So, which of the big companies is going to be the first to offer an affordable 100mp camera?Fuji is obviously already out there, but this thing is Eight thousand dollars. I suspect that when it happens (eventually) it will be Nikon. I feel like historically they are the company which has introduced high end features at a lower price.
>>4480592>first to offer an affordable 100mp camera?stfu noob. High mp and small pixels are what is making photography fucking soulless. talk to ai about pixel pitch. This is a big reason why digitshit picture still have fucking soul.
>>4499741i forgot to add this is extra retarded because of AI upscaling with is insane for adding resolution, and software that can combine images. Do you never put 4 pictures into one? total noob. AI can upscale, but it can't give the soul that is pixel pitch or dynamic range.
>>4480592What I don't get about this thread is that you pretend as if there was a choice. There is only one manufacturer for digital format. Fujifilm.And Fuji will not undercut the used market 2 generations old GFX100S. So get that one or don't get into this category at all
>>4480592the real question is if the Fuji or the Hassy have better autofocus. The hassy has lidar but on the other hand fuji should have better image recognition
>>4496249Nah
2026 editionAll video related questions and discussion is intended for this thread. Here we discuss techniques, gear and anything else related to capturing video footage. Please don't pretend to be an expert if you don't know what you're talking about. Kindly leave your ego at the door.Posting short films/scripts or other work you've done is encouraged.We tend to use and recommend DSLRs/mirrorless cameras because they provide phenomenal picture quality for their price, have large sensors (ie the same size used in high-end cinema cameras, and larger) and have interchangeable lenses.In contrast, consumer camcorders often have much smaller sensors and a fixed lens.>STICKY - https://text.is/QZ1J>Helpful guide, additional books and more in-depth FAQs - https://web.archive.org/web/20200926115310/https://pastebin.com/kG0gRmTZ>NO ONE CARES WHAT AN EXPERT YOU THINK YOU ARE. IF YOU’RE ASKING BASIC-AS-SHIT QUESTIONS, YOU CAN’T BE ALL THAT GREAT. SEE ABOVEPrevious thread >>4482295Quick FAQSComment too long. Click here to view the full text.
Bump limit reached, new thread>4499500
>>4493553Check what you power frequency is in the country you are going to then apply the right fps. Shooting at 25fps PAL / 50FPS NTSC is mainly to allow your frame rate to sync with a country's power frequency so that you don't get flickering. You can shoot at any frame rate you want etc 24fps in europe if you have full control over all the lights you are using and can guarantee you are using cine lights the whole time.
>>4493572The movement is too fast for the frame rate thus your are seeing artifacts. Choose your base frame rate for your project ie 24cine or 25pal then double it for your specific scene with fast motion. 24 -> 48. 25->50
>>4496228Don't think of it as payment. As in a monetary payment. Think of it as providing appropriate compensation, that doesn't leave people out of pocket.If I were you I would offer to cover transport and food costs and say that you are doing a creative spec piece for experience. Other people who want or need the the experience over money should be ok with it. It's kinda a take it or leave it approach and you can't expect the best. If you are expecting the best out of your collaborators and want to work with professionals you need to pay to get that level of quality.
>>4494723dude this looks like shit, I don't think you need to worry. If you remove the grain it's nothing special.
Think about it logically.The A7C series, despite its warts, is:>responsible for a massive portion of E-mount adoption>bestselling>revealing of an enormous market for compact yet usable full frame stills MILCsWhy hasn't anyone else copied the concept? inb4:>A7C bodies are e-waste trashYes, that's why I want somebody else to try it.>Sigma, Panasonic, NikonThey all pussied out hard and catered too much to videofags. The fp could have been perfectly fine if they had traded the heatsink for IBIS and made the EVF solution less massive (ergo, added a hotshoe and copied Leica's Visoflex). Meanwhile, the bf is the fp but even less functional. The S9 caters to vlogfags above all. Without a viewfinder you're more or less fucked if you want to manual focus. Same for the ZR.For this to work, these faggot product engineers need to get real. A small body, ideally 61MP, with IBIS, reasonably sized grip to not have to skimp on battery life and SD card(s), and a modular tilting EVF. It's really that fucking simple, and Sony has proved that it's not only technically and economically feasible, but also a very good business move. So why haven't they done it?
If I could afford it right now I would by myself Sony A7III or iV with Sigma 24mm 3.5 lens. It looks pretty good setup.Canon R6 with 28mm lens would also be fun. Kinda like how the Canon looks.
>>4499837Canon ergonomics are superior but the R6 is now 5 years old, try to find at least Mk2 if not Mk3
>>4499866Yeah, but A7III is also old and old means it's cheap. Im kinda leaning more into Canon, since Sony does not have a good 28mm lens. With a 50mm lens the setup would be pretty much perfect.
>>4496217>>4496218When they bought up Minolta, they used their concept but for some reason abandoned it with the dawn of mirrorless cameras.Their early SLT and SLR models even improved on it, only to do a full 180.
>>4498725Why?
>it now cost $20 to develop film only with no prints or scansAHHHHHHHHH
>>4411869dont look at it now
>>4411869>started getting back into film since i had piles of expired film i got pre-COVID>development prices all go upFucking shame. At this point I can understand why there's such a big market for film look presets.>>4489845Is it? Some of the labs I go to tended to do B&W a lot cheaper than color, so for a while I was buying B&W for costs reasons.
>meanwhile in Germany>DM drug store>development cost of 0.95€/film (C41)>prices haven't changed in agesfeelsgoodman.jpg
>>4499319>be me>upsidedownanon.harness>only dev shops are dedicated camera stores >entire customer base consists of boomers who don't understand ebay and zoomers who bought 35mm pns's instead of an instax>colour dev is $25 minimum>B&W is $30>"oh wait you wanted scans? That's another $5 anon">film itself is not cheap either unless you're buying kentmere>fuck this I'm deving at home
>>4499320We only have those cheap ass development prices in Germany since there's a large company called CEWE which simply won't give up on film development. I guess the magical word for that is cross-subsidization. Otheriwse it would be one big monumental loss.That's also the only reason keeping me from deving my own films.
With the AI boom, it doesn't matter if your camera is good or bad, you can just ask the AI to transform your flat iphone photo into something much better.With a Light Field Array camera, you can take photos that AI can't replicate.People will need new screens too, screens with 3d depth.
>>4497756They need his glasses lens for efficacy, and his thoughts
>>4497756dodgy chinese workplace safety measures and dubious quality control
>>4497756That's the little imp that paints the little pictures
>>4497756how could it be a 3d picture if you aren't surrounding what you're photographing?
>>4499286Technically a lens does not focus a 2D wave front its a 3D wave front, the way focusing works is that we shift the wavefront in a manner that the object or field we want in focus coincides with the focal point, and ultimately is projected sharpest on the sensor, a light field array, would have multiple smaller lenses behind the primary which would each have their focus on a different plane behind or in front of the main plane of focus. Recording this data ofc means that you need your own file type which basically stacks prob many raws into a single file with a viewer capable of adjusting and viewing it. It does not capture true 3D data per se, but it has perfect clarity at every possible distance from the lens. So just a few frames of data will have more than enough information to extract and make a 3D object.
I can't find any information about it online. Found some old websites where they have showcased the progression of the Iloca lineup, but it doesn't show this particular variety. Perhaps it is some obscure "in between" model which is not unheard of when it comes to German mid-century cameras.Iloca Electric Texograph 2, T2If anybody is interested I want a million dollars.
>>4496608you can still get old point & shoot stuff for pretty cheap. like nikon coolpix.
>>4495491It's a specialized variant of the Iloca Electric. Taxographs were used for specialized document/text reproduction or medical cameras. The T2s were modified to have a different film gate or a specific internal mask to photograph text, oscilloscopes, or dental records.
>>4499229Just to add to this, if you're look for a price estimate, maybe look for Taxographs made by other manufacturers. Iloca would rebrand a lot. They made cameras for Argus, Graflex, and Sears.
>>4499232Googling shows 2 "Texograph" cameras one of which has been sold and is registered on worthpoint, but I don't have an account there anymore. So one Praktica and one camera where the only thing I can gather is that it has an exacta mount. I guess this type of stuff is something that is better off sold by a specialized auction company that deals with camera gear.Even finding information about this whole "Texograph" thing is hard. The Practica was made from 58-60 and the Iloca from 59-60 which also hints at the use-case was somewhat limited in a short time frame.
Also the information about the praktica shows an price of 2300 euro sometime around the start of the millennia if i interpret it correctly.
>Color Science editionPreviously: >>4495130
>>4499231It might be my fault due to inexperience, but I've found that my Tamron zoom (pic related) is very soft and I struggle to get sharp, well focused photos with it at any focal length. I recently purchased my first prime and the difference in sharpness was night and day
>>4497744I believe this is not correct. Sensors count photons - this is true - but the light reaching each photosite is filtered through a CFA (color filter array), and those filters have different spectral characteristics. This filtering influences how wavelengths are sampled, which in turn affects color separation, rendition, and potential accuracy.Additionally, the recorded values are later transformed through color matrices during image processing. These matrices map the sensor’s native color responses to a standard color space, compensating for the spectral behavior of the CFA and the sensor itself. The design and calibration of these matrices can further influence the final color rendering.Also CCD != CMOS even if someone said that you should believe it.
hello /gear/ im looking to upgrade from my first gen sony a7. i shoot video and stills, the video on this thing sucks. thinking about a7 III (staying in sony ecosystem sorry im a huge faggot). how much could i sell the a7 w/ 42k shutter count and some cosmetic damage (pic rel.) to put towards a new body? i dont buy gear often so is ebay the best place to buy/sell or are selling fees at the point where its a lost cause. thank you /gear/.
>>4500772Do not sell, have backup. Buy A7s II for video and low-light pics.
Which filter it might be ? is it Fuji filter ?
Give me your most abstract images related to cameras.
>>4495053that dog has too many cameras
>>4495057Impossible.
I found a holy grail video. If only it wasn't so short. These are so hard to find.
bump for dogs licking cameras
Can someone tell me what lightning equipment I would need, to recreate either of those photos?
make love not warring
>>4485827cute.
>>4432774>what does them being naked add to what the photo is trying to say other than incel gooner satisfaction?
>>4491585hot
>>4484970Nudity isn't pornography!
Has anyone tried taking photos of stars from above the mesosphere?
>>4496790yeahit didn't end well
>>4496790https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21nPJY4le10
>>4496714Also Sofia, M.O.S.T. A friend of mine made the telescope for the second one. Pretty damn good for 6-inch aperture and only weighing 1.2 lb. A lot of Machining though beryllium components to keep the weight to an absolute minimum. Peter actually made two though, the first one was a proof of concept to be sure it could be done. He has it on his mantle in a display case
>>4496706I keep sending cameras up and the Feds keep shooting them down.Sent from my celly's iPhone
James Web space telescope is doing just that.Check out Astrobin. Plenty of amateur astro photographers are taking photos from Earth.
UglyNot sharpNear black and whiteRed eye effect uncorrectedPhoto of the decade
>>4498793sure.. But how press enforces jpeg and how their photos look like total shit is more of a reflection of our ugly world with no post-processing than photographers being shit. Or to your point, both I suppose.
>>4498796>Someone posted an official portrait of some congresswoman or something a while ago and the ISO was set to something insane like 64,000 despite being indoors and using studio lighting. The amount of noise was a sight to behold.>"Okay so all you have to do is follow the policy document and set things up per these instructions">"Just turn the camera on and press *this* button ma'am">"No, all the settings should be the same as every other shot we've ever taken with all of our cameras. Don't change anything"
>>4498802Its a reflection of how jpeg is almost always terrible. Slide film took huge teams of americas best chemists and engineers to make something that looked good SOOC only for certain kinds of scenes and only with perfect exposure. Japan just can’t replicate that feat and exceed it, not even digitally, especially not while targeting max FPS and battery life when cameras run off literally two AAs in a plastic box and use worse processors than phones. All digital cameras are negative film cameras. They can’t produce good photos. Just data. The making of the photo remains the duty of the person developing the digital negatives. Photography was never truthful anyways. Jpeg certainly isnt. >the camera decided the sky is unusually red today!
>>4498796Who gives a fuck about the quality? It's the fact that a photo was captured at all which is the real story>“It was a proper old school news day,” said Noble. He added: “It’s a man shot at night through the back of a windscreen. Is that the best photo I’ve ever taken? No. Is it up there as one of the most important? 100%. When you work in news, it’s not an exact science. The best photos aren’t always the most newsworthy.”
>>4498250Indeed. Though it's more about the shocked but demonic appearance of a royal who fell from grace and lost their protection.
Sony cybershot 10MPreally than bad?
>>4497025Never the camera, always the photographer.
Classic digishit look.
>>4497053the few strips of bunting really cheers things up
>>4497139if OP had spent a few minutes in lightroom and pretended it was a film scan you'd be all excited
>wonky angle for no reason>pole extending through what is the most interesting feature in the image, the dome>brick wall and water tank building is ugly and detracting from what you're trying to take a photo of>back of facade is showing you probably the worst side of this buildingYou probably needed to take a picture of this building from a different location. I think where you were didn't give you a whole lot to work with. Maybe you could have focused on just the dome or the smaller tower and made something out of that. For me I probably would not have taken a photo at this point.
There has been a lot of discussion about camera brand color science lately so I thought it would be interesting to take the same shot and change the ICC profile in capture one to each of the 4 major ILC brands and post them unedited to see if /p/ can spot the differences between default color science. In a day or two i'll post the results and we can all see how close we got.
>>4498797>>4498806Holy cope
>>4498805If its auto WB the green and blue one would actually be the correct white balance for night scenes lit by fluorescents/LEDs.Its all one camera with different WB settings btw
>>4498786In the last 3 years or so Sony changed from green to magenta bias, probably in response to being dunked on for their skin tone rendition.
>Sony is ba-Copium
>>4498924>proceeds to post his photoshop painting ohnono
I've been taking photos with a 60D since 2012 and feel like I haven't improved much in that time. In particular I struggle with the actual process, often failing to get satisfactorily in focus or sharp images which leaves me unsatisfied even if I think an image's composition is good - I know the best camera is the one you have with you, but that aside I think I could do better. I've selected a bunch of photos I've taken over the past ~4 years since I started shooting raw that I am proud of and would like to dump them here for /p/ to tear apart. I've tried to keep editing unobtrusive, but I'm making this thread on a whim so some edits may be older or incomplete.
>>4498187>Hard to say without having been there.I don't remember it too well myself, I believe it was an old printing press from the early 1900s and there wasn't much light in the room. Here's another pic of the same machine unedited, just increased exposure>Needs a subject in the far doorframeWould've liked to, but I was alone there. Do you think it's OK to cut off the ground in the immediate foreground by stepping forward?>right side of the mountainI think I see what you mean, that the scene is carrying the photo but there's nothing special about the photo itself. Looking at my files, I have dozens of photos of this scene but none focusing on that valley... Fortunately I live in the same country so it's reasonably accessible.
>>4498274You could AI the white tiled wall to continue behind his head
>>4498055Cutie
>>4498027Hi I'm one of those oldfags here who started out in the film era vintage lenses. There's not many that I really recommend anymore. They have weird looking geometry when you take a photo and oddball bokeh. Not very many I can hardly recommend.The Sonnars from Zeiss, (yeah I know, there's the Russian versions the East German version, they're all copies of this design.) Are nice. The balance speed with good management of the characteristics of the system. My 250 mm on my Hasselblad is a great lens. Just has a focus problems which you can easily remedy with a close-up lens.One that IS great are the Distagons, esp the 35 f/1.4, 28mm f/2.0 and the 21mm f/2.8. That last one is the only one I bought specifically for my Canon 6D Mark II. The 35mm f/2.8 is nice but a bit slow. The 35mm f/2.8 PC is nice for correcting perspective, but not very useful in this Photoshop age.
>>4498712That being said, the stuff you find from Pentax especially in and around the normal focal range from about 20 mm up to 135 are excellent lenses. Just be sure to test the lens out for proper mechanics and cleanliness on the inside from fungus and excessive dust. A little dust is normal on those lenses by the time they are this old.Adapting other lenses is hit or miss though. You first have to find the lens and then a way to adapt it to your system and that can be a lot of work for not very much if any difference.The photos you show are mostly good, you just need to pay attention to the framing of the subject. I find the era of just using a short Zoom on my camera instead of a prime has made me lazy and I just zoom to get the look I want rather than move around.
I went out on the streets late and took some photos tonight with this phone, here they are..
>>4489947>>4489954You're in Auckland aren't you OP?>>4489956OhI hate taking photos here because I don't want to get mugged at night and I live in the suburbs.
>>4497914Yeah I wouldn't worry about getting mugged, lots of people sleeping in the streets with their stuff like this guy I've seen a few times. Saturday nights have all the partiers obviously. I'm moving out of the city but will stay at hotels if I want to come in for a trip.
all this nostalgia fagging only to get epstein file grade photos stick with "light leak" effect
>>4489947This is gorgeous
>>4489947This is the bestSaved The other ones are mostly shit, >>4489953except this one which might pass for liminal space to an iPad baby
