>>4391933
this isn't engagement bait >:(

File: chelsea.jpg (1.04 MB, 2832x2832)

1.04 MB JPG

Chelsea, a Sony shooter, was only 18 when she married Tony, who was 40 at the time. Does that make her trad?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 7D
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/4.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	2832
Image Height	2832
Number of Bits Per Component	16, 16, 16
Compression Scheme	Unknown
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format
Image Created	2014:01:20 12:14:54
Exposure Time	1/60 sec
F-Number	f/9.5
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	400
Lens Aperture	f/9.5
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	82.00 mm
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	2832
Image Height	2832
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

Is using a 55mm f1.8 for portraits a dumb idea?

I'm looking into buying a zeiss as it's pretty light and small enough so it doesn't cast a shadow with smaller flashes. But most 85mm offerings are double the size and almost double the weight.

Main issue with 35mm etc is the distortion right? But I was told that's a non issue at 50mm, so why is 85 the "portrait focal length"?

>>4391958
Is that true? She was cute ~decade ago. Sad to see the WALLED.

File: focallengthcompared.jpg (198 KB, 940x705)

198 KB JPG

>>4391961
Kinda depending on the bone structure of your models. I think 70-135mm is the sweet spot but YMMV

File: stock-photo-a-woman-in-a-(...).jpg (640 KB, 1500x1101)

640 KB JPG

>>4391958
>>4391964
Based tony achieving the dream all the chuddies here have and bagging his cute bikini model.

>>4391964
>Is that true?
Yep. She's 38, Tony is 50. They have a 20 year-old daughter.

>>4391961
Do not buy a sigma 90mm f2.8 and if you do sell it for very cheap so i can have it

>>4391969
>>4391976
There is hope bros

File: ds.png (33 KB, 670x438)

33 KB PNG

>>4391987
ngmi

>>4391961
There is no singular portrait focal length, there is no single focal length for any type of photography. You don't have to shoot landscapes at 14mm, sports at 200mm, macro at 100mm, and so on. Portraits are perhaps one of the types of photography that has the widest acceptable focal length range other than landscapes (you could include birding and wildlife but adding 300mm to 300mm only halves your field of view, going from 24mm to 135mm is less than one fifth).

85mm is perhaps preferred for headshots because it's going to result in a blurrier background with the same depth of field (where as going with a faster 50mm means a shallower depth of field and thus you might not get the whole head in focus), which can not only "look better" but also means you don't have to worry quite as much about having the ideal background.

That said I have the 55mm and I really like it. The backgrounds aren't pleasingly creamy but I like the look that it does give. I don't do portraits but if I did I wouldn't mind using it, I'd maybe prefer my 135mm but I'd also have to be a lot further away and that's awkward.

File: 241.jpg (1.46 MB, 2960x1998)

1.46 MB JPG

>>4391961
depends on the type of portraits you want to take, headshots are different from upper body or full body or environmental, etc
if you do a headshot with 35mm it will look wonky, because you are so close up, an 85 forces you far enough away that it is not an issue, same thing happens with our eyes
the distortion comes from distance, not focal length, so think of lenses as simply giving you a wider or narrower framing for a given distance
so you stand far enough away to minimize that perspective distortion, and then it just becomes how much of the subject / environment you want to show
i like 28/35 horizontal for environmental portraits, 50 vertical for full body shots, 85 for upper body, and 135 for headshots

>>4391933
Wanna shoot some WEC and F1. I have a Nikon D5100, but it's pure shit.

I want to buy myself a Sony A7. Will the III be enough, or should I get the IV?

>>4392020
Bear in mind that if you go full frame you're going to need lenses 1.5x as long as well, costing you even more money. I'm assuming you're going to be fairly far away from the cars and that reach will be a priority.

>>4392021
So a 6700 would be better?

thinking about getting a Kodak EasyShare Z981 just for shit and giggles, it's probably not good but it has raw, AA batteries, a viewfinder and 26x zoom, can't be that bad.

I know it's not going to be immediate profit, but do I just hire models for glamour/artistic nudes and post photos on instagram until people want to buy prints or dm for a booking? I already have a 2257 compliant contract.

>>4392029
Not him but buy a cheap canon/Sony crop and put a big zoom lens on it

6700 has top tier autofocus but older a6xxx will work too, look more into lens reviews suitable for crop than camera reviews

>>4392029
No. He’a shitting you. FF and DX lenses of the same quality cost the same. The size is negligible and usually more related to aperture.

Going travelling soon, what are some good "set and forget" settings for my 'ra?
>shots on a moving train
>moving coasters
>general fast pace

>>4392122
SET your expectations low
&
FORGET any hope you had of taking a good photo

>>4392140
;-;
But my kino vision...

>>4392122
Black n white film
Wide angle
F8
1/30
Flash
Get in peoples faces

Its seriously limiting but its set and forget.

Alternatively shoot program mode with auto iso, wont miss any shots with that

>>4392093
I never considered buying DX lenses; they don't seem future-proof. It surprises me, however, that some still recommend APS-C bodies instead of Full Frames. I get the crop advantage, but aren't FF bodies more universal?

>>4392093
I'm not talking about buying crop lenses, I'm saying you would get more reach from the same lens. If a zoom that goes to 300mm is good on a crop body then you now need something that goes to 500mm if you get a full frame body, or 200mm now becomes 300mm, 400mm becomes 600mm, etc.

>>4392156
>aren't FF bodies more universal?
Other way around desu. FF bodies need FF suitable lenses otherwise you get mad vignetting or in the case of some third party Canon lenses, they can obstruct the mirror and jam shit. I don't think it's a problem with Nikon though.

>>4392162
You'll get vignetting, yeah, but other than that FF is more versatile, picture-wise.

I understand your point, but my problem is whether to mix a FF lens with a APS-C camera.

I'm leaning towards the A7 III (good price in my country) at the moment.

>>4392163
There's no real disadvantage to using FF lenses on a crop body besides them being somewhat larger, heavier and sometimes more expensive than would be necessary.

>>4392166
>no real disadvantage to using FF lenses on a crop body

Since the APS-C sensor is covered by less than 60% of the glass, you're actually getting better sharpness at the edges of the frame.

However, in my personal experience, FF lenses still perform much better on FF bodies. I used to use Canon EF zoom lenses with the EOS M mount and the auto-focus struggled to lock on at longer focal lengths.

>>4392163
Using FF lenses on crop has no real downsides other than you're *technically* using a bigger, heavier lens than you could be, and the focal lengths might not make perfect sense, for instance:
>EF 50mm is $150
>EF 35mm is more like $400 (to roughly match the FoV of a 50mm on a crop sensor)
>Worse so on RF where I spent $600 to get a 50mm equivalent FoV by buying the RF35mm
You don't gain much either, you're more or less just future proofing yourself if you ever jump to FF and don't want to rebuild your lens selection.
I used crop lenses for a bit there because the FLs made sense and they were cheap, but I've since gone foolframe and the only thing I need to change is my expectations for FoV. PLUS you can still crop a FF picture to mimic the FoV you'd have on a crop sensor as a last resort.

File: 2024-12-15_07-35-58.png (149 KB, 951x863)

149 KB PNG

whats the different between the two? The f2 aperture, the fact that it's new, and the 4mm difference between the two. I don't see why I should get the f2 one when I can probably just be satisfied with the f/2.8 GM II Lens instead.

I guess im just looking for a more detailed explanation.

File: eos-m50-markii.png (676 KB, 908x708)

676 KB PNG

How would you best upgrade pic related in terms of lenses?

>>4392183
Then get the 2.8

>>4392183
at least this question is in the right thread

File: 0464.jpg (121 KB, 806x1000)

121 KB JPG

>>4392184
Depends on what you're working with currently. Pic related is an absolute must for that mount.

Personally, I'd sell the M50 it and get a lower end full frame body, you can get a really good deal on the R8 right now. If you can't afford that, there are some good second hand options out there, like the RP.

>>4392188
nice dubs
yeah I made sure it ask it here since it's a very ignorant question. But i'm also relatively new when it comes to photography.

>>4392183
>a lens is only the focal length and aperture
Brother I'm gonna need you to do a bit of your own research, but lenses are more complicated than that.

>>4392208
I'll do more research. As far as the key features go, they seem relatively similar aside from the weight, f2 to f22, and mm difference.

>>4392209
Going from 2.8 to 2 is a pretty big deal, for those that need it

>>4392209
f2/f2.8 and 24mm/28mm alone make them very different, you act like those are not big deals at all
any subtle difference in IQ is going to take a back seat to those

>>4392217
Im just new to photography and asked it in the right thread. Even if it's a very stupid question.

>>4392224
Ah, see, if you're actually new and want to learn then some of us here aren't total pricks.
Judging off the spec sheet alone, the differences aren't major, but they're there. There are also things that the spec sheet wont tell you such as distortions, coma, abberations, sharpness, colour rendering etc. etc.
But purely looking at the specs:
>24mm/28mm is a whopping 4mm of focal length difference (so, fuck all really, despite what >>4392217 says). The Field of View (FoV) difference of those focal lengths is only going to bother :a) professionals who need consistency and already prefer one or the other, or b) turbo retards
>f/2 vs f/2.8
Is not a big number difference, but at such low f/stops this is actually a full stop of extra light. That's kind of a big deal especially when we're talking about a zoom lens. Zooms tend to have narrower max apertures versus primes, so an f/4 zoom is "good" but nothing special. an f/2.8 zoom is pretty decent and often the choice from pros, and an f/2 zoom is actually fantastic.
That extra stop of light from a wider aperture means you could either shorten your shutter speed (valuable for reducing subject/motion blur), or reduce your ISO (which keeps images cleaner with less noise) while keeping the exposure the same.
>Example
ISO 800, SS 1/125th, f/2.8 would have the same total light and exposure as
ISO 400, SS 1/125th, f/2
or
ISO 800, SS 1/250th, f/2

>>4392227
>if you're actually new and want to learn then some of us here aren't total pricks.
Exactly, I've got to start somewhere.

I appreciate the answer, thank you. I'll learn more with experience.

Does anyone use a small flash light for focus assist in low light situations? And does anyone have any recommendations on one with a tight focus?

>>4392228
When it comes to the numbers part of photography it can get rather confusing, especially for new people that don't get what's going on. Part of it is because for most things the numbers increase at a quicker rate the larger they get, for the same difference in exposure. For example going from f/2 to f/2.8 is the same as f/11 to f/16, one stop. Likewise going from ISO 200 to 400 is the same as 6400 to 12800, and shutter speed follows the same doubling/halving pattern. For focal lengths going from 14mm to 24mm is a massive difference but 200mm to 210mm is hardly noticeable.

Is it possible to bind AF-ON on recent Canon mirrorless cameras to zoom in to the focus point when using a manual focus lens and to engage autofocus when using an autofocus lens, without having to rebind the button every time?
Does any recent camera support this at all?

>>4392259
Do you mean a manual focus only lens, or an AF lens set to manual focus? With Sonys there's a setting to automatically zoom in when you turn the focus ring so perhaps there's a similar setting on Canons, although it of course requires a focus by wire lens. What happens currently if you press the button in mf, nothing? Do you not have a spare button you can dedicate to zooming in? Could be handy to be able to do it even when in af.

>>4392266
Not automatic zoom (sounds awful tbqh), but just to have the behavior of AF-ON be different depending on what lens is attached:
>Autofocus lens set to autofocus
activate autofocus.
>Manual focus lens, no lens (for dumb-adapted old glass), or autofocus lens set to manual focus
toggle punch-in zoom.
Maybe it's possible with user modes. Then I would just switch between e.g U1 with one mapping and U2 with the other mapping myself according to the lens situation.
>What happens currently if you press the button in mf, nothing?
Yes, nothing - setting punch-in zoom to the multifunction button is the standard option but it's not ideal, as it requires me to take my finger off the shutter button, while keeping the AF-ON button useless with MF lenses. Seems like user modes are the way to go barring a native way of dynamically mapping buttons.

>>4392269
What body do you have, and does it really not have an extra button on the rear you can use? From what I could see it looks like most of the newer (2020+) bodies have an extra magnifying glass button you could hit with your thumb. Are you also already utilising both of the buttons on the top right, the asterisk and box (metering mode by default I think) buttons?

>>4392259
I used to back button focus with DSLRs, but went back to shutter release af with mirrorless and never looked back
Are you that BBF dependent?

File: gitgud.jpg (179 KB, 801x728)

179 KB JPG

>>4392284
Good point about the magnifying glass, I'll try it out.
>>4392285
Yes, I use BBF center point focus and recompose since I'm used to shooting that way on film SLR. Feels natural. But your method is probably better for more demanding situations.
Anyway, thanks all, my question has been answered.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	801
Image Height	728
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	56 dpcm
Vertical Resolution	56 dpcm
Image Created	2024:10:02 19:39:48
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	801
Image Height	728

>>4392183
That f2 looks very nice with specs but I know it's going to be annoying to hold after a few hours

What happened to Sony making compact lenses? Sigma shit is like 20% lighter and smaller

>>4392357
>What happened to Sony making compact lenses? Sigma shit is like 20% lighter and smaller
I wasn't aware Sigma made a 28-70mm f/2. The Sony is significantly smaller and lighter than Canon's version, if it's still not enough for you then get the f/2.8.

File: 1721005864285845.jpg (242 KB, 1282x855)

242 KB JPG

For cleaning the sensor, are swabs or the blower best? I keep seeing varying shit on forums about blowers introducing more dust, but manufacturers seem to always recommend the blower and tilting the camera upside down.

It makes more sense to me to avoid physical contact with the sensor and the blower seems safest.

>>4392404
You will get autismo replies saying that you need this $80 (brandname) blower that has level 5 biolab spec air filtration on the intake side but yes they're generally good enough but so is removing them in post for the most part. If it's serious, look into one of those cleaning kits on ebay and watch videos on how it's done before you attempt it.

>>4392404
Blower, I got a little $10 thing from my local store
Camera stores can clean it for you too

>>4392410
>Camera stores can clean it for you too
I looked at that but the local stores were going to charge $60 for it. Instead I was trying to decide on a blower or a swab kit, so I'll probably get the blower since even meme tier high quality ones are less than $50.

>>4392404
They do different things. Blower to remove free floating dust, swab to remove stickier debris.
I've done the blower camera upside down method for a decade and had no issues from it. If you're paying more than $20 for a blower, absolute chump.

>>4392424
> If you're paying more than $20 for a blower, absolute chump.
I got one for exactly $18, so I did pretty good imo.

>>4392412
Just buy some cheap Zeiss lens cleaning wipes, blower, and if your sensor somehow has spots you can buy a sensor cleaning kit for $20.

Most shops refused to sell it (lol) because they want to charge you $80 for swabbing a sensor a few times. I refused that and just went to a more ghetto camera shop and some little Chinese lady was more than happy to teach me how to do it and sold me a kit.

>>4392370
I was referring to the Sony f2.8

I wouldn't be surprised to see some third party f2's on a few years though. Iirc the tamron 2.8 was effectively f2 but artificially limited to f2.8 as it wasn't up to scratch.

>>4392404
I have an air blower with filter from German company Eyelead. Seems to work better than my basic one (+higher quality) and was only $15 equivalent before VAT.
>captcha: 0Y0Y0

What's the math in order to calculate the effective focal length and aperture rolling a crop? I.E if I do a 100% crop on a FF shot at 85mm F1.8, what would the result be?

>>4392453
following*

>>4392453
Depends on the resolution of the taken image and that of the screen you're viewing it on or the print you make

How do I get my panasonic s5 to show a preview of what my image will actually look like? like when i take a pic it usally ends up really dark.

>>4392460
First of all, if you're shooting in manual then don't. There's very few situations where it's actually necessary, just use aperture or shutter priority with auto ISO. Secondly you'll be wanting to look for a setting called "constant preview", other brands typically call it exposure preview.

Why use ND filter instead of higher shutter speed?

>>4392468
Because eventually your shutter speed tops out. Most consumer-grade cameras top out at 1/4000th or 1/8000th.
There are many instances of wanting a wide aperture to purposefully limit your DoF (so you can't close that up to shut out light), and/or you want a long exposure for a reason to generate light trails/subject blur etc.

NDs are also very useful in videography where you can't really vary the shutter speed either without making things look wonky, so for a standard 30fps video, your shutter speed is likely locked down at 1/60th (which is many stops more light than your max shutter speed)

>>4392453
100% crop = different depending on the resolution, so impossible to know without that
>>4392460
Read your manual
>>4392468
ND reduce the amount of light getting to the camera, and sometimes you are limited on your shutter speed. Good for long exposures, essential for video, good for shooting wide open with lots of light (flash or sun).

>>4392464
i normally shoot manual yes, may i ask why to use the others? i guess aperture prio since i like shallow dof (im trying to do more portrait style stuff)

>>4392477
So that your photos don't end up really dark. Do you not know what exposure is?

File: yuyuko.jpg (1.25 MB, 2000x3000)

1.25 MB JPG

>>4392468

I use an ND filter so I can shoot wide open at F1.4 without having to use high speed sync (personal preference)

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 5D Mark IV
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 14.0.1 (Macintosh)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.4
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2024:12:16 23:19:37
Exposure Time	1/200 sec
F-Number	f/1.4
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/1.4
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	50.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>4392477
P mode is a meme (just use a phone at that point)
Tv mode is only useful if you're trying to use a specific shutter speed (kinda useless)
Av mode is legitimately useful for taking photos with minimal time to adjust settings
M mode is more useful if you have sufficent time to dial in the right settings.

>>4392481
wow I like the way this looks, how'd you do it0

>>4392477
Usually A in summer/bright daytime
More S during winter, because I hate motion blur
I also tend to use different glass for different seasons. From spring through summer I mostly just stick to 24-120mm f4, because it does everything I need and allows me to compose freely on the fly.
During winter I mostly stick to 50mm f1.4 and 85mm f1.8, just to get enough light. Occasinally, I'll whip out the 14-24mm f2.8 and 70-200mm f2.8, but they are heavy and clunky, so I only use them if I have a specific shoot in mind.
(I live in Norway, so it gets retardedly dark here in the winter)

>>4392484
8 stop ND filter and offhand flash (AD200 at max power through a SMDV softbox).

I had raised the softbox as high as I could and had it angled down on the coser.

>>4392232
do SD cards have a lifespan (time, or write/format cycles) after which they are not to be considered reliable anymore?

>>4392489
oop misclick, didn't mean to reply to that one

>>4392489
>The mean failure rate of an SD card, depending on the brand and quality, is typically considered to be around 0.01% per write cycle which translates to a lifespan where a card can endure around 100,000 write operations to a single memory location before potential failure, though this can vary significantly based on usage conditions and environmental factors
Sorta ig

>>4392489
Yes, TBW, which says how many TB of data can on average be written to them before failure. There are some industrial (mostly micro) SD cards with emphasis on higher TBW and endurance in general.

>>4392481
That's one assbackwards way to get a shot out of focus.
You should have just stopped down to about f2.8 in A mode and let the shutter speed go as high as it likes.

>>4392503
He doesn't want to use HSS. You should not be giving advice lol.

>>4392504
Well, why on earth not?

>>4392506
loss of flash power

>>4392507
Huh?
The whole point of the ND filter in this case seems to be to remove flash power?

>>4392508
not to remove flash power, but to remove overall light from the scene. Notice how everything but the subject is dark.

>>4392509
So the problem is just that his flash is too weak?
Why not get a better one? Even the SB-910 is just about 100 bucks used. An SB-600 can probably be had for 40 USD.

>>4392510
>outside during day flash with hss
>use an sb-600
Lmfao

>>4392510
The flash he used is 2-3x the power of an SB910. Why would you recommend him less powerful flashes?

>>4392512
That close to the subject an sb-600 should be more than powerful enough for HSS (without an ND filter).

>>4392514
How do you know what flash he used?

How do I get good at using manual flash?

I set my shit to manual and reduce iso but then my EVF is pitch fucking black. If I increase iso it's going to be over exposed

>>4392515
>anon uses AD200
>get recommended far weaker and cheaper flash to use instead
I hate zoomers/retards like you wouldn't believe
>>4392515
Learn to read before posting
He clearly said an AD200

>>4392515
You should try shooting an sb-600 in a softbox with HSS during the day instead of just spouting the stupidest shit on the Internet

>>4392526
You should try that too

>>4392526
The sb600 is a 50 watt flash with a fresnel head
Not even close especially not for art photography apertures like f11 and f16

>>4392541
Exactly, but that retard somehow believes that a sb600 is "more than powerful enough" and is an upgrade to a AD200 lmao

>>4392526
Lets use our brains with the example above.
>f1.4, ISO 100, 1/200
>8 stop ND filter, AD200 at max power
Say we pick up an SB600 and switch to HSS. We crank our SS to 1/8000 and kill that background, getting us an equivalent to ~5 stops, now we only need a ~3 stop ND.
Say we stop down like suggested from f1.4 to f2.8 (changing the look), now we still only need a ~1 stop ND. You could stop down further, and change the look more. You could get rid of or move the softbox, but that would change the look too. You could let the background be brighter, changing the look.
Or you could just make use of ND's for something they're made for, and pick the look you want.

Also, this is assuming an SB600 (or SB910) in HSS is the same output of an AD200 on full, which is not true at all. If you want a completely different looking picture, an SB600 will do fine.

>>4392560
You wouldn't have missed focus on the shitty con snapshit, though

>>4392519
>EVF
Haha, oh no no

>>4392519
you use it in exposure balance mode like a normal person

>>4392519
Every mirrorless has the option to preview exposure or not, and some even change automatically when a flash is detected.
Read your camera's manual, and you can learn the settings of your camera.
>>4392567
You're right, I wouldn't have. You know it's possible to have correct focus at f1.4? You know it's possible to still miss focus when stopped down?

>>4392526
I assure you, that an sb-600, even in a softbox, will more than blow the fuck out of any face you jam your 50mm into, while still allowing for a high enough shutter speed, providing a darkened background, and a large enough aperture for some background bokeh, while also providing enough DOF to actually get the face in focus, despite missing the eye.

>>4392567
Ironically enough, an 8 stop ND might honestly be dark enough to interfere with a 5DIV's AF system, even in broad daylight, it's like using an f22 lens
>>4392572
Can you explain this with actual numbers like >>4392560

>>4392560
>Also, this is assuming an SB600 (or SB910) in HSS is the same output of an AD200 on full, which is not true at all. If you want a completely different looking picture, an SB600 will do fine.
>lets use our brains
???

>>4392575
>this is assuming an SB600 (or SB910) in HSS is the same output of an AD200 on full
For ease in the example above, I assumed power output was the same.
An SB600 is more realistically like 1/4-1/3 the output of an AD200 on full, and even less during HSS.
So if you do the above (HSS with SS to 1/8000, to f2.8) to keep the background just as dark, your SB600 subject would be darker by a few stops than the example, so that's another difference you'd have to make up for.

>If you want a completely different looking picture, an SB600 will do fine
Different picture as in moving or removing softbox (and changing lighting entirely) like >>4392572, or you don't need background as dark relative to the subject, etc. If you don't want that exact look you might be able to settle for less with an SB600. HSS is still not a perfect substitute for ND though.

>>4391933
I have a bunch of photos and art that I need to rescale to post here. What is your method to downsize images without messing up quality or the photo/art itself.

>>4392029
Yes. If you want the 200-600mm sony for FF, it's another $2k to budget.

>>4392156
APSC are good for birding and needing reach.

>>4392628
You do not need reach, especially not a 200-600, for good wildlife photography

Only for the boring fucking bird-standing and bird-flying detail shits every trail clogging fucking z8/r3 boomer takes to try and get their snapshit featured on the local news. For actual good wildlife photography even 400mm is overkill most of the time unless you are being watched by nature karens that WILL start screaming about "the plannut" if you step on a plant or have a dog near you (despite showing up in a crossover/truck and wearing 100% imported clothes)

>>4392624
When you export, just keep it under like 3000 pixels on the widest size and it should come under 5mb. Disregard the sticky, if you go under 1000 it will look like it's drawn in ms paint.

Where do you guys go for inspiration?

>>4392660
>Where do you guys go for inspiration?
/p/ I'm trans btw

File: DSC00324-Enhanced-NR.jpg (1.56 MB, 6000x4000)

1.56 MB JPG

How am I supposed to shoot low light if I want more of the image in focus? Like that would call for a higher f stop but then im losing light and getting more noise

Also I was told to always shoot like 0.7-2.0 under exposed to preserve highlights, is that legit?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-7C
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 12.4 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	32 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2024:12:17 13:13:20
Exposure Time	1/125 sec
F-Number	f/2.8
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	400
Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Brightness	-1.3 EV
Exposure Bias	-0.7 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	32.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

>>4392685
Heh the cats have balls. Obvious answer is increase shutter but much slower than your example and you'd want to be using a tripod. I don't think you really needed more in focus there however.

>>4391966
>shooting portraits @ 300mm
based

>>4392677
>I'm trans btw
me too!

>>4392448
Incredibly based

>>4392624
Manually in gimp, there’s no batch method that always looks good because scaled images also need sharpened and sharpening settings depend on the content and original size. You can batch resize and apply unsharp mask with imagemagick but half the images will end up blurry or oversharpened.

I got so sick of doing this i basically stopped posting. The reason 80% of photos here are /dst/ and /fgt/ is because digishits and lab scans produce photos so low quality it doesnt matter.

File: NP-F530_2.jpg (193 KB, 800x600)

193 KB JPG

What is this little sliding switch for?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	800
Image Height	600
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2024:12:17 21:41:15
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	800
Image Height	600

>>4392624

convert image.jpg -colorspace RGB -size 1000x1000 -filter Mitchell -resize 1000x1000 -colorspace sRGB -sampling-factor 2x2 -strip -quality 80 image_for_4chan.jpg

>>4392744
>>4392773
What's the "correct" algorithm for downscaling, and why?

>>4392774

no such thing

personally i prefer looks of Lagrange or Box while scaling down or -scale instead of -resize while enlarging

File: fjaellraeven-kajka-75-wal(...).jpg (388 KB, 1500x1500)

388 KB JPG

How in the fuck do you carry your gear when hiking or backpacking?
I've tried many things.
>camera loosely packed at the top of the rucksack, have to take off ruck to get it out and shoot
>camera packed in separate crossbody that is worn in combination with the regular gear pack, generally by putting on the big ruck first and then the crossbody
>camera is just on neck the entire time
>camera strap is hooked onto the top end of external frame and kept from swinging by just nestling it in the arm, looks goofy but avoids neck strain while keeping constant easy access
>just carrying a Ricoh GR in the pocket
Is there even a solution to this? Maybe something like a chestrig or kangaroo pouch with the usual camera bag style of padded insert? Wearing the rucksack top on the chest if the design supports it? Attaching the camera to the rucksack strap via quick release mount?
>captcha: VV4GR (win 4 GR?)

File: ccs-g3-grey-harness-1-544341.jpg (199 KB, 800x800)

199 KB JPG

>>4392832
maybe something like this?
seen similar rigs from other brands, this is the first that came up with google

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	800
Image Height	800
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>4392773
>size 1000x1000
>quality 80
PLEASE do not do this. It is a visible difference. It DOES detract from the photo.

>>4392832
I only own one full frame sony camera and one full frame sony lens
Camera does not get packed because then it cant take pictures, it’s under a coat at the most protected after leaving an em1ii+12-40 pro out while it rained caused its death (IP rating is for 20 minutes not two hours)
I put extra batteries, cards, and the flash in a freezer bag and throw it in near the top of the pack

Gearfags mogged
Lmaoing @ lens bag fags

File: original-262078.jpg (381 KB, 2000x2000)

381 KB JPG

>>4392836
I also see that Osprey makes a dedicated camera chest rig. My concern with this would be excessive sweating and/or chafing due to the neoprene padding at the back.
>>4392840
>under a coat
Yes but how? I am also talking about single camera here (previously a 5DIV + 24-105 or small Pentax SLR) although being able to shoot mirrorless+film would be the grail. Carrying the camera on neck is ass no matter how light it is (swinging around) and wearing the strap crossbody will be interfered with by the ruck straps.

>>4392854
Put the camera on first
And don’t go blobbing

What camera is this at the beginning? Looks like maybe a Nikon.

https://files.catbox.moe/gks9f7.mp4

>>4392891
I don't know but context for vid?

>>4392891

look like two sony cams not sure

>>4392891
It's probably one of the Canon 5D / 7D series. The longer top LCD narrows it down quite a bit, and the shutter release looks like that of those as well.

>>4392891
I think it may be a Sony RX10, there's a few frame where it looks like it says Sony and not Canon, the strap lugs are the typical Sony metal triangle ones, and the viewfinder hump isn't as prominent as it would be on a DSLR. The lens hood shape also looks right. It could also be one of their SLT bodies (A77, A77 II, A68, A99 II).

File: Untitled-1.jpg (57 KB, 631x532)

57 KB JPG

>>4392922
best guess

File: 61Om7H-SngL._AC_UF1000,10(...).jpg (44 KB, 490x1000)

44 KB JPG

>>4392481
waow yuyuko had too much izakaya
>>4392832
>>4392854
I do all my hiking with a Lowepro TLZ 70, it didn't come with the chest straps but I had some left over from another lowepro bag. I don't know if I'd shell out for an osprey camera bag, but I do like their backpacks. The TLZ 70 fits my D850 and either the 24-70 VR, 105 Macro or the 300 PF which are the only lenses I have but the bag can expand to supposedly accommodate a 70-200.
>My concern with this would be excessive sweating and/or chafing due to the neoprene padding at the back.
If you're doing any serious hiking, you're gonna sweat no matter what, but for what it's worth the lowepro has a smaller back profile. I've never had any back chafing issues with any kind of bag or backpack and I sweat buckets hiking in the summer.
>>4392836
These make me nervous, a lot of the trails in new england are extremely steep and any kind of slip leaves absolutely no padding or protection for the camera.

File: everyday-backpack-charcoa(...).jpg (145 KB, 1280x1280)

145 KB JPG

>>4392832
I have the 30L CEO killer bag with the QD plate on the strap

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

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

File: IMG_2067.jpg (67 KB, 500x500)

67 KB JPG

What's the best way to get someone into photography?

My sister uses an old coolpix and I want her to graduate to a half-decent camera with manual controls, because "muh one you have with you" isn't cutting it for her anymore. My dad recently got her an iPhone 16 Pro because she said she wanted a better camera, even after I've lent her my DSLR, SLR, TLR, and foldie. But she's still stuck on her old XR.

Also need to get her a camera for one of her university modules.

[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	500
Image Height	500
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>4393020
Your little sister is a based anti-gearfag. Many females naturally are anti-gearfags and grasp that art is different from technical perfection intuitively. You should let her be. The only hitch is
>university module
Get an old DSLR with affordable lenses. She'll prefer her coolpix but at least she can learn without breaking the bank on her boomer camera.

>>4393020
Anything big is not gonna work, some people are just unwilling to lug anything much bigger than a phone with them.
RX100Va or G5X II is the is the safest choice, being the biggest (sensor-wise) pocketable 24-70 with EVF, it should still be an improvement over whatever sub-1" camera she has (unless it's the Coolpix A, which is APS-C, but I doubt that).
Or the EVF-less ZV-1 or G7X.
Or you could try one of the jacket pocketable MILCs w/ EVF (gx80, gx9, a6000 series, a7c) or w/o (plenty mft choices, a5000, S9)

>>4393020
How about a compact? Like G9X II or whatever is similar Nikon.

>>4393020
Get her one of those white a6xxx second hand with a compact zoom

>>4392832
I just use a cheap milsurp bag and my single camera and lens go around my neck, so I can take pictures not in a bag.

That's what neck strap is for anon, put it on first and it won't swing around.

>>4393020
Women just want yo click the shutter and get results. They fon't want to know how the camera actually works, much less manually adjust settings.
Just leave her with her phone and point-n-shoot.

>>4391961
This comparison isn't quite what you think it is:
>>4391966
Notice how the subject is at different distances from the camera in all these.
A 50mm is excellent for portrait photos where you stand a bit further back. It will allow you to get more of the background in the shot, and will still compact the face properly (if you are far enough away).
I often do portrait photography with my 14-24mm, if I am at a good location and want to embed the subject in a larger scene. The trick is just to not jam the camera into a face. And have enough resolution, so you can crop a bit when needed.

File: mfqxdeals7a21_50.jpg (2.02 MB, 1632x2448)

2.02 MB JPG

Sorry for fucking off and forgetting about the replies.

>>4393023
Yea canonically based if she wasn't such a petulant woman-child. I'll be getting a Voigtlander 40mm f/2 for my 6D soon, I could loan her that for her modules. Maybe an OM-1 if the lecturer allows it.

>>4393030
I was thinking of the GR IIIX. The RX100 and X-E series looks interesting as well.

>>4393031
Not enough control dials for anything other than auto, which kinda defeats the purpose with her current CoolPix.

>>4393033
Really good idea. Perhaps with a pancake.

>>4393036
She already takes great photos, she just needs a decent camera.

>>4393023
And yet 50% of the population is not even 5% of the good photography

>>4393082
Think of all the truly skilled people who aren't vain enough to post their work of social media

>>4392627
That lens is fucking massive, I shit you not.

What are the actual resolution limits for this board? I'm trying to post a panorama that is under 5mb but it says it's too large. The sticky is fucking retarded, you wouldn't be able to tell what it is at under 1000 pixels on the widest side

Ordered a Leica Q-P in "good" condition for 2300€ at mbp. One year waranty, 14 days return policy. That's a good deal isn't it? Thats the price of the normal Q there.

>>4393211
There was a pano thread not long ago and people were effortlessly posting 12000 on the longest side. Res isn't the problem you compressionlet; literally just slap some JPEG-80 compression and you'll cut the filesize into quarters

What photo library management tool do you use? Ideally one with face detection included.

Why are fast lenses maximum aperture usually tied to the same numbers like f/1.4 or f/2.8?
Why not make an f/1.6 or f/2.4 lens for example?

>>4393338
next in the row standard aperture opening value will give 2 times as much light to sensor/film, just as doubling the exposure time with shutter speed. these numbers allow for easier exposure mental maths. there exist lenses with max aperture not "even" but it's redarded and why would you do that

Did I miss ef-m sales or something? Do lenses ever get cheaper?

>>4393338
They do. But they use standard labels to avoid bothering people.

Most f1.4s are f1.3-f1.5 and the transmission stop is usually much slower wide open (ie: the canon rf 50mm f1.2 l is a t1.5, the sony 50mm f1.4 is a t1.6)

File: a6000-button-frame-1024x608.jpg (91 KB, 1024x608)

91 KB JPG

Is a Sony a6000 with the lens it comes with worth it at $550 Canadian? for Americans that's $381 freedom dollars, this would be my first ever camera that's not connected to a cellphone since maybe 2008-ish.

Thanks to anyone who can help!

>>4393389
not really, but the market is gay for resale these days. that kit has been "around 600" for the last decade. other electronics don't hold value like this because they aren't retarded, this should be a 200 dollar kit at most. but that's the way it ggoes.

>>4393390
everything's gay these days, would you recommend just going for a new camera instead?

>>4393389
it's a 10 year old camera, that was replaced 5 years ago
they went for $450-500 US new from '17 to '21
cut your pricing in half and you got a good deal

File: 1680063805591426.jpg (23 KB, 480x543)

23 KB JPG

>decided to clean sensor on my camera since it had a little dust
>i wasnt used to IBIS yet, so forgot about it
>cleaned it with just a rocket blower but didnt use swab kit
>realized later i didnt lock the IBIS before using the blower on it
Is there any potential I damaged the IBIS? I imagine if the IBIS can survive the shock of riding in my car and moving around in my bag when I walk, then I'm probably over thinking it, but still.

On the plus side, the big specks of dust are completely gone, so at least I didn't go full retard and use the swab first.

>>4393389
If you want mirrorless and sony that's about right. The a6000 I see go for $300 all the time so another $80 for a lens is okay.

You can also get DSLR cheaper if you want that and don't mind the tech.

>>4393441
IBIS systems are designed to survive jolts from regular movement. If you imparted less force than you would by just picking it up really fast (you did), then there's no risk of damage. It's still good practice to lock it, but it's not going to magically kill itself from a burst of air.

X-T5 vs a7iii?

I looked on reddit and everyone there said they liked the fuji better.

>>4393461
Always do the opposite fo what Reddit says
>t. Snoy hater consneeds

>>4393349
>but it's redarded and why would you do that
cost, other manufacturing concerns
a lot of classic nifty fifties were 1.7 or 1.8

>>4393470
iirc Nikon's 50mm was f/2 for the longest time so Canon was like fuck you I can make the FD 50mm f/1.8 NIGGA. Other manu's followed suit because it wasn't that much of a leap in terms of tooling and development, but going bigger generally started to necessitate better technology, materials, etc.

>>4393515
>NIGGA
Uncalled for.

File: imagine.png (1.39 MB, 1171x846)

1.39 MB PNG

Why would someone aperture blades in this shape

File: 54146183893_eda62e5f5e_o.jpg (2.32 MB, 1405x2052)

2.32 MB JPG

>>4393461
a7c > X-T5 > a7iii

a7iii lacks the flippy screen so doesn't spark joy or feel fun like the X-T5/a7c do , and the X-T5 will shit itself in autofocus and low light which will be incredibly frustrating considering one used is like double the price of an a7c.


>>4393441
don't be a pussy, sensors are pretty tough. you should be more worried about the shutter and doing something retarded like closing the shutter and changing lenses at the beach

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-7C
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 12.4 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	50 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2024:11:17 23:02:16
Exposure Time	1/250 sec
F-Number	f/2.8
Exposure Program	Shutter Priority
ISO Speed Rating	1250
Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Brightness	2.0 EV
Exposure Bias	-0.3 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	50.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

>>4393524
How is the lack of AF joystick compensated for?

>>4393535
not him but half the rear screen is an af joystick

its actually faster and more precise, and helps keep the camera more stable than using a thumb stick. you can only appreciate this feature on an a7c otherwise your nose would constantly trigger it.

>>4393536
So it's a touchscreen, right? How does it work - there's a digital equivalent of the joystick (arrows etc.) that you press?

>>4393537
You move your thumb around like a touchpad on a laptop
>>4393536
I never had my nose move the AF point with my central EVF and I'm even a left eye shooter, however I had raindrops move it about so turned it off. I hardly ever moved it anyway because I use tracking AF, but of course I have a joystick to do it if I need to.

>>4393551
That actually sounds neat.

>>4393556
It kinda is in the sense that you don't need to be as precise with your thumb placement and it's a little quicker, but it's also not as accurate. And there's the issue with it being activated unintentionally. When I upgraded from a first gen A7 I thought it would be one of the things I liked about it but I never used it and it just caused problems, I'm glad I'm not forced to use it.

>>4393559
How's the A7C, ergonomically speaking? I had one in my hands and couldn't help but think that it feels like cheap plastic crap.

>>4393562
I guess you didn't like the A7C's grip? In which case why would you buy a compact camera anyway.

you're always gonna be losing some comfort in ergonomics to make up for the camera being 100g lighter or whatever. If weight isn't an issue look into a nikon Zf, fuji crop is still going to be crop and inferior to FF. Used Sony and Canon will be the better bang for your buck

>>4393567
The grip, surprisingly, was alright. I think it was the weight that felt suspicious, now that you mention it.

>>4393562
Sorry I should have clarified, I'm not the A7C owner. I have an A7R III. However the original A7 I have has a similarly sized grip to the A7C and the A7R is a big upgrade in that department.

I got a used canon rebel ti that takes a long time for the shutter to open after hitting the button to shoot.

The window on the lens closes and then like 2 seconds later it opens again

Is it actually taking pictures or is my film going to waste also? i dont want to go and develop the roll to find out

>>4393562
It’s good but ISO control on v2 is better

>>4393598
I have noticed if I stop using it for a while this problem seems to be less significant. Maybe there are some internals that need to relubed or something

File: 1710839841986599.png (1.55 MB, 798x1195)

1.55 MB PNG

I'm editing this photo to get as a print for my mother for Christmas. I'm trying to enhance the brightness of the cats slightly using a radial mask, intersected with a luminance mask to target the midtones, and a subtractive radial mask so I don't colour the background on the left. Is this range suitable? I don't have too much experience with editing and especially with editing for subjects, I usually take photos of landscapes.

>>4393247
Okay but does anyone actually know what the limits are?

>>4393598
Sounds like two different issues if I'm reading that right. Make sure that you're not using the self timer which is either 2 or 10 seconds on those, there will be a little clock symbol on the LCD if it is set. And also make sure that your exposure settings aren't retarded. If you're trying to shoot handheld at 2 seconds, yeah you are just wasting film.

>>4391961
for wide lenses, facial distortion happens when the face fills the frame. might as well shoot center with a lot of negative space on the outer sides. then crop of needed.

How do I check the metering mode in Lightroom cloud? I see the info tab but it has the basic Iso triangle info, but not metering mode used.

I recently sold my FF mirrorless setup since it got no use over all the fujifilm stuff I own. I also recently got into shooting actual film with some old bodies got from friends and relatives. Because of that I have like $2000 to spend on anything.

I have all the lenses I have use for for fuji, and I’d rather buy film or dslr for slower stuff. The problem is I don’t know much about all that. If it helps, my current workhorse film camera is a EOS 300 and it gets the job done ok. So what should I do? It’s my hobby money, so I’d rather just reinvest it into something photography related.

>>4393800
some nice ef glass for your eos maybe? the ultrasonic prime lineup from the 90's is very nice

>>4393800
>fujifag slowly becomes honest with himself
Nikon has the widest selection of great film lenses, canon only has more modern glass

Get a nikon (fm3a or an f100)

>>4393800
Darkroom equipment. And a 6x7 or 6x9 if you have enough money left over.

>>4393803
This was my first idea as well. I used to have a 6d a while back and could possibly get that as well.

>>4393812
Yeah. Film simulations are pretty gay but I enjoy the lenses and the system too much. Haven’t had a need for FF since. I did think that I should look into nikon since their film bodies look pretty great

>>4393813
This is an idea, but I don’t currently have space for all that. Otherwise I’d go that route. Already have the means to develop and scan, but it would be nice to print as well.

>>4393853
Ps. drunk and posting from mobile so excuse my shit english

How is EF vs. Nikon F optics wise? Does it matter? I despise sigma and modern optics and the way they render things. Can’t pinpoint what the fuck is wrong with them but certainly something

>>4393854
Nikon F is vastly more diverse from vintage to modern, EF is a purely modern system
>i despise modern optics
They are sharper and dont have strong color casts, that’s it

>>4393854
You're limited by 35mm resolution either way, but there's certainly a lot of cheap, good F glass (a curse in its own way) if you don't want to go the MF way. I have a bunch, I can give some recs if you want.

>>4393855
>>4393860
Nikon sounds like a good bet. What are the best film bodies? Was it so, that the same optics fit on their DSLR’s as well?

>>4393861
The fm3a

Beware the gelded (G) lenses, they dont work without electronic aperture control boomer blobs but most of them are modern sharp

>>4393286
Pls respond.

>>4393867
Shut up

File: IMG_20241128_182320495.jpg (2.56 MB, 4624x1982)

2.56 MB JPG

>>4393861
DO NOT listen to this retard:
>>4393862
The best nikon gilm camera is the F6, but it basically forsn't exist.
The F5 and F4 are also great, as is the F100.
You may, however, consider a much lighter, but still fully featured F80.
F65 and F75 are dirt cheap options, which lack in that their viewfinders are small and you cannot select between continuous and single point autofocus (the camera automatically decides for you, and won't let you take a shot unless it is certain it has focus). They are nonetheless great, especially for the price.
ALL the mentioned cameras support ALL modern F-mount lenses, auto-metering, autofocus and even VR.
It's basically cheating.
Some of the cameras use stupid expensive C123 batteries, but can be used with battery grips that allow you to load normal AAA batteries instead.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	motorola
Camera Model	moto g(100)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.2
Sensing Method	Unknown
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	0 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	4624
Image Height	1982
Image Orientation	Right-Hand, Top
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2024:11:28 18:23:21
Exposure Time	1/17 sec
F-Number	f/2.2
Exposure Program	Not Defined
ISO Speed Rating	1937
Lens Aperture	f/2.2
Brightness	0 EV
Exposure Bias	-1.2 EV
Metering Mode	Average
Light Source	D65
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	1.69 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	4624
Image Height	1982
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Digital Zoom Ratio	1/2
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>4393872
>muh auto everything supersharp blob

>>4393872
Sorry, no, not allnof them support VR.
The F4 does not.

>>4393874
>Muh blurry hipster "street" snapshots in black and white

>>4393877
skill issue

>>4393887
Hipster issue

File: shot.png (1.27 MB, 1262x657)

1.27 MB PNG

what kind of camera is good for making videos like pic rel, simonfordman on youtube? it's exclusively static shots in a "cinematic" style (I know that's not a thing but I don't know how else to describe it). can any camera do this?

>>4393951
i skipped through one of the vids and im not seeing anything particularly outstanding about the shots. the highlights are also overblown in a lot of it and the rolling shutter during one of the panning shots was seriously bad. not really much thats cinematic about it desu.