Give it straight to me, /p/. Are Leica M cameras a meme? Or are they worth it?Mainly for portraits, and rock and leaves.
>>4495880>>4495647Based.>>4495849Cringe.>>4495925>and looks goodIs it the purpose of a camera? No. Irrelevant. Only a superficial hipster larpers would pull this crap.>It's bad for sure but it looks good!Are you a w*man? Reminds me of legging jeans with false pockets.
>>4481813It's another one of those things where if you have to ask if it's worth it, you shouldn't buy itLeicas are for people who have $5000 to spend on a camera. Nobody else.Either you piss money and $5k is a drop in the bucket or you are already willing to spend used car cash and want the absolute best even if the return on investment is nearly null. In which case you don't need convincing.
>>4481813i dont love my m6 but i want to be able to use my 28mm ultron f/2. if i knew what i know now i would have never upgraded to it from a canon p + skopar 35mm f/2.5 which is pretty much the most perfect system i have used. i also have used a bessa r2 or leica cl those were both basically perfect too. people (including me) micro-optimize way too much
>>4481813You're just paying for a name and some presets. They use Sony sensors and you can just load up Leica profiles for your RAW files to look exactly the same as if you had a Leica.
>>4503283Love the 28 f2 Ultron, had first version with my M4-P and now II with my M10
Insta and whatever else thread for wherever anons post their photos.https://www.instagram.com/mondatta.photography/Do any of you tend to go for certain themes and styles? Or just try anything?
>>4501086You followed me so I followed back anyway lol>>4501137Already following too my man, you post some good stuff
>3 of you unfollowed me a week after i followed backFuck you guys.
>>4502210suck my dick
>>4502210its truly over for these threads if this is what anons are doing to each other nowis there an alternative yet?
I saw online the 0.03 megapixel camera and was kinda curious so i snapped a few pics and modified them in gimp to reach a similar effect, including the resolution.I honestly having quite a bit of fun with these and i'm enjoying the results quite much
>>4501868it's definitely better with patterned dithering, almost resembles film grain
>>4501784
>>4503211
>>45017681.4MP might be the output size, but you'll rarely see a thermal sensor with more than 640*512.They're hard to make and fall under ITAR restrictions.
Here is a hard truth I have learnt about photography from years of taking photos.If you want to get good at photography on a digital camera it will take about 5-10 years.If you want to get good at photography on a film camera it will take about 1 year.Its insane how much faster you learn when your mistakes come with a much higher cost. Their is no slider to save a bad exposure, their is almost no cropping room to save a badly framed shot. Also you only have 36 shots that you wont even see how they look until a week after you took them.Every mistake you made on that roll will hit hard and you will see it clear as day when you get back your lone 36 photos for the week and have to sit their and wonder why you made every mistake you did.If you learn only one thing from the entire time you have been on this board its buy a film camera. Even if you only used it for a year and threw every photo you took into the dumpster, you would still become a vastly better photographer for it making it worth it.
Film photography has pushed me back to the job hunt. And I am grateful it be like that.
>>4503185Mostly at 400-800 so I can F8 and be there>>4503206Agreed, it's the only film Ive shoot for the last few years. I was gifted the roll of 400nc (was my favorite c41 film long ago) so I'm having some fun shooting color for once.
>>4502745Nigga cut the pretentious shit. From reading an old kodak handbook you get good at photography in a single week.Photography is not a big deal. There are simple rules and people are satisfied with the minimum. Photography branches out quickly into purpose-based specialty so you don't even need to keep track of progress in so called "photography", you just do what you want with it. Being in a specialty however, you're gonna have to think on how to get a message through and compete to keep your identity fresh. That has more to do with being competitive in your job than saying you're "good at photography"
>>4502753>>4502838Vista is out of production since 2012.Agfa still makes APX (bw) and AgfaPhoto Color (C41), both of which are nice day-to-day films, but nothing special.
>>4502745>harsh troofThe cry of the sub 80 IQ moron. OP thinks he's gatekeeping some incredible barrier and we're all going to look on in awe, hoping to one day achieve what he has. But back in reality, since OP is factually and provably some retarded angloid bog-dweller, his 'harsh twoof' is total hogwash and he has achieved nothing. The rest of us can read, so it was not hard to learn photography on digital. In fact with digital you can learn faster, because you don't have to wait for development and scans to assess your mistakes. You just have to be bothered to look for them. By the way, most people here have never destroyed a roll due to their own fault. White bitches on instagram shoot film. It's not an achievement.
> NATIVE 35mm f1.7 main lens with 1 inch sensor> Dedicated two-step shutter button> Co-developed with Zeiss using Zeiss lens coatings. > Global releaseAnyone else going to buy this beast? This phone will replace an X100V.
>>4501565https://www.captureone.com/blog/fuji-x-trans-sensor-excels-in-capture-one-7>Although X-Trans color filter sensors promise moiré-free images, the reality is something else.>When using a sensor with a color filter array, moiré will occur when patterns in the image interfere with the pixel resolution. This is also the case when using an X-Trans sensor.>This is also the case when using an X-Trans sensor.Pic provided by capture one themselves.
>>4501872>Maybe they could start a new mount that fits m43 lenses with an adaptorFor the 4/3 sensor to be viable in future consumer cameras I think they absolutely need to do that.Currently the flange distance is around the same as the newer full frame mirrorless mounts at 19.25 mm.BUT the MFT crop factor is 2x.So if I am understanding correctly, a full frame mirrorless can do, say a 24 mm focal length as a simple standard lensMeanwhile MFT needs to have a more complex retrofocus design since 12 mm focal length is somewhere between the rear element and sensor.https://exclusivearchitecture.com/03-technical-articles-CLT-09-focal-length.html
200MP is kind of a gimmick, no? I had an S23U with the new big number camera and it was always a bit underwhelming, even in RAW.
Hi, we dont know but thank you for letting us know!
>>4501893Based example poster
It is time.
Damn, you guys tried No Fusion app on iOS? It removes all the sharpening shittiness with iPhone photos and actually makes it look like a real camera. These were both taken with the 15 Pro.
>>4503249Reading up on it, it takes a RAW photo and converts it in the app to a HEIF to avoid the normal iPhone camera processing.
>>4502531>Samsung originally had 108MP sensors that would bin down to 27MP and details held up pretty wellFucking no. Not at all. You don't understand this shit anon.48MP = 12MP108MP = 12MPYou can't "bin" 108MP to 27MP. These 108MP sensors are simply extra photosites behind a much lower res filter. The filter determines the resolution.A 24MP full frame bayer camera only has 6000 red, 12000 green, and 6000 blue samples. A 24MP sensor can't capture signal with 24MP detail. In theory you can maybe hope for 1/4 of the advertised resolution. (nyquist, on both axis) but in reality 4x res isn't enough in all cases. This is where aliasing and moire come from.Smartphones with meme sensors are their 100% full resolution but are fundamentally gimped because their color filter is at a much lower resolution. Instead of red green and blue photosites, you have CHUNKS of red green and blue at either 4x (48MP) or 9x (108MP) resulting in an effectively binned equivalent to 12MP bayer. This 12MP bayer is already far from an ideal. These phones are binning to accomplish what is unacceptable resolution that is miles behind what film was capable of.Honest 16MP phone cameras are alright, limited by their lens with vignetting and corner sharpness loss but are genuinely okay hardware.Anything 48MP or 108MP is a red flag reliant on binning bullshit to deliver AI sloppified falsifified fake photos. If the hardware and firmware is configured to actually properly bin the 3x3 chunks into binned 1x1 binned bayer, then that's probably a good 12MP phone sensor but they all try to falsify data and deliver garbage at inflated resolutions that are 100% not possible or backed by anything but slop filtering.Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>4503249Right looks more like a real photo but isn't good. Left is an eyesore.I don't buy apple products because Steve Jobs is a kike, but last I heard the Halide app offered real RAW without the post-processing and gave you raw sensor readout (with all the noise) and if your app does the same that's fine. If it is doing anything to "make it look like a real camera" however, then it is a scam. Just fuck off and give the RAW. If your app can't do that, it's trash. Apple wants to force post-processing with their fake pro-raw bullshit but some older iPhones could output real genuine noisy RAWs and those were fit for proper photography.
>>4503255>You can't "bin" 108MP to 27MP. You can if you're binning pixels 2x2, which was how the original 108MP sensors did it. Nowadays, yes, they all just bin down to 12MP.
It's over, lads. I've given up on my Instagram photography page. I watched it slowly die over the years, while other snapshitters gained tens of thousands of followers for posting reels of tHe PrOcEsS and talking about how they made the photo, only for the end result to be "in another post" so you had to check out their profiles, or they'd say "I will post the result if this reel gets X ammount of likes". Apparently people like that nowadays. I never really liked to talk about my art and photography. Always considered that a photo has to "speak" by itself. Either way, I saved some of my favorite shots, and I will dump them here. Bear in mind, they are screenshots of my posts, as I never bothered to back them up to any cloud, and recently my SSD went bonk. Was also too lazy to figure out how that data exportation feature worked on Insta. So I hope you can get over the low quality of the images.Cheers, hope you'll enjoy them. Feel free to criticize them if you want. My only intention is to share them with people who might appreciate them before they all get lost in time, like tears in the rain.
>>4502958Never blame external factors, always blame yourself. Your work receives no engagement because it is not engaging. It is beginner / student / I've had a camera for 8 months tier. It is important that you understand that. Doing shit for LIKES are you INSANE, pull your pussy out if that's what you want. Develop a vision first, then judge yourself on whether you executed that idea. The AI will scan your images wherever they are so just let it go, it's already too late, treat your work like a buddhist sand mandala and throw it in the fire because the goal is to keep creating. Keep it up!
>>4502993Is this some type of copy-pasted rage-bait you guys are doing around this board?>It is beginner / student / I've had a camera for 8 months tierHave you like... used your eyes?Develop a vision first, then judge yourself on whether you executed that idea.Have you like... used your eyes?>treat your work like a buddhist sand mandala and throw it in the fire because the goal is to keep creating. Keep it up!Alright, dude. If you say so, I guess.Goodnight.
>>4502984thanks anon, here's a swimming doggo for you
photos of my cat Rupert that i took on my phone which at least trace amounts of thoughtful composition, as per the board rules I like this shot because it really focuses on his face, which is cute
>>4476585Great photo
>>4480117Beautiful cat
>>4495597werner herzog would never
>>4491503very nice!
I saw a cat recently and thought of rupert
I have an iPhone 11. Is there any way to take good pictures of the moon and stars? I was thinking of buying one of those lenses that attach to your phone's camera. Are they any good, or are they useless?
>>4503170Heres how to turn off AI generated stars and get genuinely great (and real) photos of the sky with an iphone>open the app store>install ebay>search “star tracker for astrophotography”>search “sirui tripod”>search “nikon d610”>search “nikon 300mm f4”>search “samyang 14mm f2.8 nikon f”>buy some good shit>enjoy
>>4503172Unnecessarily rude, but thank you
Color Calibration EditionPlease post film photos, talk about film photography, film gear like cameras, film stocks, news, and tips/tricks in this thread.Also talk about darkroom practices, enlargers, photo paper, techniques like dodging/burning, tools, and equipment related to enlarging, developing, and printing.Thread Question: How much time do you spend post-processing (or printing) a single photo?Previous thread: >>4494610
>>4500362I would never buy such a camera, but that is terrible news about the price.
>>4500340Looks neat, I'm gay for point and shoot cameras. I like how you can charge the flash with a usb-c and autofocus. If I had disposable $550 I'd buy it.
NEW: >>4500379>>4500379>>4500379We're cooking lately boys!
for the price of this shit what film camera can you get that's comparable to the new lomo mc-aand won't break down in 3 months
>>4503181Get a canon elan 7/30V
New thread[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Pixel CompositionRGBImage OrientationTop, Left-HandColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width1000Image Height667
>>4502234Feasible, but innane. T-mount adapters are like $20; you're more likely to spend more in pbt than that and it'll be plastic instead of metal.The cheapish telescope part is fine. I used a $70 travel 400mm f/5.6 for a while until I bought my dob. Don't expect very sharp objects though.
>>4482028>>4483467>>4483468Beautiful
>>4502319I really liked the color gradient that was on the center. Color from white to yellowish and blue. Otherwise this one has more nebula.scope?
>>4482217If I took this image I would print it and hang it on my wall
why is this guy so obsessed with nikon zr? is it really that good?
>>4503064I've covered a few ZR press events, Nikon is putting a lot of money into marketing for this camera. I would not be surprised if he's getting paid.
>>4503064>Why is somebody whose entire existence is to shill for sponsor deals shilling this obviously unsponsored productIt's sponsored.
>>4503064Yes it is.
I'd get one of the screen could fold down too
>>4503064no
Are rangefinders just point-and-shoot snapshitters with slightly more adjustability? I'm entertaining the idea of a smaller film camera but looking at pics taken by them and what they offer they seem like a glorified p&s. Am I missing something here?
>>4502777>Art is what I say it is I bet you think you have a small ego too
I want it to fit in my coat pocket, I want it to take photos on the fly with as little prep as possible, I still want manual control, and I don't have a use or a desire for technically pristine photos. There's a use case for every major type of camera. OP needs to ask what photos he wants to take under which conditions and go from there.
i've been on rfs as my main manual focus cameras for around two years, and now i'm bad at focusing without an rf patch...>>4491816the main benefit of rangefinders for me is compactness. any given rf kit generally is smaller than its slr counterparts. this is one reason they are popular with street photographers. compact is nice when walking around with camera at hand for hours >>4499473what makes you say that? if i had a leica, i'd shoot it at a protest
I cant stop buying shitty ltm rangefinders. Ive spent enough for a great leika+lens combo in cheap soviet and japanese aluminum please help
>>4503156I have an M6 I bought after falling in love with my Canon P. It's better, it's without a doubt better, but it might not be as better by as much as you fear.
I found this at my parent's house. They aren't photographers but they are filthy hoarders.
>>4503120I don't even have a film camera … yet, but I bet there's one hidden in the house somewhere.
>>4503124Go find it and take some pics. Film photography is pretty cool and the prints can look pretty good.You could take artsy pictures of your parents hoard and then make prints to give them. It could be funny.
>>4503125That's a good idea.
>>4503127There are developing trays under the enlarger, and a printing easel under to cables. Does the enlarger have a lens and film holder? A safelight, timer, grain focuser, paper and chemistry are all you need aside from a light tight room to get started.
>>4503141I have no idea what you're saying, but I eventually will.
I have never created a piece of art that I like. I never came back to anything I did months later and thought to myself "hey, this is neat".I can't use my hands to create shit. I can draw geometric shapes. I have nice handwriting. I can play open chords and bar chords on guitar. But that's where my physical skill set ends.I picked up a camera because my hands are no good. Only to realize that it's probably not my hands, it's my brain. I have little to no visual imagination. I can memorize rules that make photos look more pleasing, but I can not get beyond that in terms of intent with my photos.Over the last ten years, I resigned to the realization that I can't create anything because I have nothing to say. I have no personality. I have no opinions. I have no stories. Just things I point my camera at.
>>4499036great photo. it's hard to make something actually cool out of textures.
>>4495973I know that feeling bro, I just kept running with it because I couldn't figure out anything else either. Comes to 13 years of producing the most banal boomercore rock and leaf shit possible. Lately I haven't even bothered processing shit anymore.
>>4498730>>4498735I'm this guy >>4497545This is unironically pretty much the right attitude to have. I refuse to post photos anymore because it's just a shit-slinging fest here, especially when they're used as part of an argumentation. Why do you need to share photos? No one cares. There's always SOMETHING some bitter loser will use to undermine whatever point it is you're trying to make because 4chan is comprised of shitty contrarians.Do you like the photos you take? Good. You're a better photographer than anyone who posts here, and you don't need their input.Do you dislike the photos you take? Okay, post your photos and you will fit in with everyone else who can't take a good photo.If you like your photos and post them, you'll get the opinions of people who can't take a good photo but don't like yours, either. Completely useless.It's like that old allegory of the father and son travelling with their donkey. Someone will always have problem with the way you're doing it, so just ignore what everyone says and go about it in the way that suits you best because YOU'RE the one doing it, not them.So yeah, I'm probably a better photographer than 95% of people on the board, but I'm not going to post photos to prove that. It's completely non-requisite.
>>4498912everything has meaning, you absolute child.
>>4502708What's the meaning of the 758168975417157419835516949614403064135930762886997535767th proton in Sun?
