Thread 4432398

Acclaimed filmmaker and photographer David Lynch used a Canon 5Diii with kit lens, and you think you need more?

Pic related, his 5D.

>>4432398 (OP)
>and you think you need more?
lol back when canon could only spot meter at the center
but no, i dont need more, more is nice, but id be content with that if i had to

I don't get why people suck off lynch all his movies are fucking terrible

I should note he also had a pair of Sony A7s (A7r and A7s)

>>4432398 (OP)
No. The 24-105 f4 type lenses are really good, comparable to most primes, on every manufacturers system but early sony mirrorless and the only reason not to use them is if it's specialized work (telephoto/macro/UWA) or because a prime lens is significantly smaller for travel, or significantly faster and there is a dimly lit room and bokeh-addicted client in your future.

A 24-105 f4/24-120 f4/20-70 f4 easily covers most hiking, studio, outdoor portrait, and daylight event photography needs and is usually the only lens hobbyists use for camping snaps, short hikes, family portraits, pet snaps, etc other than a small prime for long and less photo-centric trips.

>>4432398 (OP)
That's not really a "kit lens" that's L glass it's pretty good and expensive

>>4432413
It was a "kit lens" when they were selling 5Ds new in bundles. That's why they're one of the cheapest L lenses you can buy used.

>>4432413
No man, they're kit zooms. F4 zooms are usually kit lenses for high end full frame cameras. The Z7II is sold with a 24-120 f4, the R5 is sold with a 24-105 F4 kit, and the a7RV is extravagantly sold with the 20-70 f4 and 70-200 f4 as a kit. The EF 24-105 f4 L was sold in a kit with the 5d series cameras and it's been the single most used lens in history ever since.

>>4432406
but i was told by /p/ these were bad

>>4432398 (OP)
What movies did he make on that piece of junk?
Inland Empire?
Because it shows

>>4432403
Stupid or just contrarian?

>>4432425
/p/ was correct
>but muh David lynch…
Solidifies the correct-ness.

>>4432414
>>4432415
kit lens usually means it sucks. This is a good lens

He also used a Leica
https://www.juliensauctions.com/en/items/1426547/david-lynch-leica-r6-2-camera-with-halliburton-carrying-case

>>4432450
nikon made some really good 18-55 VRs and canons current aps-c kit lenses are actually good
the sony 28-60 kit lens is pretty good
the nikon 24-50 and the 24-70 f4 as well

I use an RP with the rf version of this lens so I guess so

>>4432425
they are bad but when they came out, they were the only mirrorless not hobbled by being xtrans or quarter frame so you bought a color checker, shot raw, put a scrunchie over the lens mount, avoided rain, and made do.

>>4432486
too bad David Lynch couldn't afford anything newer to use, sad he had to struggle through with using such a terrible camera

>>4432487
boomers have a depression era protestant mindset and are allergic to buying anything

by the time it and they are nearly dead a boomer will insist his all original a7r is
>showroom clean, a future classic, and that tire kickers are not welcome… this is a stellar camera and more than any working tog needs… email only ask for dave
Price? $2000.

>>4432487
This nigger right here would defend driving a 1992 honda civic as if buying a bmw 3 series is an unachievable feat and you need to win a gokart rally before you can handle more than 100hp

>>4432491
Depression era protestant mindset. Yknow.
>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-

>>4432485
Is the RP a decent full-frame mirrorless body or is it worth spending more for an R8?

>>4432493
they are both artificially crippled to make you want to buy an r6ii, which you better be able to afford because rf disallows third party lenses and adapting ef is front heavy as fuck

nikon, sony, and fuji make cameras for normal people. canon makes cameras for pretending to be an official NFL photographer with and telling other people about your cameras max fps

>>4432495
I guess I'll stick with my Canon 5Diii and EF lens collection for now then, thanks!

>>4432398 (OP)
well... not anymore

>>4432493
If I had them both I'd tell you but I don't

>>4432501
I like the rp tho

>>4432503
I bought an R8 and found it to be wholly underwhelming. Returned that shit rather fast.
Notable issues included build quality, overheating, and a shutter that sounded like a wet rag being tossed around a washing machine.
I haven't tried an RP, but I don't think it has the overheating issues. It also has a limited DR compared to other FF cameras, and some funky software limitations that were "solved" by the R8, so in some ways it's a downgrade but that's reflected in the fact they still sell it and for 60% the cost of an R8.

Now, that being said, some anons here have an RP and they love it. It's a cheap way to get into full-frame cameras and as long as you keep a couple spare batteries around you should be solid.
If the choice was between APS-C and an RP, I'd say get the RP any day of the week. You can get a used RP for $800-900 AUD on ebay and I spent that much on my R50; I'd go back and get the RP if I knew better at the time.

>>4432398 (OP)
I do, his photography sucked

>>4432499
He did say "used", anon

>>4432406
what's so surprising about him using snoy? it matches his visual style with blurry, unsharp and muddy images

>>4432534
I got mine with the f4 kit lens for under 1300 muricas so it's been worth it to me

>>4432534
While that's pretty bad, it's not as bad as the R5II having unusable firmware on launch and turning out to be a FF sized APS-C camera once it was fixed.

If the R5II is totally the best pro camera ever, and it has the DR (actually more visible noise) of an RP, or a lumix G9II, just with forced NR in raws in an attempt to boost the dxo score... the RP is fine!
>cannot pos r

>>4432556
KEK

>>4432434
His version of dune sucked on ice

>>4432698
Filtered.

Lynch sucks

lynch is vastly overrated and it's hilarious that he's credited as the father figure of unconvential cinema by plebians

>>4432398 (OP)
>jewclaimed
>jewshit
>shitshit
wow

Lol the full frame gearfags on this board would be to autistic to enjoy a David Lynch movie. Truly sad they will devote so much time but be so limited in their vision. Glad to see David Lynch could make good photos and movies with any cameras. Glad to know gear doesn't matter as much as we think it does.

but muh crop

>>4432398 (OP)
>muh kit lens
>pic related, his 5d
>24-105mm f/4L IS USM
But that's a thousand dollar L-lens

>>4433329
Buying a $2000 camera body and a $1000 lens is not exactly far fetched. Anyone buying full frame cameras should honestly opt for a good first lens otherwise you're kind of just fucking around.
Nobody is buying the mark I version new. You buy it used for $350, and it's not even that good honestly.
IIRC the only other kit lens for the 5DIII was the 50mm f/1.8 of the time. I think maybe later units sold with the EF 24-105 f/3.5-5.6 STM, which is only $300 less.

>>4433329
That's still a kit lens, just a good one. Hardly anyone pats full price for one either because they are so often heavily discounted when part of a kit, which also puts pressure on used prices to be even lower

>>4432491
>you need to win a gokart rally before you can handle more than 100hp
This is mostly true.

>>4433380
again, lets not pretend that people mean good lenses when calling out "kit lens", it's a derogatory catch all of the shitty kit zooms that were so prevalent. this place is so damn autistic someitmes like, it's obvious to anyone else. its like if i said that car is a shitbox and you turn around and say "well it's actually not a box and there's no shit"

>>4433382
if you are a professional racer and only using vehicle for professional racing. on 4chan everyone would claim to be one and its all vehicles are for.

>>4433383
Nah, I worked at camera shops for just under a decade and that's how everyone, vendors and pros alike, refered to them
Kit lenses can be good, that's what you're missing and what others understand, if you only see it as a deragerory that's on you

>>4433356
>Buying a $2000 camera body and a $1000 lens is not exactly far fetched.
But OP made an accent on a kit lens, this reveals that Lynch's kit was top notch for its time. Moreover, he spent well over 10k on gear show in the thread
>Used price
Do you seriously think he bought it used?
>>4433401
>IRL kit lenses are sometimes good
But we are talking over Internet, here kit lens means shit lens

>>4433412
>internet gearfags are wrong
wow really?

these people claim micro four thirds is just as good as full frame, pentax lenses from the 1950s render 3d images, and panasonic is better than sony. why would they be right about kit lenses?

>>4433412
>But OP made an accent on a kit lens, this reveals that Lynch's kit was top notch for its time. Moreover, he spent well over 10k on gear show in the thread
Yeah the way OP said it is disingenious. It's a kit lens in saying that it is sold with the body, but a constant aperture zoom L-tier is a bit different from anon's 18-55mm on his cope sensor.
I agree with you.
>Do you seriously think he bought it used?
Not at all. But I wanted to mention that if anyone was going to start comparing price:quality in the thread.

I think the line between kit lens and shit lens might be blurring a bit these days. The shitty small RF-S 18-45mm was the last "kit lens" I used and it was garbo. But I rented the RF 24-105 f/4 USM not long ago and it was sold in a kit with the EOS R and the RP.

https://petapixel.com/2023/12/30/best-kit-lenses-of-all-time-my-five-favorites/
>24-105 f4 L

>>4433419
>the line between kit lens and shit lens might be blurring
Kit lens meaning shit lens hasn't applied outside of sony and FF nikon in almost 20 fucking years.

>>4432556
lmao

>>4432398 (OP)
>you think you need more
I'm good with my Canon EOS 2000D I got for my birthday ages ago. Most of the gear I'm stocking up at the moment is lighting equipment and shit like that.

>>4432492
Reminder that their types suggested a communist revolution over allowing alcohol to be re-legalized

>>4432469
All of the fuji kit lenses are decent, even the cheap power zoom 15-45.

>>4432398 (OP)
Bidding for this kit is currently at $2,500, is this a good deal?

Pic related you coulda shot this on almost anything I reckon.
Is his photography even good or is it like his painting where people just pay a little bit of attention to it as a curiosity because of his fame?

>>4432398 (OP)
Okay. But where is his photography?

>>4436435
>>4436438
I read through his book "The Factory Photographs" before, it was pretty interesting to me but I like urban exploration and photos of industrial decay so it appealed to me on that level at least. Not very technically sophisticated but the subject matter and some of the compositions are compelling.

https://photobite.uk/features/photography-david-lynch-interview/
This page has images from that factory book.

>>4436449
>but I like urban exploration and photos of industrial decay
Any recommendations?

>>4436450
Are you asking for photobook recommendations?

David Lynch's "The Factory Photographs"

>>4432406
It's funny how they think the vertical step gives them license to fatten the bodies up to the point of a DSLR.

>>4436862
vertical step?

>>4433412
>here kit lens means shit lens
If you mean "shit lens" then say shit lens.
These semantics are as retarded as calling a nation a third-world country when you mean to say shit-hole country, given that the third-world also includes Switzerland.

>>4436865
The rear of the cameras; the part where the menu and C3 buttons are.
If you cleaved that off, you'd have the form factor of the original A7 series.
Sony's apparently quite proud of the originals and has been hesitant to deviate from them ever since.
First, the back end went in exchange for better thermals, then, the grip was redesigned for better ergonomics.
It won't be long until the top plate is replaced and the entire camera becomes indistinguishable from the DSLRs it tried to differentiate itself from.

>>4436927
That extra bulk holds heat sinks to make video fags stop crying
>I JUST WANTED TO FILM FOR 2 HOURS STRAIGHT IN 4k60 AND MY CAMERA GOT TOO HOT
Boot videofags from stills cameras and put autofocus on proper video bodies instead of continuing with the pretentious "REAL videography is MANUAL! FOCUS! ONLY!" shit the cinecam industry has been crippling itself with, and MILCs can be small again.

Instead, panasnoy and canikon are putting fucking cooling fans in stills bodies making them even larger, and putting stupid low DR sensors in to improve rolling shutter for video cucks (Z6III, Z8, R6II, R5 = 1st few ISO settings have APS-C DR. R5II, A9II, A1/II = literally every setting has APS-C DR. A9III = literally fucking micro four thirds.).

>>4436932
>and MILCs can be small again
That's why the C line of the A7 series will be the future for Sony still photography.
Everything else will be further morphed into a lower tier of the FX line.
They'll probably kill the R variants due to the cost of developing a sensor exclusively for 1-2 models.

>canikon are putting fucking cooling fans in stills bodies making them even larger
The cooling grip of the R5 MkII is interesting.
I don't know how well it works though; if it does, it could provide a solution for the size issue, at least.

>>4432398 (OP)
https://www.juliensauctions.com/en/items/1426217/david-lynch-canon-5d-camera-with-carrying-case
OP camera and lens ended up selling for $6,500 btw

>>4432398 (OP)
youre not david lynch, you NEED more equipment to be on par

>>4432398 (OP)
5diii+24-105 f4 l ~= e-m5ii + 12-40 f2.8 pro

>>4432556
You're thinking of Nikon, dumbass. Sony is the colors meme and Nikon is the sharpness meme.

>>4436449
>Not very technically sophisticated but the subject matter and some of the compositions are compelling
That's what matters though. Gearfags just obsess over the gear and getting things right at the technical level, and that just stifles creativity.

>>4438228
Sony has the best colors and sharpness

>>4438234
how much does snoy pay you
a $20,000 snoy camera is worse than a $200 canon or fuji

>>4438235
NTA but Sony is known for the sharpness and autofocus; it's probably the one thing you actually can't criticize them for.

>>4438235
Sony is #1 in FF market share and the most common brand among high end fashion photographers other than fuji gfx, hasselblad, and phase one. Canon is #1 in small sensor dad cameras.

>>4438235
>hyperbole

>>4438238
>facts
Sony wins

>>4438238
>Canon is #1 in small sensor dad cameras.
It pisses me off that Canon don't allow third party lenses on their full frames.

>>4438240
If they did nobody would buy Canon lenses since their full frame lenses have lower quality than Chinese lenses

>>4438240
They did, and samyang of all makes made the sharpest UWA prime to ever attach to a canon camera. So they stopped.

>>4438238
This is true. Ever since the a7iii came out they've been dominating the market. Nikon finally caught back up to the a7iii and canon is starting to drop down to aps-c dynamic range and is experiencing worsening quality issues lol.

>>4438238
>>4438241
>>4438242
>>4438249
The Chinese will start producing mirrorless with global shutters by 2032 and Japan will be locked out of the market, Japan will also economically collapse soon after and China will help them in exchange for Japan becoming Maoist Third Worldist and Sony, Canon, Fuji will all be disbanded.

>>4438252
Implessive fantasy

>>4438252
>two more weeks

>>4438242
Really? Samyang? That's brutal, especially considering how god awful their autofocus can be.

>>4438256
It's impossible to make a budget priced lens with good autofocus, who even buys samayang af lenses?

>>4438257
No idea. I've just been put off by them period since they seem far too cheap to be good. If the sharpness is impressive though, I might consider one as a good manual focus prime considering the prices.

>>4438258
>since they seem far too cheap to be good
more like they're normally priced and big name lenses are 30-40% higher than they should be due to marketing and profit margin greed

>>4438259
To be fair though, Tamron has some pretty decent sharpness and autofocus.

>>4438228
>nikon
>blurry
jej
t. D850 user

>>4438327
Nikon is notorious for mirror vibrations and excessively strong aa filters on most of their cameras and shit lenses for everything that isnt a super pro bird rapist bazooma

>>4432398 (OP)
I have this camera and I hate it

>>4438724
why

>>4438735
Not him but it's super fucking annoying to use CF express in 2025
Every single camera uses some form of storage compatible with SD format

>>4438740
in what way? I started using a cf card in an older camera it's like the same shit

>>4438252
>>4438253

>>4438740
Only the 1DX MkIII uses CFexpress.

>>4438740
The 5Diii has an SD card slot though. Are you confusing this with the 5D classic?

>>4432556
Put me in the screenshot

>>4433329
That lens is like half that price in every listing on eBay. Only morons buy used from Amazon listings.

>>4432556
But his visual style is notoriously sharp and gritty, same as Anton Corbjin, and Sony is most known for sharpness above all else.

>>4432493
It depends of the use case. They take the same pictures, but it's easier on the R8.

>>4438724
>>4438740
If you had one, you'd know that they take SD cards in addition to CF (not CF express, which is different) retard.

>>4432493
id save more money instead of buying a cripple hammered canon 6dii

the 6dii is still as expensive as it used to be half a decade ago just because people want the rp with a bigger battery and an OVF fallback more than they want the rp. it's an actual mirrorless scamera. canon and nikons earliest mirrorless were not strictly better than their DSLRs, unlike sony, who had even worse "DSLRs" than their worst, oldest mirrorless.

I feel like this statement is kind of ridiculous. Like I think to claim "Oh you don't need better equipment" or vice versa "Oh you need better equipment" is irrelevant to all creative discussions of improving your art.

Because Inherently the issue is "Do I need better equipment to get closer to my creative direction?"

It's very easy to confuse inability to align your creative direction with your output as failure with equipment. But you shouldn't let something like "Oh x person used this type of camera and they didn't complain!" stop you from getting equipment that will bring you closer to your goal. For example if your goal is to take portraits of people that are so detailed it feels as though you are physically looking at the person and not the photograph... then it is possible you DO need equipment to help you reach that goal. If you can take a step back look at your art and say "I can probably get to my creative goal with what I have" then you probably don't need new equipment. If you feel that you can't reach that creative goal without certain equipment, then you may need a new equipment. its shrimple as.

>>4453704
i need new equipment not because of any material reason but because i simply enjoy using newer equipment more

>>4432406
canonsisters is this true

>>4453704
>you from getting equipment that will bring you closer to your goal
But all too often people just focus on the gear and ignore other things can also bring them closer to their goal

>>4453863
any excuse to get rid of junk like fuji/sony/m43/canon is a good excuse

>>4453864
PhaseOne FFMF shill detected

>>4453864
Dont forget panasonic. Absolute garbage, those.

>>4453868
This but unironically. Worst cameras on earth. The only arguments for using them are irrelevant tech specs no one notices

They’re basically video snoy
>but… megapixels

>>4453864
This.

Maybe you don't need more, but using fuji/sony/panasonic/olympus is fucking misery. If you don't sell your camera and upgrade to something well made soon you're going to be throwing your camera away and upgrading later when it inevitably breaks.