I've been trying to take better photos for a year or so now but I feel most of my shit is just mundane. Like, I get the general concepts; rule-of-thirds, don't burn highlights, avoid cropping etc. but everything just feels like a snapshit? Was looking through my cards earlier and very few seem like genuinely interesting shots. Do people just trip and fall into good compositions, is it all faked, or do I just have to go more places?

>>4369720
Nothing is faked but photography is a hobby that requires you to leave the house and sometimes catch moments that are unpredictable. If you are in situations that are photoworthy then you are more likely to land on a photo that you can be proud to show your friends and family.

That's why personally I understand the value of having a gear set up that you can carry anywhere. Some of the best photos are from people that do it for a living and are constantly in situations that allow them to take good photos

If I want to take distance photos with good autofocus, should I get a 5 year old high end APSC like a Sony A6700 or a Canon R7/R10 or a 8 year old FF camera like a Sony A7iii/A7c or a Canon 5D Mark 4?

I'm tempted to upgrade to a FF setup when doing photo centric stuff, and a a cheap slim $300 10 year old APSC (Canon M2/Sony A5100 with 18-50 kit lens) for EDC.

>>4369743
If you want reach then go with crop, to match the reach of the A6700 you'd need a 60mp A7R IV

>>4369720
>don't burn highlights
?

>>4369745
Interesting. So if I want the best IQ, Reach, and Autofocus I'm better off getting a high end APSC (A6700, R7/8/10) over a older FF (A7III/A7C/5DMK4)

From what I can tell the Sony Mirrorless (A6700/A7s) have better AF than the older Canon 5Ds.

>>4369743
If shooting at ISO 100 (or very near it), the FF advantage is minimal nowadays. The better sensor of a modern mirrorless camera is going to be significant enough. It will cost you less, weigh less, fit in less space, have a wider range of lenses, and get you free extra reach. I wholehartedly recommend APS-C to anyone doing long range and macro photography.

A rather not-fucked-pricewise RF 100-400mm gets you equiv. gets you 640mm of FL on crop. To do that on FF would cost you 3x times as much and with a much heavier lens. FF is for portraits and landscapes and even then only if you're going for maximum IQ at the cost of everything else.

>>4369743
Youre better off going m43

>>4369747
R8 is FF. But otherwise yes in all likelyhood. Take the money you save by going aps-c and buy good lenses. If you're unsure if you want to go FF eventually then don't buy the crop lenses (RF-S) and everything will be usable on FF.

>>4369751
wrong.

>>4369752
I already have a APSC setup. It's just kinda awkward to carry around. Its too big for EDC. I posted in the gear thread before complaining.

I have a Nikon Z50 with 16-50 and 50-250 kit lenses. I'm into everything for $800. I could probably turn around and sell everything for $650 at my local camera store. I do a lot of aviation photography so I need reach, good AF, and IQ in that order. The 250mm gives me enough reach but I'm not satisfied with the AF on this camera and it's kinda mediocre at low light. Not being able to change my color profiles also pissed me off. And the Z Mount is restrictive. There's only 2 other bodies compatible with my lenses (Z30 and ZFc). I already put 1100 shots through it.

Yes I know I'll probably lose some money, but I also have enough disposable income where I'm not gonna cry about losing $2-300. I'm at the hobby stage where I'm getting deeper. I already stuff my setup into a backpack when I go to work (at which point the extra bulk of a FF setup wouldn't really matter unless I need even larger lenses to reach the same focal length). I was planning on having a a5100 or ZV1 for EDC/Travel and a FF or high end APSC for work or photo-centric activities (car meets/track days, etc) where I don't really care about size (as long as it fits in a backpack)

I was really looking at the R7/R10 and A6700 since they're under $1000 used.

>>4369747
no. you put more pixels on a smaller area but image quality degrades. your focal length doesnt increase, your sensor shrinks

dont buy equivalence and base iso copes, real life doesnt play out like that, and the canon r7 in particular shits its pants in low light and aps-c is normally softer with the same lenses. the r10 is also not comparable to ff bodies, its one of those things where canon crippled it all but the spec no one has ever actually needed (muh fps).

>>4369705
Full-frame or APSC for sports?

>>4369807
Full frame, a job, and a gym membership

Chadmaxx your life

>>4369720
i went to a photojournalism gallery and the photos were really striking. I feel like "the mundane" only works better in movies than still photography. I dont know though im also rambling

>>4369705
Why do all the objectively best photographer in the world(me included) use mft cameras?

Why is there only RGGB bayer? Why not e.g. RGBY or some other arrangement (RGBC, RGBM)? Each pixel would still have pure green photo site as input and the remaining one would carry information on two colors instead of just one.

>>4369822
RGBW is superior but the japanese are sticks in the mud over inferior tech ie flip phones, small sensors, and DSLRs

>>4369825
How? You're either gonna be be clipping a lot on the W photosite or you'll need different sensitivity on it (dead end).

>>4369828
Less green bias. The green CHANNEL does not clip as early. Even with an ND in front of the W pixel it’s better.
http://image-sensors-world.blogspot.com/2020/07/image-algorithmics-on-rgbw-color-filter.html?m=1
The problem is prior attempts were done by snoy.

>>4369830
Ah, so in short, the reason is risk aversion of publicly traded companies. Who could've guessed.

I have a Nikon d5600 which does fine but really all I want to do is product photography style photos using auto focus bracketing (which the d5600 does not have the software for)

whats a similar valued camera that can do auto focus bracketing? I plan on selling my camera and buying whatever you recommend for my application

>>4369834
Japan is just greedy and lazy now

>>4369751
He wants good autofocus and low light too

I have been thinking about trying my hand at fashion/commercial/product photography because that's the only way to NOT starve as a photographer.

Where I should with artificial/flash/studio lighting? My composition and aesthetic literacy is mid tier. But I don't know shit about indoor/artificial lighting.

>>4369857
strobist lighting 101

>>4369857
Start with an mft camera and your career will blossom without effort. You want a Lamborghini, right?

>>4369739
>Nothing is faked
Wrong.

>>4369825
>inferior tech
>flip phones
Protection
>small sensors
Have their specialized purpose
>DSLRs
Objectively the superior body style for work
You are a fart-huffing innovationfag, all style no substance

>>4369863
>Objectively the superior body style for work
nta but superior to what, mirrorless? rangefinders?

>>4369863
Nothing quite as superior as the less capable, slower body plagued with mirror slap and inaccurate AF because budget bob cant afford 1 more battery

>>4369860
Thanks man

>>4369861
If not Lamborghini. MFT will be ideal to stream my suicide. Thanks man.

whats the best type of camera to use for scanning documents ? should I look for highest megapixel count possible?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03ccxwNssmo

File: 1727202036825316.jpg (69 KB, 1024x576)

69 KB JPG

going to italy in a few days. Going to bring my z5 + 40 mm f/2 (almost pancake which is nice)
Do I really need another lens? The whole point of this setup was how small it is. I'd consider bringing my 24-70 f/2.8 but that + the FTZ converter is a decent size...i just don't know.
Additionally, I'm not using a filter on the 40 mm right now. It's not an expensive lens and some reviews said don't put one on it anyways to keep it sharp. Should I put a filter on it? I have some decent budget filters from B+W, Tiffen, etc, but the front lens on it is so small I doubt I'm going to run into something or have something fly at it. What're the odds!

>>4369897
if only a few, and need a shitload of res, perhaps medium format film with adox cms20 ?

>>4369897
Don't listen to this faggot>>4369922 what you need is to set up a soft flash behind a pane of glass and to do contact prints on 8x10 sheet film.
Or you could just leave this board full of gearfag morons and buy a fucking scanner like a normal person. Holy fucking shit you can buy a second hand printer/scanner combo for like $5 if money is an issue and it will probably produce better results than if you gave any random monkey from /p/ the latest 6 million gigapixel Hasselblyat digital and the Hubble telescope.

>>4369924
DUMBFUCK. It only takes 4 MFT shots stitched together to match the resolution and tonal quality of fine grained 8x10 film!

File: 1713677786156.png (853 KB, 1077x1165)

853 KB PNG

>>4369705
would this work on a RB67 pro SD body ? I'm pretty good at machining and stuff if it needs modifications but it's almost 300 dollars so I'm kinda scared it's not possible

>>4369925
In reality though, so well outside of the /p/ universe the only good reason to ever use a camera over a dedicated scanner is if you are copying some ancient parchment or some shit and the museum or whatever won't let you manhandle it over a scanner.

File: ca.jpg (34 KB, 309x257)

34 KB JPG

idk where else to post this. is this a real camera? can anyone identify it? thanks
from sadamoto illustration for anno's love and pop

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand

>>4369927
Could be faster to set up a camera rig if you needed to get through 1000 pages or something.

I remember a cookbook being shared on ck and there's a brown thumb in the corner of each page holding it down. Haha.

>>4369928
Fujifilm cardia

>>4369930
thank you!

>>4369933
Are you going to get one? Looks like a decent and extremely compact little p&s.

>>4369935
maybe they seem kind of pricey for what it is

>>4369937
It's not too bad for a metal bodied film camera you can fit in your pocket, but yeah it is a bit expensive.

>>4369705
What tools do you use to compress your images so they fit without too much artefacts ? I have a lot of medium format scans (25Mb) but I never post because of the file limit, last time I posted nophotos complained about the compression. Ubuntu stuff preferably

>>4370014
I use Converseen as it is compatible between Windows and Linux (Arch+Debian). It's a batch converter that can do entire folders at a time. You can specifiy different formats and compression levels, as well as chroma subsampling levels. I use it to take anything I want to upload and use 80 JPEG with 4:2:2 or 4:4:4 (which is generally overkill)

>>4370014
xnconvert. lots of options for file/jpg settings etc

>>4370016
>>4370045
thanks homos

why you folks think larger formats less demanding of their lenses than smaller ones ? pixel pitch ? P1 150mp has aps-c tier pixel size

>>4370111
larger formats *are less demanding of their lenses

>>4370111
Large format lenses are typically softer than micro formats like 35mm film. It's much harder to produce lenses with both extreme sharpness and very large projection circles. Top quality LF lenses will still be very sharp, but more importantly have almost no CA or distortion.
You would only be able to tell a difference if you pixel peeped/printed at enormous sizes, but then your micro formats would lose out because they don't have nearly the same resolution.

>>4370111
No one knows or cares about a P1 150mp that probably costs $80k. A fuji 100mp (same pixel pitch as a7rv - less noise even when cropped to 35mm - explain this snoycels) is already too much for everyone, outdoing all medium format color film and color 4x5 thats been kneecapped by the real world shooting challenges inherent to excessively lage formats. It also actually has autofocus and shoots faster than 0.5fps.

Every opinion you hear on gear focuses on normal person gear not a scanning system intended for museums and glowie forensics teams

File: AURORARAH.jpg (1.13 MB, 3072x4080)

1.13 MB JPG

Whats a good small point and shoot for the price, I just want something for concerts so a quick shutter speed, and I don't think I'll need to go over 600 iso.
Looking at the lumix lx7 for it's zoom, and the original RICOH GR

>>4370117
anon said largeR formats (ie FF), not large format

https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1814678/

"FF outperforms APS-C not just in noise but in potential acuity. At equal pixel sizes (24MP 1.5x APS-C / 54MP FF) per unit of area on the sensor, the FF image will yield higher resolution for lenses of equal performance due to the lower lp/mm demands placed on the optics. In other words, a lower magnification factor yields better results."

so larger formats are less demanding of lens sharpness even with the same pixel pitch/size?

captcha:2jmora

>>4370205
>Even with the same pixel size?
>How could this be? 45mp is sharper overall than an 18mp crop of 45mp? Masaka...

File: DSC00001.jpg (3.28 MB, 6000x4000)

3.28 MB JPG

How fucked am I, it just started doing this

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand

>>4370320
Did you try turning it on and off again?

>>4370322
Ya no luck with taht

>>4370390
Hmmmmm.... Have you tried hitting it a couple times?

>>4370320
Honestly, better than most of the snapshits I see.

>>4370320
Assuming the result varies depending what you shoot, take few thousand snaps, select bunch of the different most striking ones and call it your style.

>>4370426
Is this really the soul I've been looking for?

>>4370430
The machine god grants you strength

>>4370320
lmao what lens
I assume the distortion is from software distortion correction

Could I hear some thoughts on a 250 USD a5100 with the 16-50 kit lens. Planning to slap a pancake on it. I wanted to get back into it after (regrettably) selling off my D7100 and Coolpix A some years ago. Would you rather a 300 usd a6000 without a lens

>>4370536
20-70 f4

>>4370775
am I just dumb or did you not post any context as to what camera "it" is

>>4369705
any filters that you guys use to hide gearfag threads?

>>4370783
sony a7c

>>4370320
That's a one in a million sensor failure

Going to Machu Picchu pretty soon, which lens(es) should I bring:

20mm g
35mm gm
90mm 2.8
70-350mm

>>4371590
sonysisters i thought we just got shutter curtain failures...

>>4371621
We get all kinds of failures because just one sony model outsells several brands combined. Statistics.

Panasonic+Olympus+Fujifilm+Nikon sales = ONE sony FF model.

If just 0.1% of all cameras ever made in a run will fail, that might be 1 pentax k-1 that broke and was silently sold for parts, but for sony its 1,000 bodies and a few hundred are going to be in the hands of some very dramatic people. Then you start shitposting about it without thinking. "Oh ONE pentax broke? Well here's 1000 dead SNOYS!"

File: 6381974.jpg (177 KB, 1047x1300)

177 KB JPG

>>4370320
>>4370775
transnoys... not like this... it was bigger and double the price.. it was guaranteed to be better...

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	1047
Image Height	1300

File: lol canon.jpg (117 KB, 1080x810)

117 KB JPG

>>4371638
snoybros, we're just a little worse than canon!

>>4371641
Clive, if you keep being this autistic I'm going to buy a Sony. I'm warning you.

>>4371644
Collin, you already own a dozen bricked Snoys and PSPs.

>>4371646
>Nonsensical autism babble
Well, off to ebay

>>4371654
Enjoy your new paperweights Collin

>>4371641
Hey can you hook me up with some free pancakes at IHOP? I know you've been working there for a while.

>>4371662
Sorry, snoys can only get cupcakes.

>>4371666
Can you make it with pancake batter and maple syrup, please?

>>4371683
When I made the thread I didn't think 40% of replies would be Snoy related

why the fuck do i get recommended 600$ cameras when asking which 200-300$ camera to choose

>>4371690
Maybe they have all the stupid questions to ask?

>>4371691
They're pushing you towards greatness. What kinda cam are you looking to get?

>>4371691
Because americans don't know how to save money and jump into more expensive gear on a whim

>>4371695
something small that i can carry along on an upcoming trip, mainly shots of my gf. my pixel camera has been giving me these weird pink artifacts lately. i used to have a coolpix A but tragically sold it. looking at a 200$ cad lumix gx1 with kit lens, but feel i can do better if i add an extra hundred or so. preferably something i can stick an affordable prime lens on, so i think sony is out of the question from what i've seen.

>>4371699
some old dude is selling an e-pl5, could maybe get him down to 200 for the body and grab the panasonic 20mm 1.7 at a pawn shop for hopefully 100

>>4371699
>200$ cad
Buy a Kodak PnS from Canuck Walmart

Going to Japan soon and want to buy a digital camera instead of using my phone. Told that its a great country for buying used cameras. What could I realistically get for $200-300?

>>4370320
So this is the power of Sony foolframe

>>4371711
There will be a day Japan will tax the fuck out of people in airports for raping their used goods market so much.

>>4371702
Epl2,3,5 are all very similar but if you can jump to a 7 it would be a big leap. The 3 is probably good enough considering your budget. The kit lenses sell for fuck all on eBay as well; the PZ one is more like $200 AUD though.

>>4371718
sent a 300$ offer on one an hour drive away with two lenses, we'll see.

how is the zoom/focus whatever trick accomplished where, for example, I'm 5m away from my subject, the background is 5m behind him, the shot is closely focused on the subject, but the background looks far as normal?
I have no pics to post as reference, but I'm sure you guys aren't as stupid as I am.

>>4371746
A high aperture stop? I think I see what you are saying. Could also be focus stacked

File: guess what.png (1 MB, 1883x1114)

1 MB PNG

>>4371655
I told you clive, I was going to have to buy a sony
And I bought one

Good job

>Clive is such an ineffective shill, that all his shitposting got TWO people to buy snoys
let's see if he can keep it up long enough to shill a third person on a sony

the more you shitpost about how much you hate sony, the more pro-sony arguments and highly specific sony info you get in return, which in turn educates people on which sony gear to buy

>>4371904
I like Sonys but fuck you pro Sony shills are ridiculous. If Nikon or Fuji goes under it doesn't mean suddenly Sony wins the camera wars, it means that there won't be any incentive to make cheaper or better enthusiast cameras while normies but the latest iPhone Pro or Galaxy ultra

>>4371953
fuji is not going under, they're growing year after year and gaining a shitton of popularity even though xtrans is so retarded it takes 40mp to take the same photo as a normal camera

nikon is, because they aren't making cheaper or better enthusiast cameras, they're making fat mtf chart first design abortions that are neither a semi-pro camcorder nor a good stills camera

>>4371965
reminder that Nikon's imaging division does less in revenue than Fuji's Instax alone

>>4371615
well nuts, i sent it in for repair lets see what they say.

>>4371615
Why tho?

File: bricks.jpg (166 KB, 660x740)

166 KB JPG

>>4371900
>>4371904
gm sars very good pls buy more sony bricks thank you maam

>>4371900
>>4371904
Keep it up boys. We are doing God's work. I just bought another Sony lens today. Will be buying more when this months paycheck comes in.
>>4371953
Cope and seethe.

File: Hp-photo-scanner.jpg (16 KB, 400x400)

16 KB JPG

i was the one asking earlier about best camera for scanning books, I ended up getting a used scanner from 16 years ago, it has this integrated 35mm film tray with backlit, so fucking cool, made me want to get an old camera and some film, but I don't know jackshit about photography , then I scanned some documents at 2400dpi and you can actually see the fibers in the paper how cool is that, the file was like 700MB kek

Got a canon eos 2000d cheap second hand, first camera. Point me to the godlike beginner tutorial

>>4372240
The camera manual

File: Screenshot from 2024-10-1(...).png (456 KB, 5120x2816)

456 KB PNG

Help

>>4372187
Cool as shit. Not sure about the practical advantage for books versus just buying a current consoomer scanner, but the film versatility is neat.
>>4372240
RTFM. Learn the photographic triangle. Don't listen to anyone who lowers themself to making youtube tutorials.
>>4372326
If Windows, pay for C1
If Linux, rebuild your kernel, then pay for C1
If Mac, I'm sorry.

I have a legit stupid question.
When should I upgrade from a P&S?

I've had a rx100va for about 3 years and it's been good for moto rides and snapshits. It kind of fails at dark venues when I go to shows, but that's the only noticeable weak point I have.
The AF seems pretty good, the zoom has been good enough I suppose.
I paid about $550 or so for the sony at that time, and I don't know if I would see a huge difference in picture/QoL changes getting a mirrorless for a similar price. I've been looking at some ASPCs like the R10 or 6400, but everything looks so massive in comparison.
I really like being able to keep the RX in my pocket and take snapshits on the fly.

Would it be possible to get something of a similar enough size (maybe with a pancake) that would be <1k or so with a noticeable difference? Should I just gitgud with the 1" sensor until I know in my heart that I need an upgrade?

>>4372356
If you want more control over your photos, then an ILC will be worth it. It really depends on if lifting those limitations you mentioned is worth the cost. Going for 1" to even APS-C would be a big sensor jump, which is going to equal cleaner, more detailed photos. The sensor is responsible for keeping your ISO as low as possible, but the lenses are what will give you the look you're going for. Even a crop body with a kit lens is a league ahead of your P&S.

As long as you buy used, $500 would get you a pretty decent APS-C body and kit lens. A couple of nicer, faster lenses can be had for another $500 easily. If you want more zoom make one of those a telephoto, but be aware that P&Ss with smaller sensors generally get longer zoom for less money, however the IQ will suffer. That's basically what a bridge camera is.

The real issue is though, that nothing is as compact as a P&S. Even an a6400 with a snoycake lens is going to be significantly bigger.

>>4372356
>Would it be possible to get something of a similar enough size (maybe with a pancake) that would be <1k or so with a noticeable difference?
Ricoh GRIII / IIIx, if you don't mind the downsides and can find one within your budget.
Otherwise no, even m43 with a pancake is substantially bigger and won't fit in pants pocket, you're just gonna have to cope with a bigger camera. If you really want to minmax lowlight capability and don't need more than 12MP, you could get the A7s and a fast prime.

>>4372356
You're not going to get an interchangeable lens setup as small as the RX100, and an APS-C body with a pancake won't be a massive quality upgrade because pancake lenses are shit plus you'll be limited by the fixed focal length. That's not to say it's not worth getting an interchangeable lens camera, just don't expect it to replace the RX100. It will be an addition that you can use at times when you don't need a tiny camera that you can stick in your pocket.

>>4372364
I appreciate the response.
The idea of testing lenses and photo feels does appeal to me, but I'm trying to avoid consooming if I don't need to, if that makes sense.

I would certainly get a used body, probably lenses as well. It's a bit of a spoon-feed, but do you have any $500-range APS-Cs you think of on the top of your head?
I've been looking at a lot of options, but truthfully the numbers mean nothing to me here mason. I can appreciate that one body has IBIS or faster AF, but will I really notice that as a retard snapshitter? Snoy or Canon appeal since the current gen seems to be backward compatible with lenses to a degree, and if I do feel the need to upgrade the body later I'll have lenses etc.
M43, I still don't know how I feel. From what I can tell the body size difference is pretty minor, but the sensor difference is noticeable while costing nearly the same on the secondhand market in my area. Am I missing something with them?
(I have a serious soft spot for Lolympus for no other reason than I am near their HQ building and the museum is cool.)

>>4372371
It is what it is and all that. Maybe I just feel too goofy having a camera around my neck while hiking compared to slipping it into my pocket out of sight. I did look at the Ricoh options, but I like being able to zoom.

>>4369897
a printer / scanner is $60 these days

>>4372373
I didn't know the pancakes were a big downgrade. It makes sense from a physical standpoint for sure. I also didn't realize they were fixed length. I just assumed they had some small movement ability.

>>4372374
Buying used, then selling later if you find it not worth it will cost you maybe 20% of what you paid overall. Camera shit tends to hold their value. I'm a canon cuck so I'll recommend you canon, but absolutely concede that snoy make more compact APS-C bodies. Going canon means an EF to RF adapter which is $50 and you get complete compatiblity with any EF lens all the way into the 80s.

I vote to avoid M43 since the cost is about the same and you really don't gain much except your lenses will be smaller / weigh less. Maybe that appeals to you. I have a M43 camera and I'm probably just going to sell it since its only purpose is to have in the car in case I don't bring my Canon with me. If you do end up buying M43 then Olympus IBIS is decent, the video is decent, and the lenses are fine if a bit average. Pro lenses are good but then you're hauling around a full kit.

I currently use a Canon R50 which is basically the smallest mirrorless they make. I don't use pancake lenses but they exist and are good. That setup with the body and pancake lens would probably cost you $1000 and you're at a fixed focal length of 28(x1.6)mm. A kit lens is very light but not exactly pocketable. If you want actual telephoto lenses, APS-C canon have very light/compact telephotos, but they're still telephotos and will be very bulky compared to any p&s. I use some good lenses that get fantastic low light performance but they cost a chunk of money.

Everything is a comprimise friend.

>>4372374
Shoulder strap.
And depending on how much you care about low light capability, I really recommend skipping aps-c and going for full frame. The difference is substantial, buy once cry once.

>>4372377
Pancakes arent a downgrade. Maybe hes talking about snoy because they cant make pancakes. Aps-c Fuji 27/28 and Canon 22/2 for example are great.

>>4372381
Those setups aren't going to be anywhere near the size of an RX100, not going to fit in a pocket.

>>4372379
Canon having the FOSS CFW is very intriguing actually, and I like it has that little following.
A local spot here has an R10 and R50 for something like $640 and $600 respectively, so I would probably just get the 10 for the buttons, even though I likely don't need them.
It does seem that snoy has some much thinner bodies. I don't really care about the color reputation they have personally, I want to get more color grading experience myself anyway.
If I am already having to step up from pocket to neck/shoulder strap then I'm not going to worry about a small size difference for a lesser quality sensor with regards to the m43.
I guess it is really just what's my bang for buck. A 6400 is about $500 or so for example.
>>4372380
FF seems cool and all, but I don't want to blow my budget way out like that just to realize I don't take a huge number of photos anyway. If I keep myself under 1k and lose the 20% or so then I'm not gonna be too mad about it compared to dropping almost 2k on a good FF body and lens. (From what prices I've seen locally.)
>>4372381
Okay, I'll lookup example photos for whichever mount style I end up deciding on and go from there. Those lenses are definitely smaller, and I appreciate that for when I'm hiking or whatever.

>>4372388
>good FF body
Cameras don't age like milk, even older FF will be better than newer APS-C. You can get A7III for 1k, a mid range zoom under $200 and a fast 50 prime likewise.

>>4372399
Interesting, has the camera sensor tech kind of plateaued then for a while? I would think a 3-5 year old APS-C would be better than a 8-10 year FF just because of better processing/tech/features/etc.
I don't really know these things.
How old of a FF would you feel is too old? I do like taking photos at night, but it not my biggest factor compared to cost.

>>4372405
It didn't quite plateau, but by mid 2010s the period of rapid improvement was definitely over. On top of that, many of the improvements nowadays are aimed at /vid/fags instead of stills, so you might get faster readout speed but worse DR on some models.

>>4372405
The most modern sensors will outperform a few generations ago but not by a wide margin. An older DSLR like a 5D MkIII/IV will provide a big IQ advantage at the cost of weight, size, and AF over a modern mirrorless camera. They're like 900g+ though just the body so we're firmly out of pocketable territory and into "carry a camera bag all the time" territory. Features is another story. My R50 can focus stack in camera, has imppecable AF and very good video, for example.

Full frame is great for the hunt for pure photographic sex, but most people (You) will see bigger gains by learning how to take better photos and buying a tripod, not throwing money at an R6 MkII and a 24-105mm f/4. APS-C is still firmly a good choice that also keeps weight and cost to reasonable amounts, but FF will always be king of the Windows wallpaper contest.

Lastly, any camera you take with you beats a APS-C/FF/MF/ camera left at home

>>4372409
But, photography isn't necessarily art. Even when it's supposed to be art. just combining much better image quality with an absolute snapshit apparently makes award winning art.

just ask half the photographers MOMA
>its a gas station sign
>ON 8X10 SLIDE FILM!

>>4372441
I didn't bring up or even wish to suggest photos were art, but you're still right. Higher fidelity = better photo by default
HOWEVER, the inherit shittness of a photo can also be used as part of the artisitc vision. See: all film grain, ISO 25600 concert photos, M43 cat snapshits.

Since this is as stupid questions thread let me ask:
I shoot in RAW format on a sony a7iii as I've always wanted to learn but I got lazy
so I just use sony Imaging Edge Desktop which I heard is crap.
What tool should I use to convert and edit?

I have no editing skills. Like obviously if I take a photo I can crop out some aspects to it but that's it.
I'll take photos of girls sometimes and they all say stupid shit like
'oh can you edit out the veins in my arm or remove this pimple?'
and I'm like yeah no cause I don't know how to do that

any good recommendations on how to start learning?
I think I've seen in the past before anons saying don't bother with lightroom just pirate photoshop.

>>4372458
Capture one has class leading thot fixing features, its like lightroom fucked photoshop and their child inherited all the good pats.

But it is snobby. It doesn't support some cheaper shittier gear, and they are probably never adding AI NR because the average capture one user does not have noisy photos.

File: Capture.jpg (303 KB, 2687x1946)

303 KB JPG

>>4372460
Never even heard of it so thanks
I honestly have a ton of bad habits that I want to unlearn
like I'm shooting way too often in auto mode
I barely use the functions of my camera
and I have ISO set to automatic as well

I still take pics I enjoy and people seem to like my photos, but I want to actually git gud so I can do this as a side hustle

pic of cute Doggo I took

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Photographer	Whatever
Image-Specific Properties:

>>4372458
Shooting RAW then using the manufacturer's specific software is just JPEG with extra steps, for the most part.
C1 is probably the least retarded move you can make but is expensive to own, and only slighly more palatable to rent yearly. But that is speaking for RAW editors.
In regards to the bimbos you describe, that's more a photoshop thing. C1 is more than capable, but if you want to alter reality you want photoshop.

To learn, take a few decent photos, ones you've already taken are fine, and start messing with settings and compare to OOC JPEGs. My workflow for instance is: Lens Corrections > NR > [All Other Changes] > Resize > Sharpness. But I'm not trying to edit the birth mark off my head.

>>4372463
>like I'm shooting way too often in auto mode
>I barely use the functions of my camera
and why is that bad?

File: 1454864345043.jpg (590 KB, 1000x3429)

590 KB JPG

>>4372458
CaptureOne and Lightroom are the industry standard, with a few alternatives like Darktable and RawTherapee. You can do more with Photoshop, but Lightroom is much more accessible and a better starting point for a beginner.
Try to focus on learning more general principles, not just replicating a specific tool or one person's specific process.

>>4372463
You should learn your camera first and fore-most. You don't need to actually shoot manual, but you should absolutely feel comfortable doing everything manually if you had to, and know what functions your camera offers.
Editing should be for enhancing already good images, it's fine-tuning and polish, but you need a good base.

>>4372490
The alternative is dxo photolab

Darktable and rawtherapee border on unusable
>compile your own color science and lens corrections from source
>then you can tell people on the internet you're very smart and not just bad at using your time effectively
>also see: installing arch linux

>>4372491
For tech-stupid, sure, but if were talking so stupid that Darktable is unusable for them, they should be sticking with Lightroom anyways.
Only ever tried Darktable for that one DT thread a while back, and found it very simple to use, but I suppose that comes from having worked with many different programs before.
Sorry to hear you couldn't figure it out either.

>>4372495
>The eternal freetard: MY SOFTWARE SUCKS? UR JUST TOO DUMB TO USE IT!
No, there are just better ways to spend time than by fucking around with darktable just to get worse than panasonic colors out of your $1000 non-panasonic camera.

I recommend getting a job instead of doing dumb shit like installing gentoo just to say you can install gentoo (there is no reason to deploy any linux operating system outside of a server environment btw)

-Sent from my Macbook Pro

>>4372500
The colors arent even the worst part

The noise reduction and sharpening are so ass you’re going to end up buying photoshop just to do it less poorly and there’s no auto masking (darktable users: welcome to 2007, check out my wacom tablet) or support for any fucking lenses other than ancient canikon so zooms that depend on software to correct complex distortion are in fact not usable without a lot of diy profiling work i did not buy a $1000 lens to do

>>4372503
Careful they'll whine "skill issue" endlessly if you don't want to manually paint masks (or call mask dependent edits, sharpening, and NR "fake" and post an awful cow snapshit that makes their gh5 look like a coolpix l20)

>>4372463
>and I have ISO set to automatic as well
That's a good thing. There are very few situations where manual ISO is necessary. You should just be using aperture priority most of the time, adjusting as sharpness and depth of field requires. If you're shooting something that moves quickly you have a few options, you can either set the auto ISO to fast or faster which will choose a faster shutter speed before lowering the ISO, switch to manual with auto ISO and then you can choose a fast shutter while still having control over depth of field and sharpness, or if you have lenses that are sharp wide open and a shallow depth of field isn't a concern then switch to shutter priority.

>>4372539
Auto ISO + A mode is a clusterfuck for shutter control. Manual with auto ISO and aperture priority with manual auto ISO are the GOAT. Full manual is for flash.

Test shot 1: test chart at 1x magnification
Test shot 2: same test chart at 2x magnification

Would the measurement of lp/mm be to scale or would you halve the "size" of the chart because you magnified it by 2x

I have trouble explaining this properly... hopefully someone understands.

>>4372485
I just kind of assumed all of /p/ would look down on me and tell me to git gud
But also I feel like it hampers future potential growth in skill

>>4372615
You need to git gud, taking a lot of pictures is one way so why contain it? sooner or later you will feel the need to do your own adjustments and that will be progress.

My pirated copy of C1 won't let me import directly from my D850 when I plug it in, am I being retarded or does it just not work?

>>4372500
I don't use darktable myself, I pay for both C1 and LR/PS on Windows, thank you very much.
If all you mean is the NR and other advanced stuff is not on par with other editors, I will absolutely agree with you. Again, I don't use it myself.
If you think Darktable is overly complicated or requires unnecessary setup or tinkering, you are tech-stupid. It's all the same tools and adjustments in other programs, just with different names in different areas of the UI. If you can figure out LR, you shouldn't have any issues with Darktable.

>>4372630
>You are tech stupid
It doesn't have profiles for most contemporary cameras or lenses. You have to generate them yourself with test charts. The results will ALWAYS be worse than an adobe camera matching or C1 prostandard profile.

Otherwise it's a per-image editing experience that holds true to the "uh raws are meant to look bad!" myth and a really fucking terrible one, considering adobe and C1 both offer a usable jpeg from the moment of import.

File: file.jpg (56 KB, 1280x720)

56 KB JPG

For Sony camera, how am I supposed to transfer images and videos from the SD card onto my computer without having to format and resetting my filename numbering?

>>4372650
Why would you "have" to?

>>4372652
because if I just cut the files out, I get a whole bunch of "unable to display" in playback mode and warnings about database needing repair from time to time.

>>4372653
Sounds like the hidden metadata files are being left there and snoys engineering department didn't realise that might happen. I can't remember if Windows can find the files I speak of but any Linux machine can see trivially if any remain.
I'm sure Windows can, I just haven't daliy'd it in a while

>>4372678
Well, according to reddit, there's an actual database file with an index to all the photos/videos.

Snoy software is such garbage, holy shit.

>>4372650
There's a reindex setting in the menu

It's something that confuses americans but japanese instantly realize

>>4372678
I see a Recover Image DB under Setup6. That doesn't help with having "unable to display" in place of the deleted video files on playback that I'll need to manually delete. I didn't have to manually delete photos from the camera though. I guess I remembered wrong. It's just the videos.

>>4372691
You're doing it wrong

Its ok you'll figure it out eventually

>>4372692
Okay, asshole.

>>4372691
if recovering the db for each card does not work your card is corrupted

>>4372650
Throw that snoy in the trash and buy a proper camera

>>4372694
I've tried formatting too and the same behaviour happens next time I delete videos off it (it'll still leave a unable to playback record on playback). Same thing after swapping cards.

>>4372699
I hate the phone app too. If I could start over again, I may not have gone with Sony. It does have the cheapest body and lens out of apsc competitors though.

>>4372700
SD cards are $10 so it's a cheap way to confirm it isn't your card's fault. Haven't had a card kill itself in 6 years of photog, but you never know

>>4369705
I have a nikon D40 with the kit 18-55 lens. what other lenses should I consider buying. I have owned the camera for years and taken a lot of shots with it. I have no idea what im doing.

>>4372713
>have no idea what I'm doing
>What gear should I buy?
You'll need to figure out what you enjoy doing or else it's just going to be buying shit for the sake of it. By default maybe pick up a telephoto lens so you've got longer reach than the kit lens you have, since that can be fun and different. Not a niggon so I don't actually know specific lenses, but something like 50-250mm would be a big difference to shoot with. That or a fast prime like a 50mm f/1.8 can be fun to fuck with DoF and background bluring that your kit lens would likely fall short on.

>>4372650
Cameras are just notoriously bad for data management. The more you delete / cut / manipulate files on the card, the more problems you'll run into. Also you shouldn't care about file numbering.
When you put a new card in, you absolutely should format it in camera. Don't bother with deleting anything via camera ever. Import all your stuff when done shooting, and then format the card again after before you use it again.

>>4372782
thanks for the suggestions, I appreciate it.

>>4372713
It really depends on what types of picture you like to take. Most beginners will opt for something of a different range, or faster. Some examples:
10-24 if you want something wider
55-200 or 55-300 if you want something more tele
35 or 50 f1.8 if you want better lowlight shooting and more bokeh for portraits
17-55 f2.8 if you want a better version of what you have already
All are relatively cheap, especially used. Stick with AF-S, AF-P lenses are too new for your camera and AF-D won't autofocus. It all really depends on the types of pictures you want to take.

>>4372811
>The more you delete / cut / manipulate files on the card, the more problems you'll run into
What retarded bullshit is that? I always use card reader to move photos from the card to my computer and the camera only shows the photos I left on the card and continues numbering regardless of what SD card I use or what files I deleted, no complaints or errors. D750, D7100, gx85 all work this way. The only exception are MOV files on the gx85 which are in the PRIVATE folder together with some index files and shit, but that's video, not photos.

>>4372830
An addendum on gx85. I can, of course, just delete the PRIVATE folder when I'm done transferring and the camera gives gives me zero issues.

>>4372830
Magicaru sonoy quirk make pafect sense to nipponese, rebuild database yourself very smart, give user much control

>>4369705
This is a question I really should know by now, but how does the aperture on a variable aperture zoom actually work? Say it's an f/3.5-5.6. If I have my aperture set at f/3.5 and I start to zoom in, is the aperture actually stopping down towards f/5.6 as I go or is it staying wide open and the amount of light making it through to the sensor is just equivalent to smaller apertures?

>>4372852
The f number is a ratio between the focal length and the apparent size of the aperture, so if the size stays the same but the focal length increases then the f number will also increase.

File: Screenshot 2024-10-12 111005.png (183 KB, 733x1016)

183 KB PNG

>>4372830
That's great you haven't personally ran into issues with it, doesn't mean it's not a problem, and doesn't mean frequent formatting is not best practice. Most people never experience card failures either, but that doesn't mean they don't happen.
It's pretty common knowledge actually, how many web articles / blog posts / forum posts talking about it do you need to see? I see dozens and dozens with a simple search.
You can also find similar sentiments from memory card manufacturers too, take ProGrade
>The way you use your memory card significantly affects its performance. Deleting images from the card mid-shoot to make room for new photos fragments the data and can accelerate wear and tear. Instead, make it a habit not to delete anything on your camera. Always transfer files to your computer before deleting them. This simple practice will help minimize data fragmentation and ensure your memory cards will perform at their peak for longer.

Okay i got two voightlander lenses for free. A 40mm nokton f1.4 and a 35mm 1.2 nokton. i only got into photography last year and i only have a Fuji X30.

What do i do with them? I'd feel bad just selling them since somebody gave them to me but i cant afford a leica.

>>4369705
>120mm film camera that takes AF-S glass?
I recently bought a dirt cheap F65, and I've been having fun with film photography, since I already had a bunch of lenses for the Nikon mount (the F65 does autofocus, autometering and even VR).
But I kind of want to try medium format (120mm film) now. I know Nikon never made a single MF camera, but did anyone else ever make one which is compatible with F-mount glass?
I guess it's just wishful thinking, but that would be great to have.

>>4372866
No

>>4372930
Yes

>>4372914
Wat mount? You can always give them to me for free

>>4369705
How on earth did they transfer and upscale pictures before digital scanners?

File: srtybtrsyryr.jpg (65 KB, 600x559)

65 KB JPG

Hi all, I have the Nikon 55mm f/3.5, mounted to D5600.
I like it, but would really love the ability to do auto focus.
What's the most affordable equivalent to the lens I have, that has AF ability?
Very new to this lens world, thanks.

>>4372988
Glass around 50mm is dirt cheap.
Your cheapest option is the one called AF 50mm f1.8, but that won't actually autofocus on your camera, because the D5600 doesn't have a dedicated focus motor.
So get the AF-S 50mm f1.8 instead.
It can be had used for about 80 USD (sometimes even less).

>>4373004
Ok, I will probably do that.
Given it still won't be autofocused, what would you say the advantages of the AF 50mm f1.8 are?

>>4373007
No advantage over the one you have, other than speed (the amount of light you can let in, f3.5 vs f1.8)

File: adtybrtsbubecr.jpg (60 KB, 583x499)

60 KB JPG

>>4373012
Gotcha
I definitely like that aspect because with the one I have, I have to crank the little ring at the base all the way to 3.5 otherwise everything is too dark

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Photographer	quinn_000
Image-Specific Properties:

>>4373019
Hmm, that's strange. During daylight, you should be more than fine at least up to f11, with a decent shutter speed to boot.

>>4373019
>>4373024
Wait, you do know you can crank up the ISO value, right?
Going up to 400 is usually perfectly fine, and you can probably get acceptable results at 800 too, if you must.

>>4373024
It could be that I bought it used, or that I don't understand the various settings I can play with. It came with an 'M2' macro tube which I have been trying off and on, which might also be a variable.
generally I am adjusting the 'top' ring with the ft/m indicators to the closest position I can, so I can get as large and detailed an image as possible

>>4373028
right now I have my ISO set to 500

>>4373029
The macro spacer will steal some light, yes. Probably about 2 or 3 stops worth.
But macro is a bit different. You usually want to use some extra lights for that, because you also want to get the aperture quite small (higher f-value) for a larger focus plane.

File: setup_photo (1).jpg (233 KB, 1560x1175)

233 KB JPG

>>4373031
right now I have some studio lights to give some 'ambient' lighting, but if it's not enough, I suppose I will have to get some strobes or one of those weird ring lights that goes around the lens

>>4373035
Okay, but if macro is your thing, I would NOT go for another 50mm.
The best macro lenses are the AF-S Micro 60mm f2.8 micro and the AF-S Micro 105mm f2.8.
Both will work quite okay as portrait lenses too, and the VR (vibration reduction) on the 105mm is nice for handheld shooting.
They are both more expensive than the 50mm f1.8 though.

>>4373035
>>4373038
There are a couple of reasons why a "micro" lens is better for macro, but primarily it is because:
>flatter focus plane
>shorter minimum focus distance
They are also sharper at shorter focus distances. The tradeoff being that the 105mm, for instance, won't have the same IQ at very long distances as a "normal" lens (still works great for subjects a few meters away).

>>4369705
If you could get only one zoom go-around lens for a MFT system, which one qould you pick?

>>4373043
24-70mm, definitely.
MFT is going to make that quite ok tele at the long end, and still workable width at the low end.

>>4373035
Fill/ambient light is generally not strong enough for macro. You need a flash/strobe. Even with mine massed out power, at f/32 I need iso400 at minimum to not underexpose, and flashes are magnitudes more powerful than fill light

>>4373087
At 6x magnification you need a 250W continuous about 8 inches from your subject at f/16 and 1 second for 100iso.

It gets nutty with high magnification.

>>4373007
The d5xxx doesnt have an aperture tab so you can only shoot in fully manual mode. Right now you’re presumably guessing your exposure or using an external meter, and just checking the histogram to see if you got it right.
With an AF lens even if it doesn’t have a motor (so AF don’t actually work) the meter will at least work. So you’d be able to shoot in any PSAM mode, working auto-ISO, and EXIF will be correct.

>>4373019
Learn “sunny 16”.
In bright daylight:
>set f-stop to 16
>set ISO to 100
>set shutter to 100 (or whatever closest to the sane number as ISO is, such as 125)
Adjust aperture for lighting:
>f/11 for slightly cloudy
>f/8 for more cloudy
>f/5.6 for a little shady
>f/4 for really shady
Want to use a faster shutter speed? Easy just increase the ISO to match. 1/500 shutter and 500, and sunny 16 still works.
This shit is older than 35mm film and still works.
This

Is it a mistake buying crop over full frame if I primarily want to shoot portraits?

I was thinking of picking up a a6700 over a a7iii because people say the lenses are cheaper, but I worry I won't get the same buttery smooth tm bokeh as FF with a 1.2

Also do any equivalents to FF f1.2 primes exist on crop, or are they gonna work more like 1.4 because the crop factor

>>4373155
Just get FF.
The only serious use of a crop sensor is to get 1.5 the “reach” on long telephoto lenses. You know, for like birds and shit.
Otherwise crop is just cope for poor people.

>>4373155
Yes, crop has no real advantage except saving money and a bit of weight, and its not free. You do lose a lot of quality.
>FF equivalent lenses???
Cost as much as FF lenses and oftentimes, more, because FF usually has an older or lower end DSLR/third party offering that looks fine if you dont have a 42-61 MP camera, also usually the same size as the FF lens

>>4373155
>Also do any equivalents to FF f1.2 primes exist on crop, or are they gonna work more like 1.4 because the crop factor
f/1.2 is still gonna "officially" have the same DoF as it does on FF. I mean like if you did test shot on both cameras at f/1.2 of an object that was exactly 2 meters from you in both shots, the background would be the same amount of blurry. Everything would be magified 1.5x though. The crop photo would in fact look like what you'd get if you took the FF photo and zoomed in 1.5x to where just the middle part was visible. That's what a crop sensor is.
But, see, you won't be ever be the same distance away. In order to keep the same composition, the crop factor will force you to get 1.5x times the distance from your subject, which fucks with the whole DoF calculation, most notably by un-blurring your backgrounds a bit.
So, effectively, in the way the camer is actully used, you won't get as much bokeh on crop.
Crop also magnifies noise, so your higher ISOs look twice as noisy, so even if the crop sensor is "officially" just as good as the ff sensor, in all practical purposes it's not.

>>4373161
I'm a poorfag that copes though

I guess I'll save for the a7iii/a7c

>>4373185
The A7V is coming soon, a7iii and a7c prices will keep going down. It might be a killer release that gets a bunch of people to sell their cameras judging by /p/'s recent surge in shilling begging people to just ignore sony as a brand (while pretending other brands dont have the same problems).

I guess that means a shitty panasonic release is also coming

>>4373185
I dunno shit about Sony, but in Nikon or Canonland, you're better off with an older ff you can afford, versus a newer crop of the same price. Cameras improve, but certainly not enough over 1 generation to compensate for the sensor size.

>>4373185
>falling for the snoy meme
dont do it anon!

>>4373200
I used a friend's rx100 before and I unironically like Sony autofocus+menus

I was given an ancient Canon 400D with no lenses. I looked it up and see it's pushing 20 years old and only worth like $50. Should I buy a couple Canon EF lenses and use this camera to learn, then invest in a different body later down the line? I know this camera doesn't do video, and I don't really care.

>>4373212
Sure why not? Camera was free and lenses won’t be expensive if they are used and you don’t go crazy.
Be prepared for the pics to look godawful until you become good at both photography and editing.
But this would be the case with a newer camera too.

>>4371965
>>4371967
So, like, Nikon is bad? D:

>>4373212
EF lenses are cheap, good quality, and will fit any Canon made from the 80s to 2020. They also work perfectly on the newest mirrorless canons with a $50 adapter. Literally cannot fuck up with EF lenses as you can always sell them for about as much as you buy them for

>>4373155
The difference in depth of field isn't actually that great, nor is a shallower depth of field for portraits a good thing. If you go around shooting everyone with a 50mm f/1.2 on an A7 you'll probably find there are times when you'll only have a single eye in focus and a blurry nose, but if you had used an A6700 you would have had those extra few cm's. You're also probably not going to go and get a 33mm f/1.2 instead on the crop body, you're just going to use the 50mm as if it were a 75mm on ff, an 85mm like it was a 135mm, etc.

What does actually have a significant affect on how your photos will look, how buttery the bokeh will be, is a combination of the focal length and the aperture. If you're shooting a portrait of someone and whatever is in the background is 2m+ away from them then a 135mm f/1.8 is going to look a lot better than a 50mm at f/1.2.

>>4373273
>If you go around shooting everyone with a 50mm f/1.2 on an A7 you'll probably find there are times when you'll only have a single eye in focus and a blurry nose, but if you had used an A6700 you would have had those extra few cm's.

Wouldn't the fix to this just be opening the aperture up on FF to 1.4 or 1.8?

crop seems limited because like the other anon says you're not gonna have the option of 50mm at f1.2/1.4

You're getting less bokeh because you're having to stand further back for the same framing

File: ffvscrop.jpg (727 KB, 2878x2158)

727 KB JPG

>>4373280
>Wouldn't the fix to this just be opening the aperture up on FF to 1.4 or 1.8?
Yeah. That's my point, a lot of the time you won't benefit from the shallower depth of field from full frame. You don't need to worry about getting an f/1.2 on a crop body in place of an f/1.4 on full frame, at least not for the depth of field. There are other reasons like making up for the ~1 stop advantage a full frame sensor would have in terms of stuff like noise and dynamic range, but with most portraits you're probably going to be able to shoot at or close to base ISO.

>You're getting less bokeh because you're having to stand further back for the same framing
I don't know if I'd say less, just different. You'd be getting an enlarged background on the crop body the same as if you went from an 85mm to a 135mm on the full frame body. This is a bit of a shit example but it was quick and you can still get a rough idea of the difference, using a 50mm and going from ff on the left to aps-c mode on the right. The blurriness of the stuff in the background stays roughly the same, not a drastic difference you'd notice unless you were literally comparing side by side, but things are going to appear larger with a crop body.

>>4373280
>crop seems limited
Correct. Full Frame gives you the most options. The only thing I can think of that crop actually gives you over FF, is macro shots at narrowest aperture, since you'll get a bigger DoF over a FF body with the same settings. That's an edge case, so I'd still be comfortable saying that FF gives you the greatest amount of choice.

>>4373283
Makes sense, I'll keep that in mind but right now the main benefits seems to be lenses are like 70% the price of FF

A6700 seems to be a lot stronger than the older A7's in autofocus and jpg colours too

>>4372940
M mount.

>>4373091
>>4373095
>>4373087
>>4373090

Thanks all for the advice, it doesn't all make sense quite yet but I will be referring back to these posts as I continue experimenting with settings and such

>>4373286
Yeah the A6700 AF performance is going to be similar to an A7 IV or A7R V, but price is more like an A7 III. That said the AF on the older bodies isn't bad and certainly good enough for portraits, you'll still get eye AF. The AF on the newer bodies will be better if you're shooting kids for example where they could be turning away from the camera, it will have an easier time continuing to track their head until their eye becomes visible again.

As for lenses make sure you're not judging it based on all the available lenses but rather on the ones you're actually going to buy. For example if it's just going to be primes then there aren't many crop only ones over 50mm, and some of the best ones are still going to be full frame compatible. If you're lusting after that 50mm f/1.2 GM then you're not going to find a cheaper crop version, same goes for the 85's and 135's. You might find a nice cheaper ~35mm though.

>>4373286
Main benefit of a new crop will be aps-c > older FF, especially early mirrorless from Nikon or canon

The sensor will perform similar in low light and you'll have bells and whistles like ibis, better autofocus that those older FF offerings don't have

>>4373301
>Main benefit of a new crop will be aps-c > older FF, especially early mirrorless from Nikon or canon
Lmao, no

>>4373301
Absolutely not

This is horseshit you only hear from videotards because the older crop camera has some codec or no fov change for the 60fps setting thats really only for slow motion shots, or less rolling shutter

But for stills its never true. A fucking d800 is still better than micro four thirds.

>>4373341
>A fucking d800 is still better than micro four thirds.
only in a few use cases where things like depth of field, portability or weather sealing don't matter.

>>4373343
D800 is better sealed
D800 is portable if you arent a sissy
Equivalence does not apply to d800 because no fool turds has 36mp and equivalence rarely happens irl anyways

All you get from mft is being a sissy and not using a monopod for 1s exposures. Big deal.

>>4372914
I fixed my problem. I tried giving the lenses back to my co-worker because i didn't have an M mount camera. He gave me a leica m9.

>>4373355
Congratulations your coworker is literally jesus

>>4373343
So the only reason to take a D800 is if you want to take good photos, and the only reason to take M43 is if you want to fag around a sealed tupperware container? Fuck, you might actually get better ISO performance by holding one up to the sun and rolling some Kodak gold around in it.

>>4373363
>he thinks the camera determines if a photo comes out good or not
kek, gearfag

>>4373371
Only the case sometimes.

>>4373371
>he thinks the camera determines if a photo comes out good or not
When we're talking micro four thirds, yeah, the camera is capable of ruining an otherwise good photo
Cue the "uh you're meant to view photography as 2000x2000 jpegs on a phone or you're literally hitler" or allah forbid, "just dont take a photo if the camera would suck"

>d800: $300

>>4373371
Somewhat true. Gear affects image character and image character has a significant impact on whether or not an image is good. Gear has about a ~35% impact on the quality of a photo. It is definitely possible to make a great photo with anything, but having gear well-suited to your vision can have a significant impact on your photography.

>>4373371
Just stick to your phone, then

>>4369705
Sony A7C or A7III for sport?

>>4373494
A7 III, there's no benefit to the A7C where as the III gets you a better viewfinder and grip and more buttons for a little less money.

>>4373527
What about the AF? Is the one in A7III OK?

File: rendering.jpg (1.77 MB, 4000x2666)

1.77 MB JPG

>>4373155
Just get ff, the price premium is so small nowadays
Lens can matter more for how your images actually look, especially if you're looking at fast glass.
APS-C and FF can look close enough in a lot of cases, like picrel, but FF offers you that little bit extra

>>4373155
>Also do any equivalents to FF f1.2 primes exist on crop
I don't know for sure but I really doubt it. It would need to be an f/0.8 lens to be equivalent. But you could buy one of those manual Chinese f/0.95 lenses to get close.

Another factor is that while your losing some background blur due to equivalence with the aperture, you can gain a lot of it back by using the longer effective focal length to add more compression.

Personally I think what's more important than any of that though is lens options. Look at what lenses are available and what focal lengths they are with the crop factor and buy based on that.

I really like crop bodies paired with a 24-70 f/2.8 lens. Because it covers all of the focal lengths I actually use and turns any standard zoom into an excellent portrait lens and I think super shallow dof starts to look tacky personally. Additionally with a crop body you can use the Sigma 50-100 f/1.8 and 18-35 f/1.8 lenses (with the sigma adapter) and get the best of both worlds and retain autofocus and all that good stuff.

>>4373529
Apparently the A7C is better, but the things that DPReview describes even my A7R III can do. They say that compared to the A7 III you no longer need to hold a button to initiate eye AF and it will automatically switch from subject tracking to eye tracking and vice versa. I wonder if perhaps these features were added to the older models with a firmware update.

I looked at my classmates' socials and their photos are leagues above mine and theyre all younger than me im a fucking loser fraud. I dont have a single photo im proud of

>>4373494
The a7c is quite crippled. Even the stabilization is a bit worse (it has a different IBIS driver than the SLR style bodies).

It's closer to a point and shoot so appeals mostly to people who dont know shit and cant get better images than their phone out of it, and people who know everything and are sick of magic gizmo cameras because they've only ever used 4 settings for the past 10 years (shutter, aperture, ISO, AF-ON)

>>4373533
That bokeh is buttery smooth

File: 1727910327792918.gif (3.89 MB, 278x249)

3.89 MB GIF

Id like to learn photography. As a beginner, which camera would you guise recommend? Also any good books or courses?

>>4373620
Canon T5
Canon T5 User Manual

How do i sneak in a camera with a 70-200mm lens to a concert?

>>4373620
>what camera
Leica M11 + 35mm summicron f2 asph
Canonet ql17 if poor
>any good books?
One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich

>>4373620
Used Sony A7ii + kit lens

>>4373626
Get a point and shoot with that focal length

>It's dark
Wear a leather coat and put it inside

>>4373543
How's the stability on the sigma lens? I read it's not got stabilisation and I imagine without an ibis aps-c you're going to be using higher shutter speeds cucking your 1.8

>>4373630
>Get a point and shoot with that focal length
i guess you dont really have to sneak in a point and shoot camera

>>4373635
Yes but good luck when any shitty point and shoots from 10+ years ago are
$300+

And anything modern like a Ricoh gr or rx100 are $900+

>>4373583
>classmates' socials
post them here and we can shit on them to make you feel better

>>4369705
>I ordered and got charged for a ricoh gr iii
>received a Ricoh gr iiix hdf
>cameras went back to being backordered and won’t be available for another 2 months
What do guys? Keep it? Sell it? Reach out to company and hopefully they have a gr iii they can ship out? I already waited like 2 months just to get this camera only to receive wrong one.

>>4373640
Use it then send it back when the other one is ready

>>4373632
NTA but it's as you say. No IS/IBIS at all is a bit of a pain in the ass at times

>>4373640
Ricoh gr3 along with the Fuji x100 are currently the most scammed cameras
right now due to tiktok hype

Recently near me some shop scammed 400 people who backordered cameras for 1k each, turns out the cameras didn't exist but people were still waiting for months with no refund

My advice: don't drop big money on any gear unless you can test it out in your own hands.

>>4373643
What body are you shooting it on?

Is keystone/perspective correction in post cheating? It's obviously editing beyond 'colors and normal lens correction' because it's going past correcting the lens and into something that doesn't resemble how reality looked at all, and it gets real weird real quick when all the verticals line up and the horizontals start making the image look like an Ultima VII screenshot.

>>4373642
That may take too long for the return window.
But it may be a possibility, just use it for the time being and sell it on craigslist. I see they still fetch over retail even used in my area.

>>4373644
Its not about the money, I am not a poorfag. I take architectural/landscape/travel selfies with gf, the focal length is the issue here. I bought this from Adorama not some random shop.

>>4373652
Any company can fuck you over anon, hence why you have the wrong camera right now so they're not exactly reliable

Don't buy shit until you see it first is an easy fix

>>4373543
Correct me if I'm wrong but 24-70 on crop seems actually better than any FF offering for portraits

Like it's rare to get a FF zoom lens that covers 50-90 right? Crop factor will give you that

>>4373648
no, it's not. it's only cheating if you add shit to your images. or heavily alter the contents (like removing power lines and poles).
simple perspecitve correcture isn't cheating

>>4373543
>f1.2
>muh bokeeeeeeeh
>no why would I want eyes and nose in focus at the same time?

>>4373380
most people who sperg out about gear and charts don't have a vision in the first place. the only thing they shoot is anime figurines and cats

>>4373729
Seems to me that few care about going wider than 70mm for portraits, but if that's your style then the cropped standard zoom would certainly give you the most options for 50-90 in a single lens.

>>4373155
>Also do any equivalents to FF f1.2 primes exist on crop, or are they gonna work more like 1.4 because the crop factor
The crop factor on APS-C is 1.5, so to match a 1.2 FF prime you're going to need an (1.2 / 1.5 ) 0.8 APS-C lens and a 1.2 APS-C lens is equivalent to an (1.2 * 1.5) 1.8 FF lens.

Someone stole my camera. Can I contact Nikon with the serial number and report it as stolen or something, so if they try to get it repaired then it'll be on file?

>>4373731
No u see thats the beauty of it, now they can gearfag even harder cus now they need a body that can do automatic focus stacking for them

>>4373729
Sigma have a 50-150mm f/2.8. 24-70mm on crop is actually 35-105mm and Canon and Sigma have a 24/28-105mm f/2.8, Tamron have a 35-150mm f/2-2.8.

>>4373741
>35-150 f2.8

I've not even googled it but I can already imagine that lens is hueg

Aps-c would be easier to carry surely, but shooting portraits it helps to have big gear. Turning up to a wedding with an a6700 and small Zoom wouldn't look professional at all

>>4373732
I shoot anime figs covered in crusty semen

>>4373043
>>4373047
Get the panaleica 12-35, wide enough for 'scapes, long enough for 'eople

>>4373753
>mft 24-70 f5.6 is the size of ff 24-70 f4 and larger than apsc 24-70 f4 equivalent
LOL

>>4373637
>>4373626
so any good ways to sneak in a mirrorless camera?
ive read that some people stick a pancake lens to the camera and try to sneak in the telephoto lens by itself

>>4373765
>He doesnt shoot at f/2.8 shutter speed
Lmao cope and seethe foolframe tranny

File: IMG_4950.jpg (76 KB, 1052x792)

76 KB JPG

is pretentious abstract photography appreciated here?

[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
Comment	Screenshot
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1170
Image Height	2532
Scene Capture Type	Standard

File: file.png (1.04 MB, 3106x876)

1.04 MB PNG

>>4373765
MFT lens selection is a fucking joke compared to fuji and snoy apsc

>>4373768
>he thinks he gets "free" anything
mft is sort of the same as shooting an ff with a lens 2 stops slower and the ISO cranked

sort of, lower and higher megapixel full frame cameras can break equivalence at very high ISOs by retaining color or detail better - which is neat because in real life, equivalence basically never happens except when shooting slow lenses wide open or fast lenses stopped down a ton indoors (ie: sleeping pet closeups, a gearfag staple)

>>4373771
Is this abstract or just a broken phone camera?

>>4373779
>mft biggest lens variety in mirrorless
>iT's A jOkE
ok, anon

>>4373779
Imagine getting the best set of lenses for the cheapest price for a system that balances well and is compact if you don't cherry pick like image related. Old E-M1's are cheap now, go pick one up so you'll stop your bitching.

>>4373784
>biggest lens variety with such amazing options as f8 zooms and 40mm f3.5s that go bzz bzz

>>4373786
>Imagine getting the best set of lenses for the cheapest price for a system that balances well and is compact
I can imagine buying a fuji/sony yes

File: camerasize.jpg (137 KB, 1250x692)

137 KB JPG

>>4373788
Fuji 16-55mm f/2.8 ~800-900€ used
Snoy 24-70 f/2.8 ~2000€, even used. Older one is cheaper.
Olympus 12-40 f/2.8 ~400-500€ used. No bother looking at the mark ii since it's the same lens with some seals added.

Imagine using similar lenses for each system for these comparisons. I could make a picture with a 150-600 comparing it to the olympus 75-300 but even you'd see I'd be comparing apples with oranges.

>>4373795
>Comparing a shitty f5.6 zoom to a professional f2.8 zoom
Anon are you fucking retarded? Lmao f5.6 zoom lmfao holy shit hahahahahaha
Its barely even smaller than an f4 zoom and the camera it goes on bottoms out at ISO 800 equivalent what a joke pfahahahaha, you cant even shoot non-equivalently (aka sunny16) hahaha its so shit hahahaha

No wonder fuji is heading to the #3 brand spot and olympus not only went out of business, but asked the investment firm that bought their camera brand to take their name off that garbage

>>4373795
false comparison. the closest lens to the wobbly plastic om shitstem 24-80 f5.6 "pro" is the glorious aperture ring having fujifilm xf 27-82.5 f4-5.6 which also has OIS (only panasonic m43 gets OIS lol!)

>>4373781
aquaphor smeared on lens, ae/af lock and screenshot to crop and prevent auto HDR. and yea i used my phone. i like finding creative ways to find a unique perspective despite it's limitations

>>4373798
>>4373799
Cope&Seethe

>>4373807
>the most powerful mfturdian argument.

>>4373341
>>4373305
Go check the noise on dpreview with a a6700 Vs A7ii. Then consider the fact you have Ibis on the modern crop, you'll have less noise on the crop vs a 2014 FF

Crop wins again

>>4373814
>a post that a real photographer would never make.

>>4373808
You love to see it.

>>4373817
t.butthurt foolframe with neck pain

File: IMG_4959.jpg (733 KB, 1170x868)

733 KB JPG

>>4373781
>>4373806
also another shot from the same day w/ similar techniques

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	216 dpi
Vertical Resolution	216 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1170
Image Height	868

>>4373814
Ah, another notphotog opinion

Are you unaware of subject motion or do you only shoot building corners and sleeping cats.

>>4373771
>>4373821
This isn't pretentious or abstract, just mindboggingly dumb.

>>4373620
D800 + 24-70mm VR
You'll basically be set for life, but that gives a lot of opportunity for growth.

>>4373620
Honestly, I think I had it good by cripple-hammering myself with a Canon DSLR (an EOS M50 would do as well). They have a pretty intuitive UI and guide you through the basics. They're cheap and there's a lot of used EF lenses around. Once I bought some books and attended a beginner's course I learned nothing new.
Just remember you're not going to use that camera forever, and moving on to RF mount is a mistake.

>>4373730
>perspective correcture
>simple

File: 1575324798134.jpg (4.7 MB, 4000x5000)

4.7 MB JPG

>>4373648
If you could do it with analog means, it's not cheating

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-7M2
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 9.0 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.4
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	35 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2019:11:30 22:40:02
Exposure Time	1/160 sec
F-Number	f/2.8
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	1600
Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Brightness	-0.1 EV
Exposure Bias	-1 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	35.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

File: im-with-stupid-and-finger(...).jpg (80 KB, 1300x1200)

80 KB JPG

okay guys I'm a fuckin idiot. with 35mm film, once I'm done taking pics, is it safe to take them out of the roll in room lighting? the reason I ask is because in every video I can find of people scanning their shots, they aren't using any special light. how come the film doesn't get fucked up?
second question: what's the best film scanner to get?

>>4373889
Develop and fix in complete darkness.

>>4373892
why doesn't the scanner ruin the film with the lighting?

>>4373895
because the film is developed and fixed

>>4373889
The film needs to be rewinded into the capsule before you take it out. Manual cameras have a crank, more modern cameras do it automatically with an engine.

>>4373895
You don't scan before the film is developed, dumdum

>>4373889
>>4373895
once you have finished taking photos on the roll, you need to rewind the film back into the cannister while still inside the camera. once all of the film is inside the cannister (the round metal thingy), it is safe to take out of the camera. any film that gets exposed to light, before being developed, will be (basically) completely ruined. once the film gets developed (like at a lab), you will have images on the film, and at that point it will be 'fixed'/'stabilised' and no longer be photosensitive, so light cannot ruin the photos that are on there.

>>4373905
Light can still ruin them, but in a different way. Teehee

>>4373889
lmao what the hell are you doing with film if you didn't bother to even read how the stuff works, I dont own a camera and know this

>>4373882
so it's cheating then

File: IMG_1595_s.jpg (186 KB, 1500x1000)

186 KB JPG

>>4373771
No.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	GIMP 2.10.38
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	350 dpi
Vertical Resolution	350 dpi
Image Created	2024:10:15 14:21:45
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1500
Image Height	1000

>>4374103
3d memphis

>>4374011
That's the opposite of what I was trying to imply

File: $_10.jpg (234 KB, 1600x1184)

234 KB JPG

What's your stance on removing informational stickers on old cameras? On the one hand I want to remove them because it's what I would have done had I bought it new, but on the other hand it seems wrong seeing as they managed to survive all this time.

>>4373216
>>4373233
I bought a used Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 lens without doing any research because it was giga cheap. I hope it's good.

If I'm in Pennsylvania do I legally need to blur peoples license plates if I'm doing driving videos out on the road? Not seeing anything saying yes legally just people suggesting it. PA has weird fucking laws sometimes.

I have a godox TT 530II flash and it wont work on my olympus em-10 mk3, tested it with both my PENs (epl1 and epl3) and also a canon T5i, all three worked just fine with it. then I looked online and saw something about olympus changing how the flash attached to the hotshoes or something like that since 2017 and wondered if that godox was even sitting properly in the hot shoe. also read about how flash work so I decided to test with a multimeter in continuity mode and noticed that the hotshoe central pin is shorted to the brackets, while it's not in the other cameras I have

so is my em-10 hotshoe dead or is it the flash not sitting properly, or some other reason as to why it wont work

I'm going to Japan next year. Give me a list of places to hit up, for photography as well as culture.

Is there any evidence that mirrorless cameras develop dead pixels sooner/more frequently than DSLRs since the sensor is active way more frequently? Looking to buy a Z7II on sale but wondering if it will last me 10 years

>>4375011
I've never heard of them developing over time, they're either there from the beginning or they're not

>>4373767
I'd wrap the telephoto lens with a blanket and attach some random 50mm shit to the body.