>>4350058
I have a question about full frame and crop sensors. In general it is said that 50mm to 100mm on a full frame camera is best for portrait work because lenses wider than that distort too much. How do apsc cameras fit into this with their 1.5 crop? If you want to shoot 50mm on a apsc a 35mm is used. Will the 35mm distort too much for portrait work or does the crop eliminate the outer area of the lens and in doing so eliminate the distortion?

>>4350061
35mm will work great for portraits on APS-C, it'll function like 52.5mm focal length on a FF camera. If you put a 35mm FF lens on an APS-C camera, you may avoid some vignetting and corner softness because with the smaller sensor, it's not being covered by the edges of the lens. If you use a 35mm lens that's APS-C only, then that's different.

>>4350061
A cheap 50mm turns into a 75-80mm (canon 1.6x), which means you get the tighter FoV that is wanted for portraits while also getting the natural 50mm focal length (lack of) distortion. It's actually one of the few advantages APS-C cameras have over FF.
The distortion of the lens is the same no matter what body it is on. A 35mm lens will have the same distortion on FF but your FoV will be something like 50mm's. Focal length is a property of the lens and does not change. All that said, 35mm lenses don't have a very noticicable amount of distortion to begin with unless you're really looking for it.

>>4350065
>The distortion of the lens is the same no matter what body it is on.
Thanks. Your post explains what I wanted to know. It all dawned on me the other night. This helps tie together what I was thinking.

if I use NX studio as a first pass and export a tiff into lightroom or capture one for further edits, am I losing anything by not starting in LR or CO right off the bat?

File: file.png (89 KB, 1000x1080)

89 KB PNG

I want like a white backdrop to take pictures of smaller objects. is there a material or product you guys would recommend or should I just use a sheet of white paper

>>4350069
https://vflatworld.com/

>>4350065
while that is true, as far as I've heard a lot of aps-c glass has a bigger image circle than needed and it should be noted those distortions are around the edges of the frame, which apsc would crop out
and you would be standing further away compared to 35mm on ff to get the same subject size in the shot, meaning you would get the equivalent compression and look of a 50ish mm if you matched compositions

>>4350058
When is the decision made to shoot black and white over shooting color? I understand when light contrast or contrast in general is wanted. e.g Mid day harsh direct sunlight or dull boring cloudy days.

>>4350062
I personally have always purchase FF lenses since in the future I want a Canon R5. Not person who asked question

>>4350069
https://vflatworld.com/collections/tabletop-v-flats

>>4350073
Once you go FF you can't go back. Plus, the lenses I use with my DSLR, I can also use with my film SLRs, which I couldn't do with APS-C

>>4350072
>when is the decision made
When the b&w film is like 35% cheaper, that’s when the decision is made.

>>4350061
It really depends on the look and type of portraits you are aiming. Headshots? Generic blurry background half or 3/4 body shots? Contextual portraits in a store or cafe? Stylized fashion?
There are two types of distortion, one from the lens like barrel or pincushion. This varies more lens by lens like other optical qualities (vignetting, field curvature, etc) and isn't necessarily unique to certain focal lengths.
The distortion that most people mean in the context of portraits is perspective distortion, like how facial features start to bulge. This is purely camera to subject distance. If it is too much, you are too close, regardless of focal length or camera.
A 35mm on crop and 50mm on FF will distort the same in this manner, provided the subject distance is the same (which it should be). A lot of portraits are actually done with 35mm and 50mm lenses, and I prefer them to a lot of more tele portraits, it really just depends on the type of look you are going for.

>>4350068
Yes, you have less flexibility in processing a TIFF instead of a RAW. If your workflow includes LR/C1, just start there, you're only handicapping yourself and literally wasting time otherwise.

>>4350075
>Once you go FF you can't go back.
I disagree. I shoot both apsc and ff. Both have their uses.
>the lenses I use with my DSLR, I can also use with my film SLRs, which I couldn't do with APS-C
You own the wrong cameras/lenes. This isn't an issue if you have for example:
>Nikon F mount SLR
>Nikon F FF DSLR
>Nikon F APS-C DSLR
ect.

>>4350081
He's right in saying that you can't use APS-C lenses on full frame/35mm. You might physically mount some but you'll have literally solid black vignetting taking up half of the photo. Some apparently can obstruct the mirror but Canon uses a slightly different bayonet mount for those lenses so that they won't fit on a FF, dunno about Nikon but I assume it's something like that.

How does one clean their camera? Just use microfiber clothe and lens cleaner?

File: really-dirty-dslr-camera.jpg (568 KB, 1024x768)

568 KB JPG

>>4350088
https://wetravelandblog.com/2014/tips/how-to-clean-a-dslr-camera/

>>4350061
I use a smegma 30mm 1.4 dc dn (45mm FF equiv) on my a6000 and I have no issues with distortion. what I like about it is I can shoot in tight spaces, even group shots.
there's really no limit on what can be a portrait lens or even the aperture used with thin or deep DOF, or using wide angle to tele.
if distortion is of concern, then shoot the face dead center, provide ample negative space on the sides, then crop later in post.
also, most smartphones use 28mm equiv by default for selfies.

>>4350088
dont use a microfiber cloth, they get oily and will smear the lens. get a blower (literally any cheap one) and a lens pen with the brush and rubbery bit. blow off the free dust, use brush for ones that are a little stuck and use the other end for smears. on camera sensor use only the blower if you can and check for dust artifacts in test photos (smallest aperture, bright background)

I have hundreds of photos - mainly holiday and stuff. I'd like a way to organise them, but im not into google/adobe/other cloud based stuff.
is there a simple app/desktop programme i can use to basically name multiple files. and maybe do some duplicate identification. i dont need AI fancyness.. I can see lots of hosting stuff but thats not what im after, just an organiser

thanks

>>4350149
>organizer
when is your bday anon, aug or sept?

>>4350152
lolwot?

What site do you guys use for portfolios? Wix?

Getting into post processing and printing
My picture has now been edited in darktable how I want it to look like...

>what do I make sure is correctly set in the history stack and it what order must the modules be?
I am talking about the modules:

input control profile
-input profile [e.g standard color matrix]
-working profile [e.g linear Rec2020 RGB]
-gamut clipping [e.g off]

output control profile
-export profile [e.g sRGB]

I also noticed that in the workflow tab "show active modules" you can CTRL+SHIFT and click drag a module (e.g output control profile) and move it up or down in the module list, which result in the image being totally different. Currently I moved the output control profile to the top.
Why is that and do I need to care?

>how do I export my picture correctly for a print and in what filetype?
Do I choose jpg 8bit with DPI 300+ and give that image as an external print order?
Or do I save it in TIFF and do the same?
When is JPG chosen over TIFF?

File: aDSC_1047.jpg (3.78 MB, 2000x3000)

3.78 MB JPG

Is the dynamic range measureable? And if yes what would be needed to extract it out of an image? Pic related. I thought it would be possible to get more details out of the blacks and the sky.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON Z f
Camera Software	Ver.01.20
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	1096
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	40 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2024:08:20 14:13:57
Exposure Time	1/1250 sec
F-Number	f/9.0
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	1000
Exposure Bias	1/3 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	40.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	2000
Image Height	3000
Rendering	Custom
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	Low Gain Up
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>4350242
Not from a jpeg, I wouldn’t say it’s ‘measureable’ from a raw but… it’s there

Is it true that shoot only IS produces a sharper image than continuous in some cases?

>>4350239
>Currently I moved the output control profile to the top.
Why?

>>4350065
>>4350067
Perspective distortion is a function of subject to camera distance, not the focal length. A photo taken with a 35mm lens and one taken with a 50mm lens from the same distance will have the same perspective, and with the 50mm shot cropped down to the same field of view will look practically identical. The other type of distortion like barrel and pincushion is only pronounced on really wide lenses (a fisheye for example), any from a 35mm lens will not be any more noticeable than a 50mm for portraits. Plus many modern bodies have distortion correction for a lot of lenses, or you can get profiles for software.

>>4350261
Sure, because continuous is always trying to autofocus but will permit an image to be captured whether focus is correct or still correcting. AF-S (Nikon terminology) won't permit a shutter release until focus has been achieved.

>>4350263
Because it says output, so to me logically it needs to be at the end of all processes.

>>4350268
Logically it's already in the correct place

File: dcp-icc conversion using (...).png (429 KB, 1652x1414)

429 KB PNG

Have a dcp profile for my camera and would like to convert it to icc so i can use it in darktable for my raws.

For this I downloaded dcamprof:
https://torger.se/anders/dcamprof.html#make-icc

Now I found a command line (pic related), but still dont fully understand what parameters are needed for it to work.
Has someone done this before, converting dcp to json then to icc?
Can someone please provide me an example command?

>>4350372
I've never used it but from reading all that, all of the flags are optional

so

dcamprof dcp2json yourdcpfile.dcp
dcamprof make-icc -n "Your Camera Name" yourdcpfile.json yourdcpfile.icc

Try that

>>4350372
Also that documentation says that make-icc takes input in native dcp file format but the command line example has a json file as the input example, which is self-contradictory

So you might be able to just:

dcamprof make-icc -n "Your Camera Name" yourdcpfile.dcp yourdcpfile.icc

Try it, try both, idk, report back

File: darktable.png (31 KB, 356x433)

31 KB PNG

>>4350268
I mean this is what my 'show active filters' looks like and I'm very much new to this program. So I opened it up to check and in my setup it's already the default last filter. Have you mangled your presets? Is your 'module order' v3.0 for raw input?
Not really an expert so can't offer a lot of help but maybe pointing you in the right direction

>>4350372
Okay bros, I figured it out myself.
Converted it. Wish me luck that it works in darktable

Error: could not open "Canon90D.json" for writing: Permission denied.
PS C:\Program Files\DCamProf> .\dcamprof dcp2json CanonEOS90D.dcp Canon90D.json
PS C:\Program Files\DCamProf> .\dcamprof make-icc Canon90D.json Canon90D.icc
Writing output to "Canon90D.icc"...
Complete!
PS C:\Program Files\DCamProf>

>>4350543
>>4350544
>>4350547
Lol thanks
While you guys were posting I figured it out myself

>>4350547
Some ugly hybrid of linux and windows syntax there
The error writing the json is I assume because you're working in program files without being administrator or because the file already exists. As it managed to write the .icc I'd guess the 2nd, but if you're using PS you probably already figured that out

>>4350550
Also see if it'll make-icc the .dcp directly - and if it won't, send them an email telling them about their documentation mistake :)

>>4350552
>>4350550
FFS I've fucking had it. I thought the dcp to icc would make my raw editing easier but my green grass still looks fucking piss yellow!!!!!

>>4350555
Skill issue, post example

File: IMG_0058.jpg (4.95 MB, 1999x3000)

4.95 MB JPG

>>4350559
I photograph both jpg and raw
This is the jpg out of cam with slight saturation

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 90D
Camera Software	PhotoScape
Photographer	Adrian J.
Firmware Version	Firmware Version 1.1.3
Lens Name	28mm F1.4 DG HSM | Art 019
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Created	2024:08:21 18:51:52
Exposure Time	1/640 sec
F-Number	f/2.8
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Exposure Bias	-0.7 EV
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	28.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1999
Image Height	3000
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Exposure Mode	Av-Priority
Focus Type	Auto
Metering Mode	Evaluative
Sharpness	Unknown
Saturation	Normal
Contrast	Unknown
Shooting Mode	Manual
Image Size	Large
Focus Mode	AI Servo
Drive Mode	Single
Flash Mode	Off
Compression Setting	Fine
Macro Mode	Normal
White Balance	Manual Temperature
Exposure Compensation	2
Sensor ISO Speed	160
Color Matrix	34
Color Temperature	5500 K

File: IMG_0058_02.jpg (4.76 MB, 2000x2997)

4.76 MB JPG

>>4350568
This is my best attempt with the raw file

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 90D
Camera Software	PhotoScape
Photographer	Adrian J.
Firmware Version	Firmware Version 1.1.3
Lens Name	28mm F1.4 DG HSM | Art 019
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Created	2024:08:21 18:51:59
Exposure Time	1/640 sec
F-Number	f/2.8
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Exposure Bias	-0.7 EV
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	28.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	2000
Image Height	2997
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Exposure Mode	Av-Priority
Focus Type	Auto
Metering Mode	Evaluative
Sharpness	Unknown
Saturation	Normal
Contrast	Unknown
Shooting Mode	Manual
Image Size	Large
Focus Mode	AI Servo
Drive Mode	Single
Flash Mode	Off
Compression Setting	Unknown
Macro Mode	Normal
White Balance	Manual Temperature
Exposure Compensation	2
Sensor ISO Speed	160
Color Matrix	34
Color Temperature	5500 K

File: IMG_0058_03.jpg (3.65 MB, 2000x2997)

3.65 MB JPG

>>4350569
This is the raw file not edits

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 90D
Camera Software	PhotoScape
Photographer	Adrian J.
Firmware Version	Firmware Version 1.1.3
Lens Name	28mm F1.4 DG HSM | Art 019
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Created	2024:08:21 18:52:21
Exposure Time	1/640 sec
F-Number	f/2.8
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Exposure Bias	-0.7 EV
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	28.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	2000
Image Height	2997
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Exposure Mode	Av-Priority
Focus Type	Auto
Metering Mode	Evaluative
Sharpness	Unknown
Saturation	Normal
Contrast	Unknown
Shooting Mode	Manual
Image Size	Large
Focus Mode	AI Servo
Drive Mode	Single
Flash Mode	Off
Compression Setting	Unknown
Macro Mode	Normal
White Balance	Manual Temperature
Exposure Compensation	2
Sensor ISO Speed	160
Color Matrix	34
Color Temperature	5500 K

You've got the exposure way too high, look at the cloud in your raw file, it's gone pure white because you've pushed everything up over the limiter

You're probably pushing one of the colour channels over the limiter which is why you're getting a tint

Post the histogram view from dt

File: dark-histo-3rdpic.png (24 KB, 548x480)

24 KB PNG

>>4350570
>>4350573
This is from the 3rd pic (raw unedited). I scrapped the 2nd pic posted.
Not sure if this helps anymore.

>>4350578
NTA. So this histogram looks good in terms of clipping. There's no channels pushed up against either side so this means the RAW is exposed properly, if maybe a little on the flatter side, but that is typical. Have a look at your camera jpeg and the histogram from that. As other anon said the cloud is clipping and lost all detail, so you will likely see a channel or two pushed up to the right side. Have another go at editing the RAW but keep the levels / brightness / contrast in check by making sure none of your changes pushes the histogram up against the edge.

all this work to avoid paying $10/mo or less

>>4350242
>f9, 1/1250, ISO 1000
you're giving up on a lot of dynamic range by using settings like these, you should fix that first

>>4350600
I will not submit to digital service slavery!

File: jpghisto.png (22 KB, 522x374)

22 KB PNG

>>4350578
>>4350581
This is from the jpg unedited direct from camera

>>4350581
>this means the RAW is exposed properly
It looks massively underexposed to me

File: darktable_minimal.png (25 KB, 356x315)

25 KB PNG

>>4350578
I don't think the .icc is your problem, fwiw I use a Nikon d7100, d80, d70 and I've never bothered to try any of that stuff. You shouldn't need an .icc for the camera as the camera's operating in the SRGB colour space is my understanding of it, i.e. the camera knows what it is and adjusts its output accordingly to match the SRGB spec (I may be wrong, I don't think I am.)

I suggest you just load it into darktable, turn the filters off so you get this type of config, then adjust the exposure and black point until you've filled the histogram, but don't push any of the colours up to the point that they max out (i.e. the far right and left of your histogram shouldn't be spiked up)

Actual stupid question but maybe Im not "processing" things correctly right now.

I shoot as a hobby, Im not professional photographer but try my best. I upload most of photos I do on my own private site but it means that only people who get direct link actually view them. In the past I used to get more views on more popular galleries like big events but now I get laughable numbers like 10-50 views total as opposed of 200-500 in the past. I DO want to show people my photos but don't know how. No point in bothering co-workers.

How do I "reach" to people? Honest, yet silly question but I really don't know. Thanks for help.

>>4351062
I think a lot of people have just checked out of anything that isn't thrown in their face by an algorithm, so you aren't going to see those numbers again because people are just spoilt for choice, any app they open has an algo shoving shit in their face, you sending them emails can't compete.

I'm putting my shit on flickr because I refuse to engage with the zuckersphere, but I accept this probably means single digit view counts, shrug. Gotta have some principles.

>>4351069
Flickr is unironically superior for people with IRL friends

You cant even view photos on instagram unless you already have a zuckerberg account. Almost everyone born after 1980 already deleted their zuckerberg account after that courtroom fiasco where they got a critical look at the man quietly watching their entire life unfold.

Flickr, for sharing with the people in your life
Instagram, for sharing with the automated accounts based on a chinese server farm

>>4351069
Why does having view counts at all matter? Who does photography with the aim of satisfying anyone but themselves? Sounds kinda gay.

>>4351078
>Who does photography with the aim of satisfying anyone but themselves?

Well, I do. When I create someting, anything, I want to share this with others. If I go to con and photograph people taking part of contest and consider the work good, I really want them to notice that somebody else appreciate their performance. Sometimes they even like the very fact that they are present on photo gallery somewhere. I can easily recall happy faces of random cosplayers at anime cons after I show them their pictures on camera LCD. Hell, when I put photos on /p/ and one anon says they are good while other call them shit and explains why, I feel that these hours spent in [spoiler]Darktable[/spoiler] matter. If I take paid vacations at work for week to process and upload photo galleries and all I get are 5 views from random bots, I feel so damn useless. And Im pretty much never truly satisfied with picture quality, always think they could be done better.

There is also another problem - whenever I try to apply for more "official" photographing at events, whoever organize them tend to ask about reach and hard numbers. Perfectly understandable approach, I won't argue. And nowdays, without such rights all you can do is to photograph back of audience heads. And I really want to make as interesting photos as possible.

>>4351078
>Why does having view counts at all matter?
Because making people happy with nice art is an enjoyable experience, you absolute autist

>>4350086
>dunno about Nikon but I assume it's something like that.
You are wrong. All Nikon F mount dslr and apsc lenses are interchangeable. When an apsc f mount lens is on a ff body the ff body will capture apsc crops or a full vingetted crop.
Sony apsc/ff lenses and bodies work the same as Nikon. Everything is interchangeable and on FF either a crop or full vignetted crop can be captured.
Also with some apsc zoom lenses its possible to use the middle to long end of the zoom on an FF without vingette. The Nikon 18-55mm 3.5-5.6G ED DX is one such lens for example. From 24mm up there is no vignette when used used on a full frame in full frame capture mode. Sony system lensse likely also have such anomolies.
So yah. Both you and anon are tards talking out your ass using janky mismatched systems as a frame of reference. Please educate yourself before "assuming" next time.

>>4351078
>Who does photography with the aim of satisfying anyone but themselves?
Professionals.

>>4351101
>making ... nice art
Which nobody who posts here does, so this point is 100% moot, faggotron

>>4351101
>People
bold of you to assume that social media "engagement" is people

>>4350242
Did you bump the ISO dial by mistake?

>>4351062
Upload your photographs to online photography contest. Maybe that will get your name out there to the right people.

Hello, /p/anons.
This is going to be a stupid question, by I can't seem to find an answer.
How does focus relate to aperture size?
I know that the smaller the f-stop number (the wider the aperture) the blurrier the background is.
The bigger the f-stop number (the smaller the aperture) the more in-focus everything is.
But how does focus correlate to aperture? Or it doesn't?
More specifically - can I shoot landscape with wide aperture like f/1.2 and still have everything in focus?
Or another example - can I shoot portrait with f/1.2 and have both subject and background in focus?
I know it's stupid question, thanks for taking the time to answer it.

File: IMG_8828.jpg (161 KB, 1000x1000)

161 KB JPG

>>4351354
Basically the more open you get, the depth of field gets shallower. On an SLR lens you can see marks for the different f stops. If you get in focus, at a given aperture, the marks will show what will be in focus, so you can estimate the depth of field. In simpler terms, pinhole cameras make everything in focus all the time, and a wide open aperture will make the background blurry.

[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	1000
Image Height	1000
Scene Capture Type	Standard

Are there any good point and shoots or did the phone market completely destroy it outside of the gr series? i like the feel of my old kodak point and shoot

>>4351354
>How does focus relate to aperture size?
It doesn't. Well, it shouldn't. I'm sure there are lenses out there that have some fucky wucky that I'm not aware of, but your aperture should not be affected by focus. Aperture is simply the blades designed to open and close and the f/ number is only reliant on how far open or shut those aperture blades are. Focusing, depending on how the lens is constructed, happens around that diaphragm, either to the rear of it or in front of it (or both sometimes).
>can I shoot landscape with wide aperture like f/1.2 and still have everything in focus?
Yes. But it depends on a few things. Most notably how far away the thing is you're focusing at. Every lens has an 'infinity' where everything beyond that should be in focus. Physics is nice to us like that. However, this is generally a very fucking far distance and only becomes further away the longer focal length we use. There are calculators online like * that you can plug numbers and distances into and they work out how much is in focus.
* https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/dof-calculator.htm
>can I shoot portrait with f/1.2 and have both subject and background in focus?
Technically, but good luck in practice. You would have to have your subject and background at basically the same distance away, or be a very very far way away from both which isn't exactly practical. In reality, no you can't. You would stop down to something like f/11 at least and maybe beyond. But it all depends on what sensor and lens you're using. f/1.2 on a full frame camera is a very thin DoF, where f/1.2 on a phone camera might have everything you can see in focus. That's how sensor size comes into play.

>>4350606
Slightly underexposed but not significantly. Funny, since there's actually no highlights pushing up on the right hand side. Is Darktable just shit at detecting clipping? That one has me a bit stumped. Both the software programs I use would show me that cloud is clipped. For a non-histogram confirmation, there should be some kind of underexposure and overexposure indicator you can toggle on and off that should have a glaringly obvious highlight colour that appears on clipped pixels, but I don't use Darktable.
>>4350616
Well, properly as in not clipping or massively fucked. Yes, it's underexposed since it's all over the left side of the mid point, but it's a RAW and it wouldn't be hard to recover it into good JPEG.

>>4350208
Instagram.

File: Depth-of-Field-e1538038613613.png (129 KB, 700x607)

129 KB PNG

>>4351354
Aperture wont change your focus point, but it can change what is or is not in focus. Focus is the actual point of focus. Aperture affects how far in front and behind that point is also in focus, and how rapid the transition is to out of focus. Like the focus plane is a sheet of paper, and aperture can affect how thick that stack of paper is.
Some lenses exhibit "focus shift" where the actual plane of focus can shift slightly as aperture is changed. Some lenses also exhibit field curvature, where plane of focus can curve at the edge, and this can also change as aperture changes. Both of these are lens specific faults and ideally shouldn't and don't occur in nicer lenses.
Depending on the width of the lens, distance of landscape, field curvature, etc, you could shoot landscapes at f1.2 It really depends on the lens.
At f1.2 you would need your subject on the same relative plane of focus as the background. You could play into a lens with high field curvature. An actual tilt lens will let you do it, they work by tilting the plane of focus.

>>4350058
The more I see that fucking cat, the more I enjoy the image

>>4351101
There isn't a single photo on /p/ that is worthy of being called 'art'.

>have sharp lens
>high megapixel sensor
>things get moire/aliasing often
When will we see true color sensors hit the market? I'm tired of interpolation artifacts.
Foveon isn't anywhere to be seen but we used to have three-sensor designs and they took those away, there's clearly multiple ways to get full color images but we're stuck with bayer garbage (or even worse, x-trons)

>>4351466
Literally have a folder on my desktop called 'Art from /p/ and it's full of stuff I consider art. I used to routinely print stuff from here and hang it on the walls for a while. GTFO.

>>4351524
Congrats on having shit taste I guess

>>4351524
based, share folder pls

>>4351523
The film revival totally destroyed our chances of that lol

No one wants to pay thousands of dollars for film-ish digital cameras when 35mm film is already 36mp foveon

>>4351523
>Foveon isn't anywhere to be seen
one more year (tm)

is the pentax ME a good camera

>>4351588
its better than a k1000. i think whether a film camera is good depends on the price really

File: DSCF3741.jpg (208 KB, 1200x800)

208 KB JPG

i got a super takumar stuck on my zenit. i found a fix on this forum https://www.photo.net/forums/topic/198502-super-tak-stuck-on-a-zenit/ . the issue is that i don't care to buy this particular tool and i suspect if i were to attempt the fix, i would struggle for several hours before finding that i lack the needed dexterity. at this point, i would like to at least salvage the lens but i can't be bothered to spend any time on this. maybe i just put the whole thing on ebay, or at worst just donate everything. what would you do?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	FUJIFILM
Camera Model	X-Pro2
Camera Software	GIMP 2.10.38
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.0
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	27 mm
Maker Note Version	0130
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2024:08:23 22:48:03
Exposure Time	1.3 sec
F-Number	f/5.6
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	200
Lens Aperture	f/5.7
Brightness	-1.5 EV
Exposure Bias	-0.3 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	18.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1200
Image Height	800
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown
Blur Status	Blur Warning
Chroma Saturation	Normal
Continuous/Bracketing Mode	Off
Auto Exposure Status	OK
Flash Mode	Unknown
Focus Mode	Auto
Focus Status	OK
Picture Mode	Aperture Prior AE
Sharpness	Normal
Slow Synchro Mode	Off
White Balance	Auto

>>4351610
>i got a super takumar stuck on my zenit.
If i knew it was going to be that kinda party... I'm gonna stick my dick in the mashed potatoes!

>>4351588
https://youtu.be/tdWKGI2apuc?t=100
this youtube guy says they break easily. but if you can get one for cheap and it works there's no harm in playing around with it i guess. i would not want a camera that i can't change the shutter speed on THOUGH.

>>4350601
Thanks for the hint.

>>4351287
Still was trying to figure out the best way to deal with Auto-ISO on the Zf. Dunno how I came up to a 1000 though.

>>4351675
Auto ISO is a digislop mindset that only at most should have the limit set to like 800. If anything use Av mode if you're worried about fucking with settings and missing a shot. Decent photo, but fixing habits like that will land you higher quality results and at the end of the day, that's what matters right? R-right guys? Not brandfagging as we always do?

>>4351675
I think your camera might be retarded. There's no reason it should have aimed for a shutter speed of 1/1250 in aperture priority. Even if you have a minimum shutter speed option for auto ISO that's 5 stops above the 1/focal length rule, Sony bodies will only go 3 stops in either direction.

>>4351701
It used to be 100 max, then 400 max with the d800s, then iso 800 max with the Z6/Z7, and now 1200 max with the current lineup.

>>4350208
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZLYiT0HjUo

>>4351675
ISO control is the only function of the ZF where the dials actually work well.

When shooting manual, set ISO auto, max 200 in the menu. The ISO dial now sets your maximum tolerable ISO. You can get it to 100 with the EC dial for HDR.

When shooting P, S, or A, turn off auto ISO.

>>4351712
ISO 1200 is still clear as 800 & 400 were before that. Even with NR off. Shit got better.

So I'm going to be shooting some photos for multiple people tomorrow and I'd like for them to be able to go through them on my android tablet so they can choose what ones they like, then I'll send them over to their phones and they can do what they want with them. I've got a usb card reader and that's working all fine, I can see the images and open them up individually but the problem is it's opening them up in the file manager app and I can't then swipe through them. I'm having to back out and then tap another photo to open it and it's time consuming and difficult to keep track of what photo I'm up to. I've tried opening them in the google photos and gallery apps and it's the same behaviour. I'm after something like irfanview that I have on my pc where I can just scroll through all the photos in the folder.

>>4351701
I will give it a try, setting the limit to a lower value. If it becomes underexposed in a setting I could still change the value on the ISO dial.

>>4351709
Afraid the retard was me. I likely set the ISO value with the dial, overwriting the Auto-Setting of ISO - as this Anon >>4351804 also explained:

I wish it would also work for A, as you described it for M. If I switch Auto-ISO off though and I change the exposure with the compensation dial, which I'm most used to, the camera will instead of the ISO change the shutter speed, since that's the only value the camera can now manipulate on its own terms.

When I'd be shooting in M with Auto-ISO, the compensation Dial will turn the ISO value with the compensation dial, but the exposure compensation wont show any value. Suppose there is a reason behind it, but I don't get it, and I miss not seeing it how many stops or 1/3rds of a stop I'm off from 0.

>>4351827
The ZFs UI is genuinely awful. I sold mine. Rather use a snoy a7iv and bind a custom button to the ISOASS HUD.

>>4351827
I just checked on my Sony and in aperture priority with auto ISO the exposure comp dial will adjust the ISO until it hits whatever limit has been set and then it will resort to slowing the shutter. If I have the ISO set to manual then it will of course then only adjust the shutter speed with exposure compensation. There's really not much reason not to use auto ISO.

>>4351830
The menu is great, but jfc. The knob layout is dumb, the ape in a window is fairly retarded but I could forgive a near miss in a first effort. What gets my goat is that the design team that did it also did the ZFC and DF before it. ...the fucking ZFC is exactly the same damn design! How in the ever loving fuck of jesus' tight ass did they make the ZFC, sell it for years, and not realize oh hey, this actually kinda sucks, maybe we should do a better job of it before we spend even more money doing it again in full frame.

If they do a ZFII, they need to 1, stick a 36mpx sensor inside, 2, add U1, U2, & U3 on the B/W & Video dial, 3, take the knob out of the side of the VF, 4, cut the knob height in half, 5, cant the battery on an angle to slightly increase the "grip" so it's actually usable like the F3 & FA, 6, fuck the aperture window, nobody's looking at that. Stick it on a knob, and when the lens ring is set to Ape control, servo that knob to match it. All that goes on top are Shutter, Aperture, ISO, an exposure button & record button, and the fucking record button should be able to be set to record video when you push it even in photo mode, so you don't miss shit just bc your $2000 camera body has a dial somewhere not set on video.

And hinge the screen. Flappy paddle rear display is obnoxious.

Basically start over. ...and I actually love the Zf. It just needs work.

>>4351827
Zf Auto ISO / dial functionality does suck. I never use it on my Zf as a result. Pretty sure in A it targets the dial ISO, like if set to 1600, it will use 1/8000th at 1600 instead of 1/1000th at 200.

>>4351858
Nikon menus could use a lot of work. Hate how certain shooting settings are split between the basic shooting tab and others are stuck within the custom settings tab.

File: 1724503754907615.jpg (114 KB, 768x944)

114 KB JPG

whats the cheapest camera that will give me the same results as current gen smartphones?

>>4351827
You should have a general idea of the lightng conditions youre in and plan accordingly. If you're changing conditions frequently, say, going in and out of buildings or whatever, then you're better off setting C modes up. If shit catches you by surprise well then, you can't really be blamed for manually cranking the ISO as the quickest fix manually.
Also sounds like your hardware is being a bitch. I think I take my modern camera for granted sometimes.

How do you remove all personal/unique ID from a camera raw file? I want to share some online but not have my serial/name attached. Want basic metadata so people can use lens corrections and have that data but no GPS coordinates/etc or any of the stalkery shit.

Basically I want to generate a second shareable sanitized file for others to edit, can that be done?

>>4351912
A 2005 canon point & shoot. I had one, and the pics i have from it are better than my pics from the fucking iphone 14.

Is it ever worth it to get a teleconverter outside of you have the longest lens and need even more reach? I feel like selling your shorter lens and using the teleconverter money to buy a longer lens is more economical.

File: IMG_9989.jpg (54 KB, 640x480)

54 KB JPG

Is the XH2 too big to be a take everywhere camera?

[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	640
Image Height	480
Scene Capture Type	Standard

File: A6605748.jpg (372 KB, 1500x1000)

372 KB JPG

How do I prevent having too little depth of field? E.g. I would prefer if the cat's whole face is in focus. I do want my aperture as large as possible for these indoor shots.

Do I turn on peeking full time and adjust aperture or something? I don't even know if focus peeking can be turned on in auto-focus mode.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-6600
Camera Software	ILCE-6600 v1.10
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.2
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	40 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	350 dpi
Vertical Resolution	350 dpi
Image Created	2024:07:25 20:51:21
Exposure Time	1/200 sec
F-Number	f/1.2
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	1600
Brightness	-1.4 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	27.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	6000
Image Height	4000
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

>>4352000
Without using extra light, such as a flash, you can’t have both of the things you want at the same time. Wide open aperture to help with the low light, is going to give you a narrow depth the field. there is no way around that, that’s the physics of lenses. You have to stop down and close it to increase your depth the field, but as you seem to realize already that makes it harder to take the photo. Situations like this you need to use flash or move to place with better light. Or you can also increase the ISO, at the expense of increasing graininess.

>>4352001
I am aware of that, I let auto-iso do whatever it wants with a min-shutter speed at "faster," and bought a portable light. But the problem is I don't know how much I need to close down the aperture as I don't want to close it down too much and get more DoF than I need.

50mm f/16 is 3.125mm aperture right (focal length divided by f)
so
12.5mm @ f4
25mm @ f/8
100mm @ f/32
200mm @ f/64
should all have same dof if everything is cropped the same?

>>4352000
the lens should be farther away from the subject. or use an aperture something like 3.5, 4, 5.6, 8, just adjust to get the desired sweet spot.
if you want more background blur behind the subject, then position the subject farther away from the background.
the smaller the sensor, deep dof can be more easily achieved. ex is your phone.
focus peaking can be used with AF. on my old A6000, it's called DMF.

>>4352000
>close up cat picture
>40mm
>f/1.2
Anon, you're literally doing everything wrong here if you want a wider DOF.
f/1.2 is very very shallow especially up close
I know you're already pushing the boundaries of what can deliver an acceptable photo here (ISO 1600 kek how fucking dark is your room that f/1.2 needs that high ISO????) BUT really trust me bro
just use something like f/2.8 for your cat pics
and buy some brighter bulbs
oddly enough no this isn't something gearfagging will solve either
full frame is even worse (or better, if you WANT it) with shallow DOF from a bigger sensor so this is more of a skill issue than an equipment one

stop down lens (f/2.8 minimum for anything closeup) and buy brighter lighting for the room
human eyes are fucking insane
unbelievably fucking amazing
like wow how are they so good it's crazy shit doesn't even compute
your room might look bright but it's actually dim as fuck, you can more than double the actual brightness and you'll adjust to it just fine
people telling you to use flash are memes your cat won't appreciate flash photography I can guarantee that so just buy some lamps and load them with high brightness high CRI bulbs and turn them on when it's photo time and settle this once and for all

>>4351961
Yeah good Points.
But I just recently got the Zf, switching from Canon 600D (bought around 2012) to Fuji and now Nikon. I really do like this camera, but some things don't seem to be thought of perfectly. Or it is me.

For now I will stick to Ap with Auto ISO and the minimum shutter speed settings. Can't really remember what made me want to change it by now.

>>4352000
That's right, flash your fucking cat point blank in the face next time ddoing close up shots.

File: 1723628985930872.png (30 KB, 544x426)

30 KB PNG

>>4351988
can you recommend me something more modern? Should I just get 50mb camera for like 100 bucks? I want to make photos of my cats, some toys maybe and food and it would be great if it handles shittier light well. I don't want to spend 1000 bucks though. Might as well just buy a flagship phone at this point

File: 20240601_172036.jpg (660 KB, 2285x2554)

660 KB JPG

>>4352036
hmmm I watched a few videos and maybe I should get a regular camera instead. How do lenses work? Are they interchangeble no matter the model these days? The dude I've watched had a canon eos r10 and the pictures looked very nice and most importantly it doesn't have that chalk out at the corner of an object like my and for some reason most cameras digital cameras these days but how good does it deal with bad light???

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	samsung
Camera Model	SM-A236B
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.8
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	26 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Exposure Time	1/17 sec
F-Number	f/1.8
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	1000
Lens Aperture	f/1.8
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	4.00 mm
White Balance	Auto

>>4352018
No. At 1m 50mm f/16 gives a depth of field of 1.74m, 25mm f/8 gives you 7.14m at the same distance. However for the same aperture and the same framing, so moving forwards or backwards for a shorter and longer lens respectively, gives you approximately the same depth of field.

>>4352048
>Are they interchangeble no matter the model these days
only within the same brand. no brands except for sigma/leica/panasonic has lenses that can be used on a different system. even thats oversimplifying it because mirrorless lenses wont work on dslr, and dslr only work with mirrorless with an adaptor. theres also image circle to consider, aspc lenses dont work properly on full frame cameras.

>>4352048
Every camera brand has their own mounts. Canon used EF for like 40 years on their DSLRs but then went to RF 5 years ago. EF wont fit a camera that takes RF natively, but you can throw an adapter on it. Can't do that backwards though. You can adapt some lens families from different brands rather easily and others not at all, but adapting shit is not ideal unless you're intentionally trying to make life hard and/or are poor. Glass is glass though, so there's nothing inherently wrong with doing it unless you miss out on electronic functions like AF or aperture controls etc.

You generally buy into one mounting system and then go with that. Pick your lens family (EF), then your body (5D MkIII) etc. If you want to try a Nikon you sell your Snoy and rebuild your kit. *Generally*

>>4352079
Speaking about converters, how viable, in general is using "old" lenses from same producer on their own mirrorless cameras? Like Nikon F mount on Z series and so on?

>>4352116
No real issue unless Niggon has done something retarded I'm unaware of. Afaik F to Z mount has no real disadvantages. I kept a few EF (the old) lenses when I went mirrorless and they're just as good on my R50 as they were my 70D. RF (the new) lenses seem to be superior in optical clarity and image stabilisation but also at a huge markup. The most annoying thing is I only have one adapter but three EF lenses so I need to keep swaping that around depending on what kit I brought that day; that may be annoying for you, or it might not bother you at all.

The only actual fuck around there is, if you're trying to adapt lenses with no electrical contacts on the adpater to control your aperture and AF.

>>4352116
Using Canon's EF lenses on their RF bodies works fine, it's all just electrical conversions. I think they work pretty much as well as native on Sony and Nikon bodies too with the appropriate adapters.

For Sony/Minolta A mount lenses on an E/FE body it can be a bit confusing. Older bodies have less compatibility (I think it's around second gen A7 onwards where everything works) and some lenses don't have a built in focus motor so require a certain adapter with one built in, which also has it's own focus sensors so AF isn't as good and you lose like a 1/3 stop of light to a semi transparent mirror (although you can convert these with a monster adapter).

For Nikon I'm not too sure. If it's a modern lens then it should all work fine but I know they had older lenses that required a focus motor in the body and many also used a lever in the body to actuate the aperture and I don't know if Nikon has adapters with those features.

Also there may be certain software limitations depending on what particular body you're using, some of it might not matter at all to you and others could be deal breakers. Stuff like no continuous AF when shooting video, or for the modern bodies with really fast burst rates they won't get the full speed with adapted lenses (and sometimes not even with all native lenses).

File: IISO_flash_shoe_Minolta+S(...).jpg (1.27 MB, 1300x1100)

1.27 MB JPG

For a while I've been wondering why people hated that Minolta hot shoe. It seemed to convenient to have the flash just click into place without screwing it on.

Well, now I know. It's flimsy. I'm losing contact with the flash when tilting my camera in certain ways. Is there a way to fix the dodgy contact?
Not really sure whether it's my Sony flash or my Sony A77 that's the culprit, either.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	DSLR-A700
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS4 Windows
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	150 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	85 dpi
Vertical Resolution	85 dpi
Image Created	2009:06:03 17:45:06
Exposure Time	1.3 sec
F-Number	f/9.0
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	200
Brightness	0 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	100.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1300
Image Height	1100
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

>>4352053
Anon I'm talking about different framing, same exact cam position.

File: A6605771.jpg (1.39 MB, 3000x2000)

1.39 MB JPG

>>4352021
Thanks, I'll check out DMF. I think I've seen it somewhere before.

>>4352026
I actually didn't have my camera light on in that picture, but I do in this one. I didn't tune the light's colour temperature to match ambient though so it looks pretty unnatural. I wish I had my own cat to practice with.

>>4352035
I didn't flash any cats. The cat didn't seem to mind the camera light.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-6600
Camera Software	ILCE-6600 v1.10
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.2
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	40 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	350 dpi
Vertical Resolution	350 dpi
Image Created	2024:07:25 21:23:39
Exposure Time	1/200 sec
F-Number	f/1.2
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	640
Brightness	77/1280 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	27.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	6000
Image Height	4000
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

Hi, I'm new at all thinngs related of photography. Could you kindly suggest any good book or other material as a starting point to study?

I got a new kodak AZ half of its price and I want to use the most of it.

>>4352272
Yeah, this is f/1.2.
You see this?
Look at how sharp the eyes and whiskers and water bottle are, then how utterly BTFO the fucking paws are with out of focus blurring.

If you used f/2.8 you'd probably have acceptably sharp paws in the photo, and this is a much more distant shot. For the closeup facials you really can't use f/1.2 because even perfect focus (like if you killed the cat, stuffed him taxidermy style, and posed him, then used a tripod) will always be a compromise of what is in and what is out of focus. You nailed the eyes, but f/1.2 in the other post clearly means you lost the nose and ears. Nothing but changing the aperture (or distance, moving the camera further away from subject) will change that.

Lastly, be glad you do not have a cat.

>I didn't flash any cats. The cat didn't seem to mind the camera light.
Cats have sensitive eyes. Light means nothing to them. Nothing. They'll wander out from a cave into sunlight without fuss.

Camera flashes are literally brighter than the sun, for like a nonsecond as the capacitors power the light tubes. It's not light that spooks them but the immense power and abrupt nature of the camera flash.
Feel free to use video lights/spotlights no animal will be bothered much by those but actual flashes are different. An average power on-camera flash (not even high power monolights) will literally blind humans who have their eyelids closed (even if it's bounced and not direct) at average power for a short while. Imagine your 60w bulb putting out 60 seconds of light all in 1/10,000th of a second. That's basically a camera flash.
Eyes don't get harmed by these long term but it's pretty common to have an after image of the flash for at least a few seconds or minutes after depending on the power.

Animals really do not like these photon shotguns. People don't either, but we know what they are so we don't freak out.

File: Cat.jpg (3.48 MB, 1747x2620)

3.48 MB JPG

>>4352278
I'm starting to think maybe the f1.2 lens (Viltrox 27mm f1.2) is kind of a heavy and expensive meme as it's hard to use indoors at f1.2 due to DoF being too shallow.

My Sigma 30mm f1.4 has pretty terrible fringing though. I'm not sure if shooting through a window has anything to do with it.

[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/1.4
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	45 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	350 dpi
Vertical Resolution	350 dpi
Image Created	2024:08:24 04:42:27
Exposure Time	1/1000 sec
F-Number	f/1.4
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	100
Brightness	7.0 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Cloudy Weather
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	30.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1747
Image Height	2620
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

>>4352284
That's the thing, on virtually any lens in the world f/8 is usually what you should shoot at if you want a pleasingly deep DOF.
Like I was saying the human eye is fucking AMAZING but it's estimated to be f/2 at its widest dark vision adjusted state, and like f/4 in daylight. That's fixed at its ultra wide angle though so if you were to try translating this to a longer lens, the effective aperture might be up to f/64 on a telephoto lens.

Your lens isn't a meme but the widest aperture was never intended to be used short range, outside of portraits and flat subjects or things where you'd want the background to be obliterated. Remember people pay even more for f/0.95 and that might sound impossible to use but the further you are from the subject the deeper your DOF becomes. If you're shooting groups of people from 10' away f/1.2 is definitely usable if they're lined up properly but if it's a disorganized bunch with rows you'll probably want f/2.8 or f4 at least.

>I'm not sure if shooting through a window has anything to do with it.
Shooting through a window will devastate image quality most of the time but it's not uncommon for wide open lenses to have issues with fringing and chromatic abberation.
If you regularly shoot through a window (We're not all autistic here, I understand situations happen and it becomes necessary at times) you should consider
A) cleaning that window regularly (at least the area you point the lens through if not the whole thing)
B) getting a rubber lens hood designed to cut window glare/reflections off
C) getting a polarizing filter

but even with all those steps done you'll be better opening the window if possible
even a high quality UV filter made for cameras and made not to fuck with image quality still affects image quality a bit when inbetween your subject and lens, and I guarantee your windows aren't up to the same optical standards.

>>4352267
Exactly. At the same distance those numbers you came up with won't have the same depth of field.

>>4352267
>>4352299
I decided to have a play about with a depth of field calculator. At the same distance 25mm f/4.5 has roughly the same depth of field as 50mm f/18. That works out to four stops, I don't know whether it's that simple for every case (double the focal length = increase aperture by four stops) but if you want to have a play around yourself there's a starting point.

>>4352300
what?

>>4352299
Guess I'm retarded.
I re-read your post and my reply was nonsense. Sorry.
I for whatever reason thought you were arguing the opposite, with that "equivalent framing" meme so often talked about but you weren't. You weren't doing that but somehow my meatbrain thought you were. My bad.

If what you say is true I've got some bad sources or a misunderstanding somewhere. I thought with crop factor DOF equivalency the relationship between focal length and aperture was more linear but maybe not?

>>4352300
I checked according to this site
https://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

Seems like 35mm sensor 50mm lens f/2 is equivalent to 35mm sensor 100mm lens f/8.
I guess I got confused by looking at FF/MFT equivalency and not factoring in the crop factor when it comes to the DOF. It appears I was a two stops off but it does appear to remain linear enough to where 200mm f/32 is about equivalent.

>>4352316
crop factor equivalency assumes difference in sensor size, if you aren't changing sensor size / cropping in the calculators, that's probably the difference
50mm f8 at 5ft on 35mm is 1.44ft, but the same 50mm f8 at 5ft on aps-c is 0.9ft

I've been considering buying a few disposible cameras for holidays, is it worth it for the gimmick or better to just buy a cheap SLR?

>>4352556
Disposables have their own character. Entirely up to you if you want to risk that character being sloppy shit or actual sovl.

>>4352556
why not just get both?

>>4352587
Cost, Fujifilm disposibles cost £20 a piece.

>>4352556
Buy an ancient autofocus SLR like a minolta maxxum or a film canon rebel. People give them away for almost free because film sissies think the mechanical cameras are "more reliable" (spoilers: plastic fantastics are actually more reliable and easier to repair, between actual ease of repair and availability of parts cameras since they are newer and less hoarded) as an aside to the larp component

Canon especially, because their EOS system SLRs are compatible with the 40mm pancake.

What film cameras should I look into if I'm a complete beginner to photography? I tried doing my own research but I can't seem to narrow it down and I don't really want to spend $150+ for a camera that should only cost $50-80.
Also, do you guys have any good recommendations for books on photography and development of the necessary skills?

>>4352618
Canon eos5/a2. It just works.

>>4352618
basically this >>4352611

if it has a pasm dial, exposure compensation, and autofocus, google the exposure triangle, google film exposure latitude, and have fun

I'm using an A7C, is there a way to stop it from retracting the lens when I turn it off?

>>4352737
>is there a way to stop it from retracting the lens when I turn it off?
Grab it before it pulls back in.

>>4351610
So the aperture button found a screw hole before the lens was actually mounted correctly and the camera is currently unusable? Seems weird because the standard lenses for those things used the same type of aperture actuator. Must be slightly different in a Pentax. The instructions they give on that forum are pretty straight forward though, just open the back up, lock the curtain open on B and then stick a shim between the button and the mounting surface. Just get a cheap feeler gauge set at whatever auto parts shop you have where you are and bend one of the thin ones into shape. I actually have one of those yellow radioactive fucking things and a pre-broken Zenit. I might try and investigate this further if you can't figure it out.

>>4352737
it must be a PZ (Power Zoom) lens. same with the 16-50 PZ OSS apsc kit lens. it is meant to retract to have a smaller form factor when not in operation.
you may remove the battery when the camera is ON, but only do it if necessary.

I'm looking for a camera for only photography, I never film video. I would like a 20-200 really sharp lens that I don't mind paying extra for. phase detect AF would be nice and moderately compact. idk if I need full frame but ig it would be nice

>>4352889
nikon z5
28-400
the ultimate boomer snapshit combo.

>>4352890
whats good/bad about it? the lens seems ok except f8 seems a bit shitty for dof of birds and other animals

Is it something bad to be amateur? I mean, I simply enjoy taking photos, enjoy making people happy when they like what I do, try to get better each time. Yet recently took a peek at /cgl/ and saw some guys bragging about how they enjoy "reminding anime con photographers they are amateurs", how their gear, as "fashion photographer" are worth more than all setups con studios combined and the like. I honestly feel bad now.

>>4352928
You've encountered the well known "bitter fuckwit" archetype. Found commonly wherever fun may be had. Simply ignore, and post responses such as "seethe, meds, cope, and Snoy".

>>4352928
they're just gearfagging. give a person (non-pro or pro) who has an eye for photography a basic camera or a smartphone and he can produce nice photos. just practice and have fun in the process.

>>4352763
basically yes. strictly speaking you could probably shoot it, but the lens isn't fully mounted so there is some space between it and the mount. i'm really past putting any time and effort into salvaging it, since i'm shifting away from m42 anyways. pay the shipping and it's yours lel

>>4352928
Spending lots of money doesn't impress me at all. The funny thing is the people I know of that actually make a living from photography, unless they're earning absolutely ridiculous amounts their gear wouldn't look out of place being posted on here. I'm talking DSLRs and not even the latest ones, or if it's mirrorless it's not the latest and greatest flagship, and they're not using ridiculously expensive primes either. I do have a buddy who's just bought an R3 and probably has close to 10 grand in lenses, but it's not his day job and the amount he gets paid it will probably be a decade before he breaks even.

>>4352928
Those are real life gearfags. Due to 4chans contrarian tryhard culture you've never actually seen what a real gearfag is on /p/. The closest you've seen are the moneyfags who get angry making points about "unneeded money spending".

When someone is straight up calling you lesser because they spent more, that's a gearfag. When its the same but because they spent less, that's also a gearfag, just a retarded one so they're harmless. The rich gearfags who call you an amateur because you didn't buy a hasselblad cfv100c can be a genuine threat to your safety.

File: 1610456338377.jpg (61 KB, 624x624)

61 KB JPG

500 bucks
which camera?

>>4353096
canon 6d
ef 40mm f2.8
ef 85mm f1.8 usm

>>4350569
Looks great besides the water, poorfag.

>>4353041
>Looked up for that hasselblad cfv100c out of curiosity
>8k$

It's made out of unicorn farts or what?

>>4353168
Its 100mp, 15 stop dr (so 20 with good noise reduction), and fits on cameras dating back to the 500c. Remind us of the time canikon kept their old pro cameras working? Hasselblad is expensive but you buy it for life, and your kids life, and their kids life.

Another newfag first camera question here:
Minolta XD-11 a good beginner film camera? I was able to find one pretty cheap. I was also looking at a Pentax Spotmatic and an Olympus OM-10 but I have no idea how to compare them or what to look out for.

cam lenses must also be affected by arc resolution righto ? phones probably would never really resolve even 20mp

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_resolution

also whats the difference between this and diffraction? when closing your aperture you re also losing arc resolution ?

File: 1517385992141.jpg (126 KB, 1920x1541)

126 KB JPG

I have no idea what white balance is and what adjusting it is good for. Can someone explain?

After developing film it sometimes has rubbery parts with a shape similar to what lots of water would take. It does not ruin the film and i can scan it but id rather prevent it than living with it.

Also i got a olympus om 101 powerfocus and now i am looking what lenses i could get. I have the default 50mm on it but id like to have some zoom on it. How i understand it there are the OM PF lenses which are specifically designed for it and there are the universal OM AF leses. The auto focus on these should be replaced by my manual focus since its a 'power focus' camera, right?

And lastly a shop near me is selling a german made camera with build in optics and it looks kinda like >>4350750. I have a olympus izm300 which has similar similar focal lengths but while it was only 5 euros the other one is 25 (both untested). I will get its exact make tomorrow but what could cause such a price difference? Its controls are on its left side which makes it look interesting. Half of this hobby for me is just collecting cool stuff, i might also get a Minox 35 GL while i am at it since its so small and cute. Is this retarded?

>>4353928
Basically if your white balance is off your picture could fall. To remedy this you either make your picture colder or hotter.

>>4353928
Ever been inside an office, or supermarket and noticed the lighting is very clinical? Blue even? That's a cold white temperature, where you get this blue tinge on everything being lit up and what should be a normal pure "white" will actually appear a shade of the lighting's colour. The opposite would be a halogen light where the light leans towards an orange, which is warm temperature. White Balance is measured in Kelvin and we generally accept 5600K to be pure white. The sun will give off a warm temperature at dusk / dawn, a mostly neutral temperature at midday, and the moon will give you a cool temperature at night (mostly). Indoors / in studios it's up to whatever lighting is installed.

In regards to cameras, we have a white balance setting to cancel out the colour cast upon everything by whatever light is responsible for being able to see things. Auto white balance typically does this, but because sometimes we want the affect of a warm ambient light there are often "ambience priority" modes that allow some warm light to remain. You can also get creative and leave certain temperatures or induce effects with a custom white balance setting which will be in Kelvin. You can also edit all of this in post since tweaking white balance is trivial for any photo software.

Basically, don't overthink it. Leave it on Auto unless it's misbehaving or you want to do some creative visual effects, and know that fixing it in post is always possible.

Why does my em10 2 have worse lowlight performance than my phone, even with fast lenses?

>>4354121
Cuz your phone probably does a 2 second exposure when it’s dark and silently composites it together

>>4354122
ohh, is there a way to do something like that on my camera and not have it look blurry? i guess phones really are better than most entry level cameras

>>4354121
It doesn't.
You are wrong.
>>4354122
You're wrong too.

>>4354124
You're being fooled by post-processing. Some phones will do multi-exposure composites but none really work good. It's all meme markering and fluff. You're just a sucker for post-processing and denoising shit, the stuff your real camera isn't doing. You'll see noise or more linear representation of the scene as it was shot and that might not look good to you but it is objectively a superior captured image vs what your phone gets.
EM10 II isn't fancy but is better than any phone.

>>4354127
>it looks worse but that’s better because reasons I can’t actually explain
Cool story breh

>>4354124
If you have a static subject (bldg, car, any landscape) and want to take photos at night you need a tripod. A 30 second long exposure at ISO100 and F8 can look like daytime. Also you can use a flashlight to selectively brighten parts of the scene, which is fun, or send a friend behind parts of the scene to set off a flashgun, which is also fun
Plus you get to sneak around at night and pretend you're a badass

>>4354130
I did explain it.
Stop trying to mislead the guy who has the EM10 II with your lies. If he wants to take better photos, he has to understand his gear. Phones deliver heavily processed images full of ridiculous denoising and in many cases AI replacements and that's not photography.

His gear is fine, night photography usually suffers from limited light. Limited light usually results in poor exposure and phones have tiny sensors, micro four thirds is small, and full frame is normal size. APS-C is common but always has been a "smol" form factor with tradeoffs despite it being super common in entry level.
Phones do the worst in low light out of any cameras. People just get fooled by the ridiculous post-processing applied to them and the fact they never print or view their images in a respectable size to notice the flaws.

>>4354147
>>4354154
thank you. I have a cheap tripod but I haven't really used it at night
I will try playing around with my camera a bit more. I got it cheap a few years ago

>>4354162
Digital? Like I said, try F8, ISO 100, 15 second exposure. What do you have?

>>4354177
em10 2
I'm the original not the other poster

>>4354185
Yeah that seems more than adequate, and it's mirrorless so you don't have to worry about mirror vibration.

I'd suggest if you're new to long exposures obv use the tripod, also use self timer so the vibration of you pressing the shutter doesn't disturb the image.

You can get some really good results!

>>4354121
Because it's micro four thirds, and you're looking at your phone photos on a phone screen, which is so small you cant see the ghosting and smears from phone compositing

If you want short exposures in low light you need a full frame camera with a fast lens, like a sony a7iii and 35mm f1.4 GM.

>>4354270
pls, even a measly entry level f1.8 prime on full frame is ahead of everything on micro four thirds
>fastest lens on mft: f1.9 equivalent, manual focus, blurry as fuck wide open
>muh equivalence of ibis! 5 stops DR advantage!
>*tries to take the photo 3 times*
>*doesnt matter because subject motion*
>shit!
m43 is a daytime tourist snapshit system. i like having my em5 and 12-45 f4 in the bag next to my gfx100 very much. it is small and indestructible. trying to match it to what a better system does, however, is foolishness.

>>4354275
You don't know what you're talking about because the optics are the best part of M43. By far. Extremely sharp glass and great optical performance all around, not just for the budget, but genuinely good lenses in the mid range. It's easier to manufacture small optics vs full frame glass so that's why they're good.
The real problem with micro four thirds is the lack of good sensors or good bodies. Most have a base ISO of 200 and can't take any single capture without visible noise. If you set one up on a tripod and do bracketing the resulting images can be beautifully clean and sharp but full frame gives you multiple stops of better noise by having cleaner performance at relative ISO values AND offering lower ISO options.

If you're going to hate on micro four thirds, hate the cameras. Not the glass. The glass is honestly great unless you're getting super cheap shit. Any mid range lenses will be great and some of the high end stuff is honestly too fucking good for the platform. M43 bodies are pitiful but still better than phones.

>be micro four thirds
>cloudy day
>bright, no extreme dynamic range
>perfect opportunity to snap a good photo
>lowest ISO option is ISO 200, which looks like 800 or 1600 on full frame
kek

>>4354419
Is it really that impressive to have good sharpness/contrast over such a small projection?

>>4354424
No it's not impressive it's just well understood.
To call the one thing good about the system bad is just dumb. They're basically the selling point of the entire system. They (the mid+ range ($200+ or so, not $40 lensbaby shit) are good. What actually sucks are the sensors and bodies.

>smartphone
>4mm f/1.7 lens
>4:3 sensor at 16mp
what kind of lens would I need to match the way this one looks on a full frame body? like what focal length and aperture to achieve the same or a similar enough DOF?

>>4354419
Yes they only have to cover a smaller area, but you're ignoring that they need to be much sharper because of the higher pixel density. Most 4/3s bodies are going to be 20mp, that's as demanding as an 80mp full frame sensor, or if it's a 25mp one then that's the same as 100mp (approximately, calculating based off crop factor and ignoring the difference in image ratio).

>>4354506
I know it's more dense, but still. 20MP ain't shit.
You say 80MP like that's some impressive feat. Nikons are giving people 180MP pixel shifts and MFT has pixel shifting bodies as well. Sony has 240MP shifting and Fuji has 400MP shifting. When set on a tripod in ideal cases nobody really ever has issues with their optics being the limiting factor. For now, it's almost always the sensor/body and the subject/environment. The optical resolution is there and on the table, we're just not capturing it with our current sensors because pixel shift is impractical in most cases.

A good modern full frame prime is good for a few hundred megapixels easy. Bayer megapixels, at least. Decent MFT optics shouldn't have issues with 25MP whether zoomers or primes. Zooms less likely, but primes would probably be fine up to 100MP even at MFT's small size. Might be near the limit but not too far from it, at least moire would be minimized with a high res sensor and more real data would be captured vs interpolated.

Im shooting with the R8 - 800mm f11 and needing to crank a lot my iso to take bird's photos. I've saw others photographers photos with a similar ISO that didnt show so much noise. Am I doing something wrong?

>>4354529
Sorry, but if modern lenses were all outresolving the current highest res sensors then we would see no difference in sharpness amongst them and that's simply not the case. Sure if you take the best of the best and use them at the best performing aperture in ideal conditions then they can probably manage it, but it's not something every lens can do. The simple fact is that a 24mp full frame sensor is going to be far more forgiving than a 25mp 4/3s one, meaning you're not limited to the best of the best lenses and stopping them down to make full use of the resolution that you paid for.

And that's not even mentioning the fact that you're stuck at 25mp with 4/3s. Even with a less demanding 60mp full frame body you've got plenty of cropping room to play with.

>>4354501
Standard smartphone lens is usually 24mm equivalent, and since the crop factor is the same for the focal range and aperture that'd make it an f/10.2 equivalent (24/4=6, 1.7*6=10.2).
Now if your phone isn't actually equivalent to 24mm then we're gonna need either what its focal length is actually equivalent to or the actual sensor size to figure it out.
Though all this said if your phone is reasonably new then keep in mind that a lot of the look is likely that your phone processes the everliving shit out of your photos, something a camera won't do.

>>4354539
You aren't. They're probably using some aggressive noise reduction either SOOC or with some good AI sheeeit from lightroom or whatever. How sharp are these photos you're comparing to? Do you have an example of your own?
Seems like a gear limitation. f/11 being your fastest aperture is kind of ass. Birding in general needs bright, wide open lenses like f/4 which is L-lens territory, and a pretty fast shutter speed because animals twitch and move quickly. So you're losing 3 whole stops of light to the fact your lens is f/11 wide open. If you could stop down to f/4 it would mean going from 3200 ISO to 400. There's a reason most pro wildlife photographers are hauling massive ass, white L lenses that cost $12,000.

The only other thing I could think of is your sensor being hot, but you'd have to be slamming that shutter like a machine gun or taking very long exposures beforehand to generate the kind of heat that would do that.

>>4354539
Are you also using the same ss and aperture? ISO setting alone isn't solely responsible for noise.
You probably aren't pixel peeping as much as you would on your own shots. Are you actually viewing theirs at 100% like you are viewing your own? Or is it already resized down? They could be using better NR tools or even just better NR settings

>>4354558
>>4354560
Thanks for the responses! I’ve got the set with a second hand Canon R8 and the 800mm together, so I thought it would be cool to photograph some birds, but as Im trying to increase the shutter speed for catching them in flight, it gets really dark.


Im going to try in a different time next week, I was trying to go next to the sunset because I thought the light would be a little more dynamic. Trying to go in the middle of the day next time =)

>>4354558
>you're losing 3 whole stops of light to the fact your lens is f/11 wide open
He's losing two stops over an 800mm L.
No 800mm f/4's are produced for handheld photography.

>>4354562
I don't do wildlife or any serious birding myself, but my first suggestion would be to get a good speedlite flash to supplement your available light. I know that can spook a lot of animals or otherwise distrupt them, but it would let you shoot faster shutter speeds with a lower ISO. Just make sure you get a speedlite with High Speed Sync or else you'll only be able to take shots up to 1/200th second just like your inbuilt flash.
>>4354570
Ah, kind of took a guess on that.
>$24,750 AUD
Sweet jesus

>>4354539
Other photographers are using topaz photo AI. It works well on what people expect bird photos to look like.

File: 23456797568.jpg (28 KB, 450x450)

28 KB JPG

I'm looking to buy an older Canon dslr for around or under ~150€ including the lens. I read the wiki. My usecase is indoor photography (documenting my cat) with occasional nature shots. I don't plan to print or publish any photos and I don't want a bridge or point and shoot camera. I want something cheap enough to not worry about, but capable enough to let me sink some of my autism into.
Should I be looking at buying a cheaper body and invest more in a lens or spend more on the body and just use a stock lens or similar? From a quick look there are more used EF lens options in my area, that's why I'm looking at Canon options.
In my area I can find canon eos 1000d, 1100d, 450d and 500d all for around 50€ with the stock 18-55mm lens. There are also older pro level options like eos 7d for ~100€ but without a lens.
Am I looking too much into this? Should I just buy any 50€ option and use it with the stock lens until I know I need to upgrade? Is the canon 18-55mm any good?
I promise I won't come shit up /p/ with dumb posts afterwards.

>>4354647
The 40/50/7D are all good options.
Get an EF-S 24mm STM.

>>4354541
Aliasing and moire are both caused by our optics out resolving our sensors. It happens every day. Continues to be an issue even on 60MP full frame, happens on MFT 20MP with zooming kit lenses too.
20MP ain't shit, especially when it's bayer.

Sharpness and resolution are two separate things and there are many properties of a lens that will vary in ways that are hard to quantify. Until fine repeating details in scenes stop aliasing there will be a benefit to using higher resolution sensors. There are limits to what lenses do but we're not even near the point of diminishing returns yet. Even smartphones have the potential for a tenfold resolution increase.

In the case of smartphones they're noisy as fuck but even they should be capable of decent 100MP bayer capture equivalent, if you use a tripod and long enough exposure.
The problem here is limited dynamic range (from the sensor) and noise (from being in a smartphone not isolated, and always hot) cripple what phones can do in a single capture. Shrinking photosites more only hurts there. With bracketing and multi exposures on stable ground on a stable tripod for stationary subjects indoors with no wind or vibrations that issue is solved, but that's not a normal use case. People doing this usually use real cameras not phones but phones can do it too. If you could set a smartphone to ISO 1 and let it spend minutes to gather light for a photo on a 100MP sensor with great dynamic range you'd actually get to see what the lenses are capable of but we can't do that. Most people would rather seethe at the thought of having to use a tripod instead of a selfie stick and it'll be a long time before anyone releases a good phone camera since everyone is interested in the AI/computational slop and low light instead of actually good photos.

>>4354716
>Bayer
Also known as the bullshit pixel. Reminds me of those Sigma foveon cameras that were like 4MP, but ACTUAL pixels. I feel like unironically they would still hold up today

>>4354506
“As demanding”
Of a tiny part of the dead, dead center of the lens. Its normal for lenses to be insanely sharp dead center. even vintage lenses are sharp enough for 20mp mft.

>>4351245
>You are wrong.
I said I don't know about Nikon
>proceeds to write paragraphs of shit that amounts to "you can kind of use some of them"
Kek okay.

>>4354647
The IS era Canon 18-55 lenses are very good for a kit lens. Older are disappointingly poor. Of the hobbyist models I'd suggest getting 700d or newer. Or you might get a 1100d with the kit lens (should be EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS) for $50 and keep looking for bargain for a better body.

>>4354765
To correct myself, kit lens for 1100d is
EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS II

>>4354741
Considering one of the reasons people need so many megapixels in the first place is to offset the losses that come from subsampling (bayer), yeah. I think a real 4MP would hold up very well today.
1080p itself is only ~2MP after all. This isn't impressive for stills but should be enough for screen use and enough to print good 6x4s.

I am not familiar with those old Foveons though, I don't hear much about them so I assume they flopped in other areas. I bet a modern equivalent would be pretty decent. If they could somehow pull it off and offer pixel shifting on top, I think they might actually convert some people. Being able to shoot without aliasing and interpolation at even 12MP would be nice and that would have potential to set it on a tripod and pixel shift 48MP.

What's absolutely hilarious to be is the fact that people are buying cameras and adding blur filters to them so moire stops shitting on their videos.
Vid related.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9hvb4vKJnY
Imagine just.. not having a bayer sensor in the first place, gee who would've thunk it? Oh right we already did. 3ccd before. For some reason that was abandoned though despite never solving any of the issues with the bayer problem.
Kek.
Oh well, people will keep buying new cameras hoping it gets fixed when it doesn't. $$$
All the applications where it actually matters (agriculture, surveillance, telescopes, quality control) continue to use specialized cameras so it's just photographers with normal kit who get cucked year after year. Only way to rebel is to get your bayer scraped off for real B&W but that's not appealing to most.

>>4354779
The Sigma cameras were a bit of a flop overall but I can't remember why. I didn't have money or knowledge at the time they were relevant.

The Bayer bullshit is why 45MP FF is the goalpost now, and why MF cameras doing 100MP+ exist. Digital has been kneecapped and it's kind of why we're seeing new sensor designs appear.

>>4354791
>The Sigma cameras were a bit of a flop overall
they havent been able to release a foveon sensor in like 100 years because the tech is hard to make or something.

>>4354654
>>4354765
Thanks for the help, I found a deal on a canon eos 450d with EF-S 18-55mm IS (version 1) and a canon EF 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 II usm for 85€. Don't know if I'll have use for the 28-105mm yet but it seemed like a great deal just for the lenses. If I find a good deal on a newer body later on I'll keep the lenses and sell the 450d.
I'll also stay on the lookout for a EF-S 24mm STM or something similar if I can find one used, or maybe just buy one new for 150€, it seems to fit my usecase. Maybe I could also look for some older pancake lenses that can be used with an adapter.

>>4354870
>EF 28-105 II USM
Used that for a bit. No IS, but a decently fast aperture and a fair IQ. Autofocus is very good.

File: Eos R8 for sale.jpg (308 KB, 1159x822)

308 KB JPG

whats the endgame here

File: IMG01685.jpg (1.35 MB, 1512x2268)

1.35 MB JPG

>>4354741
>I feel like unironically they would still hold up today
Holding.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SIGMA
Camera Model	SIGMA SD10
Camera Software	SIGMA Photo Pro 6.8.2
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/32.0
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	340 mm
Serial Number	02002158
Focal Length Range	55 to 200
Firmware Version	2.0.4.1642 Release
Camera Software	SIGMA Photo Pro 6.8.2.5324
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	180 dpi
Vertical Resolution	180 dpi
Image Created	2023:06:02 15:48:39
Exposure Time	1/50 sec
F-Number	f/5.6
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	100
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	200.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1512
Image Height	2268
Rendering	Custom
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Unique Image ID	3032303032313538FE0D7A6407F34742
Drive Mode	SINGLE
Resolution	HI
Autofocus Mode	AF-S
Focus Setting	AF-S
White Balance	Auto
Exposure Mode	A
Metering Mode	8
Exposure	0
Contrast	0
Shadow	0
Highlight	0
Saturation	0
Sharpness	0
Fill Light	0
Color Adjustment	1
Adjustment Mode	RAW
Quality	12

>>4354878
To abscond with your capital.

>>4354791
>I can't remember why
Lack of a jpeg engine in the first models.
Poor sensitivity.
Consumerish bodies with only a 1/180th shutter.
And the most important reason: third party lenses are now first party.

>why we're seeing new sensor designs appear
?

>>4354779
>I assume they flopped in other areas
A bullshit mount that no one else used or will use again.

>For some reason that was abandoned though
What are you talking about?
Triple imager arrays are still the standard for Ikegami and Grass Valley.

>it's just photographers with normal kit who get cucked year after year
They're also only willing to pay a tenth of what the other industries you mentioned are and they expect their camera bodies to be refreshed every other year.
There are no margins left to produce a proper hand-held stills camera body.

>>4354793
>the tech is hard to make
Not really.
Foveon did it even before they were bought out by Sigma.
It's just difficult to contract a sensor fab that isn't Sony.

>>4354870
>I could also look for some older pancake lenses that can be used with an adapter
You'll have a much better time with the 24mm EF-S

File: Screenshot_20240901_13234(...).jpg (571 KB, 1080x1131)

571 KB JPG

Local gentlemen selling a Nikon D750 w/24-120mm lens, batteries, SD cards and shutter count around 5K. Good deal? I use D750s for my job, but I'm interested having my own personal camera, so this would be easy. It's not a scam, yeah? Should I try to haggle to 1k?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Android UP1A.231005.007.S918USQS4CXG8
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	1080
Image Height	1131

Experiences with buying used gear from KEH, Adorama, B&H or other outlets? Anyone have good of bad experiences? Anything special to look out for with their grading systems?

>>4354894
didnt they say there was a critical flaw in the sensor and it needed to be remade from scratch

>>4354997

Roberts @ usedphotopro.com for the best prices and warrantee.

>>4355164
Yeah they really kicked the shit out of KEH in the last couple years. I’ve spent about 5k at roberts including two things i got carried away with & stupidly shouldn't have bought, but they were johnny on the spot with return & no trouble at all. I’m nit even shopping for the bidy i want, i just told them the next one they get in, just sell it to me. Good people.

Otoh, the people who bought KEH started selling junk, understaffed their service dept, complicated their return process & fucked it all up.

>>4354870
Manual vintage lenses are fun toys. Something like SMC Pentax-M 40mm F2.8 + chipped adapter could be a fun body cap but will cost more than your 2nd hand kit with lenses.(Several other SMC Pentax-M lenses used to be good value for vintage, dunno what current prices are.) In the end modern EF/EF-S mount lenses are more convenient and usually just better than affordable vintage.

>>4355152
Yes, but that's not exclusive to Foveon.
Even Sony's fucked up numerous sensors; the difference is that they sent them out anyway.

Let's say I have good photography experience via equipment from work, but I don't know much about the actual tech besides the standard anatomy of a camera.
I'm looking to buy my own personal full frame. Only used DSLRs before, but I'm not stuck to only wanting rk use them.
What should I know about the major camera brands on the market? Are the biggest differences just exaggerated fanboyisms? I really don't know anything about brands that aren't Nikon and Canon

>>4355384
>I really don't know anything about brands that aren't Nikon and Canon
And you really don’t need to unless you want an inferior product. Just get an r6 or z7 I or whatever and you’ll be set. The black pill is that cameras have been more than good enough for stills photo for the last decade it doesn’t really matter who you pick. Video is a different story but video fags should buy camcorders and video cameras and stop ruining photography.

>>4355388
Why do you say they are inferior product? They are apparently still popular enough to have large fanbases.

>>4355384
DSLRs:
Canon has pleasing and creamy images, nikon has more dynamic range but can look too punchy and gritty, sony and pentax had good tech ideas but bad everything else
Mirrorless:
You legit don't need mirrorless, but as a rule, avoid nikon, their mirrorless offerings and the total collapse of their support system combined allowed a company as shitty as fucking sony to gap them extremely hard and push them down to a very, very distant third. Sony is smaller but flimsier, canon is bigger and more pro-oriented. Panasonic sells camera shaped camcorders and fuji sells hipster version of aps-c sony cameras.

>>4355388
>buy nikon z7
>recover underexposed parts slightly to do tasteful “almost as much dynamic range as film” style photos
>get horizontal stripes all over
>realize the camera missed focus (using af on a nikon that costs less than $2000? oooh skill issue!)
lmao even micro four thirds is better

>>4355384
buy a panasonic lumix g9ii!

>>4355392
Sony didnt take “weather sealing” (aka the fungus delay mechanism) seriously on the a7iii and a7riii or design their ergos for zoom users first and artists last, so nikon boomers cope hard and call them “camera shaped computers” and call their barely functional blobs “real photographic tools”

They also took a fat dump on astro nerds by forcing extreme hot pixel reduction until the a7iv where it became basically invisible unless you reference a star chart

>>4355396
Can I get more info than 'buy product!' Please? What else is there to know about Pansonic?
>>4355397
That kinda stinks. I had heard good things about Sony recent stuff. Anyone know anything about Olympus (they changed their name, right?) What about Fuji and Leica?

>>4355392
fanboys of a certain brand are mad that said brand lost a lot of market share and money during the mirrorless switch due to low product quality. they're therefore mad at the two brands they see as at fault:
sony and fujifilm

>>4355401
Just buy a sony a7iii or a canon r6 like a normal person desu

Some tech spec nerd will seethe but it doesn't matter, they're the first mirrorless cameras that were actually ok enough to replace a comparable DSLR for most people.

Otherwise just get a late great DSLR like a 5DIV

>>4355401
Buy g9ii. The rest will come to you as you learn.

>>4355396
>>4355423
>wants full frame
>insists on a micro 4/3

Why are there so many people mentally ill people on this board?

>>4355504
Where?

>>4355504
>>4355506
Nevermind, I just checked the street photography thread on a whim and found the spergs. Other threads with superspergs?

Why is ebay's mirrorless section full of Sony A7iii's and basically nothing else? Also, how is ebay for used cameras?

>>4355527
Wait, nevermind, I'm retarded

>>4355527
>>4355528
That's one of the quickest realisations I've seen. I buy all my shit off Ebay. All bodies have been fine, any wear was clearly shown in photos, other than a 40D that had the dodgy shutter button issue. I don't remember if the seller mentioned that, there's a chance I still would have bought it thinking I could easily sort it. For lenses they've also been fine except for a 100-300mm f/4 I recently bought. It was sold as spares or repairs but the seller said he'd mounted it on a camera and it works fine and it was just paint that was flaking off, however it's had an impact on the mount and is slightly bent preventing it from being mounted. Not a terribly difficult fix and it was super cheap.

>>4355527
Expert here, Sony is the #1 leader in camera sales. Entry level options like those flood the market, but they have extremely gutted features making even normies wish their thing could do more. They just lack modeern features that are considered basic and taken for granted in normal bodies but these are like dumb shitboxes with full frame sensors in them. They also usually come with shitty kit lenses that honestly lead to inferior photographs taken vs an equivalently or similarly priced APS-C body+kit.

These are full frame without really any of the benefits. People buy them, then abandon the platform for another format or another brand. Especially after figuring out the cons related to the E-Mount.

New to photography. Any recommendations for a beginner friendly, cheap, lightweight, weather-resistant camera? New to the city, want to explore, and capture the decadence. It's only either cloudy or raining here.

>>4355559
What's bad about the E-mount? Also, I've heard there are adapters for the a7iii to use Canon glass. Are Canon's options usually cheaper to warrant that?

>>4355562
This is a scam.
Canon used to be popular, but aren't really anymore. They were king in DSLRs but not mirrorless. Sony leads mirrorless by far.

The reason why this is a scam is because the adapter copium only fits old Canon EF (DSLR) mount glass. Not the Canon mirrorless glass.

Unfortunately all mirrorless systems are incompatible with each respective brand's old lenses (without an adapter, at least) and none of them share a common cross-compatible mount.
In general, any old DSLR era glass will fit (with an adapter) to any mirrorless body. Often times even onto micro four thirds.

Son'y E-mount they're using now was never intended to be used for full frame but Sony entered the full frame market after their E-mount (made for smaller formats) established itself so they're huffing copium relying on software corrections of flaws that stem from the small lens mount.
Sony E on APS-C is fine. It's only a meme when used on full frame. Another reason why the A7 III get bought and returned/sold.
>own E lenses
>use APS-C
>want bigger camera
>it's hardly worth the trouble
>revert back to APS-C
many such cases

>>4355561
Sinar p2 with an 8x10 back.

File: evva-batteries-evva-unpro(...).jpg (14 KB, 600x450)

14 KB JPG

Why aren't more cameras using standard batteries?

Just looking at the stated voltage and watt hours, most camera batteries <7.2v and ~1000mah. 2 14500s in series could fulfill the power needs of basically every mirrorless on the market. The only thing stopping you from doing this is the battery slot design (so you'd need a dummy battery) and arbitrary camera firmware restrictions (ie: nikon).

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	600
Image Height	450

>>4355563
>Son'y E-mount they're using now was never intended to be used for full frame but Sony entered the full frame market after their E-mount (made for smaller formats) established itself so they're huffing copium relying on software corrections of flaws that stem from the small lens mount.
This is FUD. Canon RF lenses have similar vignetting issues!

The only technical limitation of E mount related to the incidence angle of certain vintage rangefinder lenses that have their exit pupil too close to the sensor. This issue has more to do with the sensor cover glass design and nothing to do with the mount diameter.

I repeat, sony has no mount problems. The "small lens mount" does not cause problems. Sony's COVER GLASS causes problems with shitty vintage lenses.

What does cause problems is sony's unrelated engineering decisions. On canon RF, your lens that vignettes 3 stops receives its lens correction in the form of metadata for raw processors to read. On sony cameras, the same vignetting correction is written, and poorly, to raw files. If you turn this off in camera and correct in theraw editor (ie: turn vignetting to 100 in C1s lens correction panel) the files behave the same as canon raws.

On most cameras, software hot pixel reduction is optional and left to post. On sony cameras, it is mandatory for every exposure over 3s.

>>4355586
oh okay, duh. if it was a defective mount it wouldn't be being used by the AP anyways.

probably more nikon fanboys ala clive
>OMG SONY HAS NO F2.8 FF PANCAKE
>other 2 ff mirrorless f2.8 pancakes: externally focusing, really bad focus breathing, not weather sealed, weren't worth making

>>4355586
>>4355589
So, if I'm reading this right and use a constant aperture or prime lens at f4, there would be no issue? Just looking at some zoom atm

File: i-PddSP2F-X3.jpg (552 KB, 1599x1005)

552 KB JPG

>>4355638
Sony is totally fine as long as you don't put a lot of value on
>adapting vintage rangefinder lenses
The cover glass on the sensor is too thick to use certain film lenses originally designed for rangefinders with the full FF field of view. For almost any rangefinder lens wider than 50mm, they shoot the light out very close to the sensor at a very steep angle and the thick glass cover on sony sensors distorts the image, adding softness, color shfits, and extra vignetting on the periphery. This wasn't a problem with film. Mirrorless lenses are designed for this glass and don't have problems. Even some digital leica cameras had issues with this because all digital sensors use some cover glass. One gen had not enough glass so the sensors rusted, another gen had a little too much. Hence their curved microlenses. The only japanese brand that can competently adapt leica lenses on FF is nikon, since they use ultra thin sensor coverings.
>Ease of use
To my knowledge, the shading correction feature isn't independent between video and stills mode. So if you want vignetting corrections in video, but don't want the quality issues from having it on in stills for landscape and backlit, flashless photography (colored banding in the corners when you push exposure more than 2 stops at base ISO), you need to constantly turn it on and off. This is niche for a lot of people. Or maybe since it's more visible when you don't pixel peep, sony users don't notice.
>Serious astrophotography
"Star eater" still erases some stars because they look exactly like hot pixels to the algorithm. Sony only made the algorithm less aggressive. It's still mandatory if the shutter is open more than 3s.
>Travel and outdoor photography
Sony's weather sealing situation is like the one on olympus - the nicer bodies are weather sealed, the older/cheaper ones are not, and only their most expensive lenses (GM) are consistently WR otherwise its a crapshoot

Does Canon have an all-purpose dslr workhorse equivalent to Nikon's D750 that fetches a similar price on the used market?

>>4355730
6dii? 5div?

File: just-get-an-r6.jpg (188 KB, 781x800)

188 KB JPG

Going to pull the trigger and get a new body. Torn between the R7 and R8 since they're in my price range, going from an R50. Call me a retard one way or the other but I'm looknig for input on what makes more sense.
>inb4 get R6 / R6 MkII
Nah. Maybe. Would be saving for longer which is fine but I'd rather spend <$2000 AUD than $3000 AUD and put the next lot of savings towards a better zoom lens. I have three crop lenses I would be willing to sell off for maybe $300-500 if I went the R8 but would then spend that on replacing at least one of them.

R7 Gets all your "pro" features. IBIS and Big Battery(tm) are the two things I'm most interested in from it. Weather sealing and full mech shutter are also considerations.
R8 is Full-Frame, 150g lighter, and has better controls (imo). Shit battery is a moderate concern but I'm aware of it. No mech shutter, no IBIS. Hmm.
I do macro, astrophotography, and travel pics generally. A bit of other shit but not serious about birding or sports etc. I'm thinking the pixel pitch of the R7 disquallifies it from astro, but smarter people than I can tell me.

>>4355755
>Half shutter
No sensor size is worth not having a whole shutter
>bands with artificial light
>flash gimped
Oof there goes all good photography right there. Canon truly wants you to pony up for an r6.

With how overcorrected mirrorless lenses are FF doesn't have the "rendering" advantage it used to. Every lens is sterile as fuck on every format. Just go APS-C. It's the body that's made for photography, instead of the body made for claiming to be full frame.

>>4355755
>pixel pitch
>astro
dedicated astro cameras are 20mp 1" sensors.
astro photography is about your autistic competence in using your equipment.

leave the pixel pitch worries to art photography and wanting better color quality in ultra short ultra low light exposures

>>4355755
Get a Peltier cooled sensor for astro.:D

>>4355561
DMC-G85/G80
WR probably only works with panasonic WR lenses.
Or used OM body, like OM-D 1 or 5

>>4355755
I would consider staying APS-C. You won't need to spend more on replacing lenses, and the kinds of photos you're taking aren't getting a massive benefit from full frame. Dark frames are more important for astro than a bigger sensor. Macro the 1.6x reach us more useful vs bigger sensor. Travel pics don't need 12 stop DR etc.

If you go the R8 you will wish you went the R6 while also spending more on glass. So that <$2000 idea is out the window

File: g85.jpg (84 KB, 894x835)

84 KB JPG

New to the hobby, set a personal photography budget of 1000 USD, including camera, lenses, and all accessories.
Do you think it's a better investment to get a second lens (Lumix 25mm 1.7) or a battery+SD card? My model is a G85 and I'll likely be shooting in RAW.

I mostly photograph nature, but also family members.

File: img029.jpg (4.52 MB, 6863x4287)

4.52 MB JPG

Been shooting film for a lil. Want to get into birds/birds in flight/wildlife. Budget is around $4-4500ish. Could do a little more if I had to. Would upgrade bodies next year if it’s something I enjoy.

Thinking R7, Canon 100-500, and then some kinda of 50mm for travel/etc.

Advice? Anything else I should consider?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Lightroom 7.5.2 (iOS)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2022:10:21 02:34:07
Color Space Information	sRGB

>>4355895
Z8, 180-600 IMO.

File: lol.png (121 KB, 1633x1340)

121 KB PNG

>>4355906
Lol.
>only has a single stop advantage outside of the 100-400 ISO range aka the most used
>Jared Polin himself said it has worse autofocus than the canon
>abandoned most of F mount "because it sucked anyways" vs. full support for all of EF "because its still awesome"
>$3700 vs $1400
im sure it has some video modes like nraw (isn't raw) that are cool on paper

File: _NZ71905.jpg (719 KB, 1600x901)

719 KB JPG

>>4355906
Been shooting with teh 180-600. That thing is phenomenal.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON Z 7
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 9.4 (Macintosh)
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	600 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2024:09:03 22:45:15
Exposure Time	1/320 sec
F-Number	f/6.3
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	800
Lens Aperture	f/6.3
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Light Source	Cool White Fluorescent
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	600.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1600
Image Height	901
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	Low Gain Up
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown