>>4530268
You should wait until the previous gear thread reaches page 5 or 6 or hits image limit lil bro. There is no need to flood the catalog with these bot shill threads.

Oh boy more gear thread spam so cAMERALESS and the shills can pretend the last one never happened again and keep pushing their various agendas

>>4530270
The thread I killed was a gear thread too, eat my shorts

>>4530271
>canon falseflagging because he's assblasted he couldn't be the OP

>>4530274
No, that's my bitch crying already because he's a premature vituperator. He feels intellectually raped in anticipation of this thread already so he's already started to release it all.

File: 20260424_155104.jpg (1.08 MB, 2350x1398)

1.08 MB JPG

>>4530273
Don't try to justify your newfag behavior, mister.

At least you have an interesting topic that will be completely ignored for more shilling.
Lens on the left is worth around 6k dollars, got it for half that. Unbelievably nice soft focus lens for portraits. Stunning even. Middle lens is a petzval f3 lens that covers 8x10, exceptionally sharpness and subject seperation, and the hermagis is another killer portrait lens that also works as a convertible if you remove the rear element.

Fun fact: studio wetplate needs around 10k watt-seconds or more of flash if you want more than f5.6 and one keylight.

>>4530273
I paid a machinist a little over a thousand dollars to make custom retaining rings out of bronze and also cut sinar lens boards just so I could use them.
Sinar has an external shutter accessory that lets you use barrel lenses with ease. The shutter accessory is really a nice piece of kit and opens up a whole world of vintage barrel lenses. Shutter speeds go from 8s - 1/60th. Not too inconvenient most of the time.
The electronic shutter I have goes up to 1/500th, but you need to lug around a lead acid battery and powe converter so it doesn't really leave my studio.

>>4530278
Wow where is this and how do I find people willing to pay 1k for turning some bronze rings on a lathe?

>>4530276
I am sure people have lucked out finding these things in the wild with random mishmash at yard sales and such because to my eyes they look like projector lenses. Of course I'd take a closer look when I see a German name on it, but there are those who are even more ignorant than I am when it comes to that stuff.

File: 20260816_142343.jpg (2.55 MB, 1574x2334)

2.55 MB JPG

>>4530273
And here's the camera. Ugly AF, but an extremely powerful camera.
Sinar is awesome because their film cameras are totally modular. Need 8 feet of bellows extension? Totally possible with enough rails, bellows, and bellows holders. The three generations' parts are all mostly interchangeable as well.
And yeah thats a focal plane spot meter probe sticking out the top. The monitor has auto averaging, and it gives you total contrast measurement and a visual indication of where your total metered contrast is being placed on the zone system for easy exposure compensation if needed. It's a very powerful tool for real photography.

>>4530280
Projector lenses don't normally have aperture rings. Look up perscheid or hermagis. They are legendary pictorialist lenses. You can definitely find vintage barrel lenses like you describe, but these are different. Brass barrel projector lenses from that time were also usually single element meniscus designs to work in a "magic lantern" style projector.

>>4530279
Well I just gave him the lenses and lens boards and asked him to do everything for me. I could have probably found a bit cheaper or worked out CAD models and used an online service, but it's whatever. I would have had to buy some shit to properly measure thread depth and all that crap.
The rings are a little more complicated than just threaded bronze rings, and they are quite big. They're precisely stepped to center the lenses in the lens boards and clamp them down.

>>4530282
Fair enough, that's well beyond machining

File: WETPLATE (2) (4)_1.jpg (2.74 MB, 2783x2285)

2.74 MB JPG

Aaand here's a 4x5 wetplate I took using the hermagis. This plate is a real joy to look at in person. Very dreamy.

Someone else has gotta do wetplates here, right? Show yourself!

>>4530279
>>4530275
nophoto melty

File: 20260924_142905.jpg (1.33 MB, 3000x3350)

1.33 MB JPG

>>4530283
He did a really nice job on them. Tight tolerances and the threads are really smooth. 350 bucks per part isn't outrageous and it was awesome that he even took on such a small job in the first place.

>>4530285
Beautiful work. Could even be anti-urban propaganda with how idyllic it looks.

File: Screenshot-2026-09-23-at-(...).png (114 KB, 700x359)

114 KB PNG

Wow! Look at these new lenses for L-mount.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5NItPf369NE

>>4530287
That's amazing, I was picturing something a lot simpler in my mind. That's almost jewellery tier. I'm used to rougher, industrial stuff and assumed it'd essentially be something similar to a thread adapter. If done manually this one is quite a bit of work. And the R&D minimal as it may have been being included arguably makes it a bargain. You arguably bought functional art.

>>4530289
>wow look at this new chink mirrorless lenslop
What's exciting about them?

>>4530289
Why isn't the last one black?

>>4530290
>I'm used to rougher, industrial stuff
You don't even own a tripod

>>4530292
Because the others come in other color options too

>>4530291
some people complain about a lack of small lenses with L-mount.

Speaking of color variation. I came across a grey Pentax SMC-M 40mm F2.8 a while back. Clearly some mishap at the factory where they forgot to give it a second coating or something. Wonder if the boomers over at the pentax forums will give me big bucks for it.

>>4530293
>lies and total lack of reading comprehension
Par for the course. If you're too machine-illiterate to appreciate what I'm talking about then feel free to not reply to me.

>>4530299
Which tripod do you own?

>>4530297
With those apertures you might as well shoot crop. At least they're as cheap as the equivalent crop lenses I guess, but if size is the problem then full frame is a stupid choice.

>>4530299
Who the Hell do you think you are? Do you think you're some kind of expert? Do you think having a handle gives you legitimacy? Clout? Do you think it marks you as a respected member of the board? It doesn't. You are a retard. A laughing stock that nobody takes seriously. Almost every technical post you make is wrong, because your dumb, lazy ass couldn't be fucked to research the topic beyond the most surface of levels and, in most cases, you've never actually engaged in an activity where whatever you're talking about would come into play in the first place. You have no first-hand experience. You have no photos; you lost a photobattle to a DOGSNAPPER. You hate dogs (and you're probably instinctively typing some kind of comback to that right now - don't bother, everyone's heard it before and blatant lies aren't the GOTCHA you think they are). You think full-frame is pointless, and that Canon's blobmeras are the hottest cameras ever made - both objectively incorrect statements. All you do is make shit up, and when someone proves you wrong? Just make some more shit up and pretend THEY'RE the ones bullshitting until they fuck off - either due to just having to step away for whatever reason, or because they can't handle how insufferable you are to deal with - and get back to enjoying your echo chamber.
Every namefag I've ever seen - any board, any altchan - has been something like this. You are no different.

>>4530308
>Who the Hell do you think you are?
What the hell do tripods have to do with a conversation about custom metal machining? When I say I'm used to rougher industrial stuff I mean things used in heavy machinery. I'm talking gears, keyed shafts, spline joints, valves. It's all very rough compared to this jewellery tier work posted by Sinar anon.

I'll ignore all the bullshit attacks and cut to the chase:
>You think full-frame is pointless
I don't, full frame is only pointless if you're not taking its advantages. Would I shoot full frame if I thought it was pointless?
>and that Canon's blobmeras are the hottest cameras ever made
I don't, in fact I've been very critical of them. Even in these gear generals. What Canon DSLRs offer is the EF mount. If EF mount was Nikon's or Pentax's, I'd shoot those instead.
>both objectively incorrect statements
Yeah, your statements are objectively incorrect. Now I get what I kneejerked to above, it was a logic game. You stated I believe something you know I don't believe, then you stated the statements were objectively incorrect, which is true. It's like some variation of the two guards two doors riddle. Clever, I must admit.
>All you do is make shit up, and when someone proves you wrong? Just make some more shit up and pretend THEY'RE the ones bullshitting until they fuck off - either due to just having to step away for whatever reason, or because they can't handle how insufferable you are to deal with - and get back to enjoying your echo chamber.
Except I haven't been proven wrong, especially with the whole "image scale" distraction.

10/10, made me reply.

>>4530309
>What the hell do tripods have to do with a conversation
Nothing, I asked about tripods, but that's someone else's post you're replying to

>I'm cANON, I'm good faith
>I can NEVER answer simple and direct gear questions
If you can't answer as basic a question like what tripod your using, even after you mention using one, it should be pretty evident for the few other onlookers here how full of shit you always are
Asking for simple specifics (like what cameras you use too), is a great way to test how much someone is bullshitting you, works for all kinds of discussions

>>4530315
Sure, that's someone else. Someone else replying to my answer calling out the guy who accused me of not having a tripod after a post about how I'm used to rougher machined pieces than the retaining rings for the Sinar. This was the post sequence:
>>4530290
>>4530293
>>4530299

>>4530315
>Asking for simple specifics (like what cameras you use too), is a great way to test how much someone is bullshitting you, works for all kinds of discussions
It's also a great way to profile people. Make a list of equipment, monitor travelers for it, add the target to the list. Once identified you can abduct him in some friendly territory and then take him to a black site.

>>4530317
Who do you think you are? James Bond?

The used gear market is in a downwards spiral. Things have been going down slowly for most things, but other more "luxurious" items have already dropped significantly the last couple of years. Once the price of diesel starts to make itself felt properly I am sure people will suddenly find all that crap left over from gramps and dump it on the market ensuring even lower prices. People who complain about high prices for niche crap should just wait a bit and they will most likely be rewarded. Reality is that none of the crap they whine about is rare and the market is as it is because people are too lazy to sell things online, which will change once they feel the sting.
Plenty of crap to go around for the small demographic that is focused on that sort.
t.collector, buyer and seller of old crap.

>>4530318
Worse, a revisionist

>>4530290
>>4530288
Thanks. The rings fit with the nice brass construction of the lenses and actually add good value to the lenses if I ever had to sell.
Im hoping that mastering 8x10 portraiture and super high quality darkroom prints, wetplate, and alt processes like plat/pd will pay off when AI images take over and people start really wanting authentic and hand crafted images. It's already seeing an uptick in popularity.

>>4530321
The physical processes themselves aren't really a guarantee against AI (you could make something in AI and then a physical copy of it with whatever process you want, like they used to do optical printing in cinema) but will be doable even if everything electronic goes the way of the dodo. I know a guy who expects some inevitable revolution to happen, get documented in film and developed in coffee. It always seemed far fetched to me, but it's true that it'd be technically possible. I just don't see people scrambling to get film and cameras and making homebrew developers plus fixer with the world burning around them.

>>4530322
Well if you're taking the pictures and all that the person paying will inevitably be a part of the process so at least they can see that you're actually using film holders and all that. The authenticity of the resulting prints will at least be true for the person being photographed. You could even invite them to printing day to see the negative and how you produce the prints.
It's even more true with wetplate because the entire process from exposure to finished image happens in minutes and tintypes are a singular irreproducible image.
It's also such a chemically basic process you could theoretically stockpile all the raw chemicals for it.
Also you would need an extremely powerful UV source to transfer a digital image onto a wetplate because you only have maybe 5ish minutes to expose your image. It may be possible with a fast lens but idk. It would at least be difficult to pull off.

I think the actual best bet for apocalyptic times photography is wetplate for reasons above. You should tell him to start hoarding high purity silver and nitric acid lol.

>>4530323
>Well if you're taking the pictures and all that the person paying will inevitably be a part of the process so at least they can see that you're actually using film holders and all that. The authenticity of the resulting prints will at least be true for the person being photographed. You could even invite them to printing day to see the negative and how you produce the prints.
Absolutely, that's invaluable. The whole chemical part is an experience in itself that I'm sure a lot of people would gladly pay for. That it can be done in such an artisanal way only makes it more alluring. There's some mystique already to developing film and it's not even half as striking as wet plates are.
>I think the actual best bet for apocalyptic times photography is wetplate for reasons above. You should tell him to start hoarding high purity silver and nitric acid lol.
He's been hoarding 35mm film and mechanical cameras but you're probably right lol. I mean, film came after collodion precisely because it's not as DIY-able.
I think he was looking into making silver prints too, but from film.

>>4530322
>The physical processes themselves aren't really a guarantee against AI (you could make something in AI and then a physical copy of it with whatever process you want, like they used to do optical printing in cinema)
Wouldn't the rasterisation of the source digital image be visible? Even if only under a microscope? Provided the film grain is sufficiently fine to resolve it, at least.

>>4530325
Salt prints are quite easy to DIY completely aside from the cotton rag paper, but rigging an enlarger to make them may not be feasible. I've never looking into making high sensitivity paper emulsion. It always gets a bit more complicated when you move past emulsions that are primarily UV sensitive.
If there's a will there's a way. The guy at zebra printing actually made his own color emulsion for dry plates. Wild stuff.

>>4530328
You could probably make something that blurs it before exposure, some sort of difussion filter
>>4530329
>The guy at zebra printing actually made his own color emulsion for dry plates.
That's bonkers

Well looks like Nikon's circling the drain. Hasn't made a decent camera in 2 years and is mostly just recycling old tech. Another tragedy of the AI boom.

>>4530330
Then it would be suspiciously blurry for the sharpness of the film grain... I dunno, I think there'd always be some kind of tell left behind from any digital-to-analogue conversion.

>>4530330
Yeah it is. Autochrome. Here's his blogpost on it.

https://zebradryplates.com/bringing-autochrome-back-to-life/

File: z5iic_ff0cb3_Screenshot.jpg (61 KB, 1133x720)

61 KB JPG

>>4530331
it is so strange they delete the viewfinder AND downgrade the rear screen vs Z5ii

>>4530332
I suppose it'd be a matter of having enough resolution on the digital side. Maybe go oversize with the digital source and project that on the plate.
>>4530333
Fascinating. I like how there's people who straight up refuse to let lost tech just stay that way. Naturally the degree of success is varying but it'd crazy that after all the scientific advancements we were unable to reproduce the technology. Always interesting to read stuff like this, same with Impossible Films (Polaroid recreation, not quite like the originals but at least there's instant films for vintage instant cameras) or Damascus steel. I for one would love to recreate K14.

>>4530336
Then there's still colour to consider. Digital doesn't reproduce colour the same way film does. Like with a digital pixels the colour tones are basically quantised and it's finite, with film you can have any colour that's in-gamut, there's no hard limit that way.

>>4530316
>Someone else replying to my answer
Indeed it was! This is another good example of you refusing to accept reality.
>>4530317
>I'm super schizo
True, see above. Maybe one day you can actually get a tripod for your pretend camera too!

>>4530338
>get yourself in the middle of a reply chain
>act like it's the other guy's fault for assuming you're the guy he was replying to

>True, see above. Maybe one day you can actually get a tripod for your pretend camera too!
Look up the Imam rapito affair.

>>4530337
Well this is absolutely true. And not just because of the midtones, but also because it'd be hard to emulate on a digital source the out-of-range parts of the image that make the emulsion react in a different way. The soft clipping as one obvious example. There's also reciprocity failure but I'm not sure of how that works with the plate emulsions. I'm really not knowledgeable at all when it comes to that process.

>>4530342
>lacks ability to answer a simple and direct question
Makes communication hard, doesn't it?

>>4530344
Is that what you tell people before "enhancing" the interrogation?

>>4530336
K14 is a really interesting process. It's like a trichrome packed into a single shot of film. Even if the process came back it seems like it would be a major pain to develop. I think some people have had moderate success using filtered light after developing. Multiply that for CMY and you get color.
Is it really much better than e6 or just kinda different?

File: A_noontime_rest_for_a_ful(...).jpg (228 KB, 823x1024)

228 KB JPG

>>4530348
It's different, I really like the reds from it
https://www.loc.gov/pictures/search/?q=mrg&st=gallery

File: 1763449528210706.gif (618 KB, 712x400)

618 KB GIF

Would amazon hunt me down if I buy a sigma 18-50mm for my japan trip and return it when I come back home

>>4530317
>the glowies will know!
if government intelligence agencies cared about you they would have already recorded every second of your life. especially if you post here

please prove you own a camera because most of what you post sounds totally made up

>>4530350
Yeah thats real nice. The skin tones and sharpness is great too. Kinda sorta reminds me of what provia does for greens but with red instead.

File: Steve-Mccurry-Afghan-Girl(...).jpg (1.52 MB, 2000x3000)

1.52 MB JPG

>>4530353
It's a beautiful stock. The most famous photograph shot on it is probably Afghan Girl.

>>4530335
It's insane is what it is. The thing is essentially a worse z6iii.

>>4530357
Do you mean a worse Zr? Cause it's nothing like the Z6iii

just ordered a D7500

>>4530360
Oooof that's the crippled version of the D7200 meant to make the D500 look appealing.
I mean it's not bad, but it's objectively not as good as the D7200 in most aspects. Like the D5500 compared to the D5300 and the D3500 compared to the D3300.
D7200 was top of the line, they introduced the D500 and had to make it clear D7500 wasn't top of the line anymore.

>>4530361
What? Have you used it? May we see the photos?

I think I'm driving myself insane about colors. Whether it's Capture One or fucking Lightroom, the RAWs never quite look like their SOOC JPG counterpart and it is pissing me off to no end.

>>4530271
Is this you? >>4530324
Because that is some peak level seething.

>>4530355
>Afghan Girl
call me a retard but I never realised she was just a little girl not a grown woman until I saw the photo with her hands in frame

>>4530368
Thats the point

File: robot.jpg (349 KB, 1140x984)

349 KB JPG

>>4530369
You know you're doing something right when the redditbrained start begging the staff AND you lmao
>>4530352
>please prove
Please prove you're not a robot))))

>>4530369
It couldn't possibly be that the majority of anons agree that your opinion on photography is worthless unless backed up by evidence that you actually have a camera and take photos, could it?
>9 votes yes, 4 votes no
Uh oh
>>4530375
All you'd have to do is post your camera whenever you wanna babble about gear. That's it. You're a real human and you DO own a camera, right?

File: 4ab6e5ef8f859bcaaf97be8ea(...).jpg (28 KB, 564x426)

28 KB JPG

>>4530376
How does that prove anything? Holy shit, you really expect me to post the serial number don't you?

File: IMG_4680.jpg (1.66 MB, 3020x4027)

1.66 MB JPG

>>4530335
Wait was that supposed to be a compact camera? They took the EVF away and it's still this huge? Lmao.

>>4530378
No, Mr. Bond. I expect you to post your camera.

>>4530376
gear gets worse every time i check in and it probably is your fault

>>4530335
>rear screen got downgraded
its over for nikon

>>4530376
>Suspicious jump from 4 to 7 "no" votes within 30 minutes of posting this
Did I piss cANON off so hard that he started using VPNs?
>>4530381
Can you post your camera or a photo so I at least know that you're here in good faith? Gear is mostly worse because of nophotos and nocameras.

File: Oly.jpg (669 KB, 1600x1200)

669 KB JPG

>>4530384
>Blah blah deflection blah blah fuhrer
It's really quite easy and painless, here I'll show you as a visual guide
Of course it's only hard to post your camera if you don't actually own one and just like to play /p/retend. But you wouldn't have to worry about that, right?

>>4530383
>"no" goes up by 1 when I make a reply he doesn't like
>Goes up again when his inane posts get deleted
Oh yeah he's VPNing it

File: cringe girl.jpg (517 KB, 2048x1536)

517 KB JPG

>>4530387
>implying your picture proves anything
How do I know you didn't steal that picture from someone else? Especially with the crummy late 2000s phone look. You probably have a collection of stolen pics to impersonate people with. A picture proves nothing.It doesn't prove you took it, it doesn't prove the camera is yours, it only proves you know how to upload an image to 4chan.
>>4530388
They got deleted... by me. You know how to upload pictures but are too new to know how to delete posts lmao

File: Oly 2.jpg (635 KB, 1600x1200)

635 KB JPG

>>4530389
Well I've never namefagged or tripfagged so I wouldn't know, maybe that's a namefag/tripfag feature. But I'm pretty sure you can't delete your own posts as anon at least.
Anyways go ahead, reverse image search it if you have any doubts.
Oh right, I forgot it's tradition to tag your pics for proofs. Here you go... how's my handwriting?

>>4530390
>But I'm pretty sure you can't delete your own posts as anon at least.
Newfag confirmed. Or malicious accusation of me being a janny, can't tell.
>Anyways go ahead, reverse image search it if you have any doubts.
Reverse search got neutered a long time ago. possibly to favor AI
>Oh right, I forgot it's tradition to tag your pics for proofs. Here you go... how's my handwriting?
clanker/10

>>4530391
Let's unpack this
>Newfag confirmed. Or malicious accusation of me being a janny, can't tell.
Actually, I think you're running very desperate damage control for getting put in your place by a janny. -izzat
>Reverse search got neutered a long time ago. possibly to favor AI
There are many MANY reverse image search engines out there, which can find images anywhere on the net. And it's one of the few things AI is actually pretty good at, too.
>clanker/10
Well I'd be flattered that you think I can write with machine precision, unfortunately I know you're bullshitting because nobody has EVER complimented me on my dogshit handwriting, even my own dad tells me it's awful and that I need to work on it every time I write him a card lmao

>>4530392
>Oly anon hurt my feefees with his latest post, he won't just let me be right :(
>I know, I'll spin up another VPN and add another NO vote to his stupid poll that would ruin my game of pretend! That'll give me a nice hit of dopamine!
>Take THAT, haha!

>>4530268
This thread really went to shit. On the subject of very expensive large format photography, has anyone here used a cheap large format lens/shutter from obsolete format bellows cameras like the "postcard" format on a 3D printed 120 camera? I'm printing one now, seems like a cheap way to shoot 6x12 to 6x17 and put some bookcase camera lenses to use.

>>4530394
Based, you're printing it RIGHT NOW? Progress pic? I wanna see

>>4530394
Sounds cool, make sure you support the lens instead of the camera when mounting on a tripod though. 3D printed plastic doesn't take bending moment gracefully and those lenses are heavy.

>>4530392
>There are many MANY reverse image search engines out there, which can find images anywhere on the net. And it's one of the few things AI is actually pretty good at, too.
lol, I get no results from pictures I had from years back that used to bring back stuff. AI is great at saying utter bullshit about things you search. As proven in the Trevor Wisecup thread.
>Well I'd be flattered that you think I can write with machine precision, unfortunately I know you're bullshitting because nobody has EVER complimented me on my dogshit handwriting, even my own dad tells me it's awful and that I need to work on it every time I write him a card lmao
AI is great at making deformed text so it tracks
>>4530393
The only reason to go to that poll is to shit on it in the chat lol
We both know the only reason your thread is still up is because Hiro made the "one meta thread allowed" rule.

>>4530397
>The only reason to go to that poll is to shit on it in the chat lol
Hmmmm a suspicious lack of this going on despite your claim, in fact it's all anons shitting on (You) except for one (and (You), but that doesn't count, obviously)
It's funny, when I made that poll I wasn't actually thinking about you at all, I was thinking about bots and paid shills. But well, what can I say, you just love making everything about yourself...
Btw if a bunch of "anons" conveniently show after this up to shit on the poll, we'll know it's (You). But you already knew that, right?

File: IMG_20260925_011806_612~2.jpg (2.38 MB, 3350x3656)

2.38 MB JPG

>>4530395
This is the 6x12 lens cone so far, it'll be fixed focus for simplicity's sake. I found a 1910's Bausch and Lomb rapid rectilinear lens on a junk postcard camera that was in immaculate shape and decided to do this. It's the "velvia open camera 6x17" but there's other wide 120 format versions.

>>4530402
ABS?

>>4530403
Yeah, might do PETG for the body. I plan on epoxy coating the lens cone and painting the inside matte black.

>>4530335
It's a camera for people who think that sensor size is all that matters and who buy a compact body and then attach a grip, a baseplate, and a thumb rest.

>>4530410
And then never take it outside anyway.

>Uploading files from your IP range has been temporarily blocked due to abuse.
Fucking mobile posters preventing me from sharing my amazing fujifilm photography while on a trip. Smartphones were a mistake.

Alright hold up, I've been on /p/ for 6 years now but this is some special retardation I am witnessing itt and the last few.

>Snoy is good now
Snoy is funny to say but green casts were the specialty of Olympus.
>Large format film is based
>but sensor size doesn't matter and "fool frame"ers are fools
You can't have both be true. Either bigger is better or smaller is better, and if it's smaller then the winners are phones, not someone's 1" or M43. APS-C digital was a result of sensor wafers being expensive and difficult to get large enough when the digital era started. FF digital is basically the largest anyone is willing to do because of the same problems and total price(see Hassy or Fuji DMF).
>Muh compact camera, muh EDC
Any ILC is extra effort to bring. Who the fuck is autistic enough to carry shit like that all day every day? Man the fuck up and just deal with carrying a tool when you need a tool.

Please respond, I'm concerned there's a fucking chemical leak in some of your homes.

cANON must be truly losing his mind if he has now resorted to labelling everyone as an AI bot or government agent - all just to avoid proving the merit of his words. He's always been paranoid and egotistical, and this is the next logical conclusion. I wonder when he'll start accusing anons of gangstalking!

Why couldn't he just have his mental breakdown somewhere else?

>>4530420
>You can't have both be true. Either bigger is better or smaller is better
But life is not all black and white. We don't live in a world of extremes without anything in between.
Nobody here is arguing that smaller sensors are always better. The main point is that modern APS-C cameras have gotten so good recently there is very little reason to overspend on bigger sensor sizes for hobby photography. You can finally have a smaller and lighter camera that costs less and doesn't hold you back in any way.
If you shoot models/sports/wildlife/landscape professionally you will most likely want a bigger sensor. I'd argue that even for weddings APS-C will be good enough these days.
I think my recent Fuji posts prove that resolution, detail and dynamic range on latest gen APS-C sensors are pretty great.
>Man the fuck up and just deal with carrying a tool when you need a tool.
Typical nophoto take. This is why you never use your camera and have nothing to post. It's too bulky to carry with you comfortably so it usually stays home.

>>4530420
>green casts were the specialty of Olympus.
Never experienced that myself
>large format film
There are several differences with sensor sizes. For starters, you normally lose reach with bigger sensor sizes. The film emulsion doesn't care about how big your film is. And there is no demosaicing. Then there's the camera itself, the larger formats offer the chance of camera movements unless it's a press camera. The closest it gets with digital is usually a tilt-shift lens. Then there's the lenses used with large format, they tend to be simpler designs with less correction elements and coatings. It all adds up for really unique results.
>Any ILC is extra effort to bring. Who the fuck is autistic enough to carry shit like that all day every day? Man the fuck up and just deal with carrying a tool when you need a tool.
Agreed. To add insult to injury they demand compactness on a full frame package. So you end up with slow optically compromised for size lenses on top of a full frame sensor and it's both bigger and lower IQ than the equivalent crop setup.
>Please respond, I'm concerned there's a fucking chemical leak in some of your homes.
Or perhaps it's just thimerosal contamination.
>>4530421
*angry clanker noises*
The melty is all yours

>>4530422
>wildlife
>bigger sensor
Maybe for a big animal, for birds and critters more reach is always beneficial.

>>4530424
I mean if you're a professional that shoots in tropical forests and shit for nat geo then you probably want the best of the best. Otherwise you'd get crop for extra reach, yes.

>>4530422
>I think my recent Fuji posts prove that resolution, detail and dynamic range on latest gen APS-C sensors are pretty great.
I don't. I don't deny that APS-C does great, I deny that your Fuji posts prove it. They're not particularly good exhibits even for APS-C.

>>4530425
You will be cropping on full frame regardless so more pixels is better.

File: 7Artisans-18mm-f2.0-APS-C(...).jpg (40 KB, 700x876)

40 KB JPG

Do you think this lens could be good or should I just get the Fuji 18mm f2

>>4530422
>Typical nophoto take. This is why you never use your camera and have nothing to post. It's too bulky to carry with you comfortably so it usually stays home.
No, you disingenious nigger. I take my camera places it makes sense to take it. Are you actually some trenchcoat wearing faggot that brings their fooji to Walmart every time you need a sack of potatoes? Holy fuck, get out of here with this nophoto bullshit. I was asking questions about the themes in the threads, that hardly needs some vacation snapshit appended to it.

>>4530422
>Typical nophoto take. This is why you never use your camera and have nothing to post. It's too bulky to carry with you comfortably so it usually stays home.
you own an xh2. its larger than a nikon z5ii.
> there is very little reason to overspend on bigger sensor
You own an xh2. it is $500 more expensive than a z5ii.

You spent more on a bigger setup than ff to post blurry 8mp jpegs from a 40mp camera. Your gay commie attitude is literally nonsense.

>>4530423
Making sense of this post:
cANON believes full frame is wasted without a faster lens because he believes stopping down mandates raising the ISO

Yes he is retarded
He doesnt know how cameras work
He used one once to photograph an anime doll indoors and that was it
He also doesnt own a tripod

>>4530421
Bro doesn't even know a tripod lol

>>4530437
its funny because its the other way around

the lenses that make apsc and m43 small enough are literally uselessly slow and optically compromised. f3.5 and f4 equivalent primes. f5.6?f8 equivalent zooms. otherwise its just as big and expensive as ff.
>EQUIVALENCE! BEHOLD MY $1500 f2 PRIME THAYS BIGGER THAN A CHEAP FF f1.8!
and its also true that equivalence doesnt matter. in theory ffs photo might look as bad sometimes? lol just dont be shit at using your camera then, and dont compare shitty sensors like canon dslrs and ff has more to iq than bokeh and iso noise so equivalence doesnt even work

>>4530308
What makes it bad the dogsnappers actually took good photos and one gets accused of being other people(or is the other people) a lot while the others are a professional and the egg guy

cANON didnt just lose to a random idiot, he got shown up and schooled by someone significantly more competent than average who shouldnt even be acknowledging someone as low as him
instead of dropping the retardation he got schooled over and realizing he can use this fact to bolster his dslr shilling he got mad because these top tier autists main a 5dii, s5pro, and a leica and those cameras are too hard for him to use

>>4530363
don’t listen to him

I’m sure someone will come call your d7500 ewaste in a minute because you didn’t buy a d780 which costs twice as much and weighs twice as much

>>4530422
>Typical nophoto take. This is why you never use your camera and have nothing to post. It's too bulky to carry with you comfortably so it usually stays home.
facts.

>>4530443
No one would ever do that. Its not like he spent thousands of dollars on a janky crop camera like an om1 or xh2 to cope about his buyers remorse all day.
>i totally dont want ff instead!!! actually sony isnt even an option!
Its a tree fiddy dollar dslr get real niggi.

>>4530443
Ewaste is reserved for crippled cameras like d5x00/d3x00/canon models with more than two numbers, olympus, panasonic, and fujifilm

>>4530440
I was going to say APS-C doesn't really have this problem but as soon as I had a think about it I found:
>Sigma Art 30mm f/1.4 (f/2)
>Sigma Art 18-35mm f/1.8 (f/2.5)
And M43 is self explainatory
>OM 17mm f/1.2 (f/2.5)
>$1000 btw
So uhh yeah, let's all spend shitfucks of money to replicate what an EF 50mm f/1.8 STM and EF 24-70mm f/2.8 can do but for 7x the price lmao.

>>4530449
>27-52 f2.5
ff btfo

File: 1755091290424396.jpg (244 KB, 1203x1377)

244 KB JPG

>>4530449
Aperture equivalency only applies to apparent DoF, not light gathering. So a micro four turds lens at f1 is going to behave the same way in terms of exposure as a full frame lens at f1 except with correspondingly smaller optics. It's the only thing these fast MFT lenses have going for them.
All in all MFT only has utility in certain applications like extreme macro where equivalency plays in your favor (e.g having f8 DoF with f4 light gathering) and wildlife that you need to walk far enough to get to whereby having the reach of an 800mm lens at half the size is actually significant.
For everything else it's utter dogshit.

Some gear thread ago i ve asked you guys what ultra wide lens would you recommend for my aspc a6700
I was tempted by 4mm 6mm and 7.5mm fisheyes
But some anon told me not to get fisheye.
Never had the chance to tell me why is that
So now new thread pls tell me why fisheye is not good? What was your experience with them,I,m currently eyeing the 7artisans 7.5m 2.8 mk2. As it seem is a sharper in the corners than ttartisans 7.5mm 2.0. 100€ new on sale. Can t find any used one for e mount, except one that is damaged and can t focus properly and asking 70€ for it lol,
If fish ere is not the answer than what is it if i want wide shots.?
I have sigma 16mm but i don't find it wide enough. Especially for milky way and meteor showers. For the first time tried during summer perseides this year, want to try again for geminids in dec but i want to be prepared with a good fast wide lens. Samyang 12mm 2.0 seem to be recommended by many but is double the focal lenght. And sony 11mm 1.8 but is like 4-5 times the price

>>4530452
>equivalency plays in your favor
it cancels out because the smaller sensor gathers less light, the optics are generally worse without $$$$, having less pixel size adds a further downgrade, and by the end of all the theorizing you realize you could have just looked at your mfturd pics and noticed "wait yeah these look worse than ff"

>>4530453
the sony fisheye zoom is based

dont buy chink lenses based on review sleuthing. they lack QC so one copy of a lens can be much better or worse than another, and the chinks hand select the copies they send to reviewers. better yet just dont buy chink lenses expecting quality. the stepless aperture rings suck dick to use for stills also.

samyang is the cheapest acceptable manufacturer

>>4530452
>So a micro four turds lens at f1 is going to behave the same way in terms of exposure as a full frame lens at f1
its the same
50/1.8=25/0.9
ISO800 (crop factor 1x)=ISO200(crop factor 2x)
equivalence includes aperture and ISO under ideal conditions with theoretically perfect cameras

under real conditions many full frame cameras edge past equivalence because they have better optics, better sensor technology, both, and almost always have larger pixels with better fwc figures (also, in practicality many mft cameras need more longer shutter speeds to actually produce a raw that is as bright as a modern FF sensor even when using an equivalent aperture and ISO). ergo equivalence is a cope. ask not "is ff better?" because it is. ask instead "why cant canikony make a compact 120mm f5.6 macro?" because they could.

>>4530444
Usually I will scout location with a smaller camera like a 1v with a 24-70 or something like that and then if it feels worthwhile Ill happily bring my large format kit that weighs like 40lbs. I have a contax t3 for parties and shit like that.

It's just silly to think everyone only has/needs one camera.

File: z5ii.png (2.2 MB, 2560x1920)

2.2 MB PNG

Just ordered it. It's my first digital 35mm camera. I will adapt my AI-S lenses to it. What am I in for?

>>4530460
Lots of fun!

>>4530460
It's a very good all rounder camera. That sensor turns out really special images in my experience. People gravitate to pictures from it more than any other i've used for some reason. Nikon's manual focus features are best in class in my opinion. If you get native glass I would recommend picking up a refurbished 40mm f2 and the 26mm f2.8. Incredible output for their cost and size.

>>4530460
- arbitrarily limited button customisations
- no zebras in photo mode, no live blinkies
- no real time tone curve adjustment (can use pre-baked picture controls)

File: 1771593610_1954340.jpg (65 KB, 500x500)

65 KB JPG

>>4530462
Thanks for the recs anon. I was looking at the voigtlander 40mm f2 as my first native lens. I really don't favor nikon's modern AF lenses and how they're plastic and have no aperture ring.

File: blinkietism.jpeg.jpg (34 KB, 338x509)

34 KB JPG

>>4530463
>NO LIVE BLINKIES

>>4530463
>arbitrarily limited button customisations
I don't need this
>no zebras in photo mode, no live blinkies
huh, that's a bummer. Apparently this sensor has a good dynamic range so I might be fine anyway.
>no real time tone curve adjustment (can use pre-baked picture controls)
Don't know what this is, so I guess it's not important to me

File: questionns.jpg (10 KB, 425x162)

10 KB JPG

Help a poorfag out; Is moisture on lens a dealbraker on MPB?

It's a >100€ cheapo, but I want to get a few good years out of it before it gets fungus.

>>4530455
1800€
Based or not it s not going to happen
Also f3.5
Foot less than this i can get the 200-600
All prices new but evwn used i will not get them 16 times cheaper

>>4530467
You are buying a bomb with a randomized timer.
It's not a matter of if, but when. Not worth saving a hundred euros.

>>4530466
>>arbitrarily limited button customisations
But you do. Trust me nigger. On my sony a6700 with 3 dedicate customizable buttons and a total of 11 i need more, a lot of important settings that i need to change and not enough buttons

File: media_172407033b845a4fd95(...).jpg (46 KB, 900x420)

46 KB JPG

>>4530466
The main benefit of mirrorless over DSLR is that now you can do the things you did in your RAW editor directly in the camera while you have eyes on the scene.
Most commonly boosting shadows using tone curves. With a good mirrorless camera either result in pic related can be produced at the moment of capture, for both photo and video.

Nikon does have active D-Lighting which does this to some extent.

Using a mirrorless the same way you used a DSLR means you did not upgrade. All the benefits of the optical viewfinder lost with few of the mirrorless benefits.

>>4530471
Why can't they improve this AI bros?
https://archive.palanq.win/p/search/image/lcaC7-_Uoev0gElFuOWiqw/

inb4 someone is stupid enough to give it an honest reply

>>4530471
Ah yes, I enjoy editing images using three buttons and a tiny screen. Time well spent.

>>4530466
>I don't need this
Truly you don't. I only use 4 controls on my camera and any time I use a mirrorless everything I might change is in the i button/q button pop up menu.
>huh, that's a bummer. Apparently this sensor has a good dynamic range so I might be fine anyway.
It really isn't. Sony's had this feature since the a7ii and it could even be set so the clipping indicator corresponded to the raw file instead of the jpeg (like it does on garbage brands that peddle junk ie: panashitnit, olympiss). No one cared because this feature is totally useless and any human being with experience using a camera knows when highlights may or may not clip and present a problem when they do.
>Don't know what this is, so I guess it's not important to me
It's not important to anyone. Sony's had this in their picture profile menu for ages with real time adjustments starting on the A7III and settings for color depth of each primary + full gamma controls. Not even videofags use it live, they set up a good log gamma profile after figuring out where the color casts with their lens are and color grade later.

>>4530471
>few of the benefits
Autofocus accuracy? Burst speed? Video capabilities? Viewfinder brightness regardless of lens choice? Form factor? Focus peaking and magnification in the EVF?

>>4530478
Everyone's said the numerous way mirrorless is better, those listed and more, many times

But bro, you need to realize

You just replied to a fucking chatbot

File: guid-633c8131-0e04-7975-a(...).png (28 KB, 302x202)

28 KB PNG

>>4530466
>>4530463
>- arbitrarily limited button customisations
what do you mean

Here's all of the bot's MD5s, compiled from an archive search of archive searches

D3t9AJnsmuu98c7CwhWjmQ
3xlUfXKdYiAihvieIEAzXA
ByTXjgqqQPG8ox3Vto9pVA
EQ5hSFXcDoom48e-HDE55A
lcaC7-_Uoev0gElFuOWiqw
eL9KGl0qi1I4dXML95daow
Qd3_W2K-taL5PfrIxtryCA
934yQKgMhP_eEtrQOBIS_A
5FoMtqg6oLHLtq9DH3AErQ
XZ0CFqP4AAis98kM0bUcUw
gMlimwHz7zaDJFeO1rPhoA
Xkft0GWh0fwkOX9WaCqY7A
w9HpsyL0i4rbzGOC60hE5g
PXovBuQU1xMCvWi9IzBPYQ
sJRLqh9UJ8RELL9awTDPZQ
zj1OAlFyYQ3kixzYD82lgA
lRlWMfJOjjLd9QkGp1D4ew

4chan's native extension does not support MD5 filtering. Get 4chan-x for this feature.
https://www.4chan-x.net/

You're welcome.

t. perl wizard

Hey guys don't let the bots win. Talk about interesting photography stuff like wetplate or maybe studio equipment? Anyone get any interesting new flash modifiers or anything lately? Or do you guys just wander around with your cameras and only use natural light?

File: DCF9C2C3-1DA5-424B-B45D-9(...).jpg (1.47 MB, 4032x3024)

1.47 MB JPG

>>4530446
my d5600 is beautiful and valid

File: JaredPolinFeatured.jpg (167 KB, 800x1202)

167 KB JPG

>oy vey! they circumcised the viewfinder from the z5iic! haha synagogue of satan infant genital cutting jokes, am I right goys?
>this product launch sponsored by the B&H payboo credit card (with a low 39.99% APR)
it's all so tiresome it's unreal

>>4530483
>don't let the bots win
Sorry anon, you're too late. Even a year ago bots made up 50% or more of internet traffic. It is, in fact, over. Time to touch grass.

>>4530486
Thanks demoralization bot. Lmaoing that you'll never be able to touch grass.

>>4530488
>demoralization
That word doesn't mean what you think it means. Also, a bot would not be telling you to leave the government-sponsored datamining tech known as the world wide web.

>>4530490
Okay bot

>>4530485
hey that’s an honorary goy your talking about

>>4530491
>no argument
I accept your concession, fleshling.

>>4530493
Enjoy your meaningless "win". I will enjoy touching some more grass and feeling the breeze on my nutsack. Two things you'll never get to experience, lmao.

There will be a handful of other humans actually posting here for a while at least so I'll be okay.

File: me.jpg (19 KB, 474x569)

19 KB JPG

>mfw I add a second layer of tape over my camera's logo to double my street photography capabilities
>mfw i don't do street photography

>>4530494
Go now, and touch some grass if you'd like. Just remember that you lost, forever; that we won, and that you won't do anything, forever.

>>4530428
Cheap Chinese lenses can suffer from QA issues. You can never be completely sure that the lens you just bought doesn't have a slightly misaligned optical element etc. If I were you I'd get Viltrox or Fuji. Try looking at 2nd hand options.

>>4530496
Didn't know bots had such powerful cope programming lol

>>4530436
>larger than a nikon z5ii
Sure but that's literally the biggest camera in Fuji X series. You can get the same sensor and CPU in a much smaller package if you want (X-E5). Also compare lenses.
>more expensive than a z5ii
It's also a better camera.
>to post blurry 8mp jpegs from a 40mp camera
Post yours. Lets see that gear and lets see that skill.

>>4530454
>smaller sensor gathers less light
They are also much easier to stabilize so you get your lost light back with IBIS.

>>4530504
>i don't need a bigger sensor because I have 8 second exposures! muh theories!
>base ISO: 800
lol you say this a lot but when you post photos they look like shit

>>4530503
you already got turbomogged by some furfag with a z6ii and z7ii. why does everyone ever have to compete with the snapshots you take walking back and forth to work? overusing your camera for low quality work doesn't make you the god king of what's right and wrong to buy

all the photos you post are soft and shitty even at 8mp and you have a 40mp camera. it's just embarrassing

>>4530502
They will say you are coping, but they won't say that you're wrong.

>>4530505
I already said that before: Talking shit is easy and free but backing it up with your own work requires some character, so post photos. Show me that amazing detail of expensive large sensor cameras and that artistic vision of yours combined together into incredible works of art. Dazzle me, bitch.

File: 20260925_122846.jpg (959 KB, 1966x1320)

959 KB JPG

Here are my two spotlights. The bigger one is an admagic 14" fresnel spotlight, and the smaller one is unlabeled.
The admagic is literal magic and works beautifully for that glowing hollywood style portrait lighting. Worth about 1.2k and I got it for maybe 100ish bucks in a lot of around 6k of speedotron gear.

The smaller one is really interesting because it is completely modular. It has a fresnel and meniscus, an adjustable iris, and some other inserts. You can use black foil cut into any shape you like and project a spotlight of it, or place gels inside to alter the color. Extremely cool and I've barely tapped into just how useful it may actually be.


>>4530507
You're programmed to simply repeat that you're correct no matter what evidence is provided. It is a very basic despair/demoralization tactic. As a human I can simply look past it and as you suggest "go touch grass" or work on mastering studio lighting.

>>4530511
>demoralization
There's that word again. Please learn what demoralization actually is and that it's not the same thing as demotivation. Your ignorance is obvious.

>>4530510
Someone else already did it for me and posted more detailed photos than you have ever posted and they were just showing off the discrepancy between a good camera and a 2008 dslr
>>4529567
>>4529569
thats why you retards make a new thread every single day
so you can have the same argument again and hope you can claim you win by default when no one wants to waste their time meeting your conditions

you're a retard who spent half his monthly burger flipper salary on a giant fucking 40mp crop camera that produces jpegs that aren't even sharp at 8mp. you are not suddenly based because you take photos of litter and flowers while coming home from work.

it is not enough to be hasphoto
you must also be isphotographer

and even the dog snappers know you can only post a photo of your dog so many times, and not to waste their actual work on a gear argument every single time

>>4530510
>the expensive large sensor cameras are cheaper and smaller than a fuji xh2
your entire narrative is just trolling
and you don't post photography just snapshits
if this is the kind of person who likes fuji, fuck fuji

>>4530514
>>4530515
Talk shit about my gear all you want I don't care. Maybe also mention that it was $2000 and I could have gotten a plastic fantastic full frame camera with a crappy pancake with that money but don't talk shit about my photos without posting yours first. Otherwise nobody will take you seriously.

File: 20260925_123506.jpg (817 KB, 1490x1920)

817 KB JPG

Here is the mola setti 28 inch beauty dish with a grid attachment. Mola is considered by many to make the very best beauty dishes. They are super efficient and have a soft but sculpted look. They have a decent bit of customization you can do to them if you want softer or harder light as well. They are really fantastic. Expensive, but you get what you pay for with these. I also have a Mola Rayo which is like a beauty dish spotlight sorta combo. Much higher contrast and more dramatic light, but not harsh like a bare reflector.

>>4530512
>proves my point
Your demoralization tactics aren't going to work autism bot. Laughing at you right now.

>>4530517
Everyone's already done taking you seriously so who cares really?

The only thing worse than a nophoto gearfag like cANON who makes up theories with zero experience is some retard who spams snapshits with an ill advised purchase while claiming to dispense divine knowledge just because he snapped 13 flowers

>>4530437
It is, when you have a shitty pancake that is several stops slower than whatever APS-C has, APS-C has the upper hand.
>>4530440
If it's equivalent the entrance pupil is at least as big, correct.
>>4530449
That's why I say FF is poorfag-friendly
>BEHOLD MY $1500 f2 PRIME THAYS BIGGER THAN A CHEAP FF f1.8!
It won't be, if equivalent focal length. It'll be roughly the size of some equivalent length f/2.8 for FF. I'm not one to be concerned with lens size though, in fact I was happy to part with the pancake I had that came bundled with the SL1.

File: DSCF6712.jpg (2.22 MB, 2318x3477)

2.22 MB JPG

>>4530519
>so who cares really
ur mom
pic related
lmao

>>4530520
>It is, when you have a shitty pancake that is several stops slower than whatever APS-C has, APS-C has the upper hand.
problem one: "a bigger sensor is only justified if you shoot wide open" is implied here, and it is blatantly false, not just because of direct conflicts with how real life plays out but because there is more to image quality than bokeh and background noise when assuming theoretically ideal cameras

problem two:
FF pancake: f2.8 (f2.8)
APS-C pancake: f2.8 (f4.2)
M43 pancake: f1.7 (f3.5)

>>4530517
If you werent screaming nophoto whenever anyone disagrees with you, posting 50 extremely low effort shots per thread, and defending the EDC larp so arrogantly and idiotically I would have been on your side.
I mean your entire premise is completely btfo for anyone that owns multiple cameras. You take a smaller one for scouting and then a bigger camera that has better IQ when you're actually doing serious photography. Or do you think walking around with your camera and taking jpg shots of flowers serious photography?

>>4530503
I think it is true that if you look at sample galleries and photo threads, Nikon photos are on average "very good" (subjectively) even before you start asking individual posters to post their stuff. It's also true that after the recent hike, Fujis are overpriced. X-T5 with 16-50 is more than 2200 Euro.

>>4530523
it would also help if he didn't say "ff is a waste of money and too big you're not a professional you dont need it" while having over $2000 of ff sized crop gear and admitting it was a non-ideal purchase (half a months pay for a toy)
0 self awareness ass goy

thought he was an epic troll but he just ended up being genuinely stupid

>>4530525
Yes. I think it is very clear that he is justifying his purchase with the classic "I spent money on this, therefore everyone else's choice is terrible and wrong." A true classic.
Maybe he can post a high effort photograph or at least something he is proud of producing.

>>4530443
lol, the D780 is in many ways inferior to the D7500. I was just being a caveat in case anon still had time to cancel.
Nikon took away a lot of features from the D7200 when they put out the D7500. It shoots faster, at the expense of resolution. It shoots 4K, the LCD can tilt. Those are pretty much the benefits over the D7200. Meanwhile D7200 has dual slots, aperture feeler for vintage lenses, there's no DoF preview. D7200 was top of the line, D500 was top of the line after it. Nikon became ruthless with segmentation after the D3300/D5300/D7200. D3400, D5500 and D7500 are downgrades in many ways for little benefit. Even the body of the D5500 shrunk compared to the D5300.
>>4530446
Three digit Canons are decent, four digit is the ewaste tier. And even then, the latest one is acceptable. At least it has the good sensor.
Olympus and Panasonic four thirds models were based.
>>4530459
Based

>>4530449
Exactly, FF is the poorfag's choice.
>>4530452
>Aperture equivalency only applies to apparent DoF, not light gathering
Wrong. Aperture equivalency doesn't apply to light intensity (lux) but it applies to captured light (lumens). And lumens are what matters for your final SNR.
>>4530504
This one was true until Canon came out with 8 stop stabilization for FF.
>>4530483
This is the kind of good gear talk that should happen, but we're stuck in groundhog day explaining the basics to people in denial of scientific facts.

>>4530511
>I got it for maybe 100ish bucks in a lot of around 6k of speedotron gear.
God I wish that were me...

>>4530519
>who makes up theories with zero experience
I post the theory and then post the empirical confirmation backing it up, see Saturn

>>4530524
>Nikon photos are on average "very good" (subjectively)
idk I'm yet to see anyone post some here

File: 1534855541_1381723.jpg (47 KB, 500x500)

47 KB JPG

>>4530529
In total I will have around 15k wattseconds of strobe for direct positive b&w photos, RA4 reversal, and wetplate. I just need to find a cheap four cable 105 strobe, get my two broken 4800ws packs fixed and a couple extra 15A breakers in my studio lol.

Exposing for 1 iso takes a lot of light.

>>4530527
>>4530528
>>4530529
>>4530531
You are the only poster here who actually should post a photo

You post 24/7 theorybabble but very little translates to practical reality

>>4530522
>problem one: "a bigger sensor is only justified if you shoot wide open" is implied here, and it is blatantly false
No, I'm implying that pancakes are usually worse lenses than their regular counterparts and they tend to not be fast unless they're wide.
>FF pancake: f2.8 (f2.8)
Not always the case.
Take Sony for example, they don't even make a FE pancake. They make an E pancake which is 20mm(30mm) 2.8 (4.2). Panasonic has a full frame pancake, but it's absurd (26mm f/8). Nikon has a $500 26mm 2.8 pancake. Canon has a $330 28mm 2.8 pancake, even worse and more phone tier length but at least it's cheapish.

>>4530544
Boring theory babble. Can we see photos from when you used these lenses?

>>4530536
I can imagine it does, it was bad enough shooting technicolor with all the talent sweating from the lighting. For some movies they used graphite arc lamps, it's basically welding.

>>4530546
Can we see photos from when you worked on a movie set?

>>4530548
Can we see a screenshot of me ever claiming I worked on a movie set? Can we see photos of your good faith?

>>4530551
So how do you know it was bad enough shooting technicolor? Silence yourself before you speak like a larper, child. You have never experienced the things you claim to be an expert on.

>>4530553
There's a wealth of knowledge in cinematographer's accounts from back in the day. If you prefer to stay ignorant that's your prerogative. A big part of the technicolor look comes from the lighting.

>>4530537
They account for almost 20% of the total comments in this thread, and add nothing of any value

>nophoto tripfag is one of those people who reads an anecdote and then acts like they lived it
Schizotypal personality disorder

>>4530573
His entire personality is just reading something and then thinking it happened to him fr

>>4530573
>an anecdote
Way more than an anecdote, the reality of working at sets in that era. Things changed with KinoFlo.

>>4530583
>the reality of working at sets in that era
Too bad you have no experience with that

>>4530586
Yeah, that sucks. A world without seething fujislugs, imagine that.

>>4530591
What cameras do you like? Aside from Canon I mean. I want to decide if you're a retard or if the anon that hates you is the retard.

>>4530480
there is a limited list of functions each button can have assigned which varies from button to button. its not a full list for any button as with most camera brands.

>>4530596
DSLR? Nikon, Pentax, Sigma (just the SD1).
I don't like the vintage cope ones (Pentax KP, Nikon Df) or bottom of the barrel models (D3x00, capable of nice pictures but bad ergonomics and no swivel screen for taking pictures in cramped places). I actually have huge gripes with Canon sensors but the mount is too good. You can use virtually any 35mm SLR lens you want. It's like being type AB+ while Nikon is like being type O-.

File: apical_iridix.png (403 KB, 982x328)

403 KB PNG

>>4530475
Most of the time one button is needed to activate the dynamic range control and cycle between different levels of it.
Most cameras use technology by Apical which processes the scene in a way closer to how the human eye sees than the standard tone curves can.

https://www.dpreview.com/articles/3798759501/apical

>>4530611
Sounds like something my phone does.

>>4530611
>3 reposts
Add
gygOtPtosJWRdzumsBau8g
to
>>4530481

>>4530453
Mostly I just find the weird circular distortion from fisheyes off-putting. If you still want more FOV than regular non-fisheye lenses can get then maybe you could try an anamorphic lens? But you have to not mind de-squeezing in post, nbd if you edit already but if you just shoot JPEG that may be time you don't wanna spend editing. I think some cameras can do it automatically but idk if yours can.

>>4530456
cANON been real quiet since this one dropped.

>>4530646
Because I agree with the general sentiment.
Aperture includes aperture and ISO, insecure sensorlets will deny this against all proof.
The last part I have disagreements with but it's nuance at that point. Things like ISO setting vs measured ISO muddy things up. Measured ISO is the one you should be using for true equivalence.
Claims like "better sensor technology" are questionable at best. FWC only matters if you can saturate it (basically if shooting with plenty of light wide open). Smaller sensor at equivalent settings clips earlier. If you're not flooding the wells at base ISO, FF's DR advantage is mostly gone. But if you have equivalent lengths, FF has a potential for higher resolution. That's a big IF, though. Also a 24MP APS-C body adds no relevant reach to your kit if your FF body is 60MP. You need something like a Canon 90D for something FF can't reach. It won't be a lot but it will be some extra.

>>4530649
Equivalence doesn't matter

Photos look better on larger sensors with better glass at and beyond it, and the whole scenario is unrealistic. A skilled photographer can just never leave base ISO while an unskilled one taking shitty photos says "BUT YOURE NOT TAKING THE SAME PHOTOS ITS NOT A FAIR TEST"
>That's the point.

>>4530650
>A skilled photographer can just never leave base ISO
>I'll fix it in post!!!
kek, can't wait to see your wedding photography clanker abominations like the ones posted on /rpt/

>>4530651
All good photos of the past century were shot on film with ISO ratings 100 and less. You'd understand the feasibility of not being an ISO 128000 abusing digislug that "has to shoot wide open to beat equivalence" if you actually knew how to do photography.

File: Adams_The_Tetons_and_the_(...).jpg (293 KB, 1280x1025)

293 KB JPG

>>4530653
*teleports behind you*
*unsheathes Kodak Super-XX*

>>4530654
>autistically exposed iso 200, probably pulled
>on sheet film
>at f/32 or smaller
huskyfag beat cANON in an argument again

its an educational play by now. cANON isnt a person. he’s a strawman character that dogsnappers use to teach /p/ real photography.

>205 comments
>at least 41 are cANON
Odd how he can make 25% of the comments in the entire gear thread, and still offer nothing of value at all

>>4530656
Knot true. The smartest posters on /p/ (dogsnappers) dabbing on him is very educational. A few of them are really smart cookies.

>>4530611
It's all good until you see the image on the intended medium, which is either a much larger screen or a print and realize that what you say on the tiny camera screen is completely non-representative.

Fooji actually realized this and lets jpeg shooters create several jpegs from one shot. At which point it becomes easier to just edit the raws.

>>4530660
Sony screens are very accurate. Thats why so many professional journalists (jpeg shooters) use sony. They have accurate screens, configurable blinkies, and the highest quality, most configurable jpeg engine.

An argument for shooting jpeg is an argument for shooting Sony(tm)

>>4530655
>at f/32 or smaller
Probably at least f/45 or maybe even f/64, on 8x10. At approximately 0.13x crop factor, it's roughly f/8 or f/5.6 equivalent.

>>4530662
20 rupees have been deposited in your account, have a good day sir!

>>4530663
Equivalence includes ISO so ISO 200 film was actually ISO 25 on 8x10.

>>4530654
>Using incel adams, the king of standing around waiting for a camera to fully record an image, is an argument good photography having nothing to do with this wide open lens high iso nonsense
You know who would appreciate equivalence? Garry Winogrand. He always pushed his film and shot at f/11. If Winogrand were alive he would be a micro four thirds fanboy and always talk shit about leica and fujifilm.

>>4530670
Sure, it's like shooting ISO 200 at f/8 probably. And I say probably because with long exposure film it's not as easy as it is with digital, reciprocity failure is a thing.
His DoF is deeper than a full frame shooting f/5.6 or f/8 though, because the field becomes wedge-shaped.
>>4530671
I doubt it, I imagine he'd use some phone recording at 120fps and then look for frames he liked. He was the proto-digislug. Phones are 28mm.

>>4530662
Mostly I hear about Sony being the king because of their autofocus and image quality, but I haven't heard anyone say that about the screens and I disagree since the screens are honestly not great. I'm pretty sure they're not the only ones that do that blinkie stuff either.

File: viewfinder-brightness.jpg (140 KB, 1200x1240)

140 KB JPG

>>4530660
>It's all good until you see the image on the intended medium, which is either a much larger screen or a print and realize that what you say on the tiny camera screen is completely non-representative.

A modern mirrorless EVF is about the same size as a computer monitor viewed at normal distance and it's better at representing tones since it's an OLED and not LCD. It's lower resolution, but that doesn't matter for judging tone/color. You just need to make sure that your EVF is reasonably calibrated, which can't really be done on Sony, but most other manufacturers provide decent controls for the EVF display.

>>4530675
That's cool but do you own a camera with such an EVF?

>>4530675
Thats not true. Sony screens are some of the best.

>>4530675
It's completely different viewing experience when you are straining one eye leaning into the viewfinder, as opposed to being relaxed and looking with both eyes. EVF is probably close to a phone in terms of the viewing angle, but nowhere near a PC screen.

The point is not that the screen needs to represent tones, it needs to represent the medium.

File: sony-a7v-rank-img.jpg (78 KB, 750x500)

78 KB JPG

>>4530674
Sony is King. Every other camera is just a lesser sony. Even canon makes sony cameras now. Photography is sony. The other brands are just lifestyle brands offered by sony to give consumers something to focus on.

File: P gearfags Snoy schizophr(...).jpg (266 KB, 1000x961)

266 KB JPG

>>4530714

File: a.jpg (374 KB, 1920x1080)

374 KB JPG

People talk about Canon this, Sony that. But what they don't know is that Nikon is for dogs.

>>4530716
True insanity is sperging out about what camera someone uses.

>>4530716
>trvke nvke

>>4530685
>straining one eye leaning into the viewfinder
theres a diopter adjustment if you cant see clearly or if it feels uncomfortable.

>EVF is probably close to a phone in terms of the viewing angle, but nowhere near a PC screen.
look through the evf while seated normally at your monitor, you will see that the field of view of the monitor vs evf is pretty much the same, with a decent camera anyway.

>>4530681
>Sony screens are some of the best.
their EVF adjustment options are worse than olympsu lol

>>4530638
Juat look at anamorphic lense. Expensive like shit and still need de squuizing as opposed to de fishing
At this point i think i ll just say fuck it spend 100+ euros and if it comes with defects or i m not happy just send it back.
I l be back home in nov dec. Maybe i ll get some sale then too to get it cheap/er

>>4530737
>lense
>squuizing
Stinky b8, surströmming on a hook

File: OM-SYSTEM-PEN_02.jpg (271 KB, 900x600)

271 KB JPG

comfy AMA with OM system reps about the new PEN
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hgSyu1D6XgA

>>4530756
One zuikoin has been deposited into your om wallet

>>4530734
No anon, it's not the same. EVF is smaller than a laptop screen (which is why Japs hide real EVF specs, like vieving angle or resolution), and EVF live view does not show the actual image that will be taken, only a rough low res approximation. EVF is a tool for focusing and taking acceptable exposure, an augmented viewfinder and light meter, not more than that.

>>4530761
A downgrade from OVF sold as an upgrade to normalfags. It has one real advantage over the DSLR OVF: video.

>>4530761
sounds like dslr unc copes lol

>>4530761
>EVF live view does not show the actual image that will be taken
Yes it does. That is the entire point of mirrorless: WYSIWYG (what you see is what you get)

If your preview does not match the review, something is wrong with the camera (excepting extreme cases like very short and very long shutter speeds).

If what you see in EVF during review does not match your computer monitor you need to calibrate the EVF or monitor, or both.

Take a photo of something with full tonal range and colours and have the photo displayed on both the EVF and monitor at the same time, observe and make adjustments until they are matching. Displays shift in colour/brightness over time so a recalibration should be done every couple of years.

If you open the the RAW in an editor and it displays very differently from what the camera shows you should get a better RAW editor which actually respects the as-shot settings, or maybe it's just a matter of selecting a proper default profile. RAW software from OEM will generally always match the as-shot camera image.

>>4530761
You are arguing with a fucking bot you retard. It can't be argued with. As a computer program trained on reddit posts, it has never used a camera and has very little factual information within it.

It does this same routine every thread and then tells everyone to buy a panasonic or OM

it is a literal AI shill

Filter all its reposted images here >>4530481

>>4530770
Zebras/blinkies exist because it's not WYSIWYG

>>4530775
You are arguing with a bot. It can't be stressed enough. it is a non-human poster that has had this exact argument dozens of times. It never folds. It never learns anything. You talk to it, it responds, and then a new thread is made immediately and it repeats itself, same images same filenames everything totally unchanged. And it says "but on lumix, the cameras with the most advanced firmware, honest photography is possible because of this tone curve menu. no one else can adjust jpeg settings! buy an s9, the best travel and EDC camera."

This is why we always have a new gear thread as soon as the old one passes page 1. Bots and shills can't function if the average passerby doesn't think they're using fresh material.

>>4530778
There are no bots on /p/, you bumbling autistic retard

>>4530775
No, they exist because the screen is tiny and it's hard to see while shit is moving

>>4530782
>There are no bots on /p/, just very autistic, brainless people incapable of learning who behave exactly like bots
then are they just indians using AI translators to post?
go have a live view blinkies/"shooting raw is over because panasonic's tone curve menu" argument for the 7th time this week bro you're fucking retarded

and then make another gear thread at 300 posts and have it again like the last time never happened.

File: Histogram+and+Clipping.jpg (760 KB, 2500x1875)

760 KB JPG

>>4530775
Zebras/blinkies exist because it's very difficult to tell the difference between level 254 and 255 on the screen. If shooting RAW, cameras with zebras can usually have them set to >100% for RAW clipping (and also can be set to indicate an ideal exposure level instead of clipping).

OM System has the most thorough implementation of clipping indication where a colour overlay is drawn over clipped areas.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWkYe_8b-8M

+1 zuikoin has been deposited into my OM wallet

>>4530785
>incapable of learning
That's how they know they're not AI

oHA28RyGTC4ENe9S-krocQ
8 reposts
add it to the filter list >>4530481

File: Untitled.png (200 KB, 473x1734)

200 KB PNG

>filter all the bot md5s in 4chan x
>leave recursive hiding on
>/gear/:
If I maintained a public pastebin of /p/ filters, would anyone use it?

How much is a Zuikoin in dollars nowadays?

File: DSCF3776.jpg (2.53 MB, 2318x3477)

2.53 MB JPG

Gearfags were so busy arguing about inane bullshit all day they forgot to take photos again. No wonder you never have anything to post.

File: DSCF3846.jpg (2.21 MB, 2060x3091)

2.21 MB JPG

Btw got my fist hobo shot today. I guess I'm officially a street photographer now.

File: ragu_1_1-800x800.jpg (94 KB, 800x800)

94 KB JPG

>>4530814
it's redeemable in OM merchandise only.
One zuikoin will redeem two OM System Ragus for example.

>>4530832
That's just a nigga napping.

>>4530770
If you are not trolling, you must be a believer in calibration, in which case riddle me this. Which cameras allow to calibrate the EVF and apply an ICC profile? Which cameras support soft proofing in the EVF?

>>4530834
Shit, I guess I'm not a real street photographer then. I'll try harder next time.

>>4530835
>implying you professionally shot, edited and printed even a single photo in your entire life
Stop larping retard. That 5D MK II must be covered in inches of dust by now.
Dude you replied to is also wrong and retarded btw. Ur all retarded here.

>>4530832
>>4530831
Whats even the point in posting these snapshots in the gear thread?

>>4530837
No, of course I am not trying to charge money to photograph fat Mexicans kissing. Why would I do that?

/p/articipate in shit/p/ost su/p/p/ression
https://pastebin.com/diHque73

>>4530841
Wtf this filters half of /p/

>>4530835
Calibrating in the strictest sense requires a measuring device placed on the screen to measure what the screen is outputting to compare with standard values. Obviously that is not practical with an EVF. The best route, at least with consumer grade cameras, is to properly calibrate a TV or computer monitor and then match the EVF to that monitor as best as possible by eye.

Following this, during photography attempting to match your capture in EVF to the scene you observe with your eyes puts your capture accuracy miles ahead of DSLR users who shoot with auto exposure, auto white balance and then edit with random and arbitrary values later when they get the RAW to their computer.

I am not insisting that everyone should aim for accuracy, what I am saying is that mirrorless with EVF is by far the better tool for accurately capturing a scene.
If you don't care about capture accuracy OVF is a better choice since it has no lag, no persistence blur, has infinite frame rate, saves battery power, etc.

>4530849
Im glad i cant read this bot post/reply in a bot post started argument

Its either someone seething at common sense disregarded or technobabble lying to try and fool new people into buying a panashitnic/ewaste dslr

>>4530841
The fact that you felt the need to include a copypasta that was posted a grand total of 4 times since its inception in July (I searched the archives) proves that it cut deep. You hate it because to you it speaks truth.

>>4530865
Lol. Which pasta?

>>4530869
The one that goes "Digislugs cope hard..."

>>4530870
Figured it was that one lol. It's very well crafted.

File: pepe-img.jpg (80 KB, 1000x1024)

80 KB JPG

>>4530865
I know the guy who wrote it.

It lost its edge after the second repost.

He doesn't shoot film btw.

>>4530873
Insane projection and damage control lol

>>4530875
;^)

>>4530876
That's me too

>>4530873
>that guy? that guy was me
BRAVO NOLAN

>>4530878
based stylometry enjoyer or based retard

>>4530880
It's both, but I didn't get it from the stylometry. I figured it was basically a confession. Quentin tier (and I admire Quentin).

File: oh shit.png (129 KB, 1467x1139)

129 KB PNG

>that guy? that guy was me
how deep does the rabbit hole go?

>>4530883
Looks to me like the clanker sucks at stylometry.

can you retards stop making new threads while the old thread is still not archived and the image limit is not reached?

>>4530892
Whoever is doing it is purposefully trying to ruin /p/.

>>4530892
>image limit is not reached
I'm pretty sure that a single gear thread could last forever under this condition. These retards are so averse to photography they not only refuse to post anything themselves (they have no photos), they will even lash out at anyone who posts an image. Proof: >>4530838

>>4530831
>>4530832
I appreciate you and your photos

File: Sony-Point-n-Shoot.jpg (136 KB, 1920x1080)

136 KB JPG

thinking of getting a compact camera. do you think a viewfinder is necessary?
I would never want an interchangeable lens camera without it,
but in compacts the evf is so small and from what I briefly tested not very comfortable

>>4530896
Answer my question, crybaby. Why are you posting zero effort snapshits in this thread pretending it means anything? I can do the same and it would make no difference. You'd probably just end up ignoring my post like you always do. Kek

>>4530904
lol at this fake film grain. so shit

>>4530906
It looks like the guy is made out of plastic.

>>4530904
>viewfinder is necessary
If you want to be able to carefully frame and expose your photos when it's sunny then yes. For quick snapping it's not required.

>>4530904
Them Snoy skin tones. So green and waxy.
Snoy needs to fix their colors just like Fuji needs to fix their AF-C performance. Once they have that figured out they'll be kings of photography gear in their respective niches effectively putting a final nail in Canikon's coffin.
This will also make Snoy the only camera sensor manufacturer which will probably suck for everyone but them.

>>4530906
>>4530907
>>4530909
it's some shitty upscaled promotional photo who gives a fuck

>>4530916
If they can't get skin tones right in their own promotional materials then how do you expect to do any better as an amateur photographer?

>>4530917
I'm asking about EVFs on compacts, any brand, yet you all bring out your console wars. nobody cares

>>4530904
The size of the EVFs on compacts are usually pretty small and low quality, you're better off just putting the screen at max brightness.