>>4516915
Your mom’s hymen
No. Your dad pushed me.

>dpreview fucks with their comparison tool
>download raws and everything looks different
>cameras that look worse look better
>some are exposed brighter or darker than others or need a totally different white balance implying they fuck with the lights and use lenses with heavy casts
>check exif they actually do put shitty lenses on nicer cameras to make them look worse and vice versa
>rich af amazon marketing outlet can afford an in house phase one but not a rented copy of an up to date lens - nope! its on purpose
the more you know

>>4516919
Yeah, they don't even easily list what lens they took them with, which is a massive factor. The way I used to choose which camera to buy is by just looking at samples across multiple sites. One I used often was searching via camera model on wikimedia commons, as they're mostly unedited. Gives you a good general look of how the photos come out with non-artistic, purely documentary examples.

>>4516915
Sort of related but
>bought used zoom lens for an old Nikon DSLR
>lens mounted on easily, perhaps too easily
>discovered one day that the lens had fallen off in my bag with other shit
>took my camera body and lens to get cleaned out
>guy at the shop says lens mounting tabs were broken and he was amazed i'd had no issues prior
>was a nice dude and really knew his shit
>ended up offering me a better lens that was open box and then put another discount on top of the open box discount
>then recommended a place nearby to sell the old lens for parts to get even more money
Pretty good experience with that shop, just a shame I don't live in that city anymore.

>>4516919
I gave up on Dpreview a while ago because of some of their lens comparison fuckups. At this point I just use other online reviews as a loose guide and then rent/test gear I'm interested in. It's more effort than just looking at a website but at least I get to really see for myself how things look.

I was a dumb retard with my gear purchases for so long
>been using cheap ball-head tripods for ages
>because I'm a fucking retard
>there were always other things that I gave higher priority for spending money on
>because I'm a fucking retard
>finally got frustrated with trying to use big heavy lenses on my current piece of shit ballhead
>saw a listing on Marketplace for a fluidhead for only au$100
This thing is amazing and I really was a total fucking retard for putting up with ballheads for this long. The difference in the level of precision and control is like night and day.

File: HMpwDrYWgAAp3A5.jpg (570 KB, 1000x1000)

570 KB JPG

New RX10 to be announced in a couple days.

File: 1748758932464177.jpg (121 KB, 1038x1030)

121 KB JPG

>D4 and 70-200/2.8 VRII fall out of truck, my fault
>mfw
>70-200 bottom half is destroyed
>D4 lens mount is bent but after some small adjustments the camera works again
>new mount on the way from Canuckistan

How is the Tamron 70-200/2.8 G2? I want something with a not-shitty stabilizer.

I want to do flash photos at f/16, ISO 64, with uncontrolled ambient lighting but a high shutter speed and a powerful flash to have a high ratio of strobe vs ambient. Ideally like 95/5 or something.

How can I figure out how much power I need? I would also like to diffuse it somehow, for soft lighting.
At what point should we be concerned about the strobe causing eye damage or blindness?
Two scenarios.
A) Flash pointed at human face, what distance/power is harmful?
B) Flash pointed at object, reflecting back, what distance/power is harmful assuming moderate reflectivity? (Like glossy paint, shiny plastics, etc)

>>4517044
>I want to do flash photos at f/16, ISO 64, with uncontrolled ambient lighting but a high shutter speed
Why these settings specifically? When you say 'high shutter speed' what do you mean? Because if its faster than 1/200th, on most cameras you will need to use high speed sync, which is like a whole nother thing compared to normal flash photography.

With HSS you are cutting your flashes' power, as the same amount of power stored in the capacitor now needs to be discharged across a longer duration. Unlike normal flash photography, with HSS your shutter speed also affects the amount of light your flash adds to your exposure. EG, normal flash, assuming no ambient lighting, a photo with the same other settings will look the same at 1/30th or 1/200th. Whereas with HSS a photo taken at 1/300th will be much brighter than one taken at 1/2000th, even if all other settings including flash power stay the same.

>How can I figure out how much power I need?
A regular on camera speedlite, like the kind paparazzi use, usually have around 75 watt seconds of power. With that on full power, you can expect to get a normal exposure on a subject 2~ meters away at f/16, 1/200th (so not HSS) and ISO 50, with no help from ambient lighting. If you wanna run your shutter speed any faster than that, you will need a brighter flash, and it will likely have to be an off camera flash, like an AD200 (200watt seconds) or an AD600 (600 watt seconds).

>A) Flash pointed at human face, what distance/power is harmful?
>B) Flash pointed at object, reflecting back, what distance/power is harmful assuming moderate reflectivity? (Like glossy paint, shiny plastics, etc)
I wouldn't worry about that. I've been using powerful studio flashes for years and i'm fine. Just instruct your models to not look directly into them, if you think that's something they might do. In saying this though, I don't really use high speed sync, so maybe its worse for you if you use that, idk.

Dear /gear/.

Two months ago I bought, after careful consideration, Nikon Z5 II, to replace my D750 that started to randomly throw errors at short exposures at 1/1000 and faster (when I described symptoms at shop, wondering if it's related to shutter mechanism, despite only 60k count, I was told it's most likely mirror mechanism instead). Not that I don't like my D750, I truly do, it's just that I don't want to run into situation where it gets blocked in the middle of event or something like that (I'm still going to keep it, don't worry). I also got total 5 batteries (original EL15c included, spare 15c and three Newell 15b in pack along with additional charger), no Z mount lenses since I already have what I need for F mount (Tamron 24-70 2.8 G2, Nikon's 70-200 2.8 VR II, 60mm macro, 50mm 1.8, 24-120 f/4 VR) and they all "talk" well (so far) with FTZ II adapter. However, after some short tests I did along few weeks, I had to replace battery only after total 150 shoots. I understand that browsing and adjusting settings took some charge but it's still a bit worrying. With D750 I could easily do entire day at convention with over 5k photos on count, now I'm afraid that I would burn those 5 batteries and that still would not be enough. I have two questions:

1) What exactly could be done to maximise amount of photos done on single battery? I understand that EVF will drain energy during use similar to how "normal" camera LCD screen would, but I don't think I can do much about it - already lowered brightness of both screen and viewfinder to -3 from "auto" but it's still as bright as it was at the start, for some reason. WiFi is disabled in settings, LCD screen only show basic settings.
2) Do I actually need Z mount replacements for my lenses? What kind of advantages would they offer? Right now, I don't see any second hand ones (except some that are sold along cameras as part of the kit), only brand new that cost fortune.

Thanks in advance for any advices or help.

>>4517049
>d750 doing 5k
>z5ii doing 150
These numbers seem wildly inaccurate. Im going to assume you mean the d750 was doing 5k shot between a few batteries. Even, still 150 per battery on the z5ii is terrible. Arent they rated for like 600? Are you leaving the EVF on for hours inbetween shots? Your batteries must be cooked, I don't know what could go wrong inside your camera that would cause higher than normal voltage draw...

>>4517050
No, a single battery but majority of those were done in bursts during concerts so it's really not the "proper" value. As for mirrorless, that's why I mentioned that these tests were stretched over few weeks, I assume that there are some other settings that drain battery faster than it should. But I have no experience with mirrorless yet so I can't figure that out.

>>4517051
Well pretty much all cameras have a tested battery life rating you can refer to on their spec sheet. If its not on theres its probably listed on DPreview so you can contrast your findings with what they're rated for.
>z5ii
330 with EN-EL15c
>d750
1230 with EN-EL15
With a lot of DSLR's they kept the same battery form factor, so you can use newer, higher capacity batteries to increase this further. I use higher capacity wasabi power ones on my 5d2 and I can go on a full day shoot without having to swap packs.

>>4517049
Battery life is basically a measure of screen on time, and if you used live view on your D750 for shooting, it would die even quicker.

If you are someone that never turns your camera off when idle you should get in the habit of that. There are settings like airplane mode and battery/performance options, but it mostly just comes down to how long you have screen on. You can also keep it topped off throughout the day thanks to in camera USB charging.

In practice, you should be getting closer to 500-1000 shots per battery. If you are only getting 150, you have a very old battery or aren't shooting very efficiently at all. On a full 10hr wedding day, I would bring 4 batteries, and expect to use most of 3 of them, sometimes only need 2, and that's pretty constant shooting.

>>4517058
Well, it was that Newell replacement so it could be the case. I guess I have that setting on which switch off screen and viewfinder after 1 minute of inactivity, maybe could bring it down to 30s. But I was also told that turning camera off and on frequently drains battery fast due to initialising all components, you suggest that it's not true?

>>4517044
It might help to explain or show what you're actually aiming for. Settings seem arbitrary and almost certainly not optimal.

>How can I figure out how much power I need?
Figure out how you want to light things first. The closer you can have the light, the less power you need. If your wanting to compete with the sun at all, you need +400w for sure.

At f16 and typical flash shutter speeds, you won't get much ambient at all. Shutter speed controls ambient when using flash, and you'd have to go low enough that it may start affecting how your subject looks too.

Flash won't be harmful other than annoying to look at.

>>4517059
>I guess I have that setting on which switch off screen and viewfinder after 1 minute of inactivity,
Those aren't really necessary. With DSLRs, a lot of people just get accustomed to leaving their camera on between stuff.

If you aren't using it for a several minutes, just turn it off. Turning it on/off doesn't drain the battery faster, the practical downside is to be aware of your given cameras startup to shoot time.

You can also consider the cameras battery life for video as a reference. It's rated closer to 2 hours, so you should expect 2.5-3hrs of "constant" shoot time.

>>4516915
Dropped an old EF 70-200 f/4 IS into a river while doing a landscape shot. Cheapshit tripod had a clamp fail and when the camera's weight fell onto the next section it bounced and went fowards. Broke the front assembly of the lens and dredged it in water, but luckily it was shallow and the camera (1Ds-III) ended up being fine. I saved about $100 getting a shitty tripod to break a lens I spent $900 on.

>SL3-S now at 2800 euro used
Would never buy this lumix at its 5200 euro full price but the used market of the SL is really crazy. About to buy this one as my main video camera to film my kids growing up. Hope I won't regret

I've managed to snap the screw that holds the winding mechanism in place on an old minolta. Hated myself for that one because the camera worked perfectly and it wasn't one of the cheapest models. I've also messed up a bunch of old fungus infested lenses trying to fix them.

File: 000058200026.jpg (2.96 MB, 3130x2075)

2.96 MB JPG

>>4516915
>QOTT: What is the most expensive thing you've broken? Was it your fault?

M3+Summicron lens at a mosh pit. My fault for taking it I suppose.

Looking for reqs for flash units - primarily for outdoor night use.

>>4517065
Why does leica refuse to participate in the production of its non-rangefinder cameras? The last one that wasnt a minolta or a lumix or some other shit was the leicaflex SL2. Im not counting the S series medium format digitals cus they produced like 100 of them total.

File: image.png (298 KB, 601x456)

298 KB PNG

Looking for some compact camera reccs, as it will be for travel and just having in my pocket when I go out. I looked at the Ricoh GR and Sony RX100, but there's either a stock shortage or some other shit going on and I can't find any decent used ones (GRs especially seem to have broken lens covers).

Could I get by with a used Sony A6300 or A6400 with a small zoom lens? Or does someone have some better ideas for a compact camera? It needs to be at least 20mp and have RAW ability (a big ask I know)

>>4517080
My guess is that they can't afford it. You need tons of research and knowledge for an autofocus system. It's just easier to buy it from panasonic while focusing on the mechanical parts like the body, buttons, etc. At least they also built their own UI. Risky to open up an department nowadays to build something from the ground up when you don't know if it succeeds and sells. Especially in countries like Germany with its high labor costs.

For me, as long as they don't sell Leica to China, I'm all happy.

>>4517081
Well even an A6x00 body on it's own isn't going to fit in many pockets, with a lens mounted and especially a zoom it's not going to be pocketable at all.

>>4517081
>It needs to be at least 20mp and have RAW ability (a big ask I know)
Kind of an unconventional choice but the samsung NX500 is very very good. It has two shortcomings in that the AF is kinda mid, and theres no viewfinder, just a screen. The lenses, though few, are very good and theres multiple pancake/cupcake options. Its 28mp APSC, the colours are great. I love mine.

>>4517083
Bummer, it looked like it was pretty small. What else could I look at then? Are any of the Canon Powershots good?

>>4517084
Seems a bit rare unfortunately, I'm trying to find something easily available.

>>4517085
>Seems a bit rare unfortunately, I'm trying to find something easily available.
Hmm you might be right. If you're not planning on getting into a lens ecosystem with this purchasel, it doesn't really matter that much what you go with. The big advantage of the Sony A6XXX series cameras is that theyre part of the E mount system, so theres heaps of lens options. In saying that if you ever went full frame none of your pancakes would work. You could also go fuji, if you dont care about autofocus, or you could go with any of the Canon M cameras. As I understand, the original canon M is the fan favourite, as its the only mirrorless camera you can install magic lantern on (custom firmware) which allows for some very cool features you cant get anywhere else. The thing is with any of these, they're gunna be MUCH larger than a ricoh GR or RX100, since the lenses cant really fold into the body on an ILC camera. I would not expect any of these setups to be easily pocketable unless your pockets are massive. The only mirrorless setup ive ever been able to fit in my pocket is an olympus Pen with the 8mm fisheye.

>>4517087
>The big advantage of the Sony A6XXX series cameras is that theyre part of the E mount system, so theres heaps of lens options.
Yeah exactly. I was looking at used since I have an old E Mount kit lens, which while really basic and cheap actually has decent sharpness to it. It also closes pretty flat which is nice. I just don't really know how big the body is. Also when I'm saying pocketable, I mean more about in the pockets of a jacket, not my jeans.

I guess it sounds like my only choices really are the Ricoh or GR. I'd even settle for a really old RX100 but used models just seem to be sold out everywhere or people are asking way too much for them.

File: file.png (301 KB, 1590x314)

301 KB PNG

>>4517088
>I just don't really know how big the body is
https://pxlmag.com/db/camera-size-comparison You can compare with cameras you already own, and see how big lenses are with this tool.
Theres also the canon G1X series, which have an almost-APSC sized sensor. Just a bit bigger than M43.

>>4517089
Hmm moderately beefy then, though still smaller than any other camera I currently have. I like the Ricoh the most for size but it does also seem like it has issues with either the back buttons breaking or the lens cover breaking, while the Sony RX100 seems great but is also somehow still hard to find (or at least used ones are).

I'll see if I can find a G1X, they look pretty neat and have RAW support. So far it seems like my only abundantly available and cheap choices are the A6300 or A6400.

this is quite the expensive hobby innit

>>4517091
>I'll see if I can find a G1X
There's three versions, G1X, G1X mark II and G1X mark III, all have pretty different form factors. I would probably go with the mark 2, as the the original is quite old now, and the mark 3 is basically just a canon mirrorless camera with a lens you cant take off.

File: olympus-pen-e-p7-white-an(...).jpg (123 KB, 1415x943)

123 KB JPG

>>4517081
>Or does someone have some better ideas for a compact camera? It needs to be at least 20mp and have RAW ability (a big ask I know)
Check out Olympus/OM. Very underrated cameras.

File: IMG_20260704_110102691_HDR.jpg (116 KB, 1536x1536)

116 KB JPG

>>4517094
its as expensive as you make it out to be

t. vintagefag w/average purchase cost of $40/lens

this was my loadout for last weekend not a single good pic was taken lol

honestly if you want to have GAS and shoot inexpensively do pentax or minolta

the k200d + 18-135mm i bought in the last thread for $140, the k3 i paid $225 for it with a 28-75mm i'm trying to sell rn for $110 (gonna lower to $100). zx30 i paid $30 for it with a 28-80mm kit lens (sold that kit lens for $20). sf1x i paid $30 for with a 70-210mm lens.

>lenses shared with 80s film bodies that cost $20-50
>lenses themselves excellent optical formula but often half the cost of canonikon for 80s-90s shit (same price or more for <10 year)
>fun look and fun to shoot

k3 is such a excellent camera, the metering is on point where often the pics need very minimal edits compared to other pentaxes even.

>>4517081
look at a refurb nikon z30 if you're going that route for $400-450 from nikon. i think the kit lens on those is better than the sony kit lens (both collapse to near-pancake sized)

honestly sony/nikon apsc mirrorless are orphan platforms. all the attention is given to FF by the parent companies to the point i feel like you might be better off going to m43 in some cases. i really like OM cameras and i say it in every thread if olympus did ff or even apsc they'd be perfect. you can find a pen-7 or om5/em5-iii for $6-700.

File: IMGP2490.jpg (1.61 MB, 3840x2553)

1.61 MB JPG

>>4517100
i went to montreal with the k3 + 18-135mm mostly that weekend

excellent combo. af is quick enough and its enough zoom for most situations. only switched to a prime for more pop or low light help.

File: IMGP2503-3.jpg (1.57 MB, 3840x2560)

1.57 MB JPG

>>4517101
think this was with the 35mm f2.4

File: IMGP2511.jpg (2.04 MB, 3840x2560)

2.04 MB JPG

>>4517102
i find orange julius has the best poutine imo

la banquise overrated to hell

was a little car meet when i got there friday nite

File: IMGP2514.jpg (2.52 MB, 3840x2160)

2.52 MB JPG

>>4517103
surprised how good the pics came out for low light

$60 lens from mpb btw

File: Sony RX10 V Review_petapixel.jpg (48 KB, 533x800)

48 KB JPG

>>4516931
sony bros, not like this...

>>4517103
gorgeous photo, do you have any more versions of this? like with gloomier colors?

>>4517105
Another product that is very similar to its aging predecessor.

File: IMGP2512.jpg (1.88 MB, 3840x2553)

1.88 MB JPG

>>4517106
this was a little more out of focus (lower iso) but it had a nasty green flare on the door i couldnt edit out (iso 800 f/4 1/35 vs iso 3200 f4.5 1/80)

>>4517094
It can be as expensive as you want, but it's never been cheaper or more accessible than it is now. Unless you shoot film, primetime for that was 2010-2015ish.
Pretty on par with any other adult hobby really.

>>4517113
Pretty much this. At least with photography you can get used gear for a decent price, while if you're a hobby cuck like me and collect vinyl records or classic cars, the price just continues to rise.

>>4517114
Hasn't both those markets seen a downturn?

>>4517115
Not really, they're both still horrible. Even CDs are going up because they're part of some TikTok meme and it pisses me off since I used to buy West German discs for cheap to get the flat master transfers.

Car are also really fucked in prices. I can't even really afford to buy the first car I ever had again, since it was dirt cheap 10 years ago and now it's more than some brand new cars are. Even my current car has doubled in price since COVID.

>>4517116
>>4517115
>>4517114
i switched from /o/ to /p/

unlike cars cameras won't ever

>wear out by simply existing/owning them never mind actually using it
>force you to pay registration/insurance to keep it on the road
>break down on you randomly leaving you stranded begging for a tow 2-3 hours from home
>leave you then chasing your tail for 3-6 weeks trying to diag what broke
>cost at least $500-1000 to fix it half the time
>won't have you on your back covered in grime/sweat with cut up hands where you need dawn dish soap and a scotchbrite pad to shower it off
>ruin your clothing
>all because the alternative is $150-250 a hour labor rate...literally had a shop my buddy works at quote me $900 to mount/balance tires + tpms sensors + alignment
>get you girls...actually i'd argue being into cars is pussy negative because the girls who dated car guys had horrible experiences from their spending habits + autism

the worst part about this hobby is editing 300+ raws you took on a trip/outing. and honestly from what i've seen some people avoid that by shooting certain cameras (recent fujis with film recipes, classic ccd/vintage dslrs, canon 5d classic or mark ii, or just shooting film)

cars are fun but the older i get the more i understand why people buy new or newer cars. you're racing against time/mileage wearing shit out and the older you get, your own free time. i like cars less the older i get because my time is more limited.

File: Screenshot 2026-07-09 at (...).png (1.61 MB, 2430x1244)

1.61 MB PNG

i like goooooold

>>4517119
I disagree that photography gets you girls, I've had women on dates call it a boring thing to be into and the few Asian women I went out with just wanted pictures of themselves constantly. I don't mention it anymore. Cars get a different reaction, women like them if you're not a turbo autist and just be chill about it, especially if it's something luxurious like an old Merc or BMW (in good condition obviously).

I still like cars and probably always will, I don't mind the extra work and money needed as I feel like I'd be bored and depressed in something dull like a Toyota, I've had to drive a few as rentals on trips and I hated every moment of driving them.

>the worst part about this hobby is editing 300+ raws you took on a trip/outing
I'm a bit more conservative with my photos I guess. I only hit that 300 mark if it's a big day or I've seen a lot of interesting things, otherwise it's usually 60-100 photos for the day. Film is where I don't do much at all, one roll of 36exp can last an entire week away somewhere.

>>4517119
>>wear out by simply existing/owning them never mind actually using it
Depends, lenses get fungus if you dont store them in a specific way, and mechanical shutters have a lifespan unless its a 5D2.

>>cost at least $500-1000 to fix it half the time
They can, depends what kinda camera you have and what breaks.

>>break down on you randomly
Clearly this guy doesn't own old nikons

>>recent fujis with film recipes, classic ccd/vintage dslrs, canon 5d classic or mark ii, or just shooting film
I'm guessing this is shoopra so I can send you the rant if you want, but this is more a 5D classic thing than a 5D2 thing. You do still have to edit with 5D2 RAWs but because it gets so much right in camera, you don't have to edit as much as with newer cameras, while offering more modern conviences and a better sensor than the classic.

>>4517121
All the girls I've been with unironically don't care about cars...but the ones I attract are urban/city girls or girls that at best see them as transportation. Current gf doesn't give a fuck about them.

I still have 500+ photos to edit/comb through from my last trip to Europe. I think as I've progressed as a photographer I take less pictures (or I recognize that no amount of editing can save a bad shot and just bin it).

>>4517122
Yeah pretty much I'm burnt out by the hobby, working on cars takes away time from my relationship, exercising, or working more overtime which is hard to pass up at $60/hr. I only do it because it still outweighs paying $150-250/hr for another idiot to do it.

I never had the fungus issue, but I also keep my stuff on a bookshelf in a climate controlled room (read: I run the a/c in the summer). I still want to try a 5D but I don't want another mount so I'll stick to my Konicas; maybe if I find one for a insane price.

>>4517124
>I never had the fungus issue, but I also keep my stuff on a bookshelf in a climate controlled room (read: I run the a/c in the summer)
In short, fungus hate light and dryness, loves dark and moisture. Leave lenses with the lenscaps off in a clear box near a window with a moisture collector if you dont wanna buy a dehumidifyer cabinet.

>>4517094
comparing to mtg, they're pretty close. for competitive/pro you're looking at around $500 to start and for casual you are free to spend anywhere from from $15 to 15k.
in terms of value, the main difference is photo gear is far easier to recoup value on in use

>>4517122
Would it be an alright to leave the lenses in the sun (indoors near a window) or would that cause some unforeseen damage?

>>4517128
It wont really matter if they're not on a camera. Sometimes, and you see this happening a lot with cloth curtain rangefinders like leicas, if you leave a bright lens on the camera near the sun, it can burn holes in the shutter curtain. Same can happen with bladed metal shutters, it just takes a lot more light. SLRs it doesn't matter because the light just gets reflected into the eyepiece.

>>4517129
Damn I hadn't even really thought about that. I planned on just having lenses in the sun, I wouldn't leave a camera in the sun since I overall just didn't want them going through heat cycles, as what you said never occurred to me before. I tend to leave the lens caps off my cameras but they also stay in a bag when not in use, so I guess that's fine.

File: file.png (1.34 MB, 1536x1045)

1.34 MB PNG

>>4517130
Just remember, anything you but behind the lens may be subject to getting burned. Another reason why clear plastic boxes are so good. You can get around this by having the mount side towards the window, rather than the filter side.

>>4517132
Saw a video on youtube recently where some dude burned the cloth curtain on his vintage, pricey leica using a Canon F0.95 dream lens. Funnily Canon had metal curtains in the same era.

>>4517133
Yeah the VT (deluxe only), VI-L, VI-T, P, 7 and 7s are all metal shutters. They're very, very good. The P especially.

Sorry to get back to previous question from >>4517049 but what about the second part - do I really need Z mount lenses or I can just sit comfortably on my existing F mount ones on FTZ II?

When I opened search engine with "Z5 II guide", the first thing that went on for me was Ken Rockwell site, where author explicitly says to never use FTZ or any other adapter and how he shoots with his f/5.6 lens all the time and have no problems. But I would rather shoot at concert with f/2.8 at ISO 1600 instead of f/5.6 at ISO 6400.

>>4517140
Just use the lens you have, and if you want something better upgrade
I don't know what the dilemma is, the Z glass is great, but if you're happy with that you have, thats what matters

>>4517046
>>4517060
I want to shoot timelapses of things rotting, 360 degree captures of things on turntables, and some step-by-step how-to shots for things ifixit style. Target area isn't large. Just a tabletop area. Low noise and deep depth of field is what I want but I want consistent lighting as well. Where I'm at I get a lot of varied ambient light coming through my windows because of trees. Even through blinds and curtains there's a lot of color shift and varying brightness that gets through and I want to minimize the impact that has on my images. When the sun is setting, I get a pretty strong orange in all my rooms as well.

When using a 76W flash with a mini 4" softbox placed far enough for it to be soft I get images 2-3 stops darker than I like. That's in normal mode. I guess with this two 300W or 400W strobes in a clamshell light setup would do me good. Different softboxes might be more efficient too. If I wanted to fight ambient light in HSS mode I'd like that to be down 2-3 stops but with HSS I don't even know how to calculate compensating for that. Google says HSS at 1/1000 loses 2-3 stops vs normal power so that would mean I'd need 4-6 stops more, and that's added to the 2-3 stops I already want in normal mode. That turns ~600W being enough into needing 10,000 to 40,000 and I don't even think that kind of power is available for purchase unless I set up some ridiculous array. That much power seems eye damaging worthy but I guess the good news is I won't be needing it after all.

I'm ready to just accept whatever ambient light comes out at 1/200 and think I'll set up an extra curtain around the shooting area or something now.

I have seen my flash melt black stuff that made contact with the fresnel before so I remain skeptical on the safety of high power flashes but I guess they're safe enough if you have distance. Manuals all seem to say keep 1 meter and I can do that.

File: smith_victor_402085_17_le(...).jpg (384 KB, 2697x1416)

384 KB JPG

>>4517145
The super easy and simply solution is to just get a light tent like this.
>I have seen my flash melt black stuff that made contact with the fresnel before
Well yeah, flashes get hot. Looking at an oven won't hurt your eyes though.

>>4517145
Any reason in particular it needs to be f/16? Even if you're shooting on a full frame camera, you will introduce a lot of softening from diffraction at that aperture. If you need more in focus, you should try focus stacking. OP picture was taken with only two flashes and f/8 @150mm and is not focus stacked. If you use a shorter lens like a 60mm and go f/11 you should get plenty in focus.

>>4517146
Thought about those, but wasn't sure if I'd like it due to it being enclosed. They seem difficult to adjust things like the backdrop or lighting but I may end up getting one for some other things anyway.

>>4517147
Doesn't have to be f/16 that's just what I'm aiming for and want to have enough light for. Focus stacking is extra work and I'm looking to keep the process for timelapses and turntable shots pretty simple. If I want super sharp images I'll take those separately where I won't be as concerned about ambient light.

I'm brand new to photography and using a hand-me-down EOS 60D with a kit lens. Is it normal that I vastly prefer shooting with the LCD preview screen instead of the viewfinder? It gives me a much better view of the shot and lets me get focus just right
Do newer cameras make this obsolete with their electronic viewfinders?
Honestly the 60D is giving me really good photos and the only thing I dislike about it so far is how big and annoying it is to carry for travel

File: 10178826255_a42bf4dbc8_c.jpg (82 KB, 800x427)

82 KB JPG

>>4517154
Photography is all about light. If you have the option to shoot with consistent controlled lighting, that's much better than trying to figure out workarounds for a changing lighting environment.

>>4517156
If you have a DSLR, you should generally be using the viewfinder. Outside of the most recent Canon models, you'll have much slower AF performance (although arguably more accurate), and get like half (or less) of the battery. It's also just slower in operation when shooting.
Better DSLRs and film SLRs have larger viewfinders that make it much nicer to use, picrel.
The optical viewfinder came out of necessity with film, and aren't really needed anymore. There are lots of pros and cons to both.

>>4517156
For more context with the pic >>4517158
Your 60D is 0.59x, about the same as the 50D. A D3 is 0.7x, and most nicer mirrorless fall in the 0.7x to 0.8x range, with some even larger. Your OVF also only has 95% coverage, where as others have 100%.

>>4517158
>Outside of the most recent Canon models
My Canon 200D was released in 2017 with dual-pixel autofocus, so the back screen focuses more accurately than the optical viewfinder that uses only contrast based autofocus. Maybe it's an outlier and most DSLRs focus the best with the center point and recomposing instead of the tap & snap.
In mirrorless cameras EVF > back screen based purely on the resolution and brightness of the image but functionally they provide the same information.

>>4517164
>Maybe it's an outlier
It's more most recent is a poor choice of words. Dual pixel AF came in 2013, but that still leaves out half of all Canon DSLRs
>DSLRs focus the best with the center point
The sorrows of DSLR AF systems

File: Top 10 Dslr Lcd Viewfinde(...).png (86 KB, 966x334)

86 KB PNG

>>4517156
>Is it normal that I vastly prefer shooting with the LCD preview screen instead of the viewfinder? It gives me a much better view of the shot and lets me get focus just right
Yes, seeing what the sensor sees is a huge advantage and why we progressed to mirrorless.

The main advantage of OVF is in tracking fast moving things like birds in flight since screens always have at least a few ms of lag.

>Do newer cameras make this obsolete with their electronic viewfinders?
Yes, the EVF and rear screen on mirrorless will show you the same thing unless otherwise configured. New EVFs are OLED which have a better contrast ratio than any LCD.

I suggest getting one of these hoods so you can make good decisions about exposure/white balance without interference from glare in brighter environments. Also helps with aiming telephoto lenses vs bare screen.

Where do you sell your gear? I know I can get the best price on ebay for used gear, but I really don't want to deal with the hassle that comes along with it. I'm considering just going to all the camera stores in my city and see which one gives me the best price

>>4517158
Yeah I guess I just figured it would be easier to fully overpower some ambient indoor light with flash. Turns out owning a home with a single sizable room with no window is the superior choice for what I'm trying to do.

Maybe if electronic global shutters were a thing synced flash would become more viable but once I found out how much is lost to HSS I kind of lost hope in doing what I originally hoped was possible. Don't NEED to achieve the original goal as it was, it was just something I hoped would be easier than it turned out to be.

>>4517171
>but I really don't want to deal with the hassle that comes along with it
Don't sell to pawn shop unless you're absolutely desperate for money. They seriously rip you off. If anything just keep the gear over taking it there. eBay really isnt that hard. All you do is:

>take a few photos of what you're selling, they dont have to be great photos, just make sure you get a lot of different angles and they well lit.
>look at sold listings for what you're selling and compare against current cheapest prices, if you want it sold quick just undercut the other sellers by like 10%.
>write your listing, dont worry about describing what the item does, like specs, ebay can autofill that for you. It prompts you to copy the metadata an existing listing when you make it. just write about the condition, be specific.
>if your item doesnt sell within a week, consider adjusting the pricing, look at competing ads and check if others have sold in the last week
>when your item sells, you pack it up, measure and weigh the package (I just guess the weight) and print a postage label, though this exact process changes with different carriers

>>4517154
>Doesn't have to be f/16 that's just what I'm aiming for and want to have enough light for. Focus stacking is extra work and I'm looking to keep the process for timelapses and turntable shots pretty simple. If I want super sharp images I'll take those separately where I won't be as concerned about ambient light.
Yeah ok fair enough. Are you using the pictures to make 3D models or something?

File: Screenshot 2026-07-10 at (...).png (80 KB, 776x960)

80 KB PNG

>>4517171
eBay, but factor in getting 30% less between shipping and fees. Be aware some camera stores will lowball your shit hardcore if its not going to sell well (anything 10+ years old or M43/Pentax)

Do a dual listing on FBM too for 30% less. What I'm doing. I was asking $100 for this lens on FB Market.

>Sold Pentax 50mm Macro for $119.99 + $7.99 shipping
>get $90 back
>Pic rel is the breakdown

>>4517179
ebay is a nightmare as a seller these days, doubly so if you are from a country without the global shipping program. After the Trump tariffs I had to give up on it completely after and and a half decade of selling.
>Sell thing to amerifat
>You also have to pay the amerifat's import taxes on top of your outrageous fees.
Being from a country where everything is taxed out the rear end it was the final straw. I am not paying someone else's taxes on top of it all.
Then there is the "free returns no questions asked" policy which ebay makes it out like it is something they pay for when it is the seller who does it and that is not the worst part, you are also supposed to find out how a foreign nations postal service operates and purchase shipping labels for what is often a fraudulent return because the remaining buyers are are largely scammers.

>>4517172
>it was just something I hoped would be easier than it turned out to be.
It is, you were just making it more complicated than it needs to be.

>>4517156
>Is it normal that I vastly prefer shooting with the LCD preview screen instead of the viewfinder?
You are probably someone who use your phone a lot.

File: 1000184151.jpg (813 KB, 2728x2160)

813 KB JPG

is this a good beginner combo or should I look for something better?

>>4517218
Its very entry level. You may be able to find a better deal on similar or better used gear on facebook marketplace if you're willing to look. Only thing is then you dont get a warranty.

>>4517218
Look for a used 70D or 80D, Nikon D7100 or D7200, that should be a good gear to start with.

File: 1783769833417.jpg (2.95 MB, 4096x3072)

2.95 MB JPG

>>4517219
don't have a Facebook and dont know about cameras enough to know if it's broken or bad
I just take photos with my phone but I was t something more serious cause it's frustrating and image processing looks like cancer up close sometimes.

but also I don't know if it would even work for me or be worth it cause I don't know all the smart stuff but I like close up pictures and I'm assuming cheap lenses are going to be worse for that cause of light sensitivity or something

>>4517220
70d is 300+€
nikon is only slightly cheaper...

>>4517220
some D3100 and D3200 for 100-150€ though.

File: uwa-distortion.gif (363 KB, 601x401)

363 KB GIF

>>4517218
Quad digit (1100D, 2000D, etc.) Canons are figurative dog shit.
Triple digit (550D, 600D, etc.) are the next step above, and are absolutely fine for beginner photography. This is where I would draw my line in the sand if I wanted absolute cheapest dollar per camera quality.
Double digit Canons are actually pretty decent, and if you shop around you might find a 50D or 60D for about the same price but it'll have better features.
All of these cameras have the same size sensor of APS-C.
Single digit Canons (5D, 6D) are full frame and generally quite excellent cameras. They are also the bigger sensor, full frame cameras. A 5DII might only be a few hundred more than your pic rel.

As for lens, the 18-55mm are fine for general shooting. Please do yourself a favour and get the IS STM version. It is the best of all their 18-55mm lenses and might cost an extra 20 Euros.
The other alternative for beginner shooting would be the EF 50mm f/1.8 STM which could be had for very likely 40 Euros. Zooms are generally prefered for starting out, but god knows some photogs go their whole lives using only a 50mm lens.
BE ADVISED: On the APS-C cameras, a 50mm lens is going to be a bit tight in terms of Field of View, and you might want something wider in general to start out.

>I don't know all the smart stuff but I like close up pictures and I'm assuming cheap lenses are going to be worse for that cause of light sensitivity or something
Here's the neat part, you can learn, and improve. Don't bash yourself just because you're not already great at something.
For close-up photos of small things you either want a Macro lens, or a lens that claims "macro" capabilities. Actual Macro lenses (like the EF 100mm f/2.8 USM) are probably around 150-300 Euros for you. Decent lenses that also claim "macro" capability can vary in price, but I know the EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro isn't *that* expensive. and can get pretty darn close.
You can also buy extension tubes for like $30.

>>4517221

>does the camera turn on
>does the autofocus work
>does the picture come out nice when you leave it on auto or p mode?
>is the lens clear when you shine your phone light into it on both sides or do you see anything weird like specks, fungus (spider webs on inside of glass), haze (oily ring/sheen inside lens), oil on the aperture blades (wont snap back easily or look oily)

that's it, that's 90% of checking if a camera is bad. 90% of cameras live very easy lives

and pay the extra, you will be happier. would look for a 7d mk1 if i were in your shoes or a older 5d like a 5d mk2

>>4517225
thanks for the info.
I most of the time do 50mm with my phone, cause it's better looking to me and 35 feels too wide.
thankfully it's lossless since everything has pixel binning. but I often wish I had longer range than that when i want to take pic of like birds or some other stuff.
>aps-c
oh so it changes the focal length, right? so 50mm will be like 75mm?
if so that's pretty great for me to get a 18-55 I'm guessing.

>>4517226
thanks I'll have to research more. it's easier to understand on Kamerastore what condition or flaws stuff has for me.

>>4517227
https://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/flashlight-test.htm

if you can take a picture, it comes out nice, and the autofocus works and the camera isnt giving any errors its probably fine. lenses are a little trickier

>>4517227
>oh so it changes the focal length, right?
Short answer: The smaller sensor size changes the EQUIVALENT focal length, your Canon 50mm has the same field of view as an 80mm lens on full frame sensor (50x1.6=80).
Longer answer: the focal length is an inherit property of a lens that has nothing to do with the sensor. The look of the lens stays the same and the sensor only crops into the image circle.

>>4517229
but isn't cropping the picture to show the same area as the focal length the same?.. like visually it would look the same. and cover the same area
this may be 2deep4me

>>4517228
I'll check it, thanks

>>4517230
>but isn't cropping the picture to show the same area as the focal length the same?
Focal length is a physical property of the lens, like weight or size.
Field of View or "equivalent focal length" is what's important for how something looks in terms of "zoom". That depends on the system of lens focal length + sensor size.

On a crop camera, since you're only using the center portion, it's as if you used a narrower focal length for that field of view. It's still a 50mm, but you're getting the same field of view as you would with a 75mm on full frame. Same thing as if you just cropped from a larger image.

>>4517230
Mainly the background compression changes even if the equivalent focal length is the same. You're quite deep into the sensor size debate and medium format elitism once this stuff starts to matter
https://youtube.com/shorts/RZ4pBr9yUCg

>>4517233
>Mainly the background compression changes even if the equivalent focal length is the same.
What do you mean by this?

>>4517231
I... see?..

>>4517233
all I can see is the bottom is more zoomed in and top is blurrier in the back so I'm assuming top is full frame?..
not sure what else I'm supposed to see

File: contax.jpg (12 KB, 186x272)

12 KB JPG

>>4517074

>Rammstein 2024 Dublin Ireland
>mfw watching all the DSLR dorks get turned away
>got in with my 1940 IIIb and Summicron
>survived every mosh pit
>someone got shoved right into the lens
>left a huge imprint on their arm
>"fuck yea dude film camera wooooooo"
>Du Hast comes on
>[Mosh pit intensifies]
>get shoved hard enough to fall finally
>immediately grab my Leica and hold it in front of me
>some German dude grabs it as I fall
>apparently he was protecting it so it didn't get damaged
>get pulled back up, hands the camera back to me
>"nice camera, is that a Leica"
>"hell yea it is"


Afterward we were all comparing our smart watches and apparently I burned like 5000 calories in that pit, shit was fucking wild. I'm finally back on my feet enough to get the film developed this year so I'll be sure to put that up here in the upcoming Sugar thread.

File: rendering.jpg (1.81 MB, 4000x2666)

1.81 MB JPG

>>4517235
>not sure what else I'm supposed to see
I'm not either, kind of a meaningless comparison
If you use equivalent focal lengths, and equivalent apertures, and shoot from the same spot, things more or less look the same

This is split top/bottom, with one being FF at f2.8/5.6, and the other on crop at f2/4
Different color from different bodies and different lenses, and FL/distortion isn't exactly the same, but you get the point, more or less the same

>>4517237
I've learned in my time of using a 2004 4mp point and shoot coolpix like a decade+ ago and editing the pohots that autism like that doesn't matter as much as enjoying taking pictures so I try not to dwell on details too deep.
at the end of the day even if I use a smartphone with it's shitty processing, I either feel something when I look at a photo, or I don't.

of course I never dealt with anything like that professionally so it's probably where a lot of autism comes in.
for me a bunch of those from either the phone or the pointshoot still look great so any DSLR would probably be a giant upgrade.

File: PICT0020-2.jpg (2.77 MB, 3072x3840)

2.77 MB JPG

>>4517238
any dslr is a huge upgrade from a phone

a phone does not have the physical glass and sensor to absorb/manipulate the light its getting

the only thing the phone will do better than a 20 year old dslr is low light photos and being easily accessible with better workflow (can immediately share)

my favorite camera to casually shoot is this konica minolta dynax 7d (maxxum in usa, a7 digital in japan) and it can still give awesome images for a 6 megapixel camera from 2004 (but with a apsc sensor and great glass)...and i paid $40 usd for it

shoot raw and you'll get awesome results with a little bit of editing

File: taking-photos-makes-me-happy.png (1.22 MB, 1965x813)

1.22 MB PNG

>>4517230
>this may be 2deep4me
Don't think too hard about it. These other guys are technically correct, but it's like explaining to you how a torque converter works when you just want to drive to the shops and not take out a bus full of kids on the way.
For your level of photography you can just think of it as a smaller sensor (APS-C) will look like a narrower Field of View than a full sensor camera using the same lens. So yes, 50mm will be like 75mm (except on Canon it's 80mm because they had to be special).

>if so that's pretty great for me to get a 18-55 I'm guessing.
Using this lens on an APS-C camera will be like having a true 29-88mm lens. When your phone says it's using "50mm" it's doing the FoV multiplier for you and reporting what a similar FoV on a full frame camera would be. Yes it's more complicated than that. No, you don't need to give a shit about it.
The second you start flicking a lens zoom back and forth you'll understand more.

>autism like that doesn't matter as much as enjoying taking pictures so I try not to dwell on details too deep
Please continue with this mindset. 80% of this board is full of autists trying to one-up each other on unimportant theory while producing the turdiest photos known to man.
Like I said, as soon as you start playing with a real camera you'll begin to see the practical differences. If you ever care to learn more once you've had some hands-on experience, then you can get autistic about things, not now.

>>4517237
Any time I look through my own photos that have complex subjects and a lot of depth, I can reliably tell when they switch from an om5 to a z8, or from a fuji xt3 to a sony a7riv. Even when sharpness is equal there’s a visible difference in depth and realism. Compared to an a7riv m43 shoots cel shaded cartoons and peoples skin looks uncannily simplified.

It really goes to show that if your only subjects are trees and rocks or brick walls and clouds it doesn’t matter what camera you use. You’re wasting your time either way.

File: phone .jpg (1.41 MB, 4096x3072)

1.41 MB JPG

>>4517242
>low light
so how much different is it?
I mean I did some dusk and night photos with my point and shoot so it will be better still with a DSLR I bet either way. on the point and shoot at night there were some dead pixels.

>>4517245
will try my best.
thanks anon

>>4517250
Same but when I shot jpeg it was easy to believe a new fuji took better photos than an old canon dslr and the newest sony was the best camera ever because canon’s jpegs were softer, or the newest canon was the best camera ever because the skin tones were less accurate but more flattering or the newest sony was better because it was more realistic

Then i installed capture one and the positions were reversed, old 5d > any fuji, and sony and canon were the same and looked exactly how I wanted them to
But crop sensors still looked slightly worse at all times until useless high ISO that looks bad no matter what. Modern crop sensors can actually use higher insane “equivalent” ISOs than some full frames because they run cooler and have less interference. The nikon z50 and a7rv look the same at iso 100k. With an edge to the z50.

>>4517251
>how much different

your phone uses something called computational photography where it will take several underexposed/overexposed photos to merge into one photo.

your camera will likely jack up to iso 800/1600/3200 so it'll look like >>4517102 >>4517103 but if you use a denoise function on a raw editor like lightroom it'll remove a lot of noise and improve image quality.

camera = mechanical/physics (physical sensor, physical glass)

phone = computer (going as bad as samsungs using ai to to add detail to photos of the moon)

>>4517252
honestly i hated fujis before and i still do because they're horribly overpriced for a brand new apsc camera, but i do like their jpeg engine. i legitimately feel like its the best of all the camera brands and if you find a film simulation you like it will save you hours in workflow/editing unless you want max sharpness/image quality for prints. i have 2 friends with fujis (one has a x100vi another has a xt5) and both make great photos straight out with jpegs.

i kinda want to pick up a cheap xt3/xt4/xt30 to try it out myself. the glass is expensive too...

>>4517233
>Mainly the background compression changes even if the equivalent focal length is the same
This is false. A cell phone with a sensor the size of your finger nail and a lens with an equivelant field of view as a 50mm lens on full frame and a full frame body with a 50mm lens will produce images with identical perspectives and background compression, the image from the full frame camera will (probably) just have a shallower depth of field. The compression you speak of is simply a consequence of the difference between you and the subject and the subject and the background, use a longer focal length (regardless of sensor size) and you have to step back increasing your distance to the subject and the background will appear larger and blurrier.

>>4517230
>but isn't cropping the picture to show the same area as the focal length the same?
Ignoring differences in lens distortion (wider lenses tend to have more barrel distortion), yes. If you've got more resolution than you need this can be quite useful, for example you can have one of the high resolution full frame bodies and put it in APS-C mode for 1.5x as much reach. So you can turn your 50mm prime into a 75mm, 85mm into a 135mm, 135mm into a 200mm, etc.

>>4517253
Fuji jpegs are blurry, and it’s not just a print thing. If you have a normal computer like a macbook pro just looking at photos on the screen is totally different. The only place it doesnt matter is posting on 4chan, because web browsers forcibly display everything at 72 dpi (lowest common denominator) and even sort of shit amerifat-sized desktop pc screens are capable of double that.

Life tips:
Nice cameras are for people with friends and shit
If your life is 4chan, your friends are your dog and cat, and your photos are trees dont bother, you literally cant benefit.
Nice things are for winners.

>>4517254
>more resolution than you need
A fairly small, 3000x2400px photo on a typical computer screen will still visibly improve if the source image is 50mp instead of 24 or 100mp instead of 50, especially if bayer moire/rainbow specs or xtrans worms/color bleed are present

This leads back to - if your entire life is 72dpi 4chan compressed jpegs… lol

>>4517255
i'd argue a $1200-2000 fuji is a nice camera lol

>>4517257
Fuji is just overpriced. Anywhere wannabe artists are, equipment scams follow. Well, its not a scam so much as it’s jewelry. Like buying luxury watches. A tudor dive watch is an objectively bad time keeping device and an even worse divers tool. They are worn to pose. And hope no one knows its a bootleg rolex. People still buy them and praise them heavily. Fuji is like a tudor or tissot or something. Just wait until you see the rolex or cameras.
>this leica must be better it’s $10k
>literally a sony a7r with all its features removed
>this $5k leica lens must be better
>same measurable optical performance as a 20yo canon dslr lens
>leica color dna?
>yellow is just less bright and more saturated
>well its for REPORTERS it must be-
>*int err loop* *buttons stop responding* *corrupts memory card* *half the sensor stops working*
>oh its for dressing up as a reporter when you’re rich but not actively doing any reporting

>>4517254
>This is false.
I'm under the impression that a major point of medium format and large format look is using 135mm to get normal focal length shots with the 135mm look (shallow DoF, the subject pops out of the background, far away mountains look like they are bigger and closer, large bokeh)

I'm not very passionate about arguing tho, just saying in case either of us misunderstood the other one's point and we're comparing apples to oranges.

>>4517263
You’re right. Its different. But you need REAL film medium format like 6x6 or a large format bellows camera to get the effect. Digital mirrorless lenses don’t do it because their lenses are nearly telecentric.

>>4517256
Sure, a higher res downsampled image can look better than one at that native res. However there is a limit and I would argue that 50mp downsampled to ~8mp will look no better than 33mp. I'm not well versed on the exact techniques behind downsampling but the latter would give you 4 pixels to 1, it doesn't seem likely that going to 6 pixels to 1 would be any better. There's only so much information you can stuff into a smaller space. Secondly a crop from a higher res image will always look better than just looking closer (physically) or zooming in to that higher quality downsampled image.

>>4517263
That medium format look is just down to the larger sensor, not having to use a longer focal length for the same field of view. The difference between 35mm f/1.8 on APS-C and 50mm f/1.8 on FF isn't because of the longer focal length, it's the larger sensor. The same aperture on a larger sensor will give you a shallower depth of field and that "poppy" look you're after. It's the reason why cell phones with f/1.8 lenses still have a deep depth of field (and have to fake a shallow one in software). However, these days medium format digital doesn't have the advantage it did back in the film days for two reason, the sensors aren't as big as the film frame was and there's not many really fast lenses while there are loads for full frame.

>>4517266
Physics knower/experience haver

>>4517269
Cameras 4 dummies blog reader

>>4517250
What a good opportunity for you to share some examples with us!
Whenever I've posted examples here, with images from different sensor sizes, no one can ever tell which was which. I'd love to see yours!

>>4517276
>he thinks everyone just photographs their dog and back yard like him
Not him but we had an anon who demonstrated these things once. Actually two. They like you had a bunch of backyard dog and tree photos. One had a medium format db. The other had a bunch of nikons and micro four thirds. They clearly showed the sensor size advantage and then they left.

Why do people need to make examples for you constantly when two others already btfo you like, last year? Did you forget it happened? Because you stayed as a daily 4chan poster and they moved on you defaulted to being right again? Lol.

How about we all just agree that larger sensors are preferred to smaller ones for everyone but budget constrained animal photographers for a reason?

>>4517263
The "look" of medium format is just a combo of
>shallow DoF
>squarer aspect ratios
>very high resolution
>film contrast & colors
The first 3 are very easy to replicate on smaller sensors, with more work.

Background compression is entirely distance related, from the same distance, compression is the same regardless of focal length. The only thing FL changes is the field of view / framing.

>>4517277
>just kidding I made it up
Sad

>>4517278
Background compression with a wide FOV is an actual thing in medium format SLRs and bellows cameras.

It’s never happening on your fuji gfx or hasselblad x2d is all.

>>4517280
>Background compression with a wide FOV
Nope. What a good opportunity for you prove me wrong and make look like an idiot.

>>4517279
>please sleuth the archive for me and find the arguments i had with huskychad and eggchad already
You already had and lost the sensor size argument with people who brought ample examples… why should anyone waste time making test shots for you to change your mind when it is clearly unchangeable? Unlike huskychad/eggchad I cant force myself to own 4 different sensor sizes or a DSLR collection, MFDB and LF film all at once so i’d have to buy shit just to do a test

That someone already did for you

And that you ignored and forgot entirely because the results went against your worldview

I mean you’re probably the guy who already sold his fuji kit and yet defends aps-c and fuji’s honor on the internet for no comprehensible reason at all so is it even possible to change your mind even with perfect scientific tests?
And is it worth it when the entire world, besides a few internet dweebs, already knows bigger sensors are better for everything but saving space and money? Which is why the best camera tech always comes to larger sensors first and they’re what everyone uses whenever possible… duh.

>>4517282
>with people who brought ample examples
90% that was me you mean lol
>making test shots
but they said they had taken plenty of examples and could see the clear difference already, I just want to see what they meant, instead of more words
> who already sold his fuji kit
sounds like you have some memory problems
> is it even possible to change your mind even with perfect scientific tests?
absolutely, I've changed my mind and learned plenty from here, seen very few tests or comparisons posted outside of my own though

bigger sensor are better, I would never disagree with that lol

>>4517281
You do know that this is an actual lens design thing right? Lenses can be more or less image or object space telecentric, both, none at all… a lens can actually render a distant object larger than it would appear with natural perspective, up to its actual size so a close and distant object can appear equal. A lot of MF and LF lenses exhibit some degree of this effect as a benefit of their sheer size and focal length.
It’s gotten less common as newer lenses are more compact and designers focus on focus breathing instead.

But why waste time
You already want to believe its not true and your tiny convenient snapshitter is as good as anything else

>>4517283
Oh so the husky and german shepherd were yours. How was that trip to tel aviv you mentioned?

Just kidding I know you’re not either of those guys because they were actually good photographers

>canon rumors have shut down their forum
KWAB

File: Screenshot 2026-07-11 at (...).png (131 KB, 2018x556)

131 KB PNG

finally fixed my k10d's autofocus with a +160um focus correction god damn this thing couldnt focus for shit prior it was horrible so bad that whatever looked okay in the viewfinder looked soft focused shitty in the actual file

the 2 k200ds i had got -50um and +20um respectively

i think thats the one thing i wont miss about DSLRs its the terrible autofocus compounded by old moving parts making it worse

File: X-E5_ooc_vs_raw.jpg (769 KB, 1800x700)

769 KB JPG

>>4517253
>but i do like their jpeg engine. i legitimately feel like its the best of all the camera brands and if you find a film simulation you like it will save you hours in workflow/editing unless you want max sharpness/image quality for prints.

losing 1/4 of lens resolution because Fuji hasn't figured out in-camera sharpness is just sad.
Their silly processing makes it look like a painting.

>>4517255
>Fuji jpegs are blurry
As if autofocus randomly missing wasn't bad enough, they had to also fail at what might redeem them - their JPEG engine.

>>4517088
Go to a camera store to check the size of the newer A6X00 models. Desu, the pancake kit lens is quite unbeatable for the weight. I use it on my A6000 when my 'tism counts by the grams for travel. A5100 if you want a slightly smaller body and don't mind old tech like the A6000, but I don't know if the used prices are reasonable. My compact apsc Fuji XF10 (Ricoh GRII size), is starting to have physical issues like sticky buttons, SD card error, and bleeding LCD, plus its used market prices are outrageous since Fuji didn't release a successor.

>>4517285
Have I really fallen off? :(

File: image.png (1.51 MB, 1920x1080)

1.51 MB PNG

>>4517327
I'm really looking at a A6400 lately (or maybe the A6300) since they're pretty abundant and relatively priced. There's a $200 gap between the two and I'm trying to decide if it's worth spending that bit more for the A6400.

>Desu, the pancake kit lens is quite unbeatable for the weight.
Yeah that's my thinking too. I'm glad I didn't sell it and just hung onto it, it's practically brand new since I bought a prime only a few weeks later. It's the 28-60mm to be specific, which I think would be pretty much the perfect lens for a compact like that A6X00 models.

>>4517334
Nice, it becomes a mid focal length compact on an apsc which covers around 40-90mm. Why didn't I think of that?

File: DSCN6718.jpg (1.29 MB, 1712x2288)

1.29 MB JPG

>>4517253
makes sense.
also example of the 2004 4mp coolpix for posterity and if anyone is interested (took a while to dig out the files was busy), vaguely similar photo (except not really)

yeah theres a ton of grain but ill take even digital grain over smartphone AI processing...
does make me miss it a bit.
and makes me want to buy a camera a lot.

File: DSCN7083.jpg (1.08 MB, 1712x2288)

1.08 MB JPG

>>4517342
felt like the grunge-ness also could play into some photos...

File: DSCN6710.jpg (1000 KB, 2288x1712)

1000 KB JPG

>>4517343
not sure if any of them are any good, but i like them.

File: file.png (459 KB, 1179x1607)

459 KB PNG

>>4517253
>going as bad as samsungs using ai to to add detail to photos of the moon
It's gotten way worse since that happened. Phone cameras are on average, worse stills cameras than they have ever been.

File: SamsungMoonPhotos.webm (1.2 MB, 586x1258)

1.2 MB WEBM

>>4517346
>iPhone oversharpens to the point of looking like an oil painting
>Samsung and Huawei literally just replace your subject
Grim.

File: DSCN9567.jpg (1.8 MB, 1518x2029)

1.8 MB JPG

>>4517345
heres one with some color.
nikon coolpix 4mp 4600 2004 i think.
in the end the half press on the button broke.
anyway thanks for reading my blog.

>>4517346
>>4517347
fuck. that.
i dont have that on my xiaomi but it smooths fine details that are repeating like grass or bumpy pavement into that oilpainting ai-upscale look that everyone hates. though its only really visible if you zoom in and use digital zoom.

though if youre into full on phone camera autism you can dive into G-cam mods with million processing settings you can tune, or use a raw camera app and process them yourself or use a tunable automatic processor. but its a lot of autism for making something to try and crutch the laws of physics in your favor.

>>4517347
this is disgusting

>>4517348
i will never forgive smartphones for killing cheap pocketable point and shoots.

>>4517348
I've been using Halide on the iPhone, which is a RAW processor that doesn't have any additional shit in it. They have really close ties with Apple so it's really well integrated. The only funny thing is that completely RAW unsharpened/altered images can only be 12mp since it really does use only the physical sensor and none of that meme magic to make it 48mp.

One of these days I'll take it on the street and see what I can come up with. I rarely use it since I feel like such a retard for taking phone photos, it just looks embarrassing.

File: file.png (305 KB, 739x415)

305 KB PNG

>>4517351
would be cool to see. i tried on my poco(xiaomi) which has 50mp but does a quad binning so it ends up 12.5 or x2 zoom 12.5 without binning. raw with opencam was only 12mp too, so they looked very grainy guess it does A LOT, especially at night.
i wonder if the newer china memes are any good or just another gimmick.
cost would probably make it completely retarded either way. and its not like you can put the module in a pocket.

Didn't want to start a new thread and this seemed the best place for it.

I often browse Marketplace for cheap used gear and frequently see MILC's of all brands for sale that'll have shuttercounts below 1,500. Are there just tons of normies out there who dump thousands of dollars on brand new cameras, use it a few times on vacation or at family gatherings, and then dump it in their closet until they decide to sell it? Why do they fucking do this? Why waste all that money to do what they could have done with their phone?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not complaining because it means cheap near-new gear for the rest of us. The decision making (or lack thereof) just baffles me.

>>4517354
The grain on Halide isn't unpleasant, most people describe it as being like film and I'd agree. It looks horrible at high ISO but using it with good lighting has really nice results. I'll see if I can get two photos for comparison soon and post them up, one being iPhone default and the other being Halide.

>>4517355
maybe tried and didnt like the hobby? or tried and wanted more right away. or it wasnt as convenient as a phone. or was just sitting gathering dust. people are impulsive and forgetful.

Just want to get back for a moment to question about mirrorless battery life I asked near the start of the thread - you guys were right, it's really about screen time. I was using only viewfinder (main screen was always rotated back, only opened to show people recently took photo), keeping camera off if not in use even for few minutes and, just in case, enabled airplane mode (both Bluetooth and WiFi were disabled in settings but some people reported that their cameras were still searching even in such situations) and after whole day of shooting at convention, I depleted one battery and another to 50%. Granted, I had to skip one important event because of heavy rain that interrupted it and I had to quickly take shelter (I hope that the organizers will understand, I didn't want to risk damaging gear and from audience shelter I wouldn't be able to take any useful shots with 24-70 lens I had with me at the moment) but still, it was much better than I expected. Thanks for explaining this thing to me.

File: 1000184223.jpg (2.55 MB, 2160x2160)

2.55 MB JPG

>>4517356
just tried on mine, set iso400 1/20.
OpenC-RAW OpenC-JPG
Stock-x1 Stock-x2
they all look shit, but you can tell the difference in noise and processing a bit.

File: 1000184228.jpg (1.27 MB, 2339x2160)

1.27 MB JPG

are chinese battery packs for old dslrs with a type c charging port a meme? is it better to just get a charger that can work with type-c?
are chinese batteries even good?..
is it better to just get 1-2 spares and just swap them instead of trying to charge them on the go?
how long would a battery Ina decade old dslr last? especially if it's old and used and the manufacturing date of the battery was long ago?

>>4517363
Personally I wouldn't bother with shit like this unless you're really desperate to not carry a charger. The battery quality will be hit or miss. The best pricer per performance for batteries is wasabi power, I wouldnt only get a different third party if there are no wasabi power options for the battery you're looking for.

>>4517361
I'll still take some grain with a soft image over an oversharpened image any day though. I think of it as being like one of those late 2000s digicams but with a lot of RAW capability (I know some digicams had RAW but it was rare or custom in a lot of cases).

>>4517366
It's weird. My phone has a larger sensor, than my Canon G10, and the G10 takes objectively better pictures every time.

>>4517347
it truly is a holographic matrix

>>4517364
I had a bad experience with a couple of wasabi batteries. One wasn't charging and the other one bloated with minimal usage, def. from a bad batch. But other couple of wasabi batteries for my other camera are still good after long term use.

>google 5D mark II shutter lifespan
>dozens of reports of 2mil+ counts
I wonder which modern cameras, if any, will garner the reliability reputation of the 5D2...

File: peak-design-capture-black.jpg (33 KB, 458x458)

33 KB JPG

Best piece of gear out there

>>4517489
Honestly it's helping me take photos which is better than any body or lens can do. I would think it a meme purchase if I wasn't having to parent a child when I'm out and about, having two hands free is more important for parenting than photography

>>4517516
Having the camera hang from my neck for 6-10 hours is horrendous

>>4517489
hard agree. complete gamechanger while hiking / mountaineering.

>>4517489
I'm too afraid this shit will break or be too weak and my gear will fall. Trusting 5k in gear on a Kickstarter projects $50 product feels like a gamble to me.

>>4517355
>I often browse Marketplace for cheap used gear and frequently see MILC's of all brands for sale that'll have shuttercounts below 1,500. Are there just tons of normies out there who dump thousands of dollars on brand new cameras, use it a few times on vacation or at family gatherings, and then dump it in their closet until they decide to sell it? Why do they fucking do this? Why waste all that money to do what they could have done with their phone?
Yes. To add to this I find it hilarious when they sell expensive gear using photos they have taken with their phones in terrible lighting. People buy it thinking they are getting into a certain lifestyle and then abandon it quickly because it involves some level of dedication. The cellphone even though it provides shittier photos is just more convenient and it is what they are used to and they can't get rid of that habit. Having bought and sold hundreds of cameras I do believe that this is something that happened when point and shoot autofocusing 35mm cameras came about as well because from time to time I get absolutely pristine condition SLR gear that seems to just have been stored, probably because they figured out that the point and shoot was just more convenient.

>>4517522
its a solid piece of aluminum, i still have a strap around my neck as a backup but it's a bit loose not to put any pressure

File: 5920201444_1928d1a4e9.jpg (41 KB, 500x333)

41 KB JPG

Is there anything like the Pentax Q today? Very tiny and compact but interchangable lenses. Fixed lens may be ok too. Also really enjoyed the image quality despite the mini sensor, it somehow felt like film. Great colors too.

>>4517533
No. Even the smaller micro four thirds cameras are discontinued.

>>4517489
what is it?

how important is a good 70-200mm f2.8 lens? it seems ridiculous to carry around outside of special events where you need the best possible iq at that focal length. like if im not a wedding photographer or similar why would you get one?

they're not cheap either, like $2-300 for 20+ year old used lenses and $700-1000 for new ones

>>4517557
What a retarded question. There's a wide spectrum of gear for all different needs. Don't need a 70-200mm f/2.8? Then get a 70-200mm f/4. Don't even need that? Then get a 70-300mm with a variable aperture or something like Sony's 55-210mm (not sure what other brands offerings are at that low end). Only use your 70-200mm at the long end? Then get a 200mm f/2.8, or even a f/1.8. Want even more range? Here's a 150-500/600mm.

File: 000058200033.jpg (3.76 MB, 3130x2075)

3.76 MB JPG

>>4517236
based and rangefinderpilled

this mf touched my lens in the pit