>SQTDDTOT thread

Because I didn't see one and am an endless fountain of dumbshit questions.

Because I'm poor, I have to use an old phone and camera attachment as my regular use camera. But I can't use it on a tripod because the holder blocks half my screen.

Are there any good screen viewer or remote shutter apps for Android that aren't littered with ads?

Right now I have to use TeamViewer, which requires me to hotspot this phone for my camera phone, and manually authenticate the connection every single time, and which closes after five minutes.

>>4435079 (OP)
Maybe I am being a little tardo right now, but why can't you use your phone holder the other way round?

>>4435080
Look at the left pic. The lens is in the way.

>>4435082
Oh duh. Could you glue a cheap arca style tripod mount to a phone case?

>>4435104
Probably if I wanted to, yeah.

But because that camera comes off and other things can go on, a phone case isn't an option.

If the fucking engineers would have just put a threaded mount on the bottom of the camera, it would be fucking great. Then I wouldn't have to worry about some chincy holder losing hold of my phone and dropping it. The fucking thing is already on its last leg. I got it back in like 2019 and it's definitely showing its age.

>>4435106
Tough. Not much you could do for not too much money I suppose. 3d printed thingy, resin/plastic molded thingy, paper mache thingy. Idk.

Kinda shitty looking phone for phone use, but its cool it has an actual camera on the back.

>>4435108
You can attach different shit to it to make it do different things. I have a battery mod and two cameras that I can use with it. The white one is 360°.

I'm looking at taking pics of the milky way on my next mountain hike. I have two questions.

1) 500 rule is depreciated for digital cameras, 200 rule kinda werks, the NFP rule is supposedly the best. NFP asks for the focal length (obviously), the sensor pixel pitch (neat), the aperture (??? but surely the math guys behind the rule know better than me). Let's say a 24mm f1.8 gives me 8.5s of exposure for very slight star trails with the NFP formula. Now, let's say I'll stop down a bit for less coma and shit, and go with f2.8. The formula then gives me 10s of exposure for the same very slight star trails.
Why would the aperture change anything? If I have a 24mm at hand, be it at f1.8 or f11, the exposure time has to be the same for accurate stars. Heck, putting f11 in the calculator gives me 21sec of exposure. It doesn't make sense.
2) Regarding stacking pictures, and considering my camera is ISO-invariant (dual gain starts a ISO 400), am I better off taking, say, 15 pics for 8.5s at ISO 400 (for max dynamic range with less noise), or 15 pics or 8.5s at ISO 1600 or 3200?
One of the point of stacking, is to have the stacking software remove noise between the 15 pics, as it compares them and knows what to remove and what to keep. If so, might as well shoot at higher ISO, no? But then again, I'd get less dynamic range, I suppose.

>>4435372
>Why would the aperture change anything?
optics (circle of confusion)
looks to me like the NPF rule assumes ideal lenses, where smaller aperture directly relates to images softness because diffraction
so smaller aperture = blurrier stars = less noticeable trails
or maybe it assumes you're using a reflecting telescope instead of a refracting lens idk
>ISO-invariant
>dual gain
assuming you mean dual native ISO, sure it might be ISO-invariant within each range, but the whole point of dual ISO is to not be ISO-invariant (in a positive way)
that said, assuming the 400+ range on your camera is fully ISO-invariant, effective dynamic range doesn't change until you start clipping
so assuming none of the stars clip, 400/1600/3200 all have the same SNR (will all give you the same amount of noise after adjusting exposure in post)
that's for a single photo, since you're stacking you may gain a slight SNR advantage with higher ISO, theoretically, because you're clipping less to black on the bottom end
again assumes the unstacked images aren't clipped and you average stack

>>4435382
>because you're clipping less to black on the bottom end
sorry meant losing info to quantization, because small finite-precision digital numbers
anyways basically everything I said assumes your camera is actually nearly ISO-invariant
remember ISO invariance is a continuum not a yes/no feature, and higher invariance isn't really a feature in demand for regular photography bodies

How do I know if I'm using the wrong lens, I got the wrong camera, or if it's simply a skill issue?

>>4435079 (OP)
why don't you just flip the tripod around and just have it be off center

>>4435397
The first step is figuring out what your actual problem is

>>4435397
what kind of photos are you taking?

>>4435397
>wrong lens
Unwanted perspective distortion
Aperture setting you use a lot looks shitty
Unwanted aberrations (ie: neon green bokeh)
>Wrong camera
Autofocus doesnt keep up with what you shoot
Build quality can't withstand your lifestyle
It's uncomfortable and annoying to use
>Skill issue
You're in auto mode, shooting jpeg, and every photo is dark and noisy and even though you bought the newest snoy every photo is still blurry.

>>4435399
There's literally no other way for me to have my phone in the holder with the camera mod on. It adds a lot of thickness to the phone, and if I try putting it up with the screen out so I can use it, it won't stay in the holder.

>>4435422
you can use team viewer if you have a second phone from what I see. Besides that I don't know what to tell you. Rig something up with duct tape. That is simply the poor mans life. Save up for a sony a100. It has a cool ccd

>>4435382
>>4435383
Thanks anon

>>4435424
I was using TeamViewer. I had to hotspot my main phone, connect my second phone to that, start the TeamViewer connection on my main phone, manually allow it every single time on my second phone, at which point a message would come up on my main phone saying it detected it as a commercial use, so it was limited to five minutes before disconnecting.

>>4435447
a digishit with a sensor and lens roughly the same as your phone would probably cost less than any real solution to this problem

>>4435469
>any real solution to this problem
the real solution is to use gear that does what you want it to

Was Tony born gray?

from the shot distance and width, what focal length would you think this is

>>4435583
>use gear that does what you want it to do
>help, my gear has 1/3rd of the lcd blocked due to poor design
Well unless anon wants to just fucking deal with it, it looks like my original point has merit.

>>4435806
Probably 35mm. Classic for film. Very little foreground or background blur. No background compression

i need a good ef lens that's sharp for 300 (used)
kind of looking at the zeiss planar 50 zf... the milvus looks lovely but its a bit over my budget

ok retard, use an otg cable, hook up a mouse and use whatsapp or google call or however is called, then screenshare with a second phone
>but muhh whatsapp is for turdworlders
get fucked then

Being a complete retard, is it worth buying this course on Udemy? (or any other for that matter)

https://www.udemy.com/course/photography-masterclass-complete-guide-to-photography

I'm looking for a way to hammer into myself some concrete knowledge (like, "I'm shooting my girlfriend walking down the street so I should to set this aperture and this shutter speed" as opposed to "more le aperture less le DoF"), because on the spot I just get confused and switch to P.

>>4435951
can find that free on youtube but you gotta wade through a lot of shit desu. look for old videos with a chink that can barely speak english and a model that looks like she would rather be anywhere else, that formula is usually pretty good. or just watch everything by markuspix and his hag wife lmao. he's based he's just a rich gearfag like all of us.

>>4435827
You'll be fine with the Zeiss. Isn't that body like 6mp anyway?
>>4435951
> "I'm shooting my girlfriend walking down the street so I should to set this aperture and this shutter speed"
You will end up having to memorize 1000 sets of settings and you will be totally inflexible when a new situation is presented to you.
You should ask yourself what you're trying to accomplish and use the appropriate settings

>>4435079 (OP)
is this good to learn on? my dad got one of these back when they first released but hasn't used it since. trying to save up for a good first camera though (eyeing either the GRIII or the IV when it drops) but in the meantime how much could i learn with this alone?

>>4435964
forgot picrel whoops

>>4435964
You could learn just as much, if not more on a modern phone.
Those are 10 years old from the absolute lowest tier meant for senior citizens that don't have a cell phone or actual children that also don't have a cell phone.

>>4435951
>$100+tax to learn exposure triangle and rule of thirds
>54 sections • 666 lectures • 76h 6m total length

yeah just watch a couple of Simon D'entremont videos and practice. You'll be hobby level in two days and you'll be wedding level in a month

I guess there's also the "I just spent $100 so i NEED to finish this" aspect going on if youre a procrastinator or something.

>>4435964
I don't agree with the other guy. Just use it. It's free and it will get you into the habit of using a real camera and exporting raws. If you like point and shoots it's just fine to start on

>>4435958
its film not digi
honestly there’s no use for those fully mechanical film bodies bar the feeling. these 10 euro canon bodies from 2003 are better in every single way

>>4435951
>girlfriend down the street
Sunny?
Aperture mode, auto ISO at 400, F5.6
Evening/dark?
Manual mode, auto ISO at 400, largest possible aperture, lowest shutter speed you are comfortable with (around 200-250 for moving people if you don't want motion blur).
The ISO default being 400 in these examples is just because I literally don't see the ISO noise at 400 (D800), so I might as well treat it as the base ISO and get higher shutter speeds in A mode (goes to 8000 on D800, so I'm not scared of over-exposure).

what would y'all use to find the correct exposure settings for Ektachrome 100? I only have a phone and could use it but am debating on whether or not to get a proper light meter

>>4436080
Oh, and auto ISO goes down as well, so it can still compensate for too beight scenes by going to 100 automatically.
The other thing you should consider is exposure priority. Depends on wether or not your gf is in the dark or not, and if there are other bright light sources behind her.
If she's in the dark and you don't care about clipping highlights behind her, you can switch to point. If not, just stick to full matrix.

>>4436086
Get any film camera from the 90's.

>>4436095
I have one from the 70's. it's a Canon FTb QL. But the light meter doesn't work. I've been waiting to get it sent in for repair but unfortunately that hasn't happened yet

>>4436098
Again, just get any film camera from the 90's. An F65 will set you back 20 usd. An F80 can be had for maybe 50.

>>4436100
Really? Didn't know I could get a camera that cheap. I'll look into it then.

>>4436046
It's 20 Euro plus tip here. Does it show $100 for Americans?

>>4436080
>>4436092
See, you have this stuff in your head and I don't.

Meanwhile I came across the "Understanding Exposure" book, which seems to be talking about this stuff, so I'll try to read that one for now, before paying Udemy.

Just bought an X-T3, completely new to photography but I'm picking it up as a hobby because I travel a lot, and I just landed a job at Fujifilm.

I want to do street photography so I want to keep it compact. I bought 27mm but I have budget for 1 more, what should I pick up?

>>4435806
what even is this

Should I get a condom for my on camera flash?

If I'm trying to take a picture like this, which of these settings should I fuck with to make it not come out like shit?

Using auto/landscape usually makes it come out dark because of the sky.

>>4436180
If you leave shit on Auto you can normally just use exposure compensation which is the bottom-most icon with the square -/+. If your sky is overexposed you want to dial it towards negative. The real answer for a phone to make this shot come out as good as possible is: use a tripod, keep ISO at 100, and use as long a shutter speed as needed to get good exposure.
Unfortunately even real camera struggle with this kind of shot unless you're using a specific kind of filter (GND) because skies are normally very bright and camera sensors only have so much dynamic range. Fortunately, they sell clip-on filters for phones that you could use if you wanted a real solution.

>>4436127
Is Fuji's employee discount still 40-50% off?
Just use the 27mm lots and pay attention to what you feel like you're missing out on.
>I wish I had a longer lens for this bird
>I wish I had a more convenient lens I could zoom with
>I wish I had something much wider
>I wish I could have something much faster
Only you'll know what you need

I like to hike and backpack pretty frequently, while I'm out there I like to take pics with my phone, but I'd like to get something a little better, especially on overcast days/mix lighting conditions from tree canopy.
Are there any decent cameras around $300 for this? Preferably with a bit of zoom if possible. It can be extremely basic, just something I'm throwing in my ruck pack and taking out at occasional scenic views.

>>4436121
There's plenty of free photography info on YouTube don't buy any online courses it's not worth it

>>4436120
100 muricas to outright purchase but it seems you can sub to the site for 20 muricas and get that and more with monthly payment

>>4436200
So low iso, long exposure time, low EV?

As for the clip on filters, I don't know that those would be compatible with my phone. If you look at the OP pic, you'll seehow the camera is set up on it. It's not in the corner like normal, but in the middle.

is sensor dust more or less visible with a higher resolution vs lower (like 45 vs 24mp) or does it not matter

>>4436245
Lol I can't buy shit. Everything is in back order.

>>4436258
get a nikon d300 with a 50mm prime

>>4436334
doesn't matter. The dust takes up whatever physical space that it does
>>4436173
yes

>>4436333
>ISO
To keep it simple, it's best you keep that at the lowest it can go. Exceptions exist and it can get nuanced, but lower is better. Higher ISO introduces noise and less dynamic range.
>Exposure time
If you're not trying to stop motion (like people walking around, a bird flying past etc.) then you can push that as long as you need to get the correct brightness (exposure) in a shot. Problem is you can't handhold very long without hand shake fucking things up, ergo why a tripod is recommended. You plop it down, keep it still and let it gather light for as long as it needs. If you can't get exposure correct from this, you need to raise your ISO.
>EV
Is just Exposure Value. It's not a "direct" setting per se, but something the camera uses to adjust other things to your liking. Most cameras will vary the ISO or Shutter Speed depending on your mode to achieve this. You can leave this alone at 0 if you're manually setting other things yourself.
>Filters
They normally clip on with a basic paperclip type thing, so where your camera is might not be a problem. Just go google some examples and you can probably figure it out if it will be an issue or it will work.

>>4436379
You didn't answer my question and stated a random fact, good work

>>4436422
Answer you're looking for: I don't know, I didn't ask, and I dont know where to look. You probably know more than me.

>>4435951
>I'm shooting my girlfriend walking down the street so I should to set this aperture and this shutter speed
The truth is there's no right answer and it's just going to come down to your own preferences which you get through experience.
If someone's walking away or towards you, for any given aperture, the depth of field will be changing as well as how blurry the foreground and background get. How it will look changes at any given time.
If the person is large or in a costume, you might need to stop down more. If using a slower AF system, you might stop down more to allow a wider area for the subject to be in focus. If it's very poorly lit, you might want to use a wider aperture. If you're hiding a distracting background, wider aperture too.
You could have two 50mm lenses and want to use different apertures for both since they give a distinctly different look. You might have a lens where certain apertures are especially optimal, and others where it doesn't matter as much.

Instead of trying to learn specific settings like for a test, you want to learn about the thought process behind why you might use certain settings. It's like learning math by rote memorization instead grasping the concept of a formula. When you cant shoot, spend some time browsing flickr (or wherever), and check the settings used for images you like. You'll probably see a wide variety.

>>4436425
Ah, well if you're actually Fuji, should be able to just register on the promo site. If you're just an approved associate / affiliated company, you'd have to chat with your Fuji rep for access.

What can I do about these vertical scratches on my lens? Is there a paste or something I can use to buff them out?

>>4436740
it's fucking over
you have to replace the glass to fix it

>>4436742
My fuckin lumpy nut.

I don't think you're being serious, but if so, there's no way to replace it.

>>4436258
>>4436383
Lmao, don't listen to this RETARD
D300 is trash, and a 50mm will feel very cramped and limiting for nature and landscape photography.
You are far better off with a D610 and a normal zoom that at least goes to 24mm on the wide end.
Hell, even a D3300 APS-C would be far vetter than a D300.

>>4435956
>markuspix and his hag wife
She's got a good body though.

>>4436258
Anyone who recommends you a DSLR is trolling

Buy yourself a sony a6500 for about $500. It's small, it's easy to use, it has tons of dynamic range and high resolution, and it has stabilization with any lens.

You can't actually do photography with less than $1500.

Yes, cheaper cameras exist, but they all have massive cops and get mogged by phones
>muh DSLR has the sensor size and resolution
>it's a hideous 4lb blob that gives shawty the ick, especially when you chimp to make sure matrix metering didn't do something retarded or spend time spot metering instead of taking the picture. don't forget to repolarize the deflector array on a per lens basis, ensign.
>muh old used snoy aps-c
>the colors are so bad you need to spend hours editing raws in capture one
>muh micro four thirds
>literally just a smartphone sensor with a lens mount and no HDR
>muh canon walmart cam
>crippled af and noisy af basically a phone
Z6II+NIKKOR Z 24-70 F4 S bare minimum.

>>4436892
you can do photography for free if you beat the shit out of some nerd and steal his camera

>>4436892
>>it's a hideous 4lb blob that gives shawty the ick, especially when you chimp to make sure matrix metering didn't do something retarded or spend time spot metering instead of taking the picture. don't forget to repolarize the deflector array on a per lens basis, ensign.
What you gotta do is look in a mirror and repeat this sentence out loud and then never visit the internet again

>>4437011
you don't get no bitches

>>4437011
not him but i just boiled that shit down to "aw sheeit, nerd ass blob camera givn shawty the ICK and can take no photos fo sheeit" and threw up some wu tang shit

>>4437011
I'm black on the outside and white on the inside with a lil' melting here and there nigguh don't make fun of the mix of sheldon and t-pain up in there or i'll perform intercourse with your female progenitor

>>4436892
women don't care about gear

>>4437078
no a big black blobmera makes you look like a fag
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLWdtLAka7w

>>4437110
How do you even find this

>>4437110
lol you look like a fag because you are a fag. I will continue enjoying my MASSIVE camera without worrying what faggot men and women think

>>4437078
>>4437140
women know the price of everything
you're talking about a species of humans that obsesses about clothing and shit brother
they can tell your camera is shitty and cheap and you use it because you are a bald pedophile

>>4437141
No women have no fucking clue how much cameras cost lol. Only men have gear autism. When women use gear they just want it to be cute and have nice colors. You are pathetic lol. Keep being controlled by women that don't even know you exist

Women love my Big Black Camera

>>4437140
DSLRs look cheap, when you search socials for DSLRs a bunch of beard-glasses-hat white guys who probably hold anti-establishment views pop up talking about how they are cheap, and every pedo and weirdo/PI on TV used one, as well as every comically stupid tourist/dad character and a lot of clueless polo shirt idiots IRL. Like it or not carrying a DSLR hurts your image.

You know whats trendy? Sony. Buy an a7c and a lens with an aperture ring, and you will look like a photographer instead of a voyeur that just raided a pawn shop.

>>4437143
Women dont need to know models and specs to know DSLRs and things that look like them are cheap junk for weirdos. You think normies never see cameras? E waste DSLRs are half the listings on facebook market.

>>4437143
>I'm a poor bitchless retard who has never interacted with women who aren't fat and ugly

>>4437174
>>4437177
Sorry I'm just not controlled by women. I am completely secure in myself. Weird that you need to use female shaming tactics for a fucking camera lol. Something that literally doesn't matter

>>4437174
The insane coping of Sony users is truly something

>>4437182
>sorry I'm gay
we know

>>4437182
What camera(s) do you use?

>>4437187
For almost all of human history men just did what they wanted without listening to women. You are an estrogenized freak and I simply wont do what you tell me.
>>4437248
My main cam is a Nikon Z6ii with the 24-70 f4. My boomer cams are an olympus camedia c 7070 and a nikon d200. Also have a Sony a100

>>4437538
Neat

>>4437110
holy shit it's been so many years since I last saw that video
>>4437135
iirc it was a snoy marketing campaign

Are people really stupid enough to buy jpeg 'recipes'?

Just got a used Ricoh GR III with a shutter count of 10k for 650€. Is that price ok?

>>4437705
Fujifilm somehow is still in business, you tell me.

>>4437876
Instax does more in revenue than all of Nikon Imaging

>>4437602
Weird snoys are all black too arnt they?

>>4436074
Older non-autofocusing bodies often had better viewfinders especially if you like using split prisms, lack of DOF/stopdown preview on those cheap ones you reference. Those $10 canons also use obscure batteries that you won't use for anything else and will also cost another $10/pair.
Not shitting on them, I have one that I use occasionally but I am a massively retarded gearfag that meters shots with the lens on a 5D before taking shots with it but there are also plenty of reasons to not use them.

>>4435079 (OP)
Flip it around and attach it at the edge you retard

>>4437135
It's from some Australian TV show and it's probably from before the time mirrorless ILCs were popular.

So if I don't want to carry around heavy as shit lens my only choices are a APS-C zoom lens or prime lenses? Full frame lenses are heavy as shit

>>4437970
if you really can't huck around a small 24-70 f4 you have some serious problems anon, what the fuck

>>4437970
I understand. It's not back breaking weight it's just uncomfortable to have it slapping against your ribs, and most importantly, it's ugly and embarrassing. Gives girls the ick. They gon be asking why you can't afford a fuji.
>i can lift a blobmera im a real man
Don't forget your vest

Have you considered buying an Olympus OM-D E-M5 III? Better image quality and hardware capabilities than x100vi and it's authentically retro.

>>4437970
how weak can you possible be?

>>4437971
now what every photographer wants is a bazooka lens
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLWdtLAka7w

>>4437972
did you know taylor swift bought an om-d e-m10 mkiv and spent a whole year thinking she had "a fujifilm"? strange but true

>>4437971
>>4437973
I carry my camera on a strap without a lens, I need a lens that's small enough and light enough to just put it in my pocket. Carrying my camera with a lens on makes it weigh like 4lbs which hurts my back.

>>4437972
I want one

>>4437976
What good does it do for you to carry camera with no lens

>>4437976
>Carrying my camera with a lens on makes it weigh like 4lbs which hurts my back.
you should go to the gym. Unreal that 4lbs "hurts your back"

>>4437979
I just said I carry the lens in my pocket. When I'm going to take pictures I put the lens on the camera.
>>4437980
Walking around with that much weight strapped to me fucks up my posture. After 8 hours of walking around yeah it does start to hurt a little.

>>4437981
Just hold it in your hand

>>4437602
>>4437897
>>4437958
the original channel the video mentions doesn't have any videos anymore, but still links to the sony .au page for the NEX
that, with when the channel was created, points to it being a "buy a MILC instead" campaign

>>4437976
Oh, it hurts your back? Sorry I can't understand.

Real men dislike blobs because they give girls the ick and smack ribcages. You might need to see a doctor.

>>4437984
Sony was right in the end. DSLRs were a bad design.
>excess size
>cant design sharp lenses bc mirror box
>mirror shake softness
>inherently inaccurate autofocus
>same ol film era metering, with digital's nonexistent exposure lattitude

>>4437984
Rare to see an actual helpful post on here

>>4437986
uhm, just wear a padded 3 point strap, spend more money on bazooka lenses, shoot in mirror lockup, manually focus in live view, and take a test exposure every time (with uniWB and ETTR)

heccin skill issue
>you will never truly know what it's like to not want to do that shit, until you have done that shit
>it sucks the joy out of photography
>leica people were right, sony stole their thing

>>4437975
I like some of the Taylor songs but what the fuck does she know about cameras

>>4437989
twice as much as most women

i think you could get away with "owning a fujifilm" if you taped over your sony logo

>>4437990
>he doesn’t understand the reference

>>4437986
>>4437988
sorry I shoot a K-1 what is this "mirror shake" you speak of
jk I also have a MF SLR I know what mirror shake is :(

>>4437984
>the original channel the video mentions doesn't have any videos anymore
Probably taken down for copyright infringement because as I said, it's from a TV show.

>>4438006
unlikely, given Sony both made the video and created the channel
https://petapixel.com/2012/11/12/sony-nex-ads-poke-fun-at-clueless-dslr-photographers/

>>4437990
I would never buy a snoy

is there any fully adjustable UV filter for phone cameras? like something that just clamps onto the phone and covers the camera lens.

I'm trying to take pictures of my glowy rocks but the camera does NOT like the UV light and I dont have the money to buy an expensive camera with a UV filter attachment

>>4438243
just buy a variable ND filter and glue it to a phone case over the cameras bruh

>>4438243
There's a few around that make phone cases with variable ND filters built over the top of the camera cutout. I think Moment is one and there are a few others, but I can't recall right now.

I have a D3100 with a 18-55, 35, and 70-220 lenses.
I took it with me to Japan back in 2014.

Should I buy a Zf + 40mm to take on my return trip to Glorious Nippon this fall?

>>4438260
what does your current camera not do?

>>4438261
Biggest annoyance I've had over the years is that the D3100 struggles pretty hard with AF in dim light. Not even what I would call dark, just dim.

>>4438260
Get the z5ii instead. The zf looks slick in photos. Its an uncomfortable clown camera IRL. Besides, pro bodies are male fashion now. Dont forget your hat and outdoorsy looking jacket.

>>4438261
Even when people upgrade from literal e waste, anti-gear commies question it. Dear lord you guys need to realize normal people have money and cameras aren’t expensive relative to other hobby items unless you cross into serious FF bird/sports photography or medium format digital.

>>4438267
A basic started digital camera costs $80,000. Just to start, without any lenses.

>>4438262
yeah you can't get around a newer camera in you care about low light. If you want to save some money I would recommend the z6ii instead with the same lens. I just got it and upgraded from an old crappy camera like yours. The z6ii just doesn't have a fully articulated screen and has 5 stops of stabilization instead of 8 but it's also $400 less.
>>4438264
z6ii would be a better option considering op is willing to spend $2k

>>4438267
don't lump me in with retards. If anon was dead set on buying a Hasselblad I would tell him to go for it. Sometimes people buy shit and they don't even know why they're buying it

>>4438270
you mean z6iii? i dont think anyone here needs a z6iii. the z5ii already outspecs or closely approaches older sports bodies that are still in professional service since it had the z8’s AF. more frugal people consider it the first real upgrade from a d750.

you mean z6ii? its kind of an abortion of a camera. the entire point of upgrading to costly mirrorless bodies is autofocus. even in good light its worse than a cheaper a7iii. in low light it gets turbo shit and can be worse than a DSLR which focus wide open.

an a7iii and viltrox 50mm f2 air costs as much as a z6ii body only, and then, consider the cost of needing a cf card to shoot backups.

>>4438275
The z6ii is on sale. I like it perfectly fine. It's leagues better than my old camera

>>4438273
Its clearly better and everyone knows where the zf/z5ii stands relative to other cameras at other price points after spending 5 minutes on google. What is their to doubt about someones motivation in the information age, what is their to question, other than their judgement.

>>4438276
even on sale it is more expensive than a cheaper a7iii. it also has worse autofocus, worse battery life, and higher storage costs than the a7iii.

the z6ii was not a competitive camera. releases like it are why nikon does less in revenue than fuji instax. no reason to buy it unless you’re just a nikon fanboy.

>>4438278
>even on sale it is more expensive than a cheaper a7iii.
what is the utility of just lying? It is the only Nikon I have. I'm not sure why you're shilling Sony and spready blatant lies. Look at the prices on the websites

>>4438278
>worse battery life
This is pretty sound advice. I was looking at one myself since I'd only ever used Nikons and the battery life is shameful. I suppose you could carry extra batteries if you wanted to but that doesn't improve the other weak points.

That said, the A7III is a little old now and with the A7V around the corner, maybr wait for the A7IV to go on a good sale. If you have an interest in Sony that is, otherwise just look at something that isn't the Z6II really.

>>4438278
This is wrong. The z6ii has a SD card slot. It was the z6i that didn't.

What's the point of having an af button

>>4438285
tripod work. getting focus without taking the shot. considering it more

>>4438280
>buying new
Lol

>>4438283
Needs a $100 cf card to shoot backups lol

>>4438287
>implying you "'shoot backups"
lol. fucking youtube funkotographer

>>4438286
I use it like that for handheld, less chance that it'll change focus when I hit the shutter if I had it setup the usual way.

>>4438285
There’s certain types of shooting where you don’t necessarily need or want the camera to re-focus on every shot. Macro for example or time lapses are a few I can think of offhand. Like even if you don’t move the camera or the subject, the camera still re-focuses and there’s a chance it can move your focus point. It was more of an issue with dslrnosaurs and their poor focus systems, modern mirroless abates a lot of the issues, but it’s still handy for some things.

>>4438287
>>buying new
>Lol
you can also buy the Nikon used
>muh backups
you're out of touch. You don't shoot backups. No anon here will shoot backups

>>4438294
>I'm vastly unsuccessful so everyone else must be too

>>4438295
non sequiter

>>4438288
>>4438294
>nikon fags get mad at backups
Such is life when you need a cf card for them
>you can buy the nikon used!
Sony is still cheaper, and cheaper to operate (winder native lens selection no adapter premium/wr loss)

Nikon does less in revenue than fuji instax for a reason
Until very recently they did not have a single camera that met the standards of the competition under $3k
3rd party lenses are still relatively sparse. F mount support is still 50%, and mostly worse than third party e mount anyways.

You can get better results from sony for less money. The fair price of a z6ii is $600.

>>4438300
>Nikon does less in revenue than fuji instax for a reason
jesus christ I don't care about your vapid white women camera. You gear fags are sogay

>>4438301
The removal of exif data has been a blessing on this board, nobody can shit on photos in /rpt/ purely for gear anymore.

>>4438285
back-button focus
once you switch you never go back

>>4438301
He has a point. They do so little in revenue because nobody wants to buy that overpriced garbage except for consumate, lifelong brand fanboys who already own $2000+ of AF-S F mount lenses and have no other choice for continuing to use them.

The new $1700 Z5II is literally an A7III with more video codecs enabled. Otherwise it's the same shit.

I checked ebay and A7IIIs are consistently a little less than the inferior Z6II. When you consider sony's massive 3rd party selection, vs nikon only getting a smattering (or you pay $250 extra to use a buggy ETZ adapter and lose weather sealing), well, yeah.

Nikon's sole benefit is 1: using AF-S F mount and 2: using leica M mount with focus confirmation/trap focus (ZF/Z5II/Z6III ONLY) and no noticeable corner color shifts/smears.

>>4438379
>ZF/Z5II/Z6III ONLY
and Z8 now
subject / eye detection for MF with any adapted lens is the real deal

>>4438381
wow nikon finally got their $3000 pro fooframe caught up with their $1799 entry level fooframe? at least its cheaper than using leica lenses on a real leica lul

>>4438382
>adding new features to an older camera is bad

>>4438378
works on my machine

Could you use a telelens in reverse and laser sparrows to death?

>Nikon users: Works on my machine! Skill issue!
>Nikon users photos:

>>4438441
somehow still has more sovl than m4turd

>>4438441
lol absolutely seething

>>4438441
TRVTH NVKE

>>4438441
All nikon shills hail from here
https://www.reddit.com/r/blurrypicturesofdogs/

I don't know shit about optics, can someone tell me if the fact that I'm ever so slightly short sighted (-0.50) fucks with my ability to focus a photo?
Started shooting on a fully analog camera lately and some of the pictures came out really poorly focused and I've been wondering if that could be the reason. Like the lens basically functions like a pair of glasses, right? So if I set the focus to where my blind ass can see everything sharply I will overcompensate and the end result will be out of focus? Or is that not how it works?

>>4438527
No, what you're seeing through the viewfinder (whether it's optical or an EVF) is an image projected by the lens onto a surface, your glasses can't effect that image and bring it into focus if it isn't already. If your glasses don't work with the distance of the viewfinder then you can adjust the diopter (little wheel next to the viewfinder) so you can look through it without your glasses. Regardless of whether you do this, focussing the lens so that the image in the viewfinder looks most in focus (even if it doesn't look perfectly in focus due to your glasses) will be the point where the image is in focus on the image sensor.

>>4438532
Yeah, no, that's not true.

>>4438527
Is there a little knob next to the viewfinder?
Give that a swirl.

>>4438535
>>4438532
>Is there a little knob next to the viewfinder?
Nope, the camera is from the 50s. But actually that's a good thought to keep in mind how in focus I see the lines in the viewfinder to judge how "accurate" my perception of the photo is.

>>4438540
>keep in mind how in focus I see the lines in the viewfinder to judge how "accurate" my perception of the photo is
That won't work.
The guidelines are at a fixed distance. Your subject isn't at a fixed distance, and is not anywhere near the distance that the guidelines are at.
Just use contact lenses if you don't have knob on the viewfinder.

>>4438535
>Yeah, no, that's not true.
Yes it is. It's the same as messing with the diopter adjustment. It only affects the image after it has been projected on a surface, so the most in focus image, even if it's blurry as fuck) will still be the most in focus.

>>4438540
Do you have any focussing aids in the viewfinder like a split prism? I think it may be too early for that. You may instead be able to find external diopter adjustment add ons.

>>4438542
You are fucking retarded

>>4438542
>It's the same as messing with the diopter adjustment
what

>>4438560
The diopter adjustment is analogous to using glasses, that's what it's for.

>>4438553
Enlighten me

>>4438540
If your lens has distance markings, set it to like 2m, stand exactly 2m away from a subject, and that should give you a clear idea how off it is

>>4438565
Oh. Yeah no, I misread the conversation. I was under the impression you meant the diopter was somehow making the photo sharper or blurrier.
Reeee, I have -3.5 vision and diopters do not go that low

Why the Nikon hate?

>>4438627
Because someone made their personality about a different brand so they have to attack anything that isn't that brand

>>4438627
team sports

How do you typically adjust exposure on mirrorless cameras when using manual lenses? I have a Canon M50 and just ordered a vintage manual lens. When testing manual focus with the native 22mm EF-M lens in aperture priority mode, I noticed the camera no longer automatically adjusts exposure based on the focus point. In aperture priority mode with Auto ISO, are there methods available to control exposure beyond exposure compensation (±EV)?

>>4438627
Nikon pissed off and disappointed everyone by taking half a decade to catch up to the tech capabilities of the A7III and original EOS R6, plus some extra video shit no one cares about. During that period they charged as much as everyone else for cameras that worked no better than a fujifilm.

>>4439033
Same as I do with regular lenses. Manual exposure and just matrix / evaluative metering. Sometimes I'll get a meter reading off my hand in whatever light I'm shooting in, and that gives me perfect skin exposure. I just get it dialed in once for whatever I'm shooting and leave it there until lighting changes substantially.
> noticed the camera no longer automatically adjusts exposure based on the focus point
How your camera determines what to base exposure on depends on your metering mode, so check that. It might be a specific camera limitation (most Canon DSLRs can only ever spot meter off the center point for example), but plenty of mirrorless will let you spot meter off any AF point.
If you're in aperture priority with auto ISO, the only thing the camera can do to adjust exposure is change the shutter speed or ISO, and the only way to do that is with exposure compensation (or you adjust aperture or ISO yourself). If you're using aperture priority and constantly adjusting exposure compensation, you should just switch to manual exposure.
The limitation of a vintage manual lens with regards to exposure tends to just he the lack of P or Tv/S modes, since the body can't adjust the aperture. M and A should work mostly the same as with regular lenses.

>>4439040
Thanks a lot. The spot metering mode seems quite similar to what I'm used to. The default metering I was using with AF and touchscreen sounds like what you mentioned with spot metering off any AF point. The difference is that now I can only meter from the center of the image now. I'll try experimenting with the metering settings as you suggest. The advice about switching to full manual if I end up constantly adjusting exposure compensation is duly noted. It wouldn't hurt to try out this mode for more than 2-3 photos anyway.

Perhaps spot metering mode with center-based exposure works well with the "focus and recompose" technique?

>>4438443
>out of focus is a good thing!
nikonbros... what happened to you?

if i use a 80mm medium format lens on a 35mm camera, will the focal length still be 80?

>>4439315
yeah but obviously you'll have a crop because the lens is oversized

>>4435397
there's no better camera than the one you have with you.
>>4435951
the school of hard knocks does courses for free nigga
>>4435964
>how much could i learn with this alone?
composition
>>4436127
if that's a full frame, 50mm. if not, 50mm equivalent.

>>4439315
Putting a lens on a different camera doesn't change the focal length, any 80mm on FF will be 80mm on FF

How do you carry your camera, so that it's accessible fast, protected from rain but also you don't scream "please rob me"?

>>4439315
Focal length is inherent to the lens, it will never change unless you physically alter the lens. You’re thinking of relative field of view. Yes, yes, I know, common normie parlance conflates the two but it’s important to know the difference.

>>4436892
>struggling to buy a camera under 1.5k

Maybe if you're intent on buying Fuji and overpriced fuji glass

Just buy any second hand canon/sony FF past like 2018 and some 200 bucks viltrox or chinkshit lens. Third party flashes and lights are also great

You could get a used body for under 1k, I did that last year with an a7c and I unironically like the colours jpg

>>4439343
Step 1: put on the camera stap just like you would a rifle sling
Step 2: put on your coat

>>4439374
No saar, NO! NO! Sony is NOT an option you can ONLY choose from small and fun micro four thirds and big ugly overpriced canikon. SNOY is not good enough. SNOY cameras explode and turn people green! No one likes SNOY only parkistani shills saar! You can only choose between micro fun thirds and big ugly canikon, and actually, full frame is a cope, you are a poorfag crop coper if you dont shoot medium format so leave micro four thirds frens alone saar.

>>4439395
Nice idea however most of the time I wear a hoodie for the cold half of the year, and just a T-shirt the rest of the year

>>4439425
hoodies are for children and bare t shirts are for construction help. time to upgrade to adult attire, bucko. if you can edc a camera you can afford a coat for each season.

light colors, light fabric, loose fit.

>>4439343
In my hand with a wrist strap. Pay attention to your surroundings at all times

Why the FUCK is ever snoot under $400 black on the inside. All it does is make me lose 80% of the light getting absorbed by the snoot and it gets hot as fuck when shooting. Why wouldn't they just nickel plate the inside? Why the fuck do I have to do it myself?

>>4439343
being robbed/mugged isn't even about whether you look like you have money, it's about whether you look like an easy target

>>4439445
>hoodies are for children

>>4439575
okay you got me
children and actual retards

>>4439343
get yourself an ar-15
rig your camera up with a smallrig
attach the camera to the top of the AR-15
attach the trigger of the AR-15 to the camera so every time you pull the trigger it also triggers the camera
this is 100% guaranteed to protect you from robbery

>>4439578
and adult children.

how much is a nikon FE worth? Fuck all? I have one sitting around and was thinking of selling it.

>>4439585
depends on the condition
$100 max
might as well just buy kneepads

>>4439592
I thought so.
I considered trying to use it, just for the novelty, but film is so fucking expensive and cancerous; so I gave up on that idea.

I know nothing about photography. But since I'm going on a trip soon, I want to take photos. The more I think about it, the more I want to take good and interesting photos. Before I start to learn about photography, I'd like to ask /p/ a few questions:
>how confident are you in your photography skills?
>how long did it take you to get to the level you're at?
>can knowledge of photography skills compensate for a lack of artistic vision?
I don't get out much, so I've been practicing cropping pics on google street view just for fun. What do you think of this?

Why don't modern mirrorless cameras have an option to perform the type of auto-edits phones do as a JPG option? Wouldn't that help introduce new people to the hobby?

>>4439775
Many cameras do have auto edit stuff for things like portraits in the auto / scene modes. Many RAW processors also have auto edit for stuff too.
One of the points of having a nicer camera is that you get nicer files that you can edit yourself with much greater control.
If people just want 1-click done and don't want to put effort into adjusting things themselves, getting a "real" camera is kind of a waste.
>why can't every recipe just use the microwave, it would get a lot more people into cooking if they did
Is what you sound like. Which is maybe true in terms of accessibility, but misses the point of learning too cook.

>>4439764
Pretty confident on a technical level, still always lacking in creativity. ~16 years shooting since first "real" camera, with the last 8 or being full time for mostly weddings.
You can cultivate artistic vision, but without it you'll end up with technically solid photos that lack deeper artistry. A polished turd as it were.
Practicing things like composition you can do all the time, without needing a camera either.

Nikon Z6ii + Nikkor 24-120 f/4 S, good for a quasi beginner? I'm tired of my shitty phone and have money to burn

How do you take gold jewelry photos so that it closer to the real life color? for example a 24 karat gold.

>>4439897
The low light autofocus is not very good. Get a zf or z5ii if you can.

You do not need the 120mm or pseudo macro and could shift money to the body. You will need autofocus to work indoors.
Used zf
Used 24-70 f4
Get nikon 40mm f2 or viltrox 50mm f2 also

>>4439897
The Z6II has busted autofocus and is basically the reason nikon's market share sucks. It's worse than an a7iii in good light, and in low light it shits itself. Especially with an f4 lens, and even if you get a prime and happen to be shooting closed down, because unlike canon and sony, nikons arent able to open the aperture to focus when the lens image is too dim to focus off of.

They solved that recently with the -10ev focusing sensors (ZF, Z5II, Z6III, Z8, Z9) and open aperture focusing is making its way through the firmware updates, but nikon has shown zero intent to update the firmware on the expeed 6 bodies. They'd rather you buy a new camera. This is their a7ii->a7iii moment where they think their new camera is so good they can just abandon everything about the old one, and they're right. The good news is used ZFs can be found very cheap, just $200-300 more than a used Z6II.

>>4439897
I got a z6ii with the 24-70 f4. I'm happy with it and I think it's funny that it makes the sony shill seethe and talk about market share

>>4439922
>noooo stop pointing out that just one sony camera did more in revenue than the entire nikon brand!
Most people will always prefer sony to nikon because 1: their autofocus has always worked as well as canon's 2: they can keep stuff smaller.

Nikon is on the verge of turning into a gearfag brand for extreme pixel peepers and chart nerds because of their overly strong focus on making perfect lenses and overly weak focus on quality of life features that normal people use.

>>4439926
bro I don't care. People like you don't even take photos.
>UHHH WWELL ACKSHULLY
you are such a fucking dork lol

>>4439915
get your white balance correct. Or just fix it in post

>>4439928
I actually take photos thats why I caution people against falling for gearfag pixel peeper memes about mount sizes, incidence angles, dpreview test scene iso 1million sperging, 3d pop, and color science schizophrenia and towards reason

An A7III can be found for less than $800 if you buy used locally, and that's easy because so many people bought them the A7iii alone outsold all other mirrorless cameras
An A7III takes two SD cards, instead of an SD card and an expensive CF card that needs a super speshul card reader
An A7III needs fewer batteries because the battery lasts almost twice as long
An A7III has better autofocus
An A7III has a wider selection of budget friendly lenses, while nikon's licensing agreements have reduced their third party selection to 1/4 that of snoy's

It's just the reasonable choice. The tiering is
"You don't need more": A7III, A7C
"I am mildly autistic": ZF/Z5II, A7IV, A7CII
"I am an extremely autistic spec sheet warrior, or shoot sports for a living and will get fired if i dont get that perfect dunk shot": Canon, Nikon Z8/Z9/Z6III, A1, A9
"I'm poor, ok?": APS-C

>>4439915
Raj your mac's screen is too bright. You must do the needful. Turn screen down and use the histogram.

>>4439932
>his responses keep getting longer
Imagine running Sony ads for free on a website with 100 people on it

>>4439935
>Oh no, your brain is too big for me, i can't read all those words, i only communicate in memes
I'm just saving my fellow man from wasting hundreds of dollars and extreme inconvenience and disappointment caused by the z6ii's substandard autofocus. Sure, if your entire life is telling /p/ what camera you use, you NEED anything but a "snoy" because then you can fit in with the current state of the brandfag meme wars, but if you actually take pictures, the tiers do be true. The A7III and A7C are the default cameras for a reasonable man.

>>4439936
>if your entire life is telling /p/ what camera you use, you NEED
Micro four thirds to btfo the fool framer snoycucks who shill for indian rupees, and godly 8x10 film to be turbobased while you take the same photo of your dog 1000 times

>>4439936
I'm just not gonna sell my camera

>>4439938
No one told you to sell your camera but I think you just told yourself it might be a good idea lol

>>4439936
It seems like your entire life is telling people what camera they should use

>>4439941
I haven't been reading your ramblings and I don't care. People like you can't take good photos.

>>4439945
Some of my life is. Some of my life is having sex with your mother and leaving 90% empty bags of chips in her fridge. Some of my life is taking photos. Some of my life is forgetting I ordered pizza. Sorry if my recommendations came after your mildly regretted purchase lol! Its ok anon you already have a nikon and a zf (or future used z5ii) will not be an expensive upgrade :)

>>4439947
Wow, your feelings seem hurt. Sorry if my precise, logical, realistic analysis of the present state of the amateur grade camera market hurt your fee fees after you blew $2500 on a canon r5 or sony a7iv or whatever, or if I skipped over your favorite micro four thirds (thats because he never mentioned macro or wildlife), but it's just realistic.

And fact is people like me take the best photos because photography is an analytical artform for people with high verbal IQs. If you want a more schizo-retard friendly hobby try painting or blues guitar.

>>4439956
>projecting
>m43 when nobody asked
you are mentally ill

>>4439958
Your feelings seem very, very hurt. You want to disagree, but can't build a rational disagreement, just weak character attacks that blow right over. Sad.

>>4439962
Sorry anon I'm just happy with my gear. I don't need to argue with advertisers

>>4439965
Are you just mad because my recommendations run counter to what you already purchased? Is it really just because you already have the "bad" nikon Z6II and you feel frustrated when you read, and acknowledge, the facts regarding where it stands relative to a cheaper camera?

Why? I've acknowledged it's not even a $300 upgrade if you ever want a camera that's up to snuff, you'd lose as much if not more switching systems, I'm sure. Just be mature and admit that new people shouldn't make your mistake unless they have that in mind. Like if I wanted a 24mp ff with worse battery life and autofocus the a7ii is about $500...

where can one read/learn about lenses? all the numbers confuse me, like, if I plan to shoot mostly toys, some portraits, what lens am I looking for?

>>4439978
100mm f2.8 macro
NEXT

>He responds every time
unreal

>>4439978
yes you're looking for a 90 or 100 or 105 macro. The mm basically means how close the image will look on your camera. 50 is about human vision. Macro means that the lens can focus on small stuff that's really close to it like bees

Is the coating on my newly acquired 50mm lens fucked or is this about what was standard from the 1970s to the 1990s?

>>4440129
looks kinda fucked up to me

>>4439764
confident: 8/10
how long: A little over a year
artistic vision: artistic vision is everything. I'd much rather have a noisy just slightly out of focus shot of a great composition than a well exposed and sharp shot of a boring composition everytime.

>cropping pics on street view
post some? do you like them, why or why not? im super curious.
practicing w/out the camera isnt the best but its a solid substitute. i know before i got my camera I did a lot of minecraft screenshots.

>>4440129
what makes you think it's the coating

Is it bad if I'm crushing on heather, even though she's probably old enough to be my mom?

>>4440222
this bitch is ugly

>>4440161
It’s totally fine in basically all attributes apart from flare, super sharp, renders colours well, no other optical flaws appearing in images, has no haze or fungus, is clean at both ends. Just fucking hates the sun anywhere even close to near it.

>>4440222
Damn shes way hotter than the dog heather. Good colors too probably shot on superior micro four thirds or fuji.

>>4440228
I still prefer to think of her face when I fuck your mom tho

>>4440233
Dad, get of 4chan!! Stop taking our dubs

>>4440232
shot on a nikon phone

>>4439355
yes, you're right!
how do I calculate how the FoV changes? If I've got a 80mm 6x4.5 lens and slap it on a full frame... what am I looking at?

>>4440376
>a 80mm 6x4.5 lens and slap it on a full frame
The same FoV as any other 80mm lens on a FF.
You only need to account for FoV changes when comparing across different sensor sizes / ratios. Any 80mm you put on FF will have the same FoV as any other 80mm you put on it (for the most part).

Do you mean you want to know the FoV needed on full frame that would match the FoV of the 80mm when it's used on 6x4.5?

>>4440376
IIRC 6X4 is 0.62x crop factor. Take 80mm x 0.62 and you basically get a 50mm FF lens.

>>4440388
That's right for crop factor based off diagonal FoV, but there are other factors you can use if you are also accounting for the difference in aspect ratios

>>4440388
Would be division then wouldn’t it? It’s a 645 lens on ff, is what he said, not the other way around. Like how m4turd doubles ff lenses

>>4440388
Equivalence is BS, real photographers know this

The vertical and horizontal FOVs are different and the rendering is different from using a less overcorrected lens across a larger image field, and a longer focal length for a wider FOV

>>4440393
Wait I think I'm being retarded. Full frame crop is 1x and is always 1x. The 80mm 645 lens will look just like a native 80mm lens on FF in terms of FoV, but when put on a 645 camera it'll look like FF 50mm FoV. I got shit backwards. Can someone smarter than me confirm because it's clearly past my bed time.
Oh look >>4440386 already said that.

>>4440398
>The vertical and horizontal FOVs are different
True, but it's easy to account for that, see picrel. You can:
1. Compare across diagonal FoV, regardless of crop
2. Compare based on ratio A after cropping to match ratio B
3. Compare based on ratio B after cropping to match ratio A
> the rendering is different from using a less overcorrected lens
Different lenses be different, yes, that is equally true for any two 50mm on the same sensor though. In practice you would be unable to distinguish between two appropriately "equivalent" FoV shots.

>>4439919
>open aperture focusing is making its way through the firmware updates
Do you have any articles or changelogs that mention this? I've been waiting for feature for a long time.

>>4440408
>it's le equivalent, if only you would reference this chart about the diagonals and ratios...
You don't take good photos if you think like this. a 25mm on mft does not FEEL like a 50mm on FF, it feels like a 45mm with a 4:3 crop which is noticeably wider and has different background compression.

>>4440420
It's part of the Z8 3.0 update, which isn't even out yet, but that's it so far
I would assume it makes its way onto the Z9/Z5II/Z6III/Zf once they make sure its working with Z8

>>4440423
What's sad is it's probably never going to make it to the bodies that are actually impacted by this design flaw (Z6II, Z7II). The new bodies focus down to -10ev at f1.2 so even with the lens at the smallest focusing aperture (f5.6) they're actually still better in low light than the a7iv.

>>4440422
>it feels like a 45mm with a 4:3 crop
Yes, that's what the chart says
You could also crop the 4:3 to 3:2 instead for the "feel" of FF
Either way, you can find a focal length for the equivalent FoV

>>4440425
>throwing away what little resolution and sensor size you have
Nah just call it what it is in real photographic use instead of marketing cope babble

A 45mm shot in 4:3

>>4440427
>A 45mm shot in 4:3
4:3 is a ratio, 45mm shot on a m43 and 45mm shot on GFX will look very different
Do you mean ~45mm "equivalent" shot in 4:3?

>>4440423
Thanks. It would be amazing if they rolled this out for all their mirrorless (like my z50), but I doubt they will. This is a hopeful first step for it at least getting into the z5ii. It's such a weird "feature" that doesn't even seem to have a standardized name. When I initially researched and decided on my z50, it never even crossed my mind that this would be such an issue, because almost no one talks about it.

is most gear talk just overcomplicated mumbo jumbo? do i simply take my zf out and shoot stuff i find interesting without giving a fuck? im so overhwelmed broskies. got it as a gift but its too much for my simpleton fried brain

>>4440428
This sounds like gear cope. You don't think like an artist.

>>4440430
Buy the viltrox 50mm f2 air, strip exif, and tell everyone you have a sony 50mm f1.4 GM and an a7iv. They will believe it and ask how you got the colors to look so good. Laugh. I do things like this for fun.

>>4440430
>do i simply take my camera outside and use it
yes

How do I stop forgetting to set my white balance? Should I just leave it on auto instead?

Should I just use custom modes (which resets itself) instead so I'd have a consistent starting point?

(Don't say just fix it in post because I just like shooting photos looking at how they turn out when I get home. I rarely share or upload them anywhere. I can't be arsed.)

Also, why do I have to choose between seeing a horizon level and seeing useful settings info on my Snoy? Would a bubble hotshoe level help?

>>4440609
If you are shooting RAW it doesn't matter so leave it on auto, adjusting in post isn't "fixing" it.
For JPG just leave it on auto or have a few kelvin settings in mind if you don't want to set it manually every time. 5000k and 5600k can be good starting points. I do most of my video stuff left on 5000k.
>why do I have to choose between seeing a horizon level and seeing useful settings info on my Snoy?
Most modern Sony's you have a lot of options for different display modes, and can have a level with extra info. Are you just cycling through the display modes, or did you actually change what they show through the menu?

Got this box of Lomography 100 from a thrift store. Is 3/12 the expiration date? I can't find anything else resembling a date on the package or rolls. Box was pretty beat, so I assume it's been around a while.

I assume ME8320 is a lot/batch number.

>>4440609
>How do I stop forgetting to set my white balance? Should I just leave it on auto instead?
If doing RAWs then it doesn't matter. You have enough data in the file to decide the WB in post.
If JPEG then you need to get it right in camera more or less. Realistically, if I was shooting JPEG all the time WB would be an assigned button with easy access. If shooting in daylight then keep the WB set to Kelvin and dial it into 5000k or 5600k as >>4440622 said. If night time then something like 3000k is probably a decent starting point.

Why didn't TTArtisan make this 500mm f6.3 manual lens in T2 mount so that I can attach a diagonal and eyepiece and use it as a telescope?

>>4441121
Maybe it actually has an electronic variable aperture?

>>4440376
fov = 2 * atan((sensor size / 2) / focal length)
sensor size is whatever distance on your film/sensor you care about (vert/horiz/diag) common to use diagonal but that doesn't account for aspect ratio changes
but also remember that focal length numbers are also nominal, two 40mm lens designs may have different FoVs because one is actually 39.5mm and the other 42mm
so basically don't worry about converting super accurately unless you're doing technical/reproduction work

>Went on 5 day vacation
>Went Japanese tourist mode
>Now have 1600+ photos I have to edit

how do i make this process faster im deleting anything i might not even like

im considering shooting in 10mp mode jpeg only for reduced file sizes (instead of 12-15mb jpegs) so i have less im able to edit

im in the first kart

>>4441184
>4chan poster
>not fat
no fucking way

lazy man's culling:
empty the recycle bin
delete your favorites in the photo viewer (make sure it moves photos to the recycle bin when you do)
ctrl+x and ctrl+v recycle bin contents to a new folder when done

>>4441184
Delete them all and rely on the kinoplex of the mind.

>>4441184
enjoy the process. take some edibles and live in your photos for a while. new pictures being uploaded to lightroom is better than sex. theres no time limit for when something should be edited. i come back to photos i took years ago with new ideas on how to edit something

>>4441184
Go through everyone and cull the garbage. Batch process anything remaining with the same NR, sharpness, and resizing. There's 50% of your post-processing done. Not the best but generally decent for a first pass. Save a TIFF version (if starting at RAW) if you think you'll do more to them later.
My last outing left me with 1500~ photos and it took me less than an hour to cull and export the rest to TIFF, with everything getting a basic processing pass.

If people say that the size of photosites matters, then why exactly do meme cameras like Sony's 12MP full frames never actually deliver any of those theoretical benefits that people insist they have?
They say they do, but when you look at the results, well the results speak for themselves.

The fucking 12MP snoys basically perform identically to 45MP bodies despite their photosites being nearly quadruple the size.
What gives?

Do we just not have any actual quality oriented lower megapixel sensors? Are the 12MP snoys just actually literally a real scam, made entirely just for faster readouts and smaller filesizes and not actually made for quality or low light performance like people claim they are?

>>4441233
The 12mp snoys are pixel binning 48mp cameras meant for nothing but better color retention in high ISO video. Not pixel peeping sharpness on dpreviews fucky fake comparisons.

>>4441233
It's just cope at this point, even back before BSI was standard the low res variants were only slightly less bad at unusable ISOs. What matters is the total area of the sensor (and therefore the total amount of light it captures) not how many pixels it gets chopped up into. If anything higher resolution is better because NR works better with more pixels.

>>4441233
>They say they do, but when you look at the results, well the results speak for themselves.
i don't understand, tthe S series does exactly what is promised, which is excellent hhigh iso video performance. it's a video camera. what did you expect from it?

Anyone here have an FM? I need to ask something about the light meter. I get this issue where if I set any exposure settings that equal 1EV or brighter, the meter just shows "-" regardless of scene. So ISO 400, Shutter speed 1 second, f/2.8 or lower.

>>4441249
why did they put cat ears on that lens
fucking nips

>>4441236
Lmao okay, wow.
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4608197
So they're literally just quad bayer garbage.

That explains a lot.
I thought they were actual 12MP sensors. Quad bayer is the worst of both worlds. They're not even throwing in an unfiltered luminance photosite into the chunks... no wonder why they're so shit.
Everything makes perfect sense now.
I was simply lied to.

>>4441239
Only for sharpness. 45mp+ FF has noticeable color quality issues at high ISO. More noise per pixel = demosaicing worse at guessing colors

>>4441254
It is a camcorder. Its basically only for moonlight video. If all you do is push shadows in pedestrian light you do not benefit from this particular $3000 camera. If you want a usable video at a six digit ISO it’s boss.

The tilt controller arm thing got stripped threads on it so it wouldn't hold. I found that these bolts I have fit perfectly. The top of my tripod will be still, but I'll have to tilt it another way.

Overall, did I do gud?

>>4441541
Well it looks like a cheap piece of shit so probably not very sturdy and will likely end up breaking in some other way. Tripods are one of those things that you don't realise how shit a shit one is until you try a decent one.

>>4441541
Those plastic tripods with the tilt base are always garbage, but good solution to your problem

>>4441610
>Tripods are one of those things that you don't realise how shit a shit one is until you try a decent one.
truest thing i've read on here in a while. recently bought a chunky benro for my MF and rail camera, and boy i never figured a tripod could be sturdy til now. and benro are just gitzo knock offs, imagine the real thing.

>>4435079 (OP)
My film got stuck inside the canister, what do??

Also should I be messing with the canister and stuff in a darker room?

No one will tell me what P mode does.

>>4442270
It stands for Pretty Good

how do i change the color of the sky from cyan to a darker blue in darktable? colorzones can't do what i want

>>4443099
does dark table not have HSL sliders?

>>4443099
use the color equalizer
middle click on the chart will switch to showing normal hsl sliders

>>4443099
>darktable
my it sure smells poor in here. its called opensores for a reason.

>>4443130
ok thx need to update dt

>>4443130
Thanks that's super useful

>>4435079 (OP)
Why do photos that were taken with my old vintage lens have more charm than with my modern lens?
I have a FD 35-70 f/4 with an adapter and a SEL2870.
The pictures of the FD have this feel to them that the Sony cannot match, no matter what I do. I feel like the Canon is also "sharper" than the Sony, even though I'm using the same body and it's a 30 years older lens.

I know I'm comparing lenses from two different price ranges (500ish to 1300ish adjusted for inflation), but "cheap" lenses being worse in that regard than a 30 years older product is wild to me.

Why are older Nikon lenses (24-70 f/2.8G for example) so cheap compared to older lenses from Canon or Sony?
Are they really bad?
I'm thinking of going full frame and they seem like a really good deal on paper.

>>4443388
Idk, but there's a bunch of part-time photographers still using Canon dslrs, which may drive up prices. Why not go for Nikon Z?

is there any reason to get a 35mm prime when i already have a 40mm prime?

>>4443402
not really

im retarded and only just started to shoot raw (fuji gave me bad habits) with nikon. when loading the nef files into c1 i noticed it defaults to "prostandard" and "auto" but the dropdowns let me choose other nikon setting stuff. is this default the best way to edit the raws or should i be using a specific color profile and linear? or is this just a question of taste?

>>4443400
>Why not go for Nikon Z?
I was thinking of this, but I am poor, and
I figured I could get away with older lenses while I worked out which ones I liked.
Then sell them for the same price I bought them.

>>4443376
What you see as charm is most likely flaws, but not saying it's bad to like some of those things (some things are objectively shit though). As for the sharpness thing, like you say you're comparing an old high end lens to a cheap kit lens, one that's not considering to be particularly good even amongst kit lenses. There certainly were some sharp old lenses, to an extent, it was just hard and you paid more for it. But few if any that could really take advantage of a modern high res sensor because it just wasn't worth the effort with the resolution of film back then.

>>4443420
buy a nikon dslr. Canons are memed as the affordable option. I think Z is worth it though. A used z50 is not that much

>>4443428
I already have an aps-c camera.
So i was thinking of buying a used ZF, it seems like one of the best bang for buck bodies, it looks cool, and I could adapt the older lenses until I can afford Z mount versions.

>>4443425
So if I got real expensive modern lenses they would be better? I don't have that kind of money yet though.
Also I don't notice flaws in the pictures. They're way better than the ones made with the Sony lens in any way minus focus maybe.

>>4443448
modern lenses are very clean, sharp and clinical. Don't feel pressured to buy them

>>4443448
You don't have to go G master, but something other than the cheapest 28-70mm. You mentioning focus reminded me of something else you need to bare in mind, part of what you're paying for is the electronics in the lens (focus, aperture, and in this case IS). It's not all going towards the optics like the old FD lens.

>>4443410
I would use film standard if trying to match with other cameras
Linear response if you want the max for grading yourself
Otherwise just pick whatever you like best as a base, you can also apply other brand profiles too

>>4443449
If you want the look of a classic le heckin vintage lens just smudge some vaseline and a little charcoal on your lens

>>4437970
you want to count by the grams? apsc 'pancake' zoom kit lenses or for FF, something like the a7c kit lens

>>4438260
if I'll go to nippon, I'll still use my A6000, but same sensor output as a D3200 sensor.

>>4438627
becauae fuji instax makes more money

>>4439343
wrist strap, so it's like holding your smartphone.

>>4438260
>>4438264
i took my zf with me to japan recently. brought my 40mm and 24-70. the 40mm was great for when i wanted to take a smaller sling bag around. Also the zf is very comfortable if you buy that neewer grip for it that has the thumb grip. without that grip though it's fucking ass, i agree.

Is it worth getting the Nikon ZF over the ZFC? I saw a ZFC for sale for about 660. Mostly gonna be using it to travel to Finland and Korea

>>4443825
normally i'd say yes but considering you'd be getting the zfc for almost $1000 less than a zf that's a pretty good reason to get the zfc

I haven't really fucked with editing much but I wanted to know how people get these kinds of glowy highlights (like on her hair). do they just manually make multiple masks and increase the exposure or something? Or is there some filter that does this shit automatically?

why am I only getting 42 mb/s transfer speed from my cfexpress card to my PC? it's plugged into a usb 3.2 port and going onto an m.2 drive

>>4443877
are you fucking retarded it's just a hair light
everyone uses a hair light in portraits

>>4444044
i dont know what that is i only just started taking photos recently and it's mostly just been buildings. I've seen people get this look at conventions/events too but only carrying one flash, are they just using it for the hair then? Im so confused.

How do I stop feeling like I look like an idiot when I go outside with a camera?

is it reasonable to expect to be able to boost the contrast of a raw TIFF film scan? i don't know what kind of data the scanner is reading from the negative I'm guessing if it's raw tiff then its more dynamic range than a jpeg

>>4443877
good photos aren't edited very much. maybe color grading or exposure or cropping but that's it. certainly you wouldn't edit in some goddamn lighting. >>4444044 is correct it's a light behind the subject

>>4444351
you do look like an idiot that's just the way it is. own it and get used to it

>>4444351
get used to it. maybe get buff and dress nice so you feel more confident

>>4444351
Wear a camera strap that matches with your shirt, similar fabric and pattern.
Don't walk around with the lens on when you're not using the lens, put the lens in a camera case that you carry or a pocket if it's small enough
Don't use a giant ugly blob camera

>>4443877
>asian character cosplaying a white character
stoppu

>>4444422
yes?
just load it up into your favorite high-bit-depth editor (like photo software) and turn up the contrast, like a normal photo

>get CPL filter
>like it but not really sure how to use it
>doesn't come with any instructions
Honestly how am I supposed to properly use this?
I understand the basics as I'm not a retard or anything but I don't see any markings on it, I figured it would have come with some like at least one dot but there's nothing but its logo and info saying it's a polarizing filter and made in USA.

Are we just supposed to move it around until the shot looks good and not have any real way to really choose angles with any repeatable consistency with these things? Basically just stuck using them blindly? I would have liked 30 degree markers on the ring or something but it's just got a logo and that's it.
Would markers be something on fancier filters or is this just the norm?

What is the difference between circular polarizing and linear polarizing?

>>4447952
>Would markers be something on fancier filters or is this just the norm?
I have a B+W CPL and it doesn't have markers, so I assume it's just not a thing
to be fair it would be kinda fiddly to do during manufacturing, there's no easy way to tell which way the polarizing film is oriented and line it up with existing markers on the rim
and adding the markers afterwards risks damaging the filter