After shooting 35mm for a few years I want to try medium format.
I got my eye on some affordable stuff like a Mamiya RB67 ProSD or a 645 super.
Any honest feedback from real user? Ive been on youtube but the reviews are kinda fake and gay.
What other gear would be a contender for this budget?

>>4379677
I HATE the ergonomics of those cameras for handheld shooting. Get a tlr instead.

if phones are at the same level of point and shoots cameras how come those point and shoot are sometimes more expensive than a phone ? is it just a dead market

>>4379687
They're not.

>>4379685
I was thinking of mainly using a tripod to shoot with it. Keeping the smaller 35mm for travels etc. The medium format would be for portraits, landscapes etc
What tlr would you recommend?

>>4379687
A 1" sensor p&s will still beat a phone, doubly so with actual controls and software. Phones also can't do proper telephoto which is where they fall apart.

But yes, it is a dead market. Buy a pixel for $600; there's your p&s

>>4379677
Unless you need to do macro shots or want LONG lenses, find a a Mamiya 6 or Mamiya 7.

File: problem.jpg (917 KB, 2400x1600)

917 KB JPG

i have sometimes picrel problem, i think it could be that i use a normal micro sd (w the sd adapter included ofc) instead of a camera specific memory card, would a camera specific memory make this never happen ? been thinking of getting a V30 card

[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
Image Created	2024:04:07 15:35:47
White Point Chromaticity	0.3
Exposure Time	1/125 sec
F-Number	f/18.0
Lens Aperture	f/18.2
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Focal Length	18.00 mm
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	6000
Image Height	4000
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>4379845
Look up the manual for your camera to determine the minimum SD card speed requirements. SD cards get a bit fucky since there's like 4 other relevant ratings like your U-Speed Class and A level etc. Generally, I can't imagine the SD card is underperforming unless it's 10+ years old and writes at 20MB/s. Card might also be defective which is a whopping $10 to figure out.

>>4379842
Why would they be mainly for macro shots? Also the 7 is so much more expensive than the RB67 or the 645 ones

>>4379687
The phones that are on par with point and shoots cost as much or more as said point and shoots

any point in getting a nice flash if my cameras maximum sync speed is 1/60 kek? Wanted to do fill flash but I feel like I'd have to use low iso film to not overexpose everything at 1/60 anyway

Is panasonic that bad?

>>4379965
No. Check the reviews from multiple sources online.

>>4380006
>Sponsored reviews

File: IMG_20241031_213845.jpg (528 KB, 720x1342)

528 KB JPG

What focal length do these look like?

And why don't a lot of IG photographers post their specs or lens

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	720
Image Height	1342
Image Orientation	Unknown
Image Created	2024:10:31 13:33:17
Time (UTC)	13:33:17
Date (UTC)	2024:10:31

>>4380023
16-20

>>4380023
Nobody cares about EXIF there, and it's probably one of the few good things about this website.

Flash bouncing off a ceiling can be nice but I've noticed the color of the ceiling heavily impacts the lighting (which I guess is the obvious outcome after all) but say I wanted to remedy this, are there any paints/brushes or ways to paint a room to give it the most color neutral, nicely diffused flash bounces? current ceiling is off-white and bounces back quite warm and it's also textured (brush swirls) which I assume loses a fair bit of the light

>>4380063
Learn color theory and gel your flash.

If this is a static setup use a bounce panel until you can buy a bigger flash and a softbox.

>>4380017
yes?

>>4380084
Yeah I know about that stuff, but I'm looking for alternatives.
I'll be repainting everything some time in the future regardless and just want to get whatever would be most neutral.

Apparently there are flat/matte white base paints people use to paint studios with, I'll probably do my home in that next time it's time to paint things. Nice white everywhere is the goal.

How much noise is acceptable in an image you plan to print at least 12x8? I shot some aurora photos at 2500 ISO but unsure where to draw the line with noise reduction versus star detail. I have an old pirated version of Lightroom and am too cheap to buy denoising AI stuff

File: IMG_2169.jpg (979 KB, 1290x1543)

979 KB JPG

Can anyone tell what kind of Canon camera that is? Pretty sure it’s a DSLR model?

[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	1290
Image Height	1543

>>4380185
It is. I'm leaning towards either a 5D III or 7D II. Can you link the account so I can perhaps see it in higher quality?

>>4380165
Personal preference. Astro shots are cursed because you need a moderate ISO to see anything. The real trick is to use the widest lens you have since that lets you shoot a slower shutter speed instead of bumping up ISO, but I digress.
2500 ISO is arbitrary without knowing your sensor size and how modern the camera is, so we don't know. NR is generally not a huge deal breaker if you're just doing shallow astro shots like stars and galaxies. I would just make a print and decide from there if it looks like ass or not. Make sure you're doing dark frames as well.

my girlfriend's brother coaches a tee ball team and he wants me to come onto the field this weekend to get photos of the kids batting so the parents can have prints. I'm just a snapshitter who's never printed anything so I have no clue what kind of exposure I should aim for or how I should edit the photos to make sure the prints come out right. what do?

>>4380017
>thread name

>>4380188
Unfortunately, that’s the only image I have it’s just a single upload from a celebrity on her most recent photo shoot. Very interesting that even at the highest level Canon DSLRs are still being used it’s not like it could be a budget issue the guy is literally photographing one of the biggest stars in KPOP

File: noize.jpg (755 KB, 1385x1000)

755 KB JPG

>>4380190
>2500 ISO is arbitrary without knowing your sensor size and how modern the camera is
Here's one of the photos and a 100% crop from a darker area. I plan on selling prints of this so I'm being way more anal about noise than normal. Do people often get distracted by noise like this or am I way overthinking it?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D810
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/4.0
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	1418
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	16 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2024:10:31 21:20:00
Exposure Time	10 sec
F-Number	f/4.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	2500
Lens Aperture	f/4.0
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	16.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1385
Image Height	1000
Rendering	Custom
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	High Gain Up
Contrast	Soft
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Hard
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>4380198
I found the source image and could zoom in a little clearer, I'm like 95% certain it's a 5D III. The 7D II has the buttons under the thumb a little lower. Every other Canon that I could find that has the video/stills mode switch (to the left of the thumb) has the icons to the lower left, only the 5D III and 7D II have them above (you can just see the white camera icon for stills mode).

>Very interesting that even at the highest level Canon DSLRs are still being used it’s not like it could be a budget issue
20+mp is good enough for the vast majority of stuff these days, he's using strobes so noise performance is of no concern, and she's not exactly doing somersaults so he doesn't need the latest and greatest AF (although the 5D III is still pretty damn good in both those regards). Pros are actually usually pretty good with budgeting, they don't buy shit unless they need to because that just defeats the purpose of shooting for money.

>>4380194
Shutter speed is the main priority to cut out motion blur. Probably in the ballpark (lol) of 1/800 to 1/1250, but you can experiment while shooting. Depending on the camera/lens combo you're using, you should be okay to shoot close to wide open.
Shoot at the highest FPS you're able to without compromising file quality. You'll be more likely to get a picture where the kids' faces mid-swing don't look retarded or their eyes are closed. Speaking of faces, keep in mind that any left-handed batters will face the opposite direction on home plate.
Depends on the lighting that day but I'd aim for just a touch overexposed on average to retain more shadow detail under hats and helmets.
Don't get too fancy with editing, just make the pictures pop a little and ensure the faces are easily visible and nothing is too dark. If you keep the same settings throughout the day (light permitting), you can batch edit all the photos and then make final adjustments to each pretty quickly. Export the files in sRGB, and wa la, ready 2 print.

>>4380200
It depends on print size and viewing distance

Try it out while messing with sharpening and NR settings

>>4380185
5dsr, a few others like 5d3 match, but 5dsr makes the most sense

>>4380200
Left photo is passable but nothing special in terms of noise. Right photo is garbage if you're expecting anyone to pay for it. If the left hand photo was just for my own consumption, I'd be happy with it. Of course I'd rather it be cleaner but that's okay.

Now, if I were buying it I would hope I wasn't spending a lot. I used to buy pro-grade prints from a print and framing shop and everything was a crisp as a cucumber. I have a few on my wall right now and I couldn't find any noise even if I had it up to my eyeball.

I would strongly advise a tripod and lower shutter speed instead of any ISO above like... 800 for full frame, so long as your intent is to sell them. Also, size matters. 6x4s are easy to hide imperfections, 12x20 not so much.

>>4380212
Fair enough, I'll keep at it.

>>4380236
>Right photo is garbage if you're expecting anyone to pay for it.
Right "photo" is just a 100% crop from left photo, in case you missed that. I don't intend to be printing that large, 12x8 is the max I'll be going right now.

>I would strongly advise a tripod and lower shutter speed instead of any ISO above like... 800 for full frame
I adhere to this rule already. Auroras are a special case though, too slow of a shutter speed and the aurora pillars lose their definition and just turn into a green smudge.

>>4380200
won't matter as much printed than it does on a screen.

>>4380244
Yeah I understood it to be a crop, but still maintain it's a fair amount of noise. Wasn't trying to be a clueless asshole about it.
>Auroras are a special case though
Absolutely. I've never actually been lucky enough to get a shot of an aurora; all my astro knowledge is basic night sky stuff. Looks like you're either going to go down the ultra-bright lens path (EF 50mm f/1, anybody?) or start shelling out the bennies for access to some heavy AI denoising.

>>4380200
I will say I went to an art fair once where somebody was selling astro prints with big splotchy chroma noise. It looked absolutely awful.
luma noise is a lot less of a problem. Your pic with its NR is probably fine. Fine noise will tend to disappear in a print because it just turns to dithering.
>900s post timer
what the fuck is gookmoot thinking

>>4380270
The beauty of chrominance noise is it just goes away if you turn down the staturation or go completely b&w; something you can absolutely do for some astro subjects. I've recently found this to be a useful fact in night photography as well

Why do so many photogs shoot shit like weddings on crop Fuji? Wouldn't the low light be awful or do they all just rely on primes

>>4380282
most fuji wedding togs i know use mostly primes, and most also supplement their x-series with gfx or ff
i did weddings ff, then to fuji x for a few years, and now mostly still use fuji x but also did gfx and now ff to supplement
a competent photographer should be able to handle weddings in 2024 with any system
other systems can make it easier, and give even better results, but not everyone has the same idea of what's "good enough", including clients

>>4380282
Because the couple won't look at a single photo and just want the photographer's camera to look stylish. That's it.

Even sugar has shot weddings, with 12mp nikon DSLRs, and the client didn't give a fuck they just wanted a professional looking photographer at their big narcissistic "look at the bride" party.

Wedding photography has NO standards. My sister got married last month and she got photos where it was shit like two people dancing, and only one of them was in focus, backlit people with +5 stop shadow pushes and obvious "black holes in peoples faces and a super clean blurry background" quality degradation from it so bad you can see it on a phone, group portraits with people out of focus, and she didn't care because she hung up 2 whole pics and never looked at them again. The photographer charged her...
$6000.

>>4380420
average wedding photographer be like
sony|fuji
35mm f1.4
85mm f1.4
always shoot wide open

File: Cup.jpg (64 KB, 1001x1001)

64 KB JPG

Whats your favourite cup?

>>4380420
lol
couples that care about stuff like that hire film photogs, normal couples don't care or even know what gear is used
>>4380424
true, easy $

>>4380434
You mean couples that put their weddings on instagram and frequently quote henri cartier bresson hire filmlarps

>>4380460
couples that care what gear is used hire filmlarps, yes

>>4379677
With the RB67, since its a modular camera, you dont actually need to buy the Pro SD version as a whole unit. You can get the original pro versions for much cheaper and then just get the Pro SD back, which is the only part that really makes a difference between the models as it has metal mechanical light seals rather than the shitty twine ones on the original. Oh and the very original Pro models don't have a cold-shoe, so be careful of that. Having a cold shoe is pretty useful on those as there's no metering in the camera at all, and having somewhere to mount one it helpful. Other than that, if you havent use waist level finders before, prepare for a very jarring experience.

what's a reasonable price for a powershot g11

File: crew-kebaya-600x360.jpg (3.59 MB, 2500x1500)

3.59 MB JPG

How does one take proper photos of the exhibit? I mean I want to copy the design of the fabric for replica dolls. But the glass reflection is in the way. I'm a sperg to ask them to pose.
https://www.instagram.com/p/DB5vf1pzxRI/

File: 1234.jpg (18 KB, 341x209)

18 KB JPG

Ive been researching a camera for my usecase but need to check a few questions before buying anything.

Im amateur, no interest in becoming a pro, just wanna shoot pics i find cool as hobby, they dont need to feel like pro, also wanna have good pics of me for IG, travelling, doing my hobbies.
My cheap cellphone has a 26mm lens and i find the image quality more than enough. Ive been able to get decent results shooting things 10m away from me, fine.
Problem is whenever i try to take a pic indoors or of myself, even at 2m apart from the camera, the results arent great. Everything looks to narrow. Tried playing with configs but it seems to be the focal lenght of the camera.
>get even further away
Indoors this isnt possible since my house isnt that big. Also unless i buy pro lighting bright as the sun, going too far from the camera, zooming then cropping turns the image too grainy and that just bad.

So in my case, where i plan to shoot outdoors and nature but also eventually take portraits and shoot people indoors, should i buy some entry level camera with lens in range 35-50mm?

My cellphone works really fine for outdoors in a sunny day, but what if i eventually wanna shoot a cloudy day or unlit indoors? Then i need to play with aperture, right? My phone with its fixed aperture, makes the image too grany in a bad way with poor light.

So buy some entry level camera or a more expensive phone?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Photographer	bas
Image-Specific Properties:

>>4381406
Canon r50 with kit lens and 35mm f1.8. Next.

>>4381416
Will any cam with 35mm f.18 do? This camera is more expensive than the iphone 16 where i live.

>>4381425
Nta but for your use case generally yes. Camera with aps-c camera with nifty fifty wide aperture lens will accomplish what you want.

>>4381428
Aps-c sized sensor*

alright thanks, as i said, im already happy with my cellphone image quality and only problem is distortion in close range pics. I googled and this is called barell distortion. Even my friends cellphone twice as expensive as mine do the same distortion.
Found a site that tells my cellphone camera is 26mm but the same site says even iphone 15 uses a 26mm... so i suspect for my usecase, even an iphone wont be satisfactory.
I will look for the cheapest camera that offers a 35 to 50 mm lens.

>>4381438
You're getting yourself all mixed up. The iPhone doesn't have a 26mm lens, it has a 26mm equiv lens. In any event, this is pretty "wide" for a portrait and will distort features. What you are seeing is probably more perspective distortion than barrel distortion. If all you desire is more flattering portraits, use a longer lens or try standing further back and cropping in. Look at the S21 Ultra with a 3x or 10x zoom and use "good light" and you'll be set. Read up on "telephoto compression" in portraits. Alternatively, get yourself a second hand DSLR and the cheapo kit zooms (18-55 & 55-200). These will suck in lower light but will help you experiment with focal length.

>>4381438
>only problem is distortion in close range pics.
This will happen with any camera. Perspective changes as you get closer to something. The only solution to "cell phone selfie distortion" is move farther away and zoom in. Same goes for real cameras, and if you're too close with them, you'll get the same distortion.
Focal length is secondary to this, the distortion comes from the distance. Focal length just gives you a particular framing / field of view at a given distance.
>Barrell distortion
This is probably what you're actually experiencing. This is entirely lens dependent and would affect long distance shots as well.

>>4381440
probably not*

>>4381439
>10x zoom

Tried that with my current cellphone but i would need to stand like 3m away from it. The image resolution gets grainy imo, not the look i want.

This s23, google says has the same 26mm lens, i think it will distort exactly the same as mine, only difference, maybe after zooming out the image wont be too grainy.

What about the canon R100? Costs exactly the same as the s23 ultra where i live.

File: lens compression.jpg (252 KB, 1600x961)

252 KB JPG

>>4381438
This guy >>4381440 explains it almost better than I do. Ultimately, distance to the subject creates "telephoto compression" (see article).

https://petapixel.com/is-lens-compression-fact-or-fiction/

This stuff is hard to explain on paper but easier in practice. You don't even really need a zoom lens (tho it can make the exercise easier). You can take photographs of yourself at various distances from the camera and crop in so that your face fills the frame. You'll find the further back you get (to a limit), your features will be more "flat". A longer lens will allow you to do this without needing to crop.

File: claa.jpg (12 KB, 309x234)

12 KB JPG

>>4381443
But having a 35mm lens will help me shoot from 2m away with acceptable distortion?

My cellphone even at 2m away makes me look like one of these long people from clamp.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Photographer	bas
Image-Specific Properties:

>>4381406
Phone is good enough for snapshits, but generally is only good for wide-angle shots in good light. Because of the tiny sensors in most phone cameras, you get pretty poor performance for anything else. The only phones worth buying for their camera, if your current one has something like a 1/2" sensor or better is going to be a 1" sensor phone camera, which are generally Chinese flagships.

APS-C would be a huge jump in sensor size and also give you access to interchangeable lenses. There is too much to explain here, but go learn how the exposure triangle works for starters.

I also vote Canon R50 as I own one and think it's pretty much a smashing bit of kit. I own the 24mm f/1.8 but the 35mm version is very similar. You will have zero limitations because of gear if you own something like this until you become a very, very good photographer. I do understand that this costs about $1200USD all together though.
>>4381425
The dedicated camera is going to be significantly better for, well, being a camera and doing camera stuff. The iPhone will be a more useful piece of technology overall, but phone cameras are still phones primarily.

If you want an actual gearlist state budget.

>>4381445
You really shouldn't be getting perspective distortion if you're standing that far back and cropping in, even with a phone camera. Maybe your head is weirdly shaped, I can't say. But as everyone else says, just about ANY modern (<5 years) APS-C sensor camera paired with a lens in the 35 to 85mm range will provide "flattering" portraits. Depending on budget, I really think you could achieve what you're looking for on an older DSLR but it wouldn't be as new or shiny to play with but probably much cheaper.

File: P9010051.jpg (246 KB, 1382x921)

246 KB JPG

>>4381442
Unless your phone has a seperate telephoto lens, zooming on that is what we'd call 'digital zoom', where the camera basically just crops further in. Digital zoom normally looks like shit because you're simply discarding the outer portions of the picture and making your pixels and noise bigger, which looks like shit.
Actual zoom is called 'optical zoom' and can only be done with a lens that changes focal length. Technically speaking if you had a lens that doesn't zoom in and out, but was a "zoomed in" field-of-view like a 100mm lens, this is also optical zoom. Optical zoom retains all the clarity and detail you desire and is the biggest advantage real cameras have over phones.
>This s23, google says has the same 26mm lens
26mm *equivelant* to what is called 'full-frame', which is a kind of standard everyone uses to easily judge the field-of-view a lens will produce. Your actual phone lens will be something like 5mm.
>Canon R100
Is a Canon R50 with no articulating screen, less buttons, and an older sensor. If you are going to buy one I highly, HIGHLY recommend you just spend the extra $100 and get the R50.
I will be real with you though, either one of those and the kit lens it comes with will be leauges ahead of your phone. Don't even bother buying a new lens, just use the kit lens. If you find a limitation later because of that lens (which you might or might not), then you can consider buying other lenses, but not before you reach that point.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	OLYMPUS IMAGING CORP.
Camera Model	E-PL7
Camera Software	Version 1.4
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	350 dpi
Vertical Resolution	350 dpi
Image Created	2024:09:01 14:51:39
Exposure Time	1/6 sec
F-Number	f/0.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	800
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	0.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	4608
Image Height	3072
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	High Gain Up
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	High
Sharpness	Hard

I see, for my a camera will be better than any cellphone

Im not a male model but the problem isnt my head since i look closer to what i see in the mirror in my id pic, which was taken by a pro camera no further than 1m away.

>>4381450
yeah, i made my mind and will pick a cam not a new phone.
>r50 vs r100
I dont live in usa and here, the r100 costs 550usd, r50 costs 1040usd twice the price.

>>4381453
Kill your politicians

>>4381453
>R50 costs 1040 USD.
What the fuck. I live in 'straya m8 and even here they only go for about 750 USD. The R100 is around $550 USD though. Something with your local market forces is a bit fucky but fair enough.
Having an articulating screen alone is worth a bit to me; there are so many occasions where I'm taking photos and the viewfinder just isn't an option, but I do a lot of kinds of photography. You might be alright without it.

I'll be real with you man. I'm a major Canon mirrorless shill, but if you want to experiement without spending a lot, buy a used DSLR with the kit lens. I would argue the mirrorless R100/R50 are straight upgrades, but an APS-C DSLR will still be better than your phone and cost more like $150 USD on ebay. Your money friend.

>>4381457
My usecases
>decent portrait indoors here and there
>decent portraits outdoors while doing some hobby
>tree pics outdoors
>eventual wild animal or stray cat outdoors
>stormy sky
>some building

>>4381445
If you look like that from 2m with a phone, you will look like that from 2m with a camera. Getting a different camera or lens won't change that.
Look at yourself in the mirror, then bring your face closer and closer to the mirror, as you get closer, you will see the features of your face change in proportion.
>>4381453
If you want more resolution at longer distances, sure a camera makes sense, but it wont fix your perspective issue one bit.
Going back to indoor shooting, phones lack in hardware but make up for it through lots of processing. While a real camera might be capable of better results in indoor and lowlight environments, you may still find yourself frustrated as it's going to require more than simply point and click.

>>4381462
Your use cases are all over the place in terms of what gear makes the most sense, so I recommend just getting a generic kit to start then finding out what limitations you are finding. Indoors shots need bright aperture, normal to short telephoto lenses. Travel photos as a secondary to your hobby or whatever want light unobtrusive kits. Wild animals want bright aperture telephotos and super telephoto lenses. Buildings/trees/clouds will be properly served well with just a kit lens.
>Budget option
APS-C DLSR such as the 500D and kit lens (EF 18-55mm IS) $100-300 USD [used]
>Better option
Semi-Pro APS-C DSLR such as the 70D with a kit lens and a 50mm fast lens (EF 50mm STM) $400-600 USD [used]
>Canon Shill Most Recommended Option
Canon R50/R100 with kit lens (RF 18-45mm IS) $550-{apparently $1040 holy fuck} [new]
>If your budget allows
+RF 50mm f/1.8 STM $200
+RF-S 55-210mm f/5-7.1 IS STM $400

*EF lenses can be used in place of RF lenses with a $50 adapter and are much cheaper when bought [used].

>>4381468
>Getting a different camera or lens won't change that
Then i need to gain a lot of weight because i look like a pencil in my pics.

>>4379482
Nikon Z6ii or Sony A7iii?

>>4381487
Sony a7c, a7iv, or a7cii, or nikon zf
Sony: finally fixed build quality and color science
Nikon: finally fixed… everything.

>>4380474
Thats some great advice, thanks!
I think I won't ever be using the RB67 without a tripod so that's not an issue

>>4381489
Thanks. I've been also thinking about the A7Cii, but came across opinions that it's unnecessarily dumbed down. Would you say there's something to it?

>>4381491
I have the original a7c with even fewer custom buttons and wheels and still don’t have a use for every button. I have the record button bound to spot meter AE hold and the lens button bound to focus standard and touch them maybe once a week.

Jpeg and video shooters who actually use the white balance, hdr, picture profile effect etc shit and boomers who are into custom modes might want the a7iv more but the old III and II sony cameras suck balls and aren’t worth it. The Z6II is overall better than the a7iii.

>>4381495
Thanks a lot.

>>4381495
Isn't the A7C just a A7III with a smaller form factor and slightly better AF?

Price difference between the A7c and A7III is minimal, like $300 on avg sometimes less

File: file.png (453 KB, 626x417)

453 KB PNG

I want to do photography of light reflections through stuff like glass. I was looking into backdrops but wasn't sure what material would be best to accentuate the light reflections rather than dimming it. what would you guys recommend

>>4381702
>what would you guys recommend
Quitting while you're ahead.
You think you do, but you don't.

Most images you see of this are CGI including all commercials showing drinks/etc because photographing it never looks how you want it to.

Are there any optical designs that allow for bokeh to be dimmed increasingly as things deviate from the focal plane?

Like a way to take a "slice" of your subject with the background fading out not just out of focus but out of being lit up to begin with.

Why haven't any manufacturer's created a flash designed for mirrorless cameras? None of them have compatible auto-focus assist lamps/laser grids.

>>4381505
The raw colors and build quality got way better. In exchange it has no extra buttons or controls, an EVF that isnt sufficient for focusing, and only half a shutter.

File: 1.jpg (84 KB, 497x769)

84 KB JPG

I am doing a photography project and I am fairly new to the subject I must say. I wanted to add some extra information about highlights and shadows and I found out about "light dynamic range". Can I say that exhibit b has a lower dynamic range since it's entirely highlighted and has no shadows and exhibit c has a higher dynamic range since it's lit from the side and has some shadows to the right of it? Appreciate any input.

>>4381932
Because the AF sensors are behind an IR filter

The ZF focuses at -10ev with an f1.2 and most FF mirrorless focus at -6ev

>>4381912
As far as I know, not exactly. There are ways to save depth data in image by making each 'pixel' contain more than just one sample.

>>4381983
>Because the AF sensors are behind an IR filter
Yes, but they still have AF assist lamps with green light. Why don't they make a flash that uses a green grid?

>>4381912
I don't think it can be done with only optics, as light from your subject and something behind it is indistinguishable. Maybe something like a killflash could make vignetting that would affect some distances more than others, but it would rely on your subject being in a particular location in the frame. I think scheimpflugging would also affect exposure slightly as the areas of film more distant from the lens receive less light. But again it is more about where in the frame your subject is rather than actual distance.

The actual way to do what you're asking for is a light field camera and a generated depth mask. But that's not pure optics it's cooking it with AI.

>>4381406
Buy an entry level <10 year old Canon or Nikon DSLR with a kit lens, it's really that simple

Why are there so many SecondLife weirdos that use flickr and clog up search results?

>>4379482
Is there a way to stop my Canon DSLRs (6D, 100D) from doing completely retarded metering?

All I want is images without blown out highlights (usually the sky), and both of mine go nuclear even in their highlight retention mode, in between randomly massively underexposing of course.
I also hate the way they lie to me and actually the highlights aren't overexposed sometimes when the camera said they were.
Being able to "rescue" highlights afterwards is stupid, because I want to just know where the exposure limit actually is and have it correctly exposed in the first place instead of finding out whether they truly overexposed when I get home and start editing.

If there's no way to sort them out , I'm thinking of switching to Pentax if they do metering in an actually sane way and don't lie to me.

>>4382070
metering is autistic
there are no good ways to trust it
they meter off JPEG rendering in the camera so white balance affects metering when it shouldn't

you have retards (not really all, but most of them are) who try metering in a custom 1.00 1.00 1.00 coefficient WB to let them properly ETTR (look up uniwb) but even that's not foolproof or really effective

do you have severe autism?
do you want to trial end error your way out of this pitfall of suffering andi misery while battling other people's autism (manufacturer not giving you a proper meter) in the process? if so, trial and error is the way to go... but you'll never really figure it out unless you are a fucking autismo supreme capable of figuring out cryptic bullshit the manufacturer is hiding from you

besides that I'd say just shoot more and get comfortable for ballpark guesses then for shots where proper eposure matters, switch to exposure bracketing mode and just do some shots at different exposures and pick what turns out best
unfortunately the manufacturers have made simple metering impossible so you're fighting an uphill battle of nonsense

but bracketing is a nearly guaranteed way to ensure you're getting at least one shot in perfect exposure

>>4382079
I feared as much.

A few weeks ago I got some shots that turned out really well, but the entire time I was taking them I was cursing my camera and retaking nearly every shot with an offset exposure, and I'm pretty sure I only got vaguely in the ballpark because of the aforementioned fake highlight ceiling guessing game.

For now, since the process of trial and error was not enjoyable at all in the moment, I'm going to try going back to film.
Just cleaned up an AE-1P, and I think I'm really going to enjoy metering for the shadows and having every shot come out correctly exposed for a change! Just need to fix my jammed Praktica MTL50 and a Zorki 4 and if it goes well maybe I will throw my impossible to expose correctly digital kit in the bin and just accept that photography is a pay-per-shot activity.

>>4382082
P.S. I hope my return to film will justify my new appreciation for how film swallows overexposure instead of punishing you for trying to get your exposure correct.

>>4382079
Lol. On sony set zebras to custom level 106 with the standard color profile and they correspond exactly to the raw data. Oh what, your camera doesnt do custom zebras in stills? Only jpeg histogram? hahaha!

>>4382082
Skill issue!

is timecode +32bit the godsend im looking for?

>>4382079
This pisses me off because it would be so easy (on mirrorless at least) to implement this properly where it just looks at all the pixels and meters for the brightest one, but they don't because retards would complain about their jpegs looking to dark or bright.
Nikon has a "highlight priority" mode which sounds like it would do that, but from using it I see it still blows or underexposes highlights for no apparent reason. Probably still metering for jpegs.

>>4382177
This would entirely fix my issue.
I know it's possible because my Blackmagic from 2014 does this instantly when you press the "iris" button with an electronic aperture lens fitted. It wouldn't be a stretch do do the same with shutter speed/ISO in a stills camera. Perfect exposure in the digital realm (ettr) in nearly every scenario.

Imagine if every audio recorder deliberately clipped the volume of every single file, but the clip light activated at -20dB (which is also the limit of the meter) so you had no idea if it actually clipped or not until you got home. Ridiculous.

>>4382177
Highlight weighted metering works great on my Zf. Fuji has their built-in underexpose highlight mode through DR settings, which is convenient too.

Once you shoot enough, complaints about metering seem so silly. Literal skill issue.

So is 11 a stop up from 8 or just a half?

File: 21mmF1_4-VM-Hood-scaled.jpg (213 KB, 2560x1897)

213 KB JPG

I want a lens hood like this for my snoy emount voigtlander 21mm 1.4.. how can I find something similar? I dont think voigtlander will let me buy just the hood. it is 62mm filter size

>>4382346
Yes that is a full f/ stop. 1.4 > 2 > 2.8 > 4> 5.6 > 8 > 11 > 16 > 22
The only trick to the numbers is that every TWO stops more or less is double or half the number.

Every stop, for any adjustment, is double or half the total light recieved

>>4382378
also, full stops are the product of sqrt of 2
>sqrt2^0 = 1
>sqrt2^1 = 1.4
>sqrt2^2 = 2
etc. so full stops are always 2 to a power, or 2 to a power * 1.4

>>4382403
sick, thanks. That actually makes it a lot easier to remember.

>>4382409
Why not:
2 > 4 > 8 > 16 > 32 > 64
1.4 > 2.8 > 5.6 > 11(.2) > 22(.4) > 45

>>4382417
Yes, that is also makes it easier to remember, but the nice part about sqrt(2)^x is that I don't have to remember anything except that. Which means I can just calculate the number if I can't remember. But if I wanted to commit it to memory, every alternating number is double the number two before it in the sequence is a nice pattern.

>>4381742
Ive done it before on white paper and got cool results. Not sure what you are on about

Non photographer here, tourist from /3/, with a question about lens distortion.
I need to take photos of a part to trace in CAD. Accuracy is paramount here. When I've done similar things in the past with my phone, there's always some distortion, like the picture is "bulging" in the middle... It's not been a big issue, just an inconvenience, but for this job it would be a huge problem. A friend of mine is an amateur photographer with a big dslr who's said I can borrow his stuff to take the pics. Trouble is, he's got so many lenses I don't know which one will do the job best.
I wrote down what he has, and it's; 14mm, 28mm, 35-80mm, 50mm (he has 2 of those) and a 200mm.
Which one should give me the "flattest" picture? He says the big 200mm one can't shoot up close, but I could always position the part further away if that's the one that'll distort the least.
Thanks in advance!

I always wanted a Holgaroid. I never really bothered with Instax or anything, but the Holga-Polaroid combination just seemed so interesting, but never got the chance to buy one.
Now, I won an auction for one, and when I looked up the size film they are apparently no longer manufactured anywhere.

Is anyone aware of a mod-kit or converter or the like? I have zero experience with these things but I just always wanted one.

>>4383301
What you are describing is called barrel distortion. If you really want to know which lens is best look up reviews for each of them where they have tested for distortion. Longer focal lengths typically have less but this depends entirely on the design of the lens. This distortion can be compensated for in software if there is calibration or you create your own calibration. e.g. if you use darktable and your lens is on this list https://lensfun.github.io/lenslist/ you can just turn the lens correction on and it will go away.

There is another kind of "distortion" called perspective distortion that makes closer objects look bigger. I put distortion in quotes because this is not a flaw, it is the correct and intended behavior. If your object is not perfectly flat and you try to trace it this may become a problem. To minimize perspective distortion you want to have the camera as far away from the object as possible, so use the 200mm lens. In 3d terms an orthographic projection is is equivalent to an infinity mm lens.

>>4383301
Don't listen to the noise from the other anon.
Do exactly as you suggested:
>200mm
>Position it a few meters away from the subject
>Line up subject and camera as best you can
That's it.
I recommend using a tripod.

I bet this question gets asked a lot, but which FF Nikon is worth buying if I'm interested in shooting sports?

>>4383492
>>4383493
Thanks friends! 200mm ftw.

>>4383496
d850, d780, d5, d6
z6iii, z8, z9, zf
all have their pros and cons

>>4383519
Is the ZF really that good? All I keep seeing is a model which panders to retro bunnies.

>>4383520
Basically same AF system as Z8/Z9, but even better in lowlight. Only does 11 fps mechanical though.
It's a really good camera performance wise, lots of newer features, but most people can't look past the completely optional dials, and awkward grip.

>>4383525
That's interesting. One more thing: would you say there's any sense getting a Nikon than, say, a Sony Alpha?

>>4383526
if you like adapting leica lenses, or want a 50mm f1.8 thats sharp instead of one that isnt an a $1k 50mm f1.4 thats sharp

the 14-30 f4 is also good in its segment and their hugest 24-70 f2.8 is also the sharpest otherwise meh

>>4383528
What about Nikon's telelenses? Anything eyecatching?

>>4383530
Just the primes, that canon also has, but sony really doesn’t

>>4383533
Thanks a lot for everything

>>4383528
Both have their pros and cons, and both brands are more than capable of anything you'll want to shoot.
I prefer using Nikon's bodies over Sony, but I prefer some of the Sony lenses. You can also adapt Sony lenses to Nikon, but not the other way around.
If you like adapting film era lenses, especially m-mount, ZF is the goat.

>>4383538
The sony to nikon adapter is basically a myth, unless you want to put a shitty little ring on your camera that defeats the weather sealing the lens had and is prone to draining power and sometimes melting. Lots of bugs on it too and sometimes nikon body fw updates brick it.

I have never seen a sony to nikon adapter recommended by someone using it long term unless megadap gave it to them for free.

The EF-NZ adapters are really good on the other hand

>>4383557
>sony to nikon adapter is basically a myth,
Maybe in your head.
> that defeats the weather sealing the lens
If you're going to bring up weather sealing, be consistent and bring that up for the mention of film and m-mount lenses too.
>I have never seen.. therefore not real
Well, I have seen people use them long term, so I win I guess.
>The EF-NZ adapters
but muh weather sealing!!!!

>>4383565
The fringer EF-NZ is weather sealed.

>>4383572
and? There are other EF-Z adapters that that aren't. Not everyone needs or cares about weather sealing it seems.

>>4383574
Just dont use the ones that dont have weather sealing?

EF lenses are more professional than sony lenses so it makes sense there would be demand for weather sealed adapters

>>4383579
must be why canon started making rf lenses, even more extra professional

>>4383533
>600
>400
>300
>135
>85
Canon has the 1200mm and 800mm but realistically no-one on here is spending 20 grand on a single lens. They don't have a 300mm. They have the 800mm and 600mm f/11 lenses, but they're f/11. But for many sports most people will be using zooms in which case either brand has plenty to offer, although you'll probably end up paying less with Sony because there's a larger used market as well as all those third party options.

Should I buy Sony A7IV or A7CII?

>>4383652
The a7c original is the only one that makes sense now since the a7iii is on a DONOTBUY advisory until sony discloses which serial range received the bad shutters. And it’s cheaper, and smaller, and really sturdy for a sony (up to nikon standards), so there’s that for the travel snapshitter thats ok to bump around factor.

The a7cii is just a crippled a7iv. Save your money until camera tech actually gets better because right now its been flat outside of video framerate garbage since last decade. AF too, but a7iv and a7c AF is so good its like, unless you’re a pro football/soccer photographer with no skills, how could it improve?

>>4383657
Would A7C be a decent camera for amateur Formula One shoots?

>>4383660
People have shot races on worse DSLRs. You would just have to hold the zoom instead of the camera body.

>>4383661
That makes sense. It's crazy how choosing a camera nowadays feels like doing drugs. You always want something more.

-c snoys cant do high shutter speed sync flash with third party lights btw

>>4383657
>>4383660
First gen A7C has a crappy viewfinder, that's reason enough not to get one

>>4383668
That's bad to hear. What would you suggest?

File: 1000020237.jpg (4.84 MB, 8160x6144)

4.84 MB JPG

I know the file limit is 5mb so I try to compress my pic online but then the quality is notciably worse insofar as there's much less brightness, it seems that its hdr properties get stripped away.
I've been taking pics with my pixel 8 pro and the sunset on this photo had really glowing brightness and color, it's a night and day difference when I compare this version with the uncompressed one.
Is there a way to work around this?

When will we get 1GP ISO 1 36x24mm sensors?

>>4383668
It’s not a big deal.

File: IMG_20241112_140901.jpg (226 KB, 720x893)

226 KB JPG

What's the best focal length for shooting eyes? I'm thinking something like this but also a closer shot.

I'm making do with a 28-70mm zoom ATM

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	720
Image Height	893
Image Orientation	Unknown
Image Created	2024:11:12 05:59:58
Time (UTC)	05:59:58
Date (UTC)	2024:11:12

>>4384273
Not a huge macro shooter, but I'd probably go 100mm macro. You could go longer but they get pricey after that

Why doesn't anyone make a good distortion free lens for cameras?
Has the market really fallen for the "fix it in post" scam so badly?

>>4384303
50/1.8 z

>>4384311
>visibly distorted
>perma vignetting even stopped down all the way
okay its sharp and has like no chromatic aberration but it's not distortion free in any way
low? sure
but it's still visible

it's actually what I have and I want better
my goal is to not use any software geometry corrections at all

>>4384317
-0.48% isn't good enough for you? What are you aiming for? 0?
>vignetting
Irrelevant to the original point and to most photos

Whats a good brand for light boxes / shadow boxes? Google search is filled with pajeet seo spam for chinkshit

>>4384321
>-0.48% isn't good enough for you?
It's good and doesn't immediately make things look ugly as fuck, but without post-processing you can still see distotion. So, no. It's not good enough. It's well within visible territory and on subjects with straight lines things don't quite look right.
It's better than a lot of other lenses but isn't quite close enough to 0 to be what I want.

>What are you aiming for? 0?
If it were an option yes.
There are some machine vision optics that are much closer to 0% but I can't seem to find any handheld camera optics that don't fail at this.

>>4379482
I've been shooting Raw since it was an option, but started shooting RAW+JPG this summer for a specific porpoise. BUT THEN, I go back to shooting with Ektar100 and rephotographing it @ 96mpx pickleshift & bracketed, for HQ digitization. Is real nice knowing the films essensually a physical backup, so if some tard deletes a folder and the backup purges the old one before anyone notices it, I can just redigitize off teh film in the archives. Then when I'm done, I use my photos as stills to paint from.

So I'm making every image in 4 formats now. And the only one anyone cares to look at for more than .2 seconds is the painting.

OP, why is the universe like this?

>>4384691
I thingk is bc ppl see a photooo and even tho the composition is the same as the pain ting, the bastards look at a photo and think "The camera did that + I have a camera = I could do that." They see the painting and it grabs their imagination. It's not so realistic, they have to use their imaginations to picture being in that scene, and being suddenly yanked into imaginary-land, they are already off their footing and also know they prob could not paint the painting, so it has a sense of unattainable value in their mind, that they can only bargain for with money. But what do I know, NOBODY ASKED MEEE

>>4384686
If 0 optical distortion is somehow that big of a deal to you, get a zoom that goes from barrel to pincushion, then zoom to the zero point and fix it there. You can usually find details about the distortion characteristics on lenstip. The reason why manufacturers don't design for absolute 0 optical distortion is because it's just objectively not that important, especially now.

>>4379687
Phones are not on the same level of point and shoots. Anytime you zoom in on a phone photo you see the ugly result of computational photography. I'd rather a grainy as fuck image than the smoothslop you get out of phones.
Plus you get no manual control over your image, which is a big part of the creative process in photography.

>>4381359
You need a circular polarizing filter to block the reflections.

>>4381406
Get an older point and shoot with RAW capabilities. Something like the Canon Powershot S95 or one of the Lumix LX cameras like the LX3 or LX5.
The other cameras that Anons are recommending you are fine cameras, and will take beautiful photos, but the ease of taking a camera with you makes a bigger difference than you'd think.
If you have to take your camera out of a bag to use it I guarantee you will get less shots. You can also have your camera round your neck all the time, but that will get tiring real quick.

File: Screenshot 2024-11-13 092224.png (225 KB, 579x865)

225 KB PNG

there is a super cheap unused vivitar VI enlarger head some boomer in my city is selling but it doesn't have a stand to go on. i can't seem to find just the stand online. would it be retarded to try to make my own or modify a stand for a different enlarger? pricrel is the stand i would have to recreate.

File: CardProtectors.jpg (44 KB, 543x879)

44 KB JPG

>>4379482
Hello, idk if I should make a Thread for this but I got close to 1000 Card Protector Sleeves for $15 but have yet to use them. I have a Injekt Printer and want to DIY Pictures at home into 'Cards' to preserve them, is there good Paper Printer that I can get in 91mm x 66mm for printing on and should it be Glossy?
I have never done something like this before but its going to be Pictures of IRL Photography, idk a lot about Printers but this will probably take a lot of Ink which is why I settled for a Card Format.
Also just incase anybody is wondering, I am going to be Printing close to 2000 Pictures so I want to make sure the Paper I use is Quality before going crazy. Thanks for the help anons.

Many years ago, I purchased a camera with film. It was the Instax Mini 90 Neo Classic. I've had it in storage ever since, unopened. Recently, I've been cleaning out my apartment and rediscovered the camera and would like to sell it. At a cursory glance, it seems this camera is discontinued and quite popular and looks like I can get about $150 for it on eBay.

1) Should I just sell it there or is there a better place to sell it
2) Do you think the film is still good? Does it have an expiration date? If so, where would I buy more to film?

Forgive me for being new, I'm more of a /k/ guy.

>>4384856
it doesnt have the stand or just the base?
either way you could probably use a tripod to mount it if you sacrificed one arca plate just for that

>>4384977
it has neither

>>4384992
>>4384856
i guess what im really asking is does that angle matter for anything? as long as i can move it up and down i should be able to frame and focus right?

>>4381982
No

>>4383496
>>4383519
>>4383520
>>4383525
>>4383526
Don't listen to this guy.
The Zf has retarded ergonomics, and while the Z8/Z9 are great, they are also ridiculously expensive, and Z glass is perversely expensive.
Get a D800, D800E or D810 (they are virtually identical). They are insane power houses, built like tanks and they go for pennies now, with cheap F-glass to boot.
A D800 will only set you back about 300 USD.

>>4384856
>>4384998
I'm assuming that the angle is so that you line your paper up against the base of the column and then as you move the head up to zoom out it only expands from the other three sides of the paper (hopefully that makes sense, can't think of a better way to explain it). If that is the case then it's not crucial and it's just an ease of use thing, saves you having to move the paper to line it up every time.

What parts are you missing exactly? If it's just the platform and the column then I doubt you'll be able to DIY a column that the slider part will be compatible with. If the slider part is missing (the angled part between the column and the bellows rail) or it's removable then you've got a better chance. If it's screw to the rail then just get a thickish aluminium plate and drill some holes to screw it in place, then drill and tap a 1/4-20 hole and slap it on a tripod. Depending on how unsmoothly the tripod adjusts you might want to get a macro focussing rail to go inbetween.

>>4385003
The Zf needs either to commit to the fucking grip of the F3/FA, or ditch it completely. It's a mechanical style body, Nikon knows how to make mechanical bodies that don't suck to hold in your hand. They ought to shrink the body by turning the batt 45deg to fill a greater grip cavity, & then there's the matter of the stupid tall knobs jacking up the whole thing to the sky. The ZF is just too freaking huge. Were the whole of it a bit smaller its ergonomics wouldn't be so annoyingly bad. But instead it fills me with rage and misery and hot piss and mustard and the kind of hate I have for those grotesque little humans that humans make when they smoosh their dirty crotches together... yes children... the disgusting little urchins, with their fluids and diseasesss and

>>4383520
But there is no question, to shoot, the ZF is like a fucking next gen fighter jet compared to everything but the Z8/9. + if you do studio or Arch shoots or digitize art or film, of course the pixel shift is fucking aces at that. And it does feel solid as fuck, unlike the plastic/rubber camera bodies we're used to. And for its large size, it's actually very flat, so it fits in jacket/carry-on pockets every other camera doesn't, provided you have your pancake lens in your other pocket. I wouldn't call it "mobile", but it's a lot more "portable" than the other bodies with their big EVF hoods projecting rearward and grips projecting frontward.

>>4385031
Its actually better than the z8.

>>4385003
>The Zf has retarded ergonomics
Can't do much for the bulk and weight, but you can ignore the dials completely if you don't like them. Grip is trivial to solve.

File: DSC00080.jpg (2.92 MB, 2736x1824)

2.92 MB JPG

What's the point of a ND filter? I tried shooting with one yesterday and it felt like all it was doing was taking away sharpness even at the lowest levels and making it unfocused with a brown tint. I'm using a KF ND2-400 variable ND filter on a Sony ZV1 using a 40.5mm adapter. Could it also be because of viginetting? My pics taken with a Hoya CPL looked better.

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

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

>>4385121
Why were you using an ND filter for stills?

>>4385121
>>4385123
Reduce light so you can use longer shutter speeds. A good one shouldn't do more than that.

>>4385121
>What's the point of a ND filter?
if you want to shoot water(falls) and get it smooth, or you do video and want 180deg (1/50th) shutter w

>>4384998
the enlarger head is mounted to the colums in such way the plane of the image you are projecting will be parallel to the base board where you lay your paper holder, so it is kinda importand if you don't want any keystone distortion. Tho in amateur work this isn't that important, for DSLR scanning with a converted enlarger column and base I just use a cube spirit level and eyeball and it's 99.5% as good so just use a tripod and spirit level I guess. Also you can use a normal LED bulb in enlarger these days, no need to spring for a special one that will waste energy as hellish heat and can't be on for more than two minutes.

>>4385121
For a shot like that? Potentially with a dark ND, narrow aperture and lowest iso setting, you could shoot a really long exposure and blur the people and vehicles until they become unrecognisable smears. In different circumstances you could almost make them disappear but not really when it's all moving straight towards and away from you like your pic.
Video shooters use them to regulate their shutter speed but for different reasons which I only sort of understand and can't really explain.

I’d like to begin shooting b/w photos, but I’m not certain if I should set the camera to b/w or simply edited it in post. Which do you suggest?

>>4385625
Your RAWs will always be in colour with a colour sensor (yours is). B&W is just a JPEG setting which means the difference between OOC and post is down to how specifically you want it to turn out. If you don't like OOC then go post, but otherwise OOC is fine.

The only "organic" way to do b&W is with b&w film or a monochrome sensor + fucking with colour filters.

All personal preference really

There was a camera posted here before (maybe fuji?) with a dedicated "bokeh" mode dial

what camera is that

>>4385686
you mean pentax 17

Just got a Nikon D810. Question is whether it is normal to have a kinda mushy shutter button.
For example my D3400 and D70 have very clear two clicks- one for AF, then the second for shutter release. In comparison the D810's is very soft and has no tactile click for either. Just wondering if that is normal or I should contact seller and return/replace.

>>4385638
Post it down?

>>4385946
Never mind I get it

>>4385638
>Your RAWs will always be in colour with a colour sensor (yours is)
No they aren't.
RAWs have no color. They have luminance per photosites that are behind filters with varying sensitivities to different wavelengths.
All color is a result of interpolation and guessing.
If you think you can just shoot color then desaturate you are an idiot. That's not how it works. At all.

>>4385625
Shoot RAW.
Turn demosaicing to none/passthrough, downsample to 1/4 res (6000x4000 to 3000x2000) and you get a more or less pure B&W (within visible spectrum) image that you can then edit how you want without meme moire and interpolation artifacts.

>>4385879
I don't know.
I will say this, though, so long as you can detect you're pressing it, then it being "soft" is actually not bad.
Any clicky bits generate shock and a strong clicky feel might be common on entry level cameras and it being less clicky on a pro body with more of a feather touch for less camera movement from pressing the button is probably a feature not a bug.

>>4385879
it's normal. on my canon 6d it has no clickyness whatsoever. you will feel in your hands mirror and shutter slap but no tactile feedback when AF starts (it matters to me sometimes when not using OVF in akward positions). you will get used to it quickly

>>4385948
>They have luminance per photosites that are behind filters with varying sensitivities to different wavelengths.
That is literally color information? are you autistic?

>Turn demosaicing to none/passthrough, downsample to 1/4 res (6000x4000 to 3000x2000) and you get a more or less pure B&W
This is wrong. Greens would be doubly weighted with this method

How important is a lens hood

If I'm shooting a gig inside do I really need one

>>4385965
the question you should be asking I think should be wether you expect to shoot against intensive light sources like stage lighting etc
hood is supposed to block stray light and limit flares, doesn't it?

>>4385965
Probably not, but they're cheap and provide a rudimentary level of protection against physical bumps. The reversible ones don't even really add to your carry capacity, so why not.

File: reallyn.png (216 KB, 896x988)

216 KB PNG

>>4385948
Ah I'm fuckin sorry I generalised instead of explaining the entirety of RAW and bayer info to someone asking a simple question in a /sqt/ thread.
How about this, retard: Okay anon, if you want to shoot B&W photos it's VERY IMPORTANT that you understand EVERYTHING about demosaiacing, bayer interpolation, pixel binning etc. etc.
You simply CANT just generalise and say that if you import a RAW into your PC for post processing that it's going to default to a non-B&W image. Sorry anon, it's just not that simple because this chucklefuck wants to jerk off his knowledge about the fact that RAWs are just data really.

It's a fucking bayer sensor, it's going to read the RAW according to bayer logic no-matter what step you convert to B&W. The only way to get better results is to use a monochromatic sensor.

>>4385949
>>4385959
Thanks anons makes sense

would you guys reccomend the 17-55mm for portaits on the t7i?

File: 1731824497258982.jpg (1.25 MB, 4032x3024)

1.25 MB JPG

My iphone camera sucks, keeps getting this sort of "glare" effect. At night it's even worse.
I might upgrade my phone, but thats a whole financial decision.
does anyone know of a free software or free website that can remove this glare effect, in a way that doesnt mess up the rest of the picture?
Asking here because im not really into photography that much

File: pov.png (303 KB, 406x666)

303 KB PNG

How can I secretly record POV? I'm interested in recording conversations with strangers but I don't want to scare them away with a visible camera. I found a guy online (pic related) that does exactly this, where the people he records have no idea he's doing so. and I've noticed both of his hands are in frame and the camera seems to follow his head and not his chest. Any idea how this guy managed this? Here's the video: https://youtu.be/K9wo80B0RRM

File: covertcamera.png (166 KB, 281x294)

166 KB PNG

>>4386145

Anybody know if there's a way to quickly swap between spot AF and animal eye detect AF on a Lumix G9ii? I've read up load online about the camera and even played with one at the store and didn't see a way but wonder if there is somewhere but nobody mentions it. Only way I found was to press the AF area button, then scroll around in that menu but would take too much time in a high pressure situation.

Trying to buy a tripod, found one without a quick release plate. Apparently it needs a
> "QS-60 V2 universal 38mm Arca-compatible plate with 1/4” D-ring screw (making it compatible with any "Arca-Swiss"-type quick-release system)."
What the fuck does that mean? Will any "arca-swiss" plate work or are there different sizes of these plates? I've just been using some dogshit plastic tripod and my stupid 7kg camera set up cracked it while tightening, so I know basically nothing about tripods other than "fluid = good"

>>4386286
It's pretty much universal. There are some styles of clamps that can be finnicky, but if it's the type with a lever or screw knob to close and tighten it then it should be good.

>>4386068
dirty lens, use lens cleaner or alcohol
>>4386063
no, but use it at 55 if you have it
>>4385965
it makes you look cool to normies, and it might offer some protection if someone bumps into you
>>4386286
fluid heads are better for video, if you keep them unlocked so they tilt up/down keep in mind you will need to balance your camera or else it will creep down/up

How do I into composition?

so, I've got myself a camera
what do I take pictures of?

About to start developing my own fashion brand, I need a flapmachine to make good quality photos for illustraton and print, graphic design, product presentation and if it's possible, some video production

Got some advices for Nikon D750, is it great for these tasks or?

>>4386431
your muse

>>4385964
>That is literally color information?
No, it isn't.
>This is wrong.
No, it isn't.
>Greens would be doubly weighted with this method
Bayer always has a bias.
You can nullify this by adjusting the coefficients which is what white balancing is based on.

>>4386038
>It's a fucking bayer sensor, it's going to read the RAW according to bayer logic no-matter what step you convert to B&W.
No, it isn't.
>The only way to get better results is to use a monochromatic sensor.
Yes, this is true.

You still get superior B&W from bypassing the color interpolation stage. Your photosites are capturing impure luminance but it's still cleaner than color converted then desaturated.

File: a1-df-entertainment.jpg (1.6 MB, 3000x2000)

1.6 MB JPG

What shutter speed would you use to capture someone moving like this?
https://youtu.be/IarqL0EpgCo?feature=shared&t=196

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON Z 9
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 14.0.1 (Macintosh)
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	890
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	24 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	96 dpi
Vertical Resolution	96 dpi
Image Created	2024:11:13 23:48:45
Exposure Time	1/500 sec
F-Number	f/2.8
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	1250
Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	24.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Custom
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	Low Gain Up
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>4386491
Depends entirely on what your goal is.
If it's freezing motion probably 1/1000

>>4386491
It depends.
1/2000+ for 8k ultra super hd
1/125 for instagram

>>4386490
>It's a fucking bayer sensor, it's going to read the RAW according to bayer logic no-matter what step you convert to B&W.
>No, it isn't.
Alright I'll bite, explain why this is the case because in my head the sensor has the bayer bullshit in the way no matter what, therefore bayer gonna bayer.

>>4379482
is it worth it to get an old DSLR to have it IR modified?

>>4386490
>No, it isn't.
But it is?? Otherwise you couldn't reconstruct a color image duh.

>You can nullify this by adjusting the coefficients which is what white balancing is based on.
true

>You still get superior B&W from bypassing the color interpolation stage.
I tried it and saw zero difference, can you post an example where that works?

>>4386651
Conversion costs can be more than the value of a lot of cameras. Try looking for ones already converted; they tend to be a bit cheaper overall.
But in general, IR photography is a fun alternative and depends entirely on what nm of IR conversion you use. There's like ten common freqs to convert to.

is an electronic shutter better than a mechanical shutter? I'm confused as to why they don't just do electronic shutters

>>4386679
Electronic shutter is usually worse

>>4386679
Electronic shutters are generally "worse" than mechanical shutters. Electronic shutters having rolling shutter distortion due to how the elecronic shutter is read out.
Mechanical shutters give better interactions with bokeh, artifical light, and readout speed. The only real advantage to electronic shutters is fps, as well as the cheaper cost and space saved from not having a mech shutter.

How much noise from these photos is unaccetable
https://www.pentaxforums.com/reviews/ricoh-gr-iii-camera-review/iso-night-scene.html
I think 3200 should be the cut off

File: 4379482 01 demosaic+desat(...).jpg (1.81 MB, 1500x2000)

1.81 MB JPG

>>4386529
Demosaicing with intent to interpolate color results in blending samples.
By skipping this step and just dealing with the filtered but otherwise intact luminance values you get closer to pure luminance. Not as good as a B&W/Panchromatic sensor with no filter on it, but better than bayer+demosaicing later desaturated. Things like fine color patterns won't be aliased by demosaicing then carry over their moire into the B&W conversion the moire simply won't be present, at least not to the extent that it is.

The issue stems from the fact that while demosaicing is assumed it is not a lossless operation. It always takes its toll on the image and if you're shooting B&W you don't need to demosaic so you can avoid any degradation that's caused by it.

When demosaicing to RGB you'll also usually be applying a color profile which is an attempt to convert the raw averaged samples into a more accurately presented gamut into a color space but this too can be lossy.

>>4386655
>But it is??
It isn't, it's luminance + metadata.
All digital color is created. There's no real "right" way to do it, bayer and the normal methods are inherently lossy and copium tier. People regularly lie and think they know what they're talking about but they know nothing. They get "schooled" or "educated" and just regurgitate lies.

You think it's color, but it ain't.
It's greyscale with some undisclosed wavelength filtering applied over the photosites and that's what (((color science))) is all about. How the luminance is converted to RGB. It's never standard.

>can you post an example where that works?
Sure.
1/3
Top is demosaiced(AMaZE) then desaturted (luminance) at 50% scale
Bottom skipped demosaicing and was just exported as greyscale then scaled to 50%.

is a canon 10-18mm IS STM a reasonable addition to my eos 7d mk2 if I want to supplement a tamron 1.8 35mm for taking duck wide shots of landscape/architecture? I see it has good reviews, but it's a 10 year old lens and maybe something better is out there now. That I can get one for about 100 USD on eBay makes it very tempting though.

File: 4379482 02 fullres color (...).jpg (4.54 MB, 3000x2000)

4.54 MB JPG

>>4386799
2/3
Fullres color demosaiced

File: 4379482 03 fullres passth(...).jpg (4.45 MB, 3000x2000)

4.45 MB JPG

>>4386799
3/3
Fullres passthrough

>>4386799
So you don't have any real world example images of you using this technique? This technique you're willing to write essays about?
Par for the course for p

>>4386145
fucking weird, but the answer is meta Ray-Ban's new smart glasses. Researchers already did a test where they used these glasses to surreptitiously photograph people and then used AI facial recognition databases to identify them from the photos. The most fun was using the info to then go up to people and pretend like they knew them, like when bill murray does it to bang that one chick in groundhog day. Buy your reflectacles now before your government bans them!

>>4386810
Almost every image with Moire will have it nearly eliminated by skipping demosaicing.
I don't know what more you need to understand that taking luminance data and sloppily converting it into interpolated RGB then turning that back into B&W by desaturating it isn't ideal if the goal is a B&W final image.

>>4386814
I understand, I have a mono camera. I just wanted to see a real world example of how you apply this technique since it seems a big deal to you.
Instead, just p's typical nophoto theorist

>>4386699
>the only real advantage is [...]
But you forgot the actual best real advantage, allowing me to creepyshoot cute japanese schoolgirls silently!

File: file.jpg (47 KB, 686x386)

47 KB JPG

For my boomer father, what's the easiest one to use, Darktable or Rawtherapee? I'm a LR user, and that honestly what he should use, but he doesn't want to pay, nor pirate it. So I'm left pointing him to those two (unless there are others I don't know of), and I fear they won't be user friendly. Though the only uses will be basic raw development. Bonus points if it allows easy stitching for panoramas.

>>4386866
The manufacturers official software. These loonix faggot programs are, similar to the majority of open source shit, for speds that enjoy profiling cameras and building custom workflows more than they enjoy making nice images. Its just the userbase open source attracts and the one that drives normal people away. Most linux users, and by extension users of linux native programs like gimp, cant even get thumbnails in the file picker because programmers enjoy arguing about the best way to do it while allowing their fellow programmers to easily customize every last aspect to absolutely no end. Its just their hobby. Using software - no "to accomplish…" included.

>>4386866
Find an exe of microsoft ICE 2.03 on google and use nx studio/canon dpp/imaging edge instead of being a freetard

>>4379482
>/sqt/ Stupid Questions Thread
Is quitting tripfagging for extended periods the way to gain fans like OP, obsessively wondering which anon might be me?
>>4379687
They aren't because they fail the equivalence test. You may have a largeish sensor but if your lens itself isn't a large diameter one you're not getting much light and less light means more noise regardless of sensor size.

>>4386875
Equivalence is borderline irrelevant in real life photography. You almost always have something to give to change another setting, higher resolutions and differing sensor technology or available processing just flat out breaks it, and larger sensors will generally be sharper with the same grade of lens.

This is a large part of why phones are actually ahead of larger sensor PNS bodies from years past, and is related tl why the gfx100s can actually pull over a stop ahead of full frame with the simplest and least intensive computational photography - resizing - while the gfx50r can actually fall behind some FF bodies in most real use but pull a little ahead with autistic ETTR (fat pixel well, tiny pixel aperture). Hell, an iphone se 3 can actually outdo m43 in broad daylight unless its a g9ii with a noctitron (f2something) prime

The only people too dumb to realize this are the same people that are so dumb they think dpreviews ISO tests are wrong for using f5.6 on every format, or that photos to photons contains any useful information. If you’re not smart enough to understand why i am right just dont bother gearfagging and buy what the guy at best buy tells you to.

Verification not required.

>>4379687
Unless you compare digital and optical zoom new flagship phones significantly outperform 1” point and shoots. You just need to be savvy enough to shoot with a non-smearing camera app.

>>4386878
You wrote quite an essay just to be wrong, lol. Phones use the computational crutch to cope but they still get turbomogged by Saturday Night Special APS-C cameras with kit lenses both in dynamic range and resolution every time they astroturf how great they are with comparisons that only look good to the untrained eye that can't tell real quality from amplified contrast and sharpening. Enjoy your AI smears I guess. At the end of the day the phone has less photons reaching its sensor and a massive amount of gain applied because of this very reason. They use computational photography to blend several exposures into one because the SNR is so bad at short ones.

File: IMG_0810.jpg (77 KB, 1410x793)

77 KB JPG

>>4386894
Phone to aps-c is a few crop factor steps too many even for equivalence beating

We’re talking 1” sensors which are only a step or two from the better phones. Computational cope is literally additional photon gathering in multi exposure devices, and finer color sampling when the gfx BTFOs fool frame despite aperture whiners like yourself. Oversampling alone is enough to pull equality with 1”. Most PNS cams arent even 1”.

[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	1410
Image Height	793
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>4386896
Sensor size matters less than aperture size. You could do bursts and blend in post with those cameras too, what the phone offers is just convenience with passable results for viewing on small screens.

>>4386898
Sensor size and aperture size are tossups depending on sensor technology and typical shooting conditions. It matters very, very little if you’re within one stop or have a res gap like gfx100s vs typical ff or a huge tech gap like phones vs 1” slop. High res quad bayer alone fucks your crop coper theory wank.