>>4492332
If you don't bring at least a B-cam to a paid shoot you deserve the consequences. Hell if I was soloing a wedding it'd be a B-cam and a C-cam.

File: IMG_3452.jpg (238 KB, 1073x909)

238 KB JPG

The switch to mirrorless has seen build quality crater across all major brands

DSLR = reliable camera
Mirrorless = big disposable pns

Companies did not even give mirrorless new battery packs for more power hungry cameras, why wouldnt they make shutter blades and shutter drives and basically everything out of cheap plastic?

>>4492338
yeah but the lens sharpness and 6 stop shadow push and AI autofocus and autochimp and megapixels

must crop my cropped crop for reach and miss exposure -6 stops for max highlight protection
must shoot one handed while looking at the back screen and crop and rotate later
must consoom

>>4492337
This. A big part of being a professional is anticipating problems and having your bases covered for when they do occur. This should be a simple switch to B cam moment, worry about dealing with that later.
>>4492338
Nice feelings

>>4492338
Which camera models have you had to send for repair? Don't forget to include your repair receipts as evidence

>>4492340
>part of being a professional is just buying more shit so i dont care if snoys explode every 20k shots!
good snoygoy
dont ask questions dont have standards just be thankful you have a new product to consoom

>>4492332
lol, sony
>>4492338
spbp
mirrorless is ewaste for unserious photography

>>4492342
>I shouldn't need a backup just in case because I buy reliable products like [BRAND]
Snoy IS shit, but if you aren't employing redundancies into a professional workflow then you're going to get a problem one day and it's going to cost you more than simply having a backup at hand.
If I could swap my lenses between different brands (in a fake world where mounts are all the same) then I'd have a mix of Canon, Nikon and Pentax.

>>4492338
SP
BP!

>>4492348
Yes yes backups are needed, but backups with canon DSLRs collect dust and get sold to lucky hobbyists on ebay, and backups with mirrorless get used up quick, and then replaced with more backups a year later

Welcome to the enshittified world. Corporations are not your friends. They do not do make what they love, they cut costs aggressively and leverage a small department of psychologists to brainwash people into buying overall downgrades. Sometimes they dont invest into new products at all and just repackage old products under new marketing slogans.

>>4492342
You'd be surprised to learn even non-Sony cameras can stop working too

>>4492338
I feel like people only think DSLRs are more reliable because they're heavier so they give an illusion of sturdiness.

File: snoykon.jpg (2.3 MB, 3861x2896)

2.3 MB JPG

>>4492407
Or because they are actually built better than mirrorless

>>4492332
>randomly freezing and getting bricked in the middle of a shoot
Wow they arent kidding when they say Sony cameras are more like mini computers than photographic tools

>>4492410
>he bought a nikon

>>4492407
>illusion
>magnesium alloy monobody vs. multiple thin parts
nigga the zf z6iii z8 and probably the z5ii flex
literally
not nigga flex
creaky and freaky, dont drop it flex

people used to complain about lens mounts screwing into a big chunk of plastic because it would get fucked if they used their 100-400 as a club
today entire camera bodies are liable to explode into their component parts and the lens and mount still get fucked

File: neverhappens.jpg (251 KB, 2500x500)

251 KB JPG

>>4492410
lol

>>4492423
What cameras do you recommend using?

>>4492427
Film and the cheapest ff DSLR near you

>>4492427
got the lumix S1, its very big and has that sony sensor, but it's also the cheapest camera around, it has ibis, decent video, the best evf made, and a sony sensor

>>4492425
>using the back LCD of your consoomer DSRR

Thats why you get the pro level with top LCD and pro 100% viewfinder
A d7100 / D600 is like $400 nowadays and if they broke just get another one

>>4492449
But it was implied just a few comments ago DSLR's don't break

>>4492457
DSLRs are on the whole, more robust.
That does not mean they are immune to standard 0.5-2% failure rates, or dumbassery usage conditions.
Early MILCs absolutely suffered higher than standard failure of critical components AND random incovenient bullshit. Hypermodern mirrorless is about the same reliabilitiy of manufacture as DSLRs, but still don't really hold the same field-resilience as moderately-modern to late-modern DSLRs.

It also goes to say that constantly smashing your shutter at 10FPS+ is not the default nor good for longevity. Yes, I expect my $4000 brick to withstand the conditions of a wedding or a sports event or whatever, but remember that the people actually shooting these events on the regular are insured with service contracts; failures still happen they're just hedged against feeling the full weight of a total equipment failure. You and I are not.

Even doing some brief real estate photography, I found out from the old guy working there that they had a camera failure outright every 6 months or so at an average of 1000-2000 photos per day of shooting.

>>4492460
How come you don't call them out when they are being dishonest?

>>4492460
>You and I are not.
Speak for yourself, as one of the few working professionals here, that does in fact have business insurance coverage
(and also used to facilitate camera repairs for many years)

>>4492460
You had to find out from a guy that some camera shutters fail after 125k-250k shots? How long did you think they last before he told you?

>>4492461
Because I don't give a shit on a personal level. Honesty is a feature of humanity and nobody on this godforsaken site has any. Using 4chan is heathier if you pretend everyone else is a chatbot with a slightly higher IQ.
>>4492462
Okay. Why exactly did you bring this up? The point of saying this was to show the vast majority of people using a camera do not have a service contract. Here's your (You) I guess.
>>4492463
I wasn't under the impression shutters lasted longer than that, It was more a statement of the volume of photos the place went through daily. If anything I was mildly surprised there wasn't more failures. We were using a mix of 7D's and 200D's and was originally under the impression that the consumer-grade cameras wouldn't stand up to the use as well as they did.

File: tokyo_01-3ac3821b547c.jpg (188 KB, 1200x855)

188 KB JPG

I want to digitalize all the negatives I found in my granmas apartment. Instead of spending a lot for a real scanner I was thinking of just using my Nikon zf and build my own setup to scan and convert them.

Is it best to have a macro lens for it? I do have an old one smc Pentax-M Macro 1:4 100mm. But are those old analog lenses sharp enough to capture much details of the negative? Or is it better to have a modern macro lens? I also have the 40mmf2 and 50mm1.8s.

>>4492469
Huh. Black and white lets asians pretend they're white people... why does this solve so many questions

>>4492469
Pentax-M Macro F4 100mm is supposed to be very sharp. Depends of your setup but the results should be good enough. and work may take a lot less time than than doing it with a film scanner.
(Also depending where you live you might check if your can get access to a film scanner via local library, community college, photography club or whatever.)

>>4492493
it’s not a 1:1 macro lens if that matters

>>4492469
Nikon makes a film adapter for the 50mm macro (es2) and jjc makes a multi lens one (JJC FDA-K1)

Keep it simple. You dont need 400mp flawless scans of 40 year old 35mm negatives shot on dogshit consumer cameras from last century. One shot scans and negative lab pro will outdo any 1hr photo.

File: Super-8-Instax-1536x998.jpg (175 KB, 1536x998)

175 KB JPG

S O U L

>>4492521
Yes, it's 1:2 and an inexpensive extension tube set gets it to 1:1.
(Check the Pentax Forum lens database for that lens yourself.)

Fujiworms are consoomer goycattle

>>4492622
Pentaxfags are ewaste funko pop collectors who are blissfully ignorant of how crusty, clunky, unreliable, and low quality their shit is

Ken Rockwell should have been a pentaxian since he calls every lens, including blurry kit zooms, super sharp

>>4492606
Is Fuji competing again for the most useless wheel?

>Sony Releases Stupid Piece Of Shit That Doesn’t Fucking Work
>Uploaded 16 years ago.
https://youtu.be/8AyVh1_vWYQ?si=4EVxGHSRlT10zmu1

>>4492639
nothing more pathetic than fujislugs punching down at pentaxians when they paid $2000 for a apsc shitter with worse iq than a 10 year old $300 pentax apsc dslr at least pentaxians know their cameras are shit and ricoh is a joke of a company fujislugs are in denial about it the whole time

>>4492775
It's the meme of all the brown people claiming they're true Aryans and not to trust the real jeets
Same concept here.

As everything I'm late to the party, but damn those Helios 44-2 lenses look like fun. Only now do I notice how much the look that type of lens gives has been used in movies and stuff the last couple of years.
I'd like to get one for fun even though the look has been overused, but where would one go about buying one in Europe? and are there any z mount adapters that are better than others?
I've been completely out of the photo/video world for years and don't know where to look.

>>4492778
>buying one in Europe

its unironically pretty cheap/easy there, i'd imagine ebay or whatever from warsaw pact countries.

glad you made this post because i was gonna ask what's the best/most fun $50 m42 lens you could buy (helios 44-2, carl zeiss jena 50mm 2.8 tessar, or takumar 55mm 1.8)

>>4492332
What do you even do in this situation?

>>4492785
Proceed to not give a shit and get B-cam out. Claim on insurance later.
>Don't have a B-cam
lmao
>Don't have insurance
Extra lmao

>>4492780
I've just never looked into anything like this before, and the prices could be insane since it's vintage stuff and it's been very popular the last couple of years.
You never know which way the prices will go with stuff like that.
Asked a friend about lens recommendations and he mentioned Helios and Takumar to me. Looked them up and really liked the Helios stuff. I found one on my country's version of craiglist, but I think it's one of "the bad ones" or something.
I also saw a video of a guy talking about buying a really cheap z mount adapter that was so cheap he couldn't use focus assist stuff on the camera? Can you get some better ones that allow you to use that function where the stuff in focus has that red pixelated outline? I reckon that would be a must have for an old manual lens like this if you want to have some sort of normal workflow speed.

I was just curious if the photography/video world had something similar to the musical instrument world has in reverb.com

>>4492780
I own all three of these lenses (for the Helios 44, both an M4 and the original 44-2)

The Takumar can have issues with some M42 mounts, but probably not an issue with adaptors (I exclusively use film so wouldn't know 100% though). I prefer my Tessar to the original Helios 44-2 but not the M4.

>>4492787
Afaik there are no "Bad ones" for Helios 44. Just the original 44-2 tends to cost more because of retards overpaying due to influencer hype. Simons Utak has a full review of all the Helios 44 series lenses: https://youtu.be/7hJUyKs8Z08?si=eUR8Ey8pCk0XuZnR

Prices for Helios 44-2 are extremely exaggerated because of influencer hype nonsense. I paid £5 for mine on Ebay with a Prinzflex 500 body simply because it was listed as "prinzflex 500 with lens" which shitfluencer watchers don't know because they're not autistic about Soviet photo gear.

>>4492785
Switch to the other camera you brought and worry about sending it for repair later
If you didn't bring a second camera, panic because you aren't acting like a professional

>>4492789
Other than price, wouldn't buying a new Voigtländer be better? You can get a native z mount and the ones they have that open up to 1,2 get swirly backgrounds too.
I checked their website for dealers in my country. They have four listed, but they don't really have any available. They're not on amazon.de either

>>4492800
I don't have much familiarity with modern glass but I would assume all modern glass is far better than any vintage.

I've heard it touted that SMC Takumar lenses can be visually as good as modern glass (owning several I can attest that they're very good, but my base point is stuff like Industar 50 or Helios 44 not modern lenses). The only gripe i have with Takumar lenses is they are fussy about mounts (which is effectively irrelevant for this thread of digital users).

tl;dr not really the right person to ask but my best guess would be yes, voigtlander better.

>>4492807
Thanks anon, I'm glad for your honest and normal response and not the usual shit flinging you see everywhere else here.
It'll be a couple of months before I can buy another lens, but I'll keep researching until then.
The more sensible choice for me though would be getting the Tamron 35-150 2-2,8 for work related stuff (great concert lens), but I've become very interested in those swirly lenses after my mate recommended those brands.

>>4492800
Yeah the new voigtlanders are very good. The 40mm f1.2 is in particular a very beautiful rendering lens that resolves 45MP easily. I would recommend getting them used though through Map Camera on Ebay.

File: 50ish.jpg (1.63 MB, 3000x4000)

1.63 MB JPG

>>4492807
>>4492800
for reference, 2 on right and 3 on left are modern voigt (f1.5 II and f2 apo), both wide open
rest is mix of cheap 7artisans/ttartisan and fuji xf glass
their 35 f1.2 III is my favorite glass out of everything I own I think, and the 50 f1.5 II is top 5 for sure

>>4492808
Tbh if you watch ebay (or local equivalent) for a bit you can usually find Helios 44 of some kind for a pretty much throw away amount (obviously I don't know your circumstances, so maybe this doesn't align for you) so you might be able to find one earlier without impacting saving up for the nicer lenses. Can't hurt to look.

Look for Zenit B/Zenit E or Prinzflex 500 auction listings which don't mention the lens, the body is effectively worthless and people tend to skip over it but often they come with either Helios 44-2 or Industar 50. The industar is a bit underappreciated so much cheaper but it gives an interesting soft look (no bokeh tho) and might be a cheaper route if you want to play about with Soviet glass just for experimentation. Obviously the Tamron is far more practical, so don't make it "one or the other", be an opportunist about it.

I am probably more normal about it because I'm not somebody who has spent thousands on gear desperately trying to justify my purchase. I buy cheap gear from dead countries and don't pretend it's anything better than that.

>>4492839
Looking into it a bit more, a lot of those older lenses are actually really cheap. I just come from the guitar/music world where prices almost automatically hike up like crazy just because it's old, so I figured it'd be the same in the camera world.
But some stuff like old Nikon f mount stuff is really cheap too. Those Helios lenses are generally quite cheap too. It's honestly in the exact price range I hoped they were. I don't want to spend tons of money on a "fun character" lens that I'll only use occasionally. These are generally so cheap that I can just get an adapter, two or three fun old lenses and the Tamron (along with my two other modern prime lenses I already have) for work related stuff.
I used to do a lot of portraits, concert photos and shot a lot of music videos, for me I think both having stuff like an old Nikon 105 mm f/2.5 Ai-S or Helios 44-2 for portraits with a lot of vibe along with the Tamron 35-150 will be a great to have in my camera bag.
Some pro modern gear to get the job done and then some fun stuff to play around with if there's time for more fiddly gear.

Although the subject detection + back button zoom combo looks like it will make manual a lot easier.
My new Nikon has really got me excited about photography again.

>>4492786
>Camera randomly dies for no reason
dont have this problem because I dont have a snoytoy

>>4492852
>don't have this problem because I don't own a camera or use it often enough
True

>>4492838
what's number 3 on the right?

I'm on an a6600. Without a camera stand and just doing point and shoots, what's the best way to make photos less blurry? I swear like half the time I take pics, I check raws later and it's like my hands have tremors or something.

>>4492879
xf 35mm f2

>>4492883
Use a high iso so you can get fast shutter speeds.

>>4492883
Make your shutter speed higher or use flash
How low you can go depends on how stable you are and what you're shooting, but 1/250 is a good ballpark for general shooting
Being still, with good IBIS, and a static subject, and a normal to wide lens, can get you down closer to a second (being practical, I find my lower limit with good IBIS ends up being more like 1/10th)
If you can't achieve a fast enough shutter speed because it's too dark, you need to raise ISO or aperture more to compensate
Or just use flash which both adds light and the flash itself can freeze the subject

>>4492883
Try shooting manual and setting your shutter speed to 1/100 for a start. Then increase it until you no longer notice the blur. Crank the ISO as much as you need and deal with the noise in post, it's better than a blurry shot.
An ancient shooting trick to longer handheld exposures is to steady your arms or entire body by leaning against things such as walls, poles, guardrails and such. Anything that will help reduce the body's sway.
You can also use flash, a lens that has optical stabilization or go with a wider focal length as those are more forgiving to shake.

I'm also guessing that's with IBIS on? Just in case you're shooting with a manual lens that doesn't have electric contacts, you need to manually input its focal length in the menu, otherwise IBIS might make things worse.

File: 20260108_200020.jpg (1.34 MB, 2692x3768)

1.34 MB JPG

After over 10 years and thousands of pictures my beloved sekonic l608 finally kicked the bucket. Weirdly sad about losing it. One of the few pieces of gear that has been a constant throughout all the different cameras Ive used in that time. Hopefully this new one will serve me just as well.

Post your light meter so we can have a based gear thread.

>>4492922
my camera has a light meter

>>4492930
Lightmeters can still be useful if you ever work with strobes.

File: how_to_be_a_famous_photog(...).jpg (116 KB, 1039x825)

116 KB JPG

>>4492332
/p/ es finito

>>4492977
>a literal jewish bug woman
the archetypical olympus user

>>4493007
Why the nose always such a dead giveaway I fucking swear

>>4492934
Not worth the cost if you are not a dedicated studio photographer.

Is it worth trying to upgrade from an a6500 to some other sony camera? I'm trying to avoid selling a bunch of lenses (or adapting them).

>>4493023
What do you feel like you're missing out on?

>>4493025
Not much, mostly ergonomics. The rest are just nitpicks:
ISO noise isn't great. Would be nice to have a camera where I can rely on Auto ISO a bit more.
I think newer sony cameras have more options in picture profiles.
Most custom functions are just toggles for menus, instead of toggles for said functions (eg. I would like to toggle between steadyshot on or off, but it's showing me a menu, fuck off menu, just show that it's on or off when I hit the button)
More than once I found myself wanting one of those flippy screens. Maybe I should have thought of that before buying this shit.
I bought this over the a6400 because of IBIS and I don't know if that was a good choice, considering it doesn't seem to be doing much of fucking anything.
This is a me issue, but the wheel on the back is too sensitive. Not when turning, when pushing it. I want to turn it and accidentally open up a menu. Maybe it's my butter fingers.
I don't know if any better cameras fix most of these.

>>4493030
What lenses are you using with it?
Handling / ergos are why I switched from Sony years ago

File: 115064161.jpg (171 KB, 800x800)

171 KB JPG

>>4493038
Mostly cheap Viltrox air lenses, because they're light and small and they get the job done
Honestly I "had" a cheap canon DLSR before and while being bulkier it was more comfortable to handle (and lighter). With the a6500 I'm using one of these things.
I'll be honest the a6700 does seem like a definitive upgrade.

>>4493040
If you want a meaningful difference in ISO noise and are already using fast lenses and already shooting optimally settings wise, you need to go to FF

>>4493040
Oh, also another thing I noticed is that the internal battery seems to drain fast or not work correctly. In the last 3 months I had the camera ask me for language and time and date settings twice again. Not sure if I should replace that or if I'm just not using my camera enough.

>>4493041
Anything decent on the sony side that doesn't break the bank on the used market? Maybe an A7III? I confess I only looked for APS-C cameras back when I bought this one.

>>4493041
>and are already using fast lenses and already shooting optimally settings wise
he’s definitely not getting enough light if noise is an issue

>>4492415
Because he shook it like a spastic. I'm not even a phtographer but i know not to do that. Ther's moving parts and electric motors in there, why would you yank it around like that?

>>4492977
>the eaten off nails
yuck

File: sddefault.jpg (30 KB, 640x480)

30 KB JPG

Is this Viltrox good? I can only find influencer reviews and they all say it's on paar with lenses three times the price.

I know I'm talking about cheap lenses here so I don't expect anything amazing, but is the meike 55mm f1.8 Pro that much better than the f1.4? The Pro is considerably heavier and more expensive.

>>4493131
I have the Air 15mm and 25mm f1.7 and they're both pretty decent lenses in most aspects except autofocus where I struggle sometimes.
I've been looking at that 50mm one as well but I've been looking for alternatives.

>>4493045
Do many or all crop only lenses? If so an A7R III would get you 18mp in crop mode so not a massive downgrade a.nd still more than enough for most uses. Also gets you a higher res EVF and screen than the III and your A6500. It's is a bit of a downgrade in AF tracking performance though, but still pretty good and probably better than the A6500. If you're considering an A6700 though that will be leagues ahead of any of those other options and the logical choice if you do anything like sports.

why is there a phone attached to the camera
why is there another camera filming the camera taking the photos
nothing makes sense anymore and i don't like it
can we go back to 2005 already

>>4493159
its staged.

also look at his reflection
he’s fucking disgusting looking

>>4493159
>>4493161
it's somebody who makes photography content for instagram. probably not staged, you can see a million videos of photogs showing off them taking photos then cutting to the edited photo like this. (also most photographers i know look a bit gross lol)

>>4493167
>makes photography content for instagram
so staged lol

there isnt even a framed photo on the rear screen. they’re not even trying to take a photo.
theyre not using the viewfinder
its faketography

god only knows what retarded shit they subjected that camera to

>>4493159
>why is there a phone attached to the camera

i was in a big city a there was this blonde boomer doing this to a couple crossing the street, a prewedding shootout i guess, they use the phone to take video and the cam for stills

>>4493169
its a basedny, its normal for them to get bricked for no reason xD

>>4492606
>eras dial
the taylor swift fans are gonna freak

>>4492977
qt

>>4492977
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-01-09/qld-bug-hunt-insects-photos-research-citizen-scientists/106171252