Last superzoom compact camera models came out before COVID. Is there really no market anymore for these? Smartphones still cannot match that 720mm eq. tele end
>>4532718>Primes are primarilly a method of weight & bulk savings nowadays, and that's only if you avoid the beeg f1.4/1.2 primes.That's absolutely the reason I gravitate toward them, I carry three tiny standard primes between f/2 and f/2.8
>>4529624There is nothing meaningful you can do to improve the RX100 without breaking the design philosophy.a9 tier AF, Stacked BSI sensor, EVF, 4k video, IBIS, tilt screen, zoom lens.Upgrading the sensor, glass or processor wouldn't justify a new camera.Upgrading the size of the sensor or glass would increase the size of the camera. That said. If Sony made a RX500 the size of a Fujifilm X-e5 with APSC sensor and 28-200mm f.2.8-5.6 or 28-75 f.1.8-3.2 while keeping all the other features, that would be insane.
Is it worth it to cut the zoom range in half to get 360mm eq. but on a larger 1-inch sensor?
>>4529624Welcome to /p. Please use the gear thread.
>>4533832You're not my mum. Welcome to /p/Now git out.
Remember when everyone would come to this place to post fun photos and critique each other? We can and WILL have fun photo generals here again and not just another gear threadYou do actually take photos with those expensive cameras you're buying, right anon?
>>4533755(:
>>4523589spooky, nice.
This thread is dedicated to close-range photographic captures utilising macro-optical imaging configurations to achieve greater reproduction ratios. Got it? Good now upload some shit.Last thread: >>4433352
I finally bothered to use the macro lens and flash I bought at the beginning of the year and it's been enormous fun.
Macro is arguably one of the most honest forms of photography
>>4533700literally why, phones apply boatloads of aislop upscaling on macro or close ups but not that much on distant subjects
>>4533710>Phones>Photography >Macro photography lol, lmao
Just ordered my first p1100 superzoom. What should I expect? Will my new zoom addiction be satisfied?
>>4533245It's larger, heavier and more expensive than p1100.
>>4533245>vixenwtf i'm sexually attracted to a telescope now
>>4533211Equivalent in this case means the magnification is the same because the sensor is smaller.
>>4533283What part of 125x zoom you guys don't understand?
>>4527460>>4527462>>4527463>>4527464The look of these really remind me of my old sony camcorderIt also had a pretty impressive zoom range and probably a small sensor
>filtered editionIn the last episode of guitar general: >>4531957
New thread, don't get your panties in a bunch >>4533681
>>4533683cANON once again came to ruin the day. Next time wait until the current gear thread hits the page 2 at the very least.
>>4533684I can bump this thread down to page 2 if you want
>>4533664You spent $2000 on a shitty oversized camera to produce blurry jpegs of dog buttholes lmfaono one is taking your crop cope unless you put your money back where your mouth is, because right now it's in fuji's revenue stream. you can't use a "good enough" camera. you need crutches and expensive glass to prop up your bad photography.>>4533643>just spend $1500 on a lens to cope with your micro fool turds bro it says to on DPREVIEW (literally amazon)lmfaotiny sensor tiny brain>i-its good enoughfor what, 1mp jpegs? lmfao. nice to know you have no intrinsic motivation or personal standards NPC.
>>4533796With a good light exposure, how much would you say you can crop a full frame photo before quality becomes unacceptable?
Fastest and easiest NON-WEBSITE way for a retard to convert shitloads of JPEGs to lossless JXL? Even better if I can convert other formats with the same program. I know GIMP can export JXLs but doing it that way for every single image I want to convert one at a time would take forever and a half.
>>4527681 (Me)I found a different tool called XL Converter which can do lossless JPEG transcoding explicitly and unambiguously, which is good since now I have a definite example to work with and compare against. My test image was 3.13 MB, lossless transcoding to JXL reduced it to 2.59 MB, however exporting as lossless JXL from GIMP increased it to 6.73 MB, so I guess "lossless" in the context of "transcoding" isn't the same as the file format itself being lossless like I originally thought. I surely knew this at some point in the past but forgot. Exporting as lossless PNG resulted in an 8.91 MB file so it's still an improvement at least. Interestingly, loading the transcoded JXL into GIMP and then exporting it as a lossless JXL actually results in a BIGGER file size than exporting the original JPEG as a lossless JXL (7.73 MB vs 6.73 MB). Bizarre.
>>4527681>losslessly convert any JPEG to JPEG XL and get a smaller fileJPG is already lossy. You are just preserving (and adding) loss in another format. If you wanted a smaller file, you could export your RAW (lossless) yo JXL, but no one uses JXL, so it's not a great idea. For saving space, webp is the go-to option.
>>4527575bash script on linux
>>4527575mogrify -format jxl *.jpg
>>4533649based>>4527575Delete your JPGs and only keep your RAWs. You can always make new JPGs from RAWs if needed.
First you had film: a chemical process that already distorted reality. The world went into the camera, got chemically bullied, and came out looking like reality according to film. Then they made a “film sim”. Except the simulation looks nothing like film. It is two-faced and half-hearted. But it’s perfect, because now, say, “Provia” no longer has to signify the actual film but the SIGN of Provia. You aren't getting Provia, just the marketing team’s idea of what the cultural memory of Provia is supposed to feel like. The signified has begun to evaporate.But fujislugs still weren't satisfied, so now the DIGITAL camera displays a little box end on the rear screen. If you’re a zoomer, that’s the cardboard tab you'd put in the holder on the back of the camera reminding you of the film you loaded. But there is no film, no box, no physical thing inside the camera that needs identifying. Literally a simulation of the thing that used to tell you which film was inside the camera. It’s displaying a simulation of the signifier of a nonexistent signified. You successfully reached the point where the camera says: “Here is the little square that would have told you which film you loaded into the camera.” Except you loaded a menu option instead of film, and now the camera is proudly showing you the nostalgic little fake box for the imaginary film you didn't load. There is no film, no Provia, no box. There never was. There never will be. There is only a crude mockery on the back of the camera telling you that there is. Fitting that it's X-TRANS.Reality > film > film look > film simulation > simulation of the film label > ???In the end the camera is no longer pretending to reproduce reality. It's pretending to reproduce the evidence that reality was once being reproduced. It's transfilm, and it doesn't pass. It's Baudrillard's hyperreality except instead of Disneyland it's an X-Pro3 displaying a fake Provia box while you photograph your animal companion.
>>4533583>Drop the name, drop the tripEgo is a powerful thing to fall to.
>>4531183Yes... and?
>>4533583You won't intimidate me. >>4533625>on TV>arguing in bad faithIt was a thread posted here around the same time as the bestiality claims.>>4533642>implying it's about ego
>>4533668I am not trying to intimidate you. I'm trying to help you.
Canon Powershot SD100
>>4532936not many other photos I can send without compromising anonymity. Will take more soon and return.
>>4532938It's very few images but it seems you are good at playing with digishit strengths. do continue.
>>4532929>>4532937Bruh thats so liminal its like im in the backrooms
>>4532926>>4532927>>4532929>>4532937Everything is visually cooler without losing the feeling of warmth, it must be the blown out highlights… it ends up working really well. These are nothing like real life, such a cool look.
>>4532956Your fuckin head is liminal mate
Hi /p/.This month I was attending two anime cons, as "officially approved" photog and I wanted to upload some of the photos I did for opinions and advices. I made similar threads in previous years and they were always very productive so I would like to hear your opinions about these as well. This was also some sort of "test run" for new camera (Nikon Z5 II, replacing D750), most of these shots were made with Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 G2 lens (via FTZ II adapter), only few with telephoto (Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 VRII). Also newest version of Darktable, since old ones would not handle the new camera. There is always room for improvement and I genuinely want to get better so any kind of advice, critique or opinion is welcome.If you like, I can also try uploading RAW files for selected photos, on temporary catbox link or similar.
So did you get paid anything or atleast free admission
>>4533210Free entry and being able to enter various events without queue, along with being able to move around with much bigger freedom than normal participants (so, instead of having to sit in single spot, I could go around as long as I would avoid disturbing performance itself or anyone). I know that at least at one con some photogs were hired instead, however.
>>4520872>every shot is either youre to the left of them, or right of themboring af and you became a glorified tripod.granted i get it's a con and probably no vantage points with the room; but at least you could move around the venue also stop trying to get everyone in focus from the side, it's kind of jarring from a natural perspective standpoint. if you needed everyone in focus i would be head on position wiseand with that said morebokeh im not joking; i think of concert photography as portrait but it just timing you cant control. which comes from experience attending more concerts
>>4533306>boring af and you became a glorified tripod.Can we see some of your more interesting shots to compare against?
>>4533306>morebokehI was already shooting at 2.8, I don't think I can improve in that aspect. Unless you have something else than DoF in mind and I got it wrong, in such case I'm sorry.As for sides, some shoots like >>4528634 or >>4528607 are from the front, like I said, I was restricted a bit in regard of shooting angle and position. But I guess I understand what you have in mind.
Color doesn't matter. Today when you can adjust colors just by pressing a button there's nothing more fake than a color. You should only shot B&W. Black and White photography is real and pure. Shape, shadow and light - this is what makes your photography look special, not some bright oversaturation. If your picture looks good without colors then your picture is worthy
>>4532899Toners, can be sepia itself but also selenium, gold and ohters.
>>4527357You disproved it because it is way less impactful without color
>>4522398Counterpoint, he even emulated orthochromatic film using filters
>>4532899Split toning. OG method was with the paper you used, but nowadays you're more likely to use a Photoshop filter (which imo isn't half bad).
>>4532899Paper + developer combo is your first option, and probably what he did, but if that doesn't work you can use toning solution.You can get a suprisingly wide range of highlight+shadow color combinations with just your paper + developer combo and how long you develop your print for.
Please rate. 0: uninteresting snapshit1: deeply flawed2: decent, interesting, cool3: striking image
You do absolutely not display any talent at all, but it is clear that you are trying to compose something, playing with shapes and colors. That places you way ahead of most beginners.Keep shooting, and maybe one day you'll get good. Try to branch out, like the other anon said. Building corners get old fast, and there's only so much you can learn from shooting them.
>>4532755Thanks, and will do. Talent is a controversial concept it seems, when I only wrote that as a reference to an old /p meme. I couldn't care less whether I have talent.
>>4532752Sometimes talent can be viewed as a binary thing. I've seen a lot of charcoal/pencil sketches done by amateurs. One glance and you can quickly say no talent, they suck - or- there's something compelling there, they have talent, even if the sketch is clunky or unrefined. A lot of shit I see here does truly suck. What you posted does not. If "talent" means you have what it takes to rise above the rest and ascend into the realm of capital A art - yeah that's a loaded question.But you posted that question as a joke. It's refreshing to see a board where people will tell you straight up that you have no talent and you thank them for the input. All the photo books I buy have a strong anthropological component, so all building corners might not do it for me. However, have you ever seen the photo series of blast furnaces by Bernd and Hilla Becher? Each photo by itself isn't exactly captivating, but when presenting as a series it is strangely though-provoking. What's your next series about?
>>4518140>It's a /p/ meme from 3-5 years ago.More like yesteryear.
>>4532874I'm glad you see something in my photos. I have actually been doing that for a decade at this point, but I started trying to do art only this year, because before I did not understand what it meant, I was just pointing the camera at cool stuff. So in this sense I am still a beginner.I thanked the other guy because he encouraged me to continue! Even if I had no talent, I could still work to make up for it. What matters is motivation to do art. I looked up Bernd and Hilla Becher. Interesting stuff, it looks like it should be very boring but it's not, there's obviously style and a lot of work there. But still, too plain for me, and this made me I realize what I like most about the photos I posted in this thread is abstract, it has nothing to do about the buildings, while B&HB stuff is really showcasing the building. I think I have ideas to keep it going now, so that's cool.My next series is about roads. I try to make images you wouldn't expect photographs to look like, like the one I posted >>4532752 . I use b&w film home developed, and everything is done in camera. I'm shooting mainly at blue hour. What's tying the project together is a gimmick I came up with that should make the series storytelling and help deliver an experience. I appreciate the interest but I don't wanna say much more than that, because I'm afraid talking about it might blow my motivation to do it.
Kodak Charmera kings rise up
Haven' tooken much since.
> A NEW CONTENDER APPEARS
>/r/toycameras/
You guys are fucking retarded>>4515259This
>astro tripod editionPrevious - >>4530983
>>4532844He'll cope by blaming Adobe
>>4532837He's a hoarder and doesn't like being called out, even tried to do a no-u with the accusation on >>4532842
>>4532828anyway thinking more towards apsc canera because theyre more for amateurs and I am an amateur and will probably not take advantage of the full frame features as a complete noobplus its smaller and cheaper
>>4532883>This leads me to think that Lumix is now using the same weak CFA as Sony to maximize dynamic range at the expense of color accuracy :(First deletion of OLPF now using Sony CFA. Panasonic has fallen. It's basically a Sony with better firmware now.
>https://petapixel.com/2026/10/05/canon-nikon-sony-and-fujifilm-all-see-photographys-future-differently/>Canon/Nikon>Consumers are looking for a satisfying shooting experience. We’re developing our video lines and our next generation processors/sensors/etc>Fujifilm>We want to make taking photos fun!>Sony>WERE GOING TO JAM AI SO FAR UP YOUR ASS THAT YOUR PHOTOGRAPHY IS MEANINGLESSWhy is Sony like this?
Where the hell do you get models these days? It used to be that you would just go on Model Mayhem or find some chick on instagram and shoot TFP but those days are over. I wouldn't even mind paying for a chick's time, but even that seems difficult these days. Not a lot of chicks into "modeling" these days, no websites dedicated to it, etc. I guess they're all doing onlyfans or something. Any way, anyone got some tips?
>>4531058Maybe because every shitbox youtuber has shilled it this summer. Not saying they were objectively wrong in doing so, but if my (second) F90x dies, I will have to pay more to get one..
>>4530787Probably in the Sugar Thread I have a bunch of these to upload and I can't remember if I uploaded them or not so I'm just going to put them up anyway later this week, maybe even today. I'm trying to get through all of the Bonneville stuff I did and there's like 7000 pictures and it's mostly just holding down the shutter button on my D3 and D4 and letting them eat while a car goes by. My underwater work is done with a 14/2.8 Sigma EX, that photo, a 24/1.8 and 28/1.8 EX, and a 35/2.
>>4519752Model Mayhem, Purple Port, and Model Society. None of them are great. When I first started Model Mayhem was amazing. The models on there were stellar, including a lot of now-legendary ones. But my nudes portfolio was mediocre, and only mediocre models would shoot with me. By the time I got my chops up there were far less high quality models on the site. Nonetheless I eventually worked with dozens of world class models and have a portfolio that really impresses. Then in 2020 the site tanked hard. In large part because of the bullshit fake ass pandemic lockdown, and partly because social media and Onlyfans suddenly took all the models away. Now I shoot about once a year because I too cant find quality models to shoot with. I have much more success when I travel to Europe. In the States MM is pretty much useless. The tattoo epidemic really fucked the scene up too. I'm flashing back to when I messaged Leanna Decker way back in the day and she just ignored it because she was way too selective to work with a chump like me. I'm finally in the position that every model I request to work with says yes because my work and references are so solid. But there's barely anybody worth working with. Let me know if you get any new leads. The golden age may be over.
>>4532660The tattoo epidemic? Never heard of this in 2020s. But then again I dislike tattoos
>>4524576The tunblr era was truly wonderful
>>4532652nobody really makes art just to keep it to themselves
>>4532685what about cereal killers
>>4532032Telling your dog to sit then taking a photo is legitimately more photography than 80% of the photographs posted on pee
>>4532652>le just collect funkocameras for yourself and don't use them as the communication tools they are!manchildren are so fucking gay i stg
>>4532712>"communication"feminine>"manchildren"100% feminine
