Bros genuinely, GENUINELY, with no shitposting or gear spec sheet autism, does gear matter? I do photography as a hobby for personal enjoyment, and can't help feel I made the wrong choice. But then I hear any camera made within the last 10 years will be fine for hobbyists.

The lens in the most important part, then the camera itself.
I use a 12 year old DSLR and yea it gets the job done but I have some quirks to deal with- outdated USB form factor, can't charge thru the camera itself, no wifi/bluetooth transfer. Do your homework.

>>4431185 (OP)
The camera sensor is the most important part, then the lens. You can always get a new lens, or adapt an old lens with a newer camera, especially with Nikon's Z mount.
The dynamic range, the high iso performance, the SOOC JPGs, etc., all can't compare to that of a 12 year old camera for instance. Maybe if you are only shooting RAW and then relying on AI photo editing crutches, idk.

>>4431185 (OP)
It doesn't matter until it does. If you need focal plane manipulation/perspective control you need a view camera or tilt shift lens. Simple as.

>>4431185 (OP)
for hobby? gear doesnt really matter. you would get a big image quality boost by upgrading your kit lense but anything else idk.

Gear discussions are endless because people are too short sighted to understand that everyone's needs and wants are different. "Does gear matter" is a pointless, time wasting question because the critical part, "to do <specific thing>" is left to imagination. Sensor size and MP are another great example. The discussion of "is FF and 24MP enough for an 8x10 print?" is easily and immediately answered with a yes, but "is FF and 24MP enough?" is met with hostility almost immediately.

It only matters when you bump into it's limits. If it's stopping you from doing something then it matters. Otherwise it won't improve your images. If you want to get rid of the feeling get a cheap 8mp digicam from eBay and use it for a week or two. You'll be shocked at how capable it is and how futuristic your camera you go back to is.

>>4431204
Even 6 megapickles is great for web sharing.

>>4431185 (OP)
Depends on what you want. I upgraded because I wanted better iso performance, stabilization, and just an overall good sensor. Upgrading from low end to high end is much more important than upgrading from old to new. 10 year old top end camera is better than the cheapest new camera. And yes you will instantly take better photos with a better camera, people don't like to admit it but it's true. The question is what are you unhappy about and how will buying new gear ameliorate it?

I ask because I have an MFT camera, and I like the photos it takes but it keeps bugging my mind "what if I had a bigger sensor", then I read about how larger sensors matter for night time and low light which I like, but looking at other people's photos, they look fine with my same gear.
So then I think it's just a skill issue

>>4431214
You can just rent some FF gear and try it out. If it’s just a hobby for you just go for it. A hobby is supposed to be fun and let you explore things

>>4431214
Spend 1500 bucks and rent a 200MP phase one camera for a day then blow up your computer trying to edit the gloriously large pictures of your dog or cat.

>>4431185 (OP)

It matters, if you buy a film camera or a digital camera you will be a completely different photographer.
If you mean should I buy Sony mirrorless 1,2 or 3 then no it doesn’t matter.

Even for film cameras it matters, I notice very different results from mju shooter vs an om1 shooter.

Expect to buy a few diff cameras, thats normal to try the diff tech out. Photography will endlessly cost you money, that is the only certainty.

FLCL was so fucking kino

>>4431185 (OP)
It's such a stupid question. It really depends on specifically what you're doing. If photography for you is just taking snapshots of stuff you see, and you don't care about shit like dynamic range and bokeh then gear does not matter. You can just use your phone an be perfectly fulfilled. If you want to film a movie or make massive fine detail prints, shoot celebrity portraits, or have people pay you for your work then yeah, gear matters. It's as simple as:
>I have a goal for what my photos should look like, can my current equipment do it?

It matters that it works for you and you like it. Thats it. Whatever makes you want to take pictures

>>4431185 (OP)
Yes.

but it doesn't need to hurt your economy that much. Unless you are planning on buying your camera and glass from retail, you can save a lot.

Look at the Nikon D800E/D810/D850. Very good and affordable cameras. Since Nikon F is a dead mount, the glass is pretty cheap. I have a 28mm sigma art f/1.4 which I got for 150 USD and a 50mm sigma that I got for 100 USD

>>4431185 (OP)
No

My favorite camera is a Konica Minolta 5D from 2005 with 6mp. Its more satisfying when the camera sucks.

>>4431236
Whatever happened to Konica Minolta?

>>4431237
They still make printers and scanners for offices. They're ok

Gear always matters. But what gear is best (or sufficient) depends on what kind of pictures you're taking.
>fine for hobbyists
Why should hobbyists settle for bad gear? Pros shoot boring shit like weddings and sports. Shit nobody will look at after the next game or will get made into 8x10 prints and collect dust on a shelf. Hobbyists shoot cool shit like astro and birds in flight. Things that need top of the line sensors and autofocus. And hobbyists make lots of huge prints and hang them on their walls, then look at them regularly.
>>4431237
gobbled up by snoy

Yes you need the newest full frame sony for good photos.

>>4431185 (OP)
Yes.

/thread

>>4431249
He doesnt want green tinted photos with 3 stop vignetting anon

Only a Nikon is Good Enough

>>4431185 (OP)
Gear matters. The easy to find $50-100 used Olympus OM2n that lady is holding outperforms a $1999 "OM system" OM-3 due to its larger sensor, better tonality, and superior color science. 35mm film is good for scans of up to 100mp, and basically every zuiko lens the real film era olympus made is sharp.

>>4431185 (OP)
Lens is like a 9/10 importance
Camera is like a 6/10 importance
Attitude and desire to get better is 10/10 importance

>>4431185 (OP)
a friend wants me to photograph them in a small venue. I have to choose between a big ass 70-200mm and a 90mm macro, my only fast lenses. what do I need for something like this? a 24-70 2.8 or a 50 1.2 or 1.4, gear doesn't matter until it does. I'm probably going to wind up with my only full body shots being through the crowd ones and most likely none with 2 or more in frame.

>>4431376
You only need the 70-200 unless its soft and has inaccurate af at f2.8 like every dslr 70-200 is

i like dslrs because i only use primes. if you use zooms get a mirrorless asap. every dslr zoom sucks unless it still costs $1500 because it works fine on mirrorless.

>>4431378
it's DSLR because I'm a poorfag, D750 & both are Tamron. 70-200 is 1st gen, and 90mm is 2nd gen.
it's not too soft, my only issue is that (forgot to mention this) it needs 4.3 ft minimum for focus and it's a band playing in a pub, plus the lens is looong compared to the can of beer sized 90mm making it unweildy in a crowded room

>>4431381
Get a 35mm f1.8, and quick, and shoot closer to the band. bands like wide angle up close shots.

Tamron's with VC is pretty sharp wide open, followed by the sigma f1.4 and nikon f1.8. the 24mm and 20mm f1.8 G ED lenses are great but you'd have to get too close.

>>4431382
I was going to get a 50mm instead of the 70 200 but I do a lot of pet and nature photography and wanted a faster zoom for when I'm in a low lit building. this was taken with a 28-300 3.5-5.6 Nikon lens and as you already know, 5.6 + low matte lighting requires extra lighting.
I could take that lens along but it's af is dogshit in low light situations, I usually have to manually adjust and hope it makes the minor corrections instead of jumping around.

>>4431382
also, should mention. it's not a paid thing, they messaged me randomly about it since it's going to be a couple blocks away from where I live. I figured I'd give it a go since it's something I've never done before, I don't have to pay the cover charge, and I might get a free beer or two after their set

>>4431270
No Nikon has bad color science. If you don't need the weather sealing get a Sony A7 III for cheap. Better skin tones and autofocus. Or if you want something cheaper and better image quality than a Nikon get a Olympus em1 Mark ii

>>4431384
Doggo

>>4431384
so my 28-300 sits at 3.8 at 35mm and the venue looks fairly well lit. but it is way to small for me to be swinging around that 70-200 which is attached to the body in pic. the 90mm is the top left and top right is the 28-300

when the gear becomes a limiting factor to accomplish an objective, even after squeezing out fully it's capabilities.
but in other cases, the person behind the camera becomes the limiting factor, skill issue.

>>4431488
you're a techie.
>i optimithed my thinkpad so now it runs almost as fast as a macbook from 2 years later.
>I use that macbook because I have a job.
>SKILL ITHUE
there's nothing wrong with that but you really belong on /g/, not /p/. artists don't waste their time "learning to optimize their technological workflow's synergies" or whatever you techies call it. that's why the director of photography and camera operators were different jobs until sony and canon finally developed computer chips that can do the job of a camera operator.

>>4431185 (OP)
Up to a certain point your gear is always going to be better than you are. If you've reached a place where you've started having to cut corners and make compromises because what you're capable of doing has outmatched what your equipment can do it's time to upgrade. If not then you're fine. High dollar shit doesn't make you a good photographer any more than reloading 40 year old disposable cameras makes you an artistic genius. Use the best you can afford for whatever your discipline is and focus on having all the fun you can.

>>4431500
>"learning to optimize their technological workflow's synergies"
he didn't say anything like this you're projecting so hard. He's saying if you can't accomplish your goal you need a better machine. It's like saying and artist has to learn oil paint if he wants a certain look even after he's done his best with acrylic.

If you're asking "is it the gear or is it me", it's you.
You don't need to ask when you've outgrown your gear, you will know.

>>4431500
meds, schizo.

>>4431500
See
>>4431190

>>4431504
>It's like saying and artist has to learn oil paint if he wants a certain look even after he's done his best with acrylic.
that's even worse. holy shit, you techie hylics are awful. "do you have enough experience points for oil paint, scrub?" pure hylic shit. maybe /v/ is more your speed.

>>4431510
>hylic
What?

>>4431510
yeah... that's not what I said at all

>>4431185 (OP)
As long as you dont shoot SNOY, gear doesn't really matter.

>>4431525
This image is fake. Panashit has even greener skin than snoy. You can clearly see someone fucked with the white balance and added extreme tints to both sides.

>>4431185 (OP)
Just use anything but a panasonic so your photos will be in focus and wont need "color grading" to not be green. Most of the world uses canon for a reason. Its because their cameras actually work.

>>4431185 (OP)
Proof that gear matters. I also partly blame the dogshit lighting but an f 1,4 or 1,8 would have been a shit ton better than the 3,5 I brought. shot at 28mm the whole time because it was so cozy 35mm was cutting the light down and people partly out of frame. i would've gotten better results with my cellphone.

>>4431532
these people look so gay as a group you should have just zoomed in on the vocalist

>>4431532
load up social media, cellphone videos and snapshits are exponentially better. was talking to another photographer about how cellphones have gotten to the point where actual photography gear matters. because, if you're going to go pro or try to chase clout online, you have to produce photos that shit on cellphones

>>4431534
I would have but, and I told them this, my best length lens is shit tier in low light. it's a variable 3.5-5.6 that I bought as a kit lens back when I was retarded. I would've brought my 70-200 2.8 but the place was a fucking shoebox and it was packed so I wasn't going to be moving through a crowd easy with that thing

>>4431537
Get close and flash nigga!

>>4431532
Lol no gear would fix a shitty pic like that. Should have gotten closer or farther away. Also get a real raw editor and the exposure and noise would clear up fine.

>>4431539
that's what I did with >>4431384 but no flash allowed in this venue. they have better lighting but didn't bother to turn it on and still wouldn't let me use my flash. I could've gotten some sick shots if I had my flash. this was in probably as low light but it was a cathedral compared to the pub, the flash did its work there

>>4431540
I know none of the photos from that are good as far as composition. I've only every photographed animals and never people or events until tonight. everything was working against me from the mosh pit happening 1 foot away from the "stage" to equipment blocking my subjects when I could find a spot to squeeze in. it was a complete abomination of an event for my skill level. which is 1 year of purely wildlife and 2 weeks of indoor pet snapshitting

>>4431550
At risk of sounding sincere on this board for a second. Wildlife and sports photography is mostly a gear check. This board loves shitting on street because it requires you to get close enough that you are a part of the subject. People react to you and filling the frame means being recognized by who/what you are shooting. The pictures are flat because you are shooting them like wildlife where you don't want to be seen. Keep the 28mm on and get in so close they can't fully fit in the frame. You'll make some great images if you live a good life and get in close.

>>4431551
my next lens is definitely going to be a short one that can focus close up. I was going to see how close you can get with a 24-70 or a prime within that range. these 3.3ft and further minimal distances are killing me indoors

>>4431529
>This image is fake. Panashit has even greener skin than snoy. You can clearly see someone fucked with the white balance and added extreme tints to both sides.
Meds!

It all depends on the photos you want to take. Newer and shiny will always be more practical, but people took excellent photos with outdated gear yesteryear. The people who take really good photos and know what they are doing rarely rave about gear.

>>4431196
>>4431190
/thread
the truest answer is situational. if the question is whether gear matters, the answer is: sometimes. if you want a more refined answer then first refine your question

>>4431511
it's a race from legend of zelda

>>4431270
>>4431234
>>4431474
>>4431381
>>4431384
you dropped your hat, baldy

>>4431571
this, honestly. Actual pros don't give a shit about brand or age. just functionality, they'll buy adapters because a lens for another camera or older one will give them the results they're looking for. gear is just a tool and having the right tool for the specific job is what matters. Sure, someone with a flagship camera will be able to do things that someone with a disposable can't. but on the other hand there was a professional that got award winning shots with a disposable camera which just proves that skill and knowledge can fill the gaps between what's needed and what your gear can do.

>>4431185 (OP)
Not really. People were taking pictures to blow up huge and put on rich people’s walls in the early 2000’s with 10MP DSLRs. All those cameras are equally as capable today.
The companies want you to believe that the latest greatest mirrorless cameras with fancy tracking modes are totally necessary so you will buy the new cameras or at least contribute to demand. And your photos won’t be any better for it.
High dynamic range? What the most BS spec to chase after — it’s pushed because everyone knows now that more than 24MP is gratuitous for the vast majority of photographers. But compelling photography tends to have wide value ranges and good use of contrast, which dynamic range doesn’t necessarily contribute much too (where you’re giving yourself room to push darks to mid color ranges, essentially) (it matters more to video, where lighting tends to be much more expensive and involved than a couple speed lights and you’re more constrained in exposure).
Pentax is the only company that’s hon at about this, with one insider reason they haven’t released new cameras for a while is that they feel the new ones aren’t sufficiently better to justify a new $2500 camera.


A Pentax DSLR like the K1ii or k3iii is the last camera you actually need, and you can probably get away with an older one too.

>>4431185 (OP)

/p/'s self-acclaimed gearfag here, I'll explain.

For 95% of situations, no it doesn't. Your classics and greats like HCB and Vivian Meier, Edward Weston, Ansel Adams, Helmut Newton, Richard Avedon were all for the most part working in focal lengths that amount to 28-100mm and specifically 50mm and 35mm.

They made these photographs on inferior equipment compared to today's scientifically perfect lens formulas. They shot crappy film and operated with mostly mechanical rangefinder and view cameras.

In niche situations like sports or architecture, and super-low light, yeah it matters. This was done with a 50 dollar 50/1.4 AF-D and Nikon Df which would get smoked by today's cameras on the market.

Good photographs are 90 percent being there in the right place at the right time with the right light, everything else is gearfagging, theory, processing, composition, all the shit you learn in Photo 1101

>>4431595
Ansel adams mostly shot 35/85 and used 800mp sheet film and high end lenses that were flawlessly sharp stopped down and most acclaimed photographers blew their load on expensive gear like leica and hasselblad, and continue doing so today
>inb4 terry four thirds
He’s a creepy failure

>>4431587
This is just nonsense. Have you seen boomer digital photography? Theres a reason film stuck around
35mm = 24mp, 15 stop DR = good photos
or
10mp dslr 8 stop DR = ken rockwell

>>4431587
>People were taking pictures to blow up huge and put on rich people’s walls in the early 2000’s with 10MP DSLRs
And they looked like absolute shit.
>one insider reason they haven’t released new cameras for a while is that they feel the new ones aren’t sufficiently better to justify a new $2500 camera
lmao

>>4431596
MOTHERFUCKIN TERRY FOUR THIRDS. THE NEW MASCOT OF /P/
EGGY BTFO.

>>4431587
Pentax is not releasing new cameras because whatever it is will be mogged by a used canon dslr, again, and the lenses are even worse

>>4431596

He also had a bitchin Contax I 35mm, imagine having something that good back in the 1930s people are still using them in 2025, shit must have been a cheat code back then.

>>4431605
A used Canon DSLR isn't a flex, 10 year old Canons aren't better than new ones for actually taking photos

>>4431626
anon i believe that was the point and that's why it was dunking on pentax.

>>4431626

If you're buying a camera to flex you're not a photographer you're using it as a fashion accessory.

>>4431642
The irony is, this tripfag tries to flex for buying all the nikon ewaste

>>4431646

I'm not buying it to flex I use ALL of it.

>>4431642
i buy old cameras to flex on /p/ and im annoyed hiro hasn't brought back the exif function

that said the only old camera i actually dislike was my nikon z50 (really really bad af, colors/awb had me using the canon 5dmk2 preset 9/10 times) and currently owned my olympus e500 (great colors, sharp lenses, but complete lack of dynamic range where its unusable above iso400 probably because its 4/3rds..great for outdoor sunny landscapes but not much else it struggles on cloudy days ffs)

>>4431803
Z50? must be skill issue

>>4431803
>old
>z50

>>4431824
the z50 was so bad it made me pick up a dead camera ecosystem

i also wanted a pentax kf since i went to B&H/Adorama and started shopping around this time last year...it was my favorite camera just based off ergos/looks alone. i still like it a lot.

>>4431825
I didn't really ask. It came out in 2019. It's not old so you sound retarded.

Your not a real photographer unless you your using a camera that's atleast 10 years old

>>4431826

I don't care it was a bad camera

>>4431829
New cameras are all pretty good. So it's obviously a skill issue.

>>4431828
What if it is 100 years old? And the lens is almost 200 years old?

>>4431830
No, lots of cameras are pretty bad. Panasonic for instance can't make autofocus work better than a DSLR. Early on, Nikon was almost as bad. The single processor models basically didn't work outside of af-s.

Granted this is /p/, and the local fauna (hipsters) think it's cool to only use cameras for pretentious photos of signs, so needing more than af-s is le bad. As a hipster matures it will eschew AF entirely and question the "validity" of anyone who has a lens with motors in it. So if you think you're a dick now, just wait, you'll be a proper knob in good time.

>>4431851
Not reading all that but people were taking awesome shots with cameras with no autofocus. If you cant get good shots from a camera from 2019 you're the problem.

>>4431764
Turkey? I might've taken a picture here

>>4431853
He called it and you played the sequel as written. Your character’s personality is literally an insufferable pseud stereotype. Have some fucking shame, christ. Theatre club is over there.

>>4431856
Ok can you explain why people were able to take really good photos without autofocus yet you are given a camera with amazing autofocus and yet you can produce nothing?

>>4431853
>people were spending entire rolls and burning out motor drives for bird snaps in 1970 so dont you dare expect your expensive toy to work as advertised. if you get something at all its a good camera!
when the hipster suddenly starts eating shit from the establishment’s asshole

many such cases

>>4431858
>wahh you're smell and you look weird!
>you must be the kind of person that i hate because ive already decided that you are!
But see you're not actually answering the question. Is it because if you answered my question it would reveal that you're bad at taking photos? Can you answer the question please?

>>4431857
Can you explain why you have this personality disorder of yours, where if a corporation gave you a broken drill, you would crank it by hand, and be proud that you didnt return it? Is your ego that fragile and your penis that small that the only thing that defines you is putting up with bad products?

Why do you literally simp for eating shit directly out of a corporations asshole?

Are you an apple fan?

>>4431860
Can you answer the question instead of dancing around it? This is really embarrassing for you. You should answer before you make everyone hate you because of how stupid you are.

>>4431859
Yes, your penis is small. You don’t own a camera. If someone fucked your wife you’d call staying in the marriage a noble thing for skilled men. We get it.

Sane men do not pay money for dysfunctional technology and thank the corporation for the privilege. They send it back.

You are not sane. You are not a man. Your penis is too small for that. And even doghair takes better photos than you.

>>4431862
>th-th-the tool!!! my work is bad because the tool!!!
Really anon? Hahahaha

>>4431861
So you admit you’re a pathetically weak man, and an actual cuckold.

So pathetic you cant imagine dissatisfaction, rather than inability, driving a decision. Because you are such a sad weak beta faggot you have never felt entitled to turn down a perfectly edible turd.

>>4431864
>ad hominem x20
Ok I win, thanks for you concession :) you could have easily proven me wrong by posting a photo that was "RUINED" by your brand new cameras "UNUSABLE" autofocus. But that doesn't exist sooooo GG

>>4431863
Did anyone say they didnt take ANY good photos? Or that they were tired of paying extra to waste effort on bullshit?

Answer this one faggot cuck

>>4431865
You just hit peak beta cuck. Congratulations, bitch boy.

Go crawl to daddy nikon and beg him to shit in your mouth again. You have SKILL!

Everyone who prides themselves on wasting effort on inferior technology turns out to be trans

See: trannies are 0.02% of the population, but 40% of the linux users.

>>4431868
dont forget people who act rich when they’re obviously making less than $30/hr at a shitty job and just live alone with no wife or kids so 50% of their income is disposable

shitty tech wannabes and fake richfags are a very common thing on 4chan. its because they’re virgins and noticeably underachieving irl.

Aw man where did the guy playing the consumer cuck character go? My demoralization bully character was just getting started

Anything past camera obscura is bloat.

>>4431874
forgot photo

>>4431875
its bad. rule of thirds is for NPCs.

>>4431876
Ok.

The trick is to find cameras that have the ultimate image quality because that's all that really matters at the end of the day, aside from actually taking an in focus shot.

>>4431862
My pictures are perfectly average and my technical knowledge of film photography and analog printing methods is more than most people on this board.
I know my favored subject matter is not appealing to all, but that's just a matter of taste.

>>4431879
skill issue guy here. can you take a photo of your german shepherd licking a camera? i need it for research, and to prove that the z50 is fine because it still has manual focus. it would really help me out if his eyes were half closed too. to represent how people are blind to the importance of learning camera skills and why a leica is more expensive because it has no autofocus not despite it. it would be a very intellectual art piece. thank you.

>>4431882
What camera and how much are you willing to pay me? The bigger the camera the more it will cost you. I have everything from sub 1" digital to 8x10 view camera.

>>4431886
whatever one is the hardest to focus
$0

>>4431888
You run a tough bargain... I was thinking of taking an 8x10 of dog tonight, but I don't think I want it to be of him licking a camera.

I have a leica M3. Should that be the camera he licks?

>>4431889
Oh yeah baby

>>4431185 (OP)
Gear definitely does matter. If it can't do the job the job does not get done.
Having good light, getting to position, pointing the camera with correct settings to right direction and pressing the shutter button at proper time matters much more than quality of the gear.

>>4431893
Too bad real life wont let you do half that. "Good photographers" carry lighting gear and schedule shoots.

>>4431900
Guess it depends on what dicipline of photography you're refering to:
>Landscape?
Go during certain hours. Pray for desired weather/lighting. Spend money to travel to nice places. Use tripod without fucking up somehow.
>Portraits?
Good flash(es), softbox, lens with shallow enough DoF and desired distance to subject. Clients/friends/family which don't look like gremlins.
>Astrophotography (Nightscapes)?
Plan in advance. Pray for lack of clouds. Go somewhere with low light pollution / visit dark sites. Own a lens with a super wide aperture and no coma. Understand stacking frames.
>Action?
Pay to go to events / be hired for them. Own a telephoto that's fast enough and long enough. Be allowed close enough the action. Hold down shutter on H+.

Like, I could go on, but the point is what makes a good photo is quite dependent on what type of photo it is. Carrying lighting gear only solves some kinds of problems.

>>4431882
Here. I'm not really happy with the shot, but whatever we had fun. The camera I was using was manual focus and had a shutter delay that made timing this difficult.
I don't really have the room to take this shot much wider in my house with a clean background and I'm not bringing him into my studio.

Enjoy.

I have all the [Best Primes Travel Top 10 HD Hindi Link In Discription] yet rely on a 13 year old kitlens when I'm on vacation.
Gear matters until you got a certain threshold

>go on a nice walk
>take photos
>just take photos of interesting things or whatever I like
>realise this is what matters
>not muh gear muh spec sheets
>realise going outside literally melts away the bullshit staying in my room lurking festers in my mind

>>4431942
exactly why I got into nature. seeing a duck do the akira slide and being able to capture that moment with an old-ish DSLR and just as old super zoom just feels so good. especially when I see people with new mirrorless systems and expensive glass posting blurry crap on other sites and platforms

>>4431911
god i wish i was the camera

i mean

z50 haters btfo

Is this art?

>>4431973
>german shepherd
>german camera

>>4431185 (OP)
I take pictures because its fun:)

don't be such faggot and just enjoy yourself

and don't be like these faggots too
>>4431867
>>4431865

>>4431942
It's crazy how much just going outside fixes anxiety. We really weren't made to sit at a computer for 12 hours at a time

>>4431973
Well, you would have to print it out first, but yeah it would be art because an artist made it. Pretty simple really.

>>4431967
You were supposed to reply with only nice tongue. Missed opportunity.

>>4431984
>heh I as the fence sitter am the EDUCATED one

>>4431986
thats why theres so many dogposters
having a dog forces you to go outside often

>>4431597
While film was technically capable of 13+ stops of dynamic range, in practical use most people didn't bother try getting 11 stops out of it because it became time consuming and difficult, and the Zone System suggests that only 9 stops are actually "useful" and of which 7 of them were actually important.
The vast majority of film photography you see is using about 9 stops to actually produce the image (the rest of the detail is on the negatives, but they probably didn't bother to develop it).
So if your camera can produce at least 9 stops of dynamic range, you're solid (albeit it's better to have a bit of extra headroom so you don't need a perfect exposure every time).
> Theres a reason film stuck around
Professionals were phasing film out in the mid-2000's when professional cameras typically had 10-15MP (Nikon D3, for example, was 12MP).

>>4431605
A good portion of Salgado's Genesis was shot with an EOS-1Ds Mark III. A 21 MP camera with, in best case scenario, 12 stops of dynamic range, but in practice put out 9 stops or so.

The Pentax K1ii far exceeds the capabilities of the camera used for Genesis, and the majority of photobooks that are well renowned. Literally any MILC that is manufactured right now can produce photos exceeding the quality of these books.

Yet y'all would rather fag out about gear, than actually take meaningful pictures. If you have a MILC that's still sold new on the market right now, the camera can take pictures as good as the best. YOU cannot. You're the limitation.

>>4432000
You're mixing up SNR charts (how soulless geeks measure dynamic range) with highlight clipping and exposure latitude (in which film steamrolls digital)
>The Pentax K1ii far exceeds the capabilities of the camera used for Genesis
The 1DSIII has amazing autofocus and mounts amazing lenses. The K1II is the opposite of this. It has shitty autofocus and pentax has never made good lenses. They're the japanese version of a slavshit lens company.

>>4431185 (OP)
>does gear matter?
If you’ve got a story to tell or know how to compose, gear doesn’t matter at all. Genuinely.
Most people here are either nophotos or bokeh whores, hiding their lack of talent behind overpriced gear or a blurry background.
>inb4 nophoto
Youre right, I actually made some decent shots a few years ago. Then I became gearfagged, and now whenever I take out my camera, I can tell I lost my mojo. So these days I mostly shoot family stuff with my pixel 9 pro, and I'm not sharing that.

famous photographers all use leicas because they’re stuck up fascists and shitty gear is for based liberal punk rock and hyperpop chads because quality is a bourgeosie concept that goes hand in hand with heteronormativity and structure, the natural enemies of all intellectual and empathetic global citizens and the tools of fascism

full frame cameras are the worst because they enforce fascist realism on the world and refuse to accept that reality is subjective with a liberal bias and that the human matters more than the science

>>4432009
Why should we take advice from someone who quit photography and unironically uses android

>>4432013
I'm a liberal but even I have to admit that you have schizophrenia

>>4432014
Because I'm honest.

>>4432016
a real artist once said
sharpness is a bourgeosie concept

this is still true. fascists and capitalists hate leaving things up to interpretation and erase feelings and love so theres only hate left. thats why they’re racist and doomed to go extinct. sorry you lack the intellect to understand the correct worldview.

>>4432018
Honest about failing out of the world’s easiest hobby?

Rizz L. Huge rizz L.

>>4432013
My first camera was a Yashica FX-3 Super 2000 paired with a Zeiss Contax 50mm f/1.4. I used mostly Kodak Portra 400 nc. Didn’t even need batteries to shoot some of my favorite photos.
>famous photograpers and Leica
Leica probably had promotional collaborations, as all the brands have today, dear retard.
>>4432020
>failing out a hobby
Lol ok

>>4432021
>couldnt figure out how to keep taking good photos even with the best gear
>quit
>still here pretending to be an expert
rizz L no cap

>>4432013
they're also fun to use

>>4432013
lol leicas are almost all full frame/35mm and pretty sharp. They pick them because they spend all day walking around shooting street and they are small and portable compared to SLRs. They definitely do turn them into fetish objects they worship but this whole board does the same thing with whatever they own and shoot with. It's a safety thought process against doubt in your own artistic output. There is really no way out of it and if you don't feel at this moment you will in the future. I think the trick is to just view it like the tide. It will come in and out and that's okay because it's beyond your control.

>>4432001
Nah, I was largely talking about exposure latitude. Your typical 35mm film available to the prosumer had 13 stops or so of dynamic range total, and you could pull up to 15 stops out of it in very ideal scenarios. But it was a PITA and expensive to get more than 9-11 stops worth. You had to first ensure the entire roll of film had similar contrast values (or be fine with ruining pictures outside of the desired contrast values), and you'd have to keep notes of the desired highlights you're wanting to bring back and their EV's. Then you'd use compensated developers at the right dilutions, for the right amount of times, to fix your highlights (you did take notes of how much you need to fix the highlights by, right?). You'd also be losing even more details in the shadows in this process.
It was also possible only on B&W film AFAIK.

Oh, and we're talking about the dynamic range of FILM here. Not the prints -- the prints is where you get a bigger headache. Photo paper typically had like 6 stops of dynamic range. Modern prints (from a digital source) get 7-8.

>>4432001
> The K1II is the opposite of this. It has shitty autofocus

The K1ii was considered to have good AF for its time. Not great, but good. The original K1 was considered to have poor AF and it's one of the reasons Pentax released the K1ii (it's mostly the same camera with updated CPU). Another major reason Pentax is thought to have bad AF is because they keep making screw-drive lenses lol (their SDM and PLM lenses do a lot better).
Yes, Pentax sucks for sports/wildlife. I don't shoot sports/wildlife so idgaf. I started photography on Sony cameras and I don't miss the AF for my genres (street, portraiture, studio, etc).
The K1 and K1ii *do* have

But Pentax lenses are one of the best parts of Pentax. Their limited series are the epitome of this, and the only other lenses that come close are Sigma's i series.
Pentax has never put much effort into making the sharpest-in-the-corners lenses, or the fastest lenses, or the highest MTF lenses. They've always tried to optimize things like quality of bokeh, bokeh falloff, color, and the vast majority, even newer ones, prioritize character over clinical rendering.
The 77mm lens is where this is most obvious. If you can't see the quality of the results created by the 77mm lens, you're probably autistic and will never understand photography beyond the merit of creating pixel-perfect sharpness at 400% zoom and probably argue that photography isn't art (and argue it as a merit).
Enjoy your onion ring bokeh and keep thinking 3D pop isn't real.

Because I suck at proofreading.
>>4432034
I also wanted to mention this usually meant developing your own photos in your own photo lab. You could send it off to a decent lab with instructions but it was too expensive if you did it with any regularity. It's one reason pro's jumped ship to DSLRs even when DSLR's were just 12MP with 8 stops of dynamic range -- it literally ended up costing a fraction of the price and the times it actually mattered weren't important (and at that time, you could just shoot film on a project where it did matter).
>>4432038
The K1 and K1ii DO have incredible image quality. Their AF is more than good enough for my genres (street, portraiture, studio, etc.). I also wanted to discuss how they actually have features that actually do help me in what I do do, like their hyper control system (seriously, just having a button to automatically set exposure once in manual mode is a huge, huge quality of life improvement).

>>4432038
>fool framers pixel peep bokeh balls
this is why the only good pentax product is the ricoh gr

>>4432038
>The quality of the bokeh
Ironically bokeh fringing is one of the bigger flaws and pentax isn't as good at suppressing it as voigtlander or nikon

muh onion rings etc don't matter, you literally have to zoom in on OOF backgrounds and in the rare case that might be done, they're pretty easy to edit out.

>>4432048
If you do a lot of nighttime street photography like I do, onion ring bokeh are clearly visible at <100% zoom and moderate print sizes. I do a lot of Christmas family portraits to pay for my photography classes and people really like huge foreground bokeh balls from christmas lights, where they become super, super obvious.
It's basically happening in every lens by most companies as everyone's chasing the best and greatest MTF charts, while keeping prices low (Sigma, Tamron) or margins high (ie. Canon), and using molded resin aspherical lenses to achieve that.
Also Nisen bokeh is super obvious, caused by highly correction of spherical aberrations (where less correcting of spherical aberration is something Pentax is often criticized for).

Ironically, exceptional MTF results and highly corrected spherical aberration are primarily things you see only when you're pixel peeping, and they're both things Pentax tend to not optimize for.

>>4432050
It's not about "MTF charts" it's about being able to shoot wide open without everything glowing in strange colors if the reflected light is ever so to bright, or weird curved fields ruining large group portraits, and it hasn't really bothered the majority of photographers because bokeh balls are too 80s. Low contrast environmental bokeh is in.

>>4432050
Nisen bokeh is caused by stabilization, not "omg sharp lens bad, shoot everything with soap filter instead". The OOF areas move across the image field while the focused part stays pretty static. This also applies to IBIS, shifting moves the bokeh but doesn't warp the in focus image except on the edges, and it's why m43 cameras were the second to be nitpicked by bokeh-peepers, right after nikon's crazy effective VR lenses which were among the first.

Bokeh-centric pictures are so out of fashion now that people just stopped caring. Plus, not using a stabilized camera throws most telephoto lenses in the garbage bin because flash is also out for non-professional photography (it is a public nuisance and everyone started hating it as soon as it became optional) and the minimum speed to handhold an 85mm for a normal person is about 3x faster than needed to freeze a posing, living subject.

I took this picture with a pentax lens and it shows some purple fringing.

>>4432049
>>4432054
Chromatic aberration is literally one of the easiest things to fix in post. It's literally already applied when I bring the photos into lightroom because the camera specified the corrections in the RAW file.

Correcting chromatic aberration in the lens is also maybe a part of why some lenses don't have "3d pop", as a slight fringe with high local contrast seems to promote a sensation of acutance (essentially a similar effect as unsharp making).
>>4432057
Nisen bokeh is caused by correction of spherical aberration. Voigtlander literally has a lens that emphasizes nisen bokeh purposefully (and achieves it by going overboard on the techniques used to correct for spherical aberration). It's one of their "classic" lenses.
The double-image caused by stabilization is something else (and affects everything in the image, not just the bokeh, and happens on a much smaller dimensional scale).
Out of all of the problems we're talking about, nisen bokeh is actually not fixable in post lol.
>>4432057
Bokeh centric photos are huge right now. A big gimmick at the moment is holding a prism or crystal or any random object up close to the camera when you take a picture to induce exaggerated and indistinct bokeh. Every family photo shoot I do asks me to do something like this.
With phone cameras being the dominant form of photography right now, and with them actually being good, bokeh and bokeh balls are seen by normies as a distinguishing aspect of professional portraits. It kind of sucks because shooting everything at f/2 is boring and IMO makes a less interesting photo overall.

>>4432063
I don't have to care about what normies think because I do photography for myself and 4 other people

>>4432059
Literally takes like two clicks to fix in Lightroom.
Click eyedrop. Click purple color. Done.
>>4432064
I do care what normies think because I need to actually make money lol.

>>4432063
Chromatic aberration is literally impossible to fix in post. The only thing you can do is desaturate it or blur it. Your photos are literally pre-blurred when you bring it into lightroom because it's set to smear the pixels around in a hopeless attempt to hide the inadequacies of your lens.

Gear is a limitation. If you have high skill you can work within those limitations. If you suck, you'll still suck even without those limitations.

That goes for pretty much anything desu

>>4431378
>soft and has inaccurate af at f2.8 like every dslr 70-200 is
huh that's weird, that hasn't been my experience with most of the 70-200s I've used
only one of these three is soft at f/2.8, guess which!

>>4432143
too bad cameras dont work like that. you can not skill your way around technical deficiencies in camera equipment. in most cases those are just photos you won't be taking without numerous retries due to engineering errors (like shitty autofocus) or hardware limitations (like having to stack images for low light just to have a visible image). if you're interested in the cool shit, you know.

>but you can still get great shots... of sunsets! and street photography! and posed portraits, with flash!
many such cases. the boomer 3.

>>4432063
>>4432112
>chromatic aberration is ez to fix
>chromatic aberration is impossible to fix
you guys do realize there's more than one kind of CA right?
lateral CA is easy, where the image is scaled as a function of light frequency (just rescale r/g/b)
longitudinal is basically impossible, where the focus of the frequencies varies differently by scene depth (fixing is like telling your software "make this photo properly focused")
guess which one pentax has the most trouble with
t. pentax shooter

>>4432151
>but you can still get great shots... of sunsets! and street photography! and posed portraits, with flash!
Thats right kiddo. you dont need more.

>>4432151
That's not what I mean, retard.

You will never be able to draw something red with with black ink. But a skilled artist can still make a beautiful drawing with only black ink, or only a ballpoint pen, or a number 2 pencil.
Still, if you want to draw the color red, you need red ink.

>>4432164
>But a skilled artist can still make a beautiful drawing with only black ink, or only a ballpoint pen, or a number 2 pencil.
But why would they if they didn't want to?

And remember, cameras aren't just for art and acting like they are is pretentious enough to imply you have issues. Snapshits are sometimes unironically more important than your perfectly symmetrical building corner editorial in exactly 3 colors.

>>4432166
>But why would they if they didn't want to?
Because they don't have the tools, don't know how to use them, or can't afford them. They just can't, for one reason or another. Obviously. Why else would you not do things that you want to do?

>cameras aren't just for art
In the case of photography a hobby, they are for art 99.99% of the time. But it's not like this is some concept exclusive to art. You buy the right tool for the job, or else you do the jobs your tools and skillset allow.

Like what are you hoping for here? Do you think buying a new camera will magically make you a better photographer?
Or are you just looking to blame a skill issue on a lack of equipment?

>acting like they are is pretentious enough to imply you have issues.
serious projection over some imagined slight

>>4432168
>Nonsense
Sometime someone just doesn't want to work in black in white. That's what I was getting at.

>In the case of photography a hobby, they are for art 99.99% of the time.
Either you have a very broad definition of art or you are the most pretentious asshole on earth.

>Like what are you hoping for here? Do you think buying a new camera will magically make you a better photographer?
Oh you are so desperate to insult people. I'm just sick of this pathetic little gear cult where narcissistic retards evangelize garbage and get hostile towards anyone who wants better because "UH, CAMERAS ARE FOR ART, YOU CAN SHOOT BUILDING CORNER CRYING HOBO ON MANUAL FOCUS LEICA! WE ARE SKILLED!". You're pretentious faggots and what makes it worse, is 100% of the people like you are masking their shopping addiction/budgetary incompetence and the "gear doesnt matter, actually, nice gear is bad" guy ends up sitting in front of a shelf of ewaste.

I am just sick of your cult and how desperate you are to go on an ego trip because you're solely interested in manually focusing on corners of buildings. Fuck off.

>>4432176
I bought a nice camera to take life snapshits. By /p/'s definintion I'm a retarded gearfag because I spent more than a week's wage and aren't making money off it or trying to become some proto-hipster art faggot.

I wouldn't get into pissing matches with an anon that is used to wetting himself.

>>4432178
They're not even that expensive, if you can manage your money at all. I can see these kinds of purchases being a problem for someone whose budget is "try not to spend anything, keeping track of purchases is hard" though.

>Oh no, you bought way more camera than you need to take a photo of a sad guy on a bench. How dare you. All those poor dollars you spent. What the fuck. You are clearly a bad photographer.

>>4432180
Let me guess. You bought an expensive camera, still suck, and now you’ve come here to cry about it.

Lmao.

>>4432188
One thing I've figured out is A LOT of "photographers" on 4chan and reddit rely on smashing the shutter button without thought, and then cropping and editing in post. This is why they are so adamant that the only good cameras are Sony cameras -- they're utterly reliant on AF performance w/ subject detection, megapixels, dynamic range, etc. because they can't focus and recompose, they can't frame in camera, they can't get exposure right in camera. They don't even have the most basic intuition concerning composition (and is why so much of it just gets center-framed, if it's not just placed randomly in the frame).
They NEED expensive cameras or they can't do shit. And a substantial portion of them are autistic with rich parents. (And then we have the non-rich ones who could only afford a 12MP DSLR, and they are posting half the OC pictures on this board, which is why they're exposed terribly, the shittiest framing, and obviously an autist behind the screen. And it's why they're obsessed with Daido Moriyama -- a perfect blend of weeb, and an example of style that they think they might actually be able to emulate effectively (they can't)).

>>4432202
> One thing I've figured out is A LOT of "photographers" on 4chan and reddit rely on smashing the shutter button without thought, and then cropping and editing in post.

This has nothing to do with these platforms. This is what all photographers do. For that matter, that’s how normies use their iPhones too.

>>4432202
> And a substantial portion of them are autistic with rich parents.

Cope and seethe wagie. Middle class people can easily spend <$10k or <$5k on a flagship camera and a few lenses. Even lower class people with a cashier job at Walmart have hobbies in that price range.

>>4432216
Yes, I have thousands invested in my cameras and lenses. Probably about $5k total.
But I can actually compose a photo.

>>4432188
I bought an expensive camera and am still good. I'm here to be mean to people and look at porn. Aren't you?

>>4432202
That's a lot of words to say you're a sad nerd. Every time you've bent your neck uncomfortably, squatted, leaned, and layed down to avoid cropping has been completely and utterly wasted. No one has ever noticed the difference between 5184x3888 and 4000x3000. What they have noticed is you are awkward, distant, self-ridiculing, and self absorbed.

You have all the admirable skill of someone who knows more about comic books than other people.

>>4432225
>I might have failed so hard at life I can't afford a toy that costs 1/4 as much as a trailer park loser's motorcycle, but at least i made a fool of myself to avoid having to crop
LOL

People don't think you're a professional because you bend over and shuffle around. They think your camera sucks too much to crop. Unironically, professionals spray and pray with a high FPS flagship in P mode because they've been photographing enough to know what matters (the photo) and what doesn't (trying to convince people online they're a "REEL FUTOGRAFUR").

Let me guess, you shoot fujifilm?

doesnt fuckin matter, dash snow made better photos than most gearfags in this board

>>4432237
>gear doesn't matter because you can just make americanized trash devoid of beauty and soul.
>you don't need a functioning instrument because you can just play drums on the table. ooga booga.
many such cases. i wonder who we can blame for american art being a bunch of edgelords?

better gear makes getting good shots easier / more reliably / more efficiently
better gear only helps some aspects of an image and is never a substitute for things like composition or color grading
a competent photographer should still get great shots with bad gear most of the time

>>4432249
a competent photographer also knows what they’re missing and you’re not going to find auto mode dads here. artistic sense or no most people on 4chan know enough to know when shitty cameras suck at just taking the damn picture.

hence the poorfag cope is
>i dont like your pictures so you dont deserve nicer things than me! YOU ARENT A REAL ARTIST REEEEEEEEEE I AM SUPERIOR I DESERVE THE NICE CAMERA! IDONTWANTITANYWAYS *bursts into treats*
instead of
>you cant even leave auto mode and shoot jpeg small, why did you buy a nice camera

>>4432253
>shit gear copers: bursts into treats
>nice gear havers: don't mind if i do

>>4432253
>a competent photographer also knows what they’re missing
true, still should be able to get great shots most of the time with less than perfect gear
>most people on 4chan know enough to know when shitty cameras suck at just taking the damn picture
i feel like most people here don't realize how bad early dslrs actually were
rockwell went from the D40 being the greatest consumer camera of all time, that he takes with him over better models to nikon sucks because it cant hit the 97-99% tracking accuracy of canony when using all area af because who picks a focus point anymore

>>4432257
>true, still should be able to get great shots most of the time with less than perfect gear
But it's not about getting shots at all, it's about getting shots you want.
>Nikon sucks because it cant hit the 97-99% tracking accuracy of canony when using all area af because who picks a focus point anymore
I think his issue is he tries to focus on CLOUDS, and shoots with shutter button auto everything AF without even picking the subject to detect, which is not actually meant to be a professionally usable mode and is intended for vlogging, like how auto and scn modes suck balls but no one notices because no one uses them. And also, because he's nitpicking Z8 vs R5 and those are $4000 cameras, and he has every right to be picky when he's spending his rich wife's realestate money or dipping into the millions he made from his dogsitting biz and internet gibs.

>>4432149
my guess is the 1st gen Tamron which is what I have.

>>4432267
it does not help that tamron lenses can't into AF consistency on DSLRs. their least problematic lenses miss slightly 2/10.

this explains why everyone hates FF pentax because most FF pentax zooms are rebranded tamrons with the VC mechanism fixed in place

>>4432267
forgot exif doesn't exist here
1/1000, iso 100, f/4, between 110-200mm, nikon d750, WB: auto, matrix metering.

>>4432269
I've noticed that in natural light my tamrons (also have 2nd gen 90mm macro) have no problem focusing properly or quickly for what I shoot. In low light where the flash is acting as the main light source I have to manually focus and pray the af makes the small tweaks instead jumping around.
that's definitely not to say that first party lenses gen 2 or newer wouldn't blow their AF out of the water plus the increased sharpness of the image, less softening in the corners and edges.

I'm getting into buying worse gear because it's funny

>>4432275
guessing you've looked into dead systems? some of them are truly horrible. there's also those non brand 4k and 8k cameras on amazon

>>4432161
Based take. So much gear jerking over auto focus speed and megapickles just because they are quantifiable numbers you can use to compare. It's okay to have newer nicer gear because you like it. But you don't really need it. It's a luxury or a tax write off.

>>4432202
They're mad because your right. It's also the cause of the obsession with zooms IMO. If you bring a really broad zoom then you are more likely to accidentally stumble into something that looks merely okay. The idea of owning a single prime and camera for a year is unthinkable to them. They might have to actually put intent behind their photos and accept that a lot of times a mistake might actually be better than the intent they started with. They'll see this as a contradiction instead of the beauty of the medium.

>>4432283
Yes. Everyone should try shooting sheet film and then contact printing said sheet film. You can also contact print medium format to decent effect, but it's kinda small.

>>4432279
>You don't really need it
I need literally anything but this
>but you can still get great shots... of sunsets! and street photography! and posed portraits, with flash!
Boomer garbage

>>4432283
People are mad because that little loser is a very old archetype that won't die, and deserves to.

The master of the meaningless, the superior peasant, who knows that lords abstain from planting crops because they are idiotic cripples and he is the superior one in this relationship.
>Whats wrong, nobleman? Cant turn the control doohickey? Why do you insist on wasting your money on a "good" camera? Clearly, you lack the skill to do it all yourself. You dont need more. I am better than you. You wasted your money, okay? You need to admit you wasted your money because you CANT do what I CAN do. If you could do what I can do, you would take the reasonable route, and not spend such a massive amount of money, you fucking money waster. I am not worse than you because I am poor. I am better than you because I dont need to buy nice things. I am good at things. You are not. If you were good at things, you would have cheap gear like me. Just admit it. ADMIT IT ALREADY. YOU'RE NOT FUCKING BETTER THAN ME I'M BETTER THAN YOU. YOUR MONEY IS A COPE NOT A VICTORY!

>The nobleman: *whips out leica III* *snap* lovely. you look awful in this photo, but this will make for some awesome street photography. anyways, this thing is a waste of my time. back to the sony.

>>4432235
Lol you think photojournalists/birders are the only "real photographers". Most of the actual people who are photographers that matter artistically right now are moms with a good eye for composition small and an ILC or Ricoh GR they bring everywhere. Case in point the pulitzer this year went to a soulless photo from just holding down the shutter and testing the buffer limits of flagship sonys.

>>4432285
Imagine a peasant given a pointy stick coping about a knight in armor with a halberd on horse back.

>>4432283
You don't like photography.

You like pretending to be a photographer because you have a small ego. And you can not merely pretend to be a photographer. You must pretend to be a "real" photographer. To you, scrambling across the road to cope with a prime's limitations doesn't make you an embarrassing, time wasting idiot who no one can spend time in public with. It makes you skilled. After all, eventually, you will get 2 or 3 good photos, of building corners, or people posing. If you had to stop and set up a tripod, you would, but if and only if you could later tell someone with an IBIS-enabled camera they are a "consumer idiot" who "cant make art and cant do real photography".

So, let me guess... you shoot fujifilm? Or is it an OM-5?

>>4432287
>Oh so you "NEED" a horse and a metal stick, and armor to protect your baby chest? Let me guess, you need a bow to throw your sticks for you too?
>Let me guess, you're too much of an idiot to make do with a real man's polearm and dodge blows?
>Let me tell you, "sir" knight, if you were competent at anything you do, you would be able to save dozens of shillings. You wasted your money because you're worse than a real skilled warrior like me.
>-Dinglebert the Serf, 2 hours before dying to arrow hail at agincourt

>>4432284
True. I'm glad I don't have to exclusively shoot with film anymore but I am glad I had to shoot at least a couple rolls when I was in high school. I always wanted to try medium format but I just could never afford it.

>>4432288
I've shot with every brand except fuji and panasonic over the decades. Theres bad cameras/lenses but there isn't a good or bad brand/format. If you think there is it's because you are inexperienced or don't appreciate what limitations can bring out of you. You probably like consumer electronics not photography and that's okay.

>>4432284
The worst thing about shooting film is it makes you intuitively aware of the enormous amounts of film 20th century photographers wasted, and how so much of what they did was only impressive because no one else could afford the film or the time.

And also of why the film elitists of the peasantry almost exclusively take photos of roofs and street signs in asia.

Ansel adams left hundreds of snapshot and test/bracketing exposure sheets behind, in just one storeroom. He had others as well. That's that "skill" you've heard so much about. Just trying again and again until the infernal machine accidentally aligns with reality. It's even worse with digital cameras now because the most infernal machines among them make incorrect decisions regardless of your input so you're paying over $1000 for a regression to a worse state than an OM-2n with a motor drive and magazine back.

>>4432290
Lol. The cope that transcends time and hobby.

>>4432291
If you cope the right way sheet film can actually be somewhat affordable. An inexpensive 4x5 camera can be had for 300-500 bucks with everything you need to start shooting if you get lucky on fleabay. You get a 50 pack of fomapan for 80 bucks and you're off to the races.

>>4432290
>Throw pointy stick at gap in armpit
>knight dies in expensive armor worth more than peasants lifetime salary
>peasant dies of dysentery years down the line anyway.
What an autistsic way to talk about photography lol. Gear won't make up for a lack of skill. Just shoot with what you have.

>>4432292
>don't appreciate what limitations can bring out of you.
>You probably like consumer electronics not photography and that's okay.
The irony of these statements occurring within one sentence of each other is appalling

My will brings decisions out of me. Technology can stay out of the way or elicit frustration. I do not need to be forced to shoot in manual focus by buying a camera without autofocus. I can just turn the AF-MF switch to MF. I do not need to sell all my gear and buy just one prime, and then just two primes, and then buy my gear back to "focus on the art". I can just leave a zoom at 35mm. I do not need to buy a special notebook to draw. I do not need to buy a programming keyboard and set my computer to green text on black to copy and paste javascript. I have no need for the costume. I live the life of a man, not a method actor.

That said, I most likely use worse cameras than you. Which makes you extra stupid. You probably thought you were pestering someone with an A1 and 28-70 f2.

>>4432295
>Gear won't make up for a lack of skill
No one who has said this has demonstrated superior skill. Just a proclivity for stealing photos from flickr.

Gear will enable you to use your skill in the way you want. A lack of gear will leave you frustrated, while someone who literally has aspergers can not comprehend why you're unhappy when the gear you have is perfectly capable of photographing anime dolls.

>>4432293
Yes. The one amazing shot makes up for the 1000 bad ones.

I always think about that when using more primitive cameras that produce higher quality images. I have fun with all cameras cause I like taking pics. Theres also something fun about learning the ins and outs of a camera that doesn't just shot out acceptable pictures like my phone does. It's really that shrimple.

>>4432302
Learning a camera that requires human input is fun

Sadly this argument typically concerns cameras that misbehave regardless of human input, and the coping fanboys who insist that because you can shoot cats and building corners in soft light, it must be fine.

>>4432303
I think all cameras can misbehave. You just have to pick the battles you find worthwhile.

>>4432299
Lol I highly doubt Ansel Adams stole those negatives from flickr. What are you on about. Take your meds you'll feel better.

>>4432306
Ansel Adams was a huge gearfag who "needed" a contax this and hasselblad that and a technical camera with full movements in an era where most people had a speed graphic or a kodak brownie.

His cameras look like primitive shit today, but he was the boomer with a phaseone xt of the day.

>>4432313
Can you show us some superior examples? If his work is shit you have probably taken better pictures than him, right?

>>4432317
I didn't say his work is shit. Actually, his work is great because gearfags are better photographers.

>>4432318
Oh yeah, his camera looks like shit. My bad.
I guess in some ways his cameras do look like shit, but on the other hand, let me guess you need more than a light tight box on a tripod to take pictures of a mountain with some clouds?

Also camera movements are based. It's incredibly useful to have a camera that can utilize them as well as the skill to take full advantage of them. A lot of building corner shooters would benefit from their use.

>>4432322
>let me guess you need more?
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/ansel-photo-gear/
If anything you need less

>>4432327
That's a based pack out kit for a pro when only film existed.
It felt like so much bringing a suitcase with 2 lenses and my 8x10 camera and a backpack with 4 film holders out.

I bet his pack would be much simplified if he was taking pics nowadays. Maybe even just a single medium format outfit capable of movements, a smaller portable camera like a d850 or one of those dslr type phaseones, and a powerful laptop to edit on scene.
It sort of makes sense that he would carry multiple film formats because they each provide a unique look when printed and have varying levels of portability.

>>4432340
Ansel Adams, circa 2025
>yes i could just use a GFX and a kit zoom
>but the phase one xt with schneider lenses just renders differently
>and for lazy days i have my hasselblad
>and also the fuji gfx
>and this nikon i use for birds
>i have a leica m11, it was a gift, i like it, it's a nice necklace

>>4432313
I mean if I was being payed by the government to create static landscapes I would probably also choose large format. If I wasn't allowed to use film then I probably would pick some form of digital medium format. I would probably do both worse than Ansel Adams though. He could probably take a better photo with a humble d750 than I could with a phaseone. He's more skilled than anyone in this cursed thread.

>>4432344
If I had a real use for a lantec or alpa camera I would totally use one. Holy crap they're cool cameras.

All a nice camera does is increase my keeper rate from better AF

That's really it. I like older cameras because I can experiment with different lenses for way way less money (my average lens cost $40) and get different results (sharper images, more saturated colors, etc). Even if you have a newer camera you'll still take 100 shitty pictures, delete 70 of those, edit 30, and share maybe 5-10 with friends/family or /p/. The older camera requires more effort but it can still make nice photos. I've had nice photos out of 6-10mp cameras old enough to vote. If you notice most of the advances in camera tech in the last 10 years have to do with video in an attempt to pick up the youtuber/streamer market. That's why they have wide angle primes and great autofocus/low light performance for video.

But the difference between a 10 year old Canon (5DMK4/90D) and a new one (R8/R50) isn't enough imo for photography. Even a Rebel t7 (literally one of the most common best selling DSLRs in the world you probably know at least one person who owns one) can give you nice pics in the right situation.

>>4432350
Based take. I will say the best "modern" advancement imo is IBIS. Probably has increased my keep rate more than anything other feature.

>>4432261
>it's about getting shots you want.
and a true photog can do that even with bad gear

This thread has the weirdest take I’ve seen on this board in a while, that taking pictures of people is actually le bad and for boomers, what? But also building corners is bad? So then in this immense genius opinion, what is the approved subject? Is this just an incel malding that pretty girls rejected his offer to photograph them?

>>4432367
wasn't there some pro that won an award not too long ago and it turned out he used one of those shitty disposables? it was some kind of rally cross or some shit he was photographing

>>4432376
Eggs are the only truly acceptable photography subject.

>>4432367
yeah everyone wants to be snappiness

or just buy a good camera instead of cucking yourself to prove something (you are failing at proving anything)

>>4432377
That's so badass. Who was it out of curiosity?

>>4432390
I can't remember, it was shared in a photography group I'm in. it wasn't some worldwide award or anything, just some competition where the judges were known gearfags and supposedly they were considering taking away his win because it wasn't even a semi-professional setup but he entered at the professional level. could be pure anecdotal but there are pros that will use things like disposables if it gives them the look and feel they want.

Just for fun, looking at the 2024 WPP winners (https://www.worldpressphoto.org/collection/photocontest/2024/winners),
>501c
>Mamiya 7 II
>R6 x3, R5, R3, 5DII
>Z9 x2, D850
>a7rIII, a7rII, a7III x2, a1, a9
>SL2-S
>L1D-20c (Mavic 2 Pro)
>Toyo Field 810M II
>X-Pro2

>>4432418
>1" wins
>mft does not
oh no no no

>>4432418
So the only real takeaway from this is Filmchads stay winning

>>4432418
>can't find the page you're looking for

>>4432439
Remove the ) on the right

>>4432295
>gap
rumao

>>4432267
actually the sigma
the tamron I didn't have for very long and don't have a whole lot of photos with at 2.8, but those that are (and are in focus) definitely aren't "soft"

>>4432461

>>4432463
the sigma on the other hand?
yes "soft" is the term I'd use for this

>>4432464
the pentax I have no complaints
well, almost none

>>4432466
that would be that it doesn't have OIS like the other two
then again, pentax's IBIS seems to work, picrel was handheld 1/5s 150mm f/2.8
it would just be nice to have a stabilized view as well

>>4432256
Been a while since I've seen burst into treats

>the best photographer in the world is not as good as the worst camera in the world
What?

>>4432473
bro photography is just for art bro there is no such thing as a bad camera because you only need a kodak brownie to take a picture of a starving african child bro

>>4432283
I bought a 24-70mm f/2.8 and instantly fucking regretted it. That thing has no benefit over a 50mm or 35mm depending on the style you're going for, but it's way bigger, way heavier, slower, with worse optical quality. Seriously, just take a couple steps closer or further, and you've achieved the same thing. And the 35-70mm range isn't so much it's likely to help you when a prime won't give you the desired perspective or get you to where you can't access easily.

The only thing nice about the 24-70mm zoom is having the 24mm there, but it's just not quite wide enough. I'd rather have like a 20-50 f/2.
24-105mm is ok as a walkaround lens, I also like those 28-200 type lenses for travel.

What fucking amazes me is people thinking the newest Sony whatever $3k camera with GM lenses is actually going to take better pictures than a Nikon 700 series DSLR, or that the Nikon will somehow "limit" skill or that the Sony will allow someone's skill shine through.
You fucking consumerist cucks.

Back in the film days, companies like Fujifilm and Kodak recognized that the money isn't in the camera and lenses -- people buy those, buy them used, and hold onto them for years or decades. No, the money was *in the film*. Because it's a consumable product, you *had* to buy it new. And you had to buy it over and over and over again. And Kodak pioneered a lot of early digital camera tech to put cameras in more hands so people would pay more money at their kiosks you'd see everywhere in the early 2000's.

But now, mirrorless cameras, new ones being released every year, sometimes multiple times a year? You're told you NEED that new camera if you want to take good pictures. They'll have actually good photographers on Instagram paid to say how they're taking picture they never could've before with the new Sony alpha 217 or w/e (and it's a lie). They put millions of dollars into making you feel that you can't take good pictures if you don't buy the newest, most expensive, highest margin gear.
And they're fucking lying to you. Your photos are not better because you bought a new camera. Old gear isn't holding you back. Your last-generation lens with lower MTF isn't why your pictures don't look like the pros.

Take some actual fucking photo classes. Actual, academic, ass-in-the-seat class. Not youtube videos, where they're trying to use the least amount of effort to generate the most revenue from videos (which is derived from getting you to feel you need to consume in order to feel fulfilled), not shallow blog articles of someone trying to half assed build a brand.

Online photography "communities" are some of the most consumerist cucked groups of people out there. For real.

>>4432497
I do not think you are a real person. I think you read this
>How dare you buy something because you want better! Immodesty! Sin! Idiot! Only professionals deserve to accept such devices and with gratitude at that! Be thankful for what you have! Why back in my day-
And decided to play a character based on it. Otherwise you are so fucking stupid, you walked out of a 4chan posters satire on people who are insecure, submissive, and neurotic about "deserving" nice things.

You are not moral for this. You do not have an admirable character. You just can’t manage your money. Or maybe you’re really beaten down imagine buying something nicer because YOU like it. You need the "license" from someone else, right? Because I want are three words that make you suffer flashbacks to your dad smacking you? Speaking of cucks…

Grow up. You are an adult. You can buy something because you want the better one. That’s it. The only cuck here is mr "earn luxury by impressing others" not the grown men exchanging money for goods and services.

Oh and if you see something as simple as BUYING SOMETHING as submissive and cucklike that speaks volumes about how fucking broken your sense of self esteem is.

>>4432497
going from a dslr with 30% af coverage to a mirrorless with 80%+ af coverage, and a non-panasonic one so those af points actually work, does in fact allow you to take photos you could not before, at least without redoing it five times while practicing the completely and utterly worthless skill of manual focus tracking (proud of pulling a choke lever and cranking an engine too?)

so does going from fool turds to a real camera

>>4432510
Actually yes I am proud of knowing how to use a choke to start a car just like I drive a manual car with no abs because I am a enthusiast and not a normie faggot.

>>4432519
its still called being a gearfag even if the gear is old. gearfag is a word in photography because people who are just in to old cameras are separate and kind of autistic and can be insufferable.
>i use a d750 btw! its better than mirrorless. yeah you heard me babies. what, couldnt figure out how to use it? z mount? trash. i use my 3d pop lenses skillfully at f5.6. i dont need your usably sharp max apertures and flat renderinng.
we all know THAT guy…
>d750? interesting. i use an xt3 with a manual chinese prime that only renders a recognizable image at f11. imagine needing more. you just lack skill. photography is the art if not taking a photo.
these people are never good at photography either

you’ll only get parker cars, cats and street signs from them

>>4432522
yes, the sleeping pills are kicking in fina

>>4432508
Nah, if you have the money and want it, buy it. Why not. But it will not make you a better photographer. Your photos won't be meaningfully better. I am not critiquing owning or using the latest, most featureful, most specful gear, I'm critiquing the notion that you need new gear to take better photos, or that having new gear will result in better photos.
>>4432510
You do know what focus and recompose is, right?

Seriously, the technical aspect of photography is not demanding. Operating the camera doesn't take a lot of skill. Techniques like tracking a target (which has to be done on mirrorless, too, anyway) can be done proficiently with a week of practice.
The vast majority of what goes into making a good photo has nothing to do with your physical technique or the camera's specs or capabilities, but rather things like composition, color, contrast, and other concepts that photography shares with painting.

There's a difference between:
>"I want to take photos in low light but my kit zoom is f/5.6 and ISO 25600 looks like shit"
>Buys a tripod and/or a wide aperture lens
>"Woah ISO 1600 in pitch black darkness? Awesome"
And:
>I better buy the most expensive shit available because that'll make me a better photographer
But I'm also not going to stand here and say to buy cheap chinesium shit if you actually have money and don't mind spending it. There's nothing wrong with buying something nice, and the great part is, photographic equipment holds its resale value rather well, so as long as you don't drop it in a river you can probably sell it for 80% of what you paid for it.

>>4432461
cool, I just got mine and I'm getting decent results

>>4432554
wong photo, that was a 7.1
this is 2.8

>>4432527
Do you really think focus and recompose is a good alternative to just having more AF points?

>>4432527
> You do know what focus and recompose is, right
You know what motion is right?

Why do you act like a little faggot expert when you cant get basic shit like this right?
Why do you keep ranting DURR GEAR WONT MAKE YOU BETTER STOP BUYING THINGS CONSUMER KEK?
Can you, the dumbass who forgot things move, please point us to the post that said "gear will make me better" not "i have better things to do than play games with a hipster larp machine/scamera" or “i just want the nicer one and im not poor"?

Or are you just a little money obsessed twat with zero self esteem? Why must you always opine?
>GUYS BUYING NICER CAMERAS WONT MAKE YOU BETTER
Who said it would? WHO? No one, you’re just an ugly autist who smelled out an opportunity to try and act superior for saving the allowance your mom gives you.

>>4432594
The worst thing is these idiots are universal. Their highest moral value is frugality. You cant even buy a watch without a money cultist showing up
>UHM A ROLEX DOESNT KEEP TIME BETTER THAN A CASIO AND IT WONT GET YOU LAID SKILL ISSUE HERES A LIST OF CELEBS RHAT WEAR GSHOCKS
Yes you are very smart and above it all, no fooling you, you know all the specs and know of all the skills, unfortunately you are not smart enough to imagine what its like to not be poor

>>4432596
poorfag here, this is correct for most poorfags I've encountered. sometimes the more expensive shit is worth it if you want to achieve certain things with any kind of ease or simplicity.
sure, I could go out and buy a cheap ass hand drill. OR I could save and buy an electric drill and get more than my money's worth out of the deal.
I had a tiny budget and went prosumer/semipro DSLR, but I don't dare sit there and say that it can compete with a higher end mirrorless in the field. with that said, glass is usually more important than the body and a lot of glass worth having is going to cost you simply due to demand, especially due to demand if buying second hand.

>>4432594
>>4432596
I use a $400 watch, not a big dollar watch, but a fair bit more expensive than a Casio. And no, it doesn't keep time any better. I got it because I wanted something nice, and I fully acknowledge it was a gratuitous purpose.
Again, my complaint isn't about having nice or expensive things. It's the idea that better gear -> better photography (which yes, many, many in this thread are trying to insist on. Look at all the shitting on DSLR's in the past few posts about how they're unserviceable. Earlier in the thread someone was literally arguing that better camera -> better pictures, and it's something I see come up a lot).

And yes, things move. It doesn't mean you can't recompose, it means you need to anticipate that movement and compensate through a variety of methods. It's a skill you learn in just a couple weeks of shooting with a DSLR.

(And I'm primarily a street photographer -- even on mirrorless cameras I use small, fixed AF areas and use focus and recompose techniques because cameras fucking suck at actually knowing intent -- the obvious thing to focus on isn't always what I actually want to focus on, and I don't have time to try to coerce the AF system to do what I want -- easier to point, recompose, point at other subject, recompose, to get various compositions and points of focus in a singular scene).

Do you really think non-center-framed compositions only became a thing with mirrorless cameras? They make it easier, yes, but it's hardly necessary.

The main niche where focus and recompose breaks down is in birds-in-flight or such. But even on mirrorless you still need to work to keep the bird framed, so DSLR or mirrorless you're going to end up cropping to fine tune composition regardless.

>>4432603
>>4432603
>better gear -> better photography
The only way to do a full length action shot with shallow DOF, without spamming the max FPS while jerking off the focus ring like MF film era wildlife photographers, or without cropping it to fucking death, is with more AF coverage than DSLRs can handle. So yes. This isn't a sports only thing, this is a pets and kids thing, it's a modeling thing, its a wedding thing. It applies to a lot, anything that can not understand the words 'hold still', can not be told them to catch a candid, or anything that is moving as a matter of fact when you want to capture that movement.
>better camera -> better pictures
No matter how you subjectively evaluate the artistic merit of a photo
1: You are far from an expert on art, and never will be an expert on art
2: Most photographs are not meant to please you anyways
3: Micro four thirds photos for example look like shit in many situations, such as "outside", no matter how much skill you have, and no one wants their photos to look like shit because all of those people already went to half frame film.
Even most smartphone sales are just for incremental camera improvements. People just don't like low quality photos regardless of content. deal w/ it.

>so DSLR or mirrorless you're going to end up cropping to fine tune composition regardless.
Oh, so you actually have the skill issue, not everyone else. Brilliant.

Why do you think you know so much when you clearly don't? Why should we listen to you? I'd rather listen to the german shepherd and husky fags than you. Post your street photography I wanna see your collection of underexposed necks (not that i'd ever take equipment advice from a lowly street photographer, your culture is never ever making art+trick shooting with leicas)

>>4432607
You really do think action shots didn't exist before mirrorless cameras, don't you?
How the fuck ever was photography done before?

>>4432609
Before autofocus cameras, telephoto action shots were done by spamming the shutter while turning the focusing ring, or trying to catch something as it moved through a pre-focused spot. It took a lot of film. Every professional camera was expected to accept a motor drive, at the least. No one used a "civilian" camera for action unless they had a wide angle lens and were standing far away.

Most DSLR fags stick to their central 30% AF coverage and crop. Hence ye olde D850/5DS worship despite no one actually needing 45mp, and then as soon as mirrorless came out everyone sane went from "the d850 is the greatest DSLR" to "the Z8 has too many pixels, 24mp is better in low light" (which made tony northrup and dpreview editors cope and ignore how bad colors get with high iso+small pixels because it was still heccin sharper at 300% zoom).

>>4431185 (OP)
short answer, "yes" with an "if." Long answer, "no" with a "but."

>>4432612
it's never a no. it's always a yes.

The no is always pretentious and stupid
>how dare you, a mere ENTHUSIAST, think you DESERVE! non-blurry edges at F4! know your place!
These people are fucking idiots
>you don't need that to make good art. afghan girl was shot on-
These people are huge fucking idiots too.

>>4432610
Going back to talking about manual focus film cameras lol... blatant strawman.
Someone who wants to save money or wants the DSLR experience (I personally prefer DSLRs as they force me to visualize my photos rather than WYSIWYG), would be just fine to get a late (~2014 or later) DSLR. Set it to burst shooting, use some dynamic AF mode, and you have to be fucking autistic to not get good photos from it.
And if you really like birds or sports, then yeah, get one that was marketed to be for those use cases (D500 is a great choice here, or D4 if you have a tighter budget).
>>4432613
We get it. You bought expensive gear and now you still suck. Stop projecting.

>>4432619
>We get it. You bought expensive gear and now you still suck. Stop projecting.
Not refuting the central point. You just went to assuming and insults because you got BTFO.

Adult men with jobs buy what they want because they want it. Not because they need it. Not because it will make them better at ____. Because they want it. An adult man with a job does not buy an autofocus camera because he can not manually focus. He buys it because he doesn't want to waste time being a camera geek, he'd rather spend his time and effort on actually taking the picture.

You are not an adult man and you do not have a job. You don't buy what you want because you want it. You buy what you think you "deserve" based on how much you think other people like you at the moment. And then you beg other people to like you and think you are a skilled and real photographer because you spend more time and effort on fucking with settings and more time editing. Congrats? You never posted a photo through any of this.

You are some horrible psychological blend of a lonely woman and a sycophant child. Possibly a neurosis developed due to extremely low self esteem (autism? virginity? gay furry?) and an even lower income, and your total inability to actualize any sort of self value outside of the framework of consumerism.

>>4432619
>but you could get good photos!
It's not about getting "good photos" for YOU to look at, or for anyone else to look at. It's about taking the photos I want to take, and I dont give a fuck if you even see them. And it's about taking the the way I want to take them. I take photos because I like taking photos.

I could get some good shots to show you with a fucking 0.3fps OM-1 with a 24 exp roll of kodak gold, a max shutter speed of 1/1000 and a dogshit soft lens, but it wouldn't be 1/100th of the photos I want to take, or the way I want to take them, so I do not give one single shit, cuck boy.

>>4432621
You just called people idiots. There was no fucking point to address there.
>>4432623
Cool. You take pictures you want to take in the way you want to take them.
My DSLR takes the pictures I want to take, in the way I want to take them.

>>4432628
But who did I call idiots?

People who think that you don't deserve nice things if you aren't a professional or popular artist. These people are idiots.
People who think that you shouldn't have nice gear because their favorite photo was taken on shitty gear. These people are also idiots.

>Cool. You take pictures you want to take in the way you want to take them.
>My DSLR takes the pictures I want to take, in the way I want to take them.
So all your moral grandstanding just melted right here. Your concession has been accepted. There is no reason for someone NOT to buy a nicer camera if they want one. Thank you for finally giving up on trying to get people to like you for saving $500 and spending more time adjusting camera settings.

>>4432629
My argument this entire time has been get an expensive camera if you want it, but it's not necessary to take good photos, lmfao.

>>4432630
Oh I see your cop out has been partially retracted
It's necessary to take the good photos I like in the way I like to take them. Not the good photos you like. I don't care if you only like zone focused wide angle street on film, I don't.

You can un-retract your cop out now.

>>4432630
>>4432631
You both sound like women having a hysterical bitch fit.

>>4432636
>Low IQ instantly seethes at high IQs having a discussion because too many words
Tale as old as time

>>4432527
This is the correct belief. You did miss the major one that /p/tards struggle with. Leaving your house and experiencing things worth photographing.

>>4432596
That Was a very round about way of saying that you WANT a new camera but don't NEED a new camera. I completely agree and that's okay. The new camera won't make your photos any better though. Learning/practice/reflection will though.

>>4432630
They are so contrarian they are trying to fight you for agreeing with them lol

>>4432674
>The new camera won't make your photos any better though
Actually, it will, because upgrading from crop sensor garbage to a real camera instantly improves color and contrast, the most important part of a photo.

Furthermore photography is not a real art. I am in the MoMA just because I ate out a jewish girl who turned out to be rich. It turns out I'm one of ten people who ended up in the MoMA and magnum because of this.

>>4432689
Your larp is kinda half-cooked.

>>4432705
So is the larp where you know what is good photography, how to improve as a photographer, and have ever taken a good photo

Mostly you seem eager to appear smart and better than literally anybody. People pick up on your attitude and how undeserved it is. You're an effortless troll, but not for a good reason. Do you think being something people find instinctively revolting is based?

>>4432689
Lol those meds are working overtime today

>>4432708
If your photos are good enough to be in the MOMA why don't you post an example anon. Doesn't have to be one you've published. I mean if you took it with an expensive camera that has "better colors and contrast" it must be a good photo right? You wouldn't lie about two things would you?

>>4431185 (OP)
lenses were not made of any better workmanship or quality than they are in the modern day anon it is the age of computers you know

the only thing they are ever used for is your dumb picture boxits not like you will ever make a living, warmth giving picture you fool

you think you can portray a guide to the soul

listen to this dafty

win dd ow
v i p e r

you monkeys get in the barrel and go to bed

goodnight

and other spooky tales from farside

>>4431185 (OP)
Is your gear adequate for what you want to do? That's all that matters.

Had a conversation on the topic with a musician friend a while ago and he said a very neat thing
>gear only determines your ceiling
If your images are shit, they will still be shit with expensive quipment. meanwhile great photographers can take great pictures on their phone, even if they are limited with the kind of stuff they can get.
Also specific types of gear can limit the kind of stuff you can do. If you want to take shots at night, you might need a lens with a certain aperture, if you want to take long exposure you need a tripod, if you want to shoot portraits you might need a lighting setup, etc

>>4434336
yeah, that's basically what I meant here >>4434327
gear is a TOOL, imagine a painter obsessing over his brushes and the quality of his acrylic color
sure, he needs the right colors and brushes but as long as they do the job there is no need to get more expensive versions of stuff he already got

>>4434346
In traditional art they sperg out over anatomy instead of gear.

>>4434336
People cant admit when a camera isnt suitable

Lets say you give me a fuji

I only shoot low light action with manly cameras that can take a beating. so i stop taking photos. Then some vapid back of head shooter says BUT U CAN STILL TAKE GREAT PHOTOS and posts a car, a dog, and the back of someones head as examples because this is bizarroworld and he’s not deeply ashamed of how bad those photos are yet.

>>4434336
Too bad people here think they need the absolute best in every situation possible
Any gear that is capable of getting shots they want, but just "good enough" to do so, is still terrible gear that no one should own ever
Having to put any effort or skill into using gear just means the gear is bad to begin with

>>4434379
Case in point >>4434378

>>4434336
I have a few family members that are kinda known in a textile related field, but it's the same thing. Geeking out over sewing machines, fabrics, dyes, threads, scissors, etc. Everyone that's ins hobby long enough will develop favorites, but they have a solid enough foundation to be able to use whatever if needed

>>4434378
>I only shoot low light action with manly cameras that can take a beatin
That sounds awesome, would love to see some examples

>>4434379
Salty fuji fanboy. Sorry you paid $1699 for something less capable than an $800 sony a7iii lmao.
>GEARFAG! t. spent twice as much on garbage

>>4434382
Shant be casting pearls before fujifags

>>4434387
An $800 sony a7iii? Fuji cameras are less capable photographywise than a $400 DSLR. All they do is video, with extra focus hunting.

>actually you just hate effort and skill durrr
>*pays another $900 for a blurry lens*

>>4434387
>Why no, I do not take any photos

>>4434389
Shant be castings pearls before fujifags

I saw how fujifags clamored to dox the other people who werent afraid to tell the truth. Poor cinefag and cANON.
"Fujifilm’s best is no better than a micro four thirds camera from 2016" - the truth they cant handle.

>>4434392
>Correct, I do not own a camera or take photos

>>4434393
>nooo let me dox u because you insulted fuji
Not falling for it

>>4434396
>Photographers never take any images ever that are undoxable
lol I've posted dozens of actually doxable images here and nothings ever happened
It's okay to admit you don't have a camera yet, no shame in that

>>4434397
I just dont cast pearls before delusional fujifags. Sorry!

I have the utmost respect for people who use FF DSLRs, because they have skill, but fujifags just have cope.

>>4434399
You mean you dont take photos or own a camera
You're the only one bringing up Fuji btw

just ignore the retard who makes this about brands again

>>4434402
It is about brands. Canon and sony make good cameras. Everyone else charges thousands for third place and worse.

You can not go wrong buying a canon or a sony. Even if you buy an old DSLR it’ll beat the shit out of something like a nikon z6 or any panasonic for photography. Or course, using a DSLR would take skill instead of just cope.

>>4434404
Which models do you use?

>>4434405
Your mother is my favorite nude model to work with. Why do you ask?

>>4434407
Ah super near! Tell her I say hi! Which camera bodies do you use? Sorry for my poor communication

>>4434408
The one I have with me

>>4434410
this anon is talking about his phone

>>4434410
So none?

>>4434346
>>4434379
>>4434381
Also what >>4431196 said, asking if gear matters is such a broad question there really isn't an answer that doesn't narrow down the question. If you want to shoot in a certain way and only certain gear allows you to do that, than obviously gear is going to matter. And I assume some quality of life features of more expensive gear will always be nice no matter your skill level.
If you want to push the question ad absurdum you could say that good gear makes you take good pictures, because I assume if I gave someone who knows nothing about photography a semi-modern DSLR and an analogue camera from the 60s I can make a pretty good guess on which they'd take better pictures.

>>4434404
>>4434399
>>4434387
The bait that always works. The camera market is full of absolute scams like the x100vi where companies expect apple-like clout to support absurdly inflated values tacked on to absurdly non-competitive products. Photographers are stereotypically stupid and will buy anything their favorite brand fishes out of its anus, and then pretend they're baller for buying an actual downgrade from a canon 5div and putting up with a defective tech feature like autofocus that is liable to miss even if working in single point or overheating in stills mode.
>just turn it off in keep it in the shade skill issue. no the weather sealing is fine skill issue just stop getting it too wet. the battery is not worse you just lack the skill to carry 3 extra batteries. the autofocus is not bad i can take pictures of my dog panting just fine. -people actually say things like this

>>4434415
You always have your eyes on you brother.

>>4434471
Other day I was taking a taxi and the driver had some weird "smart glasses". He'd tap them to take a phone call for example. I wonder if they take photos as well like the infamous Google Glass.

>>4434422
I bought a used x100f back in the day to see what the hype was about, but the autofocus was laughably unacceptably bad for something so expensive. Basically only hit the first time in perfect conditions. And the motor sounded like it was grinding itself to death, which apparently is just how it is and even the newer ones still do. It wasn’t a terrible camera in a vacuum, and I actually thought the hybrid optical finder was kind of neat, but yeah for the price it’s crazy. Sold it for a profit lol.

>>4434476
Those are still a grand said and done on ebay

Photographers are idiots. Could take better photos with a $50 canonet.

>>4434472
Yes. There are hidden camera glasses that pranksters and social experimenters use to film their videos. No visible camera produces a more candid response from their unwitting test subjects.

You could ask an ai to analyze the video output and capture important 10/10 photographs as you walk around the world. The new revolution of street photography aka distilled 24/7 video surveillance will rock the new york art scene in the next few years. Just you wait.

>>4434378
Lol you are bad

>>4434500
Fujifags honestly think their cameras aren't bad, they are
>Uh no the autofocus isnt bad IM bad
>i just need to cope with this $1699 camera
>it missed despite the box turning green, in single point af-s? my fault for lacking skill. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A BAD CAMERA!!!!!!! i'm going to develop skill and double check in manual focus, yeah!
>I SHOOT MANUAL IM A REEL FUTOGREFER
And no one cared for it was an album of street signs and backs of heads

>>4434502
Too bad you don't take any pictures

>>4434502
I've never owned a fuji unless you count my girlfriend's instax. I use [INSERT BRAND] and I shoot professional wildlife/deep space astro/weddings/street/colonoscopies and I can only do that because I bought [INSERT BRAND]. That's just not possible with [INSERT THREAD FAVORITE BRAND].

>>4434518
What a worthwhile comment for the board

>>4434502
>bought a fuji xt2 because it was cool looking and right in my price range
>just werks (for me)
Having used both significantly better and worse cameras, i cant really say im left wanting all that much.

I'm not skilled enough to deserve the fancy expensive shit

>>4439986
that's right. know your place.