>>4505116
I hate these spiders with a passion. I grew up in Hong Kong and they were everywhere in the rural village I lived in. Sage, nothing personal

>>4505139

I didn't even know they existed before that day.
I was going through a park looking for a butterfly garden(didn't find it) and ran into a spider web

then as I continued walking I was about to run into a second one but noticed it and the spider so I took pictures of the spider instead

>>4505150
They are very easy to run into. One made a web across a wide sidewalk and a tree and the web wrapped around my head as I was on a bicycle. Luckily the spider was thrown free, didn't help the panic though.

Please next time use normal formats like RAW (NEF/NRW), NEFX, JPEG, TIFF (RGB), HEIF (HDR), and MPO (3D)

I can't open your fucking CR2 in my patrician Nikon Studios

File: IMG_0497.jpg (1.34 MB, 1750x1167)

1.34 MB JPG

>>4505116

File: IMG_0461.jpg (981 KB, 1463x976)

981 KB JPG

>>4505116

File: IMG_0461.jpg (1.4 MB, 3000x2000)

1.4 MB JPG

>>4505116
>I'm bothered with how noisy it is
That's what you get with a budget APS-C body and 1600 ISO. They're noisy even at 100 ISO when properly exposed and you're at least 6 stops under exposed with this. 4 under by going to ISO 1600, and ~2 stops dark after all that gain.

This is what I would do with this shot. Fighting noise is just copium at this point. It's not even sharp.

Consider using a flash or two next time. Lighting the subject goes a long way. Especially for spiders. Lighting can help make webs shine.

Ignore this troll >>4505163

File: IMG_2871.jpg (1.33 MB, 2000x2000)

1.33 MB JPG

>>4505116
Try using higher iso. Slightly overexpose even. Gives better results than moderate iso and underexposing.

>>4505177
edited in snapseed on my phone in the bus going to uni…

>>4505116
B&W and say that you shot it on film.

>>4505163

I'm sorry, did you try double clicking the image to open it?

>>4505176
>That's what you get with a budget APS-C body and 1600 ISO.
Should my next upgrade just be a full frame? I pushed off on it and I'm upgrading my lenses cause I didn't think it would be that bad.

>>4505177
I thought underexposing > overexposing no?

>>4505180
Never owned a film camera but I'll give it a try lmao

>>4505202
>Should my next upgrade just be a full frame?
a flash
don't you have a built-in flash in your camera?

>>4505202
>Should my next upgrade just be a full frame?
If you have the money yes. Also >>4505229 is correct. A $100 speedlite and a $20 softbox will work wonders. Doubly so for macro shots like OP where you need like f/45 to get anything in focus and even broad daylight wont be enough. Your cheapest full frame camera will cost at least double that, and the speedlite will last you through many cameras worth of shots.
>I thought underexposing > overexposing no?
That's the advice for (negative) film because once you burn your highlights there's no saving it, versus shadow recovery being possible.
For digital it's Expose To The Right (ETTR) which means to meter for the right of middle grey and get more overall exposure. You still want to avoid clipping your highlights (complete white, no detail) or crushing your blacks (complete black, no detail), but some clipped irrelevant background is better if it means you get more light on your subject.

The reason being, if you take a midly overexposed photo and dial the gamma/exposure/brightness back to where it should be, it looks far cleaner than taking an underexposed photo and trying to raise it up to the brightness you wanted in the first place; light is detail and it's better to have more light than not.

>>4505229
Yeah but I didn't think to use it, I don't do a lot of macro photography.

>>4505233
Any specific models you recommend/any specific specs I should look out for?

And is there a general rule of thumb on when I should use the flash/softbox and when not to?

File: 1761955095373158.jpg (77 KB, 322x743)

77 KB JPG

>>4505116
i saw these mfers in japan all the time and cos most japs are midgets i ended up walking into their webs since they build their webs above foliaged pathways

File: 55068825826_4b6c7f7e56_6k.jpg (4.18 MB, 6144x4098)

4.18 MB JPG

>>4505116
Noise comes from a lack of exposure, if you want less noise, you need more exposure:
>decreasing shutter speed
More light, but more potential for subject motion blur like in your pic
>wider aperture
More light, but smaller depth of field, wont get the whole spider in focus
>add light
More light, don't have to worry about subject movement, and can use a narrower aperture to get everything in focus
Most macro is done both with flash and at apertures closer to f11 because of these reasons. With flash, you can be noise free, frozen motion, and fully in focus.

Going to FF will help in some ways and worth upgrading for, but it wont help macro nearly enough as the above. Not mine, but Picrel is R5 for example.
Consider that for equivalent DoF, the formats will perform very similarly in terms of noise anyways. If FF is showing less noise, that only happens if it's also showing a shallower depth of field too.

>>4505302
Picrel is also no flash, 1/60, f5.6, ISO 200
So they had enough natural light, subject was static enough, and enough depth

>>4505302
Noise comes from the camera

>>4505116
>falling for the canon maymay
If you used the chad nikon d5000 series you’d have 2x less noise and a sharpwr lens.

Never fall for the canon maymay unless you’re a gearfag who can afford a 5div. Nikon, pentax and sony are just better at making useful cameras that don’t require flash to shoot outside of full sun to part shade.

>>4505352
>Noise comes from the camera
It comes from a camera experiencing low exposure

>>4505379
Noise literally comes from the camera. I’m not going to regale you with a tech paper on dark current flux capacitor photointerference but I will tell you to stop coping and lying about e-waste.

Canon in particular made egregiously bad cameras. Lots of them.

>>4505392
The quality and look of the noise itself depends on the camera, sure, but noise in general is a function of exposure.

https://www.dpreview.com/articles/8189925268/what-s-that-noise-shedding-some-light-on-the-sources-of-noise
> You might be surprised to discover that a lot of the noise in your images doesn't come from your camera at all: it comes from the light you're capturing.
>This is exactly how shot noise contributes to your photographs. A darker exposure gives you less chance to catch photons, so you're more likely to be able to see the random nature of them hitting your pixels. And this doesn't just apply to bright or dark exposures, it also applies to bright and dark areas within the same image.
>The important thing to realize is that this type of noise is present whenever you try to capture light. Whether you use film or digital, medium format or a smartphone, all of the light you're capturing has shot noise built into it. And the solution is always the same: the more light you are able to capture, the less you'll be able to see that noise.

https://photographylife.com/what-is-noise-in-photography
>So, how do you get the best image quality in your photos? It’s all about capturing more actual signal so that you can overpower the backdrop of noise that will always be present. You can do this by using a longer shutter speed, setting a wider aperture, or photographing a more luminous (brighter) scene. In other words, by capturing a greater “luminous exposure.”

If you want less noise, you need more exposure, simple as.

>>4505394
>generic blogslop
I’m not going to argue technicalities and explain exactly WHY a shitty canon has more noise than a better nikon even given the same exposure. It’s irrelevant why. It does.

>>4505396
>I’m not going to argue technicalities
They aren't technicalities
> a shitty canon has more noise than a better nikon
You want OP to buy a different camera as a baindaid fix. I want OP to understand why they are having a problem in the first place. If they fix the issue, they don't need to cope by consuming more.

>>4505399
>fix the issue by carrying more equipment, especially publicly obnoxious equipment like flashes and tripods, or not taking the photo
>ANYTHING but exchanging $350 ewaste for better $500 semi-ewaste. thats CONSUMING!
Oh yeah how horrible. “Consuming”. A JEW might even make money. Terrible. Never buy anything. If you bought garbage you need to buy more garbage and alter your lifeatyle to cope with it. Under no circumstances ever save up a trivial amount of cash and upgrade to something that is less shit ever!
He says on the internet
Sent from his iphone (or lovingly compiled gentoo install, same shit really)

I hate fake ascetics like you.

>>4505247
>Any specific models you recommend/any specific specs I should look out for?
For a speedlite? Godox sets you straight until you start dropping pretty hefty sums. TT350 was my choice but it's the smaller model that has a lower GN (total power output), The TT600 and V100? are worth looking at. Can't remember their price.

General specs to watch for are Guide Number (GN) which is a measure of it's total power. I forget the formula but it's something like lumens per foot at iso 100 or something. Look it up if it's important to you. GNs of less than 20 are basically fuck all (built-in flashes are normally around 6-8), GNs of 30-50 are a healthy middle ground, and GNs of greater than 60 are quite strong. After that you normally see gear advertising Watts instead of GN because you're entering studio strobe territory. Basically higher GN = stronger flash at full power. You also want to be mindful of how many shots they advertise at full power on one recharge. My TT350 advertises about 250 shots at 1/1 power which is plenty especially considering it takes AAs.

For a FF camera? Canon's 5D or 6D lineup. Pick a Mk according to your budget, you can't really go wrong. I recommend the 5D MkII for total value, or the 6D for something a bit nicer and more modern.

>And is there a general rule of thumb on when I should use the flash/softbox and when not to?
For macro? Basically all the fuckin' time. You're so light starved even under pristine conditions that macro without a flash is going to have wafer thin DoF or dangerously slow shutter speeds. That's why I bought the more compact speedlite: so I'd actually take it with me all the time.

The softbox should always be used as long as you carry it with you. It softens the light so it doesnt look so harsh, which direct flash typically does. Natural light looks the best but unless you figure out a way to turn the sun up on command, you're only getting as much of that as god determines any given day.

>>4505403
Meds.

>>4505396
"I'm not going to try and defending the point I'm arguing for. I'm just gonna call whatever you presented slop and insist I'm right"

Every fucking thread starts with a ragebait calling canon shit or worse than Nikon, which causes an actual gearfag to start an argument with the troll. Literally every thread.

>>4505434
What? That ragebait comment was made 4 posts in, OP only shared what gear he used.

>>4505434
>an actual gearfag
You mean the guy saying to focus on technique rather than just buying new stuff? What's gearfag about that?

>>4505447
>Noooo you cant buy a decent camera ($350 nikon) you have to carry a flash and tripod everywhere! Upgrading your ewaste scamera is being a gearfag!
OP: Just buy a better camera and sell your old one to a retard like this on ebay lol
In the end you would not spend much swapping shit gear for good gear especially if you found, say, a $350 nikon d750 locally

Canon made a lot of horrid cameras back then. Most digitals did not have to meet high standards. Additionally most people were ignorant and had no idea what to expect. Today these old pieces of shit (almost always canons) are worse than phones despite being huge plastic blobs.

>>4505116
>shitting the bed that hard with a little underexposure at iso 1600
>autofocus failing to lock
I know the struggle having fallen for the entry level canon scam before

To the people defending this POS camera: it is often sold for $500! That’s enough to but a d750, a d800, a 5dIII, a d7500… a lot of better cameras. Canon legit scams people with their low end gear. Even today. The RP comes to mind. Its basically FF sized micro four thirds. They prey on consumer ignorance with their professional brand image.

The solutions are to refocus and take safety shots frequently, never leave the obnoxious as fuck af beam off, always have a flash in the shoe for its AF beam, and always use that flash… nah.

Great, another fucking schizo shitting up the thread with off-topic bullshit.

>>4505461
>leave the ewaste alone. gear can not matter. all cameras have to be good. consumer! please buy more low end canons :(
lol did you know that without sales of walmart cams (r100-r10, rp) canon would have less market share than snoy? the #1 in full frame market share is nikon, #2 is sony, and #3 is canon. in france and asia where consumers are more educated fujifilm has more aps-c market share than canon.

canon purposefully sells bad cameras with ancient sensors to scam ignorant consumers who dont know how good cameras are meant to be and acts surprised when they go to phones. always have always will.

>>4505202
>Should my next upgrade just be a full frame?
Full frame simply has more potential for quality, but that doesn't mean you're guaranteed to get any benefits.

For example a 200mm lens at f/4 on APS-C will give a 50mm aperture. The same framing at full frame would require a 300mm lens, and to get the same DOF, you would need a 50mm aperture. That's around f/6, which is over 1 stop darker. The +1 stop performance gain that full frame typically offers is essentially lost or cannibalized immediately once you account for normalizing DOF between the platforms. At the same shutter speeds and physical aperture, you'll be shooting ISO 200 on full frame to get the same brightness as ISO 100 with APS-C. Overall quality may improve but noise will be more or less the same, give or take half a stop based on camera body quality.

If you can supply enough light in every shot then full frame will win.
You sacrifice full frame gains when dealing with limited light scenarios that basically normalize you down, but it should never be worse, and full frame offers you the ability to trade DOF for more light.

For small insects or macro in general there's not much point going for full frame unless you're doing controlled environments with posed dead bugs

>>4505202
>I thought underexposing > overexposing no?
In general, yeah.
Your images are about 2 stops dark so bumping up the ISO to 6400 wouldn't have clipped much if anything and would have made the overall image cleaner. If you're comfortable with your current shooting technique, try setting an exposure bias for +1EV so you can continue shooting as is and at least only be 1 stop dark. Safe enough for most highlights but also safer for your mids and shadows.

>>4505742
>full frame is the same as aps-c because you have to stop down and raise the ISO. I pixel peeped it on dpreview.
Making incorrect authoritative statements about things you dont understand and have never experienced is called lying.

Stop telling lies.

>>4505804
If you are DoF limited (as you often can be with macro), like they said, that is true.

With FF, you'd stop down more for the same DoF, losing some of that exposure. FF is still better for the same exposure, but APS-C being able to be a stop more open for the same DoF, gathering more light, helps close that gap.

>>4505855
>aps-c gathers more light
no. stop lying. fnumber is not light gathering fnumber * flength is and when the DOF and FOV are the same they are the same.
its the same at best. but still slightly worse looking because of sensor and lens niggles.
aps-c has zero advantages besides saving money and maybe a half pound when photographing birds (gay)
but all good macro is done with flash so it doesnt matter. iso 100 f16 1/1 all day long.

>>4505862
>aps-c gathers more light
Good thing no ones saying that

>>4505864
>aps-c stop more open for the same dof
nope. never happens. with the same dof the aperture is the same size.
A Poor Suckers Cope.

File: Screenshot_20260420-175043.png (121 KB, 1080x895)

121 KB PNG

>>4505866
>DoF calculators don't exist
>bokeh calculators don't exist
Interesting how the lines overlap
Does f2 and f3 transmit the same amount of light?

>>4505870
Both have a 25mm aperture so yes

You are retarded

>>4505870
Brother you are actually braindead. Stop falling for the big number the marketing department prints on the gear.
Total aperture diameter is what helps gather light, and a bigger sensor is what collects it.

>Durr look they overlap! They're the same!
Yes because 2 x 1.5 (crop factor) is 3. Basic math. Except crop lenses are always statistically worse to begin with, not the other way around, so in reality you're more likely to have an F2 prime on a FF camera, and an F2.8 on an APS-C camera for the same kind of use case. (i.e. EF 50mm f/1.8 vs EF-S 24mm f/2.8).

Yeah sure you *can* buy crop lenses with super dooper wide aperture ratios but they're expensive and niche. We're also completely ignoring the sensor part of this equation just to entertain your retarded fantasy world which adds a whole extra layer of why crop sucks.

>>4505804
No lies, all facts.
Facts don't care about your feelings.
You probably don't even own full frame camera.

Everything I have stated is confirmed by evidence and anybody with above Somali grade IQ can figure this out for themselves if they pay attention and ignore youtube "gurus" who are actual monetized liars and shills.

>>4505874
With APS-C and a 25mm diameter aperture, how much more light does a Full Frame sensor gather with the same 25mm diameter aperture?
Oh, basically the same exact amount? Is that right? (Ignoring small differences in T-stop tier performance based on vitgnetting, coatings, etc...) Wow.
Now what do you think happens when that same amount of total light covers the physically larger sensor on full frame? Uh oh! The light intensity has decreased!

Suddenly that cleaner higher quality sensor is literally gathering less light (for the same DOF and FOV) vs a crop sensor using a shorter lens!
Everything I've said turned out to be 100% true, what a disaster! You've been telling people who were telling the truth liars, and you have been outed as a complete retard on 4chan!
What now?

>>4505916
>actually equivalence isnt real full frame is behind a stop not equal
You are legit retarded

>>4505916
You might be the single most confident idiot otb I've seen in years.
Yeah congrats, 25mm aperture this and that. Are you forgetting the fact that the smaller sensor is... you know... smaller? That it collects less of that light? That your pixel pitch is way smaller? That full frame lenses always have a wider total aperture than crop lenses? Of course you forgot all of that, it means you sound right to yourself. You're conveniently decoupling all the different influences in order to look at them one by one. Yeah, if all that mattered was f/stop then congrats.

If you put a 50mm lens on a full frame camera, you get a certain FoV. If you want the same FoV you need a shorter focal length lens, in fact it's about 33.3mm but let's just say 35mm because there's actually 35mm aps-c lenses on the market. Well well well, f/2 on 35mm is actually *gasp!* 17.5! That's less than 25! So with the application of a few brain cells you could probably work out that an aperture diameter of 17.5mm you get less light than 25mm. If you slap that 50mm lens on crop to preserve focal length between formats instead of FoV, your argument continues to fall apart but for different reasons.

So what would you need to get the same total aperture diameter? A crop 35mm f/1.4 which exist at a much higher price bracket, are larger, and are softer than your bog standard 50mm full frame lens.
No matter how much you cope, a full frame camera with the cheapest lens in their lineups will btfo almost anything a sensorlet like yourself will use.

>be me
>shooting my 75mm f2 at f2
>realize what im doing is actually a hate crime against crop sensor users
>stop down to f3 and raise the iso to make the very blurry background marginally less blurry and worsen overall image quality
Equivalence arguments are unrealistic unless a crop camera has an equivalently faster lens. But the fastest lenses like f1.2s, f1.4s, and f2 zooms are on ff and all have stellar image quality and flat fields so you can shoot landscapes and shit wide open. while crop lenses come sometimes close in aperture size its usually at the cost of being a super hazy blurry manual focus prime.

Aps-c cameras dont even have iso 64 and most m4 cameras have a base iso of 200 that is equivalent to a full frame iso 800.

crop and full frame are not in the same class. lots of ancient full frame gear still totally exceeds the best lenses and sensors found on crop cameras in terms of image quality.

said newest crop shit does do really good video thoughever and absolute image quality is irrelevant for video, so they have their use.

>>4505917
>>4505919
If either of you want me to admit I'm wrong about anything, just write your post# on a post-it and photograph it next to any full frame camera released in the last 15 years. Until then you're just a bunch of retarded shitposting trolls defying real-world truths that are backed by science and are shills shilling full frame without owning one yourself.

I shoot full frame and am telling people to fix lighting conditions before upgrading their body. Arguing with me about this makes you a retard. Nothing I've said is controversial. It's all facts. The same principals also apply to medium format. Larger sensors can gather more light but it's not a baseline. You need more light to get cleaner images. The smaller sensors can't handle intense light as well as larger sensors, but when each platform isn't getting enough, they all start to suck regardless of size.

OP's canon APS-C 300mm @ f/5.6 and -2 stop 1600 ISO shot he would need a 480mm lens at f/9 to get the same FOV+DOF on full frame and 16,000 ISO to get the same brightness. Full frame isn't a solution here. More light is. If you can get more light and full frame, that's obviously the ideal standard for good photos. Fixing lighting conditions is way more economical than buying full frame and not fixing your lighting. If you buy full frame without lighting you're wasting your time.

File: IMG_20260421_170235358.jpg (2.36 MB, 4080x3072)

2.36 MB JPG

>>4505926
Hey look now you're moving the goalposts and conveniently ignoring how brain-dead your other comment was.

>>4505928
You used my post# instead of yours.
Whoever you are it looks like (You) at least have access to a decent full frame camera. At least one of you has full frame. I admit I was wrong about that.

You should know from firsthand experience that full frame isn't some magic. At this point I think you're just lost or potentially have had such a horrible experience with a low grade APS-C body in the past that you've fooled yourself into thinking the only thing that matters now is sensor size.

What is it that you are trying to argue about?
Point out exactly where you have made the mistake of thinking I'm wrong about something and I'll explain why I'm actually right.

>>4505928
>You used my post# instead of yours.
Ah ofc I'm also retarded in my own special way. Oh well.

>You should know from firsthand experience that full frame isn't some magic.
It raises the ceiling. Makes your potential higher. That's what the original argument was about. Nothing in >>4505916 talks about light. It talks about specs.
I fully consneed that light is important, that's why my first comment to OP was buy a speedlite and diffuser. Even smartphone pics can be decent with good lighting.

At no point did I argue otherwise. Minmaxing on crop is like driving a shitbox fast where anyone with actual money bought a full trim Corvette and runs laps around you. Yeah you still need to know how to drive (use the camera, have enough light) but the gear still matters.

>At this point I think you're just lost or potentially have had such a horrible experience with a low grade APS-C body in the past that you've fooled yourself into thinking the only thing that matters now is sensor size.
Nope. Had a 70D for a while, and an R10 temporarily. Sensor size is important, but not the be all and end all.

>Point out where I'm wrong
>With APS-C and a 25mm diameter aperture, how much more light does a Full Frame sensor gather with the same 25mm diameter aperture?
This. Because you just flat out assume that when someone is taking a photo they're using the same lens on a different format.
FoV is the first thing people care about when choosing a lens, and to get similar FoVs you have to use a different lens. In a make believe world where putting a crop 50mm lens on a FF camera doesn't change the FoV then yeah sure you're right. But this is reality and nobody is buying an $1200 35mm f/1.4 to mimic a $120 50mm f/2. Still ignoring the differences in pixel pitch btw which is a whole other argument.

Anyway, I've stopped caring. Either larger formats are better or smartphones are king. Either way you argue it, APS-C (and M43, and 1") loses.

>>4505933
>>4505932
>also links own post instead of anon responding to
Hahaha, fuck my life it's time to go to bed.

>>4505906
>If you use f2 on FF and f2.8 you are wrong
Well yeah, if you do the opposite of what I say, sure
Not sure why you being up fast lenses, same would be true at f5.6/8
>>4505919
So you're saying a lens at f3 let's in more light than a lens at f2? Interesting, you might be on to something to turn the industry upside down
>>4505921
>equivalence is only relevant when using fast lenses
Nah
>>4505926
>Full frame isn't a solution here. More light is.
Yup, which is what I advocated for at the beginning of the thread

File: 1739113104964343.jpg (18 KB, 360x360)

18 KB JPG

>>4505968
>Not sure why you being up fast lenses, same would be true at f5.6/8
Because I'm talking about attributes that form part of the maximum potential of the format.
>So you're saying a lens at f3 let's in more light than a lens at f2?
Nope, didn't say that. Aperture ratio is a meaningless marketing term. I keep saying real diameter is the metric to look at but sure go ahead and keep ignoring that.

You're just ignoring the 80% of the post and focusing on the semantics of the rest. We agree on a few key points but then you just keep repeating arguments that I'm not ever in fact making. I will never understand sensorlets like you.

Like I said, either larger formats win, or smaller formats win. Your weird crop logic can't somehow make the middle ground the best of anything, except the fact that it's cheaper and is easier for poor people to buy.

>>4505969
>Because I'm talking about attributes that form part of the maximum potential of the format.
Because you know equivalency is real
>Your weird crop logic can't somehow make the middle ground the best of anything,
Good thing no one is arguing that
>I keep saying real diameter is the metric to look at but sure go ahead and keep ignoring that.
And what is an example of this distinction for you?

>>4505969
>I keep saying real diameter
You mean apparent right? It's not the real / physical size

>>4505969
Wait so if I have a 100mm and a 50mm, both with an apparent aperture diameter of 25mm, they let in the same amount of light?

File: PXL_20260421_140544265.jpg (903 KB, 1920x2560)

903 KB JPG

I claim
>>4505870
>>4505302
>>4505394
and some others

>>4505977
>75mm f2 FF is identical to 50mm f3 aps-c
Oh no, I better not shoot my full frame camera at anything below F3 that would be cheating then

Is it possible to fix this raw file? Her face is too dark and has no color
What should I do with it and how?

https://files.catbox.moe/62zsva.nef

>>4505977
>>4505979
Good refutation of my points
You come off as very stable and happy

>>4506007
Maybe with some strong local contrast adjustments. Mask the face and back and reduce everything else to get a more even baseline. You'll have to raise the gamma/exposure up a bunch to get it looking bright enough so you'll also need to go heavier on the NR and maybe even downsample hard.

Nowhere near unsalvagable. Just more work than getting it right off the bat.

Wonder why the comments got nook'd. We were having a very honest discussion about how crop copers lost.

>>4506072
Because dude weed lmao

>>4506074
Except none of the stoner commends got deleted
>>4506072
>honest
Not really

>>4506159
Irrefutable evidence!

File: Screenshot 2026-04-22 094549.png (128 KB, 628x1028)

128 KB PNG

based Ken

>>4506162
This means smartphones win

>>4506162
Look at his photos, realize he has not just never met with any success but literally no one even wants to see his “work”, and just never take advice from this man.

Most of what he says is wrong.

Ken rockwell unironically lies about being a professional on his site, referencing unnamed clients without proof.

>>4505933
Anon, you must be trolling.
>Nothing in >>4505916 (You) talks about light. It talks about specs.

This post didn't talk about specs. It was about equivalent aperture diameter and different sensor sizes resulting in different light intensity after equalization. I specifically even said to ignore more "spec" related things like light transmittance which is often superior on full frame. This is all about light. If you have X amount of light and need to cover Y amount of mm2, when all that light is focused onto a smaller sensor with less area... the light intensity goes up.

This greater light intensity hitting the sensor is why full frame loses its advantage in low light if you normalize for DOF at the same FOV.

>Either larger formats are better or smartphones are king.
LargeR formats give potential for cleaner images, more resolution, and sharper detail with enough light.
If shooting conditions mean you're stuck with ISO in the thousands AND you want a deep DOF, sensor size no longer matters as much. If your subject doesn't move and it exists in an environment where lighting conditions aren't rapidly shifting, you are always better off using a larger sensor.

Smartphones are never really king but they're more capable than you probably want to admit.
Tripod, plus cleaned lens, shutter timer, good lighting, and enough exposure time, and proper RAW capture (no aislop, no ProRAW bs) on a phone will get pretty good images.
What smartphones can't do (yet at least) is operate with a flash.

You can blast micro four thirds, 1", APS-C, full frame or medium format with an ultra bright flash and freeze motion and get proper exposure and crisp images but with smartphones they're stuck with rolling e-shutters that can't handle one brief momentary flash of light and sample it. Smartphones can only operate using continuous lighting and that makes them unfit for any real professional use case (even if you use custom lenses and modify the damn things).

File: 62zsva.jpg (36 KB, 427x640)

36 KB JPG

>>4506007
been a veek and page four bump

>>4506007
might try an edit later
there's 0 reason to ever use ISO 50 on a D610 lol

File: 260429015.jpg (1.76 MB, 3204x2400)

1.76 MB JPG

>>4507197
>>4506007
le 10min fashion edit

File: 260429017.jpg (1.31 MB, 1602x2400)

1.31 MB JPG

>>4507202
10 more min, like it cooler and hid some of the distractions