>>4308719
You're new to photography and thinking what every amateur at the peak of mount stupid thinks

This is where you either realize you're retarded or descend into cargo cult nonsense and buy a leica

>>4308720
What is your setup?
This is mine
>fx30
>7 artizan 4mm f2.8
>sony 11m f1.8
>sigma 16mm f1.4
>sigma 30mm f1.4

What should I add to further explore photography?

>>4308723
Sometimes I don't even want to clean my lens because I think... hey... the grime give it a unique look? and it does

>>4308723
This is mine
>Leica M11 monochrom
>Voigtlander 35mm f2 apo
>Chance the stallion flared XL
I think you should check out these links
https://thecinelens.com/2018/07/21/noct-your-average-58mm-prime/
https://www.reddit.com/r/cinematography/comments/133rgid/advice_i_bought_a_vintage_nikkor_lens_kit/

>>4308719
/qa/ lost

>>4308725
thank you
very niche things
I don't even know if they have any resale value
they're going to stay on ebay for a long time before selling
I'd like gears that I can liquidate FAST

>>4308725
oh wait are you just a troll that have no gear but likes to critique?

>>4308725
>Chance the stallion flared XL
What hardness?

>>4308719
You can't just say the lenses don't matter before listing out why the lenses matter.

>>4308723
>What should I add to further explore photography?
This is where people pivot from photography to gear-enthusiasm. Instead ask yourself what look you want, then look for the gear.

>>4308719
This is not a novel realization. If you want a more "organic" look your best bet is vintage glass + filters. This has been known for decades at this point and is primarily the reason entire lens catalogues (cough Canon FD) are bonkers money for good lenses.

For your FX30, get some shitty Soviet threadmount lenses of various lengths and just go have fun. Maybe try to get something tighter instead of wider as you do.

>>4308737
Also listen to this guy. You obviously want a specific look but you have lenses that verge on clinical than otherwise. You already know what you want, just get it and stop thinking so much.

>>4308719

This board will go to the ends of the earth to not admit this but it’s true.
Film looks better than digital and older lenses look nicer than newer ones.

Go buy a 70s film camera and compare the photos to your modern digital camera. Just looking at the photo normal size.

There was a time the world was moving from painting to photos and beauty was prized and design focused on beauty. See cameras, cars, architecture for endless examples of how nice things use to look and how it all got replaced with mass consumer cheap ugly shit.

The good news is 70s film cameras are cheap, the bad news is you will have the odd camera breakdown.

Some photography requires sharpness and some doesn't.

I still shoot a lot of film where the contrasting nature of some of the newer lenses just doesn't play well with cheaper film stocks. There vintage is King.

But I also do a lot of night photography out in the moon light mountains sand there anything that's not a Sony g master turns to mush. For example I don't have a very sharp wide angle and always have to sharpen the one I've got in post.

I've also needed sharp lenses the few time I did product work and for digitizing my film.

Seeing the difference between lenses and art until itself. Even lenses from the '60s are sharp enough in the center so slap them onto an aps-c camera and not worry about it too much. It's on edge cases where you begin to see the difference.

>>4308787
Lmfao look at this retard
>AND IT HAD TO BE A SILVER BOX OR YOUR PHOTOS LOOK BAD!
Film cultists are the gearfag twat everyone assumes FF digital with sharp lenses peeps are, but they really arent and most of them use shittier cameras

>>4308791

Silver box?
Some good Kodak film through a 1970s film camera is the peak of image making.

You sound like the type of person who eats frozen ketchup popsicles while wearing white gloves.

>>4308790
thank you for the insights
is the digital sharpened image noticeable in a double blind test against the ultra sharp g master?

>>4309849
Kind of if you use the inbuilt sharpening in Lightroom, it's getting much better though. Some of the newer programs really do give amazing results .

I will say the same thing for blur. It doesn't do much if the background is sharp to begin with but turning a f2.8 portrait into an f1.4 is doable.

What it can't really do is make up for a blurry image because you didn't bring a tripod with you. With some of the new gmasters that you can practically shoot in the dark.

>>4308737
>Instead ask yourself what look you want, then look for the gear.
>>4310430

thank you

>the lenses don't really matter
>crap lens look good because they're crap >therefore unusual and intresting
>ultra sharp lenses look too real so are not intresting
>it's the artifacts that makes it cinematic
>the film cameras have layers upon layers of mat box filters and lens "scent" glasses to achieve an airy cinematic look

I'm short-sighted, I love sharp lenses because they provide me a different wiev of reality.

i feel like lenses matter more than almost anything else for the actual "look" of an image
i only like shooting certain focal lengths, and i just have a bunch of "redundant" lenses so i can pick and choose the aesthetic I want
shoot enough that you can identify what lens and aperture you took a shot with, just by looking at it

>>4314719
>shoot enough that you can identify what lens and aperture you took a shot with, just by looking at it
Post an example.

>>4314745
An example that different lenses can render scenes differently? An example that the same lens will have different characteristics at different apertures?
Or are you just calling me out on being a nophoto?

>>4314860
I'm legitimately interested in seeing comparison images from the lenses you have in the same focal length.