I just wonder when the advertising bots will go away.

>>4398670
advertising what?

File: brownie.jpg (61 KB, 867x868)

61 KB JPG

i recently got a kodak brownie, those old 620 film cameras
it's a bit rusty, smells like feet (moldy) and i need to get a 620 spool to put 120 film on it
MY QUESTION how do i clean it?

File: durr.jpg (23 KB, 446x477)

23 KB JPG

>>4398767
Dunk it in IPA like that other anon did a few threads ago lmao

>>4398767
Alcohol and wipe everything

Alcohol will kill the mold

>>4398775
I'm so glad you double spaced this, would have been impossible to read otherwise

I am still legit curious to know how much editing you guys do on film photography

I just used a old Sunpak 433 Flash on my DSLR, did I break it? I didn't know those old flashes could kill cameras. Mine seems to be okay, but I don't know if the hot shoe still works. I'm gonna try with a newer flash tomorrow

File: IMG101.jpg (4.55 MB, 5748x3677)

4.55 MB JPG

>>4398663
Mostly just curves and color cast corrections if applicable. My scanner tries to fit everything in the histogram even though the image might have been overexposed on purpose. Most of the times it's pretty OK as is, though. Still figuring it out, it's annoying as fuck when the scans come out as dark and you have batch scanned so now you have to restart.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Nikon
Camera Model	Nikon SUPER COOLSCAN 4000 ED
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 14.1.1 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2025:01:12 11:31:32
Color Space Information	sRGB

>>4398800
Thanks and check'd
I got a bunch of HP5 back and I'm debating whether I just edit them a bit or not
I guess it's all about what I want as a look and there is no standard procedure, but was still curious to know if anons raw dogged theirs or not

>>4398807
Negative films have no look unless printed or scanned so I'd guess it's up to you. At the end of the day you're just going to try to get the best picture possible out of anything.

>>4398663
When is the Snoy A7V scheduled to drop?

>>4398767
For the rust, get 0000 grade trollull and brakleen or wd40 as lubricant.

File: 000010220002.jpg (66 KB, 424x640)

66 KB JPG

>>4398812
How would you retouch this one for example?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	96 dpi
Vertical Resolution	96 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	424
Image Height	640
Scene Capture Type	Standard

File: 000010220002.jpg (67 KB, 424x640)

67 KB JPG

>>4398879
I did this for example, very little editing

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Lightroom 10.1.1 (iOS)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2025:01:12 17:11:42
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	424
Image Height	640
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>4398797
>Sunpak 433
Check out https://www.botzilla.com/page/strobeVolts.html
Looks like your camera is probably ok.

>>4398883
Yeah I saw that link + dozens of 433s on eBay to make sure it was actually that model (I think it is at least, I remember it had a 98 date code sticker inside the battery box + looked like this ebay link but more beat up)

https://www.ebay.com/itm/296213662121

Apparently there's 2 failure modes:

It'll either completely fry the camera (like hitting something with static electricity) or it'll slowly wear out the circuitry.

>Warning: Negative voltages or voltages over 250 V applied to the camera's sync terminal could not only prevent normal operation, but may damage the sync circuit of the camera or flash. Check with the strobe manufacturer for voltage specifications

I'm gonna pick up a good flash and test it out. The camera was fine taking pics after + it was only 2 test shots, not a whole day with it on. BH has the Godox TT350P that supports HSS for $85 and would be a good way to check.

Is it normal for SD cards to die?

I have a Sandisk ExtremePro 256GB that now refuses to connect and keeps corrupting files. It makes me wanna treat flash cards like disposable and buy the cheapest "name brand" 64-128GB especially since I don't take more than 1-200 shots before getting them off the card and editing them.

What software can I use to easily bulk organise photos? I have thousands of unorganised photos that I've ripped off old media but are completely missing metadata, and are organised using a physical index booklet.
I'd like to be able to tag, date and group these pictures but Lightroom seems to only be able to properly manage single images at a time.
Ideally I need this to be metadata only and keep the original filenames and folder structure.

One part is I'd like to be able to not have to specify an exact date, i.e I can tag a year, or a year and month but not a day.

>>4398926
SD cards are reusable but eventually they die and are just consumables

>>4398926
Cards can and do fail all the time, most people just don't actually shoot enough to experience it. This is why wedding togs harp about dual slots all the time.
You shouldn't just cheap out though, that just makes you even more likely to run into issues. Many pro cards have warranties for this.

>>4398926
All flash memory dies.

>>4398947
Because they’re cheap faggots and refuse to replace their card for each job. Two recording destinations is a video thing (recording a proxy).

>>4398950
Switching before or after doesn't help with a card failing as you're using it, and proxies aren't an actual backup.

>>4398953
Cards dont fail for no reason, they fail because multiple blocks are out of write cycles. A new card, verified as not defective, will never fail in one job. Ever.

If you are constantly shooting backups both cards will probably fail at the same time.

>>4398956
Yes, if we assume all cards to be in perfect working order and that they can't possibly fail early on, you wont have issues, what an insight!
>If you are constantly shooting backups both cards will probably fail at the same time.
Also not true.

Can you cite me any working photogs that buy new cards for each session and retire them after one use? I would love to look into this more. I've heard lots advocate for dual slots, but haven't heard any saying that card failures are simply the result of user incompetence.

>>4398960
Me. And everyone who used a dslr before the 1dii.

Most photographers are incompetent.

>>4398980
>Most photographers are incompetent.
especially ones that think an SD card failing is always preventable

>>4398797
>didn't know those old flashes could kill cameras.
I've never heard of this. How is that possible?

>>4398990
Too much voltage going from flash to camera, electrical overload. Older flashes can be much higher voltage and work a little differently compared modern flashes on modern cameras.

>>4398992
I wouldn't have thought that they were earthed to the cameras circuit board at all. Is that normal or only if they're defective?

>>4398993
>>4398992
It's also weird too. If you read the full link a lot of camera companies have different opinions. It could be boomer lore from using 60-70s Flashes on 00s DSLRs where it legitimately did happen from the flash discharging against the wrong contacts as it was slid out. At the same time camera companies claim anything from 250v (Fuji, Canon) to 20v (Nikon, Pentax), to 6v (Snoy) is safe

I think my camera might be safe because apparently Canon's voltage release was spec'd to 6v after the late 80s and if it's the right Sunpak then it at most reached 10v (this was on a Pentax K70) and I honestly didn't know, was at the camera store fucking around.

Mine seems okay so far. Heading to B&H to check out a flash. It's still taking pics fine but idk if I cooked the flash circuit/hotshoe. Pop-up flash works fine.

>>4398993
To trigger the flash it has to close a circuit, with older flashes the voltage running through that circuit can be higher than modern cameras are designed to handle.

File: Screenshot 2025-01-12 143224.png (22 KB, 676x203)

22 KB PNG

>>4398995
It's easy to find examples, most people just don't mix new cameras with old as shit flashes. Even more stupid now with how plentiful and cheap modern flashes are.

>>4398783
>>4398663
Mine stance here is that whatever is possible to do in darkroom is. an 'allowed' picture manipulation to call it a photograph. Anything else is just a digital creation based on photography.

File: Screenshot_20250113_09402(...).jpg (350 KB, 720x1437)

350 KB JPG

>>4398996
Yeah I guess I always thought that the shoe was isolated from the camera because even my old metal body mechanical SLRs had plastic between the shoe and the body.

Also what would you call the exact opposite of picrel? Something that mounts a flash to a standard tripod, ebay search for "tripod cold shoe" returns about everything except what I'm looking for.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Android UP1A.231005.007.A136BXXSADXK1
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	720
Image Height	1437

>>4399004
very good point of view

File: cold shoe.jpg (50 KB, 1023x294)

50 KB JPG

>>4399007
>Yeah I guess I always thought that the shoe was isolated from the camera
They can be isolated from the main circuitry with stuff like opto-isolators, but still whatever circuitry that isolator controls may still not be able to handle the voltage. So while the rest of the camera may survive it could still kill the hotshoe.
>Also what would you call the exact opposite of picrel?
What you're after is just simply called a cold shoe, with a little scrolling you should be able to find something like this.

File: Screenshot_20250113_11365(...).jpg (62 KB, 720x345)

62 KB JPG

>>4399020
Cheers, after about 300 items there was something like what I'm actually after except it's in China and seems at least 2x overpriced for what it is. The scrolling really opened my eyes to the ridiculous crap that people attach to their cameras hotshoe though holy shit. I think I'm just going to try and make the thing I want on the lathe and scavenge a shoe mount from a broken camera or something.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Android UP1A.231005.007.A136BXXSADXK1
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	720
Image Height	345

File: stand.jpg (78 KB, 800x800)

78 KB JPG

>>4399030
dunno if this helps you, but these plastic stands included with any speedlight etc. generally have a tripod thread on the bottom too

File: IMGP3048-Enhanced-NR.jpg (927 KB, 2048x1365)

927 KB JPG

>>4398995
Update:

My camera works fine, but might return that flash anyways since I barely take indoor photos. Tried it in TTL and Manual.

I guess I got lucky, pic related is from B&H's Used Section/Camera Museum.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	RICOH IMAGING COMPANY, LTD.
Camera Model	PENTAX KF
Camera Software	Adobe Lightroom 8.1 (Macintosh)
Photographer	ShoopraLazor
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	27 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2025:01:12 21:41:29
Exposure Time	1/50 sec
F-Number	f/3.5
Exposure Program	Creative
ISO Speed Rating	800
Lens Aperture	f/3.5
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	18.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Macro

>>4399030
I just had a look on the Australian Ebay and I dunno if you guys call them something different or for some reason they're just super rare over there but there's no where near as many options. So it's not your fault you couldn't find one. However what you're after is item number 196079784121 , or if for some reason you wanted to stick up to 3 flashes on a tripod there's 405404146074

File: IMG_2597.jpg (1.57 MB, 4032x3024)

1.57 MB JPG

Can anyone tell me why this Fuji 400 came out so blue? I picked it up at Walmart in October and it had an expiration date of sometime in 2026. I used the cinestill c-41 development kit to develop it. The chemicals were previously used to develop some expired rolls of Kodak Ultramax and Gold; they came out looking “normal” for a lack of a better way of putting it. Did I mess up somehow or is this just how the film looks?
I know some film has a blue-ish anti-halation layer, but this is just really blue and I haven’t seen negatives that look like this.

>>4399166
that's wild, it looks like phoenix which lacks the orange mask. fuji 400 definitely is not supposed to look like that
is it way darker than normal developed film? the orange mask is part of the base, it shouldn't be affected by processing. so either the emulsion is so blue that you can't tell there is an orange mask or I guess it is some kind of manufacturing defect. scan it and see if it looks cool.

>>4398663
Anons I mostly shoot vertical pictures with my Zf with the shutter button away from my right hand. I was wondering if there's an option to put shutter-release on any of the customizable buttons? I know you can put the AF on on any buttons already so that's neat.

>>4399374
No but you can use touchscreen shutter release

>>4399374
How are you holding the camera such that shutter button is away from your hand?

>>4399378
Vile

File: file.png (798 KB, 1200x800)

798 KB PNG

>>4399378
I find that option only works with your face away from the viewfinder (Touch FN works differently and doesn't have a shutter-release button).
>>4399379
pic rel but instead of the right hand on the grip, I have my right hand on the bottom of the camera still.
Thought if I had a custom shutter-release button assigned, I can use my right hand to control the focus point using the screen, lock focus with FN button in the front, and then shutter-release on one of the buttons at the back. and all of this while still looking at the viewfinder.

>>4399392
just learn to hold your camera a normal way
or even just rotate it so the grip / shutter is on the bottom, lots of people do that
wtf are you doing bro, this is legit autism

Why doesn't my Nikon z50 autofocus using the widest aperture available? Is this normal for mirrorless cameras to do? I understand it's trying to show me what the image will look like in the EVF or LCD, but sacrificing light for the sake of depth-of-field preview feels insane. Especially when there's no setting to change it. This makes low-light flash photography overly difficult.

>>4399409
>This makes low-light flash photography overly difficult.
Read your manual, d7, every mirrorless has an option like this

>>4399425
That setting does not change the aperture used for autofocusing. Both on and off, the camera will focus using the aperture its set at (to a point, it's maxing out at f/6.3 on the lens I have attached currently).

>>4399434
>That setting does not change the aperture used for autofocusing
No, but it changes the brightness you see, which is the actual issue you have
>to a point, it's maxing out at f/6.3 on the lens I have attached
It's f5.6, unless your lens can't open that wide (super teles or using teleconverter, etc)
Aside from providing an accurate DoF, it also eliminates focus shift.

>>4399446
>No, but it changes the brightness you see, which is the actual issue you have
No... the actual issue I have is the actual light entering the lens allowing for fast, accurate autofocus. Brightness being emulated on EVF/LCD can be done regardless of what the actual aperture is at. If I'm trying to focus with my aperture set at f/1.8, it's going to be faster than focusing at f/3.2. What the camera won't do, is focus using f/1.8, then automatically change aperture to f/3.2 for the exposure. So, I'll restate the original question:
>Is this normal for mirrorless cameras?
If so, I think it's incredibly stupid. If not, is it limited to lower end cameras?

>>4399425
Wrong. Nikon always focuses stopped down even with this.

>>4399409
Your fix is to buy a zf that focuses at -10ev with an f1.2, so at the smallest focusing aperture on nikon (f5.6) it is just tied with everyone else. IN THEORY this is good for fast telephotos and macros that may have focus shift (back focused if focused open and shot stopped down) but in practice a competently programmed camera can compensate without this hack.

Or, switch to canon/sony, they use dynamic aperture control to satisfy AF light requirements instead of sensor gain.

>>4399452
The simple answer is, because it doesn't need to.
>the actual issue I have is the actual light entering the lens allowing for fast, accurate autofocus
The Z50 can focus down to -2EV (at f2 ISO 100), or 1EV (at f5.6 ISO 100), which would be a 15" exposure at f5.6/100. If AF-S works, it can drop 2EV lower too.
>If I'm trying to focus with my aperture set at f/1.8, it's going to be faster than focusing at f/3.2.
Depends how actually dark it is.
>Is this normal for mirrorless cameras?
Yes, it's pretty common.

>>4399463
No. Its not dude. ONLY nikon refuses to open the aperture to focus. Canon and sony bodies work just fine. Olympus is wide open 24/7.

>>4399459
>Wrong. Nikon always focuses stopped down even with this.
I wasn't talking about not stopping down when focusing, so not sure why I was "wrong"
>Or, switch to canon/sony,
Which also can exhibit stopping down when focusing as OP is asking about

>>4399463
>it doesn't need to.
It does need to. It's taking 4-5 seconds more to focus even with the AF assist lamp, and it's far from 100% accuracy.
>Depends how actually dark it is.
Dark. f/1.8 gives me usable AF, but the focal plane is razor thin, which isn't what I want. f/4.5 is the minimum for my telephoto, and it's AF is completely unusable. I have no choice by to manually focus using a grainy EVF where you can't even tell what's in focus.

>ONLY nikon refuses to open the aperture to focus.
That's a shame. Is there a technical reason for this? It doesn't seem like a huge ask.

>>4399468
>It does need to
Not according to Nikon. Sounds more like you don't know how to use the camera honestly.
If you're using the AF assist lamp, it literally wouldn't make a difference anyway then. That alone is enough to assume something else is at play, like the kind of AF settings you are using. You are using the lowlight AF mode, right?
>f/4.5 is the minimum for my telephoto, and it's AF is completely unusable
Even if focusing wide open, different cameras are rated to focus at different levels of darkness. You may simply be trying to shoot too dark.
>Is there a technical reason for this?
Proper DoF and eliminating focus shift. The same thing happens, in reverse, when you have too much light too.

Can you share an example of the images you are trying to capture? I'm so curious

>>4399472
Canon and sony open the aperture when they need more light to focus. Nikon does not. There is no skill issue here. Every camera until nikon mirrorless could opt to focus wide open.

To no ones surprise, the #4 camera brand has worse autofocus than their old DSLRs unless you buy a $2k flagship FF. Stop sucking nikons cock and demanding everyone out skill shoddy equipment that costs hundreds to thousands, you fucking cuck.
>uhm focus shift
Not an issue with modern lenses. Cope. Nikon made a bad camera, and buying it was a mistake for him. Are you going to make excuses like a cuck? Or admit when a soulless corporation pushes garbage? Cuck?

>buy expensive mirrorless
>/p/ tells you to bend the knee and work around design flaws
Or just sell it and buy a camera that works properly. Nikon is losing market share to fuji they’re that bad. Bad products exist. People shouldnt be expected to cope with them. Dump it, warn others. Free market at work.

>>4399472
>Sounds more like you don't know how to use the camera honestly.
I wish that were the case, but it kind of feels like you're just fucking with me. Why do you think dynamically controlling the aperture to allow more light in during AF is a bad thing or unnecessary? Light is the whole basis of this technology. More real light hitting the sensor is always better than software trickery, is it not?
>Proper DoF and eliminating focus shift.
That's beyond my technical scope. But if focus shifts between aperture changes, surely it would be measurable and something that could be automatically compensated for, right?
>You are using the lowlight AF mode, right?
Yes.
>You may simply be trying to shoot too dark.
Very possible, but that's the hand I'm dealt.
>>4399472
>Can you share an example of the images you are trying to capture? I'm so curious
I cannot. But they're indoors using a single bulb, warm light source. Flash provides all the light here. Imagine taking pictures for a house party where moments are fleeting and AF is crucial. Similar situation.

>>4399475
>Nikon made a bad camera, and buying it was a mistake for him.
That's sad if that's the case. I had done a lot of research, but I never once saw someone bring up this issue. There really should be a place for concise reviews pointing out limitations rather than paragraphs of flowery language filler trying to sell you the camera. They're no better than the companies. I don't want to spend 2k on a retro styled Zf. Nor do I want to switch systems and go through the hassle of selling gear. I was hoping the Z6iii was going to be a modern $1600~ range Zf. Nothing but bad new for me.

>>4399472
low light af mode is just sensor gain. its slow as hell and usually misses. the fact is, nikons programmers couldnt figure out how to focus with an open aperture so tje only fix for nikons abysmal AF in situations where assist and modeling lights are not appropriate, allowed, or effective, is to pay mommy nikon for a camera with a better low light AF limit.

or dont buy a nikon mirrorless to begin with instead of downgrading from a DSLR.

>>4399477
The reviewers are employed by the companies. Just apply common sense. Everyone uses canon and sony for a reason. Nikon focuses on bragging about mount size and lowering dynamic range to compete with panasonic for the scraps of the video market. Canon and sony program their cameras to open the aperture if there isnt enough light to use autofocus. You legit should have just got an rp or r10 or something.

>>4399477
We had a poster here who had this issue with a z7ii. He bought a zf, got more disappointed and fucked off somewhere to shoot medium format.

>>4399477
If it's such an issue, why hasn't Nikon fixed in in the last decade? Why is Nikon fucking with you? Why do you think you know better than they do?
>to allow more light in during AF is a bad thing or unnecessary?
Because they think at f5.6 the camera is getting enough light to maintain focus, and think proper DoF and lack of focus shift is worth the trade off.
>But if focus shifts between aperture changes, surely it would be measurable and something that could be automatically compensated for, right?
Sure, but if we're just going hypothetical, why can't it be hypothetically true that the AF sensor doesn't need more light than what f5.6 can provide? Why can't they just make the sensor better at AF for a given amount of light?
>I cannot.
Then I will remain convinced you are simply a beginner that doesn't know how to operate the camera properly, and/or doesn't know the limitations of modern cameras. Hope you upgrade cameras, and try to take pictures just as dark and run into the same issue with 1 less thing to blame. You'll credit it to focusing wide open, and not the fact that the newer camera is rated better for lowlight AF, and continue this cycle of misinformation.

Again, the Z50 can AF down to -1EV at f5.6, which is ISO 100 and a 15" exposure, which is plenty dark and below candlelight. If you are using the AF assist lamp and can't get focus, that's 100% a you issue.

t. eternally jaded because i used to work a camera store and +90% of problems were people not knowing how to actually use something

>>4399484
They did fix it. With the zf and z6iii. Because ASSIST LIGHTS ARE NOT ALWAYS ALLOWED OR EFFECTIVE. And a 12 year old DSLR never had the issue. Stop defending retarded capitalists consumer cuck. You boot licking fag. Bad products exist. The customer is always right. Cry about it.

>You should be thanking nikon for letting you pay $1000 for worse autofocus than a d7200 or any canon/sony and doing your best to cope with their failures. Skill issue.
Nah buy a better camera. Like any canon sony or fujifilm lmao.

>>4399487
>They did fix it
They put out new cameras that are better, like all brands do
>Because ASSIST LIGHTS ARE NOT ALWAYS ALLOWED OR EFFECTIVE
True, which is why they made AF sensors better for lowlight
>And a 12 year old DSLR never had the issue
Most of them also never had AF sensors that work as well in lowlight as modern mirrorless

Maybe you have some shots that you took at -2EV you could share?

>>4399484
>t. eternally jaded
I'm going to take this as the reason for the amount of obstinance in your post.
>Because they think at f5.6 the camera is getting enough light
It doesn't matter what Nikon thinks, it's what I'm personally experiencing. If you don't address anything else in this post, this is all I want answered: I can focus with 1.8. I cannot focus with 4.5. I certainly can't focus with 5.6. Why are Nikon's thoughts on what is enough relevant when other companies provide this feature? Ultimately, I just suffer with terrible DOF, with a sliver of what I want in focus, where a dynamic aperture would seemingly address this exact issue.
>Then I will remain convinced you are simply a beginner
I'm not a professional. I'm not an expert. But I have enough experience to notice this was an issue at all. Wide open, AF works. Stopped down, AF slow, inaccurate. Seeing my photos with flash illuminating the scene won't give you any information about the available light that I'm using to focus with.
>Again, the Z50 can AF down to -1EV at f5.6, which is ISO 100 and a 15" exposure, which is plenty dark and below candlelight. If you are using the AF assist lamp and can't get focus, that's 100% a you issue.
If you're getting fast, accurate AF on a subject 3 feet away from candlelight with some ambient TV glow 10 feet away using f/5.6 please send me the tutorial for what I'm doing wrong so I can correct it.

And considering this all started with you smugly referring me to the manual to change a feature that doesn't affect the issue I'm speaking of, then you replying to that fact with "Well, it's not supposed to!" I'm just going to call it here. All I wanted to know is if this was a mirrorless-wide issue, company-wide issue, or low-tier-camera wide issue.

File: Screenshot 2025-01-14 150141.png (219 KB, 599x972)

219 KB PNG

>>4399489
>worse autofocus than a d7200
Compared to a DSLR with a f1.4 lens focusing wide open, a Z50 at f5.6 would perform close to these in terms of lowlight AF performance. If you were only shooting at f2.8 or even f4, or comparing to a DSLR with max f2 or f2.8 lens, Z50 is even better.

>>4399492
>it's what I'm personally experiencing.
Because you don't know what you're doing and have unrealistic expectations.
> relevant when other companies provide this feature?
Other companies do the same, just not the same extent. Canon, for example, does the same locking while in continuous shooting.
> to the manual to change a feature that doesn't affect the issue
It affects the issue of not seeing clearly enough, and is in fact standard across all brands. Live exposure preview should be disabled when using flash, that is true for all brands, period.

Since you are not an expert, see >>4399494 for examples oh how dark older pro DSLR's can focus while at f1.4, and then consider that your camera is even more capable depending on the settings. Hope this gives you a better frame of reference.

>>4399490
>uhm prove to me you deserve not to be ripped off by nikon
Prove to me defending shit products is worth it with a photo of the nikon ceo fucking your wife

Everyone else can focus when using flash and a small aperture for less than $2k. Nikon can not. Sony and canon can open the aperture when there isn’t enough light to focus. Nikon can not. Thats it. Nikon camera equals Bad product. You want the picture so you can say it worked in the end as if a premium weren’t paid for frustration or in the case of dance floor shoots, missed shots.

>>4399496
>while in continuous shooting.
how is that relevant to flash photography?
>Live exposure preview should be disabled when using flash
exposure preview takes flash into account and brightens the image. have you even used the z50?

>>4399498
No. He’s the shit camera defense cuck. His job is to tell people their shitty mirrorless are fine and should be coped with.

He is the one who recommends buying the shitty mirrorless.

>>4399494
You are illiterate or stupid. If the z50 can’t focus wide open and then shoot stopoed down it’s worse than all of these. -2ev at f2 stops being so good when it won’t focus at f2.

>>4399501
>You are illiterate or stupid.
Seems like you are. I was assuming these DSLR's are focusing wide open at f1.4 and Z50 was focusing stopped down at f5.6.
Z50 can do -4EV at f2, which is -1EV at f5.6, putting it on par with the D810 + f1.4 lens. So again, if you were using those DSLR's with an f2/f2.8 lens, or shooting the Z50 at f4 instead, it would fair even better.
For as much as the Z50 sucks for lowlight AF, these DSLR's aren't much better.
I know someone mentioned the R10 earlier, in the best case (center point only, one-shot) that can AF -2.5EV at f2, so while it may focus wide open, it's actually worse if you shoot at wider apertures, and it's important to acknowledge that difference when giving advice to OP.

>>4399502
He’s asking about flash in low light. Nikon can’t do this. Canon and Sony can.

>>4399503
I guess D810's could never focus in lowlight either
Or D750/5D3 never could when using an f2.8 lens or slower

>>4399504
Does that make nikons inability to open apertures to focus any less real, shit gear defense cuck?

Perhaps ken rockwell was right. Why throw money at the bottom dog brand?

>>4399507
fuji is soon going to bump nikon to #4. their cameras are designed by pixel peeping engineers who measure focus accuracy but dont actually use the cameras.

>>4399507
Nope, and it's stupid they do it that way.
If OP came here posting about about not being able to lowlight focus with his D810 and f1.4 lens, what advice would we give him instead?

True, when Ken Rockwell says Nikon mirrorless AF is dog shit compared to Canon/Sony, it's because they only hit "97%" accuracy, and not 100%.

I just think it's important for OP to understand how over exaggerated some things can sound.

>>4399511
And here they hit 0% accuracy because they think close up focus shift matters more than real world photography and cant imagine even making it an option.

And really, its not 97%. Its 97% for hotel signs. In real shooting the z8 is an 80% camera for $4k and the ancient a7c and entry level r8 are near 95-100%. Nikon just isnt very food. Oversized, low DR, bad autofocus, sterile images.

>>4399502
bold of you to assume the z50 would actually focus, instead of confirming focus but actually focus 1ft in front of the subject

Seems like Nikon body/lens combos are sharper so better for slow things like landscapes and portraits, but Canon is better for action shots because of better auto-focus? Is this impression correct or totally off or is the difference not actually that big at all?

This is just the vibes I've been getting. I'm going to upgrade from my old 80D but don't have any really good lenses so thinking of swapping brands, but I do both sports shooting (kids sports and auto racing) but also enjoy just doing stills of landscapes, figures, and people.

I've been out of the gear game for awhile and just trying to get my bearings on what to look at when I go to local photo shop. Cross shopping Z7ii/Z8 and R5/R8 and just not sure which would be better for each thing I do or if my impression is just completely off in general. Missing an action shot because of bad autofocus would be really frustrating but also knowing I could've had clearer, sharper landscapes/portrait/still by choosing the other brand would stick at the back of my mind.

>>4399517
>And here they hit 0% accuracy
Still better than an R10 when shooting at wider apertures though. Still on par with a D810 too. If the point is just Nikon could do better, so could every other brand.
>And really, its not 97%
You brought up Ken, I'm just providing his actual take with context.

Again, if OP came here posting about about not being able to lowlight focus with his D810 and f1.4 lens, what advice would we give him instead? Would we really just tell him to get a better camera?

File: Kodak — Exploring the Col(...).png (262 KB, 792x1224)

262 KB PNG

>>4399341
>the orange mask is part of the base
do you mean part of the film substrate?
if so, Kodak disagrees
sure you can have maskless films and films that use different dies for different colored masks
but the reason it's called a mask is because it's non-uniform (roughly opposite in density to the primary dye in that layer)
it's why you can't just use regular color correction to remove it digitally

>>4399520
Honestly not inaccurate.

Nikon fell behind during the Canon/Sony mirrorless wars. Sony had the jump + better AF since the A7ii/a6000 debuted in 2014 and Canon was the only one that had the resources to chase. Z6III is probably the closest Nikon to compete, and they're great cameras. I'd take one over a Z8 that's nearly a $4000 camera. Look into a R6 Mark II too instead of the R5, I think Canon Refurb had them for $1500ish.

I personally shill Sony only because it has the best AF and lens selection for the money. Canon and Nikon has great lenses, but they tend to be a little pricey. Canons tend to have cheaper bodies than Sony desu.

I would personally compromise and pick up a A7RIV or A7IV when the new A7V drops (no AA filter, smaller formfactor more megapixels, decent AF) you can find those for $1500 on average used.

>>4399532
Why the R6 over R5? Still take the R6ii over the R8?

>>4399533
R6ii is what I meant, and the price difference between a R8 and R6ii is $500 vs the R5 and R6ii ($2000)

>>4399520
Grass will always look greener no matter what you pick, so rent both. Another benefit is then you can't blame the gear when if don't get the results you want. Possibly wait for Z7III too.

>>4399535
>Possibly wait for Z7III too.
Yeah might do this since the A7V seems to be coming Q1 this year. So maybe I'll just wait for reviews on both new bodies and see how they compare to R5ii.

>>4399534
Eh, I'm not SUPER worried about price. I tend to keep my cameras for at least a decade and make a comfortable salary with plenty of savings. I only pared down to this 80D and two cheaper lenses just because I went through a life phase change about a decade ago.

>>4399031
I bought a pair of Yonguo 600RT's for $50 and am basically just using one for the AF assist and as a trigger for the other one and I still don't really know what I'm doing with off-camera flash. They didn't come with those bases when I bought them but it looks like they did when new.
>>4399035
Thanks for that. I have no idea why either. It may be my inner schizo coming out but they could be trialling new (bad) search algorithms on Australia because it's a smaller mid-sized market and it wouldn't be the first time that multinational companies have done something like that.

>>4398663
Should I get Sony A7 mark III or mark IV? I don't give a fuck about vlogging/making movies, all I care about is photos.

>>4399577
A7III if you don't care that much about AF or portability. Also a little cheaper, like $700-1100.

A7C if you don't care about a bad EVF and want something with the AF of a 4 and the sensor/IQ of the 3 in the size of a A6700. Usually $1100 is a good price for them.

A74 is awesome cuz no AA filter, 33mp sensor, and best AF but also costs $1400-1700. You could possibly get one as low as $1200, median is like $1600 used.

If you only care about pics I'd look at a A7R instead.

>>4399578
>If you only care about pics I'd look at a A7R instead.
How does the iiia model compare to iii/iv, apart from higher resolution?

>>4399579
IIIA = Just higher res screen, otherwise identical to a III. The change was made after 2021

I think the AF on the R models is the same as the A73. Just the R models have a higher resolution sensor and supposedly higher rated shutter life (500,000 iirc)

>>4399580
Thanks a lot!

>>4399393
it's just comfy for me, but oh well.
>wtf are you doing bro, this is legit autism
I even bought a wood grip that you can screw on the bottom to make it even more comfier lol

>>4399580
>>4399582
The R III also gets you that higher resolution screen, a higher res EVF, a flash sync port, and a locking mode dial over the III. You do lose some AF points though, down from 700 to 400, and battery life is a little bit worse. AF tracking is supposedly better with the III although the R is still very good, you'd mainly see the benefit if you were doing a lot of sports or similarly fast moving subjects where you're rattling off shots at 10fps.

When I was making the decision between the III and R III I ended up going for the R, for the EVF and higher resolution sensor. Not that I'm doing massive prints but that extra cropping room adds some nice versatility, if your lenses are sharp enough to make use of it.

>>4399587
>you'd mainly see the benefit if you were doing a lot of sports or similarly fast moving subjects where you're rattling off shots at 10fps.

Right now I'm shooting with a Nikon D5100 - it's a nightmare to capture anything going fast (e.g. IndyCar, F1).

I know whatever I get will be an improvement, but boy oh boy the choice is so difficult.

File: letmetellyou.jpg (119 KB, 820x801)

119 KB JPG

>>4399517
>Z8
>80%
Even in extremely low light scenes, stopped down, I manage to acquire focus without the assist light. Have you even used a z8?

>>4399578
Not that anon, but how much worse is 3's AF compared to 4's?

>>4399588
The R won't have any trouble tracking stuff like cars, you'd want the III if it was more something like a basketball game and you were tracking a person who keeps rotating and has other people passing in front of them.

What lens(es) will you be using? I'm guessing you'll be fairly far away and wanting something long. A nice thing about the R at 42mp is you can stick it in crop mode and still get 18mp, the non-R would drop down to 10mp, and get you 50% extra reach.

>>4399594
I'll definitely use Sony's 70-200 GM2 as the main lens. I've been also thinking of adding Sigma's 500mm for details, but it's quity costly, so I'll stick to 70-200 atm.
I've used the 200-600 during a spotting session, but it did not impress me. It's heavy, and the pictures (obviously) weren't as sharp as I'd like them to be.

>>4399592
The 4 has a really good spot tracking mode (especially with face/eye priority off) and loses subjects in face/eye priority almost never. The 3 is kind of like a z6ii’s autofocus, but it actually focuses where it says its focusing instead of several inches in front of it.

why do people buy manual focus medium format lenses and stick them on to DSLRs? whenever I look up pentax 645 lens reviews like half the posts are people using them on DSLR or mirrorless digital cameras

>>4399645
The problem with buying a new camera, from my experience, is that whenever you read a comparison between the newest model and its predecessor, they always make it sound like the latter is an unusable piece of shit.

>>4399673
You can't trust reviews. They're all bought, unless someone reviews kit that's already discontinued.

>>4399673
Digital cameras have been good enough for a while for new model often be not a substantial update. A review can be oerfectky accurate and still give impression that updating is worth the price. And such review is worth a lot for the marketing department...

>>4398772
that anon here, fuck whoever told me to do that
sold the camera so its someone elses problem now

File: 40keks.jpg (57 KB, 742x655)

57 KB JPG

>>4399792

File: IMG_0052_v1B.jpg (662 KB, 3564x2376)

662 KB JPG

>>4399521
>Still better than an R10 when shooting at wider apertures though
I don't get it. I have an R50 (same sensor) and it can AF in almost pitch black darkness with any of my lenses brighter than f/2.8. The kit lens stuck at f/4.5 will struggle a bit more, but it's never struck me as any worse than anyone else's.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS R50
Camera Software	digiKam-8.4.0
Firmware Version	Firmware Version 1.1.0
Lens Name	EF-S24mm f/2.8 STM
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	3564
Image Height	2376
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	350 dpi
Vertical Resolution	350 dpi
Image Created	2024:09:17 18:11:24
Exposure Time	1/4 sec
F-Number	f/2.8
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	24.00 mm
Image Width	3564
Image Height	2376
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Exposure Mode	Manual
Focus Type	Auto
Metering Mode	Evaluative
Sharpness	Unknown
Saturation	High
Contrast	Normal
Shooting Mode	Manual
Image Size	Large
Focus Mode	AI Focus
Drive Mode	Single
Flash Mode	Off
Compression Setting	Fine
Macro Mode	Normal
Subject Distance	1.630 m
White Balance	Auto
Exposure Compensation	3
Sensor ISO Speed	160
Color Matrix	34

>>4399849
>I don't get it
Different cameras have different abilities to focus in lowlight, you can see an example here >>4399494
The photo you posted is actually 5EV, and your camera is rated by Canon to focus down to -2.5EV with an f2 lens (or -1.5EV with f2.8 lens), so your camera should be able to focus much darker too.
A Z50 is rated for autofocus to work 2EV lower than an R10/R50, but you have to deal with the trade-off of Nikon stopping down when focusing. This means if you're shooting wide open, or within 2 stops of wide open, for a given lens, the z50 theoretically would be able to AF better in extreme darkness, and if you stop down by 2 or more (and f5.6 at the most), R10/R50 would be better.
There's much more to AF systems than that one spec alone though, but if OP was struggling to AF with a Z50 because it was too dark, chances are they'd have the same issue with an R10/50.

Does using the red focus assist light actually ever help outside of dark subjects less than 6ft away? Seems useless.

>>4399860
No, not really. Canon and sony cameras open the aperture when there isnt enough light to autofocus. That’s why they get away with having lower min EV than nikon. Almost no one shoots wide open btw. Only m43 users.

>>4399864
Why yes, I do enjoy perfect depth of field and maximum sharpness wide-open

>>4399866
I use m43, its more like lots of CA and nervous bokeh unless you spend so much you might as well buy a real camera. How to m43: buy the cheapest fastest prime and shoot it at f4 forever.

>>4399864
That was already factored in with what I said, did you not read? I accounted for and explained how that difference affects things.
Even though Nikon stops down, it still can have better lowlight AF sensitivity despite that.

>>4399861
Y'all talking straight past this question. Focus assist light, good or useless?

>>4399872
Most flash photography is done at small apertures. Nikon is literally retarded.

File: Slide-004.jpg (75 KB, 640x427)

75 KB JPG

I have about a billion scanned slides that all have black borders. How can I automatically crop these? The slides jiggle around a bit so they're not all in the same position.

[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

>>4399875
good for someone to notice you're taking a picture of them and try to punch you in the nose for it

>>4399875
You're dim. That's why you can't focus.

>>4399860
Thank you for the actual, example based, and reasonably complex explaination. My knowledge of EV is minimal but I get what you're saying. R8 is rated at -6.5 with an f/1.2 lens (I cant find an actual graph with other apertures probably because Canon are retarded salarymen) so I can see partially why FF sensors get a leg up.

Is ZVE-10 worth the upgrade from iphone 15 pro max for vlogging?

I’m planning on putting some of my hard earned money on the side to go and take doc style photographs of small cultures in my country (I’m a mountain jew) any advice on how to present my subject? There’s the classic portrait from the chest up, or the full body shot with a tarp as a backdrop or should I simply use the mountains in the background? I know it all comes down to what I want to do, but I’m asking because there might be options I haven’t thought about.

>>4398663
I finally decided to buy a DSLR after only using film because I want to try to find some paid jobs.

For gear I'm going to get some model of Canon with a kit lens. I'm probably going to end up with a Rebel T3i/600D but I might get something else. Not too concerned about megapixels or full-frame for my purposes at the moment especially because I'm trying to do this as cheaply as possible. I'm still in college.

My goal is to do paid grad photo gigs by this summer. I already know most of the technical details of photography (just nothing specific to digital I guess lol) so I'm not too worried about that part, but I don't have much experience post-processing portraits in particular.

I've used Darktable to do a little processing on my film scans before but is there anything I need to be aware of when post processing RAW files for portraits? Will I *need* to do retouching for people's skin, for example?

Also, what accessories should I start with? I'm probably going to get a speedlight, obviously, but I don't know what else I should prioritize. Reflectors, off camera lights, etc? Any advice is appreciated

File: retard (1 of 1).jpg (418 KB, 750x1000)

418 KB JPG

How many stops do you over expose for ETTR? Like I have a Pen-F with up to 3 stops of 1/3rd stop exposure compensation. Is there a spot I can set it and then shoot in AV mode and not have to chimp the histogram of every fucking pic?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	OLYMPUS CORPORATION
Camera Model	PEN-F
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 7.3.1 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.7
Color Filter Array Pattern	808
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	40 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2018:05:18 17:15:15
Exposure Time	1/160 sec
F-Number	f/2.0
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	1600
Lens Aperture	f/2.0
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	20.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Custom
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	High Gain Up
Contrast	Hard
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

>>4399993
You can get any sort of canon crop body + kit lens for like $100-300 depending on how modern you want. Chuck in a 50mm for portraits for another $100 and you're set.
RAW processing is a few extra steps *technically*, but in reality you will just be hitting defaults on the demosaiacing steps and you'll have way more to work with than using a JPEG.

As far as what kind of editing and retouching you'll need, it depends. Generally auto WB from Canon nails it first time, but you'll get a feel for if it's needed. From RAW, you will need to apply any lens corrections in the software, otherwise you're just leaving IQ on the table. You may or may not want to leave the vignetting and you can always disable that correction if you want. Depending on how noisy your photos are and what you prioritise, you'll generally want to do:
>Noise Reduction (if at all) > Resize > Sharpen
Other edits like saturation and white balance are a bit up to the user to determine what step makes more sense. I tend to do saturation and WB before denoise, but I can see the arguments for doing it after.

Any amazon speedlite will do for now, but if you're doing portraits for a long time, spending the money for a more substantial one will be worth it, as you'll want a strong, bright flash for fill flash fighting against all the natural light. A simple rectangle diffuser will help soften the flash. A lightdown or an umbrella reflector or two will also be useful, but then your kit it getting pretty big and going to be more suited for studio / prepared shots, instead of walking around and taking advantage of the opportunities you find. I've never used off camera flash but I can imagine using that in the field is a bitch and is more suited for studio work.

This board sux

>>4399993
I know you're trying to be cheap and you say you don't need the resolution or full frame, but the difference in price between a 600D and a 5D II is so small it's hard to justify not going for the latter, unless you had some specific crop lenses that you wanted or you were after the greater reach. Beyond the improved image quality of the 5D you'll also have a much larger and brighter viewfinder and focal lengths will have the same viewfinder that you've been used to from shooting film (assuming it was 35mm).

>camera exposure settings are designed for jpgs
>only fuji cameras produce jpgs that look any good
why?

File: goy.png (44 KB, 343x400)

44 KB PNG

>>4399999
>Penta 9s wasted on being a snide faggot

>>4400006
Spoiler: they dont over 1mp phone instagram. blurry, corpse skin, beige teeth and eyes. lol fuji.
Did you mean canon jpegs?

>>4399886
i would write a python script with skimage and cv2 or something but idk if you're up for that

>>4400019
Better I get them than some advertisement disguised as a gear recommendation thread.

>>4400029
Did you get banned lol?
Then after you got banned did you continue spamming in threads you don't like as an anon?
Because it seems like something you would do.

File: photo_2025-01-10_23-35-49.jpg (76 KB, 774x252)

76 KB JPG

>>4400032
there are things the jannies don't want you to know.................

>FULL DISCLOSURE: I AM NOT COMPLAINING ABOUT THE MODERATION TACTICS ON THIS BOARD, I AM MERELY
yeah i am complaining, go fuck yourselves lmao

File: bad bait.png (273 KB, 575x617)

273 KB PNG

>>4400032
oh and i forgot to say, no i wasn't spamming that was someone else (bless their heart), i actually left the fkn board cus i realized this place is just full of shills, and any positivity or engagement i make here only helps the shills advertise their products

>>4400043
Sad, I enjoyed your participation. But then again I’m just some anon

>>4400043
that is why i only shill used 2-3 generation old cameras that no one likes and cost $500-1000 used

relating to the thread should i get a 35mm f2.4 or 50mm f1.8 prime for a crop sensor apsc dslr

>>4400042
>>4400043
Me status: winning

>>4400001
>the difference in price between a 600D and a 5D II is so small it's hard to justify not going for the latter
sure, but this sort of thing holds true no matter what budget you have.
> larger and brighter viewfinder and focal lengths will have the same viewfinder that you've been used to from shooting film (assuming it was 35mm).
This is a pretty good reason for me. I'm not choosing to go for APS-C, by the way, it's just what I've seen on eBay. I've been deal hunting for about a week now and it seems fairly likely that I can get a 600D with a lens and the accessories I need for under $100. For the 5D II the price difference actually isn't that small, I'm seeing a similar auction including lenses and accessories that's already at $150.

I'll try to get a FF sensor but I'm balancing so many things I want to do that I'm trying to get by with the bare minimum budget, so even though I would prefer the full frame camera I will likely end up with APS-C.

I was also considering an older full-frame camera but when comparing that to the 600D it really seemed worse in most ways except for being full-frame. I am actually watching a 5D but it's the mark I, it's also more expensive, and won't come with a lens which means I need to spend an additional $50 or more. I'm still considering it but I'm not sure.

File: file.png (335 KB, 543x960)

335 KB PNG

>>4399998
I'm likely going to get something pretty cheap with a kit lens to start with and I also plan to get a 50mm 1.8 soon after.

The processing steps you mentioned don't seem to be too difficult at all. Maybe I'm overthinking things.

As for the flash I was planning to get something fairly decent when I do get one, probably for around $100 like picrel. On my Minolta cameras I use a 360PX flash which has a guide number of 36 but it is a film-era flash and I don't know if it would burn out an EOS camera. I also thought I could try to use that as an off-camera flash but I have no idea how to do that yet.

I might try to do indoor studio-ish work at some point but I think what I'll mostly end up doing is outdoor portraits on my college campus or at various nearby locations (beaches, parks, etc.) so they'll be planned and I can bring some stuff, but I also won't want to carry around too much heavy crap.

When you talk about rectance diffusers do you mean the small ones that clip to the front of the flash, or the larger softbox sort of things that you put on to the flash head? I also already have a tripod.

>>4400068
you can find 5d mark iis for $2-300 and mark iiis for $4-500. d800s are close to $4-500 too from looking at market in northeast usa on craigslist/facebook

people are still shooting weddings on those cameras in 2025 btw

>>4400079
My budget is so low that even $200 is pretty much out of my range especially if it's just for the body. If I can get a few paying gigs then I'd reinvest it into better gear but at the moment I can't spend that much
>just wait and save up
I'm done waiting and I'm just going to try to make things happen even if it's not ideal
if I luck into a good deal on a 5D though I will go for it

>>4400051
35mm on apsc is more like 50mm on film cameras and 50 is more like 80. You probably know that, but I didn't when I first bought a DSLR with a 50. I ended up liking it that longer focal length though and bought an 85mm as soon as I bought a foolframe. Really depends on what you want. If you have been using the kit lens, maybe go through the exif on your photos and see what zoom you have been taking most of your photos at.

>>4400083
When your budget is that low is not really worth it, just wait a little longer and save up the extra 100 bucks or whatever for a 5DII. What is your film setup?

>>4400087
I have dozens of film cameras but my main ones are a Minolta X-570 and an X-370. I have 50mm f1.7 lenses for both although I've always felt awkward with 50mm so I don't use them often. (But I usually just take snapshots of cars and landscapes, I haven't done much portraiture). I typically use my 28-85 f3.5 kit lens and I also carry a 60-300mm telephoto zoom. I have a few filters--a couple polarizers, UV filters that usually just stay on the lenses, a Hoya FL-W filter, and a Vivitar soft focus filter. I usually shoot Superia 400 or Ultramax 400 and in B&W I've used a few different films and developed them at home in Rodinal. So that's my setup at the moment. I also have a Tenba bag to carry stuff in and I'd like to get another for a DSLR when I get one

as for waiting I know it's more prudent but I've had a bad habit of putting things off in my life and being overly cautious and patient so I decided I need to just do some things as soon as I can. I'm planning to get the camera within the next few days so when my semester at college starts again I'll immediately be able to start practicing and getting feedback. Ideally I'd be able to get a paid gig within a month or two.

>>4400083
sounds like old FF camera like 5dmk2 is a good choice for you (given your experience with film). also most likely you will likely be fine with your apsc camera and take decent shots with it as well. after a year or so then you'll get pissed at it for being shit in low light or lacking some other feature and upgrade. everyone else has been through it like that too. also 5d mk1 is too ancient for actual use, leave it to faggots beating their shit to ccd sensors
>>4400089
IIRC minolta lenses can be used on canon dslrs with an adapter (about $20). I started shooting digital on vintage soviet glass till I could afford proper glass. it's not pleasant and you will miss a lot of shots with no AF (canon viewfinders rarely have prisms or other focus aids) but it will get you started
>>4400070
cheap speedlite for indoors, 5in1 reflector for outdoors. there will be time for full portable flash setup when you're not a poorfag

>>4400100
>you'll get pissed at it for being shit in low light
I'm already pissed at my film cameras in low light. In fact, that's one of the reasons I wanted to go for canon, because when I get a film EOS camera at some point, I'll be able to use newer IS lenses on film and get myself a few extra stops in low light. But I'm not planning to get that any time soon, it's more of a dream purchase for now.
>5d mk1 is too ancient for actual use
That's kind of what I figured, I'm sure I could get good shots from it anyway or even a 3MP camera from 2002 but considering the 5D is more expensive than newer APS-C cameras and I'll be doing stuff for clients I'd rather have something a bit newer
>IIRC minolta lenses can be used on canon dslrs with an adapter (about $20)
from what I read you need an adapter with a corrective lens or you won't be able to focus to infinity, I'm not sure how much of an issue this would be.
I could use a non-corrective adapter to use my 50mm lenses, or buy one with a corrective lens. Thing is, I saw on some forums that the corrective lens reduces image quality. But I don't know how much it does that.
>cheap speedlite for indoors, 5in1 reflector for outdoors.
Thanks.

>AI Overview
>Learn more
>My Camera Bag Is Almost Complete. – jerk with a camera
>The crop factor of a Hasselblad digital camera varies depending on the model, but is usually between 0.79 and 1.3. The crop factor is a multiplier that's used to compare the focal length of a Hasselblad camera to a full-frame camera.
>Examples of Hasselblad digital crop factors
>Hasselblad CFV II: Has a crop factor of 0.79, which means that a lens that's 63 mm on the CFV II is equivalent to a 63 mm full-frame lens
wow thanks a lot chatgpt I would have never known 63*.79=63

>>4400100
No reason to buy a 5d2 when the 5d3 and d750 exist