>wanted to do photography>third worlder>the camera i want would take 4 years to save upFine, I give up. This hobby isn't for me.
>>4489367unironically just take photos on your phone, shoot in raw, edit in a free raw processor like darktable. Gearfags on here can't tell the difference between images made by a FF and a point and shoot from 2003 so disregard their opinions entirely. Just have fun and make images you like
>>4489368Are you fucking kidding me? I'm mogged by everyone, I'll never be taken seriously...I had...dreams.4 years for a meager camera, what a fucking joke.
>>4489370>I'm mogged by everyoneYeah, just give up. It’s better to never even try.
>>4489371Correct.Had I been born a first worlder, I'd have a chance. Only first worlders can make art.
>>4489367Raw chemicals and glass may be cheap in your country. Shoot wetplate or dry plate with a homemade view camera. Even in an expensive first world country it works out to be about half or less the price of conventional film.
>>4489368Would these images happen to be equivalence tests and blurry leaves?
>>4489374>It's not my fault I can't tell the difference between the thing I'm constantly making fun of and the thing I'm constantly shilling, you didn't shoot the exact right scene that makes it possible to tell the difference pathetic freaks desu
>>4489373Hahahaha, might as well tell me to "make" my own camera from nothing...hahaha oh godI hate this hobby and I give up on my artistic dreams.
>>4489377good, shut the fuck up now
>>4489377I did say to make your own camera. Sounds like you don't want any better for yourself. Typical thirdie behavior.
>>4489380It's impossible, all im saying
>>4489375A lot of people have explained to you and even done tests showing the differences instead of doing what you do, and cherry picking scenarios specifically to minimize the differences (fucking blurry twigs)And the very next day you tell the very same lies again. The world will come to a universal human consensus that worse cameras are worse and you will tell the same lies again the next day.
>just make your own camera dudeWOW, THANKS FOR FUCKING ME IN THE ASSall of you look down on me
>>4489381Absolutely not true. Your shit mindset is what makes it impossible. You simply do not want it badly enough or you are very low IQ or both.
>>4489368If people cant tell you dont have photos worth looking at or of anything importantI think its funny that everyone knows the german shepherd named leo and can tell when his owner uses his mfdb or his s5 pro, but no one can tell when its a photo of a tree. Living things people actually bond with form stronger memories. We know what they are meant to look like and when cameras get it wrong in a bad way. Its why sony skin tones look so horrible when they’re only slightly off in measurements but no one can tell if the entire image is stylized or its not a skin tone photo. No one will ever notice your lacking megapixels or sharpness in a photo of a tree. But a photo of a person or even a dog will sharply highlight everything the gear contributes.
>>4489385>not worth looking at oh it's this schizo faggot again. Post something you consider worthwhile or kill yourself weirdo
>>4489387I’m not him but I agree with him. Two words. Memory colors. Photos of people soak into your brain betterPhotos of things you have seen give your brain a referenceA strangers photo of a random branch is essentially nonsense informationMany people see photos of Leo and instantly know of its doghair’s MFDB or one of his digishitters. People cant tell d200s and d850s apart when its photos of trees. Your brain does not compare or notice details objectively, it only notices ones that are important.
>>4489387hes right>landscape photography: boomers make 40in prints from 12mp, no one cares>studio portraits: 200mp mf camera/6x9 film is obviously better
>>4489389>>4489385Examples are fun. Lets do it. S5pro new was 1800usd. My mfdb kit was around 25k new. LolCan you guess which is which?
>>4489393>>4489385>>4489384I want to complain about my life, stop talking about this shit.
>>4489393
>>4489395you need to stop your lens down a little bit that shit is blurry af in both
>>4489395I didnt even have to zoom in to tell this is a better camera. The colors are a lot richer and more varied and the fur looks fine and smooth instead of thick and chunky.
>>4489393Flatter rendering but better iq than micro four thirds>>44893953d pop
OP HERE, IM WHINING ON THIS THREAD STOP POSTING CAMERA SHIT
>>4489393focus badly missed in this presumably for the sake of this "comparison"
>>4489393>>4489395Implessive. In the first one, the dog doesn't look quite right. He looks dumber and less expressive. But in the second one, he all of a sudden gains eyebrows and looks like cute dogs do in real life, and I had to go back and pixel peep the first one to figure out if he had eyebrows in both. His fur also looks softer. In the first one his fur looks rough. Even though there is more focus missed in the second one.The first one must be the shitty old MFDB, and the second one must actually be a nikon D810 cropped slightly, that you usually use when you are pretending to be huskyfag.
>>4489367>the camera i wantSounds like your wants are the problem. Stop pretending a camera you can't afford is required to do photography well. You're just memeing yourself into failure.
>>4489402It's the lighting dingus
>>4489400Believe it or not that is actually diffraction. Both of those pictures were taken at basically the same FL and aperture.>>4489402Lmao. The 5dm3 and mfdb are actually really pretty similar when scaled down to post on 4chin.Please excuse the terrible flat edit. I've learned things about C1 since I took this picture.
>>4489404No, its the reach. More pixels on target. Sub pixel detail. Tonality. Simple as. Blaming it on lighting is just… reaching. >>4489406Ok this is obviously a middling camera like an older 5d or an aps-c nikonIf it was a photo of a flower it would be impossible to tell
>>4489407The eyebrows are 100% due to lighting.
>>4489407That one is 5dm3. Gray background is s5pro and the second is mfdb.
>>4489408You’re reaching for a cope based on the lightings equivalence, but the writing is on the wall. The details that give them shape and point to them are barely visible on the shittier camera even when zooming in. Huge eye-whiskers vanished. It just doesnt have the reach.
>>4489409this is a snoy. i can tell because its too sharp and its b&w to hide the green tint.
>>4489410Funny guy!The board needs more comedians like you)))
OP here, instead of getting a "better" camera I will dedicate my time to shitpost later, I will whine about my birth place.
>>44894114x5 Fp4+ :D The full res scan is amazing.
>>4489393>>4489395>>4489406Even with a bad photographer, using a familiar subject like a dog makes the differences between cameras much more obvious. 33mp is where it transitions to looking absolutely better.
>>4489428Dogs really are one of the best test subjects. :D for af and image quality.
>>4489367Dudeim the guy with the turquoise moss tree and the hacienda bus stop in the recent photo thread I have no job I live in a country with no jobs and a minimum wage of 800 euros lmfao. I'm basically homeless, and I still go into the world and have amazing experienced and take photos with my shit phone and love it You'll never compete with people that have money for gear But you can take pictures. It's freez it's legal, you have eyesStop being a fag and take pictures dude
>>4489433Also one thing no one talks about or maybe doesn't realize or ever think about, is that think about what guys were using 100 years ago for photos. Your shit phone blows that out of the water and yet great pics were produced then Same with bicycles. Guys were killing the tdf on steel frames wine and cocaine bro. And now everyone wants a 10,000 carbon fiber and doesn't even try if they can't afford one. You gotta understand the essence of the thing, not the marketing or the flash.
>>448943435mm film was around in the 1920s for normies and pros used large format, so it was a lot less convenient and more difficult to get good results, but the image quality was way way way better than modern phones. In reality the only thing that has gotten easier is snapshitting and certain types of low light photography.
>>4489400>Focus badly missedOne of us needs to get our eyes checked and it isn't me>>4489395I'm guessing it's 4chan compression or maybe my monitor but wtf is going on with weird crushes blacks above his eyes. Is this the power of mfdb?>>4489407>Lighting isn't why the image looks like that, it's just all of these things that are related to the light hitting the sensor>>4489410Schizophrenic breakdown>>4489399go to /r9k/ or whatever if you want to whine. You could pick up a cheap 12mp digishit from 2009 on eBay for twenty bucks and get better than cell phone IQ because a computer won't be interpolating and "fixing" your image. You could be autistic like doghair and spend a bit on some chemicals and then make your own plates with a pinhole camera. You could do anything to advance your photographic abilities or potential besides whining on 4chan that the dream camera you want is out of reach and therefore you should just give up. Fuck you. Don't give up. Get off your ass and start taking pictures or get the fuck off this board.
What camera do you want and what are the reasons for wanting it?
>>4489440Editing error because I'm an editing noob. I've figured things out a bit better now and switched to C1. I know I need to edit/export in adobe 98 now. Thats the right one right?The true power of 2006 era mfdb is how the only useable iso is either 50 or 100, which is actually 50, but you can't set the iso to 50.S5pro was a single large softbox with a little bounce coming off a nearby white wall. mfdb shot was same softbox + bounce flash on left + background grid. I think the combo of better lighting + better camera + better lens all combine to make a significantly better looking picture.
>>4489435Here we go. Facepalm.hey go get your carbon fiber and make sure you clip in and wear skintight spandexIt's the only way to cycle
>>4489449>t.
OP you are such a doomerist thirdie faggot that it somehow makes my white man soul suffer second-hand poor.>the camera i want would take 4 years to save upYou don't need a fucking Z7 to take photos.>all of you look down on meSure do. It's really great not being you and also being white.You actually, legitimately should be able to afford a Canon Rebel without much fuss. A Rebel and the kit lens will give you better photographic capabilities than 70% of other camera owners and will cost you a single week's rent in the favela. If that is too much for you then yes you should actually either kill yourself or move to a nicer country.
>>4489433>>4489451Maybe this is just another excuse, maybe I am insecure...I don't know what to think now.>>4489440I'll get a cheap camera for now.>>4489442I wanted the best...someone I like used that one, so I wanted it too. It's super detailed and stuff
>>4489452What country do you live in? Did you know you can take pictures on leaves?
>>4489450I just researched a little bit and, I concede. The large format of 1925 is definitely superior to the smartphone of today as far as what really matters technically in the domain of photography as an art
>>4489454But I'm not wrong, neethaThe eye and the man are still the drivers of the technology. "Seeing good" is still the foundation of it all
>>4489455For the bike analogy, outside of elite level and super trained rec level cyclists, you can crush 90% of spandex bike fags on a steel road bike from the 70s
>>4489367I dont know what third world country you are from, but i too am (hint : diversity). The issue of cost is the same for any one of this earth really. Sure maybe a retail camera store would be hard to find for you, but everything is online now, unless your country does not have a postal system in which case wtf.Coming to the camera issue, a 200 dollar 2010s camera is fine, provided the camera does not treat you like a toddler. Yes lenses are another issue, but even used camera offers have kit lens packed with them. "Most" kit lenses have a MTF of 0.75 to 0.8 which is good enough for a beginner, sure you might lack range or other parameter but learning to compensate and innovate is just part of photographyAs for phones, i also use my phone for photography sometimes, and its not a iphone. Sure more noise, fixed focal length and f-stop, but compensation is key, phones tend to do great in landscape shots, provided you tend to your raws better in post. I use my phone is cases where i need a wider focal length.And theres no shame is using the tools you have and you love. Digital or film, most dont care, the work/result matters. If your phone work is indistinguishable from pro's who cares to ask. There's always faggots gear fagging, i assume you are young and impressionable, so dont take them seriously, nobody really cares.I use a nikon d5300, most here would call it a bad system, but its gets the job done and i wouldn't trade it for anything.I guess the main problem for us, is connections, most here dont care abt this hobby, so i had to learn and experiment myself with resources from the internet, in the end you dont have to make a living off it, just do it as a hobby. Making photography a professional career often kills the joy behind it
>>4489457The decade old 24 megapixel APS-C cameras are quite impressive in terms of what you get for the money. In my opinion the best budget option for anyone wanting to see if they want to take photography more seriously. Being a "firstie" I have access to literally tonnes of those cameras for way below ebay going rate because a heck of a lot of normies got into the space just before camera phones became adequate. There is such an insane amount of them on the market that people often just want to undercut the competition for a quick sale.. quite the contrast to poor thirdies who always have to pay max used price because of no availability. One good thing in all of this though is that there is less and less to differentiate new gen from old so even thirdies will have access to more bells and whistles for a lower price going forward.
>>4489458True. They're a lot better than micro four thirds. Delusional limp wristed firsties will pay 1500 euros for an OM5II and seethe at full frame, while d5xxx+35mm f1.8 dx chads actually take photos for like, $50, and receive immensely superior image quality>b-b-but its a BLOB, its not CHIC - gay faggots aka micro four thirds users
>>4489459You can get a really great 4x5 setup or an okay-ish 8x10 setup for 1500
>>4489411>it's [brand] because of things unrelated to [brand]I thought dedicated trolls were supposed to be entertaining.
>>4489475>unrelatedlol I love sonygger copes
>>4489459You forget that 73.6% of hobbyist camera sales are to larp as a retro chic faggot in order to get art-hoe pussy.Blobmeras are pussy repellant UNLESS you flash a payslip when you bring it on your date.
>>4489367first worlder here. the camera+lens I'd want would take me 8 years to save up. so shut up and get what you can afford. we all do.
>>4489452If you learn how to get the best possible results with lesser gear, that will only make you that much better for when you actually get better gear. It's much better to be someone capable of taking amazing pictures with a shitty camera than someone who takes okay pictures with a better one Focus on lighting, composition, and editing>>4489458If 24mp APS-C is good enough for shoots with Elle and Vogue, probably good enough for OP
>>4489504>the camera+lens I'd want would take me 8 years to save up>First worldJust means you are a NATOfag or you are confused into thinking you are from an economically-good country, even with minimum wage you can buy an obscenely expensive Zeiss and the best FF out there, or a Fuji GFX100 with the best lens, in 5 years.
>>4489367>wanted to do photography>the camera i wantUse or buy the camera you have around meanwhile, if you are hungry you will eat most anything, not wait for a steak
>>4489496Your tweed vest flat cap cafe racer shit is pussy repellent retro larper. Put on a north face jacket and grab your DSLR bitch.>>4489511Elle and vogue are shit and little do you know we use shit cams to hide how fucking ugly old bitches and latinas are I saw this board going all "OMG 5D 3 STILL GOT IT! GEARFAGS BTFO!" for a cover but I was an assistant on that shoot and they left a phase one in the pelican case because that blackspanic muttoid ho was so fucking ugly a few hundred less megapixels, a strong AF AA filter and a soft lens were what the doctor ordered to keep our customers believing nonjewish nonwhites can still look good. There is not a single good lookig slut in the industry that isn't nordic or jewish.Literally last fucking week I was on a shoot and the 5dIII came out because bitch was black. Environmental portrait makes her forehead look higher shit. Bring out the ashkenazi princesses and all of a sudden we all use phase. Fuck the DSLRs.
