>>4455763
Ive never ever liked 50mm. 35mm is perfect for me.

It would be neat if I could generate a histogram of the focal lengths I end up shooting with zoom lenses.

>>4455763
Skill and preference issue

>>4455768
If you're shooting digital you could do it pretty easily.

File: 000003_proc.png (2.7 MB, 1000x1250)

2.7 MB PNG

>>4455763
Sorry anon but you just lack a soul.

>>4455768
This is easy to do.
1. Install this plugin https://regex.info/blog/lightroom-goodies/focal-length-sort
2. Open the library filter panel and choose 35mm equivalent focal length. You will see a list of focal lengths and how many pictures you've taken for each.
3. Copy them into a spreadsheet and make a histogram.
Alternatively (if you want to filter out prime lenses) you could do it from scratch with exiftool, ask some AI to write you a script.

>>4455763
It's not for artists, the real use for it is shooting passport photos.

File: lmao.png (226 KB, 893x576)

226 KB PNG

>>4455763
>There is no way people actually prefer this over 24-70mm
here's the reason

File: IMG_20210419_153802.jpg (304 KB, 2084x1215)

304 KB JPG

Imagine getting btfo’d by a nifty fifty

>>4455816
>adapted slow MF prime that will vignette like crazy vs fast zoom
Disingenuous.

File: shit graph.png (24 KB, 1151x657)

24 KB PNG

>>4455794
Sure, I meant it would be neat if LR or whatever could do this for me, and do it properly rather than whatever I've hacked together.

Anyway, what it actually looks like is that I take the wrong lens with me most of the time end up zoomed in as far as possible. 28, 35, 50 are my favourite otherwise (buckets aren't aligned well to common lengths)

>>4455792
>shooting kids
>shitty crop that should've had space on the left instead of the right
>le desaturation bland colors
kek, must be a foojee shooter

File: IMG_2353.jpg (77 KB, 720x749)

77 KB JPG

>>4455763
>noooo i have to move my feet and im still missing shots i need my blob back
Are you a wedding photographer or do you do gear reviewer tier npctophraphy

>>4455763
Sounds like your own fault for letting the environment dictate the types of shots you take
Did a wedding a few days ago, my 2nd rocked a 50mm all day and I shot at 50mm for at least 1/3 of my shots
I would take a solid 50mm over just about any other type of lens for doing anything

>>4455858
>letting the environment dictate the types of shots you take
one of the most retarded sentences I've ever heard regarding photography, tbe literal art of capturing light in an environment

>>4455863
Yes, and it's possible to take good photos with just a 50mm in most situations
You should know what focal length you want to use and make the scene work for that, not the other way around

>>4455863
It is easier to live with a 50mm all day than with an unreliable, badly programmed camera like a foolji or panasuck

>>4455866
>when the environment dictates the types of shots you take it's bad
>when a piece of glaas dictates the perspective of the shots you take it's good

>>4455877
>a piece of glass is dictating what shots i take
Skill issue. Zooms are for beginners.

>>4455877
>when the environment dictates the types of shots you take it's bad
Yes
>when a piece of glaas dictates the perspective of the shots you take it's good
You, the photographer, dictate the perspective

>>4455888
>can't even quote properly a single sentence

>>4455898
>so uncreative he can't improperly quote single sentences and gets mad when people put their own spin on things

50mm looks exactly the way your eyes see it. Maybe you just don't actually know how to see?

>>4455990
Your eyes see the world in a way that is physically impossible for a camera to

Get the moon in the frame with a 50mm. Is it bigger or smaller than it was in reality?

The way you see things is like a big pano-stitch with a longer lens. Medium format, 150mm, panorama on a view camera is getting closer.

>>4455992
this sounds like a big cope. When I put the camera to my eye the size of everything is the same. You're overintelectualizing this

>>4456013
That's because viewfinders are optimized for close to 1x magnification with a 50mm lens. It's a viewfinder thing, not a lens thing.

>>4456016
works on the back lcd as well. Again learn to see

>>4456018
Must be some huge LCD, lel

>>4456019
no you're just wrong as always

>>4456020
The moon looks tiny in the back LCD unless I'm gluing my eye to it or using a loupe lol

Try shooting from hip height or using portrait orientation more, I end up doing this frequently with 50mm for some reason. I like 50mm quite a bit and think the recent hate against it is unjustified.

>>4456021
it's exactly the same size at 50mm. It seems like you can't compute this reality

>>4456021
It's because it's small in the frame, hope that helps <3

>>4456023
And how far you hold the screen from you determines how large it appears, in relation to how large things appear in reality. Do the classic holding your fingers and thumbs on both hands in an L shape to make a box, move said box closer and further from your face and notice how the field of view changes but the apparent size of objects doesn't.

Primes are a meme for people that just use gear they didn't pay for in a studio

>BUY 5CM LENS. LEARN HOW TO COMPOSE FRAME, LEARN HOW SUBJECT INTERACT IN AND OUT OF FRAME, LEARN TO ANTICIPATE SUBJECT BEFOREHANDS

If you can't figure out a 50 that's a skill issue.

>>4456053
Zooms are a meme for zoom to fill rockwellians and FOMO consumerists

>>4455858
>few days ago, my 2nd rocked a 50mm all day and I shot at 50mm for at least 1/3 of my shots
>I would take a solid 50m

You're fucking larping, no one would ever exclusively use a prime for a wedding

File: Screenshot 2025-08-03 144307.png (6 KB, 366x109)

6 KB PNG

>>4456132
Plenty of people do with two primes, and a 50mm alone can work well enough depending on the venue and ceremony, and types of shots you want.
Picrel was wedding this weekend, unlabled were from a manual 50mm. 90mm for parts of the ceremony, toasts, and dances. 23mm for variety more than anything else. All the best shots with 50mm.
I would 100% shoot a wedding with only a 50mm if I had to.

>>4456142
>14000 images for some forgettable shit wedding
jesus christ. volume over vision, am i right?

>>4456034
you can't figure out how to shoot in 50mm. The literal easiest focal length. You lost

File: IMG_2780.jpg (83 KB, 522x640)

83 KB JPG

When I first started out fiddling with photography I shot only with a 50mm for a whole year. Thought of it as an exercise I had to impose onto myself before allowing me myself and I to get other focus lengths. I still go back to the 50 a lot nowadays

>>4456142
>portrait orientation mo
lel you do realise that if you used the correct gear you wouldn't have to compensate by taking 6 gorrilion pictures, right?

>>4456147
That was my first comment in this thread. I primarily use a 58mm. I was just pointing out how retarded you are but nice strawman attempt.

>>4456142
>14k photos for a wedding
Dont lie this is your whole capture one catalog. No one is that bad at this.

I think fifties are neat. Sure they may be restrictive in certain situations, but they are in my opinion the perfect middle-ground mess about lenses.
They can do portraiture and they can do environmental. They do not excel at any of those tasks, but they do it good enough.

>>4456196
I am 100% correct. Nice try

>>4455851
>>noooo i have to move my feet and im still missing shots i need my blob back
"Zooming with your feet" changes the perspective.
Find the spot you want to be in, and then choose a focal length to achieve the appropriate crop. This is ancient knowledge.

>>4455763
50mm is for antisocial snap shitters. 35mm or 28mm is really the do it all prime depending on your subject.

>>4455877
Learn to walk fatass

50mm primes are holdovers from the film days when you had max two lenses unless you were a pro, and zooms were mushy shit. When 35-80mm was your kit zoom, a 50mm prime with decently better IQ for not much money made a lot of sense.
Today they're often the cheapest lens you can buy that provides a great value to use ratio, but if we're talking making the best photos? Nah, 50mm is garbage. An uninteresting FoV paired with no ability to seperate subjects (telephoto) or get inclusive with the environment (wide).

It's a shapshit lens, and that's okay so long as you realise that. At least nobody here is autisitc enough to buy the huge f/1.2 versions. Right anons?

>>4456281
The only one I would ever consider is the stupid voigtlander 50mm F1. Just don't know what I would really use it for. Seems more like a gimmick.

>using a prime lens is supposedly the ultimate tool for learning photography and it makes you develop your inner eye and appreciate the fine details of the craft or some bullshit
>the people arguing for it still cannot understand the simple concept of perspective and that "zooming with your feet" doesn't work if you have a certain framing in mind

>>4456302
Yes, "zooming with your feet" changes your perspective. It's a big part of why photographers who have spent a lot of times with primes tend to be better photographers - they've been forced to move around to find the best shot instead of just standing in one spot and zooming, and learned to see perspective in the process.
Our brains are optimized for being lazy af and we subconsciously do what we can to minimize our effort and energy spent. And zooms enable that, even if you know better.

>>4456317
Speak for your pot-addled self, stoner.

>>4456319
keep taking suboptimal pictures.

>>4456321
>*hits bong* uhh actually our brains are optimized to be lazy as fuck, it's not all the pot I've been having for the past decade

>>4456317
>being a better photographer means having a certain perspective in mind and being forced to NOT use it
very interesting

>>4456328
>being a better photographer means having a certain perspective in mind and being able to still take good photos even if you can't use it.
yes, it's interesting.

>>4456343
>the photographer's job is to take "good" pictures instead of what he actually wants
oooohh now I get it, you're a soulless faggot. no point in replying anymore!

schizo is back

>>4456344
Yes. One skill of a good photographer is when we can't get a particular shot we want, is we improvise and find good shots regardless.
You can be lazy with your 24-70 and get the first idea, or you can explore other ideas. Exploring other ideas is called creativity. A prime forces you to explore those other ideas, and is why it's so great at teaching. The 24-70mm enables laziness.

File: N1.5II+top+view.jpg (577 KB, 2071x1381)

577 KB JPG

>>4455820
>slow
That's just to illustrate the point in its extreme. The f/2.5 isn't that much smaller than a f/1.5 (pic rel).
All your other points are skill issues or matters of taste. I simply answered OP's question as to why some people might prefer a 50mm prime over a 24-70.

>>4455821
What kind of shooting do you do that you feel you need more telephoto than 70 or 180?

>>4456351
Moon landing site to btfo cANON and make him leave the board for good.

>>4455768
ExposurePlot will generate this for you (works with JPG only)

>>4456349
Different approaches.
Full control (creating with intent) vs partial control (capturing what's there).

>>4456248
I don't use C1 catalogs, this was one session for one wedding. Normally, we're around 3.5-5k for the whole day, but this was non-stop all day in a gorgeous location. This is absolutely excessive over shooting, but if the cards and buffers aint full, why not?
Of these, will probably deliver 500-800, starting the culling today so we'll see.

>>4455763
50mm is way too tight for a lot of things.
Don't listen to nigger faggots telling you to move your feet. That's not an option most of the time. Moving doesn't change your FOV, only perspective. Two different things retards will never grasp.
Another thing these nigger faggots don't like to mention is that 50mm lenses have shallow DOF so if you want deep DOF you have to lose a lot of light by stopping down all the way, and sometimes that's not even enough.

24mm f/2.8 has about the same DOF as 50mm f/5.6 and you can't even get anything similar to 24mm f/22 on most modern 50mm lenses becuse the rarely go down to f/22 and they'd need to go to f/44 to be similar.
50mm is good for photographing flat planar things like art, people where you might want background blur, or stuff with subject isolation (not much or anything in the peripheral) but this makes it pretty niche.
24-70mm is way better for general purpose use but unfortunately zoom lenses don't have the quality of primes.
There's a reason most phones come with 120FOV ultrwide cameras and have their standard cameras around a 24mm-28mm equivalent focal length, people like wider than 50mm and wider than 35mm. 20mm is where things become "extra" wide and 24-28mm is an ideal in-between 20 and 35 for a point & shoot. 50mm is almost telephoto in comparison.
43mm lenses should be more common as they'd give you that little extra you always feel like you're losing out on with 50mm but unfortunately people are suckers for 50mm marketing.

>>4456368
>but if the cards and buffers aint full, why not?
do you really enjoy going through all those photos? especially when you have a batch of very similar ones and you have to go back and fourth to find the "best" one? wouldn't it be simpler and saner to shoot less and deliver faster and get paid more?

>>4456372
Skill issue

>>4456373
>do you really enjoy going through all those photos?
It's hardly any extra work, and I'd always rather shoot extra in case one is marginally better than the rest. Just looking now for example, like 4k of them are from the ~2.5hrs of just dancing after everything else, but most of those are from burst shooting. If anything it's gotten much easier to shoot more thanks to improvements in culling on the software side.
>wouldn't it be simpler and saner to shoot less and deliver faster and get paid more?
I have adequate time and money.

>>4456372
>you can't even get anything similar to 24mm f/22
Do you find yourself shooting at f22 often?

>>4456381
Tight apertures are good for landscapes.
Always have been, always will be.
Not having the ability to stop down can be very limiting.

Large format people often shot at f/64.

>>4456383
>Tight apertures are good for landscapes.
No they're not. diffraction fucks all your details. Much better to focus stack or use f/8-f/11 at hyperfocal
>Large format people often shot at f/64.
on an 8×10 camera f/64 has the same DoF of f/9 on full frame.

You don't know a thing about photography

>>4456383
>Do you find yourself shooting at f22 often?
How come no one can answer questions honestly here

>>4456383
If you can't shoot a landscape at 85mm f5.6 you have no skill.

File: 5543 09032024 3-011.jpg (3.84 MB, 3598x3598)

3.84 MB JPG

>>4456394
>not shooting rocks and leaves at 150mm f5.6

>>4456383
>Large format people often shot at f/64.
EQUIVALENCES YOU STUPID MONGREL

File: 5543 09032024 4-001.jpg (3.97 MB, 3030x3030)

3.97 MB JPG

>>4456398
i also took a photo of my dog at 150mm f5.6
and then sold that camera because i hate tripods

DOF is overrated tho

>>4456400
No, you have to get the tree branches a mile behind your subject in perfect focus so you can peep all 100 gorillion of your pixels, and shoot every landscape at f22 on small format so you can get perfect focus from the rock 2 feet in front of the camera to the leaf 5 miles away

>"DUDE 50mm PRIME LENS is so good"
>*tried 50mm prime lens out*
>tried to shoot places
>100mp handheld panoramas
>tried to shoot interior
>creative framing and multi-shot sets, visual storytelling
This is fucking sick, this has got to be a based meme
There is no way people actually prefer 24-70 blob lenses to this

>>4456372
Actually, given the same framing depth of field is close to identical at the same aperture regardless of focal length. It does get shallow the longer the focal length but you won't notice unless you're comparing extremes. For example if we compared a 25mm at 2 metres and a 50mm at 4 meters (so identical subject magnification) with both at f/2.8 then you've got a depth of field of 1.16m and 1.09m respectively, halve the distance for each and you're down to 27cm for both. What might give the illusion of a longer lens having a shallower depth of field is the perspective, the longer lens will have a more magnified background that will appear blurrier.

It's a $70 prime, just have it for the occasion.

84 posts
10 images
4 original photographs
>>4455792
>>4456158
>>4456398
>>4456400

>>4456418
yeah, one of the better ratios we've had in a while.

>>4455792
4chan photography (japanese photobook influence)
>>4456158
reddit photography (cinema influence)
>>4456400
>>4456398
1990s ken rockwell

File: 1737250182139261.jpg (55 KB, 647x515)

55 KB JPG

>Average photography forum on the internet: check out these cool photos i took, cool!
>/p/ on 4chan: schizos literally arguing about which arbitrary focal length number is the 'best'

>>4455763
It is a meme, it's even got a name. It's called the Nifty Fifty. Derpy fuckers from the olde days thought it seemed pretty close to the natural focal length of the eye. Later they thought it was more like 35mm, but 50 was close to natural while making faces look slightly flatter and more flattering. They said the same thing about 80/85, then said the same thing about 135, then said the same thing about 300, then pointed out that 18mm is pretty close to the natural angle of view of the eye and then a bunch of guys took another look at large format and that all went out the window too. Tech tards at cellphone companies decided it was 28mm. They apparently all have to compensate for having small noses. Turns out, the closest anyone has gotten to what the eye natually sees is a 55mm focal length but shot though an ultrawide gate at about a 165 deg angle, like a panorama. You can do this by shooting 35mm film at half frame, taping off the upper or lower half of the gate, and getting an aspect ratio pretty close to that. Your lens distortion will be centered at the top or bottom of the image though, but no one cares about how anyones pictures turn out anyway so shoot what you want will be the whole of the law.

>>4456546
Pseud

>>4456550
These fags don't even realize that focal length changes between sensor size and that they should be talking about FoV. The marketing really got to them good. Very very sad.

>>4456434
It hurts being called a reddit photographer but I do take my influences from cinema, conflicting…

>>4456609
35mm has been the standard for longer than you've been alive

>>4456617
>focal lengthlet cannot even comprehend my post

Many such cases!

>>4456401
Use camera movements and you don't need to do none of that garbage.

>>4456609
It's pretty obvious what formats people are referring to. If you need clarification, very very sad.

>>4456622
Cope. FoV is the intellectual's lens metric. A true /p/ tragedy you have failed to grasp this fact.

>>4456625
>A true /p/ tragedy you have failed to grasp this fact.
No, it's just already obvious. The real tragedy is you thinking it's important to point out the distinction for us.

>>4456627
I think the real tragedy is how autistic you are. FoV is a much more useful metric, but it doesn't really market as well.

>>4456669
>FoV is a much more useful metric
No one disagrees with that, are you sure you aren't autistic?

>>4456670
Yeah you are the autism. Clear as day. Sorry.

>>4456672
>are you sure you aren't autistic?
How come no one can answer questions honestly here

>>4456674
The question was answered implicitly. Very autistic of you to not understand that.

>>4456676
>dishonesty
typical /p/

Only on 4reddit can two people agree fundementally but shit fling each other over semantic bullshit

>>4456680
I know right? Make sure you place the appropriate blame with >>4456609 for starting it

>>4456680
Lol. The autism guy didn't get the joke, which is a sad tragedy.

>>4456359
Except this is fucking stupid. By your logic if you have a 24-70 you still don't have "full control" because there will be perspectives you can't get without also a 70-200 and 14-24 and 150-600 and etc. etc.
Realistically at some point you need to make a compromise between practicality and which focal lengths you have available.
The better of a photographer you are, the less that compromise is going to hamper your ability to still take good photos.
I find that a 28+50 or a 35+85 almost always covers my daily needs, and are a joy to shoot with.

>>4456558
>Turns out, the closest anyone has gotten to what the eye natually sees is a 55mm focal length but shot though an ultrawide gate at about a 165 deg angle, like a panorama.
So, essentially, anamorphic or close to it?

>>4456558
>Tech tards at cellphone companies decided it was 28mm. They apparently all have to compensate for having small noses.
the people who made that decision had noticeably large noses

they went with 28mm because retarded icattle would be less likely to complain that they can't get everything in the frame for their visual note taking, and they prioritized profit over all else even if that profit came from retards

>>4456372
Stop pretending that anons here claim one should only use a 50 and nothing else. You’re trying to cut water. The main argument is that primes force you to be more creative and that the 50 is a good starting point

>>4456881
they dont. primes are just better, smaller, and lighter. if you are creative they are even more useful. if you are not they are still suited for soulless pictures of things.

buying a lens does not make you more or less creative and never will

>>4456881
>stepping back, stepping forward, and doing panoramas requires creativity
lol

if anything if youre 0% creative and have no vision at all a prime of any length from 28mm to 50mm is perfect for you.

>>4456881
>primes force you to be more creative
You know you're allowed to just stick a zoom on 50mm and leave it there right. It doesn't take much will power to leave the zoom ring alone. Your main argument is solved by not being autistic.

>>4456888
It makes zero sense because almost all nonartistic photography is done with a 24mm-28mm prime, and primes used to be the standard for normies with film.

Owning a zoom is an experienced/dedicated photographer thing, because you have to be creative with perspective and seeing compositions instead of just "get everything in the frame"

>>4456911
>Owning a zoom is an experienced/dedicated photographer thing
>every camera sold in the last 15 years ships with a zoom lens
As read, this is plain retarded, but I gather you mean more like buying an expensive and nice zoom (and using it correctly) is a dedicated photog thing.
Sure, if you're going for photographic excellence, but let's be real even a large subset of people that know the technical aspect of it aren't able to pull off legitimately impressive photographs.

For most people, zoom vs prime is just a question of wide-aperture, better IQ, and small size versus the convenience of framing a subject.

>>4456922
I have bad news for you. The cheapest canon rebel is still a camera meant for serious photographers. Non-photographers stick to their phone which is a fixed lens PNS.

The kit zoom is there because its budget conscious vs a bag of primes. Its still meant for a serious photographer.
>but its slow!
f3.5-5.6 is still hella fast compared to consumer zooms meant for non-photographers, and the aperture range primes are normally shot in anyways.
>but its short!
most art photography is done with primes in a short range, 24mm-85mm
>but muh iq!
modern kit zooms including the later aps-c dslr ones are more than sharp enough for printed work. they only look a little bad at 1:1 on a 72dpi computer screen

the shittiest canonikon ilc is a professional camera. photographers often forget this.

File: A2223-MN.jpg (147 KB, 1946x1300)

147 KB JPG

for me it's the 80mm 6x6

>>4456378
I'm curious, how do you cull pictures when you have like, 4 to 10 that are very similar? How do you determine the "best" one?

>>4456926
nta but normies expect cameras to be able to zoom and don't even know there's a difference between a phone's "zoom" feature and an actual zoom lens. When I was a kid digital pns cameras had zooms too.

>>4456399
Doesn't actually matter for diffraction, unless you are printing your large format photos small which defeats the point.

>>4456559
This. Sounds like something I would say in my edgy teenage phase.

File: cull20.jpg (4.53 MB, 4000x3200)

4.53 MB JPG

>>4456948
Picrel are uncorrected square crops from one example from one scene, with one camera.
There are some things you cant see thanks to the size + dots, but I'm looking at:
>eyes sharp, facial expressions and eye direction
>how the wind is blowing the dress, hair, etc
>subtle differences in perspective or framing
>distracting elements in the background
I haven't gone through the other cameras at this bridge, but based on the above, the 3 double green images are the ones I'd likely deliver. Unfortunately, it's hard to show why those 3 in this format. There's always a best 1 to pick, and I try to only limit 2 for when the moment / expressions / etc are different enough. If this weren't specifically a first look, I would only deliver 1-2 of these. Keep in mind I had 2 other cameras shooting at this same time too, but I haven't gone through those yet.
When you're talking 4-10 actually different types of shots / angles / perspectives, then that really just comes down from practice. Knowing how to cull and curate the images you deliver is a skill of its own.

File: C1P_UI_cull-face-focus-grouped.jpg (1.12 MB, 3840x2160)

1.12 MB JPG

>>4456958
For the actual culling process, I just do most of it in C1's culling view, picrel. Groups similar images on the bottom that you navigate left-right. Shows each different group on the right that you navigate up-down. On top you can get crops of faces (incredible for large group shots).
Then I just cull one camera at a time, and 1 star everything potentially deliverable.
Then I separate out into different large groupings (getting ready, details, ceremony, reception, bridal portraits, formals, etc).
Then I cull each section again, with a better idea of what I have for each section.
My editing process is like 3 stages, but the first stage also ends up culling a bit more.

>>4456954
photographers also expect cameras to zoom. primes are for hobbyists traveling with minimal inconvenience. everyone else uses the fastest zoom they can afford unless they are a gearfag or being paid for maximum bokeh (no one actually likes bokeh)

and yes, being an "artist" street photographer with 2 primes and a leica in his purse still makes you a hobbyist

>>4456546
Aw sweet, a schizo post!

>>4456963
Why do so many professionals use primes?

>>4456965
why do so many professionals use shit cameras like leica and fuji? why do professional guitarists still overpay for shitty gibsons when PRS makes an objectively better guitar for half the price?

because so many professionals are fucking gear faggots thats why, and many of them are doing product placement/sponsorship shit for the manufacturer.

in photography specifically every third pro is a talentless hack who’s only in it to pay for their gear addiction

>>4456965
>be gearfag pixel peeper obsessed with equipment
>only work at costco, cant afford the new fuji and the new xf wm lr prime with the newest and best mtf chart
>get an idea
>shoot your cousins wedding
>now you can afford the new fuji
This is 90% of professional photography

>>4456966
So pros use zooms and talentless hacks use primes?
Who are some examples of pro photographers you like?
>>4456968
There's also lots at the higher end that use primes

File: L1000419.jpg (721 KB, 1333x2000)

721 KB JPG

>>4456963
>primes are for hobbyists traveling with minimal inconvenience
You realize that a zoom is more convenient than swapping primes all the time, right?
Zooms sacrifice the creative control that a set of primes affords the photographer in favor of convenience and framing control when movement is limited. This can be significant for certain industries of photography like sports or journalism. The photographer who shows up with a single prime is (hopefully) well-practiced in shooting that focal length and knows he needs nothing else to achieve his goals, and at that point convenience is only a secondary consideration if anything.

>>4456969
Have you ever said, "ohhhh, this picture would have been amazing, but the dang guy used a ZOOM lens!"?

>>4456973
There are pictures that would be better had a different lens be used, yes
I think there are good pictures taken with both primes and zooms
I think it's silly to think one is better than the other

>>4456978
>Wow this would be a great photo but *gets out loupe* i think I can detect some residual corner softness here. shouldnt have used a zoom.
>sir, the subject is closer to the middle. you are zooming in on bokeh.
>Oh, I am. Are these onion rings I see? Next time use the 135mm f1.2, amateur.

>>4456981
>all lenses always look the same

>>4456983
Generally yes with very, very few exceptions

No one has ever looked at a photo and said "summilux", "EF 40mm f2.8", or "this is clearly a nikon S, not a sony GM".

You are a gear faggot who has to shoot the most boring and irrelevant tests side by side to notice small differences while every photo making it into galleries is shot at an aperture where every lens absolutely looks the same unless it's a helios 44/trioplan/fisheye/etc.

>>4456980
>A larger zoom is much more inconvenient than a single normal sized prime
Don't underestimate the inconvenience of swapping primes in the field. It's a pain in the ass. I agree that large zooms get unwieldy - the true comparison here is multiple primes versus a compact zoom (and these tend to be very slow).
Yes, bokeh falls under creative control. You objectively have more creative control with a 50mm f/1.2 lens than a 50mm f/2 lens. It's not only how far out of focus you can throw the background but also rendering, vignetting, softness for portraits, low light shooting etc. You give up control over these things in favor of framing convenience (i.e not having to purchase, carry, and repeatedly swap additional lenses) with a typical 24-105/4 or 24-70/2.8.

>>4456986
Explains why pros just all use cheap kit lenses

>>4456992
and why movies all use the same set of cine glass, it's all the same

>>4456988
>There is however a difference between construction methods (set neck vs bolt on) and most importantly scale length and pickup placement.
That's why ESPs sound just like gibsons, but aren't as poorly made or overpriced as them

>>4456991
>Swapping
That's why I said single. People who are not being paid for specific photos can and should stick to one prime.
>bokeh falls under creative
Bokeh is the opposite of creative. "Just blur everything out/im not adding light".
>rendering
Myth. Negative dehaze, blur filters, etc. People even did this on film by doing a double exposure slightly out of focus to btfo every "character prime".
>vignetting
Add in post
>softness
Add in post
>low light
Creative people add light
>framing
Focal lengths are for perspective and first and framing second, and zooms are intended to be used like primes. Do they have to make them stepped for it to be obvious to you?

And yes, the vast majority of professionals only use zooms except for the terminal pixel peepers whose clients never notice or care

>>4456994
They basically do all rent the same sets of cine glass, and as far as people can tell they might just be shot on the same zoom, it doesn't really matter and camera men are often schizophrenic over small differences that basically aren't there or actually aren't there at all.
>inb4 zack snidder

>>4456986
>Generally yes with very, very few exceptions
>No one has ever looked at a photo and said "summilux", "EF 40mm f2.8", or "this is clearly a nikon S, not a sony GM".
Besides the reddit spacing, just because you aren't versed or observant enough to identify the differences in rendering between lenses doesn't mean they don't exist.
Setting aside subjective matters - even something as common as a difference in the average diameter of elements between two lenses of the same focal length / f stop (e.g compare a Sigma Art 50/1.4 vs a Voigtlander-M 50/1.5) alone influences optical vignetting which comes through very obviously in the resulting images.

File: Annie-Leibovitz-Sony-Lincoln-3.jpg (132 KB, 1600x900)

132 KB JPG

>>4456998
>"rendering!"
"Rendering" does not exist outside of how swirly the bokeh is, and high end photographers have been religiously avoiding bokeh for the past 80 years.
>uh the vignetting
You mean the thing that can decided in post?

This is gear review blog shit. Rendering, 3d pop, etc are hobbyist gearfag schizo terms like tonewood and soul.

Pros give zero fucks about gear and the only reason matched prime sets are a thing for cinema is because 1: color grading needs every lens to have the same color rendition 2: VFX needs a sharp image to work on top of and character can be added to an arri master in post 3: if there is no VFX it saves a few ten thousand to have the character baked in with a matched cooke set

>>4456997
>the vast majority of professionals
Asking again, who are some examples of pro photographers you like?
>Focal lengths are for perspective and first and framing second
You have this backwards. Your position is perspective, and focal length simply gives you your framing at that position.

Since we can just do stuff in post, does that also apply to using a prime and just cropping in post in lieu of using a zoom?

>>4456997
>Bokeh is the opposite of creative. "Just blur everything out/im not adding light".
You are genuinely retarded. ANY form of control of how the resulting image looks is creative control.
>Myth. Negative dehaze, blur filters, etc. People even did this on film by doing a double exposure slightly out of focus to btfo every "character prime".
Prove that a Helios-44 renders the same as a Sony GM 50. You can't, because
>Add vignetting in post
Vignetting is not just falloff.
>Add softness in post
Post-processed softness does not mimic real spherical aberration.
>Creative people add light
Yeah sure, let me just take my phone flashlight out and point it at the mountain in front of me during dusk. That'll work.
>Focal lengths are for perspective and first and framing second
Yes, and zooms let you choose your perspective and framing from a stationary position. This is supposed to refute me how?
>"Rendering" does not exist outside of how swirly the bokeh is, and high end photographers have been religiously avoiding bokeh for the past 80 years.
>You mean the thing that can decided in post?
I'll say it again, you're genuinely retarded.

>>4457000
The shape of the bokeh, and how "busy" or "smooth" it can look
>high end photographers
Who are some examples you like?

>>4457002
>When I said vignetting I meant swirly bokeh
Ok, so, still, you're a gearfag

You're basically struggling to agree with me lmao. Lenses don't matter with very few exceptions like trioplans and swirly meme bokeh lenses. No one gives a single SHIT about the differences between a tamron, sigma, summicronolux, voigtlander, xf lm wr, s, gm, l, or leicasonic, or whatever because they don't exist.

>>4457005
Let me guess, you rent a Sony pro body?

>>4457005
>the vast majority of professionals
Asking again, who are some examples of pro photographers you like?
>high end photographers
Who are some examples you like?

File: timwalker-1544-h450-q90-r(...).jpg (43 KB, 697x450)

43 KB JPG

>>4457004
Some autist who mostly uses a pentax 67

But lens "rendering" matters a ton so shouldn't he be using a hasselblad with the wider variety of "rendering" instead of such an impoverished mount? And on film too. For shame.

lenses don't matter. every lens is good. there's less than a half dozen exceptions to this.

>>4457006
No. Why would I rent a sony? It would probably break halfway through the day

Snoy is for associated press fags who have 20 backup snoys in the van because snoy is a sig sauer tier lowest bidder company

>>4457008
>pentax 67
>the mount with the most instantly recognizable lens in modern history purely because of its unique rendering
>lenses don't matter bro trust me
Lmao.

>>4457004
bokeh is a low end wedding photorapher meme

using bokeh is a negative status signal. it's a feature on iphones, ffs.
>i am a bad photographer who can not control the background so i blurred it out
>traveling to a better location was out of the question
bokeh is indicative of a snapshit.

>>4457010
>Most instantly recognizable lens
No one knows or cares what it is because as soon as a lens is stopped down every lens looks the same, and no one really cares about bokeh

>>4457012
Stopping down is a crutch for non-skilled "photographers", mostly boomers, who are either too inept or too myopic to manual focus accurately, and/or lack creative vision and subject selection (if you don't have a subject to isolate, shooting wide open becomes a problem). This is the same reason Sony is currently dominating, as they correctly identified continuous tracking autofocus as the technology to invest into to harvest money from the aforementioned types.

>>4457011
if you ask me, lens autism is a low end wedding photographer meme
>this __mm f__ adds the last bit of magic my photos needed -badphotog primefags
>i just dont like how big and heavy zooms are/there are no quality zooms for my film camera - goodphotog primefags
these autists would ask which 80mm is the best for hasselblad
a real photographer would say "all of them"

>>4456992
A skilled commercial photographer I knew did everything on a Z 24-70 f4S. Incredible results too. Lens matters less than gearfags think.

>>4457013
>What really matters in photography is accurately placing extremely thin DOF quickly and manually
>That's the real skill and the most relevant skill
Ok, go to the museum of modern art, and come back and tell me about 12 (twelve) photos that were clearly shot at <f2.8. Also tell me which lenses they used based on "the rendering". Don't forget to rate them based on 3d pop, depth transmission, and microtonal harvesting. Have fun!

>>4455763
dunno about nowadays but back in my days you could buy a nikon f/1.8 for $100 new, or a f/1.4 for $200
and those were as sharp and clean as you'll ever going to get unless you spent like $5k+

a comparable 35mm or 85mm prime cost you at least 400-500

>>4457016
Lmao, did I hit a nerve? Hey man, nobody is ragging on you for shooting continous burst with your PDAFile body with kit zoom. If that works for you, enjoy it.

File: timwalker.jpg (1.33 MB, 4140x1100)

1.33 MB JPG

>>4457008
Looks like I need to just get a fisheye
>>4457012
67 + 105 f2.4 wide open is absolutely a known and popular "look"
>and no one really cares about bokeh
Dishonesty
>>4457014
>a real photographer would say "all of them"
What would a real photographer say about a 50mm vs 24-70mm?
>>4457015
Absolutely true! You can do a lot with just that depending on what you shoot.

>>4457017
>>4455763
also if you shoot with both eyes open (like an action/sport/journalist should, and not some artsy faggot), 50mm will give you exactly the same picture you are seeing with your own eyes
it's a limitation of the frame size (film width), not the lens

>>4457016
>go to the museum of modern art,
Is that where your photos are?

>>4457019
>What would a real photographer say about a 50mm vs 24-70mm?
if I can have only one, probably 50mm because you never know
50mm vs 24-135 on the other hand... I'd take the zoom

File: tim-walker-vogue-0512-VO-(...).jpg (400 KB, 1600x1100)

400 KB JPG

>>4457008
>n-nooo you can't blur your background go to the moma trust me no artists blur their backgrounds bro please also my favorite photographer is tim walker
>the artists in question

>>4457015
I'm close friends with three commercial photographers. None of them shoot weddings.

'Tog one has owned a studio for the past 10 years and comfortably lives off the income and works less than 3 days a week. He uses a lumix m43 and the 12-100 f4 that costs less than his 5 strobes, before the modifiers and stands. Notably has two of literally every piece of equipment but doesn't own any other lenses.
'Tog two does a lot of on location portrait shoots, with both artificial and natural light. He used the same 24-105 f4 L for ages across whatever canon body was current and easy to replace/fix, but recently upgraded to a nikon z7ii and 24-120 f4 for the extra zoom and "macro".
'Tog three switched from a 5div to an R8, yes, R8, and swapped one 24-105 f4 for another. He works almost entirely in the studio but covers events (no weddings).

The only time i've seen professionals use primes are 1: weddings 2: brand ambassadors shilling 3: cinema, because there's a poverty of good cine zooms. <f2.8 bokeh is very much a wedding/amateur portraits thing.

>>4457024
That's like f4+ bokeh, it's not exclusive to primes. The pentax 67 is just so old it doesn't have good modern zooms like we get on 35mm.

>>4457028
>my extensive study (sample size: 3) of professional photographers concludes that fast lenses are useless and NOBODY that makes a living with their camera opens their aperture beyond f/2.8

>>4457034
>Nobody
Just wedding snapshitters and other ultra low end gig workers

The fast prime market is basically all wedding photographers and gearfags - and many if not most wedding photographers ARE gearfags who pursued it as a zero-commitments way to make enough money to pay off their high end sports photography cameras and leica collection.

>>4457028
If you saw 3 other commercial photographers that did use a faster aperture prime would it change your mind?
If you saw the same in other genres, would it change your mind?
I see more primes used among the pros I know than zooms, but anecdotes are meh

>>4457037
the fuck you are talking about m8
all the wedding fags use 70-200mm

>>4457037
>dishonesty
such is /p/

>>4457039
They use whatever conveniently fits my argument, just like how I only care about genres that conveniently fit my narrative

>>4457038
>If you saw 3 other commercial photographers that did use a faster aperture prime would it change your mind?
I've seen some use nifty fifties and lenses like then nikon 40mm f2 and lumix 20mm f1.7 on rare occasions, but mostly for hobby snapshots when hanging out

Which is also my use case for primes

They seem to be popular for fast available light action snapping but even if you're working for the NFL that's kind of low end like
>I'm a corporate chef for mcdonalds

>>4457043
this but 100% unapologetically unironic.

>>4457039
>all the wedding fags use 70-200mm [f2.8]
The smart ones. There's a growing amount of internet-gearfag weddingfags that use 2 primes/2 bodies.

Otherwise to use a prime means you're using a film camera

>>4457044
How many photographers of a given genre that use fast primes would change your mind?

>>4457047
>70-200mm [f2.8]
my shoulder aches even reading those words

>>4457059
its usually an aps-c equivalent so no biggie

File: Form1haywwschad.png (443 KB, 1314x684)

443 KB PNG

>>4457048
Unless they were using film cameras (the only time primes are more than a travel light for just-a-hobby meme), I would just call them pixel peeper gearfags and bokeh whores.

>>4457060
that's cheating
>t. Canon 1D

>>4457061
At least your honest about being retarded

>>4456882
There's some gimmicky photos you need a zoom for

>>4457069
You mean based.

literally cant remember a good photographer using primes without being a brand ambassador for the company that made them, other than one off special effect lenses (not "dis fuji has the magic microcontrast" bs)

>>4456882
I agree but if you ask me if I want to carry around 3 bodies with top quality 24, 85, and 300 or a body with a shitty 24-300 zoom I'd choose the latter

and I'm saying "shitty zoom" because even the most expensive zoom with that range is shitty compared to a $30 prime

>>4457087
Who are some good photographers to you?

>>4457090
a lot

name five who only use primes on digital without being brand shills for the company that made the primes

>>4457087
>literally cant remember a good photographer using primes without being a brand ambassador for the company that made them, other than one off special effect lenses
HCB?

>>4457094
hcb had no choice. good zooms did not really exist until the mid 2000s. zooms being as good as primes unless you pixel peep hard is a pretty new thing.

>>4457096
I agree with you although I did answer the question lol
btw are war photographers (not embedded journalists but straight up photogs working for the military) still a thing?

>>4457092
No point in answering since you've already proven bad faith
>>4457097
Any answer you give will just be waved away, wrong era, wrong genre, not actually pro, pro but bad, at one point ever got something for a discount from a brand, etc...

>>4457097
yes
https://www.army.mil/article-amp/219574/army_photographer_from_oregon_describes_life_as_a_combat_photographer_stationed_in_south_korea
https://va.ng.mil/News/Article/3362826/vng-public-affairs-nco-named-army-military-photographer-of-the-year/

>>4457098
>you
im not the other guy i just agree primes = gearfags in the modern day. anyone who has modern zooms as an option for their system uses them professionally. primes are for tasteless bokeh trannies and pixel peeping autists like you.

>>4457099
thanks anon that's insane
although I'm a bit disappointed about that dude using Canon L lens

>>4457101
>sharp as primes have been for 100s of years
>durable as fuark
>fast focusing
>changes focal lengths without exposing the camera or missing shots
why wouldnt he

canon L zooms carry the brand. they are ideal professional tools.

>>4457101
We used to have a miltogropher of our very own on /p/ like a decade ago
Still remember his helicopter shots
He did use primes too lol

>>4457104
tbf if someone is here there’s a 99% chance they’re a pixel peeping gearfag

>>4457103
yeah but you need a Canon body for it...
I used both Nikon and Canon and consider it insane to use Canon when you need a camera that you can just pick up woken up from sleep and shoot a perfect picture... it's like they go out of their way to make you gay
Studio? Fashion? yeah, sure. Action? lol

>>4457106
I'll take that as a compliment as I've been fagging /x/ /lit/ and /pol/ for over a decade but this is the first day I am here at /p/ even though I've been a photographer since the early 00's

>>4457107
this is just nonsense

>>4457108
That was true of older ones, pick up a 5D3 in A mode with auto ISO and shoot away if in a hurry

>>4457106
Yeah, all that pixel peeping for the X-T1 and og 56 f1.2 he used
Board also used to just less retarded, much more actual shooters

>>4457111
I love A mode so I might as well do that lol

>>4457112
>>4457106
>make a tack-sharp photo ISO3200 with 1/4 time hand-held without IS
>dude noise lmao
sad

>>4455763
sauce on the girl?

>>4457116
she looks like pre-wall Carey Mulligan if she was born in Arizona

>>4457112
>muh retro larp
>muh fast prime
These are also a variant of gearfagging

Glock
AR-15
Casio gshock
Canon+kit lens
Bic

Simple as.

>>4457125
>Canon+kit lens
with that money you could buy a nikon body and a 50mm

File: chad_npc_by_couillosaure_(...).png (305 KB, 1280x1280)

305 KB PNG

>>4457125
>Glock
>AR-15
>Casio gshock
>Canon+kit lens
>Bic
>Simple as.
based and not deriving your individuality from consumer products pilled

you will never be a cool and noticeable individual on anonymous imageboards like this and that's ok

File: 0rap20io2eyc1.png (609 KB, 740x740)

609 KB PNG

>>4457125
>Canon+kit lens

>>4457137
that 18-70 or whatever plastic lens they sold with the Canon Demon or whatevr it was called did more damage to photography than the iphone

>>4457146
>that 18-70 or whatever plastic lens they sold with the Canon Demon
lol I remember that
>anon buy our SLR it's a SLR AWOO
>worse than a sony f717 or an olympus 8080? BUT IT'S A SLR

>>4457146
wtf is a Canon Demon?

>>4457173
Canon EOS Digital Rebel

File: hq720.jpg (38 KB, 686x386)

38 KB JPG

Picked up my pre-order last night, will play around with it today
Really liking it so far, just wish it had come before last weekends wedding

>>4457327
>who needs primes
Fool framers, that's whom's'd've.
There's no f/1.8 zooms for >us without compromising on implicit photographic integrity and getting a m*rrorless to shoot some overcorrected sigma fart.

File: DYING OUT.jpg (117 KB, 798x567)

117 KB JPG

>>4457327
>who needs primes?
>26-60 f2.7 equivalent
people who have the skill to work with primes need primes so we can avoid carrying hideously large, embarrassing cope bazookas like that. holy shit lmfao. do snoy people really look at this and think it's excusable?

a full frame camera with a smaller, cheaper 24-70 f4 zoom will still take higher quality photos 99% of the time because 1: equivalent settings are not a mandatory activity 2: equivalence doesn't even work 100%, and a nikon z5ii or something will still look slightly better at iso 6400 than a snoy aps-cope does at iso 3200

nikons cheapest kit lenses are better than half of snoy and ligmas lens lineup and nikons cheapest cameras have better image quality than the $2000 snoy a7iv lmao. how the fuck does snoy still live? they're starting to look almost as bad as L mount, and L mount literally cripples its body selection by being afraid to outperform leica's garbage cameras (leica might just revoke the licensing if sigma or panasonic release a camera that is actually better than a Q or SL - no way is their autofocus that bad on purpose, no way did they think omitting the shutter on a 1/24s scan sensor was actually good idea)

File: lol.png (664 KB, 725x743)

664 KB PNG

>>4457357
>nikon z5ii or something will still look slightly better at iso 6400 than a snoy aps-cope does at iso 3200
As luck would have it, yes

Sony is just uniquely shit at this.

>>4457359
That baked in NR on the r6II is fuckin gay. The loomix raw looks sharper despite the higher noise.

>>4457361
thats not nr thats f5.6 all around

M43 lenses especially the high end wastes of cash are sterile. even sharpness across the frame even when wide open. thats the edge there. the DOF falloff is also pretty bad. it looks hazy and sharp in the transition zone because of excessive pixel density + overcorrected lenses.

>>4457357
>z5ii released
>sony fucking dies

>>4456958
>>4456959
Thank, very interesting

>>4457019
Strong vignetting on the third, you should correct that in post before posting it ;)

>>4455763
so nobody's gonna say who she is

>>4457682
her usernames used to be loser something idk. she grew up and made porn now though.

>>4457691
JESUS SAUCE MY MAN

>>4457682
Tiktok girl named losertron. There's more stuff on tiktok simp boards.

>>4457715
Seems she deleted all her stuff. archived.moe has some links to some dead megas, sadly.

Tried endchan, but is there other boards where one could find more?

>>4457682
She appears to be a teenage girl bro, back the fuck up

>>4457719
she's a cosplayer that had an OF.

File: Screenshot 2021-03-30 192825.png (753 KB, 717x902)

753 KB PNG

after hours of sleuthing over this "losertron", I found this:

https://disk.yandex.com/d/oWP1rzYKFl-bKQ

All SFW. Enjoy the fruits of my labor.

>>4457726
nice thanks anon, pretty wild that she looks so much worse in cosplay than in op's video

>>4457726
i'm not downloading some mystery zipbomb file are you insane.

>>4457720
She hasn't reached the weight of consent in America (180 lbs).

File: Untitled.png (824 KB, 1375x874)

824 KB PNG

>>4457732
You're rightfully worried about executable masquerading as zip files. However you can safely right click > extract. If it's an executable you probably wouldn't even see the option, but even if the extension was spoofed doing this wouldn't execute the file.

But anyway, here's what's in the zip

>>4457744
Why would someone even download this if they can't have a tug to it? And if someone is having a tug to it then they probably have issues.

>>4455816
My 50mm prime looks more like the one on the left

File: image.jpg (2.47 MB, 4032x3024)

2.47 MB JPG

>>4457955
Modern lens design is cancer.
Here are my 3.5/40mm (built into Rollei 35B), 1.8/43mm, 1.4/50mm, and 1.8/55mm. Pocket operator for scale.

>>4457967
nb4 pube

>>4457967
Based.

>>4457967
God for real. I just want some slow compact primes. Is it too much to ask for a 35mm f2.8 prime on Nikon Z. Hopefully Zeiss makes something eventually cause nikon won't.

We need to RETVRN to the Tessar design.
Who needs fucking more anyway

>>4457716
pleh.nahcydruts (reverse the text and that's the name of the site)
very sus board but people on that site are nice.

>>4457967
>Pocket operator
It'd be nice to have an airplane, k3k

>>4457037
>The fast prime market is basically all wedding photographers and gearfags - and many if not most wedding photographers ARE gearfags who pursued it as a zero-commitments way to make enough money to pay off their high end sports photography cameras and leica collection.
Fwiw I know someone who was a wedding photographer back around 2010 and a couple of years ago he gave me his whole kit, and it was just a nikon d40, 18-55 kit zoom, 55-200 zoom, and a speedlight. He really didn't even have a 35mm 1.8! Said he'd have the pictures edited on his laptop before the reception was even over and hand customer at the end and they'd give him like $200 cash. He made a killing.

>>4458578
>they'd give him like $200 cash
Sounds right

>>4458578
Even if he did one wedding per day, five days a week, that's 50k a year. That's hardly a killing.

>>4458578
lmao /p is so poor they think 200$ is a lot of money

OP didnt put it on a crop right

>>4458578
Even considering 2010 pricing,
$200 cash for a wedding is a reasonable "tip" for someone that charges $2-4k per wedding
$200 cash to actually shoot a wedding is poverty tier pricing, and could easily put someone in the red
Most people making a killing at wedding photos during that time also used much better gear than a D40 + kit lenses, just like you don't see most wedding shooters nowadays using entry level bodies + kit lenses.

File: Pentax_29029_SMCP_67_105m(...).jpg (61 KB, 500x500)

61 KB JPG

>>4457955
That's what you get for buying a 14 element prime, kek. Double gauss chads win again.
>when the full frame 50/1.4 is larger and heavier than the 6x7 50/1.1 equivalent
You've been played for a fool.

>>4458913
>obvious bait is obvious
Most weddings are on weekends and it's not outside the realm of possibility that some cunts do it for fun (and free drinks) but it's obviously fucking bait.

File: _DSC0023.jpg (2.82 MB, 4038x2692)

2.82 MB JPG

it's ok

>>4457967
>modern lens design
it's called autofocus and stabilization, retard

>>4456959
>>4456958
Finished the first pass of culling last night, down to around 2k potentially deliverable, so after 2nd culling will probably get down to around 500-600 for delivery

>>4462227
>18 days later
Thank you for teaching us to never use CH+

>>4458994
The 6x7 prime can be soft as balls and still produce a sharp image for most common enlargements (grain peeping the scan to say "film is __mp" will fail as hard as it would with the same lens on digital)
Digital lenses get more corrected for two reasons
1: Psychological. Digital users crop much more than ROLL film users ever did. 35mm digital is essentially today's 4x5 in terms of how deeply it can be cropped and still produce a good print.
2: Technical. Digital sensors are thick and all the shit in front of them introduces additional fringing and shit, so lenses have to correct not just for their own glass, but for the sensor's.

>>4462227
whats the etiquette of bringing a dslr to a coworkers wedding if you're not the hired photographer

>>4462264
That's what compact cameras are for.

>>4462264
Do whatever you want
>be me
>go to wedding with z7
>pro photographer gets mad at me for having "a professional camera" that "you dont FUCKING need"
>tell him it's not a professional camera, canons are professional cameras, nikon and sony are for hobbyists
>he has an a9ii
Lmfao

It was just personal confirmation, for me, that anyone that is against you having IQ standards or wanting a better made camera is a GWAC "pro" who is afraid that people will realize literally anyone could take the same photos or better if they had the same camera. Remember that any time someone whines about pixel peeping, etc, "you can still take great photos with ___". Step back and realize they're acting threatened, fearful, and defensive.

It's not about concern for you or advocating for some kind of ascetism. They don't care if you waste $50000 on a toy in any other sphere. It's just that they fear and loathe the idea of more people buying the same cameras that they use and exposing how much of a scam most professional photography is.

>>4462267

i just bought my k1ii a week ago and i was gonna bring it with a 50mm 2.8 prime + 28-90mm lens, figured it was a good opportunity to test it out. ironically it was owned by a wedding photographer before me.

i just like shooting, gf doesnt care because she figure if i take nice pics she can share with the groom (her coworker) but i dont wanna offend the photog

>>4462265
yeah i'll try it on and see how it fits with my suit on its this or my zv1

could bring some ccd shit (km 5d/k200d + 35mm prime or 28-90/35-105mm) but its gonna take the same real estate anyways as the k1ii

>>4462273
Careful. If he has a sony, he might be afraid you'll take better photos than him.

>>4462273
>50mm 2.8
wtf

>>4462267
> pro photographer chad with a Sony tells 4chud he doesn't need a pro camera to take snapshits
> 4chud in his /p/ee brain assumes pro his threatened by his snapshits instead.
Many such cases.

Let me guess what happened next, the bride and groom let go of the pro after you pointed out your camera's superior color science to them, and offered to pay you instead. Lol. Lmao even!

>>4462288
Found the professional Sony shill, dont you have a console wars thread to start on /v/

>>4462288
some uber driver comes up to you and says you don't need a v8 to go around town
in your understanding, what was he intending to convey?

File: P6140680.jpg (2.52 MB, 2663x4000)

2.52 MB JPG

>>4462267
>anyone could take the same photos or better if they had the same camera
Yes, but an additional point of having a pro shoot a wedding is that he's legally bound to be sober, tag along. and deliver this many photos.

>>4462278
it's a macro lens I don't have any other ff primes only apsc

It's pretty sharp at least

File: Zw468as.png (487 KB, 479x720)

487 KB PNG

>>4462289
> The pro wedding photographer was a shill, us real pros use nikons
The pro should have had the groom throw your RSVP ass out for interrupting a professional at work.

>>4462290
With this imaginary V8, why are you hailing an uber?

File: 21530.tag.1_jpg.png (180 KB, 720x720)

180 KB PNG

>>4462292
Highly spurdonic

>>4462260
>18 days later
How long do you think it took me to cull? Do you think it was 18 days? Culled it just as quickly as the weddings I shoot 3-4k. Way to be dishonest.

>>4462264
Get an okay from the bride and groom and stay out of the way of the photog/video if there is one.
Consider that even if you aren't in the shot, it can be hard enough to get a group looking at one spot together, and having an extra camera out there might impact the "real" important shots, so avoid shooting when they're doing formals and stuff.
You also run the risk (if you look legit) of having guests come up to you for specific shots.
Most weddings I've been to, including this one, had someone bring a camera. Also consider that if you get your pictures taken as a guest, having a camera can kind of look out of place compared to regular non-camera guest photos. Definitely keep it out of site during ceremony.
Just use it for snapshots during the reception with your friends / partner / tablemates, and maybe some candid's throughout the day. Feel free to pay attention to the photog, just try not to encroach on their territory too much.

>>4462293
>how DARE you take photos as well! This is my LIVELYHOOD so I can AVOID getting a REAL job. You're SELFISH and you don't SNEED more than a PHONE unless you're like me and get PAID to take PHOTOS.
You are a pathetic little man, anon

>>4462291
>he's legally bound to be sober
lol

>>4462297
Dear lawdy, you really were hoping they would be so impressed with your photos that they'd let the pro go and offer to pay you instead, didn't you? Did you also have delusions of sleeping with the bride?

Let me set this straight for you:
- the pro is getting paid to do what you're doing for free.
- everyone's focused on having a good time at the wedding while you're trotting a giant camera around like a loser and getting in everyone's way
- no one is impressed that you paid $5000 for a camera that you don't get paid to use. Neither can they tell them apart from the snapshits they took on their phone.

>>4462301
I clean my room for free, but I don't want to be a janitor.

>>4462301
Nope, I wasnt that anon. Also:
>the pro is getting paid to do what you're doing for free.
Hobbies don't exist to extract maximum capital from
>everyone's focused on having a good time at the wedding while you're trotting a giant camera around like a loser and getting in everyone's way
Never going to get in anyone's way over a photo; I do it for fun and it's entirely possible to experience the moment AND take some nice photos, since that's kind of the fucking point right?
>no one is impressed that you paid $5000 for a camera that you don't get paid to use. Neither can they tell them apart from the snapshits they took on their phone.
I don't give the slightest fuck what anyone else thinks. I do this for ME, Chud.

Your communist cookie-cutter whataboutism isn't fooling anyone, Chuddy.

>>4462290
you didn't, some friends of yours did to go to a special occasion dinner, to which you were also invited
you simply showed up to attend and your v8 caught his eye and comments

>>4462307
>>4462294

>>4462305
> its just a hobby! I'm not trying to impress anyone with my giant camera that is compensating for other deficiencies!
> its for fun, I'm not sitting in a corner at a party and everyone's definitely not ignoring me, I swear!
> its for me! Self explanatory chudgic.

Ffs, you're a +1 at a wedding. Next time, just try to blend in, have a good time, and stop embarrassing your gf.

>>4462310
Anon you're projecting your low self worth and insecurities on others again.
Just cause you're an awks megahomo doesn't make someone else enjoying a social event with a camera nearby a corner hugging weirdo.

>>4462310
Wrong person tard

>>4462296
Too much work desu. If I was family related I'd bring my DSLR. I'll just pack my ZV1 and a strobe for selfies and wedding shots of le gf since they fit in my jacket pocket. Plus it feels heavy.

>>4462267
>It's not about concern for you or advocating for some kind of ascetism. They don't care if you waste $50000 on a toy in any other sphere. It's just that they fear and loathe the idea of more people buying the same cameras that they use and exposing how much of a scam most professional photography is.
100% correct.

If EVERYONE bought a "pro" camera, professional photography would collapse overnight.

>>4462288
A professional chef notices you prepare your own food and even own nice knives, pots, and pans. He says you can't tell if it's better or not, you don't have the skill to make the best of any of the stuff you "wasted your money on", you're wasting your time, and it's more resource efficient to work 1 hour of overtime and spend on a meal that costs slightly less than you earned, and you dont NEED a well cooked meal for every snack.

Does he really have your best interests at heart?

>>4462301
Seething GWAC "pro"

>>4462290
That he's a communist? Uber driver is basically the commie "job" of choice (because they can't answer to authority) and a core tenet of communism is that NO ONE should EVER have anything they do not need to "contribute". It's the highest sin in communism to own something and keep it to yourself simply because you like the better thing. At the most you can borrow it occasionally.

>>4462331
>If EVERYONE bought a "pro" camera, professional photography would collapse overnight.
for a brief period this happened and the idea of a wedding photographer getting more than $200 was abhorrent

and then phones killed it

>>4462331
Funny enough, there was a period in Soviet Union (although a lot of this shit originated with Le Courbusier and other deranged Europeans), where the government wanted people to have small kitchens and eat at canteens.

> Turns out, communists do not actually have your best interest at heart.
Who could have thought.

>>4462341
"Leave it to the professionals" is an unamerican statement

File: MDR_6063 edit 3-2.jpg (1.26 MB, 1280x1920)

1.26 MB JPG

I must be boring because I keep going back to them and I even find them to be [spoiler]fun[/spoiler].

File: ZF0_2855.jpg (2.3 MB, 3509x3413)

2.3 MB JPG

50mm is fun

When I get married im going to hire some gwac with a snoy and then tell my guests to bring "any interchangeable lens camera except for those made by sony" with howtos for ordering from lensrentals

>>4462376
>except for those made by sony
So just Canons and Foveons?

>>4462376
> When I get married
Kek

File: L1070472.jpg (3.26 MB, 1714x2000)

3.26 MB JPG

>>4462354
>>4462373
Based and funpilled

>>4455763
It's because 50mm is perfect for portraits but unemployed 4channys don't have friends to go on vacation with and take photos of

>>4456271
Skill issue

>>4455763
she cute

>>4455763
What's the point of trying to convince other anons? If you don't enjoy 50mm then you don't, that's all. You don't need approval.

>>4455763
Not the best for everything but I like them a lot in lower light on a FF due to the (usually) fast f/ratio. Zoomies are dimmer even if they can go shorter. Lighter and more compact than most zooms too.
In other words, they're pretty... nifty :)

>>4462203
>it's called autofocus and stabilization, retard
That stuff is tiny.
Modern lens are bigger because the modern user has much higher standards about sharpness, distortion, falloff, chromabs, etc., than anybody could possibly have in the film era. It takes a lot of glass to compensate for all that shit.

File: BBB_0092-3.jpg (2.05 MB, 2000x3000)

2.05 MB JPG

yeah, I like 50mm. here's a boring snapshit i took at comiket

>>4463432
>based photo taker of cute girls
Inb4 everyone else is still spilling their spaghetti trying to show off their 24-400mm super bazookas and rattling off specs and muh tonallity, while the cosplayers turn around and hit up the guy with an instax mini lel.

>>4463432
> Japanese girl with blue eyes
Hm...

>>4463441
You've never heard of coloured contacts?

>>4463441
>girl
Hmm...

>>4463432
that's a man isn't it?

>>4456398
this is the biggest amount of leaves I've seen in 1 pic

>>4456398
Extremely autistic landscape photography

>>4455763
>planned out on buying multiple RF prime L lenses on my new camera
>Bought RF 24-105L
>Been really great on all my travels for the year
>Called it a day and decided not to buy or look up gear anymore
feels good being a one and done

@grok give me a summary of this thread

>>4463574
would, absolutely would

>>4455763
>tried to shoot places
>too tight
just walk back 15-20 steps fatso and you'll get a 35mm for free

>>4455763
you are shooting digital and/or mirrorless huh
if not (SLR or rangefinder lol) just indulge me do a little test: keep both eyes open, one through the viewfinder and the other looking at the same scene
EH? EH? YOU GET IT NOW?
faggot

>>4468787
I have no idea about optics but it's quite suspicious that for binoculars the field of view is independent of magnification (focal distance)
You can have an 8x binocular with a HUGE field of view that makes you feel like you are sitting in the cinema (notorious example being the 8x40 Nikon Action EX, I love that lil monster) or a chinese no-name 8x binocular with a little circle "just cope bro that's how binoculars are"