The "House Deposit Tripod" EditionSeriously, what is this?Previously: >>4513965
Follow up serious question: has anyone used a Neewer tripod before? I don't want to splurge a couple hundred bucks on a tripod but I don't want to spend money twice either. Are they a decent brand? or total junk?Picrel is my coveted: tall, ball head and folds up small. Only for stills so a pan handle isn't necessary. Also detaches into a monopod if I ever thought I needed that.
Delete this, we already have a breadThis is a pain
>>4515594Oh wait, bread is full. Pain it is
>>4515595This joe shmoe never heard tell of the bump limit.
>>4515593It's okay, there are dozen brands that put out tripods just like that, mostly from the same factories, just with different branding. The monopod functionality is something you'll probably never use.$100 is too much though, and even that exact one is also only $55 at BH right now. There are others at a similar price like the Smallrig CT-20, or the $70 CT-25 which offers more functionality.If I were you, I would wait for a good sale on a better tripod. $100-150 is a fine budget for a basic tripod, but you can get something much better at that price range.
>>4515597>$55 at BHI'm in Australia and I did find it cheaper on Amazon ($89AU) which is only ten dollars off the price you saw at BH, once you exchange it. >I would wait for a good sale on a better tripod.I suppose, I could always wait...
>>4515596Didn't think it would fill up so much. Too much shitposting that's what it is
>>4515593They’re shit. Look for a sirui tripod. They’re actually as well made as real brands, because Sirui is a real brand (their AF lenses are better than panasonic, nikon and fuji now)
>>4515593You can often find tripods the same as what OP posted for a hundred bucks. Nothing loses value like tripods. Look for used miller, manfrotto stuff. Ex used cinema gear is well made. Maybe not suited to your used case though.
>>4515592Get a used gitzo carbon
>>4515593I pretty much exclusively buy Neewer stuff. It's inexpensive and it always gets the job done which means utility per dollar is really high. I haven't had to replace anything.If anything, Neewer stuff can be a bit heavy, though.
>>4515592That's a rip offIf you're gonna spend that much on a system, go the oconner route.
Does anyone have a reccomendation for a camera bag? I was thinking of getting the think tank walker pro, but the 200$ price tag is a little steep for me, so I want to look at other alternatives
>>4515593I'd only ever get Manfrotto or Benro.>>4515638For those prices? Look at Tenba or Lowepro instead honestly. The place I used to work at use Lowepro for all their gear so that gives a good idea of quality, since all that shit went through a lot of throwing around.
what is the best camera for taking pictures of trees, annoyed nyc pedestrians and my dogs ass
>>4515645Your phone
>>4515638Manfrotto PRO Light Backloader
Why is buying used such a common recommendation? Spending hundreds of dollars for someone's used goods sounds gross
>>4515652How would you ever buy long discontinued lenses that create more pleasing images than modern slop if you don't buy used? You could wipe it down with alcohol pads if you're an actual germophobe or something I guess...
>>4515652Are you a germaphobe or just paranoid that someone else has wiped their cock on it? I'm not sure I've ever bought a brand new lens or body and none of them have ever been what I would describe as gross. A little dusty maybe and just the general grime that comes from use but nothing that can't be cleaned off in five minutes. Any time I leave the house and go out in public I'm touching things much dirtier than my gear.
Guys. I like shooting sunsets and I find that my R5 is not able to capture what I see and I lose colors.For instance, spectacular sunset lots of striking orange and purple with some blue mixed in the center of the image, yet when I go to check the photos the blue is completely lost. No amount of messing around in DXO or DPP is able to bring it back what was supposed to be blue has just been smeared in with the other colors. Do I have to go the medium format route?
>>4515652only exercise a little judgement from whom you buy and what, and you will have marvelous discounts on what seemeth new but not.
>>4515663Wdym lost colours? Like they're desaturated or they're shifted? Can you post an example?
>>4515663Post RAW & your attempt at editing.> Do I have to go the medium format route?Only if you are already doing everything perfectly, which you almost certainly are not.
>>4515592I admire the unabashed greed of that company.
I've said nice camera to two old guys with digital leicas and they both ignored me entirely.I said nice camera to a guy with a hasselblad 500cm with motorized winder, 40mm distagon + CFV digital back and he stopped to chit chat a bit and he took a look at my contact printed 8x10 egg pic. The guy even knew about Sinars.Is this a common occurance?
>>4515675>be jewish>be rude as fuckYes it is a common occurrence
>>4515675Leicafags are retards, don't worry about it. It's just a fashion accessory to them. I've had fine luck talking to pretty much anyone else about cameras, usually we get talking about any interesting spots nearby and maybe share our IG names depending.
>>4515663These are all with the OG R5, can't wait to see yours since they must be on par.>>4515675>try to talk to 3 strangers, 1 responds back, I must conclude something from thisYou should try one of the Beers & Cameras meetups, or really any photo/camera oriented social group. Much better way to get a more informed opinion on the types of people that use certain cameras.
>>4515677Same. I try to grab the attention of anyone that has an ILC type camera around their neck when I'm selling eggs at the market because I assume they would like to see one of my albumen or contact prints that Ive brought and it usually works, but I've never had any luck with Leica wearers.>>4515678Are you ken rockwell or one of his acolytes? Not a bad idea to go to an actual camera meetup. I guess I could bring one of my smaller film cams to it or whatever I guess.
>>4515681>ILC type camera around their neckSpeaking of which, any recommendations for a good neck strap for a full frame?
>>4515682I just choose one from a different brand because it's kind of funny and I have a few different ones that inadvertently got swapped around between cameras.
>>4515683I love my Minolta strap lolUse it on a Pentax
>>4515678These all look terrible ken
>>4515685Should be that much easier for OP to show off how they've mastered their R5 then
What’s better: this?
Or this?I’m not sure if this is overkill, I mainly need something to rebalance the weight of the camera on the tripod, not sure if I need to support the lenses as well (800g and 650g roughly on a 700g camera).
The camera has a magnesium alloy chassis.
>>4515685this is the norm for "good" photography.Crank those levels up to trigger maximum dopamine.Who cares what the scene actually looked like.The same way "good" food for normies is oversweetened slop. No appreciation for subtlety / refinement / accuracy, just blast those dopamine receptors
>>4515688I got one of these which I've been pretty happy with: https://au.neewer.com/collections/cages-rigs/products/neewer-aluminum-alloy-film-movie-making-camera-video-cage-for-dslr-cameras-66600481If you think those two that you posted are overkill then the Neewer rig probably goes above and beyond overkill. I use it with an adjustable height Smallrig Y-bracket that has little wheels on the apexes of the Y so I can use the manual focus on my big chonky 300mm but it doesn't seem to be sold anywhere anymore (or maybe I'm just retarded, also very likely)Even if it's overkill, it opens up a lot of options and possibilities that a more simple lens support doesn't. Pic rel is from when I first got it a couple of months ago, I flipped the handle around pretty quickly because it was a pain in the ass.
>>4515687I have this and it's fine for basic macro.Realistically if you can afford it get a version with adjustment knobs instead, as it's quite difficult to fine-tune at macro DoF levels.
>>4515688This one is an L-bracket.For rebalancing on a tripod you will need this >>4515687
>>4515676Go be an antisemite somewhere else. Digital leica cucks are cunts because they’re $10k deep into digislugging and dont like being reminded of film’s lasting superiority. It makes them REEEE internally. If they were jewish, they wouldn’t spend five figures on a nerfed sony alpha seven arr and they’d be nice to you as long as you weren’t a pro-iranian anti-civilization lunatic. >>4515701Nothing a digislop machine produces will ever, ever look like what was really in front of the camera. All the things digital fucks up and needs corrected to look vibrant fake or dull fake (saturation, contrast, and white balance) are handled significantly better on film. Film has a random array of non-linear photoreceptors The human eye has a random array of non-linear photoreceptorsIf you want to “have taste” stop being a bitch and grab some kodak 120 five packs. If you want to have fun, crank those sliders.
>>4515663Yes, or an older camera with a stronger CFA. Digital color rendition gets worse every year. The engineers behind most cameras have negligible soul and think they’re building astronomy equipment for NASA. The latest digislug trend is just desaturating everything because it will never look good if the colors the machine saw are emphasized.
>>4515730but anon, digital cameras just reproduce the colours that are there. film is just random tints for le aesthetic larp lmfao. im sorry you can't handle this fact, i hope you learn to cope rather than lying to yourself.
>>4515731I came to the conclusion that it is color banding that can't be corrected and is baked into the RAW files. Some sort of overlap between blue and magenta. There was supposed to be a patch of blue in the center of an otherwise very purple and orange sunset. Like Ken Rockwell tier levels of saturation, but in reality. The camera was unable to reproduce it accurately.
>>4515738not an issue if u learn to expose correctly btw
>>4515738Digital doesn’t reproduce the colors (perceived). It discriminates between the wavelengths (scientifically measurable) but does a horrible job with replicating human perception which is “objectively bad” (scientifically useless). The physical world that is measurable is not what you see and never has been. This is why color, contrast, and sharpness have always looked more unnatural on digital than film. Sharpness is a huge offender today. Pixel peepers have pursued sharpness to the point that photos look AI generated solely by using rise distance as a measure of quality and ignoring the importance of decreasing contrast with increasing frequency and the supreme importance of how focus falloff and field curvature have to be rendered for a natural looking photograph. Consoomers have demanded lenses that render star fields and test charts perfectly wide open. Digital photography now looks 10x shittier and film is surviving solely because of this. Otherwise kodak wouldn’t even make consumer film anymore. You’d be respooling bulk cinema film to shoot.
>>4515740What you see is not what is real and a soientist with the proper equipment would come to the same conclusion as the camera: it was an illusion. Film and strong CFA digitals do not have this problem. They are also susceptible to the illusion as they should be. >>4515741I’ve had the same issues and it wasn’t clipping channels. It was just a weak CFA bayer sensor telling me that the colors I see are wrong and were actually shades of lighter blue. And that everyone’s skin is grayer and more pallid than I see. Etc. ever since shitty modern weak cfa hdr sensors like snoykon/poorax dslrs started dominating due to their specs (ability to shoot at iso 12800 and push shadows 5 stops), the digislug cope has been:>Raws are meant to be flat so you can edit them!>does this >>4515701 >or the flat desaturated versionWhich lead to most people abandoning cameras for phones because their photos would look unnatural either way, or film if they still cared
>>4515744trvthmost fine art photographers are still primarily using film so they dont enshittify as badly as annie leibovitzvintage CCDs and phase one trichromatic backs are the only recording mediums that still do color right
>>4515701Lol that was so much effort just to make the image look a little fried. Could have just dragged down the highlights and upped the shadows if you want mildly cooked HDR vision. It's always a kind of cope that happen in the editing room. "Maybe I can make this mediocre picture interesting..."
>>4515742That's why the best in between is a high megapickle body and adapting lenses or using chinese recreations of older designs. Just keep around a cheap weather sealed kit zoom for when you want that ultra digital look the couple times you might need it.
>>4515745>most fine art photographers are still primarily using filmWrong.
>>4515749go ahead and post all that amazing digital fine art photography (you cant. it sucks)no, samey vogue and elle covers and editorials are not fine artor artat allits sears photo studio for rich kids
>>4515747>Could have just dragged down the highlights and upped the shadows if you want mildly cooked HDR visionAlso since this was shot on a Lumix could have turned on some level of i-dynamic to get the same effect algorithmically straight to JPEG.Most cameras have some form of this:https://www.dpreview.com/articles/3798759501/apical
>>4515751Yes, but no one serious wastes their time editing raws pre-capture because that is every bit as stupid as rockwellian mania editing.It is not 2008. Raw is the standard. Storage is cheap. Processors are fast. Capture one perpetual costs as much as a kit zoom. Carrying a gray card and GND pack (the only way to actually shoot jpeg) is best left to videocucks (who basically shoot jpeg).
>>4515751>panasonigga thinks lumix invented in camera tone curvessony has d range opt, black level, and full gamma control in jpegscanon has it (with a base iso of 200)fuji has it (dr200/400/800)nikon has it (active d lighting)who doesnt have this? no one cares because camera jpeg engines are a bit blurry, literally all camera screens are inaccurate, and limiting your “color science” to your purchase - beyond universal trends in sensor and CFA design - is for cucks, frankly>i cant use a better camera with better everything because i like this worse ones jpegs!>-a victim of consumerism to humans, a successful experiment in golem creation to MBAs
Do people spend money on gear in order to achieve the following?>higher fidelity (e.g. more sharpness, less noise)>greater subject isolationI'm brand new to photography and started learning about this, and I keep hearing that lenses are "better" or "worse" than one another. I'm assuming that "better" just means higher fidelity, in general.I guess if people want things that are imperfect or add coloration, they either do it in post or they just use film instead of digital?
>>4515762they spend money so they can zoom in and have harshly rendered pores/peach fuzz and perfectly smooth bokeh ballsdont do thatit makes photos look like AI
>>4515754>I don't have time to push a buttonfound the iToddler
>>4515754>no one serious wastes their time editing raws pre-captureYou speak the truth>>4515755>fuji has it (dr200/400/800)These aren't really tone curves in the same sense of the others, they change how the camera is exposed on a hardware level (and thusly affect raws too)
>>4515755>>panasonigga thinks lumix invented in camera tone curvesI literally said "Most cameras have some form of this:" but I guess your vision blanks out with rage as soon as you see the word LUMIX.
>>4515768yeah fuck lumixtotal panasonic death
How do you anons clean your lens? I was thinking about getting a small blower and pack of lens cleaners wipes
>>4515771I use Kodak cleaning papers that came with old gear I've purchased. Same as tiffen today I believe. I breathe on it and then wipe.There is quite a bit of difference when it comes to the quality of blowers. The cheapest ones are just no-name crap made to be a product they can bundle with other crap so they are soft and may have large nostril causing the air to just leisurely flow not really getting rid of the dust.Do not buy pic related.
This one is better, but not the best I've used.
This one is the best I've used. It shoots straight, with force and has thicker rubber.
>>4515774Depends on the size I think since there's a smaller version. The biggest one works great.
>>4515701no amount of editing could take away the brown dirt in the foreground.
>>4515771good blowerLINT FREE wipesisopropyl alcohol spray
>>4515782>isopropyl alcohol sprayToo much risk of drying out seals or damaging the coating imo. I use a mist of distilled water on lint free wipes.
>>4515785I never heard tell of such a riskwhere’d you learn about it?
>>4515786Automotive use of isopropyl alcohol, it's hell on rubber and certain coatings and those items were built to be able to withstand intense weather conditions. What I like about distilled water is it won't leave streaks or water spots since it's free of calcium and other minerals that cause that. The bonus as well is that even if it got into seals, there's nothing in it that would promote growth of fungus so it just dries up into nothing.
>in need of new sd card>look up prices>128gb sd card goes from $90-120I hate this planet
>>4515792I was looking at a 256gb, it's truly fucked out there.
>>4515792>>4515793AI slurping up all the chips.It's definitely hurting/hindering camera releases as well, about half as many releases this year compared to normal.
>>4515794My assumption was the slow camera releases were more about the overall world economy rather than chip shortages. I still don't even really understand why flash memory like cards are becoming scarce, it's not like those things are running data centers.
>>4515793>>4515794>>4515795worst part is that I have a trip coming up in a few weeks that I need to buy some spare ones for, so I can't even wait for it to get "better"
>>4515795Manufacturing capacity
>>4515792yeah but how about those AI memes huh
>>4515742>looks shittierI think lukewarms say this because they don't know how to take good photos and need to rely on le cinematic colour grading. Film looks nothing like real life, it changes colours, creates casts in shadows and highlights that aren't present in real life.
bros coffee or black on black half case
>>4515812Black coffee for me please
>>4515817AIEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
>>4515812they both look like shitbut black obviously
>>4515810Film looks more like real life than a flat reality scan made of a 2x2 or 6x6 grid of colorful computery squares designed by autistic computer scientists and engineersFilm was made by chemists and physicists, so they actually had souls and got laid>>4515812This is even more tasteless than nikon color science
>>4515810meanwhile most fine art photography is still film and digital can either look lo-fi (some of the few noteworthy art digisnaps are lo fi) or like a horrid unnatural CGI render with max edge contrast down to the smallest detail before it starts shitting out rainbow squiggles like an AI generated image (because dpreview and dxomark said AA filters are bad, and companies listened)
>>4515837But anon, what about the colours? Film has totally different colours from film stock to film stock, so which one looks like real life? Please provide a better answer this time. >>4515838Try again but make it coherent this time, schizo.
>>4515812Half cases like this aren't that good when they don't come up to the shoulders like they did on older cameras, pic rel. On the case you posted, some of your fingers on your right hand are gripping the case and the ones up higher are gripping the body, which is kinda uncomfortable. You're probably better off with a battery grip or L bracket if you want some protection on the camera.
>>4515839The colors might not be scientifically accurate, but they look more like real life and are closer to memory-accurate than a gross flat cold reality scan verified by an optical scientist to show scientifically accurate colors. >Uh, peoples skin is actually that gray and pallid with red blotches! It is, really! I measured the wavelengths and every region is correctly discriminated with an error of +/-2.3% and an sensor metamerism index of 93. Maybe you should COLOR GRADE and do my job for me. This camera discriminates between 4 million shades of red instead of a few hundred. “Ohhh no but the flowers look pink” yes retard because they are objectively not pure red and it has to render them as a different shade to reflect reality. EDIT IT. And maybe be thankful for the ten stops of shadow recovery you have thanks to me? Bye! -camera designers now>No the sky isnt that teal but it looks really good and some people think the sky is that teal so who cares. Aren’t these skin tones nice? No not everyone looks this healthy and this guys rash blended in and basically disappeared but it looks nice. Check this out. The red flowers are red. Raws look like jpegs. Who needs to edit? -camera designers then
>>4515841>The colors might not be accurateCould have ended it here, lil bro. Digital wins again, EZ. Thanks for admitting film sucks.
>>4515839sorry if this >>4515838 isnt coherent to you, you have zero experience using film or digital. maybe you have a canon rebel and order lab scans from a guy with fucking noritsu/frontier. digital always looks like shit. film always looks good. most fine art photography is film. there are 200mp 16 stop dr cameras and most fine art photography is still film (200mp 16 stop dr is a thing on film already - 6x9 color negs kek. digislugs dont know because they think dr is a shadow noise measurement, but on film its highlight recovery with subjectively allowable color shifts)
>>4515843Your eye sees: Red flowerFilm photographs: red flowerCanon 5D classic photographs: red flower but you can edit it to another color if you wantNikon Z8 photographs: pink gradient flower because objectively according to scientific equipment its not true red/you’re meant to edit it actually/just turn the saturation up until it all clips red>digital wins! SCIENTIFICALLY ACCURATE!Your eye sees: decreasing edge definition with decreasing detail sizeFilm sees: decreasing edge definition with decreasing detail sizeCanon 5d classic sees: a pleasing soft effect that doesn’t try to render anything it can’tNikon Z8 sees: maximum edge definition regardless of detail size until bayer/xtrans fucks up and creates moire, rainbow garble, maze patterns, worms, etc>digital wins again! SCIENTIFICALLY ACCURATE!Modern cameras are not artistic tools. They are astronomical observation and forensics equipment. You probably dont know this but the biggest buyers of high end digishit like hasselblads and fuji gfx are museums, research institutions, and forensics labs.
>>4515843What >>4515845 said except>Your eye sees: Red flower>Gold 200 photographs: yellow flower>Portra 400 photographs: maroon flower>Vision 3 500 photographs orange flower with teal halation>Ektachrome photographs: purple flower>Tri-X photographs: grey flowerLol, lmao even.
>>4515844>digital always looks like shit. film always looks good.Wait so how come all professionals shoot digital now? And how come all artists have already switched to digital tho? Answer quicker please.
>>4515852Its all red. Sorry you had your film scanned at the lab. >>4515853>professionalsAre soulless snapshitters with no artistic ability. Yeah, the walmart photographer shoots digital! The wedding GWAC needs an R5 not to fail at his job completely! The news shoos digital! Win!>artists switched from filmInstagram accounts are not artistsAnd neither is annie leibovitz or anyone shooting for tabloids and fashion rag toilet paper for that matter (annie’s modern work has been hot fucking garbage since she picked up her first d810). Shit, most fashion photography can’t even be called art. A photobook by garry winogrand is more art than that american-rich studioslop. The vast majority of fine art photography is shot on film. When its digital it tends to suck so it’s still mostly film. Or did you think kodak still made sheet film to wank? No its because anyone who takes photography seriously as an art form uses film instead of a max sharpness scientifically accurate wavelength discrimination digicope machine.
>>4515853omg guys realestate photographers are using digital cameras it is so over for filmhow can we seriously sleep on the ultra sharp 67mp snoy when it is so prominently used on zillow? im tossing my 500cm assp i dont need this inconvenient shit that only produces 200mp scans and wall sized enlargements if im willing to accept soft details and visible grain when pixel peeping. digital is better because its sharper and has less grain. zillow has spoken.
Nothing will convince me otherwise that the people who whine the most about digital color, are just bad at editing (or genuine nophotos)
>>4515857>The vast majority of fine art photographyWho are some fine art photographers I should be be looking towards?
>>4515857>Instagram accounts are not artistsWait so film photographers aren't artists? Because thats the only place film photos end up nowadays... oh an lomography.com ahahahahahahahahah
>>4515863There is not a digital camera on sale today that could produce worse colours on auto WB than even the best film stock. They don't even need to edit. It's just poorfags coping because they can't afford full frame digital - so they're cucked into >photography as a subscription service>aka filmI'll take my pay once, and 'smile-at-perfect-colours-everytime', machine thanks. The thinking mans choice. Pretty simple.
>>4515867>>4515866>>4515864Digislugs cope hard but notice they aren’t posting any fine art because all the good art is shot on film, especially sheet film. Digital is mostly for commercial photography and low tier work like “guess the ethnicity” art and “i have access to famous people!” shoots. Oh and yeah, worthless snapshots that might as well be AI like youtube and insta. Kodak isn’t expanding their consumer 120 and 4x5+ film offerings again for no reason. Pixel peeping sharpness and noise is getting old. 240fps shooting is passe. If film is so much worse why is it bigger than ever now when anyone can afford a sony a7rii, canon 5DS or nikon D850? People arent even buying those cameras to photograph things anymore, they’re buying them to make film scans as lesser versions of their final darkroom prints. And mock digiplebs when their most poorly shot, soft lens wide open 6x6 is still good for 70-100mp. Soth, Hido, Eich, Crewdson, even the up and coming like Wright and Dooley. All film. If you aren’t shooting 6x6cm at least, at making real prints, you will never be taken seriously as an artist. You’re competing with and will be mistaken for AI. Sorry! Have fun competing with grok for likes and follows whenever you aren’t being the G.W.A.C. at some suckers weddingFilmGODS will continue defining art photography in your absence
>>4515869Very true, this simply could never be achieved on digital
>Film:>Ken Griffith>Jon Nicholson (primarily)>Nick Carver>Emily Rinard>Ken Rockwell (only competent on film)>Alex Burke>Jules Frazier>Bryan Schutmaat>Annie Leibovitz, the better years>Literally every 20th century photographer desu>Digital: >Seth Stern? (His film shots are better)>Ken Rockwell (poorly)>Gerald Undone>Fro Knows Photo>Annie Leibovitz, the half assed years>Uhhhh?>>4515871@grok generate me a cinematic photo of a coping digislug shot on a sony a7rvi and color graded in capture one
>>4515869>>4515872Damn that's crazy lil bro.So where's your 'fine art' on film?Don't start coping now, after all, you spent so much of your wagey on your hobby as a subscription service... LOL!
The filmchad is correct. We’re wasting our time giving a shit about digital gear and comparing our SNRs, MTFs and megapixels. The only photos anyone looks at more than once are shot on film, and pretty soon no one will even want to see a jpeg unless they can also see an original negative/slide. As far as digital goes, the one you have with you that doesn’t have AI or wifi. Digital doesn’t matter.
>>4515873>ESL + innercityeseIllegal: detectedOpinion: discardedICE: calledOnce you’re back home you can take some awesome photos on film :)
>>4515873Yeah I’m with filmchad here. Film is pretty cheap. Even sheet film is basically free compared to serious hobbies like modding cars, sailing, and civilian aviation and shooting medium format or sheets for years comes nowhere near the expense of a single professional level musical instrument. If you think its a major copeworthy expense you might be more used to the economic situation in another country, h1-bro.
>>4515874>We’re wasting our time giving a shit about digital gearAs a film user, we're definitely more guilty of gear fagging. People such as myself and others in this thread pay thousands of dollars for vintage nikons, mamiyas, pentaxes that will likely fail in the near future and have no spare part available, leaving them unrepairable. As much as I love my film gear, I've got to admit, nothing beats just being able to buy a cheap digi and shoot infinite pictures at no additional cost...
>>4515877You should have asked AI to correct your ESLbabbleThen again, you could also ask AI to do digital “photography” for you and saved thousands by not buying the newest canikony
>>4515877Dubs of truth, checked. I am also a film user, but I agree, we are usually the most heinous gear-fags with the least artistically or commercially viable portfolios. Personally, I, like other film users in this thread, prefer to shoot boring subjects at boring focal lengths. This is because this is all that is available for my vintage camera and I rely on the unnatural colour grading of my chosen stock to make my photos look interesting, which they don't.
>>4515871>this simply could never be achieved on digitalfoveon
>>4515878*could have asked AIAccuse the ESL, become the ESL. Wait… Is it contagious?
>>4515879>>4515877>my fellow film userstrying too hard samefag. >>4515869>>4515872irrefutable and extremely epic win for filmchads - and their dogs
>>4515869Personally, as a film user, I also think this dogshit webcam photo is 'art'. Probably why most people disregard the opinion of myself and others like me who are also annoying, child-like, film shooters. At least I can take pictures of my gear (I have a Nikon F3) and get lots of karma on reddit!
>>4515873You need to stop asking this!!! It's not fair to film shooters like me that have to wait six weeks for 24 4 megapixel drum scanned snapshits. This next roll will surely get me into magnum, you fricken chud!
>>4515869You triggered a major meltie with this trvke
>>4515867>>photography as a subscription serviceIt's over film sisters... digichad raped us... how will we come back from this? He's right, we're having a MAJOR MELTDOWN here. Just cancelled my next shipment of Tri-X, which cost two hundred dollars before development and low quality scanning fees... im going to start saving up my wage-coin for an R5... It's the only option if you're a real photographer...
>>4515886>we're having a MAJOR MELTDOWN hereHonestly, it does kind of seem like it
>>4515886>im going to start saving up my wage-coin for an R5I was thinking this also. Canon colors were always the best, but now with the new R system, they're better than ever. Most importantly, better than film ever was.
>>4515886Yeah you’re genuinely melting down hereCouldn’t post any good fine art photographers who use digital huh
>>4515893I understand your enraged confusion anon, I used to be a film-sissy too. It's ok, there are cameras out there that take good pictures. They're called DIGITAL CAMERAS. Hope this helps and you can stop irritating beloved family members with your annoying and misinformed 'film-is-better-than-digital' lectures at gatherings... :)
Film and digital are just different. They both have objective and subjective strengths and weaknesses. Saying one is strictly better than the other is retarded.
>>4515894>meltdown continues
The melty was epic so I refined my post as a pastaDirections: copy below line and use an epic photo by one of the listed filmGODs_Digislugs cope hard about their canikony’s autofocus, megapixels, sharpness, zoom lens, and auto modes, but notice they aren’t posting about art because all the good art is shot on film, especially sheet film. Digital is mostly for commercial photography, magazine snaps, and low tier diversityslop art. And of course, unimportant snapshots that might as well be AI - typically found on youtube and instagram.Kodak isn’t expanding their consumer 120 and sheet film offerings for no reason. Pixel peeping sharpness and noise is getting old. 240fps shooting is passe. If film is so much worse why is it bigger than ever now when anyone can afford a nice FF digital and the world's supply of functioning film cameras is running low? Why are some of the few film cameras still in production leicas, medium format tech cameras, and 4x5 view cameras? Why are all the best selling digital cameras casual PnS?Because film is synonymous with art, and digital is synonymous with snapshots.Soth, Hido, Eich, Crewdson, even the up and coming like Wright and Dooley. All film.Ken Griffith, Jon Nicholson, Nick Carver, Dog Hair Negatives, Emily Rinard, Alex Burke, Jules Frazier, Bryan Schutmaat, literally every 20th century photographer - all film.Who shoots digital again? Ken Rockwell? His serious work is on film. Even low tier youtubers like Jared Polin do their serious work on film. So really, who is using digital for serious artwork? If you can name one, they probably do better work on film.If you aren’t shooting 6x6cm at least, and making real prints, you will never be taken seriously as an artist. You’re competing with and will be mistaken for AI. Sorry!Have fun competing with @grok for likes and follows whenever you aren’t being the G.W.A.C. at some suckers weddingFilmGODS will continue defining art photography in your absence
>>4515900>deleted ESLbabbleThat's a lot of words. Here's all digital needs:>digital looks like real life>film is photography as a subscription serviceSorry to absolutely demolish that yap you took two hours to write, LOL
>>4515902There's nothing stopping you from making your own film. The most basic types use simple, easily attainable chemicals and are fairly straightforward to produce. If you want orthochromatic film things get a bit more complicated, but still achievable with a basic darkroom/lab setup.
Here is my argument for digital, regardless of any artistic merit and just discussing the process of getting the photo. If I was using film I probably wouldn't have bothered wasting any shots attempting it, but if I had I probably would have burned through a whole roll and not even known if I had a shot I liked until days later and would have needed to get lucky guessing the shutter speed. Digital allows you to experiment for free, and try as many times as you need to get the shot you want with no cost.
>>4515901Didn't read lolStay mad
>>4515902>digital looks like real life
>>4515904But your shutter speed was still too slow for your shot. Once you understand what exposure is and how to use a light meter you can nail exposures on film just about 100% of the time. Camera operation is the easiest part of photography.Many film cameras also have superb metering systems that will nail just about every shot as well. Nikon F5/F6 are notable examples.
>>4515904>digital is better for people who haven’t learned photography yetwell, that settles things>>4515901based
>>4515901>reformats his post>/p/ seethes twicebrilliant
>>4515901The levels of retardation in this post are massive, but at the same time I love how mad it makes gearfags. It's very conflicting.
>>4515907>But your shutter speed was still too slow for your shot.Says you. I got the difference between the splashing water and the falling drop that I wanted.>Once you understand what exposure is and how to use a light meter you can nail exposures on film just about 100% of the timeIt's not about the exposure, as you say there are many film bodies that have decent metering systems. What I'm talking about is the effect the chosen settings have on the outcome. Without looking up the exif I bet you can't tell me whether that shot was at 1/250 or 1/1000, nor would you have been able to choose the correct setting to get the desired balance that I mentioned. And then there's the actual timing of the shot, once I had the settings down I probably had 10-15 that caught a drop to choose the my favourite from. I was probably out there for maybe 10 minutes and knew I could stop because I had some promising shots, with film I would have just gone until the roll was spent and hoped.
>>4515901The levels of genius in this post are incomprehensible – and it makes geafags seethe. It’s not just a meme, it’s a revolution. It recontextualizes equipment, questions the assumption of creative intent, and explores photography’s nature as an inherently American art form. Bravo. I salute thee. Great post.
>>4515913But I wouldn't want the water drops to look that blurry and unsatisfying. I dont do a lot of freeze frame type photography, so I do not have a good sense for shutter speeds in that way.How many pictures in total did you take to get 10-15 to choose from and is none of your photography worth the cost of a single roll of film to capture?
>>4515913Can you post one where you completely froze the droplet?
>>4515922Anon. You could have done a droplet picture with flash. In fact, flash pulses and film cameras with leaf shutters (ie: hasselblad, bronica, large format) are the best way to freeze motion. Flash fires faster than 1/8000 and leafs have no rolling shutter and sync with flash at all speeds.
>>4515922>But I wouldn't want the water drops to look that blurry and unsatisfying.And that's fair, but your wants aren't my wants. I wanted the splashes to look energetic and the drop to be still and that was the balance I settled on. I maybe could have gone slightly faster, that shot looked better on the screen and I was taking so many and was getting cold so didn't take the time to zoom in on every one. But I could have, I could have put in more effort and got it closer to perfect. I couldn't have done that with film.>How many pictures in total did you take to get 10-15 to choose from and is none of your photography worth the cost of a single roll of film to capture?Probably at least double that dialling in the settings and missing shots because the timing was off. Considering it's about £25 to buy, dev, and scan a roll no I don't think it would have been worth it for a single shot that might not have turned out. I know not all film photos would have that cost, depending on the situation you could get 36 great ones per roll, but I'm talking about this specific situation.>>4515923Unfortunately not, I had a look back through my card and I deleted most of them while I was narrowing them down. I remember not liking how the splashes in the background looked being frozen.>>4515924As above, I wasn't trying to freeze the whole scene otherwise I would have just used a flash as well. You're missing my intention with the photo. And before you say it's shit that's irrelevant, it's what I wanted and I used the advantages of digital to get it.
>>4515924Depends on the flash, but yeah you're right. I didn't mention it because he was just wandering about and taking pics outside. Probably didn't have the time to whip out a flash or whatever.>>4515926Differences in opinion are totally fine.Upon reflection I think your precise situation is actually fairly uncommon in the grand scheme of "good photography" so I don't think it really has that much weight in the argument, but I will say that sometimes it is fun to just use a digital camera and not really worry about film and all that. Doesn't really facilitate good photography most of the time, but we don't need to be doing that every time we use cameras.I also think that a lot of useful experiments/learning/test shots need to be done with film if you intend to have your final images be taken with film. Back in the day people would use polaroid for their test shots to make sure their strobes were all set up well, etc. Totally fine and smart to swap a digicam out when doing something like that.
>>4515930>i want to freeze one drop but not the restDigislugs
>>4515792I sell digicams online to finance my GAS so I've had to buy lots of SD-cards and I was shocked as well looking at my purchase history on aliexpress compared to what it is now. Regret not buying a whole lot more, but we are talking about a 3x in price for even generic slow cards.
>>4515932I paid $20 for a 2GB card for my digishitter since the fucker of a thing will only accept the very oldest version of SDs, and even used vintage ones were insanely priced.
>>4515877the best compromise is doing both80s-90s autofocus film SLR + 2010s DSLR that uses the same lenses film SLRs are usually pretty compact, the size of a apsc mirrorless or smaller and often <$50 if you go for a non-professional body. take your pick of nikon, pentax, minolta/sony a-mount (get a la-ea5 adapter if you're e-mount), canon
>>4515931You could probably do it with an annoyingly finnicky strobe/continuous lighting setup, but definitely not achievable in the rain.. Oh wait. It's digital he could just make a composite image!
>>4515935I've been using a Nikon 90s SLR for my film photos, the whole thing works just like a brand new camera which is comfy (loudest AF I've ever heard since it's the screw type so I just manual focus now). Film costs are still just a major pain in the ass, especially if I have a timeframe to get everything done within. I've had a 36exp roll with only 10 shots used sitting in it for two months now.
>>4515938You can take the roll out if you keep the leader exposed. Mark how many shots you took then put a lens cap back on and take pics until you get passed your exposed section.
>>4515939I'm not confident enough to do that, so I'm fine with it just sitting until it's ready. It's still a few months away from expiring anyway.
>>4515943Okay well you now have an excuse to buy another film camera. :) May I suggest a 4x5 camera. A field camera would be good for maximum portability.It will completely solve the problem you are currently suffering from. You can dev each sheet individually or do batches of 4-10 depending on the dev tank you use.
>>4515946I've got a little PnS that picks up the slack, it's an early 90s Jap one that has a glass lens instead of plastic and can also read those barcodes from rolls that tell it the ISO (which is amazing for such an old PnS imo). Honestly if developing and buying film wasn't so expensive, I'd probably be firing off photos constantly. I was getting rolls and development dirt cheap during COVID for some reason but prices seemed to hike up in the last 2 years.
>>4515947Dang I thought I was going to convert you to sheet film. B&w home dev can get down to pennies per roll and it's really quite simple. You start saving pretty quickly too. Maybe like 20 rolls or less and you've already paid for your tank and chems.
>>4515951>Dang I thought I was going to convert you to sheet film. Maybe someday, but not yet. >B&w home dev can get down to pennies per roll and it's really quite simple. You start saving pretty quickly too. Maybe like 20 rolls or less and you've already paid for your tank and chems.Yeah I'm going to look into b&w home dev when I have more time and a bigger place. My next place is going to have a giant garage so I'm going to build a little development room in the back and also a few sets. I posted in some other thread about having a massive vinyl record collection and some anon suggested building a record shop set, so I'm going to do that too.
>>4515930That exact situation sure, but there are many situations where being able to take more photos and get instant feedback are very useful. And it's not just a skill issue and chimping away, some things you just have to be really lucky for and for others, despite how good you might think you are, you just won't get right the first time.>I also think that a lot of useful experiments/learning/test shots need to be done with film if you intend to have your final images be taken with filmBut I have no intention of using film. Unless you're poor and don't take many photos or you're shooting larger than 35mm there's really no need to.
>>4515953Oh I remember that. A sink with tempered water is nice for b&w dev, but you don't need a whole room for just dev. You only need a changing bag for roll film and 4x5. Your room could be made into a darkroom first that makes loading film convenient and easy. I'm getting a crazy darkroom built in my shop. Permitting is holding stuff up like crazy but maybe Ill be lucky and get permit approval in a month or two.>>4515955If you shoot a lot of film you gain a sense for what a photograph will look like with whatever film you're using. Getting lucky means capturing the moment. Chimping and retaking a shot will almost never get you that moment back. Get it right the first time or SOL. No difference between film and digital in that respect.35mm film makes wonderful looking prints up to and above 11x14 depending. Do not talk poorly of a great format.
>>4515956> you don't need a whole room for just devYeah it'll be just a little space at the back, I'd use the other space for sets and my cars.>I'm getting a crazy darkroom built in my shop. Permitting is holding stuff up like crazy but maybe Ill be lucky and get permit approval in a month or two.Based. Making it into a proper business or is it because it's modifying the building?
>>4515957I'd like it to become a small business/side hustle, and you can totally do that without permits if it stays small enough, but just the building modification is what's slowing it down. I was close, but they found a small discrepancy between the building size and the actual size of the building or some bullshit and so it has to take an extra 4+ months to get figured out now.Keeping lots of room for sets and a studio is a good idea. You need a suprisinf amount of space depending on what you want to do and more space = more possibilities.
>>4515958Based, hope it works out for you anon. You could do some serious business if you price things a bit lower than others (even a dollar makes a difference) and get some good local connections. I'm a little envious honestly, it sounds like a great way to meet like minded people.>Keeping lots of room for sets and a studio is a good idea. You need a suprisinf amount of space depending on what you want to do and more space = more possibilities.I'll temper my expectations. The record store will be easy, it's mostly going to be just the corner of one like a TV show set but haven't decided what the other set might be, but it should be something that is otherwise usually too crowded/not private enough for a photoshoot. The record store set looks easiest since I just need a few shelves, some posters and some of those crates those stores put records in.
>>4515959My initial thought is that I'll offer maybe 5ish portrait sessions for just the cost of materials and choose a selection of people that look pretty different from each other to build a diverse portfolio. Then from there idk, but I'll have some really high end prints to show how nice large format film looks to people. I'll be able to do RA4, and I really want to try 8x10 color contact prints. I think they will look exceptional if I can get the color balancing figured out.From my experience with having vision and concepts that I've tried actualizing through photography I think you're going to find more use out of the props you assemble than you expect. A record store could turn into a 70s themed living room, or a cool bedroom and those changes won't require you to get all new stuff, but make use of what you have in unexpected ways.Full sized set design is going to be really fun and a great way to take unique and awesome pictures.
>>4515960>From my experience with having vision and concepts that I've tried actualizing through photography I think you're going to find more use out of the props you assemble than you expect. A record store could turn into a 70s themed living room, or a cool bedroom and those changes won't require you to get all new stuff, but make use of what you have in unexpected ways.>Full sized set design is going to be really fun and a great way to take unique and awesome pictures.Pretty cool idea, I could just rework it into different period pieces with the same items. Just kinda sucks that I can't do any portraits of myself with it, I don't think putting my face on 4chan is the best of ideas so most anons will probably never see the set when it's completed.
>>4515961Exactly. If you keep an open mind you'll find some pretty cool inspiration with what you have.You can always get a dog and take pictures of dog in your set lol.
Lol and they say film doesn't look like real life... fricklen digichuds...
I was doing some research about autofocus assist beams, as they're pretty interesting, and absent from modern cameras. Basically if you don't know, Canon left this out of most of their DSLRs. Their rationale was that they would put the AF assist lamp on the flash, since if its too dark to focus, you're probably also going to be using a flash. I do have one of canons paparazzi-oriented pro speedlite flashes with this IR / near-IR red grid illuminator, so I was testing this out and holy fuck, it focuses instantly even in total darkness. You dont need any contrast or anything its just instant, you can just point it at a white wall with zero texture or features in pitch black and it focuses instantly. It's specified to have a range of about 10 meters but I think it goes much further than that.
>>4515981I find that shit so annoying that I taped over my R8's AF lamp because even though there's settings to restrict its use, it still came on for certain things.If it's dark enough that AF wont work then you manual focus. It's also useless if you're using a longer lens and the lamp is blocked by the barrel for center-point shots.
>>4515996>R8's AF lampThat's very different from the IR assist beams
>Sell 5 Minolta Lenses (top pic) >Make some $$$ back after 2+ years of GAS >Still have a bunch of stuff for sale (middle pic) the Pentax stuff isn't moving FOR SHIT no idea why>See bottom pic when trying to price out my 100k mile shutter K200D >End up buying it for $145 shippedteeheeTo be fair the Pentax 18-135mm WR DC lens is $100 all day long. I traded mine into B&H for $80 when I was selling all my APSC lenses for FF. Was a good lens otherwise. Should be fun to pair with my K70 and K3; I had it on a KF and went through Florida with it having a blast 2 years agoI still have to list:K10D (low shutter count but insane backfocus; I think it has mirror sag; $100-120 on eBay?)K200D (always giving a brown/yellow hue/tinge in photos, lazy light meter? I'd probably ask $80 because of the insane amount of shutters on it)Side note if someone wants something for sale; get in touch and I'll send a good offer (30% off?)
>>4516014Odd selection off stuff. Almost only screw-drive autofocus.
>>4516014My K10D also was a backfocusing king in his irreparable era. I tried to adjust it via the debug menu to no effect. Sold it. Really tempted to get another because I like how it captured images, especially in highlights. Oh well.
>>4516014I’m considering getting the SMC Pentax FA 100mm f/2.8 Macro. I see you used the 50 from the same generation. How was the build quality?
>>4516014Nobody wants Pentax since there’s only a rumour of a future there, nothing concrete.
I need a camera backpack, big one for dslr and 4+ big lenses. I also need straps for the good carbon fiber tripod. What get?
>>4516059Lowepro or Tenba. Or you could buy a big ass general backpack and a big insert. The bag I'm using has been out of production for over 15 years so I haven't need to look again kek.
>>4516057The Minolta stuff is selling better and A-Mount has been dead longer than K Mount. That or my prices are too high. Just saw Roberts Camera on eBay posted a 50mm f2.8 D FA Macro for $117 and mine is $130 + $8 shipping. I'm gonna cut everything by 20% until I leave for Montreal this Friday for the weekend (already sent everyone with offers for 20%). >>4516055Honestly the K200D and K10D are rather bleh as far as CCD sensors go. K10D works better with manual lenses. I'm hoping its just sample variation in 20 year old cameras; the K200D keeps giving brown/yellow hues If I come across a <$50 *istDS I'll give it a shot. Hoping this new K200D is better than my last. >>4516056I actually sold a Pentax-F 100mm f/2.8 Macro for $40 a while ago because it had crazy haze. I personally barely use Macro capabilities so I couldn't say but I did use the 50mm f2.8 on a trip to Montreal with my K1 and it was decently sharp though not the quickest to focus. Its a little bulky definitly a chunky piece of glass. Once I picked up a Pentax-F 50mm f1.7 and later a FA 50mm f1.4 I never ever ever picked it up again. Pic rel is with the Macro. I think this weekend if I get that K200D in time I'll KISS and take it with me to Montreal or do my K3 + 18-135mm and either a 35mm or 50mm f1.4 for low light shots.
I just bought a Viltrox 75mm f/1.8 EVO for X-mountThanks for reading my blog
>>4516080bring back /fag/
Hello /p/I'm looking for a compact camera, I've been using Sony DSC HX5V for the past 15 years, but I'd like something slightly better for making videos and, preferably, with at least 20x optical zoom. I'm not a pro photographer. I just want a camera I can use to take photos of family trips and film wild animals in the forest.
>>4516082Budget?
I bought a mint condition in box Rollei Prego Micron (Ricoh R1) "for parts does not work" for 29 dollarionos shipped. Sprayed some contact cleaner on a cotton swap and took a swipe on the battery contacts and whaddaya know? Works perfectly. Top LCD is messed up though as they all are.
>>4516084The lower, the better. Let's say $800 is the upper limit, but I'd gladly take something cheaper.
>>4516086If buying new the only option is the Canon sx740 HS which is an aging camera at this point as there hasn't been much development on that front in recent years.
>>4515997I find the main difference to be range after experimenting with a few different setups. The F80 has what could be described as a 'fog light' or 'high beam' as its just a quite bright halogen lamp with a wide FOV on the front of the camera. These work ok but the red grid from the canon pro Speedlights are much better. Its worth mentioning some flashes have a different method, like the 270 EX II, which actually flickers the main flash bulb to a similar result as the F80's foglamp. I find the 270 EX II to be actually quite an underrated little flash. Since it has a manually operated telephoto head, you can increase the range of your AF-assist, and then just set it back to wide mode before you take the shot if necessary. Its also the only micro flash ive ever used with a bounce head, which is a very nice addition.
>>4516082a sony a6000 series camera and a superzoom lens. might not be 20x but you could get a 20-200 or so.
Had to rma the battery, sony niggers asked fot the whole package. Now having to send the camera also
>>4516087I guess all the compact cameras are now a thing of the past, because some people got convinced phone cameras are viable.>>4516094That's too expensive.Any thoughts on Panasonic DC-TZ99E-K?Also, I'm looking through some used cameras.
Anyone using Voigtlander on Sony?I love Voigtlander's "manual with electronics" design. Have been using them on Fuji but they offer a much more complete lineup for Sony E. I'm looking specifically at the A7CII.
seems kind of neat, especially for only like $30saw someone mention using it just as a meter for their film cameras
>>4516122>Any thoughts on Panasonic DC-TZ99E-K?Can't go wrong with Panasonic. Big upgrade from Sony in terms of features, especially for video.I would get one of these collapsing LCD viewers for using the camera in bright environments. Also at 30x zoom it makes aiming the camera way easier than holding at arms length.
>>4516122>Also, I'm looking through some used cameras.One thing to note if you purchase a used Panasonic within your specs, they often have dust in the lens as with all later Panasonic Leica zoom digicams.
>>4516166>they often have dust in the lens as with all later Panasonic Leica zoom digicams.Damn, my Sony also has dust in the lens, but it doesn't seem to affect any photos yet.>>4516165sounds great!
>>4516166>>4516167Some people have luck removing dust with a vacuum as in pic related.Note the rubber band which is to keep the front element from detaching.
>>4516170Oh, I'll try that. This setup gave me also some other idea too.
>>4515645they say that the best camera for taking pictures of your dogs ass is the one you have on you
>>4516170Surely the intense static generated by the vacuum would damage the electronics inside?
S5mkiix, fx30, fx3, a7iv or z6?
>>4516221Canon R5
>>4516221Cucknon Rape 5
>>4516221ZV-E1 + APO-LANTHAR 50mm F2 Aspherical
>>4516221R6III
>>4516221Depends on the use and budget
>>4516060Thanks
>>4516221S5. Lumix just does it better.
>>4516221Depends on what you want to do but simply avoid lumix and nikon outright. They are 5th rate and 3rd rate respectively. They have shit quality control, worse autofocus than DSLRs (up to autofocus almost as good as an a7iii), and the entire lens selection is oversized pixel peeper slop or cheap plastic, with the few nice lenses being universal third party stuff. Nikon literally sent me a z6 with a tilted EVF and both brands manage to be renowned for stupid failures despite being outsold by sony and canon by a factor of 5… per. Lumix is also known for paying youtubers to lie out their asses. They have by their shills claims surpassed sony in every way three times now. Lumix remains the literal bottom brand unless you pretend pentax and OM system exist. It turns out they were just lying and nothing was actually better on lumix. Kek. They even said the g9ii was the end of aps-c and that fuji was going to die. Woops! Wrong again. Do not bother with anything but Canon, Sony, or Fujifilm.
>>4516272You forgot to mention another bottom brand which partnered with Panasonic. Birds of a feather, I guess.
>>4516293Leica cameras are renowned for hardware failures and no autofocus at all so it tracksMaybe panasonic should cut the bullshit and just sell budget leica Ms. L mount is rangefinder spec. Just tie the lens focus distance encoder to an electronically driven rangefinder instead of using a mechanical linkage. Their wannabe DP pet market doesnt use autofocus anyways
/p/-pentax should i take my k70, k3, or k1ii with me to montreal, i took my k1ii with me last year but didnt really master the camera at the time so my shots kinda sucked. this was one i took with the 50mm f2.8 macroi also have 8 exposures left on a 36 roll of kodak 200 im taking inside a pentax zx30 gonna dual wield to finish that roll off it still has pics from last year i never developedwas thinking the k70 before i sell it but the k3 is nice. that and the 50mm f1.4 fa prime, 17-50mm f2.8 zoom, and a 70-210mm f4-5.6 takumar-f zoom in my backpack
>>4516297leave k-70, coin flip for k3 or k1dubs on this post says you only take a film camera
>>4516296>Leica cameras are renowned for hardware failuresare they?
>>4516315It's mostly just the usual brandfaggotry, but there have a been a few, say "glitchy" model releases. M9 sensor corrosion was a thing, but most recent issues are just like cameras freezing, which are mostly just SD related and fixed by better formatting. The hardware is generally good. The bad part is Leica repair can legitimately take like 6mo for repairs.
Might be winning lawsuit injury lawsuit and if so I'm definitely getting a better camera
>>4516302k-70 isnt a bad camera it uses the sensor/accelerator unit out of the kp, it definitely has more dynamic range and cleaner images but the k3 has better metering, also more beat up so idc about itkp should've unironically been called the k3ii this was last year with the kf + 18-135mm da...i think im gonna take the k3 since its fresh k1 is a fucking big ass camera and im already doing film too (probably gonna force le gf to carry the film with a 50mm f1.4 prime) i also have a sf1x with a half roll of kodak b&w that came in a camera i ordered i might try to use up too, crossing my fingers it doesnt have any criminal evidence on it when i try to develop it
>>4516331seriously though k3 vs k3ii was just a mild improvement in af and trading the flash for gps the kp was a lot more innovative and deserving of the k3 namekf = k70 w/different lcd why im using it as a reference...my first pentax was a waste to sell it i paid $400 (goodwill tradein online) for it i got back $320havent gone on any trips with the k3 but i like the pics coming out of it desu again kf + 18-135mm da wr
>>4516315https://www.reddit.com/r/Leica/comments/1taa2z5/the_2024_batch_leica_m11d_leicavit_disaster/Yes. Even m11s fall apart. For how few they sell even one is a major issue. A $10000 camera is either perfect or a scam. >but sony had a bad batch of a7iiis!And the a7iii outsold the entire full frame mirrorless market. A relatively small batch of a7iiis had issues, and that batch was equal to or greater than several years of leica’s sales. I haven’t seem more than the same two dozen broken cameras reposted either. That and one retarded woman that touched her a7ivs shutter to clean it. The latter is also common on canons that have the shutter closed feature (and basically always woman owners).
>>4516297Take the K-1 but with the 50mm only.
>>4516316>the hardware is generally good>its just fanboys mad at leicahttps://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/382975-m11-service-problems-a-sign-of-bigger-underlying-issues/even leica owners are sick of leica’s inability to make sure a $10k camera doesn’t have a 10% dud rate. there are threads like this all over. and leica sells almost no cameras relative to such massive brands as… ricoh… om system… lumixif lumix made a budget electronic rangefinder M-a-like or even a cheaper M mount camera it might even kill leica and get them sued out of the L mount alliance. i wouldnt be surprised if they’re already obligated to never ever make a compact full frame with certain features and the s9 was crippled by leica lawyers.
>i want a pentax as a cheap durable camera to risk getting stolen in third world areas like texas>man all of these are huge or have reliability issues>the kp is compact and wont break>nevermind
>>4516333>>4516335>the usual brandfaggotryCase in point
>>4516338>no no no stop stop leica is fine this is brandfaggotry stop comparing leica to other brands please stop do not show people this sir do not show them the large amount of users with issues and bring it into context with how few leica cameras exist and how much they cost sir please stop this you are unfairly slandering leica! all cameras are good and should be appreciated on their merits sir!Are you a dpreview forum mod? Serious question. Someone here linked a thread where dpreview mods threw a tantrum over people saying fujis autofocus still sucked after an improvement update, i had a laugh, and you remind me of that.
>>4516337as the pentax fag from above my suggestion?k70/kf or k3. look used and lowball hard. i picked up my k3 for $225 with a 28-75mm tamron a09 f2.8 and 23k shutter counts on facebook marketplace. and the median on ebay for a k70 with a 18-135mm da wr (again, a awesome walkaround apsc lens and like $100 used) is like $300-350.k70 is not NEARLY as prone to aperture block failure as kr/k30/k50/ks2. it can still happen. pick up a $30-50 junker of a istd/k100d/k10d and rip theirs out of it does. kp is NOT WORTH THE PREMIUM...a fucking k1ii is $900 and that's the ff flagship. a k3iii is $1200-1400. get a $300 k70 with the same sensor as the kp. (or get a nikon, no shame i actually like nikon dslrs and that would've been the second route)https://www.ebay.com/itm/307033148553
>>4516337Silver KP with silver 40mm Limited (or silver 43mm Limited) is peak
>>4516339>more toddler whining To be expected
>>4516335>>4516333Holy shit. PSA: don’t give the scammers at leica your money. there is never ever ever a valid reason to buy a digital leica. only idiots do. This should have been obvious from the start. >>4516345>>4516338>t. the corgi snapshot guy triggered because the dumb fashion camera he owns is kind of shit and comes from a nasty brandAs reliable as the husky snapshit guy being triggered by m43 existing and producing quality photos desuJust like huskysnapper came around and switched to m43 and you are beginning to regret your zf, you will come around eventually and sell your leica for something that’s actually worth the money like a 500cm
oftentimes on /p/, the mere mention that somebrand somecamera falls behind in somearea and is deservedly unpopular/disliked prompts genuine anger, usually from someone who bought one. and sometimes from someone that doesnt even own that camera, just one from the same brand (wtf? cuck behavior) or even, nothing from that brand at all (WTF?)they even demand people prove they need it not to be shit, not just at all, to an admirable standard, ie: professional use only, or a photo they like. absurd!it shouldn't be like this. this isn't healthy behavior.reminder: people who are happy with their gear are not #triggered by posts pointing out that the brand's QC is dodgy or that they are significantly behind in some area like weather sealing or autofocus or jpeg settings. those posts are just people helping each other avoid buying something that won’t work for them!>oh no, someone said nikon’s jpeg controls are less versatile than sony’s how dare they. they better work for vogue or this toddler whining is invalid! -no one sanepeople who already took the plunge successfully just ignore it because they have theirs already and it works for them. they do not care if no one else on /p/ buys from that brand to avoid the risk or poor investment or frustration from subpar functionality or w/ethey just go "oh well, mine works for me, i guess i wouldn't recommend it for anyone else, so what"people who are unhappy with their gear, or whose gear actually broke, or who didn't know a major feature was actually that half assed before buying, already bought $$$$ lenses, and don't see a worthwhile upgrade to fix their problem in the near future? sucks to be you. just don't reply. deep breaths. let other people avoid making your mistake :)
>>4516346>>4516350I appreciate that you think I both matter and care enough for you to devote paragraphs for, I feel truly honoredI case you haven't heard it in a while you are a very sane and stable person too
>>4516350>people who are happy with their gear are not #triggeredIt's too bad you aren't happy about your gear either
>>4516352>>4516351cool it homoyour favorite brand sucks at something. if you or your camera wasnt affected why do you give a fuck? why do you reply every time?>oh no someone said leicas break and buying one is unusually risky>my favorite brand names honor has been diminishedbig dealits true, get over itjust don’t reply fag
>>4516352>>4516351>Bro literally posted as fast as the cooldown timer would let himWhen you’re doing this press alt+f4 before the second posts timer runs down nigga its embarrassingIf your camera is so great that would be a great opportunity to strap it on and live it
>>4516346>PSA: don’t give the scammers at leica your money. there is never ever ever a valid reason to buy a digital leica. only idiots do.poorcel seethes
>>4516357if you were rich you’d have already posted your phase one/hassy to mog us tbqh
So what is the best to buy for digital foto storage? I got so many filled sd cards and some HDDs now.
>>4516355>>4516354Thank you for showing me that 2 people care so much about me, really makes my day
>>4516372>two people on a board with 5 users told me to shut up>im proud of thisso you’re the guy who always malds whenever someone says sony/fuji/nikon/leica is bad at something? maybe you should just shut up then?
>>4516346Leica have also gone with some new Chinese company to provide their sensors in the future, so they're really phoning in the quality now.
Leica has collaborated with Minolta, Olympus, Fuji, Panasonic and also use Sony sensors today if I am not mistaken. It is interesting how they manage to convince people to purchase their products when it is essentially just rebadged from other manufacturers. It is kinda like Rolex which is an inferior watch type in every way even compared to modern Japanese automatic movements etc, but people still buy them even after it has been revealed that Rolex themselves proxy-bids on their watches on auction sites to keep a certain price floor. I like Leica glass, but their cameras and business model not so much.
When can I buy this?
>>4516374The fact I inspire such lengthy replies from nophotos tells me I'm doing something right, so again, thank you for the compliment.
>>4516425>everyone hates me. i must be doing something right!You are literally a gay redditor who wouldn’t be here if you weren’t banned from r/leica
I wish Leica would update this with a tilt screen.
>>4516429Keep going, I'm close!
>>4516450>homosexual brings innuendo in when inappropriate instead of simply silencing his cringing defenses of a failing luxury brand, perfectly validating 4000 years of The Mosaic LawBy G.d you will die the final death and have no place in the world to come-Sent from my Nikon D200+35mm f1.8
>>4516425If you inspire lengthy replies its because they still believe you can change your behaviour for the betterIf you were seen as irredeemable you would just be called a faggot
>>4516436how about some IBIS to go with that tilt screen?
I've got a canon r6 mkii with an ef adapter connected to the ef 24-70 ii usm and I'm looking around for a bag/backpack to carry it in. So far, I have my eyes on the thinktank photocross 14L, but I'm just asking for any thoughts about this
>>4516461yes, they should be able to fit IBIS in that size body.
>>4516465If you have that as a dedicated setup then surely that bag is oversized, no?
>>4516465That seems to be a good backpack. I have a Lowepro Flipside 200AW and its 11L size is on the small side. You want your backpack to be an actual backpack along with holding your gear so 3L extra can hold some extra clothes and/or sandwiches. Just not sure about the cross strap design, a regular two strap one would be better. Also get a Peak Design Slide strap for your camera, the medium size is just right.
>>4516487forgot to mention I plan on carrying a speedlight and another lens, so having more space would be nice>>4516488I thought about what you said about the strap, so I looked and saw another one from thinktank called the mirrorless mover. It's a bit cheaper at $150, but it's 20L so it's actually an updgrade in storage
>>4516495That is for big or many gear, think 3-4 lenses and flashes or a couple big ones like a 70-200/2.8 and a 100-400. In that size you want a split with bottom half for gear and top half for generic compartment, apart from the laptop/tablet sleeve. I have a Manfrotto PRO Light Backloader, the bigger one and most of it is occupied by my 150-450 big boi and a couple primes. Nothing else really fits certainly not my 70-200, either that or the 150-450. If I would go on a hike I would have to bring an extra bag attached with hiking stuff, extra clothes, sandwiches, water etc... Or have someone else carry them for me. You really have to think about when and how you are going to use it.
Nikon Z8 is on sale at B&H. Enough of a discount to pull the trigger on it?
>>4516562You tell us
Decided to try dish soap to clean some lens elements in a Pentax 135mm today. Turns out it gives better results than anything else I've tried. I've struggled with having an oily film left behind when I use the traditional solutions such as lighter fluid or regular lens cleaner. Why did you guys keep this a secret?
>>4516466It is probably the least comfortable camera I've ever tried. Slippery, control wheels placed at an awkward position, menu not really that intuitive. Combine all that with the lack of IBIS it is really strange how people still pay close to 2k for body only when performance wise it gets mogged by 3-400 dollar newer cameras. Leica tax I guess. Interestingly the last APS-C L-mount camera they made which made a small library of Leica lenses quite cheap in comparison to full frame.
>>4516577>What is MINT?>Well you see, it's like NEAR MINT but better>What's NEAR MINT you ask?>It's almost MINT but not quiteThese Japaniggers I swear to god.
>>4516569Probably not. What happens every time I get gear itch is I ask myself "Will I get better photos when I travel to X place for the first time, during the day, than if I just used my phone and some accessory lenses?" I look at my iPhone 17 Pro Max photos, and the answer is "no", it's not worth dragging my DLSR and lenses on a trip if I'm not sure what I'm photographing.The new toy I'm closest to purchasing is a Ricoh GR IV Monochrome, but it's so expensive for what it is.
>>4516605I read a high-level copium post a while back claiming that it was gaijin english-teachers who sell lenses on ebay.
>>4516605>niggas who don't speak english can't speak english wellI don't know why you would expect any different
>>4516590You should be careful rubbing random shit on lenses, especially vintage lenses. Modern coatings are quite tough but you'd be surprised what random shit can fuck with them. Vintage lenses even moreso.
Is the difference between these two results really worth a $3000, 90%, price gap?
>>4516633If you don't know why one costs much more than the other, you don't need it. I would doubt you would need an R5 either, you would make the same snapshits with a Z50 APS-C. Or a used DSLR at that.
>>4516633In most cases no, but it's also stilly to look at this as the only differenceBetter potential for pixel peeping is behind many other things more important to a photo
>>4516634Can you provide some of your photos that could have worked if only you had a 3,000 dollar camera, or alternatively some photos taken with a 3,000 dollar camera that wouldn't have been possible otherwise?
>>4516633If you use dpreviews camera comparison tool you should quit photography while you still can>>4516636Quit photography and focus on employment. Everyone knows there is no point in trying to explain shit to a poor. People smarter and overall better than you prefer nicer cameras. Get a clue. And a job.
>>4516638That's a very wordy way of telling me that you're unable to articulate why it's worth the money.
>>4516641You don't need it and we don't want you. Bother someone else on Discord or Reddit.
>>4516641Also we know exactly why expensive cameras are expensive. We just don't want to waste time explaining because you barely able to grasp even the most basic concepts of photography
>>4516643>>4516638>>4516634>>4516644Holy melty! Gunna save this >>4516633 one for future use!
>>4516641It’s genuinely not worth my time. Go ahead and believe everyone smarter and richer than you was conned. Be an antisemite and buy a red nose that honks when compressed for good measure. >>4516645Frogs are memes for poor people.
>>4516633The important thing to remember about this is that camera's haven't changed that much sensor wise since the one the left. What has changed are assistive features that help paid photographers be more consistant with capturing non-repeatable scenes, such as sports or journalism. If you're not a high paid journo or sports photographer, it's pretty stupid for you to buy something like the camera on the right, and it makes you dumber for having done so. What you need isn't more assistive features, it's to learn photography. A 5D2 (or anything of the ilk) has a 'results ceiling' way beyond what anyone here can achieve, feel free to prove me wrong with photos.
>>4516633>Is the difference between these two results really worth a $3000, 90%, price gap?it's not the difference in results you are paying for but the process.Mirrorless makes it way easier/faster to get exactly what you want at the moment of capture. No need to go back to your cave and wrangle sliders in Lightroom. The cave is your EVF now. It's a huge boost in productivity and it can make your photos more accurate than DSLR ever could because you are able to adjust camera settings in real time to match what you are seeing with your eyeballs.Modern workflows increasingly make use of pre-processing instead of post-processing with tools such as Nikon's "Picture Control" and the industry leading Real-Time LUT by Panasonic. This is especially important in hybrid shooting when photos and movie clips should have a matching look.
>>4516657>dpreview’s botched, i mean, “normalized” iso tests = sensor techGo buy a 5dII and tell me where your shadow detail wentHe also skewed it by resizing both and using dpreview, which is basically dishonestly done, randomly lit, then fixed in post and post is the worst raw converter other than darktable (ACR)Actually, a good darktable setup will do a better job than ACR>>4516659Every photographer shoots raw except for a minority that push 1920x1080 shit to media live and arent held to artistic standards. Even videographers who basically shoot jpeg shoot in flat profiles - which is why live blinkies are only raw accurate on sony… they are for video and flat profiles (log gammas). you lost this argument so hard the last thread you had it in had to be deleted. Also, you are literally a paid shill. No one pre-processes. The results are always inferior to real editing. A niggon Z8 jpeg shooter will produce the same overall quality as a canon r7 raw shooter give or take some pixel peeping noise. PSA: Buying a pro mirrorless camera to shoot like ken rockwell because you were always too stupid to do it without live view on a dslr is basically asking to be embarrassed by someone with a cheap snapshitter and a c1 license.
>>4516657>how dare anyone spend money. you cant spend money unless you shot afghan girl! RESULTS CEILING!A Z8 is just a better camera than a 5D2 and rids the user of boomer bullshit like tripods, retakes, and composing around the focus points. Sorry you got memed into repeating a poor boomers cope for his wife not letting him upgrade. Granted its not a great camera. A mid tier canon or sony is better than any nikon alternative. Nikon’s focus is on offering low cost kits that still have good lenses without falling as deep into unreliability as say, panasonic.
>>4516661dont forget the majority of dslr lenses are soft dreamy slop below f5.6>being forced to shoot f8 or special defocus effects
>>4516661No one is saying you can't buy what you want, it's just dumb to buy shoes you will never fill. You can do whatever you like, man.
>>4516660>Go buy a 5dII and tell me where your shadow detail wentSkill issue. So long as you're not using Cuckchair One, shadow preservation on raws is fine.
>>4516663>poorfag copeIt’s a better, more useful camera. Are you going to go scrap your car because an f1 driver could lap you in it, you dumb money waster?>>4516664Now you’re just outing yourself as a neverphotoMumbai isn’t hiring out their best
>>4516665>are you going to buy a car more powerful than you can handle, where fucking up results in you crashing and dyingI love when terminal busriders make car analogies lol. Looks like someone's projecting :^)
>>4516666I have dailied everything from busas and v8 camaros to miatas and corollas. Because I am an adult and can do that. My first bike was a cbr1000rr at 22. I never crashed. Follow the speed limit and practice with cones in a parking lot. Ezpz. It was a fun comfy ride to grow into. Are you comparing yourself to a stoned teenager who is going to confuse pedals in their first car or die trying stunt driving?A quick psych profile:Have you ever picked up a musical instrument and thought a decent one was more than you deserved?Do you ever look at your house and think you made a mistake, don’t deserve it, and are wasting its potential? That you belong in a shack or an apartment?Do you ever think your stove is just a bit nice for your shitty cooking? Why do you have that knife, those pans? Those are for chefs. Why have furniture if you barely entertain? How can you pretend you didn’t overconsoom? A plank on a pair of sawhorses as as good as any table, and more useful. Do you think everything is wasted potential being tied up by a failure?Do you have second hand cringe when you see a happy normal person take boring photos of their cat running on a sony a9ii, and get the urge to tear them down and let them know what a disappointment they’re being and how they’re wasting their time?Yeah?
>>4516667Not reading all that lil bro
>>4516668Hit a little close to home huhIt’s just a profile of the stereotypical 4chan user bro
>>4516666today we learned a nikon z8 will literally kill you if you take photos too fastthats kind of a weird way to communicate the anxiety you feel about… how do i say it? owning something nice enough for people to expect you to be genuinely interested in your own hobby
Having bells and whistles is fun. Not having money is boring. Buying more bells and whistles than you need can be irrational and irresponsible depending on your financial situation and needs.Me, I use a R5 I bought used with 100k clicks, it does everything I need it too, but I'd like to try a higher megapickels camera just to scratch the itch and as far as features? I'd love it if they introduced a decent eye-control tiltable EVF which would actually come in handy, but no such product exist yet.
>>4516671Forgot to add, another feature I'd like is the removal of a mechanical shutter.
>>4516495 anon hereI think I'm going for the thinktank backstory 15L. It seems to be a good size for my r6 with 2 lenses, speedlight, and extra batteries. I looked at other options and while they all have their pros, I think this looks the most like a normal backpack out of all them which is what I prefer
>>4516674Looks good. One thing I've noticed after handling probably hundreds of different bags, cases and whatnot is that there are so many products that are just made for storage and no thought has gone into it beyond that which is something just about every manufacturer can make and as a consequence there is a lot of it available. Those who actually make thought out products have such as on this backpack zippers that are either rubberized or like that one with cord and plastic as to not make annoying sounds when you are out walking. Noises from friction or clickety clackety is something you will often get when buying the cheap/generic stuff and it gets annoying really quick.
I got this referb z50 from nikon for $450 good condition but its like broken, switch for video recording is ultra sensitive, should I ask for a repair or get a refund
>>4516689I'd just get a refund. Why bother with the possiblity of more back and forth.
>>4516690you make a good point, plus I've been thinking of getting a sony a6400 instead because it looks way more pocketable and has a EVF
>>4516689Probably some dirt. I'd try giving it a spray with contact cleaner and working it back and forth a couple of times.
>>4516674Looks good, very similar to my Manfrotto. You will love it and you can configure it with a top general compartment. since it has a top opening.
>>4516660>Every photographer shoots rawAged DSLR hobbyists, yes. They enjoy cranking sliders for hours in Lightroom for a result that's usually indistinguishable from what could be done using the camera's JPEG engine.That's not to say RAW is useless, it is good to have for beginners to improve mistakes in exposure or correct white balance, or if there is some limitation in the JPEG engine that can't be overcome in-camera, or if you are exporting images to uncommon formats.Mirrorless users, especially professionals who need to spend as little time as possible to generate good results are realizing that they actually don't need the DSLR workflow and Adobe subscription. The most efficient professionals record RAWs as backup only and can deliver their finished product directly to the client's smartphone/tablet at the end of the shoot.
>>4516698Not even good bait
Has anyone ever used residual oil removal for their lens? I'm thinking of either getting this or just using distilled water.
>>4516705Why not just the zeiss lens cleaner or something similar?
>>4516706I actually didn't know they had a dedicated lens cleaner solution, for some reason I thought they only sold wipes. Thanks for letting me know, I'll look into getting a bottle
>>4516698>PSA: Buying a pro mirrorless camera to shoot like ken rockwell because you were always too stupid to do it without live view on a dslr is basically asking to be embarrassed by someone with a cheap snapshitter and a c1 license.Shooting jpeg is a regression to a film era workflow. Active d lighting esque features are limited and need GNDs to shoot bright skies over darker lands realistically. Auto white balance is never correct and needs to be set manually for natural light or off a gray card. Lenses and digital bodies with inherent color casts (like panasonic’s green tint) always need a gray card. ISO noise can’t be reduced effectively so even full frame stops working well after ISO 1600. And you are forced to consoom to get the colors you want, just like film. Want versatility on a camera with working autofocus and pro reliability? Only sony’s picture profiles can do that. Throw your canon away. >but raw lets me use off camera color prof-Nope. Raw isnt allowed. Throw your non-sony cameras away. Sony has the best jpeg color and a full color grading suite on camera. You have to shoot sony now. Jpeg is also all dslr boomers ever did because they couldn’t afford computers that could edit raws. Or figure out how to use them time efficiently.
In jpeg: Sony, fuji, and nikon have the best color. Modern canon cameras have bad color unlike their vintage DSLRs. Old DSLRs were meant to shoot jpeg or undergo minimal edits. Modern canon RF bodies have jpeg as an afterthought because every canon user held to aesthetic standards shoots raw. Panasonic, Olympus, and Pentax have such bad color they’d be better off labeling their awful color science a retro film sim. >but live LUT…So you can slap an orange and blue edit over your out of focus snapshits with wrong white balance before your sensor fails? Lolhttps://petapixel.com/2018/12/05/what-photogs-actually-think-of-canon-nikon-sony-and-fuji-color-science/
>>4516713>Auto white balance is never correct and needs to be set manually for natural light or off a gray card. Lenses and digital bodies with inherent color casts (like panasonic’s green tint) always need a gray card.If you can't dial in your color just by comparing what you see with your EVF, it's either a you problem, or you are using a crappy camera that does not have enough EVF adjustment to get reasonable accuracy. Sony, for example does not have RGB adjustment in the EVF, just a cool/warm slider, which is retarded because OLED panel sub pixels do not age equally across colors, so RGB adjustment and occasional maintenance calibration is a must.
>>4516736You don't need to bother with manual WB on sony because its gunna have a nasty colour cast regardless
>>4516736Sony has the best jpeg color and incredibly accurate screens that don’t require calibration. My a7cII’s AWB is always within 200k and +/-1 tint of gray card WB. However, literally no camera can reliably and quickly set the correct white balance including tiny without shooting off a gray card. The other option is toying around with sliders and menus in camera to do the same thing as capture one but slower and with less range.Pre-editing is boomer shit. Whats the difference between a jpeg shooter and a boomer that switches leader out rolls or 120 backs to guess which colors might suit the photo? None. You’re adhering to the same outdated, time consuming paradigm instead of focusing on the photo first and the edit later. Shooting jpeg is a boomer larp.
>>4516737Right, that’s why the majority of professionals and agencies use sony cameras and sony and canon effectively share the #1 spot for full frame bodies
>>4516736>he actually plays his camera like a gameboy nudging the awb correction graph around kekbought your first camera and think you’re a genius already? or are you just making shit up?you dont really use the manual kelvin only setting right?
>>4516713>Shooting jpeg is a regression to a film era workflow.That doesn't make any sense. The defining characteristic of film photography vs digital is that you can not see what your film photo is going to look like before you develop it. On a DSLR you can kinda see what your photo is going to look like on the rear LCD (limited by light pollution and panel contrast), while on a good mirrorless camera you can see it exactly and make adjustments as needed.>>4516740>The other option is toying around with sliders and menus in camera to do the same thing as capture one but slower and with less range.Yes, Sony menus are ill-suited to making real-time corrections, but better systems put those controls at your fingertips.>photo first and the edit later.a RAW is not a photo. When you develop your photo away from the scene (as with film), you are referencing a poor memory, or trashing the image with auto levels, or creating an entirely fictional rendition which barely resembled the actual scene like in >>4515678 pic related.
>>4516745your only argument for jpeg is your brain isn’t very good at doing anything so you can’t accurately predict how a photo will look. Literal boomers exclusively shot jpeg and pre-edited on DSRLs. Are you dumber than a boomer? You can’t figure out how to use raws OR shoot jpeg without crutches?The jpeg workflow is almost identical to the film workflow. Select the general look before taking the photo. Use front of lens tricks like graduated NDs because you can’t edit much after. And like film, jpeg was mostly used by boomers. Photographers today almost exclusively shoot raw. Videographers shoot log gammas. EVFs are a second order effect of switching to better lens designs, focusing on videography and pursuing 100% autofocus coverage. Exposure preview is a side effect and mostly helpful for video. The preview features like false color and warnings are for videographers who work with significantly less editing latitude. > Sony menus are ill-suited to making real-time corrections, but better systems put those controls at your fingertips.Outright lie. Sony has more custom buttons than anyone and can put anything in the i-menu. Please shut up if you don’t know what you’re talking about. >a raw is not a photoAgain. Please shut up if you don’t know what you’re talking about. All raws can be rendered nearer to ground truth than any jpeg as long as you have accurate WB like sony’s and use capture one instead of darktable or lightroom.
>>4516745You posted this already and got humiliated alreadyhttps://archive.palanq.win/p/search/image/rSnAquT2lfV-CDv2EN03ow/https://archive.palanq.win/p/thread/4513965/#4515451
>>4516748Its so sad to watch these anti sony shills literally lie over and over again hoping that one day, everyone smart enough to prove them wrong leaves and they can be “right” enough to fool newbies into buying panasonic junk. What a pathetic existence. >what do you do for a hobby anon?>i aggressively lie to people on 4chan over and over again until everyone who recognizes my lies leaves and i can convince a half dozen clueless people of complete falsehoods. that’s what sony gets for making the playstation too expensive!
>>4516741I've had strange experience with that myself. Everyone in the industry in my city at least seems to use Canon for work but use Sony's in their personal time, so I'm not sure what that's about.
>>4516756sony hobbles sports and video features to protect the a1/a9/fx cameras and expect their megapickles and lenses to make up for it, canon is a little kinder to people that want to blast 40 raws a second and film in 8kcanon is also way more comfortable to use with a large professional lens for hours on end.
>>4516756Our company switched from Sony to Canon basically purely for the colours. Photo and video. The main advantages of sony E mount cameras historically have been their autofocus, also their mount has been around the longest and therefor have more abundant lenses. However now the autofocus gap is much smaller, if even present, and the colour issues and baby mount issues are what currently plague sony. Purely from a results standpoint I would say Canon is the better option, however I can see why they wouldn't be popular with hobbyists. Their cameras inspire no joy, or emotion. They're just cameras.
>>4516759>the colour issues and baby mount issues are what currently plague sonyNot on their newer models from what I've seen, all that green meme stuff isn't present on stuff like the A7IV or anything else that came out in the last 5 years. I'd actually say they have a bit more of a red lean now, but I've also found the same to be true of Canon.>Their cameras inspire no joy, or emotion. They're just cameras.It's funny but that's how I feel using them at work, I just don't feel anything fun from using it. I can't really explain why but I just feel nothing from the R6 at all. Pretty much everyone I work with has a Sony as their personal camera and various film cameras (typically Nikon film cameras despite none of them having any digital Nikons).
>>4516760Specifically the issue we had with Sony was green or magenta colour casts on white walls. I find many companies have changed up their colours going from DSLR to mirrorless. In similar ways too. Though that could just be DPreview being stupid and using different camera profiles and shit when processing the RAW. Who knows what they did with these really. Regardless in these examples you can plainly see the transition to cool, flatter colours.
>>4516761DPreview are pretty known for their fuckups with testing at this point, so I can really only go off examples I've seen myself at work. I still hold Sony and Canon as being the best brands in the camera world though, which is more fun to use is subjective to the person.I'm still tempted by a Nikon ZF though but I also hear some not so great things about them, but maybe I just need to find out for myself.
>>4516762>I'm still tempted by a Nikon ZF though but I also hear some not so great things about them, but maybe I just need to find out for myself.Well the guts are good, its just the body that kinda sucks. It's definitely better than the ZFc, but it just feels so cheap and plasticky, the dials especially. And the issue is that there's not really an alternative if you want full frame + retro inspired. Unless you go Leica I guess, but due to the price delta they're not really competing products. You could get a 1Ds and pretend its a 1v I guess...
>>4516759You don’t have a company. Why are you lying?Are you SURE the primary brand of the associated press, britain’s PA media group, canadian press, usa today/gannet, reuters, etc has “color issues”?Everyone with a real job got conned but you know the real truth, as a loser and likely antisemitic lunatic from 4chan? >>4516761Why are you lying again? If you have a company you’d have some disposable shot from ages ago not a nonsensical dpreview screenshot taken on your computer
>>4516763>LeicaNot a fan personally, though maybe it's because of how their users are and the image the brand tries to present. I always think of it as being more like a fashion brand than a camera brand.
>>4516761>specifically the issue was i didnt set my white balance correctly and shot jpeg>look at this cooler white balance and lower contrast setting in dpreview’s ACR preset… cameras have fallenaverage uninformed neverphoto sony hater
>>4516756>Everyone in the industry in my city at least seems to use Canon for work but use Sony'sCanon has better professional services and Sony has better discount programs
>>4516767Canon is built for zooms, sony’s ergonomics are based around primes
>>4516765I mean they do sell a $500 jacket now…
>>4516761Yep same at the place I work at. It sucks too because we replaced the fx3 with a c80 which is so much heavier… I do have to admit though the shots look so much better on the canon than the sony, especially if we’re shooting with actors. The editor showed me how much better the workflow is with canon too, looks good straight out of camera. Im sure sony is good for other stuff tho where colour isnt as important
>>4516781the samefag is now larping
>>4516781>>4516761Is this really true? I was thinking about going with an fx30 for freelance video / content creation but now idk, does canon even have an entry level video camera like that?
>>4516747>All raws can be rendered nearer to ground truth than any jpeg as long as you have accurate WBA RAW file requires interpretation to become a photo. Even assuming it was correctly exposed (it probably wasn't if using auto exposure) if the interpreter did not see the scene they have no idea what the dynamics of highlight/shadow actually looked like and therefore can not generate an accurate representation of the scene other than by blind luck.A photographer who CAPTURES a scene must also capture the information for how the RAW should be interpreted. If you are not adjusting highlight/shadow settings, WB tints, etc. while at the scene you are not capturing the scene, and whether you save a RAW or not makes little difference. Well, if you have a competent photographer beside you capturing the same scene, if you save a bare RAW you can later use the competent photographer's work as reference to develop it into an accurate capture.
>>4516786Its the sony hater samefag larping. Hollywood is now using fx3s. The AP only uses sony. Reuters only uses sony. Sony is fine. >>4516787Darktable copers say this alsoThey are wrong alsoRaws are photos. They contain color information. Raw is a 14-16 bit lossless image format (normally). It needs to be displayed properly just like a png or jpeg. Proper display requires a calibrated camera profile, lens cast correction, and correctly noted illuminant. From this state editing can begin. And usually does. Because while cameras may produce scientifically accurate records, they do not account for the scene specific perceptual biases of human experience. Literally everyone who gives a shit about their photos shoots raw. Capture one is the standard for studio photographers and journalists who need to start with more accuracy and work with large sessions and tethered cameras. Hobbyists can fuck around with whatever. The tools on camera are insufficient and inefficient. Jpeg engine rendering is inferior as well, and increasingly discards more detail with aggressive global moire reduction to pretty up video footage (which is what the in camera image converter is actually used for).
>>4516787i wonder if boomers spouted bullshit like this, since they mostly shot jpegit reads like ken rockwell’s ill thought out rants
>>4516789>they do not account for the scene specific perceptual biases of human experienceThat's literally what I'm saying. A RAW without the photographer's perception of the scene embedded in the metadata is nearly worthless as far as producing an accurate representation of what was observed.A JPEG shot on camera defaults is similarly worthless in representing a scene accurately because the photographer did not adjust JPEG parameters to match their perception.
>>4516786It is unfortunately true yes, pretty much everything else about them is decent. It's just the vignette and the colours that are the issue.
>>4516786Professionals are ditching sony en masse. They're falling off hard, they lucked out hard by being so early to the mirrorless party, but totally dropped the ball and stagnated. The shills are having a melty over it. Just ignore them, they sound derranged.
>>4516794That’s why everyone uses them. >>4516792Irrelevant. Subjective biases aren’t truth. Ten people can look at a flower, pick a color off a wheel to match it, and pick ten different colors.and exactly ZERO camera jpeg engines are nailing it. sony has the most accurate jpeg color on scientific tests but no one cares and everyone who gives a shit about their photos shoots raw or film. Get a clue. Only news photographers shoot jpeg. Guess what they use by the way?Sony.
>>4516786>does canon even have an entry level video camera like that?they do now but theyre still new so you would likely have to buy new. r50v and r6v
>>4516795>sony is losing saar pls redeem!>reuters: sony>canadian press: sony>40% of nfl photogrpahers and growing: sony>ap: sony>pa media group: sony>usa today: sony>consistent top 3 cinema cameras used in oscar winning films: arri and sony>every camera i see at a televised event: sony>top selling ff pro bodies on amazon: r6ii, a7iv>the camera that reduced canon to handing out free samples at the olympics: sony a9iii
>>4516797>r50v and r6vYeah I already started doing some research and I think I'm most likely going to go with an R6V and whatever USM lens I can find for cheap. Maybe I can find a good deal on a kit. Thanks.
>>4516799Unfortunately you’re being fooled. Sony has better video/jpeg color than canon. https://petapixel.com/2018/12/05/what-photogs-actually-think-of-canon-nikon-sony-and-fuji-color-science/
>>4516799nice anon, im shooting on an r6ii and r7 myself :)
>>4516779Kek you weren't kidding, it just looks like a standard Carhartt jacket.>pockets designed specifically for camera batteries and SD card holdersThat's some really gimmicky shit.
>>4516799Nobody ever looks at Canon for video, I have no idea what that retard is going on about. Sony is pretty much the standard for anything video and has been for a while.>>4516800>After aggregating all the responses, Northrup was surprised by the results: photographers overwhelmingly preferred the photos captured with a Sony camera, followed by Fujifilm, Nikon, and Canon, in that order.Brutal. I still would've expected Fuji over Sony since everyone goons about Fuji colors.
>>4516804>>pockets designed specifically for camera batteries and SD card holdersThe weird thing is there's no way this going to be more popular with their digital shooters than their film ones. Like, I kinda get it. The just price is totally insulting considering it's probably just made in some chinese sweatshop, but I would probably still pick it up if I saw it at a thrift shop lol. I love that they call it the 'reporter jacket' as if photojournalists are these suave, stylish, off-duty James Bond looking types, and not just people who look like grade school PE teachers but with a 1D around their neck. Leica has really been building a brand on this 'reporter' larp shit.
>>4516801>>4516799Damn, after looking at C70 sample footage im starting to want to switch to Canon. The difference between Canon and Sony literally just looks like the difference between student film and professional studio... What is it with sony and not being able to berid itself of that 'tuber look? Quite sad really.
>>4516805Its all one retard samefagging. Even these>>4516808>>4516801>>4516799Are him talking to himself. When a shill can no longer argue for their brand they astroturf. Unironic paid sony shills did this last year. They argued with “clive” (a paid foil, also a shill) and played this game where they said “clive” was so dumb they learned how amazing sony was and bought one themselves. Sony is great and all but it IS professional equipment… you spend accordingly and put up with complexity and pro-centric compromises accordingly. They are work cameras. So are canons. fe2fucker got permabanned for pointing out the astroturfing here because allegedly, at the time, 4chan received money for allowing it
>>4516806>Leica has really been building a brand on this 'reporter' larp shit.It's such a stupid thing to try and roll with since no journalist or "reporter" is using a Leica, that is pretty much exclusively Sony and Canon. The only people that use Leicas are rich art kids that don't work for a living or old artsy boomers that are suddenly into street photography.Worst of all is that it's so tacky for the brand. Anything that tries to promote a "lifestyle" is not going to be good quality and is just sold based on the name alone. I doubt it's a coincidence that Leica are leaning into lifestyle advertising around the same time they teamed up with some unknown Chinese sensor company to make all their sensors in the near future.>>4516811Figured. I don't get what the incentive is to try to convince some autists on a basketweaving forum to buy a camera, you'd think we'd be the last people they'd want representing their brand kek.
>>4516811>the simplest explanation is that there's a grand conspiracy in the gear thread viewed by 2 people a weekNo, anon. If you want to know where the samefags are, just look for the snoyboy melty:>>4516805>>4516800>>4516798>>4516789>>4516766>>4516764All the same guy btw.
>>4516813We get the indian/AI powered shillsI think if just one retard from here buys a canon rp canon would make 10x what it cost them to pay an indian to operate a chatbot
>>4516814You wish, retard.
>>4516815Of all the Canons to buy, the RP is probably the absolute worst too. I swear it must only be the Indian shill that promotes it since even actual Canon people don't like that thing.
>>4516813>Leica are leaning into lifestyle advertising around the same time they teamed up with some unknown Chinese sensor company to make all their sensorsits over
>>4516814he fucking got us (me) snoysters...
>>4516815Lol nice conspiracy theory. Nope. people just love sony. Theres a reason why all professionals shoot sony.
>>4516817I think its mostly automated. Like it posts when refurbished cameras are available from the manufacturer and makes 4chan style release announcements. Indians would only have to intervene to fact check its arguments
>>4516796The difference between a RAW recording and human visual perception is hardly subjective. The RAW tone curve and color response does not and can not match the human vision tone curve and color response. RAWs are all pretty similar between cameras and human vision is pretty similar between individuals without eye conditions.It is the photographer's job to match what is seen by human vision to what the camera is outputting. The way to do that is by adjusting exposure, highlight/shadow curves, and WB/color settings in the live view while observing the scene. Yes, results will vary by the individual photographer. Photography is a skill, and the skilled photographers will have more similar results to each other than the unskilled, and skilled photographers are able to do all this quickly.Of course, there are a lot of people who use photography without any interest in accuracy or authenticity, doing creative colour grading, film sims, etc. but either way, mirrorless is the superior tool for getting the desired result fast, which is why DSLRs are much less sought after / valued, to answer >>4516633
>>4516844> It is the photographer's job to match what is seen by human vision to what the camera is outputting. The way to do that is by adjusting exposure, highlight/shadow curves, and WB/color settings in the live view while observing the sceneNo one does this because it’s wrong and pointless you autistic retard. Only sony cameras could even do it because sony has the most accurate color and powerful jpeg engine. But it’s not photography. It’s shitty journalism without a soul >>>/g/Photography is not your hobbyYou don’t own a cameraYou are an autistic south asian man hired to advertise for panasonic and OM system
>>4516851>No one does this because it’s wrong and pointlessiToddlers don't do this because it requires some technical proficiency. Photography is a technical skill - it's not just pressing the shutter button and letting auto-exposure + auto-white balance make its guess, and then choosing auto-levels in Lightroom while cranking the exposure slider to try and fix your wrong exposure into looking decent.Actual photographers control all parameters of the exposure at the moment of capture.
>>4516857>actual photographers only care about realism bro>photographers have to shoot jpeg on a sony a7rvi or hasselblad because of their more accurate jpeg color and high resolution compensating for how camera jpegs are always noisier and less sharpYou are an autistic shill inadvertently advertising for sony, not knowing that accurate=looks bad is why ACTUAL photographers (artists, not human flatbed scanners and cctv cameras) avoid them and why the associated press uses them exclusively. Sony’s impressive market share is literally just journalists. News “photographers” are not really photographers nor have they ever been. Photography is a creative art and is diametrically opposed to journalism. >>>/g/
>>4516859thisyou are never getting a realistic scientifically accurate photo on a canon panasonic fuji om system etc or on any film stock but guess what artists use and what soulless journalists usguess which job can be done by a camera drone
>>4516851>because sony has the most accurate color and powerful jpeg engineCan't believe this nigga is calling other people 'south asian' lol
>>4516866Most major press agencies use sony. Most videographers (who basically shoot jpeg/heic) use sony. Artists are the ones who diverge.So yes. Sony cameras are built to shoot scientifically accurate jpegs for the news. that’s why everyone says the photos look bad.
>>4516867Wait so people are actually green and purple? CrazyGtfo sanjay
>>4516868>wait so *makes shit up*>calls others indian to distract from his pantone 448c
>>4516747>EVFs are a second order effect of switching to better lens designs, focusing on videography and pursuing 100% autofocus coverage. Exposure preview is a side effect and mostly helpful for video. The preview features like false color and warnings are for videographers who work with significantly less editing latitude.Which is why the video-centric cameras don't have viewfinders while photo-centric cameras do have viewfinders.
>>4516873Actual professional video cameras have external EVFs attached or a monitor depending on how the DP is running their crewPart of the cinema camera larp is expecting users to rig out their r6v or c50 or fx3 etc with a third party HDMI port monitor/EVF or the canon evf-v70/evf-dc2 or port leyes ii etc instead of providing the feature literally every camcorder used to have by default, because forcing everyone to spend extra on a “rig” is “more pro”And that means spending more money like its a tax writeoffA small evf hump being on there by default wouldnt be MORE PROIt would also make it abundantly clear its the same fucking hardware as the “photography version” with arbitrary firmware options enabled. See: magic lantern. Canon actually had raw 4k video as early as the 5D III and gatekept the feature for profit. Why do you think they remove the shutters from the same fucking hardware with video features arbitrarily enabled?To stop you from just buying one camera and using it for everything. Period. Pro camera brands literally hate their customers
>>4516859>accurate=looks badkek now he's advocating for Rockwellisation.
>>4516889“scientific” accuracy does look bad in photography. it’s required by associated press guidelines. but it looks bad in photography. the sony a7riii in both raw and jpeg is one of the most color accurate cameras you can buy and this trend has held, which is why sony is the default for non-artistic photography - the entire news industryhttps://blog.kasson.com/nikon-z6-7/z7-a7riii-and-gfx-color-accuracy-with-adobe-profiles/accuracy from a digital camera is inherently unpleasant and unrealistic. it is a machine. it does not see. it does not perceive. it measures. no one who wants their photos to look good shoots jpeg, or sony. those are cameras for AP goons and shooting makeup ads. not art. no one ever really recommended buying a $5000 snoy a7v and sterile gm lensethey were mocking youlolget realprofessional cameras are hostile towards users and are not focused on being enjoyable or producing pleasing results. most pro photography is commercial slop or video where a whole other department makes the color decisions, not the camera operator. sooc is meant to be accurate, boring, and ugly. a “correct” jpeg is accurate, boring, and ugly.
>>4516893>snoy is actually so correct that it's ugly! that's the problem!I'm starting to think the guy shitting up every thread with snoy shilling is actually anti-snoy. Unless totally socially stunted, there is no way anyone would think the rhetoric of this individual would be beneficial to the sales of sony cameras in any way. It makes sony users seem like ugly, autistic, lying, neurotic retards.
>>4516896everyone knows sony colors are uglythe data says sony colors are accurate and all the press photographers shoot jpeg with sony cameras everyone who cares about their photos looking nice avoids sony and shoots raw unless they’re pretending inaccurate jpeg presets are film stocksdo the math.
>>4516893>the sony a7riii in both raw and jpeg is one of the most color accurate cameras you can buyBut everyone says the older Sonys have a horrid green cast. Maybe that's why no one has ever said my colours have been bad whenever I've posted a photo.
>>4516900Dont listen to the Sony haters. Sony has the best colours. Even with a green cast they still look better than any other manufacterer by far. Even if you get a cast, it doesnt matter because you get casts all the time on film, and /p/ loves to tell you about how good filmcope looks compared to digichads.
>>4516900Green cast is a skill issue. All available data says they have the most accurate, boring color. Sony is for boring NPCs who think nikon color is pre-rockwelled.
>>4516896>I'm starting to think the guy shitting up every thread with snoy shilling is actually anti-snoylol the same thought occurred to me. It's getting difficult to believe an earnest poster could be so obtuse.
>>4516900I've only used newer Sony's so I've never seen the green meme. The only example I've ever seen of it is from that one YouTuber that fucks up tests all the time too, so I have my doubts there was ever an issue. I could be wrong obviously but I never see any other examples posted but that single one.I don't really get the "soulless because it looks too natural" argument either, I tend to get that feel from my Canons rather than Sony. Maybe it's because I use a Canon for work, idk, I just feel uninspired when I use it compared to anything else. >>4516907It's a pretty standard tactic really, so I wouldn't be surprised.
>>4516908I have seen examples of a green colour cast in the shadows on the faces of people (I think most of the examples were darker skin) and in stubble on men. However I don't 100% believe this isn't just how things are in real life. I've never seen an example where the whole image has a green cast or it exists where it obviously shouldn't, other than that Youtube screenshot that you mention.>>4516902Why is accurate boring? Without saying it's sterile or soulless or anything like that. There is plenty of beautiful and interesting colour in the real world.
>>4516908>I have seen examples of a green colour cast in the shadows on the faces of people (I think most of the examples were darker skin) and in stubble on men. However I don't 100% believe this isn't just how things are in real life. I've never seen an example where the whole image has a green cast or it exists where it obviously shouldn't, other than that Youtube screenshot that you mention.They overcorrected to magenta after the zombie skin meme.
>>4516910This poster is the sony shill. He posts retarded shit over and over again and then btfos himself.I’ll cut him shortThese are the same files rendered in a higher quality program. I found it by reverse image searching his post and it was one of the first replies made last time.
>>4516911>dpreview’s comparison tool is faked and every camera produces good results on their test chart in actuality:o
>>4516913DPreview is the Linus Tech Tips of the camera world.
Bump limit, new thread >>4516915
>>4516911it's still bad lol
Accuracy and the mundane will be the next big thing.
is a z6iii a big upgrade over a z5?
