>>4304476
OP agrees.

>>4302645
dangerously based

>>4302433
>was first using 35 85 135
>got a 21
>sold the 35
>nowtheresabiggap.arw
>got a 55
>stopped using 21 and 85 altogether
>stuck with using only 55 and 135 to this day
sometimes i wish a had a super wide like 21 or 18 just to see what else kind of compositions i can come up with for my scene but other than that, i can do literally ANYTHING with just 55 and 135

>>4302433
35 prime
70-300 zoom

>>4307239
but you do have a 21

>>4308716
Nobody in cinema cares about FF because video frames are seen for ~1/30s from a consistent distance or limited to a consumer display, and photos can be admired up close at arbitrary sizes and printing methods ala paintings

You can even shoot 16mm film (worse than micro four thirds) and show it in theatres without people noticing because the successive frames allow the human brain to see through the noise

>>4308996
>The full frame camera experience:
>Stills: ISO 800 already? Bust out the AI NR. Uh oh, I can see 1/1000th of a cm of motion blur, shit, it's so obvious, i cant show this without a fucking rope 2 meters in front of it so people cant notice
>Video: *sets to DX mode, auto ISO 100-25600* footage looks great. damn.

>The crop sensor camera experience:
>Stills: *furious, literally angry coping*
>Video: *auto ISO 100-25,600* footage looks great. damn.

>The crop medium format and up experience:
>Stills: not today, i am broke
>Video: first, how much are you paying me

File: .jpg (524 KB, 2100x2100)

524 KB JPG

>>4308996
>Nobody in cinema cares about FF
lmao

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	2100
Image Height	2100

>>4308998
>ISO 25600 on video
you're talking out of your ass, unless that camera is recording in any kind of lossless or I-frame only lossy video, the DCT quantization during compression will eat away every detail possible and leave only raped macroblocks. ISO 1600 is already enough to start getting blocking with a camera recording in H.264 at a substantial 80Mbps. This is over twice the bitrate of a normal Blu-Ray, or about the same as an UHD BD

Can't you just buy a ZV-E10 and put a PC closed loop water cooler on it and achieve the same shit?

>>4308895
He can clean up after you get done.

Dated DSLR bros, I'm seeing a bunch of d200, d70 etc videos coming up on youtube lately. They were always there, but it's accelerating.

The end is near. Grab your old nikons while you can. The normies are waking up. Next thing you know we'll run out of af-d 24mms, 12-24 f4s, and dx 35 f1.8s.

File: E4010BF2-EB3A-4BF8-857F-4(...).jpg (292 KB, 1084x1280)

292 KB JPG

>>4308982
Whew I’m safe for another day

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	1084
Image Height	1280

>>4308982
2 d200 videos and a d500 video in the past week ITS OVER

THE STREET PHOTOGRAPHERS FOUND OUT NOBODY CARES IF THEY USE A DSLR

>>4308982
nonono please no I was just thinking about picking up a bunch of DX lenses. At least I have a D40 already.

>>4308160
Apparently he has an extensive collection of firearms.

>>4308169
you have to live deep in a suburban shithole like he does

>>4308169
Go to small town thrift stores in the midwest and semi-rural areas. They still believe digishits are worth $5. Then start a youtube channel to drive up prices after you've accumulated at least 50 of them so you can sell them for $100 each.

Boom, now you have a nikon Z8 and an S lense

>>4308160
I bought one of the "top-end" mavica floppy disk camera after watching his video about the mavica. Thankfully i found in on thriftstore for around 30 bucks or so.

It's one of the reason why I'm into "older" digital camera rn though I'm specifically more into mid to late 2000s camera phones like SE K800 or Nokia N95. My first camera phone is an iphone 3g so it's interesting to use what is pretty much superior camera that came years before

>>4308224
I hate his new obsession with garbo quickstart PCs, buy more obsolete broadcast equipment!

Just busted out 2 rolls of respooled kodak vision 250d think i'll use it all for dog pictures

>>4308914
Not him, but yes.

>>4308923
Based. I was thinking of using some/all of my 65mm 250D to take pics of my dog as well!!!

>>4308858
>that should be enough, right anon?
It is, but it's still 8 hours too much of monotony.

>>4308967
Farm. Some days are long, some days are short.

>>4307062
New bread
>>4309008
>>4309008

Here's some unknown technology:
A god damn piece of paper

>>4308844
that's gay

>>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.

>>4308718
Thanks

>>4308694
Ok I'll play around with it some more. Doesn't seem like with this model it will vary much but I'll just do the zoom/distance trick for now.

>>4308738
The P1000 focal length vs f-stop table can be found here: https://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/nikon-p1000/nikon-p1000A4.HTM

If you want the bokeh equivalent of a full frame 50mm 1.4, you will need to zoom in to 1116mm. Not sure what the mimimum focusing distances but you pretty much have to be a block away. Also for more bokeh, try to keep the subject as far from the background as possible. There are bokeh simulators you can play with.

If you are photographing really small subjects, bokeh is pretty easy but you need to look out for minimum focus distance. Usually you get highest magnification at the widest angle and telephoto closest focus distance is pretty long. From a forum post at dpreview: 3000mm= 21'8", 2400mm=19'5", 1500mm=12'11", 1000mm=6'1" and 500mm=5'.

All in all it looks like the P1000 would have some good close up photography potential.

Artistic bokeh portraits is just not what a superzoom bridge camera like the P1000 is for. This is a camera for taking adequate pics of birds, animals, planespotting, trainspotting, creepshots, sports, creepshots.. just about anything but how you're using it.

Spend $500. Get a D600 ($400) and a 50mm prime lens ($100). More bokeh than your ass can handle.

File: frog1.jpg (555 KB, 1600x1200)

555 KB JPG

>>4308765
I got it because it was highly recommended for birdwatching, and for that it really is amazing. I can get an ID off a sparrow at 250 feet. It's like a handheld spotting scope that can do pics/video too. Really love it for that, I was just curious about other stuff since I was trying to photograph my feeder and one thing lead to another and I was on a baking page showing pics of cupcakes with blurry backgrounds and got curious how to do it too.

>>4308760
>All in all it looks like the P1000 would have some good close up photography potential.
Not sure how close you mean but I got this tiny tree frog last fall with it.

>>4308781
nice frog

File: DSCF8777.jpg (433 KB, 2048x1365)

433 KB JPG

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Capture One 22 Macintosh
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Width	2048
Image Height	1365

File: DSCF8571.jpg (895 KB, 2048x1365)

895 KB JPG

>>4304671

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Capture One 22 Macintosh
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Width	2048
Image Height	1365

File: DSCF8578 1.jpg (664 KB, 2048x1365)

664 KB JPG

>>4304672

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Capture One 22 Macintosh
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Width	2048
Image Height	1365

>>4288586
Recognised it as norway instantly, really is something about them street lights

>>4286913
Love the Pleiades, very nice

>>4308188
yeah that was a cool video, I thought I bookmarked it but I guess not. very impressive how thorough those nips were, polishing the lenses and everything.
In my family we always pulled the cameras apart to fish the film out and sent it to a lab like normal film because the processing was cheaper that way for some reason. So we sent a lot of those cameras straight to the landfill.

OP here thanks for the info. I’m going to shelve this one. That $20 can be better spent on more 35 or 120 film instead that actually looks good

>>4308282
Save it for when your dumb zoomer girlfriend wants "hella retro photos like scott pilgrim you know bro like we're gonna be playstation one today"

File: image_123650291.jpg (635 KB, 2372x1683)

635 KB JPG

Old here. I think this is one of the pics I took with the camera like OP. It and the others that I suspect of being from that camera are prints 3.5 x 4.375 inches in size.

[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	2372
Image Height	1683

>>4308045
I mean...if you want to play with it just because, go ahead. But 110 and Kodak Disc were dog shit. They looked bad at 3x5.

>>4306487
>no i dont even own a tripod.
Nigger stop it.
Go buy one, they can be had for like $25 and will be the single greatest thing you could ever do for photography.

Short of that, you can mount the camera on sturdy objects including even a roll of toilet paper as a meme with shims under the lens to adjust angle if you are a gigapoorfaggot who would rather buy another $50 figuring to cum on than buy a tripod.
I understand priorities exist and tripods cost money but you should consider a cheap tabletop tripod sooner rather than later. If not even a tripod, a tripod adapter (the thing to hold a phone that screws ONTO a tripod) can (depending on its design) be used to hold a phone without a tripod and those can be had for like $15. No height adjustment but again you can get creative.

Three legs good.
Two legs bad.
No legs okay, just don't use arms.

File: LOL09682.jpg (139 KB, 600x900)

139 KB JPG

i;m going to marry her

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-7M2
Camera Software	GIMP 2.10.8
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	0 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	350 dpi
Vertical Resolution	350 dpi
Image Created	2024:04:20 20:43:10
Exposure Time	1/60 sec
F-Number	f/0.0
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	125
Brightness	-1.7 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	0.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	6000
Image Height	4000
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

File: LOL09607.jpg (148 KB, 900x600)

148 KB JPG

him too

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-7M2
Camera Software	GIMP 2.10.8
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	0 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	350 dpi
Vertical Resolution	350 dpi
Image Created	2024:04:04 13:29:47
Exposure Time	1/60 sec
F-Number	f/0.0
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	640
Brightness	-1.9 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	0.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	6000
Image Height	4000
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

>>4308314
thanks bro, i will get it as soon as possible

File: M2QT8682_Converted.jpg (2.53 MB, 1504x2008)

2.53 MB JPG

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Kodak
Camera Model	Kodak DCS330C
Camera Software	KODAK PROFESSIONAL DCS Photo Desk 4.3.0.8 W
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/3.6
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	100 dpi
Vertical Resolution	100 dpi
Image Created	2004:01:12:10:25:58
Exposure Time	1/125 sec
F-Number	f/5.6
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	200
Lens Aperture	f/5.6
Brightness	5.9 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Daylight
Focal Length	23.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1504
Image Height	2008
Exposure Index	200

>>4306865
film has the same dynamic range as digital

>>4307484
Make it easy for OP, he's just beginning to open up to reality.

>>4306881
nigger
stop it
you're using shitty lab scans, come back when you're dealing with drum scans or raw linear tiffs from a high end device without some idiot operator baking in presets to produce a JPEG

also if you're not MULTI SAMPLING a scan for a negative
you are doing it wrong and cannot speak about the true dynamic range of film
this means, if you're camera scanning, you should be exposure bracketing and doing a hdr merge to eliminate noise and produce a linear 16-bit or 32-bit floating point file to then invert/edit. Any single digital capture of a negative or slide is limited by the digital sensor used to capture it, and means no such scans can be used to actually judge the performance of film.
Grain is grain.
Noise is noise.
Combine noise and grain, and you get even worse results.

>>4306865
>underexpose the scene by like 2-3 stops or more
>expose the highlights as the midrange
>WHY IT LOOK BAD
kek

>>4306921
yeah cause if you don't overexpose fomashit by 6 stops you might not even get an image

>>4298229
Sometimes I wonder if cheap digicam photography is at all related to the gear and more related to just shooting small jpegs and never editing

File: dt_CRW_2016.jpg (1.12 MB, 1763x1321)

1.12 MB JPG

>>4307964
Hey! That's appreciably bigger than on most digicams.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon DIGITAL IXUS 960 IS
Camera Software	darktable 4.6.1
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.9
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	36 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Image Created	2024:04:27 09:49:01
Exposure Time	2947/1000000 sec
F-Number	f/2.9
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	74
Lens Aperture	f/2.9
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Subject Distance	4.04 m
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	7.70 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1763
Image Height	1321

>>4307993
What is big jpeg

>>4307993
Shush

>>4308005
8256x5504

>>4307722
Define unexplainable

I cannot even explain how my color film works

>>4307756
/x/-tier

File: 1000015651.jpg (107 KB, 1500x2000)

107 KB JPG

I don't remember riding with the naked dude

File: IMG_20240427_180155_624.jpg (242 KB, 1280x853)

242 KB JPG

Yea this unexplainably bad photo

>>4308044
Posts like this are why fe2fucker is awesome, kek. Made my morning.

File: DSC07227.jpg (4.78 MB, 1600x2400)

4.78 MB JPG

>>4307932
Not sure how good it is for video since I don't do much of that but I loved the zeiss 55 on my a6400 for photos. I actually really miss it, been tempted to get another one even though I can't really justify it since I replaced it with a sigma 56.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-6400
Camera Software	Capture One 23 Macintosh
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.8
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	82 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Exposure Time	1/320 sec
F-Number	f/5.6
Exposure Program	Shutter Priority
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/5.6
Brightness	8.7 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Daylight
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	55.00 mm
Image Width	1600
Image Height	2400
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

>>4307932
Another vote for the Zeiss 55mm. It's a little expensive for a #50mm f/1.8 but the performance is far above many of the cheaper alternatives, it's up there with the f/1.4s and in return you get a more compact and lighter lens. I also don't shoot video but others say it's good for that, it focuses quickly and silently in AF and in MF there's no lag.

>>4306753
their recent releases are just overpriced models of what already came out, barely any changes, that's all

>>4306790
What's wrong with their TVs?

>>4306805
>I wanted to do macro from the start because I am autistic
Post macro autism shots.