite 580EX, other miscellaneous goodies.

>>4304626
D800>D3>5D Mk II.

>>4304629
based

>>4304628
>>4304625
>>4304624
Based Dino appreciator. I have a 1d and a 1ds mkii and both are fun to use. If it wasn’t such a pain to rig up a CF reader every time I’d use the 1d more but sadly only CF allowed.

>>4303626
Only when it's used on APS-H

>>4304655
Based 45mm angle of view enjoyer

What would be the best camera platform to invest in as a poorfag?

In 20 years if the big cam companies release some new platform with like a 5mm flange distance lens mount would Canon's RF lenses be easier to adapt since it's 20mm, has a small diameter, vs Nikon's big Z diamter with just 16mm flange distance?

I'm not a fool and I realize that the current iteration of mirrorless cameras likely isn't the "final" iteration and I expect to be alive long enough to witness the current gen being obsoleted as they move onto the next one.
I'm kind of pissed that they all couldn't standardize on diamter/flange distance like micro four thirds did, they had the opportunity to but chose not to and that doesn't sit right with me, but micro four thirds is too noisy for me to want to buy into at the moment since it's not much better than a phone. Lenses are, but not really the sensors.

I'm considering a SMC Takumar 55/1.8 for my mirrorless camera. This lens is apparently radioactive due to Thoriated glass. Is there a possibility that leaving the lens on my camera 24/7/365 will damage the sensor or otherwise degrade the camera in any way?

I know it's been documented that the radioactivity can affect images (particularly long exposures), but I'm more concerned about irreversible effects.

>>4304681
Aside from some future readout speed/video mode shit literally no one gives a fuck about except reviewers and *rumors comment sections (aka /p/) (current cameras are excessive unless you want to take a MILC to hollywood), this might be the final iteration of pro, prosumer and hobbyist systems using 35mm sensors. The next lineup of mounts/systems will probably be MF across the board.

But you know, a 5d classic still beats an iphone, so it's not like these things go out of date fast, as long as you're shooting a sensor that will never fit into a phone with decent optics. Maybe they will get smaller and faster and the MTF charts will get better before FF finally goes the way of "professional APS-C" (which stills beats phones, and will even when phones get M43 sensors), but who cares.

>>4304685
That's good. Girls love to get their pictures taken by pros. My chink went on a date with one of you chink boys and he shot her up for me. She looked so sad because I was a failure.

>>4304681
I've looked into this shit before.
Standardization in technology usually happens because
>someone temporarily dominated the market so hard that everyone else gave up trying to come up with their own shit and cloned what was successful
this is how we ended up with "the PC", and most film formats
>government just flat out mandates it
this mostly happens with tech that could actually be dangerous if not standardized, like electrical plugs
>industry "consortium" promulgates a standard in order to make their products more attractive
this is supposed to be the main way standards are made but it fails a lot. for every successful one like USB or double-A batteries, there's tech sectors like "full frame mirrorless camera" where no one even tried, probably because there was no financial motivation for them to.

>>4304681
There shouldn't really be any need for any of the big three to change their mount, not even to have a shorter flange distance because you can just have the rear element extend beyond the mount (and for the vast majority of lenses that isn't needed).

Sony would be fools to change because they already have a decade worth of lenses and they won't be able to convince anyone to give those up and move to a new system, unless they made it backwards compatible but again there's no fucking point. Nikon and Canon have slightly less invested in their current mounts but it's still enough to make going with a new mount unjustifiable. Canon did abandon EF-M after about a decade, it was crop only so they may have said it wasn't suitable for full frame (I haven't looked into that) but having the same dimensions as Sony's mount that wouldn't be true, however they didn't really make many lenses.

>>4304714
Medium format is now viable for sportsweddings. Hey remember when no one shot raw because processing them took forever and you could only fit 60 on a card? The days before MF will seem like that.

Only Z mount can sort of cover it

>>4304721
Can Z mount at least cover 44x33? (nu-faggot "medium format") for shit like GFX100 and such, not true 645 or 6x9 MF.

>>4304681
>Canon's RF lenses be easier to adapt
Good luck without in camera optical corrections.

>>4304722
Yes, in the same way e mount covers full frame

>>4304726
what do you mean, wouldn't you be able to use lens corrections in a raw editor regardless?

>>4304728
If can rip them from the Canon firmware or create your own, sure.

>>4304721
>Medium format is now viable for sportsweddings
There's one body that's just about adequate, and it's like double the cost of a better full frame body

Besides if they decide to move to medium format you're not gonna be adapting older lenses to it anyway

>>4304734
wut
are they encrypted and not publicly available in 3rd party software?

looks like lensfun has a bunch of them but not all
https://lensfun.github.io/lenslist/
maybe not first party/proprietary ones and maybe just user created though

where's the business in gatekeeping lens correction profiles though? how do you profit off that vs having your lenses look like crap on other bodies?

>>4304744
>how do you profit off that vs having your lenses look like crap on other bodies?
Because, if you want your lenses to be usable, you'll buy a Canon body.

>>4304747
Canon is hostile to 3rd party lens manufacturers, nobody in their right mind would buy a canon body when it means only using Canon glass and only Canon glass for full features.
Lenses should be "DRM" free though.

>>4304748
>nobody in their right mind would buy a canon body when it means only using Canon glass
I can't speak for RF, but I've never wanted to go third party on the EF mount.
The closest I came was with a Sigma 400mm prime, but they fucked up the protocol and the main board had to have a chip replaced in order to work with digital bodies.

>>4304748
You can get adapters for everything now anyway. I have adaptors even for a old Helios 44 Silver Start that has a weird m39 screw mount. Works great.

I recently got back into photography and cameras. It'd been a while Basically the last time I picked up a camera other than my phone was in 2014 because I got depressed and stopped going outside and then when I got better only used the convenient pocket camera.

First off I gotta say. Fuck phone cameras. Never again. They literally make attractive people look ugly. Don't know why don't care why but had to say it.

Okay next. I dove back in with some youtube meme cameras. Grabbed a Pentax MX-1 point-and-shoot and a Leica GM1 MFT camera. And also got a Z f.

Only the full frame, real camera Z f is any fun to use. Fuck MFT and crop sensors of any kind. They take better pictures than a phone but the hype around compact cameras is silly. I'm glad I have all of them for different situations, but only the full frame body is enjoyable to use.

Okay. Thank you for reading my blog post.

>>4304233

>>4304783
When you feel limited by your gear or when a feature would greatly optimize your workflow.
Alternatively if something seems really cool and you want it, get it, because chances are you're just gonna enjoy photography more if the thing you're using is cool.

>>4303772
Bump

>>4304868
Decide for yourself.
If you decide to go for another camera body, wait for the R5 MkII or the R1 to drop before picking up the corresponding option.

File: wandrd-rogue-sling-9.jpg (34 KB, 452x584)

34 KB JPG

not that anyone gives a shit but
>>4302657
I went with Wandrd Rogue as I couldn't find the Hex Ranger in stock and the Moment sling is currently only available in black which screams "camera bag" with how boxy it is.
It arrived today, and it fulfills my extremely autistic niche requirement of being able to fit my camera with a 150-600 lens on it perfectly, once I rotated the tripod collar it's like it was made for this setup. And it does this while being as small as possible, like 1-2cm less in any direction and it wouldn't fit.
Seems well made and well thought out. I just still think it's a little overpriced.

Hi anons, I'm in a need of advice. Recently bought a full frame canon camera (R8) with the shitty kit lens 24-50mm f/4.5-6.3

I'm thinking about buying one or two lenses but I'm not sure whether they should be primary or vario and the focal lengths.

I'll primarily shoot landscapes and street photography with the occasional closeup, eg. a tourist with a camera.

>>4304980
shoot with your kit lens for a month or two to get a feel for what focal length you use, or if you need more reach
and buy a fast 135mm, everyone needs a fast 135mm

>>4304980
I hope that shit was cheap. It's like using a DSLR but without the fun OVF and a much worse kit lens.

>>4304993
1.5k for the whole kit

>>4304994
>$1.5k for an EFCS only no-IBIS FF body and a m43 tier kit lens
I hope you shoot a lot of video i guess?

File: Capture.png (1.91 MB, 1894x924)

1.91 MB PNG

>>4305000
Note that I live in euroland so everything is 20% more expensive.
It was the same price as a R7 body, a bit more than 1/2 the price of a R6 Mk2

I doubt I'll shoot lots of low light images for the IBIS to make sense of the extra premium. Not sure.
I've read about the drawbacks of EFCS banding/worse looking bokeh, still don't think it's worth to spend 1k more for it, after all I'm an amateur that will shoot photos on his trip from Fes to Agadir. It feels light years ahead of the entry-level 10+ y/o DSLR my father had. If he hasn't sold it I am gonna use his lenses.


Overall I'm happy with my purchase and if I get more seriously into photography I'll just buy the latest and greatest mid-range body in a few years

>>4305006
You could have always gotten a sony a7iii

It's not like your canon is weather sealed any better, their WR is reportedly less thorough outside of the r6/r5/r3 just like the non-L lenses are totally non-sealed.

File: Untitled.png (244 KB, 915x1066)

244 KB PNG

>>4305021
Divide by two for a rough price in euros
The snoy doesn't make sense

>Verification not required.

>>4305029
You can't find a cheap used one? It's one of the best selling cameras of all time

>>4304771
i'm sorry you didn't get into photography but into spec sheet wanking

>>4305056
He didn't even list any specs

Spec sheet wank favors pro tier canon and MFT, unironically.

File: IMG_2857.jpg (2.86 MB, 2560x1707)

2.86 MB JPG

Should I sell my RF15-35 for an RF14-35? Seems like a better landscape lens and easier to hike with, and I'd pocket like $700.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS R6
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 13.0.1 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2024:01:14 16:27:13
Exposure Time	1/250 sec
F-Number	f/11.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	320
Lens Aperture	f/11.0
Exposure Bias	1.7 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	15.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

how many years does it take for a camera to be cheap 2nd hand?

i want to get the lumix g9ii

>>4305073
Buy a Nikon today

>>4305073
There's a decent chance that it will be the last top end release from Panasonic for m4/3.
Expect it to be overpriced for decades to come.

>>4304980
Imo, before you do anything else get the 50mm.
You'll still have the kit if you want to go wider.

File: received_319552287541274.jpg (78 KB, 956x1920)

78 KB JPG

>>4304980
50, 14-35, 70-200 in that order. Also start selling organs

>>4305090
Also if you want tighter, you can crop. Really, 50mm is the best focal length. If you end up always using kit because 50mm is too tight of a fov for you, too bad, at least it was cheap. In this case, you should keep it anyway. The number of 50mm lenses you own corresponds to your gearfag level.

>>4304685
Bump. Hope someone knows more than the usual rhetoric about banana radiation, and I'm more interested about damage to the camera.

>>4304685
No, as usual, do not grind elements that contain thorium into fine powder and ingest them or breathe them in. And you'll be fine. They turn yellow over time. Exposing to UV removes the color cast, but does not regenerate thorium, it forever becomes some other dopant.

>>4305103
Thanks. No intentions to snort lenses, though obviously the chance of Thoriated glass shattering is non-negligible in the real world, which is a worrying possibility of embedding alpha emitters in your body. But that's the health aspect.

Something on my mind is that gamma radiation is emitted as part of the Thorium decay chain, which can discolor glass. From what I gather, this is a little different from the yellowing of Thoriated lenses, since in those cases it's the bonding glue that yellows, not the glass. In the context of a digital camera, my concern is that the constant exposure from 24/7/365 mounting can cause discoloration of the sensor glass, and/or degradation of the CFA. Obviously this is all qualitative hearsay, and I'm no nuclear physicist, so I'm hoping for more insight.

>>4304685
I actually have a somewhat quakified opinion on this I guess, I inspect nuclear fuel assemblies using underwater cameras for a living
So, Thorium is an alpha emitter to start with. Alpha particles will do no damage to your sensor or any other electronics.
>>4305111
As you mentioned gamma being emitted down the line by other elements before it becomes lead. Very short term, you will never notice any artifacting at all from the super low volume of gamma rays emitted. Typically neutron radiation has more of an effect on metals in and around our fuel assemblies (neutron embrittlement, glass being a metal too) but those metals are also exposed to trillions of times the amount of gamma your camera components will be, 24/7/365, and we don't inspect for any specific effects I know of that are caused by gamma specifically.
Safest bet would be any long term storage with the lens taken off, but I doubt you're going to have any problems.
something else to note is that if you're using an SLR body, and/or if the rear element is not radioactive, you stand virtually zero chance of any alpha/beta particles contacting the sensor at least.

>>4305116
The back element of Super Takumar f1.4 emits about 1mr/h of whatever radiation passes plastic beta window of my 80s uncalibrated sovjet surplus meter (and likely 10x more alpha I can't measure). All I know it's not enough to fog film.

>>4305116
>>4305127
Thanks very much, anon! That's a fantastic response.

>pana 35-100 4-5.6 for €110 on mpb
What's the catch? Is it that shit, by m43 standards?

>>4305127
>>4305128
Also, I think in my measurement the distance from lens back surface to detector was roughly 10mm. M42 flange distance is 45.5mm and radiation should be about 5% of that. While the lens is radioactive, radiation is under background from more than few cm distance. Do not superglue the radioactive element on your balls for several months or ground to fine dust and cut your cocaine with it.
By the way Thorium-232 (100% of natural thorium) half-life is 14.05 billion years which is more than current age of universe. It's not going anywhere soon.

>>4305154
's alright, not as good as the 35-100 2.8- or the pana leica 35-100 2.8, which is the same lens AGAIN but with a slightly different coating and fatter price tag- but really damn small and has OIS, two things that give it an edge and olympus doesn't have anything in that range iirc, jumping from 12-50 up to 40-150 (i really wish they made a 45-200 like pana does, i know they can be used on each others' bodies but eh)
honestly most m43 lenses are preddy decent on paper, even the kit lenses, it's that actual copy variation is depressingly large (especially the older china-made lenses) so you could either get gold or get something so off-centered it looks like a mattel viewmaster, but mpb should let you return it without issue if it turns out to be shoddy, or at least they do here in the states

>>4305056
Yeah I don’t really care about the specs. My smaller cameras still take good pics. I’m just saying the full frame feels best in my hands to shoot and is the only enjoyable experience /as an experience/ of them all.

>>4305161
understandable, sorry for being a meanie. sounds more like it's just a matter of camera size and controls than anything else, given the other two you mentioned are old, small bricks with no viewfinder, arcane menu systems and lack of controls while the z f is sized for human hands and has more control points than you can shake a stick at. not so much sensor size since that isn't really relevant to camera body size at all these days, given you have full size panasemen bodies with m43 sensors and compact sonys with full frame ones, with the former handling like a normal big camera and the latter being a little square brick, and everything else in between. plus if you really wanted to say 'fuck crop sensors of any kind' you'd get a medium format (lol)
if it feels best in your hands, use it, it's The One You Have™

>>4303663
your mom needs more

>>4305154
Well it's pretty dark but it's small and cheap tele

>>4305157
>By the way Thorium-232 (100% of natural thorium) half-life is 14.05 billion years which is more than current age of universe. It's not going anywhere soon.
Also, the metal the camera body is made from will be radioactive. The air is radioactive. The food you eat is radioactive, and as a result your body is as well. And while a minute bit of that is due to human activity, all of it was true a million years ago.
So one should never make too much of a deal out of something simply being radioactive at all, very few things aren't.

>>4305160
>>4305216
Shit. I don't wanna be getting yet more m43 gear, it was just supposed to be my bicycle / light carry camera, but this seems like a good deal. And I've just recently acquired a 50/2 for my tele needs too. Oh well, they have like 20 of them in stock, I'll just sit on it for a while. This 35-100 might've been part of some kits, I assume that's the reason for the low price.

>>4304784
Right now I feel ibis would benefit me because im a shaky fucker even at 1/125. For the rest I could use a wider range of (zoom)lenses to choose from and perhaps better low light performance.

After the 24-50 f2.8 confused professionals across the globe with its lack of reach and total unsuitability for sports and weddings, the only things that matter (just ask canon why they're #1, bitch) sony has released yet ANOTHER small zoom "uhhh because we have a small camera or two"
https://electronics.sony.com/imaging/lenses/all-e-mount/p/sel1625g
Who the fuck is buying this shit? Who seriously wants slightly smaller cameras? Just buy APS-C, if your camera needs to be this small nobody gives a shit about your photography, no bride is asking you to zoom in on her face to look for zits. just shoot APS-C. STOP RUINING FULL FRAME WITH COMPACT GARBGE, FULL FRAME = PROFESSIONAL = HANDHOLD TRINTIY ZOOMS FOR 10 HOURS.

>b-b-b-b-but i like zooming in
Ok, here's my tip for you
Don't
You like nice cameras because you like to zoom in?
Stop fucking zooming in
Problem solved
Go back to fuji!

I don't care if you like to zoom in. The hobbyist "need" for full frame so they can "admire" "nicer pictures" is polluting what was once honest professional tools represented by the canon 1d and nikon d5 with tiny snapshitter junk. What is this, the 70s? Full frame was our 645 and now you are turning it into the new 35mm film! Fuck you!

I repeat, hobbyists - already ruined full frame! Sony almost completely died as a brand because they almost thought hobbyists size obsession was valid, and for four fucking generations sony MILCs were totally unusable to us actual professionals. YOU try shooting a 10+ hour wedding with adapted EF mount trinity zooms on a sony a7iii! Go on, do it! Sony had to bend over backwards to make the GM IIs usable on their legacy bodies and if you ask me, they should have been larger for ultimate sharpness! They made the bodies bigger, finally, and they are still too fucking small for a real professional.

And now Nikon and canon have "pancakess"? WASTE OF R&D.

I dont want to hear it, you handhold a 100-400 for a whole football game and then you can talk

>>4305320
what gear do you use? can we see some pictures from it?

>>4305320
You don't have to use any of those lenses y'know

>>4305320
so clearly you're going to shill out the money for the 24-70 F2 once it comes out, right?

>>4305318
Would you be selling the M6 MkII if you upgraded?

>>4305320
>handhold a 100-400 for a whole football game
not really impressive, they're not that big. i used to walk around doing street with one, so people would have 10 seconds after i took their photo to consider how they would respond to me

>>4305320
>Who the fuck is buying this shit?
So, the standard zoom seem really good for travel.
And the wide, well, it's just the wide. It covers everything from 16mm to 24mm, and then if you need tighter, you likely have another zoom that starts at 24mm or 28mm.
>>b-b-b-b-but i like zooming in
>Don't
There are things that only wide lenses can do, it's not about size of subject in frame, but perspective and field of view.

>>4305336
Dont think so.

Is it possible to get a passable camera for under $200 assuming I'm only doing hobbyist and casual photography?

>>4305371
There are plenty of options.

>>4305371
D5100/5200/5300 with kit lens. Not just "passable", GOOD.

>>4305372
I'm very new to this so I'm not sure where to start looking or how to judge what's a good deal. I previously had an older Coolpix I got from ebay but it died outright and I wasn't particularly satisfied with it anyway - the software was a nightmare to navigate and documentation was slim. A little bit of quick browsing from some reviews made this sound promising for the price but I'm not sure how to determine whether everything is intact and in working order.
https://www.ebay.com/itm/145532055961

>>4305374
What's the practical difference between those three? I did see this.
https://www.ebay.com/itm/186397915233

>>4305376
>https://www.ebay.com/itm/145532055961
Overpriced as shit.
What do you want to photograph?

>>4305376
Just buy the biggest number you can afford

>>4305371
Take the filmpill, you can get a minty Minolta X700 for like $150 bucks

File: DSCN0061.jpg (701 KB, 3456x4608)

701 KB JPG

>>4305380
Model kits, nature photos (I live in a fairly rural area so there's plenty of potential), maybe people. Nothing hardcore that I'm expecting to monetize, as I'm a complete beginner. My phone's camera is mediocre and I want to be able to take proper good-quality pictures. I'm not aspiring to be a NatGeo photographer.
I didn't despise the Coolpix, the image quality was fine and it was just everything outside the actual images that felt like pulling teeth, including getting the files off of it. Picrel was taken with it. I just figure I should get something reliable and quality this go-around even if it's a little pricier.

>>4305381
I'll do a little more research before making my final decision, but I'll definitely keep those in mind. I'm browsing Keh and MPB at the moment since those seem a little more reputable than ebay.

>>4305392
The Canon EOS-1D is a great choice.

>>4305374
>>4305394
After scrolling through the /p/ archives and looking through a few more reviews, it seems like the D5200 is exactly what I'm looking for. I'm seeing the kit lens sold separately for around $50 and a wireless adapter for $40 which will still leave the whole package comfortably within my budget. I'll probably grab a tripod as well but I should be able to get away with cheaping out more there.
To clarify, the kit lens is the "Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 G VR", right? That's what I'm looking at.

hi gang
i've invested ~$4,000 in fuji kit for weddings
but looking back at my old 5d pics i'm feeling something is missing
all that old kit is gone
tried sony and disliked it
should i try nikon?

>>4305398
>the D5200
Keep in mind that you won't be able to autofocus with a lot of Nikon's macro lenses using that.

>>4305399
You should try another Canon.

>>4305401
you are probably right
i miss the 35mm 1.4 ii. never took better pictures. never owned a canon 85 though, and i love the fuji 56 1.2 ii
hate the look of the canons but whatever ig

>>4305400
Would I be able to with the D5300? And as long as I still have the ability to manually focus properly, it should be fine I hope. I don't plan on getting a huge lens collection anyway.

>>4305399
>he fell for the apsc meme
if you're an actual pro you should buy Nikon
canon is way behind in mirrorless
t. Sony user

>>4305406
in what ways is nikon ahead of canon?
was about to pull the lensrentals trig on an r6 + 35 1.4 + 85 1.2

>>4305406
also
>she

walked by a rando photo store that had a 503cx with some lens i didnt pay attention to
€2300 or €2800 shopkeepers handwriting was terrible
is it a good deal?
very good condition, looked like

>>4305407
Nikon processes their raws less and their lenses are a bit better

That’s it. Canon is just the expensive pro brand for sports photographers.

>>4305485
>Canon is just the expensive pro brand for sports photographers.
it is like that because Canon beat Nikon to the punch with autofocus pro bodies/lenses in the 1980s, good enough that pros switched, and never switched back as they now had invested a small fortune in Canon stuff by the time Nikon caught up. Nikon has never fully recovered from this in 40 years

>>4305491
Its keeps going because canon will accept 40fps with compromises (including a higher price) for all the talentless newspaper interns out there

Good photographers never needed or wanted electronic faggot mount. “Pro” photographers did, and that is not a compliment. the majority has never been admirable have they? Hence nikon survived regardless and is still “the one for good photographers”.

>>4305492
And in reality the difference between the brands is so small that it doesn't matter

>>4305492
“Pro” photographers blew through entire crates of film for weddings then and they 40fps snapshit first kisses now

Why arent they being replaced by AI piloted drones yet

>>4305495
It might matter IRL if it rains and you didnt shell out for a pro body and L lens, while a cheap nikon z5 and $500 35mm f1.8 is weather sealed against hurricanes.

Maybe your more discerning friends will notice the mushy shadows from forced noise reduction, and maybe your girlfriend will complain about all the time you spend sorting through 40/sec identical photos, who knows

>>4303589
no

also next time buy an OM-4Ti
the superior choice to the loltax

>>4305497
There are multiple reports of Z5s getting killed by some water.
On the other hand your gf will ask you why half of the pics are out of focus from your Snoy or Nikon

>>4305497
>honey why are you still editing shoot jpeg please
>i did! i never missed a moment. arent you glad i spent $1000 more on an r6ii instead of a slow z6ii?
>120_identical_pictures.jpegs

>>4305500
Weather sealing depends on the lens. The 28, 40, and 24-50 are not weather sealed. The rest of the lenses are.

Literally no non-L RF lens is weather sealed. Reportedly the rp and r8 are sealed to a lesser degree than the r6ii.
>half out of focus on sony
Lol no, sony AF is actually BETTER than canon. But they cripple fps artificially since it’s an irrelevant feature and safer to use for market stratification than trying to cripple weather sealing again since their cameras are among the most expensive. And still, most of their old lenses arent sealed at all.
>on nikon
Maybe if you shoot bursts for sports with a fast telephoto, otherwise z#ii AF is as good as the a7iii was and the zf/z8 AF is as good as every other sony and better than canon. No idea who needs more than the z6ii, unless you shoot football.

>>4305500
where are these reports and were they like “pentax failures” where they used nonsealed lenses or the cameras were immersed by waves of salt water?
https://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/nikon-z6/nikon-z6WEATHERTESTING.HTM

>>4305403
No. The D3xxx D5xxx, D40 and D60 can autofocus with AF-S lenses (which have their own AF motor) but can't autofocus with the older AF/AF-D lenses (which require in-body AF motor, which those cameras don't have). There can be some real bargains among these screw AF lenses, but it depends on what lenses you'll want. You can take a look at the D7xxx and D200/300 cameras which do have screw AF motor.

>>4305403
also, I haven't encountered an AF lens with a properly damped focusing ring. Really not enjoyable to use MF without that.

>>4305403
>Would I be able to with the D5300?
No, the 5000 line is shit.
You'd have to buy at least a 7000 series to autofocus (unless you went for the ancient D50).

>I don't plan on getting a huge lens collection anyway
Then put some of the money you save into a decent camera.
I got a D2Xs for $70 years ago.

>>4305492
>Good photographers never needed or wanted electronic faggot mount
So why is that what Nikon went to?

>>4305400
>autofocus
>macro
pick one lel

>>4305376
>https://www.ebay.com/itm/145532055961
That's laughably bad and overpriced. Nikon is generally superior to Canon except in lens variety and video features.
>>4305376
>What's the practical difference between those three? I did see this.
D5200 and D5300 are 24MP cameras instead of 16MP, the AF improves a lot with it too. D5300 adds compatibility with more modern lenses.

>>4305521
I choose both because I want the greatest utility from my lenses.

can somebody suggest me a good, reasonably affordable, starter digital camera? im kind of poor but i could maybe pretend be less poor for this

>>4305562
how poor is poor
ricoh gr iii

>>4305563
probably max 500$ which i know isnt very much, so im looking for guidance on a good used ebay camera is what i was thinking. i've always been interested in photography as a hobby but always been too poor

>>4305564
get a used Canon or nikon aps-c dslr and a 50mm 1.8 lens for it. If you wanna zoom get a 70-300 or some equivalent. Just make a post here asking about which specific model you're looking at and remember lens>>>camera body all day.

>>4305567
awesome thank you so much

>>4305564
Nikon D600 + 28-105 3.5-4.5D (or the similar 28-70), 50 1.8D. You can start with only ones lens, depending on your priorities.

>>4305521
>>autofocus
>>macro
>pick one lel
you do realize you can do focus bracketing with Nikon Z cameras, which in turn requires the ability to do autofocus

I slept on it and I think I'm going to pull the trigger on the D5200 and the Nikkor 18-55mm F/3.5-5.6 G II VR. Thanks for the advice, lads.

>>4305600
Good
just liek take pictures.

>>4305504
>camera fails weather sealing test
>noooo you tested it wrooooong

File: SUPER-TAKUMAR 3,5 28.jpg (26 KB, 464x521)

26 KB JPG

I can't believe I'm actually considering spending a hundred dollarydoos on a notoriously soft lens specifically to get less sharpness. Have I finally lost my shit completely?

>>4305677
>spending more than fiddy bux on a 3.5
yes, inflated prices on wide angles is a jewish trick, just buy the absolute cheapest heap of shit you can find and softness is guaranteed

File: 61kjSvLHP7L.jpg (85 KB, 1000x1000)

85 KB JPG

I wonder if I should replace the Snoy 35mm 1.8 with pic related (Sony Zeiss 35mm 2.8). It's gonna be my main lens for travel on the A7CII and I'm a sucker for leightweight and small packages. What do you think?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

>>4305691
I think you should just bin the whole kit if you insist on shitty fucking 35mm fl kek.

>>4305691
The 35mm f1.8 and 35mm f2.8 aren't weather sealed (no ass gasket) but your body is, so if you get splashed your camera is dead anyways

Pick from the 24mm f2.8 g, 40mm f2.5 g, and 50mm f2.5 g.

>>4305676
Anything other than IP testing is bullshit anyway

>>4305676
>Fails
It didn't.
They pulled the lens off while it was wet and water fell in, surprise. This also kills olympus cameras which is why you're not meant to switch lenses with a wet camera, you're supposed to dry it off and keep it facing down for opening it up. You're also meant to only use internally zooming lenses, but it's not as big of a deal as mount sealing.

But whatever, you're probably some buyers remorse panashill trying to invent reasons why "nikon sucks!". Fact is, nikon cameras survive harsh conditions as well as pentax/top shelf olympus (ONLY top shelf olympus, om-5 and lower is not as well sealed). Always have.

>>4305738
Read what the IP ratings actually say ("water/dust may enter but the device needs to work for the duration of the test"), and realize the certifications are so conservative that they mean as much as saying "its weather sealed" and misting it with water for a youtube video.

what's a decent camera for birdwatching and family photos that's under 1000, lens included? Guy at store wanted to sell me on an R50 with 55mm and 220mm telephoto, but I'm thinking I could do with less, like an older model that's decent. Claimed tracking and autofocus was way improved on R series and so I wouldn't spend much more on it vs. older series for the improvements I would see. Obviously I'm a rank amateur so I don't know shit. What say you anons? Have only used canon but not tied to any brand, no legacy lenses or anything either.

>>4305744
>you're probably some buyers remorse panashill trying to invent reasons why "nikon sucks!".
the post said pentax though?

>>4305765
Bridge cameras are too phoney, and for birds, big sensors go over $1k fast for that superior quality. Micro four thirds was literally invented for cheap casuals.

Bought used, pick a 12-60 or 17 to stay under budget but you know you want both
Om-d e-m1 ii: $450
Lumix 12-60 f3.5-5.6: $200
olympus 17mm f1.8: $200
M.Zuiko 75-300: $300
Make sure you buy MICRO four thirds lenses, regular FT lenses need an adapter

Alltogether, as much as a good ff/apsc body. Noisier, but if you print 8x10 and under its not a big deal.

>>4305775
>M.Zuiko 75-300: $300
Tbh I'm not super happy with this lens.
For Olympus the 40-150mm/2.8 is a lot sharper and weather sealed, but costs about $400 more. There's a 50-200mm four thirds lens that goes for pretty cheap, and is quite sharp too, but an MMF-3 adapter (which is the only one that's weather sealed) makes it like $120 more. Unless you plan on getting more FT glass (I've been eyeing the 150mm/2 and 300mm/2.8 but they're expensive) it's probably worth just saving up for the 40-150/2.8. OM should release a 70-300 that's weather sealed and sharp, I'd pay good money for that.
Panasonic ironically has better wildlife lenses that Olympus, but worse bodies save for the G9ii. The 50-200, 100-300, and 200/2.8 are all great. Olympus only really competes with the 300/4 (I like 200mm more and you can add a TC too, on the 300 a TC makes it too slow and >300mm equivalent isn't worth) and the 150-400, the latter being too expensive to be worth considering.
If you don't care about WR you can use the Panasonic lenses on the E-M1.2 of course. I'd probably get the Panny 100-300 over the Oly 70-300 given the latter isn't WR anyway.

>>4305827
Are the Pana long lenses prone to the purple smearing like the shorter ones are on Olympus bodies? It's wack that there's like 3 or 4 Oly 40-150s (plus the Lumix 45-150/175) and then almost nothing between that and the 300mm range. And the few that do exist, Panasonic managed to make them so much smaller and with IS that the Oly versions are silly to even look into.

File: IMG_7747.jpg (1.99 MB, 2048x1638)

1.99 MB JPG

>>4305765
I would lean toward a last generation APS-C dslr from canon or nikon. The jump to mirrorless is great but I'd rather have an excellent dslr than a budget mirrorless, and lens selection will be much more affordable. Remember that the lens is far more important than the body. Here's what I would buy with no other gear and $1000 to spend:
>Canon 7D ii - $300
https://www.ebay.com/itm/186401075207
>Sigma 100-400 - $460
https://www.ebay.com/itm/355636516198
>Tamron 35 1.8 - $300
https://www.ebay.com/itm/296340152541
overall $1060. You could also get the canon ef 35 f/2. Anyway this would give you great reach for birding and an awesome walk-around lens for family stuff.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS R6
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 13.2 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/7.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2024:04:19 15:04:58
Exposure Time	1/500 sec
F-Number	f/8.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	800
Lens Aperture	f/8.0
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	500.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

Does anyone sell an affordable high IQ lab/pro quality camera?
I simply want a sensor and a lens mount, don't care for anything other than the basic ability to capture photons and produce a raw image file.

I'm thinking something along the lines of a raspberry pi cam, only bigger and better, so like $1K for a high megapixel "dumb" camera with no features or autofocus or JPEG engine just something I can attach a lens to, mount onto a rail, and install for a DIY scanner

>>4305931
ZWO? QHY?

>>4305943
Interesting, at first glance that definitely looks like what I'm after.
Haven't seen pricing yet, know of any others or are these already a niche?

File: IMG_1803.jpg (113 KB, 800x718)

113 KB JPG

I kind of want one of these because it’s on the cover of a bitchin’ jazz album. How big of a mistake would it be?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	800
Image Height	718
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>4305963
Depends, which album?

File: IMG_1804.jpg (104 KB, 500x500)

104 KB JPG

>>4305964
This one
https://youtu.be/2KqId9tvC3Y?si=4Stg8JPKegN-V5Zr

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	500
Image Height	500
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>4305963
NBOOB hhehehe

Can you still make money with crop m43/low megapixel photos? e.g. portrait/wedding/stock photos

>>4305969
I mean.. It takes pictures right?

On a semi-related note: I knew a guy once that would rent out a big telephoto and a large body camera (think 1DX style), slap a light on it and he would just lug it around with him when he had "difficult" clients who don't know shit about fuck about photography but they see a big camera and a big lens and go "Oh yeah, this guy is the best in the city I bet, we'll pay anything"

He'd then show up with two bullshit bodies with two different lenses (I think he was rocking a 35mm and an 85mm, and he might've swapped out every now and then with a zoom lens, I dunno). He made a lot of money playing to people's stupidity.

>>4305975
i get that retards wouldn't know the difference, but if i was a customer paying for professional photos, i would want them to be as high quality as possible
im just wondering, would it be viable to actually try and charge people for photos with a 16MP m43 camera or will it be too uncompetitive

>>4305978
>mega pickles

So the argument can be made that way back in the day when cameras were cutting edge with 4-6 megapixels, and pooping out high quality, print ready images; so in that vein, YES, you could charge somebody for images you take with your camera.

Another argument can be made that, typically, weddings are incredibly emotional and important life events, and should be documented accordingly (within reason, obviously).

If you think your camera produces good images, maybe get in as a second shooter for a local photographer until you can save up money and buy a better quality camera. This way, you won't be the sole source of images, and you may be able to work with better gear, and figure out what upgrade path to go with.

Mind posting some photos you've taken with your camera?

File: P1520879-Enhanced-NR.jpg (1.28 MB, 4592x3448)

1.28 MB JPG

>>4305985
right now i only really do wildlife photography with it
i was mainly considering getting into portraits, would be charging super cheap

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Panasonic
Camera Model	DMC-G81
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 13.2 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/6.3
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	800 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2024:03:17 13:02:47
Exposure Time	1/125 sec
F-Number	f/6.3
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	3200
Lens Aperture	f/6.3
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	400.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	High Gain Up
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

File: P1520502.jpg (1.08 MB, 4592x3448)

1.08 MB JPG

>>4305998

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Panasonic
Camera Model	DMC-G81
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 13.2 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/6.3
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	800 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2024:03:12 21:48:56
Exposure Time	1/640 sec
F-Number	f/7.1
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	400
Lens Aperture	f/7.1
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	400.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	High Gain Up
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

>>4305998
>>4305999
pump up those shadows brother

>>4305998
>>4305999
The image quality is, in my opinion, just fine for portraits, especially if you go the second shooter route to begin.

>>4306000
Like this anon said, though, get these bad boys through a RAW editing program and I think you're on your way for sure.

>>4306000
>>4306001
they are both already edited in lightroom :/
they were in dark environments and underexposed

just happened to be the photos i had on hand under 5MB
i don't normally edit photos unless the jpg exposure is fucked so all my files are too big

>>4305963
Theyre neat but a large amount of them are suffering from dying motors and stiff grease.
Make sure it works on somewhat used batteries before you buy it.

my current camera (canon poweshot sx540) has to go to its highest ISOs in order to take action pictures in anything that isn't a brightly lit environment (outdoor shots with sunlight). If I want to take low light shots, then is that a sign of warranting a better camera, or is it just a need for better lighting, like a photo lamp or something? I know my camera is nothing special beyond the big zoom lens.

>>4306004
lift them even more. Despite what purists here will tell you it doesn't hurt to use a little denoise if it means saving a photo

>>4305887
this seems more in my budget. Looking locally I see a lot of Rebel series cameras as well as a EOS 70D for not much more than a d7 mark ii. Are they comparable models/does rebel T series have a comparable model to look at? Or would the 7D m2 be the better body?

>>4306049
the 7d ii is a pro/enthusiast level body, the rebel line is entry level. It's much better than the 70d also.
compared to the rebel t7 for instance, it has 7 times the number of focus points, weather sealing, better controls, 10fps burst, better battery life etc.
The reason I'd stick to apsc and not full frame is because you mentioned birding

>>4305966
>American Gramaphone
>Checkfield
hnnng the nostalgia

>>4306047
The bigger revelation that yours is that noise doesn’t inherently ruin a photo.

>>4306075
also true. but like I said, sometimes its too much, and is easily fixed with denoise set to 10-15.

>>4305966
Can you imagine such an album without the joy of reflex? "Through the lens" and a fucking mirrorless or rangefinder, it simply doesn't work.

>>4306055
thanks for the input. You figure this is a good bundle, or should I just focus on finding a cheap body and adding lenses as I go? Tax and shipping for prior recs puts me over 1200 USD and I'm not sure I want to spend that all at once.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/305508473018

>>4306109
That's a shit selection of lenses

File: 61HZ7rEJI5L[1].jpg (118 KB, 1750x1400)

118 KB JPG

>>4306049
Have in mind that if you go with canon the adapter from the DSLR EF mount to the R series RF mount is 100ish bucks.

EF lenses can be used on a full frame sensor, EF-S sensors can be used too, but it will go into crop mode since they were designed for an APS-C sensor

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

>>4306109
the only one of those lenses I'd come close to recommending is the nifty fifty, and they can be had for like 70 bucks. So no. I'd get that specific 100-400 and a 35 prime like I mentioned before.

>>4306122
he doesn't really have 100 bucks to spare, on top of the increased cost of a mirrorless body.

>>4306079
>>4306047
i already used AI denoise set to 50 lol
50 is too much i take it?

i was quite impressed with it but it does feel "fake"

>>4306147
see >>4304991
also you do realize you can export photos in a different size and make them smaller

>>4306147
yeah it looks like a painting when you crank it up. But my point is that you shouldn't be afraid to get the exposure exactly how you want it to look, you can always AI paint over noise if necessary. In that case there was definitely no reason to leave it under exposed since you were going to turn it into oil on canvas anyways, lol

>>4306169
>do realize you can export photos in a different size and make them smaller
yes, it's a matter of laziness, cbf exporting a photo just for 4chan

ill look into tone equalizer, ive switched to just editing in photoshop now cause adobe keeps patching the lightroom cracks

>>4306170
ill keep it below 15 going forward

>camera roll showed blank again
first time, I can take as maybe I loaded it wrong but two in a row. My camera is fucked isn't it?

>>4306220
try another sd card
>>4306184
Ps+Lr is only a few dollars per month

>>4306223
>paying for software
ISHYGDDT

>>4306132
My point was that in the future he can easily change platform and keep his old lenses

>>4306223
>Ps+Lr is only a few dollars per month
isn't that only for the first year and then you pay like $40 a month?
unless I read something wrong

>>4306232
you can also call them and tell them you're poor and they'll give you a year for free

>they don't darktable

>>4303617
>>4303619
>>4303621
All pretty good answers. But I really love was the Contax S2 and S2b

>>4306223
>sd card
It's film.

>>4306241
>compile your own color science and lens corrections from source
good thing that rather than use the time away from my job for that banal shit i can use the time at my job to buy software that’s actually a finished product.
>FOSS = Fools Oblivious to Software Shittiness

>>4306252
>not using the colors and corrections other freetards already made

>>4306259
Freetards are all visually illiterate and creatively bankrupt idiots so all their settings suck (and they’re all poor so no corrections for anything recent)

Just look up “gimp splash screen controversy” for an example of the “artists” involved with fosstardation

File: HR_AIM-1.jpg (952 KB, 3829x2507)

952 KB JPG

Would this be the place to ask for a camera recommendation?

Me: Enjoying photography. Uses Pixel 7 pro. The AI-processing-whatever does a nice job, but I want more control and I dislike the limited resolution of my pics. I want to be able to take really high detail photos of still objects from ~1in to ~16in in size, basically product photography for old retro devices.

Is there a camera for around $500 that is "worth" it for my use case? I worry that a camera at that price point will give me the increased control, but won't give me higher res, more detailed pics.

Thank you for any light you can shed. Attached is a reference photo showing current results. I just wish I was able to have higher res images so I can zoom in more and see the texture of things. I also find that focus-stacking on a cell phone is... challenging.

>>4306263
>$500
not really unless you want to buy trash. and you need more than just a camera, you're going to want a tripod or strobe as well.

>1in
you're looking for a macro lens for something this small.

old Nikon 105mm f/2.8G macros go for over $500 on ebay for the lens alone. anything cheaper that you're going to find is going to be completely obsolete like a D800 and a Nikon 105mm f/2.8D. it'll work and give you more control and resolution, but the equipment is completely obsolete

https://www.ebay.com/itm/335357056626
https://www.ebay.com/itm/204739875506

>>4306263
Buy any nikon aps-c dslr with at least 24mp, an af nikkor 60mm f2.8 (af-s or d, doesnt matter whichever is cheapest for a good copy as long as the dslr supports an af D lens), and a godox tt350n. Done! Should be doable for $500 +/- $100. Will outdo phones for the forseeable future. APS-C DSLRs still take more real, 3d photos with better colors and truer detail than the newest near-$2000 AI enhanced bullshit phones.

>>4306272
>take more real, 3d photos with better colors and truer detail
retarded baby boomer please go with your retarded fake metrics like 3d pop and microcontrast

>nikon aps-c dslr
lower resolution than a D800

>>4306271
Gotcha, thanks for the listings
I should've said that I have a decent tripod, and some cheap studio lights, but strobes are definitely something I need to invest in.
A macro lens is something I will also definitely need, and I appreciate the listings as I am still learning about what kind of lenses fit/work with what kind of camera as far as mounting types

>>4306272
Ok, I will look into those specific products too, thanks!

>>4306271
A d800 is not obsolete. The IQ is nearly identical to a z6ii. Slightly more pixels, worse shadow recovery.

The nikon F mount 105 macros are not obsolete either, only the older versions dont autofocus on the new $1000+ mirrorless cameras. The photos are still sharp enough as long as people consider the 24-120 and 24-70 kit zooms sharp enough.

>>4306273
You hate it because its the truth. 3d pop is about gradation, color and contrast. Superior sensor formats with honest lenses have more of it. Computational photography destroys what little a small sensor and shit lens ever had.

File: file.png (1.38 MB, 1160x1207)

1.38 MB PNG

>>4306272
This is the way.
https://www.ebay.com/itm/166724319129
https://www.ebay.com/itm/145525539369
Very close to the $500 pirce point, 3 lens do it all (if there's light) kit. Throw on a dx 35mm f1.8 g for snapshitting later. Buy a small flash (you dont need strobes unless you're a "i paid for ISO 50 and f/16" kind of person) when you get tired of using continuous lights.

No AF-D support, not a big deal. Maybe not a great camcorder, not a big deal. It's a fairly modern very cheap 24mp large-ish sensor camera that comes with 2 lenses for nuttin and leaves room in the budget to buy 2, maybe 3 more.

>>4306275
>A d800 is not obsolete
nigger its a 12 year old camera, its obsolete. even a d850 is obsolete. stay mad that all you can afford is trash.

>The IQ is nearly identical to a z6ii
the absolute fucking cope, and you should be comparing it to a Z8

>>4306286
>You should be comparing a DSLR that actually has a shutter to a mirrorless shutterless meme sports camera that suffers more noise to pay for it (tbf the canon r3 has to bake NR in at every ISO probably because fast sensor = noisy sensor)
Maybe compare it to the zf
Well, it's a better camera than the zf because it's a DSLR instead of fujilarp

>>4306287
nigger they're both 8 series cameras. one is current, the other was discontinued a decade ago. anyways stay mad that you're stuck using some baby boomer's trash

>>4306288
>its old so it's bad
Not even him, I have a Z7II retard

D800 is fine. It doesn't take the newest super sharp, fast silent focusing lenses or lock on to bird assholes in auto-everything AF mode but once you set up AF fine tuning most people won't be able to tell you used an older camera unless you try and shoot video with it.

>>4306291
>>its old so it's bad
we're talking about if it is obsolete or not you retard

>once you set up AF fine tuning
yes, lets just spend entire days of our lives running focal to do this

>>4306294
Obsolete devices have next to no use, they are just worse at everything, not 99.9% as good as long as you don't expect to film talking head vlogs with it held at arms length in auto-everything AF mode.

>entire days of our lives
Actually you take 2 photos at a tilted ruler and eyeball it

>>4306295
>Actually you take 2 photos at a tilted ruler and eyeball it
so what you're saying is that you've made your focus even more off because you didnt understand how to do af fine tuning.

The typewriter was rendered obsolete by a computer with a printer attached

The DSLR is not obsolete because things only mirrorless can do are frivolous or not important to most photographers. It's obsolete for some things, but still meets the needs of the vast majority of photography while offering relevant things MILCs can't, like longer battery life, theoretically longer service life, and a high dynamic range viewfinder that doesn't lag in the dark (and no AF lag in the dark either).

>>4306297
the absolute cope of d800fags

>>4306296
AF fine tuning is for old lenses that are beat to shit and off by now or were always off. These can be eyeballed and improved for the average amount of focus shift. If a new lens needs the fine tune feature, the lens or the camera has been damaged.

>>4306299
>is for old lenses
lol no, go through focal's blogs some time. also you clearly dont understand how AF works on a DSLR if you think it is purely lens dependent.

>>4306300
Explain why most people never use it and their photos are in focus

>>4306298
DSLRs are enough for photography

Every complaint is a skill issue. Mirrorless is a luxury item for “lifestyle” snapshitting.

>>4306301
Because they arent shooting 135 f/1.8s wide open at close distances you tard

>>4306302
more poor cope

>>4306303
>rich cunts with medium format are still shooting SLRs and this babby nocamera gearfag is afraid of a little nikon DSLR
kek

File: 2024-04-21 12_49_12-Window.png (338 KB, 2071x1157)

338 KB PNG

>>4306304
>>rich cunts with medium format are still shooting SLRs and this babby nocamera gearfag is afraid of a little nikon DSLR
that projection from a retard who doesnt know anything about medium format. they are actually laughably slow with deep depths of field compared to 35mm lenses. take mamiya's 80mm f/1.9 and hasselblad's 110mm f/2 compared to a 135mm f/1.8 on any 35mm system, pic related. anyways stay butthurt you dont understand what you're talking about at all

>>4306313
>nophoto busts out the simulated cameras
How can you think DSLRs are unusable if you’re not a photographer?

Protip - more than one person is laughing at you for this

preordered the sigma 50mm 1.2 for Leica L-Mount™
can't wait to take some pics

>>4306319
stay btfo anon that you dont understand how depth of field works and were retarded enough to think medium format lenses were fast enough to compete with 35mm

>>4306324
No photo?

>>4306313
>nooo i cant focus on a dslr its impossible
Photo?

File: DSC_6068.jpg (1.06 MB, 7724x5149)

1.06 MB JPG

>>4306326
pic related anon, you have as much aids as this faggot for not knowing what a 135 f/1.8 can do. and dont forget to look at the exif too, cause it shows i actually own one, unlike you not owning these medium formats you speak of as you clearly dont understand how slow their lenses are, and why the world moved on from them

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON Z 7
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 12.5.1 (Windows)
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	864
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	135 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2024:04:21 13:40:27
Exposure Time	1/160 sec
F-Number	f/1.8
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	4000
Lens Aperture	f/1.8
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	135.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Custom
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	High Gain Up
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

File: DSC_6464.jpg (446 KB, 3669x5504)

446 KB JPG

>>4306326
>>4306334
and here is a fat fucking spic with a shit covered mask wondering why some gringo in the house next to him is taking his picture as he is forced to act as a day laborer for his illegal dad's sewer clearing business, and again a 135mm f/1.8 was used

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON Z 7
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 12.5.1 (Windows)
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	864
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	135 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2024:04:21 13:46:51
Exposure Time	1/200 sec
F-Number	f/1.8
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	64
Lens Aperture	f/1.8
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	135.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Custom
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	None
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>4306334
>sharpening worms
>>4306335
>jpeg compression blocks
I can't tell if you actually hit focus but can you show us some photos from a DSLR that demonstrate it is impossible to use one?

File: DSC_6872.jpg (1.15 MB, 3669x5504)

1.15 MB JPG

>>4306336
and the ashamed alcoholic fears the street photographer armed with a 135mm f/1.8. now lets see your medium format photos, oh thats right, you dont have one

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON Z 7
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 12.5.1 (Windows)
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	864
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	135 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2024:04:21 13:50:52
Exposure Time	1/160 sec
F-Number	f/1.8
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	6400
Lens Aperture	f/1.8
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	135.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Custom
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	High Gain Up
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

File: SNAP3381.jpg (2.24 MB, 3000x2002)

2.24 MB JPG

>>4306338
I didn't make the medium format comment I just wanted to see proof that it was impossible to focus on a DSLR and got a bunch of iso 9001 sharpening worms instead

DSLRs confirmed ok.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	RICOH IMAGING COMPANY, LTD.
Camera Model	PENTAX K-1
Camera Software	Capture One Windows
Photographer	Joe Mammah
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	200 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	3000
Image Height	2002
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Exposure Time	1/20 sec
F-Number	f/3.5
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	3200
Lens Aperture	f/3.5
Exposure Bias	-1/2 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	200.00 mm
Image Width	4200
Image Height	2803
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Close View

>>4306342
>Camera Model PENTAX K-1
butthurt poorfag confirmed. have fun fucking your dog i guess

File: Z72_2049.jpg (2.1 MB, 4500x3000)

2.1 MB JPG

>>4306346
That is no way to respond to the cuteness of my pupper, dated mirrorless bro.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON Z 7_2
Camera Software	Capture One Windows
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	120 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	4500
Image Height	3000
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Exposure Time	1/10 sec
F-Number	f/5.6
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	6400
Lens Aperture	f/5.6
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	120.00 mm
Image Width	4500
Image Height	3000
Rendering	Custom
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	High Gain Up
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>4306346
>he cant afford a pentax k-1 and overpriced hd d fa star aw lenses

>>4306352
>Cheapest pentax k-1 on ebay: $863 and a sharp jump up into the $1ks
>Cheapest nikon z7 on ebay: $1045
But don't buy it. It's an awful camera. The autofocus was actually worse than a d200's. Regular Nikon/Canon DSLRs are perfectly usable tho.

>>4306349
either you're using it as a surrogate for children or a woman, possibly both.

>>4306380
>another furfag projecting their bestiality fetish
Has anyone else noticed this plaguing 4chan in recent years? The weird animal rape obsession?
Not repeating the lolocaust with /mlp/ and /trash/ was a mistake

File: Z72_2995.jpg (2.21 MB, 3000x2400)

2.21 MB JPG

>>4306380
>it
*Her.
>weird fetish posting
Yep, as expected of someone that can't use a DSLR but can use the trash AF of the OG Z7.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON Z 7_2
Camera Software	Capture One Windows
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	120 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	3000
Image Height	2400
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Exposure Time	1/500 sec
F-Number	f/8.0
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	400
Lens Aperture	f/8.0
Exposure Bias	-1 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	120.00 mm
Image Width	4500
Image Height	3600
Rendering	Custom
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	None
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

File: panama-papers-putin.jpg (84 KB, 1280x720)

84 KB JPG

>>4306382
It's a street "photographer" that hates reflex, what did you really expect? If they were more sensible, they would appreciate the Joy of Reflex™ and Real Art™ with Creative Intent™

>>4306383
Put the Z7 down and pick your D200 back up. I've been thinking about picking one up and want more sample photos. Also they look better, Z lenses look so sad and dry to me.

>>4306387
This but unironically

This board is so fucking shit, man.

>>4306390
I like the Z look.

But yeah the d200 should be going on a trip soon, it's a good camera (for 2005)

>>4306383
>>it
>*Her.
so you do fuck it

>the trash AF of the OG Z7.
you do realize that the only difference between a Z7 and Z7ii is slightly better eye AF from the second CPU, 60 vs 30 fps video recording, being able to take a proper battery grip, and a slightly higher burst rate? It has the exact same Sony IMX309BQJ sensor. There is no compelling reason to upgrade.

>can't use a DSLR
i had a D7500 before the Z7 and am all too familiar with the issues with fast primes being shot wide open close up, and trying to correct it with AF fine tuning

>>4306387
Imagine the reach required to take this picture without running into equivalence

>>4306408
>You: bestiality obsessed street photographer that can't into DSLRs and memorizes sensor models to cope about his cheap mirrorless
>me: having fun with a Z7II, an OM-2, and a D200 with a cute dog as a readily available subject
Not even gracing your shitty reddit spaced post with a photo, gearcreep.

Anyone have experience with the Sony 100mm STF, how do you like it? I currently have a 55mm f/1.8 as my main prime and I'll often have it at f/2.8 for the extra sharpness and greater depth of field but of course I'm also wanting to chase that bokeh, considering stuff like an 85mm f/1.4 or 135mm f/1.8 (the latter giving me approximately the same depth of field as my 55mm, but more background magnification). The 100mm however would give me the depth of field of an f/4 and is so sharp wide open there's little reason to stop down, I'm just undecided whether STF effect is adequate in enough situations.

Also the light transmission of t/5.6 kinda sucks. I know it has IS and combine that with IBIS, I'm not that fussy about shooting at higher ISOs, and in reality it probably won't bother me most of the time. I guess I'm just trying to get over spending so much on a "slow" lens.

>>4306405
I didn’t read the thread but I’m just going to assume you’re a buttblasted fujislug/mfourturder/snoyboy that’s been BTFO yet again.

>>4306425
The minolta stf 135mm f2.8 t4.5 has more SOVL and works natively with the la-ea5 and late model snoy alpha playstation controllers

>>4306408
>street photographer assumes bestiality because someone cares for their dog
Are they all jewish after all?

>>4306432
I did see some of those, the longer focal length could be nice and the greater light transmission is of course good. However it's not significantly cheaper especially when factoring in shipping and import fees from Japan and it's manual focus only.

I was wondering what you were getting at with the LA-EA5 and recent body comment as I assumed it was completely mechanical but it turns out it has an electronically controlled aperture as well as the one controlled by the ring. I have an A7R III and LA-EA3 and 4, I would assume it would still work.

>>4306425
stf lenses are neat but if you want creamy bokeh just get a fast 135mm and call it a day
if you want to save some money get the Samyang 135mm F2, it's like $300 used and absolute gem of a lens

>>4306523
That is one I've been considering, but the AF version so about double the price (it's about $250 more for the STF). The thing is while the 135mm would get me about 3 stops more light (both would have IBIS, I don't think the addition of IS on the STF would quite make up the rest and of course it only works on stationary stuff), maybe be close in sharpness when stopped down to f/5.6, and get me the same depth of field when stopped down, whenever it's not wide open those backgrounds are going to be busier looking than the STF.

The other thing that I've come to realise after sleeping on it is that with the greater depth of field and gaussian blurred background of the STF it may just end up looking like a photo taken with a modern phone with their fake bokeh.

>>4306419
>reddit spaced
you dont even know what this word means dog fucker.

>>4306437
anon, obsessively taking photos of your dog as if it were a substitute for a child or lover isnt taking care of it

anyways stay btfo nophotos

>>4306547
>”or lover”
>street “photographer” that cant use a dslr actually thinks this sort of shit when they see pictures of a dog
Cinefag was right again

Whats next rabbi, black dicks

>>4306552
>own a black cock
>spend all day taking photos of a black cock
>post those photos on the chins
>get upset when people point out you're a cuckold

File: SNAP3045.jpg (2.65 MB, 3000x2401)

2.65 MB JPG

>Reddit spacing gearfag street snapper who memorizes sensor numbers to gear cope makes hilarious claim that SLRs can't focus, posts blurry sharpening worms, gets BTFO
>starts rambling about fucking dogs and taking photos of penises
>meanwhile people who know street photography is fundamentally incompatible with the definition of art: shoots 200mm f2.8 at near-mfd for fun
We know where his mind really lies. No wonder he couldn't figure out how to operate the standard camera system that dominated from 1936 to 2018.

SLRs confirmed based

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	RICOH IMAGING COMPANY, LTD.
Camera Model	PENTAX K-1
Camera Software	Capture One Windows
Photographer	Joe Mammah
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	200 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	3000
Image Height	2401
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Exposure Time	1/180 sec
F-Number	f/3.5
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	6400
Lens Aperture	f/3.5
Exposure Bias	-1/2 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	200.00 mm
Image Width	4200
Image Height	2803
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Hard
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Hard
Subject Distance Range	Close View