28mm or 35mm for next lens? I already have a 50mm and a 105mm

>>4326474
The degree of background blur is also dependent on the relative distance between your subject. So your required apeture is less of a "this value gud" and more looking at your shot and agreeing or disagreeing on that level of blur.

fwiw I use an 80mm eqiv. but keep apeture below 3.5 for the majority of cases.

>>4326706
35mm makes the 50mm easier to leave at home. 28mm gives you a nicer complement to the 50mm. Get a 24-70mm zoom.

>>4326706
How about less gear and more photos, anon? Spend that money on a trip or something. End the gearfaggotry

>>4326706
35mm if you do more people focused street photography, 28mm if you want something more different than the 50.

>>4326474
>Any rational for tightening the aperture versus keeping it wide open?

Smaller aperture(larger fstop) means your depth of field will be larger. Usually around f8-f16 your lens will be at its sharpest. F22 and you start running into diffraction, which will soften your image, even if everything is in focus. You have to use your brain to figure what's most important for you and the image you're producing.

>>4326474
>When taking portraits, face or full body, what apertures would you use for a 50mm or 80mm equivalent to get your subject in focus (more than just eyes) but keep the image a little soft elsewhere?
It depends on how large the subject is in you frame. You'll get a feel for it by shooting more but the beauty of digital (and slrs with exposure preview) is you can check.
>Any rational for tightening the aperture versus keeping it wide open?
In my view, fast lenses are for coping with shitty backgrounds. If you want a soft background and nice bokeh just shoot in a studio. If you're outside figure out how to make the bg look nice and shoot at f/5.6 max!

>>4326709
yeah you're right anon.

When is and isn't it appropriate to use the clarity?

>>4326715
Clarity setting only affects JPEGs, so if you're shooting RAW it doesn't matter.

>>4326715
*clarity slider

>>4326716
Could you explain to me why you think this?

File: 1695411573579677.jpg (711 KB, 1296x1728)

711 KB JPG

Is there any way I can crop the top version of this photo that doesn't butcher it? Or is the bottom version fine?

Many of my photos seem slightly blurry when I get them onto my PC. Is a conservative high pass filter the best way to remedy this?

>>4326765
Why is the bottom one taken so low?

>>4326765
This is probably the right use-case for generative fill

File: Screenshot (232).jpg (151 KB, 1233x1129)

151 KB JPG

>>4326765
I don't think so.
If you can, next time try rising the camera, keep it level and crop the bottom instead of tilting. If you have to tilt, step back / zoom out to leave space for perspective correction. Bit undercorrected looks more natural.

(No, I'm not an expert.)

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	GIMP 2.10.12
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2024:06:19 11:49:53

I'm sorry for asking this question but have no idea where else to. What's the cheapest possible camera for recording vlogs, I don't expect anything spectacular obviously, just enough to not be completely ugly like that of cheap phone and to not need an external microphone.

>>4326768
It's the same photo. For whatever reason I only took a single photo of this cafe and I was crouching while doing so.

>>4326774
Thank you, I realise now that I should have. I'm newish to post processing so accounting for it when taking a photo hasn't occurred to me yet, but it's evident that it's important after this. Could've gotten more space around the roof to work with as well.

>>4326776
You are pretty much required to use a wireless or other external microphone, especially with a real camera. Otherwise your voice will sound small and distant, plus you have little control. The cheapest video camera you could use is an iphone.

>>4326818
>cheapest video camera you could use is an iphone
Aren't they very expensive? I was looking at second hand Nikon 3200d and new DJI OSMO Pocket 3 new and can't decide.

>>4326824
You don't need a new one, or a pro. Any slightly modern iphone has good video ability.

is there a huge difference in color between Canon Digital Photo Pro and Apple Pictures when converting raw to jpeg?

>>4326830
Like?

>>4326778
>>4326774
To add, a bit of tight (small radius) unsharp mask can help with apparent blurriness. Do not overdo it.

>>4326765
Damn, bro. You should have been using a view camera. A simple tilt of the rear standard would have been all you needed.

>>4326859
I love the idea of shooting with a view camera but I don't love the idea of paying $15 a shot just to show 3 people the film and show the other 997 people a digital scan of the film

File: s-l1600 (6).jpg (251 KB, 1188x1600)

251 KB JPG

>>4326884
Color film is like 15 bucks a shot. You can get down to about 2ish dollars per shot with b&w film. Then you go and make silver gelatin prints!

The other option is using a digital camera adapter on a view camera, but normal 4x5 lenses will most likely be too soft for your liking, and the modern digital view camera lenses are very expensive.

When doing picture of people with AI human / face detection, do you also use the eye focus?
I haven't experimented, and the internet generally just mentions it is an option and it works.

>>4326774
Skewing it in gimp doesn't actually fix the perspective, it just gimps the image. Like a picture taken from a lower angle and modded in post is different from a pic taken from a higher angle, though people might not notice, right?

File: Lightroom_GkVskF4hDB.jpg (1.89 MB, 2560x1400)

1.89 MB JPG

I'm using a pirated version of Lightroom and pirated VSCO 1-6, importing the zip via Lightroom but have found only half of the presets work. When I select one that doesn't work, no develop settings change at all. If I select one that DOES work, followed by one that doesn't work, the settings from the first remain; the settings do not reset to unadjusted. Have I done something wrong, or is the pack I downloaded faulty somehow? Below is the zip in question, not extracted then re-zipped.

https://mega.nz/file/cx0U0DjY#jO4tXixGE3i6C_F_0Wtu7cYcZVEVb9KkBjWUebRib4I

File: file.png (699 KB, 930x661)

699 KB PNG

>>4326474
I need to know what I should do here. I'm a retard who barely knows how to work a camera.
I have this 50mm prime that was dropped on its side and may be missing a piece (or two).
I gathered all of the pieces that were there immediately when it dropped, but I don't know if anything else came off of it, either before it was dropped or somewhere else at the time. I looked all over the place in that area and didn't find anything.
I don't know what (if anything) is missing, any ideas? I was going to send it to Nikon since I have no camera shops anywhere near me. To me it just looks like the piece that holds the glass inside is missing, somewhere, somehow.

>>4326936
Better to use eye focus than just face detection, especially if you’re using thin DOF you don’t want to focus on the nose or cheeks instead of the eyes.

>>4326947
Perspective correction if done perfectly (just eyeballing is not exact) only fixes falling lines but does not change what's visible from camera position. Neither does shift with a view camera or tilt-shift lens. You have to shoot from higher position while camera is level to get it right. Which unfortunately is not always possible.

>>4326858
I'm always terrified of oversharpening. Goddammit.

>>4327049
rise on a view camera can do wonders, but it will not always compensate.

File: cat.jpg (109 KB, 790x529)

109 KB JPG

"Right size" film changing bag? At the moment I just see myself respooling film, or opening thrift store cameras that don't have a a little window to see if film is loaded. Maybe bulk film loading or doing my own developing down the road.
Afraid of getting one too big and having too much fabric flopping around, or one that seems right, but ends up being too cramped to maneuver in, or any utility I didn't foresee with particular sizes.

Granted the "wrong" one will probably be only a $20 mistake, but still...

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	790
Image Height	529

>>4327037
Buy another one. Those are $200 brand new and $100 used. You’ll spend more money and time fixing it.

File: id-11134207-7r98q-lrnbis0(...).jpg (228 KB, 1024x1024)

228 KB JPG

Is the Nikon F100 a good intro to analog photography?

Can someone sauce me up with pictures of that one anon who photographs alcoholics with the biggest lens he has from 20 feet away

>>4327145
Absolutely

Bought a used Olympus OM-10 and it seems like the batteries drain overnight. The camera is off so I don't understand why this happens. I use LR44 and they work perfectly when I put them in, but I habe to change them every morning.

>>4327186
This. I also want this.

>>4327209
>buying lolympus
Lol. Lolympus is like leica. Fun to use, but not actually very good.

Sorry if this isn’t the best thread for my query:

What settings are best for landscape shooting in bright midday sun? What are the consequences for faster shutter speed/higher aperture in terms of image quality?

Thanks for your time and consideration

>>4327274
Thanks for the reply

Doesn’t faster shutter speed also decrease image quality at some point, that is, aside from darkening an image?

Ideally, what f/stop should I be using for landscapes? I’ve read f/9-11 but what do you think?

What are examples of diffraction?

How can I decrease chromatic aberration?

Again, thank you for time/wisdom

>>4327279
>Doesn’t faster shutter speed also decrease image quality at some point
If you have a sony a7c series camera, it doesnt have a full shutter so shutter speeds over 1/1000 will always result in the bokeh being cut in half. But only if. Good cameras should have an auto shutter option that switches from half shutter to full shutter at high speeds to prevent this.
>Ideally, what f/stop should I be using for landscapes? I’ve read f/9-11 but what do you think?
The one where everything you want to be in focus can be in focus, but try not to go over f/8 if you can because diffraction can look pretty bad
https://dofsimulator.net/en/
>What are examples of diffraction?
https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm
Or any full sized micro four thirds photo lmao
>How can I decrease chromatic aberration?
If stopping down fails you just bought a shitty lens and can only edit it out with the CA correction/defringe feature in a raw processor.

>>4327110
All the ones I see are 200+ used for good condition ones, nearing 300 for mint/great condition. I guess I'll just bite the bullet. The only other lenses I have are zoom kit lenses bundled with the d3400.

>>4327361
I assumed it was a 50/1.8 but with that price I assume it was a 50/1.4
Anyway if you're shooting crop and you only gonna have 1 prime, it should be this:
https://www.mpb.com/en-us/product/nikon-af-s-dx-nikkor-35mm-f-1-8g

What are the benefits to shooting raw.

>>4327376
What if I want to shoot on a d850? I really liked what photos the 50mm was taking on the full frame.

>>4327377
You otherwise irreversibly lose imaging information in-camera

Are the Canon G series the only compact point and shoots that can shoot raw? Excluding other Canons using CHDK.

>>4327236
What camera would you recommend that's in the same price range?

>>4327451
I don't know why you would think that. Sony's RX100 series also does raw, so do all the various Panasonics. I don't know what you consider compact but I was just looking through the cameras with a 1 inch sensor, and then anything with a larger sensor will obviously also do raw. Even phones these days will do raw.

>>4327288
>Good cameras should have an auto shutter option that switches from half shutter to full shutter at high speeds to prevent this.
is this just a mirrorless thing
literally never heard of it

File: 000021.png (1.66 MB, 1192x1750)

1.66 MB PNG

>>4326474
Need some help / recommendations lads. I've been fucking around with a Canon AE-1 for the past few years and want a camera for day+night street photography and filming now. What would be the best camera for this? I don't need the bleeding edge, I just need something that can do 4K60 with no crop or time limit in low light (fucking about with friends and cars) and take great photos (vacation pictures with the family). At least I don't think that that is bleeding edge.

I've taken a look at the Fujifilm X-T5, but that's 40 megapixels on an APS-C sensor so I'm unsure about the low light performance.
I've also taken a look at the Sony Alpha 7s III, but I'm priced out of that one.
The Lumix S5 II looks interesting, but I haven't really fully looked into it.

Budget is 3000€ for everything including Camera, Lenses, Additional Stuff. Should be available in Germany.
I have never bought a Digital Camera (phones don't count) so I'm not locked into any ecosystem and I'm open to anything

>>4327391
oh, your comment about d3400 make me assume that is what you had and planned to use for a while
if you have or plan to get a full frame dslr like a d850 then yes get a 50mm

>>4327501
A6700 or one of the earlier models if you want to save some more cash. I don't think any of those are bad at low light shit but realistically having a billion ISO and giant pixels isn't going to make dark shit look any better. If you pick up some turbo bokeh gaper of a lens now all your shits going to be out of focus because you figured f0.2 was a good idea when you can even see the screen. Now you start seeing sense and stop down the lens to sensible levels and guess what? turd vision because letting the camera auto expose is pitch fucking dark doesn't work at all. Basically 3200 ISO is fine, let night look like night and if you absolutely need to see something get a video light, they're absurdly powerful and affordable now.

>>4327514
So LowLight Performance should not be a purchase point at all, but instead buy a good light for when I want to film at night?

>>4327515
Yeah, If you have the option of lighting a scene absolutely, but the point I'm trying to make is that you shouldn't try to expose night like it's day, let it look dark, e.g if I can't see it with my eye then why try to show it with a camera? Add light to faces or subjects of interests (shoe mount panel is the most straight forward, or point a 200W at a nearby wall/pavement to add ambient fill over a large area), if it's truly fuckin dark, but if you're in a well lit city area you can mostly get away with orienting yourself so that the subject is exposed enough to be legible.

File: BMW2000CS.png (2.23 MB, 1735x1182)

2.23 MB PNG

>>4327516
>If you have the option of lighting a scene
Unfortunately rather not, it's going to be rather fast and spontaneous pictures.
>but the point I'm trying to make is that you shouldn't try to expose night like it's day, let it look dark
Thanks! That's not what I wanted to do in the first place, I just don't want to have fully black scenes where I cannot see anything or pictures that are noisy beyond grief.
>Add light to faces or subjects of interests (shoe mount panel is the most straight forward, or point a 200W at a nearby wall/pavement to add ambient fill over a large area)
I'll go with the shoe mount I think, being on a run I won't be able to mount lights wherever.
My main subjects will be cars (moving and stationary) and people but I won't focus on their faces too often (mainly from from the neck down or from behind), both day and night, "common" street photography.
>if it's truly fuckin dark, but if you're in a well lit city area you can mostly get away with orienting yourself so that the subject is exposed enough to be legible.
I'm going to mostly shoot in downtown / the metropolitan area of my city and sometimes out the woods (backroads and mountain trails).

The other part is as I said vacation pictures with my family, mainly family portraits with 5 to 20 people (majority elderly people, want to capture them before they're gone) during midday and evening gatherings during dusk and landscape + monument photography during the day.

>>4327528
Oh so you're doing car meets and sudoku off the side of mountains, yeah grab a video light and any modern mirrorless and you're golden. I would suggest going for a fast wide angle, not fish eye but 28mm equivalent or similar since you wont get crazy depth of field wide open at that focal length and it will gather shit tons of light. You will also get a better sense of speed if you're suicidal and decide to do a ride along. Thats also a decent lens for landscape/general snapshitting.

>>4327531
>Oh so you're doing car meets and sudoku off the side of mountains
Lmao yes.
>yeah grab a video light and any modern mirrorless and you're golden
>I would suggest going for a fast wide angle, not fish eye but 28mm equivalent or similar since you wont get crazy depth of field wide open at that focal length and it will gather shit tons of light.
Thanks! That's what I wanted to know!
>You will also get a better sense of speed if you're suicidal and decide to do a ride along.
Actually, I'm one of the sudoku committers kek. But none of my friends know how to or even want to handle cameras (minus phones for snapshit), and I kinda want to capture this for my kids later. Gotta do it myself then.
>Thats also a decent lens for landscape/general snapshitting.
Thanks! Any brand recommendations?

>>4327500
They're probably referring to EFCS. It can adversely affect bokeh or sunstars, and most cameras have the option to switch between EFCS and mechanical or electronic depending on the shutter speed to avoid this. Not a mirrorless thing, several DSLRs have EFCS and will give you the same issue. The a7c is unique in that EFCS is always on when using the mechanical shutter.

>>4327377
Lossless post processing with a lot more flexibility and potential for better quality. When shooting JPG, you're still capturing RAW and then letting the camera apply it's own JPG conversion. Never have to worry about white balance, just set it in post.

>>4327515
Lens matters far more than camera for lowlight capabilities, and most modern cameras would probably be pretty adequate for your needs unless you want to up your budget a bit.

>>4327528
Autofocus matters for this so stick to sony and canon. Fuji, nikon, olympus, and panasonic are merely building corner/family portrait grade.

The r6 is a boss video camera and there’s always one selling for under $1k if you look hard enough.
>25 second delay for mistyping (correctly typing) a captcha
REALLY

File: R6.png (125 KB, 862x264)

125 KB PNG

>>4327547
>Autofocus matters for this so stick to sony and canon. Fuji, nikon, olympus, and panasonic are merely building corner/family portrait grade.
Thanks for the insight!
>The r6 is a boss video camera and there’s always one selling for under $1k if you look hard enough.
This is Germany, Sir, buying used cameras here is not worth it. People "know what they've got" thus sell their Sony Alpha 7 (the OG one) still for 400 to 700€, used up A 7II for the same price while one could still get a brand spanking new A 7II for 800€ at Saturn or MediaMarkt.
The R6 starts at 1230€ with 266K shutter activation, pic related.
Going to look at the specs though.

>>25 second delay for mistyping (correctly typing) a captcha
>REALLY
This site's going into the shitter.

>>4327559
What's stopping you from trying to snipe deals on US auctions? If you paid <$1000 freedoms for the camera tax would be <163 fourth reich credits

File: 2xwf6qiv70271.jpg (59 KB, 526x926)

59 KB JPG

>>4327564
>What's stopping you from trying to snipe deals on US auctions?
Time. I'm going to go on vacation in October and this time might be the last time I see my grandmother who's approaching 90. Sure, if I order today, the camera will probably arrive. But I'm still saving up and won't be able to order / buy until early to mid September.
Also I've never imported anything from the US, so I've got no clue how any of this works at all.

File: IMG_20240621_191801_732.jpg (2.97 MB, 1605x2408)

2.97 MB JPG

I just picked up my first camera, a Samsung NX mini + 9-27mm.
I got bored of smartphone cameras and I want to take good-ish quality photos every now and then.

How do I advance past the "turn till it's not blurry, how autofocus and shoot" phase? Is it actually worth learning a little photography?

This is my first photo

>>4327619
How to improve:
- Take lots of photos of whatever you like. Think about what makes you happy to just look at and think about. Research your thing. Having a favorite thing is a critical component missing from many photographers, who just like gear.
- Go back and look at your work, pick your favorites and write down what you like about them and what's not good about the others
- Look at other art and photography and do the same as last step, figure out what you like and don't like
- Think about how to take more photos of what you like based off what you learned
- Meanwhile do some light reading on composition and technique. If you have a photographer you like, try to find interviews by them and see how they approach photography.
- After you do this for awhile, try putting together collections of photos that communicate something about your favorite thing.
As long as you're passionate about your thing and capturing it through photography you'll probably improve very quickly.

what are some good entry level arca swiss tripods? I have a magnus TR-17L and want to upgrade to something better but I can't justify a $500 tripod at the moment

>>4327541
oh anon was just talking about EFCS
made it sound like it was something always on at lower shutter speeds regardless, which confused me

>>4327604
Thanks Anon. If the timing wasn't so shitty, I would've considered it. Maybe in the future!

>>4327186
bumping my question so more people see it.

>>4327186
>>4327678
I'm also summoning this anon. specifically he'd make sure they saw him coming with his bazooka glass and he had some hilarious shots of them holding their liquor store haul with a concerned look on their face

>>4327186
>>4327678
Wanna see this GOAT in action as well.

>>4327531
Is also the focal length of cellyphones, so enjoy spending $4000 on kit only to end up posting ur pretty insta clickies that look just like everyone else’s iPhone 6 snapsharts. Go ahead, ask me how I know.

ASK ME HOW I KNOW, MOTHERFUCKERS
FUUUUUUCK.

>>4327756
You obviously don't know shit. A big part of photography is unitising what you have and what you do in the edit. You can make 28mm look incredible with the DR any camera made in the last 10 years, the reason it looks like a snapshart is (you).

>>4327756
If a 24-28mm lens doesn't look "nice camera" instantly you're using it wrong. probably f/16 iso 3200.

>>4327775
>24-28mm
what a shit zoom range

canon t7 owner here. give me some lense recommendations.
>inb4 google

>>4327776
>new E mount zoom by sigma
>24-28 f1

>>4327781
you can sell your t7 for $300 and buy a 6d+40mm f2.8 for just a few hundred bucks more

Could I learn to take better pictures than iPhone 13 with Canon EOS 500D in a month? I'm going on a trip and I'd like to take some nice landscape and city pictures

File: Feel.jpg (162 KB, 1000x1000)

162 KB JPG

>>4327756
>ASK ME HOW I KNOW, MOTHERFUCKERS
How do you know

What is in your opinion the best slr to get into film photography?

File: canon-a-1-camera-review-7.jpg (114 KB, 1080x605)

114 KB JPG

>>4327942
Canon A-1
>cheaper then the AE-1 because no jewtube hype train
>space age 1970s LED viewfinder display
>VERY good viewfinder in fact, better than anything modern, bright as all fuck, extremely precise focus
>based FD lens line
>aperture priority mode with cool as fuck glass window when you switch between Tv and Av
>short throw advance level is the chefs kiss, can one hand that motherfucker like you're rick allen
>looks fantastic
>just werks(tm)
I dare anyone to find better in the same price range.

Opinions on presets? I'm still quite new to photography and editing, but I'm really interested in the film look, moreso interested in presets that emulate actual filmstock. The way some presets are marketed seems very grift-like to me, but I can't deny that some achieve the look, like krodachrome for example, which for a beginner like me seems like a daunting task to try and replicate myself. Any other opinions on the matter would be cool too though.

>>4327995
*kodachrome

>>4327942
Nikon F100. Grossly undervalued. Basically a lite version of the industry’s last & most sophisticated Pro SLR film camera ever, the F6, but you can fucking get an F100 in pretty good nick for about $200 lol

If it’s too modern, then the Nikon FM3a, the finest classic manual body, from about 2005 or so. Either way, ultimately the glass you’re gonna get to go with either camera is why.

>>4327995
>but I'm really interested in the film look,
Have you tried not being a retard and just shooting film, then?

>>4328048
Nah, fuck that, that'd be retarded. Too limited and expensive. I plan on shooting film eventually, but even then, I doubt I'll be buying expensive filmstock often enough. My thought process right now is: focus on getting good shots, which could realistically take hundreds of shots (I'm new and pretty shit at this surprise surprise), and then apply a good film preset on the pics I think are good enough. Too much of a gamble to be practicing with film atm.

okay so
what's the deal with on camera flashes?

are they all universal in triggering and only have differences in compatibility for more complex things like TTL/syncing?
can I pop a godox v1 pro for Nikon on a panny g85 and use it with manually dialed in settings and have the cam trigger the flash through the hotshoe or would I need a separate flash or trigger for that?

>>4328073
You need a brand specific flash for TTL/HSS, otherwise if it fits and has a center contact it syncs with the shutter up to the sync speed in manual

File: IMG_2121.jpg (74 KB, 871x475)

74 KB JPG

>>4328073
Most brands have a Center pin as the other guy mentioned and will fire in manual. Decade+ old Sony stuff and older minolta stuff will have their proprietary shoe only, and canon took the infamous cripplehammer to some lower end bodies and just removed the Center pin. Picrel.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	871
Image Height	475
Scene Capture Type	Standard

File: 850_1030.jpg (884 KB, 1651x1101)

884 KB JPG

>>4327502
I tried reassembling it to take a photo and see what it looks like before I buy a new one. Here's the snapshit, it won't autofocus. While it "works" I guess I should buy a new one anyway, it's not like I always "need" autofocus but it is part of the lens that I would like to have sometimes.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D850
Camera Software	Ver.1.00
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.4
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	21338
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	50 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	1651
Image Height	1101
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2024:06:23 04:49:41
Exposure Time	1/125 sec
F-Number	f/5.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	2000
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	50.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	8256
Image Height	5504
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	Low Gain Up
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown
Image Quality	FINE
White Balance	NATURAL AUTO
Focus Mode	MANUAL
Flash Setting	NORMAL
Flash Bracket Compensation	0.0 EV
AE Bracket Compensation	0.0 EV
Lens Type	Unknown
Lens Range	50.0 mm; f/1.4
Shooting/Bracketing Mode	Single Frame/Off
Noise Reduction	OFF
Camera Actuations	39153

>>4326474
I just bought a Nikon N6006 for $20 and it came with a 210mm lens. What should I know about the camera? Am i gonna have fun with this or is it a pain?

>>4328111
If someone stole $1,000 from you right now, how bad would that feel?
Film is an expensive pain in the ass and requires at least a $250 minimum investment to figure out if the damn camera and lens will work or not. This comes in the form of film, development, printing/scanning before getting to SEE if there are any issues, BEFORE any work spent correcting any issues (if even feasible) comes into play.

If you're new to photography just buy a DSLR with a zoom lens (you can get an APSC one with 18-300mm (28-480mm equivalent) range for $600. Use that to learn all the basics like flash, lighting, dynamic range (you can't capture the sky+shadows on a bright sunny day in any single exposure, not even on film, which is why people love overcast/morning/dusk for photography)

There's always a chance your camera may work perfectly fine and be ready to accept film and batteries and start shooting fine pics but don't count on it.

For reference you can approximate the 210mm look by setting an APS-C (canon) lens to ~135mm as 135mm x 1.6 = ~216mm which is plenty close enough.
As it is an SLR you can also put some batteries in it (for focusing) and simply look through the viewfinder without any film in it to get an idea of what kind of framing it gives you. With a good eye you can also spot optical issues with the lens if you know what to look for before letting them fuck up film exposures, like if there's tons of dust in the lens you'll be able to see that.

>>4328122
>$250 to figure out if the camera works or not
Lmao what? A roll of color film is $7, $19 total if you pay a monkey to develop, scan, and edit for you.

This is your brain on aspergers

>>4328122
I have a dslr and when I bought it I thought it was a dslr because I don't know cameras very well. I just saw it and wanted to see if I could get it cheap. I have a Pentax K1000 so I'm somewhat familiar with film and the process. I was more curious about people who have used the camera itself and how they thought it handled or if they daily use it.

File: R6-15-6-24-499s.jpg (1.67 MB, 1920x1440)

1.67 MB JPG

>>4327995
all presets look like shit because the people that make and sell them aren't colourists and have no idea what colourimetry is. you legit need to shoot film to get the film look because the editing you do to the image after is going to be to your taste, which has a different character than anyone else's film images. thus there is no "conversion" directly from digital to film look. once you have shot a heap of film you will know which characteristics specific to you create that look, then you can try to apply them to digital images. it's extremely difficult though because fractional changes in exposure drastically alter the pallet and tonal response on film, where as digital will reproduce colours linearly across exposure settings. e.g. grass +1 stop on film will be rendered pastel green leaning towards cyan, the identical exposure on digital will just render the grass as grass green with twice the luminance.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 5D Mark II
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 13.2 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2024:06:23 10:27:33
Exposure Time	1/100 sec
F-Number	f/5.6
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/5.6
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	50.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>4328160
This isn't entirely accurate.
When you overexpose digital, you clip. You're not sampling RGB, so if for example you've got a subject that would reflect enough light to produce a 48/48/255 RGB image, when you overexpose by a stop you're turning that into something that would yield 96/96/511 which gets clipped to 96/96/255 making it lose some of its true color as the ratios are now all totally fucked.

This is why many cameras metering defaults produce "underexposed" shots, even if this simple ratio variance were the only problem the other one is noise and demosaicing and the whole fact that all the color is completely interpolated to begin with when it comes to digital so it's actually not as robust as you make it sound.
When you're "overexposing" that grass by a stop or two, you're probably way into blowing highlights in your image in other areas unless it's an overcast day or a low contrast scene.

>>4328161
I get what you're saying and you're right but I was more talking about exposure changes within clipping range, assume soft lighting and there shouldn't be too much highlights in the grass to cause clipping, but the gamut on film compared to digital will still be different.

>>4328162
Green channel clips first actually

Check your raw rgb histograms (editors dont do this, you need a program like rawdigger). Digital loses color info even without obvious pure white spots.

File: presets.jpg (3.06 MB, 5000x4000)

3.06 MB JPG

>>4327995
They're fun to play around with. There's so many free tutorials online, you should really go through those and make some of your own.
The premade ones usually look fine for 1 specific subject / lighting environment not so great for other situations.
You shouldn't just slap them on and be done, but use them as a starting point that you continue tweaking per set of images.
Here's an example of some "film emulation" ones at full 100% effect. 1st is original, and rest of top row is "kodachrome" specifically. Rest are mixes of various "Pro400H", "Portra", "Ektar" and "Gold 200" presets. Some are subtle, some are awful, some are fine.

File: IMG_5651.jpg (2.23 MB, 5616x3744)

2.23 MB JPG

Is this dust on the sensor? Or dead pixels?
I mean, I'm not complaining. I got this camera in exchange for my old 3DS, and Lightroom seems to automatically get rid of those spots, but I'd still like to know.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 5D Mark II
Camera Software	GIMP 2.10.36
Photographer	Photographer
Firmware Version	Firmware Version 1.1.0
Lens Name	EF28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 USM
Owner Name	Michael Schusser
Serial Number	1230713906
Lens Size	28.00 - 105.00 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2024:06:23 10:19:23
Exposure Time	1/4 sec
F-Number	f/4.0
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	6400
Lens Aperture	f/4.0
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	28.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	5616
Image Height	3744
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Exposure Mode	Av-Priority
Focus Type	Auto
Metering Mode	Center-Weighted
Sharpness	Unknown
Saturation	Normal
Contrast	Normal
Shooting Mode	Manual
Image Size	Large
Focus Mode	Manual
Drive Mode	Single
Flash Mode	Off
Compression Setting	Fine
Macro Mode	Normal
Color Matrix	132
Color Temperature	5200 K
White Balance	Auto
Exposure Compensation	3
Sensor ISO Speed	352

>>4328239
They are stuck pixels, meaning the pixel is only displaying red, blue or green. It's normal for a camera to have a certain number of them especially during long exposure or high iso shooting.

>>4328240
>>4328239
on Canon DSLRs there's an option for Manual Sensor Cleaning. it takes about a minute to perform on most cameras and once it's done the number of stuck pixels should be reduced. you should also install the latest firmware even if it's an old camera

>>4328075
> canon took the infamous cripplehammer to some lower end bodies and just removed the Center pin. Picrel.
Absolute pure spite

Was trying to take a photo of the sunset with the sun but forgot it on manual mode where it was set for night photography with a higher ISO and longer exposure. How badly did I fuck up? Is my censor fucked

>>4328239
Setting camera to manual sensor cleaning mode updates the dead/stuck pixel map. (You do not have to clean the sensor.) If the problem persists, try shooting video for a while to heat the sensor and then try again. Some stuck pixels only appear on long exposures and will not get mapped.
If a camera is unused for a long period it may show massive lot of stuck pixels, most of which will disappear after some snapping.

Best EU photo album printing service?
Want to create a book but not be too cheap or too expensive

if I want an image of the moon
filling at least 90% of the frame in at least 4000x4000px

what gear is required?
what do I need to spend?

will be shooting from east coast at sea level

File: moon.jpg (181 KB, 1372x449)

181 KB JPG

>>4328413
you want ~1800mm to 2000mm for picrel (which even cropped a bit from top and bottom)
depending on the combination, no autofocus
or Nikon P950/P1000

>>4328416
From a budget perspective, it really appears that Micro 4/3 is the way to go for anything long like this.
What about pixel shifting on a tripod for full frame at like 1200mm? Does the moon move too fast for that to be viable?

I thought teleconverters were a meme but apparently they're mandatory for anything far away.

I'm starting to think taking shots of the moon isn't worth it for me, I was thinking maybe 600mm would be good but apparently not. Not for the resolution I'd want at least.

Quality be damned I might just pick up one of those meme zoomer cameras instead like the P1000 for superzoom images instead of aiming for quality captures.

>>4328413
>>4328435
Unless my math is fucky for that vertical resolution with a bit of breathing room (4500) you'd be looking at around 30mp with 3:2. With 4:3 you can just about get away with 25mp because it's not as wide (GH6/7 or G9 II) but the 20mp bodies won't be enough.

>>4328435
you'd be better off going at it from the astro side than photography side, like actual telescopes and equitorial mounts, and whatever cheap camera you can hook up
does seem like a pointless endeavor imo, just to get your shot of the moon that looks like thousands already out there, many of which are already better quality anyways
it'd be one thing to make use of the moon creatively, but max zoom moon shots i dont get the appeal

>>4327288
>Or any full sized micro four thirds photo lmao
works on my machine

What's the cheapest brand you would go with for lens filters?

So I am getting into portrait photography, I try to mix it up outside and in the studio.

Question is, is it expected that I retouch the shit out of the model and make her skin smooth so she looks like a porcelain doll?

I don't like this shit, but the club members at a local photography club are telling me this is the way and it's expected.

What to do?

have any of you gone into the city and went up to random strangers and ask to take pictures? i want to do it to gain more experience but im way too shy and unconfident. thinking of just taking 2 bars and blacking out go into the city and hope the best.

>>4328517
I would imagine they would expect you to make them look the best they can be, both with a combination of photography and retouching. Just like how you could modify your lights to give a favourable look to the shadows on their face you can edit out some spots, stray hairs, make-up clumps, etc. However stick to getting rid of stuff that could have been gotten rid of, don't go modifying stuff that's natural to them like removing moles, scars, warping body parts, smoothing out the skin so there's no texture.

>>4328547
>don't go modifying stuff that's natural to them like removing moles, scars, warping body parts, smoothing out the skin so there's no texture

ignore all that, make every picture look as pristine and perfect as possible

It's what women do and expect

File: spoder.png (2.91 MB, 1331x2167)

2.91 MB PNG

Photo newfag here. Please consider this spider.
I just snapped this one with a flash, to illustrate a problem.

See this haze around the spider and brighter parts of the net? Where does it come from and what can I do about it?
Inb4 clean your lens, it's clean.

>>4328602
clean your sensor

>>4328602
what lens did you use?
could just be shit
this kinda shit happens with cheap adapters too if they have glass inside the adapter (if you're adapting an old lens to a newer body on different lens mount)

File: another example.png (2.24 MB, 1728x1215)

2.24 MB PNG

>>4328604
Are you sure? The camera has some self-cleaning sensor magic that happens when I turn it off. This supposedly helps against dust, but I'm not sure if dust is my problem. I'd rather not touch my sensor if it's not necessary.
>>4328623
Just the standard lens that came with it, it's called Canon EF-M 15-45mm f/3.5-6.3 IS STM. I searched for photos other peole made with this configuration, but didn't see this haze. Or would one call it halos? However, I didn't search very thoroughly that day.

>>4328648
Yeah, that takes care of light to moderate sensor cleaning. So more than likely not the issue.

EFM lenses iirc are kind of ass. That being said yours might not be optically correct. Pardon the faggotry, but are you certain you're not overexposing + messing up the focus? Otherwise yeah, my guess would be fucked optics. If you have an alternate lens to test with that would eliminate that variable, but I don't think its worth buying a new lens just to test.

>>4328602
>>4328648
the haze looks ok, it has the 80s, 90s vibe going. I'm not fond of super sharp macro shots.

>>4328525
alcohol and semen retention, maybe start smoking cigs too. thank me later.

File: A7s.jpg (52 KB, 666x575)

52 KB JPG

>>4326474
Is the first Sony Alpha A7S in our year of the lord 1822 + 202 still a good purchase for still photography and casual snapshit video filming? I could get one for 400 bux right here, but I have no idea what lense I would even put on it.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	314 dpi
Vertical Resolution	314 dpi
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	666
Image Height	575

>>4328776
No, not even close, unless your thing is color photography at iso 50k+

File: 1644493320766.jpg (83 KB, 1244x1080)

83 KB JPG

>>4328776
God I miss the delicious THINNESS of the first A7 series

>>4328851
They're not really that much thinner in the body, it's all in the grip. That's a bonus ergonomically and doesn't really matter when your lens is still going to stick out further. The problem with other mirrorless brands is they're thicker from the lens mount back.

Aesthetically though I can agree, the first gen A7 was a winner

with today's ultra high-FPS mirrorless cameras, at what point does photography stop being photography and starts being just taking screenshots of a high framerate video?

File: A7s.png (802 KB, 1490x584)

802 KB PNG

>>4328855
>They're not really that much thinner in the body

The first gen was remarkably thin even compared to the A7C but agree with >>4328777 though I personally wouldn't with the old Sony colors and crappy autofocus. $400 is pretty cheap though ...

File: 1719286603555.jpg (35 KB, 479x640)

35 KB JPG

>>4328709
messy, I prefer this

>>4328920
The IV got a little chunkier in the body (and an even deeper grip) but the II and III are closer to the first gen

>>4328912
We are already almost there. This will possibly be the default shooting more in 10 years or less.
RAW burst (what you described) exists on many cameras now, and separately there is also continuous shooting which can get you 30 or so raw images in a second on some cameras. I don't do RAW burst, but I do use continuous shutter 99.999% of the time.

>>4329053
Are normies actually like this? I use continuous shooting for dogs and kids running because i cant rely on autofocus getting just one and trying to trap focus manually is closer to a sport than an art.

>>4328920
videography and its consequences have been a disaster for the camera race

I have the stupidest questions on earth

Should I sell $2600 of full frame digital gear and just buy a 500cm and zeiss planer t* 80mm f2.8?
Should I use a micro four thirds for web size scans? Obviously camera scanning MF film without an a7riv/gfx100s can't do print size scans justice, i'd need an enlarger otherwise for it not to look like digital

>>4329104
absolutely!

film is based, like the warm loving cuddles of a german shepherd, and so soft, yet so detailed, like their fur
digital is cringe, like the cold soulless and manipulative affections of a h*man female

>>4329104
no, don't listen to the gay furry!

digital is based, like the divine ideal of a modern fighter jet, and so efficient, yet so powerful, like its critical systems
film is cringe, like the unnecessary bric-a-brac that clutters up a stubborn old geezer's flat and as inconvenient as his gramophone

>>4329177
>>4329116
>digital is like a zogbot civilian-blaster, a massive waste of taxpayer dollars that serves no good ends
>film is comfy like petting a dog
Film it is boys

In about a month it will be 2 years since I started photography hobby.

How can I quantify, if I am getting better?

Thanks frens!

Yo, so how are you guys trimming down your EXIF data? My camera seems to spit so much unncessesary shit in it that it's 30 lines long.

Tried posting an in-camera jpeg but 4chan says there's an embedded file

I've seen posts telling people to "research how to use autofocus with mirrorless" but I can't find many resources on this. Is there really anything to it outside of aiming your focal point on an area with contrast?

>>4329504
Same as it is for most non-mirrorless. Learn when to use AF-C vs AF-S, set your release priorities according to your needs. Learn your different autofocus area settings (zone, wide, all, single point, flex, etc) and when to use them. Learn the behavior, timing, quirks, and limitations of your specific camera. Learn how quickly your specific lenses can focus too.
For any situation, you can get there from a variety of different settings, so you need to figure out what works best for your shooting with your camera.
>>4329467
I uncheck exif when exporting from my raw processor. Alternatively, copy and paste into Photoshop/Paint and save as a new separate file.

I've been doing photography as a very casual hobby with a pretty decent camera for about 7 years now but i recently got a new job and make okay money now, so i thought i'd take things to the next level. Now i've done photography to the death and my current camera is very adequate for the pics i do take , so i want my new camera to be good for videography. But i have a bit of a problem with my budget, cause i really dont want to exceed 1300€ total cost for camera + lens + possibly gimbal, and if i got the a6700 which i was eyeing it would certainly have everything better but would go over budget by well over 700€, and it seems to me that its still very much lacking in IBIS and would need a separate gimbal regardless.

In short, would it be better for me to get an a6400 for videography with a decent lens and gimbal, or goy up for the a6700 but try to make do with the IBIS it has and a mediocre lens?

I also noticed that a lot of the features on the a6700 are related to animal and human and object etc. detection, i am strictly a nature photographer, sometimes, very rarely, i take pictures of animals, but nature is my main focus. What i would be doing is cinematic nature videos, combining it with a drone i have.

>>4329643
Why do you need a gimbal or amazing IBIS for nature stuff? Are you running after the animals?

>>4329676
He “needs” it because his favourite TokTubeGram influencer has all that stuff on xir’s list of “essentials for video”, duh.

>>4329686
no, retard

>>4329676
i like to *move* around nature, so get this, i thought maybe a shot like walking along a path
but of course projecting nigger retards like >>4329686 will automatically assume everyone else is like them
or maybe im the fool for expecting actual advice from this board

>>4329643
IBIS is a stills feature

You do not need, or want, IBIS for video. Shifting the sensor but not the lens warps the perspective which is visible in video as a trippy effect instead of what it looks like in stills (mild edge softness)

For stills, if the IS/VR/whatever snoy calls it lenses are sufficient for you, you don't even need IBIS because lens IS provides ~3 stops which is enough for anyone really. But if they are not you want IBIS to get 3-5 stops of IS with any lens you choose.

How do you organize your photos? I used to sort them into dated folders, but as I've become more critical and delete more, I'll often end an outing with one or two shots that don't justify their own folder. Also, where do you put your RAWs? Loose in the same folder? Subfolder? Entirely different directory?

File: oopxia8j6dga1.jpg (322 KB, 1771x2048)

322 KB JPG

>>4326474
>Want to buy a camera on Kleinanzeigen (German Kijiji)
>Ask seller if it's still available
>He does not reply
Pain. Hate.

>>4329964
Dump everything in one folder and let God and thumbnail view take the wheel.

File: dk.png (40 KB, 166x165)

40 KB PNG

Need cheap polaroid or instant print camera that prints sticker photos


already use this piece of shit, need something else with better quality prints
https://www.kodak.com/en/consumer/product/cameras/instant-print/printomatic/

>>4328602
Does a diffuser fix it? You can test it with some DIY stuff with paper and other things and see if the effect goes away. It could be the lighting is just to sharp without a diffuser?

>"do you ever worry about not improving as a photographer", said one photographer to another
>"not at all", replied the other, "I've just started getting into my.....prime".

Can i use my lens as a dildo?

File: IMG_1338.jpg (1.86 MB, 4032x3024)

1.86 MB JPG

Just picked up a Konica C35 EF for about $6 in a Japanese camera shop. The shutter and winder work fine but the battery compartment looks like this. Is it totally fucked lads?

>>4330460
Only if its weather sealed, obviously.

File: 1714945681070622.gif (399 KB, 498x498)

399 KB GIF

>>4330281
There there.

>>4330462
That is a lot of corrosion, but if somehow the rest of the camera innards aren't corroded, that would actually be a relatively simple fix. You'd just need to replace the contacts that have disintegrated, and possibly mend the compartment to hold the battery in place. You could just use tape for the latter, the connections will require light soldering and taking apart the body, most likely.
Again, if the corrosion is also inside the body, that camera is scrap.

>>4330462
the contact is only corroded, not torn or anything?
best case is you only have to clean it, worst case maybe take it apart and solder a new one. What kind of battery does it even take?

>>4330462
vinegar and qtip to the rescue

I'll basically repost what I posted in the /fgt/ plus a complement

My friend's father is a photographer and is selling his cameras
They're all working, he's been using them until now and is selling them to buy a mirrorless. I'm thinking of buying his Nikon FM2 along with 4 lenses:
>Nikkor 24/2.8
>Nikkor 50/1.4
>Micro-Nikkor 55/2.8
>Nikkor 105/2.5
I also have two good F-mount lenses (28-200/3.8, and 70-300/4.5) that I also don't get to use because my only Nikon camera is a F50 and it's fucking huge and electronic, which I don't like (I love mechanical cameras tho)
I don't even know yet how much he's asking, but it'll probably be a reasonable price
My SLRs are a Pentax K1000 with a 50/2, and a Canon FT QL with a 50/1.4 and a 50/1.8
So it would be good to actually have a system with different focal distances
And I know FM2 are reliable and good as fuck
Should I get it?
I'm mostly shooting medium format nowadays, but it would be handy to buy a complete system and I have a bunch of 35mm film

>plus
Talked to my friend, his father would rather have his camera with someone who'll actually use it and said I can pay him over the course of a couple of months and he's not in a rush or whatever, he'd gladly sell it to me with good payment conditions

>>4326474
That looks like sensor dust..

Does anyone have 1:1 HR FF/MF film comparisons like this, shot by the same photographer with the same level of competence?
https://jakehicksphotography.com/blog/2020/6/28/shot-on-medium-format-120-roll-film-but-whats-the-difference

>>4330512
No, why get some random ass bundle? Get exactly the kit you want not some boomer scraps.

If it’s below market price then whatever. Idk anon I don’t give a shit how you spend your money. Make up your mind dummy.

>>4330512
Yes all of that is good

>>4330736
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vz-2oKIBO8
wew

Question: 70-300 or 100-400? Same price.

>>4330825
70-300

How do declickable aprture works? Depending on the stepping, usually clicks mean you go from like f2 to f2.5 then f2.8 (arbitrary example).
With declickable, does that mean you're able to use, say, a f2.1?

>>4330827
And why not 100-400?

saars, how's the fuji G690 series of rangefinders? the mamiya 7 is outrageously expensive

>>4330828
Yes, they're continuously variable. The point isn't the get rid of the physical click but rather to make the adjustment stepless so it's smooth for video work.

>>4330835
It's a better range for the types of photography i do

>>4330852
What do you shoot?

>>4330856
Portraits, cityscape/architecture, landscape, occasionally street. 300-400mm is quite specialized, much more so than 70-100mm.

>>4330858
Ok, ty. What about 60-600?

Guys on the recommendations thread more very slowly so I'll post here
Nikon d3000 with 18-105 lens for 80 bucks or 3200 with kit lens for double? Or 70s?
Alternatively recommend me something within this budget range. I want to replace my phone so I can take better pictures esp at night, with more control over the exposure settings and also something that I take carry around with me when cycling, so somewhat light and somewhat cheap in case I break it.

>>4328653
>but I don't think its worth buying a new lens just to test.
Just go to the store and try out their lenses there, and also bring the spider with you so you can have the same variables.

>>4330866
>3200 with kit lens for double
Or d5200?

>>4330869
Wtf is a spider?

What do you call the lights you use when doing portrait photos? A local amazon returns resell shop had a set for $40.

>>4330905
It's like an insect with 8 legs. The anon took pictures of one above
>>4330921
Bright lights?

>>4330921
monolights? ring lights? maybe some cheap light modifiers if you can get a refurb set for 40?

here's a stupid question for the stupid questions thread: I'm in a silly TLR mode and want to get a mamiya 220 or 330 because the lens sets are interchangeable. how good are the bodies? I heard mamiya build quality is shit

>>4330922
I figured it out the are called softboxes. I guess I could use it to light up a better shot but wouldn't it be better to buy a led pannel with a soft filter on it. I assume the bigger the pannel the better the light dispersion.

What's the standard screw size used for mounting a camera I want to buy them loose.

>>4330951
1/4-20 BSW

>>4330935
Yeah try it, professional shit is overpriced af, make yourself some shitboxes, they'll probably be just as good.

>>4330458
I chuckled.

>>4330754
It's not a random boomer with a shitty kit, it's a professional photographer with a 40+ years career selling pristine equipment
Well maintained FM2s are hard to come by outside the US, so a good one sells fast, especially with a diversified kit (ultra wide, two wides and a tele) that would suit me well
My question is whether it's a good enough camera to invest in
I've been wanting to get a Nikon workhorse, I believe the FM2 could be good for me, I just wanted feedback from people who actually have one to tell me if it's really as good as everyone says
>>4330757
Thanks, anon
I think I made up my mind already, just wanted some reassurance

>>4331048
>a good enough camera to invest in
outside of a select few leicas, no camera is good enough to invest in
>I think I made up my mind already, just wanted some reassurance
sounds like you didn't make up your mind if you're here looking for external validation
but that's a nice little kit. 24/50/105 is a good three-lens spread. guy certainly gave his system serious thought

>>4331061
Guy had the same thought process as me and basically everyone else:
Snapshit
Doitall
Isolation

t. 24 50 135

>>4331063
>Snapshit
>Doitall
>Isolation
more like wide/medium/tele and they all complement each other.
135 is too far from 50. 135 is good in a 35/85/135 trio. 35/85 is what I take as a two-lens spread, I don't have a 135 because it's too tele for me
also some people do 50/100 as a two-lens spread

>>4331061
>outside of a select few leicas, no camera is good enough to invest in
That's literally one of the most retarded things I've ever read in my life
But sure, keep on sucking an overpriced brand's dick out of sheer fetish
>sounds like you didn't make up your mind if you're here looking for external validation
I'm not after validation, I'm after advice so that I could properly ponder on it
Like common problems, quirks etc.
>>4331063
>>4331069
This
Looks like a solid combo
And as I've said I have another 2 lenses (28-200 and 70-300) so I'd basically have everything from 28 to 300 covered

>>4331079
Leicas actually owned by famous fucks appreciate reliably

The rest do not

>>4331079
>That's literally one of the most retarded things I've ever read in my life
I don't think a single nikon SLR has ever appreciated in time, barring the price increases that came with the reddit-driven film "renaissance". maybe the nikon I rangefinder appreciates?
notice I said SELECT FEW leicas. the ones that crop up in auctions every once in a while. leica stores will happily sell you "investment-grade" leicas but those don't ever appreciate

File: 1627398184549.png (280 KB, 720x479)

280 KB PNG

>>4330473
It's the next monday, almost 12pm and HE STILL HASN'T ANSWERED.
Do people hate money or something?!

>>4331141
maybe he went to a pro-AFD rally.
maybe he went to an anti-AFD rally.
maybe he got diversified on his way home.
who knows?

What do you check when buying a used camera?

>>4331084
>I don't think a single nikon SLR has ever appreciated in time
I buy cameras to shoot photos, not as financial assets
If you want something that appreciates over time there are way better options than buying cameras btw

>>4331164
>I buy cameras to shoot photos, not as financial assets
then why do you want to know if the FM2 is, quote, a good enough camera to invest in, unquote?

>>4331156
He replied.

>>4331182
nayrt but you do know there are other kinds of investments than those for direct returns on resale of property right?

>>4331162
Depends if its slr, dslr, mirrorless or phone

>>4331182
>then why do you want to know if the FM2 is, quote, a good enough camera to invest in, unquote?
imagine being this literal and narrowminded
>>4331184
this
Of course "investing" in a camera also means spending money, but I'm using the verb in the sense of getting into an entire system (it's a camera body with a specific mount and 4 lenses)
If I wanted to make money I wouldn't be spending mine in a 50 years old mass produced equipment, I'd put my money in the stock market and jerk off based on lines going up from speculation
I work more than enough, I neither need nor want my hobby to become governed by a moneymaking logic
You're in a photography forum, I asked a question about buying a camera with 4 lenses and if it was a good idea or not, and your mind went straight to a "return over investment" logic
That's sad as fuck, honestly

File: 1604510722635.jpg (173 KB, 1928x2048)

173 KB JPG

>>4326474
Is there a 35mm, 0.95 aperture lens WITH autofocus available for the Sony E-Mount for a reasonable price? Does such thing even exist?

>>4331202
You're basically asking for a extremely fast, third-party, fully decoded lens, for a closed mounting standard. Quick google shows manual versions existing for $250~

>>4331204
>closed
he said sony not cannot lmao

>>4331202
If they made it they'd try and make it sharp wide open, which is how you go from the size of a classic 50mm f1.2 to the size and price of the fe 50mm f1.2 GM. Chinese f0.95s exist but they are not sharp and do not have truly good contrast at literally any aperture. Non-chinese f0.95s exist and they are also soft and hazy at every aperture, but they have european sounding brand names so people call it character. Nikon tried making an autofocusing, sharp superfast prime and almost nobody bought it so I doubt it's ever happening.

>>4331205
E mount is open to 3rd party? Well fuck me then.

>>4331186
Nikkon Dslr

File: Abstract.jpg (37 KB, 680x684)

37 KB JPG

>>4331204
>You're basically asking for a extremely fast, third-party, fully decoded lens
Yes, full frame to go even more apeshit. I don't care who builds it as long as it's good and affordable
>Quick google shows manual versions existing for $250~
I know, that's why I'm asking because I want an auto-focus one for video purposes.
>INB4 get a follow focus
I don't want all that shit on my camera, I want to zip around and make quick shots / videos.
>>4331205
>If they made it they'd try and make it sharp wide open, which is how you go from the size of a classic 50mm f1.2 to the size and price of the fe 50mm f1.2 GM.
So it wouldn't be the tiny lense I'm looking for but some fuckhueg bastard?
>Chinese f0.95s exist but they are not sharp and do not have truly good contrast at literally any aperture.
>Non-chinese f0.95s exist and they are also soft and hazy at every aperture, but they have european sounding brand names so people call it character.
Is it that bad or still acceptable if I dial down my OCDtism?
>Nikon tried making an autofocusing, sharp superfast prime and almost nobody bought it so I doubt it's ever happening.
That's disappointing.

Thanks for your input Bros

>>4331254
>Is it that bad or still acceptable if I dial down my OCDtism?
It really depends on if you like the soft, dreamy washed out look without all the 3d popping microcontrasts. If you spend enough, you might get a noct from leica/zeiss/voigt that is softer for the first 2-3 stops of aperture and pretty sharp for the rest, but it'll still be a plain manual lens.

>>4331257
>It really depends on if you like the soft, dreamy washed out look without all the 3d popping microcontrasts.
I don't like tooo sharp scene's and I'm planning this for a A7s II anyways so it's not like I'm trying to get footage that will slice bread for me. I'm building a budget sanic and speed is king.
>If you spend enough, you might get a noct from leica/zeiss/voigt that is softer for the first 2-3 stops of aperture and pretty sharp for the rest, but it'll still be a plain manual lens.
I've already taken a look at the voigtlander speed demons, but as I said the manual focusing is what's keeping me from doing it. I'm too retarded to manually focus. I think it's going to be a follow focus in the end, but I'm not thrilled about that.

>>4331268
Nikon Z and sony E have access to a techart and fotodiox leica M-AF adapters (motorized helicoid) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4xb2OR-vEU

File: 1639799961078.jpg (74 KB, 1920x1080)

74 KB JPG

>>4331270
Holy shit I just came, thank you Anon!

>>4331252
Go kill yourself in the most brutal way possible, this is sony board

File: 1590240854769.jpg (21 KB, 343x360)

21 KB JPG

How much would a misaligned lens repair cost at some camera repair shop? Is it even possible to repair/realign? It's a manual (modern mirrorless) lens, not a zoom one thankfully.

>>4331403
>How much would a misaligned lens repair cost at some camera repair shop?
several hours of labour if they even take the job. the better shops will have collimators and lens projectors in addition to test charts and alignment jigs. cheaper shops might not even have a single test chart.

>Is it even possible to repair/realign?
yes, but the improvement may not be what you're expecting.

>It's a manual (modern mirrorless) lens
which one is it?

>>4331417
Loxia 21mm, I talked about it a week or two ago. The sensible option is simply to get rid of it by selling it without saying a word and that's it, but still. Though if it's several hours of work, it won't just be like 150 bucks. And if it's for non-guaranteed results, then the sensible option is to get rid of it.

>>4331419
>it won't just be like 150 bucks
my local camera repair shop charges about 150 bucks an hour for labour.
call around before dumping the thing, but get ready for $300 to $600 quotes.

would a godox X3 transmitter trigger my elinchrome lights? I lost the elinchrome one and it's pricey af

File: file.png (82 KB, 512x512)

82 KB PNG

I'm still not sure how to interpret Lonelyspeck's Google Sheet's lens astro score
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AomVJ2lbrwb1dDRGeHJOaVZfYnlFR2ZDTFNlSnk2emc&usp=sharing

I mean, on paper, I get that it's a synthetic score and comes with its limitations, but as it's a synthetic score, it's also quite helpful in comparing different focal lenghts and apertures. 2000 will be 2x better than 1000 for this application.
But I'm surprised at how much 24mm is favored compared to UWA. Though it's true the best milky ways I've seen are more often than not from 24mm f1.4 lenses, so there's probably some truth to it.
Still, to take an extreme example, I'm not sure why a,20mm f1.8 lens with its 25sec of exposure time (rule of 500 is shit but whatever) doesn't have the same score as a 10mm f2.8 score that can expose for 50sec. I mean, sure, you lose 1 full stop, but you can expose 2x longer, so it should compensate. No?

>>4331254
>Is having to stop down a super wide lens bad?
Well, depends on how far you'd need to stop down, then all of a sudden it makes more sense to buy a more common lens like a f/1.4 or f/1.8. iirc the canon 50mm f/1.8 is optically excellent starting at f/2.8. I reckon these shitty ching chong lenses wouldn't even approach framewide sharpness at f/8.

While not the same thing, I have a ching chong f/1.8 in the mail and lots of people report it to be optically decent even wide, so YMMV

what is wrong with sigma and tamron's quality control?
why do fags put up with it?
I see shit like "I went through five copies of this lens to get a good one but it's soooo worth it tho!" on forums all the fucking time

>>4331622
My Sigmas i series are fine. Can't say that much about my Zeiss lemon, unfortunately.

>>4331622
Tamron is chinkware cheap chicken shit, sigmas are meh ok

>>4331270
>>4331272
Why use this when you can just focus yourself? It's cheaper too.

When would you use really tight apertures like 22+? It seems the diffraction could be a problem for most subjects

I'm new to photography and still experimenting with adjusting basic parameters when taking photos. I've seen people claim (and advise even) to not bother tinkering with certain parameters before taking a photo, since you can just make these adjustments afterwards in editing software to the raw file.

However, I don't have a good conceptual grasp on how much information is contained within raw files. Clearly, certain things like shutter speed are determined beforehand and it is impossible to adjust this afterwards; but I'd like to understand for which parameters (e.g., maybe white balance), there's a 100% correspondence between adjusting it beforehand vs in post (e.g., I'm quite certain applying a black and white filter would qualify).

>>4331749
snapshits

>>4331756
total light gathered is a function of shutter speed, aperture, and sensor size. all of this is analog.
then an ADC converts light into numbers with a max bit value, ie: 12 bits per value, representing how many light particles hit each pixel, plus or minus variance from noise (light itself is uncertain so there's always noise)

everything other than this is metadata. it's stored alongside the information about exposure and the program that uses those numbers to make a visible photo can interpret them however it wants. white balance does not affect the raw, it's just a note made alongside it. it does affect jpegs and other finished formats like encoded video so if say all your blue info in one area clips with your current white balance, but isn't actually clipping in raw, you will be able to change the white balance however you want in raw but cant in the jpeg without that area being a big digital blob of wrong color

>>4331762
>>>4331749
>snapshits
What do you mean? As in "it just werks"?

Can holding down continuous auto-focus while also holding down the shutter cause the AF to get confused when the shutter is down and try to refocus incorrectly? I feel like this has happened to me, but I was unsure if it's user error.

Went to look at a user camera, it was a pretty entry level dslr, but the kit lens dial for the focal distance wasn't very smooth. That along with some dust behind the lens made me say I'm not sure how bad this is so I'm going to walk away.
How bad are those things really?

>>4331749
slow shutter speeds when you don't have an ND. I'm assuming 35mm of course, in 4x5 f22 is fairly normal

stupid question: when is symmetry inoffensive or even "good" in a photograph, other than architecture?

File: 1634419963347.jpg (20 KB, 549x412)

20 KB JPG

>>4331645
>Night Street Videography
>WIDE aperture
>Gun and Run
>Just use the focusring blud
I really wish I was as talented as you are Anon.

>>4331817
If you hold CAF and shutter, you can usually set whether or not your camera tries to ensure the image is focused before firing. Usually called CAF (or SAF, for non-continuous focusing) release priority. If on, the camera will fire immediately on shutter press.

I've been trying to recreate my camera's JPGs in Lightroom with as few settings as possible with the intent of shooting only RAW, then processing the majority of them (ones I don't intend to edit in-depth) with this preset for increased quality over sooc JPG.
>Camera Profile matching the one set in camera
>WB: As shot
>Slight increase in sharpening
But the skin tones in the RAW end up looking slightly orange/yellow, whereas the JPGs have more pink. When I look at the two side by side, it makes the JPGs appear to have more life in them. What should I be changing to match this? I can't seem to emulate it with color grading or the HSL, since it ends up changing too much of the other colors.

>>4332188
that's why for snapshits, I just end up shooting jpeg and editing from there. if I need more flexibility for PP, then I shoot raw+jpeg

File: Screenshot 2024-07-03 085351.png (60 KB, 378x1072)

60 KB PNG

>>4332188
too bad you dont use C1

File: images.jpg (5 KB, 263x192)

5 KB JPG

okay I just have to ask
>what the FUCK is with the center viewfinder on mirrorless cameras?
I mean, what's the point of going mirrorless if you still have to squish your nose against the display. Do you really want me to believe that manufacturers just carried over the single most significant shortcoming of SLR and DSLR cameras to their mirrorless systems without second thought? Usually, when they do a rangefinder-style camera, it's one of those boomer LARP things that doesn't have all their professional features and focuses on looks.
Sony kinda does a good job, but everyone else just can't seem to realize that the center viewfinder was always an inconvenience born out of necessity.

>>4332338
>people with normal noses: i like this camera
>some jewish guy: what's the deal with center viewfinders on mirrorless cameras?
many such cases

>Sony kinda does a good job, but everyone else just can't seem to realize that the center viewfinder was always an inconvenience born out of necessity.
You can do sideways SLRs no problem. It's just most people don't have a huge nose so it makes more sense to have the viewfinder closer to the same axis as the lens.

>>4332338
it's because ppl are used to having controls on the top left

File: IMG_2161.jpg (28 KB, 320x180)

28 KB JPG

>>4332338
You could generalize your question to why are they shaped like they are at all, not just the viewfinder positioning. They could give us some cool new design but no, stick with a shape that only exists because film needed to travel a certain way. Gimme dat fuckin canon photura

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	320
Image Height	180
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>4332338
I'm a left eye shooter and don't have a particularly small nose but still it barely touches the controls to the right of the screen, if I go right eye then my nose is off to the left of the screen. When I'm using a viewfinder my head isn't pointing straight forward. One advantage of having the viewfinder centred is it makes it a bit more ergonomic when shooting portrait.

how do you guys get your images under 5mb without losing quality? I don't want to be a nophoto

File: 0041.jpg (422 KB, 2304x1536)

422 KB JPG

>>4332528
Just accept some loss. Do you really need gigacock 50MP to convey an image?

File: genuine and fake NE5532P.jpg (301 KB, 2160x1440)

301 KB JPG

>>4332528
Make a moderate quality jpg copy in size which fits in your screen and post that. Use software bundled with your camera, a free image editor or do it in camera.
If a photo can't take that kind of 'loss of quality' it's likely not worth posting. As long it's not a blurry mess with visible artifacts it's fine.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 100D
Camera Software	Digital Photo Professional
Firmware Version	Firmware Version 1.0.1
Lens Name	90mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	350 dpi
Vertical Resolution	350 dpi
Image Created	2024:02:08 15:39:43
Exposure Time	1/60 sec
F-Number	f/4.0
Exposure Program	Normal Program
Lens Aperture	f/4.0
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Flash	Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	90.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	2160
Image Height	1440
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Exposure Mode	Program
Focus Type	Auto
Metering Mode	Evaluative
ISO Speed Rating	Auto
Sharpness	Unknown
Saturation	Normal
Contrast	Normal
Shooting Mode	Manual
Image Size	Unknown
Focus Mode	One-Shot
Drive Mode	Single
Flash Mode	Unknown
Compression Setting	Normal
Macro Mode	Normal
White Balance	Flash
Exposure Compensation	3
Sensor ISO Speed	224
Color Matrix	129

>>4332608
4chan doesnt like the jpegs coming out of my camera; something about embedded metadata or something. Any idea how to get around that, that isn't to just process it anyway?

>>4332528
When displaying photos on average computer or phone... You already lose 4 bits per channel in color, since monitors are 8 bit, and camera sensor is 12 bit, 10 bit whatever 14 bit.
JPEG 95% quality and 99% quality has virtually no difference to the eye (and computer if you do the difference between two), but insane difference in the size.

>>4332750
Niggon? My old v1 images don’t upload on here properly either. Not sure what the exact reason is.

File: Screenshot 2024-07-04 at (...).png (188 KB, 598x1338)

188 KB PNG

>>4332608
capture one export recipe

File: Screenshot (241)_c.png (629 KB, 341x459)

629 KB PNG

>>4332750
May be GPS data in exif. My AW100 includes (invalid) cordinates even for photos taken with GPS is off and if I forget to remove latitude and longitude 4chan does not show exif. (In Windows, properties - details - remove properties and personal information)

>>4327209
anyone?

Can somebody explain why this

http://mediateca.inah.gob.mx/adore-djatoka/resolver?url_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_id=http%3A%2F%2Fmediateca.inah.gob.mx%2Frepositorio%2Fislandora%2Fobject%2Fobjetohistorico%253A2754%2Fdatastream%2FJP2%2Fview%3Ftoken%3D0154deca0dc182edd731737232d02b2dc94eb7e72ab1e47e91d979b29996e53d&svc_id=info%3Alanl-repo%2Fsvc%2FgetRegion&svc_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajpeg2000&svc.region=0%2C0%2C9999%2C9999&svc.level=5

Looks darker then this

http://mediateca.inah.gob.mx/adore-djatoka/resolver?url_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_id=http%3A%2F%2Fmediateca.inah.gob.mx%2Frepositorio%2Fislandora%2Fobject%2Fobjetohistorico%253A2754%2Fdatastream%2FJP2%2Fview%3Ftoken%3D394c2abf32affe08e22234a1a3362d6560db68fe9754d214a58318c3f62bf223&svc_id=info%3Alanl-repo%2Fsvc%2FgetRegion&svc_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajpeg2000&svc.region=0%2C0%2C9999%2C9999&svc.level=5

In vivaldi, but in gimp or iranfview, they seem the same brightness? Seems like it might be an embeded color profile thing since I know sometimes my browser, irfanview, and gimp will display their colors/brightness differently in that situation, but I'm not getting any sort of PSA/notice that there's a color profile and how to import it when I open it up in GIMP

Also, in general, does anybody know of a file/folder browser that will display color profiles next to each file in a folder without opening each up?

>>4332820
pictures look identical in Safari.
>.gob.mx
we really got mexican glowies shitposting on a tranistrian tapestry weaving forum, damn.

>>4332822
Weird, now that i'm testing it, opening up the first url in different tabs or via manually putting it in the url bar vs right clicking the link and opening it up in a new tab, or refreshing the same tab it's already open in etc will all variously sometimes have it be darker or lighter in vivaldi

>>4332820
They look exactly the same. Are you on drugs?

>>4332820
I saved both photos to my computer then opened them in ifanview. they are absolutely identical. ate too much peyote there juanita?

File: 1605_s.jpg (1021 KB, 2160x1440)

1021 KB JPG

>>4332782
It depends of software and the image, but quality 90% is likely overkill for images posted to web forums. I use quality in range 80-60% in Gimp or 1 (lowest) in Canon bundled DPP to export. If there is no visible compression mess its good enough for people to ignore and bots to feed in AI model without permission.
(This snap is what I got from DPP 4 scaled to fit in 2560x1440 in quality 1)

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon PowerShot G9 X Mark II
Camera Software	Digital Photo Professional
Lens Size	10.20 - 30.60 mm
Firmware Version	Firmware Version 00.00
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	350 dpi
Vertical Resolution	350 dpi
Image Created	2024:06:27 08:50:44
Exposure Time	1/1000 sec
F-Number	f/4.0
Lens Aperture	f/4.0
Exposure Bias	-1 EV
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	10.20 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	2160
Image Height	1440
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Exposure Mode	Program
Focus Type	Auto
Metering Mode	Evaluative
ISO Speed Rating	Auto
Sharpness	Unknown
Saturation	Normal
Contrast	Normal
Shooting Mode	Manual
Image Size	Unknown
Focus Mode	Unknown
Drive Mode	Single
Flash Mode	Off
Compression Setting	Normal
Macro Mode	Normal
Subject Distance	Infinity
White Balance	Daylight
Exposure Compensation	2
Sensor ISO Speed	170
Image Number	575-5253
Color Matrix	131

I made a boo boo. I wanted to put in a roll of film, but I forgot there was already one put in from earlier today with only between 8 and 10 exposures on. Roughly how many are ruined? How many exposures should I do before I can be certain that it's going to be ok? The back was open for maximum of 3 seconds

>>4333392
every single one of those 10 frames is toast, buddy. dunno what body you have but I'd start shooting that roll after advancing 12 frames in your case.

File: UFO.jpg (323 KB, 1005x670)

323 KB JPG

Not exactly /p/ related. But I saw this moving across the sky while reviewing my time-lapse photos.

Any idea wtf this is?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-6600
Camera Software	GIMP 2.10.38
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.8
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	16 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	350 dpi
Vertical Resolution	350 dpi
Image Created	2024:07:06 05:38:05
Exposure Time	4 sec
F-Number	f/1.8
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	100
Brightness	-7.1 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Cloudy Weather
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	11.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1005
Image Height	670
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

File: UFO.jpg (87 KB, 507x338)

87 KB JPG

>>4333567
Last full shot of it before it moved out of frame.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-6600
Camera Software	GIMP 2.10.38
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.8
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	16 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	350 dpi
Vertical Resolution	350 dpi
Image Created	2024:07:06 05:46:22
Exposure Time	5 sec
F-Number	f/1.8
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	100
Brightness	-7.2 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Cloudy Weather
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	11.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	507
Image Height	338
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

>>4333567
spy satellite or santa's sleigh

>>4333567
>>4333569
Mystery solved. It's a plane with flashing lights.

when updating camera's firmware is it ok to jump firmware ver?
my r50 is still at v.1.0, is it okay to go straight to v.1.2?

>>4333584
Yes. Did the same thing with the same camera. Make sure battery fully charged.

File: IMG_0039.jpg (85 KB, 1296x925)

85 KB JPG

>>4333586
aight thanks bro

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Photographer	CRESSIA
Image-Specific Properties:

I've been thinking on and off about it for a year now, and when I think about getting something for that amount of time, I usually go through with the purchase.
I'm looking to make the switch to digital photography, because film is just not worth it for me any more.

About 12 years ago, I started with photography as a hobby. I dug out my grandfather's Voigtländer, then his Rolleiflex and started shooting with those. Pretty soon I invested in a Nikon F100, a 50mm and a 85mm.
I still use these cameras from time to time, when going on holiday or on special occasions.
>>4333654

I had so much fun the last two times, I want to take photography up as a hobby once again, but this time digital.
Here are some things I'm looking for:
*) Light and compact build
*) Ideally interchangeable lenses
*) €3000 is my budget

I haven't looked into sensors and makes at all!
I guess my first question would be about things to look out for? Things to avoid? Good intros to the gear aspect of digital photography? Resources to check out?

Thank you for your time!

>>4333669
Well a full frame Nikon DSLR would be a pretty good choice, similar to the F100 in terms of feel and controls and you can carry on using your lenses with the same field of view. They're also pretty cheap these days.

>>4333729
>pretty cheap
>3000 4th reich credit budget

>>4333669
The ZF and R6II are the current sweet spot for modern cameras. It's a shame Nikon could not simply make a Z6II.5 with the updated processing and made a partially stacked birdsportsvideo meme camera and a retro brick, but whatever, your other option is canon's hilariously shit lens ecosystem that won't weather seal shit that isn't a superfast pro lens, and nikon is supposedly meant to release more premium compact lenses in the future because the ZF is their #2 best seller under the pros-only z8.