>see animal (any)

Based, honestly.

Get yourself a real camera, not an AIslop phone, and snap away at the natural world while it stil lexists

>>4999613 (OP)
wow he is literally me

Nigga fish

>>4999636
saved

>>4999654
I always found the camera I had at hand the best, and a DSLR with a macro lens won't fit in my ass pocket

>>4999674
>camera I had at hand
NTA Some phone cameras can do pretty nice macros.
Not my current one though, but since I bought a bridge Camera, and a nice small bag for it, I just bring that almost anywhere I go.
A lot of my pics are animals and plants, from 0mm macro to 60x optical zoom.
It's a hobby.

>>4999636

>>4999695
I would say a phone with a macro lens does a great job, aside from being limited to what's pretty much a fixed distance with ~3mm DOF. I tried focus stacking a bit but with animals it's basically impossible. The image sensor size on bridge cameras doesn't impress me much, but I wouldn't mind one for bird stalking, climbing up trees isn't so easy.

>>5000148
Has that ai image vibe, I guess it makes sense with all the ai auto focus on macro

>>5000311
No AI in that, just the usual processing and likely sensor confusion from the lens.

you cant even tell whats in these phone macros

A flagship phone is $1000, just get a real camera like an olympus

Canon made a 35mm macro with a built in ring light, it's one of my favorite lenses and decently compact. Only fits to their crop sensor camera bodies, unfortunately.

>>5000550
I've been a professional photographer for 10 years, and let me tell you, cut your GAS short right here.
You should not waste your time or money using FF for macro or wildlife. APS-C and micro four thirds are fine, and most animals are found in relatively evenly lit areas (ie: dappled light under trees) anyways so the 12-13 stop DR isn't an obstacle.

Definitely use full frame and medium format cameras for portraits, lifestyle editorial shooting, travel landscapes etc, if nothing else because those photos are normally more important than a bird or a bug even if you're just doing it for a hobby. I don't see a problem with wanting to save 100mp of paris, but even 50mp of sparrow is questionable. Taking high speed video of natural animal behavior would be more interesting.

>>5000552
Fair point, though even if it's a hobby I still like knowing a lens will be part of my kit in x years when my 80D inevitably kicks it and I upgrade to something full frame. Maybe mirrorless will be financially accessible enough by then that I can switch to that, but who knows

>>5000479
>you cant even tell whats in these phone macros
a frog (tiny)

>>5000552
>portraits, lifestyle editorial shooting, travel landscapes etc, if nothing else because those photos are normally more important than a bird or a bug
Horrible opinion. I'd rather look at pictures of a pond full of scum than paris (cue social commentary) >>>/fa/

I traded my sweat for a picture

>>5002255
I had a bee fly (the fuzzy kind) land on my phone to lick it while I tried to take pictures